Job Mobility

8/2/2019 Job Mobility

1/14

Academy ol Management Executive, 2001, Voi. 15, No.

How to keep your bestemployees: Developing aneffective retention policy

Terence R Mitchell. Brooks C. Holtom. and Thomas W. Lee

Executive OverviewThe compe tition to retain key employees is intense. To p-level executives and HRdepartments spend large amounts of time, effort, and money trying to figure ou thow to keep their people from leaving. This article describes so me new researchand its implications for mana ging turnover and retention. These ideas challenge theconventional wisdom that dissatisfied p eople leave and mone y makes them stay. Peopleoften leave for reasons unrelated to their jobs. In many cases, unexpected events orshocks are fhe cause. Employees aJso often stay because of attachments and their senseof fit, both on fhe job and in their comm unity. We discuss these ideas and makerecomm endations for integrating them into a compreh ensive retention plan.

Voluntary turnover is a huge problem for manyorganizations today. ' A Wall Street Journal art iclestate s: "Job hopping preva ils amid a cornuco pia ofvacancies-"^ The Society of Human Resource Man-agement, a professional organization dedicated tothe problems facing managers, says that the reten-tion issue is its "hottest topic."^Some industries or groups are part icularly atr isk. The Big 5 acco unting firms are describ ed ashaving "raging turnover," part icularly among fe-ma le em ploy ees . W hile up to 50 perce nt of the n ewhires m ay be w omen, only about 5 percent wil lmake i t to partner. High-technology companiesalso face acute losses and shortages. One reportsuggests the average tenure for people in high-technology positions is one year. In addition, look-ing at the whole U.S. workforce, a ppr oxim atel yhalf of the workers expect to leave their jobs in thenext five years."^There are many reasons why people voluntari lyleave organizat ions , Some are personal : changesin family situation, a desire to learn a new skill ortrade , or an unsolici ted job ofler . Other r eas ons areinfluenced by the employing organization: observ-ing the unfair treatment of a coworker, beingpassed over for promotion, or being asked to dosomething against one's beliefs. Turnover is aprobiem because i t imposes extensive costs on

both individuals and organizations.At the individual level, if a person leaves volun-

tarily, he or she believes, at that moment, thleaving the job is the right thing to do. Howevtransitions to another job or situation (e.g., stay-ahome parent , addit ional education) take a pesonal toll. Going to a new job is stressful. Thereuncertainty and ambiguity. The employee, alowith family members, must make numerous ajustments, especially if relocation is involved. Neliving accommodations, schooling for childreand spousal reemployment are just some of tpossible hurdles. In addition, friends may be lebehind . Some peop le est im ate that i t can ta ke upa year for adjustments to be made and a career get back on track.^

At the organizational level, turnover inflicts nmerous costs. Depart ing employees often take withem valuable knowledge and exper t i se gainthrough experience. Often they have establishclose relat ionships with cl ients. In addit ion these indirect or less quantif iable costs, organiztions face many costs directly related to turnovincluding exit interview t ime and administrat irequirements, payout of unused vacation t ime, athe cost of temporary workers or overtime for cworkers ask ed to f il l in . Rep lacem ent costs incluadvert ising, processing of candidates, intervieing, and selection. Finally, t raining costsboformal and informaladd to the overall burdeOne well-known New York law firm estimates treplacement costs for an associate at as much


2/14

j O Q I - Mitchell, Holtom, and Lee 97$200,000.'' A BusinessWeek study est im ate d that re-placement costs alone are over $10,000 for abouthalf of all jobs, and for 20 percent of all jobs areove r SSO.OOO. In a se p ar at e stud y, th e Hay G rou pfound rep lacem ent costs are ab out 50 to 60 percen tof a person's annual salary.^ Other costs may notbe so easi ly qua ntif ied. For exa mp le, understaffingbecause of excessive turnover among corrections of-ficers has been blamed for high-profile prison es-capes.^ Reduced effectiveness of cockpit crews thatare reorganized frequently because of turnover isanother example of hidden organizational costs. '"A BusinessWeek study estimated thatreplacement costs alone are over $10,000for abou t half of ali jobs, an d for 20percent of all jobs are over $30,000,

Organizations of al l sizes and types are recog-nizing that they are engaged in a struggle to retaintalent , and are act ively trying to do somethingabout it . One recent report declares that one in 10big businesses has a ful l- t ime person assigned toretention." The big quest ion iswhat should thisperson do? How can an organization at tract andretain i ts employees^especial ly i ts most v alu ab leand i r replaceable ones?The Prevail ing WisdomManagement scholars have learned a lot aboutvoluntary turnover over the years; thousands ofstudies have been conducted on the topic. '^ Boththe academic and pract i t ioner l i tera tures havem ad e contributions to our know ledge. And from allof this work, some clear and enduring principleshave evolved.Academic perspectiveTwo major factors have captured most of the aca-demic at tention: job sat isfact ion and job al terna-tives. People who are satisfied with their jobs (e.g.,evaluate posi t ively their pay, supervision, chancesfor promotion, work environment, and tasks theydo) wil l stay, while those who aren't wil l leave.Given the same level of dissat isfact ion, peoplewith more al ternatives wil l be more l ikely to leavethan those with fewer al ternatives.

Considerable research has explored these re la-t ionships in detai l . There are many causes of jobsatisfact ion, such as job enrichment, good super-vision, clear roles, and met expectat ions. Dissat is-fact ion is associated with job stress, repeti t ivework, role ambiguity, and role overload. Economic

factors, including pay, benefi ts , and other rewards,influence job sat isfact ion, as do structural a nd p ro-cedural factors reflect ing autonomy or fairness. Interms of what initiates the turnover process, job dis-satisfaction has been described as the most impor-tant an d frequent cau se. Thus it is good, solid adv iceto design jobs and manage work environments tomaintain a high level of job satisfaction.Once dissat isfact ion sets in, an employee pre-sumably looks around for other work al ternatives.The employee may conduct a job search and un-cover som e interest ing o ptions. Both perceived an dactual al ternatives can influence this process. Atthis point , i t appears that the underlying thoughtis , "I intend to leave." If al ternatives are judged tobe favorable in comparison to the present job, theperson is predicted to leave. If not , the personstays. Thus at t i tudes about one's current job andthe availabil i ty of al ternatives are seen as theantecedents for voluntary turnover. '^ Satisf ied em-ployees wil l be less at tracted by al ternative jobs.Research over the las t 15 years h as exp and edthis focus somewhat . Other a t t i tudes have beenstudied, such as organizational commitment, jobinvolvement , and perceived organizat ional sup-port . How and when people search for al ternativeshave a lso been explored as has how modern con-ceptions of a career influence propensity to remainin a f irm. ' ' ' I t appears that many employees expectto have numerous jobs during their careers. Someautho rs hav e exam ined p ersonal i ty predictors ofturnover, such as conscientiousness, while othershave examined the influence of psychological con-tract violat ions on turnover intentions and actualturnover. '^ Violat ing ini t ial job expectat ions candecrease t rus t , cause anger , and precipi ta te theturnover process. St i l l , while these studies haveadded to our knowledge, the prevai l ing wisdomhas remained re la t ively unchanged for 50 years .One of the best recent reviews summarizes thisstate of affairs: "Together with turnover intentionsand cogni t ions , af fect and a l ternat ives have beenthe prominent antecedents to turnover." '^

Two other comments on this academic l i teratureare necessary. First , in most cases, staying is seenas the simple obverse of leaving. That is , peoplewho are sat isf ied with their jobs and/or have fewalternatives wil l remain on the job. The same au-thors quoted above concluded that "relat ively lessturnover research has focused specifical ly on howan employee decides to remain wi th an organiza-t ion and what determines this at tachment." ' ' ' Thispoint is cri t ical for our work because we believethat staying and leaving involve different psycho-logical and emot ional processes .The second point is that researchers ' collect iveeffort to predict turnover has not been very sue-


3/14

98 Academy of Management Executive 'Novembcessful. Even the more complex theories, with mul-t iple at t i tudes and assessments of perceived al ter-native s, leave a bout 75 percent of fhe v arian ce inturnover unexplained. '^ I t was this rather gloomyassessment that prompted us to pursue new waysto understand this topic.

