Presentation By: Mike Reeves

1. Presentation By: Mike Reeves

2. Focal Business Problem • Extracted from the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology’s online learning modules. • The Residential Life Department of a large university is seeking assistance. • Over 60% of the university’s resident assistants have recently left their positions. • A noticeable decrease in performance has been demonstrated by those remaining in the position. Job Attitudes and Behavior

3. Understanding the Issues • Identify criteria (conceptualization and level) • Turnover • Type and indicators • Reasons for departure • What percent is in the control of the organization? • Job Performance • Numerous definitions of performance (Pritchard, 1992). • Indicators • Establish that these measures are relevant to overall organization performance • Address deficiency and contamination (Borman, 2003) Job Attitudes and Behavior

4. Understanding the Issues • Identify and categorize possible causes • Poor job attitudes • Job satisfaction • Organizational commitment • Job Involvement • Perceived organizational support • Employee engagement • Poor selection procedures • Measures of selection • Use of personality • Realistic job preview • Reasons outside the organization’s control Job Attitudes and Behavior

5. Relevant Concepts, Models, and Theories • Attitudes • Components (Robbins & Judge, 2009) • Cognitive component: mental representation of one’s reality based on specific work related situations and outcomes • Affective component: emotional response to the cognitive representation established by the first component. • Behavioral component: attitude toward a certain behavioral response • Not behavior itself, intent to take certain actions. • All three feed into each other to establish an overall, favorable or unfavorable attitude toward a person, object, or event. Job Attitudes and Behavior

6. Relevant Concepts, Models, and Theories • Job Attitudes • Like general attitudes, the concept of job attitudes is multifaceted. • Job satisfaction • Organizational commitment • Job Involvement • Perceived organizational support • Employee engagement Job Attitudes and Behavior

7. Relevant Concepts, Models, and Theories • Job Satisfaction • The state-based emotional outcome of one’s reflection on job experiences and characteristics (Locke, 1976). • The work itself is the strongest predictor of job satisfaction (Howell & Higgins, 1990). • Job characteristics model (Hackman & Oldham’s, 1975) • Impacts job satisfaction through job (re)design • Characteristics that ultimately lead to satisfaction with work: • Skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback • High work satisfaction results if these characteristics positively lead to the psychological states of: • Experiencing meaningfulness, experiencing responsibility for outcomes, and knowledge of work results • Moderated by growth need strength Job Attitudes and Behavior

8. Relevant Concepts, Models, and Theories • Job Satisfaction • The state-based emotional outcome of one’s reflection on job experiences and characteristics (Locke, 1976). • The work itself is the strongest predictor of job satisfaction (Howell & Higgins, 1990). • Herzberg’s (1968) two-factor theory. • Also focuses on the characteristics of the job in relation to employee needs. • Antecedents of job satisfaction are categorized into two levels: • Hygiene factors incorporate the animal drive for survival and can only lead to dissatisfaction (Spector, 2006). • Quality of supervision, relations with coworkers, pay • Impact dissatisfaction • Motivator factors focus on a higher order needs • Achievement, responsibility, and the work itself (Spector, 2006). • Impact satisfaction Job Attitudes and Behavior

9. Relevant Concepts, Models, and Theories • Job Satisfaction • In addition to the characteristics of the job: individual differences are also worth considering (Staw & Ross, 1985). • Specific individual differences include: • Emotional adjustment (Hoppock, 1935), • Emotional maladjustment (Fisher & Hana, 1931), • Positive and negative affect (Connolley & Viswesvaran, 2000), • Positive affect is more strongly correlated with job satisfaction (r = .49) than negative affect (r = -.33) • Impact job attitudes over time (Staw, Bell, & Clausen, 1986). Job Attitudes and Behavior

10. Relevant Concepts, Models, and Theories • Job Satisfaction • Specific individual differences include: • Personality (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002), • Explains nearly 17% of the variance in job satisfaction • Neuroticism (r = -.29) • Individuals high in neuroticism undergo more negative experiences (Magnus et al., 1993) • Due to the self-selection into negative situations (Emmons, Deiner, & Larsen, 1993). • Conscientiousness (r = .26) • Causes individuals to perform higher and attain more satisfying rewards (Organ & Lingl, 1995). • Extraversion (r = .25) • Extraverts tend to experience more positive affect (Costa & McCrae, 1992) • Particularly when work involves social interaction (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998) • Agreeableness (r = .17) • Agreeableness is related to happiness (McCrae & Costa, 1991) • Entails harmonious engagement with others (Organ & Lingl, 1995)

