| Literature DB >> 32825300 |
Yang-Chun Fang1,2,3, Jia-Yan Chen3, Xu-Dong Zhang3, Xin-Xing Dai3, Fu-Sheng Tsai4,5,6,7.
Abstract
The high turnover rate of new generation employees is becoming an increasingly important issue for business and academia. Based on self-determination theory and conservation of resource theory, our study explores the impact of the inclusive talent development model on the turnover intention of new generation employees and the mediating role of work passion. Based on the questionnaire of 290 new generation employees' data from China, after common method biases and reliability and validity tests, we used SPSS, Mplus and bootstrapping for empirical analysis. The result showed that the inclusive talent development model includes the diversified talent team construction, rational tolerance of employee's opinions and failures, emphasis on employee's training, emphasis on fairness and win-win and emphasis on employee's advantages. The work passion has been divided into harmonious passion and obsessive passion. Among them, rational tolerance of employee's opinions and failures, emphasis on employee's training and emphasis on fairness and win-win have a significant positive impact on harmonious passion. Emphasis on fairness and win-win and emphasis on employee's advantages have negative correlation with obsessive passion. The employee's harmonious passion is significantly negatively correlated with the turnover intention and the obsessive passion is significantly positively correlated with the turnover intention. In addition, the harmonious passion plays a mediating role between rational tolerance of employee's opinions and failures, emphasis on employee's training, emphasis on fairness and win-win and employee's turnover intention, while the obsessive passion plays a mediating role between emphasis on fairness and win-win and emphasis on employee's advantages and employee's turnover intention.Entities:
Keywords: inclusive talent development model; new generation employees; questionnaire investigation; turnover intention; work passion
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32825300 PMCID: PMC7503779 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17176054
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Research hypothesis model.
Descriptive statistics of the study sample (n = 290).
| Sociodemographic Characteristics |
| % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 156 | 53.8% |
| Female | 134 | 46.2% | |
| Age | 18–24 | 107 | 36.9% |
| 25–29 | 82 | 28.3% | |
| 30–34 | 65 | 22.4% | |
| 35–39 | 36 | 12.4% | |
| Education level | Junior college or below | 65 | 22.4% |
| Bachelor’s | 141 | 48.6% | |
| Master | 60 | 20.7% | |
| Doctorate | 24 | 8.3% | |
| Working years | 1 year and less | 37 | 12.8% |
| 1–3 years | 84 | 29.0% | |
| 3–5 years | 95 | 32.8% | |
| 5–10 years | 66 | 22.8% | |
| 10 years and more | 8 | 2.8% | |
| Position | Top managers | 9 | 3.1% |
| Middle managers | 30 | 10.3% | |
| Grassroots managers | 105 | 36.2% | |
| Staff member | 146 | 50.3% | |
| Nature of enterprise | State-owned enterprise | 78 | 26.9% |
| Private enterprise | 146 | 50.3% | |
| Foreign enterprise | 38 | 13.1% | |
| Government-affiliated institutions | 3 | 1.0% | |
| Other types | 25 | 8.6% | |
| Industry of the enterprise | Internet industry | 65 | 22.4% |
| Manufacturing industry | 84 | 29.0% | |
| Software information service industry | 35 | 12.1% | |
| Real estate | 33 | 11.4% | |
| Finance and insurance | 18 | 6.2% | |
| Consulting services | 4 | 1.4% | |
| Scientific research and technical services | 10 | 3.4% | |
| Other industries | 41 | 14.1% | |
The results of the reliability and convergence validity test.
| Variables | Cronbach’s α | Factor Loading | CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| X1 | 0.885 | 0.830–0.864 | 0.885 | 0.720 |
| X2 | 0.795 | 0.751–0.763 | 0.801 | 0.573 |
| X3 | 0.817 | 0.739–0.814 | 0.819 | 0.601 |
| X4 | 0.858 | 0.780–0.865 | 0.859 | 0.670 |
| X5 | 0.855 | 0.700–0.919 | 0.861 | 0.677 |
| HP | 0.886 | 0.691–0.742 | 0.887 | 0.529 |
| OP | 0.883 | 0.697–0.727 | 0.884 | 0.522 |
| Y | 0.828 | 0.589–0.852 | 0.832 | 0.557 |
| Suggested scope | >0.7 | >0.6 | >0.8 | >0.5 |
Notes: (1) X1: rational tolerance of employee’s opinions and failures; X2: diversified talent team construction; X3: emphasis on employee’s training; X4: emphasis on fairness and win–win; X5: emphasis on employee’s advantages. HP: harmonious passion. OP: obsessive passion. Y: turnover intention. CR: Critical Ratio; AVE: Average Variance Extracted.
The results of descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation coefficient.
| Variables | Average | X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | X5 | HP | OP | Y |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X1 | 3.37 | 0.849 | |||||||
| X2 | 3.24 | 0.410 *** | 0.757 | ||||||
| X3 | 3.41 | 0.487 *** | 0.359 *** | 0.775 | |||||
| X4 | 3.10 | 0.330 *** | 0.329 *** | 0.361*** | 0.819 | ||||
| X5 | 2.95 | 0.426 *** | 0.404 *** | 0.413 *** | 0.553 *** | 0.823 | |||
| HP | 3.07 | 0.516 *** | 0.283 *** | 0.508 *** | 0.432 *** | 0.432 *** | 0.727 | ||
| OP | 2.78 | −0.177 *** | −0.181 *** | −0.272 *** | −0.469 *** | −0.517 *** | −0.341 *** | 0.722 | |
| Y | 2.72 | −0.395 *** | −0.222 *** | −0.487 *** | −0.411 *** | −0.438 *** | −0.466 *** | 0.449 *** | 0.746 |
Notes: (1) X1: rational tolerance of employee’s opinions and failures; X2: diversified talent team construction; X3: emphasis on employee’s training; X4: emphasis on fairness and win–win; X5: emphasis on employee’s advantages. HP: harmonious passion OP: obsessive passion. Y: turnover intention. (2) *** p < 0.001. (3) Diagonal bold font is AVE square root value; lower triangle is Pearson correlation.
The results of regression analysis.
| Dependent Variable→ | HP | OP | Y | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Explanatory Variable↓ | Equation | Equation | Equation | Equation | Equation | Equation | Equation | Equation |
| 1-1 | 1-2 | 2-1 | 2-2 | 3-1 | 3-2 | 4-1 | 4-2 | |
| Control variable | ||||||||
| Sexuality | −0.009 | 0.012 | −0.120 * | −0.092 | −0.029 | 0.005 | −0.029 | −0.037 |
| Age | 0.059 | 0.06 | 0.017 | 0.068 | 0.061 | 0.075 | 0.061 | 0.078 |
| Education background | 0.071 | 0.056 | −0.008 | −0.012 | −0.024 | 0.001 | −0.024 | −0.018 |
| Working years | −0.012 | −0.01 | −0.032 | −0.025 | −0.089 | −0.083 | −0.089 | −0.091 |
| Job grading | −0.018 | −0.046 | 0.018 | 0.02 | −0.001 | −0.012 | −0.001 | 0.017 |
| Argument | ||||||||
| F1 | 0.270 *** | 0.049 | −0.119 * | |||||
| F2 | −0.017 | 0.109 | 0.003 | |||||
| F3 | 0.232 *** | −0.086 | −0.253 *** | |||||
| F4 | 0.171 ** | −0.238 *** | −0.153 ** | |||||
| F5 | 0.098 | −0.378 *** | −0.196 ** | |||||
| Mediation | ||||||||
| HP | −0.316 *** | |||||||
| OP | 0.308 *** | |||||||
| Model Statistics | ||||||||
| R2 | 0.009 | 0.337 | 0.017 | 0.291 | 0.014 | 0.266 | 0.014 | 0.296 |
| △R2 | 0.009 | 0.328 | 0.017 | 0.274 | 0.014 | 0.251 | 0.014 | 0.282 |
| F-value | 0.51 | 14.179 *** | 0.97 | 11.464 *** | 0.834 | 14.596 *** | 0.834 | 11.749 *** |
Notes: (1) F1: rational tolerance of employee’s opinions and failures; F2: diversified talent team construction; F3: emphasis on employee’s training; F4: emphasis on fairness and win–win; F5: emphasis on employee’s advantages. HP: harmonious passion. OP: obsessive passion. Y: turnover intention. (2) * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Mediation model fitting index table.
| Index | CMIN/DF | RMSEA | CFI | TLI | SRMR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Value | 1.397 | 0.037 | 0.960 | 0.956 | 0.050 |
| Suggested scope | <3 | <0.08 | >0.9 | >0.9 | <0.05 |
Note: CMIN/DF: chi-square/ degree of freedom; RMSEA: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI: Comparative Fit. Index.; TLI: Tucker Lewis Index; SRMR: Standardized Root Mean Square Residual.
The results of mediation test.
| 95% Confidence Intervals | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Process | Estimate | S.E. | Est./S.E. | Upper Limit | Floor |
| F1→HP→Y | −0.038 | 0.019 | −1.992 | −0.089 | −0.010 |
| F2→HP→Y | 0.005 | 0.009 | 0.545 | −0.008 | 0.032 |
| F3→HP→Y | −0.036 | 0.019 | −1.843 | −0.093 | −0.008 |
| F4→HP→Y | −0.024 | 0.014 | −1.726 | −0.065 | −0.006 |
| F5→HP→Y | −0.016 | 0.014 | −1.151 | −0.051 | 0.005 |
| F1→OP→Y | 0.015 | 0.014 | 1.089 | −0.005 | 0.051 |
| F2→OP→Y | 0.009 | 0.012 | 0.714 | −0.012 | 0.038 |
| F3→OP→Y | −0.012 | 0.014 | −0.800 | −0.053 | −0.009 |
| F4→OP→Y | −0.042 | 0.018 | −2.332 | −0.088 | −0.016 |
| F5→OP→Y | −0.067 | 0.026 | −2.544 | −0.13 | −0.027 |
Notes: (1) F1: rational tolerance of employee’s opinions and failures; F2: diversified talent team construction; F3: emphasis on employee’s training; F4: emphasis on fairness and win–win; F5: emphasis on employee’s advantages. HP: harmonious passion. OP: obsessive passion. Y: turnover intention. Est./S.E. = Estimate / S.E. (2) * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.