Work 62 (2019) 615–628 615

DOI:10.3233/WOR-192894
IOS Press

The psychological mechanism linking

employee work engagement and turnover
intention: A moderated mediation study
Muhammad Rafiqa,∗ , Weiwei Wub , Tachia China and Muhammad Nasirc
a School of Management, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, China
b School of Management, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China
c Faculty of Management, Virtual University of Pakistan, Punjab, Pakistan

Received 5 October 2017

Accepted 28 June 2018

Abstract.
BACKGROUND: In the global economy, motivating people to engage and stay in their work is a challenge for organizations.
Researchers are increasingly recognizing the need for promoting strong employee engagement in the workplace.
OBJECTIVE: This paper examines the effect of employee work engagement on turnover intention. The study focuses on
the mediating role of trust that underpins the relationship between employee work engagement and turnover intention, and
the moderating role of job embeddedness in influencing the effect of trust.
METHOD: Survey data were collected from 418 employees from private media organizations. Hierarchical regression
analysis and moderated mediation analysis were employed to test the hypotheses.
RESULTS: The results indicate that trust mediates the relationship between employee work engagement and turnover
intention. Job embeddedness moderates the strength of the mediated relationship between employee work engagement and
turnover intention via trust, such that the mediated relationship is weaker under high job embeddedness than under low job
embeddedness.
CONCLUSION: This paper described the relationships among the concepts of work engagement, job embeddedness, trust,
and turnover intention from a novel direction. Theoretical and practical consequences of these findings are discussed.

Keywords: Job embeddedness, trust, work engagement, turnover intention, media employees, Pakistan

1. Introduction work, there is a misconception that the more hours

In the global economy, motivating people to
engage and stay at work is a challenge for today’s
organizations. Given this challenge, researchers are
increasingly recognizing the need for promoting
strong employee engagement in the workplace. While
many people spend more than half of their life at
∗ Address for correspondence: Muhammad Rafiq, School of
Management, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou
310023, China. E-mail: rafiq109@yahoo.com.
you work the better; however, the reality is that qual-
ity of work supersedes quantity of work. For example,
an employee might be spending more hours at work,
but that does not mean that they are engaged at
work.
Previous investigations have shown a significant
negative association between work engagement and
turnover intention [1, 2]. Specifically, Bailey, et al.
[3] recommend that high employee work engagement
leads to a lower level of turnover intention and higher
performance. Further, an engaged workforce results

