Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts

8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts

1/42

Durham Business School

MA Courses 2010

Organisational Behaviour

Nikos Bozionelos

Office No: 5.05

Session 4: Individual Differences:

Attitudes in the Workplace


2/42

Work Attitudes


3/42

attitudes

definition:

cognitive mechanism that evaluates

objects of thought on

dimensions of Judgment

work examples: job satisfaction;

organisational commitment

malleable


4/42

Structure of ATTITUDES

attitude

emotional behaviouralcognitive

(McGuire, 1985)


5/42

critical issue

attitude behaviour?


6/42

Attitudes and Behaviour

yes, but: (e.g. Miller & Gibbs, 1984)

(1) level of specificity in the definition of theattitude object (broad VS narrow definitions)

(2) level of specificity in the definition ofrelevant behaviour (single VS multiple acts)

(3) Number and strength of external factorsor "pressures"

(4) Priority of some attitudes over other attitudes.


7/42

Attitude towards

the behaviour

subjective

norms

behavioural

intention

perceivedbehavioural

control

behaviour

Theory of Planned Behaviou

(Ajzen, 1991, 2002)

self-efficacy towardsperforming the behaviour

Attitudes and BehaviourAttitudes and Behaviour


8/42

beliefs about

computer use

& performance

beliefs about

peers viewson computers

intention to

use computers

computerself-efficacy

computer

utilisation

(Hill, Smith & Mann, 1987)

computerexperience

Illustration


9/42

Attitudes and Behaviour

another illustration

van Eerde & Thiery (1996): how well

attitudes predict:

Actual Job Performance low (+.19)

Job Effort (+0.29)Intention to expend effort: moderate (+0.42)

Attitude towards the reward high (+0.72)


10/42

Job Satisfaction


11/42

Job Satisfaction:

a pleasurable or positive emotional stateresulting from the appraisal of ones job or

job experience

(Locke, 1976)

Job SatisfactionJob Satisfaction isis anan attitudeattitude towardstowards

various aspects of the jobvarious aspects of the jobhence, it has three components:hence, it has three components:

emotional, cognitive, behaviouralemotional, cognitive, behavioural


12/42

(some)Aspects of the Job

that determineJob Satisfaction

Job content (the work itself)

Monetary rewards Promotion opportunities

Supervision

Colleagues Working Conditions (including

organizational policies)


13/42

What causes Job Satisfaction?


14/42

e.g., Vitamin model (Warr et al., 1987, 1996)

Constant Effect

monetary rewardsphysical security

social position

Additional Decrement

control opportunityskill use

external goal generation

role clarity

interpersonal contact

the Job itselfthe Job itself


15/42

Job Satisfaction as Disposition

Personality Traits are partly responsible for

individual differences in job satisfaction

e.g.,e.g.,

studies by Judge et al. (1999) in the US,studies by Judge et al. (1999) in the US,

Bozionelos (2004) in the UKBozionelos (2004) in the UK

our outlook of lifeour outlook of life


16/42

Job Satisfaction &job performance

job turnover

absenteeism

Outcomes of Job SatisfactionOutcomes of Job Satisfaction


17/42

Job satisfaction and Performance

review by Iafaldano & Michinsky (1985):

very weak relationship

meta-analysis byJudge, Thoresen, Bono & Patton (2001):

relationship of substantial strength (r = .30)


18/42

Job satisfaction and Performance

a fundamental issue in the relationshipbetween job satisfaction and jobperformance is the issue ofcausality,that is which causes which(?)

a metaa meta--analysis of only longitudinal studiesanalysis of only longitudinal studies

by Riketta (2008) indicated that there is aby Riketta (2008) indicated that there is avery weakvery weak((rr = .03)= .03) causaleffectfrom Jobcausaleffectfrom Job

Satisfaction towards Job PerformanceSatisfaction towards Job Performance


19/42

Job Satisfaction and Job Performance

Organ & Ryan (1995): meta-analysis

job satisfaction relates substantially to

contextualperformanceFurthermore:

individual

job satisfaction

organisational

levelperformance

(Dennis et al., 1996; Harter et al., 2002; Ostroff, 1992)


20/42

Job Satisfaction & job Turnover

a relationship of moderate strength

(e.g., Lee & Mowday, 1987; Tett & Meyer, 1993)

voluntary


21/42


job satisfaction is only one factor in the

turnoverprocess

(e.g., Tett & Meyer, 1993)

Job Turnover model

(Mobley et al., 1978)


22/42


Job TurnoverJob Turnover model (Mobley et al., 1978)model (Mobley et al., 1978)


23/42


influencing factors:

unemployment rate (Home & Kinicki, 2001)

age and job tenure

additional factor:

modelling (epidemiological perspective)

(Krackhardt & Porter)


24/42


key point to remember:

the decision to leave (turnover) is only

one of the alternatives employees have

(exhaustive model by Hulin et al., 1985)


25/42


Alternative responses (Hulin et al., 1985)


26/42

Human Resource practice:

job

dissatisfaction turnover rate

job

satisfactionturnover rate

?

but

Job Satisfaction & Job Turnover


27/42


there is FunctionalTurnover(Dalton, Todor & Krackhardt, 1982; Mobley, 1982)

factfact to be borne in mind:to be borne in mind:

i.e., when poor performers leave


28/42

Job Satisfaction & Absenteeism

critical point:absenteeism is different from turnover

socialexchangeaccount ofabsenteeism(Chadwick-Jones et al.)


29/42


there is an inverse relationship ofmoderate strength

(Hackett, 1989; Scott & Taylor, 1985)


30/42


influencing factors of absence

perceived importance of work(Clegg, 1983)

non-work activities (Landy, 1989)

initiation VS duration of absence


31/42

Human Resource practice:


job

dissatisfaction absenteeism

job

satisfactionabsenteeism

?

but


32/42

Organisational Commitment


33/42

Organisational Commitment

attitude towards ones employing organisation

Affective (attitudinal)

Continuance (calculative)

Normative

(Allen & Meyer, 1990)


34/42

Antecedents to Commitment

WorkExperiences

affective

perceivedcosts of leaving

continuance

normativesocialisation

(Meyer & Allen, 1991)


35/42

job satisfaction

affective

continuance

normative

+(r = .65)- (r= -.07)

(r = .31) +

(Meyer et al., 2002; Tett & Meyer, 1993)

how Commitment relates to:


36/42

overall Job Performance

affective commitment: positive (r = .16)

continuance commitment:

(mildly) negative (r = -.07)

normative commitment:

(mildly) positive (r = .06)


(meta-analysis by Meyer et al., 2002)


37/42

a fundamental issue in the relationshipis the issue ofcausality, that is whichcauses which(?)

a meta-analysis of only longitudinal studies

by Riketta (2008) indicated that there is a

weak(r = .08) causaleffectfromAffective Commitment towards Job

Performance

Commitment and Job PerformanceCommitment and Job Performance


38/42

contextual performance

affective: substantially positive (r = .32)

continuance: depends (but overall zero)

normative: moderately positive (r = .24)


how Commitment relates to:how Commitment relates to:


39/42

absenteeism



affective: negative (r = -.15)

continuance: around zero

normative: around zero


40/42

Job Turnover

low turnover

continuance

affective

normative


(Meyer et al., 2002)


41/42

Job Turnover

low turnover

continuance

affective

normative

but fordifferent reasons


Meyer et al., 2002)


42/42

Practice Implication

foster affective commitment

Organisational Socialization (especially early)

Management of the Psychological Contract

Management of Perceptions of Fairness

Documents

Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts