Article Preview
TopIntroduction
Turnover has been defined by (Thwala et al., 2012; Price, 2001), as the movement of the employees out of the organization boundaries, while the intention reflects the employee declaration about specific behavior of interest (Berndt, 1981). Studies have shown that turnover is one of the top studied issues in organizational behavior (Price, 2001). The widespread range of turnover studies is a sign of the importance of the phenomena.
The Psychological aspect, organizational significance, and economic aspect of the turnover phenomena are the main factors beyond the great amount of studies done about the issue. Therefore, it is very crucial for HRM executives to realize that there are several causes to counter employee’s turnover intention; such as: employees “perceived ease of movement,” which reflect the assessment of perceived substitutes or alternative opportunity and employees’ “perceived desirability of movement,” which is impacted by other factors such as job satisfaction (Morrell et al., 2004; Abdullah et al., 2012). Therefore, it is very important for the organization to balance between work and compensation in order to be able to reduce the turnover among employees.
Human resource mismanagement may negatively influence both; employee and organization. Loss of professionals and talents, loss of reputation, financial impact and the negative effect on the organization productivity and performance are some of the examples of the effects of turnover on organizations. While, loss of prestige, adjusting to new employer, cost of job search and cost of geographic relocation are an example of the effect turnover on employees, (Liu et al., 2010; Weisberg & Kirschenbaum, 1991; Loi, Hang-yue & Foley, 2006). On the other hand, other studies reported that individuals’ turnover is not considered to be always negative. For instance, Mohammad & Nathan (2008) pointed out that turnover has positive effect for both employer and worker. For the employer, turnover might be a successful tactic to shift the poor performers, inject fresh blood in to the organization. Whereas, for worker turnover could lead to better chances of higher prestige extra payment, minor workload and healthier working environments.
Turnover indicators show a high rates across the globe. Hay Group (2014) stated that the average of personnel turnover rates over the next five years across the globe are forecast to rise from 20.6 percent in 2014 to 23.4 percent in 2018. In European Union an average of 4.8% of employees’ turnover has been reported in 2008 (Buzeti et al., 2016), whereas in 2010 the Brazilian ministry of labor reported significant turnover rates of up to 19% in the retail sector (Ferreira & Almeida, 2015). Hong Kong and Singapore reported turnover rates of up to 10% in 2011, whilst China reported a shocking rate of 20% in the same year (Anvari et al., 2014). Similarly, in United Arab Emirates the ministry of labor reported staff turnover rate of 21% among the UAE work force which cost the business market around Dhs 2.7 billion annually (Gulf news, 2008).
Health care service experience an alarming rate of employee turnover across the world; for instance, the average turnover rate at the national level of the health care sector in United States recorded around 15.6% and in some states it reached more than 30%. This alarming and continuously increasing rate of turnover will cost the health care organizations a huge amount of money and will form a very significant threat to the health care services worldwide (Johns, 2000).