Further clarifying proximal withdrawal states and the turnover criterion space
Comment on Hom, Mitchell, Lee, and Griffeth (2012)
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 18092121 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Carl P Maertz (0000-0002-3187-4814, Saint Louis University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2012 |
| Volume | 138 |
| Issue | 5 |
| Pages | 859-864 |
| Publication date | 2012-01-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Psychological Bulletin (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0033-2909 • E-ISSN: 1939-1455 |
| Publisher | American Psychological Association (APA) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1037/a0028897 |
| PMID | 22925139 |
| OpenAlex | W2130114437 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 1 |
In "Reviewing Employee Turnover: Focusing on Proximal Withdrawal States and an Expanded Criterion," Hom, Mitchell, Lee, and Griffeth (2012) brought together many of the most important content and process factors in the employee turnover literature. In this paper, I attempt to clarify the true contributions of this framework for the turnover area and at the same time explain why improved prediction is not among these contributions. I then enumerate 3 theoretically problematic aspects of the proposed framework, which limit its contribution. Finally, I suggest 3 directions that researchers should pursue in order to test and extend the framework
Biology · Economics · Epistemology · Limit (mathematics) · Management · Mathematical analysis · Process (computing) · Space (punctuation) · Test (biology) · Turnover · Advanced Causal Inference Techniques · Computer Science · Mathematics · Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence · Philosophy · Psychology · Social Psychology
| Highly cited | No |
|---|