Factors in Hertzberg theory: Literature Review

Chapter 2 – Literature Review

Your literature review should be completed as part of the proposal process. Provide any updates based upon continuing work. Begin adjusting verb tense from the future tense of the proposal to the past tense for the completed dissertation.

Factors in Hertzberg theory: Literature Review

Summary

As part of clear writing, the judicious use of summary paragraphs is helpful. Even the best-written literature reviews and research can lose connection or flow with the reader. Periodic summary statements that clarify the key points or findings of a section can help keep the reader informed and engaged.

 **The Literature Review will need to be lengthy to have enough information. An example has been attached below, as well as my actual report to get an overview on what you’re looking at. . 

Sample Paper

Chapter 2 – Literature Review

The purpose of this quantitative correlational study was to examine whether relationships

exist among job performance, transformational leadership style, and employee turnover intention

in the United States. Interest grew in the past 30 years, combining transformational leadership

and employee turnover intention, based on the assumptions that employees are likely to be

influenced by their leader’s behavior (Gyensare et al., 2016). Gyensare et al. (2016) noted

transformational leadership style was a key variable in lowered employee turnover intention and

enhanced employee well-being. Buil et al. (2019) stated job performance was an organizational

benefit deriving from transformational leadership style.

This literature review was structured to provide key concepts and related factors to the

research variables. In the first section, the researcher defined job performance and measurements

related to this performance. This included the 360-feedback and performance appraisal. The next

section discussed and measured transformational leadership style followed by employee turnover

intention. The fourth section covered contrasting and supporting theories relative to my

theoretical framework. The final section entailed profitability and a discussion of the auto

manufacturing industry.

The existing research in the literature review focused on the relationships between the

variables of employee turnover intention, transformational leadership style, and job performance.

The top journals used include the International Journal of Academic Research in Business and

Social Sciences, International Journal of Productivity and performance management, Journal of

Managerial Psychology, International Journal of Business and Management, Journal of Human

Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, International Journal of Business Administration,

International Journal of Selection & Assessment, SAM advanced management journal, and

Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research.

To locate research for this study, EbscoHosts and Education Resources Information

Center (ERIC) were used. The keywords used in the searches include employee turnover

intention, transformational leadership style, factors of employee turnover intention, job

performance impact, employee turnover and job performance, transformational and

transactional leadership style, the cost of employee turnover intention, LMX theory, measuring

job performance, employee turnover and profit, transformational leadership theory, and

measuring employee turnover intention.

The Automotive Industry

In the early days, the majority of U.S. manufacturing was centered in a small part of the

Northwest and eastern side of the Midwest (Krugman, 1991). The early automotive

manufacturers primarily put together the completed product by components and parts brought

from outside suppliers (Peterson, 1987). Henry Ford established a vision of the automobile by

introducing the Model T in 1909 (Sturgeon & Florida, 2000). This Model T introduction

symbolized the mass production of identical objects, interchangeable parts, and sequentially

ordered moving assembly lines (Peterson, 1987). By 1909, unit output per worker rose from 6.8

to 11.4 in 1912 and 19.2 in 1913 (Sturgeon & Florida, 2000). For example, in 1910, one car was

found for every 19,000 people and by the 1930s, one car was possessed by every 4.5 individuals

(Peterson, 1987).

Cooney and Yacobucci (2007) stated that today, over one million Americans have

employment in motor vehicle, parts, and equipment manufacturing. Ford, Chrysler, and General

Motors (the Big Three) shed roughly 600,000 U.S. jobs since the 1980s and 25 percent of

employed Americans work for foreign-owned companies (Cooney & Yacobucci, 2007). By

2003, most of the vehicles sold in the U.S. were manufactured or imported by foreign-based

producers at new plants in North America (Cooney & Yacobucci, 2007). The North American

production has been accompanied by industry tension created by the entrance of international

competitors as domestic manufacturers (Drummond & Maxwell, 2010).

Predictor Variables

Job Performance

Job performance is performing the duty and responsibility of a given task encompassing

already known factors like time, speed, and efficiency (Zeb et al., 2019). Job performance can

worsen or improve with a change of employees (Dokko et al., 2009). At the most basic level, job

performance is about what an employee does and does not do on the job (Jackson & Frame,

2018). Jackson and Frame (2018) stated job performance is multidimensional, requiring different

kinds of behaviors. Job performance behaviors can be negative, neutral, or positive in terms of

the degree to which the behaviors contribute toward attaining the employee’s goals,

organizational mission, or department objectives (Jackson & Frame, 2018). Zeb et al. (2019)

noted in the corporate sector, research into employee job performance was a valuable resource

for organizational leaders as job performance destroyed or built the profitability and reputation

of a company.

Ramawickrama et al. (2017) discussed in the 1920s that job performance was stated as

quantity and quality of the output of each employee working in an organization. Arvey and

Murphy (1998) found from 1950 to 1980, most research focused on improving the tools used in

making job performance rating scales. Anderson et al. (2001) discussed in 1957 that job

performance had six dimensions: (a) lost time, (b) output, (c) quality, (d) satisfaction, (e) training

time, (f) and turnover.

Researchers and leaders showed an interest in recognizing conditions that encouraged job

performance (Hui et al., 2007). Mahdinezhad et al., (2013) explained the idea of performance

included two concepts: efficiency relating inputs with outcomes and effectiveness linking

outcomes with the anticipated goals and results. Mahdinezhad et al. (2013) mentioned leaders’

performance was an important factor in assessing organizational performance. High employee

performance was needed for organizations to achieve goals (Mahdinezhad et al., 2013). Hui et al.

 (2007) declared employees with turnover intentions developed low job performance expectations

that undermined their actual performance.

Measuring Job Performance

Rating scales, job knowledge tests, hands-on job samples, and archival records were

previously used to assess job performance (Sonnentag et al., 2008). Pringle and Blumberg (1986)

explained influences in performance were organized into two categories: the first had to do with

an individual’s capacity to perform and the second with a leader’s willingness to perform.

Pringle and Blumberg (1986) discussed job performance be written as P= f (O, C, W) meaning

performance (P) is a function (f) of opportunity, capacity, and willingness (O, C, W). All three

categories- opportunity, capacity, and willingness- needed to be present for high job performance

to happen (Pringle & Blumberg, 1986). London and Tornow (1998) mentioned one measurement

of job performance is performance appraisal. From these measurement options, performance

ratings such as peer or supervisor ratings were the most frequent way of measuring job

performance (Sonnentag et al., 2008). Two performance ratings are discussed below.

The 360-degree Feedback

Ward (1997) defined 360-degree feedback as the systematic collection and feedback of

performance data on an individual or group derived from the individuals around them. London

and Beatty (1993) mentioned that the 360-degree feedback approach identified minimum change

to be expected without feedback. Ghorpade (2000) noticed the 360-degree feedback was

different from traditional performance appraisals, as feedback was given anonymously. The use

of 360-degree feedback in organizations had roots in several industrial and organizational

psychology (London & Tornow, 1998). Ghorpade (2000) stated the 360-degree feedback

program permitted organizational members to receive feedback on their performance. London

and Beatty (1993) noted that 360-degree feedback enhanced performance and communication in

employees by initiating leadership training programs for developmental purposes and guidance.

In some organizations, the 360-degree feedback was solely used for employee development

while in others served as input for merit evaluation and compensation adjustment (London &

Beatty, 1993). London and Tornow (1998) declared the performance dimensions measured by a

360-degree feedback instrument represented the standards used to evaluate organizational

members.

In 360-degree feedback, rating scales could be similar for all raters or be customized to

reflect the unique features of each relationship (London & Beatty, 1993). For example, London

and Beatty (1993) stated that upward feedback, where subordinates rated their supervisor, may

consist of items focused on the manager-subordinate relationship. Ghorpade (2000) stated the

360-degree concept did not solely rely on the information of leaders but instead enlisted

subordinates, peers, supervisors, and customers on providing feedback on aspects of their

performance. London and Beatty (1993) revealed feedback called attention to important

performance dimensions thus neglected by an organization in conveying organizational values.

Ghorpade (2000) mentioned research demonstrated that anonymous feedback was more honest

and closer to how raters felt.

This feedback cannot be seen as a tool of a one-time event but understood as a part of an

ongoing process of assessment, performance evaluation, and discussion of performance with

supervisors and subordinates (London & Tornow, 1998). Many of the programs were carried out

in the absence of a strategic context and failed to focus on contributions they made to the

organization’s competitive advantage (Ghorpade, 2000). London and Beatty (1993) stated the

costs associated with 360-degree feedback as time and money for preparation and

implementation. Many organizations adopted the 360-degree feedback without clearly defining

the program’s mission and left employees to figure out the results and not develop goals/action

plans (Ghorpade, 2000). For instance, Ghorpade (2000) detailed that employees who receive

feedback be left by themselves to figure out how to cope with results and not develop action

plans or goals following the 360-degree application.

Vinson (1996) noted individuals use their role as feedback providers to criticize others or

vent negative personal feelings. Ghorpade (2000) discussed raters who scored high on the

feedback examined their results with appraisers while fearful feedback raters attempted to force

providers to reveal themselves through intimidation. London and Beatty (1993) maintained the

time and money associated with 360-degree feedback for preparation and implementation added

complexity to the appraisal process. This complexity included distributing the forms to the

correct individuals, gathering data, entailing the use of sophisticated computer programming, and

getting outside help.

Performance Appraisals

Performance appraisals are conducted primarily for organizational evaluation and have

opportunities for job assignments and promotions (London & Beatty, 1993). Jackson and Frame

(2018) noted performance appraisals are meant for an organization to regularly describe and

assess the weakness and strengths of an employee’s performance. In traditional performance

appraisals, supervisory ratings were often the sole source of evaluation data (London & Beatty,

1993). Jackson and Frame (2018) stated that performance appraisals take standardized multi-item

scales and are rated by the leaders/supervisors working with employees. Hui et al. (2007)

provided leaders with evaluations of individual employee performances with a five-item job

performance scale. Sample questions for that study included “never neglects aspects of the job

he/she is obligated to perform” and “fulfills all responsibility required by his/her job” (Hui et al.,

2007, p. 740).

Mahdinezhad et al. (2013) found that leadership effect on performance was vital. Some

researchers view leadership as a key motivating force for enhancing job performance. Training in

job performance help ensure employee competency and encourages employees to meet

organizational objectives and goals, acquire new skills, ensure satisfactory performance, and

perform jobs in the organization (Long et al., 2012). Mahdinezhad et al. (2013) identified that

evaluation on the performance of a leader encompassed inquiring how well he/she is conducting

his/her functions. Hui et al. (2007) contended that the more desire an employee had to stay with

an organization, the more willing an employee would be to invest in the organization by doing

well.

Models in Job Performance

The first aspect of job performance is task performance (Rich et al., 2010). Rich et al.

(2010) defined task performance as the activities directly involved in accomplishing job tasks

that supported the organization’s technical core. Jankingthong and Rurkkhum (2012) further

explained task performance as the effectiveness in which job incumbents performed activities

that contributed to the organizational foundation. Rich et al. (2010) noted that task performance

behaviors are central to any given job. Sonnentag et al. (2008) explained task performance

covered fulfilling the requirements that are part of the contract between employee and employer.

Rich et al. (2010) noted that job performance included task performance and emergent behaviors

that indirectly contributed to the organization, such as contextual performance.

Jankingthong and Rurkkhum (2012) noted contextual performance is a performance not

formally required as part of the job but helps shape the psychological and social context of the

organization. Viswesvaran and Ones (2000) described contextual performance as cooperating

with others, supporting organizational objectives, and volunteering to carry out tasks not part of

their job. Contextual behaviors were less likely to be role-prescribed and less likely to be built

into a formal reward structure, while task-related behaviors were crucial in organizational

functioning (Schmitt et al., 2003). Sonnentag et al. (2008) mentioned contextual performance

indirectly contributed to organizational operations by facilitating task completion. Motowildo et

al., (1997) stated contextual performance does not contribute to an organization’s core processes

but did maintain the broader social, psychological, and organizational environment where the

core should function.

Organizations have been characterized by changing, dynamic environments where the

need for adaptive performance became increasingly significant (Pulakos et al., 2000). Shoss et al.

