Next Article in Journal
Which Skills Are the Most Absent among University Graduates in the Labour Market? Evidence from Slovakia
Previous Article in Journal
Beyond Usual Suspects? Inclusion and Influence of Non-State Actors in Online Public Consultations in Croatia
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 11
Issue 10
10.3390/socsci11100437
socsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Social Support and Self-Efficacy on Turnover Intentions: The Mediating Role of Conflict and Commitment

by
Marina Mondo
1,*,
Jessica Pileri
2,
Federica Carta
1 and
Silvia De Simone
1
1
Department of Pedagogy, Psychology, Philosophy, University of Cagliari, 09123 Cagliari, Italy
2
Department of Dynamic Clinical Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Roma, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11(10), 437; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11100437
Submission received: 17 August 2022 / Revised: 19 September 2022 / Accepted: 20 September 2022 / Published: 25 September 2022
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Turnover intentions are a phenomenon that affects the life of organizations and causes highly negative consequences. Based on previous studies, it is possible to consider antecedents to turnover in terms of both individual and social perceived resources, which previous research does not usually examine simultaneously. The aim of this study was to explore the role of both resources (individual and social) on turnover intentions. Thus, we hypothesized that perceived social support and self-efficacy have an impact on turnover intentions and that this relationship is mediated by interpersonal conflict and Affective Commitment. A total of 392 Italian employees completed a self-report questionnaire. A structural equation model was tested. The results showed that interpersonal conflict and Affective Commitment fully mediated the relationship between social support, self-efficacy and turnover intentions. Practical implications are discussed.

1. Introduction

One of the phenomena that currently can cause serious problems to the productivity of the companies and high costs of recruitment and training is the turnover intention (Afzal et al. 2021; Alkahtani 2015; Raharjo et al. 2019), which is considered to be the greatest predictor of real turnover behavior (Griffeth et al. 2000; Kim and Kim 2021). It is defined as an individual’s desire to leave the company and seek other employment options (Perumal et al. 2018) either because there is a willingness to change jobs (Tett and Meyer 1993) or as a result of uncomfortable conditions perceived by the worker (Hongvichit 2015). In both such cases, it may pose a problem for the development of enterprises. Turnover intentions are studied in relation to their consequences for organizations (Price 2001; Shaw et al. 2005) in terms of a loss of know-how (Rao and Argote 2006), decrease in job performance (Reilly et al. 2014) and less development of human resources too (Nyberg and Ployhart 2013). In addition to the financial costs that the organization has incurred to form a good employee, repercussions of turnover behaviors on other employees in terms of moral lessening that can the increase risks of turnover are also to be taken into account (Ambrosius 2018; Ahammad et al. 2018). Turnover is a behavior that does not occur suddenly, but it is the final phase of a process that matures over time and involves subjective, relational and organizational variables. On one hand, employees try to maintain the balance between their professional growth needs and attitude towards the organization, and on the other hand, the organization tries to ensure their desired growth and a good working environment to avoid abandonment (Kraimer et al. 2011; Pesch et al. 2018). Our study intends to simultaneously use Organizational Support Theory (OST) and Self-Efficacy Theory as a framework for examining the indirect influence of perception of support (organizational and social) and self-efficacy on turnover intentions with Conflict and Affective Commitment as mediators. OST is considered an important theory underlying the perception of support and draws on the theory of social exchange (Blau 2017). Self-efficacy refers to the individual’s belief in having both ability and confidence to perform specific tasks or behaviors (Bandura 1977). Although both the theory of social exchange and the theory of self-efficacy are theoretically distinct, it is interesting to note that both perspectives reinforce each other (Walumbwa et al. 2011). OST and its precursor, social exchange theory, can explain how quality relationships can lead to favorable individual and organizational outcomes without considering individual perceived resources. The theory of self-efficacy, on the other hand, considers only the individual perspective, without considering the perceptions related to relational and contextual factors. In our study, we considered both perspectives including both organizational resources and individual ones. Based on these arguments, we assume that when workers feel themselves to be supported by either the tangible and intangible goods they receive within their organization, a rule of reciprocity creates a dynamic of exchange that makes workers aligned with the organizational objectives (Eisenberger et al. 1999) such as to raise Affective Commitment, reducing the likelihood of them leaving the organization. Low support, on the other hand, could reduce reciprocity and generate Conflict by increasing the likelihood of people leaving the organization. At the same time, a low self-efficacy related to work could discourage people from investing emotionally in the organization and therefore decrease the levels of Affective Commitment, increase interpersonal conflict and lead to wanting to leave the organization (Caesens et al. 2019; Kurtessis et al. 2017). This study makes a contribution to the literature in multiple ways: (1) it considers the antecedents of turnover intentions in terms of individual perceived resources and social perceived resources; (2) it broadens the literature related to perceived support in organizations (e.g., Kurtessis et al. 2017); (3) it considers the links with Conflict, a point which has received little attention from previous studies (Caesens et al. 2019).

2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

Among the variables that can positively or negatively affect the turnover intention inside the organizations, we find: Self-efficacy (De Simone and Planta 2017; De Simone et al. 2018; Kundi et al. 2017; Lu et al. 2016), Social capital and Affective Commitment, which are identified as significant antecedents of turnover intention (Cohen 1993; Eisenberger et al. 2014; Fazio et al. 2017; Lobburi 2012; Stovel and Bontis 2002), and interpersonal conflict (Akhlaghimofrad and Farmanesh 2021; Akinyemi et al. 2022; Notelaers et al. 2018). Self-effective people have stronger beliefs about their ability to perform a task successfully. They set more challenging goals, invest more resources, persist longer in behaviors, and are better able to cope with difficult situations (Bandura et al. 1980; Bandura and Cervone 1983, 1986; Hellervik et al. 1992; van Dinther et al. 2011). Additionally, in organizational contexts, professional self-efficacy is defined as the perceived competence to be able to successfully perform tasks related to work (Rigotti et al. 2008). High levels of professional self-efficacy are associated with increased work commitment (Guarnaccia et al. 2018). The Affective Commitment is defined as an organizational dimension in which workers accept and promote the values and objectives of the organization and have the desire to maintain an affiliation with the organization itself (Töre 2020). This study considers only Affective Commitment as described in the Meyer and Allen model (Meyer and Allen 1991): Affective Commitment, Normative Commitment and Continuance Commitment. According to Mercurio (2015), “Affective Commitment may be reasonably considered a core essence of organizational commitment” (p. 403), and for Ko (2021), “Affective Commitment is conceptually the most closely related to organizational identification” (p. 175). Many authors have argued that employees who perceive a high level of organizational support are more likely to feel the obligation to repay the organization in terms of Affective Commitment (Eisenberger et al. 1990; Eisenberger et al. 1986; Jang and Kandampully 2018). Employees who perceive the support of the organization would reciprocate by developing an emotional attachment to it and would be committed to helping it achieve its objectives (Coyle-Shapiro et al. 2006; Eisenberger et al. 2001; Lew 2009; Setiabudhi et al. 2021). Other research confirms that social support is a good predictor of Affective Commitment. Vandenberghe et al. (2004) have studied the antecedents and results of Affective Commitment, coming to the conclusion that the perceived organizational support was the single significant predictor of affective organizational commitment. Ruiller and Van Der Heijden (2016) have linked personal support with Affective Commitment, and the results show a strong and positive correlation between the two constructs especially with regard to the support of the supervisors. Marique et al. (2013) and Caesens et al. (2014), according to the social exchange perspective and the social identity perspective, have linked perceived organizational support and Affective Commitment finding a strong correlation between the two constructs with the mediation of organizational identification. Dilla and Zainal (2022) have found a positive and significant effect of social support on Affective Commitment through the mediation of the relational attachment. Nazir et al. (2018) also identified a positive relationship between perceived organizational support and Affective Commitment, and according to ST-Hilaire and de la Robertie (2018), good relations with supervisors and colleagues can be considered antecedents of Affective Commitment. Additionally, previous research has shown that good levels of self-efficacy have a positive impact on Affective Commitment. This positive effect occurs because employees who have high self-efficacy tend to accept goals and values in the organization, unlike employees who have low self-efficacy (Tsai et al. 2011; Lin and Wang 2018). Orgambídez et al. (2019) conducted research in order to verify the effects of mediation of the work engagement between self-efficacy and affective organizational commitment. The results showed that the Affective Commitment was expected by a good self-efficacy and a strong work engagement. Oh and Wee (2016) have examined the relationship between self-efficacy, Affective Commitment, customer orientation and performance, and the results show significant positive correlations between all the above mentioned variables. Rathi and Rastogi (2009) have explored the relationship between emotional intelligence, professional self-efficacy and Affective Commitment, finding a single positive correlation only between the last two of those. In his literature review, Agu (2015) affirms that a robust sense of self-efficacy can be considered strongly related to Affective Commitment and that the interaction between these variables can account for a positive attitude of workers towards the organization and greater achievement in terms of achieved goals. In agreement with the above, it is assumed that:
H1. 
Self-efficacy, Co-worker and Supervisor support are positively related to Affective Commitment.
There are several types of conflict in organizations, such as role conflict (Soelton et al. 2020), the conflict between work and life (De Simone et al. 2022) and object of our interest the interpersonal conflict (Wright and Larson 2022). Interpersonal conflict can be defined as that process characterized by the presence of different and opposite views in terms of interests, beliefs or values between individuals or groups in mutual interaction (Rahim 2017; De Dreu et al. 1999). It is also experienced in the workplace and represents a condition that, if not managed, can generate a decrease in well-being (Tremmel et al. 2019; Yang et al. 2019b). Research suggests that negative events within organizations, such as episodes of interpersonal conflict, are more crucial than positive events in influencing levels of employee well-being (Kuriakose et al. 2019; Rook 2001). In addition to the effects on employee well-being, interpersonal conflict is studied in relation to other organizational variables and behaviors (Notelaers et al. 2018). Personality differences, lack of information, role incompatibility and work-related stress (Hauge et al. 2007) as well as organizational changes, loss of status, lack of trust, discrimination and incivility are other causes of interpersonal conflicts in the workplace (Budd et al. 1996; Namin et al. 2022; Reio and Trudel 2013). Studies have shown that interpersonal conflict is an important stress factor associated with increase in counterproductive work behavior (Bayram et al. 2009; Eatough 2010), with lower organizational commitment and with higher turnover intention (Giebels and Janssen 2005; Liu et al. 2007).
However, research indicates that perceived organizational support can counteract the onset of negative consequences in the presence of interpersonal conflict and maintain good levels of commitment (Mauno et al. 2006) and be a protective factor against turnover intention (Zickar et al. 2008). Similarly, the worker’s perception of support may also reduce episodes of interpersonal conflict (Caesens et al. 2019; Chang 2017; De Raeve et al. 2008). Bandura (2017) states that while supportive relationships may increase levels of self-efficacy through modeling attitudes and strategies for coping with problems, providing positive incentives and resources to effectively deal with problems, in the same way, the presence of high self-efficacy can lead to a reduction in interpersonal conflicts (Alper et al. 2000; Nguyen et al. 2017). In agreement with the above, it is assumed that:
H2: 
Self-efficacy, Co-worker and Supervisor support are negatively related to interpersonal Conflict.
Previous studies show that high levels of Affective Commitment can positively influence employee working behavior, including reduced absence and increased enthusiasm for sharing knowledge (Jeung et al. 2017), promoting stronger organizational citizenship behavior (Ranihusna 2018), reduced work stress (Boxall et al. 2015) and decreasing turnover intention (Marescaux et al. 2013; Meyer et al. 2002). Some authors argue that workers who feel themselves as part of the organization and feel themselves to be supported by it and satisfied as well, are unlikely to leave the organization voluntarily (Luz et al. 2018; Nguyen et al. 2020). These results are confirmed by recent studies that have evidenced that Affective Commitment is negatively correlated to the turnover intention. Akinyemi et al. (2022) have looked at the relationship between job satisfaction, pay, Affective Commitment and turnover intentions in public sector and they found that Affective Commitment has a strong and negative relationship with turnover intentions. In their study, Kartika and Purba (2018) examined the mediation effects of Affective Commitment on the relationship between job satisfaction and turnover intention; the results show that this relation is completely mediated by Affective Commitment, which has a high negative correlation with turnover intention. Kundi et al. (2017) have analyzed the relationship between employees’ perceived career opportunity and turnover intention with the serial mediation effect of the Affective Commitment. The results confirm this hypothesis and also show how Affective Commitment negatively predicts turnover intentions. Moreira et al. (2020) have studied the relation between the organizational practices of competences development and turnover intentions with the mediation effect of perceived internal employability and Affective Commitment. A significant and negative effect of Affective Commitment on turnover intentions was verified. Additionally, Akinyemi et al. (2022), in research carried out on a sample of nurses, highlighted that their perception of emotional commitment has a significant negative influence on the intention of turnover. In agreement with the above, it is assumed that:
H3: 
Affective Commitment is negatively related to Turnover Intention.
Interpersonal conflict is an intrinsic part of organizations, and researchers predict that the adversarial nature of organizations will be increasingly intense in the future (De Dreu et al. 2004). Because the stability of an organization depends in large part on the smooth functioning of its human resources, the derived consequences of interpersonal conflict produce effects that affect not only individuals but the entire organization. Research has highlighted the negative effects of interpersonal conflict on health, employee attitudes, work–life balance and performance (Bonaccio et al. 2019; Kuriakose et al. 2019; Notelaers et al. 2018; Ye et al. 2019).
Studies have shown that interpersonal conflict produces negative emotions in people, such as anger or fear, and experiencing these negative feelings engages people’s emotional resources, leading to emotional exhaustion (Grandey et al. 2007; Schat and Kelloway 2000). The feeling of emotional exhaustion, in turn, would lead to withdrawal behaviors, as workers would need to restore depleted emotional resources, and Donovan et al. (1998) argues that the quality of interpersonal relationships has direct consequences on turnover intention. Some researchers confirm the claim that negative interpersonal relationships can have a direct impact on the affective reactions of employees to the organization and affect their turnover intention. The aim of the study of Bhayo et al. (2017) was to determine the impact of different management styles of Conflict on turnover intention. The results show that integrating and avoiding management styles of Conflict have a positive relation with turnover intention. Shaukat et al. (2017) highlighted how interpersonal conflict is negatively related to performance and positively related to turnover intentions through job burnout mediation. Akhlaghimofrad and Farmanesh (2021) confirm that interpersonal conflict has a strong and positive impact on turnover intention in a sample of faculty members of a private higher education institutions, as does Palancı et al. (2020), as a result of a comparative study in the health sector. In agreement with the above, it is assumed that:
H4: 
Conflict is positively related to Turnover Intention.
Based on a considerable number of empirical studies, the researchers focused on the construct of perceived social support in the workplace (supervisor support and coworker support) as a predictor of turnover intentions (Jing and Yan 2022; Pinna et al. 2020; Salvador et al. 2022; Wang et al. 2020). When the employees perceive their supervisor to be interested in their general well-being, they feel greater attachment with respect to the organization and perceive a duty to return the favor to their supervisor by remaining in the organization (Afzal et al. 2019; Alkhateri et al. 2018; Arici 2018; Chami-Malaeb 2021; Fukui et al. 2019a, 2019b; Galletta et al. 2011). Similarly, peer support is also an essential factor. When workers perceive a high level of support from colleagues, they recognize the workplace as a supportive environment in which they have excellent learning opportunities and, as a result, will be willing to reciprocate that support by remaining in the organization (De Clercq et al. 2020; Ducharme et al. 2007; Maertz et al. 2007; Nazir et al. 2016; Self and Gordon 2019; Xu et al. 2018). Several studies involving numerous organizations have shown that Affective Commitment mediate the effects of perceived organizational support on turnover intentions. Tetteh et al. (2020) highlight the mediating role of Affective Commitment between perceived organizational support, job stress and turnover intentions. This study confirms how employees who perceive support from the organization are less likely to leave the workplace especially if they are guaranteed conditions of low stress and good Affective Commitment. Alkhateri et al. (2018) investigated the relationships between perceived supervisor support, job satisfaction, Affective Commitment and turnover intention. The results confirm the role of Affective Commitment as mediator between perceived supervisor support and turnover intention. Fazio et al. (2017) affirm that Affective Commitment plays a significant and complex role in the relationship between social support and turnover intention. In particular, emotional commitment only partially mediates the relationship between organizational support and turnover intention. In Khan et al. (2020), the results are in line with other previous research, wherein Affective Commitment has a positive relationship with supervisor support and negative with the turnover intention; moreover, Affective Commitment mediates the relationship between supervisor support and turnover intention. Finally, Hsu et al. (2020) have highlighted how Affective Commitment plays an important mediating role between coworker support and turnover intention. Additionally, high levels of self-efficacy can prevent withdrawal behaviors in organizations (De Simone et al. 2018; Kundi et al. 2017; Lu et al. 2016) through a greater coping capacity of workers in the face of adverse conditions such as the presence of interpersonal conflicts or in support of perceived Affective Commitment (Alper et al. 2000; Lin and Wang 2018; Orgambídez et al. 2019). Moreover, Conflict has a negative relation with perceived organizational support (Chang 2017; Mauno et al. 2006) and with self-efficacy (Nguyen et al. 2017) and positive relation with turnover intention (Akhlaghimofrad and Farmanesh 2021; Palancı et al. 2020).
Therefore, we assume that:
H5: 
Affective Commitment and Conflict mediate the effect of Co-worker support, Supervisor support and Self -efficacy to Turnover Intention.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Model

This research aims to study the relationships between social support, self-efficacy, Affective Commitment, Conflict and Turnover Intention. Exogenous variables are Co-worker Support, Supervisor Support and Self-efficacy. In line with previous research, these have significant direct and indirect effects on turnover intentions, such as interpersonal conflict and Affective Commitment.

3.2. Measures

Social Support. The social support in the workplace was measured using two sub-scales (Co-worker Support and Supervisor Support) from Susskind et al. (2003) study. The Co-worker Support sub-scale consists of three items (for example: My co-workers provide me with important work-related information and advice that make performing my job easier) and Supervisor Support subscale is composed of four items (for example: My supervisor provides me with important work-related information and advice that make performing my job easier). All items were measured using a six-point Likert scale.
Self-efficacy. The self-efficacy was measured using Self-efficacy Scale (Borgogni et al. 2010) that consists of seven items (for example: In my work, I am confident I can solve all the conflicts that may occur with my colleagues). All items were measured using a six-point Likert scale.
Affective Commitment. The Affective Commitment was measured using Affective Commitment Scale, developed by Allen and Meyer (1990), in the Italian version of Pierro et al. (1995) (for example: The organization I work for has great personal significance for me). All items were measured using a six-point Likert scale.
Interpersonal Conflict at Work. Interpersonal conflict was measured using Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale (ICAWS) developed by Spector and Jex’s Scale (Spector and Jex 1998). ICAWS consists of four items (for example: How often are people rude to you at work?). All items were measured using a five-point Likert scale.
Turnover Intentions. Turnover intention was measured using Intention to leave Scale developed by Wayne et al. (1997) scale. This scale consists of five items (for example: I am actively looking for a job outside the organization). All items were measured using a six-point Likert scale.

3.3. Data Collection and Sample Characteristics

The sample consisted of 392 employees: 53.8% men (N = 211) and 46.2% women (N = 181). The average age of participants was 35 years (20 ÷ 64, SD = 9.41). In terms of their educational level, 19.4% qualified lower than high-school level, 57.9 % had a high-school diploma, and 22.7% completed a bachelor’s or master’s degree. The average tenure was 4.3 years (SD = 5.32). The questionnaire was administered to employees who work in an Italian strategic company in the trade sector, which collaborated with us for this research. Participants completed a paper questionnaire and informed consent. So, the sampling method is non-probabilistic.

3.4. Data Analysis

For descriptive analyses of socio-demographic data (means and standard deviations), see Table 1. The internal consistency was measured through Cronbach’s Alpha value, which is considered acceptable if higher than 0.60 (e.g., Ponterotto and Ruckdeschel 2007). Internal consistency was assessed through composite reliability (CR) and is considered acceptable with a value of 0.70 or higher (Fornell and Larcker 1981). The convergent validity was also calculated through average variance extracted (AVE), which should be greater than a value of 0.50. However, convergent validity is still adequate with AVE less than 0.50 and CR above 0.60 (Bagozzi and Yi 1988; Fornell and Larcker 1981). For discriminant validity, the correlation coefficients were compared with the square root of AVE (Fornell and Larcker 1981).
In order to test our Research Model, we conducted a Path Analysis using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with AMOS 24 (Maximum Likelihood estimation). The choice to use SEM based on covariance (CB-SEM) derives from the non-exploratory nature of the present study (Hair et al. 2017) and is permitted from the reflective nature of all items (Hair et al. 2011). The Maximum Likelihood estimation method was used. For SEM, the following indices were used: CFI, TLI, RMSEA, GFI, AGFI, IFI, PGFI, PNFI, PCFI. The CFI, TLI and IFI are acceptable if they are greater than 0.90; RMSEA is acceptable if it is equal to or smaller than 0.08 (Bentler and Bonnet 1980; Steiger 1990). GFI and AGFI are acceptable if their value is greater than 0.80 (Baumgartner and Homburg 1996; Doll et al. 1994). PGFI, PNFI, PCFI are acceptable if they are greater than 0.50.
The ratio of χ2 with degrees of freedom is considered acceptable when this value is smaller than 3 (Schermelleh-Engel et al. 2003).

4. Results

4.1. Measurement Model

CFA was performed for the measurement model revealing acceptable fit indices: χ2/df = 2.279, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.57, GFI = 0.88, AGFI = 0.86, IFI = 0.92, PGFI = 0.72, PNFI = 0.76, PCFI = 0.81.

4.2. Descriptive Analyses, Correlations and Reliability

The values of AVE, CR and Cronbach’s alpha (α) are presented in Table 1. All correlations (see Table 1) are statistically significant. The correlations between the turnover intention and the other variables are all negative except Conflict dimension. None of the squared correlations was close to 0.80. This means that there are no multicollinearity problems (Hair et al. 2010).

4.3. Hypothesis Tests

The results are shown below in Figure 1. The model demonstrates a good overall fit (χ2/d = 2.28, CFI = 0.919, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.57, IFI = 0.92, PNFI = 0.76, PCFI = 0.81). As can be seen in Figure 1, Co-worker Support and Supervisor Support were negative related with Conflict (β = −0.53 and −0.31, respectively) and positive related with Affective Commitment (β = 0.25 and 0.34, respectively). Self-efficacy was positive related with Affective Commitment β = 0.13). Conflict was positively related with turnover intention (β = 0.24) and Affective Commitment was negative related to turnover intention (β = −0.52). As illustrated, Conflict served as a full mediator between Co-worker Support, Supervisor Support, and Turnover Intention. In the same way Affective Commitment served as a full mediator between Co-worker Support, Supervisor Support, Self-efficacy and Turnover Intention.
Finally, we used bootstrapping to examine the significance of the role of the mediators. MacKinnon et al. (2004) show via simulations that the performance of bootstrapping is better than the traditional Sobel test (Sobel 1982). We have performed 2000 resamples. As shown in Table 2, all indirect effects are significant.

5. Discussion

This study examined the relationship between social support, self-efficacy and turnover intentions with Conflict and Affective Commitment as mediators. In addition to considering the antecedents of turnover in terms of perceived individual resources and perceived organizational contextual resources, this is the only study, to our knowledge, that has considered these variables simultaneously. Then, our study confirms the importance of simultaneously studying both organizational variables, such as supervisor support and employee support, and individual variables such as self-efficacy. In this way it is possible to analyze all the aspects that impact on the turnover intentions. Examining the antecedents of turnover intentions both in the perspective of social exchange and in the individual perspective of self-efficacy gives an added value to the research and emphasizes the element of originality of the work.
The hypotheses have been partially confirmed.
The findings indicated that all variables are related to each other, and the correlations examined are all negative except that between interpersonal conflict and Turnover Intention. In line with previous studies, the noteworthy and positive correlations found between supervisor support, co-worker support, self-efficacy and Affective Commitment indicate that employees who feel supported or perceive elevated levels of self-efficacy in the presence of a high Affective Commitment are less willing to leave the company (Chami-Malaeb 2021; De Clercq et al. 2020; De Simone et al. 2018; Lin and Wang 2018; Nguyen et al. 2017; Orgambídez et al. 2019; Tetteh et al. 2020; Hsu et al. 2020).
Moreover, the positive correlation between the intention to turnover and Conflict indicates an increased risk of abandonment in the presence of higher levels of interpersonal conflict at work (Akhlaghimofrad and Farmanesh 2021; Chang 2017; Nguyen et al. 2017; Palancı et al. 2020).
Among the results obtained in the model presented, there is the absence of a significant direct correlation between co-worker support, supervisor support, self-efficacy and turnover intention. This suggests the need for further analysis to understand the possible mediating role of Affective Commitment and interpersonal conflict. The results show a complete mediation of Affective Commitment between co-worker support, supervisor support, self-efficacy and turnover intention. Additionally, interpersonal conflict acted as a complete mediator between co-worker support, supervisor support and turnover intention.
The research highlights the importance of understanding the antecedents of turnover intention in organizations in order to prevent the abandonment by workers with all the consequences that this behavior entails (Afzal et al. 2021; Alkahtani 2015; Raharjo et al. 2019). Therefore, it is crucial for organizations both identifying and studying the variables that decrease the chances of turnover.
The results of the study underline the importance of perceived co-worker support and supervisor support and of good levels of self-efficacy in order to prevent turnover intention in conditions of high Affective Commitment and low interpersonal conflict.
Rhoades et al. (2001) and Eisenberger et al. (2001) confirm that perceived organizational support impacts on turnover intention with the mediation of Affective Commitment and this turns out to be interesting above all their effects combined. However, not all authors who have studied this interaction have concluded that the combined effect of perceived organizational support and Affective Commitment on turnover intention is superior to their individual direct effects (Tian et al. 2014; Allen and Shanock 2013). For example, Nichols et al. (2016) and Fazio et al. (2017) show that the turnover intention turned out to be lower in the presence of greater levels of supervisor support and Affective Commitment and both were meaningful predictors of the turnover intention, but only the first study has also confirmed the role of fully mediation of the Affective Commitment between perceived support and turnover intention. These different results require further study of the relationships studied and the possible mediating effects of other variables such as job satisfaction (Alkhateri et al. 2018) or task performance (Afzal et al. 2019).
The findings of this research offer implications for practice. First, the results give indications on the importance of building a leadership process that can support workers in order to prevent turnover behaviors and promote organizational commitment (Ribeiro et al. 2020; Ugboro 2006) through specific training that will teach supervisors how to provide supportive supervision to workers (Allen and Meyer 1997; Rooney and Gottlieb 2007; Stinglhamber and Vandenberghe 2004). Secondly, they suggest great attention to the relationships among colleagues, as both the perception of self-efficacy and the presence of Conflicts within the work teams can positively or negatively affect the intention of turnover (Nguyen et al. 2017). There are different strategies to develop self-efficacy (Bandura 1997): experiences of active mastery of the task; vicarious experiences, which involve the observation of successful behavioral models; experiences of verbal persuasion, from credible sources, which strengthen individual beliefs about having the skills necessary to manage specific situations; experiences of controlling one’s emotional and physical states. These strategies could be used in the development interventions of people in the organization studied, and also taught to supervisors so that they can implement them with their collaborators. Developing effective methods for Conflict management, such as cooperative approaches, can support workers to interact constructively (Alper et al. 2000; Tjosvold and Tjosvold 1994, 1995) because feeling empowered and confident in the organizational teams is not an automatic process (Kirkman and Rosen 1999; Spreitzer et al. 1997). In addition, the belief in self-efficacy in teams is one of the strongest predictors of engagement especially in heterogeneous groups. It is therefore important to avoid Conflict conditions, and managers should be careful when building teams, promoting an open and tolerant environment, and giving the team time to get to know each other, as well as developing cohesion and implementing skills and competencies in order to avoid turnover (Baker 2001; Bayazit and Mannix 2003).
Finally, implementing the levels of Affective Commitment is fundamental given the important role that mediation plays among perceived organizational support, self-efficacy and turnover intentions. Promoting adherence to the values and objectives of the organization is fundamental to prevent turnover behavior (Alkhateri et al. 2018; Fazio et al. 2017; Khan et al. 2020; Hsu et al. 2020). The actions that can be put in place to positively influence the Affective Commitment also concern, in this case, the deployment of a transformational leadership that can increase the commitment of workers to the organization and, consequently, also the performance (Lee and Cho 2018; Njoroge et al. 2015). Moreover, workers with high job matching are less likely to have low levels of Affective Commitment; in this sense, organizations should build an effective personnel selection process, provide adequate support in the phase of adaptation to the organizational context and implement training moments in order to reduce turnover behaviors (Yang et al. 2019a).
This study has several limitations. First, this study used a cross-sectional design and self-reporting measures. Second, this study relied on data from only Italy, and for future research, it is recommended to extend the study to other contexts. It would also be interesting for future research to carry out a longitudinal study and test the actual staff turnover. Future research could also use a nested, multilevel design that includes other actors involved, for example, by measuring the perceptions (such as satisfaction) of the recipients of the services provided by the organization.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M. and S.D.S.; methodology, J.P.; writing—original draft preparation, M.M. and S.D.S.; writing—review and editing, M.M., F.C. and J.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Afzal, Hafiza F., Anwarul K. M. Islam, Adnan Ismail, Muhammad Y. Tahir, Muhammad Zohaib, Jamshaid Riaz, and Muhammad Ismail. 2021. The role of underemployment in turnover intention through job deprivation and job stress: A multiple mediation mechanism. International Journal of Business and Management Future 5: 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Afzal, Sadia, Muhammad Arshad, Sharjeel Saleem, and Omer Farooq. 2019. The impact of perceived supervisor support on employees’ turnover intention and task performance: Mediation of self-efficacy. The Journal of Management Development 38: 369–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Agu, Ogechi L. 2015. Work engagement, organizational commitment, self-efficacy and organizational growth: A literature review. Information Impact: Journal of Information and Knowledge Management 6: 14–29. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ahammad, Mohammad F., Keith W. Glaister, Riikka M. Sarala, and Alison J. Glaister. 2018. Strategic Talent Management in Emerging Markets. Thunderbird International Business Review 60: 5–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Akhlaghimofrad, Asieh, and Panteha Farmanesh. 2021. The association between interpersonal Conflict, turnover intention and knowledge hiding: The mediating role of employee cynicism and moderating role of emotional intelligence. Management Science Letters 11: 2081–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Akinyemi, Benjamin, Babu George, and Alice Ogundele. 2022. Relationship between Job Satisfaction, Pay, Affective Commitment and Turnover Intention among Registered Nurses in Nigeria. Global Journal of Health Science 14: 1–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Alkahtani, Ali H. 2015. Investigating factors that influence employees’ turnover intention: A review of existing empirical works. International Journal of Business and Management 10: 152–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Alkhateri, Asma S., Abuelhassan E. Abuelhassan, Gamal S.A. Khalifa, Mohammed Nusari, and Ali Ameen. 2018. The Impact of perceived supervisor support on employees turnover intention: The Mediating role of job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment. International Business Management 12: 477–92. [Google Scholar]
  9. Allen, David. G., and Linda Rhoades Shanock. 2013. Perceived organizational support and embeddedness as key mechanisms connecting socialization tactics to commitment and turnover among new employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior 34: 350–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Allen, Natalie J., and John P. Meyer. 1990. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology 63: 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Allen, Natalie J., and John P. Meyer. 1997. Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and Application. New York: Sage Publications, p. 162. [Google Scholar]
  12. Alper, Steve, Dean Tjosvold, and Kenneth S. Law. 2000. Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in organizational teams. Personnel Psychology 53: 625–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ambrosius, Judith. 2018. Strategic talent management in emerging markets and its impact on employee retention: Evidence from Brazilian MNCs. Thunderbird International Business Review 60: 53–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Arici, Hasan Evrim. 2018. Perceived supervisor support and turnover intention: Moderating effect of authentic leadership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 39: 899–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bagozzi, Richard P., and Youjae Yi. 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science 16: 74–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Baker, Diane F. 2001. The development of collective efficacy in small task groups. Small Group Research 32: 451–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bandura, Albert. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84: 191–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bandura, Albert. 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman. [Google Scholar]
  19. Bandura, Albert. 2017. Cultivate Self-Efficacy for Personal and Organizational Effectiveness. In The Blackwell Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior. Edited by Edwin A. Locke. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 125–41. [Google Scholar]
  20. Bandura, Albert, and Daniel Cervone. 1983. Self-Evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45: 1017–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bandura, Albert, and Daniel Cervone. 1986. Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in cognitive motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 38: 92–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bandura, Albert, Nancy E. Adams, Arthur B. Hardy, and Gary N. Howells. 1980. Tests of the generality of self-efficacy theory. Cognitive Therapy and Research 4: 39–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Baumgartner, Hans, and Christian Homburg. 1996. Applications of Structural Equation Modeling in Marketing and Consumer Research: A review. International Journal of Research in Marketing 13: 139–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bayazit, Mahmut, and Elizabeth A. Mannix. 2003. Should I stay or should I go? Predicting team members’ intent to remain in the team. Small Group Research 34: 290–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bayram, Nuran, Necmi Gursakal, and Nazan Bilgel. 2009. Counterproductive work behavior among white-collar employees: A study from Turkey. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 17: 180–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bentler, Peter M., and Douglas G. Bonnet. 1980. Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures. Psychological Bulletin 88: 588–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bhayo, Abdul Razzaque, Naimatullah Shah, and Ayaz Ahmed Chachar. 2017. The impact of interpersonal Conflict and job stress on employee’s turnover intention. International Research Journal of Arts & Humanities (IRJAH) 45: 179–91. [Google Scholar]
  28. Blau, Peter M. 2017. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Routledge, p. 372. [Google Scholar]
  29. Bonaccio, Silvia, Laurent M. Lapierre, and Jane O’Reilly. 2019. Creating work climates that facilitate and maximize the benefits of disclosing mental health problems in the workplace. Organizational Dynamics 48: 113–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Borgogni, Laura, Silvia Dello Russo, Laura Petitta, and Michele Vecchione. 2010. Predicting job satisfaction and job performance in a privatized organization. International Public Management Journal 13: 275–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Boxall, Peter, Ann Hutchison, and Brigitta Wassenaar. 2015. How do high-involvement work processes influence employee outcomes? An examination of the mediating roles of skill utilisation and intrinsic motivation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 26: 1737–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Budd, John W., Richard D. Arvey, and Peggy Lawless. 1996. Correlates and consequences of workplace violence. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 1: 197–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Caesens, Gaëtane, Florence Stinglhamber, Stéphanie Demoulin, Matthias De Wilde, and Adrien Mierop. 2019. Perceived organizational support and workplace conflict: The mediating role of failure-related trust. Frontiers in Psychology 9: 2704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Caesens, Gaëtane, Géraldine Marique, and Florence Stinglhamber. 2014. The relationship between perceived organizational support and Affective Commitment: More than reciprocity, it is also a question of organizational identification. Journal of Personnel Psychology 13: 167–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Chami-Malaeb, Rola. 2021. Relationship of perceived supervisor support, self-efficacy and turnover intention, the mediating role of burnout. Personnel Review 51: 1003–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chang, Man-Ling. 2017. On the relationship between intragroup Conflict and social capital in teams: A longitudinal investigation in Taiwan. Journal of Organizational Behavior 38: 3–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cohen, Aaron. 1993. Work commitment in relation to withdrawal intentions and union effectiveness. Journal of Business Research 26: 75–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Coyle-Shapiro, Jacqueline A. M., Paula C. Morrow, and Ian Kessler. 2006. Serving two organizations: Exploring the employment relationship of contracted employees. Human Resource Management 45: 561–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. De Clercq, Dirk, Muhammad Umer Azeem, Inam Ul Haq, and Dave Bouckenooghe. 2020. The stress-reducing effect of coworker support on Turnover Intentions: Moderation by political ineptness and despotic leadership. Journal of Business Research 111: 12–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. De Dreu, Carsten K. W., Dirk Van Dierendonck, and Maria T. M. Dijkstra. 2004. Conflict at work and individual well-being. International Journal of Conflict Management 15: 6–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. De Dreu, Carsten K. W., Fieke Harinck, and Annelies E. M. Van Vianen. 1999. Conflict and performance in groups and organizations. In International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Edited by Cary L. Cooper and Ivan T. Robertson. New York: Wiley, pp. 69–414. [Google Scholar]
  42. De Raeve, Lore, Nicole W. H. Jansen, Piet van den Brandt, Rineke M. Vasse, and IJmert Kant. 2008. Risk factors for interpersonal conflicts at work. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health 34: 96–106. [Google Scholar]
  43. De Simone, Silvia, and Anna Planta. 2017. L’intenzione di lasciare il lavoro nel personale infermieristico: Il ruolo della soddisfazione lavorativa. Medicina del Lavoro, Work, Environment and Health 108: 87–97. [Google Scholar]
  44. De Simone, Silvia, Anna Planta, and Cicotto Gianfranco. 2018. The role of job satisfaction, work engagement, self-efficacy and agentic capacities on nurses’ turnover intention and patient satisfaction. Applied Nursing Research 39: 130–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. De Simone, Silvia, Jessica Pileri, Marina Mondo, Max Rapp-Ricciardi, and Barbara Barbieri. 2022. Mea Culpa! The Role of Guilt in the Work-Life Interface and Satisfaction of Women Entrepreneur. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19: 10781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Dilla, Dewi Atmi, and Haznil Zainal. 2022. Social Support and Affective Commitment: Mediation Mechanisms of Relational Attachment. Sains Organisasi 1: 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Doll, William J., Weidong Xia, and Gholamreza Torkzadeh. 1994. A confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument. MIS Quarterly 18: 357–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Donovan, Michelle A., Fritz Drasgow, and Liberty J. Munson. 1998. The Perceptions of Fair Interpersonal Treatment Scale: Development and validation of a measure of interpersonal treatment in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology 83: 683–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ducharme, Lori J., Hannah K. Knudsen, and Paul M. Roman. 2007. Emotional exhaustion and turnover intention in human service occupations: The protective role of coworker support. Sociological Spectrum 28: 81–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Eatough, Erin M. 2010. Understanding the Relationships between Interpersonal Conflict at Work, Perceived Control, Coping, and Employee Well-Being. Master’s dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA. Available online: https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/etd/1623/ (accessed on 15 June 2022).
  51. Eisenberger, Robert, Linda Rhoades, and Judy Cameron. 1999. Does pay for performance increase or decrease perceived self-determination and intrinsic motivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77: 1026–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Eisenberger, Robert, Mindy Krischer Shoss, Gökhan Karagonlar, M. Gloria Gonzalez-Morales, Robert E. Wickham, and Louis C. Buffardi. 2014. The supervisor POS–LMX–subordinate POS chain: Moderation by reciprocation wariness and supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Journal of Organizational Behavior 35: 635–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Eisenberger, Robert, Peter Fasolo, and Valerie Davis-LaMastro. 1990. Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology 75: 51–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Eisenberger, Robert, Robin Huntington, Steven Hutchison, and Debora Sowa. 1986. Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology 71: 500–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Eisenberger, Robert, Stephen Armeli, Barnara Rexwinkel, Patrick D. Lynch, and Linda Rhoades. 2001. Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology 86: 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Fazio, John, Baiyun Gong, Randi Sims, and Yuliya Yurova. 2017. The role of Affective Commitment in the relationship between social support and turnover intention. Management Decision 55: 512–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker. 1981. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statics. Journal of Marketing Research 18: 382–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Fukui, Sadaaki, Wei Wu, and Michelle P. Salyers. 2019a. Impact of supervisory support on turnover intention: The mediating role of burnout and job satisfaction in a longitudinal study. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 46: 488–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Fukui, Sadaaki, Wei Wu, and Michelle P. Salyers. 2019b. Mediational paths from supervisor support to turnover intention and actual turnover among community mental health providers. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 42: 350–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Galletta, Maura, Igor Portoghese, Maria Pietronilla Penna, Adalgisa Battistelli, and Luisa Saiani. 2011. Turnover intention among Italian nurses: The moderating roles of supervisor support and organizational support. Nursing & Health Sciences 13: 184–91. [Google Scholar]
  61. Giebels, Ellen, and Onne Janssen. 2005. Conflict stress and reduced well-being at work: The buffering effect of third-party help. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 14: 137–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Grandey, Alicia A., Julie H. Kern, and Michael R. Frone. 2007. Verbal abuse from outsiders versus insiders: Comparing frequency, impact on emotional exhaustion, and the role of emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 12: 63–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Griffeth, Rodger W., Peter W. Hom, and Stefan Gaertner. 2000. A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management 26: 463–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Guarnaccia, Cinzia, Fabrizio Scrima, Alba Civilleri, and Laura Salerno. 2018. The role of occupational self-efficacy in mediating the effect of job insecurity on work engagement, satisfaction and general health. Current Psychology 37: 488–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hair, Joseph F., Christian M. Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt. 2011. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 19: 139–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Hair, Joseph F., Lucy M. Matthews, Ryan L. Matthews, and Marko Sarstedt. 2017. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis 1: 107–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Hair, Joseph F., Rolph E. Anderson, Ronald E. Tatham, and William C. Black. 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis. Hoboken: Prentice-Hall, p. 832. [Google Scholar]
  68. Hauge, Lars Johan, Anders Skogstad, and Ståle Einarsen. 2007. Relationships between stressful work environments and bullying: Results of a large representative study. Work & Stress 21: 220–42. [Google Scholar]
  69. Hellervik, Lowell W., Joy Fisher Hazucha, and Robert J. Schneider. 1992. Behavior change: Models, methods, and a review of evidence. In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd ed. Edited by Marvin D. Dunnette and Leaetta M. Hough. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, pp. 823–95. [Google Scholar]
  70. Hongvichit, Somchit. 2015. The research progress and prospect of employee turnover intention. International Business Research 8: 218–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hsu, Yu-Ping, Chun-Yang Peng, Ming-Tao Chou, Chun-Tsen Yeh, and Qiong-yuan Zhang. 2020. Workplace friendship, helping behavior, and turnover intention: The meditating effect of Affective Commitment. Advances in Management and Applied Economics 10: 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Jang, Jichul, and Jay Kandampully. 2018. Reducing employee turnover intention through servant leadership in the restaurant context: A mediation study of affective organizational commitment. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration 19: 125–41. [Google Scholar]
  73. Jeung, Chang-Wook, Hea Jun Yoon, and Myungweon Choi. 2017. Exploring the affective mechanism linking perceived organizational support and knowledge sharing intention: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Knowledge Management 21: 946–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Jing, Jianwan, and Jinzhe Yan. 2022. Study on the Effect of Employees’ Perceived Organizational Support, Psychological Ownership, and Turnover Intention: A Case of China’s Employee. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19: 6016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Kartika, Galih, and Debora Eflina Purba. 2018. Job satisfaction and turnover intention: The mediating effect of Affective Commitment. Psychological Research on Urban Society 1: 100–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Khan, Muhammad Iqbal, Syed Haider Ali Shah, Aftab Haider, Shahab Aziz, and Munaza Kazmi. 2020. The Role of Supervisor Support on Work-Family Conflict and Employee Turnover Intentions in the Workplace with Mediating Effect of Affective Commitment in Twin Cities in the Banking Industry, Pakistan. International Review of Management and Marketing 10: 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Kim, Hyeoneui, and Eun Gyung Kim. 2021. A meta-analysis on predictors of turnover intention of hospital nurses in South Korea (2000–2020). Nursing Open 8: 2406–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kirkman, Bradley L., and Benson Rosen. 1999. Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal 42: 58–74. [Google Scholar]
  79. Ko, Myeong Chul. 2021. An examination of the links between organizational social capital and employee well-being: Focusing on the mediating role of quality of work life. Review of Public Personnel Administration 4: 163–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kraimer, Maria L., Scott Seibert, Sandy Wayne, Robert C. Liden, and Jesus Bravo. 2011. Antecedents and outcomes of organizational support for development: The critical role of career opportunities. Journal of Applied Psychology 96: 485–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Kundi, Yasir Mansoor, Malik Ikramullah, Muhammad Zahid Iqbal, and Faqir Sajjad Ul-Hassan. 2017. Affective Commitment as mechanism behind perceived career opportunity and Turnover Intentions with conditional effect of organizational prestige. Journal of Managerial Sciences 1: 65–83. [Google Scholar]
  82. Kuriakose, Vijay, S. Sreejesh, Heerah Jose, M. R. Anusree, and Shelly Jose. 2019. Process Conflict and employee well-being: An application of Activity Reduces Conflict Associated Strain (ARCAS) model. International Journal of Conflict Management 30: 462–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Kurtessis, James N., Robert Eisenberger, Michael T. Ford, Louis C. Buffardi, Kathleen A. Stewart, and Cory S. Adis. 2017. Perceived organizational support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. Journal of Management 43: 1854–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Lee, Kyongmin, and Woojeong Cho. 2018. The relationship between transformational leadership of immediate superiors, organizational culture, and Affective Commitment in fitness club employees. Sport Mont 16: 15–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Lew, Tek-Yew. 2009. The relationships between perceived organizational support, felt obligation, affective organizational commitment and turnover intention of academics working with private higher educational institutions in Malaysia. European Journal of Social Sciences 9: 72–87. [Google Scholar]
  86. Lin, LiLin, and Shiqian Wang. 2018. Self-efficacy, organizational commitment, and employee engagement in small and medium-sized enterprises. International Journal of Business Marketing and Management (IJBMM) 3: 35–39. [Google Scholar]
  87. Liu, Cong, Paul E. Spector, and Lin Shi. 2007. Cross-national job stress: A quantitative and qualitative study. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior 28: 209–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Lobburi, Patipan. 2012. The influence of organizational and social support on turnover intention in collectivist contexts. Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR) 28: 93–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Lu, Chang-Qin, Jing-Wei Sun, and Dan-Yang Du. 2016. The relationships between employability, emotional exhaustion, and turnover intention the moderation of perceived career opportunity. Journal of Career Development 43: 37–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Luz, Carolina Machado Dias Ramalho, Sílvio Luiz de Paula, and Lúcia Maria Barbosa de Oliveira. 2018. Organizational commitment, job satisfaction and their possible influences on intent to turnover. Revista de Gestao USP 25: 84–102. [Google Scholar]
  91. MacKinnon, David P., Chondra M. Lockwood, and Jason Williams. 2004. Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research 39: 99–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Maertz, Carl P., Rodger W. Griffeth, Nathanael S. Campbell, and David G. Allen. 2007. The effects of perceived organizational support and perceived supervisor support on employee turnover. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior 28: 1059–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Marescaux, Elise, Sophie De Winne, and Luc Sels. 2013. HR practices and HRM outcomes: The role of basic need satisfaction. Personnel Review 42: 4–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Marique, Géraldine, Florence Stinglhamber, Donatienne Desmette, Gaëtane Caesens, and Fabrice De Zanet. 2013. The relationship between perceived organizational support and Affective Commitment: A social identity perspective. Group & Organization Management 38: 68–100. [Google Scholar]
  95. Mauno, Saija, Ulla Kinnunen, and Mervi Ruokolainen. 2006. Exploring work-and organization-based resources as moderators between work–family Conflict, well-being, and job attitudes. Work & Stress 20: 210–33. [Google Scholar]
  96. Mercurio, Zachary A. 2015. Affective Commitment as a core essence of organizational commitment: An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review 14: 389–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Meyer, John P., and Natalie J. Allen. 1991. A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review 1: 61–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Meyer, John P., David J. Stanley, Lynne Herscovitch, and Laryssa Topolnytsky. 2002. Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior 61: 20–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Moreira, Ana, Francisco Cesário, Maria José Chambel, and Filipa Castanheira. 2020. Competences development and Turnover Intentions: The serial mediation effect of perceived internal employability and Affective Commitment. European Journal of Management Studies 25: 5–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Namin, Boshra H., Torvald Øgaard, and Jo Røislien. 2022. Workplace Incivility and Turnover Intention in Organizations: A Meta-Analytic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19: 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Nazir, Sajjad, Amina Shafi, Wang Qun, Nadia Nazir, and Quang Dung Tran. 2016. Influence of organizational rewards on organizational commitment and Turnover Intentions. Employee Relations 38: 596–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Nazir, Sajjad, Wang Qun, Li Hui, and Amina Shafi. 2018. Influence of social exchange relationships on Affective Commitment and innovative behavior: Role of perceived organizational support. Sustainability 10: 4418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Nguyen, Helena, Anya Johnson, Catherine Collins, and Sharon K. Parker. 2017. Confidence matters: Self-efficacy moderates the credit that supervisors give to adaptive and proactive role behaviours. British Journal of Management 28: 315–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Nguyen, Tuan D., Lam D. Pham, Michael Crouch, and Matthew G. Springer. 2020. The correlates of teacher turnover: An updated and expanded meta-analysis of the literature. Educational Research Review 31: 100355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Nichols, Helen M., Jennifer E. Swanberg, and Charlotte Lyn Bright. 2016. How does supervisor support influence turnover intent among frontline hospital workers? The mediating role of Affective Commitment. The Health Care Manager 35: 266–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Njoroge, David, Hazel Gachunga, and John Kihoro. 2015. Transformational leadership style and organizational commitment: The moderating effect of employee participation. The Strategic Journal of Business & Change Management 2: 94–107. [Google Scholar]
  107. Notelaers, Guy, Beatrice Van der Heijden, Hannes Guenter, Morten Birkeland Nielsen, and Ståle Valvetne Einarsen. 2018. Do interpersonal Conflict, aggression and bullying at the workplace overlap? A latent class modeling approach. Frontiers in Psychology 9: 1743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Nyberg, Anthony J., and Robert E. Ployhart. 2013. Context-emergent turnover (CET) theory: A theory of collective turnover. Academy of Management Review 38: 109–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Oh, Hee Sook, and Hwee Wee. 2016. Self efficacy, organizational commitment, customer orientation and nursing performance of nurses in local public hospitals. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration 22: 507–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Orgambídez, Alejandro, Yolanda Borrego, and OctavioVázquez-Aguado. 2019. Self-efficacy and organizational commitment among Spanish nurses: The role of work engagement. International Nursing Review 66: 381–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Palancı, Yılmaz, Cengiz Mengenci, Serkan Bayraktaroğlu, and Abdurrahim Emhan. 2020. Analysis of workplace health and safety, job stress, interpersonal Conflict, and turnover intention: A comparative study in the health sector. Health Psychology Report 9: 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Perumal, Gopal, Suguna Sinniah, Ramesh Kumar Moona Haji Mohamed, Kok Pooi Mun, and Uma Murthy. 2018. Turnover intention among manufacturing industry employees in Malaysia: An analysis using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). e-BANGI 13: 13–24. [Google Scholar]
  113. Pesch, Kathryn M., Lisa M.Larson, and Matthew T.Seipel. 2018. Career certainty and major satisfaction: The roles of information-seeking and occupational knowledge. Journal of Career Assessment 26: 583–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Pierro, Antonio, Ivana Lombardo, Fabbri Silvia, and Antonio Di Spirito. 1995. Evidenza Empirica della Validità Discriminante delle Misure di Job Involvement e Organizational Commitment: Modelli di Analisi Fattoriale e Confermativa (via LISREL). Testistic Psychometric Methodology 2: 5–18. [Google Scholar]
  115. Pinna, Roberta, Silvia De Simone, Gianfranco Cicotto, and Ashish Malik. 2020. Beyond organisational support: Exploring the supportive role of co-workers and supervisors in a multi-actor service ecosystem. Journal of Business Research 121: 524–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Ponterotto, Joseph G., and Daniel E. Ruckdeschel. 2007. An overview of coefficient alpha and a reliability matrix for estimating adequacy of internal consistency coefficients with psychological research measures. Perceptual and Motor Skills 105: 997–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Price, James L. 2001. Reflections on the determinants of voluntary turnover. International Journal of Manpower 22: 600–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Raharjo, Kusdi, Nilawati Fiernaningsih, Umar Nimran, and Zainul Arifin. 2019. Impact of work–life balance and organizational citizenship behaviour on intention to leave. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change 8: 95–113. [Google Scholar]
  119. Rahim, M. Afzalur. 2017. Managing Conflict in Organizations. London: Routledge, p. 312. [Google Scholar]
  120. Ranihusna, Mukhodah D. 2018. Organizational Commitment As Intervening Variable of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation to Organizational Citizenship Behavior. KnE Social Sciences, 333–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Rao, Rukmini Devadas, and Linda Argote. 2006. Organizational learning and forgetting: The effects of turnover and structure. European Management Review 3: 77–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Rathi, Neerpal, and Renu Rastogi. 2009. Assessing the relationship between emotional intelligence, occupational self-efficacy and organizational commitment. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology 35: 93–102. [Google Scholar]
  123. Reilly, Greg, Anthony J. Nyberg, Mark Maltarich, and Ingo Weller. 2014. Human capital flows: Using context-emergent turnover (CET) theory to explore the process by which turnover, hiring, and job demands affect patient satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal 57: 766–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Reio, Thomas G., and Jeannie Trudel. 2013. Workplace incivility and Conflict management styles: Predicting job performance, organizational commitment and turnover intent. International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology (IJAVET) 4: 15–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Rhoades, Linda, Robert Eisenberger, and Stephen Armeli. 2001. Affective Commitment to the organization: The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology 86: 825–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Ribeiro, Neuza, Patrícia Duarte, and Jessica Fidalgo. 2020. Authentic leadership’s effect on customer orientation and turnover intention among Portuguese hospitality employees: The mediating role of Affective Commitment. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 32: 2097–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Rigotti, Thomas, Birgit Schyns, and Gisela Mohr. 2008. A short version of the Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale: Structural and construct validity across five countries. Journal of Career Assessment 16: 238–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Rook, Karen S. 2001. Emotional health and positive versus negative social exchanges: A daily diary analysis. Applied Developmental Science 5: 86–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Rooney, Jennifer A., and Benjamin H. Gottlieb. 2007. Development and initial validation of a measure of supportive and unsupportive managerial behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior 71: 186–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Ruiller, Caroline, and Beatrice I. J. M. Van Der Heijden. 2016. Socio-emotional support in French hospitals: Effects on French nurses’ and nurse aides’ Affective Commitment. Applied Nursing Research 29: 229–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Salvador, Mónica, Anna Moreira, and Liliana Pitacho. 2022. Perceived Organizational Culture and Turnover Intentions: The Serial Mediating Effect of Perceived Organizational Support and Job Insecurity. Social Sciences 11: 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Schat, Aaron C. H., and E. Kevin Kelloway. 2000. Effects of perceived control on the outcomes of workplace aggression and violence. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 5: 386–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Schermelleh-Engel, Karin, Helfried Moosbrugger, and Hans Müller. 2003. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online 8: 23–74. [Google Scholar]
  134. Self, Timothy T., and Susan Gordon. 2019. The impact of coworker support and organizational embeddedness on turnover intention among restaurant employees. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism 18: 394–423. [Google Scholar]
  135. Setiabudhi, Setiabudhi, Cholichul Hadi, and Seger Handoyo. 2021. Relationship Between Social Support, Affective Commitment, and Employee Engagement. Kontigensi: Jurnal Ilmiah Manajemen 9: 690–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Shaukat, Razia, Amna Yousaf, and Karin Sanders. 2017. Examining the linkages between relationship Conflict, performance and Turnover Intentions: Role of job burnout as a mediator. Management 28: 4–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Shaw, Jason D., Nina Gupta, and John E. Delery. 2005. Alternative conceptualizations of the relationship between voluntary turnover and organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal 48: 50–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Sobel, Michael E. 1982. Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equation Models. Sociological Methodology 13: 290–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Soelton, Mochamad, Putri Ayu Lestari, Harefan Arief, and Ratyuhono Linggarnusantra Putra. 2020. The effect of role conflict and burnout toward turnover intention at software industries, work stress as moderating variables. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Management, Economics and Business (ICMEB 2019), Yogyakarta, Indonesia, February 12. [Google Scholar]
  140. Spector, Paul E., and Steve M. Jex. 1998. Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal Conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative workload inventory, and physical symptoms inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 3: 356–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Spreitzer, Gretchen M., Mark A. Kizilos, and Stephen W. Nason. 1997. A dimensional analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness satisfaction, and strain. Journal of Management 23: 679–704. [Google Scholar]
  142. Steiger, James H. 1990. Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research 25: 173–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. ST-Hilaire, Walter Amedzro, and Catherine de la Robertie. 2018. Correlates of Affective Commitment in organizational performance: Multi-level perspectives. Australian Journal of Career Development 27: 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Stinglhamber, Florence, and Christian Vandenberghe. 2004. Favorable job conditions and perceived support: The role of organizations and supervisors 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 34: 1470–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Stovel, Meaghan, and Nick Bontis. 2002. Voluntary turnover: Knowledge management—Friend or foe? Journal of Intellectual Capital 3: 303–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Susskind, Alex M., K. Michele Kacmar, and Carl P. Borchgrevink. 2003. Customer service providers’ attitudes relating to customer service and customer satisfaction in the customer-server exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 179–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Tett, Robert P., and John P. Meyer. 1993. Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology 46: 259–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Tetteh, Stephen, Cisheng Wu, Christian Narh Opata, Gloria Nana Yaa Asirifua Agyapong, Richard Amoako, and Frank Osei-Kusi. 2020. Perceived organisational support, job stress, and turnover intention: The moderation of Affective Commitments. Journal of Psychology in Africa 30: 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Tian, Qing, Licheng Zhang, and Wenchi Zou. 2014. Job insecurity and counterproductive behavior of casino dealers–the mediating role of Affective Commitment and moderating role of supervisor support. International Journal of Hospitality Management 40: 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Tjosvold, D., and M. T. Tjosvold. 1994. Cooperation, Competition, and Constructive Controversy: Knowledge to Empower Self-Managing Teams. In Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams. Edited by Beyerlein Michael and Johnson Danielle Elaine. Cambridge: Elsevier Science/JAI Press, vol. 1, pp. 119–44. [Google Scholar]
  151. Tjosvold, Dean, and Mary M. Tjosvold. 1995. Cross functional teamwork: The challenge of involving professionals. In Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams. Edited by Beyerlein Michael and Johnson Danielle Elaine. Stamford: JAI Press, vol. 2, pp. 1–34. [Google Scholar]
  152. Töre, Esra. 2020. Effects of Intrinsic Motivation on Teacher Emotional Labor: Mediating Role of Affective Commitment. International Journal of Progressive Education 16: 390–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Tremmel, Stephanie, Sabine Sonnentag, and Anne Casper. 2019. How was work today? Interpersonal work experiences, work-related conversations during after-work hours, and daily affect. Work & Stress 33: 247–67. [Google Scholar]
  154. Tsai, Ming-Ten, Chung-Lin Tsai, and Yi-Chou Wang. 2011. A study on the relationship between leadership style, emotional intelligence, self-efficacy and organizational commitment. A case study of the Banking Industry in Taiwan. African Journal of Business Management 5: 5319–29. [Google Scholar]
  155. Ugboro, Isaiah O. 2006. Organizational commitment, job redesign, employee empowerment and intent to quit among survivors of restructuring and downsizing. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management 7: 232–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. van Dinther, Martvan, Filip Dochy, and Mien Segers. 2011. Factors affecting students’ self-efficacy in higher education. Educational Research Review 6: 95–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Vandenberghe, Christian, Kathleen Bentein, and Florence Stinglhamber. 2004. Affective Commitment to the organization, supervisor, and work group: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior 64: 47–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Walumbwa, Fred O., Russell Cropanzano, and Barry M. Goldman. 2011. How leader–member exchange influences effective work behaviors: Social exchange and internal–external efficacy perspectives. Personnel Psychology 64: 739–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Wang, Xingyu, Priyanko Guchait, and Aysin Paşamehmetoğlu. 2020. Why should errors be tolerated? Perceived organizational support, organization-based self-esteem and psychological well-being. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 32: 1987–2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Wayne, Sandy J., Lynn M. Shore, and Robert C. Liden. 1997. Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal 40: 82–111. [Google Scholar]
  161. Wright, Robert R., and T. Tessa Larson. 2022. Workplace Interpersonal Conflict. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  162. Xu, Shi, Larry R. Martinez, Hubert Van Hoof, Michael Tews, Leonardo Torres, and Karina Farfan. 2018. The impact of abusive supervision and co-worker support on hospitality and tourism student employees’ Turnover Intentions in Ecuador. Current issues in Tourism 21: 775–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Yang, Juan, Bo Pu, and Zhenzhong Guan. 2019a. Entrepreneurial leadership and turnover intention of employees: The role of Affective Commitment and person-job fit. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16: 2380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Yang, Seong Won, Francisco Trincado, Giuseppe Joe Labianca, and Filip Agneessens. 2019b. Negative Ties At work. In Social Networks at Work, 1st ed. Edited by Daniel J. Brass and Stephen P. Borgatt. New York: Routledge, pp. 49–78. [Google Scholar]
  165. Ye, Zhongjun, Hefu Liu, and Jibao Gu. 2019. Relationships between Conflicts and employee perceived job performance: Job satisfaction as mediator and collectivism as moderator. International Journal of Conflict Management 30: 706–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Zickar, Michael J., William K. Balzer, Shahnaz Aziz, and John M. Wryobeck. 2008. The moderating role of social support between role stressors and job attitudes among Roman Catholic priests. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 38: 2903–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Socsci 11 00437 g001 550
Figure 1. Empirical Model.
Figure 1. Empirical Model.
Socsci 11 00437 g001
Table
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, internal consistencies and correlations.
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, internal consistencies and correlations.
MeansSDαCRAVE123456
1. Co-worker Support4.70.850.700.730.490.701
2. Supervisor Support4.61.090.890.890.670.56 ***0.819
3. Self-efficacy4.60.660.830.840.440.32 ***0.28 ***0.666
4. Conflict2.50.760.800.800.50−0.65 ***−0.59 ***−0.19 **0.710
5. Affective Commitment4.80.880.830.840.570.55 ***0.52 ***0.30 ***−0.32 ***0.760
6. Turnover Intention2.11.120.810.840.52−0.42 ***−0.52 ***−0.26 ***0.48 ***−0.66 ***0.72
Notes. ** = p < 0.01; *** = p < 0.001. SD = Standard deviation. CR = Composite Reliability. Diagonal elements (in bold) are the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE).
Table
Table 2. Indirect effects.
Table 2. Indirect effects.
Indirect PathStandardized EstimateLowerUpperp-Value
Co-worker Support --> Conflict --> Turnover Intention−0.131 **−0.278−0.0660.003
Co-worker Support --> Affective Commitment --> Turnover Intention−0.133 **−0.273−0.0740.001
Supervisor Support --> Affective Commitment --> Turnover Intention−0.178 ***−0.285−0.0960.001
Supervisor Support --> Conflict --> Turnover Intention −0.076 **−0.142−0.0330.002
Self-efficacy --> Affective Commitment --> Turnover Intention−0.068 *−0.200−0.0250.033
Notes. * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01; *** = p < 0.001.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mondo, M.; Pileri, J.; Carta, F.; De Simone, S. Social Support and Self-Efficacy on Turnover Intentions: The Mediating Role of Conflict and Commitment. Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 437. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11100437

AMA Style

Mondo M, Pileri J, Carta F, De Simone S. Social Support and Self-Efficacy on Turnover Intentions: The Mediating Role of Conflict and Commitment. Social Sciences. 2022; 11(10):437. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11100437

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mondo, Marina, Jessica Pileri, Federica Carta, and Silvia De Simone. 2022. "Social Support and Self-Efficacy on Turnover Intentions: The Mediating Role of Conflict and Commitment" Social Sciences 11, no. 10: 437. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11100437

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop