Context-Emergent Turnover (CET) Theory: A Theory of Collective Turnover

By Anthony J. Nyberg, Robert E. Ployhart. 2013

225 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management Science and Operations Research, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bfce023132b53a6bdca11e4aebcb10a95f07091b

How researchers see this paper

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

In Management Science and Operations Research

1. Robert E. Ployhart
2. P. Bliese
3. Anthony J. Nyberg
4. Donald J. Schepker
5. Jenna R. Pieper
6. S. Essman
7. Thomas P. Moliterno
8. David P. Lepak

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

1. Robert E. Ployhart
2. Anthony J. Nyberg
3. Donald Hale
4. C. Trevor
5. David P. Lepak
6. Thomas P. Moliterno
7. Jenna R. Pieper
8. R. Amrhein

In Strategy and Management

1. Robert E. Ployhart
2. Anthony J. Nyberg
3. Thomas P. Moliterno
4. C. Trevor
5. Donald Hale
6. David P. Lepak
7. Jenna R. Pieper
8. Greg Reilly

Citations in the corpus

• Supervisory coaching and performance feedback as mediators of the relationships between leadership styles, work engagement, and turnover intention (2018, unknown): “…and retaining knowledge as a competitive organizational advantage by making sure that leaders possess transformational leadership style (rather than transactional leadership style) that is conducive in in fl uencing employees ’ behaviours positively (Nyberg and Ployhart 2013; Reilly et al. 2014).”
• Pay-for-Performance’s Effect on Future Employee Performance (2016, result): “Such an application may be similar to recent unit level turnover theory advancements (e.g., Hausknecht & Holwerda, 2013; Nyberg & Ployhart, 2013).”
• Resource-Based Perspectives on Unit-Level Human Capital (2014, background): “…change of the unit-level HCR (Lepak & Snell, 1999): Individual employees are selected to join the organization, are affected by HRM practices, and become included in a unit-level HCR. Symmetrically, when employees leave the organization the composition of the HCR changes (Nyberg & Ployhart, 2013).”
• Human Capital Is Dead; Long Live Human Capital Resources! (2014, background): “Indeed, employee mobility may change the nature of the collective construct (Felin et al., 2009; Nyberg & Ployhart, 2013).”
• Bridging Methodological Divides Between Macro- and Microresearch: Endogeneity and Methods for Panel Data (2020, background): “According to context-emergent turnover theory, one might expect that greater collective turnover will contribute to lower ROI as a result of the depletion of human capital resources and disruptions to productivity (Nyberg & Ployhart, 2013).”
• Understanding Agency Problems in Headquarters-Subsidiary Relationships in Multinational Corporations: A Contextualized Model (2018, unknown): “This helped to avoid the potential fallacy of applying individual-level constructs to the unit level without proper theorizing (Nyberg & Ployhart, 2013; Rousseau, 1985) and to develop a theoretically grounded alternative for examining unit-level agency.”
• 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).”