What makes them stay

He likes a boss who tells him exactly what to do and how to do it, and who encourages him by doing it with him. The two major requirements of a job for this employee are that it pay well and keep people off his back. He does not care for any kind of work that ties him down, but he will do it if he must in order to get some money. Because of the raw, rugged value system of this employee, he needs a boss who is tough, but allows him to be tough too.

This employee likes a job which is secure, where the rules are followed, and no favoritism is shown. He feels that he has worked hard for what he has and thinks he deserves some good breaks. Others, he believes, should realize that it is their duty to work. The ideal job for this employee is one which is full of variety, allows some free wheeling and dealing, and offers pay and bonus on the basis of results.

He feels he is responsible for his own success and is constantly on the lookout for new opportunities. A good boss for this employee understands the politics of getting the job done, knows how to bargain, and is firm but fair. A job which allows for the development of friendly relationships with supervisors and others in the work group appeals to this employee. Working with people toward a common goal is more important than getting caught up in a materialistic rat race.

He likes a boss who gets people working in close harmony by being more a friendly person than a boss. This employee likes a job where the goals and problems are more important than the money, prestige, or how it should be done.

He prefers work of his own choosing that offers continuing challenge and requires imagination and initiative. To him, a good boss is one who gives him access to the information he needs and lets him do the job in his own way. Exhibit IV tabulates the top ten reasons employees stay, based on their psychological level. It shows a startling dichotomy. Employees possessing relatively high tribalistic or egocentric values stay mainly because of environmental reasons, whereas employees with relatively high manipulative or existential values stay primarily for inside-the-company reasons, many of which are motivational.

We also found that the tribalistic or egocentric employees are located primarily in the low-skill manufacturing functions and that manipulative or existential employees are located primarily in management, research, or professional positions.

Exhibit IV. Although not all the implications are clear at this point, it seems apparent that corporate managers, in deciding on policies and philosophy, in reality have been talking to themselves about themselves. That is, they tend to adopt policies and theories of human motivation that appeal to their own individual value systems, under the assumption that all employees have similar values. For example, many a manipulative manager presumes that money and large, status-laden offices motivate other people in the same way they drove him to his present level of success.

He may have climbed the corporate ladder, but as our results clearly show, for many employees the ladder does not even exist. This is not meant as a criticism of managerial value systems, but as a description of reality.

One can expect leaders, whatever their values, to adopt policies which most appeal to their own value system. An individual makes a decision based on what he thinks is right.

What is right depends on his values. However, since values of people are not the same, what is right to the manager is often wrong for the employee. We further explored job retention and values by linking data on values and reasons for staying. This enabled us to determine the values of those people who stay because they like their jobs and those who said that their jobs were not reasons for staying. We found that employees who stay because they like their jobs tend to be relatively manipulative and existential; and those who continue for reasons not directly associated with their jobs tend to be tribalistic and egocentric.

We also found that the tribalistic and especially egocentric workers were relatively more dissatisfied with motivation factors than were employees with other value systems. The least dissatisfied employees had existential values, followed by the manipulative and conformist employees. This is not too surprising, considering the fact that the free enterprise system tends to reward conformist and manipulative values, and existential people stay only as long as they are happy.

Exhibit V demonstrates again the hidden power of environmental factors. It presents the percentage responses of employees scoring the highest ninetieth percentile or greater in each value system—that is, the employees who fit most clearly into each value system. The data show a dichotomy between employees with relatively high manipulative or existential values Levels 5 and 7 and other employees, especially those with relatively high tribalistic or egocentric values Levels 2 and 3.

Almost without exception, people of Levels 5 and 7 place less emphasis on external environmental reasons for staying than do people with other values. Thus whereas age, length of service, type of work and skill level, race, and education describe who stays, and for what reason, the underlying value system explains why.

But can we, as managers, really use these facts to improve employee retention? Is there a positive approach to keeping people that is more effective than focusing on the negative element of turnover? Because managers have habitually concerned themselves with turnover, it will be hard to break the habit.

Nonetheless, managers must stop the rituals of finding out why people leave and start investing resources in the positive management of retention. If managers reinforce the right reasons for employees staying and avoid reinforcing the wrong reasons, they cannot only improve traditional turnover statistics but set goals for retention.

However, they must begin to understand and respect employees as individuals with values that differ from their own. As a prerequisite to the development of a program to manage retention, certain difficult questions must be answered:. We have obtained some quantitative insight into the first three questions, but the last two may not have a quantitative solution.

For these we offer our value judgments. Ideally, it seems that the goal of managing retention would be to create conditions compatible to the turn-ons-plus—that is, some balance between job satisfaction and environmental reasons.

This raises some questions. To begin with, managers might make pensions highly portable, a measure that would tend to reduce inertia but raise costs. To balance this, it would then be necessary to improve the conditions for satisfaction so that people stay because they want to, not because they must.

Another influence on inertia is the location of a company. For example, a corporation that locates a new factory, offices, or laboratories in towns that are not highly attractive or requires the relocation of many employees has weakened inertia; thus employees are more likely to leave when they become dissatisfied with their work.

Other access options You may be able to access this content by logging in via your Emerald profile. Rent this content from DeepDyve. Rent from DeepDyve. If you think you should have access to this content, click to contact our support team. Contact us. Please note you do not have access to teaching notes.

Other access options You may be able to access teaching notes by logging in via your Emerald profile. Abstract Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate why professional workers actually remain in their organisations. Briggs, S. Butler, T. Cardy, R. Ellenbecker, C. Ellett, A. Daniels, Z. Despres, C. Dessler, G. Duffield, C. Eisenberger, R. Scott, , "Are the best better? George, C. Ghapanchi, A. Hart, S. Hausknecht, J. Hayes, L. Herman, R. Hiltrop, J.

Holtom, B. Hytter, A. Jasper, M. Joo, B. Karatepe, O. Kaye, B. Kooker, B. Kroon, B. Kyndt, E. Laabs, J. Lambert, E. Lee, T. Mignonac, K. Mitchell, T. Mobley, W. Moncarz, E. Moore K. Naqvi, S. Ng, T. Pitts, D. Reitz, O. Robertson, M. Robinson SL. Shaw, J. Snyder, C. Spence Laschinger, H. Stichler, J. Tai, T. Tremblay, M. Troman, G. Tymon Jr, W. Van Maanen, J. Walker, J. Wood, M. Wrzesniewski, A.

Related Papers Satisfaction with retention factors as predictors of the job embeddedness of medical and information technology services staff By Melinde Coetzee. The impact of bundled high performance human resource practices on intention to leave By jeevan jyoti. The impact of bundled high performance human resource practices on intention to leave Mediating role of emotional exhaustion By jeevan Jyoti.

Systematic review of the links between human resource management practices and performance By Andrew Booth. Download File. Log in. Install the app. Forums English Only English Only.

JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding. You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.