Realizing the three tenets of Strength Maintenance by focusing on

two: The impact of recruiting practices and attrition management

on long-term employee retention.

by

LTC Peter C. VanAmburgh, EdD

In post-September 11th America, commonly referred to as the

post-911 period, tremendous organizational and personnel challenges

have emerged in the Reserve Components (RC) of the United States

Army. The Army National Guard (ARNG) is the largest RC of the Army

and has a long-standing history of service to the country during times of

peace and conflict. However, not since World War II have such

monumental requirements been levied onto our citizen soldiers as in the

Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). Mobilizations of ARNG soldiers for

Operations Enduring Freedom (OEF), Iraqi Freedom (OIF), and Noble

Eagle (ONE) have exceeded 200,000 guardsmen and women (Deblois,

2004). The GWOT is an enormous long-term commitment for the ARNG

and it is likely that activations will exceed the 350,000 Endstrength (ES)

by mobilizing members one, two or three times during a career. This

potential commitment far exceeds the pre-911 paradigm of ARNG part-

time service and turnover is feared to present a potentially

insurmountable challenge to future staffing of ARNG units.

2

The process of continuous ES management in ARNG organizations

is referred to as Strength Maintenance (SM). In the post-911 period, SM

has become a primary focus for leaders at all levels to ensure ARNG

units are assigned the personnel necessary to meet the nation’s security

needs at home and abroad (Shultz, 2004). The ARNG SM philosophy

involves three tenets: recruiting, attrition management, and retention.

Recruiting is the first element of staffing and involves the identification,

selection and accession of members into the organization. Attrition

management is the inculcation process into the ARNG and ensuring

members meet their first-term of service obligations. Retention involves

keeping qualified soldiers in the organization. In sum, one tenet of the

ARNG SM philosophy is focused on accession (recruiting) with the

remaining two focused on reducing turnover (attrition management and

retention) (NGR 601-1, 2003).

Recruiting and retention recently emerged as the number one

employment issue facing 52% of employers surveyed by RewardsPlus of

America (Langan, 2000). The primary agencies called to fill unit

personnel vacancies and retain members of ARNG units are the

Recruiting and Retention Battalions (RRB’s) of each state (NGR 601-1,

2003). Combining the notion of corporate recruiting and employee

retention is well documented (Brownson & Harriman, 2000; Flynn &

Gillian, 1994; Langan 2000; Kenkel, 1997; ). Clearly the concepts are not

limited to the ARNG, but in a resource constrained environment with the

3

GWOT at hand, what is the focus: recruiting or retention? Which tenet of

the SM philosophy is the priority for members of the state RRB’s? And,

what does the research infer about the concepts of recruiting and its

impact on retention of personnel? This research project will attempt to

ascertain the answers by exploring the themes found in the literature

regarding employee recruiting and retention. The study will also attempt

to recommend the best focus for RRB personnel to impact the SM

posture of their states.

Factors Influencing Turnover

In the ARNG, attrition management and retention are tenets

focused on reducing turnover. A common definition of turnover “is the

rotation of workers around the labor market; between firms, and

occupations; and between states of employment and unemployment”

(Burgess, 1998). While planned member turnover can be healthy for

organizations, voluntary employee departures are generally characterized

as undesirable, disruptive and costly to organizations (Buck & Watson,

2002).

In the last two decades talented workers have shown a willingness

to abandon their job when it is economically convenient (Abbasi &

Hollman, 2000). Several studies have suggested that high and low

performers are generally more likely to leave while average performers are

more likely to remain (Jackofsky, 1984; Trevor, Gerhart & Boudreau,

1997; Williams & Livingstone, 1994). One can generally conclude that

4

turnover can be either functional or dysfunctional from the perspective of

who is departing the organization (Boudreau, 1991; Boudreau & Berger,

1985; Hollenbeck & Williams, 1986; Trevor, 2001). While some losses

may be regarded as positive (functional) for an organization as in poor

performer departures, the loss of talented performers can be

characterized as negative (dysfunctional) turnover.