Practitioner perspectiveMuch of the practi t ioner l i terature has also re-flected the prevail ing wisdom. Assessing job sat-isfaction and making changes based on this infor-mation has been an organizational strategy forretaining employees and reducing turnover for de-cades . Sears, for example, has been doing this forover 50 years. '^ Since perceived or actua l al tern a-tives are often beyond an organization's control,they have received less practi t ioner at tention thanjob satisfaction.

We should also point out that much of the prac-t i t ioner l i terature on staying and leaving reflectsan economic perspective. In terms of at tractingemployees in today's job market , signing bonuseshav e becom e commonplace.^^ For keeping employ-ees , "retention bonu ses h ave becom e the tool ofchoice."2 ' Added to this f inancial ars en al are ho us-ing al lowances, profi t sharing, and spousal f inan-cial and job assistance.^^ High-tech firmswhichare ex t remely dependent on human capi ta lhaveoften led this charge. They at tract employees withstock-option riches; when market downturnsthreaten this carrot , they reprice or reissue theoptions.23 In short, one wa y to mak e a job att rac tiveis to throw money at people.Before concluding this review, we want to makeit clear that the prevail ing wisdom has substantialtruth behind it. Satisfaction is important for stay-ing , and al l the good ma nage me nt tec hniques thathave been espoused over the years probably con-tribute to it. June Delano, at Eastman Kodak, in ad-dressing the turnover problem, recommends thingslike frequent and honest communication, fair andequitable compensation, and clear performance ex-pectations.2^ In addition, pay and other financial in-centives work to increase motivation, commitment,and satisfaction. That having been said, we believethat the prevailing pers pectives on leaving and stay-ing are too narrow. We've spent the last 11 yearsdeveloping and test ing new ideas about employeeretention. Here is what we've found.Shocks and the Unfolding ModelOur init ial focus wa s on why and how pe ople leavetheir jobs. We knew that acc um ulate d job dissat-isfaction w as one reas on. But were there other rea-sons? Did some people leave who were sat isfied

with their jobs? We also knew that many peopsearched for a l ternat ives and compared them witheir present job. But were there people who lewithout searching or making such comparisons? Wspent a substantial amount of time talking to peopabout their personal experiences of leaving jobs. Wread the practitioner and scientific literature, inteviewed hundreds of people who had left jobs inwide variety of occupations, and surveyed thosands of othersmany of whom subsequently letheir jobs.

Some clear themes emerged from these invesgations. First , many people said they initialthought about leaving in response fo some part iular event. We call such an event a shock to tsystem. Frequently ci ted shocks were mergers, usolicited job offers, friends' leaving, having a babspouse relocation, a poor performance appraisaand adminis t rat ive changes . What was of in tereto us were the ways these shocks differed. Somwere seen as positive (e.g., job offer, pregnancysome were negative (e.g., friends' leaving, poappraisal); and some were neutral (e.g. , spourelocat ion , adminis t rat ive changes) . Some weexpected (e.g. , being accepted to graduate schooand some unexpected (e .g ., cha nge s in com penstion plan). Whether expected or unexpected, whea shock occurred, serious thoughts about leavifollowed. Some violated mutual expectat ions (e.gthe psychological contract) , while many did noSome were external to the job, while others hapened at work. There was a great variety in whprecipitated thoughts of leaving. Some of theevents, eventually or immediately, caused job disatisfaction, but some did not.

Whether expected or unexpected, when shock occurred, serious thoughts aboutleaving followed.A second theme that emerged was that qu i te

few people left their jobs without searching fanother one and making compar isons wi th thepresent job. This process seemed to occur in twdis t inct ways. Some people seemed to have p laor scripts that were tr iggered by some event. Thknew if they got pregnant or got accepted to graua te school, they would leave. Or they alrea dy haa plan in place based on past experience (e.g. , leave if a small start-up were bought out by a bcompany). Other people did not have plans scripts, but left because of an event that was shocking or negative or unexpected, that they jupacked up and exited without making comparsons. These people may have bel ieved that th


4/14

2001 Mitchell, fiohou]. and Lee 99could get another job elsewhere, but they left fairlyquickly and violated the oft-given advice to neverleave a job without another in hand.

So i t seemed to us that the process of leavingwas far more complex than the accepted model ,where job dissat isfact ion and the comparison ofal ternat ives resul t in departure. Simply put , therewere m any different wa ys or pa ths that pe opleuse d to leav e their jobs. In an at temp t to constructsome orderl iness out of this variety and complex-i ty, we developed the unfolding model .The unfolding model describes four paths peopletake when they leave a job. These paths unfold overtime at different rates, and they involve differentproc esses a nd behaviors. ' ^ We hav e many exa m plesof these paths, based on our empirical research inhospitals, banks, accounting firms, and retail gro-cery stores. Wh ere possible, we pres ent high-profileexamples that have appeared in the news.

Three of the paths are ini t iated by shocksevents that caused people to quest ion their stayingwith a firmnot job dissatisfaction. Examplesabo und in the popular pre ss. A ma n is pres sured tofly to an out-of-town meeting when his pregnant wifeis three days overdue and he misses the delivery oftheir baby. It was the "deal breaker, the event soeg reg iou s tha t it drove Mr. W alton to quit."^- Awoman likes her job at a plastics start-up, but startslooking for another job when she is asked to cleanthe bathrooms.^'' A man's boss trims $1.25 off a travel-expense reimbursement request for laundering ashirt while on a trip.^^ These events, or shocks,prompt people to think about leaving.

place . The event happens and the person thinksabout leaving, cal ls up the plan, and leaves. Dis-sat isfact ion is not the ini t iat ing cause, and there isno search for al ternat ives.

Path 2: Leaving without a planPath 2 als o is started by a shock, but there is noplan or script in place. Again, the person leaveswithout searching for al ternat ives. Bil l Russel l , afamous basketbal l player and coach, lef t a coach-ing job soon after a game where he found himselfyelling at his players to kill the opposition.^" Thehead of the computer services for a large organi-zat ion quit the day after a perso n he didn't l ike w asnam ed his boss . A nurse w as denied h er reques tfor six months' leave; an employee whose father be-came ill needed to move closer to his home; a trans-fer request was denied; a friend was laid off; anindividual was passed over for a promised promo-tion. In all these cases, the people left without con-sidering alternative jobs. In Path 2, the shockingevent is often neg ative a nd invo lves such a violationof expectations that negative emotions like distrustor anger accompany the leaving process.

