Mediating Effect of Learning Capacity On Between Turnover Intention and Organizational Commitment: A Case in Health Sector

I
R
S www.irss.academyirmbr.com August 2014
S International Review of Social Sciences Vol. 2 Issue.8
Mediating Effect of Learning Capacity on Between Turnover

Intention and Organizational Commitment: A Case in Health
Sector
ABDURRAHIM EMHAN
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Selahaddin Eyyübi University, Institute of Social Sciences
Email: aemhan@gmail.com
Tel: +90 0412 290 44 44
İSMAIL MERİÇ
Çanakkale 18 Mart University, Institute of Social Sciences,
Email: imeric@gmail.com
Tel: +90 286 218 05 23
MUSTAFA ZİNCİRKIRAN
Asist. Prof. Dr. Dicle University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences
Email: mustafa.zincirkiran@dicle.edu.tr, mzincirkiran@gmail.com
Tel: +90 0412 248 82 75
Abstract
This study aims to analyze the relationship among organizational commitment, organizational learning
capacity and turnover intention within the health sector. A 23-items questionnaire excluding demographic
questions was used to test the model. These surveys were distributed to employees of public and private
hospitals in Gaziantep and Diyarbakir which are located in Turkey's Southeastern Anatolia Region, 269 of
questionnaires were returned and used for analysis. As a result, significant relationships between learning
capacity and turnover intention have been identified. And organizational commitment of in addition, the
study indicated that the learning capacity mediated the relationship between turnover intention and
organizational commitment. According to another finding of the study, private hospital employees reported
higher leves of learning capacity and organizational commitment but lower level turnover intention than
their counterparts in public hospitals. Additionally, in terms of demographic variables, some differences
were found.
Key Word: Turn Over Intention, Organizational Commitment, Learning Capacity, Health Sector.
Introduction
Humans, namely the employees has actually been one of the most significant factors of business life from
past to present. Despite the fact that both scientists and business managers introduce different factors
(technology, capital, competitors etc.) in the respective literature in order to gain a competitive advantage,
it is possible to suppose that human factor has always remained at the forefront. In this respect, extent of
employee’s commitment to the companies they work for and reasons that lead them to quit their jobs have
served as a basis for researches. Commitment of employees to the organization directly influences the care
and attention they pay to their works. This plays an important role achieving the targets for the
organization.
ISSN 2309-0081 Emhan, Meriç & Zincirkiran (2014) 257

I
R
Employee turnover rate is another factor that influence the success of employees and the business. Business
managers are always willing to work with well-trained and experienced employees. However, turnover
intention that occur on the grounds of certain individual or organizational reasons has a negative impact on
the business’s performance in every aspect. This is much more important in health businesses. It may be
supposed that organizational commitment of employees is directly proportional to the well-being of
businesses in the health sector, activities of which have a direct influence on human life. On the other hand,
low employee turnover rate or highly experienced employees may have a vital importance for a health
business as the occasion requires.
This study has been carried out with the purpose of analyzing the relationship between turnover intention
and organizational commitment of employees in the health sector and function between two factors of
learning capacity. Although the concepts of organizational learning capacity, organizational commitment
and turnover intention have been analyzed with different combinations in different areas, application of
these three concepts in the health sector is not very common. It is considered that the data obtained will be
useful especially for managers, employees and academicians. Research question of this study is as follows:
Is there any difference between public and private hospitals in terms of organizational commitment,
learning capacity and turnover intention?
Organizational Commitment
Studies of organizational commitment have had a significant place in the organizational behavior literature
by virtue of its relationship with the productivity of employees in organizations. Enhancing organizational
commitment is both one of the primary efforts of organizations and also a target to be achieved. If there is
organizational commitment, employees are more agreeable, more productive and have a higher sense of
belonging and responsibility (Koç and Topaloğlu, 2010: 216).
Organizational commitment is identified the relative strength required for integration of a person with a
certain organization (Mowday and Steers, 1979: 226) and sum of efforts internalized in order to behave in
compliance with the organization’s aims (Özmen et al., 2005:2). The problem of agreeing on the definition
of organizational behavior concepts also reveals itself for the organizational commitment. However, there
are generally three characteristics taken into account in defining organizational commitment (Allen and
Mayer, 1990: 1).


Accepting and strongly believing in the aims and values of the organization,

A strong willingness in carrying out activities of the organization,
A strong desire to maintain membership to the organization.
According to another definition, organizational commitment is the psychological commitment of

individuals to the organization. Commitment arises from interest in and loyalty to the work and strong
belief in the organizational values (O’Reilley Charles, 1989:18, cited by Çekmecelioğlu, 2006: 155).
Recently, some researchers prefer analyzing dimensions of organizational commitment individually rather
than defining the concept. According to the model developed by Meyer and Allen, commitment of the
individual to the organization consists of three components, which are affective, normative and continuance
(Çekmecelioğlu, 2006: 155). The first component of the model, affective commitment, is defined as
employees’ emotional interests in the organization and desire of taking part in and being identified with the
organization. Normative commitment, which is the second component of commitment, involves moral
values and beliefs and caused by the perception of staying in the organization as a moral obligation. The
third component, continuance commitment, is the commitment to continue in the organization by virtue of
the employee’s perception about the cost to be borne in case of unemployment (Meyer, Allen, Topolnytsky,
1998:42). This type of commitment is developed due to the concern of losing the gainings like status,
income etc. obtained in return for labor, time and effort (investment) spent during the period of working for

I
R
the organization. In this extent, the individual wants to stay in the organization by virtue of the relationships
he/she has established in the organization. These three components in the organizational commitment
model of Meyer and Allen have four common characteristics (Meyer and Allen, 1997: 11-24);


They reflect the psychological state.

They show relationships between the individual and the organization.

They are related to the decision of maintaining membership to the organization.
They have mitigating impacts on the turnover intention.
It is stated in many studies that the most important determinant of the individual’s organizational
commitment is job satisfaction. While organizational commitment is an attitude towards the organization as
a more extensive concept, job satisfaction is an attitude towards the job. Job satisfaction is composed of
inner reactions of the individual to the perceptions regarding the work and working conditions, which are
processes through a system of norms, values and expectations (Schneider and Snyder, 1975:31).
Another issue discussed in the literature of organizational behaviors is the factors determining
organizational commitment level. Mowday, Porter and Steers (1982) classified the factors influencing the
organizational commitment level of employees and gathered them under the titles of individual,
characteristics of the role and work, structural characteristics, work experience and work environment
(Boylu et al., 2007:59).
In conclusion, organizational commitment may be considered as a bond between the organization and
employees, where employees see themselves as a part of the organization, want to stay in the workplace,
adopt and adhere to purposes and values of the organization (Çetin and Basım, 2011:84). In the extent of
this definition, it may be claimed that individuals having a strong bond with the organization have a lower
turnover intention.
Turnover Intention
Today, turnovers constitute a significant cost item for companies. Therefore, it is very important to
determine the turnover intention as early as possible and help personnel planners about the reason behind
this intention. Turnover is an individual process performed in order to quit membership to an organization
(Price, 2001:600). This process may be interpreted as quitting the job or starting a new job.
Morrell suggests that turnovers have three key features: (Morrell, 2001:10).
1) Turnovers Based on Voluntariness:
Various reasons like job satisfaction may be presented as the reason of turnover. It is important to
distinguish voluntary and involuntary turnover. Otherwise, wrong assessments may be made concerning the
reasons of all turnovers as turnovers are mostly voluntary and may be controlled by the managers,
researches in this area are usually about voluntary turnovers (Price, 2001).
Table 1: Description of Voluntary and Involuntary Turnovers

Mode of Turnover Description Examples
Voluntary Turnover Voluntary cessation of membership of an Resignation
organization by an employee of that
organization.”(Morrell, 2001:6)
Involuntary Turnover Movement across the membership boundary of an Dismissal
organization, which is not initiated by the employee. Retrenchment
(Price, 1977: 9) Death

I
R
2) Inevitability of Turnovers:
The purpose here is to make various plans for the company to prevent voluntary turnovers. For example,
turnovers arising from marriage are inevitable turnovers. It should be considered that there is a necessity
behind such turnovers, instead of preventing it by increasing the wage.
3) Functionality of Turnovers:
Most studies on turnover have associated turnover with a negative impact on organizational effectiveness.
Dalton (1981) divides the leavers into two types. Those who are productive and those who are productive to
a certain extent. A functional turnover would be the replacement of unproductive employees with
productive ones, thus dysfunctional turnover would be interpreted as losing productive employees. For
managers it is important whether a turnover brings an opportunity to gain more productive employees or
forces them to reorganize current work settings (Morrell, 2001:6).
According to the researches, turnover intention has a negative relationship with all variables. As the
employees’ work commitment, work participation, affective, normative and continuance commitment to the
organization increase, their turnover intentions decrease (Çakar and Ceylan, 2005:64).
Learning Capacity
The idea suggesting that organizations learn represents one of the most meaningful progresses in the
management and organization theory in the last fifty years (Lipshitz et al., 2007: 5). Learning organization
is a concept developed by virtue of the need for creating a learning environment as a result of the
developments arising from great and rapid changes in the environmental conditions in 1990s. Leaning in
organizations is analyzed in two areas: organizational learning and learning organization. “Organizational
learning” is described as a process, while “learning organizations” expresses the structures that lead to
learning by internalizing the factors and principles which enable learning (Chiva and Alegre, 2009).
Properties that constitute the basis of organizational learning are analyzed in scope of the concept of
organizational learning. Organizational learning have benefits such that environmental developments
guarantee success of organization in the long run and increase creativity and skill of orientation (Teare and
Dealtry, 1998).
Organizational learning addresses to the change in organizational information (e.g. organizational rules,
roles, traditions, strategies, structures, technologies, cultural practices, skills etc.) and additions to,
transformations in and reductions from such information. Therefore, in Shultz’s view, organizational
learning theories try to clarify processes that provide or hinder changes in the organizational information
and impacts of learning and information on behaviors and organizational outputs (Schulz, 2002: 415, cited
by Koç, 2009: 153).
Sevmen suggests that organizational learning attaches importance to the establishment of an open
communication medium that promotes continuous learning and improvement of employees. Integration of
the learning process into the organizational culture and planned performance of the process are important.
Management of the organization is responsible for creating and maintaining a culture that promote learning.
Individuals in the organization gather, try and thus learn the information (Sevmen, 2002: 108).
There are two primary models of organizational learning (Arıkan, 1999: 20).
 Traditional Organizational Learning Model: This is the learning model in which information flows
from bottom to top in the organizational hierarchy.

I
R
 Modern Organizational Learning Model: Information flows mutually both from top to bottom and
from bottom to top. Managers are responsible for creating an environment suitable for learning and
employees are responsible for learning.
Learning may be on an individual, group or organizational level. This may be clarified from a personal or
social perspective (Popper and Lipshitz, 1999).
Another different model on this subject is the organizational learning approach of Ultich, Van Glinow and
Jick. These three scientists suggested four different approaches in organizational learning according to the
results of the research carried out with 1359 managers working in different countries (Güney, 2001: 474).
 Learning by Gaining Ability: Enterprises search for new ways and methods for the performance of the

work and promote learning.
Learning by Trial: Enterprises constantly develop new ideas and thus try to gain a competitive

advantage.
Learning by Continuous Development: Enterprises strive for learning their current status and

becoming a leading company in this extent.
Learning by Measuring the Limits Enterprises constantly review activities of other enterprises’
activities, compare them to their own activities and try to obtain information from external sources.
Literature of learning organization attempts to define the organization and people in the organization. Senge
(1998: 15) states that learning organization consists of five disciplines, each having a vital importance for
others: Personal mastery, mental models, building shared vision, team learning and systems thinking.
In Garvin’s view, learning organizations put emphasis on systematical problem solving, trial of new ideas,
learning from experiences and past knowledge and learning from the experiences of other members of the
organization and rapid transfer of the obtained information within the organization (Garvin, 1993). The
distinction between organizational learning and learning organization is summarized in the following table.
Table 2. Distinction between Organizational Learning and Learning Organization

Subject of Organizational Learning Organization
Distinction Learning
Approach Descriptive Predictive
Existence Natural and available. It requires action and cannot
be accessed.
The main question How an organization How an organization should
learns? learn?
Target audience Academics Practitioners and consultants
Objective Developing theory Improving organizational
performance
Focus Processes Organizational form
Learning- It may be positive or It is expected to be positive.
performance negative
relationship
Result of learning Potential behavioral Existing behavioral change
change
Source: Örtenblad 2001: 128 and Tsang, 1997: 85 cited by Koç, 2009:154
Chiva and Alegre suggests five factors that facilitate learning (Chiva and Alegre, 2009). These are
experimentation, risk taking, communication, interaction with the external environment and participative
decision making.

I
R
It is determined in many studies that there is a positive linear relationship between learning activities and
performance and employees displaying a high performance in organizations are more interested in learning
activities (Garver, 1996). In another study, it is seen that learning in organizations have a positive impact on
the performance of organizations (Jashapara, 1993). According to studies, there is a positive linear
relationship between organizational learning and performance (Power and Waddell, 2004).
Relationship Between Organizational Commitment, Turnover Intention and

Learning Capacity
Despite the fact that organizational commitment have a lot of results, the primary results frequently
discussed in the literature are “performance level”, “absenteeism (tardiness and avoidance)” and “turnover
intention”. Employees, who are well-behaved and have affective commitment to the organization, display
more behaviors of organizational citizenship and have a lower turnover intention (Sun et al., 2007). In
other researches, it is found out that employees with job satisfaction are more productive and participative
(McNeese-Smith, 1997).
Riordan suggests that employees will have a higher sense of participation, commitment and motivation if a
larger part of the works to be performed in an organization is planned by employees when compared to
managers. As a result, employees will have a higher morale and lower turnover intention and will display a
stronger performance (Riordan, 2005: 475).
Furthermore, importance of these concepts increase, considering the fact that turnover intention, avoidance
and absence rates of employees with a high level of commitment to the organization will be lower than
those of employees with a lower organizational commitment (Ersoy and Bayraktaroğlu, 2010:1).
Similarly, involvement of organizations in learning activities and provision of learning opportunities to the
employees will have a positive impact on their job satisfaction, improve their performances and thus they
will be more productive (Rowden and Conine, 2005; Leslie et al.,1998).
Blau and Boal (1989) determined in their research that there is a statistically significant negative
relationship between organizational commitment and turnover intention (Çakar and Ceylan, 2005). Allen
and Meyer suggest that employees with a high level of affective commitment will display a high
performance as they are satisfied with their workplaces (Ersoy and Bayraktaroğlu, 2010: 11). It may be
claimed that increase in the employee’s performance will positively influence the learning capacity.
Turnover - Organizational
Intention Commitment
- +
Organizational
Learning
Capacity
Figure 1. Conceptual Model

I
R
In consideration to the above-given statements about learning capacity, job satisfaction and organizational
performance levels:
H1: “There is a negative linear relationship between turnover intention and organizational commitment.”
H2: “There is a negative linear relationship between turnover intention and learning capacity.”
H3: “Organizational learning capacity has a mediating impact on the relationship between turnover
intention and organizational commitment.”
The above conceptual model, which shows the relationship between turnover intention, organizational
commitment and learning capacity, may be developed by making use of the literature (Figure 1).
Research Method
Research Population and Sample:
Apart from demographic variables, a 23-item questionnaire is used in order to test hypotheses and the
model. These surveys were distributed to employees of public and private hospitals in Gaziantep and
Diyarbakir which are located in Turkey’s Southeastern Anatolia Region, 269 of questionnaires were
returned and used for analysis.
Data Collection Tools:
A demographic information form and three different scales were used in the collection of data in order to
determine job satisfaction, learning capacity and organizational commitment level of employees.
a) Demographic Information Form:
This questionnaire aims to gather demographical information concerning employees of the institution and
includes personal information like age, gender, marital status, work experience, department and title.
b) Organizational Commitment Scale:
This questionnaire is adapted by Bakiev (2011) from the surveys of Nyhan (2000) and Porter-Smith (1970)
in order to determine organizational commitment levels of employees and uses a five-point Likert scale.
Answers to the items in the questionnaire are evaluated with points from 1 to 5 and issued as follows: (1)
never, (2) rarely, (3) occasionally, (4) frequently and (5) very frequently. In the reliability analysis,
Cronbach Alpha coefficient is found as 0.84. Skewness and Kurtosis values are found to be between -1 and
+1 and distribution is normal.
c) Learning Capacity Scale:
This scale was developed by Chiva and Alegre (2009) to measure the organizational learning capacity. This
scale consists of five questions and uses a five-point Likert grading. Answers to the items in the
questionnaire are evaluated with points from 1 to 5 and issued as follows: (1) never, (2) rarely, (3)
occasionally, (4) frequently and (5) absolutely. In the reliability analysis, Cronbach Alpha coefficient is
found as 0.90. Skewness and kurtosis values are found to be between -1 and +1 and distribution is normal.
d) Turnover Intention Scale
4-item turnover intention scale, which was developed by Walsh, Ashford and Hill (1985), is used. Answers
to the items in the questionnaire are evaluated with points from 1 to 5 and issued as follows: (1) never, (2)
rarely, (3) occasionally, (4) frequently and (5) absolutely. In the reliability analysis, Cronbach Alpha

