International

Journal of Understanding Employee

Manpower
15,9/10
Turnover: The Need for a
Contingency Approach
22
Rachid M. Zeffane
University of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia

International Journal of Manpower,
Vol. 15 No.9/10, 1994, pp. 22-37,
© MCB University Press,
0143-7720
Introduction
Contingency theory has been at the centre of much debate in the area of
organizational analysis and design[1-7]. Despite disagreement among these and
other researchers, there is strong evidence to suggest that the theory bears
extremely valuable potentials in explaining and predicting varying
organizational phenomena. These potentials are quite apparent in the more
recent research[6-8]. However, despite scattered attempts, the bulk of the
research featuring this theory has focused essentially on interactions between
macro-level organizational characteristics, to the detriment of the interface
between these and the individual level characteristics. By and large, studies
that have endorsed the contingency approach to organizational analysis
have concentrated on the organization structure-environment interface.
The integration of micro and macro levels of analysis is required for
contingency theory to be forthcoming. If these two levels can be integrated,
hypotheses about the effective and behavioural responses of individuals and
groups in organizations may be sharpened[9].
This article attempts to show that the theory remains extremely useful and
may be extended to individual level phenomena, such as the study of
turnover[10]. The seminal work of Argyris on the individual-organization
interface is probably one of the most inspiring pieces of work in this
endeavour[11]. Argyris argued that a great deal of organizational outcomes
depend on the degree of congruence (or consonance) between individual
(personal) characteristics and those of the organization. The rejoinder between
Argyris’ thesis and contingency theory is the basic notion of congruency and
fit. However, while the dominant interpretations of contingency theory stress
the notion of congruency and fit by reference to the organization structure and
the environment, Argyris’ view focuses on the individual-organization
interface. Nevertheless, both views strongly underline the potential impact of
fit/misfit on organizational effectiveness and performance (see [12]). One of the
main performance criteria is the ability of organizations to retain their
manpower and thereby minimize employee turnover. We endorse Argyris’ view
The project on which this article is based was funded by a research grant from the University of
Newcastle Research Management Committee (UN-RMC).
on the necessary consonance between individual and organizational Understanding
characteristics for better performance. By the same token we also endorse its Employee
concomitant (i.e. the fit/misfit) postulate which is also emphasized in Turnover
contingency theory. The aim is to show that future research on employee
turnover could benefit greatly by fully exploiting the usefulness of the above
postulate.
23
Employee Turnover Research
Employee turnover remains one of the most widely researched topics in
organizational analyses[13]. Despite significant research progress there still
remains a great deal of confusion as to what might actually cause employees to
leave/remain in their organizations. Also, the lack of convergence among the
models proposed in previous research has added to this confusion.
Fundamentally, these models were aimed at enlightening our understanding
and predictions of employee movements within/out of the organization.
However, the significant divergence among these models seems to militate
against uniformity and hence generalizations. Among those factors are the
external factors (the labour market) ; institutional factors (such as physical
working conditions, pay, job skill, supervision and so on) ; employee personal
characteristics (such as intelligence and aptitude, personal history, sex,
interests, age, length of service and so on) and employee’s reaction to his/her job
(including aspects such as job satisfaction, job involvement and job
expectations) (see Knowles[14] for a more complete description of these factors).
Some have speculated on the role of individual performance in effecting
turnover[13,15,16]. While individual performance might well trigger intentions
to quit, the argument cannot be sustained at the general level. Performance
occurs in given contexts and is generally tied to particular situations. It is not,
of course, always concomitant with general aptitudes. It may well increase the
confidence of individuals in seeking similar jobs (offering better advantages)
elsewhere. However, in general, individuals are aware of the circumstantial
characteristics leading to their improved performance and may not put it
(i.e. performance) at the forefront of the criteria determining their decision to
quit. For instance, high performers who have strong value-ties with their
immediate work-environment may not necessarily foresee a replication of their
current behaviour to be equally successful in another organizational setting.
Also, the potential effect of performance on turnover does not apply equally to
all individuals. Personal styles and perceptions of the work environment could
play an important role in shaping the above linkage between performance and
turnover (see for example Jamal and Vishwanath[17]). But performance as such
is not necessarily a predictor of turnover. Contrary to previous research
evidence, Dreher[15] exposes data which purports that it is not always the good
performers who tend to leave the organization. Should this pattern persist, then
one would argue that the turnover-related costs would be minimized over time
since it is only the lower-level performers who tend to leave. Dreher[15] only
compares levels of performance (on a series of aptitude tests) between leavers
International and stayers. He does not test for relationships between these tests. Furthermore,
Journal of some of the aspects measured by the aptitude tests used are not strictly
Manpower performance criteria. The variable named “initial potential”, for instance, has
more to do with aspects of personal aptitude than aptitude on the job.
15,9/10 Studies that have incorporated personality as a potential cause of turnover
have generally assumed direct causal linkages between these variables[17,18].
