| Literature DB >> 35886285 |
Hui Deng1, Wenbing Wu1, Yihua Zhang2, Xiaoyan Zhang1, Jing Ni3.
Abstract
As a global pandemic, the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has brought enormous challenges to employees and organizations. Although numerous existing studies have highlighted that the COVID-19 pandemic is a stressful event and empirically proved its detrimental effect on employee turnover intention, few scholars have noted that this pandemic can deteriorate the external economic and employment environment simultaneously, which may further complicate employees' intentions to leave or stay in the current organization. Drawing on event system theory and social cognitive theory, this study aims to uncover two potential cognitive mechanisms of the complex impact of COVID-19 event strength on employee turnover intention. To examine the proposed model, this study employed a three-wave and time-lagged research design and collected data from a sample of 432 employees of four Chinese companies from different industries. The findings indicated that COVID-19 event strength was negatively related to perceived external employability, and ultimately curbed employee turnover intention. Yet, COVID-19 event strength also negatively predicted perceived organizational growth, thus influencing employees to exhibit intentions to quit. Moreover, organizational identification not only attenuated the positive effect of perceived external employability on turnover intention but also amplified the negative impact of perceived organizational growth on turnover intention. Further, organizational identification moderated the indirect effects of COVID-19 event strength on turnover intention through perceived external employability and perceived organizational growth. This study provided a comprehensive insight into scholars' understanding of the COVID-19 downstream outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19 event strength; organizational identification; perceived external employability; perceived organizational growth; turnover intention
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35886285 PMCID: PMC9319035 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19148434
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Research theoretical model.
Demographic statistics of the final sample (N = 432).
| Variables | N | % | Variables | N | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||
| Male | 236 | 54.63 | High school degree or below | 58 | 13.43 |
| Female | 196 | 45.37 | |||
|
| Junior college degree | 61 | 14.12 | ||
| 20–30 | 90 | 20.83 | Bachelor degree | 260 | 60.19 |
| 31–40 | 313 | 72.45 | Master degree or above | 53 | 12.26 |
| >40 | 29 | 6.72 |
| ||
|
| Catering | 76 | 17.59 | ||
| 1–5 | 115 | 26.62 | Tourism | 127 | 29.40 |
| 6–10 | 243 | 56.25 | Textile | 137 | 31.71 |
| >10 | 74 | 17.13 | Appliance industries | 92 | 21.30 |
|
|
| ||||
| Employee | 234 | 54.17 | Unmarried | 115 | 26.62 |
| Supervisor | 140 | 32.41 | Married | 269 | 62.27 |
| Manager | 58 | 13.42 | Divorced | 48 | 11.11 |
Confirmatory factor analysis: Items and factor loadings (N = 432).
| Variables | Items | Standardized Loadings | AVE | CR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| COVID-19 event strength (CES) | CES1 | 0.764 | 0.564 | 0.934 |
| CES2 | 0.739 | |||
| CES3 | 0.741 | |||
| CES4 | 0.759 | |||
| CES5 | 0.751 | |||
| CES6 | 0.774 | |||
| CES7 | 0.768 | |||
| CES8 | 0.753 | |||
| CES9 | 0.762 | |||
| CES10 | 0.768 | |||
| CES11 | 0.675 | |||
| Perceived external employability (PEE) | PEE1 | 0.820 | 0.664 | 0.888 |
| PEE2 | 0.823 | |||
| PEE3 | 0.779 | |||
| PEE4 | 0.837 | |||
| Perceived organizational growth (POS) | POG1 | 0.907 | 0.819 | 0.931 |
| POG2 | 0.896 | |||
| POG3 | 0.912 | |||
| Turnover intention (TI) | TI1 | 0.877 | 0.765 | 0.929 |
| TI2 | 0.887 | |||
| TI3 | 0.874 | |||
| TI4 | 0.861 | |||
| Organizational identification (OI) | OI1 | 0.930 | 0.842 | 0.970 |
| OI2 | 0.900 | |||
| OI3 | 0.909 | |||
| OI4 | 0.925 | |||
| OI5 | 0.916 | |||
| OI6 | 0.925 | |||
| Perceived insider status (PIS) | PIS1 | 0.837 | 0.693 | 0.931 |
| PIS2 | 0.820 | |||
| PIS3 | 0.826 | |||
| PIS4 | 0.817 | |||
| PIS5 | 0.852 | |||
| PIS6 | 0.841 |
Means, standard deviations, and correlations of variables (N = 432).
| Variables | Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Gender | 0.55 | 0.50 | |||||||||||||
| 2. Age | 33.97 | 4.40 | −0.006 | ||||||||||||
| 3. Education | 2.71 | 0.85 | 0.125 ** | 0.032 | |||||||||||
| 4. Experience | 7.40 | 3.28 | −0.068 | 0.696 ** | −0.340 ** | ||||||||||
| 5. Industry | 2.67 | 1.10 | 0.032 | 0.102 * | −0.017 | 0.067 | |||||||||
| 6. Position | 1.59 | 0.72 | −0.006 | 0.236 ** | 0.025 | 0.181 ** | 0.207 ** | ||||||||
| 7. Marital status | 1.84 | 0.56 | −0.003 | 0.500 ** | 0.072 | 0.275 ** | 0.110 * | 0.140 ** | |||||||
| 8. PIS | 3.65 | 1.24 | 0.031 | 0.013 | −0.028 | 0.058 | 0.064 | 0.020 | 0.101 * | 0.832 | |||||
| 9. CES | 3.64 | 0.98 | −0.062 | 0.015 | 0.010 | −0.006 | −0.009 | −0.035 | −0.041 | −0.002 | 0.751 | ||||
| 10. PEE | 4.12 | 1.32 | −0.050 | 0.071 | 0.053 | 0.055 | −0.003 | 0.075 | 0.017 | −0.098 * | −0.326 ** | 0.815 | |||
| 11. POG | 3.69 | 1.74 | 0.009 | −0.033 | −0.010 | 0.014 | 0.032 | −0.009 | 0.033 | 0.049 | −0.300 ** | 0.026 | 0.905 | ||
| 12. TI | 4.16 | 1.50 | −0.097 * | 0.082 | −0.032 | 0.036 | −0.001 | 0.001 | −0.020 | −0.335 ** | 0.009 | 0.161 ** | −0.362 ** | 0.875 | |
| 13. OI | 4.02 | 1.85 | 0.124 * | −0.041 | −0.004 | −0.038 | 0.009 | 0.017 | 0.011 | 0.270 ** | 0.030 | −0.077 | 0.066 | −0.542 ** | 0.918 |
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tail test). The diagonal represents the discriminant validity.
Regression results of main, mediation, and moderation effects (N = 432).
| Variables | PEE | POG | TI | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | Model 7 | Model 8 | |
| Gender | −0.073 | −0.010 | −0.028 | −0.027 | −0.023 | −0.027 | −0.079 | −0.129 |
| Age | 0.049 | −0.105 | 0.144 * | 0.142 * | 0.142 * | 0.102 | 0.035 | 0.027 |
| Education | 0.079 | 0.023 | −0.066 | −0.066 | −0.074 | −0.059 | −0.116 | −0.107 |
| Experience | 0.048 | 0.080 | −0.085 | −0.084 | −0.091 | −0.054 | −0.028 | −0.025 |
| Industry | −0.011 | 0.033 | 0.011 | 0.011 | 0.013 | 0.022 | 0.033 | 0.014 |
| Position | 0.049 | −0.024 | 0.000 | 0.000 | −0.007 | −0.005 | −0.028 | −0.010 |
| Marital status | −0.036 | 0.045 | −0.040 | −0.038 | −0.038 | −0.019 | −0.050 | −0.003 |
| PIS | −0.094 | 0.040 | −0.200 *** | −0.200 *** | −0.191 *** | −0.193 *** | −0.223 *** | −0.225 *** |
| CES | −0.331 *** | −0.298 *** | 0.018 | −0.076 | −0.052 | |||
| PEE | 0.105 ** | 0.114 ** | 0.404 *** | |||||
| POG | −0.318 *** | −0.290 *** | −0.145 * | |||||
| OI | −0.482 *** | −0.482 *** | −0.477 *** | −0.463 *** | −0.370 *** | 0.026 | ||
| PEE × OI | −0.072 ** | |||||||
| POG × OI | −0.034 * | |||||||
| R2 | 0.134 *** | 0.098 *** | 0.342 *** | 0.342 *** | 0.353 *** | 0.442 *** | 0.457 *** | 0.479 *** |
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Standardized coefficients were reported.
Bootstrapping test for mediation effects (N = 432).
| Paths | Estimates | S.E. | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CES → PEE → TI | −0.050 | 0.020 | 0.012 | [−0.090, −0.011] |
| CES → POG → TI | 0.155 | 0.031 | 0.000 | [0.095, 0.215] |
Figure 2Interaction plot of organizational identification and perceived external employability on turnover intention.
Figure 3Interaction plot of organizational identification and perceived organizational growth on turnover intention.
Bootstrapping test for moderated mediation effects (N = 432).
| Paths | Organizational Identification | Estimates | S.E. | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CES → PEE → TI | Low (mean—1 SD) | −0.209 | 0.056 | [−0.319, −0.117] |
| High (mean + 1 SD) | −0.146 | 0.036 | [−0.217, −0.086] | |
| Differences between low and high | 0.063 | 0.021 | [0.021, 0.098] | |
| CES → POG → TI | Low (mean—1 SD) | 0.059 | 0.043 | [−0.024, 0.129] |
| High (mean + 1 SD) | 0.096 | 0.030 | [0.007, 0.136] | |
| Differences between low and high | 0.037 | 0.018 | [0.001, 0.067] |