Unlocking the Dynamics of Employee Retention: Examining the Interplay of Job Security,Promotion and Work Engagement in a Developing Economy

Abstract

This study aims to examine the relationship among promotion, job security and work engagement on employee retention in the pharmaceutical industry of Bangladesh. Drawing on the social exchange theory, the research examines how work engagement mediates the relationships among promotion, job security and employee retention. Data were collected using a quantitative survey questionnaire approach from 309 medical representatives, which was analysed using PLS-SEM. The study results revealed that promotion and job security have a significant relationship with work engagement and work engagement has a significant relationship with employee retention. Hence, this study emphasizes that clear policies to promote and discuss job security may lead to work engagement, which is associated with employee retention. Practical implications highlight human resource management and how they should support sufficient promotion opportunities, guarantee job security and implement active work programmes to boost employee loyalty. This study concludes that specific HR practices influence employee retention through work engagement, highlighting their value in strengthening organizational performance. Although based on a single industry, the findings provide a foundation for broader investigation. Future research should test these relationships across diverse contexts to enhance generalizability.

Keywords

Promotion job security work engagement employee retention

Introduction

It is a well-established fact that employees make a significant contribution to the competitive advantage of organizations. Hence, different kinds of policies and procedures are performed by organizations to keep experienced employees over an extended period (Ghani et al., 2022). Consequently, employee retention has become a significant contributor to success for companies globally, leading to minimized needless expenditures along with enhanced employee motivation and productivity (Aman-Ullah et al., 2020). In the same way, the retention of employees is important for the stability, growth and success of the pharmaceutical industry in lower-middle income countries like Bangladesh (Rahman et al., 2022). The demand for pharmaceutical products at the global level and high competition in the industry make it unique in terms of challenging the retention of talented and highly proficient employees. In fact, 31% of employees leave a job in 6 months or less, according to a BambooHR survey (Financial Express, 2023). Bangladesh’s pharmaceutical industry has been facing high turnover intention rates among its employees in recent years. One cannot be blind to the adverse ramifications of this concern.

As of now, there are 257 licensed pharmaceutical factories in Bangladesh (DGDA, 2022; Karim et al., 2023). Out of these, 150 factories are working like they used to. Presently, 90% of the total domestic pharmaceutical market is for domestic manufacturers and 10% for multinational companies. The contribution of this industry to the GDP of Bangladesh is significant (1.0%) (Manik et al., 2023). Bangladesh has already reached a target of 98% of the country’s total requirement and, so far, has exported pharmaceutical products to 157 countries, including the European Union, Africa, Latin America and the United States (BAPI, 2025; Ministry of Finance, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, 2022). Employee retention is defined as the organization and its ability to retain employees for a certain period of time (Asif & Gul, 2021). It entails the various practices and strategies employed by companies to achieve long-term management that engages skilled and experienced workers (Venkat et al., 2023). The above is a very brief introduction to the study of employee retention, which is an important part of human resource management and has always been a hot topic of researchers and scholars (Cherif, 2020; Hom & Kiazad, 2024; Xiayan et al., 2025). A number of studies have shown that HR practices are one of the important factors that affect employee retention in organizations.

Promotion, job security and job engagement have critical implications in HR practices as well. Promotion, in an organizational context, means the advancement of an employee through a higher position with more responsibilities and higher salary (Ray, 2024). Internal mobility is the transfer and promotion of employees, which affects individuals, work units and organizations. Promotions are often determined by an individual’s ability, experience and contribution to the business (Kordsmeyer et al., 2022). Moreover, job security connotes the employees’ belief in the sustenance of their work (Firdaus et al., 2023). This is a measure of how confident employees are about retaining their jobs in the time ahead, provided that there are no unexpected events taking place like a recession, restructuring of the organization or an issue with employment (Haiqing et al., 2022; Qin et al., 2021). In line, job security is a critical issue for employees, and it considerably affects employee well-being, organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Gupta et al., 2024; Soomro, 2022; Taduvana, 2016). Increased job security was associated with lower odds of serious psychological distress and anxiety among working adults (Wang et al., 2024). On the other hand, work engagement is the positive effect, fulfilment and mental vigour felt by workers when being totally attached to their work (Zammitti et al., 2022). When employees are engaged, they are enthusiastic about their work and highly loyal, and generally have a higher level of job needs. Passion, involvement and commitment to one’s work are inseparable; they are correlated as job engagement (Jasiu & Derbis, 2023). Several studies have justified that the emphasis was placed on pivotal HR practices affecting employee retention (Akther & Tariq, 2020; Papa et al., 2020; Sepahvand et al., 2021). Although numerous studies have been conducted in this area, there is still a lack of extensive research examining the relationship between promotion and job security in employee retention through work engagement in the pharmaceutical industry of Bangladesh. So, this study attempts to address some of these gaps through three research questions: (a) Do promotions and job security affect work engagement? (b) What is the impact of job engagement on employee retention? (c) Does any mediation exist between promotion, job security and employee retention? The objectives are to study the impact of promotion, job security and work engagement on employee retention in the pharmaceutical industry of Bangladesh. Moreover, this study seeks to fill the gap with scant empirical evidence on the influence of promotion opportunities and job stability on the retention of employees in the context of the pharmaceutical sector in Bangladesh.

The results assist organizations to formulate the right strategies to boost employee engagement and enhance employee retention and productivity. This is why it is essential to carry out research on significant influences of promotion, job security and medical representatives’ participation in care in Bangladesh.

Literature Review

Theoretical Background

The social exchange theory is commonly used to explain the employer–employee relationship in the literature on employee turnover and retention (Coyle-Shapiro & Conway, 2005; Gopalan et al., 2020). With regard to consumer research, SET is knowledgeable about relationship marketing, collaborative consumption, gifting behaviour, brand experience and tourism (Mishra & Mund, 2024). During its application to the hospitality industry, SET was also applied to investigate e-trust in hotel websites, and it was found that perceived security, privacy, usefulness, perceived ease of use and compatibility affect trust and the intention to book afterward (Nasrolahi Vosta & Jalilvand, 2023). As noted by SET, effective employee development programmes can increase employee engagement and retention, to the benefit of both employees and managers (Bilderback & Miller, 2023).

SET (Blau, 1964) posits that people enter social relationships through cost-benefit analysis and reciprocity. SET also proposes that a person who feels they receive a certain benefit from someone will feel an obligation to repay or compensate through the person’s positive behaviours, attitudes, efforts and devotion. In the workplace, employees evaluate their employment based on what they receive (in terms of job security, opportunities for development, credit for work) with what they give (including effort, loyalty). Liu et al. (2021) argue that social exchange is a long-term exchange based on favours and a diffuse obligation to reciprocate. The employers and employees have a reciprocal arrangement in which the interests are balanced. There were also significant relationships between promotional opportunities and employee retention (Bibi et al., 2017). Based on the upcoming research of Aman-Ullah et al. (2022) and Lahbar et al. (2024), SET can be considered as an effective context to analyse and predict employee retention and job security. Therefore, it is important to understand SET as its principles can help increase employee engagement and retention strategies (Alnajim, 2021). Based on SET, the current study proposes that work engagement mediates the significant relationship between promotions and job security and employee retention.

Hypotheses Development

Relationship Between Promotion and Work Engagement

The principle of SET (Thibaut & Kelly, 1959) states that social behaviour is the result of an exchange process in which a person or group provides a resource (price) to another person or group and receives other resources (prices) in return. Based on SET, it goes beyond an economic transaction and is a mutual relationship between both parties and involves social interactions. The process of promoting employees to another institution is very beneficial to the level of performance (Rabuana & Yanuar, 2023). This is seen as a means to foster employee loyalty and commitment to the organization (Beltrán-Martín et al., 2023). A promotion is proof of the legitimacy of employee performance (Islam & Jantan, 2023). If someone is promoted, it is to be assumed that they are doing a good job. The employee’s voice fully mediates the relationship between psychological safety and work engagement (Ge, 2020). According to Kakkar and Vohra (2021), consistency in performance management systems primarily enhances employees’ work engagement through a focus on promotion and has a significant positive effect on their performance. Over and above what is accounted for by regulatory focus, both promotion and prevention are positively related to work engagement, but prevention accounts for more variance (Dai et al., 2021). García-Merino and Alcover (2023) also note that promotions involve a raise in status, salary, title, responsibilities and benefits of the employee, which lead to increased work efficiency.

Moreover, employee promotion is perceived as a vital aspect that plays a significant role in enhancing employee performance and devotion (Ilwani & Younis, 2023). According to Paul and Turner (2020), workers can be considerably more motivated and engaged at work if they are undergoing a promotion. However, when one perceives fairness in promotion, the failure of promotion has negative effects on work engagement through lowered self-efficacy (Zhu et al., 2020). The most critical factor for employees at an organizational level seems to be the opportunity for employees to advance. The truth is that no employee wants to be stuck there for eternity. Instead, the goal is to step up to the next level. Indeed, employees feel a strong emotional connection to their companies when they understand their workplace has a streamlined trajectory to higher levels. Also, several studies were performed to examine the connection between employee promotions and work engagement (Alamri, 2023). So, the study proposes the following hypothesis:

H₁: Promotion has a significant relationship with work engagement.

Relationship Between Job Security and Work Engagement

The SET and reciprocity theory assume that people offer services with the anticipation of receiving a positive return (Blau, 1964). SET is the study of relationships and interpersonal exchanges between individuals (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). It is crucial to have job security for many work-related outcomes. Different recent research studies have found a positive relationship between job stability and employee performance (Nemțeanu et al., 2022; Saeed et al., 2023). The security of a career role does not only help boost organizational commitment but, more importantly, creates high degrees of endeavour, work energy and involvement with the workplace (Baridam, 2024). A number of important investigations have focused on the ways job security can boost an employee’s professional success. Several recent studies have investigated how job security relates to work engagement across a wide range of sectors. Similarly, Wardani et al. (2023) reported that job insecurity and grit positively predicted work engagement in the hospitality industry during the COVID-19 pandemic. On the contrary, Aninda and Hatta (2024) found a very weak linear relationship between job insecurity and the work engagement of bank employees. According to Natalia and Prameswari (2024), this research pointed out that lower job insecurity was correlated with work engagement among retail workers at the peak of the pandemic. Additionally, Kundi et al. (2021) stated that the disposition of employees towards work and the organization as a whole is a function of how high their emotional and informational roles are, something that is possible only if there is job security. Consequently, a meta-analysis established by Hur (2022) also robustly showed a significant association between job security and multiple of its outcomes at work. Employees’ job security is the most important factor which helps the employees get attached to the organization. Job insecurity affects employees’ level of work engagement regardless of their hierarchical position within their company. The following hypothesis is proposed based on the study:

H₂: Job security has a significant relationship with work engagement.

Relationship Between Work Engagement and Employee Retention

Based on general perceptions of managerial support and maintenance, basic SET (Blau, 1964), reciprocity theory suggest that the attitudes and behaviours of people are driven. According to this research study, employee engagement and retention levels are extremely critical to any organization, as they influence employee behaviour. An interesting study addressed some antecedents of engagement, such as workplace well-being, employee development and retention (Sypniewska et al., 2023). This is evident from the positive relationship between employee engagement and employee retention in different sectors (Ashraf & Siddiqui, 2020; Dhandayuthapani & Shalini, 2024; Shibiti, 2020). Memon et al. (2021) found that the satisfaction level of HRM practices, in particular training and performance appraisals, triggers work engagement that has a negative impact on turnover intentions. Likewise, Almerri (2023) showed that a good organizational culture promotes employee engagement while resulting in higher retention rates. Wei et al. (2023) related to nurses who identified that work engagement positively correlates with job satisfaction and quality of care, whereas it has a negative relationship with intent to leave. Another study suggests that work engagement is positively associated with employee retention, as it found that a 1 standard deviation increase in nurse engagement was associated with a 16% increase in retention (Moscelli et al., 2024). The results of this study analysis identified that work engagement and employee retention are positively related. Hence, it can be contended that employee retention and engagement have a critical bearing on the success of an organization. In such cases, this study proposes that organizations play a positive role in determining employee engagement, which, in turn, relates to the employees’ intention to stay. The following hypothesis is proposed based on the study:

H₃: Work engagement has an effect on employee retention.

Mediation Effects of Work Engagement

Blau (1964) clearly stated that social exchange relationships are built on dimensions of personal commitment, gratitude and trust. This theory contends that when employees perceive personal benefit out of an organization, they are more likely to respond in kind, for example, by being retained as an employee. A careful analysis of this research study highlights the fact that the levels of employee engagement and retention are crucial constructs of an organization because both are highly interlinked and factor into the attitude of the employees. Work engagement, defined as a positive motivational state marked by vigour, dedication and absorption, is essential for employee satisfaction and organizational success (Bakker et al., 2023). Employee engagement mediates the relationship between work motivation, job satisfaction and employee performance (Riyanto et al., 2021). In higher education, work engagement intervenes between decent work conditions and innovative work behaviour of faculty members (Hassan et al., 2024). In a study conducted on bank employees, it was found that while job engagement had no mediating effect on the intention to leave and job satisfaction of bank employees, employee loyalty was shown to partially mediate the relationship between the two (Zanabazar et al., 2024). Furthermore, work engagement boosts company performance and job stress, while perceived organizational support has no major effect on them (Anggraini & Berlianti, 2024). Work engagement is a crucial mediator of a variety of workplace relationships. Fernando and Nishanthi (2021) in their study found that the relationship between total reward perceptions and employee retention was partially mediated by work engagement. It thus implies that organizations can enhance employee retention by increasing engagement levels of employees when they feel they have full rewards in show and an opportunity for promotion. In the mining and IT industry, it mediates between job security and turnover intention (Gupta et al., 2024; Joubert et al., 2023). In the current research, work engagement was found to act as a mediator between promotion, job security and employee retention. The research is focused on healthcare employees who are working in the medical field in Bangladesh and highlights work engagement as it mediates the relationship between employee promotion, employee job security and employee retention. Drawing on evidence, the present study proposes the following hypotheses:

H₄: Work engagement mediates the relationship between promotion and employee retention.

H₅: Work engagement mediates the relationship between job security and employee retention.

Research Framework

Drawing on prior literature, this study proposes a framework examining the relationships between job security, promotion, work engagement, and employee retention. The conceptual research framework guiding the study is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Conceptual Model.

Research Methodology

This study used a quantitative method and developed and tested a survey questionnaire to collect crucial primary data for investigating the factors affecting employee retention in Bangladesh’s pharmaceutical sector. The study employed a purposive sampling technique to identify and select respondents who possessed the specific characteristics required to address the research objectives. This sampling was appropriate because medical representatives (MRs) operate under structured field schedules and vary in accessibility, making probability-based techniques impractical. This method ensured that only individuals with relevant professional experience and direct exposure to job security conditions, promotional structures and work engagement practices were included. A well-defined sampling frame was constructed using two authoritative sources: (a) official pharmaceutical company websites containing updated information on field operations and (b) the directory of licensed pharmaceutical manufacturers published by the Directorate General of Drug Administration (DGDA) under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. These sources provided a comprehensive and credible listing of companies employing MRs at Dhaka in Bangladesh. Respondents were selected based on clear inclusion criteria: at least 1 year of field experience, active involvement in doctor visits and product detailing and full-time employment within Dhaka-based pharmaceutical firms. Interns, trainees, contractual staff and those with less experience were excluded. The responses of MRs are essential because they operate in one of the most performance-driven and retention-sensitive segments of the pharmaceutical industry. The gathered data were analysed using partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) (version 4.1), and demographic information was extracted using SPSS version 30. Questionnaires were distributed to 450 selected MRs, of which 309 valid responses were received, resulting in a response rate of 68.67%. Respondents indicated their level of agreement or disagreement with study items on a 5-point Likert scale (5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neutral, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree).

Measures

In the current study, the measurement items were adapted from existing literature and tested scales of employees’ retention, promotion, job security and work engagement. The strategy of inclusion and exclusion was adapted to make minor changes in words and sentence structure. The details of the scale of study variables are given in Table 1.

Table 1.

Measurement Instruments.

Sl. No.	Questions	Items	Sources
	Promotion
1.	The organization has a written and operational promotion policy.	6	Mustapha & Zakaria (2013); Gul et al. (2012); Ekabu et al. (2018); Delery & Doty (1996).
2.	I feel ready for taking up higher positions.
3.	I see the opportunity of promotion in the present organization.
4.	Seniority in positions is considered during promotions.
5.	Promotions are not always based on merit with my employer.
6.	I am planning to leave because there are no promotional prospects compared to other professions.
	Job Security
1.	I am satisfied with my present job or business in terms of job security.	5	Oldham et al. (1986); Kraimer et al. (2005); Jansen et al. (2006)
2.	I think that in the future I will lose my job.
3.	I think that my job is guaranteed and safe.
4.	My job will be there as long as I want it.
5.	My job is not secure.
	Work Engagement
1.	At my job, I feel strong and vigorous.	5	Ologbo & Sofian (2015); Schaufeli et al. (2006)
2.	I am immersed in my work.
3.	My job inspires me.
4.	At work, I am very resilient mentally.
5.	It is difficult to detach myself from my job.
	Employee Retention
1.	I plan to stay for more than 1 year with the present organization.	6	Chew (2004); Gul et al. (2012); Hong et al. (2012); Iqbal & Hashmi (2015)
2.	I feel I can contribute to the organization other than my work.
3.	I am satisfied with my present job.
4.	I see a future for myself within this industry.
5.	I feel a lot of loyalty to this industry.
6.	I am not actively looking for job opportunities elsewhere.

Demographic Profile

Examining the demographic composition of the study sample, 75.1% were males, and the remaining 24.9% were females. Furthermore, 54% held undergraduate degrees, while the remaining 46% were postgraduate employees. Age-wise, participants were distributed across the groups as follows: 20–30 years (37.2%), 31–40 years (38.2%), 41–50 years (19.7%) and >50 years (4.9%). Regarding their tenure with organizations, 38.5% had worked for less than 5 years, 33% for less than 10 years and 22% for more than 10 years. The demographic characteristics of the respondents, including Gender, Marital Status, Education, Age, Working Experience, are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2.

Demographic Information.

Variables	Category	Frequency	Percent
Gender	Male	232	75.1
Gender	Female	77	24.9
Marital status	Married	237	76.7
Marital status	Unmarried	72	23.3
Education	Undergraduate	167	54
Education	Postgraduate	142	46
Age	20–30	115	37.2
	31–40	118	38.2
	41–50	61	19.7
	More than 50	15	4.9
Working experience	1–5 years	119	38.5
	6–10 years	102	33.0
	11–15 years	68	22.0
	16–20 years	18	5.8
	21–25 years	2	0.6

Source: Generated using SPSS (Version 30).

Results

Descriptive statistics and correlation analyses were performed using SPSS (Version 30). Subsequently, SmartPLS (Version 4.1) was utilized to conduct partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) for assessing the validity and reliability of the measurement instrument, as well as for testing the hypothesized relationships within the research model. PLS-SEM is a robust analytical approach that aims to minimize unexplained variance while maximizing the explained variance of endogenous constructs (Hair et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2020). The evaluation of the PLS-SEM results followed a two-step procedure, comprising the assessment of the measurement model and the structural model (Ali et al., 2018).

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Table 3 shows the mean, standard deviation and model correlation between the variables. As can be seen in Table 3, promotion and job security are positively related to work engagement (r = 0.724, p < .01; r = 0.698, p < .01), and work engagement is positively correlated with employee retention (r = 0.145, p < .01).

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of Latent Constructs.

	Latent Variables	Mean	Std Dev	1	2	3	4
1.	Promotion	3.34	0.65	1
2.	Job security	3.56	0.65	0.735	1
3.	Work engagement	3.53	0.61	0.724	0.698	1
4.	Employee retention	3.68	0.47	0.213	0.184	0.145	1

Measurement Model

The measurement model is assessed to confirm the validity (i.e., discriminant validity and convergent validity) and reliability (i.e., indicator reliability and internal consistency reliability) of the model’s indicators in relation to the constructs (Ali et al., 2018; Govender & Rootman-le Grange, 2015). As indicated in Table 4, the indicator loadings for all constructs were greater than the minimum threshold level of 0.60 (Chin et al., 1997) except for P5, JS3 and WE1, which is suggestive of the reliability of the indicators.

Table 4.

Results of the Measurement Model.

Constructs	Items	Factor Loadings	Cronbach’s α	CR	AVE
Promotion	P1	0.670	0.793	0.865	0.547
	P2	0.705
	P3	0.706
	P4	0.795
	P6	0.784
Job security	JS1	0.737	0.769	0.836	0.564
	JS2	0.731
	JS4	0.761
	JS5	0.725
Work engagement	WE2	0.786	0.771	0.835	0.507
	WE3	0.881
	WE4	0.668
	WE5	0.740
Employee retention	ER1	0.843	0.762	0.842	0.586
	ER2	0.734
	ER3	0.802
	ER4	0.778
	ER5	0.785
	ER6	0.747

In this study, the research model was tested, and the study used various statistical methods, including factor loading, Cronbach’s α, composite reliability (CR), average reliability extracted (AVE) and R², to create items. Table 4 indicates that four items for each construct are valid for the initial data collection, which can be seen from the data-loading factors. The loading values of all the items range from 0.668 to 0.881, indicating that they are all good for use. Cronbach’s α values for the research constructs ranged from 0.762 to 0.793 and exceeded 70%. All reliability values were distributed between 0.835 and 0.865, and all reached above 70%; the average variance extracted (AVE) was between 0.507 and 0.586, and all reached above 50%. According to several statistical calculations described by Hair et al. (2017) and Alzoubi et al. (2020), statistical standards are needed for the validity and reliability of the measured values of each research question and established research model. It turned out to be good.

HTMT is the most popularly used threshold. The values for cut-off are HTMT < 0.85 or < 0.90, reflecting strong discriminant validity (Henseler et al., 2015). The results presented in Table 5 indicate that each value of the HTMT ratio is lower than both of the cut-off values of 0.85 and 0.90, showing the good discriminant validity of the data set and the instrument utilized. Thus, it is ensured through HTMT values that the constructs are sufficiently dissimilar in this study and the criterion of discriminant validity is met. This is positive for the robustness of the theoretical framework and strengthens the justification that net benefits of each construct bring uniqueness to the model (Hair et al., 2021). HTMT is an innovative technique that may help improve the methodological rigour of the research and therefore facilitate the trustworthiness of their results.

Table 5.

Discriminant Validity (HTMT).

Constructs	Employee Retention	Job Security	Promotion	Work Engagement
Employee retention
Job security	0.636
Promotion	0.639	0.653
Work engagement	0.456	0.878	0.749

Note: The bold values in (HTMT results) indicate that the corresponding HTMT ratios are below the recommended threshold (e.g., 0.85 or 0.90), thereby confirming satisfactory discriminant validity among the constructs. Values exceeding the threshold would suggest potential issues with discriminant validity.

Assessment of Structural Model

The hypotheses were tested, and the coefficient of determination (R²), effect size (f ²) and predictive validity (Q²) were evaluated based on the analysis of the structural model. So, the theoretical testing in this study initially tests the standardized path coefficient (β), which was calculated using the PLS algorithm built in SmartPLS (version 4.1). Second, the p value, t-value and confidence interval of each path coefficient were analysed using the bootstrap method integrated into SmartPLS (version 4.1) and the bootstrap model of 10,000 (Ringle et al., 2020) and are presented in Tables 6 and 7.

Table 6.

R² and Q² Values.

Constructs	R²	Q²
Employee retention	0.147	0.154
Work engagement	0.463	0.444

Table 7.

Effect Size (F ²).

Constructs	F²	Effects
Work engagement → Employee retention	0.173	Small
Job security → Work engagement	0.167	Small
Promotion → Work engagement	0.183	Moderate

The variance explained by R² for the endogenous variables was reported as its measure. R² represents the proportion of variance in the endogenous variable explained by all predictors (Hair et al., 2017). Falk and Miller (1992) considered 0.10 to represent a low value, and Chin (1998) suggested the values of 0.19, 0.33 and 0.67 to represent a small, medium and large difference, respectively. R² for all predictors of work engagement and retention are shown in Table 6 and demonstrated a difference of 46.3% and 14.7%, respectively. The findings of the research reveal that the variation of endogenous variables is moderate and lesser. Finally, this study also provided the Stone–Geisser index (Q²), suggesting predictive validity (out-of-sample) with a value above 0 after the apprehension procedure (Ali et al., 2018). The model had two Q² values greater than 0 in the study, indicating the model is relevant.

Beyond F² estimates, effect sizes provide a relevant background when assessing a research sample (Hair et al., 2017). The effect size is expressed regarding the influence of all independent factors on the dependent factor. Cohen (1988) proposed a small effect size (0.02 < small < 0.14), a medium effect size (0.15 < medium < 0.34) and a large effect size (0.35 < large). Work engagement (0.173) has a low impact on employee retention, job security (0.167) has a low impact on work engagement and promotion (0.183) has a medium impact on work engagement (Table 7).

The structural model results (Figure 2) support all five hypotheses. Promotion significantly increases work engagement (H₁: β = 0.389, t = 6.330, p < .001), and job security also positively influences work engagement (H₂: β = 0.373, t = 6.609, p < .001). Work engagement, in turn, has a strong positive effect on employee retention (H₃: β = 0.384, t = 7.618, p < .001). The mediation analyses further reveal that work engagement significantly mediates the relationships between promotion and employee retention (H₄: β = 0.149, t = 4.515, p < .001) and between job security and employee retention (H₅: β = 0.143, t = 4.670, p < .001) (Table 8).

Figure 2.

Structural Model.

Table 8.

Hypotheses Testing.

Hypotheses	Relationships	β Values	T Values	p Values	Decision	2.50%	97.50%
Hypotheses	Relationships	β Values	T Values	p Values	Decision	LL	UL
H ₁	P → WE	0.389	6.330	.000	Supported	0.270	0.511
H ₂	JS → WE	0.373	6.609	.000	Supported	0.263	0.484
H ₃	WE → ER	0.384	7.618	.000	Supported	0.296	0.495
H ₄	PO → WE → ER	0.149	4.515	.000	Supported	0.095	0.224
H ₅	JS → WE → ER	0.143	4.670	.000	Supported	0.092	0.212

Source: Derived from SmartPLS (Version 4.1) PLS-SEM analysis.

Note: The assessment of the structural model indicates that all five hypothesized paths are supported.

Discussion

This research provides key insights into the mediating role of work engagement in the influence of job security and promotion on employee retention, with a demonstration in the pharmaceutical sector of Bangladesh. Findings indicate that employees feel greater job engagement, and perceived job security and opportunity are positively related to promotion, indicating the necessity for effective promotion policies and job security to retain sincere employees and help with their motivation. The results are aligned with the evidence on the significance of promotion, job security and job engagement in developing employees according to the current literature (Boštjančič & Petrovčič, 2019; Karatepe et al., 2020; Rabuana & Yanuar, 2023). Moreover, this study discovered a positive correlation between work engagement and employee retention, in line with SET as well as reciprocity rules. These findings are in line with the recent findings of Kundu and Lata (2017), Al-Hajri (2020) and Caesens et al. (2016). Employees who are engaged, or interested and committed, are also more likely to intend to stay in the organization, showing the critical role that job engagement plays as a predictor of employee retention (Bakker & Leiter, 2010; Rai et al., 2019). Thus, organizations need to adopt and implement strategies that can provide a positive and stimulating working atmosphere in order to enhance employee retention. However, mediation analyses prove to be a powerful approach as they show how exactly job management mediates relationships. Studies, however, have shown that increasing job stability and promotions raise employee engagement, which leads to employee retention. Hence, it is crucial to encourage performance as one aspect of the chain connecting HR practices to employee retention, which offers organizations a strategic mechanism to enhance more than merely retaining talent (Karatepe et al., 2016; Sergio & Rylova, 2018).

Conclusion

This article sheds light on the prediction of employee retention at the organizational level. According to the theoretical propositions of SET, this study finds that job points of view (job security, promotion) significantly influence the enhancement of work engagement and employee retention. According to this study, work engagement is an intervention mechanism for promoting employee retention in the pharmaceutical industry in Bangladesh. All hypothesized relationships were supported in the empirical study. Grasping these principles and acting on them can lead to an inter-worker relationship, which is highly motivated with a more superior drive to outperform itself, guaranteeing its long-standing success in the industry. The significance of these employees provides the organization with a competitive advantage because employee retentions are the key to the success and performance of an organization (Balakrishnan, 2014).

Implications

Theoretical Implications

This study proposes a model in which promotion and job security function as key organizational resources that stimulate employees’ positive reciprocation through higher work engagement, which subsequently enhances employee retention. The study’s results support this mechanism by revealing that promotion and job security have a significant relationship with work engagement, confirming that both factors function as meaningful socio-emotional resources within the exchange process. Additionally, the findings show that work engagement has a significant relationship with employee retention, validating its role as the mediating pathway through which organizational practices influence retention outcomes. Finally, the study contributes theoretically by contextualizing SET within the pharmaceutical industry of Bangladesh, a setting underexplored in employee-retention research. The evidence illustrates that the dynamics of social exchange are shaped by local industry conditions, economic pressures and employment norms. Thus, the study expands the cross-cultural applicability of SET and highlights the theory’s relevance in explaining employee-retention mechanisms in lower-middle income countries.

Practical Implications

From a practical point of view, companies in the pharmaceutical sector in Bangladesh should focus on job security and promotion to increase recruitment and retention, according to research findings. This indicates that promotion and job security are important. The results revealed the importance of job security and promotion in relation to employee retention, both direct and indirect, with job engagement as a mediator. Research shows that companies can increase engagement by focusing on creating a positive work environment, encouraging open communication and rewarding employees. In addition, the results suggest that the management of pharmaceutical companies should pay more attention to job security and promotion so that employees do not leave due to job dissatisfaction.

Limitations and Future Study

There are various limitations of this study. To begin with, there is a possibility of common method bias when using self-reported data. Second, the sample size is relatively small and limits the extrapolation of the results due to convenience sampling. Third, a cross-sectional design does not allow us to interpret observed relationships in a causal manner.

Based on the findings of the study, the next line of research should focus on evaluating job satisfaction, well-being, job performance and employee morale as mediating factors in order to clarify the processes that are driving the results obtained by the research. Further, gender, tenure, autonomy, workload, organizational politics and leadership style should be researched as a mediator or moderator since they might pre-condition the experience and reaction of employees to the workplace conditions revealed in this study. It is also recommended that future research studies examine career outcomes, such as promotion, job security and participation in the career, especially in the medical field since it may carry a big influence on employee attitudes and behaviours. Lastly, the generalizability of the findings to different organizational settings (for-profit, non-profit, governmental, non-governmental) and the use of a larger and diversified sample would add more strength and external validity to the results.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Akther

, & Tariq

(2020). The impact of effective training on employee retention: A study in private banks of Bangladesh. Journal of Economics and Business, 3(1), 96–114. https://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1992.03.01.181.

Alamri

(2023). Transformational leadership and work engagement in public organizations: Promotion focus and public service motivation, how and when the effect occurs. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 44(1), 137–155.

Al-Hajri

S. A.

(2020). Employee retention in light of green HRM practices through the intervening role of work engagement. Annals of Contemporary Developments in Management & HR (ACDMHR), 2(4), 10–19.

Ali

, Rasoolimanesh

S. M.

, Sarstedt

, Ringle

C. M.

, & Ryu

(2018). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in hospitality research. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(1), 514–538.

Almerri

H. S. H.

(2023). Investigating the impact of organizational culture on employee retention: Moderating role of employee engagement. Journal of System and Management Sciences, 13(4), 488–507.

Alnajim

(2021). Impact and application of social exchange theory in employee retention. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3884032

Alzoubi

, Alshurideh

, Kurdi

, & Inairat

(2020). Do perceived service value, quality, price fairness and service recovery shape customer satisfaction and delight? A practical study in the service telecommunication context. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 8(3), 579–588.

Aman-Ullah

, Aziz

, & Ibrahim

(2020). A systematic review of employee retention: what’s next in Pakistan? Journal of Contemporary Issues and Thought, 10(2), 36–45.

Aman-Ullah

, Aziz

, Ibrahim

, Mehmood

, & Abdullah Abbas

(2022). The impact of job security, job satisfaction and job embeddedness on employee retention: An empirical investigation of Pakistan’s health-care industry. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 16(6), 904–922.

10.

Anggraini

, & Berlianti

D. O.

(2024). Factors influencing firm performance on job stress in employees using Telkomsel provider in Jakarta. Journal of Social and Economics Research, 6(2), 722–738.

11.

Aninda

, & Hatta

M. I.

(2024). Hubungan antara job insecurity dengan work engagement Karyawan Bank Y. Bandung Conference Series: Psychology Science, 4(2), 1112–1117.

12.

Ashraf

, & Siddiqui

D. A.

(2020). The impact of employee engagement on employee retention: The role of psychological capital, control at work, general well-being, and job satisfaction. Human Resource Research, 20(3), 1–24.

13.

Asif

, & Gul

(2021). Analyzing the determinants of employee retention: A case of pharmaceutical companies in Pakistan. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management, and Innovation, 3(1), 147–176.

14.

Bakker

A. B.

, Demerouti

, & Sanz-Vergel

(2023). Job demands–resources theory: Ten years later. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 25–53.

15.

Bakker

A. B.

, & Leiter

M. P.

(2010). Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. Psychology Press.

16.

Balakrishnan

(2014). A study on retention strategies followed by education institutions in retaining qualified employees. SIES Journal of Management, 10(1), 29–42.

17.

Bangladesh Association of Pharmaceutical Industries (BAPI). (2025). Bangladesh pharma industry. http://www.bapi-bd.com/bangladesh-pharma-industry/overview.html

18.

Baridam

, & Ogbonda

(2024). Job security and employee engagement in teaching hospitals in South-South Nigeria. IIARD Journal of Business and African Economy, 10(1), 1–12.

19.

Beltrán-Martín

, Guinot-Reinders

, & Rodríguez-Sánchez

A. M.

(2023). Employee psychological conditions as mediators of the relationship between human resource management and employee work engagement. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 34(11), 2331–2365.

20.

Bibi

, Pangil

, Johari

, & Ahmad

(2017). The impact of compensation and promotional opportunities on employee retention in academic institutions: The moderating role of work environment. Journal of Economic & Management Perspectives, 11(1), 378–391.

21.

Bilderback

S. L.

, & Miller

G. J.

(2023). Importance of employee development programs in business. Journal of Management Development, 42(4), 327–336.

22.

Blau

P. M.

(1964). Exchange and power in social life. Transaction Publishers.

23.

Boštjančič

, & Petrovčič

(2019). Exploring the relationship between job satisfaction, work engagement and career satisfaction: The study from public university. Human Systems Management, 38(4), 411–422.

24.

Caesens

, Stinglhamber

, & Marmier

(2016). The curvilinear effect of work engagement on employees’ turnover intentions. International Journal of Psychology, 51(2), 150–155.

25.

Cherif

(2020). The role of human resource management practices and employee job satisfaction in predicting organizational commitment in Saudi Arabian banking sector. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 40(7/8), 529–541.

26.

Chew

J. C. L.

(2004). The influence of human resource management practices on the retention of core employees of Australian organizations: An empirical study [Doctoral dissertation,. Murdoch University].

27.

Chin

W. W.

(1998). Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), vii–xvi. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2496747

28.

Chin

W. W.

, Gopal

, & Salisbury

W. D.

(1997). Advancing the theory of adaptive structuration: The development of a scale to measure faithfulness of appropriation. Information Systems Research, 8(4), 342–367.

29.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

30.

Coyle-Shapiro

J. A.

, & Conway

(2005). Exchange relationships: Examining psychological contracts and perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 774.

31.

Cropanzano

, & Mitchell

M. S.

(2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900.

32.

Dai

Y. D.

, Altinay

, Zhuang

W. L.

, & Chen

K. T.

(2021). Work engagement and job burnout? Roles of regulatory foci, supervisors’ organizational embodiment and psychological ownership. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 46, 114–122.

33.

Delery

J. E.

, & Doty

D. H.

(1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 802–835.

34.

Dhandayuthapani

, & Shalini

(2024). A conceptual study on employee engagement and its impact on employee retention in healthcare. International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, 5(5), 7203–7206. https://doi.org.10.55248/gengpi.5.0524.1303

35.

Directorate General of Drug Administration (DGDA) (2022). Annual report 2021-2022. http://www.dgdagov.info/index.php/about-dgda/annual-report/2452-dgda-annual-report-2021-2022/file

36.

Ekabu

P. K.

, Nyagah

, & Kalai

J. M.

(2018). Influence of promotional prospects on turnover intentions of public secondary school teachers in Meru County. European Scientific Journal, 14(25), 27–36.

37.

Falk

R. F.

, & Miller

N. B.

(1992). A primer for soft modeling. University of Akron Press.

38.

Fernando

K. J. M.

, & Nishanthi

H. M.

(2021). The mediating effect of work engagement on the relationship between total reward perceptions and employee retention. Journal of Business Studies, 8, 129–155.

39.

Financial Express. (2023). Medical representative turnover intention: A growing concern in Bangladesh’s pharmaceuticals industry. https://thefinancialexpress.com.bd/

40.

Firdaus

, Ujianto

, & Slamet

(2023). The effect of job security and job attractiveness on intention to leave: The mediation role of employee engagement. International Journal of Professional Business Review, 8(5), 1–14.

41.

García-Merino

, Martín

, & Alcover

C. M.

(2023). The role of job crafting and psychological capital in the relationship between job autonomy and work engagement: A serial mediation model. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 26(e17), 1–15.

42.

(2020). Psychological safety, employee voice, and work engagement. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 48(3), 1–7.

43.

Ghani

, Zada

, Memon

K. R.

, Ullah

, Khattak

, Han

, Ariza-Montes

, & Araya-Castillo

(2022). Challenges and strategies for employee retention in the hospitality industry: A review. Sustainability, 14(5), 1–26.

44.

Gopalan

, Pattusamy

, & Gollakota

(2020). Role of support in work–family interface among university faculty in India. South Asian Journal of Business Studies, 9(3), 323–338.

45.

Govender

, & Rootman-le Grange

(2015, October). Evaluating the early adoption of Moodle at a higher education institution. In Proceedings of the European conference on e-learning (pp. 230–237). Academic Conferences International Limited.

46.

Gul

, Akbar

, & Jan

(2012). Role of capacity development, employee empowerment and promotion on employee retention in the banking sector of Pakistan. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 2(9), 284.

47.

Gupta

, Chakravorty

, Garg

, & Singh

(2024). Job security, value congruence, and work outcomes: Revisiting the mediating role of work engagement. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 73(3), 391–411.

48.

Haiqing

, Danli

, Tingwei

, & Weilin

(2022). Influence of job security on intertemporal choice under home isolation in the epidemic closure. International Journal of Frontiers in Sociology, 4(12), 53–59.

49.

Hair

Jr , Hair

J. F.

Jr , Hult

G. T. M.

, Ringle

C. M.

, & Sarstedt

(2021). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.

50.

Hair

Jr , Hair

J. F.

Jr , Sarstedt

, Ringle

C. M.

, & Gudergan

S. P.

(2017). Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling. Sage Publications.

51.

Hassan

R. S.

, Amin

H. M.

, & Ghoneim

(2024). Decent work and innovative work behavior of academic staff in higher education institutions: The mediating role of work engagement and job self-efficacy. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1–19.

52.

Henseler

, Ringle

C. M.

, & Sarstedt

(2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115–135.

53.

Hom

P. W.

, & Kiazad

(2024). New directions for theories for why employees stay or leave. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 12, 185–213. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110622-033733

54.

Hong

E. N. C.

, Hao

L. Z.

, Kumar

, Ramendran

, & Kadiresan

(2012). An effectiveness of human resource management practices on employee retention in institute of higher learning: A regression analysis. International Journal of Business Research and Management, 3(2), 60–79.

55.

Hur

(2022). Job security matters: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between job security and work attitudes. Journal of Management & Organization, 28(5), 925–955. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2019.3

56.

Ilwani

, Nassreddine

, & Younis

(2023). Machine learning application on employee‎ promotion. Mesopotamian Journal of Computer Science, 2023, 100–114.

57.

Iqbal

, & Hashmi

M. S.

(2015). Impact of perceived organizational support on employee retention with mediating role of psychological empowerment. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social, Sciences (PJCSS), 9(1), 18–34.

58.

Islam

, & Jantan

A. H. B.

(2023). The mediation effect of affective organizational commitment on the relationship between HRM practices and turnover intention in the RMG industry. Research Journal in Business and Economics, 1(1), 24–38.

59.

Jansen

J. J.

, Van Den Bosch

F. A.

, & Volberda

H. W.

(2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52, 1661–1674.

60.

Jasiński

A. M.

, & Derbis

(2023). Social support at work and job satisfaction among midwives: The mediating role of positive affect and work engagement. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 79(1), 149–160.

61.

Joubert

, Jacobs

, & De Beer

L. T.

(2023). Work engagement mediation of job security, job embeddedness, and turnover intention within the South African mining sector. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 33(4), 313–320.

62.

Kakkar

, & Vohra

(2021). Self-regulatory effects of performance management system consistency on employee engagement: A moderated mediation model. American Business Review, 24(1), 225–248.

63.

Karatepe

O. M.

, & Olugbade

O. A.

(2016). The mediating role of work engagement in the relationship between high-performance work practices and job outcomes of employees in Nigeria. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(10), 2350–2371.

64.

Karatepe

O. M.

, Rezapouraghdam

, & Hassannia

(2020). Job insecurity, work engagement and their effects on hotel employees’ non-green and nonattendance behaviors. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 87, 102472.

65.

Karim

, Srishti

S. A.

, Naher

, & Ahmed

S. M.

(2023). Pharmaceuticals research and development (R&D) in Bangladesh: Ground realities and prospects. Centre of Excellence for Health Systems and Universal Health Coverage (CoE-HS&UHC), BRAC James P Grant School of Public Health, BRAC University.

66.

Kordsmeyer

T. L.

, Speer

, Wilms

, Kurz

, & Lanwehr

(2022). Longitudinal effects of employees’ big five personality traits on internal promotions differentiated by job level in a multinational company. Journal of Business and Psychology, 39(2), 389–405.

67.

Kraimer

M. L.

, Wayne

S. J.

, Liden

R. C.

, & Sparrowe

R. T.

(2005). The role of job security in understanding the relationship between employees’ perceptions of temporary workers and employees’ performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 389.

68.

Kundi

Y. M.

, Aboramadan

, Elhamalawi

E. M.

, & Shahid

(2021). Employee psychological well-being and job performance: Exploring mediating and moderating mechanisms. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 29(3), 736–754.

69.

Kundu

S. C.

, & Lata

(2017). Effects of supportive work environment on employee retention: Mediating role of organizational engagement. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 25(4), 703–722.

70.

Lahbar

G. M.

, Junejo

, Hassan

, Alias

D. K.

, Malokani

, Mumtaz

S. N.

, & Jabbar

Z. A.

(2024). Impact of perceived organizational support on turnover intention in Pakistan. Mediating role of job security & employee motivation. Remittances Review, 9(1), 222–233.

71.

Liu

, Yang

, & Mei

(2021). The effect of perceived organizational support for safety and organizational commitment on employee safety behavior: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 27(4), 1154–1165.

72.

Manik

M. H.

, Sakib

, & Ali

(2023). Assessment of the market value of the pharmaceutical industry in Bangladesh. Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results, 14(2), 2740–2748.

73.

Memon

M. A.

, Salleh

, Mirza

M. Z.

, Cheah

J. H.

, Ting

, Ahmad

M. S.

, & Tariq

(2021). Satisfaction matters: The relationships between HRM practices, work engagement and turnover intention. International Journal of Manpower, 42(1), 21–50.

74.

Ministry of Finance, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. (2022). Bangladesh economic review: Chapter eight. Finance Division. https://mof.gov.bd

75.

Mishra

, & Mund

(2024). Fifty‐two years of consumer research based on social exchange theory: A review and research agenda using topic modeling. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 48(4), e13074.

76.

Moscelli

, Sayli

, Mello

, & Vesperoni

(2024). Staff engagement, co‐workers’ complementarity and employee retention: Evidence from English NHS hospitals. Economica, 92(365), 42–83.

77.

Mustapha

, & Zakaria

Z. C.

(2013). The effect of promotion opportunity in influencing job satisfaction among academics in higher public institutions in Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 3(3), 20.

78.

Nasrolahi Vosta

, & Jalilvand

M. R.

(2023). Electronic trust-building for hotel websites: A social exchange theory perspective. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 14(11), 2689–2714.

79.

Natalia

S. R.

, & Prameswari

(2024, September). Job insecurity dan work engagement pada Karyawan Perusahaan Retail di Masa Pandemi Covid-19. In Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat (SENDAMAS), 1(1), 146–156.

80.

Nemțeanu

M. S.

, Dinu

, Pop

R. A.

, & Dabija

D. C.

(2022). Predicting job satisfaction and work engagement behavior in the COVID-19 pandemic: A conservation of resources theory approach. E&M Economics and Management, 25(2), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.15240/tul/001/2022-2-002

81.

Oldham

G. R.

, Kulik

C. T.

, Ambrose

M. L.

, Stepina

L. P.

, & Brand

J. F.

(1986). Relations between job facet comparisons and employee reactions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38(1), 28–47.

82.

Ologbo

A. C.

, & Sofian

(2013). Individual and organizational factors of employee engagement on employee work outcomes. International Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences, 3(3), 498–502.

83.

Papa

, Dezi

, Gregori

G. L.

, Mueller

, & Miglietta

(2020). Improving innovation performance through knowledge acquisition: The moderating role of employee retention and human resource management practices. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(3), 589–605.

84.

Qin

, Wu

, Liu

, & Lu

(2021). The effect of job security on deviant behaviors in diverse employment workplaces: From the social identity perspective. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(14), 1–15.

85.

Rabuana

N. K. D. N.

, & Yanuar

(2023). The influence of work environment and work engagement on employee performance mediated by employee well-being. Munaddhomah: Jurnal Manajemen Pendidikan Islam, 4(3), 541–557.

86.

Rahman

, Wahab

, & Latiff

(2022). Organizational sustainability: Issues, challenges and the future of Bangladesh pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Future Sustainability, 2(4), 157–166.

87.

Rai

, Ghosh

, & Dutta

(2019, November). Total rewards to enhance employees’ intention to stay: Does perception of justice play any role? Evidence-based HRM: A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship, 7(3), 262–280.

88.

Ray

(2024). Internal mobility: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 50(1), 264–306.

89.

Ringle

C. M.

, Sarstedt

, Mitchell

, & Gudergan

S. P.

(2020). Partial least squares structural equation modeling in HRM research. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(12), 1617–1643.

90.

Riyanto

, Endri

, & Herlisha

(2021). Effect of work motivation and job satisfaction on employee performance: Mediating role of employee engagement. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 19(3), 162–174.

91.

Saeed

, Hassan

, Dastgeer

, & Iqbal

(2023). The route to well-being at workplace: Examining the role of job insecurity and its antecedents. European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 32(1), 47–72.

92.

Schaufeli

W. B.

, Taris

T. W.

, & Bakker

A. B.

(2006). Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde: On the differences between work engagement and workaholism. In Burke

R. J.

(Ed.), Research companion to working time and work addiction (pp. 193–217). Edward Elgar.

93.

Sepahvand

, & Bagherzadeh Khodashahri

(2021). Strategic human resource management practices and employee retention: A study of the moderating role of job engagement. Interdisciplinary Journal of Management Studies (Formerly known as Iranian Journal of Management Studies), 14(2), 437–468.

94.

Sergio

R. P.

, & Rylova

(2018). Work engagement and empowerment as gateway towards retention: The case of Volkswagen group. Journal of Eastern European and Central Asian Research, 5(2), 120–127.

95.

Shibiti

(2020). Public school teachers’ satisfaction with retention factors in relation to work engagement. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 46(1), 1–9.

96.

Soomro

S. A.

(2022). Nexus between perceived job insecurity and employee work-related outcomes amid COVID-19: Attenuating effect of supervisor support. Human Systems Management, 41(2), 199–209.

97.

Sypniewska

, Baran

, & Kłos

(2023). Work engagement and employee satisfaction in the practice of sustainable human resource management–based on the study of Polish employees. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 19(3), 1069–1100.

98.

Taduvana

(2016). The impact of job security on job satisfaction and organizational commitment at Femina Garments in Zimbabwe: A case study [Doctoral dissertation, Durban University of Technology].

99.

Thibaut

J. W.

, & Kelley

H. H.

(1959). The social psychology of groups. Routledge.

100.

Turner

(2020). Employee engagement in contemporary organizations: Maintaining high productivity and sustained competitiveness. https://doi.org.10.1007/978-3-030-36387-1

101.

Venkat

M. V. V.

, Khan

S. R. K.

, Gorkhe

M. D.

, Reddy

M. K. S.

, & Rao

S. P.

(2023). Fostering talent stability: A study on evaluating the influence of competency management on employee retention in the automotive industry. Remittances Review, 8(4), 2300–2328.

102.

Wang

M. L.

, Narcisse

M. R.

, Togher

, & McElfish

P. A.

(2024). Job flexibility, job security, and mental health among US working adults. JAMA Network Open, 7(3), 1–13.

103.

Wardani

L. M. I.

, Werinusa

J. O. A.

, Istiqomah

, & Bustami

M. R.

(2023). Job insecurity, grit and work engagement in the hospitality industry during Covid-19. Journal An-Nafs: Kajian Penelitian Psikologi, 8(1), 20–36.

104.

Wei

, Horsley

, Cao

, Haddad

L. M.

, Hall

K. C.

, Robinson

, Anderson

D. G.

, & Zhang

(2023). The associations among nurse work engagement, job satisfaction, quality of care, and intent to leave: A national survey in the United States. International Journal of Nursing Sciences, 10(4), 476–484.

105.

, King

C. A.

, Lu

, & Guchait

(2020). Hospitality aesthetic labor management: Consumers’ and prospective employees’ perspectives of hospitality brands. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 87, 1–11.

106.

Xiayan

, Yusoff

Y. M.

, & Bohari

A. M.

(2025). How do human resource management practices matter in young employees’ intention to stay in Chinese state-owned enterprises? Global Business Review, 26(1), 120–136.

107.

Zammitti

, Russo

, Magnano

, & Guarnera

(2022). Work engagement as a moderating factor between positive attitude toward smart working and job and life satisfaction. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 12(7), 781–791.

108.

Zanabazar

, Uvgunkhuu

G. O.

, Jigjiddorj

, & Yondon

(2024). The mediating role of employee loyalty and job engagement relationship between job satisfaction and intention to leave among bank employees in Mongolia. International Journal of Innovative Research and Scientific Studies, 7(3), 1118–1127.

109.

Zhu

, Chen

, & Wang

(2020). Shooting for fairness is always beneficial? Why and when promotion failure affects work engagement. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2020(1), 18471.