24 These studies have undermined the potential relevance of wider organizational
characteristics (such as organization structure and management style) which
might affect turnover. When these characteristics have been considered, they
have generally been aligned to other independent variables in order to test their
relative precedence in predicting turnover. Guest’s early comparative study of
assembly and non-assembly workers’ reaction to their jobs suggests that the
greater job-repetitiveness led to increased turnover[19]. While providing
significant evidence on the above impact, Guest’s study seems to have ignored
the potential moderating effects that personality variables may have on such
impact.
Few studies on turnover have considered macro-level variables such as
organization structure and management style as potential predictors[13,20].
Porter and Steers[20] have advocated the need to consider both individual and
organizational factors in making predictions about employee attitudes and
related behaviour. Other researchers have also echoed the need to consider both
individual and organizational characteristics in studying attitudes[21] and
performance[11]. Typically, the type of studies conducted to date have not
shown any great concern for the potential impact of these interactions. While
these studies apply to a range of behavioural and attitudinal aspects, this
lacuna is most apparent in studies on organizational commitment. Similarly,
Herman and Hulin[21] observed that studies investigating the simultaneous
influence of organizational variables and individual characteristics on
members’ attitudes and behaviour have simply not been done. Herman and
Hulin[21] also note that a review of the literature indicates the strategy (to study
interactions between organizational and individual characteristics and their
effects on attitudes) has not been translated into the methodology necessary for
empirical research. They remark that studies investigating the simultaneous
influence of organizational variables and individual characteristics on
members’ attitude and behaviour have simply not been done.

The Relevance of Organization Structure/Culture and Management

Style
There is some evidence showing that characteristics of organizational structure
consistently accounted for a large percentage of the variance in employee
responses to their relevant work environment[21,22]. In fact, the structural
effect was found to be a lot more prevalent than the basic demographic
characteristics[22]. As they put it:
The significant relationship which was unique to organizational structure and psychological
responses suggests that differential organizational experiences are distributed across the
 organization in a pattern commensurate with the organization structure. Employees in Understanding
structurally defined sections of the organization concurred in their evaluations of aspects of
the work environment[22, p. 227]. Employee
Turnover
In fact the more recent studies[23] have tended to emphasize that the
demographic variables effect is only felt by way of interactions with
organizational characteristics such as structure and supervision. Bluedorn
posited that structure precedes job satisfaction in affecting the likelihood of 25
turnover among military personnel[24]. He explained this effect in terms of the
amount of control (implying centralization of power) that the organization
withholds and the desire for power and control that the individual might like to
exercise. Drawing on the early work of Tannenbaum[25], Bluedorn affirms that
most people desire power and will become dissatisfied when they cannot
exercise control. Although we agree with the potential linkage between
structure, personal aspirations and turnover, we do not subscribe (fully) to
Bluedorn’s view and model. This is because it puts aside a large proportion of
individuals who might feel comfortable to work in organizations where very
little power is devoted to them. Clearly, some individuals are more submissive
than others. In other words, some individuals are more tolerant of “power
distance” than others. Individuals with high tolerance for power distance would
not encounter dissonance between their aspirations (on that dimension) and
those of an organization with a high concentration of power. It is, hence, not
surprising that Bluedorn[24] found that organizational control accounted for a
mere 16 per cent of the variance in job satisfaction.
Commenting on the potential relevance of organization culture to
contingency theory, Tosi and Slocum[9, p. 21] suggested that the choice of
organization design will reinforce certain values and behaviours more strongly
than others. In their view, for example, because more specialists with similar
training and experience are likely to work together in a functional organization
than in the product form, one would expect to find higher levels of “professional
commitment” in a functional organization. Indeed corporate culture and
individual values are self-reinforcing. The degree of reinforcement will, of
course, depend on the amount of consonance between culture and individual
values.

The Individual-Organization Interface

Many recent studies on job attitudes have emphasized the need to consider the
potential effects of covariations between characteristics of organizations and
characteristics of people[13,22]. Previous research on worker attitudes has
tended to concentrate either on the individual characteristics of the worker,
job/task characteristics or on the broader organizational context within which
such attitudes might be manifested. Virtually few attempts have been made to
examine the way in which individual and organizational characteristics might
interact to determine employee attitudes and behaviour.
Some argue that the broader structural context has a stronger bearing on
workers’ attitudes than the individual characteristics of workers[21,23,26].
International Although the crucial nature of successful integration of individual and
Journal of organization has been stressed by early theorists[11] very few attempts have
Manpower been made to investigate this integration. This is more so in the case of studies
of turnover, absenteeism and commitment. Tosi and Slocum[9, p. 20], for
15,9/10 instance, posed the pertinent question of whether there is any systematic
relationship between a class of individual difference variables and type of
26 organization. They admitted that this question has not been adequately
addressed, although some literature has been devoted to the impact of
managers’ personality on the design of organizations[17,27,28].
Some have argued that the extent to which people identify themselves with
their organization has a positive impact on their level of satisfaction and
thereby their organizational involvement[29]. The consonance between
employee values and organizational values might provide the employees with a
certain degree of comfort through minimized stress. The degree of
consonance/dissonance between individual values/styles and those of the
relevant organization is concomitant with the degree of identification
experienced and the degree of compatibility between employees’ work ethic and
the values for which the company stands.
