JOB SATISFACTION & ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

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