Turnover phenomenon is one of the biggest concerns of the organizations nowadays. According to Mercer (2004), turnover costs to the organizations 50% and 150% of the annual salary. A recent survey from CIPD (2009) reported the overall employee turnover rate for the UK to be 15.7% which means that the average cost per employee is £6,125, rising to £9,000 for senior managers or directors. However, this is not the only cost of the organization due to turnover. Probably the most important issue arisen is not the direct financial cost but situations such as jeopardizing the firm performance by losing good employees and as a result losing some of the important clients (Hom, 2004). For those reasons the recent research has been focusing to turnover intentions (the reason why turnover exists) in order to understand those reasons and try to reduce it or even prevent it if possible.
According to the literature, turnover intentions (T/I) precede and work as a motivator for turnover (Tett & Meyer, 1993). In a previous study Lee & Mowday (1987) indicated that turnover intentions are the strongest cognitive precursor for turnover. Most of the models of turnover intentions consider organizational commitment and job satisfaction as the basic antecedents of T/I. Slattery (2005), indicated the existence of positive associations between job satisfaction and organization commitment and negative associations between job satisfaction and turnover intention and organizational commitment and turnover intention. Earlier, Tett & Meyer (1993), suggested that because organizational commitment needs more time to be developed than job satisfaction is much more stable and that is why job satisfaction has only indirect influence on turnover intention. This is called the satisfaction-to-commitment mediation model the first from the three main relevant theoretical aspects of the model. The second one is called commitment to-satisfaction mediation model. In that model employees decide if they are going to leave their job or not considering the way they feel about their job. The last aspect is independent-efects model due to which there is no particular causality between the job satisfaction and commitment. Huselid & Day (1991), based on Blau & Boal (1987) previous research, resulted that, again, organizational commitment is a very good predictor of turnover intentions. However, there were some researchers in the past (Mobley, Griffeth, Hand and Meglino, 1979) who suggested that there is lack of empirical bases for understanding turnover as a whole.
Mathieu & Zajac (1990) indicated that organisational commitment has to be considered as a mediator variable in turnover models which can focus on predicting other employee reaction and behaviours. However, Mobley et al., (1979) in an earlier research argue that the concept wants organizational commitment as a mediator is not sufficient. Huselid & Day (1991) suggested that continuance commitment is included on organizational commitment. Stumpf & Hartman (1984), have tested turnover causal models that included organisational commitment as a mediator between employee personal characteristics, work related experiences and turnover intention while Cotton & Tuttle (1986) found commitment and salary highly connected with turnover intentions.
Another very important aspect which seems to work as a direct variable for turnover intentions is work home conflict (Haar, 2004). According to Greenhaus and Parasuraman (1986) work home conflict is the inconsistency which arises when the employee cannot combine the obligations he/she has from his/her work or family. Greenhaus & Beutell (1985) suggest the existence of a two direction work home conflict: work to home interfere and home to work interfere.
To summarize, the aim of this study is to confirm the theory which is mentioned here according to which organizational commitment is a mediator variable and work home conflict a direct variable for turnover intentions. Furthermore, we would like to conclude to a model which can prove apart from the mediator and the direct variable the existence of more exogenous factors predicting turnover intentions.
MEASURES
SAMPLE SIZE: 368 respondents, working either full time or part time.
METHOD OF MEASUREMENT: Respondents completed a work pressure survey which aimed to look at the ways in which the work organization interacted with their employees. After capturing an overview of the demographics and the working hour patter of the respondent, the questionnaire included 50 likert response scale items (APPENDIX 1). Each of the items targeted to look at interaction between the organization and the employees. Each of the 50 items could be answered by selecting an option from a likert scale ranging from 1 which meant TOTALLY DISAGREE to 7 which meant TOTALLY AGREE.
Results
The data was analysed in two ways. First, exploratory factor analysis, with the maximum likelihood method of extraction and direct oblimin rotation, was used to determine the factor structure of a 50 item version of the Work Pressure Survey. Second, using the resulting factors, multiple regression was used to investigate if these factors (organisational commitment, autonomy, procedural justice, continuance commitment, support, work home conflict, recognition and salary) affect employee turnover intentions. Additionally, according to the literature organisational commitment might be acting as a mediator variable and that is why it explains a lot of what the other factors explain. So, we explore the data and find out what seems to be contributing most of the explanation of turnover intentions and the organisational commitment. The variables explain more of the organisational commitment than they do of turnover intentions, so it is a mediator variable, but work home conflict explains more of T/I than organisational commitment, so it is not mediated by organisational commitment, but it is a direct variable.
Then we use confirmatory technique, to confirm our findings
Factor analysis of the WPS
Step 1: Maximum likelihood analysis involving the 50-item of the WPS
Analysis of all the data collected on the WPS, using the maximum likelihood method of extraction and a form of oblique rotation (direct oblimin), yielded, in the first instance, a 12 factor solution. Various criteria were then applied to refine this solution. First, it was investigated if all the factors satisfied the Kaiser criterion (eigenvalues ≥1) and they did. Second, the resulting scree plot was examined and it was found that there was a considerable discontinuity after factor 12, suggesting a possible 12 factor solution.
Step 2: Further maximum likelihood analysis
A number of criteria were then applied in order to find a satisfactory solution, that is that (a) a factor must have 3 salient item loadings greater than 0.3, (b) individual items must have at least one factor loading greater than 0.3 and (c) any item loading on more than one factor when the final solution is obtained will be placed only in the factor on which it loads most highly. In the 1st maximum likelihood analysis, item 12 and item 27 is intentionally left out as these items measure turnover intention directly.
In the 2nd maximum likelihood analysis, the initial 12 factors are reduced to 9 factors as the pattern matrix and well as the scree plot revealed that factor 9, 10 and 12 contain less than 3 items loading as they failed to meet criterion (a). Using the 9 factor solution, a third maximum likelihood analysis with direct oblimin rotation was carried out. The same criterions were applied and resulted in the removal of item 21 and 50. The pattern matrix from the third analysis revealed that factor 7 failure to meet criterion (a) and (b).
Step 3: Final Factor Solution (Further maximum likelihood analysis)
At that point, the 9 factors are reduced to 8 factors in the fourth maximum likelihood analysis. Using the remaining items, a fifth maximum likelihood analysis with direct oblimin rotation was carried out and resulted in the removal of item 23 as it failed to meet criterion (b). A sixth maximum likelihood analysis with direct oblimin rotation was then carried out on the remaining items. This time items 7, 22, and 30 were removed, as they no longer met the criteria. A seventh analysis was carried out using the same method of extraction and rotation and, when it was investigated if the above criteria were satisfied, it was found that item 43 did not satisfy these criterions and so it was removed. Subsequent eight to twelfth analysis found that item 11 and 40 did not fulfil the criterions and were removed. Additionally, although item 31, 19 and 48 satisfied part of the criterions (e.g. loading greater than 0.3 in some factors), they were removed as their cross loadings were about the same and could not explain any of the factors which they loaded satisfactorily. A final check on the pattern matrix revealed an 8 factor solution comprising a total number of 36 items that met all the criterions.
Step 4: Naming the factors
Factor 1 "Autonomy": it refers to the capacity of a rational individual to make an informed, un-coerced decision. An example of this is 'I am given as much freedom as I want to organise my own work schedule' (items 37, 38).
Factor 2 "Procedural Justice": concerns the fairness of the processes by which decisions regarding gaining promotion are made An example of this is "The criteria used to decide pay raises are known by employees" (items 4, 20, 24, 44, 33).
Factor 3 "Continuance commitment": refers to the individual who commits to the organization because he/she perceives high costs of losing organizational membership. An example of this is 'Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided to leave my organisation now" (items 2, 3, 9, 13, 28).
Factor 4 "Support": is characterised as workplace teamwork. An example of this is 'I help colleagues who have been absent from work' (items 14, 32, 35, 36, 41, 49).
Factor 5 "Organisational Commitment": it refers to the employee's psychological attachment to the organization. An example of this is 'Ι feel emotionally attached to the objectives of my organization' (items 15, 26, 34, 39, 45).
Factor 6 "Work Home Conflict": is "a form of inter role conflict in which the role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect. An example of this is 'my work schedule is often in conflict with my personal life' (items 6,17, 29, 46).
Factor 7 "Recognition": it refers to whether employees are given acknowledgment for their contribution. An example of this is 'supervisor/managers regularly congratulate employees in recognition of their efforts' (items 1, 8, 18, 25, 42, 47)
Factor 8 "Salary": is characterised by monetary payment where it deems to be fair reflection of the actual workload. An example of this is 'my salary is fair in comparison to people doing a similar job in other organisations' (items 5, 10, 16).
