Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 1986 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1986, №1.71. No. 2, 219-231 0021-9010/86/M0.75

Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction and Commitment in

Turnover Models: A Reanalysis Using Latent Variable
Structural Equation Methods

Larry J. Williams John T. Hazer

Indiana University School of Business Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis

Recent models of organizational commitment (e.g., Morris & Sherman, 1981; Steers, 1977; Stevens,
Beyer, & Trice, 1978) and turnover (e.g., Mobley, Grifleth, Hand, & Meglino, 1979; Steers & Mowday,
1981) were reviewed. This review indicated that the causal relation between job satisfaction and
organizational commitment had been overlooked and that attempts to identify the antecedents of
these variables had suffered from conceptual and methodological limitations. To examine these two
issues, structural equation methodology was used to reanalyze data from Michaels and Spector (1982)
and Bluedorn (1982). Four causal models were examined. Across both samples, support was obtained
for relations between personal/organizational characteristics and job satisfaction, and between satis-
faction and commitment. Commitment was also an important determinant of turnover intentions.
The implications of the findings and methodology are considered.

Turnover has been a focus of investigation by several disciphnes
(e.g., psychology, sociology, economics) for a number of years.
Many of these efforts have centered around the development of
conceptual models of the turnover process and subsequent em-
pirical validation of the models. Although these models have
diverse origins, several have postulated job satisfaction and or-
ganizational commitment to be antecedents of turnover. In fact,
a recent review (Clegg, 1983) suggested that in turnover research,
most of which has looked at the role of affect on subsequent
behavior, satisfaction and commitment have been the most fre-
quently investigated components of affect. However, because most
models of turnover have included only one of these two variables
(Steers & Mowday, 1981), the causal relation between these two
determinants has generally been overlooked. Furthermore, at-
tempts to investigate their antecedents have suffered from con-
ceptual and methodological limitations. Thus, the present article
will briefly review the concept of organizational commitment
and develop the hypothesis that job satisfaction is a causal an-
tecedent. Also, several turnover models and studies will be ex-
amined, focusing on the satisfaction-commitment relation and
the role of other determinants. Next, a review of the biasing
effects of measurement error in path analysis models will be
presented. This methodological problem has been overlooked by
researchers working in this area. Finally, an empirical test of the
satisfaction-commitment relation will be conducted through a
This article is based on the first author's master's thesis, which was
conducted at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis.
We thank committee members Jerome Busemeyer and Robert Bringle
and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. We also thank
Dr. Bluedorn for making his data available to us and Mary Post for her
assistance in manuscript preparation.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Larry
J. Williams, Department of Management, Indiana University School of
Business, Bloomington, Indiana 47405.
reanalysis of existing published data. This reanalysis will also
examine the manner in which other variables influence satisfac-
tion and commitment and will be based on a method for incor-
porating measurement concerns into the evaluation of path
analysis models.
Organizational Commitment Models
As noted elsewhere (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979), research
on commitment has been based on two perspectives. One view-
point has conceptualized commitment in terms of overt indi-
cators (e.g., behaviors that exceed role expectations); alternatively,
the construct has been approached from an attitude perspective,
representing the relative strength of involvement and identifi-
cation of an individual with an organization. This latter per-
spective has guided the empirical efforts relevant to the present
study, in which commitment is characterized by factors relating
to belief in the organization's goals and values, willingness to
extend effort for the organization, and desire to remain in the
organization (e.g., Morrow, 1983). As an attitude, commitment
is distinguished from job satisfaction in that the former is an
affective response to the whole organization, whereas the latter
represents an affective response to specific aspects of the job.
Variables in turnover research that are conceptually similar to
organizational commitment include job attachment and job
commitment. Job attachment (Koch & Steers, 1978) describes
an attitudinal response to a job, characterized by a congruence
between one's real and ideal jobs, an identification with one's
chosen occupation, and a reluctance to seek alternative employ-
ment. Alternatively, job commitment (Farrell & Rusbult, 1981;
Rusbult & Farrell, 1983) refers to the extent to which an employee
perceives that he or she is connected to a job and involves feelings
of psychological attachment, independent of affect.
There have been a few studies relevant to establishing the re-
lation between job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
Porter, Steers, Mowday, and Boulian (1974) suggested that sat-

219
220 LARRY J. WILLIAMS AND JOHN T. HATER
isfaction and commitment were related but distinguishable at-
titudes. More specifically, they proposed that commitment rep-
resents a global evaluative link between the employee and the
organization, with job satisfaction among commitment's specific
components. Porter et al. (1974) further offered that satisfaction
would be associated with aspects of the work environment and
thus would develop more quickly than commitment, which would
require a worker to make a more global assessment of his or her
relationship to the organization. Whereas the instability and rapid
formation of satisfaction would suggest it as a cause of commit-
ment, rather than vice versa, Bateman and Strasser (1984) note
that the validity of this perspective has not been established.
Additional support for the satisfaction-commitment relation
comes from research examining determinants of commitment.
A model developed by Steers (1977) describes the antecedents
and outcomes of commitment. According to this model, three
main categories of variables influence commitment: Personal
characteristics include variables such as need for achievement,
age, and education. Work experiences, the second category of
influences, describe socializing forces that have an impact on
attachments formed with the organization. This category includes
experiences related to group attitudes toward the organization
and perceptions of personal investment in and worth to the or-
ganization. The third category, job characteristics, includes job
challenge, opportunities for social interaction, and feedback.
More important, although Steers did not specifically include job
satisfaction as an antecedent, he did propose that it would prob-
ably influence commitment more than would job characteristics
(Steers, 1977, p. 47). Steers also discussed the role of exchange
processes, through which individuals satisfy their needs/desires,
use their skills in the work environment, and thus develop at-
tachment and commitment to the organization.
Similarly, Stevens, Beyer, and Trice (1978) developed a role-
taking model in their attempt to clarify psychological and struc-
tural determinants of the managerial commitment process. Their
model identified three groups of factors as antecedents of orga-
nizational commitment: personal attributes (e.g., age, sex, edu-
cation), organizational factors (e.g., size, centralization of au-
thority), and role-related factors (e.g., work overload, skill of
subordinates). These role variables were presumed to represent
the more dynamic aspects of the job situation that influence
commitment. According to Stevens et al. (1978), the common
element among these diverse antecedents is an exchange process,
through which perceived benefits and costs are evaluated and
attachment and commitment subsequently develops. Although
job satisfaction was not included in their analyses, they suggested
that it might be an important predictor of commitment (Stevens
etal., 1978, p. 391).
Morris and Sherman (1981) investigated a multivariate pre-
dictive model of organizational commitment and focused on the
role of job level and organizational differences. The antecedents
in their model included variables from each of Steer's (1977)
categories. It should be noted that although job satisfaction was
not included in these three studies of commitment, the anteced-
ents that were supported have also been established as important
determinants of satisfaction (e.g., Mitchell, 1979).
Further support for the job satisfaction-organizational com-
mitment relation comes from the previously mentioned research,
which includes job attachment and job commitment as ante-
cedents of organizational outcomes. Koch and Steers (1978) pre-
sented a view of job attachment as an intervening variable be-
tween job satisfaction and overt behavior like turnover. Also, in
the tradition of exchange theory (cf. Homans, 1961), Farrell and
Rusbult (1981) described job satisfaction as an intervening vari-
able to be a function of rewards and costs associated with the
job, with job commitment resulting from job satisfaction, in-
vestments, and alternatives. Rusbult and Farrell (1983) found
support for their model in a longitudinal investigation with nurses
and accountants and, thus, identified satisfaction as an antecedent
of commitment. However, as noted earlier, the Rusbult and Far-
rell (1983) model is based on a behaviorally oriented commit-
ment, whereas the present research takes an attitudinal focus
that includes behavioral intentions.
Turnover Models
In spite of the models and research just presented, the idea
that job satisfaction and organizational commitment are causally
related has not been incorporated in recent turnover models,
and the roles of these variables as mediators has not been ade-
quately investigated. Studies have either (a) failed to include both
satisfaction and commitment, (b) overlooked their causal rela-
tionship, or (c) failed to adequately examine their antecedents.
The conceptual turnover model that has received the most at-
tention in the psychological literature was provided by Mobley
(1977) and has undergone several revisions and evaluations (e.g.,
Miller, Katerberg, & Hulin, 1979; Mobley, Homer, & Holling-
sworth, 1978). Although this model considers organizational
commitment as an attitude to be related to satisfaction and at-
traction to the present job, no clear causal relation is hypothesized
between satisfaction and commitment.
A multidisciplinary model of voluntary employee turnover
has been offered by Muchinsky and Morrow (1980). They also
propose three major classes of determinants, including individual
and economic opportunity and work-related factors. This last
category includes factors such as job characteristics, job satis-
faction, and organizational commitment. However, no causal re-
lations were suggested between variables within a class of deter-
minants, such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
Similarly, Steers and Mowday (1981) have attempted to develop
a comprehensive model of the processes leading to voluntary
termination, as well as the subsequent accommodation to the
turnover decision. In this model, affective responses (job satis-
faction, organizational commitment, job involvement) are pro-
posed to result from three major factors: (a) job expectations;
(b) organizational characteristics and experiences; and (c) job
performance level. Although this model includes more than one
job attitude, the relations between the affective responses, par-
ticularly satisfaction and commitment, are not further described.
Although research has traditionally and currently focused on
comparing the relative contributions of job satisfaction, orga-
nizational commitment, and other factors in predicting turnover
(e.g., Horn & Hulin, 1981; Horn, Katerberg, & Hulin, 1979;
Mitchel, 1981; Parasuraman, 1982), there has been considerable
interest lately in the use of causal analysis to investigate models
of turnover. Three studies included job satisfaction but excluded
organizational commitment. Bluedorn (1979) investigated a
model of turnover in military organizations that included struc-
 TURNOVER
tural and environmental variables as antecedents of job satisfac-
tion which, as an intervening variable, was further described as
a determinant of turnover intentions. Similar models have been
evaluated by Martin (1979) and Price and Mueller (1981). Thus,
satisfaction played a critical role in these three studies as an
intervening variable, but organizational commitment was not
included.
More recently, Arnold and Feldman (1982) have proposed a
model of turnover based on path analysis with data collected
from accountants. According to this model, age, job satisfaction,
and organizational commitment influence the intention to search
for alternatives. Furthermore, intention to search combines with
tenure and perceived job security to cause turnover. Whereas
satisfaction and commitment were both included in this study
as intervening variables, their causal relation was not considered,
and possible antecedents were not included.
Of more relevance to the present research are the recent studies
by Michaels and Spector (1982) and Bluedorn (1982). Michaels
and Spector used path analysis to estimate the strengths of re-
lations between several variables in the Mobley et al. model
(1979), with data from employees of a community mental health
center. After the elimination of nonsignificant variables, their
analyses indicated that the exogenous variables of perceived job
characteristics, leadership consideration, and age lead to both
job satisfaction and organizational commitment, whereas pre-
employment expectations lead only to job satisfaction. Also, job
satisfaction and organizational commitment were demonstrated
to lead to intentions to quit which, in turn, lead to turnover. As
with the study by Arnold and Feldman, the satisfaction-com-
mitment relation was not examined. Furthermore, the possibility
that job satisfaction played a mediating role between the effects
of the exogenous variables and organizational commitment was
not considered.
Finally, Bluedorn (1982) developed a model of turnover that
was a unification of the Mobley (1977) and Steers (1977) models
previously described. Most relevant for the present research were
the findings that equity and age were determinants of both sat-
isfaction and commitment, instrumental information was
causally related to satisfaction, and routinization was an ante-
cedent of commitment. Furthermore, satisfaction was shown to
have an influence on commitment, but not on intent to leave.
Thus, while the Bluedorn (1982) study is noteworthy for including
a satisfaction-commitment relation, it and the Michaels and
Spector (1982) research failed to adequately examine the me-
diating role of these variables with respect to their antecedents.
In other words, the question remains whether personal and work
environment characteristics are antecedents of both satisfaction
and commitment, or instead whether satisfaction plays a me-
diating role between the antecedents and commitment.
The Present Study
The present research attempted to improve on the previously
discussed conceptual limitations of existing path analysis studies
of turnover. More specifically, it was hypothesized that personal
and work characteristics have no direct effect on turnover inten-
tions: Their impact is only through their effect on satisfaction
and commitment. It was also proposed that satisfaction is a de-
terminant of organizational commitment and that other variables
MODELS 221
associated with the work environment and representing personal
characteristics influence commitment indirectly via satisfaction.
In other words, satisfaction was proposed to be an intervening
variable between environmental and personal characteristics and
organizational commitment. These hypotheses follow from the
conceptual models of commitment previously reviewed and the
established relations between environmental and personal char-
acteristics and satisfaction. Also examined was the role of com-
mitment as an intervening variable between satisfaction and
turnover intentions. Finally, whereas the preceding discussion
and examples provide support for satisfaction leading to com-
mitment, others have suggested a reverse sequence (Bateman &
Strasser, 1984; Weiner & Vardi, 1980). This perspective, as sum-
marized by Bateman and Strasser (1984), suggests that "a cog-
nitive outlook such as commitment is rationalized by subsequent
attitudes of job satisfaction" (p. 97). Thus, the causal relation
from commitment to satisfaction was additionally investigated,
along with the associated hypotheses that commitment mediates
the impact of work/personal characteristics on satisfaction and
that satisfaction intervenes between commitment and turnover
intentions. To provide a strong test of these hypotheses, data
from two previously described turnover path analysis studies were
reanalyzed. In this process, competing models were examined
through a sequence of model comparisons as described by James,
Mulaik, and Brett (1982), while controlling for the biasing effects
of measurement error. The goal was to use confirmatory analytic
techniques to provide a strong test of the proposed mediating
hypotheses (James & Brett, 1984).
Measurement Error in Path Analysis
The biasing effects of method variance and random measure-
ment error in path analysis models have been noted for industrial/
organizational psychologists by Billings and Wroten (1978). Both
Bagozzi (1980) and Kenny (1979) have provided detailed alge-
braic descriptions of how measurement error effects the estimated
causal parameters obtained from regression analyses, and James
et al. (1982) have given an empirical demonstration. To sum-
marize Kenny (1979), measurement error in an endogenous (de-
pendent) variable attenuates the standardized path coefficient
but not the unstandardized coefficient, whereas the effects of
error in two or more exogenous (independent, predictor) variables
is difficult to predict. Such error can attenuate estimates of coef-
ficients, make the estimates of zero coefficients nonzero, or yield
coefficients with the wrong sign.
Several solutions have been proposed for the problems that
measurement error presents for regression-based analyses. First,
it has been suggested that the correlations be corrected for at-
tenuation prior to the use of multiple regression to estimate pa-
rameters. However, as noted by Kenny (1979), the major problem
with this approach is that the resulting parameter estimates can-
not be tested for significance in the usual way. Kenny (1979) has
also described the use of instrumental variables for the mea-
surement error problem. This technique requires an exogenous
variable that is related to the other exogenous variables in the
model, but not to the endogenous variable. As such, this tech-
nique is useful only under very restrictive conditions. A third
strategy involves the use of latent variable models, most often
with multiple indicators (e.g., Bentler, 1980; Schmitt & Bedeian,
1982).
222 LARRY J. WILLIAMS AND JOHN T. HAZER
Although the use of latent variable models with multiple in-
dicators represents an advancement in social science method-
ology, this technique is not without its limitations. Schmitt and
Bedeian (1982) point out that the mathematics of latent variable
analysis with multiple indicators are complex, and obtaining
enough indicators for identification may not always be feasible.
In other words, there may not be enough information in the
covariances/correlations to allow for unique parameter estimates.
They also mention the distorted estimates of structural param-
eters that can result from the simultaneous solution of the mea-
surement and structural models, a problem similar to interpre-
tational confounding as discussed by Bagozzi (1980). Finally,
there may be cases where well-established scales are available to
measure a construct, and the decision is made not to break the
scale into several indicators.
Thus, a technique is needed that would allow for the evaluation
of latent variable models when multiple indicators are not avail-
Table 1
Variables From Each Sample Used in Analyses
Variable Definition
Sample 1
Pre-employment The extent to which the job is what
expectations it was expected when it was taken.
Perceived job characteristics A worker's perception of the amount
of variety, autonomy, feedback,
task identity, and task
significance.
Leadership consideration The consideration of a supervisor for
subordinate's feelings, problems,
and input for decisions, as
assessed by subordinate.
Age An individual's chronological age.
Job satisfaction The affective orientation of
individuals to the work roles they
occupy and characteristics of their
jobs.
Organizational The strength of an individual's
commitment identification with and
involvement in an organization.
Intent to quit Workers' intentions, desires, and
plans to quit their job.
Turnover The act of actually leaving the
organization.
Sample 2
Equity The extent to which an individual's
job inputs and/or outcomes are
perceived as equivalent to those in
the individual's reference group.
Routinization The extent to which role
performance in an organization is
repetitive.
Instrumental information The extent to which information
about role performance is
transmitted to organization
members.
Intent to leave The worker's plans for leaving the
organization.
Age, satisfaction, Same as Sample I.
commitment, and
turnover
able or when the decision is made not to use them. This approach
would provide an alternative to ignoring the biasing effects of
measurement error. Such a method has been developed (James
et al., 1982; Kenny, 1979) and was used in the present research
to evaluate the previously described hypotheses regarding the
relations between job satisfaction and organizational commit-
ment and their antecedents.
Method
The data used in the present research came from the studies by Michaels
and Specter (1982) and Bluedorn (1982) and will be subsequently referred
to as Sample 1 and Sample 2. The variables used from each sample are
defined in Table 1. Note that the exogenous work environment variables
differ in Samples 1 and 2. The selection of three different variables to
describe the work environment in Sample 2 allowed for a more rigorous
test of the mediating role of satisfaction. As previously mentioned, data
from Sample 1 was collected at a community mental health center, whereas
Sample 2 data came from a large insurance company. Further information
on these two samples can be found in the original articles.
Model Development
Any causal model can be described graphically and in matrix equation
form. The graphic representation of a general model for Sample 1 is
presented in Figure 1; the matrix form appears in Table 2. Although
three of the exogenous variables are different, a model with the same
causal parameters for Sample 2 appears in Figure 2 and Table 3. These
two models contain all of the causal parameters of theoretical interest.
Thus, these general models served as a basis for the development of the
other models that were examined with each sample. However, it is im-
portant to note that they could not be evaluated due to identification
problems. More specifically, /94 and 05 could not be estimated at the
same time. The symbols used to represent the factor loadings (X), mea-
surement error (5, f I, path coefficients (y, /)), and residuals (0 reflect the
standard notation used in the latent variable modeling literature. With
only a single measure (indicator) of each construct, it was necessary to
make assumptions about the values of the measurement parameters. These
parameters were fixed prior to the analyses and are noted with an aster-
isk(*), whereas the values at which they were set are in parentheses (see
Figures 1 and 2). The rationale for selecting these values will now be
considered.
As discussed by Kenny (1979), information about the reliabilities of
the measured variables can be used when working with standardized
variables within a path-analytic framework. More specifically, in the
present application, the path from any construct to its measured variable
(X) equals the square root of the reliability of the measured variable,
while the amount of random error variance (6, e) is the quantity one
minus the reliability. Thus, the coefficient alpha reliabilities reported by
Michaels and Spector (1982) and Bluedorn (1982) were used in this fashion
to select the values at which the factor loadings and error variances were
set. These values appear in the parentheses in Figures 1 and 2.' This
approach has been further described by James et al. (1982), and an ap-
plication has been given by Heise and Smith-Lovin (1982).
1
Michaels and Spector reported only the reliabilities of the measures
of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and leadership consid-
eration. For the present analyses, the reliabilities of the intention questions
and the expectation question were assumed to be .85. The value used for
perceived job characteristics was .90.
TURNOVER MODELS 223

Jt S-*

s§

1
s

A
'\ *•» ^> 1
~
\ £ °s
\

\
\
<
*"- ' ^S
> ^ e^ |
\ *
\CSJ
N S
u -
«

\ J
•a
«s ~ c ^
FH £
s
\ >-

>-\ J
224 LARRY J. WILLIAMS AND JOHN T. HAZER

Table 2
Matrix Representation for Sample 1

Structural model

JS 0 05 0 0 JS -rl 1-3 T5 77 TPEI r n "I

OC 04 0 0 0 OC T2 t4 T6 y8 PJC {2
+
IQ 01 (32 0 0 IQ ^9 TlO -fll yl2 LC J3
T 0 0 S3 0 T 0 0 0 0 LA J |_f4-
Measurement model
Yl XY1" 0 0 0 ~ JS «!•
Y2 0 XY21 0 0 OC <2«
+
Y3 0 0 XY3" 0 IQ <y
_Y4_ 0 0 0 XY4" T if
~X1~ " XXI' 0 0 0 PE &]•
X2 0 XX2« 0 0 PJC 62'
= +
X3 0 0 XX3' 0 LC sy
X4 0 0 0 XX4' _ A j 54"

Note. JS = job satisfaction; PE = preemployment expectations; OC = organizational commitment; PJC = perceived job characteristics; IQ = intent
to quit; LC = leadership consideration; T = turnover; A = age.
• Fixed parameter.

Model Evaluation
A correlation matrix based on listwise deletion of missing data was
obtained from the Sample 1 data (n = 106), and a matrix based on
pairwise deletion of missing data was used from the Sample 2 data (average
n = 157)2-3. These correlation matrices were used individually as input
to the computer program LISREL (Version 6, Joreskog & Sorbom, 1985),
which provides maximum likelihood estimates of the parameters that
are not fixed and a corresponding chi-square statistic and other goodness-
of-fit measures, which represent the overall adequacy of the model.4 Along
with the correlation matrix, the information from the estimated reli-
abilities from each sample was also entered into the program. Thus, a
two-step process was used: The reliabilities were obtained, and then pa-
rameters were estimated based on the reliabilities.
In addition to a Structural Null Model proposing no causal relations
between the exogenous and endogenous variables (Bender & Bonett, 1980),
four other models were evaluated with each sample. Three of these models
differed from the general models presented in Figures 1 and 2 in that
certain parameters representing relations between constructs were con-
strained. Such a set of models can be said to be nested. James et al.
(1982) have discussed the need for the development of a sequence of tests
for nested models prior to actually conducting the analyses to avoid "ex-
ploring" the data. Accordingly, each model serves as a basis of comparison
for those prior to it in the sequence, and as such, must differ by having
additional parameters constrained, or in the present application, fixed
to zero. The null hypothesis is that the restricted parameters) equals
zero, and a chi-square difference test (e.g., Bender & Bonett, 1980) is
used to test the hypothesis. Under these conditions, a comparison of any
two sequential models serves as a test of the importance of the restricted
parameters). This sequence of model comparisons continues until one
rejects the null hypothesis, at which point the alternative model with the
free parameters) is tentatively "accepted." The fourth model was evaluated
independently because it was not nested under the first three models. To
supplement the chi-square difference test, goodness-of-fit measures were
examined.
The four models that were evaluated and the parameters that were free
to be estimated in each are presented in Table 4. As can be seen in the
description in Table 4, Model A contains the most free parameters and
serves as a basis of comparison for Models B and C which are nested
under it. Model B contains the three mediating hypotheses presented
earlier: (a) satisfaction and commitment mediate the impact of the ex-
ogenous variables describing personal and work environment character-
istics on turnover intentions; (b) satisfaction mediates the impact of the
exogenous variables on commitment; (c) commitment similarly serves
as an intervening variable between satisfaction and turnover intentions.
Model C is identical to Model B, except that it proposes that satisfaction
and commitment are not related; this model allows for an explicit test
of the satisfaction-commitment relation. Finally, Model D contains the
previously described hypotheses that the exogenous variables impact on
commitment, which has an effect on satisfaction, which influences turn-
over intentions. Although Models B and C are nested under Model A
and could be evaluated as such, Model D is not nested under the other
models and was examined independently.
Results
The chi-square values, associated degrees of freedom, and
probability levels for the models that were evaluated are presented
for both samples in Table 5. Also reported in Table 5 are three
measures of the overall adequacy of each model provided by
LISREL: root mean square residua] (RMSR), goodness-of-fit index
(GFI), and the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AOFI). Also pre-
3
Although these sample sizes are moderate at best, the use of model
comparison procedures (rather than individual chi-square values), incre-
mental fit indexes (Bentler & Bonett, 1980) and two samples minimizes
this problem. However, it should be noted that important work is in
progress that examines the distributions of the chi-square statistic and
goodness-of-fit indexes under a variety of conditions (e.g., Anderson &
Gerbing, 1984; Bearden, Sharma, & Teel, 1982).
3
In a personal communication, Spector indicated that the positive
signs of the correlations between satisfaction and intent to leave and
commitment and intent to leave were reported incorrectly. Therefore,
we have corrected this error by changing these signs prior to the analyses.
* It is also possible to analyze a covariance matrix with LISREL. To
account for measurement error, the value entered for (X) still equals the
square root of the reliability of the measured variable, but the amount
of random error variance (5,e) is the quantity: (one minus the reliability)
multiplied by the variance of the measured variable.
TURNOVER MODELS 225

s
•5
226 LARRY J. WILLIAMS AND JOHN T. HAZER

Table 3
Matrix Representation for Sample 2

Structural model
IS 0 05 0 JS 7" 73 75
OC 04 0 0 OC 72 74 76
IL 02 0 IL 79 710
T 0 03 T o 0

Measurement model
1
Yl XYI 0 0 0 JS ~ el"
Y2 0 AY2" 0 0 OC tV
+
Y3 0 0 XY3" 0 IL e3'
Y4 0 0 0 XY4- T t4'

~X1 ~xxi" o o o ~E ~ d\" '

X2 0 XX2- 0 0 R x2"
X3 0 0 XX3" 0 II t3f
X4 0 0 0 XX4"j A 64"

Note. JS = job satisfaction; E = equity; OC = organizational commitment; R = routinization; IL = intent to leave; II = instrumental information;
T = turnover; A = age.
* Fixed parameter.

sented in this table are the values for the two other goodness-of- hypothesized restrictions to zero of 79-712, 72, y4, 76, 78 and
fit measures used. The normed fit index (Bentler & Bonett, 1980) 01. It is also important that these parameters, when allowed to
is calculated as follows: NFI = (x 2 Nu ii - x2Modd)/x2NUu. The for- be free in Model A, were generally nonsignificant. More specif-
mula for the parsimonious fit index (James, Mulaik, & Brett, ically, in Model A only the estimates of f)\ from Sample 1 and
1982) is: PFI = (dfM<xtel/dfNull) X NFI. In general, these five mea- >4 in Sample 2 had critical ratios (estimate/standard error)
sures represent the difference between the correlation matrix greater than 2.0. In other words, only 2 of the 18 parameters
predicted by the model and one actually obtained in the sample. that were restricted across both samples in Model B had signif-
As indicated in Table 5, Model A was shown to have an ad- icant critical ratios in Model A.
equate fit in both samples according to four of the five fit mea- Further support for Model B conies from the fit measures.
sures, which was expected because it contains many parameters Although the NFI drops from .960 and .967 to .873 and .905,
that have been supported in the literature. The relative small respectively, in both samples, these values are still adequate ac-
value for the PFI reflects the large number of parameters in Model cording to the .90 criterion provided by Bentler and Bonett
A. Next, Model B was evaluated, which contained the restriction (1980). Also, the GFI and AGFI values for Model B are not very
to zero of nine paths. In Sample I , the comparison of Model B
with Model A yielded a chi-square difference of 20.69, whereas
in Sample 2 it was 18.64. Although both of these values are Table 5
slightly larger than the .05 critical value of 16.92, the Sample 2 Results ofLJSREL Analyses
result is less than the critical value at the .025 level (19.02), and
the Sample 1 result is less than the critical value at the .01 level Model df x2 RMSR NFI PFI GFI AGFI
(21.67). Thus, based on this test, there was some support for the
Sample 1
A 6 9.60* .040 .960 .262 .979 .874
B 15 30.29 .059 .873 .595 .936 .846
Table 4
C 16 103.57 .225 .566 .412 .854 .671
Model descriptions D 15 55.78 .081 .766 .522 .889 .734
Structural
Model Free parameters Description null 22 238.90 .291 .605 .354
— —
A 7! - 7 l 2 ; 0 1 -04 E — S, C, and I; S — C; Sample 2
S and C — I; I — T
B 7 1,73, 75, 77; 02, E — S; S — C; C — I; A 6 10.12* .038 .967 .264 .984 .906
03,04 I— T B 15 28.76* .055 .905 .617 .958 .898
C 71,73, 75, 77; 02, E — S; C — I; I — T C 16 159.04 .208 .475 .345 .853 .669
03 D 15 54.64 .063 .819 .558 .919 .805
D 72,74, 76, 78; 01, E — C; C — S; S — I; Structural
03,05 I— T null 22 303.21 .263 — — .656 .437
Structural No causal paths No causal paths
null Note. RMSR = root mean square residual; NFI = normed fit index.
PFI = parsimonious fit index; GFI = goodness-of-nt index; AGFI =
Note. E = exogenous variables; S = job satisfaction; C = organizational adjusted goodness-of-nt index.
commitment; I = intent to quit/leave; T = turnover. * p > .05.
 TURNOVER MODELS 227

different from Model A, with the largest difference being .043
for the CFI in Sample 1. Finally, the strongest evidence in support
of Model B is provided by the PFI values. As described earlier,
this measure summarizes how well a model fits data in terms of
the parsimony of the model by taking account of the degrees of
freedom of the model relative to the Null Model. It is clear that
Model B is more satisfactory in this respect than Model A, in
that the PFI values are considerably higher. More specifically,
the PFI increases in Model B from .262 and .264 to .595 and
.617, respectively, a noticeable improvement. In summary, the
combined evidence from the chi-square difference test, critical
ratios, and goodness-of-fit measures supports Model B and the
three mediating hypotheses contained in it.
The comparison of Model B with Model C was conducted
next to evaluate the importance of 04. The chi-square difference
was large and significant in both Sample 1 and 2 (73.28, 130.28,
respectively). Thus, the hypothesized restriction of 04 can be
rejected. Also, the values for all of the fit measures dropped con-
siderably. Specifically, the drop for the PFI measure (.183 and
.272) clearly indicates the importance of 04 to the overall model.
Model D was evaluated as an alternative for comparison to
Model B. Whereas these two models cannot be directly compared
because they are not nested, the chi-square values and fit mea-
sures can be examined for each. Such an examination indicates
Model B to have a lower chi-square value and better values on
each fit measure. It is also important to note that a model iden-
tical to Model A except for having 05 rather than /34 would have
the same chi-square value as Model A, because in this instance
it is impossible to distinguish between these two models. There-
fore, had such a model been compared to Model D, the resulting
chi-square difference would have clearly exceeded the critical
value. This fact provides additional evidence in support of Model
B over Model D.
Finally, as suggested by James, Mulaik, and Brett (1982),
Model B was compared to the Structural Null Model to test the
importance of the parameters in Model B. The chi-square dif-
ference was large and significant in both samples (208.61 in
Sample 1 and 274.45 in Sample 2). In conclusion, the compar-
isons of Models A, B, C, and D provide support for the proposed
mediating hypotheses contained in Model B and demonstrate
the importance of the satisfaction-commitment relation. The
parameter estimates from Model B are provided in Figures 3

(.38)

* CTltlctl utlo < 2.0

Figure 3. Summary of Model B in Sample I.

228 LARRY J. WILLIAMS AND JOHN T. HAZER

and 4. As can be seen in these figures, the values of all the esti-
mates were reasonably large, with only the path from routini-
zation to satisfaction in Sample 2 having a critical ratio less
than 2.0.
Discussion
The present research was conducted to address the following
issues: (a) Do personal and organizational characteristics influ-
ence turnover intentions through their effect on satisfaction and
commitment? (b) Are personal and organizational characteristics
direct antecedents of both satisfaction and commitment? (c) Do
both satisfaction and commitment have an impact on turnover
intentions? (d) Should job satisfaction be considered as a causal
factor contributing to organizational commitment? and (e) Is
there support for a causal relation from commitment to satis-
faction? These questions formed the basis of the mediating hy-
potheses that were investigated. The use of two data sets, rep-
resenting different samples and different operationalizations of
the factors of interest, allowed for a thorough investigation of
these issues. Although the specific results of the analyses varied
slightly across the two samples, in general the model comparisons
led to the same conclusions.
With respect to both samples, the results of the comparison
of Model A with Model B provided clear answers to the first
three questions. First, the analyses indicated that the variables
describing personal characteristics and the work environment
have no direct impact on turnover intentions. In view of the
variety of these exogenous variables (e.g., expectations, age, job
characteristics, instrumental information), this finding substan-
tiates the importance of satisfaction and commitment as inter-
vening variables in models of turnover, these variables represent
the affect that results even from very diverse antecedents.
The results also provided evidence relevant to the second
question. With both samples, the comparison strongly supported
the proposition that personal and organizational characteristics
influence only satisfaction directly, and influence commitment
only indirectly through their impact on satisfaction and its sub-
sequent effect on commitment. This conclusion received further
support from the fact that the paths from the exogenous variables

.U (-48)

* tlltlctl Tttlo < 2.0

Figure 4. Summary of Model B in Sample 2.

 TURNOVER MODELS
to commitment had critical ratios less than 2.0 (with the excep-
tion of -y4 in Sample 2). From a theoretical perspective, this
suggests that the existing conceptual models of commitment
should be reexamined to determine whether all of the proposed
determinants might have their effects indirectly via satisfaction.
Additionally, such an effort might identify causal factors of com-
mitment operating independently of satisfaction. Either way, the
result would be a clarification of the processes through which
affective factors influence turnover intentions.
The results also indicate an important methodological limi-
tation of the path analysis technique: It does not allow for the
simultaneous examination of the effects of exogenous variables
on two or more endogenous variables. In other words, even in
the previous studies, which included both satisfaction and com-
mitment, the use of path analysis precluded addressing the ques-
tion of the direct effects of determinants on both of these variables
at the same time. On the other hand, working with a system of
equations (as with LISREL) provides an alternative to this problem.
With respect to the third question, the comparison suggests
that commitment had a more important effect on intent to leave
or quit than did satisfaction. However, this should only be con-
sidered as a tentative conclusion. Although in Sample 1 the crit-
ical ratio for the satisfaction-intent path (01) was not significant,
in Sample 2 it was. Furthermore, such a finding is not surprising
because one of the components of organizational commitment
is the desire to remain with the organization. A more desirable
test of the question would be based on excluding the desire-to-
stay items from the commitment scale. Unfortunately, this was
not possible in the present case because existing published data
was used.
In terms of the fourth question, the comparison of Model B
with Model C indicated that the direct link from satisfaction to
commitment was supported in both samples. The chi-square
difference between Model B and Model C greatly exceeded the
critical value, and Model C showed a much poorer fit across all
of the goodness-of-fit measures. Furthermore, as shown in Figure
3 and Figure 4, the parameter estimates for 04 were very large
in both samples. Clearly, this indicates a strong and important
relation.
The evaluation of Model D attempted to address a fifth ques-
tion, the issue of the causal impact of commitment on satisfaction.
As mentioned previously, the evidence favored Model B over
Model D. Thus, there was less support for a causal link from
commitment to satisfaction than for a path in the reverse direc-
tion. However, a few comments are appropriate with respect to
these findings. First, the test of the commitment to satisfaction
path was conducted in the context of a model proposing that the
exogenous variables influence only commitment directly. As
found by Bateman and Strasser (1984), an alternative model
would be that the exogenous variables and commitment influence
satisfaction. Second, although the results of these two models
suggest the possibility of a reciprocal relation between satisfaction
and commitment, it was not possible to test for this with the
present data due to such a model being underidentified. Finally,
it should be noted that trying to assess directionality with cross-
sectional data is a nearly impossible task, and longitudinal re-
search such as that by Bateman and Strasser (1984) is necessary
to address the question. However, as discussed by Gallini (1983),
the specification errors associated with using path analysis with
229
longitudinal data result in interpretational difficulties, whereas
latent variable models are applicable and offer many advantages
with this type of data. These advantages include preventing some
of the problems created by specification errors such as incorrect
assumptions about measurement error and correlated residuals
in a set of regression equations.
Because the data on which the present research was based
came from existing published research, one implication is that
the original findings from Michaels and Spector (1982) and
Bluedom (1982) need to be reconsidered. With respect to Sample
1, the results reported by Michaels and Spector clearly were not
supported in the reanalysis. Their failure to consider satisfaction
and commitment as causally related was a serious shortcoming,
as shown by the substantial increment in fit associated with the
path /34 during the Model B-Model C comparison. They also
reported significant and rather large path coefficients associated
with the relations between the exogenous variables and com-
mitment. The present analysis demonstrated these causal paths
to be insignificant, both statistically through the chi-square dif-
ference test and substantively through the goodness-of-fit indexes.
Finally, although the present research did not directly compare
their model with one which made provisions for measurement
error, the preceding discussion suggests that the path coefficients
they reported and the overall variance accounted for by their
model were influenced by measurement error.
The current reanalysis also has implications for the findings
reported by Bluedorn (1982), although only four of the exogenous
variables from the original data were used. Bluedorn (1982)
demonstrated the importance of the satisfaction-commitment
relation; this was further exemplified by the large increment in
fit associated with it in the present analysis. However, although
the direct path between age and turnover was not investigated
currently, the failure during the reanalysis to support a direct
link from age to intent suggests that the age-turnover link might
be unnecessary. Also, the paths from equity and age to com-
mitment were not replicated in the reanalysis; they were dem-
onstrated to lead to commitment only indirectly via satisfaction.
Interestingly, the relation between routinization and satisfaction
did not parallel those of the other exogenous variables: The critical
ratio (LISREL estimate/standard error) did not exceed 2.0, sug-
gesting that it was not significant. Also, this may be the result of
the measure of satisfaction used in Sample 2. Finally, as with
the Michaels and Spector results, our discussion of measurement
error suggests that the path coefficients reported by Bluedorn
were biased.
The findings of the current research present a challenge to the
previously described models and research investigating com-
mitment and turnover. The major focus of the commitment lit-
erature has been to identify antecedents of commitment from a
variety of categories (e.g., Morris & Sherman, 1981; Steers, 1977;
Stevens et al., 1978). These categories have included personal
characteristics, work experiences, job characteristics, organiza-
tional factors, and role-related factors. The primary mechanism
through which these factors have been assumed to influence
commitment is an exchange process. The present research, in
conjunction with existing reviews of the antecedents of satisfac-
tion, which have validated the roles of personal and organizational
characteristics (e.g., Mitchell, 1979), supports the proposal that
these factors may influence commitment only indirectly. In other
230 LARRY J. WILLIAMS AND JOHN T. HAZER
words, through a process of the evaluation of costs and benefits,
individual needs and desires are satisfied, and the resulting af-
fective state becomes associated with the organization, which has
provided the job and its associated characteristics and environ-
ment. Commitment results from this association. Such a per-
spective was the basis of the other previously described research
by Farrell and Rusbult (1981) and Rusbult and Farrell (1983).
Additionally, an investigation found support for this exchange
process in interpersonal relations (Rusbult, 1983). In this lon-
gitudinal study, satisfaction resulted from rewards and led to
increased commitment in the relation with another.
In conclusion, several conceptual models and path analysis
studies of the processes responsible for turnover were presented,
and the results of the current research should provide for the
further development of these models. The support for the sat-
isfaction-commitment relation and the clarification of the pro-
cesses through which personal and organizational characteristics
influence satisfaction and subsequently commitment represent
important refinements that should benefit further efforts in this
area. Rather than simply categorize determinants of turnover
(e.g., Muchinsky & Morrow, 1980), researchers can try to detail
relations between and within these classes. As an alternative to
assuming that satisfaction is the primary affective factor resulting
in turnover (e.g., Mobley et al., 1979; Price, 1977), or that the
affective responses are unrelated (e.g., Steers & Mowday, 1981),
attention can be given to detailing the sequence of emotional
responses in this process. In terms of the empirical turnover
studies reviewed, the present research suggests that those failing
to include both satisfaction and commitment (e.g., Bluedorn,
1979; Martin, 1979; Price & Mueller, 1981) should be viewed
cautiously. Ignoring the causal relation between satisfaction and
commitment (e.g., Arnold & Feldman, 1982) was also demon-
strated to represent a serious limitation. Finally, all of the path-
analysis studies presented ignored measurement error: The
reanalyses that were conducted presently demonstrate a technique
for accounting for measurement error that should be useful to
researchers in this area.
References
Anderson, J. C, & Gerbing, D. W. (1984). The effect of sampling error
on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for
maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49,
155-173.
Arnold, H., & Feldman, D. C. (1982). A multivariate analysis of the
determinants of job turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 350-
360.
Bagozzi, R. R. (1980). Causal models in marketing. New York: Wiley.
Bateman, T. S.. & Strassei; S. (1984). A longitudinal analysis of the an-
tecedents of organizational commitment Academy of Management
Journal, 27, 95-112.
Bearden, W. Q, Sharma, S., & Teel, J. E. (1982). Sample size effects on
chi-square and other statistics used in evaluating causal models. Journal
of Marketing Research 19, 425-430.
Bentler, P. M. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables: Causal
modeling. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review
of psychology (Vol. 31, pp. 419-456). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness
of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin,
88, 588-606.
Billings, R. S., & Wroten, S. P. (1978). Use of path analysis in industrial/
organizational psychology: Criticisms and suggestions. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology. 63. 677-688.
Bluedom, A. C. (1979). Structure, environment, and satisfaction: Toward
a causal model of turnover from military organizations. Journal of
Military and Political Sociology, 7, 181-207.
Bluedom, A. C. (1982). A unified model of turnover from organizations.
Human Relations, 35, 135-153.
Clegg, C. W. (1983). Psychology of employee lateness, absence, and turn-
over A methodological critique and an empirical study. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 68, 88-101.
Farrell, D., & Rusbult, C. E. (1981). Exchange variables as predictors of
job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover The impact of rewards,
costs, alternatives, and investments. Organizational Behavior and Hu-
man Performance, 27, 79-95.
Gallini, J. (1983). Misspecifications that can result in path analysis struc-
tures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 125-137.
Heise, D. R., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1981). Impressions of goodness, pow-
erfulness, and liveliness from discerned social events. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 44, 93-106.
Horn, P. W., & Hulin, C. L. (1981). A competitive test of the prediction
of reenlistment by several models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66,
23-39.
Horn, P. W, Katerbeig, R., & Hulin, C. L. (1979). Comparative exam-
ination of three approaches to the prediction of turnover. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 64, 280-290.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York:
Harcourt, Brace, & World.
James, L. R., & Brett, J. (1984). Mediators, moderators, and tests for
mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 307-321.
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. S., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Jflreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1985). LISREL: Analysis of linear structural
relationships by the method of maximum likelihood. Chicago: National
Educational Resources, Inc.
Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and causality. New York: Wiley.
Koch, J. L., & Steers, R. M. (1978). Job attachment, satisfaction, and
turnover among public sector employees. Journal of Vocational Be-
havior, 12, 119-128.
Martin, T. N. (1979). A contextual model of employee turnover intentions.
Academy of Management Journal, 22, 313-324.
Michaels, C. E., & Specter, P. E. (1982). Causes of employee turnover
A test of the Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, and Meglino model. Journal of
Applied Psychology. 67, 53-59.
Miller, H. E., Katerberg, R., & Hulin, C. L. (1979). Evaluation of the
Mobley, Homer, and HoUingsworth model of employee turnover. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 64, 509-517.
Mitchel, J. O. (1981). The effect of intentions, tenure, personal, and or-
ganizational variables on managerial turnover Academy of Management
Journal, 24, 742-751.
Mitchell, T. R. (1979). Organizational behavior. In M. R. Rosenzweig &
L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology, (Vol. 30, pp. 243-
281). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between
job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology,
62. 237-240.
Mobley, W. H., Griffeth, R. W., Hand, H. H., & Meglino, B. M. (1979).
Review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 86, 493-522.
Mobley, W. H., Homer, S. O., & HoUingsworth, A. T. (1978). An evaluation
of the precursors of hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 63, 408-414.
Morris, J. H., & Sherman, J. D. (1981). Generalizability of an organi-
zational commitment model. Academy of Management Journal, 24,
512-526.
 TURNOVER MODELS
Morrow, P. C. (1983). Concept redundancy in organizational research:
The case of work commitment. Academy of Management Review, 8,
486-500.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement
of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14,
224-247.
Muchinsky, P. M., & Morrow, P. C. (1980). A multidisciplinary model
of voluntary turnover. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 17, 263-290.
Parasuraman, S. (1982). Predicting turnover intentions and turnover be-
havior. A multivariate analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21,
111-121.
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974).
Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among
psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603-609.
Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1981). A causal model of turnover for
nurses. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 543-565.
Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The
development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in
heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 45, 101-117.
Rusbult, C. E., & Farrell, D. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment
model: The impact on job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover
231
of variations in rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 68, 429^*38.
Schmitt, N., & Bedeian, A. G. (1982). A comparison of USREL and two-
stage least squares analysis of a hypothesized life-job satisfaction re-
ciprocal relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 806-817.
Steers, R. M. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational com-
mitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 46-56.
Steers, R. M., & Mowday, R. T. (1981). Employee turnover and post-
decision accommodation processes. Research in Organizational Be-
havior, Volume 3. JAI Press, Inc.
Stevens, J. M., Beyer, J. M., & Trice, H. M. (1978). Assessing personal,
role, and organizational predictors of managerial commitment. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 21, 380-396.
Weiner, Y., & Vardi, Y. (1980). Relationships between job, organization,
and career commitments and work outcomes—An integrative ap-
proach. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26, 81-
96.
Received April 30, 1985
Revision received August 2, 1985