POSITIVE EMPLOYEE: ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS

OUTLINE

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
JOB SATISFACTION
The Measurement of Job Satisfaction
ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT
Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction
EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES AND EMPLOYEE ATTENDANCE
Employee Absenteeism

Employee Turnover
INCREASING EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT, JOB
SATISFACTION, AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT
Changes in job structure
Changes in pay structure
Flexible work schedules
Benefit programs
POSITIVE EMPLOYEE BEHAVIORS
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors
Positive Affect and Employee Well-being

Employee engagement is a psychological state that is characterized by vigor (energy), dedication, and absorption in one’s
work and organization (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, & Baker, 2002). Highly engaged employees are
enthusiastic about their jobs, committed to their work and the organization, and it is assumed that this state leads
them to be more motivated, productive, and more likely to engage in positive work behaviors (Macey & Schneider,
2008). We will use employee engagement as an “umbrella” term to focus on positive employee attitudes, including
the related (and much more thoroughly researched) constructs of job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
What factors contribute to employee engagement? Saks (2006) suggests that jobs that are high in job characteristics
are more meaningful and more likely to engage employees. In addition, if the employees feel that they are
supported by their supervisors and their organization, they are more likely to experience high levels of engagement.
Finally, being recognized and rewarded for one’s accomplishments, and working in an organization that treats
people fairly, all contribute to employee engagement. The construct of employee engagement has received a great deal
of attention from consultants and HR professionals, but less attention from researchers. It does, however, represent
a more global way of looking at the positive attitudes and feelings of employees about their work and their work
organizations. One self-report measure of employee engagement assesses two separate, but related, components, job
engagement (sample scale items: “Sometimes I am so into my job that I lose track of time” and “I am highly engaged in
this job”) and organization engagement (sample items: “Being a member of this organization is very captivating” and “I am
highly engaged in this organization”) (Saks, 2006). This research found that employee engagement was positively
related to job satisfaction and negatively related to employees’ stated intentions to quit their jobs.

Job satisfaction consists of the feelings and attitudes one has about one’s job. All aspects of a
particular job, good and bad, positive and negative, are likely to contribute to the development of
feelings of satisfaction (or dissatisfaction). Job satisfaction, along with productivity, quality, absenteeism,
and turnover, is one of the key dependent variables commonly considered (and measured) in research
in I/O psychology. There are two approaches to conceptualizing job satisfaction. The first is the global
approach, which considers overall job satisfaction. This way of looking at job satisfaction simply
asks if the employee is satisfied overall, using a yes– no response, a single rating scale, or a small
group of items that measure global job satisfaction. The second is the facet approach, which
considers job satisfaction to be composed of feelings and attitudes about a number of different
elements, or facets, of the job. For example, overall satisfaction may be a composite of numerous
factors: satisfaction with pay, the type of work itself, working conditions, the type of supervision,
company policies and procedures, relations with coworkers, and opportunities for promotion and
advancement. The facet approach considers each of these aspects individually, assuming that a particular
worker might be quite satisfied with some facet, such as the amount of pay, but unsatisfied with others,
such as the quality of supervision and the opportunities for promotion. There has been considerable
discussion over which approach is better (Highhouse & Becker, 1993). Proponents of the global
approach argue that it is overall satisfaction with a job that is important and that such complete
satisfaction is more than the sum of satisfaction with separate job facets (Scarpello & Campbell,
1983; Schneider, 1985). Moreover, evidence suggests that even single-item measures of job
satisfaction work reasonably well for assessing job satisfaction (Wanous, Reichers, & Hudy, 1997).
On the other hand, advocates of the facet approach maintain that this view provides better and more
detailed assessments of job satisfaction, allowing a researcher insight into how a particular
individual feels about the various facets of the job and the work situation. Moreover, there may be
tremendous variation in how highly individual workers value certain facets of job satisfaction (Rice,
Gentile, & McFarlin, 1991). For example, satisfaction with pay may be an important element of job
satisfaction for one worker, but not for another. In addition, some facets may not apply to all types
of jobs. For instance, CEOs of companies and self-employed professionals are not affected by
opportunities for promotion—a facet that may be an important contributor to job satisfaction of
lower-level managers in large organizations. Proponents of the facet definition argue that it helps to
indicate specific areas of dissatisfaction that can be targeted for improvement (Locke, 1976; Smith,
Kendall, & Hulin, 1969). Still others believe there are advantages to using both types of measurement
approaches based on findings that indicate that each approach offers interesting and important
information (Ironson, Smith, Brannick, Gibson, & Paul, 1989). Overall, much of the psychological
research on the topic utilizes the facet approach in the measurement of job satisfaction.

THE MEASUREMENT OF JOB SATISFACTION

Regardless of the approach, when considering the measurement of job satisfaction, it is important to
bear in mind the difficulties encountered in attempting to define the factors that may influence
satisfaction, as well as the difficulties inherent in trying to measure any attitude. As mentioned
earlier, most instruments designed from the facet approach measure satisfaction with such things
as pay, working conditions, and relationships with supervisors and coworkers. However, other
variables such as preemployment expectations, individual personality characteristics, and the fit
between the organization or job and the employee may also affect worker satisfaction (Ostroff, 1993a).
Satisfaction with career choice and the employee’s career progression can also contribute to job
satisfaction (Scarpello & Vandenberg, 1992). Research has suggested that elements of job satisfaction
may be deeply rooted in the individual workers. These researchers have suggested that there may be
genetic “predispositions” to be satisfied or dissatisfied with one’s job (see box On the Cutting Edge).
Although a variety of factors might contribute to job satisfaction for most workers (e.g., working
conditions, relationships at work), as mentioned before, the connection between such factors and job
satisfaction may not be a direct link. Job satisfaction may be moderated by the perceptions of
individual workers (Gardner & Pierce, 1998; Mathieu, Hofmann, & Farr, 1993). This is because
different employees may perceive the same job differently, and it is those individual perceptions that
determine whether or not an employee is satisfied with the job. For instance, improving the working
environment may affect satisfaction for some employees, but not for others, because not everyone is
dissatisfied with the environment. Another major obstacle in the measurement of job satisfaction is
the same obstacle encountered in the measurement of any attitude—the necessary reliance on
respondents’ self-reports. Recall that problems with self-report measures include the fact that
workers may (intentionally or unintentionally) fail to report their true feelings. Strategies for
measuring job satisfaction have included interviews, group meetings, and a variety of structured,
survey methods, such as rating scales or questionnaires. The obvious advantages of using a rating
scale or questionnaire, instead of a face-to-face meeting, are the reduced time invested in the
administration of the instrument and the fact that anonymity of responses can often be maintained
(particularly if large numbers of employees are being surveyed). Such anonymity may help to ensure
that worker responses are more candid than they might be in a face-to-face inter- view. That is, some
workers, fearing retaliation from management, may not give an accurate representation of their levels of
job satisfaction in an interview or a meeting and may try to present an overly positive picture of their
feelings. On the other hand, meetings or interviews can provide richer information because the
interviewer can ask follow-up questions or request further elaboration or clarification of an answer.
In addition, response biases (e.g., ten- dencies for all or most employees to give overly positive or
negative responses) and ambiguous items that employees may interpret differently may seriously
damage the validity of a pencil-and-paper job satisfaction measure. Another problem with survey
instruments is context effects (Harrison & McLaughlin, 1993). Context effects occur when a neutral
item is responded to negatively or positively, simply because it is grouped with other items that are
worded negatively or positively. Finally, even well-designed, standardized instruments may become
outdated and require periodic revisions due to changes in technology and work roles (Roznowski,
1989). In summary, no matter which type of measurement is selected, careful thought and planning
must go into the development and administration of job satisfaction measures. Despite the
complexities, many organizations develop their own interviews, scales, or surveys that are used to
measure employee job satisfaction. Although such in-house techniques can be designed to assess
satisfaction with specific issues relevant to each company’s employees, their results may be
difficult to interpret. First, these measures may not be reliable or valid. To construct measures that
are reliable and valid, one must have a rather extensive background in survey development and
measurement techniques. Moreover, it takes quite a bit of research to establish the reliability and
validity of a job satisfaction measure. Many organizations don’t have the employees with the skills
needed to construct such measures. Second, it is very difficult to know what a particular rating or score
means without being able to compare it to some standard. For example, if employees indicate relatively low
levels of satisfaction with salary on some scale, does this mean that they are actually dissatisfied with the
money they make? They may merely be stating a desire for more money—a desire shared by most
employees of most organizations. Because of these problems in creating and interpreting in-
house jobsatisfaction measures, many companies are using standardized surveys. Besides being cost-
effective, a major advantage of using such standardized measures is that they provide normative data
that permit the comparison of ratings with those from similar groups of workers in other companies
who have completed the survey. This allows the organization to know whether the job satisfaction
levels of its employees are low, high, or in the “normal” range, as compared to other workers in other
organizations. As demonstrated earlier in the comparison of levels of satisfaction with salary, if a
company simply assumes its employees’ ratings are low (when, in fact, they are average when compared
to the norm), management may spend time and resources on a problem that doesn’t exist.The ability
to compare scores from standardized job satisfaction measures that have been obtained from
different groups of workers in different companies also allows researchers to investigate the various
organizational factors that cause job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. In other words, if different
questionnaires were used for all studies, researchers could not be sure that the studies were
measuring and comparing the same things. Two of the most widely used standardized surveys of job
satisfaction are the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) and the Job Descriptive Index (JDI). The
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967) is a multiple-item rating scale
that asks workers to rate their levels of satisfaction/ dissatisfaction with 20 job facets, including
supervisor’s competence, working conditions, compensation, task variety, level of job responsibility, and
chances for advancement. Ratings are marked on a scale from “very dissatisfied” to “neutral” to “very
satisfied.”. The Job Descriptive Index (Smith et al., 1969) is briefer than the MSQ and measures
satisfaction with five job facets: the job itself, supervision, pay, promotions, and coworkers. Within
each of the five facets is a list of words or short phrases. Respondents indicate whether the word or
phrase describes their job, using the answers “yes,” “no,” and “undecided.” Each of the words or
 phrases has a numerical value that reflects how well it describes a typically satisfying job. Items
checked within each scale are summed, yielding five satisfaction scores that reflect the five facets of job
satisfaction. In the past it was suggested that the five scales could be summed into a total score of
overall job satisfaction. However, one study indicates that such a total score is not the best overall
measure and suggests the use of a global assessment instrument called the Job In General (or JIG
scale) as an accompaniment to the five JDI scales (Ironson et al., 1989). Since its development in the
1960s, the JDI has become the most widely used standardized measure of job satisfaction
(Roznowski, 1989). Moreover, the JDI was revised and improved in the mid-1980s by replacing
some of the older scale items with improved items (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1987). Figure 9.2
presents sample items from the JDI. Both the MSQ and the JDI have been widely researched, and
both have established relatively high levels of reliability and validity (Kinicki, McKee-Ryan, Schriesheim, &
Carson, 2002; Smith et al., 1969, 1987; Weiss et al., 1967). One obvious difference between the two
measures is the number of job satisfaction facets measured: The JDI measures 5 facets, the MSQ assesses
20. An important question is how many or how few facets are needed to measure job satisfaction
adequately. One study suggested that some of the JDI facets could be split into two parts. For example,
the satisfaction with supervision scale could be split into satisfaction with the supervisor’s ability and
satisfaction with the supervisor’s interpersonal skills (Yeager, 1981). Other evidence indicates that
some of the 20 MSQ scales are highly correlated with one another and thus could be collapsed into
fewer facets (Gillet & Schwab, 1975; Wong, Hui, & Law, 1998). One may conclude from these
viewpoints that there is no consensus on what constitutes the ideal or best measurement of job
satisfaction. However, most researchers do agree that a valid, reliable, and standardized instrument
will provide the most accurate assessment.

Organizational Commitment
Just as there are different operational definitions of job satisfaction, so too are there different definitions of the
construct of organizational commitment. For example, is it an attitude, a behavior, or both? Previously,
organizational commitment, also referred to as company loyalty, was associated with an acceptance of the
organization’s goals and values, a willingness to exert effort on behalf of the organization, and a desire to remain with
the organization (Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974). This definition encompasses both attitudes and
behaviors. More recently, the concept of organizational commitment has been taken to imply worker attitudes,
such as those just mentioned, whereas the concept of organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) refers to
commitment- related behaviors (Organ, 1990). (We will discuss OCB more fully later in this chapter.) For
example, there is a negative correlation between the attitude of organizational commitment and the behavior of
quitting a job. Organizational commitment is similar to job satisfaction because both involve feelings about the
work situation (and both can be seen as components of the “umbrella” construct of employee engagement). However,
because organizational commit- ment deals specifically with workers’ attitudes about the organization, it may be more
directly linked to employee attendance variables such as absenteeism and turnover than is job satisfaction. A good
definition of organizational commitment is that it is the worker’s attitudes about the entire work organization. The
most widely used organizational commitment measure is a 15-item self-report instrument called the Organizational
Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ), which is presented in Figure 9.4. Another model of organizational commitment
views it as composed of three dimensions: affective commitment, which is the employee’s emotional attachment to the
organization; continuance commitment, which refers to commitment to continue with the organization because there
are costs associating with leaving; and normative commitment, which is like a sense of duty or obligation to stay with the
company (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Separate scales are used to measure each of these three commitment dimensions
(Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993). Research has demonstrated that self-report measures of organizational
commitment such as these do a good job of measuring the construct (Goffin & Gellatly, 2001).

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT AND JOB SATISFACTION

The concepts of job satisfaction and organizational commitment are closely related, although distinct. Research
indicates a fairly high positive correlation between the two factors (Arnold & Feldman, 1982; O’Driscoll, Ilgen, &
Hildreth, 1992; Stumpf & Hartman, 1984). Part of this high positive correlation may be due to the fact that
workers may possibly respond positively to both job satisfaction and organizational commitment measures, due to
a positive response bias, or workers may have a desire to avoid cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is an
unpleasant state of perceived self-inconsistency (Festinger, 1957). Workers thus avoid cognitive dissonance by
convincing themselves that they are satisfied simply because they are loyal to the organization (“I have stayed
 with this company through thick and thin, therefore I must like my job.”). Although it is conceivable that a
worker could be quite satisfied with a job but have low feelings of commitment to the organization, or vice versa,
the feelings tend to be positively related. Studies show mixed results as to the direction of influence between these
two constructs. For example, O’Driscoll and colleagues (1992) found that job satisfaction may directly affect
organizational commitment, whereas other studies indicate that organizational commitment leads to job
satisfaction (Becker & Billings, 1993; Vandenberg & Lance, 1992). Both organizational commitment and job
satisfaction are most likely affected by numerous factors, including the type and variety of work, the autonomy
involved in the job, the level of responsibility associated with the job, the quality of the social relationships at work,
compensation, and the chances for promotion and advancement in the company. However, there appears to be some
consensus that organizational values influence organizational commitment, whereas perceived equity of rewards
influences job satisfaction. That is, perceived fair- ness in rewards influences job satisfaction, whereas perceived
congruence between organizational and employee values, and between organizational values and actions, tends to
influence organizational commitment (Finegan, 2000; Fritz, Arnett, & Conkel, 1999). Organizational commitment
also tends to be weakened by the perceived chances of finding a job with another com- pany (Bateman & Strasser,
1984; Gilbert & Ivancevich, 2000). For instance, if highly skilled worker Carol could easily find a job with another
company, but her friend Kim had difficulty finding her current job, Carol will likely have a lower level of
organizational commitment than Kim. In addition, there appears to be positive correlations between organizational
commitment and age, edu- cation, and time on the job, such that older and more educated workers, and those with
longer tenure with the company, tend to be more committed to the organization (Becker & Billings, 1993; Lee,
Ashford, Walsh, & Mowday, 1992). As discussed in the previous lectures, beginning in the 1990s and into the
financial “meltdown” of the past several years, many organizations have found it necessary to reduce the size of their
workforces by laying off or terminating workers. Thousands of people at a time can lose their jobs when a major
corporation reduces the number of people it employs. Such actions, called downsizing (although some companies
have tried to soften this term by relabeling it “rightsizing”), can have an impact on the workers who are retained,
as well as on those who lose their jobs. For many of the remaining employees, feelings of organizational
commitment and job satisfaction can decline following downsizing, especially if the employees are close to those
who were laid off, or if they feel that their own jobs may be in jeopardy. However, studies show that explanations
from management giving the reasons for the lay offs and giving remaining employees a sense of control over their
future work situations can have positive effects on the remaining workforce (Brockner et al., 2004). There is also
some evidence that the overall work effort of employees may actually increase following downsizing (Taylor &
Giannantonio, 1993). As you might imagine, maintaining job satisfaction and organizational commitment is a
challenge to both employers and employees—a challenge that becomes even more difficult during trying economic
times. Yet, organizations must be concerned with both employee job satisfaction and organizational commitment if
they are to maintain a high-quality, loyal workforce.

EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES AND EMPLOYEE ATTENDANCE

As previously mentioned, employee attendance variables such as absenteeism and turnover are associated with
employee engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Employees who are engaged, or who have
positive feelings about their jobs and work organizations, should be less likely to be absent from work and to leave for
a job elsewhere than those who are disengaged and hold negative attitudes about their jobs. However, before
considering these relationships, we must consider how employee attendance variables are defined and measured
(Hackett & Guion, 1985; Johns, 1994b; Lee, 1989).

EMPLOYEE ABSENTEEISM

Both absenteeism and turnover can be categorized into voluntary and involuntary forms. Voluntary absenteeism
is when employees miss work because they want to do something else. Calling in sick to take a three-day
weekend or taking a day off to run errands or to go shopping are examples of voluntary absenteeism.
Involuntary absenteeism occurs when the employee has a legitimate excuse for missing work, typically illness.
Because involuntary absenteeism is inevitable, the organization must be prepared to accept a certain
amount of such absences. It is voluntary absenteeism, however, that the organization would like to
eliminate. Of course, it is very difficult to distinguish voluntary from involuntary absenteeism, because
most employees are unlikely to admit that they were voluntarily absent (Dalton & Mesch, 1991; Hammer &
Landau, 1981). One way that researchers have operationalized the measurement of voluntary and
involuntary absenteeism is to use absence frequency (the number of days absent) as a measure of
voluntary absenteeism and absence length (the number of consecutive days absent) as an assessment of
involuntary absenteeism (Atkin & Goodman, 1984). However, this is a very crude measure. It is
important to note that voluntary absenteeism is likely to be more strongly associated with employee job
satisfaction; involuntary absenteeism is beyond the control of the employee (Sagie, 1998). Research
examining the relationship between job satisfaction and employee absenteeism has produced
conflicting findings. Sometimes, there is a slight negative relationship between the two (with higher
levels of job satisfaction associated with lower rates of absenteeism; Ostroff, 1993a), and sometimes
no significant relationship at all is found (Ilgen & Hollenback, 1977; Porter & Steers, 1973). A meta-analysis
of a number of studies indicates that job satisfaction and absenteeism are indeed negatively correlated
but that the relationship between the two is not very strong (Scott & Taylor, 1985). One reason the
relationship is not as strong as one might think stems from problems in measuring absenteeism that
cause voluntary and involuntary absenteeism to be lumped together in most of these studies. In other
words, there may be a significant negative correlation between job satisfaction and voluntary
absenteeism, but no significant relationship between job satisfaction and involuntary absenteeism due
to illness. According to one study, there is an association between voluntary absence and job
satisfaction; however, this study concluded that rather than job satisfaction causing the absenteeism, it
was really the absenteeism that was leading to lower job satisfaction (Tharenou, 1993). Perhaps to
avoid cognitive dissonance, workers who voluntarily missed work rationalized that if they were
choosing to be absent, they must not have been very satisfied with their jobs. Another problem might
be that even though workers are satisfied with their jobs, they may find certain nonwork activities (for
example, taking an extra day of vacation or attending a sporting event) more interesting or more important
(Youngblood, 1984). Employees may also be absent because of factors beyond their control, such as
health, transportation, or child-care problems (Goldberg & Waldman, 2000). Additionally, individual
absenteeism may be affected by coworkers’ absenteeism rates and by the organization’s policy and
“climate” toward absenteeism (Gellatly, 1995; Johns, 1994a; Markham & McKee, 1995). For example, if
coworkers are frequently absent, or if management has a lenient policy that is tolerant of absences,
employees might be inclined to miss work regardless of how satisfied or dissatisfied they are with their
jobs (Haccoun & Jeanrie, 1995; Harrison & Martocchio, 1998). Finally, although the construct of
absenteeism may appear quite simple, it, like other behaviors, is probably more complicated than it
appears to be on the surface. Some of this complexity may be illustrated by studies indicating a
negative correlation between age and voluntary absenteeism, and a positive correlation between age
and involuntary absenteeism (Hackett, 1990). In other words, younger workers tend to voluntarily
miss work, whereas older workers tend to miss work because they are more frequently ill. Although it
may seem apparent that absenteeism, especially voluntary absenteeism, would be related to turnover (e.g.,
workers who have a lot of unexcused absences don’t last long on the job), researchers hold conflicting
views of this relationship. Some researchers have concluded that there is a positive relationship
between absenteeism and turnover, whereas others have concluded that no such relationship exists. A
meta-analysis of 17 separate studies showed a relationship between absenteeism and turnover. Moreover,
the relationship was not mediated by type of absenteeism. In other words, turnover did not appear to
be more related to voluntary absenteeism than to involuntary absenteeism (Mitra, Jenkins, & Gupta,
1992).

EMPLOYEE TURNOVER

As with absenteeism, there are difficulties in defining and measuring turn- over (Campion, 1991).
Involuntary turnover occurs when an employee is fired or laid off. A certain amount of involuntary
turnover is likely to be considered inevitable and possibly even beneficial. Firing workers who are not
performing at desirable levels can be viewed as a positive, “weeding” process (Mobley, 1982).
Layoffs often occur for financial reasons and thus are likely to be beyond the control of management.
Most voluntary turnover takes place when a competent and capable employee leaves to work
elsewhere. It is this turnover that is costly to the organization, because losing a valued employee
means reduced organizational productivity and increased expenses associated with hiring and training
a replacement. According to one school of thought, voluntary turnover is likely to be influenced by
lack of job satisfaction and organizational commitment, whereas involuntary turnover is not. As with
absenteeism, research that does not distinguish between voluntary and involuntary turnover may not
find the expected relationships between employee attitudes and turnover simply because the two
types of turnover are lumped together. Interestingly, some researchers note that there are also
problems in categorizing turnover as either voluntary or involuntary because some poor workers may
not be fired but may voluntarily choose to leave the organization, which is likely to be glad to see
them go. However, this means that voluntary turnover might be further classified as either
dysfunctional or functional, depending on whether it has negative or beneficial outcomes for the
organization (Dalton, Krackhardt, & Porter, 1981). More recently, it has been suggested that
involuntary turnover caused by downsizing—so-called reduction-in-force turnover—should be
treated as a completely different category than either voluntary or involuntary turnover (McElroy,
Morrow, & Rude, 2001).Both job satisfaction and organizational commitment have been
investigated as predictors of employee turnover. Meta-analyses indicate that both low levels of job
satisfaction and organizational commitment are related to higher rates of turnover (Griffeth, Hom, &
Gaertner, 2000). Research has demonstrated that organizational commitment develops from job
satisfaction and in turn influences an employee’s decision to remain with or leave the organization
(Gaertner, 2000; Williams & Hazer, 1986). However, although organizational commitment appears to
be a predictor of turnover, one of the best predictors of employee turnover is absenteeism, particularly
the rate of absences in the years immediately before the employee leaves (Griffeth et al., 2000; Mitra
et al., 1992). Researchers have turned their attention to measuring employees’ self- reported intentions
to leave, or turnover intentions, in an effort to prevent the loss of valuable employees. We have
already seen that employee engagement leads to reduced turnover intentions. The obvious problem
with measuring turnover intentions is that many workers who report that they intend to quit their jobs
may not actually turnover because they lack alternative employment, because they reevaluate the
situation, or because they are not risk takers (Allen, Weeks, & Moffitt, 2005; Vandenberg & Barnes-
Nelson, 1999). Regardless of the strength of the connection between intentions to turnover and actual
turnover, measuring employees’ intentions to quit their jobs can be a measure of dissatisfaction with
the job or organization and used by employers to try to remedy the situation to prevent costly
turnover. understand some of the reasons why good performers may leave their jobs (Lee & Maurer,
1997). It has been found that productive, valuable employees who do not receive work-related
rewards, such as promotions and pay raises, are likely candidates for leaving their jobs (Trevor,
Gerhardt, & Boudreau, 1997). Simply stated, employees who feel that they are not treated fairly are
more prone to leave (Griffeth & Gaertner, 2001). Studies also indicate that perceived lack of influence
or power within the organization can cause work- ers to seek employment elsewhere, especially if
they feel positive about the other job opportunities available to them (Buchko, 1992; Lee & Mitchell,
1994; Schminke, 1993). As stated earlier, both job satisfaction and organizational commitment are
associated with turnover, and this need for workers to feel that they have some influence within the
organization may help explain this association. That is, those workers who have such influence are
probably more satisfied with their jobs and thus more committed to the organization (Dwyer &
Ganster, 1991). This may also help explain the reason that giving workers a sense of power over their
jobs, or allowing them to participate in decision-making processes, is associated with higher levels of
job satisfaction. In summary, when examining the relationships between job satisfaction and other
outcome variables such as absenteeism and turnover, it is important to consider the type of
absenteeism and turnover being measured. Voluntary absenteeism and turnover are most likely to be
affected by employee attitudes. Unfortunately, many studies do not distinguish between voluntary and
involuntary absenteeism and turnover, which leads to a possible “watering down” of any observed
effects. Moreover, cause-and-effect relationships often cannot be assumed. In fact, some studies
indicate that the relationships are reciprocal, with each variable sometimes being the “cause” and at
other times being the “effect.”

Increasing Employee Engagement, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment

Employee engagement, job satisfaction and organizational commitment are considered important by
organizations because they are linked to costly absenteeism and turnover. Job satisfaction is particularly
important to the employee because it reflects a critical work outcome: feelings of fulfillment from the
job and the work setting. Because of this, organizations have implemented a number of programs and
techniques in an effort to increase employees’ engagement, satisfaction, and commitment. These
programs take many forms. Some change the structure of work, others alter the methods of worker
compensation, and still others offer innovative fringe benefit plans and packages.

Changes in job structure

Three techniques have been used to try to increase employee satisfaction by changing the structure
of jobs. The first technique, job rotation, which was introduced in Chapter 7, involves moving
workers from one specialized job to another. Although job rotation can be used to train workers in a
variety of tasks, it can also be used to alleviate the monotony and boredom associated with per-
forming the same work, day in and day out. For example, an employee in a retail store may move
from maintenance and cleanup duties to stocking merchandise to bagging merchandise on a weekly
basis. A receptionist in a large organization might rotate from greeting visitors and answering telephones
to simple clerical duties such as filing and photocopying. Research shows that job rotation can be
related to job satisfaction, as well as contributing to increases in salary and opportunities for
promotion (Campion, Cheraskin, & Stevens, 1994).

Job enlargement is the practice of allowing workers to take on additional, varied tasks in an effort to make
them feel that they are more valuable members of the organization. For example, a custodian who is
responsible for the cleaning and upkeep of several rooms might progressively have the job enlarged until
the job’s duties involve the maintenance of an entire floor. Job enlargement is tricky to implement
because it means that workers are required to do additional work, which some might perceive as
negative. However, if used correctly, job enlargement can positively affect job satisfaction by giving
an employee a greater sense of accomplishment and improving valuable work skills. One study of
enlarged jobs found that they led to greater employee satisfaction, improved employee initiative, and
better customer service than persons in nonenlarged jobs. However, enlarged jobs carried the “costs” of
requiring more skilled, more highly trained, and more costly (higher paid) workers than those
performing nonenlarged jobs (Campion & McClelland, 1991).

Job enrichment, which we studied in depth in Chapter 8, can also be used to increase employee
engagement and job satisfaction. Recall that job enrichment involves raising the level of responsibility
associated with a particular job by allowing workers a greater voice in the planning, execution, and
evaluation of their own activities. For example, in one such program, assembly-line workers were
divided into teams, each of which was given many of the responsibilities that were previously held by
frontline supervisors, including ordering supplies, setting output rates, creating quality control inspection
systems, and even appraising their own performance. This independence and increased responsibility can
go a long way toward increasing motivation and job satisfaction for many workers. Although job
enrichment and job enlargement seem somewhat similar because both require more work from
employees, job enrichment raises the level of tasks, whereas job enlargement does not raise the level of
responsibility associated with the work.

Changes in pay structure

According to research, the perception of fairness in pay is associated with greater job satisfaction (Witt &
Nye, 1992). And although the relationship between pay and job satisfaction is not always a direct,
positive one, there is some evidence that employees who are compensated well are less likely to
search for jobs elsewhere (Cotton & Tuttle, 1986; Trevor et al., 1997). Although most innovative
compensation programs are introduced primarily in an effort to improve job performance, many
changes also increase levels of job satisfaction. One innovative compensation program is skill-based
pay (also known as knowledge-based pay), which involves paying employees an hourly rate based on
their knowledge and skills rather than on the particular job to which they are assigned (Lawler,
Mohrman, & Ledford, 1992). In other words, workers are paid for the level of the job that they are
able to perform rather than for the level of the position that they hold. For skill-based pay programs to
be cost effective, it is imperative that employees be assigned to jobs that match the levels of their skills
and knowledge. Research indicates that workers are more satisfied in organizations that use this system
than in those that use conventional pay plans, and there is also evidence that they are more productive,
more concerned with quality, less prone to turnover, and more likely to be motivated to grow and
develop on the job (Dierdorff & Surface, 2008; Guthrie, 2000; Murray & Gerhart, 1998). There is also
some evidence that skill-based pay works better in manufacturing as opposed to service organizations
(Shaw, Gupta, Mitra, & Ledford, 2005). Particularly satisfied are those who receive skill-based pay and
who also have high levels of ability and motivation (Tosi & Tosi, 1987). One explanation for the
effectiveness of skill-based pay systems is that employees may perceive these compensation plans as
more fair (Lee, Law, & Bobko, 1999). With the current emphasis on the “knowledge worker,” and with a
dwindling supply of workers possessing the highest levels of technical knowledge and skills, skill-based
pay systems may increase in the future.

The Porter–Lawler model suggested that job performance leads to job satisfaction by way of increased
rewards, one of the most important of which is pay. If this is the case, then a system of compensation
based directly on performance should be an effective strategy for increasing job satisfaction. One such
pay-for-performance system is merit pay, a plan in which the amount of compensation is directly a
function of an employee’s performance. In merit pay plans, workers receive a financial bonus based on
their individual output. Although sensible in theory, such systems do not work well in practice for a
number of reasons (Campbell, Campbell, & Chia, 1998). First, and perhaps most important,
difficulties in the objective assessment of performance mean that it is often impossible to distinguish
the truly good performers from the more average performers. This leads to feelings of unfairness in
the distribution of merit pay and subsequent employee dissatisfaction (Salimaki & Jamsen, 2010; St-
Onge, 2000). Second, most merit pay systems emphasize individual goals, which may hurt the
organization’s overall performance and disrupt group harmony, especially if jobs require groups to
collaborate for the production of a product. Finally, in many such plans the amount of merit compensation
is quite small in proportion to base salaries. In other words, the merit pay is simply not viewed as a
strong incentive to work harder (Balkin & Gomez-Mejia, 1987; Pearce, Stevenson, & Perry, 1985).
Research has suggested that a merit pay raise needs to be at least 7% to have a significant impact on
employee attitudes and motivation (Mitra, Gupta, & Jenkins, 1997). Although they are extremely popular,
merit pay systems can only be effective when great care is taken in how these programs are created
(Campbell et al., 1998).

Another strategy for the implementation of pay-for-performance systems is to make pay contingent on
effective group performance, a technique termed gainsharing (Lawler, 1987). The notion of group-
or team-based rewards was introduced in Chapter 8. In gainsharing, if a work group or department
reaches a certain performance goal, all members of the unit receive a bonus. Because the level of
productivity among workers usually varies, the gainsharing program must be viewed as being fair to all
involved (Welbourne, 1998; Welbourne & Ferrante, 2008). For example, in one program, workers
decided that the most fair plan was to set a minimum amount that could be received by any worker,
and then base additional pay on each worker’s level of productivity. Thus, the low producers
received some base compensation, but they found that greater pay would result only if they increased
production. The high producers, on the other hand, were well rewarded for their efforts (Cooper,
Dyck, & Frohlich, 1992). One longitudinal study of gainsharing found that it was related to more
positive employee attitudes and greater commitment than employees not participating in gainsharing
(Hanlon, Meyer, & Taylor, 1994). Another study found that gainsharing improved members’
teamwork as well as their satisfaction with pay (O’Bannon & Pearce, 1999). Rather than focusing on
productivity increases, some gainsharing programs reward workers who cut production costs through
suggestions and innovations, then passing a portion of the savings on to the workers (Arthur &
Huntley, 2005). Gainsharing may not be appropriate for all organizations or for all groups of
workers. Therefore, implementation of a gainsharing program must be based on careful planning and
a thorough knowledge of the groups of workers involved (Gomez-Mejia, Welbourne, & Wiseman,
2000; Graham-Moore & Ross, 1990). One important consideration is that a failed attempt at a major
change in pay structure, such as a gainsharing plan, could lead to massive worker dissatisfaction
(Collins, 1995). A more common plan is profit sharing, in which all employees receive a small share of
the organization’s profits (Rosen, Klein, & Young, 1986). The notion underlying profit sharing is to instill
a sense of ownership in employees, to increase both commitment to the organization and to improve
motivation and productivity (Chiu & Tsai, 2007; Cox, 2001; Duncan, 2001). For profit-sharing programs to
be effective, it is imperative that employees buy into the program (Orlitzky & Rynes, 2001). One drawback
is that it is often difficult for employees to see how their individual performances have an impact on
the company’s total output. This may be one reason why profit sharing seems to work better in small
companies than in large ones (Bayo-Moriones & Larraza-Kintana, 2009). In addition, there is typically quite
a long delay between reaching performance goals and receiving individual shares of the company’s
profits (see box Applying I/O Psychology).

Employee ownership is a program where employees own all or part of an organization. Employee
ownership can take one of two forms: direct ownership or employee stock ownership. In direct
ownership, the employees are the sole owners of the organization. In employee stock ownership
programs, which are the more common of the two, stock options are considered part of a benefit
package whereby employees acquire shares of company stock over time. Each employee eventually
becomes a company stockholder and has voting rights in certain company decisions. Proponents of
these programs claim that although they are expensive, the costs are offset by savings created by increased
employee organizational commitment, productivity, work quality, and job satisfaction, and decreases
in rates of absenteeism and turnover (Buchko, 1992; Rosen, Case, & Staubus, 2005). Of course tales
of the quick success of employee-owned companies in the 1990s, such as Southwest Airlines, United
Airlines, and Wheeling Steel quickly became legendary, but were offset by the ethical scandals of the
early 2000s, and the financial meltdown, which meant that employees who had their retirement funds in
stock in Enron, WorldComm, or a variety of Wall Street firms lost a bundle.

Research on the success of employee ownership programs is somewhat inconsistent, and results
show that employee ownership does not necessarily lead to increased job satisfaction or
organizational commitment (Oliver, 1990; Orlitzky & Rynes, 2001). Other research indicates that if
employee owner- ship is going to increase organizational commitment, certain criteria must be met,
the most obvious being that the program must be financially rewarding to employees (French &
Rosenstein, 1984). Moreover, higher-level employees may have more positive reactions to employee
ownership programs than do lower-level workers (Wichman, 1994). One investigation further
qualified the conditions required for the success of employee ownership programs. Examining 37
employee stock ownership companies, the study found that rates of employee organizational
commitment and satisfaction were highest when the companies made substantial financial
contributions to the employee stock purchases, when management was highly committed to the
program, and when there was a great deal of communication about the program (Klein, 1987). In
addition, the Oliver (1990) study found that the rewards of employee ownership would only have a
positive impact on the workers if they place a high value on those rewards. For example, if a worker
values the work for its own merits, the worker would likely feel about the same level of satisfaction
whether she was working for an employee-owned company or not.

Flexible work schedules

Another strategy for improving worker satisfaction and commitment is to provide alternative or flexible
work schedules. Flexible work schedules give workers greater control over their workday, which can be
important in large urban areas, where workers are able to commute at nonpeak times, or for workers
with child-care responsibilities. One type of flexible schedule is compressed workweeks, in which the
number of workdays is decreased while the number of hours worked per day is increased. Most common
are four 10-hour days, and certain groups, such as nurses, may work three 12-hour shifts per week.
Workers may prefer a com- pressed schedule because the extra day off allows workers time to take
care of tasks that need to be done Monday through Friday, such as going to the doctor, dentist, or tax
accountant. Usually, compressed workweeks include a three-day weekend, which allows workers more
free time to take weekend vacations. Both of these benefits should cut down on absenteeism, because
workers previously might have called in sick to take an extra day of “vacation” or to run errands. An
extended shift might also allow a worker to miss peak traffic times. However, a drawback is that working
parents might have difficulty finding child care for the extended workday. Also on the negative side,
a 10-hour (or 12-hour) workday is more exhausting than the typical 8-hour day (Cunningham, 1989;
Ronen & Primps, 1981; Rosa, Colligan, & Lewis, 1989). This fatigue may lead to decreases in work
productivity and concern for work quality (although many people say that the extra couple of hours
are not necessarily tiring). Meta-analyses suggest that although employees tend to be satisfied with
compressed workweeks and exhibit higher overall job satisfaction, there is no reduction in absenteeism
associated with compressed schedules (Baltes, Briggs, Huff, Wright, & Neuman, 1999; Di Milia, 1998).
In addition, one study found that workers had more favorable attitudes toward compressed work
schedules if they had participated in the decision to imple- ment the schedule change (Latack & Foster,
1985).

Flextime is a scheduling system whereby a worker is committed to a speci- fied number of hours per
week (usually 40) but has some flexibility concerning the starting and ending times of any particular
workday. Often flextime sched- ules operate around a certain core of hours during which all workers
must be on the job (such as 10 A.M. to 2:30 p.M.). However, the workers can decide when to begin
and end the workday as long as they are present during the core period and work an 8-hour day.
Some flextime schedules even allow workers to borrow and carry hours from one workday to the
next or, in some extremely flexible programs, from one week to another. The only stipulation is that
an average of 40 hours per week is maintained. Obviously, only certain types of jobs can
accommodate flextime What are the primary advantages of flextime? For the worker, it affords a sense
of freedom and control over planning the working day (Hicks & Klimoski, 1981; Ralston, 1989). Workers
can sleep in and begin work later in the morning, as long as they make up the time by staying late.
Employees who want to leave work early to do some late-afternoon shopping can arrive early to work
that day. One study of commuting workers showed that flextime commuters reported less driver stress
than workers not on flextime (Lucas & Heady, 2002). A study of flextime programs found that flextime
reduced stress levels for work- ers in three countries (Canada, Israel, Russia; Barney & Elias, 2010).
Research indicates that flextime programs increase employee satisfaction and commitment and is
sometimes positively related to worker productivity (Baltes et al., 1999). Interestingly, flextime pays
off for companies that can implement this type of schedule, achieving reduced rates of absenteeism and
the virtual elimination of tardiness (Baltes et al., 1999; Ronen, 1981)

Benefit programs
Perhaps the most common way for employers to try to increase employees’ job satisfaction and
organizational commitment is through various benefit programs. Benefit programs can include
flexible working hours, a variety of health-care options, different retirement plans, profit sharing,
career development programs, health promotion programs, and employee-sponsored child care. This
last program has the potential of becoming one of the most popular and sought-after benefits and
may have the extra advantage of helping to decrease absenteeism caused by employees’ occasional
inability to find adequate child care (Milkovich & Gomez, 1976). Interestingly, however, studies of
the effects of employee-sponsored, on-site child-care programs have found that although they
increase worker job satisfaction, the expected reductions in absenteeism rates have been small (Goff,
Mount, & Jamison, 1990; Kossek & Nichol, 1992). Growing in popularity are flexible, or “cafeteria-
style,” benefit plans, where employees choose from a number of options (Barringer & Milkovich, 1998).
Lawler (1971) long ago argued that allowing employees to choose their own benefits led to increases in
job satisfaction and ensured that the benefits suited each employee’s unique needs. One study
demonstrated, however, that it is important that employees receive adequate information and guidance
regarding the characteristics of the various benefit programs, to help them make an informed choice of
benefits that best suit their needs, and to avoid dissatisfaction caused by making incorrect choices
(Sturman, Hannon, & Milkovich, 1996). Research suggests that cafeteria-style benefits are perceived as a
more fair system than traditional benefit plans (Cole & Flint, 2004). It is important to bear in mind that
the costs of employee benefits are rising rapidly—with benefits costing U.S. employers 30–40% of
total compensation (U.S. Department of Labor, 2011). Benefit costs in some European countries are
even higher. As a result, organizations often reduce benefit programs as a cost-saving strategy
during times of economic downturn. Yet, organizations must be aware of the potential damaging
effects of such cuts in benefits on employee job satisfaction and morale.

The effectiveness of programs designed to increase job satisfaction and organizational commitment
depends on various factors. Although most of the techniques intended to increase job satisfaction
do indeed appear to do so, there is less evidence that these programs then lead to changes in other
important outcome variables such as productivity, work quality, absentee- ism, and ultimately
turnover. If a company implements a program aimed at increasing employee job satisfaction, and
if management is perceived by employees to be taking positive steps toward the improvement of the
work- place, job satisfaction will likely improve immediately after the introduction of the program.
However, it may be unclear whether the program actually caused the increase or if it is really a
sort of Hawthorne effect, in which employees’ positive expectations about management’s good
intentions lead to increases in satisfaction, merely because something was done. Regardless of the
reason for measured improvements following the implementation of some satisfaction-enhancing
program, the increases may tend to disappear over time as some of the novelty wears off, which
long-term follow-up evaluations would reveal.

Positive Employee Behaviors

Although employers want their employees to be satisfied and committed to the organization, job
satisfaction and organizational commitment are attitudes. What employers really care about are how
job satisfaction and organizational commitment translate into positive employee behaviors. We have
already explored the connections between job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and the
important work behaviors of job performance, absenteeism, and turnover. However, there are other
forms that positive employee behaviors can take.
ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIORS
Early research on positive employee behaviors focused on altruistic, or prosocial, behaviors.
Bateman and Organ (1983) and Brief and Motowidlo (1986) first defined organizational prosocial
behaviors as those that go beyond specific job requirements. They are behaviors performed to
promote the welfare of the work group and the organization. Protecting an organization from
unexpected dangers, suggesting methods of organizational improvement without expecting a payoff,
undertaking deliberate self-development, preparing oneself for higher levels of organizational
responsibility, and speaking favorably about the organization to outsiders are all forms of prosocial
behavior. Subsequent research suggested that workers have deep-seated motives for performing pro-
social behaviors (Rioux & Penner, 2001). Not only do prosocial behaviors have positive influences
on the ability of individuals and teams to do their jobs, but there is also evidence of a positive
relationship with job satisfaction (Organ, 1988; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). Researchers have
looked more broadly at worker behaviors that benefit the organization. This cluster of “pro-
organizational” behaviors, which includes organizational prosocial behaviors, has been termed
“organizational citizenship behavior” (Graham, 1991; Organ, 1988; Penner, Midili, & Kegelmeyer, 1997;
Schnake, 1991).
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) consists of efforts by organizational members who advance or
promote the work organization, its image, and its goals. Job satisfaction, as well as motivating job
characteristics, such as jobs that provide workers with autonomy and meaningful work (recall our
discussion of motivating “job characteristics” in Chapter 8), combine to help produce organizational
citizenship behaviors (Van Dyne, Graham, & Dienesch, 1994). In addition, certain personality types,
particularly persons employees who engage in more OCBs are less likely to turnover than those who do
not engage in OCBs (Chen, Hui, & Sego, 1998) and less likely to be voluntarily absent (Lee,
Mitchell, Sablynski, Burton, & Holtom, 2004). Moreover, there is evidence that supervisors notice
OCBs, tending to give more positive performance appraisals to employees who engage in citizenship
behaviors as opposed to those who simply do their jobs. In addition, managers and leaders have been
found to play a critical role in the incidence of employees’ OCBs if the leaders engage in OCBs
themselves (Yaffe & Kark, 2011). There is even a study that suggests that employees who regularly
engage in OCBs are more safety conscious (Gyekye & Salminen, 2005). An important question,
however, is, “Do OCBs affect the bottom line?” Do employees’ organizational citizenship behaviors affect
organizational performance? Research suggests that employees who “go the extra mile” and exhibit
OCBs do indeed have work groups and organizations that are more productive and produce higher-
quality work than work groups exhibiting low levels of OCBs (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997a).
Organizational citizenship behaviors seem to affect work performance in groups as diverse as
salespersons (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994), manufactur- ing workers (Allen & Rush, 1998; Bommer,
Dierdorff, & Rubin, 2007), machine crews in a paper mill (Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997), and
restaurant crews (Koys, 2001; Walz & Niehoff, 1996).
Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997a) suggested a number of reasons why OCBs may be related to
organizational effectiveness. They include the following:
 Workers who help new coworkers “learn the ropes” help them to speed up the orientation
and socialization process and become more productive employees faster.
 Employees who help each other need less managerial supervision, freeing up the
managers’ time for other important duties.
 Employees who have positive attitudes toward one another are more cooperative and
avoid destructive conflicts with other workers.
 Workers freely and voluntarily meet outside work times and regularly touch base
with one another, improving the flow of organizational communication.
 OCBs lead to a positive work environment and help in the recruitment and
retention of the best-qualified workers.
 Workers pick up the slack and “cover” for one another during absences or times of
heavy individual workloads.
 Employees are more willing to take on new responsibilities or learn new
technology or work systems.

As can be seen, organizational citizenship behaviors lead to work groups that engage in the
best sorts of organizational and personnel processes and may help explain what separates
the top-performing work groups and organizations from those who have substandard levels
of performance. On the other hand, some workers might be so involved in work and going
above and beyond their job descriptions, engaging in so many OCBs that it might interfere
with their personal lives, similar to the “workaholic” syndrome we saw in Chapter 8
(Bolino & Turnley, 2005).
An interesting question concerns whether workers in various countries engage in the same
organizational citizenship behaviors and at the same levels. Research suggests that
although OCBs seem to be more or less universal, there are differences in how workers and
organizations view these behaviors. For example, workers and supervisors in China and
Japan are more likely to view OCBs as an everyday, expected part of one’s jobs than do
workers in the United States or Australia (Lam, Hui, & Law, 1999). Nevertheless, there is
evidence that OCBs are positively correlated with measures of the productivity and ser-
vice quality of Taiwanese bank employees (Yen & Niehoff, 2004), government employees
in China (Liu & Cohen, 2010), Korean travel agents (Yoon & Suh, 2003), and U.S.
insurance agents (Bell & Menguc, 2002). As you can imagine, it is in the organization’s
best interest to encourage organizational citizenship behaviors. Research shows that OCBs
are affected by whether or not employees perceive the organization as treating them fairly
(Haworth & Levy, 2001; Tepper & Taylor, 2003). In addition, employees who feel that
their values are aligned with the organization are more likely to engage in more OCBs
(Deckop, Mangel, & Cirka, 1999).

POSITIVE AFFECT AND EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING

In the past two decades there has been an explosion of research examining the role of positive
emotions, or positive affect, in influencing employee attitudes, such as job satisfaction, and
fostering positive employee behaviors (Ashkanasy, Härtel, & Zerbe, 2000; Brief, 2001). Simply
stated, an individual’s mood, posi- tive or negative, can affect all aspects of work (we will look
at negative emotions and their effects in Chapter 10). Not only is a person’s emotional state
impor- tant, but also there are clearly individual differences in dispositions toward posi- tive or
negative affect (Judge & Larsen, 2001). This is why, as we saw in the box On the Cutting
Edge, some individuals just tend to be more satisfied in jobs than others. Most researchers
agree that positive affect influences work behavior through job satisfaction. That is, job
satisfaction mediates the relationship between state and trait (dispositional) affect and
important work outcomes, such as absenteeism, turnover, and performance. For example,
one study of a group of hotel managers found that the affective dispositions of the
managers influenced their job satisfaction, which, in turn, affected their job performance
(Hochwater, Perrewé, Ferris, & Brymer, 1999). Emotionally positive managers showed more
job satisfaction and had better job performance than emotionally negative managers who
were dissatisfied and tended to be poorer performers. Similarly, dispositional positive affect is
related to lower rates of stress (Janssen, Lam, & Huang, 2010) and absenteeism, whereas
negative affect is related to both higher absenteeism and higher turnover (Pelled & Xin,
1999). There is evidence that affectively positive workers are more prone to engage in
OCB and to have a broader view of what their job entails (e.g., being more willing to take
on “extra” tasks) than emotionally negative workers (Bachrach & Jex, 2000; Podsakoff et
al., 2000). So, is a positive disposition or emotional state, and resulting job satisfac- tion,
the “cure-all”? Not necessarily. There is some evidence that when workers become
dissatisfied with some aspect of the work situation, they become moti- vated to change it. Job
dissatisfaction has been linked to both creativity and voic- ing of concern (Zhou & George,
2001). Importantly, no matter how strong an individual’s positive emotions or disposition, if
she or he is not fairly treated, or is undercompensated, job satisfaction and positive work
behaviors will decline. It is important to also mention that satisfaction with one’s job is not
enough. Workers may have job satisfaction, but other aspects of their lives (family relation- ships,
physical health, etc.) may not be as positive. I/O psychology has two impor- tant objectives in this
regard: to improve the physical and social environment at work in an effort to enhance
worker well-being, satisfaction, and life quality and to improve organizational outcomes,
such as increased productivity, work qual- ity, and reduced absenteeism and turnover
through increasing employee partici- pation in, and commitment to, organizational processes
(Adams, King, & King, 1996; Beehr & McGrath, 1992; Danna & Griffin, 1999).