247 middle level managers belonging to private sector organisations. ... Job satisfaction was positively related to Organisational Commitment and Trust and ...
Job Satisfaction and Organisational Commitment Relationship: Effect of Personality Variables
(Vision-Journal of Business Perspective-MDI,2013, 17 (2) 21-30,ISSN 0972-2629,Sage Publication)- Dr Shalini Srivastava
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to explore the relationship between Job Satisfaction and Organisational Commitment and to investigate the moderating effects of Trust and Locus of Control on the relationship between Job Satisfaction and Organisational Commitment. The study was administered on 247 middle level managers belonging to private sector organisations. Four validated instruments were used in the study. Statistical tools like Descriptive statistics, Factor Analysis, Pearson Product Moment Correlation and Hierarchical Regression Analysis were used to analyse the data. The study found that Job satisfaction was positively related to Organisational Commitment and Trust and Locus of Control moderated Job satisfaction and Organisational Commitment relationship. The findings of this study can assist administrator and policy makers to understand the managerial effectiveness from the perspective of personal traits. Efforts can be made to explore managers’ perception towards themselves and their roles. The future academic endeavours might make use of the present study as a stepping-stone for further exploratory and confirmatory research toward a more complete understanding of the satisfaction considerations in particular.
Key Words: Research Paper, Organisational Commitment, Locus of Control, Trust, Job Satisfaction, Private sector managers.
Organisations over the years are confronting with one of the toughest challenge of having a committed workforce in order to feature in the worldwide economic competition. The factors that lead to Organisational Commitment has suddenly started gaining a lot of attention. In a nonprofessional’s word, commitment is nothing but a positive attitude towards something. Some authors have argued that organizational commitment, as a construct, is too broad for effective organizational analyses (Benkhoff, 1997). In response, Meyer and Alien (1991) proposed a distinction between the dimensions of affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment. Affective commitment refers to employees' perceptions of their emotional attachment to or identification with their organization. Continuous commitment refers to employees' perceptions of the costs associated with leaving the organization. Finally, normative commitment refers to employees' perceptions of their obligation to their organization. For instance, if an organization is loyal to the employee or has supported his/her educational efforts, the employee may report higher degrees of normative commitment. " This reflects a difference between a preference to stay with the present organization arising out of a sense of attachment, compared to one rooted in a sense of economic necessity or of moral obligation" (Gallie, Felstead, & Green, 2001, p. 1085). This three-pronged classification allows for identification of the underlying basis for each type of commitment and researchers have clarified the unique antecedents and outcomes related to each type (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). Like job satisfaction, reliable measures of the three types of commitment has also been developed and validated (Meyer & Allen, 1994). Job satisfaction It is a positive feeling towards one’s job. In the works of Newsstrom (2007), “Job Satisfaction is a set of favourable or unfavourable feelings and emotions with which employees' view their work”. An employee's interpretation of values may vary regarding satisfaction or dissatisfaction. For example, some employees may feel a sense of accomplishment in their jobs while other employees’ may not. The finding by Hackman and Oldham’s (1980) was found to be similar. They surveyed blue and white-collar workers and determined that completing interesting tasks was not as important as job security and compensation for blue-collar employees. The findings also indicated that interesting and varied assignments were of higher importance to white-collar workers when compared to blue-collar
workers (Hackman and Oldham, 1980).
Trust
There is a evidence that workers of all generations are sceptical of their organisations and have many reasons for their distrust.(Brandes, Castro, James, Martinez, Matherly, Ferris, & Hochwarter, 2008). In addition to the growing acceptance that trust is a multi-dimensional concept, organizational researchers are starting to realize that just like organizational commitment, trust has multiple bases and foci or referents. McCauley and Kuhnet (1992) identified the notion that trust consists of lateral and vertical elements. Lateral trust according to them was the relationship among the employees whereas, vertical trust referred to the trust amongst the employee, his supervisor, his subordinates and top management. The pervasiveness of trust and distrust in the workplace is well documented in the literature (e.g., Kanter, 1977; Barber 1983; Sitkin and Roth, 1993; Fox, 1974; Kramer, 1996, Kramer and Tyler, 1996, Whitner et al., 1998). The extant research focuses on how subordinates’ trust in managers affect their (i.e., subordinates’) perceptions, behaviour and job related outcomes (e.g., Ross, 1994, Fulk, Brief and Bair, 1985). However, according to our knowledge, research on the question of how managers’ trust in subordinates may influence the managers’ control behaviour (i.e., how the managers control subordinates when they trust and distrust) is extremely rare.
Locus of Control Locus of Control refers “to the extent to which people believe them or external factors such as chance and powerful others are in control of the events that influences their lives” (Firth, Mellor, Moore and Loquet, 2004). One of the most important variables that has been extensively researched in organisational settings is Locus of Control. Numerous researches has opined that employees with internal locus of control are more contended with their jobs, they are less stressed and resulting in alongated job term (Spector,1982). A study done in the past revealed that employes with internal locus of control owned the authority to make judgement and perceive challenges as an opportunity for knowledge and professional development (Knoop, 1981). In contrast, someone with an external locus of control would close the eyes to these challenges due to their intellect that learning will not have a bang on him or her.
Findings of a study by Judge et al. (1998) firmed that locus of control is highly linked with selfefficacy. They define self-efficacy as one's estimation of one's potential to marshal the motivation, cognitive capital, and route of action needed to implement general rule over events in one’s life. Job Satisfaction and Organisational Commitment
Numerous studies use different facets of satisfaction to predict employee attributes such as
performance,
organisational
commitment,
and
service
quality.(Dienhart
&
Gregoire,1993;Oshagbemi,2000a,200b;Yousef,1998).It is a debateable issue whether job satisfaction is the predictor of organisational commitment or vice versa. Several researchers have made the case that job
satisfaction
is
a
predictor
of
organisational
commitment
(Porter,Steers,Mowdy,
&
Boulian,1974;Price,1977;Rose,1991).Slattery & Selvarajan (2005) examined the associations between job satisfaction, Organisational commitment, and turnover intention among temporary employees. They found positive associations between job satisfaction and organisational commitment. Several studies have focused directly on testing tha causal relationship between Job Satisfaction and Organisational commitment (Bateman & Strasser, 1984; Curry et al., 1986; Dossett & Suszko, 1990; Farkas & Tetrick, 1989; Lance, 1991). Pettijohn, Pettijohn, Taylor and Keillor (2001), examined the relationships existing between performance appraisals, salesperson organizational commitment, and job satisfaction. If various characteristics of performance appraisals that build commitment and satisfaction could be identified, then managers may be more capable of using performance appraisals that yield positive results. A survey of 185 retail salespeople and 58 retail sales managers provided the data required to evaluate the relationship between satisfaction, commitment and various aspects of performance appraisals. The results of the study indicate that managerially mediated factors may be used to enhance salesperson job satisfaction and organizational commitment. When an employee leaves, organizations incur hiring, orientation, and decreased productivity costs as well as temporary replacement costs. Estimates of these substantial costs are 1.2 to 1.3 times the 1-year salary of a registered nurse (RN) (Jones, 2004; Jones, 2005) to replace a single RN, or up to 5% of a hospital's budget for yearly turnover costs (Waldman, Kelly, Arora, & Smith, 2004). These costs often are paid by the government as a major payer of health care costs in the United States. The present study, wants to gauge the relationship between Job Satisfaction and Organisational
Commitment. Thus, the first hypothesis for the present study is:
H1: Job-Satisfaction and Organisational Commitment will show a positive relationship. Locus of control and Organisational commitment
Locus of control is linked to a range of variables concerning internals and externals on diverse sets of principles (Spector,1982). He states that internals are devoted more to their respective organizations and are more contented with their work than those with an external locus of control. Those with an internal locus of control are also likely to continue in their jobs longer, and they have a propensity to execute better. The individual trait of locus of control was found to temperate the control of workrelated quality on job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Loscocco & Roschelle, 1991).
Locus of control and Job satisfaction
For years, industrial psychologists and organizational behaviourists have debated the influence of a person's disposition on job satisfaction. Various researchers have argued the person versus situation debate (Judge et al., 1998; Bell and Staw, 1989). Bell and Staw (1989) considered locus of control to be a dispositional (personality) trait. As a personality characteristic, internal locus of control is hypothesized to be an important variable that influences the employee. The internal-external locus of control of a person has a tremendous impact on his performance and job satisfaction (Dailey, 1980;Brownell, 1981;Kasperson, 1982). A study conducted by Dailey on scientists in the year 1980 found that scientists with an internal locus of control were more satisfied, motivated and had a high level of participation within their jobs as compared with those who had external locus of control .Those scientists were associated with low job satisfaction and psychological distress (Springer, 2000). Research has also shown that having an internal locus of control is related to organizational satisfaction (Lester and Genz, 1978; Organ and Greene, 1974; and Petersen, 1985). Internals are more inclined to take action, are better performers, and consequently receive promotions and re-wards related to their performance.
Trust and Organisational Commitment Moye (2003) examined the extent to which employee empowerment and employee commitment to the organization are related to interpersonal-level and system-level trust in the
organization. The results indicated that employees who possess higher levels of commitment to the organization also possess higher levels of interpersonal-level trust and system-level trust. Employees who feel empowered in their work environment also tend to have higher levels of interpersonal-level trust and system-level trust. Trust, Locus of Control, Job Satisfaction and Organisational Commitment relationship
An important element in building a successful organisation is trust. Organisational trust provides the basis for employee’s motivation, effective team-building, open communication, and employee retention. An employee will be committed to the organisation if he trusts the organisation of its capabilities and its limitations. When trust is a “guiding principle in the corporate culture, it provide a firm foundation to build job satisfaction and committed staff” (DerFrank & Ivancevich, 1998).When Trust becomes less than a back-and-forth commitment , there is a potential for a decrease in employees’ Job Satisfaction and Commitment to the task at hand and to the organisation as a whole. Similarly, employees with Internal Locus of Control will tend to be more satisfied with their jobs because they will try to introspect for any unpleasant situation before reacting to it. This dimension of personality will make him more adjustable and thus, will be more satisfied and committed to their job. Studies usually recommend that internal subjects have a propensity to be more contented with their job than do external ones, see their superior as higher on concern and initiating composition account less role stress, observe more sovereignty and control, and have a tendency to support elongated job term. (Spector, 1982) . Although there have been numerous studies linking job satisfaction with other personality variables, the moderating role of Trust and Locus of Control on the relationship between Job satisfaction and Organisational commitment of Managers has not received much attention. Increasing or decreasing level of trust certainly affects the intensity or the nature of relationship between Job Satisfaction and Organisational Commitment.
The present study intends to fulfil this vacuum by testing the postulation that Trust and locus of control serves as a moderator for Job satisfaction and Organisational commitment relationship. Thus, the hypothesis are:
H2:
Trust moderates the effect of Job satisfaction on Organisational Commitment.
H3:
Internal Locus of control moderates the effect of Job satisfaction on Organisational Commitment
Objectives of the study: The study aims to examine Job-Satisfaction and Organisational Commitment relationship and the moderating effects of Internal Locus of control and Trust on Job-Satisfaction and Organisational Commitment relationship.
Conceptual model of Hypotheses: Based on the research presented in the literature review, a conceptual model is developed. The model postulates the relationship between Job Satisfaction and Organisational Commitment and the moderating effects of Trust and Internal Locus of control.
Independent Variable Job Satisfaction
Moderating Variables H1 +ve H2
+ve
H3
Dependent Variable Organisational Commitment
+ve
Trust Internal Locus of Control
Fig.1: Conceptual Model of Hypotheses Method:
The present study was done on middle level managers. They belonged to BPO, Banks and IT Sectors. The sample size was 247. Descriptive statistics along with Exploratory Factor Analysis, Pearson Product Moment Correlation and Regression Analysis was used for data analysis.
Measures:
Organisational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ): A 15 item scale developed by Mowdy, Steers and Porter (1979) was used for the study. It examines the possible feelings the individuals may have about the organisation for which they work and is measured on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 'strongly disagree'(1) to 'strongly agree'. (7). The Cronbach ά was found to be .76 for this scale.
Job Satisfaction survey (JSS): The Scale was developed by Paul E.Spector (1985).It is a 36 item, nine facet scale to assess employee attitudes about the job and aspects of the job. Each facet is assessed with four items, and a total score is computed from all items. The scale was significantly related to workplace factors such as Pay, Promotion, Supervision, Fringe benefits, Contingent Rewards, Operation Procedures, Co-workers, Nature of work, Communication.The Cronbach ά was found to be .84 for this scale.
Trust Questionnaire: The Trust Questionnaire developed by Robinson (1996)was used to measure the level of Commitment .The scale consists of 7 items .Examples of the items include An example item is In general, I believe my supervisor’s motives and intentions are good, My supervisor is open and upfront with me. The Cronbach ά was found to be .86 for this scale.
Locus of Control Inventory (LOCO): Udai Pareek (1992) developed this scale. The LOCO inventory has 10 items each for internality, externality (others), and externality (luck). A 5-point scale is used in scoring responses ranging from “hardly feel” (0) to “Strongly feel” (4). The three dimensions of Locus of control are: Internal (I), External (E-O), External (E-C). The Cronbach ά was found to be .86 for this scale.
Results As the KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) measure of sampling adequacy was found to be adequate (0.60), and the Bartlett test of sphericity as significant, it indicated that factor analysis can be conducted Factor Analysis with principal axis factoring method and varimax rotation was then used to cluster the variables into several factors related to Job Satisfaction Scale and Locus of Control Scale. A minimum Eigen value of one (1) was used in the factor analysis in order to control the number of factors extracted.. Only Six (6) factors in the section of Job Satisfaction and one in the section of Locus of Control were retained and interpreted. These factors are depicted in Table 1 and Table 2.
Table 1: Factor Analysis of Job Satisfaction Scale Rotated Factor Matrix
Factors Items
1
2
3
4
5
6
Pay 1 Pay 2 Pay 3 Pay 4 Prom 1 Prom 2 Prom 3 Prom 4 Sup 1 Sup 2 Sup 3 Sup 4 Fr.B 1 Fr.B 2 Fr.B 3 Fr.B 4 Co-w 1 Co-w 2 Co w 3 Co w 4 CoR 1 Co R 2 Co R 3 Co R 4
0.426 0.773 0.528 0.624 0.458 0.732 0.713 0.624 0.624 0.538 0.618 0.724 0.534 0.628 0.462 0.726 0.427 0.624 0.532 0.626 0.423 0.511 0.624 0.528
EigenValues 2.46 2.24 2.18 2.02 1.96 1.68 %age of Variance 14.26 14.02 13.98 13.26 12.82 12.26 Note:Prom=Promotion;Sup=Superiors;Fr.B=FringeBenefits;Cow=Co-Workers;CoR=Contingent Rewards Factor Analysis of Job Satisfaction Scale is depicted in Table 1.The Six factors namely Pay, Promotion, Superiors, FringeBenefits, Co-Workers, Contingent Rewards accounted for 14.26,14.02.13.98,13.26,12.82 and 12.26 respectively.The total variance explained by these factors in combination explained 80.6 percent of variance.
Table 2: Factor Analysis of Locus of Control Scale Rotated Factor Matrix Factor Item
1
ILOC 1 ILOC 2 ILOC 3 ILOC 4 ILOC 5 ILOC 6
0.528 0.452 0.624 0.527 0.728 0.624
ILOC 7 ILOC 8 ILOC 9 ILOC 10
0.436 0.612 0.522 0.458
Eigen Value
3.18
Note: ILOC=Internal Locus of Control
Principal component analysis with varimax rotation revealed only one factor with Eigen value of 3.18 was sorted out. The Factor identified from the data was Internal Locus of control.
Table 3: Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Correlations among the Variables (N=247) Variables
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
OC
0.76
Pay
.38**
0.75
Prom
.42**
.26**
0.73
Sup
.46**
.63**
.44**
0.82
Fr.B
.24**
.56**
.48*
.36**
0.73
Cow
.42**
.39**
.28**
.32**
.32**
0.76
Co-R
.36**
.19*
.35**
.28**
.32**
.42**
0.68
JS
.72**
.64**
.56**
.68**
.72**
.64**
.58**
0.84
Trust
.38**
.35**
.31**
.31**
.46**
.38**
.49**
.56**
0.76
ILOC
.48**
.54**
.62**
.56**
.47**
.56**
.37**
.62**
.44**
0.86
Mean
72.14
22.13
24.27
21.62
23.17
27.28
26.22
128
4.76
24.82
SD
15.34
7.26
8.12
6.88
7.54
8.64
8.02
24.26
1.15
8.24
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01 Note:Coeficient alphas are reported along the diagonals. OC=OrganisationalCommitment,Prom=Promotion;Sup=Superiors;Fr.B=FringeBenefits;Cow=CoWorkers;CoR=Contingent Rewards,ILOC=Internal Locus of Control Zero Order Correlation Table 4 presents the Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities, mean scores, standard deviations and he Zero-order correlations among the studies variables. As depicted in Table 3, a significant positive relationship was found between Job satisfaction and Organizational Commitment, (r=.72, p < 0.01) thereby supporting Hypothesis 1.
Hierarchical regression Analysis
To test the main effect and find if Trust and internal Locus of Control moderates the relationship between Job Satisfaction and Organisational Commitment, a hierarchical moderated regression analysis was conducted. Table 4: Hierarchical Regression Analysis with Trust as a Moderating Variable Variables Step 1 Independent Variables Pay Promotion Supervision Fringe Benefits Co-Workers Contingent Rewards Job Satisfaction Step 2 Moderating Variables Trust Step 3 Interaction Term Pay * Trust Promotion* Trust Supervision* Trust Fringe Benefits* Trust Co-workers* Trust Contingent Rewards* Trust Job Satisfaction* Trust
Beta
R² 0.266
Adj R² 0.252
R² Change 0.266
F Change 0.000
0.584
0.582
0.318
0.000
0.872
0.866
0.288
0.000
0.43** 0.24** 0.28* 0.32** 0.26* 0.42** 0.72** 0.38**
0.34** 0.28** 0.31** 0.26** 0.32** 0.34** 0.43**
Note: ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.0
As indicated in Step 1, in the coefficient of determination (R2) was found to be 0.26 indicating that Job Satisfaction explains 26.6% of Organisational Commitment. In step 2, by adding Trust as independent variables, the R2 increased to 58.4% which was found to be significant. It can thus be implied that the additional 31.8% of the variation in Organisational commitment is explained by Trust. As can be seen from Table 4, Job Satisfaction had a positive relationship with Organisational Commitment, which proves our first hypothesis. The interactive effects of trust and various dimensions of Job Satisfaction on predicting Organisational Commitment was also examined in the last step of hierarchical regression. It can be seen that the additional variance explained by the interaction term of 28.8% was significant at .01 level. The result
derived from the final step proved our second hypothesis of the study that Trust serves as a moderator for Job Satisfaction and Organisational Commitment relationship.
Table 4: Hierarchical Regression Analysis with Internal Locus of Control as a Moderating Variable Variables Step 1 Independent Variables Pay Promotion Supervision Fringe Benefits Co-Workers Contingent Rewards Job Satisfaction Step 2 Moderating Variables ILOC Step 3 Interaction Term Pay * ILOC Promotion* ILOC Supervision* ILOC Fringe Benefits* ILOC Co-workers* ILOC Contingent Rewards Job Satisfaction* ILOC
Beta
R²
Adj R²
R² Change
F Change
0.266
0.252
0.266
0.000
0.764
0.762
0.498
0.000
0.936
0.929
0.172
0.000
0.43** 0.24** 0.28* 0.32** 0.26* 0.42** 0.72** 0.48**
.24** .32** .18** .19** .20** .34** .46**
Note: ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.0
When Internal Locus of Control was entered into the equation in order to gauge its impact on the Organisational Commitment, it was perceived that the R2 increased from 26.6% to 76.4% .Thus, it explains that 49.8% of change which is significant at .01 level is due to Internal Locus of Control. In the last step, it can be seen that the additional variance explained by the interaction term of 17.2% which was significant at .01 level proved our third hypothesis of the study that Internal Locus of control serves as a moderator for Job Satisfaction and Organisational Commitment relationship.
Figure 2 further shows the finding summary of the regression analyses.
Independent Variable
Moderating Variables
Dependent Variable
β=0.72**
Job Satisfaction
β=0.38**
β=0.48**
Organisational Commitment
Trust Internal Locus of Control
Fig.2: Findings Summary of regression
Discussion and Conclusion:
The foremost aim of the current study was to find out the effect of Job satisfaction on Organisational commitment and explore the moderating outcome of Trust and Locus of control on Job Satisfaction and organisational Commitment relationship. Results of the study have proved the hypotheses. The result derived that Job Satisfaction is positively related to Organisational Commitment. The result found has found a strong evidence from the study done in the past. (Koslowsky et al., 1991,Knoop, 1995; Shore & Martin, 1989). The moderating roles of Trust and Locus of control between Job satisfaction and Organisational Commitment relationship, has not received much attention in earlier studies. Though few studies has supported the relationship between organisational commitment and trust, (Buch & Aldridge, 1991; Robinson, 1996; Rousseau, 1989), Locus of control and Job Satisfaction ((Dailey, 1980; Brownell, 1981; Kasperson, 1982 Lester and Genz, 1978; Organ andGreene, 1974; and Petersen, 1985 ,Salancik and Heffer,1978),Locus of Control and Organisational Commitment ( Coleman, Irving & Cooper, 1999; Spector, 1988; Witt, 1990). Both the moderating effects of Trust and Locus of Control has not been studied as per my knowledge.The present study derived that Managers with Internal Locus of control are more satisfied with their jobs and hence they are more committed towards their Organisation. Managers with Internal locus of control will be able to handle stressful situations more
effectively and thus, will be more efficient. Similarly, Manager's trust in the Organisation has a positive impact on Job Satisfaction and Organisational Commitment relationship. Trust helps in making a satisfied employee more committed to the organisation.
The previous work shows that the present study is the first to consider the moderating effect of Locus of Control and Trust on Job Satisfaction-Organisational Commitment relationship.
Managerial Implications The findings of this study can assist administrator and policy makers to understand the managerial effectiveness from the perspective of personal traits. Efforts can be made to explore managers’ perception towards themselves and their roles. Managers can be helped to develop control over the situation instead of
being externally controlled. Trust can help in strengthening the link between
organisational commitment and Job satisfaction. A managers who has an internal locus of control will tend to be more satisfied and thus, his behaviour will reflect commitment towards the organisation.For an Organisation its is the need of an hour because a committed staff will lead to an healthy organisation.
Limitations and Scope for future study
One of the most important limitation of the present study is the impact of gender on job Satisfaction and Organisational Commitment could not be ascertained. The literature shows that women are bound to be more dominated by external control than men.(Jones and Page,1986; Linder,1986; Doherty and Baldwin, 1985). A comparative study between public sector organisation and private sector organisation probably could have thrown more light in this context. The future academic endeavours might make use of the present study as a stepping stone for further exploratory and confirmatory research toward a more complete understanding of the satisfaction considerations in particular.
References
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J.P. 1990. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology,
63(1): 18-38. Bagozzi, R. P. 1980. Performance and satisfaction in an industrial sales force: An examination of their antecedents and simultaneity. Journal of Marketing, 15(4): 65-67. Bartol, K. M.1979. Professionalism as a predictor of organizational commitment, role stress, turnover: A multidimensional approach. Academy of Management Journal, 22: 815-821.
and
Bateman, T. S., & Strasser, S. 1984. A longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1): 95-112. Becker, H. S.1960. Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology,66: 32-40. Bell, N. and Staw, B. (1989). People as sculptors versus sculpture: The roles of personal and personal control in organizations. In J. Ott (Ed.), Classic readings in organizational behavior (365-378). Florida: Harcourt Brace & Company. Benkhoff, B. (1997). Disentangling organizational commitment. Personnel Review, 26, 114-131. Brandes,P.,Castro,S.L.,James,M.,,Martinez,A.D.,,Matherly,T.A.,Ferris,G.R.,Hochwarter,W.2008.Interac tive effects of job insecurity and organisational cynicism on work effort following layoff.Journal of Leadership and Organisational Studies,14,233-247. Brown, S. P., & Peterson, R. A. 1994. The effect of effort on sales performance and jobsatisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 58(2): 70-80. Brownell, P. (1981). Participation in budgeting, locus of control and organizational effectiveness. The accounting review, 56,844-860. Cooke, D. K. (1997). Discriminant validity of the organizational commitment questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 80, 431-441. Curry, J.P., Wakefield, D.S., Price, J.L., & Mueller, C.W. 1986. On the causal order of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 29:847-858. Dailey, R. (1980). Relationship between locus of control, task characteristics, and work attitudes. Psychological reports, 47, 855-861. DeCotiis, T.A., & Summers, T. P. 1987. The path analysis of a model of the antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment. Human Relations. 40(7): 445-470. DeFrank R. and Ivancevich J, (1998), Stress on the Job: An executive update, Academy of Management Executive, 12(2), 55-56. Dienhart, J. R.& Gregoire, M.B.(1993),”Job satisfaction, Job involvement, job security, and Customer focus of Quick-service Restaurant Employees”, Hospitality Research Journal;16(2),29-44
Dossett, D.J., & Suszko, M. 1990. Re-examing the causal direction between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for industrial and Organizational Psychology, Miami, Fl. Dunham, R.B., Grube, J.A., & Castaneda, M. B.1994. Organizational commitment: The utilityof an integrative definition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(3): 370-380. Farkas, A.J., & Tetrick, L.E. 1989. A three-wave longitudinal analysis of thecausal ordering of satisfaction and commitment on turnover decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74:855-868. Firth, L., Mellor, D. J., Moore, K. A., Loquet, C., (2004), "How can Managers Reduce Employee Intention to Quit?" Journal Managerial Psychology, 19.1/2, pp.170 – 87. Fox, A., 1974, Beyond Contract: Work, Power and Trust Relations, Faber and Faber Limited:London. Fulk, J., Brief, A.P., And Barr, S.H. “Trust-In-Supervisor And Perceived Fairness And Accuracy Of Performance Evaluations” In Journal Of Business Research, 13, 299-313. Gallie, D., Felstead, A., & Green, F. (2001). Employer policies and organizational commitment in Britain 1992-97. Journal of Management Studies, 38, 1081-1101. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley. Jones, C.B. (2005). The costs of nurse turnover, part 2: Application of the nursing turnover cost calculation methodology. Journal of Nursing Administration, 35(1), 41-49. Judge, T., Locke, E., Durham, C., and Kluger, A. (1998). Dispositional effects on job sat- isfactions and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of applied psy- chology, 83, 17-34. Kanter, R. M. 1977. Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books. Kanter, R. M. 1977. Men and women of the Corporation. New York: Basic BooksKollock, P, 1994, The Emergence of Exchange Structures: An Experimental Study of Uncertainty, Commitment, and Trust, American Journal of Sociology, 100(2), pp313-45. Kasperson, C. (1982). Locus of control and job dissatisfaction.Psychological reports,50, 823-826. Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. 2001. The impact of cultural values on job satisfaction and organizational commitment in self-managing work teams: The mediating role of employee resistance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(3): 557-569. Knoop, R. (1981). Locus of control as a moderator between job characteristics and job attitudes. Psychological reports, 48,519-525. Knoop, R.1995. Relationships among job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment for nurses. The Journal of Psychology, 129(6): 643-649. Koslowsky, M., Caspy,T., & Lazar, M. 1991. Cause and effect explanations of job satisfaction and commitment: The case of exchange commitment. The Journal ofPsychology,125(2): 153-162.
Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 16-38.
Research, Sage,
Lance, C.E 1991. Evaluation of a structural model relating job satisfaction,organizational commitment, and precursors to voluntary turnover. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26: 137-162. Locke, E.A. 1976. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology: 1297-1349. New York: John Wiley. Loscocco, K.A., & Roschelle, A.R. (1991). Influences on the quality of work and nonwork life: Two decades in review. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39, 182-225. Lowe, W. C., & Barnes, F. B. (2002). An examination of the relationship between leadership practices and organizational commitment in the fire service. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 7, 30-56. Luthans, F., Baack, D., & Taylor, L.1987. Organizational commitment: Analysis of antecedents. Human Relations, 40(4): 219-236. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A.1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley. Mathieu, J. E., & Hamel, K. 1989. A causal model of the antecedents of organizational commitment among professionals and nonprofessionals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 34: 299-317. Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M.1990. A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2): 171- 194. Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., and Topolnyutsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52. Mccauley, D. P. & Kuhnert, K. W. (1992). A theoretical review and empirical investigation of employee trust in management. Public AdministrationQuarterly, 16(2), 265-282. McFarlane Shore, L. & Tetrick, L.E. (1994). The psychological contract as an explanatory framework in the employment relationship, In: Cooper, C.L. and Rousseau, D.M.Trends in Organizational Behavior, Vol, 1, pp. 91-109, John Wiley & Sons, London
McKnight, H.D., Cummings, L.L. and Chervany, N.L. (1998), “Initial trust formation in new organizational relationship”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 473-90. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. 1984. Testing the “side-bet theory” of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 372-378. Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Gellatly, I.R. 1990. Affective and continuance commitment to the organization: Evaluation of measures and analysis of concurrent and time-lagged relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 710-720. Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W. & Dubin, R. 1974. Unit performance, situational factors and employee attitudes in spatially separated work units. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12: 231248. Moye, M.J. (2003). The relationship of employee empowerment and commitment to the organization to interpersonal and system-level trust, Dissertation-Abstracts-International:- Section-B, The Sciencesand-Engineering, 64 (4-B): 1931. Newstrom,Davis (2007),Organisation Behaviour,Tata McGrawHill Publishing Co LtdNorthcraft & Neale (1996),op.cit,pp-472 O’Brien,G.E.(1983),”LocusofControl,work,andretirement,”inLefcourt,H.M.(Eds),Research in Locus of Control,Academic Press,New York,NY,Vol.3 Organ, D. and Greene, C., (1974), “Role Ambiguity, Locus of Control and Work Satisfaction,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 59.pp.101 – 102. Organ,D.W.The Motivational Basis of Organisational Citizenship Behaviour.In B.M. Staw and L.L. Cummings (Eds.),Research in Organisational Behaviour.Greenwich,Connecticut.Jai Press,1990. Oshagbemi,T.(200b), “Is length of service Related to the level of Job Satisfaction?’International Journal of Social Economics,27(3),213-226. Pestonjee, D. M. and Singh, G. P., (1992), EDP Managers: An Organisational Behaviour Study, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. Pestonjee, D. M., Singh, A. P., and Singh, S. P., (1981a), “Attitude towards Union as Related to Morale and Job Involvement,” International Review of Applied Psychology, 30., pp.209 - 216. Pettijohn, C.E.; Pettijohn, L.S.; Taylor, A.J. (2000). An exploratory analysis of salesperson perceptions of the criteria used in performance appraisals, job satisfaction and organizational commitment, Journalof-Personal-Selling-and- Sales-Management, 20 (2): 77-80. Porter, L. W., Crampton, W. J., & Smith, F. J.1976. Organizational commitment and managerial turnover: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15: 87-98. Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. 1974. Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59: 603-609.
Price,J.L. (1977),The study of Turnover, Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Reichers, A. E.1985. A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Review, 10(3): 465-476. Robbins,Judge & Sanghi (2007),Organisation Behaviour,Pearson Education Rose, R.W.(1991).Comparisons of Employee Turnover in Food and Beverage and other Departments in Hotel Properties, Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertations Services Rotter, J.B.1966. Generalized Expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1): 1-28. Sheldon, M. E.1971. Investments and involvements as mechanisms producing commitment to the organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16: 143-150. Shore, L. M., & Martin, H. J. 1989. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment in relation to work performance and turnover intentions. Human Relations, 42: 625-638. Sitkin,S.B., and Roth,N.L.1993.Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic “remedies” for trust/mistrust.Organisation science 4:367-392 Slattery and Selvarajan (2005), “Antecedents to Temporary Employee’s Turnover Intentions ,”Submitted for possible inclusion in the program for the Organisation Behaviour and Organisational Theory track at the March 31-April 2,2005 Midwest Academy of Management’s Annual Meeting. Spector, P. E.1982. Behavior in organizations as a function of employee’s locus of control. Psychological Bulletin, 91(3): 482-497. Steers, R.M. (1977), “Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 46-56. Testa, M. R. 2001. Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and effort in the serviceenvironment. The Journal of Psychology, 135(2): 226-236. Wahn, Judy C. 1998. Sex differences in the continuance component of organizational commitment. Group and Organization Management, 23(3): 256-266. Waldman, J.D., Kelly, F., Arora, S., & Smith, H.L. (2004). The shocking cost of turnover in Hhealth care. Health care. Health Care health Care. Health Management Review, 29(1), 2-7. Care Management Review, 29(1), 2-7. Welsh, H. P., & LaVan, H. 1981. Inter-relationships between organizational commitment and job characteristics, job satisfaction, professional behavior, and organizational climate. Human Relations, 34: 1079-1089. Whitener, M.E., Brodt, E.S., Korsgaard, A.M. and Werner, M.J. (1998), “Managers as initiators oftrust: an exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 513-30.
Whitney, J.D. (1994), The Trust Factor: Liberating Profits and Restoring Corporate Vitality, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Wong, C., Hui, C., & Law, K. S.1995. Causal relationship between attitudinal antecedents toturnover. Academy of Management Journal, Best Paper Proceedings, 342-348.
