1

Turnover Intention for Knowledge Workers: The Effects of Core Self-Evaluations,

Proactive Personality, Perceived Organizational Support, Developmental Feedback, and

Job Complexity

Baek-Kyoo (Brian) Joo

Winona State University

Somsen 302

Winona, MN 55987-5838

bjoo@winona.edu

Huh Jung Hahn

University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

330 Wulling Hall

86 Pleasant St. S.E.

Minneapolis, MN 55455

hahnx225@umn.edu

Shari Peterson

University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

410J Wulling Hall

86 Pleasant St. S.E.

Minneapolis, MN 55455

peter007@umn,edu

Submission type: Refereed Paper

Keywords: turnover intention, knowledge workers

Copyright © 2014 Baek-Kyoo Joo, Huh Jung Hahn, & Shari Peterson

2

Abstract

Despite extensive examination of the predictors for turnover and turnover intention, most studies

have focused on attitudinal and behavioral aspects of individual employees. Based on the study

of knowledge workers in a Korean conglomerate, we investigated the effects of personal (i.e.,

core self-evaluations and proactive personality) and contextual factors (i.e., perceived

organizational support, developmental feedback, and job complexity) on turnover intention. All

the factors, except for proactive personality, were significant. Knowledge workers with higher

core self-evaluations show lower level of turnover intention. Managers and HR/OD professionals

could play a pivotal role for retention of these knowledge workers by building better practices

for organizational culture, providing job redesign, and employee developmental practices such as

coaching and mentoring practices.

3

Turnover Intention for Knowledge Workers: The Effects of Perceived Organizational

Support, Developmental Feedback, Job Complexity, Core Self-Evaluations, and Proactive

Personality

Human resource development (HRD) can play a pivotal role in attracting, motivating, and

retaining talented employees, thus, leading to a sustained competitiveness in the long run (Joo &

McLean, 2006). Furthermore, engaged employees with relevant knowledge and skills are

regarded as essential to an organization’s performance and success; therefore, retention of these

valued employees is essential (Mayfield & Mayfield, 2008). For decades, turnover intention has

been established as the strongest predictor of turnover in multiple fields (Egan, Yang, & Bartlett

2004; Joo, 2010; Michaels & Spector, 1982; Steel & Ovalle, 1984; Tett & Meyer, 1993).

In their meta-analysis of turnover issues in the IT industry, Joseph, Ng, Koh, C., and Ang

(2007) summarized extant theories of turnover. For instance, March and Simon's (1958)

organizational equilibrium theory of turnover, which is similar to the traditional equity theory, is

the foundation of most turnover theory. Building on this theory, Porter and Steers (1973)

proposed the met expectations theory of turnover, which is based on expectancy theory of

motivation. Mobley (1977) also extended March and Simon's theory, positing the linkage model

that explicated the withdrawal cognition and job search behaviors between job satisfaction and

turnover.

However, there continues to be a theory-practice divide in terms of recognizing the need

to retain valuable and skilled employees without a better understanding of what predicts their

intention to leave the organization—even after decades of study. With regard to the previous

research on turnover, Barak, Nissly, and Levin (2001) suggested three major categories of

turnover antecedents: (a) demographic factors, both personal and work-related; (b) professional

4

perceptions, including organizational commitment and job satisfaction; and (c) organizational

conditions, such as fairness with respect to compensation and organizational culture. It appears

that greater attention needs to be given to inclusively identifying the influence of both personal

and contextual factors on employees’ turnover intentions.

In a subsequent meta-analysis of turnover research, Griffeth et al. (2000) reported that few

demographic attributes meaningfully predicted turnover. According to previous studies, factors

influencing turnover intention included career decision-making self-efficacy (Peterson, 2009),

personality (Allen, Weeks, & Moffitt, 2005), job satisfaction (e.g., Egan et al., 2004; Tett &

Meyer, 1993; Valentine et al., 2011), organizational commitment (Cole & Brunch, 2006;

DeConinck & Bachmann, 2011; Joo, 2010), employee engagement (Bothma & Roodt, 2012),

and job performance (Salamin & Hom, 2005; Yi, Y., Nataraajan, R., & Gong, T., 2011). As

Griffeth et al. (2000) also noted, there were few studies using personality predictors, with the

exception of Digman (1990) and Barrick and Mount (1996); these studies examined the effects

of the Big Five personality factors on turnover. The current study investigated the roles of

emerging personality factors such as core self-evaluations, proactive personality, and goal

orientations.

Focusing overwhelmingly on individual characteristics, most models have not adequately

addressed the effect of organizational factors in contributing to the individual’s decision to stay

or leave (see reviews by Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000; Hom & Griffeth, 1995; Mowday,

Porter, & Steers, 1982; Peterson, 2004). Terborg and Lee (1984) and Shaw et al. (1998) called

for rigorous research to explicitly consider organizational level variables as predictors of

turnover.

5

Beyond personal attitudinal factors, organizationally-focused dimensions also have been

found to be related to predictors of turnover. For example, studies have identified the relationship

between employee turnover and supervisor support (Maertz et al., 2007), work environment

(Perryer et al., 2010), and work culture (Peterson, 2009). Considering that each of these factors is

a key determinant in employees’ actual decisions to stay or leave, understanding the influence of

personal and contextual factors on employees’ turnover intention is key. For example, practices

of organizational justice or fairness could be a strong factor influencing employee retention.

Since fair treatment by employees connotes that they value employees and care about their well-

being (Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000). When employees perceive organizational support, they

develop stronger organizational commitment (Shore & Wayne, 1993). Among other contextual

factors, the current study examines the effects of perceived organizational support, job

complexity, and developmental feedback on turnover intention.

Research Purpose and Questions

The purpose of the current study was to identify the impact of selected personal

characteristics and contextual characteristics on managerial employees’ turnover intentions. The

research question was: what is the relationship between employees’ (a) core self-evaluation, (b)

proactive personality, (c) perceived organizational support, (d) developmental feedback, and (e)

job complexity, and the outcome variable, turnover intention? Thus, the theoretical contribution

lies first in this more comprehensive approach, which identifies the impact of both selected

personal and contextual characteristics on turnover intentions. Secondly, these specific variables

have not been seen together in the turnover literature to date.

Following is a discussion of the theoretical framework that supports the five hypotheses.

Then, research methods, including data collection and measures, are described. Research

6

findings are reported and discussed. Finally, limitations are identified, and implications for

further research and HRD practice are offered.

Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses

The constructs core self-evaluations, proactive personality, perceived organizational

support, developmental feedback, and job complexity were reviewed to identify the relationship

between those constructs and turnover intention among managerial employees. Five hypotheses

were derived based on the literature review on those constructs.

Core Self-Evaluations

Core self-evaluations refer to a single, higher-order concept of individuals’ fundamental

appraisals of their self-worth and capabilities (Judge et al., 1998; 2002). According to Judge et al.

(1997), core self-evaluations comprise four core dispositional traits: self-esteem, generalized

self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability. Thus, the higher the CSE score, the higher

each trait of a positive self-concept will be (Judge et al., 2003).

Core self-evaluations originally were suggested to explain dispositional influences on job

satisfaction (Chang et al., 2012; Judge et al., 1998). A number of investigations have suggested a

positive relationship between CSE and job satisfaction (e.g., Bono & Judge, 2003; Judge et al.,

2005; Wu & Griffin, 2012). Since job satisfaction has been a critical factor in predicting turnover

intention for decades (Egan et al., 2004; Lambert, Hogan, & Barton, 2001; Mobley, 1977; Tett &

Meyer, 1993), investigating the direct relationship between core self-evaluations and turnover

intention would be worthwhile. Moreover, a recent meta-analysis of core self-evaluations (Chang

et al., 2012) identified that core self-evaluations is negatively related to turnover intention.

Individuals with high core self-evaluations concentrated more on the positive aspects of their

environment and less on negative aspects (Ferris et al., 2011), and thus were more satisfied with

7

their working conditions.

H1. Core self-evaluations will be negatively related to turnover intention.

Proactive Personality

Bateman and Crant (1993) introduced proactive personality as a construct that

represented individual differences in people’s tendencies to take action to change their current

situations. More specifically, proactive individuals were more likely to actively look for

opportunities and to manipulate the environment in order to achieve their goals (Bateman &

Crant, 1993; Crant, 2000). Conversely, less proactive individuals were more likely to be passive,

letting events occur and then reacting to the changes (Bateman & Crant, 1993).

Individuals with proactive personalities appeared not to decide easily whether or not to

stay in the organization when confronted with unfavorable situations. Rather, they tended to

overcome the situational constraints and influence the changed environment (Bateman & Crant,

1993), persisting with problem-solving activities until their objectives were achieved (Crant,

2000).

H2. Proactive personality will be negatively related to turnover intention.

Perceived Organizational Support (POS)

Perceived organizational support (POS) is defined as general beliefs regarding the extent

to which employees perceive that their organization values their contributions and pays attention

to their well-being (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Derived from social exchange theory (Blau, 1964)

and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), POS explains the reason why employees exhibit

positive behaviors towards their organization such as organizational commitment and loyalty.

When the organization provides benefits to its employees, those employees reciprocate (Eder,

2008). For example, employees who perceive the organization has treated them in a positive way

8

are more likely to be attached and remain with the organization. Conversely, if employees

perceive that the organization has not treated them in a positive way, they are less likely to be

attached and remain with the organization. In their meta-analysis, Rhoades and Eisenberger

(2002) demonstrated the negative relationship between POS and turnover intention. More

recently, Perryer, et al. (2010) and Arshadi (2011) supported that POS negatively influenced

employees’ intentions to quit. More specific to knowledge workers, the current study measures

the extent to which organizational cultures support a culture of creativity and innovation.

H3. Perceived organizational support will be negatively related to turnover intention.

Developmental Feedback

Developmental feedback refers to the extent to which supervisors offer employees

helpful and useful information that facilitates their employees’ learning and development on the

job (Zhou, 2003). According to Zhou, 2003, developmental feedback is future oriented;

supervisors provide their direct reports with appropriate information related to their job

performance in the future with no pressure for a specific consequence. This approach is in

contrast to traditional performance feedback that focuses on the completion and improvement of

the current tasks. These informational practices enhance intrinsic motivation which leads to a

higher level of interest in the task itself and orientation toward learning and improvement (Zhou,

2003).

According to Harris, Boswell, and Xie (2011), supervisors’ developmental feedback

promoted devotion to the task with greater duration, intensity, and persistence among newcomers.

Moreover, Joo and Park, 2010 noted that supervisors’ developmental feedback facilitated

employees’ learning and development, signaling support to employees regarding their future at

the organization.

9

H4. Developmental feedback will be negatively related to turnover intention.

Job Complexity

Job design has been considered a significant predictor of employee motivation, attitudes,

and creative performance at work (Amabile, 1988; Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Shalley, Zhou, &

Oldham, 2004). According to the Job Characteristic Model (Hackman & Oldham, 1980), jobs

have five dimensions: skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback.

Those five dimensions lead to higher levels of work motivation by generating individuals’

psychological states such as experienced meaningfulness of the work, experienced responsibility

for the work outcomes, and knowledge of the results of the work activities (Chung-Yan, 2010,

p.238). Complex jobs are mentally challenging and require utilizing a number of complex skills

(Chung-Yan, 2010), and stimulate excitement and interest (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Oldham

& Cummings, 1996).

Thus, in general, job complexity is considered a positive aspect of work (Chung-Yan,

2010). In a meta-analysis, Humphrey et al. (2007) supported this position, finding that job

complexity was positively associated with internal work motivation, organizational commitment,

job satisfaction, job involvement, and job performance. Consistent with Humphrey et al.,

Grebner et al. (2003) found that job complexity negatively predicted intention to quit. To

complete a complex task, individuals are required to find novel approaches or optimal solutions

to problems rather than operating according to standard procedures with existing work methods

(Man & Lam, 2003). In a knowledge society, those activities might motivate workers to adhere

to the current job. Thus, job complexity is considered to be an important predictor of turnover

intention.

H5. Job complexity will be negatively related to turnover intention.

10

Methods

This section includes an identification of the sample and brief description of the data

collection methods. Then each of the instruments, identifying the five instruments used to

measure each of the independent variables, and the single instrument used to measure the

dependent variable, intention to leave the organization will be described.

Data Collection and Sample Demographics

A cross-sectional survey was used to obtain individual perceptions of knowledge workers

employed in a Korean conglomerate. This conglomerate is a Fortune Global 100 company. Six

questionnaires were distributed to 340 employees, and 291 were returned, yielding a final

response rate of 85.6%.

Demographic variables included (a) gender, (b) age, (c) education level, (d) hierarchical

level, (e) type of job, and (f) length of a leader-follower relationship. Most respondents were

male (88%) in their 30’s (95%) in managerial or assistant managerial positions (98%). In terms

of educational level, 44% of the respondents graduated from a four-year college and 34% from

graduate school. The length of the relationships with the current supervisor was evenly

distributed across the following categories: less than one year (21%), between one year and two

years (24%), between two and three years (16%), between three and five years (20%), and over

five years (19%). Classification by job type was as follows: 8% in marketing and sales; 13% in

production; 9% in engineering; 37% in research and development; 18% in information

technology; 6% in supporting functions such as finance, HR, and legal; and 9% in other. In

summary, most respondents were highly educated male managers or assistant managers in their

30’s.

Measures

11

Six instruments were distributed, all of which had shown acceptable levels of reliability

and validity in previous research. Each survey was based on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging

from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Core self-evaluations. This 12-item Core Self-Evaluations Scale (CSES) developed by

Judge, Erez, Bono, and Thoresen (2003) is a composite of four core traits: self-esteem,

generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability. Judge et al. (2003) provided

evidence of a unitary factor structure and psychometric support for this scale. Instead of

measuring the four specific traits separately and weighting the scores, the scale is a direct and

relatively brief measure of an individual’s core personality. The reliability for the 12 items

was .81 in this study. Sample items included “Overall, I am satisfied with myself,” and “I

determine what will happen in my life.”

Proactive personality. The self-report measure of proactive personality was a 10-item

scale of the Proactive Personality Survey (PPS) (Siebert et al., 1999), a shortened version of the

instrument originally developed by Bateman and Crant (1993). The reliability coefficient of the

10-item scale was .86, which was similar to that of the full version (.88) (Siebert et al., 1999). In

the current study, the first item, “I am constantly on the lookout for new ways to improve my

life,” was omitted because this question was too generic and might have lead to negative cultural

nuances in South Korea. The internal reliability of nine items was .83 in the current study. A

sample item was: “I excel at identifying opportunities.”

Perceived organizational support. Zhou and George (2001) utilized four items from

Scott and Bruce’s (1994) measure for perceived organizational support for creativity ( = .84).

This construct measures the extent to which an organizational culture supports a system for

creativity and innovation. The internal reliability was .88 in the current study. A sample item was:

12

“The reward system here encourages innovation.”

Developmental feedback. All three items of the Developmental Feedback Scale (Zhou,

2003) were used. Although the internal reliability was .82 in the current study, Zhou (2003) had

reported it to be .86. A sample item was: “While giving me feedback, my supervisor focuses on

helping me to learn and improve.”

Job complexity. Six items from the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) (Hackman & Oldham,

1980) were used to assess the challenges and complexity of employees’ jobs. Originally, this

instrument was composed of 15 items: three items for each of the five job characteristics (skill

variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback). The median alpha of the job

characteristics measures in Oldham and Cummings’ (1996) study was .68. Researchers in

previous studies argued that the sub-constructs of job characteristics were not independent of one

another (Dunham, 1976; Kulik, Oldham & Langner, 1988; Pierce & Dunham, 1978). Therefore,

in the current study, only six items were used—task significance (3 items) and autonomy (3

items)—because these items were deemed to be most appropriate for measuring job complexity.

The internal consistency reliability was .77 in the current study. A sample item included, “the job

gives me considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do the work.”

Turnover intention. A three-item scale developed by Mobley et al (1978) was used for

this study to measure turnover intention. The three items were distinctive from each other in their

factor analysis. In the current study, the reliability was .89. An example of one item is, “As soon

as I can find a better job, I’ll leave the organization.”

Results

The results of the study are reported in four parts. First, the construct validity of each

measurement model was examined using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Second, the

13

descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities of the reduced measurement model analyses

are reported. Third, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted. Multiple

regression analysis is appropriate when a single metric dependent variable is hypothesized to

have relationships with two or more metric independent variables (Howell, 2007; Kline, 2005;

Siegel, 2003).

Measurement Model Assessment

An overall CFA was conducted to estimate the quality of the factor structure and

designated factor loadings by statistically testing the fit between a proposed measurement model

and the data (Yang, 2005). The CFA was used to estimate the convergent and discriminate

validity of the six constructs: (a) core self-evaluation, (b) proactive personality, (c) perceived

organizational support, (d) developmental feedback, and (e) job complexity, and the outcome

variable, (f) turnover intention. The goodness-of-fit indices used in this study include: chi-square

( ),root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), normed fit index (NFI), non-normed fit

index (NNFI), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR).

Table 1.

Evaluation of the Measurement Model

df /df RMSEA NFI NNFI SRMR

679.83** 284 2.39 .069 .94 .96 .050

Note. ** p < .01

Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliabilities.

Table 2 presents the correlations among the six constructs and the reliabilities. Overall,

most correlations showed moderate and positive relationships among the four constructs. All the

contextual factors turned out to be significant. With regard to personality factors, whereas core

14

self-evaluations was a significant predictor of turnover intension, proactive personality turned

out to be non-significant. All measures demonstrated adequate levels of reliability (.77 - .89).

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics, Correlations and Reliabilities

Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Perceived organizational

support

3.11 .82 (.88)

2. Developmental feedback 3.29 .77 .41** (.82)

3. Job complexity 3.70 .55 .29** .38** (.77)

4. Core self-evaluations 3.47 .48 .04 .28** .33** (.81)

5. Proactive personality 3.64 .49 .28** .26** .38** .45** (.83)

6. Turnover intention 3.08 .99 -.26** -.21* -.24** -.15* -.11 (.89)

Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; N = 291

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis

Table 3 shows the results of hierarchical multiple regression analysis of turnover

intention. Overall, demographic variables, personality, and contextual factors accounted for 9%

of the variance in turnover intention. In step 1, in order to control demographic variables, gender,

age, education, hierarchical level, and the length of a leader-follower relationship were entered.

Among the demographic variables, none was found to be significant. In step 2, the main effects

of personal characteristics (i.e., core self-evaluations and proactive personality) explained an

additional 3% of the variance in turnover intention. However, the F-value turned out to be non-

significant. In step 3, as a result of entering a second main effect, contextual factors (i.e.,

perceived organizational support, developmental feedback, and job complexity), the adjusted R2

15

accounted for an additional 7%. Finally, in step 4, the moderation effects of personal and

contextual factors were examined. None of the moderation effects were significant (R2 = -.01).

Table 3.

Hierarchical multiple regression results for turnover intention

Turnover Intention

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Step 1: Demographic variables

Gender

Age

Education

Job level

Tenure

.07

-.03

-.06

-.05

.06

.06

-.05

-.02

-.04

.06

.05

-.03

-.02

-.03

.06

.05

-.03

-.02

-.03

.06

Step 2: Personal factors

Core self-evaluations (CSE)

Proactive personality (PP)

-.20**

.02

-.20

.13

-.32

.01

Step 3: Contextual factors

Perceived organizational support (POS)

Developmental feedback (DF)

Job complexity (JC)

-.21**

-.02

-.15*

-.17

-.31

-.22

Step 4: Interaction Effects

CSE * POS

CSE * DF

CSE * JC

PP * POS

PP * DF

PP * JC

-.22

-.17

.51

.18

.53

-.35

F-value .67 1.80 3.57** 2.28**

Adjusted R2 -.01 .02 .09 .08

∆R2 - .03 .07 -.01

Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01

Discussion

16

The findings of this study are discussed on the basis of the conceptual model compared

with previous research. Then, implications of this study for research and practice in the field of

HRD will be offered followed by limitations of the study and concluding remarks.

Research Findings

This empirical study of knowledge workers in a Korean conglomerate investigated

personal antecedents (core self-evaluations and proactive personality) and contextual antecedents

(perceived organizational support, developmental feedback, and job characteristics) as they

related to turnover intention. As Lewin (1947) suggested, the formula B = f (P, E), human

behavior (B) can be explained as a function (f) of the combination of one’s personal

characteristics (P) and one’s perception of the environment (E) (as cited in Burke, 2002). We

found, in terms of the correlation coefficient, all contextual factors were modest but significant

predictors of turnover intention.

More specifically for contextual factors, given their perceived organizational support for

creativity and innovation, these Korean knowledge workers tended to imply that they would stay

in an organization as long as they perceived that the company cared about their well-being and

encouraged creativity and innovation and as long as their jobs are challenging and motivating.

Based on the classic job characteristics model (Hackman & Oldham, 1980), and as the result of

Humphrey et al.’s (2007) meta-analysis, a number of researchers found that complex jobs for

knowledge workers that require more autonomy and significance are positively associated with

internal work motivation, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, job involvement, and job

performance. Thus, we conclude that complex jobs would lead to less turnover intention for

knowledge workers. Last, developmental feedback from supervisors turned out to be non-

significant as a regression analysis, but, in terms of correlation coefficient, it was a mediocre but

17

significant predictor for turnover intention. Thus, supportive leadership including coaching and

mentoring practices would help retention of knowledge workers in a Korean context.

With regards to personal characteristics, supporting a recent meta-analysis of core self-

evaluations (Chang et al., 2012), core self-evaluations was negatively related to turnover

intention. Individuals with high core self-evaluations concentrated more on the positive aspects

of their environment and less on negative aspects (Ferris et al., 2011), and thus were more

satisfied with their working conditions. That is, employees with a high level of core self-

evaluations intended to stay longer,

While core self-evaluations was a significant predictor of turnover intention, proactive

personality turned out to be non-significant. It is noted that the respondents are knowledge

workers in one of the best companies in terms of corporate reputation and HR practices in Korea.

That is, they are expected to have less intention to leave this organization, because they could

hardly find comparable employers in Korean labor market that is characterized as less mobile

than Western countries. This could be one reason why personality was not a significant

determinant of turnover. Further studies are recommended in the Korean context as well as other

non-Western contexts.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

With regard to theoretical contributions, this study integrated personality (i.e., core self-

evaluations and proactive personality), organizational culture (i.e., perceived organizational

support), leadership (i.e., developmental feedback), job design (i.e., job complexity), and

turnover research. Despite extensive investigations of the antecedents of turnover intention over

multiple decades, most studies have focused on attitudinal and behavioral aspects of individual

employees such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Peterson (2004) proposed an

18

organizational model of employee persistence that encompasses personal characteristics,

organizational, performance, career, and extra-organizational factors. However, in general, there

has been a lack of attention to identify inclusively the influence of both personal and contextual

factors on employees’ turnover intentions. In particular, little empirical research has been

conducted to integrate these dimensions in a non-Western context—in this case, a Korean

context.

With regard to the role of proactive personality, Korean culture is characterized by

collectivism, high power distance, high uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, and long-term

orientation (Hofestede, 1980). In East Asian countries (i.e., Japan, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong,

and Singapore) that share these traditional Confucian values, individuals highly value harmony

and building good relationships when interacting with other organizational members, and tend to

emphasize fitting in with their organizations rather than challenging the status quo or proactively

changing the work environment (Schwartz & Bardi, 2001; Triandis, 1995). It is noted that this

Korean cultural context is quite opposite to that of many North American and European

countries (Hofestede, 1980). Thus, the role of proactivity on creativity in Asian culture needs to

be further examined.

As for the practical implications, HR and OD professionals might play a pivotal role for

retention of these knowledge workers by building better practice representative of a learning

organization culture, providing job redesign, coaching and mentoring practices, and leadership

development programs that could enhance supportive leadership. First, HR and OD professionals

need to enhance the level of Perceived Organizational Support (POS) to improve the level of

retention. Based on the reciprocity norm, POS would elicit employees' perceived obligation to be

concerned about the organization's welfare and to help the organization reach its objectives

19

(Eisenberger et al., 1990). In addition, supportive leadership could decrease the level of turnover

intention. HR/OD professionals need to take an integrated approach including coaching and

mentoring to enhance developmental feedback.

Lastly, another implication is job redesign in general and job enrichment in particular.

Given that knowledge workers apply theoretical and analytical knowledge in developing new

products and services (Drucker, 1999), and since it is therefore more difficult to monitor these

knowledge workers (Joo & Lim, 2009), their job needs to allow for greater empowerment by

allowing more autonomy and responsibility (Joo, 2010).

Although the effect size of core self-evaluations was smaller than contextual factors, that

variable turned out to be a significant predictor for turnover intention. Core self-evaluations

consist of four core dispositional traits: self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control,

and emotional stability (Judge et al., 1997). HR practitioners might use core self-evaluations as a

selection and screening tool, thus potentially reducing turnover costs and consequently hiring

and training costs.

Limitations and Future Research

There are several potential limitations in terms of methodology. First, the current

empirical study confined itself to a cross-sectional survey method, which leaves room for

speculation with regard to causality among the variables. Second, this study relied on self-

reported answers by employees who volunteered to participate. In addition, while representative

of most Korean private organizations, the sample of predominantly highly educated male

managers is restricted to a certain group in terms of demographic characteristics. Finally, in the

current study, the proposed predictors accounted only for nine percent of the variance in turnover

intention, which means there are still many other factors that have not yet been examined.

20

Future research could be based on objective indicators and multiple sources. That is,

actual turnover data could be used instead of self-responded turnover intention measure. In

addition, in order to increase the generalizability of the present study, more studies in various

cultural and national context representing diverse demographic groups are needed. While the

current study was limited to knowledge workers, most of whom were males with higher

educational levels, future research should be conducted with workers from different educational

backgrounds, fields and other diverse characteristics. Future research, such as a comparative

study, between (a) a variety of Asian countries, and (b) a large Asian company and a large US

company are recommended. Finally, more antecedents that can have more influence on turnover

intention should be found in the future.

Conclusion

Even in an economic downturn, employee turnover is a critical issue for organizations,

given highly competitive and ever-changing expectations. The purpose of this study was to

examine several personal and contextual antecedents of turnover intention for knowledge

workers in South Korea. In this study, contextual factors had a greater impact on employees’

turnover intention than did personality factors. By developing and maintaining constructive

leadership, organization-wide and at individual job levels, HR/OD practitioners can make a

positive contribution for the competitiveness of their organizations.

21

References

Allen, D. G., Weeks, K. P., & Moffitt, K. R. (2005). “Turnover intentions and voluntary

turnover: the moderating roles of self-monitoring, locus of control, proactive personality,

and risk aversion”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90, No. 3, pp. 980-990.

Amabile, T. M. (1988). “A model of creativity and innovation in organizations”, in Staw, B. M.

& Cummings, L. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Arshadi, N. (2011). “The relationships of perceived organizational support (POS) with

organizational commitment, in-role performance, and turnover intention: Mediating role

of felt obligation”, Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 30, pp. 1103-1108.

Barak, M. E. M., Nissly, J. A, & Levin, A. (2001). “Antecedents to retention and turnover among

child welfare, social work, and other human service employees: What can we learn from

past research? A review and meta analysis”, Social Service Review, Vol. 75, No. 4, pp.

625-661

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1996). “Effects of impression management and self-deception

on the predictive validity of personality constructs”, Journal of applied psychology, Vol.

81, No. 3, pp. 261-272.

Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). “The proactive component of organizational behavior: A

measure and correlates”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 103-

118.

Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York: Wiley.

Bono, J. E. & Judge, T. A. (2003). “Core self-evaluations: a review of the trait and its role in job

satisfaction and job performance”, European Journal of Personality, Vol. 17, No. S1, pp.

S5-S18.

22

Bothma, F. C., & Roodt, G. (2012). “Work-based identity and work engagement as potential

antecedents of task performance and turnover intention: Unraveling a complex

relationship”, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 27-44.

Burke, W. W. (2002). Organization change: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Chang, C-H, Ferris, D. L., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Tan, J. A. (2012). “Core Self-

Evaluations A Review and Evaluation of the Literature”, Journal of Management,

Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 81-128.

Chung-Yan, G. A. (2010). “The nonlinear effects of job complexity and autonomy on job

satisfaction, turnover, and psychological well-being”, Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 237-251.

Cole, M. S. & Brunch, H. (2006). “Organizational Identity Strength, Identification and

Commitment and Their Relationships to Turnover Intention: Does Organization

Hierarchy Matter?”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 585-605.

Crant, J. M. (2000). “Proactive behavior in organizations”. Journal of Management, Vol. 26, No.

3, pp. 435-462.

DeConinck, J. B. & Bachmann, D. P. (2011). “Organizational commitment and turnover

intentions of marketing managers”, Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 10, No.

3, pp. 87-95.

Digman, J. M. (1990). “Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model”, Annual

review of psychology, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 417-440.

Drucker, P. F. (1999). “Knowledge-Worker Productivity: The biggest challenge”, California

management review, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 79-94.

23

Eder, P. (2008). “Perceived organizational support: reducing the negative influence of co-worker

withdrawal behavior”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 55-68.

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, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 279-301.

Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). “Perceived organizational support and

employee diligence, commitment, and innovation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.

75, No. 1, pp. 51-59.

Ferris, D. L., Rosen, C. R., Johnson, R. E., Brown, D. J., Risavy, S. D., & Heller, D. (2011).

“Approach or avoidance (or both?): Integrating core self‐evaluations within an

approach/avoidance framework”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 137-161.

Gouldner, A. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological,

Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 161-178.

Grebner, S., Semmer, N. K., Lo Faso, L., Gut, S., Ka¨lin, W., & Elfering, A. (2003). “Working

conditions, well-being, and job-related attitudes among call centre agents”, European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 341–365.

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, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 463-488.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Harris, L. N., Boswell, T. B., & Xie, Z. (2011). “The role of organizational insiders'

developmental feedback and proactive personality on newcomers' performance: An

24

interactionist perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96, No. 6, pp. 1317-

1327.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills.

Howell, D. C. (2007). Statistical methods for psychology (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson

Wadsworth.

Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). “Integrating motivational, social,

and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension

of the work design literature”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92, No. 5, pp. 1332–

1356.

Joo, B.-K. (2010). “Organizational commitment for knowledge workers: The roles of perceived

organizational learning culture, leader–member exchange quality, and turnover

intention”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 69-85.

Joo, B.-K., & Lim, T. J. (2009). “The effects of organizational learning culture and proactive

personality on organizational commitment and intrinsic motivation: The mediating role of

perceived job complexity”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 15,

No. 4, pp. 48-60.

Joo, B.-K., & McLean, G. N. (2006). “Best employer studies: A conceptual model from a

literature review and a case study”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 5, No.2,

pp. 228-257.

Joo, B. K. B., & Park, S. (2010). “Career satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover

intention: the effects of goal orientation, organizational learning culture and

developmental feedback”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 31, No.

6, pp. 482-500.

25

Joseph, D., Ng, K.-Y., Koh, C., & Ang S. (2007). “Turnover of information technology

professionals: A narrative review, meta-analytic structural equation modeling, and model

development”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 547-577

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. (2005). “Core self-evaluations and job and

life satisfaction: the role of self-concordance and goal attainment”, Journal of Applied

Psychology, Vol. 90, No. 2, pp. 257-268.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. E. (1998). “The power of being positive: The relation between

positive self-concept and job performance”, Human Performance, Vol. 11, No. 2-3, pp.

167-187.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). “Are measures of self-esteem,

neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core

construct?”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 83, No. 3, pp. 693-710.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, T.J. (2003). “The core self-evaluations scale:

Development of a measure”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 56, No. 2, pp. 303-331.

Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). “The dispositional causes of job satisfaction:

A core evaluations approach”, in Cummings, L. L. & Staw, B. (Eds.), Research in

Organizational Behavior, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. (2nd ed.). New

York, NY: Guilford Press.

Lambert, E., Hogan, N. & Barton, S. (2001).”The impact of job satisfaction on turnover intent: A

test of a structural measurement model using a national sample of workers”, The Social

Science Journal, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 233-250.

Lewin, K. (1947). “Frontiers in group dynamics”, Human relations, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 5-41.

26

Maertz, C., Griffeth, R., Campbell, N., & Allen, D. (2007). “The effects of perceived

organizational support and perceived supervisor support on employee turnover”, Journal

of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28, No. 8, pp. 1059–1075.

Man, D. C., & Lam, S. S. (2003). “The effects of job complexity and autonomy on cohesiveness

in collectivistic and individualistic work groups: a cross‐cultural analysis”, Journal of

Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24, No. 8, pp. 979-1001.

Mayfield, J. & Mayfield, M. (2008). “The creative environment's influence on intent to turnover:

a structural equation model and analysis”, Management Research New, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp.

41-56.

Michaels, C. E. & Spector, P. E. (1982). "Causes of employee turnover: A test of the Mobley,

Griffeth, Hand, and Meglino model”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 67, No. 1, pp.

53-59.

Mobley, W. (1977). “Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and

employee turnover”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 237-240.

Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). “Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors

at work”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 607-634.

Perryer, C., Jordan, C., Firns, I., & Travaglione, A. (2010). “Predicting turnover intentions: The

interactive effects of organizational commitment and perceived organizational

support”, Management Research Review, Vol. 33, No. 9, pp. 911-923.

Peterson, S. (2009). “Career decision-making self-efficacy, integration, and the likelihood of

managerial retention in government agencies”, Human Resource Development Quarterly,

Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 451-475.

27

Peterson, S. L. (2004). “Toward a theoretical model of employee turnover: A human resource

development Perspective”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp.

209- 227.

Salamin, A., & Hom, P. W. (2005). “In search of the elusive U-shaped performance-turnover

relationship: Are high performing Swiss bankers more liable to quit?”, Journal of Applied

Psychology, Vol. 90, No. 6, pp. 1204-1216.

Schwartz, S. H., & Bardi, A. (2001). “Value hierarchies across cultures taking a similarities

perspective”, Journal of cross-cultural Psychology, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 268-290.

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). “Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of

individual innovation in the workplace”, Academy of management journal, Vol. 37, No.

3, pp. 580-607.

Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). “Proactive personality and career success”,

Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84, No. 3, pp. 416-427.

Siegel, A. F. (2003). Practical business statistics. (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill/Irwin.

Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). “The effects of personal and contextual

characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here?”, Journal of Management,

Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 933-958.

Shaw, J. D., Delery, J. E., Jenkins, G. D., & Gupta, N. (1998). “An organization-level analysis of

voluntary and involuntary turnover”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41, No. 5,

pp. 511-525.

Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. (1993). “Commitment and employee behavior: comparison of

affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational

support”, Journal of applied psychology, Vol. 78, No. 5, pp. 774-780.

28

Steel, R. P., & Ovalle, N. K. (1984). “A review and meta-analysis of research on the relationship

between behavioral intentions and employee turnover”, Journal of Applied

Psychology, Vol. 69, No. 4, pp. 673-686.

Terborg, J. R., & Lee, T. W. (1984). “A predictive study of organizational turnover rates”,

Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 793-810.

Tett, R. & Meyer, J. (1993). “Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention,

and turnover: path analyses based on meta-analytic findings”, Personnel Psychology, Vol.

46, No. 2, pp. 259-293.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. Westview Press.

Valentine, S., Godkin, L., Fleischman, G. M., & Kidwell, R. (2011). “Corporate ethical values,

group creativity, job satisfaction and turnover intention: The impact of work context on

work response”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 98, No. 3, pp. 353-372.

Wu, C. H., & Griffin, M. A. (2012). “Longitudinal relationships between core self-evaluations

and job satisfaction”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97, No. 2, pp. 331-342.

Yang, B. (2005). “Factor analysis methods”, in Swanson, R. A. & Holten III, E. F. (Eds.),

Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry. San Francisco, CA:

Berrett-Koehler.

Yi, Y., Nataraajan, R., & Gong, T. (2011). “Customer participation and citizenship behavioral

influences on employee performance, satisfaction, commitment, and turnover

intention”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 87-95.

Zhou, J. (2003). “When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of

supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality”, Journal

of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, No. 3, pp. 413-422.

29

Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). “When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the

expression of voice”, Academy of Management journal, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 682-696.