Facing unwanted or unpredictable employee outflow? You probably do. In fact, almost all larger organisations face this frequently but often do not know specifically what reasons for staff turnover are. A shame, because unwanted outflow has many disadvantages. Indeed, unwanted employee outflow leads to poorer performance and a worsened market position [1].
The organisation, in case of dysfunctional employee outflow, loses important abilities, skills and knowledge (human resources) that may even be prerequisites for achieving competitive advantage [2]. Indeed, by depending on organisations to retain such resources, highly skilled people within organisations become more important and influential [3].
Because of the above, understanding the motivations of these employees is an important prerequisite for effectively responding to such outflow. According to Maertz and Griffeth (2004) [4], there are eight forces that influence whether or not an employee leaves;
(1) Affective forces; this involves emotional state within the organisation. Poor emotional state leads to outflow or loss of commitment.
(2) Calculated forces; a rational force where employees rationally consider the chances of achieving their important values and goals. A negative outcome here leads to outflow.
(3) Contractual forces; these forces focus on the assumed obligations in relation to the psychological contract. This depends on the assumed norm of reciprocity.
(4) Behavioural forces; this involves the will to reduce psychological costs by investing in participation within the organisation. Higher costs motivate investing in participation and lower costs less so. Thus, at lower costs, the employee is more likely to leave the organisation.
(5) Alternative forces; this is the extent and strength of own effectiveness regarding obtaining alternative positions outside the organisation. High efficiency and effectiveness leads to outflow of an employee.
(6) Normative forces; meeting shared expectations outside the organisation. Assuming that there is motivation to meet these external expectations has an impact on employee attrition.
(7) Moral forces; these strengths are based on the link between behaviour and values regarding leaving. These vary from 'changing jobs often is good' to 'being loyal to an organisation is a virtue'.
(8) Binding forces; motivation to stay with or leave an organisation depends on connectedness with immediate colleagues and other groups within the organisation. Connectedness with colleagues and other groups runs parallel to connectedness with the organisation.
These forces exert influence on job satisfaction of the employee but within these forces 'shocks' may also occur (Holtom, B.C., Mitchell, T.R., Lee, T.W., & Inderrieden, E.J. (2005) [5]. This is the second model from which to reason. Shocks are positive or negative experiences that can ultimately lead to employee attrition. Knowledge of shocks can be used to prevent dysfunctional employee outflow. The principle of shocks replaces job satisfaction not but provides a complete concept that can be acted upon.
To understand what forces and shocks are at play within the organisation, organisations can MTO surveys or conduct exit interviews. MTO surveys however, appear to give a less specific picture of employee motivations. This makes exit interviews, when conducted correctly, more suitable to gain insight into outflow within the organisation [6]. This is because employees experience less pressure to give 'correct' answers and will therefore offer more insight into their motivations.
A good exit interview is based on a exit questionnaire. This questionnaire is built from a concept that can explain outflow from previous research. Only when the questionnaire is designed from a sound concept, and then put into exit interviews meaningfully applied, the exit tool will be effective. These interviews are conducted by staff who know how to conduct interviews in terms of content. The data from both interviews and questionnaires can then be incorporated into an exit analysis. This analysis, based on both qualities and quantitative data, assumes the concept of the questionnaire and can therefore provide insight into reasons for leaving of employees. This provides insight into results of HR policy and allows boards to better manage outflow within the organisation.
This article is based on 'Undesired outflow within knowledge-intensive organisations' (Pietersen, 2012).
[1] Cascio, W. (2002). Responsible restructuring. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler.
[2] Wright, P.M., McMahan, G.C., & McWilliams, A. (1994). Human resources and sustained competitive advantage: a resource-based perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 5, Issue 2, 301-326.
[3] Dibble, S. (1999). Keeping your valuable employees: retention strategies for your organisation's most important resource (pp. 3-10). New york: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[4] Maertz, C.P., & Griffeth, R.W. (2004). Eight Motivational Forces and Voluntary Turnover: a theoretical synthesis with implications for research. Journal of management, Vol. 30, Issue 5, DOI: 10.1016/j.jm.2004.04.001.
[5] Holtom, B.C., Mitchell, T.R., Lee, T.W., & Inderrieden, E.J. (2005). Shocks as causes of turnover: what they are and how organizations can manage them. Human resource management, vol. 44, Issue 3, 337-352, DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20074.
[6] Baabu, M.S., Chebolu, R.M., & Balaji, S.G. (2011). Exit interviews & their empanelment: the current scenario. SRM management digest, Vol. 9, 315-319, ISSN: 0973-6905.
