Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
79
Porter and his associates (Porter, Crampon, & Smith, 1976; Porter,
Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974) found that organizational commitment
predicted turnover better than did job satisfaction. These authors defined
organizational commitment as "the strength of an individual's identification with and involvement in a particular organization" (Porter, Steers,
Mowday, & Boulian, 1974, p. 604). Similarly, Koch and Steers (1978)
found that job attachment was more strongly predictive of job turnover
than was satisfaction. In this context, job attachment refers to "an attitudinal response to one's job that is characterized by a congruence between
one's real and ideal jobs, an identification with one's chosen occupation,
and a reluctance to seek alternate employment" (Koch & Steers, 1978,
p. 120).
In light of this evidence that commitment exerts a reasonably powerful
impact on job turnover, it becomes important that the causes of job commitment be identified. However, most research on organizational commitment has either: (a) explored the relationships among a variety of
highly specific predictors and commitment (e.g., salary, social interaction
with peers and supervisors, age, education); or (b)studied the impact on
organizational commitment of one or two more abstract theoretical constructs (e.g., side bets, quality of exchange relationship) without developing a general theory concerning the causes of satisfaction and commitment (c.f., Alutto, Hrebiniak, & Alonso, 1973; Aranya & Jacobson, 1975;
Buchanan, 1974; Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972; Pfeffer & Lawler, 1980).
What is needed is a clear conceptual model capable of predicting a variety
of organizational behaviors. The primary goals of the present paper are:
(a) to outline a theoretical model of the causes of, and interrelationships
among, job satisfaction, commitment, and turnover; and (b) to report the
results of two initial studies designed to assess the predictive validity of
this theory, termed the investment model.
Although most researchers define job satisfaction in terms of positivity
of affect (refer to Price, 1977; and Wanous & Lawler, 1972), commitment
has been defined in a variety of fashions. Commitment-like constructs
have been defined in terms of identification with and involvement in a
particular organization (Porter, Crampon, & Smith, 1976; Porter, Steers,
Mowday, & Boulian, 1974), behavioral intentions (Mobley, 1977), a congruence between one's real and ideal jobs (Koch & Steers, 1978), entrapment (Rubin & Brockner, 1975), or constraint (Johnson, 1973). The definition of commitment employed in this research follows that advanced by
Kiesler--"commitment is the binding of the individual to behavioral
acts" (Kiesler & Sakumura, 1966, p. 349). Thus, job commitment is related to the probability that an employee will leave his job, and involves
feelings of psychological attachment, independent of affect. Job commitment reflects behavioral intention, primarily (but not solely) degree of
intention to stay with a job. Job commitment exists to the extent that the
80
(1)
(2)
(3)
The combination of rewards and costs in this formula (Rx less Cx) is
referred to as the "association outcome value" (Ox). Since the presence
of costs generally implies the absence of reward, it may be useful to view
81
(4)
82
F A R R E L L A N D RUSBULT
into" an association, usually, but not necessarily, with the intent to improve the long-term value of the relationship. Length of service, acquisition of non-portable skills, and retirement programs are common job investments. Such investments serve to increase commitment by increasing
the costs of leaving the association. The investment of resources does not
necessarily alter the value of the association, although it may occasionally
serve to change its immediate reward or cost value. Invested resources
may be material or psychological, intrinsic or extrinsic. Investment size
(Ix) is defined as:
Ix = ~(wkik)
(5)
(6)
(7)
83
84
Method
Participants. Sixty-four males and 64 females participated in the experiment in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an introductory
business management course at Franklin and Marshall Co!lege. Twelve
same-sex subjects were recruited for each experimental session. Within
each session subjects were randomly assigned to one of 16 conditions.
The ratio of males to females was equal across experimental conditions.
Procedure. At the start of each session subjects were seated in a common room while the experimenter explained the study. Subjects were told
that they would first be given some training materials to read, and that
after reading these materials they would be randomly assigned one of
several alternative tasks. They would be allowed the opportunity to
choose among a number of different tasks during later stages of the experiment, and would be paid in accordance to the amount and quality of
their performance. Subjects were then assigned to individual cubicles
which adjoined the common room.
Subjects were allowed 20 minutes to read and study their job training
materials, at which time they were assigned their first task. In reality, all
subjects were assigned the same task--transcribing into longhand news
stories written in "Reporters' Speed Writing". Subjects were informed of
the approximate difficulty and pay rate of the task. At the end of a 15
minute work period subjects were presented with an alternative task
which required decoding news reports "written by telephone transmission". The reports were without punctuation or capitalization, and
selected letters were systematically replaced by numbers and symbols.
Subjects were left alone to examine these materials for a brief period of
time.
Four independent variables were manipulated in the experiment: job
85
reward value (high or low), job cost value (high or low), alternative value
(high or low), and investment size (large or small). Job rewards were
manipulated through variations in estimated pay ($4 for high rewards, $2
for low rewards). Changes in task demands served to vary costs. High
cost subjects were told that they would receive credit for a transcribed
sentence only if 100 per cent of the words were correct, and low cost
subjects were given a 60 percent accuracy criterion. Alternative value was
manipulated through changes in the payment for the second task (an
estimated $4 for high alternative value and $2 for low alternative value).
The type of training provided subjects served to manipulate investment
size. In the high investment condition subjects read training materials
specific to the first task (essays about reporter's speed writing), and in the
low investment condition subjects read essays that were general and only
tangentially related to the first task (essays about the field of journalism).
Training that is specific to a particular task serves as an investment in that
task (i.e., it is less transferable to other tasks), whereas general training
does not. This manipulation corresponds to a distinction drawn by Becker
(1975) in his analysis of lifetime earnings of American workers.
After examining the materials for the second task, subjects completed a
questionnaire which contained a series of seven-point Likert-type items.
This instrument assessed the effectiveness of the manipulations of job
rewards (payment is good, first task has positive qualities), job costs (task
is difficult, has negative qualities), alternative value (payment is good,
second task has positive qualities, has few negative qualities, expected
satisfaction with and liking for the second task), and investment size
(training was useful, relevant to the first task, helped performance on first
task). Two items were designed to measure job satisfaction: to what extent are you satisfied with your first task (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely)
and how much do you like your first task (1 = not at all, 7 -- extremely).
Three additional items served as measures of job commitment: how likely
is it that you will continue to work on your first task (1 = not at all likely, 7
= extremely likely), how likely is it that you will switch to work on the
second task (1 -- extremely likely, 7 = not at all likely), and how committed are you to continuing work on the first task (1 = not at all, 7 =
entirely). A final item served as a measure of job turnover, and required
that subjects elect to work on either the first or second task during the
second work period. After completing the questionniare subjects were
paid $3 and thoroughly debriefed.
Results
Manipulation checks. The effectiveness of each of the four experimental manipulations was assessed by performing four four-factor multivariate analyses of variance--one for each set of manipulation checks.
86
These analyses revealed significant effects on the appropriate manipulation check measures for reward value (Mult. F(2,110) = 7.72, p < .001),
cost value (Mult. F(2,111) = 18.06, p < .001), alternative value (Mult.
F(5,104) = 2.71,p < .02), and investment size (Mult. F(3,110) = 123.71,
p < .001). The manipulations were therefore judged to have been successful.
Satisfaction, Commitment, and Turnover. A four-factor multivariate
analysis of variance was performed on the task satisfaction measures.
Mean satisfaction scores are displayed in Table 1. Consistent with the
experimental hypotheses, subjects in the high reward condition reported
greater satisfaction with their task than did those in the low reward condition (Mult. F(2,112) -- 2.95, p < .06 - marginal), high cost condition
subjects were less satisfied with their task than were low cost condition
subjects (Mult. F(2,112) = 12.27, p < .001), and investment size had no
significant effect on satisfaction (Mult. F(2,112) = 0.67, p < .51 - ns). An
u n e x p e c t e d finding was that variations in alternative value significantly
affected satisfaction, low alternative value subjects experiencing greater
satisfaction than their high alternative value counterparts (Mult. F (2,112)
= 4.14, p < .02).
The e x p e r i m e n t a l questionnaire c o n t a i n e d three measures o f task
commitment and one measure of turnover. An initial step in the analysis
o f these data was to assess the strength of the relationship between turnover and the measures o f commitment. T u r n o v e r was significantly correlated with reported desire to continue with the current task (r = - . 7 3 ) ,
aversion to changing to the alternative task (r = - . 7 3 ) , and commitment
to the current task (r = - . 4 5 ) . A four-factor multivariate analysis of
variance was performed on the three commitment measures and the turn-
TABLE 1
MEAN TASK SATISFACTION AS A FUNCTION OF CURRENT TASK REWARD AND
COST VALUES AND ALTERNATIVE VALUE
High
Low
3.09
3.39
2.62
2.95
2.33
2.84
3.38
3.50
2.62
2.87
3.09
3.47
Both measures were seven-point Likert-type scales. Higher numbers indicate greater
satisfaction and attraction.
87
TABLE 2
MEAN JOB COMMITMENT AND TURNOVER AS A FUNCTION OF CURRENT TASK REWARD
AND COST VALUES, ALTERNATIVE VALUE r AND INVESTMENT SIZE
High
Low
4.09
4.35
3.71
.47
3.03
3.85
2.89
.73
3.09
3.33
3.05
.69
4.02
4.30
3.55
.52
2.82
3.18
2.79
.76
4.30
4.45
3.81
.46
4.06
4.24
3.73
.32
3.06
3.37
2.88
.60
The commitment measures were seven-point Likert-type scales and the turnover measure w a s a dichotomous choice of current or alternative task. Higher numbers indicate
greater commitment and percent turnover.
88
STUDY 2
Method
Respondents. One hundred seven male and 56 female industrial workers completed questionnaires forwarded through the cooperation of the
"locals" of three major labor unions. Out of a total of 295 mailed, these
returns represented a usable response rate of 55 percent. The overall
response rate was 60 percent, but several questionnaires were returned
partially or wholly incomplete.
Procedure. A subject list was prepared by taking a random sample of
the membership of each union. Union staff members attached mailing
labels to pre-packaged, pre-stamped mailings identified by subject numbers. Each packet contained a cover letter, a questionnaire, and a
Stamped return envelope addressed to the researchers. Follow-up mailings for respondents were prepared in a similar manner. Cover letters
assured respondents of the anonymity of their responses, stated the fact
of the unions' cooperation and approval, and summarized the purpose of
the research. The questionnaires required approximately 30 minutes to
complete.
Questionnaire. The questionnaire contained items designed to measure
all of the elements of the investment model. Since it was anticipated that
respondents would not easily be able to answer questions such as " w h a t
rewards does your job possess", the abstract concepts of the model were
"translated" into everyday language in the following manner: (a) each
abstract concept was briefly defined; (b) a series of questions representing
concrete operationalizations of each abstract concept was answered; and
(c) several global measures of each abstract concept were obtained. Values on individual global measures were summed to form a single measure
of each investment model parameter. Unless otherwise indicated, questionnaire items were nine-point Likert-type items.
In everyday work situations the absence of a specific job reward generally implies the presence of a cost (e.g., lack of monetary rewards implies
a cost, low pay). T h e r e f o r e , a single set of job o u t c o m e value
operationalization measures was used to teach respondents the meaning
of reward and cost value. Twenty-eight items assessed a variety of aspects of jobs, including pay (10 categories), opportunity for promotion,
89
90
commitment criterion--likelihood of quitting job in near future (1 = extremely likely, 9 = not at all likely), commitment to current job (1 = not at
all, 9 = extremely), attachment to current job (1 = not at all, 9 = extremely), desired length of staying (1 = short period of time, 9 = long
period o f time), and time spent searching for a different job ( _ _
hours
on the average). This scale was adapted for the study o f job commitment
from Rusbult's (1980) research on commitment to romantic involvements.
This study did not make use of existing scales of job commitment (c.f.,
Mowday, Steers, and Porter, 1979) because of theoretical differences in
definitions of this concept.
Results
Reliability and Validity of Measures. In order to assess the reliability of
the summed indices of each model parameter, reliability estimates (coefficient alpha) were computed for the set of single measures which were
summed to form the measure for each parameter. The coefficients exceeded lowest acceptable levels (Nunnally, 1967) for measures of job
reward value (.82), job cost value (.77), alternative value (.74), investment
size (.78), satisfaction (.94), and c o m m i t m e n t (.86). Therefore, these
summed " g l o b a l " measures were employed in the remaining analyses.
The use o f operationalizations to translate investment model parameters into e v e r y d a y language allowed for the assessment of construct validity by regressing associated concrete measures onto global measures.
The multiple correlation coefficients were significant for job reward value
(R = .82), job cost value (R = .73), alternative value (R --- .39), and investment size (R -- .55), so the global measures were judged to be valid.
Job Satisfaction. Cramer's (1972) model comparison procedures were
employed to assess the ability of the investment model parameters to
predict job satisfaction and commitment. Both reward value (r = .76) and
cost value (r = - . 5 6 ) were significantly correlated with job satisfaction.
The multiple correlation of satisfaction with rewards and costs was superior to the prediction provided by either of these predictors considered
individually (R = .78). The two factor prediction (R 2 --- .61) was compared
to the two individual correlations and was found to predict satisfaction
significantly better than did either reward value (r 2 = .58) ( F (1,149) -10.74,p < .01)or cost value (r 2 = .31)(F(1,149) = 64.78, p < .001)alone.
As expected, satisfaction was not significantly correlated with alternative
value or investment size. These results are consistent with the investment
model predictions (refer to Equation 3).
Job Commitment. The investment model states that job commitment
should be predicted by a combination of satisfaction, investments, and
alternatives (refer to Equation 7). As expected, job commitment was significantly correlated with satisfaction (r = .67), investments (r = .27), and
COMMITMENT
AND
91
TURNOVER
COM
SAT
R
C
A
SAT
.67 a
.51 a
.76 a
-.40 a
-.56"
-.55 ~
-.21 b
-.11
-.07
-.08
.27"
.09
.13
-.12
.07
COM = job commitment, SAT = job satisfaction, R = reward value, C = cost value, A
= a l t e r n a t i v e v a l u e , I = i n v e s t m e n t size.
p < .001; ~ p < . 0 1 ; C p < .05
92
Committed
Attached
Want to Stay
Won't Quit
Attached
Want to Stay
Won't Quit
Search Time
.50
.54
.60
.60
.50
.82
.16
.38
.28
.20
The "search time" measure was scored as 10 minus the reported number of hours spent
searching for a different job, so larger numbers represented fewer hours search, greater
commitment, and less likelihood of turnover. All other measures were seven-point Likerttype scales, high numbers indicating greater commitment.
lated with reward and cost values, but not alternative value or investment
size. Measures of job commitment were significantly correlated with job
satisfaction, reward and cost values, alternative value, and investment
size.
Since this survey was based on single-contact questionnaires, it was
impossible to obtain actual measures of job turnover. However, the job
commitment measures ranged in specificity from abstract notions of
psychological attachment (I am committed to this job, attached to this
job), to down-to-earth assessments of intent to turnover (how long would
you like to stay at this job, how likely is it that you will quit this job in the
near future, how many hours per month on the average have you spent
attempting to find a different job). The correlations among these measures
are displayed in Table 4. As in Experiment 1, the specific measures of
intent to turnover were significantly correlated with the more abstract
measures of psychological job commitment.
DISCUSSION
The goal of the research reported in this paper was to identify a model
capable of predicting job satisfaction, job commitment, and job turnover.
The consistency of the results of the two experiments suggests that the
investment model may be a reasonable means of describing these
phenomena. Job satisfaction was best predicted by job reward and cost
values. Job commitment was predicted by a combination of reward and
cost values, alternative value, and investment size. Thus, while job satisfaction concerns the employee's affective response to the job, and is
related to the positive and negative characteristics of the job, job commitment is additionally influenced by the quality of job alternatives and
the magnitude of the employee's direct and indirect investment in his/her
job. The business analog experiment (Study 1) demonstrated that job
commitment and actual turnover are related, and the survey of union
93
94
ings a n d e x t e n d s a n d f o r m a l i z e s s o m e b a s i c c o n c e p t s o f i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e
t h e o r y ( K e l l e y a n d T h i b a u t , 1978), a t h e o r y w h i c h has b e e n s h o w n to h a v e
h e u r i s t i c v a l u e a c r o s s a w i d e r a n g e o f social e x c h a n g e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . It is
in a g r e e m e n t w i t h e x i s t i n g r e s e a r c h c o n c e r n e d w i t h j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d
c o m m i t m e n t , a n d has b e e n s h o w n to p r e d i c t s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d c o m m i t m e n t
in r o m a n t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s ( R u s b u l t , 1980) a n d f r i e n d s h i p s ( R u s b u l t , N o t e
1) as well as b u s i n e s s a s s o c i a t i o n s . T h e r e exists a c l e a r p o t e n t i a l for
a p p l y i n g the m o d e l to o t h e r i s s u e s in the s t u d y o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l b e h a v i o r ,
b o t h t h e o r e t i c a l a n d applied.
REFERENCES
Alutto, J. A., Hrebiniak, L. G., & Alonso, R. C. On operationalizing the concept of commitment. Social Forces, 1973, 51, 448-454.
Aranya, N., & Jacobson, D. An empirical study of theories of organizational and occupational commitment. Journal of Social Psychology, 1975, 97, 15-22.
Bartol, K. M. Individual versus organizational predictors of job satisfaction and turnover
among professionals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1979, 15, 55-67.
Becker, G. Human capital (2nd Ed.). New York: Columbia University Press, 1975.
Becker, H. S. Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 1960,
66, 32-40.
Blau, P. M. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley, 1964.
Buchanan, B. Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in work
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1974, 19, 533-546.
Cramer, E. M. Significance tests and tests of models in multiple regression. The American
Statistician, 1972, 26, 26-30.
Dubin, R., Champoux, J. E., & Porter, L. W. Central life interests and organizational commitment of blue-collar and clerical workers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1975,
20, 411-421.
Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E.E. Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of
Applied Psychology Monograph, 1971, 55, 259-286.
Homans, G. C. Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace, &
World, 1961.
Hrebiniak, L. G., & Alutto, J. A. Personal and role-related factors in the development of
organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1972, 17, 555-573.
Johnson, M. P. Commitment: A conceptual structure and empirical application. Sociological Quarterly, 1973, 14, 395-406.
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New
York: Wiley, 1978.
Kiesler, C. A., & Sakumura, J. A test of a model for commitment. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 1966, 3, 349-353.
Koch, J. L., & Steers, R. M. Job attachment, satisfaction, and turnover among public sector
employees. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1978, 12, 119-128.
Lawler, E. E. Motivation in work organizations. Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole, 1973.
Locke, E. A. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M, D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook
of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. Organizations. New York: Wiley, 1958.
Marsh, R. M., & Mannari, H. Organizational commitment and turnover: A prediction study,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 1977, 22, 57-75.
95
McLaughlin, G. W., & Butler, R. P. Use of weighting and data on alternative careers to
predict career retention and commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59,
87-89.
Mobley, W. H. Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and
employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1977, 62, 237-240.
Mobley, W. H., Griffeth, R. W., Hand, H. H., & Meglino, B. M. Review and conceptual
analysis of the employee turnover process. PsychologicalBulletin, 1979, 86, 493-522.
Nunnally, J. C. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
Pfeffer, J., & Lawler, J. Effects of job alternatives, extrinsic rewards, and behavioral commitment on attitude toward the organization: A field test of the insufficient justification
paradigm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1980, 25, 38-56.
Porter, L. W., Crampon, W. J., & Smith, F. J. Organizational commitment and managerial
turnover: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
1976, 15, 87-98.
Porter, L., & Steers, R. Organizational, work, and personal factors in employee turnover
and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 80, 151-176.
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 1974, 59, 603-609.
Price, J. L. The study of turnover. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1977.
Quinn, R., & Shepard, L. The 1972-73 quality of employment survey: Descriptive statistics.
Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center of the Institute for Social Research, 1974.
Rubin, J. Z., & Brockner, J. Factors affecting entrapment in waiting situations: The Rosencrantz and Guildenstern effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31,
1054-1063.
Rusbult, C. E. Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1980, 16, 172-186.
Salincik, G. R. Commitment is too easy! Organizational Dynamics, 1977, 6, 62-80.
Salancik, G. R. Commitment and the control of organizational behavior and belief. In B.
Staw & G. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior. Chicago: St.
Clair Press, 1977.
Sheldon, M. E. Investments and involvements as mechanisms producing commitment to the
organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1971, 16, 143-150.
Schoenherr, R . A . , & Greeley, A . M . Role commitment processes and the American
Catholic priesthood. American Sociological Review, 1974, 39, 407-426.
Staw, B. M. Knee-deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen
course of action. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance, 1976, 16, 27-44.
Staw, B. M., & Fox, F. V. Escalation: The determinants of commitment to a chosen course
of action. Human Relations, 1977, 30, 431-450.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. The socialpsychology of groups. New York: Wiley, 1959.
Tropper, R. The consequences of investment in the process of conflict. Journal of Conflict
Resolution, 1972, 16, 97-98.
Vroom, V. H. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley, 1964.
Wanous, J. P., & Lawler, E. E. Measurement and meaning of job satisfaction. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 1972, 56, 95-105.
REFERENCE NOTE
1. Rusbult, C. E. Satisfaction and commitment in friendships. Manuscript in review, 1980.