Assignment: Briefing New Managers

The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology

Attitudes: Satisfaction, Commitment and Involvement

Contributors: Author:Marcus Credé

Book Title: The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology

Chapter Title: "Attitudes: Satisfaction, Commitment and Involvement"

Pub. Date: 2018

Access Date: May 2, 2021

Publishing Company: SAGE Publications Ltd

City: 55 City Road

Print ISBN: 9781446207222

Online ISBN: 9781473914957

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781473914957.n2

Print pages: 3-23

© 2018 SAGE Publications Ltd All Rights Reserved.

This PDF has been generated from SAGE Knowledge. Please note that the pagination of the online

version will vary from the pagination of the print book.

Attitudes: Satisfaction, Commitment and Involvement

Attitudes: Satisfaction, Commitment and Involvement Marcus Credé

INTRODUCTION

Based on classic definitions of attitudes (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993), and more recent definitions of specific job attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction, Judge, Hulin, & Dalal, 2012), this chapter defines job attitudes as ‘affective responses to and cognitive evaluations of job experiences and the job situation'. Because job experiences and the job situation are themselves multidimensional many constructs with attitudinal features have been identified and studied. These attitudinal constructs differ primarily with regard to the specificity of the entity being evaluated: some focusing on broad entities such as the organization in which the job is embedded (e.g., organizational commitment, Mowday, Porter & Steers, 1982; Perceived Organizational Support, Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002) or the overall job situation (e.g., overall job satisfaction), while others focus more narrowly on the work being performed (e.g., employee engagement, Macey & Schneider, 2008; job involvement; Brown, 1996), ancillary job features (e.g., perceived coworker support; Zhou & George, 2001) or even specific facets of individual job features such as the degree to which supervisors interact respectfully with subordinates (interpersonal justice, Colquitt et al., 2001).

Rather than attempt to discuss the vast literatures related to each of these constructs this chapter focuses instead on the three constructs that are most widely agreed to be attitudinal in nature: job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and job involvement. Five broad issues are discussed. First, the theoretical nature of these constructs is discussed with a focus on how the understanding of each construct has evolved over time. Second, theories and models of how attitudes are formed and how they are related to workplace outcomes are discussed. Third, the measurement of the three constructs is described. Fourth, this chapter discusses two challenges for job attitude research; one regarding the validity of the most widely studied model of organizational commitment, the other relating to the manner in which these attitude constructs are related to each other. The chapter concludes with a discussion of research on these three attitude constructs from an international perspective with suggestions as to how variability across countries and cultures might be further explored and how past findings might be synthesized.

JOB SATISFACTION

Modern conceptualizations of job satisfaction share two features. First, job satisfaction is multidimensional and organized hierarchically such that overall job satisfaction is determined by an aggregation of satisfaction with specific facets of the job (e.g., pay, coworkers). As such overall job satisfaction is a formative (or aggregate) construct and not a reflective higher-order construct (Law, Wong, & Mobley, 1998) like most other higher-order constructs (e.g., core self-evaluations; Judge, Locke, & Durham, 1997). Second, job satisfaction has both affective and cognitive components. Earlier definitions disagreed on whether job satisfaction was primarily cognitive (e.g., Motowidlo, 1996; Weiss, 2002), or affective (e.g., Locke, 1976) in nature. Motowidlo (1996, p. 176) described job satisfaction as a ‘judgment about the favorability of the work environment', while Weiss (2002, p. 175), seeking to distinguish job satisfaction from affect and aligning it more closely with how job satisfaction is typically measured, defines it as ‘a positive or negative evaluative judgment one makes about one's job or job situation'. In contrast, Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969, p. 7) view job satisfaction as ‘feelings or affective responses to facets of the situation’ and Locke (1976, p. 1304) defined job satisfaction as a ‘a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job or job experiences', a definition that has been widely echoed by others (e.g., Cranny, Smith, & Stone, 1992). Importantly, those proposing the inclusion of affect in the definition of job satisfaction have typically positioned affect as a consequence of the cognitive appraisal. Thus, an employee may have a positive emotional reaction to his or her job because the cognitive appraisal highlighted the interesting work, wonderful coworkers, and excellent pay that characterize the job.

SAGE © Deniz S

SAGE Reference

Page 2 of 24 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology

A relatively recent change in this positioning of the affective component of job satisfaction relative to the cognitive/evaluative component comes via Affective Events Theory (AET, Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996; see also Judge, Hulin, & Dalal, 2012; Brief & Weiss, 2002). AET also acknowledges the dual cognitive and affective nature of job satisfaction but reconceptualizes their relationship to each other. That is, workplace events such as an interaction with an angry customer, unfair performance feedback, or a helpful gesture from a coworker drive momentary affective reactions to the job. These affective reactions are part of job satisfaction but also influence the individual's cognitive evaluations of the job (Weiss, Nicholas, & Daus, 1999). Repeated negative affective events are integrated into the cognitive evaluation of the job, although this cognitive evaluation of job satisfaction is also influenced by more objective and stable features of the job situation such as the pay and benefits that are received. Importantly, AET also acknowledges that the cognitive/ evaluative component of job satisfaction also impacts job affect. Undesirable stable job characteristics might result in negative job affect via a process of rumination. From the AET perspective the affective component of job satisfaction is therefore both an antecedent and consequence of the cognitive/evaluative component. A number of studies using real-time assessments of affect and job satisfaction (e.g., Illies & Judge, 2002; Weiss, Nicholas, & Dauss, 1999) have highlighted the dual affective and cognitive components of job satisfaction and more recent discussions of the nature of job satisfaction (e.g., Brief, 1998; Dalal & Credé, 2013; Judge, Hulin, & Dalal, 2012) have similarly returned to classical definitions of attitudes (e.g., Thurstone, 1928) and acknowledged the joint cognitive and affective aspects of job satisfaction.

INVOLVEMENT

The literature on job involvement is based on findings that individuals can exhibit substantial ego involvement in their approach to work even when the work is artificial and short-lived (e.g., Lewis, 1944). Lodahl and Kejner's (1965) seminal paper on job involvement described two components of the construct. Job involvement was described both as ‘the degree to which a person is identified psychologically with his work, or the importance of his work in his total self-image’ (p. 24) and as ‘… the degree to which a person's work performance affects his [sic] self-esteem'. This initial description is problematic because it appears to describe two somewhat dissimilar ideas – the importance of one's job to self-image and the degree to which self-worth is raised or lowered by variations in job performance – without a formal acknowledgment that the construct is multidimensional, and also because it appears to be somewhat confounded with definitions of work centrality (see Brown, 1996; Diefendorff, Brown, Kamin, & Lord, 2002; Paullay, Alliger, & Stone-Romero, 1994). A clearer definition appears to be that of Paullay et al. for whom job involvement is ‘… the degree to which one is cognitively preoccupied with, engaged in, and concerned with one's present job’ (p. 225). This definition of job involvement more clearly distinguishes it from work centrality – as well as the other two attitude constructs discussed in this chapter – but suggests substantial overlap with a recently popular attitudinal construct, employee engagement (e.g., Macey & Schneider, 2008).

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

The concept of commitment has been applied to a variety of foci including unions (e.g., Barling, Wade, & Fullager, 1990), a profession (e.g., Weng & McElroy, 2012) and supervisors (Lapointe, Vandenberghe, & Boudrias, 2013), but by far the most frequently studied focus has been the organization. Early conceptualizations of organizational commitment favored a unidimensional view of the construct (e.g., Becker, 1960) and focused primarily on the employee's sense of attachment to and identification with the organization. Mowday, Porter and Steers (1982) for example, defined organizational commitment as ‘the relative strength of an individual's identification with and involvement in a particular organization’ (p. 27). This unidimensional approach to the study of commitment began to shift as researchers began to describe a variety of multidimensional models. These multidimensional approaches included: 1) the distinction between value commitment and commitment to stay (Angle & Perry, 1981), 2) compliance, identification, and internalization (O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986), and 3) moral, calculative, and alienative commitment (Penley & Gould, 1988). Most early researchers focused primarily on either attitudinal commitment as described by Mowday et al., or calculative commitment which acknowledged that employees can be bound to an organization by the high cost associated with leaving the organization. Indeed, the 1990 meta-analytic review of the commitment literature by Mathieu and Zajac focused only on these two types of commitment. Since 1990 organizational commitment researchers have largely adopted Meyer and Allen's Three-Component Model of Commitment

SAGE © Deniz S

SAGE Reference

Page 3 of 24 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology

(Allen & Meyer, 1990, 1996) which introduced a third type of commitment to mainstream organizational research. The central insight of this model is that employees can become committed to an organization for a variety of reasons and that these different types of commitment also have unique relationships to employee behavior.

The Three-Component Model distinguishes between 1) affective commitment which represents employees’ identification with the organization, sense of belonging, and desire to see the goals of the organization fulfilled, 2) normative commitment, based on work by Wiener (1982), which represents a sense of obligation toward the organization, and 3) continuance commitment which largely replicates the calculative commitment construct.

ANTECEDENTS AND DETERMINANTS OF JOB SATISFACTION, COMMITMENT, AND INVOLVEMENT

The literature on job attitudes is rich with theories and models that discuss how job attitudes develop. Much of this theoretical literature focuses on job satisfaction but because job satisfaction is often viewed as a proximal determinant of organizational commitment (e.g., Yoon & Thye, 2002) and an outcome of involvement (e.g., Brown, 1996), these theoretical frameworks are also relevant for these other attitude constructs. Collectively most theories and models of job attitude formation emphasize the role of objective situational factors, dispositions, and/or the interaction between these two sets of factors, although the situational factors and dispositional factors that constitute these models vary relatively widely.

THEORIES OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AND SITUATIONAL FACTORS

The Job Characteristics Model (Hackman & Oldham, 1976) describes five objective characteristics of the job that are positively related to job satisfaction, and how individual characteristics moderate these relationships. These characteristics of the job are: 1) the variety of skills used on the job (skill variety), 2) the degree to which employees complete a job from beginning to end (task identity), 3) the degree to which the job has a positive impact on others (task significance), 4) the degree to which employees control the manner in which the job is completed (autonomy), and 5) the degree to which the job provides employees with accurate and regular feedback about their level of performance (feedback). A meta-analytic review of this literature (Fried & Ferris, 1987) found substantial support for the Job Characteristics Model with correlations between job satisfaction and the five job characteristics ranging from ρ = .26 (for task identity) to ρ = .48 (for autonomy). Indeed, a unit-weighted composite of the five job characteristics (job complexity) was found to correlate ρ = .74 with overall job satisfaction. A more recent theoretical extension of this work (and meta-analytic update), by Humphrey, Nahrgang and Morgeson (2007) has identified nine additional job characteristics that also exhibit relatively large relationships with job satisfaction. The largest of the observed effects for these additional characteristics are: task variety (ρ with job satisfaction = .46), information processing requirements (ρ = .38), interdependence (ρ = .33), feedback from others (ρ = .42), and social support (ρ = .56).

Job characteristics have also been linked to job involvement; more interesting and challenging work being thought to increase employees’ interest in and involvement with their jobs. Empirical evidence is supportive of this assertion with the observed meta-analytic relationships between job characteristics and job involvement ranging from ρ = .21 for task identity to ρ = .47 for job challenge (Brown, 1996). The literature linking job characteristics to organizational commitment is sparser, although individual studies (e.g., Elanain, 2009; Joo & Lim, 2009; Liden, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2000) have reported that job characteristics are related to organizational commitment in a relatively similar manner.

According to the Job Characteristics Model the effect of job characteristics on job satisfaction (and other outcomes) is further moderated by a variety of individual difference characteristics. Because the five job characteristics are jointly associated with job complexity the positive impact on job satisfaction is thought to be most pronounced when employees are: 1) high on a desire to learn, achieve, and grow on the job (Growth Need Strength), 2) highly skilled and knowledgeable, so that the complex nature of the job can be satisfying, and 3) highly satisfied with other facets of the job (e.g., coworkers, pay, supervisor, benefits). The hypothesized moderating role of these individual difference characteristics has found only mixed support (e.g., de Jong, van der Velde, & Jansen, 2001; Kemp & Cook, 1983; Loher, Noe, Moeller, & Fitzgerald, 1985),

SAGE © Deniz S

SAGE Reference

Page 4 of 24 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology

although recent work (Zargar, Vandenberghe, Marchand, & Ayed, 2014) has shown that the moderating role of Growth Need Strategy can also be extended to the impact of job characteristics on commitment.

Whereas the Job Characteristics Model hypothesizes a main effect of objective job characteristics on job situation, a relatively large number of other theories and models focus in some way on the discrepancy between what the job provides and what the employee perceives should be provided as an influence on job attitudes. Collectively these have been referred to as Need-Satisfaction Models (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) or as manifestation of Lawler's Discrepancy Theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996).

The Cornell Model (Hulin, Roznowski, & Hachiya, 1985) focuses on the interplay between relatively objective characteristics of the job and individual differences. Specifically, the Cornell Model posits that job satisfaction is influenced by the perceived balance or discrepancy between job inputs (e.g., skills, time, ability, effort) and job outputs (e.g., salary, promotions, job security, recognition) and that the effect of these perceived inputs and outputs on job satisfaction is influenced by employees’ frame of reference that influence how inputs and outputs are viewed. For example, during times of high unemployment employees are predicted to be less critical of the characteristics of their jobs and therefore be more satisfied. This claim has found some support (e.g., Hulin, 1966; Miller, Katerberg, & Hulin, 1979) but findings from others (e.g., Williams, 1999) have been less supportive. Williams found that the job satisfaction of salespeople spread across 25 states and 66 cities was unrelated to unemployment at the state level, city level, or even the unemployment rate of salespeople with the state.

Locke's Value-Percept Model (Locke, 1976) hypothesizes a somewhat different mechanism involving the characteristics of the job and individual differences; employees’ satisfaction with a job facet is a function of the discrepancy between how much of that facet is desired and how much is provided by the job. These different facet satisfactions are then combined to determine overall job satisfaction by using a weighting system that reflects the value or importance given to each aspect of the job. Thus an employee's substantial dissatisfaction with any one aspect of the job (e.g., coworkers) may have little impact on the level of overall job satisfaction if the employee does not value satisfaction with coworkers very highly. Alternatively, even small differences between the desired level of a job characteristic (e.g., pay, autonomy) and the actual level of that job characteristic can have a dramatic impact on overall job satisfaction if that job characteristic is highly valued. The validity of Locke's model has proven difficult to assess because of the now well-known difficulties of working with difference scores involving components measured with imperfect reliability (see Edwards, 1994), but those who have examined this issue have generally found support for the framework (e.g., Rice, Gentile, & McFarlin, 1991; Rice, Markus, Moyer, & McFarlin, 1991).

Individual differences and discrepancy concepts are also central to the Theory of Work Adjustment (Dawes, England, & Lofquist, 1964) which has garnered some recent support (e.g., Dierdorff & Morgeson, 2013). Here satisfaction is determined by the discrepancy between six different values held by employees (achievement, comfort, status, altruism, safety, autonomy), and the degree to which these values are satisfied by the rewards offered by the job or by the nature of the job.

Thibaut and Kelley's Social Comparison Level Model (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) also relies on discrepancy concepts by describing how an individual's satisfaction with being a member of a group, or dyad is determined by a comparison of the outputs received as a member of that group or dyad to a standard that is derived from past membership (real or observed) in other groups or dyads. Outputs that exceed this standard are hypothesized to result in satisfaction while outputs that are less than the standard are hypothesized to result in dissatisfaction.

Theories of Social Influences

The growing literature on job attitude climate (e.g., Cambre, Kippers, van Veldhoven, & de Witte, 2012) illustrates that job attitudes are often highly similar among employees within a team, department, or organization. One reason for this is, of course, that such employees often do very similar work and operate within very similar job settings. The rude and incompetent supervisor who lowers the commitment or satisfaction of one employee likely also has a similar effect on other employees. Theories of social influence provide another reason for similar job attitude levels among members of a work unit. Salancik and Pfeffer

SAGE © Deniz S

SAGE Reference

Page 5 of 24 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology

(1978), for example, argue that employees arrive at judgment about seemingly objective work characteristics by interacting with others. Similarly, the weight given to work characteristics and work events is also informed by the social environment, particularly coworkers. If coworkers all agree that a supervisor is incompetent or that the degree of autonomy is too low and that these characteristics are important then the attitude of a new employee with regard to these two job features will be shaped by this judgment of his or her coworkers. Illustrations of emotional contagion in organizational settings (e.g., Dasborough, Ashkanasy, Tee, & Tse, 2009), are also supportive of the role of social influences on attitudes in work settings.

Dispositional Approaches

Although dispositional sources of job attitudes have long been acknowledged (e.g., Weitz, 1952), most early theoretical frameworks positioned individual differences primarily as moderators of the impact of situational characteristics on job attitudes. More recently authors have increasingly acknowledged the substantial main effect of dispositions on job attitudes and have also attempted to better articulate their moderating role. This focus on dispositions, primarily personality, was in part the result of studies that reported possible genetic determinants of job satisfaction (Arvey, Bouchard, Segal, & Abraham, 1989), relatively high stability in job satisfaction across time even when individuals changed jobs (Staw & Ross, 1985; Steel & Rentsch, 1997), and that dispositions assessed during early adolescence could predict job satisfaction over 40 years later (Staw, Bell, & Clausen, 1986). Although these studies were not without critics (e.g., Gutek & Winter, 1992) they did result in an increasing number of researchers investigating the dispositional correlates of job satisfaction.

Trait affectivity, typically conceptualized as positive affect and negative affect (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), has proven perhaps to be most predictive of all dispositions. Judge and Hulin (1993) for example, illustrated that affective disposition, defined as the general manner in which one's environment is interpreted, strongly influences subjective well-being which, in turn, influences job satisfaction. As such ‘job satisfaction is determined to a significant extent by the individual's general level of happiness and his or her way of looking at the world’ (Judge & Hulin, 1993, p. 413). More recently, a meta-analytic review by Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, de Chermont and Warren (2003) reported estimates of the correlation of job satisfaction with positive affect and negative affect as ρ = .34, and ρ = –.34, while the relationship of organizational commitment with positive affect and negative affect were ρ = .35 and ρ = –.27 respectively. Core self-evaluations have also exhibited strong correlations with job satisfaction (e.g., Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000; Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998), but the relationship of job attitudes with other traits such as the Big Five personality traits have been less strong (see Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002; Panaccio & Vandenberghe, 2012).

Theoretical explanations for the strong relationships between trait affect and job attitudes have assigned main, moderating, and mediating effects to trait affect and related dispositions. Forgas and George's (2001) Affect Infusion Model proposes that trait affect acts as a lens through which the attitude object (in this case the job) is viewed. That is, those high on positive affect have a general tendency to view the job and its various facets in positive terms while those high on negative affect would have a tendency to view the characteristics of the job in negative terms. Because of the relative independence of positive affect and negative affect these two effects would presumably combine in an additive fashion.

Judge and Larsen (2001) describe a different role for trait affectivity and related Big Five traits (i.e., extraversion and neuroticism). First, these dispositions may reflect differences in how sensitive individuals are to environmental stimuli. Extroverts and those high on trait positive affect are likely to respond more favorably to rewards and job challenges while those high on neuroticism and trait negative affect would respond more strongly to punishment and negative workplace characteristics and events. Second, trait affectivity and personality are hypothesized to influence: 1) what individuals attend to and how individuals remember and process organizational events, 2) the kind of situations that individuals seek out, 3) how individuals impact the situations that they find themselves in, and 4) how individuals regulate their mood state. In support Judge and Larsen present evidence that extraverts are more attentive to positive stimuli than negative stimuli and are more likely than introverts to seek out jobs and tasks requiring social interaction, while those high on positive affectivity tend to seek out approach goals as opposed to individuals high on negative affect who are more likely to pursue avoidance goals.

SAGE © Deniz S

SAGE Reference

Page 6 of 24 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology

The literature on job involvement has focused on one additional causal dispositional. This variable termed work ethic endorsement (or sometimes Protestant work ethic, e.g., Elloy & Terpening, 1992), reflects a stable positive orientation to work irrespective of its objective characteristics and is thought to result from socialization experiences that stress the importance and value of work and correlate strongly with job involvement (ρ = .45; Brown, 1996).

The Role of Workplace Events

Affective Events Theory (AET; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) acknowledges the influence of objective work characteristics and dispositions on job attitude formation but also integrates the role of workplace events. Specifically, workplace events such as interactions with coworkers or customers interact with trait dispositions to determine affective reactions. These affective reactions influence affect-driven behavior (e.g., anger toward a coworker leading to spreading rumors about that coworker) and, over time, also influence the cognitive component of job attitudes. For example, a single instance of a coworker being rude is likely to shift the short- term affective reaction to the coworker suggesting that the affective component of job satisfaction exhibits substantial within-person variability. At the same time a single negative interaction is unlikely to result in a permanent change in an employee's judgment about the favorability of his or her coworkers. Repeated negative interpersonal interactions with coworkers on the other hand are likely to shift the evaluation in a negative direction. A growing literature has found support for the core assertions of AET – not only for job satisfaction (e.g., Illies & Judge, 2002; Mignonac & Herrbach, 2004) but also other attitudes such as commitment (e.g., Becker, Ulrich, & van Dick, 2013). Indirect support also comes from the extensive literature linking specific workplace events to job attitudes. Perhaps because the impact of negative events on mood is up to five times as large as the impact of positive events (Miner, Glomb, & Hulin, 2005), much of this work has focused on negative workplace events such as sexual harassment (Fitzgerald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gelfand, & Magley, 1997) and bullying (Rodriguez-Munoz, Baillien, De Witte, Moreno-Jiminez, & Pastor, 2009), although events outside of work such as marital conflict also have an impact (Sandberg et al., 2013).

CONSEQUENCES OF JOB SATISFACTION, COMMITMENT, AND INVOLVEMENT

A number of theoretical frameworks address the expected relationships between job attitudes and behaviors on the job. At the most fundamental level is the core assumption of attitude theory that attitudes are related to attitude congruent behaviors (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) – or at least to behavioral intentions (e.g., Theory of Planned Behavior, Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Favorable evaluations of the job or some facet of the job should therefore result in favorable behaviors toward the job or facet. Attitude–behavior relationships are strongest when the attitude is ‘compatible’ with the behavior (Ajzen, 1988) in terms of the target, action, context, and time frame that is referred to. Unfortunately, attitude–behavior compatibility is often low in organizational settings; the attitude measure used may specify a specific target (e.g., coworkers) but does not typically specify a specific action/behavior (e.g., volunteering to help coworkers), context (e.g., when working on a team task), or time (e.g., during the weekend business trip). This lack of compatibility between assessed attitudes and organizational may explain the fact that attitude behavior relationships in organizational settings are typically low (Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006).

Social-Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964) and the Norm of Reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), also predicts that employees with positive job attitudes will behave positively at work while those with negative attitudes behave negatively. In this case, favorable working conditions that have been supplied by the organization or some other entity (e.g., the supervisor) create a sense of obligation and a desire to maintain the favorable relationship such that the employee is motivated to reciprocate by behaving in a favorable manner toward that entity. These theoretical accounts have been most widely used to explain the relationships between job attitudes and volitional behaviors such as organizational citizenship behaviors and counterproductive workplace behaviors (e.g., Dalal, 2005; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002).

The theoretical nature of the relationship between job attitudes and task performance is less clear. Although it is widely believed that changes in job satisfaction cause changes in task performance via a motivational mechanism Judge, Thoresen, Bono, and Patton (2001) describe six alternative models with some empirical support that could plausibly describe the relationship. One such model is that task performance causes job

SAGE © Deniz S

SAGE Reference

Page 7 of 24 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology

satisfaction via its effect on favorable work outcomes such as reward, recognition, and more challenging work. A second model is that job satisfaction and task performance are reciprocally related, while the third model proposes that the relationship between the two is spurious; that is, the observed relationship is an artifact of some third variable that is causally related to both task performance and job satisfaction. Possible candidates for the cause of such a spurious relationship include core self-evaluations such as self-esteem. The job involvement literature also presents a motivational mechanism to explain the relationship between involvement and workplace behavior (Brown, 1996). From this perspective high involvement reflects an employee's appraisal that the job is able to satisfy desired needs (e.g., rewards, recognition) if performance is high. This, in turn, activates motivation to achieve the level of performance required to satisfy the desired needs.

Job attitudes are, of course, also widely linked to both turnover intentions (often referred to as withdrawal cognitions) and actual voluntary turnover. Voluntary turnover decisions can be precipitated by individual events and can be almost instantaneous (see Sims, Drasgow, & Fitzgerald, 2005), but are more often thought to be a well-considered decision driven by a judgmental process that considers the current job experience (i.e., job attitudes) and perceived alternative job opportunities (e.g. Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). The Tett and Meyer (1993) meta-analytic review reported that job satisfaction and organizational commitment were respectively correlated r = –.245 and r = –.333 with turnover and r = – .581 and r = –.538 with turnover intentions. The more recent meta-analysis by Griffeth, Hom, and Gaertner (2000) reported meta-analytic estimates for the relationship with turnover of ρ = .22 (job satisfaction), ρ = –.12 (job involvement), and ρ = –.27 (organizational commitment). These relationships also appear to be substantially moderated by economic conditions with stronger attitude-turnover and attitude-turnover intention relationships during times of low unemployment (Carsten & Spector, 1987).

MEASUREMENT OF JOB SATISFACTION, COMMITMENT, AND INVOLVEMENT

Job satisfaction, commitment, and involvement are all almost exclusively measured using self-report inventories, and while ad-hoc (i.e., locally developed) measures of each construct are not uncommon in the literature carefully developed inventories are available for all three constructs. Job satisfaction is most commonly assessed using the Job Descriptive Index (JDI; Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969), the Job in General scale (JIG; Ironson, Smith, Brannick, Gibson, & Paul, 1989), or the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ; Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967). The JDI is a widely translated facet measure of job satisfaction; having been translated into a wide variety of languages including Spanish (McCabe, Dalessio, Briga, & Sasaki, 1980), French (Johns, 1978), Hebrew (Hulin & Mayer, 1986), Arabic (Nasser & Diefenbach, 1996), and Mandarin Chinese (Wang & Russell, 2005). The internal consistency of scores on the JDI is generally good although the meta-analytic review by Kinicki et al. (2002) reports a large amount of variability in internal consistency estimates for scores on the satisfaction with work scale. Employees are asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with five facets of their job (the work itself, pay, promotion opportunities, coworkers, and supervision) by responding to 72 items (9 or 18 items for each facet). Each item is an adjective or short phrase and employees are asked to use a three-point response scale to indicate whether the adjective or short phrase is an accurate description of the job facet being rated. Because of concerns about including a 72-item inventory in lengthy surveys of employees an abridged 25-item version of the JDI has also been developed (Stanton et al., 2001).

Some researchers (myself included, Credé et al., 2007) have combined facet scores to form an indicator of overall job satisfaction. This approach may be unavoidable in some settings (e.g., when using archival data), but is not ideal because it assumes that the facets are equally important to all employees – in contradiction of Locke's Value Theory. This aggregation approach also assumes that no relevant facets of the job have been left unexamined (Dalal & Credé, 2013), and there is good evidence that the five facets assessed by the JDI do not capture all of the important facets of the job (e.g., Dalal, Bashshur, & Credé, 2011; Probst, 2003). Instead, researchers interested in assessing overall job satisfaction are advised to do so directly with the 18-item JIG scale or the 8-item shortened version of the JIG (Russell et al., 2004). Structured in the same way as the JDI the JIG asks respondents to describe how they experience their overall job; as such concerns relating to the differential weighting of facets and potential facet omission are eliminated. The full and abridged versions of both the JDI and JIG are available for free use by researchers at: http://www.bgsu.edu/arts-and-sciences/ psychology/services/job-descriptive-index.html (accessed on 31 July, 2017).

