This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Volume 20, Number 3
Antecedents And Consequences Of Job Satisfaction: Testing A Comprehensive Model Using Integrated Methodology
W. Kevin Baker, Roanoke College
Abstract This study examines the key antecedents and two important consequences of job satisfaction in a comprehensive framework by utilizing integrated methodologies. This involves combining meta-analytic techniques with structural equation modeling. The antecedents represent theoretical perspectives that indicate workplace influences including task characteristics, social information processing, and di spositional perspectives. The consequences are the withdrawal behaviors of absenteeism and turnover. The results indicate all three perspectives are supported to varying degrees with multiple antecedents impacting job satisfaction. However, the dispositional variables maintain the greatest overall impact. Interestingly, job satisfaction had little impact on the progression of withdrawal behaviors. Although job design and leadership behaviors impact job satisfaction, management needs to reconsider hiring and selection practices as they relate to the dispositional aspects of potential employees.
ob satisfaction has been one of the more researched affective measures in the literature. Every year organizations like the Conference Board measure the overall job satisfaction of American workers. Our preoccupation with job satisfaction can be attributed to its hypothesized importance in relation to various employee workplace responses. Several competing theoretical approaches have been advanced that attempt to describe the antec edents to job satisfaction. Unfortunately, these models have not been compared in a study that examined their concurrent impact in a comprehensive framework across diverse samples. Integrating meta-analytic techniques with structural equation modeling can achieve this objective. This technique has been used to examine the theoretical models that explain organizational commitment (Eby, Freeman, Rush, & Lance, 1999) and would be an equally effective method to examine job satisfaction. In addition, this study will add further refinements to the technique to increase precision (i.e. correcting non-normality and incorporating measurement error into the analysis). Several sets of antecedent variables are used to represent important aspects of the theoretical perspectives regarding the predictors of job satisfaction. These variables correspond to the task characteristics, dispositional, social information processing, and dual-attachment approaches. This will help to separate the effects that the various antecedents have on job satisfaction and the concurrent impact the approaches have on job satisfaction. The withdrawal behaviors of absenteeism and turnover will also be examined as consequences of job satisfaction. Additionally, the inclusion of both absenteeism and turnover will allow the progression of withdrawal to be examined and the role that job satisfaction plays in this progression. Job Satisfaction The construct of job satisfaction is generally defined as a positive emotional state that reflects an affective r esponse to the job situation (Locke, 1976). The focus is task-oriented and short-term in nature (Mowday, Porter, & 31
The approach indicates that work attitudes are formulated from internal states. & Johnston. 1985). Ting. However. 1989). Dispositional approach: The dispositional approach has garnered renewed interest in recent years. & Spangler. has been hypothesized to be a moderator variable. Jones. Nelson. Lu. Al-Shammari. Dubinsky. Kantak. 1997). Wayne. 1982). and task significance (Hackman & Oldham. Several general perspectives have been examined that explain job satisfaction with all of these approaches demonstrating some degree of supporting evidence. The association between job characteristics and job attitudes results from the fact that both are the consequences of the prevailing normative and informational structure of the work setting (Pfeffer. 2001). 2002). 1994. & Neal. task identity. experienced responsibility. 1999. self-esteem (Costa & McCrae. 2000). 1985. Steel & Rentsch.Journal of Applied Business Research Volume 20. Reiner & Zhao. A laboratory study conducted by the authors supported the perspective. These studies found that leadership styles or behaviors impact job satisfaction (Landeweerd & Boumans. 1986). Combined or integrated approach: Griffin. 1979. Simmons. However. Recent studies continue to support task characteristics directly impacting job satisfaction in diverse samples (Bhuian. and need for achievement (Mannheim. 1987). & Clausen. Futrell. A higherorder need. Meta-analytic studies concluded the relationship was a relatively weak negative one (Hackett & Guion. Novak. Conversely. Yammarino. This pe rspective indicates that the individual possesses relatively stable unobservable mental states such as needs or attitudes that will impact their perceptions and behavior (Staw & Ross. feedback from the job. 1980. Roe. & Beehr. Baruch. positive/negative affectivity (Connolly & Viswesvaran. 1999. This approach combined both task characteristics with leader-member exchange (Graen. these combined models limit the impact of dispositional variables. research regarding the mediating states and GNS have been weak and inconsistent in support of these concepts (Walsh. & Tal. There has been a degree of recent support for this perspe ctive in using leadership as the normative or information source. Schonfeld. Number 3 Steers. It rests on the basic premise that job attitudes are determined by social cues processed from the work environment. Employees will process information in such a way to be consistent with their internal states (Staw. including explanatory models (Brooke & Price. 1996. Hogan & Martell. & Sommerkamp. 1996. The essence of the approach is that individuals possess stable traits that significantly influence their affective and behavioral reactions to organizational settings (Davis-Blake & Pfeffer. This viewpoint proposes that job enrichment and social cues combine to influence perceptions and attitudes. 32 . Lucas. & Jefri. and Head (1987) combined the task characteristics model with the social information processing model. 1988). 1982). Jolson. Job satisfaction has been examined extensively as a predictor of employee absenteeism in the literature. Outcomes of Job Satisfaction Two important outcomes of job satisfaction will be explored – absenteeism and turnover. 1984. Farrell & Stamm. job variety. Recent studies continue to support dispositions and their impact on job satisfaction including intrinsic motivation (Savery. 1989). These five dimensions will further impact the three mediating psychological states of experienced meaningfulness. 1997). & Woodman. Research has tended to indicate a degree of temporal stability in dispositions. 1996. and knowledge of results. 1998). there has been no concurrent testing of these competing models in a comprehensive path model. Early validation for the social information processing theory was mostly from laboratory studies (White & Mitchell. & Taillieu. 1995. 1994). Bateman. 1978). as well as cross-situational stability (Staw & Ross. Bhuian & Menguc. 1988). Social information processing approach: This situational approach has been proposed as an alternative to the task characteristics approach (Salancik & Pfeffer. This study will include these variables in a more thorough examin ation. a Scott and Taylor (1985) meta-analysis discovered a strong negative relationship between overall job satisfaction and the absence frequency measure. referred to as growth need strength (GNS). Bell. However. Theoretical Approaches To Job Satisfaction Task characteristics approach: This perspective proposes that the task characteristics are related to employee attitudes and describes jobs by the five perceived core dimensions of autonomy. This perspective is similar to an earlier viewpoint proposed by Graen and Ginsburgh (1977). Taber. 1985. de Vries. 1982). 1975). Seers & Graen. 1996. 2000. Leigh.
1986). the need for an excessively lengthy questionnaire is eliminated and this integration allows for a comprehensive model to be adequately tested. Wolpin & Burke. and diversity. The use of SEM can partial out the effects of common cause variables to give a better indication of the true relationship between the two variables. The final viewpoint indicated that withdrawal behaviors may share common causes. Past research has found varying degrees of support for all three of these positions (Mowday et al. 1987). 1981. Initially. Meta-analysis will add generalizability by cumulating the results from various samples from diverse settings. but they were not necessarily progressive (Benson & Pond. A second viewpoint proposed that absenteeism and turnover were viable alternatives to each other. Integrating meta-analysis with structural equation modeling will result in a synergistic relationship that will eliminate the shortcomings of each of the individual techniques as applied to comprehensive models. Most studies using this form of analysis have explored only restricted pieces of the job satisfaction process. all paths were included in a just-identified model and the insignificant paths were eliminated using a theory-trimming technique (Pedhazur. this combining of studies will greatly increase the sample size and power. 1957).Journal of Applied Business Research Volume 20. thus eliminating spurious relationships. 1987). size. Methods The integration of meta-analysis and structural equation modeling (SEM) has the ability to examine a comprehensive model by combining the results of independent studies while maintaining causal inferences. Most of the studies have failed to address causality by utilizing a path model and the models have lacked a comprehensive framework. These viewpoints presented the confirmatory evidence but did not explain the process underlying their models. measurement error and nonnormality in absenteeism and turnover measurement needs to be corrected (Watson. The resulting relationship between absenteeism and turnover would be negative. Thus. Unlike meta-analysis. Structural equation modeling refers to a technique that is used to examine the causal relationships between multiple exogenous and endogenous variables placed in a path model reflecting a theoretical foundation (Hayduk. Bluedorn. Additionally. Griffeth. 1977. research into the progression of withdrawal behaviors has been problematic in several respects. Job satisfaction has been investigated as an antecedent to separation in several major early turnover models (Price & Mueller. it will address the issue of causality directly. A major difficulty of SEM is related to its application. Individuals who leave the organization progressed from absenteeism to separation. 1982. However. However.. 1985). 33 . Meta-analysis combines the results of independent studies by merging bivariate effect sizes. 1982). This is generally due to the difficulty of collecting the necessary data and/or prohibitive questionnaire length involved in testing a comprehensive model.. 1985). & Meglino.. Finally. This null position proposes no relationship between these two variables. 1982). 1979). 1982). Hand. 1987). The paths diagrammed in the model will obtain their theoretical foundation from previous research that has investigated causal relationships. The inclusion of a more complete set of antecedents would give insight into other variables that impact withdrawal directly or indirectly through job satisfaction. Progression of Withdrawal Behaviors An examination of the literature regarding employee withdrawal revealed that the relationship among withdrawal behaviors followed three historical theoretical viewpoints (Chadwick-Jones et al. The first viewpoint indicated that withdrawal behaviors were progressive (Herzberg et al. This weakness can be overcome by combining meta-analysis with SEM. Job satisfaction has also been found to have a significant correlation with turnover in meta-analytic findings (Cotton & Tuttle. The generalizability of the results can also be a concern considering that the samples are usually limited in scope. 1981. This implies a positive relationship between absenteeism and turnover. meta-analyses will not control other variables or establish causality. The results from empirical tests have pointed to a modest negative relationship between job satisfaction and turnover (Price. Number 3 The other outcome examined is turnover. Analysis The study investigates the antecedents and consequences of job satisfaction by combining effect sizes across samples and integrating the results into a structural equation model. Mobley. Wolpin & Burke. This suggested absenteeism and turnover were perceived as interchangeable responses to the work setting by the employees (Benson & Pond.
29 . 1989). dev.20 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1.80 .04 1.31 .06 .95 . Table 1 Meta-Analysis Bivariate Correlations Variable Name Job Satisfaction Absenteeism Turnover Autonomy Feedback Job Variety Task Identity Task Significance Initiating Structure Consideration Need for Achievement Motivation 1 1.01 -.20 .10 -.00 .21 1.00 -.07 .66 1.84 . The effect sizes were corrected for 34 .95 JDS std.00 .14 -.31 -. Table 2: Meta-Analysis Weighted Standard Deviations And Reliabilities Variable Name Absenteeism Autonomy1 Feedback1 Job Satisfaction1 Job Variety1 Leader Consideration Initiating Structure Motivation1 Need for Achievement Task Identity1 Task Significance1 Turnover 1 N 3564 ----7886 9298 -4022 ---- S.24 .75 .e.34 .00 .17 -.10 .35 .43 .04 . the norms set forth by Hackman and Oldham (1975) were used.31 1.14 .08 -. Standardized path coefficients were utilized to estimate the parameters of the model. Number 3 The effect sizes (r-index) were accumulated across the various studies by conversion into Z-scores and weighting them by sample size (Cooper.00 .391. The effect sizes and standard deviations were placed into a covariance matrix as input for structural equation analysis (Tett & Meyer.09 . This involved calculating an ecological base rate as a basis for the correlation corrections.00 .52 . the cumulative turnover percentage or ecological base rate was 2. In the studies examined.35 . & Griffeth. 1990).22 2.22 1.04 -.34 -. The search procedure for the meta-analysis consisted of examining entries in periodical and database headings that follow key words that reflected the variables of interest.77 2.26 .00 .D.16 .03 -.00 An overall effect size was derived that reflected the relationship between all the variables included in the study. The average standard deviations for the measures were also calculated and weighted by sample size (Table 2).14 .10 -. norm The path model was analyzed with a structural equation model using Lisrel (Joreskog & Sorbom.03 .41 .20 1.09 -.71 .11 .50 1.17 1.Journal of Applied Business Research Volume 20.25 1.00 .11 -. turnover proportions of stayers verses leavers) were corrected. 2. The sample size utilized in the model was 500 due to power considerations and because chi-square statistics have problems with larger sample sizes (Hayduk.72 2.00 . In the case of the JDS instrument.32 1.25 .04 .01 .30 1.71 .00 . These point-biserial turnover correlations were corrected for variance restriction and converted to biserial correlations (Steel.081.66 ..45% in a total sample size of 19. This allowed direct comparisons on the strength of the relationship between variables in the path model regardless metrics. Measures that had inherent range restriction problems (i.41 .82 .29 1.09 .75 . Table 1 shows the effect sizes (r) for all bivariate relationships.08 .00 .13 -.43 .07 1.27 1. 1993).02 . 1987).19 .41 .50 .28 .11 .28 .41 2 1. Shane.07 .73 .33 .12 . 1993).01 1.74 .14 -.12 -.28 .13 -.29 .42 N -16117 15586 30568 16087 7820 10052 6894 7921 12589 8725 -- Reliability .02 -. The average sample size in the bivariate relationships was 4.
& Johnston. Task characteristics were measured with three instruments with convergent validity (Brief & Aldag. Schonfeld. 1997. and personal domains. injury). 1971). Motivation is assessed by the JDS measure (Hackman & Oldham. Measuring Instruments There needed to be consistency in measuring instruments to appropriately utilize a meta-analysis technique. The exchange or interaction with supervisors or leaders will serve to represent the social influences or cues of the interpersonal -social domain (Seers & Graen. 1996. The antecedents of job satisfaction consisted of several well-documented instruments with established validities and reliabilities. 1998). Job Diagnostic Survey or JDS (Hackman & Oldham. The oldest of these viewpoints is the task characteristics approach and recent studies continue to support this viewpoint (Zeffane. It is conceivable that across samples all of these models impact job satisfaction. 1976). Baruch. MSQ. This coincides with the integrated or the dual-attachment approach (Graen. Previous research has found social cues given by supervisors to subo rdinates had a significant effect on altering their perceptions and attitudes (Griffin. This study will represent the personal domain more thoroughly by the inclusion of dispositional aspects. de Vries. Kantak. turnover measures were corrected for range restriction. The personal domain has usually been represented by growth need strength that was considered a moderator in the task characteristics approach. This was accomplished by incorporating a percentage of error variance into the proper matrices. Need for achievement was measured by the Manifest Needs Questionnaire or MNQ (Steers & Braunstein. 1976).405. 1996. 1971). The disposition approach or perspective also has confirmatory evidence from numerous recent studies (Judge & Larsen. 1963). and Job Characteristics Inventory or JCI (Sims. Both of these variables are causally related to job satisfaction (Mannheim. 1976). Number 3 measurement error. 1999. & Keller. Bhuian & Menguc. The social information pro cessing perspective receives support primarily from social cues derived from leadership. those instruments that had established convergent validity were utilized. The physical-technological domain is represented by task characteristics. and INDSALES) have demonstrated convergent validity for the measurement of job satisfaction. 2001). 1975). Ting. t he findings regarding growth need strength have been inconclusive and a study by Tiegs. 1983). Research Propositions Prediction Of Job Satisfaction These theoretical perspectives that specify the antecedents of job satisfaction have all had some degree of confirmatory evidence.Journal of Applied Business Research Volume 20. Since standardized path coefficients and not metric coefficients were employed. 1953) and the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire Form XII (Stogdill. several instruments (Faces. Finally. Vroom (1964) indicated that absence frequency was more strongly related to satisfaction than absence duration. & Tal. Unfortunately. For absenteeism and turnover. JDS. illness. only 5% error variance was assumed to account for data entry or coding errors. 2000).e. 1994. Tetrick. 2002). Szilagyi. Recent studies have supported the impact of leadership on satisfaction (Jones. Absenteeism was measured by absence frequency data. The consequences of job satisfaction were absenteeism and turnover. 1984). Lu. Two important dispositional variables that are related to organizational success are need for achievement and intrinsic motivation. This approach described three domains that interact to define an individual's organizational role including the physical/technological. Leader consideration and initiating structure measurement instruments include Fleishman's Supervisory Behavioral Description Questionnaire (Fleishman. 35 . JDI. As discussed earlier. Futrell. 1978) including Yale Job Inventory or YJI (Hackman & Lawler. This estimate of error variance reflected the average reliability of the measurement instruments weighted by sample size (Table 2). and Fried (1992) found no moderator effect in a sample of 6. 1975) and Yale Job Inventory or YJI (Hackman & Lawler. interpersonal/social. This rested on the basic premise that short-term absences were more at the discretion of the employee as opposed to long-term absences that were often beyond the individual's control (i. & Taillieu. Roe.
1987). and organizational characteristics. This study proposes that in the short run. This apparent progression of withdrawal appears to be the most accepted in the literature. leader isolation. 36 . organizations with strong cultures will have less need for direct leadership since workers internalize corporate beliefs and values. 1977. There has been some limited support for all of these viewpoints in past empirical studies (Gupta & Jenkins. or low leader positional power will act as a substitute or neutralize leadership efforts. This is supported in the literature in that job satisfaction is generally not a significant predictor of turnover (Clegg. Tasks that are structured and routine. This can be seen as a response by the worker to compensate for feelings of dissatisfaction. Task characteristics are known and accepted after the employee has completed the socialization procedure. these studies did not test both absenteeism and turnover concurrently. job descriptions are defined for virtually all organizational positions and rarely undergo significant alteration. inflexibility. 1985). Wolpin & Burke. but it does not mean they will leave in the long run. not turnover. professional orientations. 1983). Overall. peer cohesion. Number 3 Hypothesis 1: There is a significant direct effect from task characteristics. 1985. Outcomes of Job Satisfaction Two important consequences of job satisfaction are absenteeism and turnover. 1988). When absenteeism and turnover are both included in the path model. a worker may experience dissatisfaction and increase absences. Hypothesis 4: Job satisfaction has only an indirect effect (IE) on turnover through absenteeism. These are referred to as substitutes and/or neutralizers for leadership that occur in subordinate. task. This will delineate job satisfaction as a significant predictor of absenteeism. 1981). This could help account for the often inconsistent relationship between absenteeism and turnover (Clegg. salary. Rosse. Varadarajan. 1985.Journal of Applied Business Research Volume 20. In this case. 1987). Price & Mueller. Futrell. 1983. The research propositions that have been hypothesized are illustrated in Figure 1. it is unlikely that dissatisfaction will necessarily result in turnover. This is due to the fact that a worker will build up investments in the organization that makes it difficult to leave. Hypothesis 2: The direct effects from the dispositional variables are greater than the direct effects from task characteristics and leadership factors. The influence of task characteristics and leadership will have less overall impact due to their situational nature. the relationship between satisfaction and turnover will be indirect through absenteeism. social information processing. and it is unlikely that organizational changes are significant enough to alter these perceptions. In the long run. These investments include tenure. promotions. Additionally. there are three viewpoints concerning the progression of withdrawal (Benson & Pond. formalization. Hypothesis 3: Job satisfaction has a direct effect (DE) on absenteeism. The impact that these variables will have on job satisfaction will vary. Additionally. organizations that are exemplified by cohesive work groups. Tenured employees develop expectations regarding these task characteristics. As previously mentioned. community ties. Absenteeism models proposed that job satisfaction is a key predictor of absenteeism and research findings have causally linked job satisfaction to absenteeism (Hackett & Guion. Finally. provide feedback. The second viewpoint considers absenteeism as being perceived by the employee as an alternative behavior to separation. In the same vein. Brook & Price. These investments are cognitively balanced against the experienced dissatisfaction. This stability and cross-situational consistency has been supported by previous research (Staw & Ross. The final viewpoint suggests there is no relationship between the variables. Johnston. or indifference to organizational rewards have less need for leadership. There may a progressive aspect from absenteeism to separation indicating a positive relationship between absenteeism and turnover. Unfortunately. Job design and leadership variables reflect situational aspects that are not likely to maintain the impact of the dispositional variables. turnover models viewed satisfaction as an important influence on separation (Price. Dispositional aspects should have more consistency across settings. & Sager. 1989). Kerr and Jermier (1978) indicated that subordinates with experience. and family commitments. or are intrinsically satisfying substitute for leadership. This study will define a process for a positive progression implicating the influence of job satisfaction on absenteeism and turnover. 1982. Leadership's impact is likely mitigated by the importance of factors that serve to replace its influence across samples. job dissatisfaction can lead to increased absences. and dispositional factors to job satisfaction. the relationship would be negative.
1989). There is no known 37 . Figure 1 Hypothesized Model Motivation Absenteeism Need for Achievement Initiating Structure Leader Consideration Job Satisfaction Autonomy Feedback Job Variety Task Identity Turnover Task Significance Results The overall assessment of the fit of a model required careful consideration.77. It is appropriate to analyze the fit of a model with multiple indicators that represent its significance. Chi-square (χ²) and the corresponding probability level examines the hypothesis that the predicted covariance matrix matches the sample covariance matrix in over -identified models (Bollen.05). Number 3 Hypothesis 5: Absenteeism has a significant direct effect (DE) on turnover reflecting a withdrawal progre ssion. p>. Unlike χ². The Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) measures the relative amount of the variance and covariance that are jointly accounted for by the model (Chalykoff & Kochran. This allowed for the compensation of weaknesses that are inherent in some fit measures and not others. The chi-square for this model indicated a good fit (χ²=24. 1989). this measure is independent of sample size and also robust to nonnormality.Journal of Applied Business Research Volume 20.
The GFI for this study was quite acceptable with a value of . but Bentler and Bonett (1980) provided a rule of thumb of . Overall. Number 3 statistical distribution for this test.0 ) 18 6 (-. Job Variety 35 ) -.1 (.32) Job Satisfaction Autonomy Feedback .0 5 (- .3 . Figure 2 Supported Model Metric (Standardized) Path Coefficients Motivation -. The supported model is shown in Figure 2.1 5) 3 .5 (.2 2 (.13 ) -. Hoetler (1983 ) viewed Critical N's of 200 or more as the appropriate cutoff point. 1983).90 or greater.82 (-. the Critical N (CN) measur e represents the size of the sample that would be required to make the observed difference between the predicted covariance matrix and the sample covariance matrix just significant at a typical critical level of significance (Hoetler.5 0) -.99. 12 ) Task Identity Turnover Task Significance 38 .1 (. Finally.Journal of Applied Business Research Volume 20.23) Absenteeism Need for Achievement ( -.0 3 (-.05 (.18 (. these three test statistics indicated that the overall fit of the model was more than adequate or acceptable. The Critical N for this study was very high at 617.10 Initiating Structure 4 . -. The five previously discussed research propositions that were discussed earlier were examined in light of the supported model.07.14 (.4 5) .2 3) 2) Leader Consideration .1 4) 1 .
