© Academy of Management. All rights reserved.

Content may NOT be copied, e-mailed, shared or otherwise transmitted without written permission. This non-copyedited article version was
obtained from the Academy of Management InPress website and is intended for personal or individual use.

Turnover contagion:

How coworkers’ job embeddedness and coworkers’ job search behaviors influence quitting

Will Felps1
Erasmus University (Rotterdam School of Management)
Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, PO Box 1738
Rotterdam PA 3062, Netherlands
Phone: 011-31-10-408-2537
WFelps@[Link]

David R. Hekman3
Sheldon B. Lubar School of Business
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
hekman@[Link]

Terence R. Mitchell2
Thomas W. Lee4
Wendy S. Harman6
University of Washington, Seattle (Foster School of Business)
301 Mackenzie Hall, Box 353200
Seattle, WA 98195-3200
(Mitchell) Phone: 206-543-6779
trm@[Link]
(Lee) Phone: 206-543-4389
orcas@[Link]
(Harman) Phone: Phone: 425-352-5394
wendysue@[Link]

Brooks C. Holtom5
Georgetown University (McDonough School of Business)
G-04 Old North
Washington, DC 20057
Phone: 202-687-3794
bch6@[Link]

1
Numbers to right of name indicate authorship order. Address any inquiries to first author.
 Turnover contagion:

How coworkers’ job embeddedness and coworkers' job search behaviors influence quitting

ABSTRACT

This research develops and tests a model of turnover contagion in which an employee’s decision

to quit is influenced by the job embeddedness and job search behaviors of his or her coworkers.

In a sample of 45 branches of a regional bank and 1,038 departments of a national hospitality

firm, multilevel analysis revealed that coworkers’ job embeddedness and job search behaviors

explain variance in individual voluntary turnover over and above other individual and group-

level predictors. Broadly speaking, these results suggest that coworkers’ job embeddedness and

job search behaviors play critical roles in explaining why people quit their jobs. Implications are

discussed.

-2-
 As the global economy becomes increasingly knowledge based, organizations that can

successfully retain their human capital have an advantage over organizations that cannot. Indeed,

a number of studies have shown that turnover negatively effects performance (e.g., Shaw, Gupta

& Delery, 2005). Hatch and Dyer summarize such findings with the observation that “Firms with

high turnover significantly under-perform their rivals” (2004: 1155). As such, organizational

leaders are interested in understanding why people choose to leave their jobs and insights that

might help with employee retention (Ulrich & Smallwood, 2006). Accordingly, researchers have

spent considerable effort developing and testing models to understand why people quit.

To explain the phenomenon of employee turnover, the social sciences have offered both

psychological (i.e. micro) as well as organizational and economic (i.e. macro) explanations. On

the micro side, job satisfaction and organizational commitment have captured most of the

research interest. On the macro side, economic research often looks at particular industries or

localities to explain how market forces such as unemployment rates or job supply and demand

affect the frequency with which people leave their jobs (e.g., Banerjee & Gaston, 2004).

Sociological research has also looked at how turnover affects and is affected by institutional

changes within and across industries (e.g., Haveman, 1995), as well as organizational variables

such as size (Price, 1977).

The unique contribution of management scholarship is not only to investigate the

individual or institutional level, but also what emanates from the careful exploration of “the

space in between” (Bradbury & Lichtenstein, 2000). For this reason, organizational researchers

are often encouraged to do “meso-level” research where individuals are studied in their social

contexts (e.g., House, Rousseau, & Thomas-Hunt, 1995; Johns, 2006). However, there is

surprisingly little work on how social relationships affect turnover. To quote Pfeffer, “Turnover

-3-
has most often been examined as the consequence of an individual decision process, with the

individual acting in isolation… Virtually all of the dominant models of turnover conceptualize it

as an individual decision, without considering the effect of social structure” (1991: 795).

Although Pfeffer’s comment overlooks the work of economists and sociologists, he is broadly

correct in stating that the bulk of management research on turnover focuses on individual

attitudes as the sole precursor to leaving. The influence of one’s immediate coworkers on

turnover decisions (what Pfeffer describes as social structure) has been largely ignored.

This article investigates the social dimensions of quitting and offers a model of “turnover

contagion” in which the decision to stay at or leave a job is influenced by one’s coworkers. We

provide evidence that turnover decisions are a domain in which coworkers can influence an

actor’s thoughts, judgments, feelings, and behaviors (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Two field

studies support the predictive validity of our model offering new insights into the interpersonal

precursors of voluntary turnover. We argue that this type of meso-level research can widen our

conceptual lenses, increase our ability to predict turnover, and enhance the utility of turnover

research for practitioners.

TOWARD A THEORY OF TURNOVER CONTAGION

Turnover Research Heritage

March and Simon’s (1958) seminal book, Organizations, marks the real beginning of the

attempt to develop an overall theory to explain why people leave their jobs. According to March

and Simon’s theory, the two factors that determine whether an employee will leave his or her job

are the perceived desirability of leaving the organization (i.e., job satisfaction, organizational

commitment) and perceived ease of leaving the organization (i.e., quality of job alternatives).

The research focusing on job satisfaction and organizational commitment, in particular, has been

-4-
extensive. Mobley (1977) identified the sequence and intermediary variables leading from job

dissatisfaction to eventual quitting. In an exemplar of programmatic turnover research, Price and

Mueller added to this model by cataloging the antecedents of organizational commitment and job

satisfaction, including: pay, social integration, instrumental communication, formal

communication, centralization, routinization, role overload, promotional opportunity,

professionalism, general training, supervisor support, coworker support, and distributive justice

(Price, 1977; Price & Mueller, 1986). It is important to note that in Price and Mueller’s model, as

in virtually all other traditional models, various factors influence turnover through their impact

on organizational commitment and job satisfaction, which in turn influence intent to leave, which

then leads to voluntary turnover.

The result of subsequent scholarship based on these ideas is both impressive and

troublesome. It is impressive in that turnover theory and research has proceeded

programmatically such that we can be confident in a pair of assertions. First, less satisfied and

less committed employees think about leaving, look for alternative jobs, are more likely to quit,

and do each of these to a greater degree when they believe that desirable job alternatives exist.

Second, many individual and macro level variables are related to turnover through satisfaction

and commitment. However, the turnover literature is also troublesome in that even the most

inclusive models leave the vast majority of variance unexplained (e.g. Griffeth, Hom, &

Gaertner, 2000; Maertz & Campion, 1998; Price & Mueller, 1986). A number of authors

therefore suggest that we need to expand our conceptual lenses if we want to better understand

employee turnover (e.g. Kammeyer-Mueller, Wanberg, Glomb, & Ahlburg, 2005; Mitchell &

Lee, 2001; Maertz & Campion, 1998; Mossholder, Settoon, & Henagan, 2005). The turnover

contagion process we describe below is such an attempt.

-5-
The Turnover Contagion Process

The central theoretical claim made by this paper is that when a coworker engages in

behaviors antecedent to leaving a job, these activities sometimes “spill over” onto others, such

that the affected others are more likely to leave. Put more precisely, a coworker’s search for job

alternatives or actual quitting can spread through a process of social contagion to affect another

employee’s quitting behavior. Like the contagion of illness, the process involves the transmission

of something from one individual to another. For us, the “something” is the tendency to leave a

job. Others have used the contagion metaphor to understand the spread of burnout (Bakker &

Schaufeli, 2000), emotions (Barsade, 2002), and long work hours (Brett & Stroh, 2003).

We believe that the primary mechanism in the contagion of turnover is the pervasive

tendency to compare ourselves to others. Research on social comparison has documented that it

is among the most robust and ubiquitous of psychological phenomenon (Kruglanski &

Mayseless, 1990). “The notion that people rely on others to help define reality in ambiguous

circumstances has long been a core tenet in social psychology” (Degoey, 2000: 58). Originating

with Festinger’s work on social comparison (1954), Salancik and Pfeffer (1978) have extended

Festinger’s ideas to organizational behavior and job attitudes, while Bandura, (1977) has applied

these insights to learning theory. Social comparisons are especially likely in novel, risky, or

ambiguous situations (Festinger, 1954; Tesser, Campbell, & Mickler, 1983; Wooten & Reed,

1998). In such cases where comparisons reveal differences with a relevant other’s thoughts,

feelings, or behaviors, the propensity to change our understanding of a situation such that our

thoughts, feelings, and behaviors become consistent with the relevant other increases (Festinger,

1954). Chartrand and Bargh state “Throughout the history of psychology, many have argued that

-6-
the act of perceiving another person’s behavior creates a tendency to behave similarly oneself”

(1999: 813).

