Professional Documents
Culture Documents
After thousands of studies on individual turnover, scholars are increasingly turning their attention to the study of collective turnoverthe
aggregate levels of employee departures that
occur within groups, work units, or organizations (Hausknecht & Trevor, 2011: 353). Such attention is understandable given the growing
recognition that collective turnover can have important consequences for organizational productivity, performance, andpotentially competitive advantage (Hancock, Allen, Bosco,
McDaniel, & Pierce, in press; Hausknecht & Holwerda, in press; Hausknecht & Trevor, 2011; Park
& Shaw, 2011; Shaw, 2011). Further, the consequences of collective turnover may be quite different from the consequences of individual turnover (Dess & Shaw, 2001; Shaw, Duffy, Johnson, &
Lockhart, 2005). The paramount importance of
understanding collective turnover is highlighted in the strategic human resource management (HRM) literature, where collective turnover is seen as the primary mechanism driving
human capital depletion (Gardner, Wright, &
Moynihan, 2011; Lepak & Shaw, 2008). Thus, examining collective turnover is vital for understanding how it affects a firms ability to use
human capital to achieve competitive advantage (Delery & Shaw, 2001).
Yet despite the growth of empirical collective
turnover research, most theory continues to be
based on individual-level conceptualizations
(Hausknecht & Trevor, 2011; Shaw, 2011). We still
109
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright
holders express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
110
gent nature of collective turnover, and it identifies its consequences and relationships within
the nomological network of human capital resources as defined within the strategic HRM literature (e.g., Lepak, Liao, Chung, & Harden,
2006) and the resource-based views (RBVs)
treatment of intangible resources (e.g., Coff &
Kryscynski, 2011). Consequently, we explore the
emergence process of collective turnover and
emphasize the microfoundations of resource depletion. Second, the theory develops the dynamic and reciprocal nature of collective turnover and human capital resources by focusing
attention on the timing and flows of collective
turnover. Finally, the theory explicates how context, conceptualized in terms of climate and environmental complexity, influences collective
turnover and its consequences. Thus, we present
context-emergent turnover (CET) theory.
The implications of these theoretical contributions help explain previous research inconsistencies using a holistic but parsimonious theory
and generate future research prospects by offering guidelines for exploring the influences and
consequences of collective turnover.1 These implications (1) explain the nomological network
of collective turnover; (2) identify when individual and collective turnover effects are likely to
be similar and when they are likely to be different; (3) identify when collective turnover will
have positive, negative, or no consequences on
unit2 performance; and (4) provide a foundation
for conceptualizing collective turnover and,
thus, help evaluate the validity of collective
turnover measures.
We first summarize existing turnover research, noting the dominance of individuallevel studies and the recent extension to the
collective level. Our review is focused and brief
1
We briefly consider antecedents, but our primary focus
is on consequences. This is for four reasons. First, CET theory, which is firmly grounded in the RBV literature, lends
itself to focusing on unit consequences more than the antecedents of collective turnover. Second, CET theory has clear
applications for future research and practical opportunities
for units to mitigate the assumed negative consequences of
turnover. Third, space constraints do not allow us to consider
all potential antecedents along with consequences. Fourth,
most collective turnover studies have examined consequences; thus, this is the area that can benefit the most from
a unifying framework.
2
We use the term unit to signify collective levels of employees (e.g., groups, departments, organizations, etc.).
January
2013
111
112
3
We note that CET theory is not specific to involuntary or
voluntary turnover. Our propositions encompass both because CET theory is intended to explain the nature and
effects of both voluntary and involuntary collective turnover.
After describing the theory, we revisit the role of voluntary
and involuntary turnover within CET theory.
January
2013
formance, whereas losing high-quality employees may decrease the value of the human capital resources and hurt unit performance.
Furthermore, the timing of these losses may
lead to profound differences. For instance, losing one employee per month for a year may
have a very different impact on the unit than
losing twelve employees in one month.
Hence, understanding the meaning of collective turnover requires understanding its relationships with human capital resources, which,
in turn, requires a grounding in resource-based
theory (Molloy, Chadwick, Ployhart, & Golden,
2011; Nyberg et al., in press). Human capital resources are intangible unit-level constructs that
can possess the characteristics needed to influence unit performance and competitive advantage (Hatch & Dyer, 2004; Wright, Dunford, &
Snell, 2001; Wright & McMahan, 1992; Wright,
McMahan, & McWilliams, 1994). Although human capital resources exist at the unit level,
they are based on the aggregation of individual
KSAOs such that human capital resources
emerge from individual-level KSAOs (Ployhart &
Moliterno, 2011; Wright & McMahan, 2011).4 The
extent to which emergence occurs depends on
the nature of member interaction (Kozlowski &
Klein, 2000). First, environmental complexity
represents the amount of coordination required
by the units task demands (Van de Ven, Delbecq, & Koenig, 1976). Second, climate represents the degree to which unit members have a
shared sense of what the unit expects, rewards,
and supports (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Schneider,
Bowen, Ehrhart, & Holcombe, 2000; Schneider &
Reichers, 1983). Climate influences how members interact, communicate, trust, and share
knowledge; hence, it is a conduit through which
human capital resources are connected to
KSAOs (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; Schneider et al.,
2000). Thus, human capital resources emerge
from KSAOs as a function of environmental complexity demands and a supportive climate.
Positioning collective turnover within resource-based theory helps clarify the similarities and differences between collective turnover
and human capital. In terms of similarities, both
Alternative conceptualizations of human capital resources exist (e.g., as individual investment decisions in
economics), but we limit our discussion to the resourcebased and strategic HRM treatment of human capital
resources.
113
114
quantities are independent if there are replacements. Suppose a unit loses 40 out of 100 employees but replaces them immediately. In this
situation the quantitative component of collective turnover is 40 percent while the quantitative
component of human capital is 100 percent because human capital remains at (or quickly returns to) full capacity. In fact, with immediate
replacement, collective turnover rates can fluctuate up and down without having a discernible
effect on the quantitative component of human
capital. Only if one assumes the situation where
collective turnover losses are not replaced will
the quantitative components of collective turnover and human capital be related in a deterministic manner. And in this situation a bizarre
consequence can theoretically occur such that
human capital disappears if collective turnover
is 100 percent.
Third, collective turnover and human capital
resources are qualitatively different. One obvious difference is that the units human capital is
based on the KSAOs of employees who remain,
whereas collective turnover is based on the
KSAOs of employees who have left; hence, the
composition of the two constructs differs in
terms of employees and their KSAOs. For example, if very high-quality employees leave the
unit, then the KSAO quality of collective turnover will be greater than the KSAO quality of the
human capital resource. Even though both collective turnover and human capital resources
originate in KSAOs, they are based on the
KSAOs of different people (i.e., those still employed versus those no longer employed). If one
holds replacements constant, then collective
turnover must represent very different qualities
of KSAOs than human capital resources. Furthermore, employees remaining in the unit are
likely to have a different performance composition than those departing the unit (Nyberg, 2010;
Shaw, 2011).
Finally, collective turnover and human capital
resources are likely to have different antecedents, since the practices and policies that contribute to human capital resource accumulation
differ from those that contribute to resource depletion (i.e., collective turnover; Sirmon, Hitt, &
Ireland, 2007; Takeuchi, Tesluk, Yun, & Lepak,
2005). Indeed, this is the logic underlying highperformance work systems and the desire to
bundle complementary practices so as to simultaneously achieve different HR goals, such as
January
6
It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss antecedents in detail. However, research in strategy points out that
some practices are more useful for accumulating resources
than for stopping the depletion of resources (Eisenhardt &
Martin, 2000). Even at the individual level one may find a
KSAO related to job performance (e.g., cognitive ability) but
a different construct (e.g., job satisfaction) related to turnover
(Maltarich, Nyberg, & Reilly, 2010).
2013
115
FIGURE 1
CET Theory Consequencesa
Human capital
Unit performance
(c)
(b)
(d)
(a)
Collective
turnover
KSAOs
Although not shown, it is assumed that time and climate influence the relationships in the entire figure.
116
January
2013
117
118
January
2013
the direction of the discrepancy between collective turnover and human capital accumulation
also influences collective turnovers consequences. The relative difference in inflows versus outflows is more important than simply the
existence of change (Dierickx & Cool, 1989), and
researchers need to account for replacements
when evaluating turnover effects (e.g., Hausknecht & Holwerda, in press; Trevor & Nyberg,
2008). For instance, assuming equal rates, it is a
different situation when the quality of collective
turnover outflows is greater than the quality of
human capital inflows, compared with the opposite scenario (Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005).
Human capital resource erosion occurs when
collective turnover exceeds replacement capital
inflows; expansion occurs when human capital
inflows exceed collective turnover. Thus, the
discrepancy (erosion or expansion) between human capital inflows and collective turnover outflows has both a direct effect on unit performance and a moderating effect on the human
capitalunit performance relationship.
Proposition 6a: The direction of the
discrepancy between human capital
resource inflows and outflows (collective turnover) will influence the direction and magnitude of the collective
turnoverunit performance relationship. Erosion will have a negative effect on unit performance, whereas expansion will have a positive effect.
Proposition 6b: The direction of the
discrepancy between human capital
resource inflows and outflows (collective turnover) will influence the magnitude of the moderating effect of collective turnover on the human capital
resource unit performance relationship. Erosion will reduce the effect of
human capital on unit performance,
whereas expansion will increase the
effect.
Timing of collective turnover. Thinking of collective turnover in terms of flows leads to the
realization that the strongest influence on the
human capitalunit performance relationship
may not be the absolute level of collective turnover but, rather, whether the rate and/or quality
of collective turnover is increasing or decreasing over time (Hausknecht & Holwerda, in press).
119
120
January
2013
interdependence among members (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). There are four workflow structures
along the environmental complexity continuum
(Van de Ven et al., 1976). Pooled structures occur
when collective performance is the simple sum
of individual performance contributions. Intensive workflow structures occur when collective
performance depends on distributed expertise
and high collaboration among team members.
Falling between pooled and intensive workflow
structures are sequential and reciprocal workflow structures, with the latter being more complex than the former. Figure 2 provides a visual
summary of environmental complexity. The
greater the environmental complexity, the
greater collective turnovers direct effect on unit
performance and the greater its moderating effect on the human capital resourceunit performance relationship.
First, environmental complexity influences
(moderates) the direct effect of collective turnover on unit performance. In general, greater
environmental complexity is associated with
greater collective turnover consequences, because more complex environments require more
121
FIGURE 2
The Effect of Environmental Complexity on Collective Turnover
Simple
Environmental complexity
Complex
Sequential
Pooled
Reciprocal
Intensive
Sum
j
i
Individual-collective isomorphism
Greater
Lesser
Consequences of turnover
Lesser
Greater
Multilevel comparison of turnovers consequences
Individual = collective
122
January
2013
123
124
January
2013
125
may be the most proximal antecedent of collective turnover (Ostroff et al., 2003). This is important (and parsimonious) because it means that
organizational and HR policies, practices, and
procedures may (at least partially) influence collective turnover indirectly through climate. Second, researchers should examine the cross-level
antecedents of individual turnover to see how
they relate to the emergence of collective turnover. Climate will be a likely influence, but so
too will economic factors (e.g., unemployment
rates) and psychological factors (e.g., commitment). Turnover research has largely been conducted within level, either individual or collective, and more could be understood about both
by testing cross-level turnover models.
Studies should also investigate the relationship between KSAOs and individual performance within CET theory. In the interest of
space and parsimony, and consistent with resource-based theory and human capital resource emergence (Coff & Kryscynski, 2011; Ployhart & Moliterno, 2011), we did not elaborate on
the role of individual performance in CET theory. Empirical relationships between KSAOs
and individual performance are moderate
(Schmidt & Hunter, 1998), and the two construct
domains are not identical. Thus, KSAOs and
performance have different roles within resource-based theory and CET theory. For instance, while intelligence is correlated with individual performance (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998),
performance depends on additional features,
such as motivation and opportunity (Campbell
et al., 1970; Nyberg, Fulmer, Gerhart, & Carpenter, 2010; Vroom, 1964). Future research should
examine the potential ramifications of excluding individual performance from CET theory. It
will also be useful to examine social capitals
role in relation to specific KSAOs, because social and human capital are likely linked (Lepak
& Shaw, 2008) since collective turnover can diminish social capital (Dess & Shaw, 2001), and
these diminished unit-level relationships can
also lead to additional collective turnover, thus
further damaging unit performance.
CET theory differences in various contexts
should also be explored. Collective turnover
within one level (e.g., small groups and teams or
lower-skill jobs) may have both different antecedents and different consequences than collective turnover at other levels (e.g., organization or
higher-skill jobs). This raises two potential is-
126
sues. First, collective turnover may have different characteristics at two different unit levels
(e.g., when considered at the team versus the
organization level). Second, bundling multiple
levels (or jobs) together when investigating collective turnover may lead to erroneous conclusions. That is, researchers may be wise to consider jobs or bundles of jobs with similar
complexity levels when conducting collective
turnover research because it could be that complexity is a driving force in determining the consequences of collective turnover. If this is true,
then combining jobs or levels of different complexities may mask consequences. For example,
if there is a minimal effect of collective turnover
in lower-complexity jobs but a strong effect of
collective turnover in more complex jobs, bundling them may underestimate the importance
of collective turnover in the more complex jobs
and overestimate the effect of collective turnover in less complex jobs. Moving in this direction, Trevor and Nyberg (2008) examined exempt
and nonexempt employees separately to explore the ramifications of downsizing on subsequent collective voluntary turnover for these two
distinct groups. However, a more nuanced focus
on the quality of employees leaving or the specific jobs (and the relevance of those specific
jobs to the unit) will provide a greater understanding of collective turnovers impact on the
units performance.
Finally, in future research there should be a
more fine-grained consideration of time and the
timing of collective turnover and human capital
resource replacements. We focused broadly on
the concept of resource and collective turnover
stocks and flows, but clearly when collective
turnover occurs may also be important. For example, Hausknecht et al. (2009) found that turnover was more disruptive when there was a
greater concentration of newcomers, suggesting
that the timing of collective turnover may affect
its consequences. One may also consider the
consequences of the time needed to fill a vacancy. Our discussion of flows and human capital resource erosion versus expansion assumed
replacements could be found quickly, but this
may oftentimes be untenable for key positions.
Indeed, long delays in finding adequate replacements may further magnify collective turnovers consequences. Thus, researchers should
also consider the duration of vacancies or where
in the units development cycle collective turn-
January
2013
127
128
January
2013
129
130
Park, T. Y., & Shaw, J. D. 2011. Turnover rates and organizational performance: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Academy of Management.
San Antonio, TX.
Ployhart, R., Weekley, J., & Baughman, K. 2006. The structure
and function of human capital emergence: A multilevel
examination of the attraction-selection-attrition model.
Academy of Management Journal, 49: 661 677.
Ployhart, R., Weekley, J., & Ramsey, J. 2009. The consequences
of human resource stocks and flows: A longitudinal examination of unit service orientation and unit effectiveness.
Academy of Management Journal, 52: 996 1015.
Ployhart, R. E., & Moliterno, T. P. 2011. Emergence of the
human capital resource: A multilevel model. Academy
of Management Review, 36: 127150.
Reichers, A. E., & Schneider, B. 1990. Climate and culture: An
evolution of constructs. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture: 539. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Richard, P. J., Devinney, T. M., Yip, G. S., & Johnson, G.
2009. Measuring organizational performance: Toward
methodological best practice. Journal of Management,
35: 718 804.
Rousseau, D. M. 1985. Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7: 137.
Sacco, J. M., & Schmitt, N. 2005. A dynamic multilevel model
of demographic diversity and misfit effects. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90: 203231.
Schmidt, F., & Hunter, J. 1998. The validity and utility of
selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical
and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124: 262274.
Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. Personnel
Psychology, 40: 437 453.
Schneider, B., Bowen, D. E., Ehrhart, M. G., & Holcombe, K. M.
2000. The climate for service: Evolution of a construct. In
N. M. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.),
Handbook of organizational culture and climate: 2136.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. 1983. On the etiology of
climates. Personnel Psychology, 36: 19 39.
Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., Taylor, S., & Fleenor, J. 1998.
Personality and organizations: A test of the homogeneity
of personality hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 462.
Schwab, D. P. 1991. Contextual variables in employee performance-turnover relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 966 975.
Shaw, J. D. 2011. Turnover rates and organizational performance. Organizational Psychology Review, 1: 187213.
Shaw, J. D., Delery, J. E., Jenkins, G. D., Jr., & Gupta, N. 1998.
An organizational-level analysis of voluntary and involuntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal,
41: 511525.
January
2013
131