[Home ] [Archive]    
:: Volume 10, Issue 1 (Winter 2021) ::
Arch Hyg Sci 2021, 10(1): 11-20 Back to browse issues page
Effects of Organizational and Personal Factors on Intention to Stay with Organizations among the Workers of a Cement Company Using Structural Equation Modeling
Mohammad Khandan , Fatemeh Hosseini, Behzad Shahreki , Soheila Barahouei , Somayeh Yadollahifar *
Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan, Iran
Keywords: Intention to stay, Musculoskeletal disorders, Paternalistic management, Safety leadership
Full-Text [PDF 633 kb]   (55 Downloads)     |   Abstract (HTML)  (117 Views)
Type of Study: Original Article | Subject: Occuptional Health
Received: 2020/11/4 | Accepted: 2020/11/24 | Published: 2021/01/19
Full-Text:   (20 Views)
Background
The increasing competition among industries and organizations and the need for organizational change and transformation have attracted the attention of researchers to find effective performance strategies in an organization through understanding organizational issues (1). The recognition of the present era as the
most motivating period for recognizing and implementing management has highlighted the fact that the success of any organization depends on the effective use of human resources (2).
The researchers have recently turned their focus toward management and leadership styles as sets of attitudes and skills developed and exercised by managers. These skills are formed by the following factors: system, values, belief in employees, leadership tendencies, and a sense of security in ambiguous situations (2). The people in authority can select different styles for the management of human resources (1).
Among the various leadership styles, paternalistic leadership as defined in the study by Farh and Cheng (2000) is based on fatherly benevolence combined with strong discipline and authority (3). This style of leadership consists of three basic parts: authoritarianism leadership, moral leadership, and benevolent leadership (3). The paternalistic leaders take on all the duties of a father, such as the provision of care, protection, and guidance (4). In addition, in order to improve organizational performance, safety leadership as a subsystem of organizational leadership can determine the quality of organizational leadership (5).
In this regard, ethical leadership is considered one of the most important characteristics of safety managers. In their study, Homayounfar et al. (2018), pointed to the impact of this leadership style on acceptance, participation, and safety motivation of employees (6). Moreover, in this context, Stacey et al. (2011) found that individuals' distrust in safety leadership was strongly influenced by serious defects in trust and benevolence of leaders (7).
In competition with other organizations, the retention of human resources which is a daunting challenge for numerous organizations is also regarded as a competitive organizational advantage (8). This organizational factor is of great importance since companies actually lose their valuable human talents by losing their employees, and this loss can be to the benefit of competitors. The training of new employees requires significant resources, takes a long time, and involves a slope of the learning curve (9).
Employee turnover can be influenced by organizational factors, such as leadership style (4, 10, 11). Lieberman (2014) considers paternalistic leadership to be effective in reducing employees' turnover intention since it leads to their emotional dependence on the organization and increases their commitment to their job (10). Ethics as one of the important behaviors of leaders performs a determining role in employees' turnover intension and behaviors through affecting organizational commitment and job satisfaction (12).
Therefore, ethical leadership as one of the dimensions of paternalistic leadership has a negative relationship with employees' turnover intention by strengthening the sense of belonging and organizational commitment (12, 13, 14). Authoritarian leaders may also obtain the same outcome by instilling fear in employees (14). Nonetheless, Cherry (2015) reported that authoritarian-led organizations are more prone to employee turnover and absenteeism (15). On the other hand, Elici et al. (2012) have pointed to the predictive role of safety facilities and safety leadership in reducing this tendency (11).
Nevertheless, the influential factors affecting employees' intention to stay or leave the organization are not limited to the aforementioned issues. Psychological factors, such as stress, (16, 12, 17, 18) and physical factors, including musculoskeletal disorders, (19, 20) can be also mentioned as other effective factors. As estimated by the Occupational Safety and Health Association (2017/2018), within 2017-18, 595,000 workers suffered from work-related anxiety, depression, and stress, and 469,000 workers suffered from work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Moreover, 15.4 and 6.6 million lost working days were reported for these workers, respectively (21).
Stress and musculoskeletal disorders can increase employees' dissatisfaction and their desire to leave; however, they can be reduced by the use of appropriate management styles (2, 22), such as authoritarian leadership which is among the organizational stressors (14, 23) and moral leadership style which is in opposition
to stressors (13). Authoritarian leadership in Iranian organizations has presented numerous problems to the implementation of new leadership styles (4).
Moreover, the effect of participatory leadership styles, such as paternalistic leadership, on instilling a sense of security in employees and their reduced turnover intention has been highlighted in various studies. In light of the aforementioned issues, the present study was conducted in a cement factory in southern Iran in 2018 to answer the following questions:
Question 1: Can safety leadership and paternalistic leadership/management style affect stress, work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs), and employees' intention to stay with an  organization.
Question 2: Do WMSDs and stress affect employees' intention to stay with in an organization?
Question 3: Is paternalistic leadership/ management style related to safety leadership?
 
