MEASURING EMPLOYEES TURNOVER INTENTION: AN

EMPIRICAL STUDY
Dr.D.S.Chaubey,*
Director, RCMCA, Roorkee
e-mail: [email protected]
Mob: 09411712859

Nidhi Maithel**
Research Scholar
Pacific University Udaipur(Rajasthan)
Email- [email protected],
MOb-7895644944

Vishal Gupta ***

Research Scholar
Pacific University Udaipur (Rajasthan)
Email- [email protected],
Mob-7830401020

Abstract:-

Human resource plays a significant role in improving organizational performances. High rate
of turnover and employees attrition has posed many problem in front of management.
Management of human resource has become a challenging task for HR management in the
present environment. Thus it is important to identify turnover intents as early as possible in
order to enable planners to help implement courses of action. Issues encountered may be in
the areas of shrinking pool of entry-level workers, individual differences, use of temporary
workers, productivity and competitiveness, retirement benefits and skills development. The
paper discusses on the various dimension of employees turnover intention and analyses
important factors of employees turnover. For this purpose a survey of 191 employees working
in the some selected industries of Dehradun district of Uttarakhad state was carried out. It
specifically considered satisfaction with pay, nature of work and supervision as the three
facets of job satisfaction that affect employee turnover intention.

Key Words: turnover intention , organizational performances, productivity,

competitiveness , organizational efficiency
Introduction

The concept of employee turnover intention has become one of the most important topics in
organization. Some of the scholars come up with a lot of factors that could give impact on
turnover intention; however there are other factors such as organizational culture and
organizational commitment, organizational person fit also could give impact towards turnover
intention. Turnover is defined as the “individual movement across the membership boundary
of an Organization”. Interestingly unlike actual turnover, turnover intent is not explicit.
Intentions are a statement about a specific behaviour of interest . Studies have shown that
turnover is one of the most researched phenomena in organizational behaviour (Price, 2001).
The broad range of turnover studies is indicative of the significance and complexity of the
issue. The phenomenon attracts interest due to its psychological dimension, its organizational
significance, and its economic dimension. Thus it is imperative for HRM managers to
understand that there are several factors inherent to counter staff intentions or turnover.

Organization invest a lot of investment on their employees in way of recruitment, induction,

their training and development, maintaining and retaining them within their organization.
Therefore it is extremely crucial for employers to retain their employees within the
organization and prevent them from leaving and going to work for other companies.
Therefore, there is a clear need to develop a better understanding of employee turnover and
more specifically the sources that are key indicators of why employees leave the organization
which would then have a profound impact on the strategies that managers can employ in
order to reduce employee turnover within their organizations.

Review of literature

Unlike actual turnover, turnover intent is not explicit. Intentions are a statement about a
specific behavior of interest Turnover intent is defined as the reflection of “the (subjective)
probability that an individual will change his or her job within a certain time period” and is
an immediate precursor to actual turnover. A broad range of literature examining the
relationship of turnover intent and actual turnover (e.g. Mobley, 1977/ Hom&Griffeth 1991)
exists. Actual intention and turnover intention have been measured separately; however,
actual turnover is expected to increase as the intention increases. The results of the different
studies provide support for the high significance of turnover intention in investigating the
individual’s turnover behavior.
Employees turnover has been studied from various aspects. One theory highlight that
employees’ decision to resign is influenced by two factors: their “perceived ease of
movement”, which refers to the assessment of perceived alternatives or opportunity and
“perceived desirability of movement”, which is influenced for instance by job satisfaction
(Morrell et al., 2004; Abdullah et al., 2012). This describes how balance is struck both for the
organization and its employees in terms of inducements, such as pay, and contributions, such
as work, which ensures continued organizational efficiency.

According to Meaghan et al (2002) the value of employees to an organization is a very

crucial element in organizations success. This value is intangible and cannot be easily
replicated therefore, it becomes very important that managers should control employee
turnover for the benefit of the organization. The current literature on employee turnover is
primarily divided into three groups, viz: - sources of employee attrition, effects of employee
turnover and the strategies used in order to minimize turnover.

Mueller&Price(1990) highlight the psychological factors that have an Impact on Turnover

Intent. Psychological determinants refer to the employee’s mental process and behavior, such
as expectations, orientation, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job involvement or
affectivity. Conceptualizing turnover psychologically deals with factors that are influenced by
employee’s emotions, attitude or perception (Mueller&Price, 1990: p. 322).

Locke (1969) the job satisfaction as one of the reason of turnover intention. According to him
“Job satisfaction is the pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job as
achieving or facilitating the achievement of one's job values” . Job satisfaction was conceived
to be one’s affective attachment to the job viewed either in its entirety (global satisfaction) or
with regard to particular aspects such as leadership. It is conceptualized as an affective and
emotional response. Satisfaction is defined as the degree to which employees have a positive
affective orientation towards employment by the organization (Price, 1977: p.79
Economists view the employee’s decision, whether he wants to leave or stay, as a result of a
rational cost-benefit assessment . When rewards to costs ratio of staying with an organization
are equal to the ratio at another place of employment, the employee will decide not to leave
the current organization. Economic view analyzes the turnover process with more emphasis
on the interplay between externally determined variables such as pay or Turnover Intent
opportunity (Morrell et al., 2001: p. 21). However, a criticism of the sole economic
perspective might be that it fails to “capture the complexity of the process of turnover within
an individual firm”.
According to Mueller and Price (1990: p. 321), pay is considered as a part of the sanctions
system used by the organization to motivate employees to be in compliance with its
regulations and rules. The wage payment plays an important role in their current as well as in
possible future employment. The lower the salary is in his existent organization, the more an
employer will aim to change this situation. Furthermore it is to assume, that better paid
employees within the same hierarchy level tend to stay in the organization
(Henneberger&Sousa-Poza, 2007: p. 61). However, there are well-established literatures
concerning motivation (e.g. McGregor 1957) suggesting that for at least some individuals,
pay is not the sole motivating factor. It is told that motivation has some link with job choice
and that pay will not be the sole criterion used when people decide to choose a job, or when
they decide to continue within an existing job.
Some of the scholars have focus on company size and organizational issues influencing
employees turnover intention. It is seen that during recession phase in the mid-nineties,
smaller organizations were confronted with higher turnover rate, whereas bigger
organizations were able to keep their employees. It is assumed that bigger companies pay a
higher salary, have more existing promotion opportunity (internal vertical and horizontal
mobility) and offer a higher job safety than smaller companies . extra work load ,
organizational environment , employee relationship also influence turnover and increases the
loss of productivity.

Objectives and Research Methodology

The objective of this research work is to identify and understand factors of employee
turnover and to make recommendations to the management to effectively design strategies
in order to increase job satisfaction and reduce employee turnover. To achieve these
objectives both quantitiave and qualitative methods were employed to understand employees
turnover intention which influence employees to switchover to another organization. This
research was conducted in some selected medium size manufacturing and service sector
organization located in Dehradun district. A random sample of employees from all
departments / locations was selected which included non-management, middle level
management and senior management employees. Surveys along with a cover letter explaining
the significance and the need for conducting the same were sent to all 300employees across
10 different firms of Dehradun. In order to ensure a good response rate, follow up telephonic
calls were made in order to encourage respondents to complete and return the survey. After
follow-up 225 questionnaires were returned. After editing 191 responses were found suitable
which was taken up for the proposed study?

