عنوان انگلیسی مقاله:

A meta-analysis of the interrelationships between employee lateness, absenteeism, and turnover: Implications for models of withdrawal behavior

ترجمه عنوان مقاله: بررسی جامع روابط متقابل بین تاخیر کارکنان، غیبت، و ترک خدمت: مفاهیم برای مدل رفتار کناره گیری

$$$: فقط 15500 تومان

سال انتشار: 2012

تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی: 22 صفحه

تعداد صفحات ترجمه مقاله: 35 صفحه

منبع: Journal of Organizational Behavior

نوع فایل: word

http://modir123.com/photo%20site/D-modir123.com%20_2_.png دانلود مقاله

15500 تومان – خرید ترجمه

 

فهرست مطالب
  • چکیده
  • مطالعه حال حاضر
  • در روابط کلی
  • تحلیل تعدیل کننده ها
  • نمونه های روابط بین رفتارهای خروجی
  • روش
  • جستجوی نوشتار
  • تحلیل تعدیل کننده
  • انواع سنجه های تاخیر و غیبت
  • شمول تقابل و ترکیب تحلیل های پیشین
  • صنعت
  • داوطلبانه
  • نرخ های
  • بیکاری
  • بررسی دقت
  • روش تقابل و ترکیب تحلیل ها(Meta-analytic)
  • تحلیل راه بر مبنای یافته های تقابل و ترکیب تحلیل ها
  • نتایج
  • تقابل و ترکیب تحلیل های تاخیر- غیبت
  • تحلیل های پایه شامل سنجه های ذهنی
  • تاخیر کلی- رابطه ی غیبت
  • تحلیل تعدیل کننده
  • جدول 1. نتایج تحلیل برای روابط بین تاخیر، غیبت، و ترک خدمت
  • تقابل و ترکیب تحلیل های غیبت – تعوی
  • جدول 2. وزن رگرسیون حداقل مربعات
  • رابطه ی غیبت کلی- تعویض
  • تحلیل تعدیل کننده
  • رابطه ی کلی تاخیر- تعویض
  • تحلیل تعدیل کننده ی تاخیر- تعویض
  • جدول 3. نمایش نتایج: از راه متاآنالیز.
  • تحلیل راه بر مبنای یافته های تقابل و ترکیب تحلیل ها
  • مدل Spillover
  • مدل پیشرفت کناره گیری
  • شکل 1. مدل راه Spillover و پیشرفت مدل کناره گیری
  • خلاصه ی یافته ها
  • مفاهیم نظری و عملی
  • مسائل و محدودیت های دیگر
  • منابع

ترجمه چکیده مقاله

ما ارتباط بین تاخیر عمدی کارکنان، غیبت، و ترک خدمت را برای (الف) ارائه جامع ترین برآورد تا به امروز از روابط متقابل بین این رفتارها کناره گیری، (ب) آزمایش عملی بودن یک ساختار کناره گیری، و (ج) ارزیابی شواهد برای مدل های رقیب از روابط بین رفتارهای کناره گیری را متاآنالیز کردیم (به عنوان مثال، فرم های جایگزین، فرم های جبرانی، فرم های مستقل، پیشرفت برداشت، و مدل لبریز). همبستگی اصلاح شده 0.26 بین دیر و غیبت، 0.25 بین غیبت و ترک خدمت و. 01 بین تاخیر و ترک خدمت بودند. این همبستگی ها حتی در مطالعات اخیر نسبت به متا آنالیزهای قبلی از این روابط در حدود 15-20 سال پیش کوچکتر بودند. همبستگی های کوچک تا متوسط از ساختار کناره گیری که شامل تاخیر، غیبت، و ترک خدمت باشد حمایت نمی کند. از آنجایی که بسیاری از مدل ها فرض می کنند که تمام روابط مثبت، تهی، یا منفی خواهد بود این همبستگی های متقابل نیز بسیاری از مدل های رقیب از روابط بین رفتارهای کناره گیری را رد می نمایند. بر اساس تحلیل مسیر با استفاده از داده های فراتحلیلی، پیشرفت مدل کناره گیری بیشترین حمایت را به دست آورد. این نشان می دهد که تاخیر احتمالا تا حد متوسط غیبت را پیش بینی کرده و غیبت هم احتمالا در حد متوسط ترک خدمت را پیش بینی می نماید.

کلمات کلیدی: تاخیر، غیبت، ترک خدمت، خروج از محل کار، بررسی جامع

ترجمه مقدمه مقاله

تاخیر ارادی کارکنان، غیبت و تعویض اغلب به عنوان «رفتارهای خروجی (withdrawal behaviors)» شناخته می ­شوند زیرا هر کدام از آن­ها عدم حضور در محل کار محسوب می­ شوند (هولین 1991، جانز 2001، کسلفسکی 2000). 1رفتارهای خروجی برای سازمان­ ها هزینه دارند. در تجارت آمریکا، تاخیر کارکنان سالانه بیش از سه میلیارد دولار هزینه دارد، غیبت کارکنان به طور میانگین معادل پانزده درصد از کل حقوق پرداختی، هزینه­ ساز می ­شود و تعویض کارکنان هم بین پنجاه تا دویست درصد حقوق سال اول کارکنان قبلی هزینه دارد. سَجی، بیراتی و تسینِر (2002) معتقدند که هزینه­ ی رفتارهای خروجی برای یک شرکت متوسط در حدود شانزده و نیم درصد از کل درآمد شرکت قبل از پرداخت مالیات، برآورد می­ شود. سایر مطالعات به جمع­ آوری آثار منفی رفتارهای خروجی بر روی روحیات و انگیزش کاری اعضای یک تیم پرداخته­ اند. آشکار است که درک رفتارهای خروجی ارزشمند است و این مطالعات با تقابل و ترکیب نتایج سایر مطالعاتِ تاخیر، غیبت و تعویض به این درک کمک می­ کنند.

دو دیدگاه عمومی برای توضیح رابطه­ ی بین رفتارهای خروجی مورد استفاده قرار گرفته­ اند. یک دیدگاه، تاخیر، غیبت و تعویض را به عنوان بروز ترک کلی از ساختار کار، می­ بیند و بحث می­ کند هر رفتاری که به هر نحوی موجب ترک کار توسط کارکنان می­ شود پاسخی به حالت کار نامطلوب مانند نارضایتی شغلی و کمبود تعهد سازمانی است. بر اساس مبنای این دیدگاه ساختار خروج، برخی به بحث پرداخته ­اند که درک از رفتارهای خروجی و سوابق آن­ها می­ تواند با تمرکز بر میزان تراکمِ ترکیبِ رفتارهای خروجی، افزایش یابد. به طور خاص بر اساس اصل سازگاری (آیزِن و فیشبِین 1980)، برخی موردی ساخته ­اند که اندازه­ گیری­ های گسترده از قبیل رضایت شغلی و تعهد سازمانی به بهترین شکل، معیارهای گسترده­ ی مشابهی پیش­بینی می­ کند مانند میزان تراکم ساختار خروج. علاوه ­بر این چنین میزان تراکمی، به اندازه­ی کمبود معیار موجب خسارت نمی­ شود.

ترجمه قسمتی از نتیجه گیری مقاله

هدف اصلی این مطالعات، تشخیص درجه­ی اهمیت یک ساختار خروجی است که شامل تاخیر، غیبت و تعویض ارادی کارکنان می ­شود. یک دیدگاه ساختار خروجی دلالت می­ کند بر این که هر یک از سه رفتار خروجی منعکس کننده­ ی یک ساختار مشترک هستند، سوابق مشترک دارند و بنابراین باید به طور قدرتمندی با یکدیگر مرتبط باشند. بنابراین، این مطالعات به تقابل و ترکیب تحلیل­ های روابط بین این سه رفتار خروجی پرداخته است، با بیش از دوبار ساختن اندازه­ی نمونه­ های کلی تقابل و ترکیب تحلیل­ های گذشته ی این روابط. برخلاف تقابل و ترکیب تحلیل­ های گذشته در مستند سازی همبستگی­ های مربوط قوی بین رفتارهای خروجی (کسلفسکی و میترا)، این تقابل و ترکیب تحلیل­ ها، متوسط همبستگی­ های کوچک تا میانی در بازه­ی.01 تا.26 بین رفتارهای خروجی یافته­است. اگر این سه رفتار هر کدام نشانگر یک ساختار خروجی بودند، یکی از آن­ها احتمالا در انتظار همبستگی بالاتری بین سنجه­ های ترکیبی این سه رفتار بود (مثلا تعداد غیبت­ ها در طول هفته­ ها، ماه ­ها یا حتی سال­ ها). با این حال روابط بین رفتارهای خروجی توسط تعدادی از متغیرها (همبستگی تاخیر- غیبت قوی­تر بود وقتی که سنجه­ های تناوب غیبت استفاده شدند، رابطه­ ی غیبت – تعویض در صنایع خاص و وقتی که نرخ بیکاری پایین­ تر بود، قوی­تر بود.) تعدیل شده ­است، در هیچ مثالی، متوسط همبستگی در هیچ گروه تعدیل­ کننده­ای به چیزی که نوعا «همبستگی­ های قوی» شناخته می ­شد، نرسیده ­است (کوهِن 1992).