SAGE © Deniz S

SAGE Reference

Page 8 of 24 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology

Like the JDI and JIG the MSQ comes in both a long and abridged form. The long form assesses satisfaction with 20 facets of the job using five items per facet (100 items) while the abridged form uses 20 items in total. While the long form provides separate scores for each facet the abridged form can be scored to provide either a general satisfaction score or separate extrinsic satisfaction and intrinsic satisfaction scores. More detailed information on the MSQ, including normative information for some occupations can be found at: http://vpr.psych.umn.edu/instruments/msq-minnesota-satisfaction-questionnaire (accessed 31 July, 2017).

Other job satisfaction measures that find relatively widespread use include the Faces Scale (Kunin, 1955), the Brayfield-Rothe measure (Brayfield & Rothe, 1951) and the Job Satisfaction Survey (Spector, 1985). Because of the relative neglect of the affective component of job satisfaction in most commonly used measures of job satisfaction some (e.g., Dalal & Credé, 2013) have also advocated measuring job affect directly with measures such as the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS-X; Watson & Clark, 1999), or the measure of hedonic tone and activation provided by Shaver, Schwartz, Kirson, and O'Connor (1987).

Organizational commitment is predominantly measured using one of two inventories. The Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979) is comprised of 15 items that primarily capture affective commitment to the organization, has been translated into a wide variety of languages including German, Polish, Hungarian, Spanish, Malay, and Urdu (Abbas & Khanam, 2013; Kanning & Hill, 2013) and typically exhibits a unidimensional structure (e.g., Mowday et al., 1979). Although the OCQ is still widely used by researchers who require only a measure of overall organizational commitment, most commitment researchers utilize the six-item measures of affective, normative, and continuance commitment described by Allen and Meyer (1990) or modifications of these scales (e.g., Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993; Powell & Meyer, 2004). Meyer et al. (2002) report that these three scales have been widely translated.

The three commitment scales have not been without its critics. Swailes (2002) for example noted that the measure of continuance commitment conflates an inability to leave the job with commitment, while Bozeman and Perrewe (2001) highlighted that the high predictive validity of organizational commitment with turnover intentions is largely due to the fact that turnover intentions are directly assessed in the commitment scales with items such as ‘I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career in this organization'. Recent work by Klein, Cooper, Molloy, and Swanson (2014) presents a promising alternative measure that is shorter (four- items) and that can be used to assess commitment to a variety of targets.

Job involvement can also be measured with longer or shorter scales. Lodahl and Kejner (1965) present both a 20-item and 6-item job involvement scale that are both typically aggregated to form a single indicator of job involvement despite Lodahl and Kejner's finding that involvement is multidimensional. Lodahl and Kejner's original scale has been criticized (e.g., Kanungo, 1982; Morrow, 1983) for the lack of correspondence between their theoretical articulation of job involvement and the content of these 20-item and 6-item scales and also – perhaps somewhat ironically given modern understandings of attitudes – for assessing both affective and cognitive aspects of the constructs. As a result a preference has emerged for Kanungo's 10-item questionnaire which focuses on only one aspect of Lodahl and Kejner's original conceptualization – the centrality of the individual's job in his/her life. More recently (Diefendorff et al., 2002) concerns have emerged that existing measures of job involvement have been substantially confounded with work centrality and that newer measures such as the one developed by Paullay et al. (1994) may not only be a purer measure of the job involvement construct but may also produce scores that are more predictive of job performance.

CHALLENGES FOR JOB ATTITUDE CONSTRUCTS

As is the case in many fields of inquiry discrepancies can be observed between the theoretical articulation and the empirical observations of some attitude constructs. Such discrepancies suggest that changes to theory or to the manner in which observations are made may be warranted. This section of the chapter describes two such cases of incongruence that suggest that modifications to attitude theory or measurement may be necessary, the first relating to the validity of the Three-Component Model of Commitment, while the second regards the relationships among attitude constructs.

SAGE © Deniz S

SAGE Reference

Page 9 of 24 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology

The Validity of the Three-Component Model of Organizational Commitment

The validity of the Three-Component Model is supported by numerous factor analytic studies that have confirmed that indicators of each commitment type load onto their hypothesized factors and that a three- factor solution exhibits significantly better fit than alternative two-factor or single-factor solutions (e.g., Cheng & Stockdale, 2003; Hackett, Bycio, & Hausdorf, 1994). However, the validity of the three-component model rests upon more than mere factorial distinctiveness because the three commitment types are hypothesized to have unique antecedents and consequences (e.g., Allen & Meyer, 1996; Meyer et al., 2002). For example, continuance commitment should be negatively related to turnover but not be related to performance-related variables such as task performance or citizenship behaviors; alternate employment opportunities should be uniquely related to continuance commitment; work experiences should be uniquely related to affective commitment; and socialization experiences should be uniquely related to normative commitment (Meyer et al.).

Unfortunately the empirical support for this claim of unique antecedents and consequences is mixed at best. Some individual studies have reported that the three commitment types exhibit unique relationships with antecedents or consequences (e.g., Jaros, 1997; Hackett et al., 1994), but others have noted that continuance commitment is not very predictive of most workplace outcomes (e.g., Swailes, 2002), or have found that normative commitment and affective commitment exhibit largely similar relationships with antecedents and consequences (e.g., Ko, Price, & Mueller, 1997). Indeed, even Meyer et al. (2002) noted that the relationship between affective commitment and normative commitment was so high as to call into question the distinction between these two constructs.

Perhaps the greatest problem for the three-component model is that the findings reported by the Meyer et al. (2002) meta-analytic review show that neither normative commitment nor continuance commitment provide meaningful incremental validity over affective commitment for the prediction of most of the antecedents, correlates, and especially the outcomes of commitment. This can be shown if one uses the meta-analytic estimates reported by Meyer et al. to regress each antecedent, correlate, and consequence onto the three commitment types. The findings of this analysis (see Table 1.1) show that neither normative commitment nor continuance commitment explain a substantial proportion of variance in most of the outcomes and correlates of organizational commitment above and beyond the variance explained by affective commitment – even when the three commitment types are optimally weighted as is done in a multiple regression context. Because the Three-Component Model of commitment is agnostic as to how commitment types are to be weighted in the prediction of the various correlates and consequences Table 1.1 also presents the correlations of a unit- weighted composite of the three commitment types with the correlates and antecedents composite using the formulae presented by Ghiselli, Campbell, and Zedeck (1981). These composites predict the correlates and outcomes more poorly than affective commitment on its own in all but one case.

SAGE © Deniz S

SAGE Reference

Page 10 of 24 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology

Table 1.1 Incremental value provided by normative commitment and continuance commitment over affective commitment

SAGE © Deniz S

SAGE Reference

Page 11 of 24 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology

This re-analysis of meta-analytic results suggests that the Three-Component Model may, in fact, represent a step backward for researchers’ and practitioners’ ability to understand and predict workplace behaviors and other important outcomes using organizational commitment scores. Whether this is a failing of the manner in which the three commitment types are typically measured and whether similar findings would be repeated with updated meta-analytic syntheses of the literature remains to be seen. Until then, our preference for parsimony and the necessity to keep surveys of employees as short as possible suggests that researchers and practitioners are unlikely to sacrifice significant explanatory power if measuring only affective commitment or overall organizational commitment.

Although these findings are clearly problematic for the validity of the Three-Component Model three alternative lines of inquiry may hold more promise. First, continuance commitment exhibits uniformly poor relationships with workplace criteria, but it may be that continuance commitment should best be broken into the two components of perceived sacrifices and perceived lack of alternatives (McGee & Ford, 1987). Some research (e.g., Herrbach, Mignonac, Vandenberghe, & Negrini, 2009; Lapointe & Vandenberghe, 2011) suggests that this approach is valuable but the burden of proof for adding yet another form of organizational commitment is substantial and may not yet have been met. Second, the interactions among commitment types and/or commitment profiles may help explain workplace behavior. The primary theoretical argument for possible interaction effects has been that the effect of low levels of any one form of commitment on a behavior can be attenuated by higher levels of another commitment (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). For example, the main effect of normative commitment on citizenship behaviors might be low overall, but the effect may be stronger for those employees who are low on affective commitment because the effect of low normative commitment may be drowned out by the impact of high affective commitment when it is present at the same time. Some studies have found support for these types of interaction effect. For example, Sinclair, Tucker, Cullen, and Wright (2005) found that the combination of low levels of continuance commitment and moderate levels of affective commitment were associated with the poorest job performance ratings. Other promising findings relating to interactions among commitment types and profile effects have been reported by Gellatly, Meyer, and Luchak (2006), Jaros (1997), Johnson, Groff, and Taing (2009), Somers (1995, 2009), and Wasti, (2005), but the reported interaction effects were either very small in size (Jaros; Johnson, Groff, & Taing; Gellatly, Meyer, & Luchak; Somers, 1995), or only observed for some of the hypothesized interaction effects (Jaros; Gellatly et al.; Somers). Similarly, profile effects that were observed by Sinclair et al., Wasti, and Somers appear to primarily reflect the main effect of affective commitment. Wasti, for example, identifies six clusters of affective, normative, and continuance commitment scores and shows some differences in outcomes such as turnover intentions and citizenship behaviors among these six clusters but these differences among the groups appear to be largely driven by their differences in affective commitment.

A third potentially valuable line of inquiry has focused on different foci of commitment – that is commitment to entities other than just the organization. The most popular of these alternative foci is the occupation, and occupational commitment exhibits relatively strong relationships with job satisfaction, organizational commitment, burnout, stress, and occupational turnover intentions (see the meta-analytic review by Lee, Carswell, & Allen, 2000). Other types of commitment that have been presented as distinct from organizational commitment and that exhibit promising relationships with criteria include commitment to the supervisor, work group, and coworkers (e.g., Vandenberghe, Bentein, & Stinglhamber, 2004; Wasti & Can, 2008). The meta- analytic review by Cooper-Hakim and Viswesvaran (2005) however shows that the value added by these different foci of commitment may be limited because of the strong empirical overlap with organizational commitment and the somewhat similar correlational profiles with many antecedents and consequences.

The Relationship among Attitude Constructs

Beyond their similarity to common definitions of attitudes job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and job involvement share a very similar position within the nomological network. All three are thought to be some function of objective job characteristics and similar individual dispositions and all exhibit largely similar relationships with these antecedents. Similarly, all three are associated with behavioral outcomes such as task performance, contextual behaviors, turnover, turnover intentions, and well-being in an approximately similar manner. Importantly, all three are also positioned as mediators of the relationship between some set of antecedents and some set of consequences (e.g., Brown, 1996; Credé et al., 2007; Meyer et al., 2002).

SAGE © Deniz S

SAGE Reference

Page 12 of 24 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology

While these similarities are supportive of this chapter's description of all three constructs as attitudes it begs the question of how the constructs are related to each other. The position taken by most organizational researchers – and certainly the position taken by many researchers specializing within one of these three research domains – is that the three constructs are distinct from each other at both the theoretical level and the measurement level. This position finds support in a number of factor analytic investigations (e.g., Brooke, Russell, & Price, 1988; Maier & Woschee, 2002; Mathieu & Farr, 1991; Nystedt, Sjöberg, & Hägglund, 1999) that illustrate the distinction among the constructs.

The distinction among the three constructs has been further articulated by attempts to specify a causal ordering; most of this work focusing on the temporal relationship between commitment and satisfaction. Some researchers have been agnostic on the question of temporal ordering of commitment and job satisfaction, preferring to simply refer to satisfaction as a ‘correlate’ commitment (e.g., Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer et al., 2002) or have even suggested that commitment precedes job satisfaction (e.g., Bateman & Strasser, 1984), but the most common position is that satisfaction precedes commitment (e.g., Harrison & Hubbard, 1998; Mathieu, 1991; Yoon & Thye, 2002), or that the two constructs are related to each other in some reciprocal fashion (Farkas & Tetrick, 1989). The involvement literature has typically viewed job satisfaction and commitment as a consequence of involvement, although Brown (1996) acknowledged that there was no empirical reason to support this ordering.

If we add other constructs that also reflect employees’ evaluation of an aspect of their job ‘with some degree of favor or disfavor’ (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, p. 1) then the implied causal ordering becomes even more complex. POS is a theoretical antecedent of both satisfaction and commitment (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), while justice perceptions are positioned as antecedents of POS, commitment, and job satisfaction (Colquitt et al., 2001), and employee engagement is a predictor of satisfaction and commitment but predicted by justice perceptions and POS (Saks, 2006). If each of these relationships is accepted – and each individually is typically presented with theoretically sophisticated justifications – then we end up with a long causal chain of attitude-like constructs that unfold in a presumptively rapid fashion to link non-attitudinal antecedents like workplace events, objective job characteristics, and employee dispositions to employee behavior and outcomes. The following sequence seems to be implied:

Antecedent Variables → Justice Perceptions → POS → Employee Engagement → Job Involvement → Job Satisfaction → Organizational Commitment → Consequence Variables.

Whether the theoretical gains involved in such a complex chain of attitudinal constructs warrants the very substantial sacrifice of theoretical parsimony is questionable.

A second perspective is reflected in work that has noted the conceptual and empirical similarities among the growing number of attitude constructs. Le, Schmidt, Harter, and Lauver (2010), for example, discussed the overlap between organizational commitment and job satisfaction in terms of their strong relationship with each other and with dispositional antecedents and suggested that the two constructs may be redundant with each other. Other researchers have taken a different approach. Newman, Joseph, and Hulin (2010), for example, noted the overlap between employee engagement and constructs like job satisfaction and proposed a general higher-order attitude (‘a') factor that might explain the high observed covariation among these constructs. Similar theoretical arguments were also made by Newman and Harrison (2008) based on earlier work by Harrison, Newman and Roth (2006), that had highlighted that a higher-order attitudinal construct (comprised of satisfaction and commitment) is more useful than either satisfaction or commitment on its own when ‘… attempting to understand patterns of work behavior from attitudes such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment’ (p. 316). Cooper-Hakim and Viswesvaran (2005) noted the high correlations among commitment types (including involvement) and also suggested that their meta-analytic data is indicative of a single overall factor which they termed work commitment, although their review also found only a modest relationship between involvement and job satisfaction (ρ = .25) based on data from well over 100,000 individuals. Most recently, Webster, Adams, and Beehr (2014) also proposed a higher-order construct comprised of three lower-order constructs: job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and work engagement. Webster et al. also show that this higher-order factor explains work outcomes better than any of the constituent parts. It is the position of this chapter that such a higher-order attitudinal factor can probably be expanded to include other lower-order factors, including involvement as well as related constructs such as

SAGE © Deniz S

SAGE Reference

Page 13 of 24 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology

POS and justice perceptions, and that the value of considering specific lower-order factors or the higher-order factor is likely to depend on the outcome that the attitude is being related to. That is, broad outcomes are likely to be best predicted by broad attitude predictors while narrower outcomes are best predicted by more specific attitudinal constructs.

INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH ON JOB ATTITUDES AND THE ROLE OF NATIONAL DIFFERENCES

The interest in job attitudes among North American researchers is shared by their counterparts in most other countries where organizational scientists conduct and publish research. Much of this research is based on data from a single country – much like research on attitudes in North America. Single-country research cannot be used to draw strong inferences about the influence of national characteristics on findings but on their own such single country studies can provide valuable information on the generalizability and possible boundary conditions of job attitude theories and models developed (often) in North America.

While single-country studies can help establish generalizability an exploration of exactly why some models, theories, or relationships do not generalize across national boundaries requires a different research strategy that goes beyond simple two country comparisons. Any pair of two countries differ on a host of variables, including culture (Hofstede, 1980; House et al., 2004), values (Schwartz, 1999), economic development, form of government, and even climate (e.g., Huang & Van De Vliert, 2004). As such a finding that employees in one country, say China, have different mean job attitude levels to employees in another country, say USA, cannot safely be attributed to cultural variables – let alone any one cultural variable such as individualism- collectivism. Instead, investigations into the impact of national differences require data from many countries as this allows the possible influences of multiple national difference variables to be examined jointly. Such multi-country datasets can be gathered by one individual or group of researchers as the work by Hofstede (1980) and Project GLOBE (House et al., 2004) illustrate, but a more feasible approach may be for researchers to conduct quantitative literature reviews and rely on meta-analytic methods to explore the role of national differences. Numerous publically available datasets describe how countries differ from each other, including (but not limited to): country scores on Hofstede dimensions, Project GLOBE cultural dimension scores, various economic development indexes published by the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the UN Human Development Report, and other indicators relating to countries’ educational systems, environment, health, political systems, and level of technological development. Researchers interested in exploring the role of national differences in attitude research could assemble a database of the relevant attitudinal data – effect sizes or mean levels – grouped by country, import the relevant scores on the national difference variables being considered – and then regress the mean observed effect size or average score for each country onto the national difference variable.

As a field we are nowhere near a unified theory of how national differences impact job attitude findings but this section of the chapter describes six different ways in which national differences can impact attitude findings, and studies of multi-country comparisons of attitude data are briefly reviewed to highlight these six different influences. First, national differences such as culture can influence the mean level and distribution of theoretical antecedents of job attitudes. For example, Gelade, Dobson, and Gilbert (2006) illustrated that affective commitment was highest in countries with high average levels of extraversion and low levels of neuroticism. Because extraversion and neuroticism have been respectively linked to positive and negative trait affect this finding is supportive of the meta-analytic findings by Thoresen et al. (2003) that commitment is well predicted by trait dispositions. Many other such effects are plausible: for instance, the degree of autonomy granted to employees may, on average, be lower in countries with high levels of collectivism, high levels of power distance, or relatively worse education and training systems. Similarly, the variability of antecedent variables may be affected. Developed countries in which low wage manufacturing occupations are relatively uncommon may exhibit range restriction on antecedent variables such as task identity thereby reducing the size of the observed relationship between job characteristics and job attitudes.

Second, national differences may influence the importance of antecedent variables thereby amplifying or attenuating the relationship between the antecedent and job attitudes more directly. Huang and Van de Vliert (2004), for example, found that the relationship between job level (a proxy for job complexity) and job satisfaction was stronger in countries that scored highly on individualism, possibly due to the fact that employees from more individualistic societies have been socialized to develop higher-order needs and to

SAGE © Deniz S

SAGE Reference

Page 14 of 24 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology

value individual goals such as self-advancement. Rockstuhl, Dulebohn, Ang, and Shore (2012) showed that job satisfaction is more strongly related to leader–member exchange in cultures characterized by horizontal individualism where such relationships should be valued more strongly than in those countries characterized by vertical collectivism although a similar effect was not replicated for either affective commitment or normative commitment. Some researchers have also found that the effect of certain antecedents do generalize across cultures. Fisher (2014), using data from over 6,000 employees from 18 countries showed that the negative impact of role overload on organizational commitment did not vary as a function of national culture. Because of the large number of antecedents of job attitudes that have been identified the number of unexplored moderating effects of culture remains large. For example, employees from countries that score high on power distance might care less strongly about high levels of autonomy than employees from countries with lower levels of power distance.

