Correlates Employee Engagement and Intention to Quit

www.icm

rr.or

g

53

Volume 1, Issue 9 (November, 2013)

INTERCONTINENTAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE RESEARCH REVIEW

Pee

r R

evie

wed

Jo

urn

al o

f In

ter-

Co

nti

nen

tal M

anag

emen

t R

esea

rch

Co

nso

rtiu

m

htt

p:/

/ww

w.ic

mrr

.org

CORRELATES EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT WITH TURNOVER

INTENTION

Dr Reeves Wesley J1 Gokula Krishnan S

2

1Professor, VIT Business School, VIT University – Chennai Campus, Chennai –600 127. (T.N.), India.

2 Research Scholar, Karunya School of Business, Leadership & Management, Karunya University,

Coimbatore – 641 114. (T.N.), India.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: The objective of this research study is to study the association between employee engagement

and employee turnover intention; and to study relationship between demographic variables and level of

employee engagement.

Design/methodology/approach: This Correlational study, employed convenience sampling technique i.e.

non probability sampling method to select the sample consisted of 154 employees of various star hotels in

Coimbatore city. And data were collected using surveys and were analyzed using ANOVA, and

Correlation Analysis.

Results: Correlation study analyzed relationship between the employee engagement and turnover

Intention and revealed that there is a significant relationship between the engagement and Turnover

Intention.

Conclusion: The study supports that the employee turnover intention has significant relationship with

employee engagement.

Key words: Employee engagement, and Turnover Intention.

1. Introduction:

Because of its infancy, there is a dearth of information on the relationship between employee

engagement and turnover intent. Much of the information available addresses employee engagement as a

characteristic of the individual versus employee engagement as a characteristic of the workplace

environment. For example, in general, the results have suggested that the more engaged an employee is,

the less likely he or she is to leave. The able people always have alternatives in their career so that this is

the issue of firms to keep hold of them [Ferguson R & Brohaugh B .2009]. The organizations invest on

the employees who in return bring success in form of large revenues, market share and an attractive

public image. However, these key employees sometimes fall prey to head hunters inflicting heavy losses

to the abandon organization. The company suffers a mammoth loss when its competitive workers leave

them for new jobs because then the company must incur hiring cost for new recruits [Lockwood D, &

Ansari A. 1999]. Another critical facet of today’s business organization is the prominence of employee

engagement. The employee is considered to be engaged when he or she is completely engrossed in the

work and absolutely passionate about it [Seijts, G. and Crim, D. 2006].

ISSN: 2320-9704- Online ISSN:2347-1662-Print

www.icmrr.org

www.icm

rr.or

g

54



Pee

r R

evie

wed

Jo

urn

al o

f In

ter-

Co

nti

nen

tal M

anag

emen

t R

esea

rch

Co

nso

rtiu

m

htt

p:/

/ww

w.ic

mrr

.org

Employee engagement

Employee engagement is an important concept for organizations, because it predicts productivity,

job satisfaction, motivation, commitment, and low turnover intention [Bakker, Demerouti & Schaufeli,

2003; Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter & Taris, 2008]. Employee engagement is defined as ‘a positive, fulfilling,

work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigour, dedication, and absorption‘ [Schaufeli,

Salanova, González-Romá & Bakker, 2002]. High energy levels and mental resilience while working

denote vigour. It entails willingness to invest effort in one’s work and to persevere when challenges arise.

Dedication refers to deriving a sense of significance from one’s work, as well as feeling enthusiastic,

inspired and proud. Absorption means to be happily immersed in one’s work. Haudan and MacLean

(2002) describe engagement as a sustained connection and undivided concentration, where time seems

unimportant and the hearts and minds of employees are involved. According to Schaufeli et al. (2002),

engagement is not a momentary and specific state, but rather a persistent and pervasive affective-

cognitive state, not focused on any particular object, event, individual or behaviour.

Engagement is a positive experience in itself (Schaufeli et al., 2002) and has positive

consequences for the organization, as it is generally believed that a relationship exists between employee

engagement and business results (Harter et al., 2002). The concept is therefore relevant for employee

well-being and work behaviour and is beneficial to the organization as it is a significant predictor of

employees’ intention to leave their organization (Saks, 2006).

Intention to leave

Vandenberg and Nelson (1999) define intention to leave as an ‘individual’s own estimated

probability (subjective) that they are permanently leaving the organization at some point in the near

future‘. The determinants of employee turnover have great relevance to the employee who is thinking

about quitting, as well as for the manager who is faced with the lack of employee continuity, the high

costs involved in the induction and training of new personnel and the issue of organizational productivity

(Firth et al., 2004; Siong, Mellor, Moore & Firth, 2006).

According to McCarthy, Tyrrell and Lehane (2007), intentions are the most immediate

determinants of actual behaviour. They are therefore accurate indicators of subsequent behaviour,

however the reasons for these intentions are often unknown (Firth et al., 2004). Van Dick et al. (2004)

agree that the phenomenon is far from being fully understood, especially because some of the

psychological processes underlying the withdrawal from the organization are still unclear. Intention to

leave is related to actual turnover (Firth et al., 2004; McCarthy et al., 2007). Tjeku (2006) reported a

relationship between leadership empowerment behaviour and job insecurity. Maré (2007) established a

correlation between leadership empowerment behaviour and intention to leave. Saks (2006) reported a

relationship between engagement and intention to leave.

Thus, the researchers focused to study the association between the employee engagement and

their intention towards turnover. In order to ensure these, researchers came out with the following

objectives and the hypothesis.


www.icmrr.org

www.icm

rr.or

g

55



Pee

r R

evie

wed

Jo

urn

al o

f In

ter-

Co

nti

nen

tal M

anag

emen

t R

esea

rch

Co

nso

rtiu

m

htt

p:/

/ww

w.ic

mrr

.org

Research Objectives:

To know the association between employee engagement and Turnover Intention.

To measure relationship between demographic variables and drivers of the engagement.

Research Hypothesis:

H1: There is no significant association between the Age group, Gender, Marital Status, Educational

Qualification, Experience, Income level, Designation, Department and Employee Engagement of the firm.

H2: There is no significant association between employee engagement and Turnover Intention.

2. Review of literature:

Term Engagement was originally developed by Kahn. Employee engagement focalizes on how

the psychological happenings at work and work contexts forge the process of people presenting and

absenting themselves during their jobs [Kahn, W.A. 1990]. Employees will feel engaged when they

unearth enthusiasm and personal sense in their work, get positive social support and work in an

environment that is well-organized and proficient [Bernthal, P. 2004].

Human resource managers endeavor to attain employee engagement by giving rewards,

recognition of employee’s effort, harnessing relationships, giving opportunities to excel, inducing

leadership qualities and providing a friendly environment [Das, S. 2003].The turnover intention is the last

stride which ultimately results in the renouncement of the job [Mobley WH. 1977]. Engagement is

negatively associated with turnover intentions which mean that an engaged employee would never think

about leaving the organization [Ten Brummelhuis, L.L., et al., 2010]. Work engagement is directly and

positively related with employees’ job satisfaction and it has a negative relationship with employee

turnover intentions [Saks, A.M. 2006]. The more engaged employees are, the longer they would remain

committed and such employees also stay longer with the organization [Ngobeni,E. k., and Bezuidenhout,

A 2011]. The engagement of employee is in fact a valuable gauge to measure the connection of an

employee to the place of work [Jones JR, Ni J and Wilson DC 2009].

In order to increase the attraction and retention of valuable workforce, that policy should be

formulated that allow employees to have flexible work schedules, result oriented remuneration, input in

decision making, career advancement along with the exigent work assignments is a must [Jorgensen B

.2005]. Engagement also leads to higher levels of identification with a job which may make it difficult for

employees to detach themselves from the role and leave the organization [Koyuncu, M., Burke, R., J., and

Fiksenbaum, L. (2006), Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., and Crawford, E. R. (2010)]. Many researchers also

come up with the findings that work practices like the employee participation, employee engagement and

total quality management must effectively be incorporated on day to day basis as they result in lower

turnover intentions and increased satisfaction of the employees [Huselid, M. A. (1995), Pfeffer, J. (1994),

Cho, S., Woods, R. H., Jang, S. C., and Erdem,M. (2006)].

