Determinants of intention to leave
“What variables influence the intention to leave among the employees of
FrieslandCampina?”
Master Thesis, specialization Human Resource Management University of Groningen, faculty of Economics and Business
December 20th 2010 Marissa Bootsma Student number: 1738011 Atlantische straat 23 8303 VT Emmeloord Tel: +31 (0) 613961235 E-mail: marissabootsma@hotmail.com
Supervisor from the university Drs. J. van Polen Dr. P.H. van der Meer
Supervisor field of study Mrs. M. Herman de Groot
HR Manager HQ Royal FrieslandCampina
ABSTRACT
This research examines the influence of individual and work related variables on employees’ intention to leave an organization. The research starts with a literature study of previous researches, which forms the basis of the conceptual model. For the individual related variables, negative relations were hypothesized between age and job tenure on the one hand, and intention to leave on the other hand. Positive relations were hypothesized between gender and education level on the one hand, and intention to leave on the other hand. For work related variables, negative relations were hypothesized between affective commitment, continuance commitment, normative commitment, job involvement, supervisor support, coworker support, autonomy, distributive justice, pay and promotional chances on the one hand, and intention to leave on the other hand. Positive relations were hypothesized between routinization, job stress and job insecurity on the one hand, and intention to leave on the other hand. For the data collection 104 employees of a dairy organization filled in a questionnaire. As was hypothesized results shows significant causal relations with intention to leave for job tenure, supervisor support, routinization, job insecurity and promotional chances. The main conclusion is that work related variables have the strongest influence on employees’ intention to leave.
INTRODUCTION
Through globalization, competition became more important. To distinguish themselves, for organizations it is important to have the right human resources1. In retaining employees, management of human resources is important (Stephens, 2010). Management of human resources is especially important within the current economic climate, which is characterized by an economic slowdown. Since mid 2007, due to problems with funding to several financial entities, there is an economic crisis worldwide (Inkinen, 2010). One well-known fact is the effect the financial crisis has on the labor market. Several authors (Poole, 2010; de Kam, 2009) mention that due to the crisis, a decrease in employment had arisen and job transitions became more difficult. Therefore, more people will stay at their current organization and voluntary turnover will decrease. This was confirmed by Timmerhuis (1993).
However it is difficult to make an estimate about the exact duration of the economic crisis, it is known that the labor market will attract after the economic crisis within a few years. This will result in a similar labor shortage we had before the economic crisis (Goudswaard, 2009). For organizations it is important to start timely with structural adjustments to respond to those expected labor shortages (Goudswaard, 2009). One way an organization can do this is by focusing on retaining current employees within the organization. “Employee retention can be defined as the effort by an employer to keep desirable workers in order to meet business objectives” (Frank, Finnegan, Taylor, 2004: 13). Employee retention is important for two reasons. Firstly, for organizations employee retention is the most important variable to be competitive. This was confirmed by Pfeffer & Veiga (1999), Hsu, Jiang, Klein & Tang (2003) and Mak & Sockel (2001) who argue that people are the most important variables that organizations can lose. For that reason they have been taken into serious consideration by managers. Secondly, because both organizational as well as
1
personal costs are very high if employees decide to leave their job voluntarily, employee retention has to be optimized (Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski & Erez, 2001; Hsu et al., 2003). Therefore, it is important to consider how organizations can retain their current employees. According to Hsu et al. (2003) and Mak & Sockel (2001) employee retention can be improved by lowering the rate of intention to leave. This will result in a minimization of voluntary turnover. This is supported by Mitchell et al. (2001) who mention that intention to leave is the direct occasion for turnover.
Both travel time and the physical location of an organization are reasons for employees to leave the organization voluntarily. According to a survey by Cordery (1991), exit interviews suggested that the most important influencing factor for employees in deciding to leave an organization voluntarily is the distance they have to travel in combination with career opportunities elsewhere, which is an environmental variable. Steijn (2003) mentions dissatisfaction in the combination of work – private balance as a reason to leave an organization in which travel time plays an important role. Desires for a shorter travel distance were also mentioned by a survey at ING bank in 2005 (Welter, 2005).
several years. The travel distance cannot be changed. However, there are variables which influences the intention to leave and which can be changed by FrieslandCampina. One way FrieslandCampina can retain their current employees is to get insight in and optimize variables which have an influence on intention to leave. Therefore, the following research question is formulated: “Which variables influence the intention to leave among the
employees of FrieslandCampina?”
The answers given to this main question provide the HR department the opportunity to take the right actions by improving the independent variables where necessary. Based on previous research findings, next to travel distances, there are variables which are important to take into consideration with regards to turnover intentions. These variables will be mentioned and explained in the next chapter. The third chapter describes the methodology. In this chapter information is given about the research methods which were used, the respondents and about the way data were collected. Next, in the paragraph related to data analysis, an explanation is given about the way how data were analysed with the help of the computer program SPSS. The fourth chapter contains results from this empirical study at FrieslandCampina. The final chapter is the discussion section. In this section, main findings from the literature and empirical study are mentioned. Next, practical and theoretical implications, strengths, limitations and suggestions for future research are given.
THEORY Intention to leave
stronger predictor of voluntary turnover than job satisfaction (Cho et al., 2009; Steel & Ovalle, 1984). Retention of employees can be optimized by lowering the rate of employees’ intention to leave an organization (Hsu et al., 2003; Mak & Sockel, 2001). For that reason it is important to get insight in variables which have an influence on intention to leave. Variables which are potential determinants of employees’ intention to leave and voluntary turnover can be divided into three groups; individual (personal) variables, environmental (economic) variables and work related (structural) variables (Price, 2001; Wright & Bonett, 2007; Lum, Kervin, Clark, Reid & Sirola, 1998; Van Breukelen, 1991; Iverson, 1999). The second category; environmental variables have a big influence on voluntary turnover intentions, but cannot be influenced by organizations. If employees think they can get a better job elsewhere, they would take the option of voluntary turnover into consideration (Mueller, Price Boyer & Iverson, 1994). If the labor market increases, more job opportunities will become available. If employees have more job choices, it would become easier to leave their current organization (Finnegan, 2010). However, organizations cannot influence the environmental variables, it is important to keep an eye on it. Because organizations cannot influence these variables2, in this research no further attention is given to this variable. The remaining variables; the individual and work related variables will be explained below.
Individual related variables
It is expected that individual related variables have influence on the decision of employees to stay at or leave an organization (Iverson, 1999). Four individual related variables are hypothesized to influence voluntary turnover intentions; gender, education level, age, and job tenure. Those variables were mentioned by different researchers (van Breukelen, 1991; Iverson, 1999; Chen, Chu, Wang & Lin, 2008; Arnold & Feldman, 1982; Lum et al., 1998), and will be discussed below.
Gender. According to Marsh & Mannari (1977) turnover rates of women are higher. A reason
for this could be the extra care-related tasks women frequently have, like childcare. This was confirmed by Schwartz (1989). However, the turnover behaviour of men and women, who are higher educated, is quite equal (Tanova & Holtom, 2008; Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner, 2000). A larger difference can be observed between men and higher educated women on the one hand and lower educated women on the other hand (Royalty, 1998). In this research, a positive relation is expected between gender and intention to leave.
Education level. Because of the increasing career opportunities and possibilities for higher
educated employees, their turnover intentions probability increases (Tanova & Holtom, 2008). It can be argued that higher and lower educated employees have different motivations to leave an organization. On the one hand, reasons for higher educated employees to leave an organization are a lack of challenge and growth opportunities. For lower educated employees on the other hand, reasons to leave the organization are work environment and salary matters (van Hoof, Bruin, Schoenmaker & Vroom, 2002). According to Royalty (1998), higher educated employees can take higher risks when changing their current job for a new challenge in their career, which is called career mindedness. As mentioned earlier, because the employees of the researched headquarters are mainly high educated, they can take more risks. For that reason a positive relation is expected between education level and intention to leave. Age. Turnover is influenced by age (Arnold & Feldman, 1982). According to Hall (1976),
younger employees (van Hoof et al., 2002). High work pressures and lack of challenge are two reasons for older people to finish their career earlier, while good relations with colleagues motivates them to stay longer at the organization (van Hoof, 2001). Younger employees think time and opportunity for your private, personal life are important variables when considering staying at or leaving an organization. This was confirmed by Van Hoof et al. (2002). In this research a negative relation between age and intention to leave is hypothesized.
Tenure. According to van Breukelen (1991) a perfect predictor of turnover is job tenure. This
is confirmed by Arnold & Feldman (1982). Employees with longer job tenure, often fulfil the more attractive positions (van Breukelen, 1991). Unlike, at the start of their career, younger employees search for an interesting job. They will accept lower functions more easy and will switch if a better function will become available (Tanova & Holtom, 2008). After reviewing this, it can be argued that longer job tenure will result in lower turnover intentions. Therefore, it is expected that there is a negative relation between job tenure and intention to leave.
Work related variables
In this research, work related variables are the second category of variables which have an influence on voluntary turnover intentions. This was confirmed by Iverson (1999), Wright & Bonett (2007), van Hoof et al. (2002), van Breukelen (1991) and Lum et al. (1998). The work related variables will be discussed below.
Meyer & Allen, 1991; Mitchell et al., 2001). Continuance commitment refers to the costs employees link with intentions to leave an organization. This was confirmed by SamGnanakkan (2010). According to Allen & Meyer (1990) continuance commitment also refers to perceived absence of alternate careers. The last form, normative commitment has to do with the obligations that employees experience towards their organization (Mitchell et al., 2001; SamGnanakkan, 2010). According to Lum et al. (1998) there are many researches which report relations between organizational commitment and intention to leave. If employees experience a strong commitment to their organization, they are less willing to leave the organization voluntarily. This was confirmed by Mitchell et al. (2001). Therefore, it is hypothesized that all three distinguished aspects of commitment; affective, continuance, and normative commitment, will negatively relate to turnover intention. This was confirmed by SamGnanakkan (2010), Meyer & Allen (1991), Tett & Meyer (1993), Cho et al. (2009). Job involvement. “Job involvement is the willingness to exert effort on the job” (Price, 2001:
604). According to Price (2001), because of its positive influence on job satisfaction, job involvement decreases voluntary turnover intentions. This is largely supported by Paré & Tremblay (2007) who did a research to the relation between high-involvement HR practices and intention to leave. High-involvement HR practices will result in a more positive work climate by which turnover intention will decrease. According to Blau & Boal (1989) highly involved employees normally have a lower intention to leave an organization. Therefore, a negative relation between job involvement and intention to leave is expected.
Social support. Social support can be divided in many sub determinants including;
support and supervisor support which can be perceived by employees. According to Cho et al. (2009) organizational support results in a decrease in intention to leave while supervisor support would not result in a decrease. However, some other researchers mention that supervisor support will result in a decrease in voluntary turnover intentions (Iverson, 1999; Finnegan, 2010; Gustafson, 2002). According to Finnegan (2010) relationships with supervisors are important, because it influences an employees’ decision to stay at or leave the organization; 60% of total turnover is caused by poor leadership (Finnegan, 2010). Next to the supervisor, also co-workers have to be qualified to reduce employees’ voluntary turnover intention (Gustafson, 2002). Therefore, leaders have to create trust within their teams which can be done by communication, recognition, and development (Finnegan, 2010). If employees do not feel a connection with their colleagues, their intention to leave the organization voluntarily, increases. This was confirmed by Welch (2008). After reviewing this, supervisor and co-worker support will be measured because of the researched organization will have influence on these variables. A negative relation between both, supervisor and co-worker support on the one hand and intention to leave on the other hand is expected.
Routinization. Routinization has to do with the extent of repetitiveness in a job and the
transformation process in which the organization transfers inputs into outputs (Chen et al., 2008; Kim et al., 1996; Price, 2001). According to Iverson (1999) if employees experience more variety in their job, their intention to leave the organization decreases. This was confirmed by Hom and Griffeth (1995) and Mueller, Boyer, Price & Iverson (1994) who mention that more routine in jobs result in a higher intention to leave. Therefore, in this research a positive relation between routinization and intention to leave is expected.
Autonomy. Autonomy will influence someone’s turnover intention. Autonomy refers to “the
feeling of control employees experience they have in their job. This was confirmed by Kim et al. (1996), Hsu et al. (2003) and Chen et al. (2008). The impact of autonomy on job satisfaction is high (Chen et al., 2008). Employees, who experience a higher autonomy in their job, have a lower turnover intention. This was confirmed by Iverson (1999). Therefore, a negative relation between autonomy and intention to leave is hypothesized.
Distributive justice. “Distributive Justice is the extent to which rewards and punishments are related to job performance” (Chen et al., 2008: 279). It refers to the way in which employees are treated based on their degree of effort, and their responsibility and educational level. This was confirmed by Price & Mueller (1986), Mueller & Price (1990) and Iverson (1999). According to Kim et al. (1996) fairness and equity in for example compensation, are terms which can be related to distributive justice. After reviewing this, it can be argued that if distributive justice increases employees’ intention to leave will decreases. This was confirmed by Price (2001). Therefore, a negative relation is hypothesized between distributive justice and intention to leave.
