2. Appendix B. Data Structure and Aggregate-Level Correlations. Table 1. Examples of Data Structure ..... Two-tailed tests reported. a Wald Test of coefficient ...
ONLINE SUPPLEMENT
1 Appendix A
Data Transparency Appendix - Manuscript Descriptions MS1 (Pieper, 2015) Sample Referral Hires In Baseline Prediction Test (N = 566) In Main Hypotheses (N = 386) Non-Referral Hires In Baseline Prediction Test (N = 1,116) In Main Hypotheses (N = 0)
MS2 (Main study in current manuscript) Sample Referrers (N = 265) Non-Referrers (N = 1,774)
Dependent Variables Referral Hire Voluntary Turnover Referral Hire Performance – Calls/Hour Referral Hire Performance – Quality
Dependent Variables Referrer Voluntary Turnover Referrer Performance – Calls/Hour
Independent Variables Referral Hire (yes/no) Referrer Performance at Hire – Calls/Hour Referrer Performance at Hire – Quality Referrer Tenure at Hire Referrer Employment Referrer-Referral Hire Job Congruence
Independent Variables Referral Hire Presence (RHP) Job-Similar RHP Job-Dissimilar RHP Pre-RHP vs. Post-RHP
Covariates Call Volume Hours per Week Tenure Pay Rate $15 Bonus Plan New Client
Covariates Call Volume Hours per Week Tenure Pay Rate $15 Bonus Plan New Client Gender Recruitment Source
ONLINE SUPPLEMENT
2 Appendix B Data Structure and Aggregate-Level Correlations
Table 1. Examples of Data Structure and Variables Vol. Turn.
Calls per Hour
RHP
Employee A … 2009w41 2009w42
0 0
5.21 5.02
0 0
0 0
2009w43
0
4.98
1
2009w44 2009w45 2009w46 2009w47 2009w48 2009w49 2009w50 2009w51
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5.87 5.95 6.01 5.85 5.95 5.21 6.70 5.84
2009w52
0
Employee B … 2009w27 2009w28
Week
Job-Similar Job-Dissim. RHP RHP
PreRHP
Post-RHP
0 0
1 1
0 0
0
1
0
0
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
6.41
0
0
0
0
1
0
5.74
0
0
0
1
0
0
7.41
1
1
0
0
0
Description
Job-dissimilar RHP for referred referrer
Referral Hire terminated End of observation window (right-censored case)
Job-similar RHP for nonreferred referrer Table Continued
ONLINE SUPPLEMENT
3 Table 1 (Continued)
Vol. Turn.
Calls per Hour
RHP
2009w29 2009w30 2009w31 … 2009w44 2009w45 2009w46 Employee C … 2009w33 2009w34
0 0 0
7.25 6.76 8.15
1 1 1
1 1 1
0 0 1
8.46 8.25 --
1 1 1
0 0
4.39 3.54
2009w35
0
2009w36 2009w37 2009w38 2009w39 … 2009w44 2009w45 2009w47 2009w48 2009w50
Week
Job-Similar Job-Dissim. RHP RHP
PreRHP
Post-RHP
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
1 1 1
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 0
3.06
1
1
0
0
0
0 0 0 0
4.55 5.26 4.95 4.81
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1
4.28 5.18 5.22 5.19 --
1 1 1 0 0
1 1 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 1
Description
Referrer voluntarily quit
Job-similar RHP for nonreferred referrer
Referral Hire terminated Referrer voluntarily quit
Note. For non-referrers (in the turnover analyses), RHP and job-similar and job-dissimilar RHP are all coded as 0. Also, pre-RHP is always 1 and post-RHP is always 0 for non-referrers.
ONLINE SUPPLEMENT
4
Table 2. Aggregate-Level Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Analysis of Voluntary Turnover Variable 1 Voluntary Turnover Control Variables 2 Male 3 Tenure 4 Pay Rate 5 Hours Per Week 6 Recruitment Source 7 $15 Bonus Plan 8 New Client Independent Variablesa 9 Pre-RHP 10 RHP 11 Post-RHP 12 Job Dissimilar RHP 13 Job Similar RHP
Mean .51
SD .50
.34 18.04 8.62 36.75 .34 .66 .48
.47 19.98 .90 4.40 .47 .43 .46
.92 .06 .02 .04 .02
.23 .19 .09 .16 .11
1
2
3
4
9
10
11
.07 .02 -.20 -.06 -.05 -.06 .04 .07 -.07 -.02 .15 .04 .05 .06 -.03 -.05 -.93 -.04 -.02 .20 .06 .04 .02 -.03 -.10 -.56 -.07 -.04 .15 .02 .05 .08 -.04 -.07 -.78 -.02 .03 .04 .04 .01 .00 .00 .02 -.49
.21 .82 .57
.23 .04 -.01
-.01 -.22 -.01 -.08 .16 .45 -.26 -.01 .04 -.08 -.04 .09 -.01 -.04 -.45 .00 -.15 -.10 -.45 .00 -.26 -.07
5
6
7
.01 .27 .00 .26 -.02
.78
8
Note. Nindividuals = 2,039 (265 referrers and 1,774 non-referrers). Correlations are based on Nindividuals and data were averaged within-individuals before collapsed (averaged) across individuals. Correlations whose absolute values are greater than .04 are statistically significant at p < .05. a Means for independent variables, when aggregated, represent the average percent of time (weeks) individuals spent in the condition.
12
ONLINE SUPPLEMENT
5
Table 3. Aggregate-Level Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Analysis of Performance Variable 1 Performance (Calls/Hour) Control Variables 2 Call Volume 3 Tenure 4 Male 5 Pay Rate 6 Hours Per Week 7 Recruitment Source 8 $15 Bonus Plan 9 New Client Independent Variablesa 10 Pre-RHP 11 RHP 12 Post-RHP 13 Job Dissimilar RHP 14 Job Similar RHP
Mean 8.13
SD 2.88
1
2
148.49 57.99 .30 8.83 37.66 .43 .66 .38
47.92 36.26 .46 .87 3.60 .50 .35 .36
.64 .35 -.02 .20 -.05 -.04 -.22 -.37
.29 -.03 .15 .00 -.06 -.08 -.26
.45 .43 .12 .34 .09
.27 .28 .19 .29 .23
3
4
5
-.13 .47 .16 -.06 .00 -.24 -.08 .00 -.04 -.00 -.06 -.10 -.27 -.08 -.24
6
7
8
.01 .15 -.09 .24 .00
.78
9
10
11
12
13
.00 .01 .09 -.08 .01 .12 .04 .01 .01 -.16 -.11 -.26 .03 -.07 -.17 -.02 -.07 .06 -.75 .22 .14 .26 .06 .09 .08 -.03 .09 -.09 -.32 -.39 .01 -.02 -.17 -.10 -.14 -.03 .05 -.07 -.01 -.51 .67 -.25 -.21 -.11 -.12 .18 .08 -.16 -.09 .00 .08 -.24 .35 -.15 -.46
Note. Nreferrers = 191. Correlations are based on Nreferrers. Correlations whose absolute values are greater than .14 are statistically significant at p < .05. a Means for independent variables, when aggregated, represent the average percent of time (weeks) referrers spent in the condition.
ONLINE SUPPLEMENT
6 Appendix C
Decision Scenario, Treatments, and Manipulation Check Questions
Decision Scenario and Treatments “For the past 3 months you have been working for a U.S.-based call center. This call center employs about 500 qualified customer service representatives who spend most of their time taking incoming calls. Customer service representatives are physically located in one of many working groups. Employees in each working group work in close proximity to each other and have similar job tasks and duties. Working groups consist of 15 employees on average. You have [no // 2] coworkers that you consider to be friends within your working group (though you do have a few coworker friends outside of your working group). Your manager just announced that [a new hire // an acquaintance that you referred // a close friend that you referred] will be joining the company [and will be in your working group // but will not be in your working group].”
Manipulation Check Questions (embedded later in the survey) Which of the following describes the hire in the scenario you read earlier? The person was a close friend that I referred. The person was an acquaintance that I referred. The person was a new hire only (i.e., you did not know this person previously). Where was the hire going to be working at based on the scenario you read earlier? In your working group In a different working group Prior to the hire, how many coworker friends were in your working group as indicated in the scenario? No coworkers 2 coworkers
ONLINE SUPPLEMENT
7 Appendix D Scale Items
Social Enrichment (adapted from [a] Carlson, Kacmar, Wayne, & Grzywacz, 2006; [b] Kirchmeyer, 1992; [c] author developed) 1. The hire would give me support in my work life. [b] 2. The hire would put me in a good mood. [a] 3. The hire would improve my work life. [c] 4. The hire would enrich my work life. [c] 5. The hire would make me feel happy. [a] 6. The hire would make my work life more enjoyable. [c] 7. The hire would make me cheerful. [a] Constituent Attachment (adapted from Ellingson, Tews, & Dachner, 2016) 1. I would want to continue working with my coworkers here. 2. I would enjoy working here because of the people I work with. Job Embeddedness (adapted from Crossley, Bennett, Jex, & Burnfield, 2007 1. I would feel tied to this organization. 2. I would feel attached to this organization. Socialization (adapted from Jones, 1986) 1. I would help this person understand the job requirements. 2. I would help this person adjust in the organization. 3. I would give guidance to this person as to how to perform the job. Job Engagement (adapted from Rich, Lepine, Crawford, 2010) 1. I would exert my full effort in this job. 2. I would try my hardest to perform well in this job. Turnover Intention (adapted from Kelloway, Gottieb, & Barham, 1999) 1. I would plan to look for a new job.
ONLINE SUPPLEMENT
8 Appendix E Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results
Table 1. Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Confirmatory Factor Analyses Sample and Model Student Sample (N = 158) Single-Factor Model Six-Factor Model
χ2
df
p
CFI
TLI
RMSEA
AIC
SRMR
729.30 119 197.59 105
.000 .000
.67 .95
.63 .94
.18 .08
5,419.83 4,912.03
.12 .04
Qualtrics Sample (N = 329) Single-Factor Model 1381.57 119 Six-Factor Model 403.97 105
.000 .000
.68 .92
.63 .90
.18 .09
12,566.68 11,613.08
.11 .05
Pooled Sample (N = 487) Single-Factor Model Six-Factor Model
.000 .000
.68 .94
.64 .93
.18 .08
18,291.76 16,797.96
.11 .04
1942.28 119 424.49 105
Note. CFI = comparative fit index. TLI = Tucker-Lewis index. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation. AIC = Akaike's information criterion. SRMR = standardized root mean squared residual.
Table 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results for Six-Factor Model Standardized Weights [95% Confidence Interval] Factors and Items Social Enrichment Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Constituent Attachment Item 1 Item 2 Job Embeddedness Item 1 Item 2 Socialization Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Job Engagement Item 1 Item 2
Student Sample (N = 158) .74 .80 .86 .81 .91 .86 .85
[.66, .81] [.74, .86] [.82, .91] [.75, .87] [.87, .94] [.81, .91] [.80, .90]
Qualtrics Sample (N = 329) .72 .72 .84 .77 .85 .88 .86
[.66, .77] [.74, .83] [.80, .88] [.72, .81] [.81, .88] [.85, .91] [.83, .90]
Pooled Sample (N = 487) .72 .78 .85 .77 .83 .88 .86
[.67, .76] [.75, .82] [.83, .88] [.73, .81] [.80, .86] [.86, .91] [.83, .89]
.81 [.73, .88] .82 [.75, .90]
.78 [.72, .84] .82 [.76, .87]
.81 [.77, .85] .83 [.79, .87]
.85 [.78, .92] .94 [.88, 1.01]
.65 [.57, .73] .97 [.88, 1.05]
.68 [.62, .74] .98 [.93, 1.04]
.79 [.72, .86] .81 [.74, .88] .91 [.85, .96]
.91 [.89, .94] .90 [.87, .92] .87 [.84, .90]
.88 [.86, .91] .88 [.85, .91] .88 [.85, .90]
.94 [.82, 1.05] .70 [.59, .82]
.80 [.73, .87] .85 [.78, .92]
.85 [.80, .90] .82 [.77, .87]
ONLINE SUPPLEMENT
9 Appendix F Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Scale Reliabilities
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Student and Qualtrics Samples. Student Sample (N = 169) Variable Age Male Has been employed a Manages others a Has worked in a call center Was referred to their job Has made a referral Could relate to the scenario Could envision working in a call center Social enrichment Job embeddedness Job engagement Constituent attachment Socialization Turnover intention a
Variable only measured in relevant sample.
Mean 20.89 .72 .91 -.18 .52 .47 3.13 3.61 3.48 3.00 3.81 3.53 4.20 2.70
SD 1.66 .45 .29 -.39 .50 .50 1.04 1.02 .72 .88 .81 .78 .53 1.13
Min. 19 0 0 -0 0 0 1 1 1.71 1 1 1 2 1
Max. 29 1 1 -1 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Qualtrics Sample (N = 329) Mean 40.26 .42 -.49 .25 .18 .46 3.56 4.00 3.68 3.31 4.32 4.09 4.30 2.25
SD 13.49 .51 -.50 .43 .38 .50 1.08 1.02 .80 .97 .76 .82 .79 1.25
Min. 19 0 -0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Max. 73 1 -1 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
ONLINE SUPPLEMENT
10
Table 2. Correlations and Scale Reliabilities for Student Sample
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Mean SD New Hire .40 .49 Acquaintance .24 .43 Friend .36 .48 Two Existing Ties .51 .50 In Working Group .54 .50 Social Enrichment 3.48 .72 Job Embeddedness 3.00 .88 Job Engagement 3.81 .81 Constituent Attachment 3.53 .78 Socialization 4.20 .53 Turnover Intention 2.70 1.13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-.46 -.61 -.02 .03 -.60 -.23 .05 -.14 -.30 .09
-.42 .02 -.03 .11 .03 -.06 .02 .09 -.03
.00 -.01 .51 .20 .00 .12 .22 -.06
.05 .11 .16 .20 .43 .20 -.29
.30 .32 .20 .24 .31 -.11
.94 .52 .25 .50 .56 -.32
.87 .41 .54 .35 -.36
8
9
10
.78 .49 .76 .31 .46 .86 -.42 -.55 -.23
Note. N = 169. Correlations whose absolute values are greater than .13 are statistically significant at p < .05. Scale reliabilities (Cronbach alphas) are reported in diagonal.
ONLINE SUPPLEMENT
11
Table 3. Correlations and Scale Reliabilities for Qualtrics Sample
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Mean SD New Hire .36 .48 Acquaintance .27 .44 Friend .36 .48 Two Existing Ties .49 .50 In Working Group .52 .50 Social Enrichment 3.68 .80 Job Embeddedness 3.31 .97 Job Engagement 4.32 .76 Constituent Attachment 4.09 .82 Socialization 4.30 .79 Turnover Intention 2.25 1.25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-.46 -.57 .05 .01 -.45 -.17 -.11 -.18 -.29 .08
-.46 .00 -.03 .09 .07 .08 .07 .11 .02
-.05 .01 .37 .11 .04 .12 .18 -.10
.16 .10 .16 -.01 .31 .06 -.12
.19 .13 .01 .12 .18 -.01
.93 .57 .37 .52 .61 -.02
.78 .25 .41 .31 .00
8
9
10
.81 .53 .78 .50 .46 .92 -.20 -.41 -.18
Note. N = 329. Correlations whose absolute values are greater than .09 are statistically significant at p < .05. Scale reliabilities (Cronbach alphas) are reported in diagonal.
ONLINE SUPPLEMENT
12
Table 3. Correlations and Scale Reliabilities for Pooled Sample
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Mean SD New Hire .38 .49 Acquaintance .26 .44 Friend .36 .48 Two Existing Ties .50 .50 In Working Group .52 .50 Social Enrichment 3.61 .78 Job Embeddedness 3.21 .95 Job Engagement 4.15 .81 Constituent Attachment 3.90 .85 Socialization 4.27 .71 Turnover Intention 2.40 1.23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-.46 -.59 .02 .02 -.50 -.19 -.06 -.17 -.29 .09
-.45 .01 -.03 .10 .06 .04 .06 .11 .00
-.03 .01 .41 .14 .03 .12 .19 -.09
.12 .10 .15 .06 .32 .10 -.17
.22 .18 .07 .15 .21 -.04
.93 .56 .35 .52 .59 -.12
.80 .33 .47 .33 -.13
8
9
10
.81 .56 .79 .44 .45 .91 -.30 -.48 -.20
Note. N = 498. Correlations whose absolute values are greater than .08 are statistically significant at p < .05. Scale reliabilities (Cronbach alphas) are reported in diagonal.
ONLINE SUPPLEMENT
13 Appendix G Estimation Results for the Student Sample, Qualtrics Sample, and Pooled Sample
Table 1. OLS Regression Results for Student Sample M1 Variable Intercept Acquaintance (vs. New Hire) Close Friend (vs. New Hire) Two Existing Ties (vs. No Existing Ties) In Working Group (vs. Not in Working Group) Df R2adjusted
M3
M4
M5
Social Constituent Job Job Enrichment Attachment Embeddedness Socialization Engagement 2.65*** 2.89*** 2.32*** 3.73*** 3.54*** (.08) (.11) (.13) (.08) (.13) .68*** a .15 .31 .29** -.13 (.10) (.14) (.16) (.09) (.16) 1.03*** a .25* .49*** .36*** -.04 (.09) (.12) (.14) (.08) (.14) .12 .65*** .25* .19* .31* (.08) (.11) (.12) (.07) (.12) .45*** .34** .56*** .33*** .30* (.08) (.11) (.12) (.07) (.12) 4 4 4 4 4 .49 .23 .16 .20 .06
Note. N = 169. Standard errors in parentheses. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. Two-tailed tests reported. a Wald Test of coefficient equality significant at p < .01
M2
M6 Turnover Intention 3.27*** (.18) -.18 (.21) -.22 (.19) -.64*** (.17) -.22 (.17) 4 .08
ONLINE SUPPLEMENT
14
Table 2. OLS Regression Results for Qualtrics Sample M1 Variable Intercept Acquaintance (vs. New Hire) Close Friend (vs. New Hire) Two Existing Ties (vs. No Existing Ties) In Working Group (vs. Not in Working Group) Df R2adjusted
M3
M4
M5
Social Constituent Job Job Enrichment Attachment Embeddedness Socialization Engagement 2.98*** 3.57*** 2.84*** 3.82*** 4.19*** (.08) (.09) (.11) (.09) (.09) .60*** a .31** .33* .46*** .21 (.10) (.11) (.13) (.10) (.11) .87*** a .36*** .37** .49*** .15 (.09) (.10) (.12) (.10) (.10) .15 .50*** .29** .08 -.01 (.08) (.09) (.11) (.08) (.08) .28*** .12 .20 .28*** .03 (.08) (.09) (.11) (.08) (.08) 4 4 4 4 4 .26 .13 .05 .11 .00
Note. N = 329. Standard errors in parentheses. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. Two-tailed tests reported. a Wald Test of coefficient equality significant at p < .01
M2
M6 Turnover Intention 2.46*** (.17) .24 (.20) .11 (.18) .19 (.16) .21 (.16) 4 .00
ONLINE SUPPLEMENT
15 Table 3. OLS Regression Results for Pooled Sample M1
Variable Intercept Acquaintance (vs. New Hire) Close Friend (vs. New Hire) Two Existing Ties (vs. No Existing Ties) In Working Group (vs. Not in Working Group) Df R2adjusted
M3
M4
M5
Social Constituent Job Job Enrichment Attachment Embeddedness Socialization Engagement 2.87*** 3.34*** 2.67*** 3.79*** 3.98*** (.06) (.08) (.09) (.06) (.08) .64*** a .28** .34** .41*** .12 (.07) (.09) (.10) (.08) (.09) .93*** a .34*** .41*** .45*** .10 (.07) (.08) (.09) (.07) (.08) .13* .53*** .26** .11 .08 (.06) (.07) (.08) (.06) (.07) .34*** .19** .32*** .29*** .10 (.06) (.07) (.08) (.06) (.07) 4 4 4 4 4 .32 .14 .08 .13 .00
Note. N = 498. Standard errors in parentheses. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. Two-tailed tests reported. a Wald Test of coefficient equality significant at p < .01
M2
M6 Turnover Intention 2.77*** (.12) -.14 (.14) -.29* (.13) -.41*** (.11) -.04 (.11) 4 .03
ONLINE SUPPLEMENT
16
Table 4. Job Engagement and Turnover Intention Regressed (OLS) on Alternative Mediators (Student Sample)
Intercept Social Enrichment Constituent Attachment Job Embeddedness Socialization Df R2adjusted
Job Engagement M1 M2 M3 M4 2.83*** 2.01*** 2.56*** 1.80*** (.30) (.30) (.29) (.47) .28** .01 .06 .12 (.08) (.09) (.09) (.10) .50*** (.08) .35*** (.08) .38** (.13) 1 2 2 2 .06
.23
Note. N = 498. Standard errors in parentheses. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. Two-tailed tests reported.
.16
.09
M5 1.48*** (.43) -.15 (.10) .38*** (.09) .21** (.08) .20 (.13) 4 .27
Turnover Intention M6 M7 M8 M9 4.43*** 5.67*** 4.70*** 4.86*** (.41) (.40) (.41) (.66) -.50*** -.08 -.28* -.43** (.12) (.12) (.13) (.14) -.76*** (.11) -.34** (.11) -.15 (.19) 1 2 2 2 .09
.30
.14
.09
M10 5.33*** (.58) -.09 (.14) -.74*** (.12) -.10 (.11) .14 (.17) 4 .30
ONLINE SUPPLEMENT
17
Table 5. Job Engagement and Turnover Intention Regressed (OLS) on Alternative Mediators (Qualtrics Sample)
Intercept Social Enrichment Constituent Attachment Job Embeddedness Socialization Df R2adjusted
Job Engagement M1 M2 M3 M4 3.01*** 2.09*** 2.98*** 2.14*** (.18) (.20) (.19) (.21) .35*** .12* .32*** .11 (.05) (.05) (.06) (.06) .43*** (.05) .05 (.05) .41*** (.06) 1 2 2 2 .14
.29
Note. N = 329. Standard errors in parentheses. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. Two-tailed tests reported.
.14
.25
M5 1.54*** (.21) -.04 (.06) .37*** (.05) .01 (.04) .33*** (.05) 4 .36
Turnover Intention M6 M7 M8 M9 2.35*** 4.13*** 2.34*** 3.23*** (.33) (.34) (.33) (.39) -.03 .42*** -.04 .22* (.09) (.09) (.11) (.11) -.83*** (.09) .01 (.09) -.42*** (.11) 1 2 2 2 -.00
.21
-.01
.04
M10 4.44*** (.38) .45*** (.11) -.81*** (.09) .12 (.08) -.21* (.10) 4 .22
ONLINE SUPPLEMENT
18
Table 6. Job Engagement and Turnover Intention Regressed (OLS) on Alternative Mediators (Pooled Sample)
Intercept Social Enrichment Constituent Attachment Job Embeddedness Socialization Df R2adjusted
Job Engagement M1 M2 M3 M4 2.82*** 1.91*** 2.70*** 1.90*** (.16) (.16) (.16) (.20) .37*** .08 .25*** .15** (.04) (.05) (.05) (.05) .50*** (.04) .17*** (.04) .40*** (.06) 1 2 2 2 .12
.32
Note. N = 498. Standard errors in parentheses. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. Two-tailed tests reported.