I
R
coefficient is found as 0.84. Skewness and Kurtosis values are found to be between -1 and +1 and
distribution is normal.
Data Analysis:
SPSS 18.0 statistics program is used in evaluating the data. Structural Equation Model with AMOS 18.0
software is used in the analysis of the data obtained. Furthermore, t-test is used for the comparison of
variables. Data are evaluated on the basis of total points of participants’ answers to each question. In this
research, statistical significance level is taken as p<0.5.
Findings
Tables 1 includes certain demographical information about the participants of the research. As seen in the
table, 269 employees, out of which 177 are from public hospitals and 92 are from private hospitals,
participated in the research.
Table 1: Demographic Variables
Public Private
Hospitals Hospitals
Variables
Frequency (%) Frequency (%)
n=177 n=92
Gender
Male 117 (55,2 ) 119 (49,8)
Female 95 (44,8) 120 (50,2)
Age
20-30 128 (60,4) 96 (40,2)
31-40 52 (24,5) 97 (40,6)
41-50 21 (9,9) 44 (18,4)
51+ 11 (5,2) 2 (0,8)
Marital Status
Married 124 (58,5) 146 (61,1)
Single 88 (41,5) 93 (38,9)
Educational Background
Primary/Secondary
7 (3,3) 9 (3,8)
School
High School 39 (18,5) 35 (14,6)
University 147 (69,3) 187 (78,2)
Master’s Degree 19 (9) 8 (3,3)
Position
Officer 143 (67,5) 123 (51,5)
Nurse 24 (11,3) 55 (23)
Doctor and technician 34 (16) 44 (18,4)
Manager/Assistant
11 (5,2) 17 (7,1)
Manager
Experience
1-5 118 (55,7) 93 (38,9)
6-10 45 (21,2) 68 (28,5)
11-15 22 (10,4) 34 (14,2)
16-20 15 (7,1) 15 (6,3)
21+ 12 (5,7) 29 (12,1)
n:269

I
R
Structural equation model is used in order to test the mediating effect of the model. As values sufficient for
fit could not be provided in the generic model of the study, the model is revised. Fit statistical (goodness-
of-fit) values of the generic and revised model (Schumacker and Lomax, 2004: 82) are given in the
following table:
Table 2: Fit Statistical Values of the Reference and Revised Model

Reference Revised
Index Required Value
Model Model
Chi-square (χ2) The smaller, the better 332 302
Chi-square associated p value (p) Value≥ 0.05 0.00 0.00
Chi-square / Degree of Freedom
Value≤ 4 3.02 2.79
(χ2/df)
Root Mean Square Error of 0.05 < value ≤ .08; acceptable
0.067 0.063
Approximation (RMSEA) ≤ 0.05; good
RMSEA associated p value
≥ 0.05 0.000 0.006
(PCLOSE)
0.90 < value ≤ .0.95; acceptable
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) 0.91 0.92
≥ 0.95; good
0.90 < value ≤ .0.95; acceptable
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 0.93 0.94
≥ 0.95; good
Hoelter's Critical N 75 < value ≤ 200; acceptable
184 200
(Hoelter Index) ≥ 200; good
In the revised structural equation model, all indicators show a significant relationship with their latent
variables (p<0.0001). There is a negative linear relationship between turnover intention and organizational
commitment (p<0.0001). There is a negative linear relationship between turnover intention and learning
(p<0.0001). According to these results, research hypotheses are supported. In this model, it is determined
that organizational learning has a mediating effect in the relationship between turnover intention and
organizational commitment and the model is given in the following Figure 2.
Figure 2: Structural Equation Model of the Relationships between Turnover Intention, Organizational
Commitment and Learning Capacity
I
R
In this scope, standardized regression weight of the relationship between turnover intention and
organizational commitment is found as -0.31 and weight of the relationship between turnover intention and
learning capacity is found as -0.21. Considering these results, it may be suggested that organizational
commitment decreases as the turnover intention increases. It is determined in the model that learning
capacity, as an important mediating effect, influences the relationship between turnover intention and
organizational commitment in a statistically significant manner. It is found out that variables of turnover
intention and learning capacity explains 51% of the variance in organizational commitment variable.
Analysis results according to certain demographic variables:
 Private hospital employees reported a higher score of organizational commitment and learning

capacity when compared to public hospital employees (p<0.001, t: -7.11; p<0.001, t: -5.67).
Private hospital employees reported a lower score of turnover intention when compared to public

hospital employees (p<0.05, t: 2.72).
High school graduates reported a higher score of organizational commitment and learning capacity

