EMPLOYEE REACTIONS TO
PERCEIVED JOB INSECURITY
A research into the relationship between perceived job insecurity and voluntary turnover intention and how individual differences influence this relationship.
Name: Fé Gunning Faculty of Economics and Business
Student nr: 6018815 Academic year: 2015-2016
Amsterdam, 30th of June 2016 Final Master Thesis Business Administration
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Fé Gunning, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Abstract
The wave of job insecurity amongst employees due to organizational change, organizational crisis and downsizing gave rise to this research. This study investigated the relationship between perceived job insecurity, organizational commitment and voluntary turnover intention. In addition this study investigated the effect of tenure and emotional stability on this relationship. Organizational commitment was expected to mediate the relationship between perceived job insecurity and voluntary turnover intention. Tenure was expected to moderate the first stage of this relationship (perceived job insecurity-organizational commitment) and emotional stability to moderate the second stage of this relationship (organizational commitment-voluntary turnover intention). Organizational commitment turned out not to mediate the relationship between perceived job insecurity and voluntary turnover intention. However perceived job insecurity did strongly correlate with voluntary turnover intention, meaning that there must be another variable mediating this effect and further research is needed to investigate this possibility. Furthermore this research did not support the expectation that tenure and emotional stability would moderate the relationship between perceived job insecurity, organizational commitment and voluntary turnover intention. However these insignificant findings could be due to measurement limitations discussed in the discussion section of this research.
Key words: perceived job insecurity, organizational commitment, voluntary turnover
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ... 6
2. Theory ... 8
2.1 Conceptual model ... 8
2.2 Perceived Job Insecurity ... 8
2.3 Organizational Commitment ... 11
2.4 Voluntary Turnover Intention ... 15
2.5 Perceived Job Insecurity, Organizational Commitment and Voluntary Turnover Intention ... 17
2.6 Who suffers more from Perceived Job Insecurity? ... 18
3. Method ... 20
3.1 Sample ... 20
3.2 Measurement ... 21
4. Results ... 23
4.1 Descriptive statistics, correlations & scale reliabilities ... 23
4.2 Hypothesis Testing ... 26 5. Discussion ... 30 5.1 Conclusion ... 30 5.2 Limitations ... 31 5.3 Future Research ... 33 6. References ... 35 Appendix ... 45
List of tables and figures
Figures
Figure 1 Conceptual Model 8
Tables
Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations and Reliabilities 25
Table 2 PROCESS, Moderated Mediation, Model 21 28
1. Introduction
According to the New York Times in 2013 one-third of workers feared being laid off compared to half that number in 2008. The economic and financial crises, technological innovations and changes in migration have impacted most workplaces in a significant matter (Bradley, Dawson & Smit, 2014; Goldin & Cameron, 2011). Organizations have been forced to adapt to these changes by changing strategy, restructuring, mergers and acquisitions, outsourcing and in many cases downsizing (Bradley et al., 2014; Goldin & Cameron, 2011). In times of organizational crisis, the most common way to decrease costs is by downsizing and mass layoff strategies (Armstrong-Stassen, 2004; Burke & Nelson, 1998; Cascio, 1998). Consequences of downsizing are unemployment, wage cuts, early retirements, involuntary temporary employment and involuntary part-time employment. These consequences create unpredictable environments, resulting in job insecurity amongst employees (Hartley, Jacobson, Klandermans & Van Vuuren, 1991; Sparks, Faragher & Cooper, 2001). Regardless if employees are Baby Boomers in their 50’s, Generation X employees in their 40’s or Generation Y employees with a MBA, unsecure organizational changes impact employees’ present job or valuable features of that job.
After organizational downsizing companies are left with employees who survived lay-offs, and this can affect the future of an organization. Having experienced this job uncertain situation, survivors often rethink their position within an organization (Beveridge, 1944; Brockner, Grover, Reed, De Witt & O’Malley, 1987). Employee insecurity has shown to affect organizational commitment what can influence voluntary turnover intention, what in turn has a positive effect on actual turnover (Sjöberg & Sverke, 2000; Sousa-Poza & Henneberger, 2004; Sverke, Hellgren & Näswall, 2002). Sjöberg and Sverke (2000) found, consistent with Fishbein & Ajzen’s (1975) attitude theory, that turnover intention mediates the effect of organizational commitment on turnover. Voluntary turnover intentions are therefore harmful and costly for organizations as these can result in actual turnover. It is therefore important to understand the consequences of perceived job insecurity and whether certain employees react stronger to perceived job insecurity than other employees (Probst, 2000; Ramlall, 2003; Sagie, Birati & Tziner, 2002).
Current literature found perceived job insecurity to positively affect voluntary turnover intention, meaning that perceived job insecurity may lead to a withdrawal
response (Arnold & Feldman, 1982; Zimmerman, 2008). Employees worried about their jobs and who can easily find other jobs outside the organization may seek more secure job environments. However employees who are insecure about their job might become more committed if they believe organizational performance will improve their job security. By working harder, organizational performance will grow resulting in higher job security for employees (Fried & Cooper, 2008; Van Vuuren, Klandermans, Jacobsen & Hartley, 1991). These inconsistent findings can be related to individual differences on how to counter negative effects of job insecurity. The findings on the effect of individual differences on the relationship between job insecurity and voluntary turnover intention has been underemphasised in current literature (Zimmerman, 2008). Personality for example can affect the relationship between job insecurity and voluntary turnover intention (Zimmerman, 2008) and employee tenure can influence the relationship between job insecurity and voluntary turnover intention (Cheng & Chan, 2007). There are conflicting views on how organizational tenure may moderate this relationship. Employees that have been with one organization for a longer period tend to have a higher perceived job security then employees who have just started with the company. However employees who have worked for the company for a longer period of time can also feel more insecure about their jobs as organizations often target long-serviced workers. A loss of more senior workers can bring a new way of working to an organization in times of crisis (Disprete, 1993; Shin, 2007).
Most researchers have examined perceived job insecurity in an ad hoc manner and mostly with a secondary or incidental focus (Arnold & Feldman, 1982; Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984; Viega, 1983). The goal of this thesis is to research if organizational commitment mediates the relationship between perceived job insecurity and voluntary turnover intention and to research first stage moderation of tenure and second stage moderation of personality. First, existing theories and literature on perceived job insecurity, organizational commitment, voluntary turnover intention, tenure and personality will be discussed. Thereafter this study will answer the following research question by means of a quantitative research: What is the
relationship between perceived job insecurity, organizational commitment and voluntary turnover intention and do tenure and emotional stability affect this relationship?
2. Theory
2.1 Conceptual Model
This study investigates whether organizational commitment mediates the relationship between perceived job insecurity and voluntary turnover intention. This study examines the effect of perceived job insecurity on organizational commitment and of organizational commitment on employees’ voluntary turnover intention. Earlier findings show turnover intention predicts actual turnover, therefore this study only investigates turnover intention (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Sjöberg & Sverke, 2000). In this research, organizational commitment is conceptualized according to the three-component model introduced by Meyer and Allen (1987). Figure 1 shows the three components of this conceptual model: the normative, continuance and affective organizational commitments. In addition, this study investigates whether employees’ tenure moderates the relationship between perceived job insecurity and organizational commitment (first stage moderation). Finally this study examines whether employee emotional stability moderates the relationship between organizational commitment and voluntary turnover intention (second stage moderation).
Figure 1: Conceptual model
2.2. Perceived Job Insecurity
Perceived job insecurity can be defined as “expectations about continuity in a job situation” (Davy, Kinicki & Scheck, 1997, p.323) or as “the perception of a potential threat to continuity in ones job” (Heany, Israel & House 1994, p.431). According to Van Vuuren (1990), job insecurity consists of three components: the subjective perception of the future, uncertainty about the future, and doubt about the
continuation of the job. Subjective perception refers to the idea that employees may perceive the same situation in a different way. Uncertainty and doubt about the future refers to the idea that employees feel uncertain about the continuity of their job in the future (Heaney et al., 1994). Sverke, Hellgren and Näswall’s (2002) definition of perceived job insecurity is similar to that of Van Vuuren (1990): they define perceived job insecurity as “an overall concern about the continued existence of the job in the future” (p.243). Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt’s (1984) conceptualization of job insecurity is also similar to that of Van Vuuren (1990): they conceptualize job insecurity as a source of stress involving fear, potential loss, and anxiety. The possibility of employees losing their job can create stress, which can create negative job-related reactions (Ashford, Lee & Bobko, 1989; Sverke et al., 2002).
Antecedents of Perceived Job Insecurity
Before understanding the consequences of perceived job insecurity, the focus of this study, it is important to understand the antecedents of perceived job insecurity. Ashford, Lee and Bobko (1989) consider three factors that affect employees’ perceptions of job insecurity based on the idea that employees have psychological contracts with their organizations. Psychological contracts represent the terms of the relationship between employer and employee (Ashford et al., 1989; Schein, 1980). There are two kinds of psychological contracts: transactional and relational. Transactional psychological contracts are related to economic exchange, such as salary, and relational psychological contracts are related to socio-emotional exchange, such as job security (De Cuyper, Notelaers & De Witte, 2009). When employees feel insecure about the organization providing the employees social or economic exchange, they will experience stress. According to Schein (1980), a psychological contract gives employees a sense of control and predictability. According to Ashford et al. (1989), organizational or personal characteristics that threaten this sense of control and predictability can create strong feelings of job insecurity. The authors found three factors that affect employees’ sense of control and predictability in relation to perceived job insecurity.
First, the authors found that the perceived number of changes in an organization affected perceived job insecurity. For example, mergers, layoffs, and reorganizations threatened employees’ sense of control and threatened their perception of job insecurity (Brockner, 1988; Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984;
Schweiger & Ivancevich, 1985). During organizational changes, employees fear their jobs will be impacted, become redundant or change dramatically. This fear affects employees’ sense of control and a sense of predictability (Schweiger & Ivancevich, 1985; Tagiuri, 1979).
Second, Ashford et al. (1989) point out that one job condition, role ambiguity, particularly influence perceived job insecurity. The greater the job ambiguity, the greater employees’ perceived job insecurity. Role ambiguity, lack of information about job requirements, and conflicting messages about an employees role result in anxiety about fulfilling the psychological contract towards the employer (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984; Katz & Kahn, 1978). This anxiety creates speculation and influences employees’ perception of job insecurity.
Finally, according to Ashford et al. (1989) one personal factor, locus of control, is related to perceived job insecurity. People with an external locus of control are more likely to perceive job insecurity, whereas those with an internal locus of control are confident of their ability to counteract any external threats (Mitchell, Smyser & Weed, 1975). People with an external locus of control are more threatened by environmental threats and take fewer active steps to deal with these threats (Anderson, Hellriegel & Slocum, 1977). For example Anderson, Hellriegel and Slocum (1977) found in their research that people with a stronger internal locus of control were more likely to evaluate a water flood as less severe and to take action to deal with the flood then did the people with a stronger external locus of control. Ashford et al. (1989) conclude that the greater the degree of internal locus of control, the lower the perceived job insecurity.
In sum, according to the meta-analytic review of Ashford et al. (1989), the number of organizational changes, job ambiguity and locus of control are strongly associated with perceived job insecurity.
Consequences of Perceived Job Insecurity
According to Hulin (1991) employees attempt to ease their dissatisfaction with a job through job adaptation responses. Employees adapt to uncertain situations to ease this job stressor by being less satisfied or committed to their job or organization. However, there is conflicting literature on the effect of perceived job insecurity on personal outcomes. Research argues that there is a link between job insecurity and increased work commitment and effort and that perceived job insecurity leads to
increased employee organizational effectiveness (Galup, Saunders, Nelson &
Cerveny, 1997; Greenhalgh, 1982; Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984). Employees who
felt insecure about their jobs were more motivated and worked harder to secure the future of their jobs (Galup et al., 1997; Greenhalgh, 1982; Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984). However, in line with the job adaption theory of Hulin (1991), most researchers argue that perceived job insecurity has negative consequences, including reduced organizational commitment (Ashford et al., 1989; Coopey & Hartley, 1991; Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995; Yousef, 1989). Sverke et al. (2002) found that job insecurity has consequences for employees’ organizational attitude, relationship with the organization, health, and job attitudes. In this review, the authors found that employees with high feelings of job security are more committed to their jobs. Consistent with this perspective, existing research finds that employees were less committed when they perceived their organizations as undependable in carrying out their commitment (Ashford et al., 1989; Buchman, 1974; Romzek, 1985; Steers, 1977).
