௠ Academy of Management Journal 2009, Vol. 52, No. 3, 545–561. TURNOVER CONTAGION: HOW COWORKERS’ JOB EMBEDDEDNESS AND JOB SEARCH BEHAVIORS INFLUENCE QUITTING WILL FELPS Erasmus University TERENCE R. MITCHELL University of Washington, Seattle DAVID R. HEKMAN University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee THOMAS W. LEE University of Washington, Seattle BROOKS C. HOLTOM Georgetown University WENDY S. HARMAN Central Washington University This research developed and tested a model of turnover contagion in which the job embeddedness and job search behaviors of coworkers influence employees’ decisions to quit. 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 embedded- ness and job search behaviors explain variance in individual “voluntary turnover” over and above that explained by 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. As the global economy becomes increasingly On the macro side, economic research often looks knowledge based, organizations that can success- at particular industries or localities to explain how fully retain their human resources have an advan- market forces such as unemployment rates or job tage over organizations that cannot. Indeed, a num- supply and demand affect the frequency with ber of studies have shown that turnover negatively which people leave their jobs (e.g., Banerjee & Gas- effects performance (e.g., Shaw, Gupta, & Delery, ton, 2004). Sociological research has also looked at 2005). Hatch and Dyer summarized such findings how turnover affects and is affected by institutional with the observation that “firms with high turnover changes within and across industries (e.g., Have- significantly under-perform their rivals” (2004: man, 1995), as well as organizational variables such 1155). As such, organizational leaders are inter- as size (Price, 1977). ested in understanding why people choose to leave The unique contribution of management scholar- their jobs and insights that might help with em- ship is not only to investigate the individual or ployee retention (Ulrich & Smallwood, 2006). Ac- institutional level, but also what emanates from the cordingly, researchers have spent considerable ef- careful exploration of “the space in between” fort developing and testing models to explain why (Bradbury & Lichtenstein, 2000). For this reason, people quit. organizational researchers are often encouraged to To explain the phenomenon of employee turn- do “meso-level” research, in which individuals are over, the social sciences have offered both psycho- studied in their social contexts (e.g., House, Rous- logical (i.e., micro) and organizational and eco- seau, & Thomas-Hunt, 1995; Johns, 2006). How- nomic (i.e., macro) explanations. On the micro ever, there is surprisingly little work on how social side, job satisfaction and organizational commit- relationships affect turnover. To quote Pfeffer, ment have captured most of the research interest. “Turnover has most often been examined as the 545 Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download or email articles for individual use only. 546 Academy of Management Journal June consequence of an individual decision process, port, coworker support, and distributive justice with the individual acting in isolation.... Virtu- (Price, 1977; Price & Mueller, 1986). It is important ally all of the dominant models of turnover concep- to note that in Price and Mueller’s model, as in tualize it as an individual decision, without con- virtually all other traditional models, various fac- sidering the effect of social structure” (1991: 795). tors influence turnover through their impact on Although Pfeffer’s comment overlooks the work of organizational commitment and job satisfaction, economists and sociologists, he is broadly correct which in turn influence intent to leave, which then in stating that the bulk of management research on leads to voluntary turnover. turnover focuses on individual attitudes as the sole The result of subsequent scholarship based on precursor to leaving. The influence of one’s imme- these ideas is both impressive and troublesome. It diate coworkers on turnover decisions (what Pfeffer is impressive in that turnover theory and research describes as social structure) has been largely have proceeded programmatically in such a way ignored. that researchers can be confident about a pair of This article investigates the social dimensions of assertions. First, less satisfied and less committed quitting and offers a model of “turnover contagion” employees think about leaving, look for alternative in which the decision to stay at or leave a job is jobs, are more likely to quit, and do each of these to influenced by coworkers. We provide evidence that a greater degree when they believe that desirable turnover decisions are a domain in which cowork- job alternatives exist. Second, many individual- ers can influence an actor’s thoughts, judgments, and macro-level variables are related to turnover feelings, and behaviors (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). through satisfaction and commitment. However, Two field studies support the predictive validity of the turnover literature is also troublesome in that our model, offering new insights into the interper- even the most inclusive models leave the vast ma- sonal precursors of “voluntary turnover” (job leav- jority of variance unexplained (e.g., Griffeth, Hom, ing). We argue that this type of meso-level research & Gaertner, 2000; Maertz & Campion, 1998; Price & can widen researchers’ conceptual lenses, increase Mueller, 1986). A number of authors have therefore our ability to predict turnover, and enhance the suggested that scholars need to expand their con- utility of turnover research for practitioners. ceptual lenses to better understand employee turn- over (e.g., Kammeyer-Mueller, Wanberg, Glomb, & Ahlburg, 2005; Maertz & Campion, 1998; Mitchell TOWARD A THEORY OF & Lee, 2001; Mossholder, Settoon, & Henagan, TURNOVER CONTAGION 2005). The framework we describe below, in which we outline the turnover contagion process, is such Turnover Research Heritage an expansionary attempt. March and Simon’s (1958) seminal book, Orga- nizations, marks the real beginning of the attempt The Turnover Contagion Process to develop an overall theory explaining why people leave their jobs. According to March and Simon’s The central theoretical claim made here is that theory, the two factors that determine whether an when an employee’s coworker engages in behaviors employee will leave his or her job are the perceived antecedent to leaving a job, these activities some- desirability of leaving the employing organization times spill over onto others in such a way that the (conceptualized as job satisfaction and organiza- affected others are more likely to leave. Put more tional commitment) and the perceived ease of leav- precisely, a coworker’s search for job alternatives or ing the organization (conceptualized as the quality actual quitting can spread, through a process of of job alternatives). The research focusing on job social contagion, to affect another employee’s quit- satisfaction and organizational commitment, in ting behavior. Like the contagion of illness, the particular, has been extensive. Mobley (1977) iden- process involves the transmission of something tified the sequential and intermediary variables from one individual to another. For us, the “some- leading from job dissatisfaction to eventual quit- thing” is the tendency to leave a job. Others have ting. In an exemplar of programmatic turnover re- used the contagion metaphor to understand the search, Price and Mueller (1986) added to this spread of burnout (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2000), emo- model by cataloging the antecedents of organiza- tions (Barsade, 2002), and long work hours (Brett & tional commitment and job satisfaction, including Stroh, 2003). pay, social integration, instrumental communica- We believe that the primary mechanism in turn- tion, formal communication, centralization, routi- over contagion is people’s pervasive tendency to nization, role overload, promotional opportunity, compare themselves to others. Research on social professionalism, general training, supervisor sup- comparison has documented that this tendency is 2009 Felps, Mitchell, Hekman, Lee, Holtom, and Harman 547 among the most robust and ubiquitous of psycho- was related to individual employee absenteeism. logical phenomena (Kruglanski & Mayseless, 1990). And Eder and Eisenberger (2008) demonstrated “The notion that people rely on others to help that the average tardiness of work group members define reality in ambiguous circumstances has long is related to individual tardiness. They also been a core tenet in social psychology” (Degoey, showed, in a second study, that withdrawal behav- 2000: 58). Salancik and Pfeffer (1978) extended iors carried out at the group level, such as taking Festinger’s (1954) original work on social compar- undeserved work breaks or engaging in idle conver- ison to organizational behavior and job attitudes, sation, influence the probability that individuals and Bandura (1977) applied these insights to learn- do the same.