This article was downloaded by: [188.25.102.

20] On: 11 March 2014, At: 06:10 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Adolescence and Youth

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rady20

Young Adults in their First Job: The Role of Organizational Factors in Determining Job Satisfaction and Turnover
A. W. Taris , E. G. van der Velde , J. A. Feij & J. H.M. van Gastel
a a a a a

Vrije Universiteit of Amsterdam, Dept. of Work and Organizational Psychology , De Boelelaan 1081, 1081 , HV Amsterdam , The Netherlands Published online: 27 Mar 2012.

To cite this article: A. W. Taris , E. G. van der Velde , J. A. Feij & J. H.M. van Gastel (1992) Young Adults in their First Job: The Role of Organizational Factors in Determining Job Satisfaction and Turnover, International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 4:1, 51-71, DOI: 10.1080/02673843.1992.9747723 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02673843.1992.9747723

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform. Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,

Downloaded by [188.25.102.20] at 06:10 11 March 2014

completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Versions of published Taylor & Francis and Routledge Open articles and Taylor & Francis and Routledge Open Select articles posted to institutional or subject repositories or any other third-party website are without warranty from Taylor & Francis of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. Any opinions and views expressed in this article are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor & Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions Taylor & Francis and Routledge Open articles are normally published under a Creative Commons Attribution License http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/. However, authors may opt to publish under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ Taylor & Francis and Routledge Open Select articles are currently published under a license to publish, which is based upon the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial No-Derivatives License, but allows for text and data mining of work. Authors also have the option of publishing an Open Select article under the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/. It is essential that you check the license status of any given Open and Open Select article to confirm conditions of access and use.

International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 1992, Volume 4, pp. 51-71

0267-3843/92 $10 1992 AB Academic Publishers

Printed in Great Britain

Young Adults in their First Job: The Role of Organizational Factors in Determining Job Satisfaction and Turnover*
Downloaded by [188.25.102.20] at 06:10 11 March 2014

A.W. Taris, E.G. van der Velde, J.A. Feij and J .H.M. van Gas tel
Vrije Universiteit of Amsterdam, Dept. of Work and Organizational Psychology, De Boelelaan 1081, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT
The present paper investigates which organizational factors determine job satisfaction and turnover of young adults in The Netherlands. Factors included are organizational quality, relations with the supervisor and the co-workers, and socialization tactics. These variables are expected to affect job clarity (absence of ambiguity, and absence of role conflict) and experienced fit between the current job and interests, previous work experiences and vocational training. These, in turn, should affect job satisfaction. Turnover-as measured retrospectively after one year-should be influenced by job satisfaction. The sample consists of 234 young people of 19,7 years old, having worked in their first full-time job for about 6 months. Using LISREL-analysis, we investigate the effects of the organizational variables, fit and clarity on satisfaction. The results indicate that our hypotheses are generally tenable. However, the effect between organizational quality and job clarity is negative, and not-as expected-positive. Furthermore, we present a discrete-time event history-analysis investigating the effects of all aforementioned variables on the *This publication is based on data that was gathered within the framework of an international study concerning the Work Socialization of Youth (WOSY). The WOSY International Research Group consists of: Michael Banks, Rita Claes, Pol Coetsier, Marco Depolo, Jan Feij, ltzhak Harpaz, Jorge Correia Jesuino, Anne Lancry-Hoestlandt, Brian Parkinson, Jose Maria Pein), Antonio Ruiz Quintanilla, Guido Sarchielli, Hubert Touzard, and William Whitely. The Dutch WOSY-study is part of the research program The process of socialization of young adults'. This program is conducted at the Vrije Universiteit of Amsterdam by the Department of Social Research Methodology and the Department of Work and Organizational Psychology.

51

52
actual turnover behavior. The results indicate that turnover of young adults can only to a very small degree be explained by organizational factors, job satisfaction, fit and job clarity.

INTRODUCTION
For young people on their way to maturity, the transition from school to work marks the beginning of a new phase in their lives. No longer financially dependent on their parents, they may feel confident and a part of the adult world. However, the working life may have its darker side. There may, for instance, be strains in relations with their colleagues or their boss, the match between vocational training and the content of the job may be bad, or the experienced pressure of work may be too high. Such factors-but others too-may cause the transition from school to work (and consequently the process of socialization in the adult world) to run less smooth than would be desirable. For the subject, bad socialization might result in feelings of uselessness, job stress, and low job satisfaction. From the organizational viewpoint, employing badly socialized workers may result in low production, high turnover rates and successive financial loss because of the costs of training the new employees. Therefore, research addressing the factors that lead to a successful work socialization is of considerable importance. Different indicators for the success of the socialization process have been proposed. For instance, Betz, Weiss, Davis, England and Lofquist (1966) and Coetsier, Claes and Berings (1987) consider high job satisfaction as a primary indicator for successful socialization. They are not alone: indeed, Edwards (1991; p. 287) even states 'By far, the outcome that has received the most attention is job satisfaction'. Both person- and work-related factors have shown to be important in determining job satisfaction. On the basis of a review of earlier research, Arvey, Carter and Buerkley (1991) estimate the net percent of variance explained by person-related factors to be 10-30%, job-related factors account for 40-60%, and interactive elements explain 10-20%. Another often-used indicator for successful socialization is the turnover behavior. Many studies show important negative relationships between satisfaction on the one hand, and turnover on the other (among others, Kleinke-Hamel and Mathieu, 1990; Lee and Mowday, 1987; Michaels and Spector, 1982; Mobley, Griffeth, Hand and Meglino, 1979; Muchinsky and Tuttle, 1979; Schultz and Buunk, 1990; Taris, Heesink, Feij, VanderVelde and Van Castel, 1991). Thus, there seems little need for yet another

Downloaded by [188.25.102.20] at 06:10 11 March 2014

53

Downloaded by [188.25.102.20] at 06:10 11 March 2014

study adressing work satisfaction and turnover behavior. However, most studies employ data sampled from the population of adult workers. There is some evidence that for younger employees a different process is operating than for more experienced workers. For example, Andrisani states that' ... young employees are often less satisfied with their job than elderly employees. [... ] It does not appear that young workers have a lower commitment to work than their elders. The problem lies in the interaction between work itself and the changing social character of today's generation ... ' (1978; p. 39). Some researchers even assert that job satisfaction means something different to younger workers than to more experienced employees (Feldman, 1981). For older employees, a high work satisfaction should merely indicate habituation, rather than satisfaction. Apart from these conceptual difficulties, it seems plausible that for young adults at the start of their working life, work satisfaction may be determined by other factors than for more experienced workers. For example, young employees will probably tend to rely much more on the things they learned during vocational training than older employees, who bring a lot of experience with them. They have not had earlier full-time jobs, so they are less able to contrast their current job with previous experiences, etc. However, research considering work satisfaction and turnover behavior of young adults is considerably less common than studies employing samples that include more experienced workers. In this paper we aim to provide some material to fill this gap. More explicitly, we strive to answer the following questions:
1. Which factors determine the level of work satisfaction of young

adults in their first full-time employment? We will limit ourselves here to (perceived) organizational characteristics, because previous research suggests that these are most important in determining satisfaction (Arvey et al., 1991: using a different but comparable sample Taris et al. (1991) found that person-bound factors such as intrinsic and extrinsic motivations and work centrality are really of minor importance in explaining both satisfaction and turnover behavior). 2. Which factors determine the actual turnover behavior, as measured retrospectively one year after the first interview? As a starting point for this study we used the model of Mobley et al. (1979), which was based on an extensive literature review. A schematic and slightly simplified version of the model is given in Figure 1.

54
organizational characteristics job-related perceptions

characteristics

;" "'" I \
values

-+

Intention satisfaction __.,. to search__.,. turnover

Downloaded by [188.25.102.20] at 06:10 11 March 2014

economic labor market labor market characteristics _ _.,. perceptions

'\

Figure 1. Simplified Mobley et al. (1979) model of turnover

The Mobley model was primarily intended as an overall description of the turnover process. The attention of most researchers has been focused on the causal chain from job satisfaction via intention to quit to turnover behavior (i.e. Arnold and Feldman, 1982; Miller, Katerberg and Hulin, 1979; Michaels and Spector, 1982; Taris eta!., 1991; Van den Berg and Feij, 1991). The results of these authors indicate that this part of the model gives an adequate representation of the data. However, we are also interested in the variables that causally precede job satisfaction. As can be seen from Figure 1, the model explains work satisfaction as a function of organizational characteristics (such as the common practices and policy of the organization, and supervisor and coworker relations), and individual characteristics (such as age and tenure). As our sample is homogeneous with respect to age, tenure, and labor market position, we feel no need to include these variables explicitly in our model.I Mobley eta!. (1979) emphasize that the effects of the organizational characteristics are mediated by individual perceptions, and expectations. Many models of organizational or work socialization have been proposed. Fisher (1986) has shown on the basis of a literature review, that most models include three different stages in the process of socialization. The first phase is the preparatory stage, during which the subject chooses a job and an organization to work for. During the second stage there is a confrontation between the expectations regarding work and work reality. In this stage,
JHowever, we have tested models that included age, tenure and sex as controls. The results are reported in footnote 2.

55

possible conflicts and ambiguities are resolved. In this phase, not only the current (new) role is important: previous roles are also significant. For instance, a bad fit between former work experiences and the current job may hinder the learning of the new role, because the subject first has to forget (parts of) earlier roles (Louis, 1980). The third stage is of acceptation; signs of mutual acceptance between the organization and the employee are exchanged. For instance, the organization may raise the wage of the subject, while work satisfaction and commitment (or the reverse: turnover) may be seen as indicators for the successful socialization of a subject. Effects from the fit between the previous roles and the current role on satisfaction and turnover have been found by Lofquist and Davis (1969) and Wanous (1980). Thus, the fit between the current and the former roles might be a factor in the socialization process (see also Frese, 1984). As LaRocco, House and French (1980) state, many objective work situations and conditions may give rise to feelings of stress. A perceived incongruence or lack of fit between person and work environment may lead to job stress (such as feelings of excessive work load or role conflict), which may in turn may influence general feelings about work, such as job satisfaction and the intention to leave. We may distinguish two different aspects of what may be called job clarify. First, if a worker experiences incompatibilities in the loyalties to different people at work, he/she is likely to have feelings of role conflict. This may lead to stress and, eventually, to a low work satisfaction and leaving the organization. Second, the procedures at work should be clear. Especially for our sample of young adults in their first full-time job, rigid rules for performing the different tasks of the job are needed. If these rules are not present or vague, the employee is expected to experience ambiguity. Again, this is expected to lead to job stress, dissatisfaction and turnover. Thus, employees reporting high job satisfaction and a low intention to quit should experience a high job clarity and a good fit between the current and the former roles. But, which organiza tiona! factors promote these favorable attitudes? As Coetsier et al. (1987) point out, especially young people in their first job have a need for social contacts, providing the information they need to perform their duties in a proper way. Furthermore, this is the way the formal and informal rules and procedures of the organization are communicated. Meglino, Bruce and Adkins (1989) show for instance that work satisfaction of employees increases if there is a strong congruence between the values of the worker and the

Downloaded by [188.25.102.20] at 06:10 11 March 2014

56

Downloaded by [188.25.102.20] at 06:10 11 March 2014

values of the supervisor. Therefore, we expect feedback from the supervisor and the co-workers concerning the tasks to be performed to affect job clarity and the experienced fit. Given the sample employed here, the way the new employees are introduced in the organization may be of considerable importance in determining work satisfaction and turnover rates. Among others, Fisher (1986), VanMaanen and Schein (1979) and Jones (1986) have studied the socialization tactics as they are exercised by organizations. These tactics aim to reduce uncertainty and stress concerning the introduction in the organization, for instance by providing or withholding specific information, or letting experienced colleagues act as a mentor or guide. The relation between these socialization tactics and the expected work outcomes (for instance, adaptation, satisfaction, or innovative behavior) has, however, hardly been examined (Fisher, 1986). In this study we focus on the 'serial' versus 'disjunctive' dimension of socialization tactics (VanMaanen and Schein, 1979). Furthermore, it is to be expected that work satisfaction and turnover are influenced by what Jones (1986) termed organizational quality. This concept is defined as the degree to which an organization stresses the learning of new skills. High-quality organizations enable their employees to satisfy their intrinsic growth needs by making the tasks of the employee increasingly complex. Effects of the possibilities of a job to satisfy intrinsic growth needs have been found by Lindsay and Knox (1984), Taris et al. (1991), and Wilpert and Ruiz Quintanilla (1984).

Variables and the model to be tested

On the basis of the aforementioned theoretical considerations, we constructed a model containing five clusters of variables:
A. Organizational factors. This cluster includes organizational quality, defined in terms of the stress that an organization places on learning new skills; the quality of the relation with the supervisor; the quality of the relation with the co-workers; and the socialization tactics used by the organization in introducing the subject in the organization. It should be noted that these variables (like all others in this study) represent subjective measures, i.e. the perceptions of the subjects in this study. We do realize that the link between objective organizational characteristics and the subjective perception of these by the subjects may be rather weak. However, among

57

B.

C.
Downloaded by [188.25.102.20] at 06:10 11 March 2014

D. E.

others Mobley et al. (1979) state that it is the perception of organizational factors that matters in determining satisfaction and turnover, rather than the objective factors itself (see also Keller & Holland, 1981; Mortimer, Lorence & Kumka, 1986). Thus, we decided to accept the subjective measures as proxies to the objective organizational characteristics. Fit. This cluster of variables consists of measures for the perceived (subjective) fit between the current job at the one hand, and former (part-time) work experiences, interests and vocational training at the other. Job clarity. This cluster includes absence of ambiguity and absence of role conflict. Job satisfaction, that is, a combination of specific indicators of satisfaction and a measure of overall job satisfaction. Turnover, as measured retrospectively after one year after the first interview. This means that employees who quit the job within the first 6 months of their appointment are not included in the sample (see section 'sample').

The model to be tested is presented in Figure 2. It will be split in two separate parts. The first part includes the clusters of organizational factors, fit, job clarity and job satisfaction. The second part consists of turnover as the dependent variable, and all other variables as independents. The reasons for this somewhat artificial separation will be made clear in the next section.
organizational quality relation supervisor relation co-workers socialization tactics

JOB CLARITY

Figure 2. The model to be tested

METHOD

Sample
The data was gathered within the framework of a large international panel study concerning the work socialization of

58

youth (WOSY International Research Group, 1989a; Whitely, Peiro and Sarchielli, 1992). The participating countries are Belgium, France, Germany, England, Israel, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the USA. In this paper, onlyrhe data collected in the Netherlands are used. Reason for this is that only the Dutch data set contains information about the perceived fit of the current job with former work experiences, interests and vocational training. The sample to be analyzed consists of 263 young adults who had been working in the current (first) job for about 6 months. The mean age of the subjects at the first wave was 19,7 years. The sample is stratified according to organizational branch. The first stratum consists of 134 people sampled from the office automation branch. The second stratum (N = 129) is sampled from machine operators. In both strata, the subjects are performing relatively low-level tasks which require some vocational training. The sample is quite homogeneous concerning their labour market situation, which is favourable for both strata. The first wave of the study was accomplished during the fall of 1989. The subjects participated in a structured interview, in which attitudes and opinions concerning their work (such as work satisfaction and perceived ambiguity) as well as some background factors (such as age and sex) were measured, by means of a questionnaire (WOSY International Research Group, 1989b). A year later (fall 1990) the subjects were asked to join the second wave, during which the work career was reconstructed over the past year. The clusters containing the organizational factors, fit, job clarity and job satisfaction were measured at the first wave. Applying listwise deletion of missing data, the sample to be analyzed consists of 234 subjects. Using the data from the second wave, we were able to construct a variable that indicates whether the subject had quit the organization within the year past, or not. Additionally, we knew whether this happened within 3 months after the first interview, within 3-6 months, within 6-9 months, or within 9-12 months. Due to panel attrition and applying listwise deletion of missing data, the size of the sample to be used in the second analysis was reduced to 215.

Downloaded by [188.25.102.20] at 06:10 11 March 2014

Operationalizations
Most of the variables used in this analysis were measured using the WOSY -questionnaire (WOSY International Research Group,

59

Downloaded by [188.25.102.20] at 06:10 11 March 2014

1989b). However, the standard WOSY -questionnaire does not include measures for the fit between the current job content and previous work experiences, interexts and vocational training. To measure these concepts some extra items were added to the questionnaire (Van Castel and Feij, 1989a, 1989b). Furthermore, reliability analysis indicated that occasionally the standard construction of the scales, using the WOSY -procedures, led to an unacceptably low reliability. In these cases we have constructed scales that differ slightly from the scales constructed by the WOSY International Research Group. However, we feel these alterations do not really change the meaning of the scales. Translations of the exact wordings of the items used as well as the reliability coefficients of the scales are given in appendix I. Appendix II presents the correlation matrix, means and standard deviations of all variables.

Statistical procedures and specification of the models

In this paper we report the results of two analyses. In the first analysis we analyze the first part of the model as depicted in Figure 2 (from organizational factors to work satisfaction). The second analysis concentrates on the factors that determine actual turnover, as measured one year later. The results of the first analysis reported in this paper are obtained using the LISREL-7 program (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1988). As a starting model, the first part of the model in Figure 2 was used. We assumed a priori that the independent variables were possibly correlated. For instance, organizational quality and socialization tactics may be interrelated. Given the goal of this paper we do not, however, pursue to clarify this relation. Therefore, we allow for possible correlations between these independent variables without trying to interpret them. Perceived job clarity was specified as a latent variable. Theoretically, we assumed that both absence of ambiguity as well as absence of role conflict were indicators of this construct. Inspection of the correlation matrix showed a relatively low, but significant, correlation between the observed variables absence of ambiguity and absence of role conflict (r = .13). Therefore, although these variables measure only partly the same concept, they both have a large unique component. These differences have to be taken into account in specifying the model: applying a simple procedure (such as adding the scores on these variables) would not be appropriate. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the

60

hypothesis that both variables measured the same construct was tenable. Subsequently we entered the construct as a dependent variable in the overall LISREL-model. A similar strategy was applied in constructing the latent variable that represented the fit between the current job content and interests, vocational training and previous work experiences of the subject. These variables are moderately but significantly correlated (r ranges from .14 to .24), and show a comparable pattern of high and low correlations with the other variables included in the analysis. Again, confirmatory factor analysis empirically demonstrated that these three variables may be taken to be indicators of a single latent variable. The dependent variable in the second part of the model of Figure 2 is turnover. This was recorded for the one-year period between the two waves of the study, using retrospective questions. This period was divided in four three-month episodes. For each separate episode the subjects were asked to indicate whether they had left the organization they were working for during the previous episode. This type of data is often called 'event historydata' (Allison, 1982, 1984; Blossfeld, Hamerle and Mayer, 1989; Tuma and Hannan, 1984). It allows us to reconstruct the flow of the employment career of the subject between the first and the second wave. In this paper, we are only interested in the first transition (if any), that is, we want to know whether the subjects left the organizations they were working for at the moment of the first interview, or not. Additionally, we know whether this happened in the three-month period immediately after the first interview, after 3-6 months, after 6-9 months, or after 9-12 months. Thus, this data gives us not only information whether the subject left the organization or not, but also an indication of the elapsed time between the first interview and the moment of leaving. Using LISREL-analysis, we can not include both pieces of information. Commonly, only a dichotomous variable whether the subject left the organization is incorporated (cf. Arnold and Feldman, 1982; Taris et al., 1991). On the basis of their experiences with geographic mobility data, Sandefur and Tuma (1987) generally recommend that both pieces of information are used in the analysis, for instance by applying the discrete-time event history-procedure proposed by Allison (1982, 1984). In short, this procedure amounts to the following. Instead of subjects, we take the three-month periods as research units. A single subject contributes 1 episode at minimum, and 4 episodes at maximum to the data set to be analyzed. For example, if a subject

Downloaded by [188.25.102.20] at 06:10 11 March 2014

61

Downloaded by [188.25.102.20] at 06:10 11 March 2014

leaves an organization immediately after the first interview, only a single episode during which a change occurred is contributed. If a subject leaves after 9-12 months after the interview, 3 episodes during which no change occurred and 1 during which a change did occur are contributed. If a subject does not leave the organization, 4 episodes during which no change occurred are contributed to the data set. All episodes include a variable indicating whether a change occurred in this episode, or not. Subsequently, all episodes are pooled and used as an input in or a logit- or probit-analysis. These procedures are especially suited for dichotomous response variables (Aldrich and Nelson, 1984; Finney, 1971). Probit- and logit-analysis does not allow for latent variables. We therefore included the variables that in the LISREL-analysis were part of a latent variable as separate variables. The 215 subjects that had no missing values at any of the variables contributed in total 1053 episodes to the data set to be analyzed. Of these, 37 ended with a change of employers. Consequently, 17.2% (37 out of 215 subjects having no missing data at the second wave) left their job within one year after the first interview.

RESULTS First model: LISREL-analysis of satisfaction, fit and clarity

First we will report the results of the LISREL-analysis of the first part of the model depicted in Figure 2. We use this model as a nullmodel. This model did fit the data quite well: it did not have to be rejected at the 5% level (chi-square with 24 degrees of freedom= 29.52, p = .201). However, from the t-values it appeared that the estimate of the relation from co-worker relationship was not significantly different from zero. We therefore removed this effect from the model. The resulting model yields a chi-square value of 30.76 with 25 degrees of freedom (p=.197, GFI=.975, RMSR = .039). These values indicate that the model cannot be rejected; we therefore accept it as a reasonable guess concerning the causal mechanism that generated the data. Table 1 presents the standardized parameter estimates of all significant structural effects. As becomes clear from Table 1, the hypotheses to be tested are largely confirmed. As expected, job satisfaction is influenced by job clarity and the match between vocational training, interests and previous job experiences. The perceived fit between the

62

TABLE 1 Standardized LISREL-estimates (maximum likelihood) on Fit, Job Clarity and Job Satisfaction of the final model (except actual turnover)***. Total effects of independent variables on Job Satisfaction given in parenthesis. FIT FIT CLARITY SATISFACT
Downloaded by [188.25.102.20] at 06:10 11 March 2014

CLARITY

SATISFACT .650** .410**

ORGQUAL RELSUPER RELCOWORK SOCTACTIC R2

.454** .186* n.s. .175* .43

-.298* .394* .526** .370* .64

(.173) (.282) (.215) (.265)

.71

*estimate significant at p~ .05. **estimate significant at p~ .01. ***Chi-square with 25 degrees of freedom= 30.76 (p = .197, GFI= .975, RMSR= .039). N= 234. NB. ORGQUAL =organizational quality, RELSUPER =relation with supervisors, RELCOWORK = relation with coworkers, SOCTACTIC =socialization tactics, CLARITY= perceived (absence of) job ambiguity and role conflict, SA TISFACT =job satisfaction. current job content and interests, previous work experiences and vocational training is affected positively by organizational quality, relation with the supervisor, and socialization tactics. There are positive effects of relation with the supervisor, relation with the coworkers, and socialization tactics on job clarity. However, there is also an unexpected result. Contrary to our expectations, there is a significant negative effect from organizational quality on job clarity. Hence, the more the organization stresses acquiring new skills, the more the subject experiences feelings of uselessness, work stress and ambiguity. Inspection of the total effects of the independent variables on satisfaction (which are also provided by the LISREL-program) given in Table 1 shows that the total effect from organizational quality, via job clarity and fit, is still positive. Hence, the higher the organizational quality, the higher work satisfaction is. The negative effect on job clarity is also compensated for by the strong positive effect on fit. Still, when we compare the total effects of the other independent

63

Downloaded by [188.25.102.20] at 06:10 11 March 2014

variables on satisfaction with the effect of organizational quality, it turns out that organizational quality is the least important variable in determining job satisfaction. We tried to cross-validate this finding by comparing the correlations between role conflict, ambiguity and organizational quality using the data of the international data set. When we compared the correlation matrices of each country separately, no two correlation matrices showed an identical pattern of positive and negative effects. This provides some evidence that the findings presented here may not simply be generalized to other countries. It also demonstrates that in cross-national studies we should always check for interactioneffects of country; results may be biased if such controls are not included (cf. Banks, Feij, Parkinson and Peir6, 1992). Almost 71% of the variance in job satisfaction is accounted for by job clarity and fit. We consider this figure as satisfactory. The proportion of variance explained in job clarity and fit is also rather high (respectively .64 and .43), indicating that the explanatory variables that were selected were indeed important onesz.

Second model: discrete-time event history-analysis of turnover

Now we turn to the second part of the model presented in Figure 2. In this analysis, the dependent variable is actual turnover, as measured retrospectively during the one-year period between the first and the second wave of the study. We fitted a simple regression model to the data, using all variables included in the first (LISREL-)analysis as independent variables, and a variable indicating whether a subject left the organization in this specific episode as the dependent variable. The results are given in Table 2. Table 2 gives the regression estimates of both the full (first column) and the equation that includes only significant effects (second column, reduced-form equation). As can be seen from Table 2, only job satisfaction has a significant effect on turnover. All other effects are insignificant at p ~ .05. Thus, the more satisfied a subject is, the less are the chances on actual turnover. Unfortunately, logit-analysis does not provide an indication of the proportion of variance explained. However, the correlation between job satisfaction and turnover was only -.12, so we
zExcept for the model presented here, we have tested a model that included tenure, sex and age as independent variables as well. We did not expect these variables to have any important effects, because the sample is quite homogeneous concerning tenure and age. This was confirmed by the data. Neither did gender have any significant effect.

64

TABLE 2 Full and reduced-equation regression estimates of discrete-time event history-analysis of turnover (logit-model, N = 1052)*** full equation organizational quality superior relations coworker relations socialization tactics fit work-education fit work-interests fit work-former work exp. (absence of) role conflict (absence of) ambiguity job satisfaction intercept -1.784 2.000* .296 .821 -6.583 8.579 -5.395 1.250 -7.385 -3.904** 1.019 reduced-form equation

Downloaded by [188.25.102.20] at 06:10 11 March 2014

-1.851** 4.407**

*estimate significant at p~ .OS. **estimate significant at p~ .01. ***N is number of three-month episodes rather than subjects. tentatively conclude that only a small portion of the variance in turnover can explained by job satisfaction. Indeed, a weighted least squares LISREL-analysis including turnover as a dependent variable showed that only 5% of the variance in turnover is accounted for by job satisfaction. However, this result can merely be indicative for the proportion of variance explained, for we did not take advantage of the temporal information in the data (as we did in the discrete-time event history analysis reported in Table 2). A low Rz however, is not unusual (cf. Arnold and Feldman, 1982, who explain 18% variance in turnover; and Taris et al., 1991, who use a similar sample of young people between 18 and 30 years of age, with 12.2%).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This paper presented an analysis concerning the determinants of job satisfaction and actual turnover within a one-year period among youngsters working for about 6 months in their first job. We expected that job satisfaction would affect actual turnover. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that the perceived clarity of the job (defined as absence of ambiguity and role conflict) and the fit

65

between person and environment (defined as the match between the current job content and the interests, previous work experiences and vocational training of the subject) would explain variations in work satisfaction. Fit and clarity were expected to be determined by organizational factors, such as perceived organizational quality, quality of the relationship with the boss and the coworkers, and the socialization tactics used by the organization. Using a sample of young adults in their first full-time job, we performed two analyses. In the first we examined the relations between organizational factors on the one hand and fit, clarity and job satisfaction on the other. The second analysis explored the effects of these variables on actual turnover, as measured in the first year after the first interview. The results indicate that the model of Mobley et al. (1979) is largely confirmed by the results presented here. A rather surprising result was the fact that organizational quality, defined in terms of the stress that an organization places on learning new skills and the opportunity to job progress, has a substantive negative effect on job clarity. Hence, the higher the organizational quality, the less a subject knows what to do. A possible explanation might be that high-quality organizations constantly increase the complexity of the tasks to be performed by the worker. On the one hand, this practice enriches the job of the employee; on the other, not all workers will know what is expected from them in a specific situation. Consequently, job clarity is negatively related to organizational quality. The net effect of organizational quality on satisfaction is only positive, because the negative indirect effect via job clarity is compensated for by a larger postive effect via fit. This might indicate that high-quality organizations sometimes stress the learning of new skills of their new employees too heavily, thereby causing the employee to lose sight on what is really expected from them. However, we should be cautious in generalizing this finding: using data gathered in other countries, we could only partly confirm this result. The proportion of variance explained in job clarity, fit and job satisfaction is rather satisfactory. With the estimates of Arvey et al. (1991) in mind, we might conclude that we identified the major factors that determine job satisfaction of young adults at the beginning of their first job. However, the fact that all variables in the analysis were measured subjectively may have biased the results somewhat upwards. Still, we do believe we have gained a substantial insight in the process that determines job satisfaction of young adults. The causal process determining actual turnover is far less clear.

Downloaded by [188.25.102.20] at 06:10 11 March 2014

66

Downloaded by [188.25.102.20] at 06:10 11 March 2014

A possible explanation may be that we sampled from two groups (machine operators and office technology users), whose job opportunities were almost equally favourable. This means that getting a new job is quite easy for these young people, and that the decision to quit the job may be taken on the basis of relatively unimportant, somewhat accidental, factors. For instance, maybe the employer is hard to reach by bus; this may cause people to move to another job, which can be better reached by public transportation. Of course, we did not include this type of rather ad-hoc factors in our survey. It should be noted that the job mobility is in general rather large in this specific age-group. Another explanation may be that the sample employed here consists of subjects who are in their first job. As they do not have much experience with other jobs, they may be overly sensitive to relatively unimportant events in their job. For example, the supervisor may be a bit hard in giving them feedback concerning the quality of the work of the employee. As the people in our sample may not know how to handle such a thing, they may overreact and quit the job.

REFERENCES
Aldrich, J.H. & Nelson, F.D. (1984). Linear probability, logit and probit models. Sage; Beverly Hills. Allison, P.O. (1982). Discrete-time methods for the analysis of event histories. In Sociological methodology 1982 (S. Leinhardt, ed.) Jossey-Bass; San Francisco. Allison, P.O. (1984). Event history analysis: Regression for longitudinal event data. Sage; Beverly Hills. Andrisani, P.J. (1978). Work attitudes and labor market experience. Praeger; New York. Arnold, H.]. & Feldman, D.C. (1982). A multivariate analysis of the determinants of job turnover. journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 350-360. Arvey, R.D., Carter, G. W. & Buerkley, O.K. (1991). Job satisfaction: Dispositional and situational influences. In International review of industrial and organizational psychology (C.L. Cooper & I.T. Robertson, eds.). Wiley; Chichester. Banks, M.H., Feij, J.A., Parkinson, B. & Peir6, J.M. (1992). National and occupational differences in work content and environment of job entrants. Revue lnternalionale du Psychologie Sociale 5, 9-35. Betz, E., Weiss, D.]., Davis, R.V., England, G.W. & Lofquist, L.H. (1966). Seven years of research on work adjustment. Minnesota studies in vocational rehabilitation XX. University of Minnesota; Minnesota. Blossfeld, H.P., Hamerle, A & Mayer, K.U. (1989). Event history analysis: Statistical theory and application in the social sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum; New York. Coetsier, P., Claes, R. & Berings, D. (1987). Socialisalie van jongeren mel werken inzonderheid in verband mel nieuwe lechnologiei!n. (Work socialization of youth, especially concerning new technologies). Reports from the Laboratory of Sociopsychology of Work and Organization, nr. 51. Rijksuniversiteit Gent; Gent.

67
Edwards, J.R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. In International review of industrial and organizational psychology (C.L. Cooper & I.T. Robertson, eds.). Wiley; Chichester. Feldman, D.C. (1982). The multiple socialization of organization members. Academy of Management Review, 6, 309-318. Finney, D.J. (1971). Probit analysis. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge. Fisher, C.D. (1986). Organizational socialization: an integrative review. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 4, 101-145. Frese, M. (1984). Transitions in jobs, occupational socialization and strain. In Role Transitions: Explorations and explanations (V.L. Allen & E. van de Vliert, eds.). Plenum Press; New York. Jones, G.R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers: adjustments to organizations. Academy of Management journal, 29, 262-279. Joreskog, K.G. & Sobom, D. (1988). LISREL-7 (computer manual). Scientific Software; New York. Keller, T.R. & Holland, W.E. (1981). Job change: A naturally occurring field experiment. Human Relations, 34, 1053-1069. Kleinke-Hamel, K.E. & Mathieu, J.E. (1989). Theoretical and methodological considerations in the age-job satisfaction relationship. journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 201-207. LaRocco, J.M., House, J.S. & French, J.R.P. (1980). Social support, occupational stress, and health. journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 202-218. Lee, T.W. & Mowday, R.T. (1987). Voluntarily leaving an organization: an empirical investigation of Steers and Mowdays model of turnover. Academy of Management journal, 30, 721-743. Lindsay, P.L. & Knox, W.E. (1984). Continuity and change in work values among young adults: A longitudinal study. American journal of Sociology, 89, 918-931. Lofquist, L.H. & Davis, R.V. (1969). Adjustment to work. Appleton; New York. Louis, J. (1980). Surprise and sensemaking: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25,
226-251.

Downloaded by [188.25.102.20] at 06:10 11 March 2014

Meglino, B.M., Bruce, E.C. & Adkins, C.L. (1989). A work value approach to corporate culture: A field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual outcomes. journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 424-432. Michaels, C. E. & Spector, P.E. (1982). Causes of employee turnover: a test of the Mobley Griffeth, Hand & Meglino model. journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 53-59. Miller, H.E., Katerberg, R. & Hulin, C.L. (1979). Evaluation of the Mobley, Horner & Hollingsworth model of employee turnover. journal of Applied Psychology, 5, 509-517. Mobley, W.H., Griffeth, R. W., Hand, H.H. & Meglino, B.M. (1979). Review and conceptual analysis of the turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 493-522. Muchinski, P.M. & Tuttle, M.L. (1979). Employee turnover: an empirical and methodological assessment. journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 43-77. Mortimer, J.T., Lorence, J. & Kumka, D.S. (1986). Work, family and personality: Transition to adulthood. Ablex; Norwood, NJ. Repetti, R.L. & Cosmas, K.A. (1991). The quality of the social environment at work and job satisfaction. journal of Applied Psychology, 21, 840-854. Sandefur, G.D. & Tuma, N.B. (1987). How data type affects conclusions about individual mobility. Social Science research, 16, 301-328. Schultz, J.F.H. & Buunk, A.P. (1990). Dissatisfactie, perceptie van alternatieven en zoekgedrag op de arbeidsmarkt (Dissatisfaction, perception of alternatives and looking for jobs on the labour market). Gedrag en Organisatie, 3, 236-252. Taris, A.W., Heesink, J.A.M., Feij, J.A., VanderVelde, E.G. & Van Gastei,J.H.M.

68
(1991). Arbeidsmobiliteit van jongeren: de invloed van persoons- en werkkenmerke. (Work mobility of young adults: the effects of person- and work characteristics). Gedrag & Organisatie, 6, 444-463. Tuma, N.B. & Hannan, M.T. (1984). Social dynamics: Models and methods. Lawrence Erlbaum; New York. Van den Berg, P.T. & Feij, J.A. (1991). Selection and work redesign in an attempt to retain information technology professionals. In Eignungsdiagnostik in Forschung und Praxis. Beilrage zur Organizalionspsychologie, Band 10 (H. Schuler & U. Funke, eds.). Verlag fiir Angewandte Psychologie; Stuttgart. Van Castel, J.H.M. & Feij, J.A. (1989a). Werksocialisalie van jongeren: eersle lussenlijds rapport van he! onderzoek naar de Work Socialization of Youth (Work socialization of youth: First interim report). Vrije Universiteit, Department of Work and Industrial Psychology; Amsterdam. Van Castel, J.H.M. & Feij, J.A. (1989b). Werksocialisatie van jongeren: lweede tussenlijds rapport van het onderzoek naar de Work Socialization of Youth (Work socialization of youth: Second interim report). Vrije Universiteit, Department of Work and Industrial Psychology; Amsterdam. Van Maanen, J. & Schein, E.H. (1979). Towards a theory of organizational socialization. In Research in Organization Behavior (B. Staw & L. Cummings, eds.) Vol. 1, pp. 209-264. JAI-Press; Boston. Wanous, J.P. (1980). Organizational entry: Recruitment and socialization of newcomers. Addison- Wesley; Reading, MA. Whitely, W., Peiro, J.M. & Sarchielli, G. (1992). Wosy theoretical framework, research methodology and potential implications. Revue Interrzalionale du Psychologie Sociale 5, 9-35. Wilpert, B. & Ruiz Quintanilla, S.A. (1984). Work related t>alues of the young: Findings from an eight nations comparison. Report prepared for UNESCO. Technical University Berlin; Berlin. WOSY International Research Group (1989). Socializacion Ia bora) del joven: Un estt.idio transnational (Work socialization of youth: A Transnational study). Papeles del Psicologico, 39/40, 32-35.

Downloaded by [188.25.102.20] at 06:10 11 March 2014

APPENDIX I: ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE SCALES AND RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS (IN PARENTHESIS). ALL ITEMS WERE MEASURED ON A FIVE-POINT SCALE
Organizational Quality (.63). 1. The knowledge and the skills I gain in my present job will help me progress to another job. 2. In my present job as I learn to do simpler tasks I am assigned to more difficult tasks. 3. I have the opportunity to move from one job to another to learn new skills. 4. There is little emphasis on learning new or more complex skills in my present job. 5. My work group (department, section) has many young employees who have experienced difficulties such as unemployment or lack of training.

69 6. My work group (department, section) has many young

employees who have few job skills or little job knowledge.

7. The steps in progression from one position to another are

clearly specified. Relation with the supervisor (.76). 1. My supervisor lets me know how well I am doing at the job. 2. My supervisor provides me with helpful advice on how to do my work tasks. 3. My supervisor assigns me to tasks that increase my skills and knowledge. 4. My supervisor makes changes in my work assignments to improve my skills and knowledge. Relation with the co-workers (.71). 1. My co-workers have taught me how to cope with pressures or conflicting demands in my job.
2. My co-workers have provided me with information about what

Downloaded by [188.25.102.20] at 06:10 11 March 2014

my supervisor expects of me.

3. My co-workers criticize my work performance. 4. Experienced co-workers have held me at a distance until I

conform to their expectations. Serial versus disjunctive socialization tactics (58). 1. Experienced employees in my department see advising or training new people as one of their main job responsibilities. 2. I am gaining a clear understanding of work procedures in my job by observing more experienced employees. 3. I have received little guidance from more experienced employees as to how I should perform my job. 4. I have little or no access to people in my work group who have previously performed my job. 5. I have been generally left alone to discover what my work responsibilities should be in my present job. Fit between current job and vocational training. 1. Does your work make a good match with your vocational training? 2. How do you experience the match between your job and the skills you acquired? 3. How do you experience the match between your job and the handling of apparatus you learned? 4. How do you experience the match between your job and the theory you learned?

70

5. How do you experience the match between your job and the

required courses (e.g. industrial economy, social sciences, etcetera-authors addition)? Fit between current job and interests. 1. Do you think your current job matches your interests? Fit between current job and previous work experiences. 1. Does your current job match with your former job (or previous job experiences)?
1. 2. 3. 4.

Downloaded by [188.25.102.20] at 06:10 11 March 2014

Role conflict (.67). On my job, I can't satisfy everybody at the same time. To satisfy some people at my job, I have to upset others. I have too much work to do everything well. I never seem to have enough time to get everything done on my job. s.On my job the amount of work I do interferes with how wellldo my work.

Ambiguity (.66*). 1. On my job, I know exactly what is expected of me. 2. Most of the time I know what I have to do at my job. Satisfaction (.67). 1. The amount of pay I receive for the work I do.
2. 3. 4. 5.

The way my job provides for a secure future. The friendliness of my co-workers. The competence of my superior in making decisions. All in all, how satisfied are you with your current job?

*Correlation coefficient.

Downloaded by [188.25.102.20] at 06:10 11 March 2014

APPENDIX II: MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND CORRELATIONS OV THE VARIABLES USED
AMBIG RCONFLI SA TIS ORGQUAL RELSUP RELCOL SOCT ACT

FITEDUC FITINT FITPREV

FITEDUC FITINT FITPREV AMBIG RCONFLI SA TIS ORGQUAL RELSUP RELCOL SOCTACT
1 0.128 -0.255 0.016 0.197 0.327 0.201 1 -0.150 -0.014 0.113 0.181 0.185 1 0.439 0.503 0.343 .470 1 0.486 0.201 0.346 3.30 .60 3.81 .63 2.54 .64 -3.89 .74 1 0.145 0.351 3.31 .84

1 0.237 0.193 -0.099 0.001 0.263 0.240 0.184 0.085 0.166

1 0.135 0.052 0.037 0.509 0.415 0.273 0.204 0.233

1 0.006 -0.086 0.132 0.083 0.146 0.057 0.155

1 0.185 4.08 .65

1 3.41 .63

mean sd

2.74 .65

3.12 1.01

4.89 3.25

FITEDUC =fit between current job and vocational training, FITINT =fit between current job and interests, FITPREV =fit between current job and previous work experiences, AMBIG =(absence of) ambiguity, RCONFLI =(absence of) role conflict, SA TIS= job satisfaction, QUIT= quit job since previous interview, ORGQUAL =organizational quality, RELSUP =relation with supervisors, RELCOL =relation with co-workers, SOCT ACT= socialization tactics.

,.... "'