when compared to university graduates (p<0.005, t: 3.10; p<0.005, t: 2.53).
Nurses reported a lower score of organizational commitment and learning capacity when compared to
emergency medicine technicians, laboratory assistants and administrative personnel (secretaries,
officers) (p<0.005, t: -3.52; p<0.05, t: -2.29).
Discussion
It is determined in the research that there is a negative linear relationship between turnover intention and
organizational commitment. The results obtained are compatible with the results of previous researches
(Price, 2001; Riordan, 2005; Çakar and Ceylan, 2005; Çekmecelioğlu, 2006; Ersoy and Bayraktaroğlu,
2010; Çetin and Basım, 2011). Accordingly, it may be suggested that organizational commitment will
decrease as the turnover intention increases. It is determined that learning capacity, as an important
mediating effect, influences the relationship between turnover intention and organizational commitment in
a statistically significant manner. To clarify this result, it may be stated that turnover intention of employees
changes depending n the learning capacity in the organization. It is possible to suggest that, as employees’
capacity to learn the work that they perform in the workplace increase, their turnover intention will
decrease, or vice versa. In other words, learning capacity influences organizational commitment by virtue
of its mediating effect. Accordingly, it may be suggested that decrease in the turnover intention of
employees will positively increase organizational commitment, depending on increase in their learning
capacity. In this respect, business managers should pay the attention required to make employees,
especially the new ones, firstly learn the work in order to keep them in the organization. This will increase
employees’ commitment to the organization and eliminate the intention to quit.
According to another result of the research, private hospital employees reported a higher score of
organizational commitment and learning capacity when compared to public hospital employees. This may
be considered as result of on-the-job trainings, which are valued more in the private sector and given at
short intervals to employees. As previously stated, organizational commitment of an employee, who learns
the work on the job better, will be at the same level.
According to another result, private hospital employees reported a lower score of turnover intention when
compared to public hospital employees. It may be argued that this is the result of poor employment
opportunities or the unemployment problem in our country that may be experienced by private sector
employees after quitting their jobs. It may also be caused by the fact that public employees do not have a
tendency to change their jobs. In the research, high school graduates reported a higher score of
organizational commitment and learning capacity when compared to university graduates. This may be a
result of their high learning capacity and higher need for education when compared to university graduates.
From another perspective, high school graduates have less job opportunities compared to university
graduates. It may be assumed that their organizational commitment increases accordingly.

I
R
According to another result, nurses reported a lower score of organizational commitment and learning
capacity when compared to emergency medicine technicians, laboratory assistants and administrative
personnel (secretaries, officers). This may be related to the characteristics of their job. As the rate of change
of the work of emergency medicine technicians, laboratory assistants or other administrative personnel is
higher than that of nurses, nurses may not need to renew or improve themselves. Moreover, this may be
triggered by the intensive labor demand for nurses in the sector. Organizational commitment of nurses
decreases accordingly.
In conclusion, it is determined that there is a significant relationship among turnover intention,

organizational commitment and learning capacity and learning capacity has a mediating effect in the
relationship between turnover intention and organizational commitment. Furthermore, private hospital
employees reported a higher score of organizational commitment and learning capacity when compared to
public hospital employees. Additionally, private hospital employees reported a lower turnover intention
when compared to public hospital employees. The fact that this research is limited to Southeastern Anatolia
and a limited number of questionnaires are applied is the main constraint of the research. Another constraint
is that the research is based on the perceptions of employees, rather than objective evaluations as in other
surveys.
References
Allen, N. J., ve Meyer, J. P. (1990). The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance, and
Normative Commitment to the Organization, Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, pp.1–18.
Bakiev, E. (2011). Determinants of Interpersonal Trust, Organizational Commitment for Performance
within Kyrgyz National Police, University of Central Florida, Orlando (unpublished dissertation).
Blau, G., and Boal, K. (1989). Using job involvement and organizational commitment interactively to
predict turnover. Journal of Management, 15(1), 115-127.
Boylu, Y., Pelit, E. ve Güçer, E. (2007). Akademisyenlerin Örgütsel Bağlılık Düzeyleri Üzerine Bir
Araştırma, Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar Dergisi, Cilt:44 Sayı:511, ss.55-74.
Brief, A.P. (1998), Attitudes in and around Organizations, Sage, Thousands Oaks, CA.
Brown, J. S. and P. Duguid (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: toward a unified
view of working, learning, and innovation, Organization Science, 2 pp.40–57.
Chiva, R. ve Alegre J. (2009). Organizational Learning Capacity and Job Satisfaction: An Empirical
Assessment in the Ceramic Tile Industry, British Journal of Management. 20 pp.323-340.
Cordero, R., (1990). The Measurement of Innovation Performance in Firm: An Overview, Research
Policy. 19(2) pp. 185-192.
Crossman, M., H. Lane and R. White (1999). An organizational learning framework: from intuition to
institution, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24, No.3 pp.522–537.
Crossman, A. and Abou-Zaki, B. (2003). Job satisfaction and employee performance of Labanese banking
staff, Journal of Managerial Psychology. 18(4) pp.368-376
Çakar, N.D. ve Ceylan, A. (2005). “İş Motivasyonunun Çalışan Bağlılığı ve İşten Ayrılma Eğilimi
Üzerindeki Etkileri”, Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, Cilt:6, Sayı:1, Sf. ss.52-66.
Çekmecelioğlu, H. (2006). İş Tatmini Ve Örgütsel Bağlılık Tutumlarının İşten Ayrılma Niyeti ve
Verimlilik Üzerindeki Etkilerinin Değerlendirilmesi: Bir Araştırma, İş, Güç Endüstri İlişkileri ve
İnsan Kaynakları Dergisi, Cilt:8, Sayı:2, ss. 153-168.
Basım, N.H. ve Çetin, F. (2011). Psikolojik Dayanıklılığın İş Tatmini ve Örgütsel Bağlılık Tutumlarındaki
Rolü, İş, Güç Endüstri İlişkileri ve İnsan Kaynakları Dergisi, Cilt:13, Sayı:3, ss.79-94.
Dalton D. R., Krackhardt D. M. & Porter L. W. (1981). Functional Turnover an Empirical Assessment,
Journal of Applied Psychology 66, pp.716-721.
Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational Learning: A Review of Some Literatures, Organizational Studies,
SAGE Publication, London UK, Vol.14, No.3 pp.375-394.
Erdoğan, İlhan, (1996), İşletme Yönetiminde Örgütsel Davranış, Aviol Yayın, İstanbul.

I
R
Ersoy, S. ve Bayraktaroğlu S. (2010). Örgütsel Bağlılık, İçinde: Özler, D.E. (Edi.), Örgütsel Davranışta
Güncel Konular, Bursa: Ekin Yayınevi, ss.1-19.
Garver, C.R. (1996). Organizational learning climate, self-directed learner characteristics, and job
performance among the police officers. Unpublished doctorial dissertation. The Pennsylvania State
University.
Garvin, David A. (1993). Building a Learning Organization, Harvard Business Review 74, no. 4 (July
1993): 78.
Glisson, C. ve Durick M. (1988). Predictors of Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in Human
Service Organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly. 33(1) pp. 61-81.
Güney, S. (2001), Yönetim ve Organizasyon, Nobel Kitabevi, Ankara.
Hackman, J.R.ve Oldham G.R. (1976), Motivation through the Design of Work: Test of a Theory,
Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance. 16 pp. 250-279.
Hendry, C. (1996). Understanding and creating while organizational change through learning theory.
Human Relations. 49(5) pp. 621-641
Herzberg, F., Mausner B., ve Snyderman B.B. (1959), The Motivation to Work, John Wiley, New York.
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organization Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, Special Issue: Organizational Learning: Papers
in Honor of (and by) James G. March. (1991), pp.88-115.
Jashapara, A.(1993).The competitive learning organization: a quest for the holly grail. Management
Decision. 31(8), pp.52-62.
Jerez-Gomez, P., J. Cespedes-Lorente and Valle-Cabrera R. (2005). Organizational learning and
compensation strategies: evidence from the Spanish chemical industry, Human Resource Management,
44, pp.279–299.
Khandekar, A. and Sharma, A. (2006). Organizational learning and performance: understanding Indian
scenario in present global context. Education and Training. 48 (8/9), pp.682-692.
Kim, S. (2005). Individual-level factors and organizational performance in government organizations.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(2), pp.245-261.
Koç, U. (2009). Örgütsel Öğrenme: Tanımı, Yakın Terimler Arasındaki Kavramsal Ayrımlar ve
Davranışsal Yaklaşım”, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi, İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi (C.X I,S I)
Koç, H. ve Topaloğlu, M. (2010). Yönetim Bilimi, Ankara: SeçkinYayıncılık.
Kula, S. (2011), Occupational Stress and Work-Related Wellbeing of Turkish National Police (TNP)
Members, University of Central Florida, Orlando (unpublished dissertation).
Leslie, B., Aring, M. and Brand, B. (1998), “Informal learning: the new frontier of employee and
organizational development”, Economic Development Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp.12-18.
Lebas, M.(1995). Performance measurement and performance management, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol:41, No:9, 1995, pp.23-35.
Lipshitz, R., V. J. Friedman ve M. Popper. (2007) Demystifying Organizational Learning, Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.Locke, E.A. (1976), The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction, in Dunnette,
M.D. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL.
Lofquist, L.H. and Dawis, R.V. (1969). Adjustment to Work: A Psychological View of Man’s Problems in a
Work-oriented Society, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, NY.
Luthans, Fred. (2012), Organizational Behavior An Evidence Based Approach, McGraw Hill Irwin,
Newyork
McNeese-Smith, D.K. (1997). The influence of manager behaviour on nurses’ job satisfaction, productivity
and commitment. Journal of Nursing Administration. 27, pp.47-55
Meyer, J.P.,Allen, N.J., & Topolnytsky, L., (1998), Commitment in A Changing World of Work, Canadian
Psychology, 39, pp. 83-93.
Morrell, K., Loan-Clarke, J. & Wilkinson (2001). Unweaving Leaving: The Use of Models in the
Management of Employee Turnover. Business School Research Series, pp.1-65.
Mowday R.T. Steers R.M. & Porter L.W. (1979). The Measure of Organizational Commitment, University
of Oregon, Oregon.
Nyhan, R. C. (2000). Changing the Paradigm-Trust and Its Role in Public Sector Organizations. American
Review of Public Administration. 30(1), pp. 87-109.
I
R
Örtenblad, A. (2001) “On Differences between Organizational Learning and Learning Organization”, The
Learning Organization, 8/3, pp. 125-133.
Özmen, T.Ö., Özer, P.S. ve Saatçioğlu, Ö.Y. (2005). Akademisyenlerde Örgütsel ve Mesleki Bağlılığın
