Determinants of job-hopping: an empirical study in Belgium

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyze the determinants of job-hopping. More specifically, the authors investigate the effect of age, gender, educational level, organizational size and sector on the job-hop frequency. Design/methodology/approach – Due to a lack of an existing appropriate measure of job-hopping, the authors introduce a new measure, namely, the job-hop frequency. Based on the data collected from a survey in Belgium, a linear regression analysis is performed. Findings – Through an empirical analysis, the authors show that age is negatively related to the job-hop frequency. Gender moderates this relationship. Therefore, the analysis supports the view that young women tend to job-hop significantly more than young men, but as they age, women are significantly more likely than men to remain within the same company. Furthermore, the authors find that the educational level has no influence on the job-hop behavior, indicating that having more job alternatives does not necessarily result in actual job-hop behavior. Both the sector and the size of the organization are found not to be significantly related to the job-hop frequency. Practical implications – This research provides human resource managers more insight into the job-hop behavior of employees and offers some useful suggestions for their retention management. Originality/value – Existing literature on turnover is very extensive, but literature on job-hopping remains rather underexplored. Therefore, the study extends previous research on voluntary turnover and job mobility by focussing on job-hopping in particular.

Quits and ladders: does mobility improve outcomes?

“…First, authors spend significant efforts predicting mobility without exploring its effects. This is especially true in the field of personnel psychology (Steenackers and Guerry, 2016;Jackofsky and Peters, 1983;Mobley, 1977), although examples exist in sociology also (Hachen, 1990). These papers help us understand what pushes workers to mobility, but rarely show us the effect of mobility itself.…”

“…Others cite the importance of age and the number of children in the home, which are strong predictors of earnings (Cha, 2014;Keith and McWilliams, 1997;Fuller, 2008). Contract type, and the size of the firm are standard controls for the economic sector (Schmelzer, 2010;Steenackers and Guerry, 2016). Last, we include the survey year in an effort to control for macro changes which may affect wages and subjective evaluations of work (Gesthuizen, 2009).…”

“…We suggest the topic is underdeveloped in two ways. First, researchers focus more on the likelihood of mobility than on the effects of mobility (Steenackers and Guerry, 2016;Hachen Jr, 1990, 1992. Second, when authors explore the effects of mobility, they often ignore the impact of promotions (Kronberg, 2013(Kronberg, , 2014Caparrós Ruiz et al, 2004).…”

“…Second, we consider this effect separately for measures of earnings growth and job-fit. Comparing and contrasting the effects of quits and promotions on two different sets of outcomes informs recent debates over the motivations tied to mobility (Kalleberg and Mouw, 2018;Steenackers and Guerry, 2016). Is mobility used to correct the job fit between an employee and her working conditions, or is mobility used to secure a reservation wage?…”

“…First, we use explicit measures of quits and promotions. A review of the literature shows that authors often sample and operationalise mobile workers in complex ways (Steenackers and Guerry, 2016;McWilliams, 1995, 1997). Second, we consider outcomes other than objective pay.…”