Content uploaded by Tanvi Chaturvedi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tanvi Chaturvedi on Apr 20, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Please Note:
The research and the paper was conducted in guidance of DR. JAYANTA MOHAPATRA, (Woxsen University,
Hyderabad). This article is an outcome of a Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Management, SIBM, Pune in
2023.
EMPLOYEE RETENTION MODEL FOR THE
IT/ITES SECTOR
(Embed your employees through C.A.R.E and retain them)
INTRODUCTION
“What makes people stay?” is a key question that always challenges researchers and
practitioners. Much has been written and spoken about the needed interventions to retain
employees in the workplace, but this question continues to haunt us. It continues to top
the list of CEO’s leadership and managerial priorities. Given that workplace dynamics are
ever-evolving, employee retention is not merely a metric that alerts the HR department to
take action when indicators are bad. It is a competitive advantage and key differentiator
for companies who pay close attention to it. Variety of problems encountered with
voluntary exits, has an impact on operational costs, revenue, productivity, company
culture, and customer experience, all of which end up compromising an organization’s
growth and profit. The need to spot early on what makes an employee stay in an
organization is a non-negotiable.
Human Resource Management (HRM) is responsible for designing and managing talent
management practices in an organization. Human Resource Management (HRM)
practices play a pivotal role in shaping employee retention strategies within organizations.
An effective HRM approach encompasses a range of initiatives designed to attract,
develop, and retain talent, fostering a positive and engaging workplace culture.
Additionally, HR departments often serve as a bridge between employees and
management, addressing concerns, promoting open communication, and ensuring that
the organizational culture aligns with the expectations and aspirations of the workforce.
In essence, human resource management practices are instrumental in building a work
environment where employees feel motivated, supported, and inclined to stay, thus
significantly contributing to successful employee retention efforts.
PURPOSE AND KEY OUTCOMES
The purpose of this research was to answer the question -“What makes people stay?” This
was achieved by testing whether employees’ perceptions of an organization’s human
resource practices impact their job embeddedness and in turn, employee retention in the
Information Technology and its related industry (IT/ITES). The current study used job
embeddedness, a relatively new construct, to investigate its mediation effect on the
Please Note:
The research and the paper was conducted in guidance of DR. JAYANTA MOHAPATRA, (Woxsen University,
Hyderabad). This article is an outcome of a Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Management, SIBM, Pune in
2023.
relationship between employee retention and six areas of human resource practices:
compensation, training and development, performance appraisal, growth opportunities,
supervisor support and job security with the focus on the IT/ITES industry. Job
embeddedness has been defined as “the combined forces that keep an individual from
leaving his or her job”. People can become “embedded” in their job as a result of various
forces (Tseng, 2010; Tseng & Wallace, 2009) .
Job Embeddedness (JE) is a combination of three factors - Fit, Links and Sacrifice (Bergiel
et al., 2009; Mitchell et al., 2001; Shaw et al., 1998; William Lee et al., 2014) and this
combined force keeps individuals away from leaving their jobs. Each of these factors are
explained below:
a) Fit to an organization was defined as the degree perceived in how compatible an
employee feels to the job, he/she is performing and the company he/she belongs
to. Fit denotes an employees’ perceived compatibility or comfort with the
organization and the work environment.
b) Links to the organization was defined as how connected an employee feels to other
people, team or organizations. Links can be thought as strands that connect
employees with their work, team members, supervisors and other colleagues with
whom they work with. The greater the number of links, the stronger the web and
therefore the more tightly the individual is bound to the job and organization.
c) Sacrifice to the organization was defined as the perceived cost of physical or
psychological convenience sacrificed when leaving a current job. It captures the
perceived costs of material or psychological benefits that may be forfeited by
leaving a job. The more employees would give up on leaving, the more difficult it
will be for them to break employment with the organization.
It was hypothesized that the sum total of these three dimensions i.e., fit, links and sacrifice
of job embeddedness mediates the impact of perceptions of human resource practices on
retention. When an organization’s human resource practices really care about, appreciate
and invest in employees, employees should be more embedded in the organization.
The outcome of this research was that it indicated job embeddedness to be an answer to
retaining employees within an organization. Job embeddedness showed a strong
relationship with employees’ intention to stay as it explained approximately 59 percent of
the variance in retention. Given the nature of social sciences research, this is an
appreciable and significant amount of explained variance. Furthermore, Human resource
management (HRM) practices may not highly impact retention in isolation, but job
embeddedness mediates the relationship. Human resource management practices that
make an employee feel connected to the job, creates a sense of belonging and provides
psychological convenience that if sacrificed impacts an employee, should be included in
an organization’s retention strategy. The C.A.R.E model explaining the human resource
management factors that makes employees embed in an organization thereby leading to
retention especially in the IT/ITES sector was a result of this research.
Please Note:
The research and the paper was conducted in guidance of DR. JAYANTA MOHAPATRA, (Woxsen University,
Hyderabad). This article is an outcome of a Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Management, SIBM, Pune in
2023.
C.A.R.E MODEL OF JOB EMBEDDEDDNESS AND EMPLOYEE
RETENTION
Competitive Pay [C]: Competitive pay or compensation serves as a hygiene factor to
impact the fit between the individual and the job, as well, as represent a sacrifice that must
be experienced if the employee chooses to take the employment elsewhere. Competitive
Pay or Compensation was closely linked with Training and Development. It was observed
that employees who were not appropriately compensated after their training, they were
more likely to switch to another job. Since the skills of employees has improved after
training and development initiatives, they like to be paid more. Properly compensating
employees after training and development can be helpful in retaining employees. In the
corporate world, the popular notion has been that compensation may not be a sole
predictor of employee retention. While it holds true, the importance of financial gains and
incentives can no longer be undermined. 2023 EX Trends Report found that despite
employees giving their all to their companies during the challenges of the pandemic,
satisfaction with pay and benefits dropped significantly. The overwhelming feeling is that
organisations are struggling to get the basics right.
Avenues for Growth and Appraisal [A]: Growth opportunities and appraisal of
performance significantly impacts job embeddedness and in turn retention. When
employees favorably perceive growth opportunities provided by their organization, it
significantly impacts their fit in an organization and in turn retention. When an
organization has a policy to build an internal talent pipeline, employees will set their sights
more deliberately on opportunities for professional growth in the context of the
C:Competitive Pay
A: Avenues for Growth
and Appraisal
R: Relationship with
Managers
E:Employment
Stability
Please Note:
The research and the paper was conducted in guidance of DR. JAYANTA MOHAPATRA, (Woxsen University,
Hyderabad). This article is an outcome of a Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Management, SIBM, Pune in
2023.
organization versus looking elsewhere. This further represents a sacrifice that must be
experienced if the employee chooses to take the employment elsewhere. Furthermore,
training and development needs to have a growth and appraisal related outcome attached
to it for it to serve as an effective retention strategy.
Relationship with Managers [R]: Relationship with the Manager or Supervisor support
significantly impacts the links that employees create within an organization and in turn
retention. It has been believed that employees do not leave their organization but they
leave their managers. The results from this research further validates this belief. Hence,
the way that a supervisor/manager deals with their team members impacts the
embeddedness and in turn the retention of employees. When employees favorably
perceive supervisor support in their organization, it significantly impacts their
enmeshment in an organization and in turn retention. High supervisor support can help
employees better fit and align with their jobs and organizations. Under these
circumstances, the intangible losses such a trust and encouragement incurred by leaving
the organization tends to be prohibitively high. Therefore, healthy and favourable
supervisor support establishes the fit, link and sacrifices for employees that embeds them
in an organization.
Employment Stability [E]: Employment stability or Job security significantly impacts job
embeddedness and in turn retention. Furthermore, it represents a sacrifice that must be
experienced if the employee chooses to take the employment elsewhere. When employees
feel a sense of stability, it tends to increase their job embeddedness and eventually
retention. Recent research from Towers Watson Global Talent Management and Rewards
Survey released at the end of July, 2023 further validates the importance of job security.
“While employers recognise the importance of pay and career advancement as key reasons
employees choose to join and stay with a company, they don’t place the same importance
on another top attraction and retention driver: job security, or a key retention driver: trust
and confidence in senior leadership,” - (Laura Sejen- Managing Director, Towers Watson)
BACKGROUND, LITE RATURE REVIE W AND NEED FO R THIS
RE SEA RCH
As part of the literature review, approximately 163 academic papers were studied. It was
observed that while employee retention has been studied extensively, the studies lack the
comprehensiveness in explaining a framework. Moreover, it was observed that the
literature may benefit from having an indicative model on employee retention. It was
observed that the previous researches have not focused on a framework that explains the
“why” of employee retention and therefore, it was hypothesized that the theory of job
embeddedness (JE) will help achieve the same.
Please Note:
The research and the paper was conducted in guidance of DR. JAYANTA MOHAPATRA, (Woxsen University,
Hyderabad). This article is an outcome of a Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Management, SIBM, Pune in
2023.
Employee retention has been a major challenge for organizations, especially in the
IT/ITES sector (Gaan, 2011). The academic debate on employee retention dates back to
the 1900s when scholars and psychologists began identifying factors affecting employees'
interest in the job and possible opportunities (Wright, McMahan, et al., 1994; Wright,
Rowland, et al., 1994). Retention is defined as an organization's voluntary effort to create
an engaging environment for long-term employee commitment (Chaminade, 2007). It
involves motivating employees to stay with the organization for an extended period (Giri,
2008; Hom et al., 2019; Hom et al., 2017; James & Mathew, 2012) and continuing the
employment of talented individuals (Berry & Morris, 2008). Retaining high-performing
and capable employees is essential, as they provide a competitive advantage (Gurumani,
2010; Ng'ethe et al., 2012). Effective retention management has become a source of
competitive advantage in dynamic environments, as increased retention leads to reduced
employee turnover (Vaiman, 2008; Whitt, 2006).
Human Resource Management (HRM) practices play a pivotal role in employee retention
(Mahal, 2012; Pfeffer, 1994; Stone et al., 2020). Past researchers have indicated that
compensation plays a significant role in the retention of employees. It has a pivotal role in
attracting and retaining employees especially who are high performers or bring a unique
skillset that is either not easy to find or is largely indispensable to the organization (Irshad
& Afridi, 2007). For instance, compensation is an important determinant of retention in
the Indian IT/ITES sector (Kumar & Arora, 2012). Few researchers argue that
competitive compensation package helps in retention of employees irrespective of their
performance and skills. Organizations with high compensation package tend to retain
employees better and create a culture of excellence (Lawler, 1990; Mandhanya, 2016;
Uwimpuhwe et al., 2018). When employees feel that their compensation is at par with the
industry standards and they are paid fairly, it leads to a cordial relationship between the
employers and the employees (Parker & Wright, 2001; Tripathy & AkanchaTrivedi, 2017)
Furthermore, researchers have indicated that compensation plays a pivotal role in the
retention of employees and commitment (Bassi & Van Buren, 1999; Hong et al., 2012;
Mittar et al., 2014; Stein, 2000; Tripathy & AkanchaTrivedi, 2017; Williams & Dreher,
1992). Contrary to this, a few researchers have argued that while compensation is an
important factor for employees, it may lead to satisfaction but not necessarily lead to
employee retention (Ashby & Pell, 2001; Biswal, 2013; Brannick, 2001; Smith, 2001). It is
recommended that only pay is not sufficient to retain employees. A low pay package
would drive employees outside the organization but it is not necessary that high package
bring and keep the employees in the organization (FELDMAN, 2000; Highhouse et al.,
1999). Irrespective of the extent of impact that compensation has on employee retention,
compensation is one of the key leading human resource management practices when studying
employee retention (Irshad & Afridi, 2007; Mishra & Mishra, 2013; Nirmala, 2014) Hence, it was
included in the current study.
Please Note:
The research and the paper was conducted in guidance of DR. JAYANTA MOHAPATRA, (Woxsen University,
Hyderabad). This article is an outcome of a Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Management, SIBM, Pune in
2023.
Investment on employees’ training and development is considered to be an important
factor in employee retention. Training and Development is a systematic approach to
developing and enhancing employee skills, abilities and knowledge for the purpose of
increasing organizational effectiveness (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). Training is defined as a
process through which organizations provide skill-based and updated knowledge to their
employees to enhance efficiencies (Ejaz & Akbar, 2015). Researches have indicated that it
is an important determinant of employee retention (Cappelli, 2000; Cole, 2000; Delaney
& Huselid, 1996; El Sagheir, 2014; Ichniowski et al., 1995; Irshad & Afridi, 2007;
MacDuffie, 1995; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Mishra & Mishra, 2013; Mittar et al., 2014; Snell
& Dean Jr, 1992; Solomon, 1992; Youndt et al., 1996). It is indicated that providing
training and development opportunities is a sign of organizations’ commitment to its
employees (Storey & Sisson, 1993). In the Training Magazine, it is highlighted that the
investment in training leads to the retention of employees (Galvin, 2003 cited in (Ejaz &
Akbar, 2015)). Several organizations deploy training and development opportunities as
employee retention strategy (Bishop et al., 2000; Black & Lynch, 1996; Frazis et al., 1998;
Nguyen, 2020). It was found that organizations where employees spent approximately 59
percent time on formal training had lower turnover rates as compared to higher turnover
rates where employees spent approximately 18 percent time on formal training (Frazis et
al., 1998). Moreover, organizations have recognized that comprehensive training and
development opportunities serve as important factors of attraction and retention for
technological employees in the computerized economy (Accenture, 2003; Bassi & Van
Buren, 1999). Although, there is a significant positive relationship between training and
development and employee retention, it was also observed that training and development
contributes only 7 percent to employee retention (Abba, 2018). When training and
development opportunities are combined with other factors such as compensation, its
impact on the retention is found to be more significant. Research has thrown an interesting
perspective. It was observed that if employees are not appropriately compensated after
their training, they are more likely to switch to another job. The assumption is that after
training, the skills of employees have improved and hence they like to be paid more. If
employees are properly compensated by the organizations after their training and
development, then it would be helpful in retaining employees (Atif et al., 2011). Moreover,
employees’ satisfaction with the training and development opportunities may contribute
to the extent that such practices promote skill enhancement, reason why they are valued
and may not necessarily lead to retention especially in Indian call centres and Indian
companies at large (Thite & Russell, 2010; Yiu & Saner, 2014). Furthermore, who
sponsors the training tends to have an impact on intention to stay. One study concluded
that if the training and development opportunities are wholly sponsored by the employees
and their families, such employees are more likely to look out for other job opportunities
(Black & Lynch, 1996). Elias (1994) found that women who received employer-provided
and job-related training had a lower probability of transition, but for men, training made
no significant differences to the intention to stay (Mishra & Mishra, 2013). Greene et al
(2000) concluded that, in aggregate, training has on average no impact on mobility or
intention to stay (Mishra & Mishra, 2013). Irrespective of the extent of impact that training
Please Note:
The research and the paper was conducted in guidance of DR. JAYANTA MOHAPATRA, (Woxsen University,
Hyderabad). This article is an outcome of a Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Management, SIBM, Pune in
2023.
and development has on employee retention, it is one of the key leading human resource
management practices when studying employee retention (Atif et al., 2011; Hong et al.,
2012; Irshad & Afridi, 2007; Mishra & Mishra, 2013; Mittar et al., 2014; Nirmala, 2014;
Thite & Russell, 2010). Hence, it was included in the current study.
Performance appraisal is defined as evaluating employees’ performance in order to take a
decision for facilitating their career growth by looking at employees’ total involvement in
organization in terms of their internal characteristics and their working capability
(Gruman & Saks, 2011). Performance management or an appraisal mechanism ensures
achieving organizational goals in an efficient and effective manner. It entails activities such
as joint goal-setting, continuous progress review, frequent communication, feedback and
coaching for improved performance, implementation of employee- development programs
and rewarding achievements (Sahoo & Mishra, 2012). In the corporate world, it is often
treated as a mechanism to reward and recognize employees. It is crucial that employees
perceive the practice of performance appraisal as fair and objective. They must feel that
they are appropriately and fairly rewarded for the work they have delivered without any
partiality and favouritism. Researchers have identified reward as one of the important
factors in retaining employees. If the employees are attached to the attractive and fair
reward system, their stay in the organization will be longer (Ahmad et al., 2015; Azeez,
2017; Irshad & Afridi, 2007; Kundu et al., 2007; Kwenin et al., 2013; Wijesiri et al., 2019).
When an organization has an effective policy of promoting from within, its talented
employees will set their sights more deliberately on opportunities for professional growth
in the context of the organization rather than looking elsewhere (Dibble, 1999; Kreisman,
2002). Employees tend to demonstrate a higher intention to stay with the organization
when they feel that their capabilities, efforts and performance contributions are fairly
recognized and appreciated (Davies, 2001). Managing employee performance is one of the
effective ways to engage and commit employees towards the organization. This leads to
ensure that employees retain with the organization for a longer period of time (Pandita &
Ray, 2018). While performance related reward continues to be an important factor in
retaining employees, other aspects of performance appraisal have not been identified as a
predominant factor, but, as next equally important dimension in retaining employees
especially in the Indian ITeS sector (Kaur, 2017; Kumar & Arora, 2012; Mahal, 2012; Yiu
& Saner, 2014). The significant impact of performance management on employee
retention has not been observed consistently in the ITeS sector, with its extent of impact
varying from organizations to organizations (Wijesiri et al., 2019). Reward and
recognition associated with performance appraisal is perceived to be more effective and an
imperative retention strategy for the IT sector (James & Mathew, 2012). It was interesting
to observe that monetary benefits relating to compensation, training and development and
performance appraisal continued to be the common thread in retaining the employees.
Irrespective of the extent of impact that performance appraisal has on employee retention,
it appeared to be an important predictor, hence, it was included in the current study.
Please Note:
The research and the paper was conducted in guidance of DR. JAYANTA MOHAPATRA, (Woxsen University,
Hyderabad). This article is an outcome of a Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Management, SIBM, Pune in
2023.
Growth opportunities in an organization implies that employees are empowered to take
on higher responsibilities and clear career growth paths are defined for them. Providing
growth opportunities in form of career advancement within the organization impacts
attrition and retention (Azeez, 2017; Irshad & Afridi, 2007; Kwenin et al., 2013; Mishra
& Mishra, 2013). Research has shown that employees’ intention to leave organizations is
reduced based on the opportunities provided for growth and career advancement. Lack of
such opportunities, closely linked to training and development and promotions are the
main reasons for high-performing talented employees to leave the organization (Allen et
al., 2003). Furthermore, in Indian organizations, career advancement (growth
opportunities) has been consistently ranked as a key factor in retaining employees (Irshad
& Afridi, 2007; Yiu & Saner, 2014), however, it may not be a predominant factor (Kumar
& Arora, 2012).
It may be fair to say that Growth Opportunities and Supervisor Support go hand-in-hand.
Supervisor Support serves as an important factor in retaining employees. The relationship
between supervisor and employee plays a pivotal role in employees’ intention to stay. The
human face of the organization are supervisors (Irshad & Afridi, 2007). It is suggested
that employees perception regarding organization are significantly related to their
relationship with the supervisor (Eisenberger et al., 1990). If the relationship between a
supervisor and an employee is based on an open and transparent communication, where
an employee can discuss personal problems without fear, is not discouraged when mistakes
are made and can freely share opinion, then employees are more likely to stay with the
organization. Therefore, having a good supervisor-employee relationship leads to
reduction in an employee’s turnover intentions and are more engaged with the
organization (Greenhaus et al., 2009). Most of the researchers have alluded to employees
leaving the organizations because of the supervisors or leaders and not so much the job
(Azeez, 2017; Goleman, 2003). Similarly, a positive relationship was found between
leadership approach adopted by the supervisors and employee turnover and retention
(Wakabi, 2016). Skilled and talented employees may easily find a good job, position and
workplace elsewhere; however the effective way for retaining these talented employees is
to enhance leader or supervisor support (Silbert, 2005). Organizations must groom
supervisors to support the employees and to well build the work environment where
workers want to stay (Freyermuth, 2014). Responsible leadership and supervisor-
employee relationship has been identified as a predominant factor in retaining employees
even in the IT/ITeS sector both globally and in India (Bharathi & Paramashivaiah, 2015;
Doh et al., 2011; Gupta, 2010; James & Mathew, 2012; Kumar & Arora, 2012; P
Premalatha, 2016; Sree Rekha & Kamalanabhan, 2013; Tripathy & AkanchaTrivedi,
2017; Yiu & Saner, 2014). In a nutshell, both growth opportunities and supervisor support
play a vital role in an employee’s intention to stay in organizations at large, and, hence,
these two variables were included in this study.
Please Note:
The research and the paper was conducted in guidance of DR. JAYANTA MOHAPATRA, (Woxsen University,
Hyderabad). This article is an outcome of a Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Management, SIBM, Pune in
2023.
Over and above the human resource management practices mentioned earlier, how an
employee perceives their job security in an organization can serve as a determinant of
employee retention. It was observed that job life span or job security is the variable t hat
requires the most attention for improvement from a perspective of retention strategy. In
the absence of this required attention, it will continue to result in attrition especially in the
IT industry (Bharathi & Paramashivaiah, 2015; Kinnie et al., 2000; Pfeffer, 1994).
Furthermore, job security was considered to be a crucial factor in enhancing employees’
organizational attachment that in turn impacts retention (Kinnie et al., 2000; Pfeffer,
1994). Contrary to this, it was observed that job security may not be considered by a
majority of employees as a significant reason to stay in the job (Thite & Russell, 2010).
However, since job security was seen as an important factor in influencing not only
employee retention but also job embeddedness (the following sections will capture this),
this variable was retained in the current study as an independent variable.
JOB EMBEDDEDNESS, HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (HRM)
PRACTICES AND RETENTION
For over a century, there has been a preoccupation with why employees quit (Hom et al.,
2019; Hom et al., 2017) and scholars have often neglected the aspect of why employees
stay, presuming that the reasons for leaving are mirror opposites of reasons for staying
(William Lee et al., 2014). Over a period of time, researchers have challenged this
prevailing wisdom, arguing that the psychology of staying differs from that of leaving and
that their reasons can differ (Mitchell et al., 2001). For instance, one may leave because of
low remuneration but not necessarily stay for the sake of good remuneration (instead
staying for the camaraderie of one’s coworkers). Hence, Mitchell, et al. (2001) postulated
the concept of “job embeddedness’’ to represent factors that constrain people from leaving.
Since its inception, this theory has caused a paradigmatic shift, redirecting scholars
towards identifying forces inducing incumbents to stay in varied work roles and settings.
Job embeddedness has been defined as “the combined forces that keep an individual from
leaving his or her job”. People can become stuck or “embedded” in their job as a result of
various forces (Tseng, 2010; Tseng & Wallace, 2009). It offers a method of discovering
why people stay in an organization. The underlying assumption of the theory is that
embedded employees have less intention to leave their current jobs. Therefore, it is
popularly known as the theory of employee retention.
Mitchell, et al. (2001) identified three prime embedding factors: (1) fit to a job or
community; (2) links (social ties) to workplace or community constituents; and (3)
sacrifice, job or community amenities or benefits relinquished by leaving. Fit refers to
degree to which an individual’s personal values, career goals and future plans fit or align
with the organization culture, experienced job and career realities at work. Off the Job, fit
means fitment with preferences for the general culture of the location of the residence,
Please Note:
The research and the paper was conducted in guidance of DR. JAYANTA MOHAPATRA, (Woxsen University,
Hyderabad). This article is an outcome of a Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Management, SIBM, Pune in
2023.
including weather, amenities, political and religious environment and the arts (Ghosh &
Gurunathan, 2015). On the Job, links refers to formal and informal connections and
support among the individuals, colleagues, work groups, supervisors and the organization
as a whole. Off the Job, links refers to the connections in a social and familial web,
including non-work friends, spousal employment, groups and community organizations
(Ghosh & Gurunathan, 2015). On the Job, Sacrifice implies what the person would
sacrifice if s/he left the organization. Perceived costs of leaving the organization include
giving up on colleagues, perks, projects, job stability and advancement. Off the Job,
Sacrifice refers to what the person would sacrifice if s/he left the community. Perceived
potential of loss of desirable community attributes, including school quality,
neighbourhood safety and feeling of belonging (Ghosh & Gurunathan, 2015). In the
present study, the focus was on studying whether employee perceptions of human resource
management practices influence their job embeddedness. Since the human resource
management practices takes place within an organization, only on-the-job dimensions of
job embeddedness were the focus.
When an organization’s human resource practices really care about, appreciate and invest
in employees, employees should be more embedded in the organization (Bergiel et al.,
2009). Furthermore, studies have shown that progressive and performance-enhancing
human resource management (HRM) practices such as empowerment, self-managing
teams, developmental opportunities (Trevor & Nyberg, 2008), performance monitoring
and contingent pay (Batt & Colvin, 2011) may increase job embeddedness. Several studies
have examined the mediating role of job embeddedness on outcomes like turnover
intention, job satisfaction, and actual turnover (Harris et al., 2011; Wheeler et al., 2010),
ethical climate and performance outcomes and work engagement and job outcomes
(Karatepe, 2016) . It is seen that job-embeddedness as a mediator helps in better
understanding the relationship between HRM practices such as performance appraisal,
promotional opportunities, supervisor support and job security and employee retention
(Bibi et al., 2016; Giosan et al., 2005; Sekiguchi et al., 2008; Stinglhamber &
Vandenberghe, 2003; Wheeler et al., 2010). Moreover, job embeddedness theory also
supports this phenomenon by arguing that employees working in an organization are more
embedded when they feel that HRM practices are favorable and fair.
Proper HRM practices help the organization to achieve its goal successfully
(Frederickson, 1986). To retain the highly competent and skilled employee which
constitutes the majority of population in IT/ITES industry, HRM practices are and will
continue to be deployed. Most of the HRM strategies are focused on employee satisfaction
and retention as HR is the main dynamic asset in an institute which helps in achieving
competitive advantage in any business (Gul et al., 2012). Thus, positive perceptions of
employees about the HRM practices of an organization make them embedded or stuck in
the organization (Mitchell et al., 2001). To date, job embeddedness has been shown to
predict both intentions to leave and voluntary turnover (Bergiel et al., 2009; Bibi et al.,
Please Note:
The research and the paper was conducted in guidance of DR. JAYANTA MOHAPATRA, (Woxsen University,
Hyderabad). This article is an outcome of a Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Management, SIBM, Pune in
2023.
2016; Dechawatanapaisal, 2018; Zhang & Agarwal, 2009). Thus, the question of whether
employee perceptions of human resource practices influence job embeddedness, then
retention, needs to be answered. There are a number of factors that have been posited to
affect employee retention.
Therefore, the intent of this study is not to provide a comprehensive analysis of all those
factors, but to advance and apply current research by examining those relationships
empirically with job embeddedness and in turn retention with the focus on IT industry.
For this reason, a few other HRM practices such as work-life balance, working hours,
organizational culture and well-being have not been considered in this study. This study
focusses on six important HRM practices that have been studied both in the context of job
embeddedness and employee retention. Furthermore, the identified six human resource
practices (compensation, training and development, performance appraisal, growth opportunities,
supervisor support and job security) seems to be more tangible and actionable in nature. The
intent of the researcher was to focus on those practices where a change can be introduced
in a shorter span of time as opposed to focusing on aspects like work-life balance and
culture where changes typically need to be made at a mindset level.