The loss of high performers is a particularly crucial matter for

organizations (Sturman, Trevor, Boudreau & Gerhart, 2003). Oftentimes

the most talented employees will voluntarily part the organization in

disproportionate numbers over other performance groups (Abbasi &

Hollman, 2000). Both technical and institutional knowledge can be lost

in dysfunctional turnover resulting in damage to organizational

effectiveness. Several studies have concluded that dysfunctional turnover

correlates with a decline in morale and productivity among employees

who remain (O’Reilly, Caldwell, & Barnett, 1989; Sheehan 1993).

Additionally, institutions are often forced to commit substantial

resources to replacement efforts (Buck & Watson, 2002). The challenge

for organizations is to manage turnover in a way that allows functional

losses but reduces dysfunctional departures.

Job Satisfaction

Why employees voluntarily part from organizations has been widely

studied in an effort to find opportunities for improved productivity and

organizational commitment, lower absenteeism and turnover, and

5

increase organizational effectiveness (Ellickson, 2002). Job satisfaction

has been a focal concept in the quest to understand employee

productivity and related concepts (Agho, Price & Mueller, 1992). Job

satisfaction can be summated as “the extent to which employees like

their work” (Agho, Price & Mueller, 1992). A body of research has

concluded that job satisfaction may assist in explaining identification

with organizations (commitment), unscheduled absences from work

(absenteeism), and membership fluctuations (turnover) (Brooke & Price,

1989; Micheals & Spector, 1982; Mobley, Horner & Hollingsworth, 1978;

Mowday, Porter & Steers, 1982; Mueller & Price, 1990). However, several

researchers have questioned the importance of job satisfaction to

productivity (Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985) and its relationship with

absenteeism is not well-established (Nicholson, Brown & Chadwick-

Jones, 1976). Nevertheless, job satisfaction does appear to assist in

understanding the major themes associated with employee turnover.

Several authors have concluded that an employee’s autonomy to

make decisions related to the work has a positive impact on job

satisfaction, while routinization of tasks appears to negatively affect job

satisfaction (Agho, Price & Mueller, 1992). Work group cohesion, the

extent that close friendships exist in immediate work teams, also appears

to influence job satisfaction (Jones & James, 1979; James & Jones,

1992). While these studies looked at various aspects of the work and

6

environment, other research has been conducted concerning individual

personality variables to explain job satisfaction.

Attitudinal predisposition is a personality variable based on an

individuals general affect, or liking, of aspects of the work or

environment. Positive affectivity refers to a person’s predisposition to be

happy across time and situations while negative affectivity is a

predisposition to experience discomfort across time and situations

(Watson, Pennebaker & Folger, 1987). In essence, employees who are

predisposed to be happy over time and situations are more likely to have

higher job satisfaction that those who are predisposed to negative

affectivity. The ability to differentiate individual predisposition and job

satisfaction determinants has been a point of dissention among scholars.

However, Agho, Price & Mueller (1992) have found evidence that job

satisfaction and affectivity are separate variables easily discerned by

organizational members and therefore should be viewed as such. Agho,

Price & Mueller’s (1992) research suggests an individual’s affectivity

predisposition may help explain long-term job satisfaction ratings.

Organizational Commitment

Another part of the literature concerning employee retention

involves the concept of organizational commitment. Meyer & Allen (1997)

define organizational commitment as a “psychological state that (a)

characterizes the employees relationship with the organization, and (b)

has implications for the decision to continue membership in the

7

organization.” Organizational commitment is distinctly different from the

variable of job satisfaction in both affectivity and episode. Mowdays,

Steers & Porter (1979) describe the distinction:

As an attitude, commitment differs from the concept of job

satisfaction in several ways. To begin with, commitment as a construct is more global, reflecting a general affective response to the organization as a whole. Job satisfaction, on the other hand, reflects one’s response

either to one’s job or to certain aspects of one’s job. Hence, commitment emphasizes attachment to the employing organization, including its goals

and values, while satisfaction emphasizes the specific task environment where an employee performs his or her duties.

In addition, organizational commitment should be somewhat more

stable over time than job satisfaction. Although day-to-day events in the work place may affect an employee’s level of job satisfaction, such

transitory events should not cause and employee to seriously reevaluate his or her attachment to the organization. (p.226)

Three constructs are associated with the review of organizational

commitment: affective, continuance, and normative levels of

commitment. Affective commitment is an employee’s emotional

attachment to an organization. Continuance is derived from the

perceived cost of disassociation from an organization and normative

commitment refers to an individual’s feeling of obligation to remain with

an organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991).

Several researchers have indicated that a positive correlation exists

between an employee’s level of commitment to an organization and their

desire to stay (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Steers, 1977). Miller (1996)

suggested that an employee’s decision to remain with an organization is

largely based on their level of commitment. Additionally, organizational

commitment has been demonstrated to have a negative correlation with

8

employee turnover – as turnover increases, organizational commitment

decreases (Cotton & Tuttle, 1986). Organizational commitment also

appears to be an antecedent to an employee’s intent to leave the

workplace (Tett & Meyer, 1993).

Hiring Practices

Hiring practices emerge as an important part of the research

concerning recruiting and subsequent retention of employees. A

consistent theme in the literature is that organizations can reduce

turnover by utilizing appropriate selection processes (Buck & Watson,

2002). Inadequate hiring processes are both costly in actual accession

expenditures and follow-on turnover (Abbasi & Hollman, 2000).

The first element of the hiring process is identifying the

appropriate person for employment. Several authors have suggested that

the quality of applicant is an antecedent to potential turnover (Kenkel,

1997; ). For military employment, the classification of applicants for

service is scored using the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery

(ASVAB). The ASVAB categorizes applicants into aptitude Categories

(CAT) I to IV. There is significant statistical evidence that a high

classification category (CAT I to IIIA) translates into high trainability.

There is additional evidence that high school diploma recipients are more

likely to successfully complete Initial Entry Training (IET) and their first

term of service. Therefore the quality of the applicant, CAT I to IIIA with a

high school diploma, benefits the service by their potential for completion

9

of training and reduced turnover (Knowles, Parlier, Hoscheit, Ayer,

Lyman, & Fancher, 2002).

Several studies have examined and found that “truth in recruiting”

appears to lower post-hire turnover (Premack & Wanous, 1985). Evidence

exists that realistic expectancies communicated during the recruiting

process may improve retention of employees (Wanous, 1989). The

examination of expectancies and their impact on employee motivation

and satisfaction can be found in the tenets of Expectancy theory.

Expectancy theory is based on the premise that an act will be

followed by an outcome (Vroom, 1964). Yeatts & Hyten (1998) identify the

three components of expectancy theory as:

1. Expectancy or degree of confidence a person has with

regard to his or her ability to successfully accomplish the desired behavior.

2. Instrumentality or the degree of confidence a person has that if the behavior is performed successfully he or she will

be rewarded appropriately. 3. Valence or the value a person places on the expected rewards.

(p. 63)

The model assumes that people will be motivated and exhibit

behaviors based on the expectancies of the outcome of their actions. The

strength of their motivation and the influence on their behavior is linked

to the value assigned or perceived of the outcome. The value, or valence,

is directly related to the preference or needs of the individual (Vroom,

1964; Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler & Wieck, 1970).

10

When expectancy theory is applied to the hiring process, an

applicant’s motivation for employment is likely based on the expectancies

formed through communication with the recruiter. The valence of

employment and the rewards (intrinsic and/or extrinsic) become the

impetus for the individual to join and become and organizational

member.

Expectancy theory can be related to both motivation and

satisfaction regarding work activities. A major tenet of expectancy theory

is that while satisfaction may not be derived from meeting expectations,

dissatisfaction is likely to occur if expectations are not met (Campbell

Dunnette, Lawler & Wieck, 1970). For example, an enlistee may contract

with an enlistment bonus to be paid upon the completion of IET. The

valence of the enlistment bonus influences the soldier to exhibit the

desired behavior and complete IET. The soldier completes IET and is paid

the bonus following completion of the requirement. Although the

expectancy of an act (completion of IET) was followed by an outcome (the

payment of the bonus), one cannot predict the soldier’s satisfaction with

the instrumentality. However, if the soldier exhibits behavior with the

expectancy of receiving the bonus immediately following the completion

of IET and the bonus is not forthcoming or paid at all, dissatisfaction

with the system is likely to occur. Expectancy theory is a strong

motivational and satisfaction model. For employers, ensuring realistic

expectations are set by recruiting personnel is likely to assist in reducing

11

dissatisfaction among employees and thereby impacting turnover of the

force (Wanous, Poland, Premack & Davis, 1992).

Summary

The literature associated with employee turnover has several

themes important to the discussion of recruiting and retention activities.

First, one must acknowledge that turnover may be considered functional

or dysfunctional depending on who is departing the organization

(Sturman, Trevor, Boudreau & Gerhart, 2003). The focus of retention

efforts should clearly be on top performers to reduce dysfunctional

turnover and the negative outcomes associated with these losses.

To retain employees, three major areas of research emerge that

address the retention phenomenon: job satisfaction, organizational

commitment, and hiring practices. Job satisfaction involves aspects of

the work environment, the work itself and attitudinal predisposition of

affectivity. Organizational commitment involves a more stable concept to

judge long-term retention along several constructs: normative,

continuance, and affective levels of commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1997).

Hiring practices are another area associated with employee retention and

involve specifically targeted applicants of a quality that will likely provide

long-term employment with organizations. Hiring practices also involve

the tenets of expectancy theory regarding the setting of realistic

expectancies of the work and the organization.

12

The general theme for employee retention, based on the literature,

can be divided into three interconnected processes. First, hiring practices

involving realistic work expectancies and focused on the accession of

high performance personnel with an attitudinal predisposition for

positive affectivity, will likely reduce dysfunctional turnover. Second, a

program that inculcates new employees using the three constructs of

organizational commitment for reinforcement (including aligning their

personal goals and vision with that of the organization), should improve

long-term employee retention. Finally, employers must be cognizant of

the concept of job satisfaction and strive to improve both the tasks being

performed and the work environment as these factors may assist in

improving long-term organizational commitment and retention of top

performers.

The Recruiting & Retention Battalion (RRB) and

the Recruit Sustainment Program (RSP)

RRB’s are tasked to recruit and retain members of the ARNG to

ensure ES meets or exceeds readiness objectives. The summary in the

previous section provides the major research themes associated with

turnover. When the RRB is viewed in the context of these themes a

question emerges: what influence does the RRB have in the areas of

hiring practices, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction?

As the sole accession authority in the ARNG, the RRB clearly has a

tremendous influence in the hiring methods and practices employed to

13

identify and recruit applicants. The research has provided strong

evidence that the quality of accessions is an important part of long-term

retention of employees (Knowles, Parlier, Hoscheit, Ayer, Lymam &

Fancher, 2002). Organizational commitment and job satisfaction, other

key concepts associated with retention, are not so easily influenced by

RRB’s. How can a RRB improve organizational commitment and job

satisfaction among members?

It would appear that major influences on the phenomena of

organizational commitment and job satisfaction generally lie with unit

leadership. Organizational leaders establish the command climate,

structure tasks and the operating environment, and build unit cohesion

(AR 20-1). So, how can the RRB reduce dysfunctional turnover when

arguably the largest element of long-term retention (organizational

commitment and job satisfaction) falls in the purview of organizational

leaders?

An area of emphasis in the literature suggests that organizational

commitment starts with the inculcation of new members into the

organization (Rynes, 1991; Wanous, 1989). New member orientation, or

sponsorship, appears important for meeting initial employment

expectations, socializing new members, and building both affective and

normative levels of commitment. The RRB’s have a key role in the

process of inculcating new members through the RSP.

14

The RSP is the first step in the organizational process of attrition

management. It is a model to provide initial employee sponsorship and

prepare Non-prior Service (NPS) recruits for the rigors of IET. The RSP is

designed with a mission to reduce dysfunctional turnover prior to and

during IET.

