An examination of the mediation role of co-worker-related affective well-being and job- related self-efficacy in the relationship between co-worker emotional/instrumental

HOW CAN CO-WORKERS INFLUENCE INDIVIDUALS NOT TO LEAVE THE COMPANY?

An examination of the mediation role of co-worker-related affective well-being and job- related self-efficacy in the relationship between co-worker emotional/instrumental

support and turnover intentions.

Master thesis

MSc Human Resource Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

June 2015

DOMINIC BOTEZ Student number: 2588897

tel.: +31 (0)684684454 e-mail: d.botez@student.rug.nl

Supervisor: prof. dr. O. Janssen

ABSTRACT

This research paper examines the relationship between co-worker support and employee turnover intentions. Specifically, it is hypothesized that co-worker emotional support is related to turnover intentions through the intervening process of co-worker-related affective well-being in employees, whereas the intervening process of job-related self-efficacy links co-worker instrumental support to turnover intentions.. Results of a survey among 173 employees from various organizations demonstrated that co-worker-related affective well- being indeed mediated the relationship between co-worker emotional support and employee turnover intentions. In addition, and surprisingly, the relationship between co-worker instrumental support and turnover intentions was also mediated by co-worker-related affective well-being rather than by job-related self-efficacy.

Keywords: co-worker emotional support; co-worker instrumental support; co-worker-related

affective well-being; job-related self-efficacy; turnover intentions.

Table of Contents

Introduction _______________________________________________________________ 4

Theoretical Framework ______________________________________________________ 8

Co-worker Support (Emotional and Instrumental) and Turnover Intentions _______ 8

Affective Well-being as Mediator __________________________________________ 12

Job-related Self-efficacy as Mediator _______________________________________ 14

Method __________________________________________________________________ 17

Sample and Procedure ___________________________________________________ 17

Measures _______________________________________________________________ 19

Data Analysis ___________________________________________________________ 21

Results ___________________________________________________________________ 22

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations ______________________________________ 22

Hypothesis Testing ______________________________________________________ 24

Discussion ________________________________________________________________ 27

Findings _______________________________________________________________ 27

Limitations _____________________________________________________________ 28

Theoretical Implications __________________________________________________ 28

Practical Implications ____________________________________________________ 30

Future Research ________________________________________________________ 31

Conclusion _______________________________________________________________ 33

Bibliography ______________________________________________________________ 34

Appendix _________________________________________________________________ 42

Introduction

According to Senter and Martin (2007) turnover costs can go up till 12% from the payroll of a company and that is why it is important to understand the many factors that influence employees having turnover intentions. Therefore, managers have always been interested in discovering what influences employees to leave their current employers and previous research demonstrated that it is important to avoid costs of replacing employees and keeping a strategic advantage over the competitors from their industry ( Chang, Wang, &

Huang, 2013).

Co-workers are an important entity of the working environment (Schneider, 1987) and may therefore play a crucial role in employees’ considerations to leave the company.

Specifically, individual employees in companies are always prone to emotional or instrumental support from their colleagues, which can have a positive or negative impact on turnover considerations and withdrawal (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Ferris & Mitchell, 1987). The main research topic of this paper focuses on examining the role of co-worker support in employee turnover intentions.

Some papers provide information regarding the negative relationship between the overall concept of co-worker support and turnover intentions in organizations, and underline the importance of help, support and knowledge received at the workplace from fellow colleagues (Tews, Michel, & Ellingson, 2013; Ng & Sorensen, 2008; Chiaburu et al. 2008;

Feeley, Moon, Kozey & Slowe, 2010; Fisher, 1985). Mossholder, Settoon and Henagan

(2005) underline the importance of interpersonal work relationships and its impact on

turnover intentions. Additionally, Mossholder et al. (2005) argue that employees, who

experience quality relationships with co-workers, will become more attached to the company

and have low leaving intentions.

Nonetheless, other papers had inconclusive findings about the relationship between co- worker support and employee turnover intentions, whereas others reported null relationships between the two variables (Iverson, 1999; Iverson & Pullman, 2000; Mossholder et al., 2005;

cited in Tews et al., 2013). . Further research is needed to highlight the remaining open questions regarding the emotional and instrumental dimensions of co-worker support and how they impact turnover intentions. The research goal of this paper is to test two different views on how the above mentioned dimensions of co-worker support influence the turnover intentions of individuals in organizations.

Moving on, I will briefly introduce co-worker emotional and instrumental support and several findings between co-worker support (as an overall concept) and turnover intentions.

Co-worker emotional support is person-focused and includes providing sympathy, listening to the problems of your work colleagues and conducting verbal communication regarding themes that are grounded on the emotional side (Beehr, Jex, Stacy, & Murray, 2000). Co-worker instrumental support is task-focused and represents help offered to your colleagues in order so that they can complete their job (Beehr et al., 2000).

The relationship between co-worker support and turnover intentions still needs additional research in order to better understand how the two concepts related to each other (Tews et al., 2013). Concretely, an important gap in the literature on the relationship between co-worker support and turnover intentions is that co-worker support is a multifaceted construct encompassing instrumental and emotional support, and that different mechanisms, such as moderators and/or mediators may clarify why the distinct aspects of instrumental and emotional support are related to turnover intentions.

To contribute to solving this puzzle, in the present study, I disentangle co-worker

support into the distinct aspects of instrumental and emotional support and propose and test

that these aspects are related to turnover intentions through differential intervening processes.

Specifically, I propose a co-worker-related affective well-being perspective to clarify the link between emotional co-worker support and turnover intentions. Affective well-being can be shortly defined as the frequent experience of positive affect and infrequent experience of negative affect (Diener & Larsen, 1993; cited in Harris, Daniels & Briner, 2003). I theorize that high levels of co-worker emotional support will determine individuals to have high levels of affective well-being which in fact will determine him/her to have low turnover intentions.

