Controllable vs.

Uncontrollable Factors of Employee Turnover

Intentions: An Empirical Evidence from Textile sector of
Pakistan.

DR. MAHMOOD A. BODLA1

ABDUL HAMEED2

Abstract
Employee turnover has substantial cost as it is a loss of social capital. The paper
examines one of the major human resource issues i.e. employee turnover intentions in to
two dimensions: controllable and uncontrollable factors. Controllable factors are the
organizational factors and uncontrollable factors are the environmental factors. Five
variables are used for the measurement of controllable factors which include satisfaction
with pay, satisfaction with working conditions, satisfaction with supervision,
organizational commitment, and Job stress. Job hopping and perceived alternative
employment opportunities are the two variables used for measurement of uncontrollable
factors. The data is collected from 252 first line managers and supervisors of textile
sector of Pakistan for ascertaining the reasons of employee turnover. The statistical tools
employed to analyze the data are correlation and regression analyses. In the end, paper
suggests guidelines for the Human Resource Managers and Researchers.

Key Words: Employee Turnover Intentions, Controllable and Uncontrollable Factors

Introduction

Employee is a valuable asset for the organization. Employee means the individual who

performs certain tasks and duties for the accomplishment of organizational goals.

Turnover means voluntary cessation of membership of an organization by an employee of

that organization. (Morrell et al 2001). Turnover intention is broadly defined as

attitudinal (thinking of quitting), decisional (intention to leave), and behavioral (searching

for a new job) processes proceeding voluntary turnover (Sager et al., 1998, Khatri 2000).

Employee turnover incurs significant cost, both in terms of direct costs (replacement,

1
Director COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Sahiwal,Pakistan
2
Lecturer Management Sciences, COMSATS Institute of IT. Islamabad, Pakistan
recruitment and selection, temporary staff, management time), and also (and perhaps

more significantly) in terms of indirect costs (morale, pressure on remaining staff, costs

of learning, product/service quality, organizational memory) and the loss of social capital

(Dess and Shaw, 2001).

Employee turnover is a major issue for companies in many Asian countries such as

Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, Malaysia, and Taiwan (Syrett, 1994; Barnett, 1995;

Chang, 1996; Khatri 2001). The importance of workforce turnover as a sustainability

issue has been recognized by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), which has included

turnover as a core social performance indicator in its Sustainability Reporting Guidelines

(GRI 2002).

Employee turnover is giving sleepless nights to human resource managers in textile

sector of Pakistan. The textile sector is selected due to two reasons. First of all, there is

an alarming employee turnover rate i.e. 12% (Majid et al 2000). Second reason is that

textile industry represents Pakistan’s largest employer as well as key sector for the

economy having almost 68% of total export earning (Bukhari 2005) is the largest sector

of Pakistan.

This study has three main objectives. First and foremost objective is to explore the

reasons and intentions of employee turnover. Most of the studies on turnover were

conducted in the Western Organizational context (Khatri et al., 2001) and there is a vast

difference in economic, social, and cultural environments. Therefore, second objective is

to find out the implications in the Asian context.

The last objective is to partition the effects of controllable factors (such as satisfaction

with pay, working condition and organizational commitment), and uncontrollable factors

(such as alternative employment opportunities and job-hopping) on turnover intention.

The partitioning of the effects would lead to better analysis of the turnover problem.

Theoretical Framework & Hypothesis

There are two schools of thoughts on employee turnover research: the labor market

school and psychological school. The labor market school deals with the issues such as

demand & supply, job search, availability of job opportunities or perceived alternatives.

The psychological school concerns with those issues principally related to psychological

accounts such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational climate, and

job stress. Both schools of turnover research are unable to predict and explain the

adequately reasons and measures for organization to manage turnover effectively (Morrel

et al., 2001).

The framework for the study is presented in Figure 1. It includes two groups of

independent variables which include controllable and uncontrollable factors. Controllable

factors are the organizational & psychological factors i.e. job satisfaction, organizational

commitment, and job stress. Uncontrollable factors are the environmental or labor market

factors i.e. perceived alternative employment opportunities and job hopping. Turnover

Intention is the dependent variable in the study.

Mobley (1982) indicates that there are four primary determinants of turnover: Job

satisfaction-dissatisfaction; expected utility of alternative internal work roles; expected

utility of external work roles; and nonwork values and contingencies.

 Job satisfaction describes how content an individual is with his or her job. There are a

variety of factors that can influence a person's level of job satisfaction; some of these

factors include the level of pay and benefits, the perceived fairness of the promotion

system within a company, the quality of the working conditions, and the job itself.

Controllable Factors

Job Satisfaction

Organizational Commitment

Job Stress

+ - -

Employee Turnover Intention

+ +
Uncontrollable Factors

Alternative Employment
Opportunities

Job Hopping

Figure 1: Schematic Diagram for Employee Turnover Model Including Controllable and
Uncontrollable Factors
Falkenburg and Schyns (2007) describe job satisfaction as a behavioral cycle; as a cause

of behavior consists of satisfaction with different aspects of the job and the work

situation. Satisfaction is the extent to which employees like their work. There is a

negative relationship between job satisfaction and withdrawal behavior.

Job satisfaction can be divided into three dimensions: satisfaction with pay, satisfaction

with nature of work, and satisfaction with supervision. The relationship between job

satisfaction and turnover is one of the thoroughly investigated variables in turnover

literature. Many studies report a negative relation between job satisfaction and turnover

(e.g. Khatri et al (2001), Bluedorn (1982), Arnold and Feldman (1982), Cotton and Tuttle

(1986), Mobley (1982), Price (1977). Employees are more likely to leave an organization

when they are dissatisfied.

Koh and Goh,s (1995) investigate the relationship between job satisfaction and employee

turnover intention in Singapore and classified job satisfaction into eight categories:

physical working conditions, co-workers, financial rewards, supervision, company

identity, kind of work, amount of work and career future.

Khatri et al. (2001) report job satisfaction into three perspectives; satisfaction with pay,

supervision, and nature of work. There is a negative relationship among all the three

dimensions of job satisfaction in the study of employee turnover intention. Thus:

Hypothesis 1: Job satisfaction is negatively associated with turnover intention.

Hypothesis 1a Satisfaction with pay is negatively associated with turnover intention.

Hypothesis 1b Satisfaction with work is negatively associated with turnover intention.

Hypothesis 1c Satisfaction with supervision is negatively associated with turnover

intention.
Organizational commitment is “the employee's psychological attachment and affiliation

to the organization”. It can be compared with other work-related attitudes, such as Job

Satisfaction, defined as an employee's feelings about their job, and Organizational

Identification, defined as the degree to which an employee experiences a 'sense of

oneness' with their organization.

According to Meyer and Allen's (1991) there are three "mind sets" which can depict an

employee's commitment to the organization: Affective Commitment: is defined as the

employee's positive emotional attachment to the organization. Continuance Commitment:

The individual commits to the organization because he/she perceives high costs of losing

organizational membership. Normative Commitment: The individual commits to and

remains with an organization because of feelings of obligation.

Aryee et al.’s (1991) shows a negative relationship between organizational commitment

and turnover intention of professional accountants in Singapore. In the same way, Wong

et al. (1996) in their longitudinal study of 485 graduate students in Hong Kong found

organizational commitment a strong predictor of turnover. Several other scholars (Khatri

(2001), Kim et al. (1996), Ben-Bakr et al. (1994), Tett & Meyer (1993), Arnold &

Feldman (1982), have also found organizational commitment an important predictor of

turnover.

Van Breukelen et al. (2004) indicate that job satisfaction and organizational commitment

are negatively associated with turnover intentions. Therefore,

Hypothesis 2: Organizational commitment is negatively associated with turnover

intention.
Job stress and turnover intentions have gained increasing importance in the recent

literature. NIOSH (2008) defines Job stress as the harmful physical and emotional

responses that occur when the requirements of the job do not match the capabilities,

resources, or needs of the worker. Stress also occurs when the situation has high demands

and the worker has little or no control over it. Job stress can lead to poor health and

injury.

Lucy et al. (2004) investigate the variables that may be the reasons for intentions to leave

and findings of the study suggest that intentions to quit is largely influenced by job

dissatisfaction, lack of commitment to the organization, and feeling of stress, which

influenced by job stressors. Job stressors such as workload, job ambiguity, which are the

factors that activate the chain of psychological states that lead to intentions to quit.

