This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (22) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Iverson, R. D. Articles by Pullman, J. A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Determinants of Voluntary Turnover and Layoffs in an Environment of Repeated Downsizing Following a Merger: An Event History Analysis

Jacqueline A. Pullman

University of Melbourne

In this study we formulate and test models of voluntary turnover and downsizing in a hospital undergoing workforce reduction following a merger. Targeted separation packages were primarily employed by the hospital in selecting departments and units as having surplus staff, as well as identifying individual employees. Determinants for the models were derived from the disparate disciplines of economics, sociology, and psychology, as well as demographic and reactions to change variables. Applying event history analysis to data from a sample of 415 hospital employees over a five year period, the results indicate that older, full-time employees, who were less absent, and had an acceptable workload, yet experienced lower co-worker support and responded negatively to the amalgamation of the hospital were more likely to be downsized. Conversely, employees who were younger, white-collar, intended to leave, and predisposed to the amalgamation were more likely to resign. In addition, the differential effects (based on discriminant function analysis) of the five categories of variables found that age, blue-collar, co-worker support, full-time, amalgamation, and work overload discriminated between the two forms of turnover. The theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

Journal of Management, Vol. 26, No. 5, 977-1003 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/014920630002600510


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Haleblian, C. E. Devers, G. McNamara, M. A. Carpenter, and R. B. Davison Taking Stock of What We Know About Mergers and Acquisitions: A Review and Research Agenda Journal of Management, June 1, 2009; 35(3): 469 - 502. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Schraeder, P. M. Swamidass, and R. Morrison Employee Involvement, Attitudes and Reactions to Technology Changes Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, January 1, 2006; 12(3): 85 - 100. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Brown and J. Benson Managing to Overload?: Work Overload and Performance Appraisal Processes Group Organization Management, February 1, 2005; 30(1): 99 - 124. [Abstract] [PDF]