ABSTRACT
This chapter provides a sweeping critique of classic and contemporary turnover models, beginning with March and Simon’s theory about movement ease and desirability. From them, Price and Mobley formulated theories more amenable to testing and pioneered a research design for theory testing. The former introduced a broad taxonomy of antecedents of job attitudes, while the latter focused on the process by which employees leave and how they rationally compare alternatives to their job. Price’s taxonomic and Mobley’s process-oriented models and methodologies dominated turnover research for the latter part of the twentieth century, prompting refinements of their models. We thus also review the next generation of theories since March and Simon—notably, Hom and Griffeth (1991), Hulin, Roznowski, and Hachiya (1985), Rusbult and Farrell (1983), and Steers and Mowday (1981). Departing from the March and Simon formulations, Lee and Mitchell (1994) conceived the “unfolding model,” which downplays job attitudes and alternatives in favor of “shocks” (critical events prompting thoughts of leaving) as turnover drivers, identifies multiple turnover paths, and promulgates image theory to explain how prospective leavers compare alternatives. We review the qualitative evidence attesting to the validity of their groundbreaking theory and discuss newer research on the etiology of collective turnover.