.15
.20
M5 1.31*** (.19) -.09 (.05) .43*** (.04) .08 (.04) .29*** (.05) 4 .36
Turnover Intention M6 M7 M8 M9 3.11*** 4.62*** 3.20*** 3.86*** (.26) (.26) (.26) (.34) -.20** .27*** -.11 -.02 (.07) (.07) (.09) (.09) -.82*** (.07) -.12 (.07) -.33*** (.09) 1 2 2 2 .01
.25
.02
.03
M10 4.82*** (.31) .28** (.09) -.82*** (.07) .07 (.06) -.11 (.09) 4 .25
ONLINE SUPPLEMENT
19 Appendix H
Estimation Results for Qualtrics Sample’s Survey about Past Referral Hiring Experience Table 1. OLS Regression Results for Referral Hiring Experience M1
M2 M3 M4 Job Job Variable Social Embedd- Constituent SatisfactEnrichment edness Attachment ion 2.93*** 3.84*** 3.33*** 2.57*** Intercept (.39) (.49) (.38) (.45) -.04 -.24 .03 -.19 Full-time (vs. Part-time) (.15) (.19) (.15) (.18) Salary - Less than $30,000 --------.01 .05 -.09 -.03 Salary - $30,001 to $60,000 (.15) (.19) (.15) (.17) -.12 .01 .00 Salary - $60,001 to $90,000 -.03 (.17) (.22) (.17) (.20) -.01 .20 -.04 .04 Salary - Greater than (.18) (.23) (.18) (.21) $90,000 .09 .17 .09 .12 Supervises Others (vs. (.10) (.13) (.10) (.12) Individual Contributor) Tenure - Less than 1 year --------.25 .15 .03 .35 Tenure - 1 year to less than (.17) (.22) (.17) (.20) 3 years .41* .44 .15 .51* Tenure - 3 years to less than (.18) (.24) (.18) (.21) 5 years .11 .33 .04 .41* Tenure - 5 years to less than (.17) (.22) (.17) (.20) 10 years .13 .53* .19 .34 Tenure - 10 years or more (.17) (.22) (.17) (.20) .02 -.00 -.11 -.12 Referred to Own Job (.13) (.17) (.13) (.15) (1 = Yes) .14** .09 .14** .19*** Extraversion (.05) (.06) (.05) (.06) .02 -.20* -.00 .09 Conscientiousness (.08) (.10) (.08) (.09) .34*** 0.39** 0.34*** .31** Referrer (1 = Yes) (.10) (0.13) (.10) (.12) Df 13 13 13 13 R2adjusted .07 .06 .05 .08 Note. N = 329. Standard errors in parentheses. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. Two-tailed tests reported.
M5 M6 Job Engage- Turnover ment Intention 2.55*** 5.31*** (.25) (.58) -.02 .03 (.10) (.23) -----.06 .17 (.09) (.23) .02 .12 (.11) (.26) -.03 -.27 (.12) (.28) -.03 .02 (.07) (.16) ----.19 -.20 (.11) (.26) .10 -.54 (.12) (.28) .24* -.38 (.11) (.26) .17 -.99*** (.11) (.26) .06 .38 (.08) (.20) .06* -.17* (.03) (.07) .35*** -.38** (.05) (.12) .09 .09 (.06) (.15) 13 13 .17 .12
ONLINE SUPPLEMENT
20
Table 2. Job Engagement and Turnover Intention Regressed (OLS) on Alternative Mediators (Qualtrics Survey)
Intercept Social Enrichment Constituent Attachment Job Embeddedness Job Satisfaction Df R2adjusted
Job Engagement M1 M2 M3 M4 3.99*** 3.63*** 3.89*** 3.73*** (.14) (.15) (.15) (.15) .14*** -.04 .08* .01 (.04) (.05) (.04) (.04) .26*** (.05) .08* (.03) .19*** (.04) 1 2 2 2 .04
.11
Note. N = 329. Standard errors in parentheses. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. Two-tailed tests reported.
.05
.11
M5 3.56*** (.15) -.07 (.05) .19*** (.06) -.02 (.04) .14** (.04) 4 .13
Turnover Intention M6 M7 M8 M9 4.48*** 5.60*** 4.91*** 5.56*** (.32) (.33) (.32) (.30) -.45*** .10 -.23* .07 (.08) (.11) (.09) (.09) -.80*** (.11) -.35*** (.07) -.77*** (.07) 1 2 2 2 .08
.21
.14
.31
M10 5.95*** (.31) .26* (.10) -.43*** (.11) .02 (.07) -.64*** (.09) 4 .33
