TASK AND RELATIONS-ORIENTED LEADERSHIP, STRESS AND TURNOVER INTENTION AMONG CHINESE EMPLOYEES

TASK AND RELATIONS-ORIENTED LEADERSHIP, STRESS AND TURNOVER INTENTION AMONG CHINESE EMPLOYEES

Master thesis, Msc HRM, specialization Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

August 24, 2011

Guang Bai

Studentnumber: 2079976 Plutolaan 329, BNC 107

9742 GK Groningen Tel: +31(0)62-6288312 E-mail: bai.g@hotmail.com

Supervisor/universtiy Bernard Nijstad

Supervisor/university Floor Rink

Acknowledge: I highly appreciate that Dr. Prof. Nijstad gave me very helpful comments and constructive suggestions on this thesis. I thank JianJun Tang for providing me access to find literatures I need, and my parents and my friends helped me so much on collecting questionnaires.

Abstract: This article explores moderators of the relationship among job demands, occupational stress, satisfaction and turnover intention. It is examined whether job control, task-oriented leadership or relations-oriented leadership can increase job satisfaction and buffer the effect of job demands on occupational stress and turnover intention. A questionnaire-based analysis of 183 Chinese employees shows that task- oriented leadership and relations-oriented leadership did not moderate the job demands- occupational stress link. Although job control cannot decrease stress from job demands, it can buffer turnover intention resulting from job demands. Job demands also negatively affect satisfaction mediated by stress. Moreover, employees with more job control can get high job satisfaction when they are confronted with high job demands. More interestingly, high relations-oriented leadership would produce more turnover intention when job demands are high which is out of our expectation. The results mentioned above imply that stress is less important for Chinese employees compared with Western employees.

Key words: job demands, leadership, stress, turnover intention, satisfaction

1. Introduction

People’s work usually brings different degrees of job-related stress, which negatively influences their job attitudes including job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Podsakoff, Lepine & Lepine, 2007). The pressure resulting from the work environment is increasing (Avey, Luthans & Jensen, 2009). The American Psychological Association (2007) suggests that heavy workloads, unclear job expectations and long working hours are the main factors resulting in job-related stress. Moreover, occupational stress has an indirect impact on turnover intentions by influencing job strain, job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Schaubroeck, Cotton & Jennings, 1989).

Turnover is viewed as one of the critical challenges organizations are confronted with.

Turnover does not only imply a costs such as time spending interviewing, finding new employees and training them (Jackson, 2011), it also leads to loss of specific knowledge that employees get through working in the organization (Shahnawaz and Jafri, 2009).

Therefore, turnover is a critical problem for every organization which affects organizational surviving and growth.

However, almost all relevant theories and researches regarding job-related stress were developed and conducted in western nations, such as the US and European countries.

This produces a problem whether in other countries and in different cultural contexts, for example in China, these theories and research results can be adopted in daily business as well. According to the research of Hofstede (1991), Chinese culture is viewed as typically collectivist while western culture is characterized as individualist. Xie (1996) for example argues that Karasek’s job demands-control model, which is the most popular theoretical model on work stress, would not be applicable in Chinese society because individual control is less important than in an individualistic culture: in a collectivistic culture, people are prone to care about group harmony rather than benefiting individuals by taking independent action and people spend more energy and time in developing interpersonal relationships (Kim, Triandis, Kagitçibasi, Choi, & Yoon, 1994).

Furthermore, Lindsay and Dempsey (1985) find that in China, special forms of

management styles are produced by traditional Chinese culture and modern social

development which are not compatible with Western models. Thus they suggest that it is

not suitable for China to adopt Western management practices in order to solve

management problems that are special for the Chinese environment, especially in the field of HRM (Easterby-Smith, Malina & Yuan, 1995) . Moreover, leadership plays an important role in the field of management in China, because Confucian ideology, which focuses on values of conformity, subservience and respect for elders (Littrell, 2002), has been deeply embedded in every Chinese people’s thought and life throughout history.

Thus, in Chinese society with collectivist systems, leaders always have broad and undoubted power (Littrell, 2002). It means that leaders usually have a strong impact on the making and execution of decisions. Therefore, because there are a lot of differences between western nations and China in terms of culture, values, and social structure, we examine under Chinese circumstances, how different leadership types affect occupational stress and turnover intention. We expect that job control might less important for Chinese employees and relations-oriented leadership might play a more important role in increasing job satisfaction, buffering stress and turnover intention compared with task- oriented leadership.

Firstly, we review the relevant literature, such as Karasek’s job demands-control model and leadership types. Then we report the results from a questionnaire administered among Chinese employees.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Job Demands, Job Control, Occupational Stress and Voluntary Turnover Intention

2.1.1 Job demands, job control and occupational stress

Research confirms that job factors affect work attitudes and behaviors (Igbaria &

Greenhaus, 1992). The job demand-control model pays attention to two crucial factors,

which are job demands and job control (Karasek 1979)

Job demands include work load,

work-related requirements, and limited time. Job control means the individual’s ability

and opportunity to make decisions and execute a certain degree of control at work. The

model makes two core propositions. One is that high job demands and low job control

result in psychological and physical strain (“high strain” jobs). The other is that jobs with

both high demands and high control produce learning and individual development

(“active” jobs) (Karasek & Theorell, 1990). The model suggests that job control is helpful

to protect people from unhealthy influence resulting from work environment. Moreover, the model indicates that job demands can produce two opposing results that are job strain and learning-oriented outcomes at work. Therefore, if high job demands combine with low job control, it would lead to psychological and physical stress (named job strain).

Although jobs with high demands and control can result in sense of accomplishment and competence (Karasek, 1979; Karasek & Theorell, 1990), this does not always happen.

Therefore, the job demand-control model is built on the precondition that when job demands are high, job control can play the role of not only buffering the increasing psychological and physical strain but also producing a sense of accomplishment, competence and feelings of productivity (Fernet, Guay & Senécal, 2004). According to the research of Van der Doef and Maes (1999), they form different hypotheses about psychological health. The “strain” hypothesis emphasizes that a high-strain situation produce the most negative outcomes at work. The “buffer” hypothesis focuses on the interactive effect of job demands and job control which means that job control has the capability to moderate the impact of job demands on the working outcome. The buffer hypothesis can be viewed as a special case of the strain hypothesis.

Moreover, high strain can influence employees’ performance and work attitudes (Gilboa, Shirom, Fried & Cooper, 2008). Employees consider their work demands as potentially threatening and they have to devote time and energy to deal with these stressors and relieve anxiety or discomfort resulting from the stressors (Jex, 1998). As a result, they cannot pay their whole attention to their work, and their performance would be reduced because of occupational stressors.

According to the research of Simona and his colleagues (2008), role overload and role ambiguity are the two most important occupational stressors. Overload imposes too many demands on the employees who do not have enough capability or resources to handle them. Thus, role overload usually has a negative impact on performance. When ambiguity is high, it is difficult for employees to execute their job assignments because their job requirements and how to achieve their work goals are unclear (Griffin, Neal, &

Parker, 2007; Murphy & Jackson, 1999). Some meta-analytic reviews indicate that there

is a relatively strong negative relationship between role ambiguity and performance

(Fisher & Gitelson, 1983; Jackson & Schuler, 1985; Tubre & Collins, 2000).

2.1.2 Voluntary turnover intention

Employee turnover is a complicated behavior which includes considering turnover and the cost of turnover, intention to search for alternatives, looking for alternatives, evaluating alternatives, comparing alternatives with the current job, intention to turnover and finally the action of turnover (Zimmerman & Darnold, 2009). From the perspective of employees, besides financial costs, for example vested pension or vested benefits of firm-specific training (Shore

Tetrick

Shore

Barksdale, 2000), turnover involves risk which includes employment uncertainty after turnover and uncertainty of alternative employment. Not only so, turnover would make leavers lose valued relationships (Allen, Weeks & Moffitt, 2005). But turnover intention is different from actual turnover, because expressing the intention of turnover is costless and intentions are prone to overestimating the desirability of the behaviors (Allen et al., 2005). However turnover intention is viewed as an important predictor of actual turnover (Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner, 2000).

According to the research of Harter (2008), most people quit because of explainable reasons. Career advancement or promotion is the most important reason for employees, which accounts for 32 percent. About 22 percent of people quit because of pay dissatisfaction and 20 percent of employees quit for lacking of a suitable job in the current organization. Management and other work environment factors make 17 percent of employees make a decision to quit. Campion (1991) also indicates that pursuing higher wages and better career opportunity are the most critical reasons for voluntary turnover.

Thus, a lot of work-related factors are highly related to turnover, such as pay, job satisfaction, organizational commitment and job performance. Also individual characteristics of employees, for example age, tenure, education and behavioral intentions, are highly related to turnover (Cotton & Tuttle, 1986).

2.1.3 Relationship among job demands, job control, occupational stress and voluntary turnover intention

The Job Demand-Control model (Karasek, 1979) includes two key factors of the

work environment: job demands and job control. When employees feel that they do not

have adequate resources to handle the expected work demands, the imbalance makes

employees stressful (Dhar & Dhar, 2010). According to the research of Gilboa, Shirom

and Cooper (2008), role ambiguity and role overload are considered as two critical stressors. When role ambiguity is low, employees understand what is expected of them and how they can reach these goals (Griffin, Neal & Parker, 2007). Role overload brings stress to employees by inadequate resources to meet work demands (Gilboa et al, 2008).

If employees work on a high-stress job, they are likely to suffer from worse psychological well-being, exhaustion, more work-related stress (Van der Doef et al, 1999). In addition, role ambiguity and role overload are prone to stimulate negative emotions and attitudes about the current organization and work relationship (Podsakoff, Jeffery & Marcie, 2007).

Thereby, we can get that overload (too much job demands) would produce occupational stress. Moreover, Schaubroeck, Cotton and Jennings (1989) confirm that overload can affect turnover intentions through the impact of job stress.

According to the “buffer” hypothesis of Van der Doef and Maes (1999), job demands and job control interact which implies that job control may reduce the influence of job demands on work outcomes. The job demand-control model implies that when job demands are high, job control not only can moderate the psychological and physical stress but also may make employees feel competence and accomplishment. Under the working circumstance with high pressure, job control would buffer the emotional exhaustion and anxiety and may develop employees’ sense of accomplishment on work (Fernet, Guay & Senecal, 2004). Thereby, researches conducted in Western nations show us that job control can buffer the effect of job demands on occupational stress. Moreover, job control can also buffer the impact of job demands on turnover intention.

The studies discussed above have been conducted in western nations which have different values, attitudes and perceptions than China. Moreover, stress and turnover intention are affected by these cultural and social variables (Chiu & Kosinski, 1995).

Thus it is critical to know whether these stress-related researches are applicable in Chinese society. Multicultural comparative research (Hofstede, 1991) considers Chinese culture as collectivist and western nations are characterized as individualist societies.

Moreover, Hofstede (1991) indicates that Chinese society has much higher power distance than Western societies, which implies that most Chinese people have less power.

Not only so, compared with individual achievement, Chinese people are prone to care

about group harmony and achievement because they believe that they can get individual

benefits and success through organizational achievement (Kim, Triandis, Kagitçibasi, Choi, & Yoon, 1994). Furthermore, Chinese people perceive that they have less job control than their counterparts in Western nations (Smith, Trompenaars & Dugan, 1995).

Although western theories indicate that low control is likely to produce more job stress, Chinese people may not think that individual’s control is effective to change current circumstances. Thus we propose that in Chinese society, job control is less important for turnover intention than in Western societies. However, according to the research of Jamal (2005), job stress is also significantly related to job satisfaction and turnover intention and more job demands would produce more stress in China. Thus in Chinese society, employees would have higher turnover intention because of more occupational stress and more job demands that is similar with Western societies. But job control may not exert its buffering influence on stress.

Thereby we propose that in the Chinese society, job demands would affect voluntary turnover intention mediated by work-related stress. We expect that job control is less important for Chinese employees than Western employees, thus we also want to know whether job control can buffer the relationship between job demands and occupational stress. According to above discussion, one hypothesis and one research question was formulated:

Hypothesis 1: Job demands can positively affect voluntary turnover intention mediated by occupational stress.

Research Question 1: Does job control moderate the relationship between job demands and occupational stress?

2.2 Leadership Types

2.2.1 Task-oriented leadership and relations-oriented leadership

There are various categories and terminologies of leadership types, including

transformational leadership and transactional leadership (Bass, 1985), consideration and

initiating structure, and relations-oriented leadership and task-oriented leadership

(Stodgill, 1963, 1974). According to Bass (1990a, 1990b) task-oriented leadership

indicates the degree to which the leaders “define the roles of their followers, focus on

goal achievement, and establish well-defined patterns of communication”. Relations- oriented leadership means that leaders care about followers’ welfare, respect their subordinates and show their appreciation and support. According to Fleishman and Harris (1962), consideration involves trust, respect and support, and considerate supervisors are concerned with employee’s needs. Initiating structure implies that supervisors organize work activities, define and distribute work duties to employees. Therefore, supervisors are prone to regulate the expected activities for subordinates and push the plans going ahead. According to an overview of these terms (Bass, 1990a), consideration behaviors are included by the description of relations-oriented leadership and initiating structure behaviors are included by the description of task-oriented leadership. Our purpose is to examine whether leaders who focus on the quality of the relationship and leaders who emphasize tasks to be accomplished can moderate the relationship between job demands and work-related stress.

2.2.2 Relationship among job demands, occupational stress, leadership types and turnover intention

Behavior of leaders and leadership styles can influence employees either positively or negatively, including effects on stress and satisfaction (Skakon, Nielesen, Borg &

Guzman, 2010). Although a team’s success or failure does not depend on leaders’

behavior completely (Meindl, Ehrlich & Dukerich, 1985), the working circumstances affected by leaders can affect employee feelings (Hackman & Wageman, 2005). Thus researching the impact of different leadership types on the relationship between work environment and work-related stress is important.

Task-oriented leaders make employees understand the goals of the organization and

get clear expectations. Thereby employees’ organizational commitment increases and

employees are willing to put more efforts towards teamwork (Luthans, Baack & Taylor,

1987). Relations-oriented leaders have a stronger impact on employees’ satisfaction and

motivation compared with task-oriented leaders (Judge, Piccolo & Ilies, 2004). The

reason is that relations-oriented leaders focus on developing psychological support,

mutual trust, respect and helpfulness (Stodgill, 1963). After examining the role of leader

support, Cummins (1990) concludes that task-oriented leadership and relations-oriented

may exert different impacts on stress. Kirmeyer and Dougherty (1988) find a significant interaction of job demands and leader’s support: when employees feel that workload is high, leader’s support can buffer the stress resulting from workload. Likewise, Dubinsky and Skinner (1984) concluded that leaders’ consideration can relieve employees’ sense of role stress. Thereby researches conducted in Western nations show that relations-oriented leadership might buffer the stress resulting from job demands and it is unknown whether task-oriented leadership could decrease or increase occupational stress.

Because of the different cultural and social context, Chinese people may understand leadership from a totally different angle. Because Confucius’ principles have been widely accepted by Chinese people, they have a very important impact on the individual’s way of thinking and on individual behaviors, which also includes Chinese people’s perception of leadership. Confucius advises people to be polite, care for others and consider their own ideas once again before making a decision (Dahlan, 1991). Furthermore, Confucius enables Chinese people to pay more attention to the network of relationships with families, friends, colleagues and business partners at work (Mujtaba, Chen & Yunshan, 2010). Chinese leaders are expected to be task-oriented when they work but when they are off the job they should focus more on relations. According to the research of Tajaddini and Mujtaba (2009), Americans are viewed as more task-oriented because they spend much time on jobs. Meanwhile the standard of success for Americans is the degree of task completion. But Chinese people also spend much time on their jobs, but they are more relations-oriented. The study results of Mjitaba and his colleagues (2010) reveal that Chinese focus on task and relationship orientations simultaneously and the higher degree of relationship orientation may be helpful for leaders to improve the employee’s performance. Thus we suppose that in Chinese society, relations-oriented leadership may buffer the stress resulting from job demands similar with Western nations. However task- oriented leadership looks less important than relations-oriented leadership for Chinese people. But it is still necessary and it is possible for two kinds of leadership to exist simultaneously. Therefore it would be interesting to find out whether task-oriented leadership can affect the stress from job demands.

Here we propose that relations-oriented leadership can buffer the relationship

between the job demands and work-related stress. Moreover, relations-oriented leadership

also can become a moderator to affect the relationship between job demands and turnover intention mediated by stress. Furthermore, we also want to know whether task-oriented leadership can be a moderator to affect work-related stress and even turnover intention resulting from job demands. According to the above discussion, we propose two hypotheses and two research questions in the following:

Hypothesis 2: Relations-oriented leadership negatively moderates the relationship between job demands and work-related stress.

Research Question 2: Does task-oriented leadership moderate the relationship between job demands and work-related stress?

Hypothesis 3: Job demands moderated by relations-oriented leadership strengthen turnover intention mediated by work-related stress.

Research Question 3: Does job demands moderated by task-oriented leadership affect turnover intention mediated by work-related stress?

2.3 Relationship among Job Demands, Job Control, Occupational Stress and Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is significantly related to turnover intention, and low satisfaction is likely to be predictor of voluntary turnover intention (Adler and Golan, 1981; Cummins, 1990). Thus we want to find out whether job demands, job control and leadership types discussed above have similar effects on job satisfaction. Satisfaction can be viewed as a pleasant emotional state which comes from the evaluation of one’s individual job. It is an affective reaction and an attitude towards one’s job (Shahnawaz & Jafri, 2009). French and Caplan (1972) confirm that perceived job demands have a negative impact on satisfaction. And Perrewe (1986) also finds that employees who perceive too much job demands would report dissatisfaction. Perrewe (1986) also indicates that as to employees with high job control, job demands have weakly negative impact on satisfaction.

Many researches confirm that job satisfaction is negatively related to job stress.

More specifically, stress can have a positive impact on turnover intention through job

satisfaction and even directly affect employees’ intention to leave the current

organization (Hollon & Chesser, 1976; Miles, 1976). Generally, high work stress is

related to low job satisfaction (Terry, Nielsen & Perchard, 1993). Moreover Hendrix,

Ovalle and Troxler (1985) find that job satisfaction is affected by other factors, such as whether employees can have power to decide or affect their jobs (job control) and whether employees need to adapt to some unsuitable behaviors or ideas of leaders.

