Cross-sectional survey identifies demographic predictors of turnover intention in HR settings, suggesting systemic vulnerabilities.
Rational: Turnover intention among Human Resource (HR) professionals poses a critical threat to organizational stability yet remains underexplored in behavioural science literature. As strategic custodians of talent acquisition, employee engagement, and cultural continuity, HR professionals’ own intent to exit reflects systemic vulnerabilities that undermine retention mechanisms across the organization. Positioning them as often overlooked yet vulnerable stakeholders at the intersection of strategy and employee well-being This study explicitly investigates demographic predictors of turnover intention among HR professionals across diverse industries in the NCR region. A cross-sectional survey was conducted, followed by descriptive and inferential statistical analyses to examine differences in turnover intention across demographic variables. Findings revealed a moderate level of intent to leave, with females exhibiting marginally higher turnover intention than males; however, the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). No significant correlation was observed across age, gender, hierarchy, tenure, or education too. Originality: A distinctive and novel feature of this study is the concentration of respondents in senior HR roles. This may as well have introduced social desirability bias, potentially masking deeper dissatisfaction. The insights underscore the need for HR-driven, demographically attuned interventions. Recognizing HR professionals as emotionally exposed actors due to their roles in conflict resolution, emotional labor, and policy enforcement. The study also calls for deliberate structural protections within the organizational ecosystem to not only mitigate turnover but also to reinforce organizational resilience and long-term workforce stability. Positioning HR as a vulnerable stakeholder in need for a robust systematic support just like any other function.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mishra et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: