|
员工流动率或打算离开企业的员工数一直是人力资源经理(人力资源管理)最为关注的问题。留住有才华的员工，从而降低流动率可以享受更好的投资回报,如提高生产力。研究人员经过研究发现,在1988年,由于员工的高流动率，对新加坡的企业运营造成了超过10%的生产损失(Khatri,庄和Budhwar 2001)。许多理论框架，如赫兹伯格的动机理论试图解释这个问题(Udechukwu 2009)。即便如此,在人力资源管理中，离职意图或高周转率仍将是一个令人不安的管理问题。 本文，我们进一步探索影响管理者或专业人员相关工作态度的重要问题(工作满意度和企业承诺)。本文将首先简要概述赫兹伯格的双因素理论,然后讨论新加坡和澳大利亚处理文化方面的一些异同。随后,将针对企业承诺这一问题进行简短的讨论(OC),这些都来源于对新加坡企业的一些研究。 Employee turnover or intention to leave in organisations had always been a concern to the Human Resource Mangers (HRM). Retaining talented employees or organisation with low turnover rates would be able enjoy better return of investment such as increase of productivity. Researchers had documented that in 1988, Singapore achieved a productivity lost of more than 10 percent due to high turnover rates (Khatri, Chong and Budhwar 2001). Many theoretical frameworks such as Herzberg’s motivation theory had attempted to explain this issue (Udechukwu 2009). Even so, intention or turnover rates will remain a disturbing issue to manage within the controls of HRM. Exploring further, this paper’s aim is to enlighten managers or professionals on two sources of job related attitudes (job satisfaction and organisational commitment). This paper shall begin by briefly outline Herzberg’s Dual factor theory and then discuss some similarities and differences between Singapore and Australia dealing with cultures. Subsequently, a brief discussion of organisational commitment (OC) followed by a Singapore research study. Following, individual attitudes and other elements that predicts turnover. In conclusion, it shall reinstate the mentioned element that affects employee’s need to stay or leave. Any employee who which chooses to stay or leave must have a certain attributing motivation factors. According to Herzberg’s Dual-Factor Theory (cite in Udechukwu 2009), positive motivators such as achievement, recognition or advancement were suggested as intrinsic factors to motivate an employee. While extrinsic factors such as salary, job security or working conditions were factors of jobs satisfaction. Differentiating these factors, the theory suggested that employers were able to determine their needs to some degree of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Besides that, the theory also state that the opposite of dissatisfaction does not equate to satisfaction or vice versa. Simply, it underlines that when employees felt the opposite of dissatisfaction is no dissatisfaction. Likewise, opposite of satisfaction would be no satisfaction. Jobs Satisfaction between Singapore and Australia Researchers like Khatri, Chong and Budhwar (2001) found evidences that indicate positive relations between job dissatisfaction leads to turnover. It was highly recommended that Job dissatisfaction is the better predictor of turnover. In Harrison’s (1995) effort, he had investigated the level of satisfaction between 142 Singapore managers and 137 mangers in Australia. In a managerial survey study, an opportunity to self-reflect how satisfied they felt with reference of 20 different intrinsic and extrinsic factors. At the end of the survey, the result obtained from Singapore achieved a mean score of 62.03 while Australia means score of 70.66. As compared to Australia mangers, Harrison (1995) concluded out that Singapore mangers had a lower job satisfaction level, which serves the turnover rate indicator. Hofstede’s (1983) cultural dimension of Power Distance and Individualism versus Collectivism could explain job satisfaction differences between the two countries. Power Distance (PD) refers to the relationship between superior and subordinate has perceived degree of equability of expected power (Hofstede 1983). Between superior and subordinate relationships, cultural values having low PD possesses greater perceived trust, harmony or work ethic. On the other hand, high PD underlines the possibility in lack of trust, co-operation or faith within the employees. Under the research effort done by Hofstede (1983), he placed Singapore’s Power Distance as 13th in positioned as compared to 41 in Australia. In Hofstede’s (1983) view, lower jobs satisfactions found in Singapore being high PD. Individualism defined as the degree to which individual integrates oneself into groups or the society (Hofstede 1983). High individualism does not require conforming to the group. Instead, it is regard individual goals, achievement or independent rights as upmost importance. On the other hand, collectivism is the opposite of Individualism. Dependent on others, collectivism sees common good or rights as most important. After work hours, high individualism countries can expect to have lesser intensity of work related matters. However, in low individualism countries like Singapore, work matters still arouse the individuals after working hours, which aggregate the job dissatisfaction level (Harrison 1995). The second source of job related attitudes is OC. According to Vandenberghe and Tremblay (2008), OC is the relative strength of psychological contract, obligation and identification of employee’s attachment to the organisation. In this OC model comprises of 3 components. Affective, Continuance and Normative commitments regard as the better predictor of turnover as compared to job satisfaction (Vandenberghe & Tremblay 2008). Speaking on the same tone, Khatri, Chong and Budhwar (2001) also find this argument agreeable. Although traces of OC prove to be the stronger correlation of actual turnover or turnover intention, Aryee, Wyatt and MA (1991) published works had further discussed this statement. Data obtained from 245 Singapore respondents working in professional environment and variables identified to analyse. These variables include jobs satisfaction, OC, turnover intention, realization of expectations, skills utilisation, person-organisation fit and professional commitment. Comparing OC and job satisfaction only, in job satisfaction, among the 245 respondents, only 4.4% felt is a significant indicator of turnover intention. On the other hand, in OC, the most significant predictor of turnover is OC holding 33%. Till this point, different authors found different elements to support their influencing factors towards turnover phenomenon. Khatri, Chong and Budhwar (2001) states that job satisfaction is the best predictor of turnover rates or turnover intention. Conversely, Aryee, Wyatt and MA (1991) argues OC is would be the better element to predict. Shahnawaz and Jafri (2009) disregard their both comments. Shahnawaz and Jafri (2009) further clarified that employee’s turnover or having intention to leave depends on individual attitudes. A recent study published by Shahnawaz and Jafri (2009) to clarify job attitudes influencing employee turnover relation. Eighty mangers had to fill in both job satisfaction questionnaire and OC scale to determine the relation. Among the mangers that changed less than two jobs within the past 4 years was consider as stayers. For the same period, mangers that changed more than 2 times was deem as job hoppers. The results obtained shows that job hopper mangers considers OC as the better predictor while job satisfaction emerged for the stayers. Obviously, there are some limitations to this literature review. Clearly, above-mentioned elements does not constitute to turnover rates only. Differences in Generation X or Y workers may affect the psychological contract between employees and their organisation is one area (Trimble 2006). Other motivational aspects such as individual expectancy would also influence individuals’ perception of decision-making would be another element (Udechukwu 2009). Influences such as tenure, age, gender or market job availability could also relate to turnover or intention to leave (Vandenberghe & Tremblay 2008). For better comprehension of turnover, extension or insights drawn towards this field of literature may need others to explore. This paper only provides a glimpse of light for HRM who wish to take preventive measures against high turnover rates or retaining employees. Employee’s level of job satisfaction or the degree of commitment towards their organisation would indicate their length of stay. In addition, other external influencing factors surround employee’s environment must consider in as well in HRM’s preventive action plans. Regardless of positive or negative relations of the above, it all concerns individuals’ attitude, perspective and personality among their peer, superior or organisations. |
 |
|||
| 网站地图 |