Job insecurity. Due to the economic crisis worldwide, job insecurity of employees increases
Job stress. Job stress is another variable which influences intention to leave. The extent to
which reaching job related tasks is difficult, refers to job stress (Price, 2001; Chen et al., 2008). According to Price (2001) and Kim et al. (1996) job stress can be divided in four types of stress; 1. role ambiguity (job obligations which are unclear); 2. role conflict (conflicting job conditions); 3. workload (quantity of energy employees require in their job); and 4. resource inadequacy (insufficient resources to perform well). Iverson (1999) only mentions role conflict and role ambiguity separately from each other. Employees’ decisions to leave are increased by job stress (Hom & Griffeth, 1995; Price, 2001). Therefore, a positive relation between all four forms of job stress and intention to leave is hypothesized.
Promotional chances. According to Chen et al. (2008: 279) “promotional chances are the degree of potential occupational mobility within an organization”. Career development is taken into consideration when considering staying at, or leaving an organization (Finnegan, 2010). Charney (2008) mentions a lack of growth opportunities and challenges as one of the most important reasons why employees decide to leave their job. Therefore, organizations have to spend time and effort on promotional chances. This was confirmed by Kim et al. (1996) who mentions future rewards and the accompanying promotional chances as determinants of turnover. Especially for higher educated employees a lack of growth opportunities is a reason to leave an organization. This was confirmed by van Hoof et al. (2002). Because the employees of the headquarters are mainly high educated, a negative relation between promotional chances and intention to leave is hypothesized.
al., 1996. Therefore, to prevent that an employee will leave to competitors, for organizations it is important to pay enough. Compensation is a variable in the decision-making process to leave a job voluntarily, which always ranks highly, whether it is the most important variable or not (van Hoof et al., 2002; Charney, 2008). It is a more important reason for lower educated employees for leaving the organization then it is for higher educated ones, however, also for this group it is not the most important reason (van Hoof et al., 2002). According to Price (2001) and Chen et al. (2008) voluntary turnover can be decreased by higher pay through its positive influence on job satisfaction. Therefore, a negative relation between pay and intention to leave is expected.
The conceptual model is presented in figure 1. It is a visual view of the hypothesized relationships between individual related variables and intention to leave on the one, and work related variables and intention to leave on the other hand. Intention to leave is a strong predictor of voluntary turnover. However, no further attention will be given to this relation.
Figure 1: Conceptual model
Intention to leave Individual variables H1 Gender (+) H2 Educational level (+) H3 Age (-) H4 Tenure (-) Work-related variables H5 Affective commitment (-) H6 Continuance commitment (-) H7 Normative commitment (-) H8 Job involvement (-) H9 Social support supervisor (-) H10 Social support co-workers (-) H11 Routinization (+)
H12 Autonomy (-) H13 Distributive justice (-) H14 Job insecurity (+)
H15 Job stress (Role ambiguity) (+) H16 Job stress (Role conflict) (+) H17 Job stress (Workload) (+)
H18 Job stress (Resource inadequacy) (+) H19 Promotional chances (-)
H20 Pay (-)
METHOD SECTION Procedure
Data for this research were collected at FrieslandCampina, world’s largest dairy cooperative with over 15.300 member farmers. Since the merger between the former Friesland Foods and Campina in 2008, the headquarters of the business group Corporate Support & Shared Services is located in Amersfoort, the “new” workplace of many employees. Because of this new location, the issue of increased travel distance is relevant for many of those employees. Therefore, employees of this business group, with the new location Amersfoort, were asked to fill in a questionnaire. Only people who were also employed at Friesland Foods or Campina before the merger were invited to participate in this research because often they have to deal with the increased travel distance as a result of the merger. In order to increase the response rate, the questionnaire could be filled in anonymously and handed in by using a closed envelope at the post office. Furthermore, most employees received the questionnaire personally, which was more motivating. Employees, who were not accessible, received it from their direct manager. The questionnaire contained 84 items. An overview can be found in appendix B.
Respondents
which mentions job tenure between 11 and 15 years. Length of job tenure has a standard deviation of 1.827. The largest group of employees (24%) had a job tenure equal to or more than 26 years. The other respondents were divided among different job tenure categories: 16.3% of the employees had a job tenure between 1 and 5 years; 16.3% between 6 and 10 years; 18.3% between 11 and 15 years; 8.7% between 16 and 20 years; and 16.3% had a job tenure between 21 and 25 years. Looking at education level, the largest group of employees (49%) did a study on HBO level; 1.9% did LBO or MAVO; 16.3% did MBO, HAVO or VWO; 49% did HBO; and 32.7% did a study on WO level.
Measures
Individual related variables. The individual related variables are all measured by one item.
To measure age, the distribution of Hsu (2003) is used. In total there were eight age-categories. Gender was measured by two answer possibilities; men or women. Job tenure was also measured by a scale of Hsu (2003). In total there were six job tenure related categories. Five education levels were measured by a scale of Wolbers, de Graaf & Ultee (1997).
Work related variables. Affective commitment is measured by a 6 item scale of Meyer, Allen
& Smith (1993). To increase consistency, for this measurement a five point Likert scale is used instead of a seven point Likert scale. The scale is divided from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). An example item is: This organization has a great deal of personal meaning
for me. Three items in this measurement were reversed coded. The Cronbach Alpha3 is 0.81.
After deleting item 1, the Cronbach Alpha increased to 0.82, which is sufficient. Continuance
commitment is measured by a 6 item scale of Meyer et al. (1993). For this measurement also a
five point Likert scale is used to increase the consistency. The scale is divided from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). One item example is: I feel that I have too few
options to consider leaving this organization. The Cronbach Alpha of this measurement is
0.73 which is sufficient. Normative commitment is, as well as the other items of commitment, measured by a 6 item scale of Meyer et al. (1993). To increase the consistency, a five point Likert scale is used divided from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). An example is:
This organization deserves my loyalty. One item in this measurement was reversed coded. The
Cronbach Alpha is 0.79. After deleting item 6, the Cronbach Alpha became 0.80, which is sufficient. Job involvement is measured by a 5 item scale measurement (Cyphert, 1990). A five point Likert scale is used from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). An example of an item is: I consider my job to be very central to my existence. No items were reversed coded. The Cronbach Alpha is 0.75, which is sufficient. Supervisor support is measured by a 4 item scale (Kim et al., 1996). The measurement has a five point Likert scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). An example of an item which measures supervisor support is: my immediate supervisor really does not care about my well-being. This measurement consists of two items which were reversed coded and contained a Cronbach Alpha of 0.78. After deleting item 3, the Cronbach Alpha became 0.80, which is sufficient.
Support from coworkers is measured by a 4 item scale of Kim et al. (1996), which also was
measured by a five point Likert scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). An example is: I am very friendly with one or more of my co-workers. Two items were reversed coded and the Cronbach Alpha is 0.51 and for that reason insufficient. Routinization is measured by a 4 item scale measurement (Kim et al., 1996). This scale also contains a five point Likert scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). An item example is: My
duties are repetitious in my job. Only two items were reversed coded. The Cronbach Alpha is
0.79 and therefore sufficient. Autonomy is measured by a 6 item scale measurement (Kim et al., 1996). For this scale a five point Likert scale is used from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). An example which measures autonomy is: I am able to choose the way to go
Cronbach Alpha of 0.72. After deleting item 3, the Cronbach Alpha increased to 0.73. This means that the internal consistency is sufficient. Distributive justice is measured by a 6 item scale measurement (Price, 2001). The scale contains a five point Likert scale divided from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). An example is: Very competent employees are well
rewarded by my employer. Two items were reversed coded. The Cronbach Alpha is 0.55 and
is therefore insufficient. Job insecurity is measured by a 5 item scale of Francis & Barling (2005). A five point Likert scale is used divided from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). An item is: I am afraid of losing my present job. Three items were reversed coded. The Cronbach Alpha of this measurement is 0.82, which is sufficient. Job stress (ambiguity) is measured by a 4 item scale of Kim et al. (1996). The measurement has a five point Likert scale divided from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). An example is: I know exactly
what is expected of me in my job. Two items were reversed coded and the Cronbach Alpha
was 0.59. After deleting item 1, the Cronbach Alpha became 0.61 which result in a scale with minimal sufficiency. Job stress (conflict) is also measured by a 4 item scale of Kim et al. (1996) which has a five point Likert scale divided from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). An item example which measures job stress (conflict) is: I often get conflicting job
requests from different co-workers. Two items in this measurement were reversed coded. The
measurement were reversed coded. The measurement has a Cronbach Alpha of 0.66. After deleting item 1, the Cronbach Alpha became 0.73, which is sufficient. Promotional chances are measured by a 5 item scale measurement (Kim et al., 1996). It also contains a five point Likert scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). An item example is: Promotions
are regular with my employer. Only two items were reversed coded, and the Cronbach Alpha
is 0.71. After deleting two items (4 and 5) the Cronbach Alpha increased to 0.76, which is sufficient. Pay is measured by a 4 item scale of Heneman & Schwab (1985). A five point Likert scale is used divided from 1 (Very dissatisfied) to 5 (Very satisfied). An example is: my
overall level of pay. The Cronbach Alpha is 0.96 and therefore sufficient.
Intention to leave. Intention to leave is measured by a three item scale of Mobley et al.
(1978), which was measured by a five point Likert scale 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). An item example is: I think a lot about leaving this organization. The Cronbach Alpha of this measurement is 0.92, which is sufficient.
Data analysis
RESULTS
Descriptive and correlation analysis
with hypothesis 11, there is a significant positive relation between routinization and intention to leave (r = .38, p < 0.01). The results show that, in accordance with hypothesis 12, there is a significant negative relation between autonomy and intention to leave (r = -.24, p < 0.05). Because there is also found a significant negative relation between pay and intention to leave, hypothesis 20 was supported (r = -.20, p < 0.05). As hypothesis 14 and 15 already predicted, there were significant positive relations between job insecurity and intention to leave (r = .31, p < 0.01), and between job stress ambiguity and intention to leave (r = .342, p < 0.01). In accordance with hypothesis 16, there is a significant positive relation between job stress conflict and intention to leave (r = .21, p < 0.05). Another significant relation on this significance level is found between job stress workload and intention to leave. Although hypothesis 17 predicted a positive relation between job stress workload and intention to leave, a significant negative relation has been found (r = -.22, p < 0.05). As hypothesis 18 has predicted, there is a significant positive relation between job stress inadequate resources and intention to leave (r = .31, p < 0.01). In accordance with hypothesis 19 there is a significant negative relation between promotional chances and intention to leave (r = -.37, p < .01).
Insert table C1 here
Regression analysis
the significant regression coefficients are described, because these coefficients mention something about causality with, and the best possible explanation of the dependent variable. The R-square values give information about the variance in intention to leave which is explained by the independent variables.
Regression analysis; all independent variables and intention to leave.
The results from the stepwise regression analysis, in which all independent variables and the dependent variable are included, are presented in table C2 in appendix C. When all independent variables are taken together, based on the outcomes there can be argued that only three variables have a significant influence on intention to leave. According to the results, affective commitment is the strongest variable that influences intention to leave significant positively (ß -.61, SE .07, T -7.7, P .000). The second strongest variable is supervisor support which shows a significant causal negative relation with intention to leave (ß .26, SE .10, T -3.2, P .002), followed by a significant causal positive relation between job insecurity and intention to leave (ß .20, SE .06, T 2.7, P .008). From this analysis, not any individual related variable is significant. Therefore, it can be argued that work related variables have a stronger influence on intention to leave than individual related variables.
Insert table C2 here
Regression analysis; independent variables and intention to leave (with exception of affective commitment).
analysis are presented in table C3 in appendix C. From the results it becomes clear that if affective commitment is left out from the analysis, four variables are significant. According to the results from this analysis, normative commitment is the strongest variable that has a significant causal negative relation with intention to leave (ß -.49, SE .08, T -5.6, P .000). Normative commitment is followed by supervisor support, which also has a significant causal negative relation with intention to leave (ß -.32, SE .11, T -3.7, P .000). Routinization shows a significant causal positive relation with intention to leave (ß .18, SE .11, T 2.1, P .040), followed by job insecurity (ß .17, SE .07, T 2.1, P .039). Based on these outcomes it can be concluded that if affective commitment is not included, other variables show a significant relation with intention to leave. Again, the work related variables have a stronger influence on intention to leave than individual related variables. In this analysis, there is no significant relation between any individual related variable and intention to leave as well.
Insert table C3 here
Regression analysis; independent variables and intention to leave (with exception of the 3 commitment variables (affective, continuance, and normative commitment)).
T -5.1, P .000). Job insecurity shows a significant causal positive relation with intention to leave (ß .25, SE .74, T 2.9, P .004), followed by routinization (ß .26, SE .11, T 2.9, P .004). Furthermore, job tenure shows a significant causal negative relation with intention to leave (ß -.17, SE .14, T -2.0, P .044). The last variable which shows a significant causal negative relation with intention to leave is promotion (ß -.18, SE .14, T -2.0, P .048). Based on these outcomes it can be concluded that if the commitment variables are not included, other variables show a significant relation with intention to leave. Again the work related variables have a stronger influence on intention to leave. However, in this analysis, next to four work related variables, one individual related variable (job tenure) shows a significant causal relation with intention to leave.
Insert table C4 here
DISCUSSION
The aim of this research was to investigate the influence of different variables on employees’ intention to leave within the headquarters of Corporate Support & Shared Services of a large dairy organization. Results would provide the organization insights in the specific variables that have an influence on their employees’ intention to leave the organization.
Main findings
were expected between gender, education level, routinization, job insecurity, job stress ambiguity, job stress conflict, job stress workload, and job stress inadequate resources on the one side and intention to leave on the other side. There are three reasons why only the last regression analysis, without affective continuance, and normative commitment, from the result section will be used for writing this discussion section. Firstly, in the questionnaire (appendix B), there is overlap between items from the affective commitment scale and items from the intention to leave scale. Therefore a strong correlation between those items was obvious. Secondly, the commitment variables have broad characters because they refer to employees’ overall commitment to the organization (Shore & Wayne, 1993). This reasoning is supported by Mowday, Porter & Steers (1982), who mention that only affective commitment already contains four components (work experiences, personal, job, and structural characteristics). Not all of these components can be influenced by the organization. Thirdly, next to investments employees make, continuance commitment also focused on perceived lack of alternates outside the organization, which cannot be influenced by the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Especially, as a result of the two latest reasons mentioned above, it can be concluded that for organizations it is difficult to influence commitment related variables. Therefore, only the last regression analysis will be used for writing this discussion.
significant relations with intention to leave, however the relations could be the other way around; for example, intention to leave influences job involvement. Therefore, it can be concluded that these relations are significant; however, the direction of the relation cannot be assessed by the regression analysis. In accordance to what was expected, the regression and correlation analyses showed that if people experience sufficient supervisor support and more promotional chances, their intention to leave significantly decreases. Furthermore, both analyses also showed causal significant negative support for the hypotheses related to routinization and job insecurity. If respondents experience more job insecurity and more routinization, their intention to leave significantly increases. No significant correlations were found between continuance commitment, coworker support and distributive justice on the one hand and intention to leave on the other hand. Anyway, because coworker support and distributive justice both have an alpha which is insufficient, it is impossible to obtain reliable results there. In contrast to previous researches, next to job tenure, no more significant correlations were found between the remaining individual related variables and intention to leave. A potential reason for this is that these variables are not normally distributed. Therefore, results can be biased. 69.2% of the respondents were male, 73% of the respondents were older than 40 and 81.7% did a study on HBO or WO level. For twelve work related variables no significant causal relations were found as well. A potential reason for this is that the employees’ intention to leave is actually low. Only 20.1% considers leaving the organization. Therefore, also here the variance is low by which it is difficult to find more significant relationships.
intention to leave. Because most respondents (81, 7%) were high educated it can be assumed that higher educated employees do not experience a higher workload as a negative thing.
Strengths and limitations and suggestions for further research
specific to this organization. Managers need to be aware of the differences between this research and the same research within another organization. In the future more research can be done to the influence of individual and work related variables on employees’ intention to leave in other organizations.
Main conclusion and practical and theoretical implications
The results have practical implications for the organization as well. As mentioned before, from the individual related variables, only job tenure has a significant causal relation with intention to leave. The organization can maximize employees’ job tenure by optimizing four work related variables. Supervisor support and promotional chances on the one side, have significant causal negative relations with intention to leave, and should therefore be maximized. Job insecurity and routinization, on the other side, have to be minimized by the organization because of their significant causal positive relations with intention to leave.
The results indicate that maximizing supervisor support is important in reducing employees’ intention to leave. For the organization it is important to maximize supervisor support by creating a safe environment in which employees and supervisors can talk about work-life related problems. According to Kossek & Lambert (2008) this is possible if there is a psychological link between both parties. The organization has to create trust and fairness within teams, which can be realized by communication, recognition and personal development (DeConink, 2010; Finnegan, 2010). At this moment 22% of the respondents does not feel concerned enough by their immediate supervisor. Respondents reported that they perceive more supervisor support and have a lower intention to leave the organization if supervisors pay attention to their well-being, difficulties in the job, and other job related problems. It is recommended that two times a year supervisors have to pay attention to these three elements in a personal and open conversation with their employees.
Morrison, 1988). Especially in retaining employees who are of high competence, career mobility can play an important role (Mignonac & Herrbach, 2003). This is in line with findings from van Hoof et al. (2002) suggesting a relation between high educated employees and promotional chances in retention of employees. Because the employees of the headquarters are mainly high educated, the organization has to create an effective, internal career mobility policy. Three career mobility practices mentioned by Malos & Campion (2000) are mentoring, career development and promotional opportunities. These practices probably are interesting for this organization in creating an effective, internal career mobility policy. This policy will contribute to employees’ willingness to change and to a higher awareness of career opportunities within the organization (Mignonac & Herrbach, 2003). The organization can put career opportunities on intranet, to create a higher awareness of opportunities for employees. Furthermore, supervisors have to stimulate employees in their willingness to change by mentoring them. Next to career mobility, 360-degrees feedback is another system which can be used for employees’ promotion and developmental purposes. This was confirmed by Budman & Rice (1994). With 360-degrees feedback, employees know how their supervisor and co-workers review their effectiveness. The organization can implement 360-degrees feedback once a year.
communication as a method which can minimize job insecurity. This is in line with findings of Mauno & Kinnunen (2002) and Johnson, Bernhagen, Miller & Allen (1996) who associate poor communication and job insecurity related to each other. Supervisors should indicate and communicate whether targets and expectations of employees are realistic and achievable. Both participation and organizational communication increases employees’ feeling of control in their tasks by which job insecurity will be decreased. A 360-degree feedback system, mentioned to increase promotional chances, is a third instrument that can be interesting in lowering job insecurity. With 360-degrees feedback, employees know how they are reviewed by co-workers and supervisors, by which job insecurity will decrease.
Results from this survey, show that routinization is the second variable which has to be minimized in decreasing employees’ intention to leave the organization. This finding links with earlier research (Mueller et al., 1994). Next, Chen et al. (2008) found a negative relation between routinization and intention to stay. Organizations can decrease routinization by creating variety in the work related tasks of its employees. This was supported by Iverson (1999). At this moment 96.1% of the respondents experiences variety within their job. Because almost all respondents experience variety in their job, for the organization it is important to continue and guarantee this variety in the future. Job variety can be kept and increased by two work-design programs; job enlargement, and job enrichment. This was confirmed by Parker (1998) and Kvalseth (1980). On the one hand, job enlargement refers to a horizontal expansion of tasks often together with increased responsibilities. Job enrichment, on the other hand, refers to a vertical expansion of tasks with increasing number of tasks. This was confirmed by Hackman & Oldham (1976).
