10.5465/AMBPP.2018.188 THE END IS JUST THE BEGINNING: TURNOVER EVENTS AND THEIR IMPACT ACROSS SPACE AND TIME LYONEL LAULIÉ Departamento de Administración Facultad de Economía y Negocios Universidad de Chile llaulie@unegocios.cl FREDERICK P. MORGESON Michigan State University INTRODUCTION Recent developments in the organizational sciences have started to investigate the role of social processes in the determination of turnover (Bartunek, Huang, & Walsh, 2008; Dess & Shaw, 2001; Hausknecht & Trevor, 2011; Holtom, Mitchell, Lee, & Eberly, 2008; Nyberg & Ployhart, 2013). This trend is mainly motivated by the idea that context and repeated social interactions have a powerful influence in the way individuals decide to stop working for an organization (Friedman & Holtom, 2002; Krackhardt & Porter, 1985, 1986). A very intriguing phenomenon that have been suggested by researchers of these social processes is the possibility that turnover may lead to more turnover (Mueller & Price, 1989; Shaw et al., 2005). Theoretically, turnover events may affect social spaces and can allow or constrain more turnover events in the future (Krackhardt & Porter, 1985). For example, some authors have suggested that group-member turnover can affect team emergent states (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005; Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008) or produce a "shock" in the team and facilitate turnover contagion effects (Abelson, 1993; Holtom et al., 2008; Felps, Mitchell, Hekman, Lee, Holtom, & Herman, 2009). But although these turnover consequences have been suggested by different authors, few studies have observed the actual effects of turnover events on the members who stay with the company. This resonates with a literature that in general has considered turnover as a traditional ending point of different analyses in the organizational sciences (Dalton & Todor, 1979; Griffeth, Hom, & Gartner, 2000; Hom, Caranikas-Walker, Prussia, & Griffeth, 1992; Mueller and Price, 1989). Thus, there is a need to create theory to better understand the consequences of turnover events that, although important, are often hidden from researchers and managers (Holtom et al., 2008; Nyberg & Ployhart, 2013). The following article intends to fill this gap in the turnover literature by considering turnover events as starting points of a novel theory that explains why and how two or more turnover events are connected. Employees sometimes quit when close peers leave (Bartunek, Huang, & Walsh, 2008) and sometimes subordinates decide to quit after leaders depart (Ballinger, Lehman, & Schoorman, 2010). But it is also the case that sometimes employees choose to stay following the departure of peers or leaders. For example, the firing of a particularly abusive leader or the voluntary departure of a negative colleague might make the organizational environment much more pleasant and short-circuit potential turnover. The turnover of certain individuals could actually increase job satisfaction (Krackhardt & Porter, 1985) and decrease turnover intentions driven by relational conflict with the person who leaves (Chen, Sharma, Edinger, Shapiro, & Farh, 2011). Unfortunately, we do not have a clear