Examine the mediating role of organizational citizenship behaviour in the relationship between perceived human resource management practices and intention to leave of employees

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRANNING UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS, HO CHI MINH CITY  LE NGOC LAN EXAMINE THE MEDIATING ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEIVED HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND INTENTION TO LEAVE OF EMPLOYEES MASTER THESIS IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION HO CHI MINH CITY – 2013 MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRANNING UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY  LE NGOC LAN EXAMINE THE MEDIATING ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEIVED HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND INTENTION TO LEAVE OF EMPLOYEES Subject: Master of Business Administrator Code: 06.34.01.02 MASTER THESIS IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION SUPERVISOR: Dr PHAM QUOC HUNG HO CHI MINH CITY – 2013 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Firstly, I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr Phạm Quốc Hùng, for giving me insightful guidance and valuable advice throughout undertaking of this study I also thank to all respected lecturers of the eMBA19 course of for their devotions during the training, which enrich my knowledge in order to implementing this study successfully My heartfelt thanks to respondents, who provide me supportive attitude and honest answer to make a good and solid database for the analysis Finally, I would like to say thanks to my beloved friend and family members, whom have given me much support, encouragement and assistance with this thesis Le Ngoc Lan Ho Chi Minh City, September 2013 COMMITMENT I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work Le Ngoc Lan TABLE OF CONTENT CHAPTER - INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 10 1.1 Research background 10 1.2 Research objective 11 1.3 Practical significances of the study 12 1.4 Research scope and approach 12 1.5 Research structure 12 CHAPTER - LITERATURE REVIEW 14 2.1 Human Resource Management 14 2.1.1 Human Resource Management Pratices 14 2.1.2 Human Resource Management effects on Intention To Leave 15 2.2 Organizational Citizenship Behaviour 15 2.2.1 Definition of OCB 15 2.2.2 The important of OCB 17 2.3 Research model and hypotheses 17 2.3.1 The effects of HRM on OCB 17 2.3.2 The effect of Retention Oriented Compensation on Intention to Leave 19 2.3.3 The effect of Formalized Training on Intention to Leave 19 2.3.4 The effect of OCB on intention to leave 20 2.3.5 The mediating role of OCB 20 CHAPTER - RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 22 3.1 Research design 22 3.2 Research process 22 3.3 Questionnaire development 23 3.4 The pilot study 27 3.4.1 Pilot study phase 27 3.4.2 Pilot study phase 27 3.5 Main study 28 3.5.1 Target population 28 3.5.2 Sampling design 28 3.5.3 Data collection 28 3.6 Methods of data analysis 29 3.6.1 Data cleaning 29 3.6.2 Reliability 29 3.6.3 Confirmatory factor analysis 30 3.6.4 Analysis of Variance (one-way and two-way ANOVA) 31 3.6.5 Multiple regression analysis 31 3.6.6 Testing mediation with regression analysis 32 CHAPTER - DATA ANALYSIS 35 4.2 Data cleaning 35 4.3 Profiles of qualified respondents 35 4.4 Normality analysis 37 4.5 Reliability of the measurements 37 4.6 Confirmatory factor analysis 38 4.7 Hypotheses testing 43 4.7.1 Correlation analysis 43 4.7.2 Testing residuals of dependent variable 45 4.7.3 Effect of Perceived HRM Practices (Retention-oriented Compensation and Formalized Training) on Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (H1 & H2) 45 4.7.4 Effect of Perceived HRM Practices (Retention-oriented Compensation, Formalized Training) and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour on Employees’ Intention to Leave (H3, H4 & H5) 46 4.7.4.1 Effect of Perceived HRM Practices (Retention-oriented Compensation and Formalized Training) on Employees’ Intention to Leave (H3 & H4) 46 4.7.4.2 Effect of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour on Employees’ Intention to Leave (H5) 47 4.7.5 The mediating effect of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour on the relationship between Perceived HRM Practices and Employees’ Intention to Leave (H6 & H7) 47 CHAPTER - DISCUSSION 52 5.1 Discussion of findings 52 5.2 Contribution of the current study 53 5.3 Practical implications 53 5.4 Limitation and further research 54 LIST OF FIGURE Figure 2-1: Partial model by Nishii and Wright, 2004 14 Figure 2-2: Hypothesized Research Model 21 Figure 3-1: Research process 23 Figure 3-2: Mediating model 33 Figure 4-1: Hypothesized model 38 Figure 4-2: Modified model 42 LIST OF TABLE Table 3-1: Measurement scales of independent variables 24 Table 3-2: Measurement scales of dependent variable 26 Table 3-3: Assessing Fit Indices 31 Table 4-1: Variables included in the Analysis 35 Table 4-2: Socio-demographic Characteristics of The Qualified Samples 36 Table 4-3: Summary of Cronbach Alpha Measures across Variables 37 Table 4-4: Assessing Fit Indices – Hypothesized Model 40 Table 4-5: Standardized Regression Weights – Hypothesized Model 41 Table 4-6: Assessing Fit Indices – Modified Model 43 Table 4-7: Descriptive Statistics and Correlations 44 Table 4-8: Model Summary of H6 49 Table 4-9: Coefficients of H6 hierarchical regression 50 Table 5-1: Research Purposes, Hypotheses and Results 52 ABSTRACT This study seeks to investigate the mediating role of organizational citizenship behavior on the relationship between perceived HRM practices and employees’ intention to leave The study was conducted in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam with the sample of 182 employees The results showed that Organizational Citizenship Behaviour mediates the relationship between retention-oriented compensation and employees’ intention to leave In addition, the study also finds that there are no relationship between formalized training and organizational citizenship behavior; hence, organizational citizenship behavior does not mediate the relationship between formalized training and employees’ intention to leave These findings suggest that HR practitioners should monitoring organizational citizenship behavior to better predict employees’ intention to leave, in order to make timely adjustment on retention-oriented compensation system KEYWORDS: Organizational Citizenship Behaviour, Perceived HRM practices, Retention-Oriented Compensation, Formalized Training, Employees’ Intention to Leave CHAPTER INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 1.1 Research background Employees are extremely crucial to the organization since their value to the organization is essentially intangible and not easily replicated (Meaghan & Nick 2002) And employee’s intention to leave remains one of the most widely researched topics in organizational analyses due to its significant effects on organizations (DeMicco & Giridharan 1987; Dyke & Strick 1990; Cantrell & Saranakhsh 1991; Denvir & Mcmahon 1992) (as cited in Mahmud, 2011) Muhammad et al (2011) noted that there is a positive relationship between HRM practices with employee retention However, there are very few studies investigated how human resource management practices effects on the intention to leave of employees, and how employees react on that In the past decades, OCB has received much attention from researcher In relatively uncomplicated production environments, the extra efforts on the part of the employee may seem minor, but a growing number of jobs is becoming more complicated, consisting of large numbers of unstructured tasks, so more discretion is with the employee, and thus the difference between a good performer and a bad performer becomes increasingly large (Hunter et al., 1990) Despite such an important role of OCB, it is surprising to note that past studies often seem to ignore how employees’ behavioural reactions affect the relationships between HRM practices and employee’s intention to leave (Guest, Michie, Conway and Sheehan 2003; Morrison 1996) Organizations need employees who anticipate and monitor rapid changes in the business, and figure out how to deal with these changes to sustain or enhance effectiveness (Organ, Podsakoff and MacKenzie 2006) Therefore, it is argued that the employees’ organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB), in particular, is involved in their behavioural process to help explain the HRM-performance relationship (Lam et al, 2009) 10 Thường nói điều khơng tốt đồng nghiệp người quản lý khơng có mặt họ Có đề xuất mang tính xây dựng nhằm giúp cải thiện hoạt động công ty Vui lòng cho biết mức độ anh/chị đồng ý hay không đồng ý với nhận định sau: Hồn tồn khơng đồng ý Hồn tồn đồng ý   Trong cơng ty bạn, thành tích làm việc cá nhân yếu tố quan trọng để xác định mức lương Chính sách thưởng cơng ty bạn chủ yếu dựa tuổi thâm niên công tác nhân viên Lương thưởng tính cách công công ty bạn Tiêu chuẩn để xác định tiền thưởng công ty bạn thỏa Đáng Tiêu chuẩn để xác định tiền lương công ty bạn thỏa đáng Mức lương chung công ty bạn cao so với công ty khác Nội dung đa dạng chương trình đào tạo cơng ty bạn đáng hài lịng Bạn hài lịng với số lượng thời lượng chương trình đào tạo công ty bạn Trong công ty bạn, chương trình đạo tạo tổ chức cách có hệ thống, có tổ chức chặt chẽ So với cơng ty khác, cơng ty bạn có chương trình đào tạo rộng rãi cho nhân viên cơng ty Trong cơng ty bạn, chương trình đạo tạo thực chuyên gia nhà quản lý/giảng viên giàu kinh nghiệm Trong công ty bạn, chương trình đạo tạo chun mơn/ nghiệp vụ hệ thống hóa 7 7 7 7 7 7 Khả bạn thực việc sau nào: Hồn tồn khơng đồng ý  Có khả bạn xin nghỉ việc Có khả bạn không tiếp tục làm việc cho công ty bạn hợp đồng lao động cịn hiệu lực Bạn có ý định xin nghỉ việc Hoàn toàn đồng ý  7 64 Cuối cùng, xin cho biết vài thông tin cá nhân bạn Vui lịng cho biết vị trí bạn Giám đốc Phó giám đốc Quản lý phận/ trưởng phịng Phó quản lý/ Phó phịng Nhân viên Giới tính Nam Nữ Năm sinh Bạn bắt đầu làm từ năm nào? _ Bạn bắt đầu làm việc công ty từ năm nào? Vui lòng cho biết tên công ty bạn làm việc _ Cuối cùng, xin vui lòng cho biết loại hình cơng ty bạn làm việc Cơng ty nhà nước Công ty liên doanh (vốn nhà nước nước ngồi) Cơng ty 100% vốn nước ngồi Cơng ty tư nhân Công ty cổ phần 65 APPENDIX II – NORMALITY ANALYSIS Appendix 3.1: Assessment of Normality Iterms Mean Std Deviation Skewness Kurtosis OCB1 5.25 1.701 -0.958 0.084 OCB2 5.91 1.471 -1.407 1.216 OCB3 5.48 1.215 -0.555 -0.23 OCB4 5.74 1.124 -0.513 -0.515 OCB5 5.45 1.474 -0.824 0.193 OCB6 4.9 1.538 -0.459 -0.652 OCB7 5.82 1.389 -1.11 0.648 OCB8 5.45 1.416 -1.226 1.353 OCB9 5.45 1.074 -0.207 -0.276 OCB10 4.92 1.319 -0.485 0.284 OCB11 5.37 1.004 -0.045 -0.605 OCB12 4.84 1.65 -0.516 -0.326 OCB13 3.93 1.69 -0.09 -0.983 OCB14 5.77 1.284 -1.318 1.902 OCB15 4.57 1.499 -0.304 -0.338 COM1 4.79 1.642 -0.493 -0.473 COM2 4.11 1.685 0.148 -0.522 COM3 4.43 1.599 -0.268 -0.505 COM4 4.29 1.501 -0.201 -0.392 COM5 4.31 1.514 -0.264 -0.452 COM6 3.77 1.567 0.145 -0.348 TRA1 3.6 1.662 0.19 -0.638 TRA2 3.47 1.6 0.202 -0.633 TRA3 3.51 1.651 0.189 -0.767 TRA4 3.59 1.74 0.124 -0.94 TRA5 3.6 1.774 -0.051 -0.91 TRA6 3.63 1.741 0.078 -0.927 ITL1 3.59 1.778 0.024 -0.842 ITL2 3.36 1.752 0.219 -0.78 ITL3 3.3 1.919 0.397 -0.887 66 APPENDIX III - CRONBACH ALPHA ANALYSIS Appendix 3-1: Cronbach alpha analysis of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items 771 15 Item-Total Statistics Corrected Item- Squared Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance Total Multiple Alpha if Item Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted OCB2 72.94 90.046 483 466 748 OCB3 73.37 92.190 515 533 748 OCB4 73.10 92.923 531 513 748 OCB5 73.40 89.423 506 581 746 OCB7 73.03 91.839 448 548 752 OCB8 73.40 94.638 328 408 762 OCB9 73.40 92.617 576 416 746 OCB11 73.47 94.306 532 456 750 OCB14 73.08 95.696 332 281 762 OCB1 73.60 91.137 359 323 761 OCB6 73.95 92.572 363 262 760 OCB10 73.92 96.900 271 299 767 OCB12 74.01 93.447 298 226 767 OCB13 74.91 101.561 037 244 793 OCB15 74.27 94.311 314 257 764 67 Appendix 3-2: Cronbach alpha analysis of Retention-oriented Compensation Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Based on Cronbach's Standardized Alpha Items 780 N of Items 787 Item-Total Statistics Corrected Item- Squared Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance Total Multiple Alpha if Item Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted COM1 20.91 30.125 572 368 736 COM2 21.59 37.624 129 037 843 COM3 21.27 28.574 703 544 702 COM4 21.41 29.802 677 634 712 COM5 21.40 29.312 704 664 704 COM6 21.93 32.206 477 239 760 68 Appendix 3-3: Cronbach alpha analysis of Formalized Training (TRA) Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Based on Cronbach's Standardized Alpha Items 939 N of Items 940 Item-Total Statistics Corrected Item- Squared Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance Total Multiple Alpha if Item Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted TRA1 17.81 55.648 847 753 925 TRA2 17.93 57.211 811 707 929 TRA3 17.90 55.608 856 765 923 TRA4 17.82 54.282 862 775 922 TRA5 17.80 56.513 740 591 938 TRA6 17.77 55.601 800 662 930 Appendix 3-4: Cronbach alpha analysis of Employees’ Intention to Leave (ITL) Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Based on Cronbach's Standardized Alpha Items 913 N of Items 914 Item-Total Statistics Corrected Item- Squared Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance Total Multiple Alpha if Item Item Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted ITL1 6.66 11.773 852 726 853 ITL2 6.90 12.315 808 660 889 ITL3 6.95 11.152 819 678 883 69 APPENDIX IV – CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS (CFA) Table 4-2: Standardized Regression Weights – Modified Model Items OCB2 OCB3 OCB4 OCB5 OCB7 OCB8 OCB9 OCB11 OCB14 COM1 COM3 COM4 COM5 COM6 TRA1 TRA2 TRA3 TRA4 TRA5 TRA6 ITL1 ITL2 ITL3 < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < - OCB OCB OCB OCB OCB OCB OCB OCB OCB COM COM COM COM COM TRA TRA TRA TRA TRA TRA ITL ITL ITL Estimated 0.534 0.489 0.471 0.8 0.757 0.427 0.568 0.515 0.467 0.557 0.735 0.864 0.894 0.501 0.891 0.856 0.899 0.906 0.725 0.787 0.916 0.861 0.874 70 APPENDIX V - MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS (MLR) Appendix 5-1: Testing correlation of constructs Correlations Gender Gender Pearson Correlation Sig (2-tailed) N Age Pearson Correlation COM TRA OCB ITL 319 ** Position Tenure COM TRA OCB ITL ** 109 141 076 106 -.066 031 000 142 058 309 155 375 679 182 182 182 182 182 182 182 ** ** 020 -.020 142 -.174 000 000 791 784 056 019 182 182 182 182 182 182 * * -.076 ** 010 016 305 008 005 319 Sig (2-tailed) 000 N 182 182 109 ** Position Pearson Correlation Tenure 182 Age 484 484 557 190 178 195 -.206 * ** Sig (2-tailed) 142 000 N 182 182 182 182 182 182 182 182 Pearson Correlation 141 ** * -.043 016 033 004 Sig (2-tailed) 058 000 010 564 833 662 954 N 182 182 182 182 182 182 182 182 Pearson Correlation 076 020 178 * -.043 Sig (2-tailed) 309 791 016 564 N 182 182 182 182 557 190 416 ** 223 ** -.328 ** 000 002 000 182 182 182 182 ** -.040 106 -.020 -.076 016 Sig (2-tailed) 155 784 305 833 000 N 182 182 182 182 182 -.066 142 ** 033 ** Sig (2-tailed) 375 056 008 662 002 595 N 182 182 182 182 182 182 182 182 Pearson Correlation 031 -.174 * ** 004 ** ** ** Sig (2-tailed) 679 019 005 954 000 000 001 N 182 182 182 182 182 182 182 Pearson Correlation 195 -.206 416 223 -.328 -.291 ** Pearson Correlation 595 000 182 182 182 -.040 -.291 -.251 ** 001 -.251 182 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) 71 Appendix 5-2: Testing assumptions for residuals of dependent variable 72 Appendix 5-3: The MLR analysis on the effect of Retention-oriented Compensation and Formalized Training on Organizational Citizenship Behaviour c Model Summary Model R Square R Adjusted R Square Std Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig F Change 233 a 0.054 0.033 0.80455 0.054 2.548 177 0.041 331 b 0.109 0.079 0.78527 0.055 5.398 175 0.005 dimension0 a Predictors: (Constant), Tenure, Gender, Position, Age b Predictors: (Constant), Tenure, Gender, Position, Age, TRA, COM c Dependent Variable: OCB c ANOVA Model Sum of Squares Regression df Mean Square 6.597 1.649 Residual 114.572 177 647 Total 121.169 181 13.255 2.209 Residual 107.914 175 617 Total 121.169 181 Regression F Sig 2.548 041 a 3.582 002 b a Predictors: (Constant), Tenure, Gender, Position, Age b Predictors: (Constant), Tenure, Gender, Position, Age, TRA, COM c Dependent Variable: OCB 73 Coefficients Unstandardized Coefficients Model Std Error B (Constant) 0.023 Sig Beta Zeroorder Partial Part Tolerance VIF -1.528 0.128 -0.066 -0.114 -0.112 0.893 1.12 0.019 0.132 1.251 0.212 0.142 0.094 0.091 0.479 2.087 0.29 0.159 0.153 1.818 0.071 0.195 0.135 0.133 0.753 1.328 -0.016 0.033 -0.046 -0.504 0.615 0.044 -0.038 -0.037 0.651 1.535 (Constant) 4.431 0.499 8.889 Gender -0.21 0.127 -0.126 -1.651 0.1 -0.066 -0.124 -0.118 0.88 1.137 Age 0.026 0.018 0.148 1.432 0.154 0.142 0.108 0.102 0.477 2.096 Position 0.161 0.161 0.085 1.005 0.316 0.195 0.076 0.072 0.707 1.415 Tenure -0.009 0.032 -0.026 -0.291 0.771 0.044 -0.022 -0.021 0.646 1.547 COM 0.178 0.054 0.267 3.282 0.001 0.223 0.241 0.234 0.771 1.296 TRA -0.07 0.044 -0.127 -1.58 0.116 -0.04 -0.119 -0.113 0.79 1.266 Tenure 0.129 T -0.118 Position -0.197 Collinearity Statistics Correlations Age 0.447 Standardized Coefficients 11.202 Gender 5.008 a a Dependent Variable: OCB Appendix 5-4: The MLR analysis on the effect of Retention-oriented Compensation and Formalized Training on Employees’ Intention to Leave c Model Summary Model R Square R Adjusted R Square Std Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig F Change 263 a 0.069 0.048 1.63677 0.069 3.284 177 0.013 457 b 0.208 0.181 1.51792 0.139 15.402 175 0.000 dimension0 a Predictors: (Constant), Tenure, Gender, Position, Age b Predictors: (Constant), Tenure, Gender, Position, Age, TRA, COM c Dependent Variable: ITL 74 c ANOVA Model Sum of Squares Regression df Mean Square F 35.187 8.797 Residual 474.188 177 2.679 Total 509.375 181 Regression 106.160 17.693 Residual 403.215 175 2.304 Total 509.375 181 Sig 3.284 013 a 7.679 000 b a Predictors: (Constant), Tenure, Gender, Position, Age b Predictors: (Constant), Tenure, Gender, Position, Age, TRA, COM c Dependent Variable: ITL Coefficients Model Unstandardized Coefficients Std Error B (Constant) 5.329 0.91 a Standardized Coefficients Collinearity Statistics Correlations t Sig Zeroorder Beta 5.859 Partial Part Tolerance VIF Gender 1Age 0.323 0.263 0.095 1.232 0.220 0.031 0.092 0.089 0.893 1.12 -0.079 0.038 -0.216 -2.066 0.040 -0.174 -0.153 -0.15 0.479 2.087 Position -0.541 0.324 -0.139 -1.669 0.097 -0.206 -0.124 -0.121 0.753 1.328 Tenure 0.101 0.066 0.137 1.527 0.128 -0.002 0.114 0.111 0.651 1.535 7.76 0.964 8.053 Gender 0.487 0.245 0.142 1.984 0.049 0.031 0.148 0.133 0.88 1.137 Age 2Position -0.091 0.035 -0.251 -2.574 0.011 -0.174 -0.191 -0.173 0.477 2.096 -0.429 0.31 -0.111 -1.382 0.169 -0.206 -0.104 -0.093 0.707 1.415 Tenure 0.107 0.062 0.145 1.728 0.086 -0.002 0.129 0.116 0.646 1.547 COM -0.286 0.105 -0.209 -2.735 0.007 -0.328 -0.202 -0.184 0.771 1.296 TRA -0.269 0.085 -0.238 -3.144 0.002 -0.291 -0.231 -0.211 0.79 1.266 (Constant) a Dependent Variable: ITL 75 Appendix 5-5: The MLR analysis on the effect of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour on Employees’ Intention to Leave c Model Summary Model R Square R Adjusted R Square Std Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change df1 Sig F Change df2 263 a 0.069 0.048 1.63677 0.069 3.284 177 0.013 329 b 0.108 0.083 1.60652 0.039 7.73 176 0.006 dimension0 a Predictors: (Constant), Tenure, Gender, Position, Age b Predictors: (Constant), Tenure, Gender, Position, Age, OCB c Dependent Variable: ITL c ANOVA Model Sum of Squares Regression df Mean Square 35.187 8.797 Residual 474.188 177 2.679 Total 509.375 181 55.136 11.027 Residual 454.239 176 2.581 Total 509.375 181 Regression F Sig 3.284 013 a 4.273 001 b a Predictors: (Constant), Tenure, Gender, Position, Age b Predictors: (Constant), Tenure, Gender, Position, Age, OCB c Dependent Variable: ITL Coefficients Model Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B (Constant) 5.329 Std Error t Sig Zeroorder Partial Part Tolerance VIF 5.859 1.232 0.220 0.031 0.092 0.089 0.893 1.12 -0.174 -0.153 -0.15 0.479 2.087 Gender Age -0.079 0.038 -0.216 -2.066 0.040 Position -0.541 0.324 -0.139 -1.669 0.097 -0.206 -0.124 -0.121 0.753 1.328 Tenure 0.101 0.066 0.137 1.527 0.128 -0.002 0.114 0.111 0.651 1.535 (Constant) 7.419 1.167 6.357 Gender 0.241 0.259 0.07 0.93 0.354 0.031 0.07 0.066 0.881 1.134 Age Position -0.069 0.038 -0.19 -1.836 0.068 -0.174 -0.137 -0.131 0.475 2.105 -0.42 0.321 -0.108 -1.308 0.193 -0.206 -0.098 -0.093 0.739 1.353 0.094 0.065 0.128 1.45 0.149 -0.002 0.109 0.103 0.65 1.538 -0.204 -2.78 0.006 -0.251 -0.205 -0.198 0.946 1.058 Tenure OCB -0.417 0.15 0.095 Collinearity Statistics Correlations Beta 0.91 0.323 0.263 a a Dependent Variable: ITL 76 Appendix 5-6: The mediating effect of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour on the relationship between Perceived HRM Practices and Employees’ Intention to Leave (H6 & H7) d Model Summary Model R dimension0 R Square Adjusted R Square Std Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig F Change 263 a 0.069 0.048 1.63677 0.069 3.284 177 0.013 405 b 0.164 0.14 1.55575 0.095 19.916 176 0.000 c 0.182 0.154 1.54285 0.018 3.955 175 0.048 427 a Predictors: (Constant), Tenure, Gender, Job_Pos, Age b Predictors: (Constant), Tenure, Gender, Job_Pos, Age, COM c Predictors: (Constant), Tenure, Gender, Job_Pos, Age, COM, OCB d Dependent Variable: ITL d ANOVA Model Sum of Squares Regression df Mean Square 35.187 8.797 Residual 474.188 177 2.679 Total 509.375 181 83.391 16.678 Residual 425.984 176 2.420 Total 509.375 181 92.805 15.468 Residual 416.570 175 2.380 Total 509.375 181 Regression Regression F Sig 3.284 013 a 6.891 000 b 6.498 000 c a Predictors: (Constant), Tenure, Gender, Job_Pos, Age b Predictors: (Constant), Tenure, Gender, Job_Pos, Age, COM c Predictors: (Constant), Tenure, Gender, Job_Pos, Age, COM, OCB d Dependent Variable: ITL 77 Coefficients Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients Model B Std Error (Constant) 5.329 0.910 Gender 0.323 0.263 Age -0.079 Job_Pos a Collinearity Statistics Correlations t Sig Zeroorder Beta 5.859 0.000 0.095 1.232 0.22 0.038 -0.216 -0.541 0.324 Tenure 0.101 0.066 (Constant) 7.393 0.98 Gender 0.417 0.25 Age Job_Pos -0.089 Tenure Partial Part Tolerance VIF 0.031 0.092 0.089 0.893 -2.066 0.04 -0.174 -0.153 -0.15 0.479 2.087 -0.139 -1.669 0.097 -0.206 -0.124 -0.121 0.753 1.328 0.137 1.527 0.128 -0.002 7.541 0.000 0.122 1.665 0.098 0.036 -0.245 -2.453 -0.272 0.314 -0.07 0.091 0.063 -0.431 0.096 8.664 1.164 0.35 0.251 Age Job_Pos -0.081 Tenure COM (Constant) 0.114 0.111 0.651 1.535 0.125 0.115 0.887 1.128 0.015 -0.174 -0.182 -0.169 0.477 2.095 -0.867 0.387 -0.206 -0.065 -0.06 0.725 1.379 0.124 1.45 0.149 -0.002 0.109 0.1 0.65 1.537 -0.315 -4.463 0.000 -0.328 -0.319 -0.308 0.955 1.048 7.446 0.000 0.102 1.397 0.164 0.036 -0.223 -2.242 -0.213 0.313 -0.055 0.088 0.063 COM -0.389 OCB -0.293 Gender 1.12 0.031 0.031 0.105 0.096 0.871 1.148 0.026 -0.174 -0.167 -0.153 0.472 2.121 -0.681 0.497 -0.206 -0.051 -0.047 0.719 1.392 0.119 1.4 0.163 -0.002 0.098 -0.285 -3.978 0.147 -0.143 -1.989 0.105 0.096 0.65 1.539 0.000 -0.328 -0.288 -0.272 0.912 1.097 0.048 -0.251 -0.149 -0.136 0.903 1.107 a Dependent Variable: ITL 78 ... to examine the mediating role of organizational citizenship behavior on the relationship between perceived human resource management practices and the intention to leave of employees Accordingly,... reflect the mediating role of OCB on the relationship between perceived human resource management practices and employees? ?? intention to leave Hence, this study aims to investigate the mediating role. .. study to understand the mediating role of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) in the relationship between perceived human resource management practice and employees? ?? intention to leave The