FACTORS AFFECTING EMPLOYEE TURNOVER AND TURNOVER

INTENTION: THE CASE OF HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY

MBA THESIS

YILAK TESSEMA

June, 2019

HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY, HARAMAYA

 HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY

POST GRADUATE PROGRAM DIRECTORATE

Factors affecting Employee Turnover and Turnover intention: The case of

Haramaya University

A Thesis Submitted to Department of Management,

Post Graduate Program Directorate

HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Yilak Tessema

June, 2019

Haramaya University, Haramaya

ii
 HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY
POST GRADUATE PROGRAM DIRECTORATE

We hereby certify that we have read and evaluated this thesis entitled “Factors affecting
employee turnover and turnover intention: The case of Haramaya University.” prepared under
my guidance by Yilak Tessema. Also we recommend that it be submitted as fulfilling the thesis
requirement.

Mulugeta Damie (PhD)_________________ __________________

Major Advisor Signature Date

V.Satishkumar (PhD)_________________ __________________

Co- Advisor Signature Date

As a member of the board of examiners of the MA Thesis Open Defense Examination, we certify

that, we have read and evaluated the thesis prepared by Yilak Tessema and examined the

candidate. We recommend that the thesis be accepted as fulfilling the thesis requirements for the

degree of Master of Art in Business Administration

_____________________ _________ ______________

Chairperson Signature Date

______________________ ___________ _____________

Internal Examiner Signature Date

______________________ ___________ ______________

External Examiner Signature Date

Final approval and acceptance of the thesis is contingent upon the submission of its final copy to

the council of postgraduate program (CPGP) through the candidate of his department or post

graduate committee (DGC or PGC).

i
 DEDICATION

I dedicate this Thesis Manuscript to my beloved wife Tigist Tefera, for her great devotion to the
success of my work.

ii
 STATEMENT OF AUTHOR

I declare that this thesis is my original work and that all sources of materials used for this thesis
have been duly acknowledged. This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements of MBA degree at Haramaya University and is deposited at the Haramaya
University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the library. I also declare
that this thesis is not submitted to any other institution anywhere for the award of any academic
degree, diploma or certificate.

Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission provided that
accurate acknowledgement of source is made. Request for permission for extended quotation
from reproduction of this manuscript in Whole or in part may be granted by the head of major
department or the director of Haramaya University post graduate program directorate when in
his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all
other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.

Name: Yilak Tessema Signature __________________

Place: Haramaya University, Haramaya

Date of submission:

iii
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

The author was born at Haramaya Town, East Hararge of the Regional State of Oromiya, on
7February, 1980, from his mother Meaza Tessema and his father Tessema Regasa. He attended
his elementary education at Haramaya University Model Elementary and Junior School. Then,
he attended his senior secondary education at Haramaya senior secondary school. After that, he
joined Haramaya University, Faculty of Business and Economics in 1997 E.C. and graduated
with Bachelor of Art in Accounting in July 1999 E.C. After his graduation he was employed by
Haramaya University as senior Accountant in Finance. After seven years of effective service,
Haramaya University provides the opportunity to joined Haramaya University in 2008 E.C. to
pursue his Masters in Business Administration.

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am highly indebted to my major advisor, Dr. Mulugeta Damie (PhD). Without his valuable
comments, unreserved guidance and professional expertise, the completion of this work would
not have been possible.

I would like to express my thanks to Mr. Wakgari for his valuable comments, unreserved
guidance and professional support for the successful completion of this thesis. I also like to
express my thanks to Mr. Robson Mekonnen for his valuable comments.

I would like to thank Haramaya University for giving me this educational opportunity and for
the financial support of this study. I am also very grateful for all people who gave me
professional support for the successful completion of this thesis.

v
 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATION

HU Haramaya University

HRM Human Resource Management

CNCS College of Natural and Computational Sciences

CAES College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences

CSSH College of Social Sciences and Humanities

HIT Haramaya institute of technology

S.E Standard Error

Df Degree of freedom

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION II

STATEMENT OF AUTHOR III

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH IV

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS V

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATION VI

LIST OF TABLES X

ABSTRACT XI

1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Background of the study 1
1.2. Statement of the problem 2
1.3. Research questions 4
1.4. Objective of the study 5
1.4.1. General objective 5
1.4.2. Specific objectives 5
1.5. Significance of the study 5
1.6. Scope and delimitation of the study 5
1.7. Limitations of the study 5
1.8. Organization of the study 6
1.9. Operational definition of terms 6
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 7
2.1. Definition of Employee Turnover 7
2.2. Types of Employee Turnover 7
2.3. Turnover intention and actual Turnover 8
2.4. Causes of Employee Turnover 9
2.4.1. Socio-demographic factors as cause of employee turnover 9
2.4.2. Career development and Training opportunities as cause of employee turnover 10
2.4.3. Recognitionas cause of employee turnover 11
2.4.4. Workplace Conditions as cause of employee turnover 12
vii
 2.4.5. Job dissatisfaction as cause of employee turnover 13
2.4.6. Job insecurityas cause of employee turnover 13
2.4.7. Employee relationship with supervisor as cause of employee turnover 14
2.4.8. Alternative employment opportunity as cause of employee turnover 15
2.5. Consequences of Employee Turnover 15
2.6. Methods to Minimize Employee Turnover 16
2.7. Empirical literature 17
2.8. Conceptual framework 22
3. MATERIALS AND METHOD 23
3.1. Description of the Study Area 23
3.2. Study Population 23
3.3. Sources of Data 24
3.3.1. Primary data 24
3.3.2. Secondary data 24
3.4. Research design 24
3.5. Sampling techniques and Sample size 24
3.6. Data collection instruments 27
3.6.1. Questionnaire 27
3.6.2. Interview 28
3.6.3. Document Review 28
3.7. Methods of Data Analysis 29
4. DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 30
4.1. Results of staff turnover intention 30
4.1.1. Demographic variables 30
4.1.2. Employees’ expectations from the university 33
4.1.3. Job satisfaction and job security 34
4.1.4. Salary and allowance /incentive 34
4.1.5. Work-load 35
4.1.6. Career growth and training opportunities 35
4.1.7. Motivation/encouragement and recognition for good work 36
4.1.8. Relationship with supervisor/head and with other employees 37

viii
 4.1.9. Workingenvironment 38
4.1.10. Intention to quit 39
4.1.11. Results of Chi-square test of associations 44
4.1.12. Results of binary logistic regression 47
4.1.13. Results of open ended question 51
4.2. Results of staff turnover 52
4.2.1. Current employee turnover status 52
4.2.2. Causes for employees turnover 53
4.3. Interview results 56
5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 58
5.1. Summary of findings 58
5.2. Conclusion 63
5.3. Recommendations 64
REFERENCES 66
APPENDIX 71

ix
 LIST OF TABLES

1. Table 4. 1:Descriptive statistics of demographic characteristics of the respondents ................. 32

2. Table 4. 2: Employees’ expectation response ............................................................................ 33
3. Table 4. 3: Employee’s expectation ........................................................................................... 33
4. Table 4. 4: Job satisfaction and job security............................................................................... 34
5. Table 4. 5: Salary and allowance/incentive ................................................................................ 35
6. Table 4. 6: Work-load ................................................................................................................ 35
7. Table 4. 7: Career growth and training opportunities................................................................. 36
8. Table 4. 8: Motivation/encouragement and recognition for good work ..................................... 37
9. Table 4. 9: Relationship with supervisor/head ........................................................................... 37
10. Table 4. 10: Working-environment ............................................................................................ 39
11. Table 4. 11: Intentions to quit .................................................................................................... 39
12. Table 4. 12: Cross tabulation of intention to quit and demographic variables ........................... 41
13. Table 4. 13: Cross tabulation of intention to quit and independent variables ............................ 43
14. Table 4. 14: Summary result of Chi-square test ......................................................................... 46
15. Table 4. 15: Dependent Variable Encoding ............................................................................... 47
16. Table 4. 16: Results of Binary Logistic Regression model ........................................................ 48
17. Table 4. 17: Hosmer and Lemeshow Test .................................................................................. 49
18. Table 4. 18: Reasons that can possibly make employees toquit their job .................................. 52
19. Table 4. 19: Gender and education level distribution................................................................. 53
20. Table 4. 20: Reasons of turnover obtained from document review............................................ 55
21. Table 4. 21: Reasons of staff turnover........................................................................................ 56

x
 Factors affecting Employee Turnover and Turnover intention: The case of
Haramaya University

Yilak Tessema

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to identify factors that affect staff turnover and staff turnover
intention at Haramaya University. Both primary and secondary sources of data were used and
the primary data was gathered through questionnaires and interviews. Data was collected
from both academic and administrative staff that are currently on their jobs, employees that
quitted their jobs and from available compiled documents. To achieve the research objectives,
mixed research design quantitative and qualitative; with predominantly quantitative method
was employed. Descriptive statistics tools such as frequency and percentage were used to
present the collected data and to point out special features. Chi-square test was employed to
test whether there is statistically significant association between employee turnover intention
and independent factors of turnover intention. To identify the major factors affecting employee
turnover intention inferential statistics such as binary logistic regression analysis method was
employed. Analysis was carried out using the Statistical package for Social Science SPSS. The
findings of this study showed that factors such as job satisfaction, job security, salary,
allowance/incentive payments, career growth opportunities, training opportunities and
recognition for good work were found to be the significant factors that affect staff turnover
intention. However, there is no statistically significant association between turnover intention
and factors such as sex, age, marital status, educational level and work experiences of
employees, relationship with supervisor/head, work load, facilities in the working environment,
employees expectation, motivation or encouragement.

Keywords: staff turnover, staff turnover intention, academic staff, administrative staff

xi
 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of the study

Every organization wishes to have high productivity, less turnovers and high profit margin (in
business firms and high achievement of targets and impact in non-profit organizations). Turnover
management is therefore a key factor for the implementation of organizational activities and
achievement of organizational goals (Kuria et al., 2012).

Employee turnover is the rotation of workers around the labor market; between firms; jobs and
occupation and between the state of employment and unemployment (Abassi and Hollman,
2000). Employee turnover can be either voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary turnover refers to
termination on the will of employee’s hand and involuntary turnover refers that employees has
no choice in the termination Rasoava (2015). In addition, Price (2001) said that voluntary
turnover can be termed as avoidable turnover and involuntary turnover as unavoidable turnover.

High employee turnover rates may jeopardize efforts to attain organizational objectives. It
indicates that turnover is one of the most expensive and difficult workforce challenges facing
organizations. Employee turnover can be extremely devastating for any company (Kemal, 2013).
Chen et al. (2010) also state employee turnover as a serious issue, particularly in the area of
human resource management. Sometimes employee turnover benefits organizations positively.
This might happen when a poor performer is replaced by a more skilled employee and when a
retired employee replaced by a younger one. Employee turnover may be also costly as it requires
different cost to take account such as administrative costs of recruitment, cost of covering during
the period in which there is a vacancy, training cost for the new employee etc (Shamsuzzoha,
2003).

Organizations make investment on their employees by training and developing them, motivate
them expecting a return which adds value to the organizational performance. So when these
employees leave, the organization will face a loss and other difficulties in achieving
organizational goals and objectives (Feruza, 2011).
 2

Many factors play a role in the employee turnover rate of any company, and these can stem from
both the employer and the employees. Compensation, job satisfaction, leadership style, socio
demographic factors, and work environment are some of the factors that play a significant role in
employee turnover (Beam, 2009). In addition, worldwide, employees hope to grow their
professions and achieve distinguished careers over the course of their work life. Employees
believe that their career objectives are within their grasp if they could find the right organization
to actualize their ambitions (Weigold, et al., 2013). Organizations, on the other hand, invest
heavily in the training, developing, and nurturing of their employees so as to build a stable
dependable base for profitability. According to Clarke (2010), the discordant alignment between
what employees want and the organizational objectives most often leads to dissatisfaction and
eventually employees’ turnover.

The effect of employee turnover results extra work load on the remaining employees, on their
work performance and an organization’s effectiveness. (Mathis and Jackson, 2007) said that
those employees who are in the organization have to put extra efforts and have to work extra
hours to balance the work of those who left the organization. Increased workload of employees
leads to decrease employee morale and increases stress level, which in turn increases employee
absenteeism (Ahmed et al., 2016).

Haramaya University is one of the oldest public university and strives to be among the leading
university recognized nationally and internationally for excellence in learning, teaching, research
and community engagement activities. Great efforts are being made to produce qualified and
successful graduates (Haramaya University, 2017). However, the number of staff leaving
Haramaya University has been increasing from time to time (Mulu, 2014).In order to achieve the
expected goal of the university, it is necessary to reduce the rate of turnover. Therefore, this
study aims to identify factors affecting employee turnover in Haramaya University.

1.2. Statement of the problem

As one of the employee of Haramaya University, I have been seeing several experienced
employees leaved the campus from different departments. Although replacement has been made,
I observed that most of the newly hired employees need a reasonable time spanning even months
to become familiar with new working environment before becoming able to perform at the
 3

expected level. Besides, interdependence of roles within the organization also hampers the ability
of remaining co-workers to cope up their assignments effectively and efficiently due to the gap
occurred between activities. Furthermore, turnover tremendously affects the remaining
employee’s morale and performance that possibly affect organizational performance.

According to Semela (2011), as cited in Mulu (2014), the turnover rate of academic staff in
Ethiopian universities has been increasing from time to time. This is aggravated by the increase
of brain drain. For instance, in the 1960s and 1970s the staff who left their country returned as
soon as they completed their study. However, these days only few return to serve their
institution. The number of staff leaving Haramaya University has been increasing from time to
time (Mulu, 2014).

According to the information that obtained from a compiled documents found in Planning,
Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate, for the past three years the yearly employee turnover rate
of the university was around 5% and a total of about 252 employees left main campus. Thus, to
provide quality services and remain competent, Haramaya University needs to tackle or at least
to reduce the rate of turnover. To achieve this, identification of the major determinants of
employee turnover might play a crucial role.

According to Griffeth and Hom (2002) lack of training and career development opportunities
were the most cited reasons for employees’ turnover. Brashear, et al. (2006) as cited in Kariuki
(2015) argued that employees relation with the supervisor, performance appraisals and working
conditions adversely influence the propensity for employee turnover. In addition, Liu (2014)
confirm that turnover is the consequence of work dissatisfaction a combination of factors which
include pay, recognition and career development opportunities, among others. According to Shah
et al.(2011), as cited in Shimelis (2016), the demographic factors that affect employee turnover
are employee’s age, marital status, gender, number of children, education and work experience.

In our country Ethiopia a study conducted by Girma et al. (2015) found that family arrangement,
lack or low procedural justice, organizational commitment, lack of transport, level of salary, job
satisfaction and training opportunity were found to be significantly associated with nurses’
turnover intention. In addition, Mulu (2014) showed that overall job satisfaction had a significant
effect on commitment of employees and the effect of role stress on job satisfaction and intention
to leave is significantly stronger for the female than the male. Furthermore, Shimelis (2016)
 4

study revealed that personal factors are not the vital causes for turnover and from pull factors,
high salary elsewhere, availability of more financial benefits elsewhere, availability of
promotional opportunities external to the hospital and higher educational opportunities are the
most important causes initiating medical staffs to leave their job.

Although as described above there are several studies that focused on identification of significant
factors that affect employee turnover, the current study is different from the previous studies in
the following reasons: - most of the above studies employed multiple linear regression analysis
to identify the significant factors however the current study used binary logistic regression
analysis. This study also tries to identify the factors that affect employee turnover and turnover
intention by making separate analyses. In addition, those studies that are conducted in
universities didn’t consider administrative staff turnover. In other words, they considered only
academic staff turnover (Mulu, 2014 and Shimelis, 2016). Furthermore, to the best of the
researcher knowledge there is no published similar study that consider both academic and
administrative staff turnover in the study area. Therefore, this study intends to identify factors
affecting both academic and administrative employee turnover in Haramaya University.

1.3. Research questions

The research questions of this study are:

1. What is the current status of employee turnover at Haramaya University?

2. What are the main factors that affect employee turnover in Haramaya University?
3. What are the main factors that affect employee turnover intention in Haramaya
University?
4. What kinds of mechanisms have been employed to tackle the problem of employee
turnover?
 5

1.4. Objective of the study

1.4.1.General objective

The general objective of the study is to identify factors that affects employee turnover and
turnover intention at Haramaya University.

1.4.2.Specific objectives

 To assess the current status of employee turnover at Haramaya University

 To identify the major factors affecting employee turnover in Haramaya University
 To identify the major factors affecting employee turnover intention in Haramaya
University
 To investigate the mechanisms that has been practiced to tackle the problem of employee
turnover.

1.5. Significance of the study

This study provides evidences towards factors causing employee turnover in Haramaya
University. Thus, the findings of this study are vital for the human resource management and any
of the concerned department of Haramaya University to make evidence-based decision relating
to the problems of employee turnover. In addition, this study can be used as a reference material
for further investigation on issues which are related to this topic.

1.6. Scope and delimitation of the study

This study was conducted in Haramaya University. Thus, the findings of the study are valid only
for Haramaya University. Employee turnover could be voluntary or involuntary reasons but this
study focused only on identification of factors affecting voluntary employee turnover. In
addition, the issue of staff turnover in Ethiopian Universities is a national issue, however; due to
time, resource and financial constraints, this study is delimited to Haramaya University.

1.7. Limitations of the study

To achieve the objective the researcher planned to triangulate the results of the collected data
from employees who currently working in the campus, employees who currently quit or left the
 6

campus and from interview. Although the researcher try his best to obtain information from
employees who currently quit their job, it was difficult to get the expected number of
respondents. Thus, the researcher is unable to employed inferential statistics in the analysis of
employee turnover. In addition, absence of well documented exit interview was one of the
challenges that face the researcher.

1.8. Organization of the study

This report included five chapters. Chapter One included: Introduction, Statement of problem,
objectives of the study, hypothesis, Scope and Significance of the study and Chapter Two is
Literature review. Chapter Three and Chapter Four were Research Methodologies and Data
Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation respectively. Final chapter is summary, Conclusions
and Recommendations.

1.9. Operational definition of terms

Employee turnover occurs when employees leave an organization and have to be replaced with
new ones (Mathis and Jackson, 2001).

Voluntary employee turnover occurs when an employee willingly leaves the organization
Rasoava (2015).

Turnover intention is a predecessor of actual turnover and it is defined as employee’s intention

and decision to quit the present job and organization (Ashar et al.,2013).
 7

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1. Definition of Employee Turnover

Employee turnover is a net result of the exits of employees and entrance of others to the
organization (Invancevich and Glueck, 1989). Employee turnover is the rotation of workers
around the labor market; between firms; jobs and occupation and between the state of
employment and unemployment (Abassi and Hollman, 2000). Mondy (2010) explain that
employee turnover means controlled ending of a partnership with the organization by the
employees of that organization. According to Harkins (1998) as cited in Ahmed et al. (2016),
employee’s job turnover as the access to enter new employees into the organizations and the
departure of current employees of the organizations. This proposed study follows the definition
of turnover given in Mathis and Jackson (2001). According to Mathis and Jackson (2001)
Employee turnover occurs when employees leave an organization and have to be replaced with
new ones(Mathis and Jackson, 2001).

2.2. Types of Employee Turnover

As Rasoava (2015) states Voluntary employee turnover occurs when an employee willingly
leaves the organization. Involuntary employee turnover occurs when the employer terminates the
employment contract. Voluntary turnover include resignations for higher wages, career
opportunities, further education, and job dissatisfaction. It excludes discharges, retirements,
transfers, and promotions (Batt, 2002). In contrast, involuntary turnover include resignations
caused, for example, by failure to meet expectations and expired employment contracts (Mc
Elroy et al., 2001). Voluntary turnovers are further classified as functional and dysfunctional
turnovers. A functional turnover occurs when poor performers are resigned and a dysfunctional
turnover refers to the exit of effective performers. They dysfunctional turnover also classified
into avoidable turnover and unavoidable turnovers (Loquercio et al., 2006).