The application to turnover theory is straightforward. Given that the job transition

process is often characterized by high levels of risk and uncertainty (Steel, 2002), we expect

employees to look to others in evaluating whether to seek alternative employment. When a

number of coworkers are looking for other jobs, it may increase the salience and perceived

viability of leaving for a focal employee, especially since immediate coworkers are likely targets

for social comparison (Kulik & Ambrose, 1992). Conversely, if few coworkers are looking for

another job, it is likely that a focal employee will be less inclined to initiate the turnover process.

In either case, social comparison helps to answer the question, “Should I consider leaving?” We

posit that the chance that the answer will be yes increases when many coworkers are looking for

a job. In this way, the transmission of a tendency to leave occurs as employees watch and

converse with their coworkers. The focal person may observe such job search behaviors in a

dyadic interaction (e.g., “I am going on a job interview this week”) or in a group setting where

other coworkers are interacting with each other (e.g., “You all should probably know that I have

a job interview this week”). Moreover, there are a variety of leaving behaviors that may be

observed such as seeing a coworker update a resume, search classified ads, or schedule

interviews. In short, there are a range of behaviors indicating that one or multiple coworkers are

in the process of leaving.

There are some research examples that address the topic of withdrawal caused by group-

level variables. Mathieu and Kohler (1990), for example, found that the frequency of

absenteeism among work group members was related to individual employee absenteeism. And

Eder and Eisenberger (2008) demonstrate that the average tardiness of work group members is

-7-
related to individual tardiness. They also show in a second study that withdrawal behaviors such

as taking undeserved work breaks or engaging in idle conversation at the group level influences

the probability that individuals do the same. Thus, there is clearly some precedent for the idea

that withdrawal behaviors of group members can influence an individual’s likelihood of

engaging in those behaviors. Importantly, there is no presumption that either job satisfaction or

organizational commitment plays a key role in the process. The turnover contagion model

highlights the role that simply observing others plays in the process and suggests that a key

determinant of whether quitting is a viable option at any given point in time is whether

coworkers are leaving.

From Theory to Hypotheses

Above we have presented a theory of turnover contagion whereby the tendency to quit

spreads throughout a work group. We now make two specific hypotheses about factors that are

central to the turnover contagion process. First, we hypothesize that turnover contagion is most

likely to occur when the coworkers around a focal employee are not embedded in their jobs. We

choose to focus on job embeddedness, as opposed to job satisfaction or organizational

commitment because it is a broader construct that captures a greater range of factors that provoke

leaving. In Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski and Erez’ (2001) original formulation, the job

embeddedness construct addressed how well people fit in their job (e.g. personal skills are well

suited to the work assigned) and community (e.g., like the amenities a community provides), the

interpersonal links they have on and off the job (e.g. number of ties to people and groups), and

what they would have to give up or sacrifice in leaving their place of employment or community

(e.g., opportunities foregone). In sum, job embeddedness includes several factors at the

individual level that enmesh employees in their jobs and has been shown by numerous studies to

-8-
be a good predictor of an employee’s tendency to quit (Allen, 2006; Crossley, Bennett, Jex, &

Burnfield, 2007; Holtom & O'Neill, 2004; Holtom, Mitchell, & Lee, 2006; Lee, Mitchell,

Sablynski, Burton, & Holtom, 2004; Mitchell et al., 2001; Van Dijk & Kirk-Brown, 2003;

Zatzick & Iverson 2006). In many of these studies, job embeddedness predicts individual

turnover over and above job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

When coworkers’ job embeddedness (hereafter referred to as CJE) is low, we believe that

the resultant social context will make individuals more likely to entertain the possibility of

changing jobs. When coworkers are not tethered to a job (i.e. low CJE), they are likely to be

open to the possibility of leaving. It is this willingness to leave that transfers from low

embeddedness coworkers to a focal employee in their work unit. Thus, we expect the average job

embedddedness of one’s coworkers to predict focal employee turnover. Further, since job

embeddedness is a broad construct that includes non-affective elements like the number of links

to important others or family ties, we would expect this effect even when a focal employee is

satisfied with the work itself or committed to the organization.

Let us briefly take some examples from the Mitchell et al. (2001) job embeddedness

measure to provide a more grounded understanding of how turnover contagion might operate.

Imagine a place where most people strongly agree with the following statements: “I feel like I

am a good match for my organization,” “I really love the place I live,” “I would sacrifice a lot if I

left this job,” “My family roots are in this community,” and “I work closely with my coworkers.”

Interactions among employees who feel this way are likely to mutually reinforce each other’s

perceptions that “I belong here, I should be here, and I must remain here.” People are unlikely to

be looking at want ads, talking about available jobs elsewhere, or saying things that indicate they

want to leave. Contrast this with a workplace populated by those who are less embedded in their

-9-
jobs and communities (e.g., people who feel they don’t fit in their workgroup or community, or

people who have little to sacrifice in renegotiating their relationship to their job). In this sort of

environment, even if they like their job, employees have little to lose by voicing ideas about

leaving or about alternative avenues of employment (Bartunek, Huang, & Walsh, 2008).

Frequent discussions about leaving are likely to prime other employees, possibly even those who

are fairly embedded, to consider quitting. Thus, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1. Coworkers’ job embeddedness will be negatively related to voluntary

turnover.

The next question naturally follows: How does a willingness to quit engendered by low

job embeddedness influence others? As noted previously, we hypothesize that the transmission

of this leaving tendency occurs as employees watch and converse with coworkers searching for

alternative employment. In Study 1, we gathered data through a series of focus groups designed

to help us better understand the turnover process. A qualitative analysis of the behaviors

discussed by the focus group members provides some information about how employees may be

influenced by their coworkers’ comments about leaving. In Study 2, we sought to specifically

measure coworkers’ search for alternative employment using the Job Search Behavior Index

(Kopelman, Rovenpor, & Millsap, 1992). These authors report that this measure (aggregated to

the group level) did an excellent job of predicting leaving and internal transfer, and did so over

and above eight affective, perceptional, attitudinal, and intention measures such as organizational

commitment, intent to stay, and general job satisfaction. For our purposes, the argument is

simple. When an employee sees and hears about coworkers looking for other jobs, leaving

becomes a more salient option for her, which leads to a greater propensity to quit. A summary of

these ideas can be seen in Figure 1. It should be noted that while both of the studies described

- 10 -
below measure coworkers’ job embeddedness, only the second study assesses coworker job

search behavior using the Kopelman et al. (1992) measure. Thus, Hypothesis 2 is only

empirically tested in Study 2.

Hypothesis 2. The negative relationship between coworkers’ job embeddedness

and focal employee turnover is mediated by coworkers’ job search behaviors.

---------------------------------------------
Insert Figure 1 about here
---------------------------------------------
From Hypotheses to Analytics

While undisputedly important, pursuing meso-level research can be challenging (House

et al., 1995). When we define meso-level research (i.e., research that includes activities and

processes that take place between the micro and macro) this challenge comes into stark relief.

Micro and macro are defined relative to each other, and there are a number of potentially

relevant “levels” for both the predictors and criteria including: individuals, dyads, small groups,

organizations, industries, and societies. The number of possible combinations is extensive and

comments by Klein and Kozlowski (2000) were helpful for our definitional analysis. We are

particularly interested in how the behaviors that occur in dyads or existing groups (our

independent variable) influence individual members to quit (our dependent variable). This is

described as a cross-level phenomenon by Rousseau (1985).

In our case, the phenomenon of interest is turnover contagion. More specifically, each

person’s job embeddedness reflects an overall “stuckness” in the job (the inverse of which is a

willingness to leave), which can be “contagiously” transferred through modeling or direct

interaction with coworkers. In actual work situations, individuals may work at various times with

just one other individual (i.e., dyadically) or, as is increasingly common, in project teams,

- 11 -
departments, and independent branches (i.e., in a small group). In a small group, any given

individual is likely to send turnover contagion stimuli to a number of others as well as receive

this sort of leaving stimuli from a number of others in both dyadic and larger group settings.

If a researcher wants to capture the cumulative influence of coworkers on a focal actor’s

turnover decision, it is necessary to somehow combine the contagious effects of multiple group

members (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). The simplest way to do this is to aggregate the scores of

coworkers who are known to work closely with an individual on those variables that have been

theorized to be associated with the turnover contagion process—in short, job embeddedness and

job search behaviors. As such, we propose to test whether the average of coworkers’ job

embeddedness scores for a natural group influences individual employee turnover, and, if so,

whether this relationship is mediated by the coworkers’ average level of job search behaviors.

It is important to point out two statistical issues related to this conceptualization. First,

given that a focal individual is nested in a group, it is important to control for a focal individual’s

own level of job embeddedness or job search behavior in any multilevel statistical test (Klein &

Kozlowski, 2000). All subsequent analyses do this. Second, this measurement process does not

depend on employees coming to some sort of socially agreed upon consensus about job

embeddedness or about job search behaviors. For example, one popular type of meso-level

research links group-level consensus about something (e.g., norms, mood, etc.) to individual

behavior. Chan describes these as “direct consensus” models (1998). Our theoretical model is not

one of direct consensus. As such, the methodological standards used to verify direct consensus

effects (i.e., high degrees of agreement as assessed by intra-class correlations or Rwg statistics)

would be meaningless for our analysis. Instead, CJE represents what Chan (1998) calls an

- 12 -
“additive index” model which does not hinge upon agreement, but is instead about whether

relevant social comparisons prompt looking for a different job.

STUDY 1

Methods

Sample. Our first research site is a large recreation and hospitality organization, hereafter

referred to as Funcorp. This organization operates roughly 200 golf courses, country clubs,

private business and sports clubs, and resorts. Funcorp provides services to about 200,000

member families throughout the United States. Our initial sample consisted of 14,981 Funcorp

employees who serve its members. Nine thousand seventy-nine employees completed our survey

for a response rate of 60.6%. Missing values reduced the number of usable observations to 8,663

or 57.8% of the initial sample. Within our usable sample are 1,037 club departments. Overall,

39.3% of respondents were women; the average age was 39.0 years; the average tenure with the

organization was 6.2 years; and 32.6% were non-whites. The average department size was 14.4

with 8.35 survey respondents per department. Demographic data of all employees were provided

by the firm, allowing for statistical comparisons to be made between respondents and non-

respondents. These comparisons yielded no significant differences in gender, age, tenure, race, or

turnover rate which provides some confidence that non-response bias is not a concern.

Measures. Voluntary turnover was measured in Study 1 as whether the employee

voluntarily left the organization in the 18 months immediately following the survey. An 18

month time period is reasonable because it allows enough time for the independent variables to

influence employees’ turnover decisions and provides us with a large enough sample to reliably

run statistical tests. Specifically, 2,001 of the employees surveyed choose to leave Funcorp. This

corresponds to an 18-month voluntary turnover rate of 23.1 percent (or 15.4 percent annually).

- 13 -
 In prior studies of job embeddedness, researchers have relied on a 40-item measure to

capture the six subdimensions that were then aggregated to create composite measures (e.g.,

Mitchell et al. (2001). In defining the construct, Mitchell et al. (2001) characterize job

embeddedness as a formative indicator construct, where multiple variables are associated with

the embeddedness construct and where predictive validity represents the major mechanism for

validation of its conceptual meaning (Edwards, 2001). In other words, job embeddedness

captures a large set of things that enmesh people in their jobs and that predict voluntary turnover.

In the present study, we assessed the degree to which one’s coworkers were enmeshed in

the organization and community (Coworkers’ Job Embeddedness or CJE) using a 21-item

measure of job embeddedness developed and validated by Holtom, Mitchell, Lee, and Tidd

(2006). In this measure development study, the product-moment correlation showed a strong

relationship between the original long form and the revised short form (r = .92) used to measure

job embeddedness. This measure was developed using data collected from 769 corrections

officers. Given the fact that the short-form items are also represented in the long form, we would

expect this correlation to be very high. More importantly, after controlling for job satisfaction,

the long-form measure of individual job embeddedness significantly predicted voluntary

turnover (p<.001) as did the short-form measure (p<.001) which provides evidence of predictive

validity for this shorter measure. Further, there was no difference in the amount of variance in

turnover explained by the two forms of the instrument.

In both samples, the respondents indicated on a five-point scale the extent to which they

agreed with 18 of the 21 items. The other three items involved yes or no answers. Each

individual’s scores for each item were standardized and averaged to create an individual-level

job embeddedness score. These individual job embeddedness scores were then averaged across

- 14 -
employees in each department to create an aggregate of departmental job embeddedness (i.e.

CJE). Appendix 1 reports the survey’s items. Because individual job embeddedness is a

formative (or indicator) construct, high internal consistency (e.g., coefficient alpha) or

unidimensionality (e.g., one factor model) are not the standards by which the construct validity

should be judged (Diamantopoulos & Winklhofer, 2001). However, for descriptive purposes we

note that coefficient alpha was high (α = .88).

Control Variables. Given that we wanted to test CJE as a predictor of focal employee

turnover, we sought to control for other variables that might provide alternative explanations.

These control variables include both the individual (level 1) factors of job embeddedness, job

satisfaction, organizational commitment, part-time versus full-time status, age, gender, race, and

tenure, as well as the group (level 2) factors of coworkers’ job satisfaction, coworkers’

organizational commitment, department size, and local unemployment rate. Job satisfaction

assessed the degree to which employees were satisfied with 10 dimensions of their jobs (e.g.,

pay, coworkers, promotion, etc.) using a shortened version of Spector’s (1985) job satisfaction

measure. Spector’s original scale includes 36 items, but due to survey length constraints our

shortened measure included only the two best loading items for each subscale (based on Spector

1985). Thus, the respondents indicated on a 5-point scale the extent to which they agreed with 20

items assessing satisfaction with various aspects of one’s job. Coefficient alpha for job

satisfaction was .93. We measured organizational commitment using four items from Meyer,

Allen & Smith’s (1993) measure of affective organizational commitment. Respondents indicated

on a 5-point scale the extent to which they agreed with the items. Coefficient alpha for this

measure was .85. The employees’ full or part-time status was determined from organizational

records at the time the employee completed the survey (0 = full time; 1 = part time). Part-time

- 15 -
employees worked a maximum of 32 hours per week and did not receive benefits, whereas full-

time employees were expected to work at least 40 hours per week and received benefits. We

obtained the demographic variables age, gender, race, and tenure from the organizations’

records and entered them as controls. We included these employee demographic variables in the

model because we want to have confidence that effects were not based on employee’s life

experiences, social categories, or career position.

In addition, the analysis contains several group (level 2) controls because they could also

constitute potential alternative explanations. These include coworkers’ job satisfaction and

coworkers’ organizational commitment, which are the individual-level variables of job

satisfaction and organizational commitment averaged across a department. We should reiterate

that we are adding group-level job satisfaction and group-level organizational commitment

simply as conservative controls. Since they are major predictors of turnover at the individual

level they may also control variance in turnover when assessed at the group level. However, we

are not postulating that they necessarily operate through a contagion process similar to CJE

(although they could). Department size was assessed as the number of employees in each branch

or department. Local unemployment rate was obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for

each zip code where a club was located.

Analysis

Employees who share a department have the same coworkers’ satisfaction, coworkers’

commitment and coworkers’ embeddedness scores. To ignore this dependence by using normal

logistic regression would violate a core assumption of regression. Even excluding the focal actor

from each aggregated score would leave highly interdependent aggregated scores. In fact,

aggregated scores with the focal actor excluded are almost identical to aggregated scores with the

- 16 -
focal actor included (e.g., average correlation is .95). Therefore the data were analyzed with a

multilevel logistic regression software called hierarchical generalized linear modeling (or HGLM

for short) (Guo and Zhao, 2000). The main difference between hierarchical linear modeling

(HLM) and HGLM is that the latter allows for binary outcome variables (i.e. stay / quit). HGLM

is ideal for our tests because it is designed to account for non-independence between group-level

predictor variables. Given that HGLM is simply multilevel logistic regression, normally

distributed outcome variables and error terms are not necessary. HGLM has been used to study

multilevel predictors of a wide range of binary outcomes including whether a person drops out of

high school, completes college, marries, divorces, or goes bankrupt among others (for a review,

see Guo and Zhao, 2000). HGLM helps us to disentangle individual-level effects from social

effects by statistically disaggregating the individual (level one) and group (level two) effects. In

sum, HGLM is used because it provides the least biased and most informative method

of hypothesis testing in this context.

Results

Tables 1 and 2 report the means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients

between the dependent, independent, and control variables for level one and level two variables.

Table 3 presents the results of the HGLM analysis.

---------------------------------------------
Insert Tables 1 through 3 about here
---------------------------------------------
Hypothesis 1 posited a negative relationship between coworkers’ job embeddedness and

voluntary turnover. Table 3 (Model 1) shows a negative and significant relationship between CJE

and individual voluntary turnover (B = -.19; p < .001). We further suggested that CJE would

predict turnover even when coworkers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment are

- 17 -
controlled. As shown in Table 3 (Model 2) CJE remains significantly predictive of turnover (B =

-.16, p < .001) and neither coworkers’ job satisfaction nor coworkers’ organizational

commitment remains as a significant predictor of turnover in this “competitive test” model.

Thus, Hypothesis 1 is supported. Although not the focus of this research, Table 3 shows results

that replicate prior research. Specifically, individual-level job satisfaction, organizational

commitment, and job embeddedness are significant negative predictors of voluntary turnover (in

Model 2; respectively: B = -.07, p < .05; B = -.16, p < .01; B = -.09, p < .01).

Supplementary Qualitative Analysis

Our model suggests that aggregate job embeddedness influences individual turnover

through contagion of job search behaviors. In Study 1, we did not quantitatively measure job

search behaviors. Instead, we conducted content analyses of a deductive nature based on 11

focus groups at both of our research sites. To get a wide variety of responses, we selected

Funcorp and Cashcorp (our pseudonym for the bank in Study 2) sites where employee turnover

from prior years was high (6 focus groups) and others where turnover was low (5 focus groups).

Eisenhardt and Graebner call this contrasting “polar types” (2007). Focus groups were conducted

before sending out the survey in both samples. We asked focus-group participants to tell us about

their jobs and why people stay or leave. The focus groups lasted between 90-120 minutes each

and an average of eight employees attended each group. All interviews were audio-taped and

later transcribed verbatim.

One of the leading measures of job search behavior (Kopelman et al., 1992) asks

respondents to note which, if any, of ten different search behaviors they have engaged in during

the prior year. The behaviors include revising one’s resume, going on a job interview, and

talking with coworkers about getting a new job. In the focus groups, we were careful not to put

- 18 -
any of the participants under pressure by asking questions about revising resumes or going on

job interviews. However, when we asked about the reasons why people stay, we noted that many

spontaneous comments about leaving emerged. Moreover, it seemed to be much more acceptable

to discuss leaving in the high-turnover locations.

Consequently, we asked two of the authors who were not involved with conducting the

focus groups to use [Link] qualitative software (which is a qualitative analysis tool that helps

users organize, locate, code, and annotate findings across large volumes of qualitative

documents) to independently count the comments about leaving (e.g., reasons for leaving,

alternative job options, people who have left or are considering leaving). To ensure the coding

process was blind, all focus-group-identifying information was removed from the transcripts.

Before coding, the two judges discussed how they would count leaving reasons. For example,

they agreed that when a single focus group participant listed several leaving reasons, they would

count each reason as unique. One coder counted 158 leaving reasons across the 11 focus groups,

and the other coder counted 163 leaving reasons. Together, the two judges identified 168 leaving

reasons of which 156 were the same, for 93 percent agreement. All disagreements were resolved

in a discussion between the two judges, and the judges ultimately agreed on a final count of 158

leaving reasons.

To assess spontaneous discussions about leaving, the coders counted the number of

reasons for leaving that employees publicly stated in each group. Employees mentioned that their

coworkers leave for more pay, better opportunities or benefits, a less physically demanding job,

or to go back to school. For example, one Cashcorp employee at a low CJE branch made the

comment, “Did you know that at [alternative company], the pay starts at $9 or $10 and they

reimburse 100% of tuition? If I saw that they were hiring, I could see myself leaving.” After

- 19 -
conducting the focus groups, the employees were surveyed as part of the broader quantitative

portion of our study and as we describe in the methods sections pertaining to Studies 1 and 2.

Based on each focus group participant’s individual job embeddedness, commitment and

satisfaction scores, we calculated each focus group’s average level of job embeddedness,

commitment and satisfaction. We imputed the organizational average score to each of the five

focus group participants (out of 88) who did not fill out a survey. The survey data gathered from

focus group participants were also included in the broader HGLM analysis. The number of coded

comments about leaving (a proxy for job search behavior) was then correlated with the group’s

average level of job embeddedness, commitment and satisfaction.

Findings. Our findings were consistent with our hypotheses about what causes people to

search and leave. The group’s average level of satisfaction (r = -.10, n.s.) and commitment (r = -

.27, n.s.) were not significantly correlated with the number of comments about leaving.

However, and consistent with the turnover contagion model, the group’s level of job

embeddedness was significantly negatively correlated with the number of comments about

leaving (r = -.64, p < .05). This qualitative finding regarding coworkers’ job embeddedness is

considerably more speculative than our subsequent quantitative findings reported for Study 2. As

mentioned by Lee (1999), qualitative research is not suited to discussions of prevalence,

generalizability, or calibration. Qualitative research, however, is well suited to discussions of

description, interpretation, and explanation. Thus, these findings increased our confidence in our

conceptual understanding and encouraged us to further test whether coworker job search

mediates the relationship between coworkers’ job embeddedness and focal employee turnover.

STUDY 2

Hypotheses

- 20 -
 In Study 2, we seek to replicate the results of Study 1 but also to gain greater

understanding of the coworker behaviors that explain the effect of CJE on individual employee

turnover. Recall that Hypothesis 2 holds that coworkers’ job search behavior mediates the effect

of CJE on individual turnover. As described in the theory development section, contagion is a

process by which turnover propensity spreads from coworkers to a focal actor. This process is

hypothesized to occur when employees model each other’s leaving-related behaviors (i.e. resumé

revision, reading of the classifieds, going on a job interview, etc.). However, Study 1 does not

directly measure job search behavior. Study 2 attempts to assess directly if job search behavior is

more common where employees are not embedded and if coworkers’ search behavior mediates

the relationship between CJE and focal employee turnover.

Methods

Sample. Our second sample is a retail bank in the Midwest region of the United States,

hereafter referred to as Cashcorp. Cashcorp owns and operates 45 branch offices in two states

and has roughly two billion dollars in assets. We sent a survey to all 486 employees. Three-

hundred and twenty employees completed the survey for a response rate of 66%. Missing values

reduced the number of usable observations to 234 for a final response rate of 48%. Within our

usable sample of 45 branches, 77.1% were women; the average age was 37.8 years; the average

tenure with the organization was 6.1 years; and 8.2% were non-whites. The average branch size

was 10.8 (5.2 survey respondents per branch). In the two years following the survey, 60

employees who completed our survey voluntarily left Cashcorp, which equates to two year

voluntary turnover rate of 25.7 percent (or 12.9 percent per year). Finally, non-response bias was

unlikely because employees who completed our survey and those who did not were not

significantly different in terms of gender, age, tenure, race, or turnover rate.

