دانلود مقاله ISI انگلیسی شماره 3858
عنوان فارسی مقاله

عوامل تعیین کننده ساختاری رضایت شغلی و تعهد سازمانی در مدلهای های ترک خدمت

کد مقاله سال انتشار مقاله انگلیسی ترجمه فارسی تعداد کلمات
3858 1999 15 صفحه PDF سفارش دهید محاسبه نشده
خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.
عنوان انگلیسی
Structural Determinants of Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in Turnover Models
منبع

Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)

Journal : Human Resource Management Review, Volume 9, Issue 4, Winter 1999, Pages 479–493

کلمات کلیدی
عامل تعیین کننده ساختاری - رضایت شغلی - تعهد سازمانی - مدلهای های ترک خدمت -
پیش نمایش مقاله
پیش نمایش مقاله عوامل تعیین کننده ساختاری رضایت شغلی و تعهد سازمانی در مدلهای های ترک خدمت

چکیده انگلیسی

Using Meta-Analytical Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), the relationships between structural determinants of job satisfaction and organizational commitment were investigated in the context of contemporary turnover models. Data for this study were obtained from nine empirical studies conducted under the direction of James L. Price and Charles W. Mueller at the University of Iowa. The results suggest that only three structural determinants (distributive justice, promotional chances, and supervisory support) are directly related to organizational commitment over and above their impact on job satisfaction. The effect size of these direct links, however, is small in that they are not detectable in smaller samples (e.g., n=244). On the other hand, most structural determinants are directly related to job satisfaction. The notable exception is the amount of pay employees received which is not related to either job satisfaction or organizational commitment. These findings and implications for future turnover research are discussed.

مقدمه انگلیسی

Research in employee turnover is primarily concerned with voluntary turnover defined as “individual movements across the membership boundary of a social system which is initiated by the individual” (Price, 1977). Starting from March and Simon (1958), this stream of research has generated several models of determinants and processes underlying voluntary turnover (e.g., Hom & Griffeth, 1995, Lee & Mitchell, 1994, Mobley, 1977, Mowday et al., 1982 and Price & Mueller, 1986). In recent models, job satisfaction (defined as degree to which employees have a positive affective orientation towards employment by the organization; Price, 1997) and organizational commitment (defined as loyalty to a social unit; Price, 1997) are commonly viewed as intervening variables in the turnover process (e.g., Hom & Griffeth, 1995, Mowday et al., 1982 and Price & Mueller, 1986). Those two variables are viewed as an essential component of turnover models because their empirical relationship with voluntary turnover has been firmly established through numerous Meta-Analyses (e.g., Cohen, 1993, Cohen & Hudecek, 1993, Cotton & Tuttle, 1986, Hom & Griffeth, 1995, Hom et al., 1992, Steel & Ovalle, 1984 and Tett & Meyer, 1993). Turnover models differ, however, in how they view the relationship between the structural determinants of turnover (defined as characteristics of the work setting and patterns of social interaction within the work setting; Price & Mueller, 1986) with job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Three alternative versions exist. First, all structural determinants are related to both job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Kim, Price, Mueller & Watson, 1996). This version is referred to in this paper as the Kim et al. (1996) model and is illustrated in Fig. 1. Second, all structural determinants are related to job satisfaction only Price & Mueller, 1986 and Williams & Hazer, 1986). This version is referred to here as the Price and Mueller (1986) model and is illustrated in Fig. 2. Third, different structural determinants have different effects on job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Hom and Griffeth (1995), e.g., argue that some structural determinants have an impact on organizational commitment only while others have an impact on job satisfaction only.The purpose of this article is to examine the empirical relationship between structural determinants of turnover with job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Towards this end, the empirical fit of the three alternative patterns of relationships presented above (i.e., all structural determinants are directly related to job satisfaction and organizational commitment; all structural determinants are directly related to job satisfaction only; different structural determinants differ in their effect on job satisfaction and organizational commitment) will be tested using data obtained from nine empirical studies conducted under the direction of James L. Price and Charles W. Mueller at the University of Iowa.

نتیجه گیری انگلیسی

The bare-bones Meta-Analysis resulted in a correlation matrix containing the averages, weighted by sample size, of the correlations obtained in all nine studies. The correlation matrix and the sample size weighted coefficient alphas are shown in Table 1.Using the correlation matrix shown in Table 1, I first tested the Kim et al. (1996) version of the Price and Mueller models. The model fit the data perfectly—which, of course, did not come as a surprise since the estimation of this model required precisely all degrees of freedom that were available (i.e., the model was saturated). The completely standardized parameter estimates of this model are shown in the fourth and fifth columns of Table 2.The signs of the parameter estimates are mostly consistent with the expectations shown in Fig. 1. Some results, however, are inconsistent with the Kim et al. (1996) model. First, pay has no significant effect on either job satisfaction or organizational commitment. Second, while most structural determinants had significant links to job satisfaction, only three had additional significant links with organizational commitment: distributive justice, supervisory support, and promotional chances. These results suggest that simplifications to the Price and Mueller model are justifiable. These simplifications would involve eliminating pay from the Price and Mueller model and deleting most of the paths that directly link the structural determinants to organizational commitment. Next I, tested the empirical fit of the second model, which is referred to as the Price and Mueller (1986) model (see Fig. 2). Since this alternative model is not saturated, meaningful overall fit indexes can be calculated. According to the standards suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999), this second alternative model fits the data well (SRMR=0.022; CFI=0.97). This good fit, along with the fact that all except one path estimate (referring to the path between pay and job satisfaction) were significant on a conventional level (p<0.05), provides evidence that the Price and Mueller (1986) model gives a parsimonious but still accurate representation of the data (the completely standardized parameter estimates of this model are shown in the third and fourth columns of Table 2).In the next step of this analysis, I incorporated the general idea proposed by Hom and Griffeth (1995) into the Price and Mueller model. Recall that Hom and Griffeth (1995) proposed that different structural determinants have different effects on job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Since none of the specific suggestions from the Hom and Griffeth (1995) model was applicable to the relationships between the structural determinants and job satisfaction/organizational commitment specified in the Price and Mueller models, I tested their general ideas through a series of inductive exploratory tests. The objective of these tests was to determine whether some structural determinants are directly related to organizational commitment over and above their impact on job satisfaction. Note that these tests are at best a method for theory development. Consequently, the resulting model is not more than an empirically derived suggestion for future research. The exploratory test conducted in this section of the present investigation is the equivalent to the stepwise procedure known in regression analysis. Using Chi-square difference tests and modification indexes, I consecutively added direct paths from the structural determinants to organizational commitment using the Price and Mueller (1986) model (illustrated in Fig. 2) as a starting point. This procedure was continued until the Chi-square statistics for the difference in fit between the more parsimonious Price and Mueller (1986) model and the saturated Kim et al. (1996) model was statistically insignificant. The initial Chi-square difference test indicates that the Price and Mueller (1986) model fit the data significantly worse than the Kim et al. (1996) model (Δχ2=485.42; Δdf=10; p<0.01). The significant Δχ2 suggests that the fit of the Price and Mueller (1986) model can be improved by incorporating additional paths into that model linking one or more structural determinants directly to organizational commitment. The maximum modification index suggested to include a direct link between distributive justice and organizational commitment. After this path was included, the Price and Mueller (1986) model still fit the data significantly worse than the Kim et al. (1996) model (Δχ2=158.95; Δdf=9; p<0.01), suggesting that additional direct paths between the structural determinants and organizational commitment can be added. The stepwise procedure was continued and led to the inclusion of two additional direct paths (supervisory support to organizational commitment and promotional chances to commitment). After those paths were incorporated into the Price and Mueller model, it did not fit the data significantly worse than the Kim et al. (1996) model (Δχ2=5.10; Δdf=7; p=0.65). These results are generally supportive of the Hom and Griffeth (1995) suggestions in that different structural determinant appear to have different effects on job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Most structural determinants are related to job satisfaction only while some structural determinants (distributive justice, supervisory support, and promotional chances) are related to job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The overall fit statistics for the resulting model (see Fig. 3) are excellent (CFI=1; SRMR=0.0019) but only marginally informative since the model was derived inductively. The model explains 50% of the variance in job satisfaction and 57% of the variance in organizational commitment. This model, along with the empirically derived completely standardized parameter estimates, is shown in Fig. 3.In interpreting the results obtained, it is necessary to note that the sample size underlying the Meta-Analytical SEM procedure is extremely large, much larger than commonly found in single studies of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, or turnover. As a consequence, the resulting Chi-square statistics obtained is inflated (e.g., Bollen, 1989) relative to other empirical studies and even negligible (i.e., practically insignificant) relationships are statistically significant. To account for this potential problem, I conducted the same stepwise tests by specifying alternative hypothetical sample sizes in the LISREL 8.30 input syntax. By varying this specified sample size, it was possible to investigate whether a given relationship found to be significant with high sample sizes also holds for smaller samples. Three alternative sample sizes were specified: the smallest sample size of any of the studies included in the meta-analysis (n=244); the mean of the sample sizes across all studies (n=782); and the largest sample size of any of the studies included in the meta-analysis (n=1,773). Assuming a sample size of n=244, the χ2 difference in fit between the Price and Mueller (1986) model and the saturated Kim et al. (1996) model was insignificant on a conventional level, suggesting that no additional paths are needed to improve the fit of the Price and Mueller (1986) model (Δχ2=16.76; Δdf=10; p=0.08). Assuming a sample size of n=782, the Price and Mueller (1986) model fit the data significantly worse than the Kim et al. (1996) model (Δχ2=55.14; Δdf=10; p<0.01). The largest modification index shown in the LISREL output suggested an inclusion of a direct path between distributive justice and organizational commitment to that model. After inclusion of this path, the revised model still fit the data significantly (albeit marginally so) worse than the Kim et al. (1996) model (Δχ2=17.64; Δdf=9; p=0.04). As a result a link between supervisory support and organizational commitment was included. After the inclusion of this direct path the resulting model did not fit the data significantly worse than the Kim et al. (1996) model (Δχ2=5.55; Δdf=8; p=0.70). The results obtained from specifying n=1,773 provided the same conclusion.2 The Price and Mueller (1986) model fit the data significantly worse than the Kim et al. (1996) model unless direct paths were included that link distributive justice and supervisory support with organizational commitment. Once those paths were included, the Price and Mueller (1986) did not fit the data significantly worse than the Kim et al. (1996) model. These analyses demonstrate that differences in fit between the Price and Mueller (1986) model and the saturated Kim et al. (1996) model may not be detectable in smaller sample sizes (e.g., n=244). These analyses further suggest that even studies with large (e.g., n=782; 1,773) or very large (n=7,040) sample sizes are unlikely to detect many (i.e., more than three) direct linkages between structural determinants and organizational commitment.

خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.