Unavoidable voluntary turnover result from an employee’s life decisions that extend beyond an
employer’s control such as a spouses decision to move to any a new area that requires a
reallocation for the employee. However, recent studies show that approximately 80% of
voluntary turnover are avoidable. By investing in quality human resources management (HRM)
 8

recruiting, selection, training, and development programs companies can avoid many mistakes
involving a poor match between the employee and the job. (ibid)

2.3. Turnover intention and actual Turnover

Turnover intention refers to an individual’s estimated probability to leave his or her current
organization at some point in the near future (Brough and Frame, 2004). Turnover intention is
the thought or feeling of leaving but not necessarily the act of leaving the organization. It refers
to one step before leaving which is planning to leave. In contrast, actual turnover is the
employee’s departure from an organization (Chen et al., 2011). Turnover intention is also known
as turnover cognition which provides organization an opportunity to salvage employee-
management relationship and stop the loss of the employees said by (Fang, Tony, and Verma,
2002).

Turnover is very difficult to predict and questions remain unanswered as to why actually the
employees left. It is argued that intention to quit is a strong surrogate indicator for actual quitting
behavior (Firth et al., 2004). Price and Muller (1981) recommended the use of turnover intention
over actual turnover because the latter is more difficult to predict as there are many external
factors that affect turnover behavior. According to Moore (2002), while actual quitting behavior
is the main focus of interest to many researchers, intention to quit is argued to be a strong
surrogate variable. Additionally, turnover intention can be a better barometer of management
practices than actual turnover. Greenhaus (1992) agreed that intentions to quit may be the best
predictor of actual quitting behavior. The best predictor of whether an employee will leave the
organization is based on turnover intention of the employees (Chen et al., 2011). Employees are
still working in their workplace and thereby it refers to turnover intention. Theory states that
employees’ working environment and personal lives will affect their turnover intention (Chen et
al., 2011).

Based on the model of Mobley (1977), it stated that the evaluation of one’s current position is the
beginning process of the employees’ turnover decision. The employees may choose to stay or
quit the company (Chen et al., 2011). The evaluation process includes cost of leaving one’s
existing position, job satisfaction and also other existing alternatives (Chen et al., 2008). A lot of
dimensions are measured when predicting turnover intention which in turn makes it a good
predictor of actual turnover. Besides, intention to leave has a strong positive correlation with
 9

actual turnover were claimed by many researchers. Constant findings on the positive relationship
between actual turnover and turnover intention were found in previous research work (Veloutsou
and Panigyrakis, 2004).

According to Johnsrud and Rosser (2002), practically, the study of actual turnover behavior is
difficult due to employees left are hardly traceable and usually the response rate to the survey is
quite low. Turnover intention was found highly correlated with actual turnover behavior in 13
empirical studies out of 14 studies (Bluedorn, 1982). Consistent with this view, Fang (2001)
argued that turnover intention is important in the turnover literature and can safely be used as a
substitute for turnover behavior. In this regard, it was found in many studies that, turnover
intention has been viewed as the best predictor of actual turnover (Herrbach et al., 2004; Allen et
al., 2003; Griffeth et al., 2000).

2.4. Causes of Employee Turnover

According to Campion (1991) turnover occurs for many different reasons. Sometimes new job
attracts employees and pull them to leave the old one. In contrary employee also pushed to leave
job due to the dissatisfaction in their present workplace or by domestic circumstances when
someone reallocates with their spouse or partner. Branham (2012) also listed seven “hidden”
reasons for why employees leave their jobs: 1) the job or workplace was not as expected, 2) the
mismatch between job and person, 3) too little coaching and feedback, 4) too few growth and
advancement opportunities, 5) feeling devalued and unrecognized, 6) stress from overwork and
work-life imbalance, and 7) loss of trust and confidence in senior leaders.

2.4.1. Socio-demographic factors as cause of employee turnover

As said by Abdali (2011), the demographic and personnel characteristics of an employee may be
reason of leaving from the organization. These characteristics are include; age, gender,
qualification, marital status, experience and tenure. According to Parker and Skitmore (2003),
top performing females have turnover rates that are 2.5 times those of their male counterparts, a
fact that they point out to the demands of balancing work and family life. Moreover, it has been
found that female managers are more likely to leave their organizations when they perceive a
lack of career opportunities within their organizations. Besides, employees more qualified in
their professionalism tend to leave their current organization because they have more opportunity
 10

to gain better work than employees who have less qualification. Marital status also has great
influence on employees‟ turnover. Employees who have married, have children, and have
stabilized family life situation prefer to stay in organization areas that they stabilized their family
life. However, employees who do not married and free to move from place to place can have
more chance to exercise turnover. In addition, employee who have more work experience can be
leave the current organization since they have more opportunity to gain better work and working
condition than employees who have less work experience. A mature person has more confidence
and patience on the work place than a younger one. According to Nawazet al.(2009), with
increase in age a person has greater level of prestige and confidence. Based on this theory the
researcher will see some of the variables that are influencer in the universities. These are age,
sex, income level and educational level of the academic staff.

2.4.2. Career development and Training opportunities as cause of employee turnover

According to Puah and Ananthram (2006), career development is the outcome of career plans as
viewed from both the organization and employee’s perspectives. Career development is defined
as the organized, formalized, and planned efforts of individuals within an organization so as to
achieve a balance between an individual’s career needs and the organization’s workforce
requirements (Puah and Ananthram, 2006). Using organizational support theory, Dwomoh and
Korankye (2012) argue that when an organization commits its resources to help develop its
employees’ career goals, employees will in turn feel obliged to commit their time to the
organization hence reducing organization employee turnover.

There exists a strong correlation between career growth opportunities and employee turnover
(Puah and Ananthram, 2006). Chen et al.(2010) argue that the strong correlation between career
growth strategies and employee turnover are meant to optimize both the effectiveness of
employees careers while at the same time enhancing organizations growth objectives.
Organizations that lack a contingency plan in managing their employees’ career growth, most
often suffer the consequence of employee turnover (Armstrong, 2009). Agarwal, et al.(2006)
contends that failure to meet employee’s expectation in career growth opportunities results in
high turnover with employees’ seeking these opportunities elsewhere. Griffeth, and Hom (2002)
revealed that lack of training and career development opportunities were the most cited reasons
for employees’ turnover in an organization.
 11

Nelson and Catherine (2015) identified that limited training and development opportunities
resulted limited promotion and career advancement opportunities which ultimately lead to
turnover intention in employees. Roshidi (2014) mentioned promotion opportunities as
independent factor of intention to leave so promotion opportunities only possible with training
and development in organization. It is suggested by Shahid et al. (2015) employees expecting
better salaries, fair appraisal system, sound training and development programs and career
growth opportunities within the organizations so they positively attached and chances of leaving
organization will minimized. Furthermore, he explained that career growth concerns absolutely
associated and influence employee intention to quit. Chang et al. (2007) claimed that if
organizations satisfied the career and development needs of employees within the organization
then employee’s turnover intentions may decrease. He suggested that managers have to pay more
attention to employees career needs and have to introduce well planned training and
development programs that will have lower employee’s turnover. Kadiresan et al. (2015)
suggested in his study that training and development enhance the productivity and performance
of the employees which resulted reduction in employee’s turnover intention in the organizations.

Jehanzeb et al. (2013) explored that training and development programs are positively related to
organizational commitment and to get their commitment, employees should be strongly
recognized with goals, mission and values of the organization through appropriate training
programs. It is confirmed strong inverse relationship among organizational commitment and
employee’s turnover intention. Hence training and development motivate employees to work and
also retain them in the organizations. Choi et al. (2012)explained that training and development
opportunities not just the way to obtained competencies but it is necessary for employees to
accomplish organization’s goals and objectives. Joarder and Sharif (2011) described that through
training and development employees can enhance their knowledge and skills which is needed for
standardized performance in this technological changing work environment. According to Kim
(2014) explained that turnover intention among workforce decreases when they perceived career
advancement opportunities in their current job.

2.4.3. Recognitions cause of employee turnover

Agyeman and Ponniah (2014) reported that 20% respondents of his research study considered
recognition and reward as a major factor which leads to employees retention in the organization.
 12

Hence, absence of recognition and appreciation may cause turnover intention among employees.
Tizazu (2015) indicated that recognition had a positive and significant effect on employee
retention so lack of this factor of motivation may cause turnover intention. Nelson and Catherine
(2015) found that mostly participants indicated; if they do a good work they should be rewarded
or recognized, so recognition and turnover intention have association. Welde yohannes (2016)
concluded that employees love their job and profession but they have no proper recognition and
encouragement so they are seriously thinking about changing their current job. Rewards and
recognition plays very important role in ensuring long term relationship of employees with the
organizations. Recognition is motivation for employees to serve long-time in the organizations
and for better performance. Recognition and appreciation of work also considered non-financial
incentive which resulted significant reduction in employee turnover intention (Khan and Qadir,
2016). A research study by Arnold (2016) indicated that lack of recognition significantly affects
turnover intention among employees. The results of the study showed that 80% participants
posited that their boss didn’t appreciate their work. To develop sense of appreciation among
employees use tools like spot bonuses, achievement certificates and prizes in front of their co-
workers, this strategy will retain employees.

2.4.4. Workplace Conditions as cause of employee turnover

Boyd et al. (2007) say employee engagement includes elements within the workplace
environment that attract, focus, and keep the most talented employee. Newazet al. (2007)
underlined that people want to work in a place where they can succeed and feel their contribution
is appreciated. It is very clear employee want to work in the great working environment; the
absence of this environment can push people to explore other opportunities. If working
environment is low-grade due to lack of all the basic facilities such as proper lighting, working in
a space with some natural light, ventilation, air conditioning system, open space, restroom,
lavatory, furniture, safety equipment while discharging hazardous duties, drinking water and
refreshment, workers will not be capable of facing up the difficulty for a long time (Singh,
2008). Besides, a bad boss creates an adverse working environment, thereby leading the
employees to leave the job.
 13

2.4.5. Job dissatisfaction as cause of employee turnover

Houtte, (2006) defines job satisfaction as the feelings that an individual holds toward his or her
job. According to Darling-Hammond (2005) job dissatisfaction that led to turnover was caused
by a lack of input into professional decision-making, restrictive bureaucratic controls, and
inadequate administrative support for teaching. Scafidi et al. (2007) agreed that better salaries
are nice, but they are not sufficient to attract better teachers. Better respect, status, and working
conditions are necessary to provide job satisfaction. They also found that most teachers leave
because of a lack of opportunity to teach effectively. Job dissatisfaction is therefore considered
by some teachers to be the most important factor affecting teacher turnover. Hanushek et al.
(2005) indicate that job dissatisfaction is considered by some teachers to be the most important
factor affecting teacher turnover. Job dissatisfaction is therefore considered by some teachers to
be the most important factor affecting teacher turnover. Hanushek et al. (2005) indicate that job
dissatisfaction is considered by some teachers to be the most important factor affecting teacher
turnover.

2.4.6. Job insecurity as cause of employee turnover

The job security is the assurance an employee has about the continuity of employment with the
organization; and employees with high level of job security have low probability of leaving the
present organization in the near future. Job security is defined in this paper as the degree to
which an employee could expect to remain in the job for over an extended period of time (Delery
and Doty, 1996). Huselid (1995) suggested that HRM practices such as compensation and job
security are important determinants of employee turnover. Extant literatures support that job
security is a true reflection of organization’s commitment to employees, which actually enhances
employees’ commitment to organization in return (Meyer and Smith, 2000). Generally, one can
argue that employee job security enhances their involvement with the organization as there is no
fear of losing the job. More realistically, organizations create bondage and commitment with
their employees, in return employees also reciprocate the commitment to the organization as well
(Chang,2005). This is consistent with the concept of social exchange theory, and norms of
reciprocity theory (Gouldner, 1960). Evidences showed that job security is negatively related to
employees’ intention to quit behavior, an important determinant of employee turnover
(Huselid,1995); it enhances trust in organization (Allen et al., 2003); and strong indication of
 14

perceived organizational support (Allen et al., 2003).Recently, Samuel and Chipunza (2009)
found job security as a significant contributing measure in employee retention in public and
private organization.

2.4.7. Employee relationship with supervisor as cause of employee turnover

Richard et al. (2009) argue that there is a significant correlation between office relationships
between employees and the supervisor. There are cases where supervisors can be cruel in the
manner in which they assign responsibilities, work, or the way they micro-manage employees.
Such toxic environments create sufficient reason that leads to employee turnover. Chen and
Silverthorne (2005) claimed that leadership style affects a range of factors including job
satisfaction, performance, turnover, and stress management.

In mentoring, various researchers have argued that employees relation with the supervisor,
performance appraisals and working conditions adversely influence the propensity for employee
turnover (Pullins and Fine, 2002).

Performance evaluations usually provide employees feedback and opportunity for mentoring
with their supervisors. Performance evaluations provide sufficient opportunity where employees
get to establish their work plans, objectives, and goals under the tutelage of their supervisors.
Cleveland et al. (2003) argues that if employees perceive that the kind of evaluations are skewed
negatively towards them, or that they don’t get sufficient feedback from their supervisors on
expectations, performance, and goal setting, employees get frustrated. Frustrations with the
performance evaluation system have a significant relationship with employee turnover.

Perceived support from supervisors or managers refers employees’ views about to what extent
supervisor or manager value employees’ contributions and care about their (employees’)
wellbeing. Based on the social exchange concept, the evidences showed that supervisors’
supportive behaviors create a feeling of obligation among the subordinates to help supervisor to
reach their goals (Rhoades et al.,2001), and the provision of such support is essential for
developing, motivating and retaining knowledge workers (Liu et al., 2011). Batt and Valcour
(2003) claimed that supportive supervisor or manager is associated with lower turnover
intentions. To be more specific, it refers interpersonal relationship between supervisor and
subordinate, and there is evidence that the nature of relationship between support and employee
 15

may influence employee’s job satisfaction, and turnover decision in the long-run (Zhao & Zhou,
2008). Furthermore, organizational support theory also suggested that supports from supervisor
results increased perceived organizational support (POS), which in turn makes employees
obligated to repay the organization by higher performance and feel more committed which
reduce their intention to leave behavior (Rhoades et al., 2001). Extant literatures are still unable
to generate a clear and conclusive result on this relationship in various settings (Rhoades et al.,
2001; Billah, 2009). The inconsistent and inconclusive results require more in-depth analysis of
this relationship as suggested by Cho et al. (2009).

2.4.8. Alternative employment opportunity as cause of employee turnover

Alternative employment opportunity is another uncontrollable and labor market variable.

Opportunity means availability of alternative jobs in the environment. Employees would
generally like to work in prosperous and flourishing economies and as a result, employees
usually move out of poor and deprived economies to seek greener pastures in more developed
ones. According to Price (2001), the larger alternative employment opportunities exist in the
environment, the more chances of awareness among the employees, which lead them to analyze
cost and benefit and have intentions to switch jobs. Literature suggests that there is a positive
relationship between alternative employment opportunities and employee turnover intention
(Heller, Clay and Perkins, 1992; Khatri et al., 2001). A study carried out on 352 National Health
Service (of England) nurse quitters by Morrel et al. (2004) found out what triggers the decision
of NHS nurses to quit. Using both qualitative and quantitative methods, it was concluded that
many NHS system nurses left their position because of alternative opportunities elsewhere as
well as a strong labor market for nurses within the system. In addition to the alternative
bargaining power and the strong labor market for nurses, the study also indicated that most
nurses left their position because of job stress and dissatisfaction.

2.5. Consequences of Employee Turnover

The impact of turnover can be either positive or negative, or both for an organization. According
to Carbery et al., (2003), from the perspective of the employer, turnover is viewed primarily as a
negative phenomenon and from the view of employee it is often viewed in a more positive way.
For the employer, perhaps the most obvious positive organizational consequences are the
potential replacement of a former employee with one who is better. In terms of negative impact,
 16

from a managerial perspective, it would seem apparent that the organizational consequences of
turnover are closely associated with the additional cost of recruitment and training and
potentially lower profitability. According to Porter (2011), employee turnover can cost a
company substantial amount of capital when considering downtime, recruiting, interviewing,
orientation, training, and ramp-up time. An entry-level position can cost an organization about 50
to 100 percent of the employee’s wage (Porter, 2011).

While cost is undoubtedly a vital factor to judge while evaluating turnover, there are other
business features of significance. Turnover can harm customer service and quality which turn out
to be a direct expression on the company (Curtis and Wright, 2001). Competitive advantage will
be compromised once quality and customer service fall short which in turn influences the risk of
the loss of long-term customer relation and contracts in the industry.

Gawali (2009) confers soaring employee turnover typically causes lack of motivation and low
morale. On the other hand, considering from another point of view it can be turned into a
positive because lack of turnover can also result in de-motivation. Employees might think lack of
turnover a negative due to the lack of likely promotions which influences enthusiasm.
Diminutive or no opportunity for advancement could indeed result in turnover as employees
search for positions with new organizations offering growth and future promotion. Gawali
(2009) also states that it goes against human nature to remain sluggish, carry out the same jobs
every day and not seeing any optimism for change in practice.

2.6. Methods to Minimize Employee Turnover

During the recruiting process, the job should be outlined and a realistic preview of the job
presented, so that the reality of the job matches the expectations of the new employee. A good
way to eliminate voluntary turnover is to improve selection and to better match applicants to
jobs. Good employee orientation also helps to reduce turnover, because employees who are
properly inducted into the company and are well-trained tend to be less likely to leave, a fair and
equitable Compensation system can help prevent turnover, inadequate rewards may lead to
voluntary turnover, Career planning and internal promotion can help an organization keep
employees, because if individuals believe they have no opportunities for career advancement,
they may leave the organization. (Mathis and Jackson, 2001).
 17

It is clear that the general features of any potential HR program contribute to good retention.
Most of these are directly related to creating a satisfactory work environment for employees and
thus, in turn, to good retention. According to Lochhead and Stephens (2004) these features or
‘motivators’ include:
 A stimulating work environment that makes effective use of people’s skills and
knowledge, allow them a degree of autonomy on the job, provides an avenue for them to
contribute ideas, and allow them to see how their own contribution influence the
company’s well-being.
 Opportunities for learning and skills development and consequent advancements in job
responsibilities.
 Effective communications, including channels for open, two-way communication,
employee participation in decisions that affect them, an understanding of what is
happening in the organization and an understanding of the employer’s main business
concerns.
 Good compensation and adequate, flexible benefit plans.
 Recognition on the part of the employer that employees need to strike a good balance
between their lives at work and outside of work.
 Respect and support from peers and supervisors.
Even though some turnover is inevitable, organizations must take steps to control turnover,
particularly that caused by organizational factors such as poor supervision, inadequate training,
and inconsistent policies. HR activities should be examined as part of the turnover control
efforts.

2.7. Empirical literature

Bawa and Jantan (2005) investigated the relationship between human resource (HR) practices
and employee turnover in Malaysia where companies are generally experiencing labor shortage
and labor turnover. They used data collected from a census of managers, the study utilized
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and simple regression and tested hypotheses developed to
investigate the relationship between HR practices and employee voluntary and involuntary
turnover. The results show that (1) staffing process and employee monitoring were effective in
reducing involuntary turnover, and (2) none of the HR practices were effective in reducing
 18

voluntary turnover. In other words, workers continue to leave or quit irrespective of the type of
HR practices implemented. The paper also concludes that economic factors such as availability
of alternative jobs are most likely relevant in explaining the turnover process.

Mulu (2014) examined determinants of academic staff turnover intentions and the moderating
effect of gender in Haramaya University, Ethiopia. The study also analyzed differences in the
pattern of relationships among the determinants of turnover intention. A survey instrument that
included demographic information, measures of role stress (conflict and ambiguity), job
satisfaction, organizational commitment and intention to leave was used to collect information
from the university’s male and female academic staff. Data from 112 respondents, representing a
75% of response rate, were analyzed using ANOVA, Chi square, t-test and regression analysis.
Findings show that the levels of role stress and intention to leave is higher among female
academic staff. The effect of role stress on job satisfaction and intention to leave is significantly
stronger for the female than the male. Moreover, overall satisfaction had a significant effect on
the commitment of both female and male academic staff though the effect is higher among
female academic staff.

Liu (2014) analyzed various factors which, when combined, may affect voluntary employee
turnover. The project analyzes information provided from 112 respondents between the ages of
18 and 40 in the Chilean labor market; and complements it with the experience of 5 professionals
with knowledge of the turnover issue. Results confirm that turnover is the consequence of work
dissatisfaction a combination of factors which include pay, recognition and career development
opportunities, among others. These factors were related to people’s expectations and preferences.

Girma et al. (2015) determined the rate of turnover intention and assess the determinant factors
affecting nurses’ turnover intention among nurses working at East Gojjam Governmental Health
Care Institutions. Cross-sectional study design was used. Data was collected from March 2013 to
April 2013 by using a structured questionnaire. A total of 372 respondents were filed the
questionnaire with the response rate of 87.84%.Odds ratio and regression analysis were
performed at a P value of 0.05. Result: Findings suggested that 59.4% of respondents indicating
a turnover intention from their current health care institution. Family arrangement, lack or low
procedural justice, organizational commitment, lack of transport, level of salary, job satisfaction
 19

and training opportunity were found to be significantly associated with nurses’ turnover
intention.

Kariuki (2015) determined factors affecting employee turnover at Imperial bank. Data were
collected from a sample of one hundred and two individuals using structured questionnaires. A
simple random technique was employed. Descriptive statistics utilized in this study include
frequencies, percentages, and mean. For inferential statistics, correlation analysis, regression and
multivariate analysis was employed. The results showed that the relationship between career
development and employee turnover was statistically significant. Job description, career
development programs, Job enrichment and capacity enhancement enhances employee job
performance, which in turn reduces employee turnover. Mentoring and coaching, equally had a
significant relationship with employee turnover, with the relationship their supervisor the most
contributor to the relationship significance. Finally, the relationship between reward systems and
employee job performance was statistically significant. Both salaries and bonus payments are
key factors influencing employee turnover.

Shimelis (2016) assessed the causes and consequences of medical staffs turnover in Addis Ababa
city hospitals with particular reference to Menelik II Referral Hospital. Using questionnaire and
interview, data was collected from medical staffs (existing and those quitted their job) and
coordinators or senior officers who have a direct relation with human resources of the hospital.
Stratified random sampling method was employed and 210 respondents were selected from 235
staffs. Thematic analysis was conducted for qualitative data and descriptive summary was used
for quantitative data analysis. The findings of the study revealed that personal factors are not the
vital causes for turnover and from pull factors, high salary elsewhere, availability of more
financial benefits elsewhere, availability of promotional opportunities external to the hospital and
higher educational opportunities are the most important causes initiating medical staffs to leave
their job. The study also revealed that push factors such as low salary and benefits, lack of
motivation and encouragement for good work and absence of recognition for work done and lack
of career advancement are causes triggering staff turn-over. The study has also found that
turnover increased separation and hiring costs; affected team cohesion, patient satisfaction,
quality of services, productivity and workload and burnout of existing staffs.
 20

Pepra-Mensah et al. (2015) try to found out the relationship between work attitudes and intention
to quit in the hotel industry in Cape Coast and Elmina Ghana. Chi-square statistic was used to
assess the relationship between work attitude variables, and intention to quit. The results
revealed that satisfaction, motivation and alternative job opportunities were significant predictors
of intention to quit. However, organizational commitment and job-hopping were not significant
variables to explain one’s intention to leave the present job.

Al-Habilet al. (2017) identified the factors which influence the turnover phenomenon of the
Employees of the Ministry of Education and Higher Education in the Gaza Strip. Data was
gathered from 239 individuals consisted of previous teachers who worked at public schools and
administrative staff and professionals who worked at the North and West Gaza governorates and
willingly quit since 2010. The results showed that all work-related factors (payments, job
performance, role clarity, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment) influence the
employees’ turnover. The results also showed that employees’ turnover is affected by the
employment perception, but not affected by the presence of a union.

Hidayati & Puteh (2015) attempts to determined the turnover intention among employees of
Woongjin Coway (M) SdnBhd, Malaysia. Data was collected from 106 employees through
questionnaire. Stratified random sampling was employed and SPSS was employed as a tool to
aid the analysis. The findings from the study revealed that only two factors namely available job
alternatives; and work-life balance have significant impact on employee turnover intention.

Mwendwa (2017) evaluated the determinants of employee intention to quit their jobs at
commercial banks in Kenya. The sample size consisted of 135 employees. Data collection was
done by use of liker scale questionnaire of 1-5, administered to the respondents through the drop
and pick method. The response rate was 90 percent which was adequate for this study. Pilot
study was done by the researcher to pretest and validate the questionnaires. SPSS software
version 21 was used in the analysis of the collected data and presented through frequencies,
means, percentages and standard deviations. In conclusion, the study found organizational
commitment had significant effect on intention to quit. The study found that organization trust,
job satisfaction and age did not influence employees intention to quit.

Mohd Hasanur et al .(2015) this paper has examined the relationship between human resource
management practices and intention to quit among the academics of private universities in
 21

Bangladesh. Out of 360 survey questionnaires which were distributed, 160 useable
questionnaires included in the final analysis yielding at 44% response rate for the study. The
results showed that pay and supports were significant and negatively related to faculty intention
to quit behavior in any condition.

Jehanzeb et al. (2013) investigated impacts of training on organizational commitment and

turnover intentions in private sector of Saudi Arabia. A self-administered questionnaire was
used, involving 251 respondents from leading private organizations of Saudi Arabia to collect
data and testing the existing theory. The results provide strong support for the hypothesis that is
the negative relationship between organizational commitment and turnover intention.
Employees’ training was significantly correlated with organizational commitment, turnover
intentions and the commitment-turnover relationship.

Kumar et al. (2013) examined the influence of organizational culture, organizational

commitment and person organization fit towards turnover intention in Fast food industry of
Malaysia. The total size of the sample is 278 respondents from top level until low level
employees in Fast Food Industry, by using a multiple regression; it was found that organizational
culture and organizational commitment, organization person fit give an impact on turnover
intention in fast food Industry.

Ahmed et al. (2015) identify the association between organizational commitment and turnover
intention among employees of the Islamia University of Bahawalpur. Effects of job performance
on turnover intention through job satisfaction are also brought under observation. Impact of job
insecurity and employees work family conflict on job engagement was brought under
consideration. Descriptive design was used to support the study of proposed relationships. Self-
explanatory questionnaires were administered to 250 respondents both from the academic and
administrative staff of the university. Organizational commitment, job performance and job
satisfaction were found to be inversely related to turnover intention. An inverse relation was
found between job insecurity, work family conflict and the job engagement.
 22

2.8. Conceptual framework

In this study, the dependent variable is employee turnover predicted by employee turnover
intention which is supposed to be affected by several independent variables.

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT VARIABLE

Demographic factors

 Career Development
opportunity
 Training opportunity

 Salary
 Allowance / incentive Employee Turnover

Working environment

 Job satisfaction
 Job security

Relationship with
supervisor/head

 Recognition for good work

 Motivation and encouragement
for good work

Source: Adopted from Husain et al. (2015) and Mumtaz and Hasan (2018) and modified by the
researcher.
 23

3. MATERIALS AND METHOD

3.1. Description of the Study Area

Haramaya University (HU), which was founded in 1954, is one of the few pioneer public higher
learning institutions in Ethiopia. Haramaya University (formerly known as Alemaya College of
Agriculture) started teaching, research, and extension by admitting only 28 students who were
transferred from Addis Ababa University and Jimma College of Agriculture in 1956 under the
mandate of Oklahoma State University. Currently, by increasing its intake capacity and opening
up new colleges and different demand-driven academic programs, it has become a full-fledged
institution and home to more than 30,000 students.

The university presently functions on two main campuses (Haramaya and Harar). The study will
be conducted in Haramaya University main campus. The main campus, where the first milestone
was laid, is Haramaya Campus. This campus is located at about 510 km East of Addis Ababa,
between Dire Dawa and Harar towns. This is the nerve center of the university where the offices
of the top management of the institution are located. The second Campus is located in Harar
Town where College of Health and Medical Sciences are situated.

The university hosts nine colleges, one sports academy, one Institute of Technology, and one
Center of Excellence in Climate Smart Agriculture and Biodiversity Conservation, and three
other institutes and five other centers. Besides, it offers courses under regular, summer, distance,
and continuing education programs. HU now runs 73 Bachelor’s, 91 Master’s and 24 PhD
programs (regular) and many new programs are likely to come forth soon. HU has been under a
transformation now and eager to make itself customer-oriented and responsive, and to cater to
the needs of demand-driven training.

3.2. Study Population

In this study data was collected from employee of Haramaya University main campus who
currently working and who currently quit their job. Thus, the population of this study were all
employee of Haramaya University main campus who currently working and all individuals who
were employees of the campus and currently quit their job.
 24

3.3. Sources of Data

This study used both primary and secondary sources of data.

3.3.1. Primary data

Primary data was collected from employees who currently quit their job and from employees
who currently working in the campus. Interviews were made with administrative and academic
vice presidents and human resource management and development director.

3.3.2. Secondary data

Secondary data was obtained from reports of the University, published and unpublished articles
or thesis, books and organizational brochures.

3.4. Research design

This study employed descriptive survey design. To achieve the research objectives, mixed
research design (Quantitative and Qualitative); with predominantly quantitative method was
employed. Quantitative approach helps researchers to test relationships between variables. It
also helps in examining and describing a cause and effect interactions among variables
(Creswell, 2009). As explained by Best and Kahn (2013) a descriptive survey method is used
for research on conditions that exist, opinions that are held, process that are going on and effects
that are evident or trends that are developing.

3.5. Sampling techniques and Sample size

In this study data was collected from employee of Haramaya University main campus who
currently working and who currently quit their job. Thus, the population of this study were all
employee of Haramaya University main campus who currently working and all individuals who
were employees of the campus before three years ago and currently quit their job. Sample of
respondents was selected from both groups independently. According to the information that
obtained from a compiled documents found in Planning, Monitoring & Evaluation directorate of
the University, for the past three years a total of about 252 employees i.e. 150 academic staff and
102 administrative staff leaved main campus. And currently there are a total of 1379 employees
i.e. 759 academic staff on duty and 620 administrative staff who had at least a diploma.
 25

Since, it is a little difficult to employ random sampling method to select respondent from a group
of individuals who currently quit their job, this study took 15% of the 252employees who
currently quit their job (i.e. 38 respondents) of this population as a sample and employed
snowball sampling method to select respondents.

To determine sample size from a group of individuals still working in the campus, the sample
size determination formula given in (Cochran, 1997) was used. The expression is given as
follows:-

= ( )
1+

/
where: = × (1 − )

is the population size and is the sample size.

= | ̂ − | is the maximum allowable error that the researcher will tolerate.
is the population proportion (proportion of the individual still working in the campus
and have intention to quit) that either approximated from past research or approximated
from a small pilot survey.
̂ is the sample proportion (proportion of the individual still working in the campus and
have intention to quit) that will be estimated from this study sample.
is the level of significance usually = 0.05 is taken.
/ – is the standard normal value associated with the degree of confidence selected.
Since, there is no preliminary information about the proportion of employees who have intention
to quit, to maximize sample size, p = 0.5 is used. And using =0.05, / = 1.96, = 0.07.
The sample size from a group of individuals still working in the campus is

/ 1.96
= × (1 − ) = (0.5 × 0.5) = 196
0.07

196
= ( )
= ( )
≈ 172
1+ 1+
 26

Since, the study considered both academic and administrative employees. The sample sizes from
the two groups were allocated using proportional allocation method as follows:-

Table 3. 1:Sample size allocation for administrative and Academic staff

staff Proportion Sample size

Administrative staff who had at least a Diploma 620/1379=45% 78
Academic staff 759/1379=55% 94

To select respondents from academic staff, firstly, four colleges were selected randomly the
selected colleges were College of Natural and Computational Sciences (CNCS), College of
Agriculture and Environmental Sciences (CAES), College of Social Sciences and Humanities
(CSSH) and Haramaya institute of technology (HIT). Proportional allocations were employed to
determine the required number of respondents from each of the selected four Colleges / Institute.
The allocation is given in Table 3.2. Then, respondents were selected using simple random
sampling method.

Table 3. 2: Sample size allocation for College/ Institute

College/Institute Population size Proportion Sample size

CNCS 96 96/535=18% 0.18*94=17
CAES 157 157/535=30% 0.30*94=28
CSSH 147 147/535=27% 0.27*94=25
HIT 135 135/535=25% 0.25*94=24
Total 535 100% 94

To select respondents from Administrative staff, firstly, four directorates were selected randomly
the selected colleges were Registrar, Finance, Procurement &material and Planning, Monitoring
and Evaluation. Proportional allocations were employed to determine the required number of
respondents from each of the selected four directorates. The allocation is given in Table 3.3.
Then, respondents were selected using simple random sampling method.
 27

Table 3. 3:Sample size allocation for Directorates

Directorate Population size Proportion Sample size

Registrar 91 91/206=44% 0.44*78=34
Finance 60 60/206=29% 0.29*78=23
Procurement &material 47 47/206=23% 0.23*78=18
Planning &monitoring 8 8/206=4% 0.04*78=3
Total 206 100% 78

3.6. Data collection instruments

To obtain relevant data for this study, the following data collection instruments were used:

3.6.1. Questionnaire

Questionnaire is one of the most important research instruments which are highly preferred by
researchers. It is easier for the respondents in minimizing difficulties of anonymity and reducing
the effect of biased conclusion and interpretations that could happen in other methods. Besides, it
enables researchers to collect information from a large number of informants. Consequently
questionnaire was used to collect data in this study. A self-administered questionnaire that
addresses several issues related to factors of turnover and turnover intention was prepared and
administered to the sample respondents.

In order to test the validity and reliability of the questionnaires, a pilot test was carried out.
According to Kothari (2004), testing the data collection instruments for their understandability in
terms of clarity, validity, readability and completeness has paramount importance. Accordingly,
this process allows checking whether sample respondents understand instructions and the
meaning of each question and if they get difficulties in responding for questions. Subsequently,
15 questionnaires were distributed for pilot testing and it was found that, there were few
problems in understanding the intent of the questions. Thus, accordingly correction and
adjustments were made.
 28

As per the sample size a total of 172 questionnaires were distributed to the respondents who
currently working in Haramaya University main campus. Out of the 172 distributed
questionnaires 162 (94.1%) were filled and returned. This makes the response rate 94.1%. Thus,
in the data analysis 162 responses were considered.

3.6.2. Interview

According to Patton (2012), an interview guide is a list of questions or issues that are to be used
in the course of an interview and it provided topics or subject areas about which the interview is
free to explore, probe and ask questions that will elucidate and illuminate that particular subject.
Thus, interview was conducted to obtain information from the concerned bodies of Haramaya
University main campus such as academic affairs vice president, administration and student
affairs vice president and Human resource management and development director.

3.6.3. Document Review

This method was used mainly to obtain preliminary information on the already leaved staff. In
other words, relevant information on the reasons of departure and related information about the
already leaved staff was obtained using documentary review. The study also reviewed available
secondary data such as: published and unpublished articles or thesis, books and organizational
brochures.

3.7. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

In data collection, from a group of individuals still working in the campus, the study only
included those administrative staff who had at least a diploma. In other words, those
administrative staffs whose educational levels are below diploma were excluded.

In data collection, from a group of individuals who currently quit their job, the study only
included those staff who quit their job voluntarily. This means individuals who quit his/her job
involuntarily due to reasons such as pension; competence problem and discipline were excluded
from data collection.
 29

3.8. Methods of Data Analysis

This study used both quantitative and qualitative methods. Descriptive statistics tools such as
frequency and percentage were used to present the collected data and to point out special
features. Chi-square test was employed to test whether there is statistically significant association
between employee turnover intention and independent factors of turnover intention. To identify
the major factors affecting employee turnover intention inferential statistics such as binary
logistic regression analysis method was employed. The information that was obtained through
interview was reported through narrative descriptions to supplement the information gathered
through questionnaire. Analysis was conducted using the Statistical package for Social Science
SPSS version 21.

Binary logistic regression model is used if the dependent variable is dichotomous variable. In
this study the dependent variable is intention to quit (yes =1, no=0) is a dichotomous variable.
In binary logistic regression, the relationship between the dependent(Y) and independent
variables(X’s) is not linear. Instead, logit transformation is used and the logistic regression
function is expressed in the following form:-

 p 
log it(pi )  ln  i   Xi  0  1x1i  2 x 2i  . . .  k x ki
1  pi 
Where:

e X i exp(0  1x1i  2 x 2i  . . .  k x ki )
pi  Pr ob(yi  1| X i )   , is the
Xi 1  exp(0  1x1i  2 x 2i  . . .  k x ki )
1  e
response probability or probability of success or Y=1.
pi
is the probability of success to failure or the odds of success.
1  pi

0 is the constant of the equation

i ’s are the coefficients of the independent variables X’s. However, in binary logistic regression,

the odd ratio is interpreted.

 30

4. DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

In this chapter data collected from respondents through self-administered questionnaire,

interview and document reviews are presented, analyzed and interpreted. In section 4.1, results
of staff turnover intention are presented. Under this section, descriptive statistics of variables of
the study, the results of chi-square test of associations and results of binary logistic regression
model are presented. In section 4.2, results of staff turnover are presented. The current employee
turnover status of Haramaya University main campus and the reasons of employment contract
termination are presented under the section. Finally in section 4.3, the results of interview are
presented.

4.1. Results of staff turnover intention

The intention to quit is probably the most important immediate antecedent of turnover decisions.
Turnover intention is used instead of actual turnover because in general the theory of planned
behavior suggests that behavior is a good predictor of actual behavior (Ajzen, 1991). In fact,
researchers have found intent to leave or stay as the strongest predictor of actual turnover
(Hendrix et al., 1999).Similar to the previous studies such as Kariuki (2015); Herrbach et al.,
2004; Allen et al., 2003 and Griffeth et al., 2000). The researcher considers intention to quit as
the strongest predictor of actual turnover and the dependent variable of this study.

4.1.1. Demographic variables

As Abdali (2011) stated that the demographic and personnel characteristics of employees
include; age, gender, marital status and experience may be reason of leaving from the
organization. Accordingly, descriptive statistics of the respondent’s demographic characteristics
such as respondents sex, age, marital status, educational level and work experience are given in
Table 4.1.

As can be seen from Table 4.4, out of the total study respondents 133 (82.1%) of the respondents
were males and the remaining 29 (17.9%) of them were females. Regarding age 21 (13%) of
respondents were aged less than 25 years. Whereas, Out of the total study respondents 49
(30.2%) respondents were aged between 25-30 years 60(37.0%) respondents were aged between
31-35 years. The remaining 22 (13.6%) and 10 (6.2%) of respondents were aged between 36-40
years and above 40 years old respectively. In terms of experience, out of the total study
 31

respondents the majority of respondents 75 (46.3%) of respondents have less than 5 years
experience, 47 (29%) of respondents have 5-10 years experience and the remaining 40 (24.7%)
respondents have above 10 years experience. In this regard, it can be observed that more than
75% of the respondents were aged less than 35 years and about half of the respondents were less
experienced. From these results the researcher can induce that the majority of employees of
Haramaya University main campus are at the young age group and less experienced. Moreover,
it was better if the campus has more of knowledge and experienced employees having age of
more than 35 years and experienced, as they are expected to have more experiences, expertise
and knowledge as time evolves. However, small number of experienced staff might be due to
turnover.

Table 4.1 also showed that out of the total study respondents 82 (50.6%) of respondents were
single, 67 (41.4%) of respondents were married and the remaining 13 (8%) of respondents were
divorced. Regarding educational level, out of the total study respondents the majority of
respondents i.e. 73 (45.0%) of the respondents have BA/ B.Sc degree and 58 (35.8%) of the
respondents have masters degree. The remaining 27 (16.7%) and 4 (2.5%) of respondents have
diploma and PhD respectively. The reason behind large number of respondents having BA/ B.Sc
degree may be due to the inclusion of large number of administration staff who have BA/ B.Sc
degree i.e. 49 out of the 76 administration staff respondents.

Table 4.1 also showed that out of the total study respondents 76 (46.9%) of respondents were
administration staff and the remaining 86 (53.1%) of the respondents were academic staff. Out of
the total study respondents 34 (21.0%) of respondents were working in registrar directorate and
22 (13.6%) of respondents were working in finance directorate. And 17 (10.5%) of respondents
were employees working in procurement and material administration directorate. 3 (1.9%) of
respondents were employees working in planning and monitoring directorate. Out of the total
study respondents 22 (13.6%) of respondents were academic staff working in Haramaya institute
of technology (HIT) and 15 (9.2%) of respondents were academic staff working in College of
Natural and Computational Sciences (CNCS). And 25 (15.4%) of respondents were from College
of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences (CAES). 24 (14.8%) of respondents were academic
staff of College of Social Sciences and Humanities (CSSH).
 32

Table 4.1:Descriptive statistics of demographic characteristics of the respondents

Independent Variables Category Frequency Percentage

Sex Male 133 82.1

Female 29 17.9
Age Less than 25 21 13
25-30 years 49 30.2
31-35 years 60 37
36-40 years 22 13.6
Above 40 years 10 6.2
Marital status Single 82 50.6
Married 67 41.4
Divorced 13 8
Educational Level Diploma 27 16.7
Degree 73 45.0
Masters Degree 58 35.8
PhD 4 2.5
Work experience Less than 5 years 75 46.3
5-10 years 47 29
Above 10 years 40 24.7
Have children No 92 56.8
Yes 70 43.2
Type of staff Administration 76 46.9
Academic 86 53.1
Directorate/ Registrar 34 21.0
College Finance 22 13.6
Procurement &material 17 10.5
Planning &monitoring 3 1.9
HIT 22 13.6
CNCS 15 9.2
CAES 25 15.4
CSSH 24 14.8
Source: Own survey, 2019
 33

4.1.2. Employees’ expectations from the university

Liu (2014) confirm that turnover is the consequence of factors that are related to people’s
expectations. Respondents were asked whether they got what they expected after they joined
Haramaya University as an employee. The results are given in Table 4.2. As showed in Table
4.2, out of the total study respondents 88 (54.3%) of respondents respond “No” to mean their
expectations were not met while the remaining 74 (45.7%) of respondents respond agreed that
they have met their expectations.

Table 4.2: Employees’ expectation response

Item Response Frequency Percentage

Do you think you get what you expected No 88 54.3
after you joined Haramaya University as Yes 74 45.7
an employee?
Source: Own survey, 2019

Those respondents who said they didn’t get what they had expected were asked as to which of
their expectations were not met. The results are given in Table 4.3.As showed in the table, the
majority of respondents 48 (54.6%) said they expect to get education opportunity in short period
of time. 11 (12.5%) of respondents said they expect to get material/facility that needed for them
and for their family, 16 (18.2%) of respondents said they expect suitable working environment, 6
(6.8%) of respondents said they expect academic freedom and 7 (7.9%) of respondents said they
expect a yearly salary increment.

Table 4.3: Employee’s expectation

Expectation Frequency Percentage

Education opportunity 48 54.6
Material/facility for me and my family 11 12.5
Salary increment 7 7.9
Academic freedom 6 6.8
Suitable working environment 16 18.2
Source: Own survey, 2019
 34

4.1.3. Job satisfaction and job security

Several studies showed that job satisfaction is significantly associated with turnover intention
(Pepra-Mensah et al.,2015 and Girma et al.,2015) among others. In addition to job satisfaction,
according to Shah (2010), job insecurity is one of the various push factors that initiate employees
to quit the current job. Regarding to job satisfaction and job security, respondents were asked
whether they are satisfied with their current job and whether they think their job is secured. The
results are given in Table 4.4.

As showed in Table 4.4, out of the total respondents, 92 (56.8%) of respondents answered that
they are satisfied with their current job. Table 4.4also showed that, out of the total respondents,
95 (58.6%) of them think that their job is not secured.

Table 4. 4: Job satisfaction and job security

Item Response Frequency Percentage

Are you satisfied with your job? No 70 43.2
Yes 92 56.8
Do you think your job is secured? No 95 58.6
Yes 67 41.4
Source: Own survey, 2019

4.1.4. Salary and allowance /incentive

As Kariuki (2015) indicates both salaries and bonus payments are key factors influencing
employee turnover. Respondents were asked to compare the fairness of their salary and whether
they think allowance/incentive payments by Haramaya University is better compared to other
organizations that they can join as employees. As can be seen from the results in Table 4.5, out
of the total study respondents, 116 (71.6%) of them said that compared to other organizations the
salary amount that Haramaya University pays is not fair.

As can be seen from Table 4.5, out of the total respondents, 95 (58.6%) of them said that
compared to other organizations the allowance/incentive payments at Haramaya University is
lesser.
 35

Table 4.5: Salary and allowance/incentive

Item Response Frequency Percentage

Compared to the salary level of other organizations that No 116 71.6
you can be hired at, do you think your salary in
Haramaya University is fair? Yes 46 28.4
Compared to other organizations that you can be hired, No 95 58.6
do you think there is better allowance/incentive
payments in Haramaya University? Yes 67 41.4

Source: Own survey, 2019

4.1.5. Work-load

The results of work-load of respondents are given in Table 4.6. As showed in the table, 14
(8.6%) of respondent rated their work-load as low. The majority of respondents 87 (53.7%) rate
their work-load as fair and 39 (24.1%) of them rated their work-load as high. The remaining 22
(13.6%) of the respondents rated their work-load as very high.

Table 4.6: Work-load

Item Response Frequency Percentage

How do you rate your work load? Very low 0 0
Low 14 8.6
Fair 87 53.7
High 39 24.1
Very high 22 13.6
Source: Own survey, 2019

4.1.6. Career growth and training opportunities

Lack of career advancement and training opportunities in the organization may initiate an
employee to quit their jobs. Girma et al. (2015) showed that training opportunity is significantly
associated with nurses’ turnover intention. Shimelis (2016) revealed that lack of career
advancement triggers staff turn-over.

Regarding career growth and training opportunities, respondents were asked whether there are
regular opportunities of career advancement and training opportunities in the university. The
 36

results are given in Table 4.7. As showed in the table, out of the total respondents,96 (59.3%) of
them responded that Haramaya University does not provide regular opportunities for career
advancement. The remaining 66 (40.7%) of the respondents answered that Haramaya University
provides regular opportunities for career advancement.

Table 4.7 also showed that out of the total respondents, 107 (66.0%) of them do not think that
Haramaya University provides necessary training opportunities. The remaining 55 (34.0%) of
respondents answered that Haramaya University provides necessary training opportunities.

Table 4. 7: Career growth and training opportunities

Item Response Frequency Percentage

Do you think Haramaya University No 96 59.3
provides regular opportunities for career
advancement or growth? Yes 66 40.7
Do you think Haramaya University No 107 66.0
provides necessary training
Yes 55 34.0
opportunities?
Source: Own survey, 2019

4.1.7. Motivation/encouragement and recognition for good work

Employees may want fair motivation and encouragement for their good work and they may also
want recognition for their good work. Absence of encouragement and recognition for good work
may initiate the employee to quit his/her job. Shimelis (2016) revealed that lack of motivation
and encouragement for good work and absence of recognition for work done triggers staff turn-
over. Respondents were asked whether there is fair motivation, encouragement and culture of
giving recognition for their good work. The results are given in Table 4.8. As showed in the
table, out of the total respondents, the majority of them i.e. 100 (61.7%) said that there is no fair
motivation and encouragement for their good work. Majority of respondents, that is 126 (77.8%)
of them said that there is no culture of giving recognition for their good work.
 37

Table 4. 8: Motivation/encouragement and recognition for good work

Item Response Frequency Percentage

Do you think there is fair No 100 61.7
motivation and encouragement for
your good work? Yes 62 38.3
Do you think there is culture of No 126 77.8
giving recognition for your good
Yes 36 22.2
work?
Source: Own survey, 2019

4.1.8. Relationship with supervisor/head and with other employees

Employee’s relationship with his/her supervisor/head and relationships of employees in his/her

department may affect employee’s intention to quit decision. Employee’s relation with the
supervisor adversely influences the propensity for employee turnover (Pullins and Fine, 2002).
Regarding to these respondents was asked four questions that are given in Table 4.9.

Table 4. 9: Relationship with supervisor/head

Item Response Frequency Percentage

Have you ever had unnecessary argument No 122 75.3
with your supervisor/head? Yes 40 24.7
Have you ever feel discomfort due to your No 77 47.5
supervisor/head?
Yes 85 52.5
Do you think your supervisor/head is nice No 33 20.4
to you? Yes 129 79.6
Is there any conflict among employees in No 112 69.1
your department? Yes 50 30.9
Source: Own survey, 2019
 38

As showed in Table 4.9, the majority of respondents, that is 122 (75.3%) of them said that they
have never had unnecessary argument with their supervisors/heads. Out of the total respondents,
85(52.5%) of them said that they felt discomfort due to their supervisor/head at least once. Out of
the total respondents, 129 (79.6%) of them said that they thought their supervisors/heads were
nice to them. However, the remaining 33 (20.4%) of respondents said that they thought that their
supervisors/s were not nice to them. Table 4.9 also showed that the majority of respondents 112
(69.1%) of respondents said that there is no conflict among employees in their department.

4.1.9. Working environment

Boyd et al. (2007) said employee engagement includes elements within the workplace
environment that attract, make focused, and keep the most talented employee. Newaz et al.
(2007) underlined that employees want to work in the great working environment; the absence of
this environment can push people to explore other opportunities. In order to measure working
environment, respondents were asked to rate the overall working environment, the rule and
regulations of the working environment, the neatness, the quality of equipment, the lighting and
air conditions in their offices and the suitability of toilets at their work places. They were asked
to rate their responses on five point Liker scale with 0 = Very bad ; 1 = Bad ; 2=Neutral; 3=
Good ; and 4 = Very good. The summary results are presented in Table 4.10.

As it can be seen from Table 4.10, the majority of the respondents, 41.4% of them cannot decide
to say good or bad to their overall working environment. Out of the total respondents, the
majority 32.7% of them rated the rule and regulations of their working environment as good.
However, the majority of respondents, 34.0% of them rated the neatness of their office as bad.
Although the majority of respondents rated the neatness of their office as bad, a total of 80
(49.4%) of them rated the neatness of their office as at least good.

Table 4.10 also showed that, the majorities of the respondents, 45.1%, 37.7% and 58.0% of them
rated the quality of their office equipment, the lighting and air conditions of their offices as good
respectively. However, the majority of respondents, 43.2% of them rated the suitability of the
toilet as bad.
 39

Table 4.10: Working-environment

Items Response
Very bad Bad Neutral Good Very good
Freq (%) Freq (%) Freq (%) Freq (%) Freq (%)
How do you rate the overall working 8 (4.9) 18 (11.1) 67 (41.4) 57 (35.2) 12 (7.4)
environment?
How do you rate the rule and regulations 8 (4.9) 33 (20.4) 41 (25.3) 53 (32.7) 27 (16.7)
of your working environment?
How do you rate the neatness of your 0 (0.0) 55 (34.0) 27 (16.7) 53 (32.7) 27 (16.7)
office?
How do you rate the quality of your 15 (9.3) 31 (19.1) 40 (24.7) 73 (45.1) 3 (1.9)
office equipment?
How do you rate the lighting conditions 0 (0.0) 18 (11.1) 30 (18.5) 61 (37.7) 53 (32.7)
of your office?
How do you rate the air condition of your 0 (0.0) 13 (8.0) 24 (14.8) 94 (58.0) 31 (19.1)
office?
How do you rate the suitability of the 43 (26.5) 70 (43.2) 27 (16.7) 22 (13.6) 0 (0.0)
toilet?
Source: Own survey, 2019

4.1.10. Intention to quit

Regarding to intention to quit respondents was asked whether they have intention to quit their
current job. The results are given in Table 4.11.

Table 4.11: Intentions to quit

Item Response Frequency Percentage

Do you have intention to quit the present job? No 78 48.2
Yes 84 51.8
Source: Own survey, 2019

As can be seen from Table 4.11 above, out of the total respondents 84 (51.8%) of them have
intentions to quit the current job. However, the remaining 78 (48.2%) of the respondents have no
intention to quit their current jobs. Although there is a slight difference between the percentages
 40

of respondents who have intentions to quit their current jobs and who have no intentions to quit,
the researcher can say that slightly higher percent of respondents have intentions to quit the
current job.

To identify the significant predictors of employees’ intention to quit, cross tabulation between
intention to quit and all other variables of this study was observed to see intention to quit
differences within categories of independent variables. The results are given in Table 4.12 and
Table 4.13.

As can be seen from Table 4.12, out of the 133 male respondents 72 (54.1%) of male employees
have intentions to quit the current jobs. Whereas, out of the 29 female respondents 12 (41.4%) of
female employees have intentions to quit the current jobs. This showed that there is intention to
quit percentage differences between male and female respondents. Regarding age,out of the 21
respondents who were less than 25 years old 8 (38.1%) of respondents have intentions to quit the
current jobs. Whereas, out of the 49 respondents who were aged between 25-30 years 29 (59.2%)
of employees have intentions to quit the current jobs. Out of the 60 respondents who were aged
between 31-35 years 34 (56.7%) of employees have intentions to quit the current jobs. Out of the
22 respondents who were aged between 36-40 years 7 (31.8%) of employees have intentions to
quit the current job and from the remaining 10 respondents who were above 40 years old 6
(60.0%) of employees have intentions to quit the current jobs.

Table 4.12 also showed that the percentage of respondents who have intentions to quit the
current jobs is more or less similar in different category of marital status. The percentage of
respondents who have intentions to quit the current job among respondents who were single,
married and divorced are 51.2, 52.2 and 53.8 respectively. However, the percentages of
respondents who have intentions to quit the current jobs are varied in different category of
educational level. The highest percentage of respondents who have intentions to quit the current
job is found among respondents who have PhD, out of 4 individuals 3 (75.0%) have intentions to
quit the current job. Then among those respondents who have masters’ degree 34 (58.6%) have
intentions to quit the current job. The percentage of respondents who have intentions to quit the
current job among respondents who have Diploma and Degree are 51.9 and 45.2 respectively.
 41

Table 4.12: Cross tabulation of intention to quit and demographic variables

Do you have intention to quit the present job?

Independent Category No Yes
Variables Frequency (%) Frequency (%)
Sex Male 61 (45.9) 72 (54.1)
Female 17 (58.6) 12 (41.4)
Age Less than 25 13 (61.9) 8 (38.1)
25-30 years 20 (40.8) 29 (59.2)
31-35 years 26 (43.3) 34 (56.7)
36-40 years 15 (68.2) 7 (31.8)
Above 40 years 4 (40.0) 6 (60.0)
Marital status Single 40 (48.8) 42 (51.2)
Married 32 (47.8) 35 (52.2)
Divorced 6 (46.2) 7 (53.8)
Educational level Diploma 13 (48.1) 14 (51.9)
First degree 40 (54.8) 33 (45.2)
Masters’ degree 24 (41.4) 34 (58.6)
PhD 1 (25.0) 3 (75.0)
Work experience Less than 5 years 38 (50.7) 37 (49.3)
5-10 years 20 (42.6) 27 (57.4)
Above 10 years 20 (50.0) 20 (50.0)
Have children No 36 (51.4) 34 (48.6)
Yes 42 (45.7) 50 (54.3)
Staff category Administration 41 (53.9) 35 (46.1)
Academic 37 (43.0) 49 (57.0)
Directorate/ Registrar 18 (52.9) 16 (47.1)
Institution / Finance 13 (59.1) 9 (40.9)
College Procurement &Material 9 (52.9) 8 (47.1)
Planning &Monitoring 1 (33.3) 2 (66.7)
HIT 9 (40.9) 13 (59.1)
CNCS 7 (46.7) 8 (53.3)
CAES 10 (40.0) 15 (60.0)
CSSH 11 (45.8) 13 (54.2)
Source: Own survey, 2019
 42

As can be seen from Table 4.12, the percentage of respondents who have intentions to quit their
current jobs is more or less similar in different categories of work experience. The percentage of
respondents who have intentions to quit the current job among respondents who have less than 5
years experience, 5-10 years experience and above 10 years experience are 49.3, 57.4 and 50.0
respectively. Out of the 76 administration staff respondents, 35 (46.1%) of them have intentions
to quit their current jobs. Whereas, out of the 86 academic staff respondents, 49 (57.0%) of them
have intentions to quit their current jobs. Regarding the intentions to quit, the percentage of
respondents who have intentions to quit their current jobs are more or less similar in different
directorates and colleges.

As can be seen from Table 4.13, out of the 88 respondents who said they didn’t get what they
expected, 42 (47.7%) of respondents have intentions to quit their current jobs. Whereas, out of
the 74 respondents who said they got what they expected, 42 (56.8%) respondents have
intentions to quit their current jobs. Regarding the intention to quit differences in job satisfaction
categories, out of the 92 respondents who said that they are satisfied with their current job, 25
(27.2%) of respondents have intentions to quit their current jobs. Whereas, out of the 70
respondents who respond that they are not satisfied with their current jobs, 59 (84.3%)
respondents have intentions to quit their current jobs. Regarding to intention to quit differences
in job security categories, out of the 95 respondents who think that their job is not secured 70
(73.7%) of respondents have intentions to quit the current job. Whereas, out of the 67
respondents who think that their job are secured, 14 (20.9%) of them have intentions to quit their
current jobs.