Intention to turnover has been recognized as a strategic leverage point for human resource

practitioners (Lockwood, 2007). Turnover conservatively costs an organization 50-60% of an employee’s


www.icmrr.org

www.icm

rr.or

g

56



Pee

r R

evie

wed

Jo

urn

al o

f In

ter-

Co

nti

nen

tal M

anag

emen

t R

esea

rch

Co

nso

rtiu

m

htt

p:/

/ww

w.ic

mrr

.org

annual salary (Allen, 2008). Carmeli and Wiesberg (2006) found that an employee’s intention to engage

in a certain type of behavior, such as an employee’s intention to turnover, is a significant predictor of that

employee’s future behavior. Steel and Ovalle (1984) suggest that turnover intent is more predictive of

actual turnover than job satisfaction or commitment. Several pieces of literature suggest a link between

employee engagement and turnover intent. For example, Gubman (2004) reported that employees who

were not engaged in their work were more likely to leave their current place of employment. Further,

Towers Perrin (2003) reported that 66% of employees who report high levels of employee engagement

have no intention of leaving their current organization. Finally, Caterpillar, a large multi-national

construction equipment manufacturer, estimates the company saved $8.8 million in turnover costs alone

by increasing the proportion of engaged employees at one of their European based plants (Vance, 2006).

Measurement:

Employee Engagement was measured using the EE Scale (EES; Gallup, 2011). The original EES is a 5-

item scale where participants responded along a 5-point Likert continuum from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5

(strongly agree). Coefficient alpha for the EES in the present study was α = .824.

Gallup measurement tool for employee engagement:

1. Do you know what is expected of you at work?

2. Do you have the materials and equipment you need to do your work right?

3. At work, do you have the opportunity to do what you do best every day?

4. In last 7 days, have you received recognition or praise for doing good work?

5. Does your supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about you as a person?

6. Is there someone at work who encourages your development?

7. At work, do your opinions seem to count?

8. Does the mission/purpose of your company make you feel your job is important?

9. Are yours associates (fellow employees) committed to doing quality work?

10. Do you have a best friend at work?

11. In last 6 months, has someone at work talked to you about your progress?

12. In last year, have you had opportunities at work to learn and grow?

These statements (Q01-Q12) are proprietary and copyrighted by Gallup, Inc. They cannot be reprinted or

reproduced in any manner without the written consent of Gallup, Inc. Copyright © 1993-1998 Gallup,

Inc. All rights reserved.

Colarelli, 1984 Measurement tool for Intention to Quit:

1. I frequently think of quitting my job.

2. I am planning to search for a new job during the next 12 months

3. If I have my own way, I will be working for this organization 1 year from now.

4. I would like to leave my present employer

5. I plan to leave my present employer as soon as possible


www.icmrr.org

www.icm

rr.or

g

57



Pee

r R

evie

wed

Jo

urn

al o

f In

ter-

Co

nti

nen

tal M

anag

emen

t R

esea

rch

Co

nso

rtiu

m

htt

p:/

/ww

w.ic

mrr

.org

Intention to turnover was measured using the Intention to Turnover Scale (ITS; Colarelli, 1984). The

original ITS is a 5-item scale where participants responded along a 5-point Likert continuum from 1

(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The ITS measures an employee’s future intentions to leave an

organization. Validity estimates for the ITS were gathered in a study investigating the effectiveness of

realistic job previews in the banking industry (Colarelli, 1984) using a sample of 164 bank tellers inside a

large metropolitan bank in the United States. The items in the survey represent the future intentions of an

employee to stay with his or her current organization or seek employment elsewhere. Colarelli’s (1984)

and Saks & Ashforth (1997) each reported coefficient alpha’s of .75 and .86 respectively. In a recent

study by Cheng and Stockdale (2003), the ITS demonstrated a coefficient alpha of .79. Coefficient alpha

for the ITS (Colarelli, 1984) in the present study was α = .82.

3. Research Methodology

The population considered for this research consisted of 154 employees who belong to star hotels

in Coimbatore city. A questionnaire was adapted from the Gallup Survey and Colarelli, 1984 as to grade

the responses of the employees based on the degree of their agreement. The reliability of the

questionnaire was tested using the Cronbach’s alpha test and the Cronbach alpha value was found as

.821(>.5), which shows that the instrument is reliable. The number of sampling adequacy has been tested

by KMO test and the value was found to be 0.871. Further, the high value obtained in the Bartlett’s test

and the value of p (0.000 <0.05) indicated that the data is appropriate. Data was collected by

questionnaire convenience sampling technique. Quantitative data Gallup Survey and Colarelli, 1984 and

analysis has been done with the help of the following statistical tools viz., one way ANOVA, and

Correlation Analysis.

4. Analysis

Ho: There is no significant association between the Age group, Gender, Marital Status, Educational

Qualification, Experience, Income level, Designation, Department and Employee Engagement of the firm.

Combined ANOVA

Demographic Variables No. of

Respondents

Employee Engagement F Sig.

Mean SD

Age group

20-25 Years 4 4.0833 .35355

1.453 .219

26-30 years 85 3.5627 .59399

31-35 years 50 3.5100 .67797

36-40 years 8 3.3750 .59761

above 40 years 7 3.8810 .53545

Gender Male 78 3.5417 .60358

0.201 .655 Female 76 3.5866 .64124

Marital

Status

Single 74 3.5732 .62131 0.032 0.858

Married 80 3.5552 .62417

Educational

qualification

School 10 3.6333 .48145

.662 .619 Diploma 12 3.6319 .58437

UG 83 3.5010 .68983


www.icmrr.org

www.icm

rr.or

g

58



Pee

r R

evie

wed

Jo

urn

al o

f In

ter-

Co

nti

nen

tal M

anag

emen

t R

esea

rch

Co

nso

rtiu

m

htt

p:/

/ww

w.ic

mrr

.org

PG 33 3.5853 .49870

Others 16 3.7552 .58410

Experience

< 5 Years 74 3.5507 .63237

1.588 .195

5-10 years 54 3.5062 .62651

11-15 years 16 3.5677 .61480

16-20 years 10 3.9667 .40673

above 20 years 0 0 0

Income

Level

< Rs. 10,000 37 3.4414 .68602

0.630 .642

Rs.10,001-20,000 77 3.5909 .60731

Rs.20,001-30,000 27 3.6759 .51956

Rs.30,001-40,000 7 3.5000 .80938

> Rs. 40,000 6 3.5417 .64280

Designation

Operational Level 114 3.5424 .63477

1.103 0.334 Supervisor Level 31 3.6935 .50753

Managerial Level 9 3.3889 .77951

Department

Front Office 26 3.4744 .58915

1.849 .064

Housekeeping 21 3.6825 .55253

Production 24 3.3889 .56395

Food & Beverage 27 3.5895 .60928

Maintenance 10 3.5917 .87881

Purchase 05 2.8333 .50346

Store 06 3.7361 .38158

Accounts 11 3.5530 .56920

Human Resources 10 3.9917 .57795

Marketing 14 3.6726 .68910

Inference: To know the influence of the demographic factors on employee engagement, the tool ANOVA

has been used and the results have been summed up in above table. Considering the significant level, it

can be said that no demographic factor influences the employee engagement significantly. When the

means of the demographic factors are compared, we can infer the highly engaged group of every factor.

As far as the Age group is concerned, the 26-30 years grouped respondents are highly engaged with the

mean 3.5627. So we may conclude that the when respondents age increase the engagement level is

increased slightly. When compare the means of department, Human Resource Department is highly

engaged with the mean of 3.99 and followed by store department, House Keeping department; other

department’s engagement is similar to one. Means of married employees are almost equal where the

single 3.57 and Married respondents 3.55 based on marital status of the respondents concerned.

Qualification has the means showing that diploma holders are engaged higher than other groups with

mean 3.63 and followed by School, UG holders and PG holders stay last.

The means of experience say that employees with experience 16-20 years and less than 11-15

years are engaged at most with the mean 3.96 and 3.56 respectively, followed by the < 5 years and 5 to 10

years experienced. In concern with designation the supervisor level employees secured high mean score

with 3.69 followed by operational level employees and managerial level employees. Finally, in respect


www.icmrr.org

www.icm

rr.or

g

59



Pee

r R

evie

wed

Jo

urn

al o

f In

ter-

Co

nti

nen

tal M

anag

emen

t R

esea

rch

Co

nso

rtiu

m

htt

p:/

/ww

w.ic

mrr

.org

with income level the employees who receives Rs.20,001 – 30,000 secured high mean score 3.67 and

followed by other group of employers in income group.

H0: There is no significant association between the Employee Engagement and Turnover Intention by the

employees

Correlation Analysis:

IQ1 IQ2 IQ3 IQ4 IQ5

I frequently think of quitting my job (IQ1) 1

0.041

0.616

0.013

0.875

0.049

0.546

-0.112

0.166

I am planning to search for new job during

next 12 months (IQ2)

0.041

0.616

1

0.085

0.295

-0.043

0.597

-0.181*

0.025

If I’ve my own my, I will be working for

this organization 1 year from now (IQ3)

0.013

0.875

0.085

0.295

1

0.079

0.330

-0.033

0.683

I would like to leave my present employer

(IQ4)

0.049

0.546

-0.043

0.597

0.079

0.330

1

0.186*

0.021

I plan to leave my present employer as soon

as possible (IQ5)

-0.112

0.166

-0.181*

0.025

-0.033

0.683

0.186*

0.021

1

Employee engagement level (EE) 0.063

0.436

0.159*

0.049

0.269**

0.001

-0.085

0.293

-0.165*

0.041

Correlation Positive Positive Positive Negative Negative

Accept/ Reject H0 Accepted Rejected Rejected Accepted Rejected

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Inference: I am planning to search for new job during next 12 months is positively correlated (p = 0.049

< 0.05); If I’ve my own my, I will be working for this organization 1 year from now is positively

correlated (p = 0.001 < 0.01); and I plan to leave my present employer as soon as possible is negatively

correlated (p = 0.041 < 0.05) significantly with engagement level of the employees. Hence, not

significantly correlated the here we may reject the Null Hypothesis (H0) and accept the Alternative

Hypothesis (H1). Other two variables such as I am planning to search for new job during next 12 months

and I would like to leave my present employer are not significantly correlated with the engagement level

of the employees. Hence, not significantly correlated the here we may accept the Null Hypothesis (H0).

So we may conclude that the “There is a significance relationship between the engagement and Turnover

Intention.” The Hypothesis has been provided through the Pearson correlation matrix i.e., “There is a

significant relationship between the engagement and Turnover Intention.”

Findings & Discussions:

This study mainly identifies the no correlation between the engagement level and the

demographic factors of the employees, since the p value is greater than significant level, it can be said that

there is no significant relationship between age, gender, marital status, educational qualification,

experience, income level, designation and department of the employees with the engagement level of the

employees.


www.icmrr.org

www.icm

rr.or

g

60



Pee

r R

evie

wed

Jo

urn

al o

f In

ter-

Co

nti

nen

tal M

anag

emen

t R

esea

rch

Co

nso

rtiu

m

htt

p:/

/ww

w.ic

mrr

.org

Further this study has revealed that the variables such as I am planning to search for new job

during next 12 months, If I’ve my own my, I will be working for this organization 1 year from now and I

plan to leave my present employer as soon as possible correlated significantly with engagement level of

the employees. Other two variables such as I am planning to search for new job during next 12 months

and I would like to leave my present employer are not significantly correlated with the engagement level

of the employees. There is a significance relationship between the engagement level and Intention to

Quit.” The Hypothesis has been provided through the Pearson correlation matrix i.e., “There is a

significant relationship between the engagement level and Intention to Quit.”

Conclusion:

Since the Employees are the most important internal customers and brand ambassadors’ for any entity or

the firm, that’s why? At present scenario and in the future the organizations are realized that Human

Resource practices such like employee engagement is significant one to retain the talent pool with them

forever. Thus, this study revealed and reconfirmed that the significant association is their between the

employee engagement and turnover intention of the employees by using the help of Gallup Questionnaire

and ITS; Colarelli, 1984. Low employee engagement leads to high turnover intent and high employee

engagement leads to low turnover intention among the employees.

The study supports that the employee engagement has significant relationship with the

employee turnover intention, so the firm should improve their strategies to ensure the high

employee engagement level.

Reference:

Allen, D. G. (2008). Retaining talent: A guide to analyzing and managing employee turnover.

Alexandria, VA: The SHRM Foundation.

Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2003). Dual processes at work in a call centre:

An application of the job demands-resources model. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 12, 393–417.

Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P., & Taris, T.W. (2008). Work engagement: An

emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work and Stress, 22, 187–200.

Bernthal, P. (2004), "Measuring Employee Engagement", in Macey, H. M. & Schnei-der, B.

(2008), "The Meaning of Employee Engagement", Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1:

3-30.

Carmeli, A., & Weisberg, J. (2006). Exploring turnover intentions among three professional

groups of employees. Human Resource Development International, 9, 191-206.

Cho, S., Woods, R. H., Jang, S. C., and Erdem, M. (2006). Measuring the Impact of Human

Resource Management Practices on Hospitality Firms' Performances. International Journal of

Hospitality Management, 25(2): 262 to 277.

Colarelli, S. M. (1984). Methods of communication and mediating processes in realistic job

previews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 633-642.

Das, S. (2003). Vacant or Engaged? Employee benefits, March- 24 to 28.

Ferguson R & Brohaugh B (2009). The Talent Wars. J. Consum. Mark., 26(5): 358 to 362.


www.icmrr.org

www.icm

rr.or

g

61



Pee

r R

evie

wed

Jo

urn

al o

f In

ter-

Co

nti

nen

tal M

anag

emen

t R

esea

rch

Co

nso

rtiu

m

htt

p:/

/ww

w.ic

mrr

.org

Firth, L., Mellor, D.J., Moore, K.A., & Loquet, C. (2004). How can managers reduce employee

intention to quit? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(2), 170–187.

Gallup, Inc. Copyright © 1993-1998 Gallup, Inc.

Gubman, E. (2004). From engagement to passion for work: The search for the missing person.

Human Resource Planning, 29, 25-26.

Haudan, J.A., & MacLean, D. (2002). ‘E’ is for engagement: Transforming your business by

transforming your people. Journal of Change Management, 2(3), 1469–7017.

Huselid, M. A. (1995). The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover,

Productivity, and Corporate Financial Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38- 653 to

672.

Jones JR, Ni J and Wilson DC (2009). Comparing Effects of Race / Ethnicity and Employee

Engagement on Withdrawal Behavior. J. Manage. Iss., 21(2): 195 to 215.

Jorgensen B (2005). Attract, Retain & Innovate: A Workforce Policy Architecture Adapted to

Modern Conditions. Foresight, 7(5)- 21 to 31.

Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at

Work, Academy of Management Journal, 33 (4) - 692 to 724.

Koyuncu, M., Burke, R., J., and Fiksenbaum, L. (2006). Work Engagement among Women

Managers & Professionals in a Turkish Bank. Equal Opportunities International, 25- 299 to 310.

Lockwood D, & Ansari A (1999). Recruiting and Retaining Scarce Information Technology

Talent: A Focus Group Study. Ind. Manage. Data Syst., 99(6) - 251 to 256.

Lockwood, N. R. (2007). Leveraging employee engagement for a competitive advantage.

Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management.

McCarthy, G., Tyrrell, M.P., & Lehane, E. (2007). Intention to ‘leave’ or ‘stay’ in nursing.

Journal of Nursing Management, 15, 248–255.

Mobley WH (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and

employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.62 (2), pp.237 to 240.

Ngobeni,E. k., and Bezuidenhout, A (2011). Engaging Employees for Improved Retention at a

Higher Education Institution in South Africa. African Journal of Business Management. Vol.

5(23): pp. 9961 to 9970.

Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive Advantage through People: Unleashing the Power of the Work

Force. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., and Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job Engagement: Antecedents and effects

on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53- 617 to 635.

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

between behavioral intentions and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 673-

686.

Saks, A.M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 21, 600–619.

Seijts, G. and Crim, D. (2006). What Engages Employees the most or, the Ten C’s of Employee

Engagement. Ivey Business Journal Online, pp 1 – 5.

Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gozáles-Romá, V., & Bakker, A.B. (2002). The measurement of

engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of

Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.


www.icmrr.org

www.icm

rr.or

g

62



Pee

r R

evie

wed

Jo

urn

al o

f In

ter-

Co

nti

nen

tal M

anag

emen

t R

esea

rch

Co

nso

rtiu

m

htt

p:/

/ww

w.ic

mrr

.org

Siong, Z.M.B., Mellor, D., Moore, K.A., & Firth, L. (2006). Predicting intention to quit in the call

centre industry: Does the retail model fit? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 231–243.

Ten Brummelhuis, L.L., et al., (2010) Is family to- work interference related to co-workers' work

outcomes? Journal of Vocational Behavior.

Towers Perrin. (2003). Working today: Understanding what drives employee engagement.

Retrieved from

http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/getwebcachedoc?webc=hrs/usa/2003/200309/talent_2003.pdf

Vandenberg, R.J., & Nelson, J.B. (1999). Disaggregating the motives underlying turnover

intentions: When do intentions predict turnover behaviour? Human Relations, 52, 1313–1336.

Vance, R. J. (2006). Employee engagement and commitment: A guide to understanding,

measuring, and increasing engagement in your organization. Alexandria, VA: The SHRM

Foundation.


www.icmrr.org

Correlates Employee Engagement and Intention to Quit

Documents

Transcript of Correlates Employee Engagement and Intention to Quit