\u2013 <\/p>\n
Article<\/p>\n
Turnover rates andorganizational performance:Review, critique, andresearch agenda<\/p>\n
Jason D. ShawUniversity of Minnesota<\/p>\n
AbstractThe author of this article reviews the burgeoning literature on turnover rates and dimensions oforganizational performance, and concludes that substantial evidence indicates that turnover rateshave negative implications for several dimensions of organizational performance (e.g., safety,productivity, and monetary), that the content of turnover rates plays a role in the magnitude andform of the relationship between turnover rates and organizational performance, and that turn-over rates affect distal measures (e.g., profitability, financial performance) through decreasedproductivity and losses in human and social capital. A roadmap is provided for futuretheory-building and empirical work in this area.<\/p>\n
Keywordsinvoluntary turnover, organizational performance, productivity, voluntary turnover<\/p>\n
Paper received 21 January 2010; revised version accepted 29 July 2010.<\/p>\n
Researchers are continually fascinated with<\/p>\n
understanding individual turnover decisions in<\/p>\n
organizations. Major reviews and a surfeit of<\/p>\n
literature on individual-level turnover issues<\/p>\n
appear regularly (e.g., Holtom, Mitchell, Lee,<\/p>\n
& Eberly, 2008), but the literature is so volumi-<\/p>\n
nous that even \u2018\u2018reviews of the literature<\/p>\n
reviews\u2019\u2019 join the mix (e.g., Price, 1989). The<\/p>\n
turnover literature at the organizational level<\/p>\n
is much less well developed, but has increased<\/p>\n
dramatically in recent years with new theories<\/p>\n
(e.g., Dess & Shaw, 2001) and a wave of<\/p>\n
empirical testing of key relationships with turn-<\/p>\n
over rates (e.g., Alexander, Bloom, & Nuchols,<\/p>\n
Corresponding author:<\/p>\n
Jason D. Shaw, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, 321 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455,<\/p>\n
USA.<\/p>\n
Email: [email\u00a0protected]<\/p>\n
Organizational Psychology Review1(3) 187\u2013213<\/p>\n
\u00aa The Author(s) 2011Reprints and permission:<\/p>\n
sagepub.co.uk\/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177\/2041386610382152<\/p>\n
opr.sagepub.com<\/p>\n
OrganizationalPsychologyReview<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1994; Arthur, 1994; Glebbeek & Bax, 2004;<\/p>\n
Guthrie, 2001; Hauskneckt, Trevor, & Howard,<\/p>\n
2009; Kacmar, Andrews, van Rooy, Steilberg,<\/p>\n
& Cerrone, 2006; McElroy, Morrow, & Rude,<\/p>\n
2001; Shaw, Delery, Jenkins, & Gupta, 1998;<\/p>\n
Shaw, Duffy, Johnson, & Lockhart, 2005;<\/p>\n
Shaw, Gupta, & Delery, 2005; Shaw, Kim, &<\/p>\n
Park, 2009; Siebert & Zubanov, 2009; Takeuchi,<\/p>\n
Lepak, Wang, Shaw, & Takeuchi, 2009; Ton &<\/p>\n
Huckman, 2008; Way, 2002).<\/p>\n
Perhaps the most rapidly growing and argu-<\/p>\n
ably the most important area of knowledge<\/p>\n
development concerns the relationship between<\/p>\n
turnover rates and dimensions of organizational<\/p>\n
performance. Many roots of this literature are<\/p>\n
found in organizational psychology, but studies<\/p>\n
on this relationship are also found in economics,<\/p>\n
sociology, medical fields, and human resource<\/p>\n
management. The literature is clearly divided<\/p>\n
among alternative views of the turnover\u2013<\/p>\n
organizational performance relationship, includ-<\/p>\n
ing the human-capital and organizational-<\/p>\n
disruption-based linear negative and attenuated<\/p>\n
negative perspectives, and the commonly<\/p>\n
accepted inverted-U-based formulation. Each<\/p>\n
view has established a foothold in the literature.<\/p>\n
As I report below, however, some of these views<\/p>\n
are better supported than others. These areas of<\/p>\n
theorizing have existed in parallel, and few<\/p>\n
researchers have attempted to understand the<\/p>\n
underlying level of support for each approach,<\/p>\n
to understand the boundary conditions of each<\/p>\n
theory, or to integrate them (but see Shaw, Gupta,<\/p>\n
& Delery, 2005, for a rare comparative analysis).<\/p>\n
I suggest here that it is time to take stock of this<\/p>\n
literature, to evaluate the alternative views of the<\/p>\n
turnover\u2013organizational performance relation-<\/p>\n
ship, and to assess the level of support for each<\/p>\n
view. In addition, I examine the moderators of the<\/p>\n
relationship between turnover rates and organiza-<\/p>\n
tional performance and outline an agenda for<\/p>\n
future research in this area.<\/p>\n
This paper is designed to be a representative<\/p>\n
but not exhaustive literature review. I generally<\/p>\n
exclude studies that include turnover rates<\/p>\n
as a proximal dimension of organizational<\/p>\n
performance, but make no predictions or<\/p>\n
attempts to understand the focal relationship<\/p>\n
(e.g., Chow, Huang, & Liu, 2008; Detert,<\/p>\n
Trevino, Burris, & Andiappan, 2007) and focus<\/p>\n
on the relationship between voluntary turnover<\/p>\n
and organizational performance rather than<\/p>\n
discharge or fire rates (Shaw, Gupta, & Delery,<\/p>\n
2005). As will be apparent, however, the liter-<\/p>\n
ature is beset by measures of total turnover<\/p>\n
rates (voluntary and involuntary) and thus it is<\/p>\n
impossible in this review to completely sepa-<\/p>\n
rate the effects. I broadly view organizational<\/p>\n
performance to include proximal measures such<\/p>\n
as productivity, safety, and customer service<\/p>\n
and distal measures of financial or accounting<\/p>\n
performance.<\/p>\n
This paper is organized as follows. I (a) look<\/p>\n
at the history of the turnover rates and organi-<\/p>\n
zational performance relationship, (b) describe<\/p>\n
the three prevailing direct effect views<\/p>\n
and evaluate the empirical evidence for each,<\/p>\n
(c) examine empirical evidence concerning<\/p>\n
moderators of the relationship, and (d) set an<\/p>\n
agenda for future research by outlining causal<\/p>\n
sequences and highlighting methodological<\/p>\n
shortcomings that hinder our current under-<\/p>\n
standing (see Figure 1 which depicts the<\/p>\n
structure of this review).<\/p>\n
History: The costs of turnover<\/p>\n
The first forays into examining consequences<\/p>\n
of turnover tended to focus on detailing the<\/p>\n
costs of turnover (see Hom and Griffeth,<\/p>\n
1995, for a thorough review of this literature)<\/p>\n
or related perspectives based in utility analysis<\/p>\n
of turnover rates (e.g., Boudreau & Berger,<\/p>\n
1985). Under this approach, early researchers<\/p>\n
attempted to isolate the precise costs of<\/p>\n
separation including those associated with<\/p>\n
exit interviews, advertising, recruitment, new-<\/p>\n
hire training, and general administrative bur-<\/p>\n
dens (e.g., Hall, 1981; Smith & Watkins,<\/p>\n
1978). Not only have private and public busi-<\/p>\n
ness organizations accepted these approaches<\/p>\n
well, but they have also played a role in<\/p>\n
188 Organizational Psychology Review 1(3)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Tur<\/p>\n
nove<\/p>\n
rra<\/p>\n
tes<\/p>\n
Vie<\/p>\n
ws <\/p>\n
and <\/p>\n
Issu<\/p>\n
es(l<\/p>\n
iste<\/p>\n
d in<\/p>\n
box<\/p>\n
es a<\/p>\n
bove<\/p>\n
)<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear <\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
Att<\/p>\n
enua<\/p>\n
ted <\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
Inve<\/p>\n
rted<\/p>\n
U<\/p>\n
Mea<\/p>\n
sure<\/p>\n
men<\/p>\n
t:V<\/p>\n
olun<\/p>\n
tary<\/p>\n
tur<\/p>\n
nove<\/p>\n
rT<\/p>\n
otal<\/p>\n
tur<\/p>\n
nove<\/p>\n
r<\/p>\n
Em<\/p>\n
ploy<\/p>\n
ee g<\/p>\n
roup<\/p>\n
:K<\/p>\n
ey\/c<\/p>\n
ore <\/p>\n
wor<\/p>\n
kers<\/p>\n
All<\/p>\n
em<\/p>\n
ploy<\/p>\n
ees<\/p>\n
Exe<\/p>\n
cuti<\/p>\n
ves<\/p>\n
HR<\/p>\n
M a<\/p>\n
ndem<\/p>\n
ploy<\/p>\n
men<\/p>\n
tsy<\/p>\n
stem<\/p>\n
s<\/p>\n
Tur<\/p>\n
nove<\/p>\n
r ra<\/p>\n
te c<\/p>\n
onte<\/p>\n
ntIn<\/p>\n
-rol<\/p>\n
e-pe<\/p>\n
rfor<\/p>\n
man<\/p>\n
ce l<\/p>\n
osse<\/p>\n
sS<\/p>\n
ocia<\/p>\n
l ca<\/p>\n
pita<\/p>\n
l lo<\/p>\n
sses<\/p>\n
Ave<\/p>\n
rage<\/p>\n
ten<\/p>\n
ure <\/p>\n
loss<\/p>\n
es<\/p>\n
Org<\/p>\n
aniz<\/p>\n
atio<\/p>\n
nal<\/p>\n
cont<\/p>\n
ext <\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
char<\/p>\n
acte<\/p>\n
rist<\/p>\n
ics<\/p>\n
Uni<\/p>\n
t si<\/p>\n
zeP<\/p>\n
roce<\/p>\n
ss c<\/p>\n
onfo<\/p>\n
rman<\/p>\n
ceN<\/p>\n
ewco<\/p>\n
mer<\/p>\n
conc<\/p>\n
entr<\/p>\n
atio<\/p>\n
n<\/p>\n
Mod<\/p>\n
erat<\/p>\n
ors<\/p>\n
Pro<\/p>\n
xim<\/p>\n
al p<\/p>\n
erfo<\/p>\n
rman<\/p>\n
cedi<\/p>\n
men<\/p>\n
sion<\/p>\n
s (e<\/p>\n
xam<\/p>\n
ples<\/p>\n
)P<\/p>\n
rodu<\/p>\n
ctiv<\/p>\n
ity<\/p>\n
Saf<\/p>\n
ety<\/p>\n
Val<\/p>\n
ue a<\/p>\n
dded<\/p>\n
Cus<\/p>\n
tom<\/p>\n
er s<\/p>\n
ervi<\/p>\n
ce q<\/p>\n
uali<\/p>\n
tyC<\/p>\n
usto<\/p>\n
mer<\/p>\n
sat<\/p>\n
isfa<\/p>\n
ctio<\/p>\n
n<\/p>\n
Dis<\/p>\n
tal <\/p>\n
perf<\/p>\n
orm<\/p>\n
ance<\/p>\n
dim<\/p>\n
ensi<\/p>\n
ons <\/p>\n
(exa<\/p>\n
mpl<\/p>\n
es)<\/p>\n
Pro<\/p>\n
fit<\/p>\n
Ret<\/p>\n
urn <\/p>\n
on a<\/p>\n
sset<\/p>\n
sR<\/p>\n
etur<\/p>\n
n on<\/p>\n
equ<\/p>\n
ity<\/p>\n
Mar<\/p>\n
ket <\/p>\n
perf<\/p>\n
orm<\/p>\n
ance<\/p>\n
Fig<\/p>\n
ure<\/p>\n
1.<\/p>\n
Sum<\/p>\n
mar<\/p>\n
yof<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
causa<\/p>\n
lse<\/p>\n
quence<\/p>\n
,vi<\/p>\n
ew<\/p>\n
s,is<\/p>\n
sues,<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
hyp<\/p>\n
oth<\/p>\n
esi<\/p>\n
zed<\/p>\n
modera<\/p>\n
tors<\/p>\n
inth<\/p>\n
etu<\/p>\n
rnove<\/p>\n
rra<\/p>\n
tes<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
org<\/p>\n
aniz<\/p>\n
atio<\/p>\n
nal<\/p>\n
perf<\/p>\n
orm<\/p>\n
ance<\/p>\n
litera<\/p>\n
ture<\/p>\n
.<\/p>\n
Shaw 189<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
assessments of turnover costs in government<\/p>\n
(e.g., Cascio, 1981; Lewis, 1991). This<\/p>\n
approach to costing turnover is perhaps most<\/p>\n
widely found in the literature on nurse turn-<\/p>\n
over (e.g., Jones, 1990a, 1990b, 2004, 2005,<\/p>\n
2008; O\u2019Brien-Pallas et al., 2006), where ram-<\/p>\n
pant turnover rates have plagued health care<\/p>\n
organizations in the United States, Europe,<\/p>\n
and elsewhere. In a series of papers, Jones<\/p>\n
developed the nursing turnover cost calcula-<\/p>\n
tion methodology (NTCCM) that includes a<\/p>\n
variety of pre and post hire costs.<\/p>\n
While informative, these studies and others<\/p>\n
under this line of research (e.g., Waldman,<\/p>\n
Kelly, Sanjeev, & Smith, 2004; Wise, 1990)<\/p>\n
are hampered by small samples and the<\/p>\n
somewhat idiosyncratic nature of costs across<\/p>\n
regions, countries, and industries. That is,<\/p>\n
although the logic of cost-based perspectives<\/p>\n
is straightforward, and it is difficult to argue<\/p>\n
that turnover confers no costs, an open ques-<\/p>\n
tion remains as to whether turnover rates<\/p>\n
driving these costs reduce productivity<\/p>\n
(costs being only a part of the calculation)<\/p>\n
or lower organizational financial perfor-<\/p>\n
mance. Tellingly, to my knowledge the only<\/p>\n
large-scale, cross-organization study of the<\/p>\n
relationship between turnover rates and solely<\/p>\n
cost-related and administrative outcomes is<\/p>\n
Kasarda\u2019s (1973) nearly 40-year-old study<\/p>\n
of schools in Colorado. He found that teacher<\/p>\n
turnover rates related positively to adminis-<\/p>\n
trative intensity, defined as the proportion<\/p>\n
of school employees assigned to administra-<\/p>\n
tive duties, administrative overhead, and the<\/p>\n
proportion of operating expenditures allo-<\/p>\n
cated to general regulation, coordination, and<\/p>\n
control functions. Thus, we can reasonably<\/p>\n
conclude that costs increase with turnover<\/p>\n
rates, based on cost-based logic, accounting-<\/p>\n
based case studies (e.g., Cascio, 1981; Jones,<\/p>\n
1990b, 2005), and Kasarda\u2019s (1973) study,<\/p>\n
but this literature stream fails to \u2018\u2018empirically<\/p>\n
demonstrate a relationship between turnover,<\/p>\n
productivity, and effectiveness\u2019\u2019 (Price,<\/p>\n
1977, p. 115).<\/p>\n
Views of the turnover rates\u2013organizationalperformance relationship linear negative:The human capital loss view<\/p>\n
Perhaps dominating the economics-based per-<\/p>\n
spective is the theoretical view that a linear and<\/p>\n
negative relationship exists between turnover<\/p>\n
rates and organizational performance. Human<\/p>\n
capital theory perceives that the workforce\u2019s<\/p>\n
accumulated, firm-specific human capital<\/p>\n
determines performance (Strober, 1990). Under<\/p>\n
this view, new employees bear initial costs<\/p>\n
because they accept wages below their mar-<\/p>\n
ginal revenue product hoping to recoup their<\/p>\n
losses with higher future wages, but lose that<\/p>\n
possibility with voluntary turnover (Osterman,<\/p>\n
1987). From the organization\u2019s perspective,<\/p>\n
turnover depletes these human capital stores;<\/p>\n
replacement employees cannot perform as well<\/p>\n
as departing job incumbents. As turnover rates<\/p>\n
rise, organizational performance declines.<\/p>\n
The linear negative view can also be supported<\/p>\n
by arguments from organizational psychology<\/p>\n
and sociology concerning organizational disrup-<\/p>\n
tion, interference and distraction, and pool of<\/p>\n
human capital depletion effects. Higher levels of<\/p>\n
voluntary turnover rates are disrupting and may<\/p>\n
interfere with a workforce\u2019s performance\u2014<\/p>\n
arguments reflected in Katz and Kahn\u2019s (1978)<\/p>\n
and Staw\u2019s (1980) early writings on turnover<\/p>\n
consequences. High turnover levels disrupt<\/p>\n
organizational systems designed to be stable, and<\/p>\n
this interference \u2018\u2018causes organizations to expend<\/p>\n
potentially more energy in maintaining the input\/<\/p>\n
throughput\/output process than they take in from<\/p>\n
the environment\u2019\u2019 (Alexander et al., 1994,<\/p>\n
p. 507). Related sociological arguments suggest<\/p>\n
that high turnover levels signal that the organi-<\/p>\n
zation is out of control (Price, 1977). Under such<\/p>\n
circumstances, organizations must choose where<\/p>\n
to direct limited attention and resources. They<\/p>\n
may focus on regaining control, resulting \u2018\u2018in a<\/p>\n
diversion of resources from basic production into<\/p>\n
controlling the workforce, which is likely to<\/p>\n
lower performance\u2019\u2019 (Alexander et al., 1994). Or<\/p>\n
they may focus all their energies on maintaining<\/p>\n
190 Organizational Psychology Review 1(3)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
production or service schedules, directing<\/p>\n
attention away from safety and maintenance<\/p>\n
concerns and ultimately lowering performance<\/p>\n
by increasing accidents, injuries, and other<\/p>\n
failures (Staw, 1980).<\/p>\n
Empirical evidence. In a review of the literaturecurrent at that time, Osterman (1987) concluded<\/p>\n
the literature had an \u2018\u2018uncomfortably equivocal<\/p>\n
quality\u2019\u2019 (p. 314), a conclusion based largely on<\/p>\n
individual-level models from economics and to<\/p>\n
a lesser degree on organizational-level studies<\/p>\n
such as Medoff et al.\u2019s (e.g., Freeman & Medoff,<\/p>\n
1984) work on unions and productivity. The<\/p>\n
review pointed to Brown and Medoff\u2019s (1978)<\/p>\n
finding that a 10% quit rate reduction wasassociated with a 1% increase in productivityas perhaps the most compelling evidence that<\/p>\n
turnover and organizational performance were<\/p>\n
negatively related. As summarized in Table 1,<\/p>\n
the literature has grown dramatically in the past<\/p>\n
20 years, especially in tests of the relationship<\/p>\n
between turnover rates and organizational per-<\/p>\n
formance, with analyses of dimensions of work-<\/p>\n
force productivity growing the most. The table<\/p>\n
shows investigations that include a test of the<\/p>\n
relationship between turnover rates, a descrip-<\/p>\n
tion of the samples and the levels of analysis, the<\/p>\n
predicted relationship between the key vari-<\/p>\n
ables, and a summary of the findings. Evidence<\/p>\n
accumulated to date indicates that the literature<\/p>\n
mostly supports the linear negative view. The<\/p>\n
last column in the table, however, includes infor-<\/p>\n
mation about whether the study reported tests of<\/p>\n
the curvilinear relationship between turnover<\/p>\n
and performance and, if so, what the findings<\/p>\n
revealed about nonlinear tests. Importantly,<\/p>\n
many studies find support for a linear negative<\/p>\n
relationship, but conclusions about support for<\/p>\n
other possible relationships should include a<\/p>\n
caveat when they fail to address nonlinearity.<\/p>\n
Several of these studies addressed the<\/p>\n
relationship between turnover rates and<\/p>\n
productivity-related dimensions, and some also<\/p>\n
addressed the mediating role of productivity<\/p>\n
and efficiency between turnover rates and more<\/p>\n
distal measures of profitability or financial<\/p>\n
performance. Kacmar et al. (2006) provided a<\/p>\n
strong example showing that crew and manage-<\/p>\n
ment turnover rates in units of a popular fast-<\/p>\n
food chain related not only to key dimensions<\/p>\n
of workforce productivity (e.g., customer wait<\/p>\n
times and food waste), but also indirectly<\/p>\n
affected unit profitability. Using total turnover<\/p>\n
rates (quits and discharges) and organizational<\/p>\n
performance data, they found that (a) both<\/p>\n
forms of turnover rates (crew and management)<\/p>\n
were associated with longer wait times,<\/p>\n
(b) crew turnover was associated with more<\/p>\n
food waste, and (c) turnover through increased<\/p>\n
wait times significantly and indirectly affected<\/p>\n
store sales and profits.<\/p>\n
In a similar study of mortgage banking units,<\/p>\n
Morrow and McElroy (2007) argued that vol-<\/p>\n
untary turnover rates were associated with<\/p>\n
lower productivity and efficiency, which in turn<\/p>\n
indirectly led to distal measures of organiza-<\/p>\n
tional performance (customer satisfaction and<\/p>\n
profit). Their findings, with a cleaner measure<\/p>\n
of voluntary turnover than the Kacmar et al.\u2019s<\/p>\n
(2006) study, revealed that voluntary turnover<\/p>\n
rates related negatively to customer satisfaction<\/p>\n
measures and profit, and further, that two pro-<\/p>\n
ductivity measures mediated the distal effects.<\/p>\n
Several other papers report partial tests of<\/p>\n
this general model, with the largest concentra-<\/p>\n
tion of studies and perhaps the strongest evi-<\/p>\n
dence residing in the retail and customer service<\/p>\n
contexts (see also Koslowksy & Locke, 1989;<\/p>\n
Koys, 2001; McElroy et al., 2001, for weaker<\/p>\n
findings). Van Iddekinge et al. (2009) estimated<\/p>\n
a larger model of the effects of selection and<\/p>\n
training practices on retention and profits<\/p>\n
among a large sample of fast-food restaurants,<\/p>\n
and found that retention rates (an approxima-<\/p>\n
tion for the inverse of total turnover rates) sig-<\/p>\n
nificantly and positively affected the change<\/p>\n
in unit profitability over time. Importantly, their<\/p>\n
analyses over six time periods allowed stronger<\/p>\n
conclusions about the causal direction of the<\/p>\n
turnover rates\u2013organizational performance<\/p>\n
relationship than we find in typical studies.<\/p>\n
Shaw 191<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Tab<\/p>\n
le1.<\/p>\n
Sum<\/p>\n
mar<\/p>\n
yofem<\/p>\n
pir<\/p>\n
ical<\/p>\n
studie<\/p>\n
sexam<\/p>\n
inin<\/p>\n
gth<\/p>\n
ere<\/p>\n
lationsh<\/p>\n
ipbetw<\/p>\n
een<\/p>\n
turn<\/p>\n
ove<\/p>\n
rra<\/p>\n
tes<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
org<\/p>\n
aniz<\/p>\n
atio<\/p>\n
nal<\/p>\n
perf<\/p>\n
orm<\/p>\n
ance<\/p>\n
Pap<\/p>\n
er<\/p>\n
Sett<\/p>\n
ing<\/p>\n
Em<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yee<\/p>\n
group<\/p>\n
Leve<\/p>\n
lof<\/p>\n
anal<\/p>\n
ysis<\/p>\n
Turn<\/p>\n
ove<\/p>\n
rty<\/p>\n
pe<\/p>\n
Theory<\/p>\n
bas<\/p>\n
isPerf<\/p>\n
orm<\/p>\n
ance<\/p>\n
dim<\/p>\n
ensi<\/p>\n
on<\/p>\n
Dir<\/p>\n
ect<\/p>\n
rela<\/p>\n
tionsh<\/p>\n
ipw<\/p>\n
ith<\/p>\n
perf<\/p>\n
orm<\/p>\n
ance<\/p>\n
1<\/p>\n
Curv<\/p>\n
ilinear<\/p>\n
ity<\/p>\n
test<\/p>\n
ed?<\/p>\n
Ale<\/p>\n
xan<\/p>\n
der,<\/p>\n
Blo<\/p>\n
om<\/p>\n
,an<\/p>\n
dN<\/p>\n
uch<\/p>\n
ols<\/p>\n
(1994)<\/p>\n
Com<\/p>\n
munity<\/p>\n
hosp<\/p>\n
ital<\/p>\n
sN<\/p>\n
urs<\/p>\n
es<\/p>\n
Org<\/p>\n
aniz<\/p>\n
atio<\/p>\n
nT<\/p>\n
ota<\/p>\n
lLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
,in<\/p>\n
vert<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
UPers<\/p>\n
onnelco<\/p>\n
sts\/<\/p>\n
pat<\/p>\n
ient<\/p>\n
day<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
(sig<\/p>\n
nre<\/p>\n
vers<\/p>\n
ed)<\/p>\n
Yes<\/p>\n
(att<\/p>\n
enuat<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
,p<\/p>\n
<.1<\/p>\n
0)<\/p>\n
Nonpers<\/p>\n
onnel<\/p>\n
opera<\/p>\n
ting<\/p>\n
cost<\/p>\n
s\/pat<\/p>\n
ient<\/p>\n
day<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
(sig<\/p>\n
nre<\/p>\n
vers<\/p>\n
ed)<\/p>\n
Yes<\/p>\n
(not<\/p>\n
sign<\/p>\n
ific<\/p>\n
ant)<\/p>\n
Art<\/p>\n
hur<\/p>\n
(1994)<\/p>\n
Ste<\/p>\n
elm<\/p>\n
inim<\/p>\n
ills<\/p>\n
Pro<\/p>\n
duct<\/p>\n
ion<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
mai<\/p>\n
nte<\/p>\n
nan<\/p>\n
ceem<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yees<\/p>\n
Fac<\/p>\n
ility<\/p>\n
Tota<\/p>\n
lLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
,m<\/p>\n
odera<\/p>\n
ted<\/p>\n
by<\/p>\n
HR<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
Lab<\/p>\n
or<\/p>\n
hours<\/p>\n
per<\/p>\n
ton<\/p>\n
Not<\/p>\n
sign<\/p>\n
ific<\/p>\n
ant<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Scr<\/p>\n
apra<\/p>\n
teN<\/p>\n
ot<\/p>\n
sign<\/p>\n
ific<\/p>\n
ant<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Bar<\/p>\n
on,H<\/p>\n
annan<\/p>\n
,an<\/p>\n
dBurt<\/p>\n
on<\/p>\n
(2001)<\/p>\n
Hig<\/p>\n
hte<\/p>\n
chnolo<\/p>\n
gyst<\/p>\n
art-<\/p>\n
ups<\/p>\n
All<\/p>\n
em<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yees<\/p>\n
Org<\/p>\n
aniz<\/p>\n
atio<\/p>\n
nal<\/p>\n
Tota<\/p>\n
lLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
Chan<\/p>\n
gein<\/p>\n
reve<\/p>\n
nue<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
2N<\/p>\n
o<\/p>\n
Bat<\/p>\n
t(2<\/p>\n
002)<\/p>\n
Cal<\/p>\n
lce<\/p>\n
nte<\/p>\n
rsC<\/p>\n
ust<\/p>\n
om<\/p>\n
er<\/p>\n
serv<\/p>\n
ice<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
sale<\/p>\n
sre<\/p>\n
pre<\/p>\n
senta<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
s<\/p>\n
Fac<\/p>\n
ility<\/p>\n
Volu<\/p>\n
nta<\/p>\n
ryLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
Sal<\/p>\n
es<\/p>\n
grow<\/p>\n
thLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Bead<\/p>\n
les,<\/p>\n
Low<\/p>\n
ery<\/p>\n
,Pett<\/p>\n
y,an<\/p>\n
dEze<\/p>\n
ll(2<\/p>\n
000)<\/p>\n
Reta<\/p>\n
ilst<\/p>\n
ore<\/p>\n
sSal<\/p>\n
es<\/p>\n
em<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yees<\/p>\n
Unit<\/p>\n
Tota<\/p>\n
lfu<\/p>\n
nct<\/p>\n
ional<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
Sal<\/p>\n
es<\/p>\n
grow<\/p>\n
thLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
posi<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
Sal<\/p>\n
es<\/p>\n
grow<\/p>\n
thLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
posi<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Can<\/p>\n
nella<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
Ham<\/p>\n
bri<\/p>\n
ck(1<\/p>\n
993)<\/p>\n
Rece<\/p>\n
ntly<\/p>\n
acquir<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
firm<\/p>\n
s<\/p>\n
Execu<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
sO<\/p>\n
rgan<\/p>\n
izat<\/p>\n
ion<\/p>\n
Tota<\/p>\n
lLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
Retu<\/p>\n
rnon<\/p>\n
equity<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Senio<\/p>\n
rposi<\/p>\n
tion<\/p>\n
(e.g<\/p>\n
.,C<\/p>\n
EO<\/p>\n
,pre<\/p>\n
sident)<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
Retu<\/p>\n
rnon<\/p>\n
equity<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Less<\/p>\n
senio<\/p>\n
rposi<\/p>\n
tion<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
(but<\/p>\n
weak<\/p>\n
er<\/p>\n
than<\/p>\n
senio<\/p>\n
r-posi<\/p>\n
tion<\/p>\n
turn<\/p>\n
ove<\/p>\n
r)<\/p>\n
Retu<\/p>\n
rnon<\/p>\n
equity<\/p>\n
Not<\/p>\n
sign<\/p>\n
ific<\/p>\n
ant<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Dolton<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
New<\/p>\n
son<\/p>\n
(2003)<\/p>\n
Pri<\/p>\n
mar<\/p>\n
ysc<\/p>\n
hools<\/p>\n
Teac<\/p>\n
hers<\/p>\n
Fac<\/p>\n
ility<\/p>\n
Tota<\/p>\n
lN<\/p>\n
ot<\/p>\n
speci<\/p>\n
fied<\/p>\n
Stu<\/p>\n
dent<\/p>\n
SA<\/p>\n
Tsc<\/p>\n
ore<\/p>\n
sLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
(continued<\/p>\n
)<\/p>\n
192 Organizational Psychology Review 1(3)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Tab<\/p>\n
le1.<\/p>\n
(continued)<\/p>\n
Pap<\/p>\n
er<\/p>\n
Sett<\/p>\n
ing<\/p>\n
Em<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yee<\/p>\n
group<\/p>\n
Leve<\/p>\n
lof<\/p>\n
anal<\/p>\n
ysis<\/p>\n
Turn<\/p>\n
ove<\/p>\n
rty<\/p>\n
pe<\/p>\n
Theory<\/p>\n
bas<\/p>\n
isPerf<\/p>\n
orm<\/p>\n
ance<\/p>\n
dim<\/p>\n
ensi<\/p>\n
on<\/p>\n
Dir<\/p>\n
ect<\/p>\n
rela<\/p>\n
tionsh<\/p>\n
ipw<\/p>\n
ith<\/p>\n
perf<\/p>\n
orm<\/p>\n
ance<\/p>\n
1<\/p>\n
Curv<\/p>\n
ilinear<\/p>\n
ity<\/p>\n
test<\/p>\n
ed?<\/p>\n
Gle<\/p>\n
bbeek<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
Bax<\/p>\n
(2004)<\/p>\n
Tem<\/p>\n
pora<\/p>\n
ryem<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yment<\/p>\n
agency<\/p>\n
Pro<\/p>\n
fess<\/p>\n
ional<\/p>\n
staf<\/p>\n
fU<\/p>\n
nit<\/p>\n
Tota<\/p>\n
lIn<\/p>\n
vert<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
USal<\/p>\n
es<\/p>\n
min<\/p>\n
us<\/p>\n
wag<\/p>\n
eco<\/p>\n
sts<\/p>\n
Inve<\/p>\n
rted<\/p>\n
UY<\/p>\n
es<\/p>\n
(inve<\/p>\n
rted<\/p>\n
U)<\/p>\n
Chan<\/p>\n
gein<\/p>\n
sale<\/p>\n
sm<\/p>\n
inus<\/p>\n
wag<\/p>\n
eco<\/p>\n
sts<\/p>\n
Inve<\/p>\n
rted<\/p>\n
UY<\/p>\n
es<\/p>\n
(inve<\/p>\n
rted<\/p>\n
U)<\/p>\n
Guth<\/p>\n
rie<\/p>\n
(2001)<\/p>\n
Cro<\/p>\n
ss-indust<\/p>\n
ryA<\/p>\n
llem<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yees<\/p>\n
Org<\/p>\n
aniz<\/p>\n
atio<\/p>\n
nal<\/p>\n
Tota<\/p>\n
lLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
,m<\/p>\n
odera<\/p>\n
ted<\/p>\n
by<\/p>\n
HR<\/p>\n
MSal<\/p>\n
es<\/p>\n
per<\/p>\n
em<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yee<\/p>\n
Not<\/p>\n
sign<\/p>\n
ific<\/p>\n
ant<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Hau<\/p>\n
sknech<\/p>\n
t,T<\/p>\n
revo<\/p>\n
r,an<\/p>\n
dH<\/p>\n
ow<\/p>\n
ard<\/p>\n
(2009)<\/p>\n
Leis<\/p>\n
ure<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
hosp<\/p>\n
ital<\/p>\n
ity<\/p>\n
All<\/p>\n
em<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yees<\/p>\n
Unit<\/p>\n
Volu<\/p>\n
nta<\/p>\n
ryLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
,m<\/p>\n
odera<\/p>\n
ted<\/p>\n
by<\/p>\n
unit<\/p>\n
size<\/p>\n
,co<\/p>\n
hesi<\/p>\n
veness<\/p>\n
,an<\/p>\n
dnew<\/p>\n
com<\/p>\n
er<\/p>\n
conce<\/p>\n
ntr<\/p>\n
atio<\/p>\n
n<\/p>\n
Cust<\/p>\n
om<\/p>\n
er<\/p>\n
serv<\/p>\n
ice<\/p>\n
qual<\/p>\n
ity<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Huse<\/p>\n
lid(1<\/p>\n
995)<\/p>\n
Cro<\/p>\n
ss-indust<\/p>\n
ryA<\/p>\n
llem<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yees<\/p>\n
Org<\/p>\n
aniz<\/p>\n
atio<\/p>\n
nal<\/p>\n
Tota<\/p>\n
lLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
Sal<\/p>\n
es<\/p>\n
per<\/p>\n
em<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yee<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Tobin<\/p>\n
q(m<\/p>\n
arket<\/p>\n
valu<\/p>\n
ediv<\/p>\n
ided<\/p>\n
by<\/p>\n
repla<\/p>\n
cem<\/p>\n
ent<\/p>\n
cost<\/p>\n
s)<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Gro<\/p>\n
ssra<\/p>\n
teofre<\/p>\n
turn<\/p>\n
on<\/p>\n
capital<\/p>\n
Not<\/p>\n
sign<\/p>\n
ific<\/p>\n
ant<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Ilm<\/p>\n
akunnas<\/p>\n
,M<\/p>\n
alir<\/p>\n
anta<\/p>\n
,an<\/p>\n
dV<\/p>\n
ainio<\/p>\n
ma\u0308k<\/p>\n
i(2<\/p>\n
005)<\/p>\n
Man<\/p>\n
ufa<\/p>\n
cturi<\/p>\n
ng<\/p>\n
All<\/p>\n
em<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yees<\/p>\n
Fac<\/p>\n
ility<\/p>\n
Tota<\/p>\n
lIn<\/p>\n
vert<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
UPro<\/p>\n
duct<\/p>\n
ivity<\/p>\n
grow<\/p>\n
thIn<\/p>\n
vert<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
UY<\/p>\n
es<\/p>\n
(inve<\/p>\n
rted<\/p>\n
U)<\/p>\n
Kac<\/p>\n
mar<\/p>\n
,A<\/p>\n
ndre<\/p>\n
ws,<\/p>\n
van<\/p>\n
Rooy,<\/p>\n
Ste<\/p>\n
ilberg<\/p>\n
,an<\/p>\n
dC<\/p>\n
err<\/p>\n
one<\/p>\n
(2006)<\/p>\n
Rest<\/p>\n
aura<\/p>\n
nts<\/p>\n
Cre<\/p>\n
wU<\/p>\n
nit<\/p>\n
Tota<\/p>\n
lLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
Cust<\/p>\n
om<\/p>\n
er<\/p>\n
wai<\/p>\n
ttim<\/p>\n
eLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
(sig<\/p>\n
nre<\/p>\n
vers<\/p>\n
ed)<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Food<\/p>\n
was<\/p>\n
teLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
(sig<\/p>\n
nre<\/p>\n
vers<\/p>\n
ed)<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Sal<\/p>\n
es<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
(biv<\/p>\n
aria<\/p>\n
te)<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Pro<\/p>\n
fit<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
(biv<\/p>\n
aria<\/p>\n
te)<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
(continued<\/p>\n
)<\/p>\n
Shaw 193<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Tab<\/p>\n
le1.<\/p>\n
(continued)<\/p>\n
Pap<\/p>\n
er<\/p>\n
Sett<\/p>\n
ing<\/p>\n
Em<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yee<\/p>\n
group<\/p>\n
Leve<\/p>\n
lof<\/p>\n
anal<\/p>\n
ysis<\/p>\n
Turn<\/p>\n
ove<\/p>\n
rty<\/p>\n
pe<\/p>\n
Theory<\/p>\n
bas<\/p>\n
isPerf<\/p>\n
orm<\/p>\n
ance<\/p>\n
dim<\/p>\n
ensi<\/p>\n
on<\/p>\n
Dir<\/p>\n
ect<\/p>\n
rela<\/p>\n
tionsh<\/p>\n
ipw<\/p>\n
ith<\/p>\n
perf<\/p>\n
orm<\/p>\n
ance<\/p>\n
1<\/p>\n
Curv<\/p>\n
ilinear<\/p>\n
ity<\/p>\n
test<\/p>\n
ed?<\/p>\n
Man<\/p>\n
agem<\/p>\n
ent<\/p>\n
Cust<\/p>\n
om<\/p>\n
er<\/p>\n
wai<\/p>\n
ttim<\/p>\n
eLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
(sig<\/p>\n
nre<\/p>\n
vers<\/p>\n
ed)<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Food<\/p>\n
was<\/p>\n
teN<\/p>\n
ot<\/p>\n
sign<\/p>\n
ific<\/p>\n
ant<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Sal<\/p>\n
es<\/p>\n
Not<\/p>\n
sign<\/p>\n
ific<\/p>\n
ant<\/p>\n
(biv<\/p>\n
aria<\/p>\n
te)<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Pro<\/p>\n
fit<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
(biv<\/p>\n
aria<\/p>\n
te)<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Keck<\/p>\n
(1997)<\/p>\n
Cem<\/p>\n
ent<\/p>\n
com<\/p>\n
pan<\/p>\n
ies<\/p>\n
Execu<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
sO<\/p>\n
rgan<\/p>\n
izat<\/p>\n
ional<\/p>\n
Tota<\/p>\n
lLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
,m<\/p>\n
odera<\/p>\n
ted<\/p>\n
by<\/p>\n
envi<\/p>\n
ronm<\/p>\n
enta<\/p>\n
lst<\/p>\n
abili<\/p>\n
ty<\/p>\n
Retu<\/p>\n
rnon<\/p>\n
asse<\/p>\n
tsgr<\/p>\n
ow<\/p>\n
thLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
posi<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
intu<\/p>\n
rbule<\/p>\n
nt<\/p>\n
year<\/p>\n
s,lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
inst<\/p>\n
able<\/p>\n
year<\/p>\n
s<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Min<\/p>\n
icom<\/p>\n
pute<\/p>\n
rin<\/p>\n
dust<\/p>\n
ryR<\/p>\n
etu<\/p>\n
rnon<\/p>\n
asse<\/p>\n
tsgr<\/p>\n
ow<\/p>\n
thN<\/p>\n
ot<\/p>\n
sign<\/p>\n
ific<\/p>\n
ant<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Kesn<\/p>\n
er<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
Dal<\/p>\n
ton<\/p>\n
(1994)<\/p>\n
Cro<\/p>\n
ssin<\/p>\n
dust<\/p>\n
ryT<\/p>\n
op<\/p>\n
man<\/p>\n
agem<\/p>\n
ent<\/p>\n
team<\/p>\n
Org<\/p>\n
aniz<\/p>\n
atio<\/p>\n
nT<\/p>\n
ota<\/p>\n
lIn<\/p>\n
vert<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
UR<\/p>\n
etu<\/p>\n
rnon<\/p>\n
asse<\/p>\n
tstr<\/p>\n
end<\/p>\n
Not<\/p>\n
sign<\/p>\n
ific<\/p>\n
ant<\/p>\n
Yes<\/p>\n
(not<\/p>\n
sign<\/p>\n
ific<\/p>\n
ant)<\/p>\n
Kosl<\/p>\n
ow<\/p>\n
ksy<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
Lock<\/p>\n
e(1<\/p>\n
989)<\/p>\n
Reta<\/p>\n
ilst<\/p>\n
ore<\/p>\n
sSal<\/p>\n
es<\/p>\n
em<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yees<\/p>\n
Unit<\/p>\n
Tota<\/p>\n
lLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
Pro<\/p>\n
fit<\/p>\n
%N<\/p>\n
ot<\/p>\n
sign<\/p>\n
ific<\/p>\n
ant<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Sal<\/p>\n
es<\/p>\n
per<\/p>\n
squar<\/p>\n
efo<\/p>\n
ot<\/p>\n
Not<\/p>\n
sign<\/p>\n
ific<\/p>\n
ant<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Merc<\/p>\n
han<\/p>\n
dis<\/p>\n
eth<\/p>\n
eft<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
loss<\/p>\n
Not<\/p>\n
sign<\/p>\n
ific<\/p>\n
ant<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Koys<\/p>\n
(2001)<\/p>\n
Rest<\/p>\n
aura<\/p>\n
nts<\/p>\n
All<\/p>\n
em<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yees<\/p>\n
Unit<\/p>\n
Tota<\/p>\n
lLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
Pro<\/p>\n
fit<\/p>\n
Not<\/p>\n
sign<\/p>\n
ific<\/p>\n
ant<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Pro<\/p>\n
fit<\/p>\n
div<\/p>\n
ided<\/p>\n
by<\/p>\n
tota<\/p>\n
lsa<\/p>\n
les<\/p>\n
Not<\/p>\n
sign<\/p>\n
ific<\/p>\n
ant<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Cust<\/p>\n
om<\/p>\n
er<\/p>\n
satisf<\/p>\n
action<\/p>\n
Not<\/p>\n
sign<\/p>\n
ific<\/p>\n
ant<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
McE<\/p>\n
lroy,<\/p>\n
Morr<\/p>\n
ow<\/p>\n
,an<\/p>\n
dR<\/p>\n
ude<\/p>\n
(2001)<\/p>\n
Fin<\/p>\n
anci<\/p>\n
alse<\/p>\n
rvic<\/p>\n
es<\/p>\n
All<\/p>\n
em<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yees<\/p>\n
Unit<\/p>\n
Volu<\/p>\n
nta<\/p>\n
ryN<\/p>\n
ore<\/p>\n
lationsh<\/p>\n
ip(n<\/p>\n
ull)<\/p>\n
Pro<\/p>\n
fit<\/p>\n
(Year<\/p>\n
1)<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Pro<\/p>\n
fit<\/p>\n
(Year<\/p>\n
2)<\/p>\n
Not<\/p>\n
sign<\/p>\n
ific<\/p>\n
ant<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Cust<\/p>\n
om<\/p>\n
er<\/p>\n
satisf<\/p>\n
action<\/p>\n
(Year<\/p>\n
s1<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
2)<\/p>\n
Not<\/p>\n
sign<\/p>\n
ific<\/p>\n
ant<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Pro<\/p>\n
duct<\/p>\n
ivity<\/p>\n
(loan<\/p>\n
sfu<\/p>\n
nded<\/p>\n
div<\/p>\n
ided<\/p>\n
by<\/p>\n
tota<\/p>\n
lsa<\/p>\n
les<\/p>\n
em<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yees)<\/p>\n
(Year<\/p>\n
1)<\/p>\n
Not<\/p>\n
sign<\/p>\n
ific<\/p>\n
ant<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
(continued<\/p>\n
)<\/p>\n
194 Organizational Psychology Review 1(3)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Tab<\/p>\n
le1.<\/p>\n
(continued)<\/p>\n
Pap<\/p>\n
er<\/p>\n
Sett<\/p>\n
ing<\/p>\n
Em<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yee<\/p>\n
group<\/p>\n
Leve<\/p>\n
lof<\/p>\n
anal<\/p>\n
ysis<\/p>\n
Turn<\/p>\n
ove<\/p>\n
rty<\/p>\n
pe<\/p>\n
Theory<\/p>\n
bas<\/p>\n
isPerf<\/p>\n
orm<\/p>\n
ance<\/p>\n
dim<\/p>\n
ensi<\/p>\n
on<\/p>\n
Dir<\/p>\n
ect<\/p>\n
rela<\/p>\n
tionsh<\/p>\n
ipw<\/p>\n
ith<\/p>\n
perf<\/p>\n
orm<\/p>\n
ance<\/p>\n
1<\/p>\n
Curv<\/p>\n
ilinear<\/p>\n
ity<\/p>\n
test<\/p>\n
ed?<\/p>\n
Pro<\/p>\n
duct<\/p>\n
ivity<\/p>\n
(loan<\/p>\n
sfu<\/p>\n
nded<\/p>\n
div<\/p>\n
ided<\/p>\n
by<\/p>\n
tota<\/p>\n
lsa<\/p>\n
les<\/p>\n
em<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yees)<\/p>\n
(Year<\/p>\n
2)<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Cost<\/p>\n
per<\/p>\n
loan<\/p>\n
(Year<\/p>\n
2)<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
(sig<\/p>\n
nre<\/p>\n
vers<\/p>\n
ed)<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Meie<\/p>\n
ran<\/p>\n
dH<\/p>\n
icklin<\/p>\n
(2007)<\/p>\n
Sch<\/p>\n
ooldis<\/p>\n
tric<\/p>\n
tsT<\/p>\n
eac<\/p>\n
hers<\/p>\n
Org<\/p>\n
aniz<\/p>\n
atio<\/p>\n
nal<\/p>\n
(sch<\/p>\n
ool<\/p>\n
dis<\/p>\n
tric<\/p>\n
t)<\/p>\n
Tota<\/p>\n
lIn<\/p>\n
vert<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
UStu<\/p>\n
dent<\/p>\n
stat<\/p>\n
est<\/p>\n
andar<\/p>\n
diz<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
test<\/p>\n
s<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
Yes<\/p>\n
(sig<\/p>\n
nific<\/p>\n
ant<\/p>\n
beca<\/p>\n
use<\/p>\n
of<\/p>\n
larg<\/p>\n
esa<\/p>\n
mple<\/p>\n
size<\/p>\n
but<\/p>\n
very<\/p>\n
weak<\/p>\n
)Stu<\/p>\n
dent<\/p>\n
SA<\/p>\n
Tsc<\/p>\n
ore<\/p>\n
sIn<\/p>\n
vert<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
UY<\/p>\n
es<\/p>\n
(inve<\/p>\n
rted<\/p>\n
U)<\/p>\n
Mess<\/p>\n
ers<\/p>\n
mith,<\/p>\n
Guth<\/p>\n
rie,an<\/p>\n
dJi<\/p>\n
(2009)<\/p>\n
Cro<\/p>\n
ss-indust<\/p>\n
ryT<\/p>\n
op<\/p>\n
man<\/p>\n
agem<\/p>\n
ent<\/p>\n
team<\/p>\n
sO<\/p>\n
rgan<\/p>\n
izat<\/p>\n
ional<\/p>\n
Tota<\/p>\n
lLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
,m<\/p>\n
odera<\/p>\n
ted<\/p>\n
by<\/p>\n
indust<\/p>\n
rydis<\/p>\n
cretion<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
TM<\/p>\n
Tte<\/p>\n
nure<\/p>\n
Retu<\/p>\n
rnon<\/p>\n
asse<\/p>\n
tsLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Morr<\/p>\n
ow<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
McE<\/p>\n
lroy<\/p>\n
(2007)<\/p>\n
Mort<\/p>\n
gage<\/p>\n
ban<\/p>\n
kin<\/p>\n
gA<\/p>\n
llem<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yees<\/p>\n
Units<\/p>\n
Volu<\/p>\n
nta<\/p>\n
ryLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
Cost<\/p>\n
per<\/p>\n
loan<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
(sig<\/p>\n
nre<\/p>\n
vers<\/p>\n
ed)<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Loan<\/p>\n
sfu<\/p>\n
nded<\/p>\n
per<\/p>\n
month<\/p>\n
per<\/p>\n
em<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yee<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Pro<\/p>\n
fits<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Cust<\/p>\n
om<\/p>\n
er<\/p>\n
satisf<\/p>\n
action<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Pau<\/p>\n
lan<\/p>\n
dA<\/p>\n
nan<\/p>\n
thar<\/p>\n
aman<\/p>\n
(2003)<\/p>\n
Soft<\/p>\n
war<\/p>\n
eA<\/p>\n
llem<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yees<\/p>\n
Org<\/p>\n
aniz<\/p>\n
atio<\/p>\n
nal<\/p>\n
Tota<\/p>\n
lLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
Fin<\/p>\n
anci<\/p>\n
alperf<\/p>\n
orm<\/p>\n
ance<\/p>\n
(key<\/p>\n
info<\/p>\n
rman<\/p>\n
tsu<\/p>\n
bje<\/p>\n
ctiv<\/p>\n
ere<\/p>\n
port<\/p>\n
)<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Plo<\/p>\n
mondon<\/p>\n
et<\/p>\n
al.<\/p>\n
(2007)<\/p>\n
Man<\/p>\n
aged<\/p>\n
care<\/p>\n
Pri<\/p>\n
mar<\/p>\n
yca<\/p>\n
repro<\/p>\n
viders<\/p>\n
Unit<\/p>\n
(heal<\/p>\n
thpla<\/p>\n
nle<\/p>\n
vel)<\/p>\n
Tota<\/p>\n
lLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
Heal<\/p>\n
thpla<\/p>\n
nm<\/p>\n
em<\/p>\n
ber<\/p>\n
satisf<\/p>\n
action<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
(continued<\/p>\n
)<\/p>\n
Shaw 195<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Tab<\/p>\n
le1.<\/p>\n
(continued)<\/p>\n
Pap<\/p>\n
er<\/p>\n
Sett<\/p>\n
ing<\/p>\n
Em<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yee<\/p>\n
group<\/p>\n
Leve<\/p>\n
lof<\/p>\n
anal<\/p>\n
ysis<\/p>\n
Turn<\/p>\n
ove<\/p>\n
rty<\/p>\n
pe<\/p>\n
Theory<\/p>\n
bas<\/p>\n
isPerf<\/p>\n
orm<\/p>\n
ance<\/p>\n
dim<\/p>\n
ensi<\/p>\n
on<\/p>\n
Dir<\/p>\n
ect<\/p>\n
rela<\/p>\n
tionsh<\/p>\n
ipw<\/p>\n
ith<\/p>\n
perf<\/p>\n
orm<\/p>\n
ance<\/p>\n
1<\/p>\n
Curv<\/p>\n
ilinear<\/p>\n
ity<\/p>\n
test<\/p>\n
ed?<\/p>\n
Pre<\/p>\n
venta<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
care<\/p>\n
(e.g<\/p>\n
.,im<\/p>\n
muniz<\/p>\n
atio<\/p>\n
nra<\/p>\n
tes,<\/p>\n
heal<\/p>\n
thsc<\/p>\n
reenin<\/p>\n
gs)<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Sels<\/p>\n
et<\/p>\n
al.(2<\/p>\n
006)<\/p>\n
Cro<\/p>\n
ss-indust<\/p>\n
ryA<\/p>\n
llem<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yees<\/p>\n
Org<\/p>\n
aniz<\/p>\n
atio<\/p>\n
nal<\/p>\n
Volu<\/p>\n
nta<\/p>\n
ryLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
Val<\/p>\n
ue<\/p>\n
added<\/p>\n
per<\/p>\n
work<\/p>\n
ing<\/p>\n
hour<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Shaw<\/p>\n
,D<\/p>\n
uffy,<\/p>\n
Johnso<\/p>\n
n,an<\/p>\n
dLock<\/p>\n
har<\/p>\n
t(2<\/p>\n
005)<\/p>\n
Rest<\/p>\n
aura<\/p>\n
nts<\/p>\n
All<\/p>\n
em<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yees<\/p>\n
Unit<\/p>\n
Tota<\/p>\n
lLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
,m<\/p>\n
odera<\/p>\n
ted<\/p>\n
by<\/p>\n
soci<\/p>\n
alca<\/p>\n
pital<\/p>\n
loss<\/p>\n
es<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
netw<\/p>\n
ork<\/p>\n
densi<\/p>\n
ty<\/p>\n
Sal<\/p>\n
es<\/p>\n
per<\/p>\n
em<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yee<\/p>\n
Not<\/p>\n
sign<\/p>\n
ific<\/p>\n
ant<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Shaw<\/p>\n
,G<\/p>\n
upta<\/p>\n
,an<\/p>\n
dD<\/p>\n
ele<\/p>\n
ry(2<\/p>\n
005)<\/p>\n
Concr<\/p>\n
ete<\/p>\n
pip<\/p>\n
em<\/p>\n
anufa<\/p>\n
cturi<\/p>\n
ng<\/p>\n
Pro<\/p>\n
duct<\/p>\n
ion<\/p>\n
work<\/p>\n
ers<\/p>\n
Fac<\/p>\n
ility<\/p>\n
Volu<\/p>\n
nta<\/p>\n
ryLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
,at<\/p>\n
tenuat<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
,in<\/p>\n
vert<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
U,m<\/p>\n
odera<\/p>\n
ted<\/p>\n
by<\/p>\n
HR<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
Lab<\/p>\n
or<\/p>\n
hours<\/p>\n
per<\/p>\n
ton<\/p>\n
Att<\/p>\n
enuat<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
(sig<\/p>\n
nre<\/p>\n
vers<\/p>\n
ed)<\/p>\n
Yes<\/p>\n
(att<\/p>\n
enuat<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
)<\/p>\n
Acc<\/p>\n
ident<\/p>\n
rate<\/p>\n
Att<\/p>\n
enuat<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
(sig<\/p>\n
nre<\/p>\n
vers<\/p>\n
ed)<\/p>\n
Yes<\/p>\n
(att<\/p>\n
enuat<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
)<\/p>\n
Tru<\/p>\n
ckin<\/p>\n
gD<\/p>\n
rive<\/p>\n
rsO<\/p>\n
rgan<\/p>\n
izat<\/p>\n
ional<\/p>\n
Volu<\/p>\n
nta<\/p>\n
ryLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
,at<\/p>\n
te-<\/p>\n
nuat<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
,in<\/p>\n
vert<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
U,<\/p>\n
modera<\/p>\n
ted<\/p>\n
by<\/p>\n
HR<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
Reve<\/p>\n
nue<\/p>\n
per<\/p>\n
dri<\/p>\n
ver<\/p>\n
Att<\/p>\n
enuat<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
Yes<\/p>\n
(att<\/p>\n
enuat<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
)<\/p>\n
Acc<\/p>\n
ident<\/p>\n
frequency<\/p>\n
ratio<\/p>\n
Att<\/p>\n
enuat<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
(sig<\/p>\n
nre<\/p>\n
vers<\/p>\n
ed)<\/p>\n
Yes<\/p>\n
(att<\/p>\n
enuat<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
)<\/p>\n
Out-<\/p>\n
of-<\/p>\n
serv<\/p>\n
ice<\/p>\n
Perc<\/p>\n
enta<\/p>\n
geA<\/p>\n
ttenuat<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
(sig<\/p>\n
nre<\/p>\n
vers<\/p>\n
ed)<\/p>\n
Yes<\/p>\n
(att<\/p>\n
enuat<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
)<\/p>\n
Opera<\/p>\n
ting<\/p>\n
ratio<\/p>\n
Att<\/p>\n
enuat<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
(sig<\/p>\n
nre<\/p>\n
vers<\/p>\n
ed)<\/p>\n
Yes<\/p>\n
(att<\/p>\n
enuat<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
)<\/p>\n
Retu<\/p>\n
rnon<\/p>\n
equity<\/p>\n
Not<\/p>\n
sign<\/p>\n
ific<\/p>\n
ant<\/p>\n
Yes<\/p>\n
(not<\/p>\n
sign<\/p>\n
ific<\/p>\n
ant)<\/p>\n
(continued<\/p>\n
)<\/p>\n
196 Organizational Psychology Review 1(3)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Tab<\/p>\n
le1.<\/p>\n
(continued)<\/p>\n
Pap<\/p>\n
er<\/p>\n
Sett<\/p>\n
ing<\/p>\n
Em<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yee<\/p>\n
group<\/p>\n
Leve<\/p>\n
lof<\/p>\n
anal<\/p>\n
ysis<\/p>\n
Turn<\/p>\n
ove<\/p>\n
rty<\/p>\n
pe<\/p>\n
Theory<\/p>\n
bas<\/p>\n
isPerf<\/p>\n
orm<\/p>\n
ance<\/p>\n
dim<\/p>\n
ensi<\/p>\n
on<\/p>\n
Dir<\/p>\n
ect<\/p>\n
rela<\/p>\n
tionsh<\/p>\n
ipw<\/p>\n
ith<\/p>\n
perf<\/p>\n
orm<\/p>\n
ance<\/p>\n
1<\/p>\n
Curv<\/p>\n
ilinear<\/p>\n
ity<\/p>\n
test<\/p>\n
ed?<\/p>\n
Shaw<\/p>\n
,K<\/p>\n
im,an<\/p>\n
dPar<\/p>\n
k(2<\/p>\n
009)<\/p>\n
Cro<\/p>\n
ss-indust<\/p>\n
ryA<\/p>\n
llfu<\/p>\n
ll-tim<\/p>\n
eem<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yees<\/p>\n
Org<\/p>\n
aniz<\/p>\n
atio<\/p>\n
nal<\/p>\n
Volu<\/p>\n
nta<\/p>\n
ryA<\/p>\n
ttenuat<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
,m<\/p>\n
odera<\/p>\n
ted<\/p>\n
by<\/p>\n
HR<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
Sal<\/p>\n
es<\/p>\n
per<\/p>\n
em<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yee<\/p>\n
Att<\/p>\n
enuat<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
Yes<\/p>\n
(att<\/p>\n
enuat<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
)<\/p>\n
Independent<\/p>\n
superm<\/p>\n
arkets<\/p>\n
Sal<\/p>\n
es<\/p>\n
per<\/p>\n
em<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yee<\/p>\n
Att<\/p>\n
enuat<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
Yes<\/p>\n
(att<\/p>\n
enuat<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
)A<\/p>\n
ccid<\/p>\n
ent<\/p>\n
rate<\/p>\n
Not<\/p>\n
sign<\/p>\n
ific<\/p>\n
ant<\/p>\n
Yes<\/p>\n
(not<\/p>\n
sign<\/p>\n
ific<\/p>\n
ant)<\/p>\n
Shen<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
Can<\/p>\n
nella<\/p>\n
(2002)<\/p>\n
Cro<\/p>\n
ss-indust<\/p>\n
rySenio<\/p>\n
rexecu<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
sO<\/p>\n
rgan<\/p>\n
izat<\/p>\n
ional<\/p>\n
Tota<\/p>\n
lM<\/p>\n
odera<\/p>\n
ted<\/p>\n
by<\/p>\n
conte<\/p>\n
nder<\/p>\n
or<\/p>\n
out-<\/p>\n
sider<\/p>\n
CEO<\/p>\n
succ<\/p>\n
ess<\/p>\n
ion<\/p>\n
Retu<\/p>\n
rnon<\/p>\n
asse<\/p>\n
tsLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Shevc<\/p>\n
huk,Lean<\/p>\n
a,an<\/p>\n
dM<\/p>\n
itta<\/p>\n
l(2<\/p>\n
007)<\/p>\n
Ele<\/p>\n
menta<\/p>\n
rysc<\/p>\n
hools<\/p>\n
Teac<\/p>\n
hers<\/p>\n
Unit<\/p>\n
(sch<\/p>\n
ool<\/p>\n
within<\/p>\n
dis<\/p>\n
tric<\/p>\n
t)<\/p>\n
Tota<\/p>\n
lLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
Stu<\/p>\n
dent<\/p>\n
achie<\/p>\n
vem<\/p>\n
ent<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
Yes<\/p>\n
(not<\/p>\n
sign<\/p>\n
ific<\/p>\n
ant)<\/p>\n
Sie<\/p>\n
bert<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
Zuban<\/p>\n
ov<\/p>\n
(2009)<\/p>\n
Reta<\/p>\n
ilst<\/p>\n
ore<\/p>\n
sFull-<\/p>\n
tim<\/p>\n
eem<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yees<\/p>\n
Unit<\/p>\n
Tota<\/p>\n
lLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
,in<\/p>\n
tera<\/p>\n
ctio<\/p>\n
nw<\/p>\n
ith<\/p>\n
par<\/p>\n
t-tim<\/p>\n
etu<\/p>\n
rnove<\/p>\n
rra<\/p>\n
tes<\/p>\n
Sal<\/p>\n
es<\/p>\n
per<\/p>\n
hour<\/p>\n
work<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
Yes<\/p>\n
(not<\/p>\n
sign<\/p>\n
ific<\/p>\n
ant)<\/p>\n
Par<\/p>\n
t-tim<\/p>\n
eem<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yees<\/p>\n
Inve<\/p>\n
rted<\/p>\n
UIn<\/p>\n
vert<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
UY<\/p>\n
es<\/p>\n
(inve<\/p>\n
rted<\/p>\n
U)<\/p>\n
Ton<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
Huck<\/p>\n
man<\/p>\n
(2008)<\/p>\n
Reta<\/p>\n
ilst<\/p>\n
ore<\/p>\n
sA<\/p>\n
llem<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yees<\/p>\n
Unit<\/p>\n
Tota<\/p>\n
lLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
,m<\/p>\n
odera<\/p>\n
ted<\/p>\n
by<\/p>\n
pro<\/p>\n
cess<\/p>\n
confo<\/p>\n
rman<\/p>\n
ce<\/p>\n
Cust<\/p>\n
om<\/p>\n
er<\/p>\n
serv<\/p>\n
ice<\/p>\n
Att<\/p>\n
enuat<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
Yes<\/p>\n
(att<\/p>\n
enuat<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
)<\/p>\n
Pro<\/p>\n
fit<\/p>\n
mar<\/p>\n
gin<\/p>\n
Att<\/p>\n
enuat<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
Yes<\/p>\n
(att<\/p>\n
enuat<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
)Full-<\/p>\n
tim<\/p>\n
eem<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yees<\/p>\n
Cust<\/p>\n
om<\/p>\n
er<\/p>\n
serv<\/p>\n
ice<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Pro<\/p>\n
fit<\/p>\n
mar<\/p>\n
gin<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Par<\/p>\n
t-tim<\/p>\n
eem<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yees<\/p>\n
Cust<\/p>\n
om<\/p>\n
er<\/p>\n
serv<\/p>\n
ice<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Pro<\/p>\n
fit<\/p>\n
mar<\/p>\n
gin<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Van<\/p>\n
Iddekin<\/p>\n
geet<\/p>\n
al.<\/p>\n
(2009)<\/p>\n
Fas<\/p>\n
t-fo<\/p>\n
od<\/p>\n
rest<\/p>\n
aura<\/p>\n
nts<\/p>\n
All<\/p>\n
em<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yees<\/p>\n
Unit<\/p>\n
Tota<\/p>\n
lLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
Pro<\/p>\n
fit<\/p>\n
