12
Journal of Retailing 82 (4, 2006) 319–330 The effects of polychronic-orientation upon retail employee satisfaction and turnover Aaron Arndt a,1 , Todd J. Arnold b,2 , Timothy D. Landry a,a The University of Oklahoma, Price College of Business, Division of Marketing and Supply Chain, 307 West Brooks, Adams Hall, Norman, OK 73019, United States b Oklahoma State University, Spears School of Business, Department of Marketing, 311A Business Building, Stillwater, OK 74078, United States Abstract Keeping front-line retail employees satisfied, and subsequently reducing their turnover, is important in retail management. This study introduces polychronic-orientation, or an employee’s preference for switching between multiple tasks within the same time-block, as an employee trait with important implications for retail employee turnover. It demonstrates empirically that a polychronic-orientation has both direct (employee fit) and indirect (through fairness perceptions) effects on retail employee satisfaction. Moreover, by exploring these effects across career stages, polychronicity is revealed to be a stable and enduring trait but one whose impact is magnified in early stages of the retail career. Implications for hiring and employee education are derived. © 2006 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Polychronicity; Fairness; Employee fit; Multi-tasking; Motivation; Turnover; Hiring Introduction Front-line retail employees, defined as employees with direct and frequent customer contact, have a profound influ- ence upon organizational effectiveness and customer satis- faction (Grewal and Sharma 1991). Given the importance of front-line employees, it is not surprising that research in marketing investigates elements of the retail workspace and organizational environment that frequently affect employee emotion and behavior (e.g., Bitner et al. 1990; Boles and Babin 1996; Chebat and Kollias 2000). For example, the retail environment has been linked empirically to important job outcomes such as stress and job satisfaction (Singh 2000). When frontline roles are misunderstood, employees are even prone to burnout and turnover (Weatherly and Tansik 1993). Turnover is a problem for retailers not only in its direct cost, but also through the enormous hidden cost of customer dissat- Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 405 325 5908; fax: +1 405 325 7688. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Arndt), [email protected] (T.J. Arnold), [email protected] (T.D. Landry). 1 Tel.: +1 405 325 4675. 2 Tel.: +1 918 594 8596. isfaction and defection that accompanies unhappy employ- ees before they leave the employer (Bettencourt and Brown 1997). Fewer studies, however, have linked employee charac- teristics, such as traits or dispositions, to such important outcomes (cf., Ashforth and Humphrey 1993, 1995). Just as Liao and Chuang (2004) have explored the effect of employee personality traits on customer satisfaction in a services set- ting, and as industrial sales research has looked at internal characteristics such as self-efficacy, locus of control, com- petitiveness, and type A behavior patterns and their related effects (Krishnan et al. 2002; Srivastava and Sager 1999; Sager 1991), there is ample opportunity to explore employee traits and dispositions in retailing research. There are numerous potential directions for the study of employee traits in a retail setting—from investigations of “core” individual traits (e.g., the “Big Five” personality traits) that would span research contexts, to more context- specific individual differences such as “trait competitive- ness.” Linking core individual traits to managerial practice is complicated, however, since measurement is difficult (and often proprietary/copyrighted), and people can display incon- sistency in these traits within particular contexts or situations 0022-4359/$ – see front matter © 2006 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2006.08.005

The effects of polychronic-orientation upon retail employee satisfaction and turnover

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: The effects of polychronic-orientation upon retail employee satisfaction and turnover

A

iedac©

K

defomoeBrjWpTb

(

0d

Journal of Retailing 82 (4, 2006) 319–330

The effects of polychronic-orientation upon retailemployee satisfaction and turnover

Aaron Arndt a,1, Todd J. Arnold b,2, Timothy D. Landry a,∗a The University of Oklahoma, Price College of Business, Division of Marketing and Supply Chain,

307 West Brooks, Adams Hall, Norman, OK 73019, United Statesb Oklahoma State University, Spears School of Business, Department of Marketing,

311A Business Building, Stillwater, OK 74078, United States

bstract

Keeping front-line retail employees satisfied, and subsequently reducing their turnover, is important in retail management. This studyntroduces polychronic-orientation, or an employee’s preference for switching between multiple tasks within the same time-block, as anmployee trait with important implications for retail employee turnover. It demonstrates empirically that a polychronic-orientation has both

irect (employee fit) and indirect (through fairness perceptions) effects on retail employee satisfaction. Moreover, by exploring these effectscross career stages, polychronicity is revealed to be a stable and enduring trait but one whose impact is magnified in early stages of the retailareer. Implications for hiring and employee education are derived.

2006 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

n; Turn

ie1

toLptcpeSt

eywords: Polychronicity; Fairness; Employee fit; Multi-tasking; Motivatio

Introduction

Front-line retail employees, defined as employees withirect and frequent customer contact, have a profound influ-nce upon organizational effectiveness and customer satis-action (Grewal and Sharma 1991). Given the importancef front-line employees, it is not surprising that research inarketing investigates elements of the retail workspace and

rganizational environment that frequently affect employeemotion and behavior (e.g., Bitner et al. 1990; Boles andabin 1996; Chebat and Kollias 2000). For example, the

etail environment has been linked empirically to importantob outcomes such as stress and job satisfaction (Singh 2000).

hen frontline roles are misunderstood, employees are even

rone to burnout and turnover (Weatherly and Tansik 1993).urnover is a problem for retailers not only in its direct cost,ut also through the enormous hidden cost of customer dissat-

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 405 325 5908; fax: +1 405 325 7688.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Arndt), [email protected]

T.J. Arnold), [email protected] (T.D. Landry).1 Tel.: +1 405 325 4675.2 Tel.: +1 918 594 8596.

ootsnios

022-4359/$ – see front matter © 2006 New York University. Published by Elsevieoi:10.1016/j.jretai.2006.08.005

over; Hiring

sfaction and defection that accompanies unhappy employ-es before they leave the employer (Bettencourt and Brown997).

Fewer studies, however, have linked employee charac-eristics, such as traits or dispositions, to such importantutcomes (cf., Ashforth and Humphrey 1993, 1995). Just asiao and Chuang (2004) have explored the effect of employeeersonality traits on customer satisfaction in a services set-ing, and as industrial sales research has looked at internalharacteristics such as self-efficacy, locus of control, com-etitiveness, and type A behavior patterns and their relatedffects (Krishnan et al. 2002; Srivastava and Sager 1999;ager 1991), there is ample opportunity to explore employee

raits and dispositions in retailing research.There are numerous potential directions for the study

f employee traits in a retail setting—from investigationsf “core” individual traits (e.g., the “Big Five” personalityraits) that would span research contexts, to more context-pecific individual differences such as “trait competitive-

ess.” Linking core individual traits to managerial practices complicated, however, since measurement is difficult (andften proprietary/copyrighted), and people can display incon-istency in these traits within particular contexts or situations

r Inc. All rights reserved.

Page 2: The effects of polychronic-orientation upon retail employee satisfaction and turnover

3 f Retaili

(m(aep

setaiimaiptAefisotr

uetcef

itpfbsfepto

ocai1o

adttopcba

tTtetaaDtsoitriwtritbs

sgmbb(ontbe1(trtwos

20 A. Arndt et al. / Journal o

Mischel and Shoda 1995). Further, direct implications foranagerial practice are often ambiguous for many core traits

Shoda et al. 2002). Hence, we propose exploration inton important employee trait that has specific and clear rel-vance to the eclectic and fast-paced retail environment:olychronicity.

Polychronicity is the extent to which people prefer towitch among multiple tasks in the same time-block (Bluedornt al. 1999). It has been studied in relation to research produc-ivity (Frei et al. 1999), corporate creativity (Persing 1999),nd consumer search behaviors (Kaufman et al. 1991), but itsmpact upon the retailing profession is yet to be studied. Thiss surprising, given that retailing stands out as a work environ-

ent where employee time use is critical and where the man-gement of multiple tasks within a given period of work times often the norm (e.g., clerking, stocking, customer service,ersonal selling, etc.). Indeed, for front-line retail employeeshe structure of work tasks is largely dictated by customers.t any given point a customer may choose to interact with an

mployee who, at the time, may be deeply involved in per-orming ancillary tasks, such as stocking a shelf or construct-ng a display (Babin and Boles 1996). Because interruption isuch a common occurrence in retailing, a strong polychronicr monochronic orientation will likely have a great effect onhe employee—especially given that a major role stressor foretail employees is time conflict (Singh 2000).

Given the potential importance to retail management ofnderstanding the effects of polychronic-orientation uponmployee attitudes and behaviors, the purpose of this paper iso examine its effect upon front-line employees. An empiri-al study will demonstrate that polychronicity has significantffects on these retail employees’ judgments of distributiveairness, job satisfaction and, ultimately, turnover.

Background

The term “polychronicity” was first used by Hall (1959) tomply a preference for performing multiple activities withinhe same time block, and the current study conceptualizesolychronic-orientation similarly—again, as the preferenceor switching between multiple tasks within the same timelock. To frame the scope of the current study, however, wehould first acknowledge differing views on polychronicityrom related research. Since its inception, polychronicity hasxpanded into at least three significant conceptual domains:olychronicity as a cultural element, polychronicity as timeangibility, and polychronicity as time-use, which is the focusf this paper.

In brief discussion of these varying conceptualizations,ne stream of literature proposes that polychronicity is highlyorrelated with one’s culture. While this may be true in the

ggregate, studies also have demonstrated that polychronic-ty varies significantly by individual (Slocombe and Bluedorn999). Important findings from these cultural inquiries pointut that polychronic cultures spend more time socializing,

to“t

ng 82 (4, 2006) 319–330

re less concerned with deadlines, and structure, time andeliver communications differently from monochronic cul-ures (Hall 1983). This ordering of communication withinime relates to a second stream of research—the explorationf an individual’s view of time as a tangible resource. There,olychronicity is studied as one’s perspective on time—as aommodity that can be spent and used (i.e., “clocked”) versuseing defined itself by events within a period of time (Palmernd Schoorman 1999).

The last major conceptualization of polychronicity, andhe one most relevant for a retail context, relates to time-use.here are two distinct forms of time-use: (1) simultaneous-

asking (or multi tasking); and (2) task-switching (Bluedornt al. 1999). Simultaneous-tasking refers to engaging in twoasks at the same time (Ofori-Dankwa and Julian 2001). Tocertain extent, everyone does multiple things at once, suchs walking and talking, or eating and watching television.ue to differences in perceptual inputs and task congruency,

asks involving different senses or body parts are easier toimultaneously perform than those that use the same senser body part at the same time (Pashler 1998). For example,t is easier to drive and listen to the radio than to listen towo radio stations at once. Importantly, this research givesise to the notion that the more routine a task, the easiert is to manage. To illustrate, it would be more difficult torite a paper and have a conversation simultaneously than

o walk and have a conversation, because walking is veryoutine. Interestingly, the same could be true for task switch-ng, the second conceptual form of polychronicity. Once aask is routine, switching to and from other tasks shouldecome easier—a point that will be revisited later in thistudy.

Focusing upon the second form of polychronicity, task-witching is the preference for moving between tasks in aiven block of time (Frei et al. 1999). Individuals who areonochronic prefer to engage in one activity in a “time-

lock,” while individuals who are polychronic like to switchetween multiple activities in the same period of timeKaufman et al. 1991). To be clear, a time block in studiesf simultaneous-tasking would be very small, or instanta-eous. As such, we propose that task-switching is concep-ually distinct from multi-tasking, with such an approacheing supported empirically not only in the management lit-rature, but also by work in cognitive psychology (Pashler998). A conceptualization involving a longer “time-block”wherein one task may be delayed, perhaps due to interrup-ion, while another task is acquired) is also appropriate for aetail context where, for example, a retail clerk engaging inhe fronting of merchandise is confronted with a customerho needs personalized attention. Although studies haveften blurred the distinction between multi-tasking and task-witching, the prior work we build upon is clearly oriented

oward task-switching (e.g., Bluedorn et al. 1999). Through-ut the remainder of the paper, the terms “polychronicity” orpolychronic-orientation” refer to the task-switching form ofhe concept.
Page 3: The effects of polychronic-orientation upon retail employee satisfaction and turnover

A. Arndt et al. / Journal of Retailing 82 (4, 2006) 319–330 321

f polyc

vptfiefittchfstbbtwfat

P

esfi1eiwtritsvs

“tdiH

aictrCtctciws

Ho

P

eictbafteptamf

mrwcj

Fig. 1. The impact o

Hypotheses

The relationship of polychronicity to important outcomeariables is presented in Fig. 1. As an overview, the study pro-oses two ways in which polychronicity impacts employeeurnover. The first, based on the concept of employee/workt, proposes a direct effect of a polychronic-orientation onmployee satisfaction. Studies of polychronic task-switchingnd that certain individuals are more bothered by interruption

han others, and that some individuals like to switch betweenasks more than others (Frei et al. 1999). The second routeonceptualizes a process in which polychronic-orientationas an indirect effect on satisfaction through perceptions ofairness. This route illustrates how polychronicity impactself-assessments that are used in making judgments of dis-ributive fairness (Adams 1963). This adds to extant theory byetter understanding why polychronicity impacts satisfactioneyond the notion of employee fit. Last, the study exploreshe degree to which polychronicity’s effects are magnifiedithin particular career stages. This not only contributes to

urthering theory on polychronicity but is important man-gerially for developing both employee hiring and trainingactics.

olychronicity and employee job satisfaction

Job satisfaction is defined as the overall sense of affect anmployee has for the job situation. In an attempt to remainatisfied, employees tend to manage their environment to bestt with their polychronic or monochronic nature (Conte et al.999). In retailing, it is virtually impossible to schedule thexact events on a given day for a front-line employee becauset is rarely possible to predict either the number of customersho will choose to interact with a front-line employee, or

he requests that will be made. Indeed, even in instances of aeservation system (e.g., hair salons), the exact nature of thenteraction can be difficult to reliably predict. This is impor-ant since monochronic individuals prefer to keep detailedchedules (Benabou 1999). Since customer uncertainty pre-ents detailed schedules, polychronic-oriented individualshould feel more comfortable working in front-line jobs.

The monochronic personality. . .schedules one activity at aime, and becomes disoriented if too many things have to beone (in a given period of time): the polychronic personalitys comfortable (switching from task to task).” (Feldman andornik 1981—parenthetical section paraphrased)

Phlca

hronic-orientation.

In addition to serving the customer, front-line employeesre usually required to do other ancillary tasks, such as fill-ng orders, cleaning, stocking or filling out paperwork, andustomers at some point are likely to interrupt the ancillaryask. A strongly polychronic-oriented individual might notesent the interruption and might even welcome the change.onversely, a monochronic-oriented individual will feel dis-

racted, and possibly irritated, by the interruption—perhapsontributing to the joke among some front-line employeeshat their job would be great, “if it weren’t for all the annoyingustomers.” In sum, since front-line jobs have low schedul-ng specificity and entail frequent interruptions, individualsith a greater polychronic-orientation will have greater job

atisfaction in a front-line, retail context. Thus:

1. Among front-line retail employees, a polychronic-rientation will relate positively to employee job satisfaction.

olychronicity and perceived distributive fairness

Distributive fairness is a fundamental characteristic inmployee satisfaction (Bettencourt and Brown 1997) ands a logical extension of research on the impact of poly-hronicity. Because perceptions of the division of labor andiming of work roles affect perceptions of fair reward distri-utions (Adams 1963), polychronicity would likely influencen employee’s view of his organization’s internal distributiveairness. Distributive fairness is an employee’s assessment ofhe extent to which his/her employer links contribution (e.g.,mployee effort) to important rewards (e.g., pay, workload,leasurable work environment) in a fair manner, all relative tohe benefits received by the organization as a consequence ofn employee’s role (Adams 1963). In essence, this is a deter-ination of whether the employee/employer relationship is

air.In retailing, monochronic individuals may feel that they

ust hurry to get tasks done quickly before they are inter-upted, thus heightening a feeling of “effortful” or stressfulork. This would have the dual effect of increasing perceived

ontribution (i.e., working hard), while decreasing associatedob rewards (i.e., little pleasure from the stressful process).olychronic-oriented individuals would not feel the need to

urry to complete a task and would therefore be much lessikely to feel the stress of the retail situation. Indeed, poly-hronic individuals would perceive customer interruptionss a given, and would likely look forward to them (Frei
Page 4: The effects of polychronic-orientation upon retail employee satisfaction and turnover

3 f Retaili

eowtwh

Hot

C

oppiosimieaitmiotitpbni(aelafcs

eedtmt(pbt

aabslb

esatidpnanabtftevrttwPf

Hst

Hds

S

liRdis1tits

22 A. Arndt et al. / Journal o

t al. 1999). This would have the dual effect of perceivingne’s role to be less effortful than a monochronic individual,hile enhancing the ability to enjoy one’s work environment,

hus positively influencing a perception of a fair exchangeith their employer. These arguments lead to the followingypothesis:

2. Among front-line retail employees, a polychronic-rientation will relate positively to perceptions of organiza-ional distributive fairness.

areer stage and routinization

In workplace settings, the level of employee polychronic-rientation has been demonstrated to be fairly stable acrossopulations; individuals do not change their attitudes towardolychronic work (Frei et al. 1999). A stable or endur-ng trait, however, does not necessarily imply a consistencyf effect over time (i.e., polychronic-orientation having theame impact over an employee’s entire career). Cron (1984)dentified four primary career stages—exploration, establish-ent, maintenance and disengagement—in which variations

n effect could be hypothesized. In the exploration stage, themployee is primarily concerned with finding a good job fitnd learning the basics of the career. The establishment stages where the employee tries to master job skills and advancehrough the hierarchy of ranks existing within the career. The

aintenance stage is characterized by plateaus in which thendividual no longer actively strives to attain higher rankr skill in the career—the primary focus is on maintaininghe current level and status. Finally, the disengagement stages where individuals are preparing to retire from the indus-ry. The career stages schema typically has more explanatoryower than demographics such as age or job tenure—partlyecause of the poor correlations of those variables with theotion of “career” given a workforce whereby changing jobs,f not professions, has become commonplace and frequentFlaherty and Pappas 2002). Job tenure would be less desir-ble as a moderator since work routinization could transferasily from one retail job to another. Career tenure prob-ematically assumes the same rate of career progression or

constant career length. Here, both are important controlsor hypothesizing the unique effects of the theorized con-ept: progression through the employee’s career (i.e., careertages).

While some studies of polychronicity may control formployee tenure, the notion of career stage moderating theffects of polychronicity has not been researched. This isespite sufficient evidence in the multi-tasking (i.e., the otherype of time-use) literature to suggest that the ill-effects of

onochronicity can be often compensated through routiniza-ion that should naturally accompany a career’s progression

Solomon et al. 1985). The idea behind routinization is sim-ly that the more routine a job, the more “mindlessly” it cane completed (cf. Onken 1999). Employees create scripts thathey then follow to complete a task and only have to “think”

hbtw

ng 82 (4, 2006) 319–330

bout the task if some unexpected event occurs (Solomon etl. 1985). The more routine a task, the more pleasant it woulde to switch to another task temporarily because the task’structure is well-understood. Moreover, the perceived work-oad associated with the demands to switch between tasksecomes less daunting.

It is logical to presume that experienced front-line employ-es have routinized many of their retail tasks. Elaboratecripts may have been created that are flexible enough toccount for task deviation without breaking out of a rou-inized state (cf. Chebat and Kollias 2000). Conversely, earlyn their career front-line employees may not have fully-eveloped scripts, and almost nothing would be consideredart of a routine. A greater amount of concentration wouldeed to be applied to every task. Switching between customernd ancillary tasks is going to be far more difficult for begin-ing employees. In later career stages, retail scripts shouldllow monochronic-oriented individuals to be less botheredy interruptions. Therefore, the effects of time-use orienta-ion on a front-line employee’s perception of satisfaction andairness will be more pronounced in the first career stagehan later stages. This differential effect should be detectableven given the attrition rate of monochronic-oriented indi-iduals (i.e., those selecting out of the job). Importantly, theoutinization rationale introduces a potential confound intohe polychronicity/satisfaction relationship—that task rou-inization may give rise to increased employee performance,hich is clearly related to employee satisfaction (Brown andeterson 1993). Therefore, we hypothesize that controllingor tenure and performance:

3. The positive effects of a polychronic-orientation on jobatisfaction for front-line retail employees will be stronger inhe first career stage than later career stages.

4. The positive effects of a polychronic-orientation onistributive fairness for front-line retail employees will betronger in the first career stage than later career stages.

atisfaction, fairness and turnover intention

The positive and significant relationship between emp-oyee satisfaction and leaving one’s job is well-documentedn retailing contexts (e.g., Darden et al. 1987; Lucas 1985;hoads et al. 2002; Schulz et al. 1987). Moreover, the pre-ominant consequence to a judgment of distributive fairnesss satisfaction (Adams 1963)—a proposition that has beenupported across numerous disciplines (Martin and Bennett996; Oliver and Swan 1989). When employees feel thatheir outcomes (e.g. pay, recognition) compared to theirnputs (e.g. effort, perceived performance) are fair relativeo their organization, they are far more likely to feel jobatisfaction (Adams 1963). Last, perceptions of unfairness

ave been shown to elicit active employee responses (i.e.,ehavioral responses such as quitting) toward the organiza-ion (Withey and Cooper 1989). Since these relationships areell-established in the literature, we will propose simply:
Page 5: The effects of polychronic-orientation upon retail employee satisfaction and turnover

f Retaili

Hw

Hr

Hw

S

iprtnsaeoscrtcitat

ttaenwpro

evtfcIep

pocp

Cnapwc

irvostp

pidotpepadwm

M

o(oidswemr1tiialm

fti

A. Arndt et al. / Journal o

5. Among front-line retail employees, distributive fairnessill relate positively to employee satisfaction.

6. Among front-line retail employees, job satisfaction willelate negatively to employee turnover intention.

7. Among front-line retail employees, distributive fairnessill relate negatively to employee turnover intention.

Methodology

ample

The retail employees selected for this study all workedn pharmacies. All of the employees sampled were eitherharmacists or pharmaceutical technicians, both of whomeceive a substantial amount of formalized training to performheir work roles. The sample was chosen to maximize inter-al validity—i.e., it is an environment where polychronicityhould have an impact due to the varied, extremely harried,nd demanding nature of the retail role. Pharmacy employ-es are often required to interrupt one task for the purposef fulfilling another (e.g., going from answering a phone, topeaking with a customer in-person, to stocking a shelf, toompleting a sale), with the timing and nature of such inter-uptions being extremely difficult to predict. As such, taskshat highlight the need for task-switching in this retail contextould include the stocking of new and arrived inventory, plac-ng orders for inventory replenishment and monitoring inven-ory, phone interactions with customers, insurance providersnd doctor’s offices, and direct customer interaction withinhe retail environment.

Pretests indicated that this is also an ideal sample sincehe nature of the tasks performed exhibits little change overime—providing an opportunity for tasks to become routine,nd therefore creating a strong test for the effects of a pref-rence for task-switching. Finally, due to the professionalature of the job, a statistical linkage to turnover intentionould have heightened cost implications for a retailer, thusroviding a worst case (managerially), or best case (theo-etically), demonstration of the effects of a monochronic-rientation.

With the assistance of a statewide association, pharmacymployees across the state of Washington were surveyedia fax with instructions to either fax the survey directly tohe research team, or to complete an online version of theaxed survey. A total of 1000 surveys were sent to pharma-ies in three main sectors: clinical, community, and hospital.nstructions were given for the survey to be completed by anmployee occupying the position of pharmacy technician orharmacist.

In describing the different types of pharmacies, clinical

harmacies are often located in the waiting or courtyard areasf private practices. These independent pharmacies are typi-ally small practices that fill orders for individuals seeking aharmacy without having to leave the premises of their clinic.

ecmw

ng 82 (4, 2006) 319–330 323

ommunity pharmacies are drug stores ranging in size fromationwide chains, such as Walgreen’s or Rite Aid, to mom-nd-pop establishments. Hospital pharmacies are on hospitalremises. Regardless of the type of pharmacy, all employeesould be required to interact with customers and insurance

ompanies, while still managing elements of product control.A total of 313 usable surveys were returned represent-

ng a response rate of 31.3 percent. Community pharmacieseturned a total of 126 surveys; hospital pharmacies, 167 sur-eys; and clinical pharmacies, 20 surveys. Only one roundf surveys was sent due to a response rate that was deemedufficiently high to perform all necessary analyses and dueo the representative nature of the sample based on statisticsrovided by the Association.

The sample was made up of 46.8 percent females and 52.7ercent males (with 1 percent missing), with an average agen the 40–55 range. Gender and age were not significantlyifferent across sectors. The sample had an average numberf years in the profession of 18.5, and had been employed inheir current job an average of 8.1 years. Again, with years inrofession and years in current job, no significant differencesxisted across sectors. These numbers also signal the highlyrofessional nature of the sample, with job stability beingpparent. We found no significant differences between theemographic characteristics of early and late respondents,hich provided evidence that non-response bias was not aajor problem (Armstrong and Overton 1977).

easures

Job satisfaction was measured using a shortened versionf the job satisfaction scale developed by Brown and Peterson1994) and modified for the retail context. There were a totalf five items. Distributive fairness was measured with a four-tem scale assessing a global measure of fairness. Items wereeveloped based on the four-item reward allocation fairnesscales used by Netemeyer et al. (1997). Turnover intentionas measured using an established scale that captures an

mployee’s intention to quit in three different time periods, 3onths, 6 months and 1 year and phrased “How would you

ate your chances of changing professions in. . .?” (Bluedorn982). This scale should be considered formative becausehese items are not perfectly interchangeable and reflectivendicators must be interchangeable (Jarvis et al. 2003). Tollustrate, although any employee leaving in 3 months wouldlso indicate leaving in 6 months and one year, employeeseaving in 1 year may not indicate leaving in 6 months or 3

onths.Polychronic-orientation was measured using a simplified

our-item scale from Bluedorn et al. (1999) capturing theime-use, task-switching, form of polychronicity, and rang-ng from a low end of monochronic-orientation, to a high

nd of polychronic-orientation. Career stages include fourategories created by Cron (1984): exploration, establish-ent, maintenance and disengagement. A short statementas given for each category and respondents marked the
Page 6: The effects of polychronic-orientation upon retail employee satisfaction and turnover

3 f Retaili

c(

iprmsttmtpvaavcttetsscbmictifs

C

A

doC.fRlT

aeitmeptas

nJtliwcwl

TM

123456789111

D(

24 A. Arndt et al. / Journal o

ategory that best fit their perception of their career stagecf. Flaherty and Pappas 2002; Cron 1984).

The following discussion highlights the statistical controlsncluded in the analysis. Employees with certain levels ofolychronic-orientations may tend to self-select into differentetail sectors. For example, it is likely that community phar-acists will have more interaction with walk-in customers

eeking over-the-counter drug advice than the other two sec-ors. Therefore, it is important to control for sector (i.e.,wo dummy variables were employed). Employee perfor-

ance was added as a control because extant theory indicateshat while task preference does not directly relate to actualerformance, it clearly impacts satisfaction and its uniqueariance should be accounted for in the analyses. Addition-lly, it is important to separate the effects of career stage fromge, years in industry and years in current job. While theseariables are likely to be correlated and might create someoncern over multicollinearity, individuals vary in how longhey remain in each career stage. Not controlling for these fac-ors could also raise concerns about a number of alternativexplanations, such as overall industry changes, or genera-ional biases in responses that may result from different careertages. Further, although gender is equally represented in theample, it is important to remove any systematic bias, whichould be caused by gender differences. Therefore gender wille included as well. Finally, both at the technician and phar-acist level, pharmacy careers offer a potentially lucrative

ncome, which could attract some individuals that perceiveompensation as very important. Importance of compensa-ion will be included as a control to take out the effects ofndividuals motivated primarily by pay, which could con-ound the effects of being polychronic. Table 1 includes theummary statistics for all study variables.

onfirmatory factor analysis

All items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale.confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the sample

Hefff

able 1eans, standard deviations, and correlations

Mean SD 1 2 3 4

. Performancea 6.2 .9 –

. Turnovera 4.2 3.1 .00 –

. Polya 4.6 1.3 .17** .02 .80

. Dfaira 4.7 1.3 .09 −.23** .15* .90

. Job satisfactiona 5.2 1.2 .15* −.28** .39** .58**

. Pay importancea 5.6 1 .06 −.04 −.12* −.11

. Ageb 2.7 .9 .11 −.12* .01 .07

. Years joba 8.1 8 .20** −.12* .09 −.02

. Years exp.a 18.5 12 .06 −.10 −.05 .030. Genderb .17** .07 .00 .071. Career stageb .00 −.11* −.16** −.062. Typeb −.15** .02 −.29** −.04

iagonal measures represent coefficient alpha for constructs. *Correlation is signifitwo-tailed).

a Pearson’s correlation.b These variables use Spearman’s Rho for correlation because they are categorica

ng 82 (4, 2006) 319–330

ata in order to lend evidence to the robustness and reliabilityf the scales in a retail context. The CFA model had an overallhi-square of 159.681, a CFI of .932, an IFI of .933, a TLI of

896 and a RMSEA of .08. The CFI, IFI, and TLI measuresall above, or very close to, the recommended value of .9 andMSEA is at the recommended value of .08. All of the item

oadings were satisfactory and the T-values were significant.hus, the fit of the model is good.

The composite reliabilities and coefficient alpha’s weret or over the recommended .7 for each construct (Shookt al. 2004; Fornell and Larcker 1981). Discriminant valid-ty was supported by the AVE for each factor being greaterhan the squared correlation of each construct as recom-

ended by Fornell and Larcker (1981). The average variancexplained was slightly lower than the recommended .5 forolychronic-orientation (AVE = .459). However, consideringhe other evidence of reliability and validity (i.e., coefficientlpha, composite reliability, discriminant validity) the scaleshould be considered generally reliable and valid overall.

Because turnover intention is a formative scale, it wasecessary to validate the scale using the methods shown inarvis et al. (2003). Specifically, a CFA was run using theurnover items as formative items with the latent variableeading to items which are outcomes of turnover intention,n this case, intention to switch jobs (as opposed to careers)ithin the next year (so that all intention to switch careers is

aptured in those two items). The overall fit of the CFA modelas again acceptable, with CFI, IFI, and TLI all above the .9

evel.

Results

The hypotheses were tested using a series of regressions.

ypothesis 1 proposed that a polychronic-orientation in front-line

mployees will relate significantly and positively to job satis-action. Polychronic-orientation was regressed on job satisfactionorcing the entry of the control variables as well as distributiveairness to rule out the possibility that distributive fairness fully

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

.86−.21** –

.14* .02 –

.17** .08 .43** –

.05 .09 .86** .46** –

.12 .06 .27** .14* .28** –−.08 −.01 .02 .37** .19** .44** –−.28** .20** .04 −.01 −.07 .00 .13*

cant at the .05 level (two-tailed); **correlation is significant at the .01 level

l.

Page 7: The effects of polychronic-orientation upon retail employee satisfaction and turnover

f Retaili

mmo(p

locpp

ostoop

s(ase

os((ht

lpropivbptot

nd(taHca

tod(Han

nslt(nH

P

oitta.wdoo(bfwiiel

whddoi

otiopcho(aoola

A. Arndt et al. / Journal o

ediated polychronic-orientation and job satisfaction. The overallodel is statistically significant (F = 17.810, p < .01). Polychronic-

rientation significantly and positively leads to job satisfactionstandardized beta = .177, p < .01). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is sup-orted.

Hypothesis 2 stated that a polychronic-orientation among front-ine employees will relate significantly and positively to perceptionsf distributive fairness. The overall model is statistically signifi-ant (F = 2.484, p < .01). Polychronic-orientation significantly andositively leads to distributive fairness (standardized beta = .172,< .01). Thus, Hypothesis 2 is also supported.

Hypothesis 3 proposed that the positive effects of a polychronic-rientation on job satisfaction for front-line employees will betronger in the first career stage than later career stages. In ordero test the interaction between career stage and polychronic-rientation, career stage was coded using contrast coding as rec-mmended by Cohen and Cohen (1983) and each was multiplied byolychronic-orientation.

The interaction term was added into the regression in the secondtep of a hierarchical regression. The overall model was significantF = 14.455, p < .01). However, the F-statistics for the three inter-ction terms were insignificant. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was notupported. Career stage does not appear to influence the positiveffect of a polychronic-orientation upon job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 4 stated that the positive effects of a polychronic-rientation on distributive fairness will be stronger in the first careertage than later career stages. The overall model was significantF = 3.217, p < .01), and the first interaction term was significantstandardized beta = .8, p < .01). The effects of the interaction term,owever, are difficult to interpret directly from the regression equa-ion, so an ANOVA step down test was conducted.

First, polychronic-orientation was categorized into three equalevels—high, medium and low. Then, an ANOVA test was run onolychronic-orientation by career stage to test equality of variance toule out the alternative explanation that differences in polychronic-rientation on fairness by career stage was caused by the variance ofolychronic-orientation diminishing due to attrition of monochronicndividuals. The Levene’s test was insignificant, so equality ofariance of polychronic-orientation is not significantly differentetween career stages. This also has the effect of increasing theower of detecting an effect (Aguinis 1995). Then, separate ANOVAests were run for each career stage to see the effects of polychronic-rientation. This procedure was followed by a Bonferroni post-hocest.

The overall ANOVA test for the exploration career stage was sig-ificant (F = 7.658, p < .001). There was a significant difference onistributive fairness between high and low polychronic-orientationp < .01, range of difference from .32 to 2.49). The overall ANOVAest for the establishment career stage, maintenance career stagend disengagement career stage were all insignificant. Therefore,ypothesis 4 was supported. Front-line employees do tend to per-

eive their organization as being more distributively fair when theyre both polychronic, and in the early stages of their career.

Hypothesis 5 stated that among front-line retail employees, dis-ributive fairness will relate positively to employee satisfaction. Theverall model is statistically significant (F = 17.810, p < .001) and

istributive fairness significantly and positively leads to satisfactionstandardized beta = .519, p < .001). Thus, hypothesis 5 is supported.ypothesis 6 stated that employee job satisfaction will relate neg-

tively to employee turnover intention. The overall model is sig-ificant (F = 4.029, p < .001). Job satisfaction is significantly and

pss

ng 82 (4, 2006) 319–330 325

egatively related to turnover (standardized beta = −.269, p < .001)upporting hypothesis 6. Hypothesis 7 stated that among front-ine retail employees, distributive fairness will relate negativelyo employee turnover intention. The overall model is significantF = 4.826, p < .001) and distributive fairness is significantly andegatively related to turnover (standardized beta = −.206, p < .001).ypothesis 7 is supported. All results are shown in Table 2.

ost hoc test for Hypothesis 3

Contrary to expectation, Hypothesis 3 was not supported. Inrder to explain why this was the case it was decided to admin-ster follow-up tests (see Table 3). The overall ANOVA test forhe exploration career stage was significant (F = 4.673, p < .01), andhere was a significant difference on job satisfaction between highnd low polychronic-orientation (p < .05, range of difference from2 to 2.1). The overall ANOVA test for the establishment career stageas significant (F = 7.034, p < .01), and there was also a significantifference on job satisfaction between high and low polychronic-rientation (p < .01, range of difference from .49 to 2.63). Theverall ANOVA test for the maintenance career stage was significantF = 4.012, p < .05). And, again, there was a significant differenceetween high and low polychronic-orientation (p < .05, range of dif-erence from .0044 to 1.05). The omnibus test for disengagementas insignificant. Therefore, while Hypothesis 3 is not supported,

t should be noted that the effects of polychronic-orientation on sat-sfaction were highest in establishment career stage, and both thestablishment and exploratory stages had higher effects than theater career stages.

Although not part of the hypothesis, it was interesting to note thathile the exploration, establishment and maintenance career stagesad approximately the same levels of polychronic-orientation,uring the disengagement career stage, polychronic-orientationropped significantly. A possible explanation is that monochronic-riented employees reach the disengagement stage earlier and stayn that stage longer than polychronic-oriented employees.

Theoretical implications

This is the first study to look at the effects of a polychronic-rientation in front-line retail employees’ perceptions of dis-ributive fairness, job satisfaction, performance, and turnoverntention. This study enhances the knowledge of polychronic-rientation by applying it to the retail work setting whereinolychronic tasking is clearly important. Usually, poly-hronicity is studied using convenience samples of students,ouseholds or employees throughout an organization with-ut regard to their specific job. The exception is by Persing1999), who studied creative employees, such as researchersnd inventors, where polychronicity was argued to be a the-retically justified inquiry. In our study, the sample was notnly theoretically justified but broadly applicable since front-ine boundary-spanning employees are common to virtuallyll organizations.

As predicted, employees that have higher levels ofolychronic-orientation have higher job satisfaction—aeemingly important aspect of person/environment fit. In thisetting, polychronic-orientation explained 4.3 percent of the

Page 8: The effects of polychronic-orientation upon retail employee satisfaction and turnover

326 A. Arndt et al. / Journal of Retailing 82 (4, 2006) 319–330

Table 2Results of the hierarchical regression analysis

Variables Dependent variables

Job satisfaction Distributive fairness Turnover intention

Independent Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 A BPolychronicity .18** .20** .17** .27** – –Distributive fairness .52*** .52** – – – −.21***

Job satisfaction – – – – −.27*** –Controls

Pay importance ns ns ns ns −.13* −.13*

Performance ns ns ns ns ns nsGender ns ns .15* .15* ns nsAge ns ns ns ns ns nsYears job ns ns ns ns ns nsYears exp. ns ns ns ns ns .23*

Career d1 ns ns ns −.83** .16* .20*

Career d2 ns ns ns ns ns nsCareer d3 .13* ns .18** ns ns nsType d1 ns ns ns ns −.27* nsType d2 ns ns ns ns −.33* ns

InteractionStage 1 × poly – ns – .80** – –Stage 2 × poly – ns – NS – –Stage 3 × poly – ns – NS – –

Model R2 .52 .53 .10 .15 .18 .17Adjusted R2 .49 .49 .06 .10 .13 .13Model F 17.81*** 14.46** 2.48** 3.22** 4.03*** 4.83***

Change R2 .00 .05F for Change R2 .48 5.64**

N = 313. Standardized regression coefficients are shown. Numbered steps represent hierarchical regressions while lettered steps represent different regressionequations; ns stands for not significant.

*

t(Fepfjtbdsnores

rptcatnt

scwpEseestotwbson

tfp

* p < .05.** p < .01.** p < .001.

otal variance in job satisfaction including direct and indirectthrough fairness) effects, and accounting for all controls.or a single dispositional variable, this is quite significant,specially when considering that gender accounts for a .8ercent indirect effect, importance of compensation accountsor approximately zero percent and years in the career andob account for zero percent. And, as noted, job satisfac-ion itself is extremely important for front-line employeesecause the cost of turnover is high and the cost of employeeissatisfaction is ultimately passed on to the customer. Thataid, there may be room to explore yet other forms of fair-ess related to polychronicity (e.g., interactional fairness)n satisfaction and turnover—albeit by differing theoreticalationale. Likewise, there is room to further theorize on theffects of multitasking, as opposed to task-switching, in aimilar manner.

Interestingly, perceptions of fairness (i.e., the indi-ect effects of polychronic-orientation) are influenced byolychronic-orientation only in the first career stage. Onhe other hand, the direct (i.e., employee fit) effect of poly-hronicity appears to persist throughout the vast majority of

n employee’s career. From a task-programmability perspec-ive, this result does not seem to parallel findings and expla-ations from extant multi-tasking studies—i.e., the otherype of time-use orientation. There, many tasks are demon-

msrt

trated as programmable—an employee can develop skills tooordinate multiple tasks simultaneously (e.g., concurrentlyorking the phone and entering an order) and those skills areroposed to modify employee attitudes toward multi-tasking.ither this is not the case for task-switching behaviors (taskwitching is relatively un-trainable), or at least the prefer-nce for task-switching is such a stable trait that is unaffectedven when employee skills are developed that allow for task-witching. This difference could be due to the nature ofhe tasks. Switchable tasks may be more cognitively intenser less structurable than tasks explored in studies of multi-asking. For future research, revealing the dimensions alonghich tasks differ between these two literatures could proveeneficial to theory development and synthesis. All told,ince satisfaction continues to be affected by polychronic-rientation throughout a career, the retail work environmentever appears to be “accepted” by a monochronic employee.

Regarding the indirect effects of polychronic orientation,here is a significant relationship between polychronicity andairness in the early stage of the retail career that does notersist throughout a career. It may be that equity is perceived

ore “accurately” as an employee progresses through career

tages. For example, as monochronic employees gain expe-ience (and progress through a career), they might begino realize that they are contributing at a constant, though

Page 9: The effects of polychronic-orientation upon retail employee satisfaction and turnover

A. Arndt et al. / Journal of Retailing 82 (4, 2006) 319–330 327

Table 3ANOVA test

Career stage F-value Est. difference

Distributed fairness by high, medium, and low levels of polychronicityExploration 7.66*** .32 to 2.49Establishment 2.17 −2.20 to .22Maintenance .75 −.63 to .63Disengagement .45 −1.45 to .93

Job satisfaction by high, medium and low levels of polychronicityExploration 4.67* −2.80 to −.22Establishment 7.03** −2.63 to −.50Maintenance 4.01* −1.05 to .00Disengagement 2.73 −1.72 to 1.56

Omnibus test F-value Levene stat.

Polychronicity by career stageOmnibus test 2.95* 0.45

Career stage Comparison 95% Confidence interval

Lower bound Upper bound

Polychronicity by career stage post hoc: Bonferroni

ExplorationEstablishment −.58 .84Maintenance −.32 .69Disengagement* .04 1.26

EstablishmentEstablishment −.84 .58Maintenance −.58 .69Disengagement −.20 1.24

MaintenanceEstablishment −.69 .32Maintenance −.69 .58Disengagement −.06 .98

DisengagementEstablishment* −1.26 −.04Maintenance −1.24 .20Disengagement −.98 .06

*

phbhtiotCntit

(pe

ttsomrBtcptcameai

* p < .05.** p < .01.** p < .001.

robably low, level, and thus perceive that it is fair that theyave relatively low job outcomes—particularly for intangi-le outcomes like the sense of fulfillment. At the beginning,owever, monochronic individuals may have a very difficultime dealing with the polychronic environment. To illustrate,t has been found that monochronic individuals prefer to putff beginning a task until they feel they have an adequate timeo complete it (Kaufman-Scarborough and Lindquist 1999).ompleting ancillary tasks may thus be very difficult for aew and monochronic employee in a highly customer interac-ive environment. Hence, in the early stages of their careers,t may be easy for a monochronic employee to perceive thathey are overworked.

Managerial implications

This study shows promise for reducing retail turnoverespecially at the professional level)—through the hiring ofolychronic-oriented front-line employees. Simply attractingmployees using the allure of financial rewards (an “any-

arvp

akers” approach) may prove unhealthy in the long term forhe individual and for the firm. Human resource managershould, instead, attempt to identify the time-style of theirrganization and interview for individuals that will be a goodatch. Hiring based on matching work-styles with the job

epresents a low-cost investment with a high potential payoff.luedorn et al. (1999) designed and validated a psychome-

ric measure of polychronicity called the Inventory of Poly-hronic Values (IPV), in order to predict the extent to whicheople prefer to vary among two or more tasks or events in oneime-block. Managers could administer a similar scale to jobandidates to predict the polychronic-orientation. If framedppropriately, to eliminate any desirability biases (to mini-ize responses in line with what the employee thinks the job

ntails), similar scales could prove useful in recruiting (Tett etl. 1991). Alternatively, an experimental test could be admin-stered to the individual to determine his work style (cf. Wilk

nd Cappelli 2003). Last, depth interviewing about what theecruit liked or did not like about particular tasks from his pre-ious employment could be quite revealing of an employee’solychronic- or monochronic-orientation (Barclay 2001).
Page 10: The effects of polychronic-orientation upon retail employee satisfaction and turnover

3 f Retaili

ebeaSfOtthdepromiTaar

sotpfcri(tcaebsso

ooeeFeibcAv

wmrrrtteoprlt

D

J

P

C

28 A. Arndt et al. / Journal o

Further, such findings reveal that managing the “front-nd” of employment (i.e., appropriate hiring) is importantecause it is unlikely that employees can change their pref-rence for a monochronic or polychronic work style—itppears to be stable trait rather than a malleable state (cf.locombe and Bluedorn 1999). While some positive effectsrom task routinization are implied by related literature (e.g.,nken 1999) and received support in this study, it appears

hat the effect of a retail employee’s task-orientation remainshroughout a retail career. Therefore, training employees onow to routinize retail tasks would not likely alleviate theirect negative effects of a monochronic-orientation (poormployee/work fit) on job satisfaction—though it might helpolychronic employees more quickly adapt to the work envi-onment. New employees certainly need to be educatedn the benefits of effectively managing retail tasks sinceonochronic individuals tend to perceive work-style related

njustice, which subsequently impacts their job satisfaction.o the extent to which employees learn that their rewardsre impacted by work-style efficiencies, they should moreccurately evaluate organizational distributed fairness thuseducing their own job dissatisfaction.

Finally, representative of this study’s professional retailample (i.e., technicians and pharmacists), a polychronic-rientation is extremely important for several reasons. First,he cost of replacement (i.e., turnover) is even higher forrofessional retail employees—with highly specialized pro-essional or job training being mandated. Secondly, theustomer may be more likely to have trusting and closeelationships with professional front-line employees, whichmplies increased customer costs from employee defectionSchulz et al. 1987). Beyond the obvious costs of professionalurnover, there may be important “day-to-day” costs asso-iated with mistakenly hiring an employee who representsprobable “low fit” to this particular environment. Retail

mployees who do not enjoy interruptions, and are distractedy such occurrences, could be more likely to provide inferiorervice—especially when providing higher priced and moreensitive goods. Worse yet, a mistake in a pharmaceuticalrder could result in litigation.

Limitations and conclusions

This study introduced the concept of polychronic-rientation and demonstrated empirically that a polychronic-rientation has both direct effects (i.e., job fit) and indirectffects (i.e., perceptions of equitable treatment) on retailmployees. The study is not, however, without limitations.irst, the study’s sample consisted only of pharmacy employ-es (to maximize internal validity) within the state of Wash-ngton. To the extent that there are polychronic cultural

iases in the northwestern U.S., studies in other culturalontexts (i.e., regions or countries) could prove beneficial.dditionally, while multiple types of pharmacies were sur-eyed, which helped broaden the generalizability of findings

A

ng 82 (4, 2006) 319–330

ithin the pharmacy sector, surveying only one retail sectoray limit the generality of findings to other sectors. Future

esearch also could consider polychronicity’s effects on otheretailing jobs—especially those where task-switching wouldemain important (cashiering, customer service, etc.). Fur-her, caution should be used in interpreting the strength ofhe study’s results since a single self-report questionnaire wasmployed—giving rise to the potential for a common meth-ds bias. Last, while the sample was representative of theopulation and there were no early-versus-late differences inesponses, nonresponse bias is still a possibility. Neverthe-ess, we hope this initial study in retailing spurs additionalheoretical and managerial discussion about polychronicity.

Measures

istributive fairnessDF1: The rewards I receive from my employer are fair.DF2: In my relationship with my employer, the rewards that I receive

are fairly distributed.DF3: Given the investment I have made to support my employer, the

rewards that I receive from the work relationship are fair.DF4: I consider the investment of time in my job very worthwhile.

ob satisfactionJOBSAT1: Generally speaking, I am satisfied with my job.JOBSAT2: In my career, boredom is a constant companion. (R)JOBSAT3: I am generally satisfied with the kind of work I do in my job.JOBSAT4: I find the work I do exciting.JOBSAT5: I am burned out on my job. (R)

olychronicityPOLY1: I like to juggle several activities at the same time.POLY2: I would rather complete an entire project from start to finish

than work upon several tasks simultaneously. (R)POLY3: When I work by myself, I usually work on one task at a time.

(R)POLY4: I seldom like to work on more than a single task or activity at

the same time. (R)

areer stageC1: I am most concerned with finding a pharmacist position where I can

succeed and grow as an individual. A fundamental question that I amdealing with is: “what do I want to achieve with the rest of mycareer?”

C2: I am currently most concerned with earning stability within myoccupation. I want a secure place in the working world. Achievingprofessional success is of utmost importance to me. I strongly desirepromotion and advancement.

C3: I am most concerned with maintaining my current position, status,and performance level in my chosen career. I am less concerned withfuture promotion opportunities and more concerned to keepingcurrent with new developments in my field.

C4: I am most concerned with reducing my workload. I am looking tocut down on my working hours and am more concerned withdeveloping hobbies to replace work interests and planning forretirement.

References

dams, Stacy J. (1963). “Towards an Understanding of Inequity,” Journalof Abnormal and Social Psychology, 2 (5), 422–436.

Page 11: The effects of polychronic-orientation upon retail employee satisfaction and turnover

f Retaili

A

A

A

A

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

C

D

F

F

F

F

G

HH

J

K

K

K

L

L

M

M

N

O

O

O

P

P

P

R

A. Arndt et al. / Journal o

guinis, Herman (1995). “Statistical Power Problems with Moderated Mul-tiple Regression in Management Research,” Journal of Management, 21(6), 1141–1158.

rmstrong, J. Scott and Terry S. Overton (1977). “Estimating NonresponseBias in Mail Surveys,” Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (3), 396–402.

shforth, Blake E. and Ronald H. Humphrey (1993). “Emotional Laborin Service Roles: The Influence of Identity,” Academy of ManagementReview, 18 (1), 88–115.

shforth, Blake E. and Ronald H. Humphrey (1995). “Emotion in the Work-place: A Reappraisal,” Human Relations, 48 (2), 97–125.

abin, Barry J. and James S. Boles (1996). “The Effects of Perceived Co-worker Involvement and Supervisor Support on Service Provider RoleStress, Performance and Job Satisfaction,” Journal of Retailing, 72 (1),57–76.

arclay, Jean M. (2001). “Improving Selection Interviews with Structure:Organizations’ Use of ‘Behavioral’ Interviews,” Personnel Review, 30(1), 81–101.

enabou, Charles (1999). “Polychronicity and Temporal Dimensions ofWork in Learning Organizations,” Journal of Managerial Psychology,14 (3/4), 257–268.

ettencourt, Lance A. and Stephen W. Brown (1997). “Contact Employees:Relationships among Workplace Fairness, Job Satisfaction and ProsocialService Behaviors,” Journal of Retailing, 71 (1), 39–61.

itner, Mary Jo., Bernard H. Booms and Mary Stanfield Tetreault (1990).“The Service Encounter: Diagnosing Favorable and Unfavorable Inci-dents,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (1), 41–85.

luedorn, Allen C. (1982). “A Unified Model of Turnover from Organiza-tions,” Human Relations, 35 (2), 135–154.

luedorn, Allen C., Thomas J. Kalliath, Michael J. Strube and Gregg D.Martin (1999). “Polychronicity and the Inventory of Polychronic Val-ues (IPV) the Development of an Instrument to Measure a FundamentalDimension of Organizational Culture,” Journal of Managerial Psychol-ogy, 14 (3/4), 205–230.

oles, James S. and Barry J. Babin (1996). “One the Front Lines: Stress, Con-flict, and the Customer Service Provider,” Journal of Business Research,37 (1), 41–51.

rown, Steven P. and Robert A. Peterson (1993). “Antecedents and Conse-quences of Salesperson Job Satisfaction: Meta-analysis and Assessmentof Causal Effects,” Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (1), 63–77.

rown, Steven P. and Robert A. Peterson (1994). “The Effect of Effort onSales Performance and Job Satisfaction,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (Apr),70–80.

hebat, Jean-Charles and Paul Kollias (2000). “The Impact of Empower-ment on Customer Contact Employees’ Roles in Service Organizations,”Journal of Service Research, 3 (1), 66–82.

ohen, Jacob and Patricia Cohen (1983). Applied Multiple Regres-sion/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences Second ed. Hills-dale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

onte, Jeffrey, Tracey E. Rizzuto and Dirk D. Steiner (1999). “A Construct-oriented Analysis of Individual-level Polychronicity,” Journal of Man-agerial Psychology, 14 (3–4), 269–287.

ron, William J. (1984). “Industrial Salesperson Development,” Journal ofMarketing, 46 (Fall), 41–52.

arden, William R., Ronald D. Hampton and Earl W. Boatwright (1987).“Investigating Retail Employee Turnover: An Application of SurvivalAnalysis,” Journal of Retailing, 63 (1), 69–89.

eldman, Laurence P. and Jacob Hornik (1981). “The Use of Time: AnIntegrated Conceptual Model,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (4),407–419.

laherty, Karen E. and James M. Pappas (2002). “Using Career Stage Theoryto Predict Turnover Intentions among Salespeople,” Journal of Market-ing Theory and Practice, 10 (3), 48–58.

ornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981). “Evaluating Structural EquationModels with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error,” Journalof Marketing Research, 18 (Feb), 39–50.

rei, Richard L., Bernadette Racicot and Angela Travagline (1999). “TheImpact of Monochronic and Type A Behavior Patterns on Research

S

ng 82 (4, 2006) 319–330 329

Productivity and Stress,” Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14 (5),374–384.

rewal, Dhruv and Arun Sharma (1991). “The Effect of Salesforce Behav-ior on Customer Satisfaction,” The Journal of Personal Selling & SalesManagement, 11 (3), 13–24.

all, Edward T. (1959). The Silent Language. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.all, Edward T. (1983). The Dance of Life: The Other Dimensions of Time.

New York, NY: Anchor/Doubleday.arvis, Cheryl Burke, Scott B. Mackenzie and Philip M. Podsakoff (2003).

“A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Measurement ModelMisspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research,” Journal of Con-sumer Research, 30 (2), 199–218.

aufman-Scarborough, Carol and Jay D. Lindquist (1999). “Time Man-agement and Polychronicity Comparisons, Contrasts, and Insights forthe Workplace,” Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14 (3–4), 288–312.

aufman, Carol Felker, Paul M. Lane and Jay D. Lindquist (1991).“Exploring More than 24 h a Day: A Preliminary Investigation ofPolychronic Time Use,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (3), 392–401.

rishnan, Balaji C., Richard G. Netemeyer and James S. Boles (2002, Fall).“Self-efficacy, Competitiveness, and Efforts as Antecedents of Salesper-son Performance,” Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management,22, 285–296.

iao, Hui. and Aichia Chuang (2004). “A Multilevel Investigation of FactorsInfluencing Employee Service Performance and Customer Outcomes,”Academy of Management Journal, 47 (1), 41–59.

ucas, George H. (1985). “The Relationships Between Job Attitudes, Per-sonal Characteristics, and Job Outcomes: A Study of Retail Store Man-agers,” Journal of Retailing, 61 (1), 35–63.

artin, Christopher L. and Nathan Bennett (1996). “The Role of JusticeJudgments in Explaining the Relationship Between Job Satisfaction andOrganizational Commitment,” Group and Organization Management,21 (1), 84–104.

ischel, Walter and Yuichi Shoda (1995). “A Cognitive-Affective Sys-tem Theory of Personality: Reconceptualizing Situations, Dispositions,Dynamics, and Invariance in Personality Structures,” PsychologicalReview, 102 (2), 246–268.

etemeyer, Richard G., James S. Boles, Daryl O. McKee and Robert McMur-rian (1997). “An Investigation into the Antecedents of OrganizationalCitizenship Behaviors in a Personal Selling Context,” Journal of Mar-keting, 61 (July), 85–98.

fori-Dankwa, Joseph and Scott D. Julian (2001). “Complexifying Organi-zational Theory: Illustrations Using Time Research,” Academy of Man-agement Review, 26 (3), 415–430.

liver, Richard L. and John E. Swan (1989, April). “Consumer Perceptionsof Interpersonal Equity and Satisfaction in Transactions,” Journal ofMarketing, 53, 21–35.

nken, Marina H. (1999). “Temporal Elements of Organizational Cultureand Impact on Firm Performance,” Journal of Managerial Psychology,14 (3–4), 231–243.

almer, David K. and David F. Schoorman (1999). “Unpackaging the Multi-ple Aspects of Time in Polychronicity,” Journal of Managerial Psychol-ogy, 14 (3–4), 323–344.

ashler, Harold (1998). “Task Switching and Multitask Performance,”Stephen Monsell and Jon Driver (Eds.), Control of Cognitive Processes:Attention and Performance: Vol. 18, Cambridge, MA, US: The MITPress, 277–307.

ersing, Lynne D. (1999). “Managing in Polychronic Times: ExploringIndividual Creativity Performance in Intellectually Intensive Venues,”Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14 (5), 358–373.

hoads, Gary K., William R. Swinyard, Michael D. Geurts and William D.

Price (2002). “Retailing as a Career: A Comparative Study of Marketers,”Journal of Retailing, 78 (1), 71–78.

ager, Jeffrey K. (1991, Spring). “Type A Behavior pattern (TABP) AmongSalespeople and its Relationship to Job Stress,” Journal of Personal Sell-ing and Sales Management, 11, 1–14.

Page 12: The effects of polychronic-orientation upon retail employee satisfaction and turnover

3 f Retaili

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

T

W

Wnants of Employer Use of Selection Methods,” Personnel Psychology,56 (1), 103–125.

Withey, Michael J. and William H. Cooper (1989). “Predicting Exit,

30 A. Arndt et al. / Journal o

chulz, Richard M., William J. Bigoness and Jean Paul Gagnon (1987).“Determinants of Turnover Intentions Among Retail Pharmacists,” Jour-nal of Retailing, 63 (1), 89–99.

ingh, Jagdip (2000). “Performance Productivity and Quality of FrontlineEmployees in Services Organizations,” Journal of Marketing, 64 (2),15–34.

hoda, Yuichi, Scott Lee Tiernan and Walter Mischel (2002). “Personality asa Dynamical System: Emergence of Stability and Distinctiveness fromIntra and Interpersonal Interactions,” Personality and Social PsychologyReview, 6 (4), 316–325.

hook, Christopher L., David, J. Ketchen Jr., Hult, G. Tomas M., MicheleKacmar, K. (2004). “An Assessment of the Use of Structural EquationModeling in Strategic Management Research,” Strategic ManagementJournal, 25 (4), 397–404.

locombe, Thomas E. and Allen C. Bluedorn (1999). “OrganizationalBehavior Implications of the Congruence between Preferred Poly-

chronicity and Experienced Work-unit Polychronicity,” Journal of Orga-nizational Behavior, 20 (1), 75–99.

rivastava, Rajesh and Jeff K. Sager (1999, Spring). “Influence of PersonalCharacteristics on Salespeople’s Coping Style,” Journal of Personal Sell-ing and Sales Management, 19, 47–58.

ng 82 (4, 2006) 319–330

olomon, Michael R., Carol Surprenant, John A. Czepiel and EvelynG. Gutman (1985). “A Role Theory Perspective on Dyadic Interac-tions: The Service Encounter,” Journal of Marketing, 49 (1), 99–112.

ett, Robert P., Douglas N. Jackson and Mitchell Rothstein (1991). “Per-sonality Measures as Predictors of Job Performance: A Meta-AnalyticReview,” Personnel Psychology, 44 (4), 703–743.

eatherly, Kristopher and David Tansik (1993). “Managing MultipleDemands: A Role Theory Examination of the Behaviors of CustomerContact Service Workers,” Teresa A. Swartz, David E. Bowen andStephen W. Brown (Eds.), Advances in Services Marketing and Man-agement: Vol. 2, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 279–300.

ilk, Steffanie L. and Peter Cappelli (2003). “Understanding the Determi-

Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 34 (4),521–539.