(2012) suggested adaptive performance is a fact that reflected acquiring enhanced competencies

in employees to respond to organizational change. An aspect of adaptive performance involved

adapting to physical factors such as noise, heat, difficult environments, and uncomfortable

climates (Pulakos et al., 2000). Charbonnier‐Voirin and Roussel (2012) mentioned successful

adaptive performance required that employees adapt quickly and made decisions in the face of

inherent uncertainty and ambiguity. Employees have demonstrated adaptive performance by

adjusting behaviors to new events and work situations (Pulakos et al., 2000). Without

consideration of adaptive performance, performance models become too static to represent the

vagaries and exigencies of the modern workplace (Schmitt et al., 2003). Tasks performance is

predicted mainly by ability, contextual performance is mainly predicted by personality and

motivation, whereas cognitive ability is associated with adaptive performance (Sonnentag et al.,

2008).

Transformational Leadership Style

Leaders use transformational leadership style to inspire workers to fulfill the vision of the

organization. Alatawi (2017) noted transformational leaders are concerned with vision,

supportive leadership, staff development, innovative thinking, empowerment, leading by

example, and charisma. A leader’s transformational leadership style will lower employee

turnover through increased trust in management and improved job performance

(Ariyabuddhiphongs & Kahn, 2017). Transformational leaders have influenced subordinate

emotional attachment to the organization which helped to reduce employee turnover and advance

job performance (Ariyabuddhiphongs & Kahn, 2017). Ariyabuddhiphongs and Kahn (2017)

stated that transformational leadership style helped organizations thrive in changing

environments by putting extra effort into performance, challenging attitudes, and encouraging

followers to have established creative solutions for complex problems.

Kark et al. (2003) mentioned transformational leadership style often resulted in employee

independence, growth, and empowerment. Rolfe (2011) noted the premise in transformational

leadership style is that a leader possessed the skills to grow successful relationships with

employees and created an environment where the employee and leader strive to have

organizational goals met. A transformational leader in an organization is one who considers how

to maintain and improve the quality and quantity of performance, and who has the strength to

argue for what is right, and who displays self-confidence (Ariyabuddhiphongs & Kahn, 2017).

Bass and Avolio (1990) and Kark et al. (2003) explained the impact of transformational

leadership style on employee performance was often described as stemming from employee

empowerment and development, which raised their motivation and ability. Kark et al. (2003)

determined transformational leadership style included empowering employee behaviors such as

the enhanced capacity for independent thought, increased responsibility, or the ability to delegate

and encourage new and creative ideas. Holsinger and Carlton (2018) stated only transformational

leadership style had been linked to employee satisfaction, improved quality, productivity, and

perceived leadership efficacy.

Research continues to invest efforts in exploring new frontiers of this leadership

paradigm, such as Siangchokyoo et al. (2020) study of the development of transformational

leadership, while critics noted serious flaws in transformational leadership style and called for

the abandonment of this leadership style. Van Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013) refuted that the

transformational leadership style’s measurement tools were invalid, failed to reproduce the

dimensional structure specified by theory, and failed to achieve distinctiveness from other

leadership aspects. Kuantan (2015) countered transformational leadership style did not clearly

recognize a condition where the leadership was unfavorable. Rolfe (2011) mentioned while the

benefits of implementing a transformational leadership style were significant, an awareness of

the limitations was crucial. One awareness was leaders being conscious of the misuse that may

have occurred when incorporating this leadership into practice (Rolfe, 2011). This occurred

when leaders strived to become transformational and misused the training to their self-interested

values (Bass & Avolio, 1990). Employees under this form of transformational leader misuse

could be misdirected away from their best interests and those of the organization (Bass &

Avolio, 1990).

Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Frey et al. (2009) declared that the multifactor

leadership questionnaire (MLQ) instrument was designed to measure transformational leadership

style and the degree to which leaders exhibited these styles. The MLQ is the most widely used

instrument for measuring transformational leadership style (Tejeda et al., 2001). The MLQ was

administered to employees to rate how often their leader used each form of leadership behavior

(Yukl, 1999). Frey et al. (2009) mentioned there are five leadership dimensions included on the

MLQ scale (a) idealized-influence attribute, (b) idealized-influence behavior, (c) inspirational

motivation, (d) individualized consideration, and (e) intellectual stimulation.

There are two aspects to idealized influence: the leader’s behavior and the fundamentals

attributed by followers to the leaders (Long et al., 2014). An example from the MLQ that

represented idealized influence is “the leader emphasizes the significance of possessing a

collective sense of mission” (Long et al., 2014, p 118). Frey et al. (2009) mentioned idealized

influence attributes and behaviors describe a purposeful, visionary, and trustworthy leader. Kark

and Shamir (2002) stated that idealized influences included sacrificing for the group’s benefit,

setting a personal example, and demonstrating high ethical standards.

Frey et al. (2009) discussed inspirational motivation exemplified a leader who motivated

performance levels in employees beyond expectations. Kark and Shamir (2002) noted

inspirational motivation included the formation and presentation of future visions, emotional

arguments, and demonstration of enthusiasm and optimism. An MLQ example from this

dimension can be found in Appendix G.

In individualized consideration, transformational leaders wage distinct attention to every

individual’s need for development and attainment by taking responsibility for each need (Long et

al., 2014). Schriesheim et al. (2009) mentioned leaders in individualized consideration uniquely

treated employees according to their individual capabilities and needs. Frey et al. (2009) noted

individualized consideration described an empathic leader who listened to employees’ needs. An

example of this dimension can be found in Appendix G.

Frey et al. (2009) stated that intellectual stimulation was designed to assess leader

attributes that question the status quo, value intellect, and prefer reasons over emotionally made

decisions. Followers are inspired to try new ways and their ideas are not disapproved if they

differ from a leader’s thoughts (Long et al., 2014). Intellectual stimulation included the behaviors

that raise awareness of issues and challenge followers to look at problems from a different

perspective (Kark & Shamir, 2002). An example of intellectual stimulation in the MLQ can be

found in Appendix G.

Criterion Variable

Employee Turnover Intention

Rahman and Nas (2013) described employee turnover as the employee’s permanent

movement beyond their current organization. In 2013, more than 25 million U.S. employees quit

their jobs, making employee replacement costs average up to 500% of the vacated employee’s

yearly salary (Okae, 2018). Even before an employee formally quit a job, turnover intentions

were likely to affect the employee’s performance in the organization (Biron & Boon, 2013).

Biron and Boon (2013) suggested employees having high turnover intentions were likely to show

minimal organizational citizenship behavior and often gave poor customer service.

Allen and Griffeth (1999) and March and Simon (1958) noted theory and research on

employee turnover intention drew from the perceived desirability and ease of movement

framework. This ease of movement happened when an employee began the quitting process after

another job is readily available (March & Simon, 1958; Jha, 2009). An individual with employee

turnover intention would lose long-term financial benefits such as health benefits, retirement

plans, and be a target of the “grass looks greener” phenomenon (Jha, 2009, p. 26). Employees

responded to “shocks” in the work environment causing them to think of quitting their jobs as

these shocks happened from employees receiving negative feedback during formal performance

appraisals or informal job performance feedback (Allen & Griffeth, 1999; Zimmerman &

Darnold, 2009, p. 144).

Kim et al. (2017) found employee turnover intention was linked with actual voluntary

turnover. Employees would consider the impact on family, career, and life before taking action

in leaving an organization (Hongvichit, 2015). Hongvichit (2015) mentioned employee turnover

intention was a direct factor that predicted the behavior of turnover and led to turnover behavior.

Hongvichit (2015) stated many factors were involved between turnover intention and job

performance, a multi-link and multi-path system of relationships. Jackofsky (1984) stated high

job performance employees were more likely to leave willingly, yet Dreher (1982) found

employees with high job performance may have less yearning to leave as they received greater

rewards from the organization.

Committed employees were less likely to leave an organization and achieved beyond

stated job requirements while contributing to the company (Perryer et al., 2010). Caldwell et al.

(2012) noted leaders benefited by understanding that committed employees whose character and

code of conduct not only motivated them to excel but assumed any risks that accompanied

having the courage to be the best at their work. Committed employees having courage

understood that while sacrificing principles to be the best, the organization could move toward

failure, but they cared enough to risk failure since it is the right thing to do (Caldwell et al.,

2012).

Employees committed to their organization were more likely to remain and exert efforts

on behalf of the organization and work toward its success (Dixit & Bhati, 2012). A committed

employee made a significant and personal organizational contribution, performed better than a

standard employee, engaged in organizational citizenship behaviors, and was less likely to

partake in unproductive behaviors (Perryer et al., 2010). Non-committed employees depicted the

organization in negative terms to outsiders, thereby inhibiting the organization’s ability to recruit

high-quality employees (Dixit & Bhati, 2012). Moreland (2013) estimated the costs of noncommitted employees in the U.S. economy exceeded $350 billion.

Measuring Employee Turnover Intention

Saridakis and Cooper (2016) stressed that the need to understand turnover came from

measuring turnover. Lee et al. (2018) mentioned company leaders were regularly surveying

employers to track job satisfaction, withdrawal thoughts, and employee engagement. Often,

organizational leaders used a turnover measure such as the number of employees leaving in a

year divided by the amount of staff present (Saridakis & Cooper, 2016). For example, if 200

employees work in an organization and 40 leave in a year, the turnover rate is 20%. Saridakis

and Cooper (2016) stated the downside of employee turnover rates is there are no distinguishing

factors whether employees leave or left for reasons beyond their control such as ill-health,

dissatisfaction, or retirement.

Turnover Intention Scales

Zaman et al. (2010) used the Turnover Intention Scale from the Michigan organizational

assessment questionnaire in their study. The results from their study indicated 41% of the

variance in employees’ turnover intention could be credited to organizational justice (Zaman et

al., 2010). Allen and Bryant (2012) noted that measuring turnover data was useful in categories

that could help leaders pinpoint the nature of turnover in organizations (Allen & Bryant, 2012).

Ariyabuddhiphongs and Kahn (2017) used a two-item Turnover Intention Scale to assess

employee turnover and results showed that transformational leadership negatively predicted

employee turnover intention. Campion (1991) noted that turnover measures had been approached

in different ways, with one way treating turnover as a case of motivated individual choice

predicted in models of antecedents such as job satisfaction. Bester et al. (2015) included a threeitem turnover scale that included items such as “if I was completely free to choose I would leave

this job” (p. 6).

Linking Employee Turnover to Profitability

Hossain et al. (2015) mentioned an organizational leader’s desired goals included

possessing a strong employee team, being profitable, and achieving less employee turnover.

Tangen (2005) stressed profitability was the overriding goal for the growth and success of the

organization. Tangen (2005) noted that profitability is a monetary relationship in which the

influences of price factors were included. Although organizational profitability depended on

several factors, Hossain et al. (2015) stated employee turnover remained a major concern, which

left a pessimistic impact on an organization and became costly due to recruitment and

onboarding costs. Ton and Huckman (2008) indicated employee turnover was linked with

indirect costs such as operational disruption when key employees left and the subsequent

demoralization of employees who stayed with the organization. This disruption may be due to

the loss of human capital that existed in the departing employees (Becker, 1962; Ton &

Huckman, 2008). The demoralization could be due to losing a respected colleague or the

turnover needed further work to be absorbed by the remaining employees whose capacity was

already strained (Mowday et al., 1982; Ton & Huckman, 2008). After the rise of unexpected

costs from high employee turnover, Al Mamun and Hasan (2017) mentioned recouping

profitability would take months or years for an organization to achieve. When employees no

longer stayed with the organization, profitability and performance were impacted negatively

 (Lalitha & Singh, 2014).

Al Mamun and Hasan (2017) stated that anything that led to higher costs, lower

productivity, or decreased income would reduce profitability. To retain staff rather than employ

new people, leaders should introduce employee retention strategies to create a profitable

environment (Lalitha & Singh, 2014). An organizational leader lessens employee turnover and

boosts profitability by noting that costs such as training, advertising, and recruiting can have a

negative impact on reducing earnings (Hossain et al., 2015). Maintaining a low turnover rate

stands important for organizational leaders as profitability becomes dependent on the skills and

expertise of the workforce (Hossain et al., 2015).

Herzberg Two-Factor Theory

In the Herzberg et al. (1967) two-factor theory, there are two distinct sets of factors for

job satisfaction and job performance in organizations, with one labeled as motivators and the

other labeled as hygiene. Herzberg et al. (1967) noted two factors of motivation and those factors

enhanced job performance and motivation if present or decreased performance and motivation if

absent. Employee attitudes also affected performance, as favorable attitudes led to better

performance than unfavorable attitudes in the organization (Holston-Okae & Mushi, 2018).

Employee dissatisfaction was not caused by missing growth factors such as recognizing

responsibilities, achievements, tasks completed, and work itself, but instead, the absence of

satisfaction (Lundberg et al., 2009).

As with any theory, there was criticism about this theory’s structure. This theory

confused events, causing feelings of dissatisfaction and satisfaction with the agent that caused

the event to happen (Gaziel, 1986; Stello, 2011). Sachau (2007) mentioned Hertzberg’s theory

classified interpersonal relationships as a hygiene factor, but interpersonal relationships led to

psychological growth and became a motivator. Stello (2011) noted reliability of that data could

be negatively impacted by ego-defensiveness on the part of the employee.

Factors in Hertzberg theory

Herzberg’s two-factor theory has become one of the most known and widely respected

theories for explaining job satisfaction and motivation (DeShields et al., 2005). Alshmemri et al.

(2017) explained the concept of this theory was the difference between motivation and hygiene

factors. DeShields et al. (2005) listed factors for job satisfaction and performance with one set

labeled satisfiers/motivators and the other set labeled as dissatisfiers/hygiene factors. HolstonOkae and Mushi (2018) noted when the satisfaction need of an employee had been increased,

dissatisfaction was reduced, impeding poor performance; however, only the satisfaction of

motivation factors led to better productivity.

Figure 1

Herzberg Two-Factor Theory

Note. Herzberg et al. (1967),The Motivation to Work, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York, NY

Motivation Factors

Alshmemri et al. (2017) stated motivation factors were essential for employees and led to

positive attitudes on the job as those factors fulfilled the need for growth. Hur (2018) noted

motivators are connected to work itself, such as responsibility, recognition, achievement, and

self-development opportunity. These motivation (intrinsic) factors effectively established and

maintained positive effects on employee performance towards their job as this factor is a basic

human need for psychological growth (Yusoff et al., 2013). Sachau (2007) mentioned managers

keeping the direction of motivation factors separated from administration or hygiene factors.

Holston-Okae and Mushi (2018) noted the motivation of employees increased in

conditions where they felt they could achieve and have more responsibility. Alshmemri et al.

(2017) found motivation factors operated to increase and improve job satisfaction, whereas

hygiene factors tended to reduce job dissatisfaction. Sachau (2007) declared the motivator

factors were primarily in the job content, whereas hygiene was primarily in the job context.

Kermally (2005) mentioned the opposite of job satisfaction as the lack of job satisfaction, not job

dissatisfaction. Likewise, the opposite of dissatisfaction was not satisfaction but instead no

dissatisfaction (Hur, 2018).

Hygiene Factors

DeShields et al. (2005) found hygiene factors were extrinsic factors and remained under

the leader’s control or someone other than the employee. Hur (2018) stated hygiene factors were

related to environmental and working conditions such as benefits, salary, company policies, and

interpersonal relationships. Holston-Okae and Mushi (2018) noted hygiene factors were

influential in employee satisfaction, but meeting these factors did not automatically lead to

motivation and satisfaction. Alshmemri et al. (2017) described hygiene factors as being extrinsic

to the job and, if present, led to preventing job dissatisfaction because hygiene factors reacted to

the workplace environment with the need to avoid unpleasantness. Kermally (2005) stated if

someone was given more pay or a new title without extra responsibilities, complaining would

stop, but this would not motivate an individual to do more work.

Maslow’s Need Hierarchy Theory

Maslow developed a theory about the satisfaction and rank of human needs and how

individuals pursued those needs (Gawel, 1996). This theory comprised a five-tier human needs

mode that depicted hierarchical levels in a pyramid (McLeod, 2007). Wahba and Bridwell (1973)

mentioned Maslow’s need hierarchy theory classified human needs in a hierarchy with a theory

of human motivation that related those needs to general behavior. Gawel (1996) indicated that in

this theory, an individual could not distinguish or follow the next higher need in the hierarchy

until their current need was completely satisfied.

Jerome (2013) mentioned Maslow’s theory outlined five hierarchical needs that could

also be applied to organizational and employee performance. Figure 2 shows each level of the

needs. From the bottom up, the needs were categorized as physiological, safety, love and

belonging, esteem, and self-actualization (McLeod, 2007). The first four levels were noted as

deficiency needs, while the top-level was known as growth needs (McLeod, 2007). Maslow used

the concept of deprivation and gratification to deliver the forces that linked needs to behavior

(Wahba & Bridwell, 1973). Wahba and Bridwell (1973) discussed the cycle of deprivation into

domination into gratification into activation continues until the social, safety, and physiological

needs have been gratified. Everyone is capable and has desires to move up the hierarchy, but

progress would often be disrupted by failing to meet lower needs (McLeod, 2007).

THE RESEARCH PROPOSAL BUS8100 26

Figure 2

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Note. McLeod, S. (2007). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Simply psychology, 1, 1-8.

Deprivation/Gratification

In the deprivation/domination proposition, the higher the deprivation of a given need, the

higher strength, importance, or desirability while long deprivation of a need established a

fixation for that need (Wahba & Bridwell, 1973). Deficiency needs arose due to deprivation and

motivated individuals when needs were not met (McLeod, 2007). If individuals grew in

environments where needs were not met, they would not have functioned as well-adjusted,

healthy individuals (Kaur, 2013).

McLeod (2007) mentioned growth needs did not come from a lack of something but

instead from a want to grow as a person. The gratification of a given need submerged this need

and activated the next higher need in the hierarchy (Wahba & Bridwell, 1973). Wahba and

Bridwell (1973) noted higher needs did not emerge after gratification but rather after long

deprivation or suppression of lower needs. Kaur (2013) declared that Maslow’s theory meant a

need could never be fully met, but a need almost fulfilled does not longer motivate individuals

for longer periods. Graham and Messner (1998) noted that criticism in this theory included scant

data to support conclusions and assuming all employees are alike. Kaur (2013) stated Maslow’s

theory supported the distinction between growth and shortage needs but showed not all people

are able to satisfy their higher-order needs on the job.

Physiological Needs

Physiological needs are influenced by the cravings we have (Poston, 2009). If one was

hungry, they would find food. If one is thirsty, they would find water. McLeod (2007) mentioned

those needs included the requirements for human survival such as food, air, shelter, drink,

clothing, sex, and sleep. The idea of maintaining psychological balance would always be

essential and go into action in various ways at various times (Poston, 2009). Those needs are the

strongest as the deprivation of physiological needs comes first in an individual’s search for

satisfaction (Simons et al., 1987).

Safety

Safety needs are viewed differently for each person, depending on where they are in life

(Poston, 2009). Safety needs give protection from the elements and include security, law, order,

and stability (McLeod, 2007). The goal of consistently meeting the needs for safety is to have

stability in one’s life, such as walking around the block at night without being mugged (Poston,

2009). While adults have minimal awareness of their security needs except in disorganization or

time of emergency, adolescents often show signs of insecurity and need for safety (Jerome,

2013). Poston (2009) noted it is conclusive that fears stop an individual’s ability to move on to

the other platforms in the pyramid.

Belonging

Poston (2009) mentioned a sense of belonging being felt when an individual becomes

focused on building relations with others. This level can include the desire for close friends,

romantic partners, children, marriage, etc. (Poston, 2009). Individuals try to overcome alienation

and loneliness at the belonging level (Jerome, 2013). If the belonging level is low, or a person is

viewed negatively by peers, they can get social anxiety and withdraw into a group they can fit in

socially (Poston, 2009).

Esteem Needs

This is the highest platform in the deficit needs category (Poston, 2009). Jerome (2013)

stated the need for esteem included the need for self-esteem and esteem from others. With ego

(the lower form), the individual remains focused on the acceptance of them and is met when one

has begun a level of recognition, status, fame, and appreciation (Poston, 2009). The self-respect

(higher form) requires less maintenance as, through accomplishment, becomes a part of who the

person is (Poston, 2009). Humans have a need for high levels of respect from others and selfrespect (Jerome, 2013). Simons et al. (1987) noted when these needs were satisfied, the

individuals felt valuable and self-confident as a person in the world. Once a person has gained

respect for themselves, losing that respect, or having it removed becomes harder (Poston, 2009).

A person can feel weak, inferior, and helpless when this esteem need is not met (Simons et al.,

1987).

Self-actualization

Self-actualization is the inner dialogue that everyone creates at some point in their life

(Poston, 2009). This need makes itself felt in signs of restlessness and the individuals feel tense,

on edge, and lacking something (Jerome, 2013). Individuals who are self-actualizers are focused

on what matters most in defining who they are and can be the deciding factor of how well one is

connected with their self and abilities (Poston, 2009). For example, a teacher must teach, a

painter must paint, a dancer must dance. If a person is unsafe, hungry, unloved, or low in selfesteem, it is easy to know why there are restless, but what a person wants is not always distinctin self-actualization (Jerome, 2013).

Vroom’s Expectancy Theory

Parijat and Bagga (2014) mentioned expectancy theory could predict if an employee will

work extra hours for career advancement, project ethical images, and maintain interpersonal

relations. McMenemy and Lee (2007) stated Vroom’s expectancy theory examined motivation

based on why individuals picked a certain behavior or action. Parijat and Bagga (2014) found

individuals are motivated if three criteria are met (a) valuing the behavioral outcome valence, (b)

individuals believing the desired behavior is instrumental in attaining valent outcome (c) being

capable of performing behavior instrumental to outcome achievement. Parijat and Bagga (2014)

stated the expectancy theory states that motivation= E * I * V where E= expectancy, I=

instrumentality, and V=valence. Lloyd and Mertens (2018) noted that each idea has an assigned

value with expectancy 0 to 1, instrumentality 0 to 1, and valence -1 to 1. If any variable is equal

to 0, the motivational force will be absent and if valence is less than 0, the motivational force

was directed toward reward avoidance (Lloyd & Mertens, 2018).

Figure 3

Vroom’s Expectancy Theory

Note. Lloyd, R., and Mertens, D. (2018). Expecting more out of Expectancy Theory: History

urges inclusion of the social context. International Management Review, 14(1), 28-43.

Expectancy

Expectancy can be defined as the subjective probability of an effect or action leading to

performance or outcome (Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996). Expectancy is a person’s anticipation that

a certain exertion on their part will lead to a specific performance (Lloyd & Mertens, 2018). The

expectancy is the subjective evaluation of the degree of effort related to performance and the

assessment of the probability to achieve this performance (De Simone, 2015). An individual’s

motivation will range from 0 to 1 (no expectation to full expectation) as to whether the individual

believes their labors will achieve a certain outcome (Lloyd & Mertens, 2018). If an individual

sees no chance that their efforts will lead to the desired performance level, the expectancy is 0.

An individual has to believe that using any amount of effort results in the achievement of a

particular level of performance (Renko et al., 2012)

Instrumentality

Van Eerde and Thierry (1996) mentioned instrumentality is the relationship between an

outcome and another outcome as well as the probability of obtaining an outcome. De Simone

(2015) noted instrumentality is the personal assessment of how reward is correlated with

performance quality. An employee seeing good performance ratings will result in the increase of

promotion and make the instrumentality value become 1.

Valence

Lloyd and Mertens (2018) stated valence is the degree to which an individual has a liking

for a given outcome or reward. Parijat and Bagga (2014) noted valence measures the value,

attractiveness, preference, or liking of the rewards or work outcome for employees. A given

reward has valance since there is a correlation tied to an employee’s need (De Simone, 2015).

Valence can be positive if the fulfillment of the reward is desired or negative if the reward

attainment is something they want to avoid (Lloyd & Mertens, 2018). Unlike instrumentality and

expectancy, valence can be negative or positive (De Simone, 2015).

Suciu et al. (2013) stated the absence of any factor in the formula could lead to a lack of

motivation. Parijat and Bagga (2014) concluded expectancy theory is not completed and

THE RESEARCH PROPOSAL BUS8100 31

managers should not rely on this theory alone. Suciu et al. (2013) determined if an individual

believes a particular behavior led to a particular outcome but puts no value on the outcome, they

will not behave in that manner. Parijat and Bagga (2014) asserted measures of expectancy,

instrumentality, and valence suggested in the theory would not always be possible or can be too

difficult to calculate.

Leader-Member Exchange Theory

The leader-member exchange theory (LMX) was proposed by Graen and focused on

social exchange processes embedded in a leader-follower relationship (Joo, 2010). Tse and Lam

(2008) defined LMX theory as the quality of differential exchange relationship that leaders

progress and maintain with followers. Yukl (2012) noted the idea is that leaders developed an

exchange relationship with each subordinate as the two parties mutually defined the

subordinate’s role. In LMX theory, leaders build exchange relationships with followers based on

certain role expectations and reward employees who met those expectations (Siyal & Peng,

2018). Yukl (2012) stated that establishing a high exchange relationship was the leader’s control

over outcomes desirable to a subordinate who was expected to work harder, be more committed

to task objectives, be loyal to the leader, and carry out additional responsibilities. A lowexchange relationship is characterized by less mutual influence as those subordinates needed to

only comply with formal role requirements such as rules, standard procedures, and directions

from the leader, with each subordinate receiving only the standard benefits for the job (Yukl,

2012).

Joo (2010) noted that the quality of a leader and member relationships determined the

amount of mental or physical effort, material resources, social support, and information

exchanged between follower and leader. Siyal and Peng (2018) mentioned that having integrated

LMX theory into the study, it could be stated that LMX relationships were developed by

transformational leadership style behaviors, which may have weakened employee turnover

intention. Tse and Lam (2008) stated that transformational leadership style and LMX

relationship development exhibited appropriate behavior to followers such as charismatic appeals

and individualized consideration. Those LMX relationships created positive expectations

regarding employees’ job performance (Breevaart et al., 2015) and employees with high-quality

LMX performed better (Breevaart et al., 2015). The importance of LMX theory has been

confirmed within the meta-analysis that demonstrated the quality of these dyadic relationships

between leaders and subordinates associated with critical outcomes, including job performance,

work attitudes, and employee retention (Matta et al., 2015).

The theoretical frame of LMX was ideal for viewing the study’s problem. Krishnan

(2005) declared that LMX mediated the relationship between transformational leadership style

and turnover intention. Followers with high-quality LMX relationships developed by

transformational leaders were more likely to have promoted their organizational membership

(Tse & Lam, 2008). Krishnan (2005) noted that the quality of LMX was positively related to

employee satisfaction, organizational commitment, the performance given by leaders, and

negatively related to turnover intentions.

Development of LMX Theory

Most of the early work in the 1970s focused on developing theoretical foundations for the

vertical dyad linkage (VDL) and creating validity construct (Megheirkouni, 2017). Bauer and

Erdogan (2015) found the history of LMX extended from 1972 when the idea of a leaderfollower relationship was discovered in a study of leader behavior assessed with the Leader

Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ). Bauer and Erdogan (2015) found leaders are

friendlier, more inclusive, closer, and communicated with members who reported to them when

using LMX theory. Van Breukelen et al. (2006) stated the LMX theory had characteristics that

focused on leader and member working relationships. Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) stated the

development of LMX theory was viewed in four stages: (a) Stage 1 happened when different

THE RESEARCH PROPOSAL BUS8100 33

dyads were discovered, (b) Stage 2 was when leaders investigated LMX relationship

characteristics and their implications, (c) Stage 3 was when leaders described dyadic partnership

buildup and, (d) Stage 4 when leaders aggregated the distinguished network and group level

dyadic relationships.

What started as the alternative to VDL had progressed to generating a more operative

leadership through maintaining and developing mature leadership relationships (Graen & UhlBien, 1991, 1995). The leader-member exchange term was introduced in a chapter that

referenced LMX and VDL and by 1982 the VDL name was changed to LMX (Bauer & Erdogan,

2015). During the 1990s, LMX was studied as a predictor of employee work outcomes, such as

turnover intention, organizational commitment, performance rating, and employee creativity

(Megheirkouni, 2017).

Vertical Dyad Linkage vs. LMX

Van Breukelen et al. (2006) mentioned the VDL theory purposed leaders did not accept a

single leadership style with subordinates in their unit. Assumptions presented in the VDL theory

were that resource and time constraints required leaders to establish a unit of trust subordinates

to help manage work units (Van Breukelen et al., 2006). Yu and Liang (2004) stated research on

the VDL theory showed that relationships due to the limited resources (energy and time) required

the leader to form a group of trusted assistants in running the organization. Megheirkouni (2017)

discussed the remarkability of LMX being a subfield of leadership research and how this theory

had gone through many evolutions, which had taken it from the VDL origins to what is currently

conceived as relational leadership theory.

Krafft et al. (2012) found leadership in VDL is an exchange relationship that grew with

vertical dyads over time during socialization and role-making activities. As a consequence of the

exchange relationship, the manager’s focus changed with higher-quality relationship

subordinates likely to get more direction, whereas lower-quality relationship subordinates had

been likely to follow corporate strategy (Krafft et al., 2012). Over time, leaders identified with

subordinates as belonging to an in- or out-group, with the in-group rewarded with more of a

leader’s positional resource than subordinates belonging to the out-group (Borkowski, 2020).

Borkowski (2020) mentioned that while taking VDL a step further, LMX included the

characteristics of the in-group individuals while noting similarities between in-group individuals

and the dyadic relationship leader.

Comparing/Contrasting Theories

Human Capital and Social Exchange

Perryer et al. (2010) mentioned employee turnover intention as the critical antecedent of

actual turnover and a value for managers since the employee has not left the organization yet.

Malik et al. (2011) and Rahman and Nas (2013) stated human capital theory (HCT) and social

exchange theory (SET) are powerful tools for understanding workplace behavior understanding.

Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005) and Rahman and Nas (2013) explained SET held that

relationships matured over time into loyal, trusting, and mutual commitments while HCT rested

on the notion education was instrumental and critical in improving population production

capacity.

Sweetland (1996) found that human capital theory (HCT) suggested that individuals and

society derived economic benefits from investments in people. The fundamental principle of the

human capital theory is that people’s learning capacities are of comparable value to other

resources involved in the production of services and goods (Nafukho et al., 2004). Strober (1990)

mentioned HCT specified that education levels were related to income in that education

increased skill and, in turn, increased productivity was rewarded with more earnings. Nafukho et

al. (2004) stated HCT explained the gains of training and education as a form of investment in

human resources with people being considered a form of capital for development.

A basic tenet of social exchange theory (SET) is relationships evolved over time into

THE RESEARCH PROPOSAL BUS8100 35

loyal, trusting, and mutual commitments (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Kacmar et al. (2006)

explained employers with SET felt obligated to reciprocate rewards received from a donor.

Settoon et al. (1996) found SET was used to determine why subordinates become obligated to

leaders to perform beyond what is required. Kacmar et al. (2006) found that SET explained why

employees express loyalty to their supervisors or organization. If a manager left the organization,

the feeling of commitment from the employee would be decreased (Kacmar et al., 2006). Lawler

(2001) noted that when exchanges occurred successfully, employees experienced a high

emotional uplift and when exchanges were unsuccessful, they experienced emotional downs.

