An exploratory investigation into the relationships between promotion and turnover: a quasi-experimental longitudinal study

Journal of Management, Spring, 1993 by Mark W. Johnston, Rodger W. Griffeth, Scot Burton, Paula Phillips Carson

The importance of studying employee movement out of an organization is well-documented in the management literature (Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, & Meglino, 1979). Volumes of research exists on the causes, correlates, and outcomes of employee turnover. However, literature examining internal movements within the organization, such as promotions, is much less complete (Anderson, Milkovich, & Tsui, 1981; Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, & Weick, 1970; Markham, Harlan, & Hackett, 1987). That is, research has focused primarily on employee movement out of the organization (external turnover) while generally ignoring the effects associated with movement within the organization (internal promotions).

Deficient promotional opportunities have been hypothesized as primary reasons for withdrawal (Stumpf & Dawley 1981). Unfortunately, past empirical research has been unable to establish a consistent relationship between promotion and withdrawal (Price & Mueller, 1981). Indeed, prior research has characterized the relationship as everything from strongly negative (Porter & Steers 1973), weakly negative (Price, 1977) to inconclusive (Mobley et al., 1979). Moreover, other researchers have suggested that promotion has a greater influence on other areas such as absenteeism (Brayfield & Crockett, 1955) and job selection (Hellriegel & White 1973) than actual withdrawal behavior.

The few studies which have investigated promotions and the impact of internal movement on personal and organizational outcomes have been deficient in that these studies have primarily used proxies for actual promotion. Such proxies include promotion satisfaction (Bartol, 1979; Mobley, Horner, & Hollingsworth, 1978), availability of promotional opportunities (Marsh & Mannari, 1977), and perceived equity of promotion practices and policies (Dittrich & Carrell, 1979; Dreher 1982). While these affective and perceptual measures are conceptually related to actual promotion, they represent empirically distinct operationalizations and are associated with problems inherent in self-report measures (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986).

Despite the lack of research on internal movement, promotions are an important aspect of human resource systems because they: (a) serve to encourage quality performance (Sanborn & Berger, 1990), (b) represent an important aspect of internal selection systems (Markham, et al., 1987), (c) mitigate the turnover process (Dreher, 1982; Stumpf & Dawley, 1981), and (d) are important outcomes to organization members, influencing affective reactions to the job and organization (Price & Mueller, 1981, 1986; Quinn & Staines, 1979). To date, however, there has been surprisingly little research addressing the consequences of internal employee movement.

Another deficiency is the lack of research examining different combinations of internal and external movement simultaneously. That is, the literature has typically looked at turnover and promotion separately, without considering the joint effects of these two distinct types of employee movement. Boudreau and Berger (1985) recently offered a taxonomic framework that delineates between different internal and external movement types. Included among these possible combinations, they suggested that individuals could move: (a) both externally and internally (i.e., promoted leavers), (b) internally, but not externally (i.e., promoted stayers), (c) externally, but not internally (i.e., non-promoted leavers), and (d) neither externally nor internally (i.e., non-promoted stayers). Boudreau and Berger (1985) also called for more systematic research investigating the effects of unique combinations of internal and external movements on organizational outcomes. In response to this recommendation, and based upon their framework (Boudreau & Berger, 1985), this paper investigates the relationships between combinations of internal and external movement and job attitudes.

Recent evaluations of the employee movement literature have also recognized the need for longitudinal research using repeated measures (Bluedorn, 1982; Mobley, 1982; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; Muchinsky & Tuttle, 1979; Price, 1977; Steers & Mowday, 1981). Considering the dynamic nature of individual and organizational variables recognized as antecedents to both promotion and turnover, longitudinal designs are needed to understand these processes (Youngblood, Mobley, & Meglino, 1983). None of the previous research on promotions and turnover, whether using actual promotions or one of the proxies, used longitudinal research with repeated measures.

Exploring the Impact of Movement on Employee Reactions

Given the exploratory nature of the investigation and the wide range of variables which might relate to the promotion-turnover relationship, it was necessary to limit the number and type of variables for the study. Based on the framework for categorizing turnover correlates developed by Pettman (1973) and used by Cotton and Tuttle (1986), this study focuses on work-related correlates (i.e., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job involvement) of turnover. Work-related correlates were selected for several reasons. First, promotion is a work-related activity and hence, one could suggest that attitudes about the work environment would be among the first to be influenced by promotion activity. Second, past research has consistently found these variables to be significantly related to the turnover process (Cotton & Tuttle, 1986). Finally, by focusing on one set of correlates it is possible to more clearly understand the relationship between work environment and the various promotion-turnover combinations. While work-related variables were the focus of the study, the individual's cognition about quitting was also assessed in the study. The inclusion of intention to quit was based on a substantial body of research that suggests it is the direct antecedent of the decision to leave an organization (Mobley et al., 1979) and its exclusion in any turnover study may lead to erroneous conclusions (Mobley, 1982).