SUPPORTIVE RELATIONSHIPS AND TURNOVER INTENTION:
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS FOR MERGING?
MASTER THESIS
MBA - MSC. CHANGE MANAGEMENT
University of Groningen, Faculty of Business and Economics
ABSTRACT
This study examines the importance of supportive relationships at work in the light of
the prevention of premature departure from an organisation in a merger context. A research
model was tested with perceived organizational, colleague and supervisor support as
predictors, and turnover intention as a dependent variable. Gender and the perceived chance
of finding a comparable job outside the current organization acted as control variables in the
tests.
Data was obtained from employees of a large educational organisation in the
Netherlands; 323 employees participated in the survey. The results supported the
hypothesised relationships: Perceived Organizational Support and Perceived Colleague
Support are negatively related to Turnover Intention; Perceived Organizational Support and
Perceived Supervisor Support are positively related. However, Supervisor Support did not
conclusively predict Turnover Intention; additional regression analysis indicated an indirect
relationship through Perceived Organizational Support and Perceived Colleague Support. The
level of Perceived Organization Support of the employees (35%) was relatively low in
comparison with Perceived Supervisor Support (51%) and Perceived Colleague Support
(68%). Employees of the smaller former partner organization experienced significantly lower
Perceived Organizational Support then employees from the lager organization.
Given the importance of retaining employees in times of shortage on the labour
market, it is suggested that social support should be treated as a critical success factor in any
change program and during the amalgamation proces after a merger in order to manage a
merger in a more effective and also in a more benefical way for all organizational members.
Top-management, supervisors, employees, and change agent(s) need to realize the importance
of sound supportive relationships in the workplace; especially in times of change and
experienced support, inducement of incentives creating awareness and interest in supportive
relationships, and generating necessary actions are advised to enhance the motivation of all
1. INTRODUCTION
Mergers have been a popular strategy for organizational growth for many years
(Chandler, 1987). Mergers and acquisitions make it possible to grow in a very fast way. Many
organizations are engaged in this form of organizational change. Mergers and acquisitions can
take many different forms and the outcome may also vary (Palmer, Dunford, & Akin, 2009).
Some mergers forced organizations to a complete change in all structures, systems, and
processes. Other types of mergers are more friendly and acquired companies may be left to
operate as similar as before the merging. Between these two extremes a range of other
positions are possible; for example a merger between two firms integrating best practices of
both into a new organization (Palmer et al., 2009). In practice power differences between the
two partners could become a risk in the merger (Ullrich, Wieseke, & Van Dick, 2005).
Managing a successful merger is a real challenge. Research in Canada showed that,
the success rate of private, corporate mergers was around 30 percent (Jordan & Stuart, 2000).
There are a lot of potential serious problems to deal with, facing a merger. On the other hand,
the expectations of the profits are high: for example, cost reduction, economics of scale,
increasing marketing positions, gaining competitive market advantages. In practice such
advantages are hard to gain. General knowned challenges are, among others, cultural
adjustment and amalgation of cultures; (false) use of power by senior management;
ineffective communication; disruptions of work, positions, and employee identity; and
employee retention; (Palmer et al., 2009).
Mergers can also lead to changes in the relationships between employees, their
supervisors, and the organization, because employees working reality could change by not
meeting their expectations, demands, obligations, and their beliefs about their employment
relationship (Guzzo, Nelson, & Noonan, 1994). For example, most employees are searching
continuity may not been offered (Ullrich, Wieseke, & Van Dick, 2005). Not fulfilling
employees needs and expectations releases pressure on the relationship of employees with the
management of the organisation and could have an impact on employees‟ commitment and
attraction to his/her organization. Employees will accept a job or will stay with a company
when they expect that the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs and considering the
alternatives to the offered employment relationship (Boxall & Purcell, 2008). In the same way
employees will consider benefits and costs of staying or leaving in situations of change, like a
merger. Intentions to stay are reinforced by perceptions of organizational membership, care
and support for employees. Demonstrating personal care and support by management
(Perceived Supervisor Support (PSS)) elicit psychological attachment (Rousseau, 1998).
Employees who feel valued and respected are likely to reciprocate with trust and loyalty and
experience no turnover intention. Organisational support (Perceived Organizational Support
(POS)) may be experienced by benefits and Human Resource practices as provisions of
growth opportunities, skill training and increase in fair rewards (Allen, Shore & Griffith,
2003). The relationship with direct colleagues and their perceived support (PSC) is also
influencing individuals‟ connection with the organization. The bounds with colleagues,
supervisor, and the organization, that employees perceive, are under pressure during stages of
organizational change.
Although a number of studies have examined mergers, research on the effects of employees‟ support in the context of a merger and the implications for turnover intention (intentions to leave the organization) is not often performed. Futhermore, the outcome on the
role of internal work relationships influencing employees‟ reactions to a merger are
fragmented and fairly limited (Seo & Hill, 2005). This study aims to fill this gap and wants to
assess the role of the change context as an influence on employees‟ perceived feelings of
supportive work relationships and the potential impact on turnover intentions may rise. Also
diffences in the feelings and experiences of employees of the various merging partners could
develop, as a result of the different points of departure and power differences between the
partners in a merger. Bringing this together the research question is the following.
After a merger, what are the effects of employees‟ Perceived Organizational Support
(POS), Perceived Supervisor Support (PSS), and Perceived Colleague Support (PSC) on
turnover intention?
Figure 1. Perceived Support and Turnover Intention
This study aims to contribute to the organizational change literature in general and
specific to the impact of a merger as contextual factor on workers perceived support and
turnover intention. Although many researchers have discussed the theoratical impact of the
context of change, most empirical attention has been focused on change processes (Rafferty &
Restubog, 2010). This relative lack of interest on this subject is surprising, because these
model seeks to understand the responses and feelings of support of employees after a merger
and their intention to leave the current company. Furthermore, it seeks to bring new insight
and knowledge to manage a merger in a more effective and also in a more benifical way for
2. MERGERS, PERCEIVED SUPPORT AND TURNOVER INTENTION 2.1. Merger, as a form of organizational change, and turnover intention
Merging is a form of structural organizational change which will affect the lives of all
organizational members. Three aspects of organizational change are distinguished as potential
influences on employees‟ working lives and their responses to change: the content, the
process, and the context of change (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999). In this study the focus will
be on the context of organizational change. Johns (2006: 214) defined context as the “situational opportunities and constraints that affect the occurrence and meaning of organizational behaviour as well as functional relationships between variables”. Here, the
context is a merger of two organizations. This context is likely to influence the employment
relationships, employees‟ reactions to the merger and their intention to stay with or leave the
organization.
During mergers, management aims to generate compliance and positive attitudes from
organizational members like employees and supervisors to the organizational change. Many
management interventions during organizational change are based on the belief that
communicating with employees will promote cooperation and will reduce resistance to
change (e.g. Miller, Johnson, & Grau, 1994). Formal communication programmes are
designed to transmit top-down information about the organizational change (policies,
directions, facts, and directives) to generate employees‟ compliance and to stimulate positive
attitudes about the change (Russ, 2008). Besides to this formal communication, research
reveals that considerable informal communication occurs within organizations and
particularly during periods of change (e.g. Fairhurst, 1993). When management (and change
agents) do not succeed in their communication and fail to generate sufficient support and
way a merger can induce turnover intention; mergers can directly influence employees‟
intention to leave the organization.
Question 1: What is the degree of intended turnover of employees after a merger? Question 2: Will changes induced by a merger lead to intentions to stay with the company?
2.2. Employment relationships and mergers
2.2.1. Tension in employment exchange relationship
In times of organizational change, like a merger, tension in the employment
relationship may develop. This tension puts pressure on the relationships of employees with
supervisors and with the organisation. Also, mergers (and acquisitions) are associated with
large scale changes that next to positive outcome engender considerable disruption and result
in a number of negative consequences for employees and organizations (Rafferty & Restubog,
2010). For example, mergers are associated with increased employee job insecurity and job
uncertainty, and feelings of threat and reduced control (Sweiger & DeNisi, 1991).
In general, the basis of the employment relationship may be found in Blau‟s (1964)
exchange theory. The exchange theory states that people make contributions to the
organization in return for certain organizational inducements (Blau, 1964). Recent social
exchange theorists view the employment relationship as an exchange of loyalty and effort for
organizational inducements (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). People form expectations about
costs and benefits and experience whether these expectations are met over time; this will
affect their ongoing motivation at work (Boxal & Purcell, 2008). Expected benefits could be
wages and benefits, intrinsic enjoyment of the job, social relations, social standing, supervisor
support, and growth opportunities; costs could be increased stress, fatigue, replacement, extra
The employer - employee exchange relationship is also connected with the concept of “psychological contract”. Psychological contracts are defined as individuals‟ beliefs or perceptions regarding reciprocal obligations that arise in the course of an employment
relationship (Rousseau, 1990). Employees are inclined to reciprocate the kind of treatment
they receive from management as their relationship unfolds (Whitener, 2001). Favourable
treatment motivates people to act in ways that support the organization (Rhoades &
Eisenberger, 2002). When employees have the experience that they are treated fairly and that
promises are met by management, they have a greater trust in management and greater
commitment and are more inclined to stay in the organisation. Under these circumstances, the
psychological contract is felt as a balanced contract.
Major organizational change may influence employees‟ working reality by not
meeting their expectations, demands and obligations, and may alter their beliefs about their
employment relationship (Guzzo, Nelson, & Noonan, 1994). During organizational change,
social exchange relationships could come under pressure since intense contract breach is then
more common. As a consequence, employees are likely to reassess and renegotiate their terms
of employment (Seis, Janssens, & Van den Brande, 2004). Employees may (subjectively)
perceive more unfair treatment following a merger and as a result this will negatively
influence employees‟ view of the employment relationship (Bellou, 2008).
2.2.2. Perceived Organizational Support and mergers
Perceived Organizational Support (POS) is defined as the opinion that employees form
regarding the extent to which an organization values their contributions and cares about their
well-being, based on their perception of how readily the organization will reward their job
performance and will meet their social and emotional needs (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).
and loyalty to the organization through reduced absenteeism and turnover along with
heightened performance (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).
Since its introduction more than two decades ago, the construct of Perceived
Organizational Support (POS) has been widely studied (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).
Although POS has been associated with various outcome variables, most attention has been
given to its relation with employee turnover decisions (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). POS is
seen as a key predictor of turnover intention (Dawley, Houghton, & Bucklew, 2010).
Furthermore, in a study on postal employees Eisenberger et al. (2001) found that employees
(with a high POS) felt an obligation to the organization to help co-workers and supervisors.
Knowing this norm of reciprocity, many supportive practices are deployed to increase the
connection between employee and employer in order to reduce voluntary turnover; practices
like participation in decision-making, rewards, developmental programmes, promotions, and
increased autonomy (Dawley et al., 2010).
Employees will not perceive their organization as an abstraction. Levinson (1965)
noted that employees tend to see the organization as a living entity, because it has
responsibilities for the actions of its agents, launches policies and norms that provide
continuity and prescribe role behaviour, and exerts power over individual employees through
its agents. So, actions (like rewards) of top managers are mostly regarded by individuals as
organizational actions; not as personal actions (Levinson, 1965). In fact, voluntary rewards
that come directly from the organization are seen as an indication that the organization values
employees‟ well-being (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Moreover, subordinates tend to view
their supervisor as a personal extension or personification of the organisation and its
management (Eisenberger, Huntington, & Sowa, 1986). As a result, employees‟ view of poor
treatment by the organisation as a consequence of a merger will influence their Perceived
employees tend to value and respect their organization and will contribute to the organization‟
goals and the engendered positive feelings will also help to fulfil their social-emotional needs
(Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). As a consequence, employees who perceive a high level of
POS are not inclined to leave the organization soon. But people experiencing a low level of
support will be inclined to leave the organization.
Consistent with the social exchange theory, Wayne, Shore, & Liden (1997) found a
positive relationship between POS and extra-role behaviour of managers. Managers with a
high level of POS were more inclined to help employees who had been sick, to orient new
employees, and to cope with increased workload and new duties (Wayne et al., 1997). In Shanock & Eisenberger‟s study (2006) on retail employees and their supervisors, this “trickle-down” effect is also found.
The post-merger experiences of the employees of the various partner organizations
could vary as a result of differences in the point of departure. The formal arrangements and
psychological contracts between employees and organization of the partner organizations
usually differ and after a merger may be hard to follow up on for various reasons. Post-merger
organizations are less likely to fulfil the promises made by the pre-merger organizations,
because they are poorly informed or because they do not consider the promises important
enough or they are not able to fulfil these expectations (Bellou, 2008). In situations where
merger partners significantly differ in size, this effect could be more pronounced for
employees from the smaller organization than for employees from the larger organization.
This could be a consequence of the potentially greater influence of the larger partner on the
policies of the newly composed organization (Ullrich, Wieseke, & Van Dick, 2005).
As explained before, the balance in the employer-employee relationship becomes
under pressure after a merger. Since, post-merger organizations are more likely to break the
promises made by the pre-merger organizations employees will feel treated unfairly (Bellou,
2008). Consequently, people will experience less organizational support and be more inclined
to leave the organization after a merger. Furthermore, the changes in “psychological
contracts” and employment relationships may differ for people coming from the larger or the smaller organization. Perceived organizational support is related to supervisor support as a
result of the trickle-down effect, and because supervisors are seen as an extension of the
organization.
Hypothesis 1: After a merger, employees’ Perceived Organizational Support is negatively related to turnover intention.
Hypothesis 2: Employees from the smaller merged partner organization will perceive less organizational support than employees from the larger organization.
Hypothesis 3: Perceived Organizational Support and Perceived Supervisor Support are positively related.
2.2.3. Supervisor Support and mergers
Employees perceive support from their supervisor when they receive personal
attention, assistance and advice from their direct supervisor (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006).
The relationship with their supervisor forms an important part of employees‟ work
environment (Van der Heyden, Kummerling, Van Dam, Van der Schoot, Estryn, &
Hasselhorn, 2010). In previous research it was found that some supervisors fall short in
providing support and in devoting attention to their subordinates (Van der Heijden et al.,
In the relationship between supervisors and employees, hierarchical differences play
an important role. Differences are observed, for example, in the distinct positions that
employees and supervisors occupy in an organisation (the employee is more dependent) and
the power of supervisors (within boundaries) to take decisions on the employment status of
individual employees (Boxall & Purcell, 2008). Some resources contributing to a high level of
experienced support are provided indiscriminately to any group of employees, for example,
pay increases and sick leave policies (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). In other, more
individualized treatments, such as informal feedback concerning job performance and the
determination of merit pay, supervisors play an important role (Shanock & Eisenberger,
2006). These last-named treatments show the degree of care and support of the supervisor.
In addition, managers‟ responsiveness to employees‟ suggestions and fair treatment of
employees are important factors in the relationships between supervisors and subordinates.
Wide variations in managers‟ responsiveness and care for the interests of their subordinates are observed in surveys of employees‟ perception of their managers (Georgiades & Purcell, 2007). When employees perceive their supervisor as supportive, they consider him/her to
show concern for their feelings and needs, and believe that the supervisor facilitates their
further development (Peeters, 1994). Also, notions of expectancy and exchange may influence
an employee-supervisor relationship and feelings of support; and consequently, employees‟
intention to stay (Boxall & Purcell, 2008). When employees believe that their effort will be
recognised and rewarded by the supervisor in a desirable way, they experience a sense of
support, and performance will continue. If not, consequently their motivation decreases, effort
becomes less and a greater chance of resignation arises (Boxall and Purcell, 2008).
Taken together, employees‟ experiences with their supervisor colour employees‟ view
on their supervisor and their feelings of receiving support. This seems to go also for
Because supervisors are seen as an extension of the organization, the threatening
consequences of a merger will influence employees‟ opinion about their supervisors. As a result, the perception by employees of the degree of support given by their supervisor will be
low and will increase their turnover intention after a merger.
Hypothesis 4: After a merger, employees’ perception of supervisor support is negatively related to turnover intention.
2.2.4. Colleague Support and mergers
Employees may experience colleague (social) support in their job when they are
enjoying friendship, assistance and advice from their co-workers (Morgeson & Humphrey,
2006). The nature of social relationships in the workplace will influence employees‟ attraction
to the organization and consequently their wish to stay with the current company. Reasons
that people state for remaining with a company include nice colleagues, being part of a team,
recognition of well performed work, and pleasure/enjoyment in the workplace (Kaye &
Jordan-Evans, 1999); these are all items relating to relationships in the workplace. Besides to
the relationships with the direct supervisor, the relationships with co-workers in general
(Social Colleague Support) will influence the feeling of well-being in the workplace
(Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006).
Experiencing social support at work could provide an opportunity to fulfil the
psychological need for relatedness, to feel connected and attached to others (Greguras &
Diefendorff, 2009). Attachment theory tells us that individuals are born with innate
behaviours that function to attract and maintain proximity to attachment figures (supportive
others) who will protect them against psychological or physical threats when individuals are
in distress (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005). The availability and responsiveness of supportive
attachment to others may benefit individuals‟ functioning at work, and will increase levels of
overall work satisfaction (Hazan & Shaver, 1990). In addition, secure attachment is found to
be positively related to physical and psychological well-being in the workplace (Joplin,
Nelson, & Quick, 1999). In supportive work relationships, secure attachment with co-workers
can be developed and will increase satisfaction and the sense of well-being in the workplace.
Because, supportive relationships with co-workers may fulfil the psychological need for
relatedness, attachment and security and this will cause reduced absenteeism and turnover
intention (Tett & Meyer, 1993).
The quality of team relationships and colleagues‟ support is extremely important; especially in demanding work settings (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Receiving colleagues‟
feedback and suggestions make it possible to cope with demanding work settings (Van der
Heyden et al., 2010). In the same way, changes resulting from a merger could create
demanding work situations and feelings of stress; support of colleagues could help to cope
with these demands and stress. Moreover, social support is an effective resource for helping
people to cope with stress, and promoting their well-being (Kaufmann & Beer, 1986).
Consequently, when employees feel connected to and supported by their team and their
co-workers, turnover intention will be reduced (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007).
However, in situations of organizational change, the relationships with colleagues may
alter and may increase turnover intention (Armstrong-Stassen & Cameron, 2003). Some
evidence is found that organizational structural change may have a negative effect on
co-worker relationships (Blythe, Baumann & Giovannetti, 2001.
Due to the effects of a merger the level of perceived support of colleagues can be both
low or high and lead to a high or low level of turnover intention.
Taken together, the expected relationships lead to the following conceptual model.
Figure 2. Proposed relationships
3. METHOD
3.1. Organization and procedure research
A survey has been executed in a large merged educational organization in the
Netherlands with around 800 employees, 11000 students and educational centers in 5 cities.
They offer several bachelors, associate degrees and master education programs. As mergers
sometimes sweep through whole industries (Eriksson & Sundgren, 2005), in the same way
this occurred in the Dutch educational sector. The last ten years many merges and acquisitions
have taken place in this sector; resulting in large organizations (2000 employees and more).
The two partners of the targeted organization were in 2007 relative small and sought
cooperation with each other to survive in a growing competitive market of the Higher
Education sector. Each partner operated in her own region and was supplementary to the other
in region and in education program. Many reasons for merging came forward. The board states in 2007‟ Year Rapport that both organizations are well-matched in respect to mentality and culture. They expected that the combination of power, ambition, energy, and resources
would lead to an excellent university where the human factor and a variation of inspirational
sources (Christian and humanism) are important for all organizational members. The main
reason for merging was survival and growth, because of the strong competition of other
(large) universities. They felt the necessity of scale enlargement and offering a choice of
many higher vocational education programs. They expected that scale enlargement would
make it possible to grow and to invest in professional training of staff in order to assure and
improve the offered quality.
The amalgamation process was structured in various steps. The first step involved
discussions on board and management level (2007), following with a board merger (2008).
Then, the cooperation and integration of staff departments was elaborated on (2009 and
organizational units (“schools”) across the several educational places and merging-partners
(since 2010). During the survey, the integration of staff units was almost completed and the
creation of new schools was started. This last step of the integration process will continue the
coming years.
The researcher approached the HRM-department of this organisation to ask for their
cooperation to spread the survey among the employees; they agreed to the proposal. The
research procedure started with an e-mail message; send to all employees, explaining the
purpose and content of the research. 10 days later, all members of the organization received
an e-mail invitation to contribute to this research with a link to the digital survey. Questions
about the survey could be sending to the senior HRM and to the researcher. The survey
composed statements on organizational support, colleague support, supervisor support,
perceived chance to find another comparable job, merger effects and turnover intention.
Additionally, some questions were asked about their year of birth, entrance in the
organization, function, supervisor and gender. Because the native language of the respondents
is Dutch, the survey was offered in the Dutch language. Full confidentiality was assured; this
was very important because of the sensitive nature of the questions. 9 days later, a second
message is send to remember people to contribute to the survey; about one third of the
respondents responded on the second message by sending their answers on the survey. The
total reply period was 15 days. 323 employees participated in this research by answering the
digital questionnaire. The response rate was 39 %.
27 persons have not mentioned their gender, year of birth, and other personal
characteristics; probably due to the sensitive nature of the questions. The other respondents
showed the following characteristics. The gender distribution of the respondents was 48 %
male and 52 % women. The age of the respondents varied between 24 and 65 years. The
distribution was as follows: 56 % of the participants had a teaching function, 35 % a
supportive function and 9 % a management function. When we compare these figures with
figures of the total population we have found in the latest Year Report, the respondents reflect
the total population in a very similar way (71 % of the employees are 40 years or older; the
male / women distribution is 47 / 53, and 49 % of the employees fulfil a teaching function in
the total population).
33 % of the respondents worked in the current workplace (department) for three or less
years; 37 % worked for 4 till 10 years in this place and 30 % worked for 10 till 35 years in
this place. For one year, 33% worked with the current supervisor; 66% worked with the
current supervisor for 0 till 3 years; 24 % worked with the current supervisor during 4 till 33
years. 20 % of the respondents have worked three years or shorter with this organization and
her predecessors. We may conclude that, since the merger most respondents work with a new
supervisor. 80% of the employees has worked with one of the partner organizations and has as
a consequence fully experienced the change processes by merging.
3.2. Measurements
The measurement items relating to the three Perceived Support variables and Turnover
Intention variable were based on validated scales, as explained later. All items are measured
by a five-point Likert Scale; the answers varied from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree
(5) with the statement.
Organizational Support is measured by an eight-item scale. The scale followed the recommendation of Rhoades & Eisenberger (2002) to use a shorter version of the original
more extended scale of Eisenberger et al (1986); the original scale was uni-dimensional with a
high internal reliability. Dawley et al (2010) used the shorter 8-items scale in their research
factor analysis of the study of Eisenberger, Huntington, & Sowa (1986). The items balance
positive and negative worded items. Sample items are for example: “This organization values
my contribution to its well-being“ and “This organization will ignore any complaint from me”
(Dawley et al., 2010). Cronbach‟s alpha of the 8 items in this study was .90.
Supervisor Support is measured with four items. Three items of the “Perceived Supervisor Support scale” from Eisenberger et al. (1986) were included: “I am very satisfied
with my supervisor”, “My supervisor cares about my welfare”, “I like working with my
supervisor”. These items were also used by Dawley et al. (2010) with α = .94. Also an item on
supervisors‟ concern from the Social Support scale in the Work Design Questionnaire of
Morgeson & Humphrey (2006) is included: “My supervisor is concerned about the well-being
of people working for him/her”. In this study, Cronbach‟s alpha of these 4 items was .96.
Colleague Support was measured by five items from the 6-item Social Support scale in the Work Design Questionnaire of Morgeson & Humphrey (2006). The 6th item is
included in the measurement of Supervisor Support. The statements were about friendship,
knowing other people, meeting people, friendly conduct of colleagues, and personal interest. Cronbach‟s alpha value in this research was .80.
Turnover Intention is measured by the 3-item scale of Laufer & Kristof (2001) with the items: “I would prefer another job to the one I have now”; “If I have my way, I won‟t be working with this company a year from now”, and “I have seriously thought about leaving this company”. One item of Mc Knights scale (Mc Knight, Brandis, Phillips, & Hardgrave, 2009) is added to this scale: “I will be with this company 5 years from now”. Cronbach‟s
alpha was .81 for this variable.
Merger Effects measures the effects from the merger on retain intentions with 1 item, as stated in question 1. A direct connection between the changes induced by the merge and
the merger, made me gladly to stay here”. In an opposite way, this measurement may be
conceived as an extra indicator of turnover intention. Because of the composed character
(merger and stay intention) this instrument is not incorporated in the variable Turnover
Intention.
Two control variables were used in order to reduce the possibility of unmeasured influence biasing the results. I controlled with “the perceived chance to find another
comparable job”. This variable is measured with one item: “When I leave my current job, I
expect to find easily a job as good as the current one”. This control variable is inserted
because people who do not expect to find a comparable job are likely to realize a low score on
turnover intention. Especially older people are found to be less confident about finding
another job, and literature on job loss suggests that older people have less opportunity to find
re-employment quickly and will suffer a loss in quality of replacement jobs (Feldman et al.,
2002). Note that 71% of the respondents are 40 years or older. The second control variable is
gender. This control variable is used in many studies (e.g. Tafferty & Restubog, 2010).
The reliability of the scales was tested by calculating Cronbach„s alpha; all items were
tested. The three Support variables and Turnover Intention have acceptable reliability levels, α
value from .80 till .96. The variables were satisfactory, exceeding the threshold value of .70
suggested by Nunnally & Bernstein (1994).
Factor analysis is conducted to identify under laying variables that explain patterns of
correlations among the items of the three support variables. Factor analysis (Principal
Component Analysis) with varimax rotation yielded three factors corresponding with the
three support variables. Factor 1 came up with the items relating to Perceived Organizational
Support. Factor 2 showed the items used to measure Perceived Supervisor Support, and
the items of PSS, POS, and PCS show distinct patterns of loading and form sufficient
measurement instruments for these variables.