According to Flowers and Hughes[30, p. 50] “The employee’s ethic derives
from his/her own values and the actual conditions he/she encounters on the job.
The company’s values derive from societal norms, formal decisions by the
board of directors, and the policies and procedures of the managing group.” In
other words, employees tend to remain with a company until some force causes
them to leave. The concept here is very like the concept of inertia in the physical
sciences: a body will remain as it is until acted on by a force.
A widening gap (greater dissonance) between individual and organization
values will strengthen inertia (to leave); a narrowing gap will weaken it. In a
similar vein, Hrebiniak and Alutto[31] argue that role tension and uncertainty
result in the increased attractiveness of extraorganizational alternatives and
consequently decreased commitment to the work organization. In some ways,
this view overlooks what might cause “role tension” in the first place. Such
tension might well be in itself the result of misfits between personal and
organizational values and expectations (see [32]). Further, this tension might
depend on how tolerant the individual is of uncertain situations. This amount of
tolerance for uncertainty is embedded in the personal values and styles of each
individual. In fact, for those individuals with great tolerance for uncertainty, the
greater the organizational uncertainty, the greater the consonance between
their values and those of their organization and, consequently, the greater the
likelihood of their commitment to that same organization.
More recently, O’Reilly et al.[23] investigated person-culture fit (PCF) by
developing the organizational culture profile (OCP) instrument and using OCP
to assess PCF and test for the relationship between fit and work-related
outcomes. The relationship between preferences for organizational values and
individual personality variables was explored. As a result, 224 graduate
students, 395 accountants, and 730 middle-level government employees tested
the hypothesis that person-organization fit (POF) is related to work outcomes. Understanding
Variables measured included POF, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, Employee
intent to leave, and turnover. POF predicted job satisfaction and organizational Turnover
commitment a year after fit was measured and actual turnover after two years.
This evidence attests to the importance of understanding the fit between
individuals’ preferences and organizational cultures (see [12]). The purported
advantage of a strong corporate culture presumes that positive outcomes result 27
when people’s values are congruent with those of others and with those of the
organization. Meglino and his colleagues tested for the validity of this
congruency, in particular. The tests were carried out by using a design that
controlled for artefacts. The participants, 191 production workers, their
supervisors (n = 17), and 13 managers at a large industrial products plant,
completed questionnaires containing measures of job satisfaction,
organizational commitment and work values. Responses were later matched
with the attendance and performance records of the production workers in the
sample. Results showed that workers were more satisfied and committed when
their values were congruent with the values of their supervisor. Value
congruence between workers and their supervisors was not significantly
correlated with workers’ tenure; however, its effect on organizational
commitment was more pronounced for longer-tenured employees. In further
support to the above studies, Boxx et al.[33] examined the impact of
organizational values in the public sector and found that these strongly affected
satisfaction, commitment, and cohesion. They also found that value congruence
also affected these behavioural variables. Their study indicated that five values
should exist within their work environment: a belief in being the best, a belief in
the importance of the details of execution, a belief in the importance of people
as individuals, a belief in superior quality and service, and a belief in
the importance of informality to enhance communication.

Organization Commitment and Involvement

The concept of organizational commitment refers to the nature of the
relationship of the organization member to the system as a whole[34]. This
concept has also been defined as the relative strength of an individual’s
identification with and involvement in a particular organization[35]. Previous
studies have tended to treat commitment as an attitudinal as well as
behavioural phenomenon[36,37]. As an attitude, organization commitment
expresses a state in which an individual identifies with a particular
organization and its goals and wishes to maintain membership in order to
facilitate these goals[36]. As a behaviour, organization commitment has been
conceived as a state where individuals forgo alternative courses of action and
choose to link themselves to the organization[37]. In most circumstances,
it would be difficult to see how the concept could be treated as both an attitude
and a behaviour. In our view, organization commitment might be considered
primarily as an attitude. What is really behavioural is the amount of
International organizational involvement which results from this attitude. The conceptual
Journal of separation between commitment and involvement is important, for it helps
Manpower differentiate (and hence understand) intentions and actions. Attitudes spell
intentions while behaviours reflect actions. This distinction between
15,9/10 commitment (as an attitude) is apparent in the specific definitional
characteristics offered by previous research[35,38]. In that research
28 organization commitment is seen as being characterized by at least three
factors:
(1) a strong belief in and acceptance of the organization’s goals and values;
(2) a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization;
and
(3) a strong desire to maintain membership in the organization.
Clearly, all of these factors reflect attitudes rather than behaviours. These
characteristics are not clearly dissociable, since one characteristic might derive
from the other[39]. Therefore, the amount of employee commitment to the
organization might be best considered as an attitudinal state which designates
the level of regard that an individual has towards his/her organization. As such,
organization commitment does not just exist. It is created through a complex
psychological process. The process itself is initiated by the psychological states
that the individual may experience as well as the relevant contexts from which
these states may emanate. Furthermore, these psychological states, combined
with the specific contextual characteristics produce particular attitudes.