The RSP provides the RRB the link and ideal forum for beginning

the process of long-term commitment among new members of the

organization. The RRB provides a primary role in the hiring process by

the development of expectations and selection of quality applicants. The

RSP, under the command and control of the RRB, thereby becomes the

initial element of the organization to meet the expectations set in the

recruiting process. By meeting or exceeding enlistment expectations, and

structuring the work tasks and environment to make effective use of

available time and resources, the RSP has an opportunity to impact

initial job satisfaction with the organization. The unity of command (RRB

directing the RSP) provides both a mutually supportive environment and

congruence between what applicants are told and what they experience

as recruits.

The RSP’s unique responsibility to inculcate new members into the

organization is another important element in long-term retention of

soldiers. The period of initial entry into an organization is where early

expectations are met and long-term expectations are developed (Wanous,

Poland, Premack & Davis, 1992). The sponsorship process of the RSP

15

should be focused on welcoming new members and aligning their goals

and aspirations with the mission, goals, values and vision of the

organization.

When viewing the three constructs of organizational commitment

and the organization’s ability to influence commitment over a typical 6-

year enlistment, it is clear where the RRB and unit leadership have

ownership. Figure 1.0 is a graphic and prescriptive model displaying the

period of enlistment, ability to influence, and constructs of commitment

most important and prevalent for employee retention.

Figure 1.0 graphs the commitment influence ability of the RRB and

unit leadership. In the first year of enlistment, the RRB has the most

important role in influencing new employee commitment through the

hiring process and the RSP. The key constructs of commitment during

this phase of enlistment are affective and normative commitment. As the

enlistment progresses along the 6-year time horizon, the unit leadership

becomes the primary influence to those elements of commitment. Only in

the latter period does the RRB become involved during the process of

retention interviews. Coinciding with the RRB involvement is the

additional construct of continuance commitment and improving the

knowledge of benefits and other services potentially lost by a soldier who

elects to self select out of the organization (unwilling to extend or

reenlist).

16

Figure 1.0 Prescriptive Model of Retention Influence & Organizational Commitment over a typical 6-year enlistment in the Georgia Army

National Guard

YEAR 1 YEAR 5-6YEAR 3-4YEAR 2

Greater

Lesser

Commitment

constructs and

importance for

retention Affective

Normative

Continuance

UNIT

LEADERSHIP

REC & RET

BATTALION

TIME

Commitment

Influence

Level

The model in Figure 1.0 is prescriptive in that it displays the most

prevalent commitment construct and the organizational element (RRB or

Unit Leadership) that should take the lead in improving member

commitment during specific periods of a 6-year enlistment. Process

ownership of commitment-focused activities during various portions of

an enlistment is potentially important for developing the three constructs

of commitment for the purpose of reducing dysfunctional employee

turnover.

17

The Georgia ARNG RRB Prototype

The RRB of the Georgia ARNG (GAARNG) has developed an action

research model focused on reducing long-term turnover in the force. The

model uses two tenets of SM, recruiting and attrition management, to

improve employee retention. Themes in the research were explored in the

context of ARNG recruiting and retention for application and implications

to reduce turnover. The intent of the prototype program is to apply the

prescriptive model and place ownership, accountability and unity of

command over the tenets of SM that the RRB can significantly influence,

and the same for areas unit commanders can influence.

Georgia’s RRB model is focused on two critical and interrelated

areas involving NPS recruits: hiring practices and organizational

commitment. Unit commanders are given the sole mission of retention of

first term (outside the RSP), obligor and careerist soldiers. RRB recruiting

is centered on improving hiring practices by ensuring the communication

of realistic work expectancies and the accession of high performance NPS

personnel (CAT I to IIIA), preferably with an attitudinal disposition for

positive affectivity. The focus on NPS accessions continues in the RSP,

under the command and control of the RRB.

The RSP is a regionally oriented (five sites, or detachments, in the

state) and standardized program for all NPS recruits enlisted into the

GAARNG. The RSP in Georgia is designed to meet four major objectives:

(1) inculcate, or sponsor, new employees into the Georgia ARNG; (2)

18

provide NPS recruits the confidence and capability to be successful

completing IET; (3) develop a base for long term organizational

commitment using the three constructs of commitment for

reinforcement; and (4) meet or exceed enlistment expectations regarding

work tasks and work environment (job satisfaction).

