An exploratory investigation into the relationshps between promotion and turnover: A...

Journal of Management 1993, Vol. 19, No. I, 3349

An Exploratory lnves tiga tion in to the Rela tionshps between Promotion and Turnover: A Quasi-experimental

Longitudinal Study Mark W. Johnston

Louisiana State University

Rodger W. Griffeth Georgia State University

Scot Burton University of Arkansas

Paula Phillips Carson University of Southwestern Louisiana

Employee movement out of the organization has been examined extensively, but unfortunately, research on employee movement inside the organization is less pervasive. The study reported here uses a longitudinal quasi-experimental design to investigate the relationships of a selected set of work-related attitudes to promotion and turnover in a sample of 157 salespeople. Results indicate that the relationships between the internal/external movement of the employee and several key job related attitudes (organizational commitment, propensity to leave, promotion satisfaction) as well as salary vary over time. In addition, there were signt$cant dfferences between groups (promoted stayers and non-promoted leavers) for satisfaction with supervisor, and time had a signt$cant effect on all dependent variables (except job anxiety).

The importance of studying employee movement out of an organization is well-documented in the management literature (Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, & Meglino, 1979). Volumes of research exists on the causes, correlates, and outcomes of employee turnover. However, literature examining internal movements within the organization, such as promotions, is much less complete (Anderson, Milkovich, & Tsui, 1981; Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, & Weick, 1970; Markham, Harlan, & Hackett, 1987). That is, research has focused primarily on employee movement out of the organization (external turnover) while generally ignoring the effects associated with movement within the organization (internal promotions).

Please address all correspondence to the lead author: Mark W. Johnston, Louisiana State University, Department of Marketing, 3127 CEBA Bldg., Baton Rouge, LA 70803-6314.

Copyright @ 1993 by JAI Press Inc. 0149-2063

34 JOHNSTON, GRIFFETH, BURTON, AND CARSON

Deficient promotional opportunities have been hypothesized as primary reasons for withdrawal (Stumpf & Dawley 1981). Unfortunately, past empirical research has been unable to establish a consistent relationship between promotion and withdrawal (Price & Mueller, 1981). Indeed, prior research has characterized the relationship as everything from strongly negative (Porter & Steers 1973), weakly negative (Price, 1977) to inconclusive (Mobley et al., 1979). Moreover, other researchers have suggested that promotion has a greater influence on other areas such as absenteeism (Brayfield & Crockett, 1955) and job selection (Hellriegel & White 1973) than actual withdrawal behavior.

The few studies which have investigated promotions and the impact of internal movement on personal and organizational outcomes have been deficient in that these studies have primarily used proxies for actual promotion. Such proxies include promotion satisfaction (Bartok 1979; Mobley, Horner, & Hollingsworth, 1978) availability of promotional opportunities (Marsh & Mannari, 1977) and perceived equity of promotion practices and policies (Dittrich & Carrell, 1979; Dreher 1982). While these affective and perceptual measures are conceptually related to actual promotion, they represent empirically distinct operationalizations and are associated with problems inherent in self-report measures (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986).

Despite the lack of research on internal movement, promotions are an important aspect of human resource systems because they: (a) serve to encourage quality performance (Sanborn & Berger, 1990) (b) represent an important aspect of internal selection systems (Markham, et al., 1987) (c) mitigate the turnover process (Dreher, 1982; Stumpf & Dawley, 1981) and (d) are important outcomes to organization members, influencing affective reactions to the job and organization (Price & Mueller, 1981, 1986; Quinn & Staines, 1979). To date, however, there has been surprisingly little research addressing the consequences of internal employee movement.

Another deficiency is the lack of research examining different combinations of internal and external movement simultaneously. That is, the literature has typically looked at turnover and promotion separately, without considering the joint effects of these two distinct types of employee movement. Boudreau and Berger (1985) recently offered a taxonomic framework that delineates between different internal and external movement types. Included among these possible combinations, they suggested that individuals could move: (a) both externally and internally (i.e., promoted leavers), (b) internally, but not externally (i.e., promoted stayers), (c) externally, but not internally (i.e., non-promoted leavers), and (d) neither externally nor internally (i.e., non-promoted stayers). Boudreau and Berger (1985) also called for more systematic research investigating the effects of unique combinations of internal and external movements on organizational outcomes. In response to this recommendation, and based upon their framework (Boudreau & Berger, 1985) this paper investigates the relationships between combinations of internal and external movement and job attitudes.

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 19, NO. I, 1993

RELATIONS BETWEEN PROMOTION AND TURNOVER 35

Recent evaluations of the employee movement literature have also recognized the need for longitudinal research using repeated measures (Bluedorn, 1982; Mobley, 1982; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; Muchinsky & Tuttle, 1979; Price, 1977; Steers & Mowday, 1981). Considering the dynamic nature of individual and organizational variables recognized as antecedents to both promotion and turnover, longitudinal designs are needed to understand these processes (Youngblood, Mobley, & Meglino, 1983). None of the previous research on promotions and turnover, whether using actual promotions or one of the proxies, used longitudinal research with repeated measures.

Exploring the Impact of Movement on Employee Reactions

Given the exploratory nature of the investigation and the wide range of variables which might relate to the promotion-turnover relationship, it was necessary to limit the number and type of variables for the study. Based on the framework for categorizing turnover correlates developed by Pettman (1973) and used by Cotton and Tuttle (1986), this study focuses on work-related correlates (i.e., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job involvement) of turnover. Work-related correlates were selected for several reasons. First, promotion is a work-related activity and hence, one could suggest that attitudes about the work environment would be among the first to be influenced by promotion activity. Second, past research has consistently found these variables to be significantly related to the turnover process (Cotton & Tuttle, 1986). Finally, by focusing on one set of correlates it is possible to more clearly understand the relationship between work environment and the various promotion-turnover combinations. While work-related variables were the focus of the study, the individual’s cognition about quitting was also assessed in the study. The inclusion of intention to quit was based on a substantial body of research that suggests it is the direct antecedent of the decision to leave an organization (Mobley et al., 1979) and its exclusion in any turnover study may lead to erroneous conclusions (Mobley, 1982).

Commitment

Turnover literature has consistently found a strong negative relationship between turnover and organizational commitment, indicating that employees with low commitment are most likely to withdraw from the organization (Bluedorn, 1982). Alternatively, a positive relationship has been found between organizational commitment and career progress or internal promotions (Randall, 1987; Romzek, 1989) indicating that promoted employees are likely to exhibit higher organizational commitment. These results concerning the relationships between commitment, job promotion, and turnover coupled with the general decline in organizational commitment over time (Johnston, Varadarajan, Futrell, & Sager, 1987) suggests that a significant interaction may exist between the promotion/ turnover categorization group and time. Specifically, we would expect to see less of a decline in commitment for promoted stayers than for other groups. Put another way, for promoted stayers,

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 19, NO. 1, 1993

the effect of the promotion should diminish the natural attrition in organizational commitment that is observed for the other groups of employees in Boudreau and Berger’s classification schema (1985).

Intrinsic Motivation

Mirvis and Lawler (1977) found that employees who withdraw from organizations had lower intrinsic motivation than employees who stayed. Further evidence indicates that promotions are related to internal motivation (Campbell, et al., 1970), such that promoted employees should experience higher levels of intrinsic motivation as compared to non-promoted employees. Similar to the above rationale concerning commitment, since we might anticipate that intrinsic motivation generally decreases over time, an interaction effect between promoted stayers and the other three groups may be postulated, with the promoted stayers exhibiting a smaller decrease in intrinsic motivation over time.

Job Anxiety

Individuals who experience excessive stress and job-related anxiety are likely to withdraw from the organization (Keller, 1984; Parasuraman, 1982). Simultaneously, promotions are likely to increase responsibility resulting in increased levels of job related anxiety (Bray, et al., 1974; Campion, Lord, & Pursell, 1981; Krau, 1981). Thus, we might expect promoted leavers to have the greatest level of job anxiety, followed by promoted stayers, non-promoted leavers, and non-promoted stayers.

We might also expect that promoted leavers and stayers would experience an increase in job anxiety while non-promoted stayers and leavers might even experience a decrease in anxiety following the promotion decision. This is likely to occur because of the additional work load often accompanied by promotions (Campion, Lord, & Pursell, 1981).

Job Involvement

Employees who withdraw from organizations have been found to be less involved with their jobs than employees who remain (Mirvis & Lawler, 1977; Parasuraman, 1982). Although promotions are often used to reward employee’s involvement in their jobs (Sanborn & Berger, 1990), such job involvement may or may not carry over following the acceptance of a new position. Job involvement represents a cognitive identification with one’s job (Kanungo, 1982) and subsequently has the “job” as a referent. Because promotions change the nature of one’s “job”, such an identification may need to redevelop over time for promoted employees. Indeed, research in marketing suggests that there are significant differences between the two jobs of salesperson and sales manager (Futrell, 1988). Finally, while research indicates that job involvement tends to decline over time regardless of the employees’ status (Blau, 1987), we might expect that non-promoted stayers would experience less of a decline than other groups.

JOURNAL Ok MANAGEMENT, VOL. 19, NO. I, 1993

Propensity to Leave

Propensity to leave has been found to be the strongest and most consistent predictor of turnover (Steel & Ovalle, 1984). Literature also indicates that failing to receive a promotion has an impact on an employee’s desire to leave an organization (Ginter, Jones & Schaffer, 1982). However, empirical research clearly suggests that intent to leave is more strongly related to turnover than it is to promotion.

Thus, we expect non-promoted leavers to exhibit the greatest propensity to leave, followed by promoted leavers, non-promoted stayers, and promoted stayers. Furthermore, an interaction effect between classification groups and time seems probable with non-promoted leavers exhibiting the greatest increase in propensity to leave over time followed by promoted leavers and non promoted stayers. Promoted stayers may have relatively stable or declining attitudes toward withdrawal over time.

Satisfaction

Employees who withdraw from organizations have been found to exhibit lower satisfaction with pay, promotion, coworkers, supervision, and work itself, as compared to stayers (see Cotton & Tuttle, 1986 for a complete review). Regarding the relationship between promotion and satisfaction, we would expect non-promoted leavers to be less satisfied with: (a) pay, because pay increases usually accompany promotions (Mahoney, 1979); (b) promotion, as most individuals desire to advance in the organization (Sanborn & Berger, 1990); (c) supervision, as supervisors usually have a significant role in determining which employees are promoted (Goldner, 1970); (d) coworkers, because competition and jealousy may result following promotion decisions; and the work itself, because promotions usually result in a higher level job with more autonomy (Stumpf & London, 198 1).

Promoted stayers, on the other hand, would likely be more satisfied with pay, promotion, supervision, coworkers, and the work itself. Between these two extremes, promoted leavers may be more satisfied with supervision, promotions and pay-factors that can be associated with promotion, while non-promoted stayers might be more satisfied with coworkers, and the work itself, factors not as readily associated with promotion.

Over time, one could suggest that non-promoted leavers would experience the greatest decrease in satisfaction with promotion as compared to the other three groups. Non-promoted stayers may also experience a similar decrease, but not to the extent of non-promoted leavers because something impels these employees to remain with the organization. For example, these employees, for a variety of reasons, may simply not desire advancement within the organization (Mobley, 1982).

Salary

As salary increases typically accompany promotions (Markham, et al., 1987) promoted employees are likely to have higher salaries than their non-

promoted counterparts. Similarly, higher salaries are typically associated with lower turnover (Federico, Federico, & Lundquist, 1976). Therefore, we expect that promoted stayers will have the largest salaries, followed by non-promoted stayers, promoted leavers, and non-promoted leavers.

Probably of greater interest is the level of increase in salary over time across the four groups. While salary tends to increase over time, promoted stayers and leavers may be expected to have a significantly greater increase compared to non-promoted employees, indicating a significant interaction between the internal/ external movement group and time.

METHOD

Sample and Data Collection

Data were collected through a mail survey from salespeople employed by a national manufacturer of consumer non-durable products. The organization participating in the study maintained an aggressive promotion policy toward salespeople. Promotion was based, in part, on the achievement of quotas established by management as well as managerial evaluations of each salespersons’ performance along sixteen dimensions. These dimensions related primarily to the employee’s sales abilities and territory management methods. If individuals were able to meet the performance expectations of their supervisors, they were promoted to a sales position which accorded the salesperson more responsibility, prestige, and higher income opportunities. Generally, this promotion would occur somewhere between 2-2 l/2 years of employment with the company. The promotional environment in this organization was consistent with that found in a variety of sales departments (Behrman & Perreault, 1984). Survey measures were administered at two points during the tracking period, six months apart, to personnel who were eligible for promotion. The promotions occurred approximately half-way between period 1 and period 2 or roughly 3 months after the first data collection. Only employees who completed all items on both pre and post measures were included in the study.

To enhance the homogeneity of the sample and control for external factors which might influence the relationship between promotion and turnover certain personal characteristics were examined for each individual, Specifically, four key variables (age, gender, organizational tenure, and starting position in time 1) were examined for each salesperson. The average age of respondents at initial measurement was 26.2 years old and all were male. In addition, average tenure at the first time period was 23.6 months indicating the sample was just entering the most significant period for promotional opportunity. Finally, each individual was at the same position in the organization at the time he completed the first survey. Consequently, the sample used in the study consisted of a subset of all salespeople in the organization and involved one-hundred fifty seven individuals. This represented a response rate of 75 percent (157/ 208) of eligible respondents. Fifty-one individuals were excluded from the study because they did not complete all items on both surveys (N = 5 1). Following Boudreau and

Berger (1985), the sample was divided into 4 criterion groups: (a) those who were promoted and stayed (n = 51), (b) those who were promoted and left (n = 24) (c) those who were not promoted and stayed (n = 33), and (d) those who were not promoted and left (n = 49).

Measures

Organizational Commitment. Commitment was measured using the 15- item version of the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) developed by Porter, Steers, Mowday, and Boulian (1974). Following the guidelines set forth by Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979) in which they examined the validity and reliability of the OCQ, an average value was calculated for the 15 five point scale items (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).

Intrinsic Motivation. This construct was measured using six items from the scale developed by Lawler and Hall (1970). The six items were measured on a five point scale and then summed.

Job Anxiety. The construct was measured using seven items from the anxiety-stress scale developed by House and Rizzo (1972) to assess the amount of anxiety experienced by employees in the work environment. Each item used the 5-point strongly disagree to strongly agree scale described above. Individual items were then summed.

Job Involvement. The Lodahl and Kejner (1965) job involvement scale was used. It consists of six items measuring the degree to which a salesperson’s work performance affects his/ her self-esteem. Again, the construct was rated on a five point scale and the individual items were summed to arrive at a total score.

Propensity to Leave. Propensity to leave was measured using four items of Bluedorn’s (1982) staying/leaving index. Respondents were asked: “How would you rate your chance of quitting in the next: three months, six months, sometime in the next year, sometime in the next two years.” A seven point scale ranging from 1 (terrible) to 7 (excellent) was used and the individual items summed.

Satisfaction with Pay, Promotion, Supervisor, Work, and Co- Workers. Five facets of job satisfaction were measured using the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969). This instrument measures employee’s attitudes toward five different facets of their employment by asking them to evaluate their satisfaction with pay (9 items), promotion (9 items), supervisor (18 items), work (18 items), and co-workers (18 items) and was scored in accordance with the instructions of the JDI (Smith et al., 1969).

Salary. This was measured by asking the participant to respond to the following statement, “$ is your yearly gross salary (including incentives).”

Turnover. Turnover was operationalized as a dichotomous variable (0 = stayer, 1 = leaverj and tracked for a period of one year following the completion of the second time period. The means, standard deviations, and coefficient alphas for each scale are reported in Table I.’

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviation and Reliabilities of Study Variables

Time 1 Time 2

Standard Coefficient Standard Coefficient Variable Mean Deviation Alpha Mean Deviation Alpha

Commitment 4.1 0.5 Intrinsic Motivation 18.4 1.9 Job Anxiety 19.1 5.2 Job Involvement 20.8 3.5 Propensity to Leave 8.6 4.3 Pay Satisfaction 18.1 5.2 Promotion Satisfaction 23.2 5.4 Supervisor Satisfaction 45.7 8.2 Work Satisfaction 36.5 1.3 Coworker Satisfaction 49.3 1.2 Salary 24,325 5612

,862 .729 .831 .736 909 ,701 .829 ,690 .710 ,826

3.8 0.6 18.0 1.9 19.4 5.4 20.3 3.7 11.2 7.1 16.8 5.9 21.4 1.9 43.0 11.4 34.1 9.9 48.2 1.5

28,187 6501

,904 .889 .838 .759 .966 .733 .917 .866 ,822 .825

Analyses

Given our purpose was to explore the work-related factors that differentiate promoted and non-promoted employees who stay or leave the organization, a naturally occurring, quasi-experimental, non-equivalent control group, pretest-posttest design (Cook & Campbell, 1979) was employed. While not optimal for inferring causality, this type of design is more rigorous than the norm, generally making it possible to rule out many more threats to internal validity (Cook & Campbell, 1979).

Following the design implemented by Youngblood et al. (1983), our analyses were conducted in three steps. A two-factor, repeated measures MANOVA with one between-group factor (internal/ external movement criterion groups) and a repeated measures factor with observations six months apart constituted the initial analysis. We used MANOVA in order to control for Type I errors among correlated dependent variables (Borgen & Seling, 1978). We followed the MANOVA with a two-factor, repeated measures ANOVA with one between-group factor (criterion groups) and a repeated measures factor for each dependent variable. Follow-up interaction and main effect contrasts were conducted for each significant finding of the ANOVA analyses.

Results

Overall MANOVA results are reported in Table 2. Results show significant main effects both for time (Wilks’ lambda = .29, F= 32.1 ,p < .Ol) and criterion group (Wilks’ lambda = .72, F = 1.53, p < .05), as well as a significant effect for the group by time interaction (Wilks’ lambda = .66, F = 1.82, p < .Ol).

Univariate effects are shown in Table 2. There are significant interaction effects for four of the dependent variables (i.e., commitment, propensity to leave, promotion satisfaction, and salary); for these significant interactions, main effects can not be meaningfully interpreted. Instead, each of the four significant interactions are discussed in turn. For each of these significant interactions,

1.5’

’ 7.

4.2”

follow-up tests examining the interaction effects for two groups at a time were conducted. To control for Type I errors associated with these multiple two group comparisons, alpha levels have been adjusted using the Bonferroni modification (Keppel, 1979). Given six p,ossible two group comparisons for the four groups, alpha levels necessary to reach statistical significance have been divided by six. Thus, for an uncorrected alpha of .05, the 01 necessary to achieve significance for the two group interactions after the Bonferroni modification equals JO83 ( i.e., .05/6) and for an uncorrected 01 of .lO, the criterion becomes .0167 (i.e., .10/6) after the familywise adjustment. The “*” associated with the p values in the discussion of results below indicates that the Bonferroni modification has been used to adjust the alpha levels associated with the follow-up contrasts. It should be noted that the Bonferroni modification is a conservative test which controls for the number of comparisons being conducted (Ramsey, 1980). Consequently, findings close to or exceeding Bonferroni modified alpha levels should be considered meaningful. The effect of the group by time interaction on commitment to the firm is shown in Figure 1. While commitment decreases from Time one to Time two for all groups, the graph suggests a logical pattern of results in that the decrease for promoted stayers appears less than that for the other groups. The interaction effect is significant for the promoted stayers and promoted leavers (F= lO.O,p* < .05), but not significant for the promoted stayers and non-promoted leavers (F= 5.47, p* > .lO) or the promoted stayers

3.8 I I I

The Period I

Time Time Period 2

Note: Promoted Stayers Non Promoted Stayers Promoted Leavers Non Promoted Leavers . . . . ..--..._._. --___--_

Figure 1. Organizational Commitment by Time

_--- _---

13 _---

_--- _.-- a, _.--

_.-- & 12

s -_-- _---

I . .../’ g 11

---- _./"- _--- ___.../"

71 r ,._.... ..

TlmePehdl TimePmiod2

Note: Promoted Stayers Non Promoted Stayers Promoted Leavers Non Promoted Leavers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Figure 2. Propensity to Leave by Time

and non-promoted stayers (F = 3.58, p* > .lO) after controlling for the familywise error rate. None of the interactions for the non-promoted stayers, the promoted leavers, and the non-promoted leavers approached significance.

Figure 2 presents the effect of the group by time interaction on propensity to leave the organization. As anticipated, the greatest increase in propensity to leave occurred for the non-promoted leavers and the promoted leavers. Interactions were significant for the promoted stayer and non-promoted leaver groups (F = 10.5, p* < .05) and promoted stayers and promoted leavers (F = 7.0, p* < .lO).

Results followed a similar pattern for interactions pertaining to satisfaction with promotion. As shown in Figure 3, satisfaction with promotion increased for the promoted stayers, but decreased for the other three groups. Significant interaction effects were found for the promoted stayers and non-promoted leavers (F = 11.2, p* < .05) and the promoted stayers and promoted leavers (F = 10.4, p* < .05). Interestingly, there appeared to be a greater decline in promotion satisfaction for promoted leavers than for the non-promoted stayers, although this effect was not statistically significant. None of the other two group interaction contrasts were significant.

The graphical display of the effect of the group by time interaction on salary is shown in Figure 4. As expected, the promoted stayers had the greatest increase in salary from time 1 to time 2. Interaction effects between the promoted stayers and the non-promoted stayers and non-promoted leavers were both statistically significant (p* < .05), but the interaction for the promoted stayers and promoted leavers did not reach significance (F = 5.07, p* > .lO). Also, although not

14 Time Period 1

1 Time

Time Period 2

Nore: Promoted Stayers Non Promoted Stayers Promoted Leavers Non Promoted Leavers . . . . . ___--_-.

Figure 3. Satisfaction with Promotion by Time

significant after the conservative adjustment for the familywise error rate, the graphical display suggests some interaction effect for the groups of non- promoted stayers and non-promoted leavers (F = 4.7, p* > .lO). The graph in Figure 4, taken in sum, hints at the potential importance of the extrinsic reward of salary.

Univariate main effects are of interest for cases in which the interact ions are not significant. A significant main effect of the criterion group was found only for supervisor satisfaction. Given that supervisors had important input concerning promotions in this organization, greater supervisor satisfaction might be anticipated for promoted employees than for non-promoted employees. Two group contrasts supported this supposition for the promoted stayers and non-promoted leavers (F= 6.5, p* < .lO).

The main effect of time was significant for all dependent variables except job anxiety. There were significant decreases in the level of intrinsic motivation, job involvement and the facets of job satisfaction across time. These significant decreases indicate increasing problems with the attitudes and perceptions of the salesforce toward this organization.

The results of the study can be summarized as follows. Multivariate findings showed significant main effects for both time and criterion group as well as a significant interaction effect for group by time. Follow-up univariate results indicate an interaction between internal/ external movement groups and time on several key job related attitudes (organizational commitment, propensity to leave, promotion satisfaction), and salary. There were also significant differences between groups (promoted stayers and non-promoted

25,000

24,000

23,000 I ’ Time Perbd 1

I I Time Period 2

Note: Promoted Stayers Non Promoted Stayers Promoted Leavers Non Promoted Leavers _--__--.

Figure 4. Salary by Time

leavers) on satisfaction with supervision. Finally, time had a significant negative effect on all dependent variables except job anxiety.

Discussion

Although organizations cannot simply promote employees in an effort to enhance attitudes, it appears that promotions, or internal organizational movements, do have an impact on subsequent employee reactions. Similarly, turnover literature shows that strong relationships exist between employee attitudes and turnover, or external movement (Cotton & Tuttle, 1986; Steel & Ovalle, 1984). This study used a quasi-experimental design to examine the attitudes of employees who experienced different combinations of internal and external movements. As Boudreau and Berger (1985) suggested, different patterns of attitudinal reactions emerged among the four groups.

Promoted stayers received greater increases in salary than non-promoted stayers and leavers. However, no significant interactional effect for salary was found between promoted leavers, non-promoted stayers, or non-promoted leavers. Thus, employees who were promoted but left the organization did not receive any greater increase in salary than non-promoted employees which suggests that performance appraisal and reward systems were not adequately related.

A major concern of any company is the loss of valued employees, a process known as dysfunctional turnover (Dalton & Todor, 1979). Consequently, companies strive to develop policies that will enhance the probability of

retaining the best individuals. These findings intimate that promotional policies, while important to employee retention, should be linked with monetary rewards. By uncoupling excellence in performance (i.e., promotion) and monetary rewards, organizations may foster the job-related attitudes that lead to the withdrawal of the very employees the organization wants to retain (i.e., promoted leavers). It is important to understand, therefore, the relationship between the appraisal system used in promotion and the objective measures incorporated in compensation decisions.

Salesperson’s pay is typically contingent upon objective sales performance, while promotions are contingent upon supervisory appraisals (Futrell & Parasuraman, 1984). Since promoted leavers were likely evaluated by their supervisors as performing better than the non-promoted employees, one would expect them to receive greater increases in salary commensurate with a higher level of performance. However, this did not appear to be the case. It would seem, based on the findings, that factors other than the objective performance measures used in establishing monetary rewards may have been used by supervisors in evaluating individuals for promotion.

Promoted stayers exhibited an increase in promotion satisfaction over time, while the other three groups experienced a decline. Promoted stayers were significantly more satisfied than promoted and non-promoted leavers. The lack of a significant interaction effect between promoted and non-promoted stayers for promotion satisfaction supports the notion that not all individuals may desire upward internal movement (Mobley, 1982). Of course, some employees are conditioned to seek recognition and achievement through organizational advancement (Pfeffer, 1983) but not all may value this path. Some employees may prefer not to be promoted because of their lack of aptitude or interest in higher level positions (Krau, 1981). Other non-promoted stayers may have been satisfied to be able to avoid tension and anxiety associated with promotions (Bray et al., 1974). Whatever the reason, however, it seems that non-promoted stayers are not statistically less satisfied with promotions over time than promoted stayers. Future research should attempt to measure these individuals’ career aspirations when conducting research of this nature.

Promoted stayers were significantly more satisfied with supervision than were non-promoted leavers. Given the important role played by the supervisor in determining employee promotions, this finding is not surprising. Non- promoted employees who withdrew may likely value advancement. Again, it would be important to assess the career aspirations and expectations of such individuals in future research studies.

Finally, the results of this study support previous findings that job attitudes decline over time, even for promoted employees. These results, taken in conjunction with past research (e.g., Farkas & Tetrick, 1989; Pierce & Dunham, 1987) suggest that over time “positive” job attitudes (i.e., organizational commitment) deteriorate and “negative” attitudes (e.g., propensity to leave) increase for employees. These declines in attitudes and perceptions may relate to the role of unmet expectations in organizations (Porter & Steers, 1973). Over time, disillusionment with organizational policies and practices may be a natural

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 19, NO. I. 1993

phenomenon even in the best managed organizations as skills, knowledge, and abilities increase.

These results should be considered in light of several limitations. First, the sample for the study consisted of salespeople from a single company. Consequently, caution should be exercised when generalizing to different employee groups, such as nurses or manufacturing employees, where the promotion environment is inherently different. Second, while a longitudinal research design was employed, the natural setting for the study limited our ability to employ a more rigorous experimental design. However, a field experiment with random assignment of subjects to conditions is obviously inappropriate because of the critical consequences for both the organization and the employee. Finally, although we offer an initial test of employee reactions across different combinations of movement, Boudreau and Berger (1985) delineate other possible movement patterns which also deserve investigation. Future research should attempt to expand on the work of Boudreau and Berger (1985) and the findings of this study in order to develop a better understanding of factors associated with combinations of internal/external employee movement.

I. A table of intercorrelations is availabte from the lead author upon request.

References

Anderson, J.C., Milkovich, G.T. & Tsui, A. (1981). A model of intraorganizational mobility. Academy of Management Review, 6: 529-538.

Bartol, K. (1979). Individual versus organizational predictors of job satisfaction and turnover among professionals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 15: 55-67.

Behrman D.N. & Perreault, W.D. (1984). A role stress model of the performance and satisfaction of industrial salespersons. Journal of Marketing, 48: 9-21.

Blau, G.J. (1987). Locus of control as a potential moderator of the turnover process. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60: 2 l-29.

Bluedorn, A. (1982). A unified model of turnover from organizations. Human Relations, 35: 135-153. Borgen, F. & Seling, M. (1978). The uses of discriminant analysis following MANOVA: multivariate statistics

for multivariate purposes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63: 689-697. Boudreau, J.W. & Berger, C.J. (1985). Toward a model of employee movement. Pp. 31-54 in K.M. Rowland

& R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources, Vol. 3. Greenwich, CT: JAI Bray, D.W., Campbell, R.J. & Grant, D.L. (1974). Formafive years in business. New York: Wiley. Brayfield, A.H. & Crockett, W.H. (1955). Employee attitiudes and employee performance. Psychological

Bulleting, 52: 396-424. Campbell, J.P., Dunnette, M.D., Lawler, E.E. & Weick, K.E. (1970). Managerial behavior, performance,

and effectiveness. New York: McGraw Hill. Campion, M.A., Lord, R.G. & Pursell, E.D. (1981). Individual and personal correlates of promotion refusal.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 19: 42-49. Cook, T.D. & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issuesfor Field Settings.

Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Cotton, J.L. & Tuttle, J.M. (1986). Employee turnover: A meta-analysis and review with implications for

research. Academy of Management Review, II: 55-70. Dalton, D.R., & Todor, W.D. (1979). Turnover turned over: An expanded and positive perspective. Academy

of Management Review, 4: 225-236. Dittrich, J. & Carrel], M. (1979). Organizational equity perceptions, employee job satisfaction, and

departmental absence and turnover rates. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 24: 29- 40.

Dreher, G.F. (1982). The role of performance in the turnover process. Academy of Managemenr Journal, 25: 137-147.

Farkas, A.J. & Tetrick, L.E. (1989). A three-wave longitudinal analysis of the causal ordering of satisfaction and commitment on turnover decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 855-868.

Federico, J.M., Federico, P. & Lundquist, G.W. (1976). Predicting women’s turnover as a function of extant of met salary expectations and biodemographic data. Personnel Psychology, 29: 559-566.

Futrell, C.M. & Parasuraman, A. (1984). The relationship of satisfaction and performance to salesperson turnover. Journal of Marketing, 48: 33-40.

Ginter, P., Jones, T. & Shaffer, P. (1982). An empirical examination of turnover: A comparison of existing and terminated employees’ reasons for separation. Arkansas Business and Economy Review, 15: 15- 26.

Goldner, F.H. (1970). Success vs. failure: Prior managerial perspectives. Industrial Relations Journal, 9: 453- 474.

Hellriegel, D. & White, G.E. (1973). Turnover of professionals in public accounting: A comparative analysis. Personnel Psychology, 26: 239-249.

House, R., & Rizzo, J. (1972). Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7: 467-505.

Johnston, M.W., Varadarajan, P., Futrell, C.M. & Sager, J. (1987). The relationship between organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover, among new salespeople, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, VII 29-38.

Kanungo, R.N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67: 341- 349.

Keller, R.T. (1984). The role of performance and absenteeism in the prediction of turnover. Academy of Management Journal.27: 176-183.

Keppel, G. (1979). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Krau, E. (1981). Turnover analysis and prediction from a career developmental point of view. Personnel

Psychology, 341771-790. Lawler, E.E. HI. & Hall, D.T. (1970). Relationship of job characteristics to job involvement, satisfaction,

and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54305-3 12. Lodahl, T.M. & Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal ofApplied

PsychoIogy,49:24-33. Mahoney, T.A. (1979). Organization hierarchy and position worth. Academy of Managemenf Journal, 22:

726-737. Markham, W.T., Harlan, S.L. & Hackett, E.J. (1987). Promotion opportunity in organizations: Causes and

consequences. Pp. 223-287 in K.M. Rowland & G.R. Ferris (Eds.), Research inpersonneland human resources. Vol. 5. Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Marsh, R.M. & Mannari, H. (1977). Organizational commitment and turnover: A predictive study. Administrauve Science Quarterly. 22: 57-75.

Mirvis, P.H. & Lawler, E.E. (1977). Measuring the financial impact of employee attitudes. Journalof Applied Psychology, 62: l-8.

Mobley, W.H. (1982). Employee turnover: Causes, consequences, and control. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.

Mobley, W.H., Horner, S.O. & Hollingsworth, A.T. (1978). An evaluation of precursors of hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63: 493-522.

Mobley, W.H., Griffeth, R.W., Hand, H.H. & Meglino, B.M. (1979). Review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, 36: 493-522.

Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W. & Steers, R.M. (1982). Organizational linkages. New York: Academic Press. Mowday, R.T., .Steers, R.M. & Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14: 224-247. Muchinsky, P.M. & Tuttle, M.L. (1979). Employee turnover: An empirical and methodological assessment.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 17: 263-290. Parasuraman, S. (1982). Predicting turnover intentions and turnover behavior: A multivariate analysis.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21: 11 l-121. Pettman, B.D. (1973). Some factors influencing labor turnover: A review of the literature. Industrial Relations

Journal, 4: 43-6 1. Pfeffer, J. (1983). Organizational demography. Pp. 299-357 in L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research

in organizational behavior. Vol. 5. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Pierce, J.L. & Dunham, R.B. (1987). Organizational commitment: Pre-employment propensity and initial

work experiences. Journal of Management, 13: 163-178. Podsakoff, P.M. & Organ, D.W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects.

Journal of Management. 12: 53 l-544.

Porter, L.W. & Steers, R.M. (1973). Organizational, work, and personal factors in employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80: 151-176.

Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T. & Boulian, P.V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59: 603- 609.

Price, J.L. (1977). The Study of Turnover. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Price, J.L. & Mueller, C.W. (1981). A causal model of turnover for nurses. Academy ofManagement Journal,

24: 543-565. Price, J.L. & Mueller, C. W. (1986). Absenteeism and Turnover of Hospital Employees. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Quinn, R.P. & Staines, G.L. (1979). The 1977 Qualify of Employment Survey. Ann Arbor, MI.: Survey

Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Ramsey, P.H. (1980). Choosing the most powerful pairwise multiple comparison procedure in multivariate

analysis of variance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65: 3 17-326. Randall, D.M. (1987). Commitment and the organization: The organization man revisited. Academy of

Management Review, 12: 46047 1. Romzek, B.S. (1989). Personal consequences of employee commitment. Academy of Managemenf Journal,

32: 649-66 1. Sanborn, G.M., & Berger, C.J. (1990). Toward a theory of promotion satisfaction: Development of constructs

and alternative models. Paper presented at the 1990 National Academy of Management Meeting, San Francisco, CA.

Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M. & Hulin, C.L. (1969). 7’he measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Steel, R.P. & Ovalle, N. (1984). A review and meta-analysis of research on the relationship between behavioral intentions and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 673-686.

Steers, R.M. & Mowday, R.T. (1981). Employee turnover and the post-decision accommodation process. Pp. 235-281 in L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 3. Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Stumpf, S.A. & Dawley, P.K. (1981). Predicting voluntary and involuntary turnover using absenteeism and performance indices. Academy of Management Journal, 24: 148-163.

Stumpf, S.A. & London, M. (1981). Management promotions: Individual and organizational factors influencing the decision process. Academy of Management Review, 6: 539-549.

Youngblood, S.A. Mobley, W.H., & Meglino, B.M. (1983). A longitudinal analysis of the turnover process. Journal of Applied Psychology. 3: 507-516.

An exploratory investigation into the relationshps between promotion and turnover: A...

Documents

Transcript of An exploratory investigation into the relationshps between promotion and turnover: A...

Exploratory Program Resource Guide

How to Counter High Turnover Rates

Exploratory landscape analysis

EXPLORATORY 7 DRESSMAKING Module 2

Well-quasi-ordering and the Hausdorff quasi-uniformity

Trade, turnover, and tithing

Quasi-standard C*-algebras

The quasi-static growth of bubbles

THE FACTOR THAT INFLUENCE TURNOVER INTENTION ...

Anomalous diffusion in quasi-geostrophic flow

Periodic solutions of quasi-differential equations

employee turnover on organizational performance in ... - CORE

A Study of Causes of Employee Turnover

Labor scheduling with employee turnover and absenteeism

Gift-Giving, Quasi-Credit and Reciprocity

Engineering Exact Quasi-Threshold Editing - arXiv

Quasi-static Contact Mechanics Problem

EMPLOYEE TURNOVER: Causes, Effects, and Preventive Actions

Extracellular matrix turnover and outflow resistance

Contributor Turnover in Libre Software Projects - CiteSeerX