Turnover rates and organizational performance: A meta-analysis.

Abstract

The authors conducted a meta-analysis of the relationship between turnover rates and organizational performance to (a) determine the magnitude of the relationship; (b) test organization-, context-, and methods-related moderators of the relationship; and (c) suggest future directions for the turnover literature on the basis of the findings. The results from 300 total correlations (N = 309,245) and 110 independent correlations (N = 120,066) show that the relationship between total turnover rates and organizational performance is significant and negative (ρ = -.15). In addition, the relationship is more negative for voluntary (ρ = -.15) and reduction-in-force turnover (ρ = -.17) than for involuntary turnover (ρ = -.01). Moreover, the meta-analytic correlation differs significantly across several organization- and context-related factors (e.g., types of employment system, dimensions of organizational performance, region, and entity size). Finally, in sample-level regressions, the strength of the turnover rates-organizational performance relationship significantly varies across different average levels of total and voluntary turnover rates, which suggests a potential curvilinear relationship. The authors outline the practical magnitude of the findings and discuss implications for future organizational-level turnover research.

Causes and consequences of collective turnover: A meta-analytic review.

“…While cumulative knowledge regarding the importance of collective turnover to salient organizational outcomes is established here and elsewhere (Hancock et al, 2013;T. Park & Shaw, 2013), to this point, cumulative treatment of turnover's antecedents, at least from an empirical standpoint, has been lacking.…”

“…Rather than provide an exhaustive account of the theory and findings for all constructs within each category, we focus on general descriptions of the categories in the text and include a more detailed rationale in Table l. 1 1 We note up front that, although researchers debate whether antecedents and consequences of turnover vary across different turnover types (e.g., voluntary vs. involuntary; see Batt & Colvin, 2011;T. Park & Shaw, 2013;Shaw et al, 1998), extant collective turnover research almost uniformly reflects total or voluntary turnover rates, particularly with regard to antecedents.…”

“…Thus, the literature on antecedents is much largerand more diffuse-and could therefore benefit substantially from systematic consolidation. Second, given several recent studies that exclusively focused on turnover's consequences (e.g., Hancock, Allen, Bosco, McDaniel, & Pierce, 2013;T. Park & Shaw, 2013;Shaw, 2011), systematic examination of its determinants remains an important but as of yet untested issue.…”

Employees’ Turnover, Knowledge Management and Human Recourse Management: A Case of Nitaqat Program

“…Replacing leaving employees and selecting, recruiting and training the new ones will cost a lot of time, money and effort [10]. Reference [11] find that the relationship between total turnover and organizational performance is significant in a negative way. The sources of employee turnover has been discussed and listed in many studies before [8], [12]- [14]; these include job stress, lack of commitment in the organization, extensive job pressures, job dissatisfaction, low wages, powerlessness, economic reasons , organizational instability, poor personnel ,toxic workplace environment and poor Human Resource Management policies and procedures, and lack of motivation in the company.…”

Human resource management practices and voluntary turnover: a study of internal workforce and external labor market contingencies

“…Shaw, Delery, Jenkins, and Gupta (1998) observed, however, that SHRM studies have historically focused almost exclusively on explaining overall turnover without distinguishing between voluntary turnover (quit rates) versus involuntary turnover (dismissal rates; e.g., Huselid, 1995). Meta-analyses show that quits, rather than dismissals, drive the effects of overall turnover on organizational performance (Park and Shaw, 2013), and that quits and dismissals differ in their antecedents. Whereas employee dismissals reflect decisions made by organizational authorities, quit rates reflect decisions made by employees.…”