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 1980

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
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
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., U n i v e r s i t y of Madras, 1969 M.B.A., Western I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y , 1972 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (THE FACULTY OF COMMERCE AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1979 c j Vishwanath Venkataraman Baba, 1979 In presenting th i s thesis in par t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Univers ity of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library shal l make i t f ree ly avai lable for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of th i s thesis for scholar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It i s understood that copying or publ icat ion of th i s thesis for f inanc ia l gain shal l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Commerce and Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n The Univers ity of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date September 4, 1979 A b s t r a c t The study undertook to examine e m p i r i c a l l y the casual i n f l u e n c e of c e r t a i n i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e f a c t o r s and s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s on job involvement and the e f f e c t of job involvement on job r e l a t e d e f f o r t . In a d d i t i o n , the r o l e of c e r t a i n i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e and s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s as moderators on the above li n k a g e was explored. A t h e o r e t i c a l model was developed w i t h need f o r achievement, locus of c o n t r o l , job scope and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making as casual antecedents of job involvement and job r e l a t e d e f f o r t as i t s consequence. The moderator e f f e c t s of age, education, sex and leader behavior on the above l i n k a g e were a l s o s t u d i e d . The model hypothesized a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between job i n v o l v e - ment and need f o r achievement, i n t e r n a l locus of c o n t r o l , job scope, p a r t i c i - p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making, and job r e l a t e d e f f o r t . In a d d i t i o n , the caus a l linkage was expected to be stronger f o r : 1. older people, 2. more educated workers, 3. males, and 4. those who f u n c t i o n i n a leadership climate of high c o n s i d e r a t i o n and s t r u c t u r e . Data were gathered from two d i f f e r e n t groups through s t r u c t u r e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . The p i l o t sample c o n s i s t e d of employees from o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n the e l e c t r o n i c s i n d u s t r y located i n the greater Montreal area. The v a l i d a t i o n sample c o n s i s t e d of people e n r o l l e d i n the evening program i n b u s i - ness a d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n the two major anglophone u n i v e r s i t i e s i n Quebec. A l l of them held f u l l time jobs. Only anglophone respondents were included i n the a n a l y s i s . The p i l o t sample s i z e was 139 w i t h a response r a t e of 47% while the v a l i d a t i o n sample s i z e was 170 w i t h a response r a t e of 68%. Convergent and d i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d a t i o n and i n t e r n a l consistency r e l i a b i l i t y t e s t s i n d i c a t e d that the sca l e s used i n t h i s study possessed acceptable psychometric p r o p e r t i e s . Path a n a l y s i s , c o r r e l a t i o n s and subgroup a n a l y s i s were used to t e s t the various hypotheses generated i n t h i s study. The r e s u l t s o f f e r e d only moderate support to c. the :c aus a l l - model o r i g i n a l l y proposed. The hypotheses suggesting p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n - ships between the p r e d i c t o r s and the c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e s were a l l confirmed. Age, education, sex and l e a d e r s h i p behavior f a i l e d to moderate the causal l i n k a g e i n the hypothesized d i r e c t i o n . There were no s i g n i f i c a n t moderator e f f e c t s . Based on the e m p i r i c a l f i n d i n g s , the o r i g i n a l model was r e v i s e d and t e s t e d . The r e s u l t s endorsed the v a l i d i t y of the r e v i s e d model. The i m p l i c a t i o n s of the f i n d i n g s were discussed and p o s s i b l e f u t u r e courses of a c t i o n o u t l i n e d . Table of Contents A b s t r a c t Table of Contents L i s t of Tables L i s t of Figures Acknowledgements Chapter 1. I n t r o d u c t i o n 1.1 Nature of the Construct 1.2 Review of the L i t e r a t u r e 1.2.1 I n d i v i d u a l D i f f e r e n c e Factors 1.2.1.1 Age 1.2.1.2 Education 1.2.1.3 Sex 1.2.1.4 Locus of C o n t r o l 1.2.1.5 Tenure 1.2.1.6 Community Si z e 1.2.1.7 P r o t e s t a n t E t h i c 1.2.1.8 Higher Order Need Strength 1.2.1.9 M a r i t a l Status 1.2.2 S i t u a t i o n a l Factors 1.2.2.1 Job Scope 1.2.2.2 P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n De c i s i o n Making 1.2.2.3 Job L e v e l 1.2.2.4 Leader Behavior 1.2.2.5 S o c i a l Factors 1.2.3.Outcome V a r i a b l e s 1.2.3.1 Job S a t i s f a c t i o n 1.2.3.2 E f f o r t 1.2.3.3 Performance 48 1.2.3.4 Turnover 50 1.2.3.5 Absenteeism .'51 1.2.3.6 Success .'51 1.3 Job Involvement as a Moderator .52 1.4 The Dynamics of Job Involvement 54 1.5 Methodological Aspects i n Job Involvement Research .55 1.5.1 Sample -'55' 1.5.2 Measurement 55 1.5.3 A n a l y t i c a l Techniques 57 1.5.4 R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y 58 1.6 Conclusion 58 Chapter 2. Development'.of "theoTheoreticall'Models 60 2.1 T h e o r e t i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e s on Job Involvement 60 2.1.1 Job Involvement as an I n d i v i d u a l D i f f e r e n c e 60 V a r i a b l e 2.1.2 Job Involvement as a Function of the S i t u a t i o n 61 2.1.3 Job Involvement as an I n d i v i d u a l - S i t u a t i o n .61 Outcome - ; 2.2 Development of the T h e o r e t i c a l Model 62; Chapter 3, Research Hypotheses 67 Chapter 4. Research .Design.. -72 4.1 S e t t i n g and Samples 72 4.2 Data C o l l e c t i o n 7 2 4.3 Measurement 77 4.3.1 I n d i v i d u a l D i f f e r e n c e Factors 77 4.3.1.1 Demographics 77 4.3.1.2 Need f o r Achievement 77 4.3.1.3 Locus of C o n t r o l • 8 o 4.3.2 S i t u a t i o n a l Factors 8 2 v i 4.3.2.1-. Job Scope 82 4.3.2.2. P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n D e c i s i o n Making 84 4.3.3. S i t u a t i o n a l Moderator 84 4.3.3.1, Leadership 84 4.3.4, C r i t e r i o n V a r i a b l e s 85 4.3.4.1. Job Involvement 85 4.3.4.2,. E f f o r t 87 4.4. Procedure 90 Chapter 5 A n a l y s i s and Results 93 5.1 Psychometric P r o p e r t i e s of the Scales 93 5.1.1 Need f o r Achievement 93 5.1.2 Locus of C o n t r o l 94 5.1.3. Job Scope 94 5.1.4 P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n D e c i s i o n Making 94 5.1.5 Leadership 94 5.1.6 Job Involvement 94 5.1.7 E f f o r t 96 5.1.8 Convergent and D i s c r i m i n a n t V a l i d a t i o n 96 5.2 Tests of Hypotheses 98 5.3 R e v i s i o n of the O r i g i n a l Model 111 Chapter 6 D i s c u s s i o n and Conclusions 117 B i b l i o g r a p h y 125 Appendix l:''c'W.bxk'^tt£tude^.Sttrve.yi^6stio.nna-ire 138 Appendix 2 Formula f o r Comparison of Regression C o e f f i c i e n t s 163 v i i L i s t of Tables Page 1. Review of E m p i r i c a l Research g 2. V a r i a b l e s i n Job Involvement Research •39 3. Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n f o r Demographics 75 4. I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i x of Dependent and Independent 95 : V a r i a b l e s 5. M u l t i s c a l e Multimethod M a t r i x f o r Convergent and 97 Disc r i m i n a n t V a l i d i t y and R e l i a b i l i t y v i i i L i s t of Figures Page 1. I n t e r e s t i n the Job Involvement Construct 2 i n the E m p i r i c a l L i t e r a t u r e 2. Conceptual Model of Job Involvement 63 3. Opera t i o n a l Model of Job Involvement 68 4. Path A n a l y s i s - P i l o t Data 100 5. Path A n a l y s i s - V a l i d a t i o n Data 101 6. Subgroup Path A n a l y s i s - P i l o t Data Moderated by Age 105 7. Subgroup Path A n a l y s i s - V a l i d a t i o n Data Moderated by Age 106 8. Subgroup Path A n a l y s i s - P i l o t Data Moderated by Sex 107 9. Subgroup Path A n a l y s i s - V a l i d a t i o n Data Moderated by Sex 108 10. Subgroup Path A n a l y s i s - P i l o t Data Moderated by Education 109 11. Subgroup Path A n a l y s i s - V a l i d a t i o n Data Moderated by 110 Education 12. Subgroup Path A n a l y s i s - P i l o t Data Moderated by 112 Leadership 13. Subgroup Path A n a l y s i s - V a l i d a t i o n Data Moderated by 113 Leadership 14. F i n a l l R e v i s e d Path Model 115 i x Ac knowled g ement s My f i r s t exposure to job involvement was when Professo r Vance M i t c h e l l walked i n t o my o f f i c e at U.B.C., gave me some p u z z l i n g r e s u l t s and asked me to t r y w r i t i n g them up. I d i d some homework and a few days l a t e r went back to h i s o f f i c e and s a i d I could not w r i t e the paper as the r e s u l t s d e f i e d both the e x i s t i n g l i t e r a t u r e and common sense. He sat back, chuckled and asked me to s i t down. There began my apprenticeship w i t h Professor M i t c h e l l and my acquaintance w i t h job involvement. We published that paper! From that day on to the very end, Professor M i t c h e l l was a continuous source of i n s p i r a t i o n and guidance to me and I am g r a t e f u l f o r a l l the help and advice he provided as the chairman of my d i s s e r t a t i o n committee. To other members of my committee, P r o f e s s o r s Peter F r o s t , David Hays, L a r r y Moore, Craig Pinder and C a r l Sarndal belongs the c r e d i t f o r whatever c l a r i t y and consistency t h i s t h e s i s may have. E s p e c i a l l y , P r o f e s s o r s Peter Frost and Craig Pinder c o n s t a n t l y helped me w i t h encouragement and c r i t i c i s m through the long period of g e s t a t i o n . I d i d not always welcome t h e i r e x h o r t a t i o n , "Try again; you can do b e t t e r . " But t h i s work owes a great d e a l to i t - and so do I . My f r i e n d s and colle a g u e s , Gary Johns and M a r t i n Kusy, took time out from t h e i r own work to read the d r a f t c a r e f u l l y and s e v e r a l times. Their uncompromising demand f o r l o g i c i n argument and pr e s e n t a t i o n has b e n e f i t t e d every page. I appreciate t h e i r gesture. S p e c i a l thanks go to Ms. Susan Regan who edited the d r a f t v e r s i o n of the t h e s i s and suggested s e v e r a l improvements of semantics and syntax. X Her e f f o r t s at improving my grammar bear evidence i n t h i s work. Both Ms. Sandy P r i t c h a r d and Ms. Susan Regan coped w i t h my handwriting and endless changes to the manuscript. With inexhaustable patience they suf f e r e d w i t h me through a l l stages of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . I acknowledge t h e i r s e c r e t a r i a l help w i t h g r a t i t u d e . Mention must be made of the support given by Professor Gunther B r i n k of the Department of Management at Concordia U n i v e r s i t y toward completion of t h i s t h e s i s . As Chairman of the department he made s e c r e t a r i a l and copying s e r v i c e s f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e , thereby e x p e d i t i n g the completion of t h i s work. I would l i k e to record my s i n c e r e thanks to him. Thanks are a l s o due to the many p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h i s study who, f o r obvious reasons, must remain anonymous. Without t h e i r cooperation, there would have been no d i s s e r t a t i o n . F i n a l l y , not being disposed to e x h i b i t i n g p r i v a t e a f f e c t i o n s i n p u b l i c , I p r e f e r to keep the c o n t r i b u t i o n s of my f a m i l y toward my i n t e l l e c t u a l t r a i n i n g to myself. Dedicated to Amma and Appa who taught me how to t h i n k ; Mama and Mannimma who i n s p i r e d me to pursue e x c e l l Chinnanna and Mowli who showed me the way. Every e f f o r t to understand destroys the object s t u d i e d i n favor of another object of a d i f f e r e n t nature; the second object r e q u i r e s from us a new e f f o r t which de- s t r o y s i t i n favor of a t h i r d , and so on and so f o r t h u n t i l we reach the one l a s t i n g presence, the point at which the d i s t i n c t i o n between meaning and the absence of meaning disappears: the same poi n t from which we began. Claude L e v i - S t r a u s s i n T r i s t e s Tropiques CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION I t has been r e c e n t l y suggested that we should prepare ourselves f o r an alarming shortage of managerial resources i n the years ahead (Miner,11973; Miner,' 1974) . The above f o r e c a s t coupled w i t h the c o n s t r a i n t s imposed upon our o r g a n i z a t i o n s by the i n c r e a s i n g shortage of resources set us t h i n k i n g about i n c r e a s i n g the e f f i c i e n c y of our managerial processes (deWindt,. .1975; M o u d g i l l , 1975). The e f f i c i e n c y of managerial processes":will come about only w i t h a b e t t e r understanding of the work r e l a t e d a t t i t u d e s and t h e i r outcomes (Gechman, 1974). This observation sets the stage f o r the study p r e s e n t l y undertaken. For more than a decade the construct of job involvement has occupied the concerns of s c h o l a r s i n the f i e l d s of i n d u s t r i a l s o c i a l psychology and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l behaviour. The p o p u l a r i t y of the c o n s t r u c t , as i n d i c a t e d by the i n t e r e s t revealed i n the e m p i r i c a l l i t e r a t u r e , can be seen from Figure 1. I t shows the number of e m p i r i c a l a r t i c l e s on job involvement published s i n c e 1965 whenli'ddahl and Ke j n e r (1965) f i r s t attempted to define and measure job involvement. The present study was prompted by the i n c r e a s i n g i n t e r e s t i n the construct and a d e s i r e to b u i l d a conceptual model i d e n t i f y i n g the c o r - r e l a t e s of job involvement that i s both parsimonious and meaningful. The d e f i n i t i o n a l aspects of the construct are f i r s t examined f o r any conceptual commonality. The second step i s to review the e m p i r i c a l l i t e r a t u r e d e a l i n g w i t h job involvement and summarize the r e s u l t s . Then a b r i e f survey and c r i t i c i s m of the methodological i s s u e s f o l l o w . The next step i s to develop a conceptual model based on the e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s reviewed, i n c o r p o r a t i n g the r e l e v a n t c o r r e l a t e s of job involvement. From the model, s e v e r a l hypotheses are generated and instruments are chosen to measure the v a r i o u s c o n s t r u c t s d e t a i l e d i n the model. The next s e c t i o n deals w i t h the methods of data 2 3 c o l l e c t i o n and a n a l y s i s . F i n a l l y , the e m p i r i c a l r e s u l t s are presented and t h e i r i m p l i c a t i o n s are discussed. 1.1 Nature of the Construct The h i s t o r i c a l beginnings of the construct of job involvement can be traced to Maslow's conception of need h i e r a r c h y (Maslow, 1943) wherein he discusses an i n d i v i d u a l ' s s e l f esteem needs i n the context of work. However, the c r e d i t s f o r the e x p l i c i t r e c o g n i t i o n of the construct and i t s o r i g i n a l o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n go to Lodahl and Kejner (1965). Many have attempted to de f i n e job involvement and t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n s appear to i n c l u d e a broad spectrum of ideas. Job involvement was mainly taken to be p s y c h o l o g i c a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h work and work as a c o n t r i b u t o r to one's s e l f esteem (Lawler & H a l l , 1970; Lodahl & Kejner, 1965; M a n s f i e l d , 1972). A l l p o r t (1947) defined job involvement as a c o n d i t i o n i n which the i n d i v i d u a l engages the "status-seeking motive" i n work, w h i l e Wickert (1951) s t r e s s e d the opportunity to make d e c i s i o n s and a f e e l i n g of c o n t r i b u t i o n to the v.-.:,. o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s success to be /the main a t t r i b u t e s of job involvement. Bass (1965) added achievement, s e l f determination and freedom to set work pace to Wickert's d e f i n i t i o n . Slee Smith (1973) suggested '-.that job involvement meant cooperation and commitment, f i n d i n g s i g n i f i c a n c e and achievement i n work, and t r e a t i n g work as an o u t l e t f o r both energy and s k i l l . In a d d i t i o n , he incl u d e d e x e r c i s e of judgement, d e x t e r i t y arid the r i g h t to make d e c i s i o n s i n h i s d e f i n i t i o n . F a r r i s (1971) and Wollack, Goodale, W i j t i n g and Smith (1971) assumed aspects of the P r o t e s t a n t E t h i c as f a c t o r s i n the d e f i n i t i o n of job involvement. Some researchers took the p o s i t i o n that job involvement was a q u a l i f i e d moderator i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s a t i s f a c t i o n and performance (Katz & Kahn, 1966; Rakich, 1970; Schwyhart ,& Smith,.1972) .. Weissenberg and G;r.uein'fe|d -(19:68;) termed job involvement a quasi i n d i c a t o r of m o t i v a t i o n . Patchen (1970) associated high m o t i v a t i o n and a sense of s o l i d a r i t y and p r i d e 4 i n work w i t h job involvement. S i m i l a r l y , French and Kahn (1962) saw involvement as the extent to which job performance was c e n t r a l to a person where c e n t r a l i t y was the degree to which an a b i l i t y a f f e c t s s e l f esteem =.\ S i e g e l (1969) a l s o concurred w i t h the s e l f esteem or s e l f worth: -idea of job involvement. The concepts of task involvement (d'Amorim & N u t t i n , 1972; Drwal, 1973; F r i e d l a n d e r & M a r g u l i e s , 1969; T r z e b i n s k i , 1974), o c c u p a t i o n a l involvement (Faunce, 1959), work r o l e involvement ( G i r a r d , 1971; Maurer, 1969), ego involvement ( B r i c h c i n & S l e d r , 1974; Guion, 1958; Vroom, 1962; Wickert, 1951) and job d e d i c a t i o n (Goodman, Rose & Furcon, 1970) a l s o overlap w i t h the importance attached to the job and the s e l f esteem aspects mentioned above. In most of the above views the common thread appears to be the p s y c h o l o g i c a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h the job and a sense of s e l f worth or s e l f esteem i n the d e f i n i t i o n of job involvement. The d e f i n i t i o n s e i t h e r mention s e l f esteem d i r e c t l y and l i n k i t to work or approach the same idea through "status", :"achievement", " p r i d e " , " s e l f worth" ? e t c . From the foregoing i t i s l o g i c a l to conclude that the concept of j.ob involvement has come to mean an i n d i v i d u a l ' s p s y c h o l o g i c a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h work wherein he::or she views work as c o n t r i b u t o r y to h i s or her s e l f esteem. I t also became evident by the way many researchers o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d the c o n s t r u c t . Though i t can be seen from the above d i s c u s s i o n that many have attempted to define job involvement, s e r i o u s and systematic work on the con- c e p t u a l and o p e r a t i o n a l aspects of job involvement i s notably absent. As i t stands, there does not seem to be much agreement among researchers w i t h regard to the t h e o r e t i c a l nature of job involvement. Some suggested that job i n v o l v e - ment i s a r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c (Dubin, 1956; Lodahl & Kejner, 1965; Runyon, 1973) w h i l e Vroom (1969) p o s i t e d that job involvement was subject to v a r i a t i o n depending upon s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s . Lawler and H a l l 5 (1970) expressed the o p i n i o n that i t was a concept i n f l u e n c e d by both per- sonal and s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s . There has a l s o been disagreement w i t h .. .regard to the m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l i t y of job involvement suggested by Lodahl and Kejner (1965). Lawler and H a l l (1970) took the view that job involvement was a unique job a t t i t u d e and e x t r a c t e d one f a c t o r f o r i t from f a c t o r a n a l y z i n g a l a r g e r s c a l e , thus i n d i r e c t l y suggesting u n i d i m e n t i o n a l i t y . However, i n the l i g h t of the n o t i o n that behavior depends on p e r s o n a l i t y and s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s , and the argument th a t a t t i t u d e s can be l i n k e d to behavior provided both of them are measured w i t h the same degree of s p e c i f i c i t y (Ajzen & F i s h b e i n , 1977; F i s h b e i n , 1967), i t i s safe to suggest that job involvement i s a f u n c t i o n of both p e r s o n a l i t y and s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s . This i s a l s o supported by e m p i r i c a l evidence i n the l i t e r a t u r e (Cumini.ngs & Bigelow,; 1976; Lawler & H a l l , 1970) . In summary, i t can be s a i d that although the s t u d i e s c i t e d above appear tO;Cover a broad spectrum of d e f i n i t i o n s , the convergence seems to be i n the d i r e c t i o n of the Lodahl and Kejner view that job involvement i s one's p s y c h o l o g i c a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h one's job and p e r c e p t i o n of the job as c o n t r i b u t o r y to one's s e l f esteem. Hence the present study adopted t h i s d e f i n i t i o n of job involvement as appropriate f o r i t s purpose. 1.2 Review of the Literature-,' A c a r e f u l survey: of the l i t e r a t u r e revealed some 104 a r t i c l e s of an e m p i r i c a l nature w r i t t e n i n the area of job involvement. A d e t a i l e d summary of the 104 a r t i c l e s d e a l i n g w i t h the name of the r e s e a r c h e r s , the year of p u b l i c a t i o n of that p a r t i c u l a r r e search, the terminology used, .the instrumen- t a t i o n , the nature of the sample, the v a l ' i d i t y . i a n d - . ^ r e l i a b i l i t y i n f o r m a t i o n i the a n a l y t i c a l techniques ".used and t h e i r findings fiare; presented" i n Table 1. : For the purpose of t h i s review, i t i s necessary to d i v i d e the Table 1 Review o£ Empirical Research Researchers Var iab le Name Instrument Sample V a l i d i t y R e l i a b i l i t y S t a t i s t i c a l 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 B e l l telephone company Supervisory and non- supervisory employees i n an e lec t ron ic s f i rm and Blue Co l l a r workers i n an o i l r e f i ne ry Engineers, nurses and second year MBA students Construct va l i da t i on Descr ipt ive s t a t i s t i c s Descr ipt ive s t a t i s t i c s and co r re l a t i on s Discriminant Sp l i t v a l i d a t i o n hal f r e l i a b i l i t y Descr ipt ive s t a t i s t i c s and corre la t ions Ego involvement was inverse ly related to turnover. Persons who are ego-involved i n their jobs are rated higher i n job performance than those who are not ego involved i n the i r Job. The re l a t i onsh ip between opportunity for se l f expression i n jobs and both job s a t i s f a c t i o n and s a t i s - fact ion with 3 e l f expression i s moderated p o s i t i v e l y by ego- involvement. a) Job involvement i s a m u l t i - dimensional a t t i tude that can be scaled with adequate but not high r e l i a b i l i t y . . b) Scale items seem to be gen- era l over d i f f e r e n t populat ions. c) Scale d i scr iminates among groups and lias p l aus ib le c o r - re la t ions with other v a r i ab l e s . d) The 20 item sca le developed here has about the same f a c - t o r i a l content as job s a t i s - fact ion for a group of engineers Age showed a po s i t i ve re l a t i onsh ip with job involvement among nurses but not among engineers. Job i n - volvement was not re la ted to performance. \ Var i ab le Researchers Name Instrument. Sample V a l i d i t y 4; Davis (1966) Work involve- Davis Federal Govern-, m e n t ment executives Hackman and Job involve- Hackman and Female service Porter ment Porter representatives (1968) 6. Friedlander ard Margulies (1969) Task involved s e l f r e a l i z a - t i o n Herzberg, ' Mausner "and Snyderman Rank and F i l e members of an e l e c t r o n i c s organization 7. Goodman, Job involve- Lodahl. Research Convergent Furcon and ment and Kejner s c i e n t i s t s and discriminant Rose (1969) engineers v a l i d a t i o n Reliability Statistical Technique Results Descriptive . Executives who worked longer hours s t a t i s t i c s are more l i k e l y to f e e l completely or at least greatly involved i n t h e i r jobs. Also the time worked i s p o s i t i v e l y related to the im- portance of work i n l i f e . 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 i n work. Executives over 20 years of service are l e s s involved i n work. Inter-rater Correlations r e l i a b i l i t y , Spearman- Brown prophecy r e l i a b i l i t y C orrelation and multiple regression Expectancy theory predictions were found to relate s i g n i f i c a n t l y to ratings of job involvement and e f f o r t , company performance ap- p r a i s a l s and error and sales data. An employee's s a t i s f a c t i o n with hi s task involved s e l f r e a l i z a t i o n was less dependent upon the par- t i c u l a r organizational climate, than was his s a t i s f a c t i o n with the interpersonal and s o c i a l r e - lationships on the job. Correlation Job involvement exhibited sub- s t a n t i a l convergent and d i s c r i - minatory v a l i d i t y . 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 t i le mil l workers Reliability Statistical Technique Results Test-retest re l iabi l i ty Kuder Richardson rel iabil i ty 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 C i v i l 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 B o u r c e s was related to increased job i n - 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 t o result in increased worker involvement (as measured by perceived fulfillment). Correlations Job dedication (same as job i n - 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 s k i l l s and abil i t ies , the more involved he wil l be on his job. Job involve- ment was not related to performance ! however. Variable Researchers Name Instrument Sample V a l i d i t y 16. Mukherjee (1970) Job involve- ment 17. Patchen (1970) Job involve- ment Lodahl and Kejner Blue collar workers In an Indian textile mil l Patchen A l l employees of Tennessee Valley Author- it ies 18. Alderfer Job Involve- Lodahl and Graduate . t u - and Lodahl ment Kejner dents In Adminl- validity (1971) fltrati0a Reliability S t a t i s t i c a l Technique Results Factor analys is Job involvement was found to be a and cor re la t ions separate dimension of Job s a t i s - f a c t i o n . It showed moderate, s i g - n i f i c an t pos i t i ve co r re l a t i ons with overa l l job s a t i s f a c t i o n . Descr ipt ive Those with stronger occupational s t a t i s t i c s , i d e n t i f i c a t i o n showed greater gen- mult ip le e r a l job in teres t i n work innova- cor re la t ions t.ton than people who were less and ana lys i s of strongly i d e n t i f i e d with t h e i r variance occupation. Those with stronger occupational i d e n t i f i c a t i o n were less l i k e l y to be absent from work than others. Spearman Brown rel iabil i ty Analysis of v a r - Students enro l led i n a T-group iance, Mann- course showed more involvement Whitney test than those i n a Human Relat ions and corre la t ions course. S i gn i f i cant o v e r a l l changes in job involvement were reported due to exposure to e i t h e r of the courses. Involvement did not show s i gn i f i c an t d i f fe rence between videotape viewing sessions and the other c lass sess ions. There was, however, a change from the laboratory sessions to the tape viewing sess ions, with the laboratory sessions being s i g n i f i - cant ly more i nvo l v ing . Involvement showed s i g n i f i c a n t po s i t i ve r e - lat ionship to 'here-and-now 1 be- havior, group dynamics and nega- t i ve re la t ionsh ip to organ izat iona l dynamics. I t was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y re lated to openness however. Var iab le Researchers Name Instrument Sample V a l i d i t y 19. F a r r i s (1971) Work i nvo l ve - ment 20. Gadbois (1971) Job invo lve - ment Fe lz and Andrews Engineers and s c i e n t i s t s from two organiza- t ions A & B Lodahl and Kejner Female student nurses 21. Hackman Job i nvo l ve - and Lawler ment (1971) Lodahl and Semi - sk i l led Kejner and s k i l l e d employees and supervisors 22. H a l l and Job invo lve - Lodahl and R & D s t a f f Lawler ment Kejner (1971) 23. H a l l and Mansfield (1971) Job invo lve - ment Lodahl Kej ner and R & D s t a f f Construct v a l i d i t y 24. Schneider, Job i nvo l ve - Lodahl and H a l l and ment Kejner Nygren (1971) Profess iona l fo res ter s Concurrent v a l i d i t y R e l i a b i l i t y S t a t i s t i c a l Technique Result: Descr ipt ive Turnover was negat ively re la ted to s t a t i s t i c s , work involvement i n one organizat ion factor analys is and not in the other, and cor re la t ions Factor analys is Job involvement was found to be and cor re la t ions a multidimensional concept. Father ' s occupation, mother's oc - cupation, educational l e v e l of r e - spondent compared to h is or her brother ' s or s i s t e r ' s and work competence were found to be p o s i - t i v e l y related to job involvement. Internal consistency r e l i a b i l i t y Internal consistency and te s t - re tes t r e l i a b i l i t y Internal consistency Descr ipt ive The core dimensions of v a r i e t y , s t a t i s t i c s and autonomy, task i den t i t y and feed - cor re la t ions back and the interpersona l d i - mensions of f r iendsh ip opportun- i t i e s on the job were p o s i t i v e l y re lated to job Involvement. Corre lat ions Corre lat ions Mu l t ip le co r re l a t i ons Pressure for qua l i ty was p o s i - t i v e l y corre lated with job i n - volvement which i n turn was pos i t i ve l y re la ted to a g loba l performance measure. Changes in the organ izat iona l environment (organizat ional s tress) over a period of 20 months d id not induce any change i n the job involvement of the people ex- periencing the s t re s s . Job involvement was p o s i t i v e l y re lated to organ izat iona l i d e n t i f i - cat ion. The view that organiza- t i o n a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s a mul- t i p l e corre late of s e l f image, job challenge and job involvement received only weak empir ica l sup- por t . Tenure was not re la ted to Job involvement. Researchers Var iab le Name 25. Wollack, Goodale, Wlj t lng and Smith (1971) Job invo lve - ment Instrument Sample Wollack, Goodale, Wi j t ing , and Smith V a l i d i t y R e l i a b i l i t y S t a t i s t i c a l Technique Results Employees from a l l l eve l s of a glass manu- fac tur ing organ izat ion. Cross V a l i d a - t i on , construct v a l i d i t y In terna l cons i s - tency and r e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a - b i l i t y Descr ip t ive Job involvement was found to be s t a t i s t i c s , p o s i t i v e l y re lated to a c t i v i t y , c o r r e l a t i o n s , s t r i v i n g and prl.de and negatively^ factor ana l y s i s , to earnings. I t was not re lated d iscr iminant to s ta tus . Background var iab les funct ion a n a l - such as race, occupat ional l e v e l , y 6 i s and canon- area of the country from which i c a l regress ion the respondent came and super- ana lys i s v i so ry l e v e l as a group were found to be re la ted to work values of which job involvement was a subscale. 26. Wood (1971) Job invo lve - ment Lodah1 and Kejner Machine opera- to r s , paper packaging plant employees Descr ip t ive Low involvement people are more s t a t i s t i c s and s a t i s f i e d e x t r i n s i c a l l y as produc- cor re la t ions t i v i t y increases . High invo lve - ment people are more d i s s a t i s - f i e d i n t r i n s i c a l l y as product iv i ty increases . I V a r i a b l e Researchers Name Instrument Sample V a l i d i t y 27. H a l l and Job invo lve - Lodahl P r i e s t s , Schneider ment and Kejner p ro fes s iona l (1972) ... _ fo res ter s and R & D personnel 28. Mansf ield (1972) Job involve- ment Lodahl and Kejner S ta f f and l i n e managers from pub l i c and p r i - vate organiza- t ions 29. Roman and ~ T r i c e (1972) Job involve- ment Lodahl and Kejner White c o l l a r c l e r i c a l workers and blue c o l l a r fac tory workers 30. Schwyhart and Smith (1972) Job involve- ment Lodahl and Kejner Middle managers Construct v a l i d i t y Reliability S t a t i s t i c a l Technique Results Descr ipt ive For the R S D sample, s a t i s f a c t i o n s t a t i s t i c s and of a f f i l i a t i o n need was negat ively corre la t ions re lated to Job involvement while autonomy, s e l f f u l f i l l m e n t , i n t e l - l e c t u a l competence and a c t i v i t y were po s i t i ve l y re lated to i t . Sa t i s fac t ion of secur i ty and esteem needs and supportiveness were not re lated to job involvement. For the forester sample support ive- 1 ness, s a t i s f a c t i o n of autonomy and s e l f f u l f i l l m e n t needs were p o s i - t i v e l y re lated while i n t e l l e c t u a l competence, a c t i v i t y , s a t i s f a c t i o n of secur i ty , a f f i l i a t i o n and other needs were unrelated to job . i n - volvement. Such data were not ava i lab le for the p r i e s t sample. Job involvement i s only re la ted to need s a t i s f a c t i o n negat ively and need Importance po s i t i ve l y with respect to s e l f esteem at work. It i s not re la ted to any need area out of work. Chi-square Job involvement was not s l g n i f l - analys i s cant ly re la ted to p sych ia t r i c impairment. Descr ipt ive s t a t i s t i c s and corre lat ions Odd-even and Descr ipt ive s p l i t ha l f s t a t i s t i c s , r e l i a b i l i t y factor analys is and corre lat ions Factor s tructure of job i nvo l ve - ment i s occupat ionol ly s p e c i f i c . Company s a t i s f a c t i o n was po s i - t i v e l y re la ted to job involvement. Age had a low pos i t i ve r e l a t i o n - ship with job involvement. Neither number of reported promotions'nor company tenure was re la ted to job involvement. Variable Researchers Name Instrument Sample Validity 31, Wood (1972) Job invo lve- ment Lodahl and Kejner Paper packaging plant employees 32. GodbQis (1973) Job invo lve - ment Lodahl and Kejner Female nurses 33. Gannon and Job invo lve - Hendrick- ment son (1973) 34. Lawler, Job invo lve - Hackman and ment Kaufman Lodahl and Kejner Lodahl and Kejner Working wives employed as c le rks or o f f i c e workers i n r e t a i l organizat ions D i rec tory ass i s tance operators (1973) 35. R id ley (1973) Job involve ment Ridley Female teachers and the i r husbands 36. Ruh, Johnson and Scontrino (1973) Job invo lve - ment Lodahl ! and Kejner Manufacturing employees from Scanlon plan un i t s Reliability S t a t i s t i c a l Technique Results Descr ipt ive s t a t i s t i c s , corre lat ions and factor analys i s Factor analys is and corre lat ions Factor analys is and corre lat ions Corre lat ions Item analys i s Measures of assoc ia t ion Item ana lys i s . Descr ipt ive and i n te rna l ; s t a t i s t i c s , consistency j corre lat ions : ;snd analys is of variance Low involvement accentuated assoc- . i a t l on between Job s a t i s f a c t i o n and the decis ion to pa r t i c i pa te i n the organizat ion. High invo lve - ment enhanced dec i s ions to produce. Both were supported for females only. The multidimensional notion of job involvement was found i n v a l i d . However the percept ion of job i n - volvement underwent a change over time. The t r a in ing environment and s oc i a l o r i g in were not re la ted to job involvement. This i s a long i tud ina l study. Job involvement was po s i t i ve l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y re la ted to the over- a l l index of job s a t i s f a c t i o n i n addi t ion to work, superv is ion and people dimensions of Job s a t i s f a c - t i o n . Job enrichment of telephone d i r - ectory assistance operators ' jobs through increased autonomy in dec i s ion making and var ie ty f a i l e d to increase the job involvement of the operators. For both married men and women high Job involvement resu l ted i n a somewhat poor mar i t a l adjustment. There was weak support of the notion that the couple with low job involvement shows1 a higher degree of mar i ta l adjustment than any other combination of Job i n - volvement among the spouses. • Pa r t i c i pa t i on i n Scanlon plan and i n ' dec i s ion making were po s i t i ve l y r e - '. 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 re l iabi l i ty Internal consistency rel iabil i ty Rste-rerate (a form of test-retest reliabili ty) Internal consistency rel iabil i ty Internal consistency rel iabil i ty 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 a l l 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 Correlat ions Results Age and family s i ze were negat ively re lated to job involvement while education was p o s i t i v e l y re la ted to job involvement. Further com-, mand personnel were more Involved in the i r jobs a S compared to patrolmen.. Descr ipt ive Superiors ' use of author i ty as n s t a t i s t i c s and measure of inf luence was nega- corre lat lons t i v e l y related to subordinates* work involvement whereas job c h a l - lenge as a means of inf luence was ' pos i t i ve l y re la ted to work i n - volvement. Other means of i n - fluence such as sa lary, promotion, future work assignment, coerc ive power, f r iendsh ip and expert power showed no re la t ionsh ip with work involvement. The s u p e r i o r s per - formance was p o s i t i v e l y re la ted to subordinate's woi;k Involvement, Corre la t ions Organizat ional c l imate dimensions such as work autonomy and an em- ployee centered or ienta t ion were po s i t i ve l y re la ted to job i nvo l ve - ment. Other dimensions such as e f - fec t i ve organizat ional s t ruc ture , c lo se , impersonal superv is ion, and an open, chal lenging enviornment d id not show any s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a - t ionship with job involvement. The d i f fe rent re la t ionsh ips ob- tained between the cl imate dimen- sions and job involvement and i n - t r i n s i c motivation respect ive ly supported the reported d i f f e rence between the above va r i ab l e s . Researchers Variable Name Instrument Sample Validity 45.. Wood Job involve- Lodahl Paper workers (1974) ment ' a n d 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 i n t r i n - s i c a l l y oriented towards the i r job , d id not manifest s a t i s f a c - t ions commensurate with company evaluations of performance; they depended more on i n t r i n s i c rewards. Low involved employees were more ex t r i n s i c i n or ienta t ion and ex- perienced g r a t i f i c a t i o n s more i n l i n e with company performance assessments due to the i r greater dependence on e x t r i n s i c rewards. Descr ipt ive Education was negatively re la ted s t a t i s t i c s to job involvement. Tenure, s k i l l and corre la t ions va r i e t y , task i d e n t i t y , task s i g - n i f i cance , autonomy, feedback from the job, general s a t i s f a c t i o n with supervis ion, s a t i s f a c t i o n with co - workers, s a t i s f ac t ion ' with pay and sa t i s f a c t i on with promotional op- portun i t ies were p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e - lated with job involvement. Tenr ure, area of s o c i a l i z a t i o n , con- gruence with need strength moder- ated the re la t ionsh ip between task charac te r i s t i c s and job involvement s i g n i f i c a n t l y . However, a u t h o r i - tarianism and education were not found to moderate the above r e - la t ionsh ip s i g n i f i c a n t l y . Corre lat ions Neither pro Protestant e th ic nor and f a c t o r - • non Protestant, e th ic were found to analys is be related to job involvement. Descr ipt ive s t a t i s t i c s , factor analys is and corre la t ions Researchers Var i ab le Name Instrument Sample V a l i d i t y 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- tivit ies (Behav- ioral Mea- sure) Managerial employees from B e r v i c e 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- 8 t a t l 8 t l c s 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, i t was observed that the correlations were s i g n i f i - cant only for people with high higher order need strength. Also, i t 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 act i - 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 i n - volvement. Variable Researchers Name Instrument Sample V a l i d i t y 51. Ha l lahd Job invo lve - Lodahl Engineers and Mansfield ment and Kejner s c i e n t i s t s (1975) • from research . _ and develop- ment organiza- t ions 52. Herman, Dunham and Hul ln (1975) Job invo lve - ment Lodahl and Kejner Employees from a l l l e ve l s i n a p r i n t i n g company. Cross va l ida t ion 53. Jones, James and Brunl (1975) Job i nvo l ve - ment Lodahl and Kejner C i v i l s e r - v i ce and m i l i t a r y employees ot a U.S. Army corps of Engineers D i s t r i c t o f f i c e R e l i a b i l i t y S t a t i s t i c a l Technique Results Descr ipt ive s t a t i s t i c s , co r re l a t i on and ana.lyels of variance Kuder-Richardson r e l i a b i l i t y Descr ipt ive s t a t i s t i c s , co r re l a t i ons , canonical corre lat ionand part canonical corre la t ions Descr ipt ive s t a t i s t i c s and cor re la t ions The study was conducted on a long- i t u d i n a l ba s i s . Job involvement was found to increase monotonl- c a l l y with age* Sen ior i ty was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y re la ted to job i n - volvement. . Sa t i s f ac t i on with work, promotion, pay, supervis ion and co-workers, cons iderat ion, focus and exper i - enced motivation, in terpersona l behavior contingencies and job s a t i s f a c t i o n i n general were po s i t i ve l y re la ted to job invo lve - ment while i n i t i a t i n g . s t r u c t u r e and task contingencies were nega- t i v e l y related to job Involvement, In add i t ion, i t was reported that organizat iona l s t ructure character - i s t i c s explained a greater propor- t i on of variance compared to demo- graphic cha rac te r i s t i c s i n employee responses of which job involvement was one. . Job involvement was po s i t i ve l y r e - lated to ce r ta in demographic v a r - iab les such as age years i n the d i s t r i c t , pay grade and years i n the pay grade. Years of education and highest degree obtained were not re lated to job involvement. When used as a moderator, the high job involvement sample tended to have s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower c o r r e l a - t ions between confidence and t rus t and leadersh ip. Leader behavior as such was not re la ted to job involvement. Variable Researchers Name Instrument Sample Validity 54, Kanungo, ' Mlsra and Dayal (1975) Job involve- ment Lodahl Non-supervisory and Kejner s t a f f , lower and middle manage- ment people from • an organizat ion i n India 55, Mannheim Work Role (1975) Centrality Mannheim Males from Face d i f f e r e n t o c - v a l i d i t y cupat ional and age groups i n India 56. M i t c h e l l , Baba and Epps (1975) Job involve- ment Lodahl and Kejner Unsk i l l ed , s k i l l e d and supervisory personnel from an auto- mobile plant i n Canada Statistical Reliability Technique Results Descr ipt ive High involved employees as corn- s t a t i s t i c s , pared to low involved employees analys is of attached greater importance to variance and safety and s e l f a c tua l i z a t i on c o r r e l a t i o n needs and lesser importance to phys io log ica l and s o c i a l needs. With respect to the patterns of need strength the high and low involved employees d id not d i f f e r . The high Involvement group con- s i s ted of people, a greater number of whom were married, had more job experience, and more income com- pared to the low involvement group. Internal Descr ipt ive 'Job involvement' and 'work r o l e consistency s t a t i s t i c s , . c e n t r a l i t y are used interchange- factor ana ly s i s , ably i n th is research. Or ien ta l s correlat ions:and exhibited lower work c e n t r a l i t y analys is of scores compared to occ identa l variance samples. Education, occupat ional hierarchy and employment status were po s i t i ve l y re lated to work c e n t r a l i t y whi le age d id not show any s i g n i f i c a n t re l a t i on sh ip with i t Cen t ra l i t y was a l so found to be re la ted to i n t r i n s i c , mater i a l , s o c i a l and hygienic rewards r e - . gardless of the importance as - signed to these rewards. Descr ipt ive A l o w b u t s i g n i f i c a n t negative s t a t i s t i c s co r re l a t i on was obtained between factor analys i s c e n t r a l l i f e i n t e r e s t and Job and cor re la t ions involvement. Age, l eve l s of oc- cupatlon, and company tenure d id not corre la te s i g n i f i c a n t l y with job involvement. r o O Researchers Variable Name Instrument Sample V a l i d i t y 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 f i l e Construct White ment and Kejner and management validation and Wood personnel from (1975) six midwestern ~" * manufacturing" organizations R e l i a b i l i t y Statistical Technique Results Internal Corre lat ions consistency and mult ip le regress ion Job involvement may be a f fected both by i nd i v i dua l d i f fe rences brought to the job and by charac- t e r i s t i c s of the job s i t u a t i o n . Job involvement may not be an ap- propriate var i ab le for moderating the re lat ionsh ips between job charac te r i s t i c s and employee r e - sponses to the job . Geographic background, sect ion of town, type of school ing, books around home, geographic mob i l i t y , s k i l l l e v e l of f a ther ' s occupation, frequency of church attendance, importance of r e l i g i o n , church a c t i v i t y during youth. Values such as ambition, capab i l i t y , r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and accomplishment, p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n decis ion making, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the organizat ion and motiva- t i on were p o s i t i v e l y re la ted to job involvement. Urban vs r u r a l background, urban vs ru ra l r e s i - dence, i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n of home- town, values such as independence, freedom and p a r t i c i p a t i o n were negatively re la ted to job i nvo l ve - ment. Respondents' educat ion, parents ' education, values such as imagination, s e l f cont ro l and equal i ty were unrelated to job i n - 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 f i rs t - level supervisors 61. . Baba and Work involve- Baba and Blue collar Construct Jaraal ment Jamal workers validity (1976) .Reliability Statist ical Technique Results Internal consistency Factor analys i s ,Job involvement.was po s i t i ve l y r e - corre la t ions lated to Job s a t i s f a c t i o n but not and mult ip le t with e ither performance or e f f o r t , . regression. . Employees with low job involvement had more extreme react ions to o r - ganizat ional phenomena than d id em- ployees with high job involvement. Individual var iab les such as age, a b i l i t y to leave the organ izat ion, relevant education and perceived par t i c ipa t i on i n dec i s ion making , were found to be re la ted to job involvement. Organizat iona l v a r i - ables such as pa r t i c i pa to ry l eader - ship, role ambiguity and task r c - pet i t iveness were a l so found to be related to job involvement. The d i rect ion of the re l a t i onsh ip s was not reported. Corre lat ions Age and need for achievement were pos i t i ve l y re la ted to job invo l ve - ment. Job involvement was p o s i - t i ve l y re lated to performance for people with a high need for achievement. For low need achieve- ment people such a re l a t i onsh ip d id not ex i s t . Internal Factor analys is Company s a t i s f a c t i o n , company corn- consistency .and cor re la t ions mitment and work involvement were re lated p o s i t i v e l y to each other :whei as education was negat ively r e l a - ted to work involvement. Female employees were more involved i n the i r job than the i r male counter-, parts . Mar i t a l s tatus , income and experience showed no re l a t i on sh ip to job involvement. Researchers Var i ab le 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 S t a t i s t i c a l Technique Results Descr ipt ive No d i f ference in job involvement s t a t i s t i c s , was observed among people in factor analysis^ d i f fe rent„ f ie lds of -a'cademla . and regression . Corre lat ions I n i t i a t i ng s t ructure was found to and factor pos i t i ve ly cor re la te with job i n - analys is volvement while cons iderat ion did not show any s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n - ship. Descr ipt ive Education, l e v e l of pos i t i on , era- s t a t i s t i c s and ployment status, f i n a n c i a l need factor ana lys i s , were re la ted p o s i t i v e l y to pro - fess iona l a t t i tude of which job Involvement was a subscale. How- ever, the magnitude of the r e l a - t ionships was small but s i g n i f i - cant . Factor analys i s The Lawler and H a l l (1970) f indings were rep l i ca ted for a blue c o l l a r sample. They found job s a t i s f a c - t i o n , i n t r i n s i c mot ivat ion and job Involvement d i s t i n c t job a t t i - tudes. Relat ionships among the above three were not reported. Variable Researchers Name Instrument. Sample ' Validity 66.Halland Work involve- Lodahl Public primary Hall ment o n < i Kejner school students (1976) 67-. Hollon and Chesser (1976) Job i nvo lve - ment Lodahl and Kejner Col lege professors Reliability Statistical Technique Results Internal consistency Path analys is and zero order corre la t ions ' This i s a long i tud ina l study. Job Involvement was po s i t i ve l y re lated psychologica l success, support and se l f image for both time per iods. The strength of re la t ionsh ip be- tween job involvement and se l f image was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher for organizations character ized by a highly supportive cl imate compared to an organization with a low sup- port ive c l imate. However, the above d i f ference was s i g n i f i c a n t for the i n i t i a l time period only. Job involvement was a l B o p o s i - t i v e l y re lated to goals i n both time periods but only for organ- izat ions character ized by a low supportive c l imate. Path analys i s supported the fo l lowing models: 1. For the high support o rgan i - za t ion ; Perf ormance^—»Goa lS j "^ support^—*Self Image^—•Involvement^ —*Goals 2 2. For the lower support organiza-:' t i o n ; Self Image^—•SuccesSj—» Support j-*Coals^—^Involvement j — G o a l s „ 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 i t . ro . On Variable Researchers Name Instrument.. Sample Validity 68i Hol lon and. Job invo lve - Lodahl Male and female Gommlll ment and Kejner professors (1976) 69, Kimmons and Job invo lve - Lodahl Mixed sample Greenhaus ment and Kejner of managers (1976) 70. Mathews and Kra'ntz (19.76) Job i nvo l ve - ment Jenkins a c t i v i t y survey f o r health P re - d i c t i o n form B Monozygotic and d izygot ic twins 71. Saleh and Hosek (1976) Job involve ment Lodahl and Kejner other instruments Undergraduates and salesmen 72. Schuler (1976) Job i nvo l ve - ment Lodahl and Kejner Manufacturing employees from a l l l eve l s i n the organiza- t i o n . [ . R e l i a b i l i t y Statistical ..Technique Results Internal consistency Descr ipt ive Female professors were less l n - s t a t i s t l c s volved in the i r jobs as compared to the i r male counterparts. Though not a l l the f indings were s t a t - i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , they were ' a l l i n the predicted d i r e c t i o n . Descr ipt ive Locus of contro l did not moderate s t a t i s t i c s s i g n i f i c a n t l y the re l a t i onsh ip be- and c o r r e l a - tween job involvement and job s a t - tions i s f a c t i o n . However, in terna l s were found to be more Job involved than externals . Corre lat ions No evidence was found fo r the hypo- thes is that job involvement was genet ica l ly determined. Internal Factor consistency analys is and te s t - re tes t r e l i a b i l i t y Job involvement was found to be a multidimensional concept containing cogn i t ive, a f f e c t i v e and behaviora l components namely cen t ra l l i f e i n - te re s t i se l f esteem and ac t i ve par - t i c i p a t i o n . Internal consistency Analys i s of var iance Task repet i t iveness was negat ively re la ted to Job involvement. Variable Researchers Name Instrument . Sample Validity 73. Steers Job Involve- Lodahl Female f i r s t (1976) ' ment and Kejner l e v e l super- v i so r s i n a publ ic u t i l i t y f i rm _ 74. Steers and Job i nvo l ve - Lodahl Hosp i ta l empl- Braunstein ment and Kejner oyees from a l l (1976) l e ve l s 7S. Stone Job i nvo l ve - (1976) ment Wollack, Nonmangerlal Goodale, .workers Wij t ing and Smith S t a t i s t i c a l . R e l i a b i l i t y Technique Results Correlat ions Task-goal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as pa r t i c i pa t i on , goal d i f f i c u l t y and goal s p e c i f i c i t y , need for job s a t - . i s f a c t i o n , achievement, need f o r a f f i l i a t i o n , were p o s i t i v e l y r e - lated to job involvement while feedback, peer competit ion and need for autonomy were unrelated to i t . When need for achievement was used to moderate the above re l a t i on sh ip , i t was found that peer competit ion and goal d i f f i c u l t y were p o s i t i v e l y re lated to job involvement for the high nAch group and unrelated for the low nAcu group. When need for a f f i l i a t i o n , was used to moderate the above re l a t i on sh ip , i t was found that goal d i f f i c u l t y was po s i t i ve l y re la ted to job invo lve - ment for the high nAff group and unrelated for the low nAff group. Need for autonomy was not found to be a s i gn i f i c an t moderator of the re la t ionsh ip between task-goal a t t r ibutes and job involvement. Corre la t ions Need for achievement was p o s i t i v e l y re lated to job involvement. Need for a f f i l i a t i o n , need for autonomy and need for dominance were not re lated to job involvement. P a r t i a l Job involvement f a i l e d to moderate cor re la t ions the re la t ionsh ip between job scope and s a t i s f a c t i on with work i t s e l f . r\3 Researchers Var i ab l e 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 i nvo l ve - ment Lodahl and Kejner Male blue c o l l a r workers Hosp i ta l employees 80. Gardell (1977) Job involve- ment Gardell Process, mass production and • batch workers Statistical .Reliability .Technique Results Descr ipt ive Job involvement i s not a s i g n i f i - s t a t i s t i c s and cant moderator of the r e l a t i o n - cor re la t ions ship between leader behavior and general s a t i s f a c t i o n as we l l as supervisory s a t i s f a c t i o n . How- ever, job c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as va r i e t y , task i d e n t i t y , task s i g - n i f i cance , autonomy, feedback from job, feedback from agents and ^dealing with others were a i g n i f i - cant ly corre lated with job invo lve - ment. Managerial l e v e l and work re la ted concepts were p o s i t i v e l y re la ted to job involvement. Descr ipt ive s t a t i s t i c s and corre la t ions Factor ana lys i s Se l f evaluat ive involvement was and cor re la t ions negatively re la ted to e f f o r t and performance on the job . Spearman- Descr ipt ive Process var iab les such as a n t i c i - Brown r e l i a - s t a t i s t i c s , patory s o c i a l i z a t i o n , accomoda- b i l i t y , a n d . p a r t i a l c o r r e l a - t i on , and ro le management did not in terna l t lons and show any s i gn i f i c an t re l a t ionsh ip consistency analys is of with Job involvement, variance - Descr ipt ive The re la t ionsh ip between job in r . s t a t i s t i c s and volvement and des i re for increased analys i s of inf luence in dec i s ion making was variance moderated by the d i s c r e t i o n and s k i l l l e ve l of the job . People who were highly Job Involved and whose Job had a higher d i s c r e t i o n and s k i l l l e ve l expressed greater de*-' . s i r e for increased inf luence i n de- c i s i o n making as compared to .those._ whose jobs had a lower l e v e l of d i sc re t ion and s k i l l . Var i ab l e Researchers Name Instrument. . Sample Validity -81. H a l l and Job invo lve - Lodahl Un iver s i ty Foster ' ment and Kejner students (i977) 82.Iyanceyich Goal se t t ing Ivancevich E lec t ron i c s and McMahon involvement and McMahon technic ians (19 77) .83.Jones, Job l nvo l ve - James, ment Bruni and S e l l s (1977) Lodahl En l i s ted men and Kejner i n United States navy Statistical .Reliability .Technique Results Path analys is E f f o r t , psychological success and and cross lagged s e l f esteem were s i g n i f i c a n t and corre la t ions pos i t i ve predictors of Job invo lve - . ment. Goals and performance did not show any s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n - ship with job involvement. Th is was a long i tud ina l study. Internal Descr ip t ive Involvement i n se t t ing goals were consistency s t a t i s t i c s , re la ted p o s i t i v e l y to goal corn- factor analys i s mitment and job tenure. It was and corre lat ions not re lated to age, tenure with the goal set t ing program, educa- t i o n , higher order need strength, task-goal e f f o r t and performance. Internal Descr ipt ive consistency s t a t i s t i c s and cor re la t ions Black en l i s ted men exhibited a higher degree of job involvement as compared to white e n l i s t e d men. Job involvement was found to be re lated po s i t i ve l y to organiza- t i ona l cl imate dimensions such.as chal lenge, pro fess iona l and organ i - za t iona l e sp r i t f o r both white and black samples and was not re la ted to c o n f l i c t and ambiguity and leader- ship f a c i l i t a t i o n . In the case of black en l i s ted men, job involvement, was re lated p o s i t i v e l y to Job s tan - dards and for the white sample i t was po s i t i ve l y re la ted to coopera- t i o n , f r i end l ines s 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 Sc ien t i s t s and engineers i n the aerospace industry Discriminant Validation Internal consistency Mul t ip le regression and corre la t ions Among navy men who were, e l i g i b l e , s i gn i f i c an t d i f ferences were observed in job involvement between those who en l i s ted and those who did not. S i gn i f i cant d i f ferences in job invo lve - ment a lso existed between those who en l i s ted and those who were not r e - commended for enlistment or who were prematurely separated from se rv i ce . No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences were observed in Job involvement between those who were e l i g i b l e but did not reg i s ter and those who were not recommended for r e - enlistment. Age » decent ra l i za t ion , innovation i n - te re s t , job chal lenge, s t re s s , oppor- tunity to work on d i f f i c u l t problems were found to be s i g n i f i c a n t pred ictors of job involvement and po s i t i ve l y re lated to i t while confrontat ion of task c o n f l i c t , l o c a l ro le expectation and l o c a l or ientat ion were also found to be s i gn i f i c an t pred ictors of job involvement but were negat ively re lated to i t . The predictors of job invo lve - ment showed d i f f e ren t patterns when the sample was s p l i t 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, ideal i sm - cynicism, anomie and act ive - passive or ienta t ion appeared to moderate the re la t ionsh ip between the above sa id predictors and job involvement. Variable Researchers Name Instrument Sample * Va l id i ty . 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 ment employees (1977) 88'.', Rousseau Job involve- Patchen Production ; (1977) ment workers S t a t i s t i c a l R e l i a b i l i t y Technique Results Descr ipt ive In this study, organizat iona l i n - s t a t l s t i c s and volvement was referred to as Job corre lat ions involvement. The above confusion not withstanding, organ izat iona l involvement was negat ively re la ted to turnover. It did not show s i g - n i f i c an t re l a t ionsh ip with absen- teeism or error on the job (short - ages). The study was a longitMdrial one. Internal consistency Mult ip le Both ind i v idua l d i f ferences and regression.and job scope contr ibute equally to analys is of the pred ic t ion of job involvement, var iance There was no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r - act ion e f fect among the pred i c to r s . Growth need strength, length of serv i ce , job scope, Protestent e th ic and age were p o s i t i v e l y r e - lated to job involvement while sex was negatively re la ted to i t . Mar i ta l s tatus , education and locus of contro l were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y re lated to job involvement. Factor ana lys i s , The type of technology a f fec t s job canonical c o r r e - involvement. Job c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s l a t i on and such as va r i e t y , task i d e n t i t y , mult ivar iate task s i gn i f i cance , autonomy, f eed - analys is of back from j ob , feedback from variance agents, deal ing with others and learning were po s i t i ve l y re lated to Job involvement. A l i ena t i on and job s a t i s f a c t i o n were negat ively and p o s i t i v e l y re la ted to job In- volvement r e spec t i ve l y . Variable Researchers Name Instrument Sample Validity 8?..6chulor Job involve-' Lodahl Public ( 1977) ment _ and Kejner ut i l i t ies employees 90.' Schuler, Aldag and Brief (1977) Job involve- ment Lodahl and Kejner Mixed sample of nurses, manufacturing, pubiic u t i l i t y and hospital workers 9I..Wiener and Gechman (1977) Job involve- ment 9 i ; Abdel-Halim Job involve- (1978) m e n t 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 s k i l l , 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, rel iabil i ty 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 r o 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 a n d 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 s i g n i f i - 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) , Hal l , . 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 i n - volvement was also found to de- crease over time. This is a long- itudinal study. V a r i a b l e S t a t i a t l c a l Raaearchera Nans Instrument. Sanpla V a l i d i t y R e l i a b i l i t y Technique 97.. Hoiberg and Berry (1978) Involvement Insel and Moos Enlisted men in the United " -.- ' States Navy Cross validation Descr ipt ive s t a t i s t i c s , analys is of var iance, mult ip le regression and corre la t ions Expectations of involvement as wel l as perceived Involvement made s i gn i f i c an t contr ibut ions to the pred ic t ion of e f fec t i venes s . This i s a long i tud ina l study. 98 • Koch and Steers (1978) Job attachment Koch and Steers Entry l e v e l non managerial employees i n the publ ic sector Internal consistency Descr ipt ive Job attachment was negat ively r e - s t a t i s t i c s and lated to turnover and was a more zero-order, e f fec t i ve pred ictor of turnover p a r t i a l and than overa l l , s a t i s f a c t i o n . In- mult lp le c o r - d i v i dua l cha rac te r i s t i c s such as- re la t ions age, tenure, pay, education and sex were more strongly re la ted to job attachment than were job char- a c t e r i s t i c s such as autonomy, va r - i e ty and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Age, ten - ure and pay were p o s i t i v e l y re la ted to job attachment while education and sex showed negative r e l a t i o n - sh ips . Autonomy and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y showed pos i t i ve re la t ionsh ips whi le va r ie ty was not re la ted to job a t - tachment. However, a f te r p a r t i a l - l i n g out, autonomy was the only Job cha rac te r i s t i c that showed s i g n i f i - cant pos i t i ve re l a t i on sh ip with job attachment whereas the i nd i v i dua l cha rac te r i s t i c s were more s t ab le . 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. Var iable Researchers Name Instrument Sample V a l i d i t y 101. Saal (1978) Job invo lve - ment Lodahl and Kejner Blue and white c o l l a r employees of a metal manu- fac tur ing com- pany : Cross va l i da t i on 102. Stevens, Job Involve- Beyer and ment T r i ce (1978) Lodahl United States and Kejner federa l govern- ment employees \ S t a t i s t i c a l R e l i a b i l i t y Technique Odd-even Descr ipt ive r e l i a b i l i t y ; ? B tat i s t i c s , mult ip le regres- s ion, mul t ip le discr iminant funct ion analys is and cor re la t ions Descr ipt ive s t a t i s t i c s , cor re la t ions and mul t ip le regress ion Results Age, job c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as \ va r i e ty , autonomy, task i d e n t i t y , i feedback and the necess ity of j deal ing with others, Job s a t i s - f ac t i on , achievement motivation | and Protestant work e th i c endorse- j ment" were po s i t i ve l y " re la ted to ~ ~| job involvement while sex, educa- j t ion and absenteeism were negatively j re lated to i t . Mar i ta l s tatus, num- { ber of dependents, number o£- other j family wage earners, race, r e l i g i ou s j preference, community type, f r i e n d - ! ship opportunity, supervisory r e - i s p o n s i b i l i t y , tenure with company, tenure at current job, sa la ry , \ higher order needs and performance were unrelated to job involvement, i S i tuat iona l predictors seemed to . ! explain a l a rger proport ion of the variance i n job involvement than personal, demographic va r i ab le s . Personal psycholog ica l var iab les were also found to be better p re - d ic tor s of job involvement when compared to personal demographic var iab les . Job involvement was po s i t i ve l y re la ted to age, a t t i tude toward change, educa- t i on , l e v e l in the organ izat ion, pro- motion, and organ izat iona l commitment. It showed no re la t ionsh ips with sex, overload, years in the organ izat ion, years in p o s i t i o n , s k i l l l e v e l , per - formance, techn ica l promotion, organ- ; i z a t l ona l s i z e , presence of unions, ; percent of superv i s ion , cen t r a l i z a t i on ' and commitment to federa l s e r v i ce . Job involvement was a l so found to be a strong pos i t i ve pred ic tor of organizat iona l 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 l i f e 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 f u l l 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 v a r i a b l e s that are studi e d i n a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h job involvement i n t o three broad c a t e g o r i e s ; i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e f a c t o r s , s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s and the c onventional outcome v a r i a b l e s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l behavior. The s p e c i f i c v a r i a b l e s that appear i n the l i t e r a t u r e are shown i n Table 2. While i t i s p o s s i b l e to discuss each v a r i a b l e shown i n Table 2 i n terms of i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to job involvement, i t i s f e l t t hat such an e x e r c i s e would 1 be somewhat r e p e t i t i o u s given the in f o r m a t i o n i n Table 1. Furthermore, many of the v a r i a b l e s appeared only i n one or two s t u d i e s . Hence i t has been decided to use the Rabinowitz and H a l l review (1977) as a h e u r i s t i c device to i s o l a t e v a r i a b l e s of importance f o r greater e l a b o r a t i o n . Among i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e f a c t o r s , age, education, sex, locus of c o n t r o l , tenure, community s i z e , P r o t e s t a n t E t h i c , higher order needs, and m a r i t a l s t a t u s w i l l be considered. With regard to s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s , job scope, p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making, job l e v e l , leader behavior, and s o c i a l f a c t o r s w i l l be discussed. Among the outcome v a r i a b l e s , job s a t i s f a c t i o n , e f f o r t , performance, turnover, absenteeism and success w i l l be d e a l t w i t h . Here, e f f o r t , which was not i n the Rabinowitz and H a l l (1977) review, i s inc l u d e d owing to i t s strong t h e o r e t i c a l connections w i t h job involvement as w e l l as the e m p i r i c a l evidence supporting i t s importance. 1.2...1 I n d i v i d u a l D i f f e r e n c e Factors 1.2.1.1 Age: There were 21 stu d i e s examining the r e l a t i o n s h i p between age and job involvement of which 11 showed a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two v a r i a b l e s ( H a l l & M a n s f i e l d , 1975; Jones, James & B r u n i , 1975; Koch &.'Steers, 1978; Lodahl & Kejner, 1965 - f o r nurses only; McKelvey & Sekaran, 1977; Newman, 1975; Rabinowitz, :"Hall & Goodale, 1977; S a a l , 1978; Schwyhart & Smith, 1972; Steers, 1975a; Stevens, Beyer & T r i c e , 1978). Among the r e s t , i one study (Lefkowitz, 1974) reported a negative r e l a t i o n s h i p w h i l e nine others found no r e l a t i o n s h i p between age and job involvement (Bigoness, 1978; Gechman Table 2 Variables i n 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 a f f i l i a t i o n 21. Need strength/fulfillment 22. Psychological success 23. Central l i f e interest 24. Mental health 25. Self image 26. Competence 27. Ac t i v i t y 28. Values 29. Genetic influence 30. Cosmopolitan-local orientation CO, 40 & Wiener, 1975; Gurin, Veroff & F e l d , 1960; Ivancevich & McMahon, 1977; Lodahl & Kejner, 1965 - f o r engineers only; Mannheim, 1975; Mannheim & Cohen, 1978; M i t c h e l l , Baba & Epps, 1975: Torbert & Rogers, 1973). Schuler (1975) i n d i c a t e d some form of r e l a t i o n s h i p between job involvement and age but d i d not provide any i n f o r m a t i o n regarding the magnitude and d i r e c t i o n of that r e l a t i o n s h i p . The above st u d i e s covered a v a r i e t y of samples, the d e t a i l s of which are provided i n Table 1. As pointed out by Baba (1976) and Rabinowitz and H a l l (1977) the evidence seems d i v i d e d between s t u d i e s that showed no e f f e c t of age on job involvement and those that i n d i c a t e d that job involvement increased as one advanced i n age. The above s t a t e of a f f a i r s p o i n t s toward two d i r e c t i o n s f o r f u t u r e research. One d i r e c t i o n would be to conduct l o n g i t u d i n a l s t u d i e s to a s c e r t a i n the change i n job i n v o l v e - ment over years f o r the same group of respondents. Another p o s s i b i l i t y would be that d i f f e r e n t subsets of respondents might present d i f f e r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s between job involvement and i t s p r e d i c t o r s which could be b e t t e r understood through the use of age as a moderator v a r i a b l e i n the study of job involvement. 1.2.1.2 Education: Among the 18 s t u d i e s i n v e s t i g a t i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p between education and job involvement, seven reported a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p ( C l e l a n d , Bass, McHugh & Montano, 1976; Gadbois, 1971; Gurin, Veroff & F e l d , 1960; L e f k o w i t z , 1974; Mannheim, 1975; Newman, 1975; Stevens, Beyer & T r i c e , 1978), four found a negative r e l a t i o n s h i p (Aldag & B r i e f , 1975b; Baba & Jamal, 1976; Koch & S t e e r s , 1978; S a a l , 1978) and f i v e showed no r e l a t i o n s h i p (Ivancevich & McMahon, 1977; Jones, James & B r u n i , 1975; Rabinowitz, H a l l & Goodale, 1977; Ruh, White & Wood, 1975; S i e g e l & Ruh, 1973). Mannheim and Cohen (1978) found that education had a c u r v i l i n e a r e f f e c t on job involvement. They reported that an incomplete higher education had a tendency to reduce involvement and a complete u n i v e r s i t y t r a i n i n g enhanced i t r e l a t i v e to a high school education. The study by Schuler (1975) suggested that the above 41 v a r i a b l e s were r e l a t e d but d i d not report e i t h e r the magnitude or d i r e c t i o n . As i n the case of age, the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between education and job involvement v a r i e d from sample to sample. The stren g t h of the r e l a t i o n - ships was a l s o r a t h e r weak. One reason might be that the above s i t u a t i o n was due to the r e s t r i c t i o n i n the range of education l e v e l i n any p a r t i c u l a r sample. Another p o s s i b l e reason would be that the r o l e of education might be sample s p e c i f i c , i n which case i t could be tested as a moderator f o r d i f f e r e n t subgroups i n order to a s c e r t a i n the part played by education i n job involvement research. 1.2.1.3 Sex: A t o t a l of seven s t u d i e s considered the r e l a t i o n s h i p between sex and job involvement and f i v e of them reported that males were more i n - volved i n t h e i r job than females (Hollon & Gemmill, 1976; Koch & Steers, 1978; Newman, 1975; Rabinowitz, H a l l & Goodale, 1977; S a a l , 1978). Stevens, Beyer and T r i c e (1978) found no r e l a t i o n s h i p between sex and job involvement, w h i l e Baba and Jamal (1976) found among a sample of Canadian blue c o l l a r workers that females were more in v o l v e d i n t h e i r jobs than t h e i r male counterparts. However, i t seems c l e a r from the evidence that men are more l i k e l y to experience involvement i n .their job compared to women and perhaps perceive more r e a d i l y the a s s o c i a t i o n s among the work r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s . I t may be that the above s i t u a t i o n comes about due to t r a d i t i o n a l d i f f e r e n t i a l sex r o l e s o c i a l i z a t i o n . In other words, compared to women, men are more l i k e l y to value work i n t r i n s i c a l l y i n a d d i t i o n to i t s i n s t r u m e n t a l r o l e as a means to earn a l i v i n g . As a r e s u l t , they tend to view the whole area of work w i t h greater i n t e r e s t and i n t e n s i t y . This argument again assigns a moderator r o l e to sex, when one explores the antecedents and consequences of job involvement. 1.2.1.4 Locus of C o n t r o l : Four s t u d i e s concentrated on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between locus of c o n t r o l and job involvement. Kimmons and Greenhaus (1976) and Runyon (1973) concluded that people w i t h an i n t e r n a l locus of c o n t r o l tended 42 to be more job inv o l v e d than those w i t h an e x t e r n a l locus of c o n t r o l w h i l e Bigoness (1978) and Rabinowitz, H a l l and Goodale (1977) discovered that locus of c o n t r o l d i d not r e l a t e to job involvement i n any s i g n i f i c a n t way. Runyon (1973) argued that s i n c e i n t e r n a l s perceive reinforcements to be con- tingent upon t h e i r a c t i o n s , they are more l i k e l y to be in v o l v e d i n t h e i r j o b s , whereas such involvement might not be a major c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n the ext e r n a l ' s p s y c h o l o g i c a l l i f e as the id e a of the work arena as a place f o r demonstrating competence would be i r r e l e v a n t to him or her. The above reasoning, combined w i t h the general t h e o r e t i c a l importance of p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s as p o s s i b l e determinants of job involvement and the paucity of e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s i n t h i s area, presents a compelling reason f o r f u t u r e researchers to i n v e s t i g a t e the connections between locus of c o n t r o l and job involvement more thoroughly across d i f f e r e n t samples. 1.2.1.5 Tenure: Tenure was the subj e c t of i n t e r e s t f o r 17 researchers studying aspects of job involvement. There were seven s t u d i e s recording a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p (Aldag & B r i e f , 1975b; Ivancevich & McMahon, 1977; Jones, James & B r u n i , 1975; Kanungo, M i s r a & Dayal, 1975; Newman, 1975; Rabinowitz, H a l l & Goodale, 1977), one showing a negative r e l a t i o n s h i p (Davis, 1966) and another .nine i n d i c a t i n g i n s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s (Baba & Jamal, 1976; Gechman & Wiener, 1975; H a l l & M a n s f i e l d , 1975; Mannheim & Cohen, 1978; M i t c h e l l , Baba & Epps, 1975; S a a l , 1978; Schneider, H a l l & Nygren, 1971; Schwyhart & Smith, 1972; Stevens, Beyer & T r i c e , 1978) between tenure and job involvement. Of the a r t i c l e s that reported some form of r e l a t i o n s h i p between tenure and involvement, the magnitudes were weak. The discouraging f i n d i n g s suggest that tenure may not be a va l u a b l e c o r r e l a t e of job i n v o l v e - ment. Two recent reviews (Baba, 1976; Rabinowitz & H a l l , 1977) seem to concur with the above c o n c l u s i o n . 1.2.1.6 Community S i z e : Ruh, White and Wood (1975) and: S i e g e l and Ruh (1973) 43 found that community s i z e was p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to job involvement w h i l e Saal (1978) reported that there was no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two. Since both of the s t u d i e s which found p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s were based on the same sample, they can be t r e a t e d as one study. Community s i z e was used as a surrogate f o r r u r a l - u r b a n background. The j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the use of the above v a r i a b l e comes from the argument that job a t t i t u d e s may be p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to a r u r a l background where opportunity f o r the absorption of the t r a d i t i o n a l norms of work e t h i c i s g r e a t e r , whereas i n the urban inner c i t y environment, the a l i e n a t i o n syndrome blocks such s o c i a l i z a - t i o n (Blood & H u l i n , 1967; H u l i n & Blood, 1968). However, the e m p i r i c a l r e s u l t s were i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n f o r the former and i n s i g n i f i c a n t f o r the l a t t e r . Before f u r t h e r e m p i r i c a l research i s undertaken i n t h i s area, the concept of r u r a l - u r b a n background has to be c l e a r l y defined. In other words, i t i s not c l e a r whether the concept has to be o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d i n terms of "place of upbringing" or "present residence" or " l o c a t i o n of the work- place " (Rabinowitz & H a l l , 1977); 1.2.1.7 Protest a n t E t h i c : There were three s t u d i e s e x p l o r i n g the r e l a t i o n - s h i p between the P r o t e s t a n t E t h i c and job involvement. Rabinowitz, H a l l and Goodale (1977) and Saal'-,(197-8) . found p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s , w h i l e Aldag and B r i e f ' 1975a) reported no r e l a t i o n s h i p . Bass and B a r r e t t (1972) and Lodahl (1964) suggested that job involvement i s simply an o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of the P r o t e s t a n t E t h i c . A l t e r n a t e l y , i f a person endorsed the P r o t e s t a n t E t h i c , he or she would be a u t o m a t i c a l l y i n v o l v e d i n the job. However, more research at a conceptual l e v e l needs to be done to c l a r i f y the meaning of the P r o t e s - tant E t h i c and what i t manifests before anything c o n c l u s i v e can be s a i d at the e m p i r i c a l l e v e l . 1.2.1.8 Higher Order Need Strength: A t o t a l of 13 s t u d i e s sought out higher order need strengths as p o s s i b l e explanatory v a r i a b l e s of job i n v o l v e - 44 ment. Growth need s t r e n g t h , using Maslow's h i e r a r c h y , was found to be p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to job involvement i n seven s t u d i e s , :.though the strength of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s v a r i e d ( H a l l , Goodale, Rabinowitz & Morgan, 1978; H a l l & Schneider, 1972; H a l l , Schneider & Nygren, 1970; Kanungo, Mis r a & Dayal, 1975; Maurer, 1969; Rabinowitz, H a l l & Goodale, 1977). One study (Mansfield, 1972) showed i n s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s except f o r s e l f esteem. The other f i v e s t u d i e s reported p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between need f o r achievement and job involvement (Mannheim & Cohen, 1978; S a a l , 1978; Steers, 1975a,' 1976; Steers & Braunstein, 1976). The most unambiguous r e s u l t s were obtained i n the case of need f o r achievement. I t has been argued i n the l i t e r a t u r e that people w i t h strong growth needs, such as need f o r achievement, s e l f a c t u a l i z a t i o n , e t c . , should experience a high degree of involvement i n jobs that have a wide scope, w h i l e those w i t h weaker needs would view such jobs as too demanding and would not be l i k e l y to get i n v o l v e d i n them (Lawler, 1973; Steers, 1975b). The e m p i r i c a l evidence seems to cor- roborate the above viewpoint. Need f o r achievement, based upon the unequivocal p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n i t showed w i t h job involvement appears to be a strong candidate f o r i n c l u s i o n i n a model of job involvement. 