tAcademy of Management Review 1982. Vol. 7. No. I.

111-116

Some Unanswered Questions in Turnover

and Withdrawal Research^
WILLIAM H. MOBLEY
Texas A&M University

Current employee turnover research inadequately addresses several long

recognized and important questions. Specifically, where is the process in
turnover process research; what are the consequences of turnover and the
processes related to these consequences; what is the rote of performance in
the turnover process; and what are the conceptual and empirical relation-
ships among turnover and other so-called "withdrawal" critera? The im-
portance of these questions and approaches to addressing these questions
are discussed.

The last several years have exhibited renewed
conceptual and empirical interest in employee turn-
over. Recent journal space and professional
meeting program time devoted to this topic are in-
dicative of this interest.
The conceptual and empirical interest in turnover
is to be applauded, given the individual and organi-
zational importance of this behavior and the
usefulness of this criterion in studying individual
choice behavior. However, current research on
employee turnover is inadequately addressing some
long recognized questions. Four such questions and
attendant subquestions are discussed here.
1. Where is the process in turnover process research?
2. What are the consequences of turnover and the pro-
cesses related to these consequences?
3. What is the role of performance in the turnover pro-
cess?
4. What are the conceptual and empirical relationships
among turnover and other so-called "withdrawl"
criteria?
The objectives of this paper are to underscore the
importance of these questions and to suggest some
approaches for addressing them.
'Preparation of this paper was supported in part by the Office
of Naval Research, NI10OOI4-76-C-0938: NR 170-819. An
earlier version of the paper was presented at the Symposium on
Employee Withdrawal, 40th Annual Meeting of the Academy of
Management, Detroit, 1980.
The Process in Turnover Process Research
The turnover act—the leaving of an organiza-
tion—is a time specific event marked by physical
separation from the organization. For many years
researchers and managers have been interested in
the antecedents of this event. A high proportion of
empirical research has focused on demographic
variables and job satisfaction as correlates of turn-
over (Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, & Meglino, 1979;
Muchinsky & Tuttle, 1979; Porter & Steers, 1973).
Continuation of the bivariate empirical approach
will add relatively little to a further understanding
of turnover. Multivariate analyses, in the absence
of a strong conceptual base, may enhance the
prediction of turnover but will do relatively little to
forward the understanding of the process.
A number of authors have developed conceptual
models of turnover as a process. They include
March and Simon (1958), Porter and Steers (1973),
Mobley (1977), Mobley et al. (1979), Price (1977),
Bluedorn (1980), and Steers and Mowday (in press).
However, current research rarely captures the pro-
cess explicit in these models.
A process, by dictionary definition, is:
a) a phenomenon marked by changes that lead toward
a particular result;
b) a series of actions or operations conducing to an
end.

Ill
Inherent in this definition of process are change,
time, actions, and operations. In the case of turn-
over, these actions and operations may be behavior-
al, cognitive, or affective. The merits of any par-
ticular model are not the focus here. Rather, the
focus is on the inadequate treatment given the turn-
over process by the current body of research,
because of its neglect of change, time, and, until
recently, multiple actions and operations.
For the typical turnover research paradigm, data
are collected on antecedents, usually from surveys
and personnel records. At some later point in time
the turnover criterion data are collected and cor-
relational analyses are performed. In recent years
there has been increased use of conceptually based
multiple antecedents and predictive designs.
However, the standard paradigm misses three ele-
ments critical to the understanding of turnover as a
process: change, feedback, and interactions over
time.
At the time the survey measures are collected,
individuals may be at different points in the turn-
over process. In the interval between the single
survey measure and collection of the turnover data,
individual perceptions, preferences, and evalua-
tions of self, organization, and alternatives may
have changed. There may well be individual dif-
ferences in process or lag time (Mobley et. al.,
1979). There may well be a number of feedback
loops among such turnover antecedents as satisfac-
tion and success of search (Mobley, 1977).
The point is that one-time survey measures and
subsequent correlational analysis miss the bulk of
the process involved in turnover. Although the re-
cent applications of hierarchical regression and
path analytic tools have been useful, they still repre-
sent static analysis and are limited by statistical
assumptions regarding recursivity. Is it not time to
move beyond static analyses, no matter how sophis-
ticated the statistical model, and directly attack the
study of turnover as a temporal process?
A detailed examination of the process of turnover
requires repeated measures of multiple antecedents
over time and statistical analyses that capture the
temporal dimension. Multiple surveys, employee
diaries, repeated observations, and researcher-
employee interaction on a continuing or regular
basis are possible alternatives to the convenient but
inadequate single-administration measures. The
works of Porter, Crompon, and Smith (1976),
112
Graen and Ginsburgh (1977), and Youngblood,
Laughlin, Mobley, and Meglino (1980), each using
a variant of a longitudinal design, illustrate the
types of paradigms required if progress is to be
made in understanding turnover as a process.
Further, there is a need to explore the possibility
that relationships within the process may not be
simple linear functions. For example, could the
relationship between job dissatisfaction and search
behavior involve a step function? Is it only after
dissatisfaction reaches some threshold value that
the individual initiates search? Although catastro-
phe theory still is not well understood, Sheridan's
(1980) efforts to use catastrophe models with turn-
over represent a unique attempt to approach the
turnover process from other than a static linear
model.
The Consequences of Turnover
For years various authors have noted the need to
guard against viewing turnover as a necessarily
negative phenomenon (Gaudet, 1960; Gellerman,
1974). More recently, turnover research has been
criticized for focusing disproportionately on
antecedents of turnover to the neglect of conse-
quences (Dalton & Todor, 1979; Staw & Oldham,
1978).
The argument that antecedents have been over-
studied is, perhaps, overstated. There is a great deal
yet to be learned about the antecedents and interre-
lationships involved in the turnover process.
However, there is little question that positive and
negative consequences of turnover deserve greatly
increased conceptual and empirical emphasis.
If one accepts the reasonable premise that turn-
over is not necessarily undesirable, then it becomes
necessary to examine the conditions under which
turnover is to be considered desirable or undesir-
able. Such an examination requires specification
and analysis of the cost and consequences, that is,
the utHiiy of turnover. Further, lest the study of
consequences follow the same history as the study
of antecedents, it is necessary to go beyond simply
specifying and studying consequences in a static
sense and move toward specifying and studying the
processes associated with consequences. In this
respect it is important to note that antecedent and
consequence processes are not independent and
probably will exhibit a variety of interrelationships.
Performance and its relation to turnover, to be
discussed later, is an example of a variable relevant
to both antecedent and consequent processes.
Table 1 summarizes some of the positive and
negative consequences of employee turnover and
other possibilities for further research in this area.
The negative organization cell perhaps is the more
frequently studied, or assumed, set of conse-
quences. Flamholtz (1974), Mirvis and Lawler
(1977), Tuggle (1978), and Cawsey and Wedley
(1979) are among those who have contributed to
identification and estimation of organizational
costs associated with turnover. Careful measure-
ment of such costs (or investments) is necessary, but
not sufficient, if the utility of turnover and turnover
management strategies is to be adequately assessed.
The remaining cells are relatively underrecogniz-
ed and/or underresearched. Gellerman (1974),
Dalton and Todor ( 1979), Staw and Oldham ( 1978),
and Staw (1980) recently have helped focus atten-
tion on some of the components of the organization
positive and individual positive cells. Mowday
(1981) and Steers and Mowday (in press) have
begun needed research on identifying the individual
consequences of turnover and related psychological
processes for the almost totally neglected stayers.
A variety of turnover research issues flow from
Table I. In the most general sense:
a. Can the consequences and associated processes in
Table 1 be shown to occur in lawful ways?
b. What are the determinants of each consequence?
c. What further consequences can be identified?
d. What are the relations among cells?
e. How can an organization and/or individual enhance
positive consequences of turnover and minimize
negative consequences?
f. How can the net utility of turnover management
strategies be measured so as to reflect the multiple
possible positive and negative consequences?
A major problem in pursuing adequate analysis
of turnover utility will be the ability to measure and
integrate the variety of turnover consequences.
Some ingenious thinking will be required in the
measurement and integration of turnover conse-
quences.
The argument here is not to deemphasize the
study of antecedents in the turnover process.
Rather, the argument is to expand the study of turn-
over to conceptual and empirical analysis of the
consequences, the determinants of these conse-
quences, and the interrelationships among anteced-
ents and consequences. Integrating a utility orienta-
tion into turnover research should substantially

