|USFDC Home | USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations||| RSS|
This item is only available as the following downloads:
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001709536
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 060517s2005 flua sbm s000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0001357
Investigating turnover intention among emergency communication specialists
h [electronic resource] /
by Yufan Liu.
[Tampa, Fla.] :
b University of South Florida,
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2005.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 77 pages.
ABSTRACT: Investigating Turnover Intention among Emergency Communication Specialists Yufan Liu ABSTRACT This study tested a model that uses job stressors, equity sensitivity, perceived organizational justice, and job satisfaction to explain turnover intention and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). An online survey was distributed to emergency communication specialists from 14 emergency communication centers in Florida. The supervisors in these emergency communication centers were asked to rate their employees on OCB. Responses to the survey and the OCB ratings were analyzed using structural equation modeling to evaluate the fit of a theoretical model to those data. Results showed that the model fit the data reasonably well and nearly all the hypotheses were supported. Specifically, job satisfaction completely mediated the relationships between job stressors, equity sensitivity, perceived organizational justice, and turnover intention.Job satisfaction partially mediated the relationships between job stressors, equity sensitivity, perceived organizational justice, and OCB, and equity sensitivity also had a unique, direct impact on OCB. Turnover intention alone did not reduce OCB. The implications of these finding are discussed. Lowry-David-Dissertation.
Adviser: Dr. Walter Borman.
Intent to leave.
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
Investigating Turnover Intention among Emergency Communication Specialists by Yufan Liu A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Psychology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Walter Borman, Ph.D. Michael Brannick, Ph.D. Bill Sacco, Ph.D Steven Stark, Ph.D. Kevin Thompson, Ph.D. Date of Approval: 10/25/05 Keywords: Intent to leave, Job satisfaction, OCB, Job stressor, Or ganizational justice, Equity sensitivity. Copyright 2005, Yufan Liu
i Table of Contents List of Tables iii List of Figures iv Abstract v Chapter One Introduction 1 Chapter Two Organizational Ci tizenship Behavior 5 Chapter Three Job Satisfaction 10 Chapter Four Perceived Organizational Justice 12 Chapter Five Equity Sensitivity 16 Chapter Six Job Stressors 19 Chapter Seven Hypotheses 23 Chapter Eight Method 25 Chapter Nine Results 31 Chapter Ten Discussion 40 Tables Table 1. Descriptiv e Statistics for Variables of Interest 31 Table 2. Inter Variable Correlations Table 3. Fit Indices for Different Models 32 36 Figures Figure 1. Initial Model 24 Figure 2. Final Model 38 List of References 45 Appendices
ii Appendix A: Turnover Intention Scale 58 Appendix B: Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale 59 Appendix C: Job Stressor Survey 60 Appendix D: Equity Sensitivity Scale 62 Appendix E: Perceived Organizational Justice Scale 63 Appendix F: Job Satisfaction Survey 65 Appendix G: Consent Forms 67 Appendix H: Potential Rating Biases 69 About the Author End page
iii List of Tables Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Variables of Interest 41 Table 2. Inter Vari able Correlations 42 Table 3. Fit Indices fo r Different Models 43
iv List of Figures Figure 1. Initial Model 44 Figure 2. Final Model 45
v Investigating Turnover Intention among Emergency Communication Specialists Yufan Liu ABSTRACT This study tested a model that uses job stressors, equity sensitivity, perceived organizational justice, and job satisfac tion to explain tur nover intention and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). An online survey was distributed to emergency communication specialists from 14 emergency communication centers in Florida. The supervisors in these emergency communication centers were asked to rate their employees on OCB. Responses to the survey and the OCB ratings were analyzed using structural equation modeling to evaluate the fit of a theo retical model to those data. Results showed that the mode l fit the data reasonably we ll and nearly all the hypotheses were supported. Specifically, job satisfaction completely mediated the relationships between job stressors, equity sensitivity, perceived organi zational justice, and turnover intention. Job satisfaction pa rtially mediated the relations hips between job stressors, equity sensitivity, perceived organizational justice, and OCB, and equity sensitivity also had a unique, direct impact on OCB. Turnove r intention alone did not reduce OCB. The implications of these finding are discussed.
1 Chapter One Introduction The present study was initiated in reac tion to the Lakeland Police Department Chiefs request to investigate the se rious turnover problem among Emergency Communication Specialists (ECS) working in the Lakeland Emergency Communication Center. The Center has been experiencing high turnover of ECS for the past several years. In fact, in 2002 there were 15 new hi res and 18 resignations. For an organization with a total number of 35 people, 18 resignations reflect a turnover rate of more than 50%. Moreover, most of the resignations occurred within the first two years of employment. According to the Chief of Poli ce, the department has spent a large amount of money in hiring and traini ng costs only to have 100% of these employees hired in 2002 separate from the organization. Turnover cost can be divided into three categories: separation replacement, and training cost (Cascio, 2000; Flamholtz, 1985). Separation costs represent costs directly produced by quits, such as the expense of exit interviews with leavers. Replacement costs refer to expenses incurred to replace exiting employees, such as the costs of advertising the vacant position. Training cost s comprise company expenditures to orient and train new replacements for former employ ees (Griffeth, & Hom, 2000). In addition
2 to the financial cost, high turnover also results in other problems, such as the communication centers understaffing, existing ECS personnel having to work overtime, and longer response time to emergency calls. Of course, this chaotic situation brings more stress to the job, which may lead to even higher turnover. The retention of ECSs is acknowledged as a nationa l problem as well. The Association of Public Safety Communicati ons Officials International (APCO), as the leading public safety dispatch organization in the nation, initially addressed the staffing crisis in the United States' communicati ons centers with the formation of a Communications Center Staffing Crisis Task Force in August 2000. The Staffing Crisis Task Force found that personnel recruitment and retention are the keys to the staffing of the nation's 9-1-1/Public Safety Communica tions Centers (APCO, 2003). The present study was conducted in collaboration with the Lakeland Civil Service and Retirement Department. Mobley (1982) defined turnover as the cessation of membership in an organization by an individual who received m onetary compensation for participating in that organization. Among diffe rent methods of classifying turnover, a frequently used distinction is between voluntary separations (employee-initiated) and involuntary separations (organization-initiated, plus death and mandatory retirement). Behavioral intentions have been studied in the field of turnover research since 1975 (Hom, Katerberg, & Hulin, 1979; Kraut, 1975; Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, & Meglino,
3 1979; Price & Mueller, 1981; St eel & Ovalle, II, 1984). Part of the reason for this popularity is because of the theoretical arguments that have singled them out as the most direct and immediate cognitive antecedents of overt behavior. Fishbein and Ajzens (1975) theory of attitudes postulates, the best single predictor of an individuals behavior will be a measure of his intenti on to perform that behavior (p.369). Thus, attitudes are presumed to have a direct im pact on behavior operat ing through their more immediate influence on behavior intentions. Research supports the model that job di ssatisfaction leads to intention to quit (Blau, 1993), which leads to tur nover (Carsten & Spector, 198 7). Accumulated evidence concludes that the single best predictor of turnover is an employees decision to quit the job (Carsten & Spector, 1987; Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000; Hom & Griffeth, 1995; Steel & Ovalle, II, 1984; Tett & Meyer, 1993) Carsten and Spectors (1987) metaanalytic research showed an average correlation of .38 be tween turnover intention and turnover behavior. Steel and Ovalle, II, ( 1984) found a weighted average correlation of .50 after correcting for attenuation between beha vior intentions and employee turnover in their meta-analytic study. They also suggested that intentions were more predictive of turnover than overall job satisfaction (r = .28), satisfaction with the work itself (r = .31), or organizational commitment (r = .36). Results of some studies show that intent to leave completely (Mowday, Koberg, & McArthur, 1984) or partially (Tett & Meyer, 1993) mediates attitude-turnover relations.
4 The present study investigated the anteceden ts of turnover intention from various perspectives: a behavioral pe rspective (OCB), an attitudina l perspective (job satisfaction and perceived organizational justice), a dispositional perspective (equity sensitivity), and an environmental perspective (job stressors ). It was also recognized that these variablesinteract with one a nother to influence the form ation of turnover intention.
5 Chapter Two Organizational Citizenship Behavior According to Katz and Kahn (1978), eff ective organizations require employees not only to perform their prescribed role, but also to engage in be haviors that go beyond these formal obligations. This aspect of pe rformance is consistent with Organs (1988) conceptualization of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), which refers to discretionary job related behavi ors that are not formally or directly recognized by the organizational reward system, but enha nce organizational effectiveness when aggregated over time and people. Resear ch on OCB and citizenship-like behaviors, such as extra-role behavior (Van Dy ne, Cummings, & Parks, 1995), contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Borman, White, & Dorsey, 1995; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994), prosocia l organizational behaviors (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986; George, 1990, 1991; Geor ge & Bettenhausen, 1990; OReilly & Chatman, 1986), and organizational spontan eity (George & Brief, 1992; George & Jones, 1997), has increased dramatica lly during the past few years. The growing interest in OCB can be part ly explained by the fact that OCB has a considerable impact on several important pers onnel decisions made by supervisors, such as performance evaluation, salary reco mmendations, and promotion recommendations
6 (Borman & Brush, 1993; Conway, 1996; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1991; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994). For example, in Motowidlo and Van Scotters (1994) study, one supervisor made an overall perfor mance rating, a second supervisor provided ratings on task performance, and a third supervisor rated contextual performance using the Borman and Motowidlo taxonomy to define the dimensions. The correlation between the task performance and overall performan ce ratings was .43. The correlation between contextual performance and ove rall performance ratings was .41. Therefore, supervisors weighted task and contextual performance about the same in making overall performance judgments. According to Organs (1988) original definition, OCB must be discretionary and non-rewarded, which contradicts the above fi ndings that OCB has at least a similar impact on important personnel decisions as does task performance. Moreover, many researchers have questioned the distinction between in-role and extra-role job behaviors. Evidence suggests that most employees regarded OCB to be more in-role than extra-role (Tepper, Lockhart, & Hoobler, 2001). Organ (1997) recognized the conceptual difficulties associated with distinguishing discretionary and required work related behaviors. Therefore, he later redefined OCB as behavi or that contributes to the maintenance and enhancement of the social and psychological context that supports task performance (Organ, 1997, p. 91). This modified definition of OCB is very similar to Borman and Motowidlos (1993, 1997) defi nition of contextual performance.
7 According to Motowidlo, Borman, and Schmit (1997), contextual performance does not contribute through the organi zations core technical proce sses but it does maintain the broader organizational, social and psychological environment in which the technical core must function. It incl udes activities that enha nce the psychological e nvironment, such as helping and cooperating with others; following organizational rules a nd procedures even when personally inconvenient; endorsi ng, supporting, and defending organizational objectives; persisting with enthusiasm wh en necessary to complete own tasks successfully; and volunteer ing to carry out task activities th at are not formally part of the job. Past research has mainly focused on the relationships betw een OCB and other constructs; however, several scholars have noticed a lack of consensus about the dimensionality of this construct and tried to categorize the various behaviors using different methods (Van D yne, Cummings, & Parks, 1995; Podsakoff, et al., 2000; Borman, Buck, Hanson, Motowidlo, Star k, & Drasgow, 2001; Coleman & Borman, 2000; LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002). Organ (1988) originally proposed five OCB dimensions: conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, altruism, and civic virtue. Conscientiousness is defined as being punctual, high in attendance, and going beyond normal requirements or expectations. Sportsma nship refers to the extent to which an employee does not complain unnecessarily or make a big deal out of small issues. Courtesy is defined as beha viors that prevent problems from occurring for others by doing things such as giving advance notice a nd passing along information. Altruism is represented by voluntary behavior s that help others with ex isting job-related problems.
8 Finally, civic virtue represents responsible, constructive involvement in the political process of the organization, including attending meetings expressing ones opinions about what strategy the organization ought to follow, keeping up with changes in the industry that might affect the organization, etc. Organs five dimensions overlap with other citizenship-like behaviors mentioned previously, such as extra-role behavior, contextual performance, prosocial orga nizational behaviors and organizational spontaneity. They may have different name s, or different categorization, but they possess similar content. To reduce the ambiguity concerning the st ructure of OCB, Borman, et al. (2001) concluded that a three-factor model mi ght summarize citizenship performance, comprised of personal support, organizational support, and conscien tious initiative. They also developed item pools for each f actor. With item effectiveness criteria considered, five personal support items and four conscientious in itiative items were selected for measuring OCB in the present study. Items measuring Organs courtesy and sportsmanship dimensions are included as well for reasons explained later in the method section. The present study proposed that OCB may be a promising behavioral antecedent of turnover. Past research related to behavioral anteceden ts of turnover mostly focused on lateness, tardiness, and absenteeism, but the majority of the results were discouraging (Benson & Pond, 1987; Rosse, 1988). These withdrawal behaviors are not good predictors of turnover, probably because they are constrained by the organization,
9 are part of the organizationa l reward system, or both (Chen, Hui, & Sego, 1998). Rosse and Miller (1984) pointed out that dissatisfied employees may experiment with avoidance responses that have the fewest negative consequences. As OCBs are often not formally mentioned in job descriptions employees might decide to withhold them when they are not satisfied with the orga nization. Although in most cases, OCB is actually compensated by organizations, as existing research sugge sted, exhibiting low levels of OCB may not direc tly result in punishment. Two studies (Chen, et al., 1998; MacKen zie, Podsakoff, & Paine, 1998) have shown that OCBs are negatively related to tur nover. Chen et al. ( 1998) found that actual turnover was significantly related to all O CB dimensions they measured: overall OCB (r = -.28), altruism (r = -.24), conscientiousness (r = -.23), and sportsmanship (r = -.19); on the other hand, turnover intentions had weak er relations with OCBs, only correlating significantly with overall OCB (r = -.17), altruism (r = -.15), and sportsmanship (r = -19), but not with conscientiousness.
10 Chapter Three Job Satisfaction Job satisfaction is one of the most freque ntly studied work attitudes. It is a variable that reflects how people feel about their job overa ll, as well as various facets of the job. The job facets include but are not limited to reward s (pay or fringe benefit), other people on the job (supervisors or coworkers), organizational policies, job conditions, and the nature of the work itself. An individual typically has different levels of satisfaction with th e various facets. The relationship between job satisfaction a nd intent to leave is generally thought to be negative (Carsten & Spector, 1987; Tett & Meyer, 1993), which means that dissatisfied employees are more likely to volunt arily leave the organization than satisfied employees. Meta-analytic studies suggested th at among various job attitudinal variables, overall job dissatisfaction was th e best predicto r of turnover, and sati sfaction with the job itself displayed the highest relationship to turnover among the facets (Griffeth & Hom, 1995; Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000). Although the relationship between job satisfaction and turnover intenti on is typically negative, the e ffect size of this relationship is not consistent within the literature. Hellman (1997) found that organization type and employee tenure moderate this relationship. In particular, U. S. federal employees with
11 higher levels of tenure were less likely than their counterparts in th e private sector to consider leaving the organization ac ross levels of job satisfaction. Job satisfaction has also been supported by research to be an important predictor of OCB (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith, Orga n, & Near, 1983; Motowidlo, Packard, & Manning, 1986; Puffer, 1987; Organ & Konovsky, 1989). However, job satisfaction may partially or completely act as a mediator that passes along the effect of perceived organizational justice to OCB or to turnove r. For example, Moorman (1991) found that correlations between job satisfaction and OCB dropped to not significan t after controlling for the relationship between procedural justi ce and OCB. More deta ils about this point will be discussed in the following perceived organizational justice section.
12 Chapter Four Perceived Organizational Justice Early justice theories focused on distributive justice the outcomes received by individuals. For instance, equity theory (Adams, 1963) posits that individuals consider what they receive from work as outcomes including items such as pay, recognition, and feelings of achievement. They also consider what they bring to work as inputs, including effort, qualifications and expe rience. Individuals compare their outcome/input ratio with the outcome/input ratios of refe rent others. Referents could be jobholders in the same job and organization, jobholders in different jobs within the sa me organization, or jobholders in different organizations. If the perceived ratios of the i ndividual and comparison others are unequal, then inequity is said to exist. Th e perception of inequity results in a state of dissonance or tension that motivates the person to engage in behavior s designed to restore equity and relieve the tension (e.g., raise or lo wer worker efforts to reestablish equity, ask for better rewards, or even l eave the inequitable situation). Current organizational behavi or research related to perc eived equity uses a justice framework that goes beyond distributive justice, focused on by equity theory. Greenberg (1990) argued that employees attend to bot h organizational processes and outcomes in deciding whether they are treated fairly. He suggested that pr ocedural justice (e.g.,
13 fairness of procedures used in distributing pay and benefits) and interactional justice (whether the person is treated with concern and consideration) also play a role in determining employee affective and behavioral responses. Conceivably, fair procedures have as mu ch if not more to do with encouraging employees to stay in the organization as fair pay amounts. Fair policies show that the organization values and respects employees a nd assures them they will receive fair treatment (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998). To reciprocate such perceived organizational support, employees develop stronger organizational commitment (Shore & Wayne, 1993). In support, Folger and Konovsky (1989) reported that perceive d fairness of meritpay distributions committed employees to their organization more than did satisfaction with the amount of the raise. Based on 11 independent studies, Gr iffeth et al., (2000) found in their meta-analysis research that procedural justi ce has a significantly negative correlation with turnover intention. We do not yet know if different forms of organizational justice have a similar impact on intent to quit. Thus, the present st udy tries to clarify the question of whether or not all three forms of organiza tional justice are equally impor tant in employees decisions to leave. Procedural justice also serves as an important predictor of OCB. Two often studied antecedents of OCB are job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and both have been supported by research to have sign ificant relationships with OCB (Bateman &
14 Organ, 1983; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983; Motowidlo, Packard, & Manning, 1986; Puffer, 1987; Organ & Konovsky, 1989). However, the relationship between commitment and OCB may be overstated, be cause when the correlation between job satisfaction and OCB has been contro lled, no relationship was found between organizational commitment and OCB; on the other hand, when the relationship between organizational commitment and OCB was c ontrolled, job satisfaction still explained significant variance in OCB (Williams & Anderson, 1991). Organ (1990) proposed that the cognitiv e component of job satisfaction employees evaluative assessments of fairne ss accounts for the relationship between job satisfaction and OCB. He regarded OCB as an input that employees can use to resolve perceived inequities with their employer, rais ing or lowering their OCB as a function of the kind of treatment they believe they are receiving. Employees will perform OCBs if they believe they are being treated fairly and retaliate for perceived injustices by withholding OCBs. Although individuals may restore equity by modifying their performance of both task performance and OCB, it is more likely that they will use the latter because it is less constrai ned by situational factors. Moorman (1991) tested the relative impor tance of two forms of job fairness (distributive justice and procedural justice) and job satisfaction in predicting OCB and found that procedural justice was more str ongly related to OCB than job satisfaction. When the relationship between procedur al justice and OCB was controlled, job satisfaction did not explain any significant va riance in OCB. In fact, with all three
15 antecedents considered, no individual relati onships between job satisfaction and OCB nor between organizational commitment and O CB were found once the relationship between procedural justice and OCB was controll ed (Moorman, Niehoff, & Organ, 1993). McNeely and Meglino (1994) made a further step to separate the factors responsible for OCB intended to benefit spec ific individuals from those intended to benefit an organization. They found that both dispositional factors (concern for others and empathy) and job satisfaction made significant independent contributions in predicting OCB toward individuals. Situationa l variables (reward equ ity and recognition) and job satisfaction were both correlated with OCB toward the organization, but the effect of job satisfaction drops to non-signi ficant after controlling for the situational variables. This suggests th at job satisfaction does not ma ke a unique contribution to OCB toward organizations. Instead, it c onveys the effect of reward equity and recognition to OCB toward organization.
16 Chapter Five Equity Sensitivity Although equity theory gained early s upport and research at tention after its introduction by Adams, subsequent equity theory research has resulted in ambiguous findings, especially in the over-rewarded situation (Mowday, 1991). Miner (1984) had even classified equity theory among a list of not so useful theories of organizational behavior. One problem with equity theory was its failure to incorporate in its predictions individual differences except demographic va riables (e.g., age, gende r, and nationality). Comprehensive reviews of equity theory (Mowday, 1991) have noted the lack of a conceptual framework for individual differences in equity theory predictions, and have accordingly called for the incorporation of psychological individual differences into equity theory's formulation. One recent approach that holds promise fo r building such a conceptual framework for a psychological individual difference variable in equity theory is consideration of the variable, equity sens itivity (Huseman, Hatfield, & Mile s, 1985; 1987). Equity theory (Adams, 1965) is based on the assumption that all individuals are equally sensitive to equity, i.e., the universal pr eference among individuals is th at their outcome/income ratio is equal to that of the comparison other.
17 Huseman et al. (1985) proposed that this preference is not universal and that individuals possess varying degrees of sensitivit y to equity. They classified individuals along a continuum as benevolents, equity sensitives, or entitleds according to their sensitivity to equity. As originally de fined, benevolent individuals prefer their outcome/input ratios to be less than the outcome/input ratios of the comparison other (Huseman et al., 1987, p. 223), and their satisf action is a result of perceiving that their inputs exceed their outcomes and that they ha ve made valuable contributions to the relationship' (Huseman et al., 1985, p. 1056); eq uity sensitive individuals prefer that outcomes equal inputs; entitled individuals pref er that outcomes exceed inputs. Huseman et al. (1987) also developed a scale for measuring equity sensitivity. Details about this measurement tool will be expl ained in method section. Huseman, Hatfield, and Miles (1985) conduc ted a 3 X 3 experiment to test for main and interaction effects of equity se nsitivity and perceptio ns of equity on job satisfaction. In this experiment, participan ts were classified as benevolents, equity sensitives, or entitleds, and reward was manipulated to produce three levels of equity perceptions: under-rewarded, equi tably rewarded and over-rewarded. The results showed significant main effects of equity sensitivity and perceptions of equity, but no significant interaction. They concluded that equity sensitive persons foll ow the prediction of equity theory, i.e., they had higher satisfaction when equitably rewarded than when they were underrewarded and over-rewarded. However, contrary to their hypo thesis, benevolents had the same pattern as did entitleds: they were most satisfied when over-rewarded and
18 least satisfied when under-rewarded, although benevolents had higher satisfaction than entitleds across all conditions. So for these gr oups, the higher the reward, the higher the satisfaction. These results chal lenged the original definition of benevolents, so more recent work (King, Miles, and Day, 1993) has de scribed benevolents in terms of tolerance rather than preference for under-reward. Th at is, benevolents also prefer being overrewarded, but they are more tolerant (le ss sensitive) to being under-rewarded than entitleds are. From this description of the three types, it is obvious that equi ty sensitivity should be negatively correlated with perceived organizational justice. That means under the same treatment, benevolents (low equity sensit ivity) are more likely to feel they are being treated fairly. Consequently benevolents shou ld be more satisfied with their job. As reviewed above, employees perform OCB as reci procation when they feel fairly treated, and satisfied workers engage in OCB more. Thus, it is appropriate to hypothesize that benevolents exhibit more OCBs than entitleds do. In other words, equity sensitivity should be negatively correlated with OCB. As of now, there is no published research regarding the relationship between OCB and equity sensitivity.
19 Chapter Six Job Stressors Now we turn our attention to the environm ental predictors of turnover intention. Job stressors represent a situation in which j ob related factors deviat e the worker from his or her normal psychological and/or physical functioning (Beehr & Newman, 1978). Some important stressors are: organizational co nstraints, interpersonal conflict, workload, role stressors (e.g., role ambiguit y, role conflict, and role over load), and perceived lack of autonomy (Jex, 1998). Job stress has been receiving increasingly more attention from researchers because of its serious negative impact on em ployees health and well-being. Job strains reflect the negative reactions th at employees may have to j ob stressors (Jex, 1998). They are classified as psychological strains and physical stra ins (Jex & Beehr, 1991). Psychological strains refer to the internal psycho logical states and conditions, including anger, anxiety, depression, job dissatisfacti on, or turnover intenti on. Physical strains refer to the physiological reaction to the j ob stressors that range from minor somatic complaints (e.g., headaches and stomachaches) to more serious conditions (e.g., coronary heart disease) (Jex, 1998).
20 Psychological strains have been more fre quently examined than physical strains, and have been shown to have stronger correla tions with job stressors than physical strains (Jex, 1998). For example, job stressors have been shown to correlate significantly with anxiety (Jackson & Schuler, 1985; Spector, Dwyer, & Jex, 1988), depression (Tetrick & LaRocco, 1987), frustration (Spector & Jex, 1991), hostility (Motowidlo, Packard & Manning, 1986), job dissatisfaction (Jacks on & Schuler, 1985; Spector, 1986), job involvement (Spector, 1986), and turnover intentions (e.g., Jack son & Schuler, 1985; Spector, 1986). The present study focused on the relationships between certain types of job stressors (e.g., interpers onal conflict at work, organi zational constraints, and quantitative workload) and psychological job strains (e.g., job dissatisfaction and turnover intention). One of the important job st ressors is organizational c onstraints. Organizational constraints are defined as working conditi ons that interfere with employees job performance (Peters & OConnor, 1980), such as poorly maintained equipment, inadequate technical support, and budgetary cuts. Peters and OConnor (1980) identified 11 sources of organizational constraints: (1) job-related information, (2) budgetary support, (3) support required by the job, (4) materials and supplies, (5) required services and help from others, (6) task prepara tion, (7) time availability, (8) the work environment, (9) scheduling of activities, (10) transportation, and (11) job-relevant authority. Spector and Jex ( 1998) developed the Organizatio nal Constraints Scale based on Peters and OConnors work. Research showed that employees with more constraints tended to report higher level of frustrati on, job dissatisfaction, and turnover intention
21 (Jex, 1998; Jex & Gudanowski, 1992; Spector, et al., 1988). Organi zational constraints were also related to anxiety, physical symptoms, and number of doctor visits (Spector et al., 1988). Another important job stressor is interpersonal conflict. Interpersonal conflict in the workplace may range from minor disa greements between coworkers to physical violence on others. The conflict may be overt (e.g., being rude to a coworker) or may be covert (e.g., spreading rumors about a cowo rker) (Spector & Jex, 1998). Conflict with other people at work, such as supervisors, coworkers, and customers, could make work very stressful (Keenan & Newton, 1985; Narayanan, Menon, & Spector, 1999). Interpersonal conflict has been reported to relate to both psychological and physical strains. In their meta-analysis, Spector and Jex (1998) concluded the average sizes of relationships were substantial between interp ersonal conflict and j ob satisfaction (r = .32), depression (r = .38), turnover intention (r = .41), and somatic symptoms (r = .26). They also found that organizational constraint s and interpersonal c onflict showed similar magnitudes of relations with psychological strains. Quantitative workload refers to the amount or quantity of work in a job, as opposed to qualitative workload, which is the difficulty of the work. A heavy workload may cause some level of uncertainty for empl oyees about whether they can get all of the work done (Beehr & Bhagat, 1985). Such uncerta inty is likely to create feelings of anxiety and worry, which then may lead to some physical symptoms. Frone (1998) found that both quantitative workload and interper sonal conflict at work had significant effects
22 on employees somatic symptoms. Spector a nd Jex (1998) expected lower correlations between workload and psychological job strain s compared to other job stressors, because a large amount of work alone does not necessarily lead to distress if, for example, the individuals enjoy working. They found weaker relations between quantitative workload and most psychological strains. In particul ar, quantitative workload did not relate as highly with job satisfaction (r = -.17), and its correlation with turnove r intention averaged .24.
23 Chapter Seven Hypotheses The following hypotheses were tested in the present study. Hypothesis 1: Job stressors (+), equi ty sensitivity (+), and perceived organizational justice (-) are correlated with turnover intention. Hypothesis 2: Job stressors (-), equity sensitivity (-), and perceived organizational justice (+) are correlated with job satisfaction. Hypothesis 3: Job stressors (-), equity sensitivity (-), and perceived organizational justice (+) are correlated with OCB. Hypothesis 4: Job satisfaction is negativ ely correlated with turnover intention. Hypothesis 5: Job satisfaction is positively correlated with OCB. Hypothesis 6: Turnover intention is negatively correlated with OCB. Hypothesis 7: The relationships between th e independent variables (job stressors, equity sensitivity, and perceived organizati onal justice) and the dependent variable (turnover intention) are me diated by job satisfaction. Hypothesis 8: The relationships between th e independent variables (job stressors, equity sensitivity, and perceived organizati onal justice) and the dependent variable (OCB) are mediated by job satisfaction. A model describing the above hypot heses is provided in Figure 1.
Job Stressor PerceivedJustice EquitySensitivity JobSatisfaction OCB TurnoverIntention Figure 1: Initial Model 24
25 Chapter Eight Method Participants The sample was comprised of 321 emergency communication specialists working at 14 emergency communication centers in Florid a. Seventy-eight perc ent of participants were females. Thirty percent of them were in their 20s, 30 percent of them were in their 30s, and 25 percent of them were in their 40s As to ethnic backgroud, 75 percent were white, 13 percent were hispanic, and 12 percen t were black. For the highest level of education, 32 percent of them had high school diploma, 11 percent had bachelor degree, and 45 percent received some college educat ion. As for the experience with emergency communication centers, 32 percent of them ha d less than 1 year, 29 percent with 1-3 years, 13 percent with 3-5 years, and 26 percent with more than 5 years. Measures The turnover intention measure was developed by Camman, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh (1979). It is a 3-item scale aski ng about job choice. Respondents were asked to indicate how accurately each statement described them. Response options range from (1) extremely disagree to (5) extremely ag ree. The internal consistency (Cronbach alpha) was 0.77 in the current study. Re fer to Appendix A for the items.
26 Organizational citiz enship behavior was measured by a 19-item scale, from items developed by Borman, Buck, Hanson, Mo towidlo, Stark and Drasgow (2001) and Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990). The OCB scale measures four dimensions: personal support and conscientious initiative from Borm an, et al. (2001), and courtesy and sportsmanship from Podsakoff, et al. (1990). Items measuring courtesy and sportsmanship were selected, because the supervisors at the em ergency communication centers reflected that during the 12 hour long work shift, ECSs sometimes yelled at each other, and they also complained a lot. Ther efore, these two dimensions seemed relevant for participants in this study. Each dimensi on has 5 items, except conscientious initiative with 4 items. Each item is rated on a 5-poi nt scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. The coefficient alphas in this study were 0.93, 0.79, 0.89, 0.79, and 0.89 for overall OCB, conscientiousness in itiative, courtesy, personal support, and sportsmanship respectively. Appendix B lists the OCB items. Job stressors were measured with a 20-item scale developed by Spector and Jex (1998). The scale consists of three subscal es: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale (ICAWS), Organizational Constraints Scale (O CS), and Quantitative Workload Inventory (QWI). The OCS is an 11-item scale coveri ng each of the constraint areas discussed in Peter and OConnor (1980). For each item, the respondent is asked to indicate how often it is difficult or impossible to do his or her job because of the reas ons described in each item. Response choices range from (1) les s than once per month or never to (5) several times per day. High scores represen t high levels of organizational constraints.
27 The ICAWS is a 4-item scale, asking about how often respondents get into arguments with others and how often othe rs do nasty things to them. Response options range from (1) rarely to (5) very ofte n. High scores represent fre quent conflicts with others. The QWI is a 5-item scale, concerning amount of work. Respondents are asked to indicate how often the behaviors described by each statement occur at work. Response options range from (1) less than once per month or never to (5) several times per day. High scores represent a high level of quantitat ive workload. As Spector and Jex (1998) pointed out, the individual items of the OCS scale are not considered to be parallel forms of the same underlying construct. Different from the traditional causal indicator scales, the items in the OCS are the causes of the underl ying construct, rather than the effects of the underlying construct. Thus, they concl uded that the coeffici ent alpha is not an appropriate index of reliability for the OCS. The coefficient alphas for ICWS and QWI in the current study were 0.82 and 0.76. Appe ndix C contains the job stressor items. The Equity sensitivity scale was developed by Huseman, Hatfield and Miles (1985). This is a 5-item forced -distribution scale that identi fies a respondents desire for outcomes versus inputs in a general work situation. The respondent has a choice of two responses for each item, one representing a benevolent response and the other an entitled response. Respondents show their agreemen t or disagreement with each response by distributing 10 points between the two statements. The in strument is based on the premise that benevolents will allocate more of their 10 points to the benevolent statement than to the entitled statement; that entitleds will allocate more of their 10 points to the entitled statement than to the benevolent statement; and that equity sensitives will
28 allocated their 10 points approximately e qually between the benevolent and entitled statements. Item 1, for example, is In any organization I might work for, it would be more important for me to: (a) get from the organization (b) give to the organization. Equity sensitivity scores are th e sum of points allotted to the entitled statement in each of the five survey items. The coefficient alpha in this study was 0.57. Refer to Appendix D for the items. Perceived organizational justice was measured on a 17item scale developed by Moorman (1991). It measures three types of organizational justice: distributive justice, procedural justice, and intera ctional justice. Response optio ns range from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. The alpha coefficients for overall organizational justice, distributive justice, procedural ju stice, and interactiona l justice were 0.96, 0.80, 0.92, and 0.98 respectively. Appendix E contains the items. Job satisfaction was measured with a 36-item survey developed by Spector (1997). It measures 9 facets of job satisfaction: pay, promotion, rewards, supervisor, benefits, operating conditions, coworkers, na ture of work, and communication. Each item was rated on a 6-point Likert scale rangi ng from (1) disagree very much to (6) agree very much. When the facets are comb ined, it provides an indication of total job satisfaction. The coefficient alpha for the j ob satisfaction survey was 0.92 in this study. Refer to Appendix F for the items. Procedure
29 Stage 1 was the preparation period du ring the summer of 2003. After a thorough literature review, the Emergency Dispatch Diagnostic Inventory (EDDI) was compiled to include all the above scales. With the help of people who work in Lakeland Civil Service and Retirement Department, the EDDI excep t the OCB scale was posted on Lakeland government web site (http://www.lakelandgov.ne t/survey/login.asp). The OCB scale was to be completed by supervisors. An inv itation email with assigned username and password was to be sent to everyone whose agen cies agreed to partic ipate in this study. Each participant was to have a unique username and password to login to the survey system. A benefit of an assigned username is that participants feel it is like an anonymous survey. The instructions for completing the survey guaranteed confidentiality. At stage 2, we sent out br ochures to neighboring city agencies. The brochure briefly introduced the current study, and invited the supervis ors in charge of emergency communication centers to attend one of our two information sessions on 09/30/03 and 10/14/03. In both sessions, we presented more de tails about this project, such as the past research, the current research design, data collection methods, a nd the type of results they could receive after we finished the study. About nineteen agencies came to our information sessions, and fourteen of them agreed to particip ate in the study. Stage 3 was the data collection period. T hose agencies that agreed to participate provided us with the names and email addresses of their ECSs. Then we sent out a package to each agency. The package in cluded the consent forms (Appendix G) for
30 ECSs, the OCB scales for supervisors with ECSs name on the top right corner, and the rating instructions (Appendix H) for supervisors. Also, supe rvisors were provided with a training orientation on rating bias es. They were instructed to read the material, be aware of the rating biases, and then evaluate th eir subordinates OCB. Return postage was provided. Finally, we sent out an invitation em ail to all the ECSs with their user name and password. The response rate for the ECSs was 63%. Stage 4 was the data analysis period. The hypotheses were tested using SPSS and LISREL statistical software.
31 Chapter Nine Results Descriptive statistics First, I examined the psychometric propert ies of the scales used in the present study. Table 1 presents the mean, standard devi ation, and reliability coefficients for each variable of interest. The results showed that the reliability for all scales were above .70, except for satisfaction with wo rking condition (.38) and equity sensitivity (.57). Because of the low reliability in the measurement of satisfaction with working conditions, this job satisfaction subscale was not incl uded in subsequent analyses. Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Variables of Interest Variable category Variables N Mean SD Alpha Turnover Turnover Intention 321 1.19 3.62 0.77 Overall OCB 278 71.10 12.79 0.93 Conscientiousness Initiative 278 15.42 3.24 0.79 Courtesy 278 18.60 3.87 0.89 Personal Support 278 18.49 3.48 0.79 OCB Variables Sportsmanship 278 18.59 4.63 0.89 Interpersonal Conflic t At Work 321 8.78 3.31 0.82 Organizational Constraints 321 22.60 10.23 NA Job Stressor Variables Quantitative Workload 321 17.20 4.30 0.76
32 Overall Job Satisfaction 321 141.07 27.84 0.92 Pay 321 13.40 5.17 0.80 Promotion 321 11.99 5.05 0.80 Supervisor 321 19.68 4.56 0.83 Benefit 321 15.01 4.95 0.78 Reward 321 12.90 5.18 0.83 Condition 321 16.05 3.54 0.38 Coworkers 321 16.54 4.28 0.73 Work 321 20.47 3.24 0.71 Job Satisfaction Variables Communication 321 15.03 4.53 0.72 Equity Sensitivity Equity Sensitivity 321 28.54 6.42 0.57 Overall Organizational Justice 321 96.92 29.14 0.96 Distributive Justice 321 24.05 6.75 0.80 Procedural Justice 321 26.91 10.26 0.92 Justice Variables Interactional Justice 321 45.96 15.47 0.98 Next, the correlations among all the variable s used in this study were calculated and are reported in Table 2. Table 2 Inter Variable Correlations Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Turnover Intention 1.00 2 OCB -.28 1.00 3 Job Satisfaction -.59 .40 1.00 4 Job Stressors .43 -.30 -.62 1.00 5 Equity Sensitivity .21 -.31 .22 -.35 1.00 6 Perceived Organizational Justice -.53 .35 -.53 .75 -.26 1.00 Note. All the correlation coefficients in the table are significant.
33 Hypothesis 1 predicted that job stressor s, equity sensitivity, and perceived organizational justice would be correlated with turnover intention. Ta ble 2 shows that the correlations between job stressors (r = .43, p < .01), equity sensitivity (r = .21, p < .01), perceived organizational just ice (r = -.53, p < .01) and tu rnover intention were all significant. Thus, hypothe sis 1 received support. Hypothesis 2 predicted that job stressor s, equity sensitivity, and perceived organizational justice would be correlated w ith job satisfaction. Table 2 indicates that correlations between job stress ors (r = -.62, p < .01), equity sensitivity (r = -.35, p < .01), perceived organizational justice (r = .75, p < .01) and job satisfacti on were significant. Therefore, hypothesis 2 was supported. Hypothesis 3 predicted that job stressor s, equity sensitivity, and perceived organizational justice would be correlated with OCB. Table 2 showed that the correlations between job stress ors (r = -.30, p < .01), equity sensitivity (r = -.31, p < .01), perceived organizational justice (r = .35, p < .01) and OCB were all significant. Thus, hypothesis 3 received support. Table 2 also shows that job satisfaction is negatively correlated with turnover intention (r = -.59, p < .01); job satisfac tion was positively correlated with OCB (r = .40, p < .01); and turnover intention was negativel y correlated with OCB (r = -.28, p < .01). Therefore, hypotheses 4, 5, and 6 received support.
34 To test the mediation effects proposed in hypotheses 7 and 8, LISREL was used. Confirmatory factor analysis Following the procedure suggested by Raykov and Marcoulides (2000), a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to test the measurement model. This model includes 26 observed variables (i .e., indicators) and 6 latent variables: turnover intention, job satisfaction, OCB, job stressor, equity sensitivity, and perceived organizational justice. The measurement model hypothesized that each observed variable loaded only on its respective latent variable, and these la tent variables were correlated with one another. Here the primary interest is es timating the relationships between the latent variables. LISREL 8.53 (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1 993) was used to evaluate the fit of the measurement model. Researchers generally use eith er individual items or scal e scores as indicators of latent variables. I chose a combination of individual items and subscale scores. The use of some subscale scores rather than item level scores was done because LISREL is limited in its ability to calculate model estimates with large numbers of indicators (Bentler and Chou, 1987). Also, it is difficult to fit models using more than 30 indicators (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1986). Sp ecifically, 3 items in the tu rnover intention scale and 5 items in the equity sensitivity scale were considered as indicators, and 8 subscale scores for job satisfaction, 4 subscale scores for OCB, 3 subscale sc ores for job stressors, and 3 subscale scores for perceived organizational justice were treated as indicators.
35 An examination of the LISREL output indicated that the squared multiple correlation associated with the second item ( helping others) in the equity sensitivity scale was only 0.03. That means this item di d not measure well the underlying construct, with only 3% of its variance explained by th e latent factor. The result makes sense because this item asks about behavior towa rds other individuals, while other items ask about behavior towards the organization. For the sake of parsimony, this item was deleted from the equity sensitivity scale. Compared with the original model, the 2 for the new model without that item dropped significantly ( 2 (24) = 57.71, p < .001). Other fit statistics remained same, and they sugge sted the measurement model fit the data reasonably well (CFI = .93, GFI = .79, AGFI = .74, NFI = .90, RMSEA = .095). It is ideal for GFI and AGFI to be cl ose to 1, but according to Steiger (1990), when degrees of freedom (df) are large rela tive to sample size, GFI and AGFI are biased downward except when the number of parameters is very large. Also, GFI tends to be larger as sample size incr eases; correspondingly, AGFI may underestimate fit for small sample sizes (Bollen, 1990). For a comple x model (number of indicators = 25, df = 260, and number of parameters = 65) in the curr ent study, it is not su rprised that GFI and AGFI are somewhat low. Another index critic al N (CN) also indicated that the sample size was not sufficient to yield an adequate model fit. CN needs to be over 200 for a model to adequately represent the sample data (Hoelter, 1983). The value of CN in this measurement model test was only 103. Therefore, the sample size is small relative to the complexity of the model, which leads to the underestimate of GFI and AGFI.
36 Structural model test Different than confirmatory factory anal ysis, the structural model test assumed directional relationships between latent variables. Four st ructural models were tested, and their fit indices were pr ovided in Table 3. The first model was a saturated model with all the possible paths between latent vari ables. Based on the output from model one, the second model fixed 5 nonsignificant gamm a paths from endogenous variables (job stressor, equity sensitivity, and perceived organizational justice) to exogenous variables (turnover intention and OCB). Based on th e output from model two, the third model fixed one nonsignificant beta path from one exogenous variable (tur nover intention) to another (OCB). The fourth model was the hypothesized model. Table 3 Fit Indices for Different Models Indices Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Degrees of freedom (df) 260 265 266 266 2 853.31 855.76 856.06 859.75 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) 0.095 0.093 0.093 0.093 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) 0.74 0.75 0.75 0.75 Examination of Table 3 indicated that al l the fit indices we re about the same across different models. Model 3 was selected to be the final model, because all the paths
37 in this model were significant. Figure 2 presents the final model; all numbers in the figure are standardized. The figure shows that most, but not all, of the hypothesized links in the model were supported. As described in hypothesis 7, job stressors, equity sensitivity, and perceived organizational justi ce had significant influences on job satisfaction, which in turn, has a significant effect on turnover intentions. No dir ect paths from the endogenous variables to turnover intention were signi ficant, and the fit of the model was not improved by including these direct paths. Th ese results suggested all three independent variables affected turnover in tention indirectly as they we re completely mediated by job satisfaction. Hypothesis 7 wa s therefore supported. Hypothesis 8 stated that the relationshi ps between the job stressors, equity sensitivity, organizational just ice, and OCB would be mediat ed by job satisfaction. This hypothesis received only partial support because equity sensitivity had a direct effect on OCB in addition to the indirect effect thr ough job satisfaction. In other words, equity sensitivity contributed to OCB engageme nt, even controlling for job satisfaction, perceived justice, and job stressors. Thus, job stressors and perceived justice were fully mediated by job satisfaction when affecti ng OCB, but equity sensitivity was only partially mediated by job satisfaction. Although turnover intention was significantly correlated with OCB, the path from turnover intention to OCB in the structural model test was not found to be significant.
Job Stressor PerceivedJustice EquitySensitivity JobSatisfaction OCB TurnoverIntention Y1 Y3 Y2 X1 X3 X2 X8 X10 X9 X5 X7 X6 X4 Y6 Y9 Y11 Y10 Y8 Y4 Y5 Y7 Y12 Y13 Y14 Y15 Figure 2: Final Model .38 .80 .62 .66 .84 .32 .55 .57 .93 .92 .88 .80 .53 .126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52 .184.108.40.206 -.67.42-.44-.13-.14.53 PSI = .53PSI = .15PSI = .76 38
39 The reason for this nonsignificant path is that after controlling for the effect of job satisfaction on OCB, there is no independent effect of turnover intention on OCB. If the path from job satisfaction to OCB was fixed to be zero, then there would be a significant path from turnover intention to OCB. In ot her words, people who think about leaving the organization do not necessarily show less OCB.
40 Chapter Ten Discussion The present study addressed three main questions: (a) How do job stressors, equity sensitivity, and perceive d organizational justice influen ce turnover intention? (b) How do job stressors, equity sensitivity, a nd perceived organizatio nal justice influence OCB? and (c) How does turnover intention influence OCB? Regarding the first question, job satisfaction was found to be a mediator transmitting the effects of job stressors, equi ty sensitivity, and perceived organizational justice to turnover intention. All influences of these e ndogenous variables on turnover intention were indirect. To further unders tand the process of thes e variables working on turnover intention, regression analyses were conducted. Regression of turnover intention on different aspects of job satis faction disclosed that dissatis faction with the work itself ( = -.30, p < .01) and dissatisf action with supervisors ( = -.16, p < .05) were the main predictors of intentions to turnover. Re gression of turnover intention on job stressors revealed that interpersonal conflict at work ( = .22, p < .01) and organizational constraints ( = .40, p < .01) were valid predictors of turnover intention; quantitative workload did not receive a significant weight This finding was consistent with that reported by Spector and Jex (1998). Regression of tur nover intention on perceived
41 justice showed that only distributive justice ( = -.34, p < .01) pr edicted turnover intention; procedural justice and interactional justice did not have an impact on turnover intention for the sample us ed in the present study. As to the second question, job satisf action was found again to mediate the relationships between job stressors, equity sensitivity, perceived organizational justice and OCB, but equity sensitivity had a direct effect on OCB in addition to that explained by job satisfaction. That is to say, whether or not being satisfied with their job, people high in equity sensitivity (entitleds) exhi bited less OCB than people low in equity sensitivity (benevelents). The personality tr ait equity sensitivity plays an important role in deciding the level of OCB. Job stressors and percei ved justice did not have such direct effects on OCB. Organ (1990) suggested that the relati onship between job satisfaction and OCB may be better described as one reflecting the relationship between perceptions of fairness and OCB. Previous research (Moorman et al., 1993; McNeely & Meglino, 1994) found that the relationship between job satisfaction and overall OCB or the OCB towards organization became nonsignificant after contro lling for the procedural justice or the reward equity and recognition. The current findings did not agree with these results. Figure 2 shows that the path from job sa tisfaction to OCB was significant, even controlling for job stressors, e quity sensitivity, and perceive d justice, but there was no significant direct path from justice to OCB. Another piece of eviden ce is that when both job satisfaction and equity perception (overall or individual aspects) were regressed on
42 OCB (both overall and OCB toward the organization, e.g., conscientiousness and sportsmanship), the effect of job satisfaction wa s still significant, but the effect of equity perception became nonsignificant. These result s suggested that equity perception did not make a direct contribution in predicti ng OCB, rather through the variable, job satisfaction. One possible reason for the differe nt results is that these earlier studies oversimplified the construct of job satisfaction by using a sing le item to measure overall job satisfaction (McNeely & Meglino, 1994), or only one Job Descriptive Index (JDI) subscale satisfaction with work (Moorman et al., 1993), whereas several facets were included in the current study. The third question concerned the relati onship between turnover intention and OCB. The data revealed th at the zero order correlation between tu rnover intention and OCB was significant. Regression analysis showed that conscientiousness ( = -.25, p < .01) and sportsmanship ( = -.20, p < .05) related negatively with the intent to leave, but courtesy and altruism did not In other words, employees thinking about leaving the organization generally exhibit low level of O CB, especially the OCB facets towards the organization. However, when multiple rela tionships were tested simultaneously using structural equation modeling, turnover intenti on did not have a direct impact on OCB. Thus, employees do not reduce OCB because they have turnover intentions. They reduce OCB because they are not satisfied with th eir job or because of beliefs about being entitled. Chen et al. (1998) found that O CB was a valid predictor of actual turnover controlling for job satisfaction (one item to measure overall job satisfaction), tenure, and
43 turnover intention. Unfortunately, actual tur nover data were not used in the current study, so this relation can not be tested here. In sum, job stressors, equity sensitiv ity, and perceived organizational justice affected turnover intention and OCB through j ob satisfaction. Sensitivity to equity also influenced OCB independent of job satisfaction. Turnover inte ntion did not have a direct influence on OCB. The contribution of this study is that it examined the antecedents of turnover intention and OCB from various perspectives, and it proposed a model to test all the relationships simultaneously. The finding th at perceived injustice led to turnover intention has practical value for managers in organizations. Managers are the main source for shaping employees equity perceptio ns. Managers should pay close attention to their treatment of employees, especially around creating enhanced distributive justice in the organization. Compared with rede signing the work to improve employees satisfaction with the work itself, training supervisors on justice issues may be an easier task. One limitation of the present study is that turnover intention was used as an exogenous variable, and it was collected at the same time as other variables. It is therefore impossible to make causal attributi ons about the variable s studied, although the proposed model helps somewhat in this regar d. The use of actual turnover data would solve this problem. In fact, turnover data were actually collected one year after the other
44 variables were measured, but the turnove r rate was only 11.2%, too low to find meaningful relationships with th is variable. Nonetheless, as intention to leave is the best single predictor of turnover (Carsten & Sp ector, 1987; Griffeth, Ho m, & Gaertner, 2000; Hom & Griffeth, 1995; Steel & Ovalle, II, 1984; Tett & Me yer, 1993), the process of how different variables leading to turnover intention can stil l provide valuable insights about the antecedents of turnover. Another limitation of this study is that all the participants in this study had the same job, so it is unknown whether or not the results here can be generalized to other professions or industries. Cross validation on different sample s is needed. It would also be interesting for future research to include some other variables in the model, such as perceived organizational support, leader support, and personality. Present study found that only distributive justice predicted turnover intention, and procedur al justice and interactional justice did not. Previous research regard ing which type of organizational justice has more influence on turnover is not consiste nt. It seems that different aspects of organizational justice work better in different situa tions. Future resear ch could search the moderator variables for the relationship be tween organizational justice and turnover.
45 References Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422-436. Anderson, J. G. & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). St ructural equation mode ling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238246. APCO Project (40) RETAINS Concept Paper Responsive Efforts To Address Integral Needs in Staffing. (n.d.). Retrieved October 8, 2003, from http://www.apco911.org/about/911/ retains/concept_paper.html Bateman, T. S. & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 587-595. Beehr, T. A., & Newman, J. (1978). Job st ress, employee health, and organizational effectiveness: A facet analysis, model, and literature review. Personnel Psychology, 31, 665-699. Beehr, T. A. & Bhagat, R. S. (1985). In troduction to human stress and cognition in organizations. In T. A. Beehr & R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Human stress and cognition in organizations (pp. 3-19). New York: Wiley. Benson, P. G. & Pond, S. B. (1987). An investigation of the process of employee withdrawal. Journal of Business & Psychology, 1(3), 218-229.
46 Bentler, P. M. & Chou, C. P. (1987). Practi ce issues in structural equation modeling. Sociological Methods and Research, 16, 78-117. Bollen, K. A. (1990). Overall fit in covariance structure models: Two types of sample size effects. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 256-259. Borman, W. C. & Brush, D. H. (1993). More progress toward a taxonomy of managerial performance requirements. Human Performance, 6(1), 1-21. Borman, W. C., Buck, D. E., Hanson, M. A., Motowidlo, S. J., Stark, S., & Drasgow, F. (2001). An examination of the comparativ e reliability, validity, and accuracy of performance ratings made using com puterized adaptive rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 965-973. Borman, W. C. & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expending the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Bormam (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Borman, W. C. & Motowidlo, S. J. ( 1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10(2), 99-109. Borman, W. C., White, L. A., & Dorsey, D. W. (1995). Effects of ratee task performance and interpersonal factors on supervis or and peer performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), 168-177. Brief, A. P. & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986) Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 710-725.
47 Carsten, J. M., & Spector, P. E. (1987). Un employment, job satisfaction, and employee turnover: A meta-analytic test of the Muchinsky model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(3), 374-381. Chen, X. P., Hui, C., & Sego, D. J. (1998). The role of organizational citizenship behavior in turnover: con ceptualization and pr eliminary tests of key hypotheses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 922-931. Coleman, V. I. & Borman, W. C. (2000). I nvestigating the underl ying structure of the citizenship performance domain. Human Resource Management Review, 10(1), 25-44. Conway, J. M. (1996). Additi onal construct validity evidence for the task/contextual performance distinction. Human Performance, 9(4), 309-329. Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and ju stice on reactions to pay-raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 115-130. Frone, M. R. (1998). Predictors of wo rk injuries among employed adolescents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 565-576. George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 107-116. George, J. M. (1991). State or trait: Effects of positive mood in prosocial behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 299-307.
48 George, J. M. & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosoc ial behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A group-leve l analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 698-709. George, J. M. & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeli ng good doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work organizati onal spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112(2), 310-329. George, J. M. & Jones, G. R. (1997). Organizational spontaneity in context. Human Performance, 10(2), 153-170. Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399-432. Griffeth, R. W. (1985). Moderation of the e ffects of job enrichment by participation: A longitudinal field experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 73-93. Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: update s, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26(3), 463-488. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1974). The Job Diagnostic Survey: An instrument for the diagnosis of jobs and the eva luation of job redesign projects (Tech. Rep. No. 4). New Haven, CT: Yale University, Department of Administrative Sciences. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motiv ation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 16(2), 250-279. Hochwarter, W. A., Zellars, K. L., Perrewe P. L., & Harrison, A. W. (1999). The interactive role of negative affectivit y and job characteristics: Are high-NA
49 employees destined to be unhappy at work? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(10), 2203-2218. Hom, P., & Griffeth, R. (1995). Employee Turnover. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western. Hom, P. W., Katerberg, R., & Hulin, C. L. (1979). Comparative examination of three approaches to the prediction of turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(3), 280-290. Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1985). Test for individual perceptions of job equity: some preliminary findings. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 10551064. Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: The equity sensitivity construct. Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 222-234. Idaszak, J. R., & Drasgow, F. (1987). A revision of the Job Diagnostic Survey: Elimination of a measurement artifact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(1), 6974. Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta -analysis and conceptual critique of role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 16-78. Jex, S. M., & Beehr, T. A. (1991). Emerging theoretical and methodological issues in the study of work-related stress. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 9, 311-365. Jex, S. M., & Gudanowski, D. M. (1992). Efficacy beliefs and work stress: An exploratory study. Journal of Organizational Behavior 13, 509.
50 Jex, S. M. (1998). Stress and job performance: theory research, and implications for managerial practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Joreskog, K. G. & Sorbom, D. (1986). LISREL IV: analysis of linear structural relationship by maximum likelihood, instru mental variables, and least squares methods, (4 th ed.) Scientific Software, Moorseville, IN Joreskog, K. G. & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language, Scientific Software, Hillsdale, NJ. Katerberg, R., Hom, R. W., & Hulin, C. L. (1979). Effects of job complexity on the reactions of part-time workers. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 24, 317-332. Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York, NY: Wiley. Keenan, A. & Newton, T. J. (1985). Stressful events, stressors, and psychological strains in young professional engineers. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 6, 151-156. King, W. C., Miles, E. W. & Day, D. D. ( 1993). A test and refinement of the equity sensitivity construct. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(4), 301-317. Kraut, A. I. (1975). Predicting turnover of employees from measured job attitudes. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 13(2), 233-243. LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. ( 2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fe tter, R. (1991). Organi zational citizenship behavior and objective producti vity as determinants of managerial evaluations of
51 salespersons' performance. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 50(1), 123-150. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Pain e, J. E. (1998). Effects of organizational citizenship behaviors and pr oductivity on evaluations of performance at different hierarchical levels in sales organizations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 396-410. McEvoy, G. M., & Cascio, W. F. (1985). St rategies for reducing employee turnover: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(2), 342-353. McNeely, B. L. & Meglino, B. M. (1994). The role of dispositional and situational antecedents in prosocial organizational be havior: an examination of the intended beneficiaries of pr osocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6), 836844. Miner, I. B. (1984). The unpaved road over the mountains: Form theo ry to applications. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 21(2), 9-20. Mobley, W. H. (1982). Employee Turnover: Causes, consequences, and control. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Mobley, W. H., Griffeth, R. W., Hand, H. H., & Meglino, B. M. (1979). Review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 493-522. Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness per ceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 845-855.
52 Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., & Organ, D. W. (1993). Treating employees fairly and organizational citizenship behavior: So rting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal, 6(3), 209-225. Motowidlo, S. J., Packard, J. S., & Manni ng, M. R. (1986). Occupational stress: Its causes and consequences for job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), 618-629. Motowidlo, S. J. & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from cont extual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475-480. Mowday, R. T. (1991). Equity theory pred ictions of behavior in organizations. In R. M. Steers & L. M. Porter (Eds.), Motivation and work behavior (5 th ed.) : 111-131. New York: McGraw-Hill. Mowday, R. T., Koberg, C. S., & McArthur, A. W. (1984). The psychology of the withdrawal process: A cross-validation te st of Mobley's intermediate linkages model of turnover in two samples. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 7994. Narayanan, L., Menon, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). Stress in the workplace: a comparison of gender and occupations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 63-73. OReilly, C. A. & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 492-499.
53 Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavio r: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizensh ip behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 12, 4372. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Organ, D. W. & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cogniti ve versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 157164. Peters, L. H., & O'Connor, E. J. (1988). Measuring work obstacles: Procedures, issues, and implications. In F. D. Schoorman & B. Schneider (Eds.), Facilitating work effectiveness. Issues in organization and management series (pp. 105-123). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books /D. C. Heath and Company. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship be haviors: A critical review of the theroetical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563. Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1981). A causal model of turnover for nurses. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 543-565. Organizational citiz enship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563. Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986). Absenteeism and turnover of hospital employees. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
54 Puffer, S. M. (1987). Prosocial behavior, nonc ompliant behavior, and work performance among commission salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4), 615-621. Raykov, T, & Marcoulides, G. A. (2000). A firs t course in structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ:LEA. Rosse, J. G. (1988). Relations among latene ss, absence, and turnover: Is there a progression of withdrawal? Human Relations, 41(7), 517-531. Rosse, J. G. & Miller, (1984). Relationship between absenteeism and other employee behaviors. In P. S. Good man & R. S. Atkin (Eds.), Absenteeism: new approaches to understanding, measuring, and managing employee absence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. (1993). Co mmitment and employee behavior: Comparison of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5), 774-780. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. ( 1983). Organizational citiz enship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-663. Siegall, M., & McDonald, T. (1995). Focus of attention and employee reactions to job change. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(13), 1121-1141. Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 39, 10051016. Spector, P. E., Dwyer, D. J., & Jex, S. M. (1988). The relationship of job stressors to affective, health, and performance outcomes: A comparison of multiple data sources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 11-19.
55 Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1991). Relations of job Characteristics from Multiple data sources with employee affect, absence, turnover intentions, and health. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 46-53. Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage. Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Developm ent of four self-report measures of job stressors and strains: Interpersonal C onflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, Quantitative Worklo ad Inventory, and Physical Symptoms Inventory. Journal of Occupationa l Health Psychology, 3, 356-367. Steel, R. P., & Ovalle, II. N. K. (1984). A review and meta-analysi s of research on the relationship between behavior inte ntions and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(4), 673-686. Steiger, J, H. (1990). Structural model ev aluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173-180. Tepper, B. J., Lockhart, D., & Hoobler, J. (2001 ). Justice, citizensh ip, and role definition effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 789-796. Tetrick, L. E., & LaRocco, J. M. (1987) Understanding, predic tion, and control as moderators of the relatio nship between perceived stress, satisfaction, and psychological well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 538-543. Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job sa tisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intentions, and turnover: path analys es based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46(2), 259-293.
56 Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (A bridge over m uddied waters). In L. L. Cummings & M. B. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 215285. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Williams, L. J. & Anderson, S. E. (1991) Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizati onal citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601-617.
58 Appendix A: Turnover Intention Scale Response options: 1 = Extremely Disagree 2 = Slightly Disagree 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 = Slightly Agree 5 = Extremely Agree Questions: 1. I often think of leaving the organization. 2. It is very possible that I will look for a new job next year. 3. If I could choose again, I would choose to work for the current organization. R
59 Appendix B: Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale Response options: 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree Questions: 1. Attendance at work is above the nor m. (Conscientiousness initiative) 2. Tries to avoid creating problem s for co-workers. (Courtesy) 3. Willingly offers to help others by teachi ng them necessary knowledge or skills. (Personal support) 4. Consumes a lot of time complaining about trivial matters. (Sportsmanship) R 5. Believes in giving an honest day's work fo r an honest day's pay. (Conscientiousness initiative) 6. Considers the impact of his/her actions on co -workers. (Courtesy) 7. Goes out of his/her way to cheer others on in times of adversity. (Personal support) 8. Tends to make mountains out of molehills. (Sportsmanship) R 9. Does not take extra breaks. (Conscientiousness initiative) 10. Takes steps to try to prevent proble ms with other employees. (Courtesy) 11. Is consistently courteous and tactful, even when especially busy or stressed. (Personal support) 12. Always finds fault with what the orga nization is doing. (Sportsmanship) R 13. Is one of my most conscientious employees. (Conscientiousness initiative) 14. Does not abuse the rights of others. (Courtesy) 15. Goes out of his/her way to help others to overcome setbacks. (Personal support) 16. Is the classic "squeaky wheel" that always needs greasing. (Sportsmanship) R 17. Is mindful of how his/her behavior affects other people's jobs. (Courtesy) 18. Is always ready to lend a helping hand to those around him/her. (Personal support) 19. Always focuses on what's wrong, rather than the positive side. (Sportsmanship) R
60 Appendix C: Job Stressor Survey Interpersonal Conflict At Work Scale (ICAWS) Response options: 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Quite Often 5 = Very Often Questions: 1. How often do you get into argum ents with others at work? 2. How often do other people yell at you at work? 3. How often are people rude to you at work? 4. How often do other people do nasty things to you at work? Organizational Constraints Scale (OCS) Response options: 1 = Less than once per month or never 2 = Once or twice per month 3 = Once or twice per week 4 = Once or twice per day 5 = Several times per day Questions: 1. Poor equipment or supplies? 2. Organizational rule s and procedures? 3. Other employees? 4. Your supervisor? 5. Lack of equipment or supplies? 6. Inadequate training? 7. Interruptions by other people? 8. Lack of necessary information a bout what to do or how to do it? 9. Conflicting job demands?
61 10. Inadequate help from others? 11. Incorrect instructions? Quantitative Workload Inventory (QWI) Response options: 1 = Less than once per month or never 2 = Once or twice per month 3 = Once or twice per week 4 = Once or twice per day 5 = Several times per day Questions: 1. How often does your job require you to work very fast? 2. How often does your job require you to work very hard? 3. How often does your job leave you with little time to get things done? 4. How often is there a great deal to be done? 5. How often do you have to do more work than you can do well?
62 Appendix D: Equity Sensitivity Scale The five questions below ask what you woul d like for your relationship to be with any organization for which you might work. For each question, divide 10 points between the two answers (A or B) by giving the most point s to the answer that is most like you and the fewest points to the answer that is leas t like you. You can, if you'd like, give 5 points to both answers. You can also give all 10 poi nts to one answer and 0 points to the other. In any organization I might work for 1. It would be more important for me to A. Get from the organization, or B. Give to the organization. 2. It would be more important for me to A. Help others, or B. Watch out for my own good. 3. I would be more concerned about A. What I receive from the organization, or B. What I contribute to the organization. 4. The hard work I would do should A. Benefit the organization, or B. Benefit me. 5. My personal philosophy in dealing with the organization would be A. If you dont look out for yourse lf, nobody else will, or B. Its better to gi ve than receive.
63 Appendix E: Perceived Organizational Justice Scale Response options: 1 = Extremely Disagree 2 = Slightly Disagree 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 = Slightly Agree 5 = Extremely Agree Questions 1 to 5 measure distributive justi ce, questions 5 to 11 measure procedural justice, and questions 12 to 20 measure interactional justice. 1. My work schedule is fair. 2. I think that my level of pay is fair. 3. I consider my workload to be quite fair. 4. Overall, the rewards I recei ve here are quite fair. 5. I feel that my job res ponsibilities are fair. 6. Job decisions are made by the genera l manager in an unbiased manner. 7. My general manager makes sure that all employee concerns are heard before job decisions are made. 8. To make formal job decisions, my general manager collects accurate and complete information. 9. My general manager clarifies decisions a nd provides additional information when requested by employees. 10. All job decisions are applied consiste ntly across all affected employees. 11. Employees are allowed to challenge or appeal job decisions made by the general manager. 12. When decisions are made about my job, th e general manager treats me with kindness and consideration. 13. When decisions are made about my job, the general manager treats me with respect and dignity. 14. When decisions are made about my job, the general manager is sensitive to my personal needs. 15. When decisions are made about my job, the general manager deals with me in a truthful manner. 16. When decisions are made about my job, the general manager shows concern for my rights as an employee. 17. Concerning decisions about my job, the gene ral manager discusses the implications of the decisions with me.
64 18. The general manager offers adequate justif ication for decisions made about my job. 19. When making decisions about my job, the ge neral manager offers explanations that make sense to me. 20. My general manager explains very cl early any decision made about my job.
65 Appendix F: Job Satisfaction Survey Response options: 1 = Disagree Very Much 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Agree Slightly 5 = Agree Moderately 6 = Agree Very Much Questions: 1. I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do. 2. There is really too little ch ance for promotion on my job. R 3. My supervisor is quite co mpetent in doing his/her job. 4. I am not satisfied with the benefits I receive. R 5. When I do a good job, I receive the rec ognition for it that I should receive. 6. Many of our rules and procedures make doing a good job difficult. R 7. I like the people I work with. 8. I sometimes feel my job is meaningless. R 9. Communications seem good within this organization. 10. Raises are too few and far between. R 11. Those who do well on the job stand a fair chance of being promoted. 12. My supervisor is unfair to me. R 13. The benefits we receive are as good as most other organizations offer. 14. I do not feel that the work I do is appreciated. R 15. My efforts to do a good job are seldom blocked by red tape. 16. I find I have to work harder at my job because of the incompetence of people I work with. R 17. I like doing the things I do at work. 18. The goals of this organization are not clear to me. R 19. I feel unappreciated by the organization wh en I think about what they pay me. R 20. People get ahead as fast here as they do in other places. 21. My supervisor shows too little interest in the feelings of subordinates. R 22. The benefit package we have is equitable. 23. There are few rewards for those who work here. R 24. I have too much to do at work. R 25. I enjoy my coworkers. 26. I often feel that I do not know what is going on within the organization. R
66 27. I feel a sense of pride in doing my job. 28. I feel satisfied with my ch ances for salary increases. 29. There are benefits we do not have which we should have. R 30. I like my supervisor. 31. I have too much paperwork. R 32. I don't feel my efforts are rewa rded the way they should be. R 33. I am satisfied with my chances for promotion. 34. There is too much bickeri ng and fighting at work. R 35. My job is enjoyable. 36. Work assignments are not fully explained. R
Appendix G: Consent Form DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SERVICE AND RETIREMENT Assessment Services 12/18/03 To: All City of Coral Gables Emergency Communications Specialists RE: Emergency Dispatch Diagnostic Inventory (EDDI) Thank you for agreeing to participate in the Emergency Dispatch Diagnostic Inventory (EDDI). It is an inventory that takes a large scale measure of several key aspects of the individual, the organization, the job, the organizational culture and the interpersonal relationships within the workplace. Completion of the survey should take approximately 30-45 minutes. Since the online EDDI is web based, you will need a username and password to access the system. Your username and password have been provided on the accompanying page. Please retain this until you have completed the entire survey. Your agency may have already set up your computer to the EDDI login web page, but if not, go to http://www.lakelandgov.net/survey/login.asp to access the survey. Enter your login information. Once you are in, click on the Surveys tab and then on the EDDI. Please note that in order to collect accurate data, usernames and passwords have been randomly selected to protect your identity. It is imperative that you answer these questions as truthfully as you can. The information you provide will remain in the strictest confidence. Only the survey administrator at the City of Lakeland will have access to individual responses and identities, and these WILL NOT be shared with your supervisor or with any other City of Coral Gables personnel. When all data is collected and analyzed, we will share the results of the study as a whole with all participating agencies. We ask that you please sign below to indicate that you agree with and understand the purpose of this study. Once you have signed this consent form, please return it to Alina Suarez to be mailed to the City of Lakeland. Thank you for your participation. The information you provide is very important and we greatly appreciate your time and effort in completing this survey. __________________________________________________________ (Your Name) (Todays Date) 67
68 Thank you, Lebsica Gonzalez Career Development Specialist Assessment Services City of Lakeland
69 Appendix H: Potential Rating Biases As diligent as one may be in the pursuit of objectivity, the potential for rater bias is always present. In an effort to attain the highest degree of objectivit y, it would be wise to take a few moments to examine some common threats to objectivity. Leniency Error This is the tendency to give people the benefit of the doubt, or to be an easy rater. The leniency eff ect occurs when a rater is reluctant to unfavorably rate an employee. While this may be kind, leniency error is not a true representation of an employees performance. Severity Error This is the opposite of leniency error. This occurs when a rater is unwilling to issue a favorable rating to a de serving employee and instead assigns more than the usual number of low ratings and can suggest either an unusually harsh standard or failure to appropriately observe the behaviors demonstrated by the employees. Central Tendency Error This occurs when a rater rate s all performance at the middle of the scale (on a 5 point scale, 3 would most often be used), and is reluctant to identify a performance as outstanding or unsa tisfactory. This is the desire to play it safe or avoid giving extreme ratings. Sometimes raters fail to assign a or on the assumption that nobody could be that bad or good. However, it is very important to make distinctions among participants and the full us e of the rating scale is the most reliable way of achieving these distinctions. Contrast Effect It has been found that if a rate r evaluates an employee who is just average after evaluating three or four very unfavorable employees in a row, the average employee tends to be evaluated very favorab ly. Conversely, an average employee may be evaluated less favorably after several very favorable employees have been evaluated. Raters tend to use other employees as a standard when evaluating more than one employee at a time. Halo Effect This is the tendency of a rater to allow the good or bad performance of one area of the employees work to influence the rating of another area. To achieve an accurate assessment of an individual, raters should consider the question that is being asked without taking into consideration other areas of the employees performance. The rating you provide should correspond only to the performance of that individual for that particular question. Similar-to-me-Bias This bias occurs when an employee is judged more favorably because he/she exhibits behaviors, which ha ve much in common with the rater. Some
70 individuals will remind you of your own appro ach to situations and it is tempting to award high ratings, even when the exhibited behaviors may not be worthy of these high ratings. Although you may tend to like employees who appear most like yourself, it is important to judge them on the identified job-related desired behaviors. Negative Information There is a tendency to pay more attention to negative information than to positive information. As a result, an employee that mostly demonstrated very appropriate behaviors ma y receive lower ratings on these behaviors due to a single deficiency. First Impressions Effect This is closely related to the Halo Effect. Sometimes an employee does very well right at the beginni ng of his/her term of employment and then runs out of gas. The rater observing this individual may become so impressed with his/her early performance that high ratings ar e given based on the performance exhibited early on, instead of the overall performance of this employee. Physical Attractiveness Remember, more attractive employees are not necessarily more qualified for the job. Being human means having preferences, both positive and negative. Our interpretations and perceptions assist us in everyday living and make us the individuals that we are. However, in an effort to accurately assess the performance of each employee, as well as to give an accurate rating, each rater must make every effort to put aside his/her biases and judge each em ployee objectively and according to stated criteria. Remaining sensitive to how thes e rating errors can unfairly influence your evaluation of an individuals performance wi ll help avoid their occurrence or at least reduce their impact.
71 About the Author Yufan Liu received her BS degree in Psyc hology from Beijing Normal University in 1997, and MS degree in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences in 20 00. She is currently a Ph.D. candidate at University of South Florida. Her research interests include tur nover, job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, job stress, equity sens itivity, perceived organizational justice, pe rsonality, leadership, and performance appraisal.