an empirical examination of several job attraction and job satisfaction measures
TRANSCRIPT
IXT. REV. APP. PSYCHOL. VOL. 25, NO. 1
An empirical examination of several job attraction and - job satisfaction measures’
RICHARD T. BARTH2
Faculp of Commerce and Business Administration, Universiy ofBritish Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T I W5
Based on a review of the job satisfaction literature, Evans (1969a) suggested a conceptual framework for enhancing our understanding of the relationship between various facets of job satisfaction, goal aspiration, attainment, and importance, Evans’s framework, which is similar to that developed earlier by Katzell (1964), can be summarized as follows: ( a ) over-all job satisfaction is a function of the sum (over facets) of the product ofjob facet satisfaction and job facet importance; (b) for each facet and its corresponding goals, job facet satisfaction is a function of the difference between goal aspiration (‘should be’) and goal attainment (‘is now’); and (G) consequently, over-all job satisfaction is a function of the sum (over goals) of the product of goal importance and the difference between god aspiration and goal attainment. Empirical evidence relevant to this framework is presented in a later paper by Evans (1972) in terms of correlations between over-all job satisfaction and ten different combinations of job satisfaction aspects (e.g., simple summation of goal attainment, goal attainment weighted by importance, summation of the difference between goal aspiration and attainment).
Additionally, two other studies (Wood and LeBold, 1970; Wanous and Lawler, 1972) have examined a variety of similar relationships, although the difference score used in one (Wood and LeBold, 1970) was that of ‘importance-satisfaction’, a combination which appears to be conceptually meaningless (Evans, 1969a, p. 100). In their analysis of a similar set of combinations (with the addition of ‘would like’ and ‘would like-is now’), Wanous and Lawler (1972) found great differences in the relationships between these combinations and two over-all satisfaction measures (one based on a single item score, the other developed by suniming the ‘How satisfied are you with (job facet)?’ responses across 23 job facets.
Interestingly, Evans’s (1972) and Wanous and Lawler’s (1972) accounts of their studies reveal somewhat divergent findings, although they do in general conclude with Ewen (1 967), Locke (1 969), and Blood (1 97 1 ) that complex ways of measuring and combining various aspects of job satisfaction do not appear to provide improved predictability of reported over-all satisfaction. For example, Evans found that the combinations ‘[(should be-is now) x [importance)]’ (-0.74), ‘should be-is now’ (-0-72), ‘is now’ (0.72), and ‘[(should be-is now) x (desirability)]’ [ -0.70), were good predictors to over-all satisfac- tion (as measured with the Brayfield-Rothe (1951 ) instrument); ‘importance-is now’ (-0.61) and ‘is now importance' (0.61) were weaker predictors, with only about 37 per cent of variance explained. On the other hand, in the Wanous and Lawler study the ‘is now’ (0.82), ‘importance-is now’ (0.74), and ‘would like-is now’ (-0.58) were good predictors, with ‘should be-is now’ (-0.34) reflecting a much lower correlation with over-all job satisfaction.
Job satisfaction is a many faceted concept and relationships of satisfaction with other individual and/or organizational characteristics undoubtedly vary with the number of job facets considered, the manner in which measures of job facet satisfaction are combined (e.g., see the illuminating finding with regard to absenteeism reported by Wanous and Lawler, 1972, p. 103), and perhaps with the type of sample (blue collar vs. managerial)
54 EXAMINATIO?! OF JOB ATTRACTION AND JOB S.4TISFACTION MEASURES
from which data are obtained (Evans, 1972, p. 52), for i t appears that the respondent’s internal vs. external (Rotter, 1966) orientation may moderate the strength of some of the job satisfaction relationships (Evans, 1973).
In light of these points, the seemingly divergent findings of Evans and Wanous and Lawler, and the fact that job satisfaction measures used in the more than 3000 articles on job satisfaction which have appeared in the literature over the past thirty years (Locke, 1969) have not always been strongly related to the dependent variables (e.g., turnover, absenteeism) considered, it appears fruitful to comply with Wanous and Lawler’s sug- gestion to examine various operational definitions of job aftraction.
Conceptually, how satisfied a person is (at a given point in time) on the basis of out- comes already possessed or experienced is different (in degree rather than kind) from the anticipated satisfaction with future outcomes. While Vroom (1964) proposes the term ‘valence’ be used to describe the affective orientation toward expected outcomes, Graen (1969) prefers the use of the term ‘attraction’, defining it as the anticipated satisfaction for an outcome. In other words, experienced satisfaction is primarily a ‘hedonism of the past’, whereas attraction is primarily a ‘hedonism of the future’ (Wanous and Lawler, 1972). Since apparently no studies have measured job attraction in more than one way and compared the results, it is not at all clear whether various conceptual definitions of attraction that can be formulated do, in fact, measure the same thing. Moreover, the organizational behaviour literature has not heretofore provided a systematic comparison, based on empirical evidence, of various job satisfaction and attraction combinations.
The research reported here extends the job satisfaction frameworks operationalized by Evans (19690) and Wanous and Lawler (1972) to a conceptual scheme of job a t t r a ~ t i o n , ~ which is then examined in light of data obtained from two samples: 189 professional engineers and 61 pulp mill workers. Specifically, the purposes of the study were to ( a ) formulate several operational definitions of job attraction, ( b ) examine the relationship of these measures with a measure of over-all job attraction and two traditional measures of over-all job satisfaction, ( c ) consider whether a corresponding set of definitions of job satisfaction yield empirically more comparable measures, and (d) perform a multitrait- multimethod matrix analysis to determine if it is possible to validly measure individuals’ attraction to their jobs.
Suggested Operational Denfiitions of Job Attraction In this section, nine different operational definitions of job attraction are proposed. The
formulations considered are essentially derived from the job satisfaction definitions dis- cussed by Evans (1969~) and Wanous and Lawler (1972). Thus, it is important to keep in mind that, as in job satisfaction studies, a distinction may be made between over-all job attraction (JA), i.e., over-all expeckd satisfaction, and expected j o b facet satisfaction (EJFS), i.e., the expected satisfaction with particular facets of one’s job. Also, as in Wanow and Lawler’s discussion of job satisfaction, the job attraction definitions formulated here incor- porate different ways of measuring facet attraction and different approaches to combining facet attraction data in order to measure over-all job attraction.
This study proposes first that over-all job attraction may be viewed as the sum of expected job facet satisfaction across all relevant facets of a job:
facrts JA = 1 (EJFS).
This definition has as its basis the summed satisfaction formulation discussed by Evans (19690) and Wanous and Lawler (1972). Over-all job attraction is defined as the simple sum of expected facet satisfaction, and no studies appear to have considered the relationship between this measure and a single measure of over-all attraction or satisfaction, I n ternis
RICHARD T. BARTH 55
of Equation la, attraction can be thought of as the response to a ‘How sa tb j ed do you expect to be’ questionnaire item for a particular job facet. Thus, it is important to distinguish between the idea of expected facet satisfaction as used here, and the expected amount (‘How much do you expect there will be?’) of each facet as used in Equation 3a.
t c c t l JA = (EJFS x Importance).
In Equation 2a, over-all job attraction is viewed as a function of the sum (over relevant facets) of the product of expected job facet satisfaction (EJFS) and job facet importance. This definition conceptualizes job attraction as the weighted sum of expected job facet satisfaction. Job facet Importance ratings are included in order to account for individual differences in the importance or valence of job outcomes.‘
racctl JA = (Expect).
Job attraction may also be operationalized as the sum of expectations with respect to relevant job facets. In operational terms, expectation as used here can be thought of as the response to a ‘How much do you expect there will be (some time from now)’ item for a particular jobfacct. This formulation taps the ‘expected level of rewards’, and is based on the individual’s perception or estimate of the future level of rewards the organization may provide in accordance with what it will consider equitable at that future time. In other words, the respondent is being asked to estimate how much of each relevant second level outcome (Vroom, 1964) he expects to receive some time from now. Presumably, when he completes the questionnaire, he will take into account his preception of effort --f per- formance and performance - reward probabilities. However, this is an empirical question and requires testing.
T h e Expect formulation for job attraction can be considered from a viewpoint similar to that of the use of Is Now in job satisfaction studies. Wanous and Lawler (1972) have suggested that the use of Is Now corresponds to Vroom’s (1 964) ‘instrumentality of holding a job for receiving an outcome’. The present use of Expect can be viewed as a somewhat more specific instrumentality, namely that of holding my present j o b for some timc yet, in order to receive the outcomcs I expect to receive in the interim andlor at some later time, when deciding to either leave or remain with an organization.
The models presented so far allow for the formulation of six additional definitions of job attraction. These arc delineated in Table 1 along with Equations la to 3a and cor- responding formulations of job satisfaction (shown as Equations 16 to 96).
METHOD
In order to provide an empirical examination of the job attraction framework formu- lated above, a field study was carried out in a number of technical organizations employing engineers, and in a forest products company.
Sample 1. The sample comprised 189 professional engineers registered with and certified by the Association of Professional Engineers of British Columbia. All 189 respondents were salaried employees. The sample included ten different types of engineers, ranging from chemical to mining engineering. A majority of the sample had been employed by their organization for more than five years (60 per cent), had been registered as professional engineers for ten years or more (52 per cent), and were over 40 years of age (60 per cent). One-third of the engineers had attended university beyond the B.S. degree; of these, 26
56 EXAMINATION OF JOB ATTRACTION AND JOB S.4TISFACTION MEASURES
T,ZBLE I lhrious Formulations of Job Attraction and Job Satisfaction
Dcjinition ,wo. j o b attraction dtjlnitionr Job safisfartion dcfinifionr
faceu face& ia ; l b JA = 2 (EJFS! JS = 2 (JFS)
fACCU ? a ; 2 b 5.4 = 2 (EJFS < Importance)
faccu JS = 2 (JFS x Importance)
raccu faceu 3 ~ ; 36 JA = 1 (Expcctj JS = 1 (IS Now)
faceu
raccu
40; 46 5.4 = 2 (Importance Y Expect)
50; i b JA = 2 (Should Be-ExYct)
face- JS = 2 (Importance x Is Now)
raceu JS = 2 (Should Be-IS NOW)
facclr facets Ga: 6b JA = 2 [Importancry iShould Be-Expect)] JS = 2 [Importance (Should &-Is Now)]
faccu 7 0 : 7 b 5.4 = 2 (Would Like-Expect)
faceu JS = 2 (Would Like-Is Now)
raccu raccu 80; 86 JA = 2 [Irnportanccx (Would Like-Expect)] JS = 2 [Importanccx (Would Like-IIsNow)]
faceu 9 u : 96 JA = 1 (Importance-Expect)
faceu JS = 1 (Importance-Is Now)
had completed several postgraduate courses, 34 had earned the h1.S. degree, and three had attained the Ph.D. or DSc.
Sample 2. This sample consisted of 61 blue-collar employees from a forest industry organization in Western Canada. The average age of the sample was 28 years, with about 34 per cent being under 25 years and 84 per cent under 35 years of age. About one-third or these respondents had completed grade 10, 58 per cent had completed high school, with the remainder claiming some additional technical training. Over two-thirds of the sample were married. Participation was strictly voluntary, and respondents were asked to mail the completed questionnaire directly to the researcher at the ~ n i v e n i t y . ~
MF.ASI:REhlEXT ISSTRUMENTS
The questionnaire contained a number of parts, only one of which was relevant for the present study Instructions asked respondents to rate their jobs on each of the 23 items used by Wanous and Lawler ( 1 972) in their study of job satisfaction (see Table 4 for the items).6 Seven-point scales were used. and rcspondents rated the 23 items six different times This was accomplished by having six consecutive pages on which the same 23 items (job facets) were presented. The pages differed only in terms of the instructions, which were as follows:’
Page 1. ‘How much of each quality or characteristic is present on your job now?’ Page 2. ‘How much of each quality or characteristic do you think should be associatcd
Page 3. ‘How important are these characteristics or qualities to you?’ Page 4. ‘How much of each quality or characteristic do you expect will be associnkd with
Page 5 . How much of each quality or characteristic wouldyou like to be associated with
Page 6. ‘How satisJicd are you now with these aspects of your job?’ The satisfaction ratings of the 23 facets on Page 6 reprcsent the direct rating measures
o f facet satisfaction used in this study. In addition, two dircct rating measures of job
with your job?’
your job (in about a year or so) ?’
ynur job ?’
RICHARD T. BARTH 57
satisfaction were obtained by ( a ) taking the mean of the 23-facet items (Page 6), and (6) using the response on a 7-point scale to the single item: 'Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with my job.' The indicator of over-all job attraction, or expected satisfaction, was provided by the response to a second 7-point scale item: 'Generally speaking, I expect to be very satisfied with my job (within the next year).' Both of the single items were located in a later part of the questionnaire.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The intercorrelations matrix of the fourteen operational definitions is shown in Table 2. It should be noted that most of these correlations are partially spurious, since they refer to relationships among definitions involving similar components.
Eighty-one of the 91 correlations in Table 2 are significant at the 1 per cent level or better. In particular, the relationships between attraction definitions were generally very high, with the exception of those involving the Would Like component. A somewhat similar picture emerged for the relationships among satisfaction definitions. The two satisfaction combinations including Would Like (76 and 86) had a relatively low cor- relation with 4b. However, the Importance-Is Now combination also correlated only very modestly (r = -0.14) with Equation 46.
The intercorrelations between attraction and satisfaction measures ranged from a significant r = 0.69 (p < 0.001) for the relationship between 8a and 86 to a non-significant r = -0.03 between 46 and 96. However, as pointed out by Evans (1969a), the latter represents a conceptually dubious combination.
Table 3 presents the intercorrelations of the operational definitions with the direct measure of over-all attraction and the two direct rating measures of over-all satisfaction.
Considering first the job attraction data from the engineering sample, results indicate that the operational definitions based on Expect, Importance x Expect, and Should Be- Expect correlated appreciably higher with mean facet satisfaction than did the remaining attraction measures. Although still significant (p < 0.001 ), the relationship between mean facet satisfaction and the two attraction formulations incorporating Would Like was rather modest, being -0.23 in each case. However, these two measures had higher correlations with the single item measures of job satisfaction (r = -0.31 and r = -0.32) and job attraction (I = -0.31 and r = -0.32). This trend did not emerge for the other five attraction definitions, all of which had lower correlations with the single item measures than with mean facet satisfaction. Moreover, each had a higher correlation with the single item satisfaction score. For example, Expect had a correlation of r = 0.55 with mean facet satisfaction, a correlation of only r = 0.25 with the 7-point item asking for general job satisfaction, and a higher correlation of r = 0.30 with the single item attraction score.
The question of why the correlations from the single item measures are more similar to each other than to those based on the composite facet satisfaction can be explained as follows. The correlations between the two single item measures was 0.81, whereas the correlation of mean facet satisfaction with the single item satisfaction and attraction measures was 0-48 and 0.45, respectively. Clearly, each of the single item measures is less reliable than a composite based on 23 items. In addition, both of the single global items appeared in a separate section of the questionnaire, and as a result probably share more common method variance than with the composite measure. Wanous and Lawler (1972) reported a similar effect with respect to lower correlations between a global satisfaction item and operational definitions of job satisfaction.
The corresponding attraction data for the blue collar sample reveals a similar picture when correlations with mean facet satisfaction are examined: Expect (0-69), Importance x
n
TA
BL
E 2
F
3n.
.JA
=-
2 (E
xpct
) -..
s $ z %1 >
Opr
afio
nal &
/initi
on
3a
40
50
60
70
8a
90
56
46
56
6b
76
86
9b
5
race&
0
race
@
race
&
rare
u
race
lr
- Co
rrela
tionr
bet
ween
Var
ious
Com
bina
tions
of Jo
b A
tfra
tlion
and
Job Safirfactioti
facc
cl
-7 L
40.
JA =
2
(Im
port
ance
x E
xpec
t)
0.95
50.
JA =
2
(Sho
uld
Bc-
Exp
cct)
-
-0.9
1 --
0.79
-
(ia.
JA =
2:
[Im
port
ance
x (S
houl
d B
c--E
xpcc
t)]
--0.
84 -
0.71
0.
93
5 5 75
70.
JA =
2 (W
ould
Lik
e-E
xpec
t)
---0
'20 -0.22
0.32
0.
38
-
5 00
. JA
= 2
[Im
port
ancc
x (
Wou
ld L
ike-
1I;x
pcct
) --
0.2
6 --0.20
0.31
0.
37
0.99
--
z
race
@
90.
JA =
2
(Im
port
ance
-Exp
ect)
-0
.86
-0.6
9 0.88
0.95
0.
36
0.35
-
Pcr
tr
36.
JS =
2
(IS N
OW
) 0.44
0.50
-0'2
R
-0.3
2 --
0.36
-0.
33
-0.3
8 -
46.
JS =
2
(Im
porl
ancc
x Is
Now
) 0.
51
0.65
-0.2
9 -0
.16
-0.2
0 -0
.17
-0.1
4 0.
81 -
rare
@
race
u
race
@
56.
JS =
2
(Sho
uld k
-1
~ NO
W)
-
66.
JS =
2 [I
mpo
rtan
ce (
Shou
ld b
e---
Is N
ow)
- -0.2
6 -0
.19
0.40
0.45
0.42
0.43
0.
39 -0
.74
-0.43
-0.2
5 -0
.16
0.39
0.48
0.45
0.46
0.42
-0.
70
-0.3
5 0.
98 -
U
t 8 v,
3
M
racc
b
fare
&
76.
JS =
2
(Wou
ld L
ike-
Is
Now
) 0.
42
0.40
-0.40 -
0.29
0.
65
0.65
-0.2
9 -0
.37
-0.1
0 0.
44
0.45
-
i! 86.
JS =
2 [I
mpo
rtai
iccx
(Wou
ld L
ikc-
Is
NO
W)]
0.
37
0.36
-0.34 -0.30
0.68
0.69
-0.
30
-0.3
3 -0
.17
0.43
0.
45
0.96
-
race
@
9b.
JS =
1
(Im
port
ance
-Is
Now
) -0
.14
-0.0
3 0.
17
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.
47 -0.68 -
0.14
0.
76
0.80
0.
49
0.37
-
TA
BL
E 3
O
pera
tiona
l Dej
initi
otlr
of O
ver-
all A
ttrac
tion
and
Satir
fact
ion
Corr
elat
ed w
ith T
wo D
ircct
Rat
ing
Mea
sure
s of
O
ver-
all S
atisf
actio
n an
d th
e D
irect
Mea
sure
of
Ove
r-al
l Attr
actio
n
Mea
n of
job
Face
t Sat
isfac
fion
Sing
le I
tem
Mea
surin
g O
ver-
all
Sing
le I
tem
Measuring O
ver-
all
ItCIn.
5 (P
rese
nt) J
ob
Satis
fitio
n Jo
b At
frac
tion
Mea
sure
En
gine
ers*
Bl
ue-G
dlar
t En
gine
ers*
Bl
ue-c
ollm
t En
giner
rs'
Blue
-col
lart
3a.
Exp
ect
0.55
0.
69 11
0.25
0.
58 )I
0.
30
0.76
11
0.74
11 0.
69 I(
36.
Is N
ow
0.59
04
34 11
0.57
0.
62 11
0.50
4a
. Im
port
ance
x E
xpec
t 0.
54
0.69
11 0.
27
0.54
I( 0.
29
46.
Impo
rtan
ce x
Is N
ow
0.57
0.
84 (1
0.46
0.60 I1
0.37
5a
. Sh
ould
Bc-
Exp
ct
-0.5
3 -0.46
(I -0
.23
-0.44
1) -0
.30
-0.56
11
g
56.
Shou
ld &-
IS N
OW
-
0.56
-0
.50
11 -0
.56
- 0.
39 )I
-0
.51
-0.2
9:
6a.
Impo
rtan
ce x
(Sho
uld
be-E
xpec
t)
-0.46
-0.4
1 11
-0.2
7 -0
.37
1) -0
.35
-0.5
I 11
66.
Impo
rtan
cex
(Sho
uld &-Is
Now
) -0
.52
-0.3
9 11
- 0.
56
-0.2
88
-0.5
3 -0
.17
0'65
11
1 9
7a.
Wou
ld L
ike-
Exp
ect
-0.2
3 -0
.39
)I -0
.31
-0.3
9 1)
-0.3
1 -0
.501
) '
76.
Wou
ld L
ike-
Is
Now
-0
.33
-0.4
1 11
-0.2
9 -0
.348
-0
.21
-0.2
5:
2 80
. Im
port
ance
x (W
ould
Lik
e-E
xpec
t)
-0.2
3 -0
.35:
-0
.32
-0.3
2 8
-0.3
2 -0.46
11
96.
Impo
rtan
ce - Is
Now
-0
.33
-0.3
4:
-0.44
-0.2
7:
-0.4
3 -0
.18:
86.
Impo
rtan
cex
(Wou
ld Like-Is
Now
) -0
.33
-0.3
2:
-0.3
0 -0
.22:
- 0.
22
-0.1
5 9a
. Im
port
ance
-Exp
ect
-0.4
5 -0
.39
11 -0
.24
-0.3
9 1)
-0.3
3 -0
.49
[I
Not
e. N
egat
ive
corr
elat
ions
app
ear
heca
use
som
e of
the
ope
rati
onal
def
initi
ons
repr
esen
t di
ssat
isfa
ctio
n.
* N =
189
: p <
040
1 fo
r al
l co
rrel
atio
ns (
one-
taile
d te
st).
tN
=6
1.
3p
< 0
.05.
8p
< 0
.01.
lip
< 0
.001
.
ul W
60 EX4hlISATIOS OF JOB .4??’RACTION .Q!D JOB S.4TISF.4CTION MEASURES
Expect (0.69), Should Be- Expcct (-0.46) are again the three combinations strongly related to satisfaction. One interesting differcnce is that the supposedly dubious com- bination of Importance-Expect (-0.39) had the lowest corrclation of the seven com- binations, wrhereas based on the professional sample i t correlated higher (-045) than the more complex formulations involving Would Like.
.4 different pattern is reflected when the two samples are compared on the basis of correlations with the singlc item measures of satisfaction and attraction. For example, the complex and more elegant formulation given by Equation 8a correlated higher (-0.32) with o\rer-all satisfaction than the other six combinations, based on the engineering sample. The other attraction equation (76) involving Would Like yielded a slightly lower cor- relations (-0.31). In contrast, for the blue-collar sample, Equation 8a provided the lowest correlation (-0.32), and three other combinations (3a, 4a, 5 0 ) did better than Equation 7a. hforeover, the correlation of r = 0.58 for Expect is appreciably highcr than the (absolutr value of) r = -0.32 of 8a for the engineers.
Interestingly, the data for both samples yiclded at least as high or higher correlations when the measures of Equations 3a to 9a were correlated with the single item job attraction measure (although generally the difference between the two samples in terms of how strongly a given combination is related with the singlc item satisfaction measure remains). For example, the correlations of Expect, Should Be-Expect, and Importance x (Should Be-Expect) increase from r = 0.25, -0.23, and -0.27 to r = 0.30, -0.30, and -0.35, respectively, making the latter combination the best predictor of over-all attraction (engineering sample). However, while the more elegant formulations (e.g., Equation 80) appear to provide improved predictability of job attraction as rcported by the engineers, the simpler definitions of Expect (0*76) , Importance x Expect (0.74), and Should Bc- Expect (-0.56) yielded the higher corrclations for the blue-collar sample Over-all, it should be noted that, with the exception of Equation 8a, the blue-collar data produced higher correlations (than did the engineering sample) between the job attraction formula- tions considered so far and the single item measures of satisfaction and attraction.
As far as the job satisfaction formulations are concerned, Table 3 indicates for both samples that the ‘fulfilment’ approaches based on Equations 3b and 46 provide the best predictors of mean facet satisfaction. The two highest correlations for the engineers (r = 0.59 for Is NOW, and 0.57 for Importance x Is Now) are somewhat modest in the light of the r = 0.82 and r = 0.74 reported by Wanous and Lawler (1972, p. 98) for their non-managerial sample of shop floor workers. However, the correlation of r = 0.84 (blue- collar sample of the present study) for both thc weighted and unadjusted Is Now definitions is somewhat higher than Wanous and Lawler’s results. Another point worth noting is that according to Table 3 the Should be-Is Now measure did not have the lowest correlation with mean facet satisfaction and the global satisfaction item. In the Wanous and Lawler study, this combination had the lowest correlation of the measures considered.
A somewhat contradictory pattern is indicated for the correlations with the single item attraction measure. .A comparison of comparable attraction and satisfaction defini- tions (based on the sample of engineers for Equations 3a to 66 and 9a-b), indicates that the satisfaction formulations consistently correlate higher with the attraction item (e.g., r = 0.30 for Expect vs. 0.50 for Is Now). However, this trend is reversed for the combina- tions based on Equations 7 a to 86 (e.g., r 2= -0.31 for Would Like-Expect, and -0.21 for LYould Like-Is Now), each of which incorporates the Would Like component. In contrast, correlations based on the blue-collar sample reveal a consistent trend : in each case, the operational definition of attraction is more strongly related to the single item attraction score than is the corresponding satisfaction formulation (e.g., Y = 0.76 for Expect vs. 0.65 for Is Now; r = -0.49 for Importance-Expect vs. -0.18 for Importance - - I s Now).
RICHARD T. BARTH 61
The product-moment and average correlations8 between the seven operational defini- tions of job attraction and the direct facet satisfaction rating for each of the 23 facets are shown in Table 4 (engineers). As would be expected on the basis of the data in Table 3, the simple Expect measure again correlates highest (average r = 0.50) with the direct facet satisfaction ratings, and the Importance x Expect measure correlates second highest. Would Like- Expect and Importance x (Would Like-Expect) correlate the lowest with the direct facet satisfaction ratings; their average correlations are about equal to each other in magnitude.
TABLE 4 Correlations of Facet Attraction Operational DeJinitiom W i t h Direct Facet Satisfaction Ratings
( N = 189)
Job facets 1. Self esteem or respect 2. Opportunity for
3. Prestige of job inside 4. Amount of close
5. Opportunity for
6. Feelrng of security 7. Opportunity for
feedback on performance
8. Prestige of job outside company
9. Opportunity to complete work
10. Opportunity to do challenging work
1 I . Feeling that know when do job well
12. Opportunity to do many things
13. Opportunity to get to know others
14. Chance to do a whole piece of work
15. Freedom on the job 16. Variety on the job 17. Pay 18. Feeling of
accomplishment 19. Opportunity to help
others 20. Opportunity for
participation 21. Opportunity for
close friendship 22. Opportunity for
promotion 23. Amount of respect
and fair treatment Average correlations*
growth
supervision
independent thought
Expect 0.52
0.48 0.52
-0.19
0.55 060
0.56
0.52
0.50
0.46
0.49
0.50
0.43
0.49
0.54 0.57
0.55
0.48
0.57
0.58
0.51
0.42
0.62
0.50
Iml',ortance Should Be X-Expect
0.47
0.45 0.43
-0.15
0.53 0.50
- 0.48
0.45
0.43
0.44
0.49
0.52
0.39
0.42 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.42
0.52
0.46
0.57
0.48
0.34
0.56
0.45
-Expect - 0.47
- 0.44 - 0.43
0.03
- 0.40 -0.47
- 0.49
- 0.42
- 0.40
-0.38
-0.43
-0.31
-0.31
-0.50 - 0.49 - 0.44 -0.56
-0.51
-0.32
-0.46
-0.43
-0.52
-0.57
0.43
Imjortunce x (Should bi - Expcci
-0.41
-0.43 -0.38
0.05
-0.36 -0.43
-046
-0.38
-0.41
-0.34
-0.44
-0.25
-0.24
- 0.48 - 0.42 -0.37 -0.52
-0.49
-0.24
-0.44
-0.37
-0.48
-0.54
0.39
Importunce -Expect
-0.37
-0.42 - 0.4 1
0.10
-0.41 -0.47
-0.46
-0.39
- 0.40
-0.36
-0.41
-0.27
-0.23
-0.39 -0.41 -0.35 - 0.58
-0.50
-0'27
-0.44
-0.29
-0.42
-0.52
0.38
Would Like - -0.29
- 0.3 1 -0.23
0.1 1
-0.2 1 -0.40
-0.38
-0.24
-0.25
-0.17
-0.30
-0.14
-0.17
- 0.26 -0.19 -0.20 - 0.40
-0.32
-0.20
-0.42
-0.23
-0.24
- 0.44
0.26
Impartanct x (Would
Like- Expert
-0.27
-0.30 -0.2 1
0.10
-0.19 -0.39
-0.36
-0.24
-0.25
-0.17
-0.30
-0.1 1
-0.14
- 0.26 -0.15 -0.18 - 0.42
-0.32
-0.19
-0.41
-0.22
-0.27
- 0.44
0.25
* Absolute value.
D
62 EX451INATIOS OF JOB ATTRACTION AND JOB SATISFACTION MEASURES
’The data shown in Table 4 were further examined by using the Sign Test procedure of Siege1 (1956) to make comparisons between the different pairs of correlation coefficients. This approach revealed that the Expect measure correlates significantly higher (p < 0.002) with facet satisfaction than Importance x Expect. In turn, Importance x Expect correlates not only significantly higher (p < 0426) with facet satisfaction than does Should Be-Expect, but is also significantly different ( p < 0.002) from the remaining four measures. The Importance-- Expect and Importance x (Should Be- Expect) measures are not significantly different from one another. Over-all, the relative utility of the job attrac- tion measures considered can be indicated according to their apparent order of importance as follows: Expect; Importance x Expect; Should be-Expect; Importance x (Should Be- Expect) and Importance- Expect; Would Like- Expect; and Importance x (Would Like -Expect) .s
Table 5 presents, for the engineering sample, a multitrait-multimethod matrix based on Campbell and Fiske’s (1959) validation technique. In order to keep the multitrait- niultimethod matrix to a manageable size, only three of the seven operational definitions and only five of the twenty-three job facets or ‘traits’ are included in Table 5. The five job facets selected were also considered by Wanous and Lawler (1972), and were chosen I,ecause each represents a different need level or category in the Porter (1961) scheme. (-)f the operational definitions, the Expect measure was employed because it correlated highest of all attraction measures with the over-all satisfaction score based on the mean of facet satisfaction ; i t also correlated highly with the single ratings of over-all satisfaction alld attraction. Thus, the inclusion of this measure should provide a stern test of dis- criminant validity. The dirrct rating measure of facet satisfaction was selected because of its common usage and its consideration by Wanous and Lawler. The Should Be-Expect measure was included because it represents, along with the use of the Expect measure, a new approach to the measurement and meaning of job attraction and satisfaction.
The first requirement specified by Campbell and Fiske (1959 concerns evidence of convergent validity. This requirement is met easily, for all entries in the validity diagonal of Table 5 (the 15 coefficients in parentheses) are significantly different from zero (p < 0.01 ) and encourage further examination of validity.
Of the three requirements pertaining to discriminant validity, the first specifies that corl\,ergent validity coefficients be higher than the values lying in the same column and
of the heterotrait-heteromethod triangles (enclosed by dotted lines in Table 5). This requirement is also met. The second criterion for meeting the discriminant validity require- ment js that the validity coefficients also be greater than corresponding values in the Iieterotrait-heteroinethod triangles (enclosed by solid lines). In other words, a given LTariable should correlate higher with an independent effort to measure the same variable than with measures designed to get at different variables which happen to employ the Same method. The data shown in Table 5 do not satisfy this requirement in all cases. However, Campbell and Fiske (1959) pointed out the severity of this test and indicated that this requirement is seldom met by behavioural trait data. Moreover, House and Rizzo (1972) call attention to several studies in which, for example, managerial performance data collected from peers and superiors (Lawler, 1967) and satisfaction scales (Evans, 196%) have not satisfied this test, while meeting the other requirements of convergent and discriminant validity.
The third criterion of discriminant validity requires that there should be the same pattern of trait interrelationship in all of the heterotrait triangles of both the mono- method and heteromethod blocks. This is essentially a question of the ordering of the correlation coefficients within each block. The correlation coefficients were ranked by size, and the coefficient of concordance, W, was computed. The resulting value of W = 0.58
Sati
fadi
on
(Fa
d)
MeI
Bodr
and
Tra
ils
S/E
G
sr
c So
r A
ul
Sati
dact
ion:
Sell
-atc
cm
Gro
wth
Secu
rity
Soci
al
Aut
onom
y
Exp
cct:
SclC
-cat
ecm
Gro
wth
Secu
rity
Soci
al
Aut
onom
y
Shou
ld Be -
Expe
ct:
Sclf
-cat
etm
Gro
wth
secu
rity
Soci
al
Aut
onom
y
Shou
ld I
Ic-
Erpc
cl S/ E
c ?K
t So
r A
ut
S/L;
G Sc
c So
c A
ul
Not
e: T
hr
valid
ity
diag
onal
s ar
e th
e tl
ircc
set
s of
val
ues
in p
arcr
iche
scs.
Eac
h hc
tcru
trai
(-m
orio
rncf
}iod
tria
ngle
is c
rdos
cd b
y so
lid l
iner
. Eac
h Il
etrr
otra
it-lic
ccro
rnei
llod
trin
ng
lr i
s er
iclo
sed
by
N =
189
pro
fess
iona
l cng
incc
rs.
do
tted
lii
m.
o?
w
64 EXAMISATIOS OF JOB ATTRACTION .4ND JOB SATISFtZCTION XIEASURES
( ~ 2 = 46.98; p < 0.001) indicated that there was a significant pattern to the trait inter- relationships, thus meeting the last requirement for discriminant validity.
A somewhat more expanded multitrait-multimethod matrix incorporating four of the operational definitions as well as the ‘pay’ item was constructed for the blue collar sample. As can be seen from Table 6, these data generally met the requirements for convergent and discriminant validity (IY = 0.59, x 2 = 136.16; p < 0.001).
COSCLUSION
While this study represents only one initial attempt directed at the development of a theory of job attraction, the results do provide supportive evidence that ( u ) although the operational definitions of job attraction (and satisfaction) do not yield empirically com- parable measures of attraction (satisfaction), (6) i t is possible to validly measure people’s attraction to, and satisfaction with, their jobs. A greater variety of samples will be needed to gain a clear picture of how various individual characteristics affect a person’s job expectations.
The findings related to the job satisfaction results are partially consistent with those of Wanous and Lawler (1972), but less so with Evans’s (1972) results. For both samples of this study and Wanous and Lawler’s sample, the Is Now and Importance x Is Now are the two combinations most highly correlated with mean facet satisfaction. Moreover, the correlations for the blue-collar sample are about the same as reported by Wanous and Lawler for their shop floor workers. The introduction of importance ratings reduced the correlations somewhat for the engineering sample. A similar finding was reported by Wanous and Lawler.
In comparison, the two formulations highly correlated with over-all satisfaction in the Evans