Some Possible Positive and Negative Individual and Organizational
Consequences of Employee Turnover
Organization
Possible Negative Consequences
Costs (recruiting, hiring, assimilation,
training)
Replacement costs
Out-processing costs
Disruption of social and communication
structures
Productivity loss (during replacement
search and retraining)
Loss of high performers
Decreased satisfaction among stayers
Stimulate "undifferentiated"
turnover control strategies
Negative PR from leavers
Possible Positive Consequences
Displacement of poor performers
Infusion of new knowledge/technology
via replacements
Stimulate changes in policy and practice
Increased internal mobility opportunities
Increased structural flexibility
Increased satisfaction among stayers
Decrease in other "withdrawal"
behaviors
Opportunities for cost reduction,
consolidation
Table 1
Individual (Leavers) Individual (Stayers)
Loss of seniority and related Disruption of social and communication
prerequisites patterns
Loss of nonvested benefits Loss of functionally valued coworkers
Disruption of family and social Decreased satisfaction
support systems Increased work load during and imme-
"Grass is greener" phenomenon and diately after search for replacement
subsequent disillusionment Decreased cohesion
Inflation related costs (e.g., mort- Decreased commitment
gage cost)
Transition related stress
Disruption of spouse's career path
Career path regression
Increased earnings Increased internal mobility opportunity
Career advancement Stimulation, cross-fertilization from
Better "person-organization fit," thus new co-workers
(for example) less stress, better use of Increased satisfaction
skills, interests Increased cohesion
Renewed stimulation in new environment Increased commitment
Attainment of nonwork values
Enhanced self-efficacy perceptions
Self-development

