Work Attitudes

Question 1

Is it best to assess job satisfaction using a facet level approach or global approach? Why? Example measures of each?

Answer 1

It depends on what you want to predict. Neither are inherently better.

If you are looking to assess OVERALL satisfaction,
Dalal 2013 argues that facet level measurement is inadequate/inappropriate because:
1) It assumes that you’ve measured all relevant facets and not measured any that are irrelevant
2) It assumes that they combine in a linear fashion, when in reality, it’s likely that some interact with each other
3) It assumes they should be weighted equally in determining overall JS (“sum of facets approach”)
For all these reasons, overall JS is best assessed by directly measuring “global job satisfaction”. The “Jobs in General” scale is a global measure, and the Job Descriptive Index (JDI, Balzer et al., 2000) is a facet level scale. Often used together.

But if you are trying to predict behavior towards a facet such as deviant behavior toward supervisor, should measure facet level because that would best predict (need same level of generality). Both are actually necessary for a complete understanding of employees’ responses.

Question 2

What are examples of facets of job satisfaction?

Answer 2

Generally viewed as having 5 facets: satisfaction with 
1) coworkers, 
2) supervisor, 
3) pay/benefits
4) promotions/ opportunity
5) nature of work itself
(Dalal, 2013)

Question 3

Which facet of satisfaction is the most important in determining overall satisfaction? which is the weakest determinant?

Answer 3

By FAR the strongest determinant is the “nature of work itself” - shown across many years of research (Dalal, 2013)

The weakest is pay (Dalal, 2013). This was also supported by Judge et al meta-analysis. However it’s relative to all other facets. Could also be socially undesireable to say pay is most important, however.

Question 4

In what situations is pay more important to employees? What type of employees value performance-based pay more?

Answer 4

Dalal, 2013
Situations:
-Pay is more important when recruiting – bc applicants don’t know much else about the job; later, other factors take on more weight in importance (for retention)
-Pay is more important when it is performance based, the variance in pay across employees is large, pay is below average than above average, and when changes have been made to the pay system

Employees:
-Performance based pay is more important to high performers than low performers; high academic achievers than low academic achievers, employees with a high need for achievement, and employees with high rather than low self efficacy.

Question 5

Describe the Cornell Model of job attitudes.

Answer 5

Dalal 2013 described this.

This was developed in the 1960s. It led directly to the JDI being developed so the JDI is based on the ideas of this. The Cornell Model is about equity (inputs vs outcomes analysis by job holders), and frames of reference. So if one has a sense that their pay and work conditions (outputs) are not good enough for how much work they’re putting in (inputs), they would be less likely to be satisfied. However, frames of reference are also important. If they know that the job market is tight, and that they’re being paid more than many others who do the same job, they might be more satisfied in that situation than they otherwise would be. The model can help explain why some people may be more satisfied than others who do the same exact job; it also can explain why some people may be just as satisfied in a low level job than someone in a high level job. It’s about their frame of reference in addition to other factors.

Question 6

Describe the comparison level model of job satisfaction.

Answer 6

This wasn’t originally designed for job satisfaction but can be applied easily. The idea is that employees will compare their current job to their past job. Previous jobs are the comparison level (CL) and jobs that provide outcomes worse than CL will be dissatisfying and ones that provide better outcomes than CL will be satisfying. For example, if you are provided less autonomy than a previous job you’ll be dissatisfied. There’s a second level in terms of outcomes.

The model also holds that people may turn over due to these comparisons.
Research indicates that contrary to this theory, people don’t usually look for new jobs unless they’re also dissatisfied
Dalal, 2013
Thibaut and Kelley, 1959

Question 7

Describe the value-percept model of job satisfaction.

Answer 7

Locke, 1976 – According to this model, satisfaction results from attaining valued job facets/characteristics. It’s “want” minus “have” times importance. A discrepancy in a valued facet will be more dissatisfying than other facets. The model assumes a lot of individual difference in importance weights.

Question 8

Describe the person environment (P-E) fit model of job satisfaction.

Answer 8

Similar to value-percept model. A discrepancy between what employee needs/wants and what the job is able to able to supply, or between what the job requires and what the employee is able to provide, is associated with bad consequences such as job satisfaction (Kristof, 1996). The environment has been found to matter more than the person, for outcomes, e.g., JS determined may be more strongly determined by actual than desired pay. Also, inadequate supplies are an issue, not too many resources. The relationship with PE fit and job satis is thus complex.

Question 9

Describe the JCM in terms of how it views job satisfaction.

Answer 9

Argues that enrichment of specified job characteristics is the core factor in making employees satisfied with their jobs.

Some jobs are more motivating and satisfying than others, and work can be redesigned to make them more motivating and satisfying. (Hackman and Oldham, 1976)

Question 10

Describe a dispositional basis for job satisfaction.

Answer 10

45% of variability in job satisfaction has been found to be attributed to trait positive affect. 24% found to be attributable to Big Five factor - this suggests that dispositional effects are more likely a function of affect than personality. (Dalal, 2013)

Question 11

Describe affective events theory and its contribution.

Answer 11

All previous theories overemphasized cognitive aspects of job satisfaction and no or little emphasis on affective aspects. People don’t just THINK at work though, they feel. Need to consider affect. Weiss et al 1996 put forth this theory to account for that. In this theory, job satisfaction is not just about cognitive evaluations but also a product of affect.

This theory holds that there are two parallel processes: within and between person. Between person is comparisons between people who are in similar situations (stable aspects of work environment) - Cognitive. The within person is about discrete temporally bound events like what happened to a person within that day. This is about daily hassles and uplifts. These events are posited to influence affect (mood and emotions) at work. They are thought to act as “shocks” that disrupt baseline levels of affect. You can be in a good mood until you spill coffee all over your suit. So the events and affect are thought to be really volatile over time. Research has found that more of the variance in mood can be attributed to these within person events, rather than between person/task characteristics. The theory also allows for dispositions to have a role (baseline affect).

Question 12

Which model of job satisfaction antecedents is best?

Answer 12

Dalal, 2013 argues that with some modifications, the Cornell model (which focuses on inputs vs outputs and is moderated by frame of reference) is great, but because it lacks affect, it should be used with AET as well. AET isn’t looking to replace cognitive models; it includes both between (cog) and within (affect) person levels of analysis.

Question 13

What is the two factor theory?

Answer 13

Herzberg 1967. Says that dissatisfaction is not merely the opposite of satisfaction but is its own construct. The specific predictions have not been supported, but it’s useful because knowing what we do about positive and negative affect, it would make sense that both can exist. (Dalal, 2013)

Question 14

What model best explains withdrawal behavior?

Answer 14

The Withdrawal Model.
It argues that employees behave adaptively in that they withdraw from dissatisfying jobs and tasks within jobs. This could be permanent (leading to turnover) or could be temporary (work withdrawal rather than job withdrawal – leading to being late to work, leaving early, or being absent). This model remains the dominant model to explain this behavior and especially for turnover. (Dalal, 2013)

Research has supported job satisfaction predicting turnover through a withdrawal process. And the trajectory is important - those who eventually leave their jobs are marked by progressively lower and lower levels of satisfaction and commitment (Judge et al, 2017)

Harrison et al (2006 meta-analysis) found support for the progression of withdrawal model as a cascading relationship between withdrawal behaviors best represented the withdrawal construct.

Question 15

Dalal 2013

Answer 15

Dalal 2013 is a handbook chapter in Schmitt and Highhouse (2013). It focuses primarily on job satisfaction and gives considerable attention to the affective component as well as the cognitive. Dalal goes through the antecedents and consequences of JS, and also discussed measurement of both cognitive (the JDI) and affective components.

