The Service Industries Journal

ISSN: 0264-2069 (Print) 1743-9507 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fsij20

Predicting turnover intention among auditors: Is

WIPL a mediator?

Gabriel C. W. Gim & T. Ramayah

To cite this article: Gabriel C. W. Gim & T. Ramayah (2019): Predicting turnover
intention among auditors: Is WIPL a mediator?, The Service Industries Journal, DOI:
10.1080/02642069.2019.1606214

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2019.1606214

Published online: 22 Apr 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fsij20
THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL
https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2019.1606214

Predicting turnover intention among auditors: Is WIPL a

mediator?
预测审计人员的离职意向: WIPL是否是一个中介变项？
a
Gabriel C. W. Gim and T. Ramayahb
a
School of Business and Management, Han Chiang University College of Communication, Penang, Malaysia;
b
School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of the four Received 3 September 2018
dimensions of organisational justice and competitive psychological Accepted 7 April 2019
climate on work interference with personal life (WIPL) and
KEYWORDS
subsequently, the effect of WIPL on turnover intention. Turnover intention;
Specifically, the mediating role of WIPL was also investigated. Data organisational justice;
were collected from 383 auditors in audit firms in Malaysia. Partial competitive psychological
least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was used to climate; work interference
analyse the research model. Results revealed that distributive with personal life; auditors
justice and interpersonal justice were negatively related to WIPL,
while competitive psychological climate was positively related to 关键词
WIPL. Additionally, WIPL was found to be positively related to 离职意向; 组织公平感; 竞
争心理气氛; 工作介入个
turnover intention. Distributive justice, interpersonal justice, and
人生活; 审计人员
competitive psychological climate were also found to have
indirect effects on turnover intention through WIPL. This study has
specifically further contributed to theoretical knowledge by
uncovering the mediating role of WIPL based on the conservation
of resources (COR) theory.

摘要
本研究的目的是调查有关组织公平感和竞争心理气氛四个面向对
工作介入个人生活（WIPL）的影响，进而研究WIPL对离职意向的
影响。具体而言，本研究探讨了WIPL的中介效应。本研究的数据
来自于383名马来西亚审计公司的审计人员。结构方程模式：偏
最小平方法（PLS-SEM）用于分析本研究的研究模型。研究结果
表明，分配正义和人际公正与WIPL呈负向影响。然而，竞争心理
气氛与WIPL呈积极影响。 此外，研究结果也显示了WIPL与离职
倾向呈积极影响而分配正义、人际公正和竞争心理气氛也被发现
通过WIPL对离职意向产生间接影响。总体而言，本研究通过揭示
基于资源保存（COR）理论的WIPL中介效应进一步贡献了现有的
理论知识。

Introduction
Human capital is the lifeblood of organisations but yet employees are often taken for
granted by employers and without talented human capital, an organisation may lose

CONTACT Gabriel C. W. Gim gabrielgim83@gmail.com School of Business and Management, Han Chiang Uni-
versity College of Communication, 11600 Penang, Malaysia
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 G. C. W. GIM AND T. RAMAYAH

their competitive advantage (Costantino, de Palma, & Veneto, 2014). Employee turnover
may seem common in any industry but audit firms may feel the harder pinch because
they extensively train their auditors throughout their employment (Almer, Higgs, &
Hooks, 2005; Audit Oversight Board [AOB], 2014; Chi, Hughen, Lin, & Lisic, 2013; Hall,
Smith, & Langfield-Smith, 2005). Turnover is certainly not cheap. It costs an audit firm
1.5 times the salary of an auditor who had left (Boomer, 2005; Hiltebeitel & Leauby,
2001) due to costs such as selection, recruitment, training, supervision, and loss of pro-
ductivity (Oxford Economics, 2014).
Furthermore, high turnover in audit firms may compromise audit quality due to the
reliance on newly hired inexperienced staff as well as losing expertise from the more
experienced staff (Chi et al., 2013; Oxford Economics, 2014; Persellin, Schmidt, & Wilkins,
2014). Notably, the audit profession is unique in the sense that it is the only profession
in the world with a public responsibility not only towards their clients but to the public
as well (Barber, 2013). Therefore, any compromise on audit quality has a detrimental
effect on all stakeholders including the public.
High turnover remains an issue in audit firms thus far (Chi et al., 2013; Persellin et al.,
2014) in Malaysia specifically, a concern expressed by both the Association of Chartered
Certified Accountants Malaysia (ACCA Malaysia, 2013) and AOB (2014). It is therefore
worthwhile to examine this issue to curb the high turnover among auditors in Malaysia.
Turnover occurs when an employee resigns from one firm to join another firm (Price,
2001). In this paper, we have examined turnover intention as a proxy for actual turnover
because turnover intention is theorised to lead to actual turnover behaviour (Bothma,
Roodt, & van de Bunt-Kokhuis, 2015; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Mobley, 1977). Furthermore,
the positive relationship between turnover intention and actual turnover has been sup-
ported by empirical research (Campbell, Perry, Maertz, Allen, & Griffeth, 2013; Price,
2001; Simons & Roberson, 2003; Sun & Wang, 2016; Tekleab, Bartol, & Liu, 2005).
In this paper, we have examined the impacts of organisational justice and competitive
psychological climate on work interference with personal life (WIPL) and subsequently, the
impact of WIPL on turnover intention among auditors. We have also examined the role of
WIPL as a mediator between the independent variables (organisational justice and com-
petitive psychological climate) and turnover intention.
Organisational justice refers to employees’ perception of fairness at the workplace
(Lambert, Hogan, & Cheeseman, 2013). It is important to instil justice at the workplace
to elicit the desired attitudes and behaviours from employees (Lambert et al., 2013)
because judgements and comparisons are constantly made among employees to check
for fairness (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998). With that, employees generally expect to be
paid equitably so that their needs can be satisfied. Organisational justice is therefore an
important element at the workplace because it has been empirically shown to curtail turn-
over intention (Khatri, Chong, & Budhwar, 2001; Parker, Nouri, & Hayes, 2011; Suifan, Diab,
& Abdallah, 2017).
Competitive psychological climate is defined as employees’ perceived organisational
climate towards how organisational rewards are awarded by comparing one’s perform-
ance against one’s peers (Brown, Cron, & Slocum, 1998). Competitive psychological
climate in organisations arises due to several factors such as perceptions of differential
reward distribution, comparison of performance between co-workers, perceived compe-
tition from other co-workers, and frequent status comparisons (Fletcher, Major, & Davis,
 THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 3

2008). Competitive environment at work have been empirically found to generate nega-
tive organisational outcomes including turnover (Dalton, Hill, & Ramsay, 1997; McBriarty,
1988), which necessitates the need to examine competitive psychological climate.
Work interference with personal life (WIPL) refers to the interference of work-related
matters with one’s personal life, which is an extension of work interference with family
(WIF) (Fisher, Bulger, & Smith, 2009). WIPL is an important variable to capture a wider spec-
trum of employees beyond a family unit because there is a growing number of employees
who are single, living alone, and childless (Keeney, Boyd, Sinha, Westring, & Ryan, 2013).
Therefore, WIF is still discussed throughout this paper because we relied mostly on the
empirical support of WIF to justify our hypotheses developed in relation to WIPL due to
the limited studies on WIPL. Most importantly, WIPL has been found to influence higher
turnover intention (Hsieh, Pearson, & Kline, 2009) and this is where employers should
take steps to reduce such interference.

Conservation of resources (COR) theory

The hypotheses in this study were developed based on the premise of the conservation of
resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001). Hobfoll (1989, 2001) developed the COR
theory to understand stress from the perspective of resources. The COR theory postulates
that employees experience stress when they are threatened by a potential loss of
resources, an actual loss of resources or a lack of expected gain in resources (Hobfoll,
1989, 2001; Hsieh et al., 2009), which in turn develops into strain (Westman, Hobfoll,
Chen, Davidson, & Laski, 2005). A negative environment is said to deplete resources, con-
sequently invoking withdrawal intention (Cole, Bernerth, Walter, & Holt, 2010; Howard &
Cordes, 2010). The basic tenet of the COR theory is that individuals are motivated to
protect their current resources and to acquire new resources (Anasori, Bayighomog, &
Tanova, 2019; Hobfoll, 1989, 2001). Resources refer to objects (e.g. physical assets), con-
ditions (e.g. marriage, tenure, seniority), personal characteristics (e.g. sense of mastery,
self-esteem), and energies (e.g. time, money) (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001). Hence, the COR
theory lays the groundwork for the stressor-strain relationship based on the perspective
of resource loss or gain (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Hobfoll, 1989, 2001; Westman
et al., 2005). Most importantly, the COR theory has been empirically applied to explain
how resources affect WIF (Barnett et al., 2012; Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Karatepe &
Kilic, 2007; Ren & Chen, 2018) and turnover intention (Campbell et al., 2013; Cole et al.,
2010; Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Howard & Cordes, 2010; Hsieh et al., 2009; Jin, McDo-
nald, & Park, 2016; Karatepe & Kilic, 2007; Ren & Chen, 2018).
It is therefore fruitful to employ the COR theory in our research model because it pro-
vides the causal mechanism to explain how WIPL mediates the relationship between
resource loss or gain and turnover intention (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Westman
et al., 2005). We examined both organisational justice and competitive psychological
climate because organisational justice constitutes an organisational resource (Ghosh, Seki-
guchi, & Gurunathan, 2017; Lyu, 2016) whereas competitive psychological climate consti-
tutes an organisational stressor (Fletcher et al., 2008). Empirically speaking, low levels of
organisational justice and high levels of competitive psychological climate were related
to higher organisational withdrawal outcomes (turnover intention and turnover) (Dalton
et al., 1997; Khatri et al., 2001; McBriarty, 1988; Parker et al., 2011; Suifan et al., 2017).
4 G. C. W. GIM AND T. RAMAYAH

With that extant relationship, WIPL is expected to play an important role in mediating the
relationship between the independent variables (organisational justice and competitive
psychological climate) and turnover intention (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Westman
et al., 2005). Both organisational justice and competitive psychological climate carry
important relevance as based on the premise of the COR theory in explaining the
causal flow (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Hobfoll, 1989, 2001; Westman et al., 2005), an
organisational resource is expected to alleviate WIPL and turnover intention whereas an
organisational stressor is expected to strengthen WIPL and turnover intention. It
remains both theoretically and practically relevant by employing the COR theory to
examine the impacts of both organisational resource (organisational justice) and organis-
ational stressor (competitive psychological climate) on WIPL and turnover intention
among auditors in a fast-paced work environment, specifically in the present context of
shortage of auditors in Malaysia especially when considering that personal time away
from work is valued preciously by Malaysians (ACCA Malaysia, 2013; AOB, 2014; Randstad,
2014; The Edge Financial Daily, 2017).

Malaysian context
Malaysia, a developing country in South East Asia, is not only suffering from a shortage of
skilled workers but is also struggling to attract highly-skilled talents into the country
(Jauhar, Abdul Ghani, & Islam, 2016). The loss of highly-skilled talents is said to be hinder-
ing Malaysia from achieving its Vision 2020 goal of turning into a high income and devel-
oped nation (Foo, 2011; Jauhar et al., 2016). Malaysian Institute of Accountants (MIA, 2017)
reiterated the importance of Malaysia to produce 60,000 accountants by 2020 in order to
support its national and economic development. As at 2017, there were only 33,294
qualified chartered accountants in Malaysia (MIA, 2017). With just a few years to reach
2020, the gap to hit the 60,000 target is quite a distance away. Hence, there is a strong
need to tackle the shortage of talented auditors in Malaysia.
Various turnover rates among auditors in Malaysia have been reported. Deloitte Malay-
sia reported its employee turnover rate to be 30% (Abdullah, 2007). In addition, AOB (2014)
in Malaysia reported that the employee turnover rate among auditors below managerial
level was 27.8%. Worse yet, one particular unnamed audit firm reported its turnover
rate had reached up as high as 65% (Growing Practice, 2014). Additionally, ACCA Malaysia
(2013) reported that 49% of auditors intend to leave their jobs within three years or less.
This clearly shows that employee turnover in audit firms remains an issue in Malaysia.
Salary is important to Malaysians because it helps to make ends meet and ultimately
supports them financially (Mahalingam, 2013). It is not surprising then that salary was
ranked as the most important determinant of satisfaction among Malaysian employees
(Mahalingam, 2013). Most importantly, salary was rated as the most important factor by
auditors in Malaysia when choosing to work for an audit firm (PwC, 2012). Similarly, fair
salary was rated as an important retention factor in audit firms (ACCA Malaysia, 2013).
This underscores the importance of examining how organisational justice in the context
of salary could reduce turnover intention.
According to Chi et al. (2013), the audit profession is similar across the globe due to the
similar technical, business, and communication skills required of auditors. Therefore, the
stressful competitive environment is expected to be prevalent in Malaysia as well due
 THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 5

to the ‘up or out’ career advancement policy in audit firms; thus, it is vital to examine com-
petitive psychological climate.
Auditors in Malaysia have also appealed for improved work-life balance because they
wanted adequate time for themselves outside work (ACCA Malaysia, 2013). Randstad
(2014) pointed out that 95% of employees in Malaysia believe that work-life balance is
the number one priority to achieve a healthy lifestyle. The Edge Financial Daily (2017)
reported another Randstad’s study showing that employees in Malaysia ranked good
work-life balance as the number one attractiveness factor in an employer. Moreover,
the same study also reported that employees felt that employers in Malaysia were ignoring
work-life balance and thus, work-life balance offered by employers was rated at number
eight that was second last from the bottom of the ranking (The Edge Financial Daily,
2017). These studies in Malaysia have highlighted the increasing need for employers to
respect employees’ personal time outside work, thus the importance of examining WIPL.

Gaps in the literature

This study contributes to the literature in several ways. First of all and by heeding the call
by researchers to expand WIF (Bellavia & Frone, 2005; Keeney et al., 2013: Sulsky & Smith,
2005), this study has examined WIPL which extends beyond the family domain to capture
a wider representation of employees because not everyone has a family role to play and
yet suffer from such interference of work in their personal life as well (Fisher et al., 2009;
Keeney et al., 2013). Moreover, it would also help to improve the prediction of organis-
ational outcomes such as turnover intention because WIPL taps into broader non-work
domains beyond family compared to extant research measuring WIF which only taps
into the family domain (Fisher et al., 2009; Keeney et al., 2013).
Secondly, this study has examined all four dimensions of organisational justice to offer
insights into the relative importance of each dimension on organisational outcomes (Cole
et al., 2010; Colquitt, 2012; Judge & Colquitt, 2004). Therefore, the separate contributions of
each dimension of organisational justice were examined to advance the literature and to
offer a complete picture of how organisational justice impacts organisational outcomes.
Although previous studies have examined the relationship between organisational
justice and WIF (Heponiemi, Elovainio, Pekkarinen, Sinervo, & Kouvonen, 2008; Jiang,
2012; Kyei-Poku, 2014; Lambert et al., 2013; Tepper, 2000), the four dimensions of organ-
isational justice were not tested. On the other hand, although Babic, Stinglhamber, and
Hansez (2015) and Judge and Colquitt (2004) have examined the four dimensions of
organisational justice in relation to WIF; they examined WIF in the context of work-
family policies. Hence, not much is known on how all four dimensions of organisational
justice are related to WIPL that taps into non-work domains beyond family domains.
Therefore, this study extends those past studies by examining the effect of all four dimen-
sions of organisational justice on WIPL.
Thirdly, this study has examined the four dimensions of organisational justice focusing
on salary as the outcome of fairness together with top management as the decision
makers in its relationship with WIPL and subsequently, turnover intention. Given the sug-
gestion that organisational justice measures should be specifically contextualised (Colquitt
& Rodell, 2015), salary was examined as the outcome while top management was exam-
ined as the source of fairness in this study. According to Gupta and Shaw (2014), the
6 G. C. W. GIM AND T. RAMAYAH

current dearth of research on compensation has serious implications because compen-

sation is a powerful determiner of employees’ behaviour and organisational effectiveness.
They therefore stressed that it is important for organisations to carefully design and
implement compensation system to shape the desired attitudes and behaviours of
employees. With that, top management who is held responsible for implementing fair
salary procedures was examined as the source of fairness in this study.
Fourthly, this study has examined the impact of competitive psychological climate on
WIPL and its indirect effect on turnover intention, thereby contributing to the scant empiri-
cal literature on competitive psychological climate. Sahadev, Seshanna, and Purani (2014)
have already examined the effect of competitive psychological climate on WIF and there-
fore, this study further added a piece to the empirical literature on WIPL by examining the
indirect effect of competitive psychological climate on turnover intention through WIPL as
a mediator. While Sahadev et al. (2014) had examined the relationship between competi-
tive psychological climate and WIF from the perspective of role theory, we sought to
explain the relationship from the perspective of the COR theory on how a stressful com-
petitive environment drains away resources from employees. Therefore, we extended the
theoretical reasoning using COR theory to explain the relationship between competitive
psychological climate and WIPL and its subsequent impact on turnover intention.
Fifthly, this study has contributed by examining WIPL as a mediator between the inde-
pendent variables and turnover intention. This study attempts to explain the mediating
role of WIPL from the perspective of the COR theory demonstrating how fairness and com-
petitive climate at the workplace affects WIPL, which in turn influences turnover intention.

Hypotheses development
Organisational justice and WIPL
According to Colquitt (2001), there are four types of justice that employees judge at the
workplace: distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational
justice. The four dimensions involve the outcome received, the procedures used in distri-
buting the outcome, the interpersonal treatment received, and the information received
regarding the procedures (Colquitt, 2001).
Distributive justice refers to fairness of rewards or outcomes which include pay (Col-
quitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Parker et al., 2011). Distributive justice has its
roots in Adams’ (1965) equity theory, where it postulates that an employee compares
his input/outcome ratio to another employee to ensure that the outcome received is
fair for the work he had contributed. Similar to the approach taken by prior researchers
(Spell & Arnold, 2007; Tekleab et al., 2005) that we followed in this study, distributive
justice is focused on the employees’ perceived fairness of their salaries. Distributive
justice highly depends on subjective evaluation (Cropanzano, Goldman, & Benson,
2005) to the extent that subjective perceived fairness is found to be more important
than objective standards of fairness in determining outcomes (Chou, 2009). Likewise,
the perceived fairness of the salary received is found to be not only more important on
organisational outcomes but also has a different effect compared to the actual salary
received (Bhave, Kramer, & Glomb, 2013). Hence, the importance of how employees are
equitably paid cannot be overemphasised.
 THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 7

Procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness of procedures used to determine

rewards or outcomes (Babic et al., 2015; Colquitt et al., 2001). Similar to the approach
taken by prior researchers (Spell & Arnold, 2007; Tekleab et al., 2005) that we followed
in this study, procedural justice is focused on the processes used to determine salary.
Leventhal (1980) conceptualised six procedural rules as a guide to implement fair and
just procedures. According to Leventhal’s (1980) six procedural rules, a procedure is per-
ceived to be fair when procedures are applied consistently every time to everyone;
decision makers appointed are neutral and free from bias; decisions made are based on
accurate information; appeal procedures are available to modify wrongful decisions; all
stakeholders to a decision are able to voice out to influence the decision; and decisions
made are compatible to moral and ethical values. Similar to distributive justice, perceived
procedural justice is more important than the objective characteristics of the procedures
(Lind, Kanfer, & Earley, 1990). The perception of procedural justice is enhanced when
employees are given opportunities to voice their opinion regardless of whether it actually
influences the final decision (Lind et al., 1990; Tyler, Degoey, & Smith, 1996).
Interpersonal justice is a judgement on the perceived level of respect and dignity
shown to the employees by the top management involved in the implementation of pro-
cedures (Babic et al., 2015; Colquitt et al., 2001; Greenberg, 1993). Informational justice
refers to the perceived adequacy and truthfulness of information provided by the top
management to employees (Babic et al., 2015; Colquitt et al., 2001). Both interpersonal
justice and informational justice were once subsumed under interactional justice which
was initially conceptualised by Bies and Moag (1986).
Several studies have reported that various dimensions of organisational justice (inclus-
ive of distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice) were related to
lower WIF (Babic et al., 2015; Heponiemi et al., 2008; Jiang, 2012; Judge & Colquitt,
2004; Kyei-Poku, 2014; Lambert et al., 2013; Tepper, 2000). Other studies, despite not
examining organisational justice specifically, have also demonstrated that fair interperso-
nal treatment (Behson, 2002) and effective communication concerning occupational
health and safety preventive measures (Camerino et al., 2010) were capable of reducing
WIF. Since WIPL is an extension of WIF, we expect the four dimensions of organisational
justice to be capable of lowering WIPL as well.
The mechanism behind the expected relationship between organisational justice and
WIPL can be explained by drawing from the COR theory. Employees experiencing per-
ceived justice will experience a positive psychological state (Babic et al., 2015; Lambert
et al., 2013) and it is expected to reduce WIPL. Building on the COR theory, organisational
justice itself is a form of resource (Ghosh et al., 2017; Lyu, 2016) as well as a form of organ-
isational support from which employees could further develop, maintain, and protect
other resources such as their personal time and energy (Ghosh et al., 2017). When
justice is perceived to be lacking, that particular justice resource can be consequently per-
ceived to be inadequate or perceived as a threat to losing other resources such as their
personal time and energy (Ghosh et al., 2017), which can lead to employees suffering
from higher WIPL.
From the COR theory perspective, employees experiencing distributive justice perceive
that they are receiving adequate salaries to compensate for their investment in their time
and energy to the organisation in addition to allowing them to regenerate their resources
(Cole et al., 2010; Ghosh et al., 2017; Judge & Colquitt, 2004). On the other hand, employees
8 G. C. W. GIM AND T. RAMAYAH

experiencing the lack of distributive justice perceive that their salaries are inadequate to
compensate for their invested time and energy (Cole et al., 2010; Ghosh et al., 2017;
Judge & Colquitt, 2004) leaving these employees feeling that work is draining away
their personal life.
From the COR theory perspective, it is also expected that employees experiencing pro-
cedural justice are less likely to experience WIPL because fair procedures pave the way for
predictable and consistent allocation of future resources (Campbell et al., 2013; Cole et al.,
2010; Ghosh et al., 2017; Judge & Colquitt, 2004). Contrarily, the lack of procedural justice
induces insecurity among employees on how resources are allocated which could threa-
ten employees’ confidence on maintaining or replenishing their resources (Campbell et al.,
2013; Cole et al., 2010; Ghosh et al., 2017; Judge & Colquitt, 2004). Fair salary procedures
provide confidence and security to employees in terms of their salary attainment which
help alleviate WIPL whereas the lack of such procedural fairness intensifies WIPL.
From the COR theory perspective, leaders who are interpersonally and informationally
just are seen as supportive and appreciative which help employees preserve and increase
their resources such as their personal time and energy that would eventually strengthen
their ability to manage any interference from work (Kyei-Poku, 2014). On the other hand,
the lack of such justice will strain employees to the extent that this strain will be carried
home (Babic et al., 2015; Lambert et al., 2013). Such strained employees are likely to
feel helpless, thus losing their ability to manage any interference from work (Kyei-Poku,
2014).
Based on the foregoing discussion and according to the COR theory whereby justice as
a resource is expected to reduce WIPL, the following hypotheses were proposed:
Hypothesis 1: Distributive justice has a negative relationship with WIPL.

Hypothesis 2: Procedural justice has a negative relationship with WIPL.

Hypothesis 3: Interpersonal justice has a negative relationship with WIPL.

Hypothesis 4: Informational justice has a negative relationship with WIPL.

Competitive psychological climate and WIPL

The work environment in audit firms is known to be highly competitive (Brierley & Gwil-
liam, 2003; Dalton et al., 1997; Law, 2010) and the ‘up or out’ career advancement
policy in audit firms particularly may further exacerbate such environment (Almer, Light-
body, & Single, 2012; Brierley & Gwilliam, 2003; Parker et al., 2011). A competitive climate
could enhance work performance when tasks are simple and mechanistic that does not
require much help from co-workers (Johnson & Johnson, 1974; Sauers & Bass, 1990).
However, when a task requires teamwork, a competitive climate no longer leads to
higher performance (Brown et al., 1998; Lin, Wang, Tsai, & Hsu, 2010; Sauers & Bass,
1990). Teamwork is extremely crucial in audit firms because audit tasks often demand
interdependence from each member in the audit team (Almer et al., 2005; Banker,
Chang, & Kao, 2002; Satava, 1996; Taylor & Cosenza, 1998) and therefore, a competitive
environment may not bode well in audit firms. Most importantly, it has been demon-
strated that employees working in a competitive environment are more likely to leave
the company (Dalton et al., 1997; McBriarty, 1988).
 THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 9

Cleveland, Cordeiro, Fisk, and Mulvaney (2006) demonstrated that employees working
in organisations characterised by high time demands and performance expectations
reported higher WIF because the pressure from such demands and expectations will
spill over into the personal domain. Most importantly, competitive psychological
climate itself has been found to be positively related to stress (Fletcher et al., 2008) and
WIF (Sahadev et al., 2014). An intense competitive environment in audit firms (Brierley &
Gwilliam, 2003; Dalton et al., 1997; Law, 2010) that is a source of stress among auditors
(Satava, 1996) is expected to spill over to the personal or home domain (Sahadev et al.,
2014). Borrowing from the COR theory, we proposed that a stressful competitive environ-
ment is expected to drain away one’s resources leading to higher WIPL because a competi-
tive environment fosters uncertainty (Fletcher et al., 2008) and higher work pressure
(Sahadev et al., 2014). Employees are expected to report higher WIPL because more
resources will be consumed as one expects to spend more time and energy in a demand-
ing and competitive environment leaving less resources remaining in the personal
domain. Thus, the following hypothesis was proposed:
Hypothesis 5: Competitive psychological climate has a positive relationship with WIPL.

WIPL and turnover intention

Prior studies have reported that WIF was positively related to turnover intention (Babic
et al., 2015; Karatepe & Kilic, 2007; Nohe & Sonntag, 2014; Pasewark & Viator, 2006; Ren
& Chen, 2018). Expanding beyond family domains, Hsieh et al. (2009) examined WIPL
and reported that WIPL was positively related to turnover intention as well. WIPL is
expected to increase one’s intention to withdraw if they are unable to cope with the inter-
ference. The COR theory suggests that individuals are motivated to prevent resource loss
than to make resource gain (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001) and that is why employees are driven to
quit their stressful jobs to preserve their resources from further losses when suffering from
WIPL. In the event of high WIPL, employees who chose to preserve their resources are
more likely to quit the organisation to avoid further loss of resources (Campbell et al.,
2013; Cole et al., 2010; Hsieh et al., 2009), which is aligned with the basic tenet of the
COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001). It is natural that when a job is wrecking one’s personal
life, the employee will flee from that job. On the other hand, if the level of WIPL is low,
employees are likely to perceive that their resources are adequate, such as their time
and energy, which impede them from leaving the organisation. Drawing from the fore-
going discussion, the following hypothesis was proposed:
Hypothesis 6: WIPL has a positive relationship with turnover intention.

Mediating role of WIPL

Drawing from the COR theory, a mediation model was proposed in which WIPL is
expected to mediate the relationships between the independent variables (distributive
justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, informational justice, and competitive
psychological climate) and turnover intention. This study builds on the work of
Grandey and Cropanzano (1999) who initially modelled WIF as a mediator by applying
the COR theory.
10 G. C. W. GIM AND T. RAMAYAH

Extant research (Barnett et al., 2012; Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Jenkins,
Heneghan, Bailey, & Barber, 2014; Mansour & Tremblay, 2016) has supported the
COR theory showing that resource loss leads to an interference of work into the
home domain. As a result of such interference, employees develop the intention to
withdraw from the organisation to avoid further loss of energy and resources. A low
level of organisational justice and a high level of competitive psychological climate
are regarded as stressors (Cole et al., 2010; Fletcher et al., 2008; Howard & Cordes,
2010; Judge & Colquitt, 2004; Satava, 1996) and therefore, can be considered as
either potential or actual resource loss. On the other hand, derived from the premise
of the COR theory, a high level of organisational justice and a low level of competitive
psychological climate can be construed as resources (Fletcher & Nusbaum, 2010;
Ghosh et al., 2017; Hobfoll, 1989, 2001; Lyu, 2016) that diminish organisational withdrawal
outcomes.
Organisational support and supervisor support were among the antecedent variables
found in their negative relationship to WIF in a meta-analysis carried out by Michel,
Kotrba, Mitchelson, Clark, and Baltes (2011). A supportive organisational environment
helps to relieve the time and energy spent, thus reducing the amount of work interference
brought home (Michel et al., 2011). Since organisational justice is a source of organis-
ational support (Ghosh et al., 2017), a fair workplace is expected to act the same way in
weakening WIPL. It is worth mentioning again that extant research (Babic et al., 2015;
Heponiemi et al., 2008; Jiang, 2012; Judge & Colquitt, 2004; Kyei-Poku, 2014; Lambert
et al., 2013; Tepper, 2000) has shown that various dimensions of organisational justice
help to reduce WIF. Empirically, this suggests that all four dimensions of organisational
justice are likely to diminish WIPL.
Based on meta-analyses, the consequences of WIF include higher turnover intention,
tardiness, and absenteeism which are all organisational withdrawal outcomes (Amstad,
Meier, Fasel, Elfering, & Semmer, 2011; Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005). Addition-
ally, as was reviewed in the literature earlier, WIPL was also found to increase turnover
intention (Hsieh et al., 2009). Based on the review of the empirical literature, there is a
potential mediating role in WIPL.
Other than the theoretical explanation and the empirical antecedents and conse-
quences, empirical literature has also shown that WIF played a significant mediating
role between various organisational-related factors and organisational strains. For
instance, extant studies have demonstrated that WIF mediated the relationship
between various organisational-related factors and turnover intention (Blomme, Rheede,
& Tromp, 2010), burnout (Noor & Zainuddin, 2011), psychological distress (Barnett et al.,
2012), deviant workplace behaviour (Jenkins et al., 2014), and job stress (Mansour & Trem-
blay, 2016). Building upon the empirical results of WIF as a mediator, it sets forth the jus-
tification that WIPL, as an extension of WIF, should serve as the mediating link in reducing
turnover intention when organisational justice is present and when the workplace is less
competitive.
Based on COR theory and empirical literature, WIPL is therefore expected to mediate
the relationships between distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice,
informational justice, competitive psychological climate and turnover intention. With
that, the following hypotheses were proposed:
 THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 11

Hypothesis 7: WIPL mediates the relationship between distributive justice and turnover
intention.

Hypothesis 8: WIPL mediates the relationship between procedural justice and turnover
intention.

Hypothesis 9: WIPL mediates the relationship between interpersonal justice and turnover
intention.

Hypothesis 10: WIPL mediates the relationship between informational justice and turnover
intention.

Hypothesis 11: WIPL mediates the relationship between competitive psychological climate
and turnover intention.

Methods
Sample
Using purposive sampling, the samples of the study collected were auditors below man-
agerial level working in international audit firms registered with the Forum of Firms (Forum
of Firms, 2017) in Malaysia, including both the Big Four and the mid-tier firms. To enhance
the representativeness of the sample, we relied on purposive sampling in order to target
auditors below managerial level because they are predominantly engaged in audit field
work and have different responsibilities compared to auditors at the managerial level
(Fogarty & Uliss, 2000). Additionally, auditors below managerial level have been reported
to have a higher turnover rate at 26.8% compared to auditors at managerial level at 21.1%
in Malaysia (AOB, 2014). Furthermore, all participating audit firms denied us access to their
employee name lists that warranted the use of purposive sampling, which is a form of non-
probability sampling.
We visited 37 firms, located in three urban conurbations in Malaysia, to inform them the
purpose of the study. The three urban conurbations are Penang, Klang Valley, and Johor
Bahru, which are also the envisioned economic regions for further development as part of
Malaysia’s Vision 2020 (National Physical Plan 2, 2010). The samples were confined to these
regions because there were higher employee turnover and job mobility in urban areas
compared to non-urban areas (Bill, Mitchell, & Welters, 2006; Finney & Kohlhase, 2008).
A total of 20 audit firms agreed to participate in the study and 620 questionnaires were
administered to auditors using the drop-off and pick-up method. A total of 432 question-
naires were received but 49 responses had to be discarded due to excessive missing data
and straight lining responses. Therefore, a total of 383 usable questionnaires were received
yielding a response rate of 61.77%.
We undertook several procedural remedies to minimise common method variance.
First of all, we attached a cover letter to each questionnaire to explain the purpose of
study, to inform them that answering the questionnaire is wholly voluntary, to assure
them that there are no right or wrong answers, and to encourage them to answer all ques-
tions honestly (Chang, van Witteloostuijn, & Eden, 2010; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, &
Podsakoff, 2012; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). The cover letter was
written such a way to avoid any acquiescent responses as well. Secondly, we randomly
inter-mixed the measurement items for the independent variables, mediating variable,
12 G. C. W. GIM AND T. RAMAYAH

and the dependent variable so that respondents were not swayed to cognitively produce
the correlation as expected (Chang et al., 2010; Podsakoff et al., 2003). Thirdly, we used a
different number of Likert scale points for the dependent variable to minimise any anchor-
ing effects (Podsakoff et al., 2003, 2012). Fourthly, we labelled each point of the scale value
to reduce acquiescence bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003, 2012).

Measurement
Turnover intention was measured with five items adapted from Wayne, Shore, and Liden
(1997) on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). As mentioned
earlier, we assigned a five-point Likert scale for turnover intention differently from other
variables to minimise any anchoring effects (Podsakoff et al., 2003, 2012).
All four dimensions of organisational justice were measured with twenty items adapted
from Colquitt (2001) on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Given that the scale is tailorable for use in any context (Colquitt, 2001), the word ‘salary’
was used to measure the outcome of justice, while the words ‘top management’ were
used to measure the source of justice.
Competitive psychological climate was measured with four items adapted from
Fletcher et al. (2008), which were originally developed by Brown et al. (1998), on a scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
WIPL was measured with five items adopted from Fisher et al. (2009) on a scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
All the measurement items used in this study are shown in Appendix 1. In addition to the
measurement items, demographic information was also requested, including age, gender,
ethnicity, marital status, number of children, tenure in firm, education, and actual salary.

Control variables
Age, gender, and actual salary were controlled in its relationship with turnover intention and
WIPL because prior studies have found that younger employees (Babic et al., 2015; Chang,
Wang, & Huang, 2013; Weng & McElroy, 2012), women (Chang et al., 2013), and those with a
lower salary (Khatri et al., 2001) experienced higher turnover intention. Extant research has
also shown that younger employees (Bhave et al., 2013), women (Cleveland et al., 2006) and
those with a higher salary experienced higher WIF (Bhave et al., 2013).

Respondents’ profile
The respondents’ mean age was 24.5 (SD = 1.9). The majority of the respondents were
women (60.6%), ethnic Chinese (86.7%), single (95.0%), without children (97.4%), and
had worked between seven months and one year in their respective firms (66.6%).
Additionally, slightly more than half of the respondents held an undergraduate degree
(51.4%) and earned between RM2,001 to RM3,000 per month (US$489.84 to US$734.40
per month) (55.1%).

Screening for common method variance

Before the data were analysed, we screened for common method variance. Based on
Podsakoff et al.’s (2003) suggestion, we ran the Harman’s single factor test to ascertain
 THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 13

Table 1. Descriptive statistics, latent variable correlations, and square roots of the average variance
extracted (AVE).
M SD CPC DJ INF INT PJ TI WIPL
CPC 4.515 1.048 0.737
DJ 3.681 1.329 −0.120 0.881
INF 4.055 1.127 −0.068 0.504 0.823
INT 4.917 1.008 −0.110 0.360 0.499 0.840
PJ 3.852 1.105 −0.169 0.653 0.546 0.398 0.790
TI 3.016 0.862 0.148 −0.305 −0.368 −0.371 −0.414 0.800
WIPL 4.846 1.322 0.308 −0.446 −0.296 −0.310 −0.334 0.389 0.842
Notes. The bolded diagonals represent the square roots of the AVE while the other entries below the square roots of the
AVE represent the latent variable correlations.
CPC = competitive psychological climate; DJ = distributive justice; INF = informational justice; INT = interpersonal justice;
PJ = procedural justice, TI = turnover intention; WIPL = work interference with personal life

whether the biggest factor is less than 50% of the total variance (Fuller, Simmering,
Atinc, Atinc, & Babin, 2016). The results revealed that the biggest factor accounted for
31.78% out of a total variance of 68.25% of all measurement items, which was less
than half of the total variance, indicating that common method bias was not present.
In addition to Harman’s single factor test, we also inspected the correlations among
the variables to ensure they are not above 0.90 (Bagozzi, Yi, & Phillips, 1991). As
shown in Table 1, none of the variables were correlated above 0.90 showing that
there were no indications of common method variance. Hence, common method bias
was unlikely to be an issue in this study.

Results
We analysed the collected data based on partial least squares structural equation model-
ing (PLS-SEM) using SmartPLS version 3.2.7 (Ringle, Wende, & Becker, 2015). PLS-SEM was
chosen in this study due to its ability to maximise the variance explained and to cater high
number of constructs and indicators in the current research model, helping overcome the
limitations of covariance-based structural equation modeling (Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt,
2017; Petter, 2018). Furthermore, PLS-SEM aptly fits the aim of this study, which was to
investigate and explain the hypothesised relationships among the variables in the
research model in order to predict turnover intention (Hair et al., 2017; Petter, 2018).
PLS-SEM requires a two-step approach in analysing a research model; the measurement
model is analysed first, followed by the structural model (Hair et al., 2017). Table 1 depicts
the mean, standard deviations, and the correlations for each variable.

Assessment of measurement model

The assessment of the measurement model requires the inspection of convergent validity,
discriminant validity, and reliability. Convergent validity was assessed by inspecting the
outer loadings and the average variance extracted (AVE) (Hair et al., 2017). As shown in
Table 2, all of the outer loadings exceeded the threshold of 0.70 except for a few items
(CPC3, CPC4, INT4, and TI5) which were between 0.40 and 0.70. Since the AVEs for all con-
structs were already above the threshold of 0.50, none of the outer loadings which were
between 0.40 and 0.70 needed to be deleted (Hair et al., 2017). Thus, the model showed
that convergent validity was achieved.
14 G. C. W. GIM AND T. RAMAYAH

Table 2. Validity and reliability for constructs.

Construct Measurement item Loading AVE Composite reliability
Competitive psychological CPC1 0.810 0.544 0.824
climate (CPC) CPC2 0.834
CPC3 0.694
CPC4 0.584
Distributive justice (DJ) DJ1 0.896 0.777 0.933
DJ2 0.903
DJ3 0.880
DJ4 0.845
Informational justice (INF) INF1 0.839 0.678 0.913
INF2 0.860
INF3 0.848
INF4 0.789
INF5 0.775
Interpersonal justice (INT) INT1 0.900 0.706 0.905
INT2 0.871
INT3 0.894
INT4 0.676
Procedural justice (PJ) PJ1 0.757 0.624 0.920
PJ2 0.797
PJ3 0.707
PJ4 0.782
PJ5 0.829
PJ6 0.804
PJ7 0.843
Turnover intention (TI) TI1 0.773 0.640 0.898
TI2 0.777
TI3 0.892
TI4 0.880
TI5 0.655
Work interference with WIPL1 0.769 0.708 0.924
personal life (WIPL) WIPL2 0.820
WIPL3 0.854
WIPL4 0.893
WIPL5 0.866

We assessed discriminant validity by inspecting the outer loadings, Fornell-Larcker cri-

terion (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), and the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations
between the constructs (Hair et al., 2017; Henseler, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2015). First of all,
there were no cross loadings among the measurement items. Secondly, the square
roots of the AVE were above the correlation among the variables providing support for
discriminant validity as shown in Table 1. Thirdly, the HTMT ratios were below the
threshold of 0.85 (Henseler et al., 2015) as shown in Table 3. The results of the outer load-
ings, Fornell-Larcker criterion, and HTMT ratios demonstrated that discriminant validity
was achieved.

Table 3. Heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations.

CPC DJ INF INT PJ TI WIPL
CPC
DJ 0.145
INF 0.128 0.566
INT 0.172 0.406 0.571
PJ 0.217 0.724 0.613 0.453
TI 0.214 0.342 0.423 0.415 0.464
WIPL 0.379 0.491 0.326 0.335 0.361 0.430
 THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 15

We assessed reliability by inspecting the composite reliability of all constructs (Hair

et al., 2017). From Table 2, the composite reliability of each construct was above the rec-
ommended threshold of 0.70, thus establishing the reliability of all constructs.

Assessment of structural model

The second step after assessing the measurement model is the assessment of the struc-
tural model. The structural model assessment mainly involved inspecting collinearity,
path coefficients, coefficient of determination, effect size, and predictive relevance.
The collinearity test showed that the variance inflation factor (VIF) values for all inde-
pendent variables (distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, informa-
tional justice, and competitive psychological climate) were between 1.025 and 2.02
which were below the recommended threshold value of 5.0 (Hair et al., 2017). Therefore,
there was no issue of collinearity in the model.
The next step involved examining the structural paths to determine the significance of
the path coefficients by running a bootstrapping of 5,000 resamples. As control variables,
age (β = −0.034, p > 0.05), gender (β = 0.053, p > 0.05), and actual salary (β = 0.046, p >
0.05) were not found to be significantly related to turnover intention. Age (β = 0.032, p
> 0.05) and gender (β = 0.025, p > 0.05) were also not found to be significantly related
to WIPL but actual salary (β = 0.110, p < 0.01) was found to have a significant positive
relationship with WIPL.
Having the control variables controlled, the result of bootstrapping as depicted in
Table 4 revealed that distributive justice (β = −0.362, p < 0.01) and interpersonal justice
(β = −0.156, p < 0.01) had a significant negative influence on WIPL, providing support
for Hypotheses 1 and 3. Other than that, competitive psychological climate (β = 0.244,
p < 0.01) had a significant positive relationship with WIPL, providing support for Hypoth-
esis 5. The study also revealed that WIPL (β = 0.383, p < 0.01) had a significant positive
relationship with turnover intention, thus supporting Hypothesis 6. Contrary to our predic-
tion, procedural justice (β = 0.025, p > 0.05) and informational justice (β = −0.017, p > 0.05)
were not found to have a significant relationship with WIPL; therefore, Hypotheses 2 and 4
were not supported.
Regarding the mediating hypotheses, Table 5 shows that distributive justice (β =
−0.138, p < 0.01), interpersonal justice (β = −0.060, p < 0.05), and competitive psychologi-
cal climate (β = 0.093, p < 0.01) had indirect effects on turnover intention via WIPL. It indi-
cated that WIPL was a mediator for the relationships between the three particular
independent variables (distributive justice, interpersonal justice, and competitive psycho-
logical climate) and turnover intention. Therefore, Hypotheses 7, 9, and 11 were

Table 4. Path coefficients of direct effects.

Hypothesis Beta Standard error t value 95% confidence interval Decision
H1 DJ → WIPL −0.362 0.065 5.597* [−0.470, −0.260] Supported
H2 PJ → WIPL 0.025 0.066 0.386 [−0.084, 0.130] Not supported
H3 INT → WIPL −0.156 0.060 2.617* [−0.253, −0.058] Supported
H4 INF → WIPL −0.017 0.068 0.253 [−0.126, 0.095] Not supported
H5 CPC → WIPL 0.244 0.050 4.845* [0.153, 0.321] Supported
H6 WIPL → TI 0.383 0.047 8.147* [0.296, 0.453] Supported
*p < 0.01.
16 G. C. W. GIM AND T. RAMAYAH

Table 5. Path coefficients of mediating effects.

Indirect effect through WIPL
Hypothesis Beta Std. error t value 95% confidence interval Decision
H7 DJ → WIPL → TI −0.138 0.029 4.697** [−0.203, −0.085] Supported
H8 PJ → WIPL →TI 0.010 0.025 0.383 [−0.040, 0.059] Not supported
H9 INT → WIPL → TI −0.060 0.024 2.445* [−0.110, −0.015] Supported
H10 INF → WIPL → TI −0.007 0.026 0.250 [−0.059, 0.044] Not supported
H11 CPC → WIPL → TI 0.093 0.022 4.171** [0.051, 0.136] Supported
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01

supported. However, procedural justice (β = 0.010, p > 0.05) and informational justice (β =
−0.007, p > 0.05) did not have indirect effects on turnover intention through WIPL. Thus,
Hypotheses 8 and 10 were not supported.
Further analysis on coefficient of determination (R 2) revealed that the five independent
variables (distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, informational
justice, and competitive psychological climate) collectively explained 30.2% of the var-
iance in WIPL as illustrated in Figure 1. The analysis also showed that WIPL explained

Figure 1. Research model and path coefficients.

 THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 17

15.5% of the variance in turnover intention as illustrated in Figure 1. According to Cohen

(1988), an R 2 above 26% is considered large while an R 2 above 13% is considered medium.
It therefore means that the R 2 for WIPL was large while the R 2 for turnover intention was
medium.
Thereafter, we computed the effect size ( f 2) to gauge the practical significance of the
relationships. According to Cohen’s (1988) guidelines, the f 2 values of 0.35, 0.15, and
0.02 represent large, medium, and small effect size respectively. The results revealed
that distributive justice (0.101), interpersonal justice (0.025), and competitive psychological
climate (0.082) had at least small effects on WIPL and likewise, WIPL (0.169) had a medium
effect on turnover intention. The small effects and medium effect above, which were
above the f 2 values of 0.02 and 0.15 respectively, indicated that these paths were at
least practically significant. However, the effects of procedural justice and informational
justice on WIPL were below the threshold of 0.02 indicating that the said paths were
not practically significant.
Finally, we examined the predictive capability (Q 2) of the model by relying on the cross-
redundancy prediction technique as recommended by Hair et al. (2017). As shown in
Figure 1, the Q 2 values for both endogenous variables, WIPL (0.195) and turnover intention
(0.088), were above the threshold value of 0, indicating that the model had predictive
relevance.

Discussion
This study helps to extend support to the application of the COR theory in a turnover
intention study with the mediating role of WIPL. Consistent with prior studies, this
study showed that distributive justice (Babic et al., 2015; Lambert et al., 2013; Tepper,
2000) and interpersonal justice (Heponiemi et al., 2008; Judge & Colquitt, 2004; Kyei-
Poku, 2014; Tepper, 2000) were negatively related to WIPL whereas competitive psycho-
logical climate was positively related to WIPL (Sahadev et al., 2014). In agreement with pre-
vious studies (Babic et al., 2015; Hsieh et al., 2009; Karatepe & Kilic, 2007; Nohe & Sonntag,
2014; Pasewark & Viator, 2006; Ren & Chen, 2018), WIPL was also positively related to turn-
over intention as hypothesised. Corresponding with the supported direct effects, distribu-
tive justice, interpersonal justice, and competitive psychological climate were found to
have indirect effects on turnover intention through WIPL as a mediator.
The findings of this study suggest that employees who perceive having received equi-
table salary and respectful treatment are more likely to report lower WIPL because the per-
ceived justice nurtures a positive psychological state among employees whereas injustice
fuels negative emotions which are carried home impairing individuals’ functioning at
home. In the same way, employees who feel their workplace to be highly competitive
are more likely to experience the encroachment of such pressures into their personal
life. As a result, employees who suffered from such interference from work are more
likely to consider leaving their employers.
Interestingly, both procedural justice and informational justice were not significantly
related to WIPL, differing from past studies (Babic et al., 2015; Heponiemi et al., 2008;
Jiang, 2012; Judge & Colquitt, 2004; Lambert et al., 2013; Tepper, 2000). The reason for
the non-significant relationship is probably due to the incumbents’ interpretability of
procedural justice and informational justice. First of all, Van den Bos, Lind, Vermunt,
18 G. C. W. GIM AND T. RAMAYAH

and Wilke (1997) have demonstrated that distributive justice was given greater empha-
sis compared to procedural justice if the outcome information was available to employ-
ees for comparison. The abundance of career-related websites such as Glassdoor.com
and Jobstreet.com with detailed information regarding auditors’ salary have provided
auditors a basis for comparing their salaries to how much other auditors are receiving.
By extending Van den Bos et al.’s (1997) findings to this study, auditors find it easier to
compare their salaries than to judge how fair the salary procedures are. Employees are
not able to compare their own employer’s procedures with other organisations unlike
the salary scales which are freely available on the Internet. Hence, procedural justice is
given less emphasis and is less interpretable compared to distributive justice leading to
the non-significant relationship between procedural justice and WIPL. Secondly, infor-
mational justice is regarded to be less interpretable because it is difficult to judge
whether the information provided by top management is being truthful and compre-
hensive (Judge & Colquitt, 2004; Van den Bos et al., 1997). Similar to procedural
justice, employees are not able to gauge how fair the information received is
without a reference point for comparison.
For control variables, we found actual salary was positively related to WIPL. This lends
support to Bhave et al. (2013) who suggested that those who were paid higher held higher
responsibilities and that explains why they experienced higher WIPL. This positive relation-
ship between actual salary and WIPL stood in contrast to the negative relationship
between distributive justice and WIPL strengthening the claim that perception differs
from reality.

Theoretical implications
The current study offers several theoretical implications. First of all, this study has sup-
ported the application of the COR theory by demonstrating the mediating role of WIPL
and thus, supporting the work of earlier researchers (Barnett et al., 2012; Grandey & Cro-
panzano, 1999; Jenkins et al., 2014; Mansour & Tremblay, 2016). The results revealed that
distributive justice, interpersonal justice, and competitive psychological climate had indir-
ect effects on turnover intention through WIPL as a mediator.
Secondly, by echoing the call by earlier researchers (Cole et al., 2010; Colquitt, 2012;
Judge & Colquitt, 2004), this study contributes to the organisational justice literature by
examining all four dimensions of organisational justice within a salary context from the
lens of the COR theory and its effect on organisational strains, particularly WIPL and turn-
over intention. This helps to uncover differential effects which might otherwise remain
hidden had the four dimensions of organisational justice were not examined (Cole
et al., 2010). This study also offers conflicting findings to those of Judge and Colquitt
(2004) who earlier found that procedural justice was more interpretable than distributive
justice. However, in a situation when outcome for comparison is readily available, as in an
experiment carried out by Van den Bos et al. (1997), distributive justice is perceived to be
more interpretable than procedural justice as shown in this study.
Thirdly, this study adds to the growing body of literature on competitive psychological
climate and its impact on organisational outcomes, particularly in a paradoxical environ-
ment in audit firms when teamwork is demanded in a competitive environment. This
study particularly supports the argument that competitive environment breeds negativity
 THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 19

in organisations (Kohn, 1992) when tasks necessitate teamwork (Brown et al., 1998; Lin
et al., 2010; Sauers & Bass, 1990), specifically in audit firms (Almer et al., 2005).

Practical implications
The current study also offers several practical implications. With the results showing that
WIPL was related to higher turnover intention, practitioners ought to take initiatives to
reduce WIPL in order to retain talented employees. It was found that distributive justice
and interpersonal justice attenuated WIPL and that competitive psychological climates
aggravated WIPL. By looking at the effect size (f 2), the results revealed that distributive
justice had the strongest effect on WIPL followed by interpersonal justice and competitive
psychological climate, respectively.
First of all, it is not necessary for audit firms to simply increase the auditors’ salary exces-
sively because the perception of justice is more important than the actual salary itself as
shown in this study. Instead, what is more important is that audit firms should pay their
auditors fairly and commensurately with the market rate, work performance, experience,
and qualification. Specifically, audit firms should carry out benchmarking exercise annually
in addition to utilising job reviews and salary data from Glassdoor.com and Jobstreet.com
to keep their salaries competitive with other competing audit firms in order to retain the
best talent. Most importantly, audit firms should be transparent as possible to their audi-
tors when deciding their salaries in order to demonstrate distributive justice. To illustrate
as suggested by Ghosh et al. (2017), audit firms should inform their auditors in advance as
to the criteria used to determine their salaries and then, the audit firms should pay the
auditors strictly based on the said criteria.
Secondly, the top management in audit firms should be trained to treat their sub-
ordinates politely and respectfully with dignity (Judge & Colquitt, 2004). Skarlicki and
Latham (1997) have demonstrated that leaders in an organisation can be trained to
act fairly to bring the best out of their subordinates. For instance, top management
should be trained to listen to subordinates, suppressing their own personal biases, pro-
viding timely feedback and explanation to subordinates, and using self-promotion
tactics to enhance the perception of justice within the firm (Skarlicki & Latham,
1997). Audit firms should also formulate norms and policies that guide civil behaviour
among top management and any forms of rude and uncivil behaviour among top man-
agement should not be tolerated (Abubakar, Megeirhi, & Shneikat, 2018). Additionally,
top management should also be sympathetic towards and supportive of their subordi-
nates when help is needed to manage time between work and personal life (Cole et al.,
2010; Judge & Colquitt, 2004).
Thirdly, recognising that competitive psychological climate has negative implications
for auditors, top management in audit firms should curtail the competitive environment
by redesigning their key performance indicators as well as to avoid making disparaging
comparison that could spur competition and comparison among employees (Sahadev
et al., 2014). For example, audit firms should reward teamwork by incorporating teamwork
as one of their key performance indicators to encourage auditors to demonstrate collab-
oration and cooperation. Another instance particularly is that team-building activities can
be organised to nurture teamwork and collegiality in order to curb any unhealthy compe-
tition between auditors. It is imperative for organisations to encourage a supportive,
20 G. C. W. GIM AND T. RAMAYAH

friendly work environment (Tian, Song, Kwan, & Li, 2018) to steer their employees away
from being competitively hostile.

Limitations and future suggestions

There are a number of limitations in this study that readers should be aware of. First of all,
the sample of this study was limited to auditors below managerial level. Although this
helped to strengthen the homogeneity of the sample, caution should be exercised
when generalising the findings to auditors at the managerial level because the effects
could have been entirely different at the managerial level. Therefore, future research
should extend the samples to auditors at managerial level and above. Alternatively, a
multi-group moderation involving different levels of auditors is a promising research to
identify the different effects on turnover intention for each group.
Secondly, the cross-sectional nature of this research, in which data were collected at the
same point of time, places limits on its ability to demonstrate causality. Nonetheless, we
have partly mitigated this limitation by relying on the COR theory specifically to explain
the causal relationships among the variables and to justify the mediating path in this
study. Future research can still be greatly enhanced notwithstanding by employing longi-
tudinal or experimental research designs to determine causation.
Thirdly, we recognised that common method bias may arise by relying on self-
report measures in this study. MacKenzie and Podsakoff (2012) argued that common
method bias cannot be completely eliminated in a research but steps can be taken
to minimise it. Hence, the procedural remedies, discussed in the Methods section,
were used to minimise common method bias. Additionally, Fuller et al. (2016) demon-
strated that even if common method variance is present, it is unlikely to inflate
relationships. Furthermore, Edwards (2008) maintained that self-report measure is the
best source of data to elicit a more legitimate response on perceptions, attitudes,
and intentions from the focal respondents themselves. Nevertheless, our test on
common method variance showed that common method bias was not an issue in
this study.
Complementing the suggestion made by Judge and Colquitt (2004), future research
should consider replicating the effects of the four dimensions of organisational justice
on WIPL given the non-significant relationship between procedural justice and informa-
tional justice on WIPL. Future research should also consider extending the research
model by adding a moderating variable such as hardiness or psychological capital to
gain further insights on how it affects the relationship between the four dimensions of
organisational justice and WIPL.
Due to the stressful nature of competitive climate in audit firms, future research should
examine the effects of competitive psychological climate on other behaviours in audit
firms such as incivility, deviant workplace behaviour, and dysfunctional audit behaviour
that could impair audit quality.
Note that we used a single dimension of competitive psychological climate in this
study. Future studies should consider using the multidimensional measure of competitive
work environment that comprises competition for rewards, competition for recognition,
competition for status, and competition inspired by co-workers (Fletcher & Nusbaum,
2010) to examine the effects of each dimension on organisational outcomes.
 THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 21

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Gabriel C. W. Gim http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6352-7868

References
Abdullah, N. I. (2007). Accountant deficit. ACCA Focus, 8(1), 3–6.
Abubakar, A. M., Megeirhi, H. A., & Shneikat, B. (2018). Tolerance for workplace incivility, employee
cynicism and job search behaviour. The Service Industries Journal, 1–15. doi:10.1080/02642069.
2017.1420171
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental psy-
chology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Almer, E. D., Higgs, J. L., & Hooks, K. L. (2005). A theoretical framework of the relationship between
public accounting firms and their auditors. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 17, 1–22.
Almer, E. D., Lightbody, M. G., & Single, L. E. (2012). Successful promotion or segregation from part-
nership? An examination of the “post-senior manager” position in public accounting and the
implications for women’s careers. Accounting Forum, 36, 122–133.
Amstad, F. T., Meier, L. L., Fasel, U., Elfering, A., & Semmer, N. K. (2011). A meta-analysis of work-family
conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain versus matching-domain
relations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16, 151–169.
Anasori, E., Bayighomog, S. W., & Tanova, C. (2019). Workplace bullying, psychological distress, resi-
lience, mindfulness, and emotional exhaustion. The Service Industries Journal, 1–25. doi:10.1080/
02642069.2019.1589456
Association of Chartered Certified Accountants Malaysia. (2013). Optimising talent in accounting firms.
ACCA Malaysia. Retrieved from http://www2.accaglobal.com/documents/optimising-talent.pdf
Audit Oversight Board. (2014). AOB Annual report 2014. Malaysia: Audit Oversight Board.
Babic, A., Stinglhamber, F., & Hansez, I. (2015). Organizational justice and perceived organizational
support: Impact on negative work-home interference and well-being outcomes. Psychologica
Belgica, 55, 134–158.
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 421–458.
Banker, R. D., Chang, H., & Kao, Y. C. (2002). Impact of information technology on public accounting
firm productivity. Journal of Information Systems, 16, 209–222.
Barber, P. (2013). Bull in the China market: The gap between investor expectations and auditor liab-
ility for Chinese financial statement frauds. Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, 24,
349–402.
Barnett, R. C., Brennan, R. T., Gareis, K. C., Ertel, K. A., Berkman, L. F., & Almeida, D. M. (2012).
Conservation of resources theory in the context of multiple roles: An analysis of within- and
cross-role mediational pathways. Community, Work & Family, 15, 131–148.
Behson, S. J. (2002). Which dominates? The relative importance of work-family organizational
support and general organizational context on employee outcomes. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 61, 53–72.
Bellavia, G. M., & Frone, M. R. (2005). Work-family conflict. In J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway, & M. R. Frone
(Eds.), Handbook of work stress (pp. 63–88). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Bhave, D. P., Kramer, A., & Glomb, T. M. (2013). Pay satisfaction and work-family conflict across time.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 698–713.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R.J. Lewicki,
B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43–55).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
22 G. C. W. GIM AND T. RAMAYAH

Bill, A., Mitchell, B., & Welters, R. (2006). Job mobility and segmentation in Australian city labour
markets. Centre of Full Employment and Equity, 40–54. Retrieved from https://www.
melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/hilda/Bibliography/Working_Discussion_Research_Papers/
2006/Bill_etal_Job_Mobility_and_Segmentation_in_Australian_City_Labor_Markets.pdf
Blomme, R. J., Rheede, A. V., & Tromp, D. M. (2010). Work-family conflict as a cause for turnover inten-
tion in the hospitality industry. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10, 269–285.
Boomer, L. G. (2005, December 19). Good news, bad news: A prescription for the profession.
Accounting Today, 19(22), 24–27.
Bothma, F. C., Roodt, G., & van de Bunt-Kokhuis, S. (2015). Chapter 5: Subjective and objective work-
based identity consequences. In P. G. W. Jansen & G. Roodt (Eds.), Conceptualising and measuring
work identity: South African perspectives and findings (pp. 117–147). London: Springer.
Brierley, J. A., & Gwilliam, D. R. (2003). Human resource management issues in audit firms: A research
agenda. Managerial Auditing Journal, 18, 431–438.
Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (1998). Effects of trait competitiveness and perceived
intraorganizational competition on salesperson goal setting and performance. Journal of
Marketing, 62, 88–98.
Camerino, D., Sandri, M., Sartori, S., Conway, P. M., Campanini, P., & Costa, G. (2010). Shiftwork, work-
family conflict among Italian nurses, and prevention efficacy. Chronobiology International, 27,
1105–1123.
Campbell, N. S., Perry, S. J., Maertz, C. P., Jr., Allen, D. G., & Griffeth, R. W. (2013). All you need is …
resources: The effects of justice and support on burnout and turnover. Human Relations, 66,
759–782.
Chang, S. J., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010). From the editors: Common method variance in
international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 178–184.
Chang, A. W. J., Wang, Y. S., & Huang, T. C. (2013). Work design-related antecedents of turnover inten-
tion: A multilevel approach. Human Resource Management, 52, 1–26.
Chi, W., Hughen, L., Lin, C. J., & Lisic, L. L. (2013). Determinants of audit staff turnover: Evidence from
Taiwan. International Journal of Auditing, 17, 100–112.
Chou, R. J. A. (2009). Organizational justice and turnover intention: A study of direct care workers
in assisted living facilities for older adults in the United States. Social Development Issues, 31,
69–85.
Cleveland, J. N., Cordeiro, B., Fisk, G., & Mulvaney, R. H. (2006). The role of person, spouse and organ-
isational climate on work-family perceptions. Irish Journal of Management, 27, 229–253.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed). New York, NY:
Psychology Press.
Cole, M. S., Bernerth, J. B., Walter, F., & Holt, D. T. (2010). Organizational justice and individuals’
withdrawal: Unlocking the influence of emotional exhaustion. Journal of Management Studies,
47, 367–390.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a
measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.
Colquitt, J. A. (2012). Organizational justice. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of organ-
izational psychology (Vol. 1, 526–547). New York: Oxford University Press.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A
meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86, 425–445.
Colquitt, J. A., & Rodell, J. B. (2015). Measuring justice and fairness. In R. S. Cropanzano & M. L.
Ambrose (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace (pp. 187–202). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Costantino, N., de Palma, P. D., & Veneto, G. (2014). Job fatigue and the emancipation of workers: Past
scenarios and future perspectives. In A. Manuti & P. D. de Palma (Eds.), Why human capital is impor-
tant for organizations: People come first (pp. 14–32). London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Cropanzano, R., Goldman, B. M., & Benson, L,III. (2005). Organizational justice. In J. Barling, E. K.
Kelloway, & M. R. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress (pp. 63–88). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
 THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 23

Dalton, D. R., Hill, J. W., & Ramsay, R. J. (1997). Women as managers and partners: Context specific
predictors of turnover in international public accounting firms. Auditing: A Journal of Practice &
Theory, 16, 29–50.
The Edge Financial Daily. (2017). Malaysian employers turn a blind eye to work-life balance – study.
The Edge Financial Daily. Retrieved from www.theedgemarkets.com/article/malaysian-employers-
turn-blind-eye-worklife-balance—study
Edwards, J. R. (2008). To prosper, organizational psychology should … overcome methodological
barriers to progress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 469–491.
Finney, M. M., & Kohlhase, J. E. (2008). The effect of urbanization on labor turnover. Journal of Regional
Science, 48, 311–328.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and
research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fisher, G. G., Bulger, C. A., & Smith, C. S. (2009). Beyond work and family: A measure of work/nonwork
interference and enhancement. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 441–456.
Fletcher, T. D., Major, D. A., & Davis, D. D. (2008). The interactive relationship of competitive climate
and trait competitiveness with workplace attitudes, stress, and performance. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 29, 899–922.
Fletcher, T. D., & Nusbaum, D. N. (2010). Development of the competitive work environment scale: A
multidimensional climate construct. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70, 105–124.
Fogarty, T. J., & Uliss, B. (2000). Auditor work and its outcomes: An application of the job character-
istics model to large public accounting firms. Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research, 3, 37–68.
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Foo, G. (2011). Quantifying the Malaysian brain drain and an investigation of its key determinants.
Malaysian Journal of Economic Studies, 48, 93–116.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
Forum of Firms. (2017). Forum of Firms. International Federation of Accountants. Retrieved from
https://www.ifac.org/about-ifac/forum-firms-and-transnational-auditors-committee/forum-firms-
membership
Fuller, C. M., Simmering, M. J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., & Babin, B. J. (2016). Common methods variance
detection in business research. Journal of Business Research, 69, 3192–3198.
Ghosh, D., Sekiguchi, T., & Gurunathan, L. (2017). Organizational embeddedness as a mediator
between justice and in-role performance. Journal of Business Research, 75, 130–137.
Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied to work-family
conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350–370.
Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organiz-
ational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human
resource management (pp. 79–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Growing Practice. (2014). Growing Practice. Malaysian Institute of Accountants. Retrieved from http://
www.mia.org.my/new/pp_knowledge_guide_growing.asp
Gupta, N., & Shaw, J. D. (2014). Employee compensation: The neglected area of HRM research. Human
Resource Management Review, 24, 1–4.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publication.
Hall, M., Smith, D., & Langfield-Smith, K. (2005). Accountants’ commitment to their profession:
Multiple dimensions of professional commitment and opportunities for future research.
Behavioral Research in Accounting, 17, 89–109.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in
variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43,
115–135.
Heponiemi, T., Elovainio, M., Pekkarinen, L., Sinervo, T., & Kouvonen, A. (2008). The effects of job
demands and low job control on work-family conflict: The role of fairness in decision making
and management. Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 387–398.
24 G. C. W. GIM AND T. RAMAYAH

Hiltebeitel, K., & Leauby, B. (2001). Migratory patterns of entry-level accountants. The CPA Journal, 71
(4), 54–56.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American
Psychologist, 44, 513–524.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process:
Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50,
337–421.
Howard, L. W., & Cordes, C. L. (2010). Flight from unfairness: Effects of perceived injustice on
emotional exhaustion and employee withdrawal. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 409–428.
Hsieh, J. Y. C., Pearson, T. E., & Kline, S. F. (2009). The moderating effects of job and personal life invol-
vement on the relationship between work-personal life conflict and intention to quit. Journal of
Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 8, 1–14.
Jauhar, J. B., Abdul Ghani, A. B., & Islam, R. (2016). Brain drain: Propensity for Malaysian professionals to
leave for Singapore. Singapore: Springer.
Jenkins, J. S., Heneghan, C. J., Bailey, S. F., & Barber, L. K. (2014). The work-family interface as a
mediator between job demands and employee behaviour. Stress and Health, 32, 128–137.
Jiang, H. (2012). A model of work-life conflict and quality of employee-organizational relationships
(EORs): Transformational leadership, procedural justice, and family-supportive workplace initiat-
ives. Public Relations Review, 38, 231–245.
Jin, M. H., McDonald, B., & Park, J. (2016). Person-organization fit and turnover intention: Exploring the
mediating role of employee followership and job satisfaction through conservation of resources
theory. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 38, 167–192.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1974). Instructional goal structure: Cooperative, competitive, or indi-
vidualistic. Review of Educational Research, 44, 213–240.
Judge, T. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Organizational justice and stress: The mediating role of work-
family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 395–404.
Karatepe, O. M., & Kilic, H. (2007). Relationships of supervisor support and conflicts in the work-
family interface with the selected job outcomes of frontline employees. Tourism Management,
28, 238–252.
Keeney, J., Boyd, E. M., Sinha, R., Westring, A. F., & Ryan, A. M. (2013). From “work-family” to “work-life”:
Broadening our conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82, 221–237.
Khatri, N., Chong, T. F., & Budhwar, P. (2001). Explaining employee turnover in an Asian context.
Human Resource Management Journal, 11, 54–74.
Kohn, A. (1992). No contest: The case against competition. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Kyei-Poku, I. A. (2014). Linking interactional justice to work-to-family conflict: The mediating role of
emotional exhaustion. Organization Management Journal, 11, 74–83.
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Cheeseman, K. (2013). Research note – strain-based work-family
conflict and its relationship with perceptions of distributive and procedural justice among correc-
tional staff. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 28, 35–47.
Law, D. W. (2010). Examination of the actual turnover decisions of female auditors in public account-
ing: Evidence from Hong Kong. Managerial Auditing Journal, 25, 484–502.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of
justice in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange:
Advances in theory and research (Vol. 9, pp. 27–55). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Lin, C. P., Wang, Y. J., Tsai, Y. H., & Hsu, Y. F. (2010). Perceived job effectiveness in coopetition:
A survey of virtual teams within business organizations. Computers in Human Behavior, 26,
1598–1606.
Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & Earley, P. C. (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and
noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
59, 952–959.
Lyu, X. (2016). Effect of organizational justice on work engagement with psychological safety as a
mediator: Evidence from China. Social Behavior and Personality, 44, 1359–1370.
MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2012). Common method bias in marketing: Causes, mechanisms,
and procedural remedies. Journal of Retailing, 88, 542–555.
 THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 25

Mahalingam, E. (2013). Salary vs job satisfaction. The Star Online. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.
com.my/business/business-news/2013/02/09/salary-vs-job-satisfaction/
Malaysian Institute of Accountants. (2017). Integrated report 2017. Malaysia: Malaysian Institute of
Accountants.
Mansour, S., & Tremblay, D. G. (2016). Workload, generic and work-family specific social supports and
job stress: Mediating role of work-family and family-work conflict. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28, 1778–1804.
McBriarty, M. A. (1988). Performance appraisal: Some unintended consequences. Public Personnel
Management, 17, 421–434.
Mesmer-Magnus, J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Convergence between measures of work-to-family and
family-to-work conflict: A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 215–232.
Michel, J. S., Kotrba, L. M., Mitchelson, J. K., Clark, M. A., & Baltes, B. B. (2011). Antecedents of work-
family conflict: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 689–725.
Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and
employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 237–240.
National Physical Plan 2. (2010). National Physical Plan 2. Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
Retrieved from http://www.kpkt.gov.my/kpkt_2013/fileupload/dasar/NPP.pdf
Nohe, C., & Sonntag, K. (2014). Work-family conflict, social support, and turnover intentions: A longi-
tudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85, 1–12.
Noor, N. M., & Zainuddin, M. (2011). Emotional labor and burnout among female teachers: Work-
family conflict as mediator. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 283–293.
Oxford Economics. (2014). The cost of brain drain: Understanding the financial impact of staff turn-
over. Oxford Economics. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordeconomics.com/my-oxford/projects/
264283
Parker, R. J., Nouri, H., & Hayes, A. F. (2011). Distributive justice, promotion instrumentality, and turn-
over intentions in public accounting firms. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 23(2), 169–186.
Pasewark, W. R., & Viator, R. E. (2006). Sources of work-family conflict in the accounting profession.
Behavioral Research in Accounting, 18, 147–165.
Persellin, J., Schmidt, J., & Wilkins, M. S. (2014). Auditor perceptions of audit workloads, audit quality,
and the auditing profession. Digital Commons Working Paper. Retrieved from http://
digitalcommons.trinity.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=busadmin_faculty
Petter, S. (2018). “Haters gonna hate”: PLS and information systems research. The DATA BASE for
Advances in Information Systems, 49(2), 10–13.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.
Price, J. L. (2001). Reflections on the determinants of voluntary turnover. International Journal of
Manpower, 22, 600–624.
PwC. (2012). Millennials at work: Reshaping the workforce. PwC Malaysia. Retrieved from http://www.
pwc.com/en_MY/my/assets/publications/millennials-at-work.pdf
Randstad. (2014). Healthy employees perform better including quarterly mobility, confidence & job sat-
isfaction. Retrieved from http://www.randstad.com/press/research-reports/
Ren, H., & Chen, W. (2018). How personal-life inclusion affects Chinese turnover intention? A moder-
ated mediation model of work interference with family and perceived family demands. Journal of
Management & Organization, 1–19. doi:10.1017/jmo.2018.34
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2015). SmartPLS 3 [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://
www.smartpls.com
Sahadev, S., Seshanna, S., & Purani, K. (2014). Effects of competitive psychological climate, work-
family conflict, and role conflict on customer orientation: The case of call center employees in
India. Journal of Indian Business Research, 6, 70–84.
Satava, D. (1996). Public accounting: Should you work for a national or local firm? New Accountant, 12
(1), 24–28.
26 G. C. W. GIM AND T. RAMAYAH

Sauers, D. A., & Bass, K. (1990). Sustaining the positive effects of goal setting: The positive influence of
peer competition. Akron Business and Economic Review, 21, 30–40.
Simons, T., & Roberson, Q. (2003). Why managers should care about fairness: The effects of aggregate
justice perceptions on organizational outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 432–433.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1997). Leadership training in organizational justice to increase citizen-
ship behaviour within a labor union: A replication. Personnel Psychology, 50, 617–633.
Spell, C. S., & Arnold, T. J. (2007). A multi-level analysis of organizational justice climate, structure, and
employee mental health. Journal of Management, 33, 724–751.
Suifan, T. S., Diab, H., & Abdallah, A. B. (2017). Does organizational justice affect turnover-intention in
a developing country? The mediating role of job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
Journal of Management Development, 36, 1137–1148.
Sulsky, L., & Smith, C. (2005). Work stress. Belmont, CA: Thompson Learning.
Sun, S., & Wang, W. (2016). Transformational leadership, employee turnover intention, and actual
voluntary turnover in public organizations. Public Management Review, 19, 1124–1141.
Taylor, S. L., & Cosenza, R. M. (1998). Reducing turnover in public accounting firms: An internal mar-
keting strategy. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 17, 135–147.
Tekleab, A. G., Bartol, K. M., & Liu, W. (2005). Is it pay levels or pay raises that matter to fairness and
turnover? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 899–921.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43,
176–190.
Tian, Q. T., Song, Y., Kwan, H. K., & Li, X. (2018). Workplace gossip and frontline employees’ proactive
service performance. The Service Industries Journal, 1–18. doi:10.1080/02642069.2018.1435642
Tyler, T., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters:
A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70, 913–930.
Van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997). How do I judge my outcome when I
do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1034–1046.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member
exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82–111.
Weng, Q., & McElroy, J. C. (2012). Organizational career growth, affective occupational commitment
and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 256–265.
Westman, M., Hobfoll, S. E., Chen, S., Davidson, O. B., & Laski, S. (2005). Organizational stress through
the lens of conservation of resources (COR) theory. In P. L. Perrewe & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Research
in occupational stress and well-being: Vol. 4. Exploring interpersonal dynamics (pp. 167–219). United
Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing.
 THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 27

Appendix 1. Measurement items

Construct Item Measurement item

Distributive DJ1 My salary reflects the effort I have put into my work.
justice DJ2 My salary is appropriate for the work I have completed.
DJ3 My salary reflects what I have contributed to the firm.
DJ4 My salary is justified, given my performance.
Procedural justice PJ1 I am able to express my views and feelings regarding the salary procedures.
PJ2 I have influence over my salary which is determined by the salary procedures.
PJ3 The salary procedures are applied consistently.
PJ4 The salary procedures are free from bias.
PJ5 The salary procedures are based on accurate information.
PJ6 I am able to appeal my salary which is determined by the salary procedures.
PJ7 The salary procedures uphold ethical and moral standards.
Interpersonal INT1 Top management treats me in a polite manner.
justice INT2 Top management treats me with dignity.
INT3 Top management treats me with respect.
INT4 Top management avoids making improper remarks or comments.
Informational INF1 Top management is honest in their communications with me.
justice INF2 Top management explains the salary procedures thoroughly.
INF3 Top management’s explanations regarding salary procedures are reasonable.
INF4 Top management communicates details about the salary procedures in a timely manner.
INF5 Top management seems to adapt their communications to meet my specific needs.
Competitive CPC1 My superiors frequently compare my performance with that of my peers (co-workers).
psychological CPC2 The amount of recognition you get in this firm depends on how you perform compared to
climate others.
CPC3 Everybody is concerned with being the top performer.
CPC4 My peers (co-workers) frequently compare their performance with mine.
WIPL WIPL1 I come home from work too tired to do things I would like to do.
WIPL2 My job makes it difficult to maintain the kind of personal life I would like.
WIPL3 I often neglect my personal needs because of the demands of my work.
WIPL4 My personal life suffers because of my work.
WIPL5 I have to miss out on important personal activities due to the amount of time I spend
doing work.
Turnover TI1 I am actively looking for a job outside this firm.
intention TI2 As soon as I can find a better job, I will leave this firm.
TI3 I am seriously thinking about quitting my job.
TI4 I often think about quitting my job in this firm.
TI5 I think I will be working in this firm five years from now. (Reversed)