This chapter reviews literatures for developing the frameworks and selecting variables.
First, the definitions and characteristics of Generation Y are introduced. Second, literatures of turnover and intention to leave are illustrated. Last, person-organization fit, perceived supervisor support, and perceived peer support are described and hypotheses are derived afterwards.
Generation Y
Generation Y, also called The Net Generation or Millennials, is made up of the children of the Baby Boom Generation, and comprises a cohort of the population larger than the Baby Boom generation (Tapscott, 2008; VanMeter et al., 2013). As mentioned above in the research background, organization are currently facing the retirement of older workers and the challenge of recruiting and retaining young talent of Generation Y. Moreover, this generation which is becoming the main workforce roughly doubles the size of Baby Boomers (Hewlett et al., 2009). By the assumption from Henson (2005), new problems accompanied by the need for innovation will occur in the next ten years. Because of the shifting workforce, significant changes such as the demographics, attitudes, and preferences will occur in this labor pool (Henson, 2005). Moreover, organizations are not only facing the challenge of retaining new talent, but also facing the issues of managing mixed cohort of employees among Baby Boomers and Generation Y (Hewlett et al., 2009; Twenge, Campbell, Hoffman,
& Lance, 2010). Therefore, knowing how the new generation‟s behaviors and attitudes in workplace differ from the Boomers‟ becomes very important.
The major difference between Baby Boomers and Generation Y is that Generation Y is surrounded by digital media, such as e-mail, instant messaging (IM) and cell phones since
raised by two working parents or a single parent while Boomers were raised by large traditional families means very different childhood experiences (McCrindle & Wolfinger, 2009). Actually, they do not remember and cannot imagine a world without digital technology. Generation Y is being shaped by digital technology, transforming the human brain and the way of thinking. They are an energetic generation in need of constant stimulation and challenge and are also used to and needs multiple streams of information (Black, 2010).
Characteristics of Generation Y
McCrindle & Wolfinger (2009) compared characteristics of different generations and highlighted some unique features of Generation Y as below. The average age at first marriage for Generation Y is 28 years old for a female and 30 years old for a male, 6 years later than their parents. As a matter of fact, Generation Y delays all markers of adulthood such as marriage, having children, getting a steady career, etc. These behaviors resulted in this new generation being deemed as less responsible, unwilling to commit in binding relationships, or reluctant to show loyalty to their spouses or bosses. The differences carry on in the workforce.
While most Boomers delay their retirement to pursue senior leadership roles, Generation Yers are just completing their education and show a preference toward flexible conditions and work-life balance.
Tapscott (2008) listed several norms of Generation Y/ the Net Generation, which are described below:
Freedom. In Tapscott‟s survey, almost 69% of Generation Y hope they can choose the work place and working time by themselves. Moreover, the flexibility of working time and benefits is the main factor to attract them. They also care a lot about the balance between works and lives. The research indicated that one in every two of the Net Generation values their families more than works, but only 41% of the Baby Boomers do. Furthermore, they hope they can
performance rather than how often they show up in the office. Lastly, although the research showed that most of them expect to stay in one or two company for their work lives, they are not loyal to one employer. In fact, this young generation is loyal only to their career path. If they perceive that organizations refuse to invest in them, they will choose to leave.
Customization. The Net Generation grew up with digital media and technological products.
From tablets to smartphone, most of the products can be personalized. Consequently, when they enter the workplace, they want supervisors to treat them as an individual instead of a big group in organizations. That is to say, they expect organizations to provide customized job descriptions, learning systems, work systems, and compensation plans.
Scrutiny. According to the survey, 60% of this generation checks out a company before they accept a job offer. They prefer companies which are willing to share more information such as financial data, business plans, and management compensation plans with their employees.
Integrity. The Net Generation expects their employer to be honest and keep promises. If they distrust their companies or employers, their loyalty will be weakened which causes them to leave. Moreover, because of the great development of internet allowing searching and accessing company information much easier and quicker than before, employees can soon discover company integrity problems.
Collaboration. The Net Generation likes to work and complete tasks with others. They think that being able to work with many talented team members makes them love their job more.
Entertainment. To this new generation, they expect that work should be fun. That does not mean they want to have fun all day. Instead, they expect the work itself to be enjoyable.
Speed. The Net Generation needs speed. They are accustomed to immediate response. If they want to ask questions and colleague A is not available, they will directly go to colleague B to have answers. Similarly, if every step of their work needs to wait a long time for supervisor‟s
so they always want to know if they are improving.
Hewlett et al. (2009) also sketched five portraits of Generation Y in Harvard Business Review:
Ambition. Generation Y are go-getters. They see themselves as very ambitious and are willing to go the extra mile for their company‟s success.
Loyalty vs. Quest. Generation Y employees are actually fully expecting to stay faithful to a workplace, but they also want work to bring a range of new experiences and challenges.
Multicultural Ease. Generation Y work more comfortably with people from different ethnicities and cultures than older generation.
Healing the Planet. Generation Y thinks it is important that their work make a positive impact on the world.
Networking by Nature. To Generation Y, working in teams is a key motivator. They enjoy working in office that is open and conducive to socializing. They also expect their colleagues and even supervisors to be easily accessible.
To sum up, according to these characteristics of Generation Y listed above, whether an organization is suitable for and provides sufficient support from supervisors and peers are two main concerns of this new generation. They expect to enter an organization with integrity which they can be faithful to and is good for their own future career. They also expect the working environment to be free and open. Moreover, they expect their supervisors and peers to be easily accessible and can give them continuous and timely feedback. Lastly, changing demographical factors and childhood experiences may be the reasons that Generation Y behave differently in the workplace from Boomers.
Turnover Definition of Turnover
Employee turnover has been broadly studied in the past 50 years in organizational behaviors. Fruitful researches have been done by many scholars. Mobley (1977) defined turnover as employees work for a period of time, decide to leave the organization after deep consideration. Williams and Hazer (1986) defined turnover as the act of actually leaving the organization. Price (2001) defined turnover as individual movement across the membership boundary of an organization.
Types of Turnover
Wanous, Stumpf, and Bedrosian (1979) categorized turnover into two types: voluntary if the worker quit and involuntary when the worker was discharged for the reason of unable to do the job. Moreover, most of the researchers concentrated more on the employees‟ voluntary turnover since most of turnovers are voluntary and antecedents of these turnovers are generally controlled by managers (Morrell, Loan-Clarke, & Wilkinson, 2001; Price, 2001). It is also known that a high ratio of voluntary turnover has harmful effects on organizational effectiveness. Furthermore, Abelson (1987) indicated that organization can divide employee turnover into avoidable and unavoidable. Avoidable turnover means regardless whether the turnover is voluntary or involuntay, organizations can always avoid and control. Examples of avoidable turnover is those that are a result of dismissal, layoff, forced retirement, better pay elsewhere, better working conditions elsewhere, problem with leadership administration, and better organization to work for elsewhere. Unavoidable turnover means it is not easy for organizations to control and avoid employees‟ voluntary and involuntary turnover. Examples are turnovers caused by severe medical conditions, death, move to another location, spouse
expanded avoidability taxonomy is showed in figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1. expanded avoidability taxonomy. Adapted from “Examination of Avoidable and Unavoidable Turnover,” by Abelson, M. A., 1987. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(3), p.
383.
Based on the literatures mentioned above, this study focuses on avoidable voluntary turnover which organizations can truly control. Next, the study discusses what employees think about before actual turnover behaviors based on reviewing literatures of turnover process models.
Turnover Process Model
The turnover process model (shown in figure 2.2) developed by Mobley (1977) is most commonly used and adopted by turnover researchers. This model explained the reasons why employees perform actual turnover behaviors. Intention to leave is stimulated if the results are dissatisfied, but actual turnover behaviors will not certainly occur, instead, absenteeism and passive job behavior may occur and employees may start to have turnover intention.
Once employees have the intention to leave, they may evaluate the expected utility of searching for new jobs and the cost of quitting. If the cost of quitting is more than the expected utility of searching for new jobs, employees may reevaluate their current jobs and may give up the intention to leave or find another ways to express the dissatisfactions. While employees are searching the opportunities for new jobs, they will compare the alternatives with present jobs. If the comparison shows that current jobs have fewer advantages, it may increase the turnover intention and actual turnover behaviors may even happen. As a result, this model illustrated that intention to leave is the antecedents of turnover behavior. Moreover, the behavior of turnover is determined by how strong the turnover intention is. When employees have stronger intention to leave, turnover behaviors will happen more easily.
Figure 2.2. the employee turnover decision process. Adapted from “Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover,” by Mobley, W. H., 1977, Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(2), p. 238.
Evaluation of Existing Job
Experienced Job Satisfaction
─ Dissatisfaction
Thinking of Quitting
Evaluation of Expected Utility of Search and Cost of Quitting
Intention to Search for Alternatives
Search for Alternatives
Evaluation of Alternatives
Comparison of Alternatives vs. Present Job
Intention to Quit/Stay
Quit/Stay
Alternative Forms of withdrawal
Impulsive Behavior Non-job Related
Factors
Leave from Labor Market
Antecedents of Turnover Process Models
Turnover process models have been discussed in organizational research since 1950s. In addition to the model developed by Mobley (1977), there are abundant other studies in turnover process models and the antecedents. This section reviewed a meta-analysis research in order to uncover the main factors that influence the turnover process.
Steel and Lounsbury (2009) reviewed literatures of turnover process. They focused on the antecedents of employee turnover and identified theoretical convergence among turnover models. Two groups of model mechanisms, core mechanism and secondary mechanism are introduced in table 2.1.
Table 2.1.
Mechanisms of Turnover Models
Mechanisms Main Constructs
Core mechanism
─ Attitude variables
(i.e. job satisfaction, organizational commitment)
─ Job-search mechanisms
(whether perceptual or market-related)
─ Turnover intentions
(i.e. stay-quit intentions)
Secondary mechanism
─ Personal factors
─ Job and organizational factors
─ Mechanisms of change: external and internal
─ Consequence of quitting/staying
─ Decision process mechanisms
Core mechanism includes attitudinal constructs (i.e. job satisfaction, organizational commitment), turnover intentions (i.e. stay-quit intentions), and job-search mechanisms.
Among these mechanisms and constructs, Steel and Lounsbury (2009) indicated that attitudinal constructs (i.e. job satisfaction, organizational commitment) are heavily used in turnover theory and are still constant focuses of turnover research. Also, the reviews have shown that behavioral intentions are excellent predictors of personnel turnover and become prominent role in turnover theory.
Secondary mechanisms have been proven indispensable in the literature and were categorized into five broad topic areas (i.e. personal factors, job and organizational factors, mechanisms of change: external and internal, consequence of quitting/staying, decision process mechanisms). Table 2.2 summarized the core mechanisms, the findings from each topic area of secondary mechanisms, and also the emergent themes from recent literatures.
Numbers of occurrences indicate the numbers of models employing a particular mechanism.
Table 2.2.
Summary of Antecedents of Turnover Process Models
Antecedents Numbers of
Occurrences
Antecedents Numbers of
Occurrences
Job attitude/morale 16 Age 3
Quit/stay intentions 9 Tenure 3
Perceptual job search 14 Skill 2
Personal factors Training 2
Personal traits 5 Professionalism 2
Values 2 Family
responsibilities
2
(continued)
Table 2.2. (continued)
Antecedents Numbers of
Occurrences Antecedents Numbers of Occurrences Job and organizational
factors
Consequence of quitting/staying
Job-related perceptions 3 Nonwork
consequences
3 Expectations of present
job
2 Job performance 2
Job rewards 4 Decision process
mechanisms
Costs of quitting 5 System shocks 2
Job stress 3 Thought of quitting 2
Role conflict/compatibility 2 Emerging factors recently
Organizational size 2 Internal mobility
opportunities
Promotion possibility 3 Movement capital 1
Demotion possibility 2 Job embeddedness 1
Alternative forms of literature,” by Steel, R. P., & Lounsbury, J. W. 2009, Human Resource Management Review, 19(4), 271-282.
Personal-factors dimensions included individual characteristics (e.g., age, skill) to family-oriented factors (e.g., family responsibilities). From the models reviewed, the antecedents from personal factors occur more frequently. Among the antecedents of current job and organizational factors, costs of quitting the current job and rewards of the current job are two most prevalent job-oriented themes. Job stress factors (i.e., job stress, role conflict/compatibility) also play a prominent role. The change-mechanism antecedents showed that when employees face a worsening job situation, they may look for an extroaorganizational remedy (e.g., expectations of future job), resolve the problem by pursuing some form of intraorganizational change (e.g., intraorganizational transfer possibility), or ease the tension for change by modifying current job behavior (e.g., psychological and behavioral withdrawal). Consequences of quitting/staying (i.e., nonwork consequences, performance consequences) and decision-process mechanisms (i.e., system shocks, thoughts of quitting) were also discussed in turnover models. Lastly, Steel and Lounsbury (2009) listed some emergent constructs in recent turnover theory (e.g., internal mobility opportunity).
Intention to Leave/ Turnover Intention
Intention to leave and turnover intention are used as alternative to each other. Porter and Steers (1973) defined intention to leave as a withdrawn behavior when an individual‟s expectation is not met. Mobley, Horner, and Hollingsworth (1978) defined intention to leave as behaviors of thoughts of quitting, job dissatisfaction, intention to search, and search evaluation of alternatives. Miller et al. (1979) defined intention to leave as an overall behavior of thought of quitting and intention to search other possible jobs. Williams and Hazer (1986) defined intention to leave as the intention, willingness, and plans to quitting their jobs. Tett and Meyer (1993) defined turnover intention as the conscious and deliberate
to actual quitting (Mobley, 1977).
Past studies have provided plentiful results of the antecedents and influences of turnover intention. Chang et al. (2013) stated that if antecedents of intention to leave can be identified in advance, organizations can develop appropriate interventions to enhance competitive advantage and also prevent avoidable visible and invisible costs. Although not all turnover intention leads to actual turnover, the fact that intention to leave being an important outcome variable is approved by many researchers.
According to the literatures and antecedents of turnover listed above, turnover intention of employees are not only a last step before actual turnover behavior in turnover process model, but also is a prominent predictor in actual turnover (Mobley, 1977; Mobley et al., 1979; Pan, 2013; Steel & Lounsbury, 2009). Therefore, one of the purposes of this study is to investigate what factors will influence the intention to leave of Generation Y.
Intention to leave is a behavior occurred when a series of dissatisfaction of expectations happened. Moreover, turnover intention is composed of personal-factors, psychological factors and individual attitudes. Among the reviews of turnover models, the antecedents from personal factors occur more frequently (Steel & Lounsbury, 2009). Personal-factors dimensions include individual characteristics (e.g., age, gender), education background, tenure, and family-oriented factors (e.g., family responsibilities).
A number of studies have examined gender as a predictor of turnover since men and women have different values that may have different turnover intention. From the meta-analysis of 20 studies done by Cotton and Tuttle's (1986), the results show that women have higher turnover rates than men. Another commonly used individual characteristic is age, which was found to be one of the main antecedents that influences turnover in the review of turnover process model conducted by Steel and Lounsbury (2009). Abundant literatures also
Marsh and Mannari (1977), results show that younger age is associated with high turnover.
Also, Federico et al. (1976) found that higher education is associated with lower tenure.
Based on the literature review by Steel and Lounsbury (2009), family responsibilities are a main factor that may influence turnover intention (Mobley et al., 1979; Price & Mueller, 1986). Steel and Lounsbury (2009) also stated that tenure is one of the main personal factors that have an impact on turnover intention, which has been studied by many scholars (Mobley et al., 1979; Jackofsky, 1984; Gerhart, 1990). These demographic factors may directly or indirectly influence employees‟ evaluation and decision making process of the turnover model. Therefore, the first hypotheses are derived as follows.
Hypothesis 1: Demographic factors have a significant relationship with intention to leave of Generation Y.
Hypothesis 1a: Gender has a significant relationship with intention to leave of Generation Y.
Hypothesis 1b: Age has a significant relationship with intention to leave of Generation Y.
Hypothesis 1c: Education level has a significant relationship with intention to leave of Generation Y.
Hypothesis 1d: Number of dependents has a significant relationship with intention to leave of Generation Y.
Hypothesis 1e: Tenure has a significant relationship with intention to leave of Generation Y.
Moreover, according to the literatures of Generation Y, they expect more from organizations and supervisors than older generations. Thus, when organizations satisfy this new generation, they will be truly faithful. Instead, when unmet expectation happens, this
that factors related to organizations, peers and supervisors will influence the turnover intention of Generation Y.
Person-Organization Fit (POF)
Fit is defined as employees‟ compatibility with an organization or surrounding environment. For instance, how well employee‟s personal values, career goals, plans for the future, and so on fit the larger organizational cultures and how well employee‟s job knowledge, skills and abilities fit his or her current job. With better fit, an employee may feel more committed to the organization (Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, & Erez, 2001). Cable and DeRue (2002) indicated that past fit research has distinguished between person–
organization fit perceptions and person–job fit perceptions. Person–organization fit perceptions most often refer to judgments of congruence between an employee‟s personal values and an organization‟s culture, whereas person–job fit perceptions refer primarily to judgments of congruence between an employee‟s skills and the demands of a job. This study focuses more on the fit between a person and an organization.
Schneider (1987) stated that people are not randomly assigned to places, rather, “it is the people who are attracted to, are selected by, and remain in a setting that determine the setting”
(p. 440). The attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) framework developed by Schneider (1987) illustrated that people behave the way they do because they were attracted to an environment, selected by it, and stayed with it. Moreover, Goals of organizations attract people, and people interact with organizations because of the goals. Therefore, if people detect that goals of their
(p. 440). The attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) framework developed by Schneider (1987) illustrated that people behave the way they do because they were attracted to an environment, selected by it, and stayed with it. Moreover, Goals of organizations attract people, and people interact with organizations because of the goals. Therefore, if people detect that goals of their