Pan-Pacific Conference XXXIV. Designing New Business Models in Developing Economies

(SD = 7.77), and work experience 12.8 years
(SD = 9.1). Non-union members (n = 378) were
more represented compared to members of a union
(n = 182).
Measuring instruments. Breach and violation were
measured with Robinson and Morrison’s [9]
instruments. Turnover intention was measured using
Roodt’s [15], [16] instrument. A five-point Likert
scale was employed for all items. The following
control variables were included: age (years), gender,
education, relationship status, job level, tenure
(years) as well as supervision responsibilities.
Intercorrelations and reliabilities are reported in
Table 1. In line with this study, correlations between
breach and turnover intention have been reported as
r = .33 [17], r = .42 [7] r = .28 [18], and between
violation and turnover intention as r = .44 [18] and
r = .62 [7].
Analyses. All three instruments were single factor
solutions following exploratory factor analyses. One
item was removed from the breach scale.
Hierarchical regressions were conducted to assess
the models’ fit for the complete sample, the union
and non-union member samples. Control variables
were entered in Step 1 and the independent
variables in Step 2. Fisher’s Z-test [19], [20] was
employed to examine the differences between the
correlation coefficients for the models of union and
non-union members. To compare the structure of
the models, predicted turnover intention values,
inclusive of the control variables, were constructed
from the union and non−union membership models
and assessed with Hotelling’s T 2 -test [19], [21]. The
individual variables’ contribution to the different
models were calculated order to minimize Type I
and III errors due to too large Z-values as a result of
large samples [21].
RESULTS
The results of the hierarchical regressions (Question
1) are reported in Table 2. Breach and violation
significantly predicted turnover intention for all
respondents (R 2 = .307, F(9, 515) = 25.390,
p < .001). The model of the non-union members had
an R 2 = .320 (F(9, 339) = 17.730, p < .001) with
breach and violation significantly predicting
turnover intention. Compared to violation (β = .132)
and age (β = −.176), breach (β = .445) seemed to
have the biggest contribution to the model. The
model of the union members (R 2 = .338,
F(9, 164) = 9.303, p < .001) evidenced that violation
(β = .391) seemed to have the biggest contribution
compared to breach (β = .244). One control
variable, age (contributing 1.00% to the total R 2 ),
was a significant predictor of turnover intention for
all respondents (β = −.157) and non-union members
(β = −.176), but not for union members (β = −.043).
There was no significant difference between the R 2
values of the union and non-union members’ models
(Question 2). A Fisher’s Z-test (Z = 0.24, p = .405)
indicated that the set of independent variables
equally well predict turnover intention for union
(r g1 = .581, n g1 = 174) and non-union members
(r g2 = .566, n g2 = 349). This was followed by a
comparison of the weights of the predictors between
the two models (Question 3). This comparison
commenced with “applying the model derived from
the union members to the data from the non-union
members and comparing the resulting ‘crossed’ R 2
with the ‘direct’ R 2 originally obtained from this
group” [21, p. 7]. Next, a Hotelling’s T 2 -test
evidenced a significant difference (Z = 3.76,
p < 0.01) between the direct R 2 = .560 and the
crossed R 2 = .479. Breach (Z = 7.170, p < .001) and
violation (Z = 5.060, p < .001) (see Table 3) had
statistically significant different regression weights
between the two models. Violation had a stronger
impact on turnover intention for the union-members
(β = .258) compared to the non-union members
(β = .122) as opposed to breach that was the
strongest predictor for non-union members
(β = .413) compared to union members (β = .211).
Two control variables, age (Z = −1.974, p < .024)
and relationship status (Z = −1.974, p < .034)
differed significantly between the two groups.
DISCUSSION
The first question focused on turnover intention as
predicted by breach and violation. Results
evidenced that both breach and violation has a
positive relationship to turnover intention, similar to
previous studies that examined the relationship
between breach [7], [17], [22] as well as violation
[10] with turnover intent. Thus employees are more
likely to leave their organizations when they
perceive higher levels of breach and violation.
The next question sought to explore significant
differences between the models for union and nonunion
members. There was no significant difference
between the models for the union and non-union
member models. A possible explanation may be that
significant differences may not be evident in the
overall models, but discernible in the structures (i.e.
individual regressions) within each model. The last
question aimed to investigate whether significant
differences are evident in the strength of individual
regressions between the two models. Significant
differences between the individual regressions
revealed that breach was the strongest predictor of
turnover intention of non-union members compared
to violation that was the strongest predictor of
turnover intention of non-union members. Previous
research evidenced different levels of violation
between groups in particular between temporary
(low levels) and permanent employees (high levels)
[10]. Although union instrumentality has a lowering
effect of breach on violation [14], the difference
between the union and non-union members in this
study may be explained by the union-members’
attempts to make sense of perceived breach and the
meanings attached to it [9], which could have
increased the intensity of their emotions [8].
Practical implications. Management need to be
cognizant of a perceived breach (violation) which
may solicit emotional reactions among union
members, and, need to find avenues to address these
issues appropriately.
13