In addition, I use a job-related self-efficacy perspective (Bandura, 1986) to argue that high levels of co-worker instrumental support will influence turnover intentions in the employees via high levels of job-related self-efficacy. Job-related self-efficacy can be shortly defined as the belief of an individual in his or her motivation and capabilities to carry out and complete the job tasks appropriately and effectively (Higgins, Dobrow, &Chandler, 2008;

cited in Abele & Spurk, 2009). Individuals who received instrumental, task-focused support from their colleagues will develop their task-related knowledge, skills, and abilities (Spell, Eby & Vandenberg, 2014) and consider themselves more capable and confident in doing their jobs, meaning that they experience high levels of job-related self-efficacy. This enhanced self- efficacy, in its turn, will lower turnover intentions(Lai & Kapstad, 2009).

The present research will contribute to the literature in three ways. The first

contribution is that the research sheds new light on the relationship between co-worker

support and employee turnover by examining how the distinct co-worker support dimensions

of instrumental and emotional support uniquely relate to turnover intentions. The second

contribution is the identification of two different mediating processes through which the

distinct aspects of co-worker emotional and instrumental support are related to employee

turnover intentions. That is, I examine affective well-being as a mediating process that can

clarify the relationship between emotional support and turnover intentions, whereas job-

related self-efficacy will be examined as a mediating process that can link instrumental

support to turnover intentions. The third contribution is that the results might help organizations to better understand how co-workers can influence turnover intentions in their peers. That is, I provide insight on how person-focused and task-focused support offered by co-workers may lower employee turnover intentions via indirect mediating constructs.

I tested my conceptual model (see Figure 1) by obtaining data through online surveys sent to companies based in Romania. The organizations vary in the type of industry where they operate (e.g., logistics, IT, banking) and the sample included employees that have direct contact with their peers, but not necessarily work in a team (e.g., truck maintenance department, car leasing department, mobile applications development department).

Figure 1. Research model in which co-worker-related affective well-being mediates the relationship between co-worker emotional support and turnover intentions, and job- related self-efficacy mediates the relationship between co-worker instrumental support and turnover intentions.

Co-worker instrumental support

Turnover Intentions

Job-related Self-efficacy Co-worker

emotional support

Co-worker-related

Affective Well-Being

Theoretical Framework

Co-worker Support (Emotional and Instrumental) and Turnover Intentions

The dependent variable of my conceptual model is represented by turnover intentions that focus on leaving the company. This concept was defined by Tett and Meyer (1993: 262) as “a conscious and deliberated willfulness to leave the organization”. Turnover intentions are damaging for companies due to the fact that it represents the last sequence of withdrawal and psychological detachment (Harrison, 2002) of an employee and it ultimately leads to quitting the job and leaving the organization (Tett et al., 1993). An individual can change his job after mastering his job and getting promoted to a higher level in the same organization. As a short summary to the articles presented above, I consider that what Cox (1999) stated is the clearest way to present the impact of co-worker support on turnover intentions. He considers that co- workers support is negatively related with willfulness of individuals to leave the organization.

If there is a continuous negative situation determined by colleagues, this will lead to permanent separation (cited in Chiaburu et al., 2008). It is important to underline that in my conceptualization, I differentiate between turnover intentions of leaving the company versus quitting the job, and in this paper I will focus on measuring and analyzing the individual’s intentions to leave the firm.

Due to the fact that in the European Union approximately 55% of the companies report

teamwork activities ( Chiaburu et al., 2008), I consider that it is essential to better understand

how colleagues can influence each other in regards of turnover intentions. As a general

construct, co-worker support was defined as the action of offering the needed help, such as

resources or friendliness, by a fellow employee (Chiaburu et al., 2008). Nonetheless, scholars

and researchers have differentiated co-worker support into distinct aspects of emotional and

instrumental support (Tews et al., 2013; Chiaburu et al., 2008; Mossholder et al., 2005 ). Co-

worker emotional support is considered to be the support offered by colleagues which is person-focused, based in friendship and taking a genuine concern in the person (Beehr et al., 2000). Co-worker instrumental support is defined by Beehr et al. (2000) as support offered by co-workers which is focused on job-related tasks with the purpose of completing them successfully or solving any issues that have appeared. Thus, actions such as, offering assistance to colleagues (Tews et al., 2013), sending them tacit knowledge when needed (Organ, Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 2006) can be categorized as co-worker instrumental support.

Previous research conducted in the field of co-worker emotional support underlines the importance that it has on individual job outcomes. A paper by Uhl-Bien, Graen, and Scandura (2000) proposed a conceptual model that is opposed to the relational perspective of Mossholder et al. (2005), which states that low-quality interpersonal relationships lead to high employee turnover. More specifically, Uhl-Bien et al. (2000) researched if high-quality relationships with colleagues lead to low employee turnover. They discovered that high- quality relationships between co-workers have positive outcomes and determine the employee to stay within the organization. This suggests that receiving co-worker emotional support determines individuals to have lower intentions to leave their current employer.

Furthermore, Mossholder et al. (2005) continues on this line of thought and proposed

that workers who develop extensive relationship at the workplace and receive

care/consideration from colleagues, will become more attached to the company and will be

less influenced by negative features from the work environment. Although from a conceptual

point of view, co-worker support should lower turnover intentions, Mossholder et al. (2005)

research provided inconclusive empirical proof. Nonetheless, Fisher (1985) proposed that

receiving support from colleagues makes the work-place more pleasant, thus the individuals

will be more satisfied and with lower turnover intentions. She managed to empirically prove

that co-worker emotional support lowers turnover intentions by conducting a 6 month longitudinal research.

Moreover, Cobb (1979) and Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) conceptualize that co- worker emotional support has an emotional root and has an affective impact on the individual due to the discrete events, such as compliments, positive feedback, and understanding colleagues. In the same time, Tews et al. (2013), Erikson (1968) and Tokuno (1986) conceptualized in similar lines and stated that positive co-worker interactions ( e.g. laughing, venting talk, social contact) reduce the negative consequences of the job, such as exhaustion and burnout (Sonnentag, 2003), thus determining lower turnover intentions.

These theoretical propositions are in line with my conceptual line of reasoning, meaning that due to emotional support received from peers, a strong social-emotional environment is created and workers will not desire to sacrifice their relational bonds for the sake of a new employer.

Empirical evidence from research conducted by Chiaburu et al. (2008) and Tews et al.

(2013) showed that repetition of these events will lead to stable attitudes, satisfaction, involvement and the desire to keep organizational membership. Ultimately, this means that having good emotional support from co-workers reduces employee intentions to leave the organization. Thus, previous conceptual and empirical work clearly suggests that co-worker emotional support has an impact on individual job outcome and lowers the level of turnover intentions.

Moving on, previous research papers that examine the impact of co-worker instrumental support on turnover intentions are not always clear. For example, Tews et al.

(2013) reasoned that co-worker instrumental support will be beneficial in reducing work overload. Work overload has been demonstrated as being one of the biggest work stressor.

Thus, by reducing a negative consequence of the job via instrumental support, individuals will

have lower turnover intentions. Nonetheless, the empirical findings of Tews et al. (2013) were inconclusive and did not support their line of reasoning.

Further research completed by Chiaburu et al. (2008) and Organ et al. (2006) reasoned that helping a colleague who has a work overload by offering him advice on how to finish the task more efficiently and effectively lowers the negative impact of having to many things to do on the job. The findings of Chiaburu et al. (2008) do support his line of reasoning, meaning that any type of instrumental aid offered by colleagues does lower the turnover intentions of the overloaded employee. An earlier research completed by Fisher (1985) reasoned that individuals receiving aid on the job should have a lower level of turnover intentions, due to the fact that employees who receive help from colleagues experience positive satisfaction and commitment with regards to the job and organization. The empirical findings of her study provided support to her claims, proving that co-worker instrumental support does have a negative relationship with turnover intentions. Thus, the previously mentioned papers are in line with my own conceptualization, meaning that receiving more instrumental support from your co-workers will determine the employee to stay in the organization, due to the fact that he/she has reached a satisfactory level of working within the organization.

Overall, my research paper will try to shed light on several research gaps. One of them

is represented by the fact that knowledge is lacking in testing co-worker emotional and

instrumental support in one conceptual model that is completely dedicated to their mediation

relation with turnover intentions. According to Tews et al (2013), another gap in the literature

is the fact that co-worker support was measure as one index, that is why in my paper I will

measure emotional and instrumental support separately. Furthermore, through this research I

would like to clarify the relationship between co-worker instrumental support and turnover

intentions, due to the fact that the previous papers had diverse empirical findings . Last but not

the least, I will try to be in line with the findings of Fisher (1985), but by gathering cross-

sectional data rather than conducting a longitudinal study on how co-worker emotional and instrumental support influence turnover intentions.

Affective Well-being as Mediator

The affective event theory is used in order to offer persuasive logic for my own conceptual line of reasoning. Weiss et al. (1996) reason in their theory that affect based behavior is directly and intensely affected by aroused emotions. Thus, I argue that affective well-being might operate as in intervening process that may link co-worker emotional support to turnover intentions. In Harris et al. (2003: 402) a clear and simple definition of affective well being can be found and it states that it “comprises the frequent experience of positive affects and infrequent experience of negative affects (Diener & Larsen, 1993)”. Positive affects are represented by elements such as arousal, pleasure, enthusiasm (Daniels, 2000), while negative affects are composed from depression, anxiety and anger (Warr, 1990).

A core feature of the affective event theory by Weiss et al. (1996) is that events from the workplace always cause positive or negative affective reactions in individuals that impact their organizational commitment. Thus, co-worker support can be seen as an emotion generating event which will always determine a positive or negative affective reaction.

Another core feature of the affective event theory is the fact that affective reactions always influence the behavior and attitude of an individual. More specifically, a positive affective reaction to co-worker emotional support determines an individual to have positive affect driven behaviors, such as staying with the organization.

By taking into account the two core features of the affective event theory, I theorize

that co-worker emotional support has an indirect relationship with turnover intentions through

affective well-being. First of all, I consider that individuals who experience positive or

negative actions from their colleagues on the job will automatically have a corresponding

reaction at an emotional level. More precisely, unjust treatment and immoral behavior from

colleagues will determine negative emotions (Wegge, van Dick, Fisher, West & Watson, 2006; Fitness, 2000), while recognition, involvement and goal-achievement actions coming from colleagues will make a person experience positive emotions (Basch and Fisher, 2000).

Previous research papers underpin my theoretical claims by providing empirical findings that employees who have friendly, helpful and supportive co-workers will experience positive affective well-being, while for example unfriendly co-workers will determine negative affective well-being. (Thompson et al., 2005; Halamandaris & Power, 1997; Ntoumanis &

Biddle, 1998; cited in Christopher, Kuo, Abraham, Noel & Linz, 2004). Based on this, I conceptually reason that co-worker emotional support has a positive relationship with affective well-being.

Secondly, I reason that affective well-being is linked with individual turnover intentions. I consider that positive affective experiences on the job determine an individual to become more committed to the workplace and have lower turnover intentions (Wegge et al., 2006; Fisher, 2000), while in the same time, experiencing negative affects, will determine the individual to leave the organization due to emotional discomfort (Maertz Jr. & Griffeth, 2004). Previous papers underpin my argumentation, by concluding that individuals with low affective well-being (emotional discomfort) will experience higher levels of turnover intentions, thus demonstrating a negative relationship between affective well-being and turnover intentions (Wright and Bonett, 2007; Dewe and Kompier, 2010; van der Vaart, Linde and Cockeran, 2013).

Overall, I conceptualize the affective event theory provides the theoretical focus for developing argumentation for why affective well-being mediates the relationship between co- worker emotional support and turnover intentions.

For the accuracy of my research, I have adapted the affective well-being variable to a

new variable called co-worker-related affective well-being. I theorize by using my own line of

reasoning that the concept of affective well-being can be adapted to the need of the current research due to the well-being component. As stated in the definition of Harris et al. (2003), affective well-being is stimulated by the frequency of positive experiences that an individual has. Thus, different types of stimuli are present and determine people to have positive or negative affects. Furthermore, Van Katwyk, Fox, Spector and Kelloway (2000) theorized that people have emotional reactions to their jobs and they developed the Job-related Affective Well-being Scale (JAWS) in order to measure it. I decide to use their work as a building block for my own research and adapted their scale in order to conceptualized that co-workers can be seen as stimuli and determine emotional reactions at the individual level. I will measure a variety of positive and negative emotional experiences that co-workers stimulate in other individuals.

