Predicting turnover intentions and turnover behavior: A multivariate analysis

Journal of Vocational Behavior 21, 111-121 (1982)

Predicting Turnover Intentions and Turnover Behavior: A Multivariate Analysis

SAROJ PARASURAMAN

Wayne State Universiry

This study assesses the relative influence of personal, attitudinal, and behavioral variables on behavioral intentions and voluntary turnover among nonsupervisory plant workers. Results show that personal variables have little direct effect on turnover; rather, their influence on turnover is channeled through their effects on behavioral intentions. Felt stress, organizational commitment, and behavioral intentions are found to be the strongest predictors of voluntary job termination. Weak support is found for absenteeism as a precursor of eventual turnover.

Recent studies of employee turnover have identified organizational commitment and behavioral intentions as critical factors in the decision to terminate employment. These two constructs have been found to be consistently and more strongly related to turnover than job satisfaction (Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974; Newman, 1974; Kraut, 1975; Waters, Roach, & Waters, 1976; Horn, Katerberg, & Hulin, 1979). While these findings raise questions about the utility of including satisfaction in future turnover research, conceptual models and related research suggest that satisfaction, commitment, and intentions are complementary attitudinal components of individuals’ decisions to terminate employment. These models view job attitudes, especially satisfaction, as salient precursors of behavioral intentions and posit that intentions in turn con- stitute the most proximate determinants of turnover behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Mobley, 1977; Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, & Meglino, 1979). Empirical evidence suggests that satisfaction may be a determinant of organizational commitment (Marsh & Mannari, 1977) and may also ac- tivate withdrawal cognitions (Price, 1977; Horn et al., 1979). Some researchers have reported results indicating that commitment predicts behavioral intentions (Horn et al., 1979). Other studies suggest that job stress is related to propensity to leave (House & Rizzo, 1972) and is also an explanatory factor in the decision to terminate employment (Lyons, 1972; Gupta & Beehr, 1979).

111

OOOl-8791/82/040111-11$02.00/O Copyright Q 1982 by Academic Press, Inc.

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

112 SAROJ PARASURAMAN

The interrelationships among the various constructs noted above point to the need for a multivariate study to assess the relative contribution of different variables to the prediction of turnover and move toward a more complete understanding of the turnover process. Drawing on the theoretical formulations and related research, the present study seeks to clarify the antecedents of behavioral intentions and to assess the influence of personal, attitudinal, and behavioral variables as potential predictors of voluntary job termination. The study attempts to determine the contribution of each of these three sets of factors to behavioral intentions and to turnover behavior, as well as the unique variance in turnover accounted for by individual variables within these three cate- gories. The variables included in the study were selected on the basis of their previously demonstrated relationship to turnover. The inclusion of some variables was motivated by the desire to clarify and reconcile inconclusive or inconsistent results found in earlier studies.

Personal variables. The role of employees’ personal characteristics in influencing the decision to stay or leave has been highlighted in several studies. Age and organizational tenure have been found to be consistently and negatively associated with turnover (Marsh & Mannari, 1977; Mob- ley, Horner, & Hollingsworth, 1978; Porter & Steers, 1973; Porter et al., 1974; Price, 1977). The relationship of sex and education to turnover, however, remains unclear (Mobley et al., 1979; Muchinsky & Tuttle, 1979; Porter & Steers, 1973). Thus, sex, age, education, and organizational tenure are examined as salient demographic variables potentially predictive of turnover. Trait anxiety and job involvement are two ad- ditional personal dimensions of interest in relation to turnover phenomena. Trait anxiety, which refers to the predisposition to be anxious, has been reported to be significantly related to the propensity to leave and to actual turnover (Bernardin, 1977; House & Rizzo, 1972). Job involvement describes individuals’ ego involvement with their work and indicates the extent to which work constitutes a “central life interest” (Dubin, 1956; Lodahl & Kejner, 1965). This construct has been found to influence job attitudes such as job satisfaction, job-related tension, and organizational commitment (Buchanan, 1974; Gut-in, Veroff, & Feld, 1960; Weissenberg 8z Gruenfeld, 1968), as well as the decision to terminate employment (Marsh & Mannari, 1977).

Attitudinal variables. Job attitudes reflecting negative evaluation of the job and of the employing organization are assumed to influence both withdrawal cognitions and withdrawal behavior. The three attitudes examined in this study are job satisfaction, felt stress, and organizational commitment. Job satisfaction refers to the primary affective reactions of individuals to various facets of the job and to job experiences. Felt stress reflects the psychological response state of disturbed affect experienced by individuals in relation to their job and refers to such in-

PREDICTING TURNOVER INTENTIONS AND BEHAVIOR 113

trapsychic phenomena as frustration, tension, and strain. The job attitude of commitment is conceptualized as individuals’ attachment to the organization from an exchange perspective based on Becker’s (1960) notion of “side bets.”

Behavioral variables. There are divergent views concerning the role of job behaviors, notably absenteeism, in explaining voluntary job termination. Some researchers view absenteeism as being unrelated to turnover (March & Simon, 1958), while others regard it to be an alternative form of withdrawal behavior to turnover (Rice & Trist, 1952; Hill & Trist, 1955). A third perspective is that absenteeism is an earlier behavioral indicator of eventual turnover (Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson, & Capwell, 1957). Recent empirical evidence tends to support the idea of a progression of behavioral withdrawal from absence to turnover (Lyons, 1972; Burke & Wilcox, 1972; Muchinsky, 1977; Beehr & Gupta, 1978). Absenteeism is thus examined as an antecedent behavioral variable potentially predictive of turnover.

Behavioral intentions. This variable is posited to be the most immediate predictor of eventual turnover behavior. The concept refers to individuals’ perceived probability of staying in the employing organization or terminating employment. In other words, behavioral intentions reflect the motivation to stay or leave.

METHOD

Sample and Setting

The data for this study were gathered from organizational records and a questionnaire survey of nonsupervisory plant workers in a medium- size food processing company. Questionnaires were administered at the work site to groups of 5 to 10 individuals. The subjects were informed that the study was being conducted for research purposes and were assured that their individual responses would be treated as confidential. A total of 160 persons, representing 93% of the hourly rated plant personnel, completed the questionnaire. Of the respondents, 85 persons (53%) were in skilled jobs as classified by the organization and 75 (47%) were in low-skilled positions. The distribution of subjects by sex was 65% male and 35% female. The average age of the respondents was 36.7 years, and their average tenure in the organization was 6.6 years.

Measures

The internal consistency reliabilities of the measures used in this study were estimated by Cronbach’s alpha (1951).

Trait anxiety was measured by a scale adapted from the short form (Bendig, 1956) of the Taylor (1953) Manifest Anxiety Scale. The internal consistency reliability (coefficient alpha) of the measure in this sample


was a = .65. Job involvement or the centrality of work was operationalized by a measure derived from the original Lodahl and Kejner (1965) instrument. The coefficient of reliability of this measure was a = .75. Measures of the demographic characteristics were obtained by means of single-item questions asking respondents to indicate their sex, age, level of education attained, and tenure in the organization.

Job satisfaction was assessed by the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) developed by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969). The JDI measures satisfaction with five facets of the job: the work itself, supervision, coworkers, pay, and promotion. The coefficients of reliability of the five subscales for this sample were work (a = .79), supervision (a = .85), co-workers (a = .88), pay (cx = .81), and promotion (a = .79).

Felt stress was conceptualized as the psychological response state of disturbed affect experienced by individuals in relation to their job. The instrument measuring felt stress was developed from a set of items adapted from the Job-Related Tension Index (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964) and from Buck’s (1972) Frequency of Per- ceived Job Pressure Index. The resulting 9-item scale reflects feelings of disturbed affect such as frustration, tension, being upset, under pressure, and strain (a = .90).

Organizational commitment was operationalized by the 4-item scale developed by Alutto, Hrebiniak, and Alonso (1973), which taps the in- strumental-calculative aspect of commitment. The coefficient of reliability of this measure was a = .88.

Behavioral intention was assessed by a single item which asked individuals to indicate how long they intended to continue working in the subject organization. The response options were anchored on a time- linked 5-point scale ranging from “one year or less” to “eleven years to the rest of your career or retirement.” The items were reverse scored so that a response of “one year or less” would indicate a strong behavioral intention to leave. The efficacy of a single-item measure of intention is supported by the findings of Kraut (1975), Waters et al., (1976) and others.

Absenteeism data were gathered from company records. The data covered a 9-month period prior to the survey and 3 months subsequent to the survey. To avoid the weaknesses of the time-lost index as usually computed (Chadwick-Jones, Brown, Nicholson, & Sheppard, 1971) and to determine the appropriate period for which absence rates should be calculated, a two-way analysis of variance, with season (quarter) and day of week as the two factors, was performed to ascertain if there were systematic temporal variations in aggregate absenteeism (Cook & Camp- bell, 1976). Significant main effects were obtained for both season (F = 58.89; p < .OOl) and day of week (F = 3.70; p < .Ol); aggregate absenteeism in the third quarter and on Fridays (indicating a “weekend


effect”) was found to be significantly higher than at other times. Indi- vidual absenteeism rates, measuring time lost, were therefore computed on a quarterly basis for four quarters; further, for each quarter, a rate of Friday absences was calculated.

Turnover was measured by a dichotomous variable indicating whether respondents had resigned or remained with the company at the end of 1 year following the administration of the questionnaire. A score of 0 was assigned to stayers and 1 to leavers. The data showed that 24 persons or 15% of the respondents had terminated their employment in the organization during this l-year period. The terminations were voluntary and did not include separations due to retirement, discharge, or death. Of the 24 terminations, 10 were in skilled jobs and 14 in low-skilled positions. A one-way ANOVA performed to compare the rates of termination among skilled (11.8%) vs low-skilled (18.7%) employees re- vealed no significant differences between the two subgroups (F = 1.48, p < .22).

Data Analysis

Multiple regression analysis using the hierarchical technique (Cohen & Cohen, 1975) was performed to assess the independent and incremental contribution of the different independent variables to the prediction of behavioral intentions and of voluntary turnover. The relative influence of the antecedent variables on the criterion measures was determined by applying the “usefulness” criterion (Cohen & Cohen, 1975; Darling- ton, 1968) rather than the magnitude of the l3 coefficient. The usefulness of a predictor variable in explaining variance in the dependent measure is determined by the increment in the squared multiple correlation coefficient (R’) that occurs when a given variable is added to the regression equation. The hierarchical regression technique also serves to minimize the problems of interpretation of results associated with multicollinearity. The intercorrelations among the predictor variables are presented in Table 1. In view of the high correlations observed between the quarterly absenteeism rates and the corresponding rates of Friday absences within each quarter, the measures of Friday absenteeism were excluded from the regression analysis. The variables were entered into the regression equations in a predetermined order starting with the set of personal variables, then the attitudinal variables, followed by absenteeism, and last behavioral intentions.

RESULTS

The results of the hierarchical regression analysis with behavioral intentions and turnover as the dependent variables are presented in Table 2. The figures reported are the simple correlations and the change in R* (AR*) which shows the increment in unique variance explained by a given

TABL

E 1

Mat

rix

of In

terc

orre

latio

ns

amon

g Pr

edict

ors

Varia

ble

I 2

3 4

l.‘Sex

(l=M

;2=F)

-

2. A

ge

3.

Educ

ation

4.

Org

. ten

ure

5. T

rait

anxie

ty 6.

Job

inv

olvem

ent

Job

satis

fact

ion

31

- 03

-

03

48

-28

08

-04

-02

0.5

44

-27

- II -

26

10

-

-08

15

-21

21

- 19

45

07

04

12

-0

4 -2

0 12

04

09

-

19

00

-23

03

13

13

- 17

1s

01

19

-0

1 -1

3 -2

0 05

03

II

06

-2s

13

-03

48

-23

02

12

-02

10

-23

23

14.

1st

quar

ter

28

03

-03

-11

02

- 12

15

. 1s

t qt

r. Fr

idays

27

03

-0

6 -1

1 02

-1

3 16

. 2n

d qu

arter

19

12

-0

2 -0

7 -1

7 01

17

. 2n

d qt

r. Fr

idays

17

12

-0

3 -0

8 -

14

01

18.

3rd

quar

ter

03

-08

-13

-08

03

-01

19.

3rd

qtr.

Frida

ys

06

-08

-10

-07

10

-01

20.

4th

quar

ter

01

05

-03

08

10

-04

21.

4th

qtr.

Frida

ys

-03

02

-03

07

IO

- 12

5 6

7 8

9 10

I1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

7. J

DI

work

8. J

DI

supe

rvisi

on

9. J

DI

cowo

rkers

10.

JDI

pay

11.

ID1

prom

otion

12.

Felt

stre

ss

13.

Org.

com

mitm

ent

Abse

ntee

ism

- 17

- 20

29

-

20

31

13

- 30

42

09

43

-

-40

-37

-31

-21

-24

- 26

18

32

21

18

-3

8 -

-09

-03

13

01

-10

09

04-

- 10

-0

2 13

03

-1

0 09

03

98

-

08

04

07

02

-10

-06

04

39

37

- 07

03

04

05

-

10

-05

02

38

37

97

- -0

9 14

-0

7 02

02

10

-0

1 12

14

08

10

-

-05

10

03

03

06

10

-06

13

15

05

08

94

- -0

7 -

12

-03

05

-02

09

-04

11

15

00

03

05

08

- -

13

-11

-04

02

-04

09

-08

14

18

00

03

05

08

90

-

Note

: De

cimal

s ar

e om

itted

; r

= .I3

is

signi

fican

t at

the

.05

leve

l.


TABLE 2 Predictors of Behavioral Intentions and Turnover: Results of Hierarchical Multiple

Regression Analysis

Predictor variables

Personal variables Job involvement Trait anxiety Education Organizational tenure Age Sex

Job attitudes Job satisfaction

JDI work JDI supervision JDI coworkers JDI pay JDI promotion

Felt stress Organizational commitment

Behavioral variables Absenteeism

1st quarter 2nd quarter presurvey 3rd quarter i 1 4th quarter (postsurvey)

Behavioral intentions

Behavioral intentions

R2 (cumu-

r AR2 lative)

- .31*** .099** .04 .004 .28** .040**

- .34*** .057** - .35*** .013**

.oo .003 .217** .217**

- .22** .002 .ooo -.09 .004 .004 -.17* .009* ,004 -.17* .003 .003 - .27** .057** .006

.16* .002 .050** - .27** .015** .032**

.092** .309** .098** .129**

-.OO - .05

.02 - .06 - .Ol

.21** - .19*

.Ol .OOl .030** .08 .008* .002 .06 .003 .005

.003 .013** .322** .041** .170**

.049** .219**

.19* .02 .13*

- .Ol

.23**

Turnover

R2 (cumu-

r AR2 lative)

.06

.08 .Ol

-.06 - .03

.I0

.004

.006

.OOl

.007*

.ooo

.012+

.031* .031*

* p < .05. ** p < .Ol.

*** p < ,001.

independent variable and thus indicates its usefulness and importance as a predictor. The results show that the variables in the regression equations cumulatively explain 32% of the variance in intention to leave and 22% of the variation in actual turnover.

Analysis of the relative contribution of the three sets of predictors shows that personal variables account for a substantial proportion of the variance in behavioral intentions, the increment in R* being .217 (p < .Ol). The incremental contribution of job attitudes as a set is AR* =


.092 07 < .Ol), while prior absenteeism makes a small addition (AR2 = .013, p < .Ol) to the variation in behavioral intentions. Job involvement (AR* = .099, p < .Ol) makes the largest individual contribution to turnover intent, followed by organizational tenure (AR* = .057, p < .Ol) and education (AR* = .040, p < .Ol). With regard to the influence of job attitudes on turnover intentions, most of the variance is accounted for by satisfaction with promotion (AR* = .057, p < .Ol), while organizational commitment makes a small contribution (AR* = .015, p < .Ol). The bivariate results show four of the five facet satisfaction measures to be significantly and negatively related to behavioral intentions, whereas the multiple regression results indicate that only one of the satisfaction subscales has a meaningful effect on the propensity to leave.

The pattern of results obtained for turnover behavior differs markedly from that observed for behavioral intentions. The Table 2 figures show that personal variables account for a negligible proportion of the variance in turnover (AR* = .031, p < .Ol) and that nearly half of the variation is explained by job attitudes (AR* = .098, p < .Ol). The key individual predictors of turnover are behavioral intentions (AR* = .049, p < .Ol), felt stress (AR* = .050, p < .Ol), and organizational commitment (AR* = .032, p < .Ol). None of the satisfaction measures directly influences turnover. First quarter absenteeism (6 months prior to the survey) pro- vides an early predictor (AR* = -03, p < .Ol) of eventual turnover. The more proximate absenteeism measures are found to have little effect on subsequent turnover.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study confirm previous findings concerning the efficacy of organizational commitment and behavioral intentions in predicting turnover. The data indicate that it is primarily dissatisfaction with perceived promotion opportunities that motivates individuals to consider leaving the organization. The finding that satisfaction measures influence the intention to leave but have no significant effect on actual turnover suggests that satisfaction influences voluntary job termination only in- directly through its effect on behavioral intention. This tends to support the proposition that behavioral intention constitutes a critical intervening variable between satisfaction and voluntary turnover. The results may also be interpreted as implying that dissatisfaction reflects an unfavorable evaluation of the job, but not necessarily of the organization as a whole. Thus, as suggested by Porter et al. (1974), job satisfaction appears to be a transitory affective reaction to a particular job, but that dissatisfaction is not a sufficient condition to prompt individuals to terminate their employment with the organization. On the other hand, organizational commitment is a more encompassing and stable evaluation of the organization which may explain its direct and more potent contribution to the enacted decision to leave than job dissatisfaction.


A notable finding of this study is the important role of felt stress in inducing voluntary turnover. This suggests that psychological stress is a more aversive state of negative alfect than job dissatisfaction. The direct contribution of felt stress to turnover, in the absence of any effect on behavioral intention, suggests further that turnover is an unpremed- itated and possibly impulsive behavioral response to experienced stress. This is an attitudinal component that deserves further examination in turnover research.

The expectation that absenteeism behavior would predict subsequent turnover is only partially confirmed. The data indicate a lagged effect between prior absenteeism and turnover, which contrasts with previous findings of voluntary turnover as the culmination of progressively wors- ening absenteeism (Burke & Wilcox, 1972; Muchinsky, 1977). The dif- ferential results and the observed differences between the zero-order correlations of absenteeism with turnover and the multiple regression results illustrate the importance of multivariate analysis in determining the explanatory power of an independent variable.

Contrary to previous findings (Muchinsky & Tuttle, 1979), the con- clusion that emerges from this study is that personal variables and job satisfaction have little direct effect on the enacted decision to terminate employment. The effects of these variables on turnover are channeled through behavioral intentions, which provide the most proximate predictor of actual turnover. It appears that the major impetus to voluntary job termination derives from psychological stress and individuals’ in- strumental evaluations of the organization, translated into behavioral intentions. The results of the current study emphasize the need for ad- ditional research using multivariate analytical techniques in developing a more complete map of voluntary turnover as a behavioral response to negative organizational experiences.

REFERENCES Alutto, J. A., Hrebiniak, L., & Alonso, R. On operationalizing the concept of commitment.

Social Forces, 1973, 51, 448-454. Beehr, T. A., & Gupta, N. A note on the structure of employee withdrawal. Organizational

Behavior and Human Performance, 1978, 21, 73-79. Becker, H. S. Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 1960,

66, 32-40. Bendig, A. W. The development of a short form of the manifest anxiety scale. Journal

of Consulting Psychology, 1956, 20, 384. Bernardin, H. J. The relationship of personality variables to organizational withdrawal.

Personnel Psychology, 1977, 30, 17-27. Buchanan, B. Government managers, business executives, and organizational commitment.

Public Administration Review. 1974, 339-347. Buck, V. E. Working under pressure. London: Staples Press, 1972. Burke, R. J., &Wilcox, D. S. Absenteeism and turnover among female telephone operators.

Personnel Psychology, 1972, 25, 639-648.


Chadwick-Jones, J. K., Brown, C. A., Nicholson, N., & Sheppard, C. Absence measures: Their reliability and stability in an industrial setting. Personnel Psychology, 1971, 24, 463-470.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. Applied multiple regressionlcorrelation analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Wiley, 1975.

Cook, T., & Campbell, D. The design and conduct of quasi-experiments and true experiments in field settings. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976.

Cronbach, L. J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrica, 1951, 16, 297-334.

Darlington, R. B. Multiple regression in psychological research and practice. Psychological Bulletin, 1%8, 69, 161-182.

Dubin, R. Industrial workers’ worlds: A study of the central life interests of industrial workers. Social Problems, 1956, 3, 131-142.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. Beliefs, attitudes, intention, and behavior. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1975.

Gupta, N., & Beehr, T. A. Job stress and employee behaviors. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1979, 23, 373-387.

Gurin, P., Veroff, J., & Feld, S. Americans view their mental health. New York: Basic Books, 1960.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R. D., & Capwell, R. F. Job attitudes: Review of research and opinions. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Psychological Services, 1957.

Hill, J. M., & Trist, E. L. Changes in accidents and other absences with length of service: A further study on their incidence and relation to each other in an iron and steel works. Human Relations, 1955, 8, 121-152.

Horn, P. W., Katerberg, R., & Hulin, C. L. Comparative examination of three approaches to the prediction of turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1979, 64, 3, 280-290.

House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Peflormance, 1972, 7, 467-505.

Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley, 1964.

Kraut, A. I. Predicting turnover of employees from measured job attitudes. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1975, 13, 233-243.

Lodahl, T. M., & Kejner, M. The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1965, 49, 24-33.

Lyons, T. F. Turnover and absenteeism: A review of relationships and shared correlates. Personnel Psychology, 1972, 25, 271-281.

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. Organizations. New York: Wiley, 1958. Marsh, R., & Mannari, H. Organizational commitment and turnover: A predictive study.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 1977, 22, 57-75. Miller, H. E., Katerberg, R., & Hulin, C. L. Evaluation and the Mobley, Homer, and

Hollingsworth model of employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1979, 64, 509-517.

Mobley, W. H. Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1977, 62, 237-240.

Mobley, W. H., Homer, S. O., & Hollingsworth, A. T. An evaluation of the precursors of hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1978, 63, 408-414.

Mobley, W. H., Griffeth, R. W., Hand H. H., & Meglino, B. M. Review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, 1979, 86, 493-522.

Muchinsky, P. M. Employee absenteeism: A review of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1977, 10, 316-340.


Muchinsky, P. M., & Tuttle, M. Employee turnover: An empirical and methodological assessment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1979, 14, 43-77.

Newman, J. E. Predicting absenteeism and turnover: A field comparison of Fishbein’s model and traditional job attitude measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59, 610-615.

Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. Organizational, work, and personal factors in employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 80, 2, 151-176.

Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 1974, 59, 603-609.

Price, J. L. The Measurement of turnover. Ames: Iowa State Univ. Press, 1977. Rice, A. K., & Trist, E. L. Institutional and subinstitutional determinants of change in

labor turnover. Human Relations, 1952, 5, 347-372. Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. Measurement of satisfaction in work and

retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969. Taylor, J. A. A personality scale of manifest anxiety. Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 1953, 48, 285-290. Waters, L. K., Roach, D., & Waters, C. W. Estimate of future tenure, satisfaction, and

biographical variables as predictors of termination. Personnel Psychology, 1976, 29, 57-60.

Weissenberg, P., & Gruenfeld, L. Relationship between job satisfaction and job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1968, 52, 469-473.

Received: July 10, 1981

Documents

Predicting turnover intentions and turnover behavior: A multivariate analysis