Effect of Performance Feedback on Turnover Intention through Work Engagement among Indonesian Gen-Z Workers: A Bayesian Structural Equation Modeling Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.38035/ijphs.v4i3.2218Keywords:
Performance Feedback, Work Engagement, Turnover Intention, Generation Z, Bayesian Structural Equation ModelingAbstract
Turnover intention among Generation Z (Gen-Z) is a prominent retention challenge in Indonesia, and the supervisory feedback environment is thought to be one of the levers that can curb it. This study aims to examine whether work engagement mediates the relationship between performance feedback and turnover intention among Indonesian Gen-Z workers. A quantitative cross-sectional design was used with n = 68 workers (aged 18 to 28 years, tenure of 6 to 24 months) screened from 102 respondents. Performance feedback was measured with the Feedback Environment Scale, work engagement with the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale-9, and turnover intention with the Turnover Intention Scale. The latent mediation model was estimated using Bayesian Structural Equation Modeling (the blavaan package) with three Markov chain Monte Carlo chains, 3,000 burn-in iterations, 10,000 post-burn-in iterations, and weakly informative priors. All parameters converged (PSRF ≤ 1.003; minimum effective sample size of 1,073). Performance feedback positively predicted work engagement (a = 0.33; 95% credible interval [0.05; 0.57]), work engagement negatively predicted turnover intention (b = -0.47; [-0.68; -0.22]), while the direct path was not credible (c = -0.24; [-0.48; 0.02]). The standardized indirect effect was -0.15 ([-0.31; -0.02]; HDI [-0.30; -0.02]) with a posterior probability of P(effect < 0) = 0.988, indicating a pattern consistent with full mediation by work engagement. This inference was robust to prior variation. Exact fit was rejected (PPP = 0.008), and the results are reported transparently. Organizations are advised to build a constructive feedback environment to retain Gen-Z talent.
References
Ahmad, R., Nawaz, M., Ishaq, M., Khan, M. M., & Ashraf, H. A. (2023). Social exchange theory: Systematic review and future directions. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1015921. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1015921
Albrecht, S. L., Bakker, A. B., Gruman, J. A., Macey, W. H., & Saks, A. M. (2015). Employee engagement, human resource management practices and competitive advantage: An integrated approach. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 2(1), 7–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-08-2014-0042
Ariyabuddhiphongs, V., & Boonsanong, C. (2019). Workplace friendship, trust in the leader and turnover intention: The mediating effects of work engagement. International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.5296/ijhrs.v9i4.15618
Badiah, & Rojuaniah. (2024). Employer branding, person-job fit, and psychological empowerment's impact on turnover intention of Gen Y and Z in Indonesian private banks. Transekonomika: Akuntansi, Bisnis dan Keuangan, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.55047/transekonomika.v5i1.851
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
Cook, K. S., Rice, E., & Cheshire, C. (2013). Social exchange theory. Department of Sociology, Stanford University. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6772-0_3
Costanza, D. P., Badger, J. M., Fraser, R. A., Severt, J. B., & Gade, P. A. (2012). Generational differences in work-related attitudes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 375–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-012-9259-4
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Depaoli, S. (2021). Bayesian structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press.
Dimock, M. (2019). Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins. Pew Research Center.
Dolot, A. (2018). The characteristics of Generation Z. E-Mentor, 74(2), 44–50. https://doi.org/10.15219/em74.1351
Faulkenberry, T. J., Ly, A., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2020). Bayesian inference in numerical cognition: A tutorial using JASP. Journal of Numerical Cognition, 6(2), 231–259. https://doi.org/10.5964/jnc.v6i2.288
Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science, 7(4), 457–472. https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177011136
Hansen, S., Rostianti, F. S., & Priyanto, S. H. (2023). Etika penelitian: Teori dan praktik. Podomoro University Press.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Hoofs, H., van de Schoot, R., Jansen, N. W. H., & Kant, I. (2018). Evaluating model fit in Bayesian confirmatory factor analysis with large samples: Simulation study introducing the BRMSEA. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 78(4), 537–568. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164417709314
Joubert, J., Jacobs, M., & de Beer, L. T. (2023). Work engagement mediation of job security, job embeddedness, and turnover intention within the South African mining sector. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 33, 313–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2023.2219541
Kaplan, D. (2014). Bayesian statistics for the social sciences. The Guilford Press.