Taking available research into account and following my own conceptual line of reasoning, I hypothesized the following:

H1: Co-worker emotional support will have a positive relationship with affective well-being.

H2: Co-worker-related affective well-being will have a negative relationship with turnover intentions.

H3: Co-worker-related affective well-being will mediate the relationship between co-worker emotional support and turnover intentions.

Job-related Self-efficacy as Mediator

In the second part of my conceptual model, I shall use social cognitive theory and the

guided mastery model by Wood and Bandura (1989) in order to argue that job-related self-

efficacy might operate as an intervening process that may link co-worker instrumental support

to turnover intentions. The social cognitive theory developed by Bandura (1986) introduces a

triadic reciprocal causation model between behavior, cognitive and other personal factors and

external environment. In short, it presents the idea that individuals learn and improve their

knowledge by observing and replicating successful actions from other people. Moreover, the guided mastery model was successfully used by Bandura (1986) in developing intellectual, social and behavioral competencies at the workplace. This is achieved by combining three components: modeling skills for basic activities, offering guided practice during simulations to improve skills, applying newly learned skills in work situations (Bandura, 1986).

The second mediator that completes my conceptual model is job-related self-efficacy and due to the nature of the research, I will focus on this specific term, rather than on the general concept of self-efficacy. In 1997, Bandura defined self-efficacy as “beliefs in one's capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to produce given attainment "

(cited in Beattie, Fakehy, & Woodman, 2014: 605). In the paper of Abele and Spurk (2009:

54), job-related self-efficacy is referred to as occupational self-efficacy and has the following definition: “the belief in one’s capacity and motivation to successfully perform occupational tasks and challenges and to pursue one’s occupational career irrespective of the particular field of occupation (Higgins, Dobrow, &Chandler, 2008)”.

A core feature of the social cognitive theory is that it considers people both products and producers of the environment that they work in. This entails that individuals can learn and improve their skills via direct experience or by observing a colleague's behavior and results.

Another core feature of the social cognitive theory propose that co-workers adopt the new knowledge and skills if they have been proven successful, or if they come from co-workers with whom they can relate or after self-evaluation of their capability to adopt the new knowledge. The guided mastery model has several core features that are useful for this paper.

For example, the first aspect involves effective modeling through which individuals are taught

the general procedure on how to deal with a variety of work situations. This helps individuals

to build their self-assurance in their own capabilities and improves their skills. Based on the

above mentioned information, I conceptualize that co-worker instrumental support that is

received direct or observed will lead towards improving the job-related self-efficacy. A second core feature is represented by the guided skill mastery stage. Wood et al. (1989) propose that after understanding the new knowledge and skills, individuals have to receive the opportunity to practice them at the workplace and receive constructive feedback from colleagues which might help correct any misinterpretations. After experiencing a suffice level of successful events in which the individuals try out the new knowledge, this will improve their morale, skills and performance. Last but not the least, another core feature from Bandura's social cognitive theory reasons that social persuasion is a method in order to increase the self-efficacy of individuals. This entails that realistic encouragements determine people to put more effort into task. By succeeding at their job, individuals will have lower levels of self-doubt. Thus, I conceptualize that job-related self-efficacy received on the job will have a negative impact on turnover intentions.

By taking into account the core features of the social cognitive theory and the guided mastery model, I theorize that co-worker instrumental support has an indirect relationship with turnover intentions through job-related self-efficacy. Furthermore, I would like to present previous research in order to underpin my argumentation. Firstly, I consider that mastery experiences, performance successes and support from colleagues will lead to high levels of job-related self-efficacy (Tierney and Farmer, 2002). This reasoning is supported by previous research completed by Spell et al., (2014) which has proposes and offered empirical findings on the fact that co-worker instrumental support does have a positive relationship with job- related self-efficacy.

Secondly, I reason that high job-related self-efficacy does lead to a positive impact on

the work-related outcomes of an individual (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). This entails that

employees with high perceived self-efficacy have higher levels of workplace well-being, thus

will have lower level of turnover intentions (Ryan & Deci, 2001; Erol-Korkmaz & Sumer,

2012). Following the same line of reasoning, additional research provided support to the claims that employees who have high levels of job-related self-efficacy have shown lower turnover intentions (Porras, Hargis, Patterson, Maxfield, Roberts & Bies, 1982; Lai et al., 2009).

Overall, I reason that receiving instrumental support from co-workers and supervisors increases the level of job-related self-efficacy which in the end determines low turnover intentions.

Taking available research into account and following my own conceptual line of reasoning, I hypothesized the following:

H4: Co-worker instrumental support will have a positive relationship with job-related self- efficacy.

H5: Job-related self-efficacy will have a negative relationship with turnover intentions.

H6: Job-related self-efficacy will mediate the relationship between co-worker instrumental support and turnover intentions.

Method

Sample and Procedure

Introductory information regarding the experiment, such as, what kind of employees can participate, the duration of surveys and by when they should be completed was distributed to nine companies that are diverse in terms of sector, size and geographical location in order to ensure a varied sample of employees so that the results can be generalized to a certain extent. I targeted companies from the private sector that are conducting business in the logistics, telecommunications, IT, finance, retail and banking industry from Romania.

Regarding the procedure, I sent the HR-managers or team leaders an e-mail explaining

the purpose and theme of my research and asked for their willingness to participate. After

employees that have a job which involves contact with colleagues and results in emotional/instrumental co-worker support. The employees are diverse in terms of the levels that they occupy in the organization, age, gender and educational level.

After offering them the initial explanations and receiving their acceptance to participate in the survey, I sent them an e-mail in which I explained the details on how to complete the surveys and until when they should complete it and promise to uphold confidentiality and ethical values regarding their answers. In the same e-mail, I offered them a link towards the survey created on Qualtrics. The first page of the survey was composed out the terms and conditions and a space where they can type in their names. This replaced the need for a signature from the individual who is completing the survey. The names were only visible to me, my coordinating professor and are not be published in the research paper. After that, they had the opportunity to start filling out the survey. An online survey distribution platform was used in order to send the surveys and gather the raw data for analysis via closed ended and scaled questions.

