UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

On the nature of job involvement : an inquiry into its antecedent and consequent conditions Baba, Vishwanath Venkataraman 1980

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
UBC_1980_A1 B33.pdf [ 8.28MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0094977.json
JSON-LD: 1.0094977+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0094977.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0094977+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0094977+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0094977+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0094977 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0094977.txt
Citation
1.0094977.ris

Full Text

ON THE NATURE OF JOB INVOLVEMENT: AN INQUIRY INTO ITS ANTECEDENT AND CONSEQUENT CONDITIONS by VISHWANATH VENKATARAMAN BABA B.E., University of Madras, 1969 M.B.A., Western Illinois University, 1972 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (THE FACULTY OF COMMERCE AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1979 cj Vishwanath Venkataraman Baba, 1979 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Commerce and Business Administration The University of British Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date September 4, 1979 Abstract The study undertook to examine empirically the casual influence of certain individual difference factors and situational factors on job involvement and the effect of job involvement on job related effort. In addition, the role of certain individual difference and situational factors as moderators on the above linkage was explored. A theoretical model was developed with need for achievement, locus of control, job scope and participation in decision making as casual antecedents of job involvement and job related effort as its consequence. The moderator effects of age, education, sex and leader behavior on the above linkage were also studied. The model hypothesized a positive relationship between job involve ment and need for achievement, internal locus of control, job scope, partici pation in decision making, and job related effort. In addition, the causal linkage was expected to be stronger for: 1. older people, 2. more educated workers, 3. males, and 4. those who function in a leadership climate of high consideration and structure. Data were gathered from two different groups through structured questionnaires. The pilot sample consisted of employees from organizations in the electronics industry located in the greater Montreal area. The validation sample consisted of people enrolled in the evening program in busi ness administration in the two major anglophone universities in Quebec. All of them held full time jobs. Only anglophone respondents were included in the analysis. The pilot sample size was 139 with a response rate of 47% while the validation sample size was 170 with a response rate of 68%. Convergent and discriminant validation and internal consistency reliability tests indicated that the scales used in this study possessed acceptable psychometric properties. Path analysis, correlations and subgroup analysis were used to test the various hypotheses generated in this study. The results offered only moderate support to c. the :c aus all-model originally proposed. The hypotheses suggesting positive relation ships between the predictors and the criterion variables were all confirmed. Age, education, sex and leadership behavior failed to moderate the causal linkage in the hypothesized direction. There were no significant moderator effects. Based on the empirical findings, the original model was revised and tested. The results endorsed the validity of the revised model. The implications of the findings were discussed and possible future courses of action outlined. Table of Contents Abstract Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures Acknowledgements Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1 Nature of the Construct 1.2 Review of the Literature 1.2.1 Individual Difference Factors 1.2.1.1 Age 1.2.1.2 Education 1.2.1.3 Sex 1.2.1.4 Locus of Control 1.2.1.5 Tenure 1.2.1.6 Community Size 1.2.1.7 Protestant Ethic 1.2.1.8 Higher Order Need Strength 1.2.1.9 Marital Status 1.2.2 Situational Factors 1.2.2.1 Job Scope 1.2.2.2 Participation in Decision Making 1.2.2.3 Job Level 1.2.2.4 Leader Behavior 1.2.2.5 Social Factors 1.2.3.Outcome Variables 1.2.3.1 Job Satisfaction 1.2.3.2 Effort 1.2.3.3 Performance 48 1.2.3.4 Turnover 50 1.2.3.5 Absenteeism .'51 1.2.3.6 Success1.3 Job Involvement as a Moderator .52 1.4 The Dynamics of Job Involvement 54 1.5 Methodological Aspects in Job Involvement Research .55 1.5.1 Sample -'55' 1.5.2 Measurement 55 1.5.3 Analytical Techniques 57 1.5.4 Reliability and Validity 8 1.6 Conclusion 5Chapter 2. Development'.of "theoTheoreticall'Models 60 2.1 Theoretical Perspectives on Job Involvement 60 2.1.1 Job Involvement as an Individual Difference 60 Variable 2.1.2 Job Involvement as a Function of the Situation 61 2.1.3 Job Involvement as an Individual-Situation .61 Outcome - ; 2.2 Development of the Theoretical Model 62; Chapter 3, Research Hypotheses 67 Chapter 4. Research .Design.. -72 4.1 Setting and Samples 74.2 Data Collection 72 4.3 Measurement 7 4.3.1 Individual Difference Factors 74.3.1.1 Demographics 77 4.3.1.2 Need for Achievement 74.3.1.3 Locus of Control •8o 4.3.2 Situational Factors 82 vi 4.3.2.1-. Job Scope 82 4.3.2.2. Participation in Decision Making 84 4.3.3. Situational Moderator 84.3.3.1, Leadership 84 4.3.4, Criterion Variables 85 4.3.4.1. Job Involvement4.3.4.2,. Effort 87 4.4. Procedure 90 Chapter 5 Analysis and Results 93 5.1 Psychometric Properties of the Scales 93 5.1.1 Need for Achievement 95.1.2 Locus of Control 4 5.1.3. Job Scope 95.1.4 Participation in Decision Making 94 5.1.5 Leadership 95.1.6 Job Involvement 4 5.1.7 Effort 6 5.1.8 Convergent and Discriminant Validation 96 5.2 Tests of Hypotheses 98 5.3 Revision of the Original Model 111 Chapter 6 Discussion and Conclusions 117 Bibliography 125 Appendix l:''c'W.bxk'^tt£tude^.Sttrve.yi^6stio.nna-ire 138 Appendix 2 Formula for Comparison of Regression Coefficients 163 vii List of Tables Page 1. Review of Empirical Research g 2. Variables in Job Involvement Research •39 3. Frequency Distribution for Demographics 75 4. Intercorrelation Matrix of Dependent and Independent 95 : Variables 5. Multiscale Multimethod Matrix for Convergent and 97 Discriminant Validity and Reliability viii List of Figures Page 1. Interest in the Job Involvement Construct 2 in the Empirical Literature 2. Conceptual Model of Job Involvement 63 3. Operational Model of Job Involvement 8 4. Path Analysis - Pilot Data 100 5. Path Analysis - Validation Data 101 6. Subgroup Path Analysis - Pilot Data Moderated by Age 105 7. Subgroup Path Analysis - Validation Data Moderated by Age 106 8. Subgroup Path Analysis - Pilot Data Moderated by Sex 107 9. Subgroup Path Analysis - Validation Data Moderated by Sex 108 10. Subgroup Path Analysis - Pilot Data Moderated by Education 109 11. Subgroup Path Analysis - Validation Data Moderated by 110 Education 12. Subgroup Path Analysis - Pilot Data Moderated by 112 Leadership 13. Subgroup Path Analysis - Validation Data Moderated by 113 Leadership 14. FinallRevised Path Model 115 ix Ac knowled g ement s My first exposure to job involvement was when Professor Vance Mitchell walked into my office at U.B.C., gave me some puzzling results and asked me to try writing them up. I did some homework and a few days later went back to his office and said I could not write the paper as the results defied both the existing literature and common sense. He sat back, chuckled and asked me to sit down. There began my apprenticeship with Professor Mitchell and my acquaintance with job involvement. We published that paper! From that day on to the very end, Professor Mitchell was a continuous source of inspiration and guidance to me and I am grateful for all the help and advice he provided as the chairman of my dissertation committee. To other members of my committee, Professors Peter Frost, David Hays, Larry Moore, Craig Pinder and Carl Sarndal belongs the credit for whatever clarity and consistency this thesis may have. Especially, Professors Peter Frost and Craig Pinder constantly helped me with encouragement and criticism through the long period of gestation. I did not always welcome their exhortation, "Try again; you can do better." But this work owes a great deal to it - and so do I. My friends and colleagues, Gary Johns and Martin Kusy, took time out from their own work to read the draft carefully and several times. Their uncompromising demand for logic in argument and presentation has benefitted every page. I appreciate their gesture. Special thanks go to Ms. Susan Regan who edited the draft version of the thesis and suggested several improvements of semantics and syntax. X Her efforts at improving my grammar bear evidence in this work. Both Ms. Sandy Pritchard and Ms. Susan Regan coped with my handwriting and endless changes to the manuscript. With inexhaustable patience they suffered with me through all stages of this dissertation. I acknowledge their secretarial help with gratitude. Mention must be made of the support given by Professor Gunther Brink of the Department of Management at Concordia University toward completion of this thesis. As Chairman of the department he made secretarial and copying services freely available, thereby expediting the completion of this work. I would like to record my sincere thanks to him. Thanks are also due to the many participants in this study who, for obvious reasons, must remain anonymous. Without their cooperation, there would have been no dissertation. Finally, not being disposed to exhibiting private affections in public, I prefer to keep the contributions of my family toward my intellectual training to myself. Dedicated to Amma and Appa who taught me how to think; Mama and Mannimma who inspired me to pursue excell Chinnanna and Mowli who showed me the way. Every effort to understand destroys the object studied in favor of another object of a different nature; the second object requires from us a new effort which de stroys it in favor of a third, and so on and so forth until we reach the one lasting presence, the point at which the distinction between meaning and the absence of meaning disappears: the same point from which we began. Claude Levi-Strauss in Tristes Tropiques CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION It has been recently suggested that we should prepare ourselves for an alarming shortage of managerial resources in the years ahead (Miner,11973; Miner,' 1974) . The above forecast coupled with the constraints imposed upon our organizations by the increasing shortage of resources set us thinking about increasing the efficiency of our managerial processes (deWindt,. .1975; Moudgill, 1975). The efficiency of managerial processes":will come about only with a better understanding of the work related attitudes and their outcomes (Gechman, 1974). This observation sets the stage for the study presently undertaken. For more than a decade the construct of job involvement has occupied the concerns of scholars in the fields of industrial social psychology and organizational behaviour. The popularity of the construct, as indicated by the interest revealed in the empirical literature, can be seen from Figure 1. It shows the number of empirical articles on job involvement published since 1965 whenli'ddahl and Ke jner (1965) first attempted to define and measure job involvement. The present study was prompted by the increasing interest in the construct and a desire to build a conceptual model identifying the cor relates of job involvement that is both parsimonious and meaningful. The definitional aspects of the construct are first examined for any conceptual commonality. The second step is to review the empirical literature dealing with job involvement and summarize the results. Then a brief survey and criticism of the methodological issues follow. The next step is to develop a conceptual model based on the empirical studies reviewed, incorporating the relevant correlates of job involvement. From the model, several hypotheses are generated and instruments are chosen to measure the various constructs detailed in the model. The next section deals with the methods of data 2 3 collection and analysis. Finally, the empirical results are presented and their implications are discussed. 1.1 Nature of the Construct The historical beginnings of the construct of job involvement can be traced to Maslow's conception of need hierarchy (Maslow, 1943) wherein he discusses an individual's self esteem needs in the context of work. However, the credits for the explicit recognition of the construct and its original operational definition go to Lodahl and Kejner (1965). Many have attempted to define job involvement and their definitions appear to include a broad spectrum of ideas. Job involvement was mainly taken to be psychological identification with work and work as a contributor to one's self esteem (Lawler & Hall, 1970; Lodahl & Kejner, 1965; Mansfield, 1972). Allport (1947) defined job involvement as a condition in which the individual engages the "status-seeking motive" in work, while Wickert (1951) stressed the opportunity to make decisions and a feeling of contribution to the v.-.:,. organization's success to be /the main attributes of job involvement. Bass (1965) added achievement, self determination and freedom to set work pace to Wickert's definition. Slee Smith (1973) suggested '-.that job involvement meant cooperation and commitment, finding significance and achievement in work, and treating work as an outlet for both energy and skill. In addition, he included exercise of judgement, dexterity arid the right to make decisions in his definition. Farris (1971) and Wollack, Goodale, Wijting and Smith (1971) assumed aspects of the Protestant Ethic as factors in the definition of job involvement. Some researchers took the position that job involvement was a qualified moderator in the relationship between satisfaction and performance (Katz & Kahn, 1966; Rakich, 1970; Schwyhart ,& Smith,.1972) .. Weissenberg and G;r.uein'fe|d -(19:68;) termed job involvement a quasi indicator of motivation. Patchen (1970) associated high motivation and a sense of solidarity and pride 4 in work with job involvement. Similarly, French and Kahn (1962) saw involvement as the extent to which job performance was central to a person where centrality was the degree to which an ability affects self esteem =.\ Siegel (1969) also concurred with the self esteem or self worth:-idea of job involvement. The concepts of task involvement (d'Amorim & Nuttin, 1972; Drwal, 1973; Friedlander & Margulies, 1969; Trzebinski, 1974), occupational involvement (Faunce, 1959), work role involvement (Girard, 1971; Maurer, 1969), ego involvement (Brichcin & Sledr, 1974; Guion, 1958; Vroom, 1962; Wickert, 1951) and job dedication (Goodman, Rose & Furcon, 1970) also overlap with the importance attached to the job and the self esteem aspects mentioned above. In most of the above views the common thread appears to be the psychological identification with the job and a sense of self worth or self esteem in the definition of job involvement. The definitions either mention self esteem directly and link it to work or approach the same idea through "status",:"achievement", "pride", "self worth"? etc. From the foregoing it is logical to conclude that the concept of j.ob involvement has come to mean an individual's psychological identification with work wherein he::or she views work as contributory to his or her self esteem. It also became evident by the way many researchers operationalized the construct. Though it can be seen from the above discussion that many have attempted to define job involvement, serious and systematic work on the con ceptual and operational aspects of job involvement is notably absent. As it stands, there does not seem to be much agreement among researchers with regard to the theoretical nature of job involvement. Some suggested that job involve ment is a relatively stable personal characteristic (Dubin, 1956; Lodahl & Kejner, 1965; Runyon, 1973) while Vroom (1969) posited that job involvement was subject to variation depending upon situational factors. Lawler and Hall 5 (1970) expressed the opinion that it was a concept influenced by both per sonal and situational variables. There has also been disagreement with .. .regard to the multidimensionality of job involvement suggested by Lodahl and Kejner (1965). Lawler and Hall (1970) took the view that job involvement was a unique job attitude and extracted one factor for it from factor analyzing a larger scale, thus indirectly suggesting unidimentionality. However, in the light of the notion that behavior depends on personality and situational factors, and the argument that attitudes can be linked to behavior provided both of them are measured with the same degree of specificity (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977; Fishbein, 1967), it is safe to suggest that job involvement is a function of both personality and situational factors. This is also supported by empirical evidence in the literature (Cumini.ngs & Bigelow,; 1976; Lawler & Hall, 1970) . In summary, it can be said that although the studies cited above appear tO;Cover a broad spectrum of definitions, the convergence seems to be in the direction of the Lodahl and Kejner view that job involvement is one's psychological identification with one's job and perception of the job as contributory to one's self esteem. Hence the present study adopted this definition of job involvement as appropriate for its purpose. 1.2 Review of the Literature-,' A careful survey: of the literature revealed some 104 articles of an empirical nature written in the area of job involvement. A detailed summary of the 104 articles dealing with the name of the researchers, the year of publication of that particular research, the terminology used, .the instrumen tation, the nature of the sample, the val'idity.iand-.^reliability informationi the analytical techniques ".used and their findings fiare; presented" in Table 1. : For the purpose of this review, it is necessary to divide the Table 1 Review o£ Empirical Research Researchers Variable Name Instrument Sample Validity Reliability Statistical Technique Results 1. Wickert (1951) Ego involve ment 2. Vroom (1962) Ego involve ment Wickert Vroom 3. Lodahl and Job involve Kejner (1965) ment Lodahl.and Kejner Women telephone operators of Bell telephone company Supervisory and non-supervisory employees in an electronics firm and Blue Collar workers in an oil refinery Engineers, nurses and second year MBA students Construct validation Descriptive statistics Descriptive statistics and correlations Discriminant Split validation half reliability Descriptive statistics and correlations Ego involvement was inversely related to turnover. Persons who are ego-involved in their jobs are rated higher in job performance than those who are not ego involved in their Job. The relationship between opportunity for self expression in jobs and both job satisfaction and satis faction with 3elf expression is moderated positively by ego-involvement. a) Job involvement is a multi dimensional attitude that can be scaled with adequate but not high reliability. . b) Scale items seem to be gen eral over different populations. c) Scale discriminates among groups and lias plausible cor relations with other variables. d) The 20 item scale developed here has about the same fac torial content as job satis faction for a group of engineers Age showed a positive relationship with job involvement among nurses but not among engineers. Job in volvement was not related to performance. \ Variable Researchers Name Instrument. Sample Validity 4; Davis (1966) Work involve- Davis Federal Govern-, ment ment executives Hackman and Job involve- Hackman and Female service Porter ment Porter representatives (1968) 6. Friedlander ard Margulies (1969) Task involved self realiza tion Herzberg, ' Mausner "and Snyderman Rank and File members of an electronics organization 7. Goodman, Job involve- Lodahl. Research Convergent Furcon and ment and Kejner scientists and discriminant Rose (1969) engineers validation Reliability Statistical Technique Results Descriptive . Executives who worked longer hours statistics are more likely to feel completely or at least greatly involved in their jobs. Also the time worked is positively related to the im portance of work in life. Executives with higher rank tend to be more Involved. Executives with lower rank tend to be less involved. Executives under 20 years of ser vice are more involved in work. Executives over 20 years of service are less involved in work. Inter-rater Correlations reliability, Spearman-Brown prophecy reliability Correlation and multiple regression Expectancy theory predictions were found to relate significantly to ratings of job involvement and effort, company performance ap praisals and error and sales data. An employee's satisfaction with his task involved self realization was less dependent upon the par ticular organizational climate, than was his satisfaction with the interpersonal and social re lationships on the job. Correlation Job involvement exhibited sub stantial convergent and discri minatory validity. Variable Researchers Name Instrument Sample Validity Maurer Work role Maurer Bottom and (1969) involvement middle level supervisors from manufac turing organi zations 9, Mukherjee Job involve- Lodahl and Indian tex-(1969) ment Kejner tile mill workers Reliability Statistical Technique Results Test-retest reliability Kuder Richardson reliability Descriptive. The degree of importance assigned statistics, to esteem, autonomy and self correlations actualization in work was posi-and multiple tively associated with work role regression involvement for the entire sample» When controlled for levels, the middle level indicated stronger results for the above association. However, the amount of esteem, autonomy and self actualization required on the job was not re lated to work role involvement among the total sample. When controlled for levels, the middle level indicated small but definite positive relationships between the variables mentioned above. Satis faction with esteem, autonomy and self actualization dimensions was found to be unrelated to work role involvement while fulfillment of the above dimension yielded a small positive association with work role involvement. Mobility aspirations were positively re lated to work role involvement. Descriptive Job involvement was positively statistics, related to overall job satisfac-correlations tion and attitude toward manage-and multiple ment. It did not show significant correlations relationship with attitude toward supervisor, satisfaction with work, satisfaction with salary, socio-technical environment, intrinsic satisfaction and recognition. •Variable Researchers Name Instrument Sample Validity 10. Weissenberg Job involve- Lodahl and Civil service and Gruen- ment Kejner supervisors f'eid (1969) 11. Denhardt (1970) Worker Involvement 12.- Goodman, Rose and Furcon (1970) 13 Hall and Lawler (1970) Job dedication Job involve ment 14. Hall, Schneider and Nygren (1970) Job involve ment Denhardt Blue collar workers from two organiza tions dealing with marine supplies and repairs Lodahl and Kejner Research scientists and engineers Lodahl and Kejner R&D staff Lodahl and Kejner Professional foresters IS. Lawler and Hall (1970) Job involve ment Lodahl and Kejner Scientists In R £ D labora tories Reliability Statistical . Technique Descriptive statistics,and correlations Descriptive statistics Results Satisfaction with motivator Bources was related to increased job in volvement ;but satisfaction with hygiene sources were unrelated to job involvement. The magnitude of the correlations was not very high. More open styles of organizational leadership were found to result in increased worker involvement (as measured by perceived fulfillment). Correlations Job dedication (same as job in volvement) was not related to job performance. Correlations Correlations The study suggested that job chal lenge leads to pressures for quality which in turn leads.to Job involvement. Autonomy and self actualization needs were positively related to job involvement while security, social and esteem needs of Maslow's need hierarchy were not related to job involvement. Descriptive Involvement was positively related statistics, to self rated effort. The more correlations and the Job is seen to allow the holder factor analysis to influence what goes on, to be creative, and to use his skills and abilities, the more involved he will be on his job. Job involve ment was not related to performance ! however. Variable Researchers Name Instrument Sample Validity 16. Mukherjee (1970) Job involve ment 17. Patchen (1970) Job involve ment Lodahl and Kejner Blue collar workers In an Indian textile mill Patchen All employees of Tennessee Valley Author ities 18. Alderfer Job Involve- Lodahl and Graduate .tu-and Lodahl ment Kejner dents In Adminl- validity (1971) fltrati0a Reliability Statistical Technique Results Factor analysis Job involvement was found to be a and correlations separate dimension of Job satis faction. It showed moderate, sig nificant positive correlations with overall job satisfaction. Descriptive Those with stronger occupational statistics, identification showed greater gen-multiple eral job interest in work innova-correlations t.ton than people who were less and analysis of strongly identified with their variance occupation. Those with stronger occupational identification were less likely to be absent from work than others. Spearman Brown reliability Analysis of var- Students enrolled in a T-group iance, Mann- course showed more involvement Whitney test than those in a Human Relations and correlations course. Significant overall changes in job involvement were reported due to exposure to either of the courses. Involvement did not show significant difference between videotape viewing sessions and the other class sessions. There was, however, a change from the laboratory sessions to the tape viewing sessions, with the laboratory sessions being signifi cantly more involving. Involvement showed significant positive re lationship to 'here-and-now1 be havior, group dynamics and nega tive relationship to organizational dynamics. It was not significantly related to openness however. Variable Researchers Name Instrument Sample Validity 19. Farris (1971) Work involve ment 20. Gadbois (1971) Job involve ment Felz and Andrews Engineers and scientists from two organiza tions A & B Lodahl and Kejner Female student nurses 21. Hackman Job involve-and Lawler ment (1971) Lodahl and Semi-skilled Kejner and skilled employees and supervisors 22. Hall and Job involve- Lodahl and R&D staff Lawler ment Kejner (1971) 23. Hall and Mansfield (1971) Job involve ment Lodahl Kej ner and R&D staff Construct validity 24. Schneider, Job involve- Lodahl and Hall and ment Kejner Nygren (1971) Professional foresters Concurrent validity Reliability Statistical Technique Result: Descriptive Turnover was negatively related to statistics, work involvement in one organization factor analysis and not in the other, and correlations Factor analysis Job involvement was found to be and correlations a multidimensional concept. Father's occupation, mother's oc cupation, educational level of re spondent compared to his or her brother's or sister's and work competence were found to be posi tively related to job involvement. Internal consistency reliability Internal consistency and test-retest reliability Internal consistency Descriptive The core dimensions of variety, statistics and autonomy, task identity and feed-correlations back and the interpersonal di mensions of friendship opportun ities on the job were positively related to job Involvement. Correlations Correlations Multiple correlations Pressure for quality was posi tively correlated with job in volvement which in turn was positively related to a global performance measure. Changes in the organizational environment (organizational stress) over a period of 20 months did not induce any change in the job involvement of the people ex periencing the stress. Job involvement was positively related to organizational identifi cation. The view that organiza tional identification is a mul tiple correlate of self image, job challenge and job involvement received only weak empirical sup port. Tenure was not related to Job involvement. Researchers Variable Name 25. Wollack, Goodale, Wljtlng and Smith (1971) Job involve ment Instrument Sample Wollack, Goodale, Wijting, and Smith Validity Reliability Statistical Technique Results Employees from all levels of a glass manu facturing organization. Cross Valida tion, construct validity Internal consis tency and rest-retest relia bility Descriptive Job involvement was found to be statistics, positively related to activity, correlations, striving and prl.de and negatively^ factor analysis, to earnings. It was not related discriminant to status. Background variables function anal- such as race, occupational level, y6is and canon- area of the country from which ical regression the respondent came and super-analysis visory level as a group were found to be related to work values of which job involvement was a subscale. 26. Wood (1971) Job involve ment Lodah1 and Kejner Machine opera tors, paper packaging plant employees Descriptive Low involvement people are more statistics and satisfied extrinsically as produc-correlations tivity increases. High involve ment people are more dissatis fied intrinsically as productivity increases. I Variable Researchers Name Instrument Sample Validity 27. Hall and Job involve- Lodahl Priests, Schneider ment and Kejner professional (1972) ... _ foresters and R&D personnel 28. Mansfield (1972) Job involve ment Lodahl and Kejner Staff and line managers from public and pri vate organiza tions 29. Roman and ~ Trice (1972) Job involve ment Lodahl and Kejner White collar clerical workers and blue collar factory workers 30. Schwyhart and Smith (1972) Job involve ment Lodahl and Kejner Middle managers Construct validity Reliability Statistical Technique Results Descriptive For the R S D sample, satisfaction statistics and of affiliation need was negatively correlations related to Job involvement while autonomy, self fulfillment, intel lectual competence and activity were positively related to it. Satisfaction of security and esteem needs and supportiveness were not related to job involvement. For the forester sample supportive- 1 ness, satisfaction of autonomy and self fulfillment needs were posi tively related while intellectual competence, activity, satisfaction of security, affiliation and other needs were unrelated to job .in volvement. Such data were not available for the priest sample. Job involvement is only related to need satisfaction negatively and need Importance positively with respect to self esteem at work. It is not related to any need area out of work. Chi-square Job involvement was not slgnifl-analysis cantly related to psychiatric impairment. Descriptive statistics and correlations Odd-even and Descriptive split half statistics, reliability factor analysis and correlations Factor structure of job involve ment is occupationolly specific. Company satisfaction was posi tively related to job involvement. Age had a low positive relation ship with job involvement. Neither number of reported promotions'nor company tenure was related to job involvement. Variable Researchers Name Instrument Sample Validity 31, Wood (1972) Job involve ment Lodahl and Kejner Paper packaging plant employees 32. GodbQis (1973) Job involve ment Lodahl and Kejner Female nurses 33. Gannon and Job involve-Hendrick- ment son (1973) 34. Lawler, Job involve-Hackman and ment Kaufman Lodahl and Kejner Lodahl and Kejner Working wives employed as clerks or office workers in retail organizations Directory assistance operators (1973) 35. Ridley (1973) Job involve ment Ridley Female teachers and their husbands 36. Ruh, Johnson and Scontrino (1973) Job involve ment Lodahl ! and Kejner Manufacturing employees from Scanlon plan units Reliability Statistical Technique Results Descriptive statistics, correlations and factor analysis Factor analysis and correlations Factor analysis and correlations Correlations Item analysis Measures of association Item analysis. Descriptive and internal ; statistics, consistency j correlations : ;snd analysis of variance Low involvement accentuated assoc- . iatlon between Job satisfaction and the decision to participate in the organization. High involve ment enhanced decisions to produce. Both were supported for females only. The multidimensional notion of job involvement was found invalid. However the perception of job in volvement underwent a change over time. The training environment and social origin were not related to job involvement. This is a longitudinal study. Job involvement was positively and significantly related to the over all index of job satisfaction in addition to work, supervision and people dimensions of Job satisfac tion. Job enrichment of telephone dir ectory assistance operators' jobs through increased autonomy in decision making and variety failed to increase the job involvement of the operators. For both married men and women high Job involvement resulted in a somewhat poor marital adjustment. There was weak support of the notion that the couple with low job involvement shows1 a higher degree of marital adjustment than any other combination of Job in volvement among the spouses. • Participation in Scanlon plan and in ' decision making were positively re-'. lated to job involvement. Researchers Variable Name Instrument Sample Validity Reliability 37, Runyon (1973) Work Involve ment Lodahl and Kejner 38. Siegel and Ruh (1973) Job involve ment 39. Torbert Job involve-and Rogers ment (1973) 40. White and Ruh (1973) 41* Buchanan. (1974) Job involve ment Job involve ment Lodahl and Kejner Torbert and Rogers Lodahl and Kejner Lodahl and Kejner Hourly employees in a chemical plant Correlational validity Blue and white collar employees from manufactur ing organizations Blue collar wor kers in manufac turing and proces sing organizations Workers and managers from manufacturing organizations Business and government executives Split half reliability Internal consistency reliability Rste-rerate (a form of test-retest reliability) Internal consistency reliability Internal consistency reliability Statistical Technique Results Descriptive statistics, analysis of variance and Neuman-Keuls test Correlations Descriptive statistics and correlations Correlations Internals exhibit significantly more job involvement than ex ternals under both participatory and directive supervision. Job involvement tends to be greater under participatory management than under directive management, but the differences are not statistically significant. Job involvement is positively cor related with participation in de cision making, community size and negatively with turnover and insigni ficantly with education & performance. Age did not correlate significantly with job involvement. Job mobility is perfectly and sig nificantly related to Job involve ment, positively. Personal values did not show any moderating effect on the relation ship between participation in de cision making and job involvement either for blue collar workers or for'managers. Correlations and Job involvement was found to be a multiple dimension of organizational corn-regression mltment where the other dimensions were organizational identification and organizational loyalty. Job involvement was significantly re lated to the above dimensions. It had been reported that personal im portance, early group attitudes toward organization, organizational dependability, organizational com mitment norms, early job challenge, current group attitudes toward organization and peer group\coheslon \ were all related to organizational : commitment. Variable Researchers Name Ins trument, Sample Validity 42. Lefkowitz (1974) Job involve ment 43- Thamhain and Gemmill (1974) Project involvement 44* Waters, Roach and Batlis (1974) Job involve ment Lodahl and Kejner Male police personnel Patchen1s Motivation Scale Project mana gers and project personnel in the electronic industry Lodahl Radio and .te-le-and Kejner vision station employees Statistical Reliability Technique Correlations Results Age and family size were negatively related to job involvement while education was positively related to job involvement. Further com-, mand personnel were more Involved in their jobs aS compared to patrolmen.. Descriptive Superiors' use of authority as n statistics and measure of influence was nega-correlatlons tively related to subordinates* work involvement whereas job chal lenge as a means of influence was ' positively related to work in volvement. Other means of in fluence such as salary, promotion, future work assignment, coercive power, friendship and expert power showed no relationship with work involvement. The superiors per formance was positively related to subordinate's woi;k Involvement, Correlations Organizational climate dimensions such as work autonomy and an em ployee centered orientation were positively related to job involve ment. Other dimensions such as ef fective organizational structure, close, impersonal supervision, and an open, challenging enviornment did not show any significant rela tionship with job involvement. The different relationships ob tained between the climate dimen sions and job involvement and in trinsic motivation respectively supported the reported difference between the above variables. Researchers Variable Name Instrument Sample Validity 45.. Wood Job involve- Lodahl Paper workers (1974) ment ' and Kejner 46. Aldag Job involve- Lodahl Employees of a and Brief ment and Kejner correctional (1975a) institution 47. Aldag Job involve- Lodahl Hourly employees and Brief ment and Kejner in a manufac-(1975b) turing organiza tion Statistical Technique Results High involved people, more intrin sically oriented towards their job, did not manifest satisfac tions commensurate with company evaluations of performance; they depended more on intrinsic rewards. Low involved employees were more extrinsic in orientation and ex perienced gratifications more in line with company performance assessments due to their greater dependence on extrinsic rewards. Descriptive Education was negatively related statistics to job involvement. Tenure, skill and correlations variety, task identity, task sig nificance, autonomy, feedback from the job, general satisfaction with supervision, satisfaction with co workers, satisfaction' with pay and satisfaction with promotional op portunities were positively corre lated with job involvement. Tenr ure, area of socialization, con gruence with need strength moder ated the relationship between task characteristics and job involvement significantly. However, authori tarianism and education were not found to moderate the above re lationship significantly. Correlations Neither pro Protestant ethic nor and factor- • non Protestant, ethic were found to analysis be related to job involvement. Descriptive statistics, factor analysis and correlations Researchers Variable Name Instrument Sample Validity 48.. Brief and Job involve- Lodahl Employees "~ Aldag ment and Kejner of a (1075) correctional K ' institute 49. Bruns and Waterhouse (1975) Involvement 50 Gechman, and Wiener (1975) Job involve ment Measured by time spent on budget related ac tivities (Behav ioral Mea sure) Managerial employees from Bervice and manu facturing industries Lodahl and Kejner Female elementary school tea chers from a quality suburban school system Statistical Technique Results Descriptive Task characteristics such as var-8tatl8tlcs and iety, autonomy, task identity and correlations _ feedback were positively related to job involvement. However, when higher order need strength was used as a moderator In the above relationships, it was observed that the correlations were signifi cant only for people with high higher order need strength. Also, it was found that the product of the above task characteristics was positively related to job Involve ment for both high and low higher order need strength groups. Descriptive Organizational structuring acti-statistics, vities and concentration of auth-factor analy- ority were not found to be related sis, correla- to involvement. However-, perceived tions and control in the organization was partial cor- found to be positively related to relations involvement. Descriptive Devoting personal time to work re-statistics and lated activities was positively correlations associated with job involvement. Mental health was not related to job involvement. Age, marital status and years of teaching ex perience did not yield any signi ficant relationships with Job in volvement. Variable Researchers Name Instrument Sample Validity 51. Hallahd Job involve- Lodahl Engineers and Mansfield ment and Kejner scientists (1975) • from research . _ and develop ment organiza tions 52. Herman, Dunham and Hulln (1975) Job involve ment Lodahl and Kejner Employees from all levels in a printing company. Cross validation 53. Jones, James and Brunl (1975) Job involve ment Lodahl and Kejner Civil ser vice and military employees ot a U.S. Army corps of Engineers District office Reliability Statistical Technique Results Descriptive statistics, correlation and ana.lyels of variance Kuder-Richardson reliability Descriptive statistics, correlations, canonical correlationand part canonical correlations Descriptive statistics and correlations The study was conducted on a long itudinal basis. Job involvement was found to increase monotonl-cally with age* Seniority was not significantly related to job in volvement. . Satisfaction with work, promotion, pay, supervision and co-workers, consideration, focus and experi enced motivation, interpersonal behavior contingencies and job satisfaction in general were positively related to job involve ment while initiating.structure and task contingencies were nega tively related to job Involvement, In addition, it was reported that organizational structure character istics explained a greater propor tion of variance compared to demo graphic characteristics in employee responses of which job involvement was one. . Job involvement was positively re lated to certain demographic var iables such as age years in the district, pay grade and years in the pay grade. Years of education and highest degree obtained were not related to job involvement. When used as a moderator, the high job involvement sample tended to have significantly lower correla tions between confidence and trust and leadership. Leader behavior as such was not related to job involvement. Variable Researchers Name Instrument Sample Validity 54, Kanungo, ' Mlsra and Dayal (1975) Job involve ment Lodahl Non-supervisory and Kejner staff, lower and middle manage ment people from • an organization in India 55, Mannheim Work Role (1975) Centrality Mannheim Males from Face different oc- validity cupational and age groups in India 56. Mitchell, Baba and Epps (1975) Job involve ment Lodahl and Kejner Unskilled, skilled and supervisory personnel from an auto mobile plant in Canada Statistical Reliability Technique Results Descriptive High involved employees as corn-statistics, pared to low involved employees analysis of attached greater importance to variance and safety and self actualization correlation needs and lesser importance to physiological and social needs. With respect to the patterns of need strength the high and low involved employees did not differ. The high Involvement group con sisted of people, a greater number of whom were married, had more job experience, and more income com pared to the low involvement group. Internal Descriptive 'Job involvement' and 'work role consistency statistics, . centrality are used interchange-factor analysis, ably in this research. Orientals correlations:and exhibited lower work centrality analysis of scores compared to occidental variance samples. Education, occupational hierarchy and employment status were positively related to work centrality while age did not show any significant relationship with it Centrality was also found to be related to intrinsic, material, social and hygienic rewards re- . gardless of the importance as signed to these rewards. Descriptive A low but significant negative statistics correlation was obtained between factor analysis central life interest and Job and correlations involvement. Age, levels of oc-cupatlon, and company tenure did not correlate significantly with job involvement. ro O Researchers Variable Name Instrument Sample Validity Reliability Statistical Technique Results 57... Newman (1975) Job involve ment Lodahl Insurance and Kejner company employees Discriminant analysis and canonical correlations Organizational structure variables influence job attitude (job in volvement) more strongly than per sonal background variables and the relationship is moderated by per ception of the work environment. Age, education, tenure, number of dependents, hierarchical level, department, work group, job sat isfaction, supervisory style, task characteristics, employee motiva tion and employee compliance were positively related to job involve ment while sex, pressure to pro duce and perceptions of work space were negatively correlated with job involvement. Performance re ward relationship, relationship with co-workers, equipment-people arrangement, decision making policy and job responsibility were found to exhibit no relationship with job involvement. Among the above strong relationships were exhib ited Variable Researchers Name Instrument Sample Validity 58, Ruh, Job involve- Lodahl Rankand file Construct White ment and Kejner and management validation and Wood personnel from (1975) six midwestern ~" * manufacturing" organizations Reliability Statistical Technique Results Internal Correlations consistency and multiple regression Job involvement may be affected both by individual differences brought to the job and by charac teristics of the job situation. Job involvement may not be an ap propriate variable for moderating the relationships between job characteristics and employee re sponses to the job. Geographic background, section of town, type of schooling, books around home, geographic mobility, skill level of father's occupation, frequency of church attendance, importance of religion, church activity during youth. Values such as ambition, capability, responsibility and accomplishment, participation in decision making, identification with the organization and motiva tion were positively related to job involvement. Urban vs rural background, urban vs rural resi dence, industrialization of home town, values such as independence, freedom and participation were negatively related to job involve ment. Respondents' education, parents' education, values such as imagination, self control and equality were unrelated to job in volvement. Variable Researchers Name Instrument: . Saraple ' Validity 59, Schuler Job involve- Lodahl Employees of a (1975) ment and Kejner large manufac turing firm 60. Steers Job involve- Lodahl Female (1975) ment and Kejner first-level supervisors 61. . Baba and Work involve- Baba and Blue collar Construct Jaraal ment Jamal workers validity (1976) .Reliability Statistical Technique Results Internal consistency Factor analysis,Job involvement.was positively re-correlations lated to Job satisfaction but not and multiple t with either performance or effort, . regression. . Employees with low job involvement had more extreme reactions to or ganizational phenomena than did em ployees with high job involvement. Individual variables such as age, ability to leave the organization, relevant education and perceived participation in decision making , were found to be related to job involvement. Organizational vari ables such as participatory leader ship, role ambiguity and task rc-petitiveness were also found to be related to job involvement. The direction of the relationships was not reported. Correlations Age and need for achievement were positively related to job involve ment. Job involvement was posi tively related to performance for people with a high need for achievement. For low need achieve ment people such a relationship did not exist. Internal Factor analysis Company satisfaction, company corn-consistency .and correlations mitment and work involvement were related positively to each other:whei as education was negatively rela ted to work involvement. Female employees were more involved in their job than their male counter-, parts. Marital status, income and experience showed no relationship to job involvement. Researchers Variable Name Instrument.. Sample Validity 62. Beyer and Lodahl (1976) Personal moti vation at work Lodahl and Kejner University faculty and administrators 63.Brief, Job involve- Lodahl Police officers Aldag and ment and Kejner . . Wallden (1976) 6A.Cleland, Job involve- Lodahl Registered Bass, ment and Kejner nurses McHugh and Mbntaho (1976) 65. Cummings and Bigelow (1976). Job involve ment Lodahl and Kejner Blue collar workers Statistical Technique Results Descriptive No difference in job involvement statistics, was observed among people in factor analysis^ dif ferent„f ields of -a'cademla . and regression . Correlations Initiating structure was found to and factor positively correlate with job in-analysis volvement while consideration did not show any significant relation ship. Descriptive Education, level of position, era-statistics and ployment status, financial need factor analysis, were related positively to pro fessional attitude of which job Involvement was a subscale. How ever, the magnitude of the rela tionships was small but signifi cant. Factor analysis The Lawler and Hall (1970) findings were replicated for a blue collar sample. They found job satisfac tion, intrinsic motivation and job Involvement distinct job atti tudes. Relationships among the above three were not reported. Variable Researchers Name Instrument. Sample ' Validity 66.Halland Work involve- Lodahl Public primary Hall ment on<i Kejner school students (1976) 67-. Hollon and Chesser (1976) Job involve ment Lodahl and Kejner College professors Reliability Statistical Technique Results Internal consistency Path analysis and zero order correlations ' This is a longitudinal study. Job Involvement was positively related psychological success, support and self image for both time periods. The strength of relationship be tween job involvement and self image was significantly higher for organizations characterized by a highly supportive climate compared to an organization with a low sup portive climate. However, the above difference was significant for the initial time period only. Job involvement was alBo posi tively related to goals in both time periods but only for organ izations characterized by a low supportive climate. Path analysis supported the following models: 1. For the high support organi zation; Perf ormance^—»GoalSj"^ support^—*Self Image^—•Involvement^ —*Goals2 2. For the lower support organiza-:' tion; Self Image^—•SuccesSj—» Support j-*Coals^—^Involvement j— Goals„ Internal, consistency Descriptive Cognitive dissonance and job ten-statistics and sion were negatively related to correlations Job involvement while job satis faction was positively related to it. ro. On Variable Researchers Name Instrument.. Sample Validity 68i Hollon and. Job involve- Lodahl Male and female Gommlll ment and Kejner professors (1976) 69, Kimmons and Job involve- Lodahl Mixed sample Greenhaus ment and Kejner of managers (1976) 70. Mathews and Kra'ntz (19.76) Job involve ment Jenkins activity survey for health Pre diction form B Monozygotic and dizygotic twins 71. Saleh and Hosek (1976) Job involve ment Lodahl and Kejner other instruments Undergraduates and salesmen 72. Schuler (1976) Job involve ment Lodahl and Kejner Manufacturing employees from all levels in the organiza tion. [ .Reliability Statistical ..Technique Results Internal consistency Descriptive Female professors were less ln-statistlcs volved in their jobs as compared to their male counterparts. Though not all the findings were stat istically significant, they were ' all in the predicted direction. Descriptive Locus of control did not moderate statistics significantly the relationship be-and correla- tween job involvement and job sat-tions isfaction. However, internals were found to be more Job involved than externals. Correlations No evidence was found for the hypo thesis that job involvement was genetically determined. Internal Factor consistency analysis and test-retest reliability Job involvement was found to be a multidimensional concept containing cognitive, affective and behavioral components namely central life in-teresti self esteem and active par ticipation. Internal consistency Analysis of variance Task repetitiveness was negatively related to Job involvement. Variable Researchers Name Instrument . Sample Validity 73. Steers Job Involve- Lodahl Female first (1976) ' ment and Kejner level super visors in a public utility firm _ 74. Steers and Job involve- Lodahl Hospital empl-Braunstein ment and Kejner oyees from all (1976) levels 7S. Stone Job involve-(1976) ment Wollack, Nonmangerlal Goodale, .workers Wij ting and Smith Statistical .Reliability Technique Results Correlations Task-goal characteristics such as participation, goal difficulty and goal specificity, need for job sat-. isfaction, achievement, need for affiliation, were positively re lated to job involvement while feedback, peer competition and need for autonomy were unrelated to it. When need for achievement was used to moderate the above relationship, it was found that peer competition and goal difficulty were positively related to job involvement for the high nAch group and unrelated for the low nAcu group. When need for affiliation, was used to moderate the above relationship, it was found that goal difficulty was positively related to job involve ment for the high nAff group and unrelated for the low nAff group. Need for autonomy was not found to be a significant moderator of the relationship between task-goal attributes and job involvement. Correlations Need for achievement was positively related to job involvement. Need for affiliation, need for autonomy and need for dominance were not related to job involvement. Partial Job involvement failed to moderate correlations the relationship between job scope and satisfaction with work itself. r\3 Researchers Variable Name Instrument.. Sample 76. Brief and Aldag (1977) Job involve ment Lodahl and Kejner Production workers 77, Chatterjee Job involve- Lodahl and ment and Kejner Ganguly (1977) Middle and bottom level managerial personnel In an Indian engineering firm 7,8., Cummlngs Self evaluative Shepard and Manrlng involvement (1977) 79. Feldman (1977) Job involve ment Lodahl and Kejner Male blue collar workers Hospital employees 80. Gardell (1977) Job involve ment Gardell Process, mass production and • batch workers Statistical .Reliability .Technique Results Descriptive Job involvement is not a signifi-statistics and cant moderator of the relation-correlations ship between leader behavior and general satisfaction as well as supervisory satisfaction. How ever, job characteristics such as variety, task identity, task sig nificance, autonomy, feedback from job, feedback from agents and ^dealing with others were aignifi-cantly correlated with job involve ment. Managerial level and work related concepts were positively related to job involvement. Descriptive statistics and correlations Factor analysis Self evaluative involvement was and correlations negatively related to effort and performance on the job. Spearman- Descriptive Process variables such as antici-Brown relia- statistics, patory socialization, accomoda-bility,and. partial correla- tion, and role management did not internal tlons and show any significant relationship consistency analysis of with Job involvement, variance - Descriptive The relationship between job inr . statistics and volvement and desire for increased analysis of influence in decision making was variance moderated by the discretion and skill level of the job. People who were highly Job Involved and whose Job had a higher discretion and skill level expressed greater de*-' . sire for increased influence in de cision making as compared to .those._ whose jobs had a lower level of discretion and skill. Variable Researchers Name Instrument. . Sample Validity -81. Hall and Job involve- Lodahl University Foster ' ment and Kejner students (i977) 82.Iyanceyich Goal setting Ivancevich Electronics and McMahon involvement and McMahon technicians (19 77) .83.Jones, Job lnvolve-James, ment Bruni and Sells (1977) Lodahl Enlisted men and Kejner in United States navy Statistical .Reliability .Technique Results Path analysis Effort, psychological success and and cross lagged self esteem were significant and correlations positive predictors of Job involve-. ment. Goals and performance did not show any significant relation ship with job involvement. This was a longitudinal study. Internal Descriptive Involvement in setting goals were consistency statistics, related positively to goal corn-factor analysis mitment and job tenure. It was and correlations not related to age, tenure with the goal setting program, educa tion, higher order need strength, task-goal effort and performance. Internal Descriptive consistency statistics and correlations Black enlisted men exhibited a higher degree of job involvement as compared to white enlisted men. Job involvement was found to be related positively to organiza tional climate dimensions such.as challenge, professional and organi zational esprit for both white and black samples and was not related to conflict and ambiguity and leader ship facilitation. In the case of black enlisted men, job involvement, was related positively to Job stan dards and for the white sample it was positively related to coopera tion, friendliness and warmth. Variable Researchers Name Instrument Sample Statistical Validity Reliability Technique Results 841 La Rocco, job involve- Lodahl and Enlisted men Cross . - Discriminant Pugh and ment Kejner in United validation function Gunderson States Navy analysis (1977) 85. McKelyey and Sekaran (1977) Job involve ment Patchen Scientists and engineers in the aerospace industry Discriminant Validation Internal consistency Multiple regression and correlations Among navy men who were, eligible, significant differences were observed in job involvement between those who enlisted and those who did not. Significant differences in job involve ment also existed between those who enlisted and those who were not re commended for enlistment or who were prematurely separated from service. No significant differences were observed in Job involvement between those who were eligible but did not register and those who were not recommended for re-enlistment. Age » decentralization, innovation in terest, job challenge, stress, oppor tunity to work on difficult problems were found to be significant predictors of job involvement and positively related to it while confrontation of task conflict, local role expectation and local orientation were also found to be significant predictors of job involvement but were negatively related to it. The predictors of job involve ment showed different patterns when the sample was split into managerial and non managerial groups and also when the non managerial sample was further sub divided into engineering and science, majors. For a sample of engineers, idealism - cynicism, anomie and active -passive orientation appeared to moderate the relationship between the above said predictors and job involvement. Variable Researchers Name Instrument Sample * Validity. 86, Hlrvls and Job Involve- Michigan Bank tellers Lawler ment Assessment (1977) of Organiz-- ations. 187. .Rabinowitz, Job involve- Lodahl Mixed aample of •V Hall and ment and Kejner Canadian govern-Goodale t employees (1977) 88'.', Rousseau Job involve- Patchen Production ; (1977) ment workers Statistical Reliability Technique Results Descriptive In this study, organizational in-statlstics and volvement was referred to as Job correlations involvement. The above confusion not withstanding, organizational involvement was negatively related to turnover. It did not show sig nificant relationship with absen teeism or error on the job (short ages). The study was a longitMdrial one. Internal consistency Multiple Both individual differences and regression.and job scope contribute equally to analysis of the prediction of job involvement, variance There was no significant inter action effect among the predictors. Growth need strength, length of service, job scope, Protestent ethic and age were positively re lated to job involvement while sex was negatively related to it. Marital status, education and locus of control were not significantly related to job involvement. Factor analysis, The type of technology affects job canonical corre- involvement. Job characteristics lation and such as variety, task identity, multivariate task significance, autonomy, feed-analysis of back from job, feedback from variance agents, dealing with others and learning were positively related to Job involvement. Alienation and job satisfaction were negatively and positively related to job In volvement respectively. Variable Researchers Name Instrument Sample Validity 8?..6chulor Job involve-' Lodahl Public ( 1977) ment _ and Kejner utilities employees 90.' Schuler, Aldag and Brief (1977) Job involve ment Lodahl and Kejner Mixed sample of nurses, manufacturing, pubiic utility and hospital workers 9I..Wiener and Gechman (1977) Job involve ment 9i; Abdel-Halim Job involve-(1978) ment Lodahl and Kejner Dubin,Morse and Weiss, Vroom Lodnhl and Kejner Female elemen tary school teachers Managerial Peraonr.rl from the heavy ' equipment' manufacturing industry Statistical Reliability Technique Results Internal consistency inscriptive Job involvement was positively ''Statistics, • _ related to. grnvr.h nepd strength, factor analysis motivating potential, Job skill, and correlations Job significance, feedback, satis faction and internal work motiva tion and was not related to autonomy and identity. Job involvement i significantly moderated the motiva- : ting potential - satisfaction with work and general satisfaction re lationships but failed to moderate the relationship between motivating potential and internal work motiva tion. Internal Consistency Factor analysis, and correlations Role conflict and role ambiguity were negatively related to job involvement. Correlations Spearman- Descriptive Rrown statistics, reliability correlations, factor analysis, and multiple regression Job involvement was found to be positively related to work commit ment behavior. Job involvement was negatively related to role ambiguity. It was not related to either role conflict or role overload. CO ro Variable Researchers Name Instrument Sample Validity Reliability Statistical Technique Results 93. Beehr Job involve-and Gupta ' ment (1978) 94. Blgoness (1978) Job involve ment Patchen Lodahl and Kejner Mixed sample of Convergent and both managerial discriminant and nonmanagerial validation employees University faculty Spearman-Brown .prophecy formula Correlations Regression and correlation. Job Involvement was found to be negatively related to .absenteeism, turnover and tardiness. Job involvement was negatively re lated to attitude toward collective bargaining. Job involvement was positively related to satisfaction with work, satisfaction with pro motions, and salary. No signifi cant relationships were observed between job involvement and IOCUB of control, age, satisfaction with pay, satisfaction with co-workers, and satisfaction with supervision*. 95. 96. Dunne, Stahl and Melhart (1978) , Hall, . Goodale, Rabinowitz and Morgan (1978) Work involve ment Job involve^-ment Patchen Project mana-motivation gers and pro-scale ject personnel in a United States Air Force organization Lodahl First line and Kejner . supervisors in a Canadian gov ernment depart ment. Internal Consistency Internal consistency Descriptive statistics and correlations Correlations The sources of influence used by managers exhibited no significant relationship with work involvement. Job changes were positively related to job involvement. Job involve ment was positively related to perceived effort, perceived per formance, .psychological success,. work satisfaction, higher order ' need strength and job stimulation. Job change over time and depart mental change over time were found to affect job Involvement. Job in volvement was also found to de crease over time. This is a long itudinal study. Variable Statiatlcal Raaearchera Nans Instrument. Sanpla Validity Reliability Technique 97.. Hoiberg and Berry (1978) Involvement Insel and Moos Enlisted men in the United " -.- ' States Navy Cross validation Descriptive statistics, analysis of variance, multiple regression and correlations Expectations of involvement as well as perceived Involvement made significant contributions to the prediction of effectiveness. This is a longitudinal study. 98 • Koch and Steers (1978) Job attachment Koch and Steers Entry level non managerial employees in the public sector Internal consistency Descriptive Job attachment was negatively re-statistics and lated to turnover and was a more zero-order, effective predictor of turnover partial and than overall, satisfaction. In-multlple cor- dividual characteristics such as-relations age, tenure, pay, education and sex were more strongly related to job attachment than were job char acteristics such as autonomy, var iety and responsibility. Age, ten ure and pay were positively related to job attachment while education and sex showed negative relation ships. Autonomy and responsibility showed positive relationships while variety was not related to job at tachment. However, after partial-ling out, autonomy was the only Job characteristic that showed signifi cant positive relationship with job attachment whereas the individual characteristics were more stable. CO Variable Researchers Name Instrument Sample Validity 99.Mannheim Work role Mannheim Male members and Cohen of the labor (1978) force in Israel lOO.Parasu- Job Involve- Lodahl and Employees of raman ment Kejner a food pro-and Alutto cessing (1978) company Statistical ReliabilityK Technique Results Internal Descriptive consistency statistics and stepwise multiple regression Education, employee status, intrinsic and material rewards, perceptions of rewards being greater than investments, satisfaction, expectations and achievement orientation were found to be important predictors of work role centrality. The degree of work role centrality was also found to vary from occupation to occupation in a significant way. Internal Multivariate consistency analysis of variance and path analysis Job Involvement was a neg ative predictor of role frustration. Variable Researchers Name Instrument Sample Validity 101. Saal (1978) Job involve ment Lodahl and Kejner Blue and white collar employees of a metal manu facturing com pany : Cross validation 102. Stevens, Job Involve-Beyer and ment Trice (1978) Lodahl United States and Kejner federal govern ment employees \ Statistical Reliability Technique Odd-even Descriptive reliability ;?B tat is tics, multiple regres sion, multiple discriminant function analysis and correlations Descriptive statistics, correlations and multiple regression Results Age, job characteristics such as \ variety, autonomy, task identity, i feedback and the necessity of j dealing with others, Job satis faction, achievement motivation | and Protestant work ethic endorse- j ment" were positively" related to ~ ~| job involvement while sex, educa- j tion and absenteeism were negatively j related to it. Marital status, num- { ber of dependents, number o£- other j family wage earners, race, religious j preference, community type, friend- ! ship opportunity, supervisory re- i sponsibility, tenure with company, tenure at current job, salary, \ higher order needs and performance were unrelated to job involvement, i Situational predictors seemed to . ! explain a larger proportion of the variance in job involvement than personal, demographic variables. Personal psychological variables were also found to be better pre dictors of job involvement when compared to personal demographic variables. Job involvement was positively related to age, attitude toward change, educa tion, level in the organization, pro motion, and organizational commitment. It showed no relationships with sex, overload, years in the organization, years in position, skill level, per formance, technical promotion, organ- ; izatlonal size, presence of unions, ; percent of supervision, centralization' and commitment to federal service. Job involvement was also found to be a strong positive predictor of organizational commitment. Variable Researchers Name Instrument Sample Validity 103. White, (1978) General affective response to the job Combination of Lodahl and Kejner Patchen Manufacturing employees 104, Zultowski, Commitment and Arvey and involvement Dewhlrst (1978) Campbell Scientists and and Beatty- engineers organiza tional climate scale Reliability Statistical Technique Results Internal Correlations onslatency Participation in decision making . was positively related to general effective response to the Job of which job Involvement forms a part. It- was found that the above re lationship was stronger for 1) persons who attached high importance to the value "social integration", 2) persons who carried more life insurance, 3) persons with more tenure, 4) persons who attached low importance to the value "national security", 5) persons who attached high importance to the value "capable", 6) persons who at tached low importance to the value "obedient", 7) persons who Infrequen tly attend religious services and 8) persons who have had a greater num ber of previous full time jobs. How ever, the overarching conclusion is that moderating effects tend to be situation specific and do not general ize across situations. Internal consistency Descriptive The relationship between feedback and 'statistics, evaluation that subordinates receive factor analysis In an MBO program and a) overall sat-and correlations Isfaction and b) intrinsic satlsfac-tion was found to be stronger for people with a high degree of commit-' ment to and involvement in the job compared to those with a low commit ment and involvement. 