Replication package for the paper: "Staying or Leaving? How Job Satisfaction, Embeddedness and Antecedents Predict Turnover Intentions of Software Professionals".

Item Level Descriptive Statistics for the paper Staying or Leaving? How Job Satisfaction, Embeddedness and Antecedents Predict Turnover Intentions of Software Professionals September 2025 1 Introduction This document maps items from the English survey given in SurveyInstrument.pdf into item ids found in datas pls.csv. Additionally, item level descriptive statistics of mean (µ), standard deviation (σ), skewness (γ1), kurtosis (γ2) and item level missingness are given in the following tables. The descriptive statistics were calculated with base R version 4.3.3 and skewness and kurtosis with the package ”e1071” version 1.7.16. See: Dimitriadou, E., Hornik, K., Leisch, F., Meyer, D., Weingessel, A., & Leisch, M. F. (2006). The e1071 package. Misc Functions of Department of Statistics (e1071), TU Wien, 297. The missing value stems from an answer ”I don’t know”, which were treated as missing. Dropped items from the final model are marked in bold. Reverse scored item have (R) in front of the item wording, though the descriptive statistics are given before reversing. For clarity we have also included items that were discarded during the modeling process for bad loadings, e.g. jobsatisfaction3 and about half of the items for technical and socio-technical infrastructure, among others. Items part of the scale being developed which were dropped for bad loadings are however not found in the shared data file data pls.csv. 2 Mappings and descriptive statistics 2.1 Turnover Intentions Table 1 shows exact item wordings and descriptive statistics for turnover intentions. Scale originally introduced in: Mobley, W. H., Horner, S. O., & Hollingsworth, A. T. (1978). An evaluation of precursors of hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied psychology, 63(4), 408. 1 The items can be are shown in, for example: Skelton, A. R., Nattress, D., & Dwyer, R. J. (2020). Predicting manufacturing employee turnover intentions. Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science, 25(49), 101-117. Table 1: Turnover Intentions: ID used in the datas pls.csv, exact item wording, mean (µ), standard deviation (σ), skewness (γ1), kurtosis (γ2) and the percentage of missing answers. ID Item wording µ σ γ1γ2Miss. (%) intentions1 I often think of leaving the organization 2.58 1.33 -1.02 1.33 1.79 intentions2 I intend to look for a new job within the next year 2.70 1.40 0.28 -1.21 4.02 intentions3 If I could choose again, I would not work for this organization 1.89 1.11 1.34 1.13 0.89 2.2 Job Satisfaction Table 2 shows exact item wordings and descriptive statistics for job satisfaction. Origins of the scale are in: Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of applied psychology, 35(5), 307. Exact item wordings are shown in for example: Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C., Perrewe, P. L., & Johnson, D. (2003). Perceived organizational support as a mediator of the relationship between politics perceptions and work outcomes. Journal of Vocational behavior, 63(3), 438-456. Table 2: Job Satisfaction: ID used in the datas pls.csv, exact item wording, mean (µ), standard deviation (σ), skewness (γ1), kurtosis (γ2) and the percentage of missing answers. ID Item wording µ σ γ1γ2Miss. (%) jobsatisfaction1 I feel fairly satisfied with my job 5.28 1.42 -1.12 0.99 0 jobsatisfaction2 Most days I am enthusiastic about my job 5.04 1.55 -0.77 -0.16 0 jobsatisfaction3 (R) Each day at work seems like it will never end 3.50 1.88 0.35 -0.97 0 jobsatisfaction4 I feel real enjoyment at my work 4.97 1.49 -0.82 0.10 0 jobsatisfaction5 (R) I consider my job to be rather unpleasant 2.64 1.66 1.06 0.31 0 2 2.3 Work-life balance Table 3 shows exact item wordings and descriptive statistics for work-life balance. The scale items are shown in the paper introducing the scale, in the 8th page of the manuscript with the page number 3311: Haar, J. M. (2013). Testing a new measure of work–life balance: A study of parent and non-parent employees from New Zealand. The international journal of human resource management, 24(17), 3305-3324. Table 3: Work-life Balance: ID used in the datas pls.csv, exact item wording, mean (µ), standard deviation (σ), skewness (γ1), kurtosis (γ2) and the percentage of missing answers. ID Item wording µ σ γ1γ2Miss. (%) worklifebalance1 Nowadays, I seem to enjoy every part of my life equally well 3.40 1.17 -0.39 -0.88 0.89 worklifebalance2 I am satisfied with my work–life balance, enjoying both roles 3.55 1.20 -0.44 -0.94 0.45 worklifebalance3 I manage to balance the demands of my work and personal/family life well 3.68 1.12 -0.63 -0.55 0.45 2.4 Job Embeddedness Table 4 shows exact item wordings and descriptive statistics for Job Embeddedness. Exact item wordings are shown in the appendix of: Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., Hekman, D. R., Lee, T. W., Holtom, B. C., & Harman, W. S. (2009). Turnover contagion: How coworkers’ job embeddedness and job search behaviors influence quitting. Academy of management journal, 52(3), 545-561. 2.5 Job Quality Job Quality was measured with the revised job diagnostic survey. Table 5 shows exact item wordings used and the descriptive statistics for Job Quality. The revised scale was introduced by: Idaszak, J. R., & Drasgow, F. (1987). A revision of the Job Diagnostic Survey: Elimination of a measurement artifact. Journal of applied psychology, 72(1), 69. Revised items from the original scale are shown in Table 3 of the Idaszak and Drasgow paper. The exact wordings for all items can be found at the home page of seminal researcher and Business Management Professor Paul E Spector: https://paulspector.com/assessments/assessment-archive/job-environment/ job-diagnostic-survey-jds/ 3 2.6 Organizational Justice Organizational Justice was measured with the short measure of organizational justice. Table 6 shows exact item wordings used and the descriptive statistics for Organizational Justice. All the items were taken and shown in pages 3 and 4 (marked as 1070 and 1071) of: Elovainio, M., Heponiemi, T., Kuusio, H., Sinervo, T., Hintsa, T., & Aalto, A. M. (2010). Developing a short measure of organizational justice: A multisample health professionals study. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 52(11), 1068-1074. 2.7 Personality Traits Three personality traits were measured with the mini IPIP. Table 7 shows exact item wordings used and the descriptives for Extraversion, Neuroticism and Conscientiousness. The items were taken from the appendix of: Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological assessment, 18(2), 192. 2.8 Technical and Sociotechnical Infrastructure The scales measuring attitudes toward technical and sociotechnical infrastructure are being developed by the same authors. Tables 8 and 9 show the exact item wordings used and the descriptive statistics. The citation will be updated on the paper is accepted. Item creation and validation process is described in: Anonymous. 2025. The Software Infrastructure Attitude Scale (SIAS): A Questionnaire Instrument for Measuring Professionals’ Attitudes Toward Technical and Sociotechnical Infrastructure. In Proceedings of the Conference. Under review. 4 Table 4: Job Embeddedness: ID used in the datas pls.csv, exact item wording, mean (µ), standard deviation (σ), skewness (γ1), kurtosis (γ2) and the percentage of missing answers. ID Item wording µ σ γ1γ2Miss. (%) organizationfit1 My job utilizes my skills and talents well 3.90 1.00 -1.03 0.73 0 organizationfit2 I feel like I am a good match for my organization 3.88 0.97 -0.86 0.54 0 organizationfit3 I have a lot of freedom on this job to pursue my goals 3.41 1.15 -0.51 -0.60 3.12 organizationlinks1 I am a member of an effective work group 3.98 1.05 -1.04 0.61 0.45 organizationlinks2 I work closely with my coworkers 3.86 1.08 -0.90 0.21 1.34 organizationlinks3 On the job, I interact frequently with my work group members 4.27 0.85 -1.19 1.33 0 organizationsacrifice1 If I stay with my organization, I will be able to achieve most of my goals 3.69 1.08 -0.60 -0.48 0 organizationsacrifice2 I would sacrifice a lot if I left this job 3.50 1.14 -0.37 -0.85 2.23 organizationsacrifice3 I believe the prospects for continuing employment with my organization are excellent 3.61 1.17 -0.50 -0.72 0 communityfit1 I really love the place where I live 3.76 1.06 -0.73 0.12 0 communityfit2 The place where I live is a good match for me 3.90 1.03 -0.85 0.08 0.89 communityfit3 The area where I live offers the leisure activities that I like (sports, outdoor activities, cultural events & arts 3.69 1.16 -0.71 -0.29 0 communitylinks1 My family roots are in this community 2.82 1.55 0.18 -1.50 0.89 communitylinks2 I am active in one or more community organizations (e.g., churches, sports teams, schools, etc.) 2.65 1.34 0.30 -1.18 0.45 communitylinks3 I participate in cultural and recreational activities in my local area 3.03 1.33 -0.01 -1.13 0 communitysacrifice1 Leaving the community where I live would be very hard 3.05 1.26 0.08 -1.06 1.34 communitysacrifice2 If I were to leave the community, I would miss my nonwork friends 3.42 1.24 -0.37 -0.87 0.89 communitysacrifice3 If I were to leave the area where I live, I would miss my neighborhood 3.14 1.24 -0.25 -0.92 1.34 5 Table 5: Job Quality - Dimensions from Job Characteristics model: ID used in the datas pls.csv, exact item wording, mean (µ), standard deviation (σ), skewness (γ1), kurtosis (γ2) and the percentage of missing answers. ID Item wording µ σ γ1γ2Miss. (%) autonomy1 I decide on my own how to go about doing the work 4.97 1.64 -0.81 -0.04 0 autonomy2 The job gives me considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do the work 5.62 1.35 -1.23 1.38 0 autonomy3 The job gives me a chance to use my personal initiative or judgment in carrying out the work 5.94 1.23 -1.65 3.24 0.45 feedback1 The actual work itself provides clues about how well I am doing – aside from ”feedback” co-workers or supervisors provide 5.30 1.51 -0.94 0.23 0.89 feedback2 Just doing the work required by the job provides many chances for me to figure out how well I am doing 5.04 1.53 -0.75 -0.19 1.34 feedback3 I finish a job, I know whether I performed well 5.57 1.35 -1.55 2.51 0 skillvariety1 The job requires me to do many different things, using a variety of my skills and talents 5.99 1.26 -1.74 3.50 0.45 skillvariety2 The job requires me to use a number of complex or high-level skills 5.96 1.19 -1.60 3.31 0 skillvariety3 The job requires me to perform a variety of tasks 6.10 1.19 -1.73 3.70 0 taskidentity1 I do a ”whole” and identifiable piece of work. It is not a small part of the overall piece of work, which is finished by other people or by automatic machines 5.10 1.77 -0.83 -0.37 1.79 taskidentity2 The job provides me the chance to completely finish the piece of work I begin 5.45 1.39 -1.12 1.15 0.45 taskidentity3 The job is arranged so that I can do an entire piece of work from beginning to end 5.07 1.65 -0.79 -0.31 1.79 significance1 The results of my work significantly affect the lives and well-being of other people 5.03 1.62 -0.70 -0.39 0.89 significance2 The job is one where a lot of other people can be affected by how well the work gets done 5.80 1.30 -1.13 0.90 1.34 significance3 The job itself is very significant and important in the broader scheme of things 5.36 1.62 -1.12 0.60 0 6 Table 6: Organizational Justice: ID used in the datas pls.csv, exact item wording, mean (µ), standard deviation (σ), skewness (γ1), kurtosis (γ2) and the percentage of missing answers. ID Item wording µ σ γ1γ2Miss. (%) interactionaljustice1 My supervisor has treated me with dignity 4.51 0.74 -1.95 4.95 4.02 interactionaljustice2 My supervisor has treated me with respect 4.38 0.97 -1.74 2.43 3.57 interactionaljustice3 My supervisor has tailored his/her communications to individuals’ specific needs 3.93 1.05 -0.91 0.19 5.8 proceduraljustice1 I have been able to express my views and feelings during those procedures 4.08 0.86 -0.93 0.68 0 proceduraljustice2 Those procedures been applied consistently 3.58 0.99 -0.47 -0.34 1.79 proceduraljustice3 Those procedures been free of bias 3.42 1.09 -0.33 -0.72 2.68 distributivejustice1 My rewards reflect the effort I have put into my work 3.25 1.22 -0.37 -0.81 3.57 distributivejustice2 My rewards are appropriate for the work I have completed 3.31 1.16 -0.39 -0.65 4.02 Table 7: Personality traits: ID used in the datas pls.csv, exact item wording, mean (µ), standard deviation (σ), skewness (γ1), kurtosis (γ2) and the percentage of missing answers. ID Item wording µ σ γ1γ2Miss. (%) extraversion1 I am the life of the party 2.48 1.14 0.48 -0.49 0.89 extraversion2 (R) I don’t talk a lot 3.05 1.29 0.04 -1.21 0 extraversion3 I talk to a lot of different people at parties 2.95 1.27 0.01 -1.12 0.45 extraversion4 (R) I keep in the background 3.09 1.16 -0.09 -0.93 0 neuroticism1 (R) I am relaxed most of the time 3.13 1.10 -0.11 -0.93 0.45 neuroticism2 I get upset easily 2.64 1.12 0.30 -0.79 0 neuroticism3 (R) I seldom feel blue 3.06 1.17 -0.03 -0.88 0.45 neuroticism4 I have frequent mood swings 2.58 1.13 0.27 -0.83 0.89 conscientiousness1 I get chores done right away 3.23 1.09 -0.19 -0.97 0.45 conscientiousness2 (R) I often forget to put things back in their proper place 2.65 1.29 0.30 -1.14 0 conscientiousness3 I like order 3.91 0.92 -1.05 1.30 0.89 conscientiousness4 (R) I make a mess of things 2.12 0.94 0.81 0.25 1.34 7 Table 8: Technical Infrastructure: ID used in the datas pls.csv, exact item wording, mean (µ), standard deviation (σ), skewness (γ1), kurtosis (γ2) and the percentage of missing answers. ID Item wording µ σ γ1γ2Miss. (%) techinfrastructure1 (R) Our technical infrastructure lacks sufficient documentation for troubleshooting 3.11 1.11 -0.04 -0.97 2.68 techinfrastructure2 (R) Our technical infrastructure often hampers progress 2.65 1.17 0.52 -0.75 0.89 techinfrastructure3 (R) The technical infrastructure in place hampers evolution of tools 2.70 1.20 0.42 -0.86 2.23 techinfrastructure4 The technical infrastructure I use at work is well made 3.66 0.94 -0.58 -0.06 1.34 techinfrastructure5 I am satisfied with the technical infrastructure provided at my workplace 3.56 1.00 -0.66 0.02 0.45 techinfrastructure6 (R) Our technical infrastructure is poorly maintained 2.47 1.13 0.50 -0.60 0.89 techinfrastructure7 Our technical infrastructure works well 3.80 0.86 -0.83 0.95 0 techinfrastructure8 The technical infrastructure I use at work helps me work more efficiently 3.77 1.01 -0.70 0.05 0.89 techinfrastructure9 Our technical infrastructure includes tools that are appropriate for my work tasks 3.91 0.84 -1.01 1.37 0.45 techinfrastructure10 (R) The technical infrastructure at my workplace is unreliable 2.25 1.10 0.80 -0.13 0 8 Table 9: Socio-Technical Infrastructure: ID used in the datas pls.csv, exact item wording, mean (µ), standard deviation (σ), skewness (γ1), kurtosis (γ2) and the percentage of missing answers. ID Item wording µ σ γ1γ2Miss. (%) sociotechinfrastructure1 (R) My coworkers often find our sociotechnical infrastructure confusing 2.97 1.09 0.05 -0.97 2.68 sociotechinfrastructure2 The sociotechnical infrastructure in place makes it easy to share information 3.69 0.98 -0.71 0.08 0 sociotechinfrastructure3 (R) The socio-technical infrastructure at work burdens me with unnecessary tasks 2.83 1.14 0.31 -0.85 0.45 sociotechinfrastructure4 (R) Our sociotechnical infrastructure often leads to miscommunication 2.67 1.09 0.64 -0.51 1.34 sociotechinfrastructure5 The sociotechnical infrastructure at my workplace is user-friendly 3.55 1.00 -0.56 -0.12 2.23 sociotechinfrastructure6 Our team’s workflow is enhanced by the sociotechnical systems in place 3.57 0.95 -0.73 0.33 0.45 sociotechinfrastructure7 The sociotechnical infrastructure encourages continuous learning and improvement 3.59 1.02 -0.67 -0.06 0.45 sociotechinfrastructure8 (R) Our workflow is frequently disrupted by the sociotechnical systems we use 2.72 1.14 0.46 -0.64 0.45 sociotechinfrastructure9 Our sociotechnical infrastructure caters to the needs of different team members 3.51 0.97 -0.68 0.06 3.57 sociotechinfrastructure10 (R) The sociotechnical infrastructure at our workplace makes collaboration difficult 2.34 0.96 0.80 0.16 0 9