During the data collection period, 205 people accessed the survey, but only 173

completed all the questions. 32 respondents had to be eliminated due the fact that they did not

answer any questions or completed only the first 2 from 17 in total. The response rate of the

survey was 84.4%. The gender of the respondents was: 83 males and 90 females (M= 1.52,

SD= .5). The educational level (M= 5.3, SD= .82) and specialization (M= 4.58, SD= 2.48)

was diverse, with respondents that finished a Bachelor or Master's degree in the field of

business, economy, technology and social sciences. The mean age of all respondents was

28.86 years (SD = 6.92). The level of seniority in the collected database has a M= 2.87 and a

SD= 1.04. Furthermore, descriptive statistics have been run on the number of months since

individuals have been with the organization (M= 35.11, SD= 48.45) and with their current

team/department (M= 27.25, SD= 39.42). Last but not the least, the number of co-workers

that the respondents are in contact during a normal day at work was analyzed (M= 3.35, SD=

1.07).

Measures

Co-worker instrumental support. The scale developed by Tews et al.(2013) and adapted from Settoon and Mossholder (2002) consists of six items (see Appendix), but here I present the first two: “My co-workers assist me with heavy workloads”, “My co-workers go out of their way to help me with work-related problems”. Answers range on a 5-point Likert scale from 1=”strongly disagree” to 5=”strongly agree”. Cronbach’s alpha was .86, thus reliability of the scale is reached.

Co-worker emotional support. The scale developed by Tews et al.(2013) and adapted from Settoon and Mossholder (2002) consists of eight items (see Appendix). Two example items are: “My co-workers compliment me when I succeed at work”, “My co-workers listen to me when I have to get something off my chest”. The response format was a5-point Likert scale ranging from 1=”strongly disagree” to 5=”strongly agree”. Cronbach’s alpha was .82, thus reliability of the scale is reached.

Job-related self-efficacy: The self-efficacy scale used by Chen, Gully, and Eden (2001) with eight items (see Appendix) and adapted by Neff, Niesen, Sonnentag, and Unger (2013) was used to measure employees’ job-related self-efficacy. Two example items are:“I will be able to achieve most of the goals that I have set for myself at work.”, “When facing difficult tasks at work, I am certain that I will accomplish them.”. Answers range on a scale from 1=”completely disagree” to 5=”completely agree”. Cronbach’s alpha was .79, thus reliability of the scale is reached.

Co-worker-related affective well-being was measured with a scale developed by

Van Katwyk et al. (2000), but adapted to the needs of the current research regarding feelings

present only the first two items: “My co-workers made me feel angry.” and “My co-workers made me feel anxious.”. Answers range on a scale from 1=”never” to 5=”extremely often”.

Cronbach’s alpha was .88, thus reliability of the scale is reached.

Turnover intentions. The scale developed by Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins and Klesh (1979) containing three items was adapted for the current research (see Appendix). Example items: “I often thought of leaving this organization”, “I am probably looking for new organization next year”. Answers range on a scale from 1=”completely disagree” to 5=”completely agree”. Cronbach’s alpha was .82, thus reliability of the scale is reached.

Control variables. An eligibility variable was included in the survey, meaning that each individual had to present at the beginning the number of co-workers with whom they were in contact during the completion of daily task ( 1 = 0 co-workers, 2 = 1-5 co-workers, 3

= 6-10 co-workers, 4 = 11-15 co-workers, 5 = 16 or more co-workers ). Several control

variables have been tested in order to discover correlation between them and the mediators

and dependent variables before including them in the analysis. Thus, based on previous

research completed by Sloan, Newhouse and Thompson (2013), age (in years), gender (1 =

male, 2 = female), education level ( 1 = Primary Education, 2 = Secondary Education, 3 =

Intermediate Vocational Education, 4 = Higher Vocational Education, 5 = University

Education/Bachelor, 6 = University Education/Master, 7 = Doctorate ) and organization

tenure (in months) were taken into consideration. Additionally, based on research completed

by Zacher, Jimmieson and Bordia (2014) level of seniority ( 1 = Started, 2 = Junior, 3 =

Medium, 4 = Senior, 5 = Very Senior) and the specialization degree ( 1 = Legal, 2 = Business

and Economy, 3 = Econometrics and Mathematics, 4 = Social Sciences, 5 = Technology, 6 =

Language and Culture, 7 = Medical and Healthcare, 8 = Natural Sciences, 9 = Other ) were

included in the analysis.

Data Analysis

Hypotheses were tested using the regression analysis procedure developed by Hayes (2015), namely Process. It uses “ordinary least squares or logistic regression-based path analytical framework for estimating direct or indirect effect in simple or multiple mediator models.”. The analysis will show how each independent variable is linked with the dependent variable via one specific mediator. All variables were standardized.

Specifically, to test hypotheses 1-3, I will run a regression analysis using model 4 from Process for multiple mediation tests. Co-worker emotional support will represent the independent variable, affective well-being and job-related self-efficacy will be the mediators and turnover intentions will be the dependent variable. Co-worker instrumental support will be included as a covariate. In this regression analysis, I would like to test that co-worker affective well-being, rather than job-related self-efficacy, is the mediator that links co-worker emotional support to turnover intentions.

To test hypotheses 4-6, I will run a regression analysis using model 4 from Process for

multiple mediation tests. Co-worker instrumental support will be used as the independent

variable, affective well-being and job-related self-efficacy will be the mediators and turnover

intentions will be the dependent variable. Co-worker emotional support will be included as a

covariate. In this regression analysis I would like to test that job-related self-efficacy, rather

than co-worker affective well-being, is the mediator that links co-worker instrumental support

to turnover intentions.