Kaplan, D. (2024). Bayesian statistics for the social sciences (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
Kaur, R., & Randhawa, G. (2021). Supportive supervisor to curtail turnover intentions: Do employee engagement and work-life balance play any role? Evidence-based HRM, 9(3), 241–257. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBHRM-12-2019-0118
Knight, C., Patterson, M., & Dawson, J. (2019). Work engagement interventions can be effective: A systematic review. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28, 348–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1588887
Kulikowski, K. (2017). Do we all agree on how to measure work engagement? Factorial validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale as a standard measurement tool: A literature review. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health, 30(2), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.13075/ijomeh.1896.00947
Kurtessis, J. N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M. T., Buffardi, L. C., Stewart, K. A., & Adis, C. S. (2017). Perceived organizational support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. Journal of Management, 43, 1854–1884. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315575554
Lee, M. C. C., Idris, M. A., & Tuckey, M. (2018). Supervisory coaching and performance feedback as mediators of the relationships between leadership styles, work engagement, and turnover intention. Human Resource Development International, 22(3), 257–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2018.1530170
Lee, S.-Y. (1981). A Bayesian Approach to Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Psychometrika, 46(2), https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02293896
Lesener, T., Gusy, B., Jochmann, A., & Wolter, C. (2020). The drivers of work engagement: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal evidence. Work & Stress, 34, 259–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2019.1686440
Lonsdale, D. J. (2016). The effects of leader-member exchange and the feedback environment on organizational citizenship and withdrawal. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 19(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/mgr0000037
Mazzetti, G., Robledo, E., Vignoli, M., Topa, G., Guglielmi, D., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2021). Work engagement: A meta-analysis using the job demands-resources model. Psychological Reports, 126, 1069–1107. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941211051988
Merkle, E. C., Fitzsimmons, E., Uanhoro, J., & Goodrich, B. (2021). Efficient Bayesian Structural Equation Modeling in Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 100(6), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v100.i06
Merkle, E. C., & Rosseel, Y. (2018). blavaan: Bayesian structural equation models via parameter expansion. Journal of Statistical Software, 85(4), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v085.i04
Michaels, C. E., & Spector, P. E. (1982). Causes of employee turnover: A test of the Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, and Meglino model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(1), 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.67.1.53
Miller, S. (2019). Generation Z and Millennials seek recognition at work. SHRM. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/benefits/pages/generation-z-and-millennials-seek-recognition-at-work.aspx
Miočević, M., MacKinnon, D. P., & Levy, R. (2017). Power in Bayesian mediation analysis for small sample research. Structural Equation Modeling. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1312407
Ntseke, T., Mitonga-Monga, J., & Hoole, C. (2022). Transformational leadership influences on work engagement and turnover intention in an engineering organisation. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, a2013. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v20i0.2013
Oliveira, L. B., & Najnudel, P. S. (2023). Pengaruh supervisi abusif terhadap keterikatan, stres dan intensi turnover karyawan. Jurnal Ilmiah Terapan, 30(1), 78–91 https://doi.org/10.1108/REGE-02-2021-0025
Raditriono, R., & Hendarsjah, H. (2024). The influence of performance evaluation satisfaction, salary satisfaction, and supervisor support on employee turnover intention: The mediating role of work engagement. Eduvest, 4(7). https://doi.org/10.59188/eduvest.v4i7.1535
Rohayati, T., Destalani, A. A., Arizka, H. D., Fahrezi, M. D., & Dwidienawati, D. (2022). Impact of job satisfaction, positive organizational culture and meaningful work on turnover intention in Gen Z. WSEAS Transactions on Systems, 22, 613-621. https://doi.org/10.37394/23202.2023.22.62
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.3.219
Smid, S. C., McNeish, D. M., Miočević, M., & van de Schoot, R. (2019). Bayesian versus frequentist estimation for structural equation models in small sample contexts: A systematic review. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27, 131–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2019.1577140
Steelman, L. A., Levy, P. E., & Snell, A. F. (2004). The feedback environment scale: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(1), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164403258440
Suazo, M. M., Martínez, P. G., & Sandoval, R. (2009). Creating psychological and legal contracts through human resource practices: A signaling theory perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 19(2), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.11.002
Sugiyono. (2019). Metode penelitian kuantitatif, kualitatif & R&D. Alfabeta.
Wibowo, F., Susilowati, E., & Setiyawan, A. A. (2024). Fenomena turnover intention pada Generasi Z dalam revolusi industri 5.0. Journal of Management and Digital Business, 4(2), 313–325, https://doi.org/10.53088/jmdb.v4i2.1120
Wingard, J. (2021, September 2). The great resignation: Why Gen Z is leaving the workforce in droves and what to do about it. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonwingard/2021/09/02/the-great-resignation-why-gen-z-is-leaving-the-workforce-in-droves-and-what-to-do-about-it/
Witte, M. D. (2022). Gen Z are not 'coddled.' They are highly collaborative, self-reliant and pragmatic, according to new Stanford-affiliated research. Stanford Report. Retrieved from: https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2022/01/know-gen-z
Xue, B., Feng, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2024). Decent work, work engagement, and turnover intention among registered nurses: A cross-sectional study. BMC Nursing, 23, 31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-023-01662-6
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Moh. Fachri Zahdy, Debora Eflina Purba
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish their manuscripts in this journal agree to the following conditions:
- The copyright on each article belongs to the author(s).
- The author acknowledges that the International Journal of Psycology and Healt Science (IJPHS) has the right to be the first to publish with a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
- Authors can submit articles separately, arrange for the non-exclusive distribution of manuscripts that have been published in this journal into other versions (e.g., sent to the author's institutional repository, publication into books, etc.), by acknowledging that the manuscript has been published for the first time in the IJPHS.
