skip to main |
skip to sidebar
While there are many ways to perform market research, most businesses use one or more of five basic methods: surveys, focus groups, personal interviews, observation, and field trials. The type of data you need and how much money you’re willing to spend will determine which techniques you choose for your business. 1. Surveys. With concise and straightforward questionnaires, you can analyze a sample group that represents your target market. The larger the sample, the more reliable your results will be.
In-person surveys are one-on-one interviews typically conducted in high-traffic locations such as shopping malls. They allow you to present people with samples of products, packaging, or advertising and gather immediate feedback. In-person surveys can generate response rates of more than 90 percent, but they are costly. With the time and labor involved, the tab for an in-person survey can run as high as $100 per interview.
Telephone surveys are less expensive than in-person surveys, but costlier than mail. However, due to consumer resistance to relentless telemarketing, convincing people to participate in phone surveys has grown increasingly difficult. Telephone surveys generally yield response rates of 50 to 60 percent. Mail surveys are a relatively inexpensive way to reach a broad audience. They're much cheaper than in-person and phone surveys, but they only generate response rates of 3 percent to 15 percent. Despite the low return, mail surveys remain a cost-effective choice for small businesses.
Online surveys usually generate unpredictable response rates and unreliable data, because you have no control over the pool of respondents. But an online survey is a simple, inexpensive way to collect anecdotal evidence and gather customer opinions and preferences. 2. Focus groups. In focus groups, a moderator uses a scripted series of questions or topics to lead a discussion among a group of people. These sessions take place at neutral locations, usually at facilities with videotaping equipment and an observation room with one-way mirrors. A focus group usually lasts one to two hours, and it takes at least three groups to get balanced results.
3. Personal interviews. Like focus groups, personal interviews include unstructured, open-ended questions. They usually last for about an hour and are typically recorded.
Focus groups and personal interviews provide more subjective data than surveys. The results are not statistically reliable, which means that they usually don't represent a large enough segment of the population. Nevertheless, focus groups and interviews yield valuable insights into customer attitudes and are excellent ways to uncover issues related to new products or service development.
4. Observation. Individual responses to surveys and focus groups are sometimes at odds with people's actual behavior. When you observe consumers in action by videotaping them in stores, at work, or at home, you can observe how they buy or use a product. This gives you a more accurate picture of customers' usage habits and shopping patterns.
5. Field trials. Placing a new product in selected stores to test customer response under real-life selling conditions can help you make product modifications, adjust prices, or improve packaging. Small business owners should try to establish rapport with local store owners and Web sites that can help them test their products.Source: http://www.allbusiness.com/marketing/market-research/1287-1.html
Business Definition for: Organizational Commitmentthe commitment of an organization to given goals and objectives, as demonstrated through its stated goals and policies, and its actions and allocation of resources the degree of employee commitment within an organizational workforce
Examining the causal order of job satisfaction and organizational commitmentJournal of Management, March, 1992 by Robert J. Vandenberg, Charles E. LanceFour hypotheses have been advanced regarding the causal relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment: (a) satisfaction causes commitment, (b) commitment causes satisfaction, (c) satifaction and commitment are reciprocally related, and (d) no causal relationship exists between the two constructs. These four hypotheses were represented by separate structual models in a longitudinal research design. Using a sample of management information systems professionals, the models were tested using a combination of pseudo-generalized least squares, and full information maximum-likelihood estimation procedures. The latter procedures controlled for the unmeasured causal variables problem characterizing past studies. Results supported the commitment-causes-satisfaction model.
Job satisfaction is a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the apprasial of one's job and job experiences (Locke, 1976). On the other hand, organizational commitment refers to the strength of individuals' indentification with and involvement in a particular organization (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982).
Knowledge of the causal priority between these two constructs has both
theoretical
and practical implications (Curry, Wakefield, Price, & Mueller, 1986).
Typically,
job satisfaction is presented as causlally antecedent to organnizational
commitment
in conceptual models, such as those for turnover (e.g., Mowday et al,
1982) and work adjustment (e.g., Vandenberg & Scarpello, 1990). Further,
certain
interventions (e.g., job enrichment, realistic job previews) are designed to
increase
satifaction, and thus, commitment, under the rational that such increases result in enhanced employee psychological well-being, productivity, and
retention.
Despite its importance and the belief that job satisfaction (JS) is a cause oforganizational commitment (OC), the causal relationship between the two constructs is not clearly understood. First, little research has focused specifically on this issue. Second, research findings on this issue have been mixed (e.g., Bateman & Strasser, 1984; Curry et al., 1986; Dossett & Suszko, 1990; Farkas & Tetrick, 1989; Lance, 1991; Wlliams & Hazer, 1986). Third, the appropriateness of the methods used by the past researchers to address causal priority may be questioned.
It is critical to clarify the causal priority between JS and OC. It has been assumed that JS causally precedes OC (particularly in tests of theoretical models), but there have been few empirical tests of the validity of this assumption. In reality, some other causal sequence may more correctly describe the relationship between the two constructs. Thus, current theoritical models may misspecify the
JS-OC causal relationship. The purpose of this study is to provide a more
thorough assessment of the causal relationship between JS and OC than that provided through previous research.
Conceptual Models
The research literature on the job satisfaction - organizational commitment
(JS -OC) relationship suggests four competing models: (a) JS is causally antecedent to OC (JS [right arrow] OC, (b) OC is causally antecedent to JS (OC [right arrow] JS), (c) JS and OC are reciprocally related (JS [left arrow] [right arrow] OC), and (d) no causal relationship exists between JS and OC.
Model 1 (JS [right arrow] OC). Of the four models, the most widely accepted among researchers is that JS is causally antecedent to OC (Mowday et al.,1982). Perhaps the most prominent argument favoring this causal order is based upon the
notion that JS is determined by olny a subset of personal and organizational
factors
(e.g., job and job facets) that determine OC. JS is viewed as one of the
relatively
micro determinants of OC that is more macro in its orientation of the individual to the organization (Bluedorn, 1982; Farrell & Rusbult, 1981; Rusbult &
Farrell, 1983; Williams & Hazer, 1986). Further, proponents of this position
argue that job satisfaction reflects immediate affective reactions to the job and job facets (Locke, 1976). Thus, it forms soon after organizational entry. On the other hand, due to its macro orientation, organizational commitment is thought to develop more slowly, and after the individual possesses a firm understanding of not only the job and job facets but also of organizational goals and values, performance expectations and their consequences, and the implications of maintaining membership in the organization (Mowday et al., 1982). The latter understanding is not immediate and requires exposure to a variety of organizational components outside of the job. Consequently, OC is seen as forming and stabilizing sometime after organizational entry with the more immediate formaton of JS acting as one of its many determinants.
Model 2 (OC [right arrow] JS). Other researchers have argued that OC is
causally
antecedent to JS (Bateman & Strasser, 1984). Briefly, the rationale is based
upon a behavioral commitment perspective whereby the act of joining an arganization and the conditions surrounding that act (e.g., whether a person joined when
other employment opportunities were available) determine individuals' attitudinal commitment to the organization (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978; Staw, 1980). Stronger attitudinal commitment to the organization results from joining that organization when other attractive employment alternatives were available. The latter process is a function of the degree or amount of cognitive dissonance experienced by the
individual after joining the organization. The stronger the cognitive
dissonance,
the greater the need to reduce it, and one means of dissonance reduction is
rationalizing
the choice (e.g., enhancing its positive aspects over those of the unchosen
alternatives, convincing oneself that he/she must really like or be
psychologically
attached to the choice given its selection over other choices, etc.).
Subsequently,
"commitment initiates a rationalizing process through which individuals 'make sense' of their current situation by developing attitudes (satisfaction) that
are consistent with their commitment" (Bateman & Strasser, 1984:97). OC is antecedent to JS, therefore, because it is the basis for developing other attitudes, such as JS.
Model 3 (JS [left arrow] [right arrow] OC). Both Model 1 and Model 2 above
are theoretically defensible, and ave some empirical support. This suggests, as others (Farkas & Tetrick, 1989; Lance, 1991; Williams & Hazer, 1986) have noted, that JS and OC may be reciprocally related. The expectation of a reciprocal relationship between the two constructs is also maintained on the basis of previous findings supporting reciprocal relationships between other similar constructs (e.g., JS and job perceptions,
James & Jones, 1980; James & Tetrick, 1986).
Model 4: No causal relationship. One argument for the absence of a JS - OC causal relation in that JS and OC are correlated due to the effects of common causal variables (Lance, 1991). For example, organizational factors, such as
job and role characteristics (James & James, 1989), and personality traits, such as locus of control (Spector, 1982) or positive-negative affectivity (Brief, Burke,
George, Robinson, & Webster, 1988), could influence both JS and OC. Thus,
observed
JS - OC correlations may reflect the fact that JS and OC share common
antecedents,
but are not causally related.
Empirical Evidence
Six studies have focused directly on testing tha causal relationship between JS and OC (Bateman & Strasser, 1984; Curry et al., 1986; Dossett & Suszko, 1990; Farkas & Tetrick, 1989; Lance, 1991; Williams & Hazer, 1986). In reanalysis of previously published cross-sectional data, Williams abd Hazer (1986) found support for Model 1 (JS [right arrow] OC). Moreover, although not focused specifically on the JS - OC relationship, Vandenberg and Scarpello (1990) also found support for Model 1 in cross-sectional examination of a group of newcomers and in a group of tenured employees. Using a cross-lagged panel design and longitudinal data, however, Bateman and Strasser's (1984) findings favored Model 2 (OC [right arrow] JS). Dossett ans Suszko (1990) also found support for Model 2 among a sample of 890 manufacturing employees, in a double cross-validation of structural equation models. In contrast, through a longtitudinal replication of Williams and Hazer's (1986) study, Farkas and Tetrick (1989:855) advocated Model 3 (JS [left arrow] [right arrow] OC) on the basis that their results
suggested "that commitment and satisfaction may be either cyclically or reciprocally related." Lance
(1991) also found support for Model 3 in a cross-sectional study of 1870
telecommunications
employees, but noted that the JS [left arrow] [right arrow] OC relationship,
though
reciprocal, was asymmetric. That is, JS had a much stronger effect on OC than did
OC on JS. finally, in a replication of Bateman and Strasser's (1984) study,
Curry et al. (1986) supported Model 4 (no causal relationship).
The above studies, however, may be criticized, both specifically and
collectively,
in terms of their ability to adequately test the JS - OC causal relation.
First,
Bateman and Strasser (1984) failed to correct their structural parameter
estimates
for measurement error. Second, the primary basis for establishing causal
priorities
between JS and OC in both Bateman and Strasser (1984) and Curry et al. (1986) was the presence of significant cross-lagged effects. Rogosa (1980:257) noted severe limitations to cross-lagged correlation designs for identifying causal priority among variables and has recommended that this design "be set aside as a dead end." Third, only Dossett and Suszko (1990), and Lance (1991) explicitly tested
Model 3 (JS [left arrow] [right arrow] OC). Consequently, other findings
favoring either the
JS [right arrow] OC or OC [right arrow] JS positions may have obscured reciprocal relations.
Finally, and most importantly, no research to date on the JS - OC relationship has addresed bias in structural parameters introduced by the unmeasured variables problem. According to James (1980:415) "the operative question is not whether ons has an unmeasured variables problem but rather the degree to which the unavoidable unmeasured variables problem biases estimates of path coefficients (a form of structural parameter) and provides a basis for alternative explanations of results."
There are three general approches for dealing with the unmeasured variables problem. One is randomization, but random assignment of individuals to JS or OC levels is not feasible. Second, all relevant causes of JS and OC could conceivably be identified and measured, but this is not a reasonable research expectation. In a third, statistical approach, the goal is to obtain estimates of the causal JS - OC relation while controlling statistically for the effects of unmeasured causal variables. James and Singh (1978) and Pindyck and Rubinfeld (1976) have shown that this type of statistical control is possible using longitudinal data and pseudo-generalized least squares estimation procedures. This was the approach taken in the present study.
In summary, this study was designed to meet four needs for research on the causal relationship between JS and OC: (a) correction of structural model parameter estimates for measurement error, (b) an explicit test of the reciprocal JS - OC relationship, (c) competitive tests among the four models of JS - OC causal relations described above, and (d) statistical correction of causal parameter estimates for biasing effects of unmeasured relevant causal viriables.
Participants were 100 management information systems professionals from a multinational, software research and deveolpment firm located in the southeast. The sample was randomly selected from a total population of 455 employees. although all 455 employees completed surveys at Time 1 (see explanation below), business constraints prevented use of the total population at Time 2. Of the selected individuals, 100% completed the survey at Time 2. The selected group did not differ significantly from the total population on any demographic characteristic, such as age, gender, year of education, and organizational and job tenure. Fifty-nine percent were female with a median age of 34 years. Median years of education were 16.
With respect to bonus equity, research supports the role of rewards (pay, promotion, recognition, benefits, ect.) and their equitable distribution as important events or conditions (as opposed to agent) affecting employees' satisfaction with the job and job facets (Locke, 1976:1321-1324). Porter and Lawler (1968) indicate that the perceived equity of rewards is a direct antecedent to job satisfaction. Others note, though, that one must distinguish between perceptions of distributive justice on the one hand and procedural justice on the other hand in determining effects on satisfaction (Folger & Konovsky, 189). Namely, equitable perceptions of distributive justice relate most strongly to satisfaction and do not relate to institutional perceptions, such as organizational commitment. As with the corporate values, the performance bonus system was quite salient to the current sample and had a strong link to the job from the employees' perspective. Bonuses in this organization were quite large, but their determination and distribution were secretly conducted. A strongly held belief among employees was that it was the particular job and little else that determined both whether a bonus was given and the bonus amount. Thus, a primary criterion used by employees to effictively evaluate their jobs in this organization was its associated (perceived) bonus amount. Job dissatisfaction occurred to the extent a poor bonus amount was received. The employees could transfer dissatisfaction. We felt that bonus equity for this sample had avery prominent role in determining the job satisfaction of these employees and thus disigned a bonus-equity measure to act as the instrument for job satisfaction. further, items for this measure reflected for the most part perceptions of distributive justice rather than procedural justice.
Value congruence. Value congruence was measured by summing scores on three items written around the stated corporate values. Items were anchored by 5-point scales of agreement. The items were "The company really means it when they say: (a) people are the key, (b) the customer is king, and (c) we are committed to excellence in everything we do." Coefficient alphas were .46 and .52 for Times 1 nad 2, respectively. The stability coefficient was .70.
