Jeffery A. Young, PhDDistrict 3 Director

University of KentuckyCooperative Extension Service

What is Job Embeddedness?

Assessing factors from on and off the job, it includes an individual’s (a) links to other people, teams and

groups, (b) perception of their fit with their job,

organization and community and (c) what they say they would have to

sacrifice if they left their job.

Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski & Erez, (2001) Academy of Management Journal

Job Embeddedness –

“a net or a web in which one can become stuck”

Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski & Erez, (2001) Academy of Management Journal

Links - Connections

Organizational Age Marital Status Number and

Ages of Children Years of Service Professional Org. Work Teams Benefits

Community Hobbies Church-related

Activities Memberships in

Community Organizations

Local schools Home ownership Physical Location

Fit – Perceived Comfort

Organizational Work schedules Co–workers Work

environment Mission and

Values Career Goals Job skills and

abilities

Community Weather Outdoor

Activities Entertainment Political Climate Religious Climate Urban/Rural

nature of community

Sacrifice – What Will I Loose

Organizational Salary Benefits Perks Friendships Status Power Position

Community Length of time in

home Home

Personalization Distance of

commute Safety Community

leadership Friends and

neighbors Family - children

and parents

Context for Extension RetentionStudy Extension agents have high retention

rates No known studies examining Job

Embeddedness of Extension agents Results could help lower unwanted

turnover costs in other employee sub-sectors (Tziner & Birati, 1996)

Extension Agents in Other States Extension Support Staff and Para-

Professionals Other Public Employment Sectors

Purpose of the Study Understand retention amongst Extension

agents through the lens of Job Embeddedness

Contribute to the Job Embeddedness literature

Develop recommendations for Extension Human Resource professionals Extension agents Paraprofessionals and Support Staff (lower

retention)

Industry Retention Rate

Total U.S. 76.6%

Government 90.2%

Education and Health Service 81.4%

Health Care and Social Assistance 80.4%

Construction 71.3%

Retail Trade 65.3%

Leisure and Hospitality 47.8%

Food Service 43.6%

Retention other Sectors

State 2005-06 2006-07 2007-

08

2008-09 2009-10 Means

KY 96.4% 96.2% 95.1% 96.7% 97.3% 96.34%

TN 93.81% 94.1% 95.67% 98.13% 95.88% 95.12%

KS 98% 92% 94% 95% 98% 95.40%

LSU 96.87% 94.69% 95.24% 94.99% 92.54% 94.87%

MO   96% 98% 97.7%   97.23%

Five States’ Agricultural Extension Agent Retention Data over Five years. Note: Retention data provided by respective state’s HR departments at the request of Martha Thompson, UK Employment Specialist.

Extension Retention Rates

86% of employers experience difficulty attracting new employees (Ramlall 2003, p. 63)

58% of employers experience difficulty retaining their employees (Ramlall 2003, p. 63)

$80,000 per employee (Kutilek, 2000)

Costs Associated with Agent Turnover

150% of position salary (Friedman, D., Galinsky, E., & Plowden, V., 1992).

Currently approximately 8000 Extension Agents in U.S.

A 1% increase in retention could save $6.4 million replacement costs annually (80 agents x $80K)

Costs Associated with Agent Turnover

Census Research Census research was used to gather data from

population.

Online survey was distributed to all members of population.

454 total respondents State A = 313 State B = 141 72% total response rate

The researcher used quantitative methods including chi square tests, ANOVA, MANOVA, and Linear Regression.

631 Extension agents in population

38.2% Male

61.8% Female

46.4% Bachelors Degree52.9% Masters<1% PhD

96.3% White/ 3.1% African American/ <1% other

Avg. Age – 43.9

Description of Population

Gender

Race

Age

Extension Work Experience

Previous Work Experience

Type of Previous Work Experience

Education Level

Program Area

County Population

Research Question One

Does job embeddedness differ between State A and State B Extension agents?

Yes, ANOVA test showed a significant difference in the means, which corresponded to differences in respective retention rates.

MANOVA test showed that the significant differences between states lies in theFit Community and Links Organization components.Mitchell, et al. (2001); and Allen, (2006).

Research Question Two

Correlations between Job Embeddedness, Intent to Stay and Discretionary Effort

Were the relationships between job embeddedness, intent to stay and discretionary effort significant. Yes, moderate

(Lee et al., 2004)

  Job Embeddedness

Intent to

Stay

Discretionary

Effort

Job Embeddedness 1 .22** .33**Intent to Stay   1 -.01Discretionary Effort   1

Research Question 3  

Source

β coefficients  Sacrifice

communitySacrifice

organization

Fit community

Fit organizatio

n

Links community

Links organization

Total job embedded

nessGender (Female)              

Male -.04 

-.01 

.03 

-.017 

.02 

.12* 

.02 

Race (White)              African American .02 -.10* .17 -.12* .11 -.20 -.06American Indian -.13* -.21* -11* -.17* -.10* -.05 -.18*

Education level (Bachelors)

             

Masters .22 .16 .31 -.02 .72* -.62* .09Doctoral .51 .41 .74 .03 .82* -.74* .26

Age (22-27 yrs)              Age 28-32 -.10 -.22* -.02 -.08 -.12 .06 -.07Age 33-38 -.05 -.28* -.02 -.05 -.05 .03 -.04Age 39-43 -.03* -.27* -.02 -.07 -.06 -.02 -.05Age 44-49 -.04* -.22* -.01 -.03 -.04 -.03 -.03Age 50-55 -.09 -.04 .00 -.00 -.02 -.02 -.02Age 56-61 -.01 -.03 .00 -.02 -.00 -.01 -.01Age 62up -.30* -.30* -.08 -.36 -.34 .00 -.24*

Program area (ANR)

             

FCS -.17 .04 -.08 .12 -.10 -.13 -.054-H -.11 .04 .01 .07 -.07 -.09 -.03

Horticulture -.08 .05 -.02 .08 -.06 -.10 -.02CED .07 .13 .16 .18 .03 -.12 .07

Other -.15 .07 .09 .23 -.19 -.42 -.06  Years Ext  (0-5 yrs)

             

6-10 -.05 -.03 -.17 -.33* .01 -.08 -.1911-15 -.05 -.06 -.11 -.29* -.00 .02 -.1616-20 -.05 -.06 -.09 -.21* -.07 .02 -.18

21-25 -.03 -.04 -.06 -.21* -.03 .02 -.1426-30 -.01 -.05 -.04 -.18* -.03 -.04 -.16*31-35 .02 -.02 -.02 -.11 -.02 -.03 -.06

36+ -.19 .09 -.53 -.19 -.11 -.19 -.20Years Prior Exp. (0-5 yrs)

             

6-10 .00 -.02 -.02 -.14* -.02 -.12 -.0511+ .07 .00 -.10 -.18* .01 -.05 -.05

Prior type (Public)              Private -.15* -.06 -.01 -.15* -.05 -.01 -.13

Non Profit -.12 -.06 -.08 -.11 -.05 .03 -.09County population (under 10,000 K)

             

10-30 K .16* .08 .04 .20* .02 -.37* .0030-60 K .07 .02 .02 .08 .00 -.17* -.02

60-100K .05 .04 .04 .06 -.01 -.12* .02100K + .08 .08 -.03 .12 -.06 -.89* -.11

               Sig. .00 .00 .03 .00 .00 .00 .00R2 .16 .15 .10 .16 .12 .22 .16Adj. R2 .10 .09 .04 .10 .06 .16 .09

               

Are background variables significantly related to and able to predict job embeddedness?

Not really.

Age – (Giosam, 2003)Education – (Tanova &Holtom, 2008)County Population – (Vlosky & Dunn, 2009)

Research Question 4 

Intent to Stay Model

Variable β R2  

Step 1      

Organization Commitment .25*  

Employee Engagement -.06  

Job Satisfaction .15*    

Block   .14  

Step 2      

Discretionary Effort -.12*    

Block 

  .15 

Step 3  

 

Job Embeddedness    

Sacrifice Community -.06    

Sacrifice Organization .24*   

Fit Community .05    

Fit Organization -.07    

Links Community -.07    

Links Organization -.08    

Block   .20  

Can Job Embeddedness influence Intent to Stay?

Sacrifice Organization increases,

Intent to Stay increases.

(Mitchell et at, 2001, p. 30)

JE not meant to replace other existing theories, but is a Supplement, adding to the discussion of retention. Results support this.

Implications Expanded use of Job Embeddedness

scale More studies necessary Longitudinal studies Comparison studies with other

employee groupsParaprofessionalsSupport Staff

Sacrifice Organization strongest predictor of Intent to Stay

Implications - continued Job Embeddedness and Intent to

Stay are relatively low Extension agents are staying but are

not attached Situation is Alarming

“I have stayed with Extension because it’s the best place to work” M = 2.35 (disagree) Intent to Stay Item.

Discretionary Effort High – M = 4.30

Implications - continued Tools available to HRD to help embed

employees to organization and community. Some may be having the opposite effect

desired What are some of the most valued

employee benefits?

insuranceretirementemployee education

Increasing Job Embeddedness

Fit Organization Use realistic job

descriptions Look for employees

whose values fit with organization

Socialization Opportunities

Develop schedules to fit employee needs

Fit Community Recruit locally

where possible Avoid mandatory

relocation as much as possible

Encourage employee involvement in community groups and activities

Increasing Job Embeddedness

Links Organization Allow employee to

choose teams and projects to join

Provide Mentors/Coaches

Group New Agent Training/Orientation

Encourage membership in professional organizations

Links Community Encourage

community service Encourage

involvement in community/civic / professional organizations

Increasing Job Embeddedness

Sacrifice Organization Tailoring benefits to

meet individual needs Group celebrations Support

Telecommuting and other family friendly work arrangements

Generous Retirement Plans

Sacrifice Community (Limited ability to

influence) Examples would be:

Home buying assistance

Transportation assistance

Promoting w/o relocating

Survey Items of Interest

Survey Items of Interest

Survey Items of Concern

Survey Items of Concern

Questions

Interested in testing Job Embeddedness in your state?Jeffery Young, PhD – jyoung@uky.edu