International Journal of Hospitality Management 68 (2018) 41–49

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhm

Research paper

Does turnover intention mediate the effects of job insecurity and co-worker MARK
support on social loafing?
⁎
Yilmaz Akgunduza, , Gamze Eryilmazb
a
Dokuz Eylül University, Seferihisar Fevziye Hepkon School of Applied Sciences, İzmir, Turkey
b
Mersin University, Social Sciences Institute, Mersin, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study explores the relationships between job insecurity, co-worker support, social loafing and turnover
Co-workers support intention, specifically the mediating effect of turnover intention in the relationship between job insecurity, co-
Job insecurity worker support and social loafing. It uses social exchange theory and norm of reciprocity theory to look in-
Social loafing vestigate turnover intention. Data were collected from a questionnaire distributed to 222 restaurant employees
Turnover intention
in Mersin, Turkey. Structural equation modelling was used to test the research hypotheses. While the mediating
effect of turnover intention in both the relationship between co-worker support and social loafing and between
affective job insecurity and social loafing is fully supported, the mediating effect of turnover intention in the
relationship between cognitive job insecurity and social loafing is only partially supported. The theoretical and
managerial implications of these findings are discussed.

1. Introduction
Individuals feel content when they see that they are being supported
by others in every step of their lives (Giray and Şahin, 2012). Likewise,
according to the social exchange theory (SET), employees’ perceptions
that they are supported by their co-workers or managers may lead them
to display positive behaviours within the organisation. The theory as-
sumes that favours that create diffuse future obligations rather than
precisely defined ones, and the nature of the return cannot be bargained
about but must be left to the discretion of the one who makes it (Blau,
1964). Such social relations contribute to the productivity, welfare and
job satisfaction of employees (Hodson, 1997), which can help improve
organizational performance and reduce employee stress (Babin and
Boles, 1996; Joiner, 2007). Similarly, co-worker support also reduces
employee disengagement behaviours or turnover intentions (Karatepe,
2012).
De Witte (1999) defines job insecurity as employees’ fear of losing
their jobs and becoming unemployed. This affects employee behaviours
because job insecurity is a source of stress that damages employees’
psychological and physical health (Ashford et al., 1989) and reduces
employee motivation (Dereli, 2012). Greenhalgh and Roseblatt (1984)
argue that employees who experience a sense of job insecurity may
display less effort to achieve organizational goals because employees
who feel job insecurity may be less willing to spend time and energy on
work. These factors, which affect the motivation and behaviour of
employees in the face of job insecurity, cause them to display negative
attitudes and behaviours such as disengagement with work or increased
turnover intention (Ünsar, 2011).
The turnover intention resulting from lack of co-worker support or
job insecurity leads to a decline in employee performance (Gül et al.,
2008; Zincirkıran et al., 2015). Due to the positive relationship between
motivation and performance (Abdulsalam and Mawoli, 2012), a de-
crease in employee performance may indicate decreased motivation,
leading to negative employee occupational behaviour. Social loafing,
which Karau and Williams (1993) define as the tendency for individuals
to expend less effort when working collectively than when working
individually, is a negative employee behaviour (Luo et al., 2013;
Akgündüz et al., 2014), and is particularly displayed by individuals
with lower motivation (Brickner et al., 1986). Hence, turnover inten-
tion can predict employees’ social loafing behaviours in the absence of
co-worker support and when there is job insecurity. This prediction is
the focus of this study, which aims to identify the mediating role of
turnover intention in the effect of co-worker support and job insecurity
on social loafing. The first part of this paper presents the concepts of co-
worker support, job insecurity, turnover intention and social loafing. It
then introduces the hypotheses are presented, followed by an ex-
planation of the data collection tools and structural equation model.
After presenting the results, the conclusion compares these findings
with the literature and proposes some suggestions for practitioners.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: yilmazakgunduz@hotmail.com (Y. Akgunduz), gamzeeyldz_@hotmail.com (G. Eryilmaz).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.09.010
Received 23 March 2017; Received in revised form 22 September 2017; Accepted 26 September 2017
0278-4319/ © 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Y. Akgunduz, G. Eryilmaz
2. Literature review
2.1. Co-worker support
Beehr and McGrath (1992) define co-worker social support as co-
workers’ willingness to help one another (e.g. being caring, friendly,
warm, empathetic, cooperative, not back biting or gossiping, appre-
ciative, respectful and supportive) in performing daily tasks and
handling upsetting workplace situations (Ibrahim, 2014). For Arora and
Kamalanabhan (2010), co-worker support is expressed as a measure of
belief in the willingness of colleagues to help carry out workplace du-
ties. Co-worker support provides an opportunity for employees to share
specialist knowledge as well as support and encouragement (Zhou and
George, 2001). Hodson (1997) argues that workplace social relations
can contribute to employee welfare, productivity and job satisfaction.
In businesses where co-worker support is high, employees express their
ideas more freely and honestly (Bateman, 2009).
Co-worker support can have both positive and negative effects on
employees. The behaviours of co-workers towards each other can also
be seen in terms of self-promotion or political behaviour (Ferris and
Kacmar, 1992), which means that co-worker support may not always be
related to the structure of work attitudes (Ibrahim, 2014). When sup-
port from a co-worker is accepted, the person accepting the support
may think of it as implying incompetence (Bateman, 2009). As Ng and
Sorensen (2008) argue, negative opinions about co-worker support may
arise from such perceptions in that, for those who hold equal positions,
co-worker support can make the supported employee feel that they lack
independence or talent. Thus, it cannot be assumed that workplace
support inevitably has only positive effects in the workplace (Ibrahim,
2014).
2.2. Cognitive and affective job insecurity
Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984) were the first to propose the
concept of job insecurity (Pienaar et al., 2013), which they defined as
the perceived weakness of the worker’s willingness to work if their job’s
permanence is threatened (Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt, 1984). Ac-
cording to Hartley et al. (1991), job insecurity is a mismatch between
the level of assurance based on an employee’s experience and their
preferred level of assurance (Rosenblatt and Ruvio, 1996). De Witte
(1999) refers to job insecurity as employees’ fear of losing their jobs and
becoming unemployed. Job insecurity can negatively affect an em-
ployee’s psychological and physiological health while also being seen as
a source of stress (Ashford et al., 1989; Pienaar et al., 2013). This causes
the employee to display negative reactions towards the job (Dereli,
2012).
There are different approaches to defining job insecurity that dis-
tinguish between (1) objective and subjective job insecurity; (2) cog-
nitive and affective job insecurity and (3) qualitative and quantitative
job insecurity (Pienaar et al., 2013). The present study focuses on the
cognitive and affective approach to job insecurity.
Borg and Elizur (1992) described job insecurity as cognitive job
insecurity (job loss) and affective job insecurity (job loss fear)
(Rosenblatt and Ruvio, 1996). While cognitive job insecurity refers to
the cognitive element of the employee’s perceived probability of losing
the job, affective job insecurity reflects emotionality as the fear of job
loss (Çetin, 2015). In other words, cognitive job insecurity refers to the
benefit or probable awareness of job loss whereas affective job in-
security expresses an emotional experience of being anxious or nervous
about potential job loss (Huang et al., 2012). Thus, cognitive job in-
security reflects whether the employee considers the insecurity about
losing the job; affective job insecurity expresses the employee’s fears
about possible job loss and its effects (Pienaar et al., 2013).
42
International Journal of Hospitality Management 68 (2018) 41–49
2.3. Turnover intention
Turnover intention is expressed as employee’s awareness or
thoughts about quitting the job (Çelik and Çıra, 2013) while Tett and
Meyer (1993) define turnover intention as the employee’s conscious
and deliberate desire to leave the organisation in which they work. This
can be measured by an employee’s desire to leave work and deliberate
search for new jobs (Avcı and Küçükusta, 2009).
Various studies have shown that many factors affect employees’
turnover intentions (Avcı and Küçükusta, 2009; Çarıkçı and Çelikkol,
2009), including organizational support (Hui et al., 2007), organiza-
tional citizenship behaviour (Bellou, 2008), organizational justice
(Choi, 2011), organizational commitment and emotional exhaustion
(Boyas et al., 2012). Cotton and Tuttle (1986) classified the factors
affecting turnover intention into three groups. These include environ-
mental factors, such as national and sectoral unemployment rates in,
job perceptions and the union presence, and the labour force partici-
pation rate of new candidates; job-related factors, such as wages, job
performance, role clarity, job repetition, general job satisfaction, wage
satisfaction, promotion opportunities and organizational commitment;
and personal characteristics, such as age, experience, gender, educa-
tional level, marital status, number of dependents, abilities, intelligence
and behavioural tendencies (Cotton and Tuttle, 1986).
An employee’s turnover intention can cause a significant loss if the
enterprise does not identify and take measures to prevent it being
realised (Şahin, 2011). A high labour turnover rate, that is, an increased
frequency of employees’ quitting their jobs, can increase financial losses
and have other negative effects (Demir and Tütüncü, 2010). The fi-
nancial losses include costs of hiring and training new employees and
delays in serving customers (Baysal, 1984; Bannister and Griffeth,
1986). At the same time, an employee’s turnover intention and its
transformation into action can also interrupt or disturb social interac-
tion and communication between other employees (Şahin, 2011).
There are very few studies of the turnover intentions of restaurant
employees. Kumar et al. (2012) investigated organizational culture,
organizational commitment and the compatibility between the em-
ployee and organisation in Malaysian fast food restaurants. Nasyira
et al. (2014) found that perceived organisation support and commit-
ment decreases the turnover intentions of employees working in casual
dining restaurants in Malaysia. Han et al. (2016) found that organiza-
tional and supervisor support decreases the turnover intentions of res-
taurant employees in the United States whereas customer rudeness and
burnout syndrome increases it. Jang and Kandampully (2017) found
that positive leadership attitudes and emotional organizational com-
mitment in United States’ restaurants reduce employees’ turnover in-
tentions. Finally, DiPietro and McLeod (2012) showed that turnover
intentions at a causal dining restaurant chain in southeastern America
are higher for part-time than full-time employees while autonomy,
emotional organizational commitment and perceived managerial sup-
port reduced turnover intention.
2.4. Social loafing
Social loafing is defined as a reduction in the amount of effort and
motivation of individuals when working collectively compared to
working individually (Karau and Williams, 1993). The term was first
used by Latane et al. (1979) to refer to a phenomenon that occurs when
the individual underperforms while working in a group, as a social
illness, based on the difficulties it creates (Latene et al., 1979). They
argued that social loafing emerges as a consequence of reduced con-
scious and unconscious social awareness (Liden et al., 2004).
Social loafing can lead to several problems affecting an organisa-
tion’s success (Luo et al., 2013) such less effort, lower productivity and
reduced group commitment (Mulvey and Klein, 1998). Social loafing is
also said to be dangerous regarding the continuity of the work en-
vironment because it can harm the organisation’s climate in the long
Y. Akgunduz, G. Eryilmaz International Journal of Hospitality Management 68 (2018) 41–49

run while decreasing employee performance (Sünnetçioğlu et al., SET is based on the belief that the parties are responsible for re-
2014). turning the favours done to them and that they wish to fulfil their ob-
Several studies have investigated the determinants of social loafing ligations mutually. This reciprocity forms the basis of the exchange
behaviour. These studies (Liden et al., 2004; Ülke, 2006; Tan and Tan, relationship between the parties (Wikhamn and Hall, 2012). Thus, ex-
2008; Klehe and Anderson, 2007; Akgündüz et al., 2014) show that pecting high performance from employees in return for the fair rewards
individual, organizational and social factors influence social loafing and permanent employment constitutes the basis of employee and
behaviours. Increased group size, decreased group cohesion (Liden employer obligations and the exchange of relations (Rousseau and
et al., 2004) and increased role stress (Akgündüz et al., 2014) all lead to McLean Parks, 1993). However, if an organisation fails to meet its usual
more social loafing behaviours. Extroverted individuals and individuals obligations (such as ensuring adequate job security), employee effort
with emotional balance display more social loafing behaviours (Ülke, and commitment will decrease. In particular, employee extra-role be-
2006) whereas individuals with a sense of responsibility show fewer haviours are likely to increase (Wong et al., 2005). Thus, the perception
social loafing behaviours (Tan and Tan, 2008). Socially, people from of job insecurity can cause employees to restrict their role behaviours,
individualist cultures show more social loafing behaviours than those even to leave the organisation. Based on these findings and SET, a
from collectivist culture (Klehe and Anderson, 2007). further two hypotheses can be developed:
H2a. Cognitive job insecurity increases employees’ turnover intentions.
3. Research hypotheses
H2b. Affective job insecurity increases employees’ turnover intentions.
Co-worker support can be expressed by employees’ helping their
As indicated earlier, SET implies a ‘change’ in the process of pro-
colleagues, treating them in a friendly manner, encouraging and sup-
viding benefits and a mutual relationship between of the two parties
porting them, or by cooperating and sharing knowledge and experi-
(Emerson, 1976). During this process, rewarding employees for their
ences (Zhou and George, 2001). Various studies have investigated the
performance can increase motivation and make them more active;
positive outcomes of co-worker support. For example, Babin and Boles
otherwise, employee motivation will decrease and they will be more
(1996) determined that co-worker support increases employee job sa-
likely to avoid the job (Hafiza et al., 2011). Highly motivated em-
tisfaction while reducing stress. Joiner (2007) found that co-worker
ployees are less likely to leave the job whereas employees with low
support is associated with improved organizational performance while
motivation will have higher turnover intentions (Ünsar, 2011) and will
Ibrahim (2014) found that co-worker support has a positive effect on
display more social loafing behaviour (Brickner et al., 1986). Em-
organisation-based self-esteem in various professions because em-
ployees with high organizational commitment exhibit less social loafing
ployees see themselves as productive, influential and valued within the
while those with higher turnover intentions also show higher levels of
organisation.
social loafing (Luo et al., 2013). Based on SET and these findings, the
Gouldner’s (1960) norm of reciprocity theory developed is based on
following hypothesis can be developed:
the premise that people will display positive behaviours in return for
the benefits they receive (helping people who helped them or sup- H3. Employees’ turnover intentions increase social loafing behaviours.
porting them). In order for this to happen, it is necessary for people to
However, employees’ turnover intentions may be a negative out-
have a desire to help those who helped them and to not harm those
come of co-worker support (Babin and Boles, 1996; Ibrahim 2014)
people. According to Gouldner (1960), this behaviour can vary ac-
while turnover intentions are also related to employee job insecurity
cording to an individual’s personality traits, the value of the help re-
(Arnold and Feldman, 1982; Ashford et al., 1989; Chirumbolo and
ceived and the resources of the person who helped the individual. In
Hellgren, 2003) and social behaviours (Luo et al., 2013). For this
organizations, employees feel the need to respond to the support they
reason, employees’ turnover intentions can be expected to shape social
receive from colleagues (Barr and Pawar, 1995). This is also reflected in
loafing behaviours resulting from co-worker support, and cognitive and
the individual’s organizational behaviours such as increased en-
affective job insecurity. It is also possible that employees who perceive
thusiasm for work. These behaviours also indicate that co-worker
that they are supported by their colleagues can abuse this support and
support reduces voluntary turnover intention.
neglect their responsibilities. Especially when employees are working in
Based on the norm of reciprocity theory, this study’s first hypothesis
a team, such individuals may assume that their tasks will be completed
is as follows:
by their colleagues. It is more likely to see this situation in organiza-
H1. Co-worker support reduces employees’ turnover intentions. tions where performance is evaluated according to teamwork rather
than individual contributions.
An employee experiencing high job insecurity may decide to search
The relationship of turnover intention with both co-worker support
for a new job to reduce unemployment anxiety, compensate for social,
and job insecurity dimensions may indicate that co-worker support can
psychological losses and increase financial gains (Çakır, 2007). Lim
mediate in the effect of affective and cognitive job insecurity on social
(1996) argues that there is a strong relationship between job insecurity
loafing behaviour, leading to the following three hypotheses:
and job-seeking behaviour, claiming that employees with high job in-
security more actively look for jobs. Ashford et al. (1989) found that H4a. Employees’ turnover intentions mediate in the effect of co-worker
perceived job insecurity considerably increases the intent to search for a support on social loafing behaviours.
new job. Likewise, Chirumbolo and Hellgren (2003) and Arnold and
H4b. Employees’ turnover intentions mediate in the effect of cognitive
Feldman (1982) report that job insecurity is a potential cause of in-
job insecurity on social loafing behaviour.
creased turnover intention.
According to Bultena (1998), SET, developed by Blau (1964), can be H4c. Employees’ turnover intentions mediate in the effect of affective
used to understand the effects of job insecurity on employees. SET job insecurity on social loafing behaviours.
developed to explain human behaviour during social changes, empha-
Fig. 1 shows the model developed for this study. H1, H2a and H2b
sizes the norm of reciprocity. When a person exhibits a positive beha-
show the effects of co-worker support, and affective and cognitive job
viour in social changes, the individual feels the obligation to show an
insecurity on turnover intention. H3 shows the effect of turnover in-
unspecified positive behaviour (Swift and Virick, 2013). According to
tention on social loafing. Lastly, H4a, H4b,and H4c show the mediating
social change theory, individuals possess differing resources, and ex-
role of turnover intentions on the effect co-worker support, and affec-
perience different gains and costs (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005).
tive and cognitive job insecurity on social loafing respectively.
Those individuals who benefit from the positive behaviour shown to
them by others use the resources they possess to respond to these gains.

43
Y. Akgunduz, G. Eryilmaz
Fig. 1. Hypothesized Model.
4. Methodology
4.1. Sample and data collection
Data was collected from employees in eight 8 first-class restaurants
during April and May 2016. Restaurants meet customers’ eating-
drinking needs by providing appropriate table d’hote, à la carte or
special meals services (Hançer et al., 2007). Restaurants in Turkey are
regulated by Turkey’s Ministry of Culture and Tourism, specifically the
Certification and Qualifications of Tourism Facilities and the Tourism
Encouragement Law No. 2634, published in the Official Gazette on
21.06.2005, number 25852. Restaurants are categorized as first or
second class (Taşdağıtıcı and Güçer, 2016). A facility’s class is de-
termined by the a ministry commission based on its characteristics,
capacity, physical condition, standard of the materials used, quality of
service and qualifications of the personnel. A first class restaurant must
accommodate at least 150 people whereas a second class one should
accommodate at least 50. In addition, the facility should also meet
certain standards regarding decor, service standards, taste, quality and
presentation of food.
Out of 11 facilities initially contacted, eight consented to participate
in the study. While the restaurants did not provide precise personnel
numbers, all the current employees (including kitchen staff, service
staff, waiters, chief, accountants, baby-sitters and public relations per-
sonnel) were included in the study’s population. Convenience sampling
was used for collecting the primary data. Since the number of em-
ployees could not be exactly identified, it was difficult to determine the
population. Therefore, sample size was determined based on the argu-
ment that reliable results can be achieved by including 10 times or
more respondents than the number of items in the survey (Kline, 2011;
Altunışık et al., 2012; Ural and Kılıç, 2013). Thus, because the study
questionnaire included 21 items measuring five different variables, the
required sample size was a minimum of 210 people. Since there could
also be some missing data, as many forms as possible were distributed,
with 40 forms being sent to each business to be collected later. How-
ever, it was discovered that some shift-work employees and employees
who believed that the answers they gave to the questionnaire would be
monitored by the business did not complete the questionnaire. Thus,
out of 320 distributed questionnaires, 233 were returned to the re-
searchers. However, 11 questionnaires had to be excluded from data
analysis due to missing data so the sample data ultimately included 222
questionnaire forms consistent with a multivariate normal distribution.
44
International Journal of Hospitality Management 68 (2018) 41–49
4.2. Measurement
The data were collected using a questionnaire form composed of
items measuring participants’ cognitive job insecurity, affective job
insecurity, social loafing, turnover intention, co-worker support and
demographic information. Three closed questions identified gender,
educational level (primary, secondary, high school or university) and
seasonal or part-time work status. Four open-ended items determined
age, years of experience in the organisation and in the sector, depart-
ment and job title.
Cognitive and affective job insecurity were measured by the Job
Insecurity Scale (11 items) developed by De Witte (1999) and shortened
to 8 items by Pienaar et al. (2013). Social loafing behaviours were
measured by the Social Loafing Scale developed by Price et al. (2006).
The scale was translated into Turkish by Akgündüz et al. (2014). To
measure turnover intentions, the turnover intention scale developed by
Jung and Yoon (2013) was used. The scale was translated into Turkish
by Akgündüz and Akdag (2014). Social Loafing and Turnover Intention
scales consisted of 4 items each. Finally, perceptions of co-worker
support were measured by the 5-item scale developed by Hammer et al.
(2004). All scale items were scored on a five-point Likert scale, ranging
from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree.
5. Findings
The participants were 222 employees working in 8 different first-
class restaurants in Mersin/Turkey. The participants’ demographic in-
formation is presented in Table 1.
After identifying the demographic data, the model’s fit was tested by
analysing the relationship structures, explained variance, and con-
vergent validity showing the composite reliability and discriminant
validity of the scales (Fornell and Lacker, 1981). Structural equation
model was used to test the hypotheses. To test if the model’s fit was
statistically acceptable, the following goodness of fit tests were used: X2
(Chi-Square Goodness of Fit)/df (degrees freedom), RMSEA (Root Means
Square Error of Approximation), AGFI (Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index),
GFI (Goodness of Fit Index), CFI (Comparative Fit Index) and NFI (Normed
Fit Index).
According to the confirmatory factor analysis results, standardized
analysis values regarding the observed variable explaining structures
were less than 0.5 and t-values were bigger than 1.96. A value of 0.50
and above for standardized analysis is accepted as indicating a statis-
tically acceptable measurement model (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The
Y. Akgunduz, G. Eryilmaz International Journal of Hospitality Management 68 (2018) 41–49