Bill Russell a iamous basketball playerand coach , left a coaching job soon aftera game where he found himself yellingat his players to kill the opposition.

Path J; Following a planPath 1 is charac terized by a shock to the systemand a plan or a script already in place for leaving.Some people know that they will leave if they ortheir spouse gets pregnant or i f they get acceptedinto some sort of educational program. Temporaryor part-time employees often work for some spe-cific amount of money, then quit. Many of today'stechnical employees plan to leave their jobs after12 mo nths; when the t ime is up, they quit , confidentthat they can f ind something else whenever theywant.^3 One of the best exam ple s we enco untere dwas the employee in one organizat ion who took ahi r ing bonus , received the s tandard three month 'straining, got a bonus for f inishing the t raining,then quit, without another job lined up. And thatwas the employee's plan from the start . In sum.Path 1 is precip i tated by a shock. The shock can beexpected (e.g., end of training) or unexpected (e.g.,spouse has to relocate). It can be positive (e.g., preg-nancy ), neut ral (e.g., merg er), or neg ativ e (e.g., sex-ual harassment) . The key point is that a plan is in

Path 3: Leaving for something betterPath 3 com me nces w ith a shock that lea ds to rela-t ive, possibly minimal job dissat isfact ion. In turn,the person considers a l ternat ives and eventual lyleaves, usual ly with another job in hand (or insome cases, almost a sure thing). Pat ty Stonesiferw as a Microsoft execu tive. When she turne d 40, sh edecided she wanted to be with her family more.She l ined up some consult ing with DreamWorks,and quit her job at Microsoft.^' David Falk, ofProServ, found himself in the hospital with a bloodclot. While he rested and reflected about the diffi-cul t ies he had with his boss, Donald Dell , he de-cided to quit and start his own business.^^ In ourinterviews, we found a considerable number ofPath 3 leav ers report the shock as bein g an u nso-licited job offer. Many of these people are not dis-satisfied with their jobs. Mike Mitchell, a PhelpsDodge Corp. em ployee , w as "perfectly hap py"when he got an offer he couldn't refuse.^^ Path 3dissatisfaction is often relative; the people likewhere they are, but the al ternat ive is bet ter . The


5/14

100 Academy of Management Executive Novembkey is that the shock tr iggers the relat ive dissatis-faction, which leads to consideration of al terna-t ives, which res ults in quit t ing. This proce ss tendsto be very thoughtful and quite complex.Path 4: Leaving an unsatisfying jobPath 4 is ini t iated by acc um ulated job d issatisfac-tion. There are two different ways in which thisdissatisfaction leads to quit t ing. In what we callPath 4A, people becom e dissatisfied a nd leavewithout se arch ing (similar to Path 2 people, butwithout the shocking event). Jim Manzi was theCEO for Lotus Deve lopme nt Corp. wh en IBM took itover. Ini t ial ly enthusiast ic about the merger, hefound over the next half year that a variety of thingshap pe ned he didn't like, especially the direction andvision for the new merged group with which heworked. He decided to quitwithout another job inhand.^'* We interviewed people who quit becauseover time they got bored, failed to make friends, orchanged in such ways that their current job wasclear ly not where they wanted to be.

Path 4B also involves accu mu lated job dissa tis-faction, but here the person does look for and eval-uate al ternatives. He or she leaves upon finding amore attractive option. Note that this path reflectsthe prevail ing wisdom we described above. Dis-satisfaction leads to search, which leads to leav-ing. One computer-system consultant reported thatover six months he was shuffled about and felt"like a piece of meat." Eventually his dissatisfac-tion led him to search for a better job and ulti-mately to quit.^^ People following this path re-ported to us examples of cost cutt ing, increasedworkloads, or continuing problems with workschedules or work assignments that over t ime le dto dissatisfaction, search, and leaving.Table 1 prese nts a summ ary of the four p aths ,including the at tr ibutes of each and the amount oftime it takes for paths to unfold. There seem to be

tw o key time periods : the t ime betw een som e eveor accumulating dissatisfaction and the decisito leave, and the time between the decision to leaand actual leaving. The first phase involves checing for a script or plan and seeing how a shock mfit with the rest of one's feelings about a job. Thehap pe n fairly quickly in Paths 1 an d 2, wh ere timemeasured in days or weeks. It can also involaccumulation of discontent, which happens moslowly in Paths 4A and 4B, where time is typicalmeasured in months and years. The second phainvolves searching for and evaluating alternativeThis process is often lengthy in Path s 3 an d 4B, antherefore, they take the longest time to unfold.

The Complexities of Leaving a JobWe gathered data f rom f ive separate samples thaddress the principles of the unfolding model. the f irst two studies (one quali tat ive and the othquanti tat ive), we focused on leavers and the patthey took. In the first study, we interviewed nurses who left eight hospitals in a large metrpolitan area.^^ In the second study, we survey229 voluntary leavers who left the Big 5 accountinfirms.^^ We then conducted two more studies whewe gave quest ionnai res to a large sample of employees and then tracked who left and who stayeIn the third study, we ex am ine d 177 em plo yee s eight stores of a retail grocery chain. The fourstudy involved 208 em plo yee s of a c omm unitbas ed hospital .^^ The part icip ants in thes e last twpredictive studies were given a l ist of events thwere previously determined to be shocks, based ointerviews and focus groups. These people weasked to indicate whether they had experiencthese events and how much the exper ience mathem think about leaving their jobs. They wealso asked whether they had scripts or plans fleaving in place , in case the event did occur. In o

Table 1The Unfolding Model Paths mAttribuie

Initiating eventScript/PlanRelative jobdissatisiactionAlternativesearchTime

1Following aplan

ShockYesN oNo

Very short

2Leaving withouta planShockNoYes

NoShort

Path3Leaving for

something betterShock

NoY e sY e s

Long

4ALeaving withouta planJob dissatisfactionNo

Y G S

N oMedium

4BLeaving forsomething bettJob dissatisfactiNoYes

YesLong


6/14

2001 Mitchell, HoJfom, and Lee 101fifth study, we did bo th. We ha d 841 em plo yee s ata large f inancial center f i l l out questionnaires,then intervie we d 72 of them w ho subs equ ent ly leftduring the next year. We will cal l these the nurse,accountant , grocery store, hospital , and bank stud-ies in the fol lowing summary comments.

Tab le 2 pres ents the pa ths take n by the em ploy-ees who left their jobs in the nurse, accountant ,and bank studies.^^ One init ial comment is neces-sary. Using ei ther questionnaires (accountants) orinterviews (bank), we were able to classify over 95percent of the leavers rel iably ( i .e. , agreementacross several independent, impart ial judges) intoa part icular path. Our data suggest almost every-one leaves via one of these paths.But how and why people left is what is impor-tant. Note that Pa ths 3 an d 4B are th e mo st fre-quently used in all three studies. Both of thesepaths involve a search and evaluation of al terna-t ives, with about 75 percent of peo ple sea rchin gbefore leaving. Also note that the process of leav-ing is initiated for more people by a shock (Paths 1,2 an d 3, which acco unt for 63 percen t) than byacc um ulate d dissatisfaction (Paths 4A and 4B,which account for 37 percent). In combination,thes e data help to expla in why the tradit ionallystudied variables of job dissatisfaction and al ter-na tive s aren't stro ngly pred ictive of turnover. A lotof people leave without al ternatives, or as a resultof some shocking event that may not be associatedwith job dissatisfaction. '"^ Our findings show thatthe leaving process is considerably more complexthan reflected in the conventional wisdom.The content of these shocks is important to un-derstand what went on. Very few people left spe-cifically because of a shock involving money (e.g.,lower-than-expected raise, change in benefi ts ,someone else in a similar job makes more). Inter-estingly , no nu rse s, four out of 69 ban k e m plo yee s,and 14 out of 212 acc ou ntan ts ci ted a m onetaryshock as the reason for leaving. Slightly over halfthe peo ple (128) left b ec au se of shocks tha t w ereexternal to the organization (e.g. , spouse reloca-

tion, unsolicited job offer, pregnancy), while 99 leftbecause of internal shocks (e.g. , poor evaluation,merger, disagreement with boss). Thus shocks thatdid not involve money and were often out of theorganizations' control frequently precipitated theleaving process. '*' Again, the conventional wis-dom's re l iance on a pr imar i ly economic explana-tion for turnover may also be too simple.We can look at the reactions to shocks in moredetai l by analyzing the data on thoughts aboutleaving from the grocery, hospital , and bank stud-ies . The internal organizational shocks that causedthe most thinking about leaving were: being en-couraged to leave (but not fired); having a majord isagreement wi th one ' s boss; being passed overfor promo tion; or receiving an une xpec ted neg ativeperformance evaluat ion .Mergers, reorganization into work teams, thecom plet ion of a t ra in in g or educ at ion progra m ,or d isagreement wi th a coworker produced fewerstrong thoughts about leaving. The externalshocks that caused the most thoughts of leavingwere the unexpected job offer (which probably in-cludes pay as an issue to consider) , fol lowed by aspouse's relocation. Importantly, thoughts aboutleaving were significantly related to intention toleave and actual leav ing in these three samples .We conclude this section with two final points.First, the job satisfaction of leavers, while signifi-cantly lower than stayers, was above 3.0 on a five-point scale for the four samples where i t was mea-sured (accountant , grocery, hospital , and bank).Thus many people leave who are relat ively sat is-fied with their jobs. Second, the paths unfold atdifferent rates, much the way we have suggested.People in Paths 1 and 2 (who experience d a shockreported that they left more quickly than those inPath 3, who experienced a shock, but also searchedfor al ternatives. I t is hard to assess t ime to leavefor Paths 4A and 4B peo ple be ca us e the job dissat-isfaction tha t pre cip itate s lea vin g (4A) or sea rch(4B) can take a very lo ng tim e (in two of our stu die sPath 3 occ urred m ore quickly th an Pa th 4B). Fur-

SampleNursesAccountantsBank empJoyeesTotalPercent

1Following aplan664165

Number

2Leaving withouta plan676196

Table 2of Leavers by PathsPath

3Leaving forsomething better141361916952

4ALeaving withouta plan886227

4BLeaving lorsomething better1055349930

Total4421269325100


7/14

102 Academy of Management Executive Novembther, Path 4B, wh ich involves se arch, ta ke s longerthan Path 4A, which doesn 't .In summary, we have added to the acceptedprinciples that dissat isf ied people who have op-t ions quit . Our research shows that many peopleleave as a resul t of shocks. Many of the shocks areexternal and don't involve money. Many peopleare relatively satisfied w^hen they leave. AU thepaths are taken and occur with different speeds,suggest ing that a r ich diversi ty characterizes vol-untary turnover.

lob Embeddedness and StayingThe tradi t ion al persp ect ive of why peo ple stay on ajob includ es the factors from the turnover resea rch(e.g., satisfied with job, no alternatives), plus otherattitudes or affective reactions (positive feelings)about the job, including organizat ional commit-ment and perceived organizat ional support . If welike our job, are comm itted to our organiza t ion, an dbelieve they are committed to us, we stay. As wement ioned ear l ier , these var iables have beenshown to be related to turnover."*^ However, our re-search on the unfolding model, and our reading ofboth the scientific and practitioner literature (we willtreat them together in this section), suggested thatother factors were operating to keep people in theirjobs. Two streams of thought seemed important.

First, i t was clear that nonwork factors couldkeep someone on the job. Family pressures, com-munity commitments, and many other off-the-jobvariables can influence an employee's l ikel ihoodof staying with an organizat ion. For example, oneissue that is receiving increased at tent ion is work-l i fe balance. Employees today want t ime to at tendto their personal and family activities off the job.Related issues include work-related stress and fre-quen t t ravel . One stud y reported that 40 percent ofAmericans feel they have excess ive workloadsthat negatively influence their lives off the job. Inshor t , accumulat ing evidence suggests fami ly ,hobb ies , and church commitments can keep one onthe job (especially if one would have to relocatewh en c han gin g jobs), and lack of at tent ion to thes eouts ide commitments by one 's employer mightprompt one to leave.'^

One study reported that 40 percent ofAm ericans {eel they have excessiveworkloads that negativeiy influence theirlives off the job.The second big area omit ted from the tradi t ionalperspect ive was al l the things that one might de-

scribe a s nonaffect ive or no natt i tu din al . Many peple s tay because of a t tachments they have to peple (e.g., coworkers, employee network groups), act ivi t ies l ike the company softbal l team or sposored com mu nity-service act ivi t ies. ' '" Leaving a jooften requires individuals to sacrif ice or give uperks, routines, or projects to which they havgrown accustomed. People reported to us that theweren't part icula rly sat isf ied or dissat isf ied, bthat wasn't the issue that was important . I t was thidea that they couldn ' t l eave r ight now beca use tomany things kept them entrenched in their jobs.Job em bed ded ness wa s the term we used to summarize a broad constel lat ion of factors influencinretent ion, including those mentioned above. Thinof a person's l i fe as being l ike a web, with variounodes or objects on the web represent ing peoplthings, groups, and inst i tut ions. One's job is in th

middle of the web. The number of connections mavary, the distance or strength of the at tachmenmay vary, and the overall connectedness of the we(at tachments am ong nodes) may vary. Leaving a jomay greatly disturb that web, and it was our beliethat i t was this web-l ike quali ty, or embeddednesthat often keeps people on the job.Based on our research on the unfolding modepeo ple's stories about why they stay in a job, an d oongoing de l iberat ions about these topics, we bel ievthat job embeddedness consists of three factorlinks, fit, and sacrifice. In addition, each of thesfactors c an occur on or off t he job. A review of th esfactors and some examples are presented below.LinksLinks are the connect ions between a person another people, groups, or organizat ions. Many oganizat ions are coming to see these l inks as important on the job. Many CPA firms are u sing mentor sys tems and des ignated role models tincrease the at tachment of their female employees . They are a l so encouraging employees choo se their own cl ients. ''^ These a re l ink-bu ildinact ivi t ies. Eng elhard , a diversif ied m anu factu rincompany in New lersey, uses mentors and whthey call a Buddy System.' '^ We also know thmany organizat ions have increased thei r use oteams, but some organizat ions, such as the sofwa re developmen t f irm W RQ, use te am s s t ra tegcally to increase this networking bond." ' ' '

Off-the-job links can influence the employee awell. The number of family, relatives, friends, another types of links established through hobbiechurch, or community activities can embed a persoOrganizations can facilitate such links. Some firmgive em ploye es time off to volunteer in their comm unities."*^ SAS Institute, a statistical software firm, o


8/14

Mitchell HoUom, and Lee 103fers a discount on homes purchased in a nearbycommunity. Other companies provide new employ-ees with information on resources and activities intheir communities. Thus a variety of organizationalstrategies ar e availab le to increase l inks.

The num ber of family, relatives, friends,and other types of links establishedthrough hobbies, church, or communityactivities can embed a person.FitFit is defined as an employee's perceived compat-ibility with job, organization, and community. Theresearch on organizational f i t has been extensiveand clear. The more individuals fit with their jobs,coworkers, an d large r corporate cultures, the lowerthe turnover. Perceptions of fit are especially im-portant during the early stages of adjustment to ajob.'*^ A recent survey c ond ucted by Cal iper of 180executives who left their jobs reported that "nearly40 percent of employe es esse ntial ly said they a reresigning because their jobs just did not tH."^'^

The fit with one's off-the-job environment is alsoimportant. Does the employee like to ski, fish, singin a choir, or atte nd local th ea ter? Do they ha ve achild with soccer practice after school, or a parentwho needs to be visi ted? Both recreational prefer-ences and in terpersonal responsib i l i t ies can bebetter fulfilled if the employee has some choiceover when and where they work. The use of flex-time is one organizational option that helps this fitand is widely used. For exam ple, a rece nt survey of614 acc oun ting firms worldw ide ranke d flexibleschedules as the most effective retention tool.^'Other strategies, l ike part- t ime work, telecommut-ing, and 35-hour work weeks, give people a betterchance to be in sync with their off-the-job activi-t ies. One reten t ion champion summarizes theseideas by saying that companies need to "recruit"their good performers and that jobs should be cus-tomized. "One size fits one" was his

SacrificeSacrifice reflects the cost of what people have togive u p if they leav e a job. Many of thes e sacrificesinvolve foregoing financial incentives tied to lon-gevity. Retention bonuses, retirement funds, stockoptions, and golden handcuffs help to keep peopleon the job. 3 But many of the se b ene fits ca n bematched by competing firms. More subtle ap-proaches are also being used. For example, manycompanies have minisabbaticals tied to longevity.^^

Other employers provide a pleasant organizationalenvironment, funds to personalize offices, an atrium,lovely views, exercise facilities, and massages.^^Some of the sacrifices involve programs or activ-ities with a more long-term or personal focus.Many companies (e.g. . Sears, Cit ibank, and Inter-national Paper) have long-term development plansthey work out with employees.-"'^ They invest in theemployees ' t ra in ing and growth . Other companiesoffer personal-development funds to retain top em-ployees, who can use the funds to obtain trainingon any topic they feel will help their performance.Equally important are the things an employeewould give up that relate to their personal, off-the-job si tuation. Child-care support throu gh the use ofon-site centers, vouchers, or assis tan ce is frequentlyused. The Child Care Action Campaign reports that10,000 firms provide some sort of help. Twenty-sevenperce nt of job appl ica nts to Union Bank in C aliforniasaid that the day-care center was a big attraction,and the turnover for those using the center was 2.2percent, compared with 9.5 percent for non-users.^'^Healthcare clinics can also help embed an employ-ee.''^ Booz Allen & Hamilton builds loyalty through itsconcern for the demands of one's personal life byproviding time off when it is needed.^^In summary, job embeddedness is a relat ivelynew idea. It reflects those on- and off-the-job fac-tors that keep people in their current positions.Table 3 sum mariz es ex am ples of how em ployerscan help embed employees in jobs using the vari-ous dimensions to guide their specific efforts.

Embeddedness limits leavingTo capture the impact of these diverse forces thatkeep people in their jobs, we developed a measureof job embeddedness that we have used in threesep ara te studies.^" It is mea sure d with a surveydesigned to assess fit, links, and sacrifice, both onand off the job. The three studies were mentionedearlier: a retail grocery story chain {N = 177), ahospital (N = 208), and a banking center (N = 841).In each study, we surveyed a large group of em-ployees and measured job embeddedness , job sat -isfaction, organizational commitment, perceivedjob al tern ative s, job search, and intention to leave .We then tracked who left over the next year andconducted exit interviews. A clear an d com pell ingstory emerged.

Job embeddedness was negat ively related to in-tention to leave and actual turnover in all three or-ganizations. People who reported being more em-bedded in their jobs were less likely to leave theirorganizations. Of greater importance was the factthat, in all three studies, job em bed de dne ss a dde d tothe prediction of turnover, over and above the pre-


9/14

104

Dimension

Academy of Managem ent ExecutiveTable 3Job-Embeddedness Suggest ions by Dimension

Organization Community

Novemb

Links

Fit

Sacrifice

Provide mentors Recognize team accomplishments; reinforceteam identities" Hire based on fit with the job Hire based on fit with the organizationalculture an d vaiues Provide linancial incentives (goldenhandcuffs) Provide nonfinancial incentives [e.g.,sabbaticals or unique perks)

Provide organizational support for communitbased service Sponsor employee sports teams in localleagues

Recruit most intensively in local markets{minimize relocation) Promote work-life balance programs (e.g.,flextime, job sharing) Promote without requiring transier Provide home-buying assis ta nce

dictions made by job satisfaction, organizationalcommitment, job search, and perceived alternativescombined. Thus job embeddedness captured some-thing new and different from the standard measuresused in traditional turnover research.In addit ion, we tr ied to understand how job em-beddedness influenced the decision to leave. I tturns out that those who are highly embedded,when faced with an event we have cal led a shock{from the unfolding model), have fewer thoughtsabout leaving. They also have fewer scripts orplans in place for leaving in case a shock occurs.As we would also suspect , people who are embed-ded tend to be satisfied, committed, and have highjob involvement. Thus job emb ed ded ne ss is reflectednot only in traditional job attitudes, but also seem s tobuffer the individual from the effects of shocks thatmight otherwise prompt one to leave.

Developing a Comprehensive Retent ion P lanThere is no magic pi l l for a company's retent ionproblems. We know from observing professionalsports or CEO succession, for example, that evenpaying a person mil l ions of dollars a year does notprevent relat ive job dissat isfact ion and lower or-ganizat ional commitment , more job search, or anincreased likelihood of quitting. We know from acentury of observing collect ive bargaining, more-over, that the positive effects of more pay are oftenshort- l ived. Retention cannot be accomplishedpure ly throu gh m oney. A host of on-the-job a ndoff-the-job factors must be considered when devel-oping a retent ion plan. Ult imately, a company'sleader must survey these factors and select thosethat are most applicable to his or her f i rm. We dohave some guidel ines about how to proceed.

Retention cannot be accomp lished purelthrough money. A host of on-the-job andoff-the-job factors must be consideredwhen developing a retention plan.Employees go through several s tages dur ing tht ime they are employed by organizat ions. There an ent ry phase , where employees learn the ropethe norms, and expecta t ions sur rounding a jobThere is a period where employees set t le in. Thperiod can be very short or very long, but is chaacterized by some stabi l i ty in terms of employeelives on the job. Not a lot of new information ilearned about the job or the organizat ion. Final lythere is a period of withdrawal or detachment thaprecedes retirement or voluntary or involuntary turnover. The material we have covered so far is verimportant for developing a comprehensive retentioplan that can influence employees during all thstages of their careers. In the following discussionwe will organize the key findings to help executiveformulate a comprehensive retention plan.

Make strategic decisionsThe f irst s teps in developing a retent ion plan arlargely strategic:Determine whether turnover is a problem. Howmany people are leaving? Who i s leaving? Do wwant these people to leave? What does i t cost treplace them?Determine why people are leaving. Conduct exiinterviews. Consider hav ing ou tside consultants perform the exit interviews one to three months aftedepa rture to ensure that the reasons provided are nodefensive or protecting those left beh ind. Having th


10/14

MitcbeU, Hohom. and Lee 105HR depa rtme nt or an outsider conduct the interviewalso helps the leaver to not fear retribution.Invest igate reasons why people s tay . Conductfocus groups with exist ing employees. Determinethe factors that keep them in their jobs.Develop top-level support for the plan. The or-ganization needs to be wil l ing to devote f inancialand human resources to the planning, develop-ment, execution, and maintenance of any plan.Identify the targets of the plan. Is it for only afew? Is everyone involved? If everyone is part ofthe program, that means that the ini t ial selectionof employees into the company is cri t ical , becausefrom that point on the company will attempt toretain almost every employee.Draw on convenfionaJ wisdomOnce these s t ra teg ic param eters ar e set, o rganiza-t ions should continue to pay close at tention to ba-s ic management pract ices advocated by the t rad i -t ional turnover l i terature.

Routinely assess job satisfaction and organiza-tional commitment. Make the gathering and publicfeedback of these data part of the organizationalculture.Be prepared to make changes based on thesefindings. Have resources and strategies at theready. Gathering data without action causes cyn-icism and anger.Focus on topics like supervision, pay, the workenvironment, and company values. These are themore tradit ional factors that human resources per-sonnel are trained to deal with.Apply the unfolding modelIn addition, we think the unfolding model high-l ights some Important practices for the develop-ment and implementation of a retention plan. Forexample, for many people, the leaving process isinitia ted by a shoc k (P aths 1, 2, an d 3). Thro ugh theuse of surveys of former and current employees aswell as exit interviews, organizations can identifythe types of events that cause people to reconsidertheir employment. This information can be helpful inthe following ways:

Learn the distr ibution of shocks across paths.This information shows how many people leavebecause of dissatisfaction, and how many peopleleave without another al ternative in hand. I t givesyou a feel for what initiates the process.Analyze the content of the shocks. Are peopleleaving because of family responsibil i t ies or edu-cational opportunit ies? Are they leaving as a re-sult of unsolicited job offers? Are the events ex-pected or unexpected?

Use realist ic job previews ior new employees.These previews can reduce the number of eventsthat are unexpected, and clarify the psychologicalcontract and reduce turnover.^'Attack the unsolicited job offer problem directly.Some companies offer bonuses to people report ingoutside offers.62 This information lets firms adjustcurrent compensation and organizational policiesto be competitive. It also provides opportunities forquick strike counter offers. Employees could beencouraged to report job offers for spouses (espe-cially if they require relocation). Provide place-ment counseling and services for spouses to keepemployees from leaving.Determine which scripts most frequently appearfor Path 1 lea ve rs. If preg nan cy is a major factor,consider day care, healthcare support, or extendedmaternity leave as policies that may sustain employ-ment. If educational opportunities are causing peo-ple to leave, consider the development of educa-tional programs in-house, or provide time off andtuition support to attend a nearby college or trainingfacility.Prepare people for potential shocks. If mergersor the annual performance appraisal per iod areseen as shocks, get employee discussion groupsunde rw ay to asc erta in anxie ties and solici t inputabout these events. Make sure the reasons andprocedures for such events are clear.Be prepared to respond to external personalshocks. Part-time work, telecommuting, flex time orminileaves can help an employee deal with an acute(or chronic) problem such as an ill child or a parentwho comes to live with an employee's family.Assess the time it is taking people to leave. Somepaths (e.g., Paths 1 or 2) unfold fairly quickly, whileothers (e.g.. Path 4) take longer. In some cases (e.g.,low job satisfaction), companies can react to the in-formation and improve conditions over time, while inother cases they need to anticipate shocks and movequickly to preempt departure.

Assess job emhed dednessJob em bed dedn ess can be es tab l ishe d and main-tained through careful at tention to the connectionsemployees make to people, inst i tut ions, and activ-i t ies both inside an d outs ide the organization. Pro-viding support and/or incentives to get involved inthe local community can have an important impacton retention that is independent of job satisfactionor organizational commitment.Work to ensure a good iit with the job for eachemployee. Through the use of personal develop-ment plans, employers can continue to provide op-

portunities for employees to fit in their jobsthroughout their career. One job fits one.


11/14

- L f l S - Academ y oi Managem ent Executive Novemb

One job fits one.Fac ilitate fit off the job. Resources about commu-nity activit ies can be gathered and made avail-ab le. Work hours (flextime, part-time) can facilitate a

match with employee preferences. Caieteria-stylecomp ensation p lan s allow people to choose compen-sation options that fit their personal lifestyles {e.g.,more healthcare, more vacation time).Influence links on fhe job through programs thatcreate connections between people. Establishmentoring or buddy systems. Set up teams and bemindful of the composition. Try to put people to-gether who will like one anoth er (similar interests,hobbies, or life circumstances). Introduce long-term projects and provide project teams with asense of identi ty. Recognize group achievements.Influence off-the-job links. These can be tougherto influence than those on the job. However, a com-pan y can s ponsor (and provide t ime for) em ploye esto part icip ate in various activit ies, such as comm u-nity cleanup or beautification. Organizations cansponsor little league teams for children or bowlinglea gu es for employe es. Various off-the-job social activ-ities can increase the opportunity fo establish links.Create s acrifices on the job by introducing finan-cial incentives tied fo longevity. Some firms havesabbaticals available after a set number of years.Suitable perks, such as access to a beach house or

tickets to fhe opera or sports events, are goodideas . Long-term career development and trainingare increasingly valued by employees. The bestoff ices an d park ing p laces can be mad e depen denton tenure. One investment bank pays the collegetuition for children of employees who have beenwith the company for five or more years.Pay attention to off-the-job sacrifices. Many ofthese things would be given up only if one had torelocate (such as football seats that get better ev-ery year) . However, other company-related sacri-f ices can be made salient . Company vehicles (e.g. ,trucks or vans) used off site, weekend day-carefacilities, or support for long-term community ser-v ice would d isappear if one leff.Winning the Competition for TalentEmployee-retention programs require an overall ,comprehensive, thoughtful process to be effective.They are expensive and require substantial effort ,and vary across organizations and industries. How-ever, there is growing recognition that these pro-grams compete for talent. Our ideas based on theunfolding model and job embeddedness have ex-panded knowledge of the turnover process and sug-gested important actions to alleviate fhe problem.

AcknowledgmentsThis article was written while the first author was a visitinprofessor at New Mexico State University's College ol BusineAdministration and Economics, Renee Brown was especialhelpful assisting in its completion.

Endnotes' Bernstein, A, We want you to stay. Really, BusinessWeek, June 1998. 67; see also Lublin, J, In hot demand, retention czalace tough job at some top firms. Wall Street journal. 12 Setem ber 2000, Bl.^ Lublin, J., & White, J. Throwing off angst, workers are feelin control of careers. Wall Street Journal. 11 Se pte m ber 1997, B^ Wysocki, B, Retaining em pl oy e^ turns into a hot topic. WaStreet Journal, 8 Septem ber 1997, l'.,' ' A num ber of recent articles m ake this point. See GilbertsoD, Why do people quit their jobs? Because they can. New YoTimes, 1 February 1998; and Konrad, R, Tech emp loyees jumpijobs faster. CNET Newsletter. 14 June 2000,^ Papers that document these difficulties in adjustment iclude: Shellenbarger, S, An overlooked toll of job upheavalValuable friendships. Wall Street Journal. 12 January 2000, BShellenbarger . S, Many employees fa l ter a t helping famlies adjust to job transfers, Wai) Street Journal. 27 Septemb2000, B r^ Schmitt, R. From cash to travel, new lures for burned-olawyers. Wall Street Journal. 2 Feb ruary 1999, Bl.' BusinessWeek, 20 April 1998.^ Wysocki, op. cit., addresses this issue of replacement.^ Blase, J, After prison breaks, guards feel the heat: Higprofile escapes nudge states lo address an acute shortage oguards, Christian Science Monitor. 2 February 2001, 2.' Smith, D, 1999. The role of collective efficacy an d tran sactive memory on aircrew performance. Unpublished dissertatio

University of Washington." Lublin, op. cit.'^Two excellent review s ar e: Grilfeth, R, W,, Hom, P. S., Gaertner, S. 2000. A meta-ana lysis ol anteced ents and corrlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management. 26{3): 463-488; M aertz, C, P ., & Campion, M. A, 1998. years of voluntary turnover research; A review an d critique. IC. L, Coo per & I, T, Rob ertson, (Eds.), /jitern afion al revi ew oindustrial and organizational psychology: London: John WileySons, Ltd,, 49-86,'^ Maertz & Cam pion, op. cit,'^Hail, D, T,, 8f Moss, J. E, 1998. The new protean careecontract: Helping organizations and employees adapt. Organzational Dynamics, 26: 22-37." Robinson, S, L. !996, Trust and breach of the psychologiccontract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 574-599; Robinson, S. L., & Rou sseau , D. M. 1994, Violating the psy cholo gicacontract. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 15: 245-259; Turnley, W, H., 8f Feldman, D. C, 1999. The impact of psychologicacontract violations on exit, voice, loyalty and neglect. HumaRelations. 52{7): 895-922,^ Maertz & Campion, op, cit,, 56,'^ Ibid,, 75,'^ Griffeth, Hom, & Ga ertn er, o p, cit,'^A review of Sears policies was done by Bernstein, D, SSatisfaction guaranteed? How Sears keeps its people. InsidTechnology Training, 11 April 1999, Lublin & White, op- cit.^' Wysocki, op. cit.' Ibid,^ The trader. Wall Street Journal. 19 Februar y 2001, CL '^ An interesting article about what h app ens if you don't tre


12/14

2001 Mitchell Holtom, and Lee 107people fairly a nd well is p resen ted by Bedeian, A. G,. &Arm enakis . A. A. 1998, The cesspool syndrome: How dreck tloalsto the top of declining organizations. The Academy oi Manage-ment Executive, 12(1): 58-67.

'^ A review of this theory is presented in Lee. T. W., & Mitch-ell, T. R. 1994. An alterna tive app roac h: The unfolding modelof voluntary employee turnover. Academy of ManagementBeview. 19: 51-89 .^ Shellenbarger, S. Lack of respect pushes employees overthe edge. Wall Street Jouinal 26 January 2000, BI.^'' She ilenb arge r, S. From our readers : The bos ses th at droveme to quit my job. Wall Street }ouinal, 9 Feb ruary 2000, BI.^ Lublin, op. cit.^ See Gilbertson in New York Times, op. cit., and Konrad inth e CNET Newslettei. op. cit.^"Dauten, D. A. 1980. Quitting: Knowing when to leave. NewYork: Walter & Co. has sum mari es of interviews with peoplewho left their jobs.^' Rebello, K-, & Hof. R. She's smart, sh e's successful, she 'sout ta the re. BusinessW eek, U Novem ber 1996, 40.^ Helyar. ]. How PtoServ, legend amo ng sp orts age nts , fellfrom the top seed. Wall Street Journal 5 Septem ber 1997, BI." Gilberison, op, cit.^ Blue in a big way abou t role there, Lotus' Manzi qu its IBM.Seattle Pacific Intelligence r. 18 October 1995.^^ Lublin, op. cit.^ See Lee, T. W., Mitcheil, T. R., Wise, L., & Fireman, S. 1996,An unfolding model of voluntary employee turnover. Academyof Management journal. 39: 5-36. The average tenure of thenurses was seven years; 43 of 44 were women.^'See Lee, T., M itchell, T., Holtom, B., Hill, J., & McDaniel, L.1999, Theoretical development and extension of the unfoldingmodel of voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal,42(4): 450-462. The average tenure of the accountants was 8years ; all respondents were partners or managers; 31 percentwere women. This article includes a flow diagram of the un-folding turnover process.^ For a more detailed explanation of the embeddedness

measure, see Mitchell, T., Holtom. B., Lee, T,, Sablynski, C, &Erez, M. In press. Why people stay: Using job embeddedness topredict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal^^ Because of their predictive design, we have stayer versusleaver information for the grocery store and hospital studies,but not paths."^This rese arch ag en da w as completed du ring fhe econom-ically prospe rous d eca de of the 1990s. Relatively low une mploy -ment levels have been shown to facilitate job mobility andthereby influence overall retention rates." Although many shocks may be outside the organization'sability to control, organizations should noneth eless seek to bel-ter understand and track shocks to inform future employeeattraction, selection, and retention intervention strategies.'' Se e M aertz & Cam pion , op. cit.. and Griffeth, Hom, & Gaert-

ner, op. cit., for reviews.'' Two research p aper s discus sing off-the-job issues are Cohen,A. 1995. An exam inati on of the rela tion ship s bet wee n work com-mitment and nonwork domains. Human Reiations, 48: 239-263; andLee, T. W., & Mau er, S. 1999. The effects of fam ily stru ctu re onorganizational commitment, intention to leave and voluntary turn-over. Journal of Managerial Issues, 11: 493-513. Two practitione rarticles by S. SheUenbarger are: Are saner workloads the unex-pected key to more productivity? Wall Street Journal 10 March1999. BI; and T hree myths that make ma nag ers pu sh staff to theedge of bumout. Wall Street Journal 17 March 1999, BI.''' Reichers, A. 1985. A review and recon ceptua lization of or-

ganizational commitment. Academy of Management Beview,10: 465-476, is a good review of attachments. Terry, P. CPA firms try to stop revolving door for women.Journal of Accountancy, July 1994, 8-12. Despite many efforts toovercome gender bias in accounting, firms continue to be con-cerned about the disproportionately low number of females inthe executive ranks.^ Lubin & White, op. cit.'*'' She llenb arger. S. Rooms with a view an d flexible hou rsdraw talent to WRQ. Wall Sheet Journal 13 Aug ust 1997. BI,"" Sch ellhard t. T. An idyllic work place u nder a tycoon'sthumb. Wall Street Journal 23 Nove mber 1998, BI.^^ Two good pap ers on fit are Ch atm an, J. A. 1991. Ma tchingpeople and organization: Selection and socialization in publicaccou nting firms. Adminis trative Science Q uarlerJy, 36: 459 -484; and Villanova, P., Bernardu n, H,, Johnson, D., & Dahmas, S.,1994. The validity of a measure of job compatibility in theprediction of job performance and turnover of motion picturetheater personnel. Personnel Psychology. 47: 73-90. Our defini-tion of fit in the organization includes both job demand-abilityfit as well as Individual-organization fit.' This quote appears in: Employees quit because their jobsdon't fit, for more money and to start worm farms. Caliper, 26

May 1999.^' Sh ellenb arger , S. Accoun ting firms b attle to be known asbest workplaces. Wai! Street Journal, 21 Jan uar y 1998, BI. See Lublin, op, cit.^ Bed eian & Arm enak is, op. cit.; Sha w, J. D., Delery, J. E..Jenkins, G. D., & Gup ta, N. 1998. An organization-level anal ysisof voluntary and involuntary turnover. Academy of Manage-ment Journal 41: 511-525.-'" Schmitt, op. cit.^^Shellenbarger, 1997, op. cit.^ Bernstein, Business Wee ic, op. cit., and Inside TechnologyTraining, op. cit.^' Sherwood, R. Workplace child-care centers are more thanjust a perk. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 13 Apri l 199B, Bl.^ Schellhardt, op. cit.^ Smith, C. As employee loyalty drops, bosses need to mendfences. Seattle Post'lntelligencer, 19 June 1998, BI." A review of our work is ava ila bl e in Mitchell, T. R., & LeeT. W. In pres s. The unfolding model of volun tary turno ver a ndjob embeddedness: Foundations for a comprehensive theory ofa ttachment. Research in Organizational Behavior.^' A good review of previews is by Phillips, J. 1998. Effects ofrealistic job previews on multiple o rganizational outcomes: Ameta-analysis . Academy of Management Journal 41: 673-690.^ Lublin, op. cit.

Terence R. Mitchell is the Ed-ward Carlson Professor of Busi-ness Administration and a pro-fessor of psychology at theUniversity of Washington. Hereceived the Scientific Contribu-tion Award from the Society ofIndustr ia l /Organizational Psy-chology and is a Charter GoldMember of the Academy ofManagement 's Journals Hallof Fame. He has published over100 Journ als articl es an d boo ks.Contact: ([email protected].


13/14

108 Academy of Managem ent Executive Novemb

Brooks C. Holtom is an assis-tant professor of organizationalbehavior at Marquette Univer-sity. He earned his Ph,D. at theUniversity of Washington andhas served on the faculties ofVanderbilt University and Uni-versidad San Francisco de Quito(Ecuador), His primary researchinterests include employee re-tention and alternative work ar-rangements. Contact: [email protected].

Thomas W. Lee (Ph.D,, Univesity of Oregon) is a professor oorganizat ional behavior anhuman resource managemenat the University of Washinton. He has published ove40 academic art icles and onbook. At the Academy oi Management Journal he served aan associate editor (1998-2001and has been appointed as ediior (2002-2004), Co ntac t: orc [email protected].

Executive Commentary

Ted GraskeRicoh CorporationA key tenet of Ch ine se p hiloso phy is the conc ept ofYin and Yang. The ess entia l them e of the Yin-Yangschool of thought is that al l events in nature ap-pear to be grouped into pairs of mutual ly depen-dent opposi tes. For example, the concept of nighthas no meaning without the concept of day.When it comes to why people stay or leave organ-izations, Mitchell, Holtom, and Lee contend that thereasons are not polar opposites. Conventional wis-dom is that people who are satisfied with their jobs(i.e., perceive pay, supervision, promotional oppo rtu-nity, and work environment as positive) will stay,and those who aren't will leave. Rather, the authorscontend that stayin g an d lea ving involve very differ-ent psychological and emotional processes.I can recall examples not only from business, butalso from the military services, of people in the au-thors' Path 1. These are p eople w ho know they will beleaving at a certain time or because of a specialevent. Many people join the armed forces to get anedu cation , put in their time, and return to civilian life.In business, there are situations where job dissatis-faction is not the prime stimulus. For example, aspouse's relocation stimulates the decision to leave.In these cases individuals make conscious plans toleave. Job dissatisfaction or money is not so impor-tant. Taking Path 2 are those individuals who expe-rience the shock or negative perception of havingtheir expectations violated. I can recall several exec-ut ive reorganizations where a h ated r ival becam e anexecutive's superior, and in a relatively short periodof time, the individual left rather than meet the ex-pectations of the new boss.

In Path s 1 and 2, the time for counter m eas ure smay be limited as the time between decision and

action is relatively short. The theme of Path 3 is thapeople do leave for something better. The shock olearnin g from a salar y survey that you are 20 percenunder the market can lead to consideration of othealternatives. However, it is not only money. Anyonwho has dealt with employees in the Silicon Valleycan tell you while they leave to acquire lucrativstock options, they also leave if they feel that theyhave w orked on the sam e technical problem too longand yearn for new learning and a more chal lengingor technically satisfying job.The authors are also quite clear that job dissatisfact ionPath 4is very important in decidin g toleave. The distinction here is that it is often anaccumulat ion of events that lead to a growing discomfort with the status quo. Relief from this discomfort comes to the individual by leaving. Thet ime span betwe en the decis ion to leave and actual ly leaving is usual ly longer relat ive to the othepaths. The inference is that there is more time forthe organizat ion to take correct ive act ion.Know ing the symptom s is imp ortant . I reca l l arecent conversat ion with a manager, which started: "Ted, I am up to he re with fru stration, a nd I amleaving as soon as I can." He went on to wri te adetai led laundry l ist of dissat isfying and frustrat-ing experiences, largely concerned with office politics. This person's area of expert ise is very marketable, his compensat ion is not excessive, and heis dissatisfied with m any a sp ec ts of the job. If I jusfocused on why peo ple leav e, I would conc ludethat he would be gone. On the other hand, I knowthat he has a very cohesive work group that thrivesas he does, on exciting business projects, of whichthere are many. There is a decent budget that allows


14/14

Documents

Job Mobility