探討組織與個人適配度、主管支持與同儕支持對台灣Y世代員工離職傾向之影響

全文

(1)Person-Organization Fit, Perceived Supervisor Support, Perceived Peer Support, and Intention to Leave of Generation Y in Taiwan. By Yu-Chen Lin. A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of. MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION. Major: International Human Resource Development. Advisor: C. Rosa Yeh, Ph.D.. National Taiwan Normal University Taipei, Taiwan June, 2014.

(2)

(3) ABSTRACT Generation Y will become the main work force in the near future. Employees who belong to Generation Y exhibit very different characteristics from the older generations. No doubt organizations will face the challenge of retaining and managing talents of this new generation. Moreover, whether an organization provides what the employees need and sufficient level of support are two main concerns of this new generation, as shown in the literature. Therefore, this study incorporated person-organization fit, perceived supervisor support and perceived peer support in the research framework in order to test their influence on turnover intention of Generation Y. The study assumed that person-organization fit has a negative relationship with turnover intention, and perceived supervisor support as well as perceived peer support have moderating effects on the relationship between person-organization fit and turnover intention. A quantitative study was conducted and the data was collected from Generation Y in Taiwan through online questionnaires. A total of 377 valid questionnaires were collected and were analyzed with the use of SPSS. It was found that P-O fit has a negative and significant effect on intention to leave. Perceived supervisor support has a direct effect on intention to leave instead of a moderating effect, while perceived peer support has a significant moderating effect on the relationship between P-O fit and intention to leave. Keywords: Generation Y, Turnover Intention, Person-Organization Fit (POF), Perceived Supervisor Support (PSS), Perceived Peer Support (PPS). I.

(4) II.

(5) TABLE OF CONTENTS. ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................... I TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................... III LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... V LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................VI CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1 Background of the Study ........................................................................................................ 1 Rationale of the Study ............................................................................................................ 4 Statement of the Problem ....................................................................................................... 5 Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................................. 6 Research Questions ................................................................................................................ 6 Definition of Key Terms ........................................................................................................ 7. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................... 9 Generation Y .......................................................................................................................... 9 Turnover ............................................................................................................................... 13 Intention to Leave/ Turnover Intention ................................................................................ 20 Person-Organization Fit (POF) ............................................................................................ 23 Perceived Supervisor Support (PSS) .................................................................................... 27 Perceived Peer Support (PPS) .............................................................................................. 29. CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD .......................................................... 31 Research Framework ............................................................................................................ 31 Research Hypothesis ............................................................................................................ 32 Research Procedure .............................................................................................................. 33 Research Design ................................................................................................................... 34 Sample .................................................................................................................................. 35 III.

(6) Data collection...................................................................................................................... 35 Questionnaire Design ........................................................................................................... 35 Measurement ........................................................................................................................ 36 Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 40 Validity and Reliability ........................................................................................................ 41. CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS .................................... 47 Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................................ 47 Correlation Analysis and T-test............................................................................................ 51 Hierarchical Regression Analysis ........................................................................................ 55. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ................................ 61 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 61 Research Implication ............................................................................................................ 62 Practical Implication ............................................................................................................ 62 Research Limitation ............................................................................................................. 63 Future Research Suggestions ............................................................................................... 63. REFERENCES.................................................................................................... 65 APPENDIX: MEASUREMENTS AND QUESTIONNAIRE ........................... 71. IV.

(7) LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1. Mechanisms of Turnover Models…………………………………………………17 Table 2.2. Summary of antecedents of turnover process models…………………………….18 Table 3.1. Exploratory Factor Analysis Results……………………………………………...43 Table 3.2. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Components of P-O Fit…………………………………...44 Table 3.3. Cronbach‟s Alpha…………………………………………………………………44 Table 4.1. Descriptive Statistics on Sample Characteristics…………………………………50 Table 4.2. Comparing Marital Status with Numbers of Dependents………………………...51 Table 4.3. Mean, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliability………..………………54 Table 4.4. Result of Hierarchical Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effects………….56 Table 4.5. Hypotheses Testing Results Summary……………………………………………59. V.

(8) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1. Expanded Avoidability Taxonomy……………………………………………....14 Figure 2.2. The Employee Turnover Decision Process……………………………………....16 Figure 2.3. A Model of Person-Organization Fit…………………………………………….25 Figure 3.1. Research Framework…………………………….……………………………....32 Figure 3.2. Research Procedure……………………………………………………………....34 Figure 4.1. Interaction Plot for the Moderating Effect of Perceived Peer Support.……….....58. VI.

(9) CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. This chapter is an overview introduction of the study and addresses the background of the study, the problem statement of the study, the purpose of the research, the research questions, the contribution of the study, and definitions of key terms.. Background of the Study Continuing advancement in technology and rapid globalization has propelled organization to pay more attention to win the war for talent. Moreover, in Harvard Business Review, Hewlett, Sherbin, and Sumberg (2009) indicated that companies would face the challenge of winning over top talents and managing the changing composition of the workforce. Organizations have to start to recognize generational differences in the workforce. Henson (2005) also stated that significant changes will occur in the pool of available talents, such as worker attitudes and preferences. A survey conducted in 2009 by Towers Waston, an international human resource consultant company, showed that a quarter of multinational executives believed that recruiting and retaining Generation Y talent is a key to business success in the future. Also, the major challenge of talent management will come from how to manage Generation Y and how to have good cross-generation communication (Tapscott, 2008; Tyler, 2007) Issues of social science differ by generations; without questions, the same phenomenon happens in human resource management field. VanMeter, Grisaffe, Chonko, and Roberts (2013) stated that modern workplaces involve diverse blends of individuals, including generational diversity. Henson (2005) also indicated that a decade-by-decade analysis reveals several age groups with distinct characteristics working together simultaneously. According to the definition of Tapscott (2008), Generation Y, also called the Net Generation, started from January 1977 to December 1997. VanMeter et al. (2013) defined Generation Y with 1.

(10) approximately 80 million people born from 1981 to 2000 globally. That is to say, in 2014 when this study is conducted, the approximate age range of people belong to this new generation is from 14 to 33 years old. No doubt this generation will become the main labor force in the near future. On the other hand, the main management labor force belongs to the so-called Baby Boom Generations who were born between January 1947 to December 1964 (Tapscott, 2008). Generations showing different personalities, values, attitude, and behaviors in workplaces may bring out new management issues, such as the collision between freewheeling Generation Y/ Net Generation and the traditional boomer employers (Tapscott, 2008). Some studies have discussed the changing work styles, wants and needs of the Y generation, and the ways managers lead this new generation (Tolbize, 2008). Nevertheless, few studies addressed specifically the main factors causing this generation to quit their job. Mercer, another international well-known human resource consultant company conducted a survey among nearly 30,000 workers in 17 geographic markets from the fourth quarter of 2010 to the second quarter of 2011. According to the findings of this survey, younger workers were more likely than their older colleagues in all 17 markets to consider leaving their employers. Broken down the findings of this survey by age group, employees aged 16-24 were most likely to have the thoughts of leaving (46%). Employees aged 25-34 accounted for 40% (http://www.mercer.com/press-releases/1430455). The results showed that younger generation had higher intention to leave their jobs. In addition, being treated with respect and quality of leadership are cited by employees as most influential to their motivation and engagement at work in Asia from the results of this survey. Moreover, the total work experience, which involves how employees are treated, what kind of work employees do, how employees feel about their colleagues and bosses, and the general work environment, may influence employee engagement ( http://www.mercer.com/press-releases/1430455). Furthermore, most Generation Y grew up with digital devices and mainly raised by two 2.

(11) working parents, they expect more interactions from both peers and the environment. Therefore, relationship with peers may influence Generation Y‟s learning styles and preferences (McCrindle & Wolfinger, 2009; Carver, 2011). These discussions seem to suggest that how the new generation perceives the support from their supervisors and coworkers, and whether the entire working environment fit their own values have great influence on their intention to leave or stay. Therefore, this study aims to empirically test the impact of person-organization fit, perceived supervisor support, and perceived peer support to the intention to leave of Generation Y. The literature has already indicated that turnover is costly to firm. Allen, Weeks, and Moffitt (2005) mentioned that, to employees, turnover may involve risk (e.g., uncertainty about alternative opportunities), financial costs (e.g., unvested pensions), transaction costs (e.g., moving), and psychological costs (e.g., loss of valued work relationships). Scholars also indicated that voluntary employee turnover has negative consequences to the organization, such as high replacement costs, diminished productivity, and lower employee morale, and so on (Hausknecht, Trevor, & Howard, 2009). Therefore, managers and organizations should undoubtedly pay more attention to voluntary employee turnover. Yet, understanding employees is not an easy task, especially in this global village full of information flowing every day. From now on to next decade, Generation Y who grew up with digital media and internet is ready to occupy the main work place. Some of them are not only employees in the future but also going to become employers. Therefore, how to retain employees of this generation and how to properly manage these employees have become very important issues to human resource management among organizations.. 3.

(12) Rationale of the Study Generation Y have very different characteristics when compared to past generations. VanMeter et al. (2013) stated that people who enter the workforce during economic downturns are more likely to feel grateful for what they have than people who enter workforce during economic upturns. People belonging to Generation Y entered the workforce during economic upturns. They expect more freedom and personalized work, and at the same time, they prefer to work as a team and need supervisors to pay more attention on them and talk to them more often than the Baby Boom Generation does (Tapscott, 2008). As mentioned above, this young generation is more likely to think of leaving their employers. However, Tapscott (2008) conducted a survey showing that the Net Generation/ Generation Y actually expects they can stay in one or two companies after they enter the workplace, but, most of them end up quitting their jobs within two years. Another survey conducted among 2000 workers from August to September in 2008 by Randstad USA (Randstad USA, 2014), a large employment agency, also revealed similar results. The survey findings showed that the Generation Y has more ambition and willingness to work than older workers. They are eager to show their loyalty and dedication to their employers. Therefore, the problem is why employees form the Generation Y/ Net Generation quit their jobs when they expect themselves to be loyal employees. Furthermore, in 2013, Aon Hewitt, an international human resource consultant company, conducted a survey called Best Employer for Generation Y among nine countries of Asia, Taiwan, China, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Indonesia, India, and Thailand. Yet, Taiwan. was. the. only. country. which. did. not. get. the. special. award. (http://www.aon.com/apac/human-resources/thought-leadership/talent-organization/best-empl oyers/2013_results.jsp). This is an indication that Taiwanese enterprises have not implemented proper staffing and management practices for Generation Y.. 4.

(13) Statement of the Problem Intention to leave is defined as an overall attitude that is composed of thought of quitting and intention to search other possible jobs (Miller, Katerberg, & Hulin, 1979). Based on the abundant turnover literature, intention to leave is a prominent factor to predict actual employee turnover and may also be the last step before employees perform actual turnover behavior in the turnover process (Chang, Wang, & Huang, 2013; Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, & Meglino, 1979). Scholars indicated that external correlates (e.g. organizational climate, organization commitment), work-related correlates (e.g. job satisfaction, met expectations, satisfaction with supervisors), and personal factors (e.g. personality, age, tenure) are related to voluntary turnover (Cotton & Tuttle, 1986). However, few studies on turnover target Generation Y especially in Taiwan. Furthermore, as previously discussed, Generation Y concerns more about the total work experience, such as how they feel about the entire work environment and how they are treated by organizations. Therefore, psychological factors may influence more on their decision to stay with a company or not. If an organization cannot match Generation Y‟s need, the possibility of intention to leave may be higher. When Generation Y cannot receive what they need from the organization, they may turn to their supervisors who interact with them the most. However, most supervisors who belong to a different generation from Generation Y may not truly understand this new generation. As a result, Generation Y employees may not feel they receive sufficient support from their supervisors. Moreover, Generation Y seems more easily influenced by peers than the prior generation and may also have a higher preference for teamwork. Thus, the interaction effect of person-organization fit, perceived supervisor support, and perceived peer support may provide much insight on Generation Y employees‟ turnover intention. In addition, personal factors may affect how employees behave during the turnover process. However, few studies investigated the effect of demographics, such as gender, age, 5.

(14) education level, family responsibilities, and tenure, on turnover intention of Generation Y. As these may show a different pattern from researches that were done on their predecessors, analysis of demographics may bring additional insight into Generation Y‟s turnover intention.. Purpose of the Study The main research purpose of this study is to have further understandings of what employees of Generation Y want and care about for their work and what factors influence their intention to leave. This study collected demographics (i.e. gender, age, education level, numbers of dependents, and tenure) of participants to examine whether demographic factors have significant influence on intention to leave of Generation Y. In addition, this study was conducted to examine whether person-organization fit influences intention to leave of Generation Y, and at the same time, to find out what specific dimensions of person-organization fit have more impact. Moreover, this study aimed to test whether perceived supervisor support and perceived peer support moderate the relationship between person-organization fit and intention to leave. The result of this study may provide more updated details of Generation Y‟s demographic composition in Taiwan and how they relate to turnover intentions. Also, the result may help organizations to have a clearer picture of Generation Y‟s needs to better prepare the working environment and the supervisors to get ready for this new workforce.. Research Questions Derived from the problem statement and research purpose above, this study attempted to investigate and analyze the relationship between predictors of turnover and intention to leave a company in the Generation Y by answering the following research questions: 1. Will demographic factors have a significant relationship with intention to leave of Generation Y? 2. What is the relationship between person-organization fit and intention to leave a company 6.

(15) of Generation Y? 3. Will perceived supervisor support have a moderating effect on the relationship between person-organization fit and intention to leave a company of the Generation Y? 4. Will perceived peer support have a moderating effect on the relationship between person-organization fit and intention to leave a company of the Generation Y?. Definition of Key Terms Generation Y Generation Y, also called Millennials or The Net Generation, started from January 1977 to December 1997 and it is the first generation to grow up surrounded by digital media, such as e-mail, instant messaging (IM) and cell phones since childhood and adolescence (Tapscott, 2008; Tyler, 2007).. Intention to Leave Intention to leave and turnover intention are used as alternative to each other. Intention to leave is defined as conscious and deliberate willfulness to leave the organization (Tett & Meyer, 1993).. Person-Organization Fit (POF) P-O fit is the equivalence between the norms and values of organizations and the values of individuals. P-O fit is the compatibility between people and organizations that occurs when one entity provides what the other needs or they share similar fundamental characteristics (Chatman, 1989; Kristof, 1996).. Perceived Supervisor Support (PSS) Perceived supervisor support is defined as the perception of how much supervisors value subordinates‟ contributions and care about their well-being (Kottke & Sharafinski, 1988).. Perceived Peer Support (PPS) Peers are people who have similar experience and thus can better relate to each other 7.

(16) and offer more authentic empathy. Also, peers can offer each other practical advice and suggestions that other professionals may not offer (Mead & MacNeil, 2006). Perceived peer support is defined as the perception of empathy, advice and suggestions peers provide.. 8.

(17) CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW. This chapter reviews literatures for developing the frameworks and selecting variables. First, the definitions and characteristics of Generation Y are introduced. Second, literatures of turnover and intention to leave are illustrated. Last, person-organization fit, perceived supervisor support, and perceived peer support are described and hypotheses are derived afterwards.. Generation Y Generation Y, also called The Net Generation or Millennials, is made up of the children of the Baby Boom Generation, and comprises a cohort of the population larger than the Baby Boom generation (Tapscott, 2008; VanMeter et al., 2013). As mentioned above in the research background, organization are currently facing the retirement of older workers and the challenge of recruiting and retaining young talent of Generation Y. Moreover, this generation which is becoming the main workforce roughly doubles the size of Baby Boomers (Hewlett et al., 2009). By the assumption from Henson (2005), new problems accompanied by the need for innovation will occur in the next ten years. Because of the shifting workforce, significant changes such as the demographics, attitudes, and preferences will occur in this labor pool (Henson, 2005). Moreover, organizations are not only facing the challenge of retaining new talent, but also facing the issues of managing mixed cohort of employees among Baby Boomers and Generation Y (Hewlett et al., 2009; Twenge, Campbell, Hoffman, & Lance, 2010). Therefore, knowing how the new generation‟s behaviors and attitudes in workplace differ from the Boomers‟ becomes very important. The major difference between Baby Boomers and Generation Y is that Generation Y is surrounded by digital media, such as e-mail, instant messaging (IM) and cell phones since childhood and adolescence (Tyler, 2007). Moreover, the fact that Generation Yers were. 9.

(18) raised by two working parents or a single parent while Boomers were raised by large traditional families means very different childhood experiences (McCrindle & Wolfinger, 2009). Actually, they do not remember and cannot imagine a world without digital technology. Generation Y is being shaped by digital technology, transforming the human brain and the way of thinking. They are an energetic generation in need of constant stimulation and challenge and are also used to and needs multiple streams of information (Black, 2010).. Characteristics of Generation Y McCrindle & Wolfinger (2009) compared characteristics of different generations and highlighted some unique features of Generation Y as below. The average age at first marriage for Generation Y is 28 years old for a female and 30 years old for a male, 6 years later than their parents. As a matter of fact, Generation Y delays all markers of adulthood such as marriage, having children, getting a steady career, etc. These behaviors resulted in this new generation being deemed as less responsible, unwilling to commit in binding relationships, or reluctant to show loyalty to their spouses or bosses. The differences carry on in the workforce. While most Boomers delay their retirement to pursue senior leadership roles, Generation Yers are just completing their education and show a preference toward flexible conditions and work-life balance. Tapscott (2008) listed several norms of Generation Y/ the Net Generation, which are described below: Freedom. In Tapscott‟s survey, almost 69% of Generation Y hope they can choose the work place and working time by themselves. Moreover, the flexibility of working time and benefits is the main factor to attract them. They also care a lot about the balance between works and lives. The research indicated that one in every two of the Net Generation values their families more than works, but only 41% of the Baby Boomers do. Furthermore, they hope they can freely mix personal lives and works. As a result, they hope supervisors can evaluate their 10.

(19) performance rather than how often they show up in the office. Lastly, although the research showed that most of them expect to stay in one or two company for their work lives, they are not loyal to one employer. In fact, this young generation is loyal only to their career path. If they perceive that organizations refuse to invest in them, they will choose to leave. Customization. The Net Generation grew up with digital media and technological products. From tablets to smartphone, most of the products can be personalized. Consequently, when they enter the workplace, they want supervisors to treat them as an individual instead of a big group in organizations. That is to say, they expect organizations to provide customized job descriptions, learning systems, work systems, and compensation plans. Scrutiny. According to the survey, 60% of this generation checks out a company before they accept a job offer. They prefer companies which are willing to share more information such as financial data, business plans, and management compensation plans with their employees. Integrity. The Net Generation expects their employer to be honest and keep promises. If they distrust their companies or employers, their loyalty will be weakened which causes them to leave. Moreover, because of the great development of internet allowing searching and accessing company information much easier and quicker than before, employees can soon discover company integrity problems. Collaboration. The Net Generation likes to work and complete tasks with others. They think that being able to work with many talented team members makes them love their job more. Entertainment. To this new generation, they expect that work should be fun. That does not mean they want to have fun all day. Instead, they expect the work itself to be enjoyable. Speed. The Net Generation needs speed. They are accustomed to immediate response. If they want to ask questions and colleague A is not available, they will directly go to colleague B to have answers. Similarly, if every step of their work needs to wait a long time for supervisor‟s permission, they will lose patience. They desire to be promoted in a very short time and also expect to get feedback from supervisors very often. They mind their own performance a lot, 11.

(20) so they always want to know if they are improving. Hewlett et al. (2009) also sketched five portraits of Generation Y in Harvard Business Review: Ambition. Generation Y are go-getters. They see themselves as very ambitious and are willing to go the extra mile for their company‟s success. Loyalty vs. Quest. Generation Y employees are actually fully expecting to stay faithful to a workplace, but they also want work to bring a range of new experiences and challenges. Multicultural Ease. Generation Y work more comfortably with people from different ethnicities and cultures than older generation. Healing the Planet. Generation Y thinks it is important that their work make a positive impact on the world. Networking by Nature. To Generation Y, working in teams is a key motivator. They enjoy working in office that is open and conducive to socializing. They also expect their colleagues and even supervisors to be easily accessible. To sum up, according to these characteristics of Generation Y listed above, whether an organization is suitable for and provides sufficient support from supervisors and peers are two main concerns of this new generation. They expect to enter an organization with integrity which they can be faithful to and is good for their own future career. They also expect the working environment to be free and open. Moreover, they expect their supervisors and peers to be easily accessible and can give them continuous and timely feedback. Lastly, changing demographical factors and childhood experiences may be the reasons that Generation Y behave differently in the workplace from Boomers.. 12.

(21) Turnover Definition of Turnover Employee turnover has been broadly studied in the past 50 years in organizational behaviors. Fruitful researches have been done by many scholars. Mobley (1977) defined turnover as employees work for a period of time, decide to leave the organization after deep consideration. Williams and Hazer (1986) defined turnover as the act of actually leaving the organization. Price (2001) defined turnover as individual movement across the membership boundary of an organization.. Types of Turnover Wanous, Stumpf, and Bedrosian (1979) categorized turnover into two types: voluntary if the worker quit and involuntary when the worker was discharged for the reason of unable to do the job. Moreover, most of the researchers concentrated more on the employees‟ voluntary turnover since most of turnovers are voluntary and antecedents of these turnovers are generally controlled by managers (Morrell, Loan-Clarke, & Wilkinson, 2001; Price, 2001). It is also known that a high ratio of voluntary turnover has harmful effects on organizational effectiveness. Furthermore, Abelson (1987) indicated that organization can divide employee turnover into avoidable and unavoidable. Avoidable turnover means regardless whether the turnover is voluntary or involuntay, organizations can always avoid and control. Examples of avoidable turnover is those that are a result of dismissal, layoff, forced retirement, better pay elsewhere, better working conditions elsewhere, problem with leadership administration, and better organization to work for elsewhere. Unavoidable turnover means it is not easy for organizations to control and avoid employees‟ voluntary and involuntary turnover. Examples are turnovers caused by severe medical conditions, death, move to another location, spouse imposed, mid-career change, staying home to care for spouse/children, pregnancy, etc. The 13.

(22) expanded avoidability taxonomy is showed in figure 2.1. Employee Control. Avoidable. Involuntary. ─ Better pay elsewhere ─ Better working conditions elsewhere. ─ Dismissal ─ Layoff ─ Forced retirement. ─ Problem with leadership administration ─ Better organization to work for elsewhere. ─ Move to another location spouse imposed Unavoidable. Organizational Control. Voluntary. ─ Severe medical ─ Death. ─ Mid-career change ─ Stay home to care for spouse/children ─ Pregnancy, did not return after limited period of time. Figure 2.1. expanded avoidability taxonomy. Adapted from “Examination of Avoidable and Unavoidable Turnover,” by Abelson, M. A., 1987. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(3), p. 383.. Based on the literatures mentioned above, this study focuses on avoidable voluntary turnover which organizations can truly control. Next, the study discusses what employees think about before actual turnover behaviors based on reviewing literatures of turnover process models.. 14.

(23) Turnover Process Model The turnover process model (shown in figure 2.2) developed by Mobley (1977) is most commonly used and adopted by turnover researchers. This model explained the reasons why employees perform actual turnover behaviors. Intention to leave is stimulated if the results are dissatisfied, but actual turnover behaviors will not certainly occur, instead, absenteeism and passive job behavior may occur and employees may start to have turnover intention. Once employees have the intention to leave, they may evaluate the expected utility of searching for new jobs and the cost of quitting. If the cost of quitting is more than the expected utility of searching for new jobs, employees may reevaluate their current jobs and may give up the intention to leave or find another ways to express the dissatisfactions. While employees are searching the opportunities for new jobs, they will compare the alternatives with present jobs. If the comparison shows that current jobs have fewer advantages, it may increase the turnover intention and actual turnover behaviors may even happen. As a result, this model illustrated that intention to leave is the antecedents of turnover behavior. Moreover, the behavior of turnover is determined by how strong the turnover intention is. When employees have stronger intention to leave, turnover behaviors will happen more easily.. 15.

(24) Evaluation of Existing Job. Experienced Job Satisfaction ─ Dissatisfaction. Alternative Forms of withdrawal. Thinking of Quitting. Evaluation of Expected Utility of Search and Cost of Quitting. Intention to Search for. Non-job Related. Alternatives. Factors. Search for Alternatives Leave from Labor Market. Evaluation of Alternatives. Comparison of Alternatives vs. Present Job. Intention to Quit/Stay. Impulsive Behavior. Quit/Stay Figure 2.2. the employee turnover decision process. Adapted from “Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover,” by Mobley, W. H., 1977, Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(2), p. 238.. 16.

(25) Antecedents of Turnover Process Models Turnover process models have been discussed in organizational research since 1950s. In addition to the model developed by Mobley (1977), there are abundant other studies in turnover process models and the antecedents. This section reviewed a meta-analysis research in order to uncover the main factors that influence the turnover process. Steel and Lounsbury (2009) reviewed literatures of turnover process. They focused on the antecedents of employee turnover and identified theoretical convergence among turnover models. Two groups of model mechanisms, core mechanism and secondary mechanism are introduced in table 2.1. Table 2.1. Mechanisms of Turnover Models. Mechanisms. Main Constructs ─. Attitude variables (i.e. job satisfaction, organizational commitment). Core mechanism. ─. Job-search mechanisms (whether perceptual or market-related). ─. Turnover intentions (i.e. stay-quit intentions). Secondary mechanism. ─. Personal factors. ─. Job and organizational factors. ─. Mechanisms of change: external and internal. ─. Consequence of quitting/staying. ─. Decision process mechanisms. 17.

(26) Core mechanism includes attitudinal constructs (i.e. job satisfaction, organizational commitment), turnover intentions (i.e. stay-quit intentions), and job-search mechanisms. Among these mechanisms and constructs, Steel and Lounsbury (2009) indicated that attitudinal constructs (i.e. job satisfaction, organizational commitment) are heavily used in turnover theory and are still constant focuses of turnover research. Also, the reviews have shown that behavioral intentions are excellent predictors of personnel turnover and become prominent role in turnover theory. Secondary mechanisms have been proven indispensable in the literature and were categorized into five broad topic areas (i.e. personal factors, job and organizational factors, mechanisms of change: external and internal, consequence of quitting/staying, decision process mechanisms). Table 2.2 summarized the core mechanisms, the findings from each topic area of secondary mechanisms, and also the emergent themes from recent literatures. Numbers of occurrences indicate the numbers of models employing a particular mechanism. Table 2.2. Summary of Antecedents of Turnover Process Models Antecedents. Numbers of. Antecedents. Occurrences. Numbers of Occurrences. Job attitude/morale. 16. Age. 3. Quit/stay intentions. 9. Tenure. 3. Perceptual job search. 14. Skill. 2. Training. 2. Personal factors Personal traits. 5. Professionalism. 2. Values. 2. Family. 2. responsibilities (continued). 18.

(27) Table 2.2. (continued) Antecedents Job and organizational factors Job-related perceptions. Numbers of Occurrences. 2. Costs of quitting. 5. Job stress Role conflict/compatibility. 3 2. Organizational size. 2. Mechanisms of change: external and internal Desirability of movement Expectation of future jobs Efforts to change situation Intraorganizational transfer possibility Promotion possibility Demotion possibility Alternative forms of withdrawal. Consequence of quitting/staying Nonwork consequences Job performance. 3. Expectations of present job Job rewards. Antecedents. 4. Decision process mechanisms System shocks Thought of quitting Emerging factors recently Internal mobility opportunities Preparatory job search Active job search. 2. Numbers of Occurrences. 3 2. 2 2. 4 1 1. 2. Shocks. 1. 2. Scripts. 1. 5. Interrole conflict. 1. 3 2 5. Movement capital Job embeddedness Resource substitutability Efforts to change situation. 1 1 1 2. Note. Adapted from “Turnover process models: Review and synthesis of a conceptual literature,” by Steel, R. P., & Lounsbury, J. W. 2009, Human Resource Management Review, 19(4), 271-282.. 19.

(28) Personal-factors dimensions included individual characteristics (e.g., age, skill) to family-oriented factors (e.g., family responsibilities). From the models reviewed, the antecedents from personal factors occur more frequently. Among the antecedents of current job and organizational factors, costs of quitting the current job and rewards of the current job are two most prevalent job-oriented themes. Job stress factors (i.e., job stress, role conflict/compatibility) also play a prominent role. The change-mechanism antecedents showed that when employees face a worsening job situation, they may look for an extroaorganizational remedy (e.g., expectations of future job), resolve the problem by pursuing some form of intraorganizational change (e.g., intraorganizational transfer possibility), or ease the tension for change by modifying current job behavior (e.g., psychological and behavioral withdrawal). Consequences of quitting/staying (i.e., nonwork consequences, performance consequences) and decision-process mechanisms (i.e., system shocks, thoughts of quitting) were also discussed in turnover models. Lastly, Steel and Lounsbury (2009) listed some emergent constructs in recent turnover theory (e.g., internal mobility opportunity).. Intention to Leave/ Turnover Intention Intention to leave and turnover intention are used as alternative to each other. Porter and Steers (1973) defined intention to leave as a withdrawn behavior when an individual‟s expectation is not met. Mobley, Horner, and Hollingsworth (1978) defined intention to leave as behaviors of thoughts of quitting, job dissatisfaction, intention to search, and search evaluation of alternatives. Miller et al. (1979) defined intention to leave as an overall behavior of thought of quitting and intention to search other possible jobs. Williams and Hazer (1986) defined intention to leave as the intention, willingness, and plans to quitting their jobs. Tett and Meyer (1993) defined turnover intention as the conscious and deliberate willingness to leave an organization. Moreover, intention to leave may be the last step prior 20.

(29) to actual quitting (Mobley, 1977). Past studies have provided plentiful results of the antecedents and influences of turnover intention. Chang et al. (2013) stated that if antecedents of intention to leave can be identified in advance, organizations can develop appropriate interventions to enhance competitive advantage and also prevent avoidable visible and invisible costs. Although not all turnover intention leads to actual turnover, the fact that intention to leave being an important outcome variable is approved by many researchers. According to the literatures and antecedents of turnover listed above, turnover intention of employees are not only a last step before actual turnover behavior in turnover process model, but also is a prominent predictor in actual turnover (Mobley, 1977; Mobley et al., 1979; Pan, 2013; Steel & Lounsbury, 2009). Therefore, one of the purposes of this study is to investigate what factors will influence the intention to leave of Generation Y. Intention to leave is a behavior occurred when a series of dissatisfaction of expectations happened. Moreover, turnover intention is composed of personal-factors, psychological factors and individual attitudes. Among the reviews of turnover models, the antecedents from personal factors occur more frequently (Steel & Lounsbury, 2009). Personal-factors dimensions include individual characteristics (e.g., age, gender), education background, tenure, and family-oriented factors (e.g., family responsibilities). A number of studies have examined gender as a predictor of turnover since men and women have different values that may have different turnover intention. From the meta-analysis of 20 studies done by Cotton and Tuttle's (1986), the results show that women have higher turnover rates than men. Another commonly used individual characteristic is age, which was found to be one of the main antecedents that influences turnover in the review of turnover process model conducted by Steel and Lounsbury (2009). Abundant literatures also mentioned the impact of age on turnover. For example, Federico, Federico, and Lundquist (1976) stated that younger age is associated with lower tenure. In the study conducted by 21.

(30) Marsh and Mannari (1977), results show that younger age is associated with high turnover. Also, Federico et al. (1976) found that higher education is associated with lower tenure. Based on the literature review by Steel and Lounsbury (2009), family responsibilities are a main factor that may influence turnover intention (Mobley et al., 1979; Price & Mueller, 1986). Steel and Lounsbury (2009) also stated that tenure is one of the main personal factors that have an impact on turnover intention, which has been studied by many scholars (Mobley et al., 1979; Jackofsky, 1984; Gerhart, 1990). These demographic factors may directly or indirectly influence employees‟ evaluation and decision making process of the turnover model. Therefore, the first hypotheses are derived as follows. Hypothesis 1: Demographic factors have a significant relationship with intention to leave of Generation Y. Hypothesis 1a: Gender has a significant relationship with intention to leave of Generation Y. Hypothesis 1b: Age has a significant relationship with intention to leave of Generation Y. Hypothesis 1c: Education level has a significant relationship with intention to leave of Generation Y. Hypothesis 1d: Number of dependents has a significant relationship with intention to leave of Generation Y. Hypothesis 1e: Tenure has a significant relationship with intention to leave of Generation Y. Moreover, according to the literatures of Generation Y, they expect more from organizations and supervisors than older generations. Thus, when organizations satisfy this new generation, they will be truly faithful. Instead, when unmet expectation happens, this new generations will choose to leave or have the intention to leave. As a result, it is assumed 22.

(31) that factors related to organizations, peers and supervisors will influence the turnover intention of Generation Y.. Person-Organization Fit (POF) Fit is defined as employees‟ compatibility with an organization or surrounding environment. For instance, how well employee‟s personal values, career goals, plans for the future, and so on fit the larger organizational cultures and how well employee‟s job knowledge, skills and abilities fit his or her current job. With better fit, an employee may feel more committed to the organization (Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, & Erez, 2001). Cable and DeRue (2002) indicated that past fit research has distinguished between person– organization fit perceptions and person–job fit perceptions. Person–organization fit perceptions most often refer to judgments of congruence between an employee‟s personal values and an organization‟s culture, whereas person–job fit perceptions refer primarily to judgments of congruence between an employee‟s skills and the demands of a job. This study focuses more on the fit between a person and an organization. Schneider (1987) stated that people are not randomly assigned to places, rather, “it is the people who are attracted to, are selected by, and remain in a setting that determine the setting” (p. 440). The attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) framework developed by Schneider (1987) illustrated that people behave the way they do because they were attracted to an environment, selected by it, and stayed with it. Moreover, Goals of organizations attract people, and people interact with organizations because of the goals. Therefore, if people detect that goals of their organizations do not fit them, they leave. There are also other evidence to support the importance of match between person and environment. Tom (1971) argued that most people preferred an environment that has the same “personality” profile as they do. Vroom (1966) posited that people choose to say in an organization that they believe will be most helpful in gaining their valued outcomes. 23.

(32) Definition of Person-Organization Fit (POF) Kristof (1996) defined P-O Fit as the compatibility between individuals and organizations. Kristof categorized the concepts of P-O Fit into two types, supplementary and complementary fit. Supplementary fit occurs when a person supplements, enhances, or possesses characteristics which are similar to others in an environment (Kristof, 1996). Complementary fit occurs when a individual characteristics "make whole" the environment or add to it what is missing (Kristof, 1996). In addtion, complementary fit can be divided into two parts. First, needs-supplies fit perspective occurs when an organization satisfies individuals' needs, desires, or preferences. Second, demands-abilities fit perspective occurs when an individual has the abilities required to meet organizational demands (Kristof, 1996). Back to this study, the expectations and issues that Generation Y care about involve needs-supplies fit. This study wants to know whether organizations indeed satisfy these workers of Generation Y. Chatman (1989) defined P-O Fit as the equivalence between the norms and values of organizations and the values of individuals. Chatman also proposed a model of P-O Fit (shown in Figure 2.3). In this model, through the processes of selection socialization and selection, individuals and organizations find a system that has more fit with their own values. Afterwards, organizations influence new-comers‟ thoughts through the process of socialization, and new-comers will realize whether organizations and themselves have common values, behaviors, and other characteristics through the process. Therefore, if the consistency exists between the values of individuals and organizations, P-O Fit will be high. However, if there are unmet expectations, it may influence values exchange, extra-role behaviors, and intention to leave of individuals. Individuals may have unmet expectations of the organization when the organization breaks the invisible promises with individuals. Moreover, the study of Kickul and Lester (2001) proposed that the invisible promises that employees expect to get from organizations involve two components, which are intrinsic 24.

(33) outcomes (that relate to the nature of the job itself, i.e., autonomy and control, growth and development) and extrinsic outcomes (that relate to the consequence of completing the job, i.e., organizational rewards, organizational benefits). Organization Characteristics ─ Values ─ Norms (Crystallization, Intensity, Content). Individual Characteristics ─ Values (Intensity, Content). Selection Socialization. Person-Organization Fit. Selection. Organization Outcomes: ─ Changes in Norms/Values Individual Outcomes: ─ Value Change ─ Extra-Role Behaviors ─. Tenure. Figure 2.3. a model of person-organization fit. “Improving Interactional Organizational Research: A Model of Person-Organization Fit”, by Chatman, J. A., 1989, Academy of Management Review, 14(3), p. 340. Copyright 1989 of Academy of Management Review.. P-O fit has been broadly studied in theories of recruitment and selection according to the model developed by Chatman (1989). Employees may choose to stay in an organization which fits their own value, while organizations may try to change employees to fit the organization through the socialization process. Employees assess P-O fit not only during the job application process, but also after they have been hired. Therefore, it is not only important for organizations to pick employees who fit in the organization and the jobs, it is also important that organizations constantly monitor employees‟ P-O fit perceptions. Moreover, O‟Reilly (1991) indicated that the value of fit is a major factor to influence the flow of employees and that the turnover trend of employees can be predicted effectively within 2. 25.

(34) years. In addition, a meta-analysis of P-O fit literature reported a significant relationship between P-O fit and turnover (Verquer, Beehr, and Wagner 2003). When P-O fit perception is low, intention to leave may rise afterwards. That is to say, if organizations can avoid those factors that contribute to low P-O fit, employees may lower their intention to leave. The assumption was confirmed by Chatman (1991) who found the value of P-O fit reduced turnover intention and turnover in accounting firms. Additionally, the study conducted by Vandenberghe (1999) also found that nurses in Belgium had less intention to leave after 12 months if they perceived high P-O fit. Moreover, based on the characteristics of Generation Y described above, employees in this new generation prefer particular working environment such as a flexible culture and customized jobs. The researcher therefore assumes that how Generation Y perceives P-O fit may influence their intention to leave. As a result, this study uses P-O Fit as the independent variable to investigate the relationship with intention to leave of Generation Y. Thus, the second hypothesis is derived as follows. Hypothesis 2: P-O fit has a negative relationship with intention to leave of Generation Y.. 26.

(35) Perceived Supervisor Support (PSS) Lynch, Eisenberger, and Armeli (1999) indicated that perceived supervisor support is the feelings between employees and supervisors of the level of concerns that supervisors give to each employee. Employees with higher perceived supervisor support may believe and feel that their supervisors are more concerned about them, and are more willing to supervise them, approve their performance, and care about their development. Therefore, these employees may exert more effort on the job and show better attitudes in order to repay their supervisors. Likewise, other scholars described perceived supervisor support as the level of support and Eisenberger considerate treatment by employees‟ supervisors, leader thoughtfulness, attention, and respect (Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995; DeConinck & Johnson, 2009; Mottaz, 1988). Wayne, Shore, and Liden (1997) argued that when employees cogitate they have good relationships with supervisors, they may perceive more supervisor support. As supervisors act on behalf of the organization because they evaluate the contribution of employees and manage the reward systems, the treatment that employees receive from their supervisor may impact their turnover intention (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986; Tekleab, Takeuchi & Taylo, 2005). Moreover, according to Tourangeau and Cranley (2006), supervisor support is a key organizational factor that may indirectly affect the intention to stay in nursing industry (Galletta, Portoghese, Penna, Battistelli, & Saiani, 2011). That is to say, when employees perceived more supports from supervisors, it may influence their turnover decisions throughout the turnover process under certain conditions in an organization. According to the characteristics of Generation Y introduced in the prior section, Generation Y expects customized job and want their supervisors treat them as an individual rather than a big group. In addition, they prefer to work in a team and expect their colleagues and supervisors are easily accessible. They hope to get comments and feedback from their supervisors frequently in order to ensure that they are performing well and are improving 27.

(36) because they are relatively ambitious for their own career paths. To a certain degree, supervisors are closer to and have more connections with employees. Employees must have necessary resources and support needed to complete their work and to meet the demand of the job, while a manager‟s role is creating supportive emotional climate (Brown & Leigh, 1996). Supervisors may not only provide tangible benefits and support, but also intangible benefits and support, such as making sure the employees get available resources, protecting employees from unfairness, or ensuring employees perceive safety within the work (Kahn, 1990). When employees perceive that they have higher supervisor support, they may feel more protected and are more confident performing their jobs. As a result, this study proposes that perceived supervisor support may moderate the relationship between P-O Fit and intention to leave of Generation Y. In other words, when employees perceive higher supervisor support, the negative relationship between P-O fit and intention to leave may be strengthened, in such a way that employees with higher P-O fit will have an even lower intention to leave. Thus, the third hypothesis is proposed as below. Hypothesis 3: Perceived supervisor support has a moderating effect on the relationship between P-O fit and intention to leave of Generation Y.. 28.

(37) Perceived Peer Support (PPS) Employee turnover is a phenomenon of a broad range of concerns, including their fit with other aspects of their life, ties to others, and what they would need to sacrifice if they left (Mitchell et al., 2001). More specifically, employee turnover may be influenced by conditions of their social networks. Social support is usually categorized into supervisory support, peer support, and kinship support (Kim, Price, Mueller, & Watson, 1996). Consider the relationship of Generation Y to supervisors, this study suspects that similar relationship may exist between Generation Y and their peers. Based on the definition of Mead and MacNeil (2006), peers are people who have similar experience and can better relate to each other and offer more authentic empathy. Also, peers can offer each other practical advice and suggestions that other professionals may not offer (Mead & MacNeil, 2006). Moreover, Mossholder, Settoon, and Henagan (2005) found that employees who were more engaged in informal networks were less likely to leave the companies. Additionally, Friedman and Holtom (2002) studied how membership in minority of network groups provides social capital and support, which may reduce employee turnover intentions. According to Fisher's (1985) longitudinal study, effects of social support from peers and supervisor include increased satisfaction and commitment and decreased turnover from unmet expectations. Also, Yin and Yang (2002) studied nurses in Taiwan and found peer support to have significant impact on intention to leave. According to the characteristics of Generation Y introduced in the prior section, Generation Y likes to work and complete tasks with others and they think that being able to work with many talented team members makes them love their job more (Tapscott, 2008). Besides, working in teams is a key motivator to Generation Y and they enjoy working in office that is open and conducive to socializing (Hewlett et al., 2009). Therefore, when employees of Generation Y perceive that they have higher peer support, they may delay their intention to leave caused by a poor P-O fit. Thus, this study assumes that perceived peer 29.

(38) support has a moderating effect on the relationship between P-O Fit and intention to leave of Generation Y according to the literatures addressed above. In other words, this study proposes when employees have higher peer support, the relationship between P-O fit and intention to leave is stronger, thus employees with high P-O fit will have even lower intention to leave. The fourth hypothesis is proposed as follows. Hypothesis 4: Perceived peer support has a moderating effect on the relationship between P-O fit and intention to leave of Generation Y.. 30.

(39) CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHOD. In this chapter, research method conducted in this study is introduced. It starts by presenting the framework, then, the hypotheses are listed according to the literature review. Furthermore, it provides information on the research procedure of this study. The research design and samples used to test the hypotheses are also explained in this section. Definition and measurement of variables are introduced at the end of the chapter.. Research Framework The framework of this study was constructed from the previous literature review. This framework is applied for the purpose of investigating the possible antecedents that affects the turnover intention of Generation Y. Person-organization fit is selected as the independent variable, while the intention to leave is the dependent variable, to test P-O fit as the possible cause of the intention to leave of Generation Y. In addition, this study proposes perceived supervisor support and perceived peer support as moderators in the relationship between person-organization fit and intention to leave. The following Figure 3.1 is the research framework of this study.. 31.

(40) Perceived Supervisor Support H3 Person-Organization Fit. Perceived Peer Support H4 Intention to Leave. H2 (-). Demographic Factors Gender Age Education level Number of dependents Tenure. H1. Figure 3.1. Research framework. Research Hypothesis Based on the previous literature reviews, the hypotheses of the study were proposed as following: Hypothesis 1: Demographic factors have a significant relationship with intention to leave of Generation Y. Hypothesis 1a: Gender has a significant relationship with intention to leave of Generation Y. Hypothesis 1b: Age has a significant relationship with intention to leave of Generation Y. Hypothesis 1c: Education level has a significant relationship with intention to leave of Generation Y. Hypothesis 1d: Number of dependents has a significant relationship with intention to leave of Generation Y. Hypothesis 1e: Tenure has a significant relationship with intention to leave of Generation 32.

(41) Y. Hypothesis 2: P-O fit has a negative relationship with intention to leave of Generation Y. Hypothesis 3: Perceived supervisor support has a moderating effect on the relationship between P-O fit and intention to leave of Generation Y. Hypothesis 4: Perceived peer support has a moderating effect on the relationship between P-O fit and intention to leave of Generation Y.. Research Procedure The research procedure in this study includes eight steps that researcher followed to complete this study. Figure 3.2 provides all the steps in the order of the research procedure. At the beginning, the researcher was interested in one specific topic, therefore, the researcher started to review literatures and information that related to this topic. After identifying the topic, the researcher discussed with the advisor in order to determine the purpose and research questions of this study specifically. Next, the researcher started to develop the research framework based on the literature review and also develop the research instrument of this study. The entire instrument went through an expert review and was pilot tested to ensure the validity and reliability. After the instruments were tested, the data was collected and analyzed. Lastly, the findings of this study were reported and conclusions made based on the results of data collection and literature.. 33.

(42) Review Literature Identify Research Topic Develop Research Purpose and Questions. Develop Research Framework Develop Research Instrument Conduct Expert Review and Pilot Test Analyze Data Conclude Research Findings. Figure 3.2. Research procedure. Research Design Based on the characteristics of Generation Y and antecedents of turnover, this study chose person-organization fit as the independent variable, intention to leave as the dependent variable, and perceived supervisor support and perceived peer support as moderators on the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. Hypotheses were proposed according to previous research findings and theories. A quantitative approach was conducted in this research using a survey questionnaire as the instrument for data collection. Before the formal data collection, the questionnaire was pilot tested to ensure the validity and reliability of all the measurement scales. Inferential statistics were applied to test study hypotheses.. 34.

(43) Sample The research target population was Generation Y workers in Taiwan. Because there is no list of this target population, this study used the convenience sampling method. Online questionnaire links were sent to sample participants that the researcher could approach. There were 377 questionnaires in total collected in this study. The sample participants were born between 1977 to 1997 (Tapscott, 2008), equivalent to the age range of 17 to 37 years old in 2014. Besides, to qualify as the sample of this study, participants were employed in an organization within two years and the working experience needs to be over three months. Most of the participants were female, from 21 to 30 years old, and single. Moreover, most of them had a bechelor degree, no dependent to take care of, worked below 3 years in their current company, and had a monthly salary ranged from 20,001 NT dollars to 40,000 NT dollars. (see Table 4.1. Descriptive Statistics on Sample Characteristics). Data collection Data collection was conducted throughout the months between February and April, 2014. Online questionnaire was utilized to collect data in this study. Firstly, the researcher sent the questionnaire link to members of Generation Y in the researcher‟s personal network, and then used the snowball sampling technique to ask people to send the link to other members of Generation Y they can reach. The researcher collected 404 online questionnaires. However, 27 questionnaires were regarded as invalid questionnaires because the participants failed the sample criteria of age or tenure. The number of valid questionnaires to enter into the analysis is 377.. Questionnaire Design The questionnaire was designed to collect data on P-O fit, intention to leave, perceived supervisor support, perceived peer support, and demographics. The questionnaire was designed in English initially with published Western measurement scales. However, since the 35.

(44) research population is Generation Y in Taiwan whose official language is Mandarin Chinese, the questionnaire was translated from English to Chinese. To ensure the Chinese translation matched the original meaning of all statements in English, back translation was conducted by native Mandarin speakers who have good English skills (e.g. scores above 90 in iBT TOEFL Test or above 860 in TOEIC Test). The final translated version of the questionnaire was pilot tested using 70 participants from the sample of Generation Y, which showed good internal consistency reliability.. Measurement The measurements used in this study were listed below. The complete questionnaire which shows the instructions and all items of each measurement scale can be seen in the Appendix: Measurements and Questionnaire.. Person-Organization Fit Kristof (1996) defined P-O Fit as the compatibility between individuals and organizations. Chatman (1989) defined P-O Fit as the equivalence between the norms and values of organizations and the values of individuals. According to the definitions, employees may choose to stay the organizations which fit their own value and once unmet satisfaction occurs, intention to leave may arise afterwards. Therefore, the study utilizes the psychological factors proposed by Kickul and Lester (2001) who categorized these factors into two components, intrinsic outcomes (that relate to the nature of the job itself) and extrinsic outcomes (that relate to the consequence of completing the job). Among these two components, there are four factors totaling 19 items. Kickul and Lester (2001) regarded these items as what employees care and concern about among their organizations. All of the 19 items are rated on a 5–point Likert-type scale ranging from „1‟ “strongly disagree” to „5‟ “strongly agree.” Some sample item statements are: “My organization provides me the level of freedom I need to be creative,”, “My organization provides me enough resources to 36.

(45) perform my job,”, “My organization provides me safe work environment.” The score of P-O fit is an aggregate of the 19 measurement items. A high score represents higher degree of P-O fit.. Intention to Leave Miller et al. (1979) defined intention to leave as an overall behavior of thought of quitting and intention to search other possible jobs. Tett and Meyer (1993) defined turnover intention as the conscious and deliberate willingness to leave an organization. The instrument to measure intention to leave is adopted from Wayne et al. (1997), and Botsford and King (2012). Five items are rated on a 7–point Likert-type scale ranging from „1‟ “strongly disagree” to „7‟ “strongly agree.” Respondents indicated their level of agreement or disagreement on items such as, “I often question whether to stay at my current job”, “I am looking for a change from my current job”, “I am actively looking for a job outside my current company” and, “As soon as I can find a better job, I'll leave my current job.” A high score from each of the four items described above represents a higher level of intention to leave. The fifth item “I think I will be working at the current company five years from now” is a reverse-scored statement. The score of intention to leave is an aggregate of the five measurement items.. Perceived Supervisor Support Lynch et al. (1999) indicated that perceived supervisor support is the feelings between employees and supervisors and the level of concerns that supervisors give to each employee. Perceived supervisor support was measured in the work of Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, and Rhoades (2002), where in their study they used the items chosen by Eisenberger et al (1986). Nine items were adapted by replacing the term organization with the term supervisor. These items are rated on a 5–point Likert type scale ranging from „1‟ “strongly disagree” to „5‟ “strongly agree.” Respondents will indicate their level of agreement or disagreement on items such as, “My supervisor cares about whether or 37.

(46) not I achieve my career goals.”, “My supervisor keeps me informed about different career opportunities for me in the organization.” A high score for these items represented a higher level of perceived supervisor support. The score of perceived supervisor support was aggregated from the nine measurement items.. Perceived Peer Support Peer support is social emotional support which is mutually offered or provided by persons sharing similar mental health condition (Solomon, 2004). This study utilized seven items from the Teacher Collegiality Scale (TCS) from the Demonstrating mutual support trust (DMS) dimension, which was developed by Shah (2011). Seven items were adapted by replacing the term teachers with the term colleagues. These items are rated on a 5–point Likert type scale ranging from „1‟ “strongly disagree” to „5‟ “strongly agree.” Respondents indicated their level of agreement or disagreement on items such as, “There is a feeling of trust and confidence among colleagues in my current company.”, and “My colleagues provide strong social support to me.” The score of perceived supervisor support was aggregated from the seven measurement items.. Demographic Factors Gender, age, education level, number of dependents, and tenure are chosen to be the demographic factors based on previous studies and literature. Gender. Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women (Bem, 1981; Laws, 1979). Men and women have different values, so they may have different turnover intention. As such, the researcher uses gender as a demographics factor because gender may affect Generation Y‟s intention to leave. Gender is measured with one item: What is your gender? The options were dummy-coded as male = 0 and female = 1. Age. 38.

(47) Even though age range in this study is limited by the definition of Generation Y, this study still includes age as a demographics factor because of abundant evidences of its effect in the literature. Age data is collected through an open-ended question: Which year were you born? (e.g., 1989). This data is later recoded as age by subtracting the birth year from current year (2014). Education level. Federico et al. (1976) found that higher education is associated with lower tenure, thus education level is included as a demographic factor. Education level is measured with one item: What is your education level? The options were coded as, high school degree and below =1, bachelor degree = 2, master degree = 3, and doctoral degree = 4. Number of dependents. Based on the literature review family responsibilities is a main factor that may influence turnover intention (Steel & Lounsbury, 2009; Mobley et al., 1979; Price & Mueller, 1986). Therefore, number of dependents is included as a demographic factor. Number of dependents is measured with one item: What is your current number of dependents? The options were no dependent =1, one dependent = 2, two dependents = 3, three dependents = 4, four dependents = 5, five dependents or more = 6. Tenure. Tenure is one of the main personal factors that have an impact on turnover intention, which has been studied by many scholars (Steel & Lounsbury, 2009; Mobley et al., 1979; Jackofsky, 1984; Gerhart, 1990). Thus, tenure is included as a demographic factor. Tenure data is collected through an open-ended question: How long have you worked in this company (e.g., 1 year 2 months)? This data is later recoded into number of months.. 39.

(48) Data Analysis The statistic software of IBM SPSS 21 for Windows was used in this study to analyze the data. The analysis method included:. Descriptive Analysis The SPSS was applied for analyzing respondent information and acquiring descriptive data report, which analyzed the demographics of the sample. Descriptive analysis was used to check for errors, outliers and the distribution of the data. Moreover, descriptive analysis was used to examine the mean and standard deviation of all the variables in this study. The frequency distribution and percentage number were used to identify the participants‟ distribution pattern in all demographic information.. Pearson Correlation Analysis Pearson correlation analysis was used to examine initial relationships on the hypotheses and to understand the degree of linear relationship between two variables. Also, correlation was utilized to understand the strength of the relationship between the variables. Specifically, correlation analysis was adopted to understand the relationships among demographic factors (i.e. age, numbers of dependents and tenure), P-O fit, intention to leave, perceived supervisor support, and perceived peer support. If the correlation coefficient shows +1, it means there is a positively perfect correlation between two variables, instead, a correlation of -1 means there is a perfect negative correlation between two variables.. T-test T-test was conducted to test the differences between two groups of participants by comparing means and standard deviations of each group. Gender, one of the demographic factors of this study, was examined by t-test to find if there is a difference between male and female participants on their levels of intention to leave.. Hierarchical Regression Analysis The relationship among the variables and the moderation effect in this study was tested 40.