Goal Clarity,Trust in Management and Intention to Stay: The Mediating Role of Work Engagement

Abstract

Drawing from the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) theory, the study explores the relationship between goal clarity, trust in management, work–family conflict and intention to stay among managers in the IT and Information Technology Enabled Service sectors. It also analyses the mediating role of employee engagement in the relationship between job resources (i.e., goal clarity and trust in management), job demands (i.e., work–family conflict) and intention to stay. Data were collected through a structured questionnaire from 200 managerial level employees in India. The model was tested using structural equation modelling techniques. Results indicate that employee engagement fully mediates the relationship between goal clarity, trust in management and intention to stay. This study makes significant theoretical contributions by exploring and establishing the relationship between goal clarity and intention to stay. It also contributes to relevant literature by demonstrating the mediating effects of employee engagement with goal clarity, trust in management and intention to stay of managerial level employees. In addition, this article describes the practical implications of work engagement and intention to stay.

Keywords

Intention to stay IT/ITES India JD-R theory turnover work engagement

Introduction

One of the most predominant concerns for managers and executives in the past hundred years and possibly well into the foreseeable future is retention of employees. According to a report by the Society of Human Resources Management (2016), 46 per cent of the HR managers consider employee turnover a significant concern. The renowned industrialist of the nineteenth century, Andrew Carnegie, quoted ‘Take away my factories, my plants; take away my railroads, my ships, my transportation, take away my money; strip me of all of these but leave me my key employees, and in two or three years, I will have them all again’. Although two centuries have passed since those words, they continue to ring true in the current age of Information Technology (IT). Retaining key employees is and will always be an essential competitive advantage for any organisation (Noe et al., 2017).

According to a report by Gallup (2017), 51 per cent of US employees claim to be actively looking for a new job. Losing good employees can affect the morale of existing employees and have negative impact on productivity and quality of work (Holtom & Burch, 2016). A global survey conducted by Deloitte (2014) with 2,500 business leaders has shown employee turnover to be one of the most alarming challenges faced by businesses today. Despite the increasing attention to employee turnover by both researchers and practitioners, there still exists a dearth of understanding of the factors that impact the employee’s intention to stay with their current organisation.

Studies have shown that organisations experience lower voluntary turnover when employees are engaged in their work (Bailey et al., 2017). Work engagement has been defined as ‘a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind characterised by vigour, dedication, and absorption’ (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 72). Employees who are highly engaged exhibit high-quality performance and positive work behaviours such as leadership, organisational citizenship behaviour and commitment (Hsieh & Wang, 2015; Muduli et al., 2016). There is strong evidence that engaged employees contribute to productivity, profitability, customer satisfaction and shareholder returns (Mulki et al., 2008; Saks & Gruman, 2014; Shaffer et al., 2001). On the other hand, low levels of engagement result in billions of dollar losses (Albrecht et al., 2015). Hence, it is important to understand the factors affecting work engagement.

The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) theory provides the theoretical background for understanding the antecedents and outcomes of work engagement. Based on the JD-R theory, this study proposes that job resources (i.e., goal clarity and trust in management) are the core drivers of work engagement and job demands (i.e., work–family conflict) are the stressors that reduce engagement levels (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014). Work engagement is considered as a critical mediator between job resources and the organisational outcomes (Bakker, 2011). In this study, we posit work engagement as a mediator, in the relationship between goal clarity, trust in management, work–family conflict and intention to stay.

Studies by Alfes et al. (2013) and Saks (2006) have shown that an increase in work engagement decreases voluntary turnover and enhances the intention to stay. Researchers have considered work engagement to be a significant predictor to turnover intention (Saks, 2006). Creating trust among employees about the functioning of the management and ensuring goal clarity are ways in which organisations indicate their willingness to invest in and support their employees (Mayer & Gavin, 2005). Furthermore, with an increase in dual-career households, most employees have to simultaneously perform both family and work roles. Due to responsibilities associated with multiple roles, most employees experience work–family conflict due to conflicting demands (Hochschild, 1997). As a consequence, employee’s work engagement and intention to stay is negatively affected (Thompson & Terpening, 1983). This is particularly true of the IT and Information Technology Enabled Service (ITES) industries of India which are on a high growth and retaining their key employees is critical to organisations (Bhatnagar, 2007). Therefore, both, engagement and employee’s intention to stay are critical to ensure retention of the highly productive workforce in this sector.

The contribution of this article is twofold. The first is that it establishes the relationships between factors such as trust in management, goal clarity and work–family conflict on the intention to stay among the managerial level employees in IT and ITES sectors. The second is that it examines the role of work engagement as a potential mediator between job demands (work–family conflict), job resources (goal clarity, trust in management) and intention to stay. The following sections of this article provide a detailed overview of hypothesis development, elaboration of data collection processes and the interpretation of results and discussion. Finally, implications, limitations and future scope of the study are presented.

Theoretical and Empirical Backgrounds

JD-R Theory

According to the JD-R theory, every occupation has distinctive job characteristics. These job characteristics are classified as either job demands or job resources (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Job demands refer to social, organisational, psychological or physical aspects of the jobs involving sustained emotional or cognitive effort. Job resources refer to social, organisational psychological or physical aspects of the jobs that function to decrease the effect of job demands. They enable and enhance the attainment of work goals, simulate learning and development and boost personal growth. Over the past decades, many studies have studied job demands and resources for subordinate employees with special focus on poorly designed jobs (Alfes et al., 2013; Bailey et al., 2017; Demerouti et al., 2001; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). According to Hambrick et al. (2005), managerial level employees are likely to face different demands and resources than those at other organizational levels due to their unique work environment.

In a study by AlAzzam (2017) with non-managerial employees support the fundamental premise of the JD-R theory that job demands such as work–family conflict are negatively associated with work engagement and intention to stay. These results are consistent with studies that show an association between job demands and job outcomes such as low work engagement and turnover intention (DeConinck & Stilwell, 2004; Volkwein & Zhou, 2003). From the review of literature, it can be seen that very few studies have examined the job demands and resources for managerial level employees. This study intends to address this gap in literature by exploring the relevant job-related factors affecting the intention to stay of managerial level employees.

Bakker and Demerouti (2007) have suggested that personal resources (e.g., trust in management and goal clarity) are important predictors of work outcomes as these resources fulfil the basic needs of the employees. In this study, we have considered job demand (i.e., work–family conflict) as a potential correlate of work engagement and intention to stay because employees most readily report work-to-family conflicts than family-to-work conflicts (Kinnunen & Mauno, 1998; see Figure 1).

Trust in Management and Work Engagement

Trust in management has been conceptualised differently by different researchers. These definitions have focused on the different aspects of the employees’ trust in management and its influence on their behaviour (Farndale et al., 2011). This study adopts the definition by Rousseau et al. (1998, p. 395) as trust being ‘a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviours of another’. Employees invest their time, talent and energy towards reaching organisational goals and meeting the objectives and make themselves valuable to the organisation (Agarwal, 2014). Drawing from the JD-R theory, individuals with higher levels of job resources like trust in management are more likely to engage in productive behaviour. These resources are linked to positive evaluations that enable them to gain the ability and support to control their environment.

Figure 1.

Source: The authors.

According to Whitener et al. (1998), the role of management in an organisational setting is pivotal in enhancing the employee’s perception of trust. When an employee believes and trusts his/her organisation, they would act in a way that ensures the wellbeing of the organisation (Lowry et al., 2015). In a recent study, Holland et al. (2017) have found that trust mediates the relationship between supervisory support and employee engagement. Trust in management is one of the prominent factors that determine whether employees are engaged in their workplace (Rousseau et al., 1998). Thus, when employees trust their organisation, they are most likely to fulfil the organisation’s goals and objectives (Alias et al., 2013). Contrastingly, when employees lose trust in their management, their engagement drops as they may perceive a feeling of betrayal (Holland et al., 2017). Building on this argument, we postulate the following hypothesis:

H ₁ : Trust in management is positively related to work engagement.

Goal Clarity and Work Engagement

From Locke and Latham’s (1990) theory, goal clarity can be understood as the degree to which the employees understand why the task assigned is relevant or essential for the group or department. Employees recognise goals to be achieved with a specific role and expertise, and plan their activity that is expected from them. The JD-R theory suggests that adequate job resources like goal clarity accelerate work outcomes, which is likely to increase engagement levels of the employees. Goal clarity has been associated with work satisfaction and individual-performance (Saks, 2006). In contrast, lack of goal clarity could lead to dysfunctional effects, including diminished work motivation and deflated individual and organisational performance (Jung, 2011). Goal clarity not only makes the employees feel that their organisation includes their contribution into achieving its vision and mission, but also acts as an essential motivator for achievements and task performance, which may lead to increase in work engagement (Gruman & Saks, 2011). Based on the above discussion, we propose the following hypothesis:

H ₂: Goal clarity is positively related to work engagement.

Work–Family Conflict and Work Engagement

Drawing from the JD-R theory, higher job demands, that is, work–family conflict drain the mental resources of employees, which may lead to withdrawal from work, reduced motivation and commitment. Employees typically do not shake off their problems before walking into the office. Moreover, as careers have become sophisticated, people are now forced to engage actively in multiple roles. In the last two decades, families have undergone various changes in terms of structure, function and size, which have not been accompanied by commensurate shifts in corporate policies (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). With people’s increased focus on balancing multiple roles and managing boundaries between work and family, most organisations have adopted policies such as onsite child care, flexitime and mechanisms to engage one’s family in such a way that it does not interfere with one’s work (Hochschild, 1997). AlAzzam (2017) has suggested that work–family conflict has a negative relationship on engagement in the context of health care workers. Unlike other professions, health care workers are associated with increasing levels of cognitive, emotional and physical strain (Bakker et al., 2000). Therefore, understanding the effect of work–family conflict on engagement in this context is very crucial. Based on the above argument, we hypothesise that

H ₃: Work–family conflict is negatively related to work engagement.

Work Engagement and Intention to Stay

According to the JD-R theory, work engagement correlates with attitudinal measures such as organisational commitment (Hakanen et al., 2006) and turnover intention (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). McCloskey and McCain (1987) have defined intention to stay as the likelihood of employees staying in their current jobs. Igharia and Greenhaus (1992) have shown that employee’s intention to stay is a significant determinant of actual turnover. It is a widely acknowledged fact that there is high employee turnover in the IT and ITES sectors and it is essential for the top-level management to take proactive steps to positively influence employee retention (Yadav, 2011).

According to Thompson and Terpening (1983), research into employee’s intention to stay is practical as existing employees could provide appropriate information regarding their decision to stay. The efforts expended to retain employees who have already decided to leave, are futile (Bryant & Allen, 2013). Intention to stay has also been influenced by several employee attitudes, like job satisfaction and organisational commitment, which have further been linked to employee engagement (Saks, 2006). Based on the above arguments, we hypothesise that

H ₄: Work engagement is positively related to the intention to stay.

Trust in Management and Intention to Stay

There is a strong theoretical evidence that trust is commonly associated with a variety of positive employee attitudes such as organisational commitment and job satisfaction (Mulki et al., 2008). Costigan (2012) has shown employees’ trust in management to be a significant predictor of turnover intention. Similarly, Mulki et al. (2008) have established trust as a significant antecedent to turnover intention. Trust is relevant in determining employees’ intention to continue in their current jobs (Ertürk, 2014). Therefore, it is evident that when the employees feel trusted, they are most likely to feel a sense of belonging and comfort in their jobs which makes them less inclined to leave. We, therefore, hypothesise that

H ₅: Trust in management is positively related to the intention to stay.

Goal Clarity and Intention to Stay

According to Locke (1986), there is convincing evidence that the act of providing employees with specific and clear goals results in improved performance. Goals are a significant professional challenge. Employees who believe that they are contributing to the organisation may be more engaged with their work, and hence, are less likely to leave the organisation (Gonzalez-Mulé et al., 2016). While goal clarity does not make employees believe that the organisation values their contribution to achieve vision and mission of the organisation, it is a significant motivator for achievements and task performances. Therefore, as long as the employees believe that they are an asset to the organisation, they positively contribute to the organisation’s success and their intention to stay with the organisation increases (Stokes et al., 2013). Based on the above discussion, we propose the following:

H ₆: Goal clarity is positively related to the intention to stay.

Work–Family Conflict and Intention to Stay

Work–family conflict is a source of stress and occurs when demands from work and family conflict. When the employee faces incompatible expectations from two roles, stress between domains occur, which ultimately leads to one domain interfering with effective involvement in the other (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Most organisations position work-life balance as a strategy, particularly in terms of wellness and social responsibility rather than a solution for commitment and retention (Parkes & Langford, 2008).

Intention to stay is a commonly studied job-related outcome in literature on work–family conflict (Deery, 2008). There is a rich body of research in different contexts and settings showing the impact of work–family conflict on turnover intention (Carr et al., 2008; Spector et al., 2007; Kim & Jogartnam, 2010). Building on the above literature, we propose the following hypothesis in the context of IT and ITES.

H ₇: Work–family conflict is negatively related to the intention to stay.

Work Engagement: As a Mediator

According to earlier studies, when organisations provide resources, employees tend to experience work engagement, which is in turn associated with positive attitudes such as trust in management (Saks, 2011), goal clarity (Gruman & Saks, 2011) and turnover intention (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Based on the JD-R theory, job resources are capable of generating positive work behaviour, when employees feel supported and experience positive emotions. In terms of the demands that employees face at their workplace, work–family conflict is considered to be one of the significant job stressors (Spector & Jex, 1998). It leads to employee disengagement from work. Moreover, work engagement has been modelled as a mediator in many studies (Salanova et al., 2005; Schaufeli, 2002; Shin et al., 2020). In the same vein, this study considers employee engagement as a mediator between goal clarity, trust in management and work–family conflict to intention to stay. Therefore, based on the above discussion, the following hypotheses are proposed.

H ₈: Work engagement mediates the relationship between trust in management and the intention to stay.

H ₉: Work engagement mediates the relationship between goal clarity and intention to stay.

H ₁₀: Work engagement mediates the relationship between work–family conflict and intention to stay.

Method

Participants

Data were collected from managerial employees of IT and ITES sectors across India. Using a structured questionnaire, data were collected from the respondents via online platforms and in-person by the researcher. Two hundred and eleven responses were collected, of which, 200 were usable. The respondents from the selected sample were asked to rate each of the items on a 7-point Likert scales ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

The sample comprised 63 per cent male employees and 37 per cent female employees. In terms of educational qualification, 49 per cent of the respondents held post-graduation degree, 33 per cent possessed a graduate degree, 16 per cent were doctorates and the remaining 2 per cent of the sample respondents were diploma degree holders in their respective fields. The sample consisted of respondents from age groups varying from 24 to 60 years with a mean age of 29.44 years. The work experiences of the employees were varied, ranging from 2 to 36 years of experience in the IT and ITES sectors with a mean work experience of 6.1 years.

Instruments

The measures for this study were adapted from established scales.

Trust in management: Items to measure trust in management were adapted from Mayer and Davis (1999) scale, based on the relevance and integrity in the aspect of trust. The scale consisted of six items to capture employee perception of trust in management. The participants were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed to the statements like ‘I trust top managers at my company’, ‘I am confident in the integrity of top managers’.

Goal clarity: Goal clarity was measured by a five-item scale developed by Sawyer (1992). The respondents responded about how clear and confident they felt about each aspect of their work. A high score was an indication of a high degree of clarity and certainty, and a low score indicated uncertainty. The participants were asked to respond to statements like ‘I know my duties and responsibilities at my workplace’ and ‘I am aware of the goals and objectives for my job’.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Construct Correlations

	Constructs	Mean	Standard Deviation	1	2	3	4
1.	Trust in Management	4.54	1.20	1
2.	Goal Clarity	5.71	0.94	−0.05*	1
3.	Work–family Conflict	4.42	1.46	0.07*	0.33*	1
4.	Work Engagement	4.22	1.10	0.09*	0.35*	0.33*	1
5.	Intention to Stay	3.88	1.39	0.04*	0.38*	0.44*	0.67*

Source: The authors.

Notes: N = 200, *p < 0.05.

Work–family conflict: The five-item scale developed by Netemeyer et al. (1996) was used to assess work–family conflict. Participants were asked to rate their agreement on statements like ‘The demands of my work interfere with my home and family life’ and ‘The amount of time my job takes up makes it difficult to fulfil family responsibilities’.

Employee engagement: Employee engagement was measured using the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) by Schaufeli et al. (2006). Work engagement is a concept involving three dimensions, vigour, absorption and dedication. Engaged workers are characterised by higher levels of dedication, vigour and absorption. The UWES was scored on a seven-point scale, varying from 0 (‘never’) to 6 (‘always’) with 17 items. Sample items included ‘At my work, I feel bursting with energy’ and ‘I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose’.

Intention to stay: Intention to stay was measured on a five-item scale developed by Mrayyan (2008). The scale measured the extent to which employees wanted to be associated with their current organisations. The participants were asked to rate their agreement on the statements like ‘I plan to work at this job as long as possible’ and ‘Even if this job does not meet all their expectations, I will not quit my present job as long as possible’.

Data Analysis

To compute the scale reliability, correlation among the constructs and IBM SPSS version 25 were used. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was performed to test the hypothesised relationships between the study constructs. IBM AMOS v.21 was used to perform the SEM analysis. As an initial step in SEM, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed and composite reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity between latent variables were assessed, followed by path modelling. The following fit indices were used to determine the model fit values in both CFA and SEM: Chi-square/degrees of freedom (χ²/df), Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA).

Results

Table 1 shows the results of the mean, standard deviation, correlation coefficient among the constructs. From the correlation analysis, it is seen that all predictor variables, namely trust in management, goal clarity and work–family conflict, significantly correlated with work engagement. Similarly, the predictor variables also showed a significant correlation with employees’ intention to stay. However, the correlation between work–family conflict and work engagement (r = 0.33, p < .05) and work–family conflict and intention to stay showed positive association (r = 0.44, p < .05). This correlation result suggests that individuals who reported that they possess more work–family conflict also reported higher levels of engagement and intention to stay. Although some of the effects of zero-order correlations are meaningful and provide preliminary support for the theorising of the constructs, some results are in contrast. So, we further tested the hypothesised relationship through path analysis.

Reliability and Validity Measures

Standardised factor loadings of all the items were examined using CFA and items with above the acceptable threshold level (>0.5) were retained for further analyses (Hair et al., 2014). Based on the results of factor loadings, four items from the engagement scale, two items from intention to stay and one item from trust in management and goal clarity were removed. To examine the reliability of the scales, Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency measure was used. All the values for the study constructs were above 0.70, which is considered to be the acceptable level (Hair et al., 2014). To understand the underlying structure of the model proposed, CFA was performed preceding the analysis of substantive relationships. In CFA, a five-factor model was specified, and results indicated that this model fits the data. χ² = 808.71; df = 480; χ²/df = 1.68, TLI = 0.92, CFI = 0.93 and RMSEA = 0.06.

The estimates of composite reliability varied from 0.72 to 0.91 showing adequate internal consistency throughout every latent variable considered for the study (Hair et al., 2014). The values of average variance extracted (AVE) for all the latent variables were higher than unexplained variance, that is, AVE > 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) indicating that all latent variables had acceptable convergent validity. Discriminant validity was ascertained when AVE values of the individual constructs were higher than the shared variances between the constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) and from the results the discriminant validities for the constructs were established. Table 2 shows the standardised factor loadings of all the items, the internal consistency of measures and the convergent validity and discriminant validity of the constructs.

Structural Equation Modelling Results

Using SEM, the hypothesised relationship between the constructs was tested. Figure 2 shows the results of the direct effects between the constructs in the theoretical model.

Figure 2.

Source: The authors.

Table 2.

Factor Loadings, Reliability Scores and Average Variance Extracted

Constructs/Items	Factor Loadings	a	CR	AVE
1. Trust in Management		0.9	0.88	0.78
1.1 Trust top managers at my company	0.89
1.2 Confident in the integrity of top managers	0.94
1.3 Confident that top managers can make right decisions	0.89
1.4 Top managers have a strong sense of integrity	0.88
1.5 Top managers’ behaviours are guided by correct	0.81
2. Goal Clarity		0.9	0.83	0.69
2.1 I know my duties and responsibilities at my workplace	0.88
2.2 I am aware of the goals and objectives for my job	0.83
2.3 I know the expected results of my work	0.83
2.4 I know what aspects of my work will lead to positive evaluations	0.77
3. Work–Family Conflict		0.91	0.83	0.69
3.1 The demands of my work interfere with my home and family life	0.72
3.2 The amount of time my job takes up makes it difficult to fulfil family responsibilities	0.87
3.3 Things I want to do at home do not get done because of the demands my job puts on me	0.9
3.4 My job produces strain that makes it difficult to fulfil family duties	0.85
3.5 Due to work-related duties, I have to make changes to my plans for family activities	0.77
4. Employee Engagement		0.94	0.99	0.98
4.1 When I am working, I forget everything else around me	0.67
4.2 I feel happy when I am working intensely	0.7
4.3 I am immersed in my work	0.86
4.4 I get carried away when I am working	0.63
4.5 It is difficult to detach myself from my job	0.64
4.6 I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose	0.81
4.7 I am enthusiastic about my job	0.85
4.8 My job inspires me	0.89
4.9 I am proud of the work that I do	0.87
4.10 To me, my job is challenging	0.62
4.11 At my job, I feel strong and vigorous	0.8
4.12 When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work	0.8
4.13 I can continue working for very long periods at a time	0.58
5. Intention to Stay		0.79	0.72	0.52
5.1 I plan to work at this job as long as possible	0.85
5.2 Even if this job does not meet all their expectations, I will not quit my present job as long as possible	0.62
5.3 I will probably spend the rest of my career in this job	0.67

Source: The authors.

Note: a, Cronbach’s alpha; CR, composite reliability; AVE, average variance extracted.

Model fit values: x² = 952.06, df = 549, x²/df = 1.73, TLI = 0.91, CFI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.061.

Table 3.

Indirect Effects

Hypothesis	Direct Effect	Indirect Effect	LLCI	ULCL
H₈: Trust in Management → WE → Intention to Stay	0.063^ns	0.23	0.12	0.34
H₉: Goal Clarity → WE → Intention to Stay	0.28^ns	0.18	0.19	0.31
H₁₀: Work–Family Conflict → WE → Intention to Stay	0.11^ns	0.038	−0.07	0.12

Source: The authors.

Notes: 5,000 Percentile bootstrap method is used to test the indirect effects. LLCL, lower limit confidence interval; ULCL, upper limit confidence interval; ns, not significant; WE, work engagement.

Direct Effects

With respect to the hypotheses, trust in management (β = 0.34, p < .01) and goal clarity (β = 0.28, p < .01) were found to have a significant impact on work engagement. These results offered support for Hypotheses 1 and 2. The relationship between work–family conflict and work engagement was not significant (β = 0.04, p > .05). Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was not supported. Hypotheses 4 is supported as work engagement significantly predicted employees’ intention to stay (β = 0.68, p < .01). The relationships of trust in management (β = 0.06, p > .05), goal clarity (β = 0.07, p > .05) and work–family conflict (β = 0.09, p > .05) on intention to stay were not significant. Therefore, Hypotheses 5, 6 and 7 were not supported.

Mediation Effect of Employee Engagement

To test the mediation effect, we used the bias-corrected 5,000 resample based bootstrap approach in AMOS (Hayes & Rockwood, 2017). We tested the full mediation model and partial mediation model. The fit of the full mediation model (χ² = 952.06, df = 549, χ²/df = 1.73, TLI = 0.91, CFI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.06) was better than the partial mediation model. The results of the indirect effect are presented in Table 3.

As hypothesised, work engagement mediated the relationship between trust in management and intention to stay (H₈). For this relationship, the direct effect was not significant, so there was a full mediation effect for H₈. Similarly, work engagement mediated the relationship between goal clarity and intention to stay, supporting H₉. As the direct effect for this relationship was not significant, the existence of full mediation effect for H₉ remains evident. From the results, it is inferred that work engagement does not play a significant mediating role between work–family conflict and intention to stay. Furthermore, the direct relationship between work–family conflict and intention to stay was not significant. Hence, H₁₀ was not supported. From the results, it is evident that work engagement exhibited full mediation in the relationship between goal clarity and trust in management on employee’s intention to stay. Moreover, the fit values of the full mediation model were better than for the partial mediation model.

Discussion

The study examined the relationship between trust in management, goal clarity and work–family and intention to stay. In addition, the mediating role of work engagement in the relationship mentioned above was also examined. Employees who perceive high trust in management and goal clarity are most likely to be engaged and stay with the organisation for a longer tenure.

Based on the results, it is clear that managerial level employees possess higher trust in their management. Subsequently, the higher level of trust enhances their engagement in their work and further enhances their intention to continue working for the organisation. Therefore, organisations need to build trust amongst their employees to realise the positive consequences such as high engagement and intention to stay.

It is also shown in this article that employee’s goal clarity would lead to higher engagement levels, further increasing their intention to stay. Therefore, it is suggested that organisations set specific and clear goals for employees to ensure that they know what is expected of them and understand and observe how they are contributing to achieving the organisation’s objectives. When employees feel that they are contributing to achieving the goals of the organisation, they feel motivated, which leads to an increase in performance and engagement levels (Waychal, 2018). In line with the findings of Saks (2011), this study has established a significant relationship between engagement and intention to stay. Therefore, highly engaged employees exhibit substantial intention to stay. Creating trust in management and ensuring goal clarity are ways for the top-level managers to signal their willingness to invest and support their employees (Mayer and Gavin, 2005).

Theoretical Contributions

The theoretical contribution of the present study strengthens the postulates of the strong JD-R theory. As exemplified by Schaufeli (2017) in a recent study, JD-R provides a shared language among all levels of employees in an organisation. Relating the present study results to the JD-R theory, we see a positive association between resources (i.e., trust in management, goal clarity) and employee engagement and a negative relationship between demands (i.e., work–family conflict) and employee engagement. According to Schaufeli et al. (2002), work engagement leads to positive work and organisational outcomes. The present study extends the JD-R theory by establishing the positive outcome of employee engagement (i.e., intention to stay). In addition, the mediating role of work engagement on such behaviours is a significant contribution to the JD-R literature.

It is evident from the observations of this study that work–family conflict is associated with engagement and intention to stay. This finding is in line with the hypothesised relationships between the constructs and also matches with results from existing literature (Shaffer et al., 2001). Therefore, it is important to consider the impact of work–family conflict on an employee’s attitude and behaviour towards the organisation and organisational performance.

Finally, the findings of this study highlight the role of JD-R theory in understanding employees’ intentions to stay in the context of managerial level employees in the IT and ITES sectors. There is evidence to support that engagement fully mediates the relationship between goal clarity and trust in management and the intention to stay. For example, the JD-R model states that demands arising from the lack of job resources such as trust in management and goal clarity lead to decreased engagement (Demerouti et al., 2001). The empirical test of the JD-R model indicates that job resources such as goal clarity and trust in management are related to employee engagement and the demands such as work–family conflict have insignificant associations.

Practical Implications

Although the objective of the current study was to examine the hypotheses, the findings of the study have several implications for human resource practitioners in the IT/ITES sector in India. The results of the present study show that high levels of trust in management is associated with high levels of employee engagement, which in turn, increases the employee’s intention to be associated with their organisation. IT/ITES organisations must focus on gaining employee’s trust in daily activities as trust cannot suddenly be built, which would result in retaining the top talent. Forbes Coaches Council (2017) emphasised that certain practices such as open-door policy, effective and transparent communication, treating employees with respect and understanding the requirements of employees would have long-lasting employee association with the organisation. The IT and ITES sectors must focus on enhancing goal clarity, trust in management and work engagement among their employees. This would enable organisations to achieve sustainable competitive advantage by increasing employees’ intentions to stay.

Limitations and Scope for Future Research

This study has few limitations. First, work–family conflict was conceptualised in terms of engagement, but family–work interference and its influence on engagement levels of the employee were not considered. It is suggested that future researchers focus on the impact of both work–family and family–work intervention on engagement levels. Second, we acknowledge that there could be common method bias as the data is self-reported and both antecedents and outcomes have been collected from the same source. Third, the findings of this study only pertain to managers working in IT and ITES sectors in India. Therefore, generalising these results to other professional groups, industries and/or other countries should be done with caution. Additionally, longitudinal study may be conducted to obtain causal relationships between the factors.

Conclusion

This present study extends the JD-R theory by examining the relationship between job resources and job demands and intention to stay. The study also explains the mediating role of employee engagement in this relationship. This work has two unique contributions; one, a relationship has been established between goal clarity and engagement. Second, this study has explained the relationship between work–family conflict and intention to stay, which has hitherto been unexplored. The current study has also investigated the negative association between work–family conflict and employee engagement.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Agarwal

U. A.

(2014). Linking justice, trust and innovative work behaviour to work engagement. Personnel Review , 43(1), 41–73.

AlAzzam

AbuAlRub

R. F.

Nazzal

A. H.

(2017). The relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction among hospital nurses. Nursing Forum , 52(4), 278–288.

Albrecht

S. L.

Bakker

A. B.

Gruman

J. A.

Macey

W. H.

Saks

A. M.

(2015). Employee engagement, human resource management practices and competitive advantage: An integrated approach. Journal of Organisational Effectiveness: People and Performance , 2(1), 7–35.

Alfes

Shantz

A. D.

Truss

Soane

E. C.

(2013). The link between perceived human resource management practices, engagement and employee behaviour: A moderated mediation model. The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 24(2), 330–351.

Alias

Rasdi

R.M.

Ismail

Samah

B. A.

(2013). Predictors of workplace deviant behaviour: HRD agenda for Malaysian support personnel. European Journal of Training and Development , 37(2), 161–182.

Bailey

Madden

Alfes

Fletcher

(2017). The meaning, antecedents and outcomes of employee engagement: A narrative synthesis. International Journal of Management Reviews , 19(1), 31–53.

Bakker

A. B.

(2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in Psychological Science , 20(4), 265–269.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 22(3), 309–328.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2014). Job demands-resources theory. In Chen

P. Y.

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.), Wellbeing: A complete reference guide, Volume III, work and wellbeing . John Wiley & Sons.

10.

Bakker

A. B.

Killmer

C. H.

Siegrist

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2000). Effort-reward imbalance and burnout among nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing , 31(4), 884–891.

11.

Bhatnagar

(2007). Talent management strategy of employee engagement in Indian ITES employees: Key to retention. Employee Relations , 29(6), 640–663.

12.

Bryant

P. C.

Allen

D. G.

(2013). Compensation, benefits and employee turnover: HR strategies for retaining top talent. Compensation & Benefits Review , 45(3), 171–175.

13.

Carr

J. C.

Boyar

S. L.

Gregory

B. T.

(2008). The moderating effect of work-family centrality on work-family conflict, organisational attitudes, and turnover behavior. Journal of Management , 34(2), 244–262.

14.

Costigan

R. D.

Insinga

R. C.

Berman

J. J.

Kranas

Kureshov

V. A.

(2012). A four country study of the relationship of affect based trust to turnover intention. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 42(5), 1123–1142.

15.

DeConinck

J. B.

Stilwell

C. D.

(2004). Incorporating organisational justice, role states, pay satisfaction and supervisor satisfaction in a model of turnover intentions. Journal of Business Research , 57(3), 225–231.

16.

Deery

(2008). Talent management, work-life balance and retention strategies. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management , 20(7), 792–806.

17.

Deloitte. (2018). The rise of the social enterprise. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/at/Documents/human-capital/at-2018-deloitte-human-capital-trends.pdf

18.

Demerouti

Bakker

A. B.

De Jonge

Janssen

P. P. M.

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2001). Burnout and engagement at work as a function of demands and control. Scandinavian Journal of Work and Environment and Heath , 27(4), 279–286.

19.

Dirks

K. T.

Ferrin

D. L.

(2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87(4), 611–628.

20.

Edwards

J. R.

Rothbard

N. P.

(2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review , 25(1), 178–199.

21.

Ertürk

(2014). Influences of HR practices, social exchange, and trust on turnover intentions of public IT professionals. Public Personnel Management , 43(1), 140–175.

22.

Farndale

Hope-Hailey

Kelliher

(2011). High commitment performance management: The roles of justice and trust. Personnel Review , 40(1), 5–23.

23.

Forbes Coaches Council. (2017). Essential leadership skills for the workplace of tomorrow. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2017/12/27/16-essential-leadership-skills-for-the-workplace-of-tomorrow/#3d6abc2554ce

24.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research , 18(1), 39–50.

25.

Gallup. (2017). State of global workforce reports. https://www.gallup.com/services/178517/state-global-workplace.aspx

26.

Gonzalez-Mulé

Courtright

S. H.

DeGeest

Seong

J. Y.

Hong

D. S.

(2016). Channeled autonomy: The joint effects of autonomy and feedback on team performance through organisational goal clarity. Journal of Management , 42(7), 2018–2033.

27.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Beutell

N. J.

(1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review , 10(1), 76–88.

28.

Gruman

J. A.

Saks

A. M.

(2011). Performance management and employee engagement. Human Resource Management Review , 21(2), 123–136.

29.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2014) In Black

W. C.

(Ed.), Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.) Pearson Education Limited.

30.

Hakanen

J. J.

Bakker

A. B.

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology , 43(6), 495–513.

31.

Hambrick

D. C.

Finkelstein

Mooney

A. C.

(2005). Executive job demands: New insights for explaining strategic decisions and leader behaviors. Academy of Management Review , 30(3), 472–491.

32.

Hayes

A. F.

Rockwood

N. J.

(2017). Regression-based statistical mediation and moderation analysis in clinical research: Observations, recommendations, and implementation. Behaviour Research and Therapy , 98, 39–57.

33.

Hochschild

A. R.

(1997). When work becomes home and home becomes work. California Management Review , 39(4), 79–97.

34.

Holland

Cooper

Sheehan

(2017). Employee voice, supervisor support, and engagement: The mediating role of trust. Human Resource Management , 56(6), 915–929.

35.

Holtom

B. C.

Burch

T. C.

(2016). A model of turnover-based disruption in customer services. Human Resource Management Review , 26(1), 25–36.

36.

Hsieh

C. C.

Wang

D. S.

(2015). Does supervisor-perceived authentic leadership influence employee work engagement through employee-perceived authentic leadership and employee trust? The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 26(18), 2329–2348.

37.

Igbaria

Greenhaus

J. H.

(1992). The career advancement prospects of managers and professionals: Are MIS employees unique? Decision Sciences , 23(2), 478–499.

38.

Jung

C. S.

(2011). Organisational goal ambiguity and performance: Conceptualization, measurement, and relationships. International Public Management Journal , 14(2), 193–217.

39.

Kim

Jogaratnam

(2010). Effects of individual and organisational factors on job satisfaction and intent to stay in the hotel and restaurant industry. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism , 9(3), 318–339.

40.

Kinnunen

Mauno

(1998). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict among employed women and men in Finland. Human Relations , 51(2), 157–177.

41.

Locke

E. A.

Latham

G. P.

(1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance . Prentice-Hall, Inc.

42.

Locke

E. A.

Motowidlo

S. J.

Bobko

(1986). Using self-efficacy theory to resolve the conflict between goal-setting theory and expectancy theory in organisational behavior and industrial/organisational psychology. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology , 4(3), 328–338.

43.

Lowry

P. B.

Posey

Bennett

R. B. J.

Roberts

T. L.

(2015). Leveraging fairness and reactance theories to deter reactive computer abuse following enhanced organisational information security policies: An empirical study of the influence of counterfactual reasoning and organisational trust. Information Systems Journal , 25(3), 193–273.

44.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

(1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology , 84(1), 123.

45.

Mayer

R. C.

Gavin

M. B.

(2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss?. Academy of Management Journal , 48(5), 874–888.

46.

McCloskey

J. C.

McCain

B. E.

(1987). Satisfaction, commitment and professionalism of newly employed nurses. Image: The Journal of Nursing Scholarship , 19(1), 20–24.

47.

Mrayyan

M. T.

(2008). Hospital organisational climates and nurses’ intent to stay: Differences between units and wards. Contemporary Nurse , 27(2), 223–236.

48.

Muduli

Verma

Datta

S. K.

(2016). High performance work system in India: Examining the role of employee engagement. Journal of Asia-Pacific Business , 17(2), 130–150.

49.

Mulki

J. P.

Locander

W. B.

Marshall

G. W.

Harris

E. G.

Hensel

(2008). Workplace isolation, salesperson commitment, and job performance. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management , 28(1), 67–78.

50.

Netemeyer

R. G.

Boles

J. S.

McMurrian

(1996). Development and validation of work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology , 81(4), 400–410.

51.

Noe

R. A.

Hollenbeck

J. R.

Gerhart

Wright

P. M.

(2017). Human resource management: Gaining a competitive advantage . McGraw-Hill Education.

52.

Parkes

L. P.

Langford

P. H.

(2008). Work–life balance or work–life alignment? A test of the importance of work-life balance for employee engagement and intention to stay in organisations. Journal of Management & Organisation , 14(3), 267–284.

53.

Rousseau

D. M.

Sitkin

S. B.

Burt

R. S.

Camerer

(1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review , 23(3), 393–404.

54.

Saks

A. M.

(2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 21(7), 600–619.

55.

Saks

A. M.

(2011). Workplace spirituality and employee engagement. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion , 8(4), 317–340.

56.

Saks

A. M.

Gruman

J. A.

(2014). What do we really know about employee engagement?. Human Resource Development Quarterly , 25(2), 155–182.

57.

Salanova

Agut

Peiró

J. M.

(2005). Linking organisational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology , 90(6), 1217.

58.

Sawyer

J. E.

(1992). Goal and process clarity: Specification of multiple constructs of role ambiguity and a structural equation model of their antecedents and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology , 77(2), 130.

59.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Bakker

A. B.

(2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relation with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organisational Behavior , 25(3), 293–315.

60.

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2017). Applying the job demands-resources model. Organisational Dynamics , 2(46), 120–132.

61.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Salanova

Gonzalez-Roma

Bakker

A. B.

(2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies , 3, 71–92.

62.

Shaffer

M. A.

Harrison

D. A.

Gilley

K. M.

Luk

D. M.

(2001). Struggling for balance amid turbulence on international assignments: Work–family conflict, support and commitment. Journal of Management , 27(1), 99–121.

63.

Shin

Hur

W. M.

Choi

W. H.

(2020). Coworker support as a double-edged sword: A moderated mediation model of job crafting, work engagement, and job performance. The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 31(11), 1417–1438.

64.

Society of Human Resource Management Reports. (2016). SHRM/Globeforce influencing workplace culture through employee recognition and other efforts. https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/all-things-work/pages/to-have-and-to-hold.aspx

65.

Spector

P. E.

Jex

S. M.

(1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal conflict at work scale, organisational constraints scale, quantitative workload inventory, and physical symptoms inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 3(4), 356–367.

66.

Spector

P. E.

Allen

T. D.

Poelmans

S. A.

Lapierre

L. M.

Cooper

C. L.

Michael

O. D.

Brough

(2007). Cross-national differences in relationships of work demands, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions with work–family conflict. Personnel Psychology , 60(4), 805–835.

67.

Stokes

Larson

Balasubrahmanyam

Singh

S. K.

Ghosh

Satyawadi

Joshi

J. P.

Shadman

(2013). Who stays with you? Factors predicting employees’ intention to stay. International Journal of Organizational Analysis , 21(3), 288–312.

68.

Thompson

K. R.

Terpening

W. D.

(1983). Job-type variations and antecedents to intention to leave: A content approach to turnover. Human Relations , 36(7), 655–681.

69.

Volkwein

J. F.

Zhou

(2003). Testing a model of administrative job satisfaction. Research in Higher Education , 44(2), 149–171.

70.

Waychal

(2018). Examining the effect of goal clarity on faculty performance. European Journal of Engineering Education , 43(4), 597–605.

71.

Whitener

E. M.

Brodt

S. E.

Korsgaard

M. A.

Werner

J. M.

(1998). Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review , 23(3), 513–530.

72.

Yadav

L. K.

(2016). Employee engagement among academicians: Interaction effect of perceived organizational support and individualism. Vilakshan: The XIMB Journal of Management , 13(1), 21–38.