11. Relevant Concepts, Models, and Theories • Job Satisfaction • Specific individual differences include: • Genetic components (Arvey, Bouchard, Segal, & Abraham, 1989) • Explain 30 percent of the variance in overall job satisfaction and 31.5 percent of the variance in intrinsic satisfaction (Arvey et al., 1989). • Individuals were working in environments compatible with their genetic factors. • Supports the notion of active genotype-environment covariance. • A genetic component exists in jobs that individuals seek out, • If compatible, attraction is increased. • Such job aspects include complexity level, motor skill requirements, and physical demands (Arvey et al., 1989). Job Attitudes and Behavior

12. Relevant Concepts, Models, and Theories • Job Satisfaction-Job Performance Relationship • The relationship between job satisfaction and job performance has fluctuated across meta-analyses. • The first of which count a moderate correlation (ρ = .31) (Petty, McGee, & Cavender, 1984). • Laffaldo and Muchinsky (1985) reanalyzed this relationship and found a substantially weaker relationship (ρ = .17). • The importance of Ajzen’s (1988) compatibility principle was addressed by Judge et al. (2001). • By maintaining compatibility across constructs • Found very similar results to that of the original meta-analysis (ρ = .30). • Harrison et al. (2006) separated the job performance into focal (in-role) and contextual (extra-role) performance. • Focal performance (ρ = .30) • Contextual performance (ρ = .28)

13. Relevant Concepts, Models, and Theories • Job Satisfaction-Job Performance Relationship • Job Satisfaction → Job Performance • In addition to attitude accessibility, several researchers have taken a constructionist perspective – assessing attitude stability (Glasman & Albarracin, 2006; Erber, Hodges, & Wilson, 1995; Schwarz & Bohner, 2001; Wilson & Hodges, 1992; Wyer & Scrull, 1995). • Behavior is influenced when individuals are able to reconstruct attitudes spontaneously (Glasman & Albarracin, 2006). • Attitudes are more likely to influence behavior when (re)constructed on information that is: • The same each instance (Erber et al., 1995) • Relevant and diagnostic (Ajzen, 1996) • One-sided (Erber et al., 1995) Job Attitudes and Behavior

14. Relevant Concepts, Models, and Theories • Job Satisfaction-Job Performance Relationship • Job Performance → Job Satisfaction • Vroom’s (1964) expectancy theory: • Performance → Rewards → Satisfaction • The expectation of satisfying rewards encourages increased performance (Lawler & Porter, 1967). • When expectations are met, satisfaction is achieved. • Possible moderators: • Performance-rewards contingency, job characteristics, need for achievement, work centrality, and aggregation (Judge et al., 2001). • Support for a bidirectional relationship between job satisfaction and performance. (Judge et al., 2001) • Important to consider both constructs Job Attitudes and Behavior

15. Relevant Concepts, Models, and Theories • Job Satisfaction-Turnover Relationship • Turnover: • The addition and loss of employees to the organization (Price, 1989). • Functional turnover is the exit of nonproductive employees and the entrance of valuable employees. • Dysfunctional turnover typically refers to the loss of valuable, productive employees (Beadles et al., 2000). • Correlation with job satisfaction (ρ = .28) (Harrison et al. 2006). • Effect is stronger for poor performing employees • Organizations tend put forth greater efforts to retain employees (Robbins & Judge, 2009). • High performing employees are less likely to exhibit turnover behavior • Work and social involvement are tied to performance (Harrison et al., 2006). Job Attitudes and Behavior

16. Relevant Concepts, Models, and Theories • Organizational Commitment • Positive emotional state resulting from shared beliefs and values (Harrison et al., 2006). • An individual’s degree of organizational identification and involvement (Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974). • The three most acknowledged types of organizational commitment: • Affective commitment • Degree to which one relates to the organization’s values and is emotionally integrated(Meyer & Allen, 1984). • Most strongly related to organizational outcomes of the three • Normative commitment. • Belief that being committed is moral and ethical (Allen & Meyer, 1990). • Strongly related to organizational outcomes for new employees and moderately for older employees (Robbins & Judge, 2009). • Continuance commitment • Involves the economic need for the employee to remain with the organization • As well as the degree of difficulty in leaving one organization for another (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005).

17. Relevant Concepts, Models, and Theories • Job Identification • Degree of psychological identification with one’s own job and • Association of one’s performance with self-worth (Robbins & Judge, 2009). • Positively related to job performance • Negatively related to turnover • Organizational commitment (r = .73) and job satisfaction (r = .78) • Yet demonstrates discriminate validity along with job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Brooke et al., 1988; Mathieu & Farr, 1991). • Other Job Attitudes • Perceived organizational support • Employee engagement Job Attitudes and Behavior

18. Application • Due to: • The relationship between attitudes and behaviors: • The theoretical and empirical support for the notion that job attitudes impact job performance and turnover • Focus on job attitudes • Antecedents and outcomes Job Attitudes and Behavior

19. Application • Measuring Job Satisfaction • Minnesota Job Satisfaction Questionnaire • Twenty scales including ability utilization, co-workers, moral values, achievement, creativity, recognition, activity, independence, responsibility, advancement, security, supervision-human relations, authority, social service, supervision-technical, company policies, social status, variety, compensation, and working conditions. • Using a multidimensional measure • To capture the specific aspects that are lacking and can be enhanced by the organization Job Attitudes and Behavior

20. Application • Measuring Organizational Commitment • Organizational Commitment Questionnaire(Porter, Crampon, & Smith, 1974). • Overlaps with job satisfaction • Covers multiple aspects of organizational commitment • Valuable for understanding specific causes to problems • Should any aspects of organizational commitment specific to this situation be absent from the OCQ • Additional items will be customized • Specifically relating to affective, continuance, or normative organizational commitment Job Attitudes and Behavior

21. Application • Measuring Job Involvement • Paullay, Alliger, and Stone-Romero’s (1994) 27-item scale • Separates job involvement into • Engagement with specific tasks • Engagement with the job environment • As with previous measures • Specific categories will be assessed to gain a more precise understanding of the situation. Job Attitudes and Behavior

22. Application • Once each category is assessed • Require attention? • Under organization’s control? • Practical to remedy? • Action plan • Many moderators are addressed in these 3 measures. • Additional items created for non-represented moderators • Represented moderators will be extracted from the measures and analyzed as moderators rather than predictors. Job Attitudes and Behavior

23. Application • Addressing Selection Issues • Individuals self-select into jobs that are compatible with their genetic composition (Arvey, 1989). • Clear depiction of the job is should be presented to applicants through a realistic job preview. • Due to the predictability of personality in: • Job satisfaction (Judge, et al., 2002) • Job performance (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998) • Certain aspects of this construct are worth adding to the current selection battery. • Conscientiousness is strongest predictor of job performance and positive job attitudes • Neuroticism possesses a respectable, negative relationship with job performance and job satisfaction Job Attitudes and Behavior

24. Application Overview • Assessment of Attitudes • Each measure will be broken down • Individual elements of job attitudes are assessed • Elements leading to poor job attitudes will be identified • Elements within the organization’s control will be extracted for further analysis. • Once sufficiently understood: • Approaches to remedy all necessary issues • and enhance specific job attitudes will be implemented. Job Attitudes and Behavior

25. Application Overview • Selection Modification • RJP and personality updates to the current selection process. • Validation, Feedback, and Modification • Following several months: • Changes assessed against outcome measures. • Specifically turnover and job performance. • Correlation and regression coefficients will be assessed and feedback will be sought. • Considering the data and feedback, additional alterations may take place to further enhance job attitudes and its relationship with turnover and performance. Job Attitudes and Behavior

26. References • Allport, G. W. (1979). The nature of prejudice (25th anniversary ed.). Cambridge, MA: Peruses. • Arvey, R. D., Miller, H. E., Gould, R., & Burch, P. (1987). Interview validity for selecting sales clerks. Personnel Psychology, 40, 1–12. • Avolio, B. J., & Barrett, G. V. (1987). Effects of age stereotyping in a simulated interview. Psychology and Aging, 2, 56–63. • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. • Butler, R. N. (1969). Age-ism: Another form of bigotry. The Gerontologist, 9, 243-246. • Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on desegregation. In M. Hewstone & R. J. Brown (Eds.), Contact and Conflict in Intergroup Encounters (pp. 281-302). Oxford: Blackwell. • Butler, R. N. (1980). Ageism: A foreword. Journal of Social Issues, 2, 8-11. • Bytheway, B. and Johnson, J. (1990) On defining ageism. Critical Social Policy, 10, 27–39 • Chapman, L. J., & Chapman, J. P. (1967). Genesis of popular but erroneous diagnostic observations. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 72, 193-204. • Cleveland, J. N., Festa, R. M., & Montgomery, L. (1988). Applicant pool composition and job perceptions: Impact on decisions regarding an older applicant. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 112–125. • Cleveland, J. N., & Hollman, G. (1990). The effects of the agetype of tasks and incumbent age composition on job perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 181-194. • Cleveland, J. N., & Landy, F. J. (1983). The effects of person and job stereotypes on two personnel decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 609-619. • Connor, C., Walsh, R. P., Litzelman, D. K., & Alvarez, M. G. (1978). Evaluations of job applicants: The effects of age versus success. Journal of Gerontology, 33, 246-252. • Crisp, R. J., Beck, S. R. (2005). Reducing intergroup bias: the moderating role of ingroup identification. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8, 173-185. • Crisp RJ, Hewstone M. 1999. Crossed categorization and intergroup bias: context, process and social consequences. Group Proc.Int. Relat. 2:307–34. • Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1996). Affirmative action, unintentional racial biases, and intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 52, 51-76. • Feldman, J. M., Camburn, A., & Gatti, M. (1986). Shared distinctiveness as a source of illusory correlation in performance appraisal. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 34–59. • Gaertner, S. L. & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In J.F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaernter (Eds. ), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 61-89) Orlando, FL: Academic Press. • Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common in-group identity model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. • Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common in-group identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 1-26. • Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Murrell, A. J., & Pomare, M. (1990). How does • cooperation reduce intergroup bias? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 692–704. • Gaertner, S., Mann, J., Murrell, A., Dovidio, J. F. (1989). Reducing intergroup bias: The • benefits of recategorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 230- • 249. • Garstka, T. A., Branscombe, N. R., & Hummert, M. L. (1997). Age group identification aaoss the life span. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Kansas. • Gibson, K. J., Zerbe, W. J., & Franken, R. E. (1993). The influence of rater and ratee age on judgments of work-related attributes. The Journal of Psychology, 127, 271–280. • Gordon, R. A., Rozelle, R. M., & Baxter, J. C. (1988). The effect of applicant age, job level and accountability on the evaluations of job applicants. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 20-33. • Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, S. (1986). The causes and consequences of a need for self-esteem: A terror management theory. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Public and private self. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. • Greenberg, J., Schimel, J., &Martens, A. (2002). Ageism: Denying the face of the future. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Ageism: Stereotyping and prejudice against older persons (pp. 27–48). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. • Finkelstein, L. M., Burke, M. J., & Raju, N. S. (1995). Age discrimination in simulated employment contexts: An integrative analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 652–663. • Fusilier, M. R., & Hitt, M. A. (1983). Effects of age, race, sex, and employment experience on students’ perceptions of job applications. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 57, 1127–1134. • Haefner, J. R. (1977). Race, age, sex, and competence as factors in employer selection of the disadvantaged. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 199–202. • Hargreaves, M., Homer, M., Swinnerton, B. (2008). A comparison of performance and • attitudes in mathematics amongst the ‘gifted’. Are boys better at mathematics or do • they just think they are? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15, • 19-38. • Hart, J., Shaver, P. R., & Goldenberg, J. L. (2005). Attachment, self-esteem, worldviews, and terror management: Evidence for a tripartite security system. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 999-1013. • Kovel, J. (1970). White racism: A psychohistory. New York: Pantheon • Lawrence, B. S. (1988). New wrinkles in the theory of age: Demography, norms, and performance ratings. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 309-337. • Lin, T., Dobbins, G. H., & Farh, J. (1992). A field study of race and age similarity effects on interview ratings in conventional and situational interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 363–371. • Locke-Connor, C., & Walsh, R. P. (1980). Attitudes toward the older job applicant: Just as competent but likely to fail. Journal of Gerontology, 35, 920-927. • Morgeson, F. P., Reider, M. H., Campion, M. A., & Bull, R. A., Review of Research on Age Discrimination in the Employment Interview. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22, 223-232 • Nelson, T. D. (Ed.). (2002). Ageism: Stereotyping and prejudice against older persons. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. • Nelson, T. D. (2005). Ageism: prejudice against our feared future self. Journal of Social Issles, 61, 207-221. • Perry, E. L. (1994). A prototype matching approach to understanding the role of applicant gender and age in the evaluation of job applicants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1433-1473. • Perry, E. L., & Bourhis, A. C. (1998). A closer look at the role of applicant age in selection decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1670–1697. • Perry, E. L., Kulik, C. T., & Bourhis, A. C. (1996). Moderating effects of personal and contextual factors in age discrimination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 628–647. • Raza, S. M., & Carpenter, B. N. (1987). A model of hiring decisions in real employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 596–603. • Rosenthal, H. E., Crisp, R. J. (2006). Reducing stereotype threat by blurring intergroup • boundaries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 501-511. • Rosenthal, H. E., Crisp, R. J., Suen, M. W. (2007). Improving performance expectancies in stereotypic domains: Task relevance and the reduction of stereotype threat. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 586-597. • Schwab, D. P., & Heneman, H. G. III. (1978). Age stereotyping in performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63,573-578. • Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. (1954). Experimental study of positive and negative intergroup attitudes between experimentally produced groups: Cave experiment. Norman: University of Oklahoma. • Singer, M. S., & Sewell, C. (1989). Applicant age and selection interview decisions: Effect of information exposure on age discrimination in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 42, 135–154. • Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (1991). A terror management theory of social behavior: The psychological functions of self-esteem and world-views. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 91–159). New York: Academic Press. • Spence, M. Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 355-374. • Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. • Tajfel, H., Billig M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 234-242. • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worschel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks. • Weiner, Y., & Schneiderman, M. L. (1974). Use of job information as a criterion in employment decisions of interviewers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 699–704. • Weitz, S. (1972). Attitude, voice, and behavior: A repressed affect model of interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 24, 14-21 QUESTIONS?