hong kong baptist university doctoral thesis middle
TRANSCRIPT
Hong Kong Baptist University
DOCTORAL THESIS
Middle managers' trust in supervisors and turnover intention duringorganizational socialization periodWong, Ho
Date of Award:2020
Link to publication
General rightsCopyright and intellectual property rights for the publications made accessible in HKBU Scholars are retained by the authors and/or othercopyright owners. In addition to the restrictions prescribed by the Copyright Ordinance of Hong Kong, all users and readers must alsoobserve the following terms of use:
• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from HKBU Scholars for the purpose of private study or research • Users cannot further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • To share publications in HKBU Scholars with others, users are welcome to freely distribute the permanent URL assigned to thepublication
Download date: 17 Feb, 2022
Middle Managers’ Trust in Supervisors and Turnover Intention
During Organizational Socialization Period
WONG Ho
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Business Administration
Principal Supervisor:
Dr. HUANG Guohua Emily (Hong Kong Baptist University)
November 2020
i
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this thesis represents my own work which has been done after
registration for the degree of Doctor of Business Administration at Hong Kong Baptist
University, and has not been previously included in a thesis or dissertation submitted to
this or any other institution for a degree, diploma or other qualifications.
I have read the University’s current research ethics guidelines and accept responsibility
for the conduct of the procedures in accordance with the University’s Committee on the
Research Ethics Committee (REC). I have attempted to identify all the risks related to
this research that may arise in conducting this research, obtained the relevant ethical
and/or safety approval (where applicable), and acknowledged my obligations and the
rights of the participants.
Signature: _____________________
Date: November 2020
ii
ABSTRACT
Empirical studies have shown that employees’ trust in their direct supervisors has a
negative correlation with voluntary employee turnover. This thesis examines this effect
among new managers in organizations. I propose a model in which trust in direct
supervisors influences new managers’ turnover intention during the organizational
socialization period. Drawing on attachment theory and person–environment
correspondence theory, I predict that job insecurity and person–organization fit are the
key mechanisms through which cognition-based and affect-based trust in supervisors
affect new managers’ voluntary turnover. A three-phase longitudinal quantitative
research is proposed to test the research model. The results from 162 participants in
Hong Kong support the model, showing that job insecurity and person–organization fit
mediate the relationship between trust in supervisors and turnover intention. In addition,
the organizational socialization period and middle manager stage moderate the
relationship between trust in supervisors and person–organization fit. The implications
of the findings for future research and management practice are also discussed.
Keywords: Turnover Intention, Trust in Supervisors, Job Insecurity, Person–
Organization Fit, Organizational Socialization, Middle Manager
iii
ACKNOWLEDEGMENTS
The DBA journey is not a one-man fight. I would like to express my gratitude to the
following helpers.
First, my biggest thanks go to my principal supervisor, Dr. Emily Huang. From my very
first thought to the research model, she devoted endless time to helping me refine my
thoughts, and her support made this research possible. I would also like to appreciate
my secondary supervisor, Dr. March To, although he has left Hong Kong to pursue a
better future during my writing, I’m still grateful on all his advice staring from the very
first class I have in HKBU.
Second, I must mention Dr. Soo May Cheng, whom I met on LinkedIn and gave me
many opportunities to teach as a guest lecturer. She is also the person who inspired me
to pursue a doctoral degree for my 2nd career in the future.
Special thanks go to Claudia Tsui of Hong Kong Baptist University for her continued
support throughout these four years. I would also like to thank Bingjie Yu for the time
she spent introducing me to Mplus.
Last but not least, I would like to thank my wife, Quinn Kan, for her support over the
past four years. She has been a great support not only physically but also emotionally
in my work and in my daily life. I would also thank my parents, their support on my
academic pursuit from my childhood pave a way to my doctoral degree today.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION............................................................................................................. i
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDEGMENTS .......................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................. iv
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background and Overview ................................................................................... 1
1.2 Research Questions and Contributions ............................................................... 3
1.3 Structure of the Thesis ......................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................................... 6
2.1 Turnover Intention (Intention to Quit) ................................................................. 6
2.1.1 Antecedents of Turnover Intention ............................................................... 7
2.2 Trust ..................................................................................................................... 9
2.2.1 Operationalization of Trust ......................................................................... 10
2.2.2 Antecedents of Trust ................................................................................... 11
2.2.3 Outcomes of Trust ....................................................................................... 12
2.2.4 Cognition-based Trust and Affect-based Trust ............................................ 13
2.3 Job Insecurity (JI) ................................................................................................ 14
2.3.1 Attachment Theory ..................................................................................... 15
2.3.2 Conceptualization of JI ................................................................................ 16
2.3.3 Antecedents of JI ......................................................................................... 18
2.3.4 Outcomes of JI............................................................................................. 19
2.4 Person–Organization Fit (P-O Fit) ....................................................................... 20
2.4.1 Person–Environment Correspondence Theory (PEC) ................................. 21
2.4.2 Conceptualization of P-O Fit ....................................................................... 23
v
2.4.3 Antecedents and Outcomes of P-O Fit ........................................................ 24
2.5 Organizational Socialization (OS) ....................................................................... 25
2.5.1 Psychological Contract Theory .................................................................... 26
2.5.2 OS Conceptualization .................................................................................. 29
2.5.3 Antecedents and Outcomes of OS .............................................................. 31
2.5.4 Duration of the OS Period ........................................................................... 32
2.6 Research at the Middle Manager Level ............................................................. 34
2.6.1 Turnover Decision at the Middle Manager Level ........................................ 34
2.6.2 Research on Trust at the Middle Manager Level ........................................ 36
2.6.3 Research on Turnover Intention at the Middle Manager Level .................. 37
2.6.4 Research on JI at the Middle Manager Level .............................................. 39
2.6.5 Research on P-O Fit at the Middle Manager Level ..................................... 40
2.6.6 Research on OS at the Middle Manager Level ............................................ 41
2.7 Research Gaps .................................................................................................... 42
CHAPTER 3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES ................ 44
3.1 Research Model ................................................................................................. 44
3.2 Hypothesis Development ................................................................................... 45
3.2.1 Trust in Supervisors and Turnover Intention ............................................... 45
3.2.2 Trust, JI, and Turnover Intention ................................................................. 49
3.2.3 Trust, P-O Fit, and Turnover Intention ........................................................ 51
3.2.4 The Moderating Role of OS ......................................................................... 53
CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ............................ 58
4.1 Sample and Procedure ....................................................................................... 58
4.1.1 Research Design and Questionnaire Development .................................... 58
4.1.2 Sampling and Data Collection ..................................................................... 59
4.2 Measurement ..................................................................................................... 61
4.2.1 Cognition-based Trust in Supervisors/Leaders ........................................... 61
4.2.2 Affect-based Trust in Supervisors/Leaders ................................................. 61
4.2.3 JI .................................................................................................................. 62
vi
4.2.4 P-O Fit .......................................................................................................... 62
4.2.5 Turnover Intention ...................................................................................... 63
4.2.6 OS Period ..................................................................................................... 64
4.2.7 Control Variables ......................................................................................... 64
CHAPTER 5 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ................................................. 65
5.1 Descriptive Statistics and Sample Characteristics .............................................. 65
5.1.1 Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................... 65
5.1.2 Common Method Bias ................................................................................ 69
5.1.3 Reliability Analysis ....................................................................................... 70
5.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) .................................................................... 71
5.3 Hypothesis Testing ............................................................................................. 72
5.3.1 The Direct Effect of Cognition-based Trust/Affect-based Trust in Supervisors
and Turnover Intention ........................................................................................ 74
5.3.2 The Mediating Effect of JI / P-O Fit on the Relationship between Cognition-
based Trust / Affect-based Trust in Supervisors and Turnover Intention ............ 75
5.3.3 The Moderating Effect of the OS Period on the Relationship between
Cognition-based Trust/Affect-based Trust in Supervisors and JI / P-O Fit ........... 79
5.3.4 Post Hoc Analysis: The Moderating Effect of the Middle Manager Stage on
the Relationship between Cognition-based Trust / Affect-based Trust in
Supervisors and JI / P-O Fit .................................................................................. 82
CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................ 86
6.1 Summary of Research Findings .......................................................................... 86
6.2 Theoretical Contributions .................................................................................. 91
6.3 Managerial Implications ..................................................................................... 93
6.4 Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Future Research ......................... 95
6.5 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 96
LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 98
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... 132
Appendix A—Summary of Measurement Items .................................................... 132
Appendix B – Sample Questionnaire ..................................................................... 134
vii
CURRICULUM VITAE ............................................................................................ 139
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.6 Turnover Considerations at Different Career Stages……………………..35
Table 5.1.1 Demographic Information……………………………………………...66
Table 5.1.2 Participants’ Income Level……………………………………………..66
Table 5.1.3 Participants’ Time with Their Current Employer by Category…….......67
Table 5.1.4 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations…………………….68
Table 5.1.5 Reliability Analysis……………………………………………………..70
Table 5.2 Comparison of the Measurement Models………………………………...72
Table 5.3.1 Hierarchical Regression Results………………………………………..73
Table 5.3.2 Results of the Direct Effect Using the Three-Factor Model…………....74
Table 5.3.3 Sobel Test Result for the Mediating Effect of JI………………………..76
Table 5.3.4 Sobel Test Result for the Mediating Effect of P-O Fit………………….78
Table 5.3.5 Bootstrap Results for the Moderated Mediation Tests - H5a…………...80
Table 5.3.6 Bootstrap Results for the Moderated Mediation Tests - H7b…………..84
Table 6.1 Summary of the Research Findings……………………………………....87
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1 Research Model ..........................................................................................44
Figure 5.1 Mediation Analysis Method Proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986) ..........76
Figure 5.2 The Effect of Cognition-Based Trust on P-O Fit During and Outside the OS
Period ...........................................................................................................................81
Figure 5.3 The Effect of Affect-Based Trust on P-O Fit at the Middle Manager Stage
and at the Non-Middle Manager Stage ………………………………………………85
Figure 6.1 Summary of the Research Model ………………………………………...88
1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
People quit bosses, not jobs.
Buckingham & Coffman, 1999
1.1 Background and Overview
Employee turnover is a common problem in most organizations. Due to fierce
competition, organizations try to minimize the turnover rate of their employees and
lower their turnover cost, which includes recruiting, selecting, and hiring new
employees. The few companies that I have served over the past 10 years have all faced
a turnover problem to some extent. Many employees leave quickly after joining a
company, often within a year or two. For example, Company A has a 3-year cumulative
voluntary turnover rate of 79% (January 2015 to December 2017), with 27% of
voluntary turnover involving employees hired within the last 24 months. Moreover,
57% of these employees are middle managers. As an important resource, the stability
of middle managers is vital for an effective and well-functioning organization. The
ability of organizations to retain these valuable middle management talents is critical to
their success (Zhang et al., 2008), so understanding employee turnover at the manager
level is especially important. Thus, this research focused on how middle managers
develop an intention to quit during their socialization period in organizations.
Leigh Branham (2005) analyzed the answers of 20,000 employees on why they left
their last job using anonymous surveys and found that the main reason was “loss of
2
trust and confidence in leaders,” although most managers also believe that
compensation is the primary reason employees leave. The meta-analysis conducted by
Dirks and Ferrin (2002) showed that trust in leadership has a significant relationship
with turnover intention, but they left the question of “how” to future research by
emphasizing a need to empirically examine the possible mediation processes involved.
As a human resources (HR) manager, I also tried to find the answer from the exit
interviews that I conducted, and I realized that although many of them provided general
reasons for leaving the company, such as “career progress” or “better compensation,” a
number of new managers mentioned that their turnover was directly or indirectly linked
to their trust in supervisors, e.g. “I don’t trust my supervisor anymore,” “My
relationship with my supervisor has broken down, which makes me feel unsafe to stay,”
or “I don’t trust my supervisor’s leadership, it seems I no longer fit this company.” Does
the lack of trust psychologically affect employees’ sense of fit in their current company
and job security, which motivates them to leave the company, even after a relatively
short period?
As trust in supervisors is particularly relevant to understand turnover in middle
managers, attachment theory, which suggests that trust is the foundation of a secure
attachment (Simpson & Rholes, 1998), is relevant. According to the psychological
process of attachment theory, I propose that job insecurity (JI) plays a critical role in
the relationship between turnover intention and trust. In addition, as supervisors act as
the primary agents of the organization, person–environment correspondence theory
(PEC) suggests that the fit between the needs of employees and the supply of the
organization predicts employee tenure. Therefore, I propose that losing trust in
supervisors can also lead to a loss of the sense of person–organization fit (P-O fit),
3
which will lead to new managers’ intention to leave the organization.
In addition to the psychological process discussed above, are there any external factors
encouraging new managers to leave after a short period? The first 24 months are
generally defined as the organizational socialization (OS) period, during which new
managers will acquire the knowledge, behaviors, and attitudes necessary to become
organizational participants (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). When new managers begin
to establish themselves as respected members of the organization and learn more about
organizational culture and their role from others, they often experience a sense of
uncertainty and vulnerability (Schein, 2004). Thus, I propose that this critical OS period
can also affect the process by which new managers decide to leave their organization.
1.2 Research Questions and Contributions
In this thesis, my research question focuses on how trust in supervisors affects turnover
intention during the OS period at the middle manager level. Specifically, I explore how
trust in supervisors can influence turnover intention through JI and P-O fit during the
OS period at the manager level. I attempt to address how trust in supervisors may
eventually influence one’s turnover decision.
This study contributes to the literature by examining how new managers’ trust in
supervisors influences their turnover intention through the mediating effect of JI and P-
O fit. This is a key issue because the development of mediation models is essential to
the advancement and maturation of research fields. Indeed, a defining characteristic of
thriving fields of research is the emergence of theoretically grounded mediation
4
frameworks. On this point, Mathieu, DeShon, and Bergh (2008) wrote, “developing an
understanding of the underlying mechanisms or mediators (i.e., M), through which X
predicts Y, or X→M→Y relationships, is what moves organizational research beyond
dust-bowl empiricism and toward a true science.”
Empirically, the findings of this study can inform HR managers and supervisors of the
importance of their recruitment/on-boarding/orientation strategies and activities. The
role of HR managers during the recruitment/on-boarding/orientation process is
complex, and building trust is one of the key elements that this process must achieve.
Direct supervisors also need to be aware that their role during OS is critical in retaining
talent and reducing employee turnover. The cost of turnover is high but often invisible
from a financial perspective (Holton et al., 2008) because the cost of voluntary turnover
is not included in any profit and loss statements. These hidden expenses are generally
concealed in other items, such as temporary staffing, recruitment and selection, and on-
the-job training. Furthermore, the material but unmeasured expenses resulting from the
loss of critical implicit knowledge or customer service continuity are never considered.
Depending on the industry, replacement availability, job content, and other factors, the
estimated loss from each employee can be up to twice his/her annual salary (Hinkin &
Tracey, 2000). Chamberlain (2017) estimated that the cost of replacing an employee is
21% of his/her annual salary on average. Therefore, understanding the cause of
manager turnover and reducing it has significant financial implications for
organizations.
5
1.3 Structure of the Thesis
This thesis is divided into six chapters. Chapter 1 presents the background, motivation,
research question, and structure of the thesis.
Chapter 2 conducts an in-depth review of the literature on key constructs and identifies
research gaps in the conclusion.
Chapter 3 proposes a research model and introduces the hypotheses, which are based
on various theories and the findings of the literature review.
Chapter 4 introduces the quantitative research design, including the sampling method
and procedure and the measures used in this study.
Chapter 5 presents the data analysis and the results, including the results of descriptive
analysis, common method bias, reliability analysis, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA),
and structural equation modeling (SEM). The results of each hypothesis are also
discussed.
Finally, Chapter 6 discusses the theoretical and managerial contributions of the thesis,
along with the limitations of this study and suggestions for further research.
6
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter critically reviews the theoretical and empirical literature on turnover
intention, trust, P-O fit, JI, and OS. It also provides an assessment of current research
and identifies research gaps.
2.1 Turnover Intention (Intention to Quit)
With different levels of influence on an organization, turnover is generally divided into
two types: voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary turnover occurs when employees
decide to leave their organization and resign (Wells & Peachey, 2011). Abbasi and
Hollman (2000) suggested that the most talented employees have the highest
probability of leaving an organization and will take their knowledge, skills, and
experiences when they leave, which will have a negative effect on the organization. In
contrast, involuntary turnover occurs when the organization decides to let an employee
go (McPherson, 1976). Underperforming employees are more likely to be affected by
involuntary turnover; thus, involuntary turnover is likely to have a positive effect on
the organization (Watrous et al., 2006).
Employee turnover has been a trending topic since the first voluntary turnover model
developed by March and Simon (1958) in the 1950s, mainly because of its significant
negative impact on the organization. In 1980, Muchinsky and Morrow estimated that
2,000 employee turnover studies had been conducted. When Trevor conducted another
review in 2001, he found that employee turnover studies had continued to gain attention
over the past 20 years. The negative impact of high turnover rates has been recognized
7
by both academia and the business world. In academia, the effect of turnover has been
researched since the 1980s. In their meta-analysis, Hancock et al. (2013) suggested that
high employee turnover rates have a negative impact on firm performance. On the
business side, Julie Kantor, CEO of Twomentor, LLC, listed seven hidden costs in her
article “High Turnover Costs Way More Than You Think” published on The Huffington
Post in February 2016: 1) recruitment agency costs, 2) interview expenses, 3)
replacement cost, 4) training and on-boarding costs, 5) new hire productivity, 6)
reduced engagement, and 7) less effective service. Cotton and Tuttle’s (1986) meta-
analysis also showed that employee turnover is related to 26 variables, such as
commitment, turnover intention, job content, job satisfaction, tenure, and age (Porter &
Steers, 1973).
Tett and Meyer (1993) defined turnover intention as “a conscious and deliberate
willingness to leave the organization.” According to the theory of planned behavior
(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), reported behavioral intention is considered to be the best
precursor of people’s behavior. Many researchers have also found that turnover
intention is the best predictor of actual turnover (Michaels & Spector, 1982; Abrams,
Ando, & Hinkle, 1998; Lee & Mowday, 1987).
2.1.1 Antecedents of Turnover Intention
Previous studies have identified several antecedents of turnover intention, which can
be categorized into internal and external factors.
In terms of internal factors, the most researched antecedents are organizational
8
commitment, job satisfaction, tenure, gender, and age (Trimble, 2006; Mulki, Jaramillo,
& Locander, 2006). In addition, job embeddedness (Mitchell et al., 2001), trust in
supervisors (Mulki, Jaramillo, & Locander, 2006), and job insecurity (Staufenbiel &
König, 2010) are important antecedents.
The most common external factors include job autonomy, fair reward, and social
support. In addition, organizational learning culture (Egan, Yang, & Bartlett, 2004),
control, trust and justice (Brashear, Manolis, & Brooks, 2005), person-organization (P-
O) fit (Liu, Liu, & Hu, 2010), social networks (Moynihan & Pandey, 2008),), group
trust, and supervisor support (Li, Kim, & Zhao, 2017) are important antecedents.
Moreover, Mao et al. (2018) conducted a meta-analysis and found that turnover
intention is significantly correlated with age, location, position, salary, and working
time.
The meta-analysis conducted by Kim and Kao (2014) identified 36 predictors of
turnover intention, divided into four categories: attitudes/perceptions, work
environment, work-related, and demographic categories. Their results showed that
demographic indicators (such as gender, race, age) had the smallest effects, work-
related indicators (such as autonomy, worker inclusion, burnout, stress) had medium to
high effects, work environment predictors (such as fairness, supervisor support, culture)
had relatively high effects, and attitudes/perceptions indicators (such as job satisfaction,
organizational commitment) had the greatest effects on turnover intention.
Although studies of turnover intention have increased over the past 20 years, due to the
complexity of the decision to change jobs, researchers have struggled to explain a
9
considerable part of the variance in turnover intention. Many external factors not
associated with the job itself influence employees’ decision to leave their organization,
such as the social status of the job, the situation of the external labor market, their family
life situation, and their relationship with their supervisor (Collins, 2010; Griffeth et al.,
2000). Thus, the role played by supervisors in employee turnover intention is a
worthwhile topic to explore.
2.2 Trust
Rousseau et al. (1998) defined trust as “a psychological state comprising the intention
to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior
of another.” This definition includes the two key concepts of trust: positive expectations
and vulnerability. In other words, the trustor is willing to put his/her trust in a trustee
based on a positive expectation of that trustee and considering the risk of being hurt by
the trustee. Thus, trust in supervisors means that the trustor is the employee and the
trustee is his/her supervisor. Following the definition of Yukl and Van Fleet (1992),
I also consider that “supervisors,” “managers,” and “leaders” have the same
meaning in the literature, as these words are frequently used interchangeably.
In organizational research, trust is a popular construct, as it is viewed as an essential
characteristic in all working relationships (Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012). Considered one
of the most important relationships in organizations, trust in supervisors is correlated
with numerous constructs. For example, Dirks and Ferrin (2002) showed in their meta-
analysis that trust in leadership is linked to 23 behavioral, performance, and attitudinal
outcomes, such as organizational commitment, belief in information, job satisfaction,
10
job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). Trust in supervisors
also has a significant negative correlation with turnover intention.
2.2.1 Operationalization of Trust
The conceptualization of trust has come a long way, and there have been multiple
debates in the trust literature over its definition (Rousseau et al., 1998; Bigley & Pearce,
1998). This debate was eventually resolved by Mayer et al. (1995) and Rousseau et al.
(1998).
Mayer et al. (1995) defined trust as “the willingness of a trustor to be vulnerable to the
actions of a trustee based on the expectation that the trustee will perform a particular
action.” Likewise, Rousseau et al. (1998) defined trust as “a psychological state
comprising the intentions to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations of the
intentions or behavior of another.” These two definitions are aligned in terms of the
two key components of trust: positive expectations, found in many previous definitions
(Golembiewski & McConkie, 1975; Cook & Wall, 1980; Barber, 1983), and
vulnerability, also mentioned in many previous definitions (Zand, 1972; Govier, 1994;
Boon & Holmes, 1991).
In addition to clarifying the definition of trust, Mayer et al. (1995) further separated
trustworthiness and trust propensity from trust (Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, 2007).
Trustworthiness is defined as a trustor’s assessment of the three characteristics of the
trustee: ability, integrity, and benevolence (Mayer et al., 1995). This definition is
consistent with the study by Gabarro (1978), who suggested that trustworthiness is a
11
multilayered construct that includes a trustee’s character and competence. Trust
propensity is defined as a constant personal preference that affects the likelihood that
an individual will trust others (Mayer et al., 1995).
2.2.2 Antecedents of Trust
Mayer et al. (1995) suggested that trustworthiness, which includes the three
characteristics of a trustee (ability, integrity, and benevolence), is an antecedent of trust.