The RSP is commanded by a member of the RRB fulltime staff. The

RSP site NCOIC’s, both Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) and Active Duty

Special Work (ADSW), are physically assigned to each detachment

location to perform unit-level supervisory duties. Support for the RSP is

provided by the RRB staff and production personnel. Production Team

NCOIC’s and their personnel are aligned with particular detachments for

oversight and support. Upon accession in the GAARNG, all NPS recruits

are attached by orders to the closest regional site near their home of

record. NPS soldiers remain attached to their respective detachment until

they have graduated IET and a unit sponsor is available for an official

handover.

The unity of command and congruence between the RRB and RSP

is critical for reducing turnover. An institutionalized check and balance

is immediately available to the RRB commander. The quality and

expectations of the NPS recruit are visible in the RSP. Consequently, the

RSP must meet/or exceed the expectations of the NPS force attached,

prepare them for IET, and begin building long-term commitment.

Variations in recruit quality, ship rates, sponsorship, training, and job

19

satisfaction are discernable and correctable under the command and

control of the RRB through the production lines or RSP.

Ultimately the long-term retention of quality soldiers lies in their

individual commitment to the GAARNG. Unit commanders have the task

of reducing turnover in their organizations by building strong teams,

esprit de corps, organizational commitment and staying cognizant of the

work tasks and environment (job satisfaction). Retention is therefore best

left to the unit commanders. The RRB contributes to this tenet by

recruiting quality applicants with realistic expectations of their

assignment and inculcating and preparing them to meet their initial

employment expectations through the RSP.

The clear delineation of responsibility between unit commanders

and the RRB is important for focused effort by each entity. Specific

direction and appropriate standards of accountability should allow for

improved results in each of the three SM tenets: recruiting, attrition

management, and retention. As depicted in the prescriptive model found

in Figure 1.0, the unit command climate and the long-term

organizational commitment necessary for unit-level retention is best

influenced by unit leaders. However, the RRB can contribute to reducing

dysfunctional turnover during the first portion of an enlistment period.

The hiring processes, initial job satisfaction and the start point for

building of organizational commitment among NPS recruits are factors

best influenced by the RRB and RSP. In essence, by the RRB focusing on

20

the two tenets of recruiting and attrition management, results may be felt

on the third tenet of retention.

21

References

Abbasi, S., & Hollman, K. (2000). Turnover: the real bottom line. Public Personnel Management, V29, No3.

Agho, A., Price, J., & Mueller, C. (1992). Discriminant validity of

measures of job satisfaction, positive affectivity and negative affectivity.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65.

Boudreau, J. (1991). Utility analysis for decisions in human resource management. In M. Dunnette & L. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 2nd ed. Palo Alto, CA:

Consulting Psychologist Press.

Boudreau, J., & Berger, C. (1985). Decision-theoretic utility analysis applied to employee separations and acquisitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70.

Brooke, P., & Price, J. (1989). The determinants of employee

absenteeism: An empirical test of a causal model. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62.

Brownson, K., & Harriman, R. (2000). Recruiting and retaining staff in

the twenty-first century. Hospital Management Quarterly, 22. Buck, J., & Watson, J. (2002). Retaining staff employees: the relationship

between human resource management strategies and organizational commitment. Innovative Higher Education, V26, No3.

Burgess, S. (1998, July). Analyzing firms, jobs, and turnover. Monthly Labor Review.

Campbell, J., Dunnette, M., Lawler, E., & Weick, K. (1970). Expectancy

theory. In W. Natemeyer & J. Gilberg (Eds.), Classics of Organizational Behavior (2nd ed.). Danville, IL: Interstate Printers & Publishers.

Cotton, J., & Tuttle, J. (1986). Employee turnover: a meta-analysis and review with implications for research. Academy of Management Review,

11. Deblois, R. (2004). Presentation at the Recruiting and Retention

Conference, June 25, 2004.

Ellickson, M. (2002, Fall). Determinants of job satisfaction of municipal government employees. Public Personnel Management, 31.

22

Flynn, G. (1994). Attracting the right employees – and keeping them.

Personnel Journal, 73.

Hollenbeck, J., & Williams, C. (1986). Turnover functionality versus turnover frequency: A note on work attitudes and organizational effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71.

Iaffaldano, M., & Muchinsky, P. (1985). Job satisfaction and job

performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97. Jackofsky, F. (1984). Turnover and job performance: An integrated

process model. Academy of Management Review, 9.

James, L., & Jones, L. (1992). Psychological climate and affect: Test of a hierarchical dynamic model. In C. Cranny, P. Smith, & E. Stone (Eds.), Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their performance. New York: Lexington.

Jones, A., & James, L. (1979). Psychological climate: Dimensions and relationships of individual and aggregated work environment perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23.

Kenkel, J. (1997). A university president’s perspective on recruitment,

retention and quality. Journal of Chemical Education, 74.

Knowles, J., Parlier, G., Hoscheit, G., Ayer, R., Lyman, K., & Fancher, R. (2002). Reinventing Army Recruiting. Interfaces, 32.

Langan, S. (2000, Winter). Finding the needle in the haystack: The challenge of recruiting sharp employees. Public Personnel Management, 29.

Mathieu, J., & Zajac, D. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the

antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108.

Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory,

research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Micheals, C., & Spector, P. (1982). Causes of employee turnover: A test of

the Mobley, Griffith, Hand, and Meglino Model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67.

23

Miller, O. (1996). Employee turnover in the public sector. New York: Garland.

Mobley, W., Horner, S., & Hollinsworth, A. (1978). An evaluation of the

precursors of hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63.

Mowday, R., Porter, L., & Steers, R. (1982). Employee-organizational linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.

Mowday, R., Steers, R., & Porter, L. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14.

Mueller, C., & Price, J. (1990). Economic, psychological, and sociological determinants of voluntary turnover. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19.

Nicholson, N., Brown, C., & Chadwick-Jones, J. (1976). Absence from

work and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61.

NGR 601-1 (2003). Army National Guard Strength Maintenance Program. Arlington, VA: Department of the Army, National Guard Bureau.

O’Rielly, C., Caldwell, D., & Barnett, W. (1989). Work group demography, social integration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34.

Premack, S., & Wanous, J. (1985). A meta-analysis of realistic job

preview experiments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70. Robbert, A., Keltner, B., Reynolds, K., Spranca, M., & Benjamin, B.

(1997). Differentiation in Military Human Resource Management. Wasington, DC: Rand Corporation.

Rynes, S. (1991). Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire consequences: A

call for new research directions. In M. Dunnette & L. Hough (Eds.),

Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 2.

Shultz, R. (2004). Electronic communication July 28, 2004. Steers, R. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational

commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22.

24

Sturman, M., Trevor, C., Boudreau, J., & Gerhart, B. (2003). Is it worth it to win the talent war? Evaluating the utility of performance-based pay.

Personnel Psychology, 56.

Tett, R., & Meyer, J. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46.

Trevor, C. (2001). Interactive effects among ease of movement

determinants and job satisfaction in the prediction of voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44.

Trevor, C., Gerhart, B., & Boudreau, J. (1997). Voluntary turnover and job performance: Curvilinearity and the moderating influences of

salary growth and promotions. Journal of Applied Pschology, 82. Wanous, J. (1989). Installing a realistic job preview: Ten tough choices.

Personnel Psychology, 42.

Wanous, J., Poland, T., Premack, S., & Davis, G. (1992). The effects of met expectations and newcomer attitudes and behaviors: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77.

Watson, D., Pennebaker, J., & Folger, R. (1987). Beyond negative

affectivity: Measuring stress and satisfaction in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 8.

Williams, C., & Livingston, L. (1994). Another look at the relationship bewteen performance and voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37.

Vroom, V. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley.

Yeatts, D., & Hyten C. (1998). High Performing Self-Managed Work

Teams: Comparison of Theory to Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.