Question 16

What are three theories that support the withdrawal model in terms of outcomes of low job satisfaction?

Answer 16

1) Affective events theory - cognitive evaluations lead to JOB withdrawal (turnover, etc) while affective events more likely to result in WORK withdrawal (e.g., being late, leaving early)
2) Comparison level model - another level of comparison is not just to past jobs but to alternative jobs. If outcomes vs inputs seem better at alternatives, it MAY predict turnover
3) Unfolding model of turnover - research using this theory have show that dissatisfaction is usually a necessary condition for turnover.
Dalal, 2013

Question 17

Describe the unfolding model of turnover.

Answer 17

The Unfolding Model of turnover holds that there are multiple pathways to turnover. It holds that no single construct is SUFFICIENT to explain turnover. It also holds that turnover is the culmination of a dynamic process and differs for employees. In addition to job dissatisfaction, there are 5 other antecedents: 1) shocks, major work and life events, like getting an unsolicited job offer or getting married, 2) scripts, pre-existing plans of action, 3) image violations, instances of misfit between values, goals, goal-attainment strategies of employee and org, 4) job search 5) job offers.

Research indicates that job dissatisfaction is a necessary condition for turnover, but is not sufficient (there are other factors, but it has to be a part of it).
(Lee et al; cited in Dalal, 2013)

Question 18

What is the relationship between job satisfaction and performance? Is a happy employee a productive employee?

Answer 18

Job satisfaction is a better predictor of contextual performance (CWBs) than overall performance, but both relationships are moderate and significant. (.30 overall; -.33 to -.37 for CWBs). (Dalal, 2013)

Question 19

What is the relationship between job satisfaction and turnover?

Answer 19

There is a generally weak relationship between turnover and its antecedents, but this may be due to a mismatch in the predictor-criterion generality (overall vs facet). Satisfaction has a strong relationship with withdrawal and with turnover intentions. Also, turnover intentions mediates the effect on turnover.

Question 20

What are the best/most common measures of job satisfaction? (Cognitive and affective)

Answer 20

The JDI is the most widely used measure of job satisfaction. It focused on being very comprehensible (lower reading ability required). It measures the facets. The Jobs in General scale gives an overall JS score. It is the global equivalent of the JDI and is good when there’s a concern about a “sum of facets” approach (Dalal, 2013). It would be useful to collect both for a complete picture. Those are both cognitive.

For affective components, it’s best to survey employees on multiple occasions - several times a day for several weeks would be ideal. This is because (per Affective Events Theory), job affect is influenced by events that occur on the job and so it needs to be caught in real time. The PANAS-X for pos and neg affect is the best known measure of affect. (Dalal, 2013)

Question 21

Beyond job satisfaction, what are other important job attitudes and problems associated with them?

Answer 21

Job involvement and engagement are two. They are problematic because they use other constructs in their definitions, which conflates them with each other.

Job involvement = the degree to which one is cognitively pre-occupied with and engaged in one’s job.

Engagement = the individual’s a positive, fulfilling, work related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, absorption, and dedication. Schaufeli and Bakker 2010

Question 22

Define attitude

Answer 22

An attitude is a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor (Judge et al 2017).

Two examples of job attitudes are job satisfaction and commitment.

Question 23

Define job satisfaction. And what is overall vs facet?

Answer 23

Job satisfaction is the overall evaluative judgment one has about one’s job. (Judge et al, 2017) or “the overall feelings one has about one’s job” (Smith et al 1969). It is the most studied DV in I-O and OHP.

Overall satisfaction and facet satisfaction are related but distinct and have different methodological implications. (Judge et al, 2017)

Question 24

Define commitment and how it comes to develop for employees.

Answer 24

Commitment is a values-based appraisal, so if one is committed to one’s job, it is seen as fulfilling one’s values which should lead to maintaining effort toward the job (even if it is cognitively and affectively perceived as having negative outcomes for the self). It is seen as arising over time as one comes to identify with and internalize the work role - people can be satisfied from Day 1, but only committed after some time has passed. (Judge et al., 2017)

Question 25

What is engagement and is it an attitude?

Answer 25

Engagement is the individual's involvement and satisfaction with and enthusiasm for their work. It is about the investment of one's resources (physical, mental, emotional) and is therefore a motivational construct. It is not really an attitude because attitudes involve an appraisal of the job as good/bad. (Judge et al 2017)

Question 26

Are constructs like org support, supervisor support, and justice job attitudes? Why/why not?

Answer 26

They are not because they are appraisals but are BELIEFs regarding the intentions or actions of others, not about the job itself. (Judge et al 2017)

Question 27

What is the role of affect in attitudes, particularly job satisfaction (generally speaking)?

Answer 27

Some researchers prefer to distinguish the two, with satisfaction being more cognitive. Others see satisfaction as having multiple components (both affective and cognitive). Cognitive has been the predominant focus in theory and measurement, but there's been more of a focus on affective components in more recent research. (Judge et al 2017)

Question 28

Fishbein and Aijzen (1972)

Answer 28

A study that found that the relationship between attitudes and behavior are weak. Use when saying something about how attitudes may not predict behavior as directly. The idea is that one can have attitudes toward something but that's distinct from what behaviors they may enact toward it. (Authors of both Theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior; these theories include factors like belief about control and how one may not take action despite holding attitudes)

Question 29

What is the functional purpose of job attitudes (such as satisfaction and commitment) and what processes are involved?

Answer 29

They direct one's motivation and attention toward desirable ends (Judge et al 2017). Adaptation processes and withdrawal processes. The adaptation process leads a person to approach situations at work associated with positive attitudes and avoid (withdraw) from situations associated with negative attitudes. (Judge et al 2017)

Question 30

What is withdrawal?

Answer 30

Withdrawal is a behavior in response to a negative appraisal of a situation, so it comes with reduced satisfaction and commitment. In fact, it is very well predicted by commitment. Withdrawal is marked by a desire to AVOID or ALTER the situation. Withdrawal can be adaptive for employees - it is not inherently negative. It depends on one's perspective. (Judge et al, 2017).

Question 31

What might override the withdrawal process?

Answer 31

Certain momentary emotional reactions to dramatic events can override the withdrawal process and lead to faster turnover; this is usually unexpected alternative job offers (Judge et al., 2017).

Question 32

What attitude can positively impact OCBs?

Answer 32

Job satisfaction and commitment both predict OCBs. (Judge et al 2017)

Question 33

Balzer et al 1990

Answer 33

Revised the JDI by Smith (from 1960s) by replacing 11 items and adding Jobs in General scale. They later assessed equivalence of original and revised and found they were equivalent.

Question 34

Kinicki et al., 2002

Answer 34

This was a meta-analysis on the JDI that assessed construct validity and its use as a measure of job satisfaction. Therefore it assessed its correlations with a number of other constructs based on theory and research including antecedents, correlates, and outcomes. Their results supported construct validity, and internal consistency was high.

Question 35

Schaufelli and Bakker, 2010

Answer 35

This is a review chapter on engagement. Engagement is a psychological state encompassing vigor, dedication, and absorption (VAD). It has been validated across contexts using the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2003). It is predicted by challenging work and positive affect. Its outcomes are org commitment, performance, initiative (proactive behavior), OCBs. They discuss measurement (UWES as primary scale), and propose a model of work engagement in which resourceful, challenging work and positive affectivity lead to the psychological states of satisfaction, ENGAGEMENT, and involvement, which, in turn, lead to organizational commitment, initiative, OCB, and performance. This model identifies an underlying motivational process, allows for hypothesis formulation and testing, and identifies areas for intervention. It's JDR-esque in that it has resources as antecedents of positive outcomes.

Question 36

What are the three components of engagement and what is engagement's relationship with burnout?

Answer 36

Engagement is a positive fulfilling state of mind at work that is characterized by Vigor, Absorption and Dedication (VAD). Vigor=Energy and willingness to invest it in work activities. Opposite of Exhaustion component of burnout. Absorption=engrossed in the work, concentration/focus Dedication= feeling involved, significance and pride etc about work. Opposite of cynicism component of burnout (identification level). Burnout and engagement are sometimes considered opposite ends of the same continuum (Maslach), but usually as distinct constructs that are negatively related (Schaufeli and Bakker).

Question 37

What is org commitment? How is it different from engagement?

Answer 37

Org commitment is a psychological state of attachment and identification. It is a binding force between the individual and the organization. (Schaufeli and bakker, 2010). It's diff from engagement bc engagement is about the WORK ROLE itself not the organization. (Schaufeli and Bakker 2010)

Question 38

Has engagement added value over and above the many related concepts?

Answer 38

Schaufeli and Bakker (2010) argue that, though work engagement is related to a number of other concepts such as initiative, involvement, flow, OCB, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction, it cannot be reduced to any of these and has added value over and above them.

Question 39

How is engagement measured? Discuss the difference between two different approaches academics have used, and also describe one that has been used in applied settings

Answer 39

Some measures assess engagement as the opposite scoring pattern of burnout and some assess it as its own construct. The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2003) is conceptualized as 3D along the VAD dimensions, and also has a short version with 9 items. They recommend using a total score on UWES as indicator of engagement. There is also the Gallup Q12. Studies indicate It is identical with measuring overall job satisfaction. It was developed to be "actionable" - for managers to use to create change in the workplace.

Question 40

What are two ways engagement has been measured and therefore viewed, who developed each, and when should each be used?

Answer 40

Some measures assess engagement as the opposite scoring pattern of burnout and some assess it as its own construct. The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2003) is conceptualized as 3D along the VAD dimensions, and also has a short version with 9 items. They recommend using a total score on UWES as indicator of engagement. Although it is separate from the Maslach Burnout Inventory, it is based on it. This measure was created to distinguish the constructs and not exploit the MBI. But this measure views engagement as the opposite of burnout. The Job Engagement Scale (JES) by Rich et al (2010) was developed based on Kahn's 1990 conceptualization of engagement as as being affective, cognitive, and behavioral. Kahn's model was based on the JCM. It had to do with the expression of the self in the work role. Byrne et al (2016) found that the two measures correlate moderately, so they assess at least some portion of the same construct. However, they also found that the UWES assesses a broader domain than the JES. This does not mean it's better or more accurately measures engagement. It could just measure more constructs in the network (job satisfaction and org commitment, as well as burnout). Because of this difference, Byrne et al (2016) recommends using each for its strength. The UWES may be well suited for assessing engagement in applied settings where the intention is to assess with a wide net to capture global perceptions across a number of employee issues. Good for a "quick read on how employees feel" so you can then devote energy only to critical issues. So it will provide summative info. When the intention is to delineate between constructs (research), use JES.

Question 41

Describe Schaufeli and Bakker's (2010) model of work engagement.

Answer 41

Schaufeli and Bakker integrate existing literature into an integrative model of work engagement, in which resourceful, challenging work and positive affectivity lead to the psychological states of satisfaction, engagement, and involvement, which, in turn, lead to organizational commitment, initiative, OCB, and performance. This model identifies an underlying motivational process, allows for hypothesis formulation and testing, and identifies areas for intervention. It represents the motivational process of JD-R model (Bakker is an author of both), in that resources have motivational potential and lead to high work engagement and performance. (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2010).

Question 42

What role does engagement play in the JD-R model?

Answer 42

Engagement is an outcome in the JD-R. According to the JD-R, resources lead to high engagement, high performance, and low cynicism through a boost in motivation. In fact, the most important predictors of work engagement are job and personal resources. Van Wingerden et al (2016) found that a JD-R intervention aimed at increasing job crafting and psych capital led to an increase in engagement and performance.

Question 43

Christian et al (2011)

Answer 43

Christian et al. (2011) is a review/meta-analysis testing whether work engagement is a unique construct and helping explain outcomes above and beyond attitudes (job involvement, org commitment, and job satisfaction). It also tested work engagement’s relationship with task and contextual performance. They also define work engagement and put forth a conceptual framework. They found that engagement IS distinct from job attitudes, is related to several key predictors and outcomes, and is a mediator between antecedents and outcomes. They defined engagement as a relatively enduring "state of mind" that refers to the investment of personal energies into the performance of work.

Question 44

Compare Christian et al (2011)'s model of work engagement with Schaufeli and Bakker's (2010) model.

Answer 44

Similarities: Engagement is a mediator in both. Both have performance as an outcome. Both have positive affect as one of the antecedents. Differences: Christian et al's is all about performance (the outcomes are task and contextual performance). Schaufeli and Bakker's has other outcomes beyond performance: organizational commitment, initiative, OCB, and performance. Antecedents are also different: Schaufeli and Bakker's is a JD-R inspired model that includes Resources as an antecedent (as well as positive affect). Christian's antecedents are JCM job characteristics, leadership (transformational) and personality (conscientiousness, positive affect).

Question 45

What is the "jangle fallacy" and how does it relate to engagement?

Answer 45

This is same idea as "old wine in new bottles." It's when a construct is a repackaging of similar constructs. It's when a construct is measured with bits and pieces of other constructs. It can still be that it's a unique construct (they were packaged in a way that allowed for that), but needs to be tested. Engagement is one that could have been that, because it is similar to many others like job involvement, job satisfaction, etc. Schaufeli and Bakker (2010) and Christian et al (2011) both tested engagement's uniqueness and found it to be unique and having incremental value.

Question 46

What is burnout, what are the three dimensions of Maslach's burnout conceptualization and how does it view engagement?

Answer 46

Burnout is the state of complete mental and emotional exhaustion (Maslach, 1982). The three dimensions of burnout are exhaustion, cynacism, and detachment (de-identification). Maslach et al 1997 re-conceptualized burnout as being the loss of engagement. Jobs start out as energizing and meaningful but as job demands increase employees become exhausted, cynical and detached, which are the three dimensions of burnout. So engagement became the opposite - vigor (exhaustion), absorbed (detached), and dedicated (cynical). Schaufeli et al conceives as engagement as the opposite of burnout. Byrne et al (2016) found that engagement is as a construct is not the same as the opposite of the burnout construct. There is a moderate neg relationship between then.

Question 47

Describe the affective shift model of work engagement, and its practical implications.

Answer 47

Bledow et al (2011) The affective shift model of work engagement conceptualizes work engagement as a dynamic motivational state. An affective shift consists of down-regulation of negative affect and up-regulation of positive affect. The core proposition of the model is that work engagement will only result from the experience of negative affect if a shift to positive affect takes place. Bledow et al found support through a daily diary study. They also found that there may be different outcomes for those with dispositional high or low affectivity such that the impact of negative or positive events may have less of an effect. Practical implications: by building a culture that promotes positive events (celebrating successes) and that strengthens the beneficial effects of negative events (i.e., fostering positive psych safety climate), orgs can increase engagement.

Question 48

Byrne et al (2016)

Answer 48

Byrne et al (2016) was focused on testing two different measures of work engagement to see which was better, the UWES or the JES. Byrne et al (2016) performed 4 empirical studies to compare ways of measuring engagement, and tested their relationships to hypothesized antecedents and outcomes. Byrne et al (2016) found that two measures of engagement, the UWES and the Job Engagement Scale (JES) were correlated but not interchangeable. Byrne et al (2016) found that the UWES overlapped engagement with other job attitudes. It was therefore broader and more applicable to applied settings. Byrne et al (2016) found that engagement is not the same as the opposite of burnout. Byrne et al (2016) found that engagement and meaningfulness are highly correlated and likely reciprocally related.

Question 49

Bledow et al (2011)

Answer 49

This is a paper on their affective shift model of work engagement, in which they tested and found support for their theory that increasing positive emotions can help increase engagement, even when people have experienced negative events in their day.

Question 50

van Wingerden et al (2016)

Answer 50

(Coauthored with Bakker). This study examined the impact of a JD-R intervention on engagement, as well as psych capital, job crafting, and performance. It's also the first study on a JD-R intervention at all. Results were positive. This suggests that organizations can foster engagement and improve performance by offering a JD-R intervention aimed at increasing psych capital and job crafting.

Question 51

What are outcomes of engagement?

Answer 51

Studies using JD-R have found that engagement is associated with org outcomes such as org commitment, OCBs, performance. (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2010).

Question 52

What are personal resources?

Answer 52

Personal resources have been defined as aspects of the self that are commonly associated with resiliency and individuals' sense of ability to control and impact upon their environment successfully (Hobfall et al., 2003). Four examples are self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience - and these four been found to be malleable and are together known as Psychological capital. Personal resources were added to JD-R in 2014 by the authors (Bakker et al). The model shows a mediated relationship between personal resources and performance, via work engagement.

Question 53

What is Psychological Capital and what theory helps explain its impact/importance?

Answer 53

PsyCap has been defined as an individual's positive psychological state of development characterized by self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience - all directed toward challenging tasks and goal pursuit. (Luthans et al., 2006). It is viewed as important to helping achieve one's goals and stimulating personal growth and achievement. The idea behind the several elements being in one construct like this is aligned with COR theory - people accumulate resources, and this accumulation will result in positive personal outcomes like engagement. In fact, research indicates that PsyCap is positively related to engagement and performance (van Wingerden et al., 2016).

Question 54

Meyer et al (2012)

Answer 54

This is a meta-analysis about commitment and cultural differences, in 54 countries. They found that, controlling for economic indicators, cultural values explain additional variance in normative and affective commitment. Both were higher in collectivist cultures (high in institutional collectivism).

Question 55

What is the three component model of commitment and who came up with it?

Answer 55

Meyer and Allen, 1991 Three component model of commitment: Affective commitment: an emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization (A is for affective and attached) Normative commitment: a sense of obligation to remain (norm = obligation) Continuance commitment: perceived costs associated with leaving (C for costs and continuance)

Question 56

Harrison et al., 2006

Answer 56

Harrison et al (2006) is a meta-analysis about the importance of overall job attitude (job satisfaction and engagement combined) on task and contextual performance, lateness, absences, and turnover combined ("integrative behavioral criteria"). They found that job attitude strongly predicted a higher-order behavioral construct, defined as "desirable contributions made to one's work role" (r=.59). They called this a unified attitude-engagement model. They also found support for the progression of withdrawal (from lateness to absence to turnover), with positive covariances occurring between pairs of withdrawal behaviors in a specific, cascading order

Question 57

What is a compatibility principle?

Answer 57

Proposes that an attitude impels behavior only when the two constructs are compatible in their action, target, context and time (Harrison et al., 2006)

Question 58

Meyer and Allen, 1991

Answer 58

3 component model of commitment: Affective commitment: An emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization (A is for affective and attached) Normative commitment: A sense of obligation to remain (norm = obligation) Continuance commitment: Perceived costs associated with leaving (C for costs and continuance)

Question 59

Li et al, 2016

Answer 59

Li et al (2016) is an empirical paper about the effects of withdrawal states on job attitudes and turnover. They found that people who are reluctant to stay but stay anyway are similar in affective commitment, job satisfaction and job embeddedness to those who can leave and do leave. Some dissatisfied people stay, so companies should pay attention to job satisfaction and turnover rate and see if there are mismatches. Reluctant stayers may withhold effort on the job.