|عنوان مقاله||Is retention necessarily a win? Outcomes of searching and staying|
|ترجمه عنوان مقاله||آیا ابقا لزوما پیروزی است؟ نتیجه جستجو و اقامت|
|تعداد صفحات مقاله||۱۰ صفحه|
|رشته های مرتبط||مدیریت و علوم اجتماعی|
|گرایش های مرتبط||مدیریت کسب و کار MBA|
|مجله||مجله رفتار حرفه ای – Journal of Vocational Behavior|
|دانشگاه||گروه مدیریت، دانشکده کسب و کار Mays، دانشگاه تگزاس A & M، ایالات متحده|
|کلمات کلیدی||جستجوی کار، ابقای کارمند، برداشت از حساب، حجم معاملات|
|تعداد کلمات||۶۲۴۸ کلمه|
|لینک مقاله در سایت مرجع||لینک این مقاله در سایت الزویر (ساینس دایرکت) Sciencedirect – Elsevier|
|وضعیت ترجمه مقاله||ترجمه آماده این مقاله موجود نمیباشد. میتوانید از طریق دکمه پایین سفارش دهید.|
|دانلود رایگان مقاله||دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی|
|سفارش ترجمه این مقاله||سفارش ترجمه این مقاله|
|بخشی از متن مقاله:|
|۱٫ Employee job
search Job search involves the expenditure of effort to acquire information about labor market alternatives and generate employment opportunities (Boswell, 2006). Job search activity (also referred to as job search behavior) is a key component of many turnover models, often viewed as the most proximal determinant of turnover (e.g., Griffeth et al., 2000; Hom & Griffeth, 1991; Mobley, 1977; Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, & Meglino, 1979; Steers & Mowday, 1981). Research has also recognized that search does not always precede turnover (i.e., a “shock” may lead an individual to quit without searching, Lee & Mitchell, 1994; Lee, Mitchell, Wise, & Fireman, 1996) and certainly not all employees that search for alternative employment end up leaving the current employer. Indeed, although the strongest behavioral predictor to voluntary turnover, the average weighted correlation between job search and turnover is moderate (r = 0.26; Griffeth et al., 2000). Yet the basic argument is that discontent with the current employment situation leads to withdrawal cognitions and a search for and evaluation of alternatives.
A question arises as to what helps explain the modest correlation between search and turnover; that is, why wouldn’t search activity necessarily lead to turnover? Whether search activity generates viable options (“successful job search” Mobley et al., 1979; Steers & Mowday, 1981), and thus having the opportunity to leave, is arguably a key mitigating factor. Indeed, ability to leave stems back to March and Simon’s (1958) seminal model of employee turnover whereby ease of movement was proposed as a key determinant (along with desirability) to ensuing turnover. Movement ease (or opportunity to leave, Bretz et al., 1994) may stem from labor market conditions (e.g., job, industry, or regional unemployment) and/or an individual’s own human capital (e.g., skills, abilities, education, experience) as well as a comparison of alternatives generated to the current job. In an empirical examination of this, Swider, Boswell, and Zimmerman (2011) found a moderating role for alternative opportunities (both unemployment rate and perceived alternatives) on the search-turnover link such that search was most likely to lead turnover within the context of a stronger labor market. The researchers also emphasized the importance of viable alternatives, proposing and finding that the more satisfied and/or embedded an individual is with a current employer, the more difficult it may be for him/her to obtain alternative employment more favorable to the current job or that overcomes the costs and sacrifices of leaving. Taken together, prior empirical work and theorizing suggests not only that search may not lead to subsequent turnover but that there are likely important implications for an individual that ends up staying with the organization.
In this study, we propose that searching and not leaving is likely to be met with discontent on the part of the job seeker. Although some individuals may search with little intent or desire to actually leave (an issue we develop and examine below in our moderating hypothesis), our baseline expectation is that searching and not leaving will generally equate as a failed search. This is akin to prior discussions of “intention-to-quit nonquitters” (Bowen, 1982) or more recently as “reluctant stayers” (Hom et al., 2012) whereby the individual sought alternative employment but does not leave. Although the present research does not specifically examine the reason why the employee stays (e.g., high embeddedness constraining viability of alternatives, inability to secure unemployment due to low human capital), we argue that as some level of discontent with the current employment situation would drive one’s desire to seek out alternatives, remaining in the current situation would be met with negative attitudes and deleterious behaviors as an individual is in essence “blocked from leaving” (Hom et al., 2012, p. 836).