1051-9815/19/$35.00 © 2019 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved
616 M. Rafiq et al. / A moderated mediation study
in higher productivity, shareholder returns, customer
satisfaction, and profitability [1, 4, 5].
Despite the significant attention that work engage-
ment has received over the past two decades, the
literature shows that there is a lower level of
employee engagement worldwide [6]. According
to a Gallup survey (2017), the average percentage
of truly engaged employees in the Pakistan work-
force is about 15%. Perhaps more alarmingly, nearly
16% are described as “actively disengaged” and
68% are described as “not engaged”. On the other
hand, Journalism Pakistan [7] reported that many
employment opportunities are provided to media
employees in Pakistan it has just also resulted in
high turnover intention as retention-conducive human
resource policies have not matured [8], as loss of job
for many employees routine bases [7]. In the similar
vein, there has been a dearth of studies demonstrating
the employee’s wok engagement-turnover relations
in Western markets. On the other hand, literature
on work engagement and turnover intention is pre-
dominantly ignoring the developing populous nations
where work engagement is still facing a big chal-
lenge. Specifically, a big challenge for those poor
nations where work is already sent offshore due to
higher level of automation and digitalization, in this
situation it’s very difficult for organizations in these
countries to build and an engage workforce. Given
the grim situation of employee work engagement in
Pakistan and the ability of employee engagement and
employee’s turnover intention to help an organization
achieve its goals, it is important to explore the fac-
tors associated with work engagement and turnover
intention.
Reviewing prior research, we contend that there are
several critical gaps in the work engagement litera-
ture that contribute to this situation. Although several
studies have scrutinized work engagement as media-
tor variables in the relationship between antecedents
and outcomes, the results of these studies have been
mixed [9–12]. Here, we do not use work engagement
as the mediator but use trust as the mediator between
work engagement and turnover intention. Recent evi-
dence proposes that the trust climate may be an
essential underlying mechanism in the workplace that
explains a variety of behavioral and attitudinal conse-
quences [13, 14]. Additionally, with a few exceptions
(e.g., Mäkikangas, et al. [15]), few studies have yet
to consider how moderating variables might influ-
ence the association between work engagement and
individual behaviors. Prior investigations have unan-
imously showed that work engagement increases the
employees’ organizational citizenship-related behav-
ior towards the organization and the extent to which
they intend to stay with the organization [16]. On the
other hand, Darrat, et al. [17] argued that more inves-
tigation is needed into employee work engagement
and their behavior. Evaluating the moderating impact
of organizational aspects will illustrate the situations
under which work engagement leads to positive indi-
vidual outcomes.
Therefore, the current research seeks to investigate
work engagement within a Pakistani organization
to garner a clearer understanding of the association
between employees’ work engagement and turnover
intention. The purpose of the current research is
twofold. The first is to examine the impact of
employee work engagement on turnover intention
while the second is to expand the employee work
engagement–turnover intention linkage by providing
a new conceptual analysis of the effects of employee
work engagement. More specifically, we examine the
mediating effect of trust on the indirect relationship
between employee work engagement and turnover
intention. We first developed a moderated mediated
model to advance our theoretical understanding of the
mechanisms that underline the impact of employee
work engagement on turnover intention.
This research scrutinizes the causal ties between
work engagement, trust, job embeddedness and
turnover intention. How this research articulates these
terms, however, might need some further descrip-
tion. The following section, firstly, defines work
engagement and turnover intention based on past lit-
erature, providing a clear comprehension of the key
terms operationalized in the current research. Next
we define trust and job embeddedness is in their rela-
tionship building section. Additionally, we used four
scales in our study and for more detail see Appendix.
Finally, our conceptual framework is presented in
Fig. 1.
1.1. Work engagement
In the last decennia, multiple definitions of work
engagement have been introduced. Kahn [18] firstly
defined employee engagement as the “harnessing of
organization members’ selves to their work roles: in
engagement, people employ and express themselves
physically, cognitively, emotionally, and mentally
during role performances” (p. 694). Maslach, et al.
[19] proposed that engagement can be character-
ized by energy, involvement, and efficacy which is
considered the direct opposites of the three burnout
 M. Rafiq et al. / A moderated mediation study
dimensions exhaustion, cynicism and lack of accom-
plishment, respectively. Schaufeli, et al. [20], defined
work engagement as a “positive, fulfilling, work-
related state of mind that is characterized by vigor,
dedication, and absorption”.
The differences in conceptualizing the term of
work engagement have led to another problem
namely, how to measure it. For example, some schol-
ars recommended that work engagement could be a
one-dimensional measure as the opposite of turnover
intention [19], and others considered it a multidimen-
sional concept [20].
Despite a variety of debates, to date, most aca-
demics agree with the Utrecht Work Engagement
Scale (UWES), a brief, valid and reliable question-
naire [21–23]— which defines the concept of work
engagement as a combination of vigor, dedication,
and absorption [23] and can be applied in different
cultural contexts [e.g., 24]. Considering this measure
has been adopted in the Middle East region [e.g.,
25], we thus also employ [20] scale that concep-
tualizes work engagement as a “positive, fulfilling,
work-related state of mind that is characterized by
vigor, dedication, and absorption” [20]. More specif-
ically, vigor is “characterized by high levels of energy
and mental resilience while working, the willing-
ness to invest effort in one’s work, and persistence
even in the face of difficulties” [20]. Dedication is
“characterized by a sense of significance, enthusiasm,
inspiration, pride, and challenge” [20]. Absorption
is “characterized by being fully concentrated and
deeply engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes
quickly and one has difficulties with detaching one-
self from work” [20].
1.2. Turnover intention
There are different definitions of turnover inten-
tion. For example, TettMeyer [26] defined turnover
intention as a “conscious and deliberate willful-
ness of the workers to leave the organization”.
Price [27] defined turnover intention as the “individ-
ual movement across the membership boundary of
an organization”. According to BothmaRoodt [28],
turnover intention “is the extent to which an individ-
ual plans to leave or stay at their job”.
From these definitions, it is clear that turnover
intention has a rich empirical and theoretical back-
ground in which several models have contributed to
an advanced understanding of its complexity [29].
While the measure and models have differed, the out-
comes tend to unite on a position of dissatisfaction,
617
intention to search for new employment, the intention
to quit, and the perceived alternatives as four impor-
tant drivers of turnover intention [30]. Most of the
existing research and theory on turnover intention ini-
tiates from the concepts of MarchSimon [31] on “the
perceived ease and desirability of leaving one’s job”.
Whereas our study investigates the mechanisms
among work engagement, job embeddedness, and
turnover intention, we thus refer to Crossley, et
al. [32] work exploring the relations between job
embeddedness and turnover intention in the western
context., in which they extended the scale designed
by MarchSimon [31] to create a new measure that
defines turnover intention as “the perceived ease and
desirability of leaving one’s job”. This scale has been
examined to be able to avoid content overlap in anal-
ogous measures in employee job attitude and relevant
research [28].
1.3. Work engagement and turnover intention
The construct of employee work engagement has
been the focus of theoretical debate given its rela-
tionship with positive organizational behavior [3].
Work engagement is one of the most important ele-
ments of positive wellbeing at work and happiness
[33]. Work engagement is a work state in which an
employee finds work meaningful and, accordingly,
wants to and can invest in work to achieve the orga-
nization’s goals [18]. When someone is engaged at
work, it means that they are emotionally commit-
ted to the organization and its work goals. In short,
engaged employees are one of the biggest competitive
differentiators in the workplace [34]. Research sug-
gests that the drivers of employee work engagement
are co-worker relationships and effective leadership,
interesting work-related tasks, and the resources to
perform their jobs well, as well as perks and rewards
[35].
Previous research identified that engaged employ-
ees tend to have less intention to leave employment
[36] because engaged employees are excited, find
meaning in their work activities and experiences,
and are able to deal with work-related demands
[20]. Similarly, highly engaged employees are more
likely to continue with their present employer [37]
while disengaged employees tend to leave their orga-
nizations. However, despite the significant linkage,
further research of the relations between employee
work engagement and turnover intention is needed.
Our first hypothesis is as follows:
618 M. Rafiq et al. / A moderated mediation study
Hypothesis 1: Work engagement is negatively
associated with turnover intention.
1.4. Mediating role of trust
Although researchers have examined the asso-
ciation between employee work engagement and
turnover intention [38], the focus has been on
identifying the mechanisms underlying it. How-
ever, Gould-WilliamsMohamed [39] reviewed the
literature for more empirical research in order to
elucidate the intervening mechanisms that explain
how employee wellbeing impacts upon organiza-
tions and their employees. One variable that may
allow us to shed light on this employers and employ-
ees relationship and that may provide a mechanism
through which employee wellbeing can take effect is
trust.
The most generally accepted definition of trust
describes it as “a psychological state comprising the
intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive
expectations of the intentions or behavior of another”
[40, p. 395]. As an alternative, previous scholarship
demonstrated that there are different types of trust,
and every scholar preferences their trust type accord-
ing to their situation [41].
According to prior research on trust further demon-
strated that there are two types of trust: general trust
and specific trust [42]. General trust can be defined as
“a general attitude or ability to build up trust in some-
one or something” [43, p. 50]. On the other hand,
specific defined as it can be developed or broken due
to specific interactions and can be related to specific
situations [44]. Additionally, Kenning [45] reported
that general trust mostly affected attitude and behav-
ior and in comparison specific trust mostly related
marketing. Our focus in this study is employee’s gen-
eral level trust related climate in organization. So, our
conceptualization of trust in this study is based on
generalized definition of trust than the particularistic
trust.
General trust defined by Morrow Jr, et al. [43,
p. 50] as above “a general attitude or ability to
build up trust in someone or something”. Cultivat-
ing trust and engaging in reputation management
is obligatory for any organization, large or small,
that wants to achieve a competitive edge in our
increasingly distrustful world [46, 47]. A distrusting
environment in an organization can lead to expen-
sive turnover intention decisions. With respect to the
explanations of the role played by trust, DirksFer-
rin [46] call for more study into the mediation effect
of trust on outcomes. Furthermore, research shows
that trusting employees are more productive, have
more energy at work, cooperate with their colleagues,
and stay with the organization longer [e.g., 48, 49,
50].
Hypothesis 2: Trust mediates the relation between
work engagement and turnover intention.
1.5. The moderating effect of job embeddedness
The foundation of job embeddedness theory is
derived from the Lewin [51]. From this theory,
Mitchell, et al. [52] introduced the “job embedded-
ness” idea, which consists of three attributes—i.e.,
links, fit, and sacrifice—that influence employee
retention. More specifically, links refer to the for-
mal or informal connections between a person and
the institution or other people. Fit refers to the
degree to which individuals are compatible with
their organization and the surrounding environment.
Lastly, sacrifice is defined as what people would have
to give up if they decide to leave their organiza-
tion [53]. Job embeddedness stresses that fit, links,
and sacrifices create a formative index that should
be operationalized as an aggregate embeddedness
instead of individual components [53]. Similarly, the
previous scholarship also demonstrates that the job
embeddedness better to operationalized as aggre-
gately and from this given line they adopt mostly
global job embeddedness measures of Crossley, et
al. [54]. Hence, in this study we used global job
embeddedness.
There is ample existing literature on job embed-
dedness that suggests that it is a solid predictor
of turnover intention [55–57]. Bakker, et al. [58]
observed that work engagement is more concerned
with employees’ energy and psychological attach-
ment to jobs, and highly engaged employees may
feel happy and energetic at work. In addition, highly
engaged employees may feel emotionally involved
with their organization, and they may have good
links with their boss and colleagues in their work-
place, as well as with friends and other communities.
Highly engaged individuals are considered to be
embedded in their jobs and are less likely dis-
play to leave the organization because they concede
that they will sacrifice their friends, colleagues, and
community when they leave. HalbeslebenWheeler
[59] suggested that engagement is not stable but
can change with respect to time and may change
with job demands and resources while embedded-
ness changes slowly because it likely requires radical
 M. Rafiq et al. / A moderated mediation study
events to reduce negative outcomes in the workplace.
So, job embeddedness is beneficial to diminishing
the effect of negative grief that originates when an
employee starts thinking about leaving the orga-
nization [60], as well as producing more positive
outcomes.
Hypothesis 3: Job embeddedness positively
moderates the relation between employee work
engagement and trust.
The logic we have outlined above implies a mod-
erated mediation as a special case in which “an
interaction between an independent and moderator
variable affects a mediator variable that in turn affects
an outcome variable” [61]. As discussed below, the
interactive effect of job embeddedness and employee
work engagement is influenced by trust, i.e., this trust
mechanism should, in turn, affect employee turnover
intention. This proposed model also has [62] con-
ditional indirect effects, i.e., the indirect impact of
employee work engagement on turnover intention
through trust and this will vary because it depends
on the level of the moderator variable (job embed-
dedness) as a conditional power. More formally, we
hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 4: Job embeddedness moderates
the mediating influence of trust on the work
engagement–turnover intention such that this medi-
ating relation is stronger when the job embeddedness
level is high.
2. Method
2.1. Study design and setting
The study comprised 418 employees across eight
organizations from the media sector located in Pak-
istan. Data collection took place between October
2016 and March 2017 in different media orga-
nizations. The main reason for choosing media
organizations is that media employees have a high
level of long-term sick-leave due to high stress [63]
and such employees also have high levels of turnover
intention [63, 64]. To determine criteria for data col-
lection, we referred to the Gallup Pakistan (2015)
survey television rating scrutiny and selected the top
fourteen media channels. Out of these fourteen chan-
nels, eight were willing to participate in this study.
Permission was obtained from the each television
head office before conducting this study. All the par-
ticipants were informed that their participation was
voluntary and confidential.
619
2.2. Data collection
Firstly, we informed the media organization and
department managers about our study design through
email and scheduled dates for administering the sur-
vey. The survey incorporated standardized measures
of work engagement, job embeddedness, trust, and
turnover intention. The survey was distributed to
employees with the help of departmental managers
within the organization during normal working hours.
Upon completion, all the participants were asked to
return their questionnaires directly to their depart-
mental managers.
2.3. Measures
2.3.1. Work engagement
A nine-item scale based on a shortened version
of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES)
was adopted from [65]. The three sub-dimensions of
vigor, dedication, and absorption are represented by
three items per dimension: e.g., vigor dimension sam-
ple item “At my work, I feel strong and vigorous”,
dedication dimension sample item “I feel proud of
the work that I do”, and absorption dimension sam-
ple item “I feel happy when I am working intensely”.
The total score is computed by summing the score
for each sub-category. In the present study the alpha
coefficient of internal consistency were 0.92 (vigor),
0.86 (dedication), and 0.88 (absorption).
2.3.2. Job embeddedness
We measured job embeddedness with a seven-item
scale developed by Crossley, et al. [54]. The respon-
dents were asked to specify to what extent they agree
with the following statements about their organiza-
tion: “I feel attached to this organization” and “I am
tightly connected to this organization”. In the present
study, the alpha coefficient of internal consistency
was 0.93.
2.3.3. Trust
We measured trust with a fourteen-item scale
developed by Donovan, et al. [66]. Sample items
include “Employee’s questions and problems are
responded to quickly” and “Employees are treated
fairly”. In the present study, the alpha coefficient of
internal consistency was 0.95.
2.3.4. Turnover intention
Turnover intention was measured with a five-item
scale adapted from Crossley, et al. [32]. This scale
620 M. Rafiq et al. / A moderated mediation study

