Unwanted or unpredictable outflow of employees? Probably. Almost all larger organisations have a lot to do with this, but often do not know specific reasons for staff turnover. Sin, because unwanted outflow has many disadvantages. Indeed, the unwanted outflows of employees lead to poorer performance and a deteriorated market position .
The organization, loses in case of dysfunctional outflow of employees, important competencies, skills and knowledge (human resources) that may even be conditions for achieving competitive edge . Indeed, by reliance on organizations to maintain such resources, highly skilled in organizations become more important and influential .
Understanding the dynamics of these employees is an important prerequisite of the above to be able to effectively respond to such outflow. According to Maertz and Griffeth (2004) , there are eight forces that exert influence on the flow of an employee;
(1) Affective forces; This is about emotionality within the organization. Poor emotional states lead to outflow or loss of commitment.
(2) Calculated forces; A rational force in which the employee is rationally considering the chances of achieving his important values and objectives. A negative outcome leads to outflow.
(3) Contractual forces; These forces focus on the assumed obligations in relation to the psychological contract. This depends on the adopted standard of reciprocity.
(4) Behavioural forces; This involves the desire to reduce psychological costs by investing in participation within the organisation. Higher costs motivates investing in participation and lower costs less. At lower costs, the employee is more inclined to leave the organization.
(5) Alternative forces; This is the extent and strength of its own effectiveness regarding the acquisition of alternative functions outside the organization. High effectiveness and effectiveness leads to an employee's outflow.
(6) Normative forces; Meeting shared expectations outside the organization. Assuming that there is motivation to meet these external expectations, this affects the flow of the employee.
(7) Moral forces; These forces are based on the link between behaviour and values concerning the flow. This differs from ' often changing a job is good ' until ' being faithful to an organization is a virtue '.
(8) Binding forces; The motivation to stay with an organization is dependent on the connection with direct colleagues and other groups within the organization. Connection with colleagues and other groups runs parallel to the association with the organization.
These forces exert influence on Job satisfaction of the employee but within these forces can also prevent ' shocks ' (Holtom, B.C., Mitchell, T.R., Lee, i.e, & Inderrieden, E.J. (2005) . This is the second model that can be ridden. Shocks are positive or negative experiences that can ultimately lead to an outflow of employees. Knowledge of shocks can be used to prevent dysfunctional outflow of employees. The principle of shocks replaces Job satisfaction Not only provides a complete concept that can be responded to.
To understand which forces and shocks play a role within the organisation, organizations can MTO surveys or exit interviews. MTO surveys Show a less specific picture of the motivation of employees. As a result, exit interviews, when properly taken, are more suitable to gain insight into outflow within the Organization . Employees experience less pressure to give ' correct ' answers and will thus provide more insight into their motives.
A good exit interview is based on a Exit Questionnaire. This questionnaire has been built up from a concept that can explain outflow of research. Only when the questionnaire is designed from a sound concept, and then in the Exit interviews appropriate, the exit instrument will be effective. These interviews are carried out by employees who know how to take interviews in substance. The data from both the interviews and the questionnaires can then be processed in an outflow analysis. This analysis, based on both grades and quantitative data, assumes the concept of the questionnaire and can therefore provide insight into Departure reasons of employees. This will provide insight into the results of the HR policy and better control the governance of the outflows within the organisation.
This article is based on ' unwanted outflow within knowledge intensive organisations ' (Pietersen, 2012).
 Cascio, W. (2002). Responsible restructuring. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler.
 Wright, P.M., McMahan, G.C., & McWilliams, A. (1994). Human resources and sustained competitive advantage: A resource based perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 5, Issue 2, 301-326.
 Dibble, S. (1999). Keeping your valuable employees: retention strategies for your Organization's most important resource (pp. 3-10). NEW York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
 Maertz, C.P., & Griffeth, R.W. (2004). Eight motivational forces and Voluntary Turnover: a theoretical synthesis with implications for research. Journal of Management, Vol. 30, Issue 5, DOI: 10.1016/J. JM. 2004.04.001.
 Holtom, B.C., Mitchell, T.R., Lee, i.e, & Inderrieden, E.J. (2005). Shocks as causes of turnover: what they are and how organizations can manage them. Human Resource Management, vol. 44, Issue 3, 337-352, DOI: 10.1002/HRM. 20074.
 Baabu, M.S., Chebolu, R.M., & Balaji, S.G. (2011). Exit Interviews & Their empanelment: the current scenario. SRM Management Digest, Vol. 9, 315-319, ISSN: 0973-6905.
01 August 2012