UNCORRECTED PROOFS. The effects of perceived organizational support and perceived supervisor support on employee turnover.

Transcription

1 Journal of Organizational Behavior Published online in Wiley InterScience ( DOI:.0/job. Summary Introduction The effects of perceived organizational support and perceived supervisor support on employee turnover CARL P. MAERTZ JR 1 *, RODGER W. GRIFFETH, NATHANAEL S. CAMPBELL AND DAVID G. ALLEN 1 Department of Management, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A. Departments of Psychology and Management Systems, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, U.S.A. Henderson State University, Arkadelphia, Arkansas, U.S.A. Department of Management, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee, U.S.A. This study examines mediated effects of perceived supervisor support (PSS) and perceived organizational support (POS) on turnover cognitions, and their interactive effects on turnover behavior in a sample of social services workers. In this study, we address a seeming contradiction in current findings regarding support and attachments to managers versus attachments to the organization itself. The POS literature suggests fully mediated causal paths to turnover from POS and PSS, through affective commitment. Whereas, the commitment, LMX, and turnover literatures suggest alternative causal paths that imply broader effects for POS and PSS on turnover. Contrary to earlier POS literature, findings showed that PSS had independent effects on turnover cognitions not mediated through POS. Model tests also indicated that POS had significant effects on turnover mediated through normative commitment, as well as affective organizational commitment. Moreover, a new significant interactive relationship was discovered such that low PSS strengthened the negative relationship between POS and turnover, while high PSS weakened it. Implications for research and practice are discussed. Voluntary employee turnover has been one of the most studied outcomes in organizational research. This pervasive interest comes mainly from a recognition that voluntary turnover can be very costly, and that understanding and managing it better can provide considerable benefits (e.g., Griffeth & Hom, 001). In fact, retaining talent is now becoming more critical in a world where the organization s human capabilities are increasingly the key source of competitive advantage (e.g., Pfeffer, 00). Also, historical changes like the massive retirement of baby boomers (leading to a dearth of qualified workers for some key jobs) and the erosion of societal norms favoring organizational loyalty promise difficult challenges for turnover management (e.g., Cappelli, 00; Ito & Brotheridge, 00). Thus, better * Correspondence to: Carl P. Maertz, Jr, Department of Management, Saint Louis University, Lindell Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 0, U.S.A. spiral@charter.net Received April 00 Revised 1 February 00 Accepted April 00

2 C. P. MAERTZ JR ET AL. understanding turnover causes and how to control them will likely remain a primary concern into the future. Predictors of turnover behavior have historically been the primary focus of the literature (Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 000), but focusing on predictors overlooks the multiple causal pathways proposed in key turnover models (e.g., Lee & Mitchell, ; Maertz & Campion, 00; Mobley, 1; Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, & Meglino, 1; Price & Mueller, 11). More theoretically fruitful streams of turnover research have focused on the intermediate causal linkages between established predictors and turnover (e.g., Hom, Caranikas-Walker, Prussia, & Griffeth, ; Mobley, 1). In this literature, general causal linkages from predictors (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment) to turnover cognitions then to turnover behavior have been firmly established (Hom et al., ). That is, there is little, if any, doubt that global attitudes influence turnover cognitions, which in turn, are the proximal cause of turnover behavior. However, modeling the distinct causal mechanisms that drive relationships between the multitude of predictors and turnover cognitions is a research direction that has emerged more recently (Maertz & Griffeth, 00). The first, general objective of this study is to contribute to this growing stream of turnover research, which strives to better model the nomological network surrounding voluntary turnover decisions. March and Simon s (1) theory of organizational equilibrium suggests that individual decisions to stay working in an organization are a function of the balance between the expected utilities of the inducements offered by the organization and the contributions expected from the individual. Although much of the subsequent research has focused on attitudinal (e.g., satisfaction) and tangible (e.g., pay) inducements to stay, a growing body of work recognizes that relational inducements such as support from the organization and from a supervisor can also play an important role in such decisions (e.g., Allen, Shore, & Griffeth, 00). The second objective of this study is to expand understanding of how perceived organizational support (POS) and perceived supervisor support (PSS) actually come to influence turnover cognitions and behavior. In pursuing this objective we also provide needed assessment of the potential practical utility of PSS and POS interventions for influencing turnover. In the burgeoning POS/PSS research, findings suggest that POS and supervisors only influence voluntary turnover decisions through their impact on affective organizational commitment. Yet, research in commitment, mentoring, LMX, and turnover areas suggest that support may impact turnover decisions through its impact on normative obligations and through distinct supervisor-level support effects. This seeming contradiction needs to be addressed because these additional mechanisms of influencing turnover cognitions (i.e., obligations and supervisor-level effects), if supported, imply new directions for researchers and practitioners that current POS/PSS models do not. For example, if the full-mediation perspective is correct, this implies a simple causal model linking PSS to POS to affective commitment to turnover cognitions, and finally, to turnover behavior, with little need for further modeling. However, if the broader perspective is correct, researchers must look beyond organizational attitudes to other mechanisms through which support influences turnover decisions. Moreover, because researchers have not succeeded in explaining large percentages of variance in turnover behavior (e.g., Peters & Sheridan, 1), any potential causal paths to turnover that account for variance beyond organizational attitudes are especially important to model (e.g., Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, & Erez, 001). Thus, the third objective of this study is to help resolve some seemingly contradictory arguments and findings regarding the role of PSS and POS-driven obligations in the causal paths to turnover. With these objectives in mind, we test: (1) whether the effects of POS on turnover cognitions are mediated through normative commitment, as well as established effects through affective commitment; () whether PSS directly influences turnover cognitions, as well as established effects through POS; and () whether PSS moderates the established negative POS turnover relationship. Next, we briefly review relevant background literature and then present arguments for each hypothesis in turn. DOI:.0/job

3 Literature Review and Hypotheses Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, and Sowa (1) suggested that employees form a global belief concerning the extent to which the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being, called POS. POS has since become a pervasive construct in organizational research (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 00). Many recent studies have found significant empirical relationships between POS and important outcomes (e.g., Allen et al., 00; Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 001; Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 00; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 00; Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 001; Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1). In their meta-analysis, Rhoades and Eisenberger (00) found a mean corrected correlation of. between POS and turnover intention, and a mean corrected correlation of. between POS and turnover behavior. Employees also develop general views concerning the degree to which supervisors value their contributions and care about their well-being (Kottke & Sharafinski, 1), called PSS. PSS has also been significantly related to important outcomes (Eisenberger et al., 00; Van Yperen & Hagedoorn, 00). Payne and Huffman (00) found that, among Army officers, mentoring support ( per cent from immediate supervisors) had a significant effect on turnover. Moreover, Eisenberger et al. (00) found that PSS was negatively correlated with turnover behavior (r ¼.). Given the demonstrated efficacy of POS and PSS as significant predictors, turnover researchers should attempt to understand the relevant causal linkages and investigate potential higher order relationships involving PSS and POS. Expanding POS linkages to turnover decisions An employee perceiving support from the organization should perceive greater inducements (March and Simon, 1) and these can potentially increase his/her instances of positive mood at work, which could then cause positive emotional associations with the organization itself, thereby increasing affective commitment (Eisenberger et al., 001) and decreasing turnover intention (Mathieu & Zajac, 10). In a key causal modeling study, Rhoades et al. (001) confirmed this linkage empirically, finding that the POS effect on turnover was fully mediated though affective commitment. Allen et al. (00) also found that commitment and job satisfaction fully mediated POS effects on turnover. Tekleab, Takeuchi, and Taylor (00) did not measure organizational commitment but found that all effects of POS on turnover intentions were mediated through global job satisfaction. Thus, existing findings in the POS literature indicate that POS effects on turnover constructs are fully mediated through global, affect-based work attitudes. However, based on the tenets of social exchange and reciprocity theory, receiving support from the organization should also cause some experienced obligation to the organization (e.g., Meyer & Allen, ; Rhoades et al., 001). Eisenberger et al. (001) suggested that POS, through a norm of reciprocity, can engender employee obligation to aid the organization. They maintain that this mechanism (along with positive mood effects) helps explain the relationship between POS and affective commitment. Although these obligations to stay with the organization, referred to as normative commitment (Meyer & Allen, ), are narrower than the obligations to aid the organization described by Eisenberger et al. (001), most obligations to aid the organization certainly subsume an obligation to remain. Maertz and Griffeth (00) also theorized that such obligations are distinct in their motivational potential from affective commitment; in that, employees can feel obliged to stay without liking the organization currently, or like the organization without feeling any great obligation. In any case, POS should inspire some obligation to remain, which leads to lower turnover THE EFFECTS OF POS AND PSS DOI:.0/job

4 C. P. MAERTZ JR ET AL. cognitions, apart from its effects on affective commitment (Meyer, Allen, & Smith, ; Meyer & Allen, ). Moreover, empirical research has already supported that POS can lead to felt obligations owed to the organization out of an adherence to a reciprocity norm (Tekleab et al., 00). Despite theoretical arguments and indirect empirical evidence, researchers have not tested normative commitment as a mediator of the POS turnover cognitions relationship. Thus: Hypothesis 1: POS effects on turnover cognitions will be mediated by normative commitment as well as by affective commitment. Expanding PSS linkages to turnover decisions Most turnover research has focused primarily on global attitudes toward the organization or job as antecedents (e.g., Mobley, 1; Price & Mueller, 11), rather than employee relationships with managers and others within the organization (Mitchell et al., 001). Nevertheless, anecdotal evidence from practitioner circles and research evidence (e.g., Griffeth et al., 000; Maertz, Stevens, & Campion, 00; Payne & Huffman, 00) strongly indicate that immediate managers play a major role in employee turnover decisions. In assessing their influence on turnover, a key question is: Do immediate managers/supervisors embody the organization itself (Levinson, 1), or do they forge their own independent attachments to employees (Reichers, 1)? Here, we address this question with respect to PSS and help resolve disagreement about how it influences turnover. On one side, findings from the POS literature indicate that PSS effects on turnover are fully mediated through POS (Eisenberger et al., 00; Rhoades et al., 001). Eisenberger et al. (00) found that the effects of PSS on turnover were fully mediated through POS. In a study of college graduates, Rhoades et al. (001) found that POS fully mediated the effects of PSS on affective commitment. Both of these studies explain the full mediation of PSS through POS by assuming that the supervisor represents or personifies the organization (Eisenberger et al., 00). This causal path implies that support from a supervisor only influences turnover by affecting the employee s perceptions and attitudes regarding the organization itself. In this view, the supervisor s effect on turnover decisions is as a generator of POS and a developer of organizational commitment among his/her employees. In contrast, theory and empirical findings in the areas of leader member exchange, commitment, mentoring, and turnover suggest that supervisor support should have broader, independent effects on turnover cognitions and behavior (e.g., Becker, ; Clugston, Howell & Dorfman, 000; Maertz et al., 00; Maertz, Mosley, & Alford, 00; Mitchell et al., 001; Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1; Tekleab et al., 00; Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1; Wayne, Shore, Bommer, & Tetrick, 00). Theorists have agreed that employees can distinguish relations with the immediate supervisor from relations with the organizational entity or its leaders (Becker, ; Dirks & Ferrin, 00; Reichers, 1, 1). When this distinction is made, employees can become independently attached to each focus (Reichers, 1). Maertz and Griffeth (00) theorized that supervisor attachments have distinct effects on turnover cognitions, apart from attachments and attitudes related to the organization itself. Also, employees tend to direct their reciprocating actions toward the target from which benefits originate (e.g., Hoffman & Morgeson, 1). Thus, in response to PSS, any resulting obligation should be primarily to the supervisor rather than to the organization. Empirically, findings in these areas also indicate that supervisor-level constructs explain significant incremental variance in outcomes beyond organization-level effects. For instance, Settoon et al. (1) found that LMX was significantly related to in-role performance and citizenship behavior, while POS was not. Similarly, Wayne et al. (1) found that POS and LMX were independently related to different outcome variables. Constituent commitments have also demonstrated incremental effects on DOI:.0/job

5 outcomes beyond the effects of organizational commitment (Becker, ; Maertz et al., 00). Mitchell et al. (001) found that relationships inside the organization (and out) explained variance in turnover behavior beyond organizational commitment effects. From the mentoring literature, Payne and Huffman (00) found that the effects of mentoring support on turnover were only partially mediated by affective commitment. They also found direct, non-mediated effects of mentoring support (largely from immediate supervisors) on turnover behavior. Similarly, Ito and Brotheridge (00) found that career support from supervisors had a significant direct path to turnover intentions after controlling for affective commitment. While these findings involve LMX, commitment to the supervisor, embeddedness, and mentoring rather than PSS per se, high levels of these former constructs imply perceiving support from the manager in question (e.g., Rhoades & Eisenberger, 00). These theoretical arguments and findings all strongly suggest that PSS should cause attachments directly to the supervisor, which should influence turnover cognitions directly, in addition to its established influence through increasing POS and affective commitment. Thus: Hypothesis : PSS effects on turnover cognitions will be partially rather than fully mediated by POS. Based on these two hypotheses and strong inference research (Platt, 1), two alternative models were constructed to be comparatively tested (See Figures 1 and ). The first model represents the existing full-mediation findings from the POS literature where effects of PSS are fully mediated by POS, whose effects on turnover cognitions are fully mediated by affective commitment. The second hypothesized model adds a POS path to turnover cognitions mediated through normative commitment and a direct path from PSS to turnover cognitions. As our theoretical control in these models, we include perceived job alternatives in the model to ensure that both primary factors, ease of movement (alternatives) and desirability of movement (organizational commitment), are represented (March and Simon, 1). We focus on turnover cognitions as the dependent variable for this analysis for several reasons. First, turnover cognitions are the more causally proximal result of the exogenous variables and mechanisms represented. Second, with Hypotheses 1 and, we are focusing on competitively testing two sets of viable alternative causal pathways rather than on confirming predictors of turnover behavior that have been established elsewhere (e.g., Rhoades & Eisenberger, 00). Third, the dichotomous turnover behavior measure would violate assumptions of the SEM causal modeling techniques employed (e.g., Allen et al., 00) PSS POS Affective Commitment Normative Commitment Perceived Job Alternatives Figure 1. Model supported in the POS literature THE EFFECTS OF POS AND PSS Turnover Cognitions DOI:.0/job

6 C. P. MAERTZ JR ET AL. PSS POS and would provide lower power to detect effects (e.g., Peters & Sheridan, 1). Thus, we believe it is reasonable to use cognitions as the criterion in this test. POS T PSS interaction Affective Commitment Normative Commitment Perceived Job Alternatives Figure. Model implied in the broader literature Turnover Cognitions We do examine turnover behavior as the criterion in testing this hypothesis which examines an interactive relationship for the first time. Presumably because previous POS research found that PSS effects on turnover cognition are fully mediated by POS, there has been little interest in investigating any higher order effects among PSS and POS. The failure to consider such interactions represents a gap in our understanding, which inhibits our ability to correctly specify models or design interventions involving both POS and PSS. To address this, we first assume that most employees desire support from both sources. However, one construct may affect the salience of the other in the minds of employees, separate from increasing or reducing its average level. Specifically, more frequent day-to-day contact with employees provides the supervisor with more opportunity than the organization itself to demonstrate support (or lack thereof) to employees. Because of this, PSS levels become obvious to employees relatively quickly and may fluctuate more than POS levels. Thus, employees experiencing low PSS are likely to focus more on the organization as a source of needed support. This would make POS more salient for turnover decisions under conditions of low PSS. On the other hand, a high PSS supervisor delivers important benefits on a regular basis (e.g., consideration, good assignments, flexible work schedules, feedback, recommendations, and recognition). When supervisors are perceived to provide such support, they are likely to elicit positive feelings and trust from employees (e.g., Dirks & Ferrin, 00). This makes supervisors even more able to position themselves in the forefront of their employees consciousness as the primary provider (and potentially the inhibitor) of employee support. The supervisor s providing regular support may overshadow the organization as a source of support, making POS less salient to employee decisions and thereby weakening the POS turnover relationship. Hypothesis : The negative relationship between POS and turnover will be stronger for those experiencing low PSS and weaker for those experiencing high PSS. DOI:.0/job

7 Organizational Context The data were collected in 1 as part of a research project to study employee relations in the Department of Family and Children s Services, in four Georgia counties surrounding a major metropolitan area. Turnover data were collected 1 year later from three counties; one county did not provide turnover data because our contact in that county left the organization. The study included a wide variety of employees surrounding the organization s primary mission of supporting children and families (e.g., caseworkers, administrative support staff, HR, IT, and finance professionals, managers). They were/are state employees, and many (particularly the caseworkers) are highly involved in a very emotionally demanding work environment. Methods Sample and procedures Participants were social workers from four Counties of a state department of family and children s services located in the southeastern United States. Surveys were distributed to them in small groups to be completed on a voluntary basis during work hours as part of an employee survey to improve retention and working conditions. Since we asked respondents to identify themselves in order to match their surveys with subsequent turnover data, the confidential nature of their responses was stressed on the survey cover page and by the researcher collecting the surveys. Further, the surveys were returned directly to the researcher. Complete surveys were received from employees; however, one county did not report subsequent turnover data. Thus, complete surveys with accompanying turnover behavior data were received from employees for a final response rate of 0 per cent. The average age of respondents was. years (SD ¼.) and per cent were female. Of our respondents, per cent were White, per cent were African American, per cent were Hispanic, and per cent were from other backgrounds. Measures Affective commitment Employees level of affective organizational commitment was measured using a nine-item version of the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1) suggested by Bozeman and Perrewe (001) to minimize conceptual overlap with withdrawal cognitions. A sample item is I feel, for me, this is the best of all possible organizations for which to work. Normative commitment We measured normative commitment with three items from Meyer et al. s () normative commitment scale. Items measured the employee s felt obligation to stay with the current organization: THE EFFECTS OF POS AND PSS DOI:.0/job