İncelenmesine İlişkin Bir Örnek Araştırma, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt:6
Sayı:2, ss.1-14.
Pedler, M., J. Burgoyne and T. Boydell (1997). The Learning Company: A Strategy for Sustainable
Development. McGraw-Hill.
Politis, J.D (2005). Self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies and team performance: the mediating
influence of job satisfaction. Leadership and Organization Journal. 27(3), pp. 203-216.
Popovich, M. G., & Brizius, J. A. (1998). Creating high-performance government organizations: A
practical guide for public managers (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Popper, M. and Lipshitz, R. (1999). Organizational Learning Mechanisms, Culture, and Feasibility,
Essential Readings in Management Learning, pp.38-52.
Power, J. and Waddell, D. (2004). The link between self-managed work teams and learning organizations
using performance indicators. The Learning Organization. 11(2/3):244-259.
Price, J. (2001). Reflections on the Determinants of Voluntary Turnover. International Journal of
Manpower 22, pp.600-624.
Riordan, C. M.,Vandenberg R.J, and Richardson H.A. (2005). Employee Involvement Climate and
Organizational Effectiveness,” Human Resource Management 44, no. 4 (Winter) pp.471–488.
Rolstadas, A. (1998). Enterprise Performance Measurement, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management. 18(9/10) pp.989-999.
Rowden, R.W. and Conine Jr. (2005). “The impact of Workplace Learning on Job Satisfaction in Small US
Commercial Banks”. Journal of Workplace Learning.17(4) pp.215-230.
Sahin, I. (2010). Organizational Social Capital and Perceived Performance of Drug Law Enforcement
Departments: A Case Study in Turkey, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL (unpublished
dissertation).
Schneider, B., & Snyder, R. (1975). Some Relationships Between Job Satisfaction And Organizational
Climate”, Journal Of Applied Psychology, 60(3), pp. 318-328.
Schulz, M. (2002). Organizational learning. The Blackwell companion to organizations, 415-441.
Sevmen, O. (2002). Örgütsel Öğrenme ve Kıyaslama (Benchmarking) Tekniğinin Bir Örgütsel Öğrenme
Aracı Olarak kullanılması. Bursa: Ezgi Kitabevi.
Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement of Human Service Staff Satisfaction: Development of the Job
Satisfaction Survey. American Journal of Community Psychology. 13(6), pp. 693-713.
Spector, P.E. (1997). Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes and Consequences. United
Kingdom. Sage Publications.
Suliman, A.M.T. and Iles, P. (2000). Is continuance commitment beneficial to organizations? Commitment-
performance relationship: a new look. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 15(5), pp.407-426.
Sun, L. Y., Aryee, S., & Law, K. S. (2007). High performance human resources practices, citizenship
behavior and organizational performance: A relational perspective. Academy of Management Journal,
50, pp. 558-577
Teare, R. and Dealtry, R. (1998). Building and Sustaining A Learning Organization, The Learning
Organization, Vol.5, No.1.
Tsang, E. W. K. (1997). Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization: A Dichotomy between
Descriptive and Prescriptive Research”, Human Relations, 50/1, pp. 73-89.
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1996). In action: Creating the learning organization. Alexandria, VA:
American Society for Training and Development.
Walsh James P., Susan J. Ashford and Thomas E. Hill, (1985). Feedback Obstruction: The Influence of the
Information Environment on Employee Turnover Intention, Human Relations, Vol. 38, No. l, pp. 23-
46.
Wu, F. and Cavusgil, S.T. (2006). Organizational learning and joint value creation in interfirm
relationships. Journal of Business Research. 59, pp.81-89.

Mediating Effect of Learning Capacity On Between Turnover Intention and Organizational Commitment: A Case in Health Sector

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mediating Effect of Learning Capacity On Between Turnover Intention and Organizational Commitment: A Case in Health Sector

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mediating Effect of Learning Capacity On Between Turnover Intention and Organizational Commitment: A Case in Health Sector

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

I

S International Review of Social Sciences Vol. 2 Issue.8