It was assumed that the combination between dissatisfaction with the work (employee satisfaction) and available alternatives leads to leaving an organisation (Mobley, 1977). There are a number of issues that have not been sufficiently addressed until then. One important one is that most theories have not paid attention to interrelationships, social pressure and commitment.
In addition, mechanisms of motivations are not described while this is of great importance (Maertz & Griffeth, 2004). In this paper, therefore, the role of employee satisfaction at staff turnover discussed.
Shocks to complement employee satisfaction
Knowledge of these shocks can be used to address dysfunctional staff turnover and gain long-term competitive advantages in human and social capital.
The extent of employee satisfaction is a factor but insufficient and too limited for it to be the dominant cause for staff turnover (Holtom et al., 2005). The Hom-Griffeth model (Hom & Griffeth, 1991) was one of the first models to observe that there are 'shocks'. Shocks are based on the external environment that can eventually lead to staff turnover. The eventual exit from the organisation takes place based on employee initiative. Due to this human-based approach, the organisation and stakeholders are external players that can cause both positive and negative shocks in employees (Holtom et al., 2005). Within this theory by Hom and Griffeth (1991), a negative or positive experience takes centre stage. Knowledge of these shocks can be used to identify dysfunctional staff turnover and gain long-term competitive advantages in terms of human and social capital (Becker, Huselid, & Ulrich, 2001; Pfeffer, 1995).
Knowledge-intensive organisations that pay attention to this are able to create competitive advantages, according to Becker et al. (2001). This makes it important for knowledge-intensive organisations to create an understanding of both employee satisfaction as shocks experienced by employees. The following page explains the principle of shocks.
Shocks and employee satisfaction
The shocks are divided into four standard patterns. These patterns play out in 90 per cent of staff turnover play a role and can therefore be classified in this model (Holtom, et al., 2005).
Pattern 1
An employee leaves the organisation without considering his current connections to the organisation and alternative positions. The degree of employee satisfaction is not relevant within this movement. An example is that the employee's partner for an interesting job abroad has found (shock) and the employee wants to move with him. The question is therefore whether the organisation could influence this.
Pattern 2
Staff turnover within this group is caused by shock. The shock leads to the revaluation of social connections within the organisation. This is explained by the impairment of an employee's value image. The employee then leaves the organisation without an alternative position. An example is when an employee is barred from promotion after which, after consideration, the employee decides to leave the organisation. Importantly, employee satisfaction about the work for shock can be high and, as a result, this is not a representative picture.
Pattern 3
A shock within this pattern leads to image damage between the employee and the organisation. The employee compares his current position with alternative positions outside the organisation. This may include an offered position. Despite employee satisfaction about the work, the employee may choose to leave the organisation.
Pattern 4 a/b
Lower employee satisfaction about work is within this group the cause of voluntary staff turnover. The employee becomes aware of job dissatisfaction and decides to leave the organisation.
Pattern one is, within the study, the pattern that occurs relatively frequently and predictably.
Within pattern three, 91 per cent of employees leave the organisation unexpectedly Holtom et al. (2005). This pattern is particularly prevalent within similar knowledge-intensive organisations such as accountancy firms. Within the study, pattern one is the pattern that occurs relatively frequently and predictably.
Eight forces model
To supplement missing factors in the literature alongside these shocks, a framework was used by Maertz and Griffeth (2004) within which explanation is given of what forces lead to conservation or staff turnover. In the framework, there are eight applicable 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: this is a rational force where the employee thinks rationally about the chances of achieving his important values and goals. Here, a negative outcome leads to staff turnover.
(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 do not. Thus, with lower costs, the employee is more likely to leave the organisation.
(5) Alternative forces: this is the extent and strength of its own effectiveness regarding obtaining alternative positions outside the organisation. High efficiency and effectiveness lead to staff turnover.
(6) Normative forces: meeting shared expectations outside the organisation. Assuming there is motivation to meet these external expectations affects staff turnover.
(7) Moral forces: these forces are based on the link between behaviour and values regarding staff turnover. This ranges from 'changing jobs often is good' to 'being loyal to an organisation is a virtue'.
(8) Binding forces: motivation to stay 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.
Low employee satisfaction involves work, according to Maertz and Griffeth (2005), need not directly lead to staff turnover. Emotions are not in employee satisfaction included but play an important role, according to Maertz and Griffieth (2005). The aforementioned factors provide indicators for this to staff turnover estimate. An employee compares and values all strengths between the current and alternative organisation. Alternative positions (5) is a crucial factor in the process of leaving a knowledge-intensive organisation. When an employee does not have a good alternative, the binding forces (8) weigh more heavily against leaving the organisation (Lee & Mitchell, 1994). When there is an alternative, the employee will handle the consideration more rationally.
Embedding in function
Apart from the idea of shocks and the force model mentioned above, it staff turnover according to Mitchell, Holtom, Lee and Erez (2001), influenced by the degree of job embeddedness. This includes (1) connections with other employees, teams and groups, (2) perceptions of suitability for job, organisation and environment and (3) what an employee would give up when leaving the organisation (Mitchell et al., 2001). In this study, it was shown that job embeddedness is an important mediating variable among factors that influence the employee's eventual leaving. The three dimensions; connections, suitability and sacrifice have both an organisational and communal component.
Psychological contract
According to Guest (1998), the state of a psychological contract determines whether an employee eventually leaves the organisation. According to Rousseau (1989), a psychological contract is an individual's belief regarding the terms and conditions of an exchange agreement between the employee and the organisation. Organisational culture, HR policies, experience, expectations and alternatives are underlying factors, according to this theory. These factors determine the level of employee satisfaction, commitment, sense of security, relationships, motivation, et cetera. Due to the number of factors involved in the psychological contract, it is impossible to make it measurable (Freese, Schalk & Croon, 2008). In addition to this theory by Guest (1998), according to Khilji and Wang's (2006) research employee satisfaction about HR policies plays an important role. According to Ongori (2007), the probability of voluntary employee turnover is significantly higher among organisations with low satisfaction with HR services than those with better rated HR policies. Among younger employees, this effect is stronger than among older employees. Ongori (2007) summarises this in his literature review as poor implementation of HR policies, recruitment policies, management and lack of motivation.
Conclusion
There are several insights that explain the decision-making process of a departing employee. In thinking of shocks, there are four patterns an employee may go through before leaving. One pattern has the variable employee satisfaction as the main cause for leaving an organisation. The remaining three patterns assume one or more shocks. These can be either positive or negative and are categorised into factors such as alternative job(s), predetermined outflow, etc. An important fact, in the case of a shock, is that the pattern the employee follows is determined by the external environment.
Besides shocks, there are also forces that play a role in an employee's exit process. These are a total of eight forces; (1) Affective forces, (2) calculated forces, (3) contractual forces, (4) behavioural forces, (5) alternative forces, (6) normative forces, (7) moral forces and (8) binding forces. These forces are constantly assessed and compared with other organisations. If the other organisation then offers the (5) alternative forces a better future, the (8) binding forces will eventually lose out to the alternative forces.
Mitchell et al (2001) argues that employee turnover is explained by the degree of embeddedness within the job. Variables that explain this theory are (1) attachment to environment, (2) perception of job suitability and (3) what is given up when the employee leaves the organisation. Besides embeddedness, Guest (1998) mentions the psychological contract as an all-embracing basis. Here, organisational culture, HR policies, experience, expectations and alternatives are central as causes. The last explanation for leaving the organisation is that of Khilji and Wang (2006). They showed in their study that employee satisfaction with HR policies largely predicts voluntary employee turnover within organisations. Among younger employees, this effect is stronger.
