| Literature DB >> 36141495 |
Ying Xu1, Diao Jie1, Hongyu Wu1, Xiaolu Shi2, Daniel Badulescu3, Sher Akbar4, Alina Badulescu3.
Abstract
Employee turnover causes various organizational disruptions, including economic and social loss and a deficit in organizational knowledge-skill inventory. Considering different forms of organizational disruptions associated with employee turnover, the contemporary literature on organizational sciences has shown serious concern in dealing with the challenge of employee turnover. However, shockingly, the employee turnover rate in the tourism and hospitality sector has been reported to be critically high even at a global level. Moreover, considering the customer-facing nature of this industry, employee turnover has more consequences for the tourism and hospitality sector compared to other segments of the economy. Past literature has acknowledged the role of employee-related corporate social responsibility (ERCSR) activities of an organization in influencing employee behavior. However, a critical knowledge gap in this domain still exists. That is, most of the prior studies tested the impact of ERCSR on positive employee behavior and did not test how ERCSR engagement in an organization may reduce employee turnover intentions, especially in a hospitality context. To fill this knowledge gap, this study aimed to investigate the relationship between ERCSR and employee turnover intentions in a hospitality sector of a developing country. Additionally, the mediating roles of quality of work life and intrinsic motivation were also tested in the above-proposed relationship. The hotel employees were the respondents in this survey who provided their responses related to the study variables on a self-administered questionnaire (n = 278). A hypothetical model was developed and analyzed with the help of the structural equation modeling technique. The results confirmed that ERCSR orientation of a hotel organization significantly reduces the turnover intentions of employees, whereas both quality of work life and intrinsic motivation buffered this association by producing mediating effects. These findings have different theoretical and practical implications, among which the most important implication is to realize the key role of ERCSR in reducing employees' turnover intentions in a hospitality context. Various other implications are discussed in detail.Entities:
Keywords: CSR; mental health; stress; tourism and hospitality; turnover
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36141495 PMCID: PMC9517394 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191811222
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1The hypothesized structural model: ERCSR = Ethical leadership (X); QOWL = Quality of work life (M1); INTM = Intrinsic motivation (M2); ETUI = Employee turnover intentions (Y).
The Items Used in This Survey.
|
|
| Our company encourages its employees to participate in the voluntary activities |
| Our company policies encourage the employees to develop their skills and careers |
| The company of Our hospital primarily concerns employees’ needs and wants |
| Our company implements flexible policies to provide a good work and life balance for its employees |
| Our company’s decisions related to the employees are usually fair |
| Our company supports employees who want to acquire additional education |
|
|
| I am thinking about leaving this company |
| I am planning to look for a new job |
| I intend to ask people about new job opportunities |
| I don’t plan to be in this organization much longer |
|
|
| I feel physically safe at work |
| My job provides good health benefits |
| I do my best to stay healthy and fit |
| I am satisfied with what I’m getting paid for my work |
| I feel that my job at (name of the organization) is secure for life |
| My job does well for my family |
| I have good friends at work |
| I have enough time away from work to enjoy other things in life |
| I feel appreciated at work at (name of the organization) |
| People at (name of the organization) and/or within my profession respect me as a professional and an expert in my field of work |
| I feel that my job allows me to realize my full potential |
| I feel that I realize my potential as an expert in my line of work |
| I feel that I’m always learning new things that help do my job better |
| This job allows me to sharpen my professional skills |
| There is a lot of creativity involved in my job |
| My job helps me develop my creativity outside of work |
|
|
| I enjoy finding solutions to complex problems |
| I enjoy coming up with new ideas for products |
| I enjoy engaging in analytical thinking |
| I enjoy creating new procedures for work tasks |
| I enjoy improving existing processes or products |
Data cleaning, outliers, and response rate.
| Distributed | Returned | Unreturned | Unusable | Outliers | Final | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 400 | 309 | 134 | 31 | 09 | 278 | |
| Percentage | - | 77.25 | 22.75 | 10.03 | 29.03 | 69.50 |
Observations identified as outliers.
| Observation Number | Mahalanobis d-Squared | p1 | p2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 285 | 14.391 | 0.002 | 0.037 |
| 241 | 14.122 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| 277 | 10.614 | 0.014 | 0.131 |
| 216 | 10.236 | 0.017 | 0.132 |
| 184 | 10.129 | 0.018 | 0.084 |
| 233 | 9.766 | 0.021 | 0.096 |
| 36 | 9.508 | 0.023 | 0.094 |
| 119 | 9.034 | 0.029 | 0.055 |
| 47 | 8.255 | 0.041 | 0.253 |
Respondents’ profile.
| Demographic | Frequency | % |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 199 | 71.58 |
| Female | 229 | 28.42 |
| Age | ||
| 18–25 | 33 | 11.87 |
| 26–30 | 47 | 16.91 |
| 31–35 | 63 | 22.66 |
| 36–40 | 49 | 17.62 |
| 41–45 | 32 | 11.51 |
| Above 45 | 54 | 19.42 |
| Experience | ||
| 1–3 | 52 | 18.70 |
| 4–6 | 91 | 32.73 |
| 7–10 | 76 | 27.34 |
| Above 10 | 59 | 21.22 |
| Total | 278 | 100 |
Validity and reliability.
| Variable |
|
| E-Variance |
|---|---|---|---|
| ERCSR | 0.720 | 0.518 | 0.482 |
| 0.716 | 0.513 | 0.487 | |
| 0.788 | 0.621 | 0.379 | |
| 0.811 | 0.658 | 0.342 | |
| 0.774 | 0.599 | 0.401 | |
| 0.725 | 0.526 | 0.474 | |
| ETUI | 0.764 | 0.584 | 0.416 |
| 0.810 | 0.656 | 0.344 | |
| 0.859 | 0.738 | 0.262 | |
| 0.700 | 0.490 | 0.510 | |
| QOWL | 0.706 | 0.498 | 0.502 |
| 0.733 | 0.537 | 0.463 | |
| 0.714 | 0.510 | 0.490 | |
| 0.715 | 0.511 | 0.489 | |
| 0.802 | 0.643 | 0.357 | |
| 0.783 | 0.613 | 0.387 | |
| 0.762 | 0.581 | 0.419 | |
| 0.819 | 0.671 | 0.329 | |
| 0.749 | 0.561 | 0.439 | |
| 0.811 | 0.658 | 0.342 | |
| 0.744 | 0.554 | 0.446 | |
| 0.701 | 0.491 | 0.509 | |
| 0.807 | 0.651 | 0.349 | |
| 0.868 | 0.753 | 0.247 | |
| 0.717 | 0.514 | 0.486 | |
| 0.804 | 0.646 | 0.354 | |
| INTM | 0.700 | 0.490 | 0.510 |
| 0.752 | 0.566 | 0.434 | |
| 0.828 | 0.686 | 0.314 | |
| 0.766 | 0.587 | 0.413 | |
| 0.809 | 0.654 | 0.346 |
Notes: λ = Item loadings, CR = composite reliability, ∑λ2 = sum of square of item loadings, E-Variance = error variance.
Model fit comparison, alternate vs. hypothesized models.
| Model | Composition | Δ | NFI | CFI | RMSEA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1-factor ERCSR + ETUI + QOWL + INTM | 7.226 | 0.697 | 0.438 | 0.422 | 0.239 |
| 2 | (2-factor) | 6.529 | 4.093 | 0.582 | 0.610 | 0.178 |
| 3 | (hypothesized) | 2.436 | - | 0.956 | 0.952 | 0.053 |
Correlations and discriminant validity.
| Construct | ERCSR | ETUI | QOWL | INTM | Mean | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ERCSR | 0.757 | −0.528 | 0.396 | 0.419 | 2.863 | 0.712 |
| ETUI | 0.785 | −0.348 | −0.402 | 2.960 | 0.693 | |
| QOWL | 0.766 | 0.478 | 3.223 | 0.588 | ||
| INTM | 0.772 | 3.082 | 0.649 |
Notes: SD = standard deviation, diagonal = discriminant validity values, p < 0.001.
Hypotheses testing.
| Hypotheses | Estimates (SE) |
| CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (ERCSR🡪ETUI) | −0.496 (0.052) | −09.538 | 0.006 | −0.633, −0.428 |
| Mediating effects | −0.209 (0.027) | −07.741 | 0.000 | −0.388, −0.127 |
| (ERCSR🡪INTM🡪ETUI) | −0.138 (0.022) | −06.272 | 0.000 | −0.199, −0.110 |
Notes: CI = 95% confidence interval with lower and upper limits.