MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4416307646 · doi:10.1108/er-02-2025-0132

You stay, I’ll go: modelling how couples make the decision for one partner to leave a calling

2025· article· en· W4416307646 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.
aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.

Notice bibliographique

RevueEmployee Relations · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueWorkplace Spirituality and Leadership
Établissements canadiensCarleton University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTurnoverEmotiveVoluntary actionJob satisfactionIdentity (music)SpouseSocial exchange theoryTurnover intention

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Purpose This study seeks to increase our understanding of how employees make the decision to voluntarily leave an organization (the military) and a profession viewed by many as a “calling” (DiRenzo et al., 2022). Specifically, (1) do employees make this decision on their own or do they involve their partner in the voluntary turnover decision-making process, (2) the factors that influence the decision to “walk away from” a calling and (3) the role of work-identity in this process? Design/methodology/approach We employ a constructivist grounded theory approach to explore how 10 mixed gender dual-earner couples who both are or were members of the Canadian Armed Forces voluntarily made the decision for one partner to leave the organization and a career that they considered a calling. Findings Our research demonstrates the following about voluntary leaving decisions for dual-earner couples: the voluntary turnover decision in our respondents was made by the couple, not the individual; voluntary turnover is triggered by “shock events” and/or prolonged periods of job dissatisfaction (as theorized by Lee et al., 1999). Individuals will voluntarily walk away from a job that they consider core to their personal identity (a calling) when it conflicts with family needs, even though this decision was shown by our research to be emotive on the part of the leaver. Research limitations/implications Analysis of our data supports four main conclusions. Firstly, voluntary turnover decisions are made by the couple, not the individual. Our research also contributes to the couple decision-making literature, which has not studied the decision to leave. Findings support that voluntary turnover is triggered by either shock events and/or prolonged periods of job dissatisfaction (what we refer to as a slow simmer), as theorized by Lee et al. (1999). Practical implications Our couple narratives show many of our leavers were dissatisfied with how their organization was treating them and the organizational norms in place long before making the decision to leave but only made the decision to leave after a shock event occurred. Those organizations that work hard to develop a strong culture (such as militaries, police forces and other organizations where work identity enmeshes with personal identity) may be missing key factors regarding retention when they fail to understand the impacts of employer-related shock events and long-term employee dissatisfaction. Social implications Our analysis showed that individuals will voluntarily walk away from a job that they consider core to their personal identity (i.e. a calling) for family reasons and when confronted with a clear case of value incongruence, and that this decision is made by the couple, not the individual leaver. The social implications of this are that organizations need to proactively deal with dissatisfaction with the organizational culture in place if they are going to effectively address employee turnover. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, our study is one of the only ones we could find that approach the leaving decision from the perspective of the couple and apply a multi-identity approach to studying the voluntary leaving decision.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,880
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,135
Tête enseignante GPT0,369
Écart entre enseignants0,233 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle