According to research purposes, this section would describe factors affecting retention intention. Also, the definitions and relevant literatures of job satisfaction and retention intention were clarified separately. In addition, the relationship between each dimension of job satisfaction and retention intention, and the interaction effect of demographic variables between job satisfaction and retention intention were reviewed as well.
Retention Intention
In this section, factors affecting retention intention, the definition and instrument of retention intention were described.
Factors Affecting Retention Intention
The concept of retention could be viewed as logical inverse of turnover (Hausknecht, Rodda, & Howard, 2009). Although the reason causing employees to stay was not completely the same as to leave (Flowers & Hughes, 1973; Steel, 2002), some overlapped reasons still existed. Through reviewing qualitative and quantitative researches, various scholars focusing on different industries indicated that numerous factors would influence intention to retain or resign (see table 2.1). Several industries include academia (Choong, Keh, Tan, & Tan, 2013;
Hundera, 2014; Ng’ethe, Iravo, & Namusonge, 2012), aviation (Baloch, Zaman, & Jamshed, 2014; Gultekin, Abdan, & Kilic, 2012; Mokaya & Kittony, 2008), construction (Huang, Lin,
& Chuang, 2006), finance (Enu-Kwesi, Koomson, Segbenya, & Annan-Prah, 2014; Salman, Nawaz, & Matin, 2014), hospitality (Arshad & Puteh, 2015; Emiroğlu, Akova, & Tanrıverdi, 2015; Hausknecht et al., 2009; Khan & Aleem, 2014; Ronra & Chaisawat, 2011), manufacture (Patgar & Vijayakumar, 2015) and technology (Cave, Chung, & Choi, 2013; Liang, 2013;
Sinha & Sinha, 2012; Stanz, 2009).
Table 2.1.
Factors Affecting Retention/Turnover Intention
Industry Factors Authors
Academia
Age, gender, marital Status Choong et al.
(2013) Overall job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, role conflict Hundera (2014)
Autonomy, distributive justice, leadership, promotional opportunities, salary, training and development, recognition, work environment
Ng’ethe et al.
(2012)
Aviation
Co-workers, extended flight hours, family work conflict, pay, promotion, supervision
Baloch et al.
(2014) Benefit, decreased chances for advanced
education, family, inadequate career counseling, inflexible assignment, not enough chances for further specialization, overall career dissatisfaction, unattractiveness of duties, pay, promotion policies, retirement uncertainties
Gultekin et al.
(2012)
Competition and poaching, industry dynamics, leadership, non-responsive management, employee status, marriage, promotion speed, wage effects
Huang et al. (2006)
Finance
Employees motivation Salman et al.
(2014) Egocentric reasons, growth and development
opportunities, kob satisfaction Stanz (2009) Hospitality
Age, education, gender, marital status, position, tenure, wage, working department
Attitude towards job, attitude towards company, employee retention importance, service conditions, trade union, working conditions, welfare measures, wage and salary administration, worker's participation in management
organizational commitment, payment Cave et al. (2013) Employee motivation, organizational culture,
work-life balance Liang (2013)
As table 2.1, it shows that a variety of factors would impact on intention to leave or stay.
As for several duplicate factors, some of the factors are demographic-related (gender, age and marital status), others are self-perception oriented (organizational commitment, nature of work,
pay/salary, promotion, job satisfaction, work-life balance and employee motivation). Among above factors, since job satisfaction could be measured by different facets (Vroom, 1964) and was deemed to be the predictor or indicator of turnover intention for younger workers (Medina, 2012) or retention (Mitchell & Albright, 1972), it can infer that job satisfaction is a crucial factor to affect retention intention.
Definition of Retention Intention
As for the definition of retention intention, it was a positive perspective to observe employees’ maintenance possibility and willingness in organizations (Tett & Meyer, 1993), and regarded as an opposite notion of turnover intention (Black & Stevens, 1989; Johnston, 1995).
In general, retention intention was considered as a degree of staying in the same organization after cautious self-evaluation (Tett & Meyer, 1993; Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, Warren, & de Chermont, 2003). Arnold and Feldman (1982) asserted that retention intention was a tendency of remaining in current organization due to obtaining a sense of belonging and positive affirmation towards job and organization after joining in the organization. If focusing the definition on aviation industry, retention intention was looked upon as an attitude and behavioral tendency for airline employees to stay in the current company (Huang, 2008).
To integrate and merge previous definition, retention intention was defined as a degree of intention to stay at current company for cabin crews in this study.
Instrument of Retention Intention
Several instruments can measure retention intention, showing as follows:
Intent to stay. “Intent to stay” was adapted from “intent to leave” developed by Hunt, Osborn and Martin (1981). The measurement with 4 items used 5-point scale to examine respondents’ intention tendency by several statements. For instance, “which of the following statements most clearly reflects your feelings about your future with this organization in the next year?”, five means “I definitely will not leave this organization in the next year.” whereas one means “I will definitely leave this organization in the next year”. As the total score is higher, the tendency of retention intention is higher. Intent to stay can be considered as a predictable indicator to test respondents’ intention to stay or leave.
Intention to stay instrument (ISI). Through qualitative research method, Kumar and Govindarajo (2014) interviewed employees in manufacturing sector about the causative factors of “member’s intention to stay”, especially focused on individual and organizational factors.
Intention to stay instrument was finalized with 76 items under 21 sub factors, including career advancement, reward management, training and development, management style, insufficient
challenge, terms and conditions, working hours/shift, work condition, health facilities, nature of work, heavy workload, relationship with co-workers, relationship with supervisors, achievement recognition, supportive management, socialization, employment confirmation, location, target orientation, safety, and ergonomics. The Cronbach’s alpha value of each sub scale was over .7 with 10-point interval scale (Kumar & Govindarajo, 2014).
Employee retention. Employee retention questionnaire with 11 items was constructed based on previous literatures and researches on the motivation of employees regarding to their jobs. (Kyndt, Dochy, Michielsen, & Moeyaert, 2009). To measure intention to stay, Kyndt et al. (2009) adjusted three items subject to Egan, Yang and Bartlett’s questionnaire (2004). For instance, “I intend to change job within this firm in the foreseeable future” was adjusted to “If I wanted to do another job or function, I would look first at the possibilities within this company.” The questionnaire examined not only retention intention but also personal future prospects towards jobs.
Among instruments of measuring retention intention above, employee retention questionnaire was chosen because of several reasons. Firstly, the reliablity of measurement is considerably high (α=.91), which means the questionnaire is reliable. Secondly, the number of scale item is not too few as “intent to stay” adapted from Hunt et al. (1981) and not too many as intention to stay instrument developed by Kumar and Govindarajo (2014). The last, the point of scale is also a concerned point to select appropriate measurement. 5-point Likert scale has been well adopted in numerous studies. Although “intent to stay” measured by 5 points, each point represents different meaning based on the questions. Additionally, since it is not meaningful to divide into too many points, intention to stay instrument, a 10-point scale, is not suitable to use.
Based on reasons above, employee retention questionnaire develooped by Kyndt et al.
(2009) was employed in this study.
Job Satisfaction
The definition and instrument of job satisfaction were described in this section.
Definition of Job Satisfaction
Owing to the popularity of job satisfaction within multiple filed of organizations, various researchers had their own opinion and definition about job satisfaction. As for the definition development of job satisfaction, the perspective changed single, affection, between 1930s and 1970s (Fisher & Hanna, 1931; Locke, 1976) into multiple, affection and cognition, from 1980s to now (Cranny, Smith, & Stone, 1992; Greenberg & Baron, 1997; Moorman, 1993; Organ &
Near, 1985). Affection-oriented job satisfaction is an overall affective evaluation towards job, whereas cognition-oriented job satisfaction is a logic and rational comparison between individuals’ expectation and self-evaluation on different facets of job, containing working conditions, nature of job, development opportunities, as well as working output (Zhu, 2013).
Referring to previous researches, job satisfaction in this study is to know how people feel about distinct aspects of jobs (Spector, 1997). In hence, the definition tended to multiple definitions as the degree of overall satisfaction toward different facets of jobs in terms of cabin crews’ perception.
