Suchergebnisse

PurposeUsing organization-level data, the purpose of this paper is to investigate whether and how turnover spreads at different job levels (i.e. managers, non-managers) and how vacancy rate and manager span of control precipitate continued turnover.Design/methodology/approachOrganization-level longitudinal data were collected quarterly from 40 Canadian organizations on various HR metrics from 2009 to 2012, totaling 232 observations. The authors used covariate balance propensity score (CBPS) weighting to make stronger causal inferences.FindingsThe organization-level data provided limited support for turnover spreading at different job levels. Instead, vacancy rate predicted subsequent non-manager turnover rates, whereas span of control predicted subsequent manager turnover rates.Practical implicationsThe implications of this research are twofold. First, to offset continued turnover among non-managers, it may be wise for organizations to fill vacancies promptly, particularly when unfilled positions affect job demands and resources of those who remain. Second, to minimize ongoing manager turnover, organizations may benefit from redesigning work units to have smaller manager-to-employee ratios.Originality/valueThis study adds to the collective turnover literature by demonstrating that organizational factors play a substantive role in predicting continued manager and non-manager turnover. Moreover, by using longitudinal data and CBPS weighting, this research allowed for establishing temporal precedence and greater confidence that these factors play a causal role. Lastly, this research highlights how the factors precipitating collective turnover differ between managers and non-managers.

PurposeIntegrating territoriality and the job demands-resources model, this study investigated tactics that managers use to hinder their talented employees' internal job transfer attempts. This study proposed that managers' psychological ownership of talent would relate to their use of persuasion and nurturing tactics, and that managers' role overload and job social support would moderate these relationships.Design/methodology/approachThe data for this study was collected by administering two surveys approximately two weeks apart. A hundred and sixteen managers provided complete data for analysis.FindingsPsychological ownership of talent related to persuasion tactics but not nurturing tactics. When overload was higher and social support was lower, managers with higher psychological ownership reported using more persuasion tactics to hinder their talented employees' internal mobility. This study did not find significant interactions for nurturing tactics.Practical implicationsInternal talent hindering can impede employee access to critical learning and growth opportunities, and employees who feel their mobility is restricted may be more inclined to turnover. Accordingly, managers who hinder internal mobility can negatively affect talented employees' leadership development within an organization and the effectiveness of its succession plans.Originality/valueThis study demonstrates empirically that managers intentionally use tactics to hinder the internal transfers of their talented employees. This study identifies predictors and boundary conditions of hindering tactics, and this knowledge can help organizations address internal talent hindering.

AbstractAs high‐performing employees with high potential (or superstars) are rare in the workplace, practitioners often face a performance–potential trade‐off when deciding who to promote. We use regulatory focus theory as a framework to examine whether Canadian managers (n = 58) and human resource (HR) professionals (n = 121) show a preference for performance or potential when making near‐term promotion recommendations. We show that respondents generally had a preference for performance versus potential when making their recommendations, and HR professionals versus managers accorded greater weight to potential. We discuss the implications of the relative emphasis on performance versus potential in promotion recommendations and when this may contribute to organizational inefficiencies.