Thereby, researches conducted in Western nations indicate that occupational stress is negatively related to job satisfaction and job demands also has a negative impact on satisfaction. Moreover, as to employees with high job control, the relationship between job demands and satisfaction is still negative though it may be very weak. But it is unknown what would happen for employees with low job control.

Zigrang (2000) concludes that relations-oriented leadership behavior is positively related to job satisfaction among subordinates. Furthermore, the positive relationship between relations-oriented leadership and job satisfaction is stronger than the relationship between task-oriented leadership and job satisfaction (Pool, 1997). Schriesheim and Murphy (1976) indicate that as to low-demands jobs, relations-oriented leadership is helpful to increase job satisfaction and even performance. However, when employees are confronted with high-demands jobs, task-oriented leadership is more suitable than relations-oriented leadership. Moreover, only if the leader is not caring about consideration at all, high structure behaviors would exert a dysfunctional influence towards employees. It means that usually relations-oriented leadership behaviors and task-oriented leadership behaviors can exist simultaneously and they can support each other to improve leadership. Therefore we can conclude that in the circumstances of Western societies, either task-oriented leadership or relations-oriented leadership is likely to promote heightening employees’ job satisfaction.

Mobley and Locke (1970) suggest that job satisfaction reflects the intensity of employees’ intensive feelings towards their job and the degree of their importance.

Because China has a different culture and social environment compared with western

nations, results discussed above was not hold in China. Harmonious relationship in the

workplace is viewed as important by Chinese employees, thus whether the work

environment is harmonious or not would affect employees’ perceived job satisfaction

(Box, Odom & Dunn, 1991; Yavas, Lugmani & Quraeshi, 1990). Hui, Eastman and Yee

(1995) indicate that under the collectivist society in China, employees are more likely to

feel satisfied with different aspects of their work and the sense of satisfaction is higher

than their counterparts in individualist society. Chinese employees have requirements to get satisfaction that are different from western employees. Under the circumstances of China, because Chinese prefer harmonious work relationships with colleagues and leaders, relations-oriented leadership may be more important than task-oriented leadership. Moreover, relations-oriented leadership is likely to increase Chinese employees’ job satisfaction. But whether task-oriented leadership can affect job satisfaction is not clear.

All in all, we propose that job demands might be negatively related to satisfaction mediated by occupational stress. Moreover, relations-oriented leadership can be a moderator to buffer the relationship between job demands and satisfaction. However, we also want to know whether job control or task-oriented leadership can moderate the impact of job demands on satisfaction mediated by occupational stress. According to the above discussion, we propose two hypotheses and two research questions in the following and the conceptual model is referred to Figure 1

Hypothesis 4: Job demands are negatively related to job satisfaction mediated by occupational stress.

Hypothesis 5: Job demands moderated by relations-oriented leadership would weaken satisfaction mediated by work-related stress.

Research Question 4: Does job demands moderated by job control negatively affect job satisfaction mediated by occupational stress?

Research Question 5: Does Job demands moderated by task-oriented leadership affect

satisfaction mediated by work-related stress?

Figure 1 Conceptual model Note: Solid arrows mean hypotheses.

Dotted arrows mean research questions.

3. Methodology 3.1 Respondents

In total 194 Chinese respondents filled out a questionnaire and 183 of the questionnaires were valid. The sample consisted of a relatively equal proportion of male (50.8 per cent) and female respondents (49.2 per cent). Respondents ranged in age from 21 to 55 years, with a mean of 27.75 years (SD=6.30). The majority of participants were unmarried (74.3 per cent) and relatively highly educated: 93.9 percent of respondents have a Bachelor degree or higher. The average number of work hour per week for the respondents was 44.94 hours (SD=9.78) and they have worked for 3.91 years (SD=6.26) on average. Nearly half of the respondents (45.9 percent of all respondents) have never experienced turnover and most others (37.1 percent) have changed their jobs 1 to 2 times.

3.2 Procedure

Questionnaires were used to collect data. The questionnaires were delivered to China and collected through Internet. Respondents could fill out the questionnaires by

Job demands

Leadership type

Task-oriented

leadership Relations-oriented leadership

Occupational stress

Voluntary turnover intention Job Control

Satisfaction

in one of five special mailboxes which respondents could choose by themselves randomly in order to send back the questionnaires to researchers anonymously. Thus, other people including researchers could not identify the respondents.

3.3 Instrument

Job Demands was measured by a questionnaire of Harris and Bladen (1994) comprising 5 items. Its scoring scale was a 5-point scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. Example items were “I am given enough time to do what is expected of me on my job” and “It often seems like I have too much for one person to do”. The alpha coefficient of job demands was .673.

Job stress was evaluated by a questionnaire of Harris and Bladen (1994) comprising 6 items. Its scoring scale was a 5-point scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. The example items were “I work under a great deal of tension” and

“Problems associated with my job have never kept me awake at night” The alpha coefficient of job stress was .647.

Job control (Decision latitude) was measured using the decision latitude questionnaire drawn up by Furda (1995) comprising 8 items. The ratings were made using a 5-point scale ranging from 1=never to 5=always. Example items were “Do you have freedom of action while doing your job?” and “Are you learning new skills in your job?”. The alpha coefficient of job control was .792.

Leadership behavior was measured by an adaptation of part of the leader behavior description questionnaire-form XII (Stodgill, 1963) comprising 20 items We adopted 20 items of LBDQ used for measuring behavior of task-oriented leadership (Initiation of structure) and relations-oriented leadership (consideration). The ratings were made using a 5-poing scale ranging from 1=never and 5=always. Example items are “My leader makes his/her attitudes clear to the group” and “My leader is friendly and approachable”.

The alpha coefficient of task-oriented leadership was .849 and that of relations-oriented leadership was .777.

Job satisfaction was evaluated by the complete questionnaire of Harris and Bladen (1994)

comprising 6 items. Its scoring scale was a 5-point scale ranging from 1=strongly

disagree to 5=strongly agree. The example items were “All in all, I am satisfied with my

job” and “I like my job better than the average worker does”. The alpha coefficient of job satisfaction was .838.