Table 1
Overall reliability of the constructs and factor loadings of indicators for overall sample
Construct AVE MSV Max R(H) Cronbach’s ␣ CR Factor loadings
Turnover intention 0.65 0.34 0.90 0.90 0.90 All ≥ 0.70
Job embeddedness 0.67 0.15 0.94 0.93 0.93 All ≥ 0.74
Trust 0.61 0.34 0.96 0.95 0.95 All ≥ 0.71
Work engagement 0.55 0.20 0.87 0.89 0.88 All ≥ 0.78
Notes: N = 562, AVE = Average variance extracted; MSV = Maximum shared variance; ASV = Average shared variance; CR = Composite
reliability.

Table 2
Comparison of measurement models for variables
Model Factors χ2 χ2 df IFI TLI CFI RMSEA
Model 1 Four-factor 1205.67∗∗∗ 554 0.94 0.93 0.94 0.05
Model 2 Three-factor 2294.03∗∗∗ 1088.38 557 0.83 0.82 0.83 0.09
Model 3 Three-factor 3217.23∗∗∗ 923.20 557 0.74 0.73 0.74 0.11
Model 4 Two-factor 4475.57∗∗∗ 774.28 559 0.62 0.60 0.62 0.13
Model 5 One-factor 5249.85∗∗∗ 1069.26 560 0.55 0.52 0.55 0.14
Note. N = 418. ∗∗∗ p < .001.

was also used in the prior research of job embedded-
ness by Crossley, et al. [54], which was designed to
avoid content overlap in measures such as employee
job attitude and employee job search. Sample items
include “I will quit this organization as soon as pos-
sible” and “I may leave this organization before too
long”. In the present study, the alpha coefficient of
internal consistency was 0.90.
2.3.5. Control variables
We controlled for an employee’s gender
(0 = ‘male’, 1 = ‘female’), marital status (1 = ‘single’,
2 = ‘married’, 3 = ‘divorced’), and department
(1 = ‘technical’, 2 = ‘news’) as these variables may
influence turnover intention [67, 68].
2.4. Data analysis
2.4.1. Reliability and validity
Cronbach’s alpha of all the study variables used
in this study were higher than 0.70, showing a good
reliability, as exposed in Table 1. This indicates that
all the indicators used are sufficient in their represen-
tation of respective constructs. Next the discriminant
and convergent validities were evaluated to validate
our measurement model. Confirmatory factor anal-
yses were performed to assess the discriminant and
convergent validly.
Discriminant validity measures whether two vari-
ables are statistically dissimilar [69]. As shown in
Table 1, both the values of average shared variance
(ASV) and the values of maximum shared vari-
ance (MSV) were smaller than the average extracted
variance (AVE) values. According to Hair, et al. [69],
the square root of AVE values are higher than all
the AVE and MSV values respectively, discriminant
validly prevails. Additionally, based on the AVE anal-
ysis of our study constructs (i.e., work engagement,
trust, job embeddedness, and turnover intention) in
Table 1 and the correlational analysis in Table 3,
the AVEs of the five constructs are also higher than
their corresponding correlation squares. Therefore,
the discriminant validity of our study variables is
verified.
Convergent validity was supported in two ways.
Firstly, as shown in Table 1, the values of average
extracted variance (AVE) is greater than 0.5 threshold
and composite reliability (CR) value is also greater
than 0.7 provided supports that all study variable
items were well converged. Next, Table 2 also shows
that all the significant factor loadings contained in the
same construct with t-values ranging from 10.48 to
20.73, demonstrated that every item explained each
construct t-value greater than 2 [70]. These findings
reveal that the convergent validity of the study con-
structs in this research is satisfactory. As a result,
it can be concluded that the instrument had a well
discriminant and convergent validity.
2.4.2. Common method variance
As our data were obtained from the self-
administered survey, we made numerous efforts to
address and minimize the chance of the common
method variance (CMV) issue [71]. We, therefore,
conducted a post hoc test, i.e., Harman’s single-factor
test. The results of the Harman’s single-factor test
 M. Rafiq et al. / A moderated mediation study
Means, standard deviations and inter-correlations among variables
Variables Mean SD
1. Work engagement 3.53 1.11
2. Trust 3.71 1.07
3. Job embeddedness 3.84 0.95
4.Turnover Intention 2.64 0.99 –0.35∗∗
5. Gender 0.55 0.49 –0.10∗
6. Marital Status 0.72 0.44
7. Department 0.47 0.50 –0.04
Note. N = 418. ∗∗ p < 0.01.
revealed that the variables used in our study did not
load into a single factor Table 2.
2.4.3. Confirmatory factor analysis
We conducted a series of confirmatory factor anal-
yses (CFA) using analysis of a moment structures
(AMOS) to further inspect the validity of the vari-
ables used in this study. Table 2 shows the results
of the comparison models. The hypothesized four-
factor model (comprised of work engagement, job
embeddedness, trust, and turnover intention) best fit
the data (χ2 = 1205.67; df = 554; p < 0.001; Turker-
Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.93; Comparative Fit Index
(CFI) = 0.94; RMSEA = 0.05). All the other three-
factor and two-factor models in which the indicators
of two measures were set to load onto a single mea-
sure fit the data significantly worse. Furthermore,
all the factor loadings for our hypothesized model
also showed significant and standardized loadings in
the range of >0.74, which is evidence of convergent
validity. Additionally, we compared our four-factor
hypothesized model to load onto a single measure
(Table 2; Model 5). Relative to our hypothesized four-
factor model, this substitute single-factor model fit
the data significantly worse. These data confirm the
discriminant validity of work engagement, trust, job
embeddedness, and turnover intention.
3. Results
3.1. Sample characteristics
The sample consisted of 231 males (55.3%) and
187 females (44.7%). Participants in the present study
had an average of five years’ work experience (rang-
ing from four months to 18 years). The mean age was
28.22 years. In terms of educational background, the
proportions were as follows: high school 13%, grad-
uation 58%, masters degree 28%, and Ph.D. <1%.
621
Table 3
1 2 3 4 5 6
(0.89)
0.40∗∗ (0.95)
0.50∗∗ 0.32∗∗ (0.93)
–0.54∗∗ –0.26∗∗ (0.90)
–0.08 –0.05 –0.02
0.03 0.11∗ –0.03 –0.14∗∗ –0.07
–0.03 –0.05 0.04 –0.08 0.08
3.2. Describe the content
Table 3 displays the descriptive statistics (means,
standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities)
for all the study variables. We found that employee
work engagement was negatively correlated with
trust climate (r = –0.40, p < 0.01) and turnover
intention (r = –0.35, p < 0.01). Moreover, turnover
intention and trust climate were negatively correlated
(r = –0.54, p < 0.01).
3.3. Hypothesis testing
Table 4 shows the hierarchical regression analysis
predicting turnover intention and trust. Support-
ing Hypothesis 1, employee work engagement was
negatively associated with turnover intention as
a significantly standardized regression coefficient
(β = –0.31, p < 0.001).
Hypothesis 2 proposed that trust mediates the rela-
tion of employee work engagement with turnover
intention. According to Baron, et al. [72], in order
to set up mediation, four conditions should be ful-
filled: (1) the predictor variable (employee work
engagement) needs to be significantly associated
with the potential mediator (trust); (2) the indepen-
dent variable needs to be significantly associated
with the dependent variable (turnover intention);
(3) the potential mediator is significantly associated
with the dependent variable; and (4) the relation-
ships between independent and dependent variable
becomes entirely eliminated with the introduction
of a potential mediator (full mediation) or signif-
icantly diminished (partial mediation). As shown
in Table 4, (1) after controlling for gender, marital
status, and departments, employee work engage-
ment was positively related with trusted (β = 0.38,
p < 0.001); (2) employee work engagement was
negatively related to turnover intention (β = –0.31,
p < 0.001); (3) trust climate was negatively associated
622 M. Rafiq et al. / A moderated mediation study

Table 4
Results of hierarchical regression analysis
Turnover intention Trust
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7
Control variables
Gender –0.44 –0.12 –0.16 –0.17 –0.08 –0.08 –0.11
Marital Status –0.33∗∗ –0.33∗∗∗ –0.21 0.27∗ 0.27∗ 0.28∗∗ 0.26∗
Department 0.10 0.07 0.04 –0.10 –0.06 –0.05 –0.02
Independent variable
Work engagement –0.31∗∗∗ –0.15∗∗∗ 0.38∗∗∗ 0.30∗∗∗ 0.35∗∗∗
Mediator
Trust –0.43∗∗
Moderator
Job embeddedness 0.18∗∗ 0.20∗∗∗
Two ways interactions
Work engagement × job embeddedness –0.13∗∗∗
R2 0.02 0.15 0.33 0.02 0.17 0.19 0.21
R2 –0.02∗ 0.12∗∗∗ 0.18∗∗∗ 0.02∗ 0.20∗∗∗ 0.02∗∗ 0.02∗∗∗
F 3.41∗ 17.29∗∗∗ 41.04∗∗∗ 2.96∗ 21.33∗∗∗ 19.46∗∗∗ 18.31∗∗∗
Note. N = 418. ∗∗ p < 0.01, ∗∗∗ p < 0.001.

Fig. 1. A conceptual framework.

with turnover intention (β = –0.43, p < 0.01); and (4)

after taking trust into account, the effect of employee
work engagement became weaker and not significant
(β = –0.15, p < 0.001), thus supporting Hypothesis 2.
As a whole, these results suggest that trust partially
mediates the effect of employee work engagement on
turnover intention.
Hypothesis 3 predicted a moderating effect of
job embeddedness in the relation between employee
work engagement and trust. We centered mean
employee work engagement and job embeddedness
to evade the multicollinearity with their product terms
in moderation regression [73]. The employee work
engagement×job embeddedness interaction term
was significantly related to trust climate (β = –0.13,
p < 0.001).
As shown in Fig. 2, a plot was drawn for one
standard deviation below and above the mean [73].
The relationship between employee work engage-
ment and trust climate was positive and significant
for high job embeddedness (β = 0.51, p < 0.001) but
less positive for low job embeddedness (β = 0.24,
p < 0.001). Hence, Hypothesis 3 is supported.
Fig. 2. Job embeddedness as a moderator for the relationship
between work engagement and trust.
Recently, moderated mediation analysis has
received attention as a useful tool for broadening
the theoretical and empirical understanding of causal
mechanisms [61, 62]. To test Hypothesis 4 using
moderated mediation analysis, we followed the statis-
tical routines developed by EdwardsLambert [61], in
which there are options that the moderation can effect
different stages of a three-variable mediational chain,
e.g., X −→ M −→ Y. Our hypothesized model fits
in the first stage moderation mediational model, i.e.,
X −→ M. Furthermore, we employed hierarchical
regression equations to obtain the relevant coeffi-
cient test that affect different stages. The significance
of each of these effects can be evaluated at a dif-
ferent degree of the moderator, e.g., at high versus
 M. Rafiq et al. / A moderated mediation study
Table 5
Results of the moderated path analysis
Work engagement (X) −→ Trust (M) −→ Turnover intention (Y)
Stage
First
PMX
Moderator: employee job embeddedness
Low trust (–1SD) 0.23∗∗
High trust (+1SD) 0.49∗∗
Difference between low and high 0.26∗∗
low levels of job embeddedness. The low and high
levels of job embeddedness were operationalized as
one standard deviation below and above the mean
score of job embeddedness. Consequently, the medi-
ation impact at different stages can be significantly
weaker or stronger at a low versus high level of job
embeddedness.
To test Hypothesis 4, we analyzed the first
stage (i.e., job embeddedness moderates the relation
between employee work engagement and trust) in the
employee work engagement −→ trust −→ turnover
intention chain. Following EdwardsLambert [61], we
separated the total effect of employee work engage-
ment on turnover intention into direct and indirect
effects at different levels of job embeddedness. The
results of the different stages of the effects at high
versus low levels of job embeddedness are shown in
Table 5.
The results revealed that the direct effect of work
engagement on turnover intention was very weak
and significant at a low level of job embeddedness
(β = –0.03, p < 0.05). However, the direct effect of
work engagement on turnover intention was compar-
atively strong and significant at a higher level of job
embeddedness (β = –0.40, p < 0.01). A similar trend
was revealed for the indirect effect of work engage-
ment on turnover intention mediated through trust.
The indirect effect of work engagement on turnover
intention mediated by trust was weak and signifi-
cant at a low level of job embeddedness (β = –0.09,
p < 0.05); however, at a high level of job embed-
dedness, the indirect effect of work engagement on
turnover mediated by trust is not only comparatively
stronger but also significant (β = –0.23, p < 0.01).
These results show that job embeddedness moderates
the mediating influence of trust in the relationship
between work engagement and turnover intention
such that the mediated relation is stronger when job
embeddedness is higher, and thus Hypothesis 4 is
supported.
623
Effect
Second Direct Indirect
PYM PYX PMX × PYM
–0.37∗∗ –0.03∗ –0.09∗
–0.47∗∗ –0.40∗∗ –0.23∗∗
–0.10∗∗ –0.37∗∗ –0.14∗∗
4. Discussion
The present study examines how work engagement
reduces employee turnover intention via increasing
employee trust, and how employee job embedded-
ness influences the effect of work engagement and
turnover intention. Work engagement has a direct
effect on turnover intention and trust mediated this
relationship. The results also support the conditional
indirect effects of work engagement on turnover
intention. These findings suggest that work engage-
ment may be more effective in indirectly reducing
turnover intention via high employee job embedded-
ness.
4.1. Research contribution
Our results indicate that work engagement was
negatively related to turnover intention (Hypothesis
1). This finding is consistent with the earlier research
indicating that work engagement is negatively related
to turnover intention [74–76]. Although the previous
research established a link between work engage-
ment and turnover intention, there has been relative
silence on the underlying mechanisms through which
work engagement reduced turnover intention. This
research fills the gap by emphasizing how the effect
of trust on work engagement can contribute to reduc-
ing turnover intention, i.e., trust partially mediates
the work engagement and turnover intention. This
research supports that trust can be a mediator between
more general human resource practices and outcomes
such as turnover intention [77, 78].
Our research provides new evidence of job embed-
dedness as a moderator of the work engagement and
trust climate relationship and that the work engage-
ment and turnover intention relationship is stronger
when the job embeddedness level is high. The finding
of the moderation effects of job embeddedness on the
work engagement–trust climate–turnover intention
624 M. Rafiq et al. / A moderated mediation study
relationship provides us with a deeper understanding
of the role of employees’ job embeddedness on work
engagement, as well as their subsequent attitudes and
behavior. Previous literature established that high job
embeddedness is directly related to lower negative job
outcomes and, in this study, we show that job embed-
dedness attenuates the indirect, negative association
between work engagement and turnover intention.
4.2. Implications
This study offers some practical implications for
managers. In the global competitive milieu, the mean-
ing of work has been continuously changing, and
workers have gradually begun to seek jobs that are
interesting and satisfying [79], which is why each
organization should focus on factors salient to their
workforce [80]. Our research highlights the impor-
tance of employee work engagement, trust climate,
and job embeddedness in the context of develop-
ing enterprises and how they can improve employee
retention. For example, the manager should promote
work engagement and a trust-related environment in
the workplace through different training programs to
employees as a job resource [81]. The manager should
also motivate employees to take part in different
work communities to develop links that strengthen
their embeddedness [82]. The management of private
organizations should keep the focus on improving
employee work engagement, trust, and embedded-
ness in different projects in order to reduce turnover
intention.
4.3. Limitations
Similar to other studies, the present study has some
limitations. Firstly, we used a self-administered ques-
tionnaire, which may cause common method bias
(CMB) [71], although we do not expect that CMB
influences our findings. We collected our data at two
points in time over a six-month period and respon-
dents were not aware that these two questionnaires
were related and used in one study. Furthermore,
using a CFA approach, we found no indication that
common method variance problems occurred in our
study. Likewise, CMB does not systematically influ-
ence the interaction effects that are the focus in this
study. However, future research might endeavor to
avoid the common bias issues by collecting data from
diverse sources [83].
Secondly, the findings are context-specific because
this research was conducted in Pakistan. Comparative
research at the national level showed that organi-
zational embeddedness appears to be different in
China [84], Japan [85], India [86] compared to
Pakistan.
Another limitation of this study is that we collected
data from private media organizations only, which
may reduce the external validity. Private media orga-
nizations are the largest industry in Pakistan but it
remains unclear how these findings could be repli-
cated to other occupational settings. Future research
should use large samples that include other occupa-
tions and work settings.
5. Conclusion
This paper sheds light on the relationships among
the concepts of work engagement, job embeddedness,
trust, and turnover intention from a novel direction
that has not previously been explored. The study
revealed that if the effects of work engagement and
job embeddedness are synergized, they can lead to not
only creating an organizational environment where
trust flourishes but also lowers the turnover intention
of employees. We encourage replications and exten-
sion of this study to increase the generalizability and
confidence in these findings.
Conflict of interest
None to report.
References
[1] Huang YH, Lee J, McFadden AC, Murphy LA, Robertson
MM, Cheung JH. Beyond safety outcomes: An investiga-
tion of the impact of safety climate on job satisfaction,
employee engagement and turnover using social exchange
theory as the theoretical framework. Applied Ergonomics.
2016;55:248-57.
[2] Van Schalkwyk S, Du Toit DH, Bothma AS, Rothmann
S. Job insecurity, leadership empowerment behaviour,
employee engagement and intention to leave in a petro-
chemical laboratory. SA Journal of Human Resource
Management. 2010;8(1):1-7.
[3] Bailey C, Madden A, Alfes K, Fletcher L. The mean-
ing, antecedents and outcomes of employee engagement:
A narrative synthesis. International Journal of Management
Reviews. 2017;19(1):31-53.
[4] Rafiq M. The moderating effect of career stages on the rela-
tionship between job embeddedness and innovation-related
behavior (IRB) – Evidence from China. 2018.
 M. Rafiq et al. / A moderated mediation study
[5] Chin T, Rowley C, Redding G, Wang S. Chinese strategic
thinking on competitive conflict: Insights from Yin-Yang
harmony cognition. International Journal of Conflict Man-
agement. 2018;29(5):683-704.
[6] Albrecht SL, Bakker AB, Gruman JA, Macey WH, Saks
AM. Employee engagement, human resource manage-
ment practices and competitive advantage: An integrated
approach. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People
Performance. 2015;2(1):7-35.
[7] Journalism Pakistan, Journalists’ union condemns Express
Tribune sackings, in, 2016.
[8] Quratulain S, Khan AK, Crawshaw JR, Arain GA,
Hameed I. A study of employee affective organizational
commitment and retention in Pakistan: The roles of psy-
chological contract breach and norms of reciprocity. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management.
2018;29(17):2552-79.
[9] Memon MA, Salleh R, Nordin SM, Cheah J-H, Ting
H,Chuah F. Person-organisation fit and turnover intention:
The mediating role of work engagement. Journal of Man-
agement Development. 2018;37(3):285-98.
[10] Shahpouri S, Namdari K, Abedi A. Mediating role of work
engagement in the relationship between job resources and
personal resources with turnover intention among female
nurses. Applied Nursing Research. 2016;30:216-21.
[11] Wang H-J, Lu C-Q, Siu O-L. Job insecurity and job perfor-
mance: The moderating role of organizational justice and
the mediating role of work engagement. Journal of Applied
Psychology. 2015;100(4):1249-58.
[12] Airila A, Hakanen JJ, Schaufeli WB, Luukkonen R,
Punakallio A, Lusa S. Are job and personal resources
associated with work ability 10 years later? The mediat-
ing role of work engagement. Work Stress. 2014;28(1):
87-105.
[13] Aryee S, Budhwar PS, Chen ZX. Trust as a mediator of
the relationship between organizational justice and work
outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of Orga-
nizational Behavior. 2002;23(3):267-85.
[14] Hashim KF, Tan FB. The mediating role of trust and commit-
ment on members’ continuous knowledge sharing intention:
A commitment-trust theory perspective. International Jour-
nal of Information Management. 2015;35(2):145-51.
[15] Mäkikangas A, Aunola K, Seppälä P, Hakanen J. Work
engagement–team performance relationship: Shared job
crafting as a moderator. Journal of Occupational Organi-
zational Psychology. 2016;89(4):772-90.
[16] Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB. Job demands, job resources,
and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A
multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior.
2004;25(3):293-315.
[17] Darrat MA, Amyx DA, Bennett R. Examining the impact of
job embeddedness on salesperson deviance: The moderating
role of job satisfaction. Industrial Marketing Management.
2017;63:158-66.
[18] Kahn WA. Psychological conditions of personal engage-
ment and disengagement at work. Academy of Management
Journal. 1990;33(4):692-724.
[19] Maslach C, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP. Job burnout. Annual
Review of Psychology. 2001;52(1):397-422.
[20] Schaufeli WB, Salanova M, González-Romá V, Bakker
AB. The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two
sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of
Happiness Studies. 2002;3(1):71-92.
[21] Sinval J, Marques-Pinto A, Queirós C, Marôco J.
Work engagement among rescue workers: Psychometric
625
properties of the Portuguese UWES. Frontiers in Psychol-
ogy. 2018;8:2229.
[22] Schaufeli WB. General engagement: Conceptualization and
measurement with the Utrecht General Engagement Scale
(UGES). Journal of Well-Being Assessment. 2017;1(3):9-
24.
[23] Wu W, Rafiq M, Chin T. Employee well-being and
turnover intention: Evidence from a developing country
with Muslim culture. Career Development International.
2017;22(7):797-815.
[24] Mache S, Bernburg M, Groneberg DA, Klapp BF, Danzer
G. Work family conflict in its relations to perceived work-
ing situation and work engagement. Work. 2016;53(4):
859-69.
[25] Burke RJ, El-Kot G. Work engagement among managers
and professionals in Egypt: Potential antecedents and
consequences. African Journal of Economic Management
Studies. 2010;1(1):42-60.
[26] Tett RP, Meyer JP. Job satisfaction, organizational com-
mitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analyses
based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology.
1993;46(2):259-93.
[27] Price JL. Reflections on the determinants of vol-
untary turnover. International Journal of Manpower.
2001;22(7):600-24.
[28] Bothma CF, Roodt G. The validation of the turnover inten-
tion scale. SA Journal of Human Resource Management.
2013;11(1):1-12.
[29] Griffeth RW, Hom PW, Gaertner S. A meta-analysis of
antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update,
moderator tests, and research implications for the next mil-
lennium. Journal of Management. 2000;26(3):463-88.
[30] Steel RP. Turnover theory at the empirical interface: Prob-
lems of fit and function. Academy of Management Review.
2002;27(3):346-60.
[31] March JG, Simon HA. Organizations. New York: John Wil-
ley & Sons, 1958.
[32] Crossley CD, Grauer E, Lin L, Stanton J. Assessing the con-
tent validity of intention to quit scales, in Annual Meeting
of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2002, pp. 23-31.
[33] Bakker AB, Oerlemans W. Subjective well-being in
organizations, Oxford University Press, New York: NY,
2011.
[34] Mache S, Vitzthum K, Wanke E, David A, Klapp BF, Danzer
G. Exploring the impact of resilience, self-efficacy, opti-
mism and organizational resources on work engagement.
Work. 2014;47(4):491-500.
[35] May DR, Gilson RL, Harter LM. The psychological con-
ditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and
the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal
of Occupational Organizational Psychology. 2004;77(1):
11-37.
[36] Alfes K, Shantz AD, Truss C, Soane EC. The link between
perceived human resource management practices, engage-
ment and employee behaviour: A moderated mediation
model. The International Journal of Human Resource Man-
agement. 2013;24(2):330-51.
[37] Shuck B, Reio Jr TG. Employee engagement and
well-being: A moderation model and implications for
practice. Journal of Leadership Organizational Studies.
2014;21(1):43-58.
[38] Saks AM. Antecedents and consequences of employee
engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology.
2006;21(7):600-19.
626 M. Rafiq et al. / A moderated mediation study
[39] Gould-Williams J, Mohamed R. A comparative study of
the effects of ‘best practice’HRM on worker outcomes in
Malaysia and England local government. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management. 2010;21(5):653-
75.
[40] Rousseau DM, Sitkin SB, Burt RS, Camerer C. Not so dif-
ferent after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy
of Management Review. 1998;23(3):393-404.
[41] Rafiq M, Weiwei W. Managerial trust outlook in China and
Pakistan. Human Systems Management. 2017;36(4):363-8.
[42] Chen Y-S, Chang C-H. Greenwash and green trust:
The mediation effects of green consumer confusion
and green perceived risk. Journal of Business Ethics.
2013;114(3):489-500.
[43] Morrow Jr J, Hansen MH, Pearson AW. The cognitive
and affective antecedents of general trust within cooper-
ative organizations. Journal of Managerial Issues. 2004:
48-64.
[44] Burke CS, Sims DE, Lazzara EH, Salas E. Trust in leader-
ship: A multi-level review and integration. The Leadership
Quarterly. 2007;18(6):606-32.
[45] Kenning P. The influence of general trust and specific trust
on buying behaviour. International Journal of Retail Distri-
bution Management. 2008;36(6):461-76.
[46] Dirks KT, Ferrin DL. Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic
findings and implications for research and practice. Journal
of Applied Psychology. 2002;87(4):611-28.
[47] Zaheer A, McEvily B, Perrone V. Does trust matter? Explor-
ing the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal
trust on performance. Organization Science. 1998;9(2):
141-59.
[48] Fulmer CA, Gelfand MJ. At what level (and in whom) we
trust: Trust across multiple organizational levels. Journal of
Management. 2012;38(4):1167-230.
[49] Tremblay M, Cloutier J, Simard G, Chênevert D, Van-
denberghe C. The role of HRM practices, procedural
justice, organizational support and trust in organizational
commitment and in-role and extra-role performance. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management.
2010;21(3):405-33.
[50] Weibel A, Den Hartog DN, Gillespie N, Searle R,Six F,
Skinner D. How do controls impact employee trust in the
employer? Human Resource Management. 2016;55(3):437-
62.
[51] Lewin K. Field theory in social science. New York, NY:
Harpers & Row, 1951.
[52] Mitchell TR, Holtom BC, Lee TW, Sablynski CJ, Erez
M. Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to pre-
dict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal
2001;44(6):1102-21.
[53] Ng TW, Feldman DC. Locus of control and organizational
embeddedness. Journal of Occupational Organizational
Psychology. 2011;84(1):173-90.
[54] Crossley CD, Bennett RJ, Jex SM, Burnfield JL. Devel-
opment of a global measure of job embeddedness and
integration into a traditional model of voluntary turnover.
Journal of Applied Psychology. 2007;92(4):1031-42.
[55] Akgunduz Y, Cin FM. Job embeddedness as a moderator
of the effect of manager trust and distributive justice on
turnover intentions. Anatolia. 2015;26(4):549-62.
[56] Eberly MB, Holtom BC, Lee TW, Mitchell TR. Control Vol-
untary Turnover by Understanding its Causes, Wilay Online
Liberary, New York, 2009.
[57] Karatepe OM, Shahriari S. Job embeddedness as a mod-
erator of the impact of organisational justice on turnover
intentions: A study in Iran. International Journal of Tourism
Research. 2014;16(1):22-32.
[58] Bakker AB, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP, Taris TW. Work
engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health
psychology. Work Stress. 2008;22(3):187-200.
[59] Halbesleben JR, Wheeler AR. The relative roles of engage-
ment and embeddedness in predicting job performance and
intention to leave. Work Stress. 2008;22(3):242-56.
[60] Burton JP, Holtom BC, Sablynski CJ, Mitchell TR, Lee
TW. The buffering effects of job embeddedness on neg-
ative shocks. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2010;76(1):
42-51.
[61] Edwards JR, Lambert LS. Methods for integrating mod-
eration and mediation: A general analytical framework
using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods.
2007;12(1):1-22.
[62] Preacher KJ, Rucker DD, Hayes AF. Addressing moderated
mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions.
Multivariate Behavioral Research. 2007;42(1):185-227.
[63] Mathew Joseph C. Understanding Pakistan: Emerging
Voices from India: Routledge, 2017.
[64] Dickinson R, Memon B. Press clubs, the journalistic field
and the practice of journalism in Pakistan. Journalism Stud-
ies. 2012;13(4):616-32.
[65] Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Salanova MJE. The measure-
ment of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A
cross-national study. Educational Psychological Measure-
ment. 2006;66(4):701-16.
[66] Donovan MA, Drasgow F, Munson LJ. The percep-
tions of fair interpersonal treatment scale: Development
and validation of a measure of interpersonal treat-
ment in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology.
1998;83(5):683-92.
[67] Mobley WH, Griffeth RW, Meglino BM. Review and
conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. Psy-
chological Bulletin. 1979;86(3):493-522.
[68] Ding CG, Lin CP. Comparing the effects of determinants
of turnover intentions between Taiwanese and US hospi-
tal employees. Human Resource Development Quarterly.
2006;17(4):403-21.
[69] Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL.
Multivariate data analysis. Hall Upper Saddle River: Pear-
son Prentice, 2010.
[70] Gerbing DW, Anderson JC. An updated paradigm
for scale development incorporating unidimensionality
and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research.
1988;25(2):186-92.
[71] Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff NP. Sources of
method bias in social science research and recommenda-
tions on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology.
2012;63:539-69.
[72] Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator–mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Concep-
tual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology. 1986;51(6):
1173-82.
[73] Aiken LS, West SG, Reno RR. Multiple regression: Testing
and interpreting interactions: Sage, 1991.
[74] Bal PM, De Cooman R, Mol ST. Dynamics of psychologi-
cal contracts with work engagement and turnover intention:
The influence of organizational tenure. European Journal of
Work Organizational Psychology. 2013;22(1):107-22.
[75] Hultell D, Gustavsson JP. A psychometric evaluation of the
Scale of Work Engagement and Burnout (SWEBO). Work.
2010;37(3):261-74.
 M. Rafiq et al. / A moderated mediation study
[76] Hultell D, Gustavsson JP. Factors affecting burnout and
work engagement in teachers when entering employment.
Work. 2011;40(1):85-98.
[77] Collins CJ, Smith KG. Knowledge exchange and com-
bination: The role of human resource practices in the
performance of high-technology firms. Academy of Man-
agement Journal. 2006;49(3):544-60.
[78] Tzafrir SS, Gur A. HRM practices and perceived service
quality: The role of trust as a mediator. Research Practice
in Human Resource Management. 2007;15(2):1-20.
[79] Chin T, Yang Y, Zhang P, Yu X, Cao L. Co-creation of Social
Innovation: Corporate Universities as Innovative Strategies
for Chinese Firms to Engage with Society. Sustainability.
2019;11:1438.
[80] Chin T, Liu Rh, Yang X. Reverse internationalization’ in
Chinese firms: a study of how global startup OEMs seek
to compete domestically. Asia Pacific Business Review.
2016;22(2):201-219.
[81] Salanova M, Agut S, Peiró JM. Linking organizational
resources and work engagement to employee performance
and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate.
Journal of applied Psychology. 2005;90(6):1217-27.
627
[82] Halvorsen B, Treuren GJ, Kulik CT. Job embeddedness
among migrants: Fit and links without sacrifice. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management.
2015;26(10):1298-317.
[83] Hur W-M, Rhee S-Y, Ahn K-H. Positive psychological
capital and emotional labor in Korea: The job demands-
resources approach. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management. 2016;27(5):477-500.
[84] Jiang K, Liu D, McKay PF, Lee TW, Mitchell TR. When
and how is job embeddedness predictive of turnover? A
meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology.
2012;97(5):1077-96.
[85] Peltokorpi V, Allen DG, Froese F. Organizational embed-
dedness, turnover intentions, and voluntary turnover: The
moderating effects of employee demographic character-
istics and value orientations. Journal of Organizational
Behavior. 2015;36(2):292-312.
[86] Ramesh A, Gelfand MJ. Will they stay or will they go? The
role of job embeddedness in predicting turnover in indi-
vidualistic and collectivistic cultures. Journal of Applied
Psychology. 2010;95(5):807-23.
628 M. Rafiq et al. / A moderated mediation study