mar<\/p>\n
gin<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
(continued<\/p>\n
)<\/p>\n
Shaw 197<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Tab<\/p>\n
le1.<\/p>\n
(continued)<\/p>\n
Pap<\/p>\n
er<\/p>\n
Sett<\/p>\n
ing<\/p>\n
Em<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yee<\/p>\n
group<\/p>\n
Leve<\/p>\n
lof<\/p>\n
anal<\/p>\n
ysis<\/p>\n
Turn<\/p>\n
ove<\/p>\n
rty<\/p>\n
pe<\/p>\n
Theory<\/p>\n
bas<\/p>\n
isPerf<\/p>\n
orm<\/p>\n
ance<\/p>\n
dim<\/p>\n
ensi<\/p>\n
on<\/p>\n
Dir<\/p>\n
ect<\/p>\n
rela<\/p>\n
tionsh<\/p>\n
ipw<\/p>\n
ith<\/p>\n
perf<\/p>\n
orm<\/p>\n
ance<\/p>\n
1<\/p>\n
Curv<\/p>\n
ilinear<\/p>\n
ity<\/p>\n
test<\/p>\n
ed?<\/p>\n
Vir<\/p>\n
any,<\/p>\n
Tush<\/p>\n
man<\/p>\n
,an<\/p>\n
dR<\/p>\n
om<\/p>\n
anelli<\/p>\n
(1992)<\/p>\n
Mic<\/p>\n
roco<\/p>\n
mpute<\/p>\n
rfirm<\/p>\n
sExecu<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
team<\/p>\n
sO<\/p>\n
rgan<\/p>\n
izat<\/p>\n
ional<\/p>\n
Tota<\/p>\n
lM<\/p>\n
odera<\/p>\n
ted<\/p>\n
by<\/p>\n
CEO<\/p>\n
succ<\/p>\n
ess<\/p>\n
ion<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
reori<\/p>\n
enta<\/p>\n
tion<\/p>\n
Retu<\/p>\n
rnon<\/p>\n
asse<\/p>\n
tsLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
posi<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Wag<\/p>\n
ner,<\/p>\n
Pfe<\/p>\n
ffer,<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
O\u2019R<\/p>\n
eill<\/p>\n
y(1<\/p>\n
984)<\/p>\n
Man<\/p>\n
ufa<\/p>\n
cturi<\/p>\n
ng<\/p>\n
Top-m<\/p>\n
anag<\/p>\n
em<\/p>\n
ent<\/p>\n
team<\/p>\n
sO<\/p>\n
rgan<\/p>\n
izat<\/p>\n
ional<\/p>\n
Tota<\/p>\n
lU<\/p>\n
-shap<\/p>\n
eR<\/p>\n
etu<\/p>\n
rnon<\/p>\n
inve<\/p>\n
stm<\/p>\n
ent<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
Yes<\/p>\n
(not<\/p>\n
sign<\/p>\n
ific<\/p>\n
ant)<\/p>\n
Wie<\/p>\n
rsem<\/p>\n
aan<\/p>\n
dBan<\/p>\n
tel(1<\/p>\n
993)<\/p>\n
Man<\/p>\n
ufa<\/p>\n
cturi<\/p>\n
ng<\/p>\n
Top-m<\/p>\n
anag<\/p>\n
em<\/p>\n
ent<\/p>\n
team<\/p>\n
sO<\/p>\n
rgan<\/p>\n
izat<\/p>\n
ional<\/p>\n
Tota<\/p>\n
lLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
Retu<\/p>\n
rnon<\/p>\n
asse<\/p>\n
tsN<\/p>\n
ot<\/p>\n
sign<\/p>\n
ific<\/p>\n
ant<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Yan<\/p>\n
adori<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
Kat<\/p>\n
o(2<\/p>\n
007)<\/p>\n
Cro<\/p>\n
ss-indust<\/p>\n
ryA<\/p>\n
llem<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yees<\/p>\n
Org<\/p>\n
aniz<\/p>\n
atio<\/p>\n
nal<\/p>\n
Volu<\/p>\n
nta<\/p>\n
ryLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
Sal<\/p>\n
es<\/p>\n
per<\/p>\n
em<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yee<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
Zim<\/p>\n
merm<\/p>\n
an,<\/p>\n
Gru<\/p>\n
ber-<\/p>\n
Bal<\/p>\n
din<\/p>\n
i,H<\/p>\n
ebel,<\/p>\n
Slo<\/p>\n
ane,<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
Mag<\/p>\n
azin<\/p>\n
er<\/p>\n
(2002)<\/p>\n
Nurs<\/p>\n
ing<\/p>\n
hom<\/p>\n
es<\/p>\n
Nurs<\/p>\n
es<\/p>\n
Fac<\/p>\n
ility<\/p>\n
Tota<\/p>\n
lLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
Infe<\/p>\n
ctio<\/p>\n
nra<\/p>\n
tes<\/p>\n
Lin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
(sig<\/p>\n
nre<\/p>\n
vers<\/p>\n
ed)<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Hosp<\/p>\n
ital<\/p>\n
izat<\/p>\n
ion<\/p>\n
rate<\/p>\n
sLin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
nega<\/p>\n
tive<\/p>\n
(sig<\/p>\n
nre<\/p>\n
vers<\/p>\n
ed)<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Zim<\/p>\n
merm<\/p>\n
anet<\/p>\n
al.<\/p>\n
(2005)<\/p>\n
Ass<\/p>\n
iste<\/p>\n
dca<\/p>\n
reA<\/p>\n
llem<\/p>\n
plo<\/p>\n
yees<\/p>\n
Fac<\/p>\n
ility<\/p>\n
Tota<\/p>\n
lN<\/p>\n
ot<\/p>\n
speci<\/p>\n
fied<\/p>\n
Pat<\/p>\n
ient<\/p>\n
funct<\/p>\n
ional<\/p>\n
decl<\/p>\n
ine<\/p>\n
(dai<\/p>\n
lyliv<\/p>\n
ing,<\/p>\n
cogn<\/p>\n
itio<\/p>\n
n,<\/p>\n
behav<\/p>\n
ior,<\/p>\n
etc<\/p>\n
.)<\/p>\n
Not<\/p>\n
sign<\/p>\n
ific<\/p>\n
ant<\/p>\n
for<\/p>\n
5of6<\/p>\n
dim<\/p>\n
ensi<\/p>\n
ons<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Nurs<\/p>\n
eai<\/p>\n
de<\/p>\n
Not<\/p>\n
sign<\/p>\n
ific<\/p>\n
ant<\/p>\n
for<\/p>\n
5of6<\/p>\n
dim<\/p>\n
ensi<\/p>\n
ons<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Note<\/p>\n
:The<\/p>\n
dir<\/p>\n
ect<\/p>\n
ion<\/p>\n
ofth<\/p>\n
etu<\/p>\n
rnove<\/p>\n
r\u2013perf<\/p>\n
orm<\/p>\n
ance<\/p>\n
rela<\/p>\n
tionsh<\/p>\n
ipis<\/p>\n
reve<\/p>\n
rsed<\/p>\n
from<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
ori<\/p>\n
ginal<\/p>\n
inca<\/p>\n
ses<\/p>\n
where<\/p>\n
hig<\/p>\n
her<\/p>\n
score<\/p>\n
sre<\/p>\n
flect<\/p>\n
poor<\/p>\n
perf<\/p>\n
orm<\/p>\n
ance<\/p>\n
(e.g<\/p>\n
.,ac<\/p>\n
cidentra<\/p>\n
tes,<\/p>\n
labor<\/p>\n
hours<\/p>\n
per<\/p>\n
ton,an<\/p>\n
dsa<\/p>\n
fety<\/p>\n
viola<\/p>\n
tions)<\/p>\n
.1<\/p>\n
Rela<\/p>\n
tionsh<\/p>\n
ips<\/p>\n
are<\/p>\n
from<\/p>\n
multiv<\/p>\n
aria<\/p>\n
teequat<\/p>\n
ions<\/p>\n
unle<\/p>\n
sssp<\/p>\n
eci<\/p>\n
fied.<\/p>\n
2T<\/p>\n
he<\/p>\n
turn<\/p>\n
ove<\/p>\n
rra<\/p>\n
teva<\/p>\n
riab<\/p>\n
lew<\/p>\n
astr<\/p>\n
ansf<\/p>\n
orm<\/p>\n
ed<\/p>\n
asth<\/p>\n
esq<\/p>\n
uar<\/p>\n
ero<\/p>\n
ot<\/p>\n
tore<\/p>\n
move<\/p>\n
pote<\/p>\n
ntial<\/p>\n
nonlin<\/p>\n
ear<\/p>\n
ity.<\/p>\n
198 Organizational Psychology Review 1(3)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Hausknecht et al. (2009) examined the relation-<\/p>\n
ship between voluntary turnover rates and<\/p>\n
aggregated customer service quality percep-<\/p>\n
tions among units of a large hotel and casino.<\/p>\n
Using an operational disruption-based frame-<\/p>\n
work, they found that increases in voluntary<\/p>\n
turnover rates resulted in a decrease in positive<\/p>\n
customer service perceptions, which the authors<\/p>\n
argued was a leading indicator of customer<\/p>\n
retention and profitability in the gaming<\/p>\n
industry (see also, Batt, 2002).<\/p>\n
A spate of evidence for the linear negative<\/p>\n
approach comes from samples of schools as<\/p>\n
well. For example, Dolton and Newson (2003)<\/p>\n
examined the relationship between total teacher<\/p>\n
turnover rates and school performance among<\/p>\n
primary schools in London, and found that a<\/p>\n
10% increase in teacher turnover was associ-ated with declines of 2% and 2.5% for Englishand math Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT)<\/p>\n
scores, respectively. Beyond controls for area,<\/p>\n
class sizes, special needs, and socioeconomics,<\/p>\n
schools with the highest turnover rates had test<\/p>\n
scores 10% to 11% lower than other schools.Extending these findings, some ambitious<\/p>\n
studies by Shevchuk, Leana, and Mittal (2007)<\/p>\n
examined the relationship between teacher<\/p>\n
retention rates and school performance in a<\/p>\n
large sample of U.S. elementary schools, and<\/p>\n
found significant positive effects of teacher<\/p>\n
retention (the inverse of total turnover rates)<\/p>\n
and, supporting a human capital depletion<\/p>\n
argument, further found that human capital-<\/p>\n
based variables mediated this effect.<\/p>\n
Plomondon et al. (2007) took the study of<\/p>\n
turnover rates and quality to a managed-care<\/p>\n
setting. In line with other studies of customer<\/p>\n
satisfaction and service quality, they observed<\/p>\n
a negative relationship between primary-<\/p>\n
care-provider turnover rates and plan-member<\/p>\n
satisfaction, but they also showed that these<\/p>\n
relationships extended beyond attitudes to<\/p>\n
actual plan-member behaviors. Increases in<\/p>\n
primary-care-provider turnover rates related to<\/p>\n
lower rates of childhood immunizations,<\/p>\n
screenings for cholesterol and cervical cancer,<\/p>\n
and childhood wellness visits before 15 months<\/p>\n
of age. In a large-scale study of nursing homes,<\/p>\n
Zimmerman, Gruber-Baldini, Hebel, Sloane,<\/p>\n
and Magaziner (2002) found that nursing home<\/p>\n
residents suffered higher infection and hospitali-<\/p>\n
zation rates when staff had higher turnover rates.<\/p>\n
But in a similar study of assistant care facilities,<\/p>\n
the authors (2002) found equivocal turnover rate<\/p>\n
relationships with medical outcomes.<\/p>\n
Although the vast majority of studies fol-<\/p>\n
lowing human capital loss and organizational<\/p>\n
disruption frameworks have been conducted<\/p>\n
within industries, two recent studies examined<\/p>\n
these issues in cross-industry settings.<\/p>\n
Huselid\u2019s (1995) influential study of a random<\/p>\n
sample of publicly traded U.S. organizations<\/p>\n
did not examine theoretical links between turn-<\/p>\n
over rates and productivity, but it found that<\/p>\n
turnover rates related negatively to both pro-<\/p>\n
ductivity and profitability. Similarly, Yanadori<\/p>\n
and Kato (2007) surveyed a random sample of<\/p>\n
publicly traded organizations in Japan, and<\/p>\n
found that turnover rates related negatively to<\/p>\n
productivity and that average employee tenure<\/p>\n
(an operationalization of human capital accu-<\/p>\n
mulations; e.g., Shevchuk et al., 2007)<\/p>\n
mediated these effects. In a study of small orga-<\/p>\n
nizations (<100 employees), Sels et al. (2006)<\/p>\n
found that voluntary turnover rates impacted<\/p>\n
distal measures of organizational performance<\/p>\n
such as liquidity, solvency, and profitability<\/p>\n
through productivity (value added per<\/p>\n
employee).<\/p>\n
Finally, quite a number of studies have<\/p>\n
examined the relationship between turnover<\/p>\n
rates among executives and dimensions of<\/p>\n
organizational performance. Although many of<\/p>\n
the studies were cleverly conducted, it is diffi-<\/p>\n
cult to draw firm conclusions to either support or<\/p>\n
disconfirm a human capital-based view. The<\/p>\n
equivocal findings occur because of the research<\/p>\n
questions and the nature of the samples. Many<\/p>\n
studies (e.g., Kesner & Dalton, 1994; Shen &<\/p>\n
Cannella, 2002; Virany, Tushman, & Romanelli,<\/p>\n
1992) focused on the consequences of CEO<\/p>\n
succession and drew samples requiring CEO<\/p>\n
Shaw 199<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
change. This approach is akin to sampling on the<\/p>\n
dependent variable and may have contributed to<\/p>\n
the large variation in relationships from signifi-<\/p>\n
cant and positive (e.g., Keck, 1997; Virany<\/p>\n
et al., 1992), significant and negative (Cannella<\/p>\n
& Hambrick, 1993; Shen & Cannella, 2002;<\/p>\n
Wagner, Pfeffer, & O\u2019Reilly, 1984), to nonsigni-<\/p>\n
ficant (Kesner & Dalton, 1994; Wiersema &<\/p>\n
Bantel, 1993). In a recent study, however,<\/p>\n
Messersmith, Guthrie, and Ji (2009) focused<\/p>\n
specifically on top management team turnover<\/p>\n
and organizational performance. Using a large<\/p>\n
cross-industry sample, these authors found that<\/p>\n
a unit increase in turnover rates was associated<\/p>\n
with reductions in the three-year rolling average<\/p>\n
in return on assets. As these authors noted, we<\/p>\n
need additional studies to focus on top manage-<\/p>\n
ment team turnover rates outside of the CEO<\/p>\n
succession paradigm.<\/p>\n
Attenuated negative: The sociological view<\/p>\n
The attenuated negative view has some roots in<\/p>\n
organizational psychology, but has been largely<\/p>\n
promulgated by Price\u2019s (1977) sociological take<\/p>\n
on turnover. As this influential author states:<\/p>\n
\u2018\u2018successively higher amounts of turnover will<\/p>\n
be found ultimately to produce, more often than<\/p>\n
not, successively lower amounts of effectiveness<\/p>\n
at a decreasing rate\u2019\u2019 (p. 119). Other researchers<\/p>\n
have found that conceptual argument to be<\/p>\n
sound, but Osterman (1987), primarily through<\/p>\n
an economics lens, rather critically countered:<\/p>\n
the \u2018\u2018factual basis for this conclusion is shaky<\/p>\n
and, . . . the conclusion itself is so highly con-tingent as not to be very helpful\u2019\u2019 (p. 299).<\/p>\n
The underlying reason for Price\u2019s (1977)<\/p>\n
argument can be viewed as a variation on the<\/p>\n
human capital depletion and organizational<\/p>\n
control arguments in the linear negative view.<\/p>\n
When organizations have low voluntary quit<\/p>\n
rates, their employee groups have accumulated,<\/p>\n
on average, high levels of human capital. Then<\/p>\n
additional quits significantly damage human<\/p>\n
capital accumulations and, in turn, should<\/p>\n
weaken organizational performance. As quit<\/p>\n
rates increase from low to moderate levels,<\/p>\n
average accumulations of human capital are<\/p>\n
lowered so that incumbent employees perform<\/p>\n
less well on average. At this point, any<\/p>\n
additional quits should be less damaging to<\/p>\n
organizational performance. Through the lens of<\/p>\n
organizational control and operational disruption,<\/p>\n
at high voluntary quit rates the organization is<\/p>\n
constantly replacing departing employees, so<\/p>\n
incremental quits are only marginally disruptive.<\/p>\n
Although voluntary turnover interferes with<\/p>\n
input\u2013throughput\u2013output processes, and energy<\/p>\n
and resources are redirected from safety concerns<\/p>\n
to operation maintenance, increases in voluntary<\/p>\n
turnover beyond a point are minimally more<\/p>\n
disruptive.<\/p>\n
In their comparative analysis of alternative<\/p>\n
theories of the voluntary turnover\u2013organiza-<\/p>\n
tional performance relationship, Shaw, Gupta,<\/p>\n
& Delery (2005) also used learning curve<\/p>\n
theory to ground the attenuated negative<\/p>\n
prediction. A learning-curve-theory approach<\/p>\n
concerns skill and ability levels as they relate<\/p>\n
to job performance (e.g., Logan, 1992;<\/p>\n
Ohlsson, 1996). When quit rates are low, a typical<\/p>\n
departing employee has a high level of human<\/p>\n
capital, and a replacement takes quite long to<\/p>\n
acquire that level. When turnover rates are high,<\/p>\n
however, average firm-specific human capital<\/p>\n
accumulations are low, and replacements can<\/p>\n
quickly reach the performance levels of replaced<\/p>\n
employees. At high levels, new hires typically<\/p>\n
replace short-tenured employees and detrimental<\/p>\n
performance effects are minimal. Shaw, Gupta,<\/p>\n
& Delery (2005) wrote:<\/p>\n
when the work force is being constantly<\/p>\n
replaced (e.g., 100% turnover rate), marginal<\/p>\n
increases in voluntary turnover (e.g., to<\/p>\n
110%) are proportionally less problematic in<\/p>\n
terms of productivity and safety than increases<\/p>\n
at lower average turnover rates (e.g., from<\/p>\n
10% to 20%). (p. 52)<\/p>\n
Empirical evidence. Curiously, despite Price\u2019s(1977) influence on the turnover literature,<\/p>\n
200 Organizational Psychology Review 1(3)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
nearly 20 years passed before further devel-<\/p>\n
opment and specific empirical tests of this<\/p>\n
formulation appeared in the literature. One<\/p>\n
easily accessible explanation for this absence<\/p>\n
is that the inverted-U formulation, reviewed<\/p>\n
in the next section, grew in popularity and<\/p>\n
general acceptance. The first evidence sup-<\/p>\n
porting Price\u2019s (1977) prediction appeared<\/p>\n
in Alexander et al.\u2019s (1994) national study<\/p>\n
of nursing turnover rates and organizational<\/p>\n
performance in hospitals. These authors<\/p>\n
outlined two theories of the turnover\u2013<\/p>\n
performance relationship (linear negative and<\/p>\n
inverted U), but uncovered a marginally sig-<\/p>\n
nificant curvilinear pattern supporting Price\u2019s<\/p>\n
(1977) view. Had the authors used Price\u2019s<\/p>\n
(1977) logic as their foundation, we might<\/p>\n
reasonably conclude that their finding (i.e.,<\/p>\n
a relationship that was strongly negative ini-<\/p>\n
tially but weaker at higher turnover rates)<\/p>\n
supported his theory.<\/p>\n
Three recent studies also supported Price\u2019s<\/p>\n
(1977) prediction. In their comparative analysis<\/p>\n
of different theories, Shaw, Gupta, & Delery<\/p>\n
(2005) found support for this formulation in<\/p>\n
two intraindustry studies such that the voluntary<\/p>\n
turnover rates\u2013organizational performance<\/p>\n
relationship was strongly negative initially, but<\/p>\n
was later attenuated. Among a sample of con-<\/p>\n
crete pipe manufacturers, they found the atte-<\/p>\n
nuated U-shaped form predicting a common<\/p>\n
productivity measure. Similar results were<\/p>\n
found for accident rates as a second measure<\/p>\n
of performance in the concrete pipe sample.<\/p>\n
In a follow-up study among trucking compa-<\/p>\n
nies, Shaw, Gupta, & Delery. (2005) replicated<\/p>\n
the attenuated negative findings for productiv-<\/p>\n
ity measures such as revenue generated per<\/p>\n
driver and accident rates. Furthermore, they<\/p>\n
showed that productivity measures partially<\/p>\n
mediated the attenuated U-shaped relationship<\/p>\n
between voluntary turnover and a distal mea-<\/p>\n
sure of financial performance. Similarly, Ton<\/p>\n
and Huckman (2008) found that the negative<\/p>\n
effects of increasing total turnover rates on<\/p>\n
bookstore performance were much more severe<\/p>\n
for stores with low overall turnover levels.<\/p>\n
Although these authors used a measure of total<\/p>\n
turnover rather than quit rates because of archi-<\/p>\n
val data constraints, managers\u2019 reports sug-<\/p>\n
gested that involuntary turnover rates were<\/p>\n
minimal in the setting. Shaw, Kim, & Park<\/p>\n
(2009) attempted constructive replications and<\/p>\n
extensions (discussed in more detail below) of<\/p>\n
the attenuated negative effect among a cross-<\/p>\n
industry sample in Korea, and also in a sample<\/p>\n
of single-unit U.S. supermarkets. In line with<\/p>\n
Shaw, Gupta, & Delery (2005) and Ton and<\/p>\n
Huckman (2008), they found a sharp negative<\/p>\n
relationship as voluntary turnover rates rose<\/p>\n
from low to moderate levels, but a weaker slope<\/p>\n
as quit rates increased from moderate to high<\/p>\n
levels.<\/p>\n
Inverted U: The organizationalbehavior view<\/p>\n
The inverted-U formulation of the turnover<\/p>\n
rates\u2013organizational performance relationship<\/p>\n
is perhaps the most well-known, having made<\/p>\n
its way into the lexicon and the realm of con-<\/p>\n
ventional wisdom. Indeed, Glebbeek and Bax<\/p>\n
(2004) stated that the optimal turnover model<\/p>\n
from Abelson and Baysinger (1984) \u2018\u2018can still<\/p>\n
be regarded as the standard theoretical model<\/p>\n
for inferring the consequences of turnover\u2019\u2019<\/p>\n
(Glebbeek & Bax, 2004, p. 278). Beginning<\/p>\n
with the pioneering papers of Dalton and Todor<\/p>\n
(1979), Staw (1980), and Abelson and<\/p>\n
Baysinger (1984), scholars began to delineate<\/p>\n
the conceptual differences between zero and<\/p>\n
optimal turnover rates and to appropriately, in<\/p>\n
my view, criticize the existing literature for an<\/p>\n
overemphasis on \u2018\u2018understanding the turnover<\/p>\n
\u2018problem\u2019 rather than evaluating it as being<\/p>\n
excessively high or low\u2019\u2019 (Abelson &<\/p>\n
Baysinger, 1984, p. 334). But the literature on<\/p>\n
the inverted-U relationship has suffered some-<\/p>\n
what under the weight of its acceptance, largely<\/p>\n
because of the lack of compelling and suppor-<\/p>\n
tive findings. It is ironic that Dalton and Todor<\/p>\n
(1979), in their pioneering essay on the positive<\/p>\n
Shaw 201<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
functions of turnover, stated that the conclusion<\/p>\n
had become axiomatic that turnover\u2019s effects<\/p>\n
were generally negative. But just three years<\/p>\n
later, Bluedorn (1982) concluded that the bal-<\/p>\n
ance of evidence tended to support an inverted-<\/p>\n
U-shaped relationship, although as Osterman<\/p>\n
(1987) pointed out, the conclusion was based<\/p>\n
on the results of only three studies\u2014a kibbutz,<\/p>\n
a basketball team, and a single group of scien-<\/p>\n
tists. To be fair, clearly the evidence for a<\/p>\n
negative relationship at that time was equivocal<\/p>\n
(e.g., see Osterman\u2019s, 1987, review), but it seems<\/p>\n
that in Bluedorn\u2019s (1982) review, one axiomatic<\/p>\n
conclusion replaced another.<\/p>\n
Hypothesizing an inverted-U-shaped rela-<\/p>\n
tionship has a straightforward foundation. At<\/p>\n
low levels of voluntary turnover, the workforce<\/p>\n
can become stagnated and closed-minded<\/p>\n
(Dalton & Todor, 1979; Dubin, 1970). At low<\/p>\n
to moderate levels, however, turnover can be<\/p>\n
revitalizing by increasing workforce innova-<\/p>\n
tion, flexibility, and adaptability (Abelson &<\/p>\n
Baysinger, 1984; Dalton & Todor, 1979).<\/p>\n
Moderate levels of voluntary turnover may<\/p>\n
have other benefits. Alexander et al. (1994)<\/p>\n
argued that newly arriving employees may<\/p>\n
be highly motivated to perform well and may<\/p>\n
even have more updated or current technologi-<\/p>\n
cal skills. A modicum of turnover may also<\/p>\n
have positive effects in terms of lowering pay-<\/p>\n
roll and fringe-benefit costs, a key component<\/p>\n
of certain productivity, efficiency, and ulti-<\/p>\n
mately profitability metrics. At very high levels,<\/p>\n
however, scholars agree that the negatives out-<\/p>\n
weigh the positives; after a moderate amount,<\/p>\n
voluntary turnover rates and organizational per-<\/p>\n
formance are likely to be negatively related.<\/p>\n
Thus, this view predicts that turnover rates and<\/p>\n
performance are positively related between zero<\/p>\n
and moderate turnover rates, reach a zero-slope<\/p>\n
point, and become negatively related between<\/p>\n
moderate and high turnover.<\/p>\n
Empirical evidence. Recent studies have exam-ined the inverted-U formulation and have pro-<\/p>\n
vided some of the first evidence supporting<\/p>\n
this view. Perhaps organizational literature\u2019s<\/p>\n
most direct test of Abelson and Baysinger\u2019s<\/p>\n
(1984) hypothesized curve is Glebbeek and<\/p>\n
Bax\u2019s (2004) investigation among staff<\/p>\n
employee turnover rates and performance in a<\/p>\n
temporary agency. Using total turnover as their<\/p>\n
key predictor, their regressions found a signifi-<\/p>\n
cant nonlinear relationship between turnover<\/p>\n
rates and performance. Their evaluation of the<\/p>\n
shape of the curve is somewhat confusing, how-<\/p>\n
ever. Although the turning or zero-slope point of<\/p>\n
the curve was between 6.3% and 9.9% turnoverrates depending on the equation, few organiza-<\/p>\n
tions (between 5% and 14%) had turnover ratesbelow these levels; thus, within their data range,<\/p>\n
turnover rates generally negatively affected per-<\/p>\n
formance. Moreover, their report was unclear as<\/p>\n
to whether a significant positive slope occurred<\/p>\n
at the left of the apex. Thus, they concluded that<\/p>\n
they could not completely rule out a linear<\/p>\n
negative relationship.<\/p>\n
Stronger evidence is found in Meier and<\/p>\n
Hicklin\u2019s (2007) study of the performance of<\/p>\n
Texas school districts. Using performance on<\/p>\n
state-level standardized tests and college-bound<\/p>\n
district SAT and ACT scores as dimensions of<\/p>\n
organizational performance, these authors<\/p>\n
found a significant nonlinear effect consistent<\/p>\n
with Abselson and Baysinger\u2019s (1984) hypoth-<\/p>\n
esis\u2014an optimal turnover rate of about 16%,which was slightly higher than the mean level<\/p>\n
turnover rate for the districts (14%). Thus,unlike the Glebbeek and Bax (2004) study, a<\/p>\n
substantial percentage of organizations had<\/p>\n
turnover rates to the left of the apex; indeed the<\/p>\n
slope of the turnover\u2013performance line was pos-<\/p>\n
itive at mean levels. Siebert and Zubanov (2009)<\/p>\n
argued that the inverted-U formulation would<\/p>\n
hold for part-time employees in their sample of<\/p>\n
units of a retail organization in the United<\/p>\n
Kingdom. Although their theorizing implies a<\/p>\n
contingency that will be discussed further in the<\/p>\n
next section, they found the hypothesized<\/p>\n
inverted U with an optimal total turnover rate<\/p>\n
of 15% for part-timers on a measure of laborproductivity.<\/p>\n
202 Organizational Psychology Review 1(3)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Summary, integration of the perspectives,and issues<\/p>\n
As the above review demonstrates, the literature<\/p>\n
is replete with views about the shape of the<\/p>\n
turnover rates and organizational performance<\/p>\n
relationship. As noted by Shaw, Gupta, & Delery<\/p>\n
(2005), these alternative perspectives are not<\/p>\n
necessarily competing views. It is straightfor-<\/p>\n
ward to speculate that all three views can be<\/p>\n
integrated into a common form. One possibility<\/p>\n
for integration is a cubic curvilinear shape where<\/p>\n
organizational performance increases initially as<\/p>\n
turnover rates rise, reaches an apex, and takes a<\/p>\n
negative slope; but this negative slope is<\/p>\n
attenuated at high turnover levels. Under an<\/p>\n
integrative view, the prevailing slope of the<\/p>\n
relationship between turnover rates and organi-<\/p>\n
zational performance would be negative,<\/p>\n
reflecting losses in human capital, social capital,<\/p>\n
and the generally negative effects associated with<\/p>\n
organizational disruption, as several authors have<\/p>\n
argued. But, as turnover rates increase from low<\/p>\n
to moderate levels, some organizational perfor-<\/p>\n
mance improvement resulting from reduction in<\/p>\n
stagnation and influx of new ideas increases may<\/p>\n
be found. At high levels of turnover, the atte-<\/p>\n
nuated negative effects may prevail as human and<\/p>\n
social capital is depleted and performance<\/p>\n
declines are not as incrementally damaging.<\/p>\n
Although the integration of the perspectives<\/p>\n
is straightforward conceptually, as more<\/p>\n
empirical tests of curvilinear forms accumulate<\/p>\n
in the literature, a distinct pattern of findings<\/p>\n
which casts doubt on this possibility is begin-<\/p>\n
ning to emerge. As noted above, most of the<\/p>\n
evidence now favors a linear negative view,<\/p>\n
although often curvilinear tests are not reported.<\/p>\n
A wave of recent empirical tests supports an<\/p>\n
attenuated negative relationship in cross-<\/p>\n
organization samples, and these studies also<\/p>\n
tend to examine voluntary, rather than total, turn-<\/p>\n
over rates. The inverted-U perspective has much<\/p>\n
less supportive evidence behind it than its popu-<\/p>\n
larity would suggest, but three recent studies pro-<\/p>\n
vide some support for this view formulation.<\/p>\n
Interestingly, however, these studies have been<\/p>\n
conducted in what amount to cross-unit, rather<\/p>\n
than cross-organization, samples and in each case<\/p>\n
total turnover rates, rather than voluntary turn-<\/p>\n
over rates, have been examined.<\/p>\n
Thus, while I encourage researchers to explore<\/p>\n
the potential integration in empirical research<\/p>\n
there are currently two evidence-based reasons<\/p>\n
that cast doubt on whether this is a substantive<\/p>\n
explanation. First, the distinctions between sam-<\/p>\n
ples that are cross-organization (with different<\/p>\n
policies, practices, and organizational forms) ver-<\/p>\n
sus cross-unit (with similar policies, practices,<\/p>\n
and organizational forms) are key issues for<\/p>\n
researchers to address. In addition, future investi-<\/p>\n
gations are needed to determine if choice of sam-<\/p>\n
ple or choice of turnover rate is driving the<\/p>\n
inverted-U effects. An alternative to the concep-<\/p>\n
tual arguments proposed by Abelson and<\/p>\n
Baysinger (1984) concerning stagnation is simply<\/p>\n
that high fire rates in these settings create some<\/p>\n
positive effects.<\/p>\n
Resolving these issues will take time. In the<\/p>\n
following sections, I argue that the key to a<\/p>\n
resolution may come from examinations of the<\/p>\n
moderators of the relationship and from over-<\/p>\n
coming methodological problems that hamper<\/p>\n
our understanding. Instead of attempting to<\/p>\n
integrate perspectives into a single curvilinear<\/p>\n
form, which also may be difficult to detect<\/p>\n
because of unreliability and statistical power<\/p>\n
issues, I suggest that it would be more fruitful to<\/p>\n
isolate the conditions that might support each<\/p>\n
formulation. I turn to these issues below.<\/p>\n
Moderators of the turnoverrates\u2013organizationalperformance relationship<\/p>\n
In this section, I detail the existing evidence<\/p>\n
regarding important moderators of the voluntary<\/p>\n
turnover rates and organizational performance<\/p>\n
relationship. I categorize these contingency<\/p>\n
factors under three labels\u2014human resources<\/p>\n
management (HRM) and employment systems,<\/p>\n
Shaw 203<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
content of turnover rates, and organizational and<\/p>\n
work environment factors.<\/p>\n
HRM and employment systems<\/p>\n
Arthur\u2019s (1994) broadly cited work in the steel<\/p>\n
minimill industry was the first to propose that<\/p>\n
an organization\u2019s investments in HRM systems<\/p>\n
play a role in gauging how severely voluntary<\/p>\n
turnover rates damage performance. This con-<\/p>\n
textual view holds that when investments in<\/p>\n
HRM practices are substantial, losses through<\/p>\n
voluntary turnover strongly and negatively<\/p>\n
affect workforce performance and, ultimately,<\/p>\n
organizational performance as a whole, but the<\/p>\n
negative relationship is attenuated when HRM<\/p>\n
investments are low. Arthur (1994) grounded<\/p>\n
this prediction by suggesting that among high-<\/p>\n
investment organizations\u2014organizations with<\/p>\n
commitment systems in his parlance\u2014jobs<\/p>\n
require high skill and training levels. In these<\/p>\n
circumstances, employees take significant time<\/p>\n
to reach adequate performance levels; turnover<\/p>\n
greatly disrupts performance because employ-<\/p>\n
ees \u2018\u2018take on more managerial-level decision-<\/p>\n
making tasks, their organizational centrality,<\/p>\n
and hence the potential for their departure to<\/p>\n
disrupt organizational functioning\u2019\u2019 (p. 674).<\/p>\n
Guthrie (2001) refined these arguments by<\/p>\n
arguing that high levels of HRM investments<\/p>\n
create workforces that are rare, valuable, and<\/p>\n
difficult for organizations to recreate and their<\/p>\n
competitors to imitate. Organizations are also<\/p>\n
more likely to use such practices when they<\/p>\n
deem employees to be critical to their success.<\/p>\n
Losses through turnover are therefore substan-<\/p>\n
tially more detrimental. These studies provided<\/p>\n
impressive evidence of the moderation of a<\/p>\n
linear relationship by HRM systems. After<\/p>\n
clustering mills into commitment (high invest-<\/p>\n
ments) and control (low investments) cate-<\/p>\n
gories, Arthur (1994) found very strong total<\/p>\n
turnover rates\u2013productivity correlations among<\/p>\n
commitment organizations, but nonsignificant<\/p>\n
correlations among control organizations.<\/p>\n
Guthrie (2001) later replicated these findings<\/p>\n
in a cross-industry sample of organizations in<\/p>\n
New Zealand, finding that as total turnover<\/p>\n
rates increased from mean levels to one stan-<\/p>\n
dard deviation above the mean, per-employee<\/p>\n
productivity decreased by nearly $34,000, but<\/p>\n
not for organizations with little invested in<\/p>\n
HRM.<\/p>\n
Two recent studies have also attempted to<\/p>\n
advance the HRM-moderated arguments.<\/p>\n
Shaw, Kim, & Park (2009) argued that a better<\/p>\n
specification for the HRM-moderated approach<\/p>\n
would include a consideration of the potential<\/p>\n
for nonlinearity in the direct relationship<\/p>\n
between voluntary turnover rate and perfor-<\/p>\n
mance. A concurrent consideration of curvili-<\/p>\n
nearity and HRM moderation would rule out<\/p>\n
the possibility that Arthur\u2019s (1994) and Guthrie\u2019s<\/p>\n
(2001) findings happened only because they did<\/p>\n
not test a curvilinear relationship between turn-<\/p>\n
over and performance (Cohen, Cohen, West, &<\/p>\n
Aiken, 2003). In a cross-industry study of Korean<\/p>\n
organizations and an intraindustry study of<\/p>\n
U.S. supermarkets, Shaw, Kim, & Park (2009)<\/p>\n
found evidence for this curvilinear interaction;<\/p>\n
they observed the attenuated negative pattern<\/p>\n
only among high HRM investment organizations.<\/p>\n
Siebert and Zubanov\u2019s (2009) study also has<\/p>\n
implications for employment relationships and<\/p>\n
HRM investments. Like Arthur (1994), they<\/p>\n
argued that under commitment HRM systems,<\/p>\n
jobs require considerable formal training and<\/p>\n
tacit knowledge, so firms must select employ-<\/p>\n
ees carefully. Under these systems, which were<\/p>\n
operationalized as full-time employees in a<\/p>\n
retail chain, the authors argued that total turn-<\/p>\n
over rates (quits and discharges) should<\/p>\n
negatively affect performance. In contrast, the<\/p>\n
authors reasoned that total turnover rates<\/p>\n
should have an inverted-U-shaped relationship<\/p>\n
with performance in secondary employment<\/p>\n
relationships, which they operationalized as<\/p>\n
part-time employees in the chain. Interest-<\/p>\n
ingly, these arguments were not grounded in<\/p>\n
the typical inverted-U reasoning outlined<\/p>\n
earlier, but rather primarily in discharge-<\/p>\n
rate arguments. That is, careful selection is<\/p>\n
204 Organizational Psychology Review 1(3)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
typically not used for hiring part-time work-<\/p>\n
ers, so more turnover including discharges is<\/p>\n
needed to eliminate poor performers.<\/p>\n
Siebert and Zubanov (2009) provided strong<\/p>\n
evidence for the curvilinear relationship among<\/p>\n
part-time employees. The turnover\u2013performance<\/p>\n
results for full-time employees were much<\/p>\n
murkier. Neither the linear term nor the squared<\/p>\n
term for full-time employee turnover rates was<\/p>\n
significant in performance equations, but the<\/p>\n
authors concluded that a significant interaction<\/p>\n
of full- and part-time turnover rates \u2018\u2018give the<\/p>\n
conventional negative turnover\u2013performance<\/p>\n
link for full-timers\u2019\u2019 (p. 305). At best, this inter-<\/p>\n
pretation is unconventional for a main effect.<\/p>\n
Looking closely at their results, their interac-<\/p>\n
tion plot (Figure 4a, p. 309) includes part-time<\/p>\n
values only above mean levels, and shows<\/p>\n
a strongly negative full-time turnover rate\u2013<\/p>\n
organizational performance relationship only<\/p>\n
when part-time turnover rates are more than \u00fe1standard deviation above the mean. In addition,<\/p>\n
they failed to consider the underlying main<\/p>\n
effects when calculating interaction simple<\/p>\n
slopes (Siebert & Zubanov, 2009, p. 310).<\/p>\n
Back-of-the-envelope calculations using their<\/p>\n
coefficients and standard \u00fe1 and \ufffd1 standarddeviation values show that the full-time turnover<\/p>\n
rate slopes are only negative above mean levels of<\/p>\n
part-time turnover, but are positive (albeit not sig-<\/p>\n
nificant) below mean part-time levels. Thus, their<\/p>\n
conclusion regarding a prevailing negative effect<\/p>\n
for commitment systems seems overstated.<\/p>\n
In addition, the authors make a larger point:<\/p>\n
optimal turnover rates may occur for low HRM-<\/p>\n
investment employee groups, but those optimal<\/p>\n
rates may differ as a function of the turnover<\/p>\n
rates for other, perhaps more central, employee<\/p>\n
groups. Conceptually, this is an important step<\/p>\n
forward, but while Siebert and Zubanov (2009)<\/p>\n
estimated an interaction between the two turn-<\/p>\n
over rates, their model lacks a key higher order<\/p>\n
term (the interaction between part-time turnover<\/p>\n
rates squared and the linear full-time turnover<\/p>\n
rates term) that would be necessary to provide<\/p>\n
empirical evidence of this relationship.<\/p>\n
Content of turnover rates<\/p>\n
The literature on the content of turnover rates can<\/p>\n
be broadly grouped into two categories\u2014losses<\/p>\n
relative to in-role performance or human capital<\/p>\n
and social capital losses. The idea of functional<\/p>\n
versus dysfunctional turnover having different<\/p>\n
implications for organizational performance has<\/p>\n
a long history in organizational psychology.<\/p>\n
Individual-level researchers have long been con-<\/p>\n
cerned with whether good performers stay or<\/p>\n
leave (e.g., Dalton, Krackhardt, & Porter, 1981;<\/p>\n
Hollenbeck & Williams, 1986; Trevor, Gerhart,<\/p>\n
& Boudreau, 1997) and organizational-level<\/p>\n
research has also begun to explore these issues<\/p>\n
more fastidiously (e.g., Park, Ofori-Dankwa, &<\/p>\n
Bishop, 1994; Shaw, Dineen, Fang, & Vellella,<\/p>\n
2009; Shaw & Gupta, 2007).<\/p>\n
Several studies have made strides in<\/p>\n
determining the impact of functional versus<\/p>\n
dysfunctional forms of voluntary turnover on<\/p>\n
organizational performance. Beadles, Lowery,<\/p>\n
Petty, and Ezell (2000) collected data on turn-<\/p>\n
over and in-role performance from 1,750 indi-<\/p>\n
viduals in 26 retail stores. Calculating in-role<\/p>\n
performance losses from performance records<\/p>\n
using meta-analytic techniques across the stores,<\/p>\n
these authors found that turnover frequency<\/p>\n
rates were negatively related to sales growth<\/p>\n
(\ufffd.15), but that turnover functionality\u2014a com-posite index of good performer retention and<\/p>\n
poor performer withdrawal\u2014was positively<\/p>\n
related (.18). They calculated that losing an<\/p>\n
employee in the highest performing category<\/p>\n
was five times more detrimental to organiza-<\/p>\n
tional performance than losing a less well-<\/p>\n
performing but still acceptable employee.<\/p>\n
Two recent studies have directly addressed<\/p>\n
the content of turnover rates by attempting to<\/p>\n
capture the losses organizations experience<\/p>\n
through in-role performance or human capital<\/p>\n
losses and social capital losses, or the damage<\/p>\n
to interpersonal relationships and communica-<\/p>\n
tion networks when employees leave. Building<\/p>\n
on the elements of a social-capital theory of<\/p>\n
turnover and performance from Dess and<\/p>\n
Shaw 205<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Shaw (2001), Shaw, Duffy et al. (2005) argued<\/p>\n
that the relationship between turnover rates and<\/p>\n
organizational performance would be stronger<\/p>\n
when key individuals in the organizational net-<\/p>\n
work were lost. These authors operationalized<\/p>\n
social-capital losses as the extent to which<\/p>\n
employees in key bridging or \u2018\u2018structural hole\u2019\u2019<\/p>\n
positions departed. Results among a sample of<\/p>\n
units of a restaurant chain indicated that social-<\/p>\n
capital losses substantially and negatively<\/p>\n
related to store performance (productivity and<\/p>\n
change in productivity) when overall store<\/p>\n
turnover rates were low. Social-capital losses<\/p>\n
were most damaging when the first network<\/p>\n
communication holes were created, but less<\/p>\n
damaging in high turnover stores where many<\/p>\n
gaps were already apparent. Interestingly, in-<\/p>\n
role performance losses (calculated from super-<\/p>\n
visor reports of employee performance) were<\/p>\n
not significantly related to store performance.<\/p>\n
Shevchuk et al. (2007) advanced these<\/p>\n
results and argued that human- and social-<\/p>\n
capital losses would have multiplicative<\/p>\n
effects on organizational performance. In their<\/p>\n
sample of schools, they operationalized<\/p>\n
human-capital losses as those associated with<\/p>\n
tenure and social-capital losses as those asso-<\/p>\n
ciated with the closeness of connections with<\/p>\n
other teachers and administrators. They found<\/p>\n
substantial support for their predictions\u2014<\/p>\n
beyond the main effects of turnover rates,<\/p>\n
human- and social-capital losses interacted such<\/p>\n
that the relationship between human-capital<\/p>\n
losses and school performance was significantly<\/p>\n
stronger (negative) when social-capital losses<\/p>\n
were also high.<\/p>\n
Organizational context and characteristics<\/p>\n
Studies of organizational context factors that may<\/p>\n
exacerbate or attenuate the effects of turnover<\/p>\n
rates on organizational performance are rare, but<\/p>\n
two recent studies have provided promising<\/p>\n
evidence concerning these effects. Hausknecht<\/p>\n
et al. (2009) argued that the concentration of<\/p>\n
newcomers in a unit would exacerbate the effects<\/p>\n
of turnover rates on performance because of a<\/p>\n
lack of resource availability for socialization and<\/p>\n
training. Similarly, Ton and Huckman (2008)<\/p>\n
argued that process conformance, or the degree to<\/p>\n
which managers aim to reduce variation in<\/p>\n
operations in accordance with prescribed stan-<\/p>\n
dards, would mitigate the effects of turnover rates<\/p>\n
on performance. This line of reasoning shares<\/p>\n
some common ground with Hausknecht et al.\u2019s<\/p>\n
(2009) hypotheses concerning resources avail-<\/p>\n
able for socialization and knowledge transfer.<\/p>\n
As Ton and Huckman (2008) explained, high<\/p>\n
levels of process conformance allow knowledge<\/p>\n
concerning task performance and other critical<\/p>\n
issues to be transferred more easily to new<\/p>\n
employees, while in low-conformance situations<\/p>\n
where deviations from the norm are accepted,<\/p>\n
passing along new information is more difficult.<\/p>\n
Both studies reported support for their hypoth-<\/p>\n
eses\u2014turnover was more strongly and negatively<\/p>\n
related to performance when newcomer concen-<\/p>\n
tration was high (Hausknecht et al., 2009) and<\/p>\n
process conformance was low (Ton & Huckman,<\/p>\n
2008).<\/p>\n
In their organizational-disruption frame-<\/p>\n
work, Hausknecht et al. (2009) also argued that<\/p>\n
higher turnover rates would be more damaging<\/p>\n
to organizational performance in larger units, in<\/p>\n
part because it would exacerbate coordination,<\/p>\n
communication, and existing inefficiencies<\/p>\n
associated with larger groups. They found sup-<\/p>\n
port for this proposition as well\u2014that is, the<\/p>\n
negative relationship between turnover rates<\/p>\n
and customer service quality (in gaming units)<\/p>\n
was more strongly negative for larger units.<\/p>\n
Toward the future: Research agendaand methodological assessments<\/p>\n
My suggestions for future research in this area<\/p>\n
and for methodological improvements overlap<\/p>\n
considerably. Indeed, some advances supporting<\/p>\n
existing and new theory can come only if we can<\/p>\n
improve measurements of key variables (turn-<\/p>\n
over rates primarily) as well as discover research<\/p>\n
designs and analysis approaches that allow us to<\/p>\n
206 Organizational Psychology Review 1(3)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
rule out alternative explanations. I address a<\/p>\n
variety of these issues below.<\/p>\n
Overcoming measurement issues. Individual-levelresearch that isolates high- and low-<\/p>\n
performance leave is quite well developed.<\/p>\n
Much progress in this area can be traced to the<\/p>\n
ambitious work of Trevor et al. (e.g., Trevor<\/p>\n
et al., 1997). At the organizational level, how-<\/p>\n
ever, we know comparatively little about the<\/p>\n
impact of functional and dysfunctional turnover<\/p>\n
on organizational performance (see McElroy<\/p>\n
et al., 2001, for an exception). Some of this,<\/p>\n
as noted above, has to do with measurement<\/p>\n
problems in the literature; primarily the reliance<\/p>\n
on measures of total turnover that include quit<\/p>\n
and discharge rates. In my judgment, a<\/p>\n
literature-level pattern is emerging in terms of<\/p>\n
turnover\u2013organizational performance relation-<\/p>\n
ships when we use different operationalizations<\/p>\n
of turnover rates. When researchers operationa-<\/p>\n
lize turnover rates using a combination of quits<\/p>\n
and discharges (e.g., Glebbeek & Bax, 2004;<\/p>\n
Meier & Hicklin, 2007; Siebert & Zubanov,<\/p>\n
2009), inverted-U or optimal turnover level<\/p>\n
effects are more commonly found. When<\/p>\n
researchers examine voluntary turnover among<\/p>\n
full-time employees, or when they employ total<\/p>\n
turnover rates in settings where discharges are<\/p>\n
minimal (e.g., Alexander et al., 1994; Shaw,<\/p>\n
Gupta, & Delery, 2005; Shaw, Kim, & Park,<\/p>\n
2009; Ton & Huckman, 2008), the evidence<\/p>\n
increasingly supports Price\u2019s (1977) attenuated<\/p>\n
negative theory. Although minimizing the<\/p>\n
impact of this conflation on the cumulative<\/p>\n
body of knowledge is tempting, unless and until<\/p>\n
we can trace the sources of turnover and address<\/p>\n
the content of turnover rates, we are unlikely to<\/p>\n
resolve the theoretical confusion. In particular,<\/p>\n
although total turnover measures may yield<\/p>\n
inverted-U relationships with performance<\/p>\n
dimensions, it is impossible to conclude<\/p>\n
whether support exists for underlying theoreti-<\/p>\n
cal arguments about reductions in stagnation<\/p>\n
(e.g., the basis for Abelson & Baysinger\u2019s,<\/p>\n
1984, arguments) or Siebert and Zubanov\u2019s<\/p>\n
(2009) sorting arguments.<\/p>\n
Beyond the terms of voluntary and invo-<\/p>\n
luntary distinctions in turnover rates, recent<\/p>\n
works by Beadles et al. (2000) and Shaw, Duffy<\/p>\n
et al. (2005) assessed performance losses from<\/p>\n
turnover and took steps forward for developing<\/p>\n
evidence about functional and dysfunctional<\/p>\n
rates. Researchers could advance the literature<\/p>\n
substantially by testing alternative forms of the<\/p>\n
turnover\u2013performance relationship across dif-<\/p>\n
ferent types of turnover rates. Such studies<\/p>\n
could answer such questions as \u2018\u2018Do good-<\/p>\n
performer and poor-performer quit rates affect<\/p>\n
organizational performance differently?\u2019\u2019<\/p>\n
\u2018\u2018What shape do we find in the turnover\u2013<\/p>\n
performance relationship for quit rates among<\/p>\n
good performers and poor performers?\u2019\u2019<\/p>\n
Developing richer conceptualizations ofemployment relationships. At the organizationallevel, researchers have begun to investigate the<\/p>\n
antecedents of separate quit rates by perfor-<\/p>\n
mance level (e.g., Shaw, Dineen et al., 2009;<\/p>\n
Shaw & Gupta, 2007), heeding calls for further<\/p>\n
understanding workplace sorting effects (e.g.,<\/p>\n
Gerhart & Rynes, 2003). For example, Shaw<\/p>\n
and Gupta (2007) found that performance- and<\/p>\n
seniority-based pay dispersion would result in<\/p>\n
different quit patterns across high, average, and<\/p>\n
poor performers. Shaw, Dineen et al. (2009)<\/p>\n
further argued and found that different employ-<\/p>\n
ment relationships\u2014drawing on Tsui, Pearce,<\/p>\n
Porter, and Tripoli\u2019s (1997) model\u2014resulted<\/p>\n
in different quit patterns by performance level.<\/p>\n
These direct tests of employment relationships<\/p>\n
and functional and dysfunctional turnover<\/p>\n
rates, combined with insinuations that these<\/p>\n
sorting effects occur and have implications<\/p>\n
for organizational performance (Siebert &<\/p>\n
Zubanov, 2009), could extend our understand-<\/p>\n
ing of the turnover rates\u2013organizational per-<\/p>\n
formance relationship. In particular, the<\/p>\n
HRM-moderated approach of Arthur (1994)<\/p>\n
and Guthrie (2001), and implied by Siebert and<\/p>\n
Zubanov (2009), could be enhanced by<\/p>\n
Shaw 207<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
employing richer conceptualizations of HRM-<\/p>\n
based employment relationships. Following<\/p>\n
Shaw, Dineen et al. (2009), one approach would<\/p>\n
be to adopt the employee\u2013organization-<\/p>\n
relationship approach outlined by Tsui et al.<\/p>\n
(1997; see also Hom, Tsui, Wu, & Lee, 2009),<\/p>\n
showing that from an employer perspective,<\/p>\n
some HRM practices represent company indu-<\/p>\n
cements and investments in employees, while<\/p>\n
other practices represent employers\u2019 require-<\/p>\n
ments or expectations of their workforce<\/p>\n
(expectation-enhancing practices). Practices<\/p>\n
such as base pay and benefits levels represent<\/p>\n
inducements and investments, while<\/p>\n
performance-based pay and emphasis<\/p>\n
on performance appraisal suggest higher levels<\/p>\n
of expected contributions. By crossing these two<\/p>\n
axes, we form a typology of four employee\u2013<\/p>\n
organizational relationships\u2014spot contract,<\/p>\n
underinvestment, overinvestment, and mutual<\/p>\n
investment. Shaw, Dineen et al. (2009) showed<\/p>\n
that while overall quit rates tend to be low under<\/p>\n
mutual-investment systems, sorting effects<\/p>\n
indicate that expectation-enhancing practices<\/p>\n
attenuate the negative relationship between<\/p>\n
inducements and investments and good-<\/p>\n
performer quit rates, and exacerbate the negative<\/p>\n
relationship with poor-performer quit rates.<\/p>\n
Good-performer quit rates tended to be highest<\/p>\n
in spot-contract situations, but otherwise low,<\/p>\n
including underinvestment situations where<\/p>\n
employers offered no long-term commitment<\/p>\n
but still expected much from employees. The<\/p>\n
authors reasoned that the likelihood of relative<\/p>\n
advantage may have outweighed the stability<\/p>\n
of long-term investments for good performers<\/p>\n
in such systems. In contrast, poor-performer quit<\/p>\n
rates tended to be highest in underinvestment<\/p>\n
situations but generally low otherwise.<\/p>\n
While Shaw and Gupta\u2019s (2007) and Shaw,<\/p>\n
Dineen et al.\u2019s (2009) studies showed that<\/p>\n
employee\u2013organization exchange relation-<\/p>\n
ships can predict differential quit rates, a<\/p>\n
fruitful path would be to explore how turnover<\/p>\n
under these different models affects organiza-<\/p>\n
tional performance. When evaluating the current<\/p>\n
HRM-moderated literature, the operationaliza-<\/p>\n
tion of employment systems in Guthrie (2001)<\/p>\n
and Shaw, Kim, & Park (2009) runs on a single<\/p>\n
continuum from spot contract (or low road) to<\/p>\n
mutual investment, while the operationaliza-<\/p>\n
tion is a dichotomy in Arthur (1994) and Siebert<\/p>\n
and Zubanov (2009). These approaches fail to<\/p>\n
consider that many organizations may have<\/p>\n
imbalanced under- or overinvestment systems.<\/p>\n
Applying the Shaw, Dineen et al.\u2019s (2009) find-<\/p>\n
ings on workforce sorting, the focus on a single<\/p>\n
continuum of HRM practices would reveal<\/p>\n
little information about how the workforce was<\/p>\n
being sorted as, indeed, quit rates among good<\/p>\n
and poor performers were low in a mutual-<\/p>\n
investment (or commitment) system. Because<\/p>\n
the breadth and depth of employee contributions<\/p>\n
differ across employment systems (Siebert &<\/p>\n
Zubanov, 2009), a fruitful endeavor would be<\/p>\n
to determine the implications of different turn-<\/p>\n
over patterns for organizational performance<\/p>\n
under a richer conceptualization of employment<\/p>\n
relationship.<\/p>\n
Turnover and the social fabric of organizations.A most promising direction for future turn-<\/p>\n
over research, I suggest, is the examination of<\/p>\n
how turnover changes, damages, or perhaps<\/p>\n
improves the organization\u2019s social fabric<\/p>\n
(through functional quit patterns). Dess and<\/p>\n
Shaw\u2019s (2001) foray into the realm of social<\/p>\n
capital has brought some progress in terms of<\/p>\n
detailing how losses relate to communication<\/p>\n
patterns and accumulated trust and confidence<\/p>\n
(e.g., Shaw, Duffy et al., 2005; Shevchuk et al.,<\/p>\n
2007). This research remains at an early stage,<\/p>\n
but dovetails well with individual-level<\/p>\n
research on social networks and individual<\/p>\n
turnover decisions. Krackhardt and Porter\u2019s<\/p>\n
(1986) early work showed snowball effects;<\/p>\n
that is, restaurant turnover patterns were linked<\/p>\n
to employees\u2019 social networks and often<\/p>\n
occurred in clusters. Recent contributions have<\/p>\n
shown convincingly that social networks and<\/p>\n
social relationships of individuals (e.g.,<\/p>\n
Mossholder, Settoon, & Henagan, 2005) and<\/p>\n
208 Organizational Psychology Review 1(3)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
their coworkers (Felps et al., 2009) substan-<\/p>\n
tially affect individual turnover decisions.<\/p>\n
When key individuals embedded in social net-<\/p>\n
works leave, the effects are highly damaging<\/p>\n
to proximal workforce performance outcomes,<\/p>\n
and these effects are apparent beyond tradi-<\/p>\n
tional in-role performance and human capital-<\/p>\n
based losses from departures.<\/p>\n
In addition to answering the need for addi-<\/p>\n
tional tests of social-capital loss effects, future<\/p>\n
research could address several important ques-<\/p>\n
tions. First, little is known about the damage<\/p>\n
to social networks and patterns of relationships<\/p>\n
when turnover occurs in isolation or in clusters.<\/p>\n
When key actors with bridging or linking posi-<\/p>\n
tion in the network decide to quit, a communi-<\/p>\n
cation gap is left that ultimately damages<\/p>\n
organizational performance (Shaw, Duffy<\/p>\n
et al., 2005) because social networks provide<\/p>\n
conduits for sharing, expanding, and transform-<\/p>\n
ing knowledge (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998;<\/p>\n
Shevchuk et al., 2007). But we do not know<\/p>\n
whether these gaps persist for long or are<\/p>\n
quickly filled by current employees or replace-<\/p>\n
ments. In addition, existing research on social<\/p>\n
capital and human capital losses have estimated<\/p>\n
the performance effects fairly statically, but future<\/p>\n
investigations that include network changes<\/p>\n
would be a step forward (e.g., Subramony &<\/p>\n
Holtom, 2010; van Iddekinge et al., 2009).<\/p>\n
Conclusions<\/p>\n
I encourage future researchers to obtain mea-<\/p>\n
sures of turnover rates that include the type of<\/p>\n
turnover\u2014quits, discharges, and, if available,<\/p>\n
other sources such as reduction in force and<\/p>\n
retirement\u2014or, if not possible, to obtain esti-<\/p>\n
mates on the relative percentages of each.<\/p>\n
Truly, measures can be critiqued for containing<\/p>\n
errors; granted, in certain instances the line<\/p>\n
between a quit and a discharge is blurred. But,<\/p>\n
largely distinctions are clear, and this type will<\/p>\n
help rule out alternative explanations. I also<\/p>\n
encourage tests of nonlinearity in all future<\/p>\n
studies.<\/p>\n
My goal in this review is to provide a plat-<\/p>\n
form from which future researchers could<\/p>\n
advance this literature, which in the last decade<\/p>\n
has made outstanding progress with many<\/p>\n
unique and insightful contributions. I concur<\/p>\n
with prior researchers who have called for<\/p>\n
competitive tests of alternative and competing<\/p>\n
hypotheses (e.g., Holtom et al., 2008; Platt,<\/p>\n
1964; Shaw, Gupta, & Delery, 2005); it is time<\/p>\n
to step forward by designing studies that allow<\/p>\n
for fair tests of alternative perspectives and\/or<\/p>\n
by developing more precise predictions that<\/p>\n
will reveal through empirical testing the con-<\/p>\n
ditions supporting each view.<\/p>\n
Funding<\/p>\n
This research received no specific grant from any<\/p>\n
funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-<\/p>\n
for-profit sectors.<\/p>\n
References<\/p>\n
Abelson, M. A., & Baysinger, B. D. (1984). Optimal<\/p>\n
and dysfunctional turnover: Toward an organiza-<\/p>\n
tional level model. Academy of Management<\/p>\n
Review, 9, 331\u2013341.<\/p>\n
Alexander, J. A., Bloom, J. R., & Nuchols, B. A.<\/p>\n
(1994). Nursing turnover and hospital effici-<\/p>\n
ency: An organizational-level analysis. Industrial<\/p>\n
Relations, 33, 505\u2013520.<\/p>\n
Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of human resource man-<\/p>\n
agement systems on manufacturing performance<\/p>\n
and turnover. Academy of Management Journal,<\/p>\n
37, 670\u2013687.<\/p>\n
Baron, J. N., Hannan, M. T., & Burton, M. D. (2001).<\/p>\n
Labor pains: Change in organizational models<\/p>\n
and employee turnover in young high-tech firms.<\/p>\n
American Journal of Sociology, 106, 960\u20131012.<\/p>\n
Batt, R. (2002). Managing customer services:<\/p>\n
Human resource practices, quit rates, and sales<\/p>\n
growth. Academy of Management Journal, 45,<\/p>\n
587\u2013597.<\/p>\n
Beadles, N. A., II., Lowery, C. M., Petty, M. M., &<\/p>\n
Ezell, H. (2000). An examination of the relation-<\/p>\n
ships between turnover functionality, turnover<\/p>\n
Shaw 209<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
frequency, and organizational performance. Jour-<\/p>\n
nal of Business and Psychology, 15, 331\u2013338.<\/p>\n
Bluedorn, A. (1982). The theories of turnover:<\/p>\n
Causes, effects, meanings. In S. Bacharach<\/p>\n
(Ed.), Research in the sociology of organizations<\/p>\n
(pp. 75\u2013128). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.<\/p>\n
Boudreau, J. W., & Berger, C. J. (1985). Decision-<\/p>\n
theoretic utility analysis applied to employee<\/p>\n
separations and acquisitions. Journal of Applied<\/p>\n
Psychology, 70, 581\u2013612.<\/p>\n
Brown, C., & Medoff, J. L. (1978). Trade unions in<\/p>\n
the production process. Journal of Political<\/p>\n
Economy, 86, 355\u2013378.<\/p>\n
Cannella, A. A., Jr., & Hambrick, D. C. (1993).<\/p>\n
Effects of executive departures on the perfor-<\/p>\n
mance of acquired firms. Strategic Management<\/p>\n
Journal, 14, 137\u2013152.<\/p>\n
Cascio, W. F. (1981). Costing human resources: The<\/p>\n
financial impact of behaviors in organizations.<\/p>\n
Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing.<\/p>\n
Chow, I. H., Huang, J. C., & Liu, S. (2008). Strategic<\/p>\n
HRM in China: Configurations and competitive<\/p>\n
advantage. Human Resource Management, 47,<\/p>\n
687\u2013706.<\/p>\n
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S.<\/p>\n
(2003). Applied multiple regression\/correlation<\/p>\n
analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.).<\/p>\n
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.<\/p>\n
Dalton, D. R., Krackhardt, D. M., & Porter, L. W.<\/p>\n
(1981). Functional turnover: An empirical assess-<\/p>\n
ment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 716\u2013721.<\/p>\n
Dalton, D. R., & Todor, W. D. (1979). Turnover<\/p>\n
turned over: An expanded and positive perspec-<\/p>\n
tive. Academy of Management Review, 4, 225\u2013235.<\/p>\n
Dess, G. G., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). Voluntary<\/p>\n
turnover, social capital, and organizational per-<\/p>\n
formance. Academy of Management Review, 26,<\/p>\n
446\u2013456.<\/p>\n
Detert, J. R., Trevino, L. K., Burris, E. R., &<\/p>\n
Andiappan, M. (2007). Managerial modes of influ-<\/p>\n
ence and counterproductivity in organizations:<\/p>\n
A longitudinal business-unit-level investigation.<\/p>\n
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 993\u20131005.<\/p>\n
Dolton, P., & Newson, D. (2003). The relationship<\/p>\n
between teacher turnover and school perfor-<\/p>\n
mance. London Review of Education, 1, 131\u2013140.<\/p>\n
Dubin, R. (1970). Management in Britain\u2014<\/p>\n
Impression of a visiting professor. Journal of<\/p>\n
Management Studies, 7, 183\u2013198.<\/p>\n
Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., Hekman, D. R., Lee, T. W.,<\/p>\n
Holtom, B. C., & Harman, W. S. (2009). Turnover<\/p>\n
contagion: How coworkers\u2019 job embeddedness<\/p>\n
and job search behavior influence quitting.<\/p>\n
Academy of Management Journal, 52, 545\u2013561.<\/p>\n
Freeman, R. B., & Medoff, J. L. (1984). What do<\/p>\n
unions do? New York, NY: Basic Books.<\/p>\n
Gerhart, B., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Compensation:<\/p>\n
Theory, evidence, and strategic implications.<\/p>\n
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.<\/p>\n
Glebbeek, A. C., & Bax, E. H. (2004). Is high<\/p>\n
employee turnover really harmful? An empiri-<\/p>\n
cal test using company records. Academy of<\/p>\n
Management Journal, 47, 277\u2013286.<\/p>\n
Guthrie, J. P. (2001). High-involvement work prac-<\/p>\n
tices, turnover, and productivity: Evidence from<\/p>\n
New Zealand. Academy of Management Journal,<\/p>\n
44, 180\u2013190.<\/p>\n
Hall, T. E. (1981). How to estimate employee<\/p>\n
turnover costs. Personnel, 58, 43\u201352.<\/p>\n
Hausknecht, J. P., Trevor, C. O., & Howard, M. J.<\/p>\n
(2009). Unit-level turnover rates and customer<\/p>\n
service quality: Implications for group cohesive-<\/p>\n
ness, newcomer concentration, and size. Journal<\/p>\n
of Applied Psychology, 94, 1068\u20131075.<\/p>\n
Hollenbeck, J. R., & Williams, C. R. (1986). Turn-<\/p>\n
over functionality versus turnover frequency:<\/p>\n
A note on work attitudes and organizational<\/p>\n
effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology,<\/p>\n
71, 606\u2013611.<\/p>\n
Holtom, B. C., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., & Eberly,<\/p>\n
M. B. (2008). Turnover and retention research:<\/p>\n
A glance at the past, a closer review of the pres-<\/p>\n
ent, and a venture into the future. Academy of<\/p>\n
Management Annals, 2, 231\u2013274.<\/p>\n
Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (1995). Employee turn-<\/p>\n
over. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing.<\/p>\n
Hom, P. W., Tsui, A. S., Wu, J. B., & Lee, T. W.<\/p>\n
(2009). Explaining employment relationships<\/p>\n
with social exchange and job embeddedness.<\/p>\n
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 277\u2013297.<\/p>\n
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human<\/p>\n
resource management practices on turnover,<\/p>\n
210 Organizational Psychology Review 1(3)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
productivity, and corporate financial performance.<\/p>\n
Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635\u2013642.<\/p>\n
Ilmakunnas, P., Maliranta, M., & Vainioma\u0308ki, J.<\/p>\n
(2005). Worker productivity and productivity<\/p>\n
growth. Applied Economic Letters, 12, 395\u2013398.<\/p>\n
Jones, C. B. (1990a). Staff nurse turnover costs,<\/p>\n
Part 1: A conceptual model. Journal of Nursing<\/p>\n
Administration, 20, 18\u201322.<\/p>\n
Jones, C. B. (1990b). Staff nurse turnover costs,<\/p>\n
Part 2: Measurements and results. Journal of<\/p>\n
Nursing Administration, 20, 27\u201332.<\/p>\n
Jones, C. B. (2004). The costs of nurse turnover,<\/p>\n
Part 1: An economic perspective. Journal of<\/p>\n
Nursing Administration, 34, 562\u2013570.<\/p>\n
Jones, C. B. (2005). The costs of turnover, Part 2:<\/p>\n
Application of the nursing turnover cost<\/p>\n
calculation methodology. Journal of Nursing<\/p>\n
Administration, 35, 41\u201349.<\/p>\n
Jones, C. B. (2008). Revisiting nurse turnover costs:<\/p>\n
Adjusting for inflation. Journal of Nursing<\/p>\n
Administration, 38, 11\u201318.<\/p>\n
Kacmar, K. M., Andrews, M. C., van Rooy, D.,<\/p>\n
Steilberg, C., & Cerrone, S. (2006). Sure every-<\/p>\n
one can be replaced . . . but at what cost?<\/p>\n
Turnover as a predictor of unit-level perfor-<\/p>\n
mance. Academy of Management Journal, 49,<\/p>\n
133\u2013144.<\/p>\n
Kasarda, J. D. (1973). Effects of personnel turnover,<\/p>\n
employee qualifications, and professional staff<\/p>\n
ratios on administrative intensity and overhead.<\/p>\n
Sociological Quarterly, 14, 350\u2013358.<\/p>\n
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychol-<\/p>\n
ogy of organizations (2nd ed.). New York, NY:<\/p>\n
Wiley.<\/p>\n
Keck, S. L. (1997). Top management team structure:<\/p>\n
Differential effects by environmental context.<\/p>\n
Organization Science, 8, 143\u2013156.<\/p>\n
Kesner, I. F., & Dalton, D. R. (1994). Top manage-<\/p>\n
ment turnover and CEO succession: An<\/p>\n
investigation of the effects of turnover on per-<\/p>\n
formance. Journal of Management Studies, 31,<\/p>\n
701\u2013713.<\/p>\n
Koslowksy, M., & Locke, G. (1989). Turnover and<\/p>\n
aggregate organizational performance. Applied<\/p>\n
Psychology: An International Review, 38,<\/p>\n
121\u2013129.<\/p>\n
Koys, D. J. (2001). The effects of employee satisfac-<\/p>\n
tion, organizational citizenship behavior, and<\/p>\n
turnover on organizational effectiveness: A unit-<\/p>\n
level, longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology,<\/p>\n
54, 101\u2013114.<\/p>\n
Krackhardt, D., & Porter, L. W. (1986). The snowball<\/p>\n
effect: Turnover in embedded social networks.<\/p>\n
Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 382\u2013386.<\/p>\n
Lewis, G. B. (1991). Turnover and quiet crisis in the<\/p>\n
federal civil service. Public Administration<\/p>\n
Review, 51, 145\u2013155.<\/p>\n
Logan, G. D. (1992). Shapes of reaction-time distri-<\/p>\n
butions and shapes of learning curves: A test of<\/p>\n
the instance theory of automaticity. Journal of<\/p>\n
Experimental Psychology, 18, 883\u2013914.<\/p>\n
McElroy, J. C., Morrow, P. C., & Rude, S. C. (2001).<\/p>\n
Turnover and organizational performance:<\/p>\n
A comparative analysis of voluntary, involuntary,<\/p>\n
and reduction-in-force turnover. Journal of<\/p>\n
Applied Psychology, 86, 1294\u20131299.<\/p>\n
Meier, K. J., & Hicklin, A. (2007). Employee turn-<\/p>\n
over and organizational performance: Testing a<\/p>\n
hypothesis from classical public administration.<\/p>\n
Journal of Public Administration Research and<\/p>\n
Theory, 18, 573\u2013590.<\/p>\n
Messersmith, J. G., Guthrie, J. P., & Ji, Y. Y. (2009).<\/p>\n
Turnover at the top: Executive team departures<\/p>\n
and firm performance. Working paper, University<\/p>\n
of Kansas.<\/p>\n
Morrow, P. C., & McElroy, J. C. (2007). Efficiency<\/p>\n
as a mediator in turnover\u2013organizational perfor-<\/p>\n
mance relations. Human Relations, 60, 827\u2013849.<\/p>\n
Mossholder, K. W., Settoon, R. P., & Henagan, A. P.<\/p>\n
(2005). A relationship perspective on turnover:<\/p>\n
Examining structural, behavior, and attitudinal<\/p>\n
predictors. Academy of Management Journal,<\/p>\n
48, 607\u2013618.<\/p>\n
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intel-<\/p>\n
lectual capital, and the organizational advantage.<\/p>\n
Academy of Management Review, 23, 242\u2013266.<\/p>\n
O\u2019Brien-Pallas, L., Griffin, P., Shamian, J.,<\/p>\n
Buchan, J., Duffield, C., Hughes, F., . . . Stone,<\/p>\n
P. W. (2006). The impact of nurse turnover on<\/p>\n
patient, nurse, and system outcomes: A pilot study<\/p>\n
and focus for a multicenter international study.<\/p>\n
Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice, 7, 169\u2013179.<\/p>\n
Shaw 211<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Ohlsson, S. (1996). Learning from performance<\/p>\n
errors. Psychological Review, 103, 241\u2013262.<\/p>\n
Osterman, P. (1987). Turnover, employment<\/p>\n
security, and the performance of the firm. In<\/p>\n
M. Kleiner (Ed.), Human resources and the<\/p>\n
performance of the firm (pp. 275\u2013317).<\/p>\n
Madison, WI: Industrial Relations Research<\/p>\n
Association.<\/p>\n
Park, H. Y., Ofori-Dankwa, J., & Bishop, D. R.<\/p>\n
(1994). Organizational and environmental deter-<\/p>\n
minants of functional and dysfunctional turnover:<\/p>\n
Practical and research implications. Human<\/p>\n
Relations, 47, 353\u2013366.<\/p>\n
Paul, A. K., & Anantharaman, R. N. (2003). Impact<\/p>\n
of people management practices on organiza-<\/p>\n
tional performance: Analysis of a causal model.<\/p>\n
International Journal of Human Resource<\/p>\n
Management, 14, 1246\u20131266.<\/p>\n
Platt, J. R. (1964). Strong inference. Science, 146,<\/p>\n
347\u2013353.<\/p>\n
Plomondon, M. E., Magid, D. J., Steiner, J. F.,<\/p>\n
MaWhinney, S., Gifford, B. D., Shih, S. C., . . .<\/p>\n
Rumsfeld, J. S. (2007). Primary care provider<\/p>\n
turnover and quality in managed care organiza-<\/p>\n
tions. The American Journal of Managed Care,<\/p>\n
13, 465\u2013472.<\/p>\n
Price, J. L. (1977). The study of turnover. Ames, IA:<\/p>\n
Iowa State University Press.<\/p>\n
Price, J. L. (1989). The impact of turnover on the orga-<\/p>\n
nization. Work and Occupations, 16, 461\u2013473.<\/p>\n
Sels, L., De Winne, S., Maes, J., Delmotte, J.,<\/p>\n
Faems, D., & Forrier, A. (2006). Unravelling the<\/p>\n
HRM-performance link: Value-creating and<\/p>\n
cost-increasing effects of small business HRM.<\/p>\n
Journal of Management Studies, 43, 319\u2013342.<\/p>\n
Shaw, J. D., Delery, J. E., Jenkins, G. D., & Gupta, N.<\/p>\n
(1998). An organizational-level analysis of vol-<\/p>\n
untary and involuntary turnover. Academy of<\/p>\n
Management Journal, 41, 511\u2013525.<\/p>\n
Shaw, J. D., Dineen, B. R., Fang, R., & Vellella, R. V.<\/p>\n
(2009). Employee\u2013organization exchange rela-<\/p>\n
tionships, HRM practices, and quit rates of good<\/p>\n
and poor performers. Academy of Management<\/p>\n
Journal, 52, 1016\u20131033.<\/p>\n
Shaw, J. D., Duffy, M. K., Johnson, J. L., & Lockhart,<\/p>\n
D. E. (2005). Turnover, social capital losses, and<\/p>\n
performance. Academy of Management Journal,<\/p>\n
48, 594\u2013606.<\/p>\n
Shaw, J. D., & Gupta, N. (2007). Pay system character-<\/p>\n
istics and quit patterns of good, average, and poor<\/p>\n
performers. Personnel Psychology, 60, 903\u2013928.<\/p>\n
Shaw, J. D., Gupta, N., & Delery, J. E. (2005). Alter-<\/p>\n
native conceptualizations of the relationship<\/p>\n
between voluntary turnover and organizational<\/p>\n
performance. Academy of Management Journal,<\/p>\n
48, 50\u201368.<\/p>\n
Shaw, J. D., Kim, E., & Park, T. Y. (2009). Voluntary<\/p>\n
turnover, HRM strategy, and organizational per-<\/p>\n
formance: Theoretical extensions, tests, and con-<\/p>\n
structive replication. Working paper, University<\/p>\n
of Minnesota.<\/p>\n
Shen, W., & Cannella, A. A., Jr. (2002). Revisiting<\/p>\n
the performance consequences of CEO succes-<\/p>\n
sion: The impacts of successor types, postsucces-<\/p>\n
sion senior executive turnover, and departing<\/p>\n
CEO tenure. Academy of Management Journal,<\/p>\n
45, 717\u2013733.<\/p>\n
Shevchuk, I., Leana, C., & Mittal, V. (2007).<\/p>\n
Employee retention and organizational perfor-<\/p>\n
mance: The mediating role of organization- and<\/p>\n
task-specific forms of human and social capital.<\/p>\n
Working paper, University of Pittsburgh.<\/p>\n
Siebert, W. S., & Zubanov, N. (2009). Searching for<\/p>\n
the optimal level of employee turnover: A study<\/p>\n
of a large UK retail organization. Academy of<\/p>\n
Management Journal, 52, 294\u2013313.<\/p>\n
Smith, H. L., & Watkins, W. E. (1978). Managing<\/p>\n
manpower turnover costs. Personnel Administra-<\/p>\n
tor, 23, 46\u201350.<\/p>\n
Staw, B. M. (1980). The consequences of turnover.<\/p>\n
Journal of Occupational Behavior, 1, 253\u2013273.<\/p>\n
Strober, M. H. (1990). Human capital theory: Impli-<\/p>\n
cations for HR managers. Industrial Relations,<\/p>\n
29, 214\u2013239.<\/p>\n
Subramony, M., & Holtom, B. (2010). Effects of<\/p>\n
turnover levels and trajectories on customer out-<\/p>\n
comes: A longitudinal investigation. Working<\/p>\n
paper, Northern Illinois University.<\/p>\n
Takeuchi, R., Lepak, D. P., Wang, H., Shaw, J. D., &<\/p>\n
Takeuchi, K. (2009). Ties that bind: Examining<\/p>\n
the impact of human and social capital on<\/p>\n
employee turnover and performance. Working<\/p>\n
212 Organizational Psychology Review 1(3)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
paper, Hong Kong University of Science and<\/p>\n
Technology.<\/p>\n
Ton, Z., & Huckman, R. S. (2008). Managing the<\/p>\n
impact of employee turnover on performance:<\/p>\n
The role of process conformance. Organization<\/p>\n
Science, 19, 56\u201368.<\/p>\n
Trevor, C. O., Gerhart, B., & Boudreau, J. W. (1997).<\/p>\n
Voluntary turnover and job performance: Curvili-<\/p>\n
nearity and the moderating influences of salary<\/p>\n
growth and promotions. Journal of Applied<\/p>\n
Psychology, 82, 44\u201361.<\/p>\n
Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli,<\/p>\n
A. M. (1997). Alternative approaches to the<\/p>\n
employee organization relationship: Does<\/p>\n
investment in employees pay off? Academy of<\/p>\n
Management Journal, 40, 1089\u20131121.<\/p>\n
Van Iddekinge, C. H., Ferris, G. R., Perrewe\u0301, P. L.,<\/p>\n
Perryman, A. A., Blass, F. R., & Heetderks, T. D.<\/p>\n
(2009). Effects of selection and training on<\/p>\n
unit-level performance over time: A latent<\/p>\n
growth modeling approach. Journal of Applied<\/p>\n
Psychology, 94, 829\u2013843.<\/p>\n
Virany, B., Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E.<\/p>\n
(1992). Executive succession and organization<\/p>\n
outcomes in turbulent environments: An organi-<\/p>\n
zation learning approach. Organization Science,<\/p>\n
3, 72\u201391.<\/p>\n
Wagner, W. G., Pfeffer, J., & O\u2019Reilly, C. A., III.<\/p>\n
(1984). Organizational demography and turnover<\/p>\n
in top-management groups. Administrative<\/p>\n
Science Quarterly, 29, 74\u201392.<\/p>\n
Waldman, J. D., Kelly, F., Sanjeev, A., & Smith, H. L.<\/p>\n
(2004). The shocking cost of turnover in health<\/p>\n
care. Health Care Management Review, 29, 2\u20137.<\/p>\n
Way, S. A. (2002). High performance work systems<\/p>\n
and intermediate indicators of firm performance<\/p>\n
within the U.S. small business sector. Journal of<\/p>\n
Management, 28, 765\u2013785.<\/p>\n
Wiersema, M. F., & Bantel, K. A. (1993). Top<\/p>\n
management team turnover as an adaptation<\/p>\n
mechanism: The role of the environment.<\/p>\n
Strategic Management Journal, 14, 485\u2013504.<\/p>\n
Wise, L. C. (1990). Tracking turnover. Nursing<\/p>\n
Economics, 8, 45\u201351.<\/p>\n
Yanadori, Y., & Kato, T. (2007). Average employee<\/p>\n
tenure, voluntary turnover ratio, and labour pro-<\/p>\n
ductivity: Evidence from Japanese firms. Interna-<\/p>\n
tional Journal of Human Resource Management,<\/p>\n
18, 1841\u20131857.<\/p>\n
Zimmerman, S., Gruber-Baldini, A. L., Hebel, J. R.,<\/p>\n
Sloane, P. D., & Magaziner, J. (2002). Nursing<\/p>\n
home facility risk factors for infection and<\/p>\n
hospitalization: Importance of registered nurse<\/p>\n
turnover, administration, and social factors.<\/p>\n
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 50,<\/p>\n
1987\u20131995.<\/p>\n
Zimmerman, S., Sloane, P. D., Eckert, J. K., Gruber-<\/p>\n
Baldini, A. L., Morgan, L. A., Hebel, J. R., . . .<\/p>\n
Chen, C. K. (2005). How good is assisted living?<\/p>\n
Findings and implications from an outcome<\/p>\n
study. Journal of Gerontology, 60b, s195\u2013s204.<\/p>\n
Author biography<\/p>\n
Jason D. Shaw is a professor and the Curtis L.<\/p>\n
Carlson School-wide Professor in the Carlson<\/p>\n
School of Management at the University of<\/p>\n
Minnesota. He received his PhD from the<\/p>\n
University of Arkansas in 1997. His research<\/p>\n
interests include the psychology of pay,<\/p>\n
turnover, and person\u2013environment congruence<\/p>\n
issues. His research has appeared in publications<\/p>\n
such as the Academy of Management Journal,<\/p>\n
Academy of Management Review, Journal of<\/p>\n
Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology,<\/p>\n
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision<\/p>\n
Processes, and Strategic Management Journal,<\/p>\n
among other outlets. He is currently an associate<\/p>\n
editor of the Academy of Management Journal.<\/p>\n
Shaw 213<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
<< \/ASCII85EncodePages false \/AllowTransparency false \/AutoPositionEPSFiles true \/AutoRotatePages \/None \/Binding \/Left \/CalGrayProfile (Gray Gamma 2.2) \/CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) \/CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated 50SWOP51 v2) \/sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) \/CannotEmbedFontPolicy \/Warning \/CompatibilityLevel 1.3 \/CompressObjects \/Off \/CompressPages true \/ConvertImagesToIndexed true \/PassThroughJPEGImages false \/CreateJDFFile false \/CreateJobTicket false \/DefaultRenderingIntent \/Default \/DetectBlends true \/DetectCurves 0.1000 \/ColorConversionStrategy \/LeaveColorUnchanged \/DoThumbnails false \/EmbedAllFonts true \/EmbedOpenType false \/ParseICCProfilesInComments true \/EmbedJobOptions true \/DSCReportingLevel 0 \/EmitDSCWarnings false \/EndPage -1 \/ImageMemory 1048576 \/LockDistillerParams true \/MaxSubsetPct 100 \/Optimize true \/OPM 1 \/ParseDSCComments true \/ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true \/PreserveCopyPage true \/PreserveDICMYKValues true \/PreserveEPSInfo true \/PreserveFlatness false \/PreserveHalftoneInfo false \/PreserveOPIComments false \/PreserveOverprintSettings true \/StartPage 1 \/SubsetFonts true \/TransferFunctionInfo \/Apply \/UCRandBGInfo \/Remove \/UsePrologue false \/ColorSettingsFile () \/AlwaysEmbed [ true ] \/NeverEmbed [ true ] \/AntiAliasColorImages false \/CropColorImages false \/ColorImageMinResolution 266 \/ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy \/OK \/DownsampleColorImages true \/ColorImageDownsampleType \/Bicubic \/ColorImageResolution 200 \/ColorImageDepth -1 \/ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 \/ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.00000 \/EncodeColorImages true \/ColorImageFilter \/DCTEncode \/AutoFilterColorImages false \/ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy \/JPEG \/ColorACSImageDict << \/QFactor 0.15 \/HSamples [1 1 1 1] \/VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> \/ColorImageDict << \/QFactor 0.76 \/HSamples [2 1 1 2] \/VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> \/JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << \/TileWidth 256 \/TileHeight 256 \/Quality 30 >> \/JPEG2000ColorImageDict << \/TileWidth 256 \/TileHeight 256 \/Quality 30 >> \/AntiAliasGrayImages false \/CropGrayImages false \/GrayImageMinResolution 266 \/GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy \/OK \/DownsampleGrayImages true \/GrayImageDownsampleType \/Bicubic \/GrayImageResolution 200 \/GrayImageDepth -1 \/GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 \/GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.00000 \/EncodeGrayImages true \/GrayImageFilter \/DCTEncode \/AutoFilterGrayImages false \/GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy \/JPEG \/GrayACSImageDict << \/QFactor 0.15 \/HSamples [1 1 1 1] \/VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> \/GrayImageDict << \/QFactor 0.76 \/HSamples [2 1 1 2] \/VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> \/JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << \/TileWidth 256 \/TileHeight 256 \/Quality 30 >> \/JPEG2000GrayImageDict << \/TileWidth 256 \/TileHeight 256 \/Quality 30 >> \/AntiAliasMonoImages false \/CropMonoImages false \/MonoImageMinResolution 900 \/MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy \/OK \/DownsampleMonoImages true \/MonoImageDownsampleType \/Average \/MonoImageResolution 600 \/MonoImageDepth -1 \/MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.00000 \/EncodeMonoImages true \/MonoImageFilter \/CCITTFaxEncode \/MonoImageDict << \/K -1 >> \/AllowPSXObjects false \/CheckCompliance [ \/None ] \/PDFX1aCheck false \/PDFX3Check false \/PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false \/PDFXNoTrimBoxError true \/PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] \/PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false \/PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] \/PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated 50SWOP51 v2) \/PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier (CGATS TR 001) \/PDFXOutputCondition () \/PDFXRegistryName (http:\/\/www.color.org) \/PDFXTrapped \/Unknown \/Description << \/ENU \u2013 Article Turnover rates andorganizational performance:Review, critique, andresearch agenda Jason D. ShawUniversity of Minnesota AbstractThe author of this article reviews the burgeoning literature on turnover rates and dimensions oforganizational performance, and concludes that substantial evidence indicates that turnover rateshave negative implications for several dimensions of organizational performance (e.g., safety,productivity, and monetary), that the content of … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-147473","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/academicwritersbay.com\/answers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147473","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/academicwritersbay.com\/answers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/academicwritersbay.com\/answers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/academicwritersbay.com\/answers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/academicwritersbay.com\/answers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=147473"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/academicwritersbay.com\/answers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147473\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/academicwritersbay.com\/answers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=147473"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/academicwritersbay.com\/answers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=147473"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/academicwritersbay.com\/answers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=147473"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}