Job Attitudes Flashcards
• Job sat. divided into intrinsic components (achievement, challenge) & extrinsic components (supervision, working conditions)• 30% of obs. Variance in intrinsic & general job sat acconted for bg generic factors• Conclusion: org. might have less control over job sat than previously thought
Arvey et al (1989)
• Job sat=multidim psychological responses to one’s job that have cog, affective, & behavioral components• Theoretical models of job attitudes1. Cornell model2. Thibaut & Kelley’s comparison level model (1& 2 recog. Influence of external factors)3. Value-percept model4. Job charac model-GNS as moderator5. Dispositional influences6. Person-ENV fit• New model that recognize influence of affect => AET• Conclusion: Job beh are multiply-determined
Hulin & Judge (2003)
• To investigate the dynamic relationship between mood & job sat & how personality might influence it/ moderate it• Mood congruency theory-expect that variability in job sat is related to variability in mood within ind.• Results: PA, NA → job sat, across ind. o 36% of job sat variance occurred within ind. o mood & job sat situational across time & the fluctuations are corr.o P extraversion →PAo Personality doesn’t moderate mood → job sat relationship
Ilies & Judge (2002)
• 7 diff ways to conceptualize job sat-job perf rel.1. Job satisfaction leads to job performance• This is the oldest specification of the relationship2. Job performance leads to job satisfaction• Expectancy based theories of motivation posit that satisfaction follows from the rewards of performance3. The relationship is bidirectional• This model has no theoretical basis, but is a combination of the above models4. The relationship is spurious• Several studies have suggested the self-esteem influences both variables5. The relationship is moderated by other variables• This is the most common model that is investigated, and the most frequently studied moderator is reward contingency, other variables are job complexity, job characteristics and self esteem6. They are unrelated• Most studies that measure job satisfaction and performance treat them as unrelated variables7. Alternative conceptualizations of job satisfaction and performance• Job satisfaction has been reconceptualized as PA or emotions• Performance has been conceptualized more broadly to include contextual or organizational level performance
Judge et al (2001)
• JS - JP relationship, quantitative and qualitative review • Lots of models proposed that generally fall into 1 of 7 categories, but none recvd. much empirical validtation/testing• Found true mean correl. Bw JS/JP = .30 [.18 uncorrected]• JS/JP rel. much stronger in high-complexity jobs (.52) than low or med (.29) [moderator]• Study was referred to in Fisher 2003 as most convincing evidence of weak rel. bw two and evidence against happy-productive worker hyp.
Judge et al (2001)happy-productive worker hyp.
• Use AET theory (Weiss and Crop, 1996) to examine associations of job attitudes (job sat), the social context (interpersonal justice or IJ) and affect (state hostility) with workplace deviance, and the moderating effect of personality (trait hostility) on the interpersonal justice – state hostility association•Within individuals IJ was neg related to state hostility• Job sat was positively related to IJ and neg to state hostility• Nearly half of the within individual effect of IJ on job sat was mediated through state hostility• Job sat was neg related to workplace deviance•State hostility was pos related to workplace deviance• Job sat mediated the IJ – workplace deviance relationship• Individuals high on trait hostility were more sensitive to IJ violations so the IJ – state hostility relationship was stronger for individuals high in trait hostility than those lower in the trait• 53% of variance attributable to w/i person
Judge et al. (2006)
• Results support happier-and-smarter NOT sadder-but-wiser hypothesis, and suggest that happy worker/productive worker idea prematurely dismissed• Notion is likely more complex than originally hypothesized/studied.• Long held belief by managers that the happy worker is a productive one, but research on job satisfaction and productivity generally revealed a weak/non-significant rel.• Most researchers have long relegated satisfaction-performance rel. as unsubstantiated claim of practitioners and the popular press.• However, the variables of interest have changed to include expression of emotion, + and – moods, dispositional affect, etc.• Consistent finding across DVs (decision making, interpersonal performance, managerial potential) = evidence of facilitating rather than inhibiting role for PA• Overall, results strongly suggest PA really is related to effectiveness on managerial tasks• Dispositional affect may be a more useful predictor of organizational performance than satisfaction because it is more stable and enduring over time• Measures of dispositional affect might especially have advantages in predicting the performance of employees over long stretches of time.• Time to reopen the happiness-productivity question
Staw & Barsade (1993)seminal piecehappy-productive worker hyp.
• Positive emotions and favorable outcomes at work• Positive emotions may have hidden negative consequences while negative emotion may have positive consequences – positive emotions reinforce interruptions, negative emotion may lead to constructive conflict• Although widely accepted that job satisfaction has little or no impact on employee performance:o Positive emotion is broader that job satisfaction, thus it is likely that its effects are more widespread and enduring than those of satisfactiono When we shift dependent variables from organizational to employee outcomes the effects of job attitudes may become larger – even if employee attitudes have little or no impact on aspects of performance that benefit organization, displaying and feeling positive attitudes on the job may enhance perceptions of performance and subsequent rewards
Staw et al. 1994happy-productive worker hyp.
said relationship bw job sat and perf = .17
Iaffaldono et al. (1985)
o Value-Percept Model• Values = one desires or considers important• The model holds that job sat results from attainment of important values• Sat = (value content wanted – perceived value provided) x value importance• Discrepancies bw what is desired by the person and what is received from the job are dissatisfying only if the job attribute is important to the ind• Overall sat is estimated by aggregating across all contents of a job weighted by importance
Locke (1976)
Job Characteristics Model • Argues that the enrichment of specified job characteristics is the core factor in making employees satisfied w their jobs• 5 core job characteristics that make work challenging and fulfilling and make jobs that provide them more satisfying and motivating• Task identity = degree to which one can see one’s work from beginning to end• Task Significance = degree to which one’s work is seen as important and sig• Skill Variety = extent to which job allows employees to perform diff tasks• Autonomy = degree to which employee has control and discretion for how to conduct his or her job• Feedback = degree to which the work itself provides feedback concerning how the employee is performing the job• Model has received direct and indirect support • Growth Need Strength (GNS) = component of the model that accounts for ind diff in receptiveness to challenging job characteristics – employees’ desire for personal development, esp as it applies to work• The relationship bw work characteristics and job sat is stronger for those high in growth need strength
Hackman & Oldham (1976)
• Focused on core self-evals = fundamental beliefs ind hold about themselves, their functioning, and the world• 4 specific traits: self esteem, generalized self-efficacy, neuroticism, locus of control• model includes core self-evals, evals of reality, and evals of others and links them to job sat• Core self-evals had an effect of .37-.48 on job sat• Evals of others and reality added little or no variance beyond core self-evals
Judge et al. (1997) & (1998)
