Brown S.D., Lent R. (Editors). Career development and counseling: putting theory and research to work

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

176 I

NFORMATIVE

ESEARCH

as nonver

bal skills, vocal characteristics, and physical appearance, have an effect

on interview outcomes (Wanberg et al., 2000). Unfortunately, job search research

has not examined the role of job seekers’ interviewing skills although this is clearly

a key factor in obtaining employment (Wanberg et al., 1999). Thus, another inter-

vention in the framework is designed to instruct and prepare job seekers on em-

ployment interviews and self-presentation skills during the recruitment-selection

process.

One area that appears to be especially promising is research on job interview

anxiety. In a recent study by McCarthy and Gowan (in press), job applicants

completed a self-report measure on their job interview anxiety in five areas of

anxiety (communication, appearance, social, performance, and behavioral anxi-

ety) and were interviewed by actual interviewers who evaluated their interview

performance. The results indicated that job applicants with higher interview

anxiety received lower interview evaluations. This provides a good illustration

of how an excellent job search might result in fewer job offers, a longer search

period, and continued unemployment for a job seeker who has high interview

anxiety. Thus, some job seekers might require more extensive interview train-

ing to improve their skills, increase their self-efficacy, and lower their interview

anxiety.

A final intervention noted in the framework is on job choice decision making.

As noted earlier, the job search process also includes a choice phase in which the

job seeker must evaluate job alternatives and make a job choice decision. In fact,

in a model of job search and evaluation, Schwab et al. (1987) showed that evalu-

ation follows search and precedes the outcomes. They also noted that evaluation

involves content and process dimensions. Content involves a consideration of

the importance and attractiveness of job attributes, and process involves mental

processes and decision rules used to evaluate job attributes. Thus, a final inter-

vention might focus on those attributes that are most important to a job seeker

and the decision rules that will be used to evaluate job offers and to make a job

choice.

In summary, the job search intervention framework incorporates the major

findings from the job search literature in a manner that will enable counselors to

consider the characteristics and needs of job seekers and then to tailor interven-

tions to those characteristics and needs. By considering the main predictors of

job search and the criteria for success and then setting employment and job

search goals, counselors and job seekers can determine the strategies required to

achieve those goals and the interventions that will be most effective for building

the capabilities job seekers need to conduct an effective job search.

SUMMARY

During the past 10 years, job search has received a great deal of research atten-

tion. Given the large numbers of people searching for work each year, as well as

the frequency with which most people today will have to look for work, research

on the job search process has real practical value. Research has shown that both

individual differences and situational factors influence job search behavior, and

job search behavior is related to the probability, speed, and quality of employ-

ment that the job seeker obtains. Given that workers today are expected to expe-

rience more than a dozen job transitions during the course of their career, the

c07.qxd 8/5/04 8:57 AM Page 176

Job Search Success: A Review 177

need for individuals to have job search skills is critical for job seekers’ continued

employment and psychological well-being.

This chapter has reviewed the job search literature to develop an integrative

self-regulatory model that brings together the main predictors, behaviors, and

outcomes of job search. Thus, it can serve as a guide for both research and prac-

tice. A job search intervention framework was developed that incorporates the

main variables from the job search model. The job search intervention framework

can be used to identify job seekers’ needs and to design job search interventions

that are tailored to their needs, goals, and desired outcomes.

REFERENCES

Allen, R. E., & Keaveny, T. J. (1980). The relative effectiveness of alternative job sources.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1(16), 18–32.

Azrin, N. H., Flores, T., & Kaplan, S. J. (1975). Job-finding club: A group assisted program

for obtaining employment. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 13, 17–27.

Azrin, N. H., & Philip, R. A. (1979). The job club method for the job-handicapped: A com-

parative outcome study. Rehabilitation Counselling Bulletin, 2(23), 144–155.

Azrin, N. H., Philip, R. A., Thienes-Hontos, P., & Besalel, V. A. (1980). Comparative eval-

uation of the job club program with welfare recipients. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

1(16), 133–145.

Barber, A. E., Daly, C. L., Giannantonio, C. M., & Phillips, J. M. (1994). Job search activi-

ties: An examination of changes over time. Personnel Psychology, 47, 739–765.

Becker, H. A. (1980). The Assertive Job-Hunting Survey. Measurement and Evaluation in

Guidance, 1(13), 43–48.

Blau, G. (1993). Further exploring the relationship between job search and voluntary in-

dividual turnover. Personnel Psychology, 4(46), 213–330.

Blau, G. (1994). Testing a two-dimensional measure of job search behavior. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 5(59), 288–312.

Boudreau, J. W., Boswell, W. R., Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D., Jr. (2001). Personality and cog-

nitive ability as predictors of job search among employed managers. Personnel Psychol-

ogy, 5(54), 25–50.

Braddy, B. A., & Gray, D. O. (1987). Employment services for older job seekers: A compar-

ison of two client-centered approaches. Gerontologist, 27, 565–568.

Brasher, E. E., & Chen, P. Y. (1999). Evaluation of success criteria in job search: A process

evaluation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 57–70.

Caplan, R. D., Vinokur, A. D., Price, R. H., & van Ryn, M. (1989). Job seeking, re-employment,

and mental health: A randomized field experiment in coping with job loss. Journal of Ap-

plied

Psychology, 74, 759–769.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual

Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.

Eden, D., & Aviram, A. (1993). Self-efficacy training to speed reemployment: Helping

people to help themselves. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 352–360.

Elksnin, L. K., & Elksnin, N. (1991). The school counsellor as job search facilitator: In-

creasing employment of handicapped students through job clubs. School Counsellor, 38,

215–220.

Ellis, R. A., & Taylor, M. S. (1983). Role of self-esteem within the job search process. Jour-

nal of Applied Psychology, 68, 632–640.

Granovetter, M. S. (1995). Getting a job (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gray, D. O. (1983). A job club for older job seekers: An experimental evaluation. Journal of

Gerontology, 38, 363–368.

Gray, D. O., & Braddy, B. A. (1988). Experimental social innovation and client-centered

job-seeking programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 325–343.

Hanisch, K. A. (1999). Job loss and unemployment research from 1994 to 1998: A review

and recommendations for research and intervention. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55,

188–220.

c07.qxd 8/5/04 8:57 AM Page 177

178 I

NFORMATIVE

ESEARCH

Huffman, M. L., & Torres, L. (2001). Job search methods: Consequences for gender-based

earnings inequality. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 127–141.

Kanfer, R., & Hulin, C. L. (1985). Individual differences in successful job searches follow-

ing lay-off. Personnel Psychology, 38, 835–847.

Kanfer, R., Wanberg, C. R., & Kantrowitz, T. M. (2001). Job search and employment: A

personality-motivational analysis and meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychol-

ogy, 86, 837–855.

Kinicki, A. J., Prussia, G. E., & McKee-Ryan, F. M. (2000). A panel study of coping with in-

voluntary job loss. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 90–100.

Lee, F. K., Sheldon, K. M., & Turban, D. B. (2003). Personality and the goal-striving pro-

cess: The influence of achievement goal patterns, goal level, and mental focus on per-

formance and enjoyment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 256–265.

Leicht, K. T., & Marx, J. (1997). The consequences of informal job finding for men and

women. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 967–987.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting

and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717.

McCarthy, J. M., & Goffin, R. D. (in press). Measuring job interview anxiety: Beyond

weak knees and sweaty palms. Personnel Psychology.

Prussia, G. E., Fugate, M., & Kinicki, A. (2001). Explication of the coping goal construct:

Implications for coping and reemployment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1179–1190.

Rife, J. C., & Belcher, J. R. (1994). Assisting unemployed older workers to become reem-

ployed: An experimental evaluation. Research on Social Work Practice, 4, 3–13.

Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). A longitudinal investigation of the relationships be-

tween job information sources, applicant perceptions of fit, and work outcomes. Per-

sonnel Psychology, 50, 395–426.

Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1999). Effects of individual differences and job search be-

haviors on the employment status of recent university graduates. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 54, 335–349.

Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2000). Change in job search behaviors and employment

outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 277–287.

Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2002). Is job search related to employment quality? It all

depends on the fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 646–654.

Schmit, M. J., Amel, E. L., & Ryan, A. M. (1993). Self-reported assertive job-seeking be-

haviors of minimally educated job hunters. Personnel Psychology, 46, 105–124.

Schwab, D. P., Rynes, S. L., & Aldag, R. J. (1987). Theories and research on job search and

choice. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources

management (Vol. 5, pp. 129–166). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Soelberg, P. O. (1967). Unprogrammed decision making. Industrial Management Review, 8,

19–29.

Stidham, H. H., & Remley, T. P., Jr. (1992). Job club methodology applied in a workfare

setting. Journal of Employment Counselling, 29, 69–76.

Vinokur, A. D., Price, R. H., & Schul, Y. (1995). Impact of the JOBS intervention on unem-

ployed workers varying in risk for depression. American Journal of Community Psychol-

ogy, 232, 39–74.

Vinokur, A. D., Schul, Y., Vuori, J., & Price, R. H. (2000). Two years after a job loss: Long-

term impact of the JOBS program on reemployment and mental health. Journal of Oc-

cupational Health Psychology, 5, 32–47.

Vinokur, A. D., van Ryn, M., Gramlich, E. M., & Price, R. H. (1991). Long-term follow-up

and benefit-cost analysis of the jobs program: A preventive intervention for the unem-

ployed. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 213–219.

Wanberg, C. R. (1995). A longitudinal study of the effects of unemployment and quality

of reemployment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46, 40–54.

Wanberg, C. R. (1997). Antecedents and outcomes of coping behaviors among unem-

ployed and reemployed individuals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 731–744.

Wanberg, C. R., Hough, L. M., & Song, Z. (2002). Predictive validity of a multidisciplinary

model of reemployment success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1100–1120.

Wanberg, C. R., Kanfer, R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of networking

intensity among unemployed job seekers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 491–503.

c07.qxd 8/5/04 8:57 AM Page 178

Job Search Success: A Review 179

Wanberg, C. R., Kanfer, R., & Rotundo, M. (1999). Unemployed individuals: Motives, job-

search competencies, and job search constraints as predictors of job seeking and reem-

ployment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 897–910.

Wanberg, C. R., Watt, J. D., & Rumsey, D. J. (1996). Individuals without jobs: An empirical

study of job-seeking behavior and reemployment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,

76–87.

Wer bel, J. D. (2000). Relationships among career exploration, job search intensity, and job

search effectiveness in graduating college students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57,

379–394.

c07.qxd 8/5/04 8:57 AM Page 179

180

CHAPTER 8

Theories and Research

on Job Satisfaction

Barbara A. Fritzsche and Tiffany J. Parrish

HE OLD ADAGE

,“A happy worker is a productive worker,” pervades Ameri-

can thinking about how to establish and maintain high productivity in or-

ganizations. It is widely believed in career development circles that those

who experience satisfaction in their work lives also achieve more, have better psy-

chological and physical health, and even experience greater satisfaction in their

other life roles. Thus, it is no surprise that job satisfaction is the most widely stud-

ied topic in organizational behavior research (Spector, 1997). In fact, our library

search of the keyword phrase job satisfaction produced almost 5,000 published pa-

pers just in the past 10 years (1993 to 2003). It is no wonder that Brief and Weiss

(2002) called recent work on the study of affect in the workplace “The Hot 1990s”

in their Annual Review of Psychology chapter.

Because improvement in job satisfaction is one potential outcome of career

counseling, career counseling professionals require knowledge about the theories

and empirical research that have shaped our understanding of the job satisfaction

construct. This chapter provides an overview of the definition and measurement

of job satisfaction, the consequences associated with job satisfaction, and its an-

tecedents. We conclude with concrete ideas for how to apply job satisfaction re-

search specifically to the career counseling process.

DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF

JOB SATISFACTION

Job satisfaction is commonly conceptualized as an affective variable that results

from an assessment of an individual’s job experiences. Locke (1976) defined job

satisfaction as “. . . a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the

appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (p. 1300). Cranny, Smith, and Stone

(1992) viewed it as “an affective (that is, emotional) reaction to a job, that results

from the incumbent’s comparison of actual outcomes with those that are desired

c08.qxd 8/5/04 9:12 AM Page 180

Theories and Research on Job Satisfaction 181

(expected, deserved, and so on)” (p. 1). In simple terms, job satisfaction is “the ex-

tent to which people like their jobs” (Spector, 2000, p. 197).

Brief (1998) argued that commonly accepted definitions of job satisfaction em-

phasize affect but fail to take into consideration that attitudes also have a cogni-

tive component. In other words, job attitudes are composed of feelings and

thoughts about work. Even though most definitions emphasize the affective na-

ture of job satisfaction, most measures of job satisfaction tend to have a strong cog-

nitive, rather than affective, component (Fisher, 2000; Organ & Near, 1985).

Typically, measures ask people to evaluate how satisfied they are by comparing

their job experience to some standard, such as prior expectations or a reference

group of other workers.

Surveys suggest that people generally do like their jobs. A 2003 Gallup Poll

found that the vast majority of Americans were generally satisfied with their jobs

and with most aspects of their jobs. This finding is consistent with prior Gallup

Poll findings such as the 1999 poll report that 90% of employed Americans were

generally satisfied with their jobs and the 2001 data indicating that a third of

Americans reported that they “loved” their job.

Although job satisfaction tends to be high overall, some people tend to be more

satisfied than others. For example, job satisfaction tends to increase with age

(Brush, Moch, & Pooyan, 1987; Siu, Spector, Cooper, & Donald, 2001) or has a U-

shaped distribution in which new entrants to the workforce and older workers

have the highest job satisfaction (Hochwarter, Ferris, Perrewe, Witt, & Kiewitz,

2001). Siu et al. suggested that older workers are more satisfied because they tend

to have better coping skills and well-being than do younger workers. It is unclear

whether there are sex and racial differences in job satisfaction. On the one hand,

research has found that men and women were equally satisfied with their jobs

(Brush et al., 1987; Witt & Nye, 1992), and Brush et al. found no evidence for racial

differences in job satisfaction. On the other hand, Greenhaus, Parasuraman, and

Wormley (1990) and Tuch and Martin (1991) found that Blacks were less satisfied

than Whites. Both studies suggest that the lower satisfaction is due to Blacks gen-

erally receiving less satisfying jobs (i.e., lower paying, less stable) than Whites. In

a study of 3,400 employees, Mor Barak and Levin (2002) found that perceptions of

exclusion related to lower job satisfaction and well-being for women and ethnic

minorities.

Job satisfaction has been measured using both global and facet measures.

Global measures focus on overall feelings about the job and are used to predict

behavior such as quitting. Facet measures focus on satisfaction with specific as-

pects of the job and are used to diagnose strengths and weaknesses at an organi-

zation or in a workgroup (Ironson, Smith, Brannick, Gibson, & Paul, 1989). Facets

might include satisfaction with coworkers, fringe benefits, job conditions, pay, su-

pervision, or the amount of personal growth offered at work (Spector, 1997).

No theory has been developed to provide guidance for choosing which facets

are likely to be most important in different situations or for different people

(Brief, 1998). Locke (1976) categorized facets into four main classes: the work it-

self, rewards, context, and people. However, the number and type of facets mea-

sured vary across job satisfaction scales, and little guidance has been offered to

help understand the conditions under which different facets are most important

to measure (Brief, 1998). Therefore, facet measures of job satisfaction may

fail to measure important aspects of job satisfaction for some individuals and

c08.qxd 8/5/04 9:12 AM Page 181

182 I

NFORMATIVE

ESEARCH

may include items that are unimportant to other individuals. As a result, the

sum of facet scale scores does not always equal overall job satisfaction (Ironson

et al., 1989).

Job satisfaction is most commonly measured via self-report questionnaires.

Popular facet measures include the Job Descriptive Index (JDI; Smith, Kendall, &

Hulin, 1969), the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS; Spector, 1985b), the Minnesota Sat-

isfaction Questionnaire (MSQ; D. J. Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967), and

the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS; Hackman & Oldham, 1975). Global scales, such as

the Job in General Scale (JIG; Ironson et al., 1989), the Faces scale (Kunin, 1955),

and the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire satisfaction sub-

scale (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1979), measure general or overall

job satisfaction. Several of these measures are described next.

Perhaps the most popular measure of job satisfaction is the Job Descriptive

Index (JDI; Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969, 1985). The JDI contains 72 items that as-

sess satisfaction with five facets, including Work, Pay, Promotions, Supervision,

and Coworkers. Respondents read adjectives or brief phrases (e.g., “boring,”

“good”) and evaluate whether each describes their job by answering with either a

“yes,” “no,” or “uncertain.” Ironson et al. (1989) reported internal consistency re-

liabilities that range from 0.78 to 0.88, and the validity of the JDI is well estab-

lished (Brief, 1998).

The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ; D. J. Weiss et al., 1967) is an-

other popular facet scale. The scale is available in both long (100 items) and short

(20 items) versions. The 20 facets of job satisfaction that the MSQ measures are:

Activity, Independence, Variety, Social Status, Supervision (Human Relations),

Supervision (Technical), Moral Values, Security, Social Service, Authority, Abil-

ity Utilization, Company Policies and Practices, Compensation, Advancement,

Responsibility, Creativity, Working Conditions, Coworkers, Recognition, and

Achievement. Respondents read each item (e.g., “The feeling of accomplishment

I get from this job”) and rate that work aspect on a five-point scale from 1 (“I am

not satisfied”) to 5 (“I am extremely satisfied”). Reasonable reliability (e.g., aver-

age test-retest r = 0.83) and validity coefficients have been found (Dawis, Pinto,

Weitzel, & Nezzer, 1974; Dunham, Smith, & Blackburn, 1977). Some researchers

(e.g., Brief, 1998) prefer the MSQ to the JDI because the MSQ measures a much

larger set of facets.

One example of a global measure of job satisfaction is the JIG (Ironson et al.,

1989). Because the JDI does not include a global measure of job satisfaction, the JIG

was designed to be used in conjunction with the JDI when a global measure is de-

sired. It was designed to be “. . . more global, more evaluative, and longer in time

frame” (p. 195) than the JDI. It contains 18 items in the form of adjectives or short

phrases (items include “better than most,” “waste of time”), and respondents use

the same response options as on the JDI. Internal consistency estimates ranged

from 0.91 to 0.95 across different samples, and the JIG scale correlated 0.66 to 0.80

with other global satisfaction scales (Ironson et al., 1989).

CORRELATES OF JOB SATISFACTION

Not only is having satisfying work an important end in and of itself, but also peo-

ple who are satisfied with their jobs tend to experience other positive behavioral,

affective, and health outcomes. This section summarizes research linking job

c08.qxd 8/5/04 9:12 AM Page 182

Theories and Research on Job Satisfaction 183

sat

isfaction to job performance, counterproductive work behavior, withdrawal

behaviors, life satisfaction, and health.

ERFORMANCE

It is intuitively appealing to believe that those who are more satisfied at work

are also more productive (Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985). Meta-analyses have

found that job satisfaction correlates with performance in the range of 0.17 to

0.18 (Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985; Podsakoff & Williams, 1986) to 0.30 to 0.31

(Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001; Petty, McGee, & Cavender, 1984). Thus,

it is clear that there is a positive relation between satisfaction and job perfor-

mance, but it is less clear whether the magnitude of the relation is small or mod-

erate. Across individual studies, large variability in the magnitude of the

correlation coefficients has been found. In such situations, researchers typi-

cally search for important variables that affect the magnitude of the correlation

or for methodological problems with certain studies. By directly comparing

their results to those of Iaffaldano and Muchinsky (1985), Judge et al. (2001)

identified several methodological weaknesses with the Iaffaldano and Muchin-

sky meta-analysis. The weaknesses indicated their low correlation estimate was

likely to be an underestimate of the true relation between the variables. There-

fore, the most recent findings suggest a moderate correlation between job satis-

faction and job performance.

Some (e.g., Locke, 1976; Porter & Lawler, 1968) have argued that the relation-

ship may be reversed; that is, good performance leads to high satisfaction.

When performance is high and leads to valued rewards, such as feelings of suc-

cess and achievement, promotion, or raises, job attitudes are likely to be positive

(Locke, 1976; Podsakoff & Williams, 1986). In fact, stronger correlations have

been found between satisfaction and performance for higher level employees,

where stronger extrinsic reward contingencies are likely to be found (Petty

et al., 1984). Job satisfaction is also likely to result from good performance when

the costs associated with attaining high performance are not too high and when

achieving high performance does not conflict with other personal values

(Locke, 1976). A recent review again emphasized the idea that the performance-

leads-to-satisfaction assumption has not been consistently supported in empiri-

cal studies and instead proposed that satisfaction and performance mutually

influence each other (Judge et al., 2001).

Another approach for understanding the job satisfaction-performance rela-

tion has been to examine specific aspects of job performance rather than as-

suming that attitudes should relate to overall job performance (e.g., Organ,

1988). Job performance is multidimensional (Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, &

Sager, 1993), and two main performance dimensions are task and contextual

performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Task performance includes behav-

iors that form the technical core of a job (such as teaching and conducting re-

search for university professors), whereas contextual performance includes

behaviors that support the technical core through improving the organizational,

social, and psychological environment in which task performance occurs

(such as helping to train a new coworker). Job satisfaction has been shown to re-

late positively (rs ranged from 0.27 to 0.41) to contextual performance or extra-

role behavior (e.g., Bateman & Organ, 1983; Motowidlo, 1984). The correlation

c08.qxd 8/5/04 9:12 AM Page 183

184 I

NFORMATIVE

ESEARCH

between job satisfaction and contextual perfor

mance has tended to be higher

than that found between job satisfaction and task performance criteria, such as

actual sales performance (r = 0.18; Puffer, 1987).

Organ (1988) offered a fairness explanation for this finding. He argued that

people offer extra-role behavior as long as they maintain a long-term relationship

of trust with the organization. When trust is violated and workers become dissat-

isfied, they discontinue extra-role behavior and offer task performance only in a

quid pro quo fashion. Empirical examination of the idea that satisfaction involves

an assessment of fairness has received modest support (Farh, Podsakoff, & Organ,

1990; Organ & Konovsky, 1989).

Brief and colleagues (Brief, Butcher, & Roberson, 1995; George & Brief, 1992)

offer a “feeling good-doing good” explanation for the link between job satisfaction

and extra-role behavior. They suggest that extra-role behavior is determined by ex-

periencing positive mood at work. In a field experiment, Brief et al. demonstrated

that even small positive mood-inducing behaviors can influence job satisfaction.

Their findings suggest: “. . . an abundance of positive mood inducing events in the

workplace might create enduring changes in job satisfaction and, correspondingly,

generally higher levels of prosocial behaviors in organizations” (p. 60).

OUNTERPRODUCTIVE

EHAVIOR

Job dissatisfaction has also been associated with counterproductive work behav-

iors. Counterproductive behaviors are those that hurt the organization, such as

sabotage, theft, and aggression against coworkers (Spector, 1997). When people

are dissatisfied with their jobs, they become increasingly frustrated and convey

their frustration by acting out at work and through physical symptoms (Chen &

Spector, 1992; Duffy, Ganster, & Shaw, 1998; Keenan & Newton, 1984). According

to Spector, relatively few studies have been done on this topic, but research to date

suggests an important link between satisfaction and counterproductive behavior.

ITHDRAWAL

EHAVIORS

It is intuitively appealing to assume that those who are dissatisfied with their jobs

are likely to miss work more often than others. However, a meta-analysis of 707

correlations found that the mean correlation between job satisfaction and absen-

teeism was only −.09 (Hackett & Guion, 1985), suggesting that the two variables are

only weakly related. This finding has been echoed in more recent studies (Farrell

& Stamm, 1988; Matrunola, 1996).

One alternative explanation for this finding is that the relation between ab-

sence and satisfaction may be nonlinear. Thus, the low correlations reported

would be due to poor fit between the data and the way that the data were ana-

lyzed (e.g., only linear relations have typically been examined). Another possibil-

ity is that the distribution of absences may be highly skewed. In other words,

most people are absent infrequently, and only a few people are absent often. This

violation of the normality assumption will attenuate the correlation coefficient.

Finally, Hackett and Guion (1985) argued that personal values are likely to ac-

count for more variance in absence behavior than are job attitudes because values

are more central to our personality and cognitive makeup and direct more of our

c08.qxd 8/5/04 9:12 AM Page 184

Theories and Research on Job Satisfaction 185

behavior choices. Thus, people with the same level of job satisfaction may behave

differently (i.e., one may miss work and one may not) when faced with situations

in which work and nonwork values conflict.

Using a longitudinal design, Tharenou (1993) examined the causal direction

of the absence-satisfaction relationship. She found that uncertified absence

(when the absence was not documented as sick leave with a medical certificate,

leave for exams, jury duty, military service, bereavement, or worker’s compen-

sation) affected job satisfaction rather than the other way around. She argued

that the self-explanations that may be required for avoidable absence may re-

duce job satisfaction. The results also suggest that type of absence (certified or

uncertified) may affect the strength of the absence-performance relation.

Hackett and Guion (1985) suggested that the job satisfaction-absence relation-

ship be reconceptualized:

Rather than continuing to conceptualize absence primarily in terms of a process of

withdrawal from a negative work environment, which from a managerial perspec-

tive conveniently places such behavior under the direct control of organizations, it

is likely to prove more fruitful to view absence more in terms of a process in which

workers are drawn out of the workplace by valued features of their nonwork envi-

ronments. (p. 375)

Voluntary turnover is another commonly studied withdrawal behavior (e.g.,

Dickter, Roznowski, & Harrison, 1996; Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, & Erez,

2001). At the individual level, voluntary turnover is the choice to quit the job. Stud-

ies have commonly found a link between job dissatisfaction and turnover. In a

meta-analysis of 39 correlations, the adjusted mean correlation between satis-

faction and turnover was −.26 (Carsten & Spector, 1987), suggesting a small-to-

moderate relation between job attitudes and turnover behavior. Carsten and Spec-

tor also found that as unemployment rates in the larger economy increased, the job

satisfaction-turnover relation decreased. This suggests that people tend to stay at

their jobs despite being dissatisfied when alternative job opportunities are limited.

Several models of the turnover process have been offered (e.g., see Hulin, 1991).

Most models have conceptualized the relation between job satisfaction and

turnover as a process that occurs over time (e.g., see Dickter et al., 1996). Fishbein

and Ajzen’s (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) general model of the

relation among attitudes, behavioral intentions, and behavior has formed the foun-

dation for the more specific turnover models. For example, Mobley, Griffeth, Hand,

and Meglino (1979) argued that job satisfaction directly influences intentions to

search for alternative employment and intentions to quit the present job. In other

words, dissatisfaction in the present situation is expected to lead to intentions to

seek alternatives. Intentions to search and quit are influenced not only by current

job satisfaction but also by an evaluation of future expectations. People compare the

outcomes they expect to obtain if they continue to stay in the present job with the

expected outcomes of possible alternative job opportunities. Thus, likelihood of ob-

taining alternatives and the rewards that are associated with each alternative are

evaluated. Intentions to search for alternatives and quit are then the immediate

precursors to turnover behavior. Evaluating possible job alternatives may then

cause us to reevaluate our satisfaction with our current job. This model helps to

c08.qxd 8/5/04 9:12 AM Page 185