Organizational Behavior

S o u rc

e : Ti

m W

a gn

e r/

Z U

M A P R

E S

S /N

e w

sc o m

Attitudes and Job Satisfaction3

110

PATCHING TOGETHER A CAREER

In today’s temp economy, there are self-employed, part-time, contract, micro-entrepreneur, temporary, and freelance workers. One example is Brad Stone of Bloomberg Businessweek, pictured here, who worked as a

micro- entrepreneur through task-brokerage firms TaskRabbit, Postmates,

and Cherry. These may seem like dream jobs–quick paychecks,

work-when-you-want-to hours, and ultra-flexibility. But how satis-

fied with their jobs are people who have these arrangements?

It depends on your expectations, it seems. Recent research

in Canada studied the concept of work congruence, or the

match between the number of hours a person wants to work

and the number of hours the person is offered work. The study

found that as work congruence increased, especially when the

number of hours increased for individuals who wanted more

hours, job satisfaction increased.

Finding a job where the hours fit your wishes seems like an

obvious key to a satisfying job, but it’s not the whole story. For

one thing, some contingent workers get enough hours, but in the

form of unpaid overtime—meaning extra time they put into the

job, but for which they receive no pay. Unpaid overtime is common

in many countries. According to a study of 4,530 workers in 735 workplaces

in Britain, part-timers—who were 27 percent of the workforce—worked almost

10 unpaid overtime hours per week, particularly in professional/ managerial

jobs. The study also found that part-timers who worked unpaid overtime were

more likely to lose their job satisfaction, be absent, and quit than full-time

workers who worked extra hours without additional pay.

3-1 Contrast the three components of an attitude.

3-2 Summarize the relationship between attitudes and behavior.

3-3 Compare the major job attitudes.

3-4 Define job satisfaction.

3-5 Summarize the main causes of job satisfaction.

3-6 Identify three outcomes of job satisfaction.

3-7 Identify four employee responses to job dissatisfaction.

Mana ementMyMyManagementManagement If your professor has chosen to assign this, go to the Assignments section of mymanagementlab.com to complete the chapter warm up.

LE ARNING OBJEC T IVES

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

112 PART 2 The Individual

In the United States, where contingent workers make up 20 percent

of the workforce, job satisfaction suffers from a lack of paid hours. Many

contingent workers say they cannot reliably find enough paid hours to

support themselves and they feel insecure as a result. Professor Arne

Kallenberg acknowledged, “Work has become much more insecure, much

more precarious.”

One large study in China found that job insecurity is strongly negatively

related to job satisfaction, meaning the more insecure you are about your

work situation, the less satisfied in your job you are likely to be. As a help,

the U.S. Affordable Care Act has provided a measure of security for millions

of people not covered by an employer’s medical insurance plan, and some

workforce brokerage-type firms like TaskRabbit are offering their “micro-en-

trepreneurs” benefits such as a guaranteed hourly wage. “If we want people

to feel comfortable moving from job to job in a very flexible, decentralized

economy, they need to have some basic protections that allow them to do

that,” said Jacob Hacker, a Yale political scientist.

While benefits are helpful, some scholars argue that for millions of con-

tingent workers, security, and thus job satisfaction, will come only from work

congruency—the availability of jobs and schedules that provide enough paid

hours to meet workers’ needs. Stone agrees. “My three-day haul won’t feed

my family,” he observed in counting his roughly $67/day earnings as a

micro-entrepreneur. Freelance worker Heather Burdette, who has been piec-

ing together a career since 2008, had to declare bankruptcy in 2005. “I’m

actually more secure right now,” she said, “because I understand that the

bottom can fall out at any time.”

Sources: N. Conway and J. Sturges, “Investigating Unpaid Overtime Working among the Part- Time Workforce,” British Journal of Management 25 (2014): 755–71; B. Y. Lee, J. Wang, and J. Weststar, “Work Hour Congruence: The Effect on Job Satisfaction and Absenteeism,” Inter- national Journal of Human Resource Management 26, no. 5 (2015): 657–75; B. Stone, “My Life as a Task Rabbit,” Bloomberg Businessweek (September 13, 2012), www.businessweek .com/articles/2012-09-13/my-life-as-a-taskrabbit#p1; L. Weber, “For Digital Temps, a Safety Net Emerges,” The Wall Street Journal, July 30, 2014, B7; and I. U. Zeytinoglu, M. Denton, S. Davies, A. Baumann, J. Blythe, and L. Boos, “Retaining Nurses in their Employing Hospitals and in the Profession: Effects of Job Preference, Unpaid Overtime, Importance of Earnings and Stress,” Health Policy 79, no. 1 (2006): 57–72.

It’s almost a truism to say that a job that fits you is one that satisfies you. As the vignette shows, however, what makes a satisfying job is a bit more complex. What factors besides work schedule compatibility and job security affect job attitudes?1 Does having a satisfying job really matter? Before we tackle these important questions, it’s important to define what we mean by attitudes gener- ally, and job attitudes in particular.

Attitudes and Job Satisfaction CHAPTER 3 113

Attitudes Attitudes are evaluative statements—either favorable or unfavorable—about ob- jects, people, or events. They reflect how we feel about something. When you say “I like my job,” you are expressing your attitude about your work.

Attitudes are complex. If you ask people about their attitude toward religion, Lady Gaga, or an organization, you may get a simple response, but the underly- ing reasons are probably complicated. To fully understand attitudes, we must consider their fundamental properties or components.

Typically, researchers assume attitudes have three components: cognition, affect, and behavior.2 The statement “My pay is low” is a cognitive component of an attitude—a description of or belief in the way things are. It sets the stage for the more critical part of an attitude—its affective component. Affect is the emo- tional or feeling segment of an attitude reflected in the statement, “I am angry over how little I’m paid.” Affect can lead to behavioral outcomes. The behavioral component of an attitude describes an intention to behave a certain way toward someone or something—as in, “I’m going to look for another job that pays better.”

Viewing attitudes as having three components—cognition, affect, and behavior—helps understand their complexity and the potential relationship between attitudes and behavior. For example, imagine you realized that someone treated you unfairly. Aren’t you likely to have feelings about that, occurring virtually instantaneously with the realization? Thus, cognition and affect are intertwined.

Exhibit 3-1 illustrates how the three components of an attitude are related. In this example, an employee didn’t get a promotion he thought he deserved.

3-1 Contrast the three components of an attitude.

attitudes Evaluative statements or judg- ments concerning objects, people, or events.

affective component The emotional or feeling segment of an attitude.

WATCH IT!

If your professor has assigned this, go to the Assignments section of mymanagementlab.com to complete the video exercise titled Gawker Media: Attitudes and Job Satisfaction.

The Components of an AttitudeExhibit 3-1

Negative attitude toward

supervisor

Cognitive = evaluation My supervisor gave a promotion to a coworker who deserved it less than I did. My supervisor is unfair.

Affective = feeling I dislike my supervisor!

C o g n it io

n ,

a ff

e ct

, a n d b

e h a v io

r a re

c lo

se ly

r e la

te d .

Behavioral = action I’m looking for other work; I’ve complained about my supervisor to anyone who would listen.

behavioral component An intention to behave in a certain way toward someone or something.

cognitive component The opinion or belief segment of an attitude.

114 PART 2 The Individual

His  attitude toward his supervisor is illustrated as follows: The employee thought he deserved the promotion (cognition), he strongly dislikes his super- visor (affect), and he has complained and taken action (behavior). Although we often think cognition causes affect, which then causes behavior, in reality these components are difficult to separate.

In organizations, attitudes are important for their behavioral component. If workers believe, for example, that managers, auditors, and engineers are in a conspiracy to make employees work harder for less money, we should try to understand how this attitude formed, how it impacts job behavior, and how it might be changed.

Attitudes and Behavior Early research on attitudes assumed they were causally related to behavior—that is, the attitudes people hold determine what they do. However, one researcher— Leon Festinger—argued that attitudes follow behavior. Other researchers have agreed that attitudes predict future behavior.3

Did you ever notice how people change what they say so it doesn’t contradict what they do? Perhaps a friend of yours consistently argued that her apartment complex was better than yours until another friend in your complex asked her to move in with him; once she moved to your complex, you noticed her attitude toward her former apartment became more critical. Cases of attitude following behavior illustrate the effects of cognitive dissonance,4 contradictions individu- als might perceive between their attitudes and their behavior.

People seek consistency among their attitudes, and between their attitudes and their behavior.5 Any form of inconsistency is uncomfortable, and individu- als will therefore attempt to reduce it. People seek a stable state, which is a minimum of dissonance. When there is a dissonance, people will alter either the attitudes or the behavior, or they will develop a rationalization for the dis- crepancy. Recent research found, for instance, that the attitudes of employees who had emotionally challenging work events improved after they talked about their experiences with coworkers. Social sharing helped these workers adjust their attitudes to behavioral expectations.6

No individual can avoid dissonance. You know texting while walking is unsafe, but you do it anyway and hope nothing bad happens. Or you give someone advice you have trouble following yourself. The desire to reduce dissonance depends on three factors, including the importance of the elements creating dissonance and the degree of influence we believe we have over the elements. The third factor is the rewards of dissonance; high rewards accompanying high dissonance tend to reduce tension inherent in the dissonance (dissonance is less distressing if accom- panied by something good, such as a higher pay raise than expected). Individuals are more motivated to reduce dissonance when the attitudes are important or when they believe the dissonance is due to something they can control.

The most powerful moderators of the attitudes relationship are the impor- tance of the attitude, its correspondence to behavior, its accessibility, the presence of social pressures, and whether a person has direct experience with the attitude.7 Important attitudes reflect our fundamental values, self-interest, or identifica- tion with individuals or groups we value. These attitudes tend to show a strong relationship to our behavior. However, discrepancies between attitudes and behaviors tend to occur when social pressures to behave in certain ways hold exceptional power, as in most organizations. You’re more likely to remember attitudes you frequently express, and attitudes that our memories can easily access are more likely to predict our behavior. The attitude–behavior relation- ship is also likely to be much stronger if an attitude refers to something with which we have direct personal experience.

3-2 Summarize the relationship between attitudes and behavior.

cognitive dissonance Any incompatibil- ity between two or more attitudes or between behavior and attitudes.

Attitudes and Job Satisfaction CHAPTER 3 115

Westin Hotels strives for consistency between employee attitudes and behavior through a global wellness program to help employees improve their health. Shown here is Westin’s executive chef, Frank Tujague, whose cooking demonstrations give employees direct experience with healthy ingredients and cooking techniques. Source: Diane Bondareff/AP Images

Y ou are peacefully at work in your cu- bicle when your coworker invades your space, sitting on your desk

and nearly overturning your coffee. As she talks about the morning meeting, do you: a) stop what you’re doing and listen; or b) explain that you’re in the middle of a project and ask to talk some other time?

Your answer may reflect your at- titude toward office talk, but it should be guided by whether your participation is ethical. Sometimes, office conversa- tions can help employees to process information and find solutions to prob- lems. Other times, office talk can be damaging to everyone. Consider the scenario from two perspectives: over- sharing and venting.

More than 60 percent of 514 profes- sional employees recently surveyed in- dicated they encounter individuals who frequently share too much about them- selves. Some are self-centered, narcis- sistic, and “think you want to know all the details of their lives,” according to psychologist Alan Hilfer.

Despite the drawbacks, oversharers can be strong contributors. Billy Bauer, director of marketing for manufacturer Royce Leather, is an oversharer who boasts about his latest sales—which may push other employees to work harder. Oversharers can also contribute to teamwork when they share personal stories related to organizational goals, according to a Harvard Business Re- view article.

Now let’s look at this the other way. According to Yale Professor Amy Wrzesniewski, organization-lovers are often “the first people to become of- fended” when they think the organiza- tion is making wrong decisions. They can become emotional, challenging, and outspoken about their views. If they are not heard, they can increase their venting or withdraw.

Yet organization-lovers can be top- performing employees: they are often highly engaged, inspiring, and strong team players who are more likely to work harder than others. Venting their

frustrations helps restore a positive at- titude to keep them high performing. Research indicates that venting to co- workers can also build camaraderie.

Since guidelines for acceptable office conversation are almost non- existent in the contemporary age of openness, personalization, and trans- parency, you must decide what kinds of office talk are ethical and productive. Knowing who is approaching you for conversation, why they are approaching you, what they may talk about, and how you may keep the discussion produc- tive and ethical can help you choose whether to engage or excuse yourself.

Sources: S. Shellenbarger, “Office Over- sharers: Don’t Tell Us about Last Night,” The Wall Street Journal, June 25, 2014, D2; A. S. McCance, C. D. Nye, L. Wang, K. S. Jones, and C. Chiu, “Alleviating the Bur- den of Emotional Labor: The Role of Social Sharing,” Journal of Management (February 2013): 392–415; and S. Shellenbarger, “When It Comes to Work, Can You Care too Much?” The Wall Street Journal, April 30, 2014, D3.

Office Talk An Ethical Choice

116 PART 2 The Individual

Job Attitudes We have thousands of attitudes, but OB focuses on a very limited number that form positive or negative evaluations employees hold about their work environ- ments. Much of the research has looked at three attitudes: job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment.8 Other important attitudes in- clude perceived organizational support and employee engagement.

Job Satisfaction and Job Involvement When people speak of employee attitudes, they usually mean job satisfaction, a positive feeling about a job resulting from an evaluation of its character- istics. A person with high job satisfaction holds positive feelings about the work, while a person with low satisfaction holds negative feelings. Because OB researchers give job satisfaction high importance, we’ll review this attitude in detail later.

Related to job satisfaction is job involvement, the degree to which people identify psychologically with their jobs and consider their perceived perfor- mance levels important to their self-worth.9 Employees with high job involve- ment strongly identify with and really care about the kind of work they do. Another closely related concept is psychological empowerment, or employ- ees’ beliefs in: the degree to which they influence their work environment, their competencies, the meaningfulness of their job, and their perceived autonomy.10

Research suggests that empowerment initiatives need to be tailored to desired behavioral outcomes. Research in Singapore found that good leaders empower their employees by fostering their self-perception of competence— through involving them in decisions, making them feel their work is important, and giving them discretion to “do their own thing.”11

Organizational Commitment An employee with organizational commitment identifies with a particular orga- nization and its goals and wishes to remain a member. Emotional attachment to an organization and belief in its values is the “gold standard” for employee commitment.12

Employees who are committed will be less likely to engage in work with- drawal even if they are dissatisfied because they have a sense of organizational loyalty or attachment.13 Even if employees are not currently happy with their work, they are willing to make sacrifices for the organization if they are commit- ted enough.

Perceived Organizational Support Perceived organizational support (POS) is the degree to which employees believe the organization values their contributions and cares about their well- being. An excellent example is R&D engineer John Greene, whose POS is sky- high because when he was diagnosed with leukemia, CEO Marc Benioff and 350 fellow Salesforce.com employees covered all his medical expenses and stayed in touch with him throughout his recovery. No doubt stories like this are part of the reason Salesforce.com was number 8 of Fortune’s 100 Best Companies to Work For in 2015.14

People perceive their organizations as supportive when rewards are deemed fair, when employees have a voice in decisions, and when they see

3-3 Compare the major job attitudes.

job satisfaction A positive feeling about one’s job resulting from an evaluation of its characteristics.

job involvement The degree to which a person identifies with a job, actively participates in it, and considers performance important to self-worth.

psychological empowerment Employees’ belief in the degree to which they affect their work environment, their compe- tence, the meaningfulness of their job, and their perceived autonomy in their work.

organizational commitment The degree to which an employee identifies with a par- ticular organization and its goals and wishes to maintain membership in the organization.

perceived organizational support (POS) The degree to which employees be- lieve an organization values their contribution and cares about their well-being.

Attitudes and Job Satisfaction CHAPTER 3 117

their supervisors as supportive.15 POS is a predictor, but there are some cul- tural influences. POS is important in countries where the power distance, the degree to which people in a country accept that power in institutions and organizations is distributed unequally, is lower. In low power-distance coun- tries like the United States, people are more likely to view work as an exchange than as a moral obligation, so employees look for reasons to feel supported by their organizations. In high power-distance countries like China, employee POS perceptions are not as deeply based on demonstrations of fairness, sup- port, and encouragement.

Employee Engagement Employee engagement is an individual’s involvement with, satisfaction with, and enthusiasm for the work he or she does. To evaluate engagement, we might ask employees whether they have access to resources and opportunities to learn new skills, whether they feel their work is important and meaning- ful, and whether interactions with coworkers and supervisors are rewarding.16 Highly engaged employees have a passion for their work and feel a deep con- nection to their companies; disengaged employees have essentially checked out, putting time but not energy or attention into their work. Engagement becomes a real concern for most organizations because surveys indicate that few employees—between 17 percent and 29 percent—are highly engaged by their work.

Engagement levels determine many measurable outcomes. A study of nearly 8,000 business units in 36 companies found that units whose employees reported high-average levels of engagement achieved higher levels of customer satisfaction, were more productive, brought in higher profits, and experienced lower levels of turnover and accidents than at other business units.17 Molson Coors, for example, found engaged employees were five times less likely to have safety incidents, and when an accident did occur it was much less serious and less costly for the engaged employee than for a disengaged one ($63 per

power distance The degree to which people in a country accept that power in institutions and organizations is distributed unequally.

employee engagement An individual’s involvement with, satisfaction with, and enthu- siasm for the work he or she does.

Employees waving to guests at Hong Kong Disneyland are committed to the company and its goal of giving visitors a magical and memorable experience. Through careful hiring and extensive training, Disney ensures that employees identify with its priority of pleasing customers by serving them as special guests. Source: Matt Stroshane/UPPA/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom

118 PART 2 The Individual

incident versus $392). Caterpillar set out to increase employee engagement and recorded a resulting 80 percent drop in grievances and a 34 percent increase in highly satisfied customers.18

Such promising findings have earned employee engagement a following in many business organizations and management consulting firms. However, the concept generates active debate about its usefulness, partly because of the dif- ficulty of identifying what creates job engagement. The two top reasons for job engagement that participants in one study gave recently were (1) having a good manager they enjoy working for and (2) feeling appreciated by their supervisor. However, most of their other reasons didn’t relate to the job engagement con- struct.19 Another study in Australia found that emotional intelligence is linked to employee engagement.20 Other research suggested that engagement fluctu- ates partially due to daily challenges and demands.21

One review of the job engagement literature concluded, “The meaning of employee engagement is ambiguous among both academic researchers and among practitioners who use it in conversations with clients.” Another reviewer called engagement “an umbrella term for whatever one wants it to be.”22 Research has set out to identify the dimensions of employee engagement, but the debate is far from settled. For now, we can see that job engagement, in its various incarnations, yields important organizational outcomes.

Are These Job Attitudes Really All That Distinct? You might wonder whether job attitudes are really distinct. If people feel deeply engaged by their jobs (high job involvement), isn’t it probable they like it, too (high job satisfaction)? Won’t people who think their organization is supportive (high perceived organizational support) also feel committed to it (strong orga- nizational commitment)? Evidence suggests these attitudes are highly related, perhaps to a confusing degree.

There is some distinctiveness among attitudes, but they overlap greatly for various reasons, including the employee’s personality. Generally, if you know someone’s level of job satisfaction, you know most of what you need to know about how that person sees the organization. Next, we will consider the implica- tions of job satisfaction and then job dissatisfaction.

Job Satisfaction We have already discussed job satisfaction briefly. Now let’s dissect the concept more carefully. How do we measure job satisfaction? What causes an employee to have a high level of job satisfaction? How do satisfied employees affect an or- ganization? Before you answer, a look at the list of worst jobs for job satisfaction (Exhibit 3-2) may give you some indications. You may be surprised that they are not all low-paid jobs.

Measuring Job Satisfaction Our definition of job satisfaction—a positive feeling about a job resulting from an evaluation of its characteristics—is broad. Yet that breadth is appropriate. A job is more than just shuffling papers, writing programming code, waiting on customers, or driving a truck. Jobs require interacting with coworkers and bosses, following organizational rules and policies, determining the power structure, meeting performance standards, living with less-than-ideal working conditions, adapting to new technology, and so forth. An employee’s assessment

3-4 Define job satisfaction.

Attitudes and Job Satisfaction CHAPTER 3 119

of satisfaction with the job is thus a complex summation of many discrete ele- ments. How, then, do we measure it?

Two approaches are popular. The single global rating is a response to one question, such as “All things considered, how satisfied are you with your job?” Respondents circle a number between 1 and 5 on a scale from “highly satisfied” to “highly dissatisfied.” The second method, the summation of job facets, is more sophisticated. It identifies key elements in a job such as the type of work, skills needed, supervision, present pay, promotion opportuni- ties, culture, and relationships with coworkers. Respondents rate these on a standardized scale, and researchers add the ratings to create an overall job satisfaction score.