Ability refers to the competence of a trustee to fulfill his/her responsibility under a
promise based on trust. Integrity refers to the correspondence between a trustor’s
standard and a trustee’s principle. Benevolence describes a trustor’s confidence that the
trustee will do anything that benefits the trustor. Subsequent research (Colquitt, Scott,
& LePine, 2007) has confirmed that these three dimensions of trustworthiness are
uniquely and significantly correlated with trust.
In their meta-analysis, Dirks and Ferrin (2002) identified two theoretical perspectives
on trust in leaders to resolve the theoretical debate on the formation of trust.
The first is the character-based perspective (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002), which refers to
employees’ perception of the character of their supervisors and its effect on employees’
sense of vulnerability toward their supervisors (Mayer et al., 1995). As supervisors have
authority in the organization, which allows them to significantly influence their
followers through certain decisions (termination, compensation, promotion), the
character of supervisors is essential for the perception of trust among employees. This
perspective suggests that the character of supervisors, including their ability, fairness,
12
dependability, and integrity, will affect employee trust, in turn influencing their attitudes
and behaviors.
The second perspective is the relationship-based perspective (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002).
This perspective refers to how employees understand the nature of the leader–follower
relationship or the leader–member exchange relationship (Schriesheim et al., 1999).
Researchers have suggested that trust in supervisors works as part of a social exchange
process (Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994), as
employees may consider their relationship with their supervisors as a psychological
contract to which both parties are mutually committed based on care, goodwill, and
consideration, leading to a high quality relationship.
According to Dirks and Ferrin (2002), trust in leaders is decided by followers as a
perception or belief in both perspectives, but it is not decided by leaders.
2.2.3 Outcomes of Trust
The literature has shown that trust in supervisors is correlated with multiple outcomes.
For instance, it is positively correlated with team performance (De Jong & Dirks, 2016),
teamwork (Simons & Peterson, 2000), employee performance (Mayer & Gavin, 2005),
leadership effectiveness (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002), job satisfaction (Edwards & Cable,
2009), organization citizenship behaviors, and task performance (Colquitt, Scott, &
LePine, 2007) and negatively correlated with counterproductive behaviors (Colquitt,
Scott, & LePine, 2007).
13
Dirks and Ferrin (2002) used a meta-analysis to summarize the relationship between
trust in supervisors and other constructs. Trust in supervisors has strong relationships
with satisfaction with leaders, leader–member exchange, organizational commitment,
and job satisfaction; it also has significant relationships with commitment to decisions,
belief in the information provided by the leader, and turnover intention; it has weak
relationships with job performance and OCBs, including sportsmanship, courtesy,
conscientiousness, and altruism. These findings are in line with the character-based and
relationship-based perspectives of trust.
2.2.4 Cognition-based Trust and Affect-based Trust
McAllister (1995) defined cognition-based trust as “one party’s confidence in another
party’s dependability, reliability and competence.” Based on this definition, cognition-
based trust is similar to the concept of knowledge-based trust proposed by Lewicki and
Bunker (1995). Cognition-based trust is also comparable to part of the definition of
trustworthiness (Mayer et al., 1995), as the ability dimension is similar to competence,
and the integrity dimension is similar to reliability. These two dimensions of
trustworthiness come from an evidence-based logical analysis, so they fit well with the
concept of cognition-based trust.
McAllister (1995) defined affect-based trust as “an emotional attachment to the other
party which reflects confidence that each party is concerned about the other’s personal
welfare.” Affect-based trust is also comparable to part of the definition of
trustworthiness (Mayer et al., 1995), as emotion-based goodwill is similar to the
benevolence dimension of trustworthiness. This dimension of trustworthiness comes
14
from confidence and belief, so it fits well with the concept of affect-based trust.
Dirks and Ferrin (2002) argued that the character-based perspective is logically related
to cognition-based trust, while the relationship-based perspective is logically related to
affect-based trust. Both perspectives reflect part of the overall definition of trust. In this
thesis, I test both cognition-based and affect-based trust and explore their correlations
with other constructs.
2.3 Job Insecurity (JI)
With rapid globalization and digitalization over the last 20 years, job insecurity (JI) has
become one of the main concerns of employees. Globalization has led to multiple waves
of manufacturing relocation, followed by professional outsourcing, so job security has
become a concern for both blue-collar and white-collar employees (Human Resource
Management, 2011). In addition, digitalization and automation have changed the way
people work and eliminated many clerical jobs. A report published by the Brookings
Institute suggested that 38% of all jobs done by humans could be automated by robots
and AI in the future (West, 2018). The Randstad Group, a global recruitment agency,
pointed out that job security has become the third most important attractiveness factor
in Hong Kong in its Randstad Employer Brand Research 2017 after surveying 5,000
job seekers (Randstad, 2017). The experience of JI is unpleasant but common to most
employees in any organization (Huang, Zhao, Niu, Ashford, & Lee, 2013).
Following the work of Shoss (2017), JI can be defined as “a perceived threat to the
continuity and stability of employment as it is currently experienced.” This definition
15
covers the qualitative and quantitative aspects of JI, the qualitative aspect focusing on
perceived threats to job features (Hellgren, Sverke, & Isaksson, 1999), and the
quantitative aspect focusing on perceived threats to the whole job (Sverke & Hellgren,
2002; De Witte, 1999). Jiang and Lavaysse (2018) further extended the construct of JI
to cognitive job insecurity (CJI) and affective job insecurity (AJI), with Shoss’s
definition of JI being the definition of CJI, and AJI being defined as employees’
emotional responses (e.g. fear, anxiety, worry, concern) to CJI (Huang, Lee, Ashford,
Chen, & Ren, 2010). In this thesis, I adopted the definition of Shoss (2017) without
separating CJI and AJI.
JI is correlated with multiple employee and organizational outcomes. For example,
Sverke et al. (2002) showed that JI has a moderate relationship with turnover intention
and a strong correlation with trust in supervisors. Staufenbiel and König (2010) also
found that JI is positively correlated with turnover intention and absenteeism, and
negatively correlated with OCBs and job performance. As trust in supervisors is
especially relevant to understand turnover in middle managers, attachment theory
suggesting that trust is the foundation of a secure attachment (Simpson & Rholes, 1998)
is essential for theorizing the process involved.
2.3.1 Attachment Theory
Attachment theory was proposed by Bowlby (1973) and developed based on
observations of human infants, birds, and mammals (Bowlby, 1982). This theory
suggests that attachment behavior is developed to protect oneself against predators, and
that healthy attachment will lead to a sense of security and self-reliance. When
16
individuals successfully develop multiple supportive attachments, they become self-
reliant, independent, and secure (Bowlby, 1982).
Based on Bowlby’s theory, Ainsworth et al. (1978) identified three styles of attachment:
secure attachment, anxious/resistant attachment, and avoidant attachment. Attachment
theory was further extended from the infant–caregiver relationship to romantic
relationships between adults by Hazan and Shaver (1987). Researchers have further
conceptualized adult attachment into two fundamental dimensions: anxiety and
avoidance (Fraley & Shaver, 2000; Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). Adults with low
anxiety will develop acceptance in intimate relationships, while those with high anxiety
will be concerned about fear and anxiety in intimate relationships. Adults with low
avoidance will have the confidence to depend on others and feel comfortable with close
relationships, while those with high avoidance will try to avoid, reject, and protect
themselves from close relationships.
Mikulincer (1998) suggested that trust is an essential basis for secure attachments, as
the definition of trust includes positive expectations and vulnerability toward the other
party, and positive expectations are key components of secure individuals (Shaver &
Hazan, 1993), who believe in the other party’s responsiveness, sensitivity, and
availability, and who thereby also enjoy a high level of trust.
2.3.2 Conceptualization of JI
Researchers have defined JI from two angles: a multidimensional view and a global
view.
17
The multidimensional view focuses on employees and their fear of unemployment and
lost job characteristics, their desire for job continuity, and their powerlessness of having
nothing to do (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984, 2010). This view includes the cognitive
(such as the perceived possibility of job loss) and affective aspects of JI (such as
emotional responses to job loss) highlighted by some researchers (Sverke & Hellgren,
2002). Researchers adopting this view have generally used complex multi-item
measures to examine JI (Sverke & Hellgren, 2002).
The global view focuses on employees’ general concern about whether their current job
will continue to exist (De Witte, 1999). This view also includes the cognitive and
affective aspects of JI, although researchers have typically focused on one or the other
(Hellgren, Sverke, & Isaksson, 1999). Researchers adopting this view have generally
used multi-item measures to examine JI (Sverke & Hellgren, 2002).
Although there are operational and conceptual differences between the
multidimensional view and the global view of JI, both views argue that JI should be
considered as the subjective experience of employees. Therefore, two employees may
experience completely different types of JI based on their perceptions, even if they have
the same job on the same team in the same company and suffer from the same problem,
such as reorganization or downsizing.
18
2.3.3 Antecedents of JI
The antecedents of JI can be divided into three categories: environmental,
organizational, and individual.
Environmental threats play an important role in employees’ perceived JI (Klandermans,
Hesselink, & Van Vuuren, 2010). For example, rising unemployment rates (Anderson
& Pontusson, 2007), tariff news between two countries leading to plant closures and
lay-offs, such as the US–Canada free trade agreement, which abolished tariff protection
for a Canada-based manufacturing company (Roskies & Louis- Guerin, 1990), and job
outsourcing (Lubke & Erlinghagen, 2014) will lead to increases in JI. In contrast,
legislation improving employment protection will lead to a reduction in JI (Anderson
& Pontusson, 2007).
From an organizational perspective, the type of employment also affects JI. For
example, temporary employees have higher JI than permanent employees (Keim et al.,
2014), and blue-collar employees have higher JI than white-collar employees (Keim et
al., 2014). Formal announcements about future changes, informal news about possible
changes, management changes, and deteriorating company performance are positively
correlated with JI (Roskies & Louis-Guerrin, 1990; Keim, Landis, Pierce, & Earnest,
2014; Debus, König, & Kleinmann, 2014). In contrast, joining a labor union will lead
to a reduction in JI (Anderson & Pontusson, 2007).
At the individual level, multiple factors can affect JI. For instance, researchers have
shown that perceived JI is affected by personality traits, such as locus of control and
19
negative affect (Debus et al., 2014), emotional exhaustion, low self-esteem and low
self-evaluation (De Cuyper et al., 2012), tenure and minority status (Yang & Zheng,
2015).
Researchers have suggested that environmental and organizational factors generate
threats, while individual factors make employees susceptible to external treats (Debus
et al., 2014).
2.3.4 Outcomes of JI
The outcomes of JI have been well studied over the past 20 years, and below I use three
recent meta-analyses to summarize the findings: Sverke et al. (2002), Cheng and Chan
(2008), and Lee, Huang, and Ashford (2018).
Sverke et al. (2002) showed that JI has moderate correlations with mental health,
turnover intention, organizational commitment, and job involvement, as well as strong
correlations with job satisfaction and trust, whereas it is not significantly associated
with performance. They also called for more research on certain constructs (such as
trust) in future research.
Cheng and Chan (2008) found that JI is positively correlated with turnover intention
and negatively correlated with job involvement, trust, job performance, physical health,
psychological health, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction. The main
difference between the studies by Cheng and Chan (2008) and Sverke et al. (2002) is
that the correlation between JI and job performance was stronger, while that between JI
20
and job involvement was weaker.
Lee, Huang, and Ashford (2018) conducted a meta-analysis of 122 studies published
since 2003 and categorized the outcomes of JI into four types: 1) employee health and
well-being; 2) job, organization, and career attitudes; 3) performance and behavioral
outcomes; and 4) interpersonal contagion and spillover effects. There have been
consistent findings supporting the positive relationship between JI and turnover
intention (Murphy et al., 2013; Mauno et al., 2014; König et al., 2011; Kinnunen et al.,
2014; Huang et al., 2017).
2.4 Person–Organization Fit (P-O Fit)
As early as the 1960s, Pervin (1968) defined person–environment fit (P-E Fit) as “the
degree of congruence or match between a person and environment.” Building on this
definition, researchers have extended this definition to person–job fit (P-J fit) and P-O
fit. Edward (1991) defined P-J fit as the match between job attributes and employee
desires, or the match between job demands and employee skills. Kristof (1996) defined
P-O fit as the match between an organization and its employees, focusing on the ability
of both parties to meet the needs of the other or the similarity of their characteristics.
P-O fit has been viewed by both HR practitioners and researchers as the key to
supporting a committed and flexible workforce in the organization, thereby creating a
competitive advantage for organizations in the modern business world (Kristof, 1996;
Bowen, Ledford, & Nathan, 1991). Researchers have also found that P-O fit is a strong
predictor of turnover intention (Cable & DeRue, 2002; Verquer, Beehr, & Wagner, 2003)
21
and actual employee turnover (Arthur et al., 2006; Hoffman & Woehr, 2006). P-O fit is
also correlated with multiple organizational or individual outcomes, including trust in
supervisors (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005), job performance (Kim et
al., 2013), OCBs (Cable & DeRue, 2002), job satisfaction (Resick, Baltes, & Shantz,
2007), and organizational commitment (Kim, Aryee, Loi, & Kim, 2013).
2.4.1 Person–Environment Correspondence Theory (PEC)
Researchers have considered PEC theory as a generalized extension of the Minnesota
theory of work adjustment (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984), explaining how PEC affects
actual employee turnover and job satisfaction (Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1964). The
Minnesota theory of work adjustment was developed in the 1960s by the University of
Minnesota via a Work Adjustment Project that aimed to develop a framework
containing career-related constructs by linking employees and their work environment
to predict possible turnover.
PEC theory argues that employees are intrinsically motivated to achieve and maintain
optimal correspondence with their environment (Lofquist & Dawis, 1991). According
to PEC theory, the organization has requirements for employees, and employees also
have requirements for the organization: to be successful, the organization and
employees must achieve a certain level of correspondence or congruence (Lofquist &
Dawis, 1991). When discussing PEC theory, Lofquist and Dawis (1991) described the
balance between the organizational environment and employee job satisfaction as the
way in which employees and environmental factors interact to predict employee
satisfaction with their jobs. PEC theory explains that organizational behavior is
22
determined by the requirements of the organization for employees, and by the
requirements of employees for the organization.
PEC theory divides fit into two types, ability–demand fit and need–supply fit, both of
which are correlated with employee tenure and actual turnover (Dawis, 2002). Ability–
demand fit is the match between job demands and employees’ abilities, skills, and
knowledge. Ability–demand fit is decided by the supervisor or the employing
organization, and is correlated with supervisory/organizational satisfaction with the
employee. In contrast, need–supply fit is the match between job resources and
employees’ value and needs. Need–supply fit is decided by employees and is correlated
with their satisfaction with their employer (Dawis, 2005).
Researchers have shown that need–supply fit is correlated with multiple behavioral
outcomes. Logically, this can be explained by the fact that when the needs of employees
are met by their organization, they will be satisfied with their organization and become
satisfied. Satisfied employees typically have higher productivity and tend to stay in the
organization longer, so job satisfaction plays a mediating role between need–supply fit
and tenure. Need–supply fit is positively related to other constructs, such as employee
effort, job satisfaction, and tenure (Cable & DeRue, 2002), and to the relationship
between job satisfaction and turnover intention, in which job satisfaction acts as a
mediator (Dahling & Librizzi, 2015)
23
2.4.2 Conceptualization of P-O Fit
Kristof (1996) identified four types of operationalization in her meta-analysis.
The first operationalization focuses on the similarities between the character of the
organization and that of the employees, such as the match between organizational value
and employee value. This operationalization is based on the ability–demand fit
perspective (Posner, 1992; Judge & Bretz, 1992). The second operationalization
focuses on the match between organizational goals and employee goals. This
operationalization is also based on the ability–demand fit perspective (Vancouver &
Schmitt, 1991; Vancouver, Millsap, & Peters, 1994). The third operationalization
focuses on the match between organizational structure/systems and employee needs or
preferences. This operationalization is based on the need–supply fit perspective (Turban
& Keon, 1993; Cable & Judge, 1994; Bretz, Ash, & Dreher, 1989). The fourth
operationalization focuses on the congruence between the personality/climate of the
organization and the personality of the employees. As organizational climate is often
understood as an organizational resource, this operationalization can be seen as
including both the perspectives of need–supply fit and ability–demand fit.
In this thesis, I adopted the third operationalization of P-O fit, defined as “the match
between organizational structure/systems and employee needs or preferences,” from
the perspective of need–supply fit. Empirically, the labor market is a “mutual choice”
in modern society. That is, with many job openings at the middle manager level, middle
managers can leverage their previous experience to choose an offer based on what the
organization can provide them.
24
2.4.3 Antecedents and Outcomes of P-O Fit
The antecedents of P-O fit can be traced back to the attraction–selection–attrition theory
proposed by Schneider (1987), which suggests that employers (organizations) and
employees attract each other because they believe that the other party is like them,
which affects the recruitment decisions of employers and the job choice behavior of
employees. Based on this theory, researchers have identified organizational hiring
practices and employees’ job choice behavior as the initial antecedents of P-O fit (Rynes
& Gerhart, 1990; Cable & Judge, 1994; Adkins, Russell, & Werbel, 1994). However,
researchers have found that after an employee joins the company, the main antecedent
of P-O fit is Organizational Socialization (Cable & Parsons, 2001; Chatman, 1989).
Research has shown that P-O fit is correlated with many employee and organizational
outcomes, including objective job performance (Bretz & Judge, 1994), contextual job
performance (Goodman & Svyantek, 1999), self-reported job performance (Tziner,
1987), self-reported teamwork (Posner, 1992), organizational commitment (Vancouver
& Schmitt, 1991; Postner, Kouzes, & Schmidt, 1985), OCBs (O’Reilly & Chatman,
1986), and job satisfaction (Chatman, 1989; Boxx et al., 1991). The literature has
suggested that P-O fit is a strong predictor of turnover intention (O’Reilly et al., 1991;
Chatman, 1991; Vancouver et al., 1994). Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, and Johnson
(2005) summarized previous findings in their meta-analysis and found that P-O fit is
strongly correlated with organizational satisfaction, job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and employees’ trust in their supervisors, and is moderately correlated
with turnover intention, coworker satisfaction, and supervisor satisfaction.
25
2.5 Organizational Socialization (OS)
Schein (1968) defined OS as “the process by which a new member learns the value
system, the norms, and the required behavior patterns of the society, organization, or
group which he is entering.” Following Schein, scholars have refined the definition
from a content perspective (Chao et al., 1994) and a process perspective (Van Maanen
& Schein, 1979). Over the past 50 years, most organizations around the world have
shifted from lifelong employment to pay-for-performance employment, leading to more
and more job changes for employees over their lifetime. A recent report from the US
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015) showed that baby boomers born between 1957 and
1964 changed jobs on average 11.7 times. Thus, the OS process has become a repeated
experience for most employees in their careers.
As effective socialization has been shown to be correlated with multiple individual and
organizational factors, the OS process has been a hot topic for scholars in recent decades.
Unsuccessful socialization is one of the main reasons that newcomers decide to leave
an organization (Fisher, 1986), at the expense of the organization’s recruitment,
selection, and training investment (Kammeyer-Muller & Wanberg, 2003), interrupting
the daily work of the organization and leading to loss of productivity (Shaw, Gupta, &
Delery, 2005). In addition to the financial impact, from an organizational perspective,
a successful OS process will help new talent to perform as expected, which will create
a competitive advantage for the organization to compete with other firms. From the
perspective of newcomers, ineffective socialization will increase their anxiety and
withdrawal behaviors while reducing their sense of P-O fit and performance (Carr et
al., 2006).
26
After researchers identified newcomer proactivity and organizational tactics as major
socialization factors (Bauer et al., 2007), research has focused on three approaches to
understand OS: organizational, individual, and interaction approaches. The
organizational approach focuses on what the organization provides to newcomers to
structure their socialization experience; this can include various processes and methods
such as OS tactics. The individual approach focuses on newcomers’ proactivity and
personal attributes (Saks & Ashforth, 1997; Bauer, Morrison, & Callister, 1998; Bauer
et al., 2007). The interaction approach focuses on how OS tactics interact with
newcomers’ proactivity to influence their adjustment (Kim, Cable, & Kim, 2005;
Gruman, Saks, & Zweig, 2006). Fang, Duffy, and Shaw (2011) suggested that
newcomers will obtain social resources by communicating and interacting with current
organizational members, which constitutes the socialization mechanism. In other words,
both individual and organizational factors help newcomers to communicate and interact
with current members to obtain social resources to adapt to their new work environment.
2.5.1 Psychological Contract Theory
Social exchange theory (SET) may be “one of the oldest theories of social behavior”
(Homans, 1958). It has also been considered one of the most powerful conceptual
frameworks for understanding employee behavior and motivation. Social exchange
relationships can be seen as an extension of economic exchange relationships, in which
employees and their organization do not exchange economic resources but social
resources. Blau (1964) first introduced the term “social exchange theory” to describe
the interaction between the organization and its employees to exchange social resources,
27
which can be either tangible or intangible. These exchanges should be viewed as
transactions rather than relationships.
For newcomers who want to be effective in their new roles, it is essential to develop
superior social exchange relationships with their supervisors and peers (Gersick,
Bartunek & Dutton, 2000). During the OS period, when newcomers face many
uncertainties, they must adjust to their new environment based on critical social
resources, such as supportive exchange relationships with supervisors and peers
(Roberts et al., 2005). Therefore, during this period, to successfully navigate their new
and sometimes intimidating environment, newcomers must do their best to gain support
and useful information (Bauer et al., 2007). The literature has suggested that newcomers
may achieve better initial outcomes if they proactively seek information from their
supervisors and peers (Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992; Ashford & Taylor, 1990).
Newcomer socialization has been supported by researchers from an SET perspective,
as their organizational adaptation has been found to be correlated with social exchange
outcomes (for example, social acceptance), the types of resources exchanged (for
example, information on role clarification), and social exchange targets (for example,
supervisors and peers).
According to SET, organizations are mediums for social exchange and transactions
(Cropanzano et al., 1997). Supervisors and the employer (organization) are the most
important exchange partners in the daily work of employees. The social exchange
process can also be seen as an informal contract between employees and their
organization or as the process of interaction of these two parties. With the possibility of
future rewards, employees and their organization are more likely to interact or to help
28
each other during the exchange relationship (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994).
Rousseau (1990) defined the psychological contract as “the individual’s perception of
the reciprocal obligations which underlie the exchange relationship between the
employee and the employer,” with perceived psychological contract fulfillment (PCF)
and psychological contract breach (PCB) being the fundamental concepts of
psychological contract theory (Cantisano, Domínguez, & Depolo, 2008). Robinson
(1996) argued that as a subjective experience, PCB refers to “the perception by one of
the parties to the contract [that] the other party has failed to adequately fulfill the
promised obligation.” Zhao et al. (2007) found a significant relationship between PCB
and trust, and justified this result by the uncertainties arising during social exchange
relationships, as the social exchange process requires the focal person to trust the other
party to fulfill their obligations (Blau, 1964) when it is not guaranteed that the favor
will be returned. If the trustee cannot keep their promises, the trustor will experience a
lower level of trust, which will lead to other negative behaviors and attitudes (Zhao et
al., 2007).
The meta-analysis conducted by Cantisano, Domínguez, and Depolo (2008) also
highlighted the differences between managers and other employees. The relationships
between PCB and turnover intention, performance, and job satisfaction are significantly
stronger among managers, while the relationships between PCB and commitment and
trust are much weaker. This finding is consistent with the study by Flood, Turner,
Ramamoorthy, and Pearson (2001), who suggested that when selecting an employer,
managers normally have more choices. Therefore, as middle managers have more
alternatives when selecting their employer, they can better identify issues in the
29
exchange relationship and react more quickly to any imbalance. In summary, middle
managers are more likely to show the outcomes of PCB.
As mentioned earlier, Rousseau (1995) introduced psychological contract theory, which
suggests that within the framework of employment contracts, multiple agents of the
organization can represent the views and obligations of that organization. These agents
typically include immediate supervisors, HR representatives, and top management.
Among these agents, Shore and Tetrick (1994) stated that “the employee is more likely
to view the immediate supervisor as the chief agent for establishing and maintaining
the psychological contract,” and Tekleab and Taylor (2003) mentioned that “the
immediate supervisors are the most likely agent to convey the contract to a specific
employee.” Following psychological contract theory and previous research, I
propose that immediate supervisors are the primary agent of employers. Cantisano,
Domínguez, and Depolo (2008) also found that the relationship between PCB and
turnover intention is mediated by trust, and they called for more studies to explore the
possible mediators and moderators of this relationship.
2.5.2 OS Conceptualization
The review conducted by Allen, Eby, Chao, and Bauer (2017) indicated that early
studies of OS could be divided into four themes: 1) stage models, 2) OS tactics, 3)
socialization content and adjustment indicators, and 4) the interactionist perspective.
Researchers have often used stage models to define OS as a process that involves three
stages (Feldman, 1976): (1) the “anticipatory socialization stage” takes place before
30
newcomers officially join the new organization and is related to their expectations of
the organization and their new job; (2) the “accommodation stage” is the actual
socialization process, including adjustment, sense-making, and the learning process;
and (3) the “role management stage” takes place after the accommodation stage, during
which newcomers have already adjusted to most elements of the organization, but they
still need to hone certain nuances to become fully equipped members of the
organization. These three stages will be repeated as employees join a new organization
during their lifetime while learning from previous experiences to make the new
experience smoother.
OS tactics were first proposed by Van Maanen and Schein (1979) and are designed to
help the organization to socialize new employees. This theme was further developed by
Jones (1986), who proposed a set of scales to measure these tactics. There are six tactics:
(1) informal or formal processes that are (2) in groups or by individuals; (3) content
tactics with randomly decided experiences or with a standard order of experiences; (4)
content tactics with a flexible time frame or within a fixed time frame; (e) social tactics
without role models or with role models; and (f) social tactics to force newcomers to
follow standards of behavior or to allow newcomers to have individual qualities.
Socialization content focuses on what will be learned during the OS period (Schein,
1968; Fisher, 1986; Feldman, 1976). Commonly found learning content includes 1)
behavioral patterns, 2) organizational norms and values, 3) information about the
employee, 4) information about the organization, 5) how to work in a specific group,
and 6) how to perform one’s job effectively.
31
Drawing on Louis’s (1980) research on newcomer experience and proactive behavior,
Reichers (1987) introduced the interactionist perspective of OS. This approach argues
that the OS process is not only about newcomer experience and proactive behavior or
organizational tactics, including formal and informal processes or orientations, but
involves interaction between newcomers and organizational insiders. In this approach,
organizational insiders are the most important factor of OS (Fang, Duffy, & Shaw, 2011).
In addition, as immediate supervisors are considered the primary agents of the
organization (Nifadkar, Tsui, & Ashforth, 2012), their support for newcomers will be
the key to effective OS (Li, Harris, Boswell, & Xie, 2011; Bauer & Green, 1998).
2.5.3 Antecedents and Outcomes of OS
Supported by uncertainty reduction theory, the antecedents and outcomes of OS are
closely related during the OS process (Saks & Ashforth, 1997). OS tactics, along with
individual proactive behaviors, are considered typical OS antecedents. Both factors will
help newcomers to gather information/knowledge and social resources, which include
informal organizational norms, formal policies, organizational culture, exchange of
tactics with supervisors, and job descriptions. Acquiring such knowledge will also
affect OS outcomes (Klein & Heuser, 2008).
Researchers have shown that OS is correlated with several individual and
organizational outcomes (Jones, 1986), similar to its antecedents. Van Maanen and
Schein (1979) also divided OS tactics into two types: individual tactics and
institutional/organizational tactics.
32
At the individual level, OS is correlated with stress, role clarity, role innovation, job
satisfaction, and organizational commitment (Bauer et al., 2007). The outcomes and
process of socialization are also influenced by individual values and beliefs, personality
traits, and personal identity. These characteristics are correlated with newcomers’
willingness and ability to gather information and internalize it (Ashforth, Sluss, &
Harrison, 2007). Proactive behaviors can also be adopted by newcomers for better
integration, as they can categorize information through these behaviors and resolve the
uncertainty issue related to their new role (Ashford & Black, 1996). Nevertheless, Crant
(2000) found that individual proactive behaviors are affected by external (e.g.
supervisory support, organizational culture) and internal factors (e.g. goal orientation,
self-efficacy).
At the organizational level, OS is correlated with productivity, work disruption, and
organizational performance (Bauer et al., 2007). This type of socialization is initiated
by the organization, which encourages newcomers to follow a structural process and
behave like role models. This is different from individual socialization, in which the
organization encourages newcomers to socialize more informally and allows them to
be innovative, rather than forcibly integrating them into the organization (Cooper-
Thomas & Anderson, 2006). The OS support provided by the organization typically
includes formal networking, mentoring programs, orientation programs, and formal
training programs (Antonacopoulou & Guttel, 2010).
2.5.4 Duration of the OS Period
It is important to create clear boundaries for the duration of the OS process to delineate
33
the research methodology, such as when to measure OS, how long the study period
should be, when an employee will be successfully socialized in the organization, and
how to measure OS success (continuous or discrete).
In sociology, socialization continues throughout life (Grusec & Hastings, 2014).
Although the human lifespan is relatively long and ever-increasing, organizational life
is relatively short. In this most general sense, the entire tenure of an employee in an
organization can be considered the OS period (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979; Schein,
1971). As a result, there is no clear boundary indicating the completion of socialization,
but a continuous range of improvements. It is clear that the start of the OS process
begins with newcomers joining a new organization (Moreland & Levine, 2001), as new
members, regardless of their experience of dramatic organizational changes, need to be
socialized or re-socialized to deal with organizational changes (Ashforth et al., 2007;
McManus & Russell, 1997). The process ends when employees leave the organization
(Van Maanen & Schein, 1979; Fisher, 1986). That is, OS is a continuous process
throughout one’s tenure in the organization, associated with continuous change and the
reconstruction of individual and organizational experiences (Falcione & Wilson, 1988).
Boswell, Boudreau, and Tichy (2005) analyzed 1,941 observations from 538 managers
over five years (1992–1996) and found that a honeymoon–hangover effect occurred
consistently across this period. Nonetheless, the first 12 to 24 months are generally
considered the most intense and problematic during OS, which is worth
investigating (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979; Bauer et al., 1998; Klein & Heuser, 2008).
Considering the differences between career stages and previous research, in this thesis,
I used the first 24 months as the OS period for new managers.
34
2.6 Research at the Middle Manager Level
2.6.1 Turnover Decision at the Middle Manager Level
Middle managers play a key role in any organization. They take on key responsibilities,
such as translating organizational strategies into executable tasks, overseeing day-to-
day operations, shaping the organizational culture and environment, managing
subordinates, and facilitating changes, to achieve organizational goals (Stewart,
Barsoux, Kieser, Ganter, & Walgenbach, 1994; Huy, 2002; Floyd & Wooldridge, 1997;
Delmestri & Walgenbach, 2005). The innovation and creativity of middle managers are
essential to ensure the survival and success of any organization (Dutton et al., 1997).
Therefore, the stability of middle managers is vital for an efficient and effective
organization, and the organization’s ability to retain middle management talent is
critical to its success (Zhang et al., 2008).
Johns (2006) identified four task contexts to create meaning and affect work behaviors:
resource availability, accountability, degree of autonomy, and environmental
uncertainty. This is similar to Mercer’s (2016) international position evaluation (IPE)
method, which uses five factors to evaluate a job: impact, knowledge, innovation,
communication, and risk. Based on these studies, I summarize the differences in
turnover considerations for different levels in Table 2.6.
35
Table 2.6 Turnover Considerations at Different Career Stages
Task Contexts Entry Level Middle Managers Senior Executives
Environmental uncertainty Low Medium High
Degree of autonomy Low Medium High
Accountability Low Medium High
Resource availability Low Medium High
Compared with entry-level employees, middle managers usually take on more
responsibility, need more autonomy to accomplish their tasks, have more resources to
use and manage, and face more uncertainty at work (Holden & Roberts, 2004;
McConville & Holden, 1999). Because the outcomes of managerial jobs are less
predictable and work processes are less routine, middle managers also need more
discretion and autonomy (Wall, Cordery, & Clegg, 2002). To perform well, middle
managers also need empowerment (Kanter, 2004).
In addition, Chamberlain (2017) found that with higher income, employee job
satisfaction comes from different sources. For instance, organizational culture and value
explained about 23.4% of job satisfaction for the high income group, compared with
21.6% for the low income group. This finding reveals that high-income employees have
different needs than their low-income counterparts, especially non-material needs.
These also include a longer-term perspective, such as growth opportunities and
leadership style. In contrast, low-income employees focus more on compensation,
benefits, and work–life balance.
These differences imply that previous research and findings on the antecedents of
36
turnover intention, including organizational commitment, job satisfaction, job search,
withdrawal cognitions, and comparison of alternatives (Griffin et al., 2000), may not be
appropriate at the manager level, which deserves further study.
2.6.2 Research on Trust at the Middle Manager Level
In most research on trust, the common theme at the manager level is the differences
between salespersons and sales managers (e.g. Brashear et al., 2005; Flaherty & Pappas,
2002; Rich, 1997). Social information processing theory also emphasizes the
differences between managers and front-line employees, as they have different needs
and values at work. In other words, given the same organizational practice with similar
information, managers will interpret and react to information significantly differently
from front-line employees (Shetzer, 1993; Kramer, 1999), and this variation can lead to
different reactions and attitude outcomes (Green & Mitchell, 1979; Dienesch & Liden,
1986). Huang et al. (2010) obtained similar findings, showing that when faced with
trust in supervisor challenges or experiencing psychological empowerment, the
responses of managers and front-line employees are different, mainly because they
focus on different things: front-line employees focus on the trustworthiness of their
superiors, while managers focus on their own empowerment. This is also consistent
with the study by Kramer (1999), who suggested that when employees need to evaluate
their supervisor’s behavior or manage hierarchical relationships, the trustworthiness of
superiors plays a key role because front-line employees are relatively vulnerable and
powerless.
In the 1970s, research showed that the job satisfaction of managers had strong
37
correlations with intrinsic and spiritual rewards, e.g. task significance, involvement and
autonomy (Locke, 1976; Kraut & Ronen, 1975), while that of front-line employees had
strong correlations with social and material rewards, e.g. pay and social exchange
relationships with supervisors and colleagues (Ronen et al., 1979; Kalleberg & Griffin,
1978). In the 1980s, Ronen and Sadan (1984) showed that managers tended to focus on
autonomy and sense of control, while front-line employees tended to focus on the
trustworthiness of their supervisors (Kramer, 1999) and the quality of their relationships
with supervisors and colleagues (Cohen, 1992). In the 1990s, Sashkin and Williams
(1990) found that non-supervisory staff had higher needs for relational aspects of work,
while middle managers were more likely to pay attention to their influence and
autonomy.
In general, the results of previous research on trust at the manager level informed my
study, but little research has focused on the differences between managers and other
employees.
2.6.3 Research on Turnover Intention at the Middle Manager Level
Since the introduction of turnover intention in the 1990s, studies of this construct have
increased significantly, although most studies have focused on entry-level employees
and top executives, with only a few studies focusing on managers. These studies have
mainly focused on leadership, especially in the nursing and hotel and food service
industries since the 2000s.
For example, Cavanaugh et al. (2000) tested self-reported stress and its outcomes using
38
longitudinal data from thousands of U.S. managers and found that turnover intention
was positively correlated with self-reported stress. Similarly, Lyness and Judiesch
(2001) tested factors affecting voluntary turnover in a financial services company with
26,359 managers. The results showed that gender had a small effect on employee
turnover, as female managers had a lower turnover rate. Promotion within 11 months
also had a negative impact on the turnover rate, and promoted female managers had a
lower turnover rate than male managers. In addition, taking family leave had a positive
relationship with the turnover rate, and more educated employees (graduate degrees)
who took family leave also had a higher turnover rate.
Ghiselli, La Lopa, and Bai (2001) received 459 questionnaires from managers of food
service companies to examine the effect of a set of factors, including gender, age, race,
tenure, life satisfaction, and job satisfaction, on turnover intention. Among these factors,
life satisfaction, job satisfaction, and age had effects on short-term turnover intention.
Ha and Choi (2002) focused on turnover intention in nurse managers and surveyed 468
nurse managers in Korea. The results showed that turnover intention was negatively
related to job satisfaction and organizational commitment and positively related to
management by exception. Among these factors, organizational commitment had the
strongest correlation with turnover intention. Colins (2010) linked restaurant managers’
turnover intention to PCF by surveying 328 restaurant managers in the United States.
Both his qualitative interviews and quantitative survey showed that compared with
organizational commitment and job satisfaction, restaurant managers’ turnover
intention had the strongest correlation with PCB. This study also inspired my research
to explore the differences between manager turnover decision factors.
39
In summary, there have been few studies on turnover intention at the manager level,
and its underlying effects have not been fully investigated.
2.6.4 Research on JI at the Middle Manager Level
Research on JI at the manager level can be traced back to the 1990s, when Roskies and
Louis (1990) conducted a study of managers and professionals facing the same JI issues
after a series of mergers and acquisitions led to half a million managers in 300
companies losing their jobs between 1984 and 1987 (Willis, 1987).
Roskies and Louis (1990) found that JI in managers was different from that of front-
line blue-collar or clerical employees in terms of stress. On the one hand, as managers
have more resources and better skills to deal with threats (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984),
they should be under less stress if the stress level is based on the nature of the threat.
On the other hand, as managers may believe that they have what they deserve, they may
experience more hopelessness, self-doubt, and guilt when the stress of JI increases
(Newman, 1988). However, these two findings appear to contradict each other, and it
is not clear which side is more significant. This also informed my study.
Hallier and Lyon (1996) followed the trend with a 12-month study by interviewing 42
middle managers aware of their possible termination. The results showed that a
termination warning had a significant impact on managers’ perceptions of the
psychological contract, organizational commitment, and job security. In addition, as
managers with long tenure are less confident about their competitiveness in the labor
market, they generally have a higher sense of JI.
40
Unfortunately, since 2000, most research on the antecedents and outcomes of JI has not
focused on the manager level, and little research has examined what makes managers
different from other employees.
2.6.5 Research on P-O Fit at the Middle Manager Level
Research on P-O fit at the manager level can be traced back to the 1990s, when
Lovelace and Rosen (1996) first examined the concept of P-O fit in managers of
different racial and gender groups. Their results showed that Black managers had lower
perceived P-O fit than White male managers and Hispanic managers, and that White
female managers perceived their P-O fit to be as good as that of White male managers.
Nevertheless, compared with stress, turnover intention, and job satisfaction, gender and
race had relatively small effects on P-O fit. However, subsequent research on this topic
has focused more on race and gender than on the manager level.
Research on P-O fit at the manager level remains limited in other areas of research. For
instance, Brigham et al. (2007) analyzed 159 high-tech industry managers with a P-O
fit model and found that higher P-O fit was positively correlated with job satisfaction
and negatively correlated with turnover intention among managers with dominant
decision-making styles. Iplik, Kilic, and Yalcin (2011) collected data from several hotel
managers in Turkey and found that P-O fit had a negative relationship with job stress
and positive relationships with job motivation, job satisfaction, and commitment.
Similarly, Lee and Wu (2011) studied 432 managers of high-tech companies in Taiwan
and found that P-O fit had a positive relationship with organizational innovation climate,
41
and personality traits and psychological climate adjustment had positive moderating
effects on this relationship.
Overall, research on P-O fit at the middle manager level remains scarce and limited to
a few countries, with no study of the unique differences at the manager level.
2.6.6 Research on OS at the Middle Manager Level
Research on OS at the manager level can be traced back to the 1960s, with studies
focusing on the link between OS and future outcomes, especially the success of the OS
period and possible future achievements. For example, Berlew and Hall (1966)
conducted a 7-year longitudinal study on the early careers of two groups of managers
in two large industrial companies to explore whether initial performance and initial job
challenges affect later performance and success in the same organization. The results
showed that in both companies, later performance and success had a strong relationship
with initial job challenges. In addition, in one of the companies, initial performance was
a precursor of later performance and success. Buchanan (1974) surveyed 279
government and business managers and found that organizational commitment was
correlated with hierarchical advancement, job achievement, social interactions with
superiors, and tenure, with a stronger effect in the early career stages.
Another stream of OS research at the manager level focuses on expatriate managers.
For instance, Lee and Larwood (1983) studied American expatriate managers in Korea
in terms of managerial attitudes and OS, and found very different value systems. They
showed that job satisfaction and job performance among expatriate managers were
42
positively related to attitude adjustment and self-concept change. Black (1992)
surveyed 220 expatriate managers on their socialization tactics and showed that role
innovation was negatively correlated with fixed socialization tactics and serial
socialization tactics, and positively correlated with collective socialization tactics. Their
tenure also positively moderated the relationship between role innovation and serial
socialization tactics. Moreover, Chow (2002) conducted a study with 374 HR managers
and business managers across five Asian countries (Thailand, Japan, Taiwan, Hong
Kong, and Singapore) and found that career success was partially correlated with
developmental experience, perceived organizational support, and socialization
strategies.
However, none of these studies explained the differences in the OS process between
managers and front-line employees/executives, leaving this area unexplored. Unlike
new graduates, who generally benefit from well-established management training and
orientation programs, middle managers do not have a similar process and have to rely
on their direct supervisors for guidance and socialization information (Ostroff &
Kozlowski, 1992). Thus, trust in supervisors during the OS period may play a more
important role for middle managers than for entry-level employees.
2.7 Research Gaps
In summary, this literature review identifies the following research gaps.
Trust in supervisors, JI, and P-O fit affect turnover decisions during the OS period,
but the underlying process is unclear. Although Dirks and Ferrin (2002) found that
43
trust had a significant relationship with turnover intention, they did not identify how
trust in leaders could lead to turnover intention, so the authors urged future studies to
focus empirically on the mediation processes involved.
The differences between the various career stages remain unclear, and little
research has been conducted at the middle manager level. Unlike entry-level
employees, middle managers usually take on more responsibility, need more autonomy
to accomplish their tasks, manage more resources, and face more uncertainty at work.
However, only a few studies have focused on middle managers and their turnover
intention, trust, JI, and P-O fit.
The possible effects of OS on the process from Trust to Turnover remain unclear.
Compared with new graduates who generally benefit from well-established
management training and orientation programs, middle managers do not have a similar
process and have to rely on their direct supervisors for guidance and socialization
information (Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). Yet, it is still unclear whether this period
plays a significant role in the relationship between trust in supervisors and turnover
intention.
44
CHAPTER 3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND
HYPOTHESES
This chapter presents the theoretical framework and the hypotheses. The literature
review conducted in Chapter 2 identified several research gaps, providing the starting
point for this study.
3.1 Research Model
Drawing on the literature review presented in Chapter 2, I have developed a conceptual
research model and tested it empirically. Figure 3.1 summarizes the relationships
examined in this study.
Figure 3.1 Research Model
45
3.2 Hypothesis Development
3.2.1 Trust in Supervisors and Turnover Intention
In any organization, interpersonal trust is the key foundation of social exchange
relationships (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005), and the concept of trust has frequently
been used by scholars to operationalize the effects of social exchange (Chua, Ingram,
& Morris, 2008). People’s uncertainty in relationships is reduced by trust, and the
quality of social exchange is enhanced by trust, so employees are better able to obtain
support, information, and other resources. As one of the antecedents of newcomer
performance, the exchange quality of supervisor–subordinate relationships has been
studied by many scholars (Chen & Klimoski, 2003).
Scholars have mentioned that trust in supervisors has a causal effect on subordinates’
attitudes toward their supervisors: for example, a reduction in subordinates’ trust in
supervisors will lead to reduced satisfaction with their supervisors (Jung & Avolio,
2000). Similarly, Gillespie and Mann (2004) found that trust has a positive effect on
subordinates’ perceptions of supervisors’ effectiveness. Wong and Sohal (2002) also
found that lower levels of trust lead to a general reduction in subordinates’ perceived
exchange quality with their supervisors, they are also less likely to support and follow
their supervisors. Scandura and Pellegrini (2008) provided a more detailed view of the
effect of trust on job satisfaction, suggesting that trust “may be fragile even in high-
quality exchanges.” Furthermore, subordinates with a higher level of trust in their
supervisors are more likely to stay in the organization (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002).
46
The meta-analysis conducted by Nienaber et al. (2015) suggested that the supervisor–
subordinate relationship exhibits certain symmetries. Sitkin and Roth (1993) found that
as supervisors have more power, information, status, and control, subordinates face
greater dependency and uncertainty. Subordinates often depend on their supervisors,
especially in terms of pay rises, promotions, and job security. This finding suggests that
trust is an important factor in this relationship. However, subordinates have some
freedom to decide who they trust and the level of trust. They can decide to increase or
decrease their level of effort and whether to reciprocate their supervisors’ trust.
Therefore, subordinates’ trust has a significant effect on managers and organizations.
Based on the logic of the leadership characteristics defined in the section above, Dirks
and Ferrin (2002) argued that leaders have power over important aspects of their
subordinates’ jobs: when subordinates believe that their supervisors are trustworthy,
they are more likely to be positive about the decisions of their managers and to feel
safer. In contrast, a lower level of trust in supervisors will probably result in
psychological distress, which will affect subordinates’ attitudes toward the organization.
This suggests that trust in supervisors should have a positive relationship with
organizational commitment and job satisfaction, and a negative relationship with
turnover intention. For example, when subordinates lose their trust in their supervisors,
they are more willing to consider leaving the organization, as they do not want to go
against the leaders and may be worried about their decisions (e.g. lack of competence,
honesty, integrity, or fairness).
It is essential to understand the entry processes of newcomers by distinguishing
between cognition-based and affect-based trust, as newcomers to an organization must
47
not only explore and decide on the reliability of different possible social exchange
parties through cognition-based trust, but must also determine who is more appropriate
to develop closer relationships with through affect-based trust (Schaubroeck, Peng, &
Hannah, 2013). This analysis is consistent with the causal relationship between
cognition-based and affect-based trust proposed by McAllister (1995), in which
cognition-based trust in supervisors influences affect-based trust in supervisors.
Research has also shown that newcomers will evaluate whether the behavior, skills, and
knowledge of their supervisors are appropriate for them to develop personal
relationships and affect-based trust, based on their judgments of cognition-based trust
in supervisors according to their competence and credibility (Colquitt et al., 2012).
In the social exchange relationship between new managers and their supervisors, each
party tries to meet the desires and needs of the other party by providing resources, so
this relationship is considered reciprocal (Flynn, 2005). However, the immediate return
of the favor and/or any future reciprocation are not considered in this relationship. For
instance, when a supervisor spends time guiding and encouraging a new manager, the
new manager may offer help to the supervisor later in return. This exchange relationship
can occur with different resources exchanged, so a reciprocal exchange relationship is
formed. Social exchange relationships normally start from cognition-based trust, in
which new managers develop their trust in supervisors based on their knowledge,
competence, and skills, which will be further developed later on (Colquitt et al., 2012).
When both supervisors and new managers have made considerable private investments
to sustain these superior exchanges, affect-based trust emerges.
Young and Daniel (2003) criticized previous research for overlooking the role of affect-
48
based trust. Their research suggested that after suffering a negative event, trust can
become extremely subjective and emotional. During the OS period, new managers may
experience both positive and negative events, so affect-based trust may override
cognition-based trust based on more rational thoughts (Cohen, 2005). Thus, Zhao et al.
(2007) urged future research to examine the role of trust in the PCB context. Although
I do not test the causal relationship between cognition-based trust and affect-based trust
in this research, it is still important to separate these two constructs to test their effect
independently. Based on the discussion above, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 1a: There is a negative relationship between cognition-based trust in
supervisors and turnover intention at the manager level.
Hypothesis 1b: There is a negative relationship between affect-based trust in
supervisors and turnover intention at the manager level.
Although Dirks and Ferrin (2002) found a significant relationship between trust and
turnover intention (r = -.40) in their meta-analysis, they did not explain how trust in
leaders will lead to intention to quit (turnover intention), although they called for future
research to empirically explore the possible mediation processes involved. Thus,
following their call, I explore the possible mediation processes in this thesis, leading to
the hypotheses developed below.
49
3.2.2 Trust, JI, and Turnover Intention
SET is the most widely used theory to explain the link between employee behavior,
work attitudes, and perceptions of the workplace (Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997). This
theory proposes that a person’s social relationships are motivated by logical self-interest
(Witt, Kacmar, & Andrews, 2001). If the benefits of social exchange relationships are
greater than the costs, individuals will tend to enter and continue these relationships
(Tyler & Lind, 1992). During the social exchange process, when one party provides a
benefit to the other party, a corresponding obligation to return with a benefit is invoked.
Mutual commitment and reciprocity are developed during this process. SET also
suggests that trust develops through the recurring exchange of benefits between the two
parties (Aryee, Budhwar, & Chen, 2002). As one party entering into a social exchange
relationship cannot be certain that the benefits they provide will be returned later, this
relationship involves a risk, in that the quality of information and support provided by
the other party may not be as good or the other party may not respond with substantial
support. Therefore, newcomers should be careful when placing their trust in others
(Schaubroeck, Peng, & Hannah, 2013).
Theoretically grounded in psychological contract theory and SET, trust in employers is
expected to have a negative relationship with JI (De Cuyper & De Witte, 2007). From
the perspective of SET, JI is viewed as an inequality in the exchange relationship
between employer and employee. Thus, when this imbalance occurs, the positive
exchange process based on trust will be reduced and replaced with a negative exchange
process. As supervisors are the main representative of the employer, this effect should
be the same between trust in supervisors and JI.
50
With respect to psychological contract theory, when employees are committed and loyal
to their organization for socioemotional benefits and job security, JI reflects a breach of
the relational psychological contract. Consequently, JI is seen as an imbalance between
incentives and obligations from the employee’s perspective. As employees have
unspoken expectations of their job security (Shore & Tetrick, 1994; Rousseau, 1989),
the perceived risk to their job security implies a likely destruction of the existing
psychological contract. Previous research (Parks & Kidder, 1994) has suggested that
the reassessment of the existing contract will be triggered by the perceived destruction
of the psychological contract, so psychological distancing can be demonstrated by a
reduction in the level of trust between the two parties, and I argue that the opposite
effect also exists.
According to attachment theory, the underlying psychological process occurs when
trust in supervisors decreases to a certain level, so that middle managers no longer
believe that their supervisors care about their needs, goals, and desires by responding
to them, which will break the foundation of their secure attachment. Middle managers
will start to worry about their job security, as their jobs are inherently replaceable.
Cognition-based and affect-based trust may also play different roles during this
psychological process and have different effects on JI. For example, from the
perspective of cognition-based trust, middle managers may consider that their
supervisors are no longer reliable, so it is very difficult for them to feel secure in an
unreliable relationship. From the perspective of affect-based trust, middle managers
may wonder if their supervisors still care about them, so they will have emotional
responses related to their insecurity, such as higher concerns, worry, and anxiety.
51
Thus, the following hypotheses are formulated:
Hypothesis 2a: Perceived JI mediates the relationship between cognition-based
trust in supervisors and turnover intention at the manager level.
Hypothesis 2b: Perceived JI mediates the relationship between affect-based trust
in supervisors and turnover intention at the manager level.
3.2.3 Trust, P-O Fit, and Turnover Intention
The main component of P-O fit is the perceived resemblance between organizational
culture and individual employees (Bowen, Ledford, & Nathan, 1991; Kristof, 1996).
As discussed in Chapter 2, P-O fit is an important predictor of employees’ turnover
intention (Liu, Liu, & Hu, 2010), organizational commitment (Hoffman & Woehr,
2006), performance (Deng et al., 2015), and job satisfaction (Deng et al., 2011). Wen,
Zhu, and Liu (2016) also showed that employees’ perceived P-O fit and professional
identity have a unique influence on their turnover intention. Furthermore, professional
identity negatively moderated the relationship between P-O fit and turnover intention,
and this relationship was significantly stronger among employees with low professional
identity (Wen, Zhu, & Liu, 2016).
While the organization imposes requirements on its employees, employees also have
requirements for the organization. To survive, both the organization and employees
must achieve a certain level of correspondence or congruence (Lofquist & Dawis, 1991).
Fukuyama (1995) discovered that shared norms and values facilitate cooperative
52
behavior and trust between people. This implies that the more employees are willing to
trust their leaders, the higher their level of perceived P-O fit. In the 1980s, Schneider
(1987) found that employees were less willing to leave an organization with which they
had something in common. Researchers have also found that HR professionals believe
that intention to quit has a negative relationship with P-O fit (Rynes et al., 2002). This
result is consistent with studies of Belgian nurses (Vandenberghe, 1999), staff working
in nonprofit organizations (Brown & Yoshioka, 2003), and nine organizations in the
Eastern United States (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007). Two recent meta-analyses of P-O
fit also confirmed its negative relationship with turnover intention (Verquer et al., 2003;
Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). In summary, the lower the level of P-
O fit, the higher the likelihood that employees will consider leaving their organization
(Liu, Liu, & Hu, 2010).
The underlying psychological process occurs because, as supervisors are the main
representative of the organization, middle managers project their trust relationship with
supervisors onto their fit with the organization. If they can realize and feel the trust
between themselves and their supervisors, they will feel better suited to the organization.
Cognition-based and affect-based trust may also play different roles in this
psychological process and have different effects on P-O fit. Based on PEC theory, when
middle managers no longer have cognition-based trust in their supervisors, they will
begin to wonder whether the character of their supervisors is a reflection of the
organization, so if they do not trust the character of their supervisors, they will no longer
fit the charter of the organization. With respect to affect-based trust, if middle managers
feel that their supervisors no longer care about them, they may believe that the
organization does not have a caring culture and that they no longer fit the organization.
53
I therefore propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3a: P-O fit mediates the relationship between cognition-based trust in
supervisors and turnover intention at the manager level.
Hypothesis 3b: P-O fit mediates the relationship between affect-based trust in
supervisors and turnover intention at the manager level.
3.2.4 The Moderating Role of OS
The malleability of the psychological contract during the OS process has been
confirmed by extensive empirical evidence. Newcomers develop an anticipatory
psychological contract and use it to identify their new work environment, and it can
then reduce their intrinsic uncertainty during their job transition (Shore & Tetrick, 1994;
De Vos et al., 2003). Their obligations may change to align with the standards of
existing employees (Thomas & Anderson, 1998). With both unilateral and reciprocal
influences, perceptions of employer and employee obligations also tend to change to
match the reality of current employee contributions and their employer’s incentives
(Lee et al., 2011; De Vos et al., 2003).
In the ongoing reciprocal exchange process, the employer is considered the main
antecedent. When PCB occurs as the employer fails to fulfill their commitments,
newcomers will reduce their perceived responsibilities to their employer (Tekleab et al.,
2013; Robinson et al., 1994). How newcomers respond to the perception that the
54
employer’s obligations have been breached and/or to the perception of incentives
provided by the employer have been the focus of empirical studies. Numerous
longitudinal studies of newcomers have suggested that PCB is a common problem
during the OS period, leading to strong emotional reactions of anger and betrayal in
employees, with adverse effects on the employer–employee relationship (Tekleab et al.,
2013; Lapointe et al., 2013; Rousseau, 1994). As a result, the perceived JI of employees
is affected.
In contrast, employee contributions to the employer during this exchange process may
also influence the incentives and obligations of the employer (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler,
2002). Anticipating that providing help to their employer will lead to future benefits,
employees may choose to activate the reciprocity mechanism. In addition, employees’
expectations of future incentives predict their willingness to engage in OCBs (Coyle-
Shapiro & Kessler, 2002). It has also been found that fulfillment of employee
obligations influences the individualized consideration and socio-emotional support
provided by supervisors, as supervisors are seen as the primary agent of the employer
(Chen et al., 2008). Thus, research has shown that the more employees contribute to the
organization, the more incentives the employer will create.
In this thesis, new managers were defined as middle managers who had joined the
company within 24 months, according to the literature review in Section 2.5.4. During
this period, new managers are socialized within the organization through a variety of
formal and informal means, including organizational behaviors, norms, and value
systems. I use the term “OS period” to refer to this particular period, although I do not
study socialization practices or managerial experience, which are beyond the scope of
55
this research.
According to the discussion above, I propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 4a: The OS period moderates the relationship between managers’
cognition-based trust and JI, such that the relationship is stronger for managers in the
OS period than for those not in the OS period.
Hypothesis 4b: The OS period moderates the relationship between managers’
affect-based trust and JI, such that the relationship is stronger for managers in the OS
period than for those not in the OS period.
Researchers have considered the critical role of newcomer P-O fit since the 1990s.
Chatman (1991) first researched first-year accountants in their new jobs and showed
that P-O fit was correlated with turnover intention, job satisfaction, and newcomer
adjustment. Subsequently, Van Vianen (2000) studied a group of newcomers in the
Netherlands to explore the role of P-O fit and found results supporting those of Chatman,
that P-O fit is positively correlated to organizational commitment and negatively related
to turnover intention. Similarly, Kim, Cable, and Kim (2005) studied P-O fit in South
Korea with 279 employee–supervisor pairs and found a positive relationship between
and P-O fit and OS tactics, which was moderated by employee proactive behaviors.
Research on attachment theory has also proposed a list of factors critical to the decision
to leave or stay in the organization (Mitchell & Lee, 2001). Indeed, employees will
form relationships with their supervisors and colleagues, affecting their attachments
56
(Graen, Liden, & Hoel, 1982), which can be numerous or few, distant or close, and
weak or strong. Among these factors, P-O fit and P-J fit are considered relevant, and
non-attitudinal variables and off-the-job factors are considered important. During the
OS period, defined as the first 24 months in the organization, new managers who are
expected to “plug-and-go” without much formal socialization are seen as relatively
vulnerable in front of their supervisors, who are seen as the most important resource for
their socialization. However, after the OS period, middle managers who have already
established foundations in the organization will rely less on their supervisors as they
are already familiar with the “rules of the game” in their current organization.
With their previous experience in other organizations, middle managers are also more
sensitive to their fit in their new organization. A straw in the wind during the OS period
will make them feel different and reconsider their current situation and whether they
are well suited to the organization. However, after the OS period, as they have already
established a certain level of fit in their current organization, their trust in their
supervisors will have less effect on their sense of P-O fit.
Thus, I propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 5a: The OS period moderates the relationship between managers’
cognition-based trust and perceived P-O fit, such that the relationship is stronger for
managers in the OS period than for those not in the OS period.
Hypothesis 5b: The OS period (tenure) moderates the relationship between
57
managers’ affect-based trust and perceived P-O fit, such that the relationship is
stronger for managers in the OS period than for those not in the OS period.
58
CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the research design and methodology used in this study. It
includes the following parts: sample and research design, data collection method,
measurements for each construct, survey questionnaire, and survey administration.
4.1 Sample and Procedure
4.1.1 Research Design and Questionnaire Development
This study used a quantitative research method. A survey questionnaire was adopted
from previous research to test the proposed model. The target sample consisted of
middle managers of multinational companies (MNCs) in Hong Kong. The selected
sample included 300 middle managers based on my personal networks in different
industries.
A three-wave longitudinal study with the same participants was carried out over a
period of six months (May, July, and September) to examine their responses at different
points. A time interval of four weeks was introduced to separate their completion of the
same questionnaire. Data were collected by soliciting the responses of middle managers
through a survey administrated using an online questionnaire supported by the Qualtrics
system. Soft copies of the questionnaire were sent to personal email addresses and then
collected through the system. The first wave took place from May 1 to May 30, 2019
(extended to June 15), the second wave took place from July 1 to July 31, 2019
(extended to August 15), and the third wave took place from September 1 to September
30, 2019 (extended to October 15). The participants were informed that they would be
59
rewarded with a HK$100 e-cash coupon from Hong Kong TV Mall after successfully
completing all three waves of the survey.
The survey questionnaire, presented in the appendix B, was divided into three sections:
Section 1 included basic greetings and an introduction to the survey, including the
research purpose, voluntary participation, and assurance that the responses would be
used for research purposes only and would be strictly confidential. Section 2 asked the
participants to complete a list of questions adopted from previous research. Section 3
asked the participants to answer demographic questions, such as age, gender, education
level, organization type, time with current employer, and annual salary (in range).
The survey instrument was developed in three phases, following the procedure of
Dillman (2009). In Phase 1, I adapted the measurement scales from the literature and
consolidated the questionnaire, asking academics for feedback. In Phase 2, after making
adjustments based on feedback from academics, I conducted a pilot test of the
questionnaire. The sample questionnaire was sent to 20 middle managers and
academics. After the pilot test, some items were removed or adjusted due to redundancy
or duplication of meaning. Phase 3 was a finalization and final revision of the
questionnaire. All of the questions were written in English only, as the target
participants generally use English for work.
4.1.2 Sampling and Data Collection
Three hundred soft copies of the questionnaire were sent to personal email addresses
and then collected by the Qualtrics system from May 2019 to October 2019. At Time 1
60
(May 2019), 251 valid questionnaires were completed, a response rate of 83.6% (251 /
300 questionnaires). At Time 2 (July 2019), the same questionnaire was distributed to
the same 251 managers, and 185 valid questionnaires were completed, a response rate
of 73.7% (185 / 251 questionnaires). Finally, at Time 3 (September 2019), the same
questionnaire was distributed to the same 185 managers, and 162 valid questionnaires
were completed, a response rate of 87.6% (162 / 185 questionnaires). As the online
questionnaire setup supported by the Qualtrics system did not allow missing data in the
questionnaires, there was no need to remove questionnaires with missing data.
Therefore, after the three waves of the survey, the final response rate was 54% (162 out
of 300 questionnaires at Time 1). As response rates can be as low as 2% in Chinese
societies (Schlevogt, 2002), the rate of 54% obtained in this study was considered
acceptable.
Thus, the sample consisted of 162 employees in this study, all working in Hong Kong,
a mix of Chinese and Western societies. I informed the participants that their
participation was voluntary and that the study was conducted for research purposes only.
Before conducting the descriptive analysis, I cleaned and transformed the data. This
included checking reversed coded items and outliers when reviewing the questionnaires
to avoid data distortion, which could affect the conclusions (Hair et al., 2010). In the
next section, the procedures and data analysis results are discussed in detail.
61
4.2 Measurement
4.2.1 Cognition-based Trust in Supervisors/Leaders
Cognition-based trust was measured using the 6-item scale developed by McAllister
(1995). The items are “This leader approaches his/her job with professionalism and
dedication,” “Given this leader’s track record, I see no reason to doubt his/her
competence and preparation for the job,” “I can rely on this leader not to make my job
more difficult by careless work,” “Most people, even those who aren’t close friends of
this individual, trust and respect him/her as a coworker,” “Other work associates of
mine who must interact with this leader consider him/her to be trustworthy,” and “If
people knew more about this leader and his/her background, they would be less
concerned and monitor his/her performance more closely.”
The responses were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .92, and the mean of
these items was computed as the participants’ cognition-based trust.
4.2.2 Affect-based Trust in Supervisors/Leaders
Affect-based trust was measured using the 5-item scale developed by McAllister (1995).
The items are “We have a sharing relationship. We can both freely share our ideas,
feelings, and hopes,” “I can talk freely to this individual about difficulties I’m having
at work and know that he/she will want to listen,” “We would both feel a sense of loss
if one of us was transferred and we could no longer work together,” “If I shared my
62
problems with this person, I know he/she would respond constructively and caringly,”
and “I would have to say that we have both made considerable emotional investments
in our working relationship.”
The responses were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .93, and the mean of
these items was computed as the participants’ affect-based trust.
4.2.3 JI
JI was measured using the 4-item scale developed by Caplan (1975). This scale contains
the following items: “I am certain about what my future career will look like in the
current organization,” “I am certain that opportunities for promotion and advancement
will exist in the next few years,” “I am certain that my job skills will be of use and value
5 years from now,” and “I am certain about what my responsibilities will be 6 months
from now.”
The responses were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .77 in the study, and the mean
of these items was computed as the participants’ perceived JI. These items were all
reverse-coded, and I adjusted them during data analysis.
4.2.4 P-O Fit
P-O fit was measured using the 5-item scale proposed by Cable and Judge (1996). The
63
items are “I think the values and personality of this organization reflect my own values
and personality,” “The values of this organization are similar to my own values,” “I feel
my personality matches the ‘personality’ or image of this organization,” “My
personality is similar to the employees I work with in this organization,” and “I share a
lot in common with people who work for this organization.”
The responses were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .88, and the mean of
these items was computed as the participants’ perceived P-O fit.
4.2.5 Turnover Intention
Turnover intention was measured using the 4-item scale of The Michigan
Organizational Assessment Questionnaire developed by Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins,
and Klesh (1979). Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The items are “I’m often considering quitting
the current job,” “It’s very possible that I will look for a new job soon,” “I will have a
short career in this organization,” and “If I continue to work in this organization, my
future will not be promising.”
The responses were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .92, and the mean of
these items was computed as the participants’ perceived turnover intention.
64
4.2.6 OS Period
The OS period was measured by the participants’ organizational tenure (in months).
When their tenure was less than or equal to 24 months, they were considered to be in
the OS period. I used the time with their current employer at Time 3 for the data analysis.
4.2.7 Control Variables
To better estimate the effect sizes of the variables, I also controlled for the effects of
relevant factors, following previous research (Cable & Parsons, 2001; Chatman, 1991).
Specifically, I controlled and measured the participants’ gender, age, and education
level.
Gender was coded as Female = 0 and Male = 1. Age was coded as Under 30 = 1, 31–
35 = 2, 36–40 = 3, 41–45 = 4, 46–50 = 5, 51–55 = 6, 56–60 = 7, 61–65 = 8, and 65 or
over = 9. Education level was coded as Form 5/Form 7 = 1, Diploma = 2, Bachelor’s
degree = 3, Master’s degree = 4, and Doctorate = 5.
65
CHAPTER 5 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
This chapter reports the data analysis procedures and the results of hypothesis testing.
It includes descriptive statistics, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Structural
Equation Modeling (SEM).
5.1 Descriptive Statistics and Sample Characteristics
In this study, to measure the fit of the model and test the hypotheses, I used Mplus
(version 8.3; Muthén & Muthén, 2019) for CFA and SEM (Raudenbush, 2004). The
strength of SEM is its ability to test all hypothesized relationships at the same time.
5.1.1 Descriptive Statistics
In the final sample, there were 162 participants (a response rate of 54%). The
participants were predominantly female (n = 117, 72.2%), and 61.1% (n = 99) were
aged 31 to 45. Most participants had a Bachelor’s degree (n = 92, 56.8%) and a Master’s
degree (n = 56, 34.6%), but few had a doctorate (n = 3, 1.9%), a diploma (n = 8, 4.9%),
or a secondary school diploma (n = 3, 1.9%). Their average organizational tenure was
57.6 months, and their average tenure with their supervisors was 31.1 months. Table
5.1.1 provides the minimum, maximum, means, and standard deviations of the
participants’ demographic information, including gender, age, education level, income
level, and time with current employer. Table 5.1.2 provides details on their income level.
Table 5.1.3 provides details on their time with their current employer.
66
Table 5.1.1 Demographic Information
N Minimum Maximum M SD
Gender 162 0 1 0.2778 0.44929
Age 162 1 9 3.0864 1.69176
Degree 162 1 5 3.2963 0.67694
Income 162 1 10 3.6049 2.42492
Time Employer 162 0 365 57.602 69.8834
Note. Gender = Gender of the participants. Female = 0 and Male = 1; Age = Age of the participants.
Under 30 = 1, 31–35 = 2, 36–40 = 3, 41–45 = 4, 46–50 = 5, 51–55 = 6, 56–60 = 7, 61–65 = 8, and 65
or over = 9; Degree = Highest education level of the participants. Form 5/Form 7 = 1, Diploma = 2,
Bachelor’s degree = 3, Master’s degree = 4, Doctorate = 5; Income = Monthly income level of the
participants. Less than HK$30,000 = 1, HK$30,000–$39,999 = 2, HK$40,000–$49,999 = 3,
HK$50,000–$59,999 = 4, HK$60,000–$69,999 = 5, HK$70,000–$79,999 = 6, HK$80,000–
$89,999 = 7, HK$90,000–$99,999 = 8, HK$100,000–$149,999 = 9, and Over HK$150,000 = 10.
Table 5.1.2 Participants’ Income Level
Category Description Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1 Less than $30,000 28 17.3 17.3 96.9
2 $30,000–$39,999 41 25.3 25.3 29.6
3 $40,000–$49,999 26 16.0 16.0 45.7
4 $50,000–$59,999 24 14.8 14.8 60.5
5 $60,000–$69,999 16 9.9 9.9 70.4
6 $70,000–$79,999 5 3.1 3.1 73.5
7 $80,000–$89,999 3 1.9 1.9 75.3
8 $90,000–$99,999 7 4.3 4.3 79.6
9 $100,000–$149,999 7 4.3 4.3 4.3
10 Over $150,000 5 3.1 3.1 100.0
Total 162 100.0 100.0
67
Note. Monthly income level of the participants. Less than $30,000 =1, $30,000–$39,999 = 2, $40,000–
$49,999 = 3, $50,000–$59,999 = 4, $60,000–$69,999 = 5, $70,000–$79,999 = 6, $80,000–$89,999 = 7,
$90,000–$99,999 = 8, $100,000–$149,999 = 9, and Over $150,000 =10.
Table 5.1.3 Participants’ Time with Their Current Employer by Category
Category Months Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1 0–6 27 16.7 16.7 16.7
2 7–12 19 11.7 11.7 28.4
3 13–24 16 9.9 9.9 38.3
4 25–60 21 13 13 51.2
5 61–120 30 18.5 18.5 69.8
6 121–240 22 13.6 13.6 83.3
7 241 or over 27 16.7 16.7 100
Total 162 100 100
Note. Time with current employer is reported in months and is categorized for ease of presentation. Less
than 6 months = 1, 7–12 months = 2, 13–24 months = 3, 25–60 months = 4, 61–120 months = 5, 121–
240 months = 6, and 241 months or over = 7.
Table 5.1.4 presents the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations between the
variables. Cognition-based trust in supervisors (r = -0.378, ρ < 0.01), Affect-based trust
in supervisors (r = -0.368, ρ < 0.01), and P-O fit (r = -0.490, ρ < 0.01) were negatively
correlated with turnover intention. JI (r = 0.405, ρ < 0.01) was positively correlated
with turnover intention. Most of the hypothesized relationships were initially supported
by the bivariate results.
68
69
5.1.2 Common Method Bias
The dependent variable was turnover intention according to the research design. As the
survey participants were likely to be reluctant to disclose this information to their
supervisors, the questionnaire was completely self-reported. As the independent
variable and the dependent variables came from the same participants, common method
bias could arise. In this study, I address this possible concern in several ways following
Podsakoff et al. (2003).
First, I used scales that have been validated in prior research, which was discussed in
Section 4.2, as validated scales are proven designs and can reduce common method
variance. I created a psychological separation for each wave and guaranteed the
confidentiality of their responses to the participants, thereby reducing their social
desirability bias and evaluation apprehension (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Second, I used a longitudinal survey design with the same questionnaire, and the data
were collected in three waves over six months to reduce common method bias
(Podsakoff et al., 2003). During my analysis, I used Time 1 data for cognition-based
trust and affect-based trust, Time 2 data for JI and P-O fit, and Time 3 data for turnover
intention. The OS period was also measured by tenure at Time 3. This longitudinal
design using data for the independent variable, dependent variable, moderator, and
mediators at different times minimized common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Finally, I performed Harman’s single-factor test (Harman, 1976), which loads all of the
variables during principal component analysis to assess whether there is common
70
method bias. According to Harman’s single-factor test, common method bias is a
concern if (a) several factors arise with one factor explaining most of the variance or if
(b) a single factor arises from factor analysis. When I conducted Harman’s single factor
test for all variables (62 items) using varimax rotation (Xue, Bradley, & Liang, 2011),
18 factors were extracted with eigenvalues greater than 1, and the total variance
explained for these 18 factors was 83.62%, with the largest factor only explaining part
of the total variance (38.78%). As (a) one factor did not explain more than 50% of the
variance and (b) a single factor did not arise from factor analysis, the two criteria of
Harman’s single-factor test were not satisfied. Thus, common method bias was not a
concern in my dataset.
5.1.3 Reliability Analysis
Before conducting CFA, I performed a reliability analysis to verify that all items were
reliable. Table 5.1.5 summarizes the number of items and the mean, variance, and
reliability of each variable. As all of the Cronbach’s alpha values were greater than 0.80,
above the threshold of 0.7 suggested by Hair et al. (2010), the variables had good
internal consistency.
Table 5.1.5 Reliability Analysis
Variable Name Number of items M Variance Reliability
Cognition-based Trust (T1) 6 3.820 0.011 0.886
Affect-based Trust (T1) 5 3.569 0.026 0.913
JI (T2) 4 3.580 0.056 0.832
P-O Fit (T2) 5 3.294 0.012 0.890
Turnover Intention (T3) 4 2.705 0.029 0.916
71
5.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
CFA was conducted to evaluate the discriminant validity of the variables and the fit of
the model (Hair et al., 2010), before testing the hypotheses.
Based on the two variables of trust, cognition-based trust and affect-based trust, the
mean value of the items for each variable was used as the indicator. The hypothesized
five-construct model, including cognition-based trust, affect-based trust, JI, P-O fit, and
turnover intention, had an acceptable fit, as all of the factor loadings were significant:
comparative fit index (CFI) = .943, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = .935, root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA) = .062, and standardized root mean square residual
(SRMR) = .054. As (1) CFI was greater than .90, (2) TLI was greater than .90, (3)
SRMR was less than .08, and (4) RMSEA was less than .06, the constructs were
considered to have decent model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The model fit the data
satisfactorily, emphasizing the unidimensionality of the measures (Anderson & Gerbing,
1988).
I also compared the proposed model with the alternative four-construct model,
combining cognition-based trust and affective-based trust. CFA showed that the fit of
the four-construct model was worse than that of the five-construct model, with CFI
= .904, TLI = .892, RMSEA = .068, and SRMR = .058. The comparison test showed
that the five-construct model fit the data better.
Furthermore, all of the average variance extracted (AVE) values were above the .50
benchmark, and all of the composite reliability (CI) values (ranging from .772 to .934)
72
were above the .70 benchmark. Therefore, these measures established satisfactory
reliability and convergent validity. Table 5.2 shows the results of the five-construct
model (Model 1), reflecting my hypothesized approach.
Table 5.2 Comparison of the Measurement Models
Model Description x2 df CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR
Model 1 – 5 factors 394.582 242 0.943 0.935 0.062 0.054
Model 2 – 4 factors (Trust
Combined) 502.654 246 0.904 0.892 0.080 0.058
Note. x2 = Chi-Square Test of Goodness of Fit; df = Degrees of Freedom; CFI = Comparative Fit Index;
TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; SRMR = Standardized
Root Mean Square Residual.
5.3 Hypothesis Testing
Using SEM with the individual as the unit, I conducted a series of regression analyses
to test my hypotheses. The proposed relationships were analyzed by controlling for the
demographic information of the participants, such as gender, age, and education level.
Table 5.3.1 shows the hierarchical regression results.
73
74
5.3.1 The Direct Effect of Cognition-based Trust/Affect-based Trust in Supervisors
and Turnover Intention
Hypothesis 1a: There is a negative relationship between cognition-based trust in
supervisors and turnover intention at the manager level.
Hypothesis 1b: There is a negative relationship between affect-based trust in
supervisors and turnover intention at the manager level.
Using Mplus, I conducted hierarchical regression analyses to test Hypotheses 1a and
1b, which predict that cognition-based trust and affect-based trust are negatively
correlated with turnover intention.
As shown in Model 8 in Table 5.3.1, after controlling for demographic information
(gender, age, education level), cognition-based trust (b = -.146, SE = .092, ns) and
affect-based trust (b = -.073, SE = .099, ns) were not significantly related to turnover
intention. Nevertheless, when using the three-factor model in Table 5.3.2, turnover
intention was negatively correlated with cognition-based trust (b = -.326, SE = .131, p
= .013) and affect-based trust (b = -.219, SE = .116, p = .059).
Table 5.3.2 Results of the Direct Effect Using the Three-Factor Model
Hypotheses Description Estimate SE Est./SE p-value
1a Turnover Intention on C-Trust -0.326 0.131 -2.487 0.013
1b Turnover Intention on A-Trust -0.219 0.116 -1.888 0.059
Note. C-Trust = Cognition-based Trust; A-Trust = Affect-based Trust.
75
I assumed that this difference was due to the full mediation effect. Therefore,
Hypothesis 1a was supported, but Hypothesis 1b was only marginally supported.
5.3.2 The Mediating Effect of JI / P-O Fit on the Relationship between Cognition-
based Trust / Affect-based Trust in Supervisors and Turnover Intention
Hypothesis 2a: Perceived JI mediates the relationship between cognition-based trust in
supervisors and turnover intention at the manager level.
Hypothesis 2a proposes that the negative association between cognition-based trust in
supervisors and turnover intention is mediated by JI. As shown in Model 2 in Table
5.3.1, cognition-based trust was negatively related to JI (b = -.268, SE = .115, p < .05),
and in Model 9, JI was positively related to turnover intention (b = .238, SE = .116, p
< .05). The mediating effect was further tested using bootstrap path analysis, with bias-
corrected 95% confidence intervals (CIs; Edwards & Lambert, 2007). The indirect
effect of cognition-based trust on turnover intention was negative and significant
(indirect effect = -.053, 95% CI [-.152, -.004]).
Second, the four-step mediation analysis method proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986)
was applied to test the mediating effect of JI as shown in Figure 5.1. The procedure
works as follows. Step 1 tests whether the dependent variable Y is significantly related
to the independent variable X. Step 2 tests whether the mediator variable M is
significantly related to the independent variable X. Step 3 tests whether the dependent
variable Y is significantly related to the mediator variable M. In Step 4, the effect of the
independent variable X on the dependent variable Y should be reduced when
76
controlling for the effect of the mediator variable M on the dependent variable Y.
Figure 5.1 Mediation Analysis Method Proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986)
As shown in Model 3 in Table 5.3.1, the relationship between cognition-based trust in
supervisors and JI was statistically significant (b = -.222, SE = .100, p < .05). When JI
was included in the relationship between cognition-based trust in supervisors and
turnover intention, their relationship became not significant (b = .036, SE = .099, ns),
but JI was still positively related to turnover intention (b = .238, SE = .116, p < 0.05) in
Model 9.
Third, I performed a Sobel test. The result reported in Table 5.3.3 was significant and
supported the full mediation hypothesis (Z = -3.157, p < 0.01). As the three test results
showed a full mediating effect, Hypothesis 2a was supported.
Table 5.3.3 Sobel Test Result for the Mediating Effect of JI
Note. Sobel Z: z-value = a*b / SQRT(b2*sa2 + a2*sb2). |Z| >= 1.96; p < 0.1 is considered significant.
77
Hypothesis 2b: Perceived JI mediates the relationship between affect-based trust in
supervisors and turnover intention at the manager level.
Hypothesis 2b predicts that the negative association between affect-based trust in
supervisors and turnover intention is mediated by JI. As shown in Model 2 in Table
5.3.1, affect-based trust was not significantly related to JI (b = -.154, SE = .11, ns), and
in Model 9, JI was positively related to turnover intention (b = .238, SE = .116, p < .05).
As the results did not demonstrate a mediating effect, Hypothesis 2b was rejected.
Hypothesis 3a: P-O fit mediates the relationship between cognition-based trust in
supervisors and turnover intention at the manager level.
Hypothesis 3a predicts that the negative association between cognition-based trust in
supervisors and turnover intention is mediated by P-O fit. As shown in Model 5 in Table
5.3.1, cognition-based trust was not significantly related to P-O fit (b = .175, SE = .113,
ns), and in Model 9, P-O fit was negatively related to turnover intention (b = -.438, SE
= .106, p < .01). As the results did not demonstrate a mediating effect, Hypothesis 3a
was rejected.
Hypothesis 3b: P-O fit mediates the relationship between of affect-based trust in
supervisors and turnover intention at the manager level.
Hypothesis 3b predicts that the negative association between affect-based trust in
supervisors and turnover intention is mediated by P-O fit. As shown in Model 5 in Table
78
2, affect-based trust was positively related to P-O Fit (b = .277, SE = .115, p < .05), and
in Model 9, P-O fit was negatively related to turnover intention (b = -.438, SE = .106,
p < .01). The mediating effect was further tested using bootstrap path analysis, with
bias corrected 95% CIs (Edwards & Lambert, 2007). The indirect effect of cognition-
based trust on turnover intention was negative and significant (indirect effect = -.111,
95% CI [-.236, -.029]).
Second, as shown in Model 6 in Table 5.3.1, the relationship between affect-based trust
in supervisors and P-O fit was statistically significant (b = .253, SE = .095, p < .01).
When P-O fit was included in the relationship between affect-based trust in supervisors
and turnover intention, their relationship became not significant (b = .076, SE =.096,
ns), but P-O fit was still negatively related to turnover intention (b = -.438, SE = .106,
p < .01) in Model 9.
Third, I performed a Sobel test. The result reported in Table 5.3.4 was significant and
supported the full mediation hypothesis (Z = -3.884, p < 0.01). As the three test results
showed a full mediating effect, Hypothesis 3b was supported.
Table 5.3.4 Sobel Test Result for the Mediating Effect of P-O Fit
Note. Sobel Z: z-value = a*b / SQRT(b2*sa2 + a2*sb2). |Z| >= 1.96; p < 0.1 is considered significant.
79
5.3.3 The Moderating Effect of the OS Period on the Relationship between
Cognition-based Trust/Affect-based Trust in Supervisors and JI / P-O Fit
Hypothesis 4a: The OS period moderates the relationship between managers’
cognition-based trust and JI, such that the relationship is stronger for managers in the
OS period than for those not in the OS period.
As shown in Model 3 in Table 5.3.1, the interaction effect between cognition-based
trust and JI was positive and not significant (b = .036 SE = .099, ns). Thus, the
relationship between cognition-based trust and JI was not stronger during the OS period.
Therefore, Hypothesis 4a was rejected.
Hypothesis 4b: The OS period moderates the relationship between managers’ affect-
based trust and JI, such that the relationship is stronger for managers in the OS period
than for those not in the OS period.
As shown in Model 3 in Table 5.3.1, the interaction effect between affect-based trust
and JI was negative and not significant (b = -.009, SE = .094, ns). Thus, the relationship
between affect-based trust and JI was not stronger during the OS period. Therefore,
Hypothesis 4b was rejected.
Hypothesis 5a: The OS period (tenure) moderates the relationship between managers’
cognition-based trust and perceived P-O fit, such that the relationship is stronger for
managers in the OS period than for those not in the OS period.
80
Following Edwards and Lambert (2007), I tested the moderated mediation of the
proposed model in Mplus using moderated path analysis to compute bias-corrected CIs
for significance testing with 2,000 bootstrap samples. As shown in Table 5.3.5, the
indirect effect of cognition-based trust on turnover intention via P-O fit was negative
and significant (indirect effect = -.150, 95% CI [- .321, - .035]) when tenure was low
(in the OS period), but it was not significant (indirect effect = -.028, 95% CI
[-.0077, .0163]) when tenure was high (out of the OS period). In summary, the
differences in the indirect effect of P-O Fit with high and low levels of tenure were
significant for turnover intention (indirect effect = .178, 95% CI [ .034, .431]).
Table 5.3.5 Bootstrap Results for the Moderated Mediation Tests - H5a
Turnover Intention (Time 3)
Variable Indirect Effect SE 95% CI (BCB)
High Tenure (Out of OS Period) 0.028 0.059 [-0.077, 0.163]
Low Tenure (In OS Period) -0.150* 0.072 [-0.321, -0.035]
Difference 0.178 0.097 [0.034, 0.431]
Note. N = 162. Unstandardized coefficients are reported. CI = confidence interval; BCB = bias
corrected bootstrap. * p < .05, ** p < .01.
In addition, as shown in Model 6 in Table 5.3.1, the interaction effect between
cognition-based trust and P-O fit was negative and significant (b = -.203, SE = .094,
p < .05). The simple slope analysis in Figure 5.2 shows that during the OS period (e.g.
1 SD above the mean), cognition-based trust and P-O fit had a non-significant
relationship (b = -.064, SE = .130, ns), but outside the OS period (e.g. 1 SD below the
mean), cognition-based trust had a significant positive relationship with P-O Fit (b
= .0342, SE = .135, ρ < .05).
81
Figure 5.2 The Effect of Cognition-Based Trust on P-O Fit During and Outside the OS Period
In summary, the relationship between Cognition-based Trust and P-O Fit was negative
and stronger during the OS Period. Therefore, Hypothesis 5a was supported.
Hypothesis 5b: The OS period (tenure) moderates the relationship between managers’
affect-based trust and perceived P-O fit, such that the relationship is stronger for
managers in the OS period than for those not in the OS period.
As shown in Model 6 in Table 5.3.1, the interaction effect between affect-based trust
and P-O fit was positive and not significant (b = .076, SE = .096, ns). Thus, the
relationship between affect-based trust and P-O fit was not stronger during the OS
period. Therefore, Hypothesis 5b was rejected.
82
5.3.4 Post Hoc Analysis: The Moderating Effect of the Middle Manager Stage on
the Relationship between Cognition-based Trust / Affect-based Trust in
Supervisors and JI / P-O Fit
The middle manager stage emerged as an important theoretical contribution of my
research based on the comments of the panel during the oral defense of my thesis. Thus,
I developed Hypotheses 6a/6b/7a/7b to test whether the middle manager stage has an
effect on the mediation relationships. Based on the actual salary spread in Hong Kong,
I defined employees with monthly salaries ranging from 30K to 100K as middle
managers (coded as 1), and those with monthly salaries below 30K or above 100K as
non-managers (coded as 0).
Hypothesis 6a: The middle manager stage moderates the relationship between
managers’ cognition-based trust and JI, such that the relationship is stronger for middle
managers than for non-middle managers.
The interaction effect between cognition-based trust and JI was positive and not
significant (b = .286, SE = .206, ns). Thus, the relationship between cognition-based
trust and JI was not stronger for middle managers. Therefore, Hypothesis 6a was
rejected.
Hypothesis 6b: The middle manager stage moderates the relationship between
managers’ affect-based trust and JI, such that the relationship is stronger for middle
managers than for non-middle managers.
The interaction effect between affect-based trust and JI was negative and not significant
(b = -.334, SE = .205, ns). Thus, the relationship between affect-based trust and JI was
83
not stronger for middle managers. Therefore, Hypothesis 6b was rejected.
Hypothesis 7a: The middle manager stage moderates the relationship between
managers’ cognition-based trust and perceived P-O fit, such that the relationship is
stronger for middle managers than for non-middle managers.
The interaction effect between cognition-based trust and P-O fit was negative and not
significant (b = -.193, SE = .214, ns). Thus, the relationship between cognition-based
trust and P-O fit was not stronger for middle managers. Therefore, Hypothesis 7a was
rejected.
Hypothesis 7b: The middle manager stage moderates the relationship between
managers’ affect-based trust and perceived P-O fit, such that the relationship is
stronger for middle managers than for non-middle managers.
Following Edwards and Lambert (2007), I tested the moderated mediation of the
proposed model with Mplus using moderated path analysis to compute bias corrected
CIs for significance testing with 2,000 bootstrap samples. As shown in Table 5.3.6, the
indirect effect of affect-based trust on turnover intention via P-O fit was negative and
not significant (indirect effect = -.017, 95% CI [- .141, .087]) for non-middle managers,
but the effect was negative and significant (indirect effect = -.183, 95% CI [-.376, -.064])
for middle managers. In summary, the differences in the indirect effect of P-O fit
between middle managers and non-middle managers were significant for turnover
intention (indirect effect = -.167, 95% CI [ -.433, -.032]).
84
Table 5.3.6 Bootstrap Results for the Moderated Mediation Tests - H7b
Turnover Intention (Time 3)
Variable Indirect Effect Se 95% CI (BCB)
Middle Manager (1) -0.183 0.076* [-0.376, -0.064]
Non-Middle Manager (0) -0.017 0.056 [-0.141, 0.087]
Difference -0.167 0.091 [-0.433, -0.032]
Note. N = 162. Unstandardized coefficients are reported. CI = confidence interval; BCB = bias
corrected bootstrap. * p < .05, ** p < .01.
In addition, the interaction effect between affect-based trust and P-O fit was positive
and significant (b = .479, SE = .217, p < .05). The simple slope analysis in Figure 5.3
shows that at the middle manager stage (e.g. 1 SD above the mean), affect-based trust
and P-O fit established a significant positive relationship (b =.454, SE = .136, p < .01),
while when not at the middle manager stage (e.g. 1 SD below the mean), affect-based
trust had a non-significant relationship with P-O Fit (b = .0041, SE = .131, ns).
85
Figure 5.3 The Effect of Affect-Based Trust on P-O Fit at the Middle Manager Stage and at the
Non-Middle Manager Stage
In summary, the relationship between affect-based trust and P-O fit was positive and
stronger for middle managers. Therefore, Hypothesis 7b was supported.
86
CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
This chapter summarizes the research findings. It discusses the theoretical contributions
and managerial implications of the study, highlights its limitations, and offers
suggestions for future research.
6.1 Summary of Research Findings
In this thesis, I examined how JI and P-O fit mediate the relationship between middle
managers’ trust in supervisors and turnover intention during the OS period. Nearly half
of the proposed hypotheses (6 out of 14) were supported in this study, with similar
results obtained for both cognition-based trust and affect-based trust using the responses
of the participants and those found in previous studies. Trust in supervisors was shown
to play a central role in middle managers’ turnover intention during the OS period.
Employees’ perceptions of their trust in supervisors were found to influence their
perceived JI, P-O fit, and turnover intention.
Two mediators were proposed, namely JI and P-O fit. The two processes showed the
mediating role of JI and P-O fit in the relationship between trust in supervisors and
turnover intention. I used attachment theory and PEC theory as the theoretical
framework for my study. The moderating effect of the OS period was also proposed to
influence the mediating effects between trust in supervisors and P-O fit and between
trust in supervisors and JI. Table 6.1 and Figure 6.1 summarize the results of hypothesis
testing.
87
Table 6.1 Summary of the Research Findings
No. Hypothesis Result
1a There is a negative relationship between cognition-based trust in
supervisors and turnover intention at the manager level.
Supported
1b There is a negative relationship between affect-based trust in
supervisors and turnover intention at the manager level.
Marginally
Supported
2a Perceived JI mediates the relationship between cognition-based
trust in supervisors and turnover intention at the manager level.
Supported
2b Perceived JI mediates the relationship between affect-based trust
in supervisors and turnover intention at the manager level.
Rejected
3a P-O fit mediates the relationship between cognition-based trust in
supervisors and turnover intention at the manager level.
Rejected
3b P-O fit mediates the relationship between affect-based trust in
supervisors and turnover intention at the manager level.
Supported
4a The OS period moderates the relationship between managers’
cognition-based trust and JI, such that the relationship is stronger
for managers in the OS period than for those not in the OS period.
Rejected
4b The OS period moderates the relationship between managers’
affect-based trust and JI, such that the relationship is stronger for
managers in the OS period than for those not in the OS period.
Rejected
5a The OS period moderates the relationship between managers’
cognition-based trust and perceived P-O fit, such that the
relationship is stronger for managers in the OS period than for
those not in the OS period.
Supported
5b The OS period moderates the relationship between managers’
affect-based trust and perceived P-O fit, such that the relationship
is stronger for managers in the OS period than for those not in the
OS period.
Rejected
88
6a The middle manager stage moderates the relationship between
managers’ cognition-based trust and JI, such that the relationship
is stronger for middle managers than for non-middle managers.
Rejected
6b The middle manager stage moderates the relationship between
managers’ affect-based trust and JI, such that the relationship is
stronger for middle managers than for non-middle managers.
Rejected
7a The middle manager stage moderates the relationship between
managers’ cognition-based trust and perceived P-O fit, such that
the relationship is stronger for middle managers than for non-
middle managers.
Rejected
7b The middle manager stage moderates the relationship between
managers’ affect-based trust and perceived P-O fit, such that the
relationship is stronger for middle managers than for non-middle
managers.
Supported
Figure 6.1 Summary of the Research Model
89
To summarize, the proposed direct and indirect relationships between trust in
supervisors, JI, P-O fit, and turnover intention were established. The antecedent, trust
in supervisors, was an important factor in turnover intention. The two mediation
processes proposed with JI and P-O fit as mediators mediated the effect of cognition-
based trust in supervisors and affect-based trust in supervisors on turnover intention,
respectively.
The results suggest that the nature of the two mediators is intrinsically linked to the two
types of trust, cognition-based trust and affect-based trust. McAllister (1995) developed
a conceptual framework differentiating the two types of trust, in which cognition-based
trust is defined as trust based on cognitive understanding, such as responsibility,
dependability, reliability, and competence. Cognition-based trust typically comes first
during the OS period, and new managers will assess and develop their level of job
security based on how they understand the character of their supervisors, such as their
integrity, fairness, and dependability, in which their JI is closer to cognitive perception
and an evaluation of their current situation. Thus, the better middle managers
cognitively understand their supervisors, whether good or bad, the better they will be
able to make a cognitive decision on their level of job security and their turnover
intention.
On the other hand, McAllister (1995) also argued that there is an underlying
psychological process between the two types of trust: once cognition-based trust
reaches a baseline level, emotional attachments with supervisors/coworkers will take
place, which involves affect-based trust. Affect-based trust is defined as emotional
engagements between individuals, which are based on expressions of genuine concern
90
and care about the benefits of the other party (McAllister, 1995). Affect-based trust
highlights affiliation, rapport, and empathy based on shared respect for the other person.
New managers start to develop a leader–member exchange relationship with some level
of emotional attachment to their supervisors, which indicates whether they believe that
their supervisors care about their personal well-being, and because supervisors are the
primary agent of the organization, middle managers will project their relationship with
their supervisors to the organization. Due to the nature of P-O fit as a perception of
need–supply fit, the sense of fit refers to a feeling of whether the needs of employees
can be met by their supervisors and organization. Thus, P-O fit is a mediator between
affect-based trust in supervisors and turnover intention.
Partially different from my expectations, only the mediating role of P-O fit between
cognition-based trust in supervisors and turnover intention was moderated by the OS
period, while JI was not moderated. This is not consistent with my observation and
previous research, as unsuccessful socialization is one of the main reasons newcomers
decide to leave an organization (Fisher, 1986), at the expense of the organization’s
recruitment, selection, and training investment (Kammeyer-Muller & Wanberg, 2003),
interrupting daily work and leading to loss of productivity (Shaw, Gupta, & Delery,
2005). This difference may be due to the relatively short data collection period (six
months) of the research design, in which most participants did not experience a change
in their OS period, which means that they were likely to stay in the OS period or were
already out of this period. The other reason may be that the data collected from the 162
questionnaires were not strong enough to pass the statistical tests, especially as only 62
of the 162 participants were still in the OS period, defined in this study as the first 24
months of their tenure in the same company.
91
Another disappointing result was that only the mediating role of P-O fit between affect-
based trust in supervisors and turnover intention was moderated by the middle manager
stage, while JI was not moderated. This result is also partially consistent with my
experience and previous research, as middle managers usually take on more
responsibility, need more autonomy to accomplish their tasks, have more resources to
use and manage, and face more uncertainty at work (Holden & Roberts, 2004;
McConville & Holden, 1999). Therefore, their decision to leave should be largely
affected by their trust in supervisors via both JI and P-O fit. The main reason for this
difference may be that the data collected from the 162 questionnaires were not strong
enough to pass the statistical tests, as 122 participants were considered as middle
managers (with monthly salaries between 30K and 100K), but only 40 participants were
considered as non-middle managers (with monthly salaries below 30K or above 100K).
In summary, although not all of the proposed hypotheses were supported, the overall
research model with major relationships between constructs was confirmed.
6.2 Theoretical Contributions
This study makes several theoretical contributions, as discussed below.
First, this study contributes to the literature by establishing the mediating effect of JI
and P-O fit by examining the extent to which trust in supervisors influences turnover
intention. This is an important contribution because the development of mediation
models is crucial for the progression and maturation of specific research areas. The
92
emergence of theoretically grounded mediation frameworks is a defining characteristic
of thriving fields of research. As Mathieu, DeShon, and Bergh (2008) argued,
“developing an understanding of the underlying mechanisms or mediators (i.e., M),
through which X predicts Y, or X→M→Y relationships, is what moves organizational
research beyond dust-bowl empiricism and toward a true science.” This study drew on
attachment theory and PEC theory and the results showed that the two chosen mediators,
JI and P-O fit, fully mediated the relationship between cognition-based trust in
supervisors and affect-based trust in supervisors and employee turnover intention,
respectively.
Second, this study introduces a new moderator, the OS period, which moderates the
relationship between cognition-based trust in supervisors and P-O fit. This can be seen
as a new attempt in theoretical research, which contributes to the OS literature. The
results showed that during the OS period, cognition-based trust is first developed and
affects P-O fit, which is consistent with previous research on the OS process (Carr,
Pearson, Vest, & Boyar, 2006).
Third, this study focuses on a specific group, middle managers, which are generally
overlooked in previous research. Compared with entry-level employees, middle
managers usually take on more responsibility, need more autonomy to accomplish their
tasks, have more resources to manage and use, and face more uncertainty at work
(Holden & Roberts, 2004; McConville & Holden, 1999). Because the outcomes of
managerial jobs are less predictable and work processes are less routine, middle
managers need more discretion and autonomy (Wall, Cordery, & Clegg, 2002). These
differences imply that previous research and findings on the antecedent of turnover
93
intention, including organizational commitment, job satisfaction, job search,
withdrawal cognitions, and comparison of alternatives (Griffin et al., 2000), may not be
appropriate at the manager level. Therefore, my study introduced two new mediators,
JI and P-O fit, and a moderator, the OS period, thus contributing to manager level
research.
6.3 Managerial Implications
This study also has several managerial implications for the business world.
From the perspective of HR management, this study answered my long-standing
question and helped me develop a framework for observing and intervening in future
turnover. The results of this study also pave the way for other HR practitioners to better
understand the reasons for turnover decisions at the middle manager level, realize the
importance of the OS period, highlight the role of JI and P-O fit, and find a solution to
employee turnover. As Thomas J. Watson stated, “Trust is very difficult to build and
very easy to destroy.” Therefore, HR practitioners can play a key role in facilitating the
trust building process between new managers and their supervisors, who typically
occupy a more senior role and have less time to take care of their subordinates.
From the perspective of business leaders, the role of direct supervisor is complex during
the recruitment and on-boarding process. The results of this research may remind
supervisors of the importance of trust building, which is one of the key measures to
avoid unnecessary turnover. Supervisors should be aware that they not only need to
present a positive character to new managers to build cognition-based trust but also
94
need to lead the social exchange process with positive relationships to build affect-
based trust, so that new managers will feel secure and suited to the organization. In
addition, as cognition-based trust is built before affect-based trust during the OS period,
direct supervisors should be aware that ensuring their new team members trust them
cognitively is the first and most important step in retaining their talent.
From the perspective of the organization, with increasingly tight learning and
development budgets around the world, middle managers are often ignored, as they are
expected to autopilot and “plug-and-go”. In addition, even in the most traditional
companies (e.g. Procter & Gamble, General Electric), which often use internal
promotion rather than external hiring, the situation has changed, and more and more
external hires of middle to senior managers are inevitable. However, with more
uncertainty at work, more autonomy, more responsibility, and more resources to
manage, new managers find it increasingly difficult to adapt to their new role and
perform as quickly as expected. Organizations should consider setting up better
orientation plans to meet the needs of new managers and creating buddy programs to
help them navigate through the OS period to ensure that new managers survive and
succeed in their new role.
In summary, this study contributes to the literature on trust and employee turnover, by
introducing and testing a research model on trust in supervisors and turnover intention.
Drawing on various theoretical perspectives from the social exchange process, the
model proposes two mediation processes with JI and P-O fit as mediators. It also
introduces the OS period as a new moderator, thus contributing to the OS literature.
This study achieved its primary objective by examining the mediating effects between
95
trust in supervisors and turnover intention and the moderating effect of the OS Period
and middle manager stage.
6.4 Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Future Research
The following limitations of this study should be acknowledged.
First, the research design used longitudinal data collected over a relatively short period
of six months. The survey design, which asked employees to self-report their
experience, may be affected by recall bias (Golden, 1992). In addition, due to the
relatively short period, the changes in the key constructs, including trust in supervisors,
JI, P-O fit, and turnover intention, between the different waves were not significant
enough. Future research with a similar model should use a longer data collection period
(e.g. 24 months) for their longitudinal design. In such case, the changes between the
different constructs may be tested, providing more rigorous results.
Second, as employees may not want to share their turnover intention with their
supervisors, the study was designed at the individual level, with all questions being self-
reported. Thus, common method variance might have inflated the relationships between
the variables, as all data came from the same source (Podsakoff et al., 2003). I carefully
addressed this concern in my design and tested the relationships between the variables
by controlling the common factor variance. This concern could not be entirely ruled out,
but it did not weaken my findings in any way. Moreover, although turnover intention
was considered as the main proxy for actual turnover, future research using actual
turnover would be a good complement to this research.
96
Third, most of the participants worked for MNCs in Hong Kong, which limits the
generalizability of the results to other contexts. The convenience sample collected
through my personal network may also limit the generalizability. Future research should
replicate this study in different types of organizations, countries, industries, and cultures.
Accordingly, a more generalized model could be developed from future results in
different contexts.
Finally, this study introduced OS and middle manager stage as boundary conditions,
while other moderators have also been proposed by researchers, such as organizational
commitment, job satisfaction, age, gender, and tenure (Trimble, 2006; Mulki, Jaramillo,
& Locander, 2006). Future studies are suggested to consider different moderators on
the effect of trust in supervisors, to provide a more complete understanding of the
boundary conditions.
6.5 Conclusion
This study contributes to the literature by introducing two mediators, P-O fit and JI, in
the relationship between trust in supervisors and turnover intention, using attachment
theory and PEC theory to explain the processes involved. Two new moderators, the OS
period and middle manager stage were also proposed.
The results are consistent with previous research and reinforce the validity of the central
concepts of trust in supervisors and turnover intention. The results showed that JI is a
valid mediator on the effect of cognition-based trust in supervisors on middle managers’
97
turnover intention, while P-O fit is a valid mediator on the effect of affect-based trust
in supervisors on middle managers’ turnover intention. The two proposed mediators
had a clear mediating effect on turnover intention. The OS period was found to
moderate the relationship between cognition-based trust in supervisors and P-O fit, and
the middle manager stage was found to moderate the relationship between affect-based
trust in supervisors and P-O fit. Future studies using similar research frameworks are
encouraged to 1) extend the current longitudinal design approach to a longer study
period, 2) sample different cultures, organizations, and countries, and 3) explore other
possible moderators of the effect of trust in supervisors on turnover intention.
In summary, trust in supervisors is essential for middle managers’ turnover intention
through the social exchange process, because cognition-based trust in supervisors
reduces JI and affect-based trust in supervisors increases P-O fit. If middle managers
feel that their jobs are secure and that they fit in the organization during the OS period,
they are less likely to develop an intention to leave the organization. Cognition-based
trust in supervisors is particularly important for middle managers during the OS period.
Therefore, future research should extend the design proposed in this study to longer
study periods with larger samples and examine other possible moderators.
98
LIST OF REFERENCES
Abbasi, S. M., & Hollman, K. W. (2000). Turnover: The real bottom line. Public
Personnel Management, 29(3), 333-342.
Abrams, D., Ando K., & Hinkle S. (1998). Psychological attachment to the group:
Cross-cultural differences in organizational identification and subjective norms as
predictors of workers’ turnover intentions. Personnel Social Psychology Bulletin, 24,
1027–1039.
Adkins, C. L., Russell, C. J., & Werbel, J. D. (1994). Judgments of fit in the selection
process: The role of work value congruence. Personnel Psychology, 47(3), 605-623.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. N. (1978). Patterns of
Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, Lawlence
Erlbaum Associates.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. N. (2015). Patterns of
attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Psychology Press.
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Chao, G. T., & Bauer, T. N. (2017). Taking stock of two
relational aspects of organizational life: Tracing the history and shaping the future of
socialization and mentoring research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 324.
Anderson, C. J., & Pontusson, J. 2007. Workers, worries and welfare states: Social
protection and job insecurity in 15 OECD countries. European Journal of Political
Research, 46: 211-235.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 411.
Antonacopoulou, E. P., & Guttel, W. H. (2010). Staff induction practices and
organizational socialization: A review and extension of the debate. Society and business
review, 5(1), 22-47.
Arthur Jr, W., Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., & Doverspike, D. (2006). The use of person-
organization fit in employment decision making: an assessment of its criterion-related
99
validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 786.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship
between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model.
Journal of organizational Behavior, 23(3), 267-285.
Ashforth, B. E., & Saks, A. M. 1996. Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects on
newcomer adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 149–178.
Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D. M., & Harrison, S. H. (2007). Socialization in organizational
contexts. International review of industrial and organizational psychology, 22, 1. pp.
41-43
Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D. M., & Saks, A. M. (2007). Socialization tactics, proactive
behavior, and newcomer learning: Integrating socialization models. Journal of
vocational behavior, 70(3), 447-462.
Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: The role
of desire for control. Journal of Applied psychology, 81(2), 199.
Ashford, S. J., & Taylor, M. S. (1990). Adaptation to work transitions: An integrative
approach. Research in personnel and human resources management, 8, 1-39.
Ashford, S. J., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1989). Content, causes and consequences of job
insecurity: A theory-based measure and substantive test. Academy of Management
Journal, 32, 803– 829.
Barber, B. (1983). The logic and limits of trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Press.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173.
Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Tucker, J. S., Erdogan, B., & Truxillo, D. M. (2007).
Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic review of
antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 707-721.
100
Bauer T. N., Morrison, E. W., & Callister, R. R. (1998). Organizational socialization: A
review and directions for future research. Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, 16: 149-214.
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1998). Testing the combined effects of newcomer
information seeking and manager behavior on socialization. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83, 72–83
Berlew, D. E., & Hall, D. T. (1966). The socialization of managers: Effects of
expectations on performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 207-223.
Bigley, G. A., & Pearce, J. L. (1998). Straining for shared meaning in organizational
science: Problems of trust and distrust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 405–421.
Black, J. S. (1992). Socializing American expatriate managers overseas: Tactics, tenure,
and role innovation. Group & Organization Management, 17(2), 171-192.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Transaction Publishers.
Böckerman, P. (2004). Perceptions of job instability in Europe. Social Indicators
Research, 67, 283–314.
Borg, I., & Elizur, D. (1992). Job insecurity: Correlates, moderators and measurement.
International Journal of Manpower, 13, 13–26.
Boon, S. D., & Holmes, J. G. (1991). The dynamics of interpersonal trust: Resolving
uncertainty in the face of risk. In R. A. Hinde & J. Groebel (Eds.), Cooperation and
prosocial behavior (pp. 190–211). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Boswell, W. R., Boudreau, J. W., & Tichy, J. (2005). The relationship between
employee job change and job satisfaction: the honeymoon-hangover effect. Journal of
applied psychology, 90(5), 882.
Bowen, D. E., Ledford, G. E., & Nathan, B. R. (1991). Hiring for the organization, not
the job. The Executive, 5(4), 35-51.
101
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: retrospect and prospect. American journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 52(4), 664.
Boxx, W. R., Odom, R. Y., & Dunn, M. G. (1991). Organizational values and value
congruency and their impact on satisfaction, commitment, and cohesion: An empirical
examination within the public sector. Public Personnel Management, 20(2), 195-205.
Branham, L. (2005). The 7 hidden reasons employees leave. American Management,
New York, 172.
Brashear, T. G., Manolis, C., & Brooks, C. M. (2005). The effects of control, trust, and
justice on salesperson turnover. Journal of Business Research, 58(3), 241-249.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult
attachment: An integrative overview.
Bretz Jr, R. D., Ash, R. A., & Dreher, G. F. (1989). Do people make the place? An
examination of the attraction ‐selection ‐attrition hypothesis. Personnel psychology,
42(3), 561-581.
Bretz Jr, R. D., & Judge, T. A. (1994). The role of human resource systems in job
applicant decision processes. Journal of Management, 20(3), 531-551.
Brigham, K., De Castro, J., & Shepherd, D. (2007). A Person-Organization Fit Model
of Owner-Managers' Cognitive Style and Organizational Demands. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice., 31(1), 29-51.
Brown, W. A., & Yoshioka, C. F. (2003). Mission attachment and satisfaction as factors
in employee retention. Nonprofit management and leadership, 14(1), 5-18.
Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of
managers in work organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 533-546.
Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First break all the rules: What the world’s
greatest managers do differently. New York, NY: The Gallup Organization.
102
Buono, A. F., & Kamm, J. B. (1983). Marginality and the organizational socialization
of female managers. Human Relations, 36(12), 1125-1140.
Butler, J. K., Jr. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust:
Evolution of a conditions of trust inventory. Journal of Management,17, 643–663.
Butler, J. K., Jr., & Cantrell, R. S. (1984). A behavioral decision theory approach to
modeling dyadic trust in superiors and subordinates. Psychological Reports, 55, 19–28.
Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of
subjective fit perceptions. Journal of applied psychology, 87(5), 875.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Pay preferences and job search decisions: A
person-organization fit perspective. Personnel psychology, 47(2), 317-348.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person–organization fit, job choice decisions, and
organizational entry. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 67(3),
294-311.
Cable, D. M., & Parsons, C. K. (2001). Socialization tactics and person‐organization
fit. Personnel Psychology, 54(1), 1-23.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan
organizational assessment questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, 71-138.
Cantisano, G. T., Domínguez, J. F. M., & Depolo, M. (2008). Psychological contract
breach and outcomes: Combining meta-analysis and structural equation models.
Psicothema, 20(3), 487-496.
Caplan, R. D. (1975). Job demands and worker health: Main effects and occupational
differences. US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service,
Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
Carr, J. C., Pearson, A. W., Vest, M. J., & Boyar, S. L. (2006). Prior occupational
experience, anticipatory socialization, and employee retention. Journal of management,
103
32(3), 343-359.
Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An
empirical examination of self-reported work stress among US managers. Journal of
applied psychology, 85(1), 65.
Chamberlain, A. (2017). What Matters More to Your Workforce than Money. Harvard
business review,
Chamberlain, A. (2017). Why Do Employees Stay? A Clear Career Path and Good Pay,
for Starters. Harvard business review,
Chao, G. T., O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J., & Gardner, P. D. (1994).
Organizational socialization: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied
psychology, 79(5), 730.
Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of
person-organization fit. Academy of management Review, 14(3), 333-349.
Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization
in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459–484.
Chen, G., & Klimoski, R. J. (2003). The impact of expectations on newcomer
performance in teams as mediated by work characteristics, social exchanges, and
empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 591-607.
Chen, Z. X., Tsui, A. S., & Zhong, L. (2008). Reactions to psychological contract breach:
A dual perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 527–548.
Cheng, G. H., & Chan, D. K. (2008). Who suffers more from job insecurity? A meta-
analytic review. Applied Psychology, 57, 272–303.
Chow, I. H. S. (2002). Organizational socialization and career success of Asian
managers. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(4), 720-737.
Chua, R. Y. J., Ingram, P., & Morris, M. W. (2008). From the head and the heart:
Locating cognition-and affect-based trust in managers' professional networks.
104
Academy of Management journal, 51(3), 436-452.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological bulletin, 112(1), 155.
Cohen, J. D. (2005). The vulcanization of the human brain: A neural perspective on
interactions between cognition and emotion. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4),
3-24.
Collins, M. D. (2010). The effect of psychological contract fulfillment on manager
turnover intentions and its role as a mediator in a casual, limited-service restaurant
environment. International journal of hospitality management, 29(4), 736-742.
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Zapata, C. P., & Rich, B. L. (2012).
Explaining the justice–performance relationship: Trust as exchange deepener or trust as
uncertainty reducer?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 1.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust
propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 909–927.
Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational
commitment and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology,
53, 39–52.
Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Van Vianen, A., & Anderson, N. (2004). Changes in person–
organization fit: The impact of socialization tactics on perceived and actual P–O fit.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(1), 52-78.
Cooper-Thomas, H. D., & Anderson, N. (2006). Organizational socialization: A new
theoretical model and recommendations for future research and HRM practices in
organizations. Journal of managerial psychology, 21(5), 492-516.
Cooper D and Thatcher SMB (2010) Identification in organizations: The role of self-
concept orientations and identification motives. Academy of Management Review
35(4): 516–538.
Cotton, J. L., & Tuttle, J. M. (1986). Employee turnover: A meta-analysis and review
105
with implications for research. Academy of management Review, 11(1), 55-70.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M., & Kessler, I. (2002). Exploring reciprocity through the lens of
the psychological contract: Employee and employer perspectives. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 69–86.
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of management, 26(3),
435-462.
Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of
organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress. Journal of
Organizational behavior, 159-180.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary
review. Journal of management, 31(6), 874-900.
Cunningham, J. B., & MacGregor, J. (2000). Trust and the design of work
complementary constructs in satisfaction and performance. Human relations, 53(12),
1575-1591.
Dahling, J. J., & Librizzi, U. A. (2015). Integrating the theory of work adjustment and
attachment theory to predict job turnover intentions. Journal of Career Development,
42(3), 215-228.
Dawis, R. V. (2002). Person-environment-correspondence theory. Career choice and
development, 4, 427-464.
Dawis, R. V. (2005). The Minnesota theory of work adjustment. Career Development,
1.
Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1964). Minnesota studies in vocational
rehabilitation: XV. A theory of work adjustment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis Industrial Relations Center.
Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment: An
individual-differences model and its applications. University of Minnesota Press.
106
De Cremer, D., van Dijke, M., & Bos, A. E. (2006). Leader's procedural justice affecting
identification and trust. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(7), 554-
565.
De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2007). Job insecurity in temporary versus permanent
workers: Associations with attitudes, well-being, and behaviour. Work & Stress, 21(1),
65-84.
De Cuyper, N., Mäkikangas, A., Kinnunen, U., Mauno, S., & De Witte, H. 2012. Cross-
lagged associations between perceived external employability, job insecurity, and
exhaustion: Testing gain and loss spirals according to the conservation of resources
theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33: 770-788.
De Cuyper, N., Sora, B., De Witte, H., Caballer, A., & Peiró, J. M. 2009. Organizations’
use of temporary employment and a climate of job insecurity among Belgian and
Spanish permanent workers. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 30: 564-591.
De Cuyper, N., Sulea, C., Philippaers, K., Fischmann, G., Iliescu, D., & De Witte, H.
(2014). Perceived employability and performance: moderation by felt job
insecurity. Personnel Review, 43(4), 536-552.
De Jong, B. A., & Dirks, K. T. (2012). Beyond shared perceptions of trust and
monitoring in teams: Implications of asymmetry and dissensus. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97, 391–406.
De Jong, B. A., Dirks, K. T., & Gillespie, N. (2016). Trust and Team Performance: A
Meta-Analysis of Main Effects, Moderators, and Covariates.
De Vos, A., Buyens, D., & Schalk, R. (2003). Psychological contract development
during organizational socialization: Adaptation to reality and the role of reciprocity.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 537–559.
De Witte, H. (1999). Job insecurity and psychological well-being: Review of the
literature and exploration of some unresolved issues. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 8, 155–177.
107
De Witte, H., Sverke, M., Van Ruysseveldt, J., Goslinga, S., Chirumbolo, A., Hellgren,
J., & Näswall, K. (2008). Job insecurity, union support and intentions to resign
membership: A psychological contract perspective. European Journal of Industrial
Relations, 14(1), 85-103.
Debus, M. E., König, C. J., & Kleinmann, M. 2014. The building blocks of job
insecurity: The impact of environmental and person-related variables on job insecurity
perceptions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87: 329-351.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-
determination in personality. Journal of research in personality, 19(2), 109-134.
Delmestri, G., & Walgenbach, P. (2005). Mastering techniques or brokering knowledge?
Middle managers in Germany, Great Britain and Italy. Organization Studies, 26(2), 197-
220.
Delobbe, N., Cooper ‐Thomas, H. D., & De Hoe, R. (2016). A new look at the
psychological contract during organizational socialization: The role of newcomers'
obligations at entry. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(6), 845-867.
Deng, H., Guan, Y., Bond, M. H., Zhang, Z., & Hu, T. (2011). The interplay between
social cynicism beliefs and person–organization fit on work-related attitudes among
Chinese employees. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 160–178.
Deng, H., Wu, C.-H., Leung, K., & Guan, Y. (2015). Depletion from self-regulation: A
resource-based account of the effect of value incongruence. Personnel Psychology, 69,
431–465.
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership:
A critique and further development. Academy of management review, 11(3), 618-634.
Dillman, D. A. (2009). Some consequences of survey mode changes in longitudinal
surveys. Methodology of longitudinal surveys, 127-140.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings.
Organization Science, 12, 450–467.
108
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-Analytic findings and
implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611–628.
Downey, H. K., Don, H., & Slocum, J. W. (1975). Congruence Between Individual
Needs, Organizational Climate, Job Satisfaction and Performance1. Academy of
Management Journal, 18(1), 149-155.
Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O’neill, R. M., Hayes, E., & Wierba, E. E. (1997). Reading
the wind: How middle managers assess the context for selling issues to top managers.
Strategic management journal, 18(5), 407-423.
Dyer, J. H., & Chu, W. (2003). The role of trustworthiness in reducing transaction costs
and improving performance: Empirical evidence from the United States, Japan, and
Korea. Organization science, 14(1), 57-68.
Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and
methodological critique. John Wiley & Sons.
Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. (2009). The value of value congruence. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94, 654–677.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and
mediation: a general analytical framework using moderated path analysis.
Psychological methods, 12(1), 1.
Egan, T. M., Yang, B., & Bartlett, K. R. (2004). The effects of organizational learning
culture and job satisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and turnover intention.
Human resource development quarterly, 15(3), 279-301.
Emerson, R. M. 1976. Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2: 335-
362.
Falcione, R. L., & Wilson, C. E. (1988). Socialization processes in organizations.
Handbook of organizational communication, 151(169), 65.
Fang, R., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2011). The organizational socialization process:
Review and development of a social capital model. Journal of Management, 37(1), 127-
109
152.
Feldman, D. C. (1976). A contingency theory of socialization. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 21, 433– 452.
Fishbein M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Fisher, C. D. 1986. Organizational socialization: An integrative review. Research in
Personnel and Human Resource Management, 4: 101-145.
Flaherty, K. E., & Pappas, J. M. (2002). Using career stage theory to predict turnover
intentions among salespeople. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10(3), 48-57.
Flood, P. C., Turner, T., Ramamoorthy, N., & Pearson, J. (2001). Causes and
consequences of psychological contracts among knowledge workers in the high
technology and financial services industries. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 12(7), 1152-1165.
Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (1997). Middle management’s strategic influence and
organizational performance. Journal of management Studies, 34(3), 465-485.
Flynn, F. J. (2005). Identity orientations and forms of social exchange in organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 737-750.
Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical
developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of general
psychology, 4(2), 132-154.
Frazier, M. L., Gooty, J., Little, L. M., & Nelson, D. L. (2015). Employee attachment:
Implications for supervisor trustworthiness and trust. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 30(2), 373-386.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity (No. D10
301 c. 1/c. 2). Free Press Paperbacks.
Fulmer, C. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). At what level (and in whom) we trust: Trust
110
across multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management, 38, 1167–1230.
Gabarro, J. J. (1978). The development of trust, influence, and expectations. In A. G.
Athos & J. J. Gabarro (Eds.), Interpersonal behaviors: Communication and
understanding in relationships (pp. 290–303). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gakovic, A., & Tetrick, L. E. (2003). Psychological contract breach as a source of strain
for employees. Journal of business and Psychology, 18(2), 235-246.
Gersick, C. J., Dutton, J. E., & Bartunek, J. M. (2000). Learning from academia: The
importance of relationships in professional life. Academy of Management Journal,
43(6), 1026-1044.
Ghiselli, R., La Lopa, J., & Bai, B. (2001). Job satisfaction, life satisfaction, and
turnover intent among food-service managers. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 28-37.
Gibson DE (2003) Developing the professional self-concept: Role model construals in
early, middle, and late career stages. Organization Science 14(5): 591–610.
Gillespie, N. A., & Mann, L. (2004). Transformational leadership and shared values:
The building blocks of trust. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(6), 588-607.
Golembiewski, R. T., & McConkie, M. (1975). The centrality of interpersonal trust in
group processes. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of group processes (pp. 131–185).
New York: Wiley
Goodman, S. A., & Svyantek, D. J. (1999). Person–organization fit and contextual
performance: Do shared values matter. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55(2), 254-275.
Golden, B. R. (1992). Research notes. The past is the past - or is it? The use of
retrospective accounts as indicators of past strategy. Academy of Management journal,
35(4), 848-860.
Gouldner, A.W. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: Apreliminary statement. American
Sociological Review, 25: 161-178.
111
Govier, T. (1994). Is it a jungle out there? Trust, distrust and the construction of social
reality. Dialogue, 33, 237–252.
Graen, G. B., Liden, R. C., & Hoel, W. (1982). Role of leadership in the employee
withdrawal process. Journal of applied psychology, 67(6), 868.
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research
in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34.
Green, S. G., & Mitchell, T. R. (1979). Attributional processes of leaders in leader—
member interactions. Organizational behavior and human performance, 23(3), 429-458.
Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity. The
Academy of Management Review, 3, 438–448.
Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. (2010). Evolution of research on job insecurity.
International Studies of Management & Organization, 40, 6–19.
Griffin, A. E. C., Colella, A., & Goparaju, S. 2000. Newcomer and organizational
socialization tactics: An interactionist perspective. Human Resource Management
Review, 10: 453-474.
Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (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(3), 463-488.
Gruman, J. A., Saks, A. M., & Zweig, D. I. 2006. Organizational socialization tactics
and newcomer proactive behaviors: An integrative study. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 68: 90-104.
Grusec, J. E., & Hastings, P. D. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of socialization: Theory and
research. Guilford Publications.
Ha, N. S., & Choi, J. (2002). The relationship among leadership styles of nurse
managers, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intention. Journal
of Korean Academy of Nursing, 32(6), 812-822.
112
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Babin, B. J., & Black, W. C. (2010). Multivariate data
analysis: A global perspective (Vol. 7).
Hancock, J. I., Allen, D. G., Bosco, F. A., McDaniel, K. R., & Pierce, C. A. (2013).
Meta-analytic review of employee turnover as a predictor of firm performance. Journal
of Management, 39(3), 573-603.
Hallier, J., & James, P. (1997). Middle managers and the employee psychological
contract: Agency, protection and advancement. Journal of Management Studies, 34(5),
703-728.
Hallier, J., & Lyon, P. (1996). Job insecurity and employee commitment: managers'
reactions to the threat and outcomes of redundancy selection. British Journal of
Management, 7(1), 107-123.
Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis. University of Chicago press.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 52(3), 511.
Hellgren, J., Sverke, M., & Isaksson, K. (1999). A two-dimensional approach to job
insecurity: Consequences for employee attitudes and well-being. European Journal of
Work and Organization Psychology, 8, 179–195
Hinkin, T. R., & Tracey, J. B. (2000). The cost of turnover: Putting a price on the
learning curve. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 144-
21.
Hoffman, B. J., & Woehr, D. J. (2006). A quantitative review of the relationship between
person–organization fit and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68,
389–399.
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American journal of sociology,
63(6), 597-606.
113
Hollon, J. (2010). Worker “deal” is off. Workforce Management, 89, 42.
Holtom, B. C., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., & Eberly, M. B. (2008). 5 Turnover and
Retention Research: A Glance at the Past, a Closer Review of the Present, and a Venture
into the Future. Academy of Management annals, 2(1), 231-274.
Holden, L., & Roberts, I. (2004). The depowerment of European middle managers:
Challenges and uncertainties. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(3), 269-287.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling:
a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55.
Huang, G., Lee, C., Ashford, S., Chen, Z., & Ren, X. (2010). Affective job insecurity:
A mediator of the cognitive job insecurity and employee outcomes relationships.
International Studies of Management & Organization, 40, 20–39.
Huang, G., Niu, X., Ashford, S. J., & Lee, C. (2012). Differentiating cognitive and
affective job insecurity: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
33, 752–769.
Huang, G. H., Wellman, N., Ashford, S. J., Lee, C., & Wang, L. (2017). Deviance and
exit: The organizational costs of job insecurity and moral disengagement. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 102(1), 26.
Huang, G. H., Zhao, H. H., Niu, X. Y., Ashford, S. J., & Lee, C. (2013). Reducing job
insecurity and increasing performance ratings: Does impression management
matter?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(5), 852.
Huang, X., Iun, J., Liu, A., & Gong, Y. (2010). Does participative leadership enhance
work performance by inducing empowerment or trust? The differential effects on
managerial and non ‐managerial subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
31(1), 122-143.
Huy, Q. N. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change:
The contribution of middle managers. Administrative science quarterly, 47(1), 31-69.
114
Ito, J. K., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2007). Exploring the predictors and consequences of
job insecurity’s components. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 40–64.
Ivancevich, J. M., & Matteson, M. T. (1984). A type AB person-work environment
interaction model for examining occupational stress and consequences. Human
relations, 37(7), 491-513.
Jacobson, D. (1991). The conceptual approach to job insecurity. In J. Hartley, D.
Jacobson, B. Klandermans, & T. van Vuuren (Eds.), Job insecurity: Coping with jobs
at risk (pp. 23–39). London, England: Sage.
Jiang, L., & Lavaysse, L. M. (2018). Cognitive and affective job insecurity: A meta-
analysis and a primary study. Journal of Management, 44(6), 2307-2342.
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy
of management review, 31(2), 386-408.
Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers' adjustments to
organizations. Academy of Management journal, 29(2), 262-279.
Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Hartel, C. E. (2002). Emotional intelligence as a
moderator of emotional and behavioral reactions to job insecurity. The Academy of
Management Review, 27, 361–372.
Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental
investigation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational
and transactional leadership. Journal of organizational Behavior, 949-964.
Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. (1992). Effects of work values on job choice decisions.
Journal of applied psychology, 77(3), 261.
Judge, T. A. (1994). Person–organization fit and the theory of work adjustment:
Implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success. Journal of Vocational behavior,
44(1), 32-54.
Kalleberg, A. L., & Griffin, L. J. (1978). Positional sources of inequality in job
satisfaction. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 5(4), 371-401.
115
Kammeyer-Muller, J. D., & Wanberg, C. R. 2003. Unwrapping the organizational entry
process: Disentangling multiple antecedents and their pathways to adjustment. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 88: 779-794.
Kanter, R. M. (2004). The middle manager as innovator. 1982. Harvard business review,
82(7-8), 150-152.
Kee, H. W., & Knox, R. E. (1970). Conceptual and methodological considerations in
the study of trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 14, 357–366.
Keim, A. C., Landis, R. S., Pierce, C. A., & Earnest, D. R. (2014). Why do employees
worry about their jobs? A meta-analytic review of predictors of job insecurity. Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(3), 269.
Kim, H., & Kao, D. (2014). A meta-analysis of turnover intention predictors among US
child welfare workers. Children and Youth Services Review, 47, 214-223.
Kim, T. Y., Aryee, S., Loi, R., & Kim, S. P. (2013). Person–organization fit and
employee outcomes: test of a social exchange model. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 24(19), 3719-3737.
Kim, T. Y., Cable, D. M., & Kim, S. P. (2005). Socialization tactics, employee
proactivity, and person-organization fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 232–241.
Kinnunen, U., & Nätti, J. (1994). Job insecurity in Finland: Antecedents and
consequences. European Work and Organizational Behavior, 4, 297–321.
Kinnunen, U., Mäkikangas, A., Mauno, S., De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2014).
Development of perceived job insecurity across two years: Associations with
antecedents and employee outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(2),
243.
Klandermans, B., Hesselink, J. K., & Van Vuuren, T. 2010. Employment status and job
insecurity: On the subjective appraisal of an objective status. Economic and Industrial
Democracy, 31: 557-577.
116
Klein, H. J., & Heuser, A. E. (2008). The learning of socialization content: A framework
for researching orientating practices. In Research in personnel and human resources
management (pp. 279-336). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
König, C. J., Probst, T. M., Staffen, S., & Graso, M. (2011). A Swiss–US comparison
of the correlates of job insecurity. Applied Psychology, 60(1), 141-159.
Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange.
Academy of management journal, 37(3), 656-669.
Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives,
enduring questions. Annual review of psychology, 50(1), 569-598.
Kraut, A. I., & Ronen, S. (1975). Validity of job facet importance: A multinational
multicriteria study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(6), 671.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its
conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–49.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of
individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–
group, and person– supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342.
Lapointe, E., Vandenberghe, C., & Boudrias, J.-S. (2013). Psychological contract
breach, affective commitment to organization and supervisor, and newcomer
adjustment: A three-wave moderated mediation model. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
83, 528–538.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Coping and adaptation. The handbook of
behavioral medicine, 282-325.
Lee, C., Bobko, P., & Chen, Z. X. (2006). Investigation of the multidimensional model
of job insecurity in China and the USA. Applied Psychology: An International Review,
55, 512–540.
Lee, C., Huang, G. H., & Ashford, S. J. (2018). Job insecurity and the changing
workplace: Recent developments and the future trends in job insecurity research.
117
Lee, C., Liu, J., Rousseau, D. M., Hui, C., & Chen, Z. X. (2011). Inducements,
contributions, and fulfillments in new employees psychological contracts. Human
Resource Management, 50, 201–226.
Lee, F. H., & Wu, W. Y. (2011). The relationships between person-organization fit,
psychological climate adjustment, personality traits, and innovative climate: Evidence
from Taiwanese high-tech expatriate managers in Asian countries. African Journal of
Business Management, 5(15), 6415.
Lee, T. W., & Mowday, R. T. (1987). An empirical investigation of Steers and
Mowday’s model of turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 721–743.
Lee, Y., & Larwood, L. (1983). The socialization of expatriate managers in
multinational firms. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 657-665.
Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1995). Trust in relationships. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 5, 583-601.
Li, J. J., Kim, W. G., & Zhao, X. R. (2017). Multilevel model of management support
and casino employee turnover intention. Tourism Management, 59, 193-204.
Li, N., Harris, T. B., Boswell, W. R., & Xie, Z. (2011). The role of organizational
insiders’ developmental feedback and proactive personality on newcomers’
performance: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1317–
1327.
Liu, B., Liu, J., & Hu, J. (2010). Person-organization fit, job satisfaction, and turnover
intention: An empirical study in the Chinese public sector. Social Behavior and
Personality: an international journal, 38(5), 615-625.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. Handbook of industrial
and organizational psychology.
Lofquist, L. H., & Dawis, R. V. (1991). Essentials of person-environment-
correspondence counseling. U of Minnesota Press.
118
Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in
entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226–
251.
Lovelace, K., & Rosen, B. (1996). Differences in achieving person-organization fit
among diverse groups of managers. Journal of Management, 22(5), 703-722.
Low, C. H., Bordia, P., & Bordia, S. (2016). What do employees want and why? An
exploration of employees’ preferred psychological contract elements across career
stages. Human Relations, 69(7), 1457-1481.
Lubke, C., & Erlinghagen, M. 2014. Self-perceived job insecurity across Europe over
time: Does changing context matter? Journal of European Social Policy, 24: 319-336.
Lyness, K. S., & Judiesch, M. K. (2001). Are female managers quitters? The
relationships of gender, promotions, and family leaves of absence to voluntary turnover.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1167.
Mao, Y., He, R., Liu, J., Zhang, N., & Zhu, B. (2018). Turnover intention of primary
health workers in China: a systematic review. The Lancet, 392, S17.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
Mathieu, J. E., DeShon, R. P., & Bergh, D. D. (2008). Mediational inferences in
organizational research: Then, now, and beyond. Organizational Research Methods,
11(2), 203-223.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of
organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.
Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on
trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84,
123–136.
Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who
minds the shop while the employees watch the boss?. Academy of management journal,
48(5), 874-888.
119
Mauno, S., De Cuyper, N., Tolvanen, A., Kinnunen, U., & Mäkikangas, A. (2014).
Occupational well-being as a mediator between job insecurity and turnover intention:
Findings at the individual and work department levels. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 23(3), 381-393.
Mauss, M. 1925. The gift: Forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies. New
York: The Norton Library.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for
interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of management journal, 38(1), 24-
59.
McConville, T., & Holden, L. (1999). The filling in the sandwich: HRM and middle
managers in the health sector. Personnel Review, 28(5/6), 406-424.
McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998). Initial trust formation
in new organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23, 473–490.
McManus, S. E., & Russell, J. E. (1997). New directions for mentoring research: An
examination of related constructs. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51(1), 145-161.
McPherson, B. D. (1976). Involuntary turnover and organizational effectiveness in the
National Hockey League. Canadian sport: Sociological perspectives, 259-275.
Mercer LLC (2016).
https://www.mercer.com/content/dam/mercer/attachments/global/Talent/global-
ipe-brochure-mercer.pdf
Michaels, C. E., & Spector, P. E. (1982). Causes of employee turnover: A test of the
Mobley, Griffith, Hand, and Meglino model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 53–
59.
Mikulincer, M. (1998). Attachment working models and the sense of trust: An
exploration of interaction goals and affect regulation. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 74(5), 1209.
120
Mishra, J., & Morrissey, M. A. (1990). Trust in employee/employer relationships: A
survey of West Michigan managers. Public personnel management, 19(4), 443-486.
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why
people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of
management journal, 44(6), 1102-1121.
Mitchell, T. R., & Lee, T. W. (2001). 5. The unfolding model of voluntary turnover and
job embeddedness: Foundations for a comprehensive theory of attachment. Research in
organizational behavior, 23, 189-246.
Mobley, W. H. (1982). Some unanswered questions in turnover and withdrawal
research. Academy of Management Review, 7(1), 111-116.
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (2001). Socialization in organizations and work
groups. Groups at work: Theory and research, 69-112.
Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2007). Finding workable levers over work
motivation: Comparing job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational
commitment. Administration & Society, 39(7), 803-832.
Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2008). The ties that bind: Social networks, person-
organization value fit, and turnover intention. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 18(2), 205-227.
Muchinsky, P. M., & Morrow, P. C. (1980). A multidisciplinary model of voluntary
employee turnover. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 17, 263–290.
Mulki, J. P., Jaramillo, F., & Locander, W. B. (2006). Effects of ethical climate and
supervisory trust on salesperson’s job attitudes and intentions to quit. Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, 26(1), 19-26.
Murphy, W. M., Burton, J. P., Henagan, S. C., & Briscoe, J. P. (2013). Employee
reactions to job insecurity in a declining economy: A longitudinal study of the
mediating role of job embeddedness. Group & Organization Management, 38(4), 512-
537.
121
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2019). Mplus home page.
Newman, K. S. (1988). Falling from grace: The experience of downward mobility in
the American middle class. Free Press.
Nienaber, A. M., Romeike, P. D., Searle, R., & Schewe, G. (2015). A qualitative meta-
analysis of trust in supervisor-subordinate relationships. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 30(5), 507-534.
Nifadkar, S. S., Tsui, A. S., & Ashforth, B. E. (2012). The way you make me feel and
behave: Supervisor-triggered newcomer affect and approach-avoidance behavior.
Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1146–1168.
Nur Iplik, F., Can Kilic, K., & Yalcin, A. (2011). The simultaneous effects of person-
organization and person-job fit on Turkish hotel managers. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23(5), 644-661.
O'Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological
attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial
behavior. Journal of applied psychology, 71(3), 492.
O'Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational
culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy
of management journal, 34(3), 487-516.
Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. (1992). Organizational socialization as a learning
process: The role of information acquisition. Personnel psychology, 45(4), 849-874.
Parks, J. M., & Kidder, D. L. (1994). " Till Death Us Do Part..." Changing Work
Relationships in the 1990s. Journal of Organizational Behavior (1986-1998), 111.
Payne, S. C., Culbertson, S. S., Boswell, W. R., & Barger, E. J. (2008). Newcomer
psychological contracts and employee socialization activities: Does perceived balance
in obligations matter? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 465–472.
Pervin, L. A. (1968). Performance and satisfaction as a function of individual-
environment fit. Psychological Bulletin, 69, 56-68.
122
Piccoli, B., & De Witte, H. (2015). Job insecurity and emotional exhaustion: Testing
psychological contract breach versus distributive injustice as indicators of lack of
reciprocity. Work & Stress, 29(3), 246-263.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common
method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879.
Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1973). Organizational, work, and personal factors in
employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological bulletin, 80(2), 151.
Posner, B. Z. (1992). Person-organization values congruence: No support for individual
differences as a moderating influence. Human Relations, 45(4), 351-361.
Posner, B. Z., Kouzes, J. M., & Schmidt, W. H. (1985). Shared values make a difference:
An empirical test of corporate culture. Human Resource Management, 24(3), 293-309.
Powell, G. N. (1998). Reinforcing and extending today's organizations: The
simultaneous pursuit of person-organization fit and diversity. Organizational
Dynamics, 26(3), 50-61.
Quick, J. D., Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. C. (1987). Successful executives: How
independent?. Academy of Management Perspectives, 1(2), 139-145.
Ranstad Group (2017, May 17). Media release: Changing priorities for employees in
Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia. Retrieved July 30, 2017, from
https://www.randstad.com.hk/workforce360/articles/media-release-changing-
priorities-for-employees-in-singapore-hong-kong-and-malaysia
Raudenbush, S. W. (2004). What are value-added models estimating and what does this
imply for statistical practice?. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29(1),
121-129.
Reichers, A. E. (1987). An interactionist perspective on newcomer socialization rates.
The Academy of Management Review, 12, 278–287.
123
Reisel, W. D., Probst, T. M., Chia, S. L., Maloles, C. M., & König, C. J. (2010). The
effects of job insecurity on job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, deviant
behavior, and negative emotions of employees. International Studies of Management &
Organization, 40(1), 74-91.
Resick, C. J., Baltes, B. B., & Shantz, C. W. (2007). Person-organization fit and work-
related attitudes and decisions: examining interactive effects with job fit and
conscientiousness. Journal of applied psychology, 92(5), 1446.
Rich, G. A. (1997). The sales manager as a role model: Effects on trust, job satisfaction,
and performance of salespeople. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4),
319-328.
Roberts, L. M., Dutton, J. E., Spreitzer, G. M., Heaphy, E. D., & Quinn, R. E. (2005).
Composing the reflected best-self portrait: Building pathways for becoming
extraordinary in work organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 712-736.
Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative
science quarterly, 574-599.
Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (2000). The development of psychological contract
breach and violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21,
525–546.
Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, S. M., & Rousseau, M. D. (1994). Changing obligations and
the psychological contract: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 37,
137–151.
Ronen, S., Kraut, A. I., Lingoes, J. C., & Aranya, N. (1979). A nonmetric scaling
approach to taxonomies of employee work motivation. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 14(4), 387-401.
Ronen, S., & Sadan, S. (1984). Job attitudes among different occupational status groups:
An economic analysis. Work and Occupations, 11(1), 77-97.
124
Rosenblatt, Z., & A. Ruvio. (1996). A test of a multidimensional model of job insecurity:
The case of Israeli teachers . Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 587– 605.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199612)17: 1 +587::AID-JOB825 3.0.CO;2-S
Roskies, E., & Louis-Guerin, C. (1990). Job insecurity in managers: Antecedents and
consequences. Journal of organizational behavior, 11(5), 345-359.
Ross, W., & LaCroix, J. (1996). Multiple meanings of trust in negotiation theory and
research: A literature review and integrative model. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 7(4), 314-360.
Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of
Personality, 35, 651–665.
Rousseau, D. M. (1990). New hire perceptions of their own and their employer’s
obligations: A study of psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11,
389–400.
Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contract in organizations. Thousand oaks, CA:
Sage.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after
all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393–404.
Rynes, S. L., Brown, K. G., & Colbert, A. E. (2002). Seven common misconceptions
about human resource practices: Research findings versus practitioner beliefs.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 16(3), 92-103.
Rynes, S., & Gerhart, B. (1990). Interviewer assessments of applicant “fit”: An
exploratory investigation. Personnel psychology, 43(1), 13-35.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. 1997. Organizational socialization: Making sense of the
past and present as a prologue for the future. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51: 234-
279.
Sashkin, M., & Williams, R. L. (1990). Does fairness make a difference?.
Organizational Dynamics, 19(2), 56-71.
125
Scandura, T. A., & Pellegrini, E. K. (2007). Workplace mentoring: Theoretical
approaches and methodological issues. The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A
multiple perspectives approach, 71-91.
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition-based and affect-based
trust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 96(4), 863.
Schaubroeck, J. M., Peng, A. C., & Hannah, S. T. (2013). Developing trust with peers
and leaders: Impacts on organizational identification and performance during entry.
Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 1148-1168.
Schein, E. 2004. Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass
Schein, E. H. (1968). Organizational socialization and the profession of management.
IMR; Industrial Management Review (pre-1986), 9(2), 1.
Schein, E. H. (1971). The individual, the organization, and the career: A conceptual
scheme. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 7(4), 401-426.
Schlevogt, K. A. (2002). The art of Chinese management: Theory, evidence and
applications. Oxford University Press.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453.
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader-member exchange
(LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic
practices. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(1), 63-113.
Shaver, P. R., & Hazan, C. (1993). Adult romantic attachment: Theory and evidence.
Advances in personal relationships, 4, 29-70.
Shaw, J. D., Duffy, M. K., Johnson, J. L., & Lockhart, D. E. (2005). Turnover, social
capital losses, and performance. Academy of management Journal, 48(4), 594-606.
126
Shaw, J. D., Gupta, N., & Delery, J. E. (2005). Alternative conceptualizations of the
relationship between voluntary turnover and organizational performance. Academy of
management journal, 48(1), 50-68.
Shetzer, L. (1993). A social information processing model of employee participation.
Organization Science, 4(2), 252-268.
Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1994). The psychological contract as an explanatory
framework in the employment relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior (1986-
1998), 91.
Shoss, M. K. (2017). Job insecurity: An integrative review and agenda for future
research. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1911-1939.
Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. E. (1998). Attachment theory and close relationships.
Guilford Press.
Simons, T., & Peterson, R. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top
management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology,
85, 102–111.
Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N. L. (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic
“remedies” for trust/distrust. Organization science, 4(3), 367-392.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations
models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp.290-312). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Staufenbiel, T., & König, C. J. (2010). A model for the effects of job insecurity on
performance, turnover intention, and absenteeism. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 83, 101–117.
Sverke, M., & Hellgren, J. (2002). The nature of job insecurity: Understanding
employment uncertainty on the brink of a new millennium. Applied Psychology, 51,
23–42.
127
Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., & Näswall, K. (2002). No security: A meta-analysis and
review of job insecurity and its consequences. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 7, 242–264.
Tekleab, A. G., & Taylor, M. S. (2003). Aren't there two parties in an employment
relationship? Antecedents and consequences of organization–employee agreement on
contract obligations and violations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(5), 585-608.
Tekleab, A. G., Orvis, K. A., & Taylor, M. S. (2013). Deleterious consequences of
change in newcomers’ employer-based psychological contract obligations. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 28, 361–374.
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover
intention: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46,
259–293.
Tikanmaki, A. K. (2002). The impact of person-organization fit and perceptions of
justice on employee organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and trust towards
management after an acquisition. National Library of Canada= Bibliothèque nationale
du Canada.
Thomas, H. D. C., & Anderson, N. (1998). Changes in newcomers’ psychological
contracts during organizational socialization: A study of recruits entering the British
Army. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 745–67.
Trevor, C. O. (2001). Interactive effects among actual ease of movement determinants
and job satisfaction in the prediction of voluntary turnover. Academy of Management
Journal, 44, 621–638.
Trimble, D. E. (2006). ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT, JOB SATISFACTION,
AND TURNOVER INTENTION OF MISSIONARIES. Journal of Psychology &
Theology, 34(4).
Turban, D. B., & Keon, T. L. (1993). Organizational attractiveness: An interactionist
perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 184.
128
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances
in experimental social psychology, 25, 115-191.
Tziner, A. (1987). Congruency issue retested using Fineman's achievement climate
notion. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2(1), 63.
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. 1979. Towards a theory of organizational socialization.
In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 1: 209–264. Greenwich,
CT: JAI.
Van Vianen, A. E. (2000). Person-organization fit: The match between newcomers’ and
recruiters’ preferences for organizational cultures. Personnel Psychology, 53, 113–149
Van Vianen, A. E., Shen, C. T., & Chuang, A. (2011). Person–organization and person–
supervisor fits: Employee commitments in a Chinese context. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 32(6), 906-926.
Vancouver, J. B., Millsap, R. E., & Peters, P. A. (1994). Multilevel analysis of
organizational goal congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 666.
Vancouver, J. B., & Schmitt, N. W. (1991). An exploratory examination of person‐
organization fit: Organizational goal congruence. Personnel psychology, 44(2), 333-
352.
Vander Elst, T., De Witte, H., & De Cuyper, N. (2014). The Job Insecurity Scale: A
psychometric evaluation across five European countries. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 23(3), 364-380.
Vandenberghe, C. (1999). Organizational culture, person–culture fit, and turnover: A
replication in the health care industry. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The
International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and
Behavior, 20(2), 175-184.
Verquer, M. L., Beehr, T. A., & Wagner, S. H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations
between person–organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of vocational behavior,
63(3), 473-489.
129
Wang, H. J., Lu, C. Q., & Siu, O. L. (2015). Job insecurity and job performance: The
moderating role of organizational justice and the mediating role of work
engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1249.
Wall, T. D., Cordery, J. L., & Clegg, C. W. (2002). Empowerment, performance, and
operational uncertainty: A theoretical integration. Applied Psychology, 51(1), 146-169.
Walsh, W. B. (1987). Person-environment congruence: A response to the Moos
perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31(3), 347-352.
Watrous, K. M., Huffman, A. H., & Pritchard, R. D. (2006). When coworkers and
managers quit: The effects of turnover and shared values on performance. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 21(1), 103-126.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support
and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management
journal, 40(1), 82-111.
Wells, J. E., & Welty Peachey, J. (2011). Turnover intentions: do leadership behaviors
and satisfaction with the leader matter?. Team Performance Management: An
International Journal, 17(1/2), 23-40.
Wen, Y., Zhu, F., & Liu, L. (2016). PERSON-ORGANIZATION FIT AND
TURNOVER INTENTION: PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY AS A MODERATOR.
Social Behavior and Personality, 44(8), 1233-1242.
West, D. M. (2018). Will robots and AI take your job? The economic and political
consequences of automation. Brookings Institue. Retrieved from
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2018/04/18/will-robots-and-ai-take-your-
job-the-economic-and-political-consequences-of-automation/
Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers as
initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial
trustworthy behavior. Academy of management review, 23(3), 513-530.
Williams, M. (2001). In whom we trust: Group membership as an affective context for
trust development. Academy of Management Review, 26, 377–396.
130
Willis, R. (1987). What's happening to America's middle managers?. Management
Review, 76(1), 24-33.
Witt, L. A., Kacmar, K. M., & Andrews, M. C. (2001). The interactive effects of
procedural justice and exchange ideology on supervisor‐rated commitment. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 22(5), 505-515.
Wong, A., & Sohal, A. (2002). An examination of the relationship between trust,
commitment and relationship quality. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, 30(1), 34-50.
Xue, Y., Bradley, J., & Liang, H. (2011). Team climate, empowering leadership, and
knowledge sharing. Journal of knowledge management.
Yang, J., Mossholder, K. W., & Peng, T. K. (2009). Supervisory procedural justice
effects: The mediating roles of cognitive and affective trust. The Leadership Quarterly,
20(2), 143-154.
Yang, S., & Zheng, L. 2015. Perceived job insecurity of white and black workers: An
expanded gap in organizations with layoff prevention commitment. Sociological
Spectrum, 35: 483-503.
Young, L., & Daniel, K. (2003). Affectual trust in the workplace. International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 14(1), 139-155.
Yukl, G. A., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership in
organizations. u: Dunnete MD i Hough LM [ur.] Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology, Palo Alto.
Zand, D. E. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 17, 229–239.
Zhang, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., Song, L. J., Li, C., & Jia, L. (2008). How do I trust thee?
The employee‐organization relationship, supervisory support, and middle manager
trust in the organization. Human Resource Management: Published in Cooperation
with the School of Business Administration, The University of Michigan and in
131
alliance with the Society of Human Resources Management, 47(1), 111-132.
Zhao, H. A. O., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of
psychological contract breach on work‐related outcomes: a meta‐analysis. Personnel
psychology, 60(3), 647-680.
132
APPENDICES
Appendix A—Summary of Measurement Items
Cognition-based trust (McAllister’s, 1995)
Scale Item Questions
CTrust1 1. My supervisor approaches his/her, job with professionalism and dedication.
CTrust2
2. Given my supervisor’s track record, I see no reason to doubt his/her competence and
preparation for the job.
CTrust3 3. I can rely on my supervisor not to make my job more difficult by careless work.
CTrust4
4. Most people, even those who aren’t close friends of my supervisor, trust and respect him/her
as a coworker.
CTrust5
5. Other work associates of mine who must interact with my supervisor consider him/her to
be trustworthy.
CTrust6
6. If senior leaders knew more about my supervisor and his/her background, they would be
less concerned and monitor his/her performance less closely.
Affect-based trust (McAllister’s, 1995)
Scale Item Questions
ATrust1
1. I have a sharing relationship with my supervisor. We can both freely share our ideas,
feelings, and hopes.
ATrust2
2. I can talk freely to my supervisor about difficulties I’m having at work and know that he/she
will want to listen.
ATrust3
3. We would both feel a sense of loss, if one of us was transferred and we could no longer
work together.
ATrust4
4. If I shared my problems with my supervisor, I know he/she would respond constructively
and caringly.
ATrust5
5. I would have to say that we have both made considerable emotional investments in our
working relationship.
Job insecurity (Caplan, 1975)
Scale Item Questions
JI1 1. I am certain about my future career picture looks like in the current organization.
JI2
2. I am certain about the opportunities for promotion and advancement will exist in the next
few years.
JI3 3. I am certain about my job skills will be of use and value 5 years from now.
JI4 4. I am certain about what my responsibilities will be 6 months from now.
133
Person-Organization Fit (Resick et al., 2007)
Scale Item Questions
POFit1 1. I think the values and personality of this company reflect my own values and personality.
POFit2 2. The values of this company are similar to my own values.
POFit3 3. I feel my personality matches the ‘personality’ or image of this company.
POFit4 4. My personality is similar to the employees I work with in this company.
POFit5 5. I share a lot in common with people who work for this company.
Turnover Intention (Cammann et al,1979).
Scale Item Questions
Turnover1 1. I am often considering quitting the current job.
Turnover2 2. It is very possible that I will look for a new job soon.
Turnover3 3. I will have a short career in this company.
Turnover4 4. If I continue to work in this company, my future will not be promising.
134
Appendix B – Sample Questionnaire
Dear Respondents,
Thank you for participating the Phase 1 & 2 survey of my doctoral degree study
at the Hong Kong Baptist University. The purpose of this study is to learn about
your ideas of your supervisor’s leadership and your job attitudes.
Information
This is a 3-phase study and you’re currently in Phase 3. Kindly spend about
5 minutes to answer the following 40 questions according to your immediate
judgment. There is no right or wrong answer in this survey.
Confidentiality
All the data collected in this survey will be treated strictly CONFIDENTIAL by
this research and solely used for academic purposes. My analysis will be based
on the overall data instead of individual data as I will combine the data you
provide with the responses from other participants in my data analysis. However,
given the research is conducted over the internet, I cannot 100% guarantee
confidentiality during the period that the data is still on the internet, e.g. hacker
attack to the Qualtrics survey system.
Compensation
An HK$100 E-Cash Coupon will be sent to your email address as a token,
after your successful submission of this survey in Q4 2019.
Contact
If you have questions at any time about the study or the procedures, you may
contact the researcher Simon Wong at [email protected]. If you feel
you have not been treated according to the descriptions above, or your rights
as a participant in research have been violated during the course of this project,
you may contact the Research Ethics Committee by email at
[email protected] or by mail to Graduate School, Hong Kong Baptist
University, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong.
Participation
Your participation in this study is voluntary, you may decline to participate
without penalty. This letter also serves as a consent-to-participate form.
Completing the survey means you have read and understood the above terms
and agree to participate in the study. Please complete the survey on or before
30 Jul 2019. I greatly appreciate your assistance.
135
Best regards,
Simon Wong
DBA candidate, Hong Kong Baptist University
Part I
Please circle the numbers that fits your feeling most
(during the past month) in the right according to the
description.
1-6: Cognition-based trust (McAllister’s, 1995)
1-5: Affect-based trust (McAllister’s, 1995)
Stro
ng
ly D
isa
gre
e
Di
sa
gr
ee
Ne
ut
ra
l
Ag
re
e
Str
on
gly
A
gr
ee
1. My supervisor approaches his/her, job with professionalism
and dedication. 1 2 3 4 5
2. Given my supervisor’s track record, I see no reason to
doubt his/her competence and preparation for the job. 1 2 3 4 5
3. I can rely on my supervisor not to make my job more
difficult by careless work. 1 2 3 4 5
4. Most people, even those who aren’t close friends of my
supervisor, trust and respect him/her as a coworker. 1 2 3 4 5
5. Other work associates of mine who must interact with my
supervisor consider him/her to be trustworthy. 1 2 3 4 5
6. If senior leaders knew more about my supervisor and
his/her background, they would be less concerned and
monitor his/her performance less closely.
1 2 3 4 5
1. I have a sharing relationship with my supervisor. We can
both freely share our ideas, feelings, and hopes. 1 2 3 4 5
2. I can talk freely to my supervisor about difficulties I’m
having at work and know that he/she will want to listen. 1 2 3 4 5
3. We would both feel a sense of loss, if one of us was
transferred and we could no longer work together. 1 2 3 4 5
4. If I shared my problems with my supervisor, I know he/she
would respond constructively and caringly. 1 2 3 4 5
5. I would have to say that we have both made considerable
emotional investments in our working relationship. 1 2 3 4 5
136
Please choose the answer that best describes you
according to the description (during the past month).
1-4: Job insecurity (Caplan, 1975)
St
ro
ng
ly
Di
sa
gr
ee
Di
sa
gr
ee
Ne
ut
ra
l
Ag
re
e
Str
on
gly
Ag
re
e
1. I am certain about my future career picture looks like in the
current organization. 1 2 3 4 5
2. I am certain about the opportunities for promotion and
advancement will exist in the next few years. 1 2 3 4 5
3. I am certain about my job skills will be of use and value 5
years from now. 1 2 3 4 5
4. I am certain about what my responsibilities will be 6
months from now. 1 2 3 4 5
Please choose the answer that best describes you
according to the description (during the past month).
1-5: Person-Organization Fit (Resick et al., 2007)
1-4: Turnover Intention (Cammann et al,1979).
St
ro
ng
ly
Di
sa
gr
ee
Di
sa
gr
ee
Ne
ut
ra
l
Ag
re
e
Stro
ng
ly A
gre
e
1. I think the values and personality of this company reflect
my own values and personality. 1 2 3 4 5
2. The values of this company are similar to my own values. 1 2 3 4 5
3. I feel my personality matches the ‘personality’ or image of
this company. 1 2 3 4 5
4. My personality is similar to the employees I work with in
this company. 1 2 3 4 5
5. I share a lot in common with people who work for this
company. 1 2 3 4 5
137
1. I am often considering quitting the current job. 1 2 3 4 5
2. It is very possible that I will look for a new job soon. 1 2 3 4 5
3. I will have a short career in this company. 1 2 3 4 5
4. If I continue to work in this company, my future will not be
promising. 1 2 3 4 5
Please choose the answer that best describes you
according to the description (during the past month).
1-6: Affective Organization Commitment (Meyer & Allen,
1997)
Stro
ng
ly D
isa
gre
e
Di
sa
gr
ee
Ne
ut
ra
l
Ag
re
e
St
ro
ng
ly
A
gr
ee
1. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career in
this organization. 1 2 3 4 5
2. I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own. 1 2 3 4 5
3. I do feel like “part of the family” at my organization. 1 2 3 4 5
4. I do feel “emotionally attached” to this organization. 1 2 3 4 5
5. This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for
me. 1 2 3 4 5
6. I do feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization. 1 2 3 4 5
138
Part II
1.Your Gender is □Male □Female
2.Your Age is □<=30 □31-35 □36-40 □41-45
□46-50
□51-55 □56-60 □>=61
3.Your highest
Education level is
□Form 5/ Form 7 □Diploma □Bachelor
Degree
□Master Degree □Doctoral Degree
4. Your Monthly
Salary is HKD:
□<30k □30-39k □40-49k □50-59k
□60-69k
□70-79k □80-89k □90-99k □>100k
5.Your current job
Title is:
□ (Asst/Senior) Executive □ (Asst/Senior) Officer
□ (Associate/Senior) Manager □ (Senior)
Director □ Head of Function □ (Vice)
President □ Executive Director □ Others:____
6.Your current job
Function is:
□ Sales □ Marketing □ Supply Chain □
Finance □ Human Resources □ Administration
□ Information Technology (IT) □ Legal □ Customer
Service □ Engineering □ Research & Development
(R&D) □ General Management □ Others:____
7.The total
Headcount of your
current company in
Hong Kong is:
□<50 □50-99 □100-249 □250-499
□500-999
□>1000
5. Your total tenure
in your current
Employer is:
______ Months (please fill in a number)
6. Your total tenure
in your current
Position is:
______ Months (please fill in a number)
7. Your total tenure
with your current
Supervisor is:
______ Months (please fill in a number)
8. Have you changed
your Employer /
Supervisor in the
past month ?
□ Yes □ No
139
CURRICULUM VITAE
Academic qualifications of the thesis author, Mr. Wong Ho:
Received a Bachelor’s degree in Business Administration from Xiamen University, July
2005
Received a Master’s degree in Business Administration from South China University
of Technology, July 2008
November 2020