The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Predicting Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect
Abstract
This paper is based on a dissertation completed by the first author under the supervision of the second. We thank Hugh Arnold, Julian Barling, Carol Beatty, John Dowling, Vic MacDonald, and Don Nightingale for their help at the thesis stage, two very thoughtful ASO reviewers, Dan Farrell and Janet Near for their comments on an earlier version of the paper, Tom Mahaffey for a timely question, and Ted Neave for getting things started. Financial support to the second author was provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRCC 494-88-1015). This paper reports the results of two longitudinal studies we conducted to find out when dissatisfied employees will respond to their dissatisfaction with exit, voice, loyalty, or neglect. We found consistent evidence that exiters were affected by the costs and the efficacy of their responses as well as the attractiveness of their employing organization. Loyalists were primarily affected by the efficacy of their responses, although, unexpectedly, loyalty resembled entrapment in the organization more than it did supportive allegiance to the organization. Neglecters were primarily affected by the costs and the efficacy of their responses, and voicers were very difficult to predict. We conclude by arguing that we need a much better understanding of voice and loyalty in order to predict better how employees will respond to dissatisfaction.'
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Rotter, J. B. (1966) · Psychological Monographs: General and Applied · doi:10.1037/h0092976 · Cited by 21,937
Cited by
Organizational Silence: A Barrier to Change and Development in a Pluralistic World
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259200 · Cited by 2,776
Leadership Behavior and Employee Voice: Is the Door Really Open?
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2007.26279183 · Cited by 2,250
Conceptualizing Employee Silence and Employee Voice as Multidimensional Constructs*
Dyne, L. V., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00384 · Cited by 2,062
The dynamics of proactivity at work
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008) · Research in Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002 · Cited by 2,057
Piderit, S. K. (2000) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2000.3707722 · Cited by 1,873
Metadata
- Authors
- Withey, M. J., & Cooper, W. H.
- Venue
- Administrative Science Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1989-12
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 521
- ISSN
- 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2002678936
- Cited by
- 757
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 13.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.