Chapter Two
Review of Related Literature and Studies
The following are anecdotes and excerpts from various sources gathered from published articles and previous studies that are relevant in the direction of the study.
Review of Related Literature
Legislation concerning the various details of employment in the private sector, such as matters of hiring, work schedules, wages, and so forth, in Saudi Arabia only took shape in the year 1969 when the Labour and Workman Law was passed. The 1969 legislation covered the issues on hiring, termination, disciplinary actions, records and reports, hours of work, leave, wages and supplemental payments, withholding and deductions, pay changes, payment of wages, health, safety, workers’ compensation and social security, as well as other important issues concerning the protection of women, children and disabled workers. It also remains the basic law regarding employment in Saudi Arabia. (Montana and Roukis, 1986) The following paragraphs give a brief account of the 1969 legislation on the concerns of hiring, termination, disciplinary actions, hours of work, and wages.
Concerning hiring, government employment offices were established as a result of the 1969 legislation. Functions of these employment offices include: keeping records of job applicants and vacancies; referring workers to employers; advising workers on opportunities for vocational training; and assisting workers in changing jobs or places of work. Under this legislation, employers are required to report existing job vacancies and newly created jobs to these employment offices. Also, the contract between employer and individual employee, which include regulation of probationary hiring and termination, was also covered. This legislation also decrees among all companies that the labour force in a company must be constituted of 75% Saudis (preferential hiring of Saudi Arabians). As for foreigners who wish to work in Saudi Arabia, necessary approval from the ministry of labour must be obtained, as well as the work permits, while an employer who wishes to hire foreigners must acquire permission from a government labour office. (Montana and Roukis, 1986)
Concerning termination, the 1969 law decreed that an employee cannot be dismissed without valid reasons or due to management authority or privileges. In case of separation from the company, either due to end of contract or cancellation of contract on unspecified time, the employer is required to give severance pay, may the employee be a Saudi or non-Saudi. In the case of surplusing, or when a non-Saudi employee’s work with the company is ended and is replaced by a qualified Saudi, it has been customary to give a lump sum to the displaced personnel. Also, advance notice of lay-off is customarily given. (Montana and Roukis, 1986)
Also, the 1969 law provides for a careful specification of fines and disciplinary procedures. Employers may not impose any penalty for an offence not listed in the rules, and a penalty may be imposed only after the worker's defence has been heard. Further, the worker has the right of appeal to the Preliminary Commission, which will give its decision within one week after the hearing. A worker may contest any disciplinary action by direct appeal to the local labour office. In addition, the regulations under the 1969 legislation require that the employer "treat his workmen with due respect and refrain from any work or deed that may affect their dignity or religion." (Montana and Roukis, 1986, p. 98)
Concerning hours of work, a basic eight hour workday and forty-eight hour (or six day) workweek had been established in the 1969 regulations. During Ramadan, hours of work had been reduced to a six-hour and thirty-six hour week. For seasonal or non-continuous work, a nine-day hour must be approved; there is a need for definition of these industries and categories of workers by the minister of labour. For government offices, most favour a forty-hour, five-day work week, with Thursday and Friday as their 2-day weekend. In a work day, a maximum of five consecutive hours may be worked, while rest, meal and prayer intervals must not be less than one and a half hour. Also, a worker is should not stay at the workplace for more than eleven hours in a day, and shift schedules are regulated by the minister of labour. Except for some special cases with waiver, the number of working hours must not exceed to ten in a day. Finally, a close attention must be given to the religious requirements in the work place, because they are protected by the law. Violations against any provisions regarding the hours of work are fined. (Montana and Roukis, 1986)
Finally, on the issue of wages, the rate of wages in Saudi Arabia depends on the supply and demand of labour needed. There is no uniform wage even though the 1969 regulations provide for minimum wage determination. “By tradition, the minimum wage is subject to negotiation and agreement between the employer and the government. Wages usually have been determined by company regulations, labour contracts, accepted practices in the trade, and the location where the work is to be done. Nevertheless, wages paid for semi-skilled and skilled workers in Saudi Arabia generally have been higher than in many of the other Arab countries.” (Montana and Roukis, 1986, p. 101)
The preceding discussion was important to the course of the study, because it gave an overview of the basic issues of employment in Saudi Arabia and the law that regulates these issues.
On the other hand, Kronemer (1997) discussed in his article “Inventing a working class in Saudi Arabia” the Saudiazation program of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Saudiazation is a program that aims to replace foreign labour force with as many qualified Saudis as possible. In relation, Kronemer said that nine out of the ten private sector jobs are filled in by foreigners not because foreigners are more favoured, but it resulted from the years 1970s and 1980s, when there was a little need for a Saudi working class. It was during those years when oil had high prices that the government have adequate funds to pay foreign labour pool to construct the country, while most Saudis are given sheltered government jobs. In other words, Saudi then was “nation building without getting the citizens’ fingernails dirty.” (Kronemer, 1997, p. 29+)
However, the government cannot afford to continue this practice due to a decade’s low oil price and low per capita income (only $6,700 from $21,000 per capita in 1981 due to oil boom). As a result, government subsidies are reduced, and the government could not afford anymore to guarantee a government position for Saudis who want it. In response to these problems, the government launched Saudiazation. Through Saudiazation, the kingdom tries to build a Saudi Arabian working class that is absent from the region. Yet, to accomplish this huge task, “the government races against time, and, in a sense, space, in as much as Saudi Arabia’s vast dessert has nurtured work a culture with a strong distaste for the kinds of work found in most manufacturing and office-support jobs.” (Kronemer, 1997, p. 29+)
Through this program, Saudis will be taught the necessary technical skills and work ethic so as to be competitive globally. However, there are big problems in work ethics that the program has to face: absenteeism, tardiness and work effort. These problems, accordingly, can be traced “to social patterns formed over a millennia of desert life”. (Kronemer, 1997, p. 29+)
Kronemer (1997) discussed: “In a country in which less than 1 percent of the land is arable, most of the population was historically involved in a nomadic lifestyle. Some Saudis followed the scant rain patterns of the region with the herds of goats and sheep that were their means of survival. Others owned camels and were involved in trade, or ruled areas of the desert where they could seize parts of any caravan or herd that passed through as payment for travelling over the land. Out of this harrowing but unencumbered lifestyle, the traditional virtues of the desert developed: The importance of interpersonal relationships, the idea of approximate rather than precise time, and the aversion to any behaviour that might seem menial or servile. It has made for a population that is not naturally suited to the routines of a 40-hour-per-week job, or to many occupations that require working with one's hands or performing service or support duties. Particularly regarding absenteeism and tardiness, these desert values make it difficult for an individual to accept the control of a clock over the daily rhythms of one's personal life. The real challenge for Saudiazation is transforming these cultural attitudes into ones more compatible with the requirements of modern manufacturing and business.” (p. 29+)
The preceding sections presenting the unemployment problems of Saudi Arabia are relevant to the study because they gave an overview of the working behaviour of Saudis, and this may help in the analysis as to why more Saudis prefer non-traditional jobs than technical jobs like the ones in Saudi Arabian Airlines.
In this section, we will look on employee turnover: the reasons for turnover, consequences of turnover, and the possible solutions for turnover (or at least preventing it).
The rotation of workers around the labour market, may it be between firms, jobs and occupations, or between the states of employment or unemployment, is called as turnover. (Burgess, 1998) Accordingly, turnover is one of the most significant causes of declining productivity and sagging morale in both the public and private sectors. (Abassi and Hollman, 2000, p. 333)
What are the consequences of turnover? Accordingly, excessive turnover may lead to jeopardy of the organization’s objectives. It may negatively affect innovation and cause major delays in the delivery of services and introduction of new programs. It may also lead to loss of key employees, which, in turn may have negative impact on the quality and innovation of services delivered, which in turn, may negatively affect the satisfaction of customers of some departments or government agencies. For some government agencies or departments, customers include not only those people who consume services, but also the employees working in their offices. (Abassi and Hollman, 2000)
Further, Abassi and Hollman (2000) discussed: “Employee loyalty is the underpinning of customer satisfaction with the organization. An enthusiastic and loyal employee will nurture productive working relationships with customers. Consequently, it is better for an organization to keep experienced and productive employees to hire new ones. However, to get and keep loyal workers, the organization must have a long run time horizon. It must invest in its employees through training programs and value them through strong organizational vision. In the face of eroding loyalty, attracting and keeping good people is the key to strategic staffing in all industries and sectors.” (p. 333)
In addition, employee turnover is all-encompassing and expensive. “The cost of replacing a worker is often underestimated, because in addition to visible costs…there are many "hidden" costs and consequences of turnover. They include disruption of customer relations, the vacancy cost until the job is filled, costs resulting from disruption of the work flow, and the erosion of morale and stability of those who remain. Further, there is the temporary loss of production and valuable time taken from customer relations while the new hire acquires job skills and achieves maximum efficiency.” (Abassi and Hollman, 2000, p, 333)
What are the reasons for turnover? Hiring practices, managerial style, lack of recognition, lack of competitive compensation scheme and toxic workplace environment are some of the major reasons for employee turnover. (Abassi and Hollman, 2000)
In an organization, a hiring criteria should be constructed that meets not only the criteria needed to be able to recruit employees that possess the skills needed by the organization, but also, criteria that will meet or is consistent with the strategies and culture of the organization.
On the other hand, the experience, background, and training of managers appear to have a significant impact on the problem of turnover. “Studies show that the backgrounds of managers profoundly impact the mobility of people who work for them. A company's work environment is a reflection of the personality and philosophy of it's leadership.” (Abassi and Hollman, 2000, p. 333)
Another significant reason for an employee’s turnover is the lack of recognition from the organization he belongs to. Why? “Lack of personal and team recognition translates to the employee as a lack of success. Regardless of the organizational level, employees want to feel good about themselves and their work, have a sense of purpose, and to be recognized when they do their jobs well. They want more than the standard pay and benefits package that formed the heart of traditional retention plans. Also, some employees appreciate the challenge by management to grow professionally. They consider recognition as a form of reinforcement and feedback for their accomplishments.” (Abassi and Holland, 2000, p. 333)
Another factor that may instigate turnover is the compensation scheme of an organization, particularly, if an organization fails to offer good compensation packages for their employees. “Workers expect tangible rewards for good work and they like to be paid or receive financial rewards commensurate with their worth to the organization. For this reason, the organization's objectives and philosophies about what it will pay workers, as well as concerns about pay equity within the organization and in relation to other organizations, must reinforce and reflect the organization's culture, external environment, and business strategy. In addition, employers should recognize that a person's earnings subliminally serve as an indicator of power and prestige and are tied to feelings of self-worth. For many workers, earnings are a barometer of their value to the organization. Earnings and pay incentives can make workers feel that they have a vested interest in the organization's collective success, heighten their sense of self-worth, and cement their commitment and loyalty.” (Abassi and Holland, 2000, p. 333)
Finally, an employee’s decision to either stay or leave the company may depend on the working conditions of an organization, and also, it is important for employees to feel secured in their jobs and to have a sense of belongingness. “While employee allegiance and devotion are not automatic anymore, if there is a positive work environment that is enriching and rewarding to employees, in which they have an affinity for those around them, they are more likely to stay and to energetically participate in the organization's activities.” (Abassi and Holland, 2000, p. 333)
If turnovers have so much effect in a company, what must organizations do to evade employee turnovers? Abassi and Holland (2000) stated: “Today's boss must provide strong leadership in an environment where technology is growing at a runaway pace, change is constant, and uncertainty is never ending. They must achieve organizational profit and other goals with an increasingly diverse workforce whose attitudes and values have changed greatly from the previous generation. Managing today requires ingenuity and strategic wisdom to a greater degree than at any time in our history. Managers must keep in mind that employees are the major contributors to the efficient achievement of the organization's success. They must hire and train the right people, adapt their managerial style to today's worker, provide recognition and pay for superior performance, and create a non-toxic and productive work environment. Those managers who cannot or refuse to change face the prospect of excessive departures that can imperil the business strategy and be ruinous to the performance of their organization.” (p. 333)
The preceding sections were particularly relevant because it gave an overview on the topic of turnover. The main aim of this study is to determine the reasons for turnover of the aircraft mechanics of the Saudi Arabian Airlines from a technical position to a non-technical job, and the article gave some major reasons for turnover. Even though the setting of the article is on the other side of the globe apart from the research venue of this study, some similarities may be traced during the course of this study.
