MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record 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 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEmployee Relations · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Spirituality and Leadership
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurnoverEmotiveVoluntary actionJob satisfactionIdentity (music)SpouseSocial exchange theoryTurnover intention

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it