Table 4.13 also showed that out of the 116 respondents who said their salary in Haramaya
University is not fair, 73 (62.9%) of respondents have intentions to quit their current jobs.
Whereas, out of the 46 respondents who said their salary in Haramaya University is fair, 11
(23.9%) of them have intentions to quit their current jobs. Regarding - allowance/incentive
payments, out of the 95 respondents who said their allowance/incentive payments in Haramaya
University is not better, 67 (70.5%) of respondents have intentions to quit their current jobs.
Whereas, out of the 67 respondents who said their allowance/incentive payments in Haramaya
University are better, 17 (25.4%) respondents have intentions to quit the current job.
 43

Table 4.13: Cross tabulation of intention to quit and independent variables

Independent Variables Do you have intention to quit the

present job?
No Yes
Frequency (%) Frequency (%)
Do you think you get what you expected after you joined No 46 (52.3) 42 (47.7)
Haramaya University? Yes 32 (43.2) 42 (56.8)
Are you satisfied with your job? No 11 (15.7) 59 (84.3)
Yes 67 (72.8) 25 (27.2)
Do you think your job is secured? No 25 (26.3) 70 (73.7)
Yes 53 (79.1) 14 (20.9)
Compared to the salary of other organizations that you can No 43 (37.1) 73 (62.9)
be hired, do you think your salary in Haramaya University Yes 35 (76.1) 11 (23.9)
is fair?
Compared to other organizations that you can be hired, do No 28 (29.5) 67 (70.5)
you think there is better allowance/incentive payments in Yes 50 (74.6) 17 (25.4)
Haramaya University?
How do you rate your work load? Low 6 (42.9) 8 (57.1)
Fair 38 (43.7) 49 (56.3)
High 24 (61.5) 15 (38.5)
Very high 10 (45.5) 12 (54.5)
Do you think Haramaya University provides regular No 29 (30.2) 67 (69.8)
opportunities for career advancement or growth? Yes 49 (74.2) 17 (25.8)
Do you think Haramaya University provides necessary No 33 (30.8) 74 (69.2)
training opportunities? Yes 45 (81.8) 10 (18.2)
Do you think there is fair motivation and encouragement No 48 (48.0) 52 (52.0)
for your good work? Yes 30 (48.4) 32 (51.6)
Do you think there is a culture of giving recognition for No 55 (43.7) 71 (56.3)
your good work? Yes 23 (63. 9) 13 (36.1)
Have you ever had unnecessary argument with your No 62 (50.8) 60 (49.2)
supervisor/head? Yes 16 (40.0) 24 (60.0)
Have you ever feel discomfort due to your No 41 (53.2) 36 (46.8)
supervisor/head? Yes 48 (56.5) 37 (43.5)
Do you think your supervisor/head is nice to you? No 15 (45.5) 18 (54.5)
Yes 63 (48.8) 66 (51.2)
Is there any conflict among employees in your department? No 55 (49.1) 57 (50.9)
Yes 23 (46.0) 27 (54.0)
Source: Own survey, 2019
 44

As can be seen from Table 4.13, the percentages of respondents who have intention to quit their
current jobs do not vary much along different categories of workload rate. The percentages of
respondents who have intention to quit their current jobs among respondents that rated their work
load as low, fair and very high are 57.1, 56.3 and 54.5 respectively. Slightly less number of
respondents (i.e. 15 or38.5%) have intentions to quit their current job out of 39 respondents who
rate their work load as high. However, out of 96 respondents that thought Haramaya University
does not provide regular opportunities of career advancement, 67(69.8%) of them have an
intention to quit their current jobs. Whereas, out of the 66 respondents that thought Haramaya
University does provide regular opportunities of career advancement, only 17 (25.8%) of them
have an intention to quit their current jobs. In addition, out of 107 respondents that did not agree
that Haramaya University provides necessary training opportunities, 74 (69.2%) of them have an
intention to quit their current jobs. Whereas, out of 55 respondents who agreed Haramaya
University provides necessary training opportunities, only 10 (18.2%) of them have an intentions
to quit their current jobs.

Table 4.13 showed that out of the 100 respondents who said there is no fair motivation and
encouragement for their good work, 52 (52.0%) of them have intention to quit their current job.
Whereas, out of the 62 (38.3%) respondents who thought that there is fair motivation and
encouragement for their good work, 32 (51.6%) of respondents have intention to quit their
current job. Among those 126 respondents who did not agree the presence of a culture of giving
recognition for their good work, 71 (56.3%) of respondents have intention to quit their current
job. Furthermore, as can be seen from Table 4.13, among those 122 respondents who said that
they never had unnecessary argument with their supervisor/head 62 (50.8%) of them have no
intention to quit the current job. Regarding to intention to quit differences within responses on
feeling discomfort due to their supervisor/head at least once, out of the 85 respondents who felt
discomfort due to their supervisor/head at least once 48 (56.5%) of respondents have no intention
to quit their current job. And out of those 33 respondents who said that their supervisor/head is
not nice for them 15 (45.5%) of respondents have no intention to quit the current job.

4.1.11. Results of Chi-square test of associations

Chi-square test of association or independence was employed to test whether there are
statistically significant association between employee turnover intention and independent
 45

variables of the study. In other words, chi-square test of independence was employed tocheck
whether the dependencies of the dependent variable, employee turnover intention on each one
the independent variables are statistically significant.

For example to check the presence of statistically significant dependency of employee turnover
intention on sex, the hypothesis is given by:-

: employee turnover intention is not depend on sex

: employee turnover intention depends on sex

Rejection of the null hypothesis (if p value < 0.05) imply that employee turnover intention is
depend on sex. Failing to reject the null hypothesis (if p value > 0.05) implying that employee
turnover intention is not depend on sex or the two variables are independent to each other.

The results of the test are given in Table 4.18. As can be seen from Table 4.14, variables such as
job satisfaction, job security, salary, allowance/incentive payments, presence of culture of giving
recognition for good work, regular opportunities of career growth and training opportunities
were found to be significantly associated with turnover intention at 5% level of significance.
However, sex, age, marital status, educational level, work experience, have children, type of
staff, get what expected, work load rate, fair motivation and encouragement for good work,
presence of unnecessary argument with supervisor/head, feel discomfort due to supervisor/head,
supervisor/head is nice and conflict among employees were found to be statistically insignificant
at 5% level of significance.

The findings of this study agree with a study conducted by Shimelis (2016) that revealed
personal factors are not the vital causes for turnover. However, these findings contradict the
findings of Abdali (2011). Abdali (2011) stated that the demographic and personnel
characteristics of employees that include age, gender, marital status and experience may be
reasons of leaving from the organization.

The finding of this study contradicts the suggestions of Pullins and Fine (2002) and Shimelis
(2016). Pullins and Fine (2002) suggested that employee’s relation with the supervisor adversely
influences the propensity for employee turnover. Shimelis (2016) revealed that lack of
motivation and encouragement for good work triggers staff turn-over.
 46

Table 4.14: Summary result of Chi-square test

Independent Variables Pearson Asymp. Sig.

Chi-Square value df (2-sided)
Sex 1.552 1 0.213
Age 7.007 4 1.36
Marital status 0.038 2 0.981
Educational level 3.215 3 0.360
Work experience 0.835 2 0.659
Having child/ren 0.531 1 0.466
Category of staff 1.929 1 0.165
Directorate/Institution/College 2.980 7 0.887
Meeting expectations 1.313 1 0.252
Job satisfaction 51.937 1 0.000*
Job security 43.855 1 0.000*
Salary scale 20.086 1 0.000*
Allowance/incentive payments 32.086 1 0.000*
Work load rate 3.718 3 0.294
Opportunities for career growth 30.376 1 0.000*
Training and development opportunities 37.813 1 0.000*
Level of motivation and encouragement for good work 0.002 1 0.962
There is culture of giving recognition for good work 4.594 1 0.032*
Unnecessary argument with supervisor/head 1.413 1 0.235
Feel discomfort due to supervisor/head 1.528 1 0.216
Supervisor/head is nice 0.120 1 0.729
Conflict among employees 0.134 1 0.715
*significant at 0.05 level of significance

The results of this study are consistent with the previous studies that showed absence of
recognition for good work triggers staff turn-over Shimelis (2016) and studies that showed career
growth and training opportunity affect turnover Intention Girma et al. (2015) and Katamba
 47

(2011). This finding agreed with studies that showed job satisfaction is significantly associated
with turnover intention (Pepra-Mensah et al., 2015and Girma et al., 2015).

The current study findings agreed with Shah (2010). According to Shah (2010) job insecurity is
one of the various push factors that initiate employees to quit the current job. Regarding to salary
and allowance/incentive payments, the study agree with Lussier and Kimball (2013) and Kariuki
(2015). Lussier and Kimball (2013) concluded in their study that receiving justly rewards is a
key factor in retaining employees. Kariuki (2015) indicated that both salaries and bonus
payments are key factors influencing employee turnover. However, this study contradict Arthur
(2001). Arthur (2001) found evidence that compensation is not as important to all employees as
having a fulfilling job and working for a great company.

4.1.12. Results of binary logistic regression

Binary Logistic Regression model was fitted to identify the major significant predictor variables
of employee turnover intention. Before proceed to model fitting that contains several (multiple)
independent variables, the researcher checked the significance of incorporating each one of the
independent variables using univariate analysis. Univariate analysis means binary logistic
regression model was fitted for each one of the independent variables separately. Then those
independent variables that are found to be statistically significant will be included in the binary
logistic regression model that contains several (multiple) independent variables. Results of the
univariate analysis are given in Appendix A. Since the variable working environment was
measured using seven Likert scale questions, in order to test whether there is statistically
significant relationship between working environment and intention to quit, the researcher used
the score of the variable and the researcher fit univariate logistic regression model that only
include the score of working environment as independent variable.

Table 4.15: Dependent Variable Encoding

Original Value Internal Value

No 0
Yes 1
 48

Table 4.16: Results of Binary Logistic Regression model

Independent Variables S.E Wald df p-value Exp( )

Job satisfaction
Not satisfied 1.745 0.487 12.824 1 0.000* 5.726
Satisfied 1
Job security
Not secured 1.076 0.537 4.015 1 0.045* 2.934
Secured 1
Salary is fair
No -0.058 0.604 0.009 1 0.923 0.943
Yes 1
Better allowance/incentive payments
No 1.216 0.527 5.320 1 0.021* 3.372
Yes 1
Regular opportunities for career growth
No 1.069 0.508 4.424 1 0.035* 2.912
Yes 1
Training opportunities
No 1.205 0.546 4.873 1 0.027* 3.337
Yes 1
There is culture of giving recognition
for good work
No 0.896 0.533 2.826 1 0.093 2.449
Yes 1
constant -4.074 0.760 28.772 1 0.000* 0.017
*significant at 0.05 level of significance

The results of the univariate analysis showed that variables such as job satisfaction, job security,
salary scale, allowance/incentive payments, recognition for good work, opportunities of training
and development were found to be significantly associated with turnover intention at 5% level of
significance. However, sex, age, marital status, educational level, work experience, having
children, category of staff, meeting expected expectations, work load rate, working
 49

environment, motivation and encouragement for good work, presence of unnecessary argument
with supervisor/head, feel discomfort due to supervisor/head, supervisor/head is nice and conflict
among employees was found to be statistically insignificant at 5% level of significance.

If a given independent variable is insignificant in univariate analysis, then it is excluded from

model fitting that contains multiple independent variables. Thus, all independent variables that
were found to be significantly associated with turnover intention in univariate analysis were
included in the model. The results of the Binary Logistic Regression model that contains several
(multiple) independent variables is given in Table 4.16.

Hosmer and lemeshow test was used for checking goodness of the fitted model. As can be seen
from the results of the hosmer and lemeshow test given below, the p-value is 0.644. This p-value
0.644 is greater than the level of significance 0.05 implying that there is no significant difference
between the observed and expected value. Therefore the model is good fitted model.

Table 4. 17: Hosmer and Lemeshow Test

Step Chi-square df Sig.

1 5.135 7 .644

As the results of the Binary Logistic Regression model that include multiple independent
variables that given in Table 4.16showed, variables such as job satisfaction, job security, better
allowance/incentive payments, regular opportunities for training and development were found to
be significantly associated with employee turnover intention at 5% level of significance.
However, salary and presence of culture of recognizing good work was found to be statistically
insignificant at 5% level of significance.

Once again the results of this study are consistent with the previous studies that showed career
growth and training opportunity affect turnover Intention (Puah and Ananthram, 2006);Girma et
al. (2015) and Katamba (2011). This finding also agreed with studies that showed job insecurity
affect turnover intention Shah (2010).

The findings of this study also agreed with studies that showed job satisfaction is significantly
associated with turnover intention (Pepra-Mensah et al., 2015and Girma et al., 2015). However,
 50

this study disagrees with Mwendwa (2017). Mwendwa (2017) found that job satisfaction did not
influence employees intention to quit.

Regarding to allowance/incentive payments, the study agree with Lussier and Kimball (2013).
Lussier and Kimball (2013) concluded in their study that receiving justly rewards is a key factor
in retaining employees. However, this study contradict Arthur (2001). Arthur (2001) found
evidence that compensation is not as important to all employees as having a fulfilling job and
working for a great company.

Although in the binary logistic regression model that contains several independent variables, the
association between intention to quit and salary became statistically insignificant, this may be
due to the possible association between salary and other independent variables such as with job
satisfaction. Thus, regarding to salary and allowance/incentive payments, the study agree with
those studies that showed the significance of salary and allowance/incentive payments Lussier
and Kimball (2013)and Kariuki (2015).

The estimated odd ratio of employee who is not satisfied with his/her job is 5.726. This imply
that the probability of having intention to quit job for employee who is not satisfied with his/her
job is 5.726times higher than employee who is satisfied with his/her job (reference group)
controlling for the other covariates in the model.

The estimated odd ratio of an employee who feels that his/her job is not secured is 2.934. This
shows that an employee who feels that his/her job is not secured has a 2.934 times higher
probability of having intention to quit job than employee who feel that his/her job is secured
(reference group) controlling for other covariates in the model.

The estimated odd ratio of an employee who feels that attractive allowance/incentive is not paid
at Haramaya University is 3.372. This imply that the probability of having intention to quit job
for an employee who feels that an attractive allowance/incentive is not paid at Haramaya
University is 3.372 times higher than for employee who feels that an attractive
allowance/incentive is paid Haramaya University is better (reference group) controlling for other
covariates in the model.

The estimated odd ratio of an employee who thinks Haramaya University does not provide
regular opportunities of career advancement is 2.912. This shows that an employee who thinks
 51

Haramaya University does not provide regular opportunities of career advancement has a 2.912
times higher probability of having intention to quit job than employee who thinks Haramaya
University does provide regular opportunities of career advancement(reference group)
controlling for other covariates in the model.

The estimated odd ratio of an employee who thinks Haramaya University does not provide a
necessary training opportunity is 3.337. This shows that the probability of having intention to
quit job for an employee who thinks Haramaya University does not provide a necessary training
opportunity is3.337 times higher than employee who thinks Haramaya University does provide a
necessary training opportunity (reference group) controlling for other covariates in the model.

4.1.13. Results of open ended question

Out of the 162 respondents 91 respondents respond to the question. The summary of reasons that
can possibly make respondent employees to quit their job is given in Table 4.18. Note that
respondents were allowed to list more than one reason.

As can be seen from Table 4.18, out of the 91 responses, the majority (i.e. 66 of the them)
mentioned that among other reasons, a reason that can possibly make them to quit their job are
the current conditions that include grouping problem, lack of peaceful working environment and
lack of enough law enforcement in the campus. Out of the 91 responses 40 of them mentioned
location disadvantage/problem (far away from family, far away from urban area) as one of the
reasons that can possibly make them to quit their job. Out of the total, 28 of the respondents
mentioned that the periodic whether condition causing respiratory tract is the main reason for
them to quit their jobs. Among other reasons lack of career development opportunities were
listed as possible reasons to quit their job by 26 respondents. Out of the total respondents, 15 of
them mentioned that absence of equal and fair distribution of resources as causes for them to quit
their jobs. Among other reasons, 14 respondents indicated that lack of attractive salary
increment / absence of incentive / allowance as possible reasons for quitting their jobs. Out of the
91 responses, 13, 11 and 8 respondents indicated that lack of material/facility needed,
interference of officials or administrative problem and family residence problem as the possible
reason that can make them to quit their job respectively.
 52

Table 4.18: Reasons that can possibly make employees to quit their job

Reasons that possibly make the employee to quit his/her job Frequency
location disadvantage 40
Lack of material/facility needed 13
The current conditions that includes 66
 Grouping problem
 Lack of peaceful working environment and
 Lack of enough law enforcement in the campus
Periodic whether condition that cause respiratory tract 28
Interference of officials or administrative problem 11
Lack of salary increment / absence of incentive/ allowance 14
Lack of career development opportunities 26
Absence of equal and fair distribution of resources 15
Family residence problem 8
Source: Own survey, 2019
4.2. Results of staff turnover

4.2.1. Current employee turnover status

In order to assess current employee turnover status of the University, the researcher took data of
the past three years (i.e. 2015, 2016and 2017). According to the information obtained from a
compiled documents found in the office of the Planning and Monitoring Directorate of the
University, for the past three years the yearly employee turnover rate of the university was
around 5% and a total of about 252 employees i.e. 150 academic staff and 102 administrative
staff members with the minimum qualification of a diploma left from the main campus. The sex
and education level or academic rank distributions of the staff that left from the main campus in
the past three years is given in Table 4.19.

As shown in Table 4.19, out of the 252 employees that left from the main campus, 150 (59.5%)
were academic staff while 102 (40.5%) were administrative staff members who had at least a
diploma. Regarding to gender of the departed employees, 180 (71.4%) of the employees were
males and the remaining 72 (28.6%) of the employees were females. Regarding to level of
education or academic rank, out of the 252 employees that left from the main campus in the past
 53

three years 34 (13.5%) employees were diploma holders; 104 (41.3%) were BA/ BSc. Degree;
111(44.0%) were masters’ Degree holders and the remaining 3 (1.2%) employees were
Professors.

Table 4.19: Gender and education level distribution

Number of employees who leave the university Total

Administrative staff who Academic staff
had at least a Diploma
2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 Frequency (%)
Gender Female 18 18 4 19 10 3 72 (28.6)
Male 26 14 22 38 38 42 180 (71.4)
Education Diploma 12 9 8 4 1 0 34 (13.5)
First Degree 32 23 18 14 8 9 104 (41.3)
level
Masters’ 0 0 0 38 37 36 111(44.0)
Degree
PhD 0 0 0 1 2 0 3(1.2)
Source: Report of the Planning, Monitoring and evaluation Directorate of the University

4.2.2. Causes for employees turnover

As stated earlier in chapter one, the main objective of this study was to identify factors that
affects employee turnover in Haramaya University. To achieve the objective, the researcher
triangulated the results of the analyses of data collected from employees that are currently on
their jobs, employees that quitted their jobs and from documented exit interviews. Although, the
researcher have made his level best to obtain information from employees that quitted their job,
it was difficult to get the expected number of respondents. The researcher was able to get
responses only from nine respondents. Thus, the researcher incorporate and present the results of
the nine responses in this section as a supplement or additional information. In the questionnaire
there was an open ended question and respondents were asked what made them to quit their job.
Respondents were allowed to give more than one answers. The reasons of leaving or departure
obtained from document review are compared with the nine responses obtained from already quit
employees.
 54

As can be seen from Table 4.20,out of the 252 employees who left main campus in the past three
years, the reason of leaving for highest number of employees 63 (25.0%) was unknown. The
reasons were unknown because most of these 63 individuals were academic staff that are not
returned from their study leave and those administrative staff that the only thing that known is
they leave the campus voluntarily. Next to unknown reason, the reason for quitting from the
university as stated during exit interviews for highest number of employees 52 (20.6%) was
family problem. Out of the 252 employees left from the main campus in the past three years, 44
(17.5%) were transferred to other universities or institutions. Almost all of the reasons given to
the transfer were related to family problem only two reasons were related to health problem. The
reasons for quitting for 27 (10.7%), 12 (4.8%) and 11 (4.4%) of employees were expiration of
their contracts, death and pension respectively. Competence problem and discipline were also
reasons for quitting from the university for 4 (1.6%) and 5 (2%) respectively. Among those who
left the university 2 (0.8%) employees were appointed for other job by officials. The reasons for
quitting from the university for 14 (5.5%) employees was a search for better payment elsewhere.
The reasons for quitting for the remaining 5 (2%) and 13 (5.1%) employees were health problem
and the location disadvantage of the university.

When the researcher classify the reasons of quit given in table 4.2 transfer, family problem and
better payment elsewhere can be seen as personal reasons. Health problem, pension and death
can be seen as natural reasons. Whereas contract expired, competence problem and discipline are
organizational reasons.

As mentioned earlier in this section, the researcher planned to collect data from employees that
have already quitted their job. However, the researcher was able to get only nine responses. In
the questionnaire, there was an open ended question and respondents were asked to state reasons
for quitting their jobs at the university. Note that, respondents were allowed to give more than
one answers. The results are summarized and given in Table 4.21.As can be seen from the table,
out of the nine respondents 4 (44.4%) of respondents said that among other reasons they left the
campus because they got better salary/incentive. The other reason given by 4 (44.4%) of
respondents was seeking for additional job meaning that they need to do other par time work and
Haramaya University was not suitable to get additional job. Among other reasons, 3 (33.3%) of
respondents said that they left due to the feeling of insecurity at their working environment
particularly different groupings of staff members in their working environment threaten them.
 55

The reasons of departure for 2 (22.2%) respondents were administration related problem. Out of
the nine respondents 2 (22.2%) of respondents said that among other reasons they left the
campus because they were not satisfied with their job. A particularly individual said that among
other reasons he/she left the campus because he/she decided to run his/her own business. One
particularly individual said that the only reason that made him/her to quit was health problem.
Another particularly individual said that the only reason of quit was that he/she must to be near
to his/her family because they need support.

Table 4. 20: Reasons of turnover obtained from document review

Number of employees who leave the university Total

Reason of quit Administrative staff who Academic staff
had
at least a Diploma
2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 Frequency (%)
Pension 4 2 4 0 0 1 11 (4.4)
Health problem 0 2 0 2 0 1 5 (2)
Contract expired 0 0 0 7 10 10 27 (10.7)
Transfer 0 2 7 10 16 9 44 (17.5)
Unknown 18 15 5 16 3 6 63 (25.0)
Family problem 6 4 5 10 12 15 52 (20.6)
Death 4 2 2 0 3 1 12 (4.8)
Appointed for 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 (0.8)
other
job by officials
Competence 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 (1.6)
problem
Discipline 2 3 0 0 0 0 5 (2)
Better payment 0 2 0 12 0 0 14 (5.5)
elsewhere
Location problem 10 0 3 0 0 0 13 (5.1)
Source: Report of the Planning, Monitoring and evaluation Directorate of the University
 56

Table 4. 21: Reasons of staff turnover

Reasons that make the employee to quit his/her job Frequency

Health problem 1
Unsatisfied with the job 2
Administration problem 2
Got better salary/incentive 4
Seeking for additional job 4
Want to be near to family 1
Working environment insecurities 3
To start own business 1
Source: Own survey, 2019

When the researcher compare the reasons for quitting obtained from document review and
employees who quitted their job there are discrepancies. For example, in document review, the
reasons for quitting for the majority of employees was family problem. As showed in Table 4.2,
the reason for quitting for 52 (20.6%) of employees was family problem and out of the44
(17.5%) employees that transferred the reasons of transfer for most of them were family
problem. However, out of the nine respondent employees who currently quit their job only one
particularly individual said that the only reason of quit was that he/she must to be near to his/her
family because they need support. In addition, as can be seen from table 4.3, out of the nine
respondents, among other reasons 4 (44.4%) of respondents reasons was better salary/incentive
and another 4 (44.4%)of respondents reasons was seeking for additional job. However, in
document review, only 14 (5.5%) of employees reasons of quit was better payment elsewhere.
These discrepancies may show that employees might lie or hide their actual reasons of why they
quit their job in exit interview.

4.3. Interview results

The researcher has conducted an interview with academic affairs vice president, administration
and student affairs vice president and Human resource management and development director
and their responses are given as follows:-

The first interview question was about how the interviewees feel or rate the current employee
turnover (Academic or Admin) status. The interviewees said that academic staff turnover rate
 57

can be considered as low to medium. Regarding to administration staff turnover, the interviewees
said that administration staff turnover rate can be considered as fair meaning not high but not
low.

The second interview question was about the causes of turnover according to personal opinion
and experience of the interviewees. In the interviewees’ point of view, the main factors
contributing for administration staff turnover are discipline problem, desire to have high salary
and location disadvantage. Whereas, the main factors contributing for academic staff turnover
are a desire to be close to their family or want to work where they born, want additional part-
time job, lack of good hospital and school for their children, location disadvantage and lack of
good governance in the university.

The third interview question was about the effect of turnover on the organization according to
personal opinion and experience of the interviewees. They have identified factors like unfinished
research works, reduction on quality of research, lack of mentoring young staff and reduction in
efficiency and effectiveness of works were among the effects of turnover that the organization
faces.

The fourth interview question was about whether Haramaya University provides necessary
training opportunities and regular opportunities of career growth opportunities for employees.
All the interviewees said that Haramaya University provides educational opportunity and short
term training but it is not enough and much needs to be done

Human resource management and development director was asked whether the University use
methods such as exit interview or other method to know the reasons of turnover and replied that
exit interviews are conducted but not documented. Regarding the retention mechanisms, the
interviewees replied that provision of educational opportunity, paying overtime and giving
clothes to the administrative staff can be good retention mechanisms. Whereas, to retain
academic staff, the University had better provide housing, educational opportunity, school for
their children, transportation services and also try to bring wife/husband near to the University
and provide job opportunity to the spouse depending on the educational level and experiences.
All the interviewees said that it is effective but not as expected and if the University has to
perform to its maximum, efforts should be exerted to enhance career development opportunities.
 58

5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Summary of findings

The objectives of this study were to assess the current status of employee turnover at Haramaya
University, to identify the major factors affecting employee turnover and employee turnover
intention at Haramaya University, to test whether there are statistically significant association
between employee turnover intention and independent factors of turnover intention and to
investigate the mechanisms that has been practiced to tackle the problem of employee turnover.
The data collected from respondents through self-administered questionnaire, interview and
document reviews were presented, analyzed and interpreted.

The results of interview showed that the current academic employee turnover rate can be
considered as low to medium and administration staff turnover rate can be considered as fair
meaning not high but not low.

The information that obtained from compiled documents from Planning, Monitoring and
Evaluation Directorate office indicates that in the past three years 2015-17,the yearly employee
turnover rate of the university was around 5% and 150 (59.5%)academic staff and 102 (40.5%)
administrative staff who at least a diploma had left main campus. The gender distribution of the
252already left employees showed the majority 180 (71.4%) of the employees were male and the
remaining 72 (28.6%) of the employees were female. Regarding to level of education or
academic rank, the majority 104 (41.3%) employees had BA/ B.Sc degree. Next to degree 85
(33.7%) employees had masters degree,34 (13.5%)employees hold diploma and the remaining 18
(7.1%), 8 (3.2%) and 3 (1.2%) employees had academic rank of Assistant Professor, Associate
Professor and Professor respectively.

The results of document review showed that factors that contributed to voluntary turnover were
family problem, seeking better payment elsewhere, health problem and the university location
problem.

The information that obtained from nine respondents who already left the campus indicate that
factors that contributed to voluntary turnover were better salary/incentive, seeking for additional
 59

job or part-time work, insecurities in working environment particularly grouping in the working
environment, administration problem, lack of satisfaction with their job, run his/her own
business, health problem and a desire to be near to family.

The results of interview indicate that factors that contributed to voluntary turnover were a desire
to have high salary, seeking to get additional part-time job, location disadvantage, a desire to be
close to their family or want to work where they born, lack of good hospital and school for their
children and lack of good administration.

The results of open ended question indicate that factors that can possibly make the employee to
quit their job were grouping problem, lack of peaceful working environment, lack of enough law
enforcement in the campus, location disadvantage/problem (far away from family, far away from
urban), periodic whether condition that causes respiratory tract, lack of career development
opportunities, absence of equal and fair distribution of resources, lack of salary increment /
absence of incentive/ allowance, lack of material/facility, interference of officials or
administrative problem and family problem.

The results of this study showed that the percentage of respondents who have intentions to quit
the current job is slightly higher than the percentage of respondents who have no intentions to
quit the current job. Out of the total study respondents 84 (51.8%) of the respondents have
intentions to quit the current job and the remaining 78 (48.2%) of the respondents have no
intentions to quit the current job.

This study found that demographic factors such as sex, age, marital status, educational level and
work experiences of employees were not significantly associated with turnover. The findings of
this study agree with a study conducted by Shimelis (2016) that revealed personal factors are not
the vital causes for turnover. However, these findings contradict the findings of Abdali (2011).
Abdali (2011) stated that the demographic and personnel characteristics of employees that
include age, gender, marital status and experience may be reasons of leaving from the
organization.

This study showed that the majority of respondents 88 (54.3%) of respondents replied they didn’t
get what they expected before joining Haramaya University as employee. Out of the 88
respondents who replied that they didn’t got what they expected, the majority of respondents 48
 60

(54.6%) replied that they were expecting to get education opportunity in short period of time and
11 (12.5%) of respondents said they expect to get material/facility that needed for them and for
their family, 16 (18.2%) of respondents said they expect suitable working environment, 6 (6.8%)
of respondents said they expect academic freedom and 7 (7.9%) of respondents said they expect
a yearly salary increment. As described in the results of interviews, although not enough due to
limited capacity, Haramaya University provides education opportunity and material/facility for
employees. Thus, this limited capacity may be the reason that the majority of respondents replied
they didn’t get what they expected. However, the results of the chi-square test of independence
and univariate logistic regression model confirmed that the dependency of turnover on
expectation was not statistically significant.

This study found that job satisfaction is significantly associated with intention to quit. The results
of descriptive statistics showed that the majority of respondents 92 (56.8%) of respondents
satisfied with their current job. The remaining 70 (43.2%) of respondents were not satisfied with
their current job. The cross tabulation between job satisfaction and intention to quit showed that
out of the 92 respondents who satisfied with their current job only 25 (27.2%) of respondents
have intentions to quit the current job. Whereas, out of the 70 respondents who are not satisfied
with their current job the majority i.e. 59 (84.3%) respondents have intentions to quit the current
job. These large differences on the percentage of intention to quit between respondents who were
satisfied and not satisfied with their current job imply job satisfaction is associated with intention
to quit. This claim was also confirmed in the results of the chi-square test of independence and in
the analysis of logistic regression model. The findings of this study agreed with studies that
showed job satisfaction is significantly associated with turnover intention (Pepra-Mensah et al.,
2015and Girma et al., 2015). However, this study disagrees with Mwendwa (2017). Mwendwa
(2017) found that job satisfaction did not influence employees intention to quit.

This study found that job security is significantly associated with intention to quit. The results of
descriptive statistics showed that the majority of respondents i.e. 95 (58.6%) of respondents feel
job insecurity and the remaining 67 (41.4%) of respondents think that their job is secured. In this
study, the presence of high percentage of respondents who feel job insecurity may be due to the
following reasons:- either most respondents thought job insecurity as insecurity in the working
area or there exist some reasons that made respondents actually to feel job insecurity. Or perhaps
respondents understood that their job is not taken for granted. The cross tabulation between job
 61

security and intention to quit showed that out of the 95 respondents who felt job insecurity the
majority i.e. 70 (73.7%) respondents have intentions to quit the current job. Whereas, out of the
67 respondents who think their job is secured only 14 (20.9%) respondents have intentions to
quit the current job. These large differences on the percentage of intention to quit between the
two categories imply job security is associated with intention to quit. The presence of significant
association between job security and intention to quit was confirmed in the results of the chi-
square test of independence and in the analysis of logistic regression model. This finding agreed
with studies that showed job insecurity affect turnover intention Shah (2010).

This study showed that salary and allowance/incentive payments are significantly associated
with turnover intention. The majority of respondents 116 (71.6%) of respondents said that
compared to the salary level of other organizations that they can be hired their salary in
Haramaya University is not fair. Whereas, the remaining 46 (28.4%) of respondents said
compared to the salary level of other organizations that they can be hired their salary in
Haramaya University is fair. Similarly, the majority of respondents 95 (58.6%) said that
compared to other organizations that they can be hired their allowance/incentive payments in
Haramaya University is not better. And the remaining 67 (41.4%) of respondents said compared
to other organizations that they can be hired their allowance/incentive payments in Haramaya
University is better. The cross tabulations showed there are large differences on the percentages
of intention to quit between categories of both salary and allowance/incentive payments. The
presence of statistically significant association between intention to quit and both salary and
allowance/incentive payments was confirmed in the results of the chi-square test of
independence and in the univariate analysis of binary logistic regression model. In the binary
logistic regression model that contains several independent variables, the association between
intention to quit and salary became statistically insignificant. This may be due to the possible
association between salary and other independent variables such as with job satisfaction. Thus,
regarding to salary and allowance/incentive payments, the study agree with those studies that
showed the significance of salary and allowance/incentive payments Lussier and Kimball
(2013)and Kariuki (2015). However, this study contradict Arthur (2001). Arthur (2001) found
evidence that compensation is not as important to all employees as having a fulfilling job and
working for a great company.
 62

This study also found that career growth and training opportunities are significantly associated
with turnover intention. The results of descriptive statistics showed that the majority of
respondents 96 (59.3%) respond that Haramaya University does not provide regular
opportunities of career advancement. Similarly, the majority of respondents 107 (66.0%) of
respondents respond that Haramaya University does not provide necessary training opportunities.
These figure agreed with the results of the interviews that there are limitations in providing
career growth and training opportunities. The cross tabulations showed there are large
differences on the percentages of intention to quit between categories of both career growth and
training opportunities. The presence of statistically significant association between intention to
quit and both career growth and training opportunities was confirmed in the results of the chi-
square test of independence and in the analysis of binary logistic regression model. These results
are consistent with the previous studies that showed career growth and training opportunity
affect turnover Intention (Puah and Ananthram, 2006);Girma et al. (2015) and Katamba (2011).

This study showed that the majority of respondents i.e. 100 (61.7%) of respondents said that
there is no fair motivation and encouragement for their good work. And also the majority of
respondents 126 (77.8%) of respondents said that there is no culture of giving recognition for
their good work. Absence of mechanisms for motivation, encouragement and giving recognition
for good work was also confirmed in the results of interviews. Both chi-square test of
independence and univariate analysis of binary logistic regression model results showed that the
association between intention to quit and motivation or encouragement is not significant. But the
association between intention to quit and giving recognition for good work is significant.
However, in the binary logistic regression model that contains several independent variables, the
association between intention to quit and giving recognition for good work became statistically
insignificant. The finding of this study contradicts Shimelis (2016). Shimelis (2016) revealed that
lack of motivation and encouragement for good work triggers staff turn-over.

This study revealed that there is no statistically significant association between turnover intention
and factors such as relationship with supervisor/head, work load and facilities in the working
environment. The finding of this study contradicts the suggestions of Pullins and Fine (2002).
Pullins and Fine (2002) suggested that employee’s relation with the supervisor adversely
influences the propensity for employee turnover.
 63

The results of interview indicate that to retain administration staff the university provide
educational opportunity, pay overtime and provide soaps and clothes. Whereas, to retain
academic staff, the University needs to provide housing, educational opportunity, school for staff
children, transportation services and also try to bring wife/husband near to the University and
provide job opportunity depending on the educational level and experiences.

5.2. Conclusion

The results of this study found that in Haramaya University main campus the percentage of
employees who have intention to quit the current job is slightly higher than the percentage of
employees who have no intention to quit the current job. .

Factors such as job satisfaction, job security, salary, allowance/incentive payments, career
growth opportunities, training opportunities and recognition for good work were found to be the
significant factors that affect employees turnover intention. However, there is no statistically
significant association between turnover intention and factors such as sex, age, marital status,
educational level and work experiences of employees, relationship with supervisor/head, work
load, facilities in the working environment, employees expectation, motivation or
encouragement.

The findings of this study indicate that factors that can possibly make the employee toquit their
job were grouping problem, lack of peaceful working environment, lack of enough law
enforcement in the campus, location disadvantage/problem (far away from family, far away from
urban), periodic whether condition that causes respiratory tract, lack of career development
opportunities, absence of equal and fair distribution of resources, lack of salary increment /
absence of incentive/ allowance, lack of material/facility, interference of officials or
administrative problem and family problem.

From the results of document review, interview and the information obtained from respondents
who already left the campus, it is possible to concluded that factors like family problem, better
payment salary/incentive, seeking for additional job or part-time work, health problem, location
problem, job dissatisfaction, absence of good hospital and school for employee’s children, lack
of good administration, lack of peaceful working environment and lack of career development
opportunities have contributed to staff turnover at the main campus of the university.
 64

Regarding to staff retention, the results of interview indicate that to retain administration staff the
university provide educational opportunity and pay overtime. Whereas, to retain academic staff,
the University needs to provide housing, educational opportunity, school for staff children,
transportation services and also try to bring wife/husband near to the University and provide job
opportunity depending on the educational level and experiences.

5.3. Recommendations

In order to reduce or tackle the problem of employee turnover in Haramaya University, this study
recommends the following:

Employee job satisfaction and job security directly have an effect on employee retention. Thus,
in order to increase employees job satisfaction and ease job insecurity, it will be better if the
management consider increasing employees participation in making decisions, providing
necessary facilities, training and upgrading programs to the employees and acknowledging high
performer employee. In addition, the significance of job satisfaction and job security indicates
that further studies needs to be conducted to identify the reasons of job dissatisfaction and
insecurity so that the management may be able to address issues and concerns related to both job
satisfaction and job security.

The significance of training opportunities and allowance/incentive payments indicates that the
management should search a way to provide both training opportunities and allowance/incentive
payments to employees. These can be possible if the management first, initiate all departments
and teams of the University to plan training programs that they can possibly deliver to the rest of
the community. Then, work for the realization of the proposed training programs by easing
bureaucracy and consider incentives for the trainers.

This study showed that career growth opportunity affects both turnover and turnover intention.
Thus the management should give attention to develop structures and systems that will help
employees plan their short and long term careers. Since, free educational opportunity is one of
the career growth opportunities that employees wish to get, if possible, the management should
consider giving the educational opportunity to the employees in long term payment.

Since recognition for good work is significantly associated with turnover intention, the
management has to establish or setup a recognition program for its employees. The recognition
 65

can take any form, not only in monetary terms. When an employee has achieved something, a
supervisor/head can call him or her to an office to congratulate the person. Meetings can also be
utilized to make others aware of their colleague’s achievements. Publications on boards may also
help.

The current study showed that factors such as informal grouping problem, lack of peaceful
working environment, absence of equal and fair distribution of resources, lack of material/facility
and interference of officials are among the possible reasons that can make the employees to quit
the current job. Thus, the management should exert efforts to solve these administration related
problems and establish or maintain secured working environment. In order to achieve these, get-
togethers and collective brainstorming sessions might be helpful tools to unify the employees of
the University. The management also should check that head/supervisor treat everyone fairly and
equally. In addition, the tasks, roles and codes of conduct of the University should be clear to all
employees, and hassle in the working environment should be reduced to the minimum.
Furthermore, in order to prevent the dissatisfaction towards the management, the
heads/supervisors should offer the employees enough support, feed-back, and encouragement.
 66

References
Abbasi, S.M., and Hollman, K.W. 2000. Turnover: The Real Bottom Line ,Public personal
Management, Vol 29, No 3: pp 333-342
Abdali, F .2011. Impact of Employee Turnover on Sustainable Growth of Organization in
Computer Graphics Sector of Karachi, Pakistan, Afro Asian Journal of Social Sciences,2
pp 2-3.
Agarwal, R., Angst, C. M., & Magni, M. 2006. The performance effects of coaching: A
multilevel analysis using hierarchical linear modeling, . Robert H. Smith School of
Business Research Paper Series.
Agyeman CM, Ponniah VM .2014. Employees Demographic Characteristics and their Effects on
Turnover and Retention in MSMEs. International Journal ofRecent Advances in
Organizational Behavior and Decision Sciences 1: 1-18.
Ahmed, Z., Sabir, S., Khosa, M., Ahmad, I., Bilal. 2016. Impact of Employee Turnover on
Organisational Effectiveness in Tele Communication Sector of Pakistan.IOSR
Journal of Business and Management (IOSR-JBM). PP 88-96.
Ahmed Mashal, IrfanHidayat and Faisal-ur-Rehman. 2015. Determinants of employees’ turnover
intention: A case study of the Islamia University of Bahawalpur . African Journal of
Business Management. Vol. 9(17), pp. 615-623, DOI: 10.5897/AJBM2015.7731
Allen, D.G., Shore, L.M. and Griffeth, R.W. 2003. The Role of Perceived Organizational
Support and Supportive Human Resource Practices in Turnover Process. Journal of
Management, 29, 99-118.
Al-Habil, Abed Allah and Momhammed Shehadah. 2017.Factors Affecting the Employees’
Turnover at the Ministry of High Education in Gaza Governorates - Case study:
North and West Gaza Directorates of Education. Arts Social Sci J.DOI:
10.4172/2151-6200.1000304
Armstrong, M. 2009. Armstrong's Handbook of Performance Management: An Evidence-Based
Guide to Delivering High Performance. New Yolk: Kogan Page Publishers, USA.
Arnold LR. 2016. Strategies for Reducing High Turnover among Information Technology
Professionals. Walden University 56-68.
Ashar, M., Ghafoor, M., Munir, E., &Hafeez, S., 2013, The Impact of Perceptions of Training on
Employee Commitment and Turnover Intention: Evidence from Pakistan
.International Journal of Human Resource Studies, Vol. 3, No. 1 , 74-78.

Bawa, M and Jantan, M. 2005. Human resource practices as determinants of employee turnover:
an empirical investigation. Asian Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2,
69–80
Batt, R. 2002. Managing customer services: Human resource practices, quit rates, and sales
growth. Academy of Management Journal, 45,587–597.
Beam, J. 2009. What is Employee Turnover? Retrieved June 10, 2018, from Wise
GEEK:http//www.wisegeek.com/what is employee turnover
Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. 2007. Who leaves? Teacher
attrition and student achievement. Albany: State University of New York at Albany.
Branham, L. 2012. The 7 hidden reasons employees leave: How to recognize the subtle signs and
act before it's too late. AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn.
 67

Bluedorn, A.C. 1982. A Unified Model of Turnover from Organizations. Human Relations, 35,
135-153.
Campion, M.A. 1991. Meaning and Measurement in Turnover: Comparison of Alternative
Measures and Recommendations for Research. Journal of Applied Psychology
Carbery, R., Garavan, T. N., O’ Brien, F., & McDonnell, J. 2003. Predicting Hotel Managers’
Turnover Cognitions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(7), 649-679.
Chang PL, Chou YC, Cheng FC .2007. Career Needs, Career Development Programs,
Organizational Commitment and Turnover Intention on Nurses in Taiwan. Journal of
Nursing Management 15: 801-810.
Chen, J. & Silverthorne, C. 2005. “Leadership effectiveness, leadership style and employee
readiness” in Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(4): 280-288.
Chen, M.-F., Lin, C.-P., & Lien, G.-Y. 2010. Modeling job stress as a mediating role in
predicting turnover intention. The Service Industries Journal, 1743-9507.
Choi LS, Perumal P, Akintunde MA .2012. The Impact of Human Resource Management
Practices on Employees' Turnover Intention; a Conceptual Model. International
Journal of Contemporary Research Business 4: 629-637.
Clarke, T. A. 2010. Retention, turnover and return – a longitudinal study of Allied Health
Professionals in Britain. Human Resource Management Journal, 391-406.
Cleveland, J. N., Mohammed, S.,Skattebo, A. L., & Sin, H. P. 2003. Multiple purposes of
performance appraisal: A replication and extension. . Annual conference for the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, (pp. 68-72). Orlando, FL.
Cochran, G.W. 1977. Sampling techniques, 3rd Edition.John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Curtis, S., & Wright, D. 2001. Retaining employees – the fast track to commitment. Management
Research News. 24(8/9), 56-60. doi:283756441
Darling-Hammond, L. 2005. Beyond the commission reports. The coming crisis in teaching.
Rand Corporation. 248245.
Dwomoh, & Korankye, T. 2012. Labor turnover and its impact on performance of Banks in
Ghana. European Journal of Business and Management, 4, 46-80.
Feruza Abdurezak. 2011. The Effect of Employee Turnover on performance in the Banking
Industry of Addis Ababa. MA Thesis. Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
Gawali, V. 2009. Effectiveness of employee cross-training as a motivational technique. ASBM
Journal of Management, 2(2), 138-146. doi:2061379171
Girma Alem, Erdaw Betre and Habtamu Abera. 2015. Assessment of Factors Affecting Turnover
Intention Among Nurses Working at Governmental Health Care Institutions in East
Gojjam, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. American Journal of Nursing Science, 4(3): 107-
112
Glebbeek, A. C., &Bax, E. H. 2002. Labour turnover and its effects on performance: an
empirical test using firm data. (SOM Research Reports). Groningen: University of
Groningen, SOM research school.
Griffith, R.W., &Hom, P.W. 2001. Retaining Valued Employees. London, Sage Publication
Griffeth, R.W., Horm, P.W. and Gaertner, S. 2000. Meta-Analysis of Antecedents and Correlates
of Employee Turnover: Update, Moderator Tests, and Research Implications for the
Next Millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463-488.
Haramaya University. 2017. Figure and Facts 2015/16. Retrieved June 15, 2018, from
www.haramaya@edu.et
 68

Harkins, P. J. 1998. Why Employees Stay--or Go. Work force , 77 (10), 74-78.
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., &Rivkin, S. G. 2005. Why public schools lose teachers. Journal of
Human Resources, 39(2), 326–354.
Herrbach, O., Mignonac. K. and Gatignon, A-L. 2004. Exploring the Role of Perceived External
Prestige in Managers‟ Turnover Intentions. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 15, 1390-1407.
Hidayati Arshad &FadilahPuteh. 2015.”Determinants of Turnover Intention among
Employees”Journal of Administrative Science Vol.12, Issue 2.
Husain, S. Siddique, A. Ali, R and M Akbar. 2015. Causes of employee turnover intention: A
study on Banking industry of Pakistan. International interdisciplinary journal of
scholarly research.Vol.1 No.2
Houte, V. 2006. Tracking and teacher satisfaction: Role of study culture and trust. Journal of
Educational Research, 99(4), 247-254.
Ivancevich, J. M. & Glueck, W. G., 1989, Foundation of Personnel/Human Resource
Management, 4th ed, IRWN, Boston
Jehanzeb K, Rasheed A, Rasheed MF. 2013. Organizational Commitment and Turnover
Intention: Impact of Employees Training in Private Sector of Saudi Arabia.
International Journal of Management 8: 79-81.
Joarder MHR, Sharif MY .2011. The Role of HRM Practices in Predicting Faculty Turnover
Intention Empirical Evidence from Private Universities in Bangladesh. The South
East Asian Journal of Management 5: 159-178.
Johnsrud, L.K. and Rosser, V.J. 2002. Faculty Members' Morale and Their Intention to Leave: A
Multilevel Explanation. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 518-542.
Kadiresan V, Selamat MH, Selladurai S, Ramendran SC, Kumar R .2015.Performance Appraisal
and Training and Development of Human Resource Management (HRM) Practices
on Organizational Commitment and Turnover Intention. Asian Social Sciences 11:
162-176.
Kariuki, Phedis W. 2015. Factors affecting employee turnover in the banking industry in kenya:
a case study of imperial bank limited. United states international University.
Katamba H. S. 2011. Factors Affecting Voluntary Nursing Staff Turnover in Mengo Hospital
(Master’s Thesis). University ofSouth Africa.
Kemal M. 2013.The Negative Effect and Consequences of Employee Turnover and Retention on
the Organization and Its Staff.European Journal of Business and Management
www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Khan, M. A. 2010. Effects of human resource management practices on organizational
performance - an empirical study of oil and gas industry in Pakistan. European
Journalof Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, 24, 158-175.
Khan RA, Qadir MI. 2016. Determinants of Teachers Turnover Intention in Bahria Schools and
Colleges at Karachi. Journal of Business Studies 12: 198-218.
Kim N .2014. Employee Turnover Intention among Newcomers in Travel Industry. International
Journal of Tourism Research 16: 56-64.
Kothari, C. R., 2004, Research Methodology; Methods and the chniques. New Delhi : New Age
International (P) Ltd., Publishers
Kumar Ramesh, Charles Ramendran and Peter Yacob, 2012. “A Study on Turnover Intention in
Fast Food Industry: Employees’ Fit to the Organizational Culture and the Important
of their Commitment” International Journal of Academic Research in Business and
Social Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 5 ISSN: 2222-6990
 69

Kuria, H.M., Alice, O. &Wanderi, P.M. 2012. Assessment of Causes of Labor Turnover in Three
and Five Star-Rated Hotels in Kenya. International Journal of Business and Social
Science, 3 (15); 311-317.
Liu, J. 2014. Main causes of voluntary employee turnover: a study of factors and their
relationship with expectations and preferences. santiago, universidad de
chilefacultad de economic gociosescuela de economies administration
Lochhead, C. & Stephens, A. 2004,”Employee Retention, Labor Turnover & Knowledge
Transfer, Case Studies from the Canadian Plastics Sector”
Loquercio, David, Mark, H. and Emmens, Ben. 2006.Understanding and Addressing Staff
Turnover in Humanitarian Agencie. Humanitarian Practice Network at ODI,
Westminster Bridge Road, London
th
Mathis, R. L. & Jackson, J. H., 2001, Human Resource Management, 9 ed, South Western
College Publishing
McElroy, J. C., Morrow, P. C., & Rude, S. C. 2001. Turnover and organizational performance: A
comparative analysis of voluntary, involuntary, and reduction-in-force turnover.
Journal of Applied Psychology,86, 1294–1299.
Mohd Hasanur Raihan Joarder, Muhammad Subhan, Ahmad Bashawir Abdul Ghani and Rabiul
Islam .2015. Pay, security, support and intention to quit relationship among
academics in developing economy. Investment Management and Financial
Innovations, 12(3-1), 190-199
Mondy, R. W. 2010. Human resources management,11th ed.. Upper Saddle River: NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Mulu Berhanu. 2014. Factors affecting academic staff turnover intentions and the moderating
effect of gender. International Journal of Research in Business Management, Vol. 2,
57-70
Mumtaz R, Hasan SS (2018) Determinants of Employee Turnover A Survey of Employee
Intentions Trend in Urban Societies of the Region. Bus Eco J 9: 356.
Mwendwa, J.M. 2017. Determinants of employee intention to quit their jobs at commercial
banks in Kenya a case study of kcb bank Kenya limited. A Research Project Report
Submitted to the School of Business in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the
Degree of Masters in Organizational Development (MOD). UNITED STATES
INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY- AFRICA
Newaz M.K,Alit and Akhter I.2007. Employee “Perception Regarding Turnover Decision-In
Context of Bangladesh Banking Sector” BRAC University Journal, Vol. IV , no.2,
pp 67-74.
Nawaz, Y, Rahman, T and Siraji, Md .2009. Role of Voluntary Employee Turnover in Textile
Industry of Pakistan. MA Thesis, Blekinge TekniskaHogskola (BTH), Pakistan.
Nelson BM, Catherine KK .2015. An Investigation into Factors Causing High Nurse Turnover in
Mission Hospitals in Kenya; a case for PceaChogoria Hospital. International Journal
of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 5: 55-86.
Parker, K and Skit more, M.2003. Project Management Turnover: Causes and Effects on Project
Performance.MBA Thesis, Queensland University of Technology Brisbane, Australia.

Pepra-Mensah, Josephine. Luther NtimAdjei and Kate Yeboah-Appiagyei. 2015.The Effect of

Work Attitudes on Turnover Intentions in the Hotel Industry: The Case of Cape Coast
 70

and Elmina (Ghana). European Journal of Business and Management, Vol.7, No.14, 114-
122
Porter, J. 2011. Attract and retain top talent. Strategic Finance. 92(12), 56-60. doi:2373925461
Price, J. L. 2001. Reflections on the determinants of voluntary turnover. International Journalof
Manpower, Vol. 22, No. 7, pp.600-624
Puah, P., & Ananthram, S. 2006. Exploring the antecedents and outcomes of career development
initiatives: Empirical evidence from Singaporean employees. Research and Practice
in Human Resource Management, 14, 112-142.
Pullins, E. B., & Fine, L. M. 2002. How the performance of mentoring activities affects the
mentor's job outcomes. The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management,
259-271.
Rasoava Rijamampianina 2015. Employee turnover rate and organizational performance in
South Africa. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 13(4-1)
Richard, O. C., Ismail, K. M., Bhuian, S. N., & Taylor, E. C. 2009. Mentoring in supervisor-
subordinate dyads: Antecedents, consequences, and test of a mediation model of
mentorship. . Journal of Business Research, 62(11), 1110-1118.
Roshidi H .2014. Factors Influencing Turnover Intention among Technical Employees in
Information Technology Organization: A Case of Xyz (M) Sdn.Bhd. International
Journal of Arts and Commerce 3: 120-137.
Scafidi, B., Sjoquistb, D. L., & Stinebrickner, T. R. 2007. Race, poverty, and teacher mobility.
Economics of Education Review, 26(2), 145–159.
Shahid MN, Faizuniah P, Awais MB .2015. The Relationship between Human Resource
Development Factors and Turnove Intention; a conceptual Framework. International
Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 5: 297-310.
Shamsuzzoha, A. 2003.Employee Turnover-a Study of its Causes and Effects to Different
Industries in Bangladesh. Doctorial Dissertation, University of Vaasa, Finland.
Shimelis Tsehayu. 2016. Causes and Consequences of Medical Staff Turnover the Caseof
Menelik II Referral Hospital: in Addis Ababa. MA Thesis. Addis Ababa University,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Taylor, T., Doherty, A., & McGraw, P. 2008. Managing people in sport organiza-tions: A
strategic human resource management perspective. Routledge.
Tizazu k .2015. Employees Motivation and its Effect on Employee Retention in Ambo Mineral
Water Factory. International Journal of Advance Research in Computer Sciences and
Management Studies 3: 10-21.
Verma, S., and Chaurasia, R. 2016. A study to identify the factors affecting employee turnover
in Small scale industries. International journal of engineering sciences & research
technology.5(7). DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.57056
Weigold, I. K.,Porfeli, E. J., &Weigold, A. 2013. Examining tenets of personal growth initiative
using the personal growth initiative scale-II. Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 1396-
1403. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0034104
Welde yohannes G .2016. Compensation Practice and Teachers Turnover Intention in Tigray.
International Journal of Science and Research 5: 1372-1379.
Zuber, A. 2001. A career in food service cons: high turnover. National Restaurant News, 14-22.
 71

Appendix
Appendix A: SPSS results of univariate analysis

Dependent Variable Encoding

Original Value Internal Value

no 0
yes 1

a. Sex vs intention to quit

Categorical Variables Codings

Frequency Parameter
coding

(1)

female 29 1.000
gender
male 133 .000

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

a
gen(1) -.514 .415 1.533 1 .216 .598
Step 1
Constant .166 .174 .908 1 .341 1.180

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: gen.

b. Age vs. intention to quit

Categorical Variables Codings

Frequency Parameter coding

(1) (2) (3) (4)

<25 21 1.000 .000 .000 .000

25-30 49 .000 1.000 .000 .000

Age 31-35 60 .000 .000 1.000 .000

36-40 22 .000 .000 .000 1.000

>40 10 .000 .000 .000 .000

 72

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

age 6.750 4 .150

age(1) -.891 .787 1.283 1 .257 .410

a
age(2) -.034 .708 .002 1 .962 .967
Step 1
age(3) -.137 .696 .039 1 .844 .872

age(4) -1.168 .791 2.177 1 .140 .311

Constant .405 .645 .395 1 .530 1.500

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: age.

c. Level of education vs. intention to quit

Categorical Variables Codings

Frequency Parameter coding

(1) (2) (3)

diploma 27 1.000 .000 .000

BA/BSc degree 73 .000 1.000 .000

Level of education
master degree 58 .000 .000 1.000

PhD 4 .000 .000 .000

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

educ 3.128 3 .372

educ(1) -1.025 1.217 .708 1 .400 .359
a
Step 1 educ(2) -1.291 1.178 1.200 1 .273 .275

educ(3) -.750 1.185 .401 1 .527 .472

Constant 1.099 1.155 .905 1 .341 3.000

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: educ.

d. Marital status vs. intention to quit

Categorical Variables Codings

Frequency Parameter coding

(1) (2)
 73

single 82 1.000 .000

Marital status married 67 .000 1.000

divorced 13 .000 .000

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

marst .038 2 .981

a
marst(1) -.105 .599 .031 1 .860 .900
Step 1
marst(2) -.065 .608 .011 1 .915 .938

Constant .154 .556 .077 1 .782 1.167

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: marst.

e. Working experience vs. intention to quit
Categorical Variables Codings

Frequency Parameter coding

(1) (2)

<5 years 75 1.000 .000

Working experience at
5-10 47 .000 1.000
Haramaya University
>10 40 .000 .000

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

exper .832 2 .660

a
exper(1) -.027 .392 .005 1 .946 .974
Step 1
exper(2) .300 .432 .482 1 .488 1.350
Constant .000 .316 .000 1 1.000 1.000

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: exper.

f. have children vs. intention to quit

Categorical Variables Codings

Frequency Parameter
coding

(1)

yes 70 1.000
Do you have children
no 92 .000

Variables in the Equation

 74

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

a
child(1) -.232 .318 .531 1 .466 .793
Step 1
Constant .174 .209 .694 1 .405 1.190

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: child.

g. Type of staff vs. intention to quit

Categorical Variables Codings

Frequency Parameter
coding

(1)

administration 76 1.000
Type of staff
academic 86 .000

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

a
staff(1) -.439 .317 1.921 1 .166 .645
Step 1
Constant .281 .218 1.663 1 .197 1.324

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: staff.

h. Type of staff vs. intention to quit

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

coldire 2.943 7 .890

coldire(1) -.285 .535 .284 1 .594 .752

coldire(2) -.535 .597 .804 1 .370 .586

coldire(3) -.285 .636 .201 1 .654 .752

a
Step 1 coldire(4) .526 1.291 .166 1 .684 1.692

coldire(5) .201 .597 .113 1 .737 1.222

coldire(6) -.034 .660 .003 1 .959 .967

coldire(7) .238 .578 .170 1 .680 1.269

Constant .167 .410 .166 1 .683 1.182

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: coldire.

i. Expectation vs. intention to quit

Categorical Variables Codings

Frequency Parameter
coding

(1)
 75

Do you think you get what yes 74 1.000

you expected after you 88 .000
joined Haramaya University no
as an employee

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

a
expectt(1) .363 .317 1.309 1 .253 1.438
Step 1
Constant -.091 .213 .182 1 .670 .913

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: expectt.

j. Job satisfaction vs. intention to quit

Categorical Variables Codings

Frequency Parameter
coding

(1)

Are you satisfied with your no 70 1.000

job yes 92 .000

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

a
satify(1) 2.665 .403 43.645 1 .000 14.375
Step 1
Constant -.986 .234 17.694 1 .000 .373
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: satify.

k. Job security vs. intention to quit

Categorical Variables Codings

Frequency Parameter
coding

(1)

Do you think your job is no 95 1.000

secured yes 67 .000

Variables in the Equation

 76

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

a
secur(1) 2.361 .380 38.550 1 .000 10.600
Step 1
Constant -1.331 .300 19.626 1 .000 .264

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: secur.

l. Work load vs. intention to quit

Categorical Variables Codings

Frequency Parameter coding

(1) (2) (3)

low 14 1.000 .000 .000

How do you rate your work fair 87 .000 1.000 .000

load high 39 .000 .000 1.000

very high 22 .000 .000 .000

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

workload 3.647 3 .302

workload(1) .105 .689 .023 1 .878 1.111

a
Step 1 workload(2) .072 .480 .022 1 .881 1.075

workload(3) -.652 .540 1.459 1 .227 .521

Constant .182 .428 .181 1 .670 1.200

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: workload.

m. Salary vs. intention to quit

Categorical Variables Codings

Frequency Parameter
coding

(1)

Compared to the salary level no 116 1.000

of other organizations that 46 .000
you can be hired, do you
yes
think your salary in
Haramaya University is fair

Variables in the Equation

 77

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

a
salryf(1) 1.687 .396 18.186 1 .000 5.402
Step 1
Constant -1.157 .346 11.213 1 .001 .314

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: salryf.

n. allowance/incentive vs. intention to quit

Categorical Variables Codings

Frequency Parameter
coding

(1)

Compared to other no 95 1.000

organizations that you can 67 .000
be hired, do you think there
is better allowance/incentive yes
payments in Haramaya
University

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

a
allowan(1) 1.951 .360 29.410 1 .000 7.038
Step 1
Constant -1.079 .281 14.765 1 .000 .340

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: allowan.

o. Career advancement vs. intention to quit

Categorical Variables Codings

Frequency Parameter
coding

(1)

Do you think Haramaya no 96 1.000

University does provide 66 .000
regular opportunities of
yes
career advancement or
growth?