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Means, standard deviations, and correlations for the study variables are reported in Table 1. Co-worker emotional support is positively correlated to co-worker affective well- being (r = .55, p<.01) and to job-related self-efficacy (r = .18, p<.05). Additionally, co- worker emotional support has a positive correlation with co-worker instrumental support (r = .49, p<.01). Co-worker instrumental support is positively correlated to co-worker affective well-Being (r = .39, p<.01) and only marginally related to job-related self-Efficacy (r =.12, p=.09). Furthermore, co-worker instrumental support has a negative correlation with turnover intentions (r = -.15, p<.05).

Moreover, co-worker-related affective well-being is positively correlated to job-related self-efficacy (r = .20, p<.01), whereas the correlation with turnover intentions is negative (r = -.42, p<.01). Job-related self-efficacy has a negative correlation with turnover Intentions (r = -.22, p<.01).

Finally, age has a negative correlation with turnover intentions (r = -.22), team tenure

was negatively correlated with turnover intentions (r = -.16), and the number of co-workers

was negatively correlated with co-worker affective well-being (r = -.23).

Table 1 - Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of the Variables

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1.Co-worker Emotional Support

3.57 .66 2.Co-worker

Instrumental Support

3.49 .66 .49**

3.Co-worker-related Affective well-being

3.66 .51 .55** .39**

4.Job-related Self- efficacy

4.11 .44 .18* .12 .20**

5.Turnover Intentions

2.48 1.19 -.11 -.15* -.42** -.22**

Control Variables

6.Age 28.86 6.92 -.12 -.09 -.06 -.07 -.22*

7.Gender 1.52 .50 -.08 -.05 -.06 -.06 .06 -.02

8.Education Level 5.3 .82 -.06 -.05 .01 -.02 -.09 .06 .02

9.Specialization Degree

4.58 2.48 .02 .17* .09 .10 -.12 .04 -.00 -.09

10.Seniority 2.87 1.04 .02 -.14 -.05 .04 -.07 .51** -.07 .10 -.02 11.Time with

organization (months)

35.11 48.45 -.04 .00 -.11 -.07 -.11 .69** .03 .10 .05 .50**

12.Time with team (months)

27.25 39.42 -.05 .00 -.08 -.12 -.16* .59** .07 .05 .06 .42** .84**

13.Number of co- workers

3.35 1.07 -.08 -.01 -23** .08 .01 .03 -.02 .00 .00 .03 .00 .02

N= 173; * p< .05; ** p< .01

Hypothesis Testing

The results of the regression analysis testing the hypotheses are reported in Table 2.

Hypothesis 1 stated that co-worker emotional support will have a positive relationship with co-worker-related affective well-being. The results of the regression analysis show that co-worker emotional support has a positive relationship with the co-worker-related affective well-being (B = .35, t = 6.35, p = .00). Thus, hypothesis 1 is supported. Besides the significant relationship with co-worker-related affective well-being, co-worker emotional support was also found to be marginally positively related to job-related self-efficacy (B = .10, t = 1.84, p

= .06).

Hypothesis 2 predicted that co-worker affective well-being will have a negative relationship with turnover intentions. The results of the regression analysis indeed demonstrated that co-worker affective well-being is negatively related to turnover intentions (B = -1.19, t = -6.29, p = .00).

Hypothesis 3 predicted that co-worker affective well-being will mediate the relationship between co-worker emotional support and turnover intentions.. The results of the multiple mediation analysis are consistent with the hypothesis, meaning that co-worker affective well-being (Indirect effect = -.42, SE = .09; LLCI = -.63, ULCI = -25).

Hypothesis 4 predicted that co-worker instrumental support has a positive relationship

with job-related self-efficacy. The results of the regression analysis, show that co-worker

instrumental support does not have a significant positive relationship with job-related self-

efficacy (B = .03, t = .61, p = .53).Surprisingly, and contrary to the hypotheses, co-worker

instrumental support appeared to have a positive relationship with co-worker affective well-

being (B = .12, t = 2.18, p = .03).

Hypothesis 5 stated that job-related self-efficacy will have a negative relationship with turnover intentions. The results of the regression analysis demonstrate that job-related self-efficacy is negatively related wit turnover intentions (B = -.47, t = -2.62, p = .00).

Hypothesis 6 predicted that job-related self-efficacy will mediate the relationship between co-worker instrumental support and turnover intentions. Mediation analysis results did not confirm the hypothesis, meaning that co-worker instrumental support did not have an indirect effect on turnover intentions through job-related self-efficacy (Indirect effect = -.01, SE = .03; LLCI = -.09, ULCI = .02).

Table 2 - Results of regression analysis

Model and variables entered

Mediator variable model:

Co-worker-related affective well- being

Mediator variable model:

Job-related self-efficacy

B SE t p R

B SE T p R

Constant 2.08 0.28 7.20 .00

.36

3.46 0.30 11.43 .00

.05

Age .00 .00 1.07 .28 .00 .00 .23 .81

Number of co- workers

-.09 .02 -3.06 .00 .04 .03 1.30 .19

Time with team (months)

-.00 .00 -1.43 .15 -.00 .00 -1.36 .17 Co-worker

Emotional support Co-worker

Instrumental support .35 .13

.05 .05

6.35 2.45

.00 .01

.10 .03

.05 .05

1.84 .61

.06

.53

Model and variables entered

Dependent Variable Model:

Turnover Intentions

B SE t p R

.30

Constant 9.10 .99 9.16 .00

Age -.03 .01 -2.19 .02

Number of co-workers -.07 .07 -.97 .33

Time with team (months) -.00 .00 -1.36 .17 Co-workers emotional

support

.34 .15 2.23 .02

Co-workers instrumental support

-.06 .13 -.49 .62

Co-worker-related affective well-being Job-related self-efficacy

-1.19 -.47

.19 .18

-6.29 -2.62

.00 .00

Indirect Effects

Dependent Variable Model:

Turnover Intentions Bootstrap

Indirect Effect

Bootstrap SE

Bootstrap LLCI

Bootstrap ULCI Co-worker emotional support

 Co-worker-related affective well-being  Turnover

Intentions

-.42 .09 -.63 -.25

Co-worker emotional support

 Job-related self-efficacy

Turnover Intentions

-.05 .04 -.17 .00

Co-worker instrumental support

 Co-worker-related affective well-being  Turnover

Intentions

-.16 .07 -.32 -.03

Co-worker instrumental support

 Job-related self-efficacy  Turnover Intentions

-.01 .03 -.09 .02

Discussion

In this study I developed and tested a conceptual model that implied an affective well- being view and job-related self-efficacy view on how co-workers emotional and instrumental support impact the turnover intentions of individuals. This is in line with my research goal of testing two different views on how the two different dimensions of co-worker support influence the turnover intentions of individuals in organizations. I theorized that co-worker emotional support has a positive relationship with co-worker-related affective well-being and that will mediate the relationship with turnover intentions. Additionally, co-worker instrumental support will have a positive relationship with job-related self-efficacy and that will mediate the relationship with turnover intentions.

