Collective Turnover at the Group, Unit, and Organizational Levels: Evidence, Issues, and Implications

By John P. Hausknecht, C. Trevor. 2011

378 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5de4189366b1963ab4d36ce118d7ba906d7e0e43

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Unit-Level Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB): A Conceptual Review and Quantitative Summary (2020, background): “Over time, the aggregated decisions of employees to leave represent unit-level turnover (see Hausknecht & Trevor, 2011; Nyberg & Ployhart, 2013).”
Employee Mobility and Organizational Outcomes (2016, background): “…and an advantage to destination firms, such as spin-outs that experience higher survival rates when their founding teams are larger (Agarwal, Campbell, Franco, & Ganco, in press; see also Hausknecht & Trevor, 2011, for a review of the impacts of collective employee turnover from the HR literature).”
Third Party Employment Branding: Human Capital Inflows and Outflows Following “Best Places to Work” Certifications (2016, background): “…Mitchell, Lee, & Eberly, 2008), contributes to recent models of collective turnover by incorporating branding effects as a potentially important antecedent (e.g., Hausknecht & Trevor, 2011; Heavey et al., 2013), and indicates that third parties may be important participants in signaling systems.”
“Our Most Important Asset” (2014, background): “For example, research finds that collective (unit-level) turnover is more costly than estimates provided from the individual level, because the latter fail to account for coordination disruptions, losses of human capital, and the possibility of turnover contagion (Hausknecht & Trevor, 2011).”
A High Performance Work Practices Taxonomy (2013, background): “This area is important because reducing employee withdrawal and turnover can improve organizational performance (Hausknecht & Trevor, 2011; Huselid, 1995; Wang et al., 2011).”
The Effect of Emotional Intelligence on Turnover Intention and the Moderating Role of Perceived Organizational Support: Evidence from the Banking Industry of Vietnam (2020, neutral): “Hausknecht and Trevor [3] noted that turnover results in the loss of both social and human capital.”
How Does Human Resource Management Influence Organizational Outcomes? A Meta-analytic Investigation of Mediating Mechanisms (2012, background): “However, a growing literature indicates that voluntary turnover may moderate the relationship between HRM and financial outcomes (e.g., Guthrie, 2001; Hausknecht & Trevor, 2011; Shaw, 2011; Shaw et al., 2005).”
Meta-Analytic Review of Employee Turnover as a Predictor of Firm Performance (2013, methodology): “More specifically, we develop and test a conceptual model based on Hausknecht and Trevor’s (2011) framework of collective turnover (see Figure 1).”
The Microfoundations Movement in Strategy and Organization Theory (2015, background): “Rather, similar to critiques by Johns (2006) and Heath and Sitkin (2001), we argue that context is rarely central to micro research, and when it is considered, context is either focused within an organizational environment or in terms of perceptions of context from the view of individuals (Johns, 20”
Does Turnover Intention Matter? Evaluating the Usefulness of Turnover Intention Rate as a Predictor of Actual Turnover Rate (2016, background): “That is, as employees’ collective job satisfaction increases, organizational turnover decreases (Hausknecht & Trevor, 2011).”