Näswall and De Witte (2003) found that the strength of the relationship between job insecurity and its outcomes differs by demographic variables, including age and gender. According to Näswall and De Witte (2003), there is a strong positive relationship between level of employee insecurity and age. Older employees feel more job insecurity (Hartley et al., 1991; Mohr, 2000). The analysis also suggests that because of the traditional role of men as family supporters, men feel more insecure about losing their jobs, and that employees with higher educational degrees feel less job insecurity (Hartely et al, 1991; Näswall & de Witte, 2003). Finally they found that employees with contingent contracts tend to experience higher levels of job insecurity (Sverke et al., 2000). As this study aims to investigate whether organizational commitment mediates the effect of perceived job insecurity on voluntary turnover intention, it is important to control for these demographic variables.
2.3. Organizational Commitment
Two approaches are widely used in measuring, defining, and conceptualizing organizational commitment (Steers & Porter, 1983). In the first approach, organizational commitment is defined as behavior: employees are viewed as committed to the organization if the employee stays because he or she calculates that leaving the organization would be too costly, for example, due to loss in salary,
benefits, or tenure. This behavioral approach implies organizational commitment is calculative (Etzioni, 1961). The second approach defines organizational commitment as an attitude: an employee stays because he or she identifies with an organization and its goals. Organizational commitment can broadly be defined as “the willingness of social actors to give their energy and loyalty to social systems” (Kanter, 1968, p.499) or “as an attitude towards the organization, which links the identity of the person to that of the organization” (Sheldon, 1971, p143).
The three-component model introduced by Meyer and Allen (1987) integrates several conceptualizations. Meyer and Allen (1987) suggest that organizational commitment consists of three components: normative, continuance, and affective commitment. Normative commitment refers to employees’ feelings of obligation to stay. Continuance organizational commitment refers to employees’ avoidance of the negative consequences of leaving the organization. Affective commitment refers to employees’ emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Employees can experience each of these states to varying degrees, and therefore it is best to view normative, continuance and affective commitment as components rather than types of organizational commitment. Employees may, for example, feel a strong need to remain with their organization and feel a strong sense of obligation but no desire to remain. Or employees may feel neither a need nor an obligation to stay with the organization but still feel a strong desire to stay. Given these differences, it is reasonable to expect the three components to develop independently and to have different antecedents.
Antecedents of Organizational Commitment
The antecedents of normative commitment consist of both the employees’ experiences prior to and following their start at an organization (Wiener, 1982). For example, employees’ normative commitment to the organization is higher when family norms stress the importance of organizational loyalty or when employees work in an environment where the organization expects employees’ loyalty. The antecedents of continuance commitment consist of two categories: the magnitude and number of investments made; and the perceived lack of alternatives (Becker, 1960; Farrell & Rusbult, 1981). Employees invest considerable time and energy in their jobs, the magnitude and number of investments influences whether they stay with the organization (Becker, 1960). The more they perceive a lack of employment
alternatives, the stronger their continuance commitment will be (Farrell & Rusbult, 1981; Rusbult & Farrell, 1983). The antecedents of affective commitment consist of four categories: job characteristics, personal characteristics, work experience, and structural characteristics (Meyer & Allen, 1987; Mowday, Porter & Steers, 1982). In sum, all layers of organizational commitment are influenced by personal characteristics, job characteristics, and work experiences (Steers, 1977).
In particular, organizational trust found to influence all layers of organizational commitment (Buchanan, 1974; Hrebiniak, 1974). Sverke et al. (2002) found that perceived job insecurity has a moderate negative association with organizational commitment. Ashford et al. (1989) found that perceived job insecurity leads to negative attitudinal reactions like reduced organizational commitment. Besides the negative impact it has on organizational commitment, perceived job insecurity might also affect the different layers of organizational commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1987). It is therefore important to research the effect of perceived job insecurity on the various layers of organizational commitment.
Buitendach and De Witte (2005) assessed the relationship between job insecurity and affective commitment of maintenance workers in Gauteng, China. The researchers found that job insecurity was negatively associated with affective commitment. Lee and Peccei (2007) analysed to what extent employees’ perceived sense of job insecurity affected affective commitment at two Korean banks. Consistent with Buitendach and De Witte’s (2005) findings, Lee and Peccei (2007) found that perceived job insecurity weakened the direct relationship between perceived organizational support and affective commitment. In this study therefore
the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1a: Perceived job insecurity is negatively related to affective organizational
commitment
Previous research has mainly focused on the effect of perceived job insecurity on affective commitment. However, previous researchers like Lord and Hartley (1998), Paswewark and Strawser (1996) and Wasti (2003) indicate possible correlations between perceived job insecurity and all layers of organizational commitment. High perceived job insecurity was found to decrease the organizational commitment of employees. However, one limitation of these studies is that the authors focused on organizational commitment as a whole or solely on affective commitment. This
underlines the importance of a normative and continuance perspective on organizational commitment. This study opens the possibility of correlations between perceived job insecurity and continuance and normative commitments, leading to the following hypothesis:
H1b: Perceived job insecurity is negatively related to normative organizational
commitment.
H1c: Perceived job insecurity is negatively related to continuance organizational
commitment.
In this research, organizational commitment is conceptualised as a multi-dimensional construct. Many researchers focus the measurement of organizational commitment on affective commitment alone (Allen & Meyer, 1996; Meyer, Allen & Smith, 1993). Research shows that affective commitment is more relevant than the two other components because it is a more reliable and important explanatory variable (Allen & Meyer, 1996). Buitendach and De Witte (2005) followed the tradition of focusing on affective commitment and confirmed that affective commitment is the most important explanatory variable and most reliable measurement explaining more variance in outcome variables than the two other components (Allen & Meyer, 1996; Buitendach & de Witte, 2005). We therefore expect perceived job insecurity to have a stronger effect on affective commitment than on normative and continuance commitment:
H1d: Perceived job insecurity has a stronger effect on affective commitment then on
normative and continuance commitment.
Consequences of Organizational Commitment
Organizational commitment can influence several organizational outcomes, such as job performance, productivity, lower absenteeism, and turnover. Higher levels of organizational commitment have positive outcomes for organizations, such as higher individual performance and lower levels of turnover (Beck & Wilson, 2000; Sturges, Conway, Guest & Liefooghe, 2005). In contrast, lower levels of organizational commitment might lead to lower individual performance and higher turnover (Mowday, Porter & Dubin, 1974). Recent findings indicate that organizational commitment is one of the most important predictors of employee turnover (Koch & Steers, 1976; Porter, Steers, Mowday & Boulian, 1974). Based on job adaptation theory and previous research, this study expects employees to adapt to job insecurity
by reducing their committed to their organization, which leads to higher turnover intention (Koch & Steers, 1976; Porter et al., 1974).
2.4. Voluntary Turnover Intention
Voluntary turnover intention can be described as employees’ intention to leave their organization when they have the opportunity to stay (Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski & Erez, 2001). Tett and Meyer (1993) define voluntary turnover intention as “a conscious and deliberate willfulness to leave the organization” (p.262). Voluntary turnover intention is an important predictor of actual turnover behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner, 2000; Mobley, 1977; Mobley Griffeth, Hand & Meglino, 1979; Steers & Mowday, 1981). Griffeth, Hom and Gaertner (2000) concluded in their meta-analysis that turnover intention remains among the best predictors of actual turnover. These predictors include job search, job satisfaction, comparison of alternatives, withdrawal cognitions, organizational commitment, and turnover intention. Steel, Nestor and Ovalle (1984) examined the consistency of the intent-turnover relationship and showed that intention was more predictive of attrition than overall job satisfaction or organizational commitment. Empirical research on organizational commitment has shown it to be a significant predictor of voluntary turnover intention.
Antecedents of Voluntary Turnover Intention
Most researchers agree that employees who are strongly committed to their organizations are less likely to leave their organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Blau & Boal, 1976; Trevor & Nyberg, 2008). However, the predictor can differ according to each component of organizational commitment. Employees with stronger normative commitment will not leave the organization because they feel they ought to stay. Employees with stronger continuance commitment will not leave the organization because they need to stay. Finally employees with stronger affective commitment will not leave because they want to stay (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Employees experience all three components to varying degrees; thus their overall organizational commitment is the “sum” (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Researchers argue that, despite their high correlation, normative, continuance, and affective commitment affect other variables differently. As these other variables are outcomes of organizational commitment, is it worth investigating the three components separately in this research (Cohen, 1996;
Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch & Topolnytsky, 2002). Employees with high normative, continuance, and affective commitment have lower voluntary turnover intention (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1987; Payne & Huffman, 2005; Somers, 1995). Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch and Topolnytsky (2002) found that the three layers of organizational commitment all negatively affect withdrawal cognition and turnover: the lower the organizational commitment, the higher withdrawal cognition and turnover. Despite the consensus that all components of organizational commitment effect voluntary turnover intention, most research has only focused on affective commitment, as it has the most consistent relationship with organizational outcomes; for example, it is a strong predictor of turnover intention (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1977; Payne & Huffman, 2005; Somers, 1995). Therefore in this research, affective commitment is expected to negatively affect voluntary turnover intention.
H2a: Affective commitment will have a negative effect on voluntary turnover
intention.
Normative and continuance commitment have generated little research interest since the inception of Meyer and Allen's (1987) three-component model, failing to provide the full picture of all factors that influence voluntary turnover intention (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Wasti, 2003). However, the three components of organizational commitment are developed from different antecedents and therefore might have different effects on job-related outcomes and turnover intention (see Allen & Meyer, 1996 and Meyer & Allen, 1997, for a review). As mentioned earlier normative commitment is influenced by experiences outside of the organization and experiences within the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Wiener, 1982) and continuance commitment is influenced by perceived employment alternatives and by the organizational investments made by an employee (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Becker, 1960; Farrell & Rusbult, 1983). Wasti (2003) examined the moderating influence of several variables on the relationship between organizational commitment and turnover intention. The authors found that affective commitment affected turnover intention but found no moderation effect for the variables tested. However, one of the variables did moderate the relationship between normative commitment and turnover intention. These findings underline the importance of investigating normative and continuance
commitment in different conceptual models. Therefore the following hypothesis will be tested:
H2a: Normative commitment will have a negative effect on voluntary turnover
intention.
H2b: Continuance commitment will have a negative effect on voluntary turnover
intention.
According to previous research, affective commitment has a stronger correlation with withdrawal cognition and turnover than normative and continuance commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1977; Payne & Huffman, 2005; Somers, 1995; Watsi, 2003). Meyer et al. (2002) studied the differences, antecedents, correlates, and consequences of affective, continuance, and normative commitment. Affective, continuance and normative commitment all negatively affected withdrawal cognition and turnover, but affective commitment had the strongest effect. Therefore this research expects affective commitment to have a stronger negative effect on voluntary turnover intention then normative and continuance organizational commitment (Meyer et al., 2002).
H2d: Affective commitment has a stronger effect on voluntary turnover intention than
normative and continuance commitment.
2.5. Perceived Job Insecurity, Organizational Commitment and Voluntary Turnover Intention As described above, Sverke et al. (2002) found that perceived job insecurity was negatively correlated to organizational commitment, and Allen and Meyer (1990) found that organizational commitment was negatively related to voluntary turnover intention. In line with Hulin’s (1991) job adaption theory, most research found that perceived job insecurity has a negative effect on organizational commitment (Ashford et al., 1989; Coopey & Hartley, 1991; Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995; Yousef, 1989). Employees who have a high feeling of job insecurity are less committed to the organization they work for, and employees who have lower feelings of job insecurity are more committed to the organization they work for (Ashford et al., 1989; Buchman, 1974; Steers, 1977). Furthermore, organizational commitment is one of the most important predictors of turnover, as lower levels of commitment create higher turnover intention (Koch & Steers, 1976; Porter, Steers, Mowday & Boulian, 1974).
Therefore, hypothesis 3 proposes an indirect effect of perceived job insecurity on voluntary turnover intention through organizational commitment. H3: The relationship between perceived job insecurity and voluntary turnover
intention will be mediated by normative, continuance, and affective commitment.
2.6. Who suffers more from Perceived Job Insecurity?
Different types of employees react differently to perceived job insecurity; thus, it is important to understand which employees suffer more from perceived job insecurity. Chang and Chen (2007) examine how tenure, age, and gender affect the relationship between perceived job insecurity and job-related consequences. The authors found a stronger positive effect in the relationship for short tenured employees than for long tenured employees and for younger employees than for older employees. In other words employees’ tenure and age moderated the relationship between job insecurity and voluntary turnover intention. These findings and the general assumption that employees with a longer tenure are likely to be older suggest that tenure and age are highly consistent regarding consequences of job insecurity. However age is associated with career issues and with social issues, while tenure is only associated with career issues. Younger employees, for example, will have fewer family obligations and therefore job insecurity will be less of an issue than for older employees who most likely have family obligations and fewer opportunities on the labor market (Chang & Chen, 2007; Cohen, 1991). Tenure mainly reflects specific career issues not necessarily related to age. Organizational commitment, for example, is positively related to tenure but in general is not affected by age (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Therefore in this study we will focus on employees’ tenure and its effect on the relationship between perceived job insecurity, organizational commitment, and voluntary turnover.
