Does Turnover Intention Matter? Evaluating the Usefulness of Turnover Intention Rate as a Predictor of Actual Turnover Rate

• Author: Galia Cohen,Doug Goodman,Robert S. Blake
• Published date: 01 September 2016
• Date: 01 September 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X15581850
• Published By: Sage Publications, Inc.

581850ROPXXX10.1177/0734371X15581850Review of Public Personnel AdministrationCohen et al.
research-article2015
Article
Review of Public Personnel Administration
2016, Vol. 36(3) 240 –263
Does Turnover Intention
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
Matter? Evaluating the
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734371X15581850
rop.sagepub.com
Usefulness of Turnover
Intention Rate as a Predictor
of Actual Turnover Rate
Galia Cohen1, Robert S. Blake2, and Doug Goodman1
Abstract
Turnover research has traditionally examined intention to turnover rather than
actual turnover. Such studies assume that leave intent serves equally well as both a
proxy for and predictor of employees’ actual turnover behavior. The purpose of this
study is to provide an agency-level evaluation of the usefulness of turnover intention
as a reliable proxy and predictor of actual turnover across 180 U.S. federal agencies,
using hierarchical (stepwise) multiple regression. Our findings suggest that, at the
organizational level, turnover intention and actual turnover are distinct concepts,
predicted by different sets of variables. Based on these findings, we conclude that
public managers tasked with retention might have better foresight concentrating on
their agencies’ unique demographic characteristics and specific management practices,
rather than on their employees’ self-reported aggregated turnover intention rate.
Keywords
turnover, federal government, human resource management
Introduction
Human capital planning in the federal government mostly relies on measuring employ-
ees’ future intention to leave (Broach & Dollar, 2006). However, studies that empiri-
cally examined the relationship between intention to turnover and actual turnover are
1University of Texas at Dallas, TX, USA
2Hospital Corporation of America, Plano, TX, USA
Corresponding Author:
Doug Goodman, Associate Professor of Public Affairs and MPA Director, Program in Public Affairs,
School of Economic, Political, and Policy Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, 800 W. Campbell, GR31,
Richardson, TX 75080, USA.
Email: doug.goodman@utdallas.edu

---

Cohen et al.
241
scarce and demonstrate conflicting results in regard to the usefulness of intentions as
a reliable proxy of behavior (Cho & Lewis, 2012; Jung, 2010; Kirschenbaum &
Weisberg, 1990). In particular, some scholars have found that turnover intention is a
poor predictor of actual turnover (e.g., Jung, 2010; Kirschenbaum & Weisberg, 1990;
T. W. Lee & Mowday, 1987). In this study, we explore the relationship between turn-
over intention rates and actual turnover rates of U.S. federal agencies.
This research seeks to contribute to the emerging body of public employee turnover
research by addressing a heretofore-neglected aspect of empirical study (Meier &
Hicklin, 2008; Selden & Moynihan, 2000). Moreover, the vast majority of the already
small number of public administration studies on turnover have mostly been using
turnover intention as the dependent variable rather than actual turnover (Jung, 2010).
In addition, although previous turnover research has been mostly conducted at the
individual level, very little empirical research has examined turnover at the organiza-
tional level. This lack of research is a matter of practical concern. For, although orga-
nizational withdrawal is a personal decision affected by socio-psychological
considerations and each individual’s own unique circumstances, employee retention,
recruitment, and training are strategic human resource management functions neces-
sarily administered at the organizational level (Ingraham & Rubaii-Barrett, 2007;
Perry, Hondeghem, & Wise, 2010; Van Marrewijk & Timmers, 2003). As Hausknecht
and Trevor (2011) pointed out, turnover analysis at the organizational level is much
more consistent with the way HR managers and leaders prefer to learn about turnover
in their organizations (Gardner, Moynihan, & Wright, 2007). As a tenuous step toward
the advancement of understanding organizational turnover, this study uses agency-
level data for the analysis.
In this study, we explore the relationship between the turnover intention rate and
actual rate of federal government agencies in the following ways. First, and most fun-
damentally, we assess whether agencies’ turnover intention rate and agencies’ actual
turnover rate correlate within our sample. Second, we investigate the relative impacts
of organizational-level perceptions toward HR practices on federal agencies’ actual
turnover rates. The ultimate goals of HR practices are to increase organizational effec-
tiveness and decrease actual employee turnover rate (Gardner et al., 2007; Gould-
Williams, 2004), but limited number of studies have addressed this relationship in
public administration research (Farnham & Giles, 1996; Hays & Kearney, 2001;
Gould-Williams, 2004; Cho & Lewis, 2012). Thus, this research evaluates the impact
of perceptions toward HR practices on agency turnover.
Third, we explore whether the organizational-level determinants that best explain
agencies’ actual turnover rates also explain turnover intention rates. If intention rate is
a reliable proxy for actual turnover rate, then the same patterns should hold for both
dependent variables. Finally, we assess whether turnover intention rate actually pre-
dicts agencies’ actual turnover rate.
Antecedents of Employee Turnover Rates and Hypotheses
The “Actual–intention” link. Analysis of leave intentions has been a mainstay of the
general turnover research since its advent (Cho & Lewis, 2012; Dalton, Johnson, &

---

242
Review of Public Personnel Administration 36(3)
Daily, 1999; Kirschenbaum & Weisberg, 1990). The empirical turnover literature is
replete with examples of turnover behavior that is inferred based on analyses of
employees’ leave intentions and its correlates. Even as turnover models become
increasingly sophisticated, this conceptual linkage between intent and actual turnover
has remained cardinal. Such research is premised on the vital link between attitude and
behavior, and thus, on the assumption that intent is the best predictor of actual turnover
(e.g., Bertelli, 2007; Dalton et al., 1999; S. Y. Lee & Whitford, 2007; Steel & Ovalle,
1984; Tett & Meyer, 1993).
The rationale justifying intentions’ use as a turnover proxy is twofold. First, from a
theoretical perspective, attitude theory generally supports the belief that intent is the
best predictor of behavior (Kraut, 1975; Mobley, Horner, & Hollingsworth, 1978;
Price & Mueller, 1981). As Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) wrote, “The best single predic-
tor of an individual’s behavior will be a measure of his intention to perform that behav-
ior” (p. 369). According to this line of research, turnover intention is expected to be the
strongest predictor of actual turnover behavior (e.g., Currivan, 1999; Griffeth, Hom, &
Gaertner, 2000; Hom, Griffeth, & Sellaro, 1984; S. Y. Lee & Whitford, 2007; Mobley,
1977; Vandenberg & Nelson, 1999). This theoretical expectation has empirical sup-
port. For instance, in a meta-analysis of job attitudes and behavior, Harrison, Newman,
and Roth (2006) concluded that job attitudes, such as turnover intentions, reliably
predict job behaviors, such as quitting.
Second, turnover scholars also rely on intentions for pragmatic reasons. As a sur-
rogate, the intent construct is more amenable to research than actual turnover. It pos-
sesses desirable statistical qualities (i.e., easily scaled) and is more economic (Dalton
et al., 1999). Conversely, the actual turnover construct is a dichotomous variable that
generally requires costly longitudinal designs to fully assess. Most important, surveys
are typically administered anonymously. Thus, connecting information gleaned from
them to individuals’ actual behaviors is usually impossible and tends to be fraught by
ethical implications (Dalton et al., 1999).
For these reasons, scholars commonly use turnover intention as a proxy of actual
turnover (e.g., Bertelli, 2007; Kim, 2005; S. Y. Lee & Whitford, 2007; Pitts, Marvel,
& Fernandez, 2011). This is true of turnover studies in general (Griffeth et al., 2000)
and especially true of public-sector studies (Jung, 2010; Tett & Meyer, 1993).
Generally speaking, scholars have found that employees turnover intentions and quit
behaviors to be statistically correlated. Findings as to the strength of the relationship,
however, are inconclusive. Some studies report finding the constructs strongly and
directly correlated (e.g., Griffeth et al., 2000; Hom et al., 1984; S. Y. Lee & Whitford,
2007; Mobley, 1977; Steel & Ovalle, 1984). For instance, based on a random sample
drawn from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Central Personnel Data
File, Cho and Lewis (2012) found a correlation of .80. Other studies, however, have
found the relationship to be much weaker and even insignificant. T. W. Lee and Mowday
(1987) found employees’ intentions explained only about 6% of turnover variance.
Also, Kirschenbaum and Weisberg (1990) found a poor and non-significant relation-
ship between intention to leave and actual turnover behavior. According to them, sur-
vey responses to whether one’s intent to leave his or her job or not, cannot actually
attest to real future behavior. Finally, there is also research showing that the relationship

---

Cohen et al.
243
between employees’ leave intentions and actual separation behaviors is incidental or
even non-existent (cf. Jung, 2010;...