2009
DOI: 10.1037/a0015898
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Unit-level voluntary turnover rates and customer service quality: Implications of group cohesiveness, newcomer concentration, and size.

Abstract: Despite substantial growth in the service industry and emerging work on turnover consequences, little research examines how unit-level turnover rates affect essential customer-related outcomes. The authors propose an operational disruption framework to explain why voluntary turnover impairs customers' service quality perceptions. Based on a sample of 75 work units and data from 5,631 employee surveys, 59,602 customer surveys, and organizational records, results indicate that unit-level voluntary turnover rates… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

9
208
1
1

Year Published

2010
2010
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 170 publications
(219 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
9
208
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Overqualified employees who are part of a cohesive team (Hausknecht, Trevor, & Howard, 2009) characterised by high levels of professional support such as sharing of specialist knowledge, frequent communication, collaboration and interaction, and social-emotional support between team-members may demonstrate higher levels of performance compared to their overqualified counterparts who have fewer interdependent relationships with their peers or who are part of a less cohesive team.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Overqualified employees who are part of a cohesive team (Hausknecht, Trevor, & Howard, 2009) characterised by high levels of professional support such as sharing of specialist knowledge, frequent communication, collaboration and interaction, and social-emotional support between team-members may demonstrate higher levels of performance compared to their overqualified counterparts who have fewer interdependent relationships with their peers or who are part of a less cohesive team.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As in past re-search (e.g., George & Bettenhausen, 1990), approximately six months after survey administration, the organization provided information on the number of people who had voluntarily left the organization each month. I divided this number by the total number of employees who were in a unit at the time of survey data collection to arrive at a turnover rate for each unit (Hausknecht, Trevor, & Howard, 2009). …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As with other consequences, empirical evidence favors negative turnover-customer outcome associations. High turnover has been linked with (a) longer customer wait times in fast-food restaurants (Kacmar et al, 2006;Peterson & Luthans, 2006); (b) less favorable service quality perceptions among casino guests (Hausknecht et al, 2009) and call center customers (Batt & Colvin, in press); (c) lower mystery shopper scores for both retail bookstores (Ton & Huckman, 2008) (Hurley & Estelami, 2007), bank branches (Gelade & Ivery, 2003;Morrow & McElroy, 2007;Ryan et al, 1996), health care facilities (Plomondon et al, 2007), and automotive services stores (Sowinski et al, 2008). Although the basic pattern is consistent across multiple studies, results are sometimes sensitive to the sample type (hourly vs. managerial); turnover aggregation period; turnover type; and/or presence of control, mediating, or moderating variables (Detert et al, 2007;Hausknecht et al, 2009;Kacmar et al, 2006;Koys, 2001;McElroy et al, 2001;Ton & Huckman, 2008;Van Iddekinge et al, 2009).…”
Section: Customer Outcomesmentioning
confidence: 99%