1.2.1.9 M a r i t a l Status: E i g h t s t u d i e s focused on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between m a r i t a l s tatus and job involvement. Kanungo, M i s r a and Dayal (1975) sta t e d that married people were l i k e l y to be more job i n v o l v e d compared to s i n g l e s . However, there were seven other s t u d i e s which suggested that m a r i t a l s t a t u s bore no r e l a t i o n s h i p to one's job involvement (Baba & Jamal, 1976; Gannon & Hendrickson, 1973; Gechman & Wiener, 1975; Lodahl & Kejner, 1965; Rabinowitz, H a l l & Goodale, 1977; Mannheim & Cohen, 1978; S a a l , 1978). In view of the above f i n d i n g s , i t can be concluded that the d i r e c t r o l e of m a r i t a l s tatus i n job involvement research i s i n c o n s e q u e n t i a l . 4:5 1.2.2. S i t u a t i o n a l Factors 1.2.2.1. Job Scope: There were 18 s t u d i e s i n a l l , focusing on the a s s o c i a t i o n between job scope and job involvement, of which 16 reported p o s i t i v e r e l a - t i o n s h i p s (Aldag & B r i e f , 1975b; B r i e f & Aldag, 1975, 1977; Hackman & Lawler, 1971; H a l l , Goodale, Rabinowitz & Morgan, 1978; Koch & Steers, 1978, Lawler & H a l l , 1970; Mannheim and Cohen, 1978; McKelvey & Sekaran, 1977; Newman, 1975; Rabinowitz, H a l l & Goodale, 1977; Rousseau, 1977; S a a l , 1978; Schuler, 1975, 1976; Thamhain & Gemmill, 1974). One study found that the i n t e r a c t i o n between job scope (as measured by the M o t i v a t i n g P o t e n t i a l score) and r o l e ambiguity was n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d to job involvement (Abdel-Halim, 1978). In a l o n g i t u d i n a l study Lawler, Hackman and Kaufman (1973) found that expanding the scope of the job through job enrichment d i d not have any s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on job involvement. Despite the l a t t e r two f i n d i n g s , the weight of evidence seems to s u b s t a n t i a t e the t h e o r e t i c a l reasoning that the wider the scope of one's job i n terms of i t s core c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as challenge, autonomy, v a r i e t y , e t c . , the more l i k e l y one i s to become inv o l v e d i n h i s or her job. I t can thus be s a i d that job scope deserves a p i v o t a l p o s i t i o n i n i n v e s t i g a t i o n s d e a l i n g w i t h job involvement. 1.2.2.2. P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n D e c i s i o n Making: Among the 10 s t u d i e s attempting to l e a r n about the r o l e of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making i n job involvement, eig h t revealed p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s ( G a r d e l l , 1977; Ruh, Johnson & Scontrino, 1973; Ruh, White & Wood, 1975; Saleh & Hosek, 1976; S i e g e l & Ruh, 1973; S t e e r s , 1976; White, 1978, White & Ruh, 1973) w h i l e one study d i d not f i n d any r e l a t i o n s h i p (Newman, 1975). Schuler (1975) reported that the above two v a r i a b l e s were r e l a t e d to each other but d i d not provide any i n f o r m a t i o n regarding s t r e n g t h and d i r e c t i o n . L i k e r t (1961) suggested the p o s s i b i l i t y that p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making was l i k e l y to generate favorable job a t t i t u d e s as i t c o n t r i b u t e d toward t h e f u l f i l l m e n t of higher order needs. 46 The e m p i r i c a l evidence seems to support t h i s n o t i o n . Hence, i t can be concluded that p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making i s a v i a b l e c o r r e l a t e of job involvement. 1.2.2.3 Job L e v e l : A t o t a l of 11 s t u d i e s discussed the a s s o c i a t i o n between job l e v e l and job involvement, of which seven found p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s (Chatterjee & Ganguly, 1977; C l e l a n d , Bass, McHugh & Montano, 1976; Davis, 1966; Mannheim, 1975; Mannheim & Cohen, 1978; Newman, 1975; Stevens, Beyer & T r i c e , 1978). The other four i n d i c a t e d no r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the two v a r i a b l e s (Lodahl & Kejner, 1965; M i t c h e l l , Baba & Epps, 1975; Rabinowitz, 1975 - c i t e d i n Rabinowitz & H a l l , 1977; Schuler, 1975). Though i t has been suggested that i n d i v i d u a l s at higher ranks are g e n e r a l l y more i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e i r jobs and as a r e s u l t more in v o l v e d i n t h e i r jobs (Tannenbaum, 1966), the e m p i r i c a l f i n d i n g s seem d i v i d e d i n t h e i r support of the above p r o p o s i t i o n . I t i s l i k e l y that the proposed r e l a t i o n s h i p comes about due to the i n f l u e n c e of a t h i r d v a r i a b l e . For i n s t a n c e , i t i s conceivable that higher l e v e l jobs have a wider scope and o f f e r challenge and autonomy to the incumbent which causes the increased involvement as opposed to l e v e l by i t s e l f b r i n g i n g about the increase i n involvement. Therefore, i t i s important to look beyond the s i m p l i s t i c n o t i o n of job l e v e l i n f l u e n c i n g job involvement i n order to i s o l a t e the true r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the two v a r i a b l e s . 1.2.2.4 Leader Behavior: Leader behavior was a t o p i c of i n t e r e s t f o r seven studies d e a l i n g w i t h job involvement. Denhardt (1970) and Newman (1975) reported a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between open s t y l e s of l e a d e r s h i p and job involvement. B r i e f , Aldag and Wallden (1.976) found that job involvement was p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d only to i n i t i a t i n g s t r u c t u r e and not to c o n s i d e r a t i o n w h i l e Herman, Dunham and H u l i n (1975) showed a negative a s s o c i a t i o n f o r i n i t i a t i n g s t r u c t u r e and a p o s i t i v e one f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Dunne, S t a h l and Melhart (1978) and Jones, James and B r u n i (1975) obtained no r e l a t i o n s h i p 4 7 between leader behavior and job involvement. Schuler (1975)' suggested that the above v a r i a b l e s might be r e l a t e d but f a i l e d to give i n f o r m a t i o n r e - garding the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . The e m p i r i c a l evidence c i t e d above suggests that the r o l e of leader behavior as a p r e d i c t o r of job involvement i s at best e q u i v o c a l . However, the path goal theory of l e a d e r s h i p (House, 1971) would hypothesize that a c l i m a t e high i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n and s t r u c t u r e might f a c i l i t a t e goal attainment by removing whatever ambiguity one might encounter, thereby a l l o w i n g one to see the l i n k a g e between a s p i r a t i o n s and t h e i r f u l f i l l m e n t more c l e a r l y . The above argument appears to favor a moderator r o l e f o r leader behavior i n job involvement research. More research needs to be done before any g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s can be made i n that d i r e c t i o n . 1.2.2.5 S o c i a l Factors: The n o t i o n of s o c i a l f a c t o r s i s t r e a t e d almost as a r e s i d u a l i n job involvement research. There has n e i t h e r , been much agree- ment as to what c o n s t i t u t e s the s o c i a l f a c t o r dimension nor among the myriad of f a c t o r s , which may be r e l e v a n t to job involvement. A v a r i e t y of concepts such as "group and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l dynamics" ( A l d e r f e r & Lodahl, 1971), " f r i e n d s h i p o p p o r t u n i t i e s on the j o b " ( S a a l , 1978), " i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n - s h i p s " ( F r i e d l a n d e r & Margulies, 1969; Herman, Dunham & H u l i n , 1975; Newman, 1975), "number of people contacted" (Lodahl & Kejner, 1965), " i n t e r - dependence on the j o b " (Lodahl & Kejner, 1965), "team involvement" (Lodahl, 1964), "peer group cohesion" (Buchanan, 1974), "supportive c l i m a t e " ( H a l l & H a l l , 1976) and " o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e " ( F r i e d l a n d e r & Margulies, 1969; Jones, James, Bruni & S e l l s , 1977; Waters, Roach & B a t l i s , 1974) have come under the r u b r i c of s o c i a l f a c t o r s . As a r e s u l t , the f i n d i n g s show no con- s i s t e n t p a t t e r n e i t h e r i n terms of d i r e c t i o n or magnitude. While the explan- atory u t i l i t y of s o c i a l f a c t o r s i n job involvement research cannot be disputed, considerable t h e o r e t i c a l progress has to be made toward i d e n t i f y i n g 48 s p e c i f i c f a c t o r s of importance before any f r u i t f u l outcomes can be expected i n the e m p i r i c a l realm. 1.2.3 Outcome V a r i a b l e s 1.2.3.1 Job S a t i s f a c t i o n : Among the outcome v a r i a b l e s , job s a t i s f a c t i o n evinced maximum i n t e r e s t among researchers as a c o r r e l a t e of job i n v o l v e - ment. A t o t a l of 18 stu d i e s i n v e s t i g a t e d the above r e l a t i o n s h i p s and a l l of them reported p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s (Aldag & B r i e f , 1975a; -Baba <& Jamal, 1976; Bigoness, 1978; Gannon & Hendrickson, 1973; H a l l , Goodale, Rabinowitz & Morgan, 1978; Herman, Dunham & H u l i n , 1975; Hol l o n & Chesser, 1976; Lodahl & Kejner, 1965; Mannheim & Cohen, 1978; Mukherjee, 1969, 1970; Newman, 1975; Rousseau, 1977; S a a l , 1978; Schuler, 1975; Schwyhart & Smith, 1972; Weissenberg & Gruenfeld, 1969; Wood, 1971). However, Bigoness (1978) reported that job involvement was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h pay, co-workers and s u p e r v i s i o n w h i l e Schwyhart and Smith (1972) found out that s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h hygiene f a c t o r s was not r e l a t e d to job involvement. A l b e i t , they seem to be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h p r e v i o u s l y reported r e l a t i o n s h i p s between growth needs and job involvement. I t has been argued i n the l i t e r a t u r e that though job s a t i s f a c t i o n and job involvement are conceptually d i s t i n c t , they share many common determinants (Campbell & K l e i n , 1975; Lawler & H a l l , 1970). Hence i t i s l o g i c a l to expect them to be r e l a t e d to each other:: The t h e o r e t i c a l model developed by H a l l (1971) a l s o seems to a f f i r m the above reasoning. I t seems c l e a r from the foregoing that job s a t i s f a c t i o n i s a. relevant v a r i a b l e i n i n v e s t i g a t i o n s concerning job involvement. Future research must concentrate on o u t l i n i n g the caus a l nature of the above r e l a t i o n - ship . 1.2.3.2 E f f o r t : There were s i x s t u d i e s d i s c u s s i n g job involvement and e f f o r t . H a l l and Foster (1977), H a l l , Goodale, Rabinowitz and Morgan (1978) .>. and Lawler and H a l l (1970) obtained p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s between the above 49 two v a r i a b l e s w h i l e Cummings and Manring (1977) found a negative r e l a t i o n - s h i p . Ivancevich and McMahon (1977) and Schuler (1975) reported that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between job involvement and e f f o r t was i n s i g n i f i c a n t . I t seems l o g i c a l that a job i n v o l v e d person i s bound to exert greater e f f o r t i n wha.t he or she i s doing s i n c e , by d e f i n i t i o n , he or she i s l i k e l y to see i n the job a chance to s a t i s f y the need f o r s e l f esteem. As a r e s u l t , one can expect a strong p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between job involvement and one's perceptions of h i s or her e f f o r t on the job. Though the e m p i r i c a l f i n d i n g s are somewhat d i v i d e d i n t h e i r support of the above reasoning, f u t u r e research needs to concentrate on t h i s l i n k a g e to f i n d out more about the connection between job involvement and e f f o r t . In other words, i t i s f e l t that the small number of s t u d i e s conducted i n t h i s area i s h a r d l y s u f f i c i e n t to draw any d e f i n i t i v e i n f erences regarding the nature of the a s s o c i a t i o n . 1.2.3.3 Performance: The r o l e of performance i n job involvement research, as seen from the e m p i r i c a l evidence, i s both complex and e q u i v o c a l . Among the 14 s t u d i e s i n v e s t i g a t i n g the v a r i a b l e , two reported a weak p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between job involvement and performance ( H a l l , Goodale, Rabin- owitz & Morgan, 1978; Vroom, 1962). Wood (1974) suggested that the r e l a t i o n - ship between s a t i s f a c t i o n and performance was p o s i t i v e f o r people w i t h a low degree of involvement whereas i t was i n s i g n i f i c a n t f o r the high involvement group. Hall and Lawler (1970) obtained a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n f o r a g l o b a l performance measure but f a i l e d to get s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r both objec- t i v e and composite measures of performance. Steers (1975b) noted a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between the above two v a r i a b l e s only among those who had a high need f o r achievement. For the low need f o r achievement group, the r e l a t i o n - s h i p was " i n s i g n i f i c a n t . The other e i g h t s t u d i e s reported no r e l a t i o n s h i p between performance and job involvement (Goodman, Rose & F.urcon, 1970; H a l l & F o s t e r , 1977; Ivancevich & McMahon, 1977: Lawler & H a l l , 1970; Lodahl & 50 Kejner, 1965; S a a l , 1978; Schuler, 1975; S i e g e l & Ruh, 1973). I t i s b e l i e v e d that the c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s come about f o r a v a r i e t y of reasons. One reason may be the s i m p l i s t i c designs employed i n most s t u d i e s . P o r t e r and Lawler (1968) observed that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between job a t t i t u d e s and performance was moderated by a b i l i t i e s and r o l e perception and no meaning- f u l r e s u l t s were p o s s i b l e u n t i l the research design included such moderators. Another reason may be the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n and measure- ment of performance. In a d d i t i o n to the use of e i t h e r o b j e c t i v e or s u b j e c t i v e measures of performance, the above s t u d i e s e x h i b i t e d d i f f e r e n c e s between g l o b a l and f a c e t measures of performance. Besides, there was no agreement as to what the relevant facets were. Cummings and Schwab (1973) pointed out the importance of e s t a b l i s h i n g the construct v a l i d i t y of performance before i t could be g a i n f u l l y employed i n any research e n t e r p r i s e . At the present stage, the concept of performance i s wrought w i t h considerable ambiguity and unless some s o r t of convergence i s reached toward i t s d e f i n i t i o n and measurement, i t i s l i k e l y t hat e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s w i l l continue to r e f l e c t the current s t a t e of a f f a i r s . 1.2.3.4 Turnover: There was strong support i n the e m p i r i c a l l i t e r a t u r e f o r the n o t i o n that a person involved i n h i s or her job was l e s s l i k e l y to leave i t . A l l the s i x s t u d i e s s u b s t a n t i a t e d the above observation (Beehr & Gupta, 1978; F a r r i s , 1971; Koch & S t e e r s , 1978; Parasuraman & A l u t t o , 1978; S i e g e l & Ruh, 1973; Wickert, 1951). However, F a r r i s (1971) observed that while the above hypothesis was true f o r a sample of nurses, i t d i d not hold f o r a sample of engineers. The discrepancy could be a t t r i b u t e d to the f a c t that engineers i d e n t i f y themselves more i n terms of t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n than i n terms of t h e i r employing o r g a n i z a t i o n . They are l i k e l y to continue t h e i r involvement i n t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n even i f they switch o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Thus i t could be concluded that f o r most occupations there i s a d e f i n i t e negative 51 r e l a t i o n s h i p '.between -job involvement and turnover..- 1.2.3.5 Absenteeism: There were only four s t u d i e s which explored the r e l a t i o n s h i p and three of them confirmed the view that a job involved person was l e s s l i k e l y to absent himself or h e r s e l f from the job (Beehr & Gupta, 1978; Patchen, 1970; S a a l , 1978). However, S i e g e l and Ruh (1973) found only an ^ i n s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p . Though more research can be done to v a l i d a t e the above f i n d i n g s , i t seems reasonable to assume that job involvement i s n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d to absenteeism. 1.2.3.6 Success: I t has been suggested i n the l i t e r a t u r e that experience of success enhances involvement ( H a l l , 1971). The three s t u d i e s focusing on the above r e l a t i o n s h i p corroborated that n o t i o n ( H a l l & F o s t e r , 1977; H a l l , Goodale, Rabinowitz & Morgan, 1978; H a l l & H a l l , 1976). A l l of them reported p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between job involvement and success. Future research needs to be done i n order to v e r i f y whether the above r e l a t i o n s h i p i s s t a b l e across d i f f e r e n t samples and over time. Though the s e c t i o n d e a l i n g w i t h the nature of the co n s t r u c t con- cluded that job involvement was one's p s y c h o l o g i c a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h work wherein the i n d i v i d u a l ' s s e l f esteem i s t i e d to work, the e m p i r i c a l evidence seems to include the s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s as w e l l i n understanding job involvement. Here, i n summary, i t can be s a i d that the s t u d i e s reviewed above s t r e s s the importance of i n v e s t i g a t i n g job involvement as a f u n c t i o n of both i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e and s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s . They a l s o p o i n t toward developing a conceptual model connecting s e l e c t e d i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e v a r i - ables and s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s w i t h outcome v a r i a b l e s , w i t h job involvement s e r v i n g as an i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e i n the above l i n k a g e . Such a model should be grounded on t h e o r e t i c a l l y and e m p i r i c a l l y sound premises. I t i s b e l i e v e d such an attempt w i l l enhance our understanding of the nature of job 52 involvement i n terms of i t s antecedent and consequent c o n d i t i o n s . The present study i s a step toward such an undertaking. 1.3 Job Involvement as a Moderator Job involvement was used as a moderator v a r i a b l e by 12 researchers studying r e l a t i o n s h i p s among a v a r i e t y of v a r i a b l e s ( B r i e f & Aldag, 1977; Frie d l a n d e r & Mar g u l i e s , 1969; Jones, James & B r u n i , 1975; Ruh, White & Wood, 1975; Schuler, 1975, 1977; Stone, 1976; Vroom, 1962; Wood, 1971, 1972, 1974; Zultowski, Arvey & Dewhirst, 1978). B r i e f and Aldag (1977) reported that job involvement f a i l e d to moderate the r e l a t i o n between leader behavior and job s a t i s f a c t i o n w h i l e Ruh, White and Wood (1975) and Stone (1976) discovered that':job involvement might not be an appropriate moderator f o r the job scope - job a t t i t u d e r e l a t i o n s h i p . Wood (1971, 1972, 1974) concluded that p a r t i c i p a t i o n was r e l a t e d to s a t i s f a c t i o n and s a t i s f a c t i o n was r e l a t e d to performance only among people with low job involvement. However, the above r e s u l t was true only f o r the female sample. Schuler (1975) learned that h i g h l y job in v o l v e d people showed no r e a c t i o n to o r g a n i z a t i o n a l phenomena. Both Schuler (1975» 1977) and Wood (1971, 1972, 1974) explained that t h e i r f i n d i n g s supported the argument that people who were h i g h l y i n v o l v e d i n t h e i r jobs were by d e f i n i t i o n i n t r i n s i c a l l y o r i e n t e d i n s e t t i n g standards of performance and s a t i s f a c t i o n and were l e s s concerned w i t h o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p r e s c r i p t i o n s of what good per- formance should be. On the other hand, the low job involvement group depended on such e x t r i n s i c p r e s c r i p t i o n s and responded more r e a d i l y , e x h i b i t i n g stronger a s s o c i a t i o n s among the v a r i a b l e s c i t e d above. Vroom (1962) i n h i s study of ego involvement, reported that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between opportunity f o r s e l f expression and job s a t i s f a c t i o n 53 was s i g n i f i c a n t l y stronger f o r people w i t h a high degree of ego i n v o l v e - ment. The above f i n d i n g s seem to conform to l o g i c a l expectations i n that d i r e c t i o n . Jones, James and B r u n i (1975) argued that because of t h e i r depen- dence on e x t r i n s i c f a c t o r s r e f e r r e d to e a r l i e r , people w i t h low job i n v o l v e - ment would demonstrate stronger r e l a t i o n s h i p s between t h e i r leader behavior and the confidence and t r u s t they place on t h e i r leader. Their f i n d i n g s confirmed t h i s hypothesis. Two other studies focused on aspects of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e f o r which job involvement was used as a moderator v a r i a b l e ( F r i e d l a n d e r & Margulies, 1969; Z u l t o w s k i , Arvey & Dewhirst, 1978). F r i e d l a n d e r and Marguies (1969) stud i e d the i n f l u e n c e of task involvement on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e and job s a t i s f a c t i o n . They showed that f o r people who e x h i b i t e d high task involvement, s a t i s f a c t i o n was maximized i n a c l i m a t e of high t r u s t , high intimacy, and low hindrance, w h i l e f o r the low task involved group, s a t i s f a c t i o n was maximized i n an atmosphere of high e s p r i t and low disengagement (Halpin & C r o f t s , 1963). Z u l t o w s k i , Arvey and Dewhirst (1978) d i d not f i n d s u f f i c i e n t evidence to warrant a general statement concerning the moderating e f f e c t s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e on the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between goal s e t t i n g a t t r i b u t e s and employee s a t i s f a c t i o n . However, they d i d f i n d one of t h e i r c l i m a t e dimensions, job involvement and commitment, moderating the r e l a t i o n s h i p between feedback and e v a l u a t i o n on the one hand and i n t r i n s i c and o v e r a l l s a t i s f a c t i o n on the other. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , they reported that the above r e l a t i o n s h i p s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher f o r the high involvement and commitment group than f o r the low group. In summary, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to a r r i v e at any general c o n c l u s i o n from the above survey regarding the f u n c t i o n of job involvement as a moderator v a r i a b l e . More research has to be c a r r i e d out before any g e n e r a l i - 54 zations can be expressed. 1.4 The Dynamics of Job Involvement This s e c t i o n concentrates on the developmental aspects of job involvement. In other words, a t t e n t i o n w i l l be paid to s p e c i f i c questions, such as how job involvement comes i n t o being and what s o r t of dynamics c h a r a c t e r i z e the concept over time. Lewin (1936) t h e o r i z e d that i n a job s i t u a t i o n , i f the goals were s u f f i c i e n t l y c h a l l e n g i n g and r e l e v a n t to one's s e l f concept, the person was l i k e l y to perform w e l l and experience a sense of s u c c e s s f u l accomplishment upon goal attainment. The r e s u l t i n g enhancement of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s s e l f concept, according to H a l l and Nougaim (1968), provided i n t r i n s i c reinforcement which caused that person to become more inv o l v e d i n the job. Such increased involvement i n t u r n l e d to an increased commitment on the part of the person to future g o als, thus completing the c y c l e (Lewin, Dembo, Fe s t i n g e r & Sears, 1944). Developing the above argument f u r t h e r , H a l l (1971) proposed a dynamic model of i n v o l v e - ment shown as f o l l o w s : c h a l l e n g i n g goal — ^ e f f o r t —>^goal attainment —> p s y c h o l o g i c a l success —> increased s e l f e steem—> increased commitment and involvement. Aspects of the model were t e s t e d using l o n g i t u d i n a l research designs ( H a l l & F o s t e r , 1977; H a l l & H a l l , 1976). Moderate e m p i r i c a l support was noted, c a l l i n g f o r f u r t h e r refinements of the model. However, i t must be noted that the above model was the only one f o c u s i n g on the dyna- mics of job involvement. Other l o n g i t u d i n a l s t u d i e s y i e l d e d divergent con- c l u s i o n s regarding temporal e f f e c t s on job involvement (Gadbois, 1973; H a l l , Goodale, Rabinowitz & Morgan, 1978; H a l l & M a n s f i e l d , 1971, 1975; Hoiberg & Berry, 1978; Z u l t o w s k i , Arvey & Dewhirst, 1978). For a more d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of the above st u d i e s the reader i s r e f e r r e d to Table 1. This i s a promising area of i n v e s t i g a t i o n and f u t u r e research must address i t s e l f to t h i s question through c a r e f u l t h e o r i z i n g , causal modeling and 55 s o p h i s t i c a t e d a n a l y t i c a l ' p r o c e d u r e s i n v o l v i n g path a n a l y s i s ,s;cross lagged and dynamic c o r r e l a t i o n s , as w e l l as time s e r i e s techniques. 1.5 Methodological Aspects i n Job Involvement Research 1.5.1 Sample: U n l i k e many other s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l constructs that were te s t e d on r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous po p u l a t i o n s , job involvement draws on f a i r l y heterogeneous po p u l a t i o n s . The samples range from research s c i e n t i s t s to u n s k i l l e d blue c o l l a r workers, from d i f f e r e n t types of o r g a n i z a t i o n s . As f o r c u l t u r a l d i v e r s i t y , i n a d d i t i o n to American samples, s t u d i e s were con- ducted on Canadian, E n g l i s h , I s r a e l i and Indian data. A more d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of the sample can be seen i n Table 1. Hence i t can be s a f e l y s a i d that the research s t u d i e s reviewed here have a broad base and to that extent the conclusions can be compared across occupations and c u l t u r e s . 1.5.2 Measurement: The Lodahl and Kejner s c a l e of job involvement appears to be the most popular instrument f o r measuring job involvement. Among 104 e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s reviewed, 71 used e i t h e r the e n t i r e Lodahl and Kejner s c a l e or sh o r t e r and modified v e r s i o n s of i t . As f o r the d i m e n s i o n a l i t y of the s c a l e , there seems to be no agreement among researchers. The various s t u d i e s f a i l e d to y i e l d c l e a r f a c t o r s common across samples. This has prompted the c r i t i c i s m that the construct i s o c c u p a t i o n a l l y s p e c i f i c (Schwyhart & Smith, 1972; Wood, 1972). There has a l s o been a c e r t a i n d i s - crepancy between d e f i n i t i o n of the construct and the o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t l o n of i t . For i n s t a n c e , McKelvey and Sekaran (1977) defined job involvement i n terms of "a person's ego i d e n t i t y i n and growth w i t h the j o b . " However, the two items they chose from Patchen's m o t i v a t i o n s c a l e (1965) to o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d i d not conform to that d e f i n i t i o n . Such a discrepancy was r e f l e c t e d i n other 56 s t u d i e s as w e l l (Beehr & Gupta, 1978; Dunne, S t a h l & Melhart, 1978; Rousseau, 1977; Thamhain & Gemmill, 1974). While m o t i v a t i o n has o f t e n been used as a surrogate to measure perceived e f f o r t , i t i s c o n c e p t u a l l y q u i t e d i s t i n c t from job involvement (Lawler & H a l l , 1970; Ruh, White & Wood, 1975) and to use i t to measure job involvement i s to d i s r e g a r d the t h e o r e t i c a l develop- ments i n the f i e l d . M i r v i s and Lawler (1977) i n t h e i r sutdy of f i n a n c i a l impact on employee a t t i t u d e s committed a s i m i l a r e r r o r by o p e r a t i o n a l i z i n g job involvement i n terms of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l involvement though evidence to the contrary e x i s t s i n the l i t e r a t u r e (Baba & Jamal, 1976). Hamner and T o s i (1974), i n the i v e s t i g a t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p of r o l e c o n f l i c t and r o l e ambiguity to job involvement a t t r i b u t e d a generic q u a l i t y to job involvement and measured i t w i t h s c a l e s developed to measure job s a t i s f a c t i o n , propen- s i t y to leave the o r g a n i z a t i o n , p a r t i c i p a t i o n and job t h r e a t and a n x i e t y . Such erroneous departures underscore the necessity- f o r c a r e f u l adherence to theory based instrumentation and measurement i f c o n s i s t e n t and meaningful r e s u l t s are to be:.obtained... . ... ^. ; In a d d i t i o n to the above, there are some general problems of s c a l i n g that merit a t t e n t i o n . A c l o s e examination of the j o b involvement s c a l e r e v e a l s a mixture of d e s c r i p t i v e and e v a l u a t i v e items. According to Johanneson (1971), d e s c r i p t i o n of one's environment i s d i r e c t l y a f f e c t e d by s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h that environment. This causes some contamination inr measurement. For example, the p o s s i b i l i t y that strong c o r r e l a t i o n s between job involvement and s a t i s f a c t i o n reported i n the l i t e r a t u r e may be due to the above e f f e c t cannot e n t i r e l y be r u l e d out. Though job i n v o l v e - ment i s t r e a t e d as a job a t t i t u d e c o n c e p t u a l l y , the d i s t i n c t i o n among a f f e c t i v e , c o g n i t i v e and b e h a v i o r a l aspects of an a t t i t u d e have not been s e r i o u s l y con- sidered i n s c a l e c o n s t r u c t i o n . Quite o f t e n the presumed casues and e f f e c t s of job involvement are combined i n one instrument (e.g. Saleh & Hosek, 1976) i n c l e a r v i o l a t i o n of psychometric p r i n c i p l e s and t e s t theory. As pointed out by Kanungo (1979), f o r the purposes of conceptual c l a r i t y and e f f e c t i v e methodological manipulation i n e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s , the s t a t e of involvement needs to be i d e n t i f i e d and measured s e p a r a t e l y from i t s causes as w e l l as i t s r e f f e c t s . Research toward such refinements has to assume p r i o r i t y over simple r e p l i c a t i o n s t u d i e s . 1.5.3 A n a l y t i c a l Techniques: A look at Table 1 r e v e a l s that b i v a r i a t e s t u d i e s dominated the l i t e r a t u r e compared to m u l t i v a r i a t e s t u d i e s of job involvement. Most s t u d i e s of a s s o c i a t i o n concentrated on d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s , c o r r e l a t i o n s and a n a l y s i s of variance f o r processing the data. A small number of s t u d i e s made use of m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n , c a n o n i c a l a n a l y s i s and d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n a n a l y s i s i n t h e i r attempt to get more i n f o r m a t i o n out of t h e i r data than simple b i v a r i a t e techniques would provide. Factor a n a l y s i s was used q u i t e o f t e n to i s o l a t e the dimensions of job involvement and understand i t s s t r u c - t u r e . Nearly one quarter of the s t u d i e s reviewed i n Table 1 used f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . However, most of them used orthogonal r o t a t i o n to o b t a i n t e r m i n a l s o l u t i o n s . Orthogonal r o t a t i o n i s a technique which fo r c e s independent f a c t o r s (Rummel, 1970). Except f o r a very few s t u d i e s (e.g.,.Baba & Jamal, 1976), none of the others v e r i f i e d t h e i r assumptions of independence of f a c t o r s by s u b j e c t i n g t h e i r data to oblique r o t a t i o n . A l s o , most of them d i d not provide evidence that the sample c o r r e l a t i o n matrices were appropriate f o r f a c t o r a n a l y s i s (Dziuban & Shirkey, 1974; G u i l f o r d , 1952). Many s t u d i e s using two-way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e contained unequal c e l l frequencies but i t was not c l e a r that appropriate techniques f o r non-orthogonal a n a l y s i s of variance were adopted (Applebaum & Cramer, 1974). From the f o r e g o i n g , i t can be concluded that f u t u r e research can p r o f i t from the use of more s o p h i s t i - cated s t a t i s t i c a l techniques and a c e r t a i n methodological r i g o r i n employing 58 them. 1.5.4, R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y : I t can be seen from Table 1 that of the 104 s t u d i e s reviewed, 43 provided evidence for. some form of r e l i a b i l i t y of the job involvement s c a l e used. Most of them reported moderate to high i n t e r n a l consistency r e l i a b i l i t y . Information on the v a l i d i t y of the s c a l e was provided i n 18 s t u d i e s . Con-: s t r u c t v a l i d i t y was e s t a b l i s h e d i n f i v e v s t u d i e s l w h i l e " t h r e e attempted convergent and d i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d a t i o n of the c o n s t r u c t . Again, there was s u f f i c i e n t evidence to conclude that the c o n s t r u c t e x h i b i t e d moderate v a l i d i t y across heterogeneous- samples. 1.6 Conclusion: In summary, the review and c r i t i c i s m provided i n t h i s chapter a l l o w the f o l l o w i n g general conclusions to be drawn, many of which endorse those of Baba (1976) and Rabinowitz and H a l l (1977). 1. The e m p i r i c a l r e s u l t s are more c o n s i s t e n t w i t h 'the importance of work' view of job involvement than w i t h the 'extent to which performance a f f e c t s s e l f esteem 1 d e f i n i t i o n (Rabinowitz & H a l l , 1977). 2. Job involvement appeared to be q u i t e s t a b l e (Rabinowitz & H a l l , 1977). 3. Job involvement i s r e l a t e d to three c l a s s e s of work r e l a t e d f a c t o r s : i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e f a c t o r s , s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s and work outcome v a r i a b l e s (Baba, 1976; Rabinowitz & H a l l , 1977). 4. I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e f a c t o r s and s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s demonstrate independent e f f e c t s on job involvement (Rabinowitz & H a l l , 1977). 5. Job involvement seems to be an i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e l i n k i n g i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e and s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s to work outcome v a r i a b l e s . 6. S i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s seem to have more e f f e c t on the a t t i t u d e s of low job i n v o l v e d persons than on h i g h l y i n v o l v e d persons (Rabinowitz & 59 H a l l , 1977) . 7. The data do not provide s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n to warrant any gener- a l i z a t i o n regarding the r o l e of job involvement as a moderator v a r i a b l e (Baba, 1976). 8. I n s u f f i c i e n t a t t e n t i o n c h a r a c t e r i z e s research on the dynamics of job involvement. 9. Much of the v a r i a n c e i n job involvement remains unexplained (Rabinowitz & H a l l , 1977). . ' 10. The samples s t u d i e d represent a broad spectrum of the population w i t h a considerable degree of i n t r a r 'and i n t e r - c u l t u r a l d i v e r s i t y . 11. There i s a serious lack of methodological and psychometric s o p h i s t i c a t i o n i n job involvement research (Baba, 1976). 12. The e x i s t i n g instruments e x h i b i t moderate degrees of r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y . 60 CHAPTER 2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE THEORETICAL MODEL I t has been observed from the st u d i e s reported that job i n v o l v e - ment i s r e l a t e d to a wide v a r i e t y of c o n s t r u c t s . I t was found to be r e l a t e d to i n d i v i d u a l and p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s i n a la r g e number of st u d i e s (e.g., Lodahl & Kejner, 1965), to o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s (e.g., Maurer, 1969) and to outcome v a r i a b l e s such as job s a t i s f a c t i o n (e.g., Baba & Jamal, 1976), performance (e.g., Vroom, 1962), turnover (e.g., Beehr & Gupta, 1978), absenteeism (e.g., S a a l , 1978), and success (e.g., H a l l & Fo s t e r , 1977). 2.1 ' T h e o r e t i c a l Perspectives on Job Involvement: Though the above f i n d i n g s seem to i n d i c a t e a p i v o t a l p o s i t i o n f o r job involvement i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l research, i t can be f u r t h e r e x p l i c a t e d i n the context of the t h e o r e t i c a l frameworks guiding research i n t h i s area. A recent review (Rabinowitz & H a l l , 1977) i d e n t i f i e s three such t h e o r e t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s which are presented b r i e f l y as f o l l o w s : 2.1.1 Job Involvement as an I n d i v i d u a l D i f f e r e n c e V a r i a b l e : The view of job involvement as an i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e v a r i a b l e germinated from the C a l v i n i s t i c notions of a s s i g n i n g a c e r t a i n moral character and a sense of personal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to work. These ideas are learned e a r l y during the s o c i a l i z a t i o n process and i n t r o j e c t e d i n t o the s e l f . I t has been pointed out that t h i s i s p r i m a r i l y an e x t r a work s o c i a l i z a t i o n ( H u l i n & Blood, 1968) and i s r e s i s t a n t to changes induced by the job s i t u a t i o n . Proponents of t h i s view (Dubin, 1956; Runyon, 1973) would argue that pro- v i d i n g a low job i n v o l v e d person w i t h c o n t e x t u a l embellishments such as increased r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r making d e c i s i o n s , or a more favorable job c l i m a t e , would be of no a v a i l because they might be i r r e l e v a n t to that person. 61 Such a p e r s p e c t i v e would o f f e r the paradigm that the main determinant of job involvement would be a value o r i e n t a t i o n learned e a r l y i n the s o c i a l i z a t i o n process, and w o u l d c t h e r e f o r e s t r e s s the importance of p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s f o r guiding e m p i r i c a l research on job involvement. 2.1.2. Job Involvement as a Function of the S i t u a t i o n I t has also been t h e o r i z e d that job involvement i s i n f l u e n c e d by s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s contingent upon the extent to which an i n d i v i d u a l sees h i or her job r e l a t e d e f f o r t as r e l e v a n t to c e r t a i n a t t r i b u t e s that are c e n t r a l to h i s or her s e l f concept. Advocates of t h i s view ( A r g y r i s , 1964; McGregor, 1960) reason that the working c o n d i t i o n s and the expectations which modern work o r g a n i z a t i o n s place on an employee tend to s t u l t i f y one's need f o r g r a t i f y i n g c e r t a i n ego and growth needs, r e s u l t i n g i n a decrease i n job involvement. This form of p s y c h o l o g i c a l withdrawal i s symptomatic of the r e g r e s s i v e trend imposed by Theory X s t y l e of management (McGregor, 1960). Bass (1965) proposed that c o n d i t i o n s such as: a) the opportunity to make more of the job d e c i s i o n s ; b) the f e e l i n g that one i s making an important con- t r i b u t i o n to company success; c) success; d) achievement; and e) s e l f - d e t e r . - i mination and freedom to set one's own work pace would lead to an increase i n one's involvement on the job. The above p o s i t i o n i m p l i e s a focus on organiza t i o n a l change as a primary means of inducing involvement i n an i n d i v i d u a l . 2.1.3. Job Involvement as an I n d i v i d u a l - S i t u a t i o r i a l Outcome The above idea advances the n o t i o n thatr-xa more r e a l i s t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of job involvement'would be to t r e a t i t as a j o i n t outcome of i n d i v i d u a l and s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s (Lawler & H a l l , 1970). In f a c t , t h i s n o t i o n accommo- dates both of the preceding p e r s p e c t i v e s . I t recognizes the i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s posture by granting that i n d i v i d u a l s do d i f f e r i n the degree to which they get i n v o l v e d i n t h e i r jobs as determined by t h e i r background arid p e r s o n a l i t i e s . At the same time, i t a l s o agrees w i t h the view t h a t , 62 other things being equal, people have a tendency to become more in v o l v e d i n jobs that give them a chance to expand t h e i r h o r i z o n s . To paraphrase Lodahl and Kejner (1965), : i t i s conceivable that job involvement i s i n f l u e n c e d by l o c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n d i t i o n s as w e l l as by value o r i e n t a t i o n s t h a t can be a t t r i b u t e d to e a r l y extra-work s o c i a l i z a t i o n . The i m p l i c a t i o n of t h i s point of view would be to examine both i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e v a r i a b l e s and s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s as p o s s i b l e p r e d i c t o r s of job involvement. 2.2 Development of the T h e o r e t i c a l Model Though i t has been argued that job involvement i s s t r i c t l y a value o r i e n t a t i o n that one b r i n g s to the job. (Locke, 1976; Lodahl'& Kejner, 1965), or s t r i c t l y a s i t u a t i o n a l determinant (Bass, 1965), the weight of evidence seems to favour the t h i r d t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t i o n that job i n v o l v e - ment i s a f u n c t i o n of both i n d i v i d u a l and s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s (Lawler & H a l l , 1970; Schuler, 1975). C e r t a i n i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e f a c t o r s l i k e need f o r achievement, locus of c o n t r o l and s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s l i k e job scope, p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making, e t c . may be d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to job involvement. Any model attempting to t e s t the t h e o r e t i c a l statements should provide f o r an e m p i r i c a l v e r i f i c a t i o n of such statements..,, A model i s developed here to t e s t the above t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t i o n . The conceptual model to be tested i s o u t l i n e d i n Figure 2. The model suggests three stages i n the p r e d i c t i o n of job r e l a t e d e f f o r t , as f o l l o w s : i n d i v i d u a l and s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s determine job involvement which i n turn determines job e f f o r t . The model uses job involvement both as an independent and dependent v a r i a b l e . I t has been suggested that an i n d i v i d u a l responds f a v o r a b l y to s t i m u l i that are p o s i t i v e l y r e i n f o r c i n g . The above suggestion would lea d one to b e l i e v e that a job i n v o l v e d person who tends to r e a f f i r m h i s worth through h i s job would r e a c t p o s i t i v e l y to favorable cues from h i s job. In other words, a job wide i n i t s scope would evoke a greater sense of worth from an F i g u r e 2 Conceptual Model of Job Involvement I n d i v i d u a l D i f f e r e n c e F a c t o r s Job Involvement E f f o r t S i t u a t i o n a l F a c t o r s cr> 64 i n d i v i d u a l . Here we see a l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between c e r t a i n job c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that enhance the job scope and one's involvement i n that j o b . The e m p i r i c a l l i t e r a t u r e c i t e d e a r l i e r a l s o supports t h i s p o s i t i o n . F u r t h e r , people are l i k e l y to f e e l a greater sense of worth i n the context of t h e i r job i f they are consulted w i t h regard to various d e c i s i o n s per- t a i n i n g to t h e i r job:- Hence i t can be reasoned that i f a person i s allowed to p a r t i c i p a t e i n making d e c i s i o n s concerning the job that person i s doing, he or she i s l i k e l y to be more i n v o l v e d i n the job. Such involvement comes as a r e s u l t of p o s i t i v e v a l u e a t t r i b u t e d to one's job which i n t u r n r e a f f i r m s one's worth. The above view i s al s o c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the e m p i r i c a l f i n d i n g s reviewed e a r l i e r . Since the concept of job involvement hinges on the n o t i o n of s e l f worth, one would look f o r p o s s i b l e explanatory v a r i a b l e s i n the domain of p e r s o n a l i t y as w e l l . For i n s t a n c e , i f people b e l i e v e that they can c o n t r o l t h e i r own d e s t i n y i n general, then there i s a greater l i k e l i h o o d that t h e y u s e t h e i r job s i t u a t i o n as a p o s s i b l e source f o r s e r v i n g t h e i r needs of s e l f worth. In other words, there i s a greater chance f o r a person to use one's job to e n r i c h h i s / h e r p s y c h o l o g i c a l l i f e by g e t t i n g i n v o l v e d i n i t . On the other hand, f o r a person whose locus of c o n t r o l i s e x t e r n a l , such a li n k a g e may p o s s i b l y not e x i s t . Hence i t i s suggested that i n t e r n a l locus of c o n t r o l may be a r e l e v a n t p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e t h a t could meaning- f u l l y i n f l u e n c e job involvement. In a d d i t i o n , i f the job i s perceived to be the means to r e a f f i r m one's s e l f worth, as s t a t e d e a r l i e r , a person who has a strong need to achieve i s l i k e l y to get deeply i n v o l v e d i n h i s job. In other words, the choice of one's job as a means of r e a f f i r m a t i o n of worth i s most l i k e l y to occur among people whose locus of c o n t r o l i s i n t e r n a l and who possess a strong achievement need. The above reasoning leads us to the model shown i n Figure 3 that can be e m p i r i c a l l y v e r i f i e d . 65 I t i s important a t t h i s stage to consider the p o s s i b l e moderating e f f e c t s of c e r t a i n i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e v a r i a b l e s such as age, sex and education and a l s o the p o s s i b l e e f f e c t t h a t l e a d e r s h i p c l i m a t e may have on the above l i n k a g e . As one puts i n more time i n the la b o r f o r c e i t can be expected that the job becomes more important to one's s e l f image. Hence there i s a l o g i c a l reason to a n t i c i p a t e t h a t an older worker would tend t o per c e i v e the above linkage more c l e a r l y than a younger person. S i m i l a r l y , a more educated person i s l i k e l y to e n v i s i o n greater c l a r i t y i n the above l i n k a g e because the o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r higher order need f u l f i l l m e n t i n the job context increases i n the type of jobs such persons h o l d i n general. I n a d d i t i o n , educated workers are more l i k e l y to respond f a v o r a b l y to p o s i t i v e cues from the job as opposed to t h e i r l e s s educated counterpart. D i f f e r e n t i a l sex r o l e s o c i a l i z a t i o n renders men to view t h e i r jobs as a p o t e n t i a l source of s e r v i c i n g t h e i r needs f o r achievement or f o r i n f l u e n c i n g what goes on at t h e i r work more than women. Women, perhaps, are disposed toward d e r i v i n g such r e i n f o r c e m e n t s " i n areas other than work. As a r e s u l t i t i s suggested that men may view the linkages shown i n the model more c l e a r l y than women. Among the s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s the l e a d e r s h i p c l i m a t e i s l i k e l y to i n f l u e n c e the path-goal c l a r i t y (House, 1971). The path-goal model of lea d e r s h i p would suggest that when a f a v o r a b l e l e a d e r s h i p c l i m a t e i s per- ceived by an i n d i v i d u a l , that i n d i v i d u a l i s l i k e l y to view the linkages suggested i n the model w i t h greater c l a r i t y . Hence the moderating e f f e c t of the l e a d e r s h i p c l i m a t e i s worth i n v e s t i g a t i n g . The e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s reviewed, taken together i n d i c a t e d a c e r t a i n e q u i v o c a l i t y i n the use of job involvement as a moderator. In the l i g h t of the weak r e s u l t s obtained,'.;'the author tends to agree w i t h the view that job involvement may not be an appropriate moderator f o r the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among 66 the c o n s t r u c t s o u t l i n e d i n the model (Ruh, White & Wood, 1975). Appropriate a n a l y t i c a l techniques w i l l be employed to e m p i r i c a l l y v e r i f y the c a u s a l i t y i m p l i e d by the model. The model w i l l be r e v i s e d on the b a s i s of present and previous research f i n d i n g s toward as complete and d e f e n s i b l e a theory as i s p o s s i b l e of job involvement and job r e l a t e d e f f o r t . I t i s the author's b e l i e f that i f we genuinely seek c a u s a l explanations we w i l l at l e a s t gain some rough idea about where to look among the p o t e n t i a l l y i n e x h a u s t i b l e storehouse of work r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s . I t i s hoped that t h i s work w i l l lead toward the development of such a stra t e g y - toward showing where to look, or to put i t more modestly, toward understanding the the nature of one of these v a r i a b l e s , job involvement. 67 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES In the in t e r e s t s ' of parsimony, i t i s f e l t t hat only those v a r i a b l e s that have e m p i r i c a l or l o g i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e to the study should be i n v e s t i g a t e d as opposed to i n v e s t i g a t i n g as many d i f f e r e n t v a r i a b l e s as p o s s i b l e f o r the simple reason that they are there. Young (1977) suggested that "the study of systems of phenomena can be g r e a t l y s i m p l i f i e d by ex- p l i c i t l y t y i n g hypotheses to p r e v i o u s l y developed and tes t e d theory, s i n c e by so doing, the number of p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s i s made more manageable" (p. 109). Hence the f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s were s e l e c t e d f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the o p e r a t i o n a l model shown i n Figure 3. Among the i n d i v i d u a l f a c t o r s only age, sex, education, locus of c o n t r o l and need f o r achievement seemed to have some e m p i r i c a l and l o g i c a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e i r suggested r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h job involvement. Taking the above v a r i a b l e s one by one, i t has been i n d i c a t e d that job becomes more important to the s e l f image of a person as he advances i n age and hence there i s reason to expect age to i n f l u e n c e job involvement. The above n o t i o n a l s o has some e m p i r i c a l support (e.g., Lodahl & Kejner, 1965; Newman; 1975; Schwyhart & Smith, 1972). The d i f f e r e n t i a l s o c i a l i z a t i o n of men and women w i t h regard to work i n general and jobs i n p a r t i c u l a r , i n western s o c i e t i e s , would i n d i c a t e that men are- l i k e l y to be more job i n v o l v e d than women. The above noti o n i s a l s o supported i n the e m p i r i c a l l i t e r a t u r e to some extent (e.g., H o l l o n & Gemmil, 1976). I t i s argued i n the l i t e r a t u r e that o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r higher order':heed f u l - f i l l m e n t are l i k e l y to e l i c i t f a v o r a b l e employee responses to the job among h i g h l y educated i n d i v i d u a l s . Conversely, s i m i l a r responses may not be f o r t h - coming from l e s s educated employees f o r the simple reason that t h e i r jobs may not be as f u l f i l l i n g as those h e l d by more educated people (Schein, 1971). F i g u r e 3 O p e r a t i o n a l Model of Job Involvement Need f o r Achievement Locus of • C o n t r o l Job Involvement Job Scope P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n D e c i s i o n Making E f f o r t I . i CT) co 69 The above n o t i o n i s a l s o supported i n the e m p i r i c a l l i t e r a t u r e (e.g., Gadbois, 1971; L e f k o w i t z , 1971; Mannheim, 1975). There i s some e m p i r i c a l support to the i d e a that job involvement i s a f u n c t i o n of both p e r s o n a l i t y and s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s (Lawler & H a l l , 1970). An important p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e that i s l i k e l y to i n f l u e n c e job involvement i s the locus of c o n t r o l ( H a l l & Rabinowitz, 1977). I t i s f e l t that i n t e r n a l s view the work s e t t i n g as a place f o r demonstrating competence on the job and as a r e s u l t tend to get i n v o l v e d i n t h e i r "job. To the e x t e r n a l s who see the world^as being c o n t r o l l e d by f a t e , work s e t t i n g as a place f o r demonstrating competence i s i r r e l e v a n t . This view.-is a l s o supported e m p i r i c a l l y (Runyon, 1973). Another p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e that might be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r one's involvement i n the job i s one's need f o r achievement. I f an i n d i v i d u a l has a strong need f o r .achievement, he or she i s l i k e l y to seek f u l f i l l m e n t of the need by g e t t i n g i n v o l v e d i n whatever he or she does and e x e r t i n g c o n s i d e r a b l e e f f o r t toward accomplishing that end. This achievement need i s l i k e l y to induce a greater degree of involvement i n one's job • ( H a l l & Rabinowitz, 19771) . Though very l i t t l e work has been done to v e r i f y t h i s n o t i o n , the e x i s t i n g evidence points i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n ( S t e e r s , 1975a). Among the s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s , task c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , l e a dership c l i m a t e and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making seemed r e l e v a n t f o r the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n . I t is. g e n e r a l l y accepted among o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s c i e n t i s t s that the way i n which the job i s designed has c o n s i d e r a b l e impact on the a t t i t u d e s of the job incumbent. I t i s p o s s i b l e that one i s l i k e l y to be i n v o l v e d i n one's job more because i t provides one w i t h c o n t r o l , a c e r t a i n autonomy and v a r i e t y i n the work s i t u a t i o n ( H a l l & Rabinowitz, 1977). The above n o t i o n i s w e l l supported i n the e m p i r i c a l l i t e r a t u r e (e.g., Vroom, 1962; Lawler & H a l l , 1970; Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Waters, Roach & B a t l i s , 1974; Newman, 1975). I t can a l s o be expected from-rour knowledge of human 70 behavior i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s that a favorable l e a d e r s h i p c l i m a t e i s l i k e l y to f a c i l i t a t e increased worker involvement i n what he i s doing. The path-goal theory of l e a d e r s h i p suggests that a c l i m a t e high on c o n s i d e r a t i o n and s t r u c t u r e i s l i k e l y to remove any p o s s i b l e b a r r i e r s that stand i n the way of one r e a l i z i n g one's goals by enabling that person to see the connection between a s p i r a t i o n s and t h e i r f u l f i l l m e n t more c l e a r l y (House, 1971). Though sparse, there i s some e m p i r i c a l support a l s o to the above suggestion (e.g., S t i n s o n & Johns on, 1975; S z i l a g y i & Sims, 1974) • The l i t e r a t u r e on p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making has a s u b s t a n t i a l impact on job a t t i t u d e s . At a more o p e r a t i o n a l l e v e l the above assumption would suggest that p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making on the part of the worker i s l i k e l y to c o n t r i b u t e toward h i s or her job involvement. The above r e l a t i o n s h i p f i n d s support i n the e m p i r i c a l l i t e r a t u r e as w e l l (e.g., S i e g a l & Ruh, 1973; Schuler, 1975). Furt h e r , i t seems reasonable that a person i n v o l v e d i n h i s job i s l i k e l y to exert greater e f f o r t i n h i s job. Since h i s s e l f esteem, i n h i s o p i n i o n , depends on the job he i s doing, i t i s n a t u r a l f o r him to work harder i n h i s job. E m p i r i c a l research has a l s o found some support f o r the above notio n (e.g., Lawler & H a l l , 1970). In the l i g h t of the foregoing d i s c u s s i o n , the present study attempts to v a l i d a t e the c a u s a l i t y suggested i n the o p e r a t i o n a l model shown i n Figure 3. In a d d i t i o n , a few s p e c i f i c hypotheses are generated to t e s t the v a r i o u s r e l a t i o n s h i p s proposed i n the model. They are as f o l l o w s : I n d i v i d u a l D i f f e r e n c e Factors: vs Job Involvement • H^: Need f o r achievement i s p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to job involvement. R^: I n t e r n a l i t y of locus of c o n t r o l i s p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to job involvement. S i t u a t i o n a l Factors vs Job Involvement H Q: Job scope i s p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to job involvement. 71 H^: P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making i s p o s i t i v e l y , r e l a t e d to job involvement. Outcome Factors vs Job Involvement H,.: Job involvement i s p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to j o b - r e l a t e d e f f o r t . Moderating Factors and Job Involvement H. : The causal l i n k a g e o u t l i n e d i n Figure 3 i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y stronger o f o r o l d e r workers than younger workers. H^: The caus a l l i n k a g e o u t l i n e d i n Figure 3 i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y stronger f o r males than females. H c: The caus a l l i n k a g e o u t l i n e d i n Figure 3 i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y stronger o f o r more educated i n d i v i d u a l s than the l e s s educated ones, rig. The c a u s a l l i n k a g e o u t l i n e d i n Figure 3 i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y stronger f o r a le a d e r s h i p c l i m a t e high on c o n s i d e r a t i o n and s t r u c t u r e than the one that i s low on both. 7 2 CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH DESIGN In t h i s chapter,the o v e r a l l design of the study i s disc u s s e d . S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t i n v o l v e s a d i s c u s s i o n of the s e t t i n g , samples, mode of data c o l l e c t i o n , measurement of v a r i a b l e s , and the a n a l y t i c a l techniques employed i n the study. 4.1 " S e t t i n g and Samples The present study made use of two samples which w i l l be r e f e r r e d to as the p i l o t sample and the v a l i d a t i o n sample. The p i l o t sample was drawn from o r g a n i z a t i o n s belonging td.:.the communications i n d u s t r y l o c a t e d i n the greater Montreal area. Of the 12 companies contacted, e i g h t agreed to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study e i t h e r wholly or i n p a r t . The s i z e of the org a n i z a t i o n s v a r i e d from l e s s than 100 to greater than 1000. The r e s - pondents a l s o h e l d a wide v a r i e t y of jobs representing v a r i o u s l e v e l s and departments i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The v a l i d a t i o n sample co n s i s t e d of people e n r o l l e d i n the evening programs i n commerce i n the two major anglophone u n i v e r s i t i e s i n Quebec. A l l of them he l d f u l l r . t i m e jobs and were drawn from a wide v a r i e t y of i n d u s t r i e s . The s i z e of the organiza-: . t i o n s they worked f o r a l s o ranged from l e s s than 100 to greater than 1000. S i m i l a r to. the p i l o t sample, the respondents h e l d v a r i o u s jobs and occupied,', d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l hierarchies.., 4.2 Data C o l l e c t i o n F i e l d survey data were c o l l e c t e d through a s t r u c t u r e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n c o r p o r a t i n g the va r i o u s instruments appropriate to t h i s study. I n i t i a l attempts to secure data wherein the respondents had to i d e n t i f y themselves were not s u c c e s s f u l . Hence, assurances of anonymity were given i n a sub- sequent attempt which proved to be f r u i t f u l . For the p i l o t data c o l l e c t i o n , 73 roughly a week before the questionnaires were mailed to the respondents a n o t i c e from the management was posted on the b u l l e t i n boards i n p a r t i c i - p a t i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n s , asking f o r the cooperation of the employees on p r o v i d i n g the data. In r e t u r n f o r the data, the researcher agreed to share h i s f i n d i n g s w i t h the o r g a n i z a t i o n s ' managements. Self-addressed and stamped envelopes were provided w i t h each q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The questionnaires were made a v a i l a b l e i n both E n g l i s h and French and the p a r t i c i p a t i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n s took the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to d i s t r i b u t e them to t h e i r anglophone and franco- phone employees a c c o r d i n g l y . In order to encourage p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l respondents, the researcher promised to m a i l a short report of the study to:'.individual respondents who provided him w i t h a r e t u r n .address. A post card was i n s e r t e d along w i t h the questionnaire f o r t h i s purpose, and many respondents mailed i t back to the researcher s e p a r a t e l y i n order to ensure anonymity. Out of a t o t a l of 500 questionnaires d i s t r i b u t e d , 210 were returned, y i e l d i n g a response r a t e of 42%. Only anglophone question- n a i r e s were chosen f o r the subsequent data a n a l y s i s p e r t a i n i n g to the present study. There were 139 usable questionnaires from anglophone respondents. The response r a t e f o r t h i s sample was 47%. The above response r a t e was found to be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the usual", response r a t e of 48% reported i n the l i t e r - ature, f o r s t u d i e s of t h i s nature w i t h s i n g l e . m a i l i n g and no f o l l o w up (Heberlein & Baumgartner, 1978). For the v a l i d a t i o n data, the researcher wentito a l l the c l a s s s e c t i o n s i n the evening program f o r which the r e s p e c t i v e i n s t r u c t o r s gave permission f o r data c o l l e c t i o n . A short e x p l a n a t i o n was given by the researcher o u t l i n i n g i n general the purpose of the study and s o l i c i t i n g the cooperation of the respondents. Then the questionnaires along w i t h s e l f - addressed stamped envelopes were d i s t r i b u t e d to the respondents. A l l questionnaires were i n E n g l i s h . 74 A t o t a l of 250 questionnaires was d i s t r i b u t e d and 170 were returned, y i e l d i n g a response r a t e of 68%. The increased response r a t e may be a t t r i b u t e d to the follow-up by the researcher one week a f t e r d i s - t r i b u t i o n of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The researcher went to those c l a s s e s again and reminded people to complete and r e t u r n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . However, such a follow-up procedure-was-nq't :'feasible .for t h e - p i l o t sample. .The p i l o t data c o l l e c t i o n took about three weeks w h i l e the v a l i d a t i o n data were c o l l e c t e d i n about two weeks time. For the p i l o t sample, 33.1% were below the age of 30 and 35.3% were 40 years of age or above. The male:female r a t i o was 2.4:1. Married people accounted f o r 64.2% of the sample. In terms of education, 39.4% had c o l l e g e degrees or above. People who were r a i s e d i n an urban area amounted to 60.2% of the sample. Among the respondents, 52.5% had between one to f i v e years of experience i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n where they were p r e s e n t l y employed. In terms of annual s a l a r y , 43.9% earned l e s s than $15,000, 43.2% earned between $15,000 and $25,000 and the r e s t earned $25,000 or more. 39.1% worked f o r o r g a n i z a t i o n s that had 250 employees or l e s s , w h i l e 49.3% belonged to o r g a n i z a t i o n s that had more than 1000 employees. As f o r department s i z e , 38.4% were i n departments that had 10 people or l e s s , w h i l e 22.4% had 50 people or more i n t h e i r departments. A more d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of the sample can be seen i n Table 3. For the v a l i d a t i o n sample, 39.4% were below the age of 30 and 34.5% were 40 years of age or above. The male:female r a t i o was 2.6:1. Married people accounted f o r 65.9% of the sample. In :terms of education, 53.9 had c o l l e g e degrees or above. People who were r a i s e d i n an urban area amounted to 69.6% of the sample. Among the respondents, 55.4% had between one to f i v e years of experience i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n where they were p r e s e n t l y employed. In terms of annual s a l a r y , 39.3% earned l e s s than 75 Table 3 Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n For Demographics Demographic No. V a r i a b l e s Absolute Frequency P i l o t V a l i d a t i o n N = 139 N = 169 R e l a t i v e Frequency P i l o t V a l i d a t i o n N = 139 N = 169 1 Age under 20 years 2 20 - 29 years 44 30 - 39 " 44 40 - 49 " 34 : 50 - 59 13 60 - 2 2 Sex Male 97 Female 41 3 M a r i t a l Status Married 88 r S i n g l e 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 S o c i a l i z a t i o n P o p u l a t i o n l e s s than 500 5 500 - 5000 13 5,000 - 50,000 26 50,000 - 100,000 8 100,000 - 500,000 8 500,000 - 1 m i l l i o n 5 1 m i l l i o n - 2 m i l l i o n 40 greater than 2 m i l l i o n 26 6 Experience 1 - 5 years 73 6 - 10 " 26 I'. 11 - 15 " 18 16 - 20 " 5 20 - " 17 7 Annual Salary l e s s 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 - 44,999 1 45,000 -.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 R e l a t i v e Frequency No, V a r i a b l e s P i l o t V a l i d a t i o n P i l o t V a l i d a t i o n N = 139 N - 169 N = 139 N - 169 87. O r g a n i z a t i o r i a l c S i z e l e s s 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 8 12 5.8 7.2 1000 - 68 61 49.3 36,7 9 Departmental S i z e l e s s than 5 16 31 11.6 18,6 5 - 1 0 37 51 26.8 30.5 1 0 - 2 5 34 50 24.6 29.9 2 5 - 50 20 15 14.5 9.0 50 - 100 1 4 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 r e s t earned above $25,000. 32% worked f o r o r g a n i z a t i o n s that had about 250 employees or l e s s w h i l e 36.9% belonged to o r g a n i z a t i o n s that had more than 1000 employees. As f o r department s i z e , 49.1% were i n departments that had 10 people or l e s s w h i l e 12% had 50 people or more i n t h e i r departments. A more d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of t h i s sample can be seen i n Table 3. 4.3 Measurement This s e c t i o n presents an o u t l i n e of the v a r i o u s instruments used f o r gathering i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the study. 4.3.1 I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s f a c t o r s : 4.3.1.1 Demographics: Information regarding age, education and sex were c o l l e c t e d by asking one question about each of the above mentioned v a r i a b l e s . 4.3.1.2 Need f o r achievement: The need f o r achievement was measured by the r e v i s e d and shortened 15-item v e r s i o n of the o r i g i n a l Hermans (1970) s c a l e used by Latham and Y u k l (1976). The i n t e r n a l consistency r e l i a b i l i t y reported was .44. No v a l i d i t y data were a v a i l a b l e f o r t h i s version.' The s c a l e items are as f o l l o w s : Need f o r achievement s c a l e 1. Working i s something t h a t : a. I l i k e doing most of the time. b. I l i k e doing f a i r l y o f t e n . c. I l i k e doing o c c a s i o n a l l y . d. I seldom l i k e doing. 2. * To succeed on an important task i t i s : a. Seldom necessary to prepare y o u r s e l f w e l l ahead of time. b. Sometimes h e l p f u l to prepare y o u r s e l f w e l l ahead of time. c. Often h e l p f u l to prepare y o u r s e l f w e l l ahead of time. d. U s u a l l y necessary to prepare y o u r s e l f w e l l 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 u s u a l l y do: a. Much more than I resolve d to do. b. A l i t t l e more than I resolve d to do. c. A l i t t l e l e s s than I resolved to do. d. Much l e s s than I resolved to do. 5. " I f I am not able to obt a i n a d i f f i c u l t g o a l : a. I t r y harder to attain-,the g o a l . b. I continue t r y i n g but do not put out any e x t r a e f f o r t . c. I am i n c l i n e d to give up but may make one more e f f o r t . d. I u s u a l l y give up arid q u i t t r y i n g . 6. How much r e s p o n s i b i l i t y would you l i k e i n your job? a. Much more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . b. Somewhat more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . c. S l i g h t l y more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . d. A l i t t l e l e s s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . 7. * I would f i n d a l i f e i n which I d i d not have to work at a job to be: al I d e a l . b. Quite pleasant. c. Somewhat b o r i n g . d. Very unpleasant and b o r i n g . 8. When I was i n sc h o o l , I thought attainment of a high p o s i t i o n i n s o c i e t y was: a. Very important. b. Moderately important. c. Only s l i g h t l y important. d. Completely unimportant. 9. * For l i f e ' s e x t r a pleasures such as r e c r e a t i o n , entertainment and r e l a x i n g : f' a. I n e a r l y 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 g e t t i n g t i r e d f o r : a. A very long time. b. A f a i r l y long time. c. Not too long a time. d. Only a short w h i l e . 11. I am usually.: a. Extremely busy. b. Moderately busy. c. Not too busy. d. Not busy at a l l . 12. When I was i n school: a. I was extremely ambitious. b. I was somewhat ambitious. c. I was a l i t t l e ambitious. d. I was not at a l l ambitious. 80 13. How important i s i t to know how w e l l you are doing i n your job? a. Very important. b. Moderately important. c. Only s l i g h t l y important. d. Not at a l l important. 14. When I begin a task: a. I u s u a l l y c a r r y i t to a s u c c e s s f u l c o n c l u s i o n . b. I often c a r r y i t to a s u c c e s s f u l c o n c l u s i o n . c. I sometimes ca r r y i t to a s u c c e s s f u l c o n c l u s i o n . d. I seldom c a r r y i t to a s u c c e s s f u l c o n c l u s i o n . 15. * The best t h i n g about being pres i d e n t of a new company i s ; a. The opportunity to be p a r t of a management team, b. The e x c e l l e n t s a l a r y and b e n e f i t s . c. The challenge of making the company s u c c e s s f u l . d. The s t a t u s and respect that comes from being an executive. The items w i t h a s t e r i s k s were reverse scored. The respondents were asked to c i r c l e the choice that best r e f l e c t e d t h e i r view. , A high score represented a high need f o r achievement. The t h e o r e t i c a l range v a r i e d from 15 to 60. The rounded item mean value f o r the s c a l e was s u b s t i t u t e d f o r missing responses. 4.3.1.3 Locus of c o n t r o l : The locus of c o n t r o l was measured by the short form 10-item s c a l e , modified from the o r i g i n a l Rotter instrument (Valecha, 1972) . Though i n f o r m a t i o n regarding r e l i a b i l i t y was not reported f o r t h i s v e r s i o n , the c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y of the s c a l e had been e s t a b l i s h e d . The items i n t h i s s c a l e correspond to the f o l l o w i n g four dimensions proposed by C o l l i n s (1974).; namely," "the d i f f i c u l t - e a s y world", "the j u s t - u n j u s t world", "the p r e d i c t a b l e - u n p r e d i c t a b l e w o r l d " and "the p o l i t i c a l l y responsive-unresponsive world." The items i n the instrument are as f o l l o w s : Rotter's abbreviated -locus of control- scale 1. 1. a. In the long run people get the respect they deserve i n t h i s o w o r l d . b. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , an i n d i v i d u a l ' s worth o f t e n passes unrecognized no matter how hard he t r i e s . 2. a. The idea that teachers are u n f a i r to students i s nonsense. b. Most students don't r e a l i z e the extent to which t h e i r grades are in f l u e n c e d by a c c i d e n t a l happenings. 3. a'. Becoming a success i s a matter of hard work, luck has l i t t l e or nothing to do w i t h i t . b. G e t t i n g a tgood job depends mainly on being i n the r i g h t place at the r i g h t time. 4. .a. The average c i t i z e n can have an i n f l u e n c e i n government d e c i s i o n s , b. This world i s run by the few people i n power, and there i s not too much the l i t t l e guy can do about i t . 5. a. In my case g e t t i n g what I want has l i t t l e or nothing to do w i t h luc k . b. Many times wenmight j u s t as w e l l decide what to do by f l i p p i n g a c o i n . 6. * a. Who gets to be the boss o f t e n depends on who was lucky enough to be i n the r i g h t place f i r s t , b. G e t t i n g people to do the r i g h t t h i n g depends upon a b i l i t y , l u c k has l i t t l e or nothing to do w i t h i t . 7-.* a. Most people don't r e a l i z e the extent to which t h e i r l i v e s are c o n t r o l l e d by a c c i d e n t a l happenings, b. There r e a l l y is~,no such t h i n g as " l u c k . " 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 r e s u l t of l a c k of a b i l i t y , ignorance, l a z i n e s s , or a l l three. 9.* a. Many times I f e e l that I have l i t t l e i n f l u e n c e over the:., things that happen to me. b. I t i s impossible f o r me to b e l i e v e that chance or luck plays an important r o l e i n my l i f e . 10.* a. What happens to me i s my own doing. b. Sometimes I f e e l that I don't have enough c o n t r o l over the d i r e c t i o n my l i f e i s t a k i n g . The respondents were asked to c i r c l e e i t h e r statement a or b depending upon which response they agreed w i t h most. The items were coded i n terms of 0 and 1. The items w i t h a s t e r i s k s were reverse scored. A high score i n d i c a t e d an i n t e r n a l locus of c o n t r o l w h i l e a low score i n d i c a t e d an e x t e r n a l locus of c o n t r o l . The t h e o r e t i c a l range of scores v a r i e d from 0 to 10. For m i s s i n g v a l u e s , the item mean score f o r the s c a l e f o r the respondent was s u b s t i t u t e d i n the a n a l y s i s . 4.3.2 S i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s . 4.3.2.1 Job scope: Information regarding job scope was c o l l e c t e d using the 14-item job d i a g n o s t i c survey ( s e c t i o n 2) developed by Hackman andlOldham (1975). The reported i n t e r n a l consistency r e l i a b i l i t y v a r i e d from .59 to .78. There was a l s o evidence of convergent v a l i d i t y f o r the s c a l e . The s c a l e items are as f o l l o w s : Job d i a g n o s t i c survey 1. The job r e q u i r e s me to use a number of complex or h i g h - l e v e l s k i l l s . 2. The job r e q u i r e s a;.lot of cooperative work w i t h other people. 3. * The job i s arranged so that I do not have the chance to do an e n t i r e s piece of work from beginning to end. 83 4. -'Just doing the work r e q u i r e d by the j o b provides many chances f o r me to f i g u r e out how w e l l I am doing. 5. * The job i s q u i t e simple and r e p e t i t i v e . 6. * The job can be done adequately by a person working alone — without t a l k i n g or checking w i t h other people. 7. -* The super v i s o r s and co-workers on t h i s job almost never give me any "feedback" about how w e l l I am doing i n my work. 8. This job i s one where a l o t of other people can be a f f e c t e d by how w e l l the work gets done. 9. * The job denies me any chance to use my personal i n i t i a t i v e or judgment i n c a r r y i n g out the work. 10. Supervisors o f t e n l e t me know how w e l l they t h i n k I am performing the job. 11. '..The job provides me w i t h the chance to completely f i n i s h the pieces of work I begin. 12. * The job i t s e l f provides very few clues about whether or not I am performing w e l l . 13. The job gives me considerable opportunity f o r independence and freedom i n how I do the work. 14. * The job i t s e l f i s riot very s i g n i f i c a n t or important i n the broader scheme of t h i n g s . The. respondents, were, asked, how accurate was each orie'r'of the above statements i n d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r j o b s . The response format ranged from very i n a c c u r a t e to very accurate on a seven point?- L i k e r t type s c a l e . The items w i t h a s t e r i s k s were reversed and a high score i n d i c a t e d a wider job scope. The missing values were s u b s t i t u t e d w i t h the rounded item mean value f o r the s c a l e f o r that respondent. The t h e o r e t i c a l range f o r the scores v a r i e d from 14 to 98. 84 4.3.2.2 P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making: P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making was measured by using the 5-item questionnaire developed by S i e g e l and Ruh (1973). The i n t e r n a l consistency r e l i a b i l i t y was reported to be .81. There was a l s o evidence of convergent and d i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d i t y f o r the s c a l e (Ruh, White & Wood, 1975). The s c a l e items are shown below: S i e g e l and Ruh s c a l e 1. I n gene r a l , how much say or i n f l u e n c e 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 gene r a l , how much say or i n f l u e n c e do you have on what goes on i n your work group? 4. In general, how much say or i n f l u e n c e do you have on d e c i s i o n s which a f f e c t your job? 5. How r e c e p t i v e i s your supervisor to your ideas and l i s t e n s to your suggestions? The respondents were asked to answer each question i n a f i v e point L i k e r t type s c a l e , the response format"ranging from very l i t t l e to very much . i :c A /.high score: indicatedca-.greatercdegreeeof v . p a r t i c i p a t i o n r - i n c d e c i s i o n making. The missing values were s u b s t i t u t e d by the rounded item mean s c a l e value f o r that respondent. The t h e o r e t i c a l range f o r t h i s s c a l e was from 5 to 4.3.3 S i t u a t i o n a l Moderator 4.3.3.1 Leadership Leadership was measured by the r e c e n t l y r e v i s e d LBDQ Form X I I que s t i o n n a i r e (Schriescheim & Kerr,11974) c o n t a i n i n g 10 items. I t had been reported that the LBDQ Form X I I e x h i b i t e d acceptable i n t e r n a l consistency r e l i a b i l i t y and concurrent v a l i d i t y . The s c a l e i s presented below: 85 Leader behavior d e s c r i p t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e , form XII, revised,. I n i t i a t i n g structure•; 1. He makes h i s a t t i t u d e s c l e a r to the group. 2. He schedules the work to be done. 3. He maintains d e f i n i t e standards of performance. 4. He encourages the use of uniform procedures. 5. He l e t s group members know what i s expected of them. Consideration, 6. * He refuses to e x p l a i n h i s a c t i o n s . 7. * He acts without c o n s u l t i n g the group. 8. He t r e a t s a l l group members as h i s equals. 9. He i s f r i e n d l y and approachable. 10. He puts suggestions made by the group i n t o operation. The respondents were asked to describe the behavior of t h e i r s u p e r v i s o r on a f i v e p o i n t L i k e r t type s c a l e , the response format ranging from s t r o n g l y agree to s t r o n g l y disagree. The items w i t h a s t e r i s k s were reversed and a high score i n d i c a t e d a more fa v o r a b l e a t t i t u d e toward one's s u p e r v i s o r . The mis s i n g values were s u b s t i t u t e d by the rounded item mean score f o r that respondent on t h i s s c a l e . The t h e o r e t i c a l range of scores v a r i e d 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 v e r s i o n of the Lodahl and Kejner s c a l e (Lodahl & Kejner, 1965) and . the 8-i.tem Faunce's occupational involvement index s c a l e (1959). The s p l i t h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y reported f o r the Lodahl and Kejner s c a l e was .73 and there was a l s o evidence of convergent and d i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d i t y . A f a c t o r a n a l y s i s of the Lodahl and Kejner s c a l e a l s o y i e l d e d some support f o r 86 c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y . There was no i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e on the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of the Faunce's oc c u p a t i o n a l involvement s c a l e . The s c a l e s are shown as follows': Lodahl and Kejner job involvement s c a l e : 1. The major s a t i s f a c t i o n i n my l i f e , comes: from myjjob. 2. The most important things that happen to me i n v o l v e my work. 3. I amrreally a p e r f e c t i o n i s t about my work. 4. I l i v e , eat and breathe my j o b . 5. I am very much i n v o l v e d p e r s o n a l l y i n my work. 6. * Most things i n my l i f e are more important than work. The respondents rated the above items on a 5-point L i k e r t type s c a l e , the response format ranging from s t r o n g l y disagree to s t r o n g l y agree. The item w i t h the a s t e r i s k was reversed and a high score meant higher job involvement. The missing values were s u b s t i t u t e d w i t h the respondents' rounded item mean f o r the s c a l e . The t h e o r e t i c a l range of scores wasafrom 6 to 30. Faurice's ^occupational involvement index- 1. * The main reason I work at my present job i s to make money. 2. I f I received an i n h e r i t a n c e so l a r g e that I d i d not have to work, I would s t i l l work at my present j o b . 3. * The things I do o f f the job are g e n e r a l l y more i n t e r e s t i n g to me than the things I do w h i l e at work. 4. I t i s more important to me that I do w e l l at my work here than at anything e l s e I do. 5. l i e care. morer'about::.wha^^ I do vaboiit--what.-.most, other people t h i n k . 6. I cannot r e a l l y be happy unless I do w e l l at my j o b . 87 7. The general f i e l d or work I am i n now i s the k i n d I would p r e f e r to stay i n u n t i l I r e t i r e . 8. I would f e e l l i k e a l o a f e r i f I d i d not have a job. Responses to the above items were obtained on a 5-point L i k e r t type s c a l e , the response format ranging from s t r o n g l y agree to s t r o n g l y disagree. The items w i t h the a s t e r i s k s were reversed. The f i n a l s c a l e score showed a high value f o r h i g h l y job in v o l v e d people. The m i s s i n g values were s u b s t i t u t e d w i t h the respondents' rounded item mean f o r the s c a l e . The t h e o r e t i c a l range of scores v a r i e d from 8 to 40. 4.3.4.2 E f f o r t : E f f o r t was measured by the 4-item job m o t i v a t i o n s c a l e developed by Patchen (1965) and a l s o by a three-dimensional s c a l e c o n s i s t i n g of task c o n c e n t r a t i o n , job c u r i o s i t y and p e r s i s t e n c e c o n t a i n i n g 17 items i n a l l (Landy & Guion, 1970). The Patchen s c a l e was found to e x h i b i t a t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y of .80 and evidence of construct v a l i d i t y . For the Landy and Guion instrument the i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y reported v a r i e d from .51 to .73 f o r the task c o n c e n t r a t i o n s c a l e , .54 to .71 f o r the job c u r i o s i t y s c a l e and .57 to .82 f o r the p e r s i s t e n c e s c a l e . Evidences of v a l i d i t y f o r the s c a l e s were a l s o provided by Landy and Guion (1970). The s c a l e s are as f o l l o w s : Patchen's job m o t i v a t i o n s c a l e ; 1. On most days on your j o b , how o f t e n does time seem to drag f o r you? •:• • About h a l f the day or more ' About o n e - t h i r d 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 i n v o l v e d i n t h e i r job — they are absorbed i n i t n ight and day. For other people, t h e i r job i s simply one of s e v e r a l i n t e r e s t s . How i n v o l v e d do you f e e l i n your job? Very l i t t l e i n v o l v e d ; my other i n t e r e s t s are more absorbing S l i g h t l y i n v o l v e d Moderately i n v o l v e d ; my job and my other i n t e r e s t s are e q u a l l y absorbing to me Strongly i n v o l v e d Very s t r o n g l y i n v o l v e d ; my work i s the most absorbing i n t e r e s t i n my l i f e 3. * How o f t e n do you do some e x t r a work f o r your job which i s n ' t r e a l l y r e q u i r e d of you? Almost every day Seve r a l times a week About once a week Once every few weeks About once a month or l e s s 4. * Would you say you work harder, l e s s hard,-:.or about the same as other people doing your type of work at your.-organization? .'s ; Much harder than most others A l i t t l e harder than most others About the same as most others A l i t t l e l e s s hard than most others Much l e s s hard than most others The respondents were asked to check the response c l o s e s t to t h e i r f e e l i n g s about t h e i r j o b . .The items i n a s t e r i s k s were reversed and a high score on the s c a l e i n d i c a t e d a high degree of e f f o r t exerted on the job. The responses f o r the above items were obtained on a 4-point s c a l e . 89 The missing values were s u b s t i t u t e d w i t h the respondents' rounded item mean f o r the s c a l e . The s c a l e score ranged from 4 to 20. Landy and Guion e f f o r t scale- Task .Concentration 1. I take no n o t i c e of time;when i n v o l v e d i n a task. 2. I keep my mind on the task at hand i n or d i n a r y circumstances. 3. * I am d i s t r a c t e d from the immediate problem by thoughts of other things I have to do. 4. * I v i s i t the water f o u n t a i n and r e s t room o f t e n . 5. * 1 accept every i n v i t a t i o n f o r c o f f e e even when i n v o l v e d i n a task. Job c u r i o s i t y 6. I study the whole system even though I am only working on a small p a r t of i t . 7. I experiment w i t h d i f f e r e n t techniques i n order to become f a m i l i a r w i t h a l l of them. 8. I am nosy about what other people are doing. 9. * I work on my p o r t i o n of the job without knowing how i t f i t s i n t o the o v e r a l l system. 10. *I make assumptions about a problem s i t u a t i o n r a t h e r than seeking answers. P e r s i s t e n c e 11. I keep whacking away at a problem u n t i l I achieve a s o l u t i o n . 12. I work through lunch i f a problem i s p a r t i c u l a r l y p r e s s i n g . 13. I work past q u i t t i n g time to f o l l o w up on a s o l u t i o n to a problem r a t h e r than l e t t i n g i t go u n t i l the next day. 14. I keep working at a problem u n t i l there i s some pressure to change to a d i f f e r e n t one. 15. * I show pleasure i f taken o f f a drawn-out task before i t i s completed. 16. * I ask f o r a new assignment when faced w i t h a d v e r s i t y and/or a s e r i e s 90 o f : . d i f f i c u l t t a s k s . 17. * I q i i i t Iwhen I f i n d that a problem of supposedly moderate d i f f i c u l t y r e s i s t s a l l i n i t i a l attempts to solve i t . The respondents were asked to i n d i c a t e t h e i r agreement or d i s - agreement w i t h the above items on a f i v e - p o i n t L i k e r t type s c a l e , the response format ranging from s t r o n g l y agree to s t r o n g l y disagree. The items w i t h a s t e r i s k s were reversed and a higher score on the s c a l e i n d i c a t e d a higher degree of e f f o r t on the job. The missing values were s u b s t i t u t e d w i t h the rounded item mean of the respondent f o r t h i s s c a l e . The t h e o r e t i c a l range f o r the s c a l e v a r i e d from 17 to 85. 4.4 Procedure As could be seen from the forego i n g , the present study made use of standardized research instruments and f o r most of them, v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y f i g u r e s were a v a i l a b l e . Nevertheless, attempts were made to e s t a b l i s h the i n t e r n a l consistency r e l i a b i l i t y of the v a r i o u s instruments used i n t h i s study. In a d d i t i o n the c r i t e r i o n s c a l e s were test e d f o r conver- gent and d i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d i t y using the m u l t i t r a i t multimethod matrix approach (Campbell & F i s k e , 1959). The causal model o u t l i n e d i n Figure 3 could be test e d using path a n a l y s i s , cross lagged c o r r e l a t i o n s or dynamic c o r r e l a t i o n s . However the l a t t e r two would r e q u i r e l o n g i t u d i n a l data i n order to be able to t e s t the model adequately. Since the data f o r the present study were of a c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l nature, path a n a l y s i s was chosen to examine the i m p l i e d c a u s a l i t y of the model. For a more d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of the technique, the reader i s r e f e r r e d to K e r l i n g e r and Pedhazur (1973) and L i (1975). I t has been suggested that one l i m i t a t i o n that researchers should be reminded of i s that " t h e o r i e s " should not be teste d on data from which they were d e r i v e d . Thus 91 when a set of data f i t a causal model reasonably w e l l , the presumed para- meters should then be tested i n a r e p l i c a t i o n (Borgatta, 1970). Again, as pointed out by Borgatta (1970), such t e s t i n g of theory by r e p l i c a t i o n i s conspicuously absent i n most a r t i c l e s that use causal models. Hence, an attempt was made i n t h i s study to remedy t h i s s i t u a t i o n through the use of a second set of data to v a l i d a t e the model. The cross v a l i d a t i o n of the model was done i n the f o l l o w i n g way. For the p i l o t sample a r e g u l a r r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s was performed:and the r e g r e s s i o n equation using the standardized path c o e f f i c i e n t s was generated. The above equation was then a p p l i e d to the c a u s a l p r e d i c t o r s of the v a l i d a t i o n sample, thus y i e l d i n g a c r i t e r i o n score f o r job involvement and e f f o r t f o r each respondent. A Pearson product moment c o r r e l a t i o n was then c a l c u l a t e d between the observed c r i t e r i o n scores and the p r e d i c t e d c r i t e r i o n scores f o r the v a l i d a t i o n sample. This c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t , i f found s i g n i f i c a n t , would e s t a b l i s h the v a l i d i t y of the c a u s a l model proposed ( K e r l i n g e r & Pedhazur, 1973). Though a m u l t i v a r i a t e model proposed i n Figure 3 was o f t e n tested by using a s e r i e s of b i v a r i a t e t e s t s (e.g., H a l l & Lawler, 1970), i t was found d e s i r a b l e to employ a s t a t i s t i c a l procedure that could be h e l p f u l i n assessing the goodness of f i t of the e n t i r e model to the data. Hence-the'procedure developed by Specht (1975) f o r the e v a l u a t i o n of a l i n e a r c a u s a l model as a whole by computing the g e n e r a l i z e d m u l t i p l e c o r r e l a t i o n was used i n t h i s study. Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 d e a l t w i t h a s s o c i a t i o n s between p a i r s of v a r i a b l e s . S t r i c t l y speaking, the measures of the dependent v a r i a b l e s , namely job involvement and e f f o r t , have to be t r e a t e d as o r d i n a l v a r i a b l e s . However they are o f t e n t r e a t e d as i n t e r v a l v a r i a b l e s because when one moves to use scores based on a number of items, the assumptions of normality become l e s s of an i s s u e . This i s because of the r e s u l t i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n s 92 (Borgatta, 1968, p. 34). Further, g e n e r a l l y speaking, v i o l a t i o n s of assumptions of nor m a l i t y w i t h the product^moment c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t tend to cause underestimation of r e l a t i o n s h i p which i n the present case i s l e s s harmful. Hence Pearson product moment c o r r e l a t i o n s and the F-t e s t of independence were used to t e s t the hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p s and t h e i r s t r e n g t h . Hypotheses 6, 7, 8, and 9 suggested p o s s i b l e moderating e f f e c t s on the proposed l i n k a g e shown i n Figure 3. The mode of t e s t i n g to detect such moderating e f f e c t s would be the subgroup a n a l y t i c a l s t r a t e g y that had been r e c e n t l y used f o r that purpose ( B r i e f & Aldag, 1975; Stone, 1976; Stone, Mowday & P o r t e r , 1977). The t - s t a t i s t i c (one t a i l e d ) was computed between corresponding path c o e f f i c i e n t s i n each l i n k a g e f o r each subgroup and i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e assessed as a means of t e s t i n g the above hypotheses,: (see Appendix 2 ) . 93 CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS In t h i s chapter a l l the f i n d i n g s r e l e v a n t to t h i s study are presented. The f i r s t s e c t i o n explores the psychometric p r o p e r t i e s of the sc a l e s as found i n the present study. The second s e c t i o n deals w i t h t e s t i n g of the hypotheses developed i n Chapter 3. The f i n a l s e c t i o n suggests r e v i s i o n s to the model presented i n Figure 3 based on the f i n d i n g s . 5.1 Psychometric P r o p e r t i e s of the Scales .Though the s c a l e s used i n t h i s study were standardized p r e v i o u s l y , i t had been decided to re-examine t h e i r psychometric p r o p e r t i e s i n the con- t e x t of the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The d i s c u s s i o n w i l l f o l l o w the order i n which the s c a l e s were presented i n Chapter 4. 5.1.1 Need f o r Achievement• Since the i n t e r n a l consistency r e l i a b i l i t y reported f o r the riAch s c a l e was r a t h e r low (.44), i t was decided to improve the s c a l e p r o p e r t i e s through an item a n a l y s i s . A Sheffe t e s t comparing the mean scores on need f o r achievement f o r the p i l o t and v a l i d a t i o n sample revealed that the sub- sets were homogeneous. Hence the samples were combined and a p r i n c i p a l component a n a l y s i s was performed on the f i f t e e n items. A s i x item subscale was developed on the b a s i s of t h e i r loadings ( $-.40) on the p r i n c i p a l f a c t o r . Items 1, 4, 5, 10, 11 and 12 from the o r i g i n a l s c a l e were s e l e c t e d s i n c e they a l s o e x h i b i t e d the highest commonalities (5^.32). The eigenvalue- obtained f o r the p r i n c i p a l f a c t o r was 1.95 and the eigenvalue f o r the second f a c t o r was only .67. The p r i n c i p a l f a c t o r explained 46.1% of the common var i a n c e . An i n t e r n a l consistency check using the Cronbach & showed a s i z e a b l e improvement from .44 to .60. Hence the short form was chosen f o r 94 subsequent a n a l y s i s . The i n t e r n a l consistency r e l i a b i l i t y of the above s c a l e f o r the p i l o t and v a l i d a t i o n samples .was found to be .56 and .61 r e s p e c t i v e l y (Table 4) . 5.1.2 Locus of C o n t r o l : The i n t e r n a l consistency r e l i a b i l i t y of the 10-item Locus of C o n t r o l s c a l e f o r the p i l o t and v a l i d a t i o n samples was. found to be .73 and .69 r e s p e c t i v e l y (Table 4). 5.1.3 Job Scope: The i n t e r n a l consistency r e l i a b i l i t y f o r the 14-item Job Scope s c a l e f o r the p i l o t and v a l i d a t i o n samples .was. found to be .79 and .78 r e s p e c t i v e l y (Table 4). 5.1.4 P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n D e c i s i o n Making: The i n t e r n a l consistency r e l i a b i l i t y f o r the 5-item P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n D e c i s i o n Making s c a l e f o r the p i l o t and v a l i d a t i o n samples was; found to be .85 and .83 r e s p e c t i v e l y ..(Table 4 ) . 5.1.5 Leadership: The i n t e r n a l consistency r e l i a b i l i t y f o r the 10-item LBDQ form X I I r e v i s e d , f o r the p i l o t sample was found to be .83 f o r i n i t i a t i n g s t r u c - ture and .82 f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n w h i l e f o r the v a l i d a t i o n sample i t .was .79 f o r both i n i t i a t i n g s t r u c t u r e and c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Two separate instruments were used to measure each of the two c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e s , job involvement and e f f o r t . 5.1.6 Job Involvement Job involvement was measured by the 6-item short v e r s i o n of the Lodahl and Kejner Scale ( c a l l e d job involvement 1) and the 8-item Faunce 95 T a b l e 4 I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i x o f Dependent and I ndependen t V a r i a b l e s V a r i a b l e s 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 D e c i m a l s a r e o m i t t e d I n t h e c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i x . The numbers i n the t o p t r i a n g l e r e p r e s e n t . p i l o t d a t a H = 139 The numbers i n the bo t tom t r i a n g l e r e p r e s e n t v a l i d a t i o n d a t a N = 169 D i a g o n a l e l e m e n t s r e p r e s e n t i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y r e l i a b i l i t y e s t i m a t e s . . F o r t h e d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s and r e l i a b i l i t y e s t i m a t e s t h e numbers a t the top r e p r e s e n t t he p i l o t d a t a and the nunibers a t the bottom r e p r e s e n t v a l i d a t i o n d a t a . .14 1 r 1 .20 .05 > P >.01 .20  < r < .25 .01 > p >.001 96 Occupational Involvement Index ( c a l l e d Job Involvement 2). The i n t e r n a l consistency r e l i a b i l i t y (Table 5) f o r job involvement 1 f o r p i l o t and v a l i d - a t i o n samples was; found to be .82 and .76 r e s p e c t i v e l y . For job involvement 2 the i n t e r n a l consistency r e l i a b i l i t y f o r the p i l o t and v a l i d a t i o n samples was- found to be .67 and .69 r e s p e c t i v e l y . 5.1.7 E f f o r t E f f o r t was measured by the 4-item Patchen Job M o t i v a t i o n s c a l e ( c a l l e d e f f o r t 1) and the 17-item Landy and Guion E f f o r t s c a l e ( c a l l e d e f f o r t 2). The i n t e r n a l consistency r e l i a b i l i t y (Table 5) f o r e f f o r t 1 f o r p i l o t and v a l i d a t i o n data '.was- found to be .69 and .61 r e s p e c t i v e l y . For e f f o r t 2 the i n t e r n a l consistency r e l i a b i l i t y f o r the p i l o t and v a l i d a t i o n data was:, found to be .71 and .74 r e s p e c t i v e l y . On the ba s i s of the r e l i a b i l i t i e s (Chronbach d ) reported above, one could conclude that the i n t e r n a l consistency of the s c a l e s used i n t h i s research appeared to be s a t i s f a c t o r y (Nunnally, 1978, p. 245). 5.1.8 Convergent and Di s c r i m i n a n t V a l i d a t i o n For the c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e s , job involvement and e f f o r t , i n a d d i t i o n to the r e l i a b i l i t i e s mentioned above, an attempt was made to .. e s t a b l i s h convergent and d i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d i t y using the m u l t i t r a i t - m u l t i m e t h o d technique developed by Campbell and F i s k e (1959). Convergent v a l i d i t y i s e s t a b l i s h e d when t r a i t s measured by one method are s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the c r i t e r i o n . In the present case, the c r i t e r i o n i s the same v a r i a b l e measured by another method. The r e s u l t s shown i n Table 5 found t h i s to be so. Job involvement 1 c o r r e l a t e s .69 and .61 (p «.001) w i t h job involvement 2 f o r the;.pilot and v a l i d a t i o n samples r e s p e c t i v e l y . E f f o r t 1 c o r r e l a t e d at .44 and .57 (p£.001) w i t h E f f o r t 2 f o r the p i l o t and v a l i a t i o n samples r e s p e c t i v e l y . To e s t a b l i s h d i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d i t y , three comparisons of c o r r e l a t i o n s Table 5 Multlscale Multimethod Matrix for Convergent and Discriminant Validity and Reliability M E T H O D 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 • 8 2 ^ \ ^ 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. Al l correlations significant at .001 level of significance. . Decimals are omitted in the correlation matrix. I ' . • 98 are proposed (Althauser & H e b e r l e i n , 1970). F i r s t , one d e s i r e s a higher cor- r e l a t i o n between measures of thersame concept using d i f f e r e n t methods than the c o r r e l a t i o n between measures of d i f f e r e n t concepts using d i f f e r e n t methods. In the case of job involvement the above c o n d i t i o n was s a t i s f i e d (.69 >.41 & .52 f o r the p i l o t sample, .61 >„.37 & .42 f o r the v a l i d a t i o n sample). However, f o r the e f f o r t s c a l e i t was met only f o r the v a l i d a t i o n sample (.44 }!.52 f o r the p i l o t sample, .57 > .42 f o r the v a l i d a t i o n sample). Second, d i f f e r e n t concepts measuredoby the same method should not c o r r e l a t e more h i g h l y than do measures of the same concept using d i f f e r e n t methods. This was found to be true i n the case of job involvement f o r both samples and f o r both methods (Method 1: .56 .69 f o r the p i l o t sample and .51 \ .61 f o r the v a l i d a t i o n sample, Method 2: .46 ^ .69 f o r the p i l o t sample and .27 4 -61 f o r the v a l i d a t i o n sample). However, f o r the e f f o r t s c a l e the above c r i t e r i o n was met only f o r the v a l i d a t i o n sample (Method 1: .56 > .44 f o r the p i l o t sample and .51 } .57 f o r the v a l i d a t i o n sample, 'Method 2: .46 > .44 f o r the p i l o t sample and .27 } .57 f o r the v a l i d a t i o n sample). T h i r d , regardless of the methods used, the same p a t t e r n of o f f - d i a g o n a l c o r r e l a t i o n s should h o l d . This would r e f l e c t an und e r l y i n g m a t r i x of subs t a n t i v e or true c o r r e l a t i o n s between concepts that i s maintained i n s p i t e of p o s s i b l e methods e'f'fFec'.t'.c.'.An observation of Table 5 revealed t h i s to be t r u e . Based on the above evidence, i t can be concluded that the requirements f o r convergent and d i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d i t y of the c r i t e r i o n s c a l e s were s u b s t a n t i a l l y f u l f i l l e d . 5.2 .'.Tests of Model and Hypotheses The o p e r a t i o n a l model proposed that need f o r achievement, locus of c o n t r o l ( I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e f a c t o r s ) , job scope and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making ( s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s ) i n f l u e n c e d job involvement which i n tur n i n f l u e n c e d job r e l a t e d e f f o r t . A diagrammatic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the above p r o p o s i t i o n was presented i n Figure 3. As mentioned e a r l i e r , path a n a l y s i s was chosen to t e s t the c a u s a l i t y i m p l i e d i n t h i s model. The 99 r e s u l t s of the path a n a l y s i s can be seen i n Figures 4 and 5. An a l e v e l of .05 was chosen f o r the t e s t i n g of the path a n a l y t i c model as i t was f e l t , given the nature of the problem, i t would be l e s s d e s i r a b l e to r i s k r e j e c t i o n of the n u l l hypothesis when i t was a c t u a l l y t r u e . . As pointed out i n Chapter 4, the model was tes t e d on two sets of data i n order to study the p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s more thoroughly. For the p i l o t sample, i t has been observed that both locus of c o n t r o l and job scope followed the p r e d i c t e d causal path. In other words, they both had a d i r e c t e f f e c t on job involvement w h i l e t h e i r impact on e f f o r t was only i n d i r e c t . This observation was supported by the f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s : 1. The path c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r locus of c o n t r o l and,job scope toward job involvement were found to be s i g n i f i c a n t (.20 & .44 p ^ .05); 2. they showed s i g n i f i c a n t zero order c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h job involvement (.32 & .44); 3. t h e i r path c o e f f i c i e n t s toward e f f o r t were n o n s i g n i f i c a n t (.09 & .01). The above f i n d i n g s taken together w i t h the f a c t that both locus of c o n t r o l and job scope e x h i b i t e d s i g n i f i c a n t zero order c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h e f f o r t (.33 & .43) suggested that t h e i r a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h e f f o r t was p r i m a r i l y through job i n - volvement. On the other hand, need f o r achievement showed s i g n i f i c a n t d i r e c t e f f e c t s on both job involvement and e f f o r t as evidenced by the s i g n i f i c a n t path c o e f f i c i e n t s and zero order c o r r e l a t i o n s toward both (3 = .31, r = .27, p < .05 f o r job involvement and 3 = .31, r . 47, p < .05 f o r e f f o r t . ) P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making appeared to i n f l u e n c e e f f o r t d i r e c t l y r a t h e r than through job involvement (B = .14; not s i g n i f i c a n t f o r job involvement and (3 = .20; p ^_ .05 f o r effort".) Job involvement had a s i g n i f i c a n t impact on e f f o r t , as suggested by the model. The goodness of f i t of the e n t i r e c a u s a l model as given by the genera l i z e d m u l t i p l e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t (Specht, 1975) was .64 (p ^..001). The v a l i d a t i o n sample al s o s u b s t a n t i a t e d the above observa- t i o n s though the path c o e f f i c i e n t s were somewhat d i f f e r e n t . The d e t a i l e d r e s u l t s areopresented i n Figures 4 and 5. The goodness of f i t of the F i g u r e 4 Need f o r A c h i e v e m e n t L o c u s o f C o n t r o l J o b Scope I P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n D e c i s i o n Mak ing P a t h A n a l y s i s P i l o t Da ta N = 139 16(< 05) ( 2 7 ) * 20( <05) (32) M u l t i p l e R = 52 M u l t i p l e R 2 = 27 A d j u s t e d R 2 = 24 4 4 ( < 0 5 ) (44) 14 (ns ) (26) 31(< 05) (47) "1 J o b I nvo l vement 0 9 ( n s ) (33) 40(< 05) (56) 1 _ L _ L E f f o r t 0 1 ( n s ) (43) M u l t i p l e R = 70 M u l t i p l e R 2 = 48 A d j u s t e d R 2 = 46 20 ( <05) (41) i *The numbers r e p r e s e n t the f o l l o w i n g i n the o r d e r g i v e n below : P a t h c o e f f i c i e n t ( s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l o f p a t h c o e f f i c i e n t ) ( ze ro o r d e r c o r r e l a t D e c i m a l s a r e o m i t t e d . Ave rage i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n among i ndependen t v a r i a b l e s = . 30 . i o n ) . O O F i g u r e 5 Need f o r Ach ievement L o c u s o f C o n t r o l Job Scope | P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n D e c i s i o n Mak ing P a t h A n a l y s i s - V a l i d a t i o n Da ta N = 169 30(< 05) ( 3 6 ) * 18(< 05) (35) 14 (< 05) (31) M u l t i p l e R = 48 M u l t i p l e R 2 = 23 A d j u s t e d R 2 = 21 0 5 ( n s ) (20) Job I n v o l v e m e n t 16(06) (25) 12(ns ) (20) 31 ( 1 05) (43) M u l t i p l e R = 64 M u l t i p l e R 2 = 41 2 A d j u s t e d R = 40 30(< 05) (49) ~1 *The numbers r e p r e s e n t the f o l l o w i n g i n the o r d e r g i v e n be l ow: P a t h c o e f f i c i e n t ( s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l o f pa th c o e f f i c i e n t ) ( ze ro o r d e r c o r r e l a t i o n ) . D e c i m a l s a r e o m i t t e d . A v e r a g e i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n among i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s = . 2 5 . 102 v a l i d a t i o n ; model as given' by the generalized' i n u l t i p l e c o r r e l a t i o n : , c o e f f i c i e n t was .69 (p < .001). For the p i l o t sample, 27% of the v a r i a n c e i n job involvement was explained by t h e ; p r e d i c t o r s i n the proposed model wh i l e i t was 48% f o r e f f o r t . I n the case of the v a l i d a t i o n model 23% of the variance i n job involvement was explained by the p r e d i c t o r s w h i l e f o r e f f o r t i t was 41%. In a f u r t h e r attempt to cross v a l i d a t e the model shown i n Figure 3, the r e g r e s s i o n equation from the p i l o t sample was a p p l i e d to the p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e s of the v a l i d a t i o n sample. A Pearson product moment c o r r e l a t i o n was computed between the observed c r i t e r i o n scores i n the v a l i d a t i o n sample and the p r e d i c t e d c r i t e r i o n scores. The c o r r e l a t i o n value served as the v a l i d i t y measure between the samples. For job involvement i t was found to be .33 (p < .001) w h i l e f o r e f f o r t i t was .62 (p < .001). In s p i t e of the above r e s u l t s , i t was f e l t that the proposed model was supported only i n p a r t , due to the d i r e c t e f f e c t s that both need f o r achievement and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making had on e f f o r t and the absence of a d i r e c t causal l i n k between p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making and job involvement. Hypotheses 1 and 2 d e a l t w i t h the impact of p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s on job involvement. The proposed p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between: .need f o r achievement and job involvement was supported f o r both p i l o t and v a l i d a t i o n samples by s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s between the two v a r i a b l e s (Table 4 ) . The above r e s u l t s suggested that those who possessed a high need f o r .?. achievement were l i k e l y to perceive 'themselves as h i g h l y i n v o l v e d i n t h e i r j o b . Hypothesis 2 proposed a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n t e r n a l i t y of locus of c o n t r o l and job involvement. The c o r r e l a t i o n s shown i n Table 4 supported the hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r both p i l o t and v a l i d a t i o n samples. The impact of t h i s f i n d i n g would be that people who saw themselves as s e l f motivated, d i r e c t e d or c o n t r o l l e d (Valecha, 1972) experienced greater 103 involvement i n t h e i r j obs. Hypotheses 3 and 4 p o s i t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s between s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s and job involvement. The hypothesized p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between job scope and job involvement i n hypothesis 3 was s t r o n g l y supported f o r both p i l o t and v a l i d a t i o n samples as can be seen from Table 4 . I t suggested that people who f e l t t h e i r jobs to have a wider scope a l s o found themselves h i g h l y i n v o l v e d i n t h e i r j o b s . Hypothesis 4 p o s t u l a t e d a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making and job involvement. The correlation::obtained was i n the p r e d i c t e d d i r e c t i o n and s i g n i f i c a n t f o r both p i l o t and v a l i d a t i o n samples (Table 4 ) . However, they were weaker than a l l the previous cases. This r e l a t i o n s h i p pointed out that those who had an opportunity to p a r t i c i p a t e i n making d e c i s i o n s w i t h respect to t h e i r jobs a l s o e x h i b i t e d a tendency to be more i n v o l v e d i n t h e i r j obs. Hypothesis 5,'suggesting a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between job involvement and e f f o r t , was s t r o n g l y supported given the s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between the two v a r i a b l e s f o r both p i l o t and v a l i d a t i o n samples as shown i n Table 4 . The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that people who perceive them- selv e s as h i g h l y job i n v o l v e d were a l s o l i k e l y to see themselves as p u t t i n g more e f f o r t i n t o t h e i r j obs. Hypotheses 6 through 9 considered the moderating e f f e c t s of age, sex, education and l e a d e r s h i p on the proposed cau s a l l i n k a g e o u t l i n e d i n Figure 3 . As mentioned e a r l i e r , subgroup a n a l y t i c a l s t r a t e g y was employed to t e s t the above hypotheses. The p i l o t sample was d i v i d e d at the median f o r each moderator v a r i a b l e and a separate path a n a l y s i s was performed on each subgroup. The path c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r each l i n k a g e were then compared by means of a one t a i l e d t - t e s t ̂ (Append'ix- 2)y - The= proc-edure was. repeated : f o r t h e . v a l i d a t i o n i s a m p l e " i n order to verbify the result's -obtsihed f o r the p i l o t sample. 1 0 4 Hypothesis 6 s t a t e d that the c a u s a l l i n k a g e o u t l i n e d i n Figure 3 would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y stronger f o r older workers than;younger workers. The path model w i t h age as moderator f o r the p i l o t data can be seen i n Figure 6 and f o r the v a l i d a t i o n data i n Figure 7. None of the l i n k a g e s showed s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the subgroups i n t h e i r path c o e f f i c i e n t s based on the t - s t a t i s t i c f o r e i t h e r of the two samples. Hence, the above hypothesis was r e j e c t e d . In:.other words, age was not found to moderate the proposed causal model. Hypothesis 7 suggested that the c a u s a l l i n k a g e shown i n Figure 3 should be s i g n i f i c a n t l y stronger f o r males than females. The path model w i t h sex as a moderator f o r the p i l o t sample was shown i n Figure 8 and f o r the v a l i d a t i o n sample i n Figure 9. Again, none of the l i n k a g e s i n d i c a t e d any s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the path c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r the subgroups as found by the t - s t a t i s t i c i n e i t h e r of the two samples. Hence, the hypo- t h e s i s was r e j e c t e d and i t was concluded that sex d i d not p l a y a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e as moderator i n the hypothesized causal l i n k a g e . I t was p o s t u l a t e d i n hypothesis 8 that the c a u s a l l i n k a g e presented i n Figure 3 would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y stronger f o r the more educated i n d i v i d u a l s compared to the l e s s educated ones. The path model w i t h education as a moderator i s presented i n Figure 10 f o r the p i l o t sample and i n Figure 11 f o r the v a l i d a t i o n sample. As before, none of the l i n k a g e s showed s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e path c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r the subgroups as given by the t - s t a t i s t i c . The p a t t e r n was c o n s i s t e n t f o r both samples. Therefore the n u l l hypothesis could not be r e j e c t e d . Education f a i l e d to play an important r o l e as a moderator i n the proposed causal l i n k a g e . Hypothesis 9 p o s i t e d that the c a u s a l l i n k a g e i n Figure 3 would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y stronger f o r a l e a d e r s h i p c l i m a t e high on c o n s i d e r a t i o n and F i g u r e 6 Subgroup P a t h A n a l y s i s P i l o t Data Modera ted by Age Need f o r 22(_< 05) (26)* 2 9 ( 1 05) (44) Ach ievement 13(ns) (25) 3 9 ( 1 05) (52) L o c u s o f 22(_< 05) (32) 09(ns) (30) C o n t r o l 13(ns) (23) } • 01(ns) (21) Job I nvo l vement 37(<05) (55) 4 0 ( 1 05) (52) ' J o b Scope 5 4 ( 1 05) (49) i 09(ns) (42) 33(06) (34) 04(ns) (35) . P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n 17(ns) (30) 39 ( £ 0 5 ) (51) D e c i s i o n Ma k i n g 12(ns) (17) "bl (M)~25T ~ *The numbers r e p r e s e n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i n the o r d e r g i v e n be l ow: 1 i__L E f f o r t T P a t h c o e f f i c i e n t ( s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l o f p a t h c o e f f i c i e n t ) ( zero o r d e r c o r r e l a t i o n ) . D e c i m a l s a r e o m i t t e d . F i g u r e a t t h e t op shows younger worke r s N = 66 F i g u r e a t the bo t tom shows o l d e r worker s N = 61 Med ian Age = 32,. F i g u r e 7 Subgroup P a t h A n a l y s i s V a l i d a t i o n Data Modera ted by Age Need f o r Ach ievement L o c u s o f C o n t r o l P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n D e c i s i o n Mak ing 3 2 ( 1 05) ( 3 6 ) * 2 3 ( 1 05) (32) 2 2 ( 1 05) (31) 0 6 ( n s ) (17) 2 7 ( 1 _ 0 5 ) _ ( 3 5 ) _ 0 9 ( n s ) (30) 1 Job I n vo l vement J o b Scope 18 (ns ) (25) 1 13 (ns) (29) 0 6 ( n s ) (20) 01 (ns ) (20)_ 0 8 ( n s ) (22) 24(< 05) (43) 1 3 7 ( 1 05) (50) 10 (ns ) (37) 06 (n s ) (34) J _ _ L E f f o r t 17 (ns ) (31) J. '_39<105) (*9) 24 (< 05) (43) *T!ie numbers r e p r e s e n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i n t h e o r d e r g i v e n be low; Pa th c o e f f i c i e n t ( s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l o f p a t h c o e f f i c i e n t ) ( ze ro o r d e r c o r r e l a t i o n ) . Dec ima l s a r e omi t ted, , F i g u r e a t t h e t op shows younge r w o r k e r s N>= 77 F i g u r e a t the bo t tom shows o l d e r w o r k e r s N = 86 Median Age = 3 2 F i g u r e 8 P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n D e c i s i o n Making Subgroup P a t h A n a l y s i s P i l o t Da ta Moderated by Sex Need f o r 25(< 05) ( 3 2 ) * 35(< 05) (54) A c h i e v e m e n t 01 (n s ) (13) 27(06) (36) L o c u s o f 20(< 05) (30) 04(ris) (26) C o n t r o l 17 (ns ) (19) 14(ns ) (36) > 1 1 J o b I n v o l v e m e n t J o b Scope 38 (< 05) (39) 4 5 ( 1 05) (43) 19(ns ) (18) 35(< 05) (55) 5 3 ( 1 05) (57) 12(ns ) (47) 22(ns ) (23) E f f o r t T 17_(ns) (42) 23(ns ) ( 3 2 ~ I 0 5 ( n s ) (30) *The numbers r e p r e s e n t the f o l l o w i n g i n the o r d e r g i v e n b e l o w : P a t h c o e f f i c i e n t ( s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l o f p a t h c o e f f i c i e n t ) ( z e r o o r d e r c o r r e l a t i o n ) . D e c i m a l s a r e omit t .ed. F i g u r e a t t h e top shows male N = 89 F i g u r e a t the bot tom shows f e m a l e N = 37 ! Figure 9 Job Scope P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n 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 F i g u r e 10 Subgroup P a t h A n a l y s i s P i l o t D a t a Modera ted by E d u c a t i o n Need f o r 1 0 ( n s ) ( 2 2 ) * 34(< _0_5)_(5_0) 1 1 1 A c h i e v e m e n t 3 3 ( £ 0 5 ) (35) 27 (< 05) (45) 1 L o c u s o f C o n t r o l 0 2 ( n s ) (25) .06(ns ) (34) 1 , 1 4 2 ( 1 05) (42) • 11 (n s ) (31) \ \ J o b Tnwftlupmpn t. 38(1 05) (57) E f f o r t 41(< 0 5 > <5 6> > r \ J o b Scope 5 8 ( < 05) (56) 0 8 ( n s ) (50) _ - i i 19 (n s ) (24) 0 9 ( n s ) (33) i • i i i P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n 0 7 ( n s ) (32) 1 7 ( n s ) (45) i i j D e c i s i o n Mak ing 1 7 ( n s ) (12) 30 (n s ) (35) *The numbers r e p r e s e n t t h e f o l l o w i n g l h t h e o r d e r g i v e n be low: P a t h c o e f f i c i e n t . ( s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l o f p a t h c o e f f i c i e n t ) ( z e r o o r d e r c o r r e l a t i o n ) • D e c i m a l s a r e o m i t t e d , _ • . F i g u r e a t t h e top shows low e d u c a t i o n - some c o l l e g e and be low N = 69 F i g u r e a t the b o t t o m shows, h i g h e d u c a t i o n c o l l e g e d e g r e e and above . N = 55 O in F i g u r e 11 Need f o r A c h i e v e m e n t L o c u s o f C o n t r o l Job Scope P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n D e c i s i o n Mak ing Subgroup P a t h A n a l y s i s V a l i d a t i o n D a t a Modera ted by E d u c a t i o n 34(< 05) ( 3 5 ) * 2 5 ( 1 05) (38) 11(ns ) (14) 20(06) (38) 19 (ns ) (26) 13 (ns ) (34) 11 (ns ) (24) l l ( n s ) (31) J o b I n v o l v e m e n t J25(<J!)5) (37) 13 (ns ) (36) 02 (ns) (10) 0 9 ( n s ) "(40)" 30 (< 05) (48) 1 3 1 ( 1 05) (52) 20(ns ) (36) 02 (n s ) (42) ^ 5 J n s ) _ ( 3 5 ) _ 42(< 05) (58) L_i E f f o r t *Ihe numbers r e p r e s e n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i n t h e o r d e r g i v e n be low ; . . Pa th c o e f f i c i e n t ( s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l o f p a t h c o e f f i c i e n t ) ( z e r o o r d e r c o r r e l a t i o n ) . D e c i m a l s a r e o m i t t e d . F i g u r e a t t h e top shows Low E d u c a t i o n some c o l l e g e and be low N = 75 F i g u r e a t the bo t tom shows H igh E d u c a t i o n C o l l e g e d e g r e e and above N = 88 I l l i n i t i a t i n g s t r u c t u r e than the one that i s low on both. The path diagrams p e r t a i n i n g to the above hypothesis are given i n Figure 12 f o r the p i l o t sample and i n Figure 13 f o r the v a l i d a t i o n sample. Here a l s o i t was found that none of the path c o e f f i c i e n t s between subgroups f o r corresponding l i n k a g e s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from each other as demonstrated by the t - s t a t i s t i c . I t was true f o r both samples. Hence, the hypothesis was r e j e c t e d and i t " was decided that l e a d e r s h i p was not an appropriate moderator of the proposed causal l i n k a g e . In summary, i t was observed that though the model shown i n Figure 3 could be accepted i n p a r t , the discrepanciesbbetweentthe above model and the e m p i r i c a l r e s u l t s suggested c e r t a i n r e v i s i o n s to the o r i g i n a l model (pp 101). These r e v i s i o n s w i l l be undertaken i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n . A l l of the L I b i v a r i a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s p o s t u l a t e d i n hypotheses 1 through 5, were i n the suggested d i r e c t i o n and of s i g n i f i c a n t magnitude. Hence, i n a l l these cases the n u l l hypotheses were r e j e c t e d . With regard to hypotheses 6 through 9 d e a l i n g w i t h moderator e f f e c t s of age, sex, education and l e a d e r - s h i p on the o r i g i n a l causal model shown i n Figure 3, none were supported by the r e s u l t s . Hence the n u l l hypotheses p e r t a i n i n g to these r e l a t i o n - ships could not be r e j e c t e d . 5.3 R e v i s i o n of the O r i g i n a l Model; As s t a t e d e a r l i e r , the e m p i r i c a l f i n d i n g s pointed out c e r t a i n d i s c r e p a n c i e s i n the causal model o r i g i n a l l y proposed. Hence a r e v i s i o n of the t h e o r e t i c a l model based on the r e s u l t s obtained i n t h i s study was f e l t to be necessary. An attempt i s madeiin t h i s s e c t i o n to develop a model co n s i s t e n t w i t h the f i n d i n g s . Subsequent t e s t i n g of i t i s a l s o done i n order to enhance the value of the e x e r c i s e . I t was noted from Figures 4 and 5 that need f o r achievement, besides i t s d i r e c t causal i n f l u e n c e on job involvement, a l s o e x h i b i t e d a d i r e c t e f f e c t on e f f o r t . Such an e f f e c t was F i g u r e 12 J o b Scope P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n D e c i s i o n Mak ing Subgroup P a t h A n a l y s i s P i l o t Da ta Modera ted by L e a d e r s h i p Need f o r - 0 6 ( n s ) ( - 0 1 ) * 4 2 ( 1 05) (47) A c h i e v e m e n t 3 4 ( 1 05) (56) 0 1 ( n s ) (45) L o c u s o f 22(ns) (39) 0 1 ( n s ) (22) C o n t r o l 2 9 ( 1 05) (50) 1 " 16(ns ) (50) 1 1 J o b I nvo l vement 37 (< 05) (53) 32(ns) (52) 13(ns ) (46) 30(< 05) (45) 68(< 05) (76) 0 7 ( n s ) (45) 10 (ns ) (42) 25(ns ) (52) E f f o r t T _ . j 04 (ns) (29) 17 (ns ) (33) rtThe numbers r e p r e s e n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i n the o r d e r g i v e n be l ow: Pa th c o e f f i c i e n t ( s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l o f p a t h c o e f f i c i e n t ) ( z e r o o r d e r c o r r e l a t i o n ) . D e c i m a l s a r e o m i t t e d „ F i g u r e a t the t op shows h i g h c o n s i d e r a t i o n & h i g h s t r u c t u r e N = 47 F i g u r e a t the bo t tom shows low c o n s i d e r a t i o n & low s t r u c t u r e N = 36 Median c o n s i d e r a t i o n = 11.778 Med ian s t r u c t u r e = 1 1 „ 8 8 5 F i g u r e 13 Need f o r A c h i e v e m e n t L o c u s o f C o n t r o l J o b Scope P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n D e c i s i o n Mak ing Subgroup P a t h A n a l y s i s V a l i d a t i o n Data Modera ted by L e a d e r s h i p 2 8 ( £ 05) ( 3 3 ) * 31(< 05) (37) 20(na) (34) l l ( n s ) (14) 18(ns) (46) 15(ns ) (06) 25(ns ) (47) J o b I n v o l v e m e n t J)l(ns)_(16)_ 2 7 ( < 0 5 ) (41) ^ 2 0ns)_(31)_ 0 6 ( n s ) (02) 2 8 ( < 0 5 ) (56) 3 5 ( f 05) (47) 20 (n s ) (61) 0 5 ( n s ) (04) 40(< 05) (67) "ll(nsT (23 ) ~ " 32(< 05) (30) *l 'he numbers r e p r e s e n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i n t h e o r d e r g i v e n below.: P a t h c o e f f i c i e n t ( s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l o f p a t h c o e f f i c i e n t ) ( z e r o o r d e r c o r r e l a t i o n ) . Dec ima l s a r e o m i t t e d . • F i g u r e a t the top shows H i gh C o n s i d e r a t i o n H i gh S t r u c t u r e N = 49 F i g u r e a t the bot tom shows L o w C o n s i d e r a t i o n Low S t r u c t u r e N = 55 Med ian C o n s i d e r a t i o n = 12.250 Med ian S t r u c t u r e = 12.067 Y 114 hot proposed i n the o r i g i n a l model. In a d d i t i o n , i t was observed that the proposed c a u s a l l i n k between p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making and job involvement d i d not h o l d . On the c o n t r a r y , p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making had a d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p . w i t h e f f o r t . F u r t h e r , p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making was a l s o c o r r e l a t e d w i t h job scope q u i t e s t r o n g l y (Table 4) r a i s i n g doubts about m u l t i c o l l i n e a r i t y . In order to accommodate the nature of the observed r e l a t i o n s h i p between p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making and e f f o r t c o n one hand and to minimize the spectre of m u l t i c o l l i n e a r i t y on the other (Werts & L i n n , 1970) the o r i g i n a l model was r e v i s e d as shown i n Figure 14. The above attempt depressed the average i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n among the independent v a r i a b l e s (r = .21) s u b s t a n t i a l l y . In f a c t , as can be seen from Figure 14, i t was lower than each of the zero order c o r r e l a t i o n s between p r e d i c t o r s and c r i t e r i a . As be f o r e , a cross v a l i d a t i o n was performed by applying the r e g r e s s i o n equation generated from the p i l o t sample on the v a l i d a t i o n sample. The c o r r e l a t i o n between the observed job involvement score i n the v a l i d a t i o n sample and the p r e d i c t e d score was found to be i.34 (p < .001) and f o r e f f o r t i t was .62 2 (p < .001). Since the shrinkage of R was found to be small (.03 f o r job involvement and .06 f o r e f f o r t ) i t was decided to combine the two samples as suggested by K e r l i n g e r and Pedhazur (1973, p. 284). The path c o e f f i c i e n t s shown i n Figure 14 seem to support the r e v i s e d model. In order to t e s t the goodness of f i t of the e n t i r e causal model,xthe .generalized m u l t i p l e c o r r e l a t i o n was computed (.67, p < .001) (Specht, 1975). Jermier and Schriesheim (1978) r e c e n t l y suggested that when there i s doubt regarding the causal p r i o r i t i e s among a set of v a r i a b l e s , i t i s necessary to s p e c i f y a l t e r n a t e models so as to f a c i l i t a t e comparison of the r e l a t i v e v i a b i l i t y of each. However, i t i s important that these a l t e r n a t e models have sound t h e o r e t i c a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n . Since the c a u s a l ordering proposed i n t h i s study i s debatable, two a d d i t i o n a l models are developed, F i g u r e 14 F i n a l R e v i s e d P a t h Mode l T o t a l Sample N = 294 Need f o r Ach ievement L o c u s o f C o n t r o l Job Scope | P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n D e c i s i o n Making 23(< 05) ( 3 2 ) * 24(< 05) (41) 1 9 ( 1 05) (30) M u l t i p l e R = 47 M u l t i p l e R 2 = 22 A d j u s t e d R 2 = 22 2 7 ( 1 05) (36) J o b I n v o l v e m e n t 37(< 05) (53) M u l t i p l e R = 66 M u l t i p l e R 2 = 43 A d j u s t e d R 2 = 43 30(< 05) (45) E f f o r t *The numbers r e p r e s e n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i n t h e o r d e r g i v e n b e l o w ; Pa th c o e f f i c i e n t ( s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l o f p a t h c o e f f i c i e n t ) ( z e r o o r d e r c o r r e l a t i o n ) . Dec ima l s a r e o m i t t e d . Average i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n among i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s ! = , 2 1 . 116 t e s t e d and the r e l a t i v e v i a b i l i t y of the three models are compared. An argument based on s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n theory would suggest that workers who put a l o t of e f f o r t i n t o t h e i r jobs are l i k e l y to r e p o r t higher job involvement because they observe how hard they do i n f a c t work. A model based on the above pe r s p e c t i v e would have e f f o r t i n f l u e n c i n g job involvement in s t e a d of the reverse-as o r i g i n a l l y proposed. When t h i s model was t e s t e d , i t was observed that the t o t a l c r i t e r i o n variance ex- p l a i n e d was 33%. The cross v a l i d a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t f o r job involvement was .24 and f o r e f f o r t .20. The goodness of f i t f o r the e n t i r e c a u s a l model was :66 (p < .001). Another p o s s i b i l i t y worth c o n s i d e r i n g i s that i n d i v i d u a l s , as a r e s u l t of t h e i r continued high e f f o r t s on the j o b , might i n c r e a s e t h e i r o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n making d e c i s i o n s . According to t h i s model, p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making becomes a consequence of e f f o r t i n s t e a d of an antecedent, as proposed i n the o r i g i n a l model. This postr:. s i b i l i t y was a l s o t e s t e d . The t o t a l c r i t e r i o n variance explained i n t h i s model was 42%. The cross v a l i d a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t f o r job involvement was .34, f o r e f f o r t : -27 ; and f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making .50. The goodness of f i t f o r the e n t i r e model was .50 (p < .001). Comparing the three a l t e r n a t e models on the b a s i s of the c r i t e r i o n v ariance e x p l a i n e d , cross v a l i d a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s and goodness of f i t , i t seems;.'that the model shown i n Figure 14 i s the most v i a b l e one. The variance explained was higher than the two l a t t e r models, though not s u b s t a n t i a l l y (43%). The cross v a l i d a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were higher i n a l l cases and the model provided a b e t t e r f i t f o r the data. Since none of the moderator r e l a t i o n s h i p s were found meaningful f o r the present study, i t was deemed unnecessary to pursue the i n v e s t i g a t i o n along t h o s e - l i n e s . 117 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The r e s u l t s of t h i s study supported the view that job involvement was a f u n c t i o n of both i n d i v i d u a l and s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s . The r e v i s e d model shown i n Figure 14 suggested that job involvement was c a u s a l l y l i n k e d to i n - d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e f a c t o r s , namely need f o r achievement and locus of c o n t r o l , as w e l l as a s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r , job scope. The n o t i o n of job involvement as a causal antecedent to e f f o r t was a l s o s u b s t a n t i a t e d by the f i n d i n g s . Contrary to previous f i n d i n g s , p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making demonstrated a d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h e f f o r t r a t h e r than through job involvement. Need f o r achievement a l s o e x h i b i t e d a d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e on e f f o r t besides;an i n d i r e c t impact through job involvement. The hypothesized moderator e f f e c t s of age, education, sex and lea d e r s h i p bh the proposed c a u s a l model were found untenable. An attempt i s made here to discus s the f i n d i n g s of the present study i n the l i g h t of previous research and t h e o r e t i c a l developments. A recent review showed that much of the work on job involvement hadibeen of b i v a r i a t e c o r r e l a t i o n a l nature and underscored the p o s s i b i l i t y of spurious r e l a t i o n s h i p s r e s u l t i n g from such s t u d i e s (Rabinowitz,& H a l l , 1977). S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t c a l l e d f o r the use of m u l t i v a r i a t e models f o r a b e t t e r understanding of job i n v o l v e - ment. I t a l s o c a l l e d f o r t h e o r e t i c a l l y a r t i c u l a t e d p r o p o s i t i o n s d e a l i n g not only w i t h the p r e d i c t o r s of job involvement but a l s o w i t h outcome v a r i a b l e s , such as e f f o r t , f o r which job involvement i t s e l f might a c t as a p r e d i c t o r . In a d d i t i o n , Rabinowitz and H a l l (1977) s t r e s s e d the need f o r more research on the j o i n t e f f e c t s of i n d i v i d u a l and s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s on job involvement. The present study was designed to provide some answers to the iss u e s r a i s e d ab ove. As mentioned e a r l i e r , there are three t h e o r e t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s on 118 job involvement that have guided much of the empirical research i n t h i s area. The f i r s t one conceives job involvement as an i n d i v i d u a l difference variable.^ which comes about as a r e s u l t of early s o c i a l i z a t i o n (Lodahl & Kejner, 1965; Runyon, 1973). The second view portrays job involvement as a function of the s i t u a t i o n where job factors influence the degree to which an employee i s involved i n h i s job (Bass, 1965; Vroom, 1962). The t h i r d p o s i t i o n sees job involvement as an i n d i v i d u a l and s i t u a t i o n a l outcome wherein changes i n job involvement are a t t r i b u t e d to both i n d i v i d u a l as well as s i t u a t i o n a l factors (Lawler & H a l l , 1970). It i s easy to see that empirical i n v e s t i g a t i o n s based upon any of the above perspectives d i f f e r e d widely i n t h e i r emphasis and choice of predictors of job involvement. However, a c a r e f u l study of the l i t e r a t u r e seems to favor the l a t t e r frame- work upon which the present study i s based, namely that- job involvement i s a function of i n d i v i d u a l and s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s . The findings of t h i s study supported the above framework. In the revised model, both the i n d i v i d u a l and s i t u a t i o n a l factors independently accounted for s i g n i f i c a n t proportions of variance i n job involvement, with no i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s among the predictors. Previous research also endorsed the above f i n d i n g (Rabinowitz, H a l l & Goodale, 1977; Ruh, White & Wood-, 1975) ..; . Focusing on s p e c i f i c aspects of the r e s u l t s , the causal connections proposed i n the o r i g i n a l model between p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making and job involvement were not supported. The findings showed that p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making was linked d i r e c t l y to e f f o r t rather than through job involvement. One explanation f o r the above discrepancy i s that p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making, being a nonattitudirial*- s cale, i s more akin to concepts such as e f f o r t and performance than to job attitudes l i k e job involvement and job s a t i s f a c t i o n . The other possible explanation i s a methodological one. I t i s not inconceivable that the above r e s u l t may have come about due .119 to the h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n between the two s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s , namely p a r t i c i - p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making and job scope. In other words, i t i s l i k e l y that owing to the high c o r r e l a t i o n between job scope and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making, the incremental variance explained by p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making i n job involvement i s minimal, e s p e c i a l l y when job scope i s a l s o one of the p r e d i c t o r s . This reasoning would lea d one to b e l i e v e that i f p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making i s s u b s t i t u t e d i n place of job scope, i t might e x p l a i n a l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n of variance i n job involvement than when i t i s i n combination w i t h job scope. Hence i t was decided to pursue t h i s matter f u r t h e r . When p a r t i c i - p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making was s u b s t i t u t e d i n place of job scope as a p r e d i c t o r of job involvement i n a r e v i s e d model, the amount of v a r i a n c e i n job i n v o l v e - ment explained by p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making was l e s s than h a l f of what was e x p l a i n e d b y job scope. In a d d i t i o n , an examination of the s c a l e items revealed a c l o s e r correspondence i n terms of a c t i o n , t a r g e t , time and context (Ajzen & F i s h b e i n , 1977) between p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making and e f f o r t than between p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making and job involvement. Based on the e m p i r i c a l evidence and the correspondence argument of Ajzen and F i s h b e i n (1977) i t i s f e l t that the former ex p l a n a t i o n i s more p l a u s i b l e . Contrary to:, the . o r i g i n a l p r e d i c t i o n , need f o r achievement showed a d i r e c t e f f e c t on e f f o r t i n a d d i t i o n to i t s i n d i r e c t impact through job involvement. Here a l s o , when one takes a c l o s e r look at the v a r i a b l e s i n question, the m o t i v a t i o n a l overtones a l l u d e d to the need f o r achievement concept are hard to ignore (e.g. Gibson, Ivancevich & Donnelly, 1976, p. 126; Robbins, 1976, p. 312). Hence the t h e o r e t i c a l p o s s i b i l i t y of i t s being " l i n k e d " to e f f o r t which o f t e n serves as a surrogate f o r m o t i v a t i o n cannot be overlooked. Another i n t e r e s t i n g observation i s the correspondence between the s c a l e items. For i n s t a n c e , a s c a l e item on the nAch instrument reads as f o l l o w s : I u s u a l l y do: a) much more than I reso l v e d to do b) a-..;, l i t t i e . more- than I r e s o l v e d to do c) a l i t t l e l e s s than I r e s o l v e d to do d) much l e s s than I resolved to do.. Another item from the e f f o r t s c a l e reads as f o l l o w s : How often do you do some e x t r a work f o r your job which i s n ' t '.' - . - r e a l l y r e q uired of you? a) almost every day b) s e v e r a l times a week c) about once a week d) once every few weeks e) about once a month or l e s s . Ajzen and F i s h b e i n (1977) advance the view that i n order to tap strong and meaningful r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n s o c i a l science research, the s c a l e s have to e x h i b i t a greater degree of correspondence among themselves w h i l e s t i l l p r e s e r v i n g t h e i r conceptual d i s t i n c t i o n s . Otherwise, one would merely be measuring the c o g n i t i v e consistency among the respondents as opposed to the true r e l a t i o n s h i p s among the c o n s t r u c t s i n question. Taking the above observation i n the context of the present research, i t becomes important to examine the s c a l e s f o r conceptual d i s t i n c t i o n s . The s c a l e items d i d r e v e a l such a d i s t i n c t i o n . F u r t h e r , the m o t i v a t i o n a l emphasis shared by the need f o r achievement concept and e f f o r t suggest that the observed r e l a t i o n s h i p i s more l i k e l y to be s u b s t a n t i v e than spurious. Hence, one can r i s k the assumptionjthat the d i r e c t e f f e c t of need f o r achievement portrayed i n the r e v i s e d model i s predicated upon t h e o r e t i c a l l y sound premises. The b i v a r i a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s proposed i n hypotheses 1 through 5 121 were a l l confirmed by the f i n d i n g s . They were al s o c o n s i s t e n t w i t h previous research (Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Lawler & H a l l , 1970; Runyon, 1973; S i e g e l and Ruh, 1973; & S t e e r s , 1975a). However, the d i s c u s s i o n concerning the d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n .? making and e f f o r t taken up p r e v i o u s l y renders the s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making and job involvement somewhat suspect. In f a c t , i t r a i s e s the p o s s i b i l i t y that the above c o r r e l a t i o n may w e l l be spurious. In other words, i t i s p o s s i b l e that the c o r r e l a t i o n between p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n , making and job involvement might be due to a t h i r d v a r i a b l e , job scope. I t was a l s o observed that the e m p i r i c a l research supporting the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making and job involvement was e s s e n t i a l l y of a b i v a r i a t e nature (Ruh, White, & Wood, 1975; S i e g e l & Ruh, 1973). The present f i n d i n g s taken together w i t h the above observation suggest more m u l t i v a r i a t e i n v e s - t i g a t i o n s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making and job involvement before anything c o n c l u s i v e can be s a i d about i t s c h a r a c t e r . Hypotheses 6 through 9 apply to the moderator e f f e c t s of age, sex, education and l e a d e r s h i p on the model proposed i n Figure 3. As s t a t e d p r e v i o u s l y , none of the above v a r i a b l e s seemed to moderate the hypothesized causal r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n any meaningful way. S i m i l a r i t y i n the p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s between the p i l o t and v a l i d a t i o n samples seemed to confirm t h i s o bservation. Several explanations can be o f f e r e d f o r the absence of moderator e f f e c t s i n the proposed model. A simple e x p l a n a t i o n would be that the proposed moderators might not e x i s t i n the p o p u l a t i o n and the true s t r u c t u r e of underlying r e l a t i o n s h i p s could be simpler than what the proposed.moderated r e l a t i o n s h i p s would have us suppose. A c o n c l u s i o n r e s u l t i n g from the above ex p l a n a t i o n would be a simple c o n f i r m a t i o n of the robustness of the proposed unmoderated model. Such an e x p l a n a t i o n a l s o has some.:support i n the 122 l i t e r a t u r e (Schmidt & Hunter, 1978). A more cautious and somewhat complex e x p l a n a t i o n would p r e d i c t that w h i l e any one moderator v a r i a b l e might not be able to produce s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s , a theory based team of mod- era t o r s taken at the l e v e l of maximal d i s c r i m i n a t i o n f o r each moderator probably would. In other words, a moderator p r o f i l e constructed through t h e o r e t i c a l l y sound aggregation of r e l e v a n t v a r i a b l e s could', be used i n the place of s i n g l e moderators s p l i t at the median, i n order to o b t a i n meaning- f u l r e s u l t s (Owens, 1978). A t h i r d e x p l a n a t i o n would po i n t toward the small sample s i z e s of the subgroups as a p o s s i b l e reason f o r the l a c k of s i g n i f i c a n c e i n the subgroup a n a l y s i s (Schmidt & Hunter, 1978). Further research has to be done before we can determine which of the above explan- a t i o n s i s most p l a u s i b l e . Be that as i t may, one can t e n t a t i v e l y a f f o r d to say, based on the present r e s u l t s and the Schmidt and Hunter (1978) obse r v a t i o n , that the p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s obtained r e v e a l a c e r t a i n homo- geneity among the samples regardless of age, sex, education or the l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e . A more general c r i t i c i s m l e v e l l e d a gainst the type of t h e o r i z i n g upon which the present work i s based i s i t s f a i l u r e to consider the a t t r i - b u t i o n a l phenomenon (S a l a n c i k and P f e f f e r , 1977). A d e r i v a t i v e of the above c r i t i c i s m i n the context of the present study would o f f e r the hypothesis that when i n d i v i d u a l s perceive themselves as p u t t i n g a l o t of e f f o r t i n t o t h e i r j o b s , they a l s o tend to view themselves as h i g h l y i n v o l v e d . So, f o r i n s t a n c e , i n s t e a d of increased job involvement causing an increase i n job e f f o r t , i t i s high e f f o r t that prompts one to assess the involvement i n h i s or her job i n a more favorable l i g h t . There i s a l s o another p o s s i b i l i t y whereby an i n d i v i d u a l who i s p u t t i n g a l o t of e f f o r t i n t o the job may increase h i s or hercchances f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n making d e c i s i o n s w i t h regard to the job. In e f f e c t , a reverse c a u s a l i t y i s suggested to be i n 123 operation as opposed to the one proposed. There i s a l s o some support i n the l i t e r a t u r e to t h i s counter hypothesis (Staw, 1975) Such p o s s i b i l i t i e s were a l s o tested but the r e s u l t s showed the r e v i s e d model i n Figure 14 to be more tenable compared to the counter models: mentioned here. However, i n order to t e s t the nature of c a u s a l i t y i n the l i g h t of the a t t r i b u t i o n a l phenomenon more thoroughly, one needs to have both o b j e c t i v e and s u b j e c t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n on the v a r i a b l e s of i n t e r e s t which are not a v a i l a b l e i n the present research. Experimental designs and l o n g i t u d i n a l s t u d i e s are b e t t e r s u i t e d to e x p l o r i n g the a t t r i b u t i o n a l hypothesis compared to cross s e c t i o n a l s t u d i e s . Hence, w h i l e i t i s acknowledged that the above l i n e of reasoning may i l l u m i n a t e the true nature of r e l a t i o n s h i p s among the v a r i a b l e s chosen f o r t h i s study, such a task i s deferred to f u t u r e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . Other l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s study i n c l u d e those that are common to perceptual f i e l d surveys of t h i s type such as method v a r i a n c e , l a c k of c o n t r o l over extraneous i n f l u e n c e s and the r e s u l t i n g i m p r e c i s i o n , i t s ex post f a c t o character and the l i k e . Hence, z'the-.customary c a u t i o n has to be e x e r c i s e d i n i n t e r p r e t i n g the r e s u l t s . The study i s of a cross s e c t i o n a l nature and as a consequence, i s s i l e n t on the dynamic aspects of job involvement. Longi-Hv.. t u d i n a l s t u d i e s are i n order f o r a b e t t e r understanding of temporal e f f e c t s on job involvement. In c o n c l u s i o n , one can say that the present study supports the view that i n d i v i d u a l f a c t o r s namely need f o r achievement and locus of c o n t r o l and a s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r , job scope, act as causal antecedents of job i n v o l v e - ment with e f f o r t as i t s attendant consequence. In a d d i t i o n , need f o r achieve- ment and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making a l s o seem to be c a u s a l l y l i n k e d to e f f o r t . Age, sex, education and l e a d e r s h i p have f a i l e d to moderate the above r e l a t i o n s h i p s , thereby suggesting a simpler s t r u c t u r e u n d e r l y i n g the proposed model. Though the present study makes a c o n t r i b u t i o n toward ;12.4 a b e t t e r understanding of the nomological network l i n k e d to the job i n v o l v e - ment c o n s t r u c t , f u t u r e research i s c a l l e d f o r to expand the scope of the present study and shed more l i g h t on the r o l e of job involvement i n organiza- t i o n a l behavior research and i t s usefulness f o r managerial p r a c t i c e . BIBLIOGRAPHY Abdel-Halim, A.A. Employee a f f e c t i v e responses to o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r e s s : Moderating e f f e c t s of job c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Personnel Psychology, 1978, 31, 561-579. Ajzen, I,., & F i s h b e i n , M. A t t i t u d e - b e h a v i o r r e l a t i o n s : A t h e o r e t i c a l a n a l y s i s and review of e m p i r i c a l research. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t - i n , 1977, 84, 888-918. Aldag, R.J., & B r i e f , A.P. Some c o r r e l a t e s of work va l u e s . Journal' of* App l i e d Psychology, 1975, 60, 757-760. (a) Aldag, R.J., & B r i e f , A.P. Impact of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s on employee a f f e c t i v e responses to task c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . J o u r n a l of Business Research, 1975, _3> 311-322. (b) A l d e r f e r , C., & Lodahl, T.M. A quasi experiment on the use of experimental methods i n the classroom. J o u r n a l of Applied B e h a v i o r a l Science, 1971, ]_, 43-69. A l l p o r t , G.W. The ego i n contemporary psychology. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1943, 50, 451-476. A l l p o r t , G.W. The psychology of p a r t i c i p a t i o n . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1947, 52, 112-117. A l t h a u s e r , R.P., & H e b e r l e i n , T.A. V a l i d i t y and the m u l t i t r a i t - m u l t i m e t h o d m a t r i x . In E.F. Borgatta & G.W. Bohrnsteadt (Eds'.)., S o c i o l o g i c a l Methodology^1970 San Fr a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass, 1970. Applebaum, M.I., & Cramer, E.M. Some problems i n the nonorthogonal a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1974, 81_, 335-343. A r g y r i s , C. The I n d i v i d u a l and o r g a n i z a t i o n : An e m p i r i c a l t e s t . Admin- i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , 1959, 4_, 145-167. A r g y r i s , C. I n t e g r a t i n g the i n d i v i d u a l and the o r g a n i z a t i o n . New York: Wiley, 1964. Baba, V.V. On the nature of job Involvement. Paper presented a t the meeting of The Academy of Management, Western D i v i s i o n , Santa Barbara, A p r i l , 1976. Baba, V.V., & Jamal, M. On the nature of company s a t i s f a c t i o n , company commitment and work involvement: An e m p i r i c a l examination of" bl u e - c o l l a r workers. R e l a t i o n s I n d u s t r i e l l e s , 1976, 31_, 434-447. Bass, B.M. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l psychology. Boston: A l l y n & Bacon, 1965. Bass, B.M., & B a r r e t t , G.V. Man, work and o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Boston: A l l y n & Bacon, 1972. 1 2 6 Beehr, T.A. , & Gupta, N. A note.on the s t r u c t u r e of employee withdrawal. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behavior and Human Performance, 1978, 2!1_, 73-79. Beyer, J.M., & Lodahl, T.M. Comparative study of patterns of i n f l u e n c e i n United States and E n g l i s h u n i v e r s i t i e s . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , 1976, 21, 104-129. Bigoness, W.J. C o r r e l a t e s of f a c u l t y a t t i t u d e s toward c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology, 1978, 6_3, 228-233. Blood, M., & H u l i n , C. A l i e n a t i o n , environmental c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and worker responses. J o u r n a l of Ap p l i e d Psychology, 1967, 5JL, 284-290. Borgatta, E.F. My student, the p u r i s t : A lament. S o c i o l o g i c a l Q u a r t e r l y , 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 , B r i c h c i n , M., & Sl e d r , J . Viev a sobni angazovanosti na k v a n t i t u a k v a l i t u vyokonu. Psychologie v Ekonomicke P r a x i , 1974, 9_, 140-146. B r i e f , A.P., & Aldag, R.J. Employee r e a c t i o n s to job c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : A c o n s t r u c t i v e r e p l i c a t i o n . J o u r n a l of Ap p l i e d Psychology, 1975, 60, 182-186. B r i e f , A.P., & Aldag, R.J. Work values as moderators of perceived leader b e h a v i o r - s a t i s f a c t i o n r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Sociology of Work and Occupations, 1977, 4_, 99-112. B r i e f , A.P., Aldag, R.J., & Wallden, R.A. C o r r e l a t e s of supervisory s t y l e among policemen. C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e and Behavior, 1976, 3_, 263-271. Bruns, W.J., & Waterhouse, J . J . Budgetary c o n t r o l and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e . J o u r n a l of Accounting Research, 1975, 13, 177-203. Buchanan, B., I I . B u i l d i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n a l commitment: The s o c i a l i z a t i o n of managers i n work o r g a n i z a t i o n s . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , 1974, 19, 533-546. Campbell, J.P., & Beatty, E.E. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e : I t s measurement and r e l a t i o n s h i p to work group performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , Washington, D.C., September, 1971. Campbell, D.T., & F i s k e , D.W. Convergent and d i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d a t i o n by the m u l t i t r a i t - m u l t i m e t h o d matrix. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1959, 56, 81-105. Campbell, D.P., & K l e i n , K.W. Job s a t i s f a c t i o n and v o c a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s . The V o c a t i o n a l Guidance Q u a r t e r l y , 1975, 24, 125-131. 127 Chatterjee, A., & Ganguly, A. D i f f e r e n t i a l perception of c e r t a i n i n d u s t r y - r e l a t e d concepts by two groups of managers. Indian J o u r n a l of I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s , 1977, 13, 235-241. Clel a n d , V., Bass, A.R., McHugh, W., & Montano, J . S o c i a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l i n - fluences on employment of married nurses. Nursing Research, 1976, 25, 90-97. C o l l i n s , B.E. Four components of Rotter i n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l s c a l e : B e l i e f i n a d i f f e r e n t world, a j u s t world, a p r e d i c t a b l e world and a p o l i t i c a l l y responsive world. Journal of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1974, 29, 381-391. Cummings, L.L., & Schwab, D.F. Performance i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s : Determinants and a p p r a i s a l . Glenview, 111.: S c o t t , Foresman, 1973. Cummings, T.G., & Bigelow, J . S a t i s f a c t i o n , j ob involvement and i n t r i n s i c m o t i v a t i o n : An extension of Lawler & H a l l ' s f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976, 61, 523-525. Cummings, T.G., & Mauring, S.L. R e l a t i o n s h i p between worker a l i e n a t i o n and work r e l a t e d behavior. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, 1977, 10, 167-179. d'Amorim, M.A., & N u t t i n , J.R. La perception des r e u s s i t e s et echecs personnels en f o n c t i o n des r e s u l t a t s d'un p a r t e n a i r e : Influence de l ' i n t e r e t pour l a tache et du niveau d ' a s p i r a t i o n chez des s u j e c t s masculins et feminins. Psychologica B e l g i c a , 1972, 1 2 , 9-31. Davis, J.W., J r . Work involvement of executives. Personnel A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , 1966, M a r c h - A p r i l , 6-12. Denhardt, R.B. Leadership s t y l e , worker involvement and deference to a u t h o r i t y . Sociology and S o c i a l Research, 1970, _54, 172-180. deWindt, E.M. Job involvement - more than a slogan. The Personnel A d m i n i s t r a t o r , 1975, 20, 23-26. Drwal, R.L. Wplyw procesow emocjonalnych na wydajnosc myslenia twoczego. Przeglad Psychologiczny, 1973, J-6_, 157-173. Dubin, R. I n d u s t r i a l workers' worlds: A study of the c e n t r a l l i f e i n t e r e s t s of i n d u s t r i a l workers. S o c i a l Problems, 1956, 4̂ , 252-266. Dunne, E.J., J r . , S t a h l , M.J., & Melhart, L . J . , J r . Influence sources of p r o j e c t and f u n c t i o n a l managers i n matrix o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Academy of Management J o u r n a l , 1978, 21, 135-140. Dziuban, D.C., & Shirkey, E.D. When i s a c o r r e l a t i o n matrix appropriate f o r f a c t o r a n a l y s i s ? Some d e c i s i o n r u l e s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1974, 81, 358-361. F a r r i s , G.F. A p r e d i c t i v e study of turnover. Personnel Psychology, 1971, 24, 311-328. Faunce, W. Occupational involvement and the s e l e c t i v e t e s t i n g of self-esteem. Paper d e l i v e r e d at the Meetings of the American S o c i o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , Chicago, I l l i n o i s , September, 1959. 128 Feldman, D.C. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l s o c i a l i z a t i o n of h o s p i t a l employees:-:-' Comparative view of occ u p a t i o n a l groups. Medical Care, 1977, 15, 799-813. F i s h b e i n , M. A t t i t u d e and the p r e d i c t i o n of behavior. In M. F i s h b e i n (Ed.), Readings i n a t t i t u d e theory and measurement. New York: Wiley, 1967. " : Ford, R.N., & Borg a t t a , E.F. S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the work i t s e l f . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology, 1970, 54, 128-134. French, J.R.P., J r . , & Kahn, R. A programmatic approach to studying the i n d u s t r i a l environment and mental h e a l t h . J o u r n a l of S o c i a l Issues, 1962, 1 8 , 1-47. F r i e d l a n d e r , F., & Margulies, N. M u l t i p l e impacts of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e and i n d i v i d u a l value systems upon job s a t i s f a c t i o n . Personnel Psychology, 1969, 22 ; . 171-183 . Gadbois, C. L ' i m p l i c a t i o n dans l e t r a v a i l a l ' e n t r e e en apprentissage s t r u c t u r e et determinants. T r a v a i l Humaine, 1971, J54, 277-278. Gadbois, C. Dimensions et mesure de 1 ' i m p l i c a t i o n s dans l e t r a v a i l : :;Une analyse l o n g i t u d i n a l e . T r a v a i l Humaine, 1973, _36, 361-374. Gannon, M.J., & Hendrickson, D.H'. Career o r i e n t a t i o n and job s a t i s f a c t i o n among working wives. J o u r n a l of App l i e d Psychology, 1973, 5_7, 339- 340. G a r d e l l , B. Autonomy and p a r t i c i p a t i o n a t work. Human R e l a t i o n s , 1977, 30, 515-533. Gechman, A.S. Without work, l i f e goes/.. J o u r n a l of Occupational Medicine, 1974, 16, 749-751. Gechman, A.S., & Wiener, Y. Job involvement and s a t i s f a c t i o n r e l a t e d to mental h e a l t h and personal time devoted to work. Journal of A p p l i e d Psychology, 1975, 60, 521-523. Gibson, J.L., Ivancevich, J.M., & Donnelly, J.M. Organizations: Behavior, s t r u c t u r e , processes. D a l l a s : Business P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1976. G i r a r d , CM. Work r o l e involvement of l o c a l government s u p e r v i s o r s . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s #71-29, 1971. Goodman, P., Furcon, J . , & Rose, J . Examination of some measures of c r e a t i v e a b i l i t y by the m u l t i t r a i t - m u l t i m e t h o d m a t r i x . J o u r n a l of Appl i e d Psychology, 1969, 53_, 240-243. Goodman, P.S., Rose, J.H., & Furcon, J.E. Comparison of m o t i v a t i o n a l antecedents of the work performance of s c i e n t i s t s and engineers. J o u r n a l of App l i e d Psychology, 1970, 54_, 491-495. Gough, H.G.,. & H e i l b r u n , A.B. The a d j e c t i v e check l i s t manual. Palo A l t o , C a l i f . : C o nsulting P s y c h o l o g i s t s Press, 1965. G u i l f o r d , J.P. When not to f a c t o r analyze. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1952, 49_, 26-37. 129 Guion, R. I n d u s t r i a l morale: The problem of terminology. Personnel Psychology, 1958, 11, 59-64. Gurin, G., V e r o f f , J . , & F e l d , S. Americans view t h e i r mental h e a l t h . New York: Basic Books, 1960. Hackman, J.R., & Lawler, E.E., I I I . Employee r e a c t i o n s to job c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 1971, 55_, 259-284. Hackman, J.R., & P o r t e r , L.W. Expectancy theory p r e d i c t i o n s of work e f f e c t i v e n e s s . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behavior and Human Performance, 1968, _3, 418-426. Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. Development of the job d i a g n o s t i c survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, ̂ 0, 159-170. H a l l , D.T. T h e o r e t i c a l model of career s u b i d e n t i t y development i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s . : O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behavior and "Human Performance, 1971, 6^, 50-76. H a l l , D.T., & Fos t e r , L.W. A p s y c h o l o g i c a l success c y c l e and goal s e t t i n g : Goals, performance and a t t i t u d e s . Academy of Management J o u r n a l , 1977, 20, 282-290. H a l l , D.T., Goodale, J.G., Rabinowitz, S., & Morgan, M.A. E f f e c t s of top-down departmental and job change upon perceived employee behavior and a t t i t u d e s : A n a t u r a l f i e l d experiment. Journa l of Applied Psychology, 1978, 63̂ , 62-72. H a l l , D.T., & H a l l , F.S. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between goals, performance, success self-image and involvement under d i f f e r e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n c l i m a t e s . J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, 1976, 9, 276-298. H a l l , D.T., & Lawler, E.E., I I I . Job c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and pressures and the i n t e g r a t i o n of p r o f e s s i o n a l s . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , 1970, 15, 271-281. H a l l , D.T., & Lawler, E.E., I I I . Job pressures.and research performance. American S c i e n t i s t , 1971, 59, 64-73. H a l l , D.T., & M a n s f i e l d , R. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l and i n d i v i d u a l response to e x t e r n a l s t r e s s . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , 1971, 16, 533- H a l l , D.T., & M a n s f i e l d , R. R e l a t i o n s h i p s of age and s e n i o r i t y w i t h career v a r i a b l e s of engineers and s c i e n t i s t s . Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 201-210. H a l l , D.T., & Nougaim, K.E. An examination of Maslow's need h i e r a r c h y i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s e t t i n g . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behavior and Human Performance, 1968, 3, 12-35. H a l l , D.T., & Rabinowitz, S. Caught up i n work. Wharton Magazine, 1977, 2, 19-25. H a l l , D.T., Schneider, B., & Nygren, H.T. Personal f a c t o r s i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , 1970, 1_5, 176-190. H a l l , D.T., & Schneider, B. C o r r e l a t e s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n as a f u n c t i o n of career p a t t e r n and o r g a n i z a t i o n type. A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , 1972, 17, 340-350. 130 H a l p i n , A.W., & C r o f t s , D.B. The o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e of schools. Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago, Midwest A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Center, 1963. Hamner, W.C., & T o s i , H.L. R e l a t i o n s h i p of r o l e c o n f l i c t and r o l e ambiguity to job involvement measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59, 297-299. He b e r l e i n , T.A., & Baumgartner, R. Factors a f f e c t i n g response r a t e s to mailed q u e s t i o n n a i r e s : A q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s of the published l i t e r a t u r e . American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 1978, 4_3, 447-462. Herman, J.B., Dunham, R.B., & H u l i n , C.L. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e , demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and employee responses. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behavior and Human Performance, 1975, jL3, 206-232. Hermans, H.J.M. A questionnaire measure of achievement m o t i v a t i o n . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology, 1970, 54, 353-363. Herzberg, F. , Mausner, B., ~&.'.Snyderman, B.B. The m o t i v a t i o n to work. New York: Wiley', 1959.' Hoiberg, A.,& Berry, N.H. Expectations and perceptions of navy l i f e . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behavior and Human Performance, 1978, 2_1, 130-145. H o l l o n , C.J., & Chesser, R.J. The r e l a t i o n s h i p of personal i n f l u e n c e dissonance to job t e n s i o n , s a t i s f a c t i o n and involvement. Academy of Management J o u r n a l , 1976, 1_9, 308-314. H o l l o n , C.J., & Gemmill, G.R. A comparison of female and male professors on p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making, job r e l a t e d t e n s i o n , job involvement land job s a t i s f a c t i o n . E d u cational A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Q u a r t e r l y , 1976, 12, 80-93. House, R.J. A path-goal theory of leader e f f e c t i v e n e s s . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , 1971, 16J- 321-328. H u l i n , CI, & Blood, M. Job enlargement, i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s and worker responses. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1968, 69_, 41-55. I n s e l , P.M., & Moos, R.H. The work environment s c a l e . Palo A l t o : S o c i a l Ecology Laboratory, Department of P s y c h i a t r y , Stanford U n i v e r s i t y , 1974. Ivancevich, J.M., & McMahon, J.T. A study of task-goal a t t r i b u t e s , higher order need str e n g t h and performance. Academy of Management J o u r n a l , 1977, 20, 552-563. Jenkins, CD., Zyzanski, S.J, & Rosenman, R.H. Program toward v a l i d a t i o n of a computer scored t e s t of the type-A coronary prone behavior p a t t e r n . Psychosomatic Medicine, 1971, J33, 192-202. Jermier, J.M. , & Schriesheim, C A . Causal a n a l y s i s i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l sciences and a l t e r n a t i v e model s p e c i f i c a t i o n and e v a l u a t i o n . Academy of Management Review, 1978, _3> 326-337. 131 Johanneson, R.E. Job s a t i s f a c t i o n and p e r c e p t u a l l y measured o r g a n i z a t i o n c l i m a t e : Redundancy and confusion. In M.W. Frey (Ed.), New developments i n management and o r g a n i z a t i o n theory. Proceedings of the, 8th Annual Conference, Eastern Academy of Management, 1971, 27-37. Jones, A..P., James, L.R., & B r u n i , J.R. Perceived l e a d e r s h i p behavior and employee confidence i n the leader as moderated by job involvement. J o u r n a l of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 146-149. Jones, A.P., James, L.R., B r u n i , J.R., & S e l l s , S.B. Black-white d i f f e r e n c e s i n work environment perceptions and job s a t i s f a c t i o n and i t s cor- r e l a t e s . Personnel Psychology, 1977, 3Q, 5-16. Kanungo, R.L. The concepts of a l i e n a t i o n and involvement r e v i s i t e d . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1979, 86, 119-138. Kanungo, R.N., M i s r a , S.B., & Dayal, I . R e l a t i o n s h i p of job involvement to perceived importance and s a t i s f a c t i o n of employee needs. I n t e r n a t i o n a l Review of Applied Psychology, 1975, 2A_, 39-59. Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. The s o c i a l psychology of o r g a n i z a t i o n s . New York: Wiley, 1966. K e r l i n g e r , F.N., & Pedhazur, E.J. M u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n i n b e h a v i o r a l research. New York: H o l t , Rinehart & Winston, 1973. Kimmons, S.G., & Greenhaus, J.H. R e l a t i o n s h i p between locus of c o n t r o l and r e a c t i o n s of employees to work c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports, 1976, 30, 815-820. Koch, J.L., & S t e e r s , R.M. Job attachment, s a t i s f a c t i o n and turnover among p u b l i c s e c t o r employees. Journal of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, 1978, 12, 119-128. Landy, F.J., & Guion, R.M. Development of s c a l e s f o r the measurement of work m o t i v a t i o n . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behavior and Human Performance, 1970, 5., 93-103. La Rocco, J.M., Pugh, W.M., & Gunderson, E.K.E. I d e n t i f y i n g determinants of r e t e n t i o n d e c i s i o n s . Personnel Psychology, 1977, 3_0_, 199-215. Latham, G.P, & Y u k l , G.A. E f f e c t s of assigned and p a r t i c i p a t i v e goal s e t t i n g on performance and job s a t i s f a c t i o n . J o u r n a l of Applied Psychology, 1976, 6JL, 166-171. Lawler, E.E.„III. M o t i v a t i o n i n work o r g a n i z a t i o n s . C a l i f . : Brooks. Cole, 1973. Lawler, E.E., I I I , Hackman,. J.R., & Kaufman, S. E f f e c t s of job redesign - a f i e l d experiment.. J o u r n a l of Applied S o c i a l Psychology, 1973, 3_, 49-62. Lawler, E . E . , I I I , & H a l l , D.T. R e l a t i o n s h i p of job c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to job involvement, s a t i s f a c t i o n and i n t r i n s i c 2 m p t i v a t i o n . J o u r n a l of Applied Psychology, 1970, _54, 305-312. 132 L e f k o w i t z , J . Job a t t i t u d e s of p o l i c e : O v e r a l l d e s c r i p t i o n and demographic c o r r e l a t e s . J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, 1974, .5, 221-230. Lewin, K. The psychology of success and f a i l u r e . Occupations, 1936, 14, 926-930. Lewin, K., Dembo, T., F e s t i n g e r , L. , &:JSears, P. L e v e l of a s p i r a t i o n . In J.M. Hunt (Ed.), P e r s o n a l i t y and Behavior D i s o r d e r s . New York: Ronald Press, 1944. L i , C.C. Path a n a l y s i s : A primer. P a c i f i c Grove: Boxwood, 1975. L i k e r t ^ R . New P a t t e r n s i n ̂ management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961 Locke, E.A. The nature and consequences of„job s a t i s f a c t i o n . 11 In Dunnette, M. (Ed.), Handbook of i n d u s t r i a l and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l psychology, 129.7- 1349, .Chicago': .Rand.McNally, 1976. Lodahl, T.M. Patterns of.job a t t i t u d e s i n two assembly technologies. A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , 1964, 8^ 482-515. Lodahl, T.M., & Kejner, M. The d e f i n i t i o n and measurement of job involvement. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology, 1965, 49, i 24-33. Mannheim, , B. Comparative study of work c e n t r a l i t y , job rewards and s a t i s f a c t i o n : Occupational groups i n I s r a e l . Sociology of Work and Occupations, 1975, 5_, 221-230. Mannheim, B., & Cohen, A. M u l t i v a r i a t e analyses of f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g work r o l e c e n t r a l i t y of o ccupational c a t e g o r i e s . Human R e l a t i o n s , 31, 1978, 525-553. M a n s f i e l d , R. Need s a t i s f a c t i o n and need importance i n and out of work. Studies i n Personnel Psychology, 1972, 4_, 21-27. Maslow, A.H. A theory of human m o t i v a t i o n . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1943, 50, 370-396".. Mathews, K.A., & Krantz, D.S. Resemblences of twins and t h e i r parents i n p a t t e r n 'A' behavior. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1976, 3̂8_, 140-144. Maurer, J . Work as a c e n t r a l l i f e i n t e r e s t of i n d u s t r i a l s u p e r v i s o r s . Academy of Management J o u r n a l , 1968, 11, 329-339. Maurer, J . Work r o l e involvement of i n d u s t r i a l s u p e r v i s o r s . MSU Business S t u d i e s , East Lansing, Michigan, 1969. McGregor, D. The human si d e of e n t e r p r i s e . New York: McGraw H i l l , 1960. McKelvey, B., & Sekaran, U. Toward a career-based theory of job involvement: A study of engineers and s c i e n t i s t s . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , 1977, 22, 281-305. Miner, J.B. The r e a l crunch i n managerial manpower. Harvard Business Review, 1973, 51, 146-158. 133 Miner, J.B. Student a t t i t u d e s toward b u r e a u c r a t i c r o l e p r e s c r i p t i o n s and the prospects f o r managerial t a l e n t shortages. Personnel Psychology, 1974, 27_, 605-613. M i r v i s , P.H., & Lawler, E.E., I I I . Measuring the f i n a n c i a l impact of employee a t t i t u d e s . J o u r n a l of Applied Psychology, 1977, 62^, 1-8. M i t c h e l l , V.F., Baba, V.V., & Epps, T. On the r e l a t i o n s h i p between job involvement and c e n t r a l l i f e i n t e r e s t . R e l a t i o n s I n d u s t r i e l l e s , 1975, 30, 166-180. M o u d g i l l , P. S c a r c i t y and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l theory. Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1975. Mukherjee, B.N. I n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s among measures of job s a t i s f a c t i o n and job involvement. Indian J o u r n a l of Psychology, 1969, 44_, 21-32. Mukherjee, B.N. A f a c t o r a n a l y t i c study of job s a t i s f a c t i o n . Indian Journa l of I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s , 1970, 5/> 429-439. Newman, J.E. Understanding o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e - job a t t i t u d e r e l a t i o n s h i p through perceptions of the work environment. Organiza- t i o n a l 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., & A l u t t o , J.A. An i n i t i a l m u l t idimensional study of the causes and consequences of s t r e s s : Development of a p r e d i c t i v e 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 m o t i v a t i o n and morale: A report on t h e i r r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y . Monograph #41, Ann Arbor, Michigan, I n s t i t u t e f o r S o c i a l Research, 1965. Patchen, M. P a r t i c i p a t i o n , achievement and involvement on the jo b . New Jersey: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1970. P e l z , D.C., & Andrews, F.M.. S c i e n t i s t s i n o r g a n i z a t i o n . New York: Wiley, 1966. P o r t e r , L.W., & Lawler, E.E., I I I . Managerial a t t i t u d e s and performance. I l l i n o i s : I r w i n , 1968. P o r t e r , L.W., Lawler, E.E., I I I , & Hackman, J.R. Behavior i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. Rabinowitz, S. An examination of the i n f l u e n c e of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e v a r i a b l e s and perceived j o b s t i m u l a t i o n on job involvement. Unpublished master's t h e s i s , Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y , 1975. Rabinowitz, S., & H a l l , D.T. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l research on job involvement. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1977, 84, 265-280. 134 Rabinowitz, S., H a l l , D.T., & Goodale, J.G. Job scope and i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s as p r e d i c a t o r s of job involvement: Independent or i n t e r a c t i v e ? Academy of Management J o u r n a l , 1977, ̂ 0, 273-281. Rakich, J.W. A study of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between perceived job autonomy, job involvement, job s a t i s f a c t i o n and j o b performance f o r h o s p i t a l business employees i n the Greater D e t r o i t m e t r o p o l i t a n area. D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s #71.-72, 1970. Reinhart, L.L., & Wahba, M. Expectancy.theory as a p r e d i c t o r of work m o t i v a t i o n , e f f o r t expenditure and j o b performance. Academy of Management J o u r n a l , 1975, 1_8_, 520-537. R i d l e y , C.A. E x p l o r i n g the impact of work s a t i s f a c t i o n and involvement on m a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n when both partners are employed. J o u r n a l of Marriage and Family, 1973, 35, 229-237. Robbins, S.P. The a d m i n i s t r a t i v e process: I n t e g r a t i n g theory and p r a c t i c e . Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1976. Roman, P.M., & T r i c e , H.M. P s y c h i a t r i c impairment among middle Americans: Surveys of work o r g a n i z a t i o n s . S o c i a l P s y c h i a t r y , 1972, _7, 157-166. Ronan, W.W. I n d i v i d u a l and s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s r e l a t i n g to j o b s a t i s - f a c t i o n . J o u r n a l of Applied Psychology Monograph, 1970, 54, 1, Part 2, 1-31. Rousseau, D.M. Measures of technology as p r e d i c t o r s of employee a t t i t u d e . J o u r n a l of Applied Psychology, 1977 , Q5_, 213-218. Ruh, R.A., Johnson, R.G.,.& Scontr i n o , P.M. The Scanlon P l a n : P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making and job a t t i t u d e s . J o u r n a l of I n d u s t r i a l and O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Psychology, 1973, 1_, 36-45. Ruh, R.A., & White, J.K. Job involvement: A. construct v a l i d i t y study. Paper presented at the Meeting of the American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , New Orleans, August, 1974. Ruh, R.A., White, J.K., & Wood, R.R. Job involvement, v a l u e s , personal background, p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making and job a t t i t u d e s . Academy of Management J o u r n a l , 1975, 1_8_, 300-312. Rummel, R.J. Applied f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . Evanston: Northwestern U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1970. Runyon, K. Some i n t e r a c t i o n between p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s and management s t y l e s . J o u r n a l of Applied Psychology, 1973, 63_, 53-61. Sa a l , F.E. Job inovlvement: A m u l t i v a r i a t e approach. J o u r n a l of Applied Psychology, 1978, 63, 53-61. S a l a n c i k , G.R., & P f e f f e r , J . An examination of need s a t i s f a c t i o n models of job a t t i t u d e s . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , 1977, 22^, 427-456. 135 Saleh, S.D., & Hosek, J . Job involvement: Concepts and measures. Academy of Management J o u r n a l , 1976, 19, 213-224. Schein, E. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l psychology. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1971. Schmidt, F.L., & Hunter, J.E. Moderator research and the law of small numbers. Personnel Psychology, 1978, 31, 215-232. Schneider, B., H a l l , D.T., & Nygren, H.T. S e l f image and j o b c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as c o r r e l a t e s of changing o r g a n i z a t i o n a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Human R e l a t i o n s , 1971, 2 A , 397-416. Schriescheim, C., & Kerr, S. Psychometric p r o p e r t i e s of the Ohio State Leadership s c a l e s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1974, J31, 756-765. Schuler, R.S. Determinants of job involvement: I n d i v i d u a l vs o r g a n i z a t i o n a l : An extension of the l i t e r a t u r e . In A.G. Bedeian, 'A.'A.' Armenakis, W.H. Ho l l e y & H.S. F e i l d (Eds.), Proceedings, Academy of Management, Auburn U n i v e r s i t y , 1975, 149-151. Schuler, R.S. P a r t i c i p a t i o n w i t h supervisor and subordinate a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m - a path-goal theory r e c o n c i l i a t i o n . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , 1976, 21, 320-325. Schuler, R.S. Moderating e f f e c t s of job involvement and growth need s t r e n g t h on task-outcome r e l a t i o n s h i p s . J o u r n a l of Business Research, 1977, 5_, 293-309. Schuler, R.S., Aldag, R.J., & B r i e f , A.P. Role c o n f l i c t and ambiguity - sc a l e a n a l y s i s . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behavior and Human Performance, 1977, 20, 111-128. Schwyhart, N.R., & Smith, P.C.. Factors i n the job involvement of middle managers. Journa l of Applied Psychology, 1972, 56, 227-233. S i e g e l , L. I n d u s t r i a l psychology. Homewood, I l l i n o i s : I r v i n e , 1969. S i e g e l , A.L., & Ruh, R.A. Job involvement, p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making, personal background and job behavior. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behavior and Human Performance, 1973, 9_, 318-329. Sims, H.P., J r . , & S z i l a g y i , A.D. Leader behavior and subordinate s a t i s f a c t i o n and performance. I n A.G:'.Bedeian, A.A. Armenakis, W.H. H o l l e y & H.S. F e i l d (Eds.), Proceedings, Academy of Management, Auburn, A l a . : Auburn U n i v e r s i t y , 1975, 161-163. Slee Smith, P.I. Job involvement and communications. London: Business Books, 1973. Specht, D.A. On the e v a l u a t i o n of causal models. S o c i a l Science Research, 1975, 4., 113-133. 136 Staw, B.M. A t t r i b u t i o n of the "causes" of performance: A general a l t e r n a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of cross s e c t i o n a l research i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l ' Behavior and Human Performance, 1975, 1_3, 414-432. Steers, R.M. E f f e c t s of need f o r achievement on the job performance - job a t t i t u d e r e l a t i o n s h i p . J o u r n a l of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 678-682. (a) Steers, R.M. Task goal a t t r i b u t e s , i n achievement, and su p e r v i s i n g performance. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behavior and Human Performance, 1975, 1_3, 392-403. (b) Steers, R.M. Factors a f f e c t i n g job a t t i t u d e s i n a" goal s e t t i n g environment. Academy of Management J o u r n a l , 1976, 19_, 6-16. Steers, R.M., & Braunstein, D.W. B e h a v i o r a l l y based measure of manifest needs i n work s e t t i n g s . J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, 1976, _9, 251-266. Stevens, J.M., Beyer, J.M., & T r i c e , H.M. Assessing p e r s o n a l , r o l e and • o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p r e d i c t o r s of managerial commitment. Academy of Management J o u r n a l , 1978, 21, 380-396. Stinson , J.E., & Johnson, T.W. The path-goal theory of l e a d e r s h i p : A p a r t i a l t e s t and suggested refinement. Academy of Management J o u r n a l , 1975, 18, 242-252. Stone, E.F. The moderating e f f e c t of work-related values on the job scope - j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n r e l a t i o n s h i p s . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behavior and Human Performance, 1976, 1_5, 147-167. Stone, E.F., Mowday, R.T., & P o r t e r , L.W. Higher order need strengths as moderators of the job scope - job s a t i s f a c t i o n r e l a t i o n s h i p . J o u r n a l of Applied Psychology, 1977, 62, 466-471. S z i l a g y i , A.D., & Sims, H.P.. An e x p l o r a t i o n of the path-goal theory of lea d e r s h i p i n a h e a l t h care environment. Academy of Management J o u r n a l , 1974, 17, 622-634. Tannenbaum, A. S o c i a l psychology of the work o r g a n i z a t i o n . Belmont, C a l i f . : Brooks/Cole, 1966. Thamhain, H.J., & Gemmill, G.R. Influence s t y l e s of p r o j e c t managers: Some p r o j e c t performance c o r r e l a t i o n s . Academy of Management J o u r n a l , 1974, 1_7, 216-224. Thurstone, L.L. M u l t i p l e f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1947. Torbert, W.R., & Rogers, M.P. Being f o r the most part puppets. Mass.: Shankman, 1973. T r z e b i n s k i , J . Egocentric involvement, approval by a u t h o r i t y , and o r i g i n a l i t y i n t h i n k i n g . P o l i s h P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1974, _5, 21-28. .137 Valecha, G.K. Construct v a l i d a t i o n of i n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l l o cus of r e i n f o r c e - ment r e l a t e d to work r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s . Proceedings of the 80th Annual Convention of the American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n . 1972, 7_, 455-456. Vroom, V.H. Ego-involvement, job s a t i s f a c t i o n and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 1962, 15, 159-177. Vroom, V.H. I n d u s t r i a l s o c i a l psychology. In G. Linzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of s o c i a l psychology, V o l . 5, (2nd Ed.), Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley, 1969. Waters, L.K., Roach, D., & B a t l i s , N. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e dimensions and j o b - r e l a t e d a t t i t u d e s . Personnel Psychology, 1974, 2_7_, 465-476. Weissenberg, P., & Gruenfeld, L. R e l a t i o n s h i p between job s a t i s f a c t i o n and job involvement. J o u r n a l of Applied Psychology, 1969, _5_3, 469-473. Werts, C.W., & L i n n , R.L. Path a n a l y s i s : P s y c h o l o g i c a l examples. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1970, 74, 193-212. White, J.K. G e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e moderators of the p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making - employee response r e l a t i o n - ship. ;Academy of Management J o u r n a l , 1978, ^1_, 36-43. White, J.K., & Ruh, R.A. E f f e c t s of personal values on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p a r t i c i p a t i o n and job a t t i t u d e s . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , 1973, 18, 506-514. Wickert, F.R. Turnover and employee f e e l i n g of ego involvement i n the day-to-day operations of a company. Personnel Psychology, 1951, 4_, 185-197. Wiener, Y., & Gechman, A.S. Commitment: A b e h a v i o r a l approach to job involvement. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, 1977, 1_0, 47-52. Wollack, S., Goodale, J.G., W i j t i n g , J.P., & Smith, P.C. Development of the survey of work values. J o u r n a l of Applied Psychology, 1971, 55, 331-338. Wood, D.A. Enhancing attitude-performance r e l a t i o n s h i p s by degree of job involvement. Proceedings of the 79th Annual Convention of the American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , 1971, _6, 495-496. Wood, D.A. The e f f e c t s of work involvement when r e l a t i n g j o b a t t i t u d e s and behavior. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1972, 3_2, 189-191. Wood, D.A. E f f e c t of worker o r i e n t a t i o n d i f f e r e n c e s on job a t t i t u d e c o r r e l a t e s . J o u r n a l of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59_, 54-60. Young, J.W. The f u n c t i o n of theory i n a dilemma of path a n a l y s i s . J o u r n a l of Applied Psychology, 1977, 62_, 108-110. Zult o w s k i , N.H., Avery, R.D., & Dewhirst, H.D. Moderating e f f e c t s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e on r e l a t i o n s h i p s between goal s e t t i n g a t t r i b u t e s and employee s a t i s f a c t i o n . J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behavior, 1978, 12, 217-227. 138 A P P E N D I X ! 140 PART I INDIVIDUAL FACTORS The fo l l ow ing questions measure some aspects of your pe r sona l i t y . The answers have been found to vary s u b s t a n t i a l l y from person to person. What makes these questions i n t e r e s t i n g i s the f a c t that your answers simply g ive an i n d i c a t i o n as to how unique you are as an i n d i v i d u a l . Please do not omit any quest ion. Also note that the i n s t r u c t i on s are s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t f o r d i f f e r e n t sect ions in the quest ionna i re. INSTRUCTIONS: For each i tem, c i r c l e the choice that best r e f l e c t s your a t t i t u d e . 1. Working i s something that : 7. a. I l i k e doing most of the t ime. b. I l i k e doing f a i r l y o f ten . c. I l i k e doing occa s i ona l l y . d. I seldom 1 ike doing. 2. To succeed on an important task i t i s : 8. a. Seldom necessary to prepare you r se l f wel l ahead of t ime. b. Sometimes he lp fu l to prepare you r se l f we l l ahead of time. c. Often he lp fu l to prepare you r se l f we l l ahead of t ime. d. Usual ly necessary to prepare you r se l f wel l ahead of t ime. 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 u sua l l y do: a. Much more than I resolved to do. b. A l i t t l e more than I resolved to do. c. A l i t t l e les s than I r e - solved to do. 11. d. Much less than I resolved to do. 5. I f I am not able to obta in a d i f f i c u l t goa l : a. I t r y harder to a t t a i n the 12. goa l . b. I continue t r y i n g but do not put out any ext ra e f f o r t . c. I am i n c l i n e d to give up but may make one more e f f o r t . d. I u sua l l y g ive up and qu i t t r y i n g . 6. How much r e s p o n s i b i l i t y would you l i k e in your job? a. Much more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . b. Somewhat more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . c. S l i g h t l y more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . d. A l i t t l e l e s s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . I would f i n d a l i f e in which I d id not have to work at a job to be: a. Idea l . b. Quite pleasant. c. Somewhat bor ing. d. Very unpleasant and bor ing. When I was i n schoo l , I thought attainment of a high po s i t i on in soc ie ty was: a. Very important. b. Moderately important. c. Only s l i g h t l y important. d. Completely unimportant. For l i f e ' s ext ra pleasures such as r e c r ea t i on , entertainment, and r e l a x i n g : a. I near ly 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 ge t t i ng t i r e d f o r : a. A very long t ime. b. A f a i r l y long t ime. c. Not too long a t ime. d. Only a short wh i le . I am u sua l l y : a. Extremely busy. b. Moderately busy. c. Not too busy. d. Not busy at a l l . When I was i n schoo l : a. I was extremely ambit ious. b. I was somewhat ambit ious. c. I was a l i t t l e ambit ious. d. I was not at a l l ambit ious. How important i s i t to know how wel l you are doing i n your job? a. Very imporant. b. Moderately important. c. Only s l i g h t l y important. d. Not at a l l important. 141 14.. When I begin a task: 15. a. I usually carry i t to a successful conclusion. b. I often carry i t to a successful conclusion. c. I sometimes carry i t to a successful conclusion. d. I seldom carry i t to a successful conclusion. The best thing about being president of a new company i s : a. The opportunity to be part of a management team. b. The excel lent 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 i s one for which the probab i l i ty of successful ly atta in ing the goal i s : a. 100%, b. 90%, c. 70%, d. 50% Please respond to items #17 to #32 by c i r c l i n g e i ther statement A or B depending upon which response you agree with most. Please c i r c l e only one of the two statements appearing in each pa i r , and please be careful to avoid missing any pair of items. The questions re late to your be l ie f s about people and l i f e in general. 17. a. In the long run people get the respect they deserve in th i s world, b. Unfortunately, an i nd i v i dua l ' s worth often passes unrecognized no matter how hard he t r i e s . 18. a. The idea that teachers are unfair to students is nonsense. b. Most students don 't rea l i ze the extent to which the i r grades are influenced by accidental happenings. 19. a. Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has l i t t l e or nothing to do with i t . b. Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the r ight place at the r ight time. 20. a. The average c i t i z e n can have an influence in government decisions, b. This world i s run by few people in power, and there is not much the l i t t l e guy can do about i t . 21. a. In my case, getting what I want has l i t t l e or nothing to do with luck, b. Many times we might jus t as well decide what to do by f l i pp i ng a coin. 22. a. Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enough to be in the r ight place f i r s t , b. Getting people to do the r ight thing depends upon a b i l i t y , luck has l i t t l e or nothing to do with i t . 23. a. Most people don't rea l i ze the extent to which the i r l i ve s are con- t r o l l e d by accidental happenings, b. There rea l l y is no such thing as " l uck " . 24. a. In the long run the bad things that happen to us are balanced by the good ones. b. Most misfortunes are the resu l t of lack of a b i l i t y , ignorance, laz iness , or a l l three. 25. a. Many times I feel that I have l i t t l e influence over the things that happen to me. b. It i s impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an important role in my l i f e . 1 4 2 26. a. What happens to me i s my own doing. b. Sometimes I fee l that I don ' t have enough contro l over the d i r e c t i o n my l i f e i s t ak ing . 27. Which man do you f ee l i s g i v ing h is son the best advice? a. When you s t a r t your career , don ' t be s a t i s f i e d u n t i l you reach the top in i t . b. When you s t a r t your career , don ' t be s a t i s f i e d u n t i l you have gone j u s t as f a r as you can i n i t . 28. Success in work means d i f f e r e n t things to d i f f e r e n t people. Two men are de- scr ibed below. Which man would you say knows what success was? Two men worked hard and e f f e c t i v e l y a l l t h e i r l i v e s . Over the years both men were able to a t t a i n respected and respons ib le po s i t i on s in the f i rm in which they worked. But ne i ther of the men reached the top of t h e i r f i r m . a. Mr. B. f e l t that h is career had not been f u l l y successful because he had not reached a top po s i t i on i n the f i r m . b. Mr. A. f e l t that he had led a successful career because he had been able to reach an important po s i t i on i n the f i r m . 29. Two men have i d e n t i c a l po s i t i on s i n a company. Which i s the a t t i t u d e that best describes the man most l i k e l y to be doing a good job now? a. Mr. A. has moved up about f i v e steps from where he s ta r ted at work. He i s proud of how f a r he has gotten ahead and thinks h is past success i s a good p red i c t o r o f ^ fu r the r promotions, so that he expects to reach the top of h i s career before ret i rement. b. Mr. B. has moved up about f i v e steps from where he s ta r ted at work. He i s pleased with how f a r he has already gotten in the company, and he hopes to make a few more moves up to the highest promotion he can get i n the company before ret i rement. 30. Two men in s i m i l a r po s i t i on s are being considered f o r promotion to a top po s i - t i on in a f i r m . , Which man do you th ink would be the best choice f o r the pos i t i on ? a. Mr. A. began his career in a " j u n i o r execut i ve " p o s i t i o n , and has had con- cons iderable experience and success i n making dec i s ions and superv i s ing men. b. Mr. B. has worked his way up from the ranks. His career has given him experience and success i n a v a r i e t y of po s i t i on s of increas ing importance. 31. The s a t i s f a c t i o n s men get out o f t h e i r work d i f f e r f o r d i f f e r e n t men. Described below are two men who work e f f e c t i v e l y , but have been pypassed f o r promotion. Which man do you th ink has the a t t i t u d e appropr iate to the s i t ua t i on ? a. Mr. B. resents h is lack of promotion. He continues to work e f f e c t i v e l y , but now gets l i t t l e s a t i s f a c t i o n from h i s work. b. Mr. A. does not resent h is lack of promotion and f ee l s s a t i s f a c t i o n i n having gotten as f a r as he has i n h is f i r m . 32. Gett ing ahead i n a career i s a long and strenuous process. Sometimes one 's fami ly l i f e may temporar i ly s u f f e r because of career r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Which of the two men i n the s i t u a t i o n descr ibed below has made the most adequate adjustment to the s i t ua t i on ? Two men have worked up from the ranks to respons ib le pos i t i ons with a good income. Both men l i k e t o be home w i th t h e i r f a m i l i e s i n the evenings. But any opportunity f o r f u r the r promotion f o r e i t h e r man requires several years of advanced evening study at a nearby u n i v e r s i t y . a. Mr. B. decided f o r evening study, to prepare f o r promotion. He r e a l i z e d that h i s evening time spent with h i s fami ly would be reduced and that h is wi fe would resent t h i s . b. Mr. A. decided against evening study, to enjoy being with h is f am i l y ; h is wi fe was glad that he had decided to stay home i n the evenings. PART II JOB FACTORS Below you see a number of character i s t ics or qua l i t i e s that might be connected with your present job. Please indicate for each charac ter i s t i c or qual i ty how much i s present in your job with a check mark in the appropriate box given below. (Minimum) (Maximum) 1 2 3 4 5 33. The fee l ing of insecur i ty in my job. 34. The opportunity to give help to other people at my job. 35. The fee l ing 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 par t i c ipat ing in the determination of methods and procedures at my job. 38. The opportunity for par t i c ipat ing in the sett ing of goals in my job. 39. The feel ings of worthwhile accomplishment associated with my job. 40. The feel ings of s e l f - f u l f i l l m e n t associated with my job. 41. The threat of change which could make my present s k i l l s 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 fol lowing section deals with some aspects of decis ion making in your de- partment and organization. Please answer each question with a check mark in the box which c lose ly re f l ec t s your own fee l ings . (Very , (Very L i t t l e ) Much) 1 2 3 4 5 43. In general, how much say or inf luence 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 inf luence do you have on what goes on in the work group? 46. In general, how much say or inf luence do you have on decisions which a f fec t your job. 47. How receptive i s your supervisor to your ideas and l i s tens to your suggestions? 48. How much do you rea l l y want to do a good job? 49. How much do you feel your own personal sa t i s fact ions are related to how well you do your job? (Almost always) (Seldom) 1 2 3 4 5 50. How often do you rea l l y want to I I | I 1 work hard at your job? 144 The fol lowing 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 fol lowing statements. (Strongly Neither Agree (Strongly Agree) nor Disagree Disagree) 1 2 3 4 5 51. He makes his att i tudes c lear to the group. I | 52. He schedules the work to be done. 53. He maintains de f i n i t e standards of performance. 54. He encourages the use of uniform procedures. 55. He le t s group members know what i s expected of 56. He refuses to explain his act ions. 57. He acts without consulting the group. 58. He treats a l l group members as his equals. 59. He i s f r i end ly and approachable. 60. He puts suggestions made by the group into operation. The fol lowing questions re la te to some of your feel ings towards your job. Please check your reponse in the appropriate box much the same way as you did in the previous sect ion. Please do not omit any statement. 61. The major s a t i s f ac t i on in my l i f e comes from my job. 62. The most important things that happen to me i n - volve my work. 63. I am r ea l l y a pe r fec t ion i s t about my work. 64. I l i v e , eat and breathe my job. 65. I am very much involved personally in my work. 66. Most things in my l i f e are more important than work. 67. The main reason I work at my present job i s to make money. 68. I f I received an inheritance so large that I did not have to work, I would s t i l l work at my present job. 69. The things I do o f f the job are general ly more interest ing to me than the things I do while at work. 70. It i s 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 r ea l l y be happy unless I do well at my job. 73. The general f i e l d of work I am in now i s the kind I would prefer to stay in un t i l I r e t i r e . 74. I would feel l i k e a loafer i f I did not have a job. 75. I feel bad when I make mistakes in my work. 76. I am r ea l l y a pe r fec t ion i s t 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 dist racted from the immediate problem by thoughts of other things I have to do. I v i s i t the water fountain and rest room often. I accept every i n v i t a t i on for coffee even when involved in a task. I study the whole system even though I am only working on a small part of i t . I experiment with d i f fe rent techniques in order to become f am i l i a r with a l l of them. I am nosy about what other people are doing. I work on my portion of the job without knowing how i t f i t s into the overal l system. I make assumptions about a problem s i tuat ion rather than seeking answers. I keep whacking away at a problem u n t i l I achieve a so lut ion. I work through lunch i f a problem i s p a r t i c u l a r l y pressing. I work past qu i t t i ng time to fo l low up on a so lut ion to a problem rather than l e t t i n g i t go un t i l the next day. I keep working at a problem u n t i l there i s some pressure to change to a d i f fe rent one. I show pleasure i f taken o f f a drawn-out task before i t i s completed. I ask for a new assignment when faced with adversity and/or a ser ies of d i f f i c u l t tasks. I qu i t when I f i nd that a problem of supposedly moderate d i f f i c u l t y re s i s t s a l l i n i t i a l attempts to solve i t . The fol lowing section i s simply a continuation of the previous section except the format in which you respond i s s l i g h t l y d i f f e ren t . Please check the response that i s c losest to your feel ings about your job. 94. On most days on your job, how often does time seem to drag fo r you? About ha l f 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 t he i r job--they are absorbed in i t night and day. For other people, t he i r job i s simply one of several i n te res t s . How involved do you feel in your job? _Very l i t t l e involved; my other interests are more absorbing. _S l i ght l y involved. 96. How often do you do some extra work for your job which i s n ' t r e a l l y 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 i s the most absorbing in teres t in my l i f e . 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 l i t t l e harder than most others. About the same as most others. A l i t t l e 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 i s an accurate or an inaccurate descr ipt ion of your job. Once again, please t ry to be as object ive as you can in deciding how accurately each statement describes your job — regardless of whether you l i k e or d i s l i k e your job. Write a number in the blank beside each statement, based on the fol lowing scale: How accurate i s the statement in describing your job? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Mostly S l i gh t l y Uncertain S l i g h t l y Mostly Very Inaccurate Inaccurate Inaccurate Accurate Accurate Accurate 1. The job requires me to use a number of complex or high- level s k i l l s . 2. The job requires a l o t of cooperative work with other people. 3. The job i s arranged so that I do not have the chance to do an ent i re piece of work from beginning to end. 4. Just doing the work required by the job provides many chances for me to f igure out how well I am doing. 5. The job i s quite simple and r epe t i t i v e . 6. The job can be done adequately by a person working alone - - without ta lk ing or checking with other people. 