员工流失介绍专题外文翻译（可编辑）.doc

员工流失介绍专题外文翻译 外文翻译原文Introduction to the special issue on employee turnoverMaterial Source:Human Resource Management ReviewAuthor: James L. Price The human resources are the most important resources in the modern enterprise.The talented person is indispensable for the enterprise manages and develops.In todays rapid economic development,the human resources also are the commodity.The normal human resource also are the commodity.The normal human resource development of companies.If talented persons flowing is too frequent,it will affect the stability and sustainability of the development of the company.Especially when the enterprise has certain responsibility,the grasping enterprises core technologies and the core secret management backbone,the marketing backbone or the technical backbone leave job frequently.The companys survival and development will face a huge crisis.What companies should take measures to attract talent,motivate and retain qualified personnel,to win peoples satisfaction and loyalty,thereby promoting the further development of the companys future has become of these enterprises now need to be resolved a thorny issue.So study the brain drain problem for a long-term strategic development of modern company has an extremely important significance. The first three articles in this Personnel leaving problems-Iverson,Kim,and Laczo/Hanisch-can be viewed together.ach article is concerned with employee withdrawal.Iverson estimates a causal model of turnover, whereas Kim estimates a model of intent to stay, which he terms “behavioral commitment”. It is stated that Kim “estimates a model of turnover through intent to stay. ”Kim,however, is careful to note, as recent research Sager, Griffeth, & Hom, 1998indicates, that intent to stay may not be the closest variable to turnover in the causal sequence. Iverson's research is the preferred practice and has been the pattern most often followed by research on turnover The analysis of turnover data has generally classified employees as either stayers or leavers.This strategy does not take into account differences among leavers,who will vary by how long they have been members of their organizations before they leave. In short, information is lost with the leaver/stayer classification And this lost information may be important since leavers with various lengths of service may differ significantly.Iverson's use of event history analysis treats turnover as a continuous variable-all employees vary by how long they have worked for their employers-thereby making fuller use of possible data than the either/or classification. Event history analysis has long been used in medical research where it is often termed survival analysis.'' Different patients, for example, survive for varying periods of time after medical intervention, such as taking a medication or having an operation.Treating turnover as a continuous variable also provides more sophisticated statistical techniques for analysis and is thus the recommended strategy for the analysis of turnover data. It might be expected that increased kinship responsibility would reduce voluntary turnover for women but not for men, since kinship obligations have historically been more strongly assigned to women. Iverson's data, however,indicate no significant difference between men and women in the hospital he studied. It is important to replicate Iverson's study, since gender differences have long been important in the kinship area. Iverson's study was done in Australia. In the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s,Australian scholars were major figures in research on turnover. Most researchers, for example, were familiar with the Personnel Practice Bulletin and the Bulletin of Industrial Psychology and Personnel Practice, both published in Australia. In recent years, however, there has been little turnover research by Australian scholars. Iverson is producing a substantial amount of quality work on turnover and promises to restore Australian scholarship to a major position in this area. Kim's research was done in South Korea where, unlike Australia, there is no-thereby substantial tradition of research on turnover. However, Kim has begun to produce quality studies on turnover Kim, forthcoming; Kim, Price, Mueller, &Watson, 1996 and he may be the beginning of a substantial tradition of turnover research in South Korea. Early research on turnover-from approximately 1900 to about 1950-focused heavily on male, blue-collar employees located in manufacturing firms.These employees and firms were dominant in the United States at this time so it was natural for scholars to select these samples and sites. Since about 1950, however, samples and sites have noticeably changed. Much more attention is now devoted to female, white-collar employees located in service firms. The shift of sample and sites is desirable: if general causal models are to be developed, and