| Literature DB >> 35954943 |
Huan Zhang1, Lin Sun2, Qiujie Zhang2.
Abstract
Committed social workers are significant to organizational performance and service quality; therefore, it is crucial to explore the contributing factors of turnover intention to enhance social workers' commitment. To reduce social workers' turnover intention, this study used the first national survey data (N = 5620) of social workers in China to find out the relationship between workplace social capital and turnover intention in public service and explore possible solutions. This study treated workplace social capital as a comprehensive measure that captured employees' overall perceptions of their interpersonal relations in the public sector. It covered the impact of many other organizational factors on turnover intention, such as job embeddedness, social networks, social relations, communication, and organizational fairness. The results confirmed that workplace social capital had a significant negative impact on employees' turnover intention. Workplace social capital could be a better predictor of employees' turnover intention than a single organizational factor or a combination of several factors. These findings not only deepened the theoretical understanding of social capital within the organization and brought insight into how workplace social capital affected employees' turnover but also promoted a formation of a holistic organizational perspective from the fragmented organizational factors. Results also showed that job burnout and job satisfaction mediated the relation between workplace social capital and turnover intention. Public service agencies should endeavor to foster an organizational climate of cooperation and trust, encourage teamwork and altruistic behaviors among coworkers to reduce emotional exhaustion, and strengthen the professional identity and professional value of social work.Entities:
Keywords: job burnout; job satisfaction; social capital; social work; turnover intention
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35954943 PMCID: PMC9367717 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19159587
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Participant Demographics.
| Variables | Mean |
| Variables | No. (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 32.49 | 8.05 | Gender | Male | 1259 (22.4%) |
| SW years a | 5.14 | 4.93 | Female | 4361 (77.6%) | |
| Income b | 7.09 | 4.11 | Employer type | Social sector | 3145 (56.0%) |
| Variables | No. (%) | Public sector/community | 2475 (44.0%) | ||
| Education level | High school and below | 220 (3.9%) | Certified c | Yes | 3832 (68.2%) |
| College | 1554 (27.7%) | No | 1788 (31.8%) | ||
| Undergraduate | 3321 (59.1%) | MSW/BSW d | Yes | 2295 (40.8%) | |
| Graduate and above | 525 (9.4%) | No | 3325 (59.2%) | ||
Note: N = 5620. a Years of the participant as social worker; b Participant’s work income after tax in 2017 ($1000); c Is the participant a certified social worker? d Does the participant have a master/bachelor’s degree in social work?
Psychometric properties and correlations among the latent variables.
| Mean | SD | Skewness | Kurtosis | CR | AVE | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. TI | 2.749 | 1.032 | 0.076 | −0.576 | 0.913 | 0.679 | 0.820 | |||
| 2. WSC | 3.977 | 0.752 | −0.444 | 0.176 | 0.930 | 0.817 | −0.403 ** | 0.904 | ||
| 3. JB | 2.332 | 0.947 | 0.100 | −0.086 | 0.730 | 0.533 | 0.646 ** | −0.433 ** | 0.730 | |
| 4. JS | 3.804 | 0.751 | −0.262 | 0.161 | 0.887 | 0.665 | −0.503 ** | 0.624 ** | −0.584 ** | 0.815 |
Note: (1) N = 5620. (2) TI—turnover intention; WSC—workplace social capital; JB—job burnout; JS—job satisfaction. (3) CR—composite reliability; AVE—average variance extracted. (4) Good: CR > AVE, AVE > 0.5, CR > 0.7. (5) The underlined figures are the square roots of the AVE. (6) ** p < 0.01 (2-tailed).
Regression analyses.
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | TI | TI | JB | JS | TI |
| WSC | −0.522 *** | −0.523 *** | 0.449 *** | −0.128 *** | |
| JB | −0.303 *** | 0.548 *** | |||
| JS | −0.177 *** | ||||
| Ln(salary) | −0.177 *** | −0.167 *** | −0.083 ** | 0.016 | −0.114 *** |
| Gender (female = 1) | −0.148 *** | −0.132 *** | −0.064 * | −0.047 ** | −0.101 *** |
| Age | −0.072 *** | −0.066 *** | −0.055 *** | 0.007 | −0.032 ** |
| Age squared | 0.001 ** | 0.001 ** | 0.001 ** | 0.0000 | 0.0003 † |
| SW years | 0.035 *** | 0.039 *** | 0.037 *** | 0.008 † | 0.018 ** |
| SW years squared | −0.001 ** | −0.001 *** | −0.001 *** | −0.0003 † | −0.001 ** |
| MSW/BSW | 0.077 * | 0.062 * | 0.055 * | 0.043 * | 0.036 |
| Employer type | −0.132 *** | −0.109 *** | −0.090 *** | 0.028 † | −0.050 * |
| Certified | 0.171 *** | 0.101 ** | 0.060 * | −0.026 | 0.061 * |
| Constant | 6.130 | 7.983 | 6.474 | 2.397 | 4.513 |
| R2 | 0.065 | 0.208 | 0.209 | 0.519 | 0.457 |
| F | 30.824 | 107.536 | 108.225 | 409.926 | 297.746 |
| DW | 1.976 | 1.989 | 1.956 | 2.008 | 1.997 |
Note: (1) N = 5331. (2) † p < 0.1; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. (3) TI—turnover intention; WSC—workplace social capital; JB—job burnout; JS—job satisfaction. (4) SW years = Years of the participant as social worker; MSW/BSW = Did the participant have a master/bachelor’s degree in social work; Employer type = Did the participant work in social sector (=1) or public sector (=0); Certified = Was the participant certified social worker?
Mediation effect.
| Effect | SE | t |
| 95% CI (Bias Corrected) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||||
| Total | −0.521 | 0.017 | −30.914 | *** | −0.554 | −0488 |
| Direct | −0.127 | 0.018 | −7.113 | *** | −0.162 | −0.092 |
| Indirect | −0.394 | 0.017 | *** | −0.428 | −0.363 | |
| Job burnout | −0.287 | 0.012 | *** | −0.312 | −0.264 | |
| Job burnout -> Job satisfaction | −0.028 | 0.004 | *** | −0.036 | −0.020 | |
| Job satisfaction | −0.079 | 0.011 | *** | −0.100 | −0.058 | |
Note: (1) N = 5331. (2) *** p < 0.001. (3) CI—confidence intervals.
Figure 1The results of double-mediator model. Note. *** p < 0.001.