Heng Ngounhort¹, Uk Chanveasna², Kim Kirivadid², Sou Veasna^3*
1Training Center of National Vocational Institute of Battambang, Battambang, Cambodia.
²International Business Management (IBM), Royal University of Phnom Penh, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
³Research Office, Royal University of Phnom Penh, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
DOI: 10.4236/jss.2024.129001   PDF    HTML   XML   423 Downloads   2,649 Views   Citations

Abstract

Employee job satisfaction and retention are important in the service industries and highly attract attention from research scholars and business practitioners. To better understand teacher’s job retention, this study applies social exchange theory and motivational theory to explore the key impacts of compensation systems, perceived organizational support, job involvement, and job satisfaction on job retention in HEI contexts in Cambodia. We obtained and analyzed primary survey data from a purposive sample of 329 teachers in HEIs (i.e., private and public universities) for quantitative research. The results of both regression analysis and the SEM indicate that compensation systems, perceived organizational support, job involvement, and job satisfaction all significantly improved employee retention. Interestingly, the SEM revealed that job satisfaction significantly influences a teacher’s job satisfaction, both directly and indirectly. Integrating the conceptual mode of compensation systems, perceived organizational support, job involvement, and job satisfaction may reduce job turnover in this work population. Indeed, in HEI contexts, companies with turnover rates below their educational service average are more likely to enjoy a competitive advantage than those with relatively high rates.

Keywords

Compensation Systems, Perceived Organizational Support, Job Involvement, Job Satisfaction, Job Retention, Perceived Social Support, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), Herzberg’s Theory of Motivation, Cambodia

Share and Cite:

1. Introduction

Employee job satisfaction and retention are key determinants of enhancing service performance in the service industries (Clark et al., 2009) and highly attract the attention of research scholars and business practitioners. Increased high-level perceptions of job satisfaction and retention are a direct determinant of firm performance (Fey et al., 2000). In contrast, employee dissatisfaction with their job may lead to high job quit intention or turnover (Takase et al., 2005), which also leads to achieving low organizational performance. People tend to leave their jobs (turnover) when they aren’t engaged with their work while they are being replaced, and sometimes after, productivity decreases (Rubin & Dierdorff, 2011). Low job satisfaction is believed to be one of the most significant contributors to thoughts of quitting (Kinicki, 2021). Chattopadhayay and Ghosh (2012) present a detailed review of their problems, suggesting that they create employee dissatisfaction and lead to high labor turnover. Teacher turnover is a global issue. Teacher turnover costs educational systems and governments money, continuity, and learning. High teacher turnover reduces the return on investment for hiring, inducting, and supporting new teachers. This study defines teacher turnover as attrition when they leave a school and the profession or migration when they leave one school for another (Gundlach, Slemp, & Hattie, 2024).

Managing employee turnover and retention is a critical issue concerned with retaining potential talented employees for the organization. Employee retention refers to activities aimed at retaining high potential-performing talent employee strengthens the effectiveness of the relationship between employers and the employees to address appropriate employee performance expectations at all levels (Dessler, 2020b). By retaining talented employees, compensation (pay) systems reward the best performers appropriately and motivate behaviors critical to business success (Wilson, 2004). Turnover is the permanent loss of workers from the organization (Call et al., 2015). Most teachers are perceived as less satisfied with their careers and often leave due to more advancement opportunities (Allen, 2018). Teacher induction is a crucial aspect of the education system, aimed at enhancing new teacher quality, job satisfaction, and retention (Doromal & Markowitz, 2023). Strong and growing recognition exists that collective turnover can affect organizational productivity, performance, potential, and competitive advantage (Lussier & Hendon, 2019). The lack of teacher retention negatively impacts educational sustainability regarding the educational system and quality. There are some key influences on the retention of teachers, which include career advancement opportunities, job satisfaction, and other variables of being an educator (Abu-Tineh et al., 2023). Researchers and policymakers attribute high turnover rates in the payment system to tough working conditions, such as low pay and restricted professional growth opportunities (Doromal & Markowitz, 2023). Previous research suggests including family and social support (Kim et al., 2020), and HR Policy (Ashton, 2018) in job retention. Indeed, Previous researchers suggest future research on work-life culture and organizational commitment to predict employee job retention (Shockley et al., 2017). It’s interesting to note that employee job involvement is associated with employee job satisfaction, but there have been few investigations into this relationship (Al-Refaei et al., 2023). Based on these research gaps, this research manuscript aims to explore the key antecedents and sequences that influence job satisfaction and teachers’ job retention in Higher Education Institutions (HEI) in Cambodia.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development

2.1. Social Exchange Theory

The social exchange theory is among the most influential conceptual frameworks for understanding organizational behaviors. Social exchange theory is a central premise that exchanging social and material resources is a fundamental human interaction in the workplace (Blau, 1964). Several studies have demonstrated that social exchange relationships can predict job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behaviors, and employee intentions to leave (Matthijs Bal et al., 2010). Social exchange theory (SET) is among the most influential conceptual paradigms for understanding workplace behavior (Memon et al., 2017), which is determined by the rewards of interaction between people or activities minus the penalty/cost of that interaction may have (Griffith et al., 2006). Similar to this theoretical perspective, when employers’ and employees’ efforts are recognized and fairly rewarded, they reciprocate by going above and beyond their roles (Agut et al., 2009; Lichtenstein, 2011). The social exchange theory is thus crucial for our model regarding the interaction between organization and employee to achieve something that both parties feel is fair or transparent in return for their effort and commitment (Coates, 2010). Thus, this study aims to explain the relationship between research variables using social exchange theory (Alias et al., 2018), as proposed in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of teacher’s job retention.

2.2. Herzberg’s Motivation Theory

Herzberg’s motivation theory (i.e., two-factor theory and motivation-hygiene theory) applies to investigate employee motivation in the workplace (Herzberg et al., 1959). Herzberg’s motivator-hygiene theory provided a great stimulus to the investigators for advancing research on job satisfaction (Malik & Naeem, 2013). Central to the theories of motivation that collectively attempt to understand the thought processes that individual employees go through in determining how to behave in the workplace (Steers et al., 2004). Herzberg’s two-factor theory (i.e., motivation-hygiene theory)—intrinsic factors are related to employee job satisfaction, while extrinsic factors are associated with job dissatisfaction (Robbins et al., 2020). Herzberg’s motivation theory is one of the content theories of motivation to understand employee motivation in the workplace (Peramatzis & Galanakis, 2022).

2.3. Definition of Research Variables

2.3.1. Compensation System

The compensation system is associated with performance appraisal, determining an employee’s work results. The compensation system also looks at how to create good work conditions, find competent employees, and successfully develop staff competency, all of which enable the company to guarantee high motivation and work satisfaction (Türk, 2008). These HRM practices contribute to attracting, motivating, and retaining human capital (the knowledge, skills, and abilities embedded in people), which can help a company gain a competitive advantage (Raymond 2017). All forms of pay or rewards going to employees and arising from their employment (Dessler, 2020a). Variable compensation plans that pay employees based on some performance measure (Robbins et al., 2018). The compensation system relates to all forms of beneficial pay or rewards going to employees and arising from their employment (Dessler, 2020b).

2.3.2. Perceived Organizational Support

Based on social exchange theory, employees repay benefits and opportunities provided by their working organization through continued effective performance when they find that the organization supports them by engaging in various human resource practices (Karatepe, 2012). Perceived organizational support is “the extent to which employees believe their organization values their contributions and genuinely cares about their wellbeing” (Kinicki, 2021: p. 59). Perceived organizational support refers to the “degree to which employees believe an organization values their contribution and cares about their well-being” (Robbins & Judge, 2022b: p. 113).

2.3.3. Job Involvement

Paullay et al. (1994) point out that job involvement is a psychological state wherein an individual “is cognitively preoccupied with, engaged in, and concerned with one’s present job” (p. 224). As managers, we always need to do things that will improve productivity, performance, and employee involvement or engagement and reduce absenteeism and turnover (Lussier & Hendon, 2019). Job involvement represents how much an individual is personally engaged in their work role (Kinicki, 2021). Managers can foster satisfying work environments to fuel employees’ job involvement. Job involvement refers to the “degree to which a person identifies with a job, actively participates in it, and considers performance important to self-worth” (Robbins & Judge, 2022a: p. 66). A particularly strong relationship has been found between employee job involvement or engagement and retention, that is, labor turnover rates; higher levels of job involvement are strongly associated with lower turnover or increased high rates of job retention (Derek et al., 2020).

2.3.4. Job Satisfaction

Locke (1976) defines job satisfaction as “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (p. 1300). Job satisfaction is individuals’ positive or negative judgments, emotional reactions, and attitudes toward their job (Weiss, 2002). Job satisfaction is defined as an affective reaction to a job that compares perceived outcomes with desired expectations (Kardam & Rangnekar, 2012). According to Herzberg’s theory, job satisfaction is an employee’s positive feelings towards her or his work (Liu et al., 2016). Job satisfaction involves an employee’s general attitude toward his or her job (Robbins et al., 2018). Job satisfaction reflects the extent to which an individual likes their job. Formally defined, job satisfaction is an affective or emotional response toward various facets of your job (Kinicki, 2021). Job satisfaction is a “positive feeling about one’s job resulting from an evaluation of its characteristics” (Robbins & Judge, 2022b: p. 111). Education research has extensively examined the factors affecting teacher work satisfaction. Teachers should deliver better education when they are happy (Jerrim, 2024). Thus, this research defines job satisfaction as the efficiency or result of the work that exceeds the expectations according to the work plan the organization has set for an individual employee to perform their roles and responsibilities.

2.3.5. Job Retention

Retention is typically measured by labor turnover rates, which measure employee departures from an organization’s employment in their simplest form. Within this wide definition, however, turnover can take many forms. For example, employees may resign, retire, be dismissed, or be made redundant. It is important to understand the reasons behind turnover to reduce it: labor turnover is extremely costly, and most organizations work to reduce turnover levels to minimize these costs (Derek et al., 2020). Job retention is defined as a continuously held position at the same organization earning a competitive wage for more than one year (Thomas & Morgan, 2021). Employee or job retention is getting competent and qualified people into the venture, which is the first step in effectively managing human resources. An entrepreneur wants to keep the people they have hired and trained. A unique and important employee retention issue entrepreneurs must deal with is compensation. Whereas traditional organizations are more likely to view compensation from monetary rewards (base pay, benefits, and incentives), smaller entrepreneurial firms are more likely to view compensation from a total rewards perspective (Robbins et al., 2020). For these firms, compensation system is highly associated with psychological rewards, learning opportunities, recognition, and economic rewards (i.e., base pay and incentives) (Iqbal & Inayat, 2022). Thus, job retention refers to job retention as employment status rather than length on the same job or at the same employer.

2.3.6. Perceived Social Support

This form of support can help individuals deal with work problems (Lambert & Hogan, 2010). Perceived social support deals with employee’s perception related to others care and help them with work matters (Davidson & Wang, 2011). Perceived social support is defined as the provision of beneficial help for at least two individuals that is intended to buffer psychological distress and enhance emotional well-being (Lee et al., 2013: p. 380). Perceived social support is collegial relationships with coworkers or supervisors (Robbins & Judge, 2022b). Therefore, this study argues that perceived social support is valuable because it provides psychological support, assistance, feedback, and motivation for employees.

2.4. Hypotheses Development

2.4.1. Compensation System and Job Satisfaction

The compensation system represents an important research variable to organizations and the field of HRM to predict individual employee behavioral and attitudinal outcomes (Kumar, 2016). This study highlights that key sub-dimensions of HRM practices, such as compensation, work-life balance, and employee engagement, are vital to employees and influence employee retention (Ngwenya & Aigbavboa, 2017). Key contributors to job satisfaction include compensation, pay, trust between employees and senior management, and job security, which use their knowledge, skills, and abilities to handle work effectively (Chong et al., 2020). Compensation is imperative for the employees as it offers a sense of security, autonomy, and improved self-worth that could lead to employee commitment and productivity (Chong et al., 2020). The compensation system is one of the most important HRM practices to motivate employees in the workplace. Chong et al. (2020) investigated the impact of the compensation system, which is one of the most important sub-dimensions of human resource management practices (i.e., planning & recruitment, training programs, compensation, and performance appraisal) on employee satisfaction among 302 Jordanian telecommunication companies employees and found that compensation system significantly affects employee satisfaction. According to Herzberg’s theory of motivation, employee motivation is associated with a psychological process of an individual that arouses our interest in doing something and directs and guides behavior (House & Wigdor, 1967), which positively correlates to job satisfaction (Kinicki, 2021). Compensation system plays a significant role in determining employees’ job satisfaction. Based on the above research arguments, thus study proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Compensation system has a positively significant impact on teacher job satisfaction.

2.4.2. Perceived Organizational Support and Job Satisfaction

Perceived organizational support is expected to be significantly positively related to employee career satisfaction (Armstrong‐Stassen & Ursel, 2009). Organizational support (i.e., supervisors, managers, and leaders) can help increase job satisfaction by ensuring new employees understand their new job tasks and feel connected to others in the organization (Kinicki, 2021). Perceived organizational support is associated with employees’ general belief in their organization, the value of their contribution, and care about their well-being. High levels of perceived organizational support increase job satisfaction and lower turnover (Robbins et al., 2018). Therefore, this study assumes that older workers who perceived greater organizational support would be more satisfied with their career than those who experienced less organizational support. Then, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 2: Perceived organizational support has a positively significant impact on teacher job satisfaction.

2.4.3. Job Involvement and Job Satisfaction

Job involvement and job satisfaction have positively correlated (Mathieu & Farr, 1991). Many years of research have demonstrated that job involvement is moderately related to job satisfaction (Brown, 1996). Job involvement is crucial in improving employee satisfaction in the Turkish hospitality industry (Kuruüzüm et al., 2009). They concluded that there is a significant relationship between job involvement and job satisfaction (Zopiatis et al., 2014). High levels of employee job involvement are related to fewer absences (Kumari, 2011), lower resignation rates, and higher employee engagement and job satisfaction (Robbins et al., 2018). There is a positive link between employee job involvement and job satisfaction among millennial workers (García et al., 2019). The influence of job involvement on job satisfaction is confirmed by Fernández-Salinero et al. (2020). In recent studies, Gajić et al. (2021) are unequivocal in their claim that job involvement significantly influences employee’s job satisfaction. According to self-efficacy theory, researcher indicates that teacher self-efficacy is crucial for retaining satisfied and effective teachers and maximizing student achievement (Perera et al., 2022). Therefore, the following research hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 3: Job involvement has a positively significant impact on teacher job satisfaction.

2.4.4. Job Satisfaction and Job Retention

Retention shortages may be caused by a range of push and pull factors (i.e., low wage level and low employee satisfaction) at the individual level, resulting in increased job turnover (Rubin & Dierdorff, 2011). Holland et al. (2017) study demonstrated this, evidencing the relationship between effective job satisfaction mechanisms, strong engagement, and reduced turnover or increased levels of job retention. With push factors, the problem is dissatisfaction with the job or the organization, leading to an unwanted turnover. Job satisfaction may also indirectly affect labor productivity because higher satisfaction decreases turnover rates and absenteeism and increases company commitment (García et al., 2019). The main reason so many fails is the need for mechanisms for picking up signs of job dissatisfaction. If there is no opportunity to voice concerns, unhappy employees will inevitably start looking elsewhere (Derek et al., 2020). Job satisfaction has a moderately strong negative relationship with employees’ turnover intention (Kinicki, 2021). Therefore, the key antecedent of job satisfaction has recently resurged due to relevant implications for organizations in designing management strategies and, thus, reducing turnover and absenteeism and improving employee performance. Then, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 4: Job satisfaction has a positively significant impact on teacher job retention.

2.4.5. Moderating Effects of Perceived Social Support

In educational context, teachers who experienced satisfaction at their school and satisfaction with the teaching profession were more likely to remain (Perrachione et al., 2008). In particular, previous studies have argued that perceived social support may play a prominent role in enhancing expatriate adjustment and performance in cross-cultural contexts (Lee et al., 2013). Given its significance, it is important to explore how different forms of perceived social support may be associated with job satisfaction and job retention (Lambert & Hogan, 2010). This study assumes that individuals’ ability to adapt to high perceived social support has been positively related to their better job satisfaction and reduced turnover. Mwiti et al. (2021) indicated that job satisfaction is strongly associated with leaving the profession. This study assumes that when a teacher has highly perceived social support, it will strengthen the relationship between job satisfaction and teacher job retention. This assumption explains that when teachers have highly perceived social support, they intend to have a lower perception of leaving even if they are dissatisfied with the job. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 5: The link between job satisfaction and job retention is strong when the perceived social support is also high.

2.4.6. Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework of this study aims at exploring the antecedents and consequences of job satisfaction on teachers’ job retention in HEIs in Cambodia. We also applied the existing theoretical background to explain the critical research hypotheses proposed in Figure 1. Indeed, the moderating role of perceived social support was explained to strengthen the relationship between job satisfaction and job retention.

3. Methodology

3.1. Measurement Scales

This study consists of five key research variables: compensation system, perceived organizational support, job involvement, job satisfaction, and job retention. The compensation system has five items adopted by Shah (2019). Perceived organizational support consists of 3 items adopted from Lee et al. (2013). Job involvement has six items adopted from Kanungo (1982). Perceived social support has four items adopted from Lee et al. (2013). Job satisfaction has seven items adopted from Wanous and Lawler (1972). Teacher’s retention has four items adopted from Ashton (2018). All questionnaire items used a 5-point scale and double-back translation (i.e., English-Khmer-English) to validate the meaning of the questionnaire translation, as attached in the Appendix.

3.2. Sampling and Data Collection

Non-probability sampling technique (i.e., purposive and snowball sampling) (Cooper & Schindler, 2014) was adopted to invite senior lecturer, assistant professors, associated professors, and professor to participate in the survey. A self-administered and online survey was also adopted to collect information from respondents. An unknown population is used to determine the sample sizes for this study. As recommended by Bowerman et al. (2019) to collect data from HEIs, as shown

$n=p\left(1-p\right){\left(\frac{Z_{\alpha /2}}{B}\right)}^2$ ,

where: n = sample sizes; p = Probability is 0.5 (50%); $Z_{\alpha /2}$ = Significant level at 1.96 with confident interval of 0.05; B = Tolerance Error is 0.07 (7%).

$n=0.5\left(1-0.5\right){\left(\frac{1.96}{0.07}\right)}^2=196$

This study applies structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the proposed research hypotheses. Thus, the formal sample size should be at least 196 respondents. We distributed 450 questionnaires to 58 HEIs, allowing us to invite their employees to participate in our survey. We received returns from 389 participants, including a formal 36 HEIs. However, 60 questionnaires were withdrawn because they contained serious missing data. Therefore, we selected 329 participants (with 329/389 = 84.57%) from 36 HEIs as the valid samples for this study. We requested each HEI to select 5 - 7 senior lectures, assistant professors, associated professors, and professors who are currently teaching full-time or part-time in HEIs to participate in the survey. Saunders et al. (2019) suggested that since mail survey questionnaires typically have a response rate between 30 and 50 percent, self-administered questionnaires should undoubtedly have a response rate of more than 50 percent. Therefore, the study viewed the response rate of 84.57 percent as satisfactory.

4. Results

4.1. Frequency Distribution—Demography

We used frequency analysis to condense and structure data pertaining to respondents’ personal information. Researchers frequently use frequency distribution as a data analysis approach because it offers a convenient overview of the data. This method offers precise values and percentages of certain variables targeted by the researcher (Bennett et al., 2022). Frequency analysis utilizes pie charts, bar charts, histograms, and cross-tabulations as effective methods for interpreting and analyzing respondents’ personal information, such as gender, age, employment, education, and income. The result of Table 1 indicates that among 329 participants, 279 are male (84.8%) and 50 are female (15.2%). The findings showed that lecturers (163; 49.5%) were the dominant participants in this study. Indeed, about 66% of the participants (217) hold a master’s degree. Thus, more than 84% of male respondents have participated in this study.

Table 1. Demographic of the respondents.

Gender	Frequency	Percent
Male	279	84.8
Female	50	15.2
Total	329	100.0
Position
Senior Lecturers	203	61.6
Assistant Professors	14	4.3
Associate Professors	15	4.57
Professors	13	4
Head Department	37	11.25
Vice-Head Department	47	14.28
Total	329	100.0
Educational Levels
Master Degree	217	65.96
Doctor of Philosophy	65	19.76
Doctoral of Business Administration	47	14.29
Total	329	100.0

4.2. Descriptive Statistics (n = 329)

Descriptive statistics provide researchers with numerical and graphical methods for summarizing acquired data in quantitative terms. Furthermore, it helps the researcher streamline extensive data in a practical and logical manner (Jaggi, 2016). We utilized descriptive statistics to present the data, displaying the means, standard deviation, the overall background of respondents, and the variables created.

Table 2 shows that “perceived social support” has a mean value ranging from 3.65 (i.e., PSS1—My supervisor supports me with necessary human resources in my work) to 3.82 (i.e., PSS2-My supervisor supports me with necessary finances during my work). Thus, these research variables approach the level of “agree”. Indeed, the standard deviation of this study is less than 1, indicating that respondents’ perceptions of rating scores are not significantly different from each other. This data raises concerns about outliers.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics.

Variables	Mean	Std. D
Perceived Social Support
PSS1	3.65	0.71
PSS2	3.82	0.68
PSS3	3.73	0.71
PSS4	3.75	0.76
Compensation System
COS1	3.79	0.80
COS2	3.84	0.74
COS3	3.85	0.75
COS4	3.94	0.75
COS5	3.67	0.77
Perceived Organizational Support
POS1	3.69	0.87
POS2	3.68	0.90
POS3	3.80	0.85
Job Satisfaction
JOS1	3.67	0.76
JOS2	3.85	0.66
JOS3	3.62	0.75
JOS4	3.59	0.76
JOS5	3.82	0.69
JOS6	3.88	0.71
JOS7	3.65	0.71
Teacher’s Job Retention
TRE1	3.96	0.68
TRE2	3.89	0.71
TRE3	3.98	0.66
TRE4	4.00	0.67
Job Involvement
JOI1	4.01	0.65
JOI2	3.99	0.72
JOI3	3.69	0.78
JOI4	3.62	0.84
JOI5	3.86	0.72
JOI6	3.64	0.85

4.3. Factor Analysis and Reliability Test

The purpose of performing factor analysis is to define the underlying structure among the research variables (Hair Jr. et al., 2019). To ensure a high level of validation for the results, we employ the following guidelines to assess the factor analysis process: 1) KMO > 0.50 and Bartlett’s test is significant at p-value < 0.05; 2) Communalities of each variable should be higher than >0.5; 3) Factor Loading ≥ 0.60 or 0.70; 4) Eigenvalue ≥ 1; 5) Cumulative percentage > 60%. This report also used the “Varimax rotation” and “Principal Component Extraction” methods to validate the meaning of research variables. Therefore, we may delete some research items if they have a factor loading score below 0.60 or communality values below 0.50. We adopted the factor analysis procedure to conduct the reliability test, leaving the items intact. We commonly apply the estimate of the coefficient Alpha, an indicator of convergent validity measurement, to evaluate the reliability of questionnaire items (Hair et al., 2010). According to Churchill Jr. (Churchill Jr., 1979: p. 68), coefficient Alpha “absolutely should be the first measure one calculates to assess the quality of the instrument”. To assess its representation of structure, one should apply common factor analysis and reliability tests (Hair et al., 2021). We use two criteria for the reliability test to check the construct validity: 1) the item-to-total correlation must be at least 0.5; 2) the coefficient alpha (α) must be at least 0.6 (for an exploratory study) or 0.70 (for a confirmatory study) (see Table 3).

Table 3. The Threshold for Factor analysis and reliability test.

Factor analysis	Threshold values
1) Factor loading	≥0.60 or 0.70
2) KMO	≥0.50
3) Eigenvalue	>1
4) Commulative %	≥60% or 70%
Reliability Test
1) Item-total correlation	≥0.50
2) Cronbach Alpha	≥0.60 or 0.70

Source: Hair Jr. et al. (2019).

According to Table 3’s threshold values applied to evaluate the results of Table 4, all questionnaire items are valid (i.e., all questionnaire items have an FL greater than 0.70) and reliability coefficient (α = 0.852, or 85.20% > 70%). Thus, these research variables are reliable and valid for this study. According to Table 4, α = 0.85.

Table 4. The results of factor analysis and reliability—perceived social support.

Code	Factor analysis				Reliability test
	FL	KMO	Eig.	CU%	ITC	α
PSS3	0.86	0.81	2.78	69.39	0.73	0.85
PSS4	0.84				0.71
PSS2	0.84				0.71
PSS1	0.78				0.63

Note: FL = Factor loading (score), KMO = Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin, Eig. = Eigenvalue, CU% = Cumulative %, ITC = Item-total correlation, α = Cronbach Alpha.

According to Table 3’s threshold values and Table 5’s results, all questionnaire items are valid (i.e., all items have an FL greater than 0.70) and reliability coefficient (α = 0.91, or 91% > 70%). Thus, these research variables are reliable and valid for this study.

Table 5. The result of factor analysis and reliability—job involvement.

Code	Factor analysis				Reliability test
	FL	KMO	Eig.	CU%	ITC	α
JOI5	0.88	0.90	4.09	68.18	0.81	0.91
JOI1	0.85				0.76
JOI3	0.84				0.76
JOI2	0.81				0.71
JOI6	0.80				0.72
JOI4	0.77				0.68

According to Table 3’s threshold values and Table 6’s results, all questionnaire items are valid (i.e., all items have an FL greater than 0.70) and reliability coefficient (α = 0.92, or 92% > 70%). Thus, these research variables are reliable and valid for this study.

Table 6. The result of factor analysis and reliability—teachers’ job retention.

Code	Factor analysis				Reliability test
	FL	KMO	Eig.	CU%	ITC	α
TRE3	0.92	0.85	3.19	79.79	0.85	0.92
TRE4	0.90				0.81
TRE2	0.89				0.81
TRE1	0.86				0.76

According to Table 3’s threshold values and Table 7’s results, all questionnaire items are valid (i.e., all items have an FL greater than 0.70) and reliability coefficient (α = 0.89, or 89% > 70%). Thus, these research variables are reliable and valid for this study.

Table 7. The result of factor analysis and reliability—Job satisfaction.

Code	Factor analysis				Reliability test
	FL	KMO	Eig.	CU%	ITC	α
JOS5	0.83	0.89	4.29	61.25	0.75	0.89
JOS6	0.81				0.72
JOS3	0.80				0.71
JOS2	0.79				0.70
JOS1	0.76				0.67
JOS7	0.76				0.66

According to Table 3’s threshold values and Table 8’s results, all questionnaire items are valid (i.e., all items have an FL greater than 0.70) and reliability coefficient (α = 0.79, or 79% > 70%). Thus, these research variables are reliable and valid for this study.

Table 8. The result of factor analysis and reliability—perceived organizational support.

Code	Factor analysis				Reliability test
	FL	KMO	Eig.	CU%	ITC	α
POS2	0.85	0.70	2.11	70.17	0.65	0.79
POS1	0.84				0.63
POS3	0.83				0.61

According to Table 3’s threshold values and Table 9’s results, all questionnaire items are valid (i.e., all items have an FL greater than 0.70) and reliability coefficient (α = 0.91, or 91% > 70%). Thus, these research variables are reliable and valid for this study.

Table 9. The result of factor analysis and reliability—compensation system.

Code	Factor analysis				Reliability test
	FL	KMO	Eig.	CU%	ITC	α
COS3	0.90	0.88	3.72	74.34	0.84	0.91
COS2	0.88				0.80
COS4	0.87				0.78
COS1	0.86				0.78
COS5	0.80				0.70

4.4. Correlation Matrix

Correlation is the measure of the size and direction of the linear relationship between the two variables, while squared correlation is the measure of the strength of the association between them (Tabachnick et al., 2018). The correlation matrix (Table 10) illustrates the interrelationship among key research variables as proposed in the conceptual framework. All of the variables in this study have a strong positive relationship with each other, as shown in Table 10. The Pearson correlation coefficient test with a two-tailed test gave this relationship with **p-value < 0.01. We evaluated the correlation between the variables using the correlation matrix (Steiger, 1980). The study’s findings demonstrate that among these relationships, “perceived social support” exhibits a highly and strongly significant correlation with teachers’ job satisfaction, with a correlation coefficient of approximately r = 0.790, or 79.0%. Indeed, “compensation system” also has a strongly significant correlation with “teacher’s job satisfaction” with r = 0.716 or 71.6%, respectively. Thus, in HEI contexts, “compensation systems” and “perceived social support” play the most important roles in increasing teachers’ “job satisfaction” and “job retention”.

Table 10. The results of correlation matrix (n = 329).

Variables	$\overline{X}$		1	2	3	4	5	6
1-PSS	3.74	0.60	1.00
2-COS	3.82	0.65	0.712**	1.00
3-POS	3.73	0.73	0.364**	0.371**	1.00
4-JOS	3.73	0.56	0.790**	0.716**	0.418**	1.00
5-TRE	3.96	0.61	0.616**	0.636**	0.332**	0.682**	1.00
6-JOI	3.80	0.62	0.543**	0.598**	0.273**	0.624**	0.657**	1.00

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). $\overline{X}$ = Mean; S = Standard Deviation; PSS = Perceived social support; COS=Compensation system; POS = Perceived organizational support; TRE = Teacher job retention; JOI = Job involvement.

4.5. Regression Analysis

Tabachnick et al. (2018) use regression to predict a score on one variable from a score on the other. Regression analysis describes the relationship between a dependent variable and one or more independent variables (Daniels & Minot, 2019). Correlation and regression are associative techniques that help researchers determine if there is a consistent and systematic relationship between two or more variables (Hair et al., 2021). We begin with the basic scenario of a linear relationship between a single dependent variable and a single independent variable, referred to as a simple regression analysis (Equation (1)). When more than one independent variable or multiple independent variables predict a single dependent variable, we refer to this as a multiple regression analysis (Equation (2)).

Simple regression equation:

$Y={\text{β}}_0+{\text{β}}_1{X}_1+\text{ε}$ (1)

Multiple regression equation:

$Y={\text{β}}_0+{\text{β}}_1{X}_1+{\text{β}}_2{X}_2+\cdots {\text{β}}_n{X}_n+\text{ε}$ (2)

where:

Y is the dependent variable.

X is the independent variable.

β₀ is the constant or y intercept.

β₁ is the slope or coefficient on X.

ε is the error term.

Indeed, Zikmund et al. (2013) define a correlation coefficient as a statistical measure of covariation or association between two variables, indicating the regression weight between the independent and dependent variables. The correlation coefficient represents the power of the significant level of the relationship by considering the significant level of the p-value (i.e., **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1) of the Pearson correlation method.

As suggested by Hair Jr. et al. (2019) (i.e., Table 11), the significant relationship between independent variables and dependent variables, R² ≥ 0.10, F-value ≥ 4, and significant level of t-value ≥ |1.96| at p-value < 0.05, respectively. The results of Table 12 of multiple regression analysis showed that “Compensation System” has a positive significant contribution to teacher’s job satisfaction i.e.,— Model1: β₁ = 0.483***, t-value = 10.552 > 1.96 and p-value = 0.000 < 0.001, which Hypothesis 1 is accepted and supported. “Perceived organizational support” also has a positive significant impact on teacher’s job satisfaction—i.e., Model2: β₂ = 0.159***, t-value = 4.189 > 1.96, and p-value = 0.000 < 0.001, which Hypothesis 2 is accepted and supported.

Table 11. The threshold of regression analysis.

Criterion	Threshold values
R2 (R-square)	≥0.10
Adjusted-R2	≥0.10
F-value	≥4
t-value	≥1.96
Sign. p-value	<0.05

Source: Hair Jr. et al. (2019).

Table 12. The results of multiple regression.

Independent variables	Dependent variable “Job Satisfaction”
	β1 (M1)	β2 (M2)	β3 (M3)
COS	0.483***
POS		0.159***
JOI			0.291***
R2	0.513	0.540	0.595
Adjusted-R2	0.512	0.537	0.591
F-value	344.902	191.576	158.833
t-value	10.552	4.189	6.592
Sig. p-value	0.000	0.000	0.000
Hypotheses	H1	H2	H3
	Accepted	Accepted	Accepted

***p < 0.001, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1 and significant at t-value > 1.96. Note: COS = Compensation system; POS = Perceived organizational support; JOI = Job involvement. M = Model; β = Beta coefficient.

“Job Involvement” also has a positive significant impact on teacher’s job satisfaction—i.e., Model3: β₃ = 0.291***, t-value = 6.592 > 1.96, and p-value = 0.000 < 0.001, which Hypothesis 3 is accepted and supported. Thus, all three proposed research Hypotheses are well-supported for this study.

The result of Table 13 indicates that “Teacher’s job satisfaction” has a positive significant contribution to teacher’s job retention i.e.— Model4: β₄ = 0.682***, t-value = 16.859 > 1.96 and p-value = 0.000 < 0.001, which Hypothesis 4 is accepted and supported.

Table 13. The result of simple regression.

Independent variable	Dependent variable “Teacher Job Retention”
	β4 (M4)
Job Satisfaction	0.682***
R2 (R-square)	0.465
Adjusted-R2	0.463
F-value	284.222
t-value	16.859
Sign. p-value	0.000
Hypothesis	H4 (Accepted)

***p < 0.001, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1 and significant level of t-value > 1.96.

We adopt the Baron and Kenny (1986) procedure to test the moderating effect of “perceived social support”. Hair et al. (2013) also recommended the rules of thumb of the hierarchical linear model, which indicated that R² > 0.10, Adjusted-R² > 0.10, F-value > 4, t-value > 1.96, and significant p-value <0.05. The result of Table 14 illustrates that the moderating effect of “perceived social support” has a significant effect on the relationship between job satisfaction and job retention, with β coefficients = 0.098** (or 9.8%), t-value = 2.283 > 1.96, and p-value = 0.023 < 0.05. Therefore, this study reasonably supports and confirms research hypothesis 5. This study concluded that when teachers perceive a high level of social support in their organization, the relationship between job satisfaction and job retention will be stronger.

Table 14. The result of moderating effect—Hypothesis 5.

Research variables	Dependent Variable— Job retention
	Model1-(β1)	Model2-(β2)	Model3-(β3)
Job satisfaction	0.521***
Perceived social support		0.204**
Job satisfaction*Perceived social support			0.098**
R2 > 0.10	0.481
Adjusted-R2 > 0.10	0.478
F-value ≥ 4	158.877
t-value ≥ 1.96	8.271	3.440	2.283
Significant of p-value < 0.05	0.000	0.001	0.023
Durbin-Watson > 1	1.963

Note: ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.05 and significant at t-value > 1.96.

$\widehat{Y}=a+b_{X1}+c_{X2}+d_{X3}=3.759+0.521X_1\text{+}0.204X_2\text{+}0.098X_3$ (3)

a: Constant of β-value = 3.759.

$b_{X1}$ : The independent variable of β-value coefficient = 0.521.

$c_{X2}$ : The dependent variable of β-value coefficient = 0.204.

$d_{X3}$ : The moderating variable of β-value coefficient = 0.098.

5. Discussion and Conclusion

Existing research evidence confirms the relationship between the compensation system and job employees’ satisfaction (i.e., Adeoye & Fields, 2014; Baqi & Indradewa, 2021; Igalens & Roussel, 1999; Rinny et al., 2020). The compensation system is significantly associated with enhancing teachers’ job satisfaction with their current teaching job in HEIs, Cambodia, according to this study. Thus, this research finding is in line with existing empirical evidence.

Previous studies have confirmed the relationship between “perceived organizational support” and “job satisfaction” (i.e., Bogler & Nir, 2012; Li et al., 2020; Maan et al., 2020; Sadaf et al., 2022; To & Huang, 2022; Wen et al., 2019; Zumrah & Boyle, 2015). In this study, perceived organizational support has a low significant impact on teacher’s job satisfaction in the HEI context in Cambodia. Thus, this research finding is consistent with existing empirical results.