this is the goal of scientific research, then diverse samples and sites must be studied. Kim's sample is mostly male, strongly blue-collar84%, and is conducted in an automobile manufacturing plant; he thus studied the type of sample and site used by early turnover researchers. Research on turnover has not generally made use of kinship variables as determinants. Economists and psychologists have long dominated turnover research. Economists have focused on such determinants as pay, opportunitythat is, the labor market, and type of training, whether specific or general.Psychologists have examined such determinants as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job involvement, and dispositional variables, such as positive and negative affectivity. Neither economists nor psychologists have been much interested in kinship variables as determinants. Unlike economists and psychologists, sociologists are concerned with kinship variables, and Iverson, being a sociologist, includes such a variable in his model,namely,amount of responsibility. He hypothesizes that increased kinship responsibility will reduce voluntary turnover. Most studies of the causal order of job satisfaction and organizational commitment are not longitudinal, do not make use of developed causal models, and do not use LISREL analytical procedures. Currivan's study is longitudinal,makes use of a developed causal model, and uses LISREL. His results are thus the best available on the causal ordering of satisfaction and commitment.Currivan finds that the relationship commonly found between satisfaction and commitment is spurious due to common determinants. In short, satisfaction and commitment have no significant relationship. His analysis, as previously indicated, assumes that satisfaction is a determinant of commitment. If replicated, Currivan's findings have important implications for the explanation of turnover, since many of the major models have a path between satisfaction and commitment. Satisfaction and commitment will remain in these explanations, if Currivan is correct, but not the path between the two variables. Replication of Currivan's study is needed. This replication should use three time periods rather than the two which Currivan uses. Three time periods will allow a more accurate assessment of causal order. The sixth article, by Allen and Griffeth, focuses on the relationship between job performance and turnover. Different scholars have dealt with various aspects of the job performance-turnover relationship; what Allen and Griffeth seek to do is to tie these different aspects together into a causal model. Desirability and ease of movement-March and Simon's classic determinants of turnover1958-are historically treated, respectively, as satisfaction and number of alternatives in the environment.'' In discussing reward contingency and visibility as moderators, Allen and Griffeth suggest expansion of March and Simon's classic concepts. Desirability of movement, they suggest,should be expanded to encompass organizational commitment and the opportunity to transfer to another job within the organization; ease of movement should be extended to include quality of alternatives in the environment. Allen and Griffeth thus argue for another look by turnover scholars at March and Simon's desirability and ease of movement. It is important to remind turnover scholars that there are different routes to turnover from the exogenous determinants. Not every employee, for example,who leaves an organization does so because of dissatisfaction. Desirability of movement, commonly viewed as satisfaction, to return to Allen and Griffeth's model, is but one route to turnover. There is also ease of movement and performance-related shocks. Allen and Griffeth remind scholars of the different routes to turnover by means of reconciliation rather than rejection. Rather than simply rejecting the work of Dreher, Merton, and Lee/Mitchell as being incomplete, Allen and Griffeth reconcile their findings into a single model. It is easy to reject; it is more difficult, and productive, to reconcile. Causal models of turnover generally examine the explanation of voluntary turnover with complex models. The articles by Iverson and Kim are illustrations of these models.Although more simplified than either the Iverson or Kim models, Currivan's model is still quite complex. The seventh article in this special issue, by Williams,deviates from both of these patterns by examining functional turnover with a simple model. By means of meta-analytical structural equation modeling of secondary data, Gaertner finds that all of the determinants in his model, except pay, have direct impacts on job satisfaction. Only three determinants also have direct impact on organizational commitment. The determinants thus divide into two categories: those that only have an impact on satisfaction. Neither of the extreme positions is thus consistent with the