Perceived employability and turnover intentions,

the moderating effect of learning culture.

Name: Jessy van Wingerden

Student number: 10370943

Supervisor: Sofija Pajic

Due date: 22th June, 2018

Word count: 14157 words

University of Amsterdam

Master of Business Administration

Thesis Leadership & Management

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Student Jessy van Wingerden, who declares to take full

responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented

in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its

references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is

responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

Acknowledgements

In the process of writing my thesis, some people were of crucial importance to me. I would

like to thank them in this section. First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor: Sofija

Pajic. She offered me, and the rest of our research group, a lot of guidance and sufficient

feedback. Without Sofija, my Thesis would not be the at the same level as it is now.

Furthermore, I want to thank the members of my research group: Evita Dupker, Karin

van Egmond and Erik-Jan Veerman. It was a pleasure to work together with them and to help

each other when in need of something. Also, collecting the data together made it much easier

and even more fun to do.

Having mentioned the data, I also want to thank all of the respondents who filled in

the survey. A special thanks to the people in my network who worked extra hard in order to

get us enough respondents.

Finally, I would like to thank the UvA for presenting us this opportunity to write our

thesis and guide us along the path to finish the Master and graduate.

Abstract

This study looked at the antecedents of turnover intention and how managers might be able to

retain their employees. Therefore, we examined the total effect of self-efficacy on turnover

intentions. Besides, we tested the indirect effect of self-efficacy on turnover intention through

perceived employability and if this relation can be moderated by learning culture. The data to

test the model was collected through cross-sectional surveys among 402 respondents. The

data was processed and analysed with mediation and moderated mediation analysis in SPSS

using PROCESS macro. The results indicated a positive effect of self-efficacy on perceived

employability and, against our expectations, a negative effect of perceived employability on

turnover intentions. Moreover, self-efficacy had a negative effect on turnover intentions

through perceived employability. Contrary to our expectations, self-efficacy showed no

significant direct effect on turnover intentions while learning culture did not show a

significant moderation effect. These results show that in order to retain employees, managers

should try and recruit or stimulate employees with high self-efficacy. Next to the practical

implications, this study provides a robust argumentation for the link between the dimensions

of the social cognitive theory and turnover intention.

Keywords: Turnover intention, Perceived employability, Self-efficacy and Learning culture.

Inhoud 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Theoretical framework ........................................................................................................................ 6

2.1.1. Turnover intentions ................................................................................................................... 6

2.2.1. Self-efficacy and turnover intentions ........................................................................................ 8

2.3.1 Perceived employability ........................................................................................................... 10

2.3.2. Perceived employability and self-efficacy .............................................................................. 12

2.3.3. Perceived employability and turnover intentions .................................................................... 14

2.4.1. Organizational learning culture ............................................................................................... 16

2.4.2. Organizational learning culture, perceived employability and turnover intentions ................ 18

3. Methods ............................................................................................................................................. 21

3.1. Sample ........................................................................................................................................ 21

3.2. Procedure .................................................................................................................................... 22

3.3. Measures ..................................................................................................................................... 22

3.4. Control variables ........................................................................................................................ 23

4. Results ............................................................................................................................................... 25

4.1. Analytical Strategy ..................................................................................................................... 25

4.2. Descriptive statistics ................................................................................................................... 26

4.3. Testing hypotheses ..................................................................................................................... 27

5. Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 31

5.1. Practical implications ................................................................................................................. 34

5.2. Limitations and future research suggestions .............................................................................. 35

6. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 38

References ............................................................................................................................................. 39

Appendix ............................................................................................................................................... 45

1

1. Introduction

Over the last years, a number of changes have occurred within the labour market, and it has

changed from operating according to a fixed principle to a more dynamic process. A recent

trend is that fewer employees have fixed contracts. In the Dutch labour market, the percentage

of employees who have a fixed contract has dropped from 71% to 61%. Therefore, employees

have become more flexible, and it has become easier for them to move to other organizations

(Sutherland et al., 2002). This makes retaining an organization’s important employees one of

the most important concerns of HR managers. Organizations are increasingly ‘headhunting’

competitors’ employees, which has resulted in companies placing greater emphasis on

retaining their staff (Sutherland et al., 2002).

Since the improvement of the economy in 2014, there has been an increase in turnover

among employees. In 2017, 937,000 employees in the Netherlands, which represents

approximately 15% of the Dutch working community, had different employers to those which

they had had the year before (CBS, 2018). When it comes to organizations, an increase in

turnover has been demonstrated to have a negative consequences on various performance

outcomes (Heavey, Holwerda & Hausknecht, 2013). It is therefore important to investigate

the causes and consequences of turnover from both the organizational (employer) and

individual (employee) perspectives. Due to the difficulty in retrieving information concerning

actual turnover numbers, this study focuses on the most important predictor of turnover:

turnover intentions (Lee & Mowday, 1987; Michaels & Spector, 1982). In a study conducted

by Tett and Meyer (1993), several variables were tested with regard to their ability to predict

turnover. The highest predictor was found to be turnover intention (0,45). Therefore, we

believe that examining the variable of turnover intention will provide robust predictions

concerning actual turnover.

In order to understand what drives employees to turnover or to have the intention to do

so, research should be conducted into personal factors. Based on the social cognitive theory of

Bandura (1988), personal characteristics are crucial contributors to organizational factors. The

three main dimensions which are relevant on this topic are: enhancing workers’ beliefs of

their capabilities, developing their capabilities and improving their work ethic through

learning and goal systems (Bandura, 1988). The first dimension of the social cognitive theory

of enhancing workers’ beliefs of their capabilities is considered as the level of self-efficacy an

employee has. Bandura (1991, p. 257) defined self-efficacy as “people’s beliefs about their

capabilities to exercise control over their own level of functioning and over events that affect

2

their lives”. According to the social cognitive theory, workers with high self-efficacy have the

determination to affect their personal career and influence events in their favour which can

lead for self-efficacy enhancing turnover intention (Bandura, 1988). This is supported by a

study conducted by Brown et al. (2006), who found a significant, direct and positive

relationship between self-efficacy and job search behaviour (.21), job search efforts (.16) and

job search outcomes (.24). Employees with high self-efficacy have a need for constant

development and desire to be in control over their own career. When they have the impression

that they are no longer developing or have a greater number of responsibilities elsewhere, they

tend to develop turnover intentions earlier than workers with low self-efficacy (Griffeth, Hom

& Gaertner, 2000). Even though self-efficacy is a relevant antecedent of turnover because the

need for control and development in their career, it is not the only personality factor that

might affect individual differences to consider leaving an organization. Research has

identified other antecedents of turnover intention, such as demographic variables or self-

esteem (Abraham, 2000; Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner, 2000); however, this study focuses on

self-efficacy due to the relation with one of the dimensions of the social cognitive theory, the

important role it plays as a contributor to academic development (i.e. a learning culture, which

will be discussed further in this chapter) and the connection of perceived employability to

self-efficacy.

The relationship between self-efficacy and perceived employability is intriguing,

because of the belief that perceived employability is also one of the antecedents of turnover

intention (Hillage & Pollard, 1998). Employability is defined as an individual’s capability to

move self-sufficiently within the labour market to realize his or her potential through

achieving sustainable employment (Hillage & Pollard, 1998). Self-efficacy is considered as an

antecedent of perceived employability. If an individual has a high degree of belief in his or

her capabilities and ability to control the situations that arise in life, it is assumed that his or

her perceived employability will be high as well (Brown et al. 2006). Although perceived

employability and self-efficacy have the same core essence, they are two different constructs

(Berntson, Näswall & Sverke, 2008). Perceived employability represents more the specific

skills of an employee, where self-efficacy are the feelings of an employee on his own success

rate of completing a task. Just like self-efficacy, perceived employability could also be linked

to the social cognitive theory. First of all, perceived employability is also connected to the

first dimension of the social cognitive theory. If workers are confident of having the

capabilities to have certain tasks, it will increase their functioning on a personal level. They

will approach difficult tasks with a positive attitude, leading to higher motivation (Bandura,

3

1988). The second dimension of the social cognitive theory is developing workers’

capabilities, which can be linked to perceived employability. By modelling employees and

enhancing their intellectual, behavioral and social abilities, performances will be better. Next

to better performances, this will lead to a higher employability of the employees. Therefore,

the perception of workers’ own employability will rise (Bandura, 1988).

In understanding how general self-efficacy as a belief about capabilities to control

one’s lives translates in work specific outcomes such as turnover intention we see in

perceived employability a valuable link. Recent studies have assumed that perceived

employability increases an employee’s turnover intention (De Cuyper et al., 2010; De Cuyper,

Van der Heijden & De Witte, 2011; Rothwell & Arnold; 2007). Employees who have the

perception that they are highly employable will leave an organization earlier because they are

confident that there are other options available to them. This eliminates the fear of becoming

unemployed (De Cuyper, Van der Heijden & De Witte, 2011). Even though the conceptual

developments within employability literature and previous empirical evidence mainly speaks

in favour of a positive relationship between employability and turnover, not all the result are

consistent. For instance, De Cuyper et al. (2010) did not find a significant relationship

between perceived employability and turnover intention, while a study conducted by De

Cuyper, Van der Heijden and De Witte (2011) found a significant positive relation between

the variables. The similarity among these studies is that they all focused solely on the effect of

perceived employability and turnover intentions. This study makes a contribution to the

academic understanding of the undetermined relationship between perceived employability

and turnover intention by using perceived employability as a link between self-efficacy and

turnover intention.

Because employees with high self-efficacy could have more general belief that one has

control over her/his life within the work domain translates into positive beliefs about one’s

employment opportunities, these two factors might be linked in affecting turnover intention.

Based on the social cognitive theory, the two constructs self-efficacy and perceived

employability can be related to the dimensions of enhancing workers’ beliefs of their

capabilities and developing their capabilities (Bandura, 1988). Research has shown that

people with high believes of their capabilities and a high level of employability are more

capable of finding a job. These employees will, therefore, have more job alternatives which

leads to a higher turnover intention (Boxall, Macky & Rasmussen, 2003; Griffeth, Hom &

Gaertner, 2000). Therefore, we believe that perceived employability could represent the

mechanism through which more general self-efficacy beliefs get translated into more work

4

related domain in terms of perceptions about available job opportunities, which might further

trigger the intentions to leave their current job. Having the knowledge of when an employee

might have the intention to turnover is useful, it is, however, far more effective for managers

to know how to prevent turnover. Therefore, we examine the effect of a moderation effect. In

this study we test the moderation effect of learning culture, because of its connection to the

second and third dimension of the social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1988), which will be

further discussed in the following section.

Organizational learning culture is the extent to which an organization stimulates and

support their employees to develop themselves further. It is defined as a constant

measurement of the practices and its conversion to the available knowledge of the entire

organization which are relevant to their mission (Senge, 1990). Higher learning value within

organizations is a predictor of a higher self-rated and supervisor rated employability (Van der

Heijden, Gorgievski & De Lange, 2016). Furthermore, organizational learning culture has a

negative effect on turnover intentions. A higher organizational learning culture means lower

turnover intentions among employees (Islam et al., 2013). These two findings could support a

negative moderator effect of organizational learning culture on the positive relationship

between perceived employability and turnover intentions. Which is supported by Rajan

(1998), stating that a segment of highly perceived employees is employability driven in their

career plan and, therefore, need growth opportunities with their current organization to

prevent them from turnover. Based on the second and third dimension of social cognitive

theory, the learning culture of an organization is most relevant to study in this model. First of

all, the second dimension of the social cognitive theory, also related to perceived

employability, indicates higher organizational functioning when employees are able to

develop their capabilities adequately (Bandura, 1988). Secondly, according to the social

cognitive theory organizations should improve employees’ work ethic through learning and

goal systems. Organizations setting goals and provide constant feedback, create a continuous

learning process for their employees (Gephart et al., 1996). Eventually attaining challenging

goals will lead to higher motivation and satisfaction with highly self-perceived employees,

while low self-perceived employees will experience this as stressful (Bandura, 1988).

Organizations providing their employees with the possibility to develop these capabilities and

attaining challenging goals by implementing a learning culture will experience less

absenteeism and more job satisfaction among the skilled workers (Bandura, 1988).

Absenteeism and a lack of job satisfaction are considered as predictors of turnover (Tett and

Meyer, 1993; Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner, 2000). Lower absenteeism and higher job

5

satisfaction of skilled workers might be an indication of lower turnover among these

employees. By researching organizational learning culture, we can identify the possible

practical implications for organization. Offering highly self-perceived employees training and

growth opportunities may help organizations to retain them (Rajan, 1997). Therefore, we

further examine the moderator ‘organizational learning culture’ in this study.

The purpose of the study is to expand the current knowledge on turnover intention by

connecting it to the most important dimensions of the social cognitive theory on

organizational functioning. These dimensions are (inter)-related to the variables self-efficacy,

perceived employability and organizational learning culture, hence the choice of this model.

Due to the interrelatedness between the dimensions and variables we chose for mediating and

moderating effects. Although the social cognitive theory has shown to have influence on

organizational functioning, the theory has not been connected to turnover intention. Based on

the argumentation of the possible relationships between the independent and dependent

variables, this study makes a theoretical contribution to the subject turnover by linking it with

social cognitive theory. Furthermore, by incorporating an organizational moderating effect

(i.e. learning culture), this study provides practical implications for organizations with regard

to how they might retain their valued employees. Lastly, managers will be able to identify the

elements that drive employees to leave an organization based on this study.

To what extent does perceived employability mediate the relation between self-efficacy and

turnover intention, and is this indirect relationship moderated by an organizational learning

culture?

6

2. Theoretical framework

2.1.1. Turnover intentions

Employee turnover has been increasingly studied during the last 20 years. Because of the

changing working environment, this topic is constantly becoming more and more relevant to

organizations. Whereas employees in the past remained with the same companies throughout

their career, the labour market is now more dynamic, and employees change jobs more

frequently. Many factors influence turnover, including turnover intention, organizational

commitment and job satisfaction (Tett and Meyer, 1993). However, the most important

indicator of whether an employee is going to leave the organization is turnover intention (Lee

& Mowday, 1987; Michaels & Spector, 1982), which refer to employees’ intentional desire to

leave the organizations that they are currently working for (Tett & Meyer, 1993). Therefore,

as it is more easily measurable and yet a very close indicator of actual turnover, this study

focuses on turnover intention as a proxy of actual turnover.

High turnover rates could have a major impact on an organization’s performance and

harm multiple aspects of organizational functioning (Hancock et al., 2011). In the first place,

organizational experience substantial financial costs when they need to replace the current

employees, replacing employees costs an organization more as a result of the recruiting and

training that doing so requires (Dalton & Todor, 1978). Second, there is a loss of human

capital. The specialized knowledge of employees could be a competitive advantage for an

organization. After having lost employees, an organization must rebuild this specific

knowledge, which (temporarily) decreases organizational performance (Becker, 1993). Third,

there is a loss of social capital. The synergy and social environment created among the

employees can be disrupted by employees leaving, and, just like human capital, this social

capital must be rebuilt (Leana & van Buren, 1999). In addition, turnover might not only

represent a risk for organizations. There is also a downside for the employees, turnover

sometimes leads to outcomes which are not desired (e.g., being out of a job for a longer

period) (Boxall, Macky & Rasmussen, 2003).

Because of the serious consequences that turnover can have for organizations and

employees, it is important to acknowledge its antecedents. Griffeth, Hom and Gaertner (2000)

conducted a meta-analysis of the primary antecedents of employees’ turnover intentions. First

of all, the personal preferences of an employee are important. For example, when the

leadership or the atmosphere within an organization is a poor fit with the employees, they will

not perform optimally. Second, job alternatives are important to an employee’s decision to

7

leave an organization. In a dynamic market with many job opportunities, the likelihood of

turnover among employees is higher than in a market with few job opportunities. Rahman,

Naqvi and Ramay (2008) found a correlation of .531 between job alternatives and turnover. In

a more dynamic market, if employees are unable to develop and challenge themselves within

their organizations, they will seek employment elsewhere (Boxall, Macky & Rasmussen,

2003; Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner, 2000). Third, demographic and situational variables cause

turnover. Company tenure and work-life balance have a negative relationship with turnover.

In addition to these findings, Boxall, Macky and Rasmussen (2003) established work-related

antecedents, which can be used by an organization to retain their employees. The most

important antecedent is the attractiveness of the job, that it challenges the employee and is

more interesting than another job. Moreover, extrinsic rewards have become more important

to employees. Conditions like salary, job security, and promotion are crucial for employees.

To stay with the same employer, employees want possibilities for promotion, growth in their

career, and further personal development. What can be concluded is that turnover among

employees does not happen because of a single reason, it are multiple factors which have an

influence on an employees’ intention to leave the organization.

Also, the factors causing employees to consider leaving an organization are not only

work-related. It is also beneficial to consider more global individual differences (e.g.

psychological characteristics). As mentioned in the previous paragraph, Griffeth, Hom and

Gaertner (2000) demonstrated the relationship between demographic variables such as age,

education, and turnover intentions. Along with demographic variables, personality factors can

influence turnover intentions. For instance, Abraham (1999) found that self-esteem (an

adequate opinion of one’s own abilities and character) had a moderating effect on the

relationship between inequity (age, education, pay) and turnover intentions, indicating that

psychological factors influence turnover. Another psychological factor that may relate

positively to turnover is self-efficacy. Self-efficacy and self-esteem have been proven to be

empirically and theoretically connected. If people are convinced of their capabilities, they

demonstrate a higher success rate on task completions (high self-efficacy) (Gardner & Pierce,

1998). Therefore, considering the effect self-esteem has on turnover intention, it can be

assumed that self-efficacy can also affect turnover intentions. Furthermore, Brown et al.

(2006) found that self-efficacy demonstrates positive correlations with job search behaviour,

outcomes and effort. These elements are connected to turnover intention and therefore offer

additional evidence for a possible relationship. Besides, the social cognitive theory of

Bandura (1988) have shown positive organizational functioning of employees when

8

psychological factors are enhanced. They discuss three important dimensions of the

psychological factors: enhancing workers’ beliefs of their capabilities, developing their

capabilities and improving their work ethic through learning and goal systems (Bandura,

1988). Fulfilling these dimensions within the organizations will lead to, among others, lower

absenteeism and higher job satisfaction which are predictors of turnover intention (Tett and

Meyer, 1993; Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner, 2000). The first dimension of the social cognitive

theory of enhancing workers’ beliefs of their capabilities is considered as the level of self-

efficacy an employee has. Connecting the social cognitive theory to the model, self-efficacy is

a variable that needs to be studies. Whereas previous studies largely focused on workers’

psychological traits as control or moderating variables, this study focuses on the direct

relationship between self-efficacy and turnover intentions. We try to contribute to current

literature by making the link from the social cognitive theory to turnover intention through,

among others, self-efficacy. The next section first introduces the concept of self-efficacy and

then explain its connection to turnover intentions.

2.2.1. Self-efficacy and turnover intentions

Self-efficacy is defined as ‘people’s beliefs about their capabilities to exercise control over

their own level of functioning and over events that affect their lives’ (Bandura, 1991, p. 257).

Employees with high self-efficacy are believed to have a high level of confidence and to

invest a great deal of energy in performing their tasks. Moreover, people with high self-

efficacy are believed to have high levels of control over the problems they have to solve

(Schaubroeck, Lam & Xie, 2000). Self-efficacy is a concept that originates from social

cognitive theory, and refers to the belief that someone can influence a situation rather than

remain passive. The social cognitive theory is grounded in four beliefs concerning a person’s

self-perception (Bandura, 1997). In the short term, it means that people can develop creative

solutions to alter situations and are then capable of critically evaluating themselves in order to

avoid repeating that mistake. Besides, humans can understand their own strengths and

weaknesses and thereby control situations and themselves (Barone, Maddux & Snyder, 1997;

Bandura, 1997).

High self-efficacy is usually associated with positive outcomes and self-esteem.

However, in certain situations, self-efficacy can be considered a ‘dark trait’. People with high

self-efficacy often have the need (and capability) to control situations. When people with high

self-efficacy encounter a situation in which they have little control, they can experience stress

and exhibit dysfunctional behaviour. Wortman and Dunkel-Schetter (1979) provide the

9

example of cancer patients with high self-efficacy who largely blame themselves for

developing cancer. Therefore, employees with high self-efficacy can experience stress when

they have less control over situations. However, people with high self-efficacy can also react

by seeking more responsibilities or personal development, which can lead to higher turnover

intention (Schyns, Torka & Gössling, 2007). The work situation must be aligned with the high

standards of an employee with high self-efficacy, as, otherwise, such an employee may

experience negative feelings and form the intention to turnover. Employees with low self-

efficacy probably do not experience the need for development to the same extent as

employees with high self-efficacy; they will more likely cope with the situation and be less

controlling (Schaubroeck, Lam & Xie, 2000). Furthermore, employees will likely form the

intention to switch jobs when their work is no longer challenging or fulfilling. This antecedent

may be stronger in employees with high self-efficacy and their need for development. If their

jobs become less challenging, employees tend to move to organizations where they can fulfil

their needs (Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner, 2000; Schyns, Torka and Gössling, 2007). However,

this need is enhanced by the characteristics of an employee with high self-efficacy. Such

employees will transform thoughts of leaving an organization to actual intentions due to their

controlling natures (Sherer et al., 1982).

Previous research has shown to be inconclusive concerning the relationship between

self-efficacy and turnover intention. For example, Schyns, Torka and Gössling (2007)

hypothesized a positive relationship between the variables but did not find a significant effect.

This study contributes to determining whether self-efficacy is one of the antecedents of

turnover intentions. The first hypothesis is as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Self-efficacy relates positively to turnover intentions.

To further explain the mechanism through which self-efficacy relates to turnover intention

one of the variables that could account for this relationship is perceived employability. Self-

efficacy has been demonstrated to have a positive effect on perceived employability, because

perceived employability represent positive beliefs in one’s chances of finding and sustaining

work (Berntson, Näswall and Sverke 2008). Just like self-efficacy, perceived employability

relates to the first dimension of the social cognitive theory and the variables have, therefore, a

connection. Research has shown that people with high believes of their capabilities and a high

level of employability are more capable of finding a job. There are strong indications of its

positive effect on perceived employability and turnover intentions (Forrier, Sels and Stynen,

10

2009; Hillage & Pollard, 1998). Therefore, perceived employability could represent the

mechanism through which beliefs concerning self-efficacy are translated into the work-related

domain in terms of perceptions of available job opportunities, which may trigger intentions to

leave a job. This research thus introduces the concept of perceived employability and explains

why it could represent a link between self-efficacy and turnover intentions.

2.3.1 Perceived employability

The concept of employability was researched in studies conducted during the 1950s. Such

studies initially focused on the individual level and adopted an attitude perspective: they

focused on changing the attitudes of the unemployed to support them in finding employment.

The focus soon shifted from the attitude perspective to the characteristics of an employee

(Forrier & Sels, 2003a). The question became ‘what characteristics are necessary to become

employable?’ since employability had become a goal in and of itself. The practice of

approaching employability from an organizational perspective began during the 1980s. The

term then became an HR tool, as organizations started training their employees to be more

employable. Employees who could perform in multiple departments made an organization

more flexible. This flexibility made it easier for an organization to compete in a more

dynamic market (Forrier & Sels, 2003a). Since the 1990s, employability has shifted back to

being considered at the individual level. Now, it is not only perceived as an asset that is

relevant to the unemployed, as people with high employability are also considered to be

confident enough to navigate the labour market throughout their careers (Forrier & Sels,

2003a). Employability is currently defined the ability to achieve tangible opportunities in the

form of a set of capabilities throughout their working lives, making themselves sustainable

employable (van der Klink et al., 2016). Perceived employability is a crucial variable in the

model because of its connection with the first (thus, indicating a connection of perceived

employability and self-efficacy) and second dimension of the social cognitive theory. First of

all, perceived employability is also connected to the first dimension of the social cognitive

theory: if workers are confident of having the capabilities to have certain tasks, it will increase

their functioning on a personal level. They will approach difficult tasks with a positive

attitude, leading to higher motivation (Bandura, 1988). The second dimension of the social

cognitive theory is developing workers’ capabilities, which can be linked to perceived

employability. By modelling employees and enhancing their intellectual, behavioral and

social abilities, performances will be better. Next to better performances, this will lead to a

11

higher employability of the employees. Therefore, the perception of workers’ own

employability will rise (Bandura, 1988).

Hillard and Pollage (1998) developed a framework for policy analysis based on

employability. They distinguish between four components of employability: assets,

deployment, presentation, and personal circumstances/the external labour market. This

framework is widely considered to provide an adequate presentation of the components that

influence workers’ employability. Moreover, the framework makes a distinction between

internal and external components. Employees should possess certain attributes that make them

employable, but they are also dependent on external factors, such as job opportunities. Using

the framework of Hillard and Pollage (1998), we can understand what is required for an

employee to become highly employable and to consider themselves as employable, both

internally and externally. Although the framework offers a definition of employability,

‘perceived employability’ is a common label for this construct in the literature (Rothwell &

Arnold, 2007; Vanhercke et al., 2014). This makes the framework developed by Hillard and

Pollage (1998) relevant to this research. After clarifying the concept of perceived

employability, we use the framework to explain the relationship between self-efficacy and

turnover intentions.

Firstly, employee assets are the characteristics that employees possess that make them

highly employable. Within this component, there is a distinction between basic skills (e.g.

personality traits), transitional skills (e.g. communication and motivation) and business skills

(e.g. team work [Hillard & Pollage, 1998; Robinson, 2000]). According to Robinson (2000),

employability skills are trainable. Employees can develop certain skills to make themselves

more employable. The second component is deployment, which is the extent to which

employees can manage their own career. To be highly employable, employees should be

aware of their needs and interests and be capable of pursuing these interests. Employees

should have realistic images of both their capabilities and the labour market (McQuaid &

Linsey, 2002). The third component is presenting. In addition to the ability to do a job and a

realistic future perspective, (future) employees must be able to present their skills to

employers in order to get hired. Important aspects of this component are a sound résumé and

an effective interview (Hillard & Pollage, 1998; McQuaid & Linsey, 2002). The first three

components are internal components that can be influenced by the employee, while the last

component takes external factors into account, namely the extent to which it is possible to

move within the labour market and to seek available opportunities. Personal circumstances,

such as acquaintances (positive) or disabilities (negative), can also positively or negatively

12

influence employability. These circumstances are mostly beyond an individual’s control, but

they can affect employment opportunities (Hillard & Pollage, 1998; McQuaid & Linsey,

2002).

The concept of employability is becoming increasingly relevant to organizations due

to the changing behaviour of employees. In the past, it was more common for an employee to

seek a promotion within his or her organization. More recently, the labour market has become

increasingly dynamic, causing employees to fulfil their needs elsewhere (Forrier & Sels,

2003b). To consider the implications of this change for organizations, we examine the self-

perception of employees within an organization. As it focuses on the consequences of high

and low levels of self-perceived employability, this study’s findings could assist organizations

in managing their employees as effectively as possible. It should, therefore, result in positive

outcomes for employers, such as improved employee performance and lower turnover (De

Cuyper et al., 2014).

It is also relevant to consider whether there are psychological reasons why employees

perceive themselves as being highly employable. Forrier and Sels (2003a) distinguished the

process of employability in both ability and career expectations. One of their conclusions is

that high self-efficacy may contribute to high perceived employability. This is due to these

individuals’ (with high levels of self-efficy) self-confidence, as well as their beliefs that they

can do anything if they set their minds to it (Schyns, Torka & Gössling, 2007). This study,

therefore, further examines the relationship between self-efficacy and perceived

employability. The next section explains the arguments concerning this proposed relationship.

2.3.2. Perceived employability and self-efficacy

Employees who are highly employable are valuable to an organization because they can

perform under varied circumstances (Forrier & Sels, 2003a). Employees who perceive

themselves as highly employable are confident they belong to this group of valuable

employees (De Cuyper et al., 2008).

To consider the relationship between perceived employability and self-efficacy, we

connect the elements of the framework describing perceived employability (Hillage &

Pollard, 1998) to the social cognitive theory related to self-efficacy (Barone, Maddux &

Snyder, 1997). This connection is used to provide theoretical support that self-efficacy is a

necessary antecedent of the aforementioned aspects of employability (i.e. assets, deployability

and presentability). First, based on the model developed by Hillage and Pollard (1998), highly

self-perceived employees have the perception that they possess adequate basic, transitional,

13

and business skills, while workers with high self-efficacy are confident that they can control

situations by using these skills (Bandura, 1997). Employees who are confident that they are

able to use these skills may develop the perception of performing these skills adequately. The

second component of employability as defined by Hillage and Pollard (1998) is the ability of

employees to manage their own careers. Employees with high self-efficacy can critically

evaluate themselves and therefore become familiar with their capabilities and career needs.

The third component is that employees must be able to present themselves and their skills.

Employees who have high self-efficacy are confident in their actions and can communicate

their views; therefore, they are able to present themselves more effectively (Bandura, 1997).

Although perceived employability and self-efficacy are similar attributes, they are two

different constructs (Berntson, Näswall & Sverke, 2008). Perceived employability represents

the specific skills of employees, whereas self-efficacy refers to employees’ perception of their

success in completing tasks. Berntson, Näswall and Sverke (2008) found a significant

relationship between employability and self-efficacy (0,12), but not between self-efficacy and

employability (Berntson, Näswall & Sverke, 2008). Due to limitations of their study, the

authors found insufficient support for this conclusion, but they did not exclude the possibility

of self-efficacy affecting perceived employability. Next to these arguments, perceived

employability and self-efficacy are also connected through the social cognitive theory.

Organizations who enhance workers’ beliefs of their capabilities and developing their

capabilities are assumed to have employees with higher levels of self-efficacy and perceived

employability (Bandura, 1988). The present study therefore contributes to the literature on the

effect of self-efficacy on perceived employability by testing the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2a: Self-efficacy positively relates to perceived employability.

Workers’ perceptions of their own employability are not only based on characteristics such as

self-efficacy, as they are also based on the factors within an organization, such as training and

stimulation of development (Rothwell & Arnold, 2005). In recent years, organizations have

increasingly focused on making employees more employable. An advantage of this trend is

that employees are more capable of reacting to change and adapting to other positions within

an organization. Organizations therefore mainly focus on making their employees more

employable internally. However, this focus means that employees also become more

employable externally. By providing employees with the tools to make themselves more

employable, turnover may increase within an organization (Rajan, 1997). This present study

14

therefore further examines the causal relationship between perceived employability and

turnover intentions. The next section explains the arguments for this predicted relationship.

2.3.3. Perceived employability and turnover intentions

As mentioned previously, one important cause of turnover intentions is an employee’s ability

to transfer to another job. A person with a high perceived employability should find it easier

to transfer to another job (Rajan, 1997). The following paragraph provides a theoretical

argument for the relationship between turnover intentions and perceived employability.

First, considering the perceived employability framework of Hillage and Pollard

(1998), which consists of assets, deployment, presentation and personal circumstances/the

external labour market, employees are considered highly employable when they are strong in

these dimensions. Such employees are attractive to an organization due to their positive

attributes. Therefore, highly perceived employees have a greater number of job opportunities.

One of the antecedents of turnover intentions is job alternatives; when employees have many

opportunities, they intend to leave an organization earlier than when there are fewer

opportunities (Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner, 2000). Another aspect of turnover intentions is the

ease of movement of an employee. Forrier, Sels and Stynen (2009) identified multiple factors

that may prevent employees from moving to another organization. The most relevant factor is

an employee’s lack of confidence in his or her ability to perform in a new job. This factor is

no obstacle for employees who perceive themselves as highly employable, as they are

confident of their abilities (van der Klink et al., 2016). Therefore, linking this observation to

perceived employability, employees with a strong belief in their own employability are more

likely to have the intention to move into another job. A third argument for this relationship

may be changing dynamics in an employee’s work life. The labour market is increasingly

insecure, and employees have learned to manage their own career. Therefore, they develop

their skills and ensure they are highly employable. They wish to manage their own career and

be independent of employers (De Cuyper et al., 2011). This need to control one’s career is

also caused by the expected relationship with self-efficacy (Wortman & Dunkel-Schetter,

1979). A consequence may be that the overall turnover rate will increase among workers who

want to ensure that they remain employable.

In the past, many researchers studied the relationship between perceived employability

and turnover intentions. However, the outcomes of these studies are not conclusive. Some

studies found no relationships (e.g. De Cuyper et al., 2011) or developed turnover models that

demonstrated positive effects (e.g. Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner, 2000). This present study

15

contributes to the literature by providing greater clarity concerning the relationship between

perceived employability and turnover intentions. The outcomes reveal why higher perceived

employability causes turnover intentions within an organization. Therefore, we hypothesize

the following:

Hypothesis 2b: There is a positive relationship between perceived employability and turnover

intentions.

Brown et al. (2006) found a significant relationship between self-efficacy and job search

outcomes, behaviour and effort. This study indicated that people with high self-efficacy are

more capable of finding a job than those with low self-efficacy, which indicates higher

employability. Therefore, these employees have a greater number of job opportunities. That

more job alternatives lead to higher turnover intention (Boxall, Macky & Rasmussen, 2003;

Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner, 2000) indicates a positive relationship between self-efficacy and

turnover intention through perceived employability. Taking Hypothesis 2a and 2b together,

we came up with the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: The positive relationship between self-efficacy and turnover intentions is

mediated by perceived employability.

Even though a substantial number of studies (De Cuyper et al., 2010; De Cuyper, Van der

Heijden & De Witte, 2011) have investigated the relationship between self-efficacy,

employability and turnover, evidence concerning the relationship between these variables is

unclear. However, those studies (De Cuyper et al., 2010; De Cuyper, Van der Heijden & De

Witte, 2011) that involved the role of a moderator indicated that, under certain conditions,

such as high/low job control (De Cuyper et al., 2010) or many/few promises (De Cuyper, Van

der Heijden & De Witte, 2011), the relationship exists, whereas it does not under other

conditions. Therefore, we must further examine whether presence of a moderator makes a

difference. Specifically, the role played by learning culture (Rajan, 1997) suggests that

workers who are employability driven and perceive themselves as highly employable wish to

further develop themselves and have personal plans for their careers. Besides self-efficacy and

perceived employability, learning culture also is an important part of the social cognitive

theory. Based on the second and third dimension of the social cognitive theory, the learning

culture of an organization is most relevant to study in this model. First of all, the second

16

dimension of the social cognitive theory, also related to perceived employability, indicates

higher organizational functioning when employees are able to develop their capabilities

adequately (Bandura, 1988). Secondly, according to the social cognitive theory organizations

should improve employees’ work ethic through learning and goal systems. Organizations

setting goals and provide constant feedback, create a continuous learning process for their

employees (Gephart et al., 1996). Eventually attaining challenging goals will lead to higher

motivation and satisfaction with highly self-perceived employees, while low self-perceived

employees will experience this as stressful (Bandura, 1988). By researching organizational

learning culture, we can also determine the practical implications for an organization. An

organization that supports employees by offering training and growth opportunities may retain

highly self-perceived employees (Rajan, 1997). This present study, therefore, examines the

moderating effect on the causal relation from self-efficacy to turnover intentions through

perceived employability. The next section provides a brief introduction to organizational

learning culture and explains the arguments for this expected relationship.

2.4.1. Organizational learning culture

The term ‘organizational learning culture’ refers to the extent to which an organization

stimulates and supports its employees to develop themselves. It is a constant measurement of

the practices and its conversion to the available knowledge of the entire organization which

are relevant to their mission (Senge, 1990). In other words, organizations characterized by a

high learning culture wish to keep track of their employees’ development in order to enhance

organizational performance and individual growth. The learning culture of an organization

can be applied on multiple levels, namely individual, team/group and organizational. In

previous studies, these levels were tested with the Dimensions of the Learning Organizational

Questionnaire (DLOQ), which tests the learning culture on three different levels (Egan, Yang

& Bartlett, 2004; Marsick & Watkins, 1997): the individual, team/group and organizational.

Each level contributes to the learning culture of an organization. The questionnaire developed

by Marsick and Watkins (1997) to study organizational learning culture provides a broad

framework of the concept within the organization. Further examining this framework provides

a better understanding of the concept of learning culture.

Individual learning is often compared to a process of trial and error. When a new

situation arises within an organization, an employee is expected to solve the problem.

Between the moment an employee is stimulated to handle the situation and the outcome of the

event, there are several actions that he or she must perform. In retrospect, individuals may

17

evaluate whether the consequences of their actions were positive or negative (Argyris,

Putnam, & Smith, 1985). In subsequent situations, an employee will omit the negative actions

and thus handle new problems more effectively. This is referred to as incidental learning

(Lewin, 1946; Marsick & Watkins, 2003).

However, over the last 20 years, the collective has become more important than the

individual, which has led to the rise of team/group and organizational learning. Organizational

learning is not simply many individuals learning but instead a collective learning together in

order to enhance organizational performance. It is a process of cohesive and interactive

learning. New competitors or regulations can trigger this process if an organization must

adapt to a new situation. There are, however, organizations that constantly attempt to innovate

and keep ahead of their competitors (e.g. Apple [Marsick & Watkins, 2003]). Furthermore, it

is important for an organization to support employees who take initiative in their learning

processes and reward them for doing so.

Gephart et al. (1996) identified six elements that should form the core of a learning

organization: First, employees must embed their learned actions within the organization.

Therefore, it could be implemented in standard routines. Second, the knowledge that is

developed should be available throughout the entire organization, meaning that an innovation

does not have to be developed twice. Third, employees should be stimulated to be innovative

and to think creatively. They should think critically about the existing system to come up with

new ideas. Fourth, learning should be embedded within the culture of an organization.

Employees must feel supported and rewarded in the learning process. Fifth, employees should

be able to experiment freely, through which an environment in which people can take risks

and develop innovations is created. Finally, an organization should revolve around its people.

Employees should feel safe and supported within their organizations (Gephart et al., 1996).

These six elements will lead to the fulfilment of employees developing their capabilities and

improving their work ethic through learning and goal systems, the second and third dimension

of the social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1988).

Studies on organizational learning culture have proven that it has a positive effect on

job performance (Egan, Yang & Bartlett, 2004). This means that organizational learning

culture offers many benefits to organizations. It also has a positive effect on the individual. A

higher learning value of a job or within an organization is a predictor of a higher self-rated

and supervisor-rated employability (Van der Heijden, Gorgievski & De Lange, 2016).

Furthermore, organizational learning culture has a negative effect on turnover intentions. A

higher organizational learning culture means lower turnover intentions among employees

18

(Islam et al., 2013). These findings support a negative moderator effect of organizational

learning culture on the positive relationship between perceived employability and turnover

intentions. Rajan (1998) supports this conclusion, stating that a segment of highly perceived

employees are employability driven in their career plans and therefore require growth

opportunities within their organizations to prevent them from leaving. These are robust

predictors of learning culture being a moderator between perceived employability and

turnover intentions. The next section explains the arguments for this expected relationship.

2.4.2. Organizational learning culture, perceived employability and turnover intentions

As mentioned previously, Rajan (1998) made distinctions between employees using four

factors: security-driven (e.g. job security), tradition-driven (e.g. perks), employability-driven

(e.g. training & development) and contribution-driven (e.g. pay). For employees who perceive

themselves as highly employable, these are important factors when it comes to deciding

whether to stay with an organization. Employees who are employability driven remain with

an organization when offered sufficient opportunities for further growth. This need for growth

is supported from the roots of perceived employability and self-efficacy (see also Section

2.3.2.) because employees with high self-efficacy and high perceived employability have a

need to develop themselves. This need stems from their desire to maximize their capabilities.

When this development is not possible within their organizations, employees seek other

opportunities and have greater intention to turnover (Schyns, Torka and Gössling 2007). The

social cognitive theory has shown that organizations providing their employees with the

possibility to develop these capabilities and attaining challenging goals by implementing a

learning culture will experience less absenteeism and more job satisfaction among the skilled

workers (Bandura, 1988). Absenteeism and a lack of job satisfaction are considered as

predictors of turnover (Tett and Meyer, 1993; Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner, 2000). Lower

absenteeism and higher job satisfaction of skilled workers might be an indication of lower

turnover among these employees.

As indicated in Section 2.2.2, perceived employability is expected to be positively

related to turnover intention because employees with higher perceived employability

(perceive themselves to) have more job alternatives and opportunities to develop at another

organization, which increases turnover intention (Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner, 2000). However,

if an organization can provide employees with an organizational learning framework, they

will be offered opportunities for personal growth within that organization. Therefore, one of

the potentially strongest factors that may influence employees with high self-perceived

19

employability to consider leaving their current organization may become less relevant

(Marsick & Watkins, 2003).

Moreover, the second potential explanation for the expected relationship between

perceived employability and turnover intentions is a dynamic labour market in which

employees develop their own career plans due to lower levels of job security. In this context,

employees with low self-perceived employability are expected to remain with their current

jobs due to the uncertainty they feel with regard to finding another job (Forrier, Sels & Stynen

2009), whereas those with higher perceived employability and who have developed solid

personal career plans will actively search for opportunities for personal growth. However, if

an organization implements the core elements of a learning organization developed by

Gephart et al. (1996), employees who perceive themselves as highly employable will have the

freedom and responsibility to grow and realise their personal career plans within the

company. However, if employees feel that their organizations fail to offer learning

possibilities, they are more likely to turnover when they perceive themselves as capable of

finding another job (Rajan, 1998).

In recent years, research has been conducted on the topics of perceived employability,

turnover intentions and learning culture. Studies have tested the direct effects of these

variables, as opposed to moderator effects. However, the moderating effect of learning culture

may be important for the practical implications of organizations. To retain high self-perceived

employees, organizations should know which cultures or practices they can apply to retain

such workers. If the assumptions and arguments about the moderating effect of learning

culture are demonstrated to be significant, applying a learning culture may help organizations

to retain their most valued employees. However, as mentioned previously, studies on these

variables have primarily focused on direct relationships. Van der Heijden, Gorgievski and De

Lange (2016) discovered that a learning culture has a positive effect on perceived

employability. Islam et al. (2013) found a negative effect of learning culture on turnover

intentions. However, the lack of studies on a moderator effect (in organizational practices and

culture) on the relationship between perceived employability and turnover intentions has led

to a lack of knowledge about what organizations can do to retain their highest self-perceived

employees. This present study contributes to understanding these relationships; if the results

prove significant, this research will provide practical suggestions for organizations. We expect

that the positive relation between perceived employability and turnover intention (H2b) will

be negatively moderated/weakened by organizational learning culture. As such, we

hypothesize the following:

20

Hypothesis 3: Organizational learning culture negatively moderates the indirect positive

relationship between self-efficacy and turnover intentions through perceived employability.

Besides the practical contribution of this study, the theoretical contribution is to expand the

current knowledge on turnover intention by connecting it to the most important dimensions of

the social cognitive theory on organizational functioning. These dimensions are (inter)-related

to the variables self-efficacy, perceived employability and organizational learning culture,

hence the choice of this model. Although the social cognitive theory has shown to influence

organizational functioning, the theory has not yet been connected to turnover intention. Based

on the argumentation of the possible relationships between the independent and dependent

variables, this study makes a theoretical contribution to the subject turnover by linking it with

social cognitive theory.

21

3. Methods

In the following section the approach of the study design will be discussed. At first, we will

take a look at the sample and the general descriptive statistics. Secondly, the procedure of the

research will be discussed. Further in this section will be a summary of the used measures and

control variables.

3.1. Sample

In total 632 respondents filled in the survey. However, due to missing values and incomplete

surveys, 230 of these responses were removed from the dataset. After this removal, the entire

dataset consisted out of 402 respondents.

Out of all the respondents, gender can be considered as equally divided. 217 (54.1%)

respondents were female, while 184 (45.9%) respondents were male. Most of the respondents

worked in the Netherlands (373; 92.8%) and only 7.2% worked in other countries. On

average, the age was 33.78 (SD = 12.01) with a minimum of 17 and a maximum of 65. The

highest level of education of the respondents was quite diverse. The highest percentages were

of Higher Vocational Educational Training (34.4%) and University (master) (27.9%). The

lowest percentage of educational level was PHD (2%). Furthermore, most of the respondents

indicated they are active in Health science (16%), Marketing, Sales and Service (12.3%) or

other sectors (14.8%). A critical note on the sectors of respondents is that only 60.7% did fill

in this question, in order to determine the percentages we used valid percentages. Moreover,

28.9% of the respondents worked in organizations with 1000 or more employees, while

25.4% worked in organizations with 50 – 249 employees. Other company sizes were 1-9

(9.5%), 10-49 (15.7%), 250-499 (12.2%) and 500-999 (8.5%). The average respondent had in

total 13.76 (SD = 11.17) years of experience. Within their organization the average was 6.83

(SD = 7.52) and in their current job position 5.18 (SD = 6.12) years. Additionally, there were

more respondents with a permanent contract (65.1%) than a temporary contract (34.1%). The

respondents are working on average 30.98 hours per week (SD = 12.76).

22

3.2. Procedure

This research is conducted through a 15 minutes survey with 128 closed questions. The

research aim of this study is explanatory in order to first describe and then explain the

relations between the variables. The respondents were reached through convenience sampling

from the personal network. The personal network mostly consisted out of friends, relatives

and acquaintances, which, in some cases, spread the survey further in their network. The

respondents became familiar with the topic and its purpose through an introduction text in the

survey before starting the 128 closed questions. Some of the questions in the survey were

forced, meaning respondents had to answer these questions. The responses of the survey are

self-reported, respondents evaluated their own capabilities and organization. Furthermore, we

have not altered any situations within the organization. Therefore, the research design of this

survey is correlational. Despite that the survey asked for the company name, the responses

were processed completely anonymous. Furthermore, as incentives for filling in the survey,

respondents were able to win 1 out of 6 gift vouchers worth €50,-. Finally, the study is

performed cross-sectional, this was due to a lack of time for a longitudinal research.

For the statistical analyses we used the software package SPSS. First, we prepared the

data before beginning the further analyses. We removed the missing values, computed the

means and made sure there were no counter indicative items or items that had to be recoded.

We tested our hypotheses using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression with the conditional

process modeling (PROCESS) program for SPSS (Hayes, 2017).

3.3. Measures

The survey was administered by a group of 4 students and piloted by sending out the survey

to 10 test cases. Based on the feedback, we made small alterations in the survey. One of the

results of the feedback was the difficulty of the English language. We, therefore, made the

survey also available in Dutch. The focal variables were tested on a 5-point Likert scale

Perceived employability was divided into ‘internal’ and ‘external’ and measured with

8 items (4 internal and 4 external) of De Cuyper & De Witte (2008)’s scale. The respondents

were asked to rate their own perception of their employability on a scale from 1 to 5 (Rarely -

A great deal). An example item is, ‘I can easily find another job elsewhere instead of my

present job.’ The scale has a Cronbach’s Alpha of .858.

Self-efficacy was measured with the 3 items of Luthans et al. (2007)’s scale.

Respondents rated their own self-efficacy on a scale from 1 to 5 (Strongly disagree – strongly

23

agree). An example item is, ‘I feel confident in representing my work area in meetings with

management.’ The scale has a Cronbach’s Alpha of .732.

Turnover intention was measured with the 3 items of Park et al. (2015)’s scale.

Respondents were asked to indicate their intention of turning over in their current position on

a scale from 1 to 5 (Strongly disagree – Strongly agree) An example item is, ‘I often think

about quitting.’ The scale has a Cronbach’s Alpha of .889.

Learning culture was measured with the shortened 6-item scale of the DLOQ of Yang,

Watkins and Marsick (2004). The most frequently used measurement is the Dimensions of the

Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ) of Watkins and Marsick (2003), this is a

questionnaire to test learning culture on 7 dimensions, consisting out of 62 questions. In order

to keep the survey as short and effective as possible, we decided to use the shortened

validated scale of Yang, Watkins and Marsick (2004). Respondents were asked to rate the

learning culture of their organization on a scale from 1 to 5 (Strongly disagree – Strongly

agree). An example item is, ‘In my organization, people are rewarded for learning.’ The scale

has a Cronbach’s Alpha of .841.

3.4. Control variables

At the start of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to answer more general or

demographic questions like gender, age and contract type. To account for the potential

influence of the demographic variables on the study outcome we control for these variables.

The control variables which have been further examined are: age, education and the tenure in

the current position.

The first control variable that we examined in this study is age. Age could influence

both perceived employability and turnover intentions. Rothwell and Arnold (2007) took age

into account in their study to perceived employability. They found a significant negative

correlation (-.23, p < 0.01), indicating that older employees perceive themselves as less

employable. Furthermore, Bright (2008) also found a negative correlation (-.19, p < 0.01)

between age and turnover intentions of employees. So, according to the study of Bright

(2008), older employees will have less intentions to turnover.

Secondly, the same study of Bright (2008) tested educational level as control variable

on turnover intention. He found a significant positive correlation between the two variables

(.16, p < 0.01), indicating that higher educated employees will have more intentions to

turnover in comparison with lower educated employees. Additionally, Herer et al. (1982)

proved a positive correlation between self-efficacy and educational level (.27, p < 0.01),

24

implying that higher educated employees have higher self-efficacy. Therefore, we used

educational level as second control variable.

Lastly, the amount of working hours in the current position could affect turnover

intention. Griffeth, Hom and Gaertner (2000) argued that the tenure of employees is one of

the demographic variables influencing turnover intention. This statement is supported by the

findings of Kim and Stoner (2008), who found a significant negative correlation between

tenure and turnover intentions (-.11, p < 0.05).

Based on the findings and results mentioned above, it is of high importance to control

for the variables age, educational level and job tenure in order to exclude potential influences

of these variables. Therefore, we can test the relations more accurate and make a more reliable

argumentation of the model.

25

4. Results

In this section, we will further examine our model by means of statistical analyses executed

with SPSS. Firstly, the analytical strategy is discussed, where we explain the process step by

step. Subsequently are the descriptive statistics consisting out of the normality tests and

correlation table to create a clear image of the variables. Next, we will execute the statistical

analyses and report the outcomes of the hypotheses. The section will be closed with a short

conclusion.

4.1. Analytical Strategy

For the collection of the data, we conducted a survey within Qualtrics. After the completion of

the survey, the data was transferred to SPSS and further processed. First, we prepared the data

before beginning the further analyses. Secondly, we removed all the unfinished or incomplete

surveys. Respondents who did not enter the forced questions were deleted from the data. After

completing the dataset, it consisted out of 402 respondents. Furthermore, we checked the

reliability of self-efficacy, perceived employability, turnover intentions and learning culture

by computing the Cronbach’s alpha to check for consistency within the scales. For all of the

variables the outcomes of the Cronbach’s alpha were above .7, indicating that our scales are

considered reliable. To test our hypotheses, we created scale means of the individual items of

each variable. These scale means were renamed as SEFFMEAN, PEMEAN, TOIMEAN and

LCMEAN.

We tested our hypotheses using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression with the

conditional process modeling (PROCESS) program for SPSS (Hayes, 2017). Evaluation of

regression assumptions of homoscedasticity, linearity, and the absence of multicollinearity

were satisfactory. In the normality tests we did find some skewness and kurtosis on the

variables which were identified to be significant by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-

Wilk tests. However, this did not form any problems for further analysis and will be further

discussed in the descriptive statistics.

Specifically, we used PROCESS model 4 to test the indirect effect of self-efficacy on

turnover intentions through perceived employability and PROCESS model 14 to test the

moderating role of learning culture on the effect of self-efficacy and turnover intentions

through perceived employability. Prior to running moderated mediation analysis all variables

were z-standardized to reduce problems associated with multicollinearity in moderated

regression (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013).

26

4.2. Descriptive statistics

Evaluation of regression assumptions showed skewness and kurtosis on some of the variables,

these results were proven to be significant by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk

tests and exceeded the acceptable range of 2 times the Std. Error (Skew = .122, Kurt. = .243).

Self-efficacy (-.625) and Learning culture (-.656) were skewed to the right, indicating that

most respondents answered ‘Somewhat agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’. Additionally, Learning

culture (1.075) showed a positive kurtosis, signaling a peak-centered distribution of the

responses. The skewness and kurtosis did, however, not form problems for the analyses.

According to the central limited theorem, sample sizes which are bigger than 30 (light-tailed

distributions) or 100-160 (heavy-tailed distributions) are assumed as normal despite of the

population (or sample) data (Field, 2013). Therefore, the dataset of 402 respondents was

considered normal and fit for further analysis.

In order to get a brief overview about the variables and their correlations, we

conducted a correlation analysis of our dataset (see table 1). There were in total 402

respondents. However, due to missing values at age and education level, we continued the

research with N = 396. First we examine the control variables, on average the respondent was

33.78 years old (SD = 12.01) and they had 6.83 years of work experience in their current job

(SD = 7.52). The average education level was between 2 (higher vocational education

level/HBO) and 3 (university, bachelor). Table 1 shows that self-efficacy and perceived

employability were positively related (.123, p < 0.05). Learning culture was positively related

to perceived employability (.265, p < 0.01) and negatively related to turnover intention (-.309,

p < 0.01). The other correlations between the variables of the model were not significant at p

< 0.05. Finally, the correlation table shows a lot of significant correlations between the

control variables and the variables of the model. This is something that has been monitored

closely in the extent of this research.

Table 1. Mean, Standard deviation and Correlations of Study Variables

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Age 33.78 12.01

2. Education level 2.51 1.28 .067

3. Job tenure 6.83 7.52 .685** -.156**

4. Self-efficacy 3.84 0.73 .203** .108* .055 (.732)

5. Perceived employability 3.36 0.72 -.373** -.096 -.274** .123* (.858)

6. Turnover intentions 2.32 1.10 -.193** .053 -.186** -.066 -.091 (.889)

7. Learning culture 3.43 0.70 -.081 .157** -.112* .062 .265** -.309** (.841) Note. N = 396 (except for age = 397; Education = 401; OT, SE, PE, TOI, LC = 402)

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

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

27

4.3. Testing hypotheses

In order to test hypotheses 1 and 2 we used process model 4 to test the total effect of self-

efficacy on turnover intentions and the indirect effect of self-efficacy on turnover intentions

through perceived employability. In hypothesis 1 we postulated a positive relationship

between self-efficacy and turnover intentions. Looking at the total effect (see table 3), we did

not find a significant effect (c’ = -0.041, p = 0.592). We cannot conclude that there is a

positive relationship between self-efficacy and turnover intention. Therefore, our hypothesis 1

is rejected. However, self-efficacy did have a positive significant relationship with perceived

employability (a1 = .205, p < 0.001), indicating that employees who have higher self-efficacy

beliefs also report higher perceived employability, as supporting the hypothesis 2a. In

addition, the results showed a significant negative relationship between perceived

employability and turnover intention (b1 = -.276, P <0.001), which is contrary to hypothesis

2b predicting a positive relationship. Finally, it can be noted that the direct effect of self-

efficacy on turnover intentions also resulted as not significant (c1 = 0.015, p = 0.842).

Table 2. Analysis of mediation effect

Consequent

Perceived employability (M) Turnover intention (Y)

Antecedent Coeff. SE P Coeff. SE P

Self-efficacy (X) a1 .205 .047 <0.001 c1 .015 .077 .842

Perceived employability (M) - - - b1 -.276 .082 <0.001

Constant i1 3.503 .191 <0.001 i2 3.885 .424 <0.001

Age -.021 .004 <0.001 -.024 .006 <0.001

Education level -.066 .027 <0.05 .048 .044 .270

Job tenure -.014 .007 <0.05 .000 .011 .996

R2 = .20

F(4,391) = 23.825, p<0.001 R2 = .26

F(5,390) = 5.792, p<0.001

A bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval for the indirect effect (ab = -.56) based on

5,000 bootstrap samples was below zero (-.103 to -.021) indicating that workers with higher

self-efficacy perceived themselves as highly employable, translating to less turnover

intentions. This challenges our second hypothesis, indicating that a positive effect of self-

efficacy on perceived employability (supported), translates to higher turnover intentions (not

supported). Therefore, we reject hypothesis 2 about significant indirect positive relationship

between self-efficacy and turnover intentions through perceived employability.

28

Table 3. Total, Direct and Indirect effects of Self-efficacy on Turnover intention

Effect SE P LLCI ULCI

Direct effect c1 .015 .077 .842 -.137 .168

Total effect c’ -.041 .077 .592 -.192 .110

Boot SE Boot

LLCI

Boot

ULCI

Indirect effect ab -.056 .021 -.103 -.021

Control variables

Like mentioned before, we included age, education level and job tenure in order to control for

their potential effects on the dependent variables in our model (see table 2). All three

variables had a negative significant effect on Perceived employability (Age = -.021, p <0.001;

Educational level = -.066, p <0.05; Job tenure = -.014, p <0.05). Age was the only control

variable with a (negative) significant effect on Turnover intention (Age = -.024, p < 0.001).

However, all the effects were relatively small and, therefore, not of crucial importance in the

interpretation of the results.

Moderation effect

Although previous results indicated non-significant indirect positive relationship between

self-efficacy and turnover intention through perceived employability, we proceed with testing

our third hypothesis in order to investigate whether this relationship might be conditioned by

organizational learning culture, and therefore be present at some level of organizational

learning culture. Specifically, we used PROCESS model 14 to test and explain the moderating

role of learning culture on the relationship between self-efficacy and turnover intentions

through perceived employability. The results did not indicate that the effect of self-efficacy on

turnover intention through perceived employability is moderated by learning culture. The

model (see table 4) does not show statistically significant interaction between perceived

employability and learning culture in the model of turnover intentions (c’4 = -.036, p = .497).

Table 4. Analysis of moderated mediation effect

Consequent

Perceived employability (M) Turnover intention (Y)

Antecedent Coeff. SE P Coeff. SE p

Self-efficacy (X) a1 .206 .047 <0.001 c’1 .009 .053 .861

Perceived employability (M) - - - b1 -.103 .058 .079

Learning culture (W) a2 - - - c’2 -.359 .547 <0.001

Perceived employability x

Learning culture (MW)

a3 - - - c’4 -.036 .053 .497

Constant i1 1.283 .164 <0.001 i2 2.863 .198 <0.001

R2 = .12 R2 = .24

F(4,391) = 13.297, p<0.001 F(7,388) = 17,392, p<0.001

29

This is further supported when taking a deeper look into the conditional indirect effect of self-

efficacy and turnover intention (See table 5). The indirect effect of self-efficacy on turnover

intention through perceived employability did not show to be significant in a low learning

culture (effect = -.15, LLCI = -.047; ULCI = 0.017), Average Learning culture (effect = -.022,

LLCI = -.05; ULCI = .002) and high Learning culture (effect = -.027, LLCI = -.061; ULCI =

.001). Although the relationship between self-efficacy and turnover intentions through

perceived employability seems to slightly vary across the different levels of organizational

learning culture, these variations were not significant and no further conclusions can be based

on these outcomes. Based on the results of the current study there seems to be no evidence of

a moderating role of learning culture on the relationship between self-efficacy and turnover

intention through perceived employability. Therefore, our third hypothesis is rejected.

However, taking a closer look at the regression outcomes (table 4), the results did show a

significant direct effect of learning culture on turnover intention (c’2 = -.359, p < .001). This

relationship indicates that higher learning cultures does directly translate into lower turnover

intention.

Table 5. Conditional indirect effects of Self-efficacy on Turnover intention

Effect BootSE LLCI ULCI

Low Learning culture -.015 .016 -.047 .017

Average Learning culture -.022 .013 -.050 .002

High learning culture -.027 .016 -.061 .001

Index

Learning culture -.007 .011 -.031 .014

First, the results have shown that there was no significant direct effect of self-efficacy on

turnover intention. Thus, hypothesis 1 is rejected. Second, there was a positive, significant

and direct effect of self-efficacy on perceived employability (supporting hypothesis 2a), but

the (significant) effect of perceived employability on turnover intention was negative instead

of positive (thus, rejecting hypothesis 2b). Taking these two results together, we rejected

hypothesis 2, showing that there was no positive relationship between self-efficacy and

turnover intentions through perceived employability. Moreover, the sign of the indirect effect,

however, showed to be negative which was contrary to our expectations. Finally, we did not

find a significant moderation effect of Learning culture on the relationship between self-

efficacy and turnover intentions through perceived employability. Therefore, hypothesis 3 is

rejected (see figure 1). One of the interesting findings of our research is that we did find a

direct negative effect of learning culture on turnover intentions.

30

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

31

5. Discussion

Our research focused on the conceptual model presented in Figure 1. We attempted to identify

some of the antecedents of turnover intentions through direct and mediating effects. The

variables were chosen based on the social cognitive theory, in order to link this theory to

turnover intention. To give this study a practical dimension, we also attempted to determine

whether there is a moderating effect that can help organizations to retain their employees. As

Figure 1 reveals, we identified two significant relationships, namely those between self-

efficacy and perceived employability and perceived employability and turnover intentions.

These relationships also indicate a third significant effect of self-efficacy on turnover

intentions through perceived employability.

We hypothesized that self-efficacy would have a direct effect on turnover intentions

(Hypothesis 1) because employees with high self-efficacy generally have a high need for

control. Therefore, we expected that they would be more likely to have the intention to

turnover if they worked in undesirable working environments (Schaubroeck, Lam & Xie,

2000). Furthermore, we argued that their search for more responsibilities and greater

development may lead to higher turnover intention (Schyns, Torka & Gössling, 2007).

However, the results did not demonstrate a significant total effect of self-efficacy on turnover

intention. Linking this to the social cognitive theory, employees who only (next to the other

dimensions) have higher beliefs of their capabilities in general do not seem to be more

inclined to consider leaving their organization. Thus, the first hypothesis was rejected. For

future researchers and as a contribution to current literature, this result shows that self-

efficacy should not be seen as an independent antecedent of turnover. This is something that

future researchers can take into account testing similar models. Furthermore, it is not possible

to connect the first dimension of the social cognitive theory directly to turnover intention.

Indicating that only having higher believes of their capabilities do not have the intention to

leave the organization more than workers with lower believes of their capabilities (Bandura,

1988). One possible explanation for the failure to find significant results is the many

antecedents of turnover intention, indicating that self-efficacy could be just a small part of this

complex picture. There are numerous factors that have shown to be antecedents of turnover

intentions (Boxall, Macky & Rasmussen, 2003; Firth et al., 2004; Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner,

2000). Examining only self-efficacy may explain too little of the variance in turnover

intention. This indicates that self-efficacy in itself does not relate to turnover intention, but it

32

may affect turnover intention through mediating and moderating effects. This supposition was

also supported by our investigation of the second hypothesis.

The second hypothesis examined the mechanism that might explain how self-efficacy

relates to turnover intention differently focusing on the role of perceived employability. We

argued that the positive relationship between self-efficacy and turnover intention is mediated

by perceived employability. Therefore, we separated this hypothesis into two parts: There is a

positive relationship between self-efficacy and perceived employability (Hypothesis 2a), and

there is a positive relationship between perceived employability and turnover intentions

(Hypothesis 2b). The results revealed significant support for Hypothesis 2a. Therefore, we can

assume that employees with high self-efficacy perceive themselves as highly employable

because of their confidence in controlling situations, their critical self-evaluations and their

ability to present themselves effectively (Bandura, 1997). Furthermore, these findings

contributes to the understanding of social cognitive theory, where self-efficacy and perceived

employability are connected through the first dimension. The support for Hypothesis 2a is a

robust indication of the predicted connection of these variables in the workers’ beliefs of their

capabilities (Bandura, 1988). Next to that, these findings contribute to the inconclusive

perception on the relationship between self-efficacy and perceived employability. Indicating

that self-efficacy can be seen as an antecedent of perceived employability.

To assess whether self-efficacy leads to a higher turnover intention through perceived

employability, we investigated whether higher perceived employability leads to higher

turnover intention. We argued that employees with higher perceived employability have more

job opportunities (or perceive this as the case), which is a predictor for turnover intention

(Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner, 2000). Next to that, employees who perceive themselves as

highly employable have the confidence to find another job. Lack of confidence is considered a

hindrance to turnover intentions (Forrier, Sels and Stynen, 2009). Despite this theoretical

argument, the results demonstrated no significant support for Hypothesis 2b; higher perceived

employability did not lead to higher turnover intentions. On the contrary, the results revealed

that higher perceived employability leads to lower turnover intentions. This effect was

significant at the p<0.01 level. A possible explanation for these reversed outcomes may be the

influence of other factors not included in the study. For example, De Cuyper et al. (2010)

found that perceived employability had a positive effect on turnover intentions when

employees had low job control but that perceived employability had a negative effect on

turnover intentions when employees had high job control. This finding indicates that the

relationship between perceived employability and turnover intention is not straightforward; it

33

is dependent on the situation and factors such as job control. In our study, other factors that

were not taken into account may have influenced the relationship between perceived

employability and turnover intentions. However, we argued for the possible influence of a

moderator effect beforehand, so we tested the role of learning culture as moderator variable

due to its connection, like self-efficacy and perceived employability, to two of the dimensions

of the social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1988). Taking Hypotheses 2a and 2b together, we

also must reject Hypothesis 2; there was no positive relationship between self-efficacy and

turnover intentions through perceived employability. Contrary to our expectations, the

indirect effect proved to be negative. These findings do, however, display the importance of

the first and second dimension of the social cognitive theory. The dimensions are believed to

have a positive effect on organizational functioning and these findings show that enhancing

workers’ beliefs of their capabilities and developing their capabilities are negatively related to

turnover intention, hence the positive effect (Bandura, 1988).

In testing the moderating effect of organizational learning culture on the indirect

relationship between self-efficacy and turnover intention through perceived employability

(Hypothesis 3), we argued for a negative moderating effect because employees who perceive

themselves as highly employable often seek development opportunities. If employees do not

have such opportunities, they may form the intention to turnover (Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner,

2000; Schyns, Torka and Gössling, 2007). Allowing employees to develop through

organizational learning culture may lead to lower turnover intentions. However, we did not

find a significant moderating effect. This indicating that learning culture did not moderate the

effect of self-efficacy on turnover intentions through perceived employability. To understand

this result, we examine our second hypothesis, namely the positive effect of self-efficacy on

turnover intention through perceived employability. However, this hypothesis demonstrated to

be the opposite due to the negative effect of perceived employability on turnover intention.

The argument that a learning culture helps to develop employees and leads to lower turnover

intentions is therefore irrelevant, as highly self-perceived employees did not intend to leave

the organization in the first place. Furthermore, recent studies have revealed that a learning

culture has a significant positive effect on perceived employability (Van der Heijden,

Gorgievski & De Lange, 2016) and a significant negative effect on turnover intention (Islam

et al., 2013). Considering the results of Hypothesis 2b, it is understandable that we did not

find a negative moderating effect. Therefore, it is difficult to make a theoretical contribution.

Based on this study we cannot conclude or deny the possibility of the second and third

dimension of the social cognitive theory, which are connected to learning culture, affecting

34

the effect of self-efficacy on turnover intention through perceived employability. However,

although it was not framed in the conceptual model, the negative direct effect of learning

culture on turnover intentions (Islam et al., 2013) is found significant in our research.

Therefore, we can link the social cognitive theory directly from learning culture to turnover

intention. Improving workers’ work ethic through learning and goal systems can be assumed

to lead to lower turnover intention.

The main theoretical aim of this paper is to link the social cognitive theory to turnover

intention through self-efficacy, perceived employability and learning culture. Due to the

interrelatedness between the dimensions and variables we chose to test for mediating and

moderating effects. We connected the findings of the model with the three main dimensions

for organizational functioning: enhancing workers’ beliefs of their capabilities, developing

their capabilities and improving their work ethic through learning and goal systems. Firstly,

enhancing workers’ beliefs of their capabilities does not independently link to turnover

intention. However, including the second dimension, developing employees’ capabilities,

leads to a lower turnover intention. Furthermore, combining the second and third dimension

(learning culture), developing employees’ capabilities and improving their work ethic through

learning and goal systems, leads to lower turnover intention as well. It does however not

moderate other relationships. In conclusion, this study provides a robust argumentation for the

link between social cognitive theory and turnover intention. In order to lower turnover rate all

three dimensions are considered important and there needs to be synergy between the

dimensions. Independently, the dimensions do not show significant effects.

5.1. Practical implications

Based on the results provided in Sections 4 and 5, it is possible to identify practical

implications for organizations. These implications mainly concern retaining employees but

also address organizational performance. The recommendations are based on the significant

outcomes of the conceptual framework, specifically the variables of self-efficacy, perceived

employability, learning culture and turnover intention.

First, to reduce turnover intention within an organization, managers should focus on

characteristics such as self-efficacy and perceived employability during the recruitment

process. Although self-efficacy did not have a direct effect on turnover intention, it enhances

perceived employability, which in turn reduces the turnover intentions of employees.

Therefore, according to our study, recruiting employees with higher self-efficacy leads to

lower turnover intentions through perceived employability. In order to hire employees with

35

high self-efficacy, recruiters should seek several features in candidates. Workers with high

self-efficacy are believed to be confident and energetic; they know they can handle specific

tasks. They also have a high level of control over the problems they face (Schaubroeck, Lam

& Xie, 2000). In addition to focussing on employees with high self-efficacy, managers should

recruit workers with high perceived employability, as such employees lead to a lower

turnover intention. Although untested in our research, perceived employability has been

demonstrated to have a positive effect on the optimal functioning of employees, indicating

that workers who perceive themselves as employable are high achievers (De Cuyper et al.,

2014). Therefore, focussing on self-efficacy during the recruitment process may also lead to

higher organizational performance due to its positive effect on perceived employability.

Second, our results did not reveal a significant moderating effect, but they indicated

that organizations can create a learning culture in order to reduce turnover intention. The

results indicated a significant and direct negative effect of learning culture on turnover

intention. Managers should therefore create a learning culture by promoting individual, group

and organizational learning (Marsick & Watkins, 2003). To create a learning culture,

managers can implement the six elements identified by Gephart et al. (1996): (1) embedding

learned actions of employees within the organization, (2) making the knowledge which is

developed available throughout the organization, (3) stimulating employees to be innovative

and creative, (4) embedding learning within the culture of the organization, (5) allowing

employees to experiment and (6) ensuring that employees feel safe and supported.

In conclusion, based on the conceptual model, we identify two practical implications

that serve two positive outcomes: turnover intention and organizational performance. First, by

recruiting workers with high self-efficacy, turnover intentions are reduced through perceived

employability. Furthermore, organizational performance increases as a result of the enhanced

perceived employability of workers with higher self-efficacy. Second, if managers can create

a learning culture within their organizations, turnover intention will be reduced.

5.2. Limitations and future research suggestions

This section first considers the limitations of the research then provides suggestions for future

research. Although this study identifies a number of practical implications and makes

contributions to current literature, it has limitations. First, the survey was conducted cross-

sectional. A cross-sectional survey measures responses at one point in time. The disadvantage

of cross-sectional research is that it provides only a snapshot, whereas measuring the results at

different times provides a more realistic image of a situation. This factor compromises the

36

validity of the study, creating the risk of lower validity than it would be with a longitudinal

research method (Levin, 2006). To create a more realistic image and to better understand the

causal relationships, future studies could adopt a longitudinal research method by which

researchers measure results multiple times over a broad timeframe. This present study was

performed cross-sectional due to the limited time available for research. Future research could

examine whether the variables react differently when a situation changes over time.

Second, the respondents were asked to rate themselves in different situations in order

to predict their scores on the variables. These self-reported measures may lead to common

method bias, which may influence the reliability and validity of the variables. For example,

common method bias may occur due to respondents providing desirable answers, feeling tired

or having to complete long surveys (MacKenzie & Podsakoff, 2012). However, in order to

measure the variables of the conceptual model, it was optimal to use self-reported

measurements. Self-efficacy, perceived employability, turnover intentions and learning

culture are beliefs within employees, which make these concepts difficult to assess from other

people’s perspectives. Future research could focus on supervisors rating their peers on the

variables of self-efficacy, perceived employability and learning culture. Comparing that data

with the data of this study could lead to insights concerning the perceptions of peers and

supervisors with regard to workers and organizations.

Third, to create a sample as large as possible, convenience sampling was used. Each

member of the study group contacted their personal network for respondents. Although it

generated many respondents, this method could influence the generalizability of the sample.

This method involves acquiring respondents from the same geographic area, socioeconomic

background or ethnicity (Emerson, 2015). It is therefore unlikely that convenience sampling

will lead to a completely representative sample of the population. This study used

convenience sampling due to a limited time frame and the desired number of respondents. By

addressing personal networks, researchers were able to more thoroughly process the data.

However, with more time, future research could test the model using random sampling in

order to secure a more representative sample.

Finally, the study used surveys to gather the data and therefore used a quantitative

approach to data analysis. However, the creation and analysis of quantitative data is a limiting

procedure; there is little room for interpretation other than by the conceptual model (Neuman

& Robson, 2007). In the test piloting of the survey, one recommendation indicated that there

was no room to provide further explanations with the answers. Ultimately, this was not

included in the survey since it would become too long and complicated. Therefore, the

37

responses are one way or the other, as there was no space for other interpretations. This could

make the results narrow, whereas using qualitative data may provide more information about

the subject (Neuman & Robson, 2007). To further contribute to this present research,

researchers could use qualitative data to examine the reasons why these effects either do or do

not occur.

Along with the limitations of the study and the research recommendations that

emerged from these limitations, there are several other recommendations for research based

on the conceptual model and the results, rather than the research method. First, the outcomes

did not provide any significant evidence that self-efficacy had an effect on turnover

intentions. Due to its many antecedents, self-efficacy may not have been sufficiently

explained to be significant (Boxall, Macky & Rasmussen, 2003; Firth et al., 2004; Griffeth,

Hom & Gaertner, 2000). Future researchers could therefore focus on building a framework for

analysing the possible antecedents of turnover intention to examine how many of these

antecedents are explained in the relationship with turnover intention and which effects are

significant. Testing this framework may produce indications for managers concerning how

turnover intention could be predicted. Furthermore, future researchers could focus on the

moderating effect of the relationship between perceived employability and turnover

intentions. Contrary to our expectations, perceived employability was found to have a

negative effect on turnover intention. However, the literature has demonstrated that this

relationship may depend on other variables (moderation), such as job control (De Cuyper et

al., 2010). The moderation effect of this study, learning culture, did not show any significant

effect. Future research could study other variables and their effect on the relationship between

perceived employability and turnover intention. These future studies could provide practical

implications for managers who want to retain their employees.

In conclusion, despite having identified a number of significant effects and

theoretical/practical implications, this study has its limitations. To overcome these limitations,

future researchers could apply our model in longitudinal, supervisor-rated, random sampling

and qualitative research methods. Moreover, several recommendations for future research

were provided based on the conceptual model. Researchers could determine the antecedents

of turnover intentions in order to allow managers to predict turnover. Moreover, future

research could examine the possible moderators of the relationship between perceived

employability and turnover intention in order to allow managers to prevent turnover of

employees with high perceived employability.

38

6. Conclusion

This study looked at the antecedents of turnover intention and how managers might be able to

retain their employees. Therefore, we examined the effect of self-efficacy on turnover

intentions. Besides, we tested the indirect effect of self-efficacy on turnover intention through

perceived employability and if this relation can be moderated by learning culture.

The outcomes of our analysis showed that there were no significant total nor direct

effects of self-efficacy on turnover intentions. However, self-efficacy did negatively affect

turnover intentions through perceived employability. self-efficacy positively related to

perceived employability, while perceived employability negatively affected turnover

intentions. Learning culture did not have any significant moderation effects on the indirect

effect of self-efficacy on turnover intentions through perceived employability. Nevertheless,

the results did show a direct negative effect of learning culture on turnover intentions. This

study provides a robust argumentation for the link between the dimensions of the social

cognitive theory and turnover intention as a theoretical contribution for current literature.

Next to the theoretical contribution, the outcomes provided two main practical implications

for managers: In order to retain their employees, they could (1) recruit workers with high self-

efficacy or (2) create a learning culture in the organization. These findings further contribute

to the understanding of the concept turnover intention and have leaded to suggestions for

reducing these intentions.

39

References

Abraham, R. (1999). The relationship between differential inequity, job satisfaction, intention

to turnover, and self-esteem. The Journal of Psychology, 133(2), 205-215.

Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. (1985). Action science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bandura, A. (1988). Organizational applications of social cognitive theory. Australian

Journal of Management, 13, 137- 164.

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.

Educational psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman

Barone, D., Maddux, J. E., & Snyder, C. R. (1997). Social cognitive psychology: History

and current domains. New York: Plenum.

Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B.C. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational

research. Human relations, 61(8), 1139-1160.

Becker, G. S. 1993. Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special

reference to education. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Benson, G.S. (2006). Employee development, commitment and intention to turnover: A test

of ‘employability’ policies in action. Human resource management journal, 16(2),

173-192.

Berntson, E., Näswall, K., & Sverke, M. (2008) Investigating the relationship between

employability and self-efficacy: A cross-lagged analysis. European Journal of

Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(4), 413-425

Boxall, P., Macky, K., & Rasmussen, E. (2003). Labour turnover and retention in New

Zealand: The causes and consequences of leaving and staying with employers. Sage

journals, 41(2), 196-214.

Bright, L. (2008). Does public service motivation really make a difference on the job

satisfaction and turnover intentions of public employees? The American review of

public administration, 38(2), 149-166.

Brown, D.J., Cober, R.T., Kane, K., Levy, P.E., & Shalhoop, J. (2006). Proactive personality

and the successful job search: A field investigation with college graduates. Journal of

applied psychology, 91(3), 717-726.

40

CBS (2018, March 14). Meer mensen wisselen van beroep. Retrieved from CBS:

https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2018/11/meer-mensen-wisselen-van-beroep.

Dalton, D. R., & Todor, W. D. 1979. Manifest needs of stewards: Propensity to file a

grievance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 8, 654-659

De Cuyper, N., Bernhard-Oettel, C., Berntson, E., De Witte, H., & Alarco, B. (2008).

Employability employees’ well-being: Mediation by job insecurity. Applied

psychology; An international review, 57(3), 488-509.

De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2008). Gepercipieerde kans op een baan versus een betere

baan: Relaties met arbeidstevredenheid en welzijn [Perceived chance on alternative

versus better employment: Associations with job satisfaction and well-being]. Gedrag

& Organisatie, 21, 475-492.

De Cuyper, N., Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., & Mäkikangas, A. (2010). The role of job resources

in the relation between perceived employability and turnover intention: A prospective

two-sample study. Journal of vocational behavior, 78, 253-263.

De Cuyper, N., Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M., & De Witte, H. (2011). Associations between

perceived employability, employee well-being, and its contribution to organizational

success: A matter of psychological contracts? The international journal of human

resource management, 22(7), 1486-1503.

De Cuyper, N., Sulea, C., Philippaers, K., Fischmann, G., Iliescu, D., & De Witte, H. (2014).

Perceived employability and performance : Moderation by felt job insecurity. Emerald

group, 43(4), 536-552.

Egan, T.M., Yang, B., Bartlett, K.R. (2004). The effects of organizational learning culture an

job satisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and turnover intention. Human

resource development quarterly, 15(3), 279-301.

Emerson, R.W. (2015). Convenience sampling, random sampling, and snowball sampling:

How does sampling affect the validity of research? Journal of visual impairment &

blindness, 164-168.

Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. London: Sage Publications

Ltd.

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

intention to quit? Journal of managerial psychology, 19(2), 170-187

Forrier, A., & Sels, L. (2003a). The concept employability: A complex mosaic. Inter-national

Journal of Human Resource Development and Management, 3(2), 103–124.

41

Forrier, A., & Sels, L. (2003b). Temporary employment and employability: Training

opportunities and efforts of temporary and permanent employees in Belgium. Work,

Employment and Society, 17(4), 641–666.

Forrier, A., Sels, L., & Stynen, D. (2009). Career mobility at the intersection between agent

and structure: A conceptual model. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 82, 739−759.

Gardner, D.G., & Pierce, J.L. (1998). Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the organizational

context: An empirical examination. Group & organization management, 23, 48-70.

George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and

Reference, 17.0 update (10a ed.) Boston: Pearson.

Gephart, M.A., Marsick, J.E., Van Buren, M.E., & Spiro, M.S. (1996). Learning organizations

come alive. Training & development, 50(12), 34−45.

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 new millenium. Journal of Management, 26, 463−488.

Hancock, J.I., Allen, D.G., Bosco, F.A., McDaniel, K.R., & Pierce, C.A. (2011). Meta-

analytic review of employee turnover as a predictor of firm performance. Journal of

management, 39(3), 573-603.

Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process

analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.

Heavey, A.L., Holwerda, J.A., & Hausknecht, J.P. (2013). Causes and consequences of

collective turnover: A meta-analytic review. Journal of applied sciences, 98(3), 412-

453.

Hillage, J., & Pollard, E. (1998). Employability: Developing a framework for policyanalysis.

Research Brief 85, DFEE, London.

Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,

productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal,

38, 635-672.

Islam, T., Rehman Khan, S., Ahmad, U.N.U.B., & Ahmed, I. (2013). Organizational learning

culture and leader-member exchange quality. Emerald, 20(4/5), 322-377.

Kim, H., & Stoner, M. (2008). Burnout and turnover intention among social workers: Effects

of role stress, job autonomy and social support. Administration in social work, 32(3),

5-25.

42

Kirves, K., Kinnunen, U., & De Cuyper, N. (2013). Contract type, perceived mobility and

optimism as antecedents of perceived employability. Economic and industrial

democracy, 35(3), 435-453.

Leana, C. R., & Van Buren, H. J., III. 1999. Organizational social capital and employment

practices. Academy of Management Review, 24, 538-555.

Lee, T.W., & Mowday, R.T. (1987). Voluntarily leaving an organization: An empirical

investigation of Steers and Mowday's model of turnover. Academy of Management

Journal, 30, 721-743.

Levin, K.A. (2006). Study design III: Cross-sectional studies. Evidence-Based Dentistry, 7,

24-25.

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4),

34-46.

Luthans, F., Avolio, B.J., Avey, J.B., & Norman, S.M.(2007). Positive psychological capital:

Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel

psychology, 60, 541-572.

MacKenzie, S.B., & Podsakoff, P.M. (2012). Common method bias in marketing: Causes,

mechanisms, and procedural remedies. Journal of retailing, 88(4), 542-555.

Marsick, V.J., & Watkins, K.E. (2003). Demonstrating the Value of an Organization’s

Learning Culture: The Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire.

Advances in developing human resources, 5(2), 132-151.

Mauno, S., De Cuyper, N., Tolvanen, A., Kinnunen, U., & Mãkikangas, A. (2014).

Occupational well-being as a mediator between job insecurity and turnover intention:

Findings at the individual and work department levels. European journal of work and

organizational psychology, 23(3), 381-393.

McQuaid, R.W., & Lindsay, C. (2002). The ‘employability gap’: long-term unemployment

and barriers to work in buoyant labour markets. Environment and planning C:

government and policy 2002

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

Griffeth, Hand, and Meglino model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 53-59.

Neuman, W.L., & Robson, K. (2007). Basics of social research: Qualitative and quantitative

approaches. Power.

Park, J.H., Newman A., Zhang, L., Wu, C., & Hooke, A. (2015). Mentoring functions and

turnover intention: the mediating role of perceived organizational support, The

43

International Journal of Human Resource Management, DOI:

10.1080/09585192.2015.1062038.

Rahman, A.S.M.M., Naqvi, R. & Ramay, M.I. (2008). Measuring turnover intention: A study

of IT professionals in Pakistan. International review of business research papers, 4(3),

45-55.

Rajan, A. (1997), “Employability in the finance sector: rhetoric vs reality”, Human Resource

Management Journal, 7(1), pp. 67-78.

Robinson, J.P. (2003). What are employability skills? The workplace, 1(3).

Rothwell, A., & Arnold, J. (2007). Self-perceived employability: Development and validation

of a scale. Emerald group publishing, 36(1), 23-41.

Schaubroeck, J., & Merritt, D.E. (1997). Divergent effects of job control on coping with work

stressors: The key role of self-efficacy. Academy of management journal, 40(3), 738-

754.

Schyns, B., Torka, N., & Gössling, T. (2007). Turnover intention and preparedness for

change: Exploring leader-member exchange and occupational self-efficacy as

antecedents of two employability predictors.

Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of learning organization.

Currency Doubleday, New York.

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, 41(5), 511-525.

Sherer, M., Maddux, J.E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R.W.

(1982). The Self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological reports,

51, 663-671.

Sutherland, M.M., Torricelli, D.G. and Karg, R.F. (2002), “Employer-of-choice branding for

knowledge workers”, South African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 33 No. 4,

pp. 13-20.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston:

Pearson.

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

intention, and turnover-path analyses based on meta-analytic findings.

Personnel Psychology, 46, 259−293.

Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M., Gorgievski, M.J., & De Lange, A.H. (2016). Learning at the

workplace and sustainable employability: a multi-source model moderated by age.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(1), 13-30

44

Van der Klink, J.J.L., Bültmann, U., Burdorf, A., Schaufeli, W.B., Zijlstra, F.R.H., Abma,

F.I., Brouwer, S., & van der Wilt, G.J. (2016). Sustainable employability – definition,

conceptualization, and implications: A perspective based on the capability approach.

Scand J Work Environ Health, 42(1), 71-79.

Vanhercke, D., De Cuyper, N., Peeters, E., & De Witte, H. (2014). Defining perceived

employability: A psychological approach. Emerald group, 43(4), 592-605.

Waasdorp, G.J., & Kooter, M. (2017, January 12). 12 Trends in de wereld van loopbaan,

mobiliteit en employability. Retrieved from Werf&: https://www.werf-en.nl/12-

trends-loopbaan-mobiliteit-employability/

Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1997). Dimensions of the learning organization. Warwick,

RI: Partners for the Learning Organization

Wortman, C. B., & Dunkel-Schetter, C. 1979. Interpersonal relations and cancer: A

theoretical analysis. Journal of Social Issues, 35, 120-155.

Yang, B. (2003). Identifying valid and reliable measures for dimensions of a learning culture.

Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5, 152-162.

Yang, B., Watkins, K.E., & Marsick, V.J. (2004). The construct of the learning organization:

Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Human resource development quarterly,

15(1).

45

Appendix

Appendix 1. Survey Content: The Measures

Introduction

Dear participant,

We want to thank you for your participating in our research. We are five Master of Business

Administration students from the University of Amsterdam, graduating on the subject of

sustainable employability.

The goal of our research is to get insight in the influence of a variety of factors on how people

feel about their work. And your help is much appreciated!

This survey will take about 15 minutes of your time and is entirely anonymous. The

information you provide us will be used only for scientific purposes.

We divide 6 gift vouchers worth €50,-over our respondents! If you want to participate for one

of our vouchers make sure to fill in your email address at the last page of the survey.

If you have any questions or remarks regarding our research, you can contact us via

+31629623660 or evita.dupker@student.uva.nl.

Again, thank you for participating in our research.

Best,

Evita Dupker

Karin van Egmond

Erik-Jan Veerman

Jessy van Wingerden

46

Turnover intention

We are interested in how you feel about your current job.

Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with each statement.

1: Strongly disagree, 2: Somewhat disagree, 3: Neither agree nor disagree, 4: Somewhat

agree, 5: Strongly agree

I will actively look for a new job in the next year.

I often think about quitting.

I will probably look for a new job in the next year.

Self-efficacy

Please indicate to what extent you agree with each of the statements.

1: Strongly disagree, 2: Somewhat disagree, 3: Neither agree nor disagree, 4: Somewhat

agree, 5: Strongly agree

I feel confident in representing my work area in meetings with management.

I feel confident contributing to discussions about the organization's strategy.

I feel confident presenting information to a group of colleagues.

Perceived Employability

The following statements are about the job opportunities within or outside of your current

organization. Please rate to what extent you agree with each of the following items.

1: Rarely, 2: A Little, 3: Moderately, 4: Rather Often, 5: A great deal

I have a good chance of getting another job in my current organization, if I looked for

one.

I can easily find another job in my current organization instead of my present job.

I could easily switch jobs in my current organization, if I wanted to.

I am confident that I could quickly gain another job with this employer.

I have a good chance of getting another job elsewhere, if I looked for one.

I can easily find another job elsewhere instead of my present job.

I could easily switch jobs to another employer, if I wanted to.

I am confident that I could quickly gain another job with another employer.

47

Learning culture

Learning culture In my organization...

1: Strongly disagree, 2: Somewhat disagree, 3: Neither agree nor disagree, 4: Somewhat

agree, 5: Strongly agree

People are rewarded for learning.

People spend time building trust with each other.

My organization makes its lessons learned available to all employees.

My organization recognizes people for taking initiative.

My organization works together with the outside community to meet mutual needs.

Leaders continually look for opportunities to learn.