3.3. Analysis
Descriptive analyses and regression analysis were conducted to test the hypotheses.
First the Frequencies of Perceived Support are computed to picture the degree of Perceived
Support in this organization. It follows with a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test
potential differences in employees working with various preceding employers on Perceived
Support and Turnover Intention (hypothesis 2). The conditions of ANOVA that the division
variable (preceding employer) is measured on nominal level and the test variable is tested on
ratio level are met (Baarda, De Goede & Van Dijkum, 2003). Another important condition
using ANOVA is that the populations in the test should have equal variances (Cooper &
Schindler, 2008). For this reason, a Levine‟s test and Bonferroni- test are conducted to detect
significant differences between the groups of employees descending from various preceding
employment organizations.
To explore the relationships between the variables of the model, a Pearson correlation
analysis is conducted; this is an appropriate technique for continuous linearly related variables
which are measured on ratio level (Cooper & Schindler, 2008).
Regression analyses follows. Linear regression analysis may establish causal relations
between dependent and independent variables (Cooper & Schindler, 2008). Linear regression
analysis is used here to test the proposed hypotheses (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). For that
purpose Turnover Intention is regressed on Colleague Support, Supervisor Support,
Organizational Support, and Merger Effects. To eliminate the potential influence of control
variables (Gender and Perceived Job Chance) Turnover Intention is also regressed on these
4. RESULTS
The main question of this study is on the effects of perceived support of employees
(PSS, POS, and PCS) to turnover intention after a merger and on potential differences
between employees coming form various predecessors. The following hypotheses are stated.
- 1: After a merger, employees‟ perceived organizational support is negatively related to
turnover intention.
- 2: Employees from the smaller merged partner organization will perceive less organizational
support than employees from the larger organization.
- 3: Perceived organizational support and perceived supervisor support are positively related.
- 4: After a merger, employees‟ perception of supervisor support is negatively related to
turnover intention.
- 5: After a merger, employees‟ perception of colleague support is negatively related to
turnover intention.
First, the outcome of the degrees of perceived support of all respondents and the
predecessor groups are pictured. It follows with the relationships between the variables of the
conceptual model induced by correlation and regression analyses.
4.1. Perceived support employees
In order to show the degree of Perceived Support the frequencies of respondents‟
answers to the statements in the questionnaire are computed per variable and listed in table 1.
This gives more information, than just reporting the mean and standard deviation of the
Table 1. Frequencies Perceived Support
Organizational Support
Supervisor Support Colleague Support
Strongly disagree 11 14 6
Largely disagree 64 30 35
Partly disagree and Partly agree 101 96 148 Largely agree 86 95 142 Strongly agree 22 66 77 % agree 35 % 51 % 68 % N 310 315 321 Missing 11 6 0
To show the differences in experienced support by the organization, supervisor and
colleague more clearly, the answers “largely agree” and “strongly agree” are taken together
and divided on the amount of given answers. This makes clear that 35 % of the respondents
largely or strongly agree on perceiving Organizational Support (POS); still 51 % perceive
Supervisor Support (PSS) and 68 % perceive Colleague Support (PCS). The other employees
only partly agree or disagree with the statements or disagree. Notice that the missing answers
are the highest on Organizational Support. We may conclude, that the respondents clearly
vary in the experienced degree of types of support and that colleague‟ support is mostly
perceived, followed by supervisor‟ support.
Within the merger partners, employees could have different feelings about the
perceived support and turnover intention (Bellou, 2008). In order to test potential differences
in groups of employees working with preceding employers a One-way Analysis of Variance
Table 2. Descriptives Perceived Support per Former Organization N Mean SD POS - Org. C - Org. D - Other org - Not mentioned - Total 174 64 30 27 295 3.19 .66 2.95 .83 3.48 .73 3.43 .84 3.19 .74 PSS - Org. C - Org. D - Other org - Not mentioned - Total PCS - Org. C - Org. D - Other org - Not mentioned - Total Turnover Intention - Org. C - Org. D - Other org - Not mentioned - Total 174 64 30 27 295 174 64 30 27 295 174 64 30 27 295 3.67 .98 3.37 .93 3.71 .87 3.78 1.08 3.62 .97 3.93 .54 3.84 .58 3.87 .54 3.96 .70 3.91 .56 2.71 .90 2.77 1.01 2.57 1.07 2.40 1.11 2.68 .96
When we observe this table, we establish that the perceived Organizational Support is
the highest for people coming from “other” organizations (mean = 3.5 versus 3.2 and 3.0);
this is also true for Supervisor Support (3.71 versus 3.67 and 3.37). On Colleague Support
respondents of organization C show the highest degree (3.93), followed with respondents
coming from “other” organizations (3.87) and organization D (3.84). When we compare the
outcome from employees with the larger organization (C) to the smaller organization (D), we
observe that the (mean of) feelings of support are a little higher among people from the larger
organization in comparison with the smaller organization; this is true for all kinds of support:
Organizational Support. The “95 % confidence intervals from the means” show mostly the
same pattern; the scores for people from organization D are the lowest in comparison with the
other groups; except for Colleague Support (“other” organizations score lower).
In order to answer question 1 about intended turnover after a merger, we notice that
the mean of the degree of Turn Intention is for the whole organization 2.68. This means that
most employees partly agree or disagree (Quote 3) or largely disagree (Quote 2) with
statements about experiencing an intention to leave. The standard deviation is relatively large
(.96); this indicates that the answers largely vary and that most answers lay between 1.74 and
3.64. We observe also some variation in answers of employees from the former organizations:
People from “other” organizations have the lowest Turnover Intention (2.57 versus 2.71 and
2.77) and people of the smaller organization (D) experience the highest degree of turnover
intention.
Levene‟s test for equality of variances shows, that the variances of the respondents‟
predeceasing organizations are between .83 and 2.00 and significance between .11 and .47.
This means that the variances are small (significance > .05); so no significant variances are
established between the “group” populations and in this ways the condition for using
ANOVA analysis is met (Cooper & Schindler, 2008).
In order to further test on significant variance between the groups of employees (per
predecessor) an ANOVA test is executed. The F-values should be larger than the critical
value (here: 2.60) to conclude on statistically significant differences between the groups of
employees (Cooper & Schindler, 2008); this becomes only true for POS (F = 4.87). The
ANOVA table shows only significant variation for Organizational Support (p = .003). The
values for PSS are F = 1.9 ( p = .13); almost meeting the condition for establishing
significant differences. In addition, a Bonferroni test (p < .05) is used to test the Homogeneity
When we sum up the outcome, we conclude that 35 % employees “largely agree” and “strongly agree” to experience Organizational Support, 51% agree on Supervisor Support, and 68% agree on Colleague Support. Employees descending from the smaller organisation D, say
to experience less support, than employees descending from the larger organization C. The
variation in answers from employees from predecessors of the current organization or from “other” organizations is noticeable, but only significant (95%) for Organizational Support. The last founding supports hypothesis 2: Employees descending from the smaller merged
partner organization will perceive less organizational support than employees from the larger
organization.
4.2. Correlation between variables
The outcome of the descriptive statistics analysis reflects several interesting findings.
Table 3 shows the means, standard deviations, correlations and scale reliability from all
variables.
TABLE 3. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Gender - - 2. Job Chance 3.06 1.10 -.02 - 3. Organizational Support 3.18 .73 -.08 .07 - 4. Supervisor Support 3.60 .99 .04 .09 .55** - 5. Colleague Support 3.90 .57 .03 .00 .42** .48** - 6. Merger Effects 3.26 .96 .07 .17** .42** .31** .21** - 7. Turnover Intention 2.69 .94 .00 .02 -.46** -.41** -.38** -.29** - ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level ( 2-tailed)
The control variable Gender is not a significant predictor of the other variables ( .02
till .08). The mean of gender is not described, because we have never seen the mean of man
and woman (nominal scale). The second control variable “Job Chance” shows only a
inverse relation from r = - .46 (p < .01) is found between Organizational Support and
Turnover Intention. The relations between Supervisor Support and Colleague Support and
Turnover Intention show inverse relations of respectively r = -.41 and r = -.38 (p < .01).
Hypotheses 1, 4, and 5 about the relation between Organizational Support, Supervisor
Support and Colleague Support and Turnover Intention are significant confirmed by this test.
In addition, a relation between Organizational Support and Supervisor Support is confirmed (r
= .55, p < .01); as a result, hypothesis 3 is confirmed. Moreover, a significant relationship is
found between Organizational Support and Colleague Support (r = .42, p < .01) and
Supervisor Support and Colleague Support (r = .48, p < 01); no hypotheses were stated on
these relationships.
The table shows a correlation between the “effects of the merger” and turnover
intention (r = -.29, p < .01); however it is an inverse relation. This means that the effects of
the merge that make people stay with the company is negatively related to turnover intention.
The Effects of a Merger shows a mean of 3.26 and standard deviation of .96; this means that
the most employees partly agree (or disagree) and some largely agree with the statement. As a
result, on question 2, about the changes induced by a merger that make people intended to
stay, is answered that most people partly agree or disagree. The analysis also indicates that
Merger Effect is significantly related with respectively Organizational Support, Supervisor
Support, and Colleague Support (resp. r = .42, r = .32, and r =.21; p < .01).
In order to analyze the impact of the control variables and the variable Merger Effects
to employees coming from various (groups of) former employers, we perform the same tests
as in the former paragraph. Levene‟s test for equality of variances shows that the variances of
the organizational groups do not differ significant at .05 level. An ANOVA test shows that
significant differences are noted for the control variable Job Chance (p = .043) and Merger
Taken together, the results of the correlation analysis shows conformation for the
relationships as stated in hypotheses 1, 3, and 5; more relationships are found as predicted.
4.3. Predictors for Turnover Intention
Table 4 shows the values found through linear regression analysis testing the stated
hypotheses on Turnover Intention.
Table 4. Linear Regression Analysis Predictors Turnover Intention Variables Turnover Intention ß p 1. Z. Gender .01 .90 2. Z. Job Chance .06 .24 3. Z. Organizational Support -.29*** .000 4. Z. Supervisor Support -.09 .15 5. Z. Colleague Support -.21*** .000 6. Z. Merger Effects -.10 .07 R ² .29*** ∆ R ² .29*** Adjusted R ² .28***
*** Significance at 0.001 level ( 2-tailed)
. The control variables (Gender, Job Chance) and Turnover Intention show
respectively ß = .01 (p =.90) and ß = .06 (p =.24), so no significant relations with Turnover
Intention are established. The outcome on Organizational Support (ß = .28, p <.001) show that
this variable is a significant predictor for Turnover Intention; hypothesis 1 is confirmed. No
significant relation (p = .15) is established between Supervisor Support and Turnover
Intention; as a result, hypothesis 4 is not confirmed. Colleague Support is also a significant
predictor for Turnover Intention (ß = .21, p < .001); this outcome supports hypothesis 5. The
regression on Merger Effects gives ß = -.10 (p = .07); this means that no significance
relationship with Turnover Intention is found. (However, 93% significance is close to 95%).
Taken together, 29% from the variance of Turnover Intention is explained by this model ( p <
Further information about the proposed relationships becomes visible by Stepwise
regression analysis; two steps ate initiated. The first step analyses the relationship between the
control variables and Turnover intention.
Table 5. Stepwise Regression Analysis Predictors Turnover Intention Variables Turnover Intention ß Sign Model 1 1. Z. Gender .02 .79 2. Z. Job Chance .07 .22 Model 2 1. Z. Gender .01 .87 2. Z. Job Chance .06 .23 3. Z. Organizational Support -.29*** .000 4. Z. Supervisor Support -.09 .15 5. Z. Colleague Support -.22*** .000 6. Z. Merger Effects -.09 .10
*** Significance at 0.001 level ( 2-tailed)
No significant relationships (p = . 79 and p = . 22) are found for the control variables.
In the second step, the variables Perceived Organizational Support, Perceived Supervisor
Support, Perceived Colleague Support, and Merger Effects are inserted. The outcome show
significant relationships between POS and Turnover Intention (ß = -.29, p < .001), and PCS
and Turnover Intention (ß = -.22, p < .001). In contrast, no significant relationship is
established for PSS (ß = -.09, p = .15) and Merger Effect (ß = -.09, p = .10).
Because of the surprising outcome on Perceived Supervisor Support, extra stepwise
regression analyses are conducted. The first step tests the relationship between PSS and
Turnover Intention. The variable Perceived Organizational Support is added in the second
step. In the third step, Perceived Colleague Support is added. The last step contains POS and
PCS. Table 6 shows the outcome.
Table 6. Stepwise Regression Analysis: PSS, POS, and PCS - Turnover Intention Variables Turnover Intention
Model 2 1. Z. Supervisor Support -.18 .004 2. Z. Organizational Support -.37 .000 Model 3 1. Z. Supervisor Support -.09 .11 2. Z. Organizational Support -.32 .000 3. Z. Colleague Support -.22 .000 Model 4 1. Z. Organizational Support -.37 .000 2. Z. Colleague Support -.25 .000
The outcome confirm a significant relationship between Perceived Supervisor Support
and Turnover Intention in Model 1 (ß = -.39, p < .001) and in Model 2 (ß = -.18, p = .004). In
the third model the significant relationship between PSS and Turnover Intention disappears (ß
= .10, p = .11). Model 4 shows the relationship of POS (ß = .37, p < .001), and PCS (ß =
-.39, p < .001) with Turnover Intention. When, PCS is inserted in Model 2 instead of POS, the
outcome show significant relationships for both PSS (ß = -.25, p < .001) and PCS (ß = -.29, p
< .001) with Turnover Intention. The results of the analysis may suggest a mediated
relationship between PSS and Turnover Intention through PCS and POS (Baron & Kenny,
1986). Baron& Kenny (1986) stated four conditions to establish a mediator. The first model
showed a significant relationship between PSS and Turnover Intention (condition 1).
Additionally, the relations between PSS and the 2 other support variables are explored with
linear regression analysis. Regression analysis indicates that Supervisor Support is a
significant (p < .001) predictor for Organizational Support (ß = .55), and Colleague Support
(ß = .48), as a result condition 2 of Baron & Kenny is met. Model 4 established a significant
relationship between POS, and PCS with Turnover Intention (condition 3). Model 3 shows no
significant relationship for PSS (condition 4). As a result, all conditions stated by Baron &
mediate the relationship between PSS and Turnover Intention. Conducting additional analyses
is needed to confirm this outcome.
Regression analysis indicates that Perceived Organizational Support has a significant
relationship (ß = .43, p < .001) with Perceived Supervisor Support, this finding confirms
hypothesis 3 about the relationship between Perceived Organizational Support and Perceived
Supervisor Support.
The outcome of all regression analyses are pictured in Figure 3. The outcome on the
mediated relationships should be treated with caution, more analyses are necessary to confirm
these relationships!
Figure 3. Outcome regression analyses in merger context
4.4. Results
When we sum up the results of the performed analyses, we conclude on finding
support for most hypotheses, except hypothesis 4. Hypothesis 4 (Employees‟ perception of
regression analysis shows no direct significant relationship, although the correlation analysis
shows a significant inverse relationship (r = -.41, p < .01). Surprisingly, Perceived Colleague
Support and Perceived Organizational Support seem to mediate the relationship between
Perceived Supervisor Support and Turnover Intention; then PSS could have an indirect
relationship with Turnover Intention. Besides, POS and PCS are significant (p <.001)
5. DISCUSSION
5.1. Discussion of the results
The purpose of this study was to examen the role of a change context as an influence on employees‟ reactions to a merger and employees‟ perceived feelings of support by the organization, supervisor and co-workers and their intention to leave the current company. The
relation between Organizational Support and Turnover Intention is convincingly supported by
the outcome of the regression analysis (ß = -.29, p < .001) and correlation analysis (r = -.46, p
< .01). In this way, about this relationship hypothesis 1 is confirmed.
The variation in answers on perceived support from employees from predecessors of
the current organization or from “other” organizations is noticeable, but this is only
significant (95%) for Organizational Support; as a result, hypothesis 2 about employees from
the smaller organization experiencing less organizational support is confirmed.
Hypothesis 3 on the relationship between Organizational Support and Supervisor
Support is confirmed by the correlation test (r =.55, p < .01) and regression analysis (ß =.43, p
< .001); this is in harmony with the notion that supervisors are considered as an extension of
the organization and top-management.
The outcome on the inverse relation between Supervisor Support and Turnover
Intention (hypothesis 4) showed surprising results. Pearson‟s‟ Correlation analysis showed a
significant relation (r = -.41, p < .01), but the Linear Regression Analysis did not result in a
significant relation (ß = -.09, p = .15). POS and PCS seem to mediate the relationship with
Turnover Intention.
Convincingly support is found for the relation between Perceived Colleague Support
and Turnover Intention (hypothesis 5), both in the correlation test (r = .38, p < .01) and in the
When we take the confirmed relationships by regression analysis together, this
research model explained 29% of the variance of Turnover Intention (p < .001).
5.1.1. Perceived Organizational Support
This research indicates that 35 % of the respondents largely or strongly agree with the
statements about perceived organizational support; the other respondents do not perceive
organizational support or partly perceive this kind of support. The degree of Perceived
Organizational Support is not very high in this organization. This low degree of experienced
Organizational Support is in line with observations from other researchers in respect to
organizational change as a merger. For example, (psychological) contract breach which leads
to a low level of Perceived Organizational Support is more common and intense during
organizational change (Seis, Janssens, & Van den Brande, 2004); contract breach results in
un-balance in the social exchange relationship between employees and employers.
Consequently, employee‟s belief in a mutually beneficial employment relationship may
reduce (Turnley & Feldman, 1999) and the perception of organizational support will also be
reduced. This all together motivates people to search for jobs outside the company. Mergers
are also associated with considerable disruption and negative consequences for employees
and organizations (Rafferty & Restubog, 2010); employees may experience increased job
insecurity and uncertainty, and feelings of threat and reduced control (Sweiger & DeNisi,
1991). These effects of a merger will lower the feelings of organizational support of the
employees. In line with these findings, in this study the relation between Organizational
Support and Turnover Intention is convincingly supported by the outcome of the regression
analysis (ß = -.29, p < .001) and correlation analysis (r = -.46, p < .01).
Focusing on the decisional aspect of voluntary turnover some emphasis is laid on the
Wilkinson, 2004). Such an event ”shocks” employees and shakes employees from their
lethargies and plays an substantial role in precipitating thoughts of quitting (Lee & Mitchell,
1991). Examples, of shocks for employees due to organizational change, are changes in work
method, replacements, changing positions, changing working hours, staying late (Morrell et
al., 2004). All these kind of shocks are conceivable in situations like a merger. In a study
among National Health Service 44.3 % of the nurses reported that a single particular event
had caused them to first think about leaving and that most of the shocks mainly influenced
them to leave actually (Morrell et al., 2004). From the researched organization in this study
came forward that most employees (66%) got a new supervisor, it is imaginable that such a
change could be perceived as a shock to them and made them think about leaving. The effect
of shocks, induced by decisions made in a merger, may prompt employees to think about
leaving and make them want to leave.
In addition, supervisors them self are also employees and perceive a certain degree of
organizational support. Tepper & Taylor (2003) argue that supervisors who perceived that
they are treated fairly by the organization could reciprocate by treating their subordinates more favourable. They found that subordinates‟ ratings of extra-role behaviour (help with difficult assignments and skill building, and showing respect) of their supervisors were positively related to supervisors‟ perception of fair treatment by the organization (Tepper & Taylor, 2003). By aiding subordinates in better fulfilling their tasks, supervisors with a high
POS could repay the organization by helping the organization to meet their objectives
(Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006).
We have noticed that the Perceived Organizational Support significantly varies in
regard to the predecessor organizations of the employees. People coming form other
organizations than the merger partners experience the highest degree of POS. An explanation
failing to fulfil the promises given by the pre-merger organizations and are not able to fulfil
these expectations (Bellou, 2008). Employees coming from other organizations have only to
deal with promises from the new merged organization and are not disturbed with promises
from their former exployer. This study also indicates that employees coming from the smaller
merger partner experience less support than people coming from the larger organization. This
is in line with observations that on the smaller merger partner employees are more likely to
experience decreased adjustement to the merger over time and react more negatelively than
employees working for the larger (high-status) merger partner (Terry, Carey, & Callan, 2001).
Subordinates tend to view their supervisor as a personal extension or personification of
the organisation and management (Eisenberger, Huntington, & Sowa, 1986). When
organizational change results in threathening consequences for organizational members, not
all employees will hold a positive view of their treatment by the organisation.
5.1.2. Perceived Supervisor Support
The outcome of this study shows that 51 % of the respondents perceive Supervisor
Support; they largely and strongly agree with the statements about PSS. This result does
correspond with the outcome of Van der Heijden et al. (2001) that some supervisors fall short
in providing support and in devoting attention to their subordinates.
The results on the inverse relation between Supervisor Support and Turnover Intention
(hypothesis 3) showed mixed results. Pearson‟s Correlation analysis showed a significant
relation (r = -.41 en p < .01), but the Linear Regression Analysis showed no significant
relation (ß = -.09, p = .15). We proposed on basis of the expectancy theory that employees
who feel valued and respected by their supervisor are likely to reciprocate with trust, loyalty
and attachment and are inclined to reduce their turnover intention (Boxall & Purcell, 2008).
The results of the linear regression analysis did not support this proposition. I can only
workers feel that (implicit) promises and obligations are not fulfilled by their managers
(Coyle & Kessler, 2002) and people are inclined to leave the company, would support the
relation found by correlation analyses. On the other hand, longitudinal studies have shown
that over time workers‟ commitment to the current organization weakens rather than
strengthens; may be the idea of working with a new supervisor (66 % of the respondents) and
a new organization inspire people to stay and has an opposite effect on turnover intention.
These two contradicting effects could cancel each other out and could be responsible for the
mixed results of the regression analysis.
Surprisingly, the stepwise regression analysis indicated an indirect relation through
Perceived Organizational and Colleague Support with Turnover Intention. Findings of other
researchers indicating the strong influence of Organizational Support to Supervisor Support
and the trickle-down effect (Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006) confirm this relationship. We may
also notice that most decisions from top-management reaches the employees by messages
from their supervisor and so supervisors are considered as part of the top and the “organization” in employees‟ eyes. Because of the indirect effect on Turnover Intention through Colleague Support, we may also assume a “trickle up effect”: supportive employees
may also support their supervisor. In addition, some supervisors have close relationships with
their employees and are seen as colleague. Nonetheless, an additional linear regression
analysis on Supervisor Support indicated a significant relation with perceived Organizational
Support (ß = .43, p <.001) and Perceived Colleague Support (ß = .30, p < .001).
5.1.3. Perceived Colleague Support
68% of the respondents states in this study, to experience Colleague Support and only
41 persons (13%) disagree with the statements on PCS. This represents relatively the highest
organizations. Employees coming from the smallest merger partner score a little bit lower on
Perceived Support than employees coming from the larger organization and “other”
organizations (3.93 – 3.84 – 3.87); no significant variation is established.
Convincingly support is found for the relation between Perceived Colleague Support
and Turnover Intention (hypothesis 5), both in the correlation test (r = .38, p < .01) and in the
regression analysis (ß = -.21, p < .001). Employees, who experience a high amount of social
support, will see the workplace as a providing environment with ample opportunities for
learning, and perceiving supportive, caring and helpful colleague (Van der Heyden et al.,
2010). Intentions to stay are reinforced by perceptions of belonging to a team, and of care and
support among colleagues. Team relationships will be enhanced when individuals perceive common interests and a sense of “us” (Ng & Butts, 2009). Opportunities for meeting people and developing relationships form a necessary provision in the job design for developing
social support (Sims, Szilagyi, & Keller, 1976). On the other hand, when employees are not
committed to their work group, distress can be expected; this could lead to performance
problems and escapism (Fornes et al., 2008). More research has showed that affective team
commitment has a direct negative effect on the intention to turnover (Bentein, Vandenberg,
Vandenberghe, & Stinglhamber, 2005).
The relationship between Perceived Colleague Support and Turnover Intention is also
observed in a study from three hospitals in Ontario (Canada). However, here the employees
perceive little support from there colleagues; hospital organizational structural change led to
fragmentation of relationships (Blythe et al., 2001). In interviews, nurses spoke of
increasingly distant relations with colleague, declining control of with whom they worked,
changes in team composition and in the way team members interacted (Blythe et al, 2001).
al., 2001). It could be that because in this Dutch organization the jobs are not on stake that the
competitiveness is not so hard and the employees are more supportive to each other.
5.1.4. Additional reasons for retaining or turnover
29% from the variance of Turnover Intention is explained by this research model (p
<.001). Because the largest amount of Turnover intention is not explained by the research
model, it is interesting to know what other reasons make people stay or leave the organization
in our study. In order to know the impact of additional reasons quoted in many other studies
(e.g. Thunissen, 2005), the following questions are asked and 13 items are stated. ”Which of
the following reasons might make you want to stay with / leave the organization?” The choice
per item was: yes or no. 332 people answered the questions. The outcome are showed in the
Appendix.
The most pronounced reasons to stay with the company are content of the job (90%),
contact with students (81%), importance of their own work (78%), and relationship with colleague‟s (75). The most stated reasons to leave are content of the job (50%),
developmental opportunities (46%), support supervisor (44%), and career prospects (42%).
The relationship with colleague is for 31% a reason to leave. Here effects of the merger ends
on place 13 (11%) in respect with reasons to stay and on place 7 (31%) with reasons to leave.
We notice that content of the job and relationships with colleague show two sides: both a
reason to stay as to leave.
5.2. Limitations
When we want to interpret the results of this study, it is important to take in
consideration the limitations of this research. First, all data are resembled in one organization