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

 78

a
carreradv(1) 1.896 .359 27.945 1 .000 6.659
Step 1
Constant -1.059 .281 14.144 1 .000 .347

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: carreradv.

p. Training opportunities vs. intention to quit

Categorical Variables Codings

Frequency Parameter
coding

(1)

Do you think Haramaya no 107 1.000

University does provide 55 .000
necessary training yes
opportunities?

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

a
traing(1) 2.312 .407 32.183 1 .000 10.091
Step 1
Constant -1.504 .350 18.509 1 .000 .222

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: traing.

q. motivation vs. intention to quit

Categorical Variables Codings

Frequency Parameter
coding

(1)

Do you think there is fair no 100 1.000

motivation and 62 .000
encouragement for your yes
good work?

Categorical Variables Codings

Frequency Parameter
coding
 79

(1)

Do you think there is culture no 126 1.000

of giving recognition for your 36 .000
yes
good work?

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

a
recog(1) .826 .391 4.468 1 .035 2.284
Step 1
Constant -.571 .347 2.704 1 .100 .565

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: recog.

r. supervisor/head relationship vs. intention to quit

Categorical Variables Codings

Frequency Parameter
coding

(1)

Have you ever had no 122 1.000

unnecessary argument with 40 .000
yes
your supervisor/head?

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

a
argusup(1) -.438 .370 1.402 1 .236 .645
Step 1
Constant .405 .323 1.578 1 .209 1.500

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: argusup.

Categorical Variables Codings

Frequency Parameter
coding

(1)

Have you ever feel no 77 1.000

discomfort due to your 85 .000
yes
supervisor/head?
 80

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

a
discsup(1) -.390 .316 1.523 1 .217 .677
Step 1
Constant .260 .219 1.416 1 .234 1.297

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: discsup.

Categorical Variables Codings

Frequency Parameter
coding

(1)

Do you think your no 33 1.000

supervisor/head is nice to 129 .000
yes
you?

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

a
nicesup(1) .136 .391 .120 1 .729 1.145
Step 1
Constant .047 .176 .070 1 .792 1.048

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: nicesup.

Working environment

How do you rate the overall working environment?

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid very bad 8 4.9 4.9 4.9
bad 18 11.1 11.1 16.0
neutral 67 41.4 41.4 57.4
good 57 35.2 35.2 92.6
very good 12 7.4 7.4 100.0
Total 162 100.0 100.0

How do you rate the rule and regulations of your working

environment?
 81

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid very bad 8 4.9 4.9 4.9
bad 33 20.4 20.4 25.3
neutral 41 25.3 25.3 50.6
good 53 32.7 32.7 83.3
very good 27 16.7 16.7 100.0
Total 162 100.0 100.0

How do you rate the neatness of your office?

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid bad 55 34.0 34.0 34.0
neutral 27 16.7 16.7 50.6
good 53 32.7 32.7 83.3
very good 27 16.7 16.7 100.0
Total 162 100.0 100.0

How do you rate the quality of your office equipment?

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid very bad 15 9.3 9.3 9.3
bad 31 19.1 19.1 28.4
neutral 40 24.7 24.7 53.1
good 73 45.1 45.1 98.1
very good 3 1.9 1.9 100.0
Total 162 100.0 100.0

How do you rate the lighting conditions of your office?

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid bad 18 11.1 11.1 11.1
 82

neutral 30 18.5 18.5 29.6

good 61 37.7 37.7 67.3
very good 53 32.7 32.7 100.0
Total 162 100.0 100.0

How do you rate the air condition of your office?

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid bad 13 8.0 8.0 8.0
neutral 24 14.8 14.8 22.8
good 94 58.0 58.0
very good 31 19.1 19.1
Total 162 100.0 100.0

How do you rate the air condition of your office?

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid bad 13 8.0 8.0 8.0
neutral 24 14.8 14.8 22.8
good 94 58.0 58.0 80.9
very good 31 19.1 19.1 100.0
Total 162 100.0 100.0

how do you rate the suitability of the toilet?

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid very bad 43 26.5 26.5 26.5
bad 70 43.2 43.2 69.8
neutral 27 16.7 16.7 86.4
good 22 13.6 13.6 100.0
Total 162 100.0 100.0

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

 83

a
scr2 .035 .037 .923 1 .337 1.036
Step 1
Constant -.492 .610 .651 1 .420 .611

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: scr2.

Appendix B: SPSS results of Logistic regression

Case Processing Summary

a
Unweighted Cases N Percent
Selected Cases Included in Analysis 162 100.0
Missing Cases 0 .0
Total 162 100.0
Unselected Cases 0 .0
Total 162 100.0
a. If weight is in effect, see classification table for the total number of
cases.

Dependent Variable
Encoding
Original Value Internal Value
no 0
yes 1

Categorical Variables Codings

Parameter coding
Frequency (1)
Do you think there is culture of giving recognition no 126 1.000
for your good work? yes 36 .000
Do you think your job is secured no 95 1.000
yes 67 .000
Compared to the salary level of other organizations no 116 1.000
 84

that you can be hired, do you think your salary in yes 46 .000
Haramaya University is fair
Compared to other organizations that you can be no 95 1.000
hired, do you think there is better yes 67 .000
allowance/incentive payments in Haramaya
University
Do you think Haramaya University does provide no 96 1.000
regular opportunities of career advancement or yes 66 .000
growth?
Do you think Haramaya University does provide no 107 1.000
necessary training opportunities? yes 55 .000
Are you satisfied with your job no 70 1.000
yes 92 .000

Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients

Chi-square df Sig.
Step 1 Step 99.143 7 .000
Block 99.143 7 .000
Model 99.143 7 .000

Model Summary
Cox & Snell R Nagelkerke R
Step -2 Log likelihood Square Square
a
1 125.215 .458 .611
a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 5 because
parameter estimates changed by less than .001.

Hosmer and Lemeshow Test

Step Chi-square df Sig.
1 5.135 7 .644

Contingency Table for Hosmer and Lemeshow Test

Do you have intention to quit the Do you have intention to quit the
present job? = no present job? = yes
Observed Expected Observed Expected Total
Step 1 1 21 21.199 1 .801 22
2 14 14.451 2 1.549 16
 85

3 14 13.395 2 2.605 16
4 12 11.685 5 5.315 17
5 8 7.504 8 8.496 16
6 3 4.364 11 9.636 14
7 2 2.751 14 13.249 16
8 3 1.111 7 8.889 10
9 1 1.542 34 33.458 35

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
a
Step 1 Are you satisfied with your 1.745 .487 12.824 1 .000 5.726
job(1)
Do you think your job is 1.076 .537 4.015 1 .045 2.934
secured(1)
Compared to the salary level -.058 .604 .009 1 .923 .943
of other organizations that
you can be hired, do you
think your salary in
Haramaya University is
fair(1)
Compared to other 1.216 .527 5.320 1 .021 3.372
organizations that you can
be hired, do you think there
is better allowance/incentive
payments in Haramaya
University(1)
Do you think Haramaya 1.069 .508 4.424 1 .035 2.912
University does provide
regular opportunities of
career advancement or
growth?(1)
Do you think Haramaya 1.205 .546 4.873 1 .027 3.337
University does provide
necessary training
opportunities?(1)
Do you think there is culture .896 .533 2.826 1 .093 2.449
of giving recognition for your
good work?(1)
 86

Constant -4.074 .760 28.772 1 .000 .017

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: Are you satisfied with your job, Do you think your job is secured, Compared to the
salary level of other organizations that you can be hired, do you think your salary in Haramaya University is fair,
Compared to other organizations that you can be hired, do you think there is better allowance/incentive payments in
Haramaya University, Do you think Haramaya University does provide regular opportunities of career advancement or
growth?, Do you think Haramaya University does provide necessary training opportunities?, Do you think there is
culture of giving recognition for your good work?.

Appendix C: Questionnaire

Questionnaire to be filled by currently available Employees

Haramaya University

Postgraduate program directorate

Program of MBA

Department of Management

Dear Respondent,
I am a student at the University of Haramaya pursuing a Masters of Business Administration
(MBA) degree. This study is entitled as “FACTORS AFFECTING EMPLOYEE TURNOVER
AND TURNOVER INTENTION: THE CASE OF HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY”.” to be carried
out for research paper as a requirement in partial fulfillment of masters degree. I respectfully
request your kind cooperation in answering all questions given in the questionnaire as accurately
and frankly as possible. Your responses will be treated strictly confidential and it is going to be
used only for academic purpose. You don’t need to write your name.

Thank you in advance!!

Instructions: please select the appropriate answer and put ‘√ ‘sign on the given choice.

Part one: Socio-demographic Information

 87

1. Age: Less than 25 years 25-30 31-35 36-40 Above 40 years

2. Gender: Female Male

3. Level of education

Diploma BA/B.Sc. Degree Masters Degree

Assistant Professor Associate Professor PhD

Post Doctoral Professor Other:_______________

4. Marital status:
Single Married Divorced other:______________________
5. Working experience at Haramaya University?
Less than 5 years 5-10 years More than 10 years
6. Do you have children?
YesNo
7. Type of staff?
Administration staff Academic staff
If you are Administration staff, then write the name of directorate and team?
Directorate:__________________________________
Team:_______________________________________
If you are Academic staff, then write the name of college and department?
College:__________________________________
Department:_______________________________

Part two: Job related questions

1. Do you think you get what you expected after you joined Haramaya University as an
employee?
YesNo
If your answer is “No”,then what was your expectation?
__________________________________________________________________
 88

____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
2. Are you satisfied with your job?
Yes No
3. Do you think your job is secured?
YesNo
4. Do you have intention to quit the present job?
Yes No
5. How do you rate your work load?
Very Low Low Fair High Very High

6. Compared to the salary level of other organizations that you can be hired, do you think
your salary in Haramaya University is fair?
YesNo
7. Compared to other organizations that you can be hired, do you think there is better
allowance/incentive payments in Haramaya University?
YesNo
8. Do you think Haramaya University does provide regular opportunities of career
advancement or growth?
YesNo
9. Do you think Haramaya University does provide necessary training opportunities?
YesNo
10. How do you rate the overall working environment?
Very Bad Bad Neutral Good Very good
11. How do you rate the rule and regulations of your working environment?
Very Bad Bad Neutral Good Very good
12. How do you rate the neatness of your office?
Very Bad Bad Neutral Good Very good
13. How do you rate the quality of your office equipment?
Very Bad Bad Neutral Good Very good
14. How do you rate the lighting conditions of your office?
Very Bad Bad Neutral Good Very good
 89

15. How do you rate the air condition of your office?

Very Bad Bad Neutral Good Very good
16. Is toilet available near to your office?
Yes No
17. If your answer for question 16 is “Yes” ,then how do you rate the suitability of the toilet?
Very Bad Bad Neutral Good Very good
18. Is there any conflict among employees in your department?
YesNo

19. Do you think there is fair motivation and encouragement for your good work?
Yes No
20. Do you think there is culture of giving recognition for your good work?
YesNo
21. Have you ever had unnecessary argument with your supervisor/head?
YesNo
22. Have you ever feel discomfort due to you rsupervisor/head?
YesNo
23. Do you think your supervisor/head is nice to you?
YesNo

PART-III: Open ended questions

Instruction: read the questions and write your own suggestions for the following questions.

1. State the reasons that can make you stay in this university.

(a)_____________________________________________________________
b)_____________________________________________________________

(c) _____________________________________________________________
 90

(d)___________________________________________________________

2. State factors that can make you quit your current job?

a) ____________________________________________________________
b) ____________________________________________________________
c) _____________________________________________________________
d) _____________________________________________________________

Questionnaire to be filled by currently quit Employees

Haramaya University

Postgraduate program directorate

Program of MBA

Department of Management

Dear Respondent,

I am a student at the University of Haramaya pursuing a Masters of Business Administration

(MBA) degree. This study is entitled as “FACTORS AFFECTING EMPLOYEE TURNOVER
AND TURNOVER INTENTION: THE CASE OF HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY”. to be carried out
for research paper as a requirement in partial fulfillment of masters degree. I respectfully request
your kind cooperation in answering all questions given in the questionnaire as accurately and
frankly as possible. Your responses will be treated strictly confidential and it is going to be used
only for academic purpose. You don’t need to write your name.

Thank you in advance!!

Instructions: please select the appropriate answer and put ‘√ ‘sign on the given choice.

Part one: Personal Information

1. Age: Less than 25 years 25-30 31-35 36-40 Above 40 years

 91

2. Gender: Female Male

3. Level of education immediately before you quit your job at Haramaya University

Diploma BA/B.Sc. Degree Masters Degree

Assistant professor Associate professor PhDPost Doctoral

Professor Other:_____________________________

4. Marital status immediately before you quit your job at Haramaya University:
Single Married Divorced other:______________________

5. Working experience at Haramaya University?

Less than 5 years 5-10 years More than 10 years
6. Have you had children when you were employee of Haramaya University?
YesNo
7. Type of staff?
Administration staff Academic staff
If you were Administration staff, then write the name of directorate and team?
Directorate:__________________________________
Team:_______________________________________
If you were Academic staff, then write the name of college and department?
College:__________________________________
Department:_______________________________

Part two: Job related questions

1. Do you think you get what you expected after you joined Haramaya University as an
employee?
YesNo
If your answer is “No”,then what was your expectation?
__________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________.
2. Were you satisfied with your job at Haramaya University?
 92

Yes No
3. Do you think your job at Haramaya University was secured?
YesNo
4. How do you rate your work load at Haramaya University?
Very Low Low Fair High Very High
5. Compared to the salary level of other organizations that you can be hired, do you think
your salary in Haramaya University was fair?
YesNo
6. Compared to other organizations that you can be hired, do you think there was better
allowance/incentive payments in Haramaya University?
YesNo
7. During your stay in Haramaya University, did you think Haramaya University did
provide regular opportunities of career advancement or growth?
YesNo
8. Do you think Haramaya Universitydid provide necessary training opportunities?
YesNo
9. How do you rate the overall working environment of Haramaya University?
Very Bad Bad Neutral Good Very good
10. How do you rate the rule and regulations of your working environment tat Haramaya
University?
Very Bad Bad Neutral Good Very good
11. How do you rate the neatness of your office at Haramaya University?
Very Bad Bad Neutral Good Very good
12. How do you rate the quality of your office equipment at Haramaya University?
Very Bad Bad Neutral Good Very good
13. How do you rate the lighting conditions of your office at Haramaya University?
Very Bad Bad Neutral Good Very good
14. How do you rate the air condition of your office at Haramaya University?
Very Bad Bad Neutral Good Very good
15. Was toilet available near to your office at Haramaya University?
Yes No
16. If your answer for question 15 is “Yes”, then how do you rate the suitability of the toilet?
 93

Very Bad Bad Neutral Good Very good

17. Wast here any conflict among employees in your department at Haramaya University?
YesNo

18. Do you think there was fair motivation and encouragement for your good work at
Haramaya University?
Yes No
19. Do you think there was a culture of giving recognition for your good work at Haramaya
University?
YesNo
20. Have you ever had unnecessary argument with your supervisor/headat Haramaya
University?
YesNo
21. Have you ever feel discomfort due to your supervisor/headat Haramaya University?
YesNo
22. Do you think your supervisor/headat Haramaya University was nice to you?
YesNo

PART-III: Open ended questions

Instruction: read the questions and write your own suggestions for the following questions.

1. State factors that made you quit your job at Haramaya University.

(a)_____________________________________________________________
b)_____________________________________________________________

(c) _____________________________________________________________

(d)___________________________________________________________
 94

HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY

POST GRADUATE PROGRAM DIRECTORATE

Factors affecting Employee Turnover: The case of Haramaya University

Interview Guide for Administrative and Academic vice presidents

The purpose of this study is to examine the Factors affecting Employee Turnover: The case of
Haramaya University. “FACTORS AFFECTING EMPLOYEE TURNOVER AND TURNOVER
INTENTION: THE CASE OF HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY”.You were chosen to narrate your
leadership experience as Administrative or Academic vice presidents and because you have been
identified as someone who has served on the stated position for years and lived the life in
Haramaya University. To make the note-taking process effective, I would like to record our
conversations today with this mini- tape recorder.

For a matter of privacy and ethics as well, only the researcher, me, on the project, doing the
study will access the tapes which definitely I erase after proper transcription is carried out. In
addition, essentially, this document states that: so your participation is voluntary engagement and
right to stop in the middle when you don’t feel comfortable; confidentiality issues and the
research doesn’t impose any harm as a result of this data accessed. Thank you for your being
volunteer to take part in the study. I have planned this interview to last no longer than an hour.
During this time, I have six questions that I would like to cover, when necessary, I may interact
in the middle with further few questions.

Thanks once again for your participation!

 95

Part I. Basic Information

Administrative /Academic vice presidents______________________

Years of experience in general _______________________________

Years of experience in this University _________________________

Qualification: _______________________________

Part II. Semi structured Questions

1. What do you feel about staff (Academic or Admin) attrition and that of Haramaya

University?

2. How serious do you think is this attrition at Haramaya University? What evidences could

we have?

3. What do you think are the factors contributing for academic and administrative staff

attrition at Haramaya University?

4. Do you think this staff turnover affects the organization? What are the likely adverse

impacts it may have on University performance?

5. What kind of retention mechanism the University practiced to retain existing employees

and how effective were the methods?

6. If the University has to perform to its maximum, what are the efforts that should be done?

Who should do what do you think?

 96

HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY

POST GRADUATE PROGRAM DIRECTORATE

Factors affecting Employee Turnover: The case of Haramaya University

Interview Guide for Human resource manager

The purpose of this study is to examine the Factors affecting Employee Turnover: The case of
Haramaya University “FACTORS AFFECTING EMPLOYEE TURNOVER AND TURNOVER
INTENTION: THE CASE OF HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY”.You were chosen to narrate your
leadership experience as Human resource manager and because you have been identified as
someone who has served on the stated position for years and lived the life in Haramaya
University. To make the note-taking process effective, I would like to record our conversations
today with this mini- tape recorder.

For a matter of privacy and ethics as well, only the researcher, me, on the project, doing the
study will access the tapes which definitely I erase after proper transcription is carried out. In
addition, essentially, this document states that: so your participation is voluntary engagement and
right to stop in the middle when you don’t feel comfortable; confidentiality issues and the
research doesn’t impose any harm as a result of this data accessed. Thank you for your being
volunteer totake part in the study. I have planned this interview to last no longer than an hour.
During this time, I have nine questions that I would like to cover, when necessary, I may interact
in the middle with further few questions.

Thanks once again for your participation!

 97

Part I: Basic Information

Years of experience in general _______________________________

Years of experience in this University _________________________

Qualification: _______________________________

Part II. Semi structured Questions

1. What do you feel about staff (Academic or Admin) attrition and that of Haramaya

University?

2. How serious do you think is this attrition at Haramaya University? What evidences could

we have?

3. Does the University use methods such as exit interview or other method to know the
reasons of turnover? if yes, what are the main reasons?

4. What do you think are the factors contributing for academic and administrative staff

attrition at Haramaya University?

5. Does the distribution of employee turnover rate vary from college to college or
directorate to directorate? If yes, which directorate or college have high employee
turnover rate?
6. Do you think Haramaya University provide necessary training opportunities and regular
opportunities of career advancement or growth for employees? If yes, what kind?

7. Do you think this staff turnover affects the organization? What are the likely adverse

impacts it may have on University performance?

8. What kind of retention mechanism the University practiced to retain existing employees

and how effective were the methods?

 98

9. If the University has to perform to its maximum, what are the efforts that should be done?

Who should do what do you think?