Employee-Organization Exchange Relationships, HRM Practices, and Quit Rates of Good and Poor Performers

Abstract

We developed and tested an exchange-theory-based extension of the relationship between human resource management (HRM) practices and quit rates in a two-wave trucking industry study and attempted a constructive replication in a two-wave study of supermarkets. We found that HRM inducements and investments relate negatively to good-and poor-performer quit rates, whereas expectation-enhancing practices relate negatively to good-performer quit rates and positively to poor-performer quit rates. We find support for the predictions that expectation-enhancing practices attenuate the negative relationship between inducements and investments and goodperformer quit rates (Study 1) and exacerbate the negative relationship with poorperformer quit rates (Study 2).

The link between perceived human resource management practices, engagement and employee behaviour: a moderated mediation model

“…It is argued that employees who receive economic or socio-emotional benefits from their organisation feel obligated to respond in kind (Blau, 1964, Eisenberger et al, 1986, Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). An organisation's HRM practices may be viewed as signalling intent for long-term investment in employees that obligates them to respond with discretionary role behaviour (Sun, Aryee and Law, 2007, Shaw, Dineen, Fang and Vellella, 2009, Gong, Chang and Cheung, 2010. As Hannah and Iverson (2002, pp.…”

Causes and consequences of collective turnover: A meta-analytic review.

“…In nearly every study included here (see H. Y. Park, Ofori-Dankwa, & Bishop, 1994;Shaw et al, 2009, for exceptions), turnover rates theoretically included high, average, and low performers as well as an assortment of leavers who departed different occupational levels, thus precluding any inferences about specific employee populations. As this area progresses, developing research strategies and measures that isolate the potentially unique causes and consequences of turnover for different employee groups will be especially valuable (e.g., retaining a diverse workforce; Horn, Roberson, & Ellis, 2008).…”

“…Practices that signal investments and inducements should negatively relate to turnover rates because they imply employer commitment to building long-term, rewarding employee relationships. This includes high-commitment or high-performance work systems (Combs et al, 2006;Guthrie, 2001;Huselid, 1995) and other HR practices that enhance motivation and commitment and decrease the attractiveness of available alternatives (Batt & Colvin, 2011;Shaw et al, 2009), such as tangible rewards (e.g., pay, benefits) and indirect investments (e.g., training opportunities) that are less monetary in nature but nonetheless, promote favorable employee response (Shaw, Delery, Jenkins, & Gupta, 1998).…”

“…Topical interest further formalized via several influential accounts of collective turnover's causes and consequences (March & Simon, 1958;Mobley, 1982;Price, 1977;Staw, 1980). More recently, this attention has intensified in terms of empirical studies (e.g., Batt & Colvin, 2011;Shaw, Dineen, Fang, & Vellella, 2009;Siebert & Zubanov, 2009;Trevor & Nyberg, 2008), theoretical contributions (Dess & Shaw, 2001), and narrative reviews (Hausknecht & Trevor, 2011;Shaw, 2011). Indeed, over 100 studies have been published on the topic-nearly two thirds in the last decade alone-mostly in leading journals in management and related fields (Hausknecht & Trevor, 2011).…”

“…Practices that signal investments and inducements should negatively relate to turnover rates because they imply employer commitment to building long-term, rewarding employee relationships. This includes high-commitment or high-performance work systems (Combs et al, 2006;Guthrie, 2001;Huselid, 1995) and other HR practices that enhance motivation and commitment and decrease the attractiveness of available alternatives (Batt & Colvin, 2011;Shaw et al, 2009), such as tangible rewards (e.g., pay, benefits) and indirect investments (e.g., training opportunities) that are less monetary in nature but nonetheless, promote favorable employee response (Shaw, Delery, Jenkins, & Gupta, 1998).Certain HR practices generate their primary effects by increasing the desirability of current employment for employees; others simultaneously influence the organization's preferences toward employee retention by increasing the costs-pecuniary and otherwiseassociated with departures. Such practices generate stronger, compounded effects on turnover rates because employees are not only less likely to leave of their own accord (Horn et al, 2009;Tsui et al, 1997) but also are viewed as more valuable by the organization itself.…”