38 variables that are studied in association with job involvement into three broad categories; individual difference factors, situational factors and the conventional outcome variables of organizational behavior. The specific variables that appear in the literature are shown in Table 2. While it is possible to discuss each variable shown in Table 2 in terms of its relationship to job involvement, it is felt that such an exercise would1 be somewhat repetitious given the information in Table 1. Furthermore, many of the variables appeared only in one or two studies. Hence it has been decided to use the Rabinowitz and Hall review (1977) as a heuristic device to isolate variables of importance for greater elaboration. Among individual difference factors, age, education, sex, locus of control, tenure, community size, Protestant Ethic, higher order needs, and marital status will be considered. With regard to situational factors, job scope, participation in decision making, job level, leader behavior, and social factors will be discussed. Among the outcome variables, job satisfaction, effort, performance, turnover, absenteeism and success will be dealt with. Here, effort, which was not in the Rabinowitz and Hall (1977) review, is included owing to its strong theoretical connections with job involvement as well as the empirical evidence supporting its importance. 1.2...1 Individual Difference Factors 1.2.1.1 Age: There were 21 studies examining the relationship between age and job involvement of which 11 showed a positive relationship between the two variables (Hall & Mansfield, 1975; Jones, James & Bruni, 1975; Koch &.'Steers, 1978; Lodahl & Kejner, 1965 - for nurses only; McKelvey & Sekaran, 1977; Newman, 1975; Rabinowitz,:"Hall & Goodale, 1977; Saal, 1978; Schwyhart & Smith, 1972; Steers, 1975a; Stevens, Beyer & Trice, 1978). Among the rest, i one study (Lefkowitz, 1974) reported a negative relationship while nine others found no relationship between age and job involvement (Bigoness, 1978; Gechman Table 2 Variables in Job Involvement Research Individual Difference Factors Situational Factors _ . _ Outcome Variables 1. Age 1. Job characteristics 1. Effort 2. Sex •2. Structure 2. Performance 3. Education 3. Technology 3. Satisfaction 4„ Marital Status 4. Participation in decision making 4. Motivation 5. Marital adjustment 5. Organizational climate/environment 5. Absenteeism 6. Race 6. Job/organizational change 6. Turnover 7. Experience 7. Organizational socialization 7. Tardiness 8. Community size/type 8. Leadership 8. Alienation 9. Family size 9. Promotions 9. Work commitment behavior 10. Mobility 10. Organizational Control 10. Organizational Commitment 11. Career Pattern Orientation 11. Work group 11. Goals 12. Income/Salary 12. Organizational dynamics 12. Effectiveness 13.. Religion 13. Role conflict/ambiguity 14. Father's occupation 14. Stress 15. Parents' education 15. Performance-reward relationship 16. Number of dependents 16. Attitude toward collective bargaining 17. Locus of control 17. Job level/status 18. Need for achievement 19. Need for Power 20. Need for affiliation 21. Need strength/fulfillment 22. Psychological success 23. Central life interest 24. Mental health 25. Self image 26. Competence 27. Activity 28. Values 29. Genetic influence 30. Cosmopolitan-local orientation CO, 40 & Wiener, 1975; Gurin, Veroff & Feld, 1960; Ivancevich & McMahon, 1977; Lodahl & Kejner, 1965 - for engineers only; Mannheim, 1975; Mannheim & Cohen, 1978; Mitchell, Baba & Epps, 1975: Torbert & Rogers, 1973). Schuler (1975) indicated some form of relationship between job involvement and age but did not provide any information regarding the magnitude and direction of that relationship. The above studies covered a variety of samples, the details of which are provided in Table 1. As pointed out by Baba (1976) and Rabinowitz and Hall (1977) the evidence seems divided between studies that showed no effect of age on job involvement and those that indicated that job involvement increased as one advanced in age. The above state of affairs points toward two directions for future research. One direction would be to conduct longitudinal studies to ascertain the change in job involve ment over years for the same group of respondents. Another possibility would be that different subsets of respondents might present different relationships between job involvement and its predictors which could be better understood through the use of age as a moderator variable in the study of job involvement. 1.2.1.2 Education: Among the 18 studies investigating the relationship between education and job involvement, seven reported a positive relationship (Cleland, Bass, McHugh & Montano, 1976; Gadbois, 1971; Gurin, Veroff & Feld, 1960; Lefkowitz, 1974; Mannheim, 1975; Newman, 1975; Stevens, Beyer & Trice, 1978), four found a negative relationship (Aldag & Brief, 1975b; Baba & Jamal, 1976; Koch & Steers, 1978; Saal, 1978) and five showed no relationship (Ivancevich & McMahon, 1977; Jones, James & Bruni, 1975; Rabinowitz, Hall & Goodale, 1977; Ruh, White & Wood, 1975; Siegel & Ruh, 1973). Mannheim and Cohen (1978) found that education had a curvilinear effect on job involvement. They reported that an incomplete higher education had a tendency to reduce involvement and a complete university training enhanced it relative to a high school education. The study by Schuler (1975) suggested that the above 41 variables were related but did not report either the magnitude or direction. As in the case of age, the nature of the relationship between education and job involvement varied from sample to sample. The strength of the relation ships was also rather weak. One reason might be that the above situation was due to the restriction in the range of education level in any particular sample. Another possible reason would be that the role of education might be sample specific, in which case it could be tested as a moderator for different subgroups in order to ascertain the part played by education in job involvement research. 1.2.1.3 Sex: A total of seven studies considered the relationship between sex and job involvement and five of them reported that males were more in volved in their job than females (Hollon & Gemmill, 1976; Koch & Steers, 1978; Newman, 1975; Rabinowitz, Hall & Goodale, 1977; Saal, 1978). Stevens, Beyer and Trice (1978) found no relationship between sex and job involvement, while Baba and Jamal (1976) found among a sample of Canadian blue collar workers that females were more involved in their jobs than their male counterparts. However, it seems clear from the evidence that men are more likely to experience involvement in .their job compared to women and perhaps perceive more readily the associations among the work related variables. It may be that the above situation comes about due to traditional differential sex role socialization. In other words, compared to women, men are more likely to value work intrinsically in addition to its instrumental role as a means to earn a living. As a result, they tend to view the whole area of work with greater interest and intensity. This argument again assigns a moderator role to sex, when one explores the antecedents and consequences of job involvement. 1.2.1.4 Locus of Control: Four studies concentrated on the relationship between locus of control and job involvement. Kimmons and Greenhaus (1976) and Runyon (1973) concluded that people with an internal locus of control tended 42 to be more job involved than those with an external locus of control while Bigoness (1978) and Rabinowitz, Hall and Goodale (1977) discovered that locus of control did not relate to job involvement in any significant way. Runyon (1973) argued that since internals perceive reinforcements to be con tingent upon their actions, they are more likely to be involved in their jobs, whereas such involvement might not be a major consideration in the external's psychological life as the idea of the work arena as a place for demonstrating competence would be irrelevant to him or her. The above reasoning, combined with the general theoretical importance of personality variables as possible determinants of job involvement and the paucity of empirical studies in this area, presents a compelling reason for future researchers to investigate the connections between locus of control and job involvement more thoroughly across different samples. 1.2.1.5 Tenure: Tenure was the subject of interest for 17 researchers studying aspects of job involvement. There were seven studies recording a positive relationship (Aldag & Brief, 1975b; Ivancevich & McMahon, 1977; Jones, James & Bruni, 1975; Kanungo, Misra & Dayal, 1975; Newman, 1975; Rabinowitz, Hall & Goodale, 1977), one showing a negative relationship (Davis, 1966) and another .nine indicating insignificant relationships (Baba & Jamal, 1976; Gechman & Wiener, 1975; Hall & Mansfield, 1975; Mannheim & Cohen, 1978; Mitchell, Baba & Epps, 1975; Saal, 1978; Schneider, Hall & Nygren, 1971; Schwyhart & Smith, 1972; Stevens, Beyer & Trice, 1978) between tenure and job involvement. Of the articles that reported some form of relationship between tenure and involvement, the magnitudes were weak. The discouraging findings suggest that tenure may not be a valuable correlate of job involve ment. Two recent reviews (Baba, 1976; Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977) seem to concur with the above conclusion. 1.2.1.6 Community Size: Ruh, White and Wood (1975) and: Siegel and Ruh (1973) 43 found that community size was positively related to job involvement while Saal (1978) reported that there was no significant relationship between the two. Since both of the studies which found positive relationships were based on the same sample, they can be treated as one study. Community size was used as a surrogate for rural-urban background. The justification for the use of the above variable comes from the argument that job attitudes may be positively related to a rural background where opportunity for the absorption of the traditional norms of work ethic is greater, whereas in the urban inner city environment, the alienation syndrome blocks such socializa tion (Blood & Hulin, 1967; Hulin & Blood, 1968). However, the empirical results were in the opposite direction for the former and insignificant for the latter. Before further empirical research is undertaken in this area, the concept of rural-urban background has to be clearly defined. In other words, it is not clear whether the concept has to be operationalized in terms of "place of upbringing" or "present residence" or "location of the work place " (Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977); 1.2.1.7 Protestant Ethic: There were three studies exploring the relation ship between the Protestant Ethic and job involvement. Rabinowitz, Hall and Goodale (1977) and Saal'-,(197-8) . found positive relationships, while Aldag and Brief ' 1975a) reported no relationship. Bass and Barrett (1972) and Lodahl (1964) suggested that job involvement is simply an operationalization of the Protestant Ethic. Alternately, if a person endorsed the Protestant Ethic, he or she would be automatically involved in the job. However, more research at a conceptual level needs to be done to clarify the meaning of the Protes tant Ethic and what it manifests before anything conclusive can be said at the empirical level. 1.2.1.8 Higher Order Need Strength: A total of 13 studies sought out higher order need strengths as possible explanatory variables of job involve-44 ment. Growth need strength, using Maslow's hierarchy, was found to be positively related to job involvement in seven studies, :.though the strength of the relationships varied (Hall, Goodale, Rabinowitz & Morgan, 1978; Hall & Schneider, 1972; Hall, Schneider & Nygren, 1970; Kanungo, Misra & Dayal, 1975; Maurer, 1969; Rabinowitz, Hall & Goodale, 1977). One study (Mansfield, 1972) showed insignificant relationships except for self esteem. The other five studies reported positive relationships between need for achievement and job involvement (Mannheim & Cohen, 1978; Saal, 1978; Steers, 1975a,' 1976; Steers & Braunstein, 1976). The most unambiguous results were obtained in the case of need for achievement. It has been argued in the literature that people with strong growth needs, such as need for achievement, self actualization, etc., should experience a high degree of involvement in jobs that have a wide scope, while those with weaker needs would view such jobs as too demanding and would not be likely to get involved in them (Lawler, 1973; Steers, 1975b). The empirical evidence seems to cor roborate the above viewpoint. Need for achievement, based upon the unequivocal positive association it showed with job involvement appears to be a strong candidate for inclusion in a model of job involvement. 1.2.1.9 Marital Status: Eight studies focused on the relationship between marital status and job involvement. Kanungo, Misra and Dayal (1975) stated that married people were likely to be more job involved compared to singles. However, there were seven other studies which suggested that marital status bore no relationship to one's job involvement (Baba & Jamal, 1976; Gannon & Hendrickson, 1973; Gechman & Wiener, 1975; Lodahl & Kejner, 1965; Rabinowitz, Hall & Goodale, 1977; Mannheim & Cohen, 1978; Saal, 1978). In view of the above findings, it can be concluded that the direct role of marital status in job involvement research is inconsequential. 4:5 1.2.2. Situational Factors 1.2.2.1. Job Scope: There were 18 studies in all, focusing on the association between job scope and job involvement, of which 16 reported positive rela tionships (Aldag & Brief, 1975b; Brief & Aldag, 1975, 1977; Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hall, Goodale, Rabinowitz & Morgan, 1978; Koch & Steers, 1978, Lawler & Hall, 1970; Mannheim and Cohen, 1978; McKelvey & Sekaran, 1977; Newman, 1975; Rabinowitz, Hall & Goodale, 1977; Rousseau, 1977; Saal, 1978; Schuler, 1975, 1976; Thamhain & Gemmill, 1974). One study found that the interaction between job scope (as measured by the Motivating Potential score) and role ambiguity was negatively related to job involvement (Abdel-Halim, 1978). In a longitudinal study Lawler, Hackman and Kaufman (1973) found that expanding the scope of the job through job enrichment did not have any significant effect on job involvement. Despite the latter two findings, the weight of evidence seems to substantiate the theoretical reasoning that the wider the scope of one's job in terms of its core characteristics such as challenge, autonomy, variety, etc., the more likely one is to become involved in his or her job. It can thus be said that job scope deserves a pivotal position in investigations dealing with job involvement. 1.2.2.2. Participation in Decision Making: Among the 10 studies attempting to learn about the role of participation in decision making in job involvement, eight revealed positive relationships (Gardell, 1977; Ruh, Johnson & Scontrino, 1973; Ruh, White & Wood, 1975; Saleh & Hosek, 1976; Siegel & Ruh, 1973; Steers, 1976; White, 1978, White & Ruh, 1973) while one study did not find any relationship (Newman, 1975). Schuler (1975) reported that the above two variables were related to each other but did not provide any information regarding strength and direction. Likert (1961) suggested the possibility that participation in decision making was likely to generate favorable job attitudes as it contributed toward the fulfillment of higher order needs. 46 The empirical evidence seems to support this notion. Hence, it can be concluded that participation in decision making is a viable correlate of job involvement. 1.2.2.3 Job Level: A total of 11 studies discussed the association between job level and job involvement, of which seven found positive relationships (Chatterjee & Ganguly, 1977; Cleland, Bass, McHugh & Montano, 1976; Davis, 1966; Mannheim, 1975; Mannheim & Cohen, 1978; Newman, 1975; Stevens, Beyer & Trice, 1978). The other four indicated no relationships between the two variables (Lodahl & Kejner, 1965; Mitchell, Baba & Epps, 1975; Rabinowitz, 1975 - cited in Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977; Schuler, 1975). Though it has been suggested that individuals at higher ranks are generally more interested in their jobs and as a result more involved in their jobs (Tannenbaum, 1966), the empirical findings seem divided in their support of the above proposition. It is likely that the proposed relationship comes about due to the influence of a third variable. For instance, it is conceivable that higher level jobs have a wider scope and offer challenge and autonomy to the incumbent which causes the increased involvement as opposed to level by itself bringing about the increase in involvement. Therefore, it is important to look beyond the simplistic notion of job level influencing job involvement in order to isolate the true relationships between the two variables. 1.2.2.4 Leader Behavior: Leader behavior was a topic of interest for seven studies dealing with job involvement. Denhardt (1970) and Newman (1975) reported a positive relationship between open styles of leadership and job involvement. Brief, Aldag and Wallden (1.976) found that job involvement was positively related only to initiating structure and not to consideration while Herman, Dunham and Hulin (1975) showed a negative association for initiating structure and a positive one for consideration. Dunne, Stahl and Melhart (1978) and Jones, James and Bruni (1975) obtained no relationship 47 between leader behavior and job involvement. Schuler (1975)' suggested that the above variables might be related but failed to give information re garding the nature of the relationship. The empirical evidence cited above suggests that the role of leader behavior as a predictor of job involvement is at best equivocal. However, the path goal theory of leadership (House, 1971) would hypothesize that a climate high in consideration and structure might facilitate goal attainment by removing whatever ambiguity one might encounter, thereby allowing one to see the linkage between aspirations and their fulfillment more clearly. The above argument appears to favor a moderator role for leader behavior in job involvement research. More research needs to be done before any generalizations can be made in that direction. 1.2.2.5 Social Factors: The notion of social factors is treated almost as a residual in job involvement research. There has neither, been much agree ment as to what constitutes the social factor dimension nor among the myriad of factors, which may be relevant to job involvement. A variety of concepts such as "group and organizational dynamics" (Alderfer & Lodahl, 1971), "friendship opportunities on the job" (Saal, 1978), "interpersonal relation ships" (Friedlander & Margulies, 1969; Herman, Dunham & Hulin, 1975; Newman, 1975), "number of people contacted" (Lodahl & Kejner, 1965), "inter dependence on the job" (Lodahl & Kejner, 1965), "team involvement" (Lodahl, 1964), "peer group cohesion" (Buchanan, 1974), "supportive climate" (Hall & Hall, 1976) and "organizational climate" (Friedlander & Margulies, 1969; Jones, James, Bruni & Sells, 1977; Waters, Roach & Batlis, 1974) have come under the rubric of social factors. As a result, the findings show no con sistent pattern either in terms of direction or magnitude. While the explan atory utility of social factors in job involvement research cannot be disputed, considerable theoretical progress has to be made toward identifying 48 specific factors of importance before any fruitful outcomes can be expected in the empirical realm. 1.2.3 Outcome Variables 1.2.3.1 Job Satisfaction: Among the outcome variables, job satisfaction evinced maximum interest among researchers as a correlate of job involve ment. A total of 18 studies investigated the above relationships and all of them reported positive relationships (Aldag & Brief, 1975a; -Baba <& Jamal, 1976; Bigoness, 1978; Gannon & Hendrickson, 1973; Hall, Goodale, Rabinowitz & Morgan, 1978; Herman, Dunham & Hulin, 1975; Hollon & Chesser, 1976; Lodahl & Kejner, 1965; Mannheim & Cohen, 1978; Mukherjee, 1969, 1970; Newman, 1975; Rousseau, 1977; Saal, 1978; Schuler, 1975; Schwyhart & Smith, 1972; Weissenberg & Gruenfeld, 1969; Wood, 1971). However, Bigoness (1978) reported that job involvement was not significantly related to satisfaction with pay, co-workers and supervision while Schwyhart and Smith (1972) found out that satisfaction with hygiene factors was not related to job involvement. Albeit, they seem to be consistent with previously reported relationships between growth needs and job involvement. It has been argued in the literature that though job satisfaction and job involvement are conceptually distinct, they share many common determinants (Campbell & Klein, 1975; Lawler & Hall, 1970). Hence it is logical to expect them to be related to each other:: The theoretical model developed by Hall (1971) also seems to affirm the above reasoning. It seems clear from the foregoing that job satisfaction is a. relevant variable in investigations concerning job involvement. Future research must concentrate on outlining the causal nature of the above relation ship . 1.2.3.2 Effort: There were six studies discussing job involvement and effort. Hall and Foster (1977), Hall, Goodale, Rabinowitz and Morgan (1978) ..>. and Lawler and Hall (1970) obtained positive correlations between the above 49 two variables while Cummings and Manring (1977) found a negative relation ship. Ivancevich and McMahon (1977) and Schuler (1975) reported that the relationship between job involvement and effort was insignificant. It seems logical that a job involved person is bound to exert greater effort in wha.t he or she is doing since, by definition, he or she is likely to see in the job a chance to satisfy the need for self esteem. As a result, one can expect a strong positive relationship between job involvement and one's perceptions of his or her effort on the job. Though the empirical findings are somewhat divided in their support of the above reasoning, future research needs to concentrate on this linkage to find out more about the connection between job involvement and effort. In other words, it is felt that the small number of studies conducted in this area is hardly sufficient to draw any definitive inferences regarding the nature of the association. 1.2.3.3 Performance: The role of performance in job involvement research, as seen from the empirical evidence, is both complex and equivocal. Among the 14 studies investigating the variable, two reported a weak positive relationship between job involvement and performance (Hall, Goodale, Rabin owitz & Morgan, 1978; Vroom, 1962). Wood (1974) suggested that the relation ship between satisfaction and performance was positive for people with a low degree of involvement whereas it was insignificant for the high involvement group. Hall and Lawler (1970) obtained a positive correlation for a global performance measure but failed to get significant correlations for both objec tive and composite measures of performance. Steers (1975b) noted a positive correlation between the above two variables only among those who had a high need for achievement. For the low need for achievement group, the relation ship was "insignificant. The other eight studies reported no relationship between performance and job involvement (Goodman, Rose & F.urcon, 1970; Hall & Foster, 1977; Ivancevich & McMahon, 1977: Lawler & Hall, 1970; Lodahl & 50 Kejner, 1965; Saal, 1978; Schuler, 1975; Siegel & Ruh, 1973). It is believed that the conflicting results come about for a variety of reasons. One reason may be the simplistic designs employed in most studies. Porter and Lawler (1968) observed that the relationship between job attitudes and performance was moderated by abilities and role perception and no meaning ful results were possible until the research design included such moderators. Another reason may be the differences in the operationalization and measure ment of performance. In addition to the use of either objective or subjective measures of performance, the above studies exhibited differences between global and facet measures of performance. Besides, there was no agreement as to what the relevant facets were. Cummings and Schwab (1973) pointed out the importance of establishing the construct validity of performance before it could be gainfully employed in any research enterprise. At the present stage, the concept of performance is wrought with considerable ambiguity and unless some sort of convergence is reached toward its definition and measurement, it is likely that empirical studies will continue to reflect the current state of affairs. 1.2.3.4 Turnover: There was strong support in the empirical literature for the notion that a person involved in his or her job was less likely to leave it. All the six studies substantiated the above observation (Beehr & Gupta, 1978; Farris, 1971; Koch & Steers, 1978; Parasuraman & Alutto, 1978; Siegel & Ruh, 1973; Wickert, 1951). However, Farris (1971) observed that while the above hypothesis was true for a sample of nurses, it did not hold for a sample of engineers. The discrepancy could be attributed to the fact that engineers identify themselves more in terms of their profession than in terms of their employing organization. They are likely to continue their involvement in their profession even if they switch organizations. Thus it could be concluded that for most occupations there is a definite negative 51 relationship '.between -job involvement and turnover..-1.2.3.5 Absenteeism: There were only four studies which explored the relationship and three of them confirmed the view that a job involved person was less likely to absent himself or herself from the job (Beehr & Gupta, 1978; Patchen, 1970; Saal, 1978). However, Siegel and Ruh (1973) found only an ^insignificant relationship. Though more research can be done to validate the above findings, it seems reasonable to assume that job involvement is negatively related to absenteeism. 1.2.3.6 Success: It has been suggested in the literature that experience of success enhances involvement (Hall, 1971). The three studies focusing on the above relationship corroborated that notion (Hall & Foster, 1977; Hall, Goodale, Rabinowitz & Morgan, 1978; Hall & Hall, 1976). All of them reported positive relationships between job involvement and success. Future research needs to be done in order to verify whether the above relationship is stable across different samples and over time. Though the section dealing with the nature of the construct con cluded that job involvement was one's psychological identification with work wherein the individual's self esteem is tied to work, the empirical evidence seems to include the situational factors as well in understanding job involvement. Here, in summary, it can be said that the studies reviewed above stress the importance of investigating job involvement as a function of both individual difference and situational factors. They also point toward developing a conceptual model connecting selected individual difference vari ables and situational variables with outcome variables, with job involvement serving as an intervening variable in the above linkage. Such a model should be grounded on theoretically and empirically sound premises. It is believed such an attempt will enhance our understanding of the nature of job 52 involvement in terms of its antecedent and consequent conditions. The present study is a step toward such an undertaking. 1.3 Job Involvement as a Moderator Job involvement was used as a moderator variable by 12 researchers studying relationships among a variety of variables (Brief & Aldag, 1977; Friedlander & Margulies, 1969; Jones, James & Bruni, 1975; Ruh, White & Wood, 1975; Schuler, 1975, 1977; Stone, 1976; Vroom, 1962; Wood, 1971, 1972, 1974; Zultowski, Arvey & Dewhirst, 1978). Brief and Aldag (1977) reported that job involvement failed to moderate the relation between leader behavior and job satisfaction while Ruh, White and Wood (1975) and Stone (1976) discovered that':job involvement might not be an appropriate moderator for the job scope - job attitude relationship. Wood (1971, 1972, 1974) concluded that participation was related to satisfaction and satisfaction was related to performance only among people with low job involvement. However, the above result was true only for the female sample. Schuler (1975) learned that highly job involved people showed no reaction to organizational phenomena. Both Schuler (1975» 1977) and Wood (1971, 1972, 1974) explained that their findings supported the argument that people who were highly involved in their jobs were by definition intrinsically oriented in setting standards of performance and satisfaction and were less concerned with organizational prescriptions of what good per formance should be. On the other hand, the low job involvement group depended on such extrinsic prescriptions and responded more readily, exhibiting stronger associations among the variables cited above. Vroom (1962) in his study of ego involvement, reported that the relationship between opportunity for self expression and job satisfaction 53 was significantly stronger for people with a high degree of ego involve ment. The above findings seem to conform to logical expectations in that direction. Jones, James and Bruni (1975) argued that because of their depen dence on extrinsic factors referred to earlier, people with low job involve ment would demonstrate stronger relationships between their leader behavior and the confidence and trust they place on their leader. Their findings confirmed this hypothesis. Two other studies focused on aspects of organizational climate for which job involvement was used as a moderator variable (Friedlander & Margulies, 1969; Zultowski, Arvey & Dewhirst, 1978). Friedlander and Marguies (1969) studied the influence of task involvement on the relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction. They showed that for people who exhibited high task involvement, satisfaction was maximized in a climate of high trust, high intimacy, and low hindrance, while for the low task involved group, satisfaction was maximized in an atmosphere of high esprit and low disengagement (Halpin & Crofts, 1963). Zultowski, Arvey and Dewhirst (1978) did not find sufficient evidence to warrant a general statement concerning the moderating effects of organizational climate on the relationships between goal setting attributes and employee satisfaction. However, they did find one of their climate dimensions, job involvement and commitment, moderating the relationship between feedback and evaluation on the one hand and intrinsic and overall satisfaction on the other. More specifically, they reported that the above relationships were significantly higher for the high involvement and commitment group than for the low group. In summary, it is difficult to arrive at any general conclusion from the above survey regarding the function of job involvement as a moderator variable. More research has to be carried out before any generali-54 zations can be expressed. 1.4 The Dynamics of Job Involvement This section concentrates on the developmental aspects of job involvement. In other words, attention will be paid to specific questions, such as how job involvement comes into being and what sort of dynamics characterize the concept over time. Lewin (1936) theorized that in a job situation, if the goals were sufficiently challenging and relevant to one's self concept, the person was likely to perform well and experience a sense of successful accomplishment upon goal attainment. The resulting enhancement of an individual's self concept, according to Hall and Nougaim (1968), provided intrinsic reinforcement which caused that person to become more involved in the job. Such increased involvement in turn led to an increased commitment on the part of the person to future goals, thus completing the cycle (Lewin, Dembo, Festinger & Sears, 1944). Developing the above argument further, Hall (1971) proposed a dynamic model of involve ment shown as follows: challenging goal —^effort —>^goal attainment —> psychological success —> increased self esteem—> increased commitment and involvement. Aspects of the model were tested using longitudinal research designs (Hall & Foster, 1977; Hall & Hall, 1976). Moderate empirical support was noted, calling for further refinements of the model. However, it must be noted that the above model was the only one focusing on the dyna mics of job involvement. Other longitudinal studies yielded divergent con clusions regarding temporal effects on job involvement (Gadbois, 1973; Hall, Goodale, Rabinowitz & Morgan, 1978; Hall & Mansfield, 1971, 1975; Hoiberg & Berry, 1978; Zultowski, Arvey & Dewhirst, 1978). For a more detailed description of the above studies the reader is referred to Table 1. This is a promising area of investigation and future research must address itself to this question through careful theorizing, causal modeling and 55 sophisticated analytical'procedures involving path analysis ,s;cross lagged and dynamic correlations, as well as time series techniques. 1.5 Methodological Aspects in Job Involvement Research 1.5.1 Sample: Unlike many other social psychological constructs that were tested on relatively homogeneous populations, job involvement draws on fairly heterogeneous populations. The samples range from research scientists to unskilled blue collar workers, from different types of organizations. As for cultural diversity, in addition to American samples, studies were con ducted on Canadian, English, Israeli and Indian data. A more detailed description of the sample can be seen in Table 1. Hence it can be safely said that the research studies reviewed here have a broad base and to that extent the conclusions can be compared across occupations and cultures. 1.5.2 Measurement: The Lodahl and Kejner scale of job involvement appears to be the most popular instrument for measuring job involvement. Among 104 empirical studies reviewed, 71 used either the entire Lodahl and Kejner scale or shorter and modified versions of it. As for the dimensionality of the scale, there seems to be no agreement among researchers. The various studies failed to yield clear factors common across samples. This has prompted the criticism that the construct is occupationally specific (Schwyhart & Smith, 1972; Wood, 1972). There has also been a certain dis crepancy between definition of the construct and the operationalizatlon of it. For instance, McKelvey and Sekaran (1977) defined job involvement in terms of "a person's ego identity in and growth with the job." However, the two items they chose from Patchen's motivation scale (1965) to operationalize did not conform to that definition. Such a discrepancy was reflected in other 56 studies as well (Beehr & Gupta, 1978; Dunne, Stahl & Melhart, 1978; Rousseau, 1977; Thamhain & Gemmill, 1974). While motivation has often been used as a surrogate to measure perceived effort, it is conceptually quite distinct from job involvement (Lawler & Hall, 1970; Ruh, White & Wood, 1975) and to use it to measure job involvement is to disregard the theoretical develop ments in the field. Mirvis and Lawler (1977) in their sutdy of financial impact on employee attitudes committed a similar error by operationalizing job involvement in terms of organizational involvement though evidence to the contrary exists in the literature (Baba & Jamal, 1976). Hamner and Tosi (1974), in the ivestigation of the relationship of role conflict and role ambiguity to job involvement attributed a generic quality to job involvement and measured it with scales developed to measure job satisfaction, propen sity to leave the organization, participation and job threat and anxiety. Such erroneous departures underscore the necessity- for careful adherence to theory based instrumentation and measurement if consistent and meaningful results are to be:.obtained... . ... ^. ; In addition to the above, there are some general problems of scaling that merit attention. A close examination of the job involvement scale reveals a mixture of descriptive and evaluative items. According to Johanneson (1971), description of one's environment is directly affected by satisfaction with that environment. This causes some contamination inr measurement. For example, the possibility that strong correlations between job involvement and satisfaction reported in the literature may be due to the above effect cannot entirely be ruled out. Though job involve ment is treated as a job attitude conceptually, the distinction among affective, cognitive and behavioral aspects of an attitude have not been seriously con sidered in scale construction. Quite often the presumed casues and effects of job involvement are combined in one instrument (e.g. Saleh & Hosek, 1976) in clear violation of psychometric principles and test theory. As pointed out by Kanungo (1979), for the purposes of conceptual clarity and effective methodological manipulation in empirical studies, the state of involvement needs to be identified and measured separately from its causes as well as itsreffects. Research toward such refinements has to assume priority over simple replication studies. 