Is one of these approaches superior? Intuitively, summing up responses to a number of job factors seems likely to achieve a more accurate evaluation of job satisfaction. Research, however, doesn’t support the intuition.23 This is one of those rare instances in which simplicity seems to work as well as complexity, making one method essentially as valid as the other. Both methods can be help- ful. The single global rating method isn’t very time consuming, while the sum- mation of job facets helps managers zero in on problems and deal with them faster and more accurately.

How Satisfied Are People in Their Jobs? Are most people satisfied with their jobs? You may want to consider the OB Poll before you answer. Job satisfaction levels can remain quite consistent over time. For instance, U.S. average job satisfaction levels were consistently high from 1972 to 2006.24 However, economic conditions tend to influence job satisfac- tion rates. In late 2007, the economic contraction precipitated a drop-off in job satisfaction; the lowest point was in 2010, when 42.6 percent of U.S. workers re- ported satisfaction with their jobs.25 Approximately 47.7 percent of U.S. workers reported satisfaction with their jobs in 2014,26 but the rebound was still far off

Full-year income

$39,000

$45,000

$23,000

$37,000

$42,000

$55,000

$23,000

$29,000

$37,000

$24,300

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000

Corrections officer

Firefighter

Garbage collector

Flight attendant

Head cook

Broadcaster

Taxi driver

Enlisted military

Newspaper reporter

Lumberjack

Worst Jobs of 2013 for Job Satisfaction*Exhibit 3-2

*Based on physical demands, work environment, income, stress, and hiring outlook.

Source: CareerCast.com (2014), http://www.careercast.com/jobs-rated/worst-jobs-2014.

120 PART 2 The Individual

the 1987 level of 61.1 percent.27 Job satisfaction rates tend to vary in different cultures worldwide, and of course there are always competing measurements that offer alternative viewpoints.

The facets of job satisfaction levels can vary widely. As shown in Exhibit 3-3, people have typically been more satisfied with their jobs overall, the work itself, and their supervisors and coworkers than they have been with their pay and promotion opportunities.

Average Job Satisfaction Levels by FacetExhibit 3-3

0

20

10

40

30

60

50

80

70

100

90

Work Itself Pay

P e rc

e n ta

g e

Promotion Supervision Coworkers Overall

OB POLL

65%

60%

55%

50%

45%

40%

Worldwide average

Percentage of 168,000 employees who responded YES to “Are you happy in your job?”

Europe, Middle East, and Africa

All Americas

Asia Pacific

62%

53%

49%

54%

Happy Places

Sources: Statista (2013), http://www.statista.com/statistics/224508/employee-job-satisfaction-worldwide/; Kelly Services Group (2012),

http://www.kellyocg.com/uploadedFiles/Content/Knowledge/Kelly_Global_Workforce_Index_Content/Acquisition%20and%20Retention%20

in%20the%20War%20for%20Talent%20Report.pdf.

Attitudes and Job Satisfaction CHAPTER 3 121

There are some cultural differences in job satisfaction. Exhibit 3-4 provides the results of a global study of job satisfaction levels of workers in 15 countries, with the highest levels in Mexico and Switzerland. Do employees in these cul- tures have better jobs? Or are they simply more positive (and less self-critical)? Conversely, the lowest score in the study was for South Korea. Autonomy is low in South Korean culture, and businesses tend to be rigidly hierarchical in struc- ture. Does this make for low job satisfaction?28 It is difficult to discern all the factors influencing the scores, but considering how businesses are responding to changes brought on by globalization may give us clues.

What Causes Job Satisfaction? Think about the best job you’ve ever had. What made it great? The reasons can differ greatly. Let’s discuss some characteristics that likely influence job satisfac- tion, starting with job conditions.

Job Conditions Generally, interesting jobs that provide training, variety, independence, and control satisfy most employees. Interdependence, feedback, social support, and interaction with coworkers outside the workplace are also strongly related to job satisfaction, even after accounting for characteristics of the work itself.29 As you may have guessed, managers also play a big role in employees’ job satisfaction. Employees who feel empowered by their leaders experience higher job satisfac- tion, one study of a large Hong Kong telecommunications corporation found.30 Research in Israel suggested that a manager’s attentiveness, responsiveness, and support increase the employee’s job satisfaction.31

3-5 Summarize the main causes of job satisfaction.

Average Levels of Employee Job Satisfaction by CountryExhibit 3-4

Source: Based on J. H. Westover, “The Impact of Comparative State-Directed Development on Working Conditions and Employee

Satisfaction,” Journal of Management & Organization (July 2012): 537–54.

5.72 5.63

5.51 5.45 5.44

5.30 5.27 5.24 5.22 5.18

4.89 4.76

4.20

M ex

ico

Sw itz

er lan

d

N or

wa y

De nm

ar k

Un ite

d Sta

tes Ja

pa n

Ge rm

an y

Sw ed

en

Gr ea

t B rit ai n

Ca na

da Ru

ssi a

Au str

ali a

Cz ec

h Re

pu bli

c

Fra nc

e

So uth

K or

ea

4.40

4.60

4.80

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00 5.88

5.46

5.16

122 PART 2 The Individual

Thus, job conditions—especially the intrinsic nature of the work itself, social interactions, and supervision—are important predictors of job satisfaction. Although each is important, and although their relative value will vary across employees, the intrinsic nature of the work is most important.32

Personality As important as job conditions are to job satisfaction, personality also plays an important role. People who have positive core self-evaluations (CSEs)—who be- lieve in their inner worth and basic competence—are more satisfied with their jobs than people with negative CSEs. Additionally, in the context of career com- mitment, CSE influences job satisfaction as people with high levels of both CSE and career commitment may realize particularly high job satisfaction.33

core self-evaluation (CSE) Believing in one’s inner worth and basic competence.

Employee engagement is high at Baptist Health of South Florida, where employees share a serious commitment to patient care and are passionate about the work they do. Looking at an EKG readout, hospital employees Yaima Millan and Marvin Rosete feel their work is meaningful and can make a difference in patients’ lives. Source: Wilfredo Lee/AP Images

Pay You’ve probably noticed that pay comes up often when people discuss job satisfaction. Pay does correlate with job satisfaction and overall happiness for many people, but the effect can be smaller once an individual reaches a standard level of comfortable living. Take a look at Exhibit 3-5. It shows the relationship between the average pay for a job and the average level of job sat- isfaction. As you can see, there isn’t much of a relationship there. Money does

P I A PERSONAL INVENTORY ASSESSMENT

PERSONAL INVENTORY ASSESSMENTS Core Self Evaluation (CSE) Scale

In this chapter, you were introduced to the concept of core self-evaluation (CSE). You probably have a general awareness of your CSE, or how you candidly view your capabilities. This PIA can provide you with further insight.

Attitudes and Job Satisfaction CHAPTER 3 123

motivate people, as we will discover in Chapter 6. But what motivates us is not necessarily the same as what makes us happy.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Would you be as happy to work for an organization with a stated social wel- fare mission as one without? An organization’s commitment to corporate social responsibility (CSR), or its self-regulated actions to benefit society or the en- vironment beyond what is required by law, increasingly affects employee job satisfaction. Organizations practice CSR in a number of ways, including envi- ronmental sustainability initiatives, nonprofit work, and charitable giving.

CSR is good for the planet and good for people. Employees whose personal values fit with the organization’s CSR mission are often more satisfied. In fact, of 59 large and small organizations recently surveyed, 86 percent reported they have happier employees as a result of their CSR programs.34

The relationship between CSR and job satisfaction is particularly strong for Millennials. “The next generation of employees is seeking out employers that are focused on the triple bottom line: people, planet, and revenue,” said Susan Cooney, founder of philanthropy firm Givelocity.35 CSR allows workers to serve a higher purpose or contribute to a mission. According to researcher Amy Wrzesniewski, people who view their work as part of a higher purpose often realize higher job satisfaction.36 However, an organization’s CSR efforts must be well governed and its initiatives must be sustainable for long-term job satisfac- tion benefits.37

Although the link between CSR and job satisfaction is strengthening, not all employees find value in CSR.38 Therefore, organizations need to address a few issues in order to be most effective. First, not all projects are equally mean- ingful for every person’s job satisfaction, yet participation for all employees is

corporate social responsibility (CSR) An organization’s self-regulated actions to benefit society or the environment beyond what is required by law.

Relationship between Average Pay in Job and

Job Satisfaction of Employees in That Job

Exhibit 3-5

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

$20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $100,000 $140,000$160,000P e rc

e n t

o f

Jo b S

a ti sf

a ct

io n S

ca le

M a

x im

u m

Pay in US$—2009

$120,000$80,000

Source: T. A. Judge, R. F. Piccolo, N. P. Podsakoff, J. C. Shaw, and B. L. Rich, “The Relationship between Pay and Job Satisfaction:

A Meta-Analysis of the Literature,” Journal of Vocational Behavior 77, no. 2 (2010): 157–67.

124 PART 2 The Individual

sometimes expected. For instance, Lisa Dewey, a partner at one of the world’s largest law firms, said, “All DLA Piper attorneys and staff are encouraged to par- ticipate in the firm’s pro bono and volunteer projects.”39 Requiring these activi- ties may decrease overall job satisfaction for those who do not wish to volunteer their time but are required to do so.

Second, some organizations require employees to contribute in a prescribed manner. For instance, consulting firm entreQuest’s CEO, Joe Mechlinksi, requires employees to participate in “Give Back Days” by serving in a soup kitchen, building a Habitat for Humanity house, or mentoring children. These choices may not fit every individual’s vision of CSR. Furthermore, pressuring people to go “above and beyond” in ways that are not natural for them can burn them out for future CSR projects40 and lower their job satisfaction, particularly when CSR projects provide direct benefits to the organization (such as positive press coverage).41 People want CSR to be genuine and authentic.

Third, CSR measures can seem disconnected from the employee’s actual work,42 providing no increase to job satisfaction. After watching consulting firm KPMG’s “over the top” video that boasted of involvement in the election of Nelson Mandela and the end of Apartheid, the launch of the first space station by NASA, and the freedom of U.S. hostages in Iran, one anonymous employee questioned his employment. “If I want to really make a change,” he said, “why would I sit here?”43

In sum, CSR is a needed, positive trend of accountability and serving. It can also significantly contribute to increased employee job satisfaction when managed well.

Outcomes of Job Satisfaction Having discussed some of the causes of job satisfaction, we now turn to some specific outcomes.

Job Performance As several studies have concluded, happy workers are more likely to be produc- tive workers. Some researchers used to believe the relationship between job sat- isfaction and job performance was a myth, but a review of 300 studies suggested the correlation is quite robust.44 Individuals with higher job satisfaction per- form better, and organizations with more satisfied employees tend to be more effective than those with fewer.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) It seems logical that job satisfaction should be a major determinant of an em- ployee’s organizational citizenship behavior (known as OCB or citizenship be- havior, see Chapter 1).45 OCBs include people talking positively about their organizations, helping others, and going beyond the normal expectations of their jobs. Evidence suggests job satisfaction is moderately correlated with OCB; people who are more satisfied with their jobs are more likely to engage in citi- zenship behavior.46

Why does job satisfaction lead to OCB? One reason is trust. Research in 18 countries suggests that managers reciprocate employees’ OCB with trusting behaviors of their own.47 Individuals who feel their coworkers support them are also more likely to engage in helpful behaviors than those who have antagonistic coworker relationships.48 Personality matters, too. Individuals with certain per- sonality traits (agreeableness and conscientiousness, see Chapter 5) are more

3-6 Identify three outcomes of job satisfaction.

Attitudes and Job Satisfaction CHAPTER 3 125

satisfied with their work, which in turn leads them to engage in more OCB.49 Finally, individuals who receive positive feedback on their OCB from their peers are more likely to continue their citizenship activities.50

Customer Satisfaction Because service organization managers should be concerned with pleasing cus- tomers, it’s reasonable to ask whether employee satisfaction is related to posi- tive customer outcomes. For frontline employees who have regular customer contact, the answer is “yes.” Satisfied employees appear to increase customer satisfaction and loyalty.51

A number of companies are acting on this evidence. Online shoe retailer Zappos is so committed to finding customer service employees who are satisfied with the job that it offers a $2,000 bribe to quit the company after training, figur- ing the least satisfied will take the cash and go.52 Zappos employees are empow- ered to “create fun and a little weirdness” to ensure that customers are satisfied, and it works: of the company’s more than 24 million customers, 75 percent are repeat buyers. Therefore, for Zappos, employee satisfaction has a direct effect on customer satisfaction.

Life Satisfaction Until now, we’ve treated job satisfaction as if it were separate from life satisfac- tion, but they may be more related than you think.53 Research in Europe indi- cated that job satisfaction is positively correlated with life satisfaction, and your attitudes and experiences in life spill over into your job approaches and experi- ences.54 Furthermore, life satisfaction decreases when people become unem- ployed, according to research in Germany, and not just because of the loss of income.55 For most individuals, work is an important part of life, and therefore it makes sense that our overall happiness depends in no small part on our hap- piness in our work (our job satisfaction).

Service firms like Air Canada understand that satisfied employees increase customer satisfaction and loyalty. As frontline employees who have regular customer contact, the airline’s ticket agents are friendly, upbeat, and responsive while greeting passengers and helping them with luggage check-in and seat assignments. Source: Aaron Harris/Bloomberg/Getty Images

126 PART 2 The Individual

Honestly, I hate my job. But there are

reasons I should stay: this is my first

job out of college, it pays pretty well,

and it will establish my career. Is there

any hope, or am I doomed until I quit?

— Taylor

Dear Taylor: You’re not doomed! You can work on your attitude to either improve your ex- perience or find a positive perspective. In other words, if you can turn “I hate my job” into “this is what I’m doing to make my situation better,” your job sat- isfaction is likely to improve. Try this:

Write down everything you hate about your job, but wait until you have a few days off so you can get a more objective viewpoint. Be specif- ic. Keep asking yourself why, as in, “Why do I dislike my office mate?” Also, consider your history: was the job always a problem, or perhaps cir- cumstances have changed? Now write down everything you like about the job. Again, be specific. Think about the environment, the people, and the work separately. Find something positive, even if it’s just the coffee in the break room.

Compare your lists for clues about your attitude and job satisfaction. Look for mentions of the work or the people. Job satisfaction is generally more strongly related to how inter- esting your work is than it is to other factors. People, especially your su- pervisor, are important to your atti- tude toward work as well. Read your lists aloud to a few trusted friends (you don’t want to rant about your boss with your coworker). Ask them to help process your griev- ances. Are there deal-breakers like harassment? Decide whether you can talk with your manager about this. According to Roy L. Cohen, author of The Wall Street Professional’s Survival Guide, “consider whether how you’re being treated is unique to you or shared by your colleagues.” If everyone has the same problem, especially if the problem is the boss, you probably shouldn’t approach your manager. But changes can be made in most situations.

Based on the sources of your griev- ances and your ability to make changes

in the workplace, you may choose to ad- dress the issues, or develop skills for your next job. Meanwhile, don’t sabo- tage yourself with sloppy performance and complaints. Instead, look for posi- tive reinforcement, join a professional organization, or volunteer. Happy em- ployees are healthier. You deserve to be one of them.

Sources: “Employee Engagement,” Work- force Management (February 2013): 19; A. Hurst, “Being ‘Good’ Isn’t the Only Way to Go,” The New York Times, April 20, 2014, 4; R. E. Silverman, “Work as Labor or Love?” The Wall Street Journal, October 18, 2012, D3; H. J. Smith, T. F. Pettigrew, G. M. Pippin, and S. Bialosiewicz, “Relative Deprivation: A Theoretical and Meta-Analytic Review,” Personality and Social Psychology Review 16 (2012): 203–32; and A. Tugend, “Survival Skills for a Job You Detest,” The Wall Street Journal, April 7, 2012, B5.

The opinions provided here are of the manag- ers and authors only and do not necessar- ily reflect those of their organizations. The authors or managers are not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for the results obtained from the use of this information. In no event will the authors or managers, or their related partnerships or corporations thereof, be liable to you or anyone else for any decision made or action taken in reliance on the opinions provided here.

How can I make my job better? Career OBjectives

The Impact of Job Dissatisfaction What happens when employees dislike their jobs? One theoretical model—the exit–voice–loyalty–neglect framework—is helpful for understanding the conse- quences of dissatisfaction. Exhibit 3-6 illustrates employees’ four responses to job dissatisfaction, which differ along two dimensions: constructive/destructive and active/passive. The responses are as follows:56

Exit. The exit response directs behavior toward leaving the organization, including looking for a new position or resigning. To measure the effects of this response to dissatisfaction, researchers study individual termina- tions and collective turnover, the total loss to the organization of employee knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics.57

Voice. The voice response includes actively and constructively attempting to improve conditions, including suggesting improvements, discussing problems with superiors, and undertaking union activity.

3-7 Identify four employee responses to job dissatisfaction.

exit Dissatisfaction expressed through behavior directed toward leaving the organization.

voice Dissatisfaction expressed through active and constructive attempts to improve conditions.

Attitudes and Job Satisfaction CHAPTER 3 127

Loyalty. The loyalty response means passively but optimistically waiting for conditions to improve, including speaking up for the organization in the face of external criticism and trusting the organization and its manage- ment to “do the right thing.” Neglect. The neglect response passively allows conditions to worsen and includes chronic absenteeism or lateness, reduced effort, and an increased error rate.

Exit and neglect behaviors are linked to performance variables such as productivity, absenteeism, and turnover. But this model expands employee responses to include voice and loyalty—constructive behaviors that allow indi- viduals to tolerate unpleasant situations or improve working conditions.

The model helps us understand various situations. For instance, union mem- bers often express dissatisfaction through the grievance procedure or formal contract negotiations. These voice mechanisms allow them to continue in their jobs while acting to improve the situation.

As helpful as this framework is, it’s quite general. We will next address coun- terproductive work behavior, a behavioral response to job dissatisfaction.

Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB) Substance abuse, stealing at work, undue socializing, gossiping, absenteeism, and tardiness are examples of behaviors that are destructive to organizations. They are indicators of a broader syndrome called counterproductive work behavior (CWB), also termed deviant behavior in the workplace, or simply em- ployee withdrawal (see Chapter 1).58 Like other behaviors we have discussed, CWB doesn’t just happen—the behaviors often follow negative and sometimes longstanding attitudes. Therefore, if we can identify the predictors of CWB, we may lessen the probability of its effects.

Generally, job dissatisfaction predicts CWB. People who are not satisfied with their work become frustrated, which lowers their performance59 and makes them more likely to commit CWB.60 Other research suggests that, in addition to vocational misfit (being in the wrong line of work), lack of fit with

loyalty Dissatisfaction expressed by passively waiting for conditions to improve.

neglect Dissatisfaction expressed through allowing conditions to worsen.

counterproductive work behavior (CWB) Actions that actively damage the organization, including stealing, behaving aggressively toward coworkers, or being late or absent.

Responses to Dissatisfaction

Active

Constructive Destructive

Passive

VOICE EXIT

LOYALTY NEGLECT

Exhibit 3-6

128 PART 2 The Individual

the organization (working in the wrong kind of organizational culture) also predicts CWBs.61 Our immediate social environment also matters. One German study suggests that we are influenced toward CWB by the norms of our immedi- ate work environment, such that individuals in teams with high absenteeism are more likely to be absent themselves.62 CWB can, furthermore, be a response to abusive supervision from managers, which then increases the abuse, starting a vicious cycle.63

One important point about CWB is that dissatisfied employees often choose one or more of these specific behaviors due to idiosyncratic factors. One worker might quit. Another might use work time to surf the Internet or take work supplies home for personal use. In short, workers who don’t like their jobs “get even” in various ways. Because those ways can be quite creative, con- trolling only one behavior with policies and punishments leaves the root cause untouched. Employers should seek to correct the source of the problem—the dissatisfaction—rather than try to control the different responses.

According to U.K. research, sometimes CWB is an emotional reaction to perceived unfairness, a way to try to restore an employee’s sense of equity exchange.64 It therefore has complex ethical implications. For example, is someone who takes a box of markers home from the office for his children acting ethically? Some people consider this stealing. Others may want to look at moderating factors such as the employee’s contribution to the organization before they decide. Does the person generously give extra time and effort to the organization, with little thanks or compensation? If so, they might see CWB behavior as part of an attempt to “even the score.”

As a manager, you can take steps to mitigate CWB. You can poll employee attitudes, for instance, and identify areas for workplace improvement. If there is no vocational fit, the employee will not be fulfilled,65 so you can screen for that. Tailoring tasks so a person’s abilities and values can be exercised should increase job satisfaction and reduce CWB.66 Furthermore, creating strong teams, integrating supervisors with them, providing formalized team policies, and introducing team-based incentives may help lower the CWB “contagion” that lowers the standards of the group.67

Absenteeism We find a consistent negative relationship between satisfac- tion and absenteeism, but the relationship is moderate to weak.68 Generally, when numerous alternative jobs are available, dissatisfied employees have high absence rates, but when there are few alternatives, dissatisfied employees have the same (low) rate of absence as satisfied employees.69 Organizations that provide liberal sick leave benefits are encouraging all their employees— including those who are highly satisfied—to take days off. You can find work satisfying yet still want to enjoy a 3-day weekend if those days come free with no penalties.

Turnover The relationship between job satisfaction and turnover is stronger than between satisfaction and absenteeism.70 Overall, a pattern of lowered job satisfaction is the best predictor of intent to leave. Turnover has a workplace en- vironment connection too. If the climate within an employee’s immediate work- place is one of low job satisfaction leading to turnover, there will be a contagion effect. This suggests managers consider the job satisfaction (and turnover) pat- terns of coworkers when assigning workers to a new area.71

The satisfaction–turnover relationship is affected by alternative job pros- pects. If an employee accepts an unsolicited job offer, job dissatisfaction was less predictive of turnover because the employee more likely left in response to “pull” (the lure of the other job) than “push” (the unattractiveness of the

Attitudes and Job Satisfaction CHAPTER 3 129

current job). Similarly, job dissatisfaction is more likely to translate into turn- over when other employment opportunities are plentiful. Furthermore, when employees have high “human capital” (high education, high ability), job dissat- isfaction is more likely to translate into turnover because they have, or perceive, many available alternatives.72

There are some factors that help break the dissatisfaction–turnover relation- ship. Employees’ embeddedness—connections to the job and community— can help lower the probability of turnover, particularly in collectivist (group- oriented) cultures.73 Embedded employees seem less likely to want to consider alternative job prospects.

Managers Often “Don’t Get It” Given the evidence we’ve just reviewed, it should come as no surprise that job satisfaction can affect the bottom line. One study by a management consulting firm separated large organizations into those with high morale (more than 70 percent of employees expressed overall job satisfaction) and medium or low morale (fewer than 70 percent). The stock prices of companies in the high- morale group grew 19.4 percent, compared with 10 percent for the medium- or low-morale group. Despite these results, many managers are unconcerned about employee job satisfaction. Others overestimate how satisfied employees are, so they don’t think there’s a problem when there is. In one study of 262 large employers, 86 percent of senior managers believed their organizations

T here are exceptions, of course, but this statement is basically true. A glance at Fortune’s Best Compa-

nies to Work For list, where companies are chosen by the happiness induce- ments they provide, reveals recogniz- able profit leaders: Google, SAS, Edward Jones, and REI, to name a few. However, all happiness is not created equal.

An employee who is happy because her coworker did most of the work on her team’s project isn’t necessarily go- ing to work harder, for instance. Some happiness-inducers also seem unrelat- ed to profit increases, such as Google’s bowling alley and Irish pub, Facebook’s free chocolate lunches, and Salesforce. com’s off-the-charts parties. Traditional benefits programs also don’t necessar- ily yield higher job satisfaction, produc- tivity, and profits. Research indicates employees highly value paid time off, a retirement plan such as a 401(k),

and lower health premiums. But many companies offer these benefits and are nowhere near the Fortune 500 organi- zations in profits.

It turns out that the value of keep- ing happiness in the profit equation may be felt in the level of employee en- gagement. As Julie Gebauer, a manag- ing director for consulting firm Towers Watson, said, “It’s not just about mak- ing them happy—that’s not a business issue. Engagement is.” Job engage- ment “represents employees’ commit- ment . . . and the level of discretionary effort  they are willing to put forth at work,” wrote Jack in the Box’s Execu- tive VP Mark Blankenship. Happy em- ployees with higher job engagement are willing to work hard, make customers happy, and stay with the company— three factors that affect the bottom line in a big way. Conversely, a review of 300 studies revealed that turnover rates re-

sulting from poor attitudes or low en- gagement led to poorer organizational performance.

So the moral of the story seems to be this: treat others as we want to be treated in the workplace. It’s just good business.

Sources: M. H. Blankenship, “Happier Employees + Happier Customers = More Profit,” HR Magazine, July 2012, 36–38; A. Edmans, “The Link between Job Satisfac- tion and Firm Value, with Implications for Corporate Social Responsibility,” Academy of Management Perspectives (November 2012): 1–19; “Getting Them to Stay,” Work- force Management (February 2013): 19; J. K. Harter et al., “Causal Impact of Employee Work Perceptions on the Bottom Line of Or- ganizations,” Perspectives on Psychological Science (July 2010): 378–89; T.-Y. Park and J. D. Shaw, “Turnover Rates and Organiza- tional Performance: A Meta-Analysis,” Jour- nal of Applied Psychology (March 2013): 268–309; and J. Waggoner, “Do Happy Workers Mean Higher Profit?” USA Today, February 20, 2013, B1–B2.

Happy Workers Means Happy Profits Myth or Science?

130 PART 2 The Individual

treated employees well, but only 55 percent of employees agreed. Another study found 55 percent of managers thought morale was good in their organization, compared to only 38 percent of employees.74

Regular surveys can reduce gaps between what managers think employees feel and what they really feel. A gap in understanding can affect the bottom line in small franchise sites as well as in large companies. As manager of a KFC res- taurant in Houston, Jonathan McDaniel surveyed his employees every 3 months. Some results led him to make changes, such as giving employees greater say about which workdays they had off. However, McDaniel believed the process itself was valuable. “They really love giving their opinions,” he said. “That’s the most important part of it—that they have a voice and that they’re heard.” Surveys are no panacea, but if job attitudes are as important as we believe, organizations need to use every reasonable method find out how they can be improved.75

Summary Managers should be interested in their employees’ attitudes because attitudes influence behavior and indicate potential problems. Creating a satisfied work- force is hardly a guarantee of successful organizational performance, but evi- dence strongly suggests managers’ efforts to improve employee attitudes will likely result in positive outcomes, including greater organizational effectiveness, higher customer satisfaction, and increased profits.

Implications for Managers ● Of the major job attitudes—job satisfaction, job involvement, organiza-

tional commitment, perceived organizational support (POS), and em- ployee engagement—remember that an employee’s job satisfaction level is the best single predictor of behavior.

● Pay attention to your employees’ job satisfaction levels as determinants of their performance, turnover, absenteeism, and withdrawal behaviors.

● Measure employee job attitudes objectively and at regular intervals in or- der to determine how employees are reacting to their work.

● To raise employee satisfaction, evaluate the fit between the employee’s work interests and the intrinsic parts of the job; then create work that is challenging and interesting to the individual.

● Consider the fact that high pay alone is unlikely to create a satisfying work environment.

Attitudes and Job Satisfaction CHAPTER 3 131

Employer–Employee Loyalty Is an Outdated Concept

T he word loyalty is horribly outdated. Long gone are the days when an employer would keep an employee for life, as are the days when an employee would want to work for a single com-

pany for an entire career. Professor Linda Gratton says, “Loyalty is dead—killed off through

shortening contracts, outsourcing, automation, and multiple careers. Faced with what could be 50 years of work, who honestly wants to spend that much time with one company? Serial monogamy is the order of the day.” Many employers agree; only 59 percent of employers report feeling loyal to their employees, while a mere 32 percent believe their employees are loyal to them.

The loyalty on each side of the equation is weak. For the most part, this is warranted—why retain employees who are subpar performers? It’s only a matter of the employer handling the loyalty of employees with respect. Admittedly, some breaches happen. For example, Re- nault ended the 31-year career of employee Michel Balthazard (and two others) on false charges of espionage. When the wrongness of the charges became public, Renault halfheartedly offered the employees their jobs back and a lame apology: “Renault thanks them for the quality of their work at the group and wishes them every success in the future.”

As for employees’ loyalty to their employers, that is worth little nowadays. One manager with Deloitte says the current employee at- titude is, “I’m leaving, I had a great experience, and I’m taking that with me.” There just isn’t an expectation of loyalty. In fact, only 9 percent of recent college graduates would stay with an employer for more than a year if they didn’t like the job, research indicated. But there is nothing wrong with this. A “loyal” employee who stays with the organization but isn’t satisfied with the job can do a lot of damage. At best, this person will be less productive. At worst, he or she can engage in years’ worth of damaging CWB. For the worker, staying with an organization forever—no matter what—can limit career and income prospects.

The sooner we see the employment experience for what it is (most- ly transactional, mostly short- to medium-term), the better off we’ll be. The workplace is no place for fantasies of loyalty.

POINT

A greed: the word loyalty is outdated when it refers to employers and employees. But the basic concept is valid in the work- place. We now just measure loyalty with finer measurements

such as organizational trust and organizational commitment. There certainly are employers and employees who show little loyalty to each other, but that isn’t the norm.

Says management guru Tom Peters, “Bottom line: loyalty matters. A lot. Yesterday. Today. Tomorrow.” University of Michigan’s Dave Ulrich says, “Leaders who encourage loyalty want employees who are not only committed to and engaged in their work but who also find meaning from it.” Commitment. Engagement. Trust. These are some of the build- ing blocks of loyalty.

It is true that the employer–employee relationship has changed. For example, (largely) gone are the days when employers provided guaranteed payout pensions to which employees contribute nothing. But is that such a bad thing? Many employers have helped employees take charge of their own retirement plans.

Moreover, it’s not that loyalty is dead, but rather that employers are loyal to a different kind of employee. True, employers no longer re- fuse to fire a long-tenured but incompetent employee, which is a good thing. These employees can bring down everyone’s productivity and morale. Furthermore, in a globalized world where customer options are plentiful, organizations with “deadwood”—people who don’t contrib- ute—will not be competitive enough to survive. Companies are instead loyal to employees who do their jobs well, and that is as it should be.

In short, employees become loyal—trusting, engaged, and committed—when organizations and their people act decently. Employ- ers with superior managers who empower their employees obtain high levels of this kind of loyalty. A true reciprocal relationship is a stronger business model than employees staying with an organization for years in exchange for an organization’s caretaking. Bonds of trust and loyalty rest on the relationships of individuals. Workplace psychologist Binna Kandola observes, “Workplaces may have changed but loyalty is not dead—the bonds between people are too strong.”

COUNTERPOINT

Sources: “If You Started a Job and You Didn’t Like It, How Long Would You Stay?” USA Today, June 11, 2012, 1B; O. Gough and S. Arkani, “The Impact of the Shifting Pensions Landscape on the Psychological Contract,” Personnel Review 40, no. 2 (2011): 173–84; “Loyalty Gap Widens,” USA Today, May 16, 2012, 1B; P. Korkki, “The Shifting Definition of Worker Loyalty,” The New York Times, April 24, 2011, BU8; I. Macsinga, C. Sulea, P. Sarbescu, and C. Dumitru, “Engaged, Committed and Helpful Employees: The Role of Psychological Empowerment,” Journal of Psychology 19, no. 3, 263–76; M. Top, M. Akdere, and M. Tarcan, “Examining Transformational Leadership, Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and Organizational Trust in Turkish Hospitals: Public Servants versus Private Sector Employees,” International Journal of Human Resource Management 26, no. 9 (2015): 1259–82; and “Is Workplace Loyalty an Outmoded Concept?” Financial Times, March 8, 2011, www .ft.com/, accessed July 29, 2015.

132 PART 2 The Individual

CHAPTER REVIEW

MyManagementLab Go to mymanagementlab.com to complete the problems marked with this icon.

QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW 3-1 What are the three components of attitudes?

3-2 Does behavior always follow from attitudes?

3-3 What are the major job attitudes?

3-4 How do we measure job satisfaction?

3-5 What causes job satisfaction?

3-6 What are the three outcomes of job satisfaction?

3-7 How do employees respond to job satisfaction?

EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISE What Satisfies You about Your Dream Job? Each class member is to write the job title of his or her ideal first job out of college on a small piece of paper. The class then breaks into random teams of five to six people each and completes the following steps:

1. List the top three characteristics each of the members wants from their first job out of college (the aspects that would make them satisfied in the job). Everyone should contribute, and identical ideas should be recorded as often as they occur.

2. Each team should identify whether each job character- istic is an intrinsic satisfier (like working with others, or the job itself) or an extrinsic one (like pay or benefits) by marking an “I” or “E” next to it.

3. Tally the I’s and E’s and write them in descending order. For instance, if pay was mentioned by all the team mem- bers, it goes at the top of the list under “E.”

The class can then reassemble to share their find- ings and discuss the following questions.

Questions

3-8. Is there a consensus in the class about which list is longer (intrinsic or extrinsic)? If so, why do you think one list is longer than the other?

3-9. Is there a consensus about the top three intrinsic or extrinsic characteristics? What do you think explains whether there is or not?

3-10. Looking at your individual dream job title, how likely do you think your job is to match the characteristics generated by the class? How likely do you think your job is to match your top three characteristics?

If you work at L’Oréal, the company’s meals, gym, massage service, concierge service, day-nursery, and around three months’ salary in profit-sharing schemes may seem a good reason to be very satisfied with your job. Indeed, L’Oréal is among the most sought-after companies to work for, with 1 million applications every year. The 2015 Universum survey, which is conducted yearly in 12 European countries from a sample of 168,000 undergraduate business school students, ranked L’Oréal as the second most preferred employer in Europe.

Innovative recruiting tools such as REVEAL, Brandstorm, and Talentube support L’Oréal’s reputation as an employer of choice by raising youngsters’ positive attitudes toward its

ETHICAL DILEMMA Because It’s Worth It? brands. According to Bocco Chen, Recruitment and Inte- gration Manager at L’Oréal Hong Kong, what makes Brand- storm an efficient assessing tool is that competing teams of students from renowned business schools and universi- ties play the role of a brand manager by analyzing market trends and creating product packaging so that they experi- ence real work situations at L’Oréal and can connect with their potential future jobs. In France, 90 percent of all new recruits at L’Oréal were interns, the reasoning being that internships serve to build future employees’ organizational commitment. Before taking up any managerial position, new recruits are all sent on the road for six to twelve months to stack products on shelves at 5am in supermarkets. It is

Attitudes and Job Satisfaction CHAPTER 3 133

an ordeal. Candidates are reportedly thrown in at the deep end and forced to learn on their own. The job allows little time for socialization outside the organization. Being part of L’Oréal has been described as “cult-like.” In-the-field ini- tiations serve as filters. You must be highly engaged by your job even if you feel a lack of organizational support, or you will be seen as weak—and the weakest do not last.

Everyone has key objectives and accountabilities. To ensure that employees will be devoted to their job and perform up to its standards, L’Oréal has five Development and Learning Centers worldwide. Each Oréalien has per- sonalized access to learning modules that enable them to meet the needs of each function. To track and promote the most talented Oréaliens, L’Oréal has a sharp manage- ment and performance appraisal process. Managers with strong potential who have completed several successful projects will be promoted every two or three years.

Indeed, at L’Oréal, careers can be built quicker than else- where, but you have to first survive several challenges. Man- agers can be intransigent with employees who are dissatisfied with their jobs and also underperform, for staff satisfaction

surveys at L’Oréal show these employees often exhibit be- haviors that demotivate their colleagues. Twice a year, the L’Oréal international brand directors present their launch campaigns. Through this presentation and several others, top managers aim to spread a so-called “healthy worry” among Oréaliens. They also make and break many careers. One Oréalien said that she understood what humiliation re- ally meant when she saw a colleague publically fired during one such meeting. And yet, to her, “L’Oréal is worth it.”

Questions

3-11. What positive and negative outcomes can L’Oréal expect from its Oréaliens’ devotion? To what extent do you think employers should require their em- ployees to be totally devoted to their company?

3-12. How would you react if one of your peers were humiliated and then fired by your common su- pervisor during a meeting?

3-13. How can companies satisfy their employees? Should companies offer their employees the best work conditions or the most challenging responsibilities?

The management team at Learner’s Edge, an online con- tinuing education company, decided to adopt a ROWE (results-only work environment) policy, developed by Best Buy employees and summarized in its slogan, “Work whenever you want, wherever you want, as long as the work gets done.” Kyle Pederson was one of only three Learner’s Edge employees who showed up the first day of the ROWE experiment. And the second day, and the third.

“For almost a month, everyone cleared out,” Pederson said. “It was just me, my co-founder and our executive di- rector all wondering, ‘What on earth have we done?’ ”

Clearly, employees were testing the outer limits of work- place flexibility. Thankfully, it paid off. Learner’s Edge re- ported “better work, higher productivity” after the initial phase of the program. It seems employees knew the ways they work best. In fact, some of Pederson’s employees have returned to the office, while others gather at Starbucks or over dinner . . . whatever gets the work done.

Suntell president and COO, Veronica Wooten, whose risk-management software firm adopted the ROWE pro- gram a few years ago, is also a fan of the flexible workplace. “We made the transition, and started letting go and let- ting people make their own decisions,” Wooten said. As a result of workplace flexibility, the company’s customer

CASE INCIDENT 1 The Pursuit of Happiness: Flexibility base increased 20 percent, meetings were reduced by 50  percent, and expenses decreased 12 percent (Wooten used the savings to give everyone a raise).

It seems that everyone should be happy with this ulti- mate degree of job flexibility. Employees worldwide do seem to increasingly value flexible work environments, with roughly two of three workers of all ages wanting to work from home, at least occasionally. However, the ben- efit may not be as great for some people. In a recent study, 62 percent of respondents believed that Gen X individuals benefit most from flexibility arrangements, 35 percent be- lieved Gen Y individuals benefit most, and only 3 percent believed baby boomers benefit most.

Research correlates job satisfaction most strongly with the nature of the work itself, not the location where it is performed. Thus, while as employees we say we want flex- ibility, what actually makes us satisfied is often something else. Then there are the costs of such work arrangements. Employers such as Yahoo!’s Marissa Mayer have thought that flexible workers become detached from the organi- zation, communicate less, are less available, and lose the benefits of teamwork. Employees have concerns about long periods of working away from the office: Will out of sight mean out of mind to their employers?

Sources: H.J. Hong and Y.L. Doz, “L’Oréal Masters Multiculturalism,” Harvard Business Review, June 2013; B. Iyer and T.H. Davenport, “Reverse Engineering Google’s Innovation Machine,” Harvard Busi- ness Review, April 2008; E. Botta, “L’Oréal, la machine à fabriquer des cracks,” Management, November 2010; M. Durin-Valois, “Il était une fois… L’Oréal,” Le Figaro Magazine, August 2009; loreal.com; glassdoor.com; universumglobal.com.

134 PART 2 The Individual

For ROWE or any flexible arrangement to work, organi- zations need to create clear job descriptions, set attainable goals, and rely on strong metrics to indicate productivity. Managers need to foster close connections and communi- cate meaningfully to keep flexible workers engaged in the company, its culture, and its processes. Most importantly, employees need to get the work done, no matter where and when they do it.

Questions

3-14. Do you think only certain individuals are attracted to flexible work arrangements? Why or why not?

3-15. How might flexible work place more pressure on managers to organize their employees?

3-16. How might flexible work affect a company’s bottom line?

Sources: “The 2015 Workplace Flexibility Study,” WorkplaceTrends (February 3, 2015), https:// workplacetrends.com/the-2015-workplace-flexibility-study/; L. Belkin, “Is ROWE the Future of Work? Or an Unworkable Fantasy?” The Huffington Post Business (April 17, 2013), www.huffingtonpost .com/2013/04/15/rowe-future-work_n_3084426.html; R. R. Hastings, “Full Engagement Lack- ing Around World,” Society for Human Resources Management ( January 3, 2011), www.shrm.org/ hrdisciplines/employeerelations/articles/Pages/FullEngagementLacking.aspx; A. McGrory- Dixon, “Workplace Flexibility, Equity Important for Millennials,” Benefits Pro (April 19, 2013), www .benefitspro.com/2013/04/19/workplace-flexibility-equity-important-for-millenn; and F. Origo and L. Pagani, “Workplace Flexibility and Job Satisfaction: Some Evidence from Europe,” Interna- tional Journal of Manpower 29 (2008): 539–66.

Consider for a moment a midlevel manager, Fatima, who seems to be doing well. She’s consistently making her re- quired benchmarks and goals, she has built successful re- lationships with colleagues, and senior management has identified her as having “high potential.” But she isn’t satisfied in her job. She’d be interested in understanding how her organization can use social media in marketing ef- forts at all levels of the organization, for example, but her job doesn’t allow her to work on this. She wants to quit and find something that better suits her passions, but in her economic situation this may not be an option. So she has decided to proactively reconfigure her current job.

Fatima is part of a movement toward job “crafting,” which is the process of deliberately reorganizing your job so that it better fits your motives, strengths, and pas- sions. So how did Fatima craft her job? She first noticed that she was spending too much of her time monitoring her team’s performance and answering questions, and not enough time working on the creative projects that inspire her. She then considered how to modify her relationship with the team so that her activities incorporated her pas- sion for social media strategies, with the team’s activities more centered on developing new marketing. She also identified members of her team who might be able to help her implement her new strategies and directed her

CASE INCIDENT 2 Job Crafting interactions with these individuals toward her new goals. As a result, not only did her engagement in her work increase, but she also developed new ideas that were recognized and advanced within the organization. In sum, she found that by actively and creatively examining her work, she was able to shape her job into one that is truly satisfying.

As you may have noted, Fatima exhibited a proactive personality—she was eager to develop her own options and find her own resources. Proactive individuals are often self- empowered and are, therefore, more likely to seek work- able solutions when they are not satisfied. Research leads us to believe Fatima will be successful in her customized job and that she will experience increased well-being. To the extent possible, then, all employees should feel encour- aged to be proactive in creating their best work situations.

Questions

3-17. Fatima chose to remain in her old job rather than looking for a new one elsewhere. What are her constraints?

3-18. Fatima is described as having a proactive personality. What does this mean and what is the pre-requisite for it?

3-19. Are there any potential drawbacks to the job craft- ing approach? If so, how can they be minimized?

Sources: A. B. Bakker, M. Tims, and D. Derks, “Proactive Personality and Job Performance: The Role of Job Crafting and Work Engagement,” Human Relations (October 2012): 1359–78; A. Wrzesniewski, J. M. Berg, and J. E. Dutton, “Turn the Job You Have into the Job You Want,” Harvard Business Review ( June 2010): 114–17; A. Wrzesniewski and J. E. Dutton, “Crafting a Job: Revisioning Employees as Active Crafters of Their Work,” Academy of Management Review 26 (2010): 179–201; and G. R. Slemp and D. A. Vella-Brodrick, “Optimising Employee Mental Health: The Relationship between Intrinsic Need Satisfaction, Job Crafting, and Employee Well-Being,” Journal of Happiness Studies 15, no. 4 (2014): 957–77.

Attitudes and Job Satisfaction CHAPTER 3 135

MyManagementLab Go to mymanagementlab.com for the following Assisted-graded writing questions:

3-20. Based on your reading from this chapter and the Ethical Dilemma, do you feel differently about posting anonymous comments online than you did before? Why or why not?

3-21. In consideration of Case Incident 2, some contend that job crafting sounds good in principle but is not necessarily practical for every job. What types of jobs are probably not good candidates for job crafting activities?

3-22. MyManagementLab Only—comprehensive writing assignment for this chapter.

ENDNOTES 1A. Gengler, “Chained to Your Desk No More,” CNNMoney, April 2014, 53. 2A. Barsky, S. A. Kaplan, and D. J. Beal, “Just Feelings? The Role of Affect in the Formation of Organizational Fairness Judgments,” Journal of Management, January 2011, 248–79; J. A. Mikels, S. J. Maglio, A. E. Reed, and L. J. Kaplowitz, “Should I Go with My Gut? Investigating the Benefits of Emotion- Focused Decision Making,” Emotion, August 2011, 743–53; and A. J. Rojas Tejada, O. M. Lozano Rojas, M. Navas Luque, and P. J. Pérez Moreno, “Prejudiced Attitude Measurement Using the Rasch Scale Model,” Psychological Reports, October 2011, 553–72. 3See L. S. Glasman and D. Ablarracín, “Forming Attitudes That Predict Future Behavior: A Meta-Analysis of the Attitude- Behavior Relation,” Psychological Bulletin, September 2006, 778–822. 4Y. L. Liu and C.-J. Keng, “Cognitive Dissonance, Social Comparison, and Disseminating Untruthful or Negative Truthful EWOM Messages,” Social Behavior and Personality 24, no. 6 (2014): 979–94. 5See, for instance, L. R. Fabrigar, R. E. Petty, S. M. Smith, and S. L. Crites, “Understanding Knowledge Effects on Attitude-Behavior Consistency: The Role of Relevance, Complexity, and Amount of Knowledge,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90, no. 4 (2006): 556–77; and D. J. Schleicher, J. D. Watt, and G. J. Greguras, “Reexamining the Job Satisfaction-Performance Relationship: The Complexity of Attitudes,” Journal of Applied Psychology 89, no. 1 (2004): 165–77. 6A. S. McCance, C. D. Nye, L. Wang, K. S. Jones, and C. Chiu, “Alleviating the Burden of Emotional Labor: The Role of Social Sharing,” Journal of Management, February 2013, 392–415. 7Ibid. 8D. P. Moynihan and S. K. Pandey, “Finding Workable Levers over Work Motivation: Comparing Job Satisfaction, Job Involvement, and Organizational Commitment,” Administration & Society 39, no. 7 (2007): 803–32.

9S. Zhang, “Impact of Job Involvement on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors in China,” Journal of Business Ethics 120 (2014): 165–74. 10G. Chen and R. J. Klimoski, “The Impact of Expectations on Newcomer Performance in Teams as Mediated by Work Characteristics, Social Exchanges, and Empowerment,” Academy of Management Journal 46, no. 5 (2003): 591–607; A. Ergeneli, G. Saglam, and S. Metin, “Psychological Empowerment and Its Relationship to Trust in Immediate Managers,” Journal of Business Research, January 2007, 41–49; and S. E. Seibert, S. R. Silver, and W. A. Randolph, “Taking Empowerment to the Next Level: A Multiple-Level Model of Empowerment, Performance, and Satisfaction,” Academy of Management Journal 47, no. 3 (2004): 332–49. 11B. J. Avolio, W. Zhu, W. Koh, and P. Bhatia, “Transformational Leadership and Organizational Commitment: Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment and Moderating Role of Structural Distance,” Journal of Organizational Behavior 25, no. 8 (2004): 951–68. 12O. N. Solinger, W. van Olffen, and R. A. Roe, “Beyond the Three-Component Model of Organizational Commitment,” Journal of Applied Psychology 93 (2008): 70–83. 13J. P. Hausknecht, N. J. Hiller, and R. J. Vance, “Work-Unit Absenteeism: Effects of Satisfaction, Commitment, Labor Market Conditions, and Time,” Academy of Management Journal 51 (2008): 1223–45. 14“100 Best Companies to Work For,” Fortune, February 2015, www.fortune.com/best- companies/, accessed March 16, 2015. 15L. Rhoades, R. Eisenberger, and S. Armeli, “Affective Commitment to the Organization: The Contribution of Perceived Organizational Support,” Journal of Applied Psychology 86, no. 5 (2001): 825–36. 16B. L. Rich, J. A. Lepine, and E. R. Crawford, “Job Engagement: Antecedents and Effects on Job Performance,” Academy of Management Journal 53 (2010): 617–35.

17J. K. Harter, F. L. Schmidt, and T. L. Hayes, “Business-Unit-Level Relationship between Employee Satisfaction, Employee Engagement, and Business Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Applied Psychology 87, no. 2 (2002): 268–79. 18N. R. Lockwood, Leveraging Employee Engagement for Competitive Advantage (Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management, 2007); and R. J. Vance, Employee Engagement and Commitment (Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management, 2006). 19“Employee Engagement,” Workforce Management, February 2013, 19; and “The Cornerstone OnDemand, 2013, U.S. Employee Report,” Cornerstone OnDemand, 2013, www.cornerstoneondemand.com/ resources/research/survey-2013. 20Y. Brunetto, S. T. T. Teo, K. Shacklock, and R. Farr-Wharton, “Emotional Intelligence, Job Satisfaction, Well- being and Engagement: Explaining Organisational Commitment and Turnover Intentions in Policing,” Human Resource Management Journal, 2012, 428–41. 21P. Petrou, E. Demerouti, M. C. W. Peeters, W. B. Schaufeli, and Jørn Hetland, “Crafting a Job on a Daily Basis: Contextual Correlates and the Link to Work Engagement,” Journal of Organizational Behavior, November 2012, 1120–41. 22W. H. Macey and B. Schneider, “The Meaning of Employee Engagement,” Industrial and Organizational Psychology 1 (2008): 3–30; and A. Saks, “The Meaning and Bleeding of Employee Engagement: How Muddy Is the Water?” Industrial and Organizational Psychology 1 (2008): 40–43. 23C. L. Dolbier, J. A. Webster, K. T. McCalister, M. W. Mallon, and M. A. Steinhardt, “Reliability and Validity of a Single-Item Measure of Job Satisfaction,” American Journal of Health Promotion, January–February 2005, 194–98.

136 PART 2 The Individual

24N. A. Bowling, M. R. Hoepf, D. M. LaHuis, and L. R. Lepisto, “Mean Job Satisfaction Levels over Time: Are Things Bad and Getting Worse?” The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, April 2013, 57–64. 25L. Weber, “U.S. Workers Can’t Get No ( Job) Satisfaction,” The Wall Street Journal, June 18, 2014, http://blogs.wsj.com/ atwork/2014/06/18/u-s-workers-cant-get-no- job-satisfaction/. 26“Job Satisfaction: 2014 Edition,” The Conference Board, https://www.conference- board.org/topics/publicationdetail.cfm? publicationid=2785. 27L. Weber, “U.S. Workers Can’t Get No ( Job) Satisfaction.” 28World Business Culture, “Doing Business in South Korea,” www.worldbusinessculture .com/Business-in-South-Korea.html, accessed July 29, 2015. 29S. E. Humphrey, J. D. Nahrgang, and F. P. Morgeson, “Integrating Motivational, Social, and Contextual Work Design Features: A Meta-Analytic Summary and Theoretical Extension of the Work Design Literature,” Journal of Applied Psychology 92, no. 5 (2007): 1332–56; and D. S. Chiaburu and D. A. Harrison, “Do Peers Make the Place? Conceptual Synthesis and Meta-Analysis of Coworker Effect on Perceptions, Attitudes, OCBs, and Performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology 93, no. 5 (2008): 1082–103. 30K. H. Fong and E. Snape, “Empowering Leadership, Psychological Empowerment and Employee Outcomes: Testing a Multi- Level Mediating Model,” British Journal of Management 26 (2015): 126–38. 31S. Ronen, M. Mikulincer, “Predicting Employees’ Satisfaction and Burnout from Managers’ Attachment and Caregiving Orientations,” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 21, no. 6 (2012): 828–49. 32A. Calvo-Salguero, J.-M. Salinas Martinez- de-Lecea, and A.-M. Carrasco-Gonzalez, “Work-Family and Family-Work Conflict: Does Intrinsic-Extrinsic Satisfaction Mediate the Prediction of General Job Satisfaction?” The Journal of Psychology 145, no. 5 (2011): 435–61. 33J. Zhang, Q. Wu, D. Miao, X. Yan, and J. Peng, “The Impact of Core Self-Evaluations on Job Satisfaction: The Mediator Role of Career Commitment,” Social Indicators Research 116, no. 3 (2014): 809–22. 34D. Thorpe, “Why CSR? The Benefits of Corporate Social Responsibility Will Move You to Act,” Forbes (May 18, 2013), http://www .forbes.com/sites/devinthorpe/2013/05/18/ why-csr-the-benefits-of-corporate-social- responsibility-will-move-you-to-act/. 35N. Fallon, “What Is Corporate Responsibility?” Business News Daily (December 22, 2014), http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/4679- corporate-social-responsibility.html.

36R. Feintzeig, “I Don’t Have a Job. I Have a Higher Calling,” The Wall Street Journal, February 25, 2015, B1, B4. 37See I. Filatotchev and C. Nakajima, “Corporate Governance, Responsible Managerial Behavior, and Corporate Social Responsibility: Organizational Efficiency ver- sus Organizational Legitimacy?” The Academy of Management Perspectives 28, no. 3 (2014): 289–306. 38A. Hurst, “Being ‘Good’ Isn’t the Only Way to Go,” The New York Times, April 20, 2014, 4. 39D. Thorpe, “Why CSR? The Benefits of Corporate Social Responsibility Will Move You to Act.” 40M. C. Bolino, H.-H. Hsiung, J. Harvey, and J. A. LePine, “’Well, I’m Tired of Tryin’! Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Citizenship Fatigue,” Journal of Applied Psychology 100, no. 1 (2015): 56–74. 41G. E. Newman and D. M. Cain, “Tainted Altruism: When Doing Some Good Is Evaluated as Doing Worse Than Doing No Good at All,” Psychological Science 25, no. 3 (2014): 648–55. 42Ibid. 43Ibid. 44T. A. Judge, C. J. Thoresen, J. E. Bono, and G. K. Patton, “The Job Satisfaction–Job Performance Relationship: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review,” Psychological Bulletin, May 2001, 376–407. 45See P. M. Podsakoff, S. B. MacKenzie, J. B. Paine, and D. G. Bachrach, “Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Critical Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature and Suggestions for Future Research,” Journal of Management 26, no. 3 (2000): 513–63. 46B. J. Hoffman, C. A. Blair, J. P. Maeriac, and D. J. Woehr, “Expanding the Criterion Domain? A Quantitative Review of the OCB Literature,” Journal of Applied Psychology 92, no. 2 (2007): 555–66. 47B. B. Reiche et al., “Why Do Managers Engage in Trustworthy Behavior? A Multilevel Cross-Cultural Study in 18 Countries,” Personnel Psychology 67 (2014): 61–98. 48D. S. Chiaburu and D. A. Harrison, “Do Peers Make the Place? Conceptual Synthesis and Meta-Analysis of Coworker Effect on Perceptions, Attitudes, OCBs, and Performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology 93, no. 5 (2008): 1082–103. 49R. Ilies, I. S. Fulmer, M. Spitzmuller, and M. D. Johnson, “Personality and Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction,” Journal of Applied Psychology 94 (2009): 945–59. 50G. L. Lemoine, C. K. Parsons, and S. Kansara, “Above and Beyond, Again and Again: Self-Regulation in the Aftermath of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors,” Journal of Applied Psychology 100, no. 1 (2015): 40–55. 51C. Vandenberghe, K. Bentein, R. Michon, J. Chebat, M. Tremblay, and J. Fils, “An

Examination of the Role of Perceived Support and Employee Commitment in Employee-Customer Encounters,” Journal of Applied Psychology 92, no. 4 (2007): 1177–87; and M. Schulte, C. Ostroff, S. Shmulyian, and A. Kinicki, “Organizational Climate Configurations: Relationships to Collective Attitudes, Customer Satisfaction, and Financial Performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology 94 (2009): 618–34. 52B. Taylor, “Why Amazon Is Copying Zappos and Paying Employees to Quit,” Harvard Business Review, April 14, 2014, https://hbr .org/2014/04/why-amazon-is-copying-zappos- and-paying-employees-to-quit/. 53J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway, and R. D. Iverson, “High-Quality Work, Job Satisfaction, and Occupational Injuries,” Journal of Applied Psychology 88, no. 2 (2003): 276–83; and F. W. Bond and D. Bunce, “The Role of Acceptance and Job Control in Mental Health, Job Satisfaction, and Work Performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology 88, no. 6 (2003): 1057–67. 54Y. Georgellis and T. Lange, “Traditional versus Secular Values and the Job-Life Satisfaction Relationship across Europe,” British Journal of Management 23 (2012): 437–54. 55O. Stavrova, T. Schlosser, and A. Baumert, “Life Satisfaction and Job-Seeking Behavior of the Unemployed: The Effect of Individual Differences in Justice Sensitivity,” Applied Psychology: An International Review 64, no. 4 (2014): 643–70. 56J. Zhou and J. M. George, “When Job Dissatisfaction Leads to Creativity: Encouraging the Expression of Voice,” Academy of Management Journal, August 2001, 682–96; J. B. Olson-Buchanan and W. R. Boswell, “The Role of Employee Loyalty and Formality in Voicing Discontent,” Journal of Applied Psychology, December 2002, 1167–74; and A. Davis-Blake, J. P. Broschak, and E. George, “Happy Together? How Using Nonstandard Workers Affects Exit, Voice, and Loyalty among Standard Employees,” Academy of Management Journal 46, no. 4 (2003): 475–85. 57A. J. Nyberg and R. E. Ployhart, “Context- Emergent Turnover (CET) Theory: A Theory of Collective Turnover,” Academy of Management Review 38 (2013): 109–31. 58P. E. Spector, S. Fox, L. M. Penney, K. Bruursema, A. Goh, and S. Kessler, “The Dimensionality of Counterproductivity: Are All Counterproductive Behaviors Created Equal?” Journal of Vocational Behavior 68, no. 3 (2006): 446–60; and D. S. Chiaburu and D. A. Harrison, “Do Peers Make the Place? Conceptual Synthesis and Meta-Analysis of Coworker Effect on Perceptions, Attitudes, OCBs, and Performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology 93, no. 5 (2008): 1082–103. 59P. A. O’Keefe, “Liking Work Really Does Matter,” The New York Times, September 7, 2014, 12.

Attitudes and Job Satisfaction CHAPTER 3 137

60D. Iliescu, D. Ispas, C. Sulea, and A. Ilie, “Vocational Fit and Counterproductive Work Behaviors: A Self-Regulation Perspective,” Journal of Applied Psychology 100, no. 1 (2015): 21–39. 61A. S. Gabriel, J. M. Diefendorff, M. M. Chandler, C. M. M. Pradco, and G. J. Greguras, “The Dynamic Relationships of Work Affect and Job Satisfaction with Perceptions of Fit,” Personnel Psychology 67 (2014): 389–420. 62S. Diestel, J. Wegge, and K.-H. Schmidt, “The Impact of Social Context on the Relationship between Individual Job Satisfaction and Absenteeism: The Roles of Different Foci of Job Satisfaction and Work- Unit Absenteeism,” Academy of Management Journal 57, no. 2 (2014): 353–82. 63H. Lian, D. L. Ferris, R. Morrison, and D. J. Brown, “Blame It on the Supervisor or the Subordinate? Reciprocal Relations between Abusive Supervision and Organizational Deviance,” Journal of Applied Psychology 99, no. 4 (2014): 651–64. 64T. A. Beauregard, “Fairness Perceptions of Work-Life Balance Initiatives; Effects on Counterproductive Work Behavior,” British Journal of Management 25 (2014): 772–89. 65D. Iliescu, D. Ispas, C. Sulea, and A. Ilie, “Vocational Fit and Counterproductive Work Behaviors: A Self-Regulation Perspective.”

66A. S. Gabriel, J. M. Diefendorff, M. M. Chandler, C. M. M. Pradco, and G. J. Greguras, “The Dynamic Relationships of Work Affect and Job Satisfaction with Perceptions of Fit.” 67S. Diestel, J. Wegge, and K.-H. Schmidt, “The Impact of Social Context on the Relationship between Individual Job Satisfaction and Absenteeism: The Roles of Different Foci of Job Satisfaction and Work- Unit Absenteeism.” 68J. F. Ybema, P. G. W. Smulders, and P. M. Bongers, “Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Absenteeism: A Longitudinal Perspective on the Role of Job Satisfaction and Burnout,” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 19 (2010): 102–24. 69J. P. Hausknecht, N. J. Hiller, and R. J. Vance, “Work-Unit Absenteeism: Effects of Satisfaction, Commitment, Labor Market Conditions, and Time,” Academy of Management Journal 51, no. 6 (2008): 1123–245. 70G. Chen, R. E. Ployhart, H. C. Thomas, N. Anderson, and P. D. Bliese, “The Power of Momentum: A New Model of Dynamic Relationships between Job Satisfaction Change and Turnover Intentions,” Academy of Management Journal, February 2011, 159–81; and R. W. Griffeth, P. W. Hom, and S. Gaertner, “A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents and Correlates of Employee Turnover:

Update, Moderator Tests, and Research Implications for the Next Millennium,” Journal of Management 26, no. 3 (2000): 479. 71D. Liu, T. R. Mitchell, T. W. Lee, B. C. Holtom, and T. R. Hinkin, “When Employees Are Out of Step with Coworkers: How Job Satisfaction Trajectory and Dispersion Influence Individual- and Unit-Level Voluntary Turnover,” Academy of Management Journal 55, no. 6 (2012): 1360–80. 72T. H. Lee, B. Gerhart, I. Weller, and C. O. Trevor, “Understanding Voluntary Turnover: Path-Specific Job Satisfaction Effects and the Importance of Unsolicited Job Offers,” Academy of Management Journal 51, no. 4 (2008): 651–71. 73K. Jiang, D. Liu, P. F. McKay, T. W. Lee, and T. R. Mitchell, “When and How Is Job Embeddedness Predictive of Turnover? A Meta-Analytic Investigation,” Journal of Applied Psychology 97 (2012): 1077–96. 74K. Holland, “Inside the Minds of Your Employees,” The New York Times, January 28, 2007, B1; “Study Sees Link between Morale and Stock Price,” Workforce Management, February 27, 2006, 15; and “The Workplace as a Solar System,” The New York Times, October 28, 2006, B5. 75E. White, “How Surveying Workers Can Pay Off,” The Wall Street Journal, June 18, 2007, B3.

Emotions and Moods4

138

S o u rc

e : C

h ri sd

o rn

ey /S

h u tt

e rs

to ck