Reducing Voluntary Turnover Through Improving Employee Self-Awareness, Creating Transparent Organizational Cultures, and Increasing Career Development

  • Jeffrey R. Moore
  • Douglas Goodwin
Conference paper


Successful companies exist when employees and stakeholders interact in a constructive manner to focus on the accomplishment of critical tasks. This research examined the ways self-assessment and peer assessments can be used to reduce organizational dysfunction by increasing employee self-awareness as well as improving employee career progression. Employee management behaviors in a service company were assessed by their peers in order to determine positive organizational culture and level of stress. The study also explored two links: (a) between the consistency of self-evaluation versus peer evaluation of the employee and the level of stress in the organization and (b) between the consistency of peer evaluation versus the supervisor’s performance expectation of the employee and the level of stress in the organization. The researchers hypothesized that lower levels of stress within the organization indicate a higher perception of skill among employees. This study also explored which management skills are most important for developing a healthy work culture in a service industry.


Management Skill Blind Spot Pretax Income Employee Engagement Team Task 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Allen D (2008) Retaining talent. Society of Human Resource Management Research, pp 1–57Google Scholar
  2. Aronson E, Mills J (1959) The effects of severity of initiation on liking for a group. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 59:178–181Google Scholar
  3. Beal DJ, Cohen R, Burke MJ, McLendon CL (2003) Cohesion and performance in groups: a meta-analytic clarification of construct relation. J Appl Psychol 88:809–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benne KD, Sheats P (1948) Functional roles of group members. J Soc Issues 4:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cartwright D (1968) The nature of group cohesiveness. In: Cartwright D, Zander A (eds) Group dynamics: research and theory, 3rd edn. Harper & Row, New York, pp 91–109Google Scholar
  6. Forsyth DL (1999) Group dynamics, 3rd edn. Wadsworth, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  7. George JM, Bettenhausen K (1990) Understanding pro-social behavior, sales performance, and turnover. J Appl Psychol 75:698–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hare AP (1976) Handbook of small group research, 2nd edn. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Lawler E, Mohrman A, Resnick S (1984) Performance appraisal revisited. Organ Dyn 13(1):20–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lencioni P (2002) The five dysfunctions of a team. Jossey-Bass, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Long S (1984) Early integration in groups: a group to join and a group to create. Hum Relat 37:311–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Moore JR (2006) Organizational DNA: law of virtue. BookSurge, CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Moore JR, Kizer LE, Jeon BP (2011) Leading groups to create healthy culture through accomplishing tasks aligned to strategy. Int J Manage Inf Syst 15(2):55–64Google Scholar
  14. Quinn RE, Faerman SR, Thompson MP, McGrath MR, St Clair LS (2007) Becoming a master manager: a competing values approach. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Anderson UniversityAndersonUSA

Personalised recommendations