Third, national differences may influence how employees respond to measures of job attitudes. Response biases have been linked to culture (Lai, Cummins, & Lau, 2013) and it might be expected that East Asian employees would tend to describe themselves, including their job attitudes, as less positive than Western employees. National differences may also exist in how much jobs themselves are valued – irrespective of their characteristics. Van Der Westhuizen, Pacheco, and Webber (2012) reported higher levels of job satisfaction for individuals from European countries with more traditional values – where jobs were hypothesized to be valued irrespective of their quality – than for European countries with more secular-rational values. In one of the largest cross-cultural review studies ever undertaken Taras, Kirkman, and Steel (2010) reviewed almost 600 studies that had reported the relationship between Hofstede's original four cultural dimensions and organizational constructs. Individualism was moderately positively related to job satisfaction (ρ = .21) but negatively related to organizational commitment (ρ = –.27); power distance was moderately positively related to job satisfaction (ρ = .21) and most of the commitment types (e.g., ρ = .39 for normative commitment); uncertainty avoidance was, not surprisingly, most strongly related to continuance commitment (ρ = .42) and more modestly related to other job attitudes (e.g., ρ = .24 for job satisfaction); while the relationships with masculinity were only weak.

Fourth, national differences may impact the relationship among attitude types. Chen, Ford, Kalyanaram, and Bhagat (2012), for example, present evidence that the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment is higher in countries with low levels of in-group collectivism and low levels of institutional collectivism, possibly because employees in such cultures have a greater tendency to differentiate between the organization and the job rather than viewing the entire job situation as a relatively uniform entity.

Fifth, national differences such as culture may moderate the relationship between job attitudes and consequences because attitudes may be relatively less important determinants of behaviors in some settings than in others. In more collectivistic countries for example, the job attitude–job performance relationship should be weaker because employees’ level of effort is likely to be more strongly determined by societal norms than by individual attitudes toward the job – a hypothesis supported by the meta-analytic results reported by Ng, Sorensen, and Yim (2009). Similarly, state-level data from the USA examined by Carsten and Spector (1987) suggests that employees in countries with high levels of unemployment should be less likely to engage in turnover even for jobs that are deeply dissatisfying thereby reducing the job attitude–turnover relationship in those countries.

Finally, national differences may also change the distributions of the consequence variables and thereby attenuate the observed relationships of job attitudes with outcome variables. Countries with little voluntary turnover (because of a poor economy) would see the attitude–turnover relationship attenuated. Distributional differences in criterion variables are not restricted to turnover. One of the cultural dimensions identified by Project GLOBE was humane orientation, defined as the degree to which individuals in a culture are rewarded and encouraged to exhibit humane behavior such as altruism, generosity, fairness, and kindness (Javadin, House, & Dorfman, 2004) and it is reasonable to suspect that humane orientation may change the distribution of both citizenship behaviors and counterproductive behaviors. Finally, the distribution of task performance may also differ systematically between countries. Countries in which more organizations have high performance human resource practices should be expected to have relatively fewer employees with very low levels of job performance – again attenuating the relationship between the criterion (task performance)

SAGE © Deniz S

SAGE Reference

Page 15 of 24 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology

and job attitudes.

Exploring how national differences influence job attitude findings will be challenging. Not only are researchers required to assemble large, multi-sample datasets but careful attention will have to be paid to two additional factors. First, data on which such comparisons are made should be relatively current. The job attitude literature is old but it probably makes little sense to compare attitude data from the 1950s in the USA to data gathered in China in 2014 if attempting to draw inferences about the role of national culture. Deciding what constitutes ‘current data’ will require careful judgment. Second, a comparison based on translated inventories requires measurement equivalence. A number of authors (e.g., Byrne & van De Vijver, 2010; Little, 1997; Mullen, 1995), have discussed the precise level of measurement equivalence required to facilitate comparisons and attitude researchers interested in making national comparisons should consider these recommendations. It should also be noted that researchers interested in investigating cultural or national differences in attitudes should be cautious about interpreting the impact of any one cultural dimension or national difference variable. As Fisher (2014) noted, countries do not experience a single cultural dimension such as individualism and collectivism in isolation and it may therefore be more informative to consider the influence of multiple national difference variables jointly.

FUTURE RESEARCH

This chapter has already noted a number of issues that future research on job attitudes will likely need to address (e.g., the generalizability of theories of job attitudes across cultures; the possible redundancy in some attitude constructs) but at least three additional areas of exploration are likely to be particularly valuable. First, the measurement of all three constructs is likely to benefit from insights from Item Response Theory (IRT). IRT methods could assist in developing scales that are able to accurately assess job attitudes for all levels of job attitudes and also help in the development of scales that are ideally suited for specific assessment purposes such as accurately making the distinction between the very dissatisfied and the merely dissatisfied. This becomes particularly relevant if one considers that job attitude constructs may be non- linearly related to workplace criteria (e.g., Luchak & Gellatly, 2007; Munyon, Hochwarter, Perrewe, & Ferris, 2010), and that most commonly used scales were developed using classical test theory approaches and are often not particularly good at accurately assessing very high or very low levels of each construct. As a result the relationships between job attitudes and criteria may be substantially underestimated and misunderstood, especially when researchers hypothesize that relationships are non-linearly magnified at either very low or very high levels of the job attitude. IRT methods could therefore be used to develop scales that better distinguish the extremely dissatisfied from the merely dissatisfied and, similarly, better distinguish the extremely satisfied from the merely satisfied.

Our understanding of within-person variability in job attitudes and the causes and consequences of within- person variability in job attitudes also require much better articulation, notwithstanding the excellent initial work in this domain by the likes of Illies and Judge (2002). The growing literature on AET strongly suggests that many workplace behaviors are driven by momentary states that include job attitudes (Dalal, Bhave, & Fiset, 2014), but our understanding of what drives these momentary states and whether some individuals are more predisposed to exhibit high within-person variability in job attitudes is as yet underdeveloped. At least a third of the total variability in job attitudes appears to be within-person (Illies & Judge, 2002) and future research in this domain should expand our understanding of the causes and consequences of this important component of job attitude variance.

This chapter noted earlier the growing view among some researchers that the job attitude literature is either characterized by some level of construct redundancy or that it could be organized into a hierarchical model with a general job attitude factor at the apex. A determination of whether this reorganization of the job attitude construct space is valid will require much additional evidence in addition to the work that has already been presented. First, we need to determine whether the strong correlations among scores on measures of theoretically different attitudes reflect true redundancy or simply poor measurement approaches. Many attitude measures were not developed with quite the same care as is evident for measures used in high stakes settings (e.g., selection) and it is likely to be valuable to bring the same level of technical scrutiny to the measurement of job attitudes. Second, researchers will need to examine the immense literature on the antecedents of discussed job attitudes to determine whether or not these three job attitudes have distinct

SAGE © Deniz S

SAGE Reference

Page 16 of 24 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology

antecedents because distinct antecedents would be supportive of the distinction among the constructs. Some theoretical antecedents of some job attitudes have already been meta-analytically synthesized but the data is largely incomplete. For example, Judge, Heller, and Mount (2002) reported on the relationship of Big Five personality traits with job satisfaction but the relationship of Big Five traits with either commitment or involvement has to the knowledge of this author not been meta-analytically synthesized.

CONCLUSION

Understanding how employees experience both their jobs and the broader context in which these jobs are located is important, irrespective of whether or not job attitudes are strongly predictive of workplace behaviors. Work is a central part of life; as important to many people as their roles as spouse, partner, or parent. As such job attitudes should be regarded as important outcomes in their own right because they reflect the quality of a central life experience. Industrial and organizational psychologists are therefore correct in having spent so much time and effort in attempting to further our understanding of how job attitudes develop, how they can be changed, and how they relate to various workplace behaviors. This chapter has attempted to summarize our current understanding of the field while also drawing attention to the fact that our collective enthusiasm for furthering our understanding of job attitudes may have resulted in some degree of over-elaboration that might require some pruning of the construct space in order to balance theoretical richness with parsimony. Finally, this chapter has also discussed the manner in which the growing literature from outside of North America can be used to further our understanding of job attitudes and their importance in organizational life.

REFERENCES

Abbas, Q., & Khanam, S. J. (2013). Psychometric properties of Urdu translation and adaptation of organizational commitment questionnaire in Pakistan. Asia Journal of Management Science and Education, 2, 240–248. Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press & Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, N. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 252–276. Angle. H. L., & Perry, J. L. (1981). An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 1–14. Arvey, R. D., Bouchard, T. J., Segal, N. L., & Abraham, L. M. (1989). Job satisfaction: Environmental and genetic components. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 187–192. Barling, J., Wade, B., & Fullager, C. (1990). Predicting organizational commitment to company and union: divergent models. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 49–61. Bateman, T.S., & Strasser, S. (1984). A longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 95–112. Becker, H.S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66, 32–40. Becker, T. E., Ulrich, J., & van Dick, R. (2013). Within-person variation in affective commitment to teams: Where it comes from and why it matters. Human Resource Management Review, 23, 131–147. Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley & Sons. Bozeman, D. P., & Perrewe, P. L. (2001). The effect of item-content overlap on organizational commitment questionnaire–turnover cognitions relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 161–173. Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307–311. Brief, A. P. (1998). Attitudes in and around organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. W. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279–307. Brooke, Jr., P. P., Russell, D. W., & Price, J. L. (1988). Discriminant validation of measures of job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 139–145.

SAGE © Deniz S

SAGE Reference

Page 17 of 24 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology

Brown, S. P. (1996). A meta-analysis and review of organizational research on job involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 235–255. Byrne, B. M., & van De Vijver, F. J. R. (2010). Testing for measurement and structural equivalence in large scale cross-cultural studies: Addressing the issue of non-equivalence. International Journal of Testing, 10, 107–132. Cambre, B., Kippers, E., van Veldhoven, M., & de Witte, H. (2012). Jobs and organizations: Explaining group level differences in job satisfaction in the banking sector. Personnel Review, 41, 200–215. Carsten, J. M., & Spector, P. E. (1987). Unemployment, job satisfaction, and employee turnover: A meta- analytic test of the Muchinsky model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 374–381. Chen, H., Ford, Jr., D. L., Kalyanaram, G., & Bhagat, R. S. (2012). Boundary conditions for turnover intentions: Exploratory evidence from China, Jordan, Turkey, and the United States. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23, 846–866. Cheng, Y., & Stockdale, M. S. (2003). The validity of the three-component model of organizational commitment in a Chinese context. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 465–489. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445. Cooper-Hakim, A., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). The construct of work commitment: Testing an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 241–259. Cranny. C. J., Smith, P. C., & Stone, E. F. (1992). Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their performance. New York: Lexington Books. Credé, M., Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., Dalal, R. S., & Bashshur, M. (2007). Job satisfaction as mediator: An assessment of job satisfaction's position within the nomological network. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 515–538. Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1241–1255. Dalal, R. S., & Credé, M. (2013). Job satisfaction and other attitudes. In K. F. Geisinger et al. (Eds.), APA handbook of testing and assessment in psychology, Vol. 1: Test theory and testing and assessment in industrial and organizational psychology. APA handbooks in psychology. (pp. 675–691). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. Dalal, R. S., Bashshur, M. R., & Credé, M. (2011). The forgotten facet: Employee satisfaction with management above the level of immediate supervision. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60, 183–209. Dalal, R. S., Bhave, D. P., & Fiset, J. (2014). Within-person variability in job performance: A theoretical review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 40, 1396–1436. Dasborough, M. T., Ashkanasy, N. M., Tee, E. Y. J., & Tse, H. H. M. (2009). What goes around comes around: How meso-level negative emotional contagion can ultimately determine organizational attitudes toward leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 571–585. Dawes, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. A. (1964). A theory of work adjustment. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation. De Jong, R. D., van der Velde, M. E. G., & Jansen, P. G. W. (2001). Openness to experience and growth need strength as moderators between job characteristics and satisfaction. International Journal of Assessment, 9, 350–356. Diefendorff, J. M., Brown, D. J., Kamin, A. M., & Lord, R. G. (2002). Examining the roles of job involvement and work centrality in predicting organizational citizenship behaviors and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 93–108. Dierdorff, E. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2013). Getting what the occupation gives: Exploring multilevel links between work design and occupational context. Personnel Psychology, 66, 687–721. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Edwards, J. R. (1994). Regression analysis as an alternative to difference scores. Journal of Management, 20, 683–689. Elanain, H. M. A. (2009). Job characteristics, work attitudes, and behaviors in a non-western context: Distributive justice as a mediator. Journal of Management Development, 28, 457–477. Elloy, D. F., & Terpening, W. D. (1992). An empirical distinction between job involvement and work involvement: Some additional evidence. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 24, 465–478. Farkas, A. J., & Tetrick, L. E. (1989). A three-wave longitudinal analysis of the causal ordering of satisfaction

SAGE © Deniz S

SAGE Reference

Page 18 of 24 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology

and commitment on turnover decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 855–868. Fisher, D. M. (2014). A multilevel cross-cultural examination of role overload and organizational commitment: Investigating the interactive effects of context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 723–736. Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., & Magley, V. J. (1997). The antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 578–589. Forgas, J. P., & George, J. M. (2001). Affective influences on judgments and behavior in organizations: An information processing perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 3–34. Fried, Y., & Ferris, G.R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287–322. Gelade, G. A., Dobson, P., & Gilbert, P. (2006). National differences in organizational commitment: Effect of economy, product of personality, or consequence of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 542–556. Gellatly, I. R., Meyer, J. P., & Luchak, A. A. (2006). Combined effects of the three commitment components on focal and discretionary behaviors: A test of Meyer and Herscovitch's propositions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 331–345. Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P., & Zedeck, S. (1981). Measurement theory for the behavioral sciences. San Francisco, CA: Freeman & Company. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178. Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463–488. Gutek, B. A., & Winter, S. J. (1992). Consistency of job satisfaction across situations: Fact or framing artifact? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 41, 61–78. Hackett, R. D., Bycio, P., & Hausdorf, P. A. (1994). Further assessment of Meyer and Allen's (1991) three- component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 15–23. Hackman J. R., & Oldham G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279. Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 305–325. Harrison, J., & Hubbard, R. (1998). Antecedents to organizational commitment among Mexican employees of a US firm in Mexico. Journal of Social Psychology, 138, 609–623. Herrbach, O., Mignonac, K., Vandenberghe, C., & Negrini, A. (2009). Perceived HRM practices, organizational commitment, and voluntary early retirement among late-career managers. Human Resource Management, 48, 895–915. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership,and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. New York: Sage. Huang, X., & Van de Vliert, E. (2004). Job level and national culture as joint roots of job satisfaction. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 329–348. Hulin, C. L. (1966). Effects of community characteristics on measures of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50, 185–192. Hulin, C. L., & Mayer, L. J. (1986). Psychometric equivalence of a translation of the Job Descriptive Index into Hebrew. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 83–94. Hulin, C. L., Roznowski, M., & Hachiya, D. (1985). Alternative opportunities and withdrawal decisions: Empirical and theoretical discrepancies and integration. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 233–250. Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). 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, 1332–1356. Illies, R., & Judge, T.A. (2002). Understanding the dynamic relationships among personality, mood, and job satisfaction: A field experience sampling study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 1119–1139. Ironson, G. H., Smith, P. C., Brannick, M. T., Gibson, W. M., & Paul, K. B. (1989). Construction of a Job in

SAGE © Deniz S

SAGE Reference

Page 19 of 24 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology

General scale: A comparison of global, composite, and specific measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 193–200. Jaros, S. J. (1997). An assessment of Meyer and Allen's (1991) three-component model of organizational commitment and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 319–337. Javadin, M., House, R. J., & Dorfman, P. W. (2004). A non-technical summary of GLOBE findings. In R. J. House et al. (Eds.), Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The Globe Study of 62 Societies (pp. 29–48). New York: Sage. Johns, G. (1978). Attitudinal and nonattitudinal predictors of two forms of absence from work. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 431–444. Johnson, R. E., Groff, K. W., & Taing, M. U. (2009). Nature of the interactions among organizational commitments: Complementary, competitive, or synergistic? British Journal of Management, 20, 431–447. Joo, B. K., & Lim, T. (2009). The effects of organizational learning culture, perceived job complexity, and proactive personality on organizational commitment and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 16, 48–60. Judge, T. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1993). Job satisfaction as a reflection of disposition: A multiple source causal analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56, 388–421. Judge, T. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). Dispositional affect and job satisfaction: A review and theoretical extension. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 67–98. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 237–249. Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta- analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530–541. Judge, T. A., Hulin, C. L., & Dalal, R. S. (2012). Job satisfaction and job affect. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 496–525). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151–188. Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 17–34. Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376–407. Kanning, U. P., & Hill, A. (2013). Validation of the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) in six languages. Journal of Business and Media Psychology, 4, 11–20. Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 341–349. Kemp, N. J., & Cook, J. D. (1983). Job longevity and growth need strategy as joint moderators of the task- design-job satisfaction relationship. Human Relations, 36, 883–898. Kinicki, A.J., Mckee-Ryan, F.M., Schriesheim, C.A., & Carson, K.P. (2002). Assessing the construct validity of the job descriptive index: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 14–32. Klein, H. J., Cooper, J. T., Molloy, J. C., & Swanson, J. A. (2014). The assessment of commitment: Advantages of a unidimensional, target-free approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 222–238. Ko, J. W., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1997). Assessment of Meyer and Allen's three-component model of organizational commitment in South Korea. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 961–973. Kunin, T. (1955). The construction of a new type of attitude measure. Personnel Psychology, 8, 65–77. Lai, L. C. H., Cummins, R. A., & Lau, A. L. D. (2013). Cross-cultural differences in subjective well-being: Cultural response bias as an explanation. Social Indicators Research, 114, 607–619. Lapointe, E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2011). Organizational commitment, organization-based self-esteem, emotional exhaustion, and turnover: A conservation of resources perspective. Human Relations, 64, 1609–1631. Lapointe, E., Vandenberghe, C., & Boudrias, J.S. (2013). Psychological contract breach, affective commitment to organization and supervisor, and newcomer adjustment: A three-wave moderated mediation model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 528–538. Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., Mobley, W. H. (1998). Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs. Academy of Management Review, 23, 741–755. Le, H., Schmidt, F. L., Harter, J. K., & Lauver, K. J. (2010). The problem of empirical redundancy of constructs in organizational research: An empirical investigation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

SAGE © Deniz S

SAGE Reference

Page 20 of 24 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology

Processes, 112, 112–125. Lee, K. Carswell, J. J., & Allen, N. J. (2000). A meta-analytic review of occupational commitment: Relations with person- and work-related variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 799–811. Lewis, H. B. (1944). An experimental study of the role of the ego in work, I. The role of the ego in cooperative work. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 34, 113–126. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 407–416. Little, T. D. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data: Practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 53–76. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1343). Chicago: Rand McNally. Lodahl, T., & Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 24–33. Loher, B. T., Noe, R. A., Moeller, N. L., & Fitzgerald, M. P. (1985). A meta-analysis of the relation of job characteristics to job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 280–289. Luchak, A. A., & Gellatly, I. R. (2007). A comparison of linear and nonlinear relations between organizational commitment and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 786–793. Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 3–30. Maier, G. M., & Woschee, R.-M. (2002). Die affektive Bindung an das Unternehmen. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 46, 126–136. Mathieu, J. E. (1991). A cross-level nonrecursive model of the antecedents of organizational commitment and satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 607–618. Mathieu, J. E., & Farr, J. L. (1991). Further evidence for the discriminant validity of measures of organizational commitment, job involvement, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 127–133. Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171–194. McCabe, D. J., Dalessio, A., Briga, J., & Sasaki, J. (1980). The convergent and discriminant validities between the IOR and the JDI: English and Spanish forms. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 778–786. McGee, G. W., & Ford, R. C. (1987). Two (or more?) dimensions of organizational commitment: Reexamination of the Affective and Continuance Commitment Scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 638–642. Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299–326. Meyer J. P., Allen N. J., & Smith, C. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 538–551. Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52. Mignonac, K., & Herrbach, O. (2004). Linking work events, affective states, and attitudes: An empirical study of manager's emotions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 221–240. Miller, H. E., Katerberg, R., & Hulin, C. L. (1979). Evaluation of the Mobley, Horner, and Hollingsworth model of employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 509–517. Miner, A. G., Glomb, T. M., & Hulin, C. (2005). Experience sampling mood and its correlates at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 171–193. Morrow, P. (1983). Concept redundancy in organizational research: The case of work commitment. Academy of Management Review, 8, 465–500 Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Orientation toward the job and organization. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 175–208). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. (1982). Organizational linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. San Diego: Academic Press. Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–227. Mullen, M. R. (1995). Diagnosing measurement equivalence in cross-national research. Journal of International Business Studies, 26, 573–596.

SAGE © Deniz S

SAGE Reference

Page 21 of 24 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology

Munyon, T. P., Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewe, P. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2010). Optimism and the non-linear citizenship behavior – job satisfaction relationship in three studies. Journal of Management, 36, 1505–1528. Nasser, R., & Diefenbach, B. (1996). Cross-translation of the job descriptive index: Validity and reliability procedure for the translation. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment, and Rehabilitation, 7, 3–11. Newman, D. A., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Been there, bottled that: Are state and behavioral work engagement new and useful construct ‘wines?' Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 31–35. Newman, D. A., Joseph, D. L., & Hulin, C. L. (2010). Job attitudes and employee engagement: Considering the attitude ‘A-factor'. In S. Albrecht (Ed.), The Handbook of Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research and Practice (pp. 43–61). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Ng, T. W. H., Sorensen, K. L., & Yim, F. H. K. (2009). Does the job satisfaction–job performance relationship vary across cultures? Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 40, 761–796. Nystedt, L., Sjöberg, A., & Hägglund, G. (1999). Discriminant validation of measures of organizational commitment, job involvement, and job satisfaction among Swedish army officers. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 40, 49–55. O'Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492–499. Panaccio, A., & Vandenberghe, C. (2012). Five factor model of personality and organizational commitment: The mediating role of positive and negative affective states. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 647–658. Paullay, I., Alliger, G., & Stone-Romero, E. (1994). Construct validation of two instruments designed to measure job involvement and work centrality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 224–228. Penley, L. E., & Gould, S. (1988). Etzioni's model of organizational involvement: A perspective for understanding commitment to organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9, 43–59. Powell, D., & Meyer, J. (2004), Side-bet theory and the three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 157–177. Probst, T. M. (2003). Development and validation of the Job Security Index and the Job Security Satisfaction scale: A classical test theory and IRT approach. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 451–467. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698–714. Rice, R. W., Gentile, D. A., & McFarlin, D. B. (1991). Facet importance and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 31–39. Rice, R. W., Markus, K., Moyer, R. P., & McFarlin, D.B. (1991). Facet importance and job satisfaction: Two experimental tests of Locke's Range of Affect Theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1977–1987. Rockstuhl, T., Dulebohn, J. H., Ang, S., & Shore, L. M. (2012). Leader–member exchange (LMX) and culture: A meta-analysis of correlates of LMX across 23 countries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1097–1130. Rodriguez-Munoz, A., Baillien, E., De Witte, H., Moreno-Jiminez, B., & Pastor, J. C. (2009). Cross-lagged relationships between workplace bullying, job satisfaction, and engagement: Two longitudinal studies. Work and Stress: An International Journal of Work, Health, and Organizations, 23, 225–243. Russell, S. R., Spitzmuller, C., Lin, L. F., Stanton, J. M., Smith, P. C., & Ironson, G. H. (2004). Shorter can also be better: The abridged Job in General Measure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 878–893. Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 600–619. Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 23, 224–253. Sandberg, J. G., Harper, J. M., Hill, E. J., Miller, R. B., Yorgason, J. B., & Day, R. D. (2013). ‘What happens at home does not necessarily stay at home': The relationship of observed negative couple interaction with physical health, mental health, and work satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75, 808–821. Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48, 23–47. Shaver, N., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O'Connor, C. (1987). Emotion knowledge: Further exploration of a prototype approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 513–523. Sims, C. S., Drasgow, F., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2005). The effects of sexual harassment on turnover in the military: Time-dependent modeling. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1141–1152. Sinclair, R. R., Tucker, J. S., Cullen, J. C., & Wright, C. (2005). Performance differences among four

SAGE © Deniz S

SAGE Reference

Page 22 of 24 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology

organizational commitment profiles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1280–1287. Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Somers, M. J. (1995). Organizational commitment, turnover, and absenteeism: An examination of direct and interaction effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 49–58. Somers, M. J. (2009). The combined influence of affective, continuance, and normative commitment on employee withdrawal. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 75–81. Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement of Human Service Staff satisfaction: Development of the Job Satisfaction Survey. Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 693–713. Stanton, J. M., Sinar, E. F., Balzer, W. K., Julian, A. L., Thoresen, P., Aziz, S., Fisher, G. G., & Smith, P. C. (2001). Development of a compact measure of job satisfaction: The abridged Job Descriptive Index. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 1104–1122. Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the midst of change: A dispositional approach to job attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 469–480. Staw, B. M., Bell, N. E., & Clausen, J. A. (1986). The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 437–453. Steel, R. P., & Rentsch, J. R. (1997). The dispositional model of job attitudes revisited: Findings of a 10-year study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 873–879. Swailes, S. (2002). Organizational commitment: A critique of the construct and measures. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4, 155–178. Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. (2010). Examining the impact of Culture's Consequences: A three- decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede's cultural values dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 405–439. Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46, 259–293. Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley. Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., de Chermont, K., & Warren, C. R. (2003). The affective underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic review and integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 914–945. Thurstone, L. L. (1928). Attitudes can be measured. American Journal of Sociology, 33, 529–554. Van Der Westhuizen, D. W., Pacheco, G., & Webber, D. J. (2012). Culture, participative decision making, and job satisfaction. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23, 2661–2679. Vandenberghe, C., Bentein, K., & Stinglhamber, F. (2004). Affective commitment to the organization, supervisor, and work group: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 47–71. Wang, M., & Russell, S. S. (2005). Measurement equivalence of the Job Descriptive Index across Chinese and American workers: Results from Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Item Response Theory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 709–732. Wasti, S. A. (2005). Commitment profiles: Combinations of organizational commitment forms and job outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 290–308. Wasti, S. A., & Can, O. (2008). Affective and normative commitment to organization, supervisor, and coworkers: Do collectivist values matter? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 404–413. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1999). The PANAS-X: Manual for the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule – Expanded Form. Retrieved from: http://www2.psychology.uiowa.edu/Faculty/Clark/PANAS-X.pdf Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. Webster, J. R., Adams, G. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2014). Core work evaluations: The viability of a higher-order work attitude construct. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85, 27–38. Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Manual of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minneapolis, MN: Work Adjustment Project. Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs, and affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 173–194. Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 1–74. Weiss, H. M., Nicholas, J. P., & Daus, C. S. (1999). An examination of the joint effects of affective experiences and job beliefs on job satisfaction and variations in affective experiences over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78, 1–24.

SAGE © Deniz S

SAGE Reference

Page 23 of 24 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology

Weitz, J. (1952). A neglected concept in the study of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 5, 201–205. Weng, Q., & McElroy, J.C. (2012). Organizational career growth, affective occupational commitment, and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 256–265. Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy of Management Review, 7, 418–428. Williams, C. R. (1999). Reward contingency, unemployment, and functional turnover. Human Resource Management Review, 9, 549–576. Yoon, J., & Thye, S.R. (2002). A dual process model of organizational commitment: Job satisfaction and organizational support. Work & Occupations, 29, 97–124. Zargar, M. S., Vandenberghe, C., Marchand, C., & Ayed, A. K. B. (2014). Job scope, affective commitment, and turnover: The moderating role of growth need strategy. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 280–302. Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. The Academy of Management Journal, 44, 682–696.

• satisfaction • job satisfaction • commitment • job involvement • job characteristics • organizational commitment • attitudes

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781473914957.n2

SAGE © Deniz S

SAGE Reference

Page 24 of 24 The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology