对自愿离职的展开模式进行必要的澄清

Gaëtan Mourmant
{"title":"对自愿离职的展开模式进行必要的澄清","authors":"Gaëtan Mourmant","doi":"10.1145/1542130.1542159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The unfolding model of voluntary turnover, as tested by Niederman et al. [1], surprisingly appears to only capture 12% of the job leavers in IT, whereas when applied to other occupational groups, such as accountant or nurses, this ratio is much higher (respectively 92% and 77%). To address this issue, we take a closer look at the classification rules of the original model and we clarify them, highlighting the discrepancy between figure 1 of Lee et al. [2] and their written explanations, [3], [2]. Acknowledging a lack of clarity of those rules, we clarify the meaning of the logical impossibility of the joint existence of an engaged script with a search/evaluation of alternatives. In addition, we discuss the path-switching approach, [3]. Considering this clarification of the classification rules, we recalculate the results of two previous studies ([1] [4]) and we compare and assess those results with the other replications of the model. Those results suggest that a more parsimonious model (i.e. only path 1, 3 and 4b, with engaged script only present in path 1) may be sufficient to capture the majority of those leaving jobs in IT (74% and above).","PeriodicalId":373151,"journal":{"name":"SIGMIS CPR '09","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A necessary clarification of the unfolding model of voluntary turnover\",\"authors\":\"Gaëtan Mourmant\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/1542130.1542159\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The unfolding model of voluntary turnover, as tested by Niederman et al. [1], surprisingly appears to only capture 12% of the job leavers in IT, whereas when applied to other occupational groups, such as accountant or nurses, this ratio is much higher (respectively 92% and 77%). To address this issue, we take a closer look at the classification rules of the original model and we clarify them, highlighting the discrepancy between figure 1 of Lee et al. [2] and their written explanations, [3], [2]. Acknowledging a lack of clarity of those rules, we clarify the meaning of the logical impossibility of the joint existence of an engaged script with a search/evaluation of alternatives. In addition, we discuss the path-switching approach, [3]. Considering this clarification of the classification rules, we recalculate the results of two previous studies ([1] [4]) and we compare and assess those results with the other replications of the model. Those results suggest that a more parsimonious model (i.e. only path 1, 3 and 4b, with engaged script only present in path 1) may be sufficient to capture the majority of those leaving jobs in IT (74% and above).\",\"PeriodicalId\":373151,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SIGMIS CPR '09\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-05-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SIGMIS CPR '09\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/1542130.1542159\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SIGMIS CPR '09","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/1542130.1542159","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

正如Niederman等人[1]所测试的,自愿离职的展开模型令人惊讶地似乎只捕获了IT行业12%的离职者,而当应用于其他职业群体时,如会计或护士,这一比例要高得多(分别为92%和77%)。为了解决这个问题,我们仔细研究了原始模型的分类规则,并对其进行了澄清,突出了Lee等人[2]的图1与他们的书面解释[3],[2]之间的差异。承认这些规则缺乏明确性,我们澄清了与备选方案的搜索/评估共同存在的参与脚本的逻辑不可能性的含义。此外,我们还讨论了路径切换方法[3]。考虑到分类规则的澄清,我们重新计算了之前的两项研究([1][4])的结果,并将这些结果与模型的其他重复进行了比较和评估。这些结果表明,一个更简洁的模型(即只有路径1、3和4b,而参与式脚本只出现在路径1中)可能足以捕获大多数离开IT工作的人(74%及以上)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A necessary clarification of the unfolding model of voluntary turnover
The unfolding model of voluntary turnover, as tested by Niederman et al. [1], surprisingly appears to only capture 12% of the job leavers in IT, whereas when applied to other occupational groups, such as accountant or nurses, this ratio is much higher (respectively 92% and 77%). To address this issue, we take a closer look at the classification rules of the original model and we clarify them, highlighting the discrepancy between figure 1 of Lee et al. [2] and their written explanations, [3], [2]. Acknowledging a lack of clarity of those rules, we clarify the meaning of the logical impossibility of the joint existence of an engaged script with a search/evaluation of alternatives. In addition, we discuss the path-switching approach, [3]. Considering this clarification of the classification rules, we recalculate the results of two previous studies ([1] [4]) and we compare and assess those results with the other replications of the model. Those results suggest that a more parsimonious model (i.e. only path 1, 3 and 4b, with engaged script only present in path 1) may be sufficient to capture the majority of those leaving jobs in IT (74% and above).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Implementation of an online intellectual community in a graduate educational setting Information systems at a liberal arts college: an interdisciplinary minor Leveraging latent growth models to better understand MIS theory: a primer The implementation and evaluation of KEEP SLS: an eportfolio system supporting social constructive learning Structural factors that affect global software development learning team performance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1