Targeted Employee Retention: Performance-Based and Job-Related Differences in Reported Reasons for Staying

A content model of 12 retention factors is developed in the context of previous theory and research. Coding of open-ended responses from 24,829 employees in the leisure and hospitality industry lends support to the identified framework and reveals that job satisfaction, extrinsic rewards, constituent attachments, organizational commitment, and organizational prestige were the most frequently mentioned reasons for staying. Advancement opportunities and organizational prestige were more common reasons for staying among high performers and non-hourly workers, and extrinsic rewards was more common among low performers and hourly employees, providing support for ease/desirability of movement and psychological contract rationales. The findings highlight the importance of differentiating human resource management practices when the goal is to retain those employees valued most by the organization

Differences in reasons for living between Alaska Native and Euro-American college students

Thesis (M.A.) University of Alaska Fairbanks, 2003The purpose of this study was to explore the differences in reasons for living between Alaska Native and Euro-American college students, to determine which are important as protective factors against suicide for these two groups. A sample of 106 students at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, matched on age, sex, race, marital status, and recent suicide or suicide attempt by a family member or friend, were surveyed using a demographic instrument, the College Students Reasons for Living Inventory, and the Orthogonal Cultural Identification Scale. Results appear to indicate that Alaska Native college students report more reasons for living than Euro-American students.Introduction -- Suicide -- Reasons for living -- Conclusion -- References

Reasons to Not Believe (and Reasons to Act)

In “Reasons to Believe and Reasons to Act,” Stewart Cohen argues that balance of reasons accounts of rational action get the wrong results when applied to doxastic attitudes, and that there are therefore important differences between reasons to believe and reasons to act. In this paper, I argue that balance of reasons accounts of rational action get the right results when applied to the cases that Cohen considers, and that these results highlight interesting similarities between reasons to believe and reasons to act. I also consider an argument for Cohen's conclusion based on the principle that Adler, Moran, Shah, Velleman and others call “transparency.” I resist this argument by explaining why transparency is itself doubtful

An Instrumentalist Account of How to Weigh Epistemic and Practical Reasons for Belief

When one has both epistemic and practical reasons for or against some belief, how do these reasons combine into an all-things-considered reason for or against that belief? The question might seem to presuppose the existence of practical reasons for belief. But we can rid the question of this presupposition. Once we do, a highly general ‘Combinatorial Problem’ emerges. The problem has been thought to be intractable due to certain differences in the combinatorial properties of epistemic and practical reasons. Here we bring good news: if we accept an independently motivated version of epistemic instrumentalism—the view that epistemic reasons are a species of instrumental reasons—we can reduce The Combinatorial Problem to the relatively benign problem of how to weigh different instrumental reasons against each other. As an added benefit, the instrumentalist account can explain the apparent intractability of The Combinatorial Problem in terms of a common tendency to think and talk about epistemic reasons in an elliptical manner

Needed: a theory of total factor productivity

This paper evaluates the argument that differences in physical and intangible capital can account for the large international income differences that characterize the world economy today. The finding is that they cannot. Savings rate differences are of minor importance. What is all-important is total factor productivity. In addition, the paper presents industry evidence that total factor productivities differ across countries and time for reasons other than differences in the publicly available stock of technical knowledge. These findings lead me to conclude a theory of TFP is needed. This theory must account for differences in TFP that arise for reasons other than growth in the stock of technical knowledge.Income distribution ; Productivity

Differences in IMF Data: Incidence and Implications

Data published in IMF country reports and International Financial Statistics (IFS) may differ for seemingly identical variables, and at times users may be unaware of the reasons underlying such differences and may lack the information needed to permit reconciliation. This paper presents a study of the consistency of annual data on core statistical indicators presented in the IFS and a sample of country reports. The paper finds a significant incidence of apparent discrepancies for similarly defined variables. It discusses the reasons for differences and examines the implications for research using an example from the debt sustainability literature. Copyright 2006, International Monetary Fund

The right and the wrong kind of reasons

In a number of recent philosophical debates, it has become common to distinguish between two kinds of normative reasons, often called the right kind of reasons (henceforth: RKR) and the wrong kind of reasons (henceforth: WKR). The distinction was first introduced in discussions of the so-called buck-passing account of value, which aims to analyze value properties in terms of reasons for pro-attitudes and has been argued to face the wrong kind of reasons problem. But nowadays it also gets applied in other philosophical contexts and to reasons for other responses than pro-attitudes, for example in recent debates about evidentialism and pragmatism about reasons for belief. While there seems to be wide agreement that there is a general and uniform distinction that applies to reasons for different responses, there is little agreement about the scope, relevance and nature of this distinction. Our aim in this article is to shed some light on this issue by surveying the RKR/WKR distinction as it has been drawn with respect to different responses, and by examining how it can be understood as a uniform distinction across different contexts. We start by considering reasons for pro-attitudes and emotions in the context of the buck-passing account of value (§1). Subsequently we address the distinction that philosophers have drawn with respect to reasons for other attitudes, such as beliefs and intentions (§2), as well as with respect to reasons for action (§3). We discuss the similarities and differences between the ways in which philosophers have drawn the RKR/WKR distinction in these areas and offer different interpretations of the idea of a general, uniform distinction. The major upshot is that there is at least one interesting way of substantiating a general RKR/WKR distinction with respect to a broad range of attitudes as well as actions. We argue that this has important implications for the proper scope of buck-passing accounts and the status of the wrong kind of reasons problem (§4)

Changes from 1986 to 2006 in reasons for liking leisure-time physical activity among adolescents

Reasons for participating in physical activity (PA) may have changed in accordance with the general modernization of society. The aim is to examine changes in self-reported reasons for liking leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) and their association with self-reported LTPA over a 20-year period. Data were collected among nationally representative samples of 13-year-olds in Finland, Norway, and Wales in 1986 and 2006 (N = 9252) as part of the WHO cross-national Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study. Univariate ANOVAs to establish differences according to gender, year, and country were conducted. In all countries, 13-year-olds in 2006 tended to report higher importance in terms of achievement and social reasons than their counterparts in 1986, while changes in health reasons were minor. These reasons were associated with LTPA in a similar way at both time points. Health reasons for liking LTPA were considered most important, and were the strongest predictor of LTPA. The findings seem robust as they were consistent across countries and genders. Health education constitutes the most viable strategy for promoting adolescents' motivation for PA, and interventions and educational efforts could be improved by an increased focus on LTPA and sport as a social activity

Measurement Error in the Reported Reasons for Entry into the Foster Care System

To date, much of the research on foster dependence hinges on the validity of the reasons for entry into the foster care system. Yet, no one has tested these data. Since these reasons for entry help to assess individual differences in foster care children, the purpose of this study is to more closely examine these reasons. Using data from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis Reporting System, we begin with exploratory factor analysis on the reported reasons for entry. Next, we specify and test a structural measurement error model of reasons for entry. The reported reasons for entry are not mutually exclusive. Rather, there are five significant commonalities across these various indicators. The commonalities are combined across the reported reasons for entry into the foster care system to create a set of mutually exclusive factors that represent reasons. We apply these factors to a model of dependence on the foster care system. Compared to a model that includes all of the individual indicators, we are able to get a better idea of the kinds of children that are at risk for delayed exits from foster care.