& Krackhardt.18 t = -3. however. t = 4. The only other predictor with an impact approaching the dispositional variables was leader consideration (γ* = . Leaders appeared to initiate more structure to absent employees and potential separations in an attempt to possibly bring them back in line. Consequently. Hypothesis 2 This hypothesis was confirmed in the model. the best predictor was leader initiating structure (γ * = . Overall.74. there were only two significant task characteristics.05). p < .63. t = 3.e. Leader initiating structure (γ * = -. feedback. Only two variables were significant predictors of absenteeism across samples.05).10. Autonomy. There was a significant and strong direct impact from both need for achievement (γ = . the results gave support for the combined or dual-attachment approach as all three of the viewpoints were involved in job satisfaction. p < . p < .91.05) had significant standardized path coefficients. Overall. Hypothesis 5 This hypothesis was confirmed by the results. The results emphasized the importance of leadership in the turnover process.Journal of Applied Business Research Hypothesis 1 Volume 20.05) was a significant antecedent to job satisfaction.05.14.05). supervisors appear to also employ more of a softer approach by giving them more of their consideration and feedback. t = 3.75. 1986).91. t = 7. p < .05) were significant anteceden ts to job satisfaction. t = 7. A possible explanation could be the concept of functional versus dysfunctional turnover (Dalton. p < .05). and motivation was also a very good predictor (γ * = . p < . p < . These three sets of variables functioned as powerful predictors of job satisfaction. need for achievement (γ * = .184.108.40.206. eliminating a poor worker) and the consideration would be used in the case of dysfunctional turnover and/or avoidable turnover. p < . the combined set of variables explained only 6% of the variance in absenteeism.35. though somewhat limited. for the task characteristics approach. p < .12.05). t = 10. and feedback (γ* = -. the most impressive support was for the dispositional approach.05). As mentioned earlier. 39 . The standardized direct effects (path coefficients signified with asterisk) from both of the dispositional variables were significant. t = 3. This gave support.21.13. Need for achievement was the strongest predictor of job satisfaction (γ* = . Job variety (γ = . The significance of the dispositional variable.22.23. the dispositional variables had the strongest impact of any of the variables on job satisfaction. Two of the individual dimensions of task characteristics were significant.05) and motivation (γ = .32. It is possible that initiating structure would be used for functional turnover and/or unavoidable turnover (i. Tudor. This gave evidence to a progression of withdrawal behaviors. p < .92. p < .301).50.92. The model itself did more than an adequate job in predicting turnover (R² = . Hypotheses 3 And 4 These hypotheses were not confirmed in the model. Job satisfaction did not have a significant direct effect on absenteeism.23. t = 10. Absenteeism had a significant positive direct effect on turnover (β* = . t = -2.05) and task identity (γ = .52. They explained approximately 78% of job satisfaction’s variance. There was also evidence for the social information processing approach in that leader consideration (γ = . γ * = . p < .05). Number 3 This hypothesis was confirmed in the model. t = 12. Though absenteeism was a relatively good predictor of turnover. t = -. Additionally.15.05). the direct effects from job variety and task identity were relatively small compared to the effects from the dispositional variables (γ * = .79. leader initiating structure was not significant.22. likely reflected that individuals with a higher need for achievement were possibly more apt to leave an organization that did not give them the opportunity to satisfy that need.22. p < . p < .42. and task significanc e were not significant predictors.05) and motivation (γ* = . This model did little to define job satisfaction's role in withdrawal progression. t = 4.18. Additionally. need for achievement. However. its indirect effects on turnover were not significant. t = 3. p < . t = -4.27.05) as predictors of satisfact ion. t = -5. t = 12. Overall. It was apparent that employee absenteeism was influenced by other variables not included in the present model. p < . Other significant antecedents to turnover were leader consideration (γ * = -.74. p < .10.05). 1982) and voluntary and unvoluntary turnover (Campion & Mitchell. job variety and task identity.34.
Vol. the direct relationship between these variables disappears in a comprehensive path model. and satisfaction's impact is indirect through its relationship with organizational commitment. and job involvement are areas for further examination. Advances in Experimental Psychology.). P. Vol. 1987.e. J. Vol.S. K. This would spell out a process where commitment is related to turnover. 3. Berkowitz (Ed. and D. A. Job design. pp.” Journal of Business and Psychology. This coincides with other recent studies supporting dispositions and their impact on individual behavior in the workplace (Judge & Larsen. It would seem that initiating structure would be more related to possible functional or involuntary turnover (i. 35. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. continued job dissatisfaction will lower a worker’s commitment to the organization and this will pre cipitate withdrawal behaviors. Academic Press. But it appears that their involvement in the process is mostly reactive as opposed to proactive. To the contrary. Additionally. 5. 2001). 1980. pp. instead of projective tests.G. Eaton.” Human Relations. It is possible that organizational commitment serves as a mediator between job satisfaction and withdrawal behaviors. It accounts for only 6. Wiley. The utilization of paper and pencil instruments.3% of the variance in absenteeism. Job satisfaction does not have a significant impact on the withdrawal behaviors of absenteeism or turnover.C. 88. even measures based on perception and judgment. 2. Job satisfaction may serve as a moderator variable in the process. 218-229. the possible loss of a good employee). 135-153. “An Investigation of the Process of Employee Withdrawal.. Although job satisfaction has been found to have a relationship with absenteeism in previously mentioned meta-analyses. could be employed due to validity concerns of projective measures. The impact that dispositional factors have on other affective responses to the work setting such as organizational commitment.A. Kamp. pp. 1965. Organizational commitment is related to previously discussed investments that a worker builds in the firm (for example – promotions. Future applied research could examine the influence of dispositional factors that are related to dimensions of job success as an integral part of an organization's hiring process (i. Hough. The exact role that job satisfaction plays in absenteeism needs better explication. but also add external validity.G. selection procedures).. The dispositional approach cannot be dismissed in its impact on job satisfaction. The patterns and signs of direct and indirect effects point to the conclusion that supervisors react to possible separation with more structure. and dispositions are all involved in job satisfaction to varying degrees and are important factors. and consideration and feedback would be involved in functional or voluntary turnover (i. “Significance Tests and Goodness-of-Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures. Bluedorn. 1. and feedback. across samples. 1982. The addition of organizational commitment concurrently with job satisfaction could significantly improve turnover models. salary. 1989.M. The model itself does poorly in explaining absenteeism. In essence. Bonett.” In L. friendships.” Psychological Bulletin. 2. Adams. 40 . 4. Job satisfaction does not have a direct or indirect impact on the process. 588-600. References 1. Future research should examine this leadership relationship in association with avoidable/ unavoidable turnover and functional/dysfunctional turnover. New York.) that makes it difficult for the employee to leave the organization. Bentler. Number 3 The integrated methodologies address not only causality. Pond.e. it is the most important factor.B. dismissal). Bollen. The inclusion of other theorized influences from absenteeism models examining job satisfaction as a possible moderator would seem appropriate. Vol. and S. organizational citizenship behaviors. Dunnette. and McCloy (1990) indicated that personality traits have adequate validity and utility in selection procedures. consideration. etc.Journal of Applied Business Research Discussion And Suggestions For Future Research Volume 20. leadership. the impact of organizational commitment needs to be examined in relation to absenteeism. The model indicates that leaders are strongly involved in turnover. The inclusion of these variables in more comprehensive frameworks where concurrent impact can be examined would seem appropriate. “A Unified Model of Turnover from Organizations.e. Job satisfaction may interact with commitment to impact withdrawal behaviors. “Inequity in Social Exchange. P. Benson. New York..
Head. 10. Lance.” Journal of Applied Psychology. Connolly. J. “Organizational Commitment. “Job Resignation as a Function of Role Orientation and Leader Acceptance: A Longitudinal Investigation of Organizational Assimilation.. Aldag. R. P. Vol.E.M. Vol. “The Impact of Personal Control on Performance and Satisfaction..B. 1989.” In M.. Chalykoff. “Objective and Social Sources of Information in Task Redesign: A Field Experiment. pp. 1-19. McCrae. and M. “Turnover Overstated: The Functional Taxonomy. Mitchell. “Role-Making Processes Within Complex Organizations.W. “Objective and Social Factors as Determinants of Task Perceptions and Responses: An Integrated Perspective and Empirical Investigation. Bhuian. 1989. 1977. Vol. 1-17. 1976. R. Pfeffer. and C.L. 659-670. L. 1953. N. Nicholson. pp. Vol. Clegg. Cooper. and J. D.M. Graen.L. 19. M. Chadwick-Jones.Journal of Applied Business Research 6. R.M. Brooke.P. E. Graen. 22 (1). & R. & T.” Academy of Management Review.. 30. Eby. pp. Freeman. “An Extension and Evaluation of Job Characteristics. 6. Vol. Vol. Brown. Krackhardt. pp. Jolson. & C.B. G. Vol. 1982. Praeger. pp. Viswesvaran. 1983. “The Role of Affectivity in Job Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis. Vol. 501-523. 13.” Academy of Management Journal.R. “Meta-Analysis of the Correlates of Employee Absence. pp. 17. pp. 14. Absence. Volume 20. F. Bateman. T. 20. Cotton..” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 163-483. Guest Worker. R.A. 6 (3/4). S. 55-70.. 1987. P. Davis-Blake. Vol. 1983. 29. A.” Administrative Science Quarterly. 1998. 25. Rush. 211-227. S.” Academy of Management Journal. 1986. Kochran. pp. 21.R. “Employee Turnover: A Meta-Analysis and Review with Implications for Research. Taillieu. 1-11.B. & C. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. G. “The Description of Supervisory Behavior. 14. Dunnette (Ed. Number 3 9. Integrating Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews. 1986. Vol. and Turnover: A Methodological Critique and an Empirical Study. 117-123. 62. Brief.E. M. D. Greenberger..A. “Need for Supervision: Its Impact on Leadership Effectiveness. pp.B. 265-281. The Social Psychology of Absenteeism. T.. M. “Management Turnover: Experiential Differences Between Former and Current Managers. 1995. S. pp. Roe. 29.” Human Relations. Campion. Sales Setting.. 57-80. pp. D. and J.). 37. 1996. 19. Vol. 72 (4). 385-400. J. 184-200. & D.W. 27. 7. “Just a Mirage: The Search for Dispositional Effects in Organizational Research. 1994. Yammarino. Jeffri. pp. 16. Dalton.D. pp. 28.” Personnel Psychology. Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction in an Expatriate. H.M. “Transformational Leadership: An Initial Investigation in Sales Management.A. 12.. J. A. L..S. 668-678. Job Satisfaction and Job Characteristics: An Empirical Study of Expatriates in Saudi Arabia. Tuttle. 1978.K.C. E. 486-501. 88-101.J. pp.J. 18. 807-834. Dunham. “The Determinants of Employee Absenteeism: An Empirical Test of a Causal Model. 26. Chicago. “Motivational Bases of Affective Organizational Commitment: A Partial Test of an Integrative Theoretical Model. Vol. 22.” Journal of Applied Psychology. 1982. 39.” Academy of Management Review. 24. Vol. “The Job Characteristics Inventory: An Examination. New York.” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management. 42.A. and S. 1989. and R. Tudor. Fleishman. D.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.S. Dubinsky.A. 43. Bhuian.N. Vol.N. 1989. Vol. Sage. 11.J. 1-6. 28. Menguc.D. 1988. Vol.A. 1989.T. Ginsburgh.P. 41. Al-Shammari. pp.J. 38. 8.L. de Vries.. 68. Vol. pp. Personality and Individual Differences. Vol. and C. pp.. & W. Costa. Wayne. 34 (4). 23.C. C. & O.J. 15. and J.T. Cummings. Griffin.W. 2002. 7.L. and T. “Computer-Aided Monitoring: Its Influence on Employee Job Satisfaction and Turnover. pp. Newbury Park.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. S.” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. Vol. D. Vol. Farrell.B. 1999. 17-31. 2000. pp. and R. pp.” Journal of Occupational Psychology. Stamm. Griffin.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. Vol.C. Spangler.” Academy of Management Review. California.” The Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management. A. Price.” International Journal of Commerce & Management.” Personnel Psychology. Rand-McNally. 29-51. pp.. “Influence of Extraversion and Neuroticism on Subjective Well-Being: Happy and Unhappy People. 41 . Strasser. “Psychology of Employee Lateness. 11. 57-69. 21. J. W. and B.
1996. “Substitutes for Leadership: Their Meaning and Measurement. 1987. Job Satisfaction. and J..M. Vol. and G.F. Judge. Explanation and Prediction. Pfeffer. Maryland. & J. pp.H. 14. 39. K. 16 (2). “Employee Reactions to Job Characteristics.J. pp. Hackett.. Vol. Mobley. 1971. 45. Iowa. Price.M. pp. Hough. Futrell. 46. Hand. 42. 33.D. S..M. J. 1983. and D. G.” Journal of Applied Psychology. & R. 53. pp. J. Kamp. L. Work Attitudes. “Reclaiming Personality Traits for Personal Selection: Self-Esteem as an Illustrative Case.” Journal of Management. 1987. Joreskog. 29-38. B. Whitener. 39. Meglino. 54. Ames.” Human Relations. Mannheim. pp. “A Confirmatory Structural Equations Analysis of the Job Characteri stics Model. 1323. 67. 52. Lawler.R. Structural Equation Modeling with Lisrel. Hogan. 38.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. Sorbom. pp. E.M. Multiple Regression in Behavior Research. Jenkins.G. 22. 34. 36. and Turnover Among New Salespeople.W. Employee-Organizational Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment. “Dispositional Affect and Job Satisfaction: A Review and Theoretical Extension. Woodman.W.W. 1985.Journal of Applied Business Research 30. 242-263. J. 49. “Alternative Models for Antecedents and Outcomes of Work Centrality and Job Satisfaction of High-Tech Personnel. “Effects of Perceived Organizational Factors on Role Stress-Job Attitude Relationships.H. Hayduk..A.A. Porter.A. and R. 1999. and N. 86 (1). Vol. Vol.. and Employees’ Well-Being.. Martell.. 1977. 81-91. Vol. Holt.A. 7. 581-595. Johnston. Vol. Vol. Gupta. Chicago. 2001. Vol. N. 48. & J. New York. Rand-McNally. R. Dunnette (Ed. Hackman.” Psychological Bulletin. 395-412. pp. Job Stress.M. Vol. Job Attitudes: Review of Research and Opinion. McCloy. 19.O. Iowa State University Press. 1982.” Journal of Applied Psychology.K.” The Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management. “Review and Conceptual Analysis of the Employee Turnover Process. “The Relationship Between Organizational Commitment.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. J. 207-217. Essentials and Advances. and E. and E.” Journal of Applied Management Studies. 1982. 1979. 67-98. Pedhazur. Oldham. 1975. Steers.A.. 43. Cambridge. Mauser. R. 32. P. 35. 61-72. Peterson. Johns Hopkins University Press. and Turnover.J. Vol. Rinehart. 1982.H.. “The Effect of Work Dimensions and Need for Autonomy on Nurses’ Work Satisfaction and Health. 31. pp. 259-286. 47. pp. F. 14. Lucas. Vol. M. Basic Books. 1988. 340-381.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.M. J. Number 3 40. The Study of Turnover. Baruch.” Sociological Methods and Research. “A Reevaluation of the Absenteeism-Job Satisfaction Relationship. Sager.A. New York.P.M. 1988. Guion. 9 (1). Pittsburgh.R. pp. W. 1976.” Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management.Griffeth.R. 75. 44. Bouman. E. 1990.T. & M. 41. R. Absenteeism. Hillsdale.R. Kantak. 375-403. “Work Motivation. Vol. Capwell. L. Massachusetts. Landeweed. 35. 51. Ballinger Publishing Company. 42 . 37. B. 1993. N. H. pp. Lu. Vol. C. Johnston.M. 83 (3). Herzberg. 50 (12). “The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. and G. “Criterion-Related Validities of Personality Constructs and the Effect of Response Distortion on Those Validities.” Journal of Applied Psychology.D. Y. J. Lisrel 8: Structural Equation Modeling with Simplis Command Language.. pp.W.D.” Vol. Mowday. Vol. pp. pp. 55. and D. 325-344. R. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.R. M. pp. T. & R.” Organizational Behavioral and Human Performance. 11. D. Vol. Baltimore.D. C. 41-58. J. & R. 1997. J. Dunnette.. Leigh.A. 1978. Pennsylvania.W. L. pp.” Journal of Management.E. & Winston. “Leader Behavior. pp. “Absenteeism and Turnover: Is There a Progression?” Journal of Management Studies. 50.. Hollenbeck. Hackman.M. E. Jermier. 1982.H.. 1957. Locke. Kerr.L. 1987. J. Psychological Service of Pittsburgh. Varadarajan. Eaton. and Turnover of Salespeople: An Integrative Study. E. 159-170. Volume 20. Jones.W.). 60.. “The Analysis of Covariance Structures: Goodness of Fit Indice s.” In Marvin D. 1994. 493-522. 1537-1562. and R. Luo. “Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. New Jersey. Hoetler. Tal. Organizations and Organizational Theory. B. Illinois. Futrell. Larsen. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Vol. & D.
Bell. Vol. Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire-Form XII. 1985. 1981. 25. and G.” Journal of Applied Psychology.E. Ohio. Turnover Intention.P. pp. 15 (6).” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. Seers. 259-293. Vol.L.A.. and Turnover: Is There a Progression of Withdrawal. Burke. Pfeffer. Vol. Sims.E.G.” Journal of Applied Psychology. pp. and D. R. K. Scott. pp. New York. “The Dispositional Model of Job Attitudes Revisited: Findings of a 10 -Year Study. Neal. 18-27. “The Congruence Between the Importance of Job Satisfaction and the Perceived Level of Achievement. R.K. 59. Absence. Vol. Schonfeld. 1994. 195-224. Number 3 62. 1997.M. S. Zhao. pp. 57-75. Rosse.Journal of Applied Business Research 55. 66.” Journal of Applied Psychology.R. pp.P.P. pp.” Journal of Vocational Behavior. 67.” American Review of Public Administration. Steel. pp.D.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 1976. and R. 24.” The Journal of Management Development. pp. 68.P.D.S. 1963. Wiley. 69. Shane. 252-267. V. and C.J. Tiegs. 1984. 1-2. 72. Vol. 1993. “An Updated Look at Depressive Symptoms and Job Satisfaction in First-Year Women Teachers. 73. Rentsch. 63-74. Nelson. 70. 66. Vol. Vroom. 1996. Simmons. Beehr. Ohio State University. & T. Vol. 599-612. pp.B. Vol. Ting. G. “An Evaluation of Some Aspects of the Steers and Rhodes Model of Employee Attendance.S. Vol. T..A. pp. 26 (4). pp. C. Staw. “Relations Between Lateness. Price. B.T. G. Vol. 1988. Vol. and J. 1964. 33. & Y.. “Job Satisfaction and Its Implications for Work Redesign: Findings from Australia. 385-389. A. Vol. R. pp. Zeffane. Y. 2000. Walsh. Bureau of Business Research. 63. 56. 575-593. Vol.. 56-77. 28. L. 77. 1976. 5-18. “A Behaviorally-Based Measure of Manifest Needs in Work Settings.. “Job Satisfaction. Tetrick. 19 (3). 18. Vol. 1992. Steel. I.” Administrative Science Quarterly. Szilagyi.T.W. Stogdill. Salancik.” Academy of Management Journal. “Job Enrichment Verses Social Cues: A Comparison and Competitive Test. & R.J. 38. pp. “Correcting Turnover Statistics for Co mparative Analysis.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology. pp.R. 31. 1990. 26 (3). 1981. N. & J.R.. & L.” Academy of Management Journal.B. Fried. and Turnover: Path Analyses Based on Meta-Analytic Findings. Vol. H.P. Wolpin. 137-141.L. 65. Vol. 1978.” Academy of Management Journal.M.” Academy of Management Journal. “Growth Need Strength and Context Satisfaction as Moderators of the Relations of the Job Characteristics Model. and J. 251-266. 60.S. “Analysis of Job Satisfaction of the Federal White-Collar Work Force: Findings from the Survey of Federal Employees. pp. 19. Taber. “Stability in the Midst of Change: A Dispositional Approach of Job Attitudes. R. Vol. 1985. “An Examination of Conflicting Findings on the Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and Absenteeism: A Meta-Analysis. 79.. White.. 1999. & R.. “The Dual Attachment Concept: A Longitudinal Investigation of the Co mbination of Task Characteristics and Leader-Member Exchange. pp. Vol. R. 1986. 439-456.. pp. and J. pp. 58. pp. 64.” Administrative Science Quarterly. Journal of Applied Psychology. Keller..” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance.H. Vol. Steers. R. 64. Ross. 71. L. 543-565. “The Measurement of Job Characteristics. J.” Healthcare Management Review. “A Social Information Processing Approach to Job Attitudes and Task Design. 1979. and J. 73. 70.” Journal of Management.E. 78.W. 873-879. and J. Braunstein. 61. B. 9. “An Integrated Model of Perceived Job Characteristics. Vol.L. D. 23.” Human Relations. 46. A. “A Comparison of the Positive and Negative Work Att itudes of Home Healthcare and Hospital Nurses. “The Dispositional Approach to Job Attitudes: A Lifetime Longitudinal Test. M. Savery. B. Vol. 1996. 33. Watson. 179-187. “Relationships Between Absenteeism and Turnover: A Function of the Measures?” Personnel Psychology.. “A Causal Model of Turnover for Nurses.D. 517-531.J. 82 (6). 43 .. 1-9. Volume 20. pp. 57. J. Graen.” Review of Public Personnel Administration. pp. 1985.” Personnel Psychology. 363-371. J.D. Taylor. 2001. 469-480. Reiner. R. 41. Vol. 75. Griffeth.. Mueller. Columbus. 76. and G. and T. Vol. Work and motivation. pp. “The Determinants of Job Satisfaction Among United States Air Force S ecurity Police. Staw. 74. 224-253. Meyer. 283-306. J.M. Organizational Commitment. Tett. 1980. Mitchell. Clausen.M.
Journal of Applied Business Research Notes Volume 20. Number 3 44 .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.