Download Job Embeddedness as Mediator

Human Resource Practices, Job Embeddedness, and Voluntary
Turnover
ERICH BERGIEL
University of West Georgia
[email protected]
VINH Q. NGUYEN
Mississippi State University
[email protected]
G. STEPHEN TAYLOR
Mississippi State University
[email protected]
BETH CLENNEY
University of West Georgia
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
Human resource practices are thought to play an important role in affecting employee
turnover but this relationship is mediated by several variables. Moreover, empirical
evidence consistently shows that attitudes about these practices explain only a very small
amount of variance in outcomes such as intent to quit and actual turnover. The study
presented here used job embeddedness, a new construct, to investigate its mediation
effect on the relationship between employees’ intentions to leave and four areas of human
resource practices: compensation, supervisor support, growth opportunity, and training.
The findings showed that human resource practices, overall, were mediated by job
embeddedness in relation to voluntary turnover. Specifically, job embeddedness fully
mediated compensation, partially mediated supervisor support, marginally mediated
growth opportunity, and did not mediate training in the relation to voluntary turnover.
Theoretical and practical implications of the finding and direction for future research are
discussed.
INTRODUCTION
The effective management of employee turnover long has been a crucial issue for
organizations. Not only are the economic costs of turnover very high, but unmanaged
departure of employees disrupts social and communication structures as well as decreases
cohesion and commitment among those who stay (Mobley, 1982; Staw, 1980). Thus, it is
hardly surprising that employee retention continues to be of great interest both to
practicing managers and organizational researchers. The current thinking is that people
stay if they are satisfied with their jobs and committed to their organizations, and leave if
they are not. However, work and job-related attitudes play only a relatively small role in
employee retention and leaving (Hom & Griffeth, 1995; Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner,
2000). Consequently, factors other than job satisfaction and organizational commitment
are important for understanding turnover (Maertz & Campion, 1998). A relatively new
approach to this issue has been offered by Mitchell and colleagues (2001). These
researchers argue that job embeddedness is a direct antecedent both of intent to quit and
voluntary turnover. The study reported here expands on their work by testing whether
embeddness is a mediator of the relationship between certain job-related attitudes and
employees’ intention to quit.
RESEARCH, BACKGROUND, AND HYPOTHESES
Efforts to elucidate the causes of voluntary turnover of employees have focused on
individual-level factors, such as personal preferences, and organizational-level factors,
such as human resource practices (Deutsch, Langton, and Aldrich, 2000). Individuallevel explanations stress the differences among people, often by examining the process
by which jobholders consider other employment possibilities (Lee & Mitchell, 1994;
Deutsch et al., 2000). Individual-level studies traditionally link employees’ interest in
changing jobs to their level of job satisfaction (e.g., Mobley, Griffeth, Hand & Meglino,
1979). However, empirical studies show that attitudinal constructs such as job
satisfaction account for less than five percent of the total variance in turnover (Hom &
Griffith, 1995; Griffeth et al., 2000). Other frequently studied individual-level factors
include organizational commitment (Pierce and Dunham, 1987), job involvement (Blau,
1986), and job performance (Williams & Livingstone, 1990).
The present study, while concentrating on individual-level factors, adds to our knowledge
of turnover by examining the relative impact of job embeddedness on employees’ desire
to work elsewhere. Job embeddedness, a new construct developed by Mitchell, et al.
(2001), consists of three dimensions: (1) links to other people, teams, and groups, (2)
self-perceptions of fit with the job, organization, and community, and (3) perceived
sacrifices associated with changing jobs. To date, job embeddedness has been shown to
predict both intent to leave and voluntary turnover. Furthermore, it explains statistically
significant incremental variance over and above job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, job alternatives, and job search (Mitchell, et al., 2001). However, the
impact of this construct in the presence of individual-level variables known to impact
turnover - attitudes toward compensation, perceived supervisor support, internal growth
opportunities, and training (e.g., Shaw et al., 1998; Stinglhamber and Vandenberghe,
2003; Allen, Shore, and Griffeth, 2003) - has not been assessed.
Compensation
One purpose both of direct and indirect compensation is to enhance employees’
motivation and attachment to the organization (Appelbaum et al., 2000; Arthur, 1994).
Both meta-analyses (Cotton and Tuttle, 1986; Hom and Griffeth, 1995) and empirical
studies (e.g., Shaw et al. 1998) show an inverse relationship between high relative pay
and/or pay satisfaction, and employee turnover. Additionally, Trevor, Barry, and
Boudreau (1997) found that strong salary growth significantly reduced turnover for high
performing employees. According to Williams and Livingstone (1994), in organizations
using performance-contingent reward systems, high-performing individuals who were
well compensated were less likely to quit than those with lower levels of rewards and
performance. Thus, the following hypothesis is offered:
H1: Compensation is negatively related to intention to quit.
Supervisor Support
Supportive supervisors are those who employees perceive as valuing their contributions
and caring about their well-being (Kottke & Sharafinski, 1988). For example, a
supervisor who switches schedules to accommodate employees’ needs, listens to their
problems, organizes tasks or duties to accommodate their family responsibilities, and
shares ideas or advice can be seen as supportive. Hatton and Emerson (1998) found that
employee intention to leave and actual turnover were related to level of practical support
from supervisors. Although a number of organizational factors can make employees
begin to think of leaving their jobs, according to these researchers the supervisor plays an
important role in whether they actually do so. While Stinglhamber and Vandenberghe
(2003) also found a relationship between these two variables, they argue that affective
commitment to the supervisor mediates the effect of perceived supervisor support on
turnover. There is agreement, however, that supervisor support is negatively associated
with turnover intention.
H2: Supervisor support is negatively related to intention to quit.
Growth Opportunities
Miller and Wheeler (1992) along with Allen, Shore, and Griffeth (2003) found a
statistically significant negative relationship between growth opportunities and intent to
quit. Since growth opportunities signal that the organization recognizes and values the
employees’ contributions as well as imply future support will be forthcoming, employees
tend to stay longer with the organization (Wayne et al., 1997; Allen et al., 2003).
Therefore, organizations may improve their employees’ retention rates by enhancing their
advancement opportunities.
H3: Growth opportunities are negatively related to employee’s intention to quit.
Training
Shaw and colleagues (1998) argue that providing employees with sufficient training
opportunities is an investment strategy for job stability. Moreover, these researchers
maintain that such actions by the organization constitute a crucial part of its fulfillment of
the informal contract between itself and employees. This in turn should deepen
employees’ sense of attachment to the organization and, therefore, enhance retention.
Furthermore, in terms of Mitchell and associates’ (2001) job embeddness construct,
training opportunities should improve the fit between the individual and job, as well as
represent a sacrifice that must be experienced if the employee chooses to take
employment elsewhere. Therefore, it is predicted that:
H4: Perceived training opportunities will be negatively related to intention to
quit.
Job Embeddedness as Mediator
While each of the abovementioned variables has been shown to have a significant impact
on employee turnover, the empirical evidence reveals that the magnitude of the direct
effects of each on turnover is pretty small (Griffeth et al., 2000). This suggests that
attitudes directly related to the job might be somewhat distal determinants of turnover. If
so, then it is likely that the relationship is mediated by an intervening factor. It is
hypothesized here that job embeddedness is a likely mediator of this relationship.
Mitchell and colleagues (2001) describe “job embeddedness” as being similar to a net or
web in which an individual can become stuck. The critical aspects of job embeddedness
are (1) “links,” or the extent to which people have links to other people or activities, (2)
“fit,” the extent to which their jobs and communities are similar to or fit with the other
aspects of their lives, and (3) “sacrifice,” which denotes the ease with which links can be
broken (i.e., the things employees would give up if they left the employer, especially if
they had to physically move to other cities or homes (Mitchell et al., 2001). While these
dimensions have both job-related and non-job-related sources, the current research
considers only internal links, fit, and sacrifice (i.e., job-related sources).
Links. These are formal or informal connections between a person and institutions or
other people (Mitchell et al., 2001). Links can be thought of as strands that connect an
employee with his or her work team members, supervisors, and other colleagues with
whom he or she is working. The greater the number of links, the stronger the web and,
therefore, the more tightly the individual is bound to the job and organization (Mitchell et
al., 2001). This linking process, or social integration to use O’Reilly, Caldwell, and
Barnett’s (1989) term, typically increases with employee tenure and thereby reduces an
individual’s desire to work elsewhere (e.g., Abelson, 1987).
Fit. Fit denotes an employee’s perceived compatibility or comfort with the organization
and with his or her environment (Mitchell et al., 2001). Mitchell and his colleagues
propose that an employee’s personal values, career goals, and plans for the future must fit
both with the larger corporate culture and the demands of his or her immediate job.
Accordingly, the better the fit, the higher the likelihood an employee will feel
professionally and personally tied to an organization.
Relating fit to voluntary turnover, O’Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell (1991) found that
“misfits” quit slightly faster than “fits.” Chatman (1991) later reported that employees
were likely to leave an organization when organizational entry produced poor personorganization fit. Chan (1996) suggested that having one’s personal attributes fit with
one’s job might decrease turnover. Thus, a person’s fit with job and organization
influences his or her attachment to the organization.
Sacrifice. Sacrifice captures the perceived costs of material or psychological benefits that
may be forfeited by leaving a job (Mitchell et al., 2001). For example, leaving an
organization may imply personal losses such as giving up colleagues, interesting projects,
or cash bonuses. The more an employee would give up when leaving, the more difficult
it will be for him or her to break employment with the organization (Shaw, Delery,
Jenkins, & Gupta, 1998). Though comparable salary and benefits may be the obvious
concern of employees, the switching costs, such as new health care or pension plans, are
also real and relevant.
Less visible, but still important, potential sacrifices incurred by leaving an organization
include opportunities for job stability and advancement (Shaw et al., 1998). In addition,
various advantages can accrue to an individual who stays (e.g., promotion or pension
benefit). Taking a new job means giving up these accrued advantages. It is for these
reasons that job embeddedness, or the sum total of the three dimensions just discussed, is
hypothesized to mediate the impact of job-related attitudes on intent to quit. Consider an
employee who is dissatisfied with his or her pay level. In all likelihood, it is very
unlikely this individual would make the decision to quit absent a variety of other
considerations. For example, if this person sees opportunity for growth and advancement
in the organization, then he or she may be willing to experience short-term dissatisfaction
in exchange for long-term benefit and satisfaction. Similarly, it is generally recognized
that people work for a variety of reasons other than a paycheck. Thus, an employee who
finds the employing organization to satisfy social needs may be willing to work for a
less-than-supportive supervisor in exchange for a supportive work group that fills other
needs.Therefore, the following is hypothesized:
H5: The impact of attitudes toward compensation, supervisor support, growth
opportunities, and training on intent to quit is mediated at the degree to which an
employee feels embedded in his/her job.
METHODS
Sample
All 645 support/staff employees working for a state department of corrections in the
Southeastern United States received a questionnaire asking their attitudes about the job,
the place of employment, and the agency as a whole. Of this number, 495 (76.5%) chose
to participate.
Measures
Unless noted differently, the following constructs were measured by Likert scales with
responses ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 5 (“Strong Agree”).
Intention to quit. Employee’s intention to quit was measured with a 4-item scale.
A sample item is “I don’t plan to work here much longer.”
Compensation. Five items were used to create the composite scale of
compensation. A sample item is “I’m paid adequately for the job I have”.
Supervisor support. A 5-item scale also was used to assess supervisor support. A
sample item is “My supervisor praises people who do good work”.
Growth opportunity. Growth opportunity was measured with a 5-item scale. A
sample item is “There are plenty of opportunities to advance here.”
Training. Training was measured with 7-item scale. A sample of the items is “the
organization provides me the training I need to do my job.”