Most research found employees with longer tenure to be more committed to their organization (Cohen, 1991; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). However, Chang and Chen (2007) found that tenure affected the relationship between job insecurity and voluntary turnover intention but not the relationship between job insecurity and organizational commitment. While some studies have found a positive relationship, others have found either no relationship or a negative relationship between tenure and job insecurity. These inconsistent findings may be related to the way tenure is viewed within an organization. In some organizations, long tenure employees are seen as a
liability, while in others they are respected for their knowledge and experience (Shin, 2007; Yeatts, Folts & Knapp, 1999). Current research does not address whether organizational commitment accounts for how tenure affects the relationship between job insecurity and voluntary turnover intention. Therefore this study examines tenure as first stage moderator in the relationship between perceived job insecurity, organizational commitment and voluntary turnover intention.
H4: The indirect effect of perceived job insecurity on voluntary turnover intention
through organizational commitment will be moderated by tenure.
Besides employees’ tenure, employee personality is another important factor that might moderate the relationship between perceived job insecurity, organizational commitment and voluntary turnover intention (Zimmerman, 2008). Personality research is mostly focused on the big five personality traits: according to the five-factor model of Costa and McCrae (1985), these traits are conscientiousness, extraversion, emotional stability, agreeableness and openness to experience. Numerous studies show that personality traits not only influence job insecurity but also voluntary turnover intention (Jenkins, 1993; Zimmerman, 2008). Zimmerman (2008) found that personality traits have an effect on voluntary turnover intention and turnover behaviour: emotional stability negatively affected voluntary turnover intention, and consciousness and agreeableness negatively affected voluntary turnover behaviour. This finding indicates that employees with lower emotional stability may intend to quit for other reasons than perceived job insecurity or organizational commitment (Judge & Ilies, 2002). According to Barrick and Mount (1991) emotional instability relates to being anxious, depressed, angry, emotional, and insecure (Judge & Ilies, 2002; Tokar, Fischer & Subich, 1998; Watson & Hubbard, 1996). Therefore this study expects emotional stability will moderate the indirect effect of perceived job insecurity on voluntary turnover intention.
H5: The indirect effect of perceived job insecurity on voluntary turnover intention
through organizational commitment is moderated by emotional stability.
3. Method
Through a quantitative research this study researched the indirect effect of perceived job insecurity on voluntary turnover intention through organizational commitment. Tenure was included in this research as possible first stage moderator between
perceived job insecurity and organizational commitment. Emotional stability was included in this research as possible second stage moderator between organizational commitment and voluntary turnover intention. A survey was created using the online survey platform ‘Qualtrics’. The survey was an anonymous survey and was in Dutch (see Appendix). To ensure the reliability of the variables and to ensure that the translation was of good quality the survey consisted of existing scales. Each respondent was asked to answer the same set of questions. The survey consisted of three parts and took around 10 minutes of the participants’ time. The first part consisted of 32 questions about the participants’ current job situation. The scales of perceived job insecurity, organizational commitment and voluntary turnover intention were processed in this section. The second part consisted of 10 questions about the participants’ personality. The scale of emotional stability was processed in this section. Finally, the survey consisted of 5 demographical questions. Three core variables of this research (perceived job insecurity, tenure and organizational commitment) are related to characteristics such as age, gender and employee contract (Chang & Chen, 2007; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Näswall & De Witte, 2003). Therefore, in this research the relationship with these characteristics has been controlled for.
3.1. Sample
The survey was distributed through the use of direct approach of workers who were commuting to and from work, as long as respondents were working at least 32 hours a week. An effort was made to ensure the heterogeneity of the sample in terms of industry and function. Participation was voluntary and around 150 people initially filled out the survey while commuting to work, 136 of those surveys were returned for analysis (91%). The data consisted of 87 female and 49 male participants between 18 and 63 years old. The majority (55%) was between 18 and 27 years old (M= 29,78,
SD= 8,1). More than half of the participants (60%) had finished university (bachelor
or master’s degree), and about 31% finished higher vocational education. Most of the participants, about 50%, had a permanent contract with their employer and 27% of the participants had a fixed term contract of one year. Most of the participants worked for their employer between 1 and 6 years (97.8%). 37% of the participants worked for their employer for one year or less and 31.6% worked for their employer for two years (M= 2.08, SD= 1.12).
3.2. Measurement
In order to control for background characteristics, questions were asked on gender (coded as 1 = male; 2 = female), age, educational degree and employee contract type (coded as 1= fixed term one year contract; 2= fixed term two year contract; 3= permanent contract). As mentioned earlier, tenure and age are related regarding consequences of job insecurity and therefore age and tenure were important control variable in this research. Before analysing the data several items were recoded and the mean of all items was taken to create variables. As the scales were all existing scales the scales were not subjected to a factor analyses to check whether all the items of these different scales were measuring the same construct. The reliability was tested by reliability analysis and the Cronbach’s Alpha’s are reported in the correlation matrix in table 1.
Perceived job insecurity
Perceived job insecurity refers to employees’ “expectations about continuity in a job
situation” (Kinicki & Scheck, 1997, p. 323). To measure perceived job insecurity the
survey included four items that were rated on a 5-point-likert scale, ranging from 1=fully disagree to 5=fully agree. The scale was based on the scale developed by Van Der Elst, De Witte and Cuyper (2013). An example of one of the questions participants had to answer was: “I am sure that I am able to keep my job”. The other three items were indicative items and hence only the counter indicative example item had to be recoded.