Turnover intention was scored by turnover intention questionnaire (Colarelli, 1984) comprising 3 items. The original ratings were made using a 5-point scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. We added one item to measure this aspect that

“Even if another company invites me to join in them, I would refuse it”. An example item was “I frequently think of quitting my job”. The alpha coefficient of turnover intention was .799.

4. Results 4.1 Preliminary Analyses

Correlations between all variables appear in Table 1. Turnover intention as a dependent variable is positively related to job overload (r=.33, p<,01) and negatively related to task-oriented leadership and relations-oriented leadership (r=-.19, p<.05; r=-.27, p<.01, respectively). As expected, turnover intention is positively related to tension (r=.25, p<.01).What is interesting for turnover intention is that turnover intention is positively related to age as control variable (r=.16, p<.05). It means that older employees are more likely to have higher level of turnover intention. Tension is positively related to overload (r=.53, p<.01) and even work hour as a control variable (r=.19, p<.01).

Moreover, tension is negatively related to relations-oriented leadership (r=-.18, p<.05).

Satisfaction is positively related to job control, task-oriented leadership, and relations-

oriented leadership, (r=.34, p<.01; r=.34, p<.01; r=.46, p<.01, respectively). What is

interesting for satisfaction is that satisfaction is negatively related to gender (r=-.23,

p<.01). It implies that males have higher job satisfaction than females.

Table 1 Descriptive data (means and standard deviations) and correlations among the variables

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1.Gender^a 1.49 .50

2.Age 27.75 6.30 -.04

3.WorkHour 44.94 9.78 -.08 -.16*

4.JobDemands 2.83 .58 .17* -.05 .20**

5.JobControl 3.50 .64 -.21** -.04 .07 -.09

6.TaskLeadership 3.69 .67 -.11 -.09 .01 -.10 .15*

7.RelationsLeadership 3.22 .71 -.04 -.11 -.03 -.28** .29** .44**

8.Tension 2.87 .57 .08 .02 .19** .53** -.08 -.08 -.18*

9.Satisfaction 3.31 .58 -.23** .09 -.11 -.31** .34** .34** .46** -.34**

10.TurnoverIntention 2.69 .77 .16* .05 .08 .33** -.08 -.19* -.27** .25** -.44**

Note: *p<.05; **p<.01 a: 1=male; 2=female

4.2 Regression Analyses

Three linear moderated multiple regression analyses were executed to test our hypotheses. In the first analysis, tension was the dependent variable, and the independent variables were entered in three successive steps. In the first step, gender, age and work hours were entered as control variables. In the second step, main effects were entered for Job demands (overload), job control (latitude), relations-oriented leadership and task- oriented leadership. In the third step, three two-way interaction terms which are job demands (overload)*job control (latitude), job demands (overload)*relations-oriented leadership and job demands (overload)* task-oriented leadership. In the other two linear moderated multiple regression analyses, turnover intention and job satisfaction were dependent variables separately. The first three steps were same with the first set of regression analyses. To examine the mediation role of tension, it was added in the fourth step of the analysis.

4.2.1 Regression analysis testing hypotheses 2 and research question 2

Results of this analysis appear in Table 2. Results of the first step indicate that only

work hours is significantly related to tension and control variables can account for 5% of

variance in tension. Results of the second step imply that job demands is significantly

related to tension, and the variables added in step 2 account for 25% if variance in

tension. But results of the third step show that no interaction is significant and it can

explain a significant 1 percentage of variance.

The results indicate that work hour can positively affect tension which means that working for more hours would bring more tension to employees (β=.12, p<.01). Job demands has a positively relationship with tension which show that more job demands would produce more tension (β=.29, p<.001). Job control did not affect the relationship between job demands and tension (β=-.03, p=n.s) which indicates that employees would not increase or decrease their occupational stress because of their capability of controlling job. Moreover, relations-oriented leadership (β=.02, p=n.s) and task-oriented leadership (β=-.05, p=n.s) also did not have an impact on the relationship between job demands and tension. Therefore, the results which are shown in table 2 cannot support hypothesis 2，

and we think the answer of research question 2 should be that task-oriented leadership did not moderate the relationship between job demands and work-related stress. Relations- oriented leadership also did not moderate the effect of job demands on work-related stress.

Moreover, we can also get that job control did not moderate the stress from job demands which is part of research question 1.

Table 2

Hierarchical multiple regression analyses for tension

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Gender .06(1.32) -.00(-0.11) .00(0.04)

Age .03(0.69) .03(0.83) .03(0.86)

Work Hour .12(2.78)** .06(1.48) .06(1.58)

Job Demands .29 (7.42)*** .29(7.22)***

Job control -.02(-0.54) -.02(-0,40)

Consideration- leader -.01(-0.20) -.01(-0.32)

Task-Leader -.01(-0.17) .00(0.03)

Demands*Control -.03(-0.87)

Demands*Consideration .02 (0.49)

Demands*Task -.05(-1.30)

R

.05* .30*** .31***

Adjusted-R

.05* .25*** .01

Note: *p<.05; **p<.01, ***p<.001

4.2.2 Regression analysis testing hypotheses 1, 3 and research questions 1, 3

Results for the turnover intention as the dependent variable are shown in the Table 3.

Results from the first step show that gender is significantly related to turnover intention.

It means that females have higher turnover intention than males. Results of the second step indicate that job demands had a significant impact on turnover intention and variables added in the second step can explain significant 12 percent of variance in turnover intention. Results of the third step indicate that the job demands and job control interaction, and the job demands and relations-oriented leadership interaction are significant and they play a main role in significantly accounting for 6 percent of variance.

Then the results of the fourth step show that tension is not significant and it can explain a significant 1 percentage of variance. Thereby, results does not support hypothesis 1 because results show that job demand is positively related to turnover intention but without mediation of stress.

The results reveal that high work-load can increase employees’ turnover intention.

But stress is not significantly related to turnover intention (β=.07, p=n.s). Furthermore, the interaction of job demands and job control has a negative impact on turnover intention (β=-.12, p<.05) which reveals that job control can moderate the relationship between job demands and turnover intention. Thereby we can get the answer of research question 1 that job control can be a moderator to buffer the relationship between job demands and turnover intention but without mediation of stress. The results shown by Figure 1 can be explained more specifically. As to employees who have more capability to influence their jobs, job demands do not affect their turnover intention. For the employees who have low control on their jobs, when their job demands are high, they are more prone to have turnover intention.

Moreover, the interaction of job demands and relations-oriented leadership was

significant (β=.14, p<.05), which reveals that relations-oriented leader can positively

affect the relationship between job demands and turnover intention. Thereby hypothesis 3

is not supported because job demands moderated by relations-oriented leadership can

increase turnover intention. We can get more specific conclusion from the Figure 3. It

shows that when employees work with leaders of low consideration, job demands do not

affect employees’ intention of turnover. While when employee’s leaders are more relations-oriented, employees with high job demands would be more likely to have high turnover intention. Furthermore, research question 3 can be answered that task-oriented leadership did not moderate the relationship between job demands and turnover intention (β=.07, p=n.s).

Table 3

Hierarchical multiple regression analyses for turnover intention

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Gender .13(2.27)* .08(1.48) .11(1.92) .11(1.92)

Age .06(0.97) .04(0.68) .03(0.59) .03(0.51)

Work hour .08(1.40) .03(0.54) .03(0.63) .03(0.48)

Job Demands .20(3.39)*** .23(4.00)*** .19(2.94)**

Job control .02(0.32) .04(0.76) .05(0.79)

Consideration-Leader -.13(-1.98)* -.13(-1.96) -.12(-1.93)

Task-Leader -.06(-1.02) -.07(-1.14) -.07(-1.15)

Demands*Control -.12(-2.25)* -.12(-2.17)*

Demands*Consideration .14(2.27)* .14(2.23)*

Demands*Task .07(1.32) .07(1.43)

Tension .07(1.18)

R

.04 .16*** .22*** .22***

Adjusted-R

.02 .13*** .05** .01

Note: *p<.05; **p<.01, ***p<.001

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Low demand High demand

Turnover Intention

Low control High control

Figure 2 Two-way interaction between job demands, job control when predicting turnover intention

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Low demand High demand

Turnover Intention

Low consideration High consideration

Figure 3 Two-way interaction between job demands, consideration leadership when

predicting turnover intention

4.2.3 Regression analysis testing hypotheses 4, 5 and research questions 4, 5

Results for the satisfaction as the dependent variable are shown in the Table 4. In the first step, gender is significantly related to satisfaction and all the variables added in the first step can significantly account for 6 percent of variance in satisfaction. It implies that males have higher job satisfaction than females. Then all of the independent variables are significantly related to satisfaction that are job demands, job control, consideration leadership and structure leadership which were added in the step 2. They can significantly account for 28 percent of variance in satisfaction. Then step 3 shows that the interaction of job demands and job control is significant but variables added in the step 3 can explain 2 percent of variance. Finally, the fourth step indicates that tension is significant related to satisfaction, and it can account for 3 percent of the variance.

The results show specifically that gender is negatively related with satisfaction (β=- .14, p<.001) which means that males are more satisfied than females. Job demands had a negative impact on employee’s satisfaction (β=-.09, p<.05) which reveals that when job demands increase employees are more prone to feel dissatisfied. Moreover, tension has a negative impact on satisfaction (β=-.12, p<.01). Therefore, hypothesis 4 is supported by results that job demands can decrease job satisfaction mediated by work-related stress.

Job control, relations-oriented leadership and task-oriented leadership all have a positive

relationship with satisfaction (β=.12, p<.01; β=.17, p<.001; β=.10, p<.05, respectively). It

shows that as high job control, employees are more likely to get sense of satisfaction, and

both the characteristics of relations-oriented leadership or task-oriented leadership would

also increase employee satisfaction. Furthermore, job control can moderate the

relationship between job demands and satisfaction (β=.08, p<.05). More specific

conclusions can be drawn from the Figure 4. When employees have high job control, job

demands did not have effect on job satisfaction which is relatively higher. However when

employees have low job control, job demands had a negative impact on satisfaction. It

means that high job demands would make employees get lower satisfaction and low job

demands would decrease employees’ satisfaction. Furthermore when work-related stress

is added to mediate the relationship between job demands and satisfaction, job control

also can play buffering role in relationship between job demands and stress (β=.07,

p<.10). Thereby as to the answer of research question 4, we can get that job control did

moderate the effect of job demands on satisfaction mediated by stress.

Furthermore, neither relations-oriented leadership nor task-oriented leadership moderate the relationship between job demands and satisfaction mediated by stress (β=- .02, p=n.s; β=-.00, p=n.s, respectively). Therefore hypothesis 5 cannot be supported by results and the answer of research question 5 should be that job demands did not moderate the relationship between job demands and satisfaction mediated by occupational stress.

Table 4

Hierarchical multiple regression analyses for satisfaction

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Gender -.14(-3.23)*** -.08(-2.04)* -.08(-2.04)* -.08(-2.07)*

Age .04(0.85) .07(1.90) .07(1.87) .07(2.09)*

Work hour -.07(-1.65) -.05(-1.27) -.06(-1.49) -.04(-1.17)

Job Demands -.09(-2.34)* -.09(-2.37)* -.03(-0.74)

Job control .12(3.13)** .10(2.65)** .10(2.62)**

Consideration-Leader .17(3.92)*** .16(3.67)*** .16(3.68)***

Task-Leader .10(2.39)* .10(2.45)* .10(2.51)*

Demands*Control .08(2.05)* .07(1.90)

Demands*Consideration -.02(-0.48) -.02(-0.38)

Demands*Tasl .01(0.17) -.00(-0.11)

Tension -.12(-2.87)**

R

.07** .35*** .37*** .40***

Adjusted-R

.07** .28*** .02 .03**

Note: *p<.05; **p<.01, ***p<.001

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Low demand High demand

Satisfaction

Low control High control

Figure 4

Two-way interactions between job demands, job control when predicting satisfaction

5. Discussion 5.1 Summary

Occupational stress and turnover are problems for organizational operation and development. Most of the theories and researches have been conducted and developed in western nations which are characterized as individualist. However, China, as one of the largest economies in the world, is viewed as typically collectivist (Hofstede, 1991). This raises the question whether western theories about stress and turnover are applicable to China or not. Furthermore, Confucian ideology has edified Chinese people for a rather long time, and leadership has become a critical role in the field of management in China (Littrell, 2002). Leaders as an undoubted emblem of power may exert an influence over occupational stress and turnover intention in China. Moreover, we also want to know whether the Job demands-control model (Karasek, 1979) can be applicable in China.

Thus, we examined under Chinese circumstances, how job control and different

leadership types affect occupational stress, job satisfaction and turnover intention.

Firstly, we will discuss results regarding job control. We confirmed that job demands were positively related to occupational stress which means that more job loads would increase employees’ stress. But job control did not have an impact on the relationship between job demands and stress, which is inconsistent with the western job demands- control model (Karasek, 1979). However, job control did moderate the effect of job demands on turnover intention. When employees have high control on their jobs, their turnover intention was not affected by job demands. But for employees with low control, low job demands make employees have low turnover intention and high job demands lead to higher turnover intention. Thereby we can know that the differences on Job demands-control model (Karasek, 1979) between China and Western countries are that in China, job control does not buffer the effect of job demands on occupational stress, and high job demands make employees have more turnover intention but not because of occupational stress. It might because that Chinese employees are likely to perceive occupational stress as a easy thing because handling stress is not a key point for their lives. Chinese circumstance of huge population makes Chinese people are insensitive to dealing with stress and fierce competition because they have been confronted with it all the time. Thus stress is not a critical problem for Chinese people. What they are pursuing is to earn more money and get better career. Thereby Chinese employees are less likely to leave because of stress. But job demands can increase turnover intention. We consider the primary reasons for turnover may be that employees cannot get deserved money or opportunities to get promotion under the circumstance of high job demands. It is also possible that they cannot exert their specialized advantages in their jobs and they cannot get the feeling that they are important for the organization.

Furthermore, job control did moderate the effect of job demands on satisfaction

mediated by occupational stress. When job control is high, job demands do not affect the

satisfaction. But when employees have less job control, their satisfaction decreases

because of high job demands. It might because employees with low control usually work

on low-level jobs. Most of them have worked on boring and repeated jobs and they may

be tired of work. Therefore high job demands force them to work harder which makes

them feel more dissatisfied. But employees with high control usually work on high-level

jobs. They can get better career, more money and more sense of accomplishment through

working harder and harder. Therefore high job demands for them are more likely to be viewed as challenge rather than overloads. Therefore employees with high job control are able to build a new balance between high job demands and more rewards, thus their satisfaction would not decline.

Secondly, the results regarding relations-oriented leadership and task-oriented leadership are also interesting. Under high relations-oriented leadership, turnover intention is higher along with high job demands and low job demands are along with low turnover intention. Under low relations-oriented leadership, turnover intention is at a higher and steady level regardless of high or low job demands. It might because that employees understand that their leaders pay less attention to care the needs of employees.

Thus even if job demands are rather high, it is easier for employees to adapt to it. In other words, employees have used to working hard without much consideration and support from leaders. Moreover under such circumstances, more money and better career might be the major stimulaters to keep and encourage employees. Therefore employees are less likely to produce turnover intention because they might get more rewards from high job demands. As to high relations-oriented leadership, it may be not very effective for current Chinese employees. Because what the Chinese employees want is earning more money to afford their own lives in cities. Providing more money and better career should be the best way to prevent employees from leaving. Nonetheless, high relations-oriented leaders might not meet the needs of employees directly because their major focus is good working-environment rather than good performance. Therefore, under high relation- oriented leadership, it is less likely for leaders to make employees feel that high job demands would produce more money and better career directly. Thereby employees would have more turnover intention.

Moreover our results showed that task-oriented leadership did not exert influence on the stress and turnover intention. It might imply that task-oriented leadership does not increase the employees’ occupational stress and their turnover intention. Because task- oriented leadership is one expected leadership which can facilitate employees to work well, earn more money and develop their career (Mjitaba et al, 2010). Therefore, employees are less likely to feel more stress or leave because of task-oriented leadership.

Moreover, in current China, there are still many employees working just for living.

Therefore consideration from leaders is not important for them. What they care for is earning more money rather than getting consideration or support from leadership.

Therefore it might explain that why leadership styles cannot moderate the relationship between job demands and occupational stress in our study.

Similarly, it was not surprising that task-oriented leadership and relations-oriented leadership did not moderate the relationship between job demands and satisfaction mediated by stress in our research. Compared with leadership, employees would pay more attention to whether their effort can get deserved rewards. It also means that the balance between efforts and rewards is more important for employees (Siegrist, 1998).

The rewards include deserved salary, esteem and opportunities of promotion. As long as employees identify the equity, they would feel satisfied. As long as either task-oriented leadership or relations-oriented leadership can build the balance for employees, employees would be satisfied with leaders and their jobs.

5.2 Implications

We provided empirical evidence to test whether western theories about job demands- control model, task-oriented leadership, relations-oriented leadership, occupational stress, turnover intention and job satisfaction can be applicable in China which is characterized as collectivist. As to job demands-control model (Karasek, 1979), our results show that under Chinese circumstances, job control does not buffer the stress resulting from job demands. However, job control can decrease the employees’ turnover intention from job demands. Thereby, it is shown that high job demands can lead to high turnover intention but not because of stress. Moreover, job control can buffer the turnover intention resulting from job demands without mediation of stress. In other words, stress is not an important reason for Chinese employees to turnover. It is different with Western researches and theories. Furthermore, our results show that more job control can produce more job satisfaction and job control can moderate the relationship between job demands and satisfaction. In other words, when employees are suffered from high job demands, they would feel happier because of more job control. It is similar with Western researches.

However, task-oriented leadership is not effective to influence employees’ perceived

stress, turnover intention and job satisfaction, which extend research about the influence

of task-oriented leadership on turnover intention and satisfaction. But low relations- oriented leadership can keep a steady and higher turnover intention regardless of high job demands or low job demands that is consistent with western theories. Interestingly, high relations-oriented leadership would arouse more turnover intention when job demands are high. It is inconsistent with past researches about relations-oriented leadership both in Western countries and China. It might because that consideration from leaders is not so important as past literature mentioned for current Chinese employees. What they are pursing is to get deserved money and better career development.

Moreover, our results can provide some suggestions for Chinese leaders and foreign leaders working with Chinese colleagues and subordinates. Our results show that when employees would keep low job demands, relations-oriented leadership is fine which can decrease turnover intention. But if employees’ job demands are high or uncertain, task- oriented leadership might be better. Because relations-oriented leadership would bring more turnover intention, and task-oriented leadership does not affect employees’ turnover intention and stress regardless of high or low job demands. Thus, task-oriented leadership or combination of two kinds of leadership might be constructive. Either relations-oriented leadership or task-oriented leadership has their own benefits and shortages. Therefore we think that if task-oriented leaders also can show some consideration towards employees, which would be better. In another words, we need both of the two kinds of leadership, but task-oriented leadership is chief and relations-oriented leadership has to be supportive.

Moreover high job control would be more suitable for most of Chinese employees, because employees with high job control can keep a steady level of turnover intention and get more satisfaction.

5.3 Limitations and Further Directions

Our study is cross-sectional. Therefore we just could test the causal relationships.

Furthermore, the differences between Chinese environment and Western environment are

not only on cultural factors but also on the social and economic systems, for example

China adopts socialism and most of Western nations adopt capitalism. Therefore, the

further researches should consider about differences, such as difference between

socialism (China) and capitalism (Western nations).

Moreover, individual differences might affect our results, such as employees’

personality. For example, Costa and McCrae (1985) distinguish five factors of personality which are conscientiousness, extraversion, emotional stability, agreeableness and openness to experience. Moreover, Maertz and Campion (2004) find that conscientiousness is likely to affect turnover mediated by motivational forces. Therefore further research can explore whether task-oriented leadership and relations-oriented leadership would bring different influences on turnover intention or satisfaction for employees with different personality traits.

Our sample size may be not big enough to find certain effects. And our respondents were relatively young (the average age was 28 years). Therefore it may be hard to represent the situation of older Chinese employees. Moreover most of our respondents have a bachelor degree or above which cannot reflect the actual educational situation in current China. A lot of Chinese people still do not have opportunity to follow higher education. Therefore for lower educated people and older employees, further research should be conducted in the future.

5.4 Conclusion

Most relevant western theories can be used in China. But some theories should adapt to Chinese environment and do some changes. As to job demands-control model (Karasek, 1979), our results found that job control did not affect the relationship between job demands and occupational stress. But when job demands are high, high job control can decrease turnover intention and keep higher job satisfaction. As to leadership types, task-oriented leadership cannot influence employees’ perceived stress, turnover intention and job satisfaction. But high relations-oriented leadership can reduce turnover intention when job demands are low. Under the supervision of high relations-oriented leadership, employees are likely to produce more turnover intention when their job demands are high.

In a word, in terms of Job demands-control model, stress is not effective in the

Chinese circumstances. As to research of high relations-oriented leadership, it is

inconsistent with past researches in both Western nations and China that high job

demands promote employees’ turnover intention.

Reference

Adler, S. & Golan, J. (1981). Lateness as a withdrawal behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66: 544-554.

Allen, D. G., Weeks, K. P., & Moffitt, K.R. (2005). Turnover intentions and voluntary turnover: The moderating roles of self-monitoring, locus of control, proactive personality, and risk aversion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 980-990

Avey, J.B., Luthans, F., & Jensen, S.M. (2009). Psychological capital: A positive resource for combating employee stress and turnover. Human Resource Management, 48: 677-693

Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990a). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990b). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18: 19-31.

Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (1981).Race and sex differences in quits by young workers.

Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 34: 563-577.

Box, W.R., Odom, R.Y., & Dunn, M.G. (1991).Organizational values and value congruency and their impact on satisfaction, commitment, and cohesion; An empirical examination within the public sector. Public Personnel Management, 20: 195-205.

Campion, M.A.(1991). Meaning and measurement of turnover: Comparison of alternative measures and recommendations for research. Journal of Applied Psychology,76: 199–212.

Chiu, R.K., & Kosinski, F.A. Jr. (1995). Chinese cultural collectivism and work-related

stress: Implications for employment counselors. Journal of Employment Counseling, 32:

98–110.

Colarelli, S.M. (1984). Methods of communication and mediatingprocesses in realistic job previews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 633-642

Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1985). The NEO personality inventory manual. Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources.

Cotton, J.L., &Tuttle, J.M.(1986). Employee turnover: A meta-analysis and review with implications for research. Academy of Management Review, 11: 55-70

Cummins, R. C.(1990). Job stress and the buffering effect of supervisory support. Group and Organizational Studies, 15: 92-104.

Dahlan, H.M.(1991). Local values in intercultural management. Malaysian Management Review, 1, 45-50

Dhar, F.L., & Dhar, M.(2010). Job stress, coping process and intentions to leave: A study of information technology professionals working in India. The Social Science Journal, 47:

560–577

Dubinsky, Alan J., & Steven J. Skinner. (1984). Impact of job characteristics on retail salespeople's reactions to their jobs. Journal of Retailing, 60: 35-62.

Easterby-Smith, M., Malina, D., & Yuan, L.(1995).How culture-sensitive is HRM? A comparative analysis of practice in Chinese and UK companies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6: 31-59

Fisher, C. D., & Gitelson, R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the correlates of role conflict and

ambiguity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68: 320–333.

Fernet, C., Guay, F., & Senécal, C.(2004). Adjusting to job demands: The role of work self-determination and job control in predicting burnout. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65: 39–56

Fleishman, E., & Harris, E. (1962). Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee grievances and turnover. Personnel Psychology, 15: 43-56.

French, J. R. P., & Caplan, R. D. (1972). Organizational stress and individual strain. In A. J. Marrow (Ed.), The failure of success. New York: AMA Committee, 30-66.

Furda, J. (1995). Work, personality, and wellbeing: A test of the JD-C model.

Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.

George, J.M., & Jones, G.R.(1996).The experience of work and turnover intentions:

Interactive effects of value attainment, job satisfaction, and positive mood. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 318-325

Gilboa, S., Shirom, A., Fried, Y. & Cooper, C. (2008). A meta-analysis of work demand stressors and job performance: examining main and moderating effects, Personnel Psychology, 61: 227-271

Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26: 463–488.

Griffin, M.A., Neal, A., & Parker, S.K. (2007). The new model of work role performance:

Positive behavior uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal,50, 327–347.

Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2005). A theory of team coaching. Academy of