Figure 1
Table 1
Eigenvalues, % of variance and loadings of Work Pressure Survey (50items) on first 4 of the 8 factors from a maximum, likelihood analyses with direct oblimin rotation
Factors
Autonomy
Procedural Justice
ContinuanceCommitment
Teamwork
Eigenvalues
6.81
3.21
2.90
2.31
% of variance
18.91
8.92
8.03
6.42
Item numbers
37
1.00
38
0.58
44
0.74
4
0.68
33
0.68
24
0.47
20
-0.37
9
0.76
3
0.76
13
0.66
28
0.55
2
0.53
35
0.77
41
0.67
32
0.62
36
0.55
14
0.40
49
0.40
Table 2
Eigenvalues, % of variance and loadings of Work Pressure Survey on remaining 4 of the 8 factors from a maximum, likelihood analyses with direct oblimin rotation
Factors
Organisational
Commitment
Work Home
Conflict
Recognition
Salary
Eigenvalues
2.13
1.45
1.41
1.17
% of variance
5.93
4.04
3.93
3.27
Item numbers
39
0.61
34
0.61
15
0.59
26
0.48
45
0.36
6
0.71
17
0.71
46
0.60
29
0.34
18
0.81
8
0.60
42
0.59
47
0.50
25
0.46
1
0.41
5
0.75
10
0.70
16
0.70
Table 3
Means, Standard Deviations, and correlations of measures of the 8 factors
Variable
Mean
Standard Deviation
Correlations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Autonomy
4.34
1.68
1.00
Procedural Justice
3.84
1.08
-0.42
1.00
Continuance Commitment
3.72
1.44
0.086
0.77
1.00
Teamwork
4.75
1.07
0.107
0.41
0.75
1.00
Organizational Commitment
4.04
1.33
0.154
0.251
0.119
-0.31
1.00
Work Home Conflict
3.75
1.38
-.075
-0.55
0.163
0.63
0.115
1.00
Recognition
4.11
1.19
0.283
0.327
0.13
0.118
0.291
-0.15
1.00
Salary
4.41
1.46
0.148
0.430
0.62
0.18
0.162
-0.19
0.341
1.00
Correlations < 0.13 are not significant
Multiple regression
Analysis 1:
Stepwise: was used to investigate the variables with the highest contribution. It involved turnover intentions as the dependant variable which was regressed on autonomy, procedural justice, continuance commitment, support, work home conflict, recognition and salary which were the independent variables. Organisational commitment was not used as it is the mediator variable. This produced a total variance explained at 26.4%. The variance explained by each of the rest variables are 15.3% on recognition, 4.8% on autonomy, 3.7% on work/family conflict, 1.6% on continuance commitment and 1.0% on procedural justice.
Analysis 2:
Stepwise: organisational commitment was regressed on autonomy, recognition, continuance commitment, support, work home conflict, procedural justice and salary. This produced total variance explained at 40.6%. The variance explained by each of the rest variables are 28.3% on recognition, 6.4% on autonomy, 3.2% on work home conflict, 1.9% on continuance commitment and 0.9% on procedural justice.
Apart from the fact that organisational commitment is the partial mediator the regression also showed that work life conflict can explain turnover intention better than organisational commitment. It showed a direct effect on turnover intention (dependent variable) for that reason it was excluded from the mediator model.
Analysis 3
Hierarchical: a confirmatory method to test the relationship between turnover intention (dependent variable), organisational commitment (independent variable), autonomy, procedural justice, continuance commitment, support, recognition and salary (independent variable), and work/life conflict (independent variable).
Step 1: (a) Turnover intention was regressed on organisational commitment (the mediator variable) as the first independent variables because it tended to have the strongest power to predict the dependent variable.
(b) Enter the remaining independent variables which explained unique variance in both the dependent and mediator variables.
(c) Enter work home conflict as it had directly effect on dependent variable.
Table 4
Regression analysis summary for predictor of turnover intention
Variable
R²
∆R²
F
Beta
Analysis 1 (dependent variable = turnover intention)
Step 1
Recognition
.15
.15.3
66.08
-39.1
Autonomy
.20
.048
45.92
-23.5
Work/home conflict
.24
.037
37.90
-19.6
Continuance Commitment
.25
.016
30.93
-12.9
Procedural Justice
.26
.010
26.03
-10.9
Analysis 2 (dependent variable = organisational commitment)
Step 1
Recognition
.28
.283
144.44
53.2
Autonomy
.35
.064
96.81
27.1
Work/home conflict
.38
.032
73.88
18.1
Continuance Commitment
.39
.019
59.95
14.2
Procedural Justice
.40
.010
49.57
10.7
Analysis 3 (dependent variable= turnover intention)
Step1
Organisational commitment
.18
.185
83.08
-43.0
Step 2
.26
.076
18.12
-13.1
Recognition
Autonomy
Continuance commitment
Procedural justice
Support
Salary
Step3
Work/home conflict
.32
.060
21.14
26.0
The result can explain the turnover model in which the organisational commitment is the partial mediator which can explain the turnover intentions (F= 83.08, p < .001) while work home conflict has a direct effect on turnover intention (F= 21.14, p < .001).
Turnover Intentions
Work Home Conflict
Continuance Commitment
Recognition
Autonomy
Organisational Commitment
Procedural Justice
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis as well as stepwise and hierarchical multiple regression was used for the investigation of the predictors of Turnover Intentions of the employees. In particular, the role of Organisational Commitment as a mediator of the other factors was explored. The results indicated an eight factor model which they can predict Turnover Intentions. These variables are: Autonomy, Procedural Justice, Continuance Commitment, Support, Organisational Commitment, Work-Home Conflict, Recognition and Salary (The variable "salary" was misreported in the previous report. In the literature it is mentioned as "Distributive Justice"). From the results it was found that Organisational Commitment was probably acting as a mediator for Recognition, Autonomy and Continuance Commitment. It was also found that Work Home Conflict can explain Turnover Intentions better than Organisational Commitment because it showed a direct effect on Turnover Intentions for that reason it was excluded from the mediator model. Support and Distributive Justice are not significantly related neither to Turnover Intentions nor to the Organisational Commitment. Procedural Justice had a significant relationship with Turnover Intentions but not with Organisational Commitment and therefore is not mediated and may have a direct affect on Turnover Intentions.
Due to the limitations of factor analysis and multiple regression -they can examine only a single relationship at a time (Hair, Black, Babin & Anderson, 2010) we now use the technique of Structural Equation Modeling with which we can examine a series of dependence relationships simultaneously. The questionnaire used for the research was a 7-point Likert scale which means that responses could not be well-approximated to continuous measurement and that there is a lack of multivariate normality across the range of data, so for that reason Asymptotically Distribution Free (ADF) estimation was used. However, at the first attempts Maximum Likelihood estimation was used and item 20 was removed because it was ordinal and not continuous. According to Hu & Bentler, (1998, 1999) the value of RMSEA (close to .06), the Comparative Fit Index and the Tucker-Lewis Index (above .9) identify models with good fit. Additionally, the chi square is required to be non significant (p=0.05). Our sample size is n=368 which can be considered as large enough to influence the chi square results without showing the difference between the fitted model data and our model.
Various components of the model were tested firstly the endogenous variables of Turnover Intentions and Organisational Commitment, with Work Home Conflict added as a direct variable affecting Turnover Intentions. Fit statistics, significance and variance explained were examined, Modification Indices were checked and items which were identified as reducing the accuracy and efficacy of the model were removed (Job 20). Parceling was undertaken to reduce measurement error and account for communalities in item responses.
Autonomy and Recognition are explaining significant variance in our model (according to the results of our stepwise multiple regression) and for that reason were included into the final graphical path analysis. On the other hand, the rest variables (Procedural Justice and Continuance Commitment) were not added in our final model because they did not explain significant variance (again depending on the stepwise multiple regression matrix) and even though they were explored they failed to meet the fit statistics and were rejected. To reach to our final model, we continue by parceling items and doing correlation adjustments as well as a further level checking (the final model as seen in figure 2).
Figure 2: Predictors of Turnover Intentions and their inter-relationships including variances explained and correlations
The final model shown in Figure 2 was accepted as a rather good fit for the empirical data at χ² = 34.9, df = 32, p = 0.334; TLI = 0.991; CFI = 0.995; RMSEA = 0.016. 69% of variance in Turnover Intentions is explained by this model and with its relationship with Organisational Commitment at -0.77 the partial mediator model appears to be somehow supported. The total variance explained of the Organisational Commitment is 66%. Work Home Conflict demonstrated a relatively strong influence on Turnover Intentions directly (0.69), but the model improved by reflecting its co-variance with Organisational Commitment (0.16). Autonomy and Recognition load onto Organisational Commitment at 0.25 and 0.66, and correlate at 0.60. Small improvements are made by indicating the influence of Recognition on Work Home Conflict (0.27). All remaining items and parcels used in the final model show strong links with the latent variables, with job 27 (0.27) as the weakest.
Discussion
The results of this study indicate that Organisational Commitment works as a partial mediator of the factors of Autonomy and Recognition regarding their influence to Turnover Intentions. There is also a smaller effect of the Organisational Commitment to Work Home Conflict but mostly Work Home Conflict impacts directly to Turnover Intentions. However, the main result is that Organisational Commitment plays a lead role in determining the Turnover Intentions of the employees. When the Organisational Commitment of the employees is getting higher then their Turnover Intentions are usually getting lower. Moreover, the one negative correlation of Work Home Conflict and Organisational Commitment indicates that every time an employee is facing problems in balancing his career with his family's obligation it's likely that his organisational commitment is going down. In shortly, the obtained structural model indicates the exogenous variables of autonomy, recognition, work family life conflict and organizational commitment to be the best predictors of job turnover for this study. The cost of the voluntary turnover causes great damages to the organisations and that is the reason why these kinds of studies can have important financial implications for the companies (CIPD, 2009).
According to Casper and Harris (2008) if the employers try to reduce the employees' Work Home Conflict while they try to establish the Organisational Commitment through Recognition there will be one step closer to reduce Turnover Intentions as well. Furthermore, Rouney, Cottlieb and Newby-Clark (2008) suggested that Autonomy is another variable which can affect the levels of the Organizational Commitment (positive correlation between the two of them).
However, we need to take into consideration the present economical conditions which they have change the way that an employee perceives his work. Many employees nowadays are facing problems trying to balance their work with their family or they are just not enjoy their work however they are committed to their organisation because it will be difficult for them to find a new job. So it is important to design new studies which can include all these new variables which play critical role to the employee's work behaviour.
In addition, there are some limitations regarding our research. The sample size is not big enough (n=368) so in order to generalize the results we need a more representative sample. The fact that the sample was gathered from students in a particular time period excludes some important economical variables of the present situations as it was mentioned before. There is a high possibility the sample to suffer from demographic and age homogeneity because of the way it was gathered.
As far as it concerns the survey itself, maybe the fact that there where limited items in the questionnaire while we were using an increased number of parcelling to improve the goodness-of-fit of the model had as a result to make our model weak. The use of parcels as indicators of constructs has been creating a lot of issues regarding their utility and efficacy (Little, Cunningham and Shahar, 2002). Finally, some mistakes in the previous factor analysis or regression may have resulted to a not so good model now.
The Work Pressures Survey was investigating the Turnover Intentions of the employees as well as the predictors and the relationship between these variables. Thus, the results of this research have been successful because they manage to explain up to a point what are some of the need of the employees in order to have a more stable work environment.
Appendix 1
The following questions require you to record the extent to which you agree or disagree with statements about your job and the organisation you work for. Please give your honest opinion, by circling the number that applies to you, where:
1 = totally disagree through to 7 = totally agree
If you change your mind about an answer, please put a cross over your original answer and circle a new number.
1
Feedback is regularly given to employees about suggestions they have made.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2
A serious consequence of leaving my job would be the scarcity of viable alternatives.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
It would be too costly for me to leave my organisation now.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4
The criteria used to decide pay raises are clearly defined.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
5
My salary is fair in comparison to others doing a similar job in my current organisation.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
My job has a negative effect on my social life.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7
I expect to gain a promotion within the next two years.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
When an employee does good quality work, colleagues regularly show appreciation.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided to leave my organisation now.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
My salary is fair in comparison to people doing a similar job in other organisations.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
11
I regularly discuss problems at work with my colleagues.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
12
I often feel like quitting my job.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
13
I feel I have too few options to consider leaving my organisation.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
14
I am expected to cover the work for colleagues who are absent from work.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
15
My organisation has a great deal of personal meaning for me.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
16
My salary fairly reflects the amount of work I do and its importance.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
17
My work schedule is often in conflict with my personal life.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
18
Supervisors/managers regularly congratulate employees in recognition of their efforts.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
19
Employees receive recognition in writing from their supervisor/manager.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
20
Employees are not told clearly how to gain a promotion.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
21
I take a personal interest in my colleague's jobs.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
22
I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organisation.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
23
I often socialise with my work colleagues outside of the workplace.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
24
Promotions are determined openly and fairly.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
25
The values advocated by the top management of my organisation agree with my own.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
26
I am involved closely in decisions affecting my own job.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
27
It is likely that I will leave my job within the next year.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
28
It would be very hard for me to leave my organisation right now even if I wanted to.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
29
I often feel that there is too much work to do.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
30
I have regular meetings with my supervisor/manager to talk about my work schedule and responsibilities.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
31
My organisation provides cover for my work when I am absent.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
32
I go out of my way to help new employees.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
33
The criteria used to grant promotions are clearly defined.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
34
I really feel as if my organisation's problems are my own.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
35
I help colleagues who have been absent from work.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
36
My colleagues cover my work when I am absent.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
37
I am given as much freedom as I want to organise my own work schedule.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
38
My colleagues and I are given adequate autonomy/freedom to organise our workload.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
39
I feel emotionally attached to the objectives of my organisation.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
40
My organisation provides flexible working conditions that take into account the needs of the employees.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
41
I help colleagues who have heavy workloads.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
42
Employees' suggestions are seriously taken into consideration.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
43
Supervisors/managers use different ways to recognise in a tangible way the efforts of employees (e.g. tickets for cultural/sports events, free meals at a restaurant, etc.).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
44
The criteria used to decide pay raises are known by employees.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
45
My work provides me with considerable personal satisfaction.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
46
My job affects my relationship with my partner and/or children.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
47
Employees in my organisation are involved closely in decisions affecting their job.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
48
The responsibilities I am given in my job are equal to my abilities.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
49
My relationships with my colleagues at work are good.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
50
Some types of employee are treated less fairly than others.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Appendix 2 (Final Model Fit-Summary)
CMIN
Model
NPAR
CMIN
DF
P
CMIN/DF
Default model
34
34.858
32
.334
1.089
Saturated model
66
.000
0
Independence model
11
631.678
55
.000
11.485
Baseline Comparisons
Model
NFI
Delta1
RFI
rho1
IFI
Delta2
TLI
rho2
CFI
Default model
.945
.905
.995
.991
.995
Saturated model
1.000
1.000
1.000
Independence model
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
RMSEA
Model
RMSEA
LO 90
HI 90
PCLOSE
Default model
.016
.000
.043
.987
Independence model
.169
.157
.181
.000
Final Modification Indices
Covariances
M.I.
Par Change
err1
<-->
err11
4.603
.129
Variances
M.I.
Par Change
Regression Weights
M.I.
Par Change
Appendix 3 (Parcelling)
Work Home Conflict (items 17,6,46,29) :
WHC1 (job6+job46), WHC2 (job17+job19)
Organisational Commitment (items 39,34,15,26,45):
ORGCM1 (job39+job45+job26), ORGCM2 (job34+job15)
Recognition (items 18,8,42,47,25,1):
RCGNTN1 (job18+job8)
RCGNTN2 (job1+25)
RCGNTN3 (job42+job47)
Appendix 4 (Variance explained)
Estimate
Turnover Intentions
-.77
Organisational Commitment
.66
Job12
.68
Work Life Conflict WHC2
.59
RCGNTN1
.69
RCGNTN3
.67
Job 27
.52
RCGNTN2
.53
Job38
.83
ORGCM1
.84
ORGCM2
.67
Job37
.25
Covariance Summary
Estimate
Turnover Intentions
<---
Work homeConflict
.69
Organisational Commitment
<---
Work homeConflict
.16
Organisational Commitment
<---
Autonomy
.25
Organisational Commitment
<---
Recognition
.66
Recognition
<---
RCGNTN1
.69
Recognition
<---
RCGNTN2
.53
ORGCM1
<---
Organisational Commitment
.67
ORGCM2
<---
Organisational Commitment
.84
WHC2
<---
Work homeConflict
.35
Job12
<---
Turnover Intentions
.68
Job27
<---
Turnover Intentions
.52
Job12
<---
Work homeConflict
.54
Job37
<---
Autonomy
.93
Job38
<---
Autonomy
.83
