Startseite Employee Dissatisfaction and Intentions to Quit: New Evidence and Policy Recommendations
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Employee Dissatisfaction and Intentions to Quit: New Evidence and Policy Recommendations

  • Kelsey J. O’Connor ORCID logo EMAIL logo , Cesare A. F. Riillo ORCID logo und Giulia Slater ORCID logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 22. Mai 2025
The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy
Aus der Zeitschrift The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy Band 25 Heft 3

Abstract

The workplace experienced a profound shift during the COVID-19 pandemic, in which many individuals reassessed their careers and considered leaving their jobs. However, this shift does not appear to have affected Europe, especially Luxembourg, as it did the United States. We show the share of employees actively seeking a new job actually declined in Luxembourg during the pandemic (2019–22). We argue this is likely due to relatively stable job satisfaction in the country, as well as the fact that job satisfaction is the strongest predictor of employees’ intentions to quit in Luxembourg. In particular, employees who were dissatisfied with their jobs were 22 percentage points more likely quit in 2023. We conclude with a broader discussion on the benefits of workplace well-being (including job satisfaction) and how to enhance it. Essentially, improving job quality should reduce employee resignations and lead to better workplace outcomes.

Keywords: quit; resignation; job satisfaction; workplace well-being; productivity; great resignation
JEL Classification: J28; J24; M50; J63
Corresponding author: Kelsey J. O’Connor, Senior Researcher, STATEC Research (National Statistical Office of Luxembourg), 12 Boulevard Du Jazz, 4370 Esch-Belval Sanem, Luxembourg; Research Fellow, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), Esch-Belval Sanem, Luxembourg; and GLO Fellow, Global Labor Organization (GLO), Esch-Belval Sanem, Luxembourg, E-mail:

Acknowledgments

The author(s) gratefully acknowledge the support of STATEC, the National Statistical Office of Luxembourg. Views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not reflect those of STATEC and funding partners. This work contains statistical data from STATEC. The use of STATEC’s statistical data in this work does not imply endorsement by STATEC regarding the interpretation or analysis of the data. This work utilizes research datasets that may not exactly reproduce National Statistics aggregates. The authors would like to thank Chiara Peroni and Anne Hartung for the helpful comments. The authors declare they have no competing interests.

Appendix
Table 1:

Sample summary statistics.

Variable Share Variable Share
Job finding difficulties
Intend to quit 0.13 Strongly disagree 0.14
Disagree 0.20
Satisfied 0.77 Neither 0.22
Age categories Agree 0.31
25–34 0.31 Strongly agree 0.13
35–44 0.34
45–54 0.25 Income categories
56–64 0.10 €0 to €20,000 0.04
€20,001 to €40,000 0.10
Female 0.43 €40,001 to €60,000 0.18
Household size €60,001 to €80,000 0.15
1 0.15 €80,001 to €100,000 0.17
2 0.24 More than €100,000 0.36
3–4 0.48
More than 4 0.13 Good health
Strongly disagree 0.01
Immigrant 0.64 Disagree 0.03
Education Neither 0.08
Primary 0.04 Agree 0.32
Secondary 0.37 Strongly agree 0.56
Bachelor 0.23
Master 0.36 Occupation a
Business 0.58
Part-time worker 0.15 Government 0.40
Not for profit 0.12

  1. Note: 964 observations. Sample of 25–64 year old employed workers from Luxembourg summer 2023. aCategories are not mutually exclusive. Source: Authors’ calculations using the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2023.

Table 2:

Regressions of intention-to-quit on job dissatisfaction and various controls.

(1) (2) (3)
Intention to quit Intention to quit Intention to quit
Dissatisfied 0.218*** (0.045) 0.005 (0.051)
Dissatisfied × age 25–34 0.327*** (0.093) 0.331*** (0.083)
Dissatisfied × age 35–44 0.270*** (0.095) 0.275*** (0.083)
Dissatisfied × age 45–54 0.058 (0.072) 0.063 (0.060)
Dissatisfied × age 55–64 0.005 (0.051)
Age 25–34 0.107*** (0.036) 0.040 (0.033) 0.040 (0.033)
35–44 0.094*** (0.034) 0.044 (0.033) 0.044 (0.033)
45–54 0.052 (0.032) 0.047 (0.033) 0.047 (0.033)
Female −0.072** (0.028) −0.063** (0.028) −0.063** (0.028)
Immigrant −0.043* (0.025) −0.046* (0.025) −0.046* (0.025)
HH size (2) −0.018 (0.046) −0.011 (0.046) −0.011 (0.046)
HH size (3–4) −0.033 (0.035) −0.030 (0.035) −0.030 (0.035)
HH size (4+) 0.031 (0.052) 0.039 (0.049) 0.039 (0.049)
Educ. primary 0.079 (0.110) 0.068 (0.114) 0.068 (0.114)
Educ. bachelor 0.053* (0.031) 0.052* (0.030) 0.052* (0.030)
Educ. master+ 0.084*** (0.031) 0.080*** (0.029) 0.080*** (0.029)
Part time worker 0.011 (0.040) 0.009 (0.041) 0.009 (0.041)
Private sector −0.011 (0.040) −0.021 (0.039) −0.021 (0.039)
Public sector −0.038 (0.038) −0.043 (0.037) −0.043 (0.037)
Not for profit 0.006 (0.032) 0.004 (0.033) 0.004 (0.033)
€0 to €20,000 0.037 (0.083) 0.027 (0.083) 0.027 (0.083)
€20,001 to €40,000 0.045 (0.067) 0.061 (0.066) 0.061 (0.066)
€60,001 to €80,000 −0.052 (0.048) −0.046 (0.048) −0.046 (0.048)
€80,001 to €100,000 −0.035 (0.050) −0.032 (0.049) −0.032 (0.049)
More than €100,000 −0.111** (0.045) −0.108** (0.044) −0.108** (0.044)
Good hlth. st. disagree 0.012 (0.186) 0.024 (0.164) 0.024 (0.164)
Good hlth. disagree −0.021 (0.089) 0.004 (0.089) 0.004 (0.089)
Good hlth. agree 0.046 (0.054) 0.048 (0.055) 0.048 (0.055)
Good hlth. st. agree 0.070 (0.054) 0.069 (0.055) 0.069 (0.055)
Find job st. disagree 0.056 (0.042) 0.054 (0.040) 0.054 (0.040)
Find job disagree 0.062 (0.038) 0.058 (0.037) 0.058 (0.037)
Find job agree 0.090*** (0.035) 0.093*** (0.035) 0.093*** (0.035)
Find job st. agree 0.168*** (0.049) 0.177*** (0.049) 0.177*** (0.049)
Constant −0.029 (0.090) 0.010 (0.087) 0.010 (0.087)
# Of observations 964 964 964
Adj. R squared 0.132 0.153 0.153

  1. Note: Ordinary least squares (linear probability) regression of intention to quit on job dissatisfaction and controls. Column 1 is based on the specification: Int_to_quit i  = α + βjob_dissat i  +  X i δ + ɛ i , where Int_to_quit i is a binary variable signifying individual i intends to resign, as specified in the text. X i is the vector of controls. The column 3 specification is augmented to allow the job dissatisfaction relation to vary by age group, as follows: Int_to_quit i = α + job_dissat i × AGE i β ∗ + X i δ + ɛ i . In this way, the vector β* reflects the relation of job dissatisfaction compared to job satisfaction for each age group. The main effect of age is included in X i . Column 2 presents the more traditional interaction specification that is harder to interpret. The results have the same meaning as expected. Sample of 25–64 year old employed workers from Luxembourg summer 2023. Robust standard errors in parentheses; * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. Source: Authors’ calculations using the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2023.

References

Bellet, C. S., J. E. De Neve, and G. Ward. 2024. “Does Employee Happiness Have an Impact on Productivity?” Management Science 70 (3): 1656–79. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.4766.Suche in Google Scholar

Bockerman, P., and P. Ilmakunnas. 2009. “Job Disamenities, Job Satisfaction, Quit Intentions, and Actual Separations: Putting the Pieces Together.” Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society 48 (1): 73–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-232X.2008.00546.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Boehm, J. K., and S. Lyubomirsky. 2008. “Does Happiness Promote Career Success?” Journal of Career Assessment 16: 101–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072707308140.Suche in Google Scholar

