外文翻译 原文
Introduction to the special issue on employee turnover Material Source:Human Resource Management Review Author: James L. Price
The human resources are the most important resources in the modern enterprise.The talented person is indispensable for the enterprise manages and develops.In today’s rapid economic development,the human resources also are the commodity.The normal human resource also are the commodity.The normal human resource development of companies.If talented person’s flowing is too frequent,it will affect the stability and sustainability of the development of the company.Especially when the enterprise has certain responsibility,the grasping enterprise’s core technologies and the core secret management backbone,the marketing backbone or the technical backbone leave job frequently.The company’s survival and development will face a huge crisis.What companies should take measures to attract talent,motivate and retain qualified personnel,to win people’s satisfaction and loyalty,thereby promoting the further development of the company’s future has become of these
enterprises now need to be resolved a thorny issue.So study the brain drain problem for a long-term strategic development of modern company has an extremely important significance.
The first three articles in this Personnel leaving problems-Iverson,Kim,and Laczo/Hanisch-can be viewed together.ach article is concerned with employee withdrawal.Iverson estimates a causal model of turnover, whereas Kim estimates a model of intent to stay, which he terms “behavioral commitment”. It is stated that Kim “estimates a model of turnover through intent to stay. ”Kim,however, is careful to note, as recent research Sager, Griffeth, & Hom, 1998indicates, that intent to stay may not be the closest variable to turnover in the causal sequence. Iverson's research is the preferred practice and has been the pattern most often followed by research on turnover The analysis of turnover data has generally classified employees as either stayers or leavers.This strategy does not take into account differences among leavers,who will vary by how long they have been members of their organizations before they leave. In short, information is lost with the leaver/stayer classification And this lost information may be important since leavers with various lengths of service may differ significantly.Iverson's use of event history analysis treats turnover as a continuous variable-all employees vary by how long they have worked for their employers-thereby making fuller use of possible data than the
either/or classification. Event history analysis has long been used in medical research where it is often termed ``survival analysis.'' Different patients, for example, survive for varying periods of time after medical intervention, such as taking a medication or having an operation.Treating turnover as a continuous variable also provides more sophisticated statistical techniques for analysis and is thus the recommended strategy for the analysis of turnover data.
It might be expected that increased kinship responsibility would reduce voluntary turnover for women but not for men, since kinship obligations have historically been more strongly assigned to women. Iverson's data, however,indicate no significant difference between men and women in the hospital he studied. It is important to replicate Iverson's study, since gender differences have long been important in the kinship area.
Iverson's study was done in Australia. In the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s,Australian scholars were major figures in research on turnover. Most researchers, for example, were familiar with the Personnel Practice Bulletin and the Bulletin of Industrial Psychology and Personnel Practice, both published in Australia. In recent years, however, there has been little turnover research by Australian scholars. Iverson is producing a substantial amount of quality work on turnover and promises to restore Australian scholarship to a major position in this area.
Kim's research was done in South Korea where, unlike Australia, there is no-thereby substantial tradition of research on turnover. However, Kim has begun to produce quality studies on turnover Kim, forthcoming; Kim, Price, Mueller, &Watson, 1996 and he may be the beginning of a substantial tradition of turnover research in South Korea.
Early research on turnover-from approximately 1900 to about 1950-focused heavily on male, blue-collar employees located in manufacturing firms.These employees and firms were dominant in the United States at this time so it was natural for scholars to select these samples and sites. Since about 1950, however, samples and sites have noticeably changed. Much more attention is now devoted to female, white-collar employees located in service firms. The shift of sample and sites is desirable: if general causal models are to be developed, and this is the goal of scientific research, then diverse samples and sites must be studied. Kim's sample is mostly male, strongly blue-collar84%, and is conducted in an automobile manufacturing plant; he thus studied the type of sample and site used by early turnover researchers.
Research on turnover has not generally made use of kinship variables as determinants. Economists and psychologists have long dominated turnover research. Economists have focused on such determinants as pay, opportunitythat is, the labor market, and type of training, whether specific or general.Psychologists have examined such
determinants as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job involvement, and dispositional variables, such as positive and negative affectivity. Neither economists nor psychologists have been much interested in kinship variables as determinants. Unlike economists and psychologists, sociologists are concerned with kinship variables, and Iverson, being a sociologist, includes such a variable in his model,namely,amount of responsibility. He hypothesizes that increased kinship responsibility will reduce voluntary turnover.
Most studies of the causal order of job satisfaction and organizational commitment are not longitudinal, do not make use of developed causal models, and do not use LISREL analytical procedures. Currivan's study is longitudinal,makes use of a developed causal model, and uses LISREL. His results are thus the best available on the causal ordering of satisfaction and commitment.Currivan finds that the relationship commonly found between satisfaction and commitment is spurious due to common determinants. In short, satisfaction and commitment have no significant relationship. His analysis, as previously indicated, assumes that satisfaction is a determinant of commitment. If replicated, Currivan's findings have important implications for the explanation of turnover, since many of the major models have a path between satisfaction and commitment. Satisfaction and commitment will remain in these explanations, if Currivan is correct, but not the path between the
two variables. Replication of Currivan's study is needed. This replication should use three time periods rather than the two which Currivan uses. Three time periods will allow a more accurate assessment of causal order.
The sixth article, by Allen and Griffeth, focuses on the relationship between job performance and turnover. Different scholars have dealt with various aspects of the job performance-turnover relationship; what Allen and Griffeth seek to do is to tie these different aspects together into a causal model.
Desirability and ease of movement-March and Simon's classic determinants of turnover1958-are historically treated, respectively, as satisfaction and number of alternatives in the environment.'' In discussing reward contingency and visibility as moderators, Allen and Griffeth suggest expansion of March and Simon's classic concepts. Desirability of movement, they suggest,should be expanded to encompass organizational commitment and the opportunity to transfer to another job within the organization; ease of movement should be extended to include quality of alternatives in the environment. Allen and Griffeth thus argue for another look by turnover scholars at March and Simon's desirability and ease of movement.
It is important to remind turnover scholars that there are different routes to turnover from the exogenous determinants. Not every
employee, for example,who leaves an organization does so because of dissatisfaction. Desirability of movement, commonly viewed as satisfaction, to return to Allen and Griffeth's model, is but one route to turnover. There is also ease of movement and performance-related shocks. Allen and Griffeth remind scholars of the different routes to turnover by means of reconciliation rather than rejection. Rather than simply rejecting the work of Dreher, Merton, and Lee/Mitchell as being incomplete, Allen and Griffeth reconcile their findings into a single model. It is easy to reject; it is more difficult, and productive, to reconcile.
Causal models of turnover generally examine the explanation of voluntary turnover with complex models. The articles by Iverson and Kim are illustrations of these models.Although more simplified than either the Iverson or Kim models, Currivan's model is still quite complex. The seventh article in this special issue, by Williams,deviates from both of these patterns by examining functional turnover with a simple model.
By means of meta-analytical structural equation modeling of secondary data, Gaertner finds that all of the determinants in his model, except pay, have direct impacts on job satisfaction. Only three determinants also have direct impact on organizational commitment. The determinants thus divide into two categories: those that only have an impact on satisfaction. Neither of the extreme positions is thus consistent with the data. An interesting feature of Gaertner's analysis
is the finding that pay, when other exogenous determinants are controlled, has no impact on satisfaction. Most models of turnover include pay as a key determinant.Gaertner's analysis must, of course, be replicated. His sample, for instance,mostly consists of middle-class employees and his results, especially those pertaining to pay, may not be found elsewhere.
Williams also found that unemployment, his labor market variable, had a direct influence on functional turnover. Surprisingly, poor performers left the organization when unemployment was high and job opportunities were low. As with the results for contingent rewards, satisfaction did not serve as a mediating variable.
The eighth and final article of the special issue is by Griffeth and his colleagues. Two important messages are conveyed by this article. First, the management of turnover must be sensitive to the different types of employee in the organization. There is no one best way to manage turnover for all employees. Second, the study of turnover must, in the long run, yield bottom-line organizational benefits or managers will not indefinitely support costly and time-consuming turnover research.
Griffeth and his colleagues construct a typology of employees which forms the basis of their managerial recommendations. There are two steps in their construction of the typology. First, based on high and low amounts of organizational commitment and job involvement, they create four types of employees:institutionalized stars high on both concepts;
lone wolves low on commitment and high on involvement; citizens high on commitment and low on involvement; and apathetics low on both concepts. Although a number of organizational scholars have developed typologies that use commitment and involvement, Griffeth et al. especially rely on the work of Blau and Boal 1987.Griffeth et al. illustrate these four types of employees with data drawn from the organizational literature. Second, Griffeth et al. discuss these four types of employees with material drawn from Farrell's 1983 analysis of Hirchman's classic work 1970.
The last part of the article by Griffeth and his colleagues is devoted to describing different management strategies for these types of employees. This article by Griffeth et al. is the only one of this special issue that has an applied component. Turnover researchers typically devote little time and effort to application, since the development and estimation of models has much higher prestige in the scholarly community. Implicit in the article by Griffeth et al. is the message that turnover scholars had best not forget application, because managers must ultimately have bottom-line organizational benefits from turnover research or else they will not continue to support this type of research.
译文
员工流失介绍专题
资料来源:人力资源管理评社 作者:詹姆斯,匹得
人力资源是现代公司最为重要的资源,人才是企业稳定持续发展不可或缺的。在经济高速发展的今天,人才就是商品,正常的人才流动对于任何公司优化人才结构,持续发展都是有益的。但是,如果公司人才流动过于频繁,将会影响到公司发展的稳定性和可持续性,特别是在公司负有一定职责、掌握公司的核心技术及核心机密的管理骨干或技术骨干频繁离职时,公司的生存和发展将会面临巨大危机。企业应该采取怎样的措施去吸纳人才、激励人才、留住人才,赢得人才的满意和忠诚,从而促进公司未来进一步的发展,已经成为这些企业目前急需解决的一个棘手问题。只有那些能够吸引、留住、开发、激励一流人才的企业才能成为市场竞争的真正赢家。所以研究人才的流失问题对于一个现代公司长期的战略发展有着极其重要的意义。
艾弗森, 金和汉希这三位学者针对人才离职的问题他们有着相同的看法。艾弗森认为是营业额的因果模型,而金认为是因为意向才留下来,??即他所称的“行为承诺”。正如1998年萨格尔,格里菲斯,与坎三人表明,这一意图留在可能不是最近的营业额变量因果序列。艾弗森的研究是首选的做法,并且这种模型被认为经常被拿来研究的。
营业额的数据分析显示通常是认为雇员要么是留下来的要么是离开的。这种策略没有考虑到离开者之间的不同性,在他们离开之前组织之间的成员多久都是不同的。总之,离开者和留下者地安排信息都是缺乏的,并且这种失去的信息将是非常的重要,由于从某种意义上来说,离开者各种长度的服务可能差异很大。艾弗森的使用事件对待历史分析营业额的连续性。通过多久,他们在工作方面更充分地利用各种可能的数据比其他专业的信息。 事件史分析 长期被用于医学研
究的地方通常被称作“生存分析”。不同的病人,例如,在医疗干预后有着不同的存活时期, 如服用某种药物或做手术。治疗营业额连续变量也提供了更先进的统计分析技术,因此建议策略 数据分析的营业额。
这可能是预计将减少增加亲属的责任和减少自愿离职的妇女,但不是男人,因为有亲属关系的义务 历来被让认为是妇女更为强烈的。艾弗森的数据,研究表示在医院里男女之间没有显著的差异 。重要的是要复制艾弗森的研究,因为性别差异 一直在亲属关系方面的重要。所以这是非常重要的强调了艾弗森的研究。
艾弗森的研究是在澳大利亚完成的。在20世纪40年代,50年代和60年代, 澳大利亚学者主要研了营业额数字。大多数的研究者熟悉雇员再培训计划与人事实践公报和熟悉 工业心理学与人事实践公报,双方都在澳大利亚发表了然而,近年来,很少有澳大利亚学者研究营业额。 艾弗森是生产出大量高质量的工作营业额,并承诺在这个地区恢复澳大利亚奖学金主要地位 。
金的研究是在韩国,不像澳大利亚没有大量的传统研究的营业额。然而,金开始研究产品质量研究的营业额,他可能是一个在韩国研究营业额的重大的传统的开始。
早期研究营业额是大约从1900至约1950年 重点在于男性,在制造企业的蓝领员工。在这个时间里,这些员工和公司在美国占主导地位。所以学者选择这些样本和网站是自然的。自大约1950年以后, 然而,样本和网站已有了明显的改变。目前更多的关注是服务于女性,在服务公司工作的白领员工。这个样品和网站转变是可取的: 如果通用因果模型要 发展,这是科学研究的目标,那么不同
的样本和网站必须加以研究。金的样本大多数是男性,都是有84%蓝领工作者,并且他们都是在汽车生产车间指导的。他因此在早起研究营业额的学者基础上开始研究样本和网站的类型。
研究营业额一般由亲属关系的变量使用作为其决定因素。经济学家和心理学家们长期垄断营业额的研究。经济学家集中在劳动报酬,这样的机会的决定因素 (即劳动力市场),以及培训类型,无论是否特殊或一般。 心理学家曾研究过这些决定因素如工作的满意程度,中心组织机构的承诺, 工作投入和处置变量,这些要么是积极和消极情感的。 经济学家和心理学家都没有备受关注过变量作为亲属关系的决定因素。不像经济学家和心理学家,社会学家关注亲属关系的变量, 艾弗森,作为一个社会学家,包括一些他做的的模型,即责任的数量。他推测,增加亲情的责任感将减少营业额。
大多数在工作满意度和组织承诺方面的研究的因果顺序都不是纵向的, 没有利用发展的因果模型也没有使用线性结构分析程序。 科森的研究是纵向的,使用了发展的因果模型及线性结构。因此,他的结果是在满意度和承诺方面的因果顺序的最好利用。科森同时发现,由于共同的决定因素,满意度之间的关系, 承诺是虚假的。总之,满意度和承诺没有显著的关系。他分析说,如前指出,假定满意是承诺的决定因素。如果被复制,科森的发现对于扩大营业额有着重要的意义。满意度与承诺将继续留在这些解释,如果科森是正确的,但在两者之间没有可变量。因此对科森的研究复制是必要的。这种复制应该使用三个时间段,而不是两个时间段。三个时间段期将允许因果秩序的更准确的评估。
艾伦和格里菲斯文章的第六章着重强调了工作业绩及营业额之间的关系 。
对于工作绩效和营业额的关系问题,不同的学者有不同的处理方式;艾伦和格里菲斯争取做的是把因果模型和这些不同方面联系在一起。
?月和西蒙的古典决定营业额在历史上被认为是可取性和易用性的,分别为满足感和“在环境中替代品的数量”。在讨论奖励的应急和主持人的知名度方面,艾伦和格里菲斯建议扩大?月和西蒙的经典概念。他们认为运动的可取性,应扩大到包括组织承诺和在组织间转移到另一份工作的机遇。运动的易用性应扩大到包括在环境中的替代品的质量。因此,艾伦和格里菲斯主张另一学者的在?月和西蒙营业额的可取性和易用性的运动。
重要的是有学者从外源决定因素以不同的路线来记录营业额。不是每一位员工,例如,因不满才离开一个组织。可取的运动,通常被认为是满意的效果,回顾艾伦和格里菲斯的模式,是一个途径。还有便于移动和性能相关的冲击。艾伦和格里菲斯不同学者提醒通过和解的手段,而不是排斥的方式。 不是简单地拒绝德雷赫,默顿,李米切尔工作的不完整性,艾伦和格里菲斯调和成一个单一的模式,这是容易拒绝并且是更加困难的。
因果模型的营业额一般检查营业额与复杂的模型。艾弗森和金写的文章阐述了这种模型。虽然艾弗森和金的模型比较简单化,但是科森的模式仍然相当复杂。在这第七条特殊的问题上,威廉姆斯认为从这些模式都功能化的营业额都有一个简单的模型。
通过分析二级结构方程模型数据,盖特纳认为,在他的模型中的所有决定因素里,除了工资,有着对工作的满意度的直接影响。只有三个因素对组织的承诺有着直接的影响。 这样的决定因素分为二类:那些仅对满意度方面有着一定的影
响 。因此,在极端的立场它们是与数据是不一致的的。在盖特纳有趣的分析中可以发现当其他外源因素控制时候,工资对于满意度是没有影响的。大多数营业额的模型包括正如盖特纳分析的薪酬的关键因素。当然,这是可以被复制的。例如他的样本 大部分由中产阶级的员工和他的结果组成,特别是那些关于薪酬,可能无法在其它地方找到。
威廉姆斯也发现,失业和劳动市场变数,对于功能化的营业额有着直接的影响。令人惊讶的是,当失业率高和就业机会很低时,差的表现者将会离开这个组织。随着组织奖励的成果出现,满意度将不再服务于中介变量。
该特刊第八篇和最后一篇文章是由格里菲斯和他的同事发表的。这篇文章传达两个重要的消息。首先,在组织中,营业额的管理必须照顾到不同类型的员工 。没有一种最佳的方式来管理各种流转员工。其次,必须从长远来看,研究营业额必须扩大到管理者的底线组织利益,没有明确的成本支持和时间消耗的营业额的研究。格里菲斯和他的同事构造出对于不同类型的员工管理他们的
建议的基础。在这种构造模型中有两个步骤。首先,建立在组织满意和员工成就方面,他们创建了四个类型: 制度化明星(高概念);孤独的狼(低评论和高参与),公民(高评论和低参与)和冷淡的人(低概念)。 虽然许多的组织学者已经使用承诺和类型学来发展这种类型学,但是格里菲斯等人 依靠在布劳和博尔(1987年)的研究从组织结构方面阐述了这四种类型的员工的数据图表。第二,格里菲斯等人讨论这四种类型与物质的员工来自菲(1983)和翰人(1983)的分析工作。
由格里菲斯和他的同事的文章的最后一部分是专门为员工描述这些类型不同的管理策略。格里菲斯等人。就是这个特殊的问题只有一个,有一个应用组
件。营业额研究者通常很少有时间和投入努力开发和应用,因为模型的估计,有更高的声望在学术界。格里菲斯等营业额的消息是学者们最不要忘记应用程序,因为管理者必须最终有底线的中心组织机构,否则他们将不会继续支持这种类型的研究
因篇幅问题不能全部显示，请点此查看更多更全内容