Table 1 Demographic determinants

Category Count Percentage

Upto 25 Years 31 16.2

25-35 Years 49 25.7
Age 35-45 Years 43 22.5
45 to 55 Years 53 27.7
From 55-65 Years 15 7.9

Male 116 60.7

Female 75 39.3
Gender
Married 130 68.1
Un Married 61 31.9
Marital
Status
Up to matriculation 2 1.0
Intermediate 8 4.2
Education Graduation 58 30.4
level Post Graduation 74 38.7
Professional Qualification 48 25.1
Others 1 .5

Less than 1 year 24 12.6

1 to 3 years 58 30.4
Tenure 3 to 5 years 40 20.9
5to 10 years 36 18.8
10-20 years 23 12.0
20-30 years 7 3.7
more than 30 years 3 1.6

Demographic variables, also known as personal characteristics, are widely used in turnover
research. These variables are seen as social categories for an individual (Price, 1995). Some
of the determinants were examined to have a direct impact on turnover intent, such as age
gender, marital status education qualification and tenure The data obtained through surveys
reveals that sample is dominated by younger lot , male and married and well educated people.
It also reveals that sample is the composition of experienced person as almost 40%
employees are having experience ranging from 3 to 10 years. 12.5% employees indicated
that they are fresher and having experience of less than 1 years. Almost one third (30.4) were
having experience from 1 to 3 years. Employees having more than 10 years experience
account for almost 17% respondents in the sample

Factor influencing Turnover intention :A Descriptive Statistics

Qualitative data that was obtained both from questionnaires and interviews includes the
different statement like I understand the mission of the company clearly, I understand how
my job aligns with the company’s mission , My supervisors are strong, trustworthy leaders , It
is easy to get along with my colleagues , I believe my salary is fair to my responsibilities ,
The benefits I received are practical and address my needs , I believe my job is secure , I feel
safe at my worksite , I can balance between my job and family responsibilities , I have
sufficient tools and resources to do my job daily , A career advancement opportunity that they
would not receive in the short term when they stayed with their present employer, I look my
priority first than organizational priority, Employee leaves their current job in order to
improve their life standards and also concerning to the new benefits package which they
expect to receive , This organization provide better opportunity for career development, I
look other choice and keep on liasioning with other recruiters to keep my self ready for
future uncertainty , I keep my self ready to leave without having a new job prepared , I feel
bore with my present job, Ineffective supervision leads me in favour of making mood for
switchover , My job gives me a feeling of achievement , The company recognizes my
achievements , My company tells me clearly on the step for achievement , I feel that the goals
setting for my task are achievable , Appreciation by management on completion of task give
me pleasure of happiness , My manager always thanks me for the job well done , I receive
adequate recognition and rewards for a job well done , I like the recognition I get for doing
my job well , I always feel proud to work for this company , There are opportunities for me
to grow in this organisation , experience, skills and performance are well recognized in this
organisation, My organization always gives priority for existed employee by hiring from
within , I always prefer the opportunity of career advancement against money , There is a
good promotion and career prospect to right candidate in this organsiation, I give more
preference to my position then benefits , In the present organization, I am empowered
enough to do my job , I have got freedome and I can make my own decision in my job , I
always feel that my contribution is important in achieving organization mission, My job is
interesting in this organisation, My job challenges me frequently , I am free to choose my
own method of working , I feel that the amount of work I am expected to do is reasonable on
which employees were asked to rate on the scale of 1 to 5 and mean and SD were calculated
with the help of SPSS software and , was grouped into 7 important factor and this was done
to make a comparative analysis on the data collected from interviews and the survey, which
helped to identify employees turnover intention The first, quantitative data obtained from
surveys was analyzed using descriptive statistics technique in order to summarize the data set
obtained. This provided a meaningful insight of various factors influencing employees to
quit the organization. These factors includes ,Organisational Environment, Achievement,
Recognition, Growth, Advancement, Responsibility and Work itself. The mean and SD thus
obtained of each factor is presented in the table below.
Table 2 Factors Influencing Turnover intention :A Descriptive Statistics

Maximu Std.
N Minimum m Mean Deviation
Organisational Environment 191 1.00 4.63 2.9084 .66475
Achievement 191 1.00 5.00 3.2164 .90596
Recognition 191 1.00 4.50 2.8918 .91347
Growth 191 1.00 4.20 2.8314 .78530
Advancement 191 1.00 4.70 3.1136 .66231
Responsibility 191 1.00 4.75 3.0628 .73849
Work itself 191 1.00 4.50 2.9136 .79082
Valid N (listwise) 191

Many researchers have made an attempt to study and determine why employees quit the
organization. There are various factors that affect an individual's decision to move from one
organization to another or just leave the organization. According to mean rating of different
factor, achievement motive of the employees has scored highest mean of 3.21 with SD .90596
. it was followed by career advancement with the meand 3.1136 and SD .66231. the higher
responsibility( Mean 3.0628 and SD.73849) has also influencing employees to turnover.