Clark, A. E. 2001. “What Really Matters in a Job? Hedonic Measurement Using Quit Data.” Labour Economics 8 (2): 223–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-5371(01)00031-8.Suche in Google Scholar

Clark, A. E., Y. Georgellis, and P. Sanfey. 2012. “Job Satisfaction, Wage Changes, and Quits: Evidence from Germany.” In 35th Anniversary Retrospective, Vol. 35, edited by S. W. Polachek, and K. Tatsiramos, 499–525. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.10.1108/S0147-9121(2012)0000035041Suche in Google Scholar

Cook, I. 2021. “Who is Driving the Great Resignation?” Harvard Business Review. 09/2021. https://hbr.org/2021/09/who-is-driving-the-great-resignation.Suche in Google Scholar

D’Ambrosio, C., A. E. Clark, and M. Barazzetta. 2018. “Unfairness at Work: Well-Being and Quits.” Labour Economics 51: 307–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2018.02.007.Suche in Google Scholar

Duhlgg, C. 2016. “What Google Learned from its Quest to Build the Perfect Team.” New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html?smid=url-share.Suche in Google Scholar

ECE, U. 2015. Handbook on Measuring Quality of Employment: A Statistical Framework/Prepared by the Expert Group on Measuring Quality of Employment. New York and Geneva: United Nations Publication.Suche in Google Scholar

Edmans, Alex. 2011. “Does the Stock Market Fully Value Intangibles? Employee Satisfaction and Equity Prices.” Journal of Financial Economics 101 (3): 621–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2011.03.021.Suche in Google Scholar

Edmondson, Amy. 1999. “Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams.” Administrative Science Quarterly 44 (2): 350–83. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999.Suche in Google Scholar

Fang, Y., R. Veehoven, and M. Burger. 2025. “Happiness and Productivity: A Research Synthesis Using an Online Findings Archive.” Management Review Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-025-00492-x.Suche in Google Scholar

Fleming, W. J. 2024. “Employee Well-Being Outcomes from Individual-Level Mental Health Interventions: Cross-Sectional Evidence from the United Kingdom.” Industrial Relations Journal 55 (2): 162–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12418.Suche in Google Scholar

Gallup. 2023. “State of the Global Workplace 2023 Report: The Voice of the World’s Employee.” Washington D.C.: Gallup Inc. https://www.gallup.com/file/workplace/506879/state-of-the-global-workplace-2023-download.pdf.Suche in Google Scholar

Gil, R., M. Kim, and I. Koo. 2017. “Does Job Satisfaction Increase Sales and Customer Satisfaction? Evidence from Retail Banking in South Korea.” The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 17 (3): 20160208. https://doi-org.proxy.bnl.lu/10.1515/bejeap-2016-0208.10.1515/bejeap-2016-0208Suche in Google Scholar

Green, F. 2006. Demanding Work: The Paradox of Job Quality in the Affluent Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400849437Suche in Google Scholar

Green, F. 2010. “Well-Being, Job Satisfaction and Labour Mobility.” Labour Economics 17 (6): 897–903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2010.04.002.Suche in Google Scholar

Hartung, A. 2024. “Well-Being at Work in Luxembourg: Is Money All that Matters?” In Rapport PIBien-être 2023. CH 4. STATEC Luxembourg. https://statistiques.public.lu/fr/publications/series/analyses/2024/analyses-01-24.html.Suche in Google Scholar

Judge, T. A., H. M. Weiss, J. D. Kammeyer-Mueller, and C. L. Hulin. 2017. “Job Attitudes, Job Satisfaction, and Job Affect: A Century of Continuity and of Change.” Journal of Applied Psychology 102 (3): 356. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000181.Suche in Google Scholar

Judge, T. A., S. C. Zhang, and D. R. Glerum. 2020. “Job Satisfaction.” In Essentials of Job Attitudes and Other Workplace Psychological Constructs, edited by V. I. Sessa, and N. A. Bowling, 207–41. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780429325755-11Suche in Google Scholar

Lu, A. C. C., and D. Gursoy. 2016. “Impact of Job Burnout on Satisfaction and Turnover Intention: Do Generational Differences Matter?” Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 40 (2): 210–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348013495696.Suche in Google Scholar

MISSY. 2024a. “Metadata for Official Statistics, EU-LFS Yearly 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021; Version Number: 2022_release.” https://doi.org/10.2907/LFS1983-2021.Suche in Google Scholar

MISSY. 2024b. “Metadata for Official Statistics, EU-LFS Yearly 2022; Version Number: 2023_release.” https://doi.org/10.2907/LFS1983-2022.Suche in Google Scholar

Peroni, C., M. Pettinger, and F. Sarracino. 2022. “Productivity Gains from Worker Well-Being in Europe.” International Productivity Monitor 43: 41–61.Suche in Google Scholar

Staw, B. M. 1986. “Organizational Psychology and the Pursuit of the Happy/Productive Worker.” California Management Review 28 (4): 40–53. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165214.Suche in Google Scholar

Ward, G. 2022. “Workplace Happiness and Job Search Behavior: Evidence from A Field Experiment (No. 6607–22).” MIT Sloan School Of Management Working Paper Series.Suche in Google Scholar

World Economic Forum. 2022. “The Great Resignation is not Over: A Fifth of Workers Plan to Quit in 2022.” Jun 24, 2022. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/06/the-great-resignation-is-not-over/.Suche in Google Scholar
Received: 2024-08-26
Accepted: 2025-04-24
Published Online: 2025-05-22

© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Fair Choices During COVID-19: Firms’ Altruism and Inequality Aversion in Managing a Large Short-Time Work Scheme
  4. Inequality in Health Status During the COVID-19 in the UK: Does the Impact of the Second Lockdown Policy Matter?
  5. The Political Timing of Tax Policy: Evidence from U.S. States
  6. Is it a Matter of Skills? High School Choices and the Gender Gap in STEM
  7. Patent Licensing and Litigation
  8. Class Size, Student Disruption, and Academic Achievement
  9. Political Orientation and Policy Compliance: Evidence from COVID-19 Mobility Patterns in Korea
  10. Social Efficiency of Free Entry in a Vertically Related Industry with Cost and Technology Asymmetry
  11. Carbon Tax with Individuals’ Heterogeneous Environmental Concerns
  12. Equitable Redistribution and Inefficiency under Credit Rationing
  13. Letters
  14. Psychological Well-Being of Only Children: Evidence from the One-Child Policy
  15. Peer Effects in Child Work Decisions: Evidence from PROGRESA Cash Transfer Program
  16. Right Time to Focus? Time of Day and Cognitive Performance
  17. Employee Dissatisfaction and Intentions to Quit: New Evidence and Policy Recommendations
  18. On the Stability of Common Ownership Arrangements
https://doi.org/10.1515/bejeap-2024-0293
Schlagwörter für diesen Artikel
quit; resignation; job satisfaction; workplace well-being; productivity; great resignation

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Fair Choices During COVID-19: Firms’ Altruism and Inequality Aversion in Managing a Large Short-Time Work Scheme
  4. Inequality in Health Status During the COVID-19 in the UK: Does the Impact of the Second Lockdown Policy Matter?
  5. The Political Timing of Tax Policy: Evidence from U.S. States
  6. Is it a Matter of Skills? High School Choices and the Gender Gap in STEM
  7. Patent Licensing and Litigation
  8. Class Size, Student Disruption, and Academic Achievement
  9. Political Orientation and Policy Compliance: Evidence from COVID-19 Mobility Patterns in Korea
  10. Social Efficiency of Free Entry in a Vertically Related Industry with Cost and Technology Asymmetry
  11. Carbon Tax with Individuals’ Heterogeneous Environmental Concerns
  12. Equitable Redistribution and Inefficiency under Credit Rationing
  13. Letters
  14. Psychological Well-Being of Only Children: Evidence from the One-Child Policy
  15. Peer Effects in Child Work Decisions: Evidence from PROGRESA Cash Transfer Program
  16. Right Time to Focus? Time of Day and Cognitive Performance
  17. Employee Dissatisfaction and Intentions to Quit: New Evidence and Policy Recommendations
  18. On the Stability of Common Ownership Arrangements
Jetzt anmelden und 20% sparen
Institutioneller Zugang
Wie funktioniert Authentifizierung?
Haben Sie eine Idee, wie wir unsere Website verbessern können?
Bitte schreiben Sie uns.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Heruntergeladen am 8.10.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/bejeap-2024-0293/html?lang=de
Button zum nach oben scrollen