Table 1 Table 3
Respondents’ profile. Construct correlations, square root of AVE.

Gender n Percentage (%) Experience in the n Percentage (%) CJI AJI SL TI CS

organisation
Cognitive job insecurity 0.79a
Female 23 10 1 year and less 72 33 (CJI)
Male 198 90 Between 1 and 118 55 Affective job insecurity −0.30** 0.79a
5 years (AJI)
Age Group 6 years and above 27 12 Social loafing (SL) −0.21** 0.43*** 0.65a
17–20 17 8 Experience in the Turnover intention (TI) −0.53*** 0.53*** 0.51*** 0.74a
sector Co-workers support (CS) −0.19*** −0.19** −0.32*** −0.23** 0.81a
21–25 28 13 1 year and less 7 3
26–30 59 27 2 and 5 years 48 2 a
Square root of AVE ** p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001.
31–35 46 21 6 and 10 years 68 31
36–40 37 16 11 years and above 97 44
intention and co-worker support, t-values, reliability co-efficient α
41–45 17 8 Department and
the title (composite reliabilities-CR) and average variance extracted (AVE).
46 and 15 7 Kitchen (cook, 73 33 Factor loadings for all measurements are within acceptable limits and
above master of dish- statistically significant (p < 0.001).
Education kebab and grill;
AVE values for convergent reliability should be above 0.50, validity
Primary 39 18 dishwasher, baker,
school appetizer master, coefficient should be above 0.70 and bigger than AVE values (Hair
Secondary 101 46 tea server) et al., 2010). As Table 2 shows, except for social loafing (.42), all AVE
School values meet the necessary criteria for all structures. However, factor
High School 70 32 Restaurant (waiter, 117 23 loadings, t-values and model goodness of fit of social loafing are ac-
University 10 4 headwaiter,
ceptable. The highest reliability coefficient is 0.90 (CS) and the lowest
footboy)
Work Status Public Relations 6 3 0.74 (SL). The reliability coefficient meets the criteria for all structures.
Seasonal 41 19 Other (baby sitter, 26 11 According to Hair et al. (2010), the square root of the average
Full-time 168 81 accountant, valet) variance extracted value for each structure should be larger than the
shared relationship coefficients to establish the discriminant validity of
the factors in the model. As Table 3 shows, all discriminant validity
t-values of observed changes should be significant at 0.05 level and
values are satisfactory in this case.
greater than 1.96 (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1993). Thus, the measurement
model was statistically significant (t-value > 1.96) and acceptable
(factor loading > 0.50). However, this is not enough on its own to 5.1. Structural equation model
argue that the model is acceptable because goodness of fit should also
be taken into consideration. If the X2/df value is less than 2 then the The study hypotheses were tested using the structural equation
model is good while less than 5 means it is acceptable (Hair et al., model. Table 4 presents the measurements of the structural equation
2010). In the measurement model for this study, based on X2 = 332.62 model. Overall fit indices supported the fit of the proposed structural
and df = 179, following values were calculated: X2/df = 1.86; model. The values of fit indices were as follows: X2(179) = 332.62;
RMSEA = 0.062; AGFI = 0.84; GFI = 0.87; CFI = 0.96 and RMSEA = 0.062; AGFI = 0.84; GFI = 0.87; CFI = 0.97; and
NFI = 0.92. According to these goodness fit index values, measurement NFI = 0.96. According to the path coefficients co-worker support does
model is acceptable. not significantly affect turnover intention (β= −0.06 p > 0.05) so H1
Table 2 presents the factor loadings in the measurement model for hypothesis was not supported. Cognitive job insecurity and affective job
cognitive job insecurity, affective job insecurity, social loafing, turnover insecurity affect turnover intention significantly. However, the effect of
cognitive job insecurity is negative rather than positive (β= −0.40

Table 2
Reliability and confirmatory factor analysis properties.

Items Factor Loading t-value AVE CR (α)

Cognitive Job Insecurity (CJI)* I am very sure that I will be able to keep my job. 0.86 15.48 0.62 0.86
I am certain/sure of my job environment. 0.88 15.94
I think that I will be able to continue working here. 0.84 17.91
There is only a small chance that I will become unemployed. 0.51 7.81
Affective Job Insecurity (AJI) I fear that I might get fired. 0.75 12.34 0.63 0.87
I worry about the continuation of my career 0.77 12.78
I fear that I might lose my job 0.82 14.03
I feel uncertain about the future of my job. 0.82 14.16
Social Loafing (SL) I left my work to other to do. 0.66 9.73 0.42 0.74
I claimed there are other things to do when others need help. 0.67 9.78
I avoided work and responsibility. 0.57 8.09
I loafed my share of tasks. 0.70 10.37
Turnover Intention (TI) I sometimes feel compelled to quit my job in my current workplace. 0.65 10.16 0.55 0.82
I am currently seriously considering leaving my current job to work at another company. 0.77 12.73
I will quit this company if the given condition gets even a little worse than now. 0.61 9.46
I will probably look for a new job in the next year. 0.88 15.34
Co-workers Support (CS) I receive help and support from my co-workers. 0.63 10.06 0.65 0.90
I feel I am accepted in my work group. 0.76 12.97
My co-workers are understanding if I have a bad day. 0.87 15.98
My co-workers back me up when I need it. 0.88 16.14
I feel comfortable with my co-workers. 0.86 15.58

Note: * All of items of cognitive job insecurity are reversed. AVE = average variance extracted; CR = construct or composite reliability.

45
Y. Akgunduz, G. Eryilmaz International Journal of Hospitality Management 68 (2018) 41–49

Table 4 variable (Lee and Ok, 2012). All individual direct paths form the pre-
Path coefficients of structural models. dictor variable to its corresponding outcome variable were significant
at least at p < 0.05 when the direct effect of each mediator on the
Standardized path t-value
coefficients outcome variables was set at zero (Table 4). The fourth condition can be
satisfied if the parameter estimate between affective job insecurity and
Co-workers support→Social loafing −0.21 −2.79** social loafing behaviours, between cognitive job insecurity and social
behaviours
loafing, between co-workers support and social loafing behaviours be-
Cognitive job insecurity→Social loafing 0.13 1.39
behaviours come insignificant (full mediation) or less significant (partial media-
Affective job insecurity→Social loafing 0.21 2.22* tion) than the parameter estimate in the constrained model.
behaviours According to the partial mediator role model shown in Table 4, co-
Co-workers support→Turnover intention −0.06 −0.91 worker support does not significantly affect social loafing through the
Cognitive job insecurity→Turnover −0.40 −5.22***
influence of turnover intention (p > 0.05) although co-workers sup-
intention
Affective job insecurity→Turnover 0.40 5.21** port directly affects social loafing (β = −0.21 p < 0.01), which fully
intention supports H4a. Although cognitive job insecurity does not directly affect
Turnover intention→Social loafing 0.42 3.61*** social loafing behaviours (p > 0.05), it significantly affects social
loafing behaviours through turnover intentions (β = −0.40*0.42
Note: *p < 0.05 **p− < 0.01 ***p < 0.001.
= −0.17). That is, turnover intention partially mediates the effect of
cognitive job insecurity on social loafing behaviours, supporting H4b is
p < 0.001) so H2a was not supported. Affective job insecurity increases
supported to the extent that turnover intention is a partial mediator.
turnover intention (β = 0.40 p < 0.001), which supports H2b. Finally,
Affective job insecurity both directly increases social loafing (β = 0.21)
turnover intention increases social loafing (β = 0.42 p < 0.001) so H3
and indirectly affects social loafing through turnover intention
was supported.
(β = 0.40*0.42 = 0.17). Since the indirect effect (β = 0.17) is weaker
The proposed model specifies affective job insecurity, cognitive job
than the direct effect (β = 0.21), we can assume that turnover intention
insecurity and co-workers support as an exogenous construct while
fully mediates the effect of affective job insecurity on social loafing.
turnover intention and social loafing loyalty as an endogenous con-
Thus, H4c is fully supported.
struct. The proposed mode was re-estimated by constraining the direct
effect of affective job insecurity, cognitive job insecurity and co-worker
support on social loafing behaviours to examine the mediating effect of 6. Discussion and implications
turnover intention. The mediator role of turnover intention was tested
using the method of Baron and Kenny (1986). Baron and Kenny (1986) 6.1. Discussion
suggested four necessary conditions for the existence of mediation ef-
fect, all of which were met in this study. As presented in Fig. 2, the first This study, based on norm of reciprocity and social exchange the-
(a significant direct effect of the predictor variable to the mediator) and ories, was conducted with employees of first-class restaurants to in-
second (a significant direct effect of the mediator to the outcome vestigate the mediator role of turnover intention in the effect of co-
variable) condition were met. The third condition was checked by in- worker support and cognitive and affective job insecurity on social
dividual constraining the direct path from the mediator to the outcome loafing behaviour. The first hypothesis, that the support employees
receive from their co-workers would negatively affect their turnover

Fig. 2. Structural model and path coefficients (t-values).

Note: *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001. Dotted lines indicate non-significant paths (p > 0.05). However, the individual direct paths specified in dotted lines (e.g. from cognitive job
insecurity to social loafing) became significant when the intervening variables (e.g. turnover intention) were constrained (i.e., fixing the path form turnover intention to social loafing),
which present possible mediating effects.