Among these attitudes is the degree of involvement that the individual may
experience in given situations.
Hence the degree of commitment refers to the attitude endorsed by the
individual, while the degree of involvement is the behavioural manifestation
of that attitude. Conceptually, organizational commitment is, therefore, an
attitudinal variable while the extent of involvement is a behavioural one.
The prevailing psychological states (combined with the situational
characteristics) precede both the degree of commitment (as an attitudinal state)
and the degree of involvement (as a behavioural state). Further, organization
commitment is not a homogeneous and unidimensional variable, but is instead
a multidimensional phenomenon. Gouldner[40] distinguishes between
commitment to the organization as whole and commitment to the specific
values of the organization. The first type of commitment reflects an attachment
to the goals and objectives of the organization. The second type of commitment
reflects an attachment to ideas and culture of the organization. Another type of
dichotomy is suggested by Steers[41] who differentiates between “commitment
to remain with the organization and commitment to work in support of
organizational objectives”. Although the literature is fairly explicit with respect
to the impact of organizational commitment (i.e. decreased turnover and other
forms of withdrawal as the result of increased commitment), the antecedents of
commitment seem to be much more varied and inconsistent. On the whole this
concept has been treated as both an independent and dependent variable. As an Understanding
independent variable, organization commitment has been found to affect Employee
employee job satisfaction, turnover and performance[35,38,41-45]. As a Turnover
dependent variable, organization commitment has been found to be affected by
a range of variables including personal, behavioural, attitudinal, demographic,
structural and contextual characteristics[46-48].
29
Satisfaction, Commitment and Turnover Behaviour
A significant body of literature, and particularly the early research, has
underlined the potential effects of job satisfaction on employee turnover[49].
However, more recently, an increasing number of studies have sought to include
the concept of “organization commitment” as a predictor of employee attitudes
and behaviour[50]. Nevertheless, very few studies have systematically and
simultaneously examined “satisfaction” and the degree of individual
“commitment” to the organization. Those studies which have attempted to
examine this latter relationship empirically have tended to focus on the concept
of “job commitment”, which is different from the broader concept of
“organizational commitment” (see [50]). Consequently, there is no hard evidence
to suggest whether or not satisfaction precedes “organization commitment” in
affecting employee turnover. What differentiates commitment from satisfaction
is that commitment emphasizes attachment to the employing organization,
including its goals and values, whereas satisfaction emphasizes the specific
task-environment where an employee performs his/her duties.
Job satisfaction has repeatedly been found to be negatively related to
turnover[20,51]. However, its relative potency as the principal predictor of the
likelihood of employee turnover remains equivocal[51]. Relative to the degree of
satisfaction, some studies have reported that the degree of organizational
commitment is a strong predictor of intention to search for alternative jobs and
consequently turnover[47]. Among these studies is that of Arnold and Feldman
which found that commitment accounted for almost 50 per cent (i.e. β = 0.49,
p < 0.000) of the variance of intention to search for alternative jobs.
In comparison, job satisfaction accounted for only 20 per cent of that variance
(i.e. β = 0.20, p < 0.001)[52, p. 359]. Among the few studies which have reported
a relationship between “satisfaction” and “commitment” there is strong
disagreement regarding the most appropriate causal ordering of these two
concepts[50]. Bateman and Strasser[42] found that commitment was a
precursor to satisfaction. Marsh and Mannari[48] found satisfaction to be a
precursor of commitment. Porter et al.[38] simply suggested that the two
concepts were correlated. More recently, Curry et al.[53] found no significant
causal relationships in either direction. Porter et al.[38] argued that job
satisfaction is a less stable and more rapidly formed construct than
commitment. However, this perspective is not supported by subsequent
empirical research. Bateman and Strasser[42] in fact demonstrated that there
exists a viable alternative perspective suggesting that commitment to an
organization may be a cause rather than a result of job satisfaction.
International The longitudinal study of Bateman and Strausser[42] reinforces the view that
Journal of the sequential (causal) precedence of job satisfaction over commitment was not
Manpower all that evident. In fact, the multiple analyses conducted by these researchers
(including cross-lagged and time-lagged regressions) revealed that commitment
15,9/10 was consistently a precedent to rather than a result of satisfaction. However,
Bateman and Strasser[42] did not test for potential moderating effects (through
30 stepwise regressions, for example). Hence, it is difficult to see whether
commitment is a direct determinant of satisfaction or whether it is in fact a
determinant of other attitudinal and/or behavioural aspects which are
themselves moderated by job satisfaction. In moderate support to the above,
Grusky[34] tested for the potential effects of overall work satisfaction and the
degree of individuals’ identification with their organization on the degrees of
upward mobility. His main results show no significant effects in both respects.
He reported a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.21, p < 0.001) between overall
satisfaction and commitment. However, in this particular study (i.e. Grusky’s),
commitment and satisfaction had different effects on aspects of upward career
mobility (career mobility was treated as a dependent variable in the model). The
reported results[34, p. 495] showed, quite clearly, that the highest percentage of
employees with medium levels of organization commitment (or extent of
identification with the company) had both low and high levels of mobility.
In contrast, the results showed that the more dissatisfied employees were
equally distributed on the career mobility scale. Although satisfaction and
commitment are logically related, it is still possible to picture employees who
hold positive beliefs about and are attached to a specific organization but are
still dissatisfied with their experience of given job-aspects within that
organization and vice versa[50]. There has been little or no attempt to challenge
whether satisfaction and commitment covary or whether they are separate and
distinct variables[50]. Predictors of job satisfaction and organizational
commitment are varied. Previous research indicates that there are roughly three
groups of variables that affect satisfaction and commitment. These are:
(1) individual characteristics;
(2) job/task-related characteristics; and
(3) organizational characteristics[50].
However, these types of characteristics have tended to receive separate
treatment, despite strong calls for examining their interactive effects. What is
important to note is that studies which have focused on individual or job
characteristics have tended to find a strong link between these and various
aspects of satisfaction[50]. However, those studies which examined
characteristics of individuals most closely related to the overall organizational
phenomena have tended to report strong effects of these on organizational
commitment. This is most apparent in studies which have examined more than
one type of characteristic. For instance, Glisson and Durick[50] found that
levels of organizational commitment and the degree of job satisfaction
responded to different types of predictors. More specifically, their results Understanding
indicated that individual characteristics were the best predictors of satisfaction, Employee
while organizational characteristics were better predictors of organization Turnover
commitment.

Consonance/Dissonance Effects on Commitment

Some studies have already suggested that employee turnover is not necessarily 31
dysfunctional. Dalton[10], for instance, has strongly suggested that the
functional or dysfunctional nature of turnover is a result of the amount of
convergence between how the “organization evaluates the individual” and how
the “individual evaluates the organization”. Dalton derives a useful taxonomy
which delineates the extent of functional/dysfunctional turnover in terms of the
amount of disposition of the organization towards the individual and vice-
versa. When both the individual and the organization are negatively disposed
towards one another turnover is functional. Turnover is dysfunctional when
both the individual is negatively disposed to the organization and the
organization is positively disposed to the individual. Dalton’s taxonomy is
relevant to our conceptualization of fit/misfit or consonance/dissonance.
His view seems to suggest that turnover, functionality and dysfunctionality,
depends on the amount of convergence between the individual predisposition
towards the organization and the organization’s predisposition towards the
individual. However, Dalton’s thesis assumes direct linkages between the above
predispositions and turnover, a view which we do not share here.

Individual Influence as a Moderator

There has been strong disagreement among researchers as to whether workers
are readily predisposed to certain attitudes or whether attitudes are forged by
situational characteristics[54]. Contenders of the predispositional model argue
that attitudes persist independently of the extent of influence that situational
factors might exert on the individual[55]. Contenders of the situational model
underline salient effects that situational variables have on the individual and
thereby his or her attitudes[54].
While we support the latter view, our contention is that the process of
influence and adaptation runs both ways. That is, the experienced situations
(including organizational context) might affect individual predispositions.
At the same time, individuals might also exert influence on their context to
secure a better convergence between their particular predisposition and that of
their relevant organization.
In fact, in addition to the amount of experienced satisfaction, the extent to
which the fit/misfit between individual and organizational aspirations will
affect commitment is moderated by the amount of influence that the individual
perceives to have on the organizational style/aspirations[12]. The greater the
amount of perceived influence, the lower the (negative) effect of misfit on
commitment. Conversely, the lower the amount of perceived influence, the
greater the (negative) effect of the misfit on commitment. Both “satisfaction”
International and “perceived influence” act as moderators of the impact of the fit/misfit
Journal of between personal and organizational styles on organizational commitment.
Manpower
Organizational Commitment and Turnover
15,9/10 As such, commitment is a form of attachment which may result from shared
values and goals[56].
32 The extent to which commitment to the organization will affect turnover is
moderated by the availability of alternatives/opportunities in other
organizations that the member perceives to have. It has already been argued
(elsewhere) that actual turnover is the interaction of intentions to leave and
perceived alternatives (see [52]). The perceived or actual alternatives constitute
the ease of movement out of the organization. Very often the ease of movement
is tied to some demographic characteristics such as age, qualifications, family
ties, neighbourhood ties, etc.

Discussions
Previous research has tended to focus on causal relationships between
organization commitment and its behavioural, attitudinal, structural,
contextual and performance determinants[13,24,38,41,43,45,46,48,57]. Despite
this wide-ranging research little has been done in the way of attempting to
investigate commitment as the results of the interaction between these
variables. More specifically, very little is known of the potential impact that the
amount of congruency between personal and organizational characteristics
may have on commitment. Recent thoughts on ways to understand, analyse and
predict organizational activities better have echoed strong needs to consider the
simultaneous effects of all levels of organizational life and actions[27]. More
recent research has moved away from the conventional consideration of the
sequencing of factors affecting turnover. Some have suggested a potential
impact of social climate at group and organizational level[58]. They emphasized
the importance of integration between individuals and their immediate
environment as a potential cause of turnover[58]. The more recent studies on
workers’ attitudes have also echoed the need to examine both individual and
organizational characteristics in predicting workers’ attitudes[50]. Some have
gone even further and underlined that it is only through examining interactive
effects of these two sets of characteristics that a better understanding of various
behaviours can be derived [58]. The fundamental integration of micro and
macro levels of analysis is required for contingency theory to gain firmer
ground. If these two levels can be integrated, hypotheses about the effective
behavioural responses of individuals and groups in organizations may be
sharpened over their current form. The views and arguments put forth in this
article illuminate the possibilities and ways of achieving such integration.
It has been shown that organizational commitment predicts voluntary
resignations more accurately than job satisfaction, across several time
periods[47]. In their model of job redesign and satisfaction, Hackman and
Oldham[59] underline the need to consider the moderating effects that job
context and other psychological aspects could have on the relationship between Understanding
job characteristics and job satisfaction. However, the relevance of these Employee
moderating effects has been neglected in previous research. In Hackman and Turnover
Oldham’s model, the underlying psychological states are themselves conceived
as intervening variables job characteristics and satisfaction. This is because
their search was geared, essentially, towards discovering potential effects of
what they refer to as “internal motivation”. In their model, motivation is viewed 33
as deriving from the amount of congruency between job characteristics and
psychological states. The wider organizational and contextual characteristics
are viewed as moderators. Jobs (and therefore job characteristics) do not just
exist. They exist within specific organizational contexts. Because of this, it is
difficult to admit that such contexts be simply attributed a last resort
intervening effect. Similarly, individual values (such as the need for power) are
characteristics that individuals tend to bring with them into organizations. If
this is so, then it is difficult to attribute these a last resort moderating effect too.
In fact, these two sets of characteristics are the driving force of subsequent
attitudes and behaviours in, and towards, the organization. It is the amount of
consonance/dissonance between these which determines how individuals
might act or react in their organizational setting. If the commitment and
involvement are considered, it can easily be conceived that it is the above
consonance/dissonance that determines the likelihood of given actions or
reactions. Nevertheless, Hackman and Oldham’s views on the effects of
dissonance between job characteristics and psychological states would still
apply in the case where dissonance between individual values/style and
organizational characteristics are considered. However, in this latter case job
satisfaction has a moderating rather than an independent effect. Also, the
potential actions or reactions emanating from this dissonance will depend on
the amount of influence that the individual holds (or perceives as holding)
within the organization.
Among the actions/reactions (to dissonant states) noted by Hackman and
Oldham[59] are :
● The individual leaves the organization permanently or periodically.
This type of action/reaction is (in our view) closely and directly linked to
turnover behaviour. This is most likely to occur when the individual sees
no alternatives that might help reduce the amount of dissonance.
Simultaneously, it is more likely to occur when the individual has
(or perceives) a great ease of movement (in terms of job opportunities
and the intensity of social constraints) within or out of the organization.
● The individual fights the organization by trying to redesign it and gain
more control. This action/reaction and its potential effect on employee
turnover depends on the amount of influence that the individual has
(or perceives to have). The greater the influence that the individual holds
(or perceives to hold), the greater the likelihood of reducing the amount
of prevailing dissonance between the predominant individual values and
International those of the organization. The likelihood of turnover then bears on the
Journal of amount of successful reduction of the amount of perceived dissonance.
Manpower Hence, the amount of perceived individual influence has an indirect effect
on turnover.
15,9/10
Given the above outlined literature debates and research findings, the analogy
of the turnover issue with contingency theory may be outlined as follows.
34 The principal concern of contingency theory is focused on the environment-
organization interface and its effect on organizational outcome, including
effectiveness. Our concern focuses on the individual for whom the organization
provides the immediate work environment. The analogy with contingency
theory is maintained in the sense that we are simply suggesting a shift from the
organizational level to the individual level of analysis in order to maintain the
basic notion of “environment-focal unit” interface. That is, like contingency
theory, our focus is on the amount of congruence (or fit) between the unit of
analysis and the relevant environment and its effect on performance (see, for
example, Edwards[12] and Birnbaum and Somers[45]). Our main contention is
that the degree of congruence (or fit) between individual and organizational
properties determines patterns of attitudes and behaviours. More specifically,
increased commitment of individuals towards their organization will prevail
when individuals’ personal values and styles match those of the organization. In
turn, individuals’ intentions to remain in or separate from the organization will
depend on the amount of their commitment to the organization. The influence of
the individual-organization fit/misfit on organizational commitment is
moderated by the degree of job satisfaction and the degree of influence
(perceived or actual) that the individual has on the prevailing organizational
values/style (including structure and management style)[12]. The influence of
the degree of organizational commitment on actual or intended voluntary
employee separation is moderated by the ease of movement (actual or
perceived) out of the organization.
A person’s commitment to his/her organization is usually reflected in the
strength of his/her identification and involvement with the organization[39,60].
This would indicate:
(1) a belief in and acceptance of the goals and values of the organization;
(2) a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization;
and
(3) a desire to maintain membership in the organization.
These three points are not all that easily dissociable. That is (2) might be the
result of (1) and (3) might be the result of both (1) and (2). Theoretically, if we
were to picture that in each organization there are two major spheres: the
individual and the organizational. Personal values and styles constitute one of
the components of the individual sphere. Organizational values and styles
constitute one of the components of the organizational sphere. Congruency
(or fit) would depend on the amount of overlap between these two spheres.
The above arguments and discussions could form the basis towards the Understanding
formulation of a hypothetical model well worthy of empirical testing. Employee
Turnover
References
1. Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M., The Management of Innovation, Tavistock, London, 1961.
2. Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W., “Differentiation and Integration in Complex 35
Organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 7, 1966, pp. 1-47.
3. Schoonhoven, C.B., “Problems with Contingency Theory: Testing Assumption Hidden
within the Language of Contingency ‘Theory’”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26,
1981, pp. 349-77.
4. Pennings, J.M., “Structural Contingency Theory: A Multivariate Test”, Organization
Studies, Vol. 8 No. 3, 1987, pp. 223-40.
5. Drazin, R. and Van de Ven, A., “Alternative Forms of Fit in Contingency Theory”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 30, 1985, pp. 514-39.
6. Zeffane, R.M., “Centralization or Formalization: Indifference Curves for Strategies of
Control”, Organization Studies, Vol. 10 No. 3, 1989, pp. 327-53.
7. Zeffane, R.M., “Organizational Structures and Design in the 1990s: Salient Trends and
Controversies”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 13 No.6, 1992,
pp. 18-23.
8. Zeffane, R.M. and Gul, F., “The Effects of Task Characteristics and Sub-unit Structure on
Information Processing: An Empirical Study”, Information Processing & Management,
Vol. 29 No. 6, 1993, pp. 703-19.
9. Tosi, J.R. and Slocum J.W. Jr, “Contingency Theory: Some Suggested Directions”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, 1984, pp. 9-26.
10. Dalton, D.R., “Turnover and Absenteeism: Measures of Personnel Effectiveness”, Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 20-38.
11. Argyris, C., “Personality and Organization Theory Revisited”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 18, 1973, pp. 141-67.
12. Edwards, J.R., “Person-Job Fit: A Conceptual Integration, Literature Review, and
Methodological Critique”, International Review of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 6, 1991, pp. 283-357.
13. Dalton, D. and Todor, W.D., “Turnover, Transfer, Absenteeism: An Interdependent
Perspective”, Journal of Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, 1981, pp. 193-220.
14. Knowles, M.C., “Personal and Job Factors Affecting Labour Turnover”, Personnel Practice
Bulletin, Vol. 20, 1964, pp. 25-37.
15. Dreher, G.F., “The Role of Performance in the Turnover Process”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 25 No. 1, 1982, pp. 137-47.
16. Jackofsky, E.F., “Turnover and Job Performance: An Integrated Process Model”, Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, 1984, pp. 74-83.
17. Jamal, M.B. and Vishwanath, V., “Type A Behavior, Its Prevalence and Consequences
among Women Nurses: An Empirical Examination”, Human Relations, Vol. 44 No. 11,
1992, pp. 1213-28.
18. Bernardin, H.J., “The Relationship of Personality Variables to Organizational Withdrawal”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 30, 1977, pp. 17-27.
19. Guest, R.H., “A Neglected Factor in Labour Turnover”, Occupational Psychology, Vol. 29,
1955, pp. 217-31.
20. Porter, L.W. and Steers, R.M., “Organizational Work and Personal Factors in Employee
Turnover and Absenteeism”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 80 No. 2, 1973, pp. 151-76.
International 21. Herman, J.B. and Hulin, C.L., “Studying Organizational Attitudes from Individual and
Organizational Frames of Reference”, Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance,
Journal of Vol. 8, 1972, pp. 84-108.
Manpower 22. Herman, J.B., Dunham, R.B. and Hulin, C.L., “Organizational Structure, Demographic
15,9/10 Characteristics and Employee Responses”, Organizational Behaviour and Human
Performance, Vol. 13, 1975, pp. 206-32.
23. O’Reilly, C.A., Chatman, J. and Caldwell, D.F., “People and Organizational Culture: A Profile
36 Comparison Approach to Assessing Person-Organization Fit”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, 1991, pp. 487-516.
24. Bluedorn, A.C., “Structure, Environment and Satisfaction: Toward a Causal Model of
Turnover from Military Organization”, Journal of Political and Military Sociology, Vol. 7,
1979, pp. 181-207.
25. Tannenbaum, A.S., “Control in Organizations: Individual Adjustment and Organizational
Performance”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 7, 1962, pp. 236-57.
26. O’Reilly, C.A. and Robert, K., “Individual Differences in Personality, Position in the
Organization and Job Satisfaction”, Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance,
Vol. 14, 1975, pp. 144-50.
27. Mitroff, I., State Holders of the Organizational Mind, Jossey-Bass, London, 1983.
28. Van de Ven, A., Hudson, R. and Schroeder, D., “Designing New Business Start-ups:
Entrepreneurial, Organizational and Ecological”, Journal of Management, Vol. 10, 1984,
pp. 87-107.