Existing empirical studies have confirmed the relationship between “job involvement” and “job satisfaction” (i.e., Al-Refaei et al., 2023; Kuruüzüm et al., 2009; Weissenberg & Gruenfeld, 1968; Yuspahruddin et al., 2020; Zopiatis et al., 2014). The research finding indicates that job involvement has significantly contributed to teacher’s job satisfaction. From this perspective, among 329 teachers, there are 96 of them involved in their job, which leads to increased teaching job satisfaction in the HEI context.

Previous research findings have confirmed the relationship between “job satisfaction” and “job retention” (i.e., Bryant & Parker, 2020; Quek et al., 2021; Richter et al., 2022; Rose et al., 2023; Vidal & Olley, 2021). The research finding of this relationship shows that it is highly correlated. Among 329 teachers, there are 224 who express their perceptions about how their job satisfaction plays the most important role in enhancing their job retention in the HEI contexts. The results of the regression analysis found that all proposed research hypotheses are well-supported and significant. Indeed, job satisfaction among teachers plays a crucial role in enhancing their job retention. The compensation system appears to have the most significant influence on teachers’ job satisfaction. Overall, the compensation system, perceived organizational support, and job involvement serve as the key independent variables to predict teacher’s job satisfaction. Most importantly, job satisfaction serves as the key mediating variable to promote teacher’s job retention in HEI’s context, Cambodia. Similar research findings, job satisfaction is a requirement for the work performance of a total of 313 elementary school teachers in the Division of Misamis Occidental, the Philippines (Baluyos et al., 2019).

The results of SEM, as illustrated in Figure S2, provide strong support for the four original research hypotheses in the conceptual model, even without testing the moderating effects. However, the research findings suggest that the research variable “job satisfaction” plays a critical role as both a direct and an indirect effect on “teachers’ job retention”. Al Sulaimi and Jantan’s (2024) study on 6740 female teachers in Oman also confirms this relationship. Job satisfaction is strongly correlated with teacher job retention (i.e., r = 0.63**, p < 0.01) (Richter et al., 2022). We tested the indirect effect of this study using Sobel’s test (i.e., Figure S3 and Table S3, Table S4). As a result, this study concluded that “job satisfaction” plays a significant role as both a direct and indirect effect on teachers’ job retention in Cambodian HEIs. This implies that the research variables “compensation system”, “perceived organizational support”, and “job involvement” serve as crucial independent variables in predicting teachers’ job retention, with “job satisfaction” acting as a key mediating variable.

6. Research Limitation and Future Research

“High teacher turnover in schools is a problem in many countries” (Gundlach et al., 2024: p. 1). This study focuses on teachers who hold part-time and full-time jobs at both private and public universities in Cambodia during the academic year 2022-2023-2024. However, 2022 was under COVID-19, and most universities reduced teaching hours, which may affect their individual pay and incomes. Indeed, we treat three research variables—“compensation system”, “perceived organizational support” and “job involvement”—as key independent variables, with job satisfaction serving as a mediating variable to predict teachers’ job retention. Indeed, “perceived social support” also modifies the relationship between “job satisfaction” and “job retention”. Indeed, among the 329 respondents, 61.6% were senior lecturers who had been teaching for more than 8 years. Indeed, multiple regression studies showed that teachers’ symptoms of burnout and job satisfaction predicted 27% of teachers’ burnout-related intentions to quit (Madigan & Kim, 2021). The study suggests that job satisfaction may indirectly affect teacher outcomes, potentially leading to job loss or a lower-quality workforce, potentially affecting the education of young people and potentially causing teacher shortages (Jerrim, 2024). Therefore, future studies should investigate the symptoms of burnout and teacher’s job performance.

Leader-member exchange theory (LMX) states that leaders create in-groups and out-groups, and those in the in-group will have a higher performance rating, less turnover, and greater job satisfaction. Leadership style is widely acknowledged as a crucial factor in enhancing job satisfaction among university teachers (Mgaiwa, 2023). Therefore, future research must incorporate LMX as a moderating effect between “job satisfaction” and “job retention”. Future research should utilize job Demands-Resources theory (Granziera et al., 2022) to analyze leadership styles, organizational cultures, and HRM practices in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs).

Appendix—Questionnaire Design

N0	Questionnaire items	Khmer Translation	Authors	Measured
Compensation system—COS (ប្រព័ន្ធនៃការលើកទឹកចិត្ត)			Shah (2019)	A-5 point Likert Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree
COS1	I am satisfied with the teaching payment rate that I receive	ខ្ញុំពេញចិត្តនឹងអត្រាប្រាក់ម៉ោងបង្រៀនដែលខ្ញុំទទួលបាន
COS2	I earn more than others who do similar work at other universities.	ខ្ញុំរកចំណូលបានច្រើនជាងអ្នកផ្សេងទៀតដែលធ្វើការងារស្រដៀងគ្នានៅសាកលវិទ្យាល័យផ្សេងទៀត
COS3	My teaching payment rate encourages me to improve the quality of my work	អាត្រាប្រាក់ម៉ោងបង្រៀនរបស់ខ្ញុំលើកទឹកចិត្តដល់ខ្ញុំក្នុងការជុំរុញកែលម្អគុណភាពនៃការងាររបស់ខ្ញុំ
COS4	I will receive a reward if I do something to improve teaching quality	ខ្ញុំ​នឹង​ទទួល​បាន​ស្នាដៃលើកទឹកចិត្តប្រសិន​បើ​ខ្ញុំ​ធ្វើ​អ្វី​មួយ​ដើម្បី​លើក​កម្ពស់​គុណភាព​បង្រៀន
COS5	The benefits, such as vacation time and health insurance that I receive here are better than those I could get at similar universities.	អត្ថប្រយោជន៍ដូចជាការឈប់សម្រាក និងការធានារ៉ាប់រង សុខភាព (ឧទាហរណ៍៖​ ប.ស.ស) ដែលខ្ញុំទទួលបាននៅទីនេះគឺប្រសើរជាងអ្វីដែលខ្ញុំអាចទទួលបាននៅសាកលវិទ្យាល័យស្រដៀងគ្នា។
Job Satisfaction—JOS (ការពេញចិត្តលើការងារ)			Wanous and Lawler (1972)	A-5 Point Scale: 1 = Very Dissatisfied to 5 = Very Satisfied
JOS1	Pay for job	ប្រាក់ទូទាត់សម្រាប់ការងារ
JOS2	Freedom on the job	សេរីភាពលើការងារ
JOS3	Prestige of job inside universities	កិត្យានុភាពនៃការងារនៅក្នុងសាកលវិទ្យាល័យ
JOS4	Feeling of security	អារម្មណ៍សុវត្ថិភាព
JOS5	Opportunity for job growth	ឱកាសសម្រាប់ភាពរីកចំរើនលើការងារ
JOS6	Opportunity for promotion	ឱកាសសម្រាប់ឋានៈការងារ
JOS7	Feeling of accomplishment	អារម្មណ៍នៃសមិទ្ធិផលការងារ។
Perceived social support—PSS (ទស្សនាទាននៃការគាំពៀរសង្គម)			Lee et al. (2013)	A-5 point Likert Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree
PSS1	My supervisor supports me with necessary human resources in my working.	អ្នកគ្រប់គ្រងរបស់ខ្ញុំគាំទ្រខ្ញុំជាមួយនឹងធនធានមនុស្សចាំបាច់ក្នុងការងាររបស់ខ្ញុំ
PSS2	My supervisor supports me with necessary finances during my working	អ្នកគ្រប់គ្រងរបស់ខ្ញុំជួយខ្ញុំជាមួយនឹងហិរញ្ញវត្ថុចាំបាច់ក្នុងអំឡុងពេលធ្វើការរបស់ខ្ញុំ
PSS3	My supervisor cares about my feelings and encourages me.	អ្នកគ្រប់គ្រងរបស់ខ្ញុំយកចិត្តទុកដាក់លើអារម្មណ៍របស់ខ្ញុំ ហើយលើកទឹកចិត្តខ្ញុំ
PSS4	My supervisor promotes me when I perform well.	អ្នកគ្រប់គ្រងរបស់ខ្ញុំលើកកម្ពស់ខ្ញុំនៅពេលខ្ញុំអនុវត្តន៍ការងារបានល្អ។
Perceived organizational support—POS (ទស្សនាទាននៃការគាំពៀរពីស្ថាប័ន)			Lee et al. (2013)	A-5 point Likert Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree
POS1	The organization values my contributions to its well-being.	ស្ថាប័នផ្តល់តម្លៃចំពោះការរួមចំណែករបស់ខ្ញុំចំពោះសុខុមាលភាពរបស់ស្ថាប័ន
POS2	My organization shows a great deal of concern for me	ស្ថាប័នរបស់ខ្ញុំបង្ហាញពីការព្រួយបារម្ភយ៉ាងខ្លាំងចំពោះខ្ញុំ
POS3	The organization considers my goals and values	ស្ថាប័នពិចារណាលើគោលដៅ និងតម្លៃរបស់ខ្ញុំ។
Teacher’s Job Retention—TRE (ការថែរក្សាគ្រូបង្រៀន)			Ashton (2018)	A-5 point Likert Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree
TRE1	I will not plan to look for another job elsewhere, only in this current organization.	ខ្ញុំ​នឹង​មិន​មាន​គម្រោង​ស្វែង​រក​ការងារ​ផ្សេង​នៅ​កន្លែង​ផ្សេង​ទៀត​ទេ គឺ​មាន​តែ​ក្នុង​ស្ថាប័ន​បច្ចុប្បន្ន​នេះ​ប៉ុណ្ណោះ
TRE2	I am happy to have chosen my work in this current organization	ខ្ញុំសប្បាយចិត្តដែលបានជ្រើសរើសការងាររបស់ខ្ញុំនៅក្នុងស្ថាប័នបច្ចុប្បន្ននេះ
TRE3	I have made a correct choice to have a career in this current organization	ខ្ញុំបានធ្វើការជ្រើសរើសត្រឹមត្រូវដើម្បីបំពេញអាជីពការងារនៅក្នុងស្ថាប័នបច្ចុប្បន្ននេះ
TRE4	I will not work in other careers except in this current organization.	ខ្ញុំនឹងមិនធ្វើការក្នុងអាជីពផ្សេងទៀតទេ លើកលែងតែនៅក្នុងស្ថាប័នបច្ចុប្បន្ននេះ។
Job involvement—JOI (ការពាក់ព័ន្ធលើវិស័យការងារ)			Kanungo (1982)	A-5 point Likert Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree
JOI1	The most important things that happen to me involve my present job.	រឿងសំខាន់បំផុតដែលកើតឡើងចំពោះខ្ញុំពាក់ព័ន្ធនឹងការងារបច្ចុប្បន្នរបស់ខ្ញុំ
JOI2	To me, my job is only a small part of who I am.	ការងារ​របស់​ខ្ញុំ​គឺ​មាន​តែ​មួយ​ផ្នែក​តូច​ប៉ុណ្ណោះ​ដែល​ខ្ញុំ​មានទទួលខុសត្រូវ
JOI3	I am very much involved personally in my job.	ខ្ញុំ​មាន​ការ​ចូល​រួម​យ៉ាង​យកចិត្តទុកដាក់​ក្នុង​ការ​ងារ​របស់​ខ្ញុំ
JOI4	Most of my interests are centered around my job.	ចំណាប់អារម្មណ៍របស់ខ្ញុំភាគច្រើនផ្តោតលើការងាររបស់ខ្ញុំ
JOI5	Leaving my employment is difficult because I’m emotionally attached.	ការ​ចាក​ចេញ​ពី​ការងារ​គឺ​ពិបាក​ព្រោះ​ខ្ញុំ​មាន​មនោសញ្ចេតនាផ្សាភ្ជាប់ជាមួយការងារបច្ចុប្បន្ន
JOI6	Usually I feel detached from my job.	ជា​ធម្មតា​ខ្ញុំ​តែងតែផ្សាភ្ជាប់ទៅនឹងការងារដោយយកចិត្តទុកដាក់។

Supplementary—Figures of CFA and SEM

The purpose of conducting CFA is to double-confirm the reliability and validity of research items with exploratory factor analysis and reliability tests, as shown in Tables 4-9. The CFA procedures consisted of three steps: 1) creating a first-ordered factor model; 2) creating a second-ordered factor model; and 3) creating an overall factor model (i.e., refer to Chanveasna et al., 2024). We also adopted Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and Composite Reliability (CR), as shown in Table S1 & Figure S1, to ensure the validity and reliability of the research constructs in this study. The CFA results indicated that all research constructs have high reliability and validity, with the best model fit assessment. We then used all the research items from the CFA stages to test the research hypotheses through SEM, as shown in Table S2.

Figure S1. Overall model of CFA.

Figure S2. SEM—original proposed model (without mediating effects).

Note: Mediating effects of teacher’s job satisfaction.

Figure S3. SEM—suggested model with mediating effects.

Supplementary—Tables of CFA and SEM

Table S1. The result of overall CFA.

Code	Standardized Estimates	t-value	AVE	CR
Compensation System
COS1	0.804***	A	0.685	0.916
COS2	0.867***	18.426
COS3	0.879***	19.08
COS4	0.829***	17.503
COS5	0.754***	15.21
Perceived Organizational Support
POS3	0.744***	A	0.558	0.791
POS2	0.759***	11.546
POS1	0.737***	11.383
Job Involvement
JOI6	0.756***	A	0.629	0.910
JOI5	0.855***	16.192
JOI4	0.707***	14.454
JOI3	0.800***	14.978
JOI2	0.773***	14.45
JOI1	0.856***	14.335
Job Satisfaction
JOS7	0.699***	A	0.507	0.880
JOS6	0.755***	12.572
JOS5	0.792***	13.209
JOS4	0.655***	11.112
JOS3	0.636***	12.017
JOS2	0.729***	12.244
JOS1	0.707***	11.939
Job Retention
TRE1	0.798***	A	0.736	0.917
TRE2	0.854***	18.026
TRE3	0.905***	19.374
TRE4	0.870***	18.345

Note: AVE = Average variance extracted and CR (Composite Reliability) was calculated by Hair et al. (2010). ***p < 0.001, which is significant level at t-value > 1.96. A = parameter regression weight was fixed at 1.

Table S2. The result of SEM—suggested model (mediating effects).

Code	Standardized Estimates	t-value	p-value	SE
Compensation System
COS1	0.806***	A	0.000
COS2	0.867***	18.5	0.000
COS3	0.879***	19.145	0.000
COS4	0.829***	17.561	0.000
COS5	0.754***	15.231	0.000
Perceived Organizational Support
POS3	0.743***	A	0.000
POS2	0.758***	11.511	0.000
POS1	0.737***	11.362	0.000
Job Involvement
JOI6	0.758***	A	0.000
JOI5	0.852***	16.164	0.000
JOI4	0.710***	14.415	0.000
JOI3	0.802***	15.043	0.000
JOI2	0.771***	14.436	0.000
JOI1	0.859***	14.438	0.000
Job Satisfaction
JOS7	0.706***	A	0.000
JOS6	0.772***	12.825	0.000
JOS5	0.808***	13.449	0.000
JOS4	0.660***	11.243	0.000
JOS3	0.700***	13.441	0.000
JOS2	0.864***	12.24	0.000
JOS1	0.679***	11.529	0.000
Job Retention
TRE1	0.797***	A	0.000
TRE2	0.854***	17.998	0.000
TRE3	0.905***	19.334	0.000
TRE4	0.870***	18.324	0.000
Path Relationship—Original Model (Direct Effects)
H1	0.55	8.396***	0.000	0.051
H2	0.15	3.13**	0.002	0.037
H3	0.24	4.421***	0.000	0.043
H4	0.47	5.641***	0.000	0.09
Path Relationship—Suggested Model (Mediating Effects)
H5	0.35	5.721***	0.000	0.051
H6	0.08	1.102	0.270	0.062

Note: ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.05 which is significant level at t-value > 1.96. A = parameter regression weight was fixed at 1.

Table S3. The result of Sobel’s test.

Sobel’s test (1982) formula $\text{z-test}=\frac{ab}{\sqrt{b^{2}S{E}_a^2+a^{2}S{E}_b^2}}$
Relationships	a	b	SEa	SEb	p-value
Compensation System◊Job Satisfaction	0.55		0.051
Job Satisfaction ◊Job Retention		0.47		0.09
z-test = 4.70					0.000
Remark: Significant level of Sobel’s test is z-test > 1.96 and p-value < 0.05 (Detail, refer to Chet et al., 2022) and online calculation of the Sobel’s test also can be found at: https://quantpsy.org/sobel/sobel.htm

Note: a is the path coefficient of the relationship between the independent and the mediator variables. b is the path coefficient of the relationship between the mediator and the dependent variables. SE_a is the standard error (SE) of the relationship between the independent and the mediator variables. SE_b is the standard error (SE) of the relationship between the mediator and the dependent variables.

Table S4. The results of standardized total effects.

Variables	Job Involvement	Perceived Organizational Support	Compensation System	Job Satisfaction
Standardized direct effects
Job Satisfaction	0.24	0.15	0.55	0.00
Job Retention	0.35	0.00	0.08	0.47
Standardized indirect effects
Job Satisfaction	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Job Retention	0.11	0.07	0.26	0.00
Standardized total effects
Job Satisfaction	0.24	0.15	0.55	0.00
Job Retention	0.46	0.07	0.34	0.47

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

References

[1]	Abu-Tineh, A. M., Romanowski, M. H., Chaaban, Y., Alkhatib, H., Ghamrawi, N., & Alshaboul, Y. M. (2023). Career Advancement, Job Satisfaction, Career Retention, and Other Related Dimensions for Sustainability: A Perception Study of Qatari Public School Teachers. Sustainability, 15, Article 4370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[2]	Adeoye, A. O., & Fields, Z. (2014). Compensation Management and Employee Job Satisfaction: A Case of Nigeria. Journal of Social Sciences, 41, 345-352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[3]	Agut, S., Peiró, J. M., & Grau, R. (2009). The Effect of Overeducation on Job Content Innovation and Career-Enhancing Strategies among Young Spanish Employees. Journal of Career Development, 36, 159-182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[4]	Al Sulaimi, H. A. H., & Jantan, M. D. B. (2024). Examining the Effect of Female Teachers’ Job Satisfaction on Their Retention in Public Schools of Oman. Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, 12, 389-397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[5]	Alias, M., Kok Wai, C., Ahmad, Z., & Mutalib Azim, A. (2018). Workplace Deviant Behavior among Malaysia Hotel Employees. Does Organizational Factors Matter? International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7, 960-964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[6]	Allen, L. Q. (2018). Teacher Leadership and the Advancement of Teacher Agency. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 240-250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[7]	Al-Refaei, A. A., Ali, H. B. M., Ateeq, A. A., & Alzoraiki, M. (2023). An Integrated Mediating and Moderating Model to Improve Service Quality through Job Involvement, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment. Sustainability, 15, Article 7978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[8]	Armstrong‐Stassen, M., & Ursel, N. D. (2009). Perceived Organizational Support, Career Satisfaction, and the Retention of Older Workers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 201-220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[9]	Ashton, A. S. (2018). How Human Resources Management Best Practice Influence Employee Satisfaction and Job Retention in the Thai Hotel Industry. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 17, 175-199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[10]	Baluyos, G. R., Rivera, H. L., & Baluyos, E. L. (2019). Teachers’ Job Satisfaction and Work Performance. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 7, 206-221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[11]	Baqi, F. A., & Indradewa, R. (2021). The Effect of Compensation on Job Satisfaction of Permanent Employees and Contract Employees. American International Journal of Business Management, 4, 144-151.
[12]	Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[13]	Bennett, K., Heritage, B., & Allen, P. (2022). SPSS Statistics: A Practical Guide (5th ed.). Cengage.
[14]	Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. Wiley.
[15]	Bogler, R., & Nir, A. E. (2012). The Importance of Teachers’ Perceived Organizational Support to Job Satisfaction: What’s Empowerment Got to Do with It? Journal of Educational Administration, 50, 287-306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[16]	Bowerman, B. L., Hummel, R. M., Drougas, A. M., Moninger, K. B., Duckworth, W. M., Schur, P. J., & Froelich, A. G. (2019). Business Statistics and Analytics in Practice (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
[17]	Brown, S. P. (1996). A Meta-Analysis and Review of Organizational Research on Job Involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 235-255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[18]	Bryant, S., & Parker, K. (2020). Participation in a Nurse Practitioner Fellowship to Instill Greater Confidence, Job Satisfaction, and Increased Job Retention. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 32, 645-651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[19]	Call, M. L., Nyberg, A. J., Ployhart, R. E., & Weekley, J. (2015). The Dynamic Nature of Collective Turnover and Unit Performance: The Impact of Time, Quality, and Replacements. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 1208-1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[20]	Chanveasna, U., Veasna, S., & Sovannara, K. (2024). The Antecedents of Career Development Competency in SMEs, Cambodia. Open Journal of Business and Management, 12, 1347-1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[21]	Chattopadhayay, R., & Ghosh, A. K. (2012). Performance Appraisal Based on a Forced Distribution System: Its Drawbacks and Remedies. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 61, 881-896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[22]	Chet, C., Sok, S., & Sou, V. (2022). The Antecedents and Consequences of Study Commitment to Online Learning at Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Cambodia. Sustainability, 14, Article 3184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[23]	Chong, L., Ngolob, R. A., & Palaoang, T. (2020). Human Resource Management (HRM) Practices. Journal of Advanced Management Science, 8, 121-125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[24]	Churchill, G. A. (1979). A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64-73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[25]	Clark, R. A., Hartline, M. D., & Jones, K. C. (2009). The Effects of Leadership Style on Hotel Employees’ Commitment to Service Quality. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 50, 209-231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[26]	Coates, C. R. (2010). Managing Conflict at Work: Why Managers Fail. The Veterinary Nurse, 1, 182-185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[27]	Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. (2014). Business Research Methods (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
[28]	Daniels, L., & Minot, N. (2019). An Introduction to Statistics and Data Analysis Using Stata®: From Research Design to Final Report. Sage Publications.
[29]	Davidson, M. C. G., & Wang, Y. (2011). Sustainable Labor Practices? Hotel Human Resource Managers Views on Turnover and Skill Shortages. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 10, 235-253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[30]	Derek, T., Laura, H., Stephen, T., & Carol, A. (2020). Human Resource Management (11th, Ed.). Pearson Education.
[31]	Dessler, G. (2020a). Fundamentals of Human Resource Management. Pearson.
[32]	Dessler, G. (2020b). Human Resource Management (16th ed.). Pearson Education.
[33]	Doromal, J. B., & Markowitz, A. J. (2023). Following the Leader: Associations between Leader Support and Teacher Retention in Child Care Settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 65, 250-260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[34]	Fernández-Salinero, S., García Collantes, Á., Rodríguez Cifuentes, F., & Topa, G. (2020). Is Job Involvement Enough for Achieving Job Satisfaction? the Role of Skills Use and Group Identification. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17, Article 4193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[35]	Fey, C. F., Björkman, I., & Pavlovskaya, A. (2000). The Effect of Human Resource Management Practices on Firm Performance in Russia. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11, 1-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[36]	Gajić, T., Petrović, M. D., Radovanović, M. M., Vuković, D., Dimitrovski, D., & Yakovenko, N. V. (2021). Women’s Role in Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction in the Travel Industry—An Evidence from the Urban Setting. Sustainability, 13, Article 8395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[37]	García, G. A., Gonzales-Miranda, D. R., Gallo, O., & Roman-Calderon, J. P. (2019). Employee Involvement and Job Satisfaction: A Tale of the Millennial Generation. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 41, 374-388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[38]	Granziera, H., Collie, R. J., & Martin, A. J. (2022). Teacher Well-Being: A Complementary Variable-and Person-Centered Approach Harnessing Job Demands-Resources Theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 71, Article ID: 102121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[39]	Griffith, D. A., Harvey, M. G., & Lusch, R. F. (2006). Social Exchange in Supply Chain Relationships: The Resulting Benefits of Procedural and Distributive Justice. Journal of Operations Management, 24, 85-98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[40]	Gundlach, H. A. D., Slemp, G. R., & Hattie, J. (2024). A Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents of Teacher Turnover and Retention. Educational Research Review, 44, Article ID: 100606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[41]	Hair Jr., J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2019). Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective. Prentice Hall and Pearson.
[42]	Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2013). Multivariate Analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Education.
[43]	Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis. Pearson Education.
[44]	Hair, J., Joseph F, Ortinau, D. J., & Harrison, D. E. (2021). Essentials of Marketing Research (5th ed.). MaGraw-Hill.
[45]	Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The Motivation to Work. Wiley.
[46]	Holland, P., Cooper, B., & Sheehan, C. (2017). Employee Voice, Supervisor Support, and Engagement: The Mediating Role of Trust. Human Resource Management, 56, 915-929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[47]	House, R. J., & Wigdor, L. A. (1967). Herzberg’s Dual‐Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction and Motivation: A Review of the Evidence and a Criticism. Personnel Psychology, 20, 369-390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[48]	Igalens, J., & Roussel, P. (1999). A Study of the Relationships between Compensation Package, Work Motivation and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1003-1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[49]	Iqbal, M., & Inayat, R. (2022). Human Resources Practices Influence on Project Success: Case of Project-Based Construction Organizations in District Lahore, Punjab. South Asian Review of Business and Administrative Studies (SABAS), 4, 87-94.
[50]	Jaggi, S. (2016). Descriptive Statistics and Exploratory Data Analysis. Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute.
[51]	Jerrim, J. (2024). Are Satisfied Teachers Better Teachers? International Evidence from the TALIS Video Study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 148, Article ID: 104687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[52]	Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Measurement of Job and Work Involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 341-349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[53]	Karatepe, O. M. (2012). Perceived Organizational Support, Career Satisfaction, and Performance Outcomes: A Study of Hotel Employees in Cameroon. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24, 735-752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[54]	Kardam, B. L., & Rangnekar, S. (2012). Job Satisfaction: Investigating the Role of Experience & Education. Researchers World, 3, 16.
[55]	Kim, Y., Lee, S., & Cho, J. (2020). A Study on the Job Retention Intention of Nurses Based on Social Support in the COVID-19 Situation. Sustainability, 12, Article 7276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[56]	Kinicki, A. (2021). Organizational Behavior: A Practical, Problem-Solving Approach (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
[57]	Kumar, D. (2016). Impact of Compensation Factors on Teachers’ Job Satisfaction: An Econometric Focus. Global Disclosure of Economics and Business, 5, 67-76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[58]	Kumari, N. (2011). A Live Study of Employee Satisfaction and Growth Analysis: Tata Steel. European Journal of Business and Management, 3, 53-62.
[59]	Kuruüzüm, A., Ipekçi Çetin, E., & Irmak, S. (2009). Path Analysis of Organizational Commitment, Job Involvement and Job Satisfaction in Turkish Hospitality Industry. Tourism Review, 64, 4-16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[60]	Lambert, E. G., & Hogan, N. L. (2010). Wanting Change: The Relationship of Perceptions of Organizational Innovation with Correctional Staff Job Stress, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21, 160-184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[61]	Lee, L., Veasna, S., & Wu, W. (2013). The Effects of Social Support and Transformational Leadership on Expatriate Adjustment and Performance: The Moderating Roles of Socialization Experience and Cultural Intelligence. Career Development International, 18, 377-415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[62]	Li, X., Zhang, Y., Yan, D., Wen, F., & Zhang, Y. (2020). Nurses’ Intention to Stay: The Impact of Perceived Organizational Support, Job Control and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 76, 1141-1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[63]	Lichtenstein, S. (2011). Ethical Issues for Internet Use Policy: Balancing Employer and Employee Perspectives. International Journal of Technology Management, 54, 288-303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[64]	Liu, Y., Aungsuroch, Y., & Yunibhand, J. (2016). Job Satisfaction in Nursing: A Concept Analysis Study. International Nursing Review, 63, 84-91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[65]	Locke, E. A. (1976). The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1297-1343). Rand McNally.
[66]	Lussier, R. N., & Hendon, J. R. (2019). Human Resource Management: Functions, Applications, and Skill Development (3rd ed.). Sage Publishing.
[67]	Maan, A. T., Abid, G., Butt, T. H., Ashfaq, F., & Ahmed, S. (2020). Perceived Organizational Support and Job Satisfaction: A Moderated Mediation Model of Proactive Personality and Psychological Empowerment. Future Business Journal, 6, Article No. 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[68]	Madigan, D. J., & Kim, L. E. (2021). Towards an Understanding of Teacher Attrition: A Meta-Analysis of Burnout, Job Satisfaction, and Teachers’ Intentions to Quit. Teaching and Teacher Education, 105, Article ID: 103425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[69]	Malik, M. E., & Naeem, B. (2013). Towards Understanding Controversy on Herzberg Theory of Motivation. World Applied Sciences Journal, 24, 1031-1036.
[70]	Mathieu, J. E., & Farr, J. L. (1991). Further Evidence for the Discriminant Validity of Measures of Organizational Commitment, Job Involvement, and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 127-133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[71]	Matthijs Bal, P., Chiaburu, D. S., & Jansen, P. G. W. (2010). Psychological Contract Breach and Work Performance: Is Social Exchange a Buffer or an Intensifier? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25, 252-273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[72]	Memon, M. A., Sallaeh, R., Baharom, M. N. R., Md Nordin, S., & Ting, H. (2017). The Relationship between Training Satisfaction, Organisational Citizenship Behaviour, and Turnover Intention: A PLS-SEM Approach. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 4, 267-290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[73]	Mgaiwa, S. J. (2023). Leadership Styles of Academic Deans and Department Heads: University Dons’ Perspectives on How They Affect Their Job Satisfaction. International Journal of Educational Management, 37, 1088-1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[74]	Mwiti, J., Moguche, M. A., & Rintari, D. N. (2021). The Relationship between Career Advancement and Job Satisfaction among Teachers in Selected Public Secondary Schools in Igembe North, Kenya. Human Resource and Leadership Journal, 6, 49-64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[75]	Ngwenya, L., & Aigbavboa, C. (2017). Improvement of Productivity and Employee Performance through an Efficient Human Resource Management Practices. In J. Kantola, T. Barath, S. Nazir, & T. Andre (Eds.), Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (pp. 727-737). Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[76]	Paullay, I. M., Alliger, G. M., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1994). Construct Validation of Two Instruments Designed to Measure Job Involvement and Work Centrality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 224-228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[77]	Peramatzis, G., & Galanakis, M. (2022). Herzberg’s Motivation Theory in Workplace. Journal of Psychology Research, 12, 971-978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[78]	Perera, H. N., Maghsoudlou, A., Miller, C. J., McIlveen, P., Barber, D., Part, R. et al. (2022). Relations of Science Teaching Self-Efficacy with Instructional Practices, Student Achievement and Support, and Teacher Job Satisfaction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 69, 102041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[79]	Perrachione, B. A., Rosser, V. J., & Petersen, G. J. (2008). Why Do They Stay? Elementary Teachers’ Perceptions of Job Satisfaction and Retention. Professional Educator, 32, 1-17.
[80]	Quek, S. J., Thomson, L., Houghton, R., Bramley, L., Davis, S., & Cooper, J. (2021). Distributed Leadership as a Predictor of Employee Engagement, Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intention in UK Nursing Staff. Journal of Nursing Management, 29, 1544-1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[81]	Raymond, A. N. (2017). Employee Training and Development (7th ed.). McGraw Hill Education.
[82]	Richter, E., Lucksnat, C., Redding, C., & Richter, D. (2022). Retention Intention and Job Satisfaction of Alternatively Certified Teachers in Their First Year of Teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 114, Article ID: 103704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[83]	Rinny, P., Purba, C. B., & Handiman, U. T. (2020). The Influence of Compensation, Job Promotion, and Job Satisfaction on Employee Performance of Mercubuana University. International Journal of Business Marketing and Management (IJBMM), 5, 39-48.
[84]	Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2022a). Essentials of Organizational Behavior (15th ed.). Pearson.
[85]	Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2022b). Organizational Behavior (18th ed.). Pearson Education.
[86]	Robbins, S. P., Coulter, M., Martocchio, J. J., & Long, L. K. (2018). Management (14th ed.). Pearson Education.
[87]	Robbins, S., Coulter, M., & DeCenzo, D. (2020). Fundamentals of Management (11th ed.). Pearson.
[88]	Rose, H., Skaczkowski, G., & Gunn, K. M. (2023). Addressing the Challenges of Early Career Rural Nursing to Improve Job Satisfaction and Retention: Strategies New Nurses Think Would Help. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 79, 3299-3311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[89]	Rubin, R. S., & Dierdorff, E. C. (2011). On the Road to Abilene: Time to Manage Agreement about MBA Curricular Relevance. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10, 148-161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[90]	Sadaf, M., Mukhtar, U., Nemati, A. R., Yousaf, R., & Javed, W. (2022). Impact of Organizational Value System, Perceived Organizational Support, and Job Satisfaction on Organizational Commitment. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management, and Innovation, 4, 71-99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[91]	Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research Methods for Business Students (8th ed.). Pearson Education.
[92]	Shah, M. (2019). Green Human Resource Management: Development of a Valid Measurement Scale. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28, 771-785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[93]	Shockley, K. M., Smith, C. R., & Knudsen, E. A. (2017). The Impact of Work-Life Balance on Employee Retention. In H. W. Goldstein, E. D. Pulakos, C. Semedo, & J. Passmore (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Recruitment, Selection and Employee Retention (pp. 513-543). Wiley-Blackwell.
[94]	Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equation Models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290-312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[95]	Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Shapiro, D. L. (2004). Introduction to Special Topic Forum: The Future of Work Motivation Theory. The Academy of Management Review, 29, 379-387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[96]	Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for Comparing Elements of a Correlation Matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245-251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[97]	Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2018). Using Multivariate Statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
[98]	Takase, M., Maude, P., & Manias, E. (2005). Nurses’ Job Dissatisfaction and Turnover Intention: Methodological Myths and an Alternative Approach. Nursing & Health Sciences, 7, 209-217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[99]	Thomas, F., & Morgan, R. L. (2021). Evidence-Based Job Retention Interventions for People with Disabilities: A Narrative Literature Review. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 54, 89-101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[100]	To, W. M., & Huang, G. (2022). Effects of Equity, Perceived Organizational Support and Job Satisfaction on Organizational Commitment in Macao’s Gaming Industry. Management Decision, 60, 2433-2454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[101]	Türk, K. (2008). Performance Appraisal and the Compensation of Academic Staff in the University of Tartu. Baltic Journal of Management, 3, 40-54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[102]	Vidal, J. M., & Olley, R. (2021). Systematic Literature Review of the Effects of Clinical Mentoring on New Graduate Registered Nurses’ Clinical Performance, Job Satisfaction and Job Retention. Asia Pacific Journal of Health Management, 16, 70-82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[103]	Wanous, J. P., & Lawler, E. E. (1972). Measurement and Meaning of Job Satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 95-105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[104]	Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing Job Satisfaction: Separating Evaluations, Beliefs and Affective Experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 173-194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[105]	Weissenberg, P., & Gruenfeld, L. W. (1968). Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Job Involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 469-473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[106]	Wen, J., Huang, S., & Hou, P. (2019). Emotional Intelligence, Emotional Labor, Perceived Organizational Support, and Job Satisfaction: A Moderated Mediation Model. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 81, 120-130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[107]	Wilson, J. P. (2004). Human Resource Development: Learning & Training for Individuals & Organizations (2nd ed.). Kogan Page Limited.
[108]	Yuspahruddin, A., Eliyana, A., Buchdadi, A. D., Sariwulan, T., & Muhaziroh, K. (2020). The Effect of Employee Involvement on Job Satisfaction. Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy, 11, 490-498.
[109]	Zikmund, W. G., Babin, B. J., Carr, J. C., & Griffin, M. (2013). Business Research Methods. Cengage Learning.
[110]	Zopiatis, A., Constanti, P., & Theocharous, A. L. (2014). Job Involvement, Commitment, Satisfaction and Turnover: Evidence from Hotel Employees in Cyprus. Tourism Management, 41, 129-140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[111]	Zumrah, A. R., & Boyle, S. (2015). The Effects of Perceived Organizational Support and Job Satisfaction on Transfer of Training. Personnel Review, 44, 236-254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]