چکیده انگلیسی مقاله

We meta-analyzed the correlations between voluntary employee lateness, absenteeism, and turnover to (i) provide the most comprehensive estimates to date of the interrelationships between these withdrawal behaviors; (ii) test the viability of a withdrawal construct; and (iii) evaluate the evidence for competing models f the relationships between withdrawal behaviors (i.e., alternate forms, compensatory forms, independent forms, progression of withdrawal, and spillover model). Corrected correlations were .26 between lateness and absenteeism, .25 between absenteeism and turnover, and .01 between lateness and turnover. These correlations were even smaller in recent studies that had been carried out since the previous meta-analyses of these relationships 15–20 years ago. The small-to-moderate intercorrelations are not supportive of a withdrawal construct that includes lateness, absenteeism, and turnover. These intercorrelations also rule out many of the competing models of the relationships between withdrawal behaviors, as many of the models assume all relationships will be positive, null, or negative. On the basis of path analyses using meta-analytic data, the progression of withdrawal model garnered the most support. This suggests that lateness may moderately predict absenteeism and absenteeism may moderately predict turnover.
Keywords: lateness; absenteeism; turnover; withdrawal from work; meta-analysis

مقدمه انگلیسی مقاله

Voluntary employee lateness, absenteeism, and turnover are often referred to as “withdrawal behaviors” because they each represent some physical removal from the workplace (e.g., Hulin, 1991; Johns, 2001; Koslowsky, 2000).1 Withdrawal behaviors are costly to organizations. Employee lateness has been estimated to cost US  usinesses more than $3bn each year (DeLonzor, 2005), employee absenteeism has been estimated to cost businesses as much as 15 per cent of payroll (Navarro & Bass, 2006), and the cost of replacing employees has been estimated between 50 and 200 per cent of those employees’ first year salaries (Fitz-enz, 1997; Hale, 1998). Sagie, Birati, and Tziner (2002) considered the costs of all withdrawal behaviors to a leading, medium-sized Israeli company and estimated the total cost to be approximately 16.5 per cent of the company’s before-tax income. Other studies have documented the negative effects of withdrawal behaviors on teammates’ morale and work motivation (e.g., Jamal, 1984; Koslowsky, Sagie, Krausz, & Singer, 1997). Clearly, there is value in understanding withdrawal behaviors, and this study contributes to this understanding by meta-analyzing the relationships between voluntary lateness, absenteeism, and turnover.
Two general perspectives have been taken to explaining the link between withdrawal behaviors (Koslowsky, 2009). One perspective views voluntary lateness, absenteeism, and turnover as manifestations of an overall withdrawal from work construct, arguing that each behavior is a way that employees withdraw from work in response to unfavorable work attitudes such as job dissatisfaction and lack of organizational commitment (e.g., Hulin, 1991; Rosse & Hulin, 1985; Rosse & Hulin, 1984). On the basis of this withdrawal construct perspective, some have argued that an understanding of the withdrawal behaviors and their antecedents would be increased by focusing on aggregate measures that combine the withdrawal behaviors (e.g., Hanisch, Hulin, & Roznowski, 1998). In particular, on the basis of the compatibility principle (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), some have made the case that broad measures such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment will best predict similarly broad criteria such as aggregate measures of a withdrawal construct (e.g., Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006). Additionally, such aggregate measures would not suffer as much from criterion deficiency (e.g., Gupta & Jenkins, 1991).
However, the second perspective views each of the withdrawal behaviors as unique and driven by specific antecedents and therefore not reflective of an overall withdrawal construct (e.g., Price & Mueller, 1981; Steers & Mowday, 1981). Further, Mobley (1982) noted that employees do not always engage in withdrawal behaviors to avoid work (as is implied by the term “withdrawal”) but, instead, are often motivated to engage in these behaviors because of alternatives and attractions such as the pleasure of sleeping in or going to a ballgame. On the basis of this uniqueness perspective, some have made the case that studying lateness, absenteeism, and turnover separately will lead to a greater understanding of each of the withdrawal behaviors (e.g., Blau, 1998; Johns, 1998). From this perspective, referring to lateness, absenteeism, and turnover as withdrawal behaviors is more of a handy umbrella term for the behaviors than an indication of them being reflective of an overall withdrawal construct.

