Will They Stay or Will They Go? Exploring a Customer-Oriented Approach To Employee Retention

Keeping or losing the best workers can be critical to whether an organization can maintain a competitive advantage and whether operations in the organization run smoothly and efficiently. Simply stated, if the best workers are not retained, an organization can be negatively affected from the operational to the strategic level. This article focuses on employee retention from the perspective of a customer-based model. This approach considers employees as internal customers of management and the model provides organizations ways to influence whether employees decide to stay or go. Additionally, the model distinguishes retention practices based upon the value of employees to the organization. Measurement and application issues are identified along with directions for future research.     

Why Did They "Choose" to Stay? Perspectives of Hurricane Katrina Observers and Survivors

ABSTRACT— Models of agency—powerful implicit assumptions about what constitutes normatively "good" action—shaped how observers and survivors made meaning after Hurricane Katrina. In Study 1 , we analyzed how 461 observers perceived survivors who evacuated ( leavers ) or stayed ( stayers ) in New Orleans. Observers described leavers positively (as agentic, independent, and in control) and stayers negatively (as passive and lacking agency). Observers' perceptions reflected the disjoint model of agency, which is prevalent in middle-class White contexts and defines "good" actions as those that emanate from within the individual and proactively influence the environment. In Study 2 , we examined interviews with 79 survivors and found that leavers and stayers relied on divergent models of agency. Leavers emphasized independence, choice, and control, whereas stayers emphasized interdependence, strength, and faith. Although both leavers and stayers exercised agency, observers failed to recognize stayers' agency and derogated them because observers assumed that being independent and in control was the only way to be agentic.     

Why Don't They Demand More? Entitlement and Work Values of Religious and Secular Women and Men in Israel

For decades researchers have shown that women earn less than men; the wages they feel entitled to are lower than men's; and they are as satisfied as men with their salaries even though they earn less. These studies show that complacency regarding wages is more prevalent among tradition-oriented women than among "modern" women. The tendency is related to "traditional" women's work behavior: Tradition-oriented and religious women turn to low status, female-typed occupations, and prefer to work in part-time jobs. They also believe that working women are worse mothers and spouses than non-working women, but they report high work satisfaction. Secular women, on the other hand, believe they should get equal wages when working in the same occupations as men, and they are less satisfied with their pay than religious women, even though they earn more. The findings are explained in terms of Expectations States and Status Value theories.     

Experiments: Why and How?

An experiment, in the standard scientific sense of the term, is a procedure in which some object of study is subjected to interventions (manipulations) that aim at obtaining a predictable outcome or at least predictable aspects of the outcome. The distinction between an experiment and a non-experimental observation is important since they are tailored to different epistemic needs. Experimentation has its origin in pre-scientific technological experiments that were undertaken in order to find the best technological means to achieve chosen ends. Important parts of the methodological arsenal of modern experimental science can be traced back to this pre-scientific, technological tradition. It is claimed that experimentation involves a unique combination of acting and observing, a combination whose unique epistemological properties have not yet been fully clarified.     

Why Do Situational Interviews Predict Performance? Is it Saying How You Would Behave or Knowing How You Should Behave?

Purpose

The present study examined two theoretical explanations for why situational interviews predict work-related performance, namely (a) that they are measures of interviewees’ behavioral intentions or (b) that they are measures of interviewees’ ability to correctly decipher situational demands.

Design/Methodology/Approach

We tested these explanations with 101 students, who participated in a 2-day selection simulation.

Findings

In line with the first explanation, there was considerable similarity between what participants said they would do and their actual behavior in corresponding work-related situations. However, the underlying postulated mechanism was not supported by the data. In line with the second explanation, participants’ ability to correctly decipher situational demands was related to performance in both the interview and work-related situations. Furthermore, the relationship between the interview and performance in the work-related situations was partially explained by this ability to decipher situational demands.

Implications

Assessing interviewees’ ability to identify criteria might be of additional value for making selection decisions, particularly for jobs where it is essential to assess situational demands.

Originality/Value

The present study made an effort to open the ‘black box’ of situational interview validity by examining two explanations for their validity. The results provided only moderate support for the first explanation. However, the second explanation was fully supported by these results.

     

Alliances,Domestic Politics,and Leader Psychology: Why Did Britain Stay Out of Vietnam and Go into Iraq?

In the Vietnam and Iraq conflicts, British Prime Ministers were asked to contribute forces to an American‐led war that was deeply unpopular in the United Kingdom. This presented Harold Wilson and Tony Blair with conflicting incentives and constraints: to support their senior ally or to make policy based upon domestic considerations. Why did Harold Wilson decline to commit British forces while Tony Blair agreed to do so? With situational factors generating conflicting predictions, I argue that investigation of individual‐level variables is necessary. In particular, I suggest that leaders vary systematically in their willingness to subordinate the concerns of constituents to strategic imperatives, and that introducing the leadership style categories of “constraint challenger” and “constraint respecter” can make more determinate the linkage between domestic politics and strategic concerns.     

Stay Loyal or Exit the Party? How Openness to Experience and Extroversion Explain Vote Switching

Following Hirschman, voters who are discontent with the party they voted for have two options: exit the party and vote for another or stay loyal. The inclination to exit or stay loyal is rooted in the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality. We test our argument in two panel studies in Denmark and the United Kingdom. We find that citizens open to experience are more likely to switch parties since they are more likely to think about alternatives and take risks. Extroverts identify and commit themselves to organizations and stay loyal in Denmark, but we do not confirm this pattern in the United Kingdom. Our findings demonstrate that electoral volatility is, at least partly, rooted in personality.     

Why do They Hate us,Thick and Thin?

Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics - Immediately after the September 11, 2001 terrorist strikes on the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon, and a plane over Pennsylvania, many in the West, but...     

Was I Entitled or Should I Apologize? Affirmative Action Going Forward

As a U.S. civil rights policy, affirmative action commonly denotes race-conscious and result-oriented efforts by private and public officials to correct the unequal distribution of economic opportunity and education attributed to slavery, segregation, poverty and racism. Opponents argue that affirmative action (1) violates ideals of color-blind public policies, offending moral principles of fairness and constitutional principles of equality and due process; (2) has proven to be socially and politically divisive; (3) has not made things better; (4) mainly benefits middle-class, wealthy and foreign-born blacks; (4) stigmatizes its beneficiaries; and (5) compromises the self-esteem and self-respect of beneficiaries who know that they have been awarded preferential treatment. By way of a thought experiment, imagine that after decades of public policy and experimentation, the United States public finally came to agree: affirmative action is morally and legally wrong. Employing such a thought experiment, this essay by a beneficiary of affirmative action—written in response to James Sterba’s Affirmative Action for the Future (2009)—examines duties of moral repair and the possibility that the past beneficiaries of affirmative action owe apologies, compensation or some other highly personal form of corrective accountability. Beneficiaries of affirmative action have experienced woundedness and moral insecurity. Indeed, the practice of affirmative action comes with a psychology, a set of psychological benefits and burdens whose moral logic those of us who believe in our own fallibility—as much as we believe in the justice of what we have received and conferred on others—should address.     

Divergent Thinking and Evaluation Skills: Do They Always Go Together?

The aim of the present study was to explore the hypothesized relationship between divergent thinking (DT) and two types of evaluation: interpersonal (judgments about others' ideas) and intrapersonal (judgments about one's own ideas). Divergent thinking and evaluation skills were measured by means of a GenEva (Generation and Evaluation) task. There were two conditions of the task: intrapersonal and interpersonal, and two aspects of a given idea were assessed: originality and uniqueness. The main results suggest that (1) overall DT skill is positively related to intrapersonal evaluation of uniqueness; (2) the originality component of DT skill is negatively related to intrapersonal evaluation of uniqueness; (3) overall DT is negatively related to intrapersonal evaluation of originality; (4) underestimation of idea uniqueness is more salient in interpersonal evaluation, particularly in case of those with high DT skill. The results are discussed in terms of author's and observer's perspectives of judgment.     

Should I stay or should I go?: Penalties for briefly de-prioritizing work or childcare

We examined penalties against individuals who temporarily de-prioritize their employee or parenting role. Experiment 1 (N = 488) utilized vignettes depicting a mother/father who briefly left their child with a babysitter to engage in work/self-care/did not leave (control). Both mothers and fathers were viewed as less parentally competent, likeable, dedicated to their family (and putting their child at greater risk) when they very briefly de-prioritized their caregiving role by leaving their child for either reason, relative to controls. Experiment 2 (N = 494) utilized vignettes depicting a female/male employee who briefly left work to engage in childcare/self-care/did not leave (control). Both male and female employees were rated as less professionally competent, likeable, dedicated to their work and deserving of organizational rewards (and more deserving of organizational penalties, and putting their organization at greater risk) when they very briefly de-prioritized their employee role by leaving work for either reason, compared to controls. However, employees who left for self-care were viewed more negatively than those who left to engage in childcare. Unexpectedly, results did not reveal target gender differences; they were also largely unaffected by participant gender. This suggests that parents and employees face penalties when they must de-prioritize either of these important roles for even very short periods. Implications for well-being, work-life balance, and productivity are discussed.     

How Should I Be? A Defense of Platonic Rational Egoism

There has been a long tradition of interpreting Plato as a rational egoist. Over the past few decades, however, some scholars have challenged this reading. While Rational Egoism appeals to many ordinary folk, in sophisticated philosophical circles it has fallen out of favor as a general and complete account of the nature of reasons for action. I argue that while the theory of practical rationality that is often equated with rational egoism—a view that I call ‘Simple‐Minded Rational Egoism'—is neither plausible nor endorsed by Plato in his Republic, there is a more complex version of Rational Egoism to which Plato is indeed committed. Moreover, such a conception of practical rationality is not vulnerable to the standard set of objections that contemporary philosophers have made against Rational Egoism.