1 | PROPOSAL CAUSES OF EMPLOYEE TURNOVER
S U P E R I I I O R U N I I I V E R S I I I T Y
F i i n a l l T e r r m P r r o j j e c t t

2 | PROPOSAL CAUSES OF EMPLOYEE TURNOVER

3 | PROPOSAL CAUSES OF EMPLOYEE TURNOVER

4 | PROPOSAL CAUSES OF EMPLOYEE TURNOVER
A B S T R A C T
The proposed research will be conducted to investigate the causes of employee turnover. Proposed study will use different research articles to develop a model which shows that job satisfaction, employee motivation and employee involvement (independent variable) has an impact on employee turnover (dependent variable). Hence the purpose of this research will be, firstly getting the perception of employees at work by conducting semi structure interviews as an instrument of data collection to explore the effect of Job satisfaction, employee motivation and employee involvement on employee turnover. Secondly semi structure interviews will be further used to find and examine whether these three factors really affect or not if yes then which factor affects closely in order to remove that one from organizations facing employee turnover issues. Different hypothesis are formed on the basis of dependent and independent variables. By using different research articles literature review has been written. Than a model is developed of job satisfaction, employee motivation and employee involvement (independent variable) and employee turnover
(dependent variable).Than a theoretical framework is written on the base of these variables. Using a cross sectional research method sample of 500 employees of service organization like Banks,
University (Employees), Telecommunication, EFU life insurance, Guard Technologies and
Students has been selected for this research.
Convenience sampling technique will be used for data collection. Data will be collected from male and females of service organizations like Banks,
University (Employees), Telecommunication, EFU life insurance, Guard Technologies and
Students using semi structured interview and then analyzed by using NVIVO 7. Than some limitations and delimitations are given keeping in mind what has done what is not and ethical considerations are given.

5 | PROPOSAL CAUSES OF EMPLOYEE TURNOVER
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
1.
Introduction .............................................................................................................................7
1.1
Purpose Statement .............................................................................................................8
1.2
Objectives .........................................................................................................................8
1.3
Significance of Study ........................................................................................................9
1.4
Deficiencies.......................................................................................................................9
1.5
Research questions on topic ............................................................................................10
1.6
Hypothesis.......................................................................................................................10
2.
Model ...................................................................................................................................11
2.1
Theoretical framework ...................................................................................................11
3.
Literature Review............................................................................................................ 12-20
4.
Methodology .........................................................................................................................20
5.
Limitations and Delimitations ...............................................................................................21
6.
Ethical consideration .................................................................................................21
7.
Discussion .............................................................................................................................22
8.
References ....................................................................................................................... 22-28

6 | PROPOSAL CAUSES OF EMPLOYEE TURNOVER
P R O P O S A L
C A U S E S O F E M P L O Y E E T U R N O V E R

7 | PROPOSAL CAUSES OF EMPLOYEE TURNOVER
C A U S E S O F E M P L O Y E E T U R N O V E R
1 .
.
I I N T R O D U C T I I O N : :
Employee turnover is the number of permanent employees leaving the company within the reported period versus the number of actual active permanent employees on the last day of the previous reported period (B.Smith, 2005) .
Five reasons due to which employees leave organizations:
1.
The most common reason why employees leave a certain organization is that they see better opportunity elsewhere. Man has a growing desire to own more things and better pay can give them this. Apart from that, they are compelled to look for better pay because of financial needs.
2. Another reason could be that the employees are not happy with the organization. There are cases when employees leave the company even if they offer competitive salaries. This is because of the organization itself. The employee does not approve of the management style and they are unhappy with the culture of the organization. These factors can cause employees to say goodbye to the organization.
3. There are also cases when the employees leave because of their fellow employees or his superiors. Clashes of personalities are common in the workplace. When an employee can no longer stand the tension in the workplace, he may opt to leave the organization. It does not matter if he finally got his dream job or receiving a generous paycheck. If he no longer has peace of mind, he will look for another job.
4. It is man's nature to seek for growth. If he feels that there is no room for him to grow in a certain organization, he will look for a place where he can grow further. However, this is not a factor for everyone. There are those who are satisfied to do the same thing even after ten years.
5. The condition of the organization could also be a factor. If it is unstable, the employees will surely look for a more stable organization. They would not want to stay long in an organization that could close any time. (B.Smith, 2005)
This research is conducted to investigate the causes of employee turnover and its impact on Job satisfaction, employee motivation and employee involvement. Because mostly researches doesn’t cover three of these independent variables. So we have put forth our efforts to compile three job satisfaction, employee motivation and employee involvement of these variable in one package in order to provide readers ease to get the information on these three variables and their impact on employee turnover.

8 | PROPOSAL CAUSES OF EMPLOYEE TURNOVER
1 .
.
1 P U R P O S E S T A T E M E N T : :
Normally organizations are facing the problem of employee turnover. But why employee turnover take place we are going to find it through this research article. There are so many factors that affect employee turnover or due to which employee turnover takes place like absentees, compensation, employee satisfaction, employee motivation, employee involvement, Salary etc . But the purpose of this research will be, firstly getting the perception of employees at work by conducting semi structure interviews as an instrument of data collection to explore the effect of Job satisfaction, employee motivation and employee involvement on employee turnover. Secondly semi structure interviews will be further used to find and examine whether these three factors really affect or not if yes then which factor affects closely in order remove that one from organizations facing employee turnover issues.
1.2
O B J E C T I V E S:

The main objective of this proposed study is to find the impact of Job satisfaction, employee motivation and employee involvement on employee turnover.

To provide data that could help students who want to explore the affect of employee satisfaction, employee motivation and employee involvement on employee turnover.

To examine the importance of these three factors in organizations facing the problem of employee turnover.

9 | PROPOSAL CAUSES OF EMPLOYEE TURNOVER
1 .
.
3 S I I G N I I F I I C A N C E O F S T U D Y : :

The proposed study will broaden the understanding of employee turnover especially for the employees of service organization like Banks, University (Employees),
Telecommunication, EFU life insurance, Guard Technologies and for Students.

Why because proper instructions and knowledge is needed so that organizations may know what employees really want or desire from organizations and modify themselves or come up with the policies that will attract and retain the employees because employees are assets of any organizations.

And for this organization must have the knowhow that what are the main causes which make employee turnover happen. And how their seniors can avoid turnover by providing them what they really want.

Therefore, the present study findings will help the managers answer the longstanding question of how job satisfaction, employee motivation and employee involvement affect employee turnover because if employee is satisfied with his/her job he will be motivated if he/she will be motivated he/she will be more involved in his work.

Secondly, no research has been found which have focused on job satisfaction, employee motivation and employee involvement combinely.

Therefore, the present study will prove to be a significant contribution in this area. Last but not the least Students can also get access to this study and can find out the impact of job satisfaction, employee motivation and employee involvement on employee turnover.
1 .
.
4 D E F I I C E N C E S : :
Last Research was conducted in 2010 in USA. While no research is conducted in Lahore.
Previous studies have shown that these three variables are not combinely focused and not even researched in Pakistan with the sample of 500 respondents.

10 | PROPOSAL CAUSES OF EMPLOYEE TURNOVER
1 .
.
5 R E S E A R C H Q U E S T I I O N S O N T O P I I C : :
(Main question)
Causes of employee turnover among service organizations in Pakistan
(Sub questions)
1.
Does employee satisfaction have an impact on employee turnover?
2.
Is there any relationship between employee motivation and employee turnover?
3.
Is Job involvement one of the reasons which influence turnover intention?
1 .
.
6 H Y P O T H E S I I S : :
E m p l l o y e e T u r n o v e r
H0: There is affect of employee satisfaction, employee motivation and employee involvement on employee turnover .
H1: There is no affect of employee satisfaction, employee motivation and employee involvement on employee turnover .
J o b S a t t i i s s f f a c t t i i o n
H0: There is affect of Job satisfaction on employee turnover .
H1: There is no affect of Job satisfaction on employee turnover.
E m p l l o y e e M o t t i i v a t t i i o n
H0: There is affect of employee motivation on employee turnover .
H1: There is no affect of employee motivation on employee turnover.
E m p l l o y e e I I n v o l l v e m e n t t
H0: There is affect of employee involvement on employee turnover .
H1: There is no affect of employee involvement on employee turnover.

11 | PROPOSAL CAUSES OF EMPLOYEE TURNOVER
2 .
.
M O D E L
Job Satisfaction
Employee Motivation
Employee Involvement
Employee Turnover
2.1 THEORATICAL FRAME WORK
Employee Turnover:
Employee turnover is the number of permanent employees leaving the company within the reported period versus the number of actual active permanent employees on the last day of the previous reported period (Trove, 2005).
Job Satisfaction:
Employee satisfaction is the terminology used to describe whether employees are happy and contented and fulfilling their desires and needs at work (Heathfield, humanresorces.about.com,
2000).
Employee Motivation:
Motivation is an employee’s intrinsic enthusiasm about and drives to accomplish activities related to work. Motivation is that internal drive that causes an individual to decide to take action
(Heathfield, humanresorces.about.com, 2000).
Employee Involvement:
Employee involvement is creating an environment in which people have an impact on decisions and actions that affect their jobs. Employee involvement is not the goal nor is it a tool, as practiced in many organizations. Rather, it is a management and leadership philosophy about how people are most enabled to contribute to continuous improvement and the ongoing success of their work organization (Heathfield, humanresources.about.com, 2000).

12 | PROPOSAL CAUSES OF EMPLOYEE TURNOVER
3 .
.
L I I T E R A T U R E R E V I I E W : :
To understand the nature of employee turnover it is necessary to first define the terminology.
While there are many definitions of employee turnover for the purpose of this paper turnover is defined as “the movement of workers 1 in and out of employment with respect to a given company” (Randall S. Sextona, 2004). This movement is usually considered voluntary however involuntary separations are also of concern, but will not be the focus of this research. It further states that employee turnover has attempted to explain why employees leave and how to prevent the drain of employee talent. Their research focuses a neural network (NN) to predict turnover.
They have used a Modified Genetic Algorithm to train the NN. This research found that a NNSOA
(Neural Network Simultaneous Optimization Algorithm) trained NN which is a software (or hardware) simulation of a biological brain (sometimes called Artificial Neural Network or
"ANN"). The purpose of a neural network is to learn to recognize patterns in your data. Once the neural network has been trained on samples of your data, it can make predictions by detecting similar patterns in future data. Example: Loaning if we had a large number of loan applications as input, along with the manager's decision as output, a neural network could be "trained" on these patterns. T he Society of Human Resource Management Research Committee author of “Employee
Turnover: Analyzing Employee Movement Out of the Organization” states that “critical characteristics of employees (obtained by reviewing the distributions of their ages, employment times, salaries, and recruitment sources) can be used to describe those who leave in 6 months versus those who leave in 12, 24, or 36 months with empirical research” While turnover rates vary according to industry; organizations; geographic locations; and employee characteristics, whereas the rates of specific groups of employees can help the company determine root causes of employee turnover ( Douglas B. Currivan , , June 1993) . Turnover does not always bring on negative consequences to the organization; there are positive aspects of turnover for both the organization and the exiting employee. It depends on the type of turnover either functional or dysfunctional.
Functional turnover occurs when poor performers leave and good performers stay. This instance often occurs when the organization terminates the employment relationship. When good performer’s leave and poor performers stay, the organization experiences dysfunctional turnover.
When looking to reduce turnover, Company focuses on dysfunctional turnover due to its negative impact on the organization ( Griffeth, 1995 ).
A research conducted on service quality and turnover to test a selection of hypothesized relationships between: employees’ perceived service quality; employees’ turnover intentions; role clarity; and empowerment and coaching. The data collection is based on a survey with a sample of 1,076 frontline employees in service organizations. And at the end it was found that there are indications that employees’ perceived service quality has a direct negative effect on employees’ turnover intentions. The effect of empowerment, coaching, and role clarity on turnover intention appears to be mediated through employees’ perceived service quality. It further discusses that employees in service organizations are crucial in the building of service excellence. Ultimately, the success of service organizations often depends upon the

13 | PROPOSAL CAUSES OF EMPLOYEE TURNOVER performance of its frontline employees (Chung and Schneider, 2002; Chebat et al., 2003; Hartline and Ferrell, 1996; Singh, 2000; Wirtz et al., 2008). Frontline employees are an important source of competitive advantage in many service organizations (Pfeffer, 2005). A critical issue in service organizations may be to retain service employees in general, and specifically those employees who are talented in working with customers and delivering excellent service quality. Maertz et al.
(2007) emphasize that employee turnover can be costly. According to one estimate, employeeturnover cost in American companies reaches around $5 trillion annually (Frank et al., 2004). Such costs could include additional staffing or overtime payments to lessen shortages, and the replacement of an experienced employee with an inexperienced new one (Alexandrov et al., 2007, sp. 357). Employees’ turnover is a much studied phenomenon. But there is no standard reason why people leave organization. Employee turnover is the rotation of workers around the labor market; between firms, jobs and occupations; and between the states of employment and unemployment
Abassi et al. (2000). Many researchers argue that high turnover rates might have negative effects on the profitability of organizations if not managed properly (Hogan, 1992; Wasmuth and Davis,
1993; Barrows, 1990). (Brooks C. Holtom, 2005) States that Voluntary employee turnover is expensive. Companies that successfully retain the best and brightest employees save money and protect their academic capital. Traditional approaches to understanding turnover place accumulated job dissatisfaction as the primary driver to voluntary turnover. However, they show that shocking events, more often are the immediate cause of turnover. Using data from more than 1,200
“leavers,” they have described the nature, content, and role of shocks in turnover decisions. And then provide strategies to help organizations manage shocks, and thereby control turnover.
(Zeffane, 1994) Attempts to show that the theory remains extremely useful and may be extended to individual level phenomena, such as the study of turnover (Ryan D. Zimmerman, 2007) estimate the strength of the relationship between job performance and intentions to quit (ITQ), identify moderators to this relationship, and calculate the direct and indirect effects that job performance has on ITQ and turnover. And it was found Supervisor ratings of performance had the strongest relationship with ITQ, followed by self-ratings. Employee nationality and job type also acted as moderators. Poor performers are more likely to quit even after controlling for job satisfaction and turnover intentions, indicating that they are quicker to engage in unplanned quitting. Good performers were slightly more likely to intend to quit after controlling for job satisfaction.
Job satisfaction
(Sharon Bell Buchbinder, 2001) Examine the relationship of personal characteristics, organizational characteristics, and overall job satisfaction to primary care physician (PCP) turnover. Turnover was an important phenomenon among PCPs in this cohort. The results of this study could enable policy makers, managed care organizations, researchers, and others to better understand the relationship between job satisfaction and turnover. Job satisfaction is “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences.” (
Locke E,
1983). This definition is considered to be the gold standard for the field of organizational psychology. (Different authors may choose other definitions of job satisfaction.) Some believe that

14 | PROPOSAL CAUSES OF EMPLOYEE TURNOVER job satisfaction and job productivity are the same. Wright and Cropanzano noted in a recent article that a number of authors have provided comprehensive reviews of the relationship between satisfaction/ productivity and job performance (Wright T, 2000). Wright and Cropanzano found that the degree of correlation between job satisfaction and productivity is still under discussion.
Thus, organizational researchers do not equate job productivity with job satisfaction. Although the effect of job satisfaction on various aspects of employee behavior has not been fully explained, it has been consistently and significantly associated with likelihood of leaving and actual turnover or quit behavior (Mobley W, 1977). Because of this close association between intent to quit and actual turnover, a number of researchers have used likelihood of leaving an organization as an operational definition of overall job satisfaction (Friedson E, 1970) (Freeman R, 1978).
Job satisfaction and organizational commitment receive considerable attention from industrial and organizational psychologists, management scientists, and sociologists. Three thousand studies had been done on job satisfaction alone by the time Locke prepared his study nearly 20 years ago
(Locke, 1976). In fact, most of the research conducted treats either job satisfaction and/or organizational commitment as the ultimate dependent variable (Camp, 1993). (Camp, 1993)
Focuses on job satisfaction and organizational commitment as exogenous variables predicting an outcome of theoretical and practical interest for organizational analysts, labor turnover. Not all analysts, though, agree that either job satisfaction or organizational commitment is useful for predicting organizationally relevant behavior, such as turnover. Hodson, for one, argues that the concept of job satisfaction is severely flawed because “it lacks behavioral referents, its connection with productivity is based on a naive theory of human behavior, it is too summary a measure of workers’ complex cognitive structures and it is too individualistic” (Hodson, 1991). Hodson claims that commitment is a step in the right direction as it expresses behavioral intentions (the intention to remain with the organization being primary), but it too suffers the problems that beset job satisfaction. Hodson advocates moving away from research based on attitudes to more behavioral research. Even researchers who generally favor job satisfaction and/or organizational commitment cannot agree on the relative merits of job satisfaction and organizational commitment for explaining behavioral outcomes. Analysts often treat only one or the other in their analyses. Many researchers place emphasis on organizational commitment rather than job satisfaction. Interesting cross-cultural research has questioned the nature of the relationship between job satisfaction and behavioral outcomes in the work place (Camp, 1993). Cole (1971) found that Japanese workers do not rate high on measures of job satisfaction when compared to workers in other countries such as the U.S. However, Japanese workers score “better” on the measures usually hypothesized to result from higher levels of job satisfaction. Japanese workers have lower rates of absenteeism than
American workers, work longer hours on average, and seldom use all of their allotted vacation time. It has been argued that such differences are due to higher levels of commitment by Japanese workers to the economic success of their firms (Lincoln & Kalleberg, 1990). Lincoln and
Kalleberg (1990) hypothesize that differences in organizational commitment of Japanese and
American workers are due to differences in organizational structures and strategies of Japanese and
American firms rather than cultural differences in attitudes toward work. While their results are not

15 | PROPOSAL CAUSES OF EMPLOYEE TURNOVER unequivocal, Lincoln and Kalleberg (1990) do generally find support for their theoretical position that organizational commitment accounts for much of the difference in organizational behavior noted between American and Japanese workers and that organizational commitment is facilitated by differences in organizational structures and practices among American and Japanese employers.
On the other hand, Roznowski and Hulin (1992) maintain that well constructed, validated scales of job satisfaction are “the most informative data an organizational psychologist or manager can have” for predicting organizationally relevant behavior in individuals. Roznowski and Hulin maintain that low levels of job satisfaction create one (or a combination) of four types of undesirable behavior. First, dissatisfied individuals may attempt to increase job outcomes by stealing, using work time to pursue personal tasks, or by moonlighting. Second, they may withdraw from the job psychologically as manifested in such behavior as not attending meetings, drinking on the job, or wandering about trying to look busy. Third, dissatisfied employees may practice behavioral withdrawal from the job as in absenteeism, turnover, or early retirement.
Finally, employees may undertake specific change behaviors that attempt to alter the work situation. This may include remaining in a particular job and trying to affect changes through union or other activity or it may involve attempts to change the locus of the job through transfer or demotion (Roznowski & Hulin, 1992: 126-130). (Peter J. Jordan, 2011) Examine the mediating effect of leader member exchange (LMX) on the relationship between followers’ emotional intelligence and the outcomes of turnover intention and job satisfaction. Using a longitudinal design, survey data were collected from 579 employees within a private pathology company.
Measures of emotional intelligence and LMX were collected at Time 1 and employee turnover intentions and job satisfaction were collected at Time 2. And the results show the quality of LMX mediates the relationship between follower emotional intelligence and both turnover intention and job satisfaction with a limitation is the use of a self-report measure of emotional intelligence.
While this published measure has been shown to be valid and reliable, there are debates over the validity of self-report measures of emotional intelligence. In terms of the impact of emotional intelligence on an employee’s experiences of work, there is research evidence that emotional intelligence contributes to higher levels of job satisfaction. In particular, we note Wong and Law’s
(2002) work that showed emotional intelligence promotes employee job satisfaction. Similarly, Sy et al. (2006) found a link between job satisfaction and a manager’s emotional intelligence. Sy et al. argued that managers with high emotional intelligence are able to manage emotions to buffer against events that may result in lower job satisfaction. Again our study is focusing on employees’ emotional intelligence and we argue that employees with higher levels of emotional intelligence will develop higher quality relationships (Lopes et al., 2003). We argue that this will also be linked to higher levels of job satisfaction as a consequence of the more supportive work environment
(Griffin et al., 2001). (Toby Marshall Egan, 2004) examined the relationship of organizational learning culture, job satisfaction, and organizational outcome variables with a sample of information technology (IT) employees in the United States. It found that learning organizational culture is associated with IT employee job satisfaction and motivation to transfer learning.

16 | PROPOSAL CAUSES OF EMPLOYEE TURNOVER
Turnover intention was found to be negatively influenced by organizational learning culture and job satisfaction.
Employee motivation
Motivation has been a difficult concept to properly define, in part because there “are many philosophical orientations toward the nature of human beings and about what can be known about people” (Pinder, 1998). Pinder (1998) provided a definition that nicely accommodates the different theoretical perspectives that have been brought to bear in the explanation of work motivation:
Work motivation is a set of energetic forces that originates both within as well as beyond an individual’s being, to initiate work-related behavior, and to determine its form, direction, intensity, and duration. There are two noteworthy features of this definition. First, motivation is identified as an energizing force—it is what induces action in employees. Second, this force has implications for the form, direction, intensity, and duration of behavior. That is, it explains what employees are motivated to accomplish, how they will attempt to accomplish it, how hard they will work to do so, and when they will stop. Many theories have been set forth to explain employee motivation
(Kanfer, 1990; Pinder, 1998). None are complete, but most make meaningful contributions to our understanding of what is obviously a complex process. Locke (1991, 1997) noted that each of the different theoretical orientations offers a unique perspective and can be combined to form a general model. Goal setting is among the most dominant theories of work motivation (Miner,
2003). The theories of work motivation included in Locke’s (1997) model treat motivation as a unitary concept. That is, although they recognize variation in the degree of motivation, they do not acknowledge differences in the psychological states, or mindsets that can go with this motivation.
According to self-determination theory, motivation reflects an intention to act. This intention can be self-initiated or result from external inducements. Intrinsically motivated behavior is undertaken purely for its own sake (i.e., the activity itself is enjoyable). Extrinsically motivated behavior refers to “the performance of an activity in order to attain some separable outcome” (Ryan & Deci,
2000). However, according to self-determination theory, extrinsically motivated behavior itself can take different forms depending on the perceived source of regulation (i.e., the force for the behavioral intent). Although the tasks themselves might not be enjoyable (i.e., intrinsically motivating), they are seen as serving an important purpose and, thus, are typically experienced as somewhat internal (e.g., studying for an upcoming exam rather than going out with friends). It is important to note that all forms of extrinsic regulation can be highly motivating. Indeed, the use of reward and punishment can have a powerful impact on behavior and can even lead people to choose to pursue an externally regulated course of action over an internally regulated one. For instance, a strong enough monetary incentive might attract the reluctant teen to abandon a video game long enough to cut the lawn. Similarly, the threat of being a victim of the next downsizing might encourage an employee to take work home at night even though it will cut into valued family time. However, according to self-determination theory, external regulation can have negative consequences, including lower task satisfaction, lower effort, and less determination. In the long run, personal well-being can also suffer (John P. Meyer, 2004). Again, this discussion is not intended to imply that externally regulated forms of motivation that cannot exert a powerful

17 | PROPOSAL CAUSES OF EMPLOYEE TURNOVER influence on behavior. However, as Sheldon and Elliot (1998) pointed out, “controlled goals are less likely to be well protected from competing desires and temptations”. Because autonomous goals originate from personal values, they arguably have an advantage over those that are externally controlled (Deci & Ryan, 1991) and are likely to gather the highest levels of effort and persistence. The foregoing discussion implies that the importance of distinguishing among different forms of motivation and commitment is not so much for the behaviors included within a specified contingency, or the terms of a commitment, as it is for behaviors that fall outside these boundaries. (Kuvaas, 2010) States that mastery goals and intrinsic motivation have separately been found to predict employee turnover and turnover intention, respectively. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among employees representing more than 400 organizations from a wide range of industrial sectors. The theoretical or subject scope of the paper was to integrate motivational antecedents for employee turnover.
When assessed jointly, intrinsic motivation was the strongest predictor of turnover intention. The relationship was only positive for employees low in intrinsic motivation. Motivational sources have been found to influence employee turnover beyond job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Mitchell et al., 2001). Prior research has found a negative relationship between intrinsic motivation and turnover intention across different cultural settings (Kuvaas, 2006; Richer et al., 2002; Vansteenkiste et al., 2007). Motivation is a basic psychological process. A recent data-based comprehensive analysis concluded that competitiveness problems appear to be largely motivational in nature (Mine, Ebrahimi, and
Wachtel, 1995). Along with perception, personality, attitudes, and learning, motivation is a very important element of behavior. Nevertheless, motivation is not the only explanation of behavior. It interacts with and acts in conjunction with other cognitive processes. Motivating is the management process of influencing behavior based on the knowledge of what make people tick
(Luthans, 1998). Motivation and motivating both deal with the range of conscious human behavior somewhere between two extremes:

Reflex actions such as a sneeze or flutter of the eyelids; and

Learned habits such as brushing one's teeth or handwriting style.
Luthans (1998) asserts that motivation is the process that arouses, energizes, directs, and sustains behavior and performance. That is, it is the process of stimulating people to action and to achieve a desired task. One way of stimulating people is to employ effective motivation, which makes workers more satisfied with and committed to their jobs. Money is not the only motivator. There are other incentives which can also serve as motivators. Luthan (1998) asserts that motivation should not be thought of as the only explanation of behavior, since it interacts with and acts in conjunction with other mediating processes and with the environment. Luthan stress that, like the other cognitive process, motivation cannot be seen. All that can be seen is behavior, and this should not be equated with causes of behavior. While recognizing the central role of motivation,
Evans (1998) states that many recent theories of organizational behavior find it important for the field to re-emphasize behavior. Definitions of motivation abound. One thing these definitions have in common is the inclusion of words such as "desire", "want", "wishes","aim","goals", "needs", and" incentives". Luthan (1998) defines motivation as, “a process that starts with a physiological

18 | PROPOSAL CAUSES OF EMPLOYEE TURNOVER deficiency or need that activates a behavior or a drive that is aimed at a goal incentive”. Therefore, the key to understanding the process of motivation lies in the meaning of, and relationship among, needs, drives, and incentives. Relative to this, Minner, Ebrahimi, and Watchel, (1995) state that in a system sense, motivation consists of these three interacting and interdependent elements, i.e., needs, drives, and incentives. Motivation is a human psychological characteristic that contributes to a person's degree of commitment (Stoke, 1999). It includes the factors that cause, channel, and sustain human behavior in a particular committed direction. Stoke, in Adeyemo (1999) goes on to say that there are basic assumptions of motivation practices by managers which must be understood. First, that motivation is commonly assumed to be a good thing. One cannot feel very good about oneself if one is not motivated. Second, motivation is one of several factors that go into a person's performance. Factors such as ability, resources, and conditions under which one performs are also important. Third, managers and researchers alike assume that motivation is in short supply and in need of periodic replenishment. Fourth, motivation is a tool with which managers can use in organizations. If managers know what drives the people working for them, they can tailor job assignments and rewards to what makes these people “tick.” Motivation can also be conceived of as whatever it takes to encourage workers to perform by fulfilling or appealing to their needs. To Olajide (2000), “it is goal-directed, and therefore cannot be outside the goals of any organization whether public, private, or nonprofit”.
Job Involvement
Job involvement is defined as the extent to which the individual identifies psychologically with his/her job (Blau, 1985b). (GARY 3. BLAU, 1987) Describes how job involvement and organizational commitment can enhance our understanding of task-related effort as well as withdrawal behaviors. (Mobley, 1979); (Steers, 1977) & (Rhodes, 1981) link organizational commitment, or job involvement conceptually to turnover and absenteeism. The relationship b etween organizational commitment and absenteeism also has been inconsistent. While less empirical research exists about the relationship of job involvement with turnover and absenteeism.
The Meta analysis by Boal and Cidambi (1984) suggests that job involvement is a better predictor of frequency of absence than duration. It is more likely that a small number of absences of long duration actually are due to medical reasons. Conversely, frequent absences of short duration may reflect attitudinal problems. Thus, distinguishing types of absenteeism may be important. For example, Blau (1985a) found job involvement to be significantly negatively related to excused personal absence, but not to unexcused absence. According to Morrow (1983), job involvement and organizational commitment are related, but distinct because of their different referents. For employees with a high level of job involvement, the job is important to one's self-image (Kanungo,
1982). These individuals identify with and care about their jobs. Workers with high levels of both job involvement and organizational commitment should be the most motivated because they are attracted by both the job and the organization. As such, job involvement and organizational commitment may function as interactive "orientations.” For example, the job itself can help an individual meet his/her intrinsic growth needs (Kanungo, 1982), while the organization can help an

19 | PROPOSAL CAUSES OF EMPLOYEE TURNOVER individual meet his/her social and other extrinsic reward needs (Angle & Perry, 1983; Sheldon,
1971). Also, based on past empirical research, it seems that job involvement and organizational commitment complement one another as predictors of turnover and absenteeism. Generally, job involvement accounts for a greater percentage of variance in absenteeism than organizational commitment, while organizational commitment accounts for a greater percentage of turnover variance than job involvement (Boal & Cidambi, 1984). From either an analysis of variance or a moderated regression standpoint (Saunders, 1956), one would predict that the job involvement by organizational commitment interaction terms will be significant. Also, specific interactive combinations of job involvement and organizational commitment levels will help to predict particular types of turnover and absence behaviors. Different interpretations of job involvement have evolved while studying the relationship of job involvement to numerous variables, including job characteristics, performance, turnover, and absenteeism (Kanungo, 1982).
(KNOOP, 1986) The relationships among a cluster of attitudes toward work and job were investigated using a sample of 171 nurses. The hypothesis was that involvement in work and job, commitment to the employing organization, and satisfaction with the job (overall, and with specific facets of the job) would be significantly correlated. The results showed that involvement was not related to overall satisfaction but only to two specific facets, satisfaction with work and promotion opportunities. In contrast, the degree of relationship between overall and various facets of satisfaction and commitment and between involvement and commitment was moderately high.
Employee attitudes toward involvement in and satisfaction with the job and commitment to the employing organization have become of compelling interest to industrial psychologists because of their impact on behavior at work (Robbins, 1993).Job involvement frequently includes identifying with the job, actively participating in the job, and perceiving job performance to be important to self-worth (Blau, 1985; Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977). Job satisfaction in the broadest sense simply refers to a person's general attitude toward the job or toward specific dimensions of the job
(Hodson, 1991). Employee attitudes are reflected in tendencies to respond to the job and the organization and its people and situations either positively or negatively. Attitudes tend to cluster and categorize themselves. A person who has developed a favorable attitude toward one aspect of the job based on unique experiences, is likely to react favorably to other related job aspects. Thus, if one is involved in a job, one is likely to be satisfied with the job and committed to the organization. A person who is dissatisfied with a job may become less involved in the work and less committed to the employer. Farris (1971), Hom, Katerberg, and Hulin (1979), Mowday,
Porter, and Steers (1982), Blau and Boal (1989), and Mathieu and Kohler (1990) have variously used involvement and commitment separately and interactively to predict tardiness, turnover, and absenteeism. Other researchers have linked job involvement to organizational factors (Jans, 1985) and organizational commitment to influence (Angle & Perry, 1983) work experiences (Pierce &
Dunham, 1987). However, the interrelationship of these attitudes has not been studied separately and exclusively. Only Moser and Schuler (1993), in validating Lodahl and Kejner's (1965) job involvement scale, predicted and found a high correlation among them. People may become involved in their jobs because they are satisfied with their jobs, or satisfaction may lead to

20 | PROPOSAL CAUSES OF EMPLOYEE TURNOVER involvement. Involvement or satisfaction may lead to commitment, or commitment may lead to involvement and satisfaction.
4 .
.
M E T H O D O L O G Y
Interpretivisim paradigm will be used in this study. Hence this study will be exploratory in nature, so it will employ Qualitative research and inductive research approach followed by multiple research articles. This study will be conducted on service organizations like Banks,
University (Employees), Telecommunication, EFU life insurance, Guard Technologies and for
Students.
Since the study aims at exploring the causes of employee turnover semi structured interviews will be used as means of data collection from the male and females of service organizations like
Banks, University (Employees), Telecommunication, EFU life insurance, Guard Technologies and
Students. Semi structured interviews are also perceived as more appropriate method of data collection (Kumar, 2005). Each interview will be coded and analyzed by using NVIVO 7 qualitative computer software or SPSS.
Target Population
Sector: Service organizations like Banks, University (Employees), Telecommunication, EFU life insurance, Guard Technologies and Students of Pakistan
Unit of analysis: Male and Female
Sampling Technique
Convenience sampling scheme will be used for data collection. Convenience sampling denotes choosing settings, groups, and/or individuals that are conveniently available and willing to participate in the study.
Sample size
500 employees of service organization like Banks, University (Employees), Telecommunication,
EFU life insurance, Guard Technologies and for Students.
Reliability & Validity:
The Validity refers to the issues of whether or not an indicator really measures the concept that it is devised to measure. Validity of the study increases the authenticity of the entire research. Whereas reliability is an important element to increase the authenticity of the research. The consistency of the respondents answers will provide that the data collected will be reliable. We will use member

21 | PROPOSAL CAUSES OF EMPLOYEE TURNOVER checking criteria to measure its validity. In which respondent’s feedback confirms the credibility of the outcome.
5 .
L I I M I I T A T I I O N & D E L I I M I I T A T I I O N : :
Delimitations:
This study is restricted to Service organizations (Banks, University (Employees),
Telecommunication, EFU life insurance, Guard Technologies and for Students.) in Pakistan’s city
Lahore. Data will be collected from 500 respondents. Convenience sampling technique.
Limitations:

This study is limited to a selection of variables related to causes of employee turnover like salary, compensation, Performance appraisals, Working environment, Personal growth,


Promotional Opportunities, Team working but in this study just three variables will be focused to conduct the proposed study which are employee satisfaction, employee motivation and employee involvement.
This research is just conducted in service organizations rather than manufacturing organizations.
500 respondents are focused due to limited resources and time.
6 .
.
E T H I I C A L C O N S I I D E R A T I I O N : :

The respondents of study will be briefed about the nature of study before collecting data.

The data provided by the respondents will be kept confidential.

Further, an informed consent form will be signed from the participant before they engage
In research in order to protect the participant right.

This consent form will include the following: o The right to participate voluntarily and right to withdraw at any time. o The purpose of study, so that individual understands the nature of research. o Type of information required. o Surety of security. o Wastage of data after due time period (Creswell, 2003)

22 | PROPOSAL CAUSES OF EMPLOYEE TURNOVER
7 .
.
D I I S C U S S I I O N : :
This study, using data from service organization like Banks, University (Employees),
Telecommunication, EFU life insurance, Guard Technologies and Students with a sample of 500 employees has been selected for this research that will examine the link between job satisfaction, employee motivation and employee involvement (independent variable) on employee turnover
(dependent variable). However semi structure interviews are used as an instrument of data collection by using convenience sampling technique, different hypothesis are formed on the basis of dependent and independent variables, model and theoretical framework is written on the base of these variables than by using different research articles literature review has been written, analysis will be done by using NVIVO 7 .
Than some limitations and delimitations are given keeping in mind what has done what is not and ethical considerations are given which will be kept in mind while collecting data.

23 | PROPOSAL
8.
R E F E R E N C E S : :
CAUSES OF EMPLOYEE TURNOVER
Abassi SM, Hollman KW (2000).
"Turnover: the real bottom line", Public Personnel
Management, 2 (3) :333-342.
Adeyemo, D.A. & Aremu, A.O. (1999).
Career commitment among secondary school teachers in
Oyo state, Nigeria. The Role of biographical mediators. Nigerian Journal of Applied Psychology
5 (2), 184-194.
Alexandrov, A., Babakus, E. and Ugur, Y. (2007)
, “The effects of perceived management concern for frontline employees and customers on turnover intention, moderating role of employment status”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 356-71.
Angle. H., & Perry, J. (1983) Organizational commitment: Individual and organizational influences. Work and Occupations, 10, 123-146.
Barrows C (1990). "Employee turnover: implications for hotel managers", FIU Hosp. Rev. pp.24-
31.
Blau, G. (1985a) Relationship of extrinsic, intrinsic, and demographic predictors to various types of withdrawal behaviors. lournal of Applied Psychology, 70, 442-450.
Blau, G. (1985b ) A multiple study investigation of the dimensionality of job involvement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 27, 19-36.
Boal, K., & Cidambi, R. (1984) Attitudinal correlates of turnover and absenteeism: A meta analysis. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto,
Canada
Brooks C. Holtom, T. R. (2005).
Whatis turnover and how org manages them. SHOCKS AS
CAUSES OF TURNOVER , 44, No. 3,, 337–352.
B.Smith, T. (2005).
Google. Retrieved September 21, 2011, from article dashboard: http://www.articledashboard.com
Camp, S. D. (1993).
Assessing the Effects of Org Commitment and Job Satisfaction on turnover.
The Prison Journal , 279-305.
Chebat, J.C., Babin, B. and Kollias, P. (2003), “What makes contact employees perform?
Reactions to employee perceptions of managerial practices”, International Journal of Bank
Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 325-32.

24 | PROPOSAL CAUSES OF EMPLOYEE TURNOVER
Chung, B.G. and Schneider, B. (2002)
, “Serving multiple masters: role conflict experienced by service employees”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 70-87.
Cranny, P. C. Smith, & E. F. Stone (Eds.) , Job Satisfaction: How People Feel about Their
Jobs and How it Affects Their Performance (pp. 123-163). New York: Lexington Books.
Creswell, J.W. (2003).
Research design: Qualitative, Quantitative and mixed method approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cole, R. E. (1971).
Japanese Blue Collar: The Changing Tradition. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991) . A motivational approach to self: Integration of personality. In
R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Vol. 38. Perspectives in motivation (pp.
237–288). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Douglas B. Currivan, ( 1993) "Society for Human Resource Management", Employee Turnover:
Analyzing Employee Movement Out of the Organization. SHRM White Papers. June 1993.
_ http://www.shrm.org
_.
Evans, M.G. (1986).
Organisational behaviour: The central role of motivation. Journal of
Management 12 (2), 203.
Frank, F.D., Finnegan, R.P. and Taylor, C.R. (2004), “The race for talent: retaining and engaging workers in the 21st century”, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 12-25.
Freeman R . Job satisfaction as an economic variable. Am Econ Rev 1978;68:135-141.
Friedson E. Professional Dominance: The Social Structure of Medical Care. New York, NY:
Aldine Publishing Co; 1970.
Griffeth H.
Employee Turnover. Cincinnati: South-Western College; 1995.
Griffin, M.A., Patterson, M.G. and West, M.A. (2001), “Job satisfaction and teamwork: the role of supervisor support”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22, pp. 537-50.
GARY 3. BLAU, K. B. (1987).
Conceptualizing How Job Involvement and Organizational
Commitment Affect Turnover and Absenteeism. Academy of Managernent Review , 288-300.
Google. (n.d.). Retrieved september 10, 2011, from nueral network: http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~nd/surprise_96/journal/vol4/cs11/report.html

25 | PROPOSAL CAUSES OF EMPLOYEE TURNOVER
Hartline, M.F. and Ferrell, O.C. (1996), “The management of customer-contact service employees: an empirical investigation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, October, pp. 52-70.
Hammer, T. L. (1981). Absenteeism when. journal of Applied Psychology, , 66, 561-573.
Heathfield, S. M. (2000). Retrieved september 10, 2011, from humanresorces.about.com: http://humanresources.about.com/od/employeesurvey1/g/employee_satisfy.htm
Heathfield, S. M. (2000).
Retrieved september 10, 2011, from humanresorces.about.com: http://humanresources.about.com/od/glossarye/g/employee-motivation.htm
Heathfield, S. M. (2000).
Retrieved september 10, 2011, from humanresources.about.com: http://humanresources.about.com/od/glossarye/a/employee_inv.htm
Hodson, R. (1991).
Workplace Behaviors: Good Soldiers, Smooth Operators, and Saboteurs.
Work and Occupations, 18(3), 271-290.
Hogan JJ (1992).
"Turnover and what to do about it", The Cornell HRA Quarterly. 33 (1):40-45.
John P. Meyer, T. E. (2004). Employee Commitment and Motivation: A Conceptual Analysis and
Integrative Model. Applied Psychology , 89 (6), 991–1007.
Kanfer, R. (1990).
Motivation theory and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L.
Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and orga-
Kanungo, R. (1982) Work alienation: An iniegrative approach. New York: Praeger.
KNOOP, R. (1986). Relationships Among Job Involvement, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational
Commitment for Nurses. Job involvement , 260-283.
Kuvaas, A. D. (2010).
Exploring the relative and combined influence of mastery-approach goals and work intrinsic motivation on employee turnover intention. Personnel Review , 622-638.
Kumar, R (2005), Research methodology: A step by step guide for beginners,
London, Sage.
Kuvaas, B. (2006),
“Performance appraisal satisfaction and employee outcomes: mediating and moderating roles of motivation”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol.
17 No. 3, pp. 504-22.
Lincoln, J. R., & Kalleberg, A. L. (1990).
Culture, Control, and Commitment: A Study of Work
Organization and Work Attitudes in the United States and Japan. New York: Cambridge
Locke, E. A. (1976).
The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Eds.),

26 | PROPOSAL CAUSES OF EMPLOYEE TURNOVER
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Locke E. The nature and causes of job satisfaction.
In: Dunnette M, ed. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1983:1297-1349.
Locke, E. A. (1991) . The motivation sequence, the motivation hub, and the motivation core.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 288–299.
Locke, E. A. (1997). The motivation to work: What we know. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich
(Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 375–412). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Lopes, P.N., Salovey, P. and Straus, R. (2003),
“Emotional intelligence, personality, and the perceived quality of social relationships”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 35, pp. 641-58.
Luthans, F. (1998).
Organisational Behaviour. 8th ed. Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Maertz, C.P., Griffeth, R.W., Campbell, N.S. and Allen, D. (2007), “The effects of perceived organizational support and perceived supervisor support on employee turnover”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28, pp. 1059-75.
Mitchell, T.R., Holtom, B.C., Lee, T.W., Sablynski, C.J. and Erez, M. (2001), “Why people stay: using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 44, pp. 1102-21.
Miner, J. B. (2003).
Organizational behavior theories: A quantitative review. Academy of
Management Learning and Education, 2, 250–268.
Miner, J.B., Ebrahimi, B., & Wachtel, J.M. (1995).
How deficiency in management contributes to the United States' competiveness problem and what can be done about it? Human Resource
Management. Fall, p. 363 .
Mobley W.
Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover. J Appl Psychol 1977;62:237-240.
Mobley, W., Griffeth, R., Hand, H., & Meglino, R. (1979) Review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 493-522
.

27 | PROPOSAL CAUSES OF EMPLOYEE TURNOVER
Morrow, P. (1983) Concept redundancy in organizational research: The case of work commitment. Academy of Management Review, 8, 48&-500.
Olajide, A. (2000).
Getting the best out of the employees in a developing economy. A Personnel
Psychology Guest Lecture Series. Department of Guidance and Counselling, University of
Ibadan, Nigeria.
Patton, M.Q. (1990).
Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Peter J. Jordan, A. T. (2011).
The relationship with employee turnover intentions and job satisfaction. Leadership & Organization development , 260-280.
Pfeffer, J. (2005), “Changing mental models: HR’s most important task”, Human Resource
Management, Vol. 44, pp. 123-8.
Pinder, C. C. (1998) . Motivation in work organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Rajiv D. Banker, C. K. (November 10, 2000).
A CONTEXTUAL STUDY OF LINKS
BETWEEN EMPLOYEE. k.
Randall S. Sextona, ∗ . S. (2004).
Employee Turnover: a neural network solution. Computers and operational results , 1-2.
Rhodes, S., & Steers, R. (1981) Conventional versus worker owned organizations. Human
Relations, 34, 1013-1035.
Richer, S.F., Blanchard, U. and Vallerand, R.J. (2002), “A motivational model of work turnover”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 10, pp. 2089-113.
Roznowski, M., & Hulin, C. (1992).
The Scientific Merit of Valid Measures of General
Constructs with Special Reference to Job Satisfaction and Job Withdrawal. In C. J.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000) . Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Saunders, D. R. (1956) Moderator variables in prediction. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 16,209-222.
Sheldon,M. (1971) Investments and involvements as mechanisms producing commitment to the organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 142-150.

28 | PROPOSAL CAUSES OF EMPLOYEE TURNOVER
Singh, J. (2000), “Performance productivity and quality of frontline employees in service organizations”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64, pp. 15-34.
Steers, R. (1977) Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Administrative science Quarterly, 22, 4&-56.
Sy, T., Tram, S. and O’Hara, L.M. (2006),
“Relation of employee and manager emotional intelligence to job satisfaction and performance”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 68, pp. 461-73.
Trove. (2005).
Retrieved september 10, 2011, from Article dashboard: http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Five-Common-Causes-of-Employee-Turnover/976138
Vansteenkiste, M., Neyrinck, B., Niemiec, C., Soenens, B., De Witte, H. and Van den Broeck,
A. (2007), “On the relations among work value orientations, psychological need satisfaction and job outcomes: a self-determination theory approach”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 251-77.
Wasmuth WJ, Davis SW (1983).
"Managing employee turnover: why employees leave", The
Cornell HRA Quarterly, pp. 11-18.
Wirtz, J., Heracleous, L. and Nitin, P. (2008), “Managing human resources for service excellence and cost-effectiveness at Singapore Airlines”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 18 No.
1, pp. 4-19
.
Wright T, Cropanzano R. Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as predictors of job performance. J Occup Health Psychol 2000;5:84-94
.
Wong, C.S. and Law, K.S. (2002) , “The effect of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: an exploratory study”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13, pp. 243-74
.