Organizational commitment
Organizational commitment is the willingness of employees to give their energy and loyalty to the organization they work for; which links the identity of the employee to the organization (Kanter, 1968; Sheldon, 1971). The three components of organizational commitment were all measured on a 5-point-likert scale ranging from 1=fully disagree to 5=fully agree. The scale was based on an organizational commitment scale developed by Allen and Meyer (1990) consisting of 24 items in total and 8 items per component. To measure normative organizational commitment (the feeling you ought to stay) participants were asked to what extent they agreed, for example, with the following question: “I was taught to believe in the value of remaining loyal to one organization”. Six of the items were indicative and the other
two items were counter indicative items and were recoded. To measure continuance organizational commitment (the feeling you need to stay) participants were asked to what extent they agreed for example with the following question “It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now, even if I wanted to”. Six of the items were indicative and the other two items were contradictive items and were recoded. Finally, to measure affective organizational commitment (the feeling you want to stay) participants were asked to what extent they agreed for example with the following question “I do not feel emotionally attached to this organization”. Four of the items were indicative and the other four items were contradictive items and were recoded. In this study 7 of the 8 items were used. The reliability of the item ‘I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization’ was left out, as the Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.47. After deleting this item, the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient for this scale was 0.67.
Voluntary turnover intention
Voluntary turnover intention is defined as “a conscious and deliberate willingness to
leave the organization” (Tett & Meyer, 1993, p. 262). To measure the dependent
variable voluntary turnover intention the survey consisted of four items that could be rated on a 5-point-likert scale, ranging from 1=fully disagree to 5=fully agree. The scale was based on the scale developed by Van Veldhoven and Meijman (1994) and consisted of the following four items: “I frequently think of quitting my job”, “I frequently think about looking for a job in a different company”, “My plan is to look for a new job within now and a year” and “If I have my own way, I will be working for the company I work for now one year from now". The last item was counter indicative and was recoded.
Emotional Stability
Emotional stability captures the steadiness of a persons’ general emotional state (Brown, Mowen, Donavan & Licata, 2002). Emotional stability was measured on a on a 5-point-likert scale, ranging from 1=fully disagree to 5=fully agree based on the scale used by Goldberg (1992). The original scale of Goldberg (1992) was developed to measure all big five-personality traits with 10 items per personality trait. The respondents in this study had to rate their emotional stability on seven items indicating how accurate the item described himself/herself; for example: “I am
relaxed most of the time” or “I get angry easily”. Three of the items are indicative and the other seven items are counter indicative items and have been recoded.
Tenure
Organizational tenure is operationalized as the number of years each participant has been employed at his or her current organization. Tenure was measured with open question in the survey: “How many years have you been working for the company you work for at this moment”?
4. Results
4.1 Descriptive statistics, correlations and scale reliabilities The primary goal of this research was to assess the indirect effect of perceived job insecurity on voluntary turnover intention through organizational commitment. The research hypothesized that organizational commitment would mediate the effect of perceived job insecurity on voluntary turnover intention. To determine the extent of the relationship between perceived job insecurity, organizational commitment, and voluntary turnover intention, and to determine the moderating effect of tenure and emotional stability on this indirect relationship several analyses were run. The descriptive statistics, correlations and scale reliabilities are reported in table 1. Except for affective organizational commitment (.67), most of the scales had an acceptable internal consistency (between .79 and .87). Poor reliability reduces the precision of a single measurement and the Cronbach’s Alpha should be above .80 to be used as a reliable scale (Nunally & Bernstein, 1994). The control variables in this study were the employees’ gender (coded as 1= male; 2= female), age, educational degree and employee contract (coded as 1= fixed term one year contract; 2= fixed term two year contract; 3= permanent contract).
The first remarkable finding is the significant moderate to large correlation that was found between perceived job insecurity and voluntary turnover intention (.38). This could mean, in line with expectations that organizational commitment accounts for a large proportion of the relationship between perceived job insecurity and voluntary turnover intention. The indirect effect through the different paths (normative, continuance and affective commitment) will be discussed.
Not in line with the research expectations was the insignificant correlation found between perceived job insecurity and normative organizational commitment
(.07), however there was a significant correlation found between normative organizational commitment and voluntary turnover intention (-.49). A significant moderate to large correlation was found between perceived job insecurity and continuance organizational commitment (.21), however there was no significant correlation found between continuance organizational commitment and voluntary turnover intention (.02). Finally, there was no significant correlation found between perceived job insecurity and affective organizational commitment (-.13), however there was a significant correlation found between affective organizational commitment and voluntary turnover intention (-.43). According to the findings there was no significant correlation between emotional stability and any of the other variables, except a moderate significant correlation between emotional stability and continuance commitment (.25).
Table 1: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations and Reliabilities
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Gender (1=male; 2= female) 1,64 0,48 -
2. Age 12,78 8,1 -0,8 -
3. Educational Degree 4,54 0,72 .21 .05 -
4. Employee Contract (1= fixed term one year contract; 2= fixed
term two year contract; 3= permanent contract) 2,54 1,07 -.07 .26 .03 -
5. Perceived Job Insecurity 2,45 0,97 .20 .11 .00 .10 (.79)
6. Emotional Stability 2,37 0,66 .12 -.16 .00 -.10 .14 (.80)
7. Normative Organizational Commitment 3,30 0,92 -.08 -.06 -.05 -.06 -.07 .06 (.87)
8. Continuance Organizational Commitment 2,72 0,79 .15 -.11 -.19 -.11 .21 .25 .21 (.78)
9. Affective Organizational Commitment 2,98 0,55 -.23 -.01 -.08 .10 -.13 .02 .45 .04 (.67)
10. Voluntary Turnover Intention 3,21 1,07 .29 .04 .05 .05 .38 .01 -.49 .02 -.43 (.84)
4.2 Hypothesis testing
All the hypotheses were tested with the PROCESS Macro (Hayes, 2013), which allows for the testing of moderated mediation, in SPSS. PROCESS is an add-on program that identifies the direct and indirect effects within moderating models (Hayes, 2013). In all analyses the variables gender, age, educational degree and employee contract were controlled for. To measure the mediating effects of normative, continuance an affective organizational commitment and the moderating effects of tenure and emotional stability in the relation between perceived job insecurity and voluntary turnover intention, PROCESS model 21 of Hayes (2013) was used. The analyses of this research started with testing of the entire conceptual model. The results in table 2 show the significant relationships between the different paths of perceived job insecurity, the three components of organizational commitment and voluntary turnover intention. Between perceived job insecurity and normative organizational commitment no significant effect was found but a significant effect was found between normative organizational commitment and voluntary turnover intention. Therefore, hypothesis 1a was rejected but hypothesis 2a was supported. There was a significant effect of perceived job insecurity on continuance organizational commitment however no significant effect was found for continuance organizational commitment on voluntary turnover intention. Therefore, hypothesis 1b was supported but hypothesis 2b was rejected. Finally there was an insignificant effect of perceived job insecurity on affective organizational commitment and an insignificant effect of affective organizational commitment on voluntary turnover intention. Therefore, hypothesis 1c, 1d, 2c and 2d were rejected. Based on the insignificant findings we conclude that in this research organizational commitment does not mediate the relationship between perceived job insecurity and voluntary turnover intention. The direct effect of perceived job insecurity on voluntary turnover intention is significant meaning that there might be another variable mediating this effect and hypothesis 3 is rejected.
When analyzing the results in table 2, there are several significant interaction effects reported. There was no significant moderation effect found for tenure on any of the indirect effects in this research. When considering the bootstrap confidence intervals for tenure, zero falls within the bootstrap interval for every indirect effect and this indicates that hypothesis 4 was not supported and therefore rejected. Nor was
there a significant moderation effect found for emotional stability on the indirect effects of continuance and affective organizational commitment. There was a significant moderate effect found for emotional stability on the indirect effect of normative organizational commitment. However when analyzing the conditional indirect effects of perceived job insecurity on voluntary turnover intention through normative organizational commitment, all the moderating effects were insignificant. Meaning there was a significant effect for emotional stability on the indirect effect of normative organizational commitment, however when analyzing if emotional stability would weaken or strengthen this relationship there were no significant relationship found. To test if these insignificant findings were not due to other factors, additional analyses were tested in SPSS. To measure the moderation effect of emotional stability on the relationship between normative organizational commitment and voluntary turnover intention, PROCESS model 14 of Hayes (2013) was used. The results of this additional analysis, shown in table 3, confirm that there is no significant moderation effect found for emotional stability on the indirect effect of normative organizational commitment. Therefore can be concluded that no evidence was found for moderated mediation in this research and hypothesis 5 is rejected.
Table 2: PROCESS, Moderated Mediation, Model 21 Consequent Normative Organizational Commitment (M) Continuance Organizational Commitment (M) Affective Organizational Commitment (M) Voluntary Turnover Intention (Y)
Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p
Perceived Job Insecurity (X) a1j -0.06 0.18 0.731 a1j 0.30 0.15 <.05 a1j -0.05 0.10 0.602 c'1 0.75 0.31 <.05
Normative Organizational Commitment (Mj) - - - b1j -1.24 0.33 <.001
Continuance Organizational Commitment (Mj) - - - b1j -0.07 0.37 0.85
Affective Organizational Commitment (Mj) - - - b1j 0.05 0.53 0.925
Tenure (W) a2j 0.08 0.15 0.602 a2j 0.05 0.12 0.700 a2j 0.09 0.09 0.309 - - -
Emotional Stability (V) - - - b2 -0.54 0.66 0.412
Perceived Job Insecurity x Tenure (XW) a4j -0.01 0.05 0.907 a4j -0.04 0.05 0.337 a4j -0.01 0.03 0.743 - - -
Normative Organizational Commitment x
Emotional Stability (MjV) - - - b4j 0.36 0.14 <.05
Continuance Organizational Commitment x
Emotional Stability (MjV) - - - b4j 0.04 0.16 0.802
Affective Organizational Commitment x
Emotional Stability (MjV) - - - b4j -0.20 0.21 0.347
Table 3: PROCESS, Moderated Mediation, Model 14
Consequent
Normative Organizational Commitment (M)
Voluntary Turnover Intention (Y)
Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p
Perceived Job Insecurity (X) a1j -0.07 0.08 0.397 c'1 0.37 0.08 <.001
Normative Organizational Commitment (Mj) - - - b1j -1.14 0.26 <.001
Emotional Stability (V) - - - b2 -0.86 0.37 <.05
Normative Organizational Commitment x Emotional Stability (MjV) - - - b4j 0.27 0.11 <.05
5. Discussion
The findings of this study and the implications of these findings are discussed below. Furthermore the limitations of this study and suggestions for further research will be discussed.
5.1 Conclusion In this research the indirect effect of perceived job insecurity on voluntary turnover intention through organizational commitment was explored. The economic and financial crises, technological innovations and changes in migration have forced organizations to change strategy and restructure their organizations (Bradley et al., 2014; Goldin & Cameron, 2011). These changes have often led to unemployment, wage cuts, early retirements, involuntary temporary employment and involuntary part-time employment. This has led to higher levels of job insecurity amongst workers (Hartley et al., 1991; Sparks et al., 2001). High levels of perceived job insecurity lead to lower levels of organizational commitment, which in turn leads to higher levels of voluntary turnover intention (Ashford et al., 1989; Coopey & Hartley, 1991; Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995; Porter et al., 1974; Yousef, 1989). Therefore it was expected that organizational commitment would mediate the relationship between perceived job insecurity and voluntary turnover intention. The results are not in line with these expectations, since they show no significant indirect effect for perceived job insecurity on voluntary turnover intention through organizational commitment. The results do show that perceived job insecurity is positively related to voluntary turnover intention. However, organizational commitment does not mediate this relationship. This study contributed to recent research by examining the relationship between perceived job insecurity, organizational commitment and voluntary turnover intention in a Dutch context. Whereas the majority of studies regarding the relationship between perceived job insecurity, organizational commitment and voluntary turnover intention are conducted outside of the Netherlands (Ashford et al., 1989; Coopey & Hartley, 1991; Davey et al., 2002; Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995; Koch & Steers, 1976; Porter et al., 1974; Yousef, 1989). The international differences between the participants in this research and those of previous research might cause these inconsistent findings. Previous research has focused on the understanding of perceived job insecurity, organizational commitment and voluntary turnover
intention. However, the investigation of international differences regarding these variables remains underemphasized (Davey et al., 2002; Erlinghagen, 2007; Ko, Price & Mueller, 1997; Lee, Meyer & Rhee, 2001; Wasti, 1999). Most research has focussed on individual, familial or workplace differences (Ashford et al., 1989; Hartley et al., 1991; Sverke & Hellgren, 2002) and not on cross-country differences (Davey et al., 2002; Erlinghagen, 2007; Sousa-Poza & Henneberger, 2004). Significant cross-country differences in perception of perceived job insecurity, organizational commitment and voluntary turnover intention might generate different outcomes. For example, because of high levels of labour regulation and labour protection, the Netherlands is amongst the countries with the lowest levels of perceived job insecurity (Auer, 2000; Erlinghagen, 2007) and lowest levels of voluntary turnover intention (Sousa-Poza & Henneberger, 2004). The results show the possibility that there are cross-country differences in the relationship between perceived job insecurity, organizational commitment and voluntary turnover intention. Comparisons of studies conducted within and outside of the Netherlands revealed considerable similarity yet the findings of this research suggests that more systematic cross-national research is warranted (David et al., 2002; Erlinghagen, 2007; Sousa-Poza & Henneberger, 2004). In addition whether cross-national differences really contribute to our understanding of the findings presented here, there are some other limitations of this study, which should be mentioned and require further investigation in future research.
5.2. Limitations
Based on the insignificant findings we conclude that in this research organizational commitment does not mediate the relationship between perceived job insecurity and voluntary turnover intention. Furthermore we conclude that tenure and emotional stability do not moderate this relationship. The results in table 2 show the insignificant relationships between perceived job insecurity, the three paths of organizational commitment and voluntary turnover intention. This study has several limitations that might explain why hypotheses failed to reach statistical significance.
First, the study relied on self-evaluation measures. Using self-report measures exclusively can cause problems in validation (Schaufeli, Maslach & Marek, 1993). For example, respondents can have the tendency to respond to questions in a social acceptable manner more then according to their true feelings (Podsakoff & Organ,
1986). Although the answers were kept anonymous in this research and this was communicated to the respondents, the direct approach in public transport can have caused respondents to give social desirable answers. Another important factor that could have been created by using self-report measures is the effect of transient mood state (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Transient mood state refers to the impact of recent events that can influence the way in which respondents view themselves and the world around them. Perceived job insecurity, voluntary turnover intention can be influenced by the mood the respondent is in that particular day or moment. To avoid social desirability and transient mood state, future research should measure crucial variables at different times, preferably with different scaling constructs and in different settings. Ideally the researcher should obtain several measures of the crucial variables from different sources. Different sources and methods for data collection can increase the validity (Schmitt, 1994; Spector, 1994).
In addition, attention also needs to be paid to the issue of perceived job insecurity measurement. The measurement of perceived job insecurity was according to the scale developed by Van Der Elst, De Witte and Cuyper (2013). There have been several attempts to conceptually clarify perceived job insecurity and researchers argue that there are different elements to perceived job insecurity: affective vs. cognitive insecurity and short-term vs. long-term insecurity (Ashford et al., 1989; Borg & Elizur, 1992; Roskies & Louis-Guerin, 1990). All of these elements could clarify different aspects of perceived job insecurity and this could have different outcomes when perceived job insecurity is tested. To have a full conceptualization of perceived job insecurity all these dimensions should have been tested. Unfortunately due to time limitations this was not possible in this research.
The insignificant findings for tenure might be caused by the nature and size of the sample. This research was bound by geographic factors, since data were only collected from the Dutch labor force commuting between Amsterdam and Driebergen-Zeist. The sample can be described as representative in terms of gender, education and employee contract, however the majority of the sample consisted of relatively young and short tenured employees. The majority of the participants were between 18 and 27 years old and most of the participants worked for their employer for two years or less (M= 2.08, SD= 1.12). As mentioned earlier younger employees will have fewer family obligations and higher chances on the labour market then older
employees and therefore job insecurity will be less of an issue (Chang & Chen, 2007; Cohen, 1991). The low sample size (n=135) and the low response of sample variety may have caused these insignificant effects. In addition, organizational tenure was operationalized as the number of years each participant had been employed at his or her current organization. This way of measuring ignored the fact that there may be differences in months; only the amount of years was measured. The sample of present study is not representative and the measurement of tenure decreases the validity of this research. Possibly different results for the effect of tenure and age difference would be found in other settings.
5.3 Future research
Several limitations have been stated above, from which a number can be addressed in future research. Besides these suggestions the findings of this study suggest an additional number of interesting directions for future research.
The results do not provide evidence that organizational commitment mediates the relationship between perceived job insecurity and voluntary turnover intention. The fact that the Netherlands differs form other countries when it comes to perceived job insecurity and voluntary turnover intention, is a strong indication that cross-country differences must play an important role in the determination of the effect of perceived job insecurity on voluntary turnover intention. As most countries are going through different variations of economic change, it is crucial to understand how cross-country differences affect current levels of perceived job insecurity and voluntary turnover intentions. More in depth research should be performed on finding the different effects of cross-national differences on perceived job insecurity and voluntary turnover intention.
Finally the dependent variable, voluntary turnover intention, in this study could be reconsidered or extended. No indirect effect was found for perceived job insecurity on voluntary turnover intention through organizational commitment, however there could still be an effect on other withdrawal cognitions (Borg & Elizur, 1992; Davy et al., 1997). For example on: thoughts of reducing work effort, increasing absenteeism, lower job involvement and sabotage (Davy et al., 1997). The participants in this research were only asked if they would leave the organizations they work for but nothing was researched about the other negative variables related with withdrawal cognitions. Research may view these elements of withdrawal
cognitions as less extreme than intention to leave the company but this does not mean they are not important. Besides voluntary turnover intention these withdrawal cognitions could create significant costs for organizations and therefore it is very important to investigate the effect of perceived job insecurity and organizational commitment on all of these withdrawal cognitions.
6. References
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective,
continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of
occupational psychology, 63(1), 1-18.
Allen, D. G., Weeks, K. P., & Moffitt, K. R. (2005). Turnover intention and voluntary turnover: the moderating roles of self-monitoring, locus of control, proactive personality, and risk aversion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 980.
Armour, S. (2005). Generation Y: They’ve arrived at work with a new attitude. USA
Today, 6, 2005.
Ashford, S. J., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1989). Content, cause, and consequences of job insecurity: A theory-based measure and substantive test. Academy of
Management journal, 32(4), 803-829.
Becker, H. S. (I960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of
Sociology, 66, 3-22 .
Beveridge, W. H. (1944). Full employment in a free society. London, UK: George Allen & Unwin.
Blau, G. J., & Boal, K. B. (1987). Conceptualizing how job involvement and organizational commitment affect turnover and absenteeism. Academy of
Management Review, 288-300.
Borg, I., & Elizur, D. (1992). Job insecurity: Correlates, moderators and measurement. International Journal of Manpower, 13(2), 13-26.
Bradley, C., Dawson, A., & Smit, S. (2014). The strategic yardstick you can’t afford to ignore. McKinsey on Finance, 49.