The review of literature suggested that although, employee retention was studied
extensively in the past, these studies lacked the comprehensiveness in explaining a
framework. The literature may benefit from having a model that determines the impact of
human resource practices on employee retention. Moreover, the theory of job
embeddedness may help to better understand the relationship. Previous researches have
studied the role of job embeddedness in select industries and roles across the globe such as
hospitality (Afsar et al., 2018; Arasli et al., 2017; Karatepe, 2016), airlines (Shehawy et al.,
2018), IT construction (Son, 2012) and accountants (Dechawatanapaisal, 2018). Review
of literature indicated that there are rarely studies that have been done on mediating effect
of job embeddedness on the relationship between six HRM practices (compensation,
training and development, performance appraisal, growth opportunities, supervisor
support and job security) and employee retention in the IT/ITES industry within India.
Therefore, the current study focused on the same.
DESIG N / METHODOLOG Y/APPROACH
A five-point Likert-type scale self-administered questionnaire was developed for this
particular study. The questionnaire was inspired from previous researches and ready-to-
use surveys (Clinton et al., 2012; Crossley et al., 2007; Fletcher III, 2005; Hassell, 2005;
Holtom & Inderrieden, 2006; Lee et al., 2004; Mallol et al., 2007; Mitchell et al., 2001;
Pareek & Purohit, 2018; Price, 1997; Tang et al., 2012). Additionally, the researcher has
leveraged on her domain expertise in the field of psychological assessments and
organizational psychology. The researcher has more than a decade of work experience
and has applied the same to create the items of this survey.
Please Note:
The research and the paper was conducted in guidance of DR. JAYANTA MOHAPATRA, (Woxsen University,
Hyderabad). This article is an outcome of a Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Management, SIBM, Pune in
2023.
The survey questionnaire was given to the employees working in the IT/ITES sector. The
eligibility criteria for any respondent to participate in this study was clearly mentioned in
the form. There were largely two criteria a) Participant should work in a technology
(IT/ITES) or its related industry, and b) Participant should be an Indian or an
International working employee in India.
During the time of this research, the world was hit by the pandemic – Covid 19. Therefore,
the researcher decided to leverage on technology, social media platforms and her own
connections in the IT/ITES industry to gather responses on the survey questionnaire. The
survey questionnaire was created on Google Forms.
To establish the validity of the survey questionnaire, internal consistency reliability was
calculated. The internal consistency reliability for the items on variables research ranged
from α= .66 to .90. Therefore, the items used in the survey for each of the scale were
measuring what it was intended to measure. This implied that the responses received on
this survey were accurate and can be considered for the purpose of analysis. Table 1
summarizes the internal consistency of all the scales.
Table 1: Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha) Values for Each Scale
SCALES
CRONBACH’S ALPHA
ITEMS
Job Embeddedness
.80
6
Retention
.66
2
Compensation
.78
3
Supervisor Support
.70
3
Training and Development
.90
3
Performance Appraisal
.83
3
Growth Opportunities
.76
3
Job Security
.70
3
SAMP LE S I ZE
The research had 65 participants as a final sample. As per the various metrics calculated,
this was a representative & accurate sample. For example, 10.23% margin of error at 90%
desired confidence of level was considered i.e., in this case there was a 90 percent chance
that the real value will be within ±10.23 percent of the measured surveyed values. This
was a minor variation from the initial estimated sample size (a minimum of 69
respondents). Furthermore, as a best practice, it is purported that if the research has a
relational or correlation survey design, the sample size should not be less than 30 (Cohen
et al., 2002; Delice, 2010). The central limit theory suggests that a group of 30 or more
Please Note:
The research and the paper was conducted in guidance of DR. JAYANTA MOHAPATRA, (Woxsen University,
Hyderabad). This article is an outcome of a Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Management, SIBM, Pune in
2023.
members selected from a given population would be normally distributed (Kwam &
Vidakovic, 2007). Lastly, the internal consistency values further support that the sample
size of 65 is providing reliable results.
RE SEA RCH HYPO T HESES A ND A NALYS I S
Seven hypotheses were created in this study. These were:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): There is a significant relationship between employees’ perception
about human resource management (HRM) practice of compensation, job
embeddedness (JE) and retention of employees in the IT industry in India.
Hypothesis 2 (H2): There is a significant relationship between employees’ perception
about human resource management (HRM) practice of training and development, job
embeddedness (JE) and retention of employees in the IT industry in India.
Hypothesis 3 (H3): There is a significant relationship between employees’ perception
about human resource management (HRM) practice performance appraisal, job
embeddedness (JE) and retention of employees in the IT industry in India.
Hypothesis 4 (H4): There is a significant relationship between employees’ perception
about human resource management (HRM) practice of growth opportunities, job
embeddedness (JE) and retention of employees in the IT industry in India.
Hypothesis 5 (H5): There is a significant relationship between employees’ perception
about human resource management (HRM) practice of supervisor support, job
embeddedness (JE) and retention of employees in the IT industry in India.
Hypothesis 6 (H6): There is a significant relationship between employees’ perception
about human resource management (HRM) practice of job security , job embeddedness
(JE) and retention of employees in the IT industry in India.
Hypothesis 7 (H7): Job embeddedness (JE) mediates the relationship between human
resource management practices (cumulative of all six practices) and employee
retention in the IT industry in India.
Correlation analysis (Refer to Table 2), regression analysis (Refer to Table 3, 4 and 5) and
PROCESS method specifically for mediation analysis (Refer to Figure 1 and Figure 2) were
conducted to test the hypotheses. All the hypotheses were retained and the
generalizability of the model was established as well.
Specifically, based on the output of mediation analysis, it was seen that there was a
stronger relationship between independent(X) and mediating variable (M) and
dependent (Y) and mediating variable (M). The relationship between independent (X)
and dependent variable (Y) was slightly less. In order to ensure the significant indirect
effect of mediator variable, the significant value must be above zero or positive value.
Please Note:
The research and the paper was conducted in guidance of DR. JAYANTA MOHAPATRA, (Woxsen University,
Hyderabad). This article is an outcome of a Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Management, SIBM, Pune in
2023.
Further, to ensure the significant indirect effect of mediator, the bootstrap upper and
lower value, must be above zero or positive (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). It was observed
that the indirect effect of X on Y (when job embeddedness (JE) is a mediating variable) is
significant because all the bootstrap variables are greater than 0. To calculate the
proportion of effect, we used the formula:
Proportion of effect= [Indirect effect of X on Y/Total effect of X on Y] *100
=[0.4127/0.6951]*100
=59.37%
This implied that the proportion of the total effect of HRM practices on Retention
that operates indirectly is 59.37% and proportion of the total effect of HRM practices
on Retention that operates directly is 40.63%. This further confirmed that HRM
practices in isolation cannot impact retention, job embeddedness will play a
significant role.
Please Note:
The research and the paper was conducted in guidance of DR. JAYANTA MOHAPATRA, (Woxsen University,
Hyderabad). This article is an outcome of a Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Management, SIBM, Pune in
2023.
Table 2: Correlations between Independent, Mediating & Dependent Variables
JE
Ret
CO
SS
TD
PA
GO
JS
Job
Embeddedness
(JE)
1
.726**
.404**
.567**
.443**
.573**
.582**
.592**
Retenon (Ret)
.726**
1
.405**
.503**
.604**
.441**
.514**
.443**
Compensaon
(CO)
.404**
.405**
1
.304*
.622**
.490**
.486**
.302*
Supervisor
Support (SS)
.567**
.503**
.304*
1
.440**
.535**
.672**
.553**
Training
Development (TD)
.443**
.604**
.622**
.440**
1
.640**
.652**
.530**
Performance
Appraisal (PA)
.573**
.441**
.490**
.535**
.640**
1
.741**
.397**
Growth
Opportunies
(GO)
.582**
.514**
.486**
.672**
.652**
.741**
1
.548**
Job Security (JS)
.592**
.443**
.302*
.553**
.530**
.397**
.548**
1
Note: Job embeddedness (JE), Retenon (Ret), Compensaon (CO), Supervisor Support (SO), Training
and Development (TD), Performance Appraisal (PA), Growth Opportunies (GO) and Job Security (JS).
Signicance level= **p<0.01, *p<0.05
Please Note:
The research and the paper was conducted in guidance of DR. JAYANTA MOHAPATRA, (Woxsen University,
Hyderabad). This article is an outcome of a Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Management, SIBM, Pune in
2023.
Table 3: Provides the model summary of the regression analysis (critical values are
highlighted in bold).
Table 3. Model Summary of Predictors and Outcome
Mode
l
R
R
Square
Adjusted
R Square
Std.
Error of
the
Esmat
e
Change Stascs
Durbin-
Watson
R
Square
Change
F
Change
df
1
df
2
Sig.
F
Cha
nge
1
.750
a
.563
.549
.58124
.563
39.959
2
62
.000
1.929
a. Predictors: (Constant), JE, HR
b. Dependent Variable: RET
Table 4. Summary of ANOVAa
Model
Sum of Squares
Df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
1
Regression
27.000
2
13.500
39.959
.000b
Residual
20.946
62
.338
Total
47.946
64
a. Dependent Variable: RET
b. Predictors: (Constant), JE, HR
Table 5. Table of Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standar
dized
Coefficie
nts
T
Sig.
Collinearity
Statistics
B
Std. Error
Beta
Tolerance
VIF
1
(Constant)
.550
.377
1.459
.150
HR
.282
.125
.254
2.253
.028
.553
1.809
JE
.639
.130
.556
4.925
.000
.553
1.809
a. Dependent Variable: RET (Retention)
Please Note:
The research and the paper was conducted in guidance of DR. JAYANTA MOHAPATRA, (Woxsen University,
Hyderabad). This article is an outcome of a Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Management, SIBM, Pune in
2023.
Figure 1: Mediation Analysis
Model 4 is used to conduct mediation analysis on PROCESS. Figure 2 shows the output of
the PROCESS procedure deployed on the SPSS.
M (JE)
Y
(RET)
X
(HR)
a
1
b
1
c1
Please Note:
The research and the paper was conducted in guidance of DR. JAYANTA MOHAPATRA, (Woxsen University,
Hyderabad). This article is an outcome of a Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Management, SIBM, Pune in
2023.
Figure 2: Output for PROCESS Procedure
***************** PROCESS Procedure for SPSS Version 4.1 *****************
Written by Andrew F. Hayes, Ph.D. www.afhayes.com
Documentation available in Hayes (2022). www.guilford.com/p/hayes3
**************************************************************************
Model: 4
Y : RET
X : HR
M : JE
Sample
Size: 65
**************************************************************************
OUTCOME VARIABLE:
JE
Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.6688 .4473 .3187 50.9805 1.0000 63.0000 .0000
Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant 1.0704 .3404 3.1447 .0025 .3902 1.7506
HR .6461 .0905 7.1401 .0000 .4653 .8269
Standardized coefficients
coeff
HR .6688
**************************************************************************
OUTCOME VARIABLE:
RET
Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.7504 .5631 .3378 39.9592 2.0000 62.0000 .0000
Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant .5499 .3769 1.4589 .1496 -.2036 1.3034
HR .2824 .1253 2.2534 .0278 .0319 .5329
Please Note:
The research and the paper was conducted in guidance of DR. JAYANTA MOHAPATRA, (Woxsen University,
Hyderabad). This article is an outcome of a Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Management, SIBM, Pune in
2023.
JE .6388 .1297 4.9246 .0000 .3795 .8981
Standardized coefficients
coeff
HR .2544
JE .5560
************************** TOTAL EFFECT MODEL ****************************
OUTCOME VARIABLE:
RET
Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.6263 .3922 .4625 40.6600 1.0000 63.0000 .0000
Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant 1.2336 .4100 3.0086 .0038 .4142 2.0530
HR .6951 .1090 6.3765 .0000 .4772 .9129
Standardized coefficients
coeff
HR .6263
************** TOTAL, DIRECT, AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF X ON Y **************
Total effect of X on Y
Effect se t p LLCI ULCI c_cs
.6951 .1090 6.3765 .0000 .4772 .9129 .6263
Direct effect of X on Y
Effect se t p LLCI ULCI c'_cs
.2824 .1253 2.2534 .0278 .0319 .5329 .2544
Indirect effect(s) of X on Y:
Effect BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI
JE .4127 .1082 .2004 .6308
Completely standardized indirect effect(s) of X on Y:
Effect BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI
JE .3719 .0958 .1790 .5604
Please Note:
The research and the paper was conducted in guidance of DR. JAYANTA MOHAPATRA, (Woxsen University,
Hyderabad). This article is an outcome of a Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Management, SIBM, Pune in
2023.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
In the current study, as per the results, there was a significant moderate positive
relationship between employees’ perception about human resource management (HRM)
practice of compensation, job embeddedness and retention of employees in the IT
industries in India. This was in alignment with previous researches. It was found that
compensation and effective compensation system had a positive relationship with
retention of employees (Hong et al., 2012; Mittar et al., 2014). There were a few studies
that have indicated that compensation showed an inverse relationship between high
relative pay, pay satisfaction and employee turnover (Appelbaum et al., 2000; Cotton &
Tuttle, 1986). Moreover, job embeddedness focusses on why people stay, and describes
the feeling of being enmeshed in an organization. One of the study indicated that
compensation tends to have a positive relationship with job embeddedness (Appelbaum et
al., 2000; Bergiel et al., 2009). While there was a significant positive correlation, the
strength of the relationship was moderate. This implies that compensation may not be a
predominant factor in embedding and retaining employees. For instance, a study indicated
that compensation may serve as a determinant for employee retention, it may not be a key
factor in retaining an employee. Other factors such as organizational culture and work-life
integration affect employees’ decision to stay in the BPO-ITeS sector (Kumar & Arora,
2012). Mercer, et al. (2003) states that job embeddedness involves much more than paying
well, and that retention based on “compensation-based commitment” may not prove to
be effective. The study indicated that employers who based their retention on
compensation were vulnerable to the possibility that their competitors may offer better pay
and thus lure away the employees (Kumar & Arora, 2012). Similarly, it was also believed
that “money gets employees at the door, but it doesn’t keep them there” (Smith, 2001).
Moreover, a plausible explanation for compensation not being a predominant factor can
be attributed to the time at which the data was collected. As indicated earlier, during this
research, the COVID-19 pandemic hit us. Along with the other sectors, information
technology sector was severely affected. Massive layovers and pay cuts were witnessed
(Baruah, 2022; Saxena, 2020). From a psychological lens, while the employees who lost
their jobs were dealing with the loss, others who managed to have their jobs were grateful
about having a job even with reduced pay. At that time, sustainability and well-being
probably took precedence over compensation. Research shows that trends redefining
modern retention strategies go beyond the traditional salary and benefits package and
compensation (FELDMAN, 2000) thereby supporting the results of this study. Hence, the
current study concluded that Competitive Pay serves a hygiene factor to embed and retain
employees. Organizations need to ensure that compensation is competitive as it can serve
as a hygiene to impact the fit between the individual and the job, as well as represent a
sacrifice that must be experienced if the employee chooses to take employment elsewhere.
Please Note:
The research and the paper was conducted in guidance of DR. JAYANTA MOHAPATRA, (Woxsen University,
Hyderabad). This article is an outcome of a Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Management, SIBM, Pune in
2023.
Concerning Training and Development, this study found that it has a strong positive
relationship with employee retention. This means that when organization focuses on the
development of the employees that are aligned to their needs, they are likely to stay with
the organization. This is in alignment with other studies that state that training and
development is an important determinant of employee retention (El Sagheir, 2014; Irshad
& Afridi, 2007; Mishra & Mishra, 2013; Mittar et al., 2014). Interestingly, Training and
Development has a positive but moderate relationship with job embeddedness. It implies
that it may not be a key determinant in embedding employees in their jobs. While this
seems a little contradictory, but it is partly in consistent with previous researches that
provides conflicting results on impact of training on employees’ intention to be embedded
in the job (Bergiel et al., 2009; Dechawatanapaisal, 2018). Training and Development
deepens employees’ sense of attachment to the organization and therefore enhances
retention. However, Training and Development opportunities may or may not improve
the fit between the individual and job, as well as represent a sacrifice that must be
experienced if the employee chooses to make employment elsewhere. Another study in
the IT industry also alluded that Training and Development did not emerge as a significant
retention strategy across a few Indian IT firms (James & Mathew, 2012). Well trained IT
professionals may perceive that attractive opportunities and high demand from outside
may outweigh their work fulfillment and sense of obligation from within, and this could
explain why training and development may not be a strong predictor for job
embeddedness. However, this requires further empirical confirmation. In alignment with
the literature review, in the current study, it was observed that compensation and training
and development are significantly related to each other. It was observed that if employees
were not appropriately compensated after their training, they are more likely to switch to
another job. The assumption is that after training, the skills of employees have improved
and hence they like to be paid more. If employees are properly compensated by the
organizations after their training and development, then it would be helpful in retaining
employees (Atif et al., 2011). Moreover, training and development is found to be
significantly related to performance appraisal and growth opportunities. Therefore,
training and development in isolation may not prove to be an effective retention strategy
in the IT/ITES industry.
According to Kuvaas (Kuvaas, 2006 as cited in (Bibi et al., 2016)), it is believed that an
appropriate performance appraisal process can serve as a tool to retain employees in an
organization. In the current study, performance appraisal has a moderate impact on
employees’ intention to stay; however, it has a strong positive impact on Job
Embeddedness. This implies that when employees feel that appraisal decisions are made
objectively and fairly, they are more likely to be stuck in the organization (Bibi et al., 2016;
Mitchell et al., 2001), but may not serve as a key determinant in retaining employees. The
findings of the current study are in alignment with previous researches where performance
appraisal was an important but not a predominant dimension in influencing an employee’s
intention to stay (Dechawatanapaisal, 2018; James & Mathew, 2012; Kumar & Arora,
2012). Basis the experience of the current study’s researcher, it was observed that during
Please Note:
The research and the paper was conducted in guidance of DR. JAYANTA MOHAPATRA, (Woxsen University,
Hyderabad). This article is an outcome of a Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Management, SIBM, Pune in
2023.
the pandemic, majority of organizations across industries did not engage in Performance
Appraisals due to the uncertainties in the economic environment. This could be a plausible
explanation for Performance Appraisal not emerging as a major factor in predicting
retention. However, this requires further empirical confirmation. In a nutshell, a favorable
performance appraisal approach as perceived by employees motivates them to develop a
sense of enmeshment to their organization, but may not necessarily influence their
decision to stay. The current study, in line with the previous research has demonstrated
that employee’s intention to leave organizations is reduced based on the opportunities
provided for growth and career advancement. Lack of such opportunities, closely linked
to training and development and promotions are the main reasons for high-performing
talented employees to leave the organization (Allen et al., 2003).
Among human resource practices, Growth Opportunities has a strong positive impact on
Job Embeddedness and Retention. In the current study, Growth opportunities implied that
employees are empowered to take on higher responsibilities and clear career growth paths
are defined. It would be a sacrifice for employees to leave an organization which
emphasizes on growth opportunities. Moreover, Growth Opportunity means that
employees are empowered and encouraged to reach their potential, which should lead
them to better fit their jobs and the organization. Thus, employees would be more
embedded in their job. This is in sync with previous researches (Bergiel et al., 2009; City,
2014; Dechawatanapaisal, 2018; Hong et al., 2012; Mittar et al., 2014; N, 2014; Nirmala,
2014) that indicated when an organization has a policy to build an internal talent pipeline,
employees will set their sights more deliberately on opportunities for professional growth
in the context of the organization versus looking elsewhere (Allen et al., 2003; Kreisman,
2002; Miller & Wheeler, 1992; Mishra & Mishra, 2013). Therefore, it may be fair to
assume that Avenues for Growth (Growth Opportunities) serves as a critical parameter in
both embedding and retaining the employees.
Similar to Growth Opportunities, Supervisor Support was also positively related to job
embeddedness and retention. This suggests that if employees feel that they can openly
discuss their personal problems with their managers, are constantly encouraged by them
even during adversity and can freely share their opinions at work, it creates a safe
environment thereby leading to employees feeling enmeshed with the organization. This
is in alignment with previous researches that indicated that by being more open, providing
guidelines, trust in and praise for employees, supervisors can help employees better fit with
their jobs (Avey et al., 2015; Bergiel et al., 2009; Ghosh & Gurunathan, 2015; Lee et al.,
2004; P. Premalatha, 2016; Sekiguchi et al., 2008; Wayne et al., 1997; Wheeler et al.,
2010). Moreover, under these conditions the intangible losses such as trust and
encouragement incurred by leaving the organization may be prohibitively high. This
validates the believe that employees do not leave their organization but they leave their
managers (Azeez, 2017; Nwokocha & Iheriohanma, 2015; Stinglhamber &
Vandenberghe, 2003; Wakabi, 2016). Therefore, the Relationship with Managers i.e. the
way that a manager/supervisor deals with their team members impacts the embeddedness
and retention of employees.
Please Note:
The research and the paper was conducted in guidance of DR. JAYANTA MOHAPATRA, (Woxsen University,
Hyderabad). This article is an outcome of a Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Management, SIBM, Pune in
2023.
In reference with Job Security, it is seen that employees who believe that they will remain
employed in the organization and will not lose their job are more embedded, committed
and intended to stay longer period of time with the organization. The findings of this study
are consistent with previous researches in which Employment Stability (Job Security) is
positively related with job embeddedness and retention (Abdulkhamidova, 2021; Conklin
& Desselle, 2007; Michael & Crispen, 2009; Parnell, 2003).
Consistent with the findings of Mitchell and his colleagues (2001), job embeddedness in
this study showed a strong relationship with employees’ intention to stay as it explained
roughly 59 percent of the variance in retention. Given the nature of social science research,
this is an appreciable and significant amount of explained variance. While Human
Resource Management (HRM) practices (a combination of all six practices) are strongly
related to retention, Job Embeddedness tends to play a significant role in employees’
intention to stay. HRM creates the link, fit and sacrifice that embed employees in their
current organization and keep them from leaving it. Another lens to view this result is that
Human Resource Practices in isolation may not highly impact retention, but Job
Embeddedness mediates the relationship. This is in alignment with previous researches
(Bergiel et al., 2009; Dechawatanapaisal, 2018). This suggests that organizations should
focus on those human resources management practices that create a fit, link and sacrifice
for employees that in turn impacts retention. Human resource management practices that
make an employee feel connected to the job, creates a sense of belonging and provides a
psychological convenience that if sacrificed impacts an employee, should be included in
an organization’s retention strategy.
CONCLUSION
This study found that employees’ perception of HRM practices, namely, Job Security
(Employment Stability), Growth Opportunities (Avenues for Growth and Appraisal),
Performance Appraisal (Avenues for Growth and Appraisal), and Supervisor Support (in
order of importance) influence Job Embeddedness. However, only HRM practices of
Training and Development, Growth Opportunities and Supervisor Support (in order of
importance) influence employee intention to stay. It may be fair to say Growth
Opportunities (Avenues for Growth) and Supervisor Support (Relationship with
Managers) play a pivotal role in enmeshing employees in an organization and thereby
influencing the intention to stay. It is critical to note that monetary benefits relating to
compensation, training and development and performance appraisal continue to be the
common thread in retaining the employees. For a while now, in the corporate world, it
was believed that compensation may not be a sole predictor of employee retention. While
it holds true, the importance of financial gains and incentives can no longer be
undermined. Based on the preliminary findings in the current study, it may be fair to
assume that Human Resource Management practices such as Training and Development,
Growth Opportunities and Performance Appraisal will prove to be a more effective
retention strategy if it yields an appropriate compensation growth. Therefore, the hygiene
Please Note:
The research and the paper was conducted in guidance of DR. JAYANTA MOHAPATRA, (Woxsen University,
Hyderabad). This article is an outcome of a Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Management, SIBM, Pune in
2023.
factor of pay (Competitive Pay), compensation and financial incentives should be focused
upon along with working towards building human resource practices that lead to job
embeddedness. In addition, Human Resource Management practices influence
employees’ intention to stay i.e., retention through organizational Job Embeddedness.
The findings in this study may serve as a practical input for managers and leaders in an
organization. Organizations can look for several strategies and tactics from the critical
HRM practices in order to build deeper links, make better fits, and create greater potential
sacrifices for employees should they decide to look for or pursue other employment
opportunities. Hence, based on the findings of this study, the C.A.R.E Model of job
embeddedness and retention emerged.
Keywords: Human Resource Management Practices, Job Embeddedness, Employee
Retention, Information Technology, India
Please Note:
The research and the paper was conducted in guidance of DR. JAYANTA MOHAPATRA, (Woxsen University,
Hyderabad). This article is an outcome of a Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Management, SIBM, Pune in
2023.
RE FERE NCES
Abba, M. T. (2018). Effects of training and development on employee retention in Bauchi State
Metropolis Banks. Operational Research, 4(1), 24-39.
Abdulkhamidova, F. (2021). Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory.
Accenture, R. (2003). The high performance workforce: Separating the digital economy’s winners
from losers. Journal of Human Resource Management, 7(3), 741-756.
Afsar, B., Shahjehan, A., & Shah, S. I. (2018). Frontline employees’ high-performance work
practices, trust in supervisor, job-embeddedness and turnover intentions in hospitality
industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management.
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams,
organizations, and society. Annual review of psychology, 60(1), 451-474.
Ahmad, N., Tariq, M. S., & Hussain, A. (2015). Human resource practices and employee
retention, evidences from banking sector of Pakistan. Journal of business and management
research, 7(3), 186-188.
Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M., & Griffeth, R. W. (2003). The role of perceived organizational support
and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process. Journal of management,
29(1), 99-118.
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., Kalleberg, A. L., & Bailey, T. A. (2000). Manufacturing
advantage: Why high-performance work systems pay off. Cornell University Press.
Arasli, H., Bahman Teimouri, R., Kiliç, H., & Aghaei, I. (2017). Effects of service orientation on
job embeddedness in hotel industry. The Service Industries Journal, 37(9-10), 607-627.
Ashby, F. C., & Pell, A. R. (2001). Embracing excellence. Paramus,(NJ) Prentice Hall.
Atif, A., Abdul, N., & Nadeem, S. (2011). Employee retention relationship to training and
development: A compensation perspective. African journal of business management, 5(7),
2679-2685.
Avey, J. B., Wu, K., & Holley, E. (2015). The Influence of Abusive Supervision and Job
Embeddedness on Citizenship and Deviance. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(3), 721-731.
Azeez, S. A. (2017). Human resource management practices and employee retention: A review of
literature. Journal of Economics, Management and Trade, 18(2), 1-10.
Bassi, L. J., & Van Buren, M. E. (1999). Sharpening the leading edge. Training & Development,
53(1), 23-32.
Batt, R., & Colvin, A. J. (2011). An employment systems approach to turnover: Human resources
practices, quits, dismissals, and performance. Academy of management Journal, 54(4), 695-
717.
Bergiel, E. B., Nguyen, V. Q., Clenney, B. F., & Taylor, G. S. (2009). Human resource practices,
job embeddedness and intention to quit. Management Research News.
Berry, M. L., & Morris, M. L. (2008). The Impact of Employee Engagement Factors and Job
Satisfaction on Turnover Intent. Online Submission.
Bharathi, N., & Paramashivaiah, P. (2015). Attrition and Retention the Real Challenge-a Study
with Special Reference to IT and ITES Organizations in Bangalore. International Journal of
Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, 4(2), 746-752.
Bibi, P., Pangil, F., & Johari, J. (2016). HRM practices and employees’ rentention: The perspective
of job embeddedness theory. Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 4(5), 41-47.
Bishop, J. W., Scott, K. D., & Burroughs, S. M. (2000). Support, commitment, and employee
outcomes in a team environment. Journal of management, 26(6), 1113-1132.
Biswal, M. S. (2013). Employee Turnover vs. Retention. International journal for computing and
corporate research, 3, 1-11.
Black, S. E., & Lynch, L. M. (1996). Human-capital investments and productivity. The American
economic review, 86(2), 263-267.
Brannick, J. (2001). Seven strategies for retaining top talent. Journal of Business Strategy, 22(4), 28-
28.
Please Note:
The research and the paper was conducted in guidance of DR. JAYANTA MOHAPATRA, (Woxsen University,
Hyderabad). This article is an outcome of a Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Management, SIBM, Pune in
2023.
Cappelli, P. (2000). A market-driven approach to retaining talent. Harvard business review, 78(1),
103-111.
Chaminade, B. (2007). A Retention Checklist: How Do You Rate? Retrieved on 11th March 2019.
In.
City, M. (2014). EFFECTIVENESS OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
ON FACULTY RETENTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY
IN.
Clinton, M., Knight, T., & Guest, D. E. (2012). Job embeddedness: A new attitudinal measure.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(1), 111-117.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2002). Research methods in education. routledge.
Cole, C. (2000). Building loyalty workforce. 79, 42-49. Available EBSCOhost fully display.
Conklin, M. H., & Desselle, S. P. (2007). Job turnover intentions among pharmacy faculty.
American journal of pharmaceutical education, 71(4).
Cotton, J. L., & Tuttle, J. M. (1986). Employee turnover: A meta-analysis and review with
implications for research. Academy of management Review, 11(1), 55-70.
Crossley, C. D., Bennett, R. J., Jex, S. M., & Burnfield, J. L. (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.
Davies, R. (2001). How to boost staff retention. people management, 7(8), 54-56.
Dechawatanapaisal, D. (2018). Examining the relationships between HR practices, organizational
job embeddedness, job satisfaction, and quit intention: Evidence from Thai accountants.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration.
Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The impact of human resource management practices on
perceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management journal, 39(4), 949-969.
Delice, A. (2010). The Sampling Issues in Quantitative Research. Educational Sciences: Theory and
Practice, 10(4), 2001-2018.
Dibble, S. (1999). Keeping your valuable employees: retention strategies for your organization's most
important resource. John Wiley & Sons.
Doh, J. P., Stumpf, S. A., & Tymon, W. G. (2011). Responsible Leadership Helps Retain Talent
in India. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 85-100.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and
employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of applied psychology, 75(1), 51.
Ejaz, S., & Akbar, W. (2015). An effectiveness of human resource management practices on
employee retention findings from insurance companies of Karachi. European Journal of
Business and Management, 7(7), 27-33.
El Sagheir, N. (2014). An empirical study of the impact of HR practices on employee satisfaction
and employee retention: The case of AASTMT. Proceedings of 3rd European Business
Research Conference,
FELDMAN, D. C. (2000). The Dilbert Syndrome:How Employee Cynicism about Ineffective
Management is Changing the Nature of Careers in Organizations. American Behavioral
Scientist, 43(8), 1286-1300. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027640021955865
Fletcher III, R. E. (2005). Job embeddedness: A construct of organizational and community attachment
utilized to assess voluntary turnover.
Frazis, H., Gittleman, M., Horrigan, M., & Joyce, M. (1998). Results from the 1995 survey of
employer-provided training. Monthly Lab. Rev., 121, 3.
Frederickson, N. (1986). Toward a broader conception of human intelligence. American
Psychology, 41, 445-452. In.
Freyermuth, T. (2014). Retaining Employees in a Tightening Labor Market, RSMMcGladrey. In.
Gaan, N. (2011). A Revisit on Impact of Job Attitudes on Employee Turnover: An Empirical
Study in Indian IT Industry. Vilakshan: The XIMB Journal of Management, 8(2).
Ghosh, D., & Gurunathan, L. (2015). Job embeddedness: A ten-year literature review and
proposed guidelines. Global Business Review, 16(5), 856-866.
Please Note:
The research and the paper was conducted in guidance of DR. JAYANTA MOHAPATRA, (Woxsen University,
Hyderabad). This article is an outcome of a Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Management, SIBM, Pune in
2023.
Giosan, C., Holtom, B., & Watson, M. (2005). Antecedents to job embeddedness: The role of
individual, organizational and market factors. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 31-
44.
Giri, Y. (2008). Human resource management: Managing people at work. Mumbai: Nirali
Prakashan.
Goleman, D. (2003). What makes a leader. Organizational influence processes, 82, 229-241.
Greenhaus, J. H., Callanan, G. A., & Godshalk, V. M. (2009). Career management. Sage.
Gruman, J. A., & Saks, A. M. (2011). Performance management and employee engagement.
Human resource management review, 21(2), 123-136.
Gul, A., Akbar, S., & Jan, Z. (2012). Role of capacity development, employee empowerment and
promotion on employee retention in the banking sector of Pakistan. International Journal of
Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 2(9), 284.
Gupta, S. S. (2010). Employee Attrition and Retention: Exploring the Dimensions in the urban
centric BPO Industry. Jaypee Institute of Information Technology.
Gurumani, V. (2010). Invaluable tools for talent retention. Human capital, 4, 54-55.
Harris, K. J., Wheeler, A. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (2011). The mediating role of organizational job
embeddedness in the LMX–outcomes relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(2), 271-
281.
Hassell, C. E. (2005). An Extension of the Theory of Job Embeddedness: An Investigation of
Effects on Intent to Turnover of United States Air Force Members.
Highhouse, S., Stierwalt, S. L., Bachiochi, P., Elder, A. E., & Fisher, G. (1999). Effects of
advertised human resource management practices on attraction of African American
applicants. Personnel Psychology, 52(2), 425-442.
Holtom, B. C., & Inderrieden, E. J. (2006). Integrating the unfolding model and job embeddedness
model to better understand voluntary turnover. Journal of managerial issues, 435-452.
Hom, P. W., Allen, D. G., & Griffeth, R. W. (2019). Employee retention and turnover: Why employees
stay or leave. Routledge.
Hom, P. W., Lee, T. W., Shaw, J. D., & Hausknecht, J. P. (2017). One hundred years of employee
turnover theory and research. Journal of applied psychology, 102(3), 530.
Hong, E. N. C., Hao, L. Z., Kumar, R., Ramendran, C., & Kadiresan, V. (2012). An effectiveness
of human resource management practices on employee retention in institute of higher
learning: A regression analysis. International journal of business research and management, 3(2),
60-79.
Ichniowski, C., Shaw, K. L., & Prennushi, G. (1995). The effects of human resource management
practices on productivity. In: National bureau of economic research Cambridge, Mass.,
USA.
Irshad, M., & Afridi, F. (2007). Factors affecting employees retention: Evidence from literature.
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences, 4(2), 307-339.
James, L., & Mathew, L. (2012). Employee retention strategies: IT industry. SCMS Journal of
Indian Management, 9(3), 79.
Karatepe, O. M. (2016). Does job embeddedness mediate the effects of coworker and family
support on creative performance? An empirical study in the hotel industry. Journal of
Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 15(2), 119-132.
Kaur, R. (2017). Employee retention models and factors affecting employees retention in IT
companies. International Journal of Business Administration and Management, 7(1), 161-174.
Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., & Purcell, J. (2000). 'Fun and surveillance': the paradox of high
commitment management in call centres. International journal of human resource management,
11(5), 967-985.
Kreisman, B. J. (2002). Insights into employee motivation, commitment and retention. Business
Training Experts: Leadership Journal, 1-24.
Kumar, R., & Arora, R. (2012). Determinants of Talent Retention in BPO Industry. Indian Journal
of Industrial Relations, 48(2), 259-273.
Please Note:
The research and the paper was conducted in guidance of DR. JAYANTA MOHAPATRA, (Woxsen University,
Hyderabad). This article is an outcome of a Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Management, SIBM, Pune in
2023.
Kundu, S. C., Malhan, D., & Kumar, P. (2007). Human Resource Management Practices in
Shipping Companies a Study. Delhi Business Review, 8(1), 75-88.
Kwam, P., & Vidakovic, B. (2007). Nonparametric statistics with applications to science and
engineering. New Jersey: A John Wiley&Sons. In: Inc.
Kwenin, D. O., Muathe, S., & Nzulwa, R. (2013). The influence of employee rewards, human
resource policies and job satisfaction on the retention of employees in Vodafone Ghana
Limited. European Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), 13-20.
Lawler, E. E., III. (1990). Strategic pay : aligning organizational strategies and pay systems (1st ed.). San
Francisco : Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Sablynski, C. J., Burton, J. P., & Holtom, B. C. (2004). The Effects of
Job Embeddedness on Organizational Citizenship, Job Performance, Volitional Absences,
and Voluntary Turnover. The Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 711-722.
https://doi.org/10.2307/20159613
MacDuffie, J. P. (1995). Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance:
Organizational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry. ilr Review,
48(2), 197-221.
Mahal, P. K. (2012). HR Practices as Determinants of Organizational Commitment and Employee
Retention. IUP Journal of Management Research, 11(4).
Mallol, C. M., Holtom, B. C., & Lee, T. W. (2007). Job embeddedness in a culturally diverse
environment. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22(1), 35-44.
Mandhanya, Y. (2016). Compensation Policy a Tool; Fostering Employee Retention. Pacific
Business Review International, 8(18), 101-108.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human resource management review, 1(1), 61-89.
Michael, O. S., & Crispen, C. (2009). Employee retention and turnover: Using motivational
variables as a panacea. African journal of business management, 3(9), 410-415.
Miller, J. G., & Wheeler, K. G. (1992). Unraveling the mysteries of gender differences in intentions
to leave the organization. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(5), 465-478.
Mishra, S., & Mishra, D. (2013). Review of literature on factors influencing attrition and retention.
International Journal of Organizational Behaviour & Management Perspectives, 2(3), 435-444.
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why People Stay:
Using Job Embeddedness to Predict Voluntary Turnover. The Academy of Management
Journal, 44(6), 1102-1121. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069391
Mittar, M. S., Saini, S., & Agarwal, A. (2014). Human resource management practices for
employee retention in apparel export houses in Delhi NCR. Arts, Social Sciences, 17(2), 3-
22.
N, N. (2014). Effectiveness of human resource management practices on faculty retention in higher
education: An empirical study in Mysore City. ERPA International Journal of Economic and
Business Review., 2(4), 54-60.
Ng'ethe, J. M., Namusonge, G., & Iravo, M. A. (2012). Influence of leadership style on academic
staff retention in public universities in Kenya. International journal of business and social
science, 3(21).
Nguyen, C. (2020). The impact of training and development, job satisfaction and job performance
on young employee retention. Job Satisfaction and Job Performance on Young Employee
Retention (May 1, 2020).
Nirmala, N. (2014). Effectiveness of human resource management practices on faculty retention
in higher education: An empirical study in Mysore City. ERPA International Journal of
Economic and Business Review., 2(4), 54-60.
Nwokocha, I., & Iheriohanma, E. (2015). Nexus between leadership styles, employee retention
and performance in organizations in Nigeria. European Scientific Journal, 11(13).
Pandita, D., & Ray, S. (2018). Talent management and employee engagement–a meta-analysis of
their impact on talent retention. Industrial and Commercial Training.
Pareek, L. U., & Purohit, S. (2018). Training Instruments in HRD and OD. SAGE Publishing India.
Please Note:
The research and the paper was conducted in guidance of DR. JAYANTA MOHAPATRA, (Woxsen University,
Hyderabad). This article is an outcome of a Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Management, SIBM, Pune in
2023.
Parker, O., & Wright, L. (2001). PAY AND EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT: THE MISSING
LINK-The company that enhances compensation conditions and practices will likely see
an improvement in employee commitment. Ivey Business Journal, 65(3), 70-73.
Parnell, J. A. (2003). Propensity for participative decision‐making, job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and intentions to leave among Egyptian
managers. Multinational Business Review.
Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive advantage through people. Boston/Mass.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects
in simple mediation models. Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers, 36(4), 717-
731.
Premalatha, P. (2016). Role of Manager-Employee Relationships in Retaining Knowledge
Workers in IT Industry. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 51(3), 418-431.
Premalatha, P. (2016). Role of manager-employee relationships in retaining knowledge workers
in IT industry. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 418-431.
Price, J. L. (1997). Handbook of organizational measurement. International journal of manpower.
Sahoo, C., & Mishra, S. (2012). Performance management benefits organizations and their
employees. Human Resource Management International Digest.
Sekiguchi, T., Burton, J. P., & Sablynski, C. J. (2008). The role of job embeddedness on employee
performance: the interactive effects with leader–member exchange and organization‐based
self‐esteem. Personnel psychology, 61(4), 761-792.
Shaw, J. D., Delery, J. E., Jenkins Jr, G. D., & Gupta, N. (1998). An organization-level analysis
of voluntary and involuntary turnover. Academy of management journal, 41(5), 511-525.
Shehawy, Y. M., Elbaz, A., & Agag, G. M. (2018). Factors affecting employees’ job embeddedness
in the Egyptian airline industry. Tourism Review.
Silbert, L. (2005). The effect of tangible rewards on perceived organizational support University of
Waterloo].
Smith, G. P. (2001). Here Today, Here Tomorrow: Transforming Your Workforce High-Turnover to High-
Retention. Dearborn Trade,U.S.
Snell, S. A., & Dean Jr, J. W. (1992). Integrated manufacturing and human resource management:
A human capital perspective. Academy of Management journal, 35(3), 467-504.
Solomon, C. M. (1992). loyalty factor. Personnel journal.
Son, J.-M. (2012). Job embeddedness and turnover intentions: an empirical investigation of
construction IT industries. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 40, 101-
110.
Sree Rekha, K., & Kamalanabhan, T. (2013). A study on the employee turnover intention in
ITES/BPO sector. Proceedings of the International Conference-Frontiers of
Management–Encore. India,
Stein, N. (2000). Winning the war to keep top talent: Yes you can make your workplace invincible.
fortune, 141(11), 132-138.
Stinglhamber, F., & Vandenberghe, C. (2003). Organizations and supervisors as sources of support
and targets of commitment: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The
International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior,
24(3), 251-270.
Stone, R. J., Cox, A., & Gavin, M. (2020). Human resource management. John Wiley & Sons.
Storey, J., & Sisson, K. (1993). Managing human resources and industrial relations. Open University
Press.
Tang, T. L.-P., Cunningham, P. H., Frauman, E., Ivy, M. I., & Perry, T. L. (2012). Attitudes and
occupational commitment among public personnel: Differences between Baby Boomers
and Gen-Xers. Public Personnel Management, 41(2), 327-360.
Thite, M., & Russell, B. (2010). Work organization, human resource practices and employee
retention in Indian call centers. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 48(3), 356-374.
Please Note:
The research and the paper was conducted in guidance of DR. JAYANTA MOHAPATRA, (Woxsen University,
Hyderabad). This article is an outcome of a Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Management, SIBM, Pune in
2023.
Trevor, C. O., & Nyberg, A. J. (2008). Keeping your headcount when all about you are losing
theirs: Downsizing, voluntary turnover rates, and the moderating role of HR practices.
Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 259-276.
Tripathy, P. K., & AkanchaTrivedi, S. (2017). SELECTION AND RETENTION OF TALENT
IN IT INDUSTRY: A STUDY IN THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL. International
Journal of Management (IJM), 8(4).
Tseng, C.-Y. (2010). The retention of software development employees in the IT industry in Taiwan
Southern Cross University].
Tseng, C.-Y., & Wallace, M. (2009). Retention of software employees in the IT industry in
Taiwan. Sustainable management and marketing: Australian and New Zealand Academy
of Management (ANZAM) conference,
Uwimpuhwe, D., Mushabe, D., & Bally, K. S. (2018). The influence of compensation system on
employee attraction and retention. International Journal of Advanced Academic Research,
4(11), 91.
Vaiman, V. (2008). Retention management as a means of protecting tacit knowledge in an
organisation: a conceptual framework for professional services firms. International Journal
of learning and intellectual capital, 5(2), 172-185.
Wakabi, B. M. (2016). Leadership style and staff retention in organizations. International Journal of
Science and Research, 5(1), 412-416.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-
member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management journal, 40(1),
82-111.
Wheeler, A. R., Harris, K. J., & Harvey, P. (2010). Moderating and Mediating the HRM
Effectiveness — Intent to Turnover Relationship: The Roles of Supervisors and Job
Embeddedness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 22(2), 182-196.
Whitt, W. (2006). The impact of increased employee retention on performance in a customer
contact center. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 8(3), 235-252.
Wijesiri, N., Paranagama, G., Sirirwardhana, M., Thilakarathna, D., Weerarathna, R., &
Pathirana, U. (2019). The Impact of HR Practices on Employee Retention; A Case of BPO
Sector, Sri Lanka. International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 9(1), 1-21.
William Lee, T., Burch, T. C., & Mitchell, T. R. (2014). The story of why we stay: A review of job
embeddedness. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav., 1(1), 199-216.
Williams, M. L., & Dreher, G. F. (1992). Compensation system attributes and applicant pool
characteristics. academy of management journal, 35(3), 571-595.
Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. C., & McWilliams, A. (1994). Human resources and sustained
competitive advantage: a resource-based perspective. International journal of human resource
management, 5(2), 301-326.
Wright, P. M., Rowland, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1994). Perspectives on Human Resources
Management. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(3), 336-352.
Yiu, L., & Saner, R. (2014). Talent attrition and retention: Strategic challenges for Indian
industries in the next decade. Elite Research Journal of Accounting and Business Management,
2(1), 1-9.
Youndt, M. A., Snell, S. A., Dean Jr, J. W., & Lepak, D. P. (1996). Human resource management,
manufacturing strategy, and firm performance. Academy of management Journal, 39(4), 836-
866.
Zhang, H., & Agarwal, N. C. (2009). The mediating roles of organizational justice on the
relationships between HR practices and workplace outcomes: an investigation in China.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(3), 676-693.
