| Literature DB >> 35880145 |
Nur Syafiqah Binti Zainal1, Walton Wider1, Surianti Lajuma1, Mohd Wafiy Akmal B Ahmad Khadri1, Nasehah Mohd Taib1, Asong Joseph2.
Abstract
This study aims to investigate the effects of work-life balance, work environment, and reward and compensation on employee retention in Malaysia. A total of 400 questionnaires were collected online from employees within the service industry in Malaysia. Partial least square structure equation modeling was used to test the model and hypotheses. The results reveal that work-life balance and work environment had a strong positive effect on employee retention, but reward and compensation had a much stronger positive effect on employee retention. This research provides unique theoretical contributions by investigating these factors in the midst of the COVID-19 outbreak as components of the reciprocal process between employee and employer, and their effects on employee retention. This study also provides vital insights to business organizations to consider designing effective employee retention plans for a successful business.Entities:
Keywords: Malaysia; employee retention; reward and compensation; service industry; work environment; work-life balance
Year: 2022 PMID: 35880145 PMCID: PMC9307907 DOI: 10.3389/fsoc.2022.928951
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Sociol ISSN: 2297-7775
Demographic profile of respondents.
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | Below 20 years | 25 | 6.3 |
| 20–29 | 67 | 16.8 | |
| 30–39 | 149 | 37.3 | |
| 40–49 | 138 | 34.5 | |
| Education level | 50 years and above | 21 | 5.3 |
| No formal education | 17 | 4.3 | |
| Secondary school | 44 | 11.0 | |
| Pre-University | 91 | 22.8 | |
| Bachelor's degree | 216 | 54.0 | |
| Postgraduate degree | 32 | 8.0 | |
| Length of service | 2 years and below | 38 | 9.5 |
| 3–5 years | 81 | 20.3 | |
| 6–10 years | 125 | 31.3 | |
| 11–15 years | 129 | 32.3 | |
| 16–20 years | 27 | 6.8 | |
| Position | Senior management | 44 | 11.0 |
| Middle management | 221 | 55.3 | |
| Entry level | 75 | 18.8 | |
| Internship | 6 | 1.5 | |
| Others | 54 | 13.5 |
Results of measurement model assessment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Employee retention | ER2 | 0.86 | 0.828 | 0.951 | 0.930 | 3.14 | 0.82 |
| ER3 | 0.926 | ||||||
| ER4 | 0.932 | ||||||
| ER5 | 0.921 | ||||||
| Work-life balance | WLB2 | 0.936 | 0.880 | 0.956 | 0.932 | 3.13 | 0.84 |
| WLB3 | 0.940 | ||||||
| WLB4 | 0.938 | ||||||
| Work environment | WE1 | 0.908 | 0.766 | 0.942 | 0.923 | 3.08 | 0.79 |
| WE2 | 0.864 | ||||||
| WE3 | 0.843 | ||||||
| WE4 | 0.876 | ||||||
| WE5 | 0.884 | ||||||
| Reward and compensation | RC1 | 0.898 | 0.854 | 0.959 | 0.909 | 2.99 | 0.89 |
| RC2 | 0.932 | ||||||
| RC3 | 0.932 | ||||||
| RC4 | 0.934 |
AVE, Average Variance Extracted; CR, Composite Reliability; CA, Cronbach Alpha; SD, Standard Deviation.
Discriminant validity using HTMT ratio.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ER | ||||
| RC | 0.856 | |||
| WE | 0.833 | 0.827 | ||
| WLB | 0.804 | 0.734 | 0.897 |
ER, Employee Retention; WLB, Work-life Balance; WE, Work Environment; RC, Reward and Compensation.
Results of hypothesis testing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | WLB → ER | 0.268 | 5.024 | [0.162, 0.370] | 0.079 | Yes | 3.296 |
| H2 | WE → ER | 0.176 | 2.864 | [0.057, 0.297] | 0.026 | Yes | 4.311 |
| H3 | RC → ER | 0.484 | 9.146 | [0.383, 0.591] | 0.337 | Yes | 2.538 |
ER, Employee Retention; WLB, Work-life Balance; WE, Work Environment; RC, Reward and Compensation.
Figure 1Results of assessment of structural model.