7. The supervisors and co-workers on th i s job almost never give me any " feed- back" about how well I am doing in my work. 8. This job i s one where a l o t of other people can be affected by how well the work gets done. 9. The job denies me any chance to use my personal i n i t i a t i v e or judgement in carrying out the work. 10. Supervisors often l e t me know how well they think I am performing the job. 11. The job provides me the chance to completely f i n i s h the pieces of work I begin. 12. The job i t s e l f provides very few clues about whether or not I am performing we l l . 13. The job gives me considerable opportunity fo r independence and freedom in how I do the work. 14. The job i t s e l f i s not very s i gn i f i c an t or important in the broader scheme of things. The fol lowing statements also re la te to your job. For each statement c i r c l e the choice that best r e f l e c t s your view. - How appl icable i s your knowledge and a b i l i t y on your present job to other firms? 1. not at a l l 2. s l i g h t l y 3. somewhat 4. very 5. completely - To what extent i s your soc ia l l i f e connected to your job? 1. very large 2. large 3. somewhat 4. s l i g h t l y 5. not at a l l - To what extent i s i t l i k e l y that you can leave your present job and obtain an equivalent one elsewhere? 1. not at a l l 2. s l i g h t 3. some 4. l i k e l y 5. very l i k e l y - How useful i s the knowledge you obtain on th i s job i f you were to seek employment elsewhere? 1. not at a l l 2. l i t t l e 3. somewhat 4. quite a b i t 5. very 147 PART III ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS Listed below are a series of statements that represent possible feel ings that indiv iduals might have about the company or organization for which they work. With respect to your own feel ings about the pa r t i cu l a r organization for which you are now working, please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each statement by checking one of the f i v e 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 ce r ta in l y feel that my organization i s a better place I to work than most. 99. I am pleased to have my fr iends know where I work. 100. In general, I often t e l l someone in my .immediate family (wife, c h i l d , parents, brother, s i s t e r ) about some pro- ject s that th i s organization has done or i s doing. 101. The values of most managers at my level in th i s organ- i za t i on coincide c lose ly with my own values. 102. I r e a l l y care about the fate of th i s organization. 103. This organization i s a good one for a person t ry ing to get ahead. 104. This organization i s reasonable and f a i r with i t s employees. 105. The values of managers senior to me in th i s organiza- t ion coincide c lose ly with my own values. 105. It bothers me very much when I hear ' (or read about) someone c r i t i c i z i n g th i s organization or i t s products or serv ices. 107. I f ind that I work well with most managers in th i s organizat ion. 108. If I had to s ta r t over again, I would probably not go to work in th i s organization. 109. In th i s organization managers general ly stand to - gether in times of c r i s i s . 110. The top management o f f i c i a l s in th i s organization are the e f fec t i ve executives of the establishment. 111. I am w i l l i n g to put in a great.deal of e f f o r t beyond that normally expected in order to help th i s organ- i za t i on be successful. 112. I ta lk up th i s organization to my fr iends as a great organization to work fo r . 113. I feel very l i t t l e l oya l t y to th i s organization. 114. I would accept almost any type job assignment in order to keep working for th i s organizat ion. 115. I f i nd that my values and the organizat ion ' s values are very s im i l a r . 116. I am proud to t e l l others that I am part of th i s organizat ion. 117. I could j u s t as well be working for a d i f fe rent organization as long as the type of work were s im i l a r . 118. This organization r ea l l y inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance. 119. It would take very l i t t l e change in my present c i r - cumstances to cause me to leave th i s organization. 148 (Strongly Neither Agree (Strongly Agree) nor Disagree Disagree) ,.. 1 2 3 4 5 120. I am extremely glad that I chose th i s j 1 I j organization to work fo r , over others I was considering at the time I jo ined. 121. There's not too much to be gained by .. • ~~~ . s t i ck ing with th i s organization i nde f i n i t e l y . 122. Often, I f ind i t d i f f i c u l t to agree ~ ~ ~ • with th is organizat ion 's po l i c ie s on important matters re la t ing to i t s employees. 123. For me this i s the best of a l l possible organizations for which to work. The next question relates to the promotion p o s s i b i l i t i e s 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 th i s organization within one year. 126. What are the chances of your promotion within th i s organization in one to two years. 127. What are the chances of your promotion • within th i s organization in two to f i v e years. 128. What are the chances of your promotion — " • : ~~ within th i s organization in f i ve to ten years. 149 DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS In t h i s l a s t s e c t i o n of the questionnaire we ask you to supply us with some information about yourself• The questions asked in t h i s s e c t i o n are extremely Important, because they allow us to study the data i n comparative terms. For example, we w i l l be interested to learn whether a t t i t u d e s toward the job and organization vary from one age group to another. Complete data i n t h i s s e c t i o n are required i n order to make the moat meaningful i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the other responses you have given us. REMEMBER: Your answers to t h i s questionnaire w i l l not be seen by anyone except the researchers. 129. Company name Indicate with a check mark your present department a f f i l i a t i o n : 130. What i s your present age i n years? m years. 131. What i s your sex? Male Female 132. What i s your m a r i t a l status (at present)? Married S i n g l e Divorced or separated Engaged to be married Marketing Sales Finance Accounting Purchasing Personnel Customer Service Engineering Labour Relations General Administration B u i l d i n g Real Estate Law A c t u a r i a l ' Medical Computers/Data Processing Transportation other ( s p e c i f y ) 133. Indicate your highest at t a i n e d l e v e l of formal education. some high school high school graduation some c o l l e g e c o l l e g e degree some graduate study advanced degree 134. How large was the c i t y ( c i t i e s ) in which you were ra i s e d as a ch i l d ? 138. What i s 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 m i l l i o n people between 1 m i l l i o n and 2 m i l l i o n people greater than 2 m i l l i o n people 139. What i s the s i z e of your organization? Less than 100 100 - 250 500 - 750 750 - 1000 over 1000 135. What i s your job t i t l e ? 136. How many years have you worked f o r your present company? 140. What Is the s i z e of your department? n l e s s than 5 _ 5 - 1 0 10 - 25 25 - 50 50 - 100- over 100 Thank you for your time, back cover. If you have anything to add not covered by t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e , please use the 150 152 PREMIERE PARTIE FACTEURS INDIVIDUELS Les q u e s t i o n s s u i v a n t e s e v a l u e n t c e r t a i n s a s p e c t s de v o t r e p e r s o n n a l i t e . Les r S D o n s e e ; peuvent v a n e r passablement d'une personne a 1'autre. Ce q u i rend ces q u e s t i o n s i n t e r e s - santes e s t l e f a i t que vos rgponses donnent une i n d i c a t i o n montrant combien v o t r e p e r s o n - n a l i t e e s t unique. r INSTRUCTIONS: Pour chaque item, e n c e r c l e z l e c h o i x q u i r e f l a t e l e p l u s v o t r e a t t i t u d e . 1. Le t r a v a i l e s t quelque chose: 7. a) que j'aime f a i r e l a p l u p a r t du temps. b) que j'aime f a i r e a ssez souvent. c) que j'aime f a i r e 3 l ' o c c a s i o n . d) que j'aime f a i r e rarement. 2. Pour r e u s s i r une tache important**, i l e s t : a) rarement n S c e s s a i r e de se p r e p a r e r b i e n en avance. b) q u e l q u e f o i s u t i l e de se p r e p a r e r b i e n en avance. c) souvent u t i l e de se p r e p a r e r b i e n en avance. d) g§n£ralement n e c e s s a i r e de se p r e p a r e r b i e n en avance. Une v i e dans l a q u e l l e j e n ' a u r a i s pas a t r a v a i l l e r a un emploi s e r a i t pour moi: a) i d S a l e . b) assez a g r ^ a b l e . c) quelque peu ennuyeuse. d) t r S s d£sagr£able e t ennuyeuse, Lorsque j ' S t a i s a l ' S c o l e , j e p e n s a i s que l e f a i t d ' a t t e i n d r e une haute p l a c e dans l a s o c i e t e e t a i t : a) tr&s i m p o r t a n t. b) modSrement i m p o r t a n t . c) seulement lSg&rement important. d) sans aucune importance. Lorsque j e t r a v a i l l e , l e s e x i g e n c e s que j e m'impose so n t : a) tr&s e l e v S e s . b) modgrfiment e l e v e e s . c) pas t r o p e l e v e e s . d) tr&s b a s s e s . 4. Je f a i s g6n6ralement: a) beaucoup p l u s que ce que j ' a v a i s decide. b) un peu p l u s que ce que j ' a v a i s decide. c) un peu moins que ce que j ' a v a i s decide. d) beaucoup moins que ce que j ' a v a i s decide. 5. S i j e ne s u i s pas c a p a b l e d ' a t t e i n d r e un but d i f f i c i l e : a) j ' e s s a i e p l u s f o r t pour l ' a t t e i n d r e . b) j e c o n t i n u e d'essayer mais ne f a i s pas d ' e f f o r t s u p p l e m e n t a i r e . c) j ' a i tendance a v o u l o i r renoncer mais i l se peut que j e f a s s e un no u v e l e f f o r t . d) j e renonce gSngralement e t n ' e s s a i e p l u s . 6. Combien de r e s p o n s a b i l i t e v o u d r i e z - vous dans v o t r e t r a v a i l ? a) beaucoup p l u s de r e s p o n s a b i l i t e . b) un peu p l u s de r e s p o n s a b i l i t e . c) lSgSrement p l u s de r e s p o n s a b i l i t e . d) un peu moins de r e s p o n s a b i l i t e . Pour l e s p l a i s i r s s u p p l e m e n t a i r e s de l a v i e t e l s que l a r e c r e a t i o n , l e s l o i s i r s e t l a r e l a x a t i o n : a) j ' a i presque t o u j o u r s assez de temps. b) j ' a i q u e l q u e f o i s a s s e z de temps. c) j ' a i rarement a s s e z de temps. d) j e n ' a i jamais assez de temps. 10. Je peux t r a v a i l l e r a une tSche sans S t r e f a t i g u f i : a) tr&s longtemps. b) a s s e z longtemps. c) pas t r o p longtemps. d) seulement une c o u r t e p e r i o d e . 11. Je s u i s genSralement: a) extremement occupe. b) moderSment occupe. c) pas t r o p occupe. d) pas occupe du t o u t . 12. Lorsque j ' & t a i s a l ' S c o l e : a) j ' e t a i s extrfimement a m b i t i e u x . b) j ' e t a i s a ssez a m b i t i e u x . c) j ' e t a i s un peu a m b i t i e u x . d) j ' S t a i s pas du t o u t a m b i t i e u x . 13. Q u e l l e importance pour vous de s a v o i r 3i vous f a i t e s b i e n v o t r e t r a v a i l ? a) tr&s i m p o r t a n t. b) moderSment important. c) leg&rement i m p o r t a n t . d) pas du t o u t i m p o r t a n t . 153 14. Lorsque j"entreprends une tachei a) je l a conduis generalement aveo succes a sa conclusion. b) je l a conduis souvent aveo suooes a sa conclusion. c) je l a conduis quelquefois avec succes a sa conclusion. d) je l a conduis rarement avec succes a sa conclusion. 15. Lorsque l 'on est president d'une nouvelle compagnie, l a meilleure chose est: a) l a poss ib i l i te de fa ire partie d'une equipe dirigeante. b) 1'excellent salaire at les benefices. c) le def i de part ic iper au succes de la compagnie. d) le statut et ie respect que confere le t i t r e de cadre superieur. 16. L 'object i f de rendement que je prefere le plus me f ixer est ce lu i pour lequel la probabil ity de reussite de l ' ob jec t i f est: a) lOOJt, b) 90%, c) 70%, d) 50f. »>,» = , Veuil lez s ' i l ™ u s p l a i t repondre aux item #17 a #32 en encerclant l a phrase "a" 0,1 J 17. a. A l a longue les gens re<joivent le respect q u ' i l s meritent dans ce monde. b. Malheureusement, le merite d'un individu passe souvent inapergu malgre tous ses ef forts . 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 real isent pas jusqu'a quel point leurs notes sont in f luen- c e s par des evenements accidentels. 19. a. Reussir est une question de gros t r a v a i l , l a chance a peu ou r ien a y vo i r . b. Obtenir un bon emploi depend principalement du f a i t de se trouver a l a 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 i l n'y a pas grandchose que le citoyen ordinaire peut fa i re . 21. a. Dans men cas, obtenir ce que je desire a peu ou r ien a. fa i re avec l a chance. b. Bien des fo i s nous pourrions aussi bien simpletnent decider quoi fa i re en t i rant au sort. 22. a. Celui qui se trouve etre le patron l ' e s t souvent devenu parce q u ' i l a eu assez de chance pour se trouver au bon endroit le premier, b. Obtenir des gens de fa i re ce que l 'on attend d'eux, e 'est une question de capacite, l a chance a peu ou r ien a y vo i r . 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 l a longue les mauvaises choses qui nous arrivent sont equil ibrees par les bonnes, b. La plupart des malheurs sont le resultat d'un manque de capacite,.d' ignorance, de paresse ou des t ro i s combinees. 25. a. Bien des fo i s , j ' a i 1'impression d'avoir peu d' influence sur les choses qui m'arrivent. b. II m'est impossible de croire que l a chance ou l a bonne eto i le jouent un role important dans ma vie. 26. a. LeB chose qui m'arrivent sont le resultat de mes actes. b. Quelquefois j ' a i 1'impression que je n ' a i pas assez de controle sur l a d irect ion que prend ma v ie. 154 2 7 - Quel homme a. v o t r e a v i s donne l e raeilleur c o n s e i l a. son f i l s ? a. Lorsque t u commences t a c a r r i e r e , ne s o i s pas s a t i s f a i t avant d'en e t r e a r r i v e au b. Lorsque t u commences t a c a r r i e r e , ne s o i s pas s a t i s f a i t avant d ' e t r e a r r i v e , j u s t i a u s s i l o i n que t u l e p o u v a i s . 28. La n o t i o n de succes au t r a v a i l v a r i e d'une personne a 1 ' a u t r e . Nous vous d e c r i v o n s deux hommes. A v o t r e a v i s , l e q u e l s a i t ce qu'e s t l e succes? Deux hommes ont t r a v a i l l e dur et avec e f f i c a c i t e durant t o u t e l e u r v i e . Au f i l des annees, ces deux hommes ont ete c a p a b l e s d ' a r r i v e r a des postes r e s p o n s a b l e s et r e s p e c t e s au s e i n de l e u r compagnie, mais aucun n'a accede au p l u s haut p o s t e . a. Monsieur "B" a v a i t l ' i m p r e s s i o n de n ' a v o i r p a s completement r e u s s i parce q u ' i l n ' a v a i t pas a t t e i n t un poste t r e s e l e v e dans l a compagnie. b. Monsieur "A" a v a i t l ' i m p r e s s i o n d ' a v o i r c o n d u i t sa c a r r i e r e avec succes parce q u ' i l a v a i t ete capable d ' o b t e n i r un pos t e important dans l a compagnie. 29. Deux hommes ont des p o s t e s i d e n t i q u e s dans une compagnie, q u e l l e e s t a v o t r e a v i s , 1 ' a t t i t u d e d e c r i v a n t l e raieux c e l u i q u i f a i t un bon t r a v a i l a c t u e l l e m e n t ? a. Monsieur "A" a g r a v i e n v i r o n 5 e c h e l o n s d e p u i s son entree a l a compagnie. I I e s t f i e r d ' e t r e a r r i v e a u s s i l o i n et pense que son succes a date e s t un bon presage pour des promotions f u t u r e s . A u s s i , i l s ' a t t e n d a a t t e i n d r e l e sommet de sa c a r r i e r e avant l a r e t r a i t e . b. Monsieur "B" a g r a v i e n v i r o n 5 e c h e l o n s d e p u i s son entree a l a compagnie. I I e s t s a t i s f a i t d ' e t r e d e j a a r r i v e a u s s i l o i n dans l a compagnie et i l espere g r a v i r encore quelques e c h e l o n s en d i r e c t i o n de l a p l u s haute promotion q u ' i l peut o b t e n i r avant l a r e t r a i t e . 30. Deux hommes^ayant des p o s t e s i d e n t i q u e s sont p r i s ^ e n c o n s i d e r a t i o n pour une promotion a un poste t r e s e l e v e dans une compagnie. L e q u e l , a v o t r e a v i s , s e r a i t l e m e i l l e u r c h o i x ? a. Monsieur "A" a commence sa c a r r i e r e comme " j u n i o r e x e c u t i v e " et a eu a i n s i une ex p e r i e n c e c o n s i d e r a b l e et beaucoup de succes dans l a p r i s e de d e c i s i o n s et dans l a s u p e r v i s i o n de p e r s o n n e l . " b. Monsieur "B" a g r a v i l e s e c h e l o n s et e s t s o r t i du rang. Sa c a r r i e r e l u i a donne e x p e r i e n c e et succes dans une v a r i e t e de p o s t e s d"importance c r o i s s a n t e . 31. L a s a t i s f a c t i o n eprouvee par l e t r a v a i l v a r i e d'un i n d i v i d u a l ' a u t r e . Nous d e c r i v o n s deux hommes q u i t r a v a i l l e n t e f f i c a c e m e n t et qu'on a l a i s s e de cote a 1'occasion de promotion. L e q u e l a v o t r e a v i s , a 1'attitude j u s t e f a c e a c e t t e s i t u a t i o n ? a. Monsieur "B" e s t i r r i t e p a r ce manque de•promotion. I I c o n t i n u e a t r a v a i l l e r e f f i c a c e m e n t mais ne r e t i r e p l u s maintenant que peu de s a t i s f a c t i o n de son t r a v a i l . b. Monsieur "A" n ' e s t pas i r r i t e p a r ce manque de promotion et e s t " s a t i s f a i t d ' e t r e a r r i v e a u s s i l o i n ( q u ' i l l ' e s t a c t u e l l e m e n t ) dans sa f i r m e . 32. Avancer dans sa c a r r i e r e e s t un p r o c e s s u s l o n g et l a b o r i e u x . Q u e l q u e f o i s n o t r e p r o p r e f a m i l l e peut s o u f f r i r temporairement a cause des r e s p o n s a b i l i t e s d'une c a r r i e r e . L e q u e l des deux hommes, dans l a s i t u a t i o n d e c r i t e c i - d e s s o u s a su l e mieux s ' a d a p t e r a l a s i t u a t i o n ? Deux hommes sont s o r t i s du rang et sont parvenus a des p o s t e s r e s p o n s a b l e s avec un bon revenu. Tous deux aiment p a s s e r l e u r s s o i r e e s a l a maison avec l e u r f a m i l l e mais t o u t e o c c a s i o n de promotion f u t u r e pour ces deux hommes n e c e s s i t e p l u s i e u r s annees d ' e t u d e , . t a r d l e s o i r , a une u n i v e r s i t e v o i s i n e . a. Monsieur "B" a decide d ' e t u d i e r l e . s o i r pour se p r e p a r e r a l a promotion. I I a b i e n r e a l i s e que l e temps passe l e s o i r aupres de sa f a m i l l e a l l a i t e t r e r e d u i t et que son epouse en s e r a i t i r r i t e e . b. Monsieur "A" a c h o i s i de ne pas e t u d i e r l e s o i r et de r e s t e r aupres de sa f a m i l l e . Sa femme e t a i t heureuse de sa d e c i s i o n de p a s s e r ses s o i r e e s a l a maison. 155 DEUXIEME PARTIE FACTEURS DE L'EMPLQI Ci-dessous vous trouverez un certain nombre de caracterist iques ou qualites p o u v a n t i t re re l iees a votre empioi actuel. Veui l lez s ' i l vous p la i t indiquer pour chacune d ' e l l e ? . l - ; u r degre de presence (de 1 a 5) dans votre t r ava i l , en faisant une marque au crayon dans i a c a s e appropriee. 33. 3^. Le sentiment d' insecurite dans mon t r ava i l . La poss ib i l i te d'aider d'autres personnes dans mon t rava i l . Le sentiment d'estime persormelle que je recois de mon t rava i l . Le prestige a l ' i n te r i eu r de l a compagnie (c 'es t -a -d i re le respect regu des autres au sein de- la compagnie). La 'poss ib i l i te de parxiciper dans l a determination des methodes et procedures a mon t r ava i l . La poss ib i l i te de part ic iper a l 'etablissement des object i fs dans mon t rava i l . Le sentiment de rea l i ser quelque chose qui en vaut l a peine dans mon t rava i l . Le sentiment de me rea l i ser moi-meme a travers mon t rava i l . La peur du changement qui pourrait rendre mes q u a l i f i - cations et connaissances actuel les depassees a mon t rava i l . La poss ib i l i te de converser et d'echanger des idees avec des collegues et compagnons de t r ava i l a mon empioi. (Minimum) 1 2 Marci a) La section suivante t ra i te de certains^aspects des prises de decisions dans votre departement et organisation. Veui l lez 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 l a facon dont vous real i sez votre trava i l ? 44. ' Jusqu'a quel point etes-vous capable de decider comment fa i re votre trava i l ? 45. En general, quel degre d' influence ou de parole -avez- vous concernant ce qui se passe dans votre groupe de travai l? 46. En general, quel degre d*influence ou de parole avez-vous sur les decisions affectant votre t rava i l ? 47. Quel degre de receptivite a l 'egard de vos idees et suggestions votre superviseur a - t - i l ? 48. A quel point etes-vous desireux de f a i r un bon trava i l ? 49. Dans quelle raesure avez-vous le sentiment que vos sat isfact ions personnelles sont en re lat ion avec l a quaiite" de votre trava i l ? Vous a r r i v e - t - i l souvent de vouloir t r ava i l l e r dur a. votre empioi? (Tres peu) 1 2 (Presque tou.jours) (Enormement) (Rarement) 156 La section suivante contient des questions re lat ives au comportement de votre cnef d irect. Pour chaque phrase, cochez l a reponse qui semble le plus repondre a votre sentime dans l a case appropriee (al lant de "fortement d'accord" a "fortement en disaccord"). Fortement d'accord N i o u i n i n o n nt, Fortement 51. 11 52. 11 53. 11 5<*. 11 55- 11 56. 11 57. 11 58. 11 59. 11 60. 11 ce q u ' i l attend d'eux. Les questions suivantes tra i tent de quelques-uns de vos sentiments envers votre t r ava i l . Veui l lez s ' i l vous p la i t indiquer vos reponses dans les cases appropriees, comme vous l 'avez f a i t precedemment. S ' i l vous p la i t n'omettez aucune reponse. 61. 62. 6 3 . 6 4 . 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 7 0 . 7 1 . 7 2 . 7 3 . 7 4 . 7 5 . 76. 7 7 . 7 8 . La sat is fact ion majeure de ma vie vient de mon t r ava i l . Les choses les plus importantes qui m'arrivent impliquent mon t rava i l . Je suis reellement un perfectionniste en ce qui concerne mon t rava i l . Je ne v i s que pour mon t r ava i l . Je suis tres engage personnellement dans mon travai l . ' La majorite des choses dans ma vie sont plus importantes que le t r ava i l . La raiaon principale pour laquelle je t rava i l l e a. mon empioi actuel est de fa i re de l 'argent. Si je recevais un heritage me permettant de ne plus avoir a. t r ava i l l e r , je continuerais .a t r a v a i l l e r a mon empioi actuel. Les choses que je fa i s en dehors de mon t rava i l sont gene- ralement plus interessantes pour moi que les choses que je fa i s durant mon t rava i l . C'est plus important pour moi de bien fa i re i c i a mon t r ava i l que de bien fa ire n'importe quoi d'autre. J'attache plus d'importance a ce que les gens avec qui je t rava i l l e pensent de moi'qu'a ce que la plupart des autres gens en pensent.' Je ne puis etre vraiment heureux que s i je fa i s bien a mon t rava i l . Le domaine general de t r a v a i l , dans lequel je me trouve actuellement est le type meme de ce lu i ou je prefererais rester jusqu'a, ma ret ra i te . Je me sent ira is comme un faineant s i je n'avais pas de t r ava i l . Je me sens malheureux lorsque je fa is des erreurs dans mon t rava i l . Je suis reellement un perfectionniste dans mon t r ava i l . Je ne remarque pas 1'heure lorsque je suis occupe a une tache. En temps ordinaire, je garde mon attention sur l a tache que j ' a i en main. 1 2 -S < j : 1 1 i 157 J e s u i s d e t o u r n e d u p r o b l e m e i m m e d i a t p a r d e s p e n s e e s r e l i e e s a d ' a u t r e s c h o s e s q u e j ' a i a f a i r e . J e v a i s s o u v e n t a l ' o b r e u v o i r e t a l a t o i l e t t e . J ' a c c e p t e ch* s u i s o c c u p e E ̂ ue i n v i t a t i o n p o u r l e c a f e meme l o r s q u e j e une t a c h e . F o r t e m e n t d ' a c c o r d x — J ' e t u d i e t o u t l e s y s t e m e q u o i q u e j e ne t r a v a i l l e s i m p l e m e n t q u : a une p e t i t e p a r t i e de c e l u i - c i . J e f a i s l ' e s s a i de t e c h n i q u e s d i f f e r e n t e s de f a g o n a me f a m i l i a r i s e r a v e c t o u t e s c e l l e s - c i . J e s u i s f u r e t e u r a u s u j e t . d e c e q u e f o n t l e s a u t r e s . J e f a i s mon t r a v a i l a s s i g n e s a n s s a v o i r comment c e l u i - c i s ' i n s e r e d a n s l e s y s t e m e g e n e r a l . J e f a i s d e s s u p p o s i t i o n s a u s u j e t d ' u n p r o b l e m e p a r t i -c u l i e r p l u t o t q u e d ' y c h e r c h e r d e s r e p o n s e s . J e me c r e u s e l a c e r v e l l e s u r u n p r o b l e m e j u s q u ' a c e q u e j e t r o u v e u n e s o l u t i o n . J e t r a v a i l l e p e n d a n t l ' h e u r e d u r e p a s s i u n p r o b l e m e e s t p a r t i c u l i e r e m e n t u r g e n t . J e t r a v a i l l e a u - d e l a d e l ' h e u r e de s o r t i e p o u r c o n t i n u e r a t r o u v e r une s o l u t i o n a u n p r o b l e m e p l u t o t q u e d e m ' a r r e t e r e t de l e r e n v o y e r a u j o u r s u i v a n t . J e c o n t i n u e de t r a v a i l l e r s u r u n p r o b l e m e j u s q u ' a c e q u ' u n e p r e s s i o n me f a s s e p a s s e r a u n a u t r e . J e s u i s s a t i s f a i t l o r s q u ' o n m ' e n l e v e u n e t a c h e l o n g u e a f a i r e a v a n t q u e c e l l e - c i s o i t t e r m i n e e . J e d emande u n e n o u v e l l e a s s i g n a t i o n l o r s q u e j e s u i s c o n -f r o n t s a 1 ' a d v e r s i t e e t / o u a u n e s e r i e de t a c h e s d i f f i c i l e s . J e r e n o n c e l o r s q u e j e t r o u v e q u ' u n p r o b l e m e de d i f f i c u l t y s u p -p o s e e m o d e r e e r e s i s t e a t o u t e t e n t a t i v e i n i t i a l e de l e r e s o u d r e . F o r t e m e n t N i o u i e n n i n o n d i s a c c o r d 1 . L a s e c t i o n s u i v a n t e e s t s i m p l e m e n t u n e c o n t i n u a t i o n de l a p r e c e d e n t e a 1 ' e x c e p t i o n d u f o r m a t l e g e r e m e n t d i f f e r e n t . V e u i l l e z s ' i l v o u s p l a i t c o c h e r l a r e p o n s e q u i v o u s s e m b l e l a p l u s a d e q u a t e d a n s v o t r e c a s p a r t i c u l i e r . 9 4 . E n g e n e r a l , k v o t r e t r a v a i l l e s j o u r n e e s s e m b l e n t t r a i n e r e n l o n g u e u r p o u r u n e d u r e e d e ? a p e u p r e s l a d e m i - j o u r n e e o u p l u s . a p e u p r e s u n t i e r s de l a j o u r n e e . a p e u p r e s u n q u a r t d e l a j o u r n e e . a p e u p r e s u n h u i t i e m e d e l a j o u r n e e . l e t e m p s n e s e m b l e j a m a i s t r a i n e r e n l o n g u e u r . 9 5 ' C e r t a i n e s p e r s o n n e s s o n t c o m p l e t e m e n t i m p l i -q u e e s d a n s l e u r t r a v a i l e t s o n t a b s o r b e e s p a r l u i , n u i t e t j o u r . P o u r d ' a u t r e s , l e u r t r a v a i l e s t s i m p l e m e n t u n i n t e r e t p a r m i t a n t d ' a u t r e s . Comment v o u s s e n t e z - v o u s i m p l i q u e ? t r e s p e u i m p l i q u e , mes a u t r e s i n t e r e t s s o n t p l u s a b s o r b a n t s . l e g e r e m e n t i m p l i q u e . j n o d e r e m e n t i m p l i q u e , mon t r a v a i l e t mes a u t r e s i n t e r e t s m ' a b s o r b e n t de f a g o n e g a l e . t r e s i m p l i q u e . e x t r e m e m e n t i m p l i q u e , mon t r a v a i l e s t l a c h o s e q u i m ' a b s o r b e l e p l u s d a n s l a v i e . 9 6 . F a i t e s - v o u s s o u v e n t d u t r a v a i l s u p p l e - m e n t a i r e p o u r v o t r e e m p i o i , l e q u e i n ' e s t p a s r e q u i s de v o u s ? p r a t i q u e m e n t c h a q u e j o u r . p l u s i e u r s f o i s p a r s e m a i n e . , u n e f o i s p a r s e m a i n e e n v i r o n . s u r q u e l q u e s s e m a i n e s , u n e f o i s . e n v i r o n u n e f o i s p a r m o i s o u m o i n s . 97- D i r i e z - v o u s q u e v o u s ^ t r a v a i l l e z p l u s f o r t , m o i n s f o r t o u a p e u p r e s p a r e i l a. d ' a u t r e s p e r s o n n e s f a i s a n t l e meme t y p e d e t r a v a i l q u e v o u s d a n s v o t r e o r g a n i s a t i o n ? b e a u c o u p p l u s q u e l a p l u p a r t d e s a u t r e s . u n p e u p l u s q u e l a p l u p a r t d e s a u t r e s . a p e u p r e s p a r e i l a l a p l u p a r t d e s a u t r e s . u n p e u m o i n s q u e l a p l u p a r t d e s a u t r e s b e a u c o u p m o i n s q u e l a p l u p a r t d e s a u t r e s . 158 TROISIEME' PARTIE FACTEURS D'ORGANISATION Les phrases ci-dessous representent des sentiments possibles que des individus peuvent avoir vis-a-vis de l a compagnie ou de 1'organisation pour laquelle i l s t r a v a i l l e n t En respectant vos propres sentiments vis-a-vis de 1'organisation, pour laquelle vous t r a - v a i l l e z 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 f a i t precedemment. 98. Je suis convaincu que mon organisation est un m e i l l - eur endroit pour t r a v a i l l e r que bien d'autres. 99. Je suis heureux de savoir que mes amis sont au courant de 1'endroit ou je t r a v a i l l e . 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 l a 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 ce l u i qui desire a l l e r 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 l i s ) 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 ' a i de bonnes relations de t r a v a i l avec l a plupart des directeurs dans cette organisation. 108. S i je devais recommencer je n ' i r a i s probablement pas t r a v a i l l e r dans cette organisation. 109. Dans cette organisation les directeurs restent generalement unis en cas de crise. 110. Les cadres superieurs de l a direction dans cette organisation sont en re a l i t e les executifs de l'ordre e t a b l i . 111. Je suis pret a fai r e 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 i l f a i t bon t r a v a i l l e r . 113- Je ressens tres peu de f i d e l i t e envers cette organi- sation. 159 F i g u r e n t c i - d e s s o u s des enonces q u i p o u r r a i e n t s e r v i r a d e c r i r e une tache. ---' Indiquez dans q u e l l e mesure vous jugez chaque enonce exact ou i n e x a c t par r a p p o r t a v o t r e tache. Nous vous p r i o n s de nouveau d ' e t r e l e p l u s o b j e c t i f p o s s i b l e et de f a i r e a b s t r a c t i o n du f a i t que vous aimez ou n'aimez pas v o t r e t r a v a i l . I n s c r i v e z , sur l a l i g n e p r e c edant chaque enonce, l e c h i f f r e de l ' e c h e l l e s u i v a n t e que vous jugez l e p l u s a p p r o p r i e . Par r a p p o r t a v o t r e tache. 1'enonce esx exact ou i n e x a c t ? 1 2 . 3 ^ 5 6 7 T r e s En bonne p a r t i e Legeremenx , ,- . Peu En bonne p a r t i e T r e s i n e x a c t i n e x a c t i n e x a c t e ~ 3 exact exact exact 1. Ma tache exige une grande h a b i l e t e ou des a p t i t u d e s t r e s p a r t i c u l i e r e s . 2. Ma tache m'oblige a t r a v a i l l e r en e t r o i t e c o l l a b o r a t i o n avec d ' a u t r e s personnes. 3- Mon t r a v a i l e s t a i n s i o r g a n i s e que .ie n ' a i pas a m'occuper e n t i e r e m e n t d'une tach e , du debut a l a f i n . 4. Le t r a v a i l que je f a i s peut me donner en s o i beaucoup d ' i n d i c a t i o n s s u r mon rendement. 5- Mon t r a v a i l e s t assez simple et r o u t i n i e r . 6. Mon t r a v a i l peut e t r e f a i t convenablement par une s e u l e personne, sans c o n s u l t a t i o n ou v e r i f i c a t i o n aupres d ' a u t r e s personnes. 7- Mes s u p e r i e u r s ou mes c o l l e g u e s ne me p a r l e n t a peu p r e s .jamais de l a q u a l i t e de mon rendement. 8. La q u a l i t e de mon t r a v a i l peut a v o i r des e f f e t s s u r p l u s i e u r s personnes. 9* Ma tache ne me permet pas du t o u t de f a i r e preuve d ' i n i t i a t i v e . 10. Mes s u p e r i e u r s me f o n t souvent des o b s e r v a t i o n s s u r l a f a c o n dont je m ' a c q u i t t e de ma tache. 11. Dans l ' e x e r c i c e de^mes f o n c t i o n s , j ' a i - l a chance d ' e x e c u t e r au complet des t a c h e s , de m'en occuper de A a Z. 12. Le t r a v a i l que je f a i s me donne peu d ' i n d i c a t i o n s s u r l a q u a l i t e de mon rendement. 13- J ' a i beaucoup de l a t i t u d e quant a. l a fagon de f a i r e mon t r a v a i l . 14. Dans l'ensemble, l e t r a v a i l que je f a i s e s t peu important ou a peu de consequence. Les q u e s t i o n s s u i v a n t e s concernent egalement v o t r e emploi. Pour chacune d ' e l l e s , e n c e r c l e z l e c h o i x r e f l e t a n t l e p l u s v o t r e s e n t i m e n t i 15> Dans q u e l l e mesure vos c o n n a i s s a n c e s et q u a l i f i c a t i o n s dans v o t r e emploi a c t u e l s o n t - e l l e s a p p l i c a b l e s dans d ' a u t r e s compagnies? 1. Pas du t o u t 2. Legerement 3- Quelque peu 4. Beaucoup 5- Totalement 16. Dans q u e l l e mesure v o t r e v i e s o c i a l e e s t - e l l e l i e e a. v o t r e emploi? 1. Vraiment beaucoup 2. Beaucoup 3* Quelque peu 4. Legerement $• Pas du t o u t 17. Dans q u e l l e mesure e s t - i l v r a i s e m b l a b l e que vous p u i s s i e z q u i t t e r v o t r e emploi a c x u e l et en o b t e n i r un a u t r e a i l l e u r s ? 1. Pas du t o u t v r a i s e m b l a b l e 2. Legerement v r a i s e m b l a b l e 3* P e u t - e t r e v r a i s e m b l a b l e 4. V r a i s e m b l a b l e 5- T r e s v r a i s e m b l a b l e 18. Dans q u e l l e mesure l a c o n n a i s s a n c e que vous acquerez au t r a v a i l que vous f a i t e s s e r a i t u t i l e s i vous a v i e z a c h e r c h e r un emploi a i l l e u r s ? 1. Ne s e r a i t pas du t o u t u t i l e 2. S e r a i t f a i b l e m e n t u t i l e 3. S e r a i t quelque peu u t i l e 4. S e r a i t a s s e z u t i l e 5« S e r a i t t r e s u t i l e 160 Fortement Fortement Ni oui en d'accord ni non desaccord  1 2 3 ^ 5 114. J*accepterais n'importe quel type d'assignation d'emploi de fa?on a pouvoir continuer a t r ava i l l e r pour cette organisation. 115. Je trouve que mes valeurs et ce l les de l ' o rgan i - sation sont tres proches. 116. Je suis f i e r de dire aux autres que je fa i s partie de cette organisation. 117. Je pourrais aussi bien t r ava i l l e r pour une autre organisation pourvu que le type de t rava i l soit s imi la i re. 118. J ' a i l a plus haute estime pour cette organisation en ce qui concerne 1'accomplissement du t r ava i l . 119. Un tres leger changemenf dans ma s ituation actuelle pourrait causer mon depart de cette organisation. 120. Je suis extremement heureux d'avoir chois i cette organisation pour t r a v a i l l e r de preference a d'autres que j 'ava is prises en consideration a 1'epoque 011 j ' a i commence a t r ava i l l e r pour c e l l e - c i . 121. II n'y a^pas grand-chose^a gagner en restant "accroche" indefiniment a cette organisation. 122. Souvent j ' a i de l a d i f f i c u l t e a etre en accord avec les pol it iques de-cette organisation sur des aujets importants r e l a t i f s a ses employes. 123. Pour moi cette organisation est l a meilleure possible pour laquelle on puisse t r ava i l l e r . 124. . J ' a i f a i t une tres grave erreur en decidant de t r ava i l l e r pour cette organisation. La question suivante est en rapport avec vos poss ib i l i te s de promotion dans votre organisation. Veui l lez s ' i l vous p l a i t indiquer vos reponses dans les cases appropriees. 125. Quelles sont vos chances de promotion organisation d ' i c i un an? . dans cette 126. Quelles sont vos chances de promotion dans organisation d ' i c i un a. deux ans? cette 127. Quelles sont vos chances de promotion organisation d ' i c i deux a. cinq ans? dans cette 128. Quelles sont vos chances de promotion organisation d ' i c i cinq a dix ans? dans cette Faibles 1 2 161 QUATRIEME PARTIE FACTEURS DEMOGRAPHIQ UES Dans c e t t e d e r n i e r e s e c t i o n du q u e s t i o n n a i r e , nous vous demandons des i n f o r m a t i o n s sur vous-meme, Les q u e s t i o n s posees dans c e t t e s e c t i o n sont extremement im p o r t a n t e s c a r e l l e s nous p e r m e t t e n t _ d ' a n a l y s e r l e s donnees en termes c o m p a r a t i f s . Par exemple, nous sommes m t e r e s s e s a s a v o i r s i l e s a t t i t u d e s envers 1*empioi et 1 • o r g a n i s a t i o n v a r i e n t d'un groupe d'age a l ' a u t r e . Des aonnees completes dans c e t t e s e c t i o n sont n e c e s s a i r e s de f a c o n a p o u v o i r t i r e r l e maximum d ' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s v a l a b l e s sur l e s a u t r e s rep donnees precedemment. eponses que vous avez V e u i l l e s n o t e r e n c o r e q u e : 129- Norn du compagnie. 131. 132. 133- 134. 136. 130. Quel e s t v o t r e age en nombre d'annees? De q u e l sexe etes-vous? Quel e s t v o t r e e'tat c i v i l ? _ M a r i e ( e ) _ C e l i b a t a i r e _ D i v o r c e ( e ) ou separe'(e) _ F i a n c e ( e ) V e u i l l e z i n d i q u e r l e p l u s haut degre de vos etudes. _Une p a r t i e du c o u r s s e c o n d a i r e _Cours s e c o n d a i r e (diplome obtenu) _Une g a r t i e du c o u r s c o l l e g i a l _Diplome c o l l e g i a l _Quela tues annees u n i v e r s i t a i r e s _Diplome ( s ) u n i v e r s i t a i r e ( s ) vos reponses a ce q u e s t i o n n a i r e ne s e r o n t l u e s que par' l e s r e s p o n s a b l e s de l ' e n q u e t e . 137. Indiquez au c r a y o n l e departement auquel vous appartenez a c t u e l l e m e n t ? M a r k e t i n g Ventes Fin a n c e C o m p t a b i l i t e S e r v i c e des a c h a t s Personnel S e r v i c e a l a c l i e n t e l e E n g i n e e r i n g R e l a t i o n s de t r a v a i l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n g e n e r a l e C o n s t r u c t i o n Immobilier L e g i s l a t i o n - l e g a l A c t u a r i a t M e d i c a l I n f o r m a t i q u e - T r a i t e m e n t des donnee Transport A u t r e s (spec i f i e z ) 133. Quel e s t v o t r e s a l a i r e a c t u e l ? M a s c u l i n Feminin Moins de $10,000 p a r an Q u e l l e e t a i t l a p o p u l a t i o n de l a v i l l e (ou des v i l l e s ) ou vous avez ete e l e v e ( e ) e t a n t e n f a n t ? Moins de 500 h a b i t a n t s E n t r e 500 et 5,000 h a b i t a n t s E n t r e 5,000 et 50,000 h a b i t a n t s E n t r e 50,000 et 100,000 h a b i t a n t s E n t r e 100,000 et 500,000 h a b i t a n t s E n t r e 500,000 e t 1,000,000 d ' h a b i t a n t s E n t r e 1,000,000 et 2,000,.000 d ' h a b i t a n t s P l u s de 2,000,000 d ' h a b i t a n t s 135. Quel e s t l e t i t r e de v o t r e empioi? Depuis combien d'annees t r a v a i l l e z - v o u s pour l a p r e s e n t e compagnie? _ P l u s de $50,000 par an. 139. Q u e l l e e s t l a t a i l l e de v o t r e o r g a - n i s a t i o n ? Moins de 100 personnes 100 - 250 250 - .500 500 - 750 750 - 1000 P l u s de 1,000 personnes 140. Q u e l l e e s t l a t a i l l e de v o t r e depar- tement? Moins de 5 personnes 10 - 25 25 - 50 50 - 100 P l u s de 100 personnes. M e r c i pour' v o t r e temps. S i vous avez quelque chose de s u p p l e m e n t a i r e a a j o u t e r a ce q u e s t i o n n a i r e , v e u i l l e z s ' i l vous p l a i t u t i l i s e r l e dos de l a page. 1 . 6 2 163 APPENDIX 2 FORMULA FOR COMPARISON OF REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS B l " B2 ( n i - 2) S±2 + ( n 2 - 2) S 2 2 I K " 1) ( n l + n 2 ~ 4 ) Cn2 - 1) where E l = Regression C o e f f i c i e n t f o r P i l o t sample B2 = Regression Co.ef f ic-ient f o r v a l i d a t i o n sample V Standard e r r o r f o r B„ 1 v S 2: Standard e r r o r f o r B 2 n l = P i l o t sample s i z e n 2 : V a l i d a t i o n : s a m p l e . s i z e The above- formula was derived from: Beyer, W.H. CRC Handbook of Tables f o r P r o b a b i l i t y and S t a t i s t i c s (2nd Ed.) The Chemical Rubber Company: Cleveland 1968. VIshwanath V.Baba PUBLICATIONS 1. On the r e l a t i o n s h i p between job involvement and c e n t r a l l i f e i n t e r e s t . ( V . F . M i t c h e l l , V.V.Baba & T.Epps), R e l a t i o n s I n d u s t r i e l l e s , Vol.30,#2, 1975. 2. On the nature of company s a t i s f a c t i o n , company commitment and work involvement: An e m p i r i c a l examination of b l u e c o l l a r workers. (V.V.Baba & M.Jamal), R e l a t i o n s I n d u s t r i e l l e s , Vol.31,#3, 1976. 3. The relevance of Guttman scalogram f o r s o c i a l r e s earch. (H.Das & V.V.Baba) J o u r n a l of S o c i a l Research, Vol.20,#1,1977 4. On Becker's theory of commitment: An e m p i r i c a l v e r i f i c a t i o n among bl u e c o l l a r workers. (V.V.Baba & M.Jamal), R e l a t i o n s Industrielles,Vol.34,#1,1979 5. Leader behavior i n the u n i v e r s i t y c l a s s room. (V.V.Baba & M.E.Ace), Proceedings A.I.D.S. Western D i v i s i o n , Las Vegas, 1975 6. On the nature of job involvement. (V.V.Baba), Academy' of Management, Western D i v i s i o n , Santa Barbara, 1976 7. Need f u l f i l l m e n t i n nonwork: A t e s t of Maslow, A l d e r f e r and Maslow f o r m u l a t i o n s (M.Jamais V.V.Baba & V . F . M i t c h e l l ) , Proceedings, Academy of Management, Southwest D i v i s i o n , Houston, 1979. 8. An i n t e g r a t i v e 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, q u a l i t y of. l i f e and happiness: A study of Canadian rank and f i l e workers. (V.V.Baba, M.Jamal & V . F . M i t c h e l l ) , A.S.A.C. Conference, Saskatoon, 1979

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 5 0
Japan 3 0
India 3 0
France 3 0
Netherlands 2 0
Germany 1 24
China 1 10
Algeria 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 11 24
Tokyo 3 0
Redmond 2 0
Mountain View 1 0
Beijing 1 0
Ashburn 1 0

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

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items