data. An interesting feature of Gaertner's analysis is the finding that pay, when other exogenous determinants are controlled, has no impact on satisfaction. Most models of turnover include pay as a key determinant.Gaertner's analysis must, of course, be replicated. His sample, for instance,mostly consists of middle-class employees and his results, especially those pertaining to pay, may not be found elsewhere. Williams also found that unemployment, his labor market variable, had a direct influence on functional turnover. Surprisingly, poor performers left the organization when unemployment was high and job opportunities were low. As with the results for contingent rewards, satisfaction did not serve as a mediating variable. The eighth and final article of the special issue is by Griffeth and his colleagues. Two important messages are conveyed by this article. First, the management of turnover must be sensitive to the different types of employee in the organization. There is no one best way to manage turnover for all employees. Second, the study of turnover must, in the long run, yield bottom-line organizational benefits or managers will not indefinitely support costly and time-consuming turnover research. Griffeth and his colleagues construct a typology of employees which forms the basis of their managerial recommendations. There are two steps in their construction of the typology. First, based on high and low amounts of organizational commitment and job involvement, they create four types of employees:institutionalized stars high on both concepts; lone wolves low on commitment and high on involvement; citizens high on commitment and low on involvement; and apathetics low on both concepts. Although a number of organizational scholars have developed typologies that use commitment and involvement, Griffeth et al. especially rely on the work of Blau and Boal 1987.Griffeth et al. illustrate these four types of employees with data drawn from the organizational literature. Second, Griffeth et al. discuss these four types of employees with material drawn from Farrell's 1983 analysis of Hirchman's classic work 1970. The last part of the article by Griffeth and his colleagues is devoted to describing different management strategies for these types of employees. This article by Griffeth et al. is the only one of this special issue that has an applied component. Turnover researchers typically devote little time and effort to application, since the development and estimation of models has much higher prestige in the scholarly community. Implicit in the article by Griffeth et al. is the message that turnover scholars had best not forget application, because managers must ultimately have bottom-line organizational benefits from turnover research or else they will not continue to support this type of research. 译文员工流失介绍专题 资料来源:人力资源管理评社 作者:詹姆斯,匹得 人力资源是现代公司最为重要的资源,人才是企业稳定持续发展不可或缺的。在经济高速发展的今天,人才就是商品,正常的人才流动对于任何公司优化人才结构,持续发展都是有益的。但是,如果公司人才流动过于频繁,将会影响到公司发展的稳定性和可持续性,特别是在公司负有一定职责、掌握公司的核心技术及核心机密的管理骨干或技术骨干频繁离职时,公司的生存和发展将会面临巨大危机。企业应该采取怎样的措施去吸纳人才、激励人才、留住人才,赢得人才的满意和忠诚,从而促进公司未来进一步的发展,已经成为这些企业目前急需解决的一个棘手问题。只有那些能够吸引、留住、开发、激励一流人才的企业才能成为市场竞争的真正赢家。所以研究人才的流失问题对于一个现代公司长期的战略发展有着极其重要的意义。 艾弗森, 金和汉希这三位学者针对人才离职的问题他们有着相同的看法。艾弗森认为是营业额的因果模型,而金认为是因为意向才留下来,?即他所称的“行为承诺”。正如1998年萨格尔,格里菲斯,与坎三人表明,这一意图留在可能不是最近的营业额变量因果序列。艾弗森的研究是首选的做法,并且这种模型被认为经常被拿来研究的。 营业额的数据分析显示通常是认为雇员要么是留下来的要么是离开的。这种策略没有考虑到离开者之间的不同性,在他们离开之前组织之间的成员多久都是不同的。总之,离开者和留下者地安排信息都是缺乏的,并且这种失去的信息将是非常的重要,由于从某种意义上来说,离开者各种长度的服务可能差异很大。艾弗森的使用事件对待历史分析营业额的连续性。通过多久,他们在工作方面更充分地利用各种可能的数据比其他专业的信息。 事件史分析 长期被用于医学研究的地方通常被称作“生存分析”。不同的病人,例如,在医疗干预后有着不同的存活时期, 如服用某种药物或做手术。治疗营业额连续变量也提供了更先进的统计分析技术,因此建议策略 数据分析的营业额。 这可能是预计将减少增加亲属的责任和减少自愿离职的妇女,但不是男人,因为有亲属关系的义务 历来被让认为是妇女更为强烈的。艾弗森的数据,研究表示在医院里男女之间没有显著的差异 。重要的是要复制艾弗森的研究,因为性别差异 一直在亲属关系方面的重要。所以这是非常重要的强调了艾弗森的研究。 艾弗森的研究是在澳大利亚完成的。在20世纪40年代,50年代和60年代, 澳大利亚学者主要研了营业额数字。大多数的研究者熟悉雇员再培训计划与人事实践公报和熟悉 工业心理学与人事实践公报,双方都在澳大利亚发表了然而,近年来,很少有澳大利亚学者研究营业额。 艾弗森是生产出大量高质量的工作营业额,并承诺在这个地区恢复澳大利亚奖学金主要地位 。 金的研究是在韩国,不像澳大利亚没有大量的传统研究的营业额。然而,金开始研究产品质量研究的营业额,他可能是一个在韩国研究营业额的重大的传统的开始。 早期研究营业额是大约从1900至约1950年 重点在于男性,在制造企业的蓝领员工。在这个时间里,这些员工和公司在美国占主导地位。所以学者选择这些样本和网站是自然的。自大约1950年以后, 然而,样本和网站已有了明显的改变。目前更多的关注是服务于女性,在服务公司工作的白领员工。这个样品和网站转变是可取的: 如果通用因果模型要 发展,这是科学研究的目标,那么不同的样本和网站必须加以研究。金的样本大多数是男性,都是有84%蓝领工作者,并且他们都是在汽车生产车间指导的。他因此在早起研究营业额的学者基础上开始研究样本和网站的类型。 研究营业额一般由亲属关系的变量使用作为其决定因素。经济学家和心理学家们长期垄断营业额的研究。经济学家集中在劳动报酬,这样的机会的决定因素 (即劳动力市场),以及培训类型,无论是否特殊或一般。 心理学家曾研究过这些决定因素如工作的满意程度,中心组织机构的承诺, 工作投入和处置变量,这些要么是积极和消极情感的。 经济学家和心理学家都没有备受关注过变量作为亲属关系的决定因素。不像经济学家和心理学家,社会学家关注亲属关系的变量, 艾弗森,作为一个社会学家,包括一些他做的的模型,即责任的数量。他推测,增加亲情的责任感将减少营业额。 大多数在工作满意度和组织承诺方面的研究的因果顺序都不是纵向的, 没有利用发展的因果模型也没有使用线性结构分析程序。 科森的研究是纵向的,使用了发展的因果模型及线性结构。因此,他的结果是在满意度和承诺方面的因果顺序的最好利用。科森同时发现,由于共同的决定因素,满意度之间的关系, 承诺是虚假的。总之,满意度和承诺没有显著的关系。他分析说,如前指出,假定满意是承诺的决定因素。如果被复制,科森的发现对于扩大营业额有着重要的意义。满意度与承诺将继续留在这些解释,如果科森是正确的,但在两者之间没有可变量。因此对科森的研究复制是必要的。这种复制应该使用三个时间段,而不是两个时间段。三个时间段期将允许因果秩序的更准确的评估。 艾伦和格里菲斯文章的第六章着重强调了工作业绩及营业额之间的关系 。 对于工作绩效和营业额的关系问题,不同的学者有不同的处理方式;艾伦和格