8 C. P. MAERTZ JR ET AL. I would feel guilty if I left the organization now, I owe a great deal to my organization, and This organization deserves my loyalty. Perceived alternative jobs Perceived alternative jobs were measured as a key control (March and Simon, 1) with a three-item scale from Kim, Price, Mueller, and Watson (1). The items assessed the employee s perceived ability to find another job. A sample item is, It would be easy for me to find a job with another employer that is as good as the one I now have. POS POS was measured with 1-item short-form of the original item SPOS developed and used by Eisenberger and colleagues (1). A sample item is, The organization strongly considers my goals and values. PSS Similar to previous efforts to measure PSS (Eisenberger et al., 00; Kottke & Sharafinski, 1; Rhoades et al., 001), we adapted three items from the SPOS to assess employees perceptions that their supervisor cares for their well-being and supports them at work. An example item is My supervisor is willing to listen to my job-related problems. Turnover cognitions We used items from Hom and Griffeth () to measure this construct. Items were answered on a five-point scale with either no chance, per cent chance, per cent chance, per cent chance, and 0 per cent chance, or with strongly disagree to strongly agree as scale anchors. Sample item stems for each anchor type include, What are the chances that you will leave this organization in the next months? and I am thinking about quitting my job. Turnover behavior Turnover was measured months after the survey collection. Twenty-six participants quit for a turnover base rate of per cent. Although somewhat low, this base rate is not unusual in turnover research (e.g., Peters & Sheridan, 1). Leavers were coded as 1 for our analyses and stayers were coded as 0. Analyses We ran the CFA measurement model with all exogenous causal variables and used SEM modeling to test Hypotheses 1 and. We used structural equation modeling (SEM) with LISREL. (Joreskog & Sorbom, ) to test the models and hypotheses. A covariance matrix was used as input for estimation of models. We used scale scores as indicators of our measures rather than the individual items because LISREL has some computing limitations with fitting models having more than manifest indicators (Bentler & Chou, 1; Williams & Hazer, 1). In our study, we had more than 0 manifest indicators. Thus, following the procedure outlined by Williams and Hazer (1), we calculated the measurement loadings (square root of scale reliability) and error variances (one minus reliability times the scale variance). We also controlled for tenure and age. For Hypothesis, because of the binary nature of actual turnover behavior, we used logistic regression. DOI:.0/job

9 Table 1. Means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and correlations Variable Mean SD 1 1. Age... Tenure.... PSS POS POS PSS Affective commitment Normative commitment Perceived alternatives Withdrawal cognitions Turnover Reliabilities (coefficient alphas) are reported on the diagonal. n ¼. p <.0. Results CFA results All estimated item loadings were significant ( p >.0). The model fit statistics were as follows: x ¼., df ¼, p ¼.00; RMSEA ¼.0; GFI ¼.; AGFI ¼.; NFI ¼.0; NNFI ¼.; CFI ¼.. Based on these findings and the fact that all scales had adequate reliabilities, we concluded that there was sufficient evidence to proceed with the scales as proposed. Means, standard deviations, scale internal consistency reliabilities (alphas), and correlations among study variables are presented in Table 1. Hypothesis tests The first model in Figure, hypothesizing that the POS effects on turnover cognitions will be fully mediated by affective commitment and that POS would be fully mediated by POS, provided the following fit to the data: x ¼., df ¼ 1, p ¼.00; RMSEA ¼.; GFI ¼.; AGFI ¼.; NFI ¼.; CFI ¼.. We compared this model to the second model, where the POS effects on turnover cognitions are mediated by normative commitment as well, and where PSS effects are only partially mediated through POS. The results indicate that the partially mediated model in Figure, with paths from POS to normative commitment and from PSS to turnover cognitions, fit the data significantly better than the more restricted model (x ¼., df ¼ 1, p ¼.00; RMSEA ¼.; GFI ¼.0; AGFI ¼.; NFI ¼.0; CFI ¼.1). The x difference between the partially and fully mediated models was statistically significant (Dx ¼., df, p <.01). Further, the path coefficients for each of these additional paths were significant in the expected direction (see Figures and ). Thus, Hypotheses 1 and were supported in the sense that POS is directly related to normative as well as affective commitment, and the effects of PSS on turnover cognitions are only partially mediated. However, the fit of this model still failed to reach conventional standards for good fit. Hypothesis proposed that the strength of the negative relationship between POS and turnover would be stronger for those low on PSS and weaker for those high on PSS. These logistic regression results are presented in Table. The interaction coefficient was significant and the form of the THE EFFECTS OF POS AND PSS DOI:.0/job

10 C. P. MAERTZ JR ET AL. PSS interaction was in the expected direction. The POS turnover relationship was stronger for those with low PSS and weaker for those with high PSS see (Figure ). Discussion. *. * POS Note: * p <.0 (one-tailed). The purpose of this study was to clarify the relationships between two forms of perceived support and voluntary turnover decisions. This study generally confirms the place of POS and PSS in the nomological network leading to turnover behavior. We contribute by expanding this network beyond PSS. *. * POS -. * Note: * p <.0 (one-tailed)..1 * Affective Commitment Normative Commitment Perceived Job Alternatives Affective Commitment Normative Commitment Perceived Job Alternatives Age -.1 * -.1 * Age -. * -. *. * -.1 * -. * Tenure Figure. Partially mediated model implied in broader literature. * -.1 * -. * Tenure Figure. Fully mediated model from current POS literature Turnover Cognitions Turnover Cognitions DOI:.0/job

11 Table. Results of logistic regression on turnover behavior models previously supported in the POS literature. In particular, we added a path from POS to turnover mediated through normative commitment, added a direct path from PSS to turnover cognitions, and uncovered an interaction of PSS and POS on turnover behavior. These findings have several implications for researchers and practitioners. Implications for predicting turnover behavior Odds ratio Wald statistic SE Organizational commitment. 1.. Normative commitment 1... Perceived alternative jobs POS..0.1 PSS... POS PSS Model x. log likelihood 1. Pseudo R.0 n ¼. p <.0 (one-tailed). Notably, our logistic regression findings are the first to show that both POS and PSS are significantly related to turnover behavior with antecedents reflecting both perceived desirability and ease of movement (i.e., perceived alternatives) also included in the multivariate model. This finding with such Predicted Turnover POS Figure. Interaction of PSS and POS on turnover behavior THE EFFECTS OF POS AND PSS PSS =-1 std PSS =+1 std DOI:.0/job

12 C. P. MAERTZ JR ET AL. antecedents controlled in the equation helps further establish the importance of POS and PSS as turnover determinants (e.g., Mitchell et al., 001). We also discovered that the POS turnover relationship was stronger under conditions of low PSS than under conditions of high PSS. When the supervisor provides high support, POS becomes a less important predictor of turnover. POS becomes significantly more important when support from the supervisor is relatively absent. Employees may then seek out support from the organization itself, thereby making POS more relevant for turnover decision-making. Theoretically, this interpretation suggests the possibility of a compensatory model of support where a certain amount of support is needed and sought by employees (to avoid quitting). This minimum level of support may be supplied by the supervisor, the organization itself, or a combination. Future research should directly investigate whether this compensatory relation for POS and PSS exists with regard to turnover and other outcomes. The overall conclusion is that both constructs and their interaction should be included in future predictive models, even with organizational commitment and perceived job alternatives already included in the model. Implications for turnover causal modeling research Further, our findings indicate that the effects of POS on turnover are not always fully mediated through affective commitment, as has been found in past POS studies (Eisenberger et al., 00; Rhoades et al., 001). One main conclusion for research is that POS can influence turnover cognitions and behavior through other mechanisms besides improving global affect-loaded work attitudes. Specifically, POS can create obligations in the employee to reciprocate through remaining with the organization. These obligations to stay may cause an employee to have fewer turnover cognitions and dismiss them more quickly. Future research should investigate other potential causal mechanisms behind how organizational support affects turnover tendencies. For example, current POS may give the employee a feeling of confidence that support may also be forthcoming in the future. Such expectations of future support may cause more favorable calculations of one s ability to meet future career goals within the organization, and thereby reduce turnover intentions (Maertz & Griffeth, 00). Thus, future researchers may want to investigate whether future-oriented, calculative motives of attachment also mediate the effects of POS on turnover. The effects of the supervisor Our findings add to the growing body of research concluding that supervisor-related perceptions and attitudes can influence outcomes separately from organization-related perceptions and attitudes (e.g., Becker, ; Ito & Brotheridge, 00; Wayne et al., 1), in contrast to the fully mediated effects for PSS reported in the POS literature (i.e., Eisenberger et al., 00; Rhoades et al., 001). The implication for turnover research is that future studies should always consider the potential for employees relationships with their supervisors to directly impact turnover decisions. Given this, one wonders why the previous full-mediation findings occurred in the first place. Using actual turnover behavior with a base rates of,, and per cent may have hurt the power to detect effects for PSS on turnover in Eisenberger et al. (001) and Rhoades et al. (001), compared to our higher variance model criterion of turnover cognitions (which is also closer to PSS in the causal sequence). In any case, significant evidence remains that employees may see supervisors acting as organizational representatives who exert effects on turnover through helping to increase POS and positive organizational attitudes. However, it is clear from current and a larger body of findings that supervisors also form individual relationships and related attachments with their employees that are distinct from employee attitudes toward the organization as a whole. In other words, supervisors can act as agents of the organization or DOI:.0/job

13 independent actors or both when providing support and fostering attachments. Researchers must strive to learn the personal and situational characteristics that determine whether supervisors are seen by employees as independent objects of attachment versus agents of the organization causing positive attitudes toward it. Future research should also investigate other alternative causal paths to outcomes, not mediated through organizational commitment and global job satisfaction. Following the pattern from the commitment and LMX literature (i.e., coworker commitment or TMX), researchers should investigate whether perceived coworker support adds incrementally to the prediction of turnover and other outcomes. To comprehensively consider the effects of support, researchers should also investigate support that comes from family or friends away from work (e.g., Adams, King, & King, 1; Edwards & Rothbard, 000) and how it impacts turnover decisions. The current context It was somewhat surprising that the established turnover predictors were not significantly related to turnover behavior in the equation while POS and PSS were. One explanation may lie in the context. Perhaps in this sample of social workers, commitment and perceived alternatives were less important than POS and PSS. One important aspect of their jobs is to identify and provide support to those in need. This sample of social workers may have been one where support was particularly needed and valued, because they provide support to others using limited monetary resources. Thus, support was likely to be salient in this context. Future studies should determine whether our findings generalize to other contexts where support is less salient. Implications for practice POS and PSS generally suggest relatively straightforward interventions to managers (i.e., providing more visible signs of organizational support and more visibly supportive supervisors), perhaps more so than broad attitude constructs do. Increasing recognizable support is imminently practical for supervisors and organizations to implement. Improving support would also be far less expensive and complex than raising compensation or redesigning jobs to reduce turnover (e.g., McEvoy & Cascio, 1). Despite this promising potential, if the full-mediation perspective from the POS literature were true, it would be much more questionable whether increasing POS and PSS would really be a potent method of retaining employees. In this view, perceived support is simply another antecedent of organizational commitment, which may change with changes in many other perceptual antecedents (see Mathieu & Zajac, 10). Increasing POS and PSS may be no better at reducing turnover than any other temporary, mood-boosting intervention. However, in this study, we rejected the fully mediated model and supported additional causal pathways from support to turnover. Thus, the primary practical implication of our findings is that increasing or bolstering POS and PSS is potentially quite valuable as a part of a turnover management program. For increasing POS to be successful, managers must strive to find out whether task-based or socioemotional needs are best targeted through support (e.g., Rhoades et al., 001) and tailor support accordingly. Targeted efforts and policies to improve support in this way, and to publicize these efforts, could play a part in reducing employee turnover. For example, providing adequate staff, increasing other visible resources in the work environment (food, supply budgets), wellness facilities, and providing child-care assistance/flextime could increase POS. Even communicating to employees THE EFFECTS OF POS AND PSS DOI:.0/job

14 C. P. MAERTZ JR ET AL. verbally and in writing that the organization wants to help them if possible may foster POS. The current study increases our confidence that such interventions can help decrease turnover cognitions and behavior. Supervisors acting supportive and promoting themselves as such seems to be generally good for retention. For instance, supervisors could regularly ask employees how they can help them do their job better and show personal consideration. They could instill fair methods for making workgroup decisions and even allow exceptions to rules in extreme circumstances to help employees. However, increasing PSS could potentially have some mixed implications as well. Because of the relatively frequent interactions between most employees and their supervisors, the supervisor becomes the primary focus and a potential shaper of employees support perceptions. On the upside, it would seem that a supportive supervisor can be a potential mitigating influence when POS is low. A supportive supervisor may be able to cover for the shortcomings of organizational policies and top management decisions that seem unsupportive, keeping turnover from increasing. On the downside, supervisors can potentially manipulate how employees perceive support and its sources (Eisenberger et al., 00). They may portray themselves to employees as a supportive savior fighting upstream against an unsupportive organization. Supervisors can also take personal credit for true organizational-level support (e.g., good thing I got you that raise ), changing potential POS into PSS (Eisenberger et al., 00). Similar to the idea of conflicting commitments (Reichers, 1), the interaction of POS and PSS should be viewed partly as an agency problem that needs to be managed, rather than assuming that the supervisor always represents the organization favorably in the minds of employees. Moreover, attachment to the supervisor only means attachment to the organization as long as the employee sees the supervisor as somewhat attached to the company (Maertz & Griffeth, 00). Thus, distinctive attachments to supervisors may even increase voluntary turnover when a loyalty-inspiring supervisor leaves (Maertz et al., 00). Still, a program of training and rewarding supervisors (who are personally psychologically attached to the organization) for being supportive, and for presenting the organization as supportive, is worth serious consideration as a method for reducing turnover. Limitations and Conclusion One limitation of this study was the low explained variance in turnover behavior. Nevertheless, this is a common problem in most turnover studies (e.g., Peters & Sheridan, 1). Although the hypothesized model was better than the fully mediated model, the overall model fit for both models was also poor by typical standards; and therefore, our hypotheses were not supported at the highest level possible. This poor fit is a shortcoming that we believe is primarily a function of two factors. First, there are literally dozens of job, organization, and individual variables that influence turnover intentions that we were not able to include in our model. Recall that our purpose here was not to comprehensively model turnover causes, but instead to begin to examine the nature of relationships among POS, PSS, and withdrawal. Still, although it would not generally be feasible to include all known predictors of turnover, future research on these relationships would benefit from more completely specified models. Second, as noted earlier, our context and results may indicate that certain industry or job types could represent boundary conditions for traditional turnover models. Future research that directly assesses the effects of context on turnover relationships would also be valuable. One could potentially criticize our use of cognitions in our modeling analyses as promoting common method bias, but we see this as a minor issue. The focus in our Hypotheses 1 and was on competitively testing alternative causal paths, not confirming previously established relationships with turnover DOI:.0/job

15 behavior. Moreover, turnover cognitions are the proximal cause of behavior in all major theoretical models to date. This greatly mitigates concerns about common method bias, which do not apply at all to our test of Hypothesis. Nevertheless, we could not truly assess causality with these data. Despite these limitations, this study demonstrated that the effects of POS and PSS on turnover are more expansive than previously thought and that these constructs may have significant interactive effects on turnover behavior. Hopefully, the current findings will encourage support researchers to investigate this PSS POS interaction in the future and will prompt turnover researchers to include both POS and PSS in future modeling efforts. Author biographies Carl P. Maertz, Jr is currently an Associate Professor in the John Cook School of Business at Saint Louis University. He received his Ph.D. in Human Resources Management from Purdue University s Krannert Graduate School of Management and has published work in other outlets such as Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Human Resource Management, and Journal of Management. His current research interests include voluntary turnover, expatriate management, and work family conflict. Rodger W. Griffeth, Ph.D. is the Byham Chair of Industrial/Organizational Psychology and Professor of Management Systems at Ohio University. He received his Ph.D. in psychology from the University of South Carolina and has published in other outlets such as Journal of Applied Psychology, Psychological Bulletin, Personnel Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Academy of Management Journal, and Journal of Management. His current research interests include investigating voluntary turnover processes and the propensity to turnover. Nathanael S. Campbell is currently an Assistant Professor of Management in the Kelley College of Business at Hardin-Simmons University. He received his Ph.D. in Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior from Mississippi State University s College of Business and Industry. His current research interests include mentoring, perceived support, and justice. David G. Allen (Ph.D. Georgia State University) is an Associate Professor of Management in the Fogelman College of Business and Economics at the University of Memphis. His primary research interests include the flow of people into and out of organizations, for example, turnover and retention, recruitment communication, and Web-based recruitment. His research on these topics has been published in Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Personnel Psychology, Organizational Research Methods, Human Relations, and other outlets. References Adams, G. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1). Relationships of job and family involvement, family social support, and work-family conflict with job and life satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1, 1 0. Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M., & Griffeth, R. W. (00). The role of perceived organizational support and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process. Journal of Management,,. Becker, T. E. (). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making? Academy of Management Journal,,. THE EFFECTS OF POS AND PSS DOI:.0/job

16 C. P. MAERTZ JR ET AL. Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. P. (1). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, 1,. Bozeman, D. P., & Perrewe, P. L. (001). The effect of item content overlap on organizational commitment questionnaire-turnover cognitions relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology,, Cappelli, P. (00). Will there really be a labor shortage? Human Resource Management,, 1 1. Clugston, M., Howell, J. P., & Dorfman, P. W. (000). Does cultural socialization predict multiple bases and foci of commitment? Journal of Management,,. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (00). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology,,. Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review,, 1 1. Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology,,. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D. (1). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1, 0. Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, R., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (00). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and retention. Journal of Applied Psychology,,. Griffeth, R. W., & Hom, P. W. (001). Retaining valued employees. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Updated moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management,,. Hoffman, D. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (1). Safety-related behavior as a social exchange: The role of perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology,,. Hom, P. W., Caranikas-Walker, F., Prussia, G. E., & Griffeth, R. W. (). A meta-analytical structural equations analysis of a model of employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology,, 0 0. Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (). Structural equations modeling test of a turnover theory: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,, 0. Ito, J. K., & Brotheridge, C. M. (00). Does supporting employee s career adaptability lead to commitment, turnover, or both? Human Resource Management,, 1. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (). LISREL : User s reference guide. Scientific Software International, Chicago, IL. Kim, S., Price, J. L., Mueller, C. W., & Watson, T. W. (1). The determinants of career intent among physicians at a U.S. air force hospital. Human Relations,,. Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. Educational and Psychological Measurement,,. Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (). An alternative approach: The unfolding model of voluntary employee turnover. Academy of Management Review, 1,. Levinson, H. (1). Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization. Administrative Science Quarterly,, 0 0. Maertz, C. P., & Campion, M. A. (00). Profiles in quitting: Integrating content and process turnover theory. Academy of Management Journal,,. Maertz, C. P., & Griffeth, R. W. (00). Eight motivational forces and voluntary turnover: A theoretical synthesis with implications for research. Journal of Management,,. Maertz, C. P., Mosley, D. C., & Alford, B. (00). Does organizational commitment fully mediate constituent commitment effects: A re-assessment and clarification. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,,. Maertz, C. P., Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (00). A turnover model for the Mexican maquiladoras. Journal of Vocational Behavior,, 1 1. March, J., & Simon, H. A. (1). Organizations. New York: Wiley Press. Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. (10). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin,, 11. McEvoy, G. M., & Cascio, W. F. (1). Strategies for reducing employee turnover: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 0,. Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 1. Meyer, J., Allen, N., & Smith, C. (). Commitment to organizations and occupations: extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology,, 1. DOI:.0/job