1.5.3 Analytical Techniques: A look at Table 1 reveals that bivariate studies dominated the literature compared to multivariate studies of job involvement. Most studies of association concentrated on descriptive statistics, correlations and analysis of variance for processing the data. A small number of studies made use of multiple regression, canonical analysis and discriminant function analysis in their attempt to get more information out of their data than simple bivariate techniques would provide. Factor analysis was used quite often to isolate the dimensions of job involvement and understand its struc ture. Nearly one quarter of the studies reviewed in Table 1 used factor analysis. However, most of them used orthogonal rotation to obtain terminal solutions. Orthogonal rotation is a technique which forces independent factors (Rummel, 1970). Except for a very few studies (e.g.,.Baba & Jamal, 1976), none of the others verified their assumptions of independence of factors by subjecting their data to oblique rotation. Also, most of them did not provide evidence that the sample correlation matrices were appropriate for factor analysis (Dziuban & Shirkey, 1974; Guilford, 1952). Many studies using two-way analysis of variance contained unequal cell frequencies but it was not clear that appropriate techniques for non-orthogonal analysis of variance were adopted (Applebaum & Cramer, 1974). From the foregoing, it can be concluded that future research can profit from the use of more sophisti cated statistical techniques and a certain methodological rigor in employing 58 them. 1.5.4, Reliability and Validity: It can be seen from Table 1 that of the 104 studies reviewed, 43 provided evidence for. some form of reliability of the job involvement scale used. Most of them reported moderate to high internal consistency reliability. Information on the validity of the scale was provided in 18 studies. Con-: struct validity was established in fivevstudieslwhile"three attempted convergent and discriminant validation of the construct. Again, there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the construct exhibited moderate validity across heterogeneous- samples. 1.6 Conclusion: In summary, the review and criticism provided in this chapter allow the following general conclusions to be drawn, many of which endorse those of Baba (1976) and Rabinowitz and Hall (1977). 1. The empirical results are more consistent with 'the importance of work' view of job involvement than with the 'extent to which performance affects self esteem1 definition (Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977). 2. Job involvement appeared to be quite stable (Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977). 3. Job involvement is related to three classes of work related factors: individual difference factors, situational factors and work outcome variables (Baba, 1976; Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977). 4. Individual difference factors and situational factors demonstrate independent effects on job involvement (Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977). 5. Job involvement seems to be an intervening variable linking individual difference and situational factors to work outcome variables. 6. Situational variables seem to have more effect on the attitudes of low job involved persons than on highly involved persons (Rabinowitz & 59 Hall, 1977) . 7. The data do not provide sufficient information to warrant any gener alization regarding the role of job involvement as a moderator variable (Baba, 1976). 8. Insufficient attention characterizes research on the dynamics of job involvement. 9. Much of the variance in job involvement remains unexplained (Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977). . ' 10. The samples studied represent a broad spectrum of the population with a considerable degree of intrar 'and inter-cultural diversity. 11. There is a serious lack of methodological and psychometric sophistication in job involvement research (Baba, 1976). 12. The existing instruments exhibit moderate degrees of reliability and validity. 60 CHAPTER 2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE THEORETICAL MODEL It has been observed from the studies reported that job involve ment is related to a wide variety of constructs. It was found to be related to individual and personality factors in a large number of studies (e.g., Lodahl & Kejner, 1965), to organizational and situational factors (e.g., Maurer, 1969) and to outcome variables such as job satisfaction (e.g., Baba & Jamal, 1976), performance (e.g., Vroom, 1962), turnover (e.g., Beehr & Gupta, 1978), absenteeism (e.g., Saal, 1978), and success (e.g., Hall & Foster, 1977). 2.1 'Theoretical Perspectives on Job Involvement: Though the above findings seem to indicate a pivotal position for job involvement in organizational research, it can be further explicated in the context of the theoretical frameworks guiding research in this area. A recent review (Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977) identifies three such theoretical perspectives which are presented briefly as follows: 2.1.1 Job Involvement as an Individual Difference Variable: The view of job involvement as an individual difference variable germinated from the Calvinistic notions of assigning a certain moral character and a sense of personal responsibility to work. These ideas are learned early during the socialization process and introjected into the self. It has been pointed out that this is primarily an extra work socialization (Hulin & Blood, 1968) and is resistant to changes induced by the job situation. Proponents of this view (Dubin, 1956; Runyon, 1973) would argue that pro viding a low job involved person with contextual embellishments such as increased responsibility for making decisions, or a more favorable job climate, would be of no avail because they might be irrelevant to that person. 61 Such a perspective would offer the paradigm that the main determinant of job involvement would be a value orientation learned early in the socialization process, and wouldctherefore stress the importance of personality variables for guiding empirical research on job involvement. 2.1.2. Job Involvement as a Function of the Situation It has also been theorized that job involvement is influenced by situational factors contingent upon the extent to which an individual sees hi or her job related effort as relevant to certain attributes that are central to his or her self concept. Advocates of this view (Argyris, 1964; McGregor, 1960) reason that the working conditions and the expectations which modern work organizations place on an employee tend to stultify one's need for gratifying certain ego and growth needs, resulting in a decrease in job involvement. This form of psychological withdrawal is symptomatic of the regressive trend imposed by Theory X style of management (McGregor, 1960). Bass (1965) proposed that conditions such as: a) the opportunity to make more of the job decisions; b) the feeling that one is making an important con tribution to company success; c) success; d) achievement; and e) self-deter.-i mination and freedom to set one's own work pace would lead to an increase in one's involvement on the job. The above position implies a focus on organiza tional change as a primary means of inducing involvement in an individual. 2.1.3. Job Involvement as an Individual-Situatiorial Outcome The above idea advances the notion thatr-xa more realistic interpreta tion of job involvement'would be to treat it as a joint outcome of individual and situational factors (Lawler & Hall, 1970). In fact, this notion accommo dates both of the preceding perspectives. It recognizes the individual differences posture by granting that individuals do differ in the degree to which they get involved in their jobs as determined by their background arid personalities. At the same time, it also agrees with the view that, 62 other things being equal, people have a tendency to become more involved in jobs that give them a chance to expand their horizons. To paraphrase Lodahl and Kejner (1965), :it is conceivable that job involvement is influenced by local organizational conditions as well as by value orientations that can be attributed to early extra-work socialization. The implication of this point of view would be to examine both individual difference variables and situational factors as possible predictors of job involvement. 2.2 Development of the Theoretical Model Though it has been argued that job involvement is strictly a value orientation that one brings to the job. (Locke, 1976; Lodahl'& Kejner, 1965), or strictly a situational determinant (Bass, 1965), the weight of evidence seems to favour the third theoretical position that job involve ment is a function of both individual and situational factors (Lawler & Hall, 1970; Schuler, 1975). Certain individual difference factors like need for achievement, locus of control and situational factors like job scope, participation in decision making, etc. may be directly related to job involvement. Any model attempting to test the theoretical statements should provide for an empirical verification of such statements..,, A model is developed here to test the above theoretical position. The conceptual model to be tested is outlined in Figure 2. The model suggests three stages in the prediction of job related effort, as follows: individual and situational factors determine job involvement which in turn determines job effort. The model uses job involvement both as an independent and dependent variable. It has been suggested that an individual responds favorably to stimuli that are positively reinforcing. The above suggestion would lead one to believe that a job involved person who tends to reaffirm his worth through his job would react positively to favorable cues from his job. In other words, a job wide in its scope would evoke a greater sense of worth from an Figure 2 Conceptual Model of Job Involvement Individual Difference Factors Job Involvement Effort Situational Factors cr> 64 individual. Here we see a logical relationship between certain job characteristics that enhance the job scope and one's involvement in that job. The empirical literature cited earlier also supports this position. Further, people are likely to feel a greater sense of worth in the context of their job if they are consulted with regard to various decisions per taining to their job:- Hence it can be reasoned that if a person is allowed to participate in making decisions concerning the job that person is doing, he or she is likely to be more involved in the job. Such involvement comes as a result of positive value attributed to one's job which in turn reaffirms one's worth. The above view is also consistent with the empirical findings reviewed earlier. Since the concept of job involvement hinges on the notion of self worth, one would look for possible explanatory variables in the domain of personality as well. For instance, if people believe that they can control their own destiny in general, then there is a greater likelihood that theyuse their job situation as a possible source for serving their needs of self worth. In other words, there is a greater chance for a person to use one's job to enrich his/her psychological life by getting involved in it. On the other hand, for a person whose locus of control is external, such a linkage may possibly not exist. Hence it is suggested that internal locus of control may be a relevant personality variable that could meaning fully influence job involvement. In addition, if the job is perceived to be the means to reaffirm one's self worth, as stated earlier, a person who has a strong need to achieve is likely to get deeply involved in his job. In other words, the choice of one's job as a means of reaffirmation of worth is most likely to occur among people whose locus of control is internal and who possess a strong achievement need. The above reasoning leads us to the model shown in Figure 3 that can be empirically verified. 65 It is important at this stage to consider the possible moderating effects of certain individual difference variables such as age, sex and education and also the possible effect that leadership climate may have on the above linkage. As one puts in more time in the labor force it can be expected that the job becomes more important to one's self image. Hence there is a logical reason to anticipate that an older worker would tend to perceive the above linkage more clearly than a younger person. Similarly, a more educated person is likely to envision greater clarity in the above linkage because the opportunities for higher order need fulfillment in the job context increases in the type of jobs such persons hold in general. In addition, educated workers are more likely to respond favorably to positive cues from the job as opposed to their less educated counterpart. Differential sex role socialization renders men to view their jobs as a potential source of servicing their needs for achievement or for influencing what goes on at their work more than women. Women, perhaps, are disposed toward deriving such reinforcements"in areas other than work. As a result it is suggested that men may view the linkages shown in the model more clearly than women. Among the situational variables the leadership climate is likely to influence the path-goal clarity (House, 1971). The path-goal model of leadership would suggest that when a favorable leadership climate is per ceived by an individual, that individual is likely to view the linkages suggested in the model with greater clarity. Hence the moderating effect of the leadership climate is worth investigating. The empirical studies reviewed, taken together indicated a certain equivocality in the use of job involvement as a moderator. In the light of the weak results obtained,'.;'the author tends to agree with the view that job involvement may not be an appropriate moderator for the relationships among 66 the constructs outlined in the model (Ruh, White & Wood, 1975). Appropriate analytical techniques will be employed to empirically verify the causality implied by the model. The model will be revised on the basis of present and previous research findings toward as complete and defensible a theory as is possible of job involvement and job related effort. It is the author's belief that if we genuinely seek causal explanations we will at least gain some rough idea about where to look among the potentially inexhaustible storehouse of work related variables. It is hoped that this work will lead toward the development of such a strategy - toward showing where to look, or to put it more modestly, toward understanding the the nature of one of these variables, job involvement. 67 CHAPTER 3  RESEARCH HYPOTHESES In the interests' of parsimony, it is felt that only those variables that have empirical or logical significance to the study should be investigated as opposed to investigating as many different variables as possible for the simple reason that they are there. Young (1977) suggested that "the study of systems of phenomena can be greatly simplified by ex plicitly tying hypotheses to previously developed and tested theory, since by so doing, the number of possible alternative interpretations is made more manageable" (p. 109). Hence the following variables were selected for inclusion in the operational model shown in Figure 3. Among the individual factors only age, sex, education, locus of control and need for achievement seemed to have some empirical and logical justification for their suggested relationship with job involvement. Taking the above variables one by one, it has been indicated that job becomes more important to the self image of a person as he advances in age and hence there is reason to expect age to influence job involvement. The above notion also has some empirical support (e.g., Lodahl & Kejner, 1965; Newman; 1975; Schwyhart & Smith, 1972). The differential socialization of men and women with regard to work in general and jobs in particular, in western societies, would indicate that men are-likely to be more job involved than women. The above notion is also supported in the empirical literature to some extent (e.g., Hollon & Gemmil, 1976). It is argued in the literature that opportunities for higher order':heed ful fillment are likely to elicit favorable employee responses to the job among highly educated individuals. Conversely, similar responses may not be forth coming from less educated employees for the simple reason that their jobs may not be as fulfilling as those held by more educated people (Schein, 1971). Figure 3 Operational Model of Job Involvement Need for Achievement Locus of • Control Job Involvement Job Scope Participation in Decision Making Effort I . i CT) co 69 The above notion is also supported in the empirical literature (e.g., Gadbois, 1971; Lefkowitz, 1971; Mannheim, 1975). There is some empirical support to the idea that job involvement is a function of both personality and situational factors (Lawler & Hall, 1970). An important personality variable that is likely to influence job involvement is the locus of control (Hall & Rabinowitz, 1977). It is felt that internals view the work setting as a place for demonstrating competence on the job and as a result tend to get involved in their "job. To the externals who see the world^as being controlled by fate, work setting as a place for demonstrating competence is irrelevant. This view.-is also supported empirically (Runyon, 1973). Another personality variable that might be responsible for one's involvement in the job is one's need for achievement. If an individual has a strong need for .achievement, he or she is likely to seek fulfillment of the need by getting involved in whatever he or she does and exerting considerable effort toward accomplishing that end. This achievement need is likely to induce a greater degree of involvement in one's job • (Hall & Rabinowitz, 19771) . Though very little work has been done to verify this notion, the existing evidence points in this direction (Steers, 1975a). Among the situational factors, task characteristics, leadership climate and participation in decision making seemed relevant for the present investigation. It is. generally accepted among organizational scientists that the way in which the job is designed has considerable impact on the attitudes of the job incumbent. It is possible that one is likely to be involved in one's job more because it provides one with control, a certain autonomy and variety in the work situation (Hall & Rabinowitz, 1977). The above notion is well supported in the empirical literature (e.g., Vroom, 1962; Lawler & Hall, 1970; Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Waters, Roach & Batlis, 1974; Newman, 1975). It can also be expected from-rour knowledge of human 70 behavior in organizations that a favorable leadership climate is likely to facilitate increased worker involvement in what he is doing. The path-goal theory of leadership suggests that a climate high on consideration and structure is likely to remove any possible barriers that stand in the way of one realizing one's goals by enabling that person to see the connection between aspirations and their fulfillment more clearly (House, 1971). Though sparse, there is some empirical support also to the above suggestion (e.g., Stinson & Johns on, 1975; Szilagyi & Sims, 1974) • The literature on participation in decision making has a substantial impact on job attitudes. At a more operational level the above assumption would suggest that participation in decision making on the part of the worker is likely to contribute toward his or her job involvement. The above relationship finds support in the empirical literature as well (e.g., Siegal & Ruh, 1973; Schuler, 1975). Further, it seems reasonable that a person involved in his job is likely to exert greater effort in his job. Since his self esteem, in his opinion, depends on the job he is doing, it is natural for him to work harder in his job. Empirical research has also found some support for the above notion (e.g., Lawler & Hall, 1970). In the light of the foregoing discussion, the present study attempts to validate the causality suggested in the operational model shown in Figure 3. In addition, a few specific hypotheses are generated to test the various relationships proposed in the model. They are as follows: Individual Difference Factors: vs Job Involvement • H^: Need for achievement is positively related to job involvement. R^: Internality of locus of control is positively related to job involvement. Situational Factors vs Job Involvement HQ: Job scope is positively related to job involvement. 71 H^: Participation in decision making is positively, related to job involvement. Outcome Factors vs Job Involvement H,.: Job involvement is positively related to job-related effort. Moderating Factors and Job Involvement H. : The causal linkage outlined in Figure 3 is significantly stronger o for older workers than younger workers. H^: The causal linkage outlined in Figure 3 is significantly stronger for males than females. Hc: The causal linkage outlined in Figure 3 is significantly stronger o for more educated individuals than the less educated ones, rig. The causal linkage outlined in Figure 3 is significantly stronger for a leadership climate high on consideration and structure than the one that is low on both. 72 CHAPTER 4  RESEARCH DESIGN In this chapter,the overall design of the study is discussed. Specifically, it involves a discussion of the setting, samples, mode of data collection, measurement of variables, and the analytical techniques employed in the study. 4.1 "Setting and Samples The present study made use of two samples which will be referred to as the pilot sample and the validation sample. The pilot sample was drawn from organizations belonging td.:.the communications industry located in the greater Montreal area. Of the 12 companies contacted, eight agreed to participate in the study either wholly or in part. The size of the organizations varied from less than 100 to greater than 1000. The res pondents also held a wide variety of jobs representing various levels and departments in their respective organizations. The validation sample consisted of people enrolled in the evening programs in commerce in the two major anglophone universities in Quebec. All of them held fullr.time jobs and were drawn from a wide variety of industries. The size of the organiza-: . tions they worked for also ranged from less than 100 to greater than 1000. Similar to. the pilot sample, the respondents held various jobs and occupied,', different levels in their respective organizational hierarchies.., 4.2 Data Collection Field survey data were collected through a structured questionnaire incorporating the various instruments appropriate to this study. Initial attempts to secure data wherein the respondents had to identify themselves were not successful. Hence, assurances of anonymity were given in a sub sequent attempt which proved to be fruitful. For the pilot data collection, 73 roughly a week before the questionnaires were mailed to the respondents a notice from the management was posted on the bulletin boards in partici pating organizations, asking for the cooperation of the employees on providing the data. In return for the data, the researcher agreed to share his findings with the organizations' managements. Self-addressed and stamped envelopes were provided with each questionnaire. The questionnaires were made available in both English and French and the participating organizations took the responsibility to distribute them to their anglophone and franco phone employees accordingly. In order to encourage participation of the individual respondents, the researcher promised to mail a short report of the study to:'.individual respondents who provided him with a return .address. A post card was inserted along with the questionnaire for this purpose, and many respondents mailed it back to the researcher separately in order to ensure anonymity. Out of a total of 500 questionnaires distributed, 210 were returned, yielding a response rate of 42%. Only anglophone question naires were chosen for the subsequent data analysis pertaining to the present study. There were 139 usable questionnaires from anglophone respondents. The response rate for this sample was 47%. The above response rate was found to be consistent with the usual", response rate of 48% reported in the liter ature, for studies of this nature with single.mailing and no follow up (Heberlein & Baumgartner, 1978). For the validation data, the researcher wentito all the class sections in the evening program for which the respective instructors gave permission for data collection. A short explanation was given by the researcher outlining in general the purpose of the study and soliciting the cooperation of the respondents. Then the questionnaires along with self-addressed stamped envelopes were distributed to the respondents. All questionnaires were in English. 74 A total of 250 questionnaires was distributed and 170 were returned, yielding a response rate of 68%. The increased response rate may be attributed to the follow-up by the researcher one week after dis tribution of the questionnaire. The researcher went to those classes again and reminded people to complete and return the questionnaires. However, such a follow-up procedure-was-nq't :'feasible .for the-pilot sample. .The pilot data collection took about three weeks while the validation data were collected in about two weeks time. For the pilot sample, 33.1% were below the age of 30 and 35.3% were 40 years of age or above. The male:female ratio was 2.4:1. Married people accounted for 64.2% of the sample. In terms of education, 39.4% had college degrees or above. People who were raised in an urban area amounted to 60.2% of the sample. Among the respondents, 52.5% had between one to five years of experience in the organization where they were presently employed. In terms of annual salary, 43.9% earned less than $15,000, 43.2% earned between $15,000 and $25,000 and the rest earned $25,000 or more. 39.1% worked for organizations that had 250 employees or less, while 49.3% belonged to organizations that had more than 1000 employees. As for department size, 38.4% were in departments that had 10 people or less, while 22.4% had 50 people or more in their departments. A more detailed description of the sample can be seen in Table 3. For the validation sample, 39.4% were below the age of 30 and 34.5% were 40 years of age or above. The male:female ratio was 2.6:1. Married people accounted for 65.9% of the sample. In :terms of education, 53.9 had college degrees or above. People who were raised in an urban area amounted to 69.6% of the sample. Among the respondents, 55.4% had between one to five years of experience in the organization where they were presently employed. In terms of annual salary, 39.3% earned less than 75 Table 3 Frequency Distribution For Demographics Demographic No. Variables Absolute Frequency Pilot Validation N = 139 N = 169 Relative Frequency Pilot Validation N = 139 N = 169 1 Age under 20 years 2 20 - 29 years 44 30 - 39 "40 - 49 " 34 : 50 - 59 13 60 - 2 2 Sex Male 97 Female 41 3 Marital Status Married 88 r Single 39 '.L Divorced 7 Engaged 3 4 Education Some High School 16 High School Graduate 29 Some College 32 College Degree 18 .: Some Graduate Work 27 Advanced Degree 5 5 Area of Socialization Population less than 500 5 500 - 5000 13 5,000 - 50,000 26 50,000 - 100,000 8 100,000 - 500,000500,000 - 1 million 5 1 million - 2 million 40 greater than 2 million 26 6 Experience 1-5 years 73 6 - 10 " 26 I'. 11 - 15 " 18 16 - 20 " 5 20 - " 17 7 Annual Salary less than $10,000 19 10,000 - 14,999; 42 15,000 - 19,999 31 20,000 - 24,999 29 25,000 - 29,999 10 30,000 - 34,999 6 35,000 - 39,999 1 40,000 - 44,99945,000 -.49,999 0 50,000 - 0 0 1.4 0.0 65 31.7 39.4 43 31.7 26.1 32 24.5 19.4 22 9.4 13.3 3 1.4 1.8 120 70.3 72.3 46 29.7 27.7 110 64.2 65.9 42 28.5 25.1 13 5.1 .7.8 2 2.2 1.2 6 12.6 3.6 9 22.8 5.4 62 25.2 37.1 30 14.2 18.0 54 21.3 32.3 6 3.9 3.6 2 3.8 1.2 14 9.9 8.5 23 19.8 14.0 11 6.1 6.7 18 !6".l 11.0 8 3.8 4.9 47 30.5 28.7 41 19.8 25.0 92 52.5 55.4 29 18.7 17.5 12 12.9 7.2 13 3.6 7.8 20 12.2 12.0 10 13.7 6.0 52 30.2 31.3 42 22.3 25.3 31 20.9 18.7 17 7.2 10.2 7 4.3 :4.2 5 0.7 3.0 0 0.7 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 1.2 76 Demographic Absolute Frequency Relative Frequency No, Variables Pilot Validation Pilot Validation N = 139 N - 169 N = 139 N - 169 87. OrganizatiorialcSize less than 100 17 22 12,3 13.3 100 - 250 37 31 26.8 18.7 500 - 750 8 40 5.8 24.1 750 - 1000  12 5.8 7.2 1000 - 68 61 49.3 36,7 9 Departmental Size less than 5 16 31 11.6 18,6 5-10 37 51 26.8 30.5 10-25 4 50 24.6 29.9 25- 50 20 15 14.5 9.0 50 - 100 14 9 10.1 5.4 100 - 17 11 12.3 6.6 77 $15,000, 44% earned between $15,000 and $25,000 and the rest earned above $25,000. 32% worked for organizations that had about 250 employees or less while 36.9% belonged to organizations that had more than 1000 employees. As for department size, 49.1% were in departments that had 10 people or less while 12% had 50 people or more in their departments. A more detailed description of this sample can be seen in Table 3. 4.3 Measurement This section presents an outline of the various instruments used for gathering information for the study. 4.3.1 Individual differences factors: 4.3.1.1 Demographics: Information regarding age, education and sex were collected by asking one question about each of the above mentioned variables. 4.3.1.2 Need for achievement: The need for achievement was measured by the revised and shortened 15-item version of the original Hermans (1970) scale used by Latham and Yukl (1976). The internal consistency reliability reported was .44. No validity data were available for this version.' The scale items are as follows: Need for achievement scale 1. Working is something that: a. I like doing most of the time. b. I like doing fairly often. c. I like doing occasionally. d. I seldom like doing. 2. * To succeed on an important task it is: a. Seldom necessary to prepare yourself well ahead of time. b. Sometimes helpful to prepare yourself well ahead of time. c. Often helpful to prepare yourself well ahead of time. d. Usually necessary to prepare yourself well ahead of time. 3. When I am working, the demands I make upon myself are: a. Very high. b. Moderately high. c. Not so high. d. Very low. 4. I usually do: a. Much more than I resolved to do. b. A little more than I resolved to do. c. A little less than I resolved to do. d. Much less than I resolved to do. 5. "If I am not able to obtain a difficult goal: a. I try harder to attain-,the goal. b. I continue trying but do not put out any extra effort. c. I am inclined to give up but may make one more effort. d. I usually give up arid quit trying. 6. How much responsibility would you like in your job? a. Much more responsibility. b. Somewhat more responsibility. c. Slightly more responsibility. d. A little less responsibility. 7. * I would find a life in which I did not have to work at a job to be: al Ideal. b. Quite pleasant. c. Somewhat boring. d. Very unpleasant and boring. 8. When I was in school, I thought attainment of a high position in society was: a. Very important. b. Moderately important. c. Only slightly important. d. Completely unimportant. 9. * For life's extra pleasures such as recreation, entertainment and relaxing: f' a. I nearly always have enough time. b. I sometimes have enough time. c. I seldom have enough time. d. I never have enough time. 10. I can work at a task without getting tired for: a. A very long time. b. A fairly long time. c. Not too long a time. d. Only a short while. 11. I am usually.: a. Extremely busy. b. Moderately busy. c. Not too busy. d. Not busy at all. 12. When I was in school: a. I was extremely ambitious. b. I was somewhat ambitious. c. I was a little ambitious. d. I was not at all ambitious. 80 13. How important is it to know how well you are doing in your job? a. Very important. b. Moderately important. c. Only slightly important. d. Not at all important. 14. When I begin a task: a. I usually carry it to a successful conclusion. b. I often carry it to a successful conclusion. c. I sometimes carry it to a successful conclusion. d. I seldom carry it to a successful conclusion. 15. * The best thing about being president of a new company is; a. The opportunity to be part of a management team, b. The excellent salary and benefits. c. The challenge of making the company successful. d. The status and respect that comes from being an executive. The items with asterisks were reverse scored. The respondents were asked to circle the choice that best reflected their view. , A high score represented a high need for achievement. The theoretical range varied from 15 to 60. The rounded item mean value for the scale was substituted for missing responses. 4.3.1.3 Locus of control: The locus of control was measured by the short form 10-item scale, modified from the original Rotter instrument (Valecha, 1972) . Though information regarding reliability was not reported for this version, the construct validity of the scale had been established. The items in this scale correspond to the following four dimensions proposed by Collins (1974).; namely," "the difficult-easy world", "the just-unjust world", "the predictable-unpredictable world" and "the politically responsive-unresponsive world." The items in the instrument are as follows: Rotter's abbreviated -locus of control- scale1. 1. a. In the long run people get the respect they deserve in thisoworld. b. Unfortunately, an individual's worth often passes unrecognized no matter how hard he tries. 2. a. The idea that teachers are unfair to students is nonsense. b. Most students don't realize the extent to which their grades are influenced by accidental happenings. 3. a'. Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has little or nothing to do with it. b. Getting atgood job depends mainly on being in the right place at the right time. 4. .a. The average citizen can have an influence in government decisions, b. This world is run by the few people in power, and there is not too much the little guy can do about it. 5. a. In my case getting what I want has little or nothing to do with luck. b. Many times wenmight just as well decide what to do by flipping a coin. 6. * a. Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enough to be in the right place first, b. Getting people to do the right thing depends upon ability, luck has little or nothing to do with it. 7-.* a. Most people don't realize the extent to which their lives are controlled by accidental happenings, b. There really is~,no such thing as "luck." 8.* a. In the long run the bad things that happen to us are balanced by the good ones. 82 b. Most misfortunes are the result of lack of ability, ignorance, laziness, or all three. 9.* a. Many times I feel that I have little influence over the:., things that happen to me. b. It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an important role in my life. 10.* a. What happens to me is my own doing. b. Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough control over the direction my life is taking. The respondents were asked to circle either statement a or b depending upon which response they agreed with most. The items were coded in terms of 0 and 1. The items with asterisks were reverse scored. A high score indicated an internal locus of control while a low score indicated an external locus of control. The theoretical range of scores varied from 0 to 10. For missing values, the item mean score for the scale for the respondent was substituted in the analysis. 4.3.2 Situational factors. 4.3.2.1 Job scope: Information regarding job scope was collected using the 14-item job diagnostic survey (section 2) developed by Hackman andlOldham (1975). The reported internal consistency reliability varied from .59 to .78. There was also evidence of convergent validity for the scale. The scale items are as follows: Job diagnostic survey 1. The job requires me to use a number of complex or high-level skills. 2. The job requires a;.lot of cooperative work with other people. 3. * The job is arranged so that I do not have the chance to do an entires piece of work from beginning to end. 83 4. -'Just doing the work required by the job provides many chances for me to figure out how well I am doing. 5. * The job is quite simple and repetitive. 6. * The job can be done adequately by a person working alone — without talking or checking with other people. 7. -* The supervisors and co-workers on this job almost never give me any "feedback" about how well I am doing in my work. 8. This job is one where a lot of other people can be affected by how well the work gets done. 9. * The job denies me any chance to use my personal initiative or judgment in carrying out the work. 10. Supervisors often let me know how well they think I am performing the job. 11. '..The job provides me with the chance to completely finish the pieces of work I begin. 12. * The job itself provides very few clues about whether or not I am performing well. 13. The job gives me considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do the work. 14. * The job itself is riot very significant or important in the broader scheme of things. The. respondents, were, asked, how accurate was each orie'r'of the above statements in describing their jobs. The response format ranged from very inaccurate to very accurate on a seven point?- Likert type scale. The items with asterisks were reversed and a high score indicated a wider job scope. The missing values were substituted with the rounded item mean value for the scale for that respondent. The theoretical range for the scores varied from 14 to 98. 84 4.3.2.2 Participation in decision making: Participation in decision making was measured by using the 5-item questionnaire developed by Siegel and Ruh (1973). The internal consistency reliability was reported to be .81. There was also evidence of convergent and discriminant validity for the scale (Ruh, White & Wood, 1975). The scale items are shown below: Siegel and Ruh scale 1. In general, how much say or influence do you have on how you perform.a your job? 2. To what extent are you able to decide how to do your job? 3. In general, how much say or influence do you have on what goes on in your work group? 4. In general, how much say or influence do you have on decisions which affect your job? 5. How receptive is your supervisor to your ideas and listens to your suggestions? The respondents were asked to answer each question in a five point Likert type scale, the response format"ranging from very little to very much .i :c A /.high score: indicatedca-.greatercdegreeeof v.participationr-incdecision making. The missing values were substituted by the rounded item mean scale value for that respondent. The theoretical range for this scale was from 5 to 4.3.3 Situational Moderator 4.3.3.1 Leadership Leadership was measured by the recently revised LBDQ Form XII questionnaire (Schriescheim & Kerr,11974) containing 10 items. It had been reported that the LBDQ Form XII exhibited acceptable internal consistency reliability and concurrent validity. The scale is presented below: 85 Leader behavior description questionnaire, form XII, revised,. Initiating structure•; 1. He makes his attitudes clear to the group. 2. He schedules the work to be done. 3. He maintains definite standards of performance. 4. He encourages the use of uniform procedures. 5. He lets group members know what is expected of them. Consideration, 6. * He refuses to explain his actions. 7. * He acts without consulting the group. 8. He treats all group members as his equals. 9. He is friendly and approachable. 10. He puts suggestions made by the group into operation. The respondents were asked to describe the behavior of their supervisor on a five point Likert type scale, the response format ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The items with asterisks were reversed and a high score indicated a more favorable attitude toward one's supervisor. The missing values were substituted by the rounded item mean score for that respondent on this scale. The theoretical range of scores varied from 10 to 50. 4 v 3; 4.. ICrit'er ion'..variables 4.3.4.1 Job involvement: Job Involvement was measured by the 6-item short version of the Lodahl and Kejner scale (Lodahl & Kejner, 1965) and . the 8-i.tem Faunce's occupational involvement index scale (1959). The split half reliability reported for the Lodahl and Kejner scale was .73 and there was also evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. A factor analysis of the Lodahl and Kejner scale also yielded some support for 86 construct validity. There was no information available on the reliability and validity of the Faunce's occupational involvement scale. The scales are shown as follows': Lodahl and Kejner job involvement scale: 1. The major satisfaction in my life, comes: from myjjob. 2. The most important things that happen to me involve my work. 3. I amrreally a perfectionist about my work. 4. I live, eat and breathe my job. 5. I am very much involved personally in my work. 6. * Most things in my life are more important than work. The respondents rated the above items on a 5-point Likert type scale, the response format ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The item with the asterisk was reversed and a high score meant higher job involvement. The missing values were substituted with the respondents' rounded item mean for the scale. The theoretical range of scores wasafrom 6 to 30. Faurice's ^occupational involvement index-1. * The main reason I work at my present job is to make money. 2. If I received an inheritance so large that I did not have to work, I would still work at my present job. 3. * The things I do off the job are generally more interesting to me than the things I do while at work. 4. It is more important to me that I do well at my work here than at anything else I do. 5. lie care. morer'about::.wha^^ I do vaboiit--what.-.most, other people think. 6. I cannot really be happy unless I do well at my job. 87 7. The general field or work I am in now is the kind I would prefer to stay in until I retire. 8. I would feel like a loafer if I did not have a job. Responses to the above items were obtained on a 5-point Likert type scale, the response format ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The items with the asterisks were reversed. The final scale score showed a high value for highly job involved people. The missing values were substituted with the respondents' rounded item mean for the scale. The theoretical range of scores varied from 8 to 40. 4.3.4.2 Effort: Effort was measured by the 4-item job motivation scale developed by Patchen (1965) and also by a three-dimensional scale consisting of task concentration, job curiosity and persistence containing 17 items in all (Landy & Guion, 1970). The Patchen scale was found to exhibit a test-retest reliability of .80 and evidence of construct validity. For the Landy and Guion instrument the interrater reliability reported varied from .51 to .73 for the task concentration scale, .54 to .71 for the job curiosity scale and .57 to .82 for the persistence scale. Evidences of validity for the scales were also provided by Landy and Guion (1970). The scales are as follows: Patchen's job motivation scale; 1. On most days on your job, how often does time seem to drag for you? •:• • About half the day or more ' About one-third of the day '' About one-quarter of the day About one-eighth of the day • Time never seems to drag 88 2. Some people are completely involved in their job — they are absorbed in it night and day. For other people, their job is simply one of several interests. How involved do you feel in your job? Very little involved; my other interests are more absorbing Slightly involved Moderately involved; my job and my other interests are equally absorbing to me Strongly involved Very strongly involved; my work is the most absorbing interest in my life 3. * How often do you do some extra work for your job which isn't really required of you? Almost every day Several times a week About once a week Once every few weeks About once a month or less 4. * Would you say you work harder, less hard,-:.or about the same as other people doing your type of work at your.-organization? .'s ; Much harder than most others A little harder than most others About the same as most others A little less hard than most others Much less hard than most others The respondents were asked to check the response closest to their feelings about their job. .The items in asterisks were reversed and a high score on the scale indicated a high degree of effort exerted on the job. The responses for the above items were obtained on a 4-point scale. 89 The missing values were substituted with the respondents' rounded item mean for the scale. The scale score ranged from 4 to 20. Landy and Guion effort scale-Task .Concentration 1. I take no notice of time;when involved in a task. 2. I keep my mind on the task at hand in ordinary circumstances. 3. * I am distracted from the immediate problem by thoughts of other things I have to do. 4. * I visit the water fountain and rest room often. 5. * 1 accept every invitation for coffee even when involved in a task. Job curiosity 6. I study the whole system even though I am only working on a small part of it. 7. I experiment with different techniques in order to become familiar with all of them. 8. I am nosy about what other people are doing. 9. * I work on my portion of the job without knowing how it fits into the overall system. 10. *I make assumptions about a problem situation rather than seeking answers. Persistence 11. I keep whacking away at a problem until I achieve a solution. 12. I work through lunch if a problem is particularly pressing. 13. I work past quitting time to follow up on a solution to a problem rather than letting it go until the next day. 14. I keep working at a problem until there is some pressure to change to a different one. 15. *I show pleasure if taken off a drawn-out task before it is completed. 16. *I ask for a new assignment when faced with adversity and/or a series 90 of:.difficult tasks. 17. *I qiiit Iwhen I find that a problem of supposedly moderate difficulty resists all initial attempts to solve it. The respondents were asked to indicate their agreement or dis agreement with the above items on a five-point Likert type scale, the response format ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The items with asterisks were reversed and a higher score on the scale indicated a higher degree of effort on the job. The missing values were substituted with the rounded item mean of the respondent for this scale. The theoretical range for the scale varied from 17 to 85. 4.4 Procedure As could be seen from the foregoing, the present study made use of standardized research instruments and for most of them, validity and reliability figures were available. Nevertheless, attempts were made to establish the internal consistency reliability of the various instruments used in this study. In addition the criterion scales were tested for conver gent and discriminant validity using the multitrait multimethod matrix approach (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). The causal model outlined in Figure 3 could be tested using path analysis, cross lagged correlations or dynamic correlations. However the latter two would require longitudinal data in order to be able to test the model adequately. Since the data for the present study were of a cross-sectional nature, path analysis was chosen to examine the implied causality of the model. For a more detailed description of the technique, the reader is referred to Kerlinger and Pedhazur (1973) and Li (1975). It has been suggested that one limitation that researchers should be reminded of is that "theories" should not be tested on data from which they were derived. Thus 91 when a set of data fit a causal model reasonably well, the presumed para meters should then be tested in a replication (Borgatta, 1970). Again, as pointed out by Borgatta (1970), such testing of theory by replication is conspicuously absent in most articles that use causal models. Hence, an attempt was made in this study to remedy this situation through the use of a second set of data to validate the model. The cross validation of the model was done in the following way. For the pilot sample a regular regression analysis was performed:and the regression equation using the standardized path coefficients was generated. The above equation was then applied to the causal predictors of the validation sample, thus yielding a criterion score for job involvement and effort for each respondent. A Pearson product moment correlation was then calculated between the observed criterion scores and the predicted criterion scores for the validation sample. This correlation coefficient, if found significant, would establish the validity of the causal model proposed (Kerlinger & Pedhazur, 1973). Though a multivariate model proposed in Figure 3 was often tested by using a series of bivariate tests (e.g., Hall & Lawler, 1970), it was found desirable to employ a statistical procedure that could be helpful in assessing the goodness of fit of the entire model to the data. Hence-the'procedure developed by Specht (1975) for the evaluation of a linear causal model as a whole by computing the generalized multiple correlation was used in this study. Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 dealt with associations between pairs of variables. Strictly speaking, the measures of the dependent variables, namely job involvement and effort, have to be treated as ordinal variables. However they are often treated as interval variables because when one moves to use scores based on a number of items, the assumptions of normality become less of an issue. This is because of the resulting distributions 92 (Borgatta, 1968, p. 34). Further, generally speaking, violations of assumptions of normality with the product^moment correlation coefficient tend to cause underestimation of relationship which in the present case is less harmful. Hence Pearson product moment correlations and the F-test of independence were used to test the hypothesized relationships and their strength. Hypotheses 6, 7, 8, and 9 suggested possible moderating effects on the proposed linkage shown in Figure 3. The mode of testing to detect such moderating effects would be the subgroup analytical strategy that had been recently used for that purpose (Brief & Aldag, 1975; Stone, 1976; Stone, Mowday & Porter, 1977). The t-statistic (one tailed) was computed between corresponding path coefficients in each linkage for each subgroup and its significance assessed as a means of testing the above hypotheses,: (see Appendix 2). 93 CHAPTER 5  ANALYSIS AND RESULTS In this chapter all the findings relevant to this study are presented. The first section explores the psychometric properties of the scales as found in the present study. The second section deals with testing of the hypotheses developed in Chapter 3. The final section suggests revisions to the model presented in Figure 3 based on the findings. 5.1 Psychometric Properties of the Scales .Though the scales used in this study were standardized previously, it had been decided to re-examine their psychometric properties in the con text of the present investigation. The discussion will follow the order in which the scales were presented in Chapter 4. 5.1.1 Need for Achievement• Since the internal consistency reliability reported for the riAch scale was rather low (.44), it was decided to improve the scale properties through an item analysis. A Sheffe test comparing the mean scores on need for achievement for the pilot and validation sample revealed that the sub sets were homogeneous. Hence the samples were combined and a principal component analysis was performed on the fifteen items. A six item subscale was developed on the basis of their loadings ( $-.40) on the principal factor. Items 1, 4, 5, 10, 11 and 12 from the original scale were selected since they also exhibited the highest commonalities (5^.32). The eigenvalue-obtained for the principal factor was 1.95 and the eigenvalue for the second factor was only .67. The principal factor explained 46.1% of the common variance. An internal consistency check using the Cronbach & showed a sizeable improvement from .44 to .60. Hence the short form was chosen for 94 subsequent analysis. The internal consistency reliability of the above scale for the pilot and validation samples .was found to be .56 and .61 respectively (Table 4) . 5.1.2 Locus of Control: The internal consistency reliability of the 10-item Locus of Control scale for the pilot and validation samples was. found to be .73 and .69 respectively (Table 4). 5.1.3 Job Scope: The internal consistency reliability for the 14-item Job Scope scale for the pilot and validation samples .was. found to be .79 and .78 respectively (Table 4). 5.1.4 Participation in Decision Making: The internal consistency reliability for the 5-item Participation in Decision Making scale for the pilot and validation samples was; found to be .85 and .83 respectively ..(Table 4). 5.1.5 Leadership: The internal consistency reliability for the 10-item LBDQ form XII revised, for the pilot sample was found to be .83 for initiating struc ture and .82 for consideration while for the validation sample it .was .79 for both initiating structure and consideration. Two separate instruments were used to measure each of the two criterion variables, job involvement and effort. 5.1.6 Job Involvement Job involvement was measured by the 6-item short version of the Lodahl and Kejner Scale (called job involvement 1) and the 8-item Faunce 95 Table 4 Intercorrelation Matrix of Dependent and Independent Variables Variables c oo c u e •H a o e •H a a o 4J S > C3 o. O. c o o •H o > o O -H c CO 01 w u A> i-( o JO M O , o a O o 1 cu Q Decimals are omitted In the correlation matrix. The numbers in the top triangle represent .pilot data H = 139 The numbers in the bottom triangle represent validation data N = 169 Diagonal elements represent internal consistency reliability estimates.. For the descriptive statistics and reliability estimates the numbers at the top represent the pilot data and the nunibers at the bottom represent validation data. .14 1 r 1 .20 .05 > P >.01 .20 < r < .25 .01 > p >.001 96 Occupational Involvement Index (called Job Involvement 2). The internal consistency reliability (Table 5) for job involvement 1 for pilot and valid ation samples was; found to be .82 and .76 respectively. For job involvement 2 the internal consistency reliability for the pilot and validation samples was- found to be .67 and .69 respectively. 5.1.7 Effort Effort was measured by the 4-item Patchen Job Motivation scale (called effort 1) and the 17-item Landy and Guion Effort scale (called effort 2). The internal consistency reliability (Table 5) for effort 1 for pilot and validation data '.was- found to be .69 and .61 respectively. For effort 2 the internal consistency reliability for the pilot and validation data was:, found to be .71 and .74 respectively. On the basis of the reliabilities (Chronbach d) reported above, one could conclude that the internal consistency of the scales used in this research appeared to be satisfactory (Nunnally, 1978, p. 245). 5.1.8 Convergent and Discriminant Validation For the criterion variables, job involvement and effort, in addition to the reliabilities mentioned above, an attempt was made to .. establish convergent and discriminant validity using the multitrait-multimethod technique developed by Campbell and Fiske (1959). Convergent validity is established when traits measured by one method are significantly correlated with the criterion. In the present case, the criterion is the same variable measured by another method. The results shown in Table 5 found this to be so. Job involvement 1 correlates .69 and .61 (p «.001) with job involvement 2 for the;.pilot and validation samples respectively. Effort 1 correlated at .44 and .57 (p£.001) with Effort 2 for the pilot and valiation samples respectively. To establish discriminant validity, three comparisons of correlations Table 5 Multlscale Multimethod Matrix for Convergent and Discriminant Validity and Reliability METHOD 1 ME T'H 0 D 2 Scales Mean Standard Deviation Job Involvement 1 Effort 1 Job Involvement 2 Effort 2 M E T H Job Involvement 1 18.1 18.0 5.5 477 • 82^\^ 56 69 41 0 D 1 Effort 1 9.7 9.1 3.1 O" 51 69^-v 61 \ 52 44 M E Job Involvement 2 22.3 23.0 5.8 57? 61 42 69 46 T H 0 D Effort 2 35.3 34.1 7.9 778 37 57 27 71 2 The diagonal numbers represent Internal consistency reliability for the scales. The numbers at the top pertain to the pilot data N = 139. The numbers at the bottom pertain to the validation data N = 169, The numbers in the top triangle represent pilot data. The numbers in the bottom triangle represent validation data. All correlations significant at .001 level of significance. . Decimals are omitted in the correlation matrix. I ' . • 98 are proposed (Althauser & Heberlein, 1970). First, one desires a higher cor relation between measures of thersame concept using different methods than the correlation between measures of different concepts using different methods. In the case of job involvement the above condition was satisfied (.69 >.41 & .52 for the pilot sample, .61 >„.37 & .42 for the validation sample). However, for the effort scale it was met only for the validation sample (.44 }!.52 for the pilot sample, .57 > .42 for the validation sample). Second, different concepts measuredoby the same method should not correlate more highly than do measures of the same concept using different methods. This was found to be true in the case of job involvement for both samples and for both methods (Method 1: .56 .69 for the pilot sample and .51 \ .61 for the validation sample, Method 2: .46 ^ .69 for the pilot sample and .27 4 -61 for the validation sample). However, for the effort scale the above criterion was met only for the validation sample (Method 1: .56 > .44 for the pilot sample and .51 } .57 for the validation sample, 'Method 2: .46 > .44 for the pilot sample and .27 } .57 for the validation sample). Third, regardless of the methods used, the same pattern of off-diagonal correlations should hold. This would reflect an underlying matrix of substantive or true correlations between concepts that is maintained in spite of possible methods e'f'fFec'.t'.c.'.An observation of Table 5 revealed this to be true. Based on the above evidence, it can be concluded that the requirements for convergent and discriminant validity of the criterion scales were substantially fulfilled. 5.2 .'.Tests of Model and Hypotheses The operational model proposed that need for achievement, locus of control (Individual difference factors), job scope and participation in decision making (situational factors) influenced job involvement which in turn influenced job related effort. A diagrammatic representation of the above proposition was presented in Figure 3. As mentioned earlier, path analysis was chosen to test the causality implied in this model. The 99 results of the path analysis can be seen in Figures 4 and 5. An a level of .05 was chosen for the testing of the path analytic model as it was felt, given the nature of the problem, it would be less desirable to risk rejection of the null hypothesis when it was actually true.. As pointed out in Chapter 4, the model was tested on two sets of data in order to study the pattern of results more thoroughly. For the pilot sample, it has been observed that both locus of control and job scope followed the predicted causal path. In other words, they both had a direct effect on job involvement while their impact on effort was only indirect. This observation was supported by the following findings: 1. The path coefficients for locus of control and,job scope toward job involvement were found to be significant (.20 & .44 p ^ .05); 2. they showed significant zero order correlation with job involvement (.32 & .44); 3. their path coefficients toward effort were nonsignificant (.09 & .01). The above findings taken together with the fact that both locus of control and job scope exhibited significant zero order correlations with effort (.33 & .43) suggested that their association with effort was primarily through job in volvement. On the other hand, need for achievement showed significant direct effects on both job involvement and effort as evidenced by the significant path coefficients and zero order correlations toward both (3 = .31, r = .27, p < .05 for job involvement and 3 = .31, r. 47, p < .05 for effort.) Participation in decision making appeared to influence effort directly rather than through job involvement (B = .14; not significant for job involvement and (3 = .20; p ^_ .05 for effort".) Job involvement had a significant impact on effort, as suggested by the model. The goodness of fit of the entire causal model as given by the generalized multiple correlation coefficient (Specht, 1975) was .64 (p ^..001). The validation sample also substantiated the above observa tions though the path coefficients were somewhat different. The detailed results areopresented in Figures 4 and 5. The goodness of fit of the Figure 4 Need for Achievement Locus of Control Job Scope I Participation in Decision Making Path Analysis Pilot Data N = 139 16(< 05) (27)* 20( <05) (32) Multiple R = 52 Multiple R2 = 27 Adjusted R2 = 24 44(<05) (44) 14(ns) (26) 31(< 05) (47) "1 Job Involvement 09(ns) (33) 40(< 05) (56) 1 _L_L Effort 01(ns) (43) Multiple R = 70 Multiple R2 = 48 Adjusted R2 = 46 20 ( <05) (41) i *The numbers represent the following in the order given below : Path coefficient (significance level of path coefficient) (zero order correlat Decimals are omitted. Average intercorrelation among independent variables = .30. ion) . O O Figure 5 Need for Achievement Locus of Control Job Scope | Participation in Decision Making Path Analysis - Validation Data N = 169 30(< 05) (36)* 18(< 05) (35) 14 (< 05) (31) Multiple R = 48 Multiple R2 = 23 Adjusted R2 = 21 05(ns) (20) Job Involvement 16(06) (25) 12(ns) (20) 31 (1 05) (43) Multiple R = 64 Multiple R2 = 41 2 Adjusted R = 40 30(< 05) (49) ~1 *The numbers represent the following in the order given below: Path coefficient(significance level of path coefficient) (zero order correlation). Decimals are omitted. Average intercorrelation among independent variables = .25. 102 validation; model as given' by the generalized' inultiple correlation:, coefficient was .69 (p < .001). For the pilot sample, 27% of the variance in job involvement was explained by the;predictors in the proposed model while it was 48% for effort. In the case of the validation model 23% of the variance in job involvement was explained by the predictors while for effort it was 41%. In a further attempt to cross validate the model shown in Figure 3, the regression equation from the pilot sample was applied to the predictor variables of the validation sample. A Pearson product moment correlation was computed between the observed criterion scores in the validation sample and the predicted criterion scores. The correlation value served as the validity measure between the samples. For job involvement it was found to be .33 (p < .001) while for effort it was .62 (p < .001). In spite of the above results, it was felt that the proposed model was supported only in part, due to the direct effects that both need for achievement and participation in decision making had on effort and the absence of a direct causal link between participation in decision making and job involvement. Hypotheses 1 and 2 dealt with the impact of personality factors on job involvement. The proposed positive relationship between: .need for achievement and job involvement was supported for both pilot and validation samples by significant correlations between the two variables (Table 4). The above results suggested that those who possessed a high need for .?. achievement were likely to perceive 'themselves as highly involved in their job. Hypothesis 2 proposed a positive relationship between internality of locus of control and job involvement. The correlations shown in Table 4 supported the hypothesized relationship for both pilot and validation samples. The impact of this finding would be that people who saw themselves as self motivated, directed or controlled (Valecha, 1972) experienced greater 103 involvement in their jobs. Hypotheses 3 and 4 posited relationships between situational factors and job involvement. The hypothesized positive relationship between job scope and job involvement in hypothesis 3 was strongly supported for both pilot and validation samples as can be seen from Table 4. It suggested that people who felt their jobs to have a wider scope also found themselves highly involved in their jobs. Hypothesis 4 postulated a positive relationship between participation in decision making and job involvement. The correlation::obtained was in the predicted direction and significant for both pilot and validation samples (Table 4). However, they were weaker than all the previous cases. This relationship pointed out that those who had an opportunity to participate in making decisions with respect to their jobs also exhibited a tendency to be more involved in their jobs. Hypothesis 5,'suggesting a positive relationship between job involvement and effort, was strongly supported given the significant correlation between the two variables for both pilot and validation samples as shown in Table 4. The results indicated that people who perceive them selves as highly job involved were also likely to see themselves as putting more effort into their jobs. Hypotheses 6 through 9 considered the moderating effects of age, sex, education and leadership on the proposed causal linkage outlined in Figure 3. As mentioned earlier, subgroup analytical strategy was employed to test the above hypotheses. The pilot sample was divided at the median for each moderator variable and a separate path analysis was performed on each subgroup. The path coefficients for each linkage were then compared by means of a one tailed t-test ^(Append'ix- 2)y - The= proc-edure was. repeated : for the.validationisample" in order to verbify the result's -obtsihed for the pilot sample. 104 Hypothesis 6 stated that the causal linkage outlined in Figure 3 would be significantly stronger for older workers than;younger workers. The path model with age as moderator for the pilot data can be seen in Figure 6 and for the validation data in Figure 7. None of the linkages showed significant differences between the subgroups in their path coefficients based on the t-statistic for either of the two samples. Hence, the above hypothesis was rejected. In:.other words, age was not found to moderate the proposed causal model. Hypothesis 7 suggested that the causal linkage shown in Figure 3 should be significantly stronger for males than females. The path model with sex as a moderator for the pilot sample was shown in Figure 8 and for the validation sample in Figure 9. Again, none of the linkages indicated any significant differences between the path coefficients for the subgroups as found by the t-statistic in either of the two samples. Hence, the hypo thesis was rejected and it was concluded that sex did not play a significant role as moderator in the hypothesized causal linkage. It was postulated in hypothesis 8 that the causal linkage presented in Figure 3 would be significantly stronger for the more educated individuals compared to the less educated ones. The path model with education as a moderator is presented in Figure 10 for the pilot sample and in Figure 11 for the validation sample. As before, none of the linkages showed significant differences in their respective path coefficients for the subgroups as given by the t-statistic. The pattern was consistent for both samples. Therefore the null hypothesis could not be rejected. Education failed to play an important role as a moderator in the proposed causal linkage. Hypothesis 9 posited that the causal linkage in Figure 3 would be significantly stronger for a leadership climate high on consideration and Figure 6 Subgroup Path Analysis Pilot Data Moderated by Age Need for 22(_< 05) (26)* 29(1 05) (44) Achievement 13(ns) (25) 39(1 05) (52) Locus of 22(_< 05) (32) 09(ns) (30) Control 13(ns) (23) } • 01(ns) (21) Job Involvement 37(<05) (55) 40(1 05) (52) ' Job Scope 54(1 05) (49) i 09(ns) (42) 33(06) (34) 04(ns) (35) . Participation in 17(ns) (30) 39 (£05) (51) Decision Ma king 12(ns) (17) "bl (M)~25T ~ *The numbers represent the following in the order given below: 1 i__L Effort T Path coefficient (significance level of path coefficient) (zero order correlation). Decimals are omitted. Figure at the top shows younger workers N = 66 Figure at the bottom shows older workers N = 61 Median Age = 32,. Figure 7 Subgroup Path Analysis Validation Data Moderated by Age Need for Achievement Locus of Control Participation in Decision Making 32(1 05) (36)* 23(1 05) (32) 22(1 05) (31) 06(ns) (17) 27(1_05)_(35)_ 09(ns) (30) 1 Job Involvement Job Scope 18(ns) (25) 1 13 (ns) (29) 06(ns) (20) 01 (ns) (20)_ 08(ns) (22) 24(< 05) (43) 1 37(1 05) (50) 10(ns) (37) 06(ns) (34) J__L Effort 17(ns) (31) J. '_39<105) (*9) 24 (< 05) (43) *T!ie numbers represent the following in the order given below; Path coefficient (significance level of path coefficient) (zero order correlation) . Decimals are omitted,, Figure at the top shows younger workers N>= 77 Figure at the bottom shows older workers N = 86 Median Age =32 Figure 8 Participation in Decision Making Subgroup Path Analysis Pilot Data Moderated by Sex Need for 25(< 05) (32)* 35(< 05) (54) Achievement 01(ns) (13) 27(06)(36) Locus of 20(< 05) (30) 04(ris) (26) Control 17(ns) (19) 14(ns) (36) > 1 1 Job Involvement Job Scope 38 (< 05) (39) 45(1 05) (43) 19(ns) (18) 35(< 05) (55) 53(1 05) (57) 12(ns) (47) 22(ns) (23) Effort T 17_(ns) (42) 23(ns) (32~ I 05(ns) (30) *The numbers represent the following in the order given below: Path coefficient (significance level of path coefficient) (zero order correlation). Decimals are omitt.ed. Figure at the top shows male N = 89 Figure at the bottom shows female N = 37 ! Figure 9 Job Scope Participation in Decision Mn k 1 n j> Subgroup Path;Analysis Validation Data Moderated by Sex 27(< 05) (35)* 38(< 05) (39) Locus of 15(ns) (29) Control 05(ns) (19) 1 17(ns) (38) 23(ns) (21) 20(< 05) (37) 17(ns) (06) Job Involvement 19j£_05)_(3_7) 18(ns) (38) 06£ns)_(2B) 02(ns) (13) 34 (f 05) (55) 1 X 26(ns) (36) 10(ns) (A2)_ 08(ns) (37) 25(£ 05) (47) 37(< 05) (48) Effort *The numbers represent the f ollowing.-in the order given below; Path coefficient (significance level of path coefficient) (zero order correlation). Decimals are omitted. Figure at the top shows Male N = 118 Figure at the bottom shows Femals N = 43 Figure 10 Subgroup Path Analysis Pilot Data Moderated by Education Need for 10(ns) (22)* 34(< _0_5)_(5_0) 1 1 1 Achievement 33(£05) (35) 27 (< 05) (45) 1 Locus of Control 02(ns) (25) .06(ns) (34) 1 , 1 42(1 05) (42) • 11(ns) (31) \ \ Job Tnwftlupmpn t. 38(1 05) (57) Effort 41(< 05> <56> > r \ Job Scope 58(< 05) (56) 08(ns) (50) _ -i i 19(ns) (24) 09(ns) (33) i • i i i Participation in 07(ns) (32) 17(ns) (45) i i j Decision Making 17(ns) (12) 30(ns) (35) *The numbers represent the following lh the order given below: Path coefficient .(significance level of path coefficient) (zero order correlation) • Decimals are omitted, _ • . Figure at the top shows low education - some college and below N = 69 Figure at the bottom shows, high education college degree and above . N = 55 O in Figure 11 Need for Achievement Locus of Control Job Scope Participation in Decision Making Subgroup Path Analysis Validation Data Moderated by Education 34(< 05) (35)* 25(1 05) (38) 11(ns) (14) 20(06) (38) 19(ns) (26) 13(ns) (34) 11(ns) (24) ll(ns) (31) Job Involvement J25(<J!)5) (37) 13(ns) (36) 02 (ns) (10) 09(ns) "(40)" 30 (< 05) (48) 1 31(1 05) (52) 20(ns) (36) 02(ns) (42) ^5Jns)_(35)_ 42(< 05) (58) L_i Effort *Ihe numbers represent the following in the order given below ; . . Path coefficient (significance level of path coefficient) (zero order correlation). Decimals are omitted. Figure at the top shows Low Education some college and below N = 75 Figure at the bottom shows High Education College degree and above N = 88 Ill initiating structure than the one that is low on both. The path diagrams pertaining to the above hypothesis are given in Figure 12 for the pilot sample and in Figure 13 for the validation sample. Here also it was found that none of the path coefficients between subgroups for corresponding linkages were significantly different from each other as demonstrated by the t-statistic. It was true for both samples. Hence, the hypothesis was rejected and it" was decided that leadership was not an appropriate moderator of the proposed causal linkage. In summary, it was observed that though the model shown in Figure 3 could be accepted in part, the discrepanciesbbetweentthe above model and the empirical results suggested certain revisions to the original model (pp 101). These revisions will be undertaken in the following section. All of the LI bivariate relationships postulated in hypotheses 1 through 5, were in the suggested direction and of significant magnitude. Hence, in all these cases the null hypotheses were rejected. With regard to hypotheses 6 through 9 dealing with moderator effects of age, sex, education and leader ship on the original causal model shown in Figure 3, none were supported by the results. Hence the null hypotheses pertaining to these relation ships could not be rejected. 5.3 Revision of the Original Model; As stated earlier, the empirical findings pointed out certain discrepancies in the causal model originally proposed. Hence a revision of the theoretical model based on the results obtained in this study was felt to be necessary. An attempt is madeiin this section to develop a model consistent with the findings. Subsequent testing of it is also done in order to enhance the value of the exercise. It was noted from Figures 4 and 5 that need for achievement, besides its direct causal influence on job involvement, also exhibited a direct effect on effort. Such an effect was Figure 12 Job Scope Participation in Decision Making Subgroup Path Analysis Pilot Data Moderated by Leadership Need for -06(ns) (-01)* 42(1 05) (47) Achievement 34(1 05) (56) 01(ns) (45) Locus of 22(ns) (39) 01(ns) (22) Control 29(1 05) (50) 1 " 16(ns) (50) 1 1 Job Involvement 37 (< 05) (53) 32(ns) (52) 13(ns) (46) 30(< 05) (45) 68(< 05) (76) 07(ns) (45) 10(ns) (42) 25(ns) (52) Effort T _ . j 04 (ns) (29) 17(ns) (33) rtThe numbers represent the following in the order given below: Path coefficient (significance level of path coefficient) (zero order correlation). Decimals are omitted„ Figure at the top shows high consideration & high structure N = 47 Figure at the bottom shows low consideration & low structure N = 36 Median consideration = 11.778 Median structure = 11„885 Figure 13 Need for Achievement Locus of Control Job Scope Participation in Decision Making Subgroup Path Analysis Validation Data Moderated by Leadership 28(£ 05) (33)* 31(< 05) (37) 20(na) (34) ll(ns) (14) 18(ns) (46) 15(ns) (06) 25(ns) (47) Job Involvement J)l(ns)_(16)_ 27(<05) (41) ^2 0ns)_(31)_ 06(ns) (02) 28(<05) (56) 35(f 05) (47) 20(ns) (61) 05(ns) (04) 40(< 05) (67) "ll(nsT (23 )~" 32(< 05) (30) *l'he numbers represent the following in the order given below.: Path coefficient (significance level of path coefficient) (zero order correlation) . Decimals are omitted. • Figure at the top shows High Consideration High Structure N = 49 Figure at the bottom shows Low Consideration Low Structure N = 55 Median Consideration = 12.250 Median Structure = 12.067 Y 114 hot proposed in the original model. In addition, it was observed that the proposed causal link between participation in decision making and job involvement did not hold. On the contrary, participation in decision making had a direct relationship.with effort. Further, participation in decision making was also correlated with job scope quite strongly (Table 4) raising doubts about multicollinearity. In order to accommodate the nature of the observed relationship between participation in decision making and effortcon one hand and to minimize the spectre of multicollinearity on the other (Werts & Linn, 1970) the original model was revised as shown in Figure 14. The above attempt depressed the average intercorrelation among the independent variables (r = .21) substantially. In fact, as can be seen from Figure 14, it was lower than each of the zero order correlations between predictors and criteria. As before, a cross validation was performed by applying the regression equation generated from the pilot sample on the validation sample. The correlation between the observed job involvement score in the validation sample and the predicted score was found to be i.34 (p < .001) and for effort it was .62 2 (p < .001). Since the shrinkage of R was found to be small (.03 for job involvement and .06 for effort) it was decided to combine the two samples as suggested by Kerlinger and Pedhazur (1973, p. 284). The path coefficients shown in Figure 14 seem to support the revised model. In order to test the goodness of fit of the entire causal model,xthe .generalized multiple correlation was computed (.67, p < .001) (Specht, 1975). Jermier and Schriesheim (1978) recently suggested that when there is doubt regarding the causal priorities among a set of variables, it is necessary to specify alternate models so as to facilitate comparison of the relative viability of each. However, it is important that these alternate models have sound theoretical justification. Since the causal ordering proposed in this study is debatable, two additional models are developed, Figure 14 Final Revised Path Model Total Sample N = 294 Need for Achievement Locus of Control Job Scope | Participation in Decision Making 23(< 05) (32)* 24(< 05) (41) 19(1 05) (30) Multiple R = 47 Multiple R2 = 22 Adjusted R2 = 22 27(1 05) (36) Job Involvement 37(< 05) (53) Multiple R = 66 Multiple R2 = 43 Adjusted R2 = 43 30(< 05) (45) Effort *The numbers represent the following in the order given below; Path coefficient (significance level of path coefficient) (zero order correlation). Decimals are omitted. Average intercorrelation among independent variables!=,21. 116 tested and the relative viability of the three models are compared. An argument based on self-perception theory would suggest that workers who put a lot of effort into their jobs are likely to report higher job involvement because they observe how hard they do in fact work. A model based on the above perspective would have effort influencing job involvement instead of the reverse-as originally proposed. When this model was tested, it was observed that the total criterion variance ex plained was 33%. The cross validation coefficient for job involvement was .24 and for effort .20. The goodness of fit for the entire causal model was :66 (p < .001). Another possibility worth considering is that individuals, as a result of their continued high efforts on the job, might increase their opportunities for participation in making decisions. According to this model, participation in decision making becomes a consequence of effort instead of an antecedent, as proposed in the original model. This postr:. sibility was also tested. The total criterion variance explained in this model was 42%. The cross validation coefficient for job involvement was .34, for effort: -27; and for participation in decision making .50. The goodness of fit for the entire model was .50 (p < .001). Comparing the three alternate models on the basis of the criterion variance explained, cross validation coefficients and goodness of fit, it seems;.'that the model shown in Figure 14 is the most viable one. The variance explained was higher than the two latter models, though not substantially (43%). The cross validation coefficients were higher in all cases and the model provided a better fit for the data. Since none of the moderator relationships were found meaningful for the present study, it was deemed unnecessary to pursue the investigation along those-lines. 117 CHAPTER 6  DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The results of this study supported the view that job involvement was a function of both individual and situational factors. The revised model shown in Figure 14 suggested that job involvement was causally linked to in dividual difference factors, namely need for achievement and locus of control, as well as a situational factor, job scope. The notion of job involvement as a causal antecedent to effort was also substantiated by the findings. Contrary to previous findings, participation in decision making demonstrated a direct relationship with effort rather than through job involvement. Need for achievement also exhibited a direct influence on effort besides;an indirect impact through job involvement. The hypothesized moderator effects of age, education, sex and leadership bh the proposed causal model were found untenable. An attempt is made here to discuss the findings of the present study in the light of previous research and theoretical developments. A recent review showed that much of the work on job involvement hadibeen of bivariate correlational nature and underscored the possibility of spurious relationships resulting from such studies (Rabinowitz,& Hall, 1977). Specifically, it called for the use of multivariate models for a better understanding of job involve ment. It also called for theoretically articulated propositions dealing not only with the predictors of job involvement but also with outcome variables, such as effort, for which job involvement itself might act as a predictor. In addition, Rabinowitz and Hall (1977) stressed the need for more research on the joint effects of individual and situational variables on job involvement. The present study was designed to provide some answers to the issues raised ab ove. As mentioned earlier, there are three theoretical perspectives on 118 job involvement that have guided much of the empirical research in this area. The first one conceives job involvement as an individual difference variable.^ which comes about as a result of early socialization (Lodahl & Kejner, 1965; Runyon, 1973). The second view portrays job involvement as a function of the situation where job factors influence the degree to which an employee is involved in his job (Bass, 1965; Vroom, 1962). The third position sees job involvement as an individual and situational outcome wherein changes in job involvement are attributed to both individual as well as situational factors (Lawler & Hall, 1970). It is easy to see that empirical investigations based upon any of the above perspectives differed widely in their emphasis and choice of predictors of job involvement. However, a careful study of the literature seems to favor the latter frame work upon which the present study is based, namely that- job involvement is a function of individual and situational variables. The findings of this study supported the above framework. In the revised model, both the individual and situational factors independently accounted for significant proportions of variance in job involvement, with no interaction effects among the predictors. Previous research also endorsed the above finding (Rabinowitz, Hall & Goodale, 1977; Ruh, White & Wood-, 1975) ..; . Focusing on specific aspects of the results, the causal connections proposed in the original model between participation in decision making and job involvement were not supported. The findings showed that participation in decision making was linked directly to effort rather than through job involvement. One explanation for the above discrepancy is that participation in decision making, being a nonattitudirial*- scale, is more akin to concepts such as effort and performance than to job attitudes like job involvement and job satisfaction. The other possible explanation is a methodological one. It is not inconceivable that the above result may have come about due .119 to the high correlation between the two situational factors, namely partici pation in decision making and job scope. In other words, it is likely that owing to the high correlation between job scope and participation in decision making, the incremental variance explained by participation in decision making in job involvement is minimal, especially when job scope is also one of the predictors. This reasoning would lead one to believe that if participation in decision making is substituted in place of job scope, it might explain a larger proportion of variance in job involvement than when it is in combination with job scope. Hence it was decided to pursue this matter further. When partici pation in decision making was substituted in place of job scope as a predictor of job involvement in a revised model, the amount of variance in job involve ment explained by participation in decision making was less than half of what was explainedby job scope. In addition, an examination of the scale items revealed a closer correspondence in terms of action, target, time and context (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977) between participation in decision making and effort than between participation in decision making and job involvement. Based on the empirical evidence and the correspondence argument of Ajzen and Fishbein (1977) it is felt that the former explanation is more plausible. Contrary to:, the .original prediction, need for achievement showed a direct effect on effort in addition to its indirect impact through job involvement. Here also, when one takes a closer look at the variables in question, the motivational overtones alluded to the need for achievement concept are hard to ignore (e.g. Gibson, Ivancevich & Donnelly, 1976, p. 126; Robbins, 1976, p. 312). Hence the theoretical possibility of its being "linked" to effort which often serves as a surrogate for motivation cannot be overlooked. Another interesting observation is the correspondence between the scale items. For instance, a scale item on the nAch instrument reads as follows: I usually do: a) much more than I resolved to do b) a-..;, lit tie. more- than I resolved to do c) a little less than I resolved to do d) much less than I resolved to do.. Another item from the effort scale reads as follows: How often do you do some extra work for your job which isn't '.' -.-really required of you? a) almost every day b) several times a week c) about once a week d) once every few weeks e) about once a month or less. Ajzen and Fishbein (1977) advance the view that in order to tap strong and meaningful relationships in social science research, the scales have to exhibit a greater degree of correspondence among themselves while still preserving their conceptual distinctions. Otherwise, one would merely be measuring the cognitive consistency among the respondents as opposed to the true relationships among the constructs in question. Taking the above observation in the context of the present research, it becomes important to examine the scales for conceptual distinctions. The scale items did reveal such a distinction. Further, the motivational emphasis shared by the need for achievement concept and effort suggest that the observed relationship is more likely to be substantive than spurious. Hence, one can risk the assumptionjthat the direct effect of need for achievement portrayed in the revised model is predicated upon theoretically sound premises. The bivariate relationships proposed in hypotheses 1 through 5 121 were all confirmed by the findings. They were also consistent with previous research (Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Lawler & Hall, 1970; Runyon, 1973; Siegel and Ruh, 1973; & Steers, 1975a). However, the discussion concerning the direct relationship between participation in decision .? making and effort taken up previously renders the significant positive correlation between participation in decision making and job involvement somewhat suspect. In fact, it raises the possibility that the above correlation may well be spurious. In other words, it is possible that the correlation between participation in decision, making and job involvement might be due to a third variable, job scope. It was also observed that the empirical research supporting the relationship between participation in decision making and job involvement was essentially of a bivariate nature (Ruh, White, & Wood, 1975; Siegel & Ruh, 1973). The present findings taken together with the above observation suggest more multivariate inves tigations of the relationship between participation in decision making and job involvement before anything conclusive can be said about its character. Hypotheses 6 through 9 apply to the moderator effects of age, sex, education and leadership on the model proposed in Figure 3. As stated previously, none of the above variables seemed to moderate the hypothesized causal relationships in any meaningful way. Similarity in the pattern of results between the pilot and validation samples seemed to confirm this observation. Several explanations can be offered for the absence of moderator effects in the proposed model. A simple explanation would be that the proposed moderators might not exist in the population and the true structure of underlying relationships could be simpler than what the proposed.moderated relationships would have us suppose. A conclusion resulting from the above explanation would be a simple confirmation of the robustness of the proposed unmoderated model. Such an explanation also has some.:support in the 122 literature (Schmidt & Hunter, 1978). A more cautious and somewhat complex explanation would predict that while any one moderator variable might not be able to produce significant differences, a theory based team of mod erators taken at the level of maximal discrimination for each moderator probably would. In other words, a moderator profile constructed through theoretically sound aggregation of relevant variables could', be used in the place of single moderators split at the median, in order to obtain meaning ful results (Owens, 1978). A third explanation would point toward the small sample sizes of the subgroups as a possible reason for the lack of significance in the subgroup analysis (Schmidt & Hunter, 1978). Further research has to be done before we can determine which of the above explan ations is most plausible. Be that as it may, one can tentatively afford to say, based on the present results and the Schmidt and Hunter (1978) observation, that the pattern of results obtained reveal a certain homo geneity among the samples regardless of age, sex, education or the leadership style. A more general criticism levelled against the type of theorizing upon which the present work is based is its failure to consider the attri-butional phenomenon (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1977). A derivative of the above criticism in the context of the present study would offer the hypothesis that when individuals perceive themselves as putting a lot of effort into their jobs, they also tend to view themselves as highly involved. So, for instance, instead of increased job involvement causing an increase in job effort, it is high effort that prompts one to assess the involvement in his or her job in a more favorable light. There is also another possibility whereby an individual who is putting a lot of effort into the job may increase his or hercchances for participation in making decisions with regard to the job. In effect, a reverse causality is suggested to be in 123 operation as opposed to the one proposed. There is also some support in the literature to this counter hypothesis (Staw, 1975) Such possibilities were also tested but the results showed the revised model in Figure 14 to be more tenable compared to the counter models: mentioned here. However, in order to test the nature of causality in the light of the attributional phenomenon more thoroughly, one needs to have both objective and subjective information on the variables of interest which are not available in the present research. Experimental designs and longitudinal studies are better suited to exploring the attributional hypothesis compared to cross sectional studies. Hence, while it is acknowledged that the above line of reasoning may illuminate the true nature of relationships among the variables chosen for this study, such a task is deferred to future investigations. Other limitations of this study include those that are common to perceptual field surveys of this type such as method variance, lack of control over extraneous influences and the resulting imprecision, its ex post facto character and the like. Hence, z'the-.customary caution has to be exercised in interpreting the results. The study is of a cross sectional nature and as a consequence, is silent on the dynamic aspects of job involvement. Longi-Hv.. tudinal studies are in order for a better understanding of temporal effects on job involvement. In conclusion, one can say that the present study supports the view that individual factors namely need for achievement and locus of control and a situational factor, job scope, act as causal antecedents of job involve ment with effort as its attendant consequence. In addition, need for achieve ment and participation in decision making also seem to be causally linked to effort. Age, sex, education and leadership have failed to moderate the above relationships, thereby suggesting a simpler structure underlying the proposed model. Though the present study makes a contribution toward ;12.4 a better understanding of the nomological network linked to the job involve ment construct, future research is called for to expand the scope of the present study and shed more light on the role of job involvement in organiza tional behavior research and its usefulness for managerial practice. BIBLIOGRAPHY Abdel-Halim, A.A. Employee affective responses to organizational stress: Moderating effects of job characteristics. Personnel Psychology, 1978, 31, 561-579. Ajzen, I,., & Fishbein, M. Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bullet-in, 1977, 84, 888-918. Aldag, R.J., & Brief, A.P. Some correlates of work values. Journal' of*  Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 757-760. (a) Aldag, R.J., & Brief, A.P. Impact of individual differences on employee affective responses to task characteristics. Journal of Business  Research, 1975, _3> 311-322. (b) Alderfer, C., & Lodahl, T.M. A quasi experiment on the use of experimental methods in the classroom. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1971, ]_, 43-69. Allport, G.W. The ego in contemporary psychology. Psychological Review, 1943, 50, 451-476. Allport, G.W. The psychology of participation. Psychological Review, 1947, 52, 112-117. Althauser, R.P., & Heberlein, T.A. Validity and the multitrait-multimethod matrix. In E.F. Borgatta & G.W. Bohrnsteadt (Eds'.)., Sociological  Methodology^1970 San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1970. Applebaum, M.I., & Cramer, E.M. Some problems in the nonorthogonal analysis of variance. Psychological Bulletin, 1974, 81_, 335-343. Argyris, C. The Individual and organization: An empirical test. Admin  istrative Science Quarterly, 1959, 4_, 145-167. Argyris, C. Integrating the individual and the organization. New York: Wiley, 1964. Baba, V.V. On the nature of job Involvement. Paper presented at the meeting of The Academy of Management, Western Division, Santa Barbara, April, 1976. Baba, V.V., & Jamal, M. On the nature of company satisfaction, company commitment and work involvement: An empirical examination of" blue-collar workers. Relations Industrielles, 1976, 31_, 434-447. Bass, B.M. Organizational psychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1965. Bass, B.M., & Barrett, G.V. Man, work and organizations. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1972. 126 Beehr, T.A. , & Gupta, N. A note.on the structure of employee withdrawal. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1978, 2!1_, 73-79. Beyer, J.M., & Lodahl, T.M. Comparative study of patterns of influence in United States and English universities. Administrative Science  Quarterly, 1976, 21, 104-129. Bigoness, W.J. Correlates of faculty attitudes toward collective bargaining. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1978, 6_3, 228-233. Blood, M., & Hulin, C. Alienation, environmental characteristics and worker responses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1967, 5JL, 284-290. Borgatta, E.F. My student, the purist: A lament. Sociological Quarterly, 1968, 9_, 29-34. Borgatta, E.F. , Prologue.- In E.F.-Borgatta & G.WV'.Bo.hrnstead.t (Eds..)., Soeio.Jbog-ical (Mefehpdol!ogy.yl'l'§7.0si.l SanhFr.ancQ:sco.:.970''ossey=Blss,^ 197>0ay-E-r —; r?0, Brichcin, M., & Sledr, J. Viev a sobni angazovanosti na kvantitu a kvalitu vyokonu. Psychologie v Ekonomicke Praxi, 1974, 9_, 140-146. Brief, A.P., & Aldag, R.J. Employee reactions to job characteristics: A constructive replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 182-186. Brief, A.P., & Aldag, R.J. Work values as moderators of perceived leader behavior-satisfaction relationships. Sociology of Work and  Occupations, 1977, 4_, 99-112. Brief, A.P., Aldag, R.J., & Wallden, R.A. Correlates of supervisory style among policemen. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1976, 3_, 263-271. Bruns, W.J., & Waterhouse, J.J. Budgetary control and organizational structure. Journal of Accounting Research, 1975, 13, 177-203. Buchanan, B., II. Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1974, 19, 533-546. Campbell, J.P., & Beatty, E.E. Organizational climate: Its measurement  and relationship to work group performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., September, 1971. Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1959, 56, 81-105. Campbell, D.P., & Klein, K.W. Job satisfaction and vocational interests. The Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 1975, 24, 125-131. 127 Chatterjee, A., & Ganguly, A. Differential perception of certain industry-related concepts by two groups of managers. Indian Journal of Industrial  Relations, 1977, 13, 235-241. Cleland, V., Bass, A.R., McHugh, W., & Montano, J. Social and psychological in fluences on employment of married nurses. Nursing Research, 1976, 25, 90-97. Collins, B.E. Four components of Rotter internal-external scale: Belief in a different world, a just world, a predictable world and a politically responsive world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, 381-391. Cummings, L.L., & Schwab, D.F. Performance in organizations: Determinants and  appraisal. Glenview, 111.: Scott, Foresman, 1973. Cummings, T.G., & Bigelow, J. Satisfaction, job involvement and intrinsic motivation: An extension of Lawler & Hall's factor analysis. Journal of  Applied Psychology, 1976, 61, 523-525. Cummings, T.G., & Mauring, S.L. Relationship between worker alienation and work related behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1977, 10, 167-179. d'Amorim, M.A., & Nuttin, J.R. La perception des reussites et echecs personnels en fonction des resultats d'un partenaire: Influence de l'interet pour la tache et du niveau d'aspiration chez des sujects masculins et feminins. Psychologica Belgica, 1972, 12, 9-31. Davis, J.W., Jr. Work involvement of executives. Personnel Administration, 1966, March-April, 6-12. Denhardt, R.B. Leadership style, worker involvement and deference to authority. Sociology and Social Research, 1970, _54, 172-180. deWindt, E.M. Job involvement - more than a slogan. The Personnel Administrator, 1975, 20, 23-26. Drwal, R.L. Wplyw procesow emocjonalnych na wydajnosc myslenia twoczego. Przeglad Psychologiczny, 1973, J-6_, 157-173. Dubin, R. Industrial workers' worlds: A study of the central life interests of industrial workers. Social Problems, 1956, 4^, 252-266. Dunne, E.J., Jr., Stahl, M.J., & Melhart, L.J., Jr. Influence sources of project and functional managers in matrix organizations. Academy of Management  Journal, 1978, 21, 135-140. Dziuban, D.C., & Shirkey, E.D. When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis? Some decision rules. Psychological Bulletin, 1974, 81, 358-361. Farris, G.F. A predictive study of turnover. Personnel Psychology, 1971, 24, 311-328. Faunce, W. Occupational involvement and the selective testing of self-esteem. Paper delivered at the Meetings of the American Sociological Association, Chicago, Illinois, September, 1959. 128 Feldman, D.C. Organizational socialization of hospital employees:-:-' Comparative view of occupational groups. Medical Care, 1977, 15, 799-813. Fishbein, M. Attitude and the prediction of behavior. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurement. New York: Wiley, 1967. " : Ford, R.N., & Borgatta, E.F. Satisfaction with the work itself. Journal  of Applied Psychology, 1970, 54, 128-134. French, J.R.P., Jr., & Kahn, R. A programmatic approach to studying the industrial environment and mental health. Journal of Social Issues, 1962, 18, 1-47. Friedlander, F., & Margulies, N. Multiple impacts of organizational climate and individual value systems upon job satisfaction. Personnel  Psychology, 1969, 22;.171-183. Gadbois, C. L'implication dans le travail a l'entree en apprentissage structure et determinants. Travail Humaine, 1971, J54, 277-278. Gadbois, C. Dimensions et mesure de 1'implications dans le travail: :;Une analyse longitudinale. Travail Humaine, 1973, _36, 361-374. Gannon, M.J., & Hendrickson, D.H'. Career orientation and job satisfaction among working wives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1973, 5_7, 339-340. Gardell, B. Autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 1977, 30, 515-533. Gechman, A.S. Without work, life goes/.. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 1974, 16, 749-751. Gechman, A.S., & Wiener, Y. Job involvement and satisfaction related to mental health and personal time devoted to work. Journal of Applied  Psychology, 1975, 60, 521-523. Gibson, J.L., Ivancevich, J.M., & Donnelly, J.M. Organizations: Behavior,  structure, processes. Dallas: Business Publications, 1976. Girard, CM. Work role involvement of local government supervisors. Dissertation Abstracts #71-29, 1971. Goodman, P., Furcon, J., & Rose, J. Examination of some measures of creative ability by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Journal of  Applied Psychology, 1969, 53_, 240-243. Goodman, P.S., Rose, J.H., & Furcon, J.E. Comparison of motivational antecedents of the work performance of scientists and engineers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1970, 54_, 491-495. Gough, H.G.,. & Heilbrun, A.B. The adjective check list manual. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1965. Guilford, J.P. When not to factor analyze. Psychological Bulletin, 1952, 49_, 26-37. 129 Guion, R. Industrial morale: The problem of terminology. Personnel Psychology, 1958, 11, 59-64. Gurin, G., Veroff, J., & Feld, S. Americans view their mental health. New York: Basic Books, 1960. Hackman, J.R., & Lawler, E.E., III. Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 1971, 55_, 259-284. Hackman, J.R., & Porter, L.W. Expectancy theory predictions of work effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1968, _3, 418-426. Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, ^0, 159-170. Hall, D.T. Theoretical model of career subidentity development in organizational settings.: Organizational Behavior and "Human Performance, 1971, 6^, 50-76. Hall, D.T., & Foster, L.W. A psychological success cycle and goal setting: Goals, performance and attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 1977, 20, 282-290. Hall, D.T., Goodale, J.G., Rabinowitz, S., & Morgan, M.A. Effects of top-down departmental and job change upon perceived employee behavior and attitudes: A natural field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1978, 63^, 62-72. Hall, D.T., & Hall, F.S. The relationship between goals, performance, success self-image and involvement under different organization climates. Journal  of Vocational Behavior, 1976, 9, 276-298. Hall, D.T., & Lawler, E.E., III. Job characteristics and pressures and the integration of professionals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1970, 15, 271-281. Hall, D.T., & Lawler, E.E., III. Job pressures.and research performance. American Scientist, 1971, 59, 64-73. Hall, D.T., & Mansfield, R. Organizational and individual response to external stress. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1971, 16, 533-Hall, D.T., & Mansfield, R. Relationships of age and seniority with career variables of engineers and scientists. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 201-210. Hall, D.T., & Nougaim, K.E. An examination of Maslow's need hierarchy in an organizational setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1968, 3, 12-35. Hall, D.T., & Rabinowitz, S. Caught up in work. Wharton Magazine, 1977, 2, 19-25. Hall, D.T., Schneider, B., & Nygren, H.T. Personal factors in organizational identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1970, 1_5, 176-190. Hall, D.T., & Schneider, B. Correlates of organizational identification as a function of career pattern and organization type. Administrative Science  Quarterly, 1972, 17, 340-350. 130 Halpin, A.W., & Crofts, D.B. The organizational climate of schools. Chicago: University of Chicago, Midwest Administration Center, 1963. Hamner, W.C., & Tosi, H.L. Relationship of role conflict and role ambiguity to job involvement measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59, 297-299. Heberlein, T.A., & Baumgartner, R. Factors affecting response rates to mailed questionnaires: A quantitative analysis of the published literature. American Sociological Review, 1978, 4_3, 447-462. Herman, J.B., Dunham, R.B., & Hulin, C.L. Organizational structure, demographic characteristics and employee responses. Organizational  Behavior and Human Performance, 1975, jL3, 206-232. Hermans, H.J.M. A questionnaire measure of achievement motivation. Journal  of Applied Psychology, 1970, 54, 353-363. Herzberg, F. , Mausner, B., ~&.'.Snyderman, B.B. The motivation to work. New York: Wiley', 1959.' Hoiberg, A.,& Berry, N.H. Expectations and perceptions of navy life. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1978, 2_1, 130-145. Hollon, C.J., & Chesser, R.J. The relationship of personal influence dissonance to job tension, satisfaction and involvement. Academy  of Management Journal, 1976, 1_9, 308-314. Hollon, C.J., & Gemmill, G.R. A comparison of female and male professors on participation in decision making, job related tension, job involvement land job satisfaction. Educational Administration  Quarterly, 1976, 12, 80-93. House, R.J. A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative  Science Quarterly, 1971, 16J- 321-328. Hulin, CI, & Blood, M. Job enlargement, individual differences and worker responses. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 69_, 41-55. Insel, P.M., & Moos, R.H. The work environment scale. Palo Alto: Social Ecology Laboratory, Department of Psychiatry, Stanford University, 1974. Ivancevich, J.M., & McMahon, J.T. A study of task-goal attributes, higher order need strength and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 1977, 20, 552-563. Jenkins, CD., Zyzanski, S.J, & Rosenman, R.H. Program toward validation of a computer scored test of the type-A coronary prone behavior pattern. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1971, J33, 192-202. Jermier, J.M. , & Schriesheim, CA. Causal analysis in the organizational sciences and alternative model specification and evaluation. Academy  of Management Review, 1978, _3> 326-337. 131 Johanneson, R.E. Job satisfaction and perceptually measured organization climate: Redundancy and confusion. In M.W. Frey (Ed.), New  developments in management and organization theory. Proceedings of  the, 8th Annual Conference, Eastern Academy of Management, 1971, 27-37. Jones, A..P., James, L.R., & Bruni, J.R. Perceived leadership behavior and employee confidence in the leader as moderated by job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 146-149. Jones, A.P., James, L.R., Bruni, J.R., & Sells, S.B. Black-white differences in work environment perceptions and job satisfaction and its cor relates. Personnel Psychology, 1977, 3Q, 5-16. Kanungo, R.L. The concepts of alienation and involvement revisited. Psychological Bulletin, 1979, 86, 119-138. Kanungo, R.N., Misra, S.B., & Dayal, I. Relationship of job involvement to perceived importance and satisfaction of employee needs. International Review of Applied Psychology, 1975, 2A_, 39-59. Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley, 1966. Kerlinger, F.N., & Pedhazur, E.J. Multiple regression in behavioral  research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973. Kimmons, S.G., & Greenhaus, J.H. Relationship between locus of control and reactions of employees to work characteristics. Psychological  Reports, 1976, 30, 815-820. Koch, J.L., & Steers, R.M. Job attachment, satisfaction and turnover among public sector employees. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1978, 12, 119-128. Landy, F.J., & Guion, R.M. Development of scales for the measurement of work motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1970, 5., 93-103. La Rocco, J.M., Pugh, W.M., & Gunderson, E.K.E. Identifying determinants of retention decisions. Personnel Psychology, 1977, 3_0_, 199-215. Latham, G.P, & Yukl, G.A. Effects of assigned and participative goal setting on performance and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied  Psychology, 1976, 6JL, 166-171. Lawler, E.E.„III. Motivation in work organizations. Calif.: Brooks. Cole, 1973. Lawler, E.E., III, Hackman,. J.R., & Kaufman, S. Effects of job redesign -a field experiment.. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1973, 3_, 49-62. Lawler, E.E.,III, & Hall, D.T. Relationship of job characteristics to job involvement, satisfaction and intrinsic2mptivation. Journal of  Applied Psychology, 1970, _54, 305-312. 132 Lefkowitz, J. Job attitudes of police: Overall description and demographic correlates. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1974, .5, 221-230. Lewin, K. The psychology of success and failure. Occupations, 1936, 14, 926-930. Lewin, K., Dembo, T., Festinger, L. , &:JSears, P. Level of aspiration. In J.M. Hunt (Ed.), Personality and Behavior Disorders. New York: Ronald Press, 1944. Li, C.C. Path analysis: A primer. Pacific Grove: Boxwood, 1975. Likert^R. New Patterns in ^management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961 Locke, E.A. The nature and consequences of„job satisfaction. 11 In Dunnette, M. (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 129.7-1349, .Chicago': .Rand.McNally, 1976. Lodahl, T.M. Patterns of.job attitudes in two assembly technologies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1964, 8^ 482-515. Lodahl, T.M., & Kejner, M. The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1965, 49, i 24-33. Mannheim, , B. Comparative study of work centrality, job rewards and satisfaction: Occupational groups in Israel. Sociology of Work and  Occupations, 1975, 5_, 221-230. Mannheim, B., & Cohen, A. Multivariate analyses of factors affecting work role centrality of occupational categories. Human Relations, 31, 1978, 525-553. Mansfield, R. Need satisfaction and need importance in and out of work. Studies in Personnel Psychology, 1972, 4_, 21-27. Maslow, A.H. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 1943, 50, 370-396".. Mathews, K.A., & Krantz, D.S. Resemblences of twins and their parents in pattern 'A' behavior. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1976, ^38_, 140-144. Maurer, J. Work as a central life interest of industrial supervisors. Academy of Management Journal, 1968, 11, 329-339. Maurer, J. Work role involvement of industrial supervisors. MSU Business Studies, East Lansing, Michigan, 1969. McGregor, D. The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw Hill, 1960. McKelvey, B., & Sekaran, U. Toward a career-based theory of job involvement: A study of engineers and scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1977, 22, 281-305. Miner, J.B. The real crunch in managerial manpower. Harvard Business Review, 1973, 51, 146-158. 133 Miner, J.B. Student attitudes toward bureaucratic role prescriptions and the prospects for managerial talent shortages. Personnel  Psychology, 1974, 27_, 605-613. Mirvis, P.H., & Lawler, E.E., III. Measuring the financial impact of employee attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1977, 62^, 1-8. Mitchell, V.F., Baba, V.V., & Epps, T. On the relationship between job involvement and central life interest. Relations Industrielles, 1975, 30, 166-180. Moudgill, P. Scarcity and organizational theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia, 1975. Mukherjee, B.N. Interrelationships among measures of job satisfaction and job involvement. Indian Journal of Psychology, 1969, 44_, 21-32. Mukherjee, B.N. A factor analytic study of job satisfaction. Indian  Journal of Industrial Relations, 1970, 5/> 429-439. Newman, J.E. Understanding organizational structure - job attitude relationship through perceptions of the work environment. Organiza tional Behavior and Human Performance, 1975, 13, 371-379. Nunnally, J. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978. Owens, W.A. Moderators and subgroups. Personnel Psychology, 1978, 31, 243-247. Parasuraman, S., & Alutto, J.A. An initial multidimensional study of the causes and consequences of stress: Development of a predictive model. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Academy of  Management, J.C. Susbauer (Ed.), 1978, 84-88. Patchen, M. Some questionnaire measures of employee motivation and morale: A report on their reliability and validity. Monograph #41, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Institute for Social Research, 1965. Patchen, M. Participation, achievement and involvement on the job. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1970. Pelz, D.C., & Andrews, F.M.. Scientists in organization. New York: Wiley, 1966. Porter, L.W., & Lawler, E.E., III. Managerial attitudes and performance. Illinois: Irwin, 1968. Porter, L.W., Lawler, E.E., III, & Hackman, J.R. Behavior in organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. Rabinowitz, S. An examination of the influence of individual difference  variables and perceived job stimulation on job involvement. Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1975. Rabinowitz, S., & Hall, D.T. Organizational research on job involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 1977, 84, 265-280. 134 Rabinowitz, S., Hall, D.T., & Goodale, J.G. Job scope and individual differences as predicators of job involvement: Independent or interactive? Academy of Management Journal, 1977, ^0, 273-281. Rakich, J.W. A study of the relationship between perceived job autonomy, job involvement, job satisfaction and job performance for hospital business employees in the Greater Detroit metropolitan area. Dissertation Abstracts #71.-72, 1970. Reinhart, L.L., & Wahba, M. Expectancy.theory as a predictor of work motivation, effort expenditure and job performance. Academy of  Management Journal, 1975, 1_8_, 520-537. Ridley, C.A. Exploring the impact of work satisfaction and involvement on marital interaction when both partners are employed. Journal of  Marriage and Family, 1973, 35, 229-237. Robbins, S.P. The administrative process: Integrating theory and practice. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1976. Roman, P.M., & Trice, H.M. Psychiatric impairment among middle Americans: Surveys of work organizations. Social Psychiatry, 1972, _7, 157-166. Ronan, W.W. Individual and situational variables relating to job satis faction. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 1970, 54, 1, Part 2, 1-31. Rousseau, D.M. Measures of technology as predictors of employee attitude. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1977 , Q5_, 213-218. Ruh, R.A., Johnson, R.G.,.& Scontrino, P.M. The Scanlon Plan: Participation in decision making and job attitudes. Journal of Industrial and  Organizational Psychology, 1973, 1_, 36-45. Ruh, R.A., & White, J.K. Job involvement: A. construct validity study. Paper presented at the Meeting of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, August, 1974. Ruh, R.A., White, J.K., & Wood, R.R. Job involvement, values, personal background, participation in decision making and job attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 1975, 1_8_, 300-312. Rummel, R.J. Applied factor analysis. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1970. Runyon, K. Some interaction between personality variables and management styles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1973, 63_, 53-61. Saal, F.E. Job inovlvement: A multivariate approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1978, 63, 53-61. Salancik, G.R., & Pfeffer, J. An examination of need satisfaction models of job attitudes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1977, 22^, 427-456. 135 Saleh, S.D., & Hosek, J. Job involvement: Concepts and measures. Academy  of Management Journal, 1976, 19, 213-224. Schein, E. Organizational psychology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1971. Schmidt, F.L., & Hunter, J.E. Moderator research and the law of small numbers. Personnel Psychology, 1978, 31, 215-232. Schneider, B., Hall, D.T., & Nygren, H.T. Self image and job characteristics as correlates of changing organizational identification. Human  Relations, 1971, 2A, 397-416. Schriescheim, C., & Kerr, S. Psychometric properties of the Ohio State Leadership scales. Psychological Bulletin, 1974, J31, 756-765. Schuler, R.S. Determinants of job involvement: Individual vs organizational: An extension of the literature. In A.G. Bedeian, 'A.'A.' Armenakis, W.H. Holley & H.S. Feild (Eds.), Proceedings, Academy of Management, Auburn University, 1975, 149-151. Schuler, R.S. Participation with supervisor and subordinate authoritarianism -a path-goal theory reconciliation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1976, 21, 320-325. Schuler, R.S. Moderating effects of job involvement and growth need strength on task-outcome relationships. Journal of Business Research, 1977, 5_, 293-309. Schuler, R.S., Aldag, R.J., & Brief, A.P. Role conflict and ambiguity -scale analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1977, 20, 111-128. Schwyhart, N.R., & Smith, P.C.. Factors in the job involvement of middle managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1972, 56, 227-233. Siegel, L. Industrial psychology. Homewood, Illinois: Irvine, 1969. Siegel, A.L., & Ruh, R.A. Job involvement, participation in decision making, personal background and job behavior. Organizational Behavior and  Human Performance, 1973, 9_, 318-329. Sims, H.P., Jr., & Szilagyi, A.D. Leader behavior and subordinate satisfaction and performance. In A.G:'.Bedeian, A.A. Armenakis, W.H. Holley & H.S. Feild (Eds.), Proceedings, Academy of Management, Auburn, Ala.: Auburn University, 1975, 161-163. Slee Smith, P.I. Job involvement and communications. London: Business Books, 1973. Specht, D.A. On the evaluation of causal models. Social Science Research, 1975, 4., 113-133. 136 Staw, B.M. Attribution of the "causes" of performance: A general alternative interpretation of cross sectional research in organizations. Organizational' Behavior and Human Performance, 1975, 1_3, 414-432. Steers, R.M. Effects of need for achievement on the job performance - job attitude relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 678-682. (a) Steers, R.M. Task goal attributes, in achievement, and supervising performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1975, 1_3, 392-403. (b) Steers, R.M. Factors affecting job attitudes in a" goal setting environment. Academy of Management Journal, 1976, 19_, 6-16. Steers, R.M., & Braunstein, D.W. Behaviorally based measure of manifest needs in work settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1976, _9, 251-266. Stevens, J.M., Beyer, J.M., & Trice, H.M. Assessing personal, role and • organizational predictors of managerial commitment. Academy of  Management Journal, 1978, 21, 380-396. Stinson, J.E., & Johnson, T.W. The path-goal theory of leadership: A partial test and suggested refinement. Academy of Management  Journal, 1975, 18, 242-252. Stone, E.F. The moderating effect of work-related values on the job scope - job satisfaction relationships. Organizational Behavior and  Human Performance, 1976, 1_5, 147-167. Stone, E.F., Mowday, R.T., & Porter, L.W. Higher order need strengths as moderators of the job scope - job satisfaction relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1977, 62, 466-471. Szilagyi, A.D., & Sims, H.P.. An exploration of the path-goal theory of leadership in a health care environment. Academy of Management  Journal, 1974, 17, 622-634. Tannenbaum, A. Social psychology of the work organization. Belmont, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1966. Thamhain, H.J., & Gemmill, G.R. Influence styles of project managers: Some project performance correlations. Academy of Management Journal, 1974, 1_7, 216-224. Thurstone, L.L. Multiple factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947. Torbert, W.R., & Rogers, M.P. Being for the most part puppets. Mass.: Shankman, 1973. Trzebinski, J. Egocentric involvement, approval by authority, and originality in thinking. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 1974, _5, 21-28. .137 Valecha, G.K. Construct validation of internal-external locus of reinforce ment related to work related variables. Proceedings of the 80th  Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association. 1972, 7_, 455-456. Vroom, V.H. Ego-involvement, job satisfaction and job performance. Personnel  Psychology, 1962, 15, 159-177. Vroom, V.H. Industrial social psychology. In G. Linzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology, Vol. 5, (2nd Ed.), Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley, 1969. Waters, L.K., Roach, D., & Batlis, N. Organizational climate dimensions and job-related attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 1974, 2_7_, 465-476. Weissenberg, P., & Gruenfeld, L. Relationship between job satisfaction and job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1969, _5_3, 469-473. Werts, C.W., & Linn, R.L. Path analysis: Psychological examples. Psychological Bulletin, 1970, 74, 193-212. White, J.K. Generalizability of individual difference moderators of the participation in decision making - employee response relation ship. ;Academy of Management Journal, 1978, ^1_, 36-43. White, J.K., & Ruh, R.A. Effects of personal values on the relationship between participation and job attitudes. Administrative Science  Quarterly, 1973, 18, 506-514. Wickert, F.R. Turnover and employee feeling of ego involvement in the day-to-day operations of a company. Personnel Psychology, 1951, 4_, 185-197. Wiener, Y., & Gechman, A.S. Commitment: A behavioral approach to job involvement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1977, 1_0, 47-52. Wollack, S., Goodale, J.G., Wijting, J.P., & Smith, P.C. Development of the survey of work values. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971, 55, 331-338. Wood, D.A. Enhancing attitude-performance relationships by degree of job involvement. Proceedings of the 79th Annual Convention of the  American Psychological Association, 1971, _6, 495-496. Wood, D.A. The effects of work involvement when relating job attitudes and behavior. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1972, 3_2, 189-191. Wood, D.A. Effect of worker orientation differences on job attitude correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59_, 54-60. Young, J.W. The function of theory in a dilemma of path analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1977, 62_, 108-110. Zultowski, N.H., Avery, R.D., & Dewhirst, H.D. Moderating effects of organizational climate on relationships between goal setting attributes and employee satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1978, 12, 217-227. 138 APPENDIX! 140 PART I  INDIVIDUAL FACTORS The following questions measure some aspects of your personality. The answers have been found to vary substantially from person to person. What makes these questions interesting is the fact that your answers simply give an indication as to how unique you are as an individual. Please do not omit any question. Also note that the instructions are slightly different for different sections in the questionnaire. INSTRUCTIONS: For each item, circle the choice that best reflects your attitude. 1. Working is something that: 7. a. I like doing most of the time. b. I like doing fairly often. c. I like doing occasionally. d. I seldom 1 ike doing. 2. To succeed on an important task it is: 8. a. Seldom necessary to prepare yourself well ahead of time. b. Sometimes helpful to prepare yourself well ahead of time. c. Often helpful to prepare yourself well ahead of time. d. Usually necessary to prepare yourself well ahead of time. 9. 3. When I am working, the demands I make upon myself are: a. Very high. b. Moderately high. c. Not so high. d. Very low. 10. 4. I usually do: a. Much more than I resolved to do. b. A little more than I resolved to do. c. A little less than I re solved to do. 11. d. Much less than I resolved to do. 5. If I am not able to obtain a difficult goal: a. I try harder to attain the 12. goal. b. I continue trying but do not put out any extra effort. c. I am inclined to give up but may make one more effort. d. I usually give up and quit trying. 6. How much responsibility would you like in your job? a. Much more responsibility. b. Somewhat more responsibility. c. Slightly more responsibility. d. A little less responsibility. I would find a life in which I did not have to work at a job to be: a. Ideal. b. Quite pleasant. c. Somewhat boring. d. Very unpleasant and boring. When I was in school, I thought attainment of a high position in society was: a. Very important. b. Moderately important. c. Only slightly important. d. Completely unimportant. For life's extra pleasures such as recreation, entertainment, and relaxing: a. I nearly always have.enough time. b. I sometimes have enough time. c. I seldom have enough time. d. I never have enough time. I can work at a task without getting tired for: a. A very long time. b. A fairly long time. c. Not too long a time. d. Only a short while. I am usually: a. Extremely busy. b. Moderately busy. c. Not too busy. d. Not busy at all. When I was in school: a. I was extremely ambitious. b. I was somewhat ambitious. c. I was a little ambitious. d. I was not at all ambitious. How important is it to know how well you are doing in your job? a. Very imporant. b. Moderately important. c. Only slightly important. d. Not at all important. 141 14.. When I begin a task: 15. a. I usually carry it to a successful conclusion. b. I often carry it to a successful conclusion. c. I sometimes carry it to a successful conclusion. d. I seldom carry it to a successful conclusion. The best thing about being president of a new company is: a. The opportunity to be part of a management team. b. The excellent salary and benefits. c. The challenge of making the company successful. d. The status and respect that comes from being an executive. 16. The performance goal that I most prefer to set is one for which the probability of successfully attaining the goal is: a. 100%, b. 90%, c. 70%, d. 50% Please respond to items #17 to #32 by circling either statement A or B depending upon which response you agree with most. Please circle only one of the two statements appearing in each pair, and please be careful to avoid missing any pair of items. The questions relate to your beliefs about people and life in general. 17. a. In the long run people get the respect they deserve in this world, b. Unfortunately, an individual's worth often passes unrecognized no matter how hard he tries. 18. a. The idea that teachers are unfair to students is nonsense. b. Most students don't realize the extent to which their grades are influenced by accidental happenings. 19. a. Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has little or nothing to do with it. b. Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the right place at the right time. 20. a. The average citizen can have an influence in government decisions, b. This world is run by few people in power, and there is not much the little guy can do about it. 21. a. In my case, getting what I want has little or nothing to do with luck, b. Many times we might just as well decide what to do by flipping a coin. 22. a. Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enough to be in the right place first, b. Getting people to do the right thing depends upon ability, luck has little or nothing to do with it. 23. a. Most people don't realize the extent to which their lives are con trolled by accidental happenings, b. There really is no such thing as "luck". 24. a. In the long run the bad things that happen to us are balanced by the good ones. b. Most misfortunes are the result of lack of ability, ignorance, laziness, or all three. 25. a. Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things that happen to me. b. It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an important role in my life. 142 26. a. What happens to me is my own doing. b. Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough control over the direction my life is taking. 27. Which man do you feel is giving his son the best advice? a. When you start your career, don't be satisfied until you reach the top in it. b. When you start your career, don't be satisfied until you have gone just as far as you can in it. 28. Success in work means different things to different people. Two men are de scribed below. Which man would you say knows what success was? Two men worked hard and effectively all their lives. Over the years both men were able to attain respected and responsible positions in the firm in which they worked. But neither of the men reached the top of their firm. a. Mr. B. felt that his career had not been fully successful because he had not reached a top position in the firm. b. Mr. A. felt that he had led a successful career because he had been able to reach an important position in the firm. 29. Two men have identical positions in a company. Which is the attitude that best describes the man most likely to be doing a good job now? a. Mr. A. has moved up about five steps from where he started at work. He is proud of how far he has gotten ahead and thinks his past success is a good predictor of^further promotions, so that he expects to reach the top of his career before retirement. b. Mr. B. has moved up about five steps from where he started at work. He is pleased with how far he has already gotten in the company, and he hopes to make a few more moves up to the highest promotion he can get in the company before retirement. 30. Two men in similar positions are being considered for promotion to a top posi tion in a firm. , Which man do you think would be the best choice for the position? a. Mr. A. began his career in a "junior executive" position, and has had con-considerable experience and success in making decisions and supervising men. b. Mr. B. has worked his way up from the ranks. His career has given him experience and success in a variety of positions of increasing importance. 31. The satisfactions men get out of their work differ for different men. Described below are two men who work effectively, but have been pypassed for promotion. Which man do you think has the attitude appropriate to the situation? a. Mr. B. resents his lack of promotion. He continues to work effectively, but now gets little satisfaction from his work. b. Mr. A. does not resent his lack of promotion and feels satisfaction in having gotten as far as he has in his firm. 32. Getting ahead in a career is a long and strenuous process. Sometimes one's family life may temporarily suffer because of career responsibilities. Which of the two men in the situation described below has made the most adequate adjustment to the situation? Two men have worked up from the ranks to responsible positions with a good income. Both men like to be home with their families in the evenings. But any opportunity for further promotion for either man requires several years of advanced evening study at a nearby university. a. Mr. B. decided for evening study, to prepare for promotion. He realized that his evening time spent with his family would be reduced and that his wife would resent this. b. Mr. A. decided against evening study, to enjoy being with his family; his wife was glad that he had decided to stay home in the evenings. PART II JOB FACTORS Below you see a number of characteristics or qualities that might be connected with your present job. Please indicate for each characteristic or quality how much is present in your job with a check mark in the appropriate box given below. (Minimum) (Maximum) 1 2 3 4 5 33. The feeling of insecurity in my job. 34. The opportunity to give help to other people at my job. 35. The feeling of self-esteem I get in my job. 36. Prestige inside the company (i.e., regard received from others within the company). 37. The opportunity for participating in the determination of methods and procedures at my job. 38. The opportunity for participating in the setting of goals in my job. 39. The feelings of worthwhile accomplishment associated with my job. 40. The feelings of self-fulfillment associated with my job. 41. The threat of change which could make my present skills or knowledge obsolete at my job. 42. The opportunity for conversation and ex change of ideas with colleagues and co workers at my job. The following section deals with some aspects of decision making in your de partment and organization. Please answer each question with a check mark in the box which closely reflects your own feelings. (Very , (Very Little) Much) 1 2 3 4 5 43. In general, how much say or influence do you have on how you perform your job? 44. To what extent are you able to decide how to do you job? • ' 45. In general, how much say or influence do you have on what goes on in the work group? 46. In general, how much say or influence do you have on decisions which affect your job. 47. How receptive is your supervisor to your ideas and listens to your suggestions? 48. How much do you really want to do a good job? 49. How much do you feel your own personal satisfactions are related to how well you do your job? (Almost always) (Seldom) 1 2 3 45 50. How often do you really want to I I | I 1 work hard at your job? 144 The following section contains questions about the behavior of your immediate boss. Please check the responses in the appropriate boxes, ranging from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Disagree" which comes closest to your reaction to each of the following statements. (Strongly Neither Agree (Strongly Agree) nor Disagree Disagree) 1 2 3 4 5 51. He makes his attitudes clear to the group. I | 52. He schedules the work to be done. 53. He maintains definite standards of performance. 54. He encourages the use of uniform procedures. 55. He lets group members know what is expected of 56. He refuses to explain his actions. 57. He acts without consulting the group. 58. He treats all group members as his equals. 59. He is friendly and approachable. 60. He puts suggestions made by the group into operation. The following questions relate to some of your feelings towards your job. Please check your reponse in the appropriate box much the same way as you did in the previous section. Please do not omit any statement. 61. The major satisfaction in my life comes from my job. 62. The most important things that happen to me in volve my work. 63. I am really a perfectionist about my work. 64. I live, eat and breathe my job. 65. I am very much involved personally in my work. 66. Most things in my life are more important than work. 67. The main reason I work at my present job is to make money. 68. If I received an inheritance so large that I did not have to work, I would still work at my present job. 69. The things I do off the job are generally more interesting to me than the things I do while at work. 70. It is more important to me that I do well at my work here than at anything else I do. 71. I care more about what the people I work with think of me than I do about what most others think. 72. I cannot really be happy unless I do well at my job. 73. The general field of work I am in now is the kind I would prefer to stay in until I retire. 74. I would feel like a loafer if I did not have a job. 75. I feel bad when I make mistakes in my work. 76. I am really a perfectionist in my work. 145 (Strongly Neither (Strongly Agree) Agree nor Disagree) Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 I take no notice of time when involved in a task. I keep my mind on the task at hand in ordinary circumstances.J I am distracted from the immediate problem by thoughts of other things I have to do. I visit the water fountain and rest room often. I accept every invitation for coffee even when involved in a task. I study the whole system even though I am only working on a small part of it. I experiment with different techniques in order to become familiar with all of them. I am nosy about what other people are doing. I work on my portion of the job without knowing how it fits into the overall system. I make assumptions about a problem situation rather than seeking answers. I keep whacking away at a problem until I achieve a solution. I work through lunch if a problem is particularly pressing. I work past quitting time to follow up on a solution to a problem rather than letting it go until the next day. I keep working at a problem until there is some pressure to change to a different one. I show pleasure if taken off a drawn-out task before it is completed. I ask for a new assignment when faced with adversity and/or a series of difficult tasks. I quit when I find that a problem of supposedly moderate difficulty resists all initial attempts to solve it. The following section is simply a continuation of the previous section except the format in which you respond is slightly different. Please check the response that is closest to your feelings about your job. 94. On most days on your job, how often does time seem to drag for you? About half the day or more. _About one-third of the day. _About one-quarter of the day. _About one-eight of the day. Time never seems to drag. 95. Some people are completely involved in their job--they are absorbed in it night and day. For other people, their job is simply one of several interests. How involved do you feel in your job? _Very little involved; my other interests are more absorbing. _Slightly involved. 96. How often do you do some extra work for your job which isn't really required of you? _Almost every day. _Several times a week. _About once a week. _0nce every few weeks. About once a month or less. 97. _Moderately involved; my job and my other interests are equally absorb ing to me. _Strongly involved. _Very strongly involved; my work is the most absorbing interest in my life. Would you say you work harder, less hard, or about the same as other people doing your type of work at your organization? Much harder than most people. A little harder than most others. About the same as most others. A little less hard than most others. Much less hard than most others. 1 146 Listed below are a number of statements which could be used to describe a job. You are to indicate whether each statement is an accurate or an inaccurate description of your job. Once again, please try to be as objective as you can in deciding how accurately each statement describes your job — regardless of whether you like or dislike your job. Write a number in the blank beside each statement, based on the following scale: How accurate is the statement in describing your job? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Mostly Slightly Uncertain Slightly Mostly Very Inaccurate Inaccurate Inaccurate Accurate Accurate Accurate 1. The job requires me to use a number of complex or high-level skills. 2. The job requires a lot of cooperative work with other people. 3. The job is arranged so that I do not have the chance to do an entire piece of work from beginning to end. 4. Just doing the work required by the job provides many chances for me to figure out how well I am doing. 5. The job is quite simple and repetitive. 6. The job can be done adequately by a person working alone -- without talking or checking with other people. 7. The supervisors and co-workers on this job almost never give me any "feed back" about how well I am doing in my work. 8. This job is one where a lot of other people can be affected by how well the work gets done. 9. The job denies me any chance to use my personal initiative or judgement in carrying out the work. 10. Supervisors often let me know how well they think I am performing the job. 11. The job provides me the chance to completely finish the pieces of work I begin. 12. The job itself provides very few clues about whether or not I am performing well. 13. The job gives me considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do the work. 14. The job itself is not very significant or important in the broader scheme of things. The following statements also relate to your job. For each statement circle the choice that best reflects your view. - How applicable is your knowledge and ability on your present job to other firms? 1. not at all 2. slightly 3. somewhat 4. very 5. completely - To what extent is your social life connected to your job? 1. very large 2. large 3. somewhat 4. slightly 5. not at all - To what extent is it likely that you can leave your present job and obtain an equivalent one elsewhere? 1. not at all 2. slight 3. some 4. likely 5. very likely - How useful is the knowledge you obtain on this job if you were to seek employment elsewhere? 1. not at all 2. little 3. somewhat 4. quite a bit 5. very 147 PART III  ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS Listed below are a series of statements that represent possible feelings that individuals might have about the company or organization for which they work. With respect to your own feelings about the particular organization for which you are now working, please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each statement by checking one of the five boxes much the same way as you did in the previous sections. Neither (Strongly Agree nor (Strongly Agree) Disagree Disagree) 1 2 3 4 5 98. I certainly feel that my organization is a better place I to work than most. 99. I am pleased to have my friends know where I work. 100. In general, I often tell someone in my .immediate family (wife, child, parents, brother, sister) about some pro jects that this organization has done or is doing. 101. The values of most managers at my level in this organ ization coincide closely with my own values. 102. I really care about the fate of this organization. 103. This organization is a good one for a person trying to get ahead. 104. This organization is reasonable and fair with its employees. 105. The values of managers senior to me in this organiza tion coincide closely with my own values. 105. It bothers me very much when I hear'(or read about) someone criticizing this organization or its products or services. 107. I find that I work well with most managers in this organization. 108. If I had to start over again, I would probably not go to work in this organization. 109. In this organization managers generally stand to gether in times of crisis. 110. The top management officials in this organization are the effective executives of the establishment. 111. I am willing to put in a great.deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this organ ization be successful. 112. I talk up this organization to my friends as a great organization to work for. 113. I feel very little loyalty to this organization. 114. I would accept almost any type job assignment in order to keep working for this organization. 115. I find that my values and the organization's values are very similar. 116. I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization. 117. I could just as well be working for a different organization as long as the type of work were similar. 118. This organization really inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance. 119. It would take very little change in my present cir cumstances to cause me to leave this organization. 148 (Strongly Neither Agree (Strongly Agree) nor Disagree Disagree) ,.. 1 2 3 4 5 120. I am extremely glad that I chose this j 1 I j organization to work for, over others I was considering at the time I joined. 121. There's not too much to be gained by .. • ~~~ . sticking with this organization indefinitely. 122. Often, I find it difficult to agree ~~~• with this organization's policies on important matters relating to its employees. 123. For me this is the best of all possible organizations for which to work. The next question relates to the promotion possibilities in your organization as you see them. Please indicate your response with a check mark in the appropriate box given below. Low High 1, 2 3 4 5 125. What are the chances of your promotion within ~] " T this organization within one year. 126. What are the chances of your promotion within this organization in one to two years. 127. What are the chances of your promotion • within this organization in two to five years. 128. What are the chances of your promotion —" • : ~~ within this organization in five to ten years. 149 DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS In this last section of the questionnaire we ask you to supply us with some information about yourself• The questions asked in this section are extremely Important, because they allow us to study the data in comparative terms. For example, we will be interested to learn whether attitudes toward the job and organization vary from one age group to another. Complete data in this section are required in order to make the moat meaningful interpretations of the other responses you have given us. REMEMBER: Your answers to this questionnaire will not be seen by anyone except the researchers. 129. Company name Indicate with a check mark your present department affiliation: 130. What is your present age in years? m years. 131. What is your sex? Male Female 132. What is your marital status (at present)? Married Single Divorced or separated Engaged to be married Marketing Sales Finance Accounting Purchasing Personnel Customer Service Engineering Labour Relations General Administration Building Real Estate Law Actuarial ' Medical Computers/Data Processing Transportation other (specify) 133. Indicate your highest attained level of formal education. some high school high school graduation some college college degree some graduate study advanced degree 134. How large was the city (cities) in which you were raised as a child? 138. What is your present salary? less than $10,000 per year $10,000 - $14,999 $15,000 - $19,999 $20,000 - $24,999 $25,000 - $29,999 $30,000 - $34,999 $35,000 - $39,999 $40,000 - $44,999 $45,000 - $49,999 more than $50,000 fewer than 500 people between 500 and 5,000 people between 5,000 and 50,000 people between 50,000 and 100,000 people between 100,000 and 500,000 people between 500,000 and 1 million people between 1 million and 2 million people greater than 2 million people 139. What is the size of your organization? Less than 100 100 - 250 500 - 750 750 - 1000 over 1000 135. What is your job title? 136. How many years have you worked for your present company? 140. What Is the size of your department? n less than 5 _ 5-10 10 - 25 25 - 50 50 - 100-over 100 Thank you for your time, back cover. If you have anything to add not covered by this questionnaire, please use the 150 152 PREMIERE PARTIE FACTEURS INDIVIDUELS Les questions suivantes evaluent certains aspects de votre personnalite. Les rSDonsee; peuvent vaner passablement d'une personne a 1'autre. Ce qui rend ces questions interes-santes est le fait que vos rgponses donnent une indication montrant combien votre person-nalite est unique. r INSTRUCTIONS: Pour chaque item, encerclez le choix qui reflate le plus votre attitude. 1. Le travail est quelque chose: 7. a) que j'aime faire la plupart du temps. b) que j'aime faire assez souvent. c) que j'aime faire 3 l'occasion. d) que j'aime faire rarement. 2. Pour reussir une tache important**, il est: a) rarement nScessaire de se preparer bien en avance. b) quelquefois utile de se preparer bien en avance. c) souvent utile de se preparer bien en avance. d) g§n£ralement necessaire de se preparer bien en avance. Une vie dans laquelle je n'aurais pas a travailler a un emploi serait pour moi: a) idSale. b) assez agr^able. c) quelque peu ennuyeuse. d) trSs d£sagr£able et ennuyeuse, Lorsque j'Stais a l'Scole, je pensais que le fait d'atteindre une haute place dans la societe etait: a) tr&s important. b) modSrement important. c) seulement lSg&rement important. d) sans aucune importance. Lorsque je travaille, les exigences que je m'impose sont: a) tr&s elevSes. b) modgrfiment elevees. c) pas trop elevees. d) tr&s basses. 4. Je fais g6n6ralement: a) beaucoup plus que ce que j'avais decide. b) un peu plus que ce que j'avais decide. c) un peu moins que ce que j'avais decide. d) beaucoup moins que ce que j'avais decide. 5. Si je ne suis pas capable d'atteindre un but difficile: a) j'essaie plus fort pour l'atteindre. b) je continue d'essayer mais ne fais pas d'effort supplementaire. c) j'ai tendance a vouloir renoncer mais il se peut que je fasse un nouvel effort. d) je renonce gSngralement et n'essaie plus. 6. Combien de responsabilite voudriez-vous dans votre travail? a) beaucoup plus de responsabilite. b) un peu plus de responsabilite. c) lSgSrement plus de responsabilite. d) un peu moins de responsabilite. Pour les plaisirs supplementaires de la vie tels que la recreation, les loisirs et la relaxation: a) j'ai presque toujours assez de temps. b) j'ai quelquefois assez de temps. c) j'ai rarement assez de temps. d) je n'ai jamais assez de temps. 10. Je peux travailler a une tSche sans Stre fatigufi: a) tr&s longtemps. b) assez longtemps. c) pas trop longtemps. d) seulement une courte periode. 11. Je suis genSralement: a) extremement occupe. b) moderSment occupe. c) pas trop occupe. d) pas occupe du tout. 12. Lorsque j'&tais a l'Scole: a) j'etais extrfimement ambitieux. b) j'etais assez ambitieux. c) j'etais un peu ambitieux. d) j'Stais pas du tout ambitieux. 13. Quelle importance pour vous de savoir 3i vous faites bien votre travail? a) tr&s important. b) moderSment important. c) leg&rement important. d) pas du tout important. 153 14. Lorsque j"entreprends une tachei a) je la conduis generalement aveo succes a sa conclusion. b) je la conduis souvent aveo suooes a sa conclusion. c) je la conduis quelquefois avec succes a sa conclusion. d) je la conduis rarement avec succes a sa conclusion. 15. Lorsque l'on est president d'une nouvelle compagnie, la meilleure chose est: a) la possibilite de faire partie d'une equipe dirigeante. b) 1'excellent salaire at les benefices. c) le defi de participer au succes de la compagnie. d) le statut et ie respect que confere le titre de cadre superieur. 16. L'objectif de rendement que je prefere le plus me fixer est celui pour lequel la probability de reussite de l'objectif est: a) lOOJt, b) 90%, c) 70%, d) 50f. »>,» = , Veuillez s'il ™us plait repondre aux item #17 a #32 en encerclant la phrase "a" 0,1 J 17. a. A la longue les gens re<joivent le respect qu'ils meritent dans ce monde. b. Malheureusement, le merite d'un individu passe souvent inapergu malgre tous ses efforts. 18. a. L'idee selon laquelle les professeurs sont injustes a. l'egard des eleves est un non-sens, b. La plupart des etudiants ne realisent pas jusqu'a quel point leurs notes sont influen ces par des evenements accidentels. 19. a. Reussir est une question de gros travail, la chance a peu ou rien a y voir. b. Obtenir un bon emploi depend principalement du fait de se trouver a la bonne place au bon moment. 20. a. Le citoyen raoyen peut avoir une influence sur les decisions du gouvernement. b. Ce monde est regi par les quelques personnes au pouvoir et il n'y a pas grandchose que le citoyen ordinaire peut faire. 21. a. Dans men cas, obtenir ce que je desire a peu ou rien a. faire avec la chance. b. Bien des fois nous pourrions aussi bien simpletnent decider quoi faire en tirant au sort. 22. a. Celui qui se trouve etre le patron l'est souvent devenu parce qu'il a eu assez de chance pour se trouver au bon endroit le premier, b. Obtenir des gens de faire ce que l'on attend d'eux, e'est une question de capacite, la chance a peu ou rien a y voir. 23. a. La plupart des gens ne re'alisent pas jusqu'a quel point leur vie est controlee par des evenements accidentels. b. La chance est une chose qui reellement n'existe pas. Zk. a. A la longue les mauvaises choses qui nous arrivent sont equilibrees par les bonnes, b. La plupart des malheurs sont le resultat d'un manque de capacite,.d'ignorance, de paresse ou des trois combinees. 25. a. Bien des fois, j'ai 1'impression d'avoir peu d'influence sur les choses qui m'arrivent. b. II m'est impossible de croire que la chance ou la bonne etoile jouent un role important dans ma vie. 26. a. LeB chose qui m'arrivent sont le resultat de mes actes. b. Quelquefois j'ai 1'impression que je n'ai pas assez de controle sur la direction que prend ma vie. 154 27- Quel homme a. votre avis donne le raeilleur conseil a. son fils? a. Lorsque tu commences ta carriere, ne sois pas satisfait avant d'en etre arrive au b. Lorsque tu commences ta carriere, ne sois pas satisfait avant d'etre arrive, justi aussi loin que tu le pouvais. 28. La notion de succes au travail varie d'une personne a 1'autre. Nous vous decrivons deux hommes. A votre avis, lequel sait ce qu'est le succes? Deux hommes ont travaille dur et avec efficacite durant toute leur vie. Au fil des annees, ces deux hommes ont ete capables d'arriver a des postes responsables et respectes au sein de leur compagnie, mais aucun n'a accede au plus haut poste. a. Monsieur "B" avait l'impression de n'avoirpas completement reussi parce qu'il n'avait pas atteint un poste tres eleve dans la compagnie. b. Monsieur "A" avait l'impression d'avoir conduit sa carriere avec succes parce qu'il avait ete capable d'obtenir un poste important dans la compagnie. 29. Deux hommes ont des postes identiques dans une compagnie, quelle est a votre avis, 1'attitude decrivant le raieux celui qui fait un bon travail actuellement? a. Monsieur "A" a gravi environ 5 echelons depuis son entree a la compagnie. II est fier d'etre arrive aussi loin et pense que son succes a date est un bon presage pour des promotions futures. Aussi, il s'attend a atteindre le sommet de sa carriere avant la retraite. b. Monsieur "B" a gravi environ 5 echelons depuis son entree a la compagnie. II est satisfait d'etre deja arrive aussi loin dans la compagnie et il espere gravir encore quelques echelons en direction de la plus haute promotion qu'il peut obtenir avant la retraite. 30. Deux hommes^ayant des postes identiques sont pris^en consideration pour une promotion a un poste tres eleve dans une compagnie. Lequel, a votre avis, serait le meilleur choix? a. Monsieur "A" a commence sa carriere comme "junior executive" et a eu ainsi une experience considerable et beaucoup de succes dans la prise de decisions et dans la supervision de personnel. " b. Monsieur "B" a gravi les echelons et est sorti du rang. Sa carriere lui a donne experience et succes dans une variete de postes d"importance croissante. 31. La satisfaction eprouvee par le travail varie d'un individu a l'autre. Nous decrivons deux hommes qui travaillent efficacement et qu'on a laisse de cote a 1'occasion de promotion. Lequel a votre avis, a 1'attitude juste face a cette situation? a. Monsieur "B" est irrite par ce manque de•promotion. II continue a travailler efficacement mais ne retire plus maintenant que peu de satisfaction de son travail. b. Monsieur "A" n'est pas irrite par ce manque de promotion et est"satisfait d'etre arrive aussi loin (qu'il l'est actuellement) dans sa firme. 32. Avancer dans sa carriere est un processus long et laborieux. Quelquefois notre propre famille peut souffrir temporairement a cause des responsabilites d'une carriere. Lequel des deux hommes, dans la situation decrite ci-dessous a su le mieux s'adapter a la situation? Deux hommes sont sortis du rang et sont parvenus a des postes responsables avec un bon revenu. Tous deux aiment passer leurs soirees a la maison avec leur famille mais toute occasion de promotion future pour ces deux hommes necessite plusieurs annees d'etude,.tard le soir, a une universite voisine. a. Monsieur "B" a decide d'etudier le.soir pour se preparer a la promotion. II a bien realise que le temps passe le soir aupres de sa famille allait etre reduit et que son epouse en serait irritee. b. Monsieur "A" a choisi de ne pas etudier le soir et de rester aupres de sa famille. Sa femme etait heureuse de sa decision de passer ses soirees a la maison. 155 DEUXIEME PARTIE  FACTEURS DE L'EMPLQI Ci-dessous vous trouverez un certain nombre de caracteristiques ou qualites pouvant it re reliees a votre empioi actuel. Veuillez s'il vous plait indiquer pour chacune d'elle?. l-;ur degre de presence (de 1 a 5) dans votre travail, en faisant une marque au crayon dans ia case appropriee. 33. 3^. Le sentiment d'insecurite dans mon travail. La possibilite d'aider d'autres personnes dans mon travail. Le sentiment d'estime persormelle que je recois de mon travail. Le prestige a l'interieur de la compagnie (c'est-a-dire le respect regu des autres au sein de-la compagnie). La 'possibilite de parxiciper dans la determination des methodes et procedures a mon travail. La possibilite de participer a l'etablissement des objectifs dans mon travail. Le sentiment de realiser quelque chose qui en vaut la peine dans mon travail. Le sentiment de me realiser moi-meme a travers mon travail. La peur du changement qui pourrait rendre mes qualifi cations et connaissances actuelles depassees a mon travail. La possibilite de converser et d'echanger des idees avec des collegues et compagnons de travail a mon empioi. (Minimum) 1 2 Marci a) La section suivante traite de certains^aspects des prises de decisions dans votre departement et organisation. Veuillez repondre a chaque question par une marque au crayon dans la case qui semble le plus repondre a votre sentiment (de 1 a. 5). ^3. En general, quel degre d*influence ou de parole avez-vous concemant la facon dont vous realisez votre travail? 44. ' Jusqu'a quel point etes-vous capable de decider comment faire votre travail? 45. En general, quel degre d'influence ou de parole -avez-vous concernant ce qui se passe dans votre groupe de travail? 46. En general, quel degre d*influence ou de parole avez-vous sur les decisions affectant votre travail? 47. Quel degre de receptivite a l'egard de vos idees et suggestions votre superviseur a-t-il? 48. A quel point etes-vous desireux de fair un bon travail? 49. Dans quelle raesure avez-vous le sentiment que vos satisfactions personnelles sont en relation avec la quaiite" de votre travail? Vous arrive-t-il souvent de vouloir travailler dur a. votre empioi? (Tres peu) 1 2 (Presque tou.jours) (Enormement) (Rarement) 156 La section suivante contient des questions relatives au comportement de votre cnef direct. Pour chaque phrase, cochez la reponse qui semble le plus repondre a votre sentime dans la case appropriee (allant de "fortement d'accord" a "fortement en disaccord"). Fortement d'accord Ni oui ni non nt, Fortement 51. 11 52. 11 53. 11 5<*. 11 55- 11 56. 11 57. 11 58. 11 59. 11 60. 11 ce qu'il attend d'eux. Les questions suivantes traitent de quelques-uns de vos sentiments envers votre travail. Veuillez s'il vous plait indiquer vos reponses dans les cases appropriees, comme vous l'avez fait precedemment. S'il vous plait n'omettez aucune reponse. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. La satisfaction majeure de ma vie vient de mon travail. Les choses les plus importantes qui m'arrivent impliquent mon travail. Je suis reellement un perfectionniste en ce qui concerne mon travail. Je ne vis que pour mon travail. Je suis tres engage personnellement dans mon travail.' La majorite des choses dans ma vie sont plus importantes que le travail. La raiaon principale pour laquelle je travaille a. mon empioi actuel est de faire de l'argent. Si je recevais un heritage me permettant de ne plus avoir a. travailler, je continuerais .a travailler a mon empioi actuel. Les choses que je fais en dehors de mon travail sont gene-ralement plus interessantes pour moi que les choses que je fais durant mon travail. C'est plus important pour moi de bien faire ici a mon travail que de bien faire n'importe quoi d'autre. J'attache plus d'importance a ce que les gens avec qui je travaille pensent de moi'qu'a ce que la plupart des autres gens en pensent.' Je ne puis etre vraiment heureux que si je fais bien a mon travail. Le domaine general de travail, dans lequel je me trouve actuellement est le type meme de celui ou je prefererais rester jusqu'a, ma retraite. Je me sentirais comme un faineant si je n'avais pas de travail. Je me sens malheureux lorsque je fais des erreurs dans mon travail. Je suis reellement un perfectionniste dans mon travail. Je ne remarque pas 1'heure lorsque je suis occupe a une tache. En temps ordinaire, je garde mon attention sur la tache que j'ai en main. 1 2 -S < j : 1 1 i 157 Je suis detourne du probleme immediat par des pensees reliees a d'autres choses que j'ai a faire. Je vais souvent a l'obreuvoir et a la toilette. J'accepte ch* suis occupe E ^ue invitation pour le cafe meme lorsque je une tache. Fortement d'accord x— J'etudie tout le systeme quoique je ne travaille simplement qu:a une petite partie de celui-ci. Je fais l'essai de techniques differentes de fagon a me familiariser avec toutes celles-ci. Je suis fureteur au sujet.de ce que font les autres. Je fais mon travail assigne sans savoir comment celui-ci s'insere dans le systeme general. Je fais des suppositions au sujet d'un probleme parti-culier plutot que d'y chercher des reponses. Je me creuse la cervelle sur un probleme jusqu'a ce que je trouve une solution. Je travaille pendant l'heure du repas si un probleme est particulierement urgent. Je travaille au-dela de l'heure de sortie pour continuer a trouver une solution a un probleme plutot que de m'arreter et de le renvoyer au jour suivant. Je continue de travailler sur un probleme jusqu'a ce qu'une pression me fasse passer a un autre. Je suis satisfait lorsqu'on m'enleve une tache longue a faire avant que celle-ci soit terminee. Je demande une nouvelle assignation lorsque je suis con fronts a 1'adversite et/ou a une serie de taches difficiles. Je renonce lorsque je trouve qu'un probleme de difficulty sup-posee moderee resiste a toute tentative initiale de le resoudre. Fortement Ni oui en ni non disaccord 1. La section suivante est simplement une continuation de la precedente a 1'exception du format legerement different. Veuillez s'il vous plait cocher la reponse qui vous semble la plus adequate dans votre cas particulier. 94. En general, k votre travail les journees semblent trainer en longueur pour une duree de? a peu pres la demi-journee ou plus. a peu pres un tiers de la journee. a peu pres un quart de la journee. a peu pres un huitieme de la journee. le temps ne semble jamais trainer en longueur. 95' Certaines personnes sont completement impli-quees dans leur travail et sont absorbees par lui, nuit et jour. Pour d'autres, leur travail est simplement un interet parmi tant d'autres. Comment vous sentez-vous implique? tres peu implique, mes autres interets sont plus absorbants. legerement implique. jnoderement implique, mon travail et mes autres interets m'absorbent de fagon egale. tres implique. extremement implique, mon travail est la chose qui m'absorbe le plus dans la vie. 96. Faites-vous souvent du travail supple-mentaire pour votre empioi, lequei n'est pas requis de vous? pratiquement chaque jour. plusieurs fois par semaine. , une fois par semaine environ. sur quelques semaines, une fois. environ une fois par mois ou moins. 97- Diriez-vous que vous^travaillez plus fort, moins fort ou a peu pres pareil a. d'autres personnes faisant le meme type de travail que vous dans votre organisation? beaucoup plus que la plupart des autres. un peu plus que la plupart des autres. a peu pres pareil a la plupart des autres. un peu moins que la plupart des autres beaucoup moins que la plupart des autres. 158 TROISIEME' PARTIE  FACTEURS D'ORGANISATION Les phrases ci-dessous representent des sentiments possibles que des individus peuvent avoir vis-a-vis de la compagnie ou de 1'organisation pour laquelle ils travaillent En respectant vos propres sentiments vis-a-vis de 1'organisation, pour laquelle vous tra-vaillez maintenant, voulez-vous indiquer votre degre d'accord ou de desaccord avec chacune de'ces phrases, en cochant les cases appropriees comme vous l'avez deja fait precedemment. 98. Je suis convaincu que mon organisation est un meill eur endroit pour travailler que bien d'autres. 99. Je suis heureux de savoir que mes amis sont au courant de 1'endroit ou je travaille. 100. En general, souvent je parle a quelqu'un de me proche famille (epouse, enfants, parents, frere, soeur) de certains projets realises par cette organisation ou en cours. 101. Les valeurs de la plupart des directeurs a. mon niveau dans cette organisation coincident etroitement avec les miennes. 102. Je me sens reellement concerne par le destin de cette organisation. 103- Cette organisation est une bonne organisation pour celui qui desire aller de l'avant. 10k, Cette organisation est raisonnable et juste avec ses employes. 105. Les valeurs des "Senior managers" m'apparaissent coincider etroitement avec mes propres valeurs. 106. Cela m'ennuie beaucoup lorsque j'entends (ou lis) quelqu'un critiquer cette organisation, ses produits ou ses services. Fortement Fortement Ni oui en d'accord ni non desaccord ^ ? j r 107. Je trouve que j'ai de bonnes relations de travail avec la plupart des directeurs dans cette organisation. 108. Si je devais recommencer je n'irais probablement pas travailler dans cette organisation. 109. Dans cette organisation les directeurs restent generalement unis en cas de crise. 110. Les cadres superieurs de la direction dans cette organisation sont en realite les executifs de l'ordre etabli. 111. Je suis pret a faire de gros efforts au-dela de ceux nonnalement requis de moi pour aider cette organi sation a etre couronnee de succes. 112. J'ai parle de cette organisation a. mes amis comme d'une grande organisation pour laquelle il fait bon travailler. 113- Je ressens tres peu de fidelite envers cette organi sation. 159 Figurent ci-dessous des enonces qui pourraient servir a decrire une tache. ---' Indiquez dans quelle mesure vous jugez chaque enonce exact ou inexact par rapport a votre tache. Nous vous prions de nouveau d'etre le plus objectif possible et de faire abstraction du fait que vous aimez ou n'aimez pas votre travail. Inscrivez, sur la ligne precedant chaque enonce, le chiffre de l'echelle suivante que vous jugez le plus approprie. Par rapport a votre tache. 1'enonce esx exact ou inexact? 1 2 .3^56 7 Tres En bonne partie Legeremenx , ,- . Peu En bonne partie Tres inexact inexact inexact e ~3 exact exact exact 1. Ma tache exige une grande habilete ou des aptitudes tres particulieres. 2. Ma tache m'oblige a travailler en etroite collaboration avec d'autres personnes. 3- Mon travail est ainsi organise que .ie n'ai pas a m'occuper entierement d'une tache, du debut a la fin. 4. Le travail que je fais peut me donner en soi beaucoup d'indications sur mon rendement. 5- Mon travail est assez simple et routinier. 6. Mon travail peut etre fait convenablement par une seule personne, sans consultation ou verification aupres d'autres personnes. 7- Mes superieurs ou mes collegues ne me parlent a peu pres .jamais de la qualite de mon rendement. 8. La qualite de mon travail peut avoir des effets sur plusieurs personnes. 9* Ma tache ne me permet pas du tout de faire preuve d'initiative. 10. Mes superieurs me font souvent des observations sur la facon dont je m'acquitte de ma tache. 11. Dans l'exercice de^mes fonctions, j'ai- la chance d'executer au complet des taches, de m'en occuper de A a Z. 12. Le travail que je fais me donne peu d'indications sur la qualite de mon rendement. 13- J'ai beaucoup de latitude quant a. la fagon de faire mon travail. 14. Dans l'ensemble, le travail que je fais est peu important ou a peu de consequence. Les questions suivantes concernent egalement votre emploi. Pour chacune d'elles, encerclez le choix refletant le plus votre sentimenti 15> Dans quelle mesure vos connaissances et qualifications dans votre emploi actuel sont-elles applicables dans d'autres compagnies? 1. Pas du tout 2. Legerement 3- Quelque peu 4. Beaucoup 5- Totalement 16. Dans quelle mesure votre vie sociale est-elle liee a. votre emploi? 1. Vraiment beaucoup 2. Beaucoup 3* Quelque peu 4. Legerement $• Pas du tout 17. Dans quelle mesure est-il vraisemblable que vous puissiez quitter votre emploi acxuel et en obtenir un autre ailleurs? 1. Pas du tout vraisemblable 2. Legerement vraisemblable 3* Peut-etre vraisemblable 4. Vraisemblable 5- Tres vraisemblable 18. Dans quelle mesure la connaissance que vous acquerez au travail que vous faites serait utile si vous aviez a chercher un emploi ailleurs? 1. Ne serait pas du tout utile 2. Serait faiblement utile 3. Serait quelque peu utile 4. Serait assez utile 5« Serait tres utile 160 Fortement Fortement Ni oui en d'accord ni non desaccord  12 3^5 114. J*accepterais n'importe quel type d'assignation d'emploi de fa?on a pouvoir continuer a travailler pour cette organisation. 115. Je trouve que mes valeurs et celles de l'organi-sation sont tres proches. 116. Je suis fier de dire aux autres que je fais partie de cette organisation. 117. Je pourrais aussi bien travailler pour une autre organisation pourvu que le type de travail soit similaire. 118. J'ai la plus haute estime pour cette organisation en ce qui concerne 1'accomplissement du travail. 119. Un tres leger changemenf dans ma situation actuelle pourrait causer mon depart de cette organisation. 120. Je suis extremement heureux d'avoir choisi cette organisation pour travailler de preference a d'autres que j'avais prises en consideration a 1'epoque 011 j'ai commence a travailler pour celle-ci. 121. II n'y a^pas grand-chose^a gagner en restant "accroche" indefiniment a cette organisation. 122. Souvent j'ai de la difficulte a etre en accord avec les politiques de-cette organisation sur des aujets importants relatifs a ses employes. 123. Pour moi cette organisation est la meilleure possible pour laquelle on puisse travailler. 124. .J'ai fait une tres grave erreur en decidant de travailler pour cette organisation. La question suivante est en rapport avec vos possibilites de promotion dans votre organisation. Veuillez s'il vous plait indiquer vos reponses dans les cases appropriees. 125. Quelles sont vos chances de promotion organisation d'ici un an? . dans cette 126. Quelles sont vos chances de promotion dans organisation d'ici un a. deux ans? cette 127. Quelles sont vos chances de promotion organisation d'ici deux a. cinq ans? dans cette 128. Quelles sont vos chances de promotion organisation d'ici cinq a dix ans? dans cette Faibles 1 2 161 QUATRIEME PARTIE  FACTEURS DEMOGRAPHIQ UES Dans cette derniere section du questionnaire, nous vous demandons des informations sur vous-meme, Les questions posees dans cette section sont extremement importantes car elles nous permettent_d'analyser les donnees en termes comparatifs. Par exemple, nous sommes mteresses a savoir si les attitudes envers 1*empioi et 1•organisation varient d'un groupe d'age a l'autre. Des aonnees completes dans cette section sont necessaires de facon a pouvoir tirer le maximum d'interpretations valables sur les autres rep donnees precedemment. eponses que vous avez Veuilles noter encore que: 129- Norn du compagnie. 131. 132. 133-134. 136. 130. Quel est votre age en nombre d'annees? De quel sexe etes-vous? Quel est votre e'tat civil? _Marie(e) _Celibataire _Divorce(e) ou separe'(e) _Fiance(e) Veuillez indiquer le plus haut degre de vos etudes. _Une partie du cours secondaire _Cours secondaire (diplome obtenu) _Une gartie du cours collegial _Diplome collegial _Quelatues annees universitaires _Diplome (s) universitaire(s) vos reponses a ce questionnaire ne seront lues que par' les responsables de l'enquete. 137. Indiquez au crayon le departement auquel vous appartenez actuellement? Marketing Ventes Finance Comptabilite Service des achats Personnel Service a la clientele Engineering Relations de travail Administration generale Construction Immobilier Legislation - legal Actuariat Medical Informatique - Traitement des donnee Transport Autres (spec if iez) 133. Quel est votre salaire actuel? Masculin Feminin Moins de $10,000 par an Quelle etait la population de la ville (ou des villes) ou vous avez ete eleve(e) etant enfant? Moins de 500 habitants Entre 500 et 5,000 habitants Entre 5,000 et 50,000 habitants Entre 50,000 et 100,000 habitants Entre 100,000 et 500,000 habitants Entre 500,000 et 1,000,000 d'habitants Entre 1,000,000 et 2,000,.000 d'habitants Plus de 2,000,000 d'habitants 135. Quel est le titre de votre empioi? Depuis combien d'annees travaillez-vous pour la presente compagnie? _Plus de $50,000 par an. 139. Quelle est la taille de votre orga nisation? Moins de 100 personnes 100 - 250 250 - .500 500 - 750 750 - 1000 Plus de 1,000 personnes 140. Quelle est la taille de votre depar tement? Moins de 5 personnes 10 - 25 25 - 50 50 - 100 Plus de 100 personnes. Merci pour' votre temps. Si vous avez quelque chose de supplementaire a ajouter a ce questionnaire, veuillez s'il vous plait utiliser le dos de la page. 1.62 163 APPENDIX 2 FORMULA FOR COMPARISON OF REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS Bl " B2 (ni - 2) S±2 + (n2 - 2) S22 IK " 1) (nl + n2 ~ 4) Cn2 - 1) where El= Regression Coefficient for Pilot sample B2 = Regression Co.ef f ic-ient for validation sample V Standard error for B„ 1 v S2: Standard error for B2 nl = Pilot sample size n2: Validation:sample.size The above- formula was derived from: Beyer, W.H. CRC Handbook of Tables for Probability and Statistics (2nd Ed.) The Chemical Rubber Company: Cleveland 1968. VIshwanath V.Baba PUBLICATIONS 1. On the relationship between job involvement and central life interest. (V.F.Mitchell, V.V.Baba & T.Epps), Relations Industrielles, Vol.30,#2, 1975. 2. On the nature of company satisfaction, company commitment and work involvement: An empirical examination of blue collar workers. (V.V.Baba & M.Jamal), Relations Industrielles, Vol.31,#3, 1976. 3. The relevance of Guttman scalogram for social research. (H.Das & V.V.Baba) Journal of Social Research, Vol.20,#1,1977 4. On Becker's theory of commitment: An empirical verification among blue collar workers. (V.V.Baba & M.Jamal), Relations Industrielles,Vol.34,#1,1979 5. Leader behavior in the university class room. (V.V.Baba & M.E.Ace), Proceedings A.I.D.S. Western Division, Las Vegas, 1975 6. On the nature of job involvement. (V.V.Baba), Academy' of Management, Western Division, Santa Barbara, 1976 7. Need fulfillment in nonwork: A test of Maslow, Alderfer and Maslow formulations (M.Jamais V.V.Baba & V.F.Mitchell), Proceedings, Academy of Management, Southwest Division, Houston, 1979. 8. An integrative model of mediation. (H.Das & V.V.Baba),. A.S.A.C. Conference, Saskatoon, 1979 9. Job involvement: A causal study. (V.V.Baba), A.S.A.C. Conference, Saskatoon, 1979 10. Work, nonwork, quality of. life and happiness: A study of Canadian rank and file workers. (V.V.Baba, M.Jamal & V.F.Mitchell), A.S.A.C. Conference, Saskatoon, 1979 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 16 1
India 6 0
France 4 0
Japan 3 0
China 3 11
Indonesia 3 0
Germany 2 27
Netherlands 2 0
Sweden 1 0
Nigeria 1 0
Algeria 1 0
Pakistan 1 2
City Views Downloads
Unknown 14 27
Ashburn 9 0
Tokyo 3 0
Dallas 2 0
Jakarta 2 0
Redmond 2 0
Bangalore 2 0
Guangzhou 1 0
Surabaya 1 0
Shenzhen 1 11
Beijing 1 0
Bakersfield 1 0
Puducherry 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094977/manifest

Comment

Related Items