The effect of a caring climate on frontline employees’ turnover intention in the service industry: a serial multiple mediation model

Figures & data

Figure 1. The conceptual model of the study.

Table 1. Demographic profile of the respondents (n = 291).

Variable	Category	Frequency (n = 291)	Percentage (100%)
Gender	Male	98	33.7
	Female	193	66.3
Tenure	6–11 months	65	22.3
	1-3 years	132	45.4
	4–5 years	50	17.2
	More than 5 years	44	15.1
Industry	Hotel	190	65.3
	Restaurant	101	34.7
Job title	Waiters/Waitresses	129	44.3
	Receptionists	120	41.2
	Bartenders	36	12.4
	Housekeeping staff	6	2.1
Work status	Full-time	63	21.6
	Part-time	228	78.3

Table 2. The confirmatory factor analysis results.

Scale items	α	FL	CR	AVE	MSV
Caring Climate (CC)	0.89		0.89	0.66	0.22
CC1		0.88
CC2		0.80
CC3		0.90
CC4		0.84
Coworker Incivility (Co-Inc)	0.70		0.70	0.37	0.14
Co-Inc1		0.72
Co-Inc2		0.73
Co-Inc3		0.69
Co-Inc4		0.76
Emotional Exhaustion (EE)	0.82		0.82	0.61	0.51
EE1		0.83
EE2		0.93
EE3		0.82
Turnover Intention (TI)	0.71		0.75	0.61	0.51
TI2		0.90
TI3		0.52

Notes: Model fit statistics: χ2 = 76.65, df = 59, χ2/df = 1.30, NFI = 0.95, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.03, PClose = 0.94, SRMR = 0.04; (FL) standardized loadings; (CR) composite reliability; (AVE) average variance extracted; (MSV) maximum shared squared variance; (CFI) comparative fit index.

Table 3. Mean, standard deviations, correlations, and collinearity statistics of the study variables (n = 291).

									Collinearity statistics
Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	Tolerance	VIF
1. Caring Climate	3.44	0.89	–						0.84	1.19
2. Coworker Incivility	1.61	0.54	−0.25**	–					0.86	1.15
3. Emotional Exhaustion	2.70	1.00	−0.35**	0.28**	–				0.82	1.21
4. Turnover Intention	3.06	0.98	−0.45**	0.17**	0.52**	–			0.72	1.38
5. Gender	0.66	0.47	−0.12*	−0.09	0.13*	0.05	–		0.95	1.05
6. Tenure	2.25	0.97	−0.07	0.11	0.05	−0.002	0.06	–	0.98	1.02

Notes: M = mean, SD = standard deviation, **p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, Gender: male = 0 & female = 1, VIF = variable inflation factors.

Figure 2. Mediating effect model.

Table 4. Structural equation modeling (SEM) results for the serial multiple mediation model.

Direct and indirect effects	Standardized coefficients (β)	SE	p-Value	95% CI
Direct effect
CC→TI (H1)	−0.52	0.04	***	(−0.58, −0.44)
CC→Co-Inc	−0.38	0.03	***	(−0.46, −0.30)
CC→EE	−0.33	0.05	***	(−0.42, −0.23)
Co-Inc→EE	0.33	0.09	***	(0.24, 0.42)
Co-Inc→TI	−0.04	0.06	0.35	(−0.11, 0.03)
EE→TI	0.72	0.03	***	(0.66, 0.78)
Indirect effect
Total: CC→TI	−0.19	0.03	***	(−0.26, −0.12)
CC→Co-Inc→TI (H2)	0.01	0.01	0.33	(−0.01, 0.03)
CC→EE→TI (H3)	−0.24	0.03	**	(−0.24, −0.12)
CC→Co-Inc→EE→TI (H4)	−0.12	0.02	***	(−0.09, −0.04)

Note: N = 291, **p < 0.01, ***p < .001, SE = standard error, 95% CI = 95% confidence interval, CC = caring climate, Co-Inc = coworker incivility, EE = emotional exhaustion, TI = turnover intention.