FIML final estimation. LISREL VI (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1986) was used to obtain FIML estimates of the models' parameters. The FIML estimates were obtained by (a) using the sample covariance matrix, (b) using p-GLS estimates as initial estimates, and (c) restricting parameter estimates to be equal across measurement waves to reflect the assumption of stationarity. Further, to guard against overcorrecting parameter estimates for attenuation due to unreliability, values of the latent-to-manifest variable parameters were fixed to the highest estimated reliability coefficients obtained for each variable.
Less clear was the difference between Model 2 (OC[right arrow] JS) and model 3 (JS Mathematical Expression Omitted). Three considerations, however, favored
Model 2 over Model
3 with respect to its fit to the data. First, Model 2 was the more parismonious model of the two. Indeed, it provided the most parsimonous solution to the data. (TABULAR DATA OMITTED)
Second, the coefficients associated with the paths from JS to OC in the
reciprocal
model (Model 3) were not significantly different from zero. Thus, from a
theory-trimming
perspective, one could eliminate those paths from further consideration. The nonsignificant paths explains the greater parsimony of Model 2 over Model 3. Finally, Model 2 did not statistically differ from the upper-bound model [differece MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION OMITTED]. In contrast, Model 3 resulted in asignificantly worse fit compared to the upper-bound model [MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION OMITTED]. Thus, overall results supported a recursive model in which OC is causally antecedent to JS.
At the suggestion of one reviewer, we also conducted cross-lagged analyses by regressing Time 2 satisfaction and commitment measures (JST2 and OCQT2)respectively) on the Time 1 measures (JST1 and OCQT1)(see Bateman & Strasser, 1984). Although the limitations of this approach are now well known (Rogosa, 1980; Rogosa, 1988; Williams & Podsakoff, 1989:264-272), researchers have sought to establish causal prioties between variables on the basis of difference in the sizes of cross-lagged regression coefficients (e.g., Bateman & Strasser;
1983; Bateman & Strasser, 1984; Currey et al., 1986). In the present case,
differences in standardized stability coefficients (MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION OMITTED) paralled correlational results shown in Table 1. Differences in cross-lagged coefficients (MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION OMITTED) also support our earlier conclusions. Thus, although these results should be interpreted with caution (Rogosa, 1988), they nevertheless corroborate results of the direct tests of causal order shown in Table 2, which indicate support for Model 2 (OC RIGHT ARROW JS).
Final parameter estimates for Model 2 (OC RIGHT ARROW JS) are shown in Figure
2.2 Results in Figure 2 indicate that OC and bonus equity provided a
parsimonious account of employee JS in the present sample. This finding is supported by
(a) sturctural parameter estimates representing the links of JS with OC and
bonus
equity were strong and statistically significant, (b) residual variances were
small,
and (c) the correlation between unmeasured causes of JS (contained in
MATHEMATICAL
EXPRESSION OMITTED) also was small. The larger residual variances for OC and a statistically significantcorrelation between unmeasured causes of OC (MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION OMITTED) indicated thatthere were other important determinants of OC not accounted for in this study. Recall however, that biasing effects due to unmeasured variables were statistically controlled for in estimates of the causal parameters. Finally, assumptions concerning the roles of valye congruence and bonus equity as instruments for OC and JS,
respectively, appeared to be reasonable ones given the strength and statiscal significance of their parameter estimates.
Discussion
In this study, we extended research on the JS - OC causal relation by: (a)
disattenuating structural parameter estimates for measurement error, (b) testing explicitly for a possible reciprocal relationship between JS and OC, (c) comparing the fits of four competing casual models of the JS - OC relationship, and (d) correcting parameter estimates for bias introduced by unmeasured relegant causal variables, Consistent with Bateman and Strasser, (1984), and Dossett and Suszko (1990), the results supported the idea that OC is casually atecedent to JS.
The third issue concerns testing more elaborate models of relationships
between
JS and OC. Future research should seek to identify additional instruments to identify models which test for possible reciprocal effects between JS and OC
One may never be completely assured that variables selected theoretically as
instrumental variables strictly statisfy all the rwquired assumptions. We mad every effort in the present study to identify unique instruments for JS and OC that had conceptual justification for this role. Empirically, there were at least three indications that we were successeful in our efforts: (a) correlations between insturments and appropriate endogenous variables were higher than correlations with the other endogenous variables (e.g., correlations of bonus equity with satisfaction were higher than with commitment, see Table 1), (b) estimated direct effect of instruments on respective endogenous variables were strong (see Figure 2), and (c) excellent overall fit for Model 2 (see Table 3) suggested the absence of specification errors (e.g., direct effects of bonus equity on commitment). Nevertheless, the dynamics of the presents sample's work environment may have inflated the
relationship between the instrument and the focal construct. Thus, we need to broaden the search for unipqe instruments of both constructs that are less
sample-specific and more generalizable across time, settings, and samples. Future research should also seek to identify appropriate common causal determinants of JS and OC and integrate them into more elaborate causal models (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). This would permit more meaningful comparison of results across studies.
Finally, the present findings have both theoretical and practical implications
Most researchers accept the position that JS is causally antecedent to OC.
Based largely on the use of static correlations between commitment and satisfaction or the use of cross-sectional designs, this position finds some research support in tests of broad theoretical modwls (e.g., lance, 1991; Marsh & Mannari, 1977; Vandenberg & Scarpello, 1990; Williams & Hazer, 1986). However, of the studies that specifically focus on the JS - OC relationship and that have used stronger research designs, none have supported the satisfaction-causes-commitment model. Colectively, findings suggest that we need to crarefully exmamine our premises concerning the JS - OC relationship in our theoretical models. Also,
both Bateman and Strasser's (1984:109-110) and Curry et al.'s (1986:848)
conclusions
remain valid concerning the practical implications of identifying the
appropriate
causal relationship between the JS and OC. Namely, many interventions are based upon theoretical models that include commitment and satisfaction as component constructs. Whitout understandin the causal relationship between the two constructs, these interventions may not have intended effects.
Reference
Bateman, T.S., & Strasser, S. 1983. A cross-lagged regression test of the relationships between job tension and employee satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psycholoby, 68:439-445. Bateman, T.S., & Strasser, S. 1984. A longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of organizational comitment. Acamemy of Management Journal, 27:95-112.
Bluedorn, A.C. 1982. A unified model of turnover from organizations. Human
Relations, 35:135-153.
Brief, A.P., Burke, M.J., George, J.M., Robinson, B.S., & Webster, J. 1988.
Should negativity remain an unmeasured variable in the study of job stress? Journal of Applied Psychology, 73: 193-198. Curry, J.P., Wakefield, D.S., Price, J.L., & Mueller, C.W. 1986. On the causal order of job satisfaction
and organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 29:847-858.
Dossett, D.J., & Suszko, M. 1990. Re-examing the causal direction between job
satisfaction and
organizational commintment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Society for
industrial and Organizational Psychology, Miami, Fl.
Farkas, A.J., & Tetrick, L.E. 1989. A three-wave longitudinal analysis of the
causal ordering of satisfaction and commitment on turnover decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74:855-868.
Farrell, D., & Rusbult, C.E. 1981. Exchange variables as predictors of job
satisfaction, job commitment and turnover: The impact of rewares, costs, alternatives and investments. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27:78-95.
Folger, R., & Konovosky, M.A 1989. Effects of procedural and distributive
justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32:115-130.
James, L.A., & James,L.R. 1989. Intergrating work environment preceptions:
Explorations into the measurement of meaning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74:739-751.
James,L.R., Mulaik, S.A., & Brett, J.M. 1982. Causal analysis: Assumptions,
models, and data. Beverly Hills, C.A: Sage.
James, L,R., & Singh, K. 1978. An introduction to the logic, assumptions, and
basic analytic procdedures of two-stage least squares. Psychological Bulletin, 85:1104-1122. James, L.R., & Terick, L.E., 1986. Confirmatory analytic tests of three causal models relating job perceptions to job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71:77-82.
Joreskog, K.G., & Srbom, D. 1986. LISREL VI: Analysis of linear structural
relationships by maxium liklihood. Chicago: National Ecucation Resources. Katz, K., & Kahan, R.L. 1978. The social psychology of organizations(2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Lance, C.E 1991. Evaluation of a structural model relating job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and precursors to voluntary turnover. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26: 137-162.
Locke, E.A., 1976. Nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M.D. Dunette, (ED)Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: 1297-1349. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Marsh, R.M., & Mannari, H. 1977. Organizational commitment and turnover: A
prediction study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22:57-75. Mathieu, J.E., & Zajac, D.M. 1990. A review and meta-analysis of the antecedentscorrelates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108: 171-194.
Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W., & Steers, R.M. 1982. Employee-organization
linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteesim, and turnover. New York: Academic Pres. Pierce, J.L., & Ducham, R.B. 1976. Econometric models and economic forecasting.New York; McGraw-Hill.
Porter, L.W., & Lawler, E.E. 1968. Managerial attitudes and performance.
Homeood, II: Irwin-Dorsey. Rogosa, D. 1980. A critique of corss-lagged correlation. Psychological Bulletin88: 245-258.
Rogosa, D. (1988). Myths about longitudinal research. In K. W. Schaie, R.T.
Robert J. Vandenberg "Examining the causal order of job satisfaction and organizational commitment". Journal of Management. . FindArticles.com. 28 Jan. 2009. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4256/is_n1_v18/ai_12289745
Journal of ExtensionJune 1994Volume 32 Number 1Job Satisfaction and Commitment of 4-H AgentsCathy F. Bowen Assistant ProfessorInternet address: cobowen@psupen.psu.eduRama Radhakrishna Research Associate
Robin Keyser Assistant Professor
The Pennsylvania State UniversityDepartment of Agricultural and Extension Education
During the last two decades, several changes have been occurring in the family structure and society: (a) increasing number of working women, (b) an increased divorce rate, (c) more single parent families, and (d) an aging population (Engelbrecht & Nies, 1988). These changes in family structure may have implications for understanding the job satisfaction and organizational commitment of Extension agents. 4-H agents work closely with youths, adults, and volunteers in delivering Extension programs. They are in a position to observe how family and work variables influence each other from the perspective of children and adults. In addition, these agents' job satisfaction and organizational commitment may also be influenced by their own family situations and the nature of their position responsibilities. This study examined the relationships between job satisfaction, organizational commitment, family structure, and work characteristics of 4-H agents.
Procedures
The population for the study consisted of individuals who were members of the National Association of Extension 4-H Agents. A stratified random sample of 208 Extension agents was used for the study. Three sections were included in the questionnaire to collect data on: (a) job satisfaction (14 items), (b) commitment (15 items), and (c) demographic and work characteristics. The items for the job satisfaction and commitment sections were measured on a Likert-type scale. The scales for both job satisfaction and commitment ranged from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. The face and content validities were established using a panel of six faculty with extension responsibilities. Data were collected through a mail survey with 160 agents responding (77%). Post-hoc reliability analysis indicated that the questionnaire was reliable. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
Findings
The majority of the agents were female (54%), middle aged (39 years), married (67%), and almost all were white (97%). The highest degree held by more than half of the respondents was a master's degree (59%), followed by bachelor's (32%) and doctorate (7%) degrees. On average, agents had 11 years of work experience. The majority of agents had responsibilities in a single county (75%), and their salaries were paid from both state and county funding (71%). Agents were satisfied (mean = 4.13) with their jobs and were somewhat committed (mean = 3.61) to their state Cooperative Extension organization. Significant positive relationships were found between job satisfaction and commitment (r = .66; p<.001) indicating that agents who were satisfied with their jobs were also committed to their organizations. Similar findings were reported by Kemp (1967).
Job satisfaction of agents was significantly related to age (r = .26), gender (r = .16), marital status (r = -.25), and work experience (r = .24). Older (over 40 years of age), female, married and experienced agents were more satisfied than younger, male, single, and less experienced agents. On the other hand, job satisfaction of 4-H agents was not related to education level, geographic area of responsibility, and source of salary funding. This finding closely matches earlier studies of Bowen and Radhakrishna (1991) for agricultural education faculty and Kessler (1989) for extension professionals.
Commitment of agents was significantly related to age (r = .17), marital status (r = -.20) and work experience (r = .20). Agents who were older (over 40 years of age), married, and had worked longer for extension were more committed to their organizations than younger, single and less experienced agents. Educational level, gender, and source of salary funding were not related to organizational commitment.
Implications
Results of this study suggest that 4-H agents are satisfied with their jobs and are committed to cooperative extension. Older, married, and more experienced agents had higher levels of job satisfaction and were more committed to cooperative extension than younger, single, and less experienced agents. This suggests that younger, single, and less experienced agents may still be deciding what they want to do for a career. Deciding on a choice of work for life or for a given period of time may preclude job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Significant relationships between job satisfaction and commitment reinforces the suggestion that job satisfaction may preclude organizational commitment and the one does not exist without the other. Additional research to identify elements of job satisfaction for younger, less experienced 4-H agents could be useful. Staff development designers could incorporate information about job satisfaction in inservice opportunities. In addition, more experienced agents who may be mentoring younger agents could use this information to help increase younger agents' job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
References
Bowen, B. E., & Radhakrishna, R. B. (1991). Job satisfaction of agricultural education faculty: A constant phenomenon. Journal of Agricultural Education, 32, 16-22.
Engelbrecht, J. D., & Nies, J. (1988). Work/family interactions: Trends and applications. Journal of Home Economics, 80, 23-28.
Kemp, P. E. (1967). Commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of Cooperative Extension, 171-177.
Kessler, K. C. (1989). Job satisfaction and perceived inservice needs of Iowa cooperative extension personnel, Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, 1532A.
This article is online at http://www.joe.org/joe/1994june/rb2.html.
Management Of Ability, Organizational Commitment And Job Satisfaction, And Organizational Ethics
Organizational behavior is the study of the many factors that have an impact on how people and groups act, think, feel, and respond to work and organizations and how organizations respond to their environments. The study of organizational behavior can improve and change individual, group, and organizational behavior to attain individual, group and organizational goals. The focus of this paper will be to analyze the management of ability, organizational commitment and job satisfaction, and organizational ethics in the FMC Aberdeen and Green River facilities.In analyzing the ability of management of Aberdeen, it is clear to see that this facility is best described as relaxed. In organizations, ability can be managed by selecting individuals who have the necessary skills to accomplish tasks, placing employees in jobs that capitalize on their abilities and training employees to enhance their ability level (George & Jones, 61). Aberdeen was founded on family values instead of as a factory. It was based on the principle of participative management, trust of the workers, and respect for the individual (Clawson, 3). Bob Lancaster (Plant manager 1985-1987) managed in a style that eliminated fear in his employees. Management made their employees feel trusted and instilled a self-sufficient system where peer management was utilized to promote unity and comfort. Although Green River is a much larger organization, Keith Dailey can proceed to utilize such a managing style, attempting to function and organize his facility in a manner that demonstrates trust and a personal desire of his workers to help his facility stand out in the market. Dailey, as a manager, should proceed to monitor these activities and promote the ideas of trust and creativity instead of the normal fear and resentment most workers feel. Allowing advice, input and suggestions from his workers and implementing them will give the teams a greater sense of "belonging" to the organization.
Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment (2004)
Author: Jane Williams, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis- Industrial/Organizational Psychology
Date: 5/22/04
Basic Concepts & Definitions
Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment are two of the most prominent work attitudes examined in the work and organizational literature. These constructs also receive much attention within the more specific work-family literature. Researchers have often included both constructs in their examination of the relationships between work-family issues and work outcomes. Therefore, this entry will concurrently review both job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
Job Satisfaction: Job satisfaction is defined as "the extent to which people like (satisfaction) or dislike (dissatisfaction) their jobs" (Spector, 1997, p. 2). This definition suggests job satisfaction is a general or global affective reaction that individuals hold about their job. While researchers and practitioners most often measure global job satisfaction, there is also interest in measuring different "facets" or "dimensions" of satisfaction. Examination of these facet conditions is often useful for a more careful examination of employee satisfaction with critical job factors. Traditional job satisfaction facets include: co-workers, pay, job conditions, supervision, nature of the work and benefits.
Reliable and valid measures of both global and facet job satisfaction have been developed. Typical measures used include: The Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) (Spector, 1997); the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969); the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) (Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967); and the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) (Hackman & Olham, 1975).
Organizational Commitment: Meyer and Allen (1994) state that organizational commitment is "a psychological state that a) characterizes the employee's relationships with the organization, and b) has implications for the decision to continue membership in the organization" (p. 67). Other researchers use similar definitions that refer to an employee's attachment, goal congruency, identification, loyalty and allegiance to their organization.
Researchers generally agree there are three "foci" used to classify types of organizational commitment. The three types of commitment are affective, continuous, and normative commitment. Affective commitment refers to employees' perceptions of their emotional attachment to or identification with their organization. Continuous commitment refers to employees' perceptions of the costs associated with leaving the organization. Finally, normative commitment refers to employees' perceptions of their obligation to their organization. For instance, if an organization is loyal to the employee or has supported his/her educational efforts, the employee may report higher degrees of normative commitment. This three-pronged classification allows for identification of the underlying basis for each type of commitment and researchers have clarified the unique antecedents and outcomes related to each type (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). Like job satisfaction, reliable measures of the three types of commitment have also been developed and validated (Meyer & Allen, 1994).
Importance of Topic to Work-Family Studies
Job satisfaction may be the most frequently measured organizational variable in both research and applied settings. There are multiple reasons for interest in this work attitude. First, organizations are interested in simply assessing the current state of employee job satisfaction. Organizations often want to know the state of employee morale over time and thus, some form of job satisfaction measurement is generally included in employee opinion surveys.
Second, much work has been conducted to understand the antecedents of job satisfaction. Interesting lines of research have focused on whether job satisfaction can best be understood from a dispositional (Arvey, Bouchard, Segal & Abraham, 1989; Ilies & Judge, 2003; Staw & Ross, 1985), situational perspective (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Loher, Noe, Moeller, & Fitzgerald, 1985), or interactionist perspective. All perspectives have received support in the literature. For instance, research from the situational perspective has provided evidence that job and organizational characteristics have an impact job satisfaction (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Hulin, 1991; Loher et al., 1985). Using twin studies, Arvey et al. (1989) presented interesting work supporting a genetic influence on job satisfaction. Following up on this work, Ilies and Judge (2003) attempted to identify personality traits that might mediate the relationship between genetics and job satisfaction. They found that personality traits only partially mediated this relationship and suggested that perhaps other heritable traits, such as intelligence, may better explain this relationship.
Finally, understanding the correlates and outcomes related to job satisfaction are important to researchers and organizations. For instance, theories about the relationships between job satisfaction and important work variables such as life satisfaction, family satisfaction, work-family conflict, performance, withdrawal behaviors, and organizational citizenship have been developed and empirically examined (Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1994; Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985; Judge & Wantanabe, 1993; Organ & Ryan, 1995).
Organizational commitment is important to researchers and organizations because of the desire to retain a strong workforce. Researchers and practitioners are keenly interested in understanding the factors that influence an individual's decision to stay or leave an organization. While turnover is related to all three types of commitment, research suggests there may be unique relationships between the three types of commitment and other work-related outcomes (e.g., absenteeism, organizational citizenship behaviors, performance). Affective commitment tends to be most highly related to these outcomes. A review of the research suggests that researchers have typically focused on organizational outcomes and correlates of commitment. However, more recently, researchers are beginning to examine more individual-level correlates of affective commitment like stress, well-being, and work-family conflict (Meyer et al., 2002). This shift in focus is relevant to the current work, as work-life programs are often instituted to positively affect these individual-level constructs. (Murphy & Sauter, 2003).
State of the Literature
The overarching goal of the work-family literature is to examine the work-family interface and better understand the reciprocal influence that each domain has on the other. Within this literature, job satisfaction and organizational commitment have generally been examined as outcome variables, although some work does study them as important mediators of organizational processes. This entry focuses on four main areas of the research literature and as such is organized into 4 sections: organizational context, work-family conflict, alternative work schedules, and dependent care issues.
1. The Effects of Organizational Context: Researchers recognize that the degree to which employees' organizations are supportive of work-family issues has a significant impact on an employee's ability to balance work-family roles. One way researchers examine this issue is by assessing employees' perceptions that their organization is supportive of efforts to balance work and family. Researchers predict that positive perceptions of one's environment will be related to important work and individual outcomes. They argue that measuring perceptions of the environment as well as objective elements of the environment (e.g., family supportive programs and policies) is important, as the effects may differ. For instance, while organizations may have policies and procedures in place to support family-work balance, the underlying culture of the organization may not support actually utilizing those benefits. Thus, employees' perceptions of the organizational context may be more highly related to individual and work outcomes than objective elements of the organization.
Thomas and Ganster (1995) examined the effect of two contextual elements, family-supportive policies (e.g., flexible schedules) and family-supportive supervisors on work-family conflict and individual level strain variables (e.g., job satisfaction, depression, absenteeism). They found direct and indirect support for the effect of family-supportive supervisors on job satisfaction. Their findings indicate work-family conflict and control partially mediated the relationship between the contextual elements and job satisfaction. Thompson, Beauvais, and Lyness (1999) continued this line of research by developing a work-family culture measure and examined its relationship with a host of outcomes measures (including affective commitment). They defined culture through three factors; managerial supportiveness, career consequences and organizational time demands. They found employee perceptions of work-family culture were positively related to affective commitment after controlling for benefit utilization and demographic variables. Specifically, perceptions of lower organizational time demands were related to higher levels of affective commitment.
Allen (2001) extended the work of Thomas and Ganster (1995) and Thompson et al. (1999) by developing a family supportive work environment (FSOP) measure. Allen's measure assesses three elements of the environment: family-supportive policies, family-supportive supervisor, and family-supportive organization. Consistent with previous work, she found FSOP was positively related to job satisfaction and affective commitment, after controlling for benefit availability and supervisor support.
A recent study by Behson (2002) examined these effects a bit more closely. He sought to determine whether the specificity of the supportiveness measures influenced the outcomes. This study examined whether general measures of organizational supportiveness and more focal supportiveness measures (i.e., work family culture and perceptions of family supportiveness) differentially predicted important organizational outcomes. He argued that previous research has not considered these measures simultaneously and predicted that the general measure of organizational supportiveness would more strongly predict global outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction and affective commitment) and the focal measure would predict specific outcome (e.g., work to family and family to work conflict). The results suggest that, as predicted, the more specific measure of supportiveness did account for variance in work-family specific outcomes. However, the specific measure did not account for variability in job satisfaction and affective commitment beyond the more general measure of organizational supportiveness. This finding was supported for both men and women and parents and non-parents. On a related note, Casper, Martin, Buffardi, and Erdwins (2002) also found a significant relationship between perceived organizational support (a general measure of support) and both affective and continuance commitment.
Finally, Berg, Kalleberg, and Appelbaum (2003) examined whether a high-commitment environment would positively impact work-family balance, in part through its affect on organizational commitment. In their study, a high-commitment environment was defined as one that provides intrinsically rewarding jobs, has supportive supervisors and high performance work practices (which are more likely to include family friendly practices). They found affective commitment did partially mediate the relationships between high-commitment organizational practices and work-family balance.
Taken together, these results suggest employees' perceptions of their work environment are critical predictors of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Interestingly, across all definitions of a "supportive context", supervisor support was identified as an important component of the environment in each of the above studies. These results provide more evidence for the criticality of the supervisor for facilitating the balance of employee's work and life roles.
2. Work-Family Conflict: Work-family conflict (WFC) is defined as a form of inter-role conflict by which the pressures from the two domains create conflict in the other. For instance, pressures from the role of parent negatively impacts the employee role and vice versa. The direction of the conflict is a meaningful one and researchers now examine work to family conflict (WIF) and family to work conflict (FIW) as distinct, but related, concepts.
A great deal of research has examined the relationships between both general measures of work-family conflict and directional measures of conflict with job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In general, researchers find that work-family conflict is significantly and negatively related to job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Casper et al., 2002; Frone et al., 1992; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996; Perrewe, Hochwarter, & Kiewitz, 1999).
Meta-analytic Reviews • The results of individual studies are strengthened by three important empirical reviews. First, Kossek and Ozeki (1998) conducted a meta-analysis and found, based on 32 sample groups, that WFC, WIF and FIW were negatively correlated with job satisfaction (-.31, -.27. and -.18 respectively). Allen, Herst, Bruck, and Sutton (2000) conducted a meta-analytic review to examine the effects of work to family conflict on employment (e.g., job satisfaction, commitment, turnover, performance, and absenteeism), non-employment (e.g., life, marital and family satisfaction), and stress related outcomes. They identified 38 studies which examined the relationship between work to family conflict and job satisfaction, with individual study correlations ranging from +.14 to -.47 and six studies which examined the relationship between work to family conflict and organizational commitment with individual study correlations ranging from -.06 to -.42. The un-weighted mean correlations of -.23 and -.18 for job satisfaction and commitment respectively. Finally, Meyer et al. (2002) conducted a meta-analytic review of the organizational commitment literature. They report the average correlations between affective, continuance, and normative commitment (based on 9 studies) and work-family conflict as -.20, .24, and -.04 respectively.
Work-family Interface • Much of the early work-family conflict research focused on either the work or family domain. More recent research examines the reciprocal nature of the two spheres and acknowledges their mutual influences (Adams, King, & King, 1996; Frone et al., 1992; Frone, Yardley, & Markel, 1997). Job Satisfaction plays a central, mediating role in many of these models. Frone et al. (1992) developed a model of the work-family interface that jointly considers the effects of WIF and FIW on both domains. In their initial model, they examined the unique antecedents of both WIF and FIW, the reciprocal relationship between the conflict measures, and examined job distress (i.e., job dissatisfaction) as a mediator of the relationship between job factors, FIW, and depression. They found that FIW and WIF were reciprocally related and FIW was related to job distress. In addition, job distress was a significant mediator of the relationships between job factors, FIW, and employee depression. A cross-cultural study, conducted by Aryee, Luk, and Fields (1999), provided additional support for this model.
More recently, Frone et al. (1997) re-conceptualized the model to include both proximal and distal predictors of conflict. Again, they found that job distress (dissatisfaction) played a critical role in the model. Specifically, job dissatisfaction mediated the relationship between FIW and WIF. Interestingly, there was not a significant relationship between job dissatisfaction and work behaviors. In related work, Adams et al. (1996) found that job satisfaction significantly mediated the relationships between WIF and job involvement with life satisfaction.
Facet Satisfaction • Most of the literature reviewed above examined the relationships between WFC, FIW, and WIF on overall job satisfaction. Recently, two studies investigated the relationships between conflict and facet satisfaction. First, Boles, Howard, and Donofrio (2001) examined the relationships between WIF and FIW and facet satisfaction (e.g., pay, work, promotion, co-workers, supervision). They predicted both types of conflict would be significantly related to facet satisfaction. However, when considered together, Boles et al. believed WIF would be the more important predictor. Results suggested WIF was significantly related to all facet measures except satisfaction with co-workers and that FIW was significantly related to all facet measures except satisfaction with promotion. They concluded that WIF conflict more strongly predicts facet satisfaction than FIW.
Bruck, Allen, and Spector (2002) conducted a study with the goal of more carefully analyzing the relationships between specific types of conflict (i.e., time, behavior, or strain based) and global and facet job satisfaction (pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating conditions, coworkers, nature of work and communication). In general, their results support a negative relationship between WFC, WIF, FIW and both global and composite job satisfaction. In addition, they concluded that the relationships between FIW and WIF and composite satisfaction were higher than those for global satisfaction. More over, the results support the hypothesis that behaviorally based conflict (when behaviors in one role cannot be modified to be compatible with another role) has the strongest relationship with job satisfaction. Finally, Bruck et al. (2002) also examined whether there would be differential relationships across the job satisfaction facets. These tests revealed no significant differences across facets for any of the conflict measures. These results provide important implications for practitioners who are implementing organizational interventions designed to combat work-family conflict. It appears the focus should be on those interventions that may influence behaviorally based conflict.
Work-family Facilitation • Although the majority of research has focused on the negative outcomes associated with employee's attempts to manage dual roles, an emerging focus in the literature has been to examine the integrative or facilitative effects of managing multiple roles (Barnett & Hyde, 2001; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999; Wayne, Grzywacz, Carlson, & Kacmar, 2004a). Specifically, this work examines how participation in multiple roles can actually expand, rather than diminish resources and lead to increases in well-being. For instance, Greenhaus and Parasuranman (1999) discuss how work-family integration can have positive effects through increased role experiences, involvement, and attitude spillover. Barnett & Hyde (2001) also discuss the benefits of multiple roles and provide evidence that holding multiple roles improves the mental, physical and relationship health of workers. In addition, it appears that there is a buffering effect, such that success or satisfaction in one role may buffer the stress or dissatisfaction that evolves from another role. Finally, other positive outcomes such as increased income, benefits, social support, and self-efficacy may also develop as a result of managing multiple roles (Wayne et al., 2004a). In a recent empirical study, Wayne, Musisca, and Fleeson (2004b) examined whether there may be some beneficial effect of the dual roles. They predicted that, consistent with previous research, role conflict would be negatively related to outcomes. However, they also predicted there would be some facilitation or benefit derived from the dual roles. In support of this prediction, they found that WIF was negatively related to job satisfaction while work family facilitation was positively related to job satisfaction. Researchers are only beginning to provide theoretical models of the types of gains and benefits derived from one's multiple roles. Future research will certainly be conducted to more fully understand the complex outcomes that arise from the work-family interface.
Organizational Commitment • The amount of literature examining the WFC - organizational commitment literature is limited. In addition, the research that has been conducted has typically not examined the multidimensionality of either WFC or commitment. However, a recent study conducted by Casper et al. (2002) did examine these specific relationships for a group of working mothers. They found that WIF was positively related to continuance, but not affective commitment and that FIW was not related to either type of commitment.
3. Alternative Work Schedules: Organizations offer alternative work schedules to employees as a means to improve balance between work and non-work roles. Alternative work schedules are typically defined as any work schedule that has varying hours or is completed in less than five days a week. More specifically, alternative work schedules vary on the number of days a week an individual works (e.g., compressed work weeks) or by the time an individual starts or stops their day (e.g. flextime). Anecdotally, there are a whole host of other schedules that have developed in individual organizations, but typically research focuses on the effects of flextime and compressed work weeks. The impetus for using these schedules is they would promote better and easier work-life balance by providing either more time in the non-work role, or more flexibility with how and when time is distributed across the two roles.
Golembiewski and Proehl (1978; 1980) conducted some of the earliest work to review the effects of alternative work schedules on employee attitudes. They reported evidence suggesting alternative work schedules have positive effects on job satisfaction. Similarly, McGuire and Liro (1986) reported positive effects of flexible schedules on job satisfaction. The gender make-up of the workforce has changed greatly since that time (i.e., women now make up 49 % of the workforce)(2002 National Study of the Changing Workforce). Thus, recent studies have re-examined the effect of alternative work schedules on employee outcomes within this new workforce.
In general, research supports the positive effects of alternative work schedules (e.g., flextime, compressed work-weeks) on job satisfaction (Christensen & Staines, 1990; Olafson, 2003; Thomas & Ganster, 1995) and affective commitment (Grover & Crooker, 1995; Thompson et al., 1999). Grover and Crooker (1995) reported that flexible scheduling had a positive effect on affective commitment. Baltes, Briggs, Huff, Wright, and Neuman (1999) conducted a meta-analysis to assess the impact of flexible and compressed work schedules on work-related criteria, including job satisfaction. Results of this study suggest flexible and compressed work schedules positively influence employee job satisfaction.
Employee perceptions of usability and control have emerged as important factors in the outcomes related to alternative work schedules. Control refers to either the actual or perceived control an employee feels they have over their work schedule. Adams and Jex (1999) examined perceived control as a mediator of the relationship between time-management behaviors and job satisfaction. They found support for the mediating role of perceived control and also found that it indirectly influenced job satisfaction through FIW. Behson (2002) reported that the ability to make informal work accommodations for family moderated the relationship between FIW and work stress, which predicted job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In addition, control over schedule predicted informal work accommodations. Most recently, Eaton (2003) examined the effects of the formality of the policy and perceptions of usability on organizational commitment. In her study, when employees perceived that flexibility policies were not truly available to them, they reported lower organizational commitment. Similarly, she found support for the effect of perceived control over schedule on organizational commitment.
The empirical support for the effects of these schedules on employee attitudes, while positive, is limited. Continued research in this area seems warranted, especially for the effects on affective commitment. In addition, organizations continue to implement new ways to structure work (e.g., virtual office, telecommuting) and this will require continued research on both individual and work outcomes (Hill, Ferris, & Martinson, 2003). Finally, research is also beginning to acknowledge that employee's actual or perceived control are important factors when considering family-responsive policies like alternative work schedules (Glass & Finley, 2002).
4. Dependent Care: One of the primary roles that impacts work-family conflict is that of caregiver. Whether this care is being given to a child or an elder, the responsibilities that result from this role have an impact on employee's ability to balance work and family (Kossek & Nichol, 1992). Researchers acknowledge that the number and age of the dependents may have an impact on conflict. Thus, some research has included the level of family responsibility as a critical factor (Rothausen, 1999).
Rothausen (1994) was among the first to examine the job satisfaction of parent and non-parent workers. She argued that depending upon one's parental status, the factors that influence or determine job satisfaction would differ. For instance, due to family involvement and increased family responsibility, she predicted non-traditional facets (e.g., flexibility) would better determine overall level of job satisfaction for parents. As predicted, Rothausen reported unique factors do appear to determine overall job satisfaction for parent workers.
Grover and Crooker (1995) examined the effect family-responsive policies (alternative work schedules, family-leave policies, and child care assistance) had on affective commitment and intentions to leave. They examined these affects for all employees in the sample as well as for those who would benefit greatest from the majority of the policies (i.e., caregivers, young parents). They found the existence of these policies did significantly predict affective commitment. However, this effect was primarily driven by the influence of flexible scheduling. When they considered the role of individual, Grover and Crooker found that individuals with young children who were eligible for child-care information (e.g., referrals) reported the highest affective commitment.
Buffardi and Erdwins (1997) examined the impact that employer sensitivity to child-care needs and child-care satisfaction had on both job satisfaction and organizational commitment of employed women. Sensitivity of employer refers to issues like flexible work hours, accepting phone calls related to child-care, missing work due to child's illness and overall attitude toward child-care needs. Child-care satisfaction was defined by three factors: caregiver communication, dependability and attentiveness. The results clearly suggested employer sensitivity to child-care needs was strongly related to affective commitment and job satisfaction. Further, it appears that caregiver attentiveness (amount of attention given, physical facilities) may also be a significant predictor of both job attitudes.
In subsequent work, Buffardi, Smith, O'Brien, and Erdwins (1999) examined the impact of child and elder care on facet job satisfaction. They considered both the number of dependents, age of children, and gender of the care-giver. Results suggested individuals providing elder care were significantly less satisfied in a number of areas (e.g., support, pay, leave, and work-family balance). Interestingly, individuals with children reported lower satisfaction in only two areas: satisfaction with leave benefits and work-family balance. They concluded that elder care may be a more recent issue, compared to child-care, and thus there may be fewer organizational supports for individuals providing such care. Buffardi et al. also identified some significant interactions with gender, which suggested these relationships were stronger for women than men. This finding is not surprising, given that women still provide the majority of care for children and elders.
Implications for Policy and Practice
The evidence presented above clearly suggests that work attitudes are important factors in work-family integration literature. Aspects of the context, supervisory behavior, organizational interventions and family friendly policies have all shown to be important predictors of both job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Although research has predominantly focused on the negative aspects of balancing work and family, research is beginning to acknowledge that the integration of these roles may also be beneficial for individuals (Barnett & Hyde, 2001; Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 2002; Wayne et al., 2004b). Research is needed to more fully understand the positive impact of the dual role from this "expansionist theory" (Barnett & Hyde, 2001). For instance, we need to understand more clearly the facilitation construct (Wayne et al., 2004a) and how it related to work attitudes as well as attitudes towards one's family and individual's well-being.
In addition, although some research has examined how the work-family interface process may differ for men and women, more research is needed to explicate these findings (Barnett & Hyde, 2001). For instance, does the process of facilitation and its outcomes differ for men and women? Are certain factors more crucial to facilitation for men than women and what are the effects on work-related and other-related attitudes? In addition, continued research is needed to understand both the positive and negative effects of family-responsive policies like alternative work schedules on a larger set of work attitudes (i.e., beyond job satisfaction). Finally, job satisfaction has been included in this body of work to a greater degree than organizational commitment. Additional research that incorporates the multiple dimensions of organizational commitment is encouraged and warranted.
References
Adams, G. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1996). Relationships of job and family involvement, family social support, and work-family conflict with job and life satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 411-420.
Adams, G. A., & Jex, S. M. (1999). Relationships between time management, control, work-family conflict, and strain. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 72-77.
Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414-435.
Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 278-308.
Arvey, R. D., Bouchard, T. J., Segal, N. L., & Abraham, L. M. (1989). Job satisfaction: Environmental and genetic components. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 187-192.
Ayree, S., Luk, V., & Fields, D. (1999). A cross-cultural test of a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Management, 25, 491-511.
Baltes, B. B., Briggs, T. E., Huff, J. W., Wright, J. A., & Neuman, G. A. (1999). Flexible and compressed workweek schedules: A meta-analysis of their effects on work-related criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 496-513.
Behson, S. J. (2002). Which dominates? The relative importance of work-family organizational support and general organizational context on employee outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 53-72.
Behson, S. J. (2002). Coping with family to work conflict: The role of informal work accommodations to family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 324-341.
Berg, P., Kallebert, A. L., & Appelbaum, E. (2003). Balancing work and family: The role of high-commitment environments. Industrial Relations, 42, 168- 188.
Boles, J. S., Howard, G. W., & Donofrio, H. H. (2001). An investigation into the inter-relationships of work-family conflict, family-work conflict and work satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, 376-390.
Bruck, C. S., Allen, T. D., & Spector, P. E. (2002). The relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction: A finer-grained analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 336-353.
Buffardi, L. C., & Erdwins, C. J. (1997). Child-care satisfaction: Linkages to work attitudes, interrole conflict, and maternal separation anxiety. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2, 84-96.
Buffardi, L. C., Smith, J. L., O'Brien, A. S., & Erdwins, B. J. (1999). The impact of dependent-care responsibility and gender on work attitudes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 356-367.
Casper, W. J., Martin, J. A., Buffardi, L. C., & Erdwins, C. J. (2002). Work-family conflict, perceived organizational support, and organizational commitment among employed mothers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 99-108.
Christensen, K. E, & Staines, G. L. (1990). Flextime: A viable solution to work/family conflict? Journal of Family Issues, 11, 455-476.
Eaton, S. C. (2003). If you can use them: Flexibility policies, organizational commitment, and perceived performance. Industrial Relations, 42, 145-167.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65-78.
Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the work-family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 145-167.
Glass, J. L., & Finely, A. (2002). Coverage and effectiveness of family-responsive workplace policies. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 313-337.
Golembiewski, R. T., & Proehl, C. W. (1978). A survey of empirical literature on flexible workhours: Character and consequences of a major innovation. The Academy of Management Review, 3, 837-853.
Golembiewski, R. T., & Proehl, C. W. (1980). Public sector applications of flexible work hours: A review of available experience. Public Administration Review, 40, 72-85.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76-88.
Grover, S. L., & Crooker, K. J. (1995). Who appreciates family-responsive human resource policies: The impact of family-friendly policies on the organizational attachment of parents and non-parents. Personnel Psychology, 48, 271-288.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170.
Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, January-February.
Hill, E. J., Ferris, M., & Martinson, V. (2003). Does it matter where you work? A comparison of how three work venues (traditional office, virtual office, and home office) influence aspects of work and personal/family life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 220-241.
Hulin, C. L. (1991). Adaptation, commitment, and persistence in organizations. In M.D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd Ed., Col. 2, pp 445-505). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Iaffaldano, M. T., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 251-273.
Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2003). On the heritability of job satisfaction: The meditating role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 750-759.
Judge, T. A., & Watanabe, S. (1993). Another look at the job satisfaction-life satisfaction relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 939-948.
Kossek, E, E., & Nichol, V. (1992). The effects of in-site child care on employee attitudes and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 45, 485-509.
Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work-family conflict, policies, and the job-life satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior-human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139-149.
Loher, B. T., Noe, R. A., Moeller, N. L., & Fitzgerald, M. P. (1985). A meta-analysis of the relation of job characteristics to job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 280-289.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., and Topolnyutsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52.
McGuire, J. B., & Liro, J. R. (1986). Flexible work schedules, work attitudes, and perceptions of productivity. Public Personnel Management, 15, 65-73.
Murphy, L. R., & Sauter, S. L. (2003). The USA perspective: Current issues and trends in the management of work stress. Australian Psychologist, 38, 151-157.
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 400-410.
Olafson, K. (2003). Alternative work schedules: The effects of individual and family moderators and mediators of work and family outcomes. Unpublished Masters Thesis. Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802.
Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Toward reducing some critical gaps in work-family research. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 299-312.
Perrewe, P. L., Hochwarter, W. A., & Kiewitz, C. (1999). Value attainment: An explanation for the negative effects of work-family conflict on job and life satisfaction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 318-326.
Rothausen, T. J. (1994). Job satisfaction and the parent worker: The role of flexibility and rewards. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 317-336.
Rothausen, T. J. (1999). "Family" in organizational research: A review and comparison of definitions and measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 817-836.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224-253.
Smith, P.C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L (1969). Measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the midst of change: A dispositional approach to job attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 469-480.
Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 6-15.
Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). When work-family benefits are not enough: The influence of work-family culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 392-415.
Wayne, J. H., Grzywacz, J. G., Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2004a). Defining work-family faciliation: A construct reflecting the positive side of the work-family interface. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial/Organizational Psychology. May, 2004. Chicago; Illinois.
Wayne, J. H., Musisca, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004b). Considering the role of personality in the work-family experience: Relationships of the big five to work-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 108-130.
Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Logquist, L. H. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire. (Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, No. 22). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Other Recommended Readings on this Topic:
(Click on titles to link to citations/annotations in the Literature Database.)
Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 278-308.
Baltes, B. B., Briggs, T. E., Huff, J. W., Wright, J. A., & Neuman, G. A. (1999). Flexible and compressed workweek schedules: A meta-analysis of their effects on work-related criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 496-513.
Bruck, C. S., Allen, T. D., & Specter, P. E. (2002). The relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction: A finer-grained analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 336-353.
Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the work-family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 145-167.
Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work-family conflict, policies, and the job-life satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior-human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139-149.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., and Topolnyutsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52.
Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Toward reducing some critical gaps in work-family research. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 299-312.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). When work-family benefits are not enough: The influence of work-family culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 392-415.
Locations in the Matrix of Information Domains of the Work-Family Area of Studies
The Editorial Board of the Teaching Resources section of the Sloan Work and Family Research Network has prepared a Matrix as a way to locate important work-family topics in the broad area of work-family studies. (More about the Matrix…)To download the matrix, click here: http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/downloads/Job_Satisfaction.pdf
Posts