Appendix 8. Employees are lied to.

Reflect the following statements about employee’s
work engagement, trust, job embeddedness, and
turnover intention in questions. Indicate your posi-
tion regarding each by writing a number in the blank
before each statement.
1 (strongly disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (not sure) 4
(agree) 5 (strongly agree)
9. Employees’ suggestions are ignored.
10. Supervisors swear at employees.
11. Employees’ hard work is appreciated.
12. Supervisors threaten to fire or lay off employ-
ees.
13. Employees’ complaints are dealt with effec-
tively.
14. Employees are treated fairly.

Work engagement Job embeddedness

1. At my work, I feel bursting with energy. 1. I feel attached to this organization.

2. At my job, I feel strong and vigorous. 2. It would be difficult for me to leave this organi-
3. I am enthusiastic about my job. zation.
4. My job inspires me. 3. I’m too caught up in this organization to leave.
5. When I get up in the morning, I feel like going 4. I feel tied to this organization.
to work. 5. I simply could not leave the organization that I
6. I feel happy when I am working intensely. work for.
7. I am proud of the work that I do. 6. It would be easy for me to leave this organiza-
8. I am immersed in my work. tion.
9. I get carried away when I am working. 7. I am tightly connected to this organization.

Trust Turnover intention

1. Employees are praised for good work. 1. I intend to leave this organization soon.
2. Supervisors yell at employees. 2. I plan to leave this organization in the next little
3. Supervisors play favorites. while.
4. Employees are trusted. 3. I will quit this organization as soon as possible.
5. Employees are treated with children. 4. I do not plan on leaving this organization soon.
6. Employees are treated with respect. 5. I may leave this organization before too long.
7. Employees’ questions and problems are
responded to quickly.