46
Y. Akgunduz, G. Eryilmaz
intentions, was not supported. That is, despite co-worker support, em-
ployees’ turnover intentions increase.
The study’s second hypothesis, that affective and cognitive job in-
security would increase turnover intention, were partially supported.
Although affective job insecurity increased turnover intention, cogni-
tive job insecurity did not increase turnover intention as expected. That
is, employees’ fears about losing their jobs increase their turnover in-
tentions. In other words, the job insecurity that employees feel if they
are aware about the possibility of losing their jobs increases their in-
tention to leave the job.
Third hypothesis, that employees’ turnover intentions would in-
crease social loafing behaviour, was supported, in that employees with
stronger turnover intentions reported poorer performance in their job
environment.
The fourth hypothesis, that turnover intention mediates the effect of
co-worker support and job insecurity on social loafing, was fully sup-
ported for co-worker support and differentially supported for affective
and cognitive job insecurity. That is, whereas turnover intention fully
mediated the effects of co-worker support and affective job insecurity
on employees’ social loafing behaviour, turnover intention only par-
tially mediated the effect of cognitive job insecurity on employees’
social loafing behaviour.
6.2. Theoretical contributions
These results show that co-worker support does weaken employees’
turnover intentions, which contradicts earlier findings from Ducharme
et al. (2007) and Karatepe (2012). These studies showed that employees
who receive co-worker support are less likely to intend to leave their
jobs.
From the organisation’s perspective, job insecurity may harm em-
ployee performance and organizational commitment (Wong et al.,
2005), and increase undesired attitudes and behaviours, such as turn-
over intention (Arnold and Feldman, 1982; Ashford et al., 1989). The
present study’s findings do not support this argument since employees
with cognitive job insecurity (β= −0.40 p < 0.001) did not report an
intention to leave their jobs. This finding contradicts the findings of
Staufenbiel and König (2010) and Stiglbauer et al. (2012), who found
that cognitive job insecurity increased employees’ turnover intentions.
There may be several reasons for this contradiction. First, employees
who think that job security can be strengthened by working harder may
want to increase their work performance if they perceive job insecurity
(Öz, 2008). Second, current working conditions in Turkey make it
difficult to find qualified employees despite constantly increasing un-
employment, as evidenced in Turkish Statistical Institute data. The
number of unemployed people aged 15 years and over increased by
619,000 in March 2017 over the same period of the previous year,
resulting in a total of 3,642,000 unemployed people (TUİK, 2017).
Thus, if employees experience cognitive job insecurity, they may fear
unemployment or worry about being forced into unskilled work, which
may make them exert more effort to be maintain their position in the
business.
This study also found that, when employees report affective job
insecurity, they have more positive attitudes towards leaving their jobs,
which supports the findings of Chirumbolo and Hellgren (2003).
In the current study, employees with turnover intention who work
in a group displayed lower performance towards group success than
they would have done on their own. This finding agrees with Luo et al.
(2013), who investigated the positive relationship between turnover
intentions and social loafing behaviours.
The present results partially supported the claim that turnover in-
tention mediates the effect of cognitive job insecurity on social loafing.
That is, turnover intention both directly and positively correlated with
social loafing and also significantly mediated the effect of employees’
perceptions of cognitive job insecurity on social loafing behaviours.
Finally, the study results supported the claim that turnover
47
International Journal of Hospitality Management 68 (2018) 41–49
intention fully mediates the effect of co-worker support and affective
job insecurity on social loafing. Regarding the full mediator effect of
turnover intention, it could be argued that co-worker support and af-
fective job insecurity have a strong direct effect on social loafing be-
haviour.
6.3. Practical applications
Given that this study showed that affective job insecurity can in-
crease restaurant employees’ turnover intentions, restaurant managers
should ensure job security to decrease turnover intentions since em-
ployees with no job insecurity concern are less likely to intend leaving
the organisation. Since this study also found that turnover intention
increases social loading behaviour, it is important that organizations
should keep employee motivation high to decrease turnover intentions
(Eren, 2004). The motivation tools for minimize turnover intentions are
economic (wage, social support), psycho-social (such as status and
appreciation) and organizational/managerial (job security, working
conditions). Restaurant businesses could use at least one of these tools
to increase employee motivation and thereby reduce turnover intention
while also increasing employees’ group and individual performance
levels. Otherwise, low motivation may cause employees to quit their
jobs or show lower group than individual performance. At the same
time, to avoid social loafing behaviours, restaurant managers should
identify the factors causing turnover intention and try to address these
factors as much as possible.
This study showed that turnover intention fully mediates the re-
lationship between co-worker support and social loading. Thus, it is
possible to argue that turnover intention is the only determining vari-
able in this relationship. In restaurant businesses, co-worker support
decreased employees’ turnover intention and social loafing behaviours.
With co-worker support, employees can meet their needs for socialising
and respect and prove themselves by working in a group. Restaurant
managers should therefore pay attention to creating groups and teams
to enhance collaboration and support among employees since em-
ployees who receive support from their co-workers within a group show
fewer social loafing behaviours and reduced turnover intention.
Since turnover intention fully mediates the relationship between
affective job insecurity and social loafing, restaurant managers should
aim to directly mitigate employees’ turnover intentions and social
loafing behaviours to reduce affective job insecurity. As long as man-
agers fail to address employees’ feelings of affective job insecurity,
employees may quit from their jobs. In order to decrease affective job
insecurity, restaurant managers should make employees feel that both
themselves as individuals and the tasks they undertake are important
for the organisation, for example by including employees in decision-
making processes and taking their individual requests regarding the
work into consideration.
In this study, turnover intention partial mediated the effect of
cognitive job insecurity on social loafing. In restaurant businesses,
several factors could lead employees with cognitive job insecurity to
display social loafing behaviours, with turnover intention being one of
the most important. Businesses can take several measures to reduce
social loafing, such as rewarding employees’ individual contributions,
making tasks more appealing or connecting tasks with each other
(Doğan et al., 2012). Restaurant managers can benefit from these
strategies to reduce social loafing, decrease cognitive job insecurity and
weaken turnover intentions. A further precaution could be making
employees more aware when their job performance is good and en-
suring sustainability and continuity in the work place.
6.4. Limitations and future studies
This study has several limitations. Firstly, the data were only col-
lected from first-class restaurants in a single location, Mersin, Turkey,
so it is difficult to generalize the findings. Further research can collect
Y. Akgunduz, G. Eryilmaz
data from different categories of restaurants (such as luxury or second-
class) and from different cities and countries. Comparing the results for
different restaurant types or regions would make it more possible to
generalize the findings. Secondly, data collection relied on convenience
sampling. Thus, probabilistic quota sampling may be preferable to
provide more generalizable and valid results. Lastly, this study explored
co-worker support, cognitive and affective job insecurity, turnover in-
tention and social loafing variables. Future study can add other vari-
ables to the model (such as organizational commitment, organizational
citizenship and absenteeism) to test further hypotheses in order to make
new findings with different practical implications.
References
Abdulsalam, D., Mawoli, M.A., 2012. Motivation and job performance of academic staff of
state universities in Nigeria: the Case of Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida University,
Lapai, Niger State. Int. J. Bus. Manege. 7 (14), 142–148.
Akgündüz, Y., Akdag, G., 2014. The effects of personality traits of employees on core self-
evaluation and turnover intention. Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Univ. J. Admin. Sci. 12
(24), 295–318.
Akgündüz, Y., Akdağ, G., Güler, O., Sünnetçioğlu, S., 2014. The effect of turnover in-
tention and role overload on social loafing behaviors of hotel employees. Dokuz Eylul
Univ. J. Graduate School Soc. Sci. 16 (4), 515–536.
Altunışık, R., Çoşkun, R., Bayraktaroğlu, S., Yıldırım, E., 2012. Sosyal Bilimlerde
Araştırma Yöntemleri. Sakarya Yayınevi, İstanbul.
Arnold, H.J., Feldman, D.C., 1982. A multivariate analysis of the determinants of job
turnover. J. Appl. Psychol. 67 (3), 350–360.
Arora, V., Kamalanabhan, T.J., 2010. Linking Supervisor and Coworker Support to
Employee Innovative Behavior at Work: Role of Psychological Conditions. Linking
Supervisor and Coworker Support, pp. 1–11.
Ashford, S.J., Lee, C., Bobko, P., 1989. Content, cause, and consequences of job insecurity:
a theory-based measure and substantive test. Acad. Manage. J. 32 (4), 803–829.
Avcı, N., Küçükusta, D., 2009. The analysis of the relationship among organizational
learning, organizational commitment and tends to leave in hotels. Anatolia: J.
Tourism Res. 20 (1), 33–44.
Babin, B.J., Boles, J.S., 1996. The effects of perceived co-worker involvement and su-
pervisor support on service provider role stress, performance and job satisfaction. J.
Retailing 72 (1), 57–75.
Bannister, B.D., Griffeth, R.W., 1986. Applying a causal analytic framework to the
Mobley, Horner, and Hollingsworth (1978) turnover model: a useful reexamination.
J. Manage. 12 (3), 433–443.
Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderator mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 51 (6), 1173–1182.
Barr, S.H., Pawar, B.S., 1995. Organizational citizenship behavior: domain specifications
for three middle range theories. Acad. Manage. J. Best Papers Proc. 302–306.
Bateman, G., 2009. Employee Perceptions of Co-Worker Support and Its Effect on Job
Satisfaction, Work Stress and Intention to Quit Unpublished Master's Dissertation.
University of Canterbury.
Baysal, A.C., 1984. İşletmelerde işgücü devri sorunu. Erciyes Univ. J. Econ. Admin. Sci. 6,
81–97.
Beehr, T.A., McGrath, J.E., 1992. Social support, occupational stress and anxiety. Anxiety
Stress Coping 5, 7–19.
Bellou, V., 2008. Exploring civic virtue and turnover intention during organizational
changes. J. Bus. Res. 61 (7), 778–789.
Blau, P.M., 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. Wiley New York, NY.
Borg, I., Elizur, D., 1992. Job insecurity: correlates, moderators and measurement. Int. J.
Manpower 13 (2), 13–26.
Boyas, J., Wind, L.H., Kang, S.Y., 2012. Exploring the relationship between employment-
based social capital, job stress, burnout, and intent to leave among child protection
workers: an age-based path analysis model. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 34 (1), 50–62.
Brickner, M.A., Harkins, S.G., Ostrom, T.M., 1986. Effects of personal involvement:
thought-provoking implications for social loafing. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51 (4),
763–769.
Bultena, C.D., 1998. Social Exchange Under Fire: Direct and Moderated Effects of Job
Insecurity on Social Exchange Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of North
Texas, Denton, Texas.
Çakır, Ö., 2007. İşini kaybetme kaygısı: İş güvencesizliği. J. Labour Soc. 12 (1), 117–140.
Çarıkçı, H.İ., Çelikkol, Ö., 2009. The effects of work −family conflict on organizational
commitment and intention to leave. Süleyman Demirel Univ. J. Soc. Sci. Inst. 9 (1),
153–170.
Çelik, M., Çıra, A., 2013. The mediating role of work overload on the effects of organi-
zational citizenship behavior on job performance and turnover intention. Ege Acad.
Rev. 13 (1), 11–20.
Çetin, C., 2015. The relationship between job insecurity and burnout −sample of mu-
nicipal polices. Celal Bayar Univ. J. Soc. Sci. 13 (2), 73–96.
Chirumbolo, A., Hellgren, J., 2003. Individual and organizational consequences of job
insecurity: a European study. Econ. Indus. Democracy 24 (2), 217–240.
Choi, S., 2011. Organizational justice and employee work attitudes: the federal case. Am.
Rev. Public Admin. 41 (2), 185–204.
Cotton, J.L., Tuttle, J.M., 1986. Employee turnover: a meta-analysis and review with
48
International Journal of Hospitality Management 68 (2018) 41–49
implications for research. Acad. Manage. Rev. 11 (1), 55–70.
Cropanzano, R., Mitchell, M., 2005. Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review.
J. Manage. 31 (6), 874–900. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602.
De Witte, H., 1999. Job insecurity and psychological well-being: review of the literature
and exploration of some unresolved issues. Eur. J. Work Organiz. Psychol. 8 (2),
155–177.
Demir, M., Tütüncü, Ö., 2010. Relationship between organizational deviance and turn-
over intentions in hospitality businesses. Anatolia: J. Tourism Res. 21 (1), 64–74.
Dereli, B., 2012. The concept of Job insecurity and the study on job insecurity perceptions
of the bank employees according to their demographic characteristic. Istanbul
Commerce Univ. J. Soc. Sci. 11 (21), 237–256.
DiPietro, R.B., McLeod, B., 2012. Perceived work status and turnover intentions of causal-
Dining Restaurant Employees. Hospitality Rev. 29 (2), 70–87.
Doğan, A., Bozkurt, S., Demir, R., 2012. A research about investigating the relationship
between social loafing behavior and the perception of task visibility. Selcuk Univ. J.
Soc. Econ. Res. 24, 53–80.
Ducharme, L.J., Knudsen, H.K., Roman, P.M., 2007. Emotional exhaustion and turnover
intention in human service occupations: the protective role of coworker support.
Sociological Spectr. 28 (1), 81–104.
Emerson, R.M., 1976. Social exchange theory. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 2 (1), 335–362.
Eren, E., 2004. Örgütsel Davranış ve Yönetim Psikolojisi. Beta Yayınevi, İstanbul.
Ferris, G.R., Kacmar, K.M., 1992. Perceptions of organizational politics. J. Manage. 18
(1), 93–116.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. J. Marketing Res. 18 (1), 39–50.
Gül, H., Oktay, E., Gökçe, H., 2008. Relationships between job satisfaction, stress, orga-
nizational legislation, personal turnover intention and performance: an application in
the health industry. Acad. Rev. 15 (11), 1–11.
Giray, M.D., Şahin, D.N., 2012. Algılanan örgütsel, yönetici ve çalışma arkadaşları desteği
ölçekleri: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Turk. Psychol. Articles 15 (30), 1–9.
Gouldner, A.W., 1960. The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. Am. Sociol. Rev.
25 (2), 161–178.
Greenhalgh, L., Rosenblatt, Z., 1984. Job insecurity: toward conceptual clarity. Acad.
Manage. Rev. 9 (3), 438–448.
Hafiza, N.S., Shah, S.S., Jamsheed, H., 2011. Relationship between rewards and em-
ployee’s motivation in the non-profit organizations of Pakistan. Bus. Intell. J. 4 (2),
327–334.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th
ed. Prentice Hall, NJ.
Hammer, T.H., Saksvik, P.Ø., Nytrø, K., Torvatn, H., Bayazit, M., 2004. Expanding the
psychosocial work environment: workplace norms and work-family conflict as cor-
relates of stress and health. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 9 (1), 83–97.
Han, S.J., Bonn, M.A., Cho, M., 2016. The relationship between customer incivility,
restaurant frontline service employee burnout and turnover intention. Int. J.
Hospitality Manage. 52, 97–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.10.002.
Hançer, M., Biçici, F., Tanrısevdi, A., 2007. Price ending strategies: a qualitative stduy
focusing onthe effects of students’ perceptions for cafe and restaurant menü prices.
Anatolia: Turizm Araştırma Dergisi 18 (1), 21–32.
Hartley, J., Jacobson, D., Klandermans, B., Van Vuuren, T., 1991. Job Insecurity. Sage
Publications, London.
Hodson, R., 1997. Group relations at work solidarity, conflict, and relations with man-
agement. Work Occupations 24 (4), 426–452.
Huang, G.H., Niu, X., Lee, C., Ashford, S.J., 2012. Differentiating cognitive and affective
job insecurity: antecedents and outcomes. J. Organiz. Behav. 33 (6), 752–769.
Hui, C., Wong, A., Tjosvold, D., 2007. Turnover intention and performance in China: the
role of positive affectivity, Chinese values, perceived organizational support and
constructive controversy. J. Occup. Organiz. Psychol. 80 (4), 735–751.
Ibrahim, H.I., 2014. The relationship between job stress, co-worker support and organi-
zation-based self-esteem: a survey across different occupations Researchers World
Journal of Arts. Sci. Commerce 5 (2), 69–78.
Jöreskog, K.G., Sörbom, D., 1993. LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modelling with the
SIMPLIS Command Language. Scientific Software International, USA.
Jang, J., Kandampully, J., 2017. Reducing employee turnover intention through servant
leadership in the restaurant context: a mediation study of affective organizational
commitment. Int. J. Hospitality Tourism Admin. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
15256480.2017.1305310.
Joiner, T.A., 2007. Total quality management and performance: the role of organization
support and co-worker support. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manage. 24 (6), 617–627.
Jung, H.S., Yoon, H.H., 2013. The effects of organizational service orientation on per-
son–organization fit and turnover intent. Serv. Ind. J. 33 (1), 7–29.
Karatepe, O.M., 2012. The effects of coworker and perceived organizational support on
hotel employee outcomes: the moderating role of job embeddedness. J. Hospitality
Tourism Res. 36 (4), 495–516.
Karau, S.J., Williams, K.D., 1993. Social loafing: a meta-analytic review and theoretical
integration. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 65 (4), 681–706.
Klehe, U.C., Anderson, N., 2007. The moderating influence of personality and culture on
social loafing in typical versus maximum performance situations. Int. J. Sel. Assess.
15, 250–262.
Kline, R.B., 2011. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed.
Guilford Publications, New York.
Kumar, R., Ramendran, C., Yacob, P., 2012. A study on turnover intention in fast food
industry: employees’ fit to the organizational culture and the important of their
commitment. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2 (5), 9–42.
Latane, B., Williams, K., Harkins, S., 1979. Many hands make light the work: the causes
and consequences of social loafing. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37 (6), 822–832.
Lee, J.H., Ok, C., 2012. Reducing burnout and enhancing job satisfaction: critical role of
Y. Akgunduz, G. Eryilmaz
hotel employees’ emotional intelligence and emotional labor. Int. J. Hospitality
Manage. 31, 1101–1112.
Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Jaworski, R.A., Bennett, N., 2004. Social loafing: a field in-
vestigation. J. Manage. 30 (2), 285–304.
Lim, V., 1996. Job insecurity and its outcomes: moderating effects of work-based and non-
work-based social support. Hum. Relat. 49 (2), 171–194.
Luo, Z., Qu, H., Marnburg, E., 2013. Justice perceptions and drives of hotel employee
social loafing behavior. Int. J. Hospitality Manage. 33, 456–464.
Mulvey, P.W., Klein, H.J., 1998. The impact of perceived loafing and collective efficacy
on group goal processes and group performance. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.
74 (1), 62–87.
Nasyira, M.N., Otham, M., Ghazali, H., 2014. Predictors of intention to stay for employees
of causal dining restaurant in Klang Valley area. Int. Food Res. J. 21 (3), 863–871.
Ng, T.W.H., Sorensen, K.L., 2008. Toward a further understanding of the relationships
between perceptions of support and work attitudes. Group Organiz. Manage. 33 (3),
243–268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601107313307.
Öz, G.İ., 2008. Özel sektör çalışanlarında iş güvencesizliğinin öz yeterlik ve iş performansı
ile ilişkisi. Psychol. Perspect. Work Pers. Life 1, 149–176.
Pienaar, J., De Witte, H., Hellgren, J., Sverke, M., 2013. The cognitive/affective dis-
tinction of job insecurity: validation and differential relations. Southern Afr. Bus. Rev.
17 (2), 1–22.
Price, K.H., Harrison, D.A., Gavin, J.H., 2006. Withholding inputs in team contexts:
member composition, interaction processes, evaluation structure, and social loafing.
J. Appl. Psychol. 91 (6), 1375–1384.
Rosenblatt, Z., Ruvio, A., 1996. A test of a multidimensional model of job insecurity: the
case of Israeli teachers. J. Organiz. Behav. 17 (1), 587–605.
Rousseau, D.M., McLean Parks, J., 1993. The contracts of individuals and organizations.
Res. Organ. Behav. 15, 1–43.
Şahin, F., 2011. The effect of gender on the relationship between leader-member ex-
change and ıntention to quit. Ege Acad. Rev. 11 (2), 277–288.
Sünnetçioğlu, S., Korkmaz, H., Koyuncu, M., 2014. A study on the effect of percieved
organizational culture type on perception of employess social loafing behaviours.
Mustafa Kemal Univ. J. Graduate Sch. Soc. Sci. 11 (28), 17–34.
49
International Journal of Hospitality Management 68 (2018) 41–49
Staufenbiel, T., König, C.J., 2010. A model for the effects of job insecurity on perfor-
mance, turnover intention, and absenteeism. J. Occup. Organiz. Psychol. 83 (1),
101–117.
Stiglbauer, B., Selenko, E., Batinic, B., Jodlbauer, S., 2012. On the link between job in-
security and turnover intentions: moderated mediation by work involvement and
well-being. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 17 (3), 354–364.
Swift, M.L., Virick, M., 2013. Perceived support, knowledge tacitness, and provider
knowledge sharing. Group Organiz. Manage. 38 (6), 717–742. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1177/1059601113507597.
TUİK, 2017. Türkiye istatistik kurumu. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/HbGetirHTML.
do?id=24628 (retrieved 05.07.17).
Taşdağıtıcı, E., Güçer, E., 2016. Classification systems for food and beverage adminis-
trations: an application for the perception of companies. 3rd International Congress
of Tourism & Management Researches 1120–1138.
Tett, R.P., Meyer, J.P., 1993. Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover in-
tention, and turnover: path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel
Psychol. 46 (2), 259–293.
Ünsar, S.A., 2011. Effect of motivation on severance tendency: a field research. J. Acad.
Sight 25, 1–15.
Ural, A., Kılıç, İ., 2013. Bilimsel Araştırma Süreci ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi, 4th ed. Detay
Yayıncılık, Ankara.
Wikhamn, W., Hall, A.T., 2012. Social exchange in a Swedish work environment. Int. J.
Bus. Soc. Sci. 3 (23), 56–64.
Wong, Y.T., Wong, C.S., Ngo, H.Y., Lui, H.K., 2005. Different responses to job insecurity
of Chinese workers in joint ventures and state-owned enterprises. Hum. Relat. 58
(11), 1391–1418.
Zhou, J., George, J.M., 2001. When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: encouraging the
expression of voice. Acad. Manage. J. 44 (4), 682–696.
Zincirkıran, M., Çelik, G.M., Ceylan, A.K., Emhan, A., 2015. The effect on the organiza-
tional performanceof organizational commitment, turnoverıntention, job stress and
job satisfaction of employees’: A Study on the Energy Sector. J. Finance Politic Econ.
Comments 52 (600), 59–71.