| Literature DB >> 28580029 |
Mohammad Faraz Naim1, Usha Lenka1.
Abstract
The present study is aimed at investigating the impact of mentoring on intention to stay of Gen Y employees working in Indian IT industry. Also, the mediating roles of perceived organization support and affective commitment are examined. Primary data were collected from a sample of 314 Gen Y employees (born between 1980-2000) from IT industry in Delhi, NCR India. Data analysis was carried out using AMOS and SPSS to test sequential mediation. Findings reveal that mentoring has a direct influence on intention to stay of Gen Y employees and perceived organization support and affective commitment sequentially mediate the relationship between the two. This study contributes to the literature on mentoring, perceived organization support, affective commitment, and intention to stay.Entities:
Keywords: Gen Y; affective commitment; intention to stay; mentoring; perceived organization support; retention
Year: 2017 PMID: 28580029 PMCID: PMC5450987 DOI: 10.5964/ejop.v13i2.1304
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Psychol ISSN: 1841-0413
Figure 1Research model and hypotheses.
Note. N = 314.
*p < .01. **p < .05.
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations (N = 314)
| Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Age-groupa | 2.5861 | .5436 | - | |||||||
| 2. Genderb | 1.2301 | .4263 | -.012 | - | ||||||
| 3. Educationc | 2.2210 | .6779 | .044 | -.14 | ||||||
| 4. Experienced | 3.2814 | .7712 | -.097 | -.426** | .218 | |||||
| 5. Mentoring | 3.9883 | .6827 | .212 | .136* | .773** | -.773* | (.944) | |||
| 6. POS | 4.1488 | .5860 | .085 | .107** | -.526** | .511** | .535* | (.882) | ||
| 7. AC | 3.3398 | .8459 | .098 | 1-83* | .210* | .210* | .540* | .320** | (.731) | |
| 8. Intention to stay | 3.4615 | .5718 | .219 | .127** | .537** | .537* | .383* | .210** | .402* | (.756) |
Note. Reliability estimates (Cronbach’s alphas) are in parentheses.
aIn years: 1 = 20-24 (29%), 2 = 25-29 (55%), 3 = 29-34 (16%). b1 = Male (77%), 2 = Female (23%). c1 = Diploma (24%), 2 = Graduate (54%), 3 = Post Graduate (22%). dIn years: 1 = 0-2 (22%), 2 = 2-4 (40%), 3 = 4-6 (28%), 4 = > 6 (10%).
*p < .01. **p < .05.
Path Coefficients and Indirect Effects for Mediation Models
| Model | Path coefficients to | Estimates | Indirect effects | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intention to stay | POS | AC | Symmetric 95% Confidence Interval | Bootstrap 95% Confidence Interval | ||
| Mentoring | 0.20* (.13) | 0.25* (.05) | 0.37* (.17) | |||
| POS | 0.61* (.23) | 0.31** (.40) | ||||
| AC | 0.66* (.05) | |||||
| Total | .24 (.05) | -.06, .24 | -.07, .27 | |||
| M→POS→ITS | -.0.7 (.05) | .15, .03 | -.18, .02 | |||
| M→AC→ITS | .14 (.05) | .35, .21 | -.36, .20 | |||
| M→POS→AC→ITS | .08 (.04) | .03, .19 | .03, .21 | |||
Note. N = 314. Bootstrap confidence intervals were constructed using 2000 resamples. Total effect (M → ITS) = 0.38 (.08). Standard error in parentheses.
*p < .01. **p < .05.
The Fit Indices for Alternative Measurement Models
| Model | χ | df | χ | CFI | GFI | TLI | RMSEA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | 2,627.74*** | 1,732 | 1.517 | .95 | .96 | .93 | 0.038 |
| Model 2 | 4,894.32*** | 1,787 | 2.738 | .63 | .69 | .64 | 0.067 |
| Model 3 | 5,237.67*** | 1,799 | 2.911 | .60 | .62 | .58 | 0.081 |
Note. CFI = Comparative Fit Index; GFI = Goodeness of Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; RMSA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.
***p < .001.