CHAPTER

9 Positive Employee
Attitudes and Behaviors

CHAPTER OUTLINE
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT Changes in pay structure
JOB SAT,-.ACT,ON Flexible work schedules
The Measurement of Job Satisfaction Benefit programs
Job Satisfaction and Job Performance PO-,T,VE EMPLOYEE BEHAV,OR-
ORGAN,1AT,ONAL COMM,TMENT Organizational Citizenship
Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction Behaviors

EMPLOYEE ATT,TUDE- AND EMPLOYEE ATTENDANCE Positive Affect and Employee

Well-being
Employee Absenteeism
SUMMARY
Employee Turnover
INCREA-,NG EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT, JOB
SAT,-.ACT,ON, AND ORGAN,1AT,ONAL
COMM,TMENT
Changes in job structure

Inside Tips
THE POSITIVE ASPECTS OF WORK

If someone were to ask us about our jobs or careers, we would probably report some positive feelings, as well
as indicating some aspects of the job with which we were dissatisfied. This chapter more than any other
pulls together a number of issues and topics from I/O psychology. We will look at the positive aspects of
jobs—what causes workers to be engaged in their jobs, their organizations, and their careers. We will explore
how positive employee attitudes and behaviors are connected to job performance. This is really an issue of

216
 Employee Engagement 217

motivation, similar to those examined in Chapter 8. This chapter also deals with some measurement issues
that were introduced in Chapter 2. The measurement of employee attitudes, for example, presents a number
of measurement problems. The connection between attitudes and their ability to predict important behaviors
has a long and important history in both social and industrial/organizational psychology.

Y
ou are getting settled into your new job. A great deal of effort went
into finding the position, making it through the screening process, and
landing the job, and in your initial training and orientation. You’ve
learned the ropes and know what to do, but what is going to determine if you
stay in this job, with this company, and even in this career path? We work partly
out of necessity, but we stay in a job or an organization because of the positive
things that come from the job, the company, and the career.
Seventy-five years ago, the only compensation that most workers received
from their jobs was a paycheck. As time went on, this changed as workers began
to demand and receive more from their jobs. Today’s workers receive a variety
of forms of compensation, including health care, retirement, and numerous
other benefits and programs. However, one thing that the workers of the past
and today’s workers have in common is that their jobs constitute a major part
of their lives and are one of the greatest sources of personal pleasure and
pain. Although jobs can be satisfying in some regards, with positive feelings
of accomplishment and purpose, they can also be stressful, and the source of
negative feelings. Such negative feelings may, in turn, affect worker attitudes
and behaviors.
In the next two chapters we will explore the positive and negative effects
of jobs on workers. In this chapter we will focus on employee engagement,
including job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and positive employee
attitudes and behaviors. We will examine how these influence work performance,
absenteeism, and turnover. We will also focus on some of the programs and
techniques designed to increase employees’ engagement in their work and their
organizations. We will then focus on positive employee behaviors and how we
can encourage the best from workers, for the good of the organization and for
improving employee well-being.

Employee Engagement
Employee engagement is a psychological state that is characterized by vigor employee engagement
(energy), dedication, and absorption in one’s work and organization (Schaufeli, a psychological state
Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, & Baker, 2002). Highly engaged employees are characterized by
vigor, dedication, and
enthusiastic about their jobs, committed to their work and the organization, absorption in one’s
and it is assumed that this state leads them to be more motivated, productive, work/organization
and more likely to engage in positive work behaviors (Macey & Schneider,
2008). We will use employee engagement as an “umbrella” term to focus on
positive employee attitudes, including the related (and much more thoroughly
researched) constructs of job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
218 CHAPTER 9 Positive Employee Attitudes and Behaviors

What factors contribute to employee engagement? Saks (2006) suggests

that jobs that are high in job characteristics (recall the Job Characteristics
Model discussed in Chapter 8) are more meaningful and more likely to
engage employees. In addition, if the employees feel that they are supported
by their supervisors and their organization, they are more likely to experience
high levels of engagement. Finally, being recognized and rewarded for one’s
accomplishments, and working in an organization that treats people fairly, all
contribute to employee engagement.
The construct of employee engagement has received a great deal of attention
from consultants and HR professionals, but less attention from researchers.
It does, however, represent a more global way of looking at the positive attitudes
and feelings of employees about their work and their work organizations. One
self-report measure of employee engagement assesses two separate, but related,
components, job engagement (sample scale items: “Sometimes I am so into my job
that I lose track of time” and “I am highly engaged in this job”) and organization
engagement (sample items: “Being a member of this organization is very captivating”
and “I am highly engaged in this organization”) (Saks, 2006). This research
found that employee engagement was positively related to job satisfaction and
negatively related to employees’ stated intentions to quit their jobs.

Job Satisfaction
While job engagement is a broad construct that refers to how much employees
are psychologically and emotionally committed to their jobs and their
organizations, it is a relatively new and understudied variable in I/O psychology.
A related variable—one that has been extensively studied—is job satisfaction.
job satisfaction Job satisfaction consists of the feelings and attitudes one has about one’s
the positive and job. All aspects of a particular job, good and bad, positive and negative,
negative feelings and are likely to contribute to the development of feelings of satisfaction (or
attitudes about one’s job
dissatisfaction). As seen in Chapter 2, job satisfaction, along with productivity,
quality, absenteeism, and turnover, is one of the key dependent variables
commonly considered (and measured) in research in I/O psychology. There
global approach are two approaches to conceptualizing job satisfaction. The first is the global
views job satisfaction approach, which considers overall job satisfaction. This way of looking at
as an overall construct job satisfaction simply asks if the employee is satisfied overall, using a yes–
no response, a single rating scale, or a small group of items that measure
facet approach global job satisfaction. The second is the facet approach, which considers
views job satisfaction as job satisfaction to be composed of feelings and attitudes about a number
made up of individual of different elements, or facets, of the job. For example, overall satisfaction
elements, or facets
may be a composite of numerous factors: satisfaction with pay, the type of
work itself, working conditions, the type of supervision, company policies and
procedures, relations with coworkers, and opportunities for promotion and
advancement. The facet approach considers each of these aspects individually,
assuming that a particular worker might be quite satisfied with some facet,
such as the amount of pay, but unsatisfied with others, such as the quality of
supervision and the opportunities for promotion.
 Job Satisfaction 219

There has been considerable discussion over which approach is better

(Highhouse & Becker, 1993). Proponents of the global approach argue that
it is overall satisfaction with a job that is important and that such complete
satisfaction is more than the sum of satisfaction with separate job facets
(Scarpello & Campbell, 1983; Schneider, 1985). Moreover, evidence suggests
that even single-item measures of job satisfaction work reasonably well for
assessing job satisfaction (Wanous, Reichers, & Hudy, 1997). On the other
hand, advocates of the facet approach maintain that this view provides better
and more detailed assessments of job satisfaction, allowing a researcher
insight into how a particular individual feels about the various facets of the
job and the work situation. Moreover, there may be tremendous variation in
how highly individual workers value certain facets of job satisfaction (Rice,
Gentile, & McFarlin, 1991). For example, satisfaction with pay may be an
important element of job satisfaction for one worker, but not for another.
In addition, some facets may not apply to all types of jobs. For instance, CEOs
of companies and self-employed professionals are not affected by opportunities
for promotion—a facet that may be an important contributor to job satisfaction
of lower-level managers in large organizations.
Proponents of the facet definition argue that it helps to indicate specific
areas of dissatisfaction that can be targeted for improvement (Locke, 1976;
Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969). Still others believe there are advantages to using
both types of measurement approaches based on findings that indicate that
each approach offers interesting and important information (Ironson, Smith,
Brannick, Gibson, & Paul, 1989). Overall, much of the psychological research
on the topic utilizes the facet approach in the measurement of job satisfaction.

THE MEA-UREMENT O. JOB SAT,-.ACT,ON

Regardless of the approach, when considering the measurement of job
satisfaction, it is important to bear in mind the difficulties encountered in
attempting to define the factors that may influence satisfaction, as well as the
difficulties inherent in trying to measure any attitude.
As mentioned earlier, most instruments designed from the facet
approach measure satisfaction with such things as pay, working conditions,
and relationships with supervisors and coworkers. However, other variables
such as preemployment expectations, individual personality characteristics,
and the fit between the organization or job and the employee may also affect
worker satisfaction (Ostroff, 1993a). Satisfaction with career choice and
the employee’s career progression can also contribute to job satisfaction
(Scarpello & Vandenberg, 1992). Research has suggested that elements of job
satisfaction may be deeply rooted in the individual workers. These researchers
have suggested that there may be genetic “predispositions” to be satisfied or
dissatisfied with one’s job (see box On the Cutting Edge).
Although a variety of factors might contribute to job satisfaction for most
workers (e.g., working conditions, relationships at work), as mentioned before,
the connection between such factors and job satisfaction may not be a direct
link. Job satisfaction may be moderated by the perceptions of individual
220 CHAPTER 9 Positive Employee Attitudes and Behaviors

workers (Gardner & Pierce, 1998; Mathieu, Hofmann, & Farr, 1993). This
is because different employees may perceive the same job differently, and it
is those individual perceptions that determine whether or not an employee is
satisfied with the job. For instance, improving the working environment may
affect satisfaction for some employees, but not for others, because not everyone
is dissatisfied with the environment.
Another major obstacle in the measurement of job satisfaction is the same
obstacle encountered in the measurement of any attitude—the necessary

ON THE CUTTING EDGE

Personality, Genetics, and Job Satisfaction

C an job satisfaction be a reality for all workers?