نتیجه گیری انگلیسی مقاله

The main objective of this study was to determine the degree of support for a withdrawal construct that includes voluntary employee lateness, absenteeism, and turnover. A withdrawal construct perspective implies that each of the three withdrawal behaviors reflects a common construct, has common antecedents, and therefore should be strongly related to each other. Thus, this study meta-analyzed the relationships between these three withdrawal behaviors, more than doubling the total sample sizes of previous meta-analyses of these relationships. Contrary to previous meta-analyses documenting relatively strong correlations between the withdrawal behaviors (Koslowsky et al., 1997; Mitra et al., 1992), this meta-analysis found small-to-moderate mean correlations ranging from .01 to .26 between the withdrawal behaviors. If these three behaviors were each manifestations of a withdrawal construct, one would expect higher correlations between composite measures of these behaviors (e.g., number of absences over the course of weeks, months, or even years). Although the relationships between withdrawal behaviors were moderated by a number of variables (i.e., the lateness–absenteeism correlation was stronger when frequency measures of absence were used; the absenteeism–turnover relationship was stronger in certain industries and when unemployment rates were lower), in no instances did mean correlations within any moderator category reach what would typically be thought of as “strong correlations” (Cohen, 1992). Further, this meta-analysis documented that the relationships between the withdrawal behaviors have each reduced considerably in magnitude since the previous meta-analyses by Koslowsky et al. (1997) and Mitra et al.
(1992). The lateness–absenteeism correlation is .13 in samples not included in Koslowsky et al., as compared with
a correlation of .38 in the studies included in Koslowsky et al. The absenteeism–turnover and lateness–turnover correlations similarly have reduced from .33 to .21 and from .14 to .10, respectively, since previous meta-analyses. As suggested by Hypothesis 2, such reductions in the relationships between withdrawal behaviors are supportive of the idea that the employee–employer loyalty relationship has changed in recent years (Cooper, 1999; Sullivan, 1999), making employees more willing to withdraw from the organization because of sudden shocks (e.g., Harman et al., 2007), even if employees were previously relatively satisfied with their jobs or organizations. This decreased employee loyalty and increased willingness to precipitously withdraw from the organization is less compatible with an overall withdrawal construct that posits that relationships between the withdrawal behaviors are a function of prolonged and increasing dissatisfaction (e.g., Rosse & Hulin, 1985). It should be acknowledged that changes in employee loyalty over time cannot definitively account for the reductions in all of the withdrawal behavior intercorrelations (e.g., the reduction in the absenteeism–turnover correlation appeared to have more to do with changes over time in unemployment rates and concentration of primary studies in certain industries). Also, it is not clear whether this phenomenon generalizes outside of developed, post-industrial countries, as all but two of the studies in this meta-analysis were carried out in the USA, Canada, Israel, England, and Australia. For instance, it is likely that less developed and economically stable countries would not have experienced an increase in outsourcing in recent years, and large numbers of layoffs are probably always a concern in such countries. Thus, these factors probably would not have contributed to decreases in employee loyalty in such countries. Similarly, in relatively collectivist countries, the norms regarding withdrawing from the organization may differ from relatively individualistic countries. We encourage multicultural research investigating the degree to which the results of this meta-analysis generalize to developing or non-post-industrial countries. However, this does not change the fact that in the set of existing studies included in this meta-analysis, withdrawal intercorrelations have reduced. It is difficult to make the case that lateness, absenteeism, and turnover are manifestations of an overall withdrawal construct based on intercorrelations ranging from .10 to .21 in recent research. In all, the results of this meta-analysis are not supportive of an aggregate withdrawal construct. Another objective of this study was to test the viability of competing models of the relationships between withdrawal behaviors. The moderate positive lateness–absenteeism and absenteeism–turnover correlations, combined with the near-zero lateness–turnover correlation, are most supportive of an indirect effect of lateness on turnover through increased absenteeism, as postulated by the progression model. The meta-analytic path analyses supported this conclusion. This suggests that lateness is a predictor of absenteeism and absenteeism is a predictor of turnover. Although the lateness–absenteeism and absenteeism–turnover correlations were not high enough to support the idea of these behaviors all being manifestations of a single withdrawal construct, these correlations are still moderate, appreciable, and large enough to provide predictive utility. For instance, the correlation of .26 between lateness and absenteeism means that lateness is one of the strongest predictors of absenteeism and is at least as strong a predictor of absenteeism as job satisfaction (Hackett, 1989), organizational commitment (Farrell & Stamm, 1988), pay (Farrell & Stamm, 1988), and Big Five personality (Salgado, 2002). The correlation of .25 between absenteeism and turnover means that absenteeism is one of the strongest predictors of turnover and is at least as strong a predictor as frequently studied predictors such as tenure, job satisfaction, pay, distributive justice, alternative job opportunities, and job involvement (Griffeth et al., 2000). Especially given the high cost to organizations of absenteeism and turnover (Fitz-enz, 1997; Hale, 1998; Navarro & Bass, 2006; Sagie et al., 2002), identifying solid predictors of these  ehaviors is clearly of use to organizations. However, the criterion-related validities of lateness as a predictor of absenteeism and absenteeism as a predictor of turnover appear to have reduced in recent years, which calls into question how useful the progression model will continue to be in the future.

 

 

 

 

مطالب مرتبط