| Literature DB >> 35954731 |
Mingze Li1,2, Jiaze Li3, Xiaofang Chen1,2.
Abstract
Many people have entrepreneurial dreams in mind, yet existing research has neglected to focus on this phenomenon. This paper introduces the concept of entrepreneurial dreams, constructs a model of the relationship between entrepreneurial dreams and turnover intention to start-up, based on identity theory and prospect theory, and empirically analyses the mechanism of the effect of entrepreneurial dreams on turnover intention to start-up. Through the analysis of data from two multi-provincial and multi-wave employee studies (Study 1 N = 198, Study 2 N = 227), the findings show that: (1) employees' entrepreneurial dreams positively influence turnover intention to start-up; (2) employees' entrepreneurial dreams can stimulate employees' sense of entrepreneurial self-efficacy, thus positively influencing turnover intention to start-up; (3) job embeddedness plays a moderating role in the relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and turnover intention to start-up, specifically, the higher the degree of job embeddedness, the weaker the effect of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on turnover intention to start-up; (4) job embeddedness moderates the indirect effect of entrepreneurial dreams on turnover intention to start-up through entrepreneurial self-efficacy, specifically, the higher the degree of job embeddedness, the weaker the indirect effect of entrepreneurial dreams on turnover intention to start-up through entrepreneurial self-efficacy. This study reveals the mediating role of employees' entrepreneurial self-efficacy and the moderating role of job embeddedness in the influence of entrepreneurial dreams on employees' turnover intention to start-up, which provides theoretical and practical references for relevant organizations.Entities:
Keywords: entrepreneurial dreams; entrepreneurial self-efficacy; identity theory; job embeddedness; turnover intention to start-up
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35954731 PMCID: PMC9368449 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19159360
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Conceptual Model.
Confirmatory factor analysis for discriminant validity.
| Models | χ2/df | CFI | TLI | RMSEA | SRMR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Four-factor model | 1.83 | 0.941 | 0.932 | 0.065 | 0.065 |
| Three factors 1 | 2.63 | 0.759 | 0.730 | 0.123 | 0.130 |
| Three factors 2 | 3.22 | 0.672 | 0.632 | 0.143 | 0.163 |
| Three factors 3 | 2.98 | 0.708 | 0.672 | 0.135 | 0.128 |
| Two-factor model | 3.70 | 0.596 | 0.551 | 0.158 | 0.151 |
| One-factor model | 5.02 | 0.397 | 0.333 | 0.193 | 0.194 |
Note. ED = Entrepreneurial Dreams, ESE = Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, JE = Job Embeddedness, and TISU = Turnover Intention to Start-Up.
Descriptive Statistics: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Variables.
| Variable |
|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Entrepreneurial dreams | 3.06 | 1.02 | ||||
| 2. Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy | 3.79 | 0.67 | 0.267 ** | |||
| 3. Job Embeddedness | 3.43 | 0.82 | 0.26 ** | 0.165 * | ||
| 4. Turnover Intention to Start-Up | 2.59 | 0.72 | 0.195 ** | 0.054 | −0.055 |
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Hierarchical Regression.
| Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy | Turnover Intention to Start-Up | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predicator | M1 | M2 | M3 | M4 | M5 | M6 | M7 | M8 | ||||||||
| β | SE | β | SE | β | SE | β | SE | β | SE | β | SE | β | SE | β | SE | |
| gender | −0.162 | 0.094 | −0.109 | 0.092 | −0.251 * | 0.103 | −0.214 * | 0.104 | −0.216 * | 0.104 | −0.220 * | 0.103 | −0.229 * | 0.103 | −0.198 | 0.102 |
| age | −0.103 | 0.081 | −0.064 | 0.079 | −0.11 | 0.089 | −0.082 | 0.089 | −0.084 | 0.089 | −0.092 | 0.088 | −0.129 | 0.088 | −0.106 | 0.087 |
| education | 0.170 ** | 0.060 | 0.163 ** | 0.058 | 0.018 | 0.066 | 0.014 | 0.065 | 0.017 | 0.066 | 0.007 | 0.066 | 0.019 | 0.066 | 0.017 | 0.065 |
| YW | 0.179 * | 0.073 | 0.171 * | 0.071 | 0.068 | 0.081 | 0.063 | 0.080 | 0.067 | 0.081 | 0.087 | 0.081 | 0.075 | 0.081 | 0.086 | 0.080 |
| YWL | −0.026 | 0.076 | −0.036 | 0.074 | −0.040 | 0.084 | −0.046 | 0.083 | −0.047 | 0.083 | −0.032 | 0.083 | −0.004 | 0.083 | −0.009 | 0.082 |
| ED | 0.158 *** | 0.045 | 0.112 * | 0.050 | 0.116 * | 0.052 | 0.141 * | 0.053 | 0.133 * | 0.052 | ||||||
| ESE | −0.022 | 0.080 | −0.014 | 0.079 | 0.092 | 0.081 | 0.045 | 0.0882 | ||||||||
| JE | −0.125 | 0.071 | −0.083 | 0.068 | −0.130 | 0.070 | ||||||||||
| ESE × JE | −0.126 * | 0.049 | −0.119 * | 0.048 | ||||||||||||
| R2 | 0.093 | 0.147 | 0.042 | 0.066 | 0.066 | 0.081 | 0.079 | 0.108 | ||||||||
| ΔR2 | 0.054 | 0.024 | 0 | 0.015 | −0.002 | 0.029 | ||||||||||
Note: ED = Entrepreneurial Dreams; ESE = Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy; JE = Job Embeddedness; YW = years of working; YWL= years of working with immediate supervisors. * p < 0. 05, ** p < 0. 01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2Interactive effects of Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Job Embeddedness on Turnover Intention to Start-Up.
Table of tests for mediating effects with moderation.
| Indirect Effect | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moderator | Level | Effect Size |
| BootLLCI | BootULCI |
| Job Embeddedness | Low ( | 0.035 | 0.024 | −0.001 | 0.095 |
| High ( | −0.021 | 0.019 | −0.067 | 0.010 | |
| Difference | −0.056 | 0.032 | −0.132 | −0.006 | |
Note. high is +1 SD above the mean; low is −1 SD below the mean.
Results of confirmatory factor analysis.
| Model | χ2 | df | Δχ2 | RMSEA | CFI | TLI | SRMR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| four-factor model | 402.609 ** | 183 | — | 0.073 | 0.948 | 0.940 | 0.064 |
| three-factor model 1 | 1671.908 ** | 186 | 1269.299 | 0.188 | 0.645 | 0.600 | 0.174 |
| three-factor model 2 | 921.987 ** | 186 | 519.378 | 0.132 | 0.824 | 0.802 | 0.106 |
| two-factor model | 2301.372 ** | 188 | 1898.763 | 0.223 | 0.496 | 0.437 | 0.233 |
| one-factor model | 3001.923 ** | 189 | 2599.314 | 0.256 | 0.329 | 0.254 | 0.216 |
Note. ED = Entrepreneurial Dreams, ESE = Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, JE = Job Embeddedness, and TISU = Turnover Intention to Start-Up. ** p < 0. 01.
Descriptive statistical results and correlation coefficients of variables.
|
|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. gender | 1.570 | 0.496 | |||||||||
| 2. age | 2.700 | 1.046 | −0.040 | ||||||||
| 3. Education | 3.480 | 0.979 | −0.113 | −0.28 ** | |||||||
| 4. YW | 3.360 | 1.500 | −0.095 | 0.711 ** | −0.170 * | ||||||
| 5. YWL | 2.980 | 1.379 | −0.076 | 0.653 ** | −0.171 * | 0.850 ** | |||||
| 6. ED | 3.210 | 1.064 | −0.048 | −0.181 ** | −0.020 | −0.077 | −0.050 | (0.933) | |||
| 7. ESE | 3.690 | 0.770 | −0.113 | 0.079 | −0.118 | 0.096 | 0.111 | 0.394 ** | (0.931) | ||
| 8. TISU | 2.830 | 0.770 | −0.003 | −0.154 * | −0.099 | −0.125 | −0.124 | 0.33 ** | 0.303 ** | (0.805) | |
| 9. JE | 3.430 | 0.883 | 0.009 | 0.115 | −0.150 * | 0.118 | 0.138 * | 0.22 ** | 0.244 ** | −0.084 | (0.905) |
Note: YW = years of working; YWL= years of working with immediate supervisors; ED = Entrepreneurial Dreams; ESE = Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy; JE = Job Embeddedness; TISU = Turnover Intention to Start-Up. * p < 0. 05, ** p < 0. 01.
Regression analysis table.
| Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy | Turnover Intention to Start-Up | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predicator | M1 | M2 | M3 | M4 | M5 | M6 | M7 | M8 | ||||||||
| β | SE | β | SE | β | SE | β | SE | β | SE | β | SE | β | SE | β | SE | |
|
| 4.204 ** | 0.330 | 2.952 ** | 0.356 | 3.748 ** | 0.329 | 2.803 ** | 0.368 | 2.139 ** | 0.410 | 2.533 ** | 0.419 | 2.73 ** | 0.200 | 2.462 ** | 0.413 |
| gender | −0.188 | 0.103 | −0.150 | 0.094 | −0.047 | 0.102 | −0.019 | 0.097 | 0.015 | 0.095 | 0.025 | 0.093 | 0.062 | 0.096 | 0.068 | 0.093 |
| age | −0.016 | 0.071 | 0.071 | 0.066 | −0.131 | 0.070 | −0.065 | 0.068 | −0.081 | 0.067 | −0.072 | 0.065 | −0.131 * | 0.065 | −0.078 | 0.064 |
| education | −0.095 | 0.054 | −0.0677 | 0.049 | 0.0125 * | 0.054 | −0.103 * | 0.051 | −0.088 | 0.050 | −0.103 * | 0.049 | −0.114 * | 0.050 | −0.110 * | 0.048 |
| YW | −0.003 | 0.069 | −0.008 | 0.063 | 0.080 | 0.069 | 0.004 | 0.066 | 0.066 | 0.064 | 0.005 | 0.063 | 0.008 | 0.063 | 0.004 | 0.061 |
| YWL | 0.057 | 0.070 | 0.034 | 0.064 | −0.028 | 0.069 | −0.046 | 0.066 | −0.053 | 0.065 | −0.044 | 0.063 | −0.047 | 0.064 | −0.040 | 0.062 |
| ED | 0.295 ** | 0.044 | 0.222 ** | 0.046 | 0.156 ** | 0.049 | 0.181 ** | 0.048 | 0.183 ** | 0.048 | ||||||
| ESE | 0.225 ** | 0.067 | 0.256 ** | 0.066 | 0.342 ** | 0.062 | 0.249 ** | 0.065 | ||||||||
| JE | −0.176 ** | 0.054 | −0.106 | 0.056 | −0.139 * | 0.055 | ||||||||||
| ESE × JE | −0.134 ** | 0.048 | −0.136 ** | 0.047 | ||||||||||||
| R2 | 0.037 | 0.194 ** | 0.048 | 0.137 ** | 0.178 ** | 0.214 ** | 0.193 ** | 0.242 ** | ||||||||
| ΔR2 | 0.157 | 0.089 | 0.041 | 0.036 | −0.021 | 0.077 | ||||||||||
Note: YW = years of working; YWL= years of working with immediate supervisors; ED = Entrepreneurial Dreams; ESE = Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy; JE = Job Embeddedness; TISU = Turnover Intention to Start-Up. * p < 0. 05, ** p < 0. 01.
Figure 3Diagram of the regulation effect.
Conditional indirect effects of performing tension.
| Indirect Effect | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moderator | Level | Effect Size |
| BootLLCI | BootULCI |
| Job Embeddedness | Low ( | 0.125 ** | 0.030 | 0.074 | 0.194 |
| High ( | 0.022 | 0.037 | −0.046 | 0.102 | |
| Difference | −0.103 * | 0.045 | −0.196 | −0.016 | |
Note: * p < 0. 05, ** p < 0. 01.
Study 1 Valid sample information.
| Variable | Category | Counts (Person) | Frequency (%) | Cumulative Frequency (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 91 | 54 | 54 |
| Female | 107 | 46 | 100 | |
| Age | 25 and under | 81 | 40.9 | 40.9 |
| 26~35 | 71 | 35.9 | 76.8 | |
| 36~45 | 32 | 16.2 | 92.9 | |
| 45 and above | 14 | 7.1 | 100 | |
| Education | Junior high and below | 5 | 2.5 | 2.5 |
| High school or technical secondary school | 23 | 11.6 | 14.1 | |
| junior college degree | 45 | 22.7 | 36.9 | |
| bachelor’s degree | 111 | 56.1 | 92.9 | |
| master’s degree | 14 | 7.1 | 100 | |
| Worktime | The following 1 year | 56 | 28.3 | 28.3 |
| 1–3 years | 53 | 26.8 | 55.1 | |
| 3–5 years | 33 | 16.7 | 71.7 | |
| 5–10 years | 29 | 14.6 | 86.4 | |
| More than ten years | 27 | 13.6 | 100 | |
| Worktime with leader | The following 1 year | 66 | 33.3 | 33.3 |
| 1–3 years | 56 | 28.3 | 61.6 | |
| 3–5 years | 37 | 18.7 | 80.3 | |
| 5–10 years | 23 | 11.6 | 91.9 | |
| More than ten years | 16 | 8.4 | 100 |
Study 2 Valid sample information.
| Variable | Category | Counts (Person) | Frequency (%) | Cumulative Frequency (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 97 | 42.7 | 42.7 |
| Female | 130 | 57.3 | 100 | |
| Age | 25 and under | 33 | 14.5 | 14.5 |
| 26~35 | 68 | 30.0 | 44.5 | |
| 36~45 | 59 | 26.0 | 70.5 | |
| 45 and above | 67 | 29.5 | 100 | |
| Education | Junior high and below | 11 | 4.8 | 4.9 |
| High school or technical secondary school | 24 | 10.6 | 15.4 | |
| junior college degree | 60 | 26.4 | 41.9 | |
| bachelor’s degree | 109 | 48.0 | 89.9 | |
| master’s degree | 23 | 10.1 | 100 | |
| Worktime | The following 1 year | 32 | 14.1 | 14.1 |
| 1–3 years | 50 | 22.0 | 36.1 | |
| 3–5 years | 31 | 13.7 | 49.8 | |
| 5–10 years | 32 | 14.1 | 63.9 | |
| More than ten years | 82 | 36.1 | 100 | |
| Worktime with leader | The following 1 year | 38 | 16.7 | 16.7 |
| 1–3 years | 57 | 25.1 | 41.9 | |
| 3–5 years | 49 | 21.6 | 63.4 | |
| 5–10 years | 37 | 16.3 | 79.7 | |
| More than ten years | 46 | 20.3 | 100 |