Social support and turnover among entry‐level service employees: Differentiating type, source, and basis of attachment

• Published date: 01 May 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21989
• Author: Kathryn Stafford,Michael J. Tews,John W. Michel
• Date: 01 May 2020

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Social support and turnover among entry-level service

employees: Differentiating type, source, and basis of

attachment

Michael J. Tews

1

| John W. Michel

2

| Kathryn Stafford

3

1

School of Hospitality Management,

Pennsylvania State University, University Park,

Pennsylvania

2

Sellinger School of Business, Loyola

University Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland

3

Department of Human Sciences, Ohio State

University, Columbus, Ohio

Correspondence

Michael J. Tews, School of Hospitality

Management, Pennsylvania State University,

University Park, PA 16802.

Email: mjt17@psu.edu

Abstract

Previous research on social support and turnover has yielded mixed results. To

advance research in a more comprehensive manner, the present study examined how

turnover is influenced by type of support (emotional or instrumental), source of sup-

port (coworker or supervisor), and basis of attachment (affective commitment and con-

stituent attachment as mediators). In the context of entry-level service employees,

these relationships were examined with a sample of restaurant servers company-

wide from a casual dining restaurant chain in the USA. Coworker emotional support

was directly and negatively related to turnover, and coworker instrumental support

was directly and positively related to turnover. Furthermore, supervisor emotional

support and instrumental support were indirectly related to turnover through affec-

tive commitment. When the mediators were considered independently, coworker

and supervisor emotional support were both indirectly related to turnover through

constituent attachment.

KEYWORDS

affective commitment, constituent attachment, employee turnover, social support

1|INTRODUCTION

Given that social relationships are central to most individuals' experi-

ences on the job, workplace social support should have an appreciable

impact on employee turnover. In support of this notion, meta-analyses

have provided ample evidence that coworkers and supervisors impact

turnover in a significant way (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Griffeth,

Hom, & Gaertner, 2000; Rubenstein, Eberly, Lee, & Mitchell, 2018).

Nevertheless, the subset of studiesfocused specificallyon social support

reveal that the effects on turnover are not firmly established. Of the

eight primary investigations addressing social support and turnover to

date, threeprovided evidence that the dimensions of support examined

were negatively related to turnover (Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Van-

denberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002; Fisher,1985; Maertz, Griffeth,

Campbell, & Allen, 2007). Two additional studies found opposite direc-

tional effects for different dimensions of support (Tews, Michel, &

Ellingson, 2013; Tews, Michel, & Stafford, in press). At the same time,

three studiesfailed to find any effect (Iverson, 1999;Iverson & Pullman,

2000; Mossholder, Settoon,& Henagan, 2005).

The fundamental premise of the present study is that validating

the relationship between social support and turnover requires

adopting a more detailed perspective than typically employed in previ-

ous research. In this light, the purpose of this study is twofold: (a) to

ascertain whether different types and sources of social support have

the same effect on turnover and (b) to explain how they affect turn-

over through potential mediators. Drawing on the job demands–

resources model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti, Bakker,

Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001) and attachment theory (Bowlby, 1982;

Nelson & Quick, 1991; Yip, Ehrhardt, Black, & Walker, 2018), this

research examines the impact of emotional support and instrumental

support from coworkers and supervisors on turnover directly and their

impact indirectly via affective commitment and constituent attachment.

DOI: 10.1002/hrm.21989

Hum Resour Manage. 2020;59:221–234. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrm © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 221