29. Brown, M.E., “Identification and Some Conditions of Organizational Involvement”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 14, 1969, pp. 346-55.
30. Flowers, V.S. and Hughes, C.L., “Why Employees Stay”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 51
No. 4, 1973, pp. 49-60.
31. Hrebiniak, L.G. and Alutto, J.A., “Personal and Role-Related Factors in the Development of
Organizational Commitment”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 16, 1972, pp. 555-72.
32. Edwards, J.R. and Cooper, C.L., “The Person-Environment Fit Approach to Stress:
Recurring Problems and Some Suggested Solutions”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour,
Vol. 11, 1990, pp. 293-307.
33. Boxx,W.R., Odom, R.Y. and Dunn, M.G., “Organizational Values and Value Congruency
and Their Impact on Satisfaction, Commitment, and Cohesion: An Empirical Examination
within the Public Sector”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, 1991, pp. 195-205.
34. Grusky, O., “Career Mobility and Organizational Commitment”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 10, 1966, pp. 486-503.
35. Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.W., “The Measurement of Organizational
Commitment”, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 14, 1979, pp. 224-7.
36. March, J.G. and Simon, H.A., Organizations, Wiley, New York, NY, 1958.
37. Staw, B.M. and Salancik, G.R., “New Directions in Organizational Behaviour”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 3, 1977, pp. 17-29.
38. Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T. and Boulian, P.V., “Organizational Commitment,
Job Satisfaction, and Turnover among Psychiatric Technicians”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 5, 1974, pp. 603-09.
39. Harrell, A., Chewing, E. and Taylor, M., “Organizational-Professional Conflict and the Job
Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions of Internal Auditors”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice
and Theory, Vol. 5 No. 2, 1986, pp. 109-21.
40. Gouldner, H.P., “Dimensions of Organizational Commitment”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 4, 1960, pp. 468-90.
41. Steers, R.M., “Antecedents and Outcomes of Organizational Commitment”, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 22, 1977, pp. 46-56.
42. Bateman, T.S. and Strasser, S., “A Confidential Analysis of Organizational Commitment”, Understanding
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 27, 1984, pp. 95-112.
43. Porter, L.W., Crampton, W.J. and Smith, F.J., “Organizational Commitment and Managerial
Employee
Turnover: A Longitudinal Study”, Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance, Turnover
Vol. 15, 1976, pp. 87-98.
44. Koch, J.L. and Steers, R.M., “Job Attachment, Satisfaction and Turnover among Public
Sector Employees”, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 12, 1978, pp. 119-28.
45. Birnbaum, D. and Somers, M.J., “Fitting Job Performance into the Turnover Model: 37
An Examination of the Form of the Job Performance-Turnover Relationship and a Path
Model”, Journal of Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, 1993, pp. 1-12.
46. Angle, H.L., and Perry, J.L., “An Empirical Assessment of Organizational Commitment and
Organizational Effectiveness”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26, 1981, pp. 1-14.
47. Hom, P., Katerberg, R. and Hulin, C.L., “Comparative Examination of Three Approaches to
the Prediction of Turnover”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 64, 1979, pp. 286-90.
48. Marsh, R.M. and Mannari, H., “Organizational Commitment and Turnover: A Predictor
Study”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 21, 1977, pp. 57-75.
49. Muchinsky, P.M. and Turtle, M.L., “Employee Turnover: An Empirical and Methodological
Assessment”, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 14, 1979, pp. 43-77.
50. Glisson, C. and Durick, M., “Predictors of Job Satisfaction and Organizational
Commitment in Human Service Organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 33,
1988, pp. 61-81.
51. Mobley, W.H., Griffith, R.W., Hand, H.H. and Meglino, B.M., “Review and Conceptual
Analysis of the Employee Turnover Process”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 86 No. 3, 1979,
pp. 493-522.
52. Arnold, H.J. and Feldman, D.C., “A Multivariate Analysis of the Determinants of Job
Turnover”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 3, 1982, pp. 350-60.
53. Curry, J.P., Wakefield, D.S., Price, J.L. and Muller, L.R., “On the Causal Ordering of Job
Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29,
1986, pp. 847-58.
54. Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R., “Motivation through the Design of Work: Test of a
Theory”, Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, Vol. 16, 1976, pp. 250-79.
55. Locke, E., “The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.
63, 1976, pp. 113-37.
56. Salancik, G.R., “Commitment and the Control of Organizational Behaviour and Belief”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 3, 1977, pp. 1-54.
57. Morris, J.H. and Sherman, J.D., “Generalizability of an Organizational Commitment Model”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 24, 1981, pp. 517-76.
58. O’Reilly, C.A. III and Flatt, S., “Executive Team Demography, Organizational Innovation,
and Firm’s Performance”, Working Paper, University of California, 1989.
59. Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R., “Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 60, 1975, pp. 159-70.
60. Glover, H.D., “Organizational Change and Development: The Consequences of Misuse”,
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, 1992, pp. 9-16.