Professional Documents
Culture Documents
To cite this article: Thomas Hugh Feeley , Jennie Hwang & George A. Barnett (2008) Predicting
Employee Turnover from Friendship Networks, Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36:1,
56-73, DOI: 10.1080/00909880701799790
Thomas Feeley is a faculty member in Communication and Family Medicine at the University at Buffalo (UB),
of the State University of New York. George Barnett is Professor of Communication and Jennie Hwang is a
doctoral candidate in Communication at UB. Correspondence to: Thomas Hugh Feeley, Department of
Communication, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, 329 Baldy Hall, North Campus,
Amherst, NY 14261, USA. Email: thfeeley@buffalo.edu.
Network Centrality
Centrality in one’s social network is traditionally measured as the number of direct
(or indirect) links one has in the organization compared to the number of possible
links one could have (Feeley & Barnett, 1997; Monge et al., 1983). Thus, any measure
of centrality is relative; highly integrated or dense networks feature many webs of
links (pathways) between members, while sparsely connected networks might have a
few highly central and connected individuals with many on the periphery of the social
network who communicate in silos or clusters within their own individual
workgroups.
Turnover and Networks 59
The notion of centrality can be traced back to the seminal work of Bavelas (1950)
and Leavitt (1951) in group efficiency in decision-making. Those more central have
greater access to information and material resources, while those less central are more
dependent on others for information and require more links and effort to
communicate with focal others. The most important or prominent actors are usually
located in strategic locations within the network (Wasserman & Faust, 1994).
Freeman (1979) identified three primary measures of centrality in a communication
network: in and out degree, closeness, and betweenness. One with a high out-degree
speaks to more individuals in the group and is more connected. An actor with high
in-degree centrality is in direct contact or is adjacent to many other actors; he or she
is ‘‘where the action is’’ (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Betweenness refers to the
frequency with which a position falls between pairs of positions in the network and
can be considered more influential (Monge & Contractor, 1999; Mullen, Johnson, &
Salas, 1991). Closeness refers to the extent to which one is close to all others in the
network. One with high closeness is traditionally located near the center of
the network and requires fewer links to communicate with all others in the network;
the actor with high closeness can quickly interact with all others and is theoretically
more productive in communicating information to others (Wasserman & Faust,
1994). Freeman, Roeder, and Mulholland (1979) use the terms ‘‘control,’’ ‘‘indepen-
dence,’’ and ‘‘activity’’ in the network to characterize betweenness, closeness, and
degree centrality, respectively.
An important consideration in network research is how a communication link or
connection is measured. One class of network studies examines egocentric networks
(Everett & Borgatti, 2004) that require individuals to self-report who they speak with,
and then uses matrix algebra (actor by actor matrix) to produce measures of
centrality. Also potentially relevant is to whom individuals speak on a regular basis,
and for what type of information. For example, Shah (2000) found that employees
rely on structurally equivalent others (i.e., those who hold a similar role or position in
the network) for job-related information and rely on cohesive referents (i.e., those
who have close ties with a focal individual) for general information and as social
referents. Thus, the strength of the tie (Granovetter, 1973) or link between employees
may be important in examining organizational retention and turnover. Other
network analyses have used organizations as the node or unit of analysis (Doerfel &
Taylor, 2004; Shumante, Fulk, & Monge, 2005) in lieu of the actor.
predicts that both work stressors and coping resources have independent and direct
effects on strain. Simply stated, having more coping resources that may include
coworker social support serves to reduce levels of strain regardless of the level of stress
that may be perceived.
Apker and Ray (2003) discuss the importance of stress and social support for
individuals who are employed in the healthcare industry. Summarizing the social
support literature amassed over several decades of research, Apker and Ray (2003)
conclude that communication of social support from coworkers, particularly peers
and immediate supervisors, is an important means for coping with job stressors by
empowering the individual to have better control over and understanding of his or
her stressors in the workplace. It is interesting to note that Metts, Geist, and Gray
(1994) found that advice and support provided during work, compared to support
received outside of work, were more effective in a sample of nursing professionals.
A social support theoretical model would suggest that not only should the number
of peer relationships matter to turnover (as the number of peers may be a proxy
measure of the availability of coping resources), but the type or closeness of the
employee relationship should also matter. A social support explanation would predict
the greatest coping resources to be available to employees who report many close
friends, and the fewest coping resources to be available to employees with few peer
relationships. The following hypotheses are advanced:
H2: Employees who are more centrally located in the friendship network will be
less likely to turnover.
H3: Centrality in one’s friendship network will explain more of the variance in
turnover than centrality in one’s peer relationship network.
Both Feeley and Barnett (1997) and Feeley (2000) failed to distinguish between peer
and social relationships and to account for this in their analyses. Moreover, both
studies neglected to measure the relative strength of the links perceived by employees.
Feeley (2000) asked employees to indicate by checkmark ‘‘the individuals you
communicate with at work on a regular basis about work-related or social-related
topics’’ (p. 269). Feeley and Barnett (1997) asked employees to indicate if an
employee was unknown to them, a coworker with whom they spoke, or a personal
friend. However, the authors combined the latter two categories for their measure of
a network link. The current study attempts to provide a distinction between peer
social networks and friendship networks while also measuring the closeness of each
relation. It is expected that employees with close others to turn to about work (or
personal) stressors will be more likely to remain in their position, as individuals with
close network ties, it is predicted, will have greater coping resources. Thus:
H4: Employees reporting greater relational closeness with network ties will be less
likely to turnover.
The current study examines employee turnover at a fast-food restaurant. The
decision to study such an organization was made in an effort to examine turnover at
62 T. H. Feeley et al.
an organization that is frequently challenged by employee retention. Studying a fast-
food restaurant also provides a more direct comparison to the organizations in the
Feeley studies, which included a supermarket (Feeley & Barnett, 1997), a fast-food
restaurant, a pizza parlor, and a drug store (Feeley, 2000).
Methods
Procedures
In November of 2004, employees took a survey that took approximately 20 minutes
to complete during their scheduled shift. After three months, the roster of employees
who completed the survey was submitted to the store manager who noted which
employees had left, when, and whether the turnover was voluntary or involuntary.
The project was approved by the Social and Behavioral Sciences Institutional Review
Board at University at Buffalo, of the State University of New York. Employees under
18 years of age were required to have parental consent to participate in the survey.
Measures
Individual and workplace factors. Employees were asked to report their age, sex, job
position (four categories), full- or part-time status, education level, race, and if they
were currently a full-time student. Respondents were asked to report their level of job
satisfaction on a single-item, seven-point scale anchored by ‘‘not at all satisfied’’ and
‘‘most satisfied.’’ Each respondent also reported how close s/he was to each of the
other 39 employees, and how much time s/he spent, in an average week, with each
other employee. Relational closeness was measured on a single-item, seven-point
scale anchored by ‘‘not at all close’’ and ‘‘very close’’ while time was measured on a
single-item, seven-point scale ranging from ‘‘never’’ to ‘‘always.’’ Higher values
indicate a greater amount of a given factor. Turnover was measured as a dichotomous
factor; stayers were coded as ‘‘0,’’ and leavers were coded as ‘‘1.’’
Centrality. Network centrality was measured by the degree measure: the number of
in-degree and out-degree links one has. UCINET [VI] software (Borgatti, Everett, &
Freeman, 2002) was used to compute all network measures. In-degree centrality was
measured by counting the number of employees who reported a relationship with a
focal employee; out-degree was measured by counting the number of out-links from
Turnover and Networks 63
Results
Descriptives
The median age was 20 years, and 23 employees were female. The majority of
employees were Caucasian (n30); nine employees were African-American,
Hispanic, or Native American (one respondent failed to report race). Of the 32
employees who reported student status, 50% reported that they were currently full-
time students. All but one employee was part-time. Many employees were either high
school students or had failed to finish high school (n 27); two employees were high
school graduates; two employees were attending college or had graduated from
college; and nine individuals failed to report education level. In terms of job position,
20 employees held entry-level positions, seven were trainers, one worked in
maintenance, and the remaining 12 were assistant managers.
The mean relational closeness was 2.59, somewhat more distant than average, and
the mean time was 1.71, indicating that the amount of time spent together was
64 T. H. Feeley et al.
relatively low. Means and standard deviations are reported in Table 1. Each employee
reported communicating about work to eight employees and about work and non-
work to 10 employees. Job satisfaction was near the middle of the scale at 4.69 (of a
maximum score of 7). After three months, there were 28 stayers and 12 leavers; nine
of these were involuntary leavers and three were voluntary. Table 1 reports zero-order
correlation coefficients between each pair of non-categorical factors and turnover.
Work or peer out-degree was significantly correlated with age of respondent (r
.38), time (r.36), and perceived closeness (r .38). Friendship in-degree was
associated (p B.01) with time (r .73) and closeness (r.85), while friendship out-
degree was correlated with age (r .37), turnover (r.38), and time (r .40).
All these correlations are significant beyond the .05 level.
Test of Hypotheses
Peer networks. Hypothesis 1 predicted that centrality in one’s peer network would
predict employee turnover. Separate regression equations were conducted for peer in-
degree and peer out-degree.3 The correlation between peer in-degree and out-degree
was only .32, indicating that these two variables are not collinear.
Peer out-degree failed to predict a statistically significant amount of the variance in
turnover when controlling for the first block (age, race, job satisfaction, and work
position). The two independent blocks explained 18% of the variance in turnover.
Block 2 (out-degree) only accounted for 2% of the variance in above Block 1 (b.06,
n.s.).
The regression equation for peer in-degree explained more of the total variance
compared to peer out-degree, but the model with peer in-degree still failed to reach
statistical significance (R2 .23). Peer in-degree explained 7% of the variance in
turnover over and above employee personal characteristics (b.30, p .09). Thus,
the data failed to support Hypothesis 1. Statistics for all four logistic regression
equations are reported in Table 2.
Friendship networks. Partial support was found for Hypothesis 2: centrality in one’s
friendship out-degree network significantly predicted turnover and explained almost
20% of the unique variance (R2D .20, b.19, pB.02). Individuals who reported
having more friends in the workplace were less likely to have left after three months.
The total model that includes friendship out-degree centrality predicted 35% of the
variance in turnover. The total model for friendship in-degree networks did not
predict a significant amount of turnover (R2D .03, b.12, p .31). Again, the
correlation between the two measures of centrality in the friendship network was low,
at only .39. These two variables are not collinear.
Comparing peer and friendship networks indicates support for Hypothesis 3:
friendship networks predicted more of the variance in turnover than did peer
networks.
Hypothesis 4 predicted that greater relational closeness to others in the social
network would predict employee turnover. Specifically, it was argued that greater
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations Between Pairs of Factors
Factor Mean (SD) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Peer in-degree 8.33 (3.14) .32* .04 .13 .08 .05 .17 .04 .17
2. Peer out-degree 8.33 (6.71) .40* .03 .18 .38* .17 .36* .38*
3. Friendship in-degree 10.33 (4.28) .39* .10 .37* .17 .73* .85*
4. Friendship out-degree 10.36 (9.66) .10 .31 .38* .40* .31*
5. Job satisfaction 4.69 (1.48) .02 .24 .27 .20
6. Age 21.85 (7.49) .08 .39* .22
7. Turnover .30 .02 .18
8. Time 1.71 (.40) .79*
9. Relational closeness 2.59 (0.57)
*p B.05, N40.
Block 1: Controls
Age 1.03 1.04 0.96 0.89
Job satisfaction 0.56 0.73 0.63 0.54
Work position 4.03 3.21 1.68 0.35
Race 0.59 1.80 1.87 1.68
Block 2: Centrality 0.74* 1.06 0.89 0.83**
2
R D Block 2 .07 .02 .03 .19
R2 total .23 .18 .19 .35
All statistics are reported as odds ratios except R2 statistics. *p B.10; **p B.05. Peer-inPeer
in-degree; Peer-outPeer out-degree; Friend-inFriend in-degree; Friend-outFriend out-
degree. R2 for Block 1.164.
closeness would engender a lower likelihood of turnover. There was no support for
Hypothesis 4: perceived relational closeness was unrelated to turnover (R2D.01, n.s.).
Discussion
This study extends the research into social networks and organizational turnover to
non-egocentric networks and provides a more nuanced view of the type of social
support that is predictive of turnover. Results from the current study amassed with
results from two previous studies (Feeley, 2000; Feeley & Barnett, 1997) provide a
reliable estimate of the relationship between social network position and employee
turnover. In general, employees who are more active in their social networks are
significantly more likely to remain in the workplace.
Two important elements in the current research design warrant attention. First,
friendship networks predicted a significant amount of the turnover variance while
peer networks failed to predict an appreciable amount of the variance when
controlling for other factors. Second, it appears that the number of friends is
more important than the closeness of the friendship relations when predicting
turnover.
This last observation is important to consider when revisiting a theoretical
model of why friendship networks account for turnover. It has been theorized that
friends in the workplace provide coping resources that serve to reduce the amount
of strain felt by an employee. The current findings indicate that having a number
of different support lines is more important than having one or two close friends
to lean on when the vicissitudes of part-time employment stress an employee.
With different shifts, different hours, and different responsibilities in the
workplace, it makes sense that a more flexible and more available network of
social support is important.
Turnover and Networks 67
The length of time between network measures and the measurement of turnover
was three months; other studies have examined turnover at six months (Feeley &
Barnett, 1997) or even five years (Mossholder et al., 2005). Direct comparison of any
two studies is not possible without considering the type of organization and other
possible moderating factors. For example, the current study found that 30% of
employees left after data collection and before 90 days when turnover was measured.
Compare these data to Mossholder et al. (2005) who found 35% of employees to
leave before measuring turnover 1,825 days after initial data collection. Also,
Mossholder et al. studied healthcare employees not fast-food employees, many of
whom are not ‘‘career’’ employees.
Practical Applications
Managers seeking to reduce turnover should pay attention to the current study and
the corpus of research in this area of inquiry. The results reported here are of special
importance to retail service companies that employ young, part-time workers, such as
fast food outlets, supermarkets, or landscaping businesses. First, managers should
attempt to create a denser network of social relations in the workplace; that is, more
people need to speak to more people about work- and non-work-related topics.
Moreover, increasing network links among employees should not come at the price of
decreased employee and organizational productivity. Employers may choose to create
network groups (Friedman & Holtom, 2002) or use other formal techniques to
increase employees’ assimilation into the workplace (Jablin, 2001). Formal and
informal mentoring are possibilities, as is appropriate long-term training of new
employees; the mentor can direct messages to the ‘‘rookies’’ to increase their in-
degree centrality in the network. Less formally, managers can be more vigilant
observers of communication networks in the workplace and pay special attention to
employees who may be socially isolated from the social network, while understanding
that many individuals may choose this isolation. If the less central individuals are
desired as long-term employees, managers should take the initiative to talk to the
relative isolates about network-related topics (social support) to increase their in-
degree centrality in the network.
In the early stages of organizational assimilation, there are two opportunities to
integrate the employee into the organizational network. First, during employee
orientation, a new employee can be made to feel comfortable and have an
opportunity to interact with current employees in a non-work setting, such as
during the orientation session, which might be located off-site. Also, the organization
should use employees who are at the same level to orient and introduce new
employees to the workplace. As an analogy, many rookies on professional sports
teams are paired with one another to ‘‘learn the ropes’’ of the team and league.
Newcomers may be better able to relate and connect with someone at their level of
employment.
A second opportunity may arise during employee training, which may occur in
parallel with orientation or after orientation. Jablin (2001) estimates that one-third of
70 T. H. Feeley et al.
all new employees undergo formal training programs. The content of training may be
considered in light of the current results. Clear and realistic expectations for job
duties and responsibilities are important considerations. Training efforts need not
end upon employee entry into the organization; research suggests that senior
executives are now just as likely as entry-level employees to be the target of training
initiatives (Martocchio & Baldwin, 1997). The importance of training throughout
one’s lifespan in an organization is related to an employee’s attempt to individualize
or change/adapt his or her roles based upon the work environment for a better fit. It
is thought that the better the fit between work roles and work environment, the more
likely an employee is to satisfy his or her values, attitudes, and needs related to
employment (Jablin, 2001).
It should be noted that employees who are more integrated, active, or socialized in
the workplace not only stay longer, but may also perform better (Baldwin, Bedell, &
Johnson, 1997; Marshall & Stohl, 1993). Future research and managers could not only
examine turnover and retention, but also examine employee productivity and
success, using conventional organizational indicators (e.g., sales, productivity,
absenteeism, and citations).
Finally, employers might strategically use central actors or emergent leaders in the
network to communicate news and critical information rather than using formal
networks such as memoranda or postings. Perhaps news from close or respected
others at the same level is received more favorably than information coming directly
from management. Of course, there is a concern that central actors will inevitably
interpret information when communicating it to colleagues and friends.
Conclusion
This study adds to our understanding of the role of communication in organizational
turnover. It examined employee turnover at a fast-food restaurant. Twelve (i.e., 30%
of roster) individuals had left their position by the time three months had elapsed,
and employees who reported a higher level of out-degree network centrality were
more likely to remain at their position. A social support model was proposed to
account for the data, and posits that employees with a greater number of friendship
ties have greater coping resources to buffer the strain of workplace stressors.
Notes
[1] Research has shown (e.g., Feeley & Barnett, 1997; Mossholder et al., 2005) that measures of
centrality, while conceptually distinct (Freeman, 1979), are highly correlated. In the current
study, friendship out-degree was correlated significantly with betweenness (r .74) and
closeness (r .45); friendship in-degree was correlated significantly with betweenness (r
.65), closeness (r .99), and friendship out-degree (r .39). Betweenness was measured
using Borgatti, Everett, and Freeman’s (1992) operationalization, which considers the
number of pairs of links an individual goes between. Borgatti et al.’s measure of closeness was
also used; closeness measures the minimum number of links required to get to all others in
the network (see Freeman, 1979, for conceptualization; and Freeman et al., 1979, for
operationalization).
Turnover and Networks 71
[2] The reciprocity rate for the current study was .30, as determined by UCINET. This indicates
a low level of reciprocity between out-degree and in-degree links. Thus, in almost 70% of
reported links, the focal other failed to report the same level of relationship as the ego. It is
necessary to examine in- and out-degree networks separately, as overall degree typically
‘‘forces’’ reciprocation (e.g., Feeley, 2000; Monge et al., 1983). The authors acknowledge an
anonymous reviewer for this methodological improvement.
[3] Two additional logistic regressions were run using closeness and betweenness measures of
centrality in friendship networks. High betweenness suggests that an individual has a high
level of control of communication in the workplace, while closeness represents efficiency in
communication, as one who has greater closeness can get and send information more quickly
to others. A person with high betweenness may be considered a liaison, a gatekeeper, or a
connector or linchpin. This individual fills a structural hole (Burt, 1992); that is, s/he
connects two or more clusters or regions of density in the network. In this case, s/he has
friends in different groups of people. Thus, it would be expected that individuals with high
betweenness would be likely to give and receive social support and, therefore, remain an
organizational member. Closeness as thus defined is unrelated to the measure of relational
closeness used in the employee survey; network closeness examines how close one is to all
others in the social network. Both analyses used hierarchical logistic regression with
individual-level factors included as the first block (age, job satisfaction, job position, and
race) and betweenness or closeness as the second block. Closeness centrality did not predict
turnover, R2D.02, n.s. Betweenness centrality in friendship networks significantly
predicted turnover, R2D.22, p B.05, OR .90 (95% CI .82, .99).
References
Abelson, M. A., & Baysinger, B. D. (1984). Optimal and dysfunctional turnover: Toward an
organizational level model. The Academy of Management Review, 9, 331341.
Apker, J., & Ray, E. B. (2003). Stress and social support in health care organizations. In
T. Thompson, A. Dorsey, K. Miller, & R. A. Parrott (Eds.), Handbook of health communication
(pp. 347368). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Baldwin, T. T., Bedell, M. D., & Johnson, J. L. (1997). The social fabric of a team-based M.B.A.
program: Network effects on student satisfaction and performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 40, 13691397.
Bavelas, A. (1950). Communication patterns in task oriented groups. Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 22, 272283.
Berman, E. M., West, J. P., & Richter, Jr., M. N. (2002). Workplace relations: Friendship patterns and
consequences (according to managers). Public Administration Review, 62, 217230.
Borgatti, S., Everett, M., & Freeman, L. C. (1992). UCINET IV Version 1.0. Columbia, SC: Analytic
Technologies.
Borgatti, S., Everett, M., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET VI: Network analysis software. Columbia,
SC: Analytic Technologies.
Brotheridge, C. M. (2001). A comparison of alternative models of coping: Identifying relationships
among coworker support, workload, and emotional exhaustion in the workplace. Interna-
tional Journal of Stress Management, 8, 114.
Bullis, C., & Bach, B. W. (1991). An explication and test of communication network content and
multiplexity as predictors of organizational identification. Western Journal of Speech
Communication, 55, 180197.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes, the social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Dalton, D. R., Krackhardt, D. M., & Porter, L. W. (1981). Functional turnover: An empirical
assessment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 716721.
72 T. H. Feeley et al.
Dalton, D. R., & Todor, W. D. (1982). Turnover: A lucrative hard holler phenomenon. The Academy
of Management Review, 7, 117123.
Doerfel, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2004). Network dynamics of interorganizational cooperation: The
Croatian civil society movement. Communication Monographs, 71, 373394.
Eisenberg, E. M., Monge, P. R., & Miller, K. I. (1983). Involvement in communication networks as a
predictor of organizational commitment. Human Communication Research, 10, 179201.
Everett, M. G., & Borgatti, S. P. (2004). Ego network betweenness. Social Network, 27, 3138.
Feeley, T. H. (2000). Testing a communication network model of employee turnover based on
centrality. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 28, 262277.
Feeley, T. H. (2003). Using the theory of reasoned action to model retention in rural primary care
physicians. The Journal of Rural Health, 19, 245251.
Feeley, T. H., & Barnett, G. A. (1997). Predicting turnover from communication networks. Human
Communication Research, 23, 370387.
Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1,
215239.
Freeman, L. C., Roeder, D., & Mulholland, R. R. (1979). Centrality in social networks: II.
Experimental results. Social Networks, 2, 119141.
Friedman, R. A., & Holtom, B. (2002). The effects of network groups on minority employee
turnover intentions. Human Resource Management, 41, 405421.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 13601380.
Hartman, R. L., & Johnson, D. J. (1989). Social contagion and multiplexity: Communication
networks as predictors of commitment and role ambiguity. Human Communication Research,
15, 523548.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Hess, J. A. (2000). Maintaining nonvoluntary relationships with disliked partners: An investigation
into the use of distancing behavior. Human Communication Research, 26, 458488.
Jablin, F. M. (1987). Organizational entry, assimilation, and exit. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H.
Roberts, & L. M. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisci-
plinary perspective (pp. 679740). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Jablin, F. M. (2001). Organization entry, assimilation, and disengagement/exit. In F. M. Jablin & L.
L. Putman (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory,
research, and methods (pp. 732818). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Johnson, J. T., Griffeth, R. W., & Griffin, M. (2000). Factors discriminating functional and
dysfunctional salesforce turnover. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 15, 399415.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
Krackhardt, D. M., & Porter, L. W. (1985). When friends leave: A structural analysis of the
relationship between turnover and stayers’ attitudes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30,
242261.
Krackhardt, D. M., & Porter, L. W. (1986). The snowball effect: Turnover embedded in
communication networks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 5055.
Kram, K. E., & Isabella, L. A. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer relationships in career
development. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 110132.
Leavitt, H. J. (1951). Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 3850.
Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three
dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 123133.
Marshall, A. A., & Stohl, C. (1993). Participating as participation: A network approach.
Communication Monographs, 60, 137157.
Martocchio, J. J., & Baldwin, T. T. (1997). The evolution of strategic organizational training: New
objectives and research agenda. In G.R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human
resources management (pp. 146). Greenwich, CT: Elsevier Science.
Turnover and Networks 73
Metts, S., Geist, P., & Gray, J. L. (1994). The role of relationship characteristics in the provision and
effectiveness of supportive messages among nursing professionals. In B. R. Burleson,
T. L. Albrecht, & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Communication of social support: Messages, interactions,
relationships, and community (pp. 229245). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mobley, W. H. (1982). Some unanswered questions in turnover and withdrawal research. The
Academy of Management Review, 7, 111116.
Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S. (1999). Emergence of communication networks. In F. M. Jablin &
L. L. Putnam (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (2nd ed., pp. 441501).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Monge, P. R., Edwards, J. A., & Kirste, K. K. (1983). Determinants of communication network
involvement: Connectedness and integration. Group and Organization Studies, 8, 83111.
Mossholder, K. W., Settoon, R. P., & Henagan, S. C. (2005). A relational perspective on turnover:
Examining structural, attitudinal, and behavioral predictors. Academy of Management
Journal, 48, 607618.
Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Effects of communication networks structure:
Components of positional centrality. Social Networks, 13, 169186.
Parks, M. R. (1995). Webs of influence in personal relationships. In C. R. Berger & M. Burgoon
(Eds.), Communication and social influence processes (pp. 155178). East Lansing, MI:
Michigan State University Press.
Pfeffer, J. (1991). Organization theory and structural perspectives on management. Journal of
Management, 17, 789803.
Rogers, E. M., & Kincaid, D. L. (1981). Communication networks: Toward a new paradigm for
research. New York: Free Press.
Shah, P. P. (1998). Who are employees’ social referents? Using a network perspective to determine
referent others. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 249268.
Shah, P. P. (2000). Network destruction: The structural implications of downsizing. Academy of
Management Journal, 43, 101112.
Shumante, M., Fulk, J., & Monge, P. (2005). Predictors of the HIV-AIDS INGO network over time.
Human Communication Research, 31, 482510.
Sias, P. M., & Cahill, D. J. (1998). From coworkers to friends: The development of peer friendships
in the workplace. Western Journal of Communication, 62, 273299.
Sias, P. M., & Perry, T. (2004). Disengaging from workplace relationships. Human Communication
Research, 30, 589602.
Staw, B. M. (1980). The consequences of turnover. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 1, 253273.
Susskind, A. M., Miller, V. D., & Johnson, J. D. (1998). Downsizing and structural holes: Their
impact on layoff survivors’ perceptions of organizational chaos and openness to change.
Communication Research, 25, 3065.
Van Maanen, J. (1978). People processing: Strategies of organizational socialization. Organizational
Dynamics, 7, 836.
Walker, M. E., Wasserman, S., & Wellman, B. (1994). Statistical models for social support networks.
In S. Wasserman & J. Galaskiewicz (Eds.), Advances in social network analysis: Research in the
social and behavioral sciences (pp. 5378). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wellman, B., & Frank, K. (2001). Network capital in a multi-level world: Getting support from
personal communities. In N. Lin, K. Cook, & R. Burt (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and
research (pp. 233273). Chicago: Aldine De Gruyter.