• No results found

Perceived employability and turnover intentions, the moderating effect of learning culture

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Perceived employability and turnover intentions, the moderating effect of learning culture"

Copied!
51
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Perceived employability and turnover intentions,

the moderating effect of learning culture.

Name: Jessy van Wingerden

Student number: 10370943 Supervisor: Sofija Pajic

Due date: 22th June, 2018

Word count: 14157 words

University of Amsterdam

Master of Business Administration Thesis Leadership & Management

(2)

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Student Jessy van Wingerden, 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 sources 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.

Acknowledgements

In the process of writing my thesis, some people were of crucial importance to me. I would like to thank them in this section. First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor: Sofija Pajic. She offered me, and the rest of our research group, a lot of guidance and sufficient feedback. Without Sofija, my Thesis would not be the at the same level as it is now.

Furthermore, I want to thank the members of my research group: Evita Dupker, Karin van Egmond and Erik-Jan Veerman. It was a pleasure to work together with them and to help each other when in need of something. Also, collecting the data together made it much easier and even more fun to do.

Having mentioned the data, I also want to thank all of the respondents who filled in the survey. A special thanks to the people in my network who worked extra hard in order to get us enough respondents.

Finally, I would like to thank the UvA for presenting us this opportunity to write our thesis and guide us along the path to finish the Master and graduate.

(3)

Abstract

This study looked at the antecedents of turnover intention and how managers might be able to retain their employees. Therefore, we examined the total effect of self-efficacy on turnover intentions. Besides, we tested the indirect effect of self-efficacy on turnover intention through perceived employability and if this relation can be moderated by learning culture. The data to test the model was collected through cross-sectional surveys among 402 respondents. The data was processed and analysed with mediation and moderated mediation analysis in SPSS using PROCESS macro. The results indicated a positive effect of self-efficacy on perceived employability and, against our expectations, a negative effect of perceived employability on turnover intentions. Moreover, self-efficacy had a negative effect on turnover intentions through perceived employability. Contrary to our expectations, self-efficacy showed no significant direct effect on turnover intentions while learning culture did not show a

significant moderation effect. These results show that in order to retain employees, managers should try and recruit or stimulate employees with high self-efficacy. Next to the practical implications, this study provides a robust argumentation for the link between the dimensions of the social cognitive theory and turnover intention.

(4)

Inhoud

1. Introduction ... 1

2. Theoretical framework ... 6

2.1.1. Turnover intentions ... 6

2.2.1. Self-efficacy and turnover intentions ... 8

2.3.1 Perceived employability ... 10

2.3.2. Perceived employability and self-efficacy ... 12

2.3.3. Perceived employability and turnover intentions ... 14

2.4.1. Organizational learning culture ... 16

2.4.2. Organizational learning culture, perceived employability and turnover intentions ... 18

3. Methods ... 21 3.1. Sample ... 21 3.2. Procedure ... 22 3.3. Measures ... 22 3.4. Control variables ... 23 4. Results ... 25 4.1. Analytical Strategy ... 25 4.2. Descriptive statistics ... 26 4.3. Testing hypotheses ... 27 5. Discussion ... 31 5.1. Practical implications ... 34

5.2. Limitations and future research suggestions ... 35

6. Conclusion ... 38

References ... 39

(5)

1

1. Introduction

Over the last years, a number of changes have occurred within the labour market, and it has changed from operating according to a fixed principle to a more dynamic process. A recent trend is that fewer employees have fixed contracts. In the Dutch labour market, the percentage of employees who have a fixed contract has dropped from 71% to 61%. Therefore, employees have become more flexible, and it has become easier for them to move to other organizations (Sutherland et al., 2002). This makes retaining an organization’s important employees one of the most important concerns of HR managers. Organizations are increasingly ‘headhunting’ competitors’ employees, which has resulted in companies placing greater emphasis on retaining their staff (Sutherland et al., 2002).

Since the improvement of the economy in 2014, there has been an increase in turnover among employees. In 2017, 937,000 employees in the Netherlands, which represents

approximately 15% of the Dutch working community, had different employers to those which they had had the year before (CBS, 2018). When it comes to organizations, an increase in turnover has been demonstrated to have a negative consequences on various performance outcomes (Heavey, Holwerda & Hausknecht, 2013). It is therefore important to investigate the causes and consequences of turnover from both the organizational (employer) and

individual (employee) perspectives. Due to the difficulty in retrieving information concerning actual turnover numbers, this study focuses on the most important predictor of turnover: turnover intentions (Lee & Mowday, 1987; Michaels & Spector, 1982). In a study conducted by Tett and Meyer (1993), several variables were tested with regard to their ability to predict turnover. The highest predictor was found to be turnover intention (0,45). Therefore, we believe that examining the variable of turnover intention will provide robust predictions concerning actual turnover.

In order to understand what drives employees to turnover or to have the intention to do so, research should be conducted into personal factors. Based on the social cognitive theory of Bandura (1988), personal characteristics are crucial contributors to organizational factors. The three main dimensions which are relevant on this topic are: enhancing workers’ beliefs of their capabilities, developing their capabilities and improving their work ethic through

learning and goal systems (Bandura, 1988). The first dimension of the social cognitive theory of enhancing workers’ beliefs of their capabilities is considered as the level of self-efficacy an employee has. Bandura (1991, p. 257) defined self-efficacy as “people’s beliefs about their capabilities to exercise control over their own level of functioning and over events that affect

(6)

2

their lives”. According to the social cognitive theory, workers with high self-efficacy have the determination to affect their personal career and influence events in their favour which can lead for self-efficacy enhancing turnover intention (Bandura, 1988). This is supported by a study conducted by Brown et al. (2006), who found a significant, direct and positive

relationship between self-efficacy and job search behaviour (.21), job search efforts (.16) and job search outcomes (.24). Employees with high self-efficacy have a need for constant

development and desire to be in control over their own career. When they have the impression that they are no longer developing or have a greater number of responsibilities elsewhere, they tend to develop turnover intentions earlier than workers with low self-efficacy (Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner, 2000). Even though self-efficacy is a relevant antecedent of turnover because the need for control and development in their career, it is not the only personality factor that might affect individual differences to consider leaving an organization. Research has identified other antecedents of turnover intention, such as demographic variables or self-esteem (Abraham, 2000; Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner, 2000); however, this study focuses on self-efficacy due to the relation with one of the dimensions of the social cognitive theory, the important role it plays as a contributor to academic development (i.e. a learning culture, which will be discussed further in this chapter) and the connection of perceived employability to self-efficacy.

The relationship between self-efficacy and perceived employability is intriguing, because of the belief that perceived employability is also one of the antecedents of turnover intention (Hillage & Pollard, 1998). Employability is defined as an individual’s capability to move self-sufficiently within the labour market to realize his or her potential through

achieving sustainable employment (Hillage & Pollard, 1998). Self-efficacy is considered as an antecedent of perceived employability. If an individual has a high degree of belief in his or her capabilities and ability to control the situations that arise in life, it is assumed that his or her perceived employability will be high as well (Brown et al. 2006). Although perceived employability and self-efficacy have the same core essence, they are two different constructs (Berntson, Näswall & Sverke, 2008). Perceived employability represents more the specific skills of an employee, where self-efficacy are the feelings of an employee on his own success rate of completing a task. Just like self-efficacy, perceived employability could also be linked to the social cognitive theory. First of all, perceived employability is also connected to the first dimension of the social cognitive theory. If workers are confident of having the

capabilities to have certain tasks, it will increase their functioning on a personal level. They will approach difficult tasks with a positive attitude, leading to higher motivation (Bandura,

(7)

3

1988). The second dimension of the social cognitive theory is developing workers’

capabilities, which can be linked to perceived employability. By modelling employees and enhancing their intellectual, behavioral and social abilities, performances will be better. Next to better performances, this will lead to a higher employability of the employees. Therefore, the perception of workers’ own employability will rise (Bandura, 1988).

In understanding how general self-efficacy as a belief about capabilities to control one’s lives translates in work specific outcomes such as turnover intention we see in perceived employability a valuable link. Recent studies have assumed that perceived

employability increases an employee’s turnover intention (De Cuyper et al., 2010; De Cuyper, Van der Heijden & De Witte, 2011; Rothwell & Arnold; 2007). Employees who have the perception that they are highly employable will leave an organization earlier because they are confident that there are other options available to them. This eliminates the fear of becoming unemployed (De Cuyper, Van der Heijden & De Witte, 2011). Even though the conceptual developments within employability literature and previous empirical evidence mainly speaks in favour of a positive relationship between employability and turnover, not all the result are consistent. For instance, De Cuyper et al. (2010) did not find a significant relationship between perceived employability and turnover intention, while a study conducted by De Cuyper, Van der Heijden and De Witte (2011) found a significant positive relation between the variables. The similarity among these studies is that they all focused solely on the effect of perceived employability and turnover intentions. This study makes a contribution to the academic understanding of the undetermined relationship between perceived employability and turnover intention by using perceived employability as a link between self-efficacy and turnover intention.

Because employees with high self-efficacy could have more general belief that one has control over her/his life within the work domain translates into positive beliefs about one’s employment opportunities, these two factors might be linked in affecting turnover intention. Based on the social cognitive theory, the two constructs self-efficacy and perceived

employability can be related to the dimensions of enhancing workers’ beliefs of their capabilities and developing their capabilities (Bandura, 1988). Research has shown that people with high believes of their capabilities and a high level of employability are more capable of finding a job. These employees will, therefore, have more job alternatives which leads to a higher turnover intention (Boxall, Macky & Rasmussen, 2003; Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner, 2000). Therefore, we believe that perceived employability could represent the mechanism through which more general self-efficacy beliefs get translated into more work

(8)

4

related domain in terms of perceptions about available job opportunities, which might further trigger the intentions to leave their current job. Having the knowledge of when an employee might have the intention to turnover is useful, it is, however, far more effective for managers to know how to prevent turnover. Therefore, we examine the effect of a moderation effect. In this study we test the moderation effect of learning culture, because of its connection to the second and third dimension of the social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1988), which will be further discussed in the following section.

Organizational learning culture is the extent to which an organization stimulates and support their employees to develop themselves further. It is defined as a constant

measurement of the practices and its conversion to the available knowledge of the entire organization which are relevant to their mission (Senge, 1990). Higher learning value within organizations is a predictor of a higher self-rated and supervisor rated employability (Van der Heijden, Gorgievski & De Lange, 2016). Furthermore, organizational learning culture has a negative effect on turnover intentions. A higher organizational learning culture means lower turnover intentions among employees (Islam et al., 2013). These two findings could support a negative moderator effect of organizational learning culture on the positive relationship between perceived employability and turnover intentions. Which is supported by Rajan (1998), stating that a segment of highly perceived employees is employability driven in their career plan and, therefore, need growth opportunities with their current organization to prevent them from turnover. Based on the second and third dimension of social cognitive theory, the learning culture of an organization is most relevant to study in this model. First of all, the second dimension of the social cognitive theory, also related to perceived

employability, indicates higher organizational functioning when employees are able to develop their capabilities adequately (Bandura, 1988). Secondly, according to the social cognitive theory organizations should improve employees’ work ethic through learning and goal systems. Organizations setting goals and provide constant feedback, create a continuous learning process for their employees (Gephart et al., 1996). Eventually attaining challenging goals will lead to higher motivation and satisfaction with highly self-perceived employees, while low self-perceived employees will experience this as stressful (Bandura, 1988).

Organizations providing their employees with the possibility to develop these capabilities and attaining challenging goals by implementing a learning culture will experience less

absenteeism and more job satisfaction among the skilled workers (Bandura, 1988).

Absenteeism and a lack of job satisfaction are considered as predictors of turnover (Tett and Meyer, 1993; Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner, 2000). Lower absenteeism and higher job

(9)

5

satisfaction of skilled workers might be an indication of lower turnover among these employees. By researching organizational learning culture, we can identify the possible practical implications for organization. Offering highly self-perceived employees training and growth opportunities may help organizations to retain them (Rajan, 1997). Therefore, we further examine the moderator ‘organizational learning culture’ in this study.

The purpose of the study is to expand the current knowledge on turnover intention by connecting it to the most important dimensions of the social cognitive theory on

organizational functioning. These dimensions are (inter)-related to the variables self-efficacy, perceived employability and organizational learning culture, hence the choice of this model. Due to the interrelatedness between the dimensions and variables we chose for mediating and moderating effects. Although the social cognitive theory has shown to have influence on organizational functioning, the theory has not been connected to turnover intention. Based on the argumentation of the possible relationships between the independent and dependent variables, this study makes a theoretical contribution to the subject turnover by linking it with social cognitive theory. Furthermore, by incorporating an organizational moderating effect (i.e. learning culture), this study provides practical implications for organizations with regard to how they might retain their valued employees. Lastly, managers will be able to identify the elements that drive employees to leave an organization based on this study.

To what extent does perceived employability mediate the relation between self-efficacy and turnover intention, and is this indirect relationship moderated by an organizational learning culture?

(10)

6

2. Theoretical framework

2.1.1. Turnover intentions

Employee turnover has been increasingly studied during the last 20 years. Because of the changing working environment, this topic is constantly becoming more and more relevant to organizations. Whereas employees in the past remained with the same companies throughout their career, the labour market is now more dynamic, and employees change jobs more frequently. Many factors influence turnover, including turnover intention, organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Tett and Meyer, 1993). However, the most important indicator of whether an employee is going to leave the organization is turnover intention (Lee & Mowday, 1987; Michaels & Spector, 1982), which refer to employees’ intentional desire to leave the organizations that they are currently working for (Tett & Meyer, 1993). Therefore, as it is more easily measurable and yet a very close indicator of actual turnover, this study focuses on turnover intention as a proxy of actual turnover.

High turnover rates could have a major impact on an organization’s performance and harm multiple aspects of organizational functioning (Hancock et al., 2011). In the first place, organizational experience substantial financial costs when they need to replace the current employees, replacing employees costs an organization more as a result of the recruiting and training that doing so requires (Dalton & Todor, 1978). Second, there is a loss of human capital. The specialized knowledge of employees could be a competitive advantage for an organization. After having lost employees, an organization must rebuild this specific

knowledge, which (temporarily) decreases organizational performance (Becker, 1993). Third, there is a loss of social capital. The synergy and social environment created among the

employees can be disrupted by employees leaving, and, just like human capital, this social capital must be rebuilt (Leana & van Buren, 1999). In addition, turnover might not only represent a risk for organizations. There is also a downside for the employees, turnover sometimes leads to outcomes which are not desired (e.g., being out of a job for a longer period) (Boxall, Macky & Rasmussen, 2003).

Because of the serious consequences that turnover can have for organizations and employees, it is important to acknowledge its antecedents. Griffeth, Hom and Gaertner (2000) conducted a meta-analysis of the primary antecedents of employees’ turnover intentions. First of all, the personal preferences of an employee are important. For example, when the

leadership or the atmosphere within an organization is a poor fit with the employees, they will not perform optimally. Second, job alternatives are important to an employee’s decision to

(11)

7

leave an organization. In a dynamic market with many job opportunities, the likelihood of turnover among employees is higher than in a market with few job opportunities. Rahman, Naqvi and Ramay (2008) found a correlation of .531 between job alternatives and turnover. In a more dynamic market, if employees are unable to develop and challenge themselves within their organizations, they will seek employment elsewhere (Boxall, Macky & Rasmussen, 2003; Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner, 2000). Third, demographic and situational variables cause turnover. Company tenure and work-life balance have a negative relationship with turnover. In addition to these findings, Boxall, Macky and Rasmussen (2003) established work-related antecedents, which can be used by an organization to retain their employees. The most important antecedent is the attractiveness of the job, that it challenges the employee and is more interesting than another job. Moreover, extrinsic rewards have become more important to employees. Conditions like salary, job security, and promotion are crucial for employees. To stay with the same employer, employees want possibilities for promotion, growth in their career, and further personal development. What can be concluded is that turnover among employees does not happen because of a single reason, it are multiple factors which have an influence on an employees’ intention to leave the organization.

Also, the factors causing employees to consider leaving an organization are not only work-related. It is also beneficial to consider more global individual differences (e.g. psychological characteristics). As mentioned in the previous paragraph, Griffeth, Hom and Gaertner (2000) demonstrated the relationship between demographic variables such as age, education, and turnover intentions. Along with demographic variables, personality factors can influence turnover intentions. For instance, Abraham (1999) found that self-esteem (an

adequate opinion of one’s own abilities and character) had a moderating effect on the relationship between inequity (age, education, pay) and turnover intentions, indicating that psychological factors influence turnover. Another psychological factor that may relate positively to turnover is self-efficacy. Self-efficacy and self-esteem have been proven to be empirically and theoretically connected. If people are convinced of their capabilities, they demonstrate a higher success rate on task completions (high self-efficacy) (Gardner & Pierce, 1998). Therefore, considering the effect self-esteem has on turnover intention, it can be assumed that self-efficacy can also affect turnover intentions. Furthermore, Brown et al. (2006) found that self-efficacy demonstrates positive correlations with job search behaviour, outcomes and effort. These elements are connected to turnover intention and therefore offer additional evidence for a possible relationship. Besides, the social cognitive theory of Bandura (1988) have shown positive organizational functioning of employees when

(12)

8

psychological factors are enhanced. They discuss three important dimensions of the psychological factors: enhancing workers’ beliefs of their capabilities, developing their capabilities and improving their work ethic through learning and goal systems (Bandura, 1988). Fulfilling these dimensions within the organizations will lead to, among others, lower absenteeism and higher job satisfaction which are predictors of turnover intention (Tett and Meyer, 1993; Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner, 2000). The first dimension of the social cognitive theory of enhancing workers’ beliefs of their capabilities is considered as the level of self-efficacy an employee has. Connecting the social cognitive theory to the model, self-self-efficacy is a variable that needs to be studies. Whereas previous studies largely focused on workers’ psychological traits as control or moderating variables, this study focuses on the direct relationship between self-efficacy and turnover intentions. We try to contribute to current literature by making the link from the social cognitive theory to turnover intention through, among others, self-efficacy. The next section first introduces the concept of self-efficacy and then explain its connection to turnover intentions.

2.2.1. Self-efficacy and turnover intentions

Self-efficacy is defined as ‘people’s beliefs about their capabilities to exercise control over their own level of functioning and over events that affect their lives’ (Bandura, 1991, p. 257). Employees with high self-efficacy are believed to have a high level of confidence and to invest a great deal of energy in performing their tasks. Moreover, people with high self-efficacy are believed to have high levels of control over the problems they have to solve (Schaubroeck, Lam & Xie, 2000). Self-efficacy is a concept that originates from social cognitive theory, and refers to the belief that someone can influence a situation rather than remain passive. The social cognitive theory is grounded in four beliefs concerning a person’s self-perception (Bandura, 1997). In the short term, it means that people can develop creative solutions to alter situations and are then capable of critically evaluating themselves in order to avoid repeating that mistake. Besides, humans can understand their own strengths and

weaknesses and thereby control situations and themselves (Barone, Maddux & Snyder, 1997; Bandura, 1997).

High self-efficacy is usually associated with positive outcomes and self-esteem. However, in certain situations, self-efficacy can be considered a ‘dark trait’. People with high self-efficacy often have the need (and capability) to control situations. When people with high self-efficacy encounter a situation in which they have little control, they can experience stress and exhibit dysfunctional behaviour. Wortman and Dunkel-Schetter (1979) provide the

(13)

9

example of cancer patients with high self-efficacy who largely blame themselves for

developing cancer. Therefore, employees with high self-efficacy can experience stress when they have less control over situations. However, people with high self-efficacy can also react by seeking more responsibilities or personal development, which can lead to higher turnover intention (Schyns, Torka & Gössling, 2007). The work situation must be aligned with the high standards of an employee with high self-efficacy, as, otherwise, such an employee may

experience negative feelings and form the intention to turnover. Employees with low self-efficacy probably do not experience the need for development to the same extent as

employees with high self-efficacy; they will more likely cope with the situation and be less controlling (Schaubroeck, Lam & Xie, 2000). Furthermore, employees will likely form the intention to switch jobs when their work is no longer challenging or fulfilling. This antecedent may be stronger in employees with high self-efficacy and their need for development. If their jobs become less challenging, employees tend to move to organizations where they can fulfil their needs (Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner, 2000; Schyns, Torka and Gössling, 2007). However, this need is enhanced by the characteristics of an employee with high self-efficacy. Such employees will transform thoughts of leaving an organization to actual intentions due to their controlling natures (Sherer et al., 1982).

Previous research has shown to be inconclusive concerning the relationship between self-efficacy and turnover intention. For example, Schyns, Torka and Gössling (2007)

hypothesized a positive relationship between the variables but did not find a significant effect. This study contributes to determining whether self-efficacy is one of the antecedents of turnover intentions. The first hypothesis is as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Self-efficacy relates positively to turnover intentions.

To further explain the mechanism through which self-efficacy relates to turnover intention one of the variables that could account for this relationship is perceived employability. Self-efficacy has been demonstrated to have a positive effect on perceived employability, because perceived employability represent positive beliefs in one’s chances of finding and sustaining work (Berntson, Näswall and Sverke 2008). Just like self-efficacy, perceived employability relates to the first dimension of the social cognitive theory and the variables have, therefore, a connection. Research has shown that people with high believes of their capabilities and a high level of employability are more capable of finding a job. There are strong indications of its positive effect on perceived employability and turnover intentions (Forrier, Sels and Stynen,

(14)

10

2009; Hillage & Pollard, 1998). Therefore, perceived employability could represent the mechanism through which beliefs concerning self-efficacy are translated into the work-related domain in terms of perceptions of available job opportunities, which may trigger intentions to leave a job. This research thus introduces the concept of perceived employability and explains why it could represent a link between self-efficacy and turnover intentions.

2.3.1 Perceived employability

The concept of employability was researched in studies conducted during the 1950s. Such studies initially focused on the individual level and adopted an attitude perspective: they focused on changing the attitudes of the unemployed to support them in finding employment. The focus soon shifted from the attitude perspective to the characteristics of an employee (Forrier & Sels, 2003a). The question became ‘what characteristics are necessary to become employable?’ since employability had become a goal in and of itself. The practice of

approaching employability from an organizational perspective began during the 1980s. The term then became an HR tool, as organizations started training their employees to be more employable. Employees who could perform in multiple departments made an organization more flexible. This flexibility made it easier for an organization to compete in a more dynamic market (Forrier & Sels, 2003a). Since the 1990s, employability has shifted back to being considered at the individual level. Now, it is not only perceived as an asset that is relevant to the unemployed, as people with high employability are also considered to be confident enough to navigate the labour market throughout their careers (Forrier & Sels, 2003a). Employability is currently defined the ability to achieve tangible opportunities in the form of a set of capabilities throughout their working lives, making themselves sustainable employable (van der Klink et al., 2016). Perceived employability is a crucial variable in the model because of its connection with the first (thus, indicating a connection of perceived employability and self-efficacy) and second dimension of the social cognitive theory. First of all, perceived employability is also connected to the first dimension of the social cognitive theory: if workers are confident of having the capabilities to have certain tasks, it will increase their functioning on a personal level. They will approach difficult tasks with a positive

attitude, leading to higher motivation (Bandura, 1988). The second dimension of the social cognitive theory is developing workers’ capabilities, which can be linked to perceived employability. By modelling employees and enhancing their intellectual, behavioral and social abilities, performances will be better. Next to better performances, this will lead to a

(15)

11

higher employability of the employees. Therefore, the perception of workers’ own employability will rise (Bandura, 1988).

Hillard and Pollage (1998) developed a framework for policy analysis based on employability. They distinguish between four components of employability: assets,

deployment, presentation, and personal circumstances/the external labour market. This

framework is widely considered to provide an adequate presentation of the components that influence workers’ employability. Moreover, the framework makes a distinction between internal and external components. Employees should possess certain attributes that make them employable, but they are also dependent on external factors, such as job opportunities. Using the framework of Hillard and Pollage (1998), we can understand what is required for an employee to become highly employable and to consider themselves as employable, both internally and externally. Although the framework offers a definition of employability, ‘perceived employability’ is a common label for this construct in the literature (Rothwell & Arnold, 2007; Vanhercke et al., 2014). This makes the framework developed by Hillard and Pollage (1998) relevant to this research. After clarifying the concept of perceived

employability, we use the framework to explain the relationship between self-efficacy and turnover intentions.

Firstly, employee assets are the characteristics that employees possess that make them highly employable. Within this component, there is a distinction between basic skills (e.g. personality traits), transitional skills (e.g. communication and motivation) and business skills (e.g. team work [Hillard & Pollage, 1998; Robinson, 2000]). According to Robinson (2000), employability skills are trainable. Employees can develop certain skills to make themselves more employable. The second component is deployment, which is the extent to which employees can manage their own career. To be highly employable, employees should be aware of their needs and interests and be capable of pursuing these interests. Employees should have realistic images of both their capabilities and the labour market (McQuaid & Linsey, 2002). The third component is presenting. In addition to the ability to do a job and a realistic future perspective, (future) employees must be able to present their skills to

employers in order to get hired. Important aspects of this component are a sound résumé and an effective interview (Hillard & Pollage, 1998; McQuaid & Linsey, 2002). The first three components are internal components that can be influenced by the employee, while the last component takes external factors into account, namely the extent to which it is possible to move within the labour market and to seek available opportunities. Personal circumstances, such as acquaintances (positive) or disabilities (negative), can also positively or negatively

(16)

12

influence employability. These circumstances are mostly beyond an individual’s control, but they can affect employment opportunities (Hillard & Pollage, 1998; McQuaid & Linsey, 2002).

The concept of employability is becoming increasingly relevant to organizations due to the changing behaviour of employees. In the past, it was more common for an employee to seek a promotion within his or her organization. More recently, the labour market has become increasingly dynamic, causing employees to fulfil their needs elsewhere (Forrier & Sels, 2003b). To consider the implications of this change for organizations, we examine the self-perception of employees within an organization. As it focuses on the consequences of high and low levels of self-perceived employability, this study’s findings could assist organizations in managing their employees as effectively as possible. It should, therefore, result in positive outcomes for employers, such as improved employee performance and lower turnover (De Cuyper et al., 2014).

It is also relevant to consider whether there are psychological reasons why employees perceive themselves as being highly employable. Forrier and Sels (2003a) distinguished the process of employability in both ability and career expectations. One of their conclusions is that high self-efficacy may contribute to high perceived employability. This is due to these individuals’ (with high levels of self-efficy) self-confidence, as well as their beliefs that they can do anything if they set their minds to it (Schyns, Torka & Gössling, 2007). This study, therefore, further examines the relationship between self-efficacy and perceived

employability. The next section explains the arguments concerning this proposed relationship.

2.3.2. Perceived employability and self-efficacy

Employees who are highly employable are valuable to an organization because they can perform under varied circumstances (Forrier & Sels, 2003a). Employees who perceive themselves as highly employable are confident they belong to this group of valuable employees (De Cuyper et al., 2008).

To consider the relationship between perceived employability and self-efficacy, we connect the elements of the framework describing perceived employability (Hillage & Pollard, 1998) to the social cognitive theory related to self-efficacy (Barone, Maddux & Snyder, 1997). This connection is used to provide theoretical support that self-efficacy is a necessary antecedent of the aforementioned aspects of employability (i.e. assets, deployability and presentability). First, based on the model developed by Hillage and Pollard (1998), highly self-perceived employees have the perception that they possess adequate basic, transitional,

(17)

13

and business skills, while workers with high self-efficacy are confident that they can control situations by using these skills (Bandura, 1997). Employees who are confident that they are able to use these skills may develop the perception of performing these skills adequately. The second component of employability as defined by Hillage and Pollard (1998) is the ability of employees to manage their own careers. Employees with high self-efficacy can critically evaluate themselves and therefore become familiar with their capabilities and career needs. The third component is that employees must be able to present themselves and their skills. Employees who have high self-efficacy are confident in their actions and can communicate their views; therefore, they are able to present themselves more effectively (Bandura, 1997). Although perceived employability and self-efficacy are similar attributes, they are two different constructs (Berntson, Näswall & Sverke, 2008). Perceived employability represents the specific skills of employees, whereas self-efficacy refers to employees’ perception of their success in completing tasks. Berntson, Näswall and Sverke (2008) found a significant

relationship between employability and self-efficacy (0,12), but not between self-efficacy and employability (Berntson, Näswall & Sverke, 2008). Due to limitations of their study, the authors found insufficient support for this conclusion, but they did not exclude the possibility of self-efficacy affecting perceived employability. Next to these arguments, perceived

employability and self-efficacy are also connected through the social cognitive theory. Organizations who enhance workers’ beliefs of their capabilities and developing their capabilities are assumed to have employees with higher levels of self-efficacy and perceived employability (Bandura, 1988). The present study therefore contributes to the literature on the effect of self-efficacy on perceived employability by testing the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2a: Self-efficacy positively relates to perceived employability.

Workers’ perceptions of their own employability are not only based on characteristics such as self-efficacy, as they are also based on the factors within an organization, such as training and stimulation of development (Rothwell & Arnold, 2005). In recent years, organizations have increasingly focused on making employees more employable. An advantage of this trend is that employees are more capable of reacting to change and adapting to other positions within an organization. Organizations therefore mainly focus on making their employees more employable internally. However, this focus means that employees also become more employable externally. By providing employees with the tools to make themselves more employable, turnover may increase within an organization (Rajan, 1997). This present study

(18)

14

therefore further examines the causal relationship between perceived employability and turnover intentions. The next section explains the arguments for this predicted relationship.

2.3.3. Perceived employability and turnover intentions

As mentioned previously, one important cause of turnover intentions is an employee’s ability to transfer to another job. A person with a high perceived employability should find it easier to transfer to another job (Rajan, 1997). The following paragraph provides a theoretical argument for the relationship between turnover intentions and perceived employability.

First, considering the perceived employability framework of Hillage and Pollard (1998), which consists of assets, deployment, presentation and personal circumstances/the

external labour market, employees are considered highly employable when they are strong in

these dimensions. Such employees are attractive to an organization due to their positive attributes. Therefore, highly perceived employees have a greater number of job opportunities. One of the antecedents of turnover intentions is job alternatives; when employees have many opportunities, they intend to leave an organization earlier than when there are fewer

opportunities (Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner, 2000). Another aspect of turnover intentions is the ease of movement of an employee. Forrier, Sels and Stynen (2009) identified multiple factors that may prevent employees from moving to another organization. The most relevant factor is an employee’s lack of confidence in his or her ability to perform in a new job. This factor is no obstacle for employees who perceive themselves as highly employable, as they are confident of their abilities (van der Klink et al., 2016). Therefore, linking this observation to perceived employability, employees with a strong belief in their own employability are more likely to have the intention to move into another job. A third argument for this relationship may be changing dynamics in an employee’s work life. The labour market is increasingly insecure, and employees have learned to manage their own career. Therefore, they develop their skills and ensure they are highly employable. They wish to manage their own career and be independent of employers (De Cuyper et al., 2011). This need to control one’s career is also caused by the expected relationship with self-efficacy (Wortman & Dunkel-Schetter, 1979). A consequence may be that the overall turnover rate will increase among workers who want to ensure that they remain employable.

In the past, many researchers studied the relationship between perceived employability and turnover intentions. However, the outcomes of these studies are not conclusive. Some studies found no relationships (e.g. De Cuyper et al., 2011) or developed turnover models that demonstrated positive effects (e.g. Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner, 2000). This present study

(19)

15

contributes to the literature by providing greater clarity concerning the relationship between perceived employability and turnover intentions. The outcomes reveal why higher perceived employability causes turnover intentions within an organization. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2b: There is a positive relationship between perceived employability and turnover intentions.

Brown et al. (2006) found a significant relationship between self-efficacy and job search outcomes, behaviour and effort. This study indicated that people with high self-efficacy are more capable of finding a job than those with low self-efficacy, which indicates higher employability. Therefore, these employees have a greater number of job opportunities. That more job alternatives lead to higher turnover intention (Boxall, Macky & Rasmussen, 2003; Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner, 2000) indicates a positive relationship between self-efficacy and turnover intention through perceived employability. Taking Hypothesis 2a and 2b together, we came up with the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: The positive relationship between self-efficacy and turnover intentions is mediated by perceived employability.

Even though a substantial number of studies (De Cuyper et al., 2010; De Cuyper, Van der Heijden & De Witte, 2011) have investigated the relationship between self-efficacy,

employability and turnover, evidence concerning the relationship between these variables is unclear. However, those studies (De Cuyper et al., 2010; De Cuyper, Van der Heijden & De Witte, 2011) that involved the role of a moderator indicated that, under certain conditions, such as high/low job control (De Cuyper et al., 2010) or many/few promises (De Cuyper, Van der Heijden & De Witte, 2011), the relationship exists, whereas it does not under other

conditions. Therefore, we must further examine whether presence of a moderator makes a difference. Specifically, the role played by learning culture (Rajan, 1997) suggests that workers who are employability driven and perceive themselves as highly employable wish to further develop themselves and have personal plans for their careers. Besides self-efficacy and perceived employability, learning culture also is an important part of the social cognitive theory. Based on the second and third dimension of the social cognitive theory, the learning culture of an organization is most relevant to study in this model. First of all, the second

(20)

16

dimension of the social cognitive theory, also related to perceived employability, indicates higher organizational functioning when employees are able to develop their capabilities adequately (Bandura, 1988). Secondly, according to the social cognitive theory organizations should improve employees’ work ethic through learning and goal systems. Organizations setting goals and provide constant feedback, create a continuous learning process for their employees (Gephart et al., 1996). Eventually attaining challenging goals will lead to higher motivation and satisfaction with highly self-perceived employees, while low self-perceived employees will experience this as stressful (Bandura, 1988). By researching organizational learning culture, we can also determine the practical implications for an organization. An organization that supports employees by offering training and growth opportunities may retain highly self-perceived employees (Rajan, 1997). This present study, therefore, examines the moderating effect on the causal relation from self-efficacy to turnover intentions through perceived employability. The next section provides a brief introduction to organizational learning culture and explains the arguments for this expected relationship.

2.4.1. Organizational learning culture

The term ‘organizational learning culture’ refers to the extent to which an organization stimulates and supports its employees to develop themselves. It is a constant measurement of the practices and its conversion to the available knowledge of the entire organization which are relevant to their mission (Senge, 1990). In other words, organizations characterized by a high learning culture wish to keep track of their employees’ development in order to enhance organizational performance and individual growth. The learning culture of an organization can be applied on multiple levels, namely individual, team/group and organizational. In previous studies, these levels were tested with the Dimensions of the Learning Organizational Questionnaire (DLOQ), which tests the learning culture on three different levels (Egan, Yang & Bartlett, 2004; Marsick & Watkins, 1997): the individual, team/group and organizational. Each level contributes to the learning culture of an organization. The questionnaire developed by Marsick and Watkins (1997) to study organizational learning culture provides a broad framework of the concept within the organization. Further examining this framework provides a better understanding of the concept of learning culture.

Individual learning is often compared to a process of trial and error. When a new situation arises within an organization, an employee is expected to solve the problem.

Between the moment an employee is stimulated to handle the situation and the outcome of the event, there are several actions that he or she must perform. In retrospect, individuals may

(21)

17

evaluate whether the consequences of their actions were positive or negative (Argyris,

Putnam, & Smith, 1985). In subsequent situations, an employee will omit the negative actions and thus handle new problems more effectively. This is referred to as incidental learning (Lewin, 1946; Marsick & Watkins, 2003).

However, over the last 20 years, the collective has become more important than the individual, which has led to the rise of team/group and organizational learning. Organizational learning is not simply many individuals learning but instead a collective learning together in order to enhance organizational performance. It is a process of cohesive and interactive learning. New competitors or regulations can trigger this process if an organization must adapt to a new situation. There are, however, organizations that constantly attempt to innovate and keep ahead of their competitors (e.g. Apple [Marsick & Watkins, 2003]). Furthermore, it is important for an organization to support employees who take initiative in their learning processes and reward them for doing so.

Gephart et al. (1996) identified six elements that should form the core of a learning organization: First, employees must embed their learned actions within the organization. Therefore, it could be implemented in standard routines. Second, the knowledge that is developed should be available throughout the entire organization, meaning that an innovation does not have to be developed twice. Third, employees should be stimulated to be innovative and to think creatively. They should think critically about the existing system to come up with new ideas. Fourth, learning should be embedded within the culture of an organization.

Employees must feel supported and rewarded in the learning process. Fifth, employees should be able to experiment freely, through which an environment in which people can take risks and develop innovations is created. Finally, an organization should revolve around its people. Employees should feel safe and supported within their organizations (Gephart et al., 1996). These six elements will lead to the fulfilment of employees developing their capabilities and improving their work ethic through learning and goal systems, the second and third dimension of the social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1988).

Studies on organizational learning culture have proven that it has a positive effect on job performance (Egan, Yang & Bartlett, 2004). This means that organizational learning culture offers many benefits to organizations. It also has a positive effect on the individual. A higher learning value of a job or within an organization is a predictor of a higher self-rated and supervisor-rated employability (Van der Heijden, Gorgievski & De Lange, 2016). Furthermore, organizational learning culture has a negative effect on turnover intentions. A higher organizational learning culture means lower turnover intentions among employees

(22)

18

(Islam et al., 2013). These findings support a negative moderator effect of organizational learning culture on the positive relationship between perceived employability and turnover intentions. Rajan (1998) supports this conclusion, stating that a segment of highly perceived employees are employability driven in their career plans and therefore require growth opportunities within their organizations to prevent them from leaving. These are robust predictors of learning culture being a moderator between perceived employability and turnover intentions. The next section explains the arguments for this expected relationship.

2.4.2. Organizational learning culture, perceived employability and turnover intentions As mentioned previously, Rajan (1998) made distinctions between employees using four factors: security-driven (e.g. job security), tradition-driven (e.g. perks), employability-driven (e.g. training & development) and contribution-driven (e.g. pay). For employees who perceive themselves as highly employable, these are important factors when it comes to deciding whether to stay with an organization. Employees who are employability driven remain with an organization when offered sufficient opportunities for further growth. This need for growth is supported from the roots of perceived employability and self-efficacy (see also Section 2.3.2.) because employees with high self-efficacy and high perceived employability have a need to develop themselves. This need stems from their desire to maximize their capabilities. When this development is not possible within their organizations, employees seek other opportunities and have greater intention to turnover (Schyns, Torka and Gössling 2007). The social cognitive theory has shown that organizations providing their employees with the possibility to develop these capabilities and attaining challenging goals by implementing a learning culture will experience less absenteeism and more job satisfaction among the skilled workers (Bandura, 1988). Absenteeism and a lack of job satisfaction are considered as predictors of turnover (Tett and Meyer, 1993; Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner, 2000). Lower absenteeism and higher job satisfaction of skilled workers might be an indication of lower turnover among these employees.

As indicated in Section 2.2.2, perceived employability is expected to be positively related to turnover intention because employees with higher perceived employability (perceive themselves to) have more job alternatives and opportunities to develop at another organization, which increases turnover intention (Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner, 2000). However, if an organization can provide employees with an organizational learning framework, they will be offered opportunities for personal growth within that organization. Therefore, one of the potentially strongest factors that may influence employees with high self-perceived

(23)

19

employability to consider leaving their current organization may become less relevant (Marsick & Watkins, 2003).

Moreover, the second potential explanation for the expected relationship between perceived employability and turnover intentions is a dynamic labour market in which

employees develop their own career plans due to lower levels of job security. In this context, employees with low self-perceived employability are expected to remain with their current jobs due to the uncertainty they feel with regard to finding another job (Forrier, Sels & Stynen 2009), whereas those with higher perceived employability and who have developed solid personal career plans will actively search for opportunities for personal growth. However, if an organization implements the core elements of a learning organization developed by

Gephart et al. (1996), employees who perceive themselves as highly employable will have the freedom and responsibility to grow and realise their personal career plans within the

company. However, if employees feel that their organizations fail to offer learning

possibilities, they are more likely to turnover when they perceive themselves as capable of finding another job (Rajan, 1998).

In recent years, research has been conducted on the topics of perceived employability, turnover intentions and learning culture. Studies have tested the direct effects of these

variables, as opposed to moderator effects. However, the moderating effect of learning culture may be important for the practical implications of organizations. To retain high self-perceived employees, organizations should know which cultures or practices they can apply to retain such workers. If the assumptions and arguments about the moderating effect of learning culture are demonstrated to be significant, applying a learning culture may help organizations to retain their most valued employees. However, as mentioned previously, studies on these variables have primarily focused on direct relationships. Van der Heijden, Gorgievski and De Lange (2016) discovered that a learning culture has a positive effect on perceived

employability. Islam et al. (2013) found a negative effect of learning culture on turnover intentions. However, the lack of studies on a moderator effect (in organizational practices and culture) on the relationship between perceived employability and turnover intentions has led to a lack of knowledge about what organizations can do to retain their highest self-perceived employees. This present study contributes to understanding these relationships; if the results prove significant, this research will provide practical suggestions for organizations. We expect that the positive relation between perceived employability and turnover intention (H2b) will be negatively moderated/weakened by organizational learning culture. As such, we

(24)

20 Hypothesis 3: Organizational learning culture negatively moderates the indirect positive relationship between self-efficacy and turnover intentions through perceived employability.

Besides the practical contribution of this study, the theoretical contribution is to expand the current knowledge on turnover intention by connecting it to the most important dimensions of the social cognitive theory on organizational functioning. These dimensions are (inter)-related to the variables self-efficacy, perceived employability and organizational learning culture, hence the choice of this model. Although the social cognitive theory has shown to influence organizational functioning, the theory has not yet been connected to turnover intention. Based on the argumentation of the possible relationships between the independent and dependent variables, this study makes a theoretical contribution to the subject turnover by linking it with social cognitive theory.

(25)

21

3. Methods

In the following section the approach of the study design will be discussed. At first, we will take a look at the sample and the general descriptive statistics. Secondly, the procedure of the research will be discussed. Further in this section will be a summary of the used measures and control variables.

3.1. Sample

In total 632 respondents filled in the survey. However, due to missing values and incomplete surveys, 230 of these responses were removed from the dataset. After this removal, the entire dataset consisted out of 402 respondents.

Out of all the respondents, gender can be considered as equally divided. 217 (54.1%) respondents were female, while 184 (45.9%) respondents were male. Most of the respondents worked in the Netherlands (373; 92.8%) and only 7.2% worked in other countries. On

average, the age was 33.78 (SD = 12.01) with a minimum of 17 and a maximum of 65. The highest level of education of the respondents was quite diverse. The highest percentages were of Higher Vocational Educational Training (34.4%) and University (master) (27.9%). The lowest percentage of educational level was PHD (2%). Furthermore, most of the respondents indicated they are active in Health science (16%), Marketing, Sales and Service (12.3%) or other sectors (14.8%). A critical note on the sectors of respondents is that only 60.7% did fill in this question, in order to determine the percentages we used valid percentages. Moreover, 28.9% of the respondents worked in organizations with 1000 or more employees, while 25.4% worked in organizations with 50 – 249 employees. Other company sizes were 1-9 (9.5%), 10-49 (15.7%), 250-499 (12.2%) and 500-999 (8.5%). The average respondent had in total 13.76 (SD = 11.17) years of experience. Within their organization the average was 6.83 (SD = 7.52) and in their current job position 5.18 (SD = 6.12) years. Additionally, there were more respondents with a permanent contract (65.1%) than a temporary contract (34.1%). The respondents are working on average 30.98 hours per week (SD = 12.76).

(26)

22

3.2. Procedure

This research is conducted through a 15 minutes survey with 128 closed questions. The research aim of this study is explanatory in order to first describe and then explain the

relations between the variables. The respondents were reached through convenience sampling from the personal network. The personal network mostly consisted out of friends, relatives and acquaintances, which, in some cases, spread the survey further in their network. The respondents became familiar with the topic and its purpose through an introduction text in the survey before starting the 128 closed questions. Some of the questions in the survey were forced, meaning respondents had to answer these questions. The responses of the survey are self-reported, respondents evaluated their own capabilities and organization. Furthermore, we have not altered any situations within the organization. Therefore, the research design of this survey is correlational. Despite that the survey asked for the company name, the responses were processed completely anonymous. Furthermore, as incentives for filling in the survey, respondents were able to win 1 out of 6 gift vouchers worth €50,-. Finally, the study is performed cross-sectional, this was due to a lack of time for a longitudinal research.

For the statistical analyses we used the software package SPSS. First, we prepared the data before beginning the further analyses. We removed the missing values, computed the means and made sure there were no counter indicative items or items that had to be recoded. We tested our hypotheses using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression with the conditional process modeling (PROCESS) program for SPSS (Hayes, 2017).

3.3. Measures

The survey was administered by a group of 4 students and piloted by sending out the survey to 10 test cases. Based on the feedback, we made small alterations in the survey. One of the results of the feedback was the difficulty of the English language. We, therefore, made the survey also available in Dutch. The focal variables were tested on a 5-point Likert scale

Perceived employability was divided into ‘internal’ and ‘external’ and measured with

8 items (4 internal and 4 external) of De Cuyper & De Witte (2008)’s scale. The respondents were asked to rate their own perception of their employability on a scale from 1 to 5 (Rarely -

A great deal). An example item is, ‘I can easily find another job elsewhere instead of my present job.’ The scale has a Cronbach’s Alpha of .858.

Self-efficacy was measured with the 3 items of Luthans et al. (2007)’s scale.

(27)

23 agree). An example item is, ‘I feel confident in representing my work area in meetings with management.’ The scale has a Cronbach’s Alpha of .732.

Turnover intention was measured with the 3 items of Park et al. (2015)’s scale.

Respondents were asked to indicate their intention of turning over in their current position on a scale from 1 to 5 (Strongly disagree – Strongly agree) An example item is, ‘I often think

about quitting.’ The scale has a Cronbach’s Alpha of .889.

Learning culture was measured with the shortened 6-item scale of the DLOQ of Yang,

Watkins and Marsick (2004). The most frequently used measurement is the Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ) of Watkins and Marsick (2003), this is a questionnaire to test learning culture on 7 dimensions, consisting out of 62 questions. In order to keep the survey as short and effective as possible, we decided to use the shortened

validated scale of Yang, Watkins and Marsick (2004). Respondents were asked to rate the learning culture of their organization on a scale from 1 to 5 (Strongly disagree – Strongly agree). An example item is, ‘In my organization, people are rewarded for learning.’ The scale has a Cronbach’s Alpha of .841.

3.4. Control variables

At the start of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to answer more general or demographic questions like gender, age and contract type. To account for the potential influence of the demographic variables on the study outcome we control for these variables. The control variables which have been further examined are: age, education and the tenure in the current position.

The first control variable that we examined in this study is age. Age could influence both perceived employability and turnover intentions. Rothwell and Arnold (2007) took age into account in their study to perceived employability. They found a significant negative correlation (-.23, p < 0.01), indicating that older employees perceive themselves as less employable. Furthermore, Bright (2008) also found a negative correlation (-.19, p < 0.01) between age and turnover intentions of employees. So, according to the study of Bright (2008), older employees will have less intentions to turnover.

Secondly, the same study of Bright (2008) tested educational level as control variable on turnover intention. He found a significant positive correlation between the two variables (.16, p < 0.01), indicating that higher educated employees will have more intentions to turnover in comparison with lower educated employees. Additionally, Herer et al. (1982) proved a positive correlation between self-efficacy and educational level (.27, p < 0.01),

(28)

24

implying that higher educated employees have higher self-efficacy. Therefore, we used educational level as second control variable.

Lastly, the amount of working hours in the current position could affect turnover intention. Griffeth, Hom and Gaertner (2000) argued that the tenure of employees is one of the demographic variables influencing turnover intention. This statement is supported by the findings of Kim and Stoner (2008), who found a significant negative correlation between tenure and turnover intentions (-.11, p < 0.05).

Based on the findings and results mentioned above, it is of high importance to control for the variables age, educational level and job tenure in order to exclude potential influences of these variables. Therefore, we can test the relations more accurate and make a more reliable argumentation of the model.

(29)

25

4. Results

In this section, we will further examine our model by means of statistical analyses executed with SPSS. Firstly, the analytical strategy is discussed, where we explain the process step by step. Subsequently are the descriptive statistics consisting out of the normality tests and correlation table to create a clear image of the variables. Next, we will execute the statistical analyses and report the outcomes of the hypotheses. The section will be closed with a short conclusion.

4.1. Analytical Strategy

For the collection of the data, we conducted a survey within Qualtrics. After the completion of the survey, the data was transferred to SPSS and further processed. First, we prepared the data before beginning the further analyses. Secondly, we removed all the unfinished or incomplete surveys. Respondents who did not enter the forced questions were deleted from the data. After completing the dataset, it consisted out of 402 respondents. Furthermore, we checked the reliability of self-efficacy, perceived employability, turnover intentions and learning culture by computing the Cronbach’s alpha to check for consistency within the scales. For all of the variables the outcomes of the Cronbach’s alpha were above .7, indicating that our scales are considered reliable. To test our hypotheses, we created scale means of the individual items of each variable. These scale means were renamed as SEFFMEAN, PEMEAN, TOIMEAN and LCMEAN.

We tested our hypotheses using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression with the conditional process modeling (PROCESS) program for SPSS (Hayes, 2017). Evaluation of regression assumptions of homoscedasticity, linearity, and the absence of multicollinearity were satisfactory. In the normality tests we did find some skewness and kurtosis on the variables which were identified to be significant by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests. However, this did not form any problems for further analysis and will be further discussed in the descriptive statistics.

Specifically, we used PROCESS model 4 to test the indirect effect of self-efficacy on turnover intentions through perceived employability and PROCESS model 14 to test the moderating role of learning culture on the effect of self-efficacy and turnover intentions through perceived employability. Prior to running moderated mediation analysis all variables were z-standardized to reduce problems associated with multicollinearity in moderated regression (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013).

(30)

26

4.2. Descriptive statistics

Evaluation of regression assumptions showed skewness and kurtosis on some of the variables, these results were proven to be significant by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests and exceeded the acceptable range of 2 times the Std. Error (Skew = .122, Kurt. = .243). Self-efficacy (-.625) and Learning culture (-.656) were skewed to the right, indicating that most respondents answered ‘Somewhat agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’. Additionally, Learning culture (1.075) showed a positive kurtosis, signaling a peak-centered distribution of the responses. The skewness and kurtosis did, however, not form problems for the analyses. According to the central limited theorem, sample sizes which are bigger than 30 (light-tailed distributions) or 100-160 (heavy-tailed distributions) are assumed as normal despite of the population (or sample) data (Field, 2013). Therefore, the dataset of 402 respondents was considered normal and fit for further analysis.

In order to get a brief overview about the variables and their correlations, we conducted a correlation analysis of our dataset (see table 1). There were in total 402 respondents. However, due to missing values at age and education level, we continued the research with N = 396. First we examine the control variables, on average the respondent was 33.78 years old (SD = 12.01) and they had 6.83 years of work experience in their current job (SD = 7.52). The average education level was between 2 (higher vocational education level/HBO) and 3 (university, bachelor). Table 1 shows that self-efficacy and perceived employability were positively related (.123, p < 0.05). Learning culture was positively related to perceived employability (.265, p < 0.01) and negatively related to turnover intention (-.309, p < 0.01). The other correlations between the variables of the model were not significant at p < 0.05. Finally, the correlation table shows a lot of significant correlations between the control variables and the variables of the model. This is something that has been monitored closely in the extent of this research.

Table 1. Mean, Standard deviation and Correlations of Study Variables

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Age 33.78 12.01 2. Education level 2.51 1.28 .067 3. Job tenure 6.83 7.52 .685** -.156** 4. Self-efficacy 3.84 0.73 .203** .108* .055 (.732) 5. Perceived employability 3.36 0.72 -.373** -.096 -.274** .123* (.858) 6. Turnover intentions 2.32 1.10 -.193** .053 -.186** -.066 -.091 (.889) 7. Learning culture 3.43 0.70 -.081 .157** -.112* .062 .265** -.309** (.841)

Note. N = 396 (except for age = 397; Education = 401; OT, SE, PE, TOI, LC = 402) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

In de tekst uit 1640 komt het woord ‘naerstig’ twee keer voor, maar wederom wordt de kleine rol voor Poliarchus in dit verhaal bevestigd, want het woord heeft geen betrekking op

Scattering spectra of the gold nanostructures were obtained by white-light dark field microscopy, and two-photon photoluminescence (TPPL) microscopy was used to visualize the near-

Not finding differences between the control group and both experimental conditions are a contribution to existing social comparison literature on social media (Utz, 2010; Vogel

For this purpose we conducted a survey to find the general perception of people about crime and its possible causes especially to check the reliability and significance of

2013-07 Giel van Lankveld UT Quantifying Individual Player Differences 2013-08 Robbert-Jan MerkVU Making enemies: cognitive modeling for opponent agents in fighter pilot

Because the feedback of the STM is turned off when the positive bias voltage is applied, the tip does not change its position and the growth of a cluster will occur between the STM

We can conclude that mainly the prefrontal cortex and part of the parietal cortex play a vital role in the decision making process, and that the frontopolar cortex seems to be

The results for one Gram-negative bacterial strain (Escherichia coli) and two Gram-positive bacterial strains (Brevibacterium and Corynebacterium) revealed the unique