REFERENCES
Alexander, J.A., Lichtenstein, R., Oh, H.J., Ullman, E. 1998. A causal model of voluntary turnover among nursing personnel in long-term psychiatric settings. Research in Nursing & Health, 21(5): 415-427
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
Arnold, H.J., Feldman, D.C. 1982. A multivariate analysis of the determinants of job turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(3): 350-360
Blau, G.J., Boal, K.B., 1989. Using job involvement and organizational commitment interactively to predict turnover. Journal of Management, 15(1): 115-127 Breukelen, van, J.W.M. 1991. Personeelsverloop in organisaties. Leiden: Proefschrift Budman, M. Rice, B. 1994. The rating game. Across the Board, 31(2): 34-38
Charney, D. 2008. Top 10 reasons good employees quit. Material Handling Management, 63(10): 48-49
Chen, H.C., Chu, C.I., Wang, Y.H., Lin, L.C. 2008. Turnover factors revisited: a longitudinal study of Taiwan-based staff nurses. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45(2): 277-285
Cho, S., Johanson, M.M., Guchait, P., 2009. Employees intent to leave: A comparison of determinants of intent to leave versus intent to stay. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(3): 374-381.
Cordery, J.L. Mueller, W.S., Smith, L.M. 1991. Attitudinal and behavioural effects of
autonomous group working: a longitudinal field study. Academy of Management Journal, 34(2): 464-476
Cyphert, S.T. 1990. “Employee absenteeism: an empirical test of a revision of the Brooke model”, unpublished dissertation. Iowa City: University of Iowa.
Elst, van der, T., Baillien, E., Cuyper, de, N., Witte, de, H. 2010. The role of organizational communication and participation in reducing job insecurity and its negative association with work-related well-being. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 31(2):249-264
Finnegan, R.P. 2010. Rethinking retention in good times and bad. Boston: Davies-Black. Francis, L., Barling, J. 2005. Organizational injustice and psychological strain. Canadian
Journal of Behavioural Science, 37(4): 250-261
Frank, F.D., Finnegan, R.P., Taylor, C.R. 2004. The race for talent: retaining and engaging workers in the 21st century. Human Resource Planning, 27(3): 12-25
Goudswaard, K.P. 2009. Verder met de bakker? Idee, 30(2): 34-39
Griffeth, R.W., Hom, P.W., Gaertner, S. 2000. A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlated of employee turnover, update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26(3): 463-488
Gustafson, C.M. 2002. Employee turnover: a study of private clubs in the USA. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 14(3): 106-113
Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G. 1976. Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational behavior and Human Performance, 16(2): 250-279.
Hall, D.T. 1976. Careers in organizations. Pacific Palisades, California: Goodyear. Heery, E., Noon, M., 2001. Dictionary of human resource management. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Heneman, H.G. & Schwab, D.P. 1985. Pay satisfaction: its multidimensional nature and measurement. International Journal of Psychology, 20(2): 129-141
Hom, P.W., & Griffeth, R.W. 1995. Employee turnover. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western College
Hoof van, J., 2001. Werk, werk, werk? Over de balans tussen werken en leven in een veranderend arbeidsbestel. Amsterdam: Boom uitgevers.
Hoof van, J.J., Bruin, P.E.M., Schoemaker, M.J.R., Vroom, A. 2002. Werk(en) moet wel leuk zijn: arbeidswensen van Nederlanders. Assen: Koninklijke van Gorcum.
Huizingh, E. 2006. Inleiding SPSS, 14.0 voor Windows en data entry. Den Haag: Sdu uitgevers BV.
Hsu, M.K., Jiang, J.J., Klein, G., Tang, Z. 2003. Perceived career incentives and intent to leave. Information & Management, 40(5): 361-369
Iverson, R.D. 1996. Employee acceptance of organizational change: the role of organizational commitment. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 7(1):121-148 Iverson, R.D. 1999. An event history analysis of employee turnover: the case of hospital
employees in Australia. Human Resource Management Review, 9(4): 397-418 Johnson, J.R., Bernhagen, M.J., Miller, V., Allen, M. 1996. The role of communication in
managing reductions in work force. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 24: 139-164
Kam, de, C.A., 2009. Van financiële crisis naar depressie. Tijdschrift voor Openbare Financiën, 41(2): 85-94
Kim, S.W., Price, J.L., Mueller, C.W., Watson, T.W. 1996. The determinants of career intent among physicians at a U.S. Air Force Hospital. Human Relations, 49(7): 947-976 Kossek, E.E. Lambert, S.J. 2005. Work and Life integration. Organizational, cultural, and
individual perspectives. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Publishers Kvalseth, T.O., 1980. Quantitative measures of job variety: an experimental study based on a
psychophysical scaling technique. International Journal of Production Research, 18(4): 441-454
Lum, L., Kervin, J., Clark, K., Reid, F., & Sirola, W. 1998. Explaining nursing turnover intent: job satisfaction, pay satisfaction, or organizational commitment? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(3): 305-320
Mak, B.L., Sockel, H. 2001. A confirmatory factor analysis of IS employee motivation and retention. Information & Management, 38(5): 265-276
Malos, S.B., Campion, M.A. 2000. Human resource strategy and career mobility in
professional service firms: a test of an options-based model. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4): 749-760
Marsh, R.M., Mannari, H. 1977. Organizational commitment and turnover: a prediction study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(1): 57-75
Mauno, S. Kinnunen, U. 2002. Perceived job insecurity among dual-earner couples: Do its antecedents vary according to gender, economic sector and the measure used? Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 75(3): 295-314
McCall, M. W., Lombardo, M. M., & Morrison, A. M. 1988. The lessons of experience: How successful executives develop on the job. New York, The free press
Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., Smith, C.A. 1993. Commitment to organizations and occupations: extension and test of a three component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4): 538-551
Mignonac, K. Herrbach, O. 2003. Managing individual career aspirations and corporate needs: a study of software engineers in France. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20(3): 205-230
Mitchell, T.R., Holtom, B.C., Lee, T.W., Sablynski, C.J., Erez, M. 2001. Why people stay: using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6): 1102-1121
Mobley, W.H., Horner, S.O. & Hollingsworth, A.T. 1978. An evaluation precursor of hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(4): 408-414
Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W., & Steers, R.M. 1982. Employees-organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press. Mueller, C.W., Price, J.L. 1990. Economic, psychological, and sociological determinants of
voluntary turnover. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19(3): 321-335
Mueller, C.W., Boyer, E. M., Price, J.L., & Iverson, R.D. 1994. Employee attachment and noncoercive conditions of work: the case of dental hygienists. Work and Occupations, 21(2): 179-212
Paré, G., Tremblay, M. 2007. The influence of high-involvement human resources practices, procedural justice, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors on information technology professionals’ turnover intentions. Group & Organization Management, 32(3): 326-357
Parker, S.K. 1998. Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6): 835-852 Patterson, M.G., West, M.A., Shackleton, V.J., Dawson, J.F., Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S.,
Robinson, D.L., Wallace, A.M. 2005. Validating the organizational climate measure: Links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 26(4): 379-408.
Pettman, B.O., 1973. Some factors influencing labour turnover: a review of research literature. Industrial Relations Journal, 4(3): 43-61
Pfeffer, J. & Veiga, J.F. 1999. Putting people First for organizational success. The Academy of Management Executive, 13(2): 37-48
Price, J.L. 2001. Reflections on the determinants of voluntary turnover. International Journal of Manpower, 22(7): 600-624
Price, J.L., & Mueller, C.W. 1986. Absenteeism and turnover of hospital employees: Monographs in organizational behavior and industrial relations; v.5. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Royalty, A.B. 1998. Job-to-job and job-to-nonemployment: Turnover by gender and educational level. Journal of Labor Economics, 16(2): 392-443
SamGnanakkan, S. 2010. Mediating role of organizational commitment on HR practices and turnover intention among ICT professionals. Journal of Management Research, 10(1): 39-61
Schwartz, F.N. 1989. Management women and the new facts of life. Women in Management Review, 4(5): 65-76
Shore, L.M., & Wayne, S.J. 1993. Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5): 774-780
Steel, R.P. & Ovalle, N.K. 1984. A review and meta-analysis of research on the relationship between behavioral intentions and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(4): 673-686
Steijn, B. 2003. De rol van het management bij arbeidssatisfactie en mobiliteit. In Personeels- en mobiliteitsonderzoek Overheidspersoneel 1999-2002. ’s-Gravenhage: Ministerie van binnenlandse zaken en koninkrijksrelaties.
Staufenbiel, T., König, C.J. 2010. A model for the effects of job insecurity on performance, turnover intention, and absenteeism. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(1): 101-117
Stephens, N. 2010. Talent management: ensuring your people give you the competitive edge. Strategic Direction, 26(7): 3-5
Tanova, C., Holtom, B.C., 2008. Using job embeddedness factors to explain voluntary
turnover in four European countries. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(9): 1553-1568
Tett, R.P., & Meyer, J.P. 1993. Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover
Timmerhuis, V.C.M. & Vermeulen, H.J.J.M. 1993. Arbeidsmobiliteit van wetenschappelijk personeel: een empirisch onderzoek naar feitelijke mobiliteit, redenen van non-mobiliteit en non-mobiliteitsbeleid. Tilburg: IVA Tilburg.
Tracy, B. 2004. Top five reasons people stay in their jobs. CPA Journal, 74(6): 17 Welch, J. 2008. Why people leave and what you can do to keep them. Compensation &
Benefits for Law Offices, 8(5): 3-5
Welter, J. 2005. Een aderlating voor de organisatie; een onderzoek naar de uitstroom van werknemers. Thesis Sociologie, Erasmus universiteit Rotterdam, Rotterdam.
Wolbers, M.H.J., Graaf de, P.M., Ultee, W.C. 1997. Ontwikkelingen in de opbrengsten van diploma’s op de arbeidsmarkt: structurele veranderingen én veranderde samenhang? Mens & Maatschappij, 72(3): 263-283
Aantal personen met toegenomen of afgenomen reistijd in minuten 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -100 t/ m -91 -90 t/ m -81 -80 t/ m -71 -70 t/ m -61 -60 t/ m -51 -50 t/ m -41 -40 t/ m -31 -30 t/ m -21 -20 t/ m -11 -10 t/ m -1 0 t/ m 10 11 t/ m 20 21 t/ m 30 31 t/ m 40 41 t/ m 50 51 t/ m 60 61 t/ m 70 71 t/ m 80 81 t/ m 90 91 t/ m 100 Aantal minuten A a n ta l p e rs o n e n
Aantal personen met toegenomen reistijd
Toegenomen of afgenomen reistijd in minuten
-100 t/ m -81 -80 t/ m -61 -60 t/ m -41 -40 t/ m -21 -20 t/ m -1 0 t/ m 20 21 t/ m 40 41 t/ m 60 61 t/ m 80 81 t/ m 100 APPENDIX A Travel time
Totaal aantal personen 174
Percentage personen met toegenomen reistijd 72.41%
Percentage personen met afgenomen reistijd 27.59%
Toename / afname in minuten Aantal personen Percentage van het totaal aantal personen -100 t/m -81 0 0% -80 t/m -61 5 2.87% -60 t/m -41 2 1.15% -40 t/m -21 11 6.32% -20 t/m -1 30 17.24% 0 t/m 20 23 13,21% 21 t/m 40 28 16.10% 41 t/m 60 58 33.34% 61 t/m 80 12 6.90% 81 t/m 100 5 2.87%
Belangrijkste conclusies reistijd:
- Grootste toename in minuten in categorie 41 t/m 60. 33,34% van de personen moet 41-60 minuten verder reizen dan voorheen. - Grootste afname in minuten in categorie -20 t/m -1. Bij 17.24% is de reistijd afgenomen met 1 t/m 20 minuten. Dit is dus maar een
Aantal personen met toegenomen of afgenomen reisafstand in kilometers 0 5 10 15 20 25 -120 t/ m -111 -110 t/ m -101 -100 t/ m -91 -90 t/ m -81 -80 t/ m -71 -70 t/ m -61 -60 t/ m -51 -50 t/ m -41 -40 t/ m -31 -30 t/ m -21 -20 t/ m -11 -10 t/ m -1 0 t/ m 10 11 t/ m 20 21 t/ m 30 31 t/ m 40 41 t/ m 50 51 t/ m 60 61 t/ m 70 71 t/ m 80 81 t/ m 90 91 t/ m 100 101 t/ m 110 111 t/ m 120 Aantal kilometers A a n ta l p e rs o n e n
Aantal personen met toegenomen of afgenomen reisafstand
Toegenomen of afgenomen reisafstand in kilometers
-120 t/ m -101 -100 t/ m -81 -80 t/ m -61 -60 t/ m -41 -40 t/ m -21 -20 t/ m -1 0 t/ m 20 21 t/ m 40 41 t/ m 60 61 t/ m 80 81 t/ m 100 101 t/ m 120 Travel distance
Totaal aantal personen 174
Percentage personen met toegenomen reisafstand 64.94%
Percentage personen met afgenomen reisafstand 35.06%
Toename / afname in kilometers Aantal personen Percentage van het totaal aantal personen -120 t/m - 101 1 0.57% -100 t/m -81 7 4.02% -80 t/m -61 6 3.44% -60 t/m -41 6 3.44% -40 t/m -21 13 7.47% -20 t/m -1 28 16.10% 0 t/m 20 8 4.60% 21 t/m 40 17 9.78% 41 t/m 60 24 13.80% 61 t/m 80 23 13,21% 81 t/m 100 34 19.55% 101 t/m 120 7 4.02%
Belangrijkste conclusies reisafstand:
- Grootste toename in kilometers ligt in categorie 81 t/m 100. 19.55% van de personen moet 81-100 kilometer verder reizen dan voorheen.
APPENDIX B
Questionnaire FrieslandCampina
My name is Marissa Bootsma. I am a student at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen and my master specialization is HRM. At the end of 2010 I will finish this master. For my graduation I have to do a scientific research.
On behalf of the Master Human Resource Management and FrieslandCampina, I am
conducting this research. As a result of the merger, the travel time and –distance increased for many employees. Travel time and –distance are two out of many variables which influences employees’ intention to leave. Because FrieslandCampina cannot change the increased travel time and –distance, it is important to get insight in work related variables (like relation with supervisor, autonomy, involvement, pay, etcetera) that may influence employees’ intention to leave.
The questionnaire starts with four individual related questions followed by 80 work related questions and is STRICTLY ANONYMOUS. It can be filled in within 10 minutes and the questions can be answered by a 5 point scale which makes it easier to fill in. The results will be treated confidential and will be used for my thesis and hopefully gives FrieslandCampina new insights.
You can hand in this questionnaire by using the attached envelop. You can send this envelop to Marissa Bootsma, Corporate HR, 9th floor. Please, would you be so kind to fill in the questionnaire as soon as possible but at latest Friday October 15?
Thank you in advance for your help by filling in this questionnaire.
With kind regards,
Marissa Bootsma
Student Human Resource Management at the University of Groningen and intern at HR Corporate & Support
Work–related variables
Please, indicate your agreement or disagreement with each of the following statements about the influence they have on your job. (circle the right answer)
Affective commitment scale
I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization 1 2 3 4 5 I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own 1 2 3 4 5 I do not feel a strong sense of “belonging” to my organization 1 2 3 4 5
I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this organization 1 2 3 4 5
I do not feel like “part of the family” at my organization 1 2 3 4 5
This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me 1 2 3 4 5
Continuance commitment scale
Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of necessity as much as desire 1 2 3 4 5 It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now, even if I wanted to 1 2 3 4 5 Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decide I wanted to leave my organization now 1 2 3 4 5 I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this organization 1 2 3 4 5 If I had not already put so much of myself into this organization, I might consider working
elsewhere
1 2 3 4 5
One of the few negative consequences of leaving this organization would be the scarcity of available alternatives
1 2 3 4 5
Normative commitment scale
I do not feel any obligation to remain with my current employer 1 2 3 4 5 Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave my organization now 1 2 3 4 5
I would feel guilty if I left my organization now 1 2 3 4 5
This organization deserves my loyalty 1 2 3 4 5
I would not leave my organization right now because I have a sense of obligation to the people in it
1 2 3 4 5
I owe a great deal to my organization 1 2 3 4 5
Personal–related variables
(circle the right answer)
Gender Man Woman
Educational level LO
(lower education)
LBO / MAVO MBO / HAVO / VWO HBO WO
Age 25-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 >60
Job tenure (in years) 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 >26
Job involvement
The most important things that happen to me involve my job 1 2 3 4 5
I live, eat, and breathe my job 1 2 3 4 5
Most of my interests are centred around my job 1 2 3 4 5
I have very strong ties with my present job which would be difficult to break 1 2 3 4 5
I consider my job to be very central to my existence 1 2 3 4 5
Social support (Supervisor)
My immediate supervisor is willing to listen to my job-related problems 1 2 3 4 5 My immediate supervisor shows a lot of concern for me on my job 1 2 3 4 5 My immediate supervisor cannot be relied on when things get tough on my job 1 2 3 4 5 My immediate supervisor really does not care about my well-being 1 2 3 4 5
Social support (Co-workers)
I am very friendly with one or more of my co-workers 1 2 3 4 5
I regularly do things outside of work with one or more of my co-workers 1 2 3 4 5 I rarely discuss important personal problems with my co-workers 1 2 3 4 5
I know almost nothing about my co-workers as persons 1 2 3 4 5
Routinization
My job has variety 1 2 3 4 5
I have the opportunity to do a number of different things in my job 1 2 3 4 5
My duties are repetitious in my job 1 2 3 4 5
Every day I encounter the same situations in performing my job 1 2 3 4 5
S tr o n g ly d isa g re e Disa g re e Ne ith er a g re e n o r d is a g re e Ag re e S tr o n g ly a g re e Autonomy
I am able to choose the way to go about my job 1 2 3 4 5
I am able to modify what my job objectives are 1 2 3 4 5
Distributive justice
Promotions by my employer are almost totally based on seniority 1 2 3 4 5
Raises by my employer heavily depend on who you know 1 2 3 4 5
The hiring of new employees by my employer is strictly determined by job-related ability 1 2 3 4 5 The employees who do well for my employer are those who contribute the most to its success 1 2 3 4 5 One sure way to get fired by my employer is to fail to do your work in a competent manner 1 2 3 4 5
Very competent employees are well rewarded by my employer 1 2 3 4 5
Job insecurity
I can keep my current job for as long as I want it 1 2 3 4 5
This job has retirement security 1 2 3 4 5
I can be sure of my present job as long as I do good work 1 2 3 4 5
I am not really sure how long my present job will last 1 2 3 4 5
I am afraid of losing my present job 1 2 3 4 5
Job stress (ambiguity)
I know what procedures to use to get my job done 1 2 3 4 5
I know exactly what is expected of me in my job 1 2 3 4 5
I do not know what my responsibilities are in performing my job 1 2 3 4 5
I have to work under vague directives 1 2 3 4 5
Job stress (conflict)
I often get conflicting job requests from different supervisors 1 2 3 4 5 I often get conflicting job requests from different co-workers 1 2 3 4 5 My immediate supervisor and co-workers have the same ideas about how my job should be
done
1 2 3 4 5
I get consistent job requests from my immediate supervisor 1 2 3 4 5
Job stress (workload)
I have enough time to get everything done in my job 1 2 3 4 5
My workload is not heavy on my job 1 2 3 4 5
I have to work very hard in my job 1 2 3 4 5
I have to work very fast in my job 1 2 3 4 5