Managers should observe employee workloads, and the relationships between supervisors

and subordinates in order to reduce and manage job stress.

Price (2001) defines Job stress is a situation by which job duties are difficult to fulfill.

There are four types of stress which can be distinguished: workload (amount of effort

required by a job), role ambiguity (unclear job obligations), role conflict (inconsistent job

obligation), and resource inadequacy (lack of means to perform a job).

Janssen Peter et al (1999) suggest that emotional exhaustion is primarily predicted by a

lack of social support from colleagues, and by the demanding aspects of work, like

working under time pressure and strenuous work i.e. work overload.

Stress related problems among workers increase absenteeism and high turnover

(Mikkelsen et al, 2000). Thus

Hypothesis 3: Job stress is positively associated with turnover intentions.

Uncontrollable factors are the environmental factors which include Job-hopping and

Alternative employment opportunities. These factors related to labor market school of

thought (Morrel et al., 2001). Job hopping and Alternative employment opportunities

included in theoretical frame work (Figure 1).

Job-hopping means frequently movement of job from one place to another place without

any specific reason. Ghiselli (1974) defines job-hopping, as ‘hobo syndrome’ which

means and includes ‘the periodic itch to move from a job in one place to some other job

in some other place’. Employees searching alternative jobs even they have secured job

(Chew, 1993).

Job hopping is one of the most important factors of employee turnover. Some employees

leave due to social influence from peer/colleagues and some employees leave the

organization as a fun and no apparent reason. Job hopping is positively associated with

turnover intention (Khatri et al., 2001). Thus:

Hypothesis 4: Job hopping is positively associated with turnover intention.

Alternative employment opportunity is another uncontrollable and labor market variable.

Opportunity means availability of alternative jobs in the environment. The larger

alternative employment opportunities exist in the environment, more chances of

awareness among the employees, and then they evaluate cost and benefit analysis and

have intentions to switch jobs (Price 2001).

Past literature suggests that there is a positive relationship between alternative

employment opportunities and employee turnover intention (Khatri et al., 2001; Hulin et

al, 1985).
Hypothesis 5: Alternative employment opportunity is positively associated with turnover

intention.

Research Methodology

The sample comprised 252 first line managers and supervisors from Textile sector of

Pakistan. The textile sector was divided into five broad categories i.e. Ginning, Spinning,

Weaving, Finishing, and Garments. The data was collected from first line managers &

supervisors of spinning, weaving, and finishing industries on the basis of two stage

sampling. In first stage, constructed strata on the basis of spinning, weaving, and

finishing organizations of Lahore, Pakistan and then selected 50 organizations by the

simple random sampling. In the second stage, first line managers and supervisors selected

from the above 50 organizations.

The data was collected by physically and self administered survey (Questionnaire). The

questions were asked on five point likert scale from the respondents. The questionnaire

consisted of three sections i.e. controllable factors, uncontrollable factors and Turnover

intention. Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job stress, job hopping, and

alternative employment opportunities were the independent variables. Turnover intention

was the dependent variable.

To increase the response rate, the employees were informed regarding the research

objective and confidentiality. The response rate was 84% (252/300) and most of the

questionnaires filled by visiting the organization physically and some questionnaires

dispatched to the organizations. The respondents were 21% female and 79% male. The

participants’ ages ranged from 20 to 40 years.

Measures

Controllable variables included job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and Job

stress. Job satisfaction was measured on five point likert scale and this variable divided

into three dimensions i.e. satisfaction with pay, working condition, and supervision.

Three items were used for measuring each dimension. These were adapted from the

Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss et al., 1967) and the Index of

Organizational Reaction Questionnaire (Smith, 1976). The reliabilities of three scales

showed satisfactory with Cronbach alphas of 0.63, 0.84, and 0.65, respectively, for

satisfaction with pay, working condition and supervision.

Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) was used to measure employee

commitment level, developed by Khatri and his colleagues (Khatri et al, 1974). Eight

items were used for the measurement of organizational commitment. The scale showed a

good reliability i.e. 0.81. Job stress four items were used to measure, developed by

Vigoda and Kapun (2005).