Findings

One key finding that was discovered during this research is that co-worker emotional

support is mediated by co-worker affective well-being in the relationship with turnover

intentions. Briefly, the results indicate that if an individual receives emotional support, that

will stimulate and increase the levels of affective well-being determine by colleagues and it

will lead towards lower turnover intentions regarding the organization. This finding is in line

with my conceptual reasoning. Another key finding is that co-worker instrumental support is

not mediated by job-related self-efficacy in the relationship with turnover intentions. This

finding contradicts my conceptual model. I predicted that the two different types of co-worker

support will be linked with different mediators, but this has not been confirmed by the

statistical analysis. Exploratory research showed that co-worker instrumental support is linked

with co-worker affective well-being, demonstrating that instrumental help can stimulate in a

positive way and increase affective well-being determined at the individual level. An

additional finding shows that co-worker emotional support is linked with job-related self-

efficacy, but it does not lead to mediation with the dependent variable. Last but not the least,

exploratory research provided an extra finding showing that co-worker emotional and instrumental support are both negatively correlated with turnover intentions.

Limitations

When reading this research paper, the reader has to be aware of certain limitations that are present. First of all, cross-sectional data has been used in order to analyze and draw conclusions. This means that a random number of people that had jobs and colleagues were contacted to complete the survey, at a given point in time. This means that it is not possible to see if the impact of the variables on each other increase or decrease over a certain period of time. A second limitation is present in the way the raw data was collected. Surveys were sent via e-mail to the workers and they had to fill it out by themselves, which means that common- method bias might be present in the answers (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Some sources of common-method bias that should be taken into consideration are social desirability, meaning that people preferred to use what was socially acceptable, instead of their true feelings. Another important element is the mood state that the individuals have, taking into account that people who see themselves and the rest of the people in a negative way leads towards more negative answers and people who see themselves and the rest of the people in a positive way leads towards more positive answers. Last, the majority of the data (79.8%) was exclusively collected from Romanian workers, thus the results and conclusions could be more representative for workers in Romania than other countries with other work cultures.

Theoretical Implications

Firstly, I would like to state that the results of this research paper demonstrate the

importance of co-worker support for turnover intentions and contribute to the literature by

differentiating between emotional and instrumental support. The findings showed that both

co-worker emotional and instrumental support have a negative impact on turnover intentions.

It was proven that any type of support received from co-workers is beneficial regarding the reduction of turnover intentions. This entails that communication, discussing and helping out co-workers in work or non-work related subjects are beneficial in retaining employees and reducing their thoughts of leaving.

Secondly, by using the affective event theory developed by Weiss et al. (1996), the present study contributes to the literature by showing that affective well-being clarifies the relationship between co-worker emotional support and turnover intentions. More specifically, it has been shown that co-worker emotional support triggers emotions that lead towards the experience positive affect, which in turn lowers the individuals turnover intentions.

Thirdly, by using the social cognitive theory developed by Bandura (1986), job-related self-efficacy was proposed to mediate the relationship between co-worker instrumental support and turnover intentions. Results show that indeed, self-efficacy reduces turnover intentions. However, no evidence was found to prove that self-efficacy mediated the relationship between co-worker instrumental support and turnover intentions, due to the fact that co-worker instrumental support was unrelated to self-efficacy. Surprisingly, the results show that co-worker instrumental support was of more importance for affective well-being suggesting that the two dimensions of co-worker support are not uniquely related with separate mediators. This shows that even if emotional and instrumental co-worker support are two different constructs, they can be mediated by the variable in the relationship with turnover intentions.

Overall, the results suggest that affective well-being is a more important process

mechanism for the relationship between co-worker support and turnover intentions than job-

related self-efficacy. The results show that person-focused (emotional) and task-focused

(instrumental) support from co-workers do lead to more positive affects experienced by

individuals. Additionally, affective well-being proved to be more important due to the fact that it is a person focused construct influence by the actions of the surrounding people. Thus, actions such as congratulating or to offer a helping hand to achieve a work goal do lead to positive affects on the job. Furthermore, co-workers are part of the social environment from the workplace and have an impact on the attitudes, perceptions and judgments of individual workers (Weiss et. al, 1996). Co-worker support is conceptualized as a positive behavior, thus this could explain why affective well-being (positive mood) is linked and influenced by it. In addition, the affective well-being theory focuses on affective experiences at work and how people react emotionally to them. Thus, receiving support from co-workers does lead to an emotional reaction, that ultimately influences the overall mood.

Practical Implications

This study offers several practical implications that can be used by organizations in order to eliminate turnover intentions. The results have shown that a job environment encouraging co-worker emotional and instrumental support has a negative impact on turnover intentions. Managers and organization should not try to keep employees in the company by only offering them higher salaries, different types of bonuses or benefits. They should focus on creating a work environment that offers and promotes employees to support each other regarding work or non-work related matters.

Additionally, not only the management should be aware of this information.

Employees have to be notified as well, meaning that their lack of support towards the

problems faced by their co-workers could lead to turnover. Thus, policies and guidelines

should be developed and introduced during a general training of the workforce in which it is

underlined how important emotional and instrumental support can have on colleagues. No

matter on the type of problem that co-workers need, previous research completed by Thoits

(1995) has shown that receiving emotional support from individuals has a stronger and more positive impact than trying to change the situation.

Last but not the least, this study highlights that co-worker emotional and instrumental support do not trigger only the specific variables, as it was conceptualized. It has been show that the positive emotions from receiving any type of support from your co-workers can lead towards co-worker-related affective well-being and job-related self-efficacy. More specifically, having a working environment that actively encourages and promotes emotional and instrumental support between workers, this can impact in a positive way the affective well-being of individuals, meaning that they experience positive emotions and affects at work.

Future Research

This study specifically analyzed the emotional and instrumental co-worker support and how it is mediated in its relationships with turnover intentions. The results show that co- worker emotional support is mediated by co-worker affective well-being towards turnover intentions. But the lower part of the conceptual model, in which I predicted that the relationship between co-worker instrumental support and turnover intentions is mediated by job-related self-efficacy was not supported. Thus, future researchers should try different mediators or moderatos in order to better understand the link between co-workers instrumental support and turnover intentions. One possibility could be employee engagement, which has been shown to have an impact on co-worker support (Macey & Schneider, 2008).

Researcher could reverse the relationship and explore employee engagement as a mediator or

moderator in the relationship between co-worker emotional/instrumental support and turnover

intentions. Thompson and Prottas (2005) discovered a positive relationship between the

general concept of co-worker support and psychological well-being, thus this concept could

be taken into account as a mediator in future research.

Additionally, field experiments could be implemented in order to study how socialization and team-building activities have an impact on triggering and creating emotional support between employees. By conducting these experiments, company managers could receive valuable information on how to cope with turnover intentions caused by the negative impact of socialization and/or team activities and get on hands experience on how to solve unwanted situations (Tews et al., 2013).

Furthermore, this study analyzed the level of co-worker support, which from its definition is a positive behavior. Future researchers could analyze and look at co-worker antagonism, a negative style of behaving at work and see how it is related to turnover intentions via different moderators or mediators. This future research could demonstrate that co-worker emotional and instrumental antagonism could lead to negative individual outcomes. A similar research that takes into account two different views could be developed as a future conceptual model. (Chiaburu et al., 2008).

Besides, future research could include a variable that measures the number of ties and the strength of those ties between co-workers. Work completed by Burt (2001) stated that having more ties makes the relationships stronger and colleagues will offer more support to each other. In the same time, having stronger ties with your co-workers leads to embedding in the working-group and thus determine the individual to grow attached to the organization and have lower turnover intentions.

Lastly, future researchers can take into account the level of communication and

perceived similarity (Brass, 1995) and analyze how those variable mediate or moderate

emotional and instrumental co-worker support.

Conclusion

Much research has been done in the field of co-worker support in the past decades, but the yielded results were not always in line with previous papers. The general concept of co- worker support has been proven to be composed out two dimensions, one emotional and one instrumental. Building on this key finding, I have developed a conceptual model that took into account co-worker emotional support and co-worker instrumental support as two different independent variables and analyzed how they are linked with individual turnover intentions.

To support my conceptual model and reasoning, I used affective well-being and job-related self-efficacy as mediators in order to demonstrate that support from co-workers lead to positive attitudes on the job and determine the individual to have lower turnover intentions. A questionnaire was distributed to individuals who had a job which implied contact and interaction with co-workers during a normal working day. The statistical analysis was based on 173 respondents and they managed to support four of the six hypotheses developed. The overall findings of this research paper conclude that the affective well-being component clarifies how co-worker emotional support impacts individual turnover intentions.

Furthermore, the job-related self-efficacy did not manage to shed light on the relationship

between co-worker instrumental support and turnover intentions.

Bibliography

Abele, A. E., Spurk D. (2009). The longitudinal impact of self-efficacy and career goals on objective and subjective career success, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74 (No.1), 53-62.

Bandura, A. (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Basch, J. and C. D. Fisher (2000). Affective events-emotion matrix: A classification of work events and associated emotions. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Hartel and W. J. Zerbe (eds), Emotions in the workplace: Research, theory and practice, 36–48. Quorum Books, Westport, CT.

Beattie, S., Fakehy, M., Woodman, T. (2014). Examiningthemoderatingeffectsoftimeon task and taskcomplexityonthe within person self-efficacy and performance relationship, Psychology of sport and exercise, 15 (No.6), 605-610.

Beehr, T. A., Jex, S. M., Stacy, B. A., & Murray, M. A. (2000). Work stressors and co-worker support as predictors of individual strain and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 391-405.

Brass, D. J. (1995). A social network perspective on human resources management. In G. R.

Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 13: 39–

79. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Burt, R. S. 2001. Attachment, decay, and social network. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 619–643.

Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., Klesh, J., 1979. The Michigan organizational

assessment questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript. University of Michigan, Ann

Arbor, MI.

Chang, W-J. A., Wang, Y-S., Huang, T-C., (2013).Work Design-Related Antecedents of Turnover Intention: A Multilevel Approach. Human Resource Management, Vol. 52 (No. 1), 1-26.

Chen G., Gully S.M., Eden D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale.

Organizational Research Methods,4(No.1): 62–83.

Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of co-worker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1082-1103.

Christopher, A. N.,Kuo, S. V., Abraham, K. M., Noel, L. W., Linz, H. E., (2004) Materialism and affective well-being: the role of social support. Personality and Individual Differences, 73 (No. 3), 463-470.

Cobb, S. (1979). Social support and health through the live course. In M. W. Riley (Ed.), Aging from birth to death: Interdisciplinary perspective, 93–106. Boulder, CO:

Westview Press.

Cox, S. (1999). Group communication and employee turnover: How co-workers encourage peers to voluntarily exit, Southern Communication Journal, 64, 181–192.

Daniels, K. (2000). Measures of Five aspects of affective well-being at work. Human Relations,53, 275-294.

Dewe, P., & Kompier, M. (2010). Wellbeing and work: Future challenges. In G. L. Cooper, J.

Field, U.Goswami, R. Jenkins & B. J. Sahakian (Eds.), Mental capital and wellbeing, 649–655. West Sussex,UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Diener, E , & Larsen, R. J. (1993). The experience of emotional well-being. In M. Lewis & J.

M.Maviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions. New York: Guilford Press.