When employees had a skill that is in demand, they were likely to be tempted by a high salary,

more benefits, or better potential for career development (Al Mamun & Hasan, 2017). Several

factors contributed to an employee’s turnover intention (Nandialath et al., 2018). Holston-Okae

and Mushi (2018) revealed employee turnover intention research suggested that organizational

factors such as commitment, engagement, satisfaction, and compensation affected turnover. The

following sections will elaborate on some of the common variables that concerning employee

turnover intention.

Factors Affecting Employee Turnover Intention

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is a critical factor when predicting employee turnover intention; people

unhappy with their job likely want to quit and find alternative employment elsewhere

(Nandialath et al., 2018). Price and Mueller (1981) noted repetitive work lowered job satisfaction

whereas participating in job-related decisions and receiving commensurate pay helped raise job

satisfaction. An employee’s decision to leave or stay at the job may be influenced by satisfaction

on the job. (Holston-Okae & Mushi, 2018). Balouch and Hassan (2014) mentioned job

satisfaction as a precursor of an employee’s loyalty to the organization and the degree of loyalty

raised with the increase in job satisfaction. Job stress influenced employee satisfaction, which led

THE RESEARCH PROPOSAL BUS8100 36

to high stress and employee intention to leave the job (Arshadi & Damiri, 2013). Ongori (2007)

found that job-related stress, the factors leading to job stress, and job dissatisfaction were why

employees quit.

Work Stress

Work-related stress is another variable linked to employee turnover intention (Nandialath

et al., 2018). Employees who experienced high levels of work stress were more likely to be

poorly motivated, less productive, unhealthy, and less safe at work (Arshadi & Damiri, 2013).

Work-related stress led to unwanted consequences of the workforce’s behavioral, physical, and

organizational aspects and was a major cause of ill health, poor productivity, and human error

(Elçi et al., 2012). If employees’ roles were not defined by management, the degree of

employees quitting their jobs due to lack of role clarity was accelerated (Ongori, 2007).

Employees who had ambiguous roles resulted in sickness, absence, high staff turnover, poor

performance, and increased accidents due to human error (Elçi et al., 2012). Arshadi and Damiri

(2013) mentioned the greater amount of stress, the higher the turnover intention of employees.

Inadequate Employee Compensation

Employees can quit organizations due to economic reasons. Al Mamun and Hasan (2017)

noted one factor of employee turnover was lower salary. Employee pay consisted of cash

compensations directly provided for work performed (Msengeti & Obwogi, 2015). Salary,

especially when the rewards were considered unfair or inadequately dispensed, was an important

motivator that helped explain why employees considered leaving (Chang et al., 2013). When

employees received lower salaries and insufficient financial rewards, they tended not to stay with

the organization (Al Mamun & Hasan, 2017). Leaders and management can provide employees

with chances for advancement and higher wages to ensure loyalty to the organization (Idson &

Feaster, 1990). Chang et al. (2013) suggested when organizational leaders provided employees

with fair compensation packages and competitive pay levels, employee turnover intention was

THE RESEARCH PROPOSAL BUS8100 37

likely to decrease.

Adequate Communication

Although low or unfair pay was a key reason in underlying employees’ decision to leave,

turnover depended on how salary decisions were communicated to employees (Chang et al.,

2013). Employee turnover intention is likely to be low when employees are regularly informed

about business matters and listened to (Chang et al., 2013). When organizational leaders offered

open communication and shared information with employees, turnover intention was likely to

decrease (Chang et al., 2013). For example, open communication and information sharing with

employees minimized the turnover intention (Chang et al., 2013).

Work Environment

The workplace environment includes physical elements around the work area of an

employee and all things such as training and learning that form part of the employee’s

involvement with the work itself (Msengeti & Obwogi, 2015). When organizational leaders did

not offer employees the opportunity to learn, employees could not improve their abilities and

skills (Al Mamun & Hasan, 2017). Unfavorable and poor working conditions were cited as a

major reason for high turnover intentions among employees (Qureshi et al., 2013). If a working

environment was low-grade due to lacking basic accommodations, workers would not be capable

of facing the difficulties presented (Al Mamun & Hasan, 2017). Insufficient information on how

to perform a job adequately, unclear expectations, extensive job pressures, and lack of on-job

functions may have caused employees to feel less involved with their jobs (Qureshi et al., 2013).

Employees were more inclined to stay and work when the organization was a friendly and stable

working environment (Al Mamun & Hasan, 2017).

The psychological pressure of work had considerable effects on an employee’s turnover

intention (Almahamid, 2013). Employee turnover presented challenges for organizational

leaders, which included high replacement costs, loss of learning, demanding training

requirements, reduced morale among the remaining organizational members, and serious

financial performance consequences (Katsikea et al., 2015). High employee turnover rates have

led to an unmotivated workforce, business failure, and lack of attractiveness to skilled workers

(Holston-Okae & Mushi, 2018). Almahamid (2013) found that the greater the amount of stress,

the higher the employee turnover intention. Employee turnover intentions have consistently

linked to negative employee attitudes such as lowered commitment and satisfaction that are

known to diminish organizational success (Biron & Boon, 2013). Côte and Morgan (2002) and

Almahamid (2013) found work exhaustion and stress played a vital role in increased employee

turnover intention. Employee turnover intention was magnified as stress while uncontrolled

emotions lowered job satisfaction (Almahamid, 2013). Unacceptable working conditions,

unsatisfactory salaries, and inadequate training also led to high employee turnover intention

(Holston-Okae & Mushi, 2018).

Summary

This chapter served as the literature review for the research study of job performance,

transformational leadership style, and employee turnover intention. Researchers and leaders were

interested in recognizing conditions that encouraged job performance (Hui et al., 2007). Task

performance was predicted mainly by ability, contextual performance was mainly predicted by

personality and motivation, whereas cognitive ability was associated with adaptive performance

(Sonnentag et al., 2008). Maintaining a low turnover rate is important for organizational leaders

as profitability depended on the workforce’s skills and expertise (Hossain et al., 2015).

Employees consider the impact on family, career, and life before taking action on leaving an

organization (Hongvichit, 2015). Employee turnover was linked with indirect costs such as

operational disruption when key employees left (Ton & Huckman, 2008) and recouping

profitability took months or years for an organization to achieve (Al Mamun & Hasan, 2017).

References