113
contribute to better understanding and manage-
ment of the turnover process from both individual
and organizational perspectives. As attention is ex-
panded to turnover consequences, it will be impor-
tant to maintain a process rather than a static
perspective.
It is important to recognize that a number of
variables in Table 1 may be viewed as both possible
antecedents and consequences. One particularly
salient variable, which can be viewed from both
antecedent and consequence perspectives, is the per-
formance of stayers and leavers.
Performance in the Turnover Process
From a managerial perspective, it would seem ap-
parent that the organizational consequences of
turnover are closely associated with the perfor-
mance level of the leavers. However, the present
author recently explored the turnover analysis prac-
tices of private sector organizations in the United
States and found that relatively few consider per-
formance in their internal analysis and reporting of
turnover.
From a research perspective, the literature ex-
hibits a lack of conceptual or empirical treatments
of performance either as an antecedent or as a con-
sequence in the turnover process. The limited em-
pirical evidence that does exist suggests that leavers
are predominately better performers (Martin,
1981). However, there are several studies that con-
tradict this generalization; the existing research is
predominately from nonbusiness settings; and
criteria frequently are questionable. Further, the
performance-turnover relationship has not been ex-
amined in the context of a richer model of antece-
dents and consequences associated with the turn-
over process.
A variety of subquestions follow from the general
inquiry into the role of performance in the turnover
processes. Examples include:
a) Do high performers have and perceive more external
alternatives?
b) In the absence of a perceived alternative, do high
performers with a desire or intent to leave modify
their performance?
c) Do nonperformance-contingent reward systems en-
courage turnover among high performers?
d) What are the consequences for stayers of the depar-
ture of individuals of differing performance levels?
e) How can the utility of turnover among individuals
of differing performance levels be indexed?
114
Porter and Steers (1973) argued that future turn-
over research should distinguish between effective
and ineffective leavers. This argument, largely
unheeded, continues to be relevant in attempts to
understand the turnover process more fully.
Relationships Between Turnover and Other
Withdrawal Behavior
The fourth and final question to be addressed
here deals with empirical and conceptual relation-
ships between turnover and other so-called "with-
drawal" behaviors. Only under a rather limited
subset of conditions would one argue that these
behaviors represent a common "withdrawal" pro-
cess. The turnover-absenteeism relation will be used
as illustrative.
Empirically, the Porter and Steers (1973) review
found that of the 22 instances in which variables
were concurrently studied in relation with both
absenteeism and turnover, only 6 significant rela-
tions in the same direction for both absenteeism and
turnover were observed. This finding should not be
surprising. There is a variety of conditions under
which observable relationships between turnover
and absenteeism, in a correlational sense, would not
be expected. For example:
a) when turnover is a function of the positive attraction
of an alternative job rather than escape, avoidance,
or "withdrawal' from an unsatisfying or stressful
current job;
b) when absenteeism is a function of the need to attend
to nonjob role demands (e.g., parent, sports
person); ,
c) when the consequences of quitting relative to the
consequences of being absent have little in common;
d) when absenteeism or turnover is constrained, for ex-
ample, a monetarily enforced absenteeism control
policy and no job alternatives, respectively;
e) when absenteeism or turnover is a spontaneous or
impulsive act;
0 when the work role is structured so as to permit
discretionary, nonrecorded time away from the job,
for example, professional, managerial positions;
g) when nonused days of absence are "vested" and can
be taken with pay at the time of termination;
h) when absenteeism serves as a "safety valve" to
dissipate work pressures that otherwise might
precipitate turnover.
Similarly, there are conditions under which a
relationship between turnover and absenteeism
would be expected to be observable. For example:
 a) when an individual is absent to engage in job search;
b) when absenteeism represents avoidance of a dissatis-
fying or stressful job and alternative jobs are
available;
c) when the consequences of absenteeism and turnover
have high communality such as when both serve to
accommodate nonwork roles or values and are
relatively unconstrained.
These examples do not represent an exhaustive
list. They do serve to illustrate that the conditions
under which a relationship between turnover and
absenteeism will be observable may be far
outweighed by conditions under which relationships
would not be observable.
Note that this does not argue that absenteeism
and turnover cannot, under certain conditions, be
conceptually related even though the relationship,
in a correlational sense, is not observable. Two ma-
jor conditions in which absenteeism and turnover
might be conceptually, though not correlationally,
related are:
1. when absenteeism serves as a "safety valve" func-
tion precluding accumulation of job pressures that
might otherwise lead to turnover;
2. when quitting is desired but is constrained by
economic (e.g., relevant job market), personal (e.g.,
spouse's career), legal or normative (as in certain
foreign countries) influences.
Static correlations between turnover and
absenteeism (or other "withdrawal" behaviors) will
not be sufficient for an understanding of these rela-
tionships. In order to assess adequately the relation-
ship between absenteeism and turnover, it will be
necessary to take a longitudinal, an individual, a
process approach. As dissatisfaction or role
pressures develop, how do individuals respond in
the face of constraints on quitting? Absenteeism
may be one response, but absenteeism may be con-
strained. Under what conditions are cognitive reap-
praisals rather than behavioral manifestations the
response to a stressful or dissatisfying job when
quitting is constrained? Such a temporal examina-
tion would seem necessary if these sorts of issues are
to be understood.
Finally, use of the label "withdrawal" to describe
all turnover, absenteesim, and other behaviors is a
misnomer if the implication is escape or avoidance
based behavior. As noted above, turnover can be
motivated by the positive attraction of alternatives
rather than escape from an undesirable job. Absen-
teeism can be motivated by the positive attraction
or necessity of an alternative activity rather than
115
escape or avoidance of an undesirable work situa-
tion. The term "withdrawal," with its implicit con-
notation of escape or avoidance, clearly is not
descriptive of all turnover and absenteeism
behavior.
Price (1977), in the early pages of his book on
turnover, cogently argued that those who wish to
treßt turnover, absenteeism, and other criteria
under the label of withdrawal behavior must
shoulder the responsibility for defining withdrawal
and demonstrating the implied interrelationships.
Price's admonition is endorsed here. It is time to
move beyond casually grouping a variety of
behaviors under the potentially misleading label of
withdrawal and making simple correlational analy-
ses among such variables.
Summary
In summary, the questions are not new. In fact,
the questions raised here have been expressed in
various forms for at least 20 years (Gaudet, 1960;
March & Simon, 1958). In historical perspective,
research attention has focused on a relatively nar-
row spectrum of turnover antecedent and conse-
quence processes. Largely ignored is the role of per-
formance in turnover processes, and insufficiently
mapped are the conceptual and empirical relation-
ships among criteria that perhaps are too casually
labeled "withdrawal." There is no lack of continu-
ing research needs.
One final observation from a pragmatic perspec-
tive. Given the likely post baby boom labor market
of the late 1980s and 1990s (Wächter, 1980), a
sound body of knowledge regarding the turnover
process will be increasingly important. The decline
in the proportion of young people entering the work
force suggests a highly competitive labor market
with many entry level alternatives. Further, with the
extension of mandatory retirement, longer life ex-
pectancies, and the aging of the baby boom cohort,
promotional and career advancement opportunities
may be limited for this age group. The potential
turnover implications of these developments are ap-
parent.
Thus, in conclusion, important questions are yet
to be answered regarding turnover as a process, and
the individual and organizational importance of the
turnover process may become even greater in the
coming decades.
 References
Bluedorn, A. C. A unified model of turnover from organiza-
tions. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1980, 268-272.
Cawsey, T. F., & Wedley, W. C. Labor turnover costs: Measure-
ment and control. Personnel Journal, 1979, 58, 90-95.
Dalton, D. R., & Todor, W. D. Turnover turned over: An ex-
panded and positive perspective. Academy of Management
Review, 1979, 4, 225-235.
Flamholtz, E. Human resource accounting. Encino, Calif.:
Dickenson, 1974.
Gaudet, F. J. Labor turnover: Calculation and cost. New York:
American Management Association, I960.
Gellerman, S. W. In praise of those who leave. The Conference
Board Record, 1974, 11, 34-40.
Graen, G. B., & Ginsburgh, S. Job resignation as a function of
role orientation and leader acceptance: A longitudinal in-
vestigation of organization assimilation. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 1977, 19, 1-17.
March, J. G. & Simon, H. Organizations. New York: Wiley,
1958.
Martin, T. M. Research note on job performance and turnov r.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 1981, 66, 116-119.
Mirvis, P . H . , & Lawler, E. E., III. M e a s u r i n g the financial im-
pact of employee attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology,
1977, 62, 1-8.
Mobley, W. H. Intermediate linkages in the relationship between
job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 1979, 62, 237-240.
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.
Mowday, R. T. Viewing turnover from the perspective of those
who remain: The relationship of job attitudes to attributions
of the causes of turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology,
1981, 66, 120-123.
William H. Mobley is Professor of Management and
Associate Dean, College of Business Administration,
Texas A&M University.
116
Munchinsky, P. M., & Tuttle, M. L. Employee turnover; An em-
pirical and methodological assessment. Journal of Vocational
Behavoir, 1979, 14, 43-77
Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. W. Organizational, work, and per-
sonal factors in employee turnover and absenteesim.
Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 80, 151-176.
Porter, L. W., Crompon, W. J., & Smith, F. J. Organizational
commitment and managerial turnover: A longitudinal
study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
1976, 15, 87-98.
Price, J. L. The study of turnover. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State
University Press, 1977.
Sheridan, J. E. A CUSP-catrastrophe model of employee turn-
over. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1980, 161-165.
Staw\ B. M. The consequences of turnover. Journal of Occupa-
tional Behavior, 1980, 1,253-273.
Staw, B. M., & Oldham, G. R. Reconsidering our dependent
variables. A critique and empirical study. Academy of
Management Journal, 1978, 21, 539-559.
Steers, R. M., & Mowday, R. T. Employee turnover and the post
decision accommodation process. In L. L. Cummings & B. M.
Siaw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 3).
Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, in press.
Tuggle, F. D. An analysis of employee turnover. Behaviorai
Science, 1978, 23, 32-37.
Wächter, M. L. The labor market and illegal immigration: The
outlook for the 1980"s. Industriai and Labor Reiations
Review, 1980, 33, 342-354.
Youngblood, S. A., Laughlin. J. E., Mobley, W. H., & Meglino,
B. M. A longitudinal analysis of military recruit attrition: The
first 25 months. ONR-TR-11. Columbia, S. C : Center for
Management and Organizational Research, University of
South Carolina, 1980.
Copyright of Academy of Management Review is the property of Academy of Management and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.