How workers listen to music: the effect of social hearing

among service workers

Journal: Human Relations

Manuscript ID HR-2022-1107

Manuscript Type: Standard Manuscript

Music, Service work, Listening, Social hearing, Positive organizaitonal

Pe
Keywords:
behaviour
e rR
ev
iew
Ve
rsi
on

Human Relations
Page 1 of 39

1
2
3 How workers listen to music: the effect of social hearing among service workers
4
5
6 Music is pervasive in many workplaces and has been linked to a variety of work-related
7
8 outcomes. Yet, research has struggled to explain how music increases attention, mood, and
9
10 task performance. In particular, there is little consideration for the visceral, sensual and social
11
12
13
nature of listening to music in existing theorisations. To expand our understanding of
14
15 workers' experiences with music at work to explore the effect of this side of music on work
16
17 outcomes, we focus on listening behaviours such as dancing singing and discussing music on
18
Pe

19
workers' social interactions through the concept of social hearing. Three structural models,
20
21
22 tested among service workers (N=263) at a large national-European retailer, suggest that
er

23
24 social hearing mediates the positive effect of music on workers. Accordingly, we challenge
25
R

26 research to move beyond individualised theories of listening when explaining music in the
27
ev

28
29 workplace and argue that social hearing offers a chance for workers to express autonomy and
30
iew

31 imbue their work with social meaning.

32
33 Keywords: Music, Service work, Listening, Social hearing, Positive organizaitonal
34
35
behaviour
Ve

36
37
38 Introduction
39
rsi

40 Music has long been an important factor in the experience of work (Korczynski et al 2013,
41
42
on

Korczynski and Jones 2006; Radano, 1989). From tech start-ups (Cluley and Green, 2014) to
43
44
45 the factory floor (Robertson et al 2007), workers often listen to music pass time, coordinate
46
47 their activities and give meaning to their work. In service sector, in particular, workers
48
49 typically listen to "piped in" music and may be asked to dance, sing and talk about it as part
50
51
52 of the service they deliver (Besen-Cassino, 2014).
53
54 Yet, despite its prevalence, ‘the organizational sciences have largely ignored the
55
56 implications of listening to music at work ... very little is known about the effects of music on
57
58
59
behavior and cognition at work' (Keeler and Cortina, 2020: 447). Empirically, research has
60

Human Relations
 Page 2 of 39

1
2
3 yet to agree on the effect of music on workers. It ‘has been found to have beneficial,
4
5
6 detrimental, or no effect on a variety of behavioral and psychological outcome measures’
7
8 (Kämpfe, Sedlmeier, and Renkewitz 2011: 424). Theoretically, too, ‘we ultimately have
9
10 limited knowledge about how music affects individuals at work' and this 'represents a
11
12
13
potentially quite serious shortcoming of the literature’ (Landay and Harm, 2019: 372-9). In
14
15 this regard, psychologically-oriented literature explores the effects of music (Oakes & North,
16
17 2008; Jain & Bagdare, 2011; Roschk et al 2016) while an anthropological literature explores
18
Pe

19
the ways workers use music to form social bonds and imbue work with cultural meaning
20
21
22 (Korczynski 2015; Korczynski 2011; Korczynski 2007).
er

23
24 Our aim in this study is to integrate the psychological and anthropological approaches
25
R

26 to reflect the fact that workers both ‘experience well-being and positive emotions when
27
ev

28
29 listening to music that has a particular significance for them’ and ‘feel pleasure from
30
iew

31 socializing around a musical experience, making music or listening to it with other people’
32
33 (Raglio et al 2019: 1). To do so, we explore music effects in terms of the social bonds music
34
35
creates between workers, drawing on Payne et al's (2017) conceptualisation of listening
Ve

36
37
38 among service workers. They distinguish between alienating and satisfying music
39
rsi

40 soundscapes and observe service workers ignoring music, listening as individuals and sharing
41
42
on

their consumption of music with co-workers and customers. The latter reframes listening in
43
44
45 the workplace as an interpersonal activity. Here behaviours such as dancing, singing and
46
47 discussing music, rather than the music itself, facilitate social connections and feelings of
48
49 engagement with other listeners. We label this type of listening social hearing and address
50
51
52 the following research question: how does social hearing affect workers’ individual
53
54 organizational behaviours?
55
56 With cooperation from a large European-based retailer, three structural models test
57
58
59
the effect of social hearing on service workers via a questionnaire with frontline service staff
60

Human Relations
Page 3 of 39

1
2
3 (N=263). Results suggest that when service workers are satisfied with the music they hear at
4
5
6 work, they tend to engage in social hearing with co-workers and customers. This heightens
7
8 workers' sense of connection to co-workers and customers and mediates positive
9
10 organizational behaviours including job satisfaction and discretionary effort.
11
12
13
Based on these findings, the paper concludes that music effects on workers cannot be
14
15 adequately explained if we only account the relationships between a music text and an
16
17 individual listener. Music in the workplace is mediated by the social context of listening with
18
Pe

19
others. This fundamentally challenges recent thinking and opens up new avenues for research
20
21
22 to explain the effect of music on workers beyond those set out in within the anthropological
er

23
24 tradition. In this sense, while we lend support for research which highlights beneficial effects
25
R

26 of music in the workplace, our main contribution is to develop ‘a cohesive theoretical

27
ev

28
29 explanation of the processes by which music’ effects workers that has, up to now, been
30
iew

31 ‘missing’ (Landay and Harms, 2019: 379). More broadly, our research responds to calls to
32
33 examine the social mechanisms that drive core work-related outcomes such as job
34
35
satisfaction. Practically, our research suggests that service managers and retail designers must
Ve

36
37
38 consider how the soundscape affects the social interactions among service workers.
39
rsi

40
41
42
on

Theoretical background and hypothesis development

43
44
45 Music effects in service settings
46
47 There is a rich tradition of empirical research exploring the effect of music within service and
48
49 retail settings on consumers (Mattila and Wirtz 2001; Morin et al 2007). This research shows
50
51
52 us that music can amplify consumers’ satisfaction (Sayin et al 2015), spending and purchase
53
54 intentions (Fiore et al 2000, Sullivan 2002), and visit intentions (Grewal et al. 2003;
55
56 Broekemier et al 2008; Doucé and Janssens 2013). To explain these effects, researchers have
57
58
59
60

Human Relations
 Page 4 of 39

1
2
3 turned to environmental psychology (Donovan and Rossiter, 1982) and considered the
4
5
6 relationship between the individual listener and the music text.
7
8 Here, a cognitive perspective tells us that music has effects on consumers because it
9
10 provides information about the nature and quality of a service (Russell and Snodgrass, 1991;
11
12
13
Booms and Bitner, 1982). For instance, consumers may feel that stores which play music care
14
15 about them. In contrast, an affective perspective suggests that consumers' perceptions of music
16
17 cause emotional responses (Baker et al 1992; Hul et al 1997). Key concepts here are matching
18
Pe

19
and person-place congruency. They suggest that music effects occur when consumers feel their
20
21
22 music needs are met at the point of consumption (Roschk et al 2016) and when consumers
er

23
24 think that music fits the service experience (Chebat et al 2001; Jain and Bagdare 2011;
25
R

26 Spangenberg et al 2005). Studies demonstrate that when perceived music fit increases, time in-
27
ev

28
29 store and spend (Mattila and Wirtz 2001, Milliman 1982), consumer interactions (Dubé et al
30
iew

31 1995) and purchase intentions increase (Baker et al., 2002) while perceived waiting time
32
33 decreases (Hui et al 1997, Chebat and Vaillant 2001, Whiting and Donthu 2006). Building from
34
35
this, consumer research suggests that music properties such as tempo and style affect a range
Ve

36
37
38 of consumer behaviors (Oakes and North 2008, Jain and Bagdare, 2011). However, studies also
39
rsi

40 suggest that consumers' perceptions of music, that is, their satisfaction with music, may
41
42
on

ultimately explain music effects not textual elements (North et al 1999). Worker-focused
43
44
45 studies agree. As Lesiuk explains, individuals tend to ‘value their own or “preferred music”’ at
46
47 work rather than music of any particular style (2005: 175).
48
49
50
51
52 Work and music effects
53
54 In contrast to the empirical literature exploring the effects of music on consumers, there are
55
56 'limited' explorations of the effects of environmental factors on service workers (Parish et al
57
58
59
2008: 222). In fact, Roschk et al's (2016) review of environmental research in service settings
60

Human Relations
Page 5 of 39

1
2
3 does not highlight a single study focusing on service workers. Organizational research, too, has
4
5
6 paid insufficient attention to the ways music effects workers' experiences of work (Keeler and
7
8 Cortina 2020).
9
10 This lack of attention is curious as we know that work environment impacts workers in
11
12
13
notable ways. It affects innovativeness (Amabile et al 1996), job satisfaction (Wright and
14
15 Davis, 2003), organizational learning (Edenius and Yakhlef 2007) and sense of justice
16
17 (Kuokkanen et al 2014). Indeed, there is a long tradition of studies identifying beneficial effects
18
Pe

19
of music listening on work productivity (Fox 1971, Gatewood 1921, Humes, 1941; Kirkpatrick
20
21
22 1943, Wokoun 1969). More recent studies also indicate that the presence of lyrical background
er

23
24 music can affect listeners’ concentration and attention to work tasks (Shih et al 2009, Shih et
25
R

26 al 2012, Shih et al 2016).

