Quiet quitting intention: The dual mediating roles of job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion, and the moderating effect of perceived organizational support

Tóm tắt

This study examines the determinants of Quiet Quitting Intention (QQI), focusing on the mediating roles of job satisfaction (JS) and emotional exhaustion (EE), as well as the moderating effect of perceived organizational support (POS). Grounded in four theoretical frameworks -the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model, Conservation of Resources (COR) theory, Social Exchange (SE) theory, and Workplace Psychology (WP) theory - the study develops an integrated model to explain employee disengagement. The findings indicate that work overload, empowering leadership, and role ambiguity indirectly influence QQI through the mediating effects of EE and JS, with job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion serving as key transmission mechanisms. In addition, POS significantly moderates the relationships between JS, EE, and QQI. These results contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of employee disengagement dynamics, particularly among Gen Z, and offer empirical evidence on the interplay between job demands, resources, and organizational support.

Từ khóa
quiet quitting intention perceived organizational support job satisfaction emotional exhaustion Gen Z

Tài liệu tham khảo

1.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands–resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.
2.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Transaction Publishers.
3.
Ding, J., & Wu, Y. (2023). The mediating effect of job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion on the relationship between psychological empowerment and turnover intention among Chinese nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Nursing, 22(1), Article 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-023-01357-y
4.
Formica, S., & Sfodera, F. (2022). The great resignation and quiet quitting paradigm shifts: An overview of current situation and future research directions. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 31(8), 899–907.
5.
General Statistics Office of Vietnam - GSO (2024). Population size forecast for Vietnam. https://www.nso.gov.vn/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/ENG-pop_projection_fs_final.pdf
6.
Hair, J. F., Hollingsworth, C. L., Randolph, A. B., & Chong, A. Y. L. (2017). An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117(3), 442–458.
7.
Hair, J. F., Astrachan, C. B., Moisescu, O. I., Radomir, L., Sarstedt, M., Vaithilingam, S., & Ringle, C. M. (2021). Executing and interpreting applications of PLS-SEM: Updates for family business researchers. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 12(3), 100392.
8.
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.
9.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50(3), 337–421.
10.
Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36(1), 16–78.
11.
Kim, K. T., & Sohn, Y. W. (2024). The impact of quiet quitting on turnover intentions in the era of digital transformation. Systems, 12(11), 460.
12.
Kim, M., Beehr, T. A., & Prewett, M. S. (2018). Employee responses to empowering leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 25(3), 257–276.
13.
Maertz, C. P., Griffeth, R. W., Campbell, N. S., & Allen, D. G. (2007). The effects of perceived organizational support and perceived supervisor support on employee turnover. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(8), 1059-1075. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.472
14.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397-422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397
15.
Nguyen, H. T., & Vu, M. H. (2025). Quiet quitting: Insights from Generation Z workers in Vietnam. International Journal of Scientific Research and Management, 13(1), 8267-8282.
16.
Peng, P., & Li, X. (2023). The hidden costs of emotional labor on withdrawal behavior. BMC Psychology, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01392-z
17.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and burnout. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293-315.
18.
Serenko, A. (2024). The human capital management perspective on quiet quitting. Journal of Knowledge Management, 28(1), 27–43.
19.
Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3(4), 356–367.
20.
Tubre, T. C., & Collins, J. M. (2000). Role ambiguity, role conflict, and job performance. Journal of Management, 26(1), 155–169.
21.
Tummers, L. G., & Bakker, A. B. (2021). Leadership and job demands–resources theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–13.
22.
Wu, A., & Wei, W. (2024). Rationalizing quiet quitting? Deciphering the internal mechanism of front-line hospitality employees’ workplace deviance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 119, 103681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2023.103681
23.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). The role of personal resources in the job demands–resources model. International Journal of Stress Management, 14(2), 121–141.
24.
Xueyun, Z., Mamun, A. A., Masukujjaman, M., Rahman, M. K., Gao, J., & Yang, Q. (2023). Modelling the significance of organizational conditions on quiet quitting intention among Gen Z workforce. Scientific Reports, 13(1).
25.
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107–128.