Job embeddedness. Following Mitchell et al. (2001), job embeddedness is an
aggregate measure created by summing and averaging the means of the fit, links, and
sacrifice sub-scales. Fit, an employee's perceived compatibility or comfort with his or her
career and organization, was measured with 7 items. A sample item is “You can have a
good career in Corrections.” The 7 items were then averaged to create the composite
scale of fit. Links, the interpersonal connections between an employee and his or her coworkers or team members, was measured with two items. One was an ordinal
measurement of tenure (less than 1 year, at least 1 but less than 3 years, at least 3 but less
than 5 years, more than 5 years) and a dichotomous measure asking if the respondent has
a friend who also works at the same location). Sacrifice, the perceived cost of both
intangible and tangible benefits that may be forfeited by leaving a job, was measured
with 4-item scale. A sample item is “Employees here are treated with respect.” These
three scales (fit, links, and sacrifice) then were summed and averaged to create the
aggregate scale of job embeddedness.
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
The study uses the four-step method developed by Kenny, Kashy, and Bolger (1998) and
Baron and Kenny (1986) for mediation analysis. Step 1 of the regression analysis uses
intention to quit as the criterion variable and human resource practices as a predictor.
This step revealed that these human resource practices were significantly related to
employees’ intention to quit (R2 = .24, F = 38.76, p < .001). This establishes that there is
an effect that may be mediated. Looking at individual independent variables in Step 1,
compensation, supervisor support, and training were significantly related to intention to
quit, whereas growth opportunity was marginally significantly correlated with intention
to quit. Thus, Hypotheses 1, 2, and 4 were supported and Hypothesis 3 was not.
In Step 2, job embeddedness served as the criterion variable and human resource
practices as the predictors. Overall, human resource practices were significantly and
strongly related to job embeddedness (R2 = .34, F = 63.53, p < .001). This step showed
that the antecedent variables are correlated with the mediator. Looking at each
independent variable (Step 2), compensation, supervisor support, and growth opportunity
were significantly related with job embeddedness, whereas training was not.
In the third step, we conducted another regression using intention to quit as the criterion
variable and both human resource practices and job embeddedness as predictors. It was
found that job embeddedness was significantly related to intention to quit when
controlling for human resource practices (R2 from Step 1 to Step 3 = .15, ΔF = 121.60, p
< .001). As for the individual predictors, compensation and growth opportunity now
become non-significantly related to intention to quit, whereas supervisor support and
training are still significantly related to intention to quit (Step 3). Thus, taking all three
steps together, job embeddeness is found to mediate the relationship between human
resource practices and employees’ intention to quit. The overall hypothesis of the study,
Hypothesis 5, therefore, is supported. However, because this relationship is only partially
mediated, we then use Sobel’s (1986) and MacKinnon and Dwyer’s (1993) test to
confirm the mediation effect of job embeddedness in the whole model. The result showed
that the mediated effect of job embeddedness is statistically significant (Mediated effect =
-.12; Z-score = -5.99; p < .001). This result again strongly supports the hypothesis that
human resource practices are negatively related to employee’s intention to quit, which is
mediated by job embeddedness.
Of the individual predictors, compensation was significantly related to intention to quit in
the first step and significantly related to job embeddedness in the second step, but became
non-significantly related to turnover intention in the third step. This suggests that job
embeddedness fully mediates the relationship between compensation and employee’s
intention to quit. Again by way of Sobel’s (1986) test, we were able to confirm the
statistical significance of this mediated effect (Mediated effect = -.13; Z-score = -5.69; p
< .001). This result, therefore, shows that the inverse relationship between compensation
and intent to quit is fully mediated by job embeddedness.
These results also show that supervisor support was significantly related to intention to
quit and job embeddedness in Steps 1 and 2, respectively. In Step 3, the relationship
between supervisor support and intention to quit was still significant, but the magnitude
of significance was reduced (the reduction in s from step 1 to step 3). This suggests that
job embeddeness partly mediates the relationship between supervisor support and
intention to quit. Sobel’s (1986) procedure again was employed to test the significance of
this mediated effect. Although small, the mediated effect is statistically significant
(Mediated effect = -.07; Z-score = -4.42; p < .001). Thus, job embeddedness is found to
partially mediate the relationship between supervisor support and employees’ intention to
quit.
Growth opportunity, in Step 1, had a marginally significant relationship with intention to
quit. In Step 2, this predictor was significantly related to job embeddedness, while in the
third step, this relationship became non-significant. There is, therefore, evidence that job
embeddedness also mediated this relationship in a statistically significant manner
(Mediated effect = -.08; Z-score = -3.56; p < .001). This confirms the mediation effect of
job embeddedness on the relationship between growth opportunity and intention to quit.
Finally training was not significantly related to job embeddedness in Step 2. This violates
the condition for establishing a mediation effect (Kenny, Kashy, and Bolger, 1998; Baron
and Kenny, 1986). Therefore, the relationship between training and employee’s intention
to quit was not mediated by job embeddedness. To confirm this conclusion, we once
again calculated the mediated effect by using Sobel’s (1986) and MacKinnon & Dwyer’s
(1993) formulas. The result showed that the mediated effect is not statistically significant
(Mediated effect = -.01; Z-score = -.77; p = .44). Thus, job embeddedness does not
mediate the relationship between training and intention to quit.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This current study explored, at the individual level of analysis, the issue of employees’
voluntary turnover. It is unique in that the study used job embeddedness to explain the
relationship between human resource practices and employees’ intention to quit. As
Allen, Shore, and Griffeth (2003) pointed out, little explanation has been offered for how
human resource practices influence individual turnover decisions. This study offers some
insight into this process. Specifically, this study found that overall human resource
practices are negatively related to employees’ intention to quit, which is mediated by job
embeddedness.
Among human resource practices, compensation is found to be fully mediated by job
embeddedness in the relation to employee’s intention to quit. It is quite clear that when
thinking about quitting a job, an employee often considers tangible benefits (i.e.,
compensation) from the current organization that he or she has to sacrifice. Concerning
supervisor support, this study found that job embeddedness partially mediates the
relationship between it and employees’ intent to quit. The explanation for this is that by
providing guidelines, suggestions, assistance, trust in and praise for their subordinates,
supervisors can help employees better fit with their jobs and the organization, as well as
build better links to colleagues. This suggests that employees would be more embedded
in their jobs when they received more support from supervisors which is consistent with
previous studies (e.g.,Stinglhamber & Vandenberghe, 2003).
Similar to supervisor support, growth opportunity is also negatively related to turnover,
although this relationship is mediated by job embeddedness. Growth opportunity implies
that employees would have better positions, better salaries, or better work environments.
It would be a sacrifice for employees to leave an organization which offer such good
growth opportunities. Moreover, growth opportunity means that employees can have
chances to develop and demonstrate their potential, which should lead them to better fit
their jobs and the organization. Thus, employees would be more embedded in their job
and less likely to leave when there is an abundance of growth opportunities.
Contrary to our expectation, the relationship between training and intention to quit is not
mediated by job embeddedness. Instead, training is directly related to employee’s
intention to quit. This seems a little contradictory, but is consistent with previous research
that provides conflicting results on training and employee’s intention to quit. The
relationships among training, voluntary turnover, and job embeddedness, therefore,
clearly requires further elucidation.
Consistent with the findings of Mitchell and his colleagues (2001), job embeddedness in
this study also has a strong relationship with employees’ voluntary turnover as it
explained roughly 34% of the variance in the intention to quit. Given the nature of social
science research, this is an appreciable amount of explained variance. Consequently, it
may indicate that job embeddness warrants further research in attempts to better
understand such organizational phenomena as absenteeism, work performance, and
organizational citizenship behaviors.
REFERENCES
Abelson, M. A. 1987. Examination of avoidable and unavoidable turnover. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 72: 382-386.
Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M. & Griffeth, R. W. 2003. The role of perceived organizational
support and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process. Journal
of Management, 29: 99-118.
Appelbaum, E., P. Berg, and A. L. Kalleberg. 2000. Balancing Work and Family: Effects
of High-Performance Work Systems and High-Commitment Workplaces. Report to
the U.S. Department of Labor, Washington.
Arthur, J. 1994. Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and
turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 670-687.
Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A. 1986. The moderator-mediator distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, Strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Bennett, N., Blume, T.C., Long, R.G. & Roman, P.M. 1993. A firm-level analysis of
employee attrition. Group & Organization Management. 18, 4, 482-499.
Blau, G. J. 1986. Job involvement and organizational commitment as interactive
predictors oftardiness and absenteeism. Journal of Management. Winter: 577-84.
Chan, D. 1996. Cognitive misfit of problem-solving style at work: A facet of personorganization fit. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68:
194-207.
Chatman, J. A. 1991. Matching people and organization: Selection and socialization in
public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36: 459484.
Cotton, J. L. & J. M. Tuttle. 1986. Employee Turnover: A Meta-Analysis and Review
with Implications for Research. Academy of Management Review, 11: 55–70.
Deutsch, S., Langton, N. & Aldrich, H. 2000. Should I stay or should I go? Voluntary
turnover in small firms. Working Paper. University of North Carolina.
Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. 2000. A meta-analysis of antecedents and
correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications
for the millennium. Journal of Management, 26: 463-488.
Hatton, C., & Emerson, E. 1998. Organizational predictors of staff stress, satisfaction,
and intended turnover in a service for people with multiple disabilities. Mental
Retardation, 31(6), 388-395.
Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. 1995. Employee Turnover. Cincinnati: South/Western.
Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. 1998. Data analysis in social psychology. The
Handbook of Social Psychology. (4th ed. Vol. 1, pp. 233-265). Boston: McGrawHill.
Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. 1988. Measuring perceived supervisory and
organizational support. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 10751079.
Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, Terence R. 1994. An alternative approach: The unfolding model
of voluntary employment. The Academy of Management Review, 39: 5-36.
Maertz, C.P., Stevens, M.J., Campion, M.A., & Frenandez, A. 1996. Worker turnover in
Mexican factories: A qualitative investigation and model development. Paper
presented at the annual at the Academy of Management, Cincinnati.
Maertz, C. P., & Campion, M. A. 1998. 25 years of voluntary turnover research: A
review and critique. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson, International review of
industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 13: 49-81. New York: Wiley.
MacKinnon, D.P. & Dwyer, J.H. 1993. Estimating mediated effects in prevention studies.
Evaluation Review, 17, 144-158.
Miller, J.G. & Wheeler, KG. 1992. Unraveling the mysteries of gender differences in
intentions to leave the organization, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 5,
465-478.
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. 2001. Why
people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of
Management Journal, vol. 44.
Mobley, W.H. 1982. Some unanswered questions in turnover and withdrawal research.
Academy of Management Review, 7: 111-116.
Mobley, W.H., Griffeth, R.W., Hand, H. H, & Meglino, B. M. 1979. Review and
conceptualanalysis of the employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin,
86(3): 493-522.
O’Reilly, C. A., Caldwell, D. F., & Barnett, W. P. 1989. Work group demography, social
integration and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34: 21-37.
O’Reilly, C.A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D.F. 1991. People and organizational culture:
A profile comparison approach to person-organization fit. Academy of
Management Journal, 34, 487-516.
Pierce , J.L., & Dunham, R.B. 1987. Organizational commitment: Pre-employment
propensity and initial work experiences,” Journal of Management, 13(1): 163-178.
Shaw, J.D., Delery J.E., Jenkins G.D., & Gupta, N. 1998. An organization-level analysis
of voluntary and involuntary turnover, Academy of Management Journal, 41: 511525.
Sobel, M. E. 1986. Some new results on indirect effects and their standard errors in
covariance structure models. In N. Tuma (Ed.), Sociological Methodology 1986
(pp. 159-186). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
Staw, B. M. 1980. The consequences of turnover. Journal of Occupational Behavior,
1:253-273.
Stinglhamber, F., & Vandenberghe, C. 2003. Organizations and supervisors as sources of
support and targets of commitment: a longitudinal study. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, vol. 24.
Trevor, C.O., Barry, G. & Boudreau J.W. 1997. Voluntary turnover and job performance:
Curvilinearity and the moderating influences of salary growth and promotions,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 1, 44-61.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. 1997. Perceived organizational support and
leader-member exchange: A social exchange perpective. Academy of Management
Journal, 40: 82-111.
Williams, C., & Parrack Livingstone L. 1990. Another look at the relationship between
performance and voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 269298.