Related Studies
One of the studies related in this study is one that Dennis (1998) conducted. It was a study that investigated the reasons why employees separate from their agencies, more specifically, the reasons for dissatisfaction in some aspect of the job that leads to separation from an organization. This study was conducted in relation to an event in 1996, when 23, 745 correctional officers quit their jobs at fifty two adult correctional agencies in America. In the said study, the specific factors influencing job satisfaction and the correlation between the management traits of prison administrators and the level of job satisfaction and staff turnover were conducted.
The results of the survey among 2, 426 full time, permanent employees assigned on 11 prisons operated by the Kentucky Department of Corrections (DOC), where a total of 1,330 questionnaires were completed (thus reflecting a fifty five percent return rate), restated a long-held view of management theory: that those employees who feel more empowered are more satisfied with their jobs, and thus, are more inclined to stay with the organization. (Dennis, 1998, p. 96+) More specifically, the study yielded the following results: “Most of the correlations follow logical patterns of predictable relationships. Age is positively correlated with tenure, salary, supervisory status and education. Education is highly positively correlated with salary, age, supervisory status and shift worked. The strongest positive correlation was between the variable of empowerment and job satisfaction. Job satisfaction also was positively correlated with age, tenure, salary and supervisory status. It was negatively correlated with stress and shift work, indicating that the less stress a person was under, the more satisfied the person was; people who worked the day shift also were more satisfied than their night-shift counterparts. There was a slight, but still significant, positive correlation between job satisfaction and education, indicating that people with more education were slightly more satisfied. The strongest negative correlation was between stress and empowerment, indicating that the less stress an employee experiences, the more empowered they feel. The only significant correlation of race with another variable was a negative relationship with the variable of empowerment, indicating that nonwhites feel slightly less empowered than whites. Gender was negatively correlated with both supervisory status and shift, indicating fewer women are supervisors and more women work the day shift. There was a correlation between gender and education, indicating that male staff members tend to be slightly better educated than female staff members. [On the other hand] a path analysis was performed to identify significant causal relationships among the variables. The paths depicting the direct impact of race, gender, education, salary and supervisory status on job satisfaction were not significant. The paths depicting the direct impact of gender, age, education and tenure on the intervening variable of empowerment also were not significant. While race has no direct impact on job satisfaction, it does have a significant inverse direct impact on empowerment, with nonwhites feeling less empowered than whites. Age and tenure both have a significant direct impact on job satisfaction, indicating that the longer a person works in the prison, the more satisfied he is. This seems logical given the assumption that employees who are not satisfied will probably leave the organization earlier in their careers. The shift a person works also has a direct impact on job satisfaction, supporting the contention that people who work the day shift are somewhat more satisfied than those who work evenings or at night. Salary and whether a person is a supervisor both impact empowerment and, thus, indirectly impact job satisfaction. However, by far the most significant variable in the model is stress. Stress has a direct impact on both empowerment and job satisfaction. The most significant relationship revealed by this reduced form model is the direct impact of empowerment on job satisfaction. This certainly is not a new and shocking revelation. It is the empirical validation of what should be a "self-evident" truth. The more empowered employees perceive themselves to be, the higher their level of job satisfaction and the lower their level of perceived occupational stress. More satisfied employees have a stronger sense of organizational commitment. The level of commitment of organization members varies directly with the amount of control they are able to exercise over their work environment. The greater the amount of perceived control, the greater the level of organizational commitment and, thus, the lower the level of alienation and job dissatisfaction. Higher job satisfaction is directly associated with lower employee turnover. Empowered employees will be more committed to the organization, resulting in longer tenure.” (Dennis, 1998, p. 96+)
On the other hand, another study, which appeared to be relevant to this study, is one conducted by Zenger (1992). It was a study that tried to provide an efficient explanation for commonly observed performance-based compensation contracts that aggressively reward extreme performance and largely disregards performance distinctions for moderate performance levels. The study predicted a relationship between performance and turnover that fluctuates by performance level, in response to the above-mentioned “reward-the-extremes” contract. (p. 198)
The study found out that extremely high and moderately low performers are likely to remain in firms offering these kinds of contracts (“reward-the-extremes” contracts), while moderately high performers and extremely low performers are likely to depart from a company that offers such kind of contracts. (Zenger, 1992)
Accordingly, Zenger (1992) said that caution should be done when generalizing the results of the study, since the compensation schemes of only two companies were investigated.
Another study cited for this study was that of Dalton and Mesch (1990), which studied the impact of flexible scheduling on employee attendance and turnover. The study have the following hypotheses: There will be a significant reduction in the absence rate in the post-intervention period, as compared with the pre-intervention period, for the experimental group with respect to the implementation of the flexible-scheduling program; There will be a significant increase in the absence rate in the post-intervention period for the experimental group with respect to the discontinuance of the flexible-scheduling program; There will be a significant reduction in the turnover rate in the post-intervention period, as compared with the pre-intervention period, for the experimental group with respect to the implementation of the flexible-scheduling program; There will be a significant increase in the turnover rate in the post-intervention period for the experimental group with respect to the discontinuance of the flexible-scheduling program. No such differences are expected in the control group, which experienced no intervention. Changes in the control group would seriously weaken any demonstrated support for the hypotheses; There will be no difference in the absence rate in the post-intervention period, as compared to the pre-intervention period, for the control group with respect to the implementation of the flexible-scheduling program; There will be no difference in the absence rate in the post-intervention period for the control group with respect to the discontinuance of the flexible-scheduling program; There will be no difference in the turnover rate in the post-intervention period, as compared with the pre-intervention period, for the experimental group with respect to the implementation of the flexible-scheduling program; There will be no difference in the turnover rate in the post-intervention period for the control group with respect to the discontinuance of the flexible-scheduling program. (Dalton and Mesch, 1990, p. 370+)
Dalton and Mesch (1990) gave the following discussion: “The results the study yielded demonstrate large reductions in the absence rate for experimental group receiving the flexible schedule intervention. Employee attendance is some function of the motivation to attend and the ability to attend. The "motivation to attend" portion of the model may well capture the various elements hypothesized to affect the link between flexible scheduling and absenteeism--autonomy, responsibility, increased satisfaction in the workplace, and non-work activities, and organizational commitment. In addition, there are obvious, practical effects that may increase employees' ability to attend. There is no evidence that the introduction of flexible scheduling had any effect whatsoever on subsequent levels of employee turnover beyond what would have been expected as a function of trend. It is possible, of course, that the motivational aspects are salient but that other factors led to our inability to demonstrate a systematic decrease in turnover. Strictly speaking, employee turnover did decrease in the experimental division over the period (16.8 percent annual turnover in year one; 9.9 percent annual turnover in the final year). This reduction, however, is almost certainly not a function of the intervention, since the turnover rate in the control group also greatly declined over the period (from 12.6 percent to 5.2 percent). It is clear that some factor other than the naturally occurring intervention was markedly affecting the rate of employee turnover over the period. We suspect that this decline was brought about by general economic conditions, more specifically, reduced alternative employment opportunities.” (Dalton and Mesch, 1990, p, 370+)
Another study cited for this study was that of McElroy, Morrow and Fenton (1995). The study have three hypotheses: Absenteeism levels of employees who voluntarily leave an organization will tend to be higher than that of those who remain with the organization; Job performance of employees who voluntarily leave an organization will be different than the job performance level of those who remain with the organization; and, Absenteeism will explain a statistically significant mount of variation in voluntary turnover beyond that explained by demographics, such as age and tenure. (p. 91+)
McElroy, Morrow and Fenton gave the following discussion:
“This study exemplifies the limitation and compromises that are sometimes necessary in conducting turnover research. The sample size of leavers was small, and occasionally reduced even further due to missing data. Additional information needed to demonstrate comparability between the stayers and the leavers was also unavailable (e.g., marital status, number of dependents). Other individual difference factors besides performance merit consideration (e.g., work ethic endorsement, commitment to the organization) as they too may have a bearing on the absenteeism-turnover relationship. Multiple measures of both absenteeism (e.g., frequency, severity) and performance (e.g., objective performance data as well as subjective supervisory ratings) should also be incorporated into subsequent investigations. These limitations speak to the tentativeness of this study's findings and the improvements that might be made in future research. Despite these reservations, the results of this study provide some support, albeit mixed, for a progression of withdrawal model. First, the results showing higher use of sick leave over the three month period prior to termination for voluntary leavers as compared to stayers, indicating that those who leave by choice have higher rates of absenteeism. Finally, although the reason for the higher use of sick leave remains unknown in this study (i.e., we have no information on whether it was used for illness, job search, etc.), these results, coupled with the performance findings, do lend support for the progression of withdrawal thesis, at least among poorer performers in the public sector who leave voluntarily. On the other hand, the inability of absenteeism to add to the predictability of turnover beyond that accounted for by such demographics as age and tenure implies a lack of support for the progression of withdrawal model. Turnover in this organization appears to be the result of a combination of factors. The performance appraisal ratings probably constituted a "push" factor. That is, employees receiving lower ratings were, in effect, encouraged to leave. However, the demographic differences between the leavers and stayers indicate a "pull" factor. Those who voluntarily left the organization tended to be younger (M = 34.43 years) than those who stayed (M = 46.39 years; t = 6.21, p[less than].001), with lower levels (M = 5.65 years) of organizational tenure than the stayers (M = 13.60 years; t = 5.92, p[less than].001). Being younger and with less tenure, these employees may have perceived more opportunities outside the organization, coupled with fewer side bets holding them to the organization. Older workers with more tenure in the organization may feel that they not only face fewer opportunities outside the organization but have too much at stake in terms of pension, vacation, medical and other benefits if they were to leave. The potential interaction of such environmental factors as performance feedback and job opportunities and personal factors as age and tenure which is evident in this study is a common problem in turnover research. The results of this study must also be viewed in light of the nature of the turnover being experienced in this organization. It is possible that the progression of withdrawal model is only applicable to organizations experiencing voluntary turnover of poorer performing employees. The results of this study, however, make it unlikely that monitoring absenteeism would serve as a practical early warning of ensuing voluntary turnover since the absenteeism is likely to be manifest only just prior to the ensuing withdrawal. What is more likely, given the type of employee choosing to leave this organization, is that the decision to leave is made first. Whether the increased use of sick leave is due to job search activities, illness, or whether it is an attempt to "get all that one is owed by the organization" prior to leaving remains an unknown question, but one worthy of future research.” (McElroy, Morrow and Fenton, 1995, p. 91+)
Finally, another study cited for this project is that of Devens (1992), who conducted the Employee Turnover and Job Openings survey from late 1990 to mid-1991. This survey sought to determine whether advanced data collection technologies and a specific legislative mandate to produce data, which is related to national labour shortages, could lead to a cost-effective statistical program. (p. 29+)
Devens (1992) gave the following discussion:
“The central finding of the survey was that the collection of data on job openings and employee turnover remains a difficult and labour-intensive undertaking. The response analysis survey found that a substantial majority of respondents used personnel or payroll records as the primary sources of information to complete the Employee Turnover and Job Openings Survey. As a result, there were no major problems with the validity of the data although technical issues of multiple reference periods, the treatment of inter-establishment transfers, and the calculation of wages under non-standard pay schemes would need to be addressed during the implementation of a full-scale program. Although the primary objectives of the Employee Turnover and Job Openings Survey were to assess the technical feasibility and estimate the cost of conducting a full-scale program, it yielded statistical results for analysis as well. The following overview of the findings pertain strictly to the aggregation of the eight specific industries that were selected for the survey and do not reflect estimates for the entire economy. In the eight industries surveyed, there were numerous openings in the first rotation (November 1990-January 1991) in professional and technical, service, and production and related jobs. In the second rotation (February 1991-April 1991), there was a statistically significant decrease in job openings among the production and related jobs. This shift may reflect seasonal factors, irregular events, or cyclical developments. The survey was conducted in the midst of a recession that resulted in a sharp reduction in employment in several of the industries included in the sample. These declines may have affected the number of openings, particularly for production jobs, which tend to be cyclically sensitive. A large number of job openings do not, in itself, signal a shortage of labour. More important are the length of time such openings remain unfilled and the number of openings relative to new hires (the fill rate). When these criteria are applied, it becomes clear that the professional and technical occupations and the managerial occupations most likely had a shortfall of labour. For each of these two groups, more than half of the job openings had been open for more than 4 weeks in both rotations. By contrast, little more than one-tenth of the job openings for the service occupations were of long duration. In addition, the professional and technical occupations and the managerial occupations had relatively little new hiring and separations. The fill rates were less than 1 for both groups, indicating that openings exceeded hirings. The large number of job openings in the service occupations, on the other hand, were also associated with high levels of separations and new hiring. Service occupations made up about two-fifths of the separations and nearly half of the hiring in both rotations.” (Devens, 1992, p. 29+)
The studies cited for this study are basically about employee tenure and employee turnover. The researcher chose to cite this studies not only because the cited studies somewhat have similar objectives like this project / study have, but also because they yielded results that may help in this project’s analyses and / or explanation of the findings or results that will be gathered in the process.
References:
Abassi, Sami M. and Hollman, Kenneth W. (2000). Turnover: The Real Bottom Line. In Public Personnel Management. Volume: 29. Issue: 3. Page Number: 333.
Dalton, Dan R. and Mesch, Debra J. (1990). The impact of flexible scheduling on employee attendance and turnover. In Administrative Science Quarterly. Volume: 35. Issue: 2. Publication Year: 1990. Page Number: 370+.
Dennis, Gary L. (1998). Here today, gone tomorrow: how management style affects job satisfaction and, in turn, employee turnover. In Corrections Today. Volume: 60. Issue: 3. Publication Date: June 1998. Page Number: 96+.
Devens, Richard M. (1992). The Employee Turnover and Job Openings Survey. In Monthly Labor Review. Volume: 115. Issue: 3. Page Number: 29+.
Kronemer, Alexander. (1997). Inventing a working class in Saudi Arabia. In Monthly Labor Review. Volume: 120. Issue: 5. Page Number 29+.
McElroy, James C., Morrow, Paula C. and Fenton, James B. (1995). Absenteeism and performance as predictors of voluntary turnover. In Journal of Managerial Issues. Volume: 7. Issue: 1.Page Number: 91+.
Moore, Roger. (1993). Saudi Arabia. In Peterson, Richard B. (ed.), Managers and National Culture: A Global Perspective. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Montana, Patrick J. and Roukis, George S. eds. (1986). Workforce Management in the Arabian Peninsula: Forces Affecting Development. New York: Greenwood Press.
Simon Burgess. (1998). Analyzing Firms, Jobs, and Turnover. In Monthly Labor Review (July 1998), pp. 55-58.
Zenger, Tood R. (1992). Why do employers only reward extreme performance? Examining the relationships among performance, pay and turnover. In Administrative Science Quarterly. Volume: 37. Issue: 2. Page Number: 198+.
0 comments:
Post a Comment