And, how much can the organization do toward
increasing or maintaining job satisfaction for its workers?
they are best able to achieve it. In fact, it has been argued
that dispositional factors may be responsible for the fact
that surveys of U.S. workers during both good and bad
Although the organization can do much to foster job economic times seem to show approximately the same
satisfaction, the factors that cause job satisfaction are not percentages of satisfied and dissatisfied workers (Staw &
entirely under the control of the organization. Workers Ross, 1985). In other words, although economic condi-
can influence their own levels of job satisfaction through tions fluctuate, the distribution of different personality
such actions as performing their jobs well and maintaining types in the workforce remains relatively stable.
good attendance at work. Even if we could set up the Perhaps more interesting is the finding that
ideal workplace, would this lead all workers to enjoy high genetic factors present at birth can influence a worker’s
levels of job satisfaction? Research on the influences of job satisfaction. Studies examining the genetic and
personality and genetic factors on job satisfaction suggest environmental components of job satisfaction using
that the answer is “no.” identical twins who were reared apart in different
For example, workers who score high on personal homes found a higher correlation in the twin adults’ job
alienation—indicating deep-set tendencies toward feeling satisfaction than would be found between persons in the
isolated, lonely, and powerless—do not seem to be as general population (Arvey, Bouchard, Segal, & Abraham,
affected by interventions designed to increase workers’ 1989; Keller, Bouchard, Arvey, Segal, & Dawis, 1992). In
job satisfaction as are workers scoring low on this other words, despite the fact that the identical twins were
personality characteristic (Efraty & Sirgy, 1990). Persons raised in totally different environments, and likely were in
high on negative affect/emotions, as well as persons completely different job environments, the twins’ levels of
prone to boredom, may also be less likely to feel job satisfaction were quite similar. More recent research
job satisfaction (Dormann, Fay, Zapf, & Frese, 2006; has discovered some of the genetic markers associated
Kass, Vodanovich, & Callender, 2001). Moreover, per- with job satisfaction (Song, Li, & Arvey, 2011).
sonality differences may mean that workers will find dif- Of course, such findings do not suggest that
ferent “sources” of job satisfaction in the workplace. For organizations have no responsibility in helping workers to
instance, workers with low self-esteem appear to find achieve job satisfaction. What these findings do suggest is
more satisfaction in jobs in which expectations of per- that job satisfaction may not be completely determined by
formance are clear (e.g., there are clear guidelines for characteristics of the organization or of the job (Dormann &
performance), whereas job satisfaction in persons with Zapf, 2001). Although organizations must provide an envi-
higher self-esteem is not as affected by knowledge of ronment where employees can meet their job-related
performance expectations (Pierce, Gardner, Dunham, & needs, they cannot guarantee that every worker will
Cummings, 1993). Indications are that workers’ person- achieve the same level of satisfaction. Likewise, workers
alities may vary in terms of the amount of job satisfac- should not place the entire responsibility for their own job
tion they are able to achieve, and under what conditions satisfaction on the employer.
 Job Satisfaction 221

reliance on respondents’ self-reports. Recall that problems with self-report

measures include the fact that workers may (intentionally or unintentionally)
fail to report their true feelings. Strategies for measuring job satisfaction
have included interviews, group meetings, and a variety of structured, survey
methods, such as rating scales or questionnaires. The obvious advantages of
using a rating scale or questionnaire, instead of a face-to-face meeting, are the
reduced time invested in the administration of the instrument and the fact that
anonymity of responses can often be maintained (particularly if large numbers
of employees are being surveyed). Such anonymity may help to ensure that
worker responses are more candid than they might be in a face-to-face inter-
view. That is, some workers, fearing retaliation from management, may not give
an accurate representation of their levels of job satisfaction in an interview or a
meeting and may try to present an overly positive picture of their feelings.
On the other hand, meetings or interviews can provide richer information
because the interviewer can ask follow-up questions or request further
elaboration or clarification of an answer. In addition, response biases (e.g., ten-
dencies for all or most employees to give overly positive or negative responses)
and ambiguous items that employees may interpret differently may seriously
damage the validity of a pencil-and-paper job satisfaction measure. Another
problem with survey instruments is context effects (Harrison & McLaughlin,
1993). Context effects occur when a neutral item is responded to negatively
or positively, simply because it is grouped with other items that are worded
negatively or positively. Finally, even well-designed, standardized instruments
Stop & Review
may become outdated and require periodic revisions due to changes in Describe the two
approaches to
technology and work roles (Roznowski, 1989). In summary, no matter which
conceptualizing job
type of measurement is selected, careful thought and planning must go into the
satisfaction.
development and administration of job satisfaction measures.
Despite the complexities, many organizations develop their own interviews,
scales, or surveys that are used to measure employee job satisfaction. Although
such in-house techniques can be designed to assess satisfaction with specific
issues relevant to each company’s employees, their results may be difficult
to interpret. First, these measures may not be reliable or valid. To construct
measures that are reliable and valid, one must have a rather extensive
background in survey development and measurement techniques. Moreover,
it takes quite a bit of research to establish the reliability and validity of a job
satisfaction measure. Many organizations don’t have the employees with the
skills needed to construct such measures. Second, it is very difficult to know
what a particular rating or score means without being able to compare it to some
standard. For example, if employees indicate relatively low levels of satisfaction
with salary on some scale, does this mean that they are actually dissatisfied with
the money they make? They may merely be stating a desire for more money—a
desire shared by most employees of most organizations.
Because of these problems in creating and interpreting in-house job
satisfaction measures, many companies are using standardized surveys. Besides
being cost-effective, a major advantage of using such standardized measures is
that they provide normative data that permit the comparison of ratings with
those from similar groups of workers in other companies who have completed
222 CHAPTER 9 Positive Employee Attitudes and Behaviors

the survey. This allows the organization to know whether the job satisfaction
levels of its employees are low, high, or in the “normal” range, as compared to
other workers in other organizations. As demonstrated earlier in the comparison
of levels of satisfaction with salary, if a company simply assumes its employees’
ratings are low (when, in fact, they are average when compared to the norm),
management may spend time and resources on a problem that doesn’t exist.
The ability to compare scores from standardized job satisfaction measures
that have been obtained from different groups of workers in different
companies also allows researchers to investigate the various organizational
factors that cause job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. In other words, if different
questionnaires were used for all studies, researchers could not be sure that the
studies were measuring and comparing the same things.
Two of the most widely used standardized surveys of job satisfaction are
Minnesota
Satisfaction the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) and the Job Descriptive Index (JDI).
Questionnaire (MSQ) The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967)
a self-report measure is a multiple-item rating scale that asks workers to rate their levels of satisfaction/
of job satisfaction that dissatisfaction with 20 job facets, including supervisor’s competence, working
breaks satisfaction conditions, compensation, task variety, level of job responsibility, and chances for
down into 20 job facets
advancement. Ratings are marked on a scale from “very dissatisfied” to “neutral” to
“very satisfied.” Sample items from the MSQ are presented in Figure 9.1.
Job Descriptive The Job Descriptive Index (Smith et al., 1969) is briefer than the MSQ
Index (JDI) and measures satisfaction with five job facets: the job itself, supervision, pay,
a self-report job promotions, and coworkers. Within each of the five facets is a list of words or
satisfaction rating scale
measuring five job
short phrases. Respondents indicate whether the word or phrase describes
facets their job, using the answers “yes,” “no,” and “undecided.” Each of the words
or phrases has a numerical value that reflects how well it describes a typically
satisfying job. Items checked within each scale are summed, yielding five
satisfaction scores that reflect the five facets of job satisfaction. In the past it was
suggested that the five scales could be summed into a total score of overall job
satisfaction. However, one study indicates that such a total score is not the best
overall measure and suggests the use of a global assessment instrument called
the Job In General (or JIG scale) as an accompaniment to the five JDI scales
(Ironson et al., 1989).
Since its development in the 1960s, the JDI has become the most widely
used standardized measure of job satisfaction (Roznowski, 1989). Moreover,
the JDI was revised and improved in the mid-1980s by replacing some of
the older scale items with improved items (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1987).
Figure 9.2 presents sample items from the JDI.
Both the MSQ and the JDI have been widely researched, and both have
established relatively high levels of reliability and validity (Kinicki, McKee-Ryan,
Schriesheim, & Carson, 2002; Smith et al., 1969, 1987; Weiss et al., 1967). One
obvious difference between the two measures is the number of job satisfaction
facets measured: The JDI measures 5 facets, the MSQ assesses 20. An important
question is how many or how few facets are needed to measure job satisfaction
adequately. One study suggested that some of the JDI facets could be split into
two parts. For example, the satisfaction with supervision scale could be split into
satisfaction with the supervisor’s ability and satisfaction with the supervisor’s
 Job Satisfaction 223

On my present job, this Very Very

is how I feel about Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Satisfied
1 Being able to keep
busy all the time 1 2 3 4 5
2 The chance to work
alone on the job 1 2 3 4 5
3 The chance to do
different things from 1 2 3 4 5
time to time
4 The chance to be
somebody in the 1 2 3 4 5
community
5 The way my boss
handles his/her 1 2 3 4 5
workers
6 The competence of
my supervisor in 1 2 3 4 5
making decisions
7 The way my job
provides for steady 1 2 3 4 5
employment
8 My pay and the 1 2 3 4 5
amount of work I do
9 The chances for
advancement on 1 2 3 4 5
this job
10 The working
conditions 1 2 3 4 5
11 The way my co
workers get along 1 2 3 4 5
with each other
12 The feeling of
accomplishment 1 2 3 4 5
I get from the job

FIGURE 9.1
Sample Items from the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire
Source: Adapted from Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Manual for the
Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire: Minnesota studies in vocational rehabilitation. Minneapolis, MN: University
of Minnesota, Vocational Psychology Research.

interpersonal skills (Yeager, 1981). Other evidence indicates that some of the
20 MSQ scales are highly correlated with one another and thus could be
collapsed into fewer facets (Gillet & Schwab, 1975; Wong, Hui, & Law, 1998).
One may conclude from these viewpoints that there is no consensus on what
constitutes the ideal or best measurement of job satisfaction. However, most
researchers do agree that a valid, reliable, and standardized instrument will
provide the most accurate assessment.
224 CHAPTER 9 Positive Employee Attitudes and Behaviors

Think of your present work. What is Think of the pay you get now. Think of the opportunities for
it like most of the time? In the blank How well does each of the promotion that you have now.
beside each word given below, following words describe your How well does each of the
write present pay? In the blank beside following words describe these?
each word, put In the blank beside each word, put

Y for “Yes” if it describes Y if it describes your pay Y for “Yes” if it describes your
your work N if it does NOT describe it opportunities for promotion
N for “No” if it does NOT de- ? if you cannot decide N for “No” if it does NOT
scribe it describe them
? if you cannot decide ? if you cannot decide

Work on present job Present pay Opportunities for promotion

Routine Income adequate for Dead-end job
Satisfying normal expenses Unfair promotion policy
Good Insecure Regular promotions
Less that I deserve

Think of the kind of supervision Think of the majority of the people Think of your job in general. All in
that you get on your job. How well that you work with now or the peo- all, what is it like most of the time?
does each of the following words ple you meet in connection with In the blank beside each word
describe this supervision? In the your work. How well does each of below, write
blank beside each word below put the following words describe these
people? In the blank beside each
word below, put

Y if it describes the supervision Y if it describes the people you Y for “Yes” if it describes your job
you get on your job work with N for “No” if it does NOT
N if it does NOT describe it N if it does NOT describe them describe it
? if you cannot decide ? if you cannot decide ? if you cannot decide

Supervision on present job People on your present job Job in general

Impolite Boring Undesirable
Praises good work Responsible Better than most
Doesn’t supervise enough Intelligent Rotten

FIGURE 9.2
Sample Items from the Job Descriptive Index, Revised (Each scale is presented on a separate page.)
Source: Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1985). Job descriptive index. From The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement
(rev. ed.). Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University.
Note: The Job Descriptive Index is copyrighted by Bowling Green State University. The complete forms, scoring key, instructions, and norms can
be obtained from Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403.

In addition to the MSQ and JDI, a number of job satisfaction scales have
been developed for research purposes, such as the Job Satisfaction Survey
(Spector, 1997a), a briefer facet measure of job satisfaction that has been
used sporadically in research. From the practitioner standpoint, numerous
consulting firms specialize in job satisfaction/employee satisfaction surveys,
although companies need to use caution because many of these surveys have
not, like the MSQ and JDI, been subjected to rigorous research evaluation.
 Job Satisfaction 225

CL O SE Job Satisfaction at the International Level

A s you read this chapter, you will become more aware

of some of the aspects of work that are related to
job satisfaction for workers. However, the large majority
job may also account for the findings in the United States
and in other developed nations that show that older
workers, and those holding higher-level jobs, experience
of these studies are done in the United States. As with more satisfaction than very young workers and those in
research in all areas of psychology, we cannot conclude blue-collar positions (Gamst & Otten, 1992; Gattiker &
that the results of studies conducted with workers within Howg, 1990; Kravitz, Linn, & Shapiro, 1990). In fact, one
the United States will generalize to workers in other comparison of white-collar workers in the United States
countries and cultures. For example, you probably find and India found remarkable similarity in the factors that
that good relationships with your coworkers and super- contributed to these workers’ job satisfaction (Takalkar &
visors add to the satisfaction that you find in your job. Coovert, 1994).
Are such personal relationships at work as important to Obviously, the international findings discussed here
workers throughout the world as they appear to be with are mostly based on studies of workers in developed
American workers? And, what other aspects of work add countries, where workers enjoy a certain level of job
to job satisfaction for workers outside the United States? security, adequate pay, and good working conditions. For
One study conducted in Japan found that supportive example, one study found differences in job satisfaction
supervision, as well as support from coworkers, was levels between U.S. workers and workers in the Philippines
positively correlated with workers’ job satisfaction (Rothausen, Gonzalez, & Griffin, 2009). Another study
(Kumara & Koichi, 1989). According to this study, found differences in job satisfaction among workers from
support from coworkers and supervisors was especially countries in central and eastern Europe (Lange, 2009).
important to employees who did not feel positive about Whether or not workers in more underdeveloped nations
the work they performed (e.g., those who found their would look to such things as task variety and autonomy
jobs unpleasant, very difficult, or stressful). These workers for sources of job satisfaction has not yet been determined
in “unfulfilling” jobs depended on good interpersonal (Judge, Parker, Colbert, Heller, & Ilies, 2001). Perhaps
relationships to feel satisfied, similar to findings of studies workers in underdeveloped nations have different sources
conducted using U.S. workers. of satisfaction, which are possibly related to more basic
Along with having good social relationships at work, survival needs (e.g., pay) than workers in more developed
many U.S. workers prefer to have a variety of tasks to do nations. However, one would expect that as these nations
and to have some autonomy in performing those tasks. develop and gain economic strength, workers the world
Similarly, workers in Australia (Hopkins, 1990), Canada over will look to their jobs to fulfill higher-level needs,
(Baba & Jamal, 1991), and the Netherlands (Efraty & such as support from coworkers, recognition, and the
Sirgy, 1990) appear to be more satisfied with jobs that opportunity to control their own work behaviors and
offer diverse tasks and independence. These facets of the reach their highest potential.

It is important to mention that cultural factors can affect both how workers
define and perceive job satisfaction, and how members of different countries Stop & Review
or cultural groups respond to job satisfaction measures. As a result, there have
Compare and contrast
been many attempts to understand job satisfaction globally (see box Up Close: the MSQ and the JDI.
Job Satisfaction at the International Level).

JOB SAT,-.ACT,ON AND JOB PER.ORMANCE

As you recall from our discussion of the human relations movement, Mayo and
his colleagues proposed that there was a relationship between one aspect of
job satisfaction—employee satisfaction with social relationships at work—and
226 CHAPTER 9 Positive Employee Attitudes and Behaviors

work productivity. Moreover, the job design theories of motivation discussed in

Chapter 8—Herzberg’s two-factor theory and the job characteristics model—
are as much theories of job satisfaction as they are of motivation. Both theories
emphasize that satisfaction with the job is a key to determining motivation. Is
there any truth to this notion that the “happy worker is the productive worker”?
A meta-analysis suggests that there is indeed a moderate correlation between
job satisfaction and job performance (Judge, Thoreson, Bono, & Patton, 2001).
But what is the causal relationship? Does job satisfaction cause job performance?
One early theory of the job satisfaction–performance relationship suggests that it
may be the other way around: Good job performance leads to (causes) job satisfac-
tion! (But, of course, it is not that simple, as other factors mediate the relationship.)
This early theory, suggested by Porter and Lawler (1968), clarifies how this
process might operate. According to them, job satisfaction and performance
are not directly linked. Instead, effective job performance leads to job-related
rewards, such as pay increases, promotions, or a sense of accomplishment. If the
process for offering these rewards is perceived as fair, receiving these rewards
leads to job satisfaction and also to higher and higher levels of performance.
Porter–Lawler model
a theory where the
This creates a situation in which job satisfaction and job performance are
relationship between actually independent of one another, but are linked because both are affected
job satisfaction and per- by job-related rewards (see Figure 9.3). Interestingly, the Porter–Lawler model
formance is mediated by builds on the equity theory of motivation discussed in Chapter 8, because
work-related rewards notions of equity—fairness in job-related inputs and outcomes—are central to

Perceived
equitable
Value of Abilities rewards
reward and traits
Intrinsic
rewards

Performance
Effort Satisfaction
(accomplishment)

Extrinsic
rewards
Perceived
effort reward Role
probability perceptions

FIGURE 9.3
The Porter–Lawler Model of the Job Performance–Job Satisfaction Relationship
Source: Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
As adapted by Baron, R. A. (1986). Behavior in organizations: Understanding and managing the human side of work (2nd ed.).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
 Organizational Commitment 227

the argument. Specifically, motivation to perform the job and the satisfaction
derived from the job are both caused by the relationship between what an
individual puts into the job and what is received from the job in terms of
rewards. In other words, both motivation and job satisfaction come from the
perceived equitable relationship between the employee’s inputs to the job and
the job outcomes.
Many other factors could potentially affect the job satisfaction–performance
relationship, for example, the types of jobs that people perform. In fact, evi-
dence suggests that job satisfaction might be more strongly related to job per-
formance for individuals in complex jobs, such as managers, scientists, and
engineers, than in more structured jobs such as accounting and sales (Judge,
Thoresen et al., 2001). Complex jobs, because they require creativity and inge-
nuity, might offer more opportunity for intrinsic reinforcement, and that may
strengthen the connection between satisfaction and performance, in compari-
son to more routine jobs, where satisfaction may be more affected by the struc-
ture or conditions of work, or extrinsic rewards.
Some researchers emphasize that the perception of fairness or justice in
pay is the most important part of this link between performance and job satis-
faction (Miceli, 1993). That is, “relative deprivation” (a discrepancy between a
worker’s expectations and rewards) and perceived fairness of pay may mediate
the relationship between performance and job satisfaction, regardless of the
actual rewards obtained. For example, if highly paid workers do not perceive
their pay to be fair, or to meet their expectations, their satisfaction is likely to be
negatively affected. This may extend beyond pay. A sense of being fairly treated
is a very important determinant of job satisfaction (Clay-Warner, Reynolds, &
Roman, 2005).
In summary, both job satisfaction and job performance are important but
complex work outcomes. There is some evidence that these two variables are
linked, but the relationship is not necessarily direct, influenced by a variety of
other variables, such as job-related rewards, job complexity, feelings of equity
and justice, and other factors.

Organizational Commitment
Just as there are different operational definitions of job satisfaction, so too are
there different definitions of the construct of organizational commitment.
For example, is it an attitude, a behavior, or both? Previously, organizational
commitment, also referred to as company loyalty, was associated with an
acceptance of the organization’s goals and values, a willingness to exert effort on
behalf of the organization, and a desire to remain with the organization (Porter,
Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974). This definition encompasses both attitudes
and behaviors. More recently, the concept of organizational commitment has
been taken to imply worker attitudes, such as those just mentioned, whereas the
concept of organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) refers to commitment-
related behaviors (Organ, 1990). (We will discuss OCB more fully later in this
chapter.) For example, there is a negative correlation between the attitude of
228 CHAPTER 9 Positive Employee Attitudes and Behaviors

organizational commitment and the behavior of quitting a job. Organizational

commitment is similar to job satisfaction because both involve feelings about
the work situation (and both can be seen as components of the “umbrella”
construct of employee engagement). However, because organizational commit-
ment deals specifically with workers’ attitudes about the organization, it may be
more directly linked to employee attendance variables such as absenteeism and
organizational turnover than is job satisfaction. A good definition of organizational commitment
commitment is that it is the worker’s attitudes about the entire work organization.
a worker’s feelings and The most widely used organizational commitment measure is a 15-item
attitudes about the
entire work organization
self-report instrument called the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire
(OCQ), which is presented in Figure 9.4. Another model of organizational
commitment views it as composed of three dimensions: affective commitment,
which is the employee’s emotional attachment to the organization; continuance

Instructions: Listed below are a series of statements that represent possible feelings that
individuals might have about the company or organization for which they work. With
respect to your own feelings about the particular organization for which you are now
working (company name), please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement
with each statement by checking one of the seven alternatives below each statement.*
1 I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help
this organization be successful.
2 I talk up this organization to my friends as a great organization to work for.
3 I feel very little loyalty to this organization. (R)
4 I would accept almost any type of job assignment in order to keep working for this organi-
zation.
5 I find that my values and the organization’s values are very similar.
6 I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization.
7 I could just as well be working for a different organization as long as the type of work was
similar. (R)
8 This organization really inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance.
9 It would take very little change in my present circumstances to cause me to leave this
organization. (R)
10 I am extremely glad that I chose this organization to work for over others I was considering
at the time I joined.
11 There’s not too much to be gained by sticking with this organization indefinitely. (R)
12 Often, I find it difficult to agree with this organization’s policies on important matters relat-
ing to its employees. (R)
13 I really care about the fate of this organization.
14 For me this is the best of all possible organizations for which to work.
15 Deciding to work for this organization was a definite mistake on my part. (R)

FIGURE 9.4
Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ)
Source: Mowday, R. T., Steers, R., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measure of organizational commitment. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 14, 228.
Note: *Responses to each item are measured on a 7-point scale with scale point anchors labeled: (1) strongly
disagree; (2) moderately disagree; (3) slightly disagree; (4) neither disagree nor agree; (5) slightly agree;
(6) moderately agree; (7) strongly agree. An “R” denotes a negatively phrased and reverse-scored item.
 Organizational Commitment 229

commitment, which refers to commitment to continue with the organization

because there are costs associating with leaving; and normative commitment, which
is like a sense of duty or obligation to stay with the company (Meyer & Allen,
1997). Separate scales are used to measure each of these three commitment Stop & Review
dimensions (Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993). Research has demonstrated that
Describe the Porter–
self-report measures of organizational commitment such as these do a good job
Lawler model.
of measuring the construct (Goffin & Gellatly, 2001).

ORGAN,1AT,ONAL COMM,TMENT AND JOB SAT,-.ACT,ON

The concepts of job satisfaction and organizational commitment are closely
related, although distinct. Research indicates a fairly high positive correlation
between the two factors (Arnold & Feldman, 1982; O’Driscoll, Ilgen, &
Hildreth, 1992; Stumpf & Hartman, 1984). Part of this high positive correlation
may be due to the fact that workers may possibly respond positively to both
job satisfaction and organizational commitment measures, due to a positive
response bias, or workers may have a desire to avoid cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive dissonance is an unpleasant state of perceived self-inconsistency
(Festinger, 1957). Workers thus avoid cognitive dissonance by convincing
themselves that they are satisfied simply because they are loyal to the orga-
nization (“I have stayed with this company through thick and thin, therefore
I must like my job.”). Although it is conceivable that a worker could be quite
satisfied with a job but have low feelings of commitment to the organization, or
vice versa, the feelings tend to be positively related. Studies show mixed results
as to the direction of influence between these two constructs. For example,
O’Driscoll and colleagues (1992) found that job satisfaction may directly affect
organizational commitment, whereas other studies indicate that organizational
commitment leads to job satisfaction (Becker & Billings, 1993; Vandenberg &
Lance, 1992).
Both organizational commitment and job satisfaction are most likely affected
by numerous factors, including the type and variety of work, the autonomy
involved in the job, the level of responsibility associated with the job, the quality
of the social relationships at work, compensation, and the chances for promotion
and advancement in the company. However, there appears to be some consen-
sus that organizational values influence organizational commitment, whereas
perceived equity of rewards influences job satisfaction. That is, perceived fair-
ness in rewards influences job satisfaction, whereas perceived congruence
between organizational and employee values, and between organizational
values and actions, tends to influence organizational commitment (Finegan,
2000; Fritz, Arnett, & Conkel, 1999). Organizational commitment also tends
to be weakened by the perceived chances of finding a job with another com-
pany (Bateman & Strasser, 1984; Gilbert & Ivancevich, 2000). For instance, if
highly skilled worker Carol could easily find a job with another company, but
her friend Kim had difficulty finding her current job, Carol will likely have a
lower level of organizational commitment than Kim. In addition, there appears
to be positive correlations between organizational commitment and age, edu-
cation, and time on the job, such that older and more educated workers, and
230 CHAPTER 9 Positive Employee Attitudes and Behaviors

those with longer tenure with the company, tend to be more committed to the
organization (Becker & Billings, 1993; Lee, Ashford, Walsh, & Mowday, 1992).
As discussed in Chapter 1, beginning in the 1990s and into the financial
“meltdown” of the past several years, many organizations have found it necessary
to reduce the size of their workforces by laying off or terminating workers.
Thousands of people at a time can lose their jobs when a major corporation
reduces the number of people it employs. Such actions, called downsizing
(although some companies have tried to soften this term by relabeling it
“rightsizing”), can have an impact on the workers who are retained, as well as
on those who lose their jobs. For many of the remaining employees, feelings
of organizational commitment and job satisfaction can decline following
downsizing, especially if the employees are close to those who were laid off, or
if they feel that their own jobs may be in jeopardy. However, studies show that
explanations from management giving the reasons for the lay offs and giving
remaining employees a sense of control over their future work situations can
have positive effects on the remaining workforce (Brockner et al., 2004). There
is also some evidence that the overall work effort of employees may actually
increase following downsizing (Taylor & Giannantonio, 1993).
As you might imagine, maintaining job satisfaction and organizational
commitment is a challenge to both employers and employees—a challenge that
becomes even more difficult during trying economic times. Yet, organizations
must be concerned with both employee job satisfaction and organizational
commitment if they are to maintain a high-quality, loyal workforce.

Employee Attitudes and Employee Attendance

As previously mentioned, employee attendance variables such as absenteeism
and turnover are associated with employee engagement, job satisfaction, and
organizational commitment. Employees who are engaged, or who have positive
feelings about their jobs and work organizations, should be less likely to be
absent from work and to leave for a job elsewhere than those who are disengaged
and hold negative attitudes about their jobs. However, before considering these
relationships, we must consider how employee attendance variables are defined
and measured (Hackett & Guion, 1985; Johns, 1994b; Lee, 1989).

EMPLOYEE AB-ENTEE,-M
Both absenteeism and turnover can be categorized into voluntary and involuntary
forms. Voluntary absenteeism is when employees miss work because they want to
do something else. Calling in sick to take a three-day weekend or taking a day off to
run errands or to go shopping are examples of voluntary absenteeism. Involuntary
absenteeism occurs when the employee has a legitimate excuse for missing work,
typically illness. Because involuntary absenteeism is inevitable, the!organization
must be prepared to accept a certain amount of such absences. It is voluntary
absenteeism, however, that the organization would like to eliminate. Of course,
it is very difficult to distinguish voluntary from involuntary absenteeism, because
 Employee Attitudes and Employee Attendance 231

most employees are unlikely to admit that they were voluntarily absent (Dalton &
Mesch, 1991; Hammer & Landau, 1981). One way that researchers have
operationalized the measurement of voluntary and involuntary absenteeism is
to use absence frequency (the number of days absent) as a measure of voluntary
absenteeism and absence length (the number of consecutive days absent) as an
assessment of involuntary absenteeism (Atkin & Goodman, 1984). However, this
is a very crude measure. It is important to note that voluntary absenteeism is
likely to be more strongly associated with employee job satisfaction; involuntary
absenteeism is beyond the control of the employee (Sagie, 1998).
Research examining the relationship between job satisfaction and employee
absenteeism has produced conflicting findings. Sometimes, there is a slight
negative relationship between the two (with higher levels of job satisfaction
associated with lower rates of absenteeism; Ostroff, 1993a), and sometimes no
significant relationship at all is found (Ilgen & Hollenback, 1977; Porter & Steers,
1973). A meta-analysis of a number of studies indicates that job satisfaction and
absenteeism are indeed negatively correlated but that the relationship between
the two is not very strong (Scott & Taylor, 1985). One reason the relationship is
not as strong as one might think stems from problems in measuring absenteeism
that cause voluntary and involuntary absenteeism to be lumped together in most
of these studies. In other words, there may be a significant negative correlation
between job satisfaction and voluntary absenteeism, but no significant rela-
tionship between job satisfaction and involuntary absenteeism due to illness.
According to one study, there is an association between voluntary absence and
job satisfaction; however, this study concluded that rather than job satisfaction
causing the absenteeism, it was really the absenteeism that was leading to lower
job satisfaction (Tharenou, 1993). Perhaps to avoid cognitive dissonance, work-
ers who voluntarily missed work rationalized that if they were choosing to be
absent, they must not have been very satisfied with their jobs.
Another problem might be that even though workers are satisfied with their
jobs, they may find certain nonwork activities (for example, taking an extra day
of vacation or attending a sporting event) more interesting or more important
(Youngblood, 1984). Employees may also be absent because of factors beyond
their control, such as health, transportation, or child-care problems (Goldberg &
Waldman, 2000). Additionally, individual absenteeism may be affected by
coworkers’ absenteeism rates and by the organization’s policy and “climate”
toward absenteeism (Gellatly, 1995; Johns, 1994a; Markham & McKee, 1995).
For example, if coworkers are frequently absent, or if management has a lenient
policy that is tolerant of absences, employees might be inclined to miss work
regardless of how satisfied or dissatisfied they are with their jobs (Haccoun &
Jeanrie, 1995; Harrison & Martocchio, 1998).
Finally, although the construct of absenteeism may appear quite simple,
it, like other behaviors, is probably more complicated than it appears to be on
the surface. Some of this complexity may be illustrated by studies indicating
a negative correlation between age and voluntary absenteeism, and a positive
correlation between age and involuntary absenteeism (Hackett, 1990). In other
words, younger workers tend to voluntarily miss work, whereas older workers
tend to miss work because they are more frequently ill.
232 CHAPTER 9 Positive Employee Attitudes and Behaviors

Although it may seem apparent that absenteeism, especially voluntary

absenteeism, would be related to turnover (e.g., workers who have a lot of unex-
cused absences don’t last long on the job), researchers hold conflicting views of
this relationship. Some researchers have concluded that there is a positive rela-
tionship between absenteeism and turnover, whereas others have concluded
that no such relationship exists. A meta-analysis of 17 separate studies showed a
relationship between absenteeism and turnover. Moreover, the relationship was
not mediated by type of absenteeism. In other words, turnover did not appear
to be more related to voluntary absenteeism than to involuntary absenteeism
(Mitra, Jenkins, & Gupta, 1992).

EMPLOYEE TURNOVER
As with absenteeism, there are difficulties in defining and measuring turn-
over (Campion, 1991). Involuntary turnover occurs when an employee is
fired or laid off. A certain amount of involuntary turnover is likely to be con-
sidered inevitable and possibly even beneficial. Firing workers who are not
performing at desirable levels can be viewed as a positive, “weeding” process
(Mobley, 1982). Layoffs often occur for financial reasons and thus are likely
to be beyond the control of management. Most voluntary turnover takes
place when a competent and capable employee leaves to work elsewhere.
It is this turnover that is costly to the organization, because losing a valued
employee means reduced organizational productivity and increased expenses
associated with hiring and training a replacement. According to one school
of thought, voluntary turnover is likely to be influenced by lack of job satis-
faction and organizational commitment, whereas involuntary turnover is not.
As with absenteeism, research that does not distinguish between voluntary
and involuntary turnover may not find the expected relationships between
employee attitudes and turnover simply because the two types of turnover
are lumped together. Interestingly, some researchers note that there are also
problems in categorizing turnover as either voluntary or involuntary because
some poor workers may not be fired but may voluntarily choose to leave the
organization, which is likely to be glad to see them go. However, this means
that voluntary turnover might be further classified as either dysfunctional or
functional, depending on whether it has negative or beneficial outcomes for
the organization (Dalton, Krackhardt, & Porter, 1981). More recently, it has
been suggested that involuntary turnover caused by downsizing—so-called
reduction-in-force turnover—should be treated as a completely different
category than either voluntary or involuntary turnover (McElroy, Morrow, &
Rude, 2001).
Both job satisfaction and organizational commitment have been investi-
gated as predictors of employee turnover. Meta-analyses indicate that both low
levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment are related to higher
rates of turnover (Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000). Research has demon-
strated that organizational commitment develops from job satisfaction and in
turn influences an employee’s decision to remain with or leave the organization
 Employee Attitudes and Employee Attendance 233

(Gaertner, 2000; Williams & Hazer, 1986). However, although organizational

commitment appears to be a predictor of turnover, one of the best predic-
tors of employee turnover is absenteeism, particularly the rate of absences in
the years immediately before the employee leaves (Griffeth et al., 2000; Mitra
et al., 1992).
Researchers have turned their attention to measuring employees’ self-
reported intentions to leave, or turnover intentions, in an effort to prevent the
turnover intentions
loss of valuable employees. We have already seen that employee engagement workers’ self-reported
leads to reduced turnover intentions. The obvious problem with measuring intentions to leave
turnover intentions is that many workers who report that they intend to quit their jobs
their jobs may not actually turnover because they lack alternative employment,
because they reevaluate the situation, or because they are not risk takers (Allen,
Weeks, & Moffitt, 2005; Vandenberg & Barnes-Nelson, 1999). Regardless of the
strength of the connection between intentions to turnover and actual turnover,
measuring employees’ intentions to quit their jobs can be a measure of dissatis-
faction with the job or organization and used by employers to try to remedy the
situation to prevent costly turnover.
Because voluntary turnover can be costly to an organization, it is important
to understand some of the reasons why good performers may leave their jobs
(Lee & Maurer, 1997). It has been found that productive, valuable employees
who do not receive work-related rewards, such as promotions and pay raises,
are likely candidates for leaving their jobs (Trevor, Gerhardt, & Boudreau,
1997). Simply stated, employees who feel that they are not treated fairly are
more prone to leave (Griffeth & Gaertner, 2001). Studies also indicate that
perceived lack of influence or power within the organization can cause work-
ers to seek employment elsewhere, especially if they feel positive about the
other job opportunities available to them (Buchko, 1992; Lee & Mitchell,
1994; Schminke, 1993). As stated earlier, both job satisfaction and organiza-
tional commitment are associated with turnover, and this need for workers to
feel that they have some influence within the organization may help explain
this association. That is, those workers who have such influence are probably
more satisfied with their jobs and thus more committed to the organization
(Dwyer & Ganster, 1991). This may also help explain the reason that giving
workers a sense of power over their jobs, or allowing them to participate in
decision-making processes, is associated with higher levels of job satisfaction,
as we shall see later in this chapter.
In summary, when examining the relationships between job satisfaction
and other outcome variables such as absenteeism and turnover, it is important
to consider the type of absenteeism and turnover being measured. Voluntary
absenteeism and turnover are most likely to be affected by employee attitudes.
Unfortunately, many studies do not distinguish between voluntary and invol-
untary absenteeism and turnover, which leads to a possible “watering down”
of any observed effects. Moreover, cause-and-effect relationships often cannot
be assumed. In fact, some studies indicate that the relationships are recipro-
cal, with each variable sometimes being the “cause” and at other times being
the “effect.”
234 CHAPTER 9 Positive Employee Attitudes and Behaviors

Increasing Employee Engagement, Job Satisfaction,

and Organizational Commitment
As we have seen, employee engagement, job satisfaction and organizational
commitment are considered important by organizations because they are
linked to costly absenteeism and turnover. Job satisfaction is particularly impor-
tant to the employee because it reflects a critical work outcome: feelings of ful-
fillment from the job and the work setting. Because of this, organizations have
implemented a number of programs and techniques in an effort to increase
employees’ engagement, satisfaction, and commitment. These programs take
many forms. Some change the structure of work, others alter the methods of
worker compensation, and still others offer innovative fringe benefit plans and
packages. We will examine some of these techniques.

Changes in job structure

Three techniques have been used to try to increase employee satisfaction by
job rotation changing the structure of jobs. The first technique, job rotation, which was
the systematic move- introduced in Chapter 7, involves moving workers from one specialized job to
ment of workers from another. Although job rotation can be used to train workers in a variety of tasks,
one type of task to
another to alleviate
it can also be used to alleviate the monotony and boredom associated with per-
boredom and monot- forming the same work, day in and day out. For example, an employee in a retail
ony (as well as training store may move from maintenance and cleanup duties to stocking merchandise
workers on different to bagging merchandise on a weekly basis. A receptionist in a large organization
tasks; see Chapter 6) might rotate from greeting visitors and answering telephones to simple clerical
duties such as filing and photocopying. Research shows that job rotation can
be related to job satisfaction, as well as contributing to increases in salary and
opportunities for promotion (Campion, Cheraskin, & Stevens, 1994).
job enlargement Job enlargement is the practice of allowing workers to take on additional,
the expansion of a job varied tasks in an effort to make them feel that they are more valuable members
to include additional, of the organization. For example, a custodian who is responsible for the clean-
more varied work tasks
ing and upkeep of several rooms might progressively have the job enlarged until
the job’s duties involve the maintenance of an entire floor. Job enlargement is
tricky to implement because it means that workers are required to do addi-
tional work, which some might perceive as negative. However, if used correctly,
job enlargement can positively affect job satisfaction by giving an employee a
greater sense of accomplishment and improving valuable work skills. One study
of enlarged jobs found that they led to greater employee satisfaction, improved
employee initiative, and better customer service than persons in nonenlarged
jobs. However, enlarged jobs carried the “costs” of requiring more skilled, more
highly trained, and more costly (higher paid) workers than those performing
nonenlarged jobs (Campion & McClelland, 1991).
Job enrichment, which we studied in depth in Chapter 8, can also be used
to increase employee engagement and job satisfaction. Recall that job enrich-
ment involves raising the level of responsibility associated with a particular job
by allowing workers a greater voice in the planning, execution, and evalua-
tion of their own activities. For example, in one such program, assembly-line
 Increasing Employee Engagement, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment 235

workers were divided into teams, each of which was given many of the respon-
sibilities that were previously held by frontline supervisors, including ordering
supplies, setting output rates, creating quality control inspection systems, and
even appraising their own performance. This independence and increased
responsibility can go a long way toward increasing motivation and job satisfac-
tion for many workers. Although job enrichment and job enlargement seem
somewhat similar because both require more work from employees, job enrich-
ment raises the level of tasks, whereas job enlargement does not raise the level
of responsibility associated with the work.

Changes in pay structure

According to research, the perception of fairness in pay is associated with greater
job satisfaction (Witt & Nye, 1992). And although the relationship between pay
and job satisfaction is not always a direct, positive one, there is some evidence
that employees who are compensated well are less likely to search for jobs
elsewhere (Cotton & Tuttle, 1986; Trevor et al., 1997). Although most innova-
tive compensation programs are introduced primarily in an effort to improve
job performance, many changes also increase levels of job satisfaction.
One innovative compensation program is skill-based pay (also known as skill-based pay
knowledge-based pay), which involves paying employees an hourly rate based a system of compensa-
on their knowledge and skills rather than on the particular job to which they tion in which workers
are assigned (Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford, 1992). In other words, workers are paid based on
their knowledge and
are!paid for the level of the job that they are able to perform rather than for skills rather than on
the level of the position that they hold. For skill-based pay programs to be cost their positions in the
effective, it is imperative that employees be assigned to jobs that match the organization
levels of their skills and knowledge. Research indicates that workers are more
satisfied in organizations that use this system than in those that use conven-
tional pay plans, and there is also evidence that they are more productive, more
concerned with quality, less prone to turnover, and more likely to be motivated
to grow and develop on the job (Dierdorff & Surface, 2008; Guthrie, 2000;
Murray & Gerhart, 1998). There is also some evidence that skill-based pay works
better in manufacturing as opposed to service organizations (Shaw, Gupta,
Mitra, & Ledford, 2005). Particularly satisfied are those who receive skill-based
pay and who also have high levels of ability and motivation (Tosi & Tosi, 1987).
One explanation for the effectiveness of skill-based pay systems is that employ-
ees may perceive these compensation plans as more fair (Lee, Law, & Bobko,
1999). With the current emphasis on the “knowledge worker,” and with a dwin-
dling supply of workers possessing the highest levels of technical knowledge
and skills, skill-based pay systems may increase in the future.
The Porter–Lawler model (see Figure 9.3) suggested that job performance
leads to job satisfaction by way of increased rewards, one of the most important
of which is pay. If this is the case, then a system of compensation based directly
merit pay
on performance should be an effective strategy for increasing job satisfaction. a compensation system
One such pay-for-performance system is merit pay, a plan in which the amount in which employees
of compensation is directly a function of an employee’s performance. In merit receive a base rate and
pay plans, workers receive a financial bonus based on their individual output. additional pay based
Although sensible in theory, such systems do not work well in practice for a on performance
236 CHAPTER 9 Positive Employee Attitudes and Behaviors

number of reasons (Campbell, Campbell, & Chia, 1998). First, and perhaps
most important, difficulties in the objective assessment of performance mean
that it is often impossible to distinguish the truly good performers from the
more average performers. This leads to feelings of unfairness in the distribu-
tion of merit pay and subsequent employee dissatisfaction (Salimaki & Jamsen,
2010; St-Onge, 2000). Second, most merit pay systems emphasize individual
goals, which may hurt the organization’s overall performance and disrupt group
harmony, especially if jobs require groups to collaborate for the production of a
product. Finally, in many such plans the amount of merit compensation is quite
small in proportion to base salaries. In other words, the merit pay is simply
not viewed as a strong incentive to work harder (Balkin & Gomez-Mejia, 1987;
Pearce, Stevenson, & Perry, 1985). Research has suggested that a merit pay raise
needs to be at least 7% to have a significant impact on employee attitudes and
motivation (Mitra, Gupta, & Jenkins, 1997). Although they are extremely popu-
lar, merit pay systems can only be effective when great care is taken in how these
programs are created (Campbell et al., 1998).
Another strategy for the implementation of pay-for-performance systems is
to make pay contingent on effective group performance, a technique termed
gainsharing gainsharing (Lawler, 1987). The notion of group- or team-based rewards was
a compensation system introduced in Chapter 8. In gainsharing, if a work group or department reaches
based on effective a certain performance goal, all members of the unit receive a bonus. Because
group performance
the level of productivity among workers usually varies, the gainsharing program
must be viewed as being fair to all involved (Welbourne, 1998; Welbourne &
Ferrante, 2008). For example, in one program, workers decided that the most
fair plan was to set a minimum amount that could be received by any worker,
and then base additional pay on each worker’s level of productivity. Thus, the
low producers received some base compensation, but they found that greater
pay would result only if they increased production. The high producers, on the
other hand, were well rewarded for their efforts (Cooper, Dyck, & Frohlich,
1992). One longitudinal study of gainsharing found that it was related to more
positive employee attitudes and greater commitment than employees not par-
ticipating in gainsharing (Hanlon, Meyer, & Taylor, 1994). Another study
found that gainsharing improved members’ teamwork as well as their satisfac-
tion with pay (O’Bannon & Pearce, 1999). Rather than focusing on productivity
increases, some gainsharing programs reward workers who cut production costs
through suggestions and innovations, then passing a portion of the savings on
Stop & Review to the workers (Arthur & Huntley, 2005). Gainsharing may not be appropriate
Describe three tech- for all organizations or for all groups of workers. Therefore, implementation
niques for changing of a gainsharing program must be based on careful planning and a thorough
job structure. knowledge of the groups of workers involved (Gomez-Mejia, Welbourne, &
Wiseman, 2000; Graham-Moore & Ross, 1990). One important consideration is
that a failed attempt at a major change in pay structure, such as a gainsharing
profit sharing plan, could lead to massive worker dissatisfaction (Collins, 1995).
a plan where all A more common plan is profit sharing, in which all employees receive a small
employees receive a share of the organization’s profits (Rosen, Klein, & Young, 1986). The notion
small share of an orga- underlying profit sharing is to instill a sense of ownership in employees, to increase
nization’s profits both commitment to the organization and to improve motivation and productivity
 Increasing Employee Engagement, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment 237

As part of a gainsharing system, this team of auto mechanics competes with other
teams for monthly bonuses.

(Chiu & Tsai, 2007; Cox, 2001; Duncan, 2001). For profit-sharing programs to be
effective, it is imperative that employees buy into the program (Orlitzky & Rynes,
2001). One drawback is that it is often difficult for employees to see how their
individual performances have an impact on the company’s total output. This may
be one reason why profit sharing seems to work better in small companies than in
large ones (Bayo-Moriones & Larraza-Kintana, 2009). In addition, there is typically
quite a long delay between reaching performance goals and receiving individual
shares of the company’s profits (see box Applying I/O Psychology).
Employee ownership is a program where employees own all or part of an employee ownership
organization. Employee ownership can take one of two forms: direct ownership a program where
or employee stock ownership. In direct ownership, the employees are the sole employees own all or
part of an organization
owners of the organization. In employee stock ownership programs, which are
the more common of the two, stock options are considered part of a benefit
package whereby employees acquire shares of company stock over time. Each
employee eventually becomes a company stockholder and has voting rights in
certain company decisions. Proponents of these programs claim that although
they are expensive, the costs are offset by savings created by increased employee
organizational commitment, productivity, work quality, and job satisfaction,
and decreases in rates of absenteeism and turnover (Buchko, 1992; Rosen,
Case, & Staubus, 2005).
Of course tales of the quick success of employee-owned companies in the
1990s, such as Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, and Wheeling Steel quickly
became legendary, but were offset by the ethical scandals of the early 2000s,
and the financial meltdown, which meant that employees who had their retire-
ment funds in stock in Enron, WorldComm, or a variety of Wall Street firms lost
a bundle.
238 CHAPTER 9 Positive Employee Attitudes and Behaviors

Research on the success of employee ownership programs is somewhat

inconsistent, and results show that employee ownership does not necessarily
lead to increased job satisfaction or organizational commitment (Oliver, 1990;
Orlitzky & Rynes, 2001). Other research indicates that if employee owner-
ship is going to increase organizational commitment, certain criteria must be
met, the most obvious being that the program must be financially rewarding
to employees (French & Rosenstein, 1984). Moreover, higher-level employees
may have more positive reactions to employee ownership programs than do
lower-level workers (Wichman, 1994). One investigation further qualified
the conditions required for the success of employee ownership programs.
Examining 37!employee stock ownership companies, the study found that rates
of employee organizational commitment and satisfaction were highest when
the companies made substantial financial contributions to the employee stock
purchases, when management was highly committed to the program, and when
there was a great deal of communication about the program (Klein, 1987). In
addition, the Oliver (1990) study found that the rewards of employee owner-
ship would only have a positive impact on the workers if they place a high value
on those rewards. For example, if a worker values the work for its own merits,
the worker would likely feel about the same level of satisfaction whether she was
working for an employee-owned company or not.

Flexible work schedules

Another strategy for improving worker satisfaction and commitment is to
provide alternative or flexible work schedules. Flexible work schedules give
workers greater control over their workday, which can be important in large
urban areas, where workers are able to commute at nonpeak times, or for
workers with child-care responsibilities.

APPLYING I/O PSYCHOLOGY

Using Assessment to Enhance Employee Engagement

T hroughout the years, I have used employee surveys,

including standardized job satisfaction and organiza-
tional commitment measures, and instruments designed
looked specifically at the programs that employees
viewed favorably (these were continued and sometimes
expanded) and those practices that employees disliked,
for specific organizations, as a means to gauge levels of or problems that surfaced from the surveys. The presi-
employee job satisfaction. Often these are the starting dent of the bank would then ask for volunteers to serve
point for programs designed to spot programs, policies, on task forces to address the problems and to try to
and procedures that are favorable or unfavorable among make the workplace better. Employees were so engaged
employees. in this program that the number of volunteers exceeded
In one large banking institution, the employees by 4–5 times the number of available slots on the task
became very involved in the surveys, and in the pro- forces. It was no wonder that over time, this organiza-
grams designed to enhance employee life and well- tion was identified as one of the “great places to work”
being that followed the assessments. The surveys in annual rankings.
 Increasing Employee Engagement, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment 239

One type of flexible schedule is compressed workweeks, in which the num- compressed
ber of workdays is decreased while the number of hours worked per day is workweeks
increased. Most common are four 10-hour days, and certain groups, such as schedules that decrease
the number of days in
nurses, may work three 12-hour shifts per week. Workers may prefer a com-
the workweek while
pressed schedule because the extra day off allows workers time to take care increasing the number
of tasks that need to be done Monday through Friday, such as going to the of hours worked per day
doctor, dentist, or tax accountant. Usually compressed workweeks include
a three-day weekend, which allows workers more free time to take weekend
vacations. Both of these benefits should cut down on absenteeism, because
workers previously might have called in sick to take an extra day of “vacation”
or to run errands. An extended shift might also allow a worker to miss peak
traffic times. However, a drawback is that working parents might have diffi-
culty finding child care for the extended workday. Also on the negative side,
a 10-hour (or 12-hour) workday is more exhausting than the typical 8-hour
day (Cunningham, 1989; Ronen & Primps, 1981; Rosa, Colligan, & Lewis,
1989). This fatigue may lead to decreases in work productivity and concern
for work quality (although many people say that the extra couple of hours
are not necessarily tiring). Meta-analyses suggest that although employees
tend to be satisfied with compressed workweeks and exhibit higher overall job
satisfaction, there is no reduction in absenteeism associated with compressed
schedules (Baltes, Briggs, Huff, Wright, & Neuman, 1999; Di Milia, 1998). In
addition, one study found that workers had more favorable attitudes toward
compressed work schedules if they had participated in the decision to imple-
ment the schedule change (Latack & Foster, 1985).
Flextime is a scheduling system whereby a worker is committed to a speci- flextime
fied number of hours per week (usually 40) but has some flexibility concerning a schedule that com-
the starting and ending times of any particular workday. Often flextime sched- mits an employee to
working a specified
ules operate around a certain core of hours during which all workers must be number of hours per
on the job (such as 10 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.). However, the workers can decide week, but offers flex-
when to begin and end the workday as long as they are present during the core ibility in regard to the
period and work an 8-hour day. Some flextime schedules even allow workers to beginning and ending
borrow and carry hours from one workday to the next or, in some extremely times for each day
flexible programs, from one week to another. The only stipulation is that an
average of 40 hours per week is maintained. Obviously, only certain types of
jobs can accommodate flextime
What are the primary advantages of flextime? For the worker, it affords a
sense of freedom and control over planning the working day (Hicks & Klimoski,
1981; Ralston, 1989). Workers can sleep in and begin work later in the morn-
ing, as long as they make up the time by staying late. Employees who want to
leave work early to do some late-afternoon shopping can arrive early to work
that day. One study of commuting workers showed that flextime commuters
reported less driver stress than workers not on flextime (Lucas & Heady, 2002).
A study of flextime programs found that flextime reduced stress levels for work-
ers in three countries (Canada, Israel, Russia; Barney & Elias, 2010). Research
indicates that flextime programs increase employee satisfaction and commit-
ment and is sometimes positively related to worker productivity (Baltes et al.,
240 CHAPTER 9 Positive Employee Attitudes and Behaviors

1999). Interestingly, flextime pays off for companies that can implement this
type of schedule, achieving reduced rates of absenteeism and the virtual elimi-
nation of tardiness (Baltes et al., 1999; Ronen, 1981).

Benefit programs
Perhaps the most common way for employers to try to increase employees’
job satisfaction and organizational commitment is through various benefit
programs. Benefit programs can include flexible working hours, a variety of
health-care options, different retirement plans, profit sharing, career develop-
ment programs, health promotion programs, and employee-sponsored child
care. This last program has the potential of becoming one of the most popu-
lar and sought-after benefits and may have the extra advantage of helping to
decrease absenteeism caused by employees’ occasional inability to find ade-
quate child care (Milkovich & Gomez, 1976). Interestingly, however, studies
of the effects of employee-sponsored, on-site child-care programs have found
that although they increase worker job satisfaction, the expected reductions in
absenteeism rates have been small (Goff, Mount, & Jamison, 1990; Kossek &
Nichol, 1992).
Growing in popularity are flexible, or “cafeteria-style,” benefit plans, where
employees choose from a number of options (Barringer & Milkovich, 1998).
Lawler (1971) long ago argued that allowing employees to choose their own
benefits led to increases in job satisfaction and ensured that the benefits suited
each employee’s unique needs. One study demonstrated, however, that it is
important that employees receive adequate information and guidance regard-
ing the characteristics of the various benefit programs, to help them make an
informed choice of benefits that best suit their needs, and to avoid dissatis-
faction caused by making incorrect choices (Sturman, Hannon, & Milkovich,
1996). Research suggests that cafeteria-style benefits are perceived as a more
fair system than traditional benefit plans (Cole & Flint, 2004).
It is important to bear in mind that the costs of employee benefits are rising
rapidly—with benefits costing U.S. employers 30–40% of total compensation
(U.S. Department of Labor, 2011). Benefit costs in some European countries
Stop & Review are even higher. As a result, organizations often reduce benefit programs as
List and define four a cost-saving strategy during times of economic downturn. Yet, organizations
alternative pay struc- must be aware of the potential damaging effects of such cuts in benefits on
ture techniques. employee job satisfaction and morale.
The effectiveness of programs designed to increase job satisfaction and
organizational commitment depends on various factors. Although most of
the techniques intended to increase job satisfaction do indeed appear to do
so, there is less evidence that these programs then lead to changes in other
important outcome variables such as productivity, work quality, absentee-
ism, and ultimately turnover. If a company implements a program aimed
at increasing employee job satisfaction, and if management is perceived by
employees to be taking positive steps toward the improvement of the work-
place, job satisfaction will likely improve immediately after the introduction
of the program. However, it may be unclear whether the program actually
 Positive Employee Behaviors 241

caused the increase or if it is really a sort of Hawthorne effect, in which

employees’ positive expectations about management’s good intentions lead
to increases in satisfaction, merely because something was done. Regardless
of the reason for measured improvements following the implementation
of some satisfaction-enhancing program, the increases may tend to disap-
pear over time as some of the novelty wears off, which long-term follow-up
evaluations would reveal.

Positive Employee Behaviors

Although employers want their employees to be satisfied and committed to
the organization, job satisfaction and organizational commitment are atti-
tudes. What employers really care about are how job satisfaction and orga-
nizational commitment translate into positive employee behaviors. We have
already explored the connections between job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and the important work behaviors of job performance, absen-
teeism, and turnover. However, there are other forms that positive employee
behaviors can take.

ORGAN,1AT,ONAL C,T,1EN-H,P BEHAV,OR-

Early research on positive employee behaviors focused on altruistic, or proso-
cial, behaviors. Bateman and Organ (1983) and Brief and Motowidlo (1986)
first defined organizational prosocial behaviors as those that go beyond spe-
cific job requirements. They are behaviors performed to promote the welfare
of the work group and the organization. Protecting an organization from unex-
pected dangers, suggesting methods of organizational improvement without
expecting a payoff, undertaking deliberate self-development, preparing oneself
for higher levels of organizational responsibility, and speaking favorably about
the organization to outsiders are all forms of prosocial behavior. Subsequent
research suggested that workers have deep-seated motives for performing pro-
social behaviors (Rioux & Penner, 2001). Not only do prosocial behaviors have
positive influences on the ability of individuals and teams to do their jobs, but
there is also evidence of a positive relationship with job satisfaction (Organ,
1988; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983).
Researchers have looked more broadly at worker behaviors that benefit the
organization. This cluster of “pro-organizational” behaviors, which includes
organizational prosocial behaviors, has been termed “organizational citizenship
behavior” (Graham, 1991; Organ, 1988; Penner, Midili, & Kegelmeyer, 1997;
Schnake, 1991). Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) consists of efforts by organizational
organizational members who advance or promote the work organization, its citizenship behavior
image, and its goals. Job satisfaction, as well as motivating job characteristics, efforts by organiza-
tional members who
such as jobs that provide workers with autonomy and meaningful work (recall advance or promote the
our discussion of motivating “job characteristics” in Chapter 8), combine to work organization and
help produce organizational citizenship behaviors (Van Dyne, Graham, & its goals
Dienesch, 1994). In addition, certain personality types, particularly persons
242 CHAPTER 9 Positive Employee Attitudes and Behaviors

TABLE 9.1
Types of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCB)

Helping Behavior—voluntarily helping others with work-related problems; helping prevent others
from encountering problems; keeping the peace/managing conflict
Sportsmanship—maintaining a positive attitude in the face of challenges or problems; tolerating
inconveniences and impositions; not taking rejection personally; sacrificing personal interests for
the sake of the group
Organizational Loyalty—promoting the organization to outsiders; defending the organization
from external threats; remaining committed to the organization even under adverse conditions
Organizational Compliance—accepting and adhering to the organization’s rules and procedures;
being punctual; not wasting time
Individual Initiative—volunteering to take on additional duties; being particularly creative and inno-
vative in one’s work; encouraging others to do their best; going above and beyond the call of duty
Civic Virtue—participating in organizational governance; looking out for the organization (e.g.,
turning out lights to save energy, reporting possible threats, etc.); keeping particularly informed
about what the organization is doing
Self-development—voluntarily working to upgrade one’s knowledge and skills; learning new skills
that will help the organization

Source: Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship
behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research.
Journal of Management, 26, 513–563.

who are “agreeable” and conscientious employees, are more likely to perform
OCBs (Chiaburu, Oh, Berry, Li, & Gardner, 2011; Ilies, Scott, & Judge, 2006).
Table 9.1 presents a list of categories of OCB.
OCBs are positively correlated with both job satisfaction and organizational
commitment (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). In addition,

Demonstrating positive feelings about your organization are examples of

organizational citizenship behaviors.
 Positive Employee Behaviors 243

employees who engage in more OCBs are less likely to turnover than those who
do not engage in OCBs (Chen, Hui, & Sego, 1998) and less likely to be volun-
tarily absent (Lee, Mitchell, Sablynski, Burton, & Holtom, 2004). Moreover,
there is evidence that supervisors notice OCBs, tending to give more positive
performance appraisals to employees who engage in citizenship behaviors as
opposed to those who simply do their jobs. In addition, managers and leaders
have been found to play a critical role in the incidence of employees’ OCBs
if the leaders engage in OCBs themselves (Yaffe & Kark, 2011). There is even
a study that suggests that employees who regularly engage in OCBs are more
safety conscious (Gyekye & Salminen, 2005). An important question, however,
is, “Do OCBs affect the bottom line?” Do employees’ organizational citizenship
behaviors affect organizational performance? Research suggests that employees
who “go the extra mile” and exhibit OCBs do indeed have work groups and
organizations that are more productive and produce higher-quality work than
work groups exhibiting low levels of OCBs (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997a).
Organizational citizenship behaviors seem to affect work performance in
groups as diverse as salespersons (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994), manufactur-
ing workers (Allen & Rush, 1998; Bommer, Dierdorff, & Rubin, 2007), machine
crews in a paper mill (Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997), and restaurant
crews (Koys, 2001; Walz & Niehoff, 1996).
Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997a) suggested a number of reasons why OCBs
may be related to organizational effectiveness. They include the following:
Workers who help new coworkers “learn the ropes” help them to speedup
the orientation and socialization process and become more productive
employees faster.
Employees who help each other need less managerial supervision, freeing
up the managers’ time for other important duties.
Employees who have positive attitudes toward one another are more coop-
erative and avoid destructive conflicts with other workers.
Workers freely and voluntarily meet outside work times and regularly touch
base with one another, improving the flow of organizational communication.
OCBs lead to a positive work environment and help in the recruitment and
retention of the best-qualified workers.
Workers pick up the slack and “cover” for one another during absences or
times of heavy individual workloads.
Employees are more willing to take on new responsibilities or learn new
technology or work systems.
As can be seen, organizational citizenship behaviors lead to work groups
that engage in the best sorts of organizational and personnel processes and
may help explain what separates the top-performing work groups and organi-
zations from those who have substandard levels of performance. On the other
hand, some workers might be so involved in work and going above and beyond
their job descriptions, engaging in so many OCBs that it might interfere with
their personal lives, similar to the “workaholic” syndrome we saw in Chapter 8
(Bolino & Turnley, 2005).
244 CHAPTER 9 Positive Employee Attitudes and Behaviors

An interesting question concerns whether workers in various countries

engage in the same organizational citizenship behaviors and at the same levels.
Research suggests that although OCBs seem to be more or less universal, there
are differences in how workers and organizations view these behaviors. For
example, workers and supervisors in China and Japan are more likely to view
OCBs as an everyday, expected part of one’s jobs than do workers in the United
States or Australia (Lam, Hui, & Law, 1999). Nevertheless, there is evidence
that OCBs are positively correlated with measures of the productivity and ser-
vice quality of Taiwanese bank employees (Yen & Niehoff, 2004), government
employees in China (Liu & Cohen, 2010), Korean travel agents (Yoon & Suh,
2003), and U.S. insurance agents (Bell & Menguc, 2002).
As you can imagine, it is in the organization’s best interest to encourage
organizational citizenship behaviors. Research shows that OCBs are affected
by whether or not employees perceive the organization as treating them fairly
(Haworth & Levy, 2001; Tepper & Taylor, 2003). In addition, employees who
feel that their values are aligned with the organization are more likely to engage
in more OCBs (Deckop, Mangel, & Cirka, 1999).

PO-,T,VE A..ECT AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BE,NG

In the past two decades there has been an explosion of research examining the
positive affect role of positive emotions, or positive affect, in influencing employee attitudes,
positive emotions that such as job satisfaction, and fostering positive employee behaviors (Ashkanasy,
affect mood in the Härtel, & Zerbe, 2000; Brief, 2001). Simply stated, an individual’s mood, posi-
workplace
tive or negative, can affect all aspects of work (we will look at negative emotions
and their effects in Chapter 10). Not only is a person’s emotional state impor-
tant, but also there are clearly individual differences in dispositions toward posi-
tive or negative affect (Judge & Larsen, 2001). This is why, as we saw in the box
On the Cutting Edge, some individuals just tend to be more satisfied in jobs
than others.
Most researchers agree that positive affect influences work behavior
through job satisfaction. That is, job satisfaction mediates the relationship
between state and trait (dispositional) affect and important work outcomes,
such as absenteeism, turnover, and performance. For example, one study of a
group of hotel managers found that the affective dispositions of the managers
influenced their job satisfaction, which, in turn, affected their job performance
(Hochwater, Perrewé, Ferris, & Brymer, 1999). Emotionally positive managers
showed more job satisfaction and had better job performance than emotionally
negative managers who were dissatisfied and tended to be poorer performers.
Similarly, dispositional positive affect is related to lower rates of stress (Janssen,
Lam, & Huang, 2010) and absenteeism, whereas negative affect is related to
both higher absenteeism and higher turnover (Pelled & Xin, 1999). There is
evidence that affectively positive workers are more prone to engage in OCB
and to have a broader view of what their job entails (e.g., being more willing
to take on “extra” tasks) than emotionally negative workers (Bachrach & Jex,
2000; Podsakoff et al., 2000).
 Summary 245

So, is a positive disposition or emotional state, and resulting job satisfac-

tion, the “cure-all”? Not necessarily. There is some evidence that when workers
become dissatisfied with some aspect of the work situation, they become moti-
vated to change it. Job dissatisfaction has been linked to both creativity and voic-
ing of concern (Zhou & George, 2001). Importantly, no matter how strong an
individual’s positive emotions or disposition, if she or he is not fairly treated, or
is undercompensated, job satisfaction and positive work behaviors will decline.
It is important to also mention that satisfaction with one’s job is not enough.
Workers may have job satisfaction, but other aspects of their lives (family relation-
ships, physical health, etc.) may not be as positive. I/O psychology has two impor-
tant objectives in this regard: to improve the physical and social environment at
work in an effort to enhance worker well-being, satisfaction, and life quality and
Stop & Review
to improve organizational outcomes, such as increased productivity, work qual- List and define five
categories of organi-
ity, and reduced absenteeism and turnover through increasing employee partici-
zational citizenship
pation in, and commitment to, organizational processes (Adams, King, & King, behaviors.
1996; Beehr & McGrath, 1992; Danna & Griffin, 1999).

Summary
Job satisfaction, which involves the positive feel- Programs designed to increase job satisfac-
ings and attitudes one has about a job, can be tion include changes in job structure through
conceptualized in overall, or global, terms or in techniques such as job rotation, job enlargement,
terms of specific components or facets and can and job enrichment. Other satisfaction-enhancing
be measured through interviews or with self- techniques suggest changing the pay structure
report instruments. The most widely used self- by using methods such as skill-based pay, pay-for-
report measures are the Minnesota Satisfaction performance programs like merit pay, gainsharing,
Questionnaire (MSQ) and the Job Descriptive Index or profit sharing, which are sometimes contin-
(JDI). Research indicates that there is a slight gent on effective group performance. Flexible
positive relationship between job satisfaction work schedules, such as compressed workweeks and
and job performance, although the link may flextime, improve satisfaction by giving workers
be moderated by a third variable, such as the greater control over their jobs. Still other meth-
receipt of work rewards. Job satisfaction is posi- ods of improving satisfaction involve increasing
tively correlated with organizational commitment, job-related benefits.
or employees’ feelings and attitudes about the Positive employee behaviors beyond the
entire work organization. normal job routine are termed organizational citi-
Both job satisfaction and organizational zenship behaviors, and these are positively related
commitment tend to be negatively correlated to desirable work outcomes. Most recently,
with voluntary employee absenteeism. However, research has focused on the role of positive affect
the relationships are complex and difficult to in employee behavior, with job satisfaction medi-
decipher, partly due to the difficulty involved ating the relationship between affect and work
in distinguishing voluntary absenteeism from outcomes. This emphasis on positive employee
involuntary absenteeism. Job satisfaction and attitudes, emotions, and behaviors reflects I/O
organizational commitment are also related to psychology’s concern with both organizational
voluntary employee turnover. functioning and employee well-being.
246 CHAPTER 9 Positive Employee Attitudes and Behaviors

Study Questions and Exercises

1. What are some of the difficulties in the mea- duties associated with this job, and what
surement of employee job satisfaction? How might be considered “organizational citizen-
might I/O psychologists try to deal with ship behaviors” for this job or occupation?
these problems? Try to come up with examples of each type
2. How does job satisfaction relate to the of OCB for this job.
important “bottom-line,” outcome variables 5. In what ways have the working lives of U.S.
of performance, absenteeism, and turnover? workers changed over the past 60 years?
3. What would a good, comprehensive pro- What sorts of changes do you expect to see
gram to increase job satisfaction contain? in the future?
What elements would you include in each?
4. Consider a job or occupation that you are
familiar with. What are the “normal” job

Web Links
http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/psych/io/jdi/
Information on the Job Descriptive Index (JDI).

Suggested Readings
Macey, W. H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K. M., & nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand
Young, S. A. (2009). Employee engagement: Tools Oaks, CA: Sage. A detailed, high-level review of
for analysis, practice, and competitive advantage. research on OCB.
Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. A book focus- Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application,
ing on research and practice implications for employee assessment, causes, and consequences. Thousand
engagement. Part of a series for practitioners called Oaks, CA: Sage. A very readable overview of the effects
“Talent Management Essentials.” of job satisfaction on work behavior.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B.
(2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its