Do I Fit? Differential Predictors of Organizational Vs. Professional Turnover

Do I Fit?Differential Predictors of

Organizational Vs. Professional TurnoverSara L. CurtisLillian T. Eby

Katie M. Kincade

The University of Georgia

Current State• Recognition that turnover is a costly problem,

especially in regards to knowledge workers• Identification of numerous predictors of

turnover• Inconsistent findings, unexplained variance• Development of more and more complex

models of turnover

Complications• Turnover can be a tricky construct to study.• What can we measure?

• Intent to turnover• Actual turnover behavior• Pre- and post-turnover attitudes

• How do we define it?• Departure• Voluntary• Functional• Avoidable

A different Angle

“Though overlooked, more accurate turnover classifications may well boost the explanatory power of

predictor variables as much as the expansion of predictor batteries is

expected to.”-Hom & Griffeth, 1994, p. 6

Is All Turnover Equal?• Are the processes of leaving an organization

the same as leaving a profession?• Professional change can have greater costs,

more change, more risk.• Some things will change across organizations,

some will stay the same.

Current approach• Focus on refining the OUTCOME rather than

expanding the PREDICTORS• Breaking apart organizational and professional

turnover• Distinguishing between context-specific and

context-generalizable antecedents• Examining the differential relationship between

predictor types and turnover destination• Based in Social Exchange Theory

Turnover Prediction

• Perceived org support• Supervisor relationship

quality• Coworker support• Intrinsic job satisfaction• Emotional exhaustion• Affective prof commitment• Professional tenure• Earned credentials

Turnover

Differential Relationships

• Perceived org support • Supervisor relationship

quality • Coworker support• Role overload

Organizational Turnover

• Intrinsic job satisfaction• Emotional exhaustion• Affective prof commitment• Professional tenure• Earned credentials

Professional Turnover

Hypotheses• Hypothesis 1a: POS, supervisor relationship quality, and coworker

support will be significantly lower and role overload will be significantly higher for those who leave the organization compared to those who stay.

• Hypothesis 1b: POS, supervisor relationship quality, and coworker support will be significantly lower and role overload will be significantly higher for those who leave the organization compared to those who leave the profession.

• Hypothesis 2a: Affective professional commitment, intrinsic job satisfaction, earned credentials, and professional tenure will be significantly lower and emotional exhaustion will be higher for those who leave the profession compared to those who stay.

• Hypothesis 2b: Affective professional commitment, intrinsic job satisfaction, earned credentials, and professional tenure will be significantly lower and emotional exhaustion will be higher for those who leave the profession compared to those who leave the organization.

The Study• 591 substance abuse treatment professionals

• 372 remained employed• 120 changed organizations voluntarily• 99 changed professions voluntarily

• Time 1: Survey data on antecedents for all participants• All scales had acceptable reliability

• Time 2: Interviews with those who turned over to determine type of turnover (i.e. destination)

Descriptive resultsVariable Stay Org Change Prof Change

M SD M SD M SDPerceived Org Support

3.60 .74 3.11 .94 3.19 .86

Sup. Relationship Quality

3.72 .79 3.22 1.04 3.45 .93

Coworker Support 3.73 .88 3.55 1.00 3.44 1.09Role Overload 3.15 .94 3.50 1.02 3.27 1.00Intrinsic Job Satisfaction

4.04 .61 3.92 .65 3.69 .76

Emotional Exhaustion 2.42 .84 2.61 .90 2.88 .82Affective Prof Commit 4.17 .57 4.11 .63 3.79 .72Earned Credentials 0.66 .48 0.58 .50 0.36 .48Professional Tenure (yrs)

12.50 9.24 10.52 7.62 8.08 7.80

ANOVA RESULTSVariable Stay vs. Org Stay vs. Prof Org vs. Prof

F-values (significance)Perceived Org Support

33.17**

Sup. Relationship Quality

16.25**

Coworker Support 1.05Role Overload 10.19**Intrinsic Job SatisfactionEmotional ExhaustionAffective Prof CommitEarned CredentialsProfessional Tenure

* p < .025** p < .01

ANOVA RESULTSVariable Stay vs. Org Stay vs. Prof Org vs. Prof

F-values (significance)Perceived Org Support

33.17**

Sup. Relationship Quality

16.25**

Coworker Support 1.05Role Overload 10.19**Intrinsic Job Satisfaction

26.81**

Emotional Exhaustion 26.28**Affective Prof Commit 28.03**Earned Credentials 37.53**Professional Tenure 22.72**

* p < .025** p < .01

ANOVA RESULTSVariable Stay vs. Org Stay vs. Prof Org vs. Prof

F-values (significance)Perceived Org Support

33.17** .20

Sup. Relationship Quality

16.25** 1.15

Coworker Support 1.05 1.61Role Overload 10.19** 1.26Intrinsic Job Satisfaction

26.81** 5.11**

Emotional Exhaustion 26.28** 5.56**Affective Prof Commit 28.03** 10.76**Earned Credentials 37.53** 12.26**Professional Tenure 22.72** 3.42

* p < .025** p < .01

ANOVA RESULTSVariable Stay vs. Org Stay vs. Prof Org vs. Prof

F-values (significance)Perceived Org Support

33.17** 24.00** .20

Sup. Relationship Quality

16.25** 6.57* 1.15

Coworker Support 1.05 6.81** 1.61Role Overload 10.19** 2.18 1.26Intrinsic Job Satisfaction

6.35* 26.81** 5.11**

Emotional Exhaustion 5.66* 26.28** 5.56**Affective Prof Commit 1.01 28.03** 10.76**Earned Credentials 3.70 37.53** 12.26**Professional Tenure 9.68** 22.72** 3.42

* p < .025** p < .01

Results• The context-generalizable predictors

differentiated between organizational and professional turnover.• Intrinsic job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion,

affective professional commitment, earned credentials

• Dual prediction• POS, Supervisor relationship quality, coworker

support, intrinsic job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, professional tenure

Interpretations & Implications

• Organizational and professional turnover not mutually exclusive• Everyone who leaves the profession also left their

organization.

• Turnover as a 2-part process• Departure: most of the traditional predictors predicted

both types of departure• Destination: Context-generalizable predictors separated

professional turnover from organizational turnover

• Taking turnover destination into account in future research may help account for additional variance

Thanks!This project described was supported by Award Number R01DA019460 from the National Institutes on Drug Abuse awarded to Lillian T. Eby. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent

the official views of the National Institute on Drug Abuse or the National Institutes of Health.