The job hopping was measured on three item scale which already developed by Khatri

and his colleagues (Khatri et al., 2001). The scale showed reliability i.e. Cronbach alpha

0.71. The perceived alternative employment opportunities scale contained six items and

was adopted by Michaels and Spector (1982), Arnold and Feldman (1982), Billing and

Wemmerus (1983) and Modey et al (1984). The scale showed good reliability i.e. 0.76

and single factor in factor analysis.

The three item turnover intention scale from the Michigan Organizational Assessment

Questionnaire (Cummann et al, 1979) and two items from Bluedorn (1982) were used.

The Cronbach alpha was 0.84 in the study.

Analyses & Results

The statistical tools employed to analyze the data are Pearson’s correlation and regression

analyses by using SPSS. Pearson’s correlation is a reasonable and familiar means of

assessing linear association between variables.

Satisfaction Alternative
Satisfaction Satisfaction with Organizationa Job Job Employment Turnover
with Pay with work supervision l commitment Stress hopping opportunity intention

Satisfaction with Pearson 1

Pay Correlation

Satisfaction with Pearson .438(**) 1

work Correlation
Satisfaction with Pearson
supervision Correlation
.330(**) .427(**) 1

Organizational Pearson .345(**) .245(**) .340(**) 1

commitment Correlation
Pearson
Job Stress Correlation -.222(**) -.218(**) -.214(**) -.004 1
Pearson
Job hopping Correlation -.112 .070 -.121 -.079 .070 1

Alternative
Employment Pearson
-.102 -.055 -.078 -.008 .095 .045 1
opportunity Correlation
.266(** .223(**
Turnover Pearson -.409(**) -.378(**) -.340(**) -.272(**) .223(**) 1
intention Correlation ) )
Sig. (2-
tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .
N 252 252 252 252 252 252 252 252
Table 1: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Employee turnover intention is a dependent variable. Job satisfaction, organizational

commitment, Job stress, Job hopping, and Alternative employment opportunities are the

independent variables in the research of 252 first line managers and supervisors of textile

sector. Satisfaction with pay, working condition, and supervision has a strong negative
correlation with employee turnover intention i.e. -0.409, -0.378, -0.340 at a p<0.01 level

of significance respectively. Organizational commitment also has a negative correlation

with employee turnover intention at a p<0.01 level of significance i.e. -0.272. There is a

positive correlation between job stress and employee turnover intention i.e. 0.266 at a

p<0.01. Job hopping and Alternative employment opportunities also have a positive

relationship with employee turnover intention i.e. 0.223 and 0.223 respectively at a

p<0.01 level of significance.

So, Pearson’s Correlation shows that job satisfaction is negatively associated with

turnover intention. It means satisfaction with pay, working condition, and supervision is

negatively associated with turnover intention. When job satisfaction increases, employee

turnover intention decreases. Organizational commitment is also negatively associated

with turnover intention. Job satisfaction leads to organizational commitment. Whenever,

organizational commitment will increase, employee turnover intention will decrease. Job

stress is positively associated with turnover intention. It means that when job stress

conditions just like workload increases, employee turnover also increases. Job hopping

and alternative employment opportunity are also positively associated with turnover

intention. When bad habits develop just like switching job with no apparent reasons or

due to friends and colleagues then turnover intention also increases.

Controllable factors (job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and job stress) are

highly correlated with turnover intention as compare to uncontrollable factors (job

hopping and alternative employment opportunity). It means that controllable factors are

more dominant and play very important role in employee turnover intention. When
employee dissatisfied, job stress, and has a lack of interest and concern with organization

then employee has more intention to switch job.

Coefficients (a)

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 3.619 .445 8.139 .000

Satisfaction with -.183 .064 -.180 -2.880 .004

Pay
Satisfaction with
work: -.244 .072 -.215 -3.399 .001
Satisfaction with
Supervision -.096 .064 -.092 -1.497 .136

Organizational -.135 .063 -.122 -2.128 .034

Commitment

Job Stress .143 .060 .133 2.405 .017

Job Hopping .169 .049 .186 3.454 .001

Alternative
Employment .203 .071 .152 2.874 .004
Opportunity

Table 2: Dependent Variable: Employee turnover intention

“B” lists the regression coefficients for the independent variables i.e. satisfaction with

pay, nature of work, supervision, organizational commitment, job stress, job hopping, and

alternative employment opportunities at P<0.01 level of significance. These represent the

slope and Y-intercept for the regression line. There is one constant in table 2 that is 3.619

while other regression coefficients represent the slope and Y-intercept -0.183, -0.244, -

0.096, -0.135, 0.143, 0.169, and 0.203 respectively.

Employee Turnover Intention = 3.619 + (- 0.183*SP) + (- 0.244*SW) + (- 0.096*SS) +

(- 0.135*OC) + (0.143*JS) + (0.169*JH) + (0.203*AEO)

Regression equation explains the variance and factors responsible for employee turnover

intention. Satisfaction with pay is responsible in employee turnover intention is – 18.3%,

-24.4% satisfaction with work, -9.6% satisfaction with supervision, -13.5%

organizational commitment, 14.3% job stress, 16.9% job hopping and 20.3% Alternative

employment opportunities.

The values listed under “Beta” represent an alternative set of coefficients that would be

used instead if all variables were first converted to Z-scores.

Satisfaction with pay is negatively associated with turnover intention and regression co-

efficient is -0.183. Satisfaction with nature of work, and supervision also negatively

associated with turnover intention and regression co-efficient is -0.244, -0.096,

respectively. Organizational commitment is negatively associated with turnover intention

and regression co-efficient is -0.135. Job stress, job hopping and alternative employment

opportunities are positively associated with turnover intention and their regression co-

efficients are 0.143, 0.169, and 0.203 respectively.

Discussion and Conclusion

Employee turnover intention is a major issue for the human resource managers and has a

significant cost of hiring and replacement. Employee has intention to switch when he is

dissatisfied from his pay, supervision and nature of work. A satisfied employee is more

committed to the organizational work and has strong loyalty and affiliation with the

organization. Job stress is the mental tension caused by the workload, working condition,

and lack of means to perform job. So, job stress is another reason for switching job from

one to another organization. Job hopping and alternative employment opportunities are

the environmental factors who responsible for employee turnover intention.

Job satisfaction and organizational commitment are negatively associated with turnover

intention. Job stress, job hopping and alternative employment opportunity is positively

associated with turnover intention.

Controllable or organizational factors (job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job

stress) are more responsible for the intentions of employee turnover as compare to

uncontrollable or environmental factors (job hopping, alternative employment

opportunity).

Human resource personnel can manage employee turnover by providing competitive pay

package, inspirational supervision, and congenial working condition which ultimately

produce committed and loyal employees. Job stress can be managed by proper division of

work and counseling service for the solution of stress related problems.

The researchers can extend this research by adding more variables just like organizational

change and its impact on employee turnover intentions, managers’ leadership style and

employee turnover intention. They can compare this study into two dimensions

manufacturing vs. service sector employees by increasing sample size which will give

broader view and comprehensive frame work of employee turnover intention.

References:

1. Abelson, M.A. (1993), “Turnover cultures”, Research in Personnel and

Human Resource Management, Vol.11 No.5, pp. 339-376.

2. Aquino, K., Griffeth, R.W., Allen, D.G. and Hom, P.W. (1997), “Integrating
justice constructs into the turnover process: a test of a referent cognitions
model”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 1208-1227.

3. Arnold, H.J. and Feldman, D.C. (1982), “A Multivariate Analysis of the

Determinants of Job Turnover”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 67 No.3,
pp.350-360.

4. Aryee, S. (1993), “A Path-analytic Investigation of the Determinants of career

withdrawal Intentions of Engineers”, Some HRM issues arising in a
professional labor market in Singapore. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 4 No.1 pp. 213-230.

5. Ben-Bakr, K.A., Al-Shammari, I.S., Jefri, O.A. and Prasad, J.N. (1994),
“Organizational commitment, Satisfaction and Turnover in Saudi
organizations: A Predictive Study” The Journal of Socio-Economics, Vol. 23
No. 4 pp. 449-456.

6. Billings, R., Wemmems, V. (1983), “The Role of Alternatives in Process

Models of withdrawal”, Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the
Midwestern, Academy of Management, pp.18-29.

7. Bluedorn, A.C. (1982), “A Unified Model of Turnover from Organizations”

Human Relations, Vol.35 No. 2, pp. 135- 153.

8. Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D. and Klesh, J. (1979), “The Michigan
Organizational Assessment Questionnaire”, Unpublished Maniscript,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan

9. Cotton, J.L. and Tuttle, J.F. (1986), “Employee turnover”, A meta-analysis

and review with implications for research. Academy of Management Review,
Vol.11 No.1, pp.55-70.

10. Dailey, R.C. and Kirk, D.J. (1992), “Distributive and Procedural Justice as
Antecedents of Job Dissatisfaction and Intent to Turnover. Human Relations,
Vol. 45 No. 3, pp.305-317.

11. Dess, G.D. and Shaw, J.D. (2001), “Voluntary Turnover, Social Capital and
Organizational Performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No.
3, pp. 446-456.
12. Falkenburg, K and Schyns (2007), “Work Satisfaction, organizational
commitment and withdrawal behaviours”, Management Research News, Vol.
30 No. 10 pp.708-23.
13. Fitz-enz, J. (1997). “Its Costly to Lose Good Employees”. Workforce, pp, 50-
51.
14. Folger, R. and Greenberg, J. (1985), “Procedural Justice: An interpretative
analysis of personnel systems”. Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, Vol.3, pp.141-183.

15. Gerhart, B.(1990) “Voluntary Turnover and Alternative Job Opportunities”

Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No.5 pp. 467-476.

16. Ghiselli, E.E. (1974), “Some Perspectives for Industrial psychology.

American Psychologist, February: pp.80- 87.

17. GRI (2002), Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Boston, Global Reporting

Initiative p.52.

18. Hom, P.W. and Kinicki, A.J. (2001), “Toward A Greater Understanding of
how Dissatisfaction drives Employee Turnover”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 975-87.

19. Hom, P.W. and Griffeth, R. (1995), “Employee Turnover” South Western
Publishing, Cincinnati, OH.

20. Iverson, R.D. (1999), “An event history analysis of employee turnover: the
case of hospital employees in Australia”, Human Resource Management
Review, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 397-418.

21. Jackofsky, E.F., Ferris, K.R. and Breckenridge, B.G. (1986), “Evidence for a
curvilinear relationship between job performance and turnover”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 12, pp. 105

22. Khatri Naresh, Chang Tze Fern, Pawn Budhwar (2001): Explaining
Employee Turnover in an Asian context. Human Resource Management
Journal volume 11, page 54-74

23. Kirschenbaum, A. and Mano-Negrin, R. (1999), “Underlying Labor Market

Dimensions of ‘Opportunities’”: the case of employee turnover”, Human
Relations, Vol. 52 No. 10, pp. 1233-55.

24. Kim, S-W, Price, J. L., Mueller, C.W. and Watson, T.W. (1996) The
Determinants of Career Intent Among Physicians at a U.S. Air Force hospital.
Human Relations, Vol.49 No.7, pp.947-976.

25. Knowles, M.c. (1964), “Personal and Job Factors Affecting Labor Turnover”,
Personnel Practice Bulletin, Vol.20,1964 pp,25-37.
26. Lee, T.W. and Mitchell, T.R. (1994), “An Alternative Approach: The
Unfolding Model Of Voluntary Employee Turnover”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 51-89.

27. Magner, N., Johnson, G.G. and Elfrink, J. (1994), Evidence on the
Relationship Between Procedural and distributive justice in performance
appraisal and accounting faculty attitudes and performance

28. Meyer, J.P. (2001), “Organizational Commitment”, in Robertson, I. and

Cooper, C. (Eds), Personnel Psychology and HRM, Wiley, London.

29. Meyer, J.P. (1997) and Allen, N.J. (1991), “A three component
conceptualization of organizational commitment”, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 1 pp.61-89

30. Michaels, C.E. and Spector, P.E. (1982), “Causes of Employee Turnover: A
test of the Mobley, Griffeth, Hand and Meglino model”. Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 67, pp.53-59.

31. Mikkelsen, A., Ogaard, T. and Lovrich, N. (2000), “Modeling the effects of
organizational setting and individual coping style on employees’ subjective
health, job satisfaction, and commitment”, Public Administration Quarterly,
Vol.24 No.4, pp.371-97

32. Miyuki Takase, Phillip Maude, and Elizabeth Manias (2005), Nursing and
Health Sciences Vol. 7, pp. 209–217.

33. Mobley, W.H. (1982), Employee Turnover, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

34. Mobley, W.H., Griffeth, R.W., Hand, H.H. and Meglino, B.M. (1979),
“Review and Conceptual Analysis of the Employee Turnover Process.”
Psychological Bulletin, Vol.86, pp. 493-522.

