Figure 1
Study Model.
Table 1
Model Fit for Models Testing Discriminant Validity.
| MODEL | χ2/DF | RMSEA (90% CI) | CFI/TLI | SRMR | AIC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inducements, leadership, turnover intention | 1394/515 | .051 (.048, .054) | .915/.907 | .053 | 57093 |
| Obligations, leadership, turnover intention | 1139/515 | .043 (.040, .047) | .923/.916 | .059 | 53184 |
[i] Note: RMSEA = root-mean square error or approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; SRMR = standardized root-mean square residual; AIC = Akaike’s information criterion.
Table 2
Model Fit for Models Testing Measurement Invariance in a Two-Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
| MODEL | χ2/DF | RMSEA (90% CI) | CFI/TLI | SRMR | AIC | MODELS FOR COMPARISON | Δχ2/ΔDF | P | ΔRMSEA | ΔCFI | ΔSRMR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inducements, leadership, turnover intention | |||||||||||
| Configural | 1876/964 | .054 (.050, .058) | .913/.898 | .054 | 57502 | ||||||
| Metric | 1917/988 | .054 (.050, .057) | .911/.899 | .057 | 57495 | Configural | 41/24 | .017 | .00 | –.002 | .003 |
| Scalar | 1978/1012 | .054 (.051, .058) | .907/.897 | .058 | 57508 | Metric | 102/48 | .000 | .00 | –.004 | .001 |
| Obligations, leadership, turnover intention | |||||||||||
| Configural | 1629/964 | .046 (.042, .050) | .919/.906 | .054 | 53073 | ||||||
| Metric | 1664/988 | .046 (.042, .050) | .918/.907 | .057 | 53059 | Configural | 35/24 | .072 | .00 | –.001 | .003 |
| Scalar | 1746/1012 | .047 (.043, .051) | .911/.879 | .059 | 25740 | Metric | 82/24 | .000 | .001 | –.009 | .002 |
[i] Note: RMSEA = root-mean square error or approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; SRMR = standardized root-mean square residual; AIC = Akaike’s information criterion.
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of the Study Variables.
| M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Generation (0 = millennial) | .54 | |||||||
| 2. Gender (0 = female) | .79 | .12** | ||||||
| 3. Empowering leadership | 3.84 | .68 | –.01 | –.03 | (.88) | |||
| 4. Psychological contract obligations | 4.04 | .44 | .13** | –.01 | .25*** | (.84) | ||
| 5. Psychological contract inducements | 3.47 | .66 | –.02 | .02 | .44*** | .23*** | (.90) | |
| 6. Turnover intention | 2.22 | 1.06 | –.05 | .01 | –.22*** | .06 | –.54*** | (.79) |
[i] Note: Cronbach’s alphas in parentheses on the diagonal. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Table 4
Predicting Congruence of the Psychological Contract (a path).
| PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT OBLIGATIONS | PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT INDUCEMENTS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B(SE) | B(SE) | WILKS’ LAMBDA | ||
| Model 1: Main effects | Intercept | 4.00(.04)*** | 3.45(.06)*** | .047*** |
| Gender | –.02(.04) | .05(.06) | .998 | |
| Empowering leadership | .16(.02)*** | .43(.03)*** | .781*** | |
| Generation | .11(.03)** | –.03(.05) | .981** | |
| R2 | .078 | .197 | ||
| F | 18.35*** | 53.04*** | ||
| Model 2: Interaction with generation | Intercept | 4.00(.04)*** | 3.45(.06)*** | .047*** |
| Gender | –.02(.04) | .05(.06) | .998 | |
| Empowering leadership | .14(.04)*** | .46(.05)*** | .881*** | |
| Generation | .11(.03)** | –.03(.05) | .980** | |
| Empowering leadership*generation | .04(.05) | –.05(.07) | .998 | |
| R2 | .08 | .20 | ||
| F | 13.88*** | 39.90*** | ||
[i] **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Table 5
Predicting Turnover Intention (b and c path).
| MODEL 1 | MODEL 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B(SE) | ß | B(SE) | ß | B(SE) | ß | B(SE) | ß | B(SE) | ß | B(SE) | ß | |
| Intercept | 2.26(.10)*** | 2.22(.15)*** | 2.21(.15)*** | 2.26(.10)*** | 2.27(.20)*** | 2.26(.20)*** | ||||||
| Gender | .02(.10) | .01 | .07(.09) | .03 | .07(.09) | .09 | .01(.10) | .01 | .07(.09) | .03 | .07(.09) | .03 |
| Empowering leadership | –.35(.06)*** | –.22 | –.03(.06) | .06 | –.44(.09)*** | –.28 | –.09(.09) | –.06 | ||||
| Generation | –.10(.08) | –.05 | –.18(.07)** | –.09 | –.18(.07)** | .07 | –.10(.08) | –.05 | –.27(.27) | –.13 | –.25(.28) | –.12 |
| Empowering leadership * generation | –.17(.12) | .08 | .10(.12) | .05 | ||||||||
| Employer obligations | .44(.25) | .18 | .44(.25) | .25 | .33(.37) | .14 | .32(.37) | .13 | ||||
| Inducements | –1.02(.15)*** | –.64 | –1.01(.16)*** | –.63 | –1.02(.25)*** | –.64 | –.98(.25)*** | –.62 | ||||
| Obligations2 | .01(.12) | .01 | .01(.12) | .01 | .09(.20) | .08 | .11(.21) | .09 | ||||
| Inducements*obligations | .05(.12) | .05 | .05(.12) | .05 | .05(.23) | .04 | .07(.23) | .06 | ||||
| Inducements2 | .04(.06) | .03 | .03(.06) | .02 | –.04(.12) | –.03 | –.05(.12) | –.04 | ||||
| Obligations*generation | .16(.51) | .10 | .17(.51) | .10 | ||||||||
| Inducements*generation | .05(.32) | .03 | .00(.32) | .00 | ||||||||
| Obligations2*generation | –.13(.26) | –.12 | –.14(.26) | –.13 | ||||||||
| Inducements*obligations*generation | –.02(.27) | –.02 | –.04(.27) | –.03 | ||||||||
| Inducements2*generation | .11(.14) | .07 | .13(.14) | .08 | ||||||||
| R2 | .05 | .33 | .33 | .06 | .33 | .33 | ||||||
| F | 11.85*** | 44.97*** | 39.33*** | 9.38*** | 26.21*** | 22.50*** |
[i] **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Figure 2
Relationship of Empowering Leadership and Congruence of the Psychological Contract (a path).
Note: The solid line represents inducements, and the dotted line represents obligations (produced with desmos.com).
Figure 3
Results of Polynomial Regression Analysis Investigating the Relationship between Congruence of the Psychological Contract and Turnover Intention (b path).