Job Related Factors Employee Turnover Management Essay

The definition of term “turnover” is being defined by Price is the ratio of the number of workers that quit and had to be replaced within a time period to the average number of workers. In simple terms, employee turnover is an action that an poor performer employee leaves the organizations and he or she will be replaced with another more skilled employee or when retired employee will be replaced by a younger one (Shamsuzzoha & Shumon, 2007). Frequently, managers use to refer turnover as the entire process that associated with the filling on a vacancy. When particular position was vacated, no matter it is voluntary or involuntarily, the new employee is needed to be hired and be trained. This replacement cycle is known as turnover (Hom & Griffeth, 1995). Voluntary and involuntary turnover of employees are involving cost of administrative on advertisement on vacancy, recruitment and selection, training and job search for the both firm and the employee (Cascio, 1991). Employee turnover is very costly as it requires different cost to take in account such as Other than that, cost on orientation and training after the process of selection for the new employees as well. There is no standard reason for why people leave the organization (Ongori, 2007). Employee turnover is the rotation of workers around the labor market, in between firms, jobs and occupations and also between the states of the employment and unemployment (Abassi & Hollman, 2000). There are few factors that caused employee turnover. There are, first, job related factors, second, voluntarily and involuntary turnover, and third, organizational factors.

2.1.1.1 Job related factors

From the past researchers (Peters, Bhagat, O’Connor, 1981; Bluedorn, 1982; Kramer, Callister & Turban, 1995; Saks, 1996; Kalliath & Beck, 2001) had researched on what determines people’s intention to quit by investigating the most possible derivation of employees’ intention to quit. However, there had been a little consistency in findings due to the diversity of employed (Ongori, 2007). There is few reason why people quit from one organization to another organization it is because of the experiencing job related stress (job stress), factors that lead to job related stress (stressors), lack of commitment inside the organization, and also job dissatisfaction that make employees to quit from the organization (Firth, David, Kathleen, & Claude, 2007). This showed that these are individual decision to leave the organizations. Furthermore, due to personal reason which makes individual to quit. Whereby, an individual sense of powerless in an organization. According to Mano and Shay (2004), argue that employee quit from the organization is due to economic reason. Economic reason is use to predict employee turnover in labor market. If an organizations which is large and able to provide employees higher wages and better benefits, it will able to ensure the employee is attach with the organizations (Idson & Feaster, 1990). Role stressor will also lead to employee’s turnover. Role ambiguity refers to what others expect employees to perform on the job and what employees felt they should do on the job. This will cause uncertainty on what an individual’s role in the organizations. The result on uncertainty on job will be misunderstanding what was being expected, with the expectations or the perception of an employee towards the job will be different (Ongori, 2007). Due to the unclear expectation, lack of consensus, with the extensive of job pressure may cause an employee felt that the ignorance from the job and less satisfied with the job and careers. It will lead to less committed to their organizations and eventually the intention of leaving the organization is higher (Tor, Guinmaraes, & Owen, 1997). If roles of employees are not clearly stated by the management, it would accelerate the degree of employee quitting from their job (Ongori, 2007).

2.1.1.2 Voluntarily and Involuntary turnover

Turnover in organization can be divided in to two, voluntary and involuntary turnover. Voluntary turnover is an employee’s own intention to leave the organizations, whereby involuntary turnover were the employees had no choice in their termination (Mbah & Ikemefuna, 2012). Voluntary turnover may involve with the individual’s work selection opportunity and with the job hunting behaviors. It was use as the most direct independent variable to employee behavior, and also dependent variable which a numerous predetermined variables which affect employee voluntary turnover factors (Allen & Griffeth, 1999; Price, 1977). However, involuntary turnover where the employee had to force to stop their work in organizations, the reason maybe with the long term sickness, death, moving overseas, or employer-initiated termination (Ongori, 2007). There are some employees who needed to give extra care on their children or aged relatives and caused involuntary turnover. Nowadays, the reason is no longer consider as involuntary turnover as because of government regulations and company policies had created chance for the employees to return back to work or with more flexible working period (Simon & Kristian, 2007).

2.1.1.3 Organization’s factors

Organizational instability had been shown that will have high degree of high turnover. Employees are more likely to stay when there is predictable work environment and vice versa (Zuber, 2001). An organization where had high level of inefficiency there will also have high level of employee turnover (Alexander, Boom, Nuchols, 1994). Therefore, employees will tend to look after which organizations is more stable compare with the organizations which are not. It is because in a stable organization, they would able to predict their career advancement (Ongori, 2007). By using quantitative approach to manage the employees will leads to labor turnover. Due to adopting cost oriented approach to employment cost will increase the labor turnover (Simon & Kristian, 2007). With the minimizing the cost, it will only lead to high turnover rate in organizations (Ongori, 2007). Thus, management should not use quantitative approach in managing its staff. Furthermore, according to Labov (1997) said that organization with strong communication system will have lower turnover rate. It is because employees have a strong need to be informed in their job. If an employee’s position is involving in making decision, they are less likely to leave the organizations. Employees which are not openness in sharing information, employee empowerment the chances of continuity of employees will be minimal (Magner, Welker, & Johnson, 1996). Besides that, organization with poor personnel policies, recruitment policies, supervisory practices, or grievance procedures will cause employees decides to quit (Ongori, 2007). According to Griffeth, Hom, Gaertner (2000), said that pay and pay-related variable had the modest effect on turnover. Their analysis included examine of relationship between pay, person’s performance and turnover. It was being concluded that when high performers are not rewarded fairly, there will be high turnover rate.

2.1.3 Job satisfaction

Job satisfaction is regard to one’s feeling towards their job and different aspects on their job in the organizations. Job satisfaction can be influenced by variety of factors, such as pay practice, relationships between their supervisors, quality of the physical environment in their work (Hamdia & Tooksoon, 2011). In addition, job satisfaction is generally believed that, higher job satisfaction is associated with the increases of productivity, lower absenteeism, and with the lower rate of employee turnover (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). Some workers manifest the intention to quit via decrease of performance or increased absenteeism (Firth, Mellir, Moore & Loquet, 2004). Low absenteeism is linked with high job satisfaction; meanwhile high turnover and absenteeism are associated to relate to job dissatisfaction (Saifuddin, Hongkraclent & Sermril, 2008). The Mobley model (Lee, 1988) had explain the process of how job dissatisfaction can lead to employee turnover. The model explained how an employee normally experiences seven sequential and intermediate stages in between job dissatisfaction and turnover. Mobley theorized that job dissatisfaction leads an employee (1) to think about quitting the current job, which maybe helps the employee to lead in. (2) To evaluate the expected usefulness on searching for another job with the cost that associated with quitting the current job. From the evaluation, (3) intention to look after alternative jobs may appear, which leads the employees (4) to intend of searching for alternative jobs and (5) to the evaluation of the consensus of any specific alternatives. Base on the second evaluation, employee would (6) compare the new alternatives with the current job which it can lead to (7) intention to quit, and eventually lead to actual employee turnover. Thus, it is very important that not only to the individual worker but also with the survival of the organizations. It is to prevent employees to felt to depart from the organization (Zafir, Radzuan & Fazilah, 2011).

2.2 Related theory

Herzberg’s two-factor theory divides in to motivation and job satisfaction into two groups which known as motivation factors and hygiene factors (Riley, 2005). According to Frederick Herzberg, “the motivating factors are the six ‘job content’ factors that included achievement, recognition, works itself, responsibility of growth. Whereby, hygiene factors are the ‘job context’ factors, which included company policy, supervision, relationship with super vision, work conditions, relationship with peers, salary, personal life, relationship with subordinates, status, and job security (Ruthankoon & Ogunlana, 2003). Below is a list of motivators and hygiene factors from Robbins and Coulter (2003).

Motivators

Hygiene Factors

Achievement

Recognition

Work Itself

Responsibility

Growth

Supervison

Company Policy

Relationship with Supervisor

Supervisor

Salary

Relationship with Peers

Personal Life

Relationship with Subordinates

Status

Security

According to Schermerhorn (2003) and Merge (2004), stated that the theory differentiates the factors between intrinsic factors and extrinsic factors. Intrinsic factors (or motivators), is known as the job content factors which define things that people actually does on their work, the responsibility and achievements. These factors will lead to one’s increase level of job satisfaction in the work. The job context factors are the extrinsic factors (or de-motivators) that employee does not have much control over. They are more depends on the environment which people work than to the nature of the work itself. Herzberg identifies these factors is the sources of job dissatisfaction. He reasoned that because the factor causing satisfactions are different from others which caused dissatisfaction. Both of the feeling cannot be treated as opposites of one another. The opposite of job satisfaction is not job dissatisfaction, but rather, no job satisfaction; in similarity, the opposite of job dissatisfaction is not job satisfaction, but is no job dissatisfaction. In others words it is the presence of demotivators (job dissatisfaction) and the absence of motivators (no job satisfaction) that cause employees job-hopping (Merge, 2004). The distinction between the two opposite may sound like a play words, but Herzberg argued that there are the two distinct human needs portrayed (“Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory”, 2002).

Herzberg believed that manager who tried to minimize the factors that lead to dissatisfaction (hygiene factors) could bring workplace harmony, but not necessarily on motivation. It is because hygiene factors do not motivate the employees, manager would have to emphasize the intrinsic factors or motivators to increase job satisfaction (Robbin & Coulter, 2003). Therefore, with the basic premise of the two-factor theory is that an employer or manager is trying to increase job satisfaction and ultimately job performance for an employee, they need to address those factors that affect one’s job satisfaction (Riley, 2005). By using the most direct approach is to work on the intrinsic, job content factors. It is to give encouragement and recognition for the employee and let them felt they are valued within the company, as well as the sense of responsibility and achievement. Herzbergs said that, “the only way to motivate an employee is to give them challenging work in which they can felt the responsibility” (Leach & Westbrook, 2000). An employee who holds responsibility in the work will felt their work is worthwhile and job performance will be increase. “People must believe that they are capable of attaining a goal before they put on full effort (motivation) in to their job” (Hunsaker, 2005).

2.3 Previous Research

Job satisfaction is the satisfaction with the pay, with the nature of work and with the supervision and have positive pleased feelings on one and as a result value to it. The relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover intention is one of the most thoroughly investigated topics in the turnover literature. In many past research study reported that, there is consistent of negative relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover intention (Mobbly, 1977; Price, 1977). In other study, Muhammad and his colleague (2011) stated that employee turnover had significant relationship with job satisfaction. As employees felt dissatisfied in their workplace, they will leave for a better organization which can satisfy them.

However, with the fact of relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover intention is not that strong, yet it doesn’t suggest that satisfaction need not to be measured (Mobley, 1982). According to Mobley (1982), said that measure on satisfaction must be combined with other type of measurement in order to get effectively understand turnover. It had been found that job satisfaction need to be account with a small percentage of others aspect such as pay, supervision and with the nature of work.

2.3.1 Related Literature on Employee turnover intention factors (Pay)

Porter and Steers (1973) and Price (1977) had said that, ‘pay’ is to be consistently and negatively related to turnover. However, according to Mobley, Griffeth, Hand and Meglino (1979) had concludes that the findings that concerning in pay are not conclusive. According to Price (1977) said that, pay, integration, general training, formal communication and centralization shape of job satisfaction which influence employee turnover. He further adds on opportunity moderates the relationship between the job satisfaction and turnover. Price and Mueller (1981), work together to expend the model and able to develop a causal model of employee turnover base on their survey on turnover among nurses. Employee’s participation in job-related decision, availability of work related information, earning good and fair compensation and enjoying opportunity and promotion are more likely to be satisfied. With high job satisfaction will have the higher intention to stay at the current employer. According to Loquercio (2006), had stated that an employee who work hard, and uphold company reputation and loyalty with the organizations will expect employers to have given fair return in the ways of pay or opportunities for promotion or others. Idson and Feaster (1990) said that jobs which provide adequate incentive will more likely to retain the employees with the organizations. With the large organizations can provide employees with better and chances for advancement of higher wages and it is able to ensure the organizational attachment. According to Scott (1993) examine the relationship between pay and employee turnover intention in Arizona, Federal Bureau of Prisons. The study was employed quantitative survey, with distributing questionnaire to 3608 respondent. The finding shows that there is negative relationship between pay and employee turnover intention in Federal Bureau of Prison. The higher and fair rewarded (pay), the lesser the turnover rate among employees.

2.3.2 Related Literature on Employee turnover intention factors (nature of work)

Nature of work is based on the changes of environment, as the challenges of higher educational levels are influencing employees who are those low education levels (Mbah & Ikemefuna, 2012). Past generation of employees is those who don’t have much opportunity to have higher education. They are basically school leavers and don’t care about what kind of work they are doing. Due to the low level of education, employees will hardly to left the organization once they are being employed (Mbah & Ikemefuna, 2012). Mbah and Ikemefuna (2012) had examined the relationship between the nature of work and employee turnover intention. The survey employed quantitative and qualitative study by distributing 300 questionnaires to the total number of 481 employees in Nigeria, and conducted interview with three Human Resources Executives in order to get more in-depth discussion around the questions that presented in the questionnaires. The research findings confirm that the higher the satisfaction with nature of work the lower the employee turnover intention. This means that the satisfaction with the nature of work is negatively related to turnover intention. This also corroborates the findings by Ologunde (2005); Koh and God (1995) which reported that satisfaction with the nature of work is negatively related to turnover intention with the sample of university teacher in south western Nigeria and employees in the banking industry in Singapore respectively.

2.3.3 Related Literature on Employee turnover intention factors (supervision)

Supervision is an essential to an organization, with the extensive knowledge of job requirements and opportunity to observe their employee. Supervisors define as a manager. In order to make sure employee can have high performance in order to have high productivity (Mudor & Tooksoon, 2011).

According to Candle (2010) had verified on the relationship between supervision and turnover intention among the private secondary teachers in Wakiso District. The study employed quantitative survey by distributing questionnaire to 242 participants out of 380 teachers in Wakiso District. The research findings had shown that the better of supervision will had a low rate of teacher turnover. Base on the responses from the respondents had revealed that there is negative relationship between supervision and employee turnover. later study by Krasek and Theorell (1990) found that poor supervision will not only caused the dissatisfaction in work but also affect the turnover. Employees who are under poor supervision by the supervisor will tend to low job performance and lead to turnover. A good supervision is the potent motivators which can enhance their job satisfaction and reduce the turnover rate. In addition, Harmon, Scotti, Behson, Farias, Petzel, Neuman and Keashly (2007), had clarified that the supervision had significant correlated with the increases of job satisfaction and decrease the turnover intention among the workers.

2.4 Conclusion

This chapter focused more on past studies which provides writer with secondary data such as journals, articles and reference books. The research context, research theory and previous research had serves as a road map for writer to continue on the following chapter in this study.