- 21 -
 Measures. The measures and methods are only slightly different from Study 1. The most

important addition is that Study 2 includes the 10-item Job Search Behavior Index (Kopelman et

al., 1992)(α = .83). This measure is aggregated to the unit level in order to assess the amount of

job search activity occurring in a particular bank branch. This index seeks to tap the actual

behaviors involved in looking for a new job, and includes items such as, “During the past year,

have you revised your resume? … read the classified/help wanted advertisements in the

newspaper? …sent copies of your resume to a prospective employer? … talked to coworkers

about getting a new job? …gone on a job interview?” The results of Kopelman and colleagues

(1992) suggest that this may be a better and more behaviorally grounded predictor of employee

turnover than are intention to leave or attitudinal variables.

Study 2 also employs slightly better measures of job satisfaction and organizational

commitment. Whereas the first study used a shortened 20-item version of Spector’s Job

Satisfaction Index (1985), Study 2 used the full 36-item scale. In addition, Study 1 only assessed

affective commitment, and Study 2 used a more comprehensive 18-item measure of

organizational commitment which includes affective, normative, and continuance commitment

(Meyer et al, 1993). Both studies used the same short version of Holtom and colleagues’ job

embeddedness scale (2006). Once again, the reliability scores for these scales were high (α = .93

for job satisfaction; α = .89 for organizational commitment; and α = .82 for job embeddedness).

Finally, we used Griffeth and Hom’s (1988) 5-item Index of Perceived Job Alternatives at the

individual level to control for the effect of employee perceptions on the job alternative - turnover

relationship. Finally, similar to Study 1, we aggregated five variables (i.e., job search, job

embeddedness, job satisfaction, organizational commitment and job alternatives) to the unit

- 22 -
level. Our rationale for aggregating job satisfaction, organizational commitment and job

alternatives is the same as for Study 1. They were seen as conservative controls.

Analysis. The analytic technique also remained the same (i.e., HGLM) with the

exception that mediation was tested using both the traditional Baron and Kenny (1986) standard

and the Sobel test, which directly assesses the statistical significance of the change in regression

coefficients when the mediator is added to the equation. As suggested by Baron and Kenny

(1986), the Sobel test offers a confirmatory and rigorous test of mediation.

Results

The level-one and level-two descriptive statistics are presented in Tables 4 and 5. Results

of the regression model of the job attitude variables on the mediator (CJSB), as well as the

HGLM analysis for actual quitting are each presented in Table 6. The main purpose of this study

though was to test whether the relationship between coworkers’ job embeddedness (CJE) and

focal employee voluntary turnover would be mediated by coworkers’ job search behavior

(CJSB). Results indicate that coworkers’ job embeddedness is significantly and negatively

related to coworkers’ job search behavior (B = -.41; p < .001) even after controlling for bank

branch size, local unemployment rate, coworkers’ organizational commitment, coworkers’ job

satisfaction, and coworkers’ perceptions of job alternatives. Next, we regressed voluntary

turnover on CJE (Models 1 and 2 in Table 6). Replicating our first study’s findings, CJE

significantly predicts turnover (B = -.92; p < .001). Then we regressed voluntary turnover

simultaneously on coworkers’ job search behavior and coworkers’ job embeddedness (Model 3

in Table 6). Whereas CJSP becomes significant, CJE becomes non-significant when the mediator

is added. Moreover, the Sobel test shows that the change in the regression coefficient for CJE is

itself significant (Sobel t = -8.6; p < .001). Thus, Hypothesis 2 is supported. CJSB appears to

- 23 -
mediate the relationship between CJE and turnover. As in our first study, we found that when we

included coworkers’ satisfaction and commitment variables in the model, only CJE was still

significant.

------------------------------------------------

Insert Tables 4 through 6 about here

------------------------------------------------

The implications of our results are apparent by examining effect sizes and statistical

ramifications within our sample. On average, using a simple log-odds transformation, we found

that a standard deviation increase in coworkers’ job embeddedness decreased the probability of

an individual voluntarily leaving from 15.4 percent per year to 8.5 percent per year at Funcorp,

and from 12.9 percent per year to 4.2 percent per year at Cashcorp. This equates to a decrease in

voluntary turnover of 45 percent at Funcorp and 67 percent at Cashcorp, controlling for other

variables in the model. We speculate that the Cashcorp results are stronger because the units are

smaller and more exclusive. In the confined space of a bank branch, people saw their unit

members more frequently and were exposed to only their fellow branch members’ leaving

behaviors. Across the two samples, a standard deviation decrease in coworkers’ job search

behavior decreased the probability of an individual turning over by 35 percent. Moreover, in

comparing the effect sizes of the individual and coworker variables, we found them to be roughly

equal predictors of focal actor quitting. Thus, the job embeddedness and job search behavior of

one’s coworkers had a sizable influence on focal actor turnover decisions.

DISCUSSION

Extending social comparison theory to the domain of turnover, we investigated the role of

coworkers’ attitudes and behaviors on individual employee turnover propensity. In two separate

- 24 -
samples we found that aggregated coworkers’ job embeddedness is a valid predictor of

individual voluntary turnover. There are a variety of ways to demonstrate validity: 1) controlling

for alternative explanations, 2) predicting a criterion, 3) explaining additional variance over-and-

above competitive constructs, and 4) showing the process by which something has an effect (i.e.

establishing mediation). It should be noted that all four of these criteria have been demonstrated

for CJE. After 1) controlling for demographics (e.g. tenure, age, work-status, gender), perceived

and objective measures of job alternatives, and department size, CJE 2) predicts turnover in two

distinct samples, 3) over and above similarly aggregated variables such as coworkers’ job

satisfaction and coworkers’ organizational commitment, 4) and can plausibly be seen to operate

through the observation of coworkers’ job search behaviors. Thus, we can have some confidence

that CJE is one important driver of turnover contagion.

But going beyond job embeddedness, we also provide evidence through both qualitative

and quantitative analyses that coworkers’ job search may act as a critical mechanism in the

turnover contagion process. These findings are conservative in that job search behaviors have

more recently evolved to include internet job search, job clearinghouse websites, and email

correspondence about positions. The Job Search Behavior Index (Kopelman et al., 1992) does

not account for these new ways of searching for a job.

A particular strength of the study is the replication of findings across two large samples

in two very different settings. Cashcorp employees worked in self-contained branches with

relatively few people. The employees at Funcorp, in contrast, were grouped according to

department within a larger organizational unit (club). These department members were not

isolated from other employees in different departments. We suspect that this dilutes the influence

of CJE. As such, finding that CJE influences voluntary turnover at Funcorp represents a more

- 25 -
rigorous test of our hypotheses. When the results of these samples are taken together, our

confidence in the robustness of our inferences is enhanced.

Limitations and Future Research

We have argued that taking an average of coworkers’ job embeddedness and coworkers’

job search behaviors makes sense as a way to capture the turnover contagion stimuli to which a

focal individual is exposed. However, we note that the assessment of turnover contagion was

indirect. Neither the more speculative qualitative data gathered from the focus groups nor the

more rigorous job search behaviors gathered in Study 2 measured what the focal person actually

heard or saw coworkers do. Such behavioral data is difficult to gather but would seem to be a

necessary component of future research on this topic. Moreover, there are other variables that

might signal how likely it is for contagion to occur (e.g., how close desks are situated to each

other, how often or effectively coworkers communicate with each other, friendship levels, or

status similarity). Given that such data were not available in our samples, the current research

employs a simpler (and more conservative) measurement of turnover contagion. Future research

could productively build on these findings to identify alternative operationalizations of the

turnover contagion process, as well as moderators of these effects.

Further, our research has not included all variables known to be related to turnover. In

particular, a valuable contribution to future research would be to include more macro variables

like organizational support, leadership quality, and compensation policies that might be fruitfully

integrated as an antecedent, moderator, or alternative mechanism for the turnover contagion

model developed here. In particular, it is possible that norms about the legitimacy of leaving

might develop which could affect turnover (Abelson, 1993). Recent qualitative work by

Bartunek et al. (2008) and an unpublished dissertation by Rumery (2003) suggest that such

- 26 -
collective norms can develop and that they may affect turnover attitudes and behaviors.

Unfortunately, our data cannot speak to this issue. Moreover, it should be pointed out that if such

norms were to exist, they would be predicated on extensive social comparison (Bartunek et al,

2008), and thus would act as a complementary rather than substitute mechanism for turnover

contagion. Thus, while a normative factor could add to the prediction of individual turnover, we

do not believe that effect will replace or be as strong as the contagion effect captured here. Said

differently, while we have attempted to control for the variables most likely to provide

alternative explanations for our findings, we have not controlled for all of them, nor have we

included all the variables that may be involved in the process. The inclusion of these additional

variables may both clarify and extend the current research.

Finally, another potential limitation concerns the issue of weights for the subdimensions

of job embeddedness. As a robustness check, we ran all the analyses using the weighted

approach suggested by Law, Wong and Mobley (1998). Specifically, we ran a logistic regression

whereby turnover was regressed on the six job embeddedness items to get the weights of each of

the dimensions. We then multiplied each individual’s score on each dimension by the weight for

each dimension and added the six resulting products together. This created the weighted job

embeddedness score. We then aggregated these weighted individual job embeddedness scores

among the members of each department to create our measure of CJE. The results of this

analysis are virtually identical to the straight aggregation approach but with slightly improved

predictive validity, which we would expect (Law, Wong & Mobley, 1998; Howell, Breivik

&Wilcox, 2007; Edwards, 2001). We choose not to report or base our conclusions on the results

using these weights for three reasons. First, such weights capitalize on sample-specific variance

and error. Second, based upon findings reported in other studies, the contributions to turnover of

- 27 -
the dimensions vary by samples (Lee et al. 2004, Zatzick & Iverson, 2006, Allen 2006). Thus,

using weights means that the construct is essentially different with every sample, which makes it

difficult to meaningfully compare results across studies (Howell et al., 2007) and thus reduces

generalizability and complicates theory building. Third, it was more conservative (e.g., less

likely to capitalize on chance), and in line with previous research to use the aggregate job

embeddedness score. However, we should add that this variation in weights points to the need

for future research into the potential moderators of the relationship between the subdimensions

of job embeddedness and turnover or performance. Better information is still needed about how

and under what conditions job embeddedness subdimensions influence turnover. Finally, while

we did not use the weights in the research reported here, we recognize that such sample specific

information may be what is most valuable in making prescriptions for any given organization.

Managerial Implications

Organizations can use the results of this study to design specific interventions aimed at

reducing voluntary turnover. A primary implication is that, at the group level, job embeddedness

is an important antecedent to eventual turnover. Beyond just affecting individual decision

making, it also influences whether the social environment incites leaving. Of particular interest

in the context of this research is a study by Allen (2006). He found that collective socialization

tactics—where newcomers experience common learning experiences with a group or cohort—

increase embeddedness in the organization. Such socialization tactics provide a common

message about the organization, roles, and appropriate responses. This common message may

shape how groups of people interpret organizational events like the loss of a respected coworker

or a large number of coworkers simultaneously. In short, organizations could actively manage

- 28 -
the content of collective socialization experiences as well as attend to influential individuals in

the social network (Bartunek et al., 2008; Mossholder et al., 2005).

Second, individual-level factors that increase IJE should also be considered (Mitchell et

al., 2001). Prior research has identified a number of antecedents to on-the-job embeddedness. For

example, personality variables such as conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness have

demonstrated a strong positive relationship with on-the-job embeddedness (Giosan, Holtom, &

Watson, 2005). Thus, reducing voluntary turnover through selection is one clearly actionable

approach (Barrick & Zimmerman, 2005). Further, both perceived supervisor support and

perceived organizational support have been demonstrated to positively predict levels of on-the-

job embeddedness (Giosan et al., 2005) and reduced voluntary turnover (Maertz, Griffeth,

Campbell, & Allen, 2007). Other suggestions include developing schedules that fit employee

needs (e.g., shift, schedule) (Holtom, Lee, & Tidd, 2002), providing creative benefit alternatives

or cafeteria plans, tailoring benefits to meet individual needs and enhance work/life balance,

allowing employees input in designing work environments, and providing incentives or perks

based on tenure (Giosan et al., 2005).

There are also a number of ways that off-the-job embeddedness can be increased. As an

example, one firm was able to increase community embeddedness and subsequent retention by

recruiting and hiring from communities close to their facilities and avoiding relocating

employees whenever possible (Holtom et al., 2006). Similarly, another firm increased links in

the community by supporting community service by employees (e.g., 2 days off per year for

community service), allowing them to volunteer in local student programs as mentors, and

encouraging professional involvement in community-based professional organizations (Holtom,

et al., 2006). Finally, one organization augmented community-related sacrifice and subsequent

- 29 -
retention by providing home-buying assistance (Holtom et al., 2006). In sum, there are many

ways that organizations might systematically seek to reduce the rate of voluntary, avoidable

turnover by enacting programs designed to increase job embeddedness at the meso and micro

levels.

There may also be managerial implications associated with job search behavior, although

these implications are potentially more controversial. Specifically, managers could prohibit

gossiping about people who are looking for other jobs, especially on “company time.” This

could potentially inhibit the spread of contagious information but such bald attempts at

concertive control may provoke reactance, ill-will, and perhaps sabotage. Perhaps a more

realistic alternative is for managers to track job embeddedness and turnover at the team level.

Where embeddedness is low and/or turnover is high, they might actively try to raise

embeddedness scores or reconstitute the group with some people who have high embeddedness.

Such changes might reduce the job search behaviors demonstrated by group members.

Concluding Thoughts:

Tackling turnover theory at the meso level is not new; it has been advocated at the

organization culture level (Abelson, 1993), and even empirically examined on occasion (c.f.

Feeley & Burnett 1997; Krackhardt & Porter, 1985, 1986; Rumery, 2003). However, it is our

belief that these approaches have not focused enough on social factors–specifically, the attitudes,

characteristics, and behaviors of one’s coworkers. Although researchers perhaps do not naturally

think of quitting as a social phenomenon, our research suggests that it is, and that additional

research regarding the social predictors of turnover is warranted.

- 30 -
 REFERENCES

Abelson, M. A. 1993. Turnover cultures. In G. Ferris and G. Rowland (Eds), Research in

Personnel and Human Resource Management, vol. 11: 339-376. Greenwich, CT: JAI

Press.

Allen, D. G. 2006. Do organizational socialization tactics influence newcomer embeddedness

and turnover? Journal of Management, 32: 237-256.

Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. 2000. Burnout contagion processes among teachers. Journal

of Applied Social Psychology, 30: 2289–2308.

Bandura, A. 1977. Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.

Banerjee, D., & Gaston, N. 2004. Labour market signaling and job turnover revisited. Labour

Economics, 11: 599-622.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological

research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 51: 1173-1182.

Barrick, M. R. & Zimmerman, R. D. 2005. Reducing voluntary turnover, avoidable turnover

through selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 159-166.

Barsade, S. G. 2002. The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 47: 644–675.

Bartunek, J. M., Huang, Z., & Walsh, I. J. 2008. The development of a process model of

collective turnover. Human Relations, 61: 5-38.

Bradbury, H., & Lichtenstein, B. M. B. 2000. Relationality in organizational research: Exploring

the space between. Organization Science, 11: 551-564.

- 31 -
Brett, J. M., & Stroh, L. K. 2003. Working 61 plus hours a week: Why do managers do it?

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 67-78.

Chan, D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different

levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology,

83: 234-246.

Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A.J. 1999. The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and

social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76: 893-910.

Crossley, C. D., Bennett, R. J., Jex, S. M., & Burnfield, J. L. 2007. Development of a global

measure of job embeddedness and integration into a traditional model of voluntary

turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1031-1042

Degoey, P. 2000. Contagious justice: Exploring the social construction of justice in

organizations. In B. M. Staw and R. I. Sutton (Eds.), Research in Organizational

Behavior, vol. 22: 51-102. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. 2001. Index construction with formative indicators:

an alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38: 269-277.

Eder, P., & Eisenberger, R. 2008. Perceived organizational support: Reducing the negative

influence of coworker withdrawal behavior. Journal of Management, 34: 55-68.

Edwards, J. R. 2001. Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: An

integrative analytical framework. Organizational Research Methods, 4: 144-192.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. 2007. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and

challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 25-32.

Feeley, T. J., & Barnett, G. A. 1997. Predicting employee turnover from communication

networks. Human Communication Research, 23: 370-387.

- 32 -
Festinger, L. 1954. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7: 117-140.

Giosan, C., Holtom, B., & Watson, M. 2005. Antecedents to job embeddedness: The role of

individual, organizational and market factors, Journal of Organizational Psychology, 5:

31-44.

Griffeth, R. W. & Hom, P. W. 1988. A comparison of different conceptualizations of perceived

alternatives in turnover research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9: 103-111.

Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. 2000. A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates

of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the

millennium. Journal of Management, 26: 463-488.

Guo, G., & Zhao, H. 2000. Multilevel modeling for binary data. Annual Review of Sociology,

26: 441–462.

Hatch, N. W., & Dyer, J. H. 2004. Human capital and learning as a source of sustainable

competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 25: 1155–1178.

Haveman, H. A. 1995. The demographic metabolism of organizations: Industry dynamics,

turnover, and tenure distributions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 586-618.

Holtom, B. C., & O'Neill, B. S. 2004. Job embeddedness: A theoretical foundation for

developing a comprehensive nurse retention plan. Journal of Nursing Administration,

34: 216-227.

Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., & Tidd, S. 2002. The relationship between work status congruence

and work-related attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 903-915.

Holtom, B. C., Mitchell, T. R., & Lee, T. W. 2006. Increasing human and social capital by

applying job embeddedness theory. Organizational Dynamics, 35: 316-331.

- 33 -
Holtom, B.C, Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T., & Tidd, S. 2006. Less is more: Validation of a short form

of the job embeddedness measure and theoretical extensions. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the Academy of Management Conference, Atlanta.

House, R. J., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. 1995. The meso-paradigm: A framework for

the integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L.

Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 17: 71-114. Greenwich, CT:

JAI Press.

Howell, R. D., Breivik, E., & Wilcox, J. B. 2007. Reconsidering formative measurement.

Psychological Methods, 12: 205-218.

Johns, G. 2006. The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of

Management Review, 31, 386-408

Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D., Wanberg, C.R., Glomb, T.M., & Ahlburg, D. 2005. The role of

temporal shifts in turnover processes: It's about time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,

644–658.

Klein, K. J. and Kozlowski, S. W. J. 2000. From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing

and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3: 211-236.

Kopelman, R. E., Rovenpor, J. L., & Millsap, R. E. 1992. Rationale and construct validity

evidence for the Job Search Behavior Index: Because intentions and New Year's

resolutions often come to naught. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40: 269-287.

Krackhardt, D. & Porter, L.W. 1985. When friends leave: A structural analysis of the

relationship between turnover and stayers’ attitudes. Administrative Science Quarterly,

30: 242-261

- 34 -
Krackhardt, D., & Porter, L. W. 1986. The snowball effect: Turnover embedded in

communication networks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 50-55.

Kruglanski, A. W., & Mayseless, O. 1990. Classic and current social comparison research:

Expanding the perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 108: 195-208.

Kulik, C. T., & Ambrose, M. L. 1992. Personal and situational determinants of referent choice.

Academy of Management Review, 41: 55–67.

Law, K. S., Wong, C., & Mobley, W. H. (1998). Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional

constructs. Academy of Management Review, 23, 741-755.

Lee, T. W. 1999. Using qualitative methods in organizational research. Thousand Oaks Sage.

Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Sablynski, C. J., Burton, J. P., Holtom, B. C. 2004. The effects of job

embeddedness on organizational citizenship, job performance, volitional absences, and

voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 711-722.

Maertz, C. P., & Campion, M. A. 1998. 25 years of voluntary turnover research: A review and

critique. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 13: 49–81.

Maertz, C. P., Griffeth, R. W., Campbell, N. & Allen, D. G. 2007. The effects of perceived

organizational support and perceived supervisor support on employee turnover. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 28: 1059-1075.

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. 1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley.

Mathieu, J., & Kohler, S. 1990. A cross-level examination of group absence influences on

individual absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 217-220.

Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. 1993. Commitment to organizations and occupations:

Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 78: 538-551.

- 35 -
Mitchell, T. R., & Lee, T. W. 2001. The unfolding model of voluntary turnover and

embeddedness: Foundations for a comprehensive theory of attachment. In B. M. Staw &

R. I. Sutton (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 189-246. Greenwich, CT:

JAI Press.

Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. 2001. Why people stay:

Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management

Journal, 44: 1102-1121.

Mobley, W. H. 1977. Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and

employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62: 237-240.

Mossholder, K. W., Settoon, R. P., & Henagan, S. C. 2005. A relational perspective on turnover:

Examining structural, attitudinal, and behavioral predictors. Academy of Management

Journal, 48: 607-618.

Pfeffer, J. 1991. Organization theory and structural perspectives on management. Journal of

Management, 17: 789-803.

Price, J. L. 1977. The study of turnover. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.

Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. 1986. Absenteeism and turnover of hospital employees.

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Rousseau, D. M. 1985. Issues of level in organizational research, in L. L. Cummings and B. M.

Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 7: 1-37, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Rumery, S. M. 2003. The influence of work group culture on employee turnover. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. 1978. A social information processing approach to job attitudes and

task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23: 224-252.

- 36 -
Shaw, J. D., Gupta, N., & Delery, J. E. 2005. Alternative conceptualizations of the relationship

between voluntary turnover and organizational performance. Academy of Management

Journal, 48: 50-68.

Spector, P. E. 1985. Measurement of Human Service Job Satisfaction: Development of the Job

Satisfaction Survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13: 693-712.

Steel, R. P. 2002. Turnover theory at the empirical interface: Problems of fit and function.

Academy of Management Review, 27: 346-360.

Tesser, A., Campbell, J., & Mickler, S. 1983. The role of social pressure, attention to the

stimulus, and self-doubt in conformity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13:

217-223.

Ulrich, D., & Smallwood, N. 2006. How leaders build value: Using people, organization, and

other intangibles to get bottom-line results. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.

Van Dijk, P., & Kirk-Brown, A. 2003. The relationship between job embeddedness and the

intention to leave an organization. APS Psychology of Relationships Interest Group, 3rd

Annual Conference, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia.

Wooten, D. B., & Reed, A. 1998. Informational influence and the ambiguity of product

experience: Order effects on the weighting of evidence. Journal of Consumer Research,

7: 79-99.

Zatzick, C. D., & Iverson, R. D. 2006. Job embeddedness, gender, and voluntary turnover:

further extensions of a new construct. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

Academy of Management, Atlanta.

- 37 -
Figure 1. The Turnover Contagion Model

Coworkers’ Job Embeddedness

Coworkers’ Job Search
(Average job embeddedness
Behavior (qualitative and
score of employees in
quantitative)
department or branch)

Level 2 Variables

Level 1 Variables

Links- Organization

Links-Community

Fit-Organization Individual
Individual Job
Voluntary
Embeddedness
Fit-Community Turnover

Sacrifice-Organization

Sacrifice-Community

38
Table 1. Study 1 means, standard deviations and correlations of level two variables a

M s.d. 1 2 3 4
1 Group Size 8.35 1.50 -
2 Local Unemployment Rate 4.55 1.01 -.08 -
3 Coworkers’ Organizational Commitment 4.04 .48 -.13 .01 -
4 Coworkers’ Job Satisfaction 3.90 .42 -.02 .04 .63 -
5 Coworkers’ Job Embeddedness (CJE) 3.79 .31 -.09 .00 .64 .59

Table 2. Study 1 means, standard deviations and correlations of level one variables b

M s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Voluntary Turnover .23 .42 -
2 Age 39.98 14.45 -.21 -
3 Tenure 7.20 6.79 -.17 .41 -
4 Female .39 .49 .01 -.07 -.03 -
5 Nonwhite .33 .47 -.08 -.04 .05 -.12 -
6 Part-time .26 .44 .07 -.05 -.24 .05 -.17 -
7 Organizational Commitment 3.97 .87 -.19 .21 .14 -.06 .12 -.13 -
8 Job Satisfaction 3.89 .72 -.08 .00 -.02 -.06 .12 .04 .62 -
9 Job Embeddedness 3.76 .55 -.17 .20 .15 -.01 .06 -.01 .63 .57
a
k = 1037 departments; all correlations greater than .03 are significant at p < .01
b
N = 8663 individuals; all correlations greater than .02 are significant at p < .01

39
Table 3. Study 1 HGLM logistic regression results predicting individual voluntary turnover

Individual Turnoverabc
Model 1 Model 2
Level 2
Group Size -.01 -.01
Local Unemployment Rate -.03 -.03
Coworkers’ Job Embeddedness -.19*** -.16***
Coworkers’ Organizational Commitment -.06
Coworkers’ Job Satisfaction .01
Level 1
Age -.47*** -.48***
Tenure -.62*** -.61***
Female -.05* -.05*
Nonwhite -.14*** -.15***
Part-time .09** .09**
Job Embeddedness -.10** -.09**
Organizational Commitment -.17*** -.16***
Job Satisfaction -.05* -.07*

Log likelihood -794.45 -802.81

-2[L(breduced) – L(bfull)] 16.72***
a
N = 8663 individuals; k = 1037 departments; * p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001
b
To enhance ease of interpretation, we report standardized coefficients
c
Perhaps due to two fewer degrees of freedom, the significant change in log likelihood indicates that Model 2 is
significantly worse at predicting turnover than Model 1

40
Table 4. Study 2 means, standard deviations and correlations of level two variables b

M s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Group Size 5.20 6.07 -
2 Local Unemployment Rate 4.08 2.46 -.08 -
3 Coworkers’ Job Alternatives 3.34 .41 .08 -.14 -
4 Coworkers’ Organizational 2.97 .35 .04 .03 -.53 -
Commitment
5 Coworkers’ Job Satisfaction 3.27 .31 .01 -.09 -.52 .66 -
6 Coworkers’ Job Embeddedness 2.36 .27 .19 -.02 -.19 .52 .46 -
7 Coworkers’ Search Behavior .45 .19 -.12 .13 .38 -.60 -.55 -.60
a
The correlation between CJE and comments about leaving is -.64, p < .05. The relationships between CJS and COC and comments about leaving are not significant.
b
k = 45 departments; all correlations greater than .19 are significant at p < .05

Table 5. Study 2 means, standard deviations and correlations of level one variables a

M s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 Voluntary Turnover .26 .44 -
2 Age 37.51 12.15 -.37 -
3 Tenure 5.89 7.05 -.26 .47 -
4 Female .73 .45 .10 -.15 -.03 -
5 Nonwhite .09 .28 .20 -.09 -.04 .06 -
6 Part-time .13 .33 .16 -.22 -.13 .13 .09 -
7 Job Alternatives 3.36 .95 .07 .02 .03 .07 -.13 -.06 -
8 Organizational Commitment 2.97 .62 -.26 .06 .13 .05 .04 .01 -.33 -
9 Job Satisfaction 3.28 .53 -.24 .04 -.04 -.07 -.02 -.02 -.34 .55 -
10 Job Embeddedness 2.41 .47 -.28 .30 .27 -.04 -.14 -.17 -.23 .56 .47 -
11 Job Search Behavior Index .43 .31 .45 -.37 -.33 .03 .10 .06 .19 -.44 -.37 -.49
a
N = 234 for all variables; all correlations greater than .13 are significant at p < .05

41
Table 6. Study 2 OLS Regression results examining the influence of coworkers’ job embeddedness on
coworker job search and HGLM logistic regression analyses examining the influence of coworkers’
job embeddedness on individual turnover ab

Coworker Job Search Individual Turnover

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Level 2
Group Size -.09 -.04 -.10 -.21* -.19*
Local Unemployment Rate .20 .20 .16 .06 -.04
Coworkers’ Job Alternatives .13 .18 -.17 -.26
Coworkers’ Organizational Commitment -.32* -.24 -.11 -.04
Coworkers’ Job Satisfaction -.18 -.08 -.27 -.29
Coworkers’ Job Embeddedness -.41*** -.92*** -.68** -.46
Coworkers’ Job Search .59**
Level 1
Age -.58** -.52* -.54*
Tenure -.26 -.18 -.18
Female .08 .16 .15
Nonwhite .29 .30 .33
Part-time .29 .27 .28
Job Embeddedness .12 .10 .12
Organizational Commitment -.15 -.15 -.15
Job Satisfaction -.10 -.07 -.10
Job Alternatives -.10 -.11 -.10
Job Search Behavior Index .87*** .90*** .87***

R-squared .44 .55

R-squared change from previous model .11***
Log likelihood -330.25 -330.55 -326.63
-2[L(breduced) – L(bfull)] 7.84**

a
N = 234 individuals; k = 45 branches; * p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001
b
To enhance ease of interpretation, we report standardized coefficients

42
Appendix 1

Job Embeddedness Short-form from Holtom et al, 2006

1. My job utilizes my skills and talents well.

2. I feel like I am a good match for my organization.
3. If I stay with my organization, I will be able to achieve most of my goals.
4. I really love the place where I live.
5. The place where I live is a good match for me.
6. The area where I live offers the leisure activities that I like (sports, outdoor activities, cultural
events & arts).
7. I have a lot of freedom on this job to pursue my goals.
8. I would sacrifice a lot if I left this job.
9. I believe the prospects for continuing employment with my organization are excellent.
10. Leaving the community where I live would be very hard.
11. If I were to leave the community, I would miss my non-work friends.
12. If I were to leave the area where I live, I would miss my neighborhood.
13. I am a member of an effective work group
14. I work closely with my coworkers.
15. On the job, I interact frequently with my work group members.
16. My family roots are in this community.
17. I am active in one or more community organizations (e.g., churches, sports teams, schools,
etc.).
18. I participate in cultural and recreational activities in my local area.
19. Are you currently married?
20. If you are currently married, does your spouse work outside the home?
21. Do you own a home (with or without a mortgage)?

43
Authors’ Biographical Sketches:

Will Felps (WFelps@[Link]) is an assistant professor at the Rotterdam School of Management,

Erasmus University. He received his Ph.D. in Management from the University of Washington. His
diverse topics of interests are linked together by a desire to create more effective and humane
organizations through more valid and coherent theories.

Terence Mitchell (trm@[Link]) is a Professor of Management and Organization and of

Psychology at the Foster School of Business at the University of Washington. He received his Ph.D.
from the University of Illinois. His current research interests are organizational attachment, motivation,
and leadership.

David R. Hekman (hekman@[Link]) is an Assistant Professor of Healthcare Management

at the Sheldon B. Lubar School of Business, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He earned his Ph.D.
in Management from the University of Washington. His research interests include employee
attachment to the organization, courageous employee actions, subtle discrimination, and understanding
why organizations fail.

Thomas W. Lee (orcas@[Link]) is the Hughes M. Blake Professor of Management and

Associate Dean for Academic and Faculty Affairs at the Foster School of Business, University of
Washington. He earned his Ph.D. in Management from the University of Oregon. His primary
research interests include employee loyalty, retention and turnover, and work motivation.

Brooks C. Holtom (bch6@[Link]) is an assistant professor of management in the McDonough

School of Business at Georgetown University. He received his Ph.D. in Management from the
University of Washington. His research interests include the attraction, development and retention of
human and social capital.

Wendy S. Harman (wendysue@[Link]) is visiting assistant professor of business

administration at University of Washington, Bothell. She received her Ph.D. in Management from the
University of Washington Business School. Her primary research interest focuses on using various
methods of inquiry to positively impact work life.

44