Table 3 Mean of different factors influencing employees turnover intention across the different
Age categories of respondents
Organisatio
nal
Age wise Environmen Achievemen Recognitio Growt Advancemen Responsibilit Work
Classification t t n h t y itself
Upto 25 Years 3.0121 3.3118 2.8763 2.9161 3.2355 3.0323 2.8871
25-35 Years 3.0332 3.2313 3.1224 3.0286 3.1898 3.1582 3.1480
35-45 Years 2.8372 3.0388 2.7016 2.6465 2.9721 3.1105 2.7326
45 to 55 Years 2.8892 3.2642 2.8994 2.8340 3.1057 3.0047 2.9575
From 55-65
2.5583 3.3111 2.6889 2.5333 3.0467 2.8833 2.5667
Years
Total 2.9084 3.2164 2.8918 2.8314 3.1136 3.0628 2.9136

It is seen from the above table that mean rating of Achievement motives has scored highest
mean of 3.3118 among the employees in the age upto 25 years. Higher responsibility has
scored highest mean in the age group of 35-45 years. However achievement motive has
motivated a large number of respondents as this factor has been rated higher by all the
respondents as it scored mean of 3.2164.
Table 4 One Way ANOVA with age category of respondents

Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
OrganisationalEnvironment Between Groups 3.172 4 .793 1.826 .126
Within Groups 80.787 186 .434
Total 83.959 190
Achievement Between Groups 1.905 4 .476 .575 .681
Within Groups 154.039 186 .828
Total 155.944 190
Recognition Between Groups 4.791 4 1.198 1.449 .220
Within Groups 153.750 186 .827
Total 158.542 190
Growth Between Groups 4.930 4 1.233 2.043 .090
Within Groups 112.241 186 .603
Total 117.172 190
Advancement Between Groups 1.677 4 .419 .955 .434
Within Groups 81.668 186 .439
Total 83.345 190
Responsibility Between Groups 1.234 4 .309 .561 .692
Within Groups 102.387 186 .550
Total 103.621 190
Workitself Between Groups 6.030 4 1.508 2.486 .045
Within Groups 112.794 186 .606
Total 118.825 190

One way ANOVA was carried out to test the hypothesis that, the mean of factor influencing
turnover intention does not differ significantly across the different age categories of
respondents; the table showing calculated value of F is lesser than the tabulated value of F
(2.37) at (p< 0.05) level of significance in the case factors like Organisational Environment,
Achievement, Recognition, Growth, Advancement and Responsibility. . thus null
hypothesis is accepted indicating that there is no significant difference in the mean of
different factors of turn over intention across the different age categories of the respondent.
However null hypothesis is rejected in case of factor like work itself and it is inferred that
there is significant difference in the opinion of the respondents related to this factor.
Table 5 Mean of different factors influencing employees turnover intention across the
different Level of Education of respondents

Edn Organisational
Qualification Environment Achievement Recognition Growth Advancement Responsibility Workitself
Up to
2.0000 3.0000 2.5000 2.6000 2.6000 2.0000 2.0000
matriculation
Intermediate 3.0313 3.0000 2.9583 2.8250 3.1875 2.6563 2.6250
Graduation 3.0151 3.2356 3.0029 2.9931 3.2000 2.9871 2.9612
Post
2.9274 3.2162 2.8423 2.8081 3.1189 3.1318 2.9358
Graduation
Professional
2.7604 3.2361 2.8646 2.7000 3.0000 3.1615 2.9271
Qualification
Others 3.2500 3.3333 1.6667 2.0000 3.6000 3.0000 2.0000
Total 2.9084 3.2164 2.8918 2.8314 3.1136 3.0628 2.9136

Table 6 One Way ANOVA with Level of Education of respondents

Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
OrganisationalEnvironm Between
3.626 5 .725 1.670 .144
ent Groups
Within Groups 80.333 185 .434
Total 83.959 190
Achievement Between
.522 5 .104 .124 .987
Groups
Within Groups 155.422 185 .840
Total 155.944 190
Recognition Between
2.776 5 .555 .659 .655
Groups
Within Groups 155.766 185 .842
Total 158.542 190
Growth Between
3.184 5 .637 1.034 .399
Groups
Within Groups 113.987 185 .616
Total 117.172 190
Advancement Between
1.862 5 .372 .846 .519
Groups
Within Groups 81.482 185 .440
Total 83.345 190
Responsibility Between
4.737 5 .947 1.772 .120
Groups
Within Groups 98.884 185 .535
Total 103.621 190
Workitself Between
3.347 5 .669 1.072 .377
Groups
Within Groups 115.478 185 .624
Total 118.825 190
One way ANOVA was carried out to test the hypothesis that, the mean of factor influencing
turnover intention does not differ significantly across the different level of education
qualification of respondents; the table showing calculated value of F is lesser than the
tabulated value of F (2.37) at (p< 0.05) level of significance in the case factors like
Organisational Environment, Achievement, Recognition, Growth, Advancement and
Responsibility, and work itself. Thus null hypothesis is accepted indicating that there is no
significant difference in the mean of different factors of turn over intention across the
respondents of different education level.
Table7 Mean of different factors influencing employees turnover intention across the
respondents of Different Level of experience

Organisation
Year of al Recognitio Growt Advancemen Responsibilit Workitsel
Experieince Environment Achievement n h t y f
Less than 1 year 3.0208 3.3194 3.2708 3.0500 3.2333 3.1771 3.1042
1 to 3 years 2.9375 3.2184 2.7931 2.7655 3.1224 3.0259 2.8966
3 to 5 years 2.9250 3.2833 3.0000 2.9350 3.0400 3.0625 2.9063
5to 10 years 2.8056 3.0000 2.5185 2.6444 3.0167 2.9167 2.7708
10-20 years 2.8315 3.3623 3.2681 2.9565 3.2043 3.1848 3.0543
20-30 years 2.8393 3.0000 2.5476 2.6857 3.2571 3.3571 3.1071
more than 30
3.2083 3.4444 2.7222 2.6000 3.1000 3.0000 2.0000
years
Total 2.9084 3.2164 2.8918 2.8314 3.1136 3.0628 2.9136

It is seen from the above table that mean rating of Achievement motives has scored highest
mean of 3.3444 among the employees having experience of more than 30 years. Higher
responsibility has scored highest mean in the employees having experience from 20 to 30
years.

Table8 One Way ANOVA Across the respondents of Different Level of experience
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
OrganisationalEnvironm Between
1.184 6 .197 .438 .852
ent Groups
Within Groups 82.776 184 .450
Total 83.959 190
Achievement Between
3.094 6 .516 .621 .714
Groups
Within Groups 152.851 184 .831
Total 155.944 190
Recognition Between
13.670 6 2.278 2.894 .010
Groups
Within Groups 144.872 184 .787
Total 158.542 190
 Growth Between
3.756 6 .626 1.015 .417
Groups
Within Groups 113.416 184 .616
Total 117.172 190
Advancement Between
1.238 6 .206 .462 .836
Groups
Within Groups 82.107 184 .446
Total 83.345 190
Responsibility Between
2.122 6 .354 .641 .697
Groups
Within Groups 101.499 184 .552
Total 103.621 190
Workitself Between
4.846 6 .808 1.304 .257
Groups
Within Groups 113.978 184 .619
Total 118.825 190

One way ANOVA was carried out to test the hypothesis that, the mean of factor influencing
turnover intention does not differ significantly across the different tenure of the employees in
the organization. The table showing calculated value of F is lesser than the tabulated value of
F (2.37) at (p< 0.05) level of significance in the case factors like Organisational Environment,
Achievement, Growth, Advancement and Responsibility, and work itself. Thus null
hypothesis is accepted indicating that there is no significant difference in the mean of
different factors of turn over intention across the respondents of different tenure. However
null hypothesis is rejected in case of recognition and indicating that there is significant
difference in the mean of different factors of turn over intention across the respondents of
different tenure
Table 9 Regression Analysis

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.
Model B Std. Error Beta B Std. Error
1 (Constant) 2.242 .541 4.147 .000
OrganisationalEnvironm
-.349 .203 -.171 -1.717 .088
ent
Achievement .109 .147 .073 .738 .462
Recognition .193 .163 .130 1.180 .240
Growth .339 .193 .196 1.760 .080
Advancement -.113 .215 -.055 -.523 .602
Responsibility -.200 .166 -.109 -1.202 .231
Workitself .243 .146 .141 1.662 .098
a Dependent Variable: overall environment and Switching Intentin
A regression analysis was carried out to have a relationship of all the factor of turnover
intention with the customers willingness to switch over the organization.. On the basis of
information presented in the table it can be expressed as
Switching over (Y) =-2.242- .349OrganisationalEnvironment +.109 Achievement+.193
Recognition+.339Growth -.113 Advancement -.200Responsibility+.243 Workitself

Conclusion:-

Voluntary employee turnovers incur significant cost for an organization. Thus it is important
to identify turnover intents as early as possible in order to enable planners to help implement
courses of action. In this research work , individual, organizational and mediating factors
contributing to employee turnover intentions have been analyzed. Whereas no single factor
can be attributed to turnover intentions, it is advisable to take a holistic approach towards
handling employee turnover issue in any organization. It is suggested that organization should
focus on the factor of turn over intention like like Organisational Environment,
Achievement, Growth, Advancement and Responsibility, and work itself. And due care must
be given to the education and employees tenure in the organization so as to reduce the
turnover rate in the organization.

References:-

1. Abassi SM, Hollman KW (2000). "Turnover: the real bottom line", Public Personnel
Management, 2 (3):333-342.

2. Byrman, A. & Bell, E. (2000), “Business Research Methods, 2nd Edition, Oxford
press.

3. Firth L, David J Mellor, Kathleen A Moore & Claude Loquet (2007). “How can
managers reduce employee intention to quit?” J. manage.Psychol. 19 (2): 170-187.

4. Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member

exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology,
82, 827-844.

5. Hom P.W., Griffeth R.W. (1995). Employee turnover, South Western college
publishing , Cincinnati, OH pp. 200-340
6. Kevin MM, Joan LC, Adrian JW (2004). “Organizational change and employee
turnover” Personnel Rev. 33 (2):161-166.

7. Locke E (1976). “The nature and causes of job satisfaction", in Dunnette. MD

(Eds). Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally,
Chicago, IL, pp. 1297-1349.

8. Louis, M.R. (1980), "Surprise and sense-making: what newcomers experience in

entering unfamiliar organizational settings", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.
25 No.2, pp.226-51.

9. Meaghan Stovel, Nick Bontis (2002), Voluntary turnover: knowledge management-

friend or foe? J. intellect. Cap. 3 (3): 303-322.

10. Mobley, W.H. (1977), "Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job
satisfaction and employee turnover", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 62 No.2,
pp.237-40.

11. Ongori, H. (2007), “A review of the literature on employee turnover”, African

Journal of Business Management, pp. 49-54, ISSN 1993-8233.

12. Wanous, J.P. (1992), Organizational Entry: Recruitment, Selection, Orientation and
Socialization of Newcomers, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA.