Employee development and voluntary turnover: testing the employability paradox

Abstract

The employability paradox is a concern among employers. It states that development activities enhancing employees' employability also increase the risk for employee turnover. This study examined this paradox and probed the relationship between six development activities and voluntary turnover mediated by perceived employability. We tested both a turnover‐stimulating path via perceived external employability (i.e. perceived job alternatives with other employers) and a retention path via perceived internal employability (i.e. perceived job alternatives with the current employer) by using two‐wave longitudinal data from 588 employees. The results put the turnover risk into perspective: only upward job transition positively influenced turnover via perceived external employability. Also, the retention path via perceived internal employability was not supported: several development activities were positively related with perceived internal employability, but perceived internal employability did not influence turnover. We did, however, find a direct retention effect of skill utilisation. Overall, the results downplay the employability paradox.

The winner takes it all, the loser has to fall: Provoking the agency perspective in employability research

“…The central tenet in SET is that relationships are based on reciprocity: They are defined in terms of mutual exchange in view of generating benefits that cannot be achieved alone (Cropanzano & Mitchell, ; Mitchell, Cropanzano, & Quisenberry, ). In the employability literature, SET is mostly used in the context of the new employment relationship (Solberg & Dysvik, ): Employability investments on the part of the employer are currency for employees' engagement in the relationship, typically assessed by commitment (Philippaers, De Cuyper, & Forrier, ) or turnover intention (Nelissen et al, ). This view on social exchange is highly agentic: Control over the employment relationship rests with the individual (Table , A2.3) and is based on an expected gain in employability (A3.3).…”

“…One illustration is studies on the “self‐made employability man” (Philippaers et al, ): Employability is often seen as the result of individual merit and effort (Assumption 1). Rather ironically, another illustration is studies probing the employability management paradox: Employer investments in employability are beneficial for the organisation, for example, in productivity gain, but also risky when employable workers are more likely to quit (Acikgoz et al, ; De Cuyper & De Witte, ; Nelissen et al, ; Philippaers et al, ). Though those studies concern the employer's perspective, they study individuals and their decision on whether or not to stay with the organisation (Assumption 2).…”

“…Outcome-based approaches of employability do not focus on aspects that increase the chance of a job, but they instead aim to directly assess this chance, mostly by looking at the window of employment opportunities that the individual perceives and considers within reach and attractive (Gunz, Peiperl, & Tzabbar, 2007) and in the internal and/or external labour market (De Cuyper & De Witte, 2011;Rothwell & Arnold, 2007). This has been coined selfperceived or self-rated employability (Acikgoz, Sumer, & Sumer, 2016;Berntson et al, 2006;Nelissen, Forrier, & Verbruggen, 2017;Wittekind, Raeder, & Grote, 2010). The argument that is commonly used to focus upon self-perceived employability and not objective outcomes (e.g., transitions) is highly agentic: Individuals are likely to act upon their perceptions, so that self-perceived employability influences labour market behaviour (Forrier et al, 2015).…”

The impact of HRM, perceived employability, and job insecurity on self‐initiated expatriates’ adjustment to the host country

“…We anticipate that career‐oriented HRM practices implemented by employers will have a positive role in enhancing both internal and external PE. Although enhancing external PE may not exactly be desired by organizations (see literature on the management paradox—De Cuyper & De Witte, ; Nelissen, Forrier, & Verbruggen, ; Van der Heijde & Van der Heijden, ), it is likely that this effect is going to occur anyway, due to the enhancement of individuals’ human capital (both firm specific and transferable). Accordingly, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 3a: Career‐oriented HRM practices are positively related to SIEs’ external upward PE .

…”

“…Thus, our results support the notion that employers are unlikely to invest in general transferable skills because a return on such investments is less likely when employees' profiles are in demand(Van den Broek et al, 2014). This evidence suggests that the management paradox claiming that investing in human resources may lead to an increase in external PE and, potentially, to employee turnover(De Cuyper & De Witte, 2011;Nelissen et al, 2017) may not actually be a major issue. Organizations seem, in general, to be more focused on developing organizationspecific skills rather than transferable ones.…”