Instrument of Job Satisfaction
Several approaches can be used to measure job satisfaction, showing as follows:
Job descriptive index (JDI). Job Descriptive Index includes five major dimensions associated with job satisfaction: work itself, pay, promotion opportunities, co-workers, and supervision. The JDI was first introduced by Smith, Kendall and Hulin (1969), and has been widely used in different industries since then (Ramayah, Jantan, & Tadisina, 2001). It consists of 72 items: 18 items for the facets of work itself, co-workers, and supervision, 9 items for the facets of pay, promotion (Suma & Lesha, 2013).
Job in general scale (JIG). Job in General Scale is similar to JDI, but is viewed as a global scale to measure job satisfaction. The JIG was constructed by Ironson, Smith, Brannick, Gibson and Paul (1989), consisting of 18 global evaluative items.
Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire (MSQ). Weiss, Dawis, England and Lofquist (1967) developed the manual for the Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire that includes descriptions of the development and scoring of the two long-form MSQs (1977 and 1967 version), short-form MSQ, reliability and validity data, and normative data on specific occupations. While the long-form MSQ makes up 20 subscales with 100 items, short-form MSQ consists of 3 facets with 20 items: intrinsic (10 items), extrinsic (8 items) and general (2 items).
Job satisfaction survey (JSS). By collecting data from human service, public and nonprofit sector organizations, Spector (1985) developed the Job Satisfaction Survey with a nine-subscale measure of employee job satisfaction, including communication, contingent rewards, coworkers, fringe benefits, operating procedures, nature of work, pay, promotion, and supervision. Each subscale is composed of four items.
In a variety of job satisfaction scales, JSS was chosen due to several reasons. First, although more than fifty percent of published articles used JDI to measure job satisfaction
(Ramayah et al., 2001) and the reliability of JDI is quite high, there are merely five facets of JDI, which cannot cover other factors. In addition, the description of JDI with single words or phrases focuses more on the tangible satisfaction instead of intangible. Furthermore, the responses are “Y” (Yes), “N” (No), or “?” that represent “satisfied” or “unsatisfied” rather than the degree of satisfaction (Tsai, 2006; Wang, 2010).
Second, the reasons not to choose JIG are nearly the same as JDI. Although the reliability of JIG is high as well (Ironson et al., 1989), it only uses 18 single words or phrases to test job satisfaction. Besides, the responses use two directions (yes or no) to describe satisfaction in place of the degree as well (Tsai, 2006; Wang, 2010).
Additionally, both long-form and short-form MSQ are reliable, but still exist some not applicable reasons. As for the long-form MSQ, it is too long to make respondents keep concentration on the scales. On the other hand, the integrity of short-form MSQ is not enough as long version due to decrease facets from twenty to three (Tsai, 2006).
The last, the reliability of JSS is higher than 0.7 (see table 2.2) which means data is reliable (Ghozali, 2013).
Table 2.2.
The Reliability of JSS
Author (year) Cronbach’s alpha value
Pilot test Present study Gholami Fesharaki, Talebiyan, Aghamiri, &
Mohammadian (2012) - 0.86
Hussain & Soroya (2017) 0.917 -
Tam & Zeng (2014) - 0.886
Ibrahim, Ohtsuka, Dagang, & Bakar (2014) 0.76 0.84 According to above reasons, JSS was selected to be the instrument of job satisfaction in this study.
Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Retention Intention
In this section, the relationship between each dimension of job satisfaction and retention intention, and the interaction effect of demographic variables between job satisfaction and retention intention were reviewed.
Relationship between Each Dimension of Job Satisfaction and Retention Intention
Based on plentiful literatures, some researchers studied about the relationship between
each dimension of job satisfaction and employee retention or retention intention, while others discussed the relationship between sub-dimension of job satisfaction and employee turnover or intention to leave. The following context was described in detail for each relationship.
Job satisfaction and retention intention. Job satisfaction has been viewed as an important prediction tool for both employee retention (Enu-Kwesi et al., 2014; Mitchell &
Albright, 1972) and turnover intention (Medina, 2012; Mudor & Tooksoon, 2011). Through evaluating job satisfaction, an organization can probably increase positive outcomes, such as performance as well as decreasing absenteeism and turnover (Ronra & Chaisawat, 2011).
Therefore, it could be seen that job satisfaction had an inverse relationship with turnover intention (Medina, 2012; Price, 1977; Rizwan et al., 2011). The more employees were dissatisfied with their jobs, the higher turnover would happen (Cotton & Tuttle, 1986;
Hausknecht et al., 2009). On the contrary, there was a significant relationship between job satisfaction and employee retention (Enu-Kwesi et al., 2014; Kavitha, Geetha, & Arunachalam, 2011).
According to above researches, the author proposed:
H1: Job satisfaction has positive influence on retention intention.
Pay and retention intention. Since money is a survival instrument to fulfill physiological needs in daily life, it has been highly discussed with both retention intention and turnover intention in all sorts of professional fields, such as the industry of technology (Cave et al., 2013), academia (Ng’ethe et al., 2012), hospitality (Emiroğlu et al., 2015), medical (Chou, 2005; Khan & Aleem, 2014), and aviation (Baloch et al., 2014; Gultekin et al., 2012; Mokaya
& Kittony, 2008) and so on. Based on previous research results of the relationship between pay and retention, most researchers asserted that pay is negatively related to turnover (Cave et al., 2013; Cotton & Tuttle, 1986; Khan & Aleem, 2014) or highly affect retention rate (Dutta &
Banerjee, 2014). Moreover, focusing on aviation industry, the results were consistent with most researches, that is, pay would highly affect separation decision (Gultekin et al., 2012) or turnover intention (Baloch et al., 2014).
Subject to former findings, hypothesis 1-1 was proposed that:
H1-1: Pay has positive influence on retention intention.
Promotion and retention intention. To fulfill Maslow’s self-actualization or the sense of achievement, talented employees would have propensity to the expectation of being promoted (Ng’ethe et al., 2012; Prince, 2005). Promotion opportunities would be regarded as a significant factor for employees to make decision of resignation or retention (Prince, 2005).
However, the relationship between promotion and retention or turnover intention is
controversial. As some researchers (Cotton & Tuttle, 1986; Khan & Aleem, 2014; Lazear, 1998) asserted that promotion would be negatively related to turnover, others (Baloch et al., 2014;
Huang et al., 2006) argued that promotion would inversely enlarge turnover intention. To explore more in the case of cabin crews in Taiwan, the hypothesis was proposed as below:
H1-2: Promotion has positive influence on retention intention.
Supervision and retention intention. To develop the desire to stay, any organizations or effective programs requires supportive supervisors or managers to supervise or interact with subordinates positively (Freyermuth, 2007; Zenger, Ulrich, & Smallwood, 2000). Immediate supervisors’ support is an essential factor to alternative employees’ propensity to leave and increase job involvement (Greenhaus, 1987), resulting in following hypothesis:
H1-3: Supervision has positive influence on retention intention.
Fringe benefits and retention intention. According to Spector (1985), the description of fringe benefits included two forms, monetary and non-monetary. Both forms of fringe benefits could not be ignored since it could enhance employees’ loyalty and motivated them to work productively, especially towards sales (Malik & Naeem, 2009), and make them stay in the organization (Dutta & Banerjee, 2014; Sinha & Sinha, 2012). As the previous finding, the hypothesis was proposed:
H1-4: Fringe benefits have positive influence on retention intention.
Contingent rewards and retention intention. Any forms of rewards, bonus, certificate, recognition, awards, free trips and so on, would be a satisfactory incentive or response for employees’ contribution offered by organizations (Irshad, 2011). Rewards is so important as to enhance the willing to work and the perception of self-worth towards employees (Silbert, 2005) and result in stop thinking job opportunities from other organizations (Tan, 2008). Some studies highlighted the linkage between rewards and employee retention (Towers Perrin, 2003;
Watson Wyatt Worldwide, 1999), and revealed that rewards would enhance the possibility of intention to retain. Based on above researches, the hypothesis was proposed as follows:
H1-5: Contingent rewards have positive influence on retention intention.
Operating procedures and retention intention. To make prime retention management, Dutta and Banerjee (2014) illustrated that understanding retaining employees demands for suitable policies and procedures. As for the relationship between operating procedures and retention intention, it would be an exploration to probe in the case of Taiwan cabin crews and hypothesize that:
H1-6: Operating procedures has positive influence on retention intention.
Coworkers and retention intention. The existence of supportive coworkers would be a
strength to motivate employees to enhance work efficiency and satisfaction towards job. Steijn and Leisink (2006) pointed out that support by colleagues showed a positive influence on the intention to remain, leading to following hypothesis:
H1-7: Coworkers have positive influence on retention intention.
Nature of work and retention intention. As flight attendants, the nature of work is different from office workers, especially on flexible working time and various job content. Due to the unique work characteristics in airline, nature of work would be one of the factor affecting employee retention (Chen & Lai, 2017). On the other hand, nature of work or work itself would be negatively related to turnover intention (Cave et al., 2013) or employee turnover (Khan &
Aleem, 2014); or influence on employee intentions (Gaiduk & Gaiduk, 2009). In light of above researches, the hypothesis was proposed as follows:
H1-8: Nature of work has positive influence on retention intention.
Communication and retention intention. Communication is viewed as a component of organizational factors (Enu-Kwesi et al., 2014) to deliver organizational goals, policies, job requirements to employees, which assists to enhance employees’ participation, identification and trust (Becker & Gopinath, 2000). For retention management, communication was the key factor to build the bridge between employees and employers, leading to retain employees (Gaiduk & Gaiduk, 2009; Kavitha et al., 2011; Sinha & Sinha, 2012). As previous finding, the hypothesis was proposed as:
H1-9: Communication has positive influence on retention intention.
The Interaction Effect of Demographic Variables between Job Satisfaction and Retention Intention
Through literatures review, the major discussed issues are the relationship between each demographic variable, such as age, education level, position and tenure and retention/turnover intention. In hence, the research would mainly describe the relationship between (1) age and retention/turnover, (2) education level and retention/turnover, (3) position and retention/turnover, and (4) tenure and retention/turnover separately, and hypothesized the interaction effect of demographic variables on the relationship between job satisfaction and retention intention in this section.
Age, job satisfaction and retention intention. Age would be one of personal characteristics influencing employees’ intention to quit (Choong et al., 2013; Kipkebut, 2010) or to remain (Gaiduk & Gaiduk, 2009; Govaerts, Kyndt, Dochy, & Baert, 2011). Choong et al.
(2013) claimed that there is a significant difference between age and turnover intention and age
would be considered as a determinant on turnover intention (Emiroğlu et al., 2015).
Additionally, several studies concluded that elders would have more potential to retain in their respective organizations than youngers (Choong et al., 2013; Cotton & Tuttle, 1986; Govaerts et al., 2011). As there exists the relationship between age and retention, and job satisfaction and retention, the hypothesize was proposed that:
H2: Age has a significant interaction effect on the relationship between job satisfaction and retention intention.
Education level, job satisfaction and retention intention. Education level, a personal factor, would be great relevance to employee retention (Kyndt et al., 2009). Regarding to the relationship between education level and retention, there existed inconsistent results. While one asserted that there is a significant negative relationship between education level and retention (Kyndt et al., 2009; Mitchell, MacKenzie, Styve, & Gover, 2000), others stood for no significant influence (Govaerts et al., 2011; Huang et al., 2006). As a result, probing into the relationship between education level and retention intention and the interaction effect of education level between job satisfaction and retention intention would be an exploration in the case of Taiwan cabin crews. The hypothesis was proposed as follows:
H3: Education level has a significant interaction effect on the relationship between job satisfaction and retention intention.
Position, job satisfaction and retention intention. Employees with higher position requires more responsibilities towards organizations, resulting in higher organizational commitment and lower turnover intention (Salami, 2008). In hence, position has negative relationship with turnover intention (Emiroğlu et al., 2015), that is, employees with higher position tend to retain at organizations. Based on this result and significant relationship between job satisfaction and retention intention, the hypothesis was proposed that:
H4: Position has a significant interaction effect on the relationship between job
H4: Position has a significant interaction effect on the relationship between job