Journal of the Korean Society of Food Culture (한국식생활문화학회지)

Korean Society of Food Culture (한국식생활문화학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Effect of Job Embeddedness Constructs on Innovation-related Behaviors and Turnover Intention

직무배태성의 구성요인이 혁신관련행동과 이직의도에 미치는 연구

  • Yoo, Young-Jin (Department of Food Service Industry, Catholic University of Daegu)
  • 유영진 (대구가톨릭대학교 외식산업학)
  • Received : 2011.07.12
  • Accepted : 2011.11.03
  • Published : 2011.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate how constructs of job embeddedness (fit, links and sacrifice) affected innovation-related behaviors. This study also investigated the relationship between innovation-related behaviors and turnover intention. The samples of this study were employees of Daegu City restaurants who visited the 2010 Daegu Food Tour Expo on October 7-10. A total of 302 questionnaires were analyzed with the statistical methods of factor analysis, reliability test, and covariance structural analysis. There were two findings of the research. First, we found that fits, links, and sacrifice were positively related to innovation-related behaviors. Second, we found that innovation-related behaviors were negatively related to turnover intention. Therefore, restaurant managers in Daegu City should pay attention to providing employee organization that helps them to first in, makes sure that they have lots of links with other employees, and bestows as many wage and fringe benefits as possible. Also, restaurant managers should reward the innovation-related behaviors of employees.

Keywords

References

  1. Anderson N, De Dreu CK, Nijstad BA. 2004. The routinization of innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2):147-173 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.236
  2. Crossley CD, Bennett RJ, Jex SM, Burnfield JL. 2007. Development of a global measure of job embeddedness and integration into a traditional model of voluntary turnover. Journal of applied Psychology, 92(4):1031-1042 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1031
  3. De Jonge A, De Ruyter K. 2004. Adaptive versus proactive behavior in service recovery: The role of self-managing teams. Decision Sciences, 35(3):457-491 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0011-7315.2004.02513.x
  4. Ha DH, Kim SM. 2010. Effects of job embeddedness on job satisfaction, oranizational commitment and turnover intention: Focused on employees of hotel F & B division-. Korean Journal of Food Cookery Science, 26(1):1-12
  5. Halbesleben JRB, Wheeler AR. 2008. The relative roles of engagement and embeddedness in predicting job performance and intention to leave. Work and Stress, 22(3):242-256 https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370802383962
  6. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Grablowsky BJ. 1979. Multivariate Data Analysis. Greemhaus JH, Beutell NJ. 1985. Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review 10:76-88
  7. Johnson JW. 2001. The relative importance of task and contextual performance dimensions to supervisor judgements of overall performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5):984-996 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.984
  8. Kim GS. 2004. AMOS Structural equation model analysis. Seoul. Data Solution. pp 113-123.
  9. Kwantes CT, Arbour S, Boglarsky CA. 2007. Organizational culture fit and outcomes in six national contexts: An organizational level analysis. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communication and Conflict, 11(2):95-111
  10. Lee TW, Mitchell TR, Sablynski CJ, Burton JP, Holtom BC. 2004. The effects of job embeddedness on organizational citizenship, job performance, volitional absences, and voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5):711-722 https://doi.org/10.2307/20159613
  11. Mitchell TR, Holtom BC, Lee TW, Sablynski CJ, Erez M. 2001. Why people stay: Using organizational embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6):1102-1121 https://doi.org/10.2307/3069391
  12. Morrison EW, Phelps CC. 1999. Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4):403-419 https://doi.org/10.2307/257011
  13. Ng TWH, Feldman D. 2010. The impact of job embeddedness on innovation-related behaviors. Human Resource Management, 49(6):1067-1087 https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20390
  14. Parker SK, Williams HM, Turner N. 2006. Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of applied Psychology, 91(3):636-652 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.636
  15. Staw BM. 1980. The consequences of turnover. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 1(4):253-273
  16. Van de Ben AH, Ferry DL. 1980. Measuring and Assessing Organization. McGraw-Hill. New York. p 78
  17. Warr P. 1994. Age and employment. In HC Triandis, MD Dunnette & LM Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 4, 2nd ed., pp. 485- 550. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press
  18. Welbourne TM, Johnson DE, Erez A. 1998. The role-based performance scale: Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of Management Journal, 41(5):540- 555 https://doi.org/10.2307/256941
  19. Wiersma MF, Bantel KA. 1992. Top management team demography and corporate strateic change. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1):91-121 https://doi.org/10.2307/256474