27
ev

28
29 However, reviewing the literature on music in the workplace, Landay and Harms
30
iew

31 observe ‘there is no consensus regarding the effects of music, whether in the workplace or
32
33 elsewhere’ (2019: 381). More fundamentally, while there ‘appears to be a link between music
34
35
and a wide variety of work-relevant outcomes … few studies explicitly invoked a theory that
Ve

36
37
38 they proposed to test’ (2019: 379). Landay and Harms stress that empirical research on the
39
rsi

40 effect of music in the workplace ‘has generally failed to provide much, if any, theoretical
41
42
on

explanation for its results. In consequence, while scholars have some knowledge of the effects
43
44
45 of music on individuals, we still know very little as to why these effects occur’ (2019: 372).
46
47 This, they continue, ‘is a significant limitation for the application of music to the management
48
49 field’ (2019: 372).
50
51
52 Where research does state a theoretical perspective, it tends to be grounded in
53
54 environmental psychology and assume an individual theory of listening (Pritchard et al 2007).
55
56 As such, it focuses on individual differences (Cassidy and MacDonald 2007, 2009). There has
57
58
59
been far less attention to the work and social context in which people listen to music at work.
60

Human Relations
 Page 6 of 39

1
2
3 This lack of attention to the specificities of work-settings is problematic. According to
4
5
6 Lesuik, it is ‘possible that the more individuals listen to or perform music the more likely it is
7
8 that they will experience increasingly strong emotional responses to music’ (2005: 176-177).
9
10 As some workers are exposed to work due to the nature of their job, we could expect a dosing
11
12
13
or learning effect. Likewise, Lesiuk observes that ‘music listening based on workers’ choice to
14
15 listen ‘when they want as they want,’ is beneficial for state positive affect, quality-of-work,
16
17 and time spent on a task’ (2005: 188). In some work contexts workers have choices over the
18
Pe

19
music they listen to but not others. The impact of such contextual features have yet to be
20
21
22 considered in depth. Rather, the existing literature agrees both on the need for fresh theoretical
er

23
24 insight and acknowledges how little we currently know about the effects of music in the
25
R

26 workplace.
27
ev

28
29
30
iew

31 Social hearing in service work

32
33 To attend to the differences in the ways workers can listen to music at work, we may benefit
34
35
from an integration with anthropological studies of music at work. Such research challenges
Ve

36
37
38 the individual model of listening at the heart of most existing thinking. The anthropological
39
rsi

40 tradition documents the experiences of music workers (Hoedemaekers, 2017; Humphreys et al

41
42
on

2012; Umay 2016; Cluley 2009), tells the history of other workers using music at work
43
44
45 productively and to resist management control (Robertson et al, 2006) and documents how
46
47 contemporary workers use music to cope with drudgery of their work (Korczynski 2011).
48
49 The anthropological literature also shows us how contemporary workers use music to
50
51
52 strengthen social bonds and restore a sense of humanity at work (Korczynski et al 2013). Music
53
54 allows workers to invest personal, social and cultural meaning in their work (Korczynski,
55
56 2014). Workers may find that particular songs resonate with their experiences of work, help
57
58
59
them to build solidarity movements (Jiang and Korczynski 2019) and soundtrack their work
60

Human Relations
Page 7 of 39

1
2
3 experiences (Pickering 2012). Keevers and Sykes (2016: 1643), for example, show us how
4
5
6 members of a not-for-profit organization use their shared consumption of music to
7
8 'choreograph the affective relations that bring forth a sense of belonging, participation,
9
10 recognition and respect between diverse people'. Indeed, an experimental study by Lesiuk
11
12
13
(2005) highlights similar group effects. In one case, a company where employees did not
14
15 previously listen to music, the workers initially showed a decrease in positive affect after they
16
17 were encouraged to listen to music at work. However, by the third week of the study, having
18
Pe

19
formed 'listening groups' the workers showed an increase in positive affect (2005: 188).
20
21
22 The anthropological literature also demonstrates that different types of workers tend to
er

23
24 listen differently. For example, knowledge workers use music to manage their social
25
R

26 interactions at work and maintain boundaries between work and non-workspaces. Green and
27
ev

28
29 Cluley (2014) report that workers in a creative start-up use listening behaviours to create sound
30
iew

31 barriers that help them regulate social interactions in the workplace. As with Keevers and Sykes
32
33 (2016), they show how the organization would come together through shared listening parties
34
35
at the end of the week. But they also observe workers listening to music using headphones so
Ve

36
37
38 they can filter out distractions in their offices and enter flow states in the workplace and to
39
rsi

40 signal to others not to disturb them.

41
42
on

In contrast, within service settings, the anthropological literature shows us that music
43
44
45 helps engage service providers with consumers. Music is a frequent a talking point between
46
47 them (Besen-Cassino, 2014). Service workers may even by encouraged to display their
48
49 engagement with music through dancing, singing and discussing music with others (DeNora,
50
51
52 2000). In this regard, Payne et al (2017) propose that service workers voluntarily engage in a
53
54 unique form of listening with co-workers and consumers. This involves a range of shared
55
56 listening practices such as singing, dancing and talking about music at work which allow
57
58
59
workers to engage with others. Payne et al (2017) argue that service workers engage in these
60

Human Relations
 Page 8 of 39

1
2
3
4 listening practices to heighten their sense of belonging at work, enjoyment of their work and
5
6
7 to compensate for negative aspects of work. Social interactions facilitated by music allow
8
9
10 service workers to create personalised connections with their colleagues and service users and
11
12 to build evocative shared experiences and memories linked to specific songs and instances of
13
14
15 social hearing.
16
17 To differentiate this mode of listening, we can label such activities as social hearing. It
18
Pe

19 is distinguished from the individualized consumption of music in the psychological literature

20
21
22
as it conceives of music as a spur for social interactions and suggests that music effects are not
er

23
24 only determined by the characteristics of a music text, nor individual preference for a style of
25
R

26 music, but also by outward listening behaviours such as singing, dancing and discussing music.
27
ev

28
Payne et al (2017) emphasise, service workers may engage in both social and individualized
29
30
iew

31 forms of listening during the working day. However, in comparison to studies of music effects
32
33 exploring individualised listening, we have yet to find any empirical tests linking social hearing
34
35 to workplace behaviours. Expanding the theory of music at work here has the potential to
Ve

36
37
38 significantly expand the explanatory power of our theories of music effects. As Raglio et al
39
rsi

40 explain: ‘Empirically, all individuals can experience well-being and positive emotions when
41
42 listening to music that has a particular significance for them; or they can feel pleasure from
on

43
44
45
socializing around a musical experience, making music or listening to it with other people’
46
47 (2019: 1). Given this, in this study we seek to address the following research question: how
48
49 does social hearing affect workers’ individual organizational behaviours?
50
51
52
53
54 A social theory of music effects
55
56 There is good reason to base our understanding of music in service work, at least, on social
57
58 hearing. When music in the workplace encourages social hearing, Payne et al (2017) suggest it
59
60

Human Relations
Page 9 of 39

1
2
3 may increase group cohesion and engagement among service workers and even between
4
5
6 service workers and service users. Elsewhere in the literature, group cohesion has demonstrable
7
8 workplace effects. It supports positive organizational behaviours (POB) such as job satisfaction
9
10 (Luthans et al, 2008), motivation (Youssef and Luthans, 2007), organizational commitment
11
12
13
(Avey et al, 2009; Avey et al, 2008; Larson and Luthans, 2006) and productivity (Walumbwa
14
15 et al, 2008). Indeed, group cohesion is potentially the ‘most important’ for antecedent for POB
16
17 (Martin, 2005: 126). Froman hypotheses that when positive emotional states ‘are shared with
18
Pe

19
others’, they ‘can create, inspire, and kindle dreams of even larger achievements’ (2010: 61).
20
21
22 Based on this, we propose that social hearing mediates the effect of music in the workplace on
er

23
24 service workers by increasing their sense of engagement with their co-workers and consumers.
25
R

26 To test this proposition, and respond to Landay and Harms’ (2019) call for more
27
ev

28
29 deductive research, we hypothesize a causal line from satisfaction with music at work to
30
iew

31 increased POB via social hearing and a sense of engagement with co-workers and customers.
32
33 To do so, we define workers’ satisfaction with music at work as a positive construct
34
35
representing the fit between the music at work and a worker’s music needs in work that can be
Ve

36
37
38 measured reflectively. We use social hearing as a behavioural indicator illustrating interactions
39
rsi

40 between co-workers and consumers that can be measured reflectively. We use engagement
41
42
on

with co-workers and consumers as constructs that reflectively indicate worker’s perceptions of
43
44
45 group identity and social bonds with co-workers and consumers respectively. Both social
46
47 hearing and engagement are, therefore, assumed to represent as positive emotional states that
48
49 increase when workers are satisfied with music at work and, in turn, lead to POB.
50
51
52 For the purpose of this study, where we are focused on exploring the way music affects
53
54 workers rather than simply highlight potential affects, we selected three interrelated but distinct
55
56 POB outcome variables (Tett and Meyer 1993) which represent 'commitment mindsets' (Meyer
57
58
59
et al 2018: 1210). Based on this, we first hypothesise that social hearing will positively mediate
60

Human Relations
 Page 10 of 39

1
2
3 the effect of satisfaction with music in the workplace on job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is 'a
4
5
6 central variable in the study of organizational behavior that reflects the individual’s work
7
8 adjustment and work well-being' and is 'essential to many theories of organizational
9
10 phenomena' (Pindek et al 2020: 1448). As with Weikamp and Gorlitz, then, 'we focus on job
11
12
13
satisfaction because job satisfaction is one of most studied aspects of subjective well-being at
14
15 work and is positively related to job performance' (2016: 2092). We hypothesise:
16
17 (H1) Satisfaction with music at work is positively related to job satisfaction, via the serial
18
Pe

19
mediators of social hearing with customers and engagement with customers.
20
21
22 (H2) Satisfaction with music at work is positively related to job satisfaction, via the serial
er

23
24 mediators of social hearing with staff and engagement with staff.
25
R

26 Second, we hypothesise social hearing will negatively moderate the effect of satisfaction with
27
ev

28
29 music in the workplace on turnover intention. Like job satisfaction, turnover intention is a
30
iew

31 key workplace outcome. We propose that if service users are satisfied with the music they
32
33 hear at work, its effect on turnover intention will be mediated by social hearing. We
34
35
hypothesise that:
Ve

36
37
38 (H3) Satisfaction with music at work is negatively related to turnover intention, via the serial
39
rsi

40 mediators of social hearing with customers and engagement with customers.

41
42
on

(H4) Satisfaction with music at work is negatively related to turnover intention, via the serial
43
44
45 mediators of social hearing with staff and engagement with staff.
46
47 Finally, we hypothesise social hearing will positively mediate the effect of satisfaction with
48
49 music in the workplace on discretionary effort. Discretionary effort is a behavioural construct
50
51
52 that indicates organizational commitment. The importance of workers investing discretionary
53
54 effort or being willing to ‘to go the extra mile for their company’ is illustrated in monetary
55
56 terms by Gallup (2013: 11). They estimate that organizations in the USA alone could save
57
58
59
60

Human Relations
Page 11 of 39

1
2
3 $450 to $550 billion per year if their employees were motivated to invest discretionary effort.
4
5
6 We hypothesise:
7
8 (H5) Satisfaction with music at work is positively related to discretionary effort, via the serial
9
10 mediators of social hearing with customers and engagement with customers.
11
12
13
(H6) Satisfaction with music at work is positively related to discretionary effort, via the serial
14
15 mediators of social hearing with staff and engagement with staff.
16
17
18
Pe

19
Methods
20
21
22 Participants and procedure
er

23
24 To test these hypotheses, we collected data from service workers in collaboration with a
25
R

26 leading national European retailer specialising in FMCG goods - anonymised here as the
27
ev

28
29 STORE. The STORE runs large city-centre retail units with over 20 staff and small out-of-
30
iew

31 town convenience stores with fewer than 5 staff. It also operates an in-house radio station
32
33 that centrally selects and broadcasts music concurrently across all stores. As such, focusing
34
35
on this single company not only allows us to control for variation between work cultures but
Ve

36
37
38 also to control for the exposure to music.
39
rsi

40 Prior to data collection, 300 responses was set as a target by the STORE to provide a
41
42
on

representative sample of their workforce. Data collection took two forms. An online version
43
44
45 of the survey was posted to the STORE's staff social media boards. The online survey was
46
47 live for one month and was completed by 228 individuals. A further 35 participants sampled
48
49 within stores by the research team in order to increase the sample and verify the accuracy of
50
51
52 the online data. No incentive was offered to participants. This research design was approved
53
54 by Author 1’s University Ethics Committee.
55
56 Key characteristics of this final sample (N=263) are available in Supplementary Table
57
58
59
1. The majority of the sample (84.7%) are employed in non-management roles and spend at
60

Human Relations
 Page 12 of 39

1
2
3 least three-quarters of their working hours on the shop floor (73.8%). 58.9% of participants
4
5
6 have worked at the STORE for at least 5 years. The sample equally split between gender
7
8 (43.7% males and 56.1% females), over half of participants (55.9%) are aged under 35. Only
9
10 17.9% of the sample have a degree education. These figures are consistent with the overall
11
12
13
demographic make-up of the employees at the research partner.
14
15
16
17 Measures
18
Pe

19
Satisfaction with music at work (input). We adapted three attitudinal statements from North et
20
21
22 al (1999) to measure satisfaction with music. We rephrased items specifically to relate to
er

23
24 music at work (I like listening to the music played at the STORE while I am at work / The
25
R

26 music played at the STORE makes work more enjoyable / I am glad that I can listen to music
27
ev

28
29 played in the STORE during my work time). Each item was measured through a 5-point
30
iew

31 Likert type scale ranging from Disagree strongly to Agree strongly.

32
33 Social hearing (mediator). Informed by Payne et al's (2017) conceptualization, the
34
35
survey included two measures of social hearing. The first related to social hearing with co-
Ve

36
37
38 workers, the second with customers. Each measure comprised the same four items. Two
39
rsi

40 categorical items measured behavioural manifestations of social hearing (How frequently do

41
42
on

you discuss the music played at the STORE with your colleagues/customers? How frequently
43
44
45 do you notice colleagues/customers singing or dancing to the music played at the STORE?).
46
47 Each item was scored via a 5-point Likert type scale ranging from Never to Very often. An
48
49 additional reflective item tested the extent to which respondents felt they shared their
50
51
52 experiences of music with others (Listening to the music at the STORE is an experience I feel
53
54 I share with colleagues/customers). This item was measured through a 5-point Likert type
55
56 scale ranging from Disagree strongly to Agree strongly.
57
58
59
60

Human Relations
Page 13 of 39

1
2
3 Engagement (mediator). We adapted two measures for engagement, one testing
4
5
6 engagement with co-workers, the other engagement with consumers. We used the same three
7
8 items in each measure (I feel I have a good rapport with colleagues/customers / I am
9
10 comfortable interacting with colleagues/customers / I look forward to seeing my
11
12
13
colleagues/customers). Each item was measured through a 5-point Likert type scale ranging
14
15 from Disagree strongly to Agree strongly.
16
17 Job satisfaction (outcome). As with Pindek et al (2020) and Sun et al (2022), we
18
Pe

19
measured job satisfaction using a modified version of the 3-tem subscale from the Michigan
20
21
22 Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (Cammannetal, 1983). Three items tested
er

23
24 satisfaction with work in general via 5-point Likert type scales ranging from Very unsatisfied
25
R

26 to Very satisfied (All in all I am satisfied with my job / I like my job / I like working at the
27
ev

28
29 STORE). Two further items tested satisfaction with pay and autonomy, each item was rated
30
iew

31 via a 5-point semantic differential scales ranging from Very unsatisfied to Very satisfied
32
33 (How satisfied are you with the amount of pay you receive? How satisfied are you with the
34
35
amount of influence you have over your job?).
Ve

36
37
38 Turnover intention (Outcome). Similar to Mayer et al (2018), we operationalized
39
rsi

40 turnover intention through five items adapted from the Job Withdrawal Scale (Hanisch and
41
42
on

Hulin 1990, 1991). The first item asked participants about their intention to leave their
43
44
45 current employment at the STORE in the next year. It was measured through a 5-point
46
47 semantic differential scale ranging from I definitely will not leave to I definitely will leave.
48
49 The second item evaluated how respondents feel about their employment. It was measured
50
51
52 through a 5-point semantic differential scale (I am presently looking and planning to leave / I
53
54 am seriously considering leaving in the near future / I have no feelings about this one way or
55
56 the other / As far as I can see ahead, I intend to stay with the STORE / It is very unlikely that
57
58
59
I would ever consider leaving the STORE). The final item asked respondents about their
60

Human Relations
 Page 14 of 39

1
2
3 plans to leave if they were 'completely free'. It was measured through a 5-point semantic
4
5
6 differential scale (Prefer very much to continue working here / Prefer to work here / Don’t
7
8 care either way / Prefer not to work here / Prefer very much not to continue working here).
9
10 Discretionary effort (Outcome). To measure discretionary effort, we adapted three
11
12
13
items from the Work Withdrawal (Hanisch and Hulin 1990, 1991), switching items from a
14
15 negative to positive valence. The items asked participants to indicate how often they
16
17 displayed discretionary effort (How often do you go beyond the scope of your duties when
18
Pe

19
necessary? How often do you put in extra effort? How often do more than the acceptable
20
21
22 level?). Responses were made on 5-point Likert type scales ranging from Never to Very
er

23
24 Often.
25
R

26
27
ev

28
29 Analytic approach
30
iew

31 A two-step process was employed to analyse the data using Structural Equation Modelling
32
33 (SEM) software (MPlus v 7.1) (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). First, psychometric properties
34
35
of the measures, such as item loadings, square multiple correlations, and reliability of the
Ve

36
37
38 latent constructs were examined using McDonald’s Omega. Following this, three separate
39
rsi

40 structural models were run to examine the direct and indirect effects of satisfaction with
41
42
on

music at work on job satisfaction, turnover intentions and discretionary effort. Specifically,
43
44
45 three serial mediation models were run with two indirect paths posited via social hearing with
46
47 customers and staff and engagement with customers and staff for each model. Estimates of
48
49 this indirect effect used a bootstrapping approach, based on 95% bias-corrected bootstrapped
50
51
52 confidence intervals across 10,000 bootstrapped samples (Hayes, 2013). Effect sizes for the
53
54 indirect effects were estimated using the ratio of the indirect to the total effect (PM ; Wen and
55
56 Fan, 2015).
57
58
59
60

Human Relations
Page 15 of 39

1
2
3 Where such analyses were possible, SEM models were run using the Robust
4
5
6 Maximum Likelihood (MLR) estimator. Bootstrapping analyses for indirect effects cannot be
7
8 run using MLR estimation and therefore used the non-robust variant of this estimator. MLR
9
10 estimation applies a correction for bias in estimates of standard errors from non-normality,
11
12
13
and corrects global indices of model fit through the Satorra-Bentler correction. The fit of the
14
15 SEM models was assessed using the Tucker Lewis Index TLI (TLI), Comparative Fit Index
16
17 (CFI), the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and the Standardised Root
18
Pe

19
Mean Square Residual (SRMR). For both the CFI and TLI indices, values above .90 were
20
21
22 adjudged to be indicative of adequate fit, with values >.95 preferred (Hu and Bentler, 1999).
er

23
24 Absolute RMSEA values below .06 were sought (Flora and Curran, 2004) and upper bound
25
R

26 90% confidence intervals < .08 (Schumacker and Lomax, 2004). SRMR values below 0.8
27
ev

28
29 were considered to be representative of adequate fit (Hu and Bentler, 1999), with a SRMR <
30
iew

31 .05 suggestive of excellent fit. The presence of missing data within the data set was minimal
32
33 (no single item had more than 3.5% of cases missing), with Full-Information Maximum
34
35
Likelihood (FIML) estimation utilised as a favourable alternative to case deletion (Graham,
Ve

36
37
38 2009). Following Aguinis et al’s (2018) suggestions for research transparency, we report full
39
rsi

40 results for all models.

41
42
on

43
44
45 Results
46
47 Confirmatory Factor Analysis
48
49 The original measurement model showed poor fit: χ2 (224) = 555.38 (p< .001), CFI = .89,
50
51
52 TLI = .87, RMSEA = .075 (90% C.I.’s = .067 - .083). However, the two social hearing
53
54 variables (with social hearing with customers and social hearing with staff) had high
55
56 modification indices between their corresponding items. Given that the corresponding items
57
58
59
for both constructs were of very similar content, it was proposed that each of the three items
60

Human Relations
 Page 16 of 39

1
2
3 may share unexplained variance with one another (Cole, Ciesla, and Steiger, 2007) and thus it
4
5
6 was decided to covary the residuals with one another for each of the respective items (e.g. the
7
8 residual for social hearing with customers Item 1 was covaried with the residual for social
9
10 hearing with staff Item 1 and so forth). The modified model now showed adequate fit: χ2
11
12
13
(221) = 464.77 (p< .001), CFI = .92, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .065 (90% C.I.’s = .057 - .073);
14
15 with the improvement in the fit of the model confirmed by a chi-square difference test (χ2 (3)
16
17 = 64.38, p< .001). Chi-square difference tests based on the Satorra-Bentler adjusted chi-
18
Pe

19
square (estimated with MLR) are corrected to account for the scaling factors of the compared
20
21
22 models (Satorra and Bentler, 2010).
er

23
24 This final measurement model (shown in Table 1) exhibited largely excellent factor
25
R

26 loadings, with the vast majority (79.2%) of item loadings >.7, and all bar one item loading
27
ev

28
29 above .5 on its respective factor. Similarly, all squared multiple correlations were >.2, with
30
iew

31 the exception of the aforementioned item, which displayed a SMC (and factor loading) close
32
33 to the previously mentioned criteria and was thus maintained within the analysis. Analysis of
34
35
the correlation matrix (see Table 2) suggests that satisfaction with music at work was
Ve

36
37
38 moderately correlated with both turnover intention (r = -.40, p < .001) and job satisfaction (r
39
rsi

40 = .39, p < .001), and strongly correlated with social hearing with staff (r = .72, p < .001) and
41
42
on

social hearing with customers (r = .66, p < .001). As also shown in Table 2, omega
43
44
45 reliabilities for the latent constructs were excellent (ω’s ranging from .80 to .94).
46
47
48
49 <INSERT TABLE 1 HERE>
50
51
52
53
54 <INSERT TABLE 2 HERE>
55
56
57
58
59
Satisfaction with music at work and job satisfaction
60

Human Relations
Page 17 of 39

1
2
3 Structural Model 1 examined the relationship between satisfaction with music at work and
4
5
6 job satisfaction via social hearing with customers and social hearing with staff and
7
8 1engagement with customers and engagement with staff. Overall, the structural model (shown
9
10 in Figure 1) showed adequate fit: χ2 (125) = 344 (p< .001), CFI = .92, TLI = .90, RMSEA =
11
12
13
.08 (90% C.I.’s = .071 - .092). It accounted for 22.3% of the variance in job satisfaction.
14
15 In this model, satisfaction with music at work was a significant predictor of social
16
17 hearing with customers (B = .37, p < .001) and social hearing with customers was, in turn, a
18
Pe

19
significant predictor of engagement with customers (B = .19, p = .01). However, no
20
21
22 significant relationship was found between engagement with customers and job satisfaction
er

23
24 (B = .13, p = .30). The bias-corrected confidence interval for the indirect effect (B = .01) of
25
R

26 satisfaction with music at work in predicting job satisfaction, via the serial mediators of
27
ev

28
29 social hearing with customers and engagement with customers, crossed zero (95% BCa CI’s
30
iew

31 = -.01 to .04). Thus Hypothesis 1 was not supported. The ratio of the indirect effect to the
32
33 total effect (PM) suggested that the indirect effect accounted for just 2.8% of the total
34
35
relationship between satisfaction with music and job satisfaction.
Ve

36
37
38 Satisfaction with music at work was a significant predictor of social hearing with staff
39
rsi

40 (B = .26, p < .001) and social hearing with staff was, in turn, a significant predictor of
41
42
on

engagement with staff (B = .33, p = .01). Further still, a significant relationship was found
43
44
45 between engagement with staff and job satisfaction (B = .33, p < .001). The bias-corrected
46
47 confidence interval for the indirect effect of satisfaction with music at work in predicting job
48
49 satisfaction (B = .03), via the serial mediators of social hearing with staff and engagement
50
51
52 with staff, was entirely above zero (95% BCa CI’s = .01 to .07). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was
53
54 supported. The ratio of the indirect effect to the total effect (PM) suggested that the indirect
55
56 effect accounted for around 9% of the total relationship between satisfaction with music at
57
58
59
60

Human Relations
 Page 18 of 39

1
2
3 work and job satisfaction; with a significant direct effect remaining (B = .29, p < .001) after
4
5
6 accounting for both indirect paths.
7
8
9
10 <INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE>
11
12
13
14
15 Satisfaction with music at work and turnover intention
16
17 Structural Model 2 examined the relationship between satisfaction with music at work and
18
Pe

19
turnover intention via social hearing with customers and social hearing with staff and
20
21
22 engagement with customers and engagement with staff. Overall, the structural model (shown
er

23
24 in Figure 2) approached adequate fit: χ2 (125) = 341.67 (p< .001), CFI = .91, TLI = .89,
25
R

26 RMSEA = .08 (90% C.I.’s = .071 - .092). It accounted for 18.7% of the variance in turnover
27
ev

28
29 intention.
30
iew

31 In this model, satisfaction with music at work was a significant predictor of social
32
33 hearing with customers (B = .36, p < .001), and social hearing with customers was, in turn, a
34
35
significant predictor of engagement with customers (B = .19, p = .01). However, no
Ve

36
37
38 significant relationship was found between engagement with customers and turnover
39
rsi

40 intention (B = -.19, p = .16). The bias-corrected confidence interval for the indirect effect of
41
42
on

satisfaction with music at work in predicting turnover intention (B = -.01), via the serial
43
44
45 mediators of social hearing with customers and engagement with customers, included zero
46
47 (95% BCa CI’s = -.05 to .00). Thus, Hypothesis 3 was not supported. The ratio of the indirect
48
49 effect to the total effect (PM) suggested that the indirect effect accounted for just 3.8% of the
50
51
52 total relationship between satisfaction with music at work and turnover intention.
53
54 Similar to Structural Model 1, in this model satisfaction with music at work was a
55
56 significant predictor of social hearing with staff (B = .26, p < .001), and social hearing with
57
58
59
staff was, in turn, a significant predictor of engagement with staff (B = .33, p = .01).
60

Human Relations
Page 19 of 39

1
2
3 However, no significant relationship was found between engagement with staff and turnover
4
5
6 intention (B = -.20, p = .13). The bias-corrected confidence interval for the indirect effect of
7
8 satisfaction with music at work in predicting turnover intention (B = -.02), via the serial
9
10 mediators of social hearing with staff and engagement with staff, included zero (95% BCa
11
12
13
CI’s = -.06 to .002). Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was not supported. The ratio of the indirect
14
15 effect to the total effect (PM) suggested that the indirect effect accounted for 5% of the total
16
17 relationship between satisfaction with music and turnover intention; with a significant direct
18
Pe

19
relationship remaining (B = .31, p < .001) after accounting for both indirect paths.
20
21
22
er

23
24 <INSERT FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE>
25
R

26
27
ev

28
29 Satisfaction with music at work and discretionary effort
30
iew

31 Structural Model 3 examined the relationship between satisfaction with music at work and
32
33 discretionary effort via social hearing with customers and social hearing with staff and
34
35
engagement with customers and engagement with staff. Overall, the structural model (shown
Ve

36
37
38 in Figure 3) showed adequate fit: χ2 (125) = 325.75 (p< .001), CFI = .93, TLI = .91, RMSEA
39
rsi

40 = .08 (90% C.I.’s = .068 - .089). It accounted for 15.6% of the variance in satisfaction with
41
42
on

music at work.
43
44
45 As with the previous structural models, satisfaction with music at work was a
46
47 significant predictor of social hearing with customers (B = .37, p < .001), and social hearing
48
49 with customers was, in turn, a significant predictor of engagement with customers (B = .19, p
50
51
52 = .01). Further still, a significant relationship was found between engagement with customers
53
54 and discretionary effort (B = .27, p < .001). The bias-corrected confidence interval for the
55
56 indirect effect (B = .02) of satisfaction with music at work in predicting discretionary effort,
57
58
59
via the serial mediators of social hearing with customers and engagement with customers,
60

Human Relations
 Page 20 of 39

1
2
3 was entirely above zero (95% BCa CI’s = .004 to .04). Thus, Hypothesis 5 is supported. The
4
5
6 ratio of the indirect effect to the total effect (PM) suggested that the indirect effect accounted
7
8 for around 18.2% of the total effect.
9
10 Also akin to the previous models, satisfaction with music at work was a significant
11
12
13
predictor of social hearing with staff (B = .26, p < .001), and social hearing with staff was, in
14
15 turn, a significant predictor of engagement with staff (B = .33, p = .01). Further still, a
16
17 significant relationship was found between engagement with staff and discretionary effort (B
18
Pe

19
= .32, p < .001). The bias-corrected confidence interval for the indirect effect (B = .03) of
20
21
22 satisfaction with music at work predicting discretionary effort, via the serial mediators of
er

23
24 social hearing with staff and engagement with staff, was entirely above zero (95% BCa CI’s
25
R

26 = .01 to .06). Therefore, Hypothesis 6 is supported. The ratio of the indirect effect to the total
27
ev

28
29 effect (PM) suggested that the indirect effect accounted for around 25.9% of the total effect;
30
iew

31 with no significant direct effect remaining (B = .06, p = .27) after accounting for both indirect
32
33 paths.
34
35
Ve

36
37
38 <INSERT FIGURE 3 HERE>
39
rsi

40
41
42
on

Discussion
43
44
45 Our study supports the idea that exposure to music in the workplace is linked to beneficial
46
47 workplace outcomes – albeit in a nuance way. Here, we expand the literature empirically by
48
49 focusing on service workers. However, we also develop a new theoretical explanation for
50
51
52 music effects by considering the social context within which workers hear music. Our
53
54 findings suggest that social hearing, in the form of socially-oriented behaviours such as
55
56 dancing, singing and discussing music, plays an important role in explaining the effect of
57
58
59
music on service workers. It mediates the relationship between service workers’ satisfaction
60

Human Relations
Page 21 of 39

1
2
3 with music at work and job satisfaction and discretionary effort by increasing service workers
4
5
6 sense of connection, primarily, to their co-workers but also to their customers. This
7
8 perspective could pave the way for future research to develop a truly ‘cohesive theoretical
9
10 explanation of the processes by which music’ causes its effects on workers that integrates not
11
12
13
only psychological perspectives but also anthropological insights.
14
15
16
17 Theoretical implications
18
Pe

19
At a general level, the link between satisfaction with music at work and social hearing
20
21
22 presents a striking finding in comparison to existing studies. Existing research theorizes
er

23
24 music in the workplace through an individual model of listening. It looks, almost exclusively
25
R

26 at the link between a music text, individual psychological (Cassidy and MacDonald 2007,
27
ev

28
29 2009) and physiological differences (Keeler and Cortina 2020) and workplace outcomes.
30
iew

31 Few, if any, studies test the effects of the social context in which music is heard by workers.
32
33 However, where researchers have studies workers actual engagement with music at work via
34
35
anthropological and ethnographic study, they have emphasized precisely this more social
Ve

36
37
38 form of listening (Payne et al 2017).
39
rsi

40 Our study is, to our knowledge, the first to operationalise such social hearing. The
41
42
on

link between satisfaction with music and social hearing suggests that the affective assessment
43
44
45 of a music text can be significantly mediated by the kinds of social interactions that music
46
47 prompts among service workers. This means that, rather than look at the form of music itself
48
49 as the cause of workplace outcomes, we must also consider the way it is heard by workers.
50
51
52 Research cannot exclusively reduce music texts to abstract characteristics such as tempo and
53
54 genre as is common in consumer research (Morin et al 2007, Oakes and North 2008). It must
55
56 also consider the ways that textual elements are mediated by the social interactions supported
57
58
59
by music in the workplace.
60

Human Relations
 Page 22 of 39

1
2
3 We found that, when service workers feel satisfied with music in the workplace,
4
5
6 irrelevant of its characteristics, they are likely to listen to music not only as individuals but
7
8 also engage in behaviours such as dancing, singing and discussions. In each of the three
9
10 structural models, satisfaction with music at work was a significant predictor of social
11
12
13
hearing with customers and social hearing with staff. Such social hearing, in turn, heightened
14
15 service workers sense of connection with those around them at work as it was a significant
16
17 predictor of engagement with customers and engagement with staff. This might be because
18
Pe

19
outward displays of listening encourage social interactions or support psychological safety.
20
21
22 Either way, when workers dance, talk and singing, they increase their sense of social bonding
er

23
24 with others. In this sense, our findings complement yet extend existing theories in a profound
25
R

26 way. They challenge research to move beyond 'well-being and positive emotions' workers
27
ev

28
29 may experience individually when listening to music to account for the effects of 'socializing
30
iew

31 around a musical experience, making music or listening to it with other people’ (Raglio et al
32
33 2019: 1).
34
35
Our findings have a further theoretical implication. Existing studies tend not to
Ve

36
37
38 discriminate between different work types and work cultures. We suggest, instead, that the
39
rsi

40 effect of music on service workers can only be understood if we understand the nature of
41
42
on

service work as a collaborative and, therefore, inherently social exercise. It is notable that
43
44
45 service workers tend to listen to “piped-in” music and have little input over the music their
46
47 hear. Such music is, then, a shared aspect of their working lives and may, therefore, prompt
48
49 group cohesion or be used as a meaning to reclaim autonomy and meaning at work (Payne et
50
51
52 al 2017).
53
54 By extension, we would also argue that, as such work features are not true of all
55
56 workplaces (Korczynski, 2013), we cannot assume that social hearing will play a prominent
57
58
59
role in all workplaces. We know that some knowledge workers use music, for example, to
60

Human Relations
Page 23 of 39

1
2
3 create sound barriers between them and their colleagues (Cluley and Green, 2014). In such
4
5
6 contexts, we would expect lower levels of social hearing and, potentially, different causal
7
8 paths to explain any music effects. This suggests that future studies need to account either for
9
10 difference between workplace and/or different modes of listening.
11
12
13
Contextually, then, our study develops our understanding of service work. Payne et al
14
15 (2017) point out that empirically we cannot understand service work without including
16
17 workers’ experiences of music. Existing literature repeated shows how music affects service
18
Pe

19
consumers but it has rarely considered the effects on service workers and has, therefore,
20
21
22 failed to consider whether the effects of service environments on consumers might actually
er

23
24 be mediated by their effects on workers. Our findings suggest that music can prompt
25
R

26 engagement between service workers and customers that might prompt positive response
27
ev

28
29 from customers and encourage work-related outcomes like increased discretionary effort
30
iew

31 among service workers.

32
33 Finally, our findings challenge the anthropological literature. It is common in this
34
35
literature to see worker’s consumption of music as an act of resistance. Korczynski (2015),
Ve

36
37
38 for example, sees workers themselves managing their engagement with music. Sometimes
39
rsi

40 they deploy it as a weapon of the weak to imbue their work in an alienated labour process
41
42
on

with a deeper meaning and, at other times, to challenges the social order within a factory
43
44
45 setting. That is, lacking any social purposes in their actual work, workers form social bonds
46
47 around their work to grant it a meaning which it otherwise lacks.
48
49 Our findings suggest, instead, that music can be a more traditional human factor in the
50
51
52 workplace. Even managerially-selected music can provide a basis for workers to increase that
53
54 social engagements in the workplace. Such engagements are not necessarily an act of
55
56 organizational misbehaviour but, as in our study, may be linked to positive organizational
57
58
59
outcomes. Workplaces may benefit from the effects of music, in other words, by creating a
60

Human Relations
 Page 24 of 39

1
2
3 social environment in which workers’ engagement with music. What may otherwise appear
4
5
6 an act of resistance may actually support the organization. It may be best conceived as the
7
8 unmanageable organizations (Gabriel, 1995). We would suggest, then, that when music
9
10 prompts workers to engage in social listening, it allows them to form organic and
11
12
13
autonomous social bonds at work with colleagues and customers. They may, consequently,
14
15 increase their discretionary effort and so on. Whether this is for the benefit of their employer
16
17 or intended to serve this work community requires further study.
18
Pe

19
20
21
22 Managerial implications
er

23
24 This brings us to what we believe is the central tension for studies of music effects: namely
25
R

26 whether listening to music should be encouraged by managers to produce specific workplace

27
ev

28
29 outcomes. For many in the more psychologically informed literature, it is assumed that, if
30
iew

31 music causes positive effects, these could be harnessed by organizations. As Landay and
32
33 Harms explain, for management scholars 'the question is whether' workers' responses to
34
35
music 'might be leveraged in the workplace to improve employee outcomes like performance
Ve

36
37
38 or learning' (Landay & Harms 2019: 371). For many in the anthropological literature, this
39
rsi

40 would undermine the effect of music (Korczynski 2015). To square this circle, Lesiuk (2005)
41
42
on

argues the crucial factor in determining whether music listening should be encouraged in the
43
44
45 workplace is ‘workers’ choice’. She explains, ‘over time, music listening based on workers’
46
47 choice to listen “when they want as they want,” is beneficial for state positive affect, quality–
48
49 of-work, and time spent on a task’ (2005: 188).
50
51
52 Our findings suggest that, for service workers at least, even when choice is not always
53
54 possible, music can still have positive effects when it encourages social connections. Here,
55
56 the key is social hearing. While managers might permit social listening behaviours in service
57
58
59
settings, we are doubtful whether they could mandate them and have the same workplace
60

Human Relations
Page 25 of 39

1
2
3 effects. In service work it might not be up to workers to choose what and when they listen,
4
5
6 but it is up to them to choose how they listen. This suggests that music may be better
7
8 considered part of the unmanageable side of organization life (Gabriel, 1995).
9
10
11
12
13
Future research
14
15 As Landay and Harms (2019: 380) note, there are many ‘thorny issues’ involved in studying
16
17 music in the workplace such as the sheer variety of music that is likely to be heard throughout
18
Pe

19
the course of a workday. We controlled for this by focusing on satisfaction with music overall
20
21
22 and, as discussed, our findings suggest that the form of music text is less important than the
er

23
24 way it is heard. However, given the effects of music styles uncovered in previous research
25
R

26 (see Keeler and Cortina, 2020), further research could consider whether different music texts
27
ev

28
29 or collections of texts heard through the workday affect satisfaction with music.
30
iew

31 In addition, this research selected three workplace outcomes informed by the POB
32
33 literature. These represent only a sample of the potential work-related outcomes evidenced in
34
35
the literature. Others studies explore task performance, attention, distraction, mood and others
Ve

36
37
38 (e.g. Lesiuk, 2006, Cassidy and MacDonald, 2007, 2009). Future research could explore
39
rsi

40 whether social listening mediates the effects of music on a wider range of outcomes. Indeed,
41
42
on

our models tested whether satisfaction with music at work effects job satisfaction, turnover
43
44
45 intention and discretionary effort. The study supported the hypotheses for positively-framed
46
47 POB (job satisfaction and discretionary effort) but not the negatively-framed one, turnover
48
49 intention. It may be worth further testing the effect of positively framed POB compared to
50
51
52 negative framed ones.
53
54 Further research could also explore other inputs into social hearing and whether social
55
56 hearing is more likely in certain work setting than others. As we have suggested, group
57
58
59
cohesion, psychological safety and so on could be the result of social listening but they could
60

Human Relations
 Page 26 of 39

1
2
3 also be a cause. Here, our research suggests a relatively untrodden path for future research to
4
5
6 exploit the findings of the anthropological literature on music in the workplace rather than
7
8 relying exclusively on psychological theorizations. At the least, this suggests that future
9
10 studies need to be clear about which types of listening they are exploring and to broaden their
11
12
13
understanding of the ways workers hear music at work.
14
15
16
17 References
18
Pe

19
Aguinis, Herman, Ravi S. Ramani, and Nawaf Alabduljader (2018) "What you see is what
20
21
22 you get? Enhancing methodological transparency in management research", Academy
er

23
24 of Management Annals, 12(1), 83-110.
25
R

26 Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., and Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work
27
ev

28
29 environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154-1184.
30
iew

31 Anderson, J. C. and Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A

32
33 review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411.
34
35
Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., and Jensen, S. M. (2009). Psychological capital: A positive resource
Ve

36
37
38 for combating employee stress and turnover. Human Resource Management, 48(5),
39
rsi

40 677-693.
41
42
on

Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., and Luthans, F. (2008). Can positive employees help positive
43
44
45 organizational change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant
46
47 attitudes and behaviors. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(1), 48-70.
48
49 Bailey, N. and Areni, C. S. (2006). When a few minutes sound like a lifetime: does
50
51
52 atmospheric music expand or contract perceived time?. Journal of Retailing, 82(3),
53
54 189-202.
55
56 Baker, J., Levy, M., and Grewal, D. (1992). An experimental approach to making retail store
57
58
59
environmental decisions. Journal of Retailing, 68(4), 445.
60

Human Relations
Page 27 of 39

1
2
3 Baker, J., Parasuramen, A., Grewal, D., and Voss, G. B. (2002). The influence of multiple
4
5
6 store environment cues on perceived merchandise value and patronage intentions.
7
8 Journal of Marketing, 66(2), 120-141.
9
10 Cassidy, G., & MacDonald, R. A. (2007). The effect of background music and background
11
12
13
noise on the task performance of introverts and extraverts. Psychology of Music,
14
15 35(3), 517–537.
16
17 Cassidy, G., & MacDonald, R. (2009). The effects of music choice on task performance: A
18
Pe

19
study of the impact of self-selected and experimenter-selected music ondriving game
20
21
22 performance and experience. Musicae Scientiae, 13(2), 357–386
er

23
24 Chebat, J.C., Chebat, C. G., and Vaillant, D. (2001). Environmental background music and
25
R

26 in-store selling. Journal of Business Research, 54(2), 115-123.

27
ev

28
29 Cole, D. A., Ciesla, J. A., and Steiger, J. H. (2007). The insidious effects of failing to include
30
iew

31 design-driven correlated residuals in latent-variable covariance structure analysis.

32
33 Psychological Methods, 12(4), 381.
34
35
Donovan, R. J. and Rossiter, J. R. (1982). Store atmosphere: An environmental psychology
Ve

36
37
38 approach. Journal of Retailing, 58(1), 34-57.
39
rsi

40 Dubé, L., Chebat, J. C., and Morin, S. (1995). The effects of background music on
41
42
on

consumers’ desire to affiliate in buyer-seller interactions. Psychology & Marketing,

43
44
45 12(4), 305-319.
46
47 Edenius, M. and Yakhlef, A. (2007). Space, vision and organizational learning: The interplay
48
49 of incorporating and inscribing practices. Management Learning, 38(2), 193-210.
50
51
52 Fiore, A. M., Yah, X., and Yoh, E. (2000). Effects of a product display and environmental
53
54 fragrancing on approach responses and pleasurable experiences. Psychology &
55
56 Marketing, 17(1), 27-54.
57
58
59
Flora, D. B. and Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of
60

Human Relations
 Page 28 of 39

1
2
3 estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods,
4
5
6 9(4), 466.
7
8 Gabriel, Y. (1995). The unmanaged organization: Stories, fantasies and subjectivity.
9
10 Organization studies, 16(3), 477-501.
11
12
13
Garlin, F. V. and Owen, K. (2006). Setting the tone with the tune: a meta-analytic review of
14
15 the effects of background music in retail settings. Journal of Business Research,
16
17 59(6), 755-764.
18
Pe

19
Grant, A. M. and Campbell, E. M. (2007). Doing good, doing harm, being well and burning
20
21
22 out: The interactions of perceived prosocial and antisocial impact in service
er

23
24 work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(4), 665-691.
25
R

26 Hoedemaekers C. (2018) Creative work and affect: Social, political and fantasmatic
27
ev

28
29 dynamics in the labour of musicians. Human Relations. 71(10): 1348-1370.
30
iew

31 Humphreys M, Ucbasaran D, Lockett A. (2012) Sensemaking and sensegiving stories of jazz

32
33 leadership. Human Relations. 65(1): 41-62.
34
35
Hu, L. T. and Bentler, P. M. (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
Ve

36
37
38 analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling,
39
rsi

40 6(1),55.
41
42
on

Hynes, N. and Manson, S. (2016). The Sound of Silence: Why Music in Supermarkets is just
43
44
45 a Distraction, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 28/1), 171-178.
46
47 Jain, R. and Bagdare, S. (2011). Music and Consumption Experience: A Review.
48
49 International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 39(4), 289-302.
50
51
52 Keeler, K.R and Cortina, J.M. (2020) Working to the Beat: A Self-Regulatory Framework
53
54 Linking Music Characteristics to Job Performance, Academy of Management Review,
55
56 45(2): 447–471.
57
58
59
Keevers L, Sykes C. (2016) Food and music matters: Affective relations and practices in
60

Human Relations
Page 29 of 39

1
2
3 social justice organizations. Human Relations. 69(8): 1643-1668.
4
5
6 Korczynski, M. (2015). Songs of the factory: Pop music, culture, and resistance. Cornell
7
8 University Press.
9
10 Korczynski, M. (2007). Music and meaning on the factory floor. Work and Occupations,
11
12
13
34(3), 253-289.
14
15 Korczynski, M. (2011). Stayin’ Alive on the factory floor: An ethnography of the dialectics
16
17 of music use in the routinized workplace. Poetics, 39(2), 87-106.
18
Pe

19
Korczynski, M., & Jones, K. (2006). Instrumental music? The social origins of broadcast
20
21
22 music in British factories. Popular Music, 25(2), 145-164.
er

23
24 Robertson, E., Korczynski, M., & Pickering, M. (2007). Harmonious relations? Music at
25
R

26 work in the Rowntree and Cadbury factories. Business History, 49(2), 211-234.
27
ev

28
29 Korczynski, M., Pickering, M., and Robertson, E. (2013). Rhythms of Labour: Music at Work
30
iew

31 in Britain. Cambridge University Press.

32
33 Kuokkanen, L., Leino‐Kilpi, H., Katajisto, J., Heponiemi, T., Sinervo, T., and Elovainio, M.
34
35
(2014). Does organizational justice predict empowerment? Nurses assess their work
Ve

36
37
38 environment. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 46(5), 349-356.
39
rsi

40 Larson, M. and Luthans, F. (2006). Potential added value of psychological capital in

41
42
on

predicting work attitudes. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(2), 75-
43
44
45 92.
46
47 Luthans, F. (2002a). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal
48
49 of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational
50
51
52 and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 23(6), 695-706.
53
54 Luthans, F. (2002b). Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing
55
56 psychological strengths. Academy of Management Perspectives, 16(1), 57-72.
57
58
59
60

Human Relations
 Page 30 of 39

1
2
3 Luthans, F. and Avolio, B. J. (2009). The “point” of positive organizational behavior. Journal
4
5
6 of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational
7
8 and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 30(2), 291-307.
9
10 Luthans, F., Norman, S. M., Avolio, B. J., and Avey, J. B. (2008). The mediating role of
11
12
13
psychological capital in the supportive organizational climate—employee
14
15 performance relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International
16
17 Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and
18
Pe

19
Behavior, 29(2), 219-238.
20
21
22 Mattila, A. S., and Wirtz, J. (2001). Congruency of scent and music as a driver of in-store
er

23
24 evaluations and behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 273-289.
25
R

26 Meyer, J.P., Morin, A.J.S., Wasti, .S.A. (2018) 'Employee commitment before and after an
27
ev

28
29 economic crisis: A stringent test of profile similarity', Human relations, 71(9), 1204-
30
iew

31 1233.
32
33 Milliman, R. E. (1982). Using background music to affect the behavior of supermarket
34
35
shoppers. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 86-91.
Ve

36
37
38 Morin, S., Dubé, L., and Chebat, J.C. (2007). The Role of Pleasant Music in Servicescapes: A
39
rsi

40 Test of the Dual Model of Environmental Perception. Journal of Retailing, 83(1),

41
42
on

115-30.
43
44
45 North, A. C., and Hargreaves, D. J. (1998). The effect of music on atmosphere and purchase
46
47 intentions in a cafeteria. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(24), 2254-2273.
48
49 North, A. C., Hargreaves, D. J., & McKendrick, J. (1999). The influence of in-store music on
50
51
52 wine selections. Journal of Applied psychology, 84(2), 271.
53
54 Oakes, S. (2000). The influence of the musicscape within service environments. Journal of
55
56 Services Marketing, 14(7), 539-556.
57
58
59
Oakes, S. and North, A. C. (2008). Reviewing congruity effects in the service environment
60

Human Relations
Page 31 of 39

1
2
3 musicscape. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 19(1), 63-82.
4
5
6 Oliver, R. L. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. Thousand
7
8 Oaks, CA: Sage.
9
10 Parish, J. T., Berry, L. L., & Lam, S. Y. (2008). The effect of the servicescape on service
11
12
13
workers. Journal of Service Research, 10(3), 220-238.
14
15 Pindek S, Zhou ZE, Kessler SR, Krajcevska A, Spector PE. Workdays are not created equal:
16
17 Job satisfaction and job stressors across the workweek. Human Relations.
18
Pe

19
2021;74(9):1447-1472.
20
21
22 Roschk, H., Loureiro, S.M.C., and Breitsohl, J. (2016). Calibrating 30 Years of Experimental
er

23
24 Research: A Meta-Analysis of the Atmospheric Effects of Music, Scent, and Color,
25
R

26 Journal of Retailing, 93(2), 228-240.

27
ev

28
29 Rothmann, S., Steyn, L. J., and Mostert, K. (2005). Job stress, sense of coherence and work
30
iew

31 wellness in an electricity supply organisation. South African Journal of Business

32
33 Management, 36(1), 55-63.
34
35
Satorra, A. and Bentler, P. M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-
Ve

36
37
38 square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75(2), 243-248.
39
rsi

40 Sayin, E., Aradhna, K., Ardelet, C., Decré, G. B., and Goudey, A. (2015). Sound and Safe:
41
42
on

The Effect of Ambient Sound on the Perceived Safety of Public Spaces. International
43
44
45 Journal of Research in Marketing, 32 (4), 343-53.
46
47 Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., Mayer, D. M., Saltz, J. L., and Niles-Jolly, K. (2005),
48
49 “Understanding Organization-Customer Links in Service Settings,” Academy of
50
51
52 Management Journal, 48 (6), 1017-1032.
53
54 Spangenberg, E. R., Grohmann, B., and Sprott, D. E. (2005). It’s beginning to smell (and
55
56 sound) a lot like Christmas: the interactive effects of ambient scent and music in a
57
58
59
retail setting. Journal of Business Research, 58(11), 1583-1589.
60

Human Relations
 Page 32 of 39

1
2
3 Sullivan, M. (2002). The impact of pitch, volume and tempo on the atmospheric effect of
4
5
6 music. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 30(6), 323-30.
7
8 Sun, Shuhua ; Burke, Michael ; Chen, Huaizhong ; Tan, Yinliang (Ricky) ; Zhang, Jiantong ;
9
10 Hou, Lili (2022) 'Mitigating the psychologically detrimental effects of supervisor
11
12
13
undermining: Joint effects of voice and political skill' Human Relations, 75 (1), 87-
14
15 112.
16
17 Tett RP and Meyer JP (1993) Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover
18
Pe

19
intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel
20
21
22 Psychology 46(2): 259–293.
er

23
24 Umney C. (2016) The labour market for jazz musicians in Paris and London: Formal
25
R

26 regulation and informal norms. Human Relations, 69(3):711-729.

27
ev

28
29 Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S. and Peterson, S. J. (2008).
30
iew

31 Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal

32
33 of Management, 34(1), 89-126.
34
35
Weikamp, Julia G ; Göritz, Anja S (2016) Organizational citizenship behaviour and job
Ve

36
37
38 satisfaction: The impact of occupational future time perspective, Human relations
39
rsi

40 (New York), 2016-11, Vol.69 (11), p.2091-2115

41
42
on

Wen, Z. and Fan, X. (2015). Monotonicity of effect sizes: Questioning kappa-squared as

43
44
45 mediation effect size measure. Psychological Methods, 20(2), 193.
46
47 Wiley, Jack W. (1996), Linking Survey Results to Customer Satisfaction and Business
48
49 Performance, in Organizational Surveys: Tools for Assessment and Change, Allen I.
50
51
52 Kraut, ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 330-359.
53
54 Wright, B. E., and Davis, B. S. (2003). Job satisfaction in the public sector: The role of the
55
56 work environment. The American Review of Public Administration, 33(1), 70-90.
57
58
59
Zhu, R. and Meyers-Levy, J. (2005). Distinguishing between the meanings of music: When
60

Human Relations
Page 33 of 39

1
2
3 background music affects product perceptions. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(3),
4
5
6 333-345.
7
8 Raglio, Alfredo, Enrico Oddone, Lara Morotti, Yasmin Khreiwesh, Chiara Zuddas, Jessica
9
10 Brusinelli, Chiara Imbriani, and Marcello Imbriani. "Music in the workplace: A
11
12
13
narrative literature review of intervention studies." Journal of Complementary and
14
15 Integrative Medicine 17, no. 4 (2020).
16
17 Fox, J.G. (1971) ‘Background Music and Industrial Efficiency – A Review’, Applied
18
Pe

19
Ergonomics 3(4): 202–5.
20
21
22 Kirkpatrick, F.H. (1943) ‘Music Takes the Mind Away’, Personnel Journal 22: 225–8
er

23
24 Wokoun, W. (1969) ‘Music for Working’, Science Journal, 5A: 55–9.
25
R

26 Shih YN, Huang RH, Chiang HY (2012) Background music: effects on attention
27
ev

28
29 performance. Work, 42: 573-8.
30
iew

31 Shih YN, Huang RH, Chiang HS (2009) Correlation between work concentration level and
32
33 background music: a pilot study. Work, 33: 329-33.
34
35
Shih YN, Chien WH, Chiang HS. ( 2016)Elucidating the relationship between work attention
Ve

36
37
38 performance and emotions arising from listening to music. Work, 55: 489-94.
39
rsi

40 Gatewood, E. L. (1921). An experiment in the use of music in an architectural drafting room.

41
42
on

Journal of Applied Psychology, 5(4): 350–358.

43
44
45 Humes, J. F. (1941). The effects of occupational music on scrappage in the manufacture of
46
47 radio tubes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 25(5): 573–587.
48
49 Prichard, C., Korczynski, M., & Elmes, M. (2007). Music at work: An introduction. Group &
50
51
52 Organization Management, 32(1): 4–21.
53
54 Kämpfe, J., Sedlmeier, P., & Renkewitz, F. (2011). The impact of background music on adult
55
56 listeners: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Music, 39(4): 424–448
57
58
59
60

Human Relations
 Page 34 of 39

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Pe
10
11

er
12
13

Re
14
15
16

vie
17
18

w
19
20

Ve
21
22
23

rsi
24
25

on
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36 Figure 1. Model 1
37
38
39
40
41
42
43 Human Relations
44
45
46
Page 35 of 39

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Pe
10
11

er
12
13

Re
14
15
16

vie
17
18

w
19
20

Ve
21
22
23

rsi
24
25

on
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35 Figure 2. Model 2
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43 Human Relations
44
45
46
 Page 36 of 39

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Pe
10
11

er
12
13

Re
14
15
16

vie
17
18

w
19
20

Ve
21
22
23

rsi
24
25

on
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36 Figure 3. Model 3
37
38
39
40
41
42
43 Human Relations
44
45
46
Page 37 of 39

1
2
3
Item Item Content Loading SMC
4
Satisfaction With Music At Work
5
SMW1 I like listening to the music played at *THE ORGANISATION* while I am at work .93 .86
6 SMW2 The music played at *THE ORGANISATION* makes work more enjoyable .94 .89
7 SMW3 I am glad that I can listen to music played in *THE ORGANISATION* during my work time .78 .61
8 Social Hearing with Staff
9

Pe
SHS1 How frequently do you discuss the music played at *THE ORGANISATION* with your COLLEAGUES? .42 .18
10 SHS2 How frequently do you...Notice COLLEAGUES singing or dancing to the music played at *THE ORGANISATION*? .73 .53
11 SHS3 Listening to the music at *THE ORGANISATION* is an experience I feel I share with OTHER STAFF .83 .68

er
12 Social Hearing with Customers
13 SHC1 How frequently do you discuss the music played at *THE ORGANISATION* with CUSTOMERS? .58 .34
SHC2 How frequently do you...Notice CUSTOMERS singing or dancing to the music played at *THE ORGANISATION*? .71 .51

Re
14
SHC3 Listening to the music at *THE ORGANISATION* is an experience I feel I share with CUSTOMERS .83 .69
15 Engagement with Customers
16

vie
EC1 I feel I have a good rapport with customers .90 .80
17 EC2 I am comfortable interacting with co-workers .82 .67
18 EC3 I look forward to seeing my co-workers .69 .48

w
19 Engagement with Staff
20 ES1 The music played at *THE ORGANISATION* should reflect my personal tastes .86 .75

Ve
21 ES2 I should be able to control the music I hear at work .87 .75
22 ES3 I want to be able to influence the music played at *THE ORGANISATION* .67 .45
Turnover Intention
23

rsi
TI1 Which of the following statements most clearly reflects you feelings about your future with *THE ORGANISATION* in the next year? .75 .56
24
TI2 How do you feel about leaving *THE ORGANISATION*? .60 .37
25

on
TI3 If you were completely free to choose, would you prefer or not prefer to continue working for *THE ORGANISATION*? .76 .58
26 Job Satisfaction
27 S1 All in all I am satisfied with my job .85 .72
28 S2 In general, I like my job .81 .65
29 S3 In general, I like working at *THE ORGANISATION* .92 .84
30 Discretionary Effort
31 DE1 In doing you work, how often do you do each of the following? Go beyond the scope of your duties when necessary .83 .69
32 DE2 In doing you work, how often do you do each of the following? Put in extra effort .88 .77
DE3 In doing you work, how often do you do each of the following? Do more than the acceptable level .86 .74
33
Notes. All factor loadings and squared multiple correlations significant at p < .05 level. (R) = Reverse Scored. Organisation name replaced with *THE ORGANISATION* for confidentiality.
34
35
36 Table 1. Factor loadings
37
38
39
40
41
42
43 Human Relations
44
45
46
 Page 38 of 39

1
2
3
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
4
1. Satisfaction with Music at Work (.91)
5 2. Turnover Intention -.40*** (.80)
6 3. Discretionary Effort .15 -.26** (.94)
7 4. Job Satisfaction .39*** -.91*** .29** (.92)
8 5. Social Hearing with Staff .72*** -.32** .22** .41*** (.87)
9 6. Social Hearing with Customers .67*** -.24** .19* .29*** .73*** (.85)
10 7. Engagement with Customers .09 -.19* .32*** .18* .17* .23** (.94)
11 8. Engagement with Staff .09 -.20* .35*** .27** .24** .12 .36*** (.93)
12 Notes. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. McDonald's omega (ω) coefficients are in parantheses. Control variables are italicised.
13
14 Table 2. Correlation matrix
15
16
17
18
Pe

19
20
21
22
er

23
24
25
R

26
27
ev

28
29
30
iew

31
32
33
34
35
Ve

36
37
38
39
rsi

40
41
42
on

43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Human Relations
Page 39 of 39

1
2
3 Table 1. Sample demographics
4
5
6 Characteristics of Sample N %
7 Job Role
8
9 Customer Team Member 119 45.2
10 Team Leader 104 39.5
11 Manager 40 15.2
12 Contract Hours (per week)
13 1 to 8 hours 1 0.4
14
15
9 to 16 hours 20 7.6
16 17 to 24 hours 36 13.7
17 25 to 32 hours 53 20.2
18 Over 33 hours 149 56.7
Pe

19 Time on Shopfloor (% of work hours)

20
21
Less than 25% 3 1.1
22 25 to 50% 9 3.4
er

23 50 to 75% 57 21.7
24 75 to 100% 194 73.8
25 Tenure at Organisation
R

26
0 to 3 months 6 23
27
ev

28 4 to 12 months 33 12.5
29 1 to 2 years 19 7.2
30 2 to 5 years 50 19
iew

31 5 years or more 155 58.9

32
Size of Employee's Store (no. staff on typical working day)
33
34 1 to 4 35 13.3
35 5 to 8 81 30.8
Ve

36 9 to 12 66 25.1
37 12 to 16 37 14.1
38
Over 17 35 13.3
39
rsi

40 Age
41 16 to 25 years 67 25.5
42 26 to 35 years 80 30.4
on

43 36 to 45 years 43 16.3
44
46 to 55 years 48 18.3
45
46 Over 56 years 18 6.8
47 Gender
48 Male 115 43.7
49 Female 146 56.1
50 Qualification
51
52 GCSE (grades D-G) or CSE 27 10.3
53 GCSE (grades A-C) or O Level 85 32.3
54 A-level or equivalent vocational qualification 86 32.7
55 Degree or equivalent 47 17.9
56
No formal qualification 16 6.1
57
58 Notes. Missing data for Contract Hours, Size of Employee's Store, Age, Gender and Qualification
59
60

1
Human Relations