WD5

jery.b

10CH_Youssef_IO_2e.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >WD5

287

10Health and Well-Being

Creatas Images/Thinkstock

Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to

• Describe the three components of employee attitudes.

• Discuss the causes and effects of employee attitudes on performance and behavior.

• Compare and contrast how workers from different generations view work.

• Explain how stress impacts employee performance.

• Discuss the factors that affect employee health, safety, violence, and stress.

• Identify emerging perspectives on organizational health and well-being.

• Describe how positivity influences worker happiness, health, and success at work.

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 287 4/20/17 5:43 PM

288

Section 10.1 The Importance of Employee Well-Being

10.1 The Importance of Employee Well-Being Employers in the United States and worldwide are becoming increasingly aware of the impor- tance of having healthy employees and maintaining a workplace that is conducive to employee health and well-being. While the focus of research in this area has traditionally been on the benefits of reducing insurance costs, this section will also cover the nonmonetary benefits to both employees and organizations.

Reducing the Cost of Health Care Benefits According to a study conducted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 2007, more than 168 million Americans received health insurance through their employers. This substantial num- ber indicates the significant value employers place on their employees’ health, as well as employees’ expectation that their employers will provide such benefits.

However, the costs of health care benefits have skyrocketed. For example, the 2011 annual national survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust showed that, on average, insurance premiums have more than doubled since the previous decade, from $7,061 to $15,073 per employee for family coverage. Although some employ- ers have tried to absorb as much of the added cost as possible, the substantial increases in costs coupled with the economic recession has made cost containment challenging. This cost increase—along with the introduction of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare—resulted in a significant drop in employer-sponsored health insurance. In 2011 many states witnessed as much as a 10% decrease in nonelderly adult coverage; low-income persons were affected the most (Robert Wood Johnson Founda- tion, 2013). This trend essentially shifts the decisions and costs of health care coverage to employees, taxpayers, and society at large (Irwin, 2014).

Consequently, there has been increased emphasis on how workplaces can manage the costs of health care. There have been two main approaches for doing so:

1. Reducing employer contributions: The Kaiser Family Foundation’s 2015 survey shows a substantial increase in health insurance premiums of about 61% since 2005, and about 27% compared to 2010. In 2015 the average annual premium was $6,251 for single coverage and $17,545 for family coverage. Even though employers continue to cover the lion’s share of health insurance premiums, the relative cost to employees is much higher. Considering that wages grew by only about 6% per year since 1960, with record lows of about 6% decline during the peak of the 2008 eco- nomic recession (Trading Economics, 2016), the impact on employees’ disposable income has been substantially negative.

2. Enhancing employees’ health: In contrast to reactively managing health care costs (by passing increases along to employees), many employers and employees are finding it more effective to proactively promote employee health and well-being. For example, the U.S.-based supermarket chain Safeway has kept its health care costs steady for several years, while on average U.S. organizations have experienced significant increases during the same time period. Safeway contained these costs by emphasizing health, wellness, and preventive care. Four specific health conditions— cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and obesity—account for 75% of all health care costs. Safeway focused its energy and resources on monitoring, preventing, or

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 288 4/20/17 5:43 PM

289

Section 10.1 The Importance of Employee Well-Being

managing the causes of those four health conditions by promoting health initiatives such as smoking cessation and weight control. As a result, it was able to significantly reduce insurance premiums rather than reducing coverage or passing costs on to employees (Strassel, 2009).

Increasing Employee Wellness In addition to reducing health care costs for both employers and employees, many organi- zations now view employee well-being as a goal in itself. Well-being is no longer limited to physical health and safety; it also includes mental, social, psychological, and spiritual health and well-being. For example, the U.S. Army established the Comprehensive Soldier and Fam- ily Fitness training program in 2008 to proactively enhance health and well-being in soldiers and their families. In this way, focusing on health and wellness is viewed as a preventive measure and a positive alternative to the prevailing reactive treatment programs (Seligman & Matthews, 2011). The program focuses on five dimensions of well-being: physical, emo- tional, spiritual, social, and family (U.S. Army, 2013).

Ensuring that employees are happy, healthy, and safe speaks to the interests of a broad spec- trum of stakeholders, including employees, customers, and society. Emphasizing employee well-being as a valuable and worthy goal—and proactively pursuing that goal by enhancing physical, mental, social, and psychological health and safety at work—aligns the organiza- tion’s values, strategies, and human investments.

Find Out for Yourself: Comprehensive Soldier and Family Fitness Watch the following video on the Comprehensive Soldier and Family Fitness training program.

Introduction to Comprehensive Soldier Fitness

Employee Wellness Programs Growing understanding of the importance of employee health and wellness has promoted a more integrated approach to the issue. Rather than offering distinct benefits such as health insurance, paid time off, and employee assistance programs, employers are now adopting more comprehensive employee wellness programs. Similar to the Comprehensive Soldier and Family Fitness program, an employee wellness program is a systematically designed, multicomponent program that promotes and supports employees’ physical, mental, social, and psychological health, safety, and well-being. All of the program’s components are stra- tegically integrated for maximum impact, and employees receive incentives for participating in the program and achieving wellness-related goals and milestones. An employee wellness program might include health screenings and assessments; health fairs, workshops, newslet- ters, and other communication on wellness issues; discounted or free access to on- or off-site healthy meal offerings, fitness facilities, smoking cessation classes, or weight loss programs; or employee counseling. Participation incentives may include bonuses and awards, discounts on insurance premiums, public recognition for achieving various milestones, or tokens such as T-shirts, water bottles, pedometers, and more (California Department of Public Health, n.d.).

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 289 4/20/17 5:43 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3MuUMHoXIM

290

Section 10.2 Developing Healthy Employee Attitudes

The primary distinction between these comprehensive programs and traditional health ini- tiatives is that integrated programs emphasize a whole-person perspective and promote wellness along a variety of dimensions. An integrated approach tends to be more effective because it has a better chance of spreading across the organization, and this across-the-board commitment is necessary for promoting a variety of wellness initiatives. For example, John- son & Johnson has seen outstanding results from its employee wellness programs, including a more than 50% reduction in high blood pressure, more than 65% smoking cessation, $250 million in health care cost savings, and 271% ROI! Other studies show reductions in absen- teeism by as much as 80%, turnover rates cut in half, and more (Berry, Mirabito, & Baun, 2010). In sum, healthy employees tend to be happier, more productive, and less likely to leave the organization, in addition to saving their organizations millions of dollars.

10.2 Developing Healthy Employee Attitudes What would life be like without work? Simple, laid back, stress free—a veritable paradise of rest and relaxation? Not necessarily. Without a job, how could people pay for food, shelter, and clothing—the basic necessities of life? Work enables people to support themselves and their families. Relationships with coworkers also provide social and emotional connections. Although most of us regard work as a required chore at least some of the time, a large portion of our overall life satisfaction stems from how satisfied we are with our jobs (Judge & Wata- nabe, 1993; Bernardo, 2016). To this end, I/O psychologists have studied how to make work environments more fulfilling.

Types of Employee Attitudes Every day, people make positive or negative evaluations about specific people, places, and situations in their lives, which they then use to guide their actions. These evaluations, called attitudes, have cognitive, affective, and behavioral components (Eagly & Chaiken, 1999; Schleicher, Watt, & Greguras, 2004). The cognitive component is a person’s beliefs about and mental evaluations of something. For example, a person’s attitude toward work could include cognitive beliefs such as “this job makes good use of my skills” or “this job doesn’t pay very well.” Our mental evaluations have a strong impact on our beliefs, even beyond the objective characteristics of a situation—hence the common adages “Attitude is everything” and “Per- ception is reality.”

The affective component is a person’s feelings or emotional response to his or her cognitive beliefs. People who believe their job effectively uses their skills may feel happy or satisfied; people who believe their job doesn’t pay well might feel content or indifferent if they believe the pay level is appropriate, or they may feel angry and disgruntled if they believe they deserve more.

Finally, the behavioral component refers to people’s actions in response to their feelings and beliefs. People who are satisfied with the good fit of their job might respond by working harder, taking on extra tasks, supporting company policies, or speaking positively about the company to others. On the other hand, people who are angry because they believe they are being underpaid might react by complaining to coworkers, performing poorly, or even leaving the company to find another job.

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 290 4/20/17 5:43 PM

291

Section 10.2 Developing Healthy Employee Attitudes

Although it may seem obvious to assume that our beliefs and feelings dictate our actions, researchers have discovered that the link between cognitive and affective attitudes and resul- tant behavior is only strong when the attitudes are closely related to the behaviors. For exam- ple, beliefs and feelings about a manager may influence an employee’s actions when it comes to volunteering to help that manager on a special project, but not when it comes to helping coworkers on a team project. Interestingly, research shows that attitudes seem to be better predictors of how people intend to behave than how they actually do behave (Ajzen, 1991). If an employee is extremely satisfied with a job, he or she may have every intention of staying with that organization for a long time—but whether that actually happens is another story. Employee actions are informed not only by personal attitudes but by external factors: The organization may go bankrupt, forcing a change in position, or a spouse could lose his or her job, making it necessary to seek a higher paying job elsewhere. Therefore, even though attitudes provide a good indication of probable actions, they cannot perfectly predict actual behaviors, which can be influenced by situational constraints. Organizations, then, must focus on attitudes that are strongly related to desired work behaviors.

Consider This: Your Attitudes Toward Your Supervisor and Coworkers

1. Think about the best and the worst boss you have ever worked for. How did your opinions of those individuals affect your actions toward them? Did you treat each other similarly or differently? Why?

2. Now think about the best and the worst coworker you have ever had. Again, how did your opinions of those individuals affect your actions toward them? Did you treat each other similarly or differently? Why?

3. Can you think of other situations when your attitudes have influenced your behaviors?

Organizational Commitment Organizational commitment is a worker’s level of psychological attachment to the organiza- tion. Meyer and Allen (1991) proposed that this attitude has three dimensions: affective, con- tinuance, and normative. Affective commitment refers to employees’ emotional attachment to their organization. Innovative, dynamic companies or those that have overcome obstacles may engender their workers to have positive emotional attachments to them. Those who work for Apple, for example, may be emotionally connected to the company because they are proud if its vision, its world-changing products, or the legacy of its innovative founder, Steve Jobs. Of the three components, affective commitment appears to be the most positively related to organizational outcomes. Continuance commitment refers to how employees perceive the economic value of staying with an organization. Employees may be significantly committed to their job simply because they would experience economic hardship without it. Finally, nor- mative commitment refers to the degree to which employees remain with an organization because they feel a moral obligation to do so. For example, a physician might forgo the higher pay and greater prestige that comes with working for a large university hospital in order to work for a small rural clinic if he or she felt morally obligated to provide care for people who live in an underserved community. Or someone may choose to work for the family business out of a sense of obligation to his or her family. In other words, those who experience affective

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 291 4/20/17 5:43 PM

292

Section 10.2 Developing Healthy Employee Attitudes

commitment stay with an organization because they want to; those with continuance com- mitment stay because they have to; and those with normative commitment stay because they feel they ought to (Dunham, Grube, & Castaneda, 1994).

Decades of research support this three-factor model of organizational commitment, although the relative weights of the factors vary across national cultures (Meyer et al., 2012). Further- more, studies show that affective commitment is much more important and effective in retaining employees than continuance or normative com- mitment (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topol- nytsky, 2002). In other words, it is much more important to give employees a place they love to work than to merely entice them with lucra- tive salaries, benefits, and future career pros- pects. These types of incentives are often dubbed “golden handcuffs” due to their focus on continu- ance or normative commitment.

Organizational commitment is also related to job performance and numerous other desirable

work outcomes such as job satisfaction, regular attendance, organizational citizenship behav- iors (e.g., going above and beyond job requirements), and lower stress, burnout, and turnover (Cohen, 1993; Meyer et al., 2002; Rikketa, 2002). However, the relationship between commit- ment and performance becomes stronger the longer the individual has worked for the orga- nization, which suggests that organizations can improve job performance in the long run by taking steps to increase their employees’ commitment early in their careers (Wright & Bonett, 2002). In other words, by creating an environment in which employees want to work, orga- nizations promote affective commitment and tend to see improved rates of both retention and positive outcomes. Factors that can enhance organizational commitment include treating employees equitably (Quirin, Donnelly, & O’Bryan, 2001) and providing a favorable work unit culture (Lok & Crawford, 2001).

Employee Engagement Employee engagement is the level of enthusiasm a person feels for his or her job. Employee engagement has become popular among both I/O psychologists and HR managers because it seems useful for predicting organizational outcomes. Highly engaged employees are emotion- ally invested in their jobs to a degree that goes beyond either job satisfaction or organizational commitment (Kahn, 1990); they perform their jobs with vigor, dedication, and absorption. Vigor refers to high levels of energy and effort investment, as well as resilience and persis- tence when faced with challenges. Dedication refers to a sense of pride and personal identifi- cation with one’s work. And absorption is a pleasant sense of being completely immersed in one’s work; one tends to lose track of time and naturally enjoys staying on task, as if the work was a favorite hobby or exciting personal activity (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006). Thus, highly engaged employees are willing to put all their energy and resources into their work to ensure the organization’s success (Thomas, 2009).

Wesley Bocxe/Getty Images

Normative commitment might cause a doctor to forgo a higher salary and the prestige associated with working for a large hospital in favor of working for a small clinic or humanitarian organization.

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 292 4/20/17 5:43 PM

293

Section 10.2 Developing Healthy Employee Attitudes

A Gallup Organization study of more than 1.4 million employees in nearly 50,000 business units across 192 organizations, 49 industries, and 34 countries showed that unit-level engage- ment is positively related to productivity, profit, customer satisfaction, safety, and quality and negatively related to absenteeism, turnover, and employee theft (Sorensen, 2013). However, some researchers theorize that employee engagement is not just a single attitude but an amal- gamation of several, including job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job involvement, and even intrinsic motivation. Although the findings thus far are compelling, more research is needed to better understand if and how employee engagement adds to our understanding of worker well-being and performance.

Job Satisfaction The most frequently studied work attitude is job satisfaction, which is how people feel about their job based on its characteristics (Spector, 1997). People with high job satisfaction have more positive feelings about their job, whereas dissatisfied people have negative feelings. A survey of working adults by the Gallup Organization found 90% of respondents to be “at least somewhat satisfied” with their jobs and 48% to be “very satisfied,” whereas only 2% were “completely dissatisfied” (Saad, 2008). Because job satisfaction is associated with important employee outcomes, most companies believe this attitude is especially important to measure and influence.

One of the most important outcomes of job satisfaction is that it is associated with an increase in job performance (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001). This relationship applies not only to individual employees but to entire work units as well (Harter et al., 2002). Further- more, when satisfaction and performance data are gathered for the entire organization, orga- nizations that have a high number of satisfied employees tend to be more effective overall than those that have a large percentage of dissatisfied employees.

Although the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance is significant, keep in mind that it is not necessarily consistent. Sometimes, even highly satisfied employees cannot perform well due to circumstances beyond their control. A malfunctioning computer, safety concerns, or illness can interfere with even the best employee’s performance. Similarly, not all dissatisfied workers will intentionally perform poorly. Personal and environmental factors such as a desire to be promoted, ethical standards, cultural expectations, and economics can inspire even the most disgruntled worker to perform to the best of his or her ability.

Research has also found that in addition to being more likely to perform well at their jobs, highly satisfied workers are more willing to go beyond formal job expectations, talk posi- tively about the organization, and proactively help other team members (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). These pro-organizational behaviors are referred to as organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). Additional research suggests that the relationship between job satisfaction and OCBs is influenced, in part, by workers’ perceptions of fairness (Konovsky & Organ, 1996). Each time a worker experiences a fair outcome, process, or treatment, his or her level of satisfaction grows, which results in increasingly greater trust in the organization. Eventually, the worker begins to reciprocate these positive experiences by voluntarily putting in extra effort and routinely going beyond the call of duty.

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 293 4/20/17 5:43 PM

294

Section 10.2 Developing Healthy Employee Attitudes

Find Out for Yourself: How Engaged Are You? In a cross-national study, researchers Schaufeli, Bakker, and Salanova (2006) examined a sur- vey measure that can be administered to employees in order to assess their level of engage- ment. Complete the following survey based on this research, keeping in mind your current workplace or a place where you have worked in the past.

Appendix Work and Well-Being Survey (UWES)

The following 17 statements are about how you feel at work. Please read each statement carefully and decide if you ever feel this way about your job. If you have never had this feeling, give that statement a score of “0” (zero). If you have had this feeling, indicate how often you felt it by choosing the number (from 1 to 6; see Table 10.1) that best describes how frequently you feel that way.

What Did You Learn?

1. Based on your responses, to what extent do you experience vigor, dedication, and absorption in this job?

2. Why do you think that’s the case? 3. What should the organization do in order to maintain high engagement levels among its

employees? What changes do you recommend?

Table 10.1: Rating scale

Never 0

Never

Almost never

1 A few

times a year or

less

Rarely 2

Once a month or

less

Some- times

3 A few

times a month

Often 4

Once a week

Very often

5 A few

times a week

Always 6

Every day

1. At my work, I feel bursting with energy.a (VI1) 2. I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose. (DE1) 3. Time flies when I am working. (AB1) 4. At my job, I feel strong and vigorous.a (VI2) 5. I am enthusiastic about my job.a (DE2) 6. When I am working, I forget everything else around me. (AB2) 7. My job inspires me.a (DE3) 8. When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work.a (VI3) 9. I feel happy when I am working intensely.a (AB3)

10. I am proud of the work that I do.a (DE4) 11. I am immersed in my work.a (AB4) 12. I can continue working for very long periods at a time. (VI4) 13. To me, my job is challenging. (DE5) 14. I get carried away when I am working.a (AB5) 15. At my job, I am very resilient, mentally. (VI5) 16. It is difficult to detach myself from my job. (AB6) 17. At my work, I always persevere, even when things do not go well. (VI6)

Source: Schaufeli and Bakker (2003). Note: VI = Vigor scale; DE = Dedication scale; AB = Absorption scale. aShortened version (Utrecht Work Engagement Scale–9 [UWES-9]).

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., and Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub .com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0013164405282471. Reprinted by Permission of SAGE Publications, Inc.

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 294 4/20/17 5:43 PM

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0013164405282471

295

Section 10.2 Developing Healthy Employee Attitudes

Counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) are the opposite of OCBs; they include nega- tive outcomes such as employee theft, absenteeism, and sabotage. As you might expect, one of the causes of CWBs is job dissatisfaction. Employees who do not like their work environ- ment tend to respond negatively. Although it is impossible to predict exactly how a dissatis- fied worker will act, evidence suggests that these workers will find some way to get even. Whether they steal, work slowly, or intentionally make mistakes, counterproductive employ- ees cost organizations billions of dollars each year, accounting for even more loss than retail shoplifters (Hollinger, 2009). To address CWBs, organizations should focus on fixing the real problem—job dissatisfaction—instead of implementing costly control systems, which have the potential to make the work environment even more negative and less trusting.

Job dissatisfaction is also one of the most common reasons why workers voluntarily quit (Grif- feth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000). Turnover costs organizations dearly. Every time an employee quits, the organization incurs substantial costs not only in the form of recruitment, selection, and training, but in lost productivity as well. Turnover is most strongly related to job dissat- isfaction when workers have other employment opportunities (Trevor, 2001). Dissatisfied employees are thus more likely to act on their intentions to quit once alternative employ- ment becomes available. Employees who do not or cannot quit may become less motivated to report to work and may miss work more often than usual. Unlike turnover, however, the relationship between absenteeism and job satisfaction is surprisingly weak (Scott & Taylor, 1985). Instead, it appears that other situational factors, such as personal or family illness, work–family conflicts, or company sick-leave policies play a stronger role in employees’ deci- sions to miss work.

Finally, job satisfaction has a strong relationship to life satisfaction (Judge & Watanabe, 1993). According to Gallup polls, one of the most important needs of people around the world is a “good job.” A good job is defined as constituting 30+ hours per week and offering a stable pay- check. Having a good job is directly related to life satisfaction and general well-being. Unfor- tunately, only about 45% of Americans currently have what would be considered a good job by these standards (Gallup, 2016).

Consider This: Job Satisfaction 1. Think about the most satisfying job you’ve ever had. What made it so great? Your

coworkers? Your boss? Your salary? The work you performed? The location? 2. Think about the most dissatisfying job you’ve ever had. What made it so dissatisfying? 3. From your experience, are job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction driven by the same or

different factors? 4. Review Herzberg’s two-factor theory of motivation in Chapter 6. To what extent are

your experiences consistent with or different from the tenets of this theory?

Drivers of Employee Attitudes Perceptions and evaluations of a job or its various facets can vary greatly from one person to the next, even when the work is the same. What one person loves about a job, another per- son may hate. I/O psychologists have studied many personal and environmental factors that influence workers’ attitudes about their jobs, especially their job satisfaction.

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 295 4/20/17 5:43 PM

296

Section 10.2 Developing Healthy Employee Attitudes

Personality As discussed in Chapter 3, personality is a strong predictor of job performance. It also shapes employee attitudes and behaviors. Some employees never seem to be satisfied no matter how good their work environment is; however, others seem to be happy even when working con- ditions are difficult.

Interestingly, research suggests there could be a genetic component to attitudes. I/O psychol- ogists have explored the role of genetics in job satisfaction by performing twin studies, which look at similarities and differences between identical twins who have been raised in differ- ent environments. The twin studies show a strong positive correlation between the subjects’ levels of job satisfaction: If one twin was satisfied, the other twin tended to be satisfied, too (Arvey, Bouchard, Segal, & Abraham, 1989). This research suggests that genetic factors are at least partly responsible for determining workers’ overall levels of job satisfaction. Regardless of the work environment, then, people who have a more positive affective disposition will be more likely to be satisfied with their job and committed to their company than people who have a more negative affective disposition (Brief, Butcher, & Roberson, 1995).

In addition to dispositional affective tendencies, a person’s emotional stability affects job sat- isfaction. Emotional contentment leads to greater worker happiness, which in turn results in greater employee job satisfaction (Boehm & Lyubomirsky, 2008). Research has also docu- mented positive relationships between job satisfaction and personality traits such as consci- entiousness, extraversion, self-esteem, efficacy, and internal locus of control (Bowling, 2007; Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002). Similar results have also been reported on the linkages between the Big Five personality traits (see Chapter 3) and organi- zational commitment (Erdheim, Wang, & Zickar, 2006).

Job Characteristics A survey of 27,000 U.S. workers found that some jobs, such as firefighter, teacher, and power plant engineer, are inherently more satisfying than others, such as laborer, assembly-line worker, and cashier (Bryner, 2007). In general, highly satisfying jobs are more complex and require workers to utilize a variety of skills and deal with unpredictable situations. Less sat- isfying jobs, on the other hand, involve repeating the same relatively simple tasks throughout the workday. As mentioned in Chapter 6’s discussion on motivation, jobs with greater com- plexity tend to be more interesting, more challenging, and more likely to require responsibil- ity (Maynard, Joseph, & Maynard, 2006). Workers will therefore experience high job satisfac- tion when their jobs possess these intrinsically motivating characteristics—so long as they enjoy intellectually stimulating work.

Another recent study explores the effects of overemployment and underemployment on employee well-being. This study found that both overemployment (e.g., working very long hours) and underemployment (e.g., working insufficient hours or being in a job that does not sufficiently utilize one’s KSAs) can negatively affect well-being. However, these negative effects tend to be short lived and dissipate over time. On the other hand, being consistently overemployed for over 2 years can leave long-lasting negative effects on well-being (Angrave & Charlwood, 2016).

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 296 4/20/17 5:43 PM

297

Section 10.2 Developing Healthy Employee Attitudes

Salary Many people feel they are underpaid; but do these feelings actually impact workers’ job sat- isfaction or general well-being? The answer is yes, but the relationship is not as straightfor- ward as one might think. For workers who are poor, pay has a significant influence on job sat- isfaction and happiness in general. However, as pay increases to a level that allows workers to live comfortably, the relationship diminishes to nearly zero. Recall from Chapter 6 that Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton’s study found that happiness is related to money only up to an annual income of about $75,000 (in 2008/2009 dollars). So, while lack of money can make you unhappy, more money does not make you happier (Kahneman & Deaton, 2010). Another study found that workers in handsomely paid positions, such as executives, have approxi- mately the same levels of job satisfaction as workers in much-lower-paying positions (Judge, Piccolo, Podsakoff, Shaw, & Rich, 2010). Therefore, higher salaries alone do not lead to higher levels of job satisfaction. A good salary may not compensate for a job’s unsatisfactory aspects (such as poor working conditions or an overbearing boss). On the other hand, consistent with Herzberg’s two-factor theory, positive aspects of the job itself (such as interesting work) can compensate for a lower salary. Furthermore, some studies suggest that pay affects only con- tinuance commitment but not affective or normative commitment.

Person–Organization Fit Person–organization fit is the extent to which employees and their company share values; people will be happiest and most successful working for organizations where there is a good fit (Chatman, 1989). In fact, a meta-analysis of 172 studies found that a strong fit between workers and their place of employment results in a very high level of worker job satisfac- tion (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). Person–organization fit is also related to organizational commitment (Valentine, Godkin, & Lucero, 2002). The relationship between person–organization fit and job satisfaction and organizational commitment has also been supported across cultures (Silverthorne, 2004). Organizations often use preemployment personality inventories (see Chapter 3) to help determine whether prospective employees’ values will be a good fit with the company’s mission and the requirements of the specific posi- tion for which they are applying. Matching persons to an organization can positively affect employees and encourage them to achieve positive outcomes for the organization.

Organizational Justice How our employers treat us strongly influences our job attitudes. People who believe they are treated unfairly are likely to have more negative job attitudes, especially in areas of job satisfaction and organizational commitment; they are also more likely to exhibit poorer job performance (Cropanzano, Bowen, & Gilliland, 2007). To improve employees’ sense of organi- zational justice, employers should treat them with dignity and respect, allow them to partici- pate in decision-making processes, and provide them with information about why decisions were made (review Chapter 6 for information on organizational justice).

Relationship With the Manager One of the strongest predictors of work engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational com- mitment is the manager–employee relationship. Indeed, it has been said that workers do not leave companies; they leave managers (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999). Research shows that

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 297 4/20/17 5:43 PM

298

Section 10.2 Developing Healthy Employee Attitudes

when managers listen to employees, care about their opin- ions, and value their performances, employees tend to feel happy at work. Building trust-based relationships is also critically important to long-term job satisfaction and orga- nizational commitment (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Therefore, organizations should take care to hire managers who have positive people skills and train them to engage in activities that build employee–manager trust, such as giving feed- back, coaching, mentoring, and communicating respectfully.

Work–Life Balance Changing workplace demographics are placing new demands on both employers and employees. For example, single-parent families and dual-income households have become common in the industrialized world, as have the attendant difficulties and conflicts that arise as people try to achieve balance between their work and family lives.

The work–family balance has been found to be especially challenging for women because they devote an average of 7 more hours per week to their families than do men (Rothbard & Edwards, 2003), although fathers are taking on more responsibilities at home and increasingly experiencing higher degrees of work–family conflict. In fact, in a recent study, 70% of men reported that they would take a pay cut to spend more time with family, and 50% reported that they would turn down a promotion if it would take away from family time (Brady, 2004). Unfortunately, higher levels of work–family conflict, often caused by high job demands and job insecurity, are strongly and consistently associated with lower job satisfaction (Ford, Heinen, & Langkamer, 2007). Overall, it appears that when work life interferes with family life, employees are more stressed and unhappy with their jobs. In contrast, social support at work and the ability to influence what happens in the work environment can promote work– life balance, satisfaction, and well-being (Behan, & Drobnic, 2010). Similar results were found for schedule flexibility, particularly for women (Carlson, Grzywacz, & Kacmar, 2010).

Many organizations have taken steps to help working couples and single parents balance their work and family obligations. For example, some companies provide on-site day care facilities, which can help alleviate logistical concerns for workers who have small children. Providing part-time and flexible work scheduling options are other ways organizations can meet working parents’ needs. Each of these programs has been associated with higher levels of employee job satisfaction and lower levels of absenteeism among employees with children (Scandura & Lankau, 1997). Furthermore, a survey of 231 Fortune 500 companies found that those that offered programs to promote work–family balance actually had higher stock values than those that did not offer such benefits (Arthur, 2003).

However, employees with families are not the only ones who experience conflict between their personal and professional lives. That is why opportunities for work–life balance have now been expanded beyond the work–family front to enhance the satisfaction and commit- ment of employees who have diverse needs. For example, younger and older workers view flexible work arrangements and the opportunity to give back to the community as even more important than pay, compared to the middle age group (Hewlett, Sherbin, & Sumberg, 2009).

Stockbyte/Thinkstock

A good employee–boss relationship leads to increased work engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 298 4/20/17 5:43 PM

299

Section 10.2 Developing Healthy Employee Attitudes

Furthermore, research has moved beyond work–family conflict, and even work–life balance, to what is referred to as work–family enrichment or work–life enrichment. The theory behind work–family or work–life enrichment is that one life domain can actually have positive and enriching, rather than negative or neutral, effects on another. Research shows that such enrichment cannot simply happen by providing formal family-friendly benefits or policies. Work–family enrichment requires supportive supervisors and effective job design (Baral & Bhargava, 2010).

Find Out for Yourself: Your Work Attitudes—Part 1 Take a few minutes to consider which of the factors from the discussion above have the most impact on your own job attitudes. In the spaces below, rate each factor from 1 to 5 (1 = not important; 5 = extremely important):

___ Challenging work ___ Salary ___ Organizational fit

___ Organizational justice ___ Manager relationship ___ Work–life balance

If you are currently employed, rate your agreement with each of the following statements based on your current job (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly disagree):

• I will stay at my employer because I want to. • I will stay at my employer because I have to (I can’t afford to leave). • I will stay at my employer because I ought to (it is the right thing to do).

What Did You Learn?

1. Which factors are most important to your organizational commitment? Work engage- ment? Job satisfaction? Why?

2. For each factor, does your current job meet your needs? If so, how? If not, what could your organization do to address your needs?

Find Out for Yourself: Your Work Attitudes—Part 2 Fortune magazine publishes an annual list of the top 100 companies to work for. Visit the magazine’s website and review the policies and programs available to employees of some of these companies.

Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For

What Did You Learn?

1. Which of these policies or programs would increase your job satisfaction? Organiza- tional commitment? Work engagement?

2. Based on your review of these top companies, would you consider your current organi- zation a “best place to work”? Why or why not?

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 299 4/20/17 5:43 PM

http://fortune.com/best-companies

300

Section 10.2 Developing Healthy Employee Attitudes

Generational Differences in Work Expectations Particularly relevant to employee attitudes is the fact that five generations of workers are cur- rently participating in the workforce, and each has its own set of expectations (Meister & Willyerd, 2010). Table 10.2 summarizes these generations.

Traditionalists were the first generation to be grouped by age. Young adults in this generation and generations prior were expected to work or start a family even before finishing a secondary education, which many never completed. Financial resources and public assistance programs were limited, particularly in the 1930s due to the Great Depression. As a result, this generation considers work to be a privilege. Members of this generation believe in hard work and dedication; they work long hours and expect others to do the same.

Baby boomers are the most educated generation and continue to be driven by both personal and professional development. They are characterized by their long hours of hard work, extrinsic motivation, and loyalty and commitment to their employers at the expense of work–life bal- ance (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008). They value job security and a stable working environment (Wong, Gardiner, Lang, & Coulon, 2008).

On the other hand, Generation Xers have grown up around change and diversity and rarely stay long at any one organization. According to a recent LinkedIn study (see Figure 10.1), on average, members of Generation X changed jobs twice in their first 10 years out of col- lege (Berger, 2016). They seek better opportunities, whether these include a higher salary, improved benefits, or better working conditions (Collins, Hair, & Rocco, 2009; Twenge, Camp- bell, Hoffman, & Lance, 2010; Wong et al., 2008). They value individualism, skepticism, and the desire to enjoy life. This joy for life is centered on a desire for work–life balance that stems from having watched their parents work many long hours (Dries, Pepermans, & De Kerpel, 2008; Collins et al., 2009).

Table 10.2: The five generations currently participating in the workplace

Generation Birth date Top values

Traditionalists or matures Before 1946 Family, hard work, loyalty, scarce resources

Baby boomers Between 1946 and 1964 Job security, stable working environment

Generation X Between 1965 and 1976 Individualism, skepticism, work–life balance

Generation Y or millennials Between 1977 and 1997 New opportunities, self-development, transparency, social responsibility

Generation Z After 1997 Technology, independence

Lewis Smith/CartoonStock

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 300 4/20/17 5:44 PM

301

2006−2010 Grad

2001−2005 Grad

1996−2000 Grad

1991−1995 Grad

1986–1990 Grad

First 5 years post graduation Next 5 years

1 2 3 4

Section 10.2 Developing Healthy Employee Attitudes

Members of Generation Y, also known as millennials, are very comfortable with technology and change and worry less about job security and job commitment (Twenge et al., 2010). They like to be challenged by new opportunities and self-development. Members of this generation have seen the devastation that unethical companies such as Enron, Tyco, and Arthur Ander- sen have caused to families and careers, so they seem more concerned with an organization’s values than any other factor. They are civic minded and instill a sense of moralism into all aspects of their lives (Dries et al., 2008). They demand transparency and social responsibil- ity from their employers. For example, a PricewaterhouseCoopers (2008) study showed that 86% of millennials would consider leaving an employer whose behavior no longer met their corporate responsibility expectations.

Generation Z is the youngest generation. This generation has never lived without ready access to personal computers and the Internet. Members learn to rely on technology at a very young age. Having lived through the Great Recession of 2008 may have instilled in this generation a sense of insecurity and independence.

Employers are finding it necessary to shun traditional climb-the-ladder career opportunities and carrot-and-stick approaches in favor of allowing employees to rely on intrinsic motiva- tors that encourage them to pursue the career paths of their choice. Younger generations do not want a slow trip up the corporate ladder that includes a midyear evaluation, a yearly evaluation, and other traditional measures. They are looking for nonmonetary rewards such as increased flexibility, work-at-home options, control over their schedules, and additional opportunities to develop their knowledge and skills during work hours or through employer- financed educational or learning opportunities (D’Amato & Herzfeldt, 2008). They are seek- ing a nonlinear career that will evolve and change; it should ideally include stops at several companies over a period of years and feature multiple career paths that meaningfully take advantage of their talents and realize their passions and full potential. The 2008 recession added to this challenge. The constant fear of downsizing, pay cuts, and relocations made

Figure 10.1: Average number of companies each generation works for

“Will This Year’s College Grad’s Job-Hop More Than Previous Grads?” by G. Berger, 2016 (https://blog.linkedin. com/2016/04/12/will-this-year_s-college-grads-job-hop-more-than-previous-grads).

2006−2010 Grad

2001−2005 Grad

1996−2000 Grad

1991−1995 Grad

1986–1990 Grad

First 5 years post graduation Next 5 years

1 2 3 4

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 301 4/20/17 5:44 PM

302

Section 10.3 Employee Health

employees uneasy as they scoured the landscape for more secure opportunities, which weak- ened employee commitment and motivation.

Large-scale changes in the U.S. population’s demographic makeup have created the most diverse incoming American labor force in history. However, these changes have also resulted in challenges to the nation’s global competitiveness (Collins et al., 2009; Meister & Willyerd, 2010). Based on the most current census data available, the U.S. workforce is in the middle of an extensive demographic revolution (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Between 2010 and 2050, the United States is projected to experience substantial growth in its older population. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that in 2050, the number of Americans aged 65 or older will reach over 88 million, which is double the number of seniors there were in 2011. Concurrently, between 2010 and 2050, the U.S. population is projected to grow from 310 million to 439 million, an increase of 42%. The nation will also become more racially and ethnically diverse. By 2042 the U.S. population will be more non-White than White (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010), resulting in a minority population and an increase in diversity that will yield yet another gen- eration with its own unique set of worker expectations.

Consider This: Generational Differences in Work Expectations 1. To which generational group do you belong? 2. To what extent do the chapter’s research findings regarding your generation’s work

expectations resonate with you?

Find Out for Yourself: Generational Differences in Work Expectations

Find at least one member from each of the five generations who you personally know and who is currently employed. They can be family members, friends, coworkers, or acquaintances. Have a brief conversation with these individuals about their work expectations.

What Did You Learn?

1. To what extent are their responses consistent with the research findings previously dis- cussed regarding their respective generations’ work expectations?

2. To what extent do your respondents agree with the descriptions of the work expecta- tions of other generations?

10.3 Employee Health Thus far, we have discussed factors that are associated with and help lead to workers’ psycho- logical well-being. However, even the most psychologically fulfilling job can be harmful to a worker’s health. Some jobs are just plain dangerous. Each year, millions of workers are hurt, sickened, or even killed while doing their job. When examining the overall health of an organi- zation, it is important to understand how job safety, workplace violence, and workplace stress affect workers’ physical health.

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 302 4/20/17 5:44 PM

303

Section 10.3 Employee Health

Job Safety In 2015, 4,836 people died from injuries suffered in American workplaces, which amounts to approximately 13 people dying each day while on the job (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016c). Even more shocking is the fact that, during the same year, almost 3 million U.S. workers suf-

fered nonfatal work injuries. Although these numbers are down by almost 25% compared to a decade ago, the cost of on-the-job accidents is still enormous. In addition to these indirect costs, direct costs from worker’s compensation claims can be staggering. In 2008 claims for the 10 most debilitating types of workplace injuries and ill- nesses cost organizations $53.4 billion (Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, 2010).

I/O psychologists have long tried to identify ways to reduce accidents and improve workplace safety. Over time, they have been able to identify a num- ber of key safety considerations. Hazards, or situ- ations that could potentially threaten a person’s

health or life, can be very predictive of workplace accidents. Poor equipment design and a lack of safety devices on machinery are especially dangerous. However, lighting, temperature, and vibration hazards pose less serious risks (Melamed, Luz, Najenson, Jucha, & Green, 1989).

In addition to hazard prevention, making sure workers have reasonable workloads plays an important role in keeping them safe. A workload is the amount of work an employee is assigned or expected to perform in a given amount of time. When an employee’s workload is too high, he or she will often compensate by taking shortcuts, such as using incorrect tools, removing safety devices, ignoring safety protocols, or looking the other way when others vio- late safety protocols. Accidents often happen when workers try to meet the demands of their workload at the expense of safety (Hofmann & Tetrick, 2003).

Shift work, or work that does not follow a traditional 9-to-5 schedule, can also decrease employee safety. Round-the-clock scheduling is especially common in industries such as man- ufacturing, public safety (i.e., police and firefighters), and public service (i.e., health care and call centers). Workers are more likely to be injured while working nighttime shifts (Smith, Folkard, & Poole, 1994); the proportion of nighttime fatal injuries is almost double that of daytime fatal injuries (Williamson & Feyer, 1995). People are more susceptible to nighttime injuries for obvious reasons: Working at night is inconsistent with the typical wake–sleep cycle and can lead to fatigue, irritability, and reduced alertness and vigilance—outcomes that in turn lead to errors and injuries (Dinges, 1995).

Finally, accidents are more likely to occur when a workplace’s climate of safety is poor. This environmental factor refers to the relative importance (or unimportance) an organiza- tion places on safety as evidenced by its policies, procedures, and practices. To ensure that employees follow official policies and procedures, companies should implement practices, such as adequate safety training for employees and thorough and frequent safety inspections, and mandate that supervisors communicate with employees about the importance of safety. Each of these practices has been shown to improve an organization’s climate of safety and decrease accidents (Hansez & Chmeil, 2010; Neal & Griffin, 2004).

Thinkstock Images/Stockbyte/Thinkstock

Millions of U.S. workers suffer work- related injuries every year.

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 303 4/20/17 5:44 PM

304

Section 10.3 Employee Health

Workplace Violence Clark French remembers coworkers scattering like deer from a “popping” noise inside the Royal Oak Post Office 20 years ago today. The morning of November 14, 1991, something French and other postal employees had feared for weeks occurred: Thomas Paul McIlvane, a disgruntled, recently fired coworker, showed up at the post office armed with a sawed-off .22-cali- ber rifle. “Someone started running and then all of us—like deer—ran to get out,” said French, now 57. “Then I was shot. And I knew I had to keep running because he must be right behind me, and I didn’t want to be an easy target.” Within minutes, McIlvane had killed four of French’s coworkers and shot him- self to death. (Adapted from Martindale, 2011)

When violent incidents like this occur in the workplace, the media erupts. Television, print media, radio, and now the Internet report these events loudly and often. Because of the heightened attention it receives, workplace violence often seems more common than it actu- ally is. In reality, acts of workplace violence are rare; approximately just 6% of Americans have experienced physical violence at work (Schat, Frone, & Kelloway, 2006). Employees who deal directly with the public, handle money, and work alone at night—such as convenience store clerks, taxi drivers, and pizza delivery drivers—are particularly susceptible to violent acts perpetrated by strangers. Indeed, most workplace fatalities come at the hands of strang- ers, not disgruntled employees.

Bullying and psychological abuse are less publicized but more common forms of workplace aggression. In one study 41% of employees reported having experienced an act of psychologi- cal aggression (Schat et al., 2006). Another study involving 2,000 public sector workers found that 71% experienced at least one act of incivility sometime over the course of the previ- ous 5 years. This study also showed that employees who are subjected to aggressive actions report lower job satisfaction, greater psychological stress, and increased turnover (Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001; Lim, Cortina, & Magley, 2008). Abusive supervision is particularly detrimental to employees’ performance, attitudes, and well-being (Mackey, Frie- der, Brees, & Martinko, 2015).

Find Out for Yourself: Safety Regulations Visit the OSHA website and review the “Regulations” tab.

OSHA Laws & Regulations

What Did You Learn?

1. What hazards does the federal government regulate? Why are these regulations impor- tant for preventing workplace accidents, illness, and death?

2. Without OSHA, how might today’s work environment be different?

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 304 4/20/17 5:44 PM

https://www.osha.gov/law-regs.html

305

Section 10.3 Employee Health

Most of the research on workplace violence has attempted to identify characteristics that indicate which people are more likely to act aggressively. Contrary to common belief, research does not support the notion that violent workers are likely to be mentally ill (Barling, Dupré, & Kelloway, 2009). However, even though no one personality trait can perfectly predict who will be aggressive, some traits have been found to play a role in a person’s likelihood of engaging in violent or aggressive acts, including dispositional anger, negative affectivity (pessimism), narcissism, and type A personality. Dispositional anger, which is a person’s tendency to experience anger in almost any situation, shows a direct link with workplace aggression. In a study of 115 workers in two companies, employees with a higher level of dispositional anger exhibited a greater preponderance of aggressive behaviors (Douglas & Martinko, 2001).

Workplace Stress Most people are familiar with stress and its ability to impair physical wellness. Workplace stress is made up of the harmful physical and emotional responses caused by a poor match between a job’s demands and an individual’s capabilities, resources, or needs (National Insti- tute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1999). Unfortunately, workplace stress abounds in the organizational environment. One in six workers in the United Kingdom reported being extremely stressed at work (Health and Safety Executive, 2008), and an online survey by the American Psychological Association found that 74% of respondents cited work as the pri- mary cause of their stress (Anderson, 2008). In the same survey, more than half of all respon- dents reported that stress was not only harming their job performance but also that they had considered leaving their organization because of it.

The cost of this common problem should not be underestimated. Stress results in lower worker productivity and motivation, as well as increased errors, accidents, turnover, and counterproductive behaviors. People who report high work stress miss more days of work than those who are less stressed (Holland, 2008). Most importantly, stress makes people sick, resulting in high health care costs for companies and much misery for workers. A study of more than 10,000 British government workers found that the risk of heart disease was 68% greater for workers who reported chronic job stress than for those who reported little or none (Chandola et al., 2008). Another study showed that stress is significantly positively related to worker depression (Blackmore et al., 2007). Finally, a study of 46,000 workers found that those with high stress levels were responsible for nearly 50% higher health care costs than their low-stress counterparts (Goetzel et al., 1998). When workers had both high levels of stress and depression, the difference in health care costs skyrocketed to 150%, accounting for an increase of more than $1,700 per person annually.

I/O psychologists have identified a number of stressors in the work environment that can result in worker dissatisfaction and stress (see also Figure 10.2):

• Role conflict, which is two or more incompatible demands at work or across work and nonwork roles

• Role ambiguity, which occurs when role responsibilities and functions are vague or unclear

• Workload incompatibility, which occurs when the amount of work to be accom- plished exceeds the employee’s capabilities

• Job insecurity, which is the feeling that one’s job status is insecure or unstable

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 305 4/20/17 5:44 PM

306

Technostress and repetitive-

motion disorder

Role conflict and

role ambiguity

Job insecurity and

unemployment

Role overload or

underload

Significant life change

JOB STRESS

Section 10.3 Employee Health

Employees who feel little or no control over their stressors also experience increased stress (Thompson & Prottas, 2005). In other words, people get stressed out over stress! When peo- ple feel as though they have control over their work environment, stressors are more likely to be viewed as challenges to overcome. Overcoming challenges leads to job fulfillment and increased job satisfaction. In contrast, workers who feel that they have little control perceive stressors as obstacles that hinder their progress and frustrate their goal pursuit. Conse- quently, they feel helpless and unable to manage their workload, which results in dissatisfac- tion and resentment.

Organizations can help alleviate stress by clearly defining job roles and expectations, increas- ing workers’ control over their jobs, and even training workers on techniques to control stress (i.e., relaxation). However, everyone responds to stress in different ways. A work environment that is debilitating for one employee might be exhilarating for another. Personality studies provide some insight into why employees experience stress differently. Workers who are high in extraversion and conscientiousness are more likely to look at stressors as challenges to overcome and to utilize problem-solving coping strategies (Watson & Hubbard, 1996). Fur- thermore, people who are characterized as being high in hardiness, or the belief that they control the events in their lives, are better able to positively reappraise their situation and engage in quality problem solving as compared to those low in hardiness (Crowley, Hayslip, & Hobdy, 2003). Finally, individuals who have an internal locus of control are more likely to perceive work stressors as manageable and unthreatening (Ng, Sorensen, & Eby, 2006). For highly stressful jobs, organizations can use preemployment personality inventories to help identify workers who are more likely to perform well under or react positively to stress.

Figure 10.2: Causes of job stress

From Applying Psychology: Individual & Organizational Effectiveness (6 ed., p. 240), by A. J. DuBrin, 2004, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Reprinted by permission of Pearson Education Inc., New York, NY.

Technostress and repetitive-

motion disorder

Role conflict and

role ambiguity

Job insecurity and

unemployment

Role overload or

underload

Significant life change

JOB STRESS

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 306 4/20/17 5:44 PM

307

Section 10.4 Organizational Health

It is important to note that not all types of stress are negative. A moderate level of stress can be motivating, and positive events such as getting a promotion or enjoying well-earned recognition can yield a positive form of stress known as eustress. Moreover, many causes of stress are not work related, such as aspects of a worker’s personal life. Additionally, even work-related stress may stem from contextual factors that may not be directly related to the tasks assigned to a worker. Examples include relationships with coworkers, career progress, change, poor leadership, and organizational policies. Although an organization can help alle- viate some of these sources of stress, many may be beyond its control. Thus, many organiza- tions also help workers deal with their stress by providing stress management programs that teach effective coping mechanisms.

10.4 Organizational Health Unlike employee health, little is known or agreed upon among I/O psychologists about orga- nizational health and well-being. Externally, investors characterize healthy organizations as those that are profitable according to established accounting standards and financial ratios. Society identifies healthy organizations by their positive reputations, socially responsible actions, and sustainable practices. Internally, managers and employees assess organizational health through efficiency measures such as productivity and optimal resource allocation, as well as effectiveness dimensions such as creativity and innovation, flexibility and adaptabil- ity to change, effective communication, positive organizational culture, and ethical practices. Recently, however, more formalized perspectives have emerged to identify critical dimen- sions of organizational health and well-being.

Built-to-Change Organizations A critical characteristic of healthy organizations is the ability to change and adapt to their environments. Most classic organizational-change theories view change as moving an orga- nization from its current state to a desired state of higher efficiency or effectiveness. In this paradigm, change is a goal-oriented process, with specified performance standards and out- comes that add value for specific stakeholders. For example, a change that targets HR may assess the breadth and depth of the current workforce’s KSAs in relation to market trends and predicted talent needs and design ways to develop the workforce’s competencies and capabilities accordingly. Similar processes may be applied to develop material, technology, and other more tangible resources.

Although this structured approach to change is necessary and can help meet organizational goals, it may also hinder the organization’s ability to change in the future. Many years ago, Kurt Lewin’s (1951) force-field theory offered three stages for organizational change:

1. Unfreezing, which involves preparing the organization for change (by dealing with resistance to change, communicating the benefits of change, ensuring that resources are available to implement the change, and ensuring that people are committed to making the change)

2. Change, which involves implementing the changes 3. Refreezing, which involves restabilizing the organization (by creating new

structures, cultural dimensions, and processes after the changes have been successfully implemented)

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 307 4/20/17 5:44 PM

308

Section 10.4 Organizational Health

Lewin’s model emphasizes that after an organization is “unfrozen” and change is imple- mented, the organization needs to be “refrozen” at a new, more desirable state; this is what sustains the change. However, the new structural, cultural, and process dimensions may cre- ate resistance to future changes. Even though additional changes can yield successes in the desired performance dimensions, they often require another cycle of unfreezing newly cre- ated structures, cultures, and processes (Lawler & Worley, 2006).

Periodic change may be appropriate for steady, predictable environments or as a normal part of any organization’s life cycle (Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001). On the other hand, today’s fast- paced business environment places a higher emphasis on organizational agility. Survival and success in this environment require that organizations not only be able to build sustainable competitive advantage by implementing evolutionary and revolutionary change; they must also be able to develop robust strategies that prepare them to quickly and effectively respond to multiple environmental scenarios; in other words, organizations must be built to change (Lawler & Worley, 2006).

Building Talent-Based Competitive Advantage When organizations are built to change, talent management is central to organizational devel- opment and change (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 2002). People have always been viewed as integral to change, because change is planned, implemented, and evaluated by people. However, the rela- tionship between people and change has been predominantly negative, as people are often viewed as a source of resistance to change due to fear, inflexibility, or unwillingness to change (Ford, Ford, & D’Amelio, 2008; Kegan & Lahey, 2001). To meet the challenges of fast-paced, dynamic, and hard-to-predict environmental change, many organizations are choosing to become more human-capital-centric rather than structure-centric. A human-capital-centric organization has been defined as “one that aligns its features (reporting systems, compensa- tion, division and department structure, information systems, and so on) toward the creation of working relationships that attract talented individuals and enable them to work together in an effective manner” (Lawler, 2008, p. 9). This special treatment of talent goes beyond merely relying on the quantity and quality of HR, which characterizes most organizations in today’s service economy.

Learning From Virtuous Spirals The direct, reciprocal correspondence between strategy and talent management in a human- capital-centric organization can promote its ability to experience and intentionally learn from virtuous spirals. These are periods of dynamic alignment with the environment when the organization is able to seamlessly string together a series of temporary competitive advan- tages. For example, an organization can use its success in creating and marketing a new prod- uct line to learn more about its competencies and capabilities, as well as its employees’ talents and strengths. This in turn can inform future strategic direction and fuel continuous research and development of new products that would align those competencies, capabilities, talents, and strengths with future market needs.

Furthermore, the organization’s members may experience similar virtuous spirals on an indi- vidual level (Lawler, 2003), which leads to a strong employer and leadership brand (Ulrich

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 308 4/20/17 5:44 PM

309

Section 10.5 Positivity Matters: Can Happiness Make You Healthier and More Successful?

& Smallwood, 2007). This in turn can sustain the organization’s human-capital-centric iden- tity and strategic intent. An organization that recognizes and promotes its competencies and capabilities, as well as its employees’ talents and strengths, will likely pursue a strategic direc- tion that will be attractive to similar-minded investors, employees, and community partners, who in turn can leverage those same sources of competitive advantage.

Appreciative Inquiry Appreciative inquiry is another positive approach to organizational health and well-being that a number of organizations have successfully applied over the past decade. Appreciative inquiry is “the cooperative, coevolutionary search for the best in people, their organizations, and the world around them” (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005, p. 8). This search involves sys- tematically discovering “what gives life to an organization or a community when it is most effective and most capable in economic, ecological, and human terms” (Cooperrider & Whit- ney, 2005, p. 8).

Appreciative inquiry diverges from the more common problem-oriented approaches and views organizations not as problems to be solved but rather as potential sources of life, mean- ing, and fulfillment. Emphasis is on the organization’s strengths and capabilities, what makes it unique, and how it functions when it is at its best. Understanding these positive character- istics and their underlying conditions facilitates their maintenance and replication over time, which can lead to sustainable competitive advantage. In other words, emphasizing what is positive in an organization promotes its health and well-being over time.

10.5 Positivity Matters: Can Happiness Make You Healthier and More Successful? Happiness and well-being have received more attention in more affluent populations and nations such as the United States, where the pursuit of happiness is considered a consti- tutional right. However, these subjects have also received increased attention worldwide, across a variety of cultures. In response, well- being experts such as Ed Diener (2000) have pro- posed a national index of happiness that raises happiness to a level comparable with economic, social, and political priorities that have tradition- ally received more emphasis and resources. As discussed earlier, the importance of worker hap- piness is becoming increasingly recognized due to the connection between physical and mental well-being and the escalating costs of health care and resulting decrease in productivity. However, the question remains: Does happiness make people healthier and more successful, or is it that healthier and more successful people just have more reasons to be happy? Chris Madden/CartoonStock

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 309 4/20/17 5:44 PM

310

Section 10.5 Positivity Matters: Can Happiness Make You Healthier and More Successful?

Positivity and Success As you know from previous chapters, a correlation between two variables does not explain which one causes the other or the mechanisms through which that causation takes place. Until recently, this applied to the correlation between positivity and happiness. A few years ago, happiness expert Sonja Lyubomirsky and her colleagues conducted a meta-analytical study that integrated the findings of many previous studies. They were able to show that posi- tivity and happiness indeed cause success, rather than the other way around. Happiness leads to positive outcomes in numerous life domains, including higher work productivity, stron- ger relationships, and even better physical and mental health (Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005). Therefore, in order to improve the chances of experiencing successful outcomes in the workplace, organizations should make happiness a strategic priority.

Increasing Your Own Level of Positivity Positivity and happiness are determined by many factors. Although some of these factors are genetic, others are hardwired at a very early age due to cultural factors and parenting styles. Positivity also tends to be influenced by circumstances such as age, income, marital status, looks, daily interactions, and even the weather. Many people have given up on trying to become happier, adopting the deterministic belief that their level of happiness is beyond their control. There is even extensive literature on the possibility of a “hedonic treadmill” that makes people revert back to their original levels of happiness and well-being after tempo- rarily experiencing happiness or unhappiness (Kim-Pietro, Diener, Tamir, Scollon, & Diener, 2005). There is some truth to this theory; recent research shows that about 50% of our hap- piness level is determined by a set point, or a happiness baseline that is controlled by stable factors (e.g., genetics). Another 10% is determined by situational factors. However, this leaves 40% open to development by intentionally engaging in happiness-inducing activities (Lyu- bomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, 2005).

Many psychological interventions, when properly implemented, have been shown to success- fully increase happiness levels (Fredrickson, 2009; Luthans et al., 2015; Lyubomirsky, 2007). These include the following methods:

• Setting challenging and meaningful goals • Disputing negative thinking and deliberately practicing positive self-talk • Choosing to forgive others and letting go of grudges and hard feelings • Counting one’s blessings and intentionally expressing gratitude for them • Visualizing future success • Practicing healthy habits such as a balanced diet, adequate sleep, and regular

exercise

These approaches are backed by an extensive tradition in psychological research and prac- tice. They all use as their foundation the notion that people’s appraisals of events are more influential on their well-being than the actual, objective dimensions of those events (Kim- Pietro et al., 2005). For example, a job transfer can be interpreted positively (as a promotion or opportunity for added visibility and exposure to new information) or negatively (as being unwanted or increasing the probability of failure). Well-being can be increased, with measur- able impact on success in and beyond the workplace, when employees are taught to more positively interpret their circumstances.

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 310 4/20/17 5:44 PM

311

Section 10.5 Positivity Matters: Can Happiness Make You Healthier and More Successful?

Making Employees Happier Although intentionally undertaking certain individual activities can increase happiness, con- text also plays an important role. For example, perceived supervisory and organizational support is a strong predictor of employee positivity and well-being (Glaser, Tatum, Nebeker, Sorenson, & Aiello, 1999; Luthans, Norman, Avolio, & Avey, 2008). Positive leaders also pro- mote positivity in their followers. These followers in turn can learn strategies to maintain higher positivity levels, both through the leader’s influence and independently (Avolio & Luthans, 2006).

Spillover and crossover effects have also been recognized as having direct influence on employees’ happiness and well-being. Spillover effects cause positivity in one life domain to influence positivity in another (Judge & Ilies, 2004). Crossover effects occur when the posi- tivity of one individual in one domain influences the positivity of others in different domains (Bakker, Westman, & Van Emmerik, 2009). For example, a positive experience at work can increase one’s positivity at home, which in turn can increase one’s positivity at work. These findings further expand on the importance of work–life balance, wellness, stress reduction, and conflict management in the workplace.

Consider This: Increasing Your Happiness Level Review the list of ways to increase your level of happiness:

• Set challenging and meaningful goals. • Dispute negative thinking and deliberately practice positive self-talk. • Choose to forgive others and let go of grudges and hard feelings. • Count one’s blessings and intentionally express gratitude for them. • Visualize future success. • Practice healthy habits such as a balanced diet, adequate sleep, and regular exercise.

Next, rank these methods from high to low in terms of which resonate with you most based on your personality, comfort level, or need to pursue them. Try the first method on your list this week and commit to pursue it for at least 1 full week. At the end of the week, reflect on the outcome. Have you felt happier? If this method has worked for you, incorporate it into your weekly schedule and commit to it for a longer period of time. If not, repeat this exercise, going down your list of preferences, until you find a method that works for you.

Find Out for Yourself: Your Happiness Level Visit the University of Pennsylvania’s Authentic Happiness website and take some of the tests provided to assess your level of positivity and happiness.

Authentic Happiness Questionnaire Center

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 311 4/20/17 5:44 PM

https://www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/testcenter

312

Summary and Conclusion

How Can Happy Employees Make Their Organization More Successful? In addition to the conventional wisdom that happy workers are productive workers, when employees are happy at work, their engagement levels may increase. The Gallup Organiza- tion has conducted numerous studies on organizations and found that engaged employees have higher productivity and can significantly increase business-unit profitability (Harter et al., 2002). The reason why is that engaged employees have higher vitality and energy lev- els, experience better interactions with coworkers and customers, identify more closely with their organization, and consequently are generally more willing and able to perform well and go beyond their immediate role expectations.

Summary and Conclusion

Employees’ physical, mental, psychological, and social well-being is critical for individual and organizational success. Indicators of employee well-being include positive attitudes such as job satisfaction, work engagement, and organizational commitment; positive behaviors such as high productivity, organizational citizenship behavior, and safe practices; and low levels of aggression, stress, burnout, and counterproductive work behaviors. Numerous factors can shape employee well-being, including personality, job characteristics, working conditions, person–organization fit, work–life balance, relationships with managers and coworkers, and employee expectations. Managers should learn to proactively promote and support employee well-being. They should also learn to recognize the symptoms of negativity and poor physical or psychological health and manage their causes. Organizations, too, can be healthy by adopt- ing values and practices that are consistent with their strengths and capabilities. They can leverage these characteristics toward continuous change and improvement to meet changing market demands and build a sustainable, talent-based competitive edge.

Consider This: Spillover and Crossover Effects 1. To what extent does your mood at work affect your mood at home, and vice versa?

Think about some examples from the past week. 2. To what extent does your mood affect your family members’ moods and behaviors?

Think about some examples from the past week. 3. Have you ever had a bad day at work simply because someone you live with (your

spouse, significant other, or roommate) had discussed their own bad day at work with you the night before? What were some of the symptoms of this crossover effect?

affective commitment Employees’ emo- tional attachment to their organization.

appreciative inquiry The cooperative, coevolutionary search for the best in people and their organizations, as well as the world around them.

Key Terms

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 312 4/20/17 5:44 PM

313

Summary and Conclusion

attitudes Cognitive, affective, and behav- ioral evaluations about specific people, places, or situations.

continuance commitment Employees’ perceptions of the economic value of staying with an organization.

counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) The opposite of organizational citizenship behaviors; negative behaviors against the organization.

crossover effects Effects that occur when the mood of one individual in one domain influences the moods of others in different domains.

dispositional anger A person’s tendency to experience anger in almost any situation.

employee engagement The level of enthu- siasm a person feels for his or her job.

employee wellness program A systemati- cally designed, multicomponent program that promotes and supports employees’ physical, mental, social, and psychological health, safety, and well-being.

hardiness The belief that one controls the events in one’s life.

human-capital-centric organization An organization that aligns its features toward the creation of working relationships that attract talented individuals and enable them to work together effectively.

job insecurity The feeling that one’s job is not permanent.

job satisfaction The feelings people have about their job based on its characteristics.

normative commitment The degree to which employees remain with an organiza- tion because they feel a moral obligation to do so.

organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) Pro-organizational behaviors that go beyond formal job expectations.

organizational commitment A worker’s level of psychological attachment to the organization that is composed of three dimensions: affective, normative, and continuance.

person–organization fit The extent to which employees and their company share values; people will be happiest and most successful working for organizations in which there is a good fit.

role ambiguity A condition that occurs when one is vague or unclear about one’s role responsibilities and functions.

role conflict Two or more incompatible demands at work or across work and non- work roles.

spillover effects Effects that occur when the mood in one life domain influences another life domain.

virtuous spirals Periods of dynamic alignment with the environment when the organization is able to seamlessly string together a series of temporary competitive advantages.

workload The amount of work an employee is assigned or expected to perform in a given amount of time.

workload incompatibility A situation in which the amount of work to be accom- plished exceeds the employee’s capabilities.

workplace stress Harmful physical and emotional responses caused by a poor match between a job’s demands and an individual’s capabilities, resources, or needs.

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 313 4/20/17 5:44 PM

you83701_10_c10_287-314.indd 314 4/20/17 5:44 PM