Rotatividade de pessoal: revisão bibliométrica da produção acadêmica brasileira

Abstract

Turnover or employee turnover, can be defined as the replacement of the occupant of a given job by another, and is an indicator in the areas of people management, organizational behavior, organizational studies and business management in general. The timeliness of bibliometric reviews on this subject can be verified by the existence of recent studies on international databases. The study by Bolt, Winterton and Cafferkey (2022) carried out a systematic bibliometric review of a century of literature on labor turnover, while Poon et al. (2022) analyzed studies dealing with the turnover of health professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. These examples highlight the importance of the topic and the need to carry out bibliometrics that show what has been produced in Brazil. The search for bibliometric reviews identified three articles that analyzed this production at a national level. Given this context, the aim of this study is to carry out a bibliometric review of national publications on this subject, in the databases, repositories and indexers PORTAL DE PERIÓDICO CAPES, SCOPUS, SPELL and Web of Science to compare the results with the bibliometric articles by Beria et al. (2017), Fonseca et al. (2019) and Seidl, Borges-Andrade and Neiva (2019). This is a bibliometric review with a quantitative approach, descriptive and exploratory objectives, with data obtained from the article repositories mentioned. We selected 110 articles published between 1986 and 2022 that matched the search parameters. The research is related to Sustainable Development Goal 8, which aims to promote decent work, full employment and economic growth, as studies on labor turnover deal with phenomena that affect employability. The study identified an increase of 110 articles; Beria et al. (2017) - 59; Fonseca et al. (2019) - 54 and Seidl, Borges-Andrade and Neiva (2019) - 25. It was found that many authors published a single paper; Beria et al. (2017) - point out the lack of continuity of new research; Fonseca et al. (2019) - do not measure this data; Seidl, Borges-Andrade and Neiva (2019) - point out the dispersion of authors. Productive journals concentrate 63 articles (57.27%); Beria et al. (2017) and Fonseca et al. (2019) do not measure this data while Seidl, Borges-Andrade and Neiva (2019) - point to a concentration of 7 articles (28%). The frequent keywords are related to the field of organizational behavior studies; Beria et al (2017), Fonseca et al (2019) and Seidl, Borges-Andrade and Neiva (2019) did not measure this data. There was a predominance of a quantitative approach (62 articles), a descriptive objective (67 articles) and a source of data obtained in the field (80 articles); Beria et al (2017) did not measure the approach, objective and data source of the articles; Fonseca et al (2019) presents a balance between the quantitative and qualitative/mixed approach (27 articles), does not measure the objectives and predominantly uses data obtained in the field (46 articles); while Seidl, Borges-Andrade and Neiva (2019) emphasize the quantitative approach (17 articles), data obtained in the field (15 articles) and do not measure the objectives. The expansion of repositories has enabled greater coverage of articles, showing a slight increase in publications.