Shocks and final straws: Using exit‐interview data to examine the unfolding model's decision paths

Abstract

The unfolding model emphasizes the role of shocks (jarring events that initiate exit cognitions) in the turnover process. In contrast to earlier surveybased research, we used exit interviews to classify organizational leavers along the model's paths. The data provide support for the model but highlight several aspects of shocks not addressed by previous research. Employees on the same path may experience distinctly different shock subgroups (e.g., work or nonwork), some employees require shock combinations (e.g., push and pull shocks) to motivate leaving, and some dissatisfi ed employees experience shock-like events (fi nal straws) that confi rm previous exit cognitions rather than initiate them. The research demonstrates how organizations can use exit interviews to better understand their employee exit patterns.

Mentoring functions and turnover intention: the mediating role of perceived organizational support

“…Some researchers have used the unfolding theory of turnover or the concept of job embeddedness to explain why people leave and stay (Lee, Mitchell, Wise, & Fireman, 1996;Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, & Erez, 2001). For example, several studies using the unfolding theory framework report the distribution of leavers across different decision paths (Kulik, Treuren, & Bordia, 2012). They highlight that around 34 -68% cases of employees leaving an organization involve shock-related reasons (e.g.…”

Can We Still be Friends? The Role of Exit Conversations in Facilitating Post‐Exit Relationships

“…The unfolding model suggests that employees who leave in response to a shock associated with a larger script or plan offer organizations the greatest potential for a post‐exit relationship (Kulik, Treuren, & Bordia, ). These employees’ exit decisions are not motivated by dissatisfaction (Holtom et al, ) and so they represent viable targets for organizational “alumni” efforts (Somaya & Williamson, ).…”

“…Three sections of the protocol are particularly relevant for this article. One section included questions developed by Kulik, Treuren, and Bordia () to identify which of the unfolding model's paths best fit the interviewee's experience (e.g., “Was there a particular event or incident that made you want to leave your job? Could you describe that incident?”; “Did you have another job or opportunity lined up when you resigned?”).…”

“…The coders first categorized each interviewee along the unfolding model's paths, noting passages that illustrated components of the unfolding model (i.e., shocks, scripts, image violations, dissatisfaction, alternative job opportunities). When an interview was classified into different decision paths across the two coders, we jointly reviewed the text and came to a consensus decision (see Kulik, Treuren, & Bordia, , and Lee, Mitchell, Wise, & Fireman, , for similar consensus procedures in the context of the unfolding model). The coders also noted whether the employee attributed his or her resignation to an internal cause (problems within the employment relationship) or an external one (e.g., a spouse getting a job offer that required an interstate move).…”

“…But Path 3 may involve little dissatisfaction, because the employee only becomes aware of a current job's shortcomings after a new opportunity makes an appearance, and Path 1 involves no dissatisfaction at all since the script was activated by nonorganizational factors. Researchers have suggested that departing employees on these two paths may be particularly promising targets for organizational “alumni” efforts (Kulik, Treuren, & Bordia, ).…”