Job Autonomy, workload, job stress and Intention to Leave on Millennial: A Literature Review
Gazali a,1, Kemal Sandib,2*, Yuni Lestaric,3, Zainurrafiqi.a,4
a Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Madura, Indonesia
b Faculty of Administrative Science, University of Brawijaya, Malang, Indonesia
c Faculty of Vocational, State University of Surabaya, Indonesia
1[email protected] ; 2*[email protected]; 3[email protected]; 4[email protected];
* corresponding author
I. Introduction
A company in carrying out its activities, both companies engaged in industry, trade and services will try to achieve the goals that have been set previously [1]. One thing that is important is that the success of various activities within the company in achieving goals does not only depend on technological excellence, available operating funds, facilities or infrastructure owned, but also depends on aspects of human resources [2]. Human resources are the most important aspect in a company in order to achieve company goals and success [3].
One of the challenges of HR management today is facing the behavior of wanting to move to another company. Intention to leave is identical to turnover intention as stated by [4] that intention to leave in some literature is also referred to as turnover intention, anticipated turnover and intention to quit. According to [5] turnover intention refers to the possibility of employees leaving their jobs and organizations of their own free will. When the intention to leave increases, the turnover and absentee rates also increase. Individuals who have a high intention to leave are manifested by behavior out of work [6], [7]. Intention to leave is the strongest predictor of turnover [8]–[10]. The same thing was stated [11]–[13] which stated that intention to leave is the most important variable in predicting turnover, therefore identifying the predecessor of intention to leave can provide a bright spot to understand the actual turnover because the intention to leave describes the individual's thoughts to leave, look for work elsewhere, and the intention to leave the organization.
In recent years this phenomenon is still happening. Not only in manufacturing companies, but also in service companies. The results of a survey conducted by Tower and Watson show that employees in Indonesia have the highest voluntary attrition rate in Asia Pacific at 20.35%
(economy.kompas.com/2016). When compared to developing countries in Asia Pacific, the average
ARTICLE INFO A B S T R A C T
Article history:
Received 10 Jan 2022 Revised 30 March 2022 Accepted 1 June 2022
This study aims to examine previous research to determine the effect of job autonomy and workload on the intention to leave mediated by job stress for millennial workers. This study applies various theories, namely the theory of Job Demand Resources (JDR), and Conservation of Resources (COR) to explain the relationship between variables. As a literature study article, this article contributes to developing a conceptual framework about intention to leave in the perspective of millennial workers. This article is important for management and further research considering that not many previous studies have used the theoretical framework of Job Demand Resources (JDR) and Conservation of Resources (COR) to test similar research models. This study has limitations in obtaining research that examines job autonomy, workload, job stress and intention to leave in the perspective of millennial workers.
Nevertheless, this study brings up a new framework that illustrates the contribution of job autonomy, workload, and job stress to intention to leave.
Copyright © 2017 International Journal of Artificial Intelegence Research.
All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Intention to leave Job Stress Job autonomy Workload
is 12.39% and globally it is only 8.24%. Then the "Global Leadership Study" research initiated by Dale Carnegie shows that more than 30 percent of the workforce in Indonesia will be looking for a new job in the near future, 20 percent of employees who plan to change workplaces in the new year, and 13 percent who admit that they are currently looking for work. new job. Meanwhile, only 28 percent of employees in Indonesia intend to stay in their company for a long period of time. The research involved 205 workers with an age range of 22–61 years, ranging from employee level to
directors of small to medium-sized companies in Indonesia
(http://nationalgeographic.co.id/berita/2018/01). The majority of employees who turn over are millennials [14]. Yuswohady explained that those who are included in the millennial generation are those born between 1980 and 2000 [15]. This explanation shows that the millennial generation are those who in 2021 will be between the ages of 20 to 40 years.
According to [16], one of the factors that causes millennial workers to have the intention to leave is job stress. Job stress is a state or condition of tension associated with an opportunity, constraint or demand [17]. Job stress is a person's response to conditions that are felt both physically and psychologically that are excessive because of a job demand internally and externally. So that this stressful condition can experience dissatisfaction at work. [18] revealed that stress has a positive impact and a negative impact. defense reactions that cause stress affect the body parts these responses indicate and adapt to the cause of stress by going through three different phases the first is called a signal (alarm). above normal, and the third phase, fatigue, decline in health resulting in changes in immune system function. The process is gradual and will result in dangerous conditions.
Job stress can have both positive and negative effects. Positive stress, such as personal motivation, stimulation to work harder, and increasing inspiration for a better life by changing the perceptions of employees and their work so as to achieve good career achievements. In the short term, stress that is left alone without serious handling from the company will make employees uncomfortable and even depressed, and unmotivated so that work is disrupted and not optimal. In the long term, employees who are not able to handle work stress can cause employees to get sick and even resign (turnover).
Based on the theory of Conservation of Resources (COR) presents a comprehensive process of how stress occurs and how individuals respond to stress. The main principle in this theory is that individuals strive to maintain, protect and build resources such as social support, personal characteristics, time and energy [19]. When individuals are faced with chronic stress, individuals seek to conserve their remaining resources and protect themselves from the potential for further resource loss and depletion [20]. Therefore, to achieve this, employees try to distance themselves from stress by investing some resources to engage in passive and defensive behavior [21]. Departing from the theory of Conservation of Resources (COR) workload and job autonomy have an influence on work stress [22]–[27].
Meanwhile, the Job Demand Resources theory developed by [28]. Job demands refer to the physical, psychological, social or organizational aspects of a job that require certain physical and/or psychological efforts or abilities. Examples are high work pressure and the absence of clear job resources, such as job autonomy. Job Demand Resources theory assumes that job autonomy is part of job demands which can lead to fatigue and other health complaints, so that it is related to pressure or stress at work [29]. This article fills the gap and establishes a conceptual framework for intention to leave which is influenced by job stress, job autonomy and workload for millennial workers. The author intends to study theoretically, first, how does job autonomy affect the intention to leave, either directly or indirectly through job stress? Second, how does workload affect intention to leave, either directly or indirectly through job stress? Third, how does job stress affect the intention to leave? The authors leave further study to answer the question by applying the appropriate data. The introduction is the first part of the article structure. In the second part, the author discusses the methods used in this literature review. The third section describes the results, including job autonomy, workload, job stress and intention to leave for millennial workers, and discusses the propositions derived from the relationship between these variables. The last section states the conclusion.
II. Methods
This research was developed in three stages (Figure 1). First, collect then review the literature and previous studies. Then analyzed and adopted to be formulated into a research model. Third,
instrument development. At this stage, each variable is explained, including compiling measurement items [30].
Fig. 1. Research Method
During the process of collecting literature and previous research, the authors used certain keywords, such as "Workload and Job Stress", "Workload and intention to leave", "job autonomy and job stress", "job autonomy and intention to leave", "Job Stress and intention to leave ", "Job Demand Resources (JDR) and Job Stress theory", and "Conservation of Resources (COR) theory and intention to leave". This study combines keywords and the forward snow-ball method as a search strategy [31]. Throughout the selected papers, the authors examine the papers and summarize the main hypotheses and findings to ensure that all articles qualify. After that, a conceptual research model (figure 2) was drawn up.
Fig. 2. Conceptual model
III. Results
Job autonomy is part of the job characteristic [32]. Job autonomy shows the degree of freedom and discretion of a person in carrying out work and planning the procedures that will be used to carry out his work [33]. Job autonomy is the level of freedom, independence, and discretion that a person has in planning a job and determining what method is used to carry out the job. This is as stated [34] that autonomy reflects the level of discretion, freedom and independence of a person in planning work and making decisions in carrying out tasks. The freedom given to employees at work will make employees feel confident and can improve their performance.
Job autonomy can also reduce pressure at work. This is as stated by [35] who argues that autonomy has a positive influence on employees who have high emotions when experiencing pressure and tension. Companies should provide flexibility to work for employees who have high emotions so that they can work better. With their autonomy, they will be wiser in working without tension and pressure. [36] developed three scales for assessing the autonomy aspect: work method, work schedule, and work criteria. Work method autonomy is the ability of a person to choose the method used to complete a job. Work schedule autonomy is a person's ability to manage a series of
task completion. Work criteria autonomy is a person's ability to provide the resources needed for evaluation.
[22] also suggests that work autonomy has a significant negative effect on work stress, the desire to move, and work and family conflicts. Furthermore, according to [37] stated that job autonomy is defined as the extent to which substantial freedom, independence, and flexibility of employees as individuals in planning work and in determining the procedures that must be used in carrying it out.
Job autonomy has core characteristics such as; skill variety, task identity, task significance and job feedback. Job Demand Resources [28] mentions Job resources are aspects of work that function to help employees cope with job demands and the physiological and psychological consequences that occur, as well as stimulate growth, learning, and personal development. Examples of job resources include: wages, support from superiors, feedback, role clarity, job autonomy, or empowerment, while Conservation of Resources [19] is a theory that discusses human behavior that can produce and shape resources. Conservation of Resources [38] states that each individual as a resource in the organization can maximally provide great benefits to the organization if the individual has good job autonomy.
Based on the theory and empirical experts described earlier, this study uses indicators from Job autonomy according to [39] which include: (1) Job description, which is a guide from the company to its employees in carrying out their duties. The clearer the job description provided, the easier it is for employees to carry out tasks in accordance with company goals. (2) Discretion, namely making judgments, making policies, maintaining confidentiality, increasing abilities and having freedom or discretion in acting, namely always following one's own conscience. (3) Expanded duties, namely active actions, namely always trying to expand knowledge and develop the obligations, duties and responsibilities imposed by the company. (4) Authority is a right to a responsibility, has power, authority, as an expert and can easily delegate. Based on this description, it describes how the mechanism of job autonomy directly or through the contribution of job stress determines the achievement of intention to leave. However, there are still limited researchers who examine the role of job stress as a mediator in this context.
Proposition 1. Job Autonomy Creates Intention to Leave.
Proposition 2. Job Autonomy Creates Intention to Leave through job stress.
Workload according to [40], [41] can be defined as a difference between the capacity or ability of workers and the demands of the work that must be faced. Considering that human work is mental and physical, each has a different level of loading. The level of loading that is too high allows the use of excessive energy and overstress occurs, on the contrary the intensity of the load that is too low allows boredom and saturation or understress. Therefore, it is necessary to strive for the optimum level of loading intensity that exists between the two extreme limits and of course differs from one individual to another. According to [42] workload is the volume of work results or records of work results that can show the volume produced by a number of employees in a certain section.
The amount of work that must be completed by a group or person in a certain time or workload can be seen from an objective and subjective point of view. Objectively is the total time used or the number of activities carried out. While the workload subjectively is a measure used by a person to statements about feelings of being overloaded, a measure of work pressure and job satisfaction.
Workload as a source of dissatisfaction is caused by work overload [43].
According to [44] there are three ways that can be used to measure workload, namely; Work Sampling, study time and motion, and daily logs. [44] describe Work Sampling as a technique developed in the industrial world to see the workload occupied by personnel in a particular unit, field or type of workforce. In work sampling we can observe the following: (1) Activities that are being carried out by personnel during working hours; (2) The relationship between personnel activities and their functions and duties during working hours; (3) The proportion of working time used for productive or unproductive activities; (4) The pattern of personnel workload is related to the time and schedule of working hours. While time and motion study as a technique carried out by carefully observing the activities carried out by the personnel being observed. In the time and motion study, observers can also observe the following; (1) Activities that are being carried out by personnel during working hours; (2) The relationship between personnel officers and their functions and duties during working hours; (3) The proportion of working time used for productive or unproductive activities; (4) The pattern of personnel workload is related to the time and schedule of
working hours. Furthermore, the Daily log is a simple form of work sampling, where the people being studied write down their own activities and the time spent for these activities. The use of this technique is highly dependent on the cooperation and honesty of the personnel under study [44].
According to [45] workload is influenced by various very complex factors, both internal and external factors. The external factors that affect the workload are burdens that come from outside the employee's body, in the form of (1) The tasks carried out are physical such as workloads, work stations, work tools and facilities, work conditions or fields, work aids, and others. other; (2) Organization consisting of length of work time, rest time, and shift work, (3) Work environment which includes temperature, intensity of lighting, dust, and employee-employee relations.
Meanwhile, the internal factors that affect the workload are factors that come from within the body itself as a result of a reaction from the external workload. [46], [47] shows that workload affects job stress. The results of this study are also supported by [48] states that the results of the study show that workload and work stress have a significant positive effect on turnover intention, and workload has a significant positive effect on job stress.
In line with the Job Demand Resources theory [29] which states that job demands and job resources are two major factors that determine the achievement of organizational outcomes. Job demands are negatively related to resources, namely with available resources. high work demands can reduce work demands. High work demands can increase stress, on the other hand high resources can reduce stress. Excessive workloads will have an adverse impact, which will cause fatigue both physically and mentally and emotional reactions such as headaches, indigestion, and irritability.
While the workload is too little where the work that occurs due to reduced motion will cause boredom. Boredom in the work done or too little work results in a lack of attention to work so that it is potentially harmful to workers [49], [50]. Meanwhile, the effect of workload on intention to leave is mediated by job stress [13], [15], [16], [51].
Based on the theory and empirical experts described earlier, this study uses indicators of workload as follows (1) work speed; (2) Work hard; (3) Overwork; (4) Adequacy of time; (5) Conflicting demands; (6) Concentration intents; (7) Task interruption; (8) Hectic jobs; (9) Waiting for assignments from colleagues [52]. However, there are still limited researchers who examine the role of job stress as a mediator in this context.
Proposition 3. Workload Creates Intention to Leave.
Proposition 4. Workload Creates Intention to Leave through job stress.
Job stress is a dynamic condition in which an individual faces opportunities, constraints, or demands, which are related to what he really wants and whose outcomes are perceived as uncertain but important [17]. Meanwhile, according to [53] stress is a condition of tension that affects a person's emotions, thoughts, and physical condition. Stress that cannot be handled properly usually results in a person's inability to interact with his or her environment, both at work and outside of work. In addition, [54] suggests work stress as a tension or pressure experienced when the demands faced exceed the strengths that exist in us. [55] revealed that stress has a positive impact and a negative impact. One of the negative impacts is the emergence of intention to leave from within the worker. According to [5], [56] turnover intention refers to the possibility of employees leaving their jobs and organizations of their own free will.
Indicators of intention to leave developed by [57] are thoughts of quitting, the tendency to look for job vacancies, the possibility of looking for work in other companies and thoughts of leaving the workplace. Meanwhile, according to [58] indicators of intention to leave are thoughts of quitting, the tendency to look for job vacancies, the possibility of looking for work in other companies and thoughts of leaving the workplace. High turnover has negative implications for the company because it can disrupt stability within the company. Turnover can also have an unpleasant impact on organizational employees who stay on the job. This is because the existing vacancies are filled by new, inexperienced employees [10].
Based on the opinion above, it can be stated if the intention to leave is an indication or desire that comes from within the employee to leave or move from the company where he has worked so far.
The high intention to leave will have a negative impact on the stability of the company because there are vacancies that must be filled immediately. [10] added three categories as turnover antecedents, namely, demographic factors (personal and work-related), profession perception (organizational
commitment and job satisfaction), and organizational conditions (fairness in providing compensation and organizational culture).
1) Demographic factors. Several previous studies found that age, education level, gender, years of service, and level of position were predictors of turnover. Individuals who are young and have a higher education tend to have a greater desire to leave their jobs. This is in line with the findings of [59]. Minority workers who are different in gender, ethnicity, gender, or age with the environment in which they work have a greater intention to leave. Meanwhile, individuals who have longer tenures and higher positions tend to stay in their jobs.
2) Profession perception. Individuals who have conflicting values with the organization where they work will tend to leave their jobs. Meanwhile, individuals who match the values of the organization where they work tend to stay in their jobs. Organizational commitment is one of the predictors of intention to leave. [10] explained that individuals who have a commitment to the organization, organizational values, then employees tend to remain in the organization. The higher the organizational commitment, the lower the employee's intention to leave. Job satisfaction is also a consistent predictor of intention to leave where the higher the job satisfaction of an employee, the lower the intention to leave, and vice versa. [4] also found similar results that there is a negative relationship between job satisfaction and intention to leave.
3) Organizational conditions. Most employees in various organizational sectors tend to associate organizational conditions with job stress. Several previous studies have shown that employees who have high levels of job stress tend to leave their jobs. Job stress is highly correlated with turnover, role overload, and unclear job descriptions. Work support from other employees and superiors can reduce the level of job stress on employees. [59]–[62] added that job stress is a determinant of job turnover. It is more often found in women than men. [63]–[66] have similar research results, namely job stress has a significant positive relationship with intention to leave. The higher the job stress on the individual, the higher the intention to leave for the individual.
Job Demand Resources theory developed by states that work demands and resources are two major factors that determine the achievement of organizational outcomes. Work demands are negatively related to resources, namely high resources can reduce work demands. High work demands can increase stress, whereas high resources can reduce stress. High stress can lead to employee intention to leave. Based on the theory and empirical that was explained earlier, the job stress variable indicator in this paper uses the parameters proposed by [52] by using indicators, including: (1) Feeling in a hurry; (2) Physical pain; (3) Anxiety; (4) Confusion; (5) The load on the shoulders; (6) Difficult to control emotions. Meanwhile, the indicator of intention to leave according to [67] include: (1) Intention to resign, (2) Looking for alternative job, (3) Planning to resign, (4) Applying for another job.
IV. Conclusion
This study prioritizes the effect of job autonomy, and workload on the intention to leave mediated by job stress for millennial employees, which has never been done by previous research.
Based on the literature review, job stress has great potential in determining the emergence of intention to leave which is driven by job autonomy and workload. Explanation of research variables through the perspective of Job Demand Resources (JDR), and Conservation of Resources (COR).
The use of theory in this research is intended to provide a comprehensive explanation, although some theories have not been widely used by many studies. However, these theories are able to explain the effects that arise between variables significantly. The research model and supporting arguments used in this study can contribute to advancing the current discussion efforts in the field of human resource management. Therefore, this research is very relevant to be applied to further studies using quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods.
Acknowledgment
This work is supported by the Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Madura, Faculty of Administrative Sciences, Brawijaya University, and Faculty of Vocational, State University of Surabaya, Indonesia. Therefore, the author would like to thank profusely for the support..
References
[1] J. Bratton, J. Gold, A. Bratton, and L. Steele, Human resource management. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021.
[2] R. L. Mathis, J. H. Jackson, S. R. Valentine, and P. Meglich, Human resource management. Cengage Learning, 2016.
[3] S. Wood, “Human resource management and performance,” Int. J. Manag. Rev., vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 367–
413, 1999.
[4] P. E. Miller, The relationship between job satisfaction and intention to leave: A study of hospice nurses in a for-profit corporation. Capella University, 2007.
[5] A. Dysvik and B. Kuvaas, “Perceived job autonomy and turnover intention: The moderating role of perceived supervisor support,” Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol., vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 563–573, 2013.
[6] B. Wen, X. Zhou, Y. Hu, and X. Zhang, “Role stress and turnover intention of front-line hotel employees: the roles of burnout and service climate,” Front. Psychol., vol. 11, p. 36, 2020.
[7] C. S. Long, M. A. Ajagbe, and T. O. Kowang, “Addressing the issues on employees’ turnover intention in the perspective of HRM practices in SME,” Procedia-Social Behav. Sci., vol. 129, pp. 99–104, 2014.
[8] T. Park and B. Pierce, “Impacts of transformational leadership on turnover intention of child welfare workers,” Child. Youth Serv. Rev., vol. 108, p. 104624, 2020.
[9] O. Aburumman, A. Salleh, K. Omar, and M. Abadi, “The impact of human resource management practices and career satisfaction on employee’s turnover intention,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 10, no. 3, pp.
641–652, 2020.
[10] M. E. Mor Barak, J. A. Nissly, and A. Levin, “Antecedents to retention and turnover among child welfare, social work, and other human service employees: What can we learn from past research? A review and metanalysis,” Soc. Serv. Rev., vol. 75, no. 4, pp. 625–661, 2001.
[11] R. Stemmer et al., “A systematic review: Unfinished nursing care and the impact on the nurse outcomes of job satisfaction, burnout, intention‐to‐leave and turnover,” J. Adv. Nurs., 2022.
[12] B. Oprea, L. Păduraru, and D. Iliescu, “Job crafting and intent to leave: the mediating role of meaningful work and engagement,” J. Career Dev., vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 188–201, 2022.
[13] M. A. Raid and H. M. Alzoubi, “The interplay among HRM practices, job satisfaction and intention to leave: An empirical investigation,” J. Leg. Ethical Regul. Issues, vol. 24, no. 1, 2021.
[14] K. D. Prihadi, C. K. W. Chang, and G. Lyann, “Keeping millennials from quitting due to work stress: The roles of mattering, commitment and entrepreneurship orientation,” Int. J. Public Heal. Sci., vol.10, no. 2, pp. 445–450, 2021.
[15] I. Y. Saputri and F. H. Husna, “The Effect of Organizational Citizenship Behavior on Turnover Intention in Millenial Generation Employees,” vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 114–129, 2022.
[16] K. Ramamurthi, A. Vakilbashi, S. Z. A. Rashid, M. Mokhber, and R. Basiruddin, “Impact of job stressors factors on employees’ intention to leave mediated by job engagement and dispositional factors,” Int. Rev. Manag. Mark., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 528–531, 2016.
[17] L. Robbins and M. Weidenbaum, The great depression. Routledge, 2017.
[18] H. Selye, “Stress and distress.,” Compr. Ther., vol. 1, no. 8, pp. 9–13, 1975.
[19] S. E. Hobfoll, “Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress.,” Am. Psychol., vol.
44, no. 3, p. 513, 1989.
[20] S. E. Hobfoll, “The influence of culture, community, and the nested‐self in the stress process:
Advancing conservation of resources theory,” Appl. Psychol., vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 337–421, 2001.
[21] S. Hao, W. Hong, H. Xu, L. Zhou, and Z. Xie, “Relationship between resilience, stress and burnout among civil servants in Beijing, China: Mediating and moderating effect analysis,” Pers. Individ. Dif., vol. 83, pp. 65–71, 2015.
[22] P. Charoensukmongkol, “Supervisor-subordinate guanxi and emotional exhaustion: the moderating effect of supervisor job autonomy and workload levels in organizations,” Asia Pacific Manag. Rev., vol.
27, no. 1, pp. 40–49, 2022.
[23] K. R. Novianti and I. R. Fuadiputra, “The Impact of Job Autonomy on Turnover Intention:
Mediation Role of Work-Life Balance, and Job Satisfaction in the Banking Sector,” Int. J. Soc. Sci. Bus., vol. 5, no. 4, 2021.
[24] O. Emre and S. De Spiegeleare, “The role of work–life balance and autonomy in the relationship between commuting, employee commitment and well-being,” Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag., vol. 32, no.
11, pp. 2443–2467, 2021.
[25] K. Vui-Yee and T. Yen-Hwa, “When does ostracism lead to turnover intention? The moderated mediation model of job stress and job autonomy,” IIMB Manag. Rev., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 238–248, 2020.
[26] K.-W. Kim and Y.-H. Cho, “The moderating effect of managerial roles on job stress and satisfaction by employees’ employment type,” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, vol. 17, no. 21, p. 8259, 2020.
[27] R. Nabawi, “The Influence of Work Environment, Job Satisfaction and Workload on Employee Performance,” Maneggio J. Ilm. Magister Manaj., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 170–183, 2019.
[28] A. B. Bakker and E. Demerouti, “The job demands‐resources model: State of the art,” J. Manag.
Psychol., 2007.
[29] A. B. Bakker and E. Demerouti, “Job demands–resources theory,” Wellbeing A Complet. Ref. Guid., pp.
1–28, 2014.
[30] R. Normawati, S. Rahayu, and S. Worokinasih, “Financial Knowledge, Digital Financial Knowledge, Financial Attitude, Financial Behaviour and Financial Satisfaction on Millennials,” 2021, doi:
10.4108/eai.6-3-2021.2305967.
[31] S. L. Andes, N. F. Nuzula, and S. Worokinasih, “Competitive Advantage as Mediating Factor for Creating Firm Value: A Literature Review,” BISNIS BIROKRASI J. Ilmu Adm. dan Organ., vol. 27, no.
1, 2020, doi: 10.20476/jbb.v27i1.11760.
[32] G. R. Oldham, J. R. Hackman, and J. L. Pearce, “Conditions under which employees respond positively to enriched work.,” J. Appl. Psychol., vol. 61, no. 4, p. 395, 1976.
[33] M. A. Faturochman, “The job characteristics theory: A review,” Bul. Psikol. UGM, 1997.
[34] [34] T. Clausen, L. R. M. Pedersen, M. F. Andersen, T. Theorell, and I. E. H. Madsen, “Job autonomy and psychological well-being: A linear or a non-linear association?,” Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol., vol.
31, no. 3, pp. 395–405, 2022.
[35] F. Zhang and S. K. Parker, “Reducing demands or optimizing demands? Effects of cognitive appraisal and autonomy on job crafting to change one’s work demands,” Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol., pp. 1–14, 2022.
[36] J. A. Breaugh, “The measurement of work autonomy,” Hum. relations, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 551–570, 1985.
[37] J. R. Hackman, G. Oldham, R. Janson, and K. Purdy, “A new strategy for job enrichment,” Calif.
Manage. Rev., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 57–71, 1975.
[38] S. E. Hobfoll, A. Shirom, and R. Golembiewski, “Conservation of resources theory,” Handb. Organ.
Behav., pp. 57–80, 2000.
[39] C. E. Shalley and J. Zhou, “Organizational creativity research: A historical overview,” Handb. Organ.
Creat., vol. 331, pp. 3–31, 2008.
[40] G. Johannsen, “Workload and workload measurement,” in Mental workload, Springer, 1979, pp. 3–11.
[41] O. Nataria, S. Dedi, and M. S. Sabarofek, “Pengaruh Stres Kerja Dan Beban Kerja Terhadap Kinerja Pegawai Disperindagkop Dan Umkm Manokwari,” Cakrawala Manag. Bus. J., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 67–83, 2019.
[42] D. Gopher and E. Donchin, “Workload: An examination of the concept.,” 1986.
[43] Y. Fransiska, “Pengaruh komunikasi, beban kerja dan motivasi kerja terhadap kinerja pegawai pada Dinas Kependudukan Dan Pencatatan Sipil Labuhanbatu Utara.” 2020.
[44] N. Aliyyah et al., “What Affects Employee Performance Through Work Motivation?,” J. Manag. Inf.
Decis. Sci., vol. 24, no. 1, 2021.
[45] K. Ghosh, “When and how employees cross the line for the job in hospitality firms,” Int. J. Hosp.
Manag., vol. 103, no. December 2021, p. 103187, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.103187.
[46] R. Ayuningtyas and V. Maharani, “The Effect of Organizational Commitment on Turnover Intentions with Work Stress as Intervening Variable At PT. Citra Perdana Kendedes Malang,” 2019.
[47] J. Biganeh, A. Ashtarinezhad, D. Behzadipour, N. Khanjani, A. Tavakoli Nik, and M. Bagheri Hosseinabadi, “Investigating the relationship between job stress, workload and oxidative stress in nurses,” Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 1176–1182, 2022.
[48] R. Fitriantini, A. Agusdin, and S. Nurmayanti, “Pengaruh Beban Kerja, Kepuasan Kerja Dan Stres Kerja Terhadap Turnover Intention Tenaga Kesehatan Berstatus Kontrak Di Rsud Kota Mataram,” J.
Distrib., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 23–38, 2019.
[49] H. Ali, “Literature Review the Effect of Division of Work and Workload on Work Effectiveness and its Impact on Employee Performance,” Dinasti Int. J. Econ. Financ. Account., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 227–240, 2022.
[50] R. Irawati and D. A. Carollina, “Analisis pengaruh beban kerja terhadap kinerja karyawan operator pada PT Giken Precision Indonesia,” Inovbiz J. Inov. Bisnis, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 51–58, 2017.
[51] R. Ahmad et al., “The impact of workload on job performance among doctors in malaysian public hospitals. A case study,” Int. J. Bus. Soc., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 1276–1293, 2019.
[52] S. Mansour and D. G. Tremblay, “Workload, generic and work–family specific social supports and job stress: Mediating role of work–family and family–work conflict,” Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag., vol.
28, no. 8, pp. 1778–1804, 2016, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-11-2014-0607.
[53] N. M. M. Astari and I. G. A. Sudibya, “Pengaruh work family conflict terhadap stres kerja dan kepuasan kerja,” E-Jurnal Ekon. dan Bisnis Univ. Udayana, vol. 7, no. 7, pp. 1895–1926, 2018.
[54] I. A. K. Astika, “Pengaruh stres kerja dan kepuasan kerja terhadap kinerja pegawai pada Badan Pengelolaan Keuangan Dan Pendapatan Daerah Kabupaten Buleleng,” Widya Amerta, vol. 8, no. 2, pp.
17–39, 2022.
[55] Carri-Ann Gibson, “Review of posttraumatic stress disorder and chronic pain: The path to integrated care,” J. Rehabil. Res. Dev., vol. 49, no. 5, p. 753, 2012.
[56] B. Kuvaas, “Performance appraisal satisfaction and employee outcomes: mediating and moderating roles of work motivation,” Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 504–522, 2006.
[57] M. A. Abelson, “Examination of avoidable and unavoidable turnover.,” J. Appl. Psychol., vol. 72, no. 3, p. 382, 1987.
[58] M. Hafid and A. P. Prasetio, “Pengaruh work-life balance terhadap turnover intention (Studi pada karyawan divisi food & beverage Hotel Indonesia Kempinski Jakarta),” J. Study Manag. Res., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 48–56, 2019.
[59] R. M. Leontaridi and M. E. Ward-Warmedinger, “Work-related stress, quitting intentions and absenteeism,” Quitting Intentions Absenteeism (May 2002), 2002.
[60] J. Jyoti, “Fun at workplace and intention to leave: role of work engagement and group cohesion,”
Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag., 2021.
[61] M. Zamanan, M. Alkhaldi, A. Almajroub, A. Alajmi, J. Alshammari, and O. Aburumman, “The influence of HRM practices and employees’ satisfaction on intention to leave,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol.
10, no. 8, pp. 1887–1894, 2020.
[62] V. Yukongdi and P. Shrestha, “The influence of affective commitment, job satisfaction and job stress on turnover intention: A study of Nepalese bank employees,” Rev. Integr. Bus. Econ. Res., vol. 9, pp. 88–98, 2020.
[63] C. N. L. Chambers and C. Frampton, “Burnout, stress and intentions to leave work in New Zealand psychiatrists; a mixed methods cross sectional study,” BMC Psychiatry, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2022.
[64] A. Tabur, A. Choudhury, A. Emhan, C. Mengenci, and O. Asan, “Clinicians’ Social Support, Job Stress, and Intent to Leave Healthcare during COVID-19,” in Healthcare, 2022, vol. 10, no. 2, p. 229.
[65] K. N. Sheppard et al., “Nursing moral distress and intent to leave employment during the COVID-19 pandemic,” J. Nurs. Care Qual., vol. 37, no. 1, p. 28, 2022.
[66] M. K. Külekci, O. B. Özbozkurt, and E. Bahar, “The mediating role of mushroom management within the impact of job stress on intention to leave,” İşletme Araştırmaları Derg., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 361–371, 2020.
[67] N. Fiernaningsih, P. Herijanto, and H. Hasan, “Pengaruh Komitmen Organisasi, Pengembangan Karier, Penilaian Kinerja, dan Kepuasan Kerja terhadap Keinginan untuk Berhenti Bekerja pada Karyawan Hotel Berbintang di Kota Malang,” in Prosiding Industrial Research Workshop and National Seminar, 2016, vol. 7, pp. 155–160.