35. Morrison, E.W. and Robinson, S.L. (1997), “When Employees Feel Betrayed:
a Model of how Psychological Contract Violation Develops”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 226-56.

36. Morrell, Kevin, John Loan-Clarke and Adrian Wilkinson (2001), “Unweaving
Leaving: The Use of Models in the Management of Employee Turnover.
International Journal of Management Review Volume 3 No. 3, pp.219-244.

37. Morrell, K.M., Loan-Clarke, J. and Wilkinson, A.J. (2001a), Lee and
Mitchell’s “The Unfolding Model of Employee Turnover: A Theoretical
 Critique”, Loughborough University Business School Research Series No.
2001:2, Loughborough University, Loughborough.

38. Mowday, R.T., Koberg, C.S. and McArthur, A.W. (1984), “The Psychology
of the Withdrawal Process: A cross-validational test of Mobley's intermediate
linkages model of turnover in two samples” Academy of Management
Journal, Vol.27, pp.79-94.

39. NIOSH (2008), The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

40. Porter, L.W.and Steers, R.M.(1973), “Organizational Work and Personal

Factors in Employee Turnover and Absenteeism”, Psychological Bulletin,
Vol.80 No.2, ,pp151-76

41. Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T. and Boulian, P.V. (1974),
“Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover among
Psychiatric Technicians”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.59: 603-609.

42. Price L. James (2001), “Reflections on the determinants of voluntary

turnover”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. No. 7, 2001, pp. 600-624.

43. Price, J.L. and Mueller, C.W. (1986), “Absenteeism and Turnover Of Hospital
Employees. JAI Press Inc.

44. Randall, C.S. and Mueller, C.W. 1995. Extension of justice theory: Justice
evaluations and employees’ reactions in a natural setting. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 58(3): 178-194.

45. Shaw, J.D., Delery, J.E., Jenkins, G.D. and Gupta, N. (1998), “An
organisation-level analysis of voluntary and involuntary turnover”, Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 511-25.

46. Sager JK, Griffeth RW, Hom PW. (1998), “A Comparison of Structural
Models Representing Turnover Cognitions” J. Vocational Behav. Vol.53:
pp.254–273.

47. Smith, F. J. (1976), Index of Organizational Reactions (IOR). JSAS Catalog of

Selected Documents in Psychology, Vol.6 No.1 pp. 1265.

48. Tett, R.P. and Meyer, J.P. (1993), “Job Satisfaction, Organizational
Commitment, Turnover Intention, And Turnover: Path analyses based on
meta-analytical findings”. Personnel Psychology, Vol.46 No.2, pp. 259-293.

49. Van Breukelen, W., Van der Vlist, R, and steensma, H. (2004), “Voluntary
employee turnover: combining variables from the traditional turnover
 literature with the theory of planned behavior”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 893-914.

50. Vigoda, Eran G. and Danit Kapun (2005), “Perceptions of politics and
perceived performance in public and private organizations: a test of one model
across two sectors”, Policy & Politics, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 251-76.

51. Wai, C.T. Teresa and Robinson, C.D. (1998), “Reducing staff turnover: A
case study of dialysis facilities” Health Care Management Review Vol.23
No.4 pp. 21-42.

52. Weil, P.A. and Kimball, P.A. (1995), “A Model of Voluntary Turnover
Among Hospital CEOs. Hospital and Health Service Administrative, Vol.40
No.3 pp. 362-385.

53. Weiss, D.J., Dawis, R.V., England, G.W. and Lofquist, L.H. (1967). “Manual
for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire: Minnesota studies in vocational
rehabilitations” Minneapolis: Industrial Relations Center, University of
Minnesota.

54. Wong, C.S., Chun, H. and Law, K.S. (1996), “Casual Relationship Between
Attitudinal Antecedents to Turnover”, Academy of Management BEST
PAPERS PROCEEDINGS 1995, pp.342-346, Vancouver, British Columbia
Canada.