 
Materials & Methods

 
The present cross-sectional descriptive-analytical study 142 participants who were randomly selected from among all operational workers on fixed day shifts and rotational shiftwork. It is worth noting that subjects could withdraw from the study at any stage they wished. The data about gender, marital status, level of education, and work system were obtained through a researcher-made demographic questionnaire. Moreover, self-reported questionnaires provided the history of work-related musculoskeletal disorders and stress.
The indicators of an intention to stay, paternalistic management (including the dimen-sions of benevolent leadership, authoritarian leadership, as well as ethical leadership) and safety leadership (including the dimensions of decision-making, control, and motivation), were separately assessed in some questionnaires. In addition, a valid body map questionnaire (24) was used to determine the mean severity and location of pain in different organs of the body. To this end, the subjects determined the location of the pain by marking on the body map and indicated the severity of their pain using the ruler in the map diagram of each organ in the questionnaire. The body map divides the whole body into 13 parts, encompassing the left and right organs of the body (24).
As opposed to turnover intention, the intention to stay as a positive issue  motivates the workers to stay and work in organization (25). Work Intention Inventory was designed to assess a set of tendencies that result from
the health conditions of workers (26). This questionnaire consists of five subscales and each subscale has five items which are rated on a 7-point Likert scale. A score of 0 signifies the absence of any intention, while 6 suggests
the maximum intention (26). The validity coefficients of the questionnaire exceeded the allowable limit of 0.80, and the convergent reliability coefficients for the scores obtained from each section were obtained at 0.87 (26). As mentioned earlier, each part of the questionnaire is dedicated to one of the indicators of work intention, and the section of intention to stay was used in the present study.
The questionnaire translated by Tabibi et al. (2014) was used to collect and assess the information related to safety leadership. The reliability, as well as content and construct validity of this questionnaire, have been also confirmed (5). This 32-item questionnaire encompassed the dimensions of safety control, safety motivation, and decision making. The answers were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (very high, high, medium, low, and very low (5).
The paternalistic management was assessed using a scale designed by Cherry et al. (2004) in 26 sections encompassing the dimensions
of paternalistic leadership, including ethical leadership, authoritarian leadership, and benevolent leadership. The items in this scale were rated on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) (27). The internal validity coefficient scores for the scales of benevolent leadership, ethical leadership, and authoritarian leadership were reported to be 0.94, 0.90, and 0.89, respectively (35).
The data were analyzed in LISREL and SPSS software (version 20). Minimum value, number or score (min), maximum value, number or score (max), mean, and standard deviation were among the statistical characteristics defined for the variables of age, work experience, number of work-related musculoskeletal disorders, safety leadership components (decision-making, control, and motivation), paternalistic leadership components (benevolence, authorita-rianism, and ethics), intend to stay, and stress levels. Furthermore, qualitative variables, including gender, marital status (single, married, and separated), and level of education (under diploma, diploma, postgraduate, bachelor, master and doctorate), work system (fixed day shifts and rotational shiftwork), history of musculoskeletal disorders, and stress (yes and no) were reported using frequency, frequency percentage, and cumulative percentage.
The results of the body map questionnaire for 27 identified areas of the body were summarized in tables (without pain, moderate pain, painful, and very painful) using frequency, frequency percentage, and cumulative percentage. The multivariate analysis technique of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used to analyze and test the simultaneous correlation of the variables. In this model, in order to evaluate the fit of the measurement model and structural model with the sample data, measurement model fitting and reliability of the constructs (items of the questionnaires used in the research) were performed by examining the factor loadings. Cronbach's alpha coefficient, as well as its reliability and validity, were confirmed by calculating the average variance extracted (AVE), and divergent validity proposed by Fornell and Larcker (1981).
Finally, the fit of the structural model was performed using three criteria of Z-value, Q2, and R2. It is stated that a Z coefficient>1.96 is required for each construct to confirm its significance at 95% confidence level (28), and three values of 0.19, 0.33, 0.67 are regarded as criterion values for weak, medium, and strong levels of R2 (28). Moreover, Q2 >35 indicates the strong predictive power of the model (28).
 
 
Results

 
Based on the results of the study, the mean scores of age and work experience were reported as 35±6.80 and 9±5.43. Regarding marital status, 90.7, 7.9%, and 1.4% of cases were married, single, and divorced, respectively. The majority of employees (43.2%) had a diploma, 23.7%, 20.1%, 10.1%, and 2.9% of subjects had
high school education, bachelor's, associates', master's, and doctoral degrees, respectively.
Moreover, 64.3% and 35.7% of cases were fixed day workers and shift workers, respectively. In addition, 68.5% of employees stated that they had experienced musculoskeletal disorders and 31.5% denied such an experience. A history of stress was confirmed by 66.4% of subjects. The mean scores of decision making, control, and safety motivation were reported as 44.12±18.59, 21.29±9.18, 13.61± 5.59, respect-tively. Other variables, such as benevolence, authoritarianism, and ethics, three dimensions of paternalistic management, obtained the
mean scores of 41.51±15.53, 21.5±6.82, and 15.99±29.4. Moreover, the mean score of intention to stay was calculated at 20.94±6.14.
The results of the body map questionnaire demonstrated that 31 (23.9%) employees reported pain in the lower back as painful and very painful, which was higher than pain scores in other parts of the body. The percentages for the other 26 areas of the body are displayed in Table 1. The convergent validity criterion examines the correlation between each construct and the observable variables within that structure. It showed the appropriate convergence of constructs after calculating the AVE index, which was higher than 0.04 for all constructs.
As the correlation matrix (Table 2) based on Fornel and Larcker method shows, the square root of AVE of the latent variables in the present study which is given in the original diameter of this matrix in most cases is larger, compared to the correlation between them written in the lower and left cells of the original diameter. Therefore, it can be concluded that constructs in the model have a higher interaction with their indicators, compared to other constructs. In other words, divergent validity is desirable.
Cronbach's alpha coefficient indicated that the reliability of each construct was > 0.7, and the mixed reliability index was reported to be >0.7, signifying the relative reliability of the
 
 
 
Table 1) Percentages of pain intensity in 27 areas of the body
Pain intensity (%) Body organ n
Very painful Painful Moderate pain Painless
0.8 10 27.7 61.5 Upper part of the neck 0
0 14 14.7 71.3 Lower part of the neck 1
2.3 5.4 17.7 74.6 Left shoulder 2
0 7 17.8 75.2 Right shoulder 3
1.6 3.9 16.3 77.5 Left arm 4
5.4 8.5 16.2 69.2 Upper back 5
1.6 0.8 18.6 79.1 Right arm 6
6.9 7.7 19.2 65.4 Middle part of the waist 7
7.7 16.2 20 55.4 L6ower part of the waist 8
6.2 7.8 5.4 80.5 Hip 9
0 3.8 9.2 86.9 Left elbow 10
0 1.5 10 88.5 Right elbow 11
0 0.8 14.6 84.5 Left forearm 12
0 2.3 14 83.7 Right forearm 13
1.6 6.3 14.1 78.1 Left wrist 14
4.7 3.9 11.7 79.7 Right wrist 15
1.5 3.1 9.2 86.2 Palm and fingers of the left hand 16
1.5 3.1 10 85.4 Palm and fingers of the right hand 17
0 3.9 14 82.2 Left thigh 18
0 5.4 13.2 81.4 Right thigh 19
4.6 10 16.9 68.5 Left knee 20
4.7 10.9 18.6 65.9 Right knee 21
2.3 2.3 14.1 81.3 Left leg 22
3.1 2.3 14 80.6 Right leg 23
0.8 5.5 14.2 79.5 Left ankle 24
0.8 3.9 14.7 80.6 Right ankle 25
0.8 5.4 12.4 81.4 Sole or the toes of the left foot 26
2.3 3.9 11.6 82.2 Sole or the toes of the right foot 27
 
 
constructs (28). In addition to reporting Cronbach's alpha coefficients and combined reliability, factor loading values were evaluated, and items 12 and 17 in authoritarianism dimensions with factor loadings less than 0.4 were detected. Thereafter, all factor loadings were higher than 0.4, pointing to the appropriateness of this criterion (Figure 1) (29).
 
 
Table 2) Correlation matrix and divergent validity of research variables
  Moral Motivation Control Authoritarianism Benevolence Management Safety Leadership Intent to Stay Decision Making
Moral 0.740                
Motivation -0.454 0.745              
Control -0.567 0.902 0.860            
Authoritarianism -0.071 0.209 0.300 0.811          
Benevolence 0.756 -0.434 -0.541 -0.175 0.856        
Management 0.884 -0.468 -0.584 -0.191 1.020 0.676      
Safety Leadership -0.553 0.951 0.972 0.269 -0.568 -0.602 0.820    
Intent to Stay 0.605 -0.486 -0.459 0.037 0.616 0.645 -0.526 0.738  
Decision Making -0.540 0.889 0.907 0.253 -0.581 -0.610 0.999 -0.542 0.861
 

Figure 1) Executed model with factor loadings
 

Table 3) T and p-value of the effect of variables on each other
Effect of exogenous on endogenous variable T Statistics P-Values
Musculoskeletal -> Intent to Stay 4.102 0.000
Management -> Moral 14.507 0.000
Management -> Authoritarianism 0.904 0.366
Management -> Benevolence 287.229 0.000
Management -> Stress 6.525 0.000
Management -> Intent to Stay 3.497 0.001
Safety Leadership -> Motivation 48.331 0.000
Safety Leadership -> Control 107.380 0.000
Safety Leadership -> Musculoskeletal 0.178 0.859
Safety Leadership -> Intent to Stay 2.410 0.016
Safety Leadership -> Decision Making 336.122 0.000
Stress -> Intent to Stay 0.810 0.418
 

In the present study, the exogenous variables of paternalistic management, safety leadership, and stress did not have a significant impact on the endogenous variables of authoritarianism, musculoskeletal disorders, and intention to stay, respectively (P> 0.05). Other exogenous variables had significant effects on endogenous variables (P<0.05) (Table 3). The R2 index shows the effect of an exogenous variable on an endogenous variable. R-squared values over 0.33 and 0.67 obtained in the present study signified moderate and strong predictive power of this model and its proper fit, except for the authoritarian variable (less than 0.19) (Figure 2). Moreover, the Q2 values also apply to all constructs of the structural model.
 

Figure 2) R2 values for research variables
 
Discussion

 
The present study aimed to answer the following question: Can organizational factors, such as paternalistic leadership style and safety leadership, or physical and psychological factors, such as musculoskeletal disorders and stress, affect employees' intend to stay in organizations?
As illustrated by the obtained results, paternalistic leadership style, safety leadership, and musculoskeletal disorders had a significant effect on employees' intend to stay; nonetheless, the impact of stress was not significant. Based on Daghati (2018), among the 18 factors affecting employee retention, the management and leadership style ranked the first as the most important factor (30). Lieberman (20014) showed that the paternalistic leadership style promotes employees' commitment to work by arousing their sense of emotional dependency on the organization (10).
Gelfand (2007) indicated that paternalistic leaders consider it an obligation to support their employees in a manner resembling a parent and in exchange they earn loyalty and respect (31). In line with the results of the present study, Amponsah-Twiah et al. pointed to the decisive role of safety leadership in reducing employees' turnover intention. In response to the other part of the question raised in this article, Goncalves et al. (2001) pointed out that the mismatch between employees' equipment and their anthropometric characteristics can cause job stress, which in turn, can increase employee turnover as a risk factor (32).
Musculoskeletal disorders can seriously affect the quality of life and lead to job restrictions, absenteeism, and even the need for a career change (20). The results of the present study did not point to the effect of stress on employees' intention to stay with an organization; nonetheless, the majority of national and international studies (12, 16, 17, 18) have addressed this impact. In agreement with the present study, Zare et al. (2017) showed that job stress had no effect on employees' turnover intention (9). Nonetheless, apart from the assessment of the direct effect of the aforementioned factors on the intention to stay, the current study examined the indirect effect of safety leadership and paternalistic leadership with the mediating role of stress and musculoskeletal disorders. 
Consistent with the present study, various national and international studies have pointed to the relationship of job stress with leadership style and management (2, 33,34). When managers create a negative psychological and emotional atmosphere full of stress and work pressure, they instill fatigue, resentment, and anger in employees. Moreover, they will witness a considerable decrease in creativity and performance of employees and constant stress (2). Henry Ren Yeh et al. (2008) indicated the significant relationship between paternalistic leadership and job stress (33).
 
 
Conclusion

 
As evidenced by the obtained results, when people in authority assume a paternal role
in organizations and receive the expected responses from their subordinates, they will witness a decrease in employees' intention to leave their present organization. 
 
 
Footnotes

 
Acknowledgements
The research team would like to extend their deepest gratitude to all the personnel participating in the present study and the managers of the company
 
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest regarding the publication of the current article.
 
 
References

 
  1. Mir Kamali SM, Karami MR. Study of relation between ethic leadership perception of managers and personnel performance. J Dev Evolut Mnagem 2016;24:11-22. (In Persian) Link
  2. Ghare M, Hesami L. Managerial styles and motivation for career advancement and job stress in employees of the Ministry of Sport and Youth. Sci J Organ Behav Manag Sport Stud 2016;3(3):65-74. (In Persian) Link
  3. Rehman M, Afsar B. The impact of paternalistic leadership on organization commitment and organization citizenship behaviour. J Busin Manag Appl Econ 2012;5(5):148-59. Link
  4. Ekradi E, Sadafi Musavi SS. Investigating mediator role of psychological contract in the relationship between paternalistic leadership and turnover intention. Counsel Culture Psychother 2018;9(35):99-116. (In Persian) Link
  5. Tabibi S, Rezaie Mohammadi Z, Allahviranloo T, Taghdisi M. A survey on the validity and reliability of safety leadership questionnaire in vehicle manufa-cturing industries. Iran J Epidemiol 2014;10(3):25-34. (In Persian) Link
  6. Homayounfar M, Eshkiki MF, Sedaghat R. The effect of safety management system practices, ethical leadership and self-efficacy on safety behaviour of workers in hard and harmful jobs in manufacturing industries of Guilan province. Iran J Ergon 2018;
    6(1):65-74. (In Persian) Link
  7. Conchie SM, Taylor PJ, Charlton A. Trust and distrust in safety leadership: mirror reflections? Saf Sci 2011;49(8-9):1208-14. Link
  8. Tavakkolinejad H, Jazanee N, Memarzadetehran G, Afsharkazemi M. Identification and prioritization of the factors affecting employee retention. J Res Hum Res Manag 2017;8(4):155-85. (In Persian) Link
  9. Kazemi F, Zare A, Sepehry S, Roostaee S. The impact of organizational toxic climate on intention to leave job among female nursing: explaining the role mediator of stress and job burnout. J Woman Soc 2018;8(32):75-102. (In Persian) Link
  10. Liberman L. The impact of a paternalistic style of management and delegation of authority on job satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in Chile and the US. Innovar 2014;24(53):187-96. Link
  11. Amponsah-Tawiah K, Ntow MA, Mensah J. Occupational health and safety management and turnover intention in the Ghanaian mining sector. Saf Health Work 2016;7(1):12-7. PMID: 27014486
  12. Elçi M, Şener İ, Aksoy S, Alpkan L. The impact of ethical leadership and leadership effectiveness on employees’ turnover intention: the mediating role of work related stress. Proc Soc Behav Sci 2012;58:289-97. Link
  13. Ganji-Arjenaki M, Dalvi M. The impact of ethical leadership on job stress and occupation turnover intention in nurses of hospitals affiliated to Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences. J Shahrekord Univ Med Sci 2014;16(1):121-8. (In Persian) Link
  14. Chen SC. Paternalistic leadership and cabin crews’ upward safety communication: the motivation of voice behavior. J Air Transp Manag 2017;62:44-53. Link
  15. Chukwusa J. Autocratic leadership style: obstacle to success in academic libraries. Nebraska: Library Philosophy and Practice; 2018. Link
  16. Cicei CC. Occupational stress and organizational commitment in Romanian public organizations. Proc Soc Behav Sci 2012;33:1077-81. Link
  17. Mosadeghrad AM. Occupational stress and turnover intention: implications for nursing management. Int Journal Health Policy Manag 2013; 1(2):169-76. Link
  18. Golparvar M, Javadian Z, Adibi Z, Mosahebi MR, Ahmadi A. The relationship between job stress with turnover and task performance with consider the mediating role of job satisfaction. Iran Occup Health 2013;10(1):33-42. (In Persian) Link
  19. Choobineh A, Rajaeefard A, Neghab M. Association between perceived demands and musculoskeletal disorders among hospital nurses of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences: a questionnaire survey. Int
    J Occup Saf Ergon 2006;12(4):409-16. PMID: 17156616
  20. Chung YC, Hung CT, Li SF, Lee HM, Wang SG, Chang SC, et al. Risk of musculoskeletal disorder among Taiwanese nurses cohort: a nationwide population-based study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2013;14(1):144. PMID: 23617330
  21. Health and Safety Statistics. Summary statistics for great Britain. London: Health and Safety Statistics; 2018. Link
  22. Piranveyseh P, Motamedzade M, Mohammad Fam
    I, Soltanzadeh A, Moghimbeigi A. Effects of psychosocial factors on prevalence of musculoskeletal discomfort in VDT workers. J Sabzevar Univ Med Sci 2016;23(2):233-40. (In Persian) Link
  23. Ardalan M, Erfanizadeh F. The relation between attitude toward organizational change and job stress: testing the mediator role of organizational commitment. Transform Manag J 2017;9(1):1-23. (In Persian) Link
  24. Dehnavi S, Vahedi A, Moghimbeigi A. The effects of ergonomic interventions in manual activities to reduce musculoskeletal disorders in manual activities by ManTRA. Iran J Ergon 2017;4(4):57-67. (In Persian) Link
  25. Youcef S, Ahmed S, Ahmed B. The impact of job satisfaction on turnover intention by the existence of organizational commitment, and intent to stay as intermediates variables using approach PLS in sample worker department of transport Saida. Management 2016;6(6):198-202. Link
  26. Zigarmi D, Nimon K, Houson D, Witt D, Diehl J. The work intention inventory: Initial evidence of construct validity. J Busin Administrat Res 2012;1(1):24-42. Link
  27. Kaygisizel E, Otken AB. Is paternalistic leadership a source of job stress? Int J Manag Stud Res 2015;3(11):44-53. Link
  28. Khaleghinejad A, Ziaaldini M. Relationship between employees' safety climate and safety performance with respect to mediating effect of safety knowledge and safety motivation in Sarcheshmeh copper complex. Health Saf Work 2015;5(4):69-86. (In Persian) Link
  29. Hulland J. Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies. Strategic Manag J 1999;20(2):195-204. Link
  30. Deghati A. Identifying driver of maintenance of manpower in Birjand university of medical sciences. Public Manag Res 2019;11(42):271-94. (In Persian) Link
  31. Karimi M, Shajaee S. Studying the relationship between paternalistic leadership and employees' voice emphasizing on moderator role of knowledge sharing of employees at branches of Saderat Bank in Golestan Province. Manag Governmental Organ 2015;3(2):21-40. (In Persian) Link
  32. Gonçalves MB, Fischer FM, Lombardi M, Ferreira RM. Work activities of practical nurses and risk factors for the development of musculoskeletal disorders. J Hum Ergol 2001;30(1-2):369-74. PMID: 14564910
  33. Ren Yeh H, Kuang Chi H, Chiou CY. The influences of paternalistic leadership, job stress, and organizational commitment on organizational performance: an empirical study of policemen in Taiwan. J Int Manag Stud 2008;3(2):85-91. Link
  34. Huning TM, Thomson NF. The impact of performance attributions and job satisfaction on turnover intentions. Allied Academies International Conference Academy of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict Proceedings. North Carolina: Jordan Whitney Enterprises, Inc; 2010. Link
  35. Cheng BS, Chou LF, Wu TY, Huang MP, Farh JL. Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian J Soc Psychol 2004;7(1):89-117. Link
References
1. 1. Mir Kamali SMA, Karami MR. Study of Relation between Ethic Leadership Perception of Managers and Personnel Performance. Journal of Development & Evolution Mnagement. 2016;24:11-22. [in Persian]
2. Ghare M, Hesami L. Managerial styles and motivation for career advancement and job stress in employees of the Ministry of Sport and Youth. Scientific Journal Of Organizational Behavior Management in Sport Studies. 2016;3(3):65-74. [in Persian]
3. Rehman M, Afsar B. The impact of paternalistic leadership on organization commitment and organization citizenship behaviour. Journal of Business Management and Applied Economics. 2012;5(5):148-59.
4. Ekradi E, Sadafi Musavi S. Investigating mediator role of psychological contract in the relationship between paternalistic leadership and turnover intention. Quarterly of Counseling Culture and Psychotherapy. 2018;9(35):99-116. [in Persian]
5. Tabibi S, Rezaie Mohammadi Z, Allahviranloo T, Taghdisi M. A Survey on the Validity and Reliability of Safety Leadership Questionnaire in Vehicle Manufacturing Industries. Iranian Journal of Epidemiology. 2014;10(3):25-34. [in Persian]
6. Homayounfar M, Fadaei Eshkiki M, Sedaghat R. The effect of safety management system practices, ethical leadership and self-efficacy on safety behaviour of workers in hard and harmful jobs in manufacturing industries of Guilan province. Iranian Journal of Ergonomics. 2018;6(1):65-74. [in Persian] [DOI:10.30699/jergon.6.1.65]
7. Conchie SM, Taylor PJ, Charlton A. Trust and distrust in safety leadership: mirror reflections? Safety Science. 2011;49(8-9):1208-14. [DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2011.04.002]
8. Tavakkolinejad H, Jazanee N, Memarzadetehran G, Afsharkazemi M. Identification and Prioritization of the Factors Affecting Employee Retention. Journal of Research in Human Resources Management. 2017;8(4):155-85. [in Persian]
9. Kazemi F, Zare A, Sepehry S, Roostaee S. The impact of organizational toxic climate on intention to leave job among female nursing: explaining the role mediator of stress and job burnout. quarterly Journal of Woman & Society. 2018;8(32):75-102. [in Persian]
10. Liberman L. The impact of a paternalistic style of management and delegation of authority on job satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in Chile and the US. Innovar. 2014;24(53):187-96. [DOI:10.15446/innovar.v24n53.43944]
11. Amponsah-Tawiah K, Ntow MAO, Mensah J. Occupational health and safety management and turnover intention in the Ghanaian mining sector. Safety and health at work. 2016;7(1):12-7. [DOI:10.1016/j.shaw.2015.08.002]
12. Elçi M, Şener İ, Aksoy S, Alpkan L. The impact of ethical leadership and leadership effectiveness on employees' turnover intention: The mediating role of work related stress. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012;58:289-97. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.1003]
13. Ganji-Arjenaki M, Dalvi M. The Impact of ethical leadership on job stress and occupation turnover intention in nurses of hospitals affiliated to Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences. Journal of Shahrekord Uuniversity of Medical Sciences. 2014;16(1):121-8. [in Persian]
14. Chen S-C. Paternalistic leadership and cabin crews' upward safety communication: The motivation of voice behavior. Journal of Air Transport Management. 2017;62:44-53. [DOI:10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.02.007]
15. Chukwusa J. Autocratic leadership style: Obstacle to success in academic libraries. Library Philosophy and Practice. 2018;1.
16. Cicei CC. Occupational stress and organizational commitment in Romanian public organizations. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012;33:1077-81. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.288]
17. Mosadeghrad AM. Occupational stress and turnover intention: implications for nursing management. International journal of health policy and management. 2013;1(2):169-76. [DOI:10.15171/ijhpm.2013.30]
18. Golparvar M, Javadian Z, Adibi Z, Mosahebi MR, Ahmadi A. The Relationship between Job Stress with Turnover and Task Performance with Consider the Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction. Iran Occupational Health. 2013;10(1):33-42. [in Persian]
19. Choobineh A, Rajaeefard A, Neghab M. Association between perceived demands and musculoskeletal disorders among hospital nurses of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences: a questionnaire survey. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics. 2006;12(4):409-16. [DOI:10.1080/10803548.2006.11076699]
20. Chung Y-C, Hung C-T, Li S-F, Lee H-M, Wang S-G, Chang S-C, et al. Risk of musculoskeletal disorder among Taiwanese nurses cohort: a nationwide population-based study. BMC musculoskeletal disorders. 2013;14(1):144. [DOI:10.1186/1471-2474-14-144]
21. Health and Safety Statistics. Summary statistics for Great Britain 2018. https://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/overall/hssh1718.pdf
22. Piranveyseh P, Motamedzade M, Mohammad Fam I, Soltanzadeh A, Moghimbeigi A. Effects of psychosocial factors on prevalence of musculoskeletal discomfort in VDT workers. journal of Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences. 2016;23(2):233-40. [in Persian]
23. Ardalan M, Erfanizadeh F. The relation between attitude toward organizational change and job stress: Testing the mediator role of organizational commitment. Management. 2017;9(1):1-23. [in Persian]
24. Dehnavi S, Vahedi A, Moghimbeigi A. The effects of ergonomic interventions in manual activities to reduce musculoskeletal disorders in manual activities by ManTRA. Iranian Journal of Ergonomics. 2017;4(4):57-67. [in Persian] [DOI:10.21859/joe-04048]
25. Youcef S, Ahmed S, Ahmed B. The Impact of Job Satisfaction on Turnover Intention by the Existence of Organizational Commitment, and Intent to Stay as Intermediates Variables Using approach PLS in Sample Worker Department of Transport Saida. Management. 2016;6(6):198-202.
26. Zigarmi D, Nimon K, Houson D, Witt D, Diehl J. The work intention inventory: Initial evidence of construct validity. Journal of Business Administration Research. 2012;1(1):24-42. [DOI:10.5430/jbar.v1n1p24]
27. Kaygisizel E, otken AB. Is Paternalistic Leadership a Source of Job Stress? International Journal of Managerial Studies and Research 2015;3(11):44-53.
28. Khaleghinejad A, Ziaaldini M. Relationship between employees' safety climate and safety performance with respect to mediating effect of safety knowledge and safety motivation in Sarcheshmeh copper complex. Health and safety at work. 2015;5(4):69-86. [in Persian]
29. Hulland, J. Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 1999. 20(2): p. 195-204. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199902)20:2<195::AID-SMJ13>3.0.CO;2-7 [DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199902)20:23.0.CO;2-7]
30. Deghati A. Identifying Driver of Maintenance of Manpower in Birjand University of Medical Sciences. Public Management Researches. 2019;11(42):271-94. [in Persian]
31. Karimi M, Shajaee S. Studying the relationship between paternalistic leadership and employees' voice emphasizing on moderator role of knowledge sharing of employees at branches of Saderat Bank in Golestan Province. Quarterly Journal of Public Organzations Management. 2015;3(2):21-40. [in Persian]
32. Gonçalves MB, Fischer FM, Lombardi M, Ferreira RM. Work activities of practical nurses and risk factors for the development of musculoskeletal disorders. Journal of human ergology. 2001;30(1-2):369-74.
33. Ren Yeh H, Kuang Chi H, Chiou C-Y. The influences of paternalistic leadership, job stress, and organizational commitment on organizational performance: an empirical study of policemen in Taiwan. The Journal of International Management Studies. 2008;3(2):85-91.
34. Huning TM, Thomson NF, editors. The impact of performance attributions and job satisfaction on turnover intentions. Allied Academies International Conference Academy of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict Proceedings; 2010: Jordan Whitney Enterprises, Inc.
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA


XML     Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Khandan M, Hosseini F, Shahreki B, Barahouei S, Yadollahifar S. Effects of Organizational and Personal Factors on Intention to Stay with Organizations among the Workers of a Cement Company Using Structural Equation Modeling. Arch Hyg Sci. 2021; 10 (1) :11-20
URL: http://jhygiene.muq.ac.ir/article-1-476-en.html


Volume 10, Issue 1 (Winter 2021) Back to browse issues page
Archives of Hygiene Sciences Archives of Hygiene Sciences
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.08 seconds with 29 queries by YEKTAWEB 4256