Direct effects from control variables
| Regression path | β(SE) | Confidence intervals | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender → PQECR | 0.11 (0.04) | LL > 0.02, UL = 0.20 | 0.01 |
| Level of education → PQECR | 0.04 (0.02) | LL > 0.01, UL = 0.08 | 0.03 |
| Age → In-role behaviours | 0.01 (<0.01) | LL = 0.01, UL = 0.02 | <0.01 |
| Gender → In-role behaviours | 0.20 (0.07) | LL = 0.06, UL = 0.34 | <0.01 |
| Age → Turnover intensions | −0.02 (0.01) | LL = −0.03, UL = −0.01 | <0.01 |
| Regression path | β(SE) | Confidence intervals | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender → PQECR | 0.11 (0.04) | LL > 0.02, UL = 0.20 | 0.01 |
| Level of education → PQECR | 0.04 (0.02) | LL > 0.01, UL = 0.08 | 0.03 |
| Age → In-role behaviours | 0.01 (<0.01) | LL = 0.01, UL = 0.02 | <0.01 |
| Gender → In-role behaviours | 0.20 (0.07) | LL = 0.06, UL = 0.34 | <0.01 |
| Age → Turnover intensions | −0.02 (0.01) | LL = −0.03, UL = −0.01 | <0.01 |
Note(s): β = unstandardised regression coefficients. Estimates were derived from a full structural equation model that included coaching frequency, coaching expertise, age, gender, level of education, tenure PQECR, individual feedback orientation, job satisfaction, in-role behaviour and turnover intentions
Source(s): Authors’ own work
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.