Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
-
Upload
mendes-anisha -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
1/42
Durham Business School
MA Courses 2010
Organisational Behaviour
Nikos Bozionelos
Office No: 5.05
Session 4: Individual Differences:
Attitudes in the Workplace
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
2/42
Work Attitudes
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
3/42
attitudes
definition:
cognitive mechanism that evaluates
objects of thought on
dimensions of Judgment
work examples: job satisfaction;
organisational commitment
malleable
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
4/42
Structure of ATTITUDES
attitude
emotional behaviouralcognitive
(McGuire, 1985)
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
5/42
critical issue
attitude behaviour?
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
6/42
Attitudes and Behaviour
yes, but: (e.g. Miller & Gibbs, 1984)
(1) level of specificity in the definition of theattitude object (broad VS narrow definitions)
(2) level of specificity in the definition ofrelevant behaviour (single VS multiple acts)
(3) Number and strength of external factorsor "pressures"
(4) Priority of some attitudes over other attitudes.
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
7/42
Attitude towards
the behaviour
subjective
norms
behavioural
intention
perceivedbehavioural
control
behaviour
Theory of Planned Behaviou
(Ajzen, 1991, 2002)
self-efficacy towardsperforming the behaviour
Attitudes and BehaviourAttitudes and Behaviour
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
8/42
beliefs about
computer use
& performance
beliefs about
peers viewson computers
intention to
use computers
computerself-efficacy
computer
utilisation
(Hill, Smith & Mann, 1987)
computerexperience
Illustration
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
9/42
Attitudes and Behaviour
another illustration
van Eerde & Thiery (1996): how well
attitudes predict:
Actual Job Performance low (+.19)
Job Effort (+0.29)Intention to expend effort: moderate (+0.42)
Attitude towards the reward high (+0.72)
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
10/42
Job Satisfaction
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
11/42
Job Satisfaction:
a pleasurable or positive emotional stateresulting from the appraisal of ones job or
job experience
(Locke, 1976)
Job SatisfactionJob Satisfaction isis anan attitudeattitude towardstowards
various aspects of the jobvarious aspects of the jobhence, it has three components:hence, it has three components:
emotional, cognitive, behaviouralemotional, cognitive, behavioural
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
12/42
(some)Aspects of the Job
that determineJob Satisfaction
Job content (the work itself)
Monetary rewards Promotion opportunities
Supervision
Colleagues Working Conditions (including
organizational policies)
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
13/42
What causes Job Satisfaction?
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
14/42
e.g., Vitamin model (Warr et al., 1987, 1996)
Constant Effect
monetary rewardsphysical security
social position
Additional Decrement
control opportunityskill use
external goal generation
role clarity
interpersonal contact
the Job itselfthe Job itself
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
15/42
Job Satisfaction as Disposition
Personality Traits are partly responsible for
individual differences in job satisfaction
e.g.,e.g.,
studies by Judge et al. (1999) in the US,studies by Judge et al. (1999) in the US,
Bozionelos (2004) in the UKBozionelos (2004) in the UK
our outlook of lifeour outlook of life
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
16/42
Job Satisfaction &job performance
job turnover
absenteeism
Outcomes of Job SatisfactionOutcomes of Job Satisfaction
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
17/42
Job satisfaction and Performance
review by Iafaldano & Michinsky (1985):
very weak relationship
meta-analysis byJudge, Thoresen, Bono & Patton (2001):
relationship of substantial strength (r = .30)
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
18/42
Job satisfaction and Performance
a fundamental issue in the relationshipbetween job satisfaction and jobperformance is the issue ofcausality,that is which causes which(?)
a metaa meta--analysis of only longitudinal studiesanalysis of only longitudinal studies
by Riketta (2008) indicated that there is aby Riketta (2008) indicated that there is avery weakvery weak((rr = .03)= .03) causaleffectfrom Jobcausaleffectfrom Job
Satisfaction towards Job PerformanceSatisfaction towards Job Performance
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
19/42
Job Satisfaction and Job Performance
Organ & Ryan (1995): meta-analysis
job satisfaction relates substantially to
contextualperformanceFurthermore:
individual
job satisfaction
organisational
levelperformance
(Dennis et al., 1996; Harter et al., 2002; Ostroff, 1992)
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
20/42
Job Satisfaction & job Turnover
a relationship of moderate strength
(e.g., Lee & Mowday, 1987; Tett & Meyer, 1993)
voluntary
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
21/42
Job Satisfaction & job Turnover
job satisfaction is only one factor in the
turnoverprocess
(e.g., Tett & Meyer, 1993)
Job Turnover model
(Mobley et al., 1978)
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
22/42
Job Satisfaction & job Turnover
Job TurnoverJob Turnover model (Mobley et al., 1978)model (Mobley et al., 1978)
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
23/42
Job Satisfaction & job Turnover
influencing factors:
unemployment rate (Home & Kinicki, 2001)
age and job tenure
additional factor:
modelling (epidemiological perspective)
(Krackhardt & Porter)
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
24/42
Job Satisfaction & job Turnover
key point to remember:
the decision to leave (turnover) is only
one of the alternatives employees have
(exhaustive model by Hulin et al., 1985)
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
25/42
Job Satisfaction & job Turnover
Alternative responses (Hulin et al., 1985)
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
26/42
Human Resource practice:
job
dissatisfaction turnover rate
job
satisfactionturnover rate
?
but
Job Satisfaction & Job Turnover
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
27/42
Job Satisfaction & job Turnover
there is FunctionalTurnover(Dalton, Todor & Krackhardt, 1982; Mobley, 1982)
factfact to be borne in mind:to be borne in mind:
i.e., when poor performers leave
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
28/42
Job Satisfaction & Absenteeism
critical point:absenteeism is different from turnover
socialexchangeaccount ofabsenteeism(Chadwick-Jones et al.)
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
29/42
Job Satisfaction & Absenteeism
there is an inverse relationship ofmoderate strength
(Hackett, 1989; Scott & Taylor, 1985)
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
30/42
Job Satisfaction & Absenteeism
influencing factors of absence
perceived importance of work(Clegg, 1983)
non-work activities (Landy, 1989)
initiation VS duration of absence
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
31/42
Human Resource practice:
Job Satisfaction & Absenteeism
job
dissatisfaction absenteeism
job
satisfactionabsenteeism
?
but
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
32/42
Organisational Commitment
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
33/42
Organisational Commitment
attitude towards ones employing organisation
Affective (attitudinal)
Continuance (calculative)
Normative
(Allen & Meyer, 1990)
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
34/42
Antecedents to Commitment
WorkExperiences
affective
perceivedcosts of leaving
continuance
normativesocialisation
(Meyer & Allen, 1991)
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
35/42
job satisfaction
affective
continuance
normative
+(r = .65)- (r= -.07)
(r = .31) +
(Meyer et al., 2002; Tett & Meyer, 1993)
how Commitment relates to:
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
36/42
overall Job Performance
affective commitment: positive (r = .16)
continuance commitment:
(mildly) negative (r = -.07)
normative commitment:
(mildly) positive (r = .06)
how Commitment relates to:
(meta-analysis by Meyer et al., 2002)
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
37/42
a fundamental issue in the relationshipis the issue ofcausality, that is whichcauses which(?)
a meta-analysis of only longitudinal studies
by Riketta (2008) indicated that there is a
weak(r = .08) causaleffectfromAffective Commitment towards Job
Performance
Commitment and Job PerformanceCommitment and Job Performance
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
38/42
contextual performance
affective: substantially positive (r = .32)
continuance: depends (but overall zero)
normative: moderately positive (r = .24)
(meta-analysis by Meyer et al., 2002)
how Commitment relates to:how Commitment relates to:
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
39/42
absenteeism
(meta-analysis by Meyer et al., 2002)
how Commitment relates to:
affective: negative (r = -.15)
continuance: around zero
normative: around zero
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
40/42
Job Turnover
low turnover
continuance
affective
normative
how Commitment relates to:
(Meyer et al., 2002)
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
41/42
Job Turnover
low turnover
continuance
affective
normative
but fordifferent reasons
how Commitment relates to:
Meyer et al., 2002)
-
8/6/2019 Individual Differences -Attitudes in the Workplace - MA2010 - Handouts
42/42
Practice Implication
foster affective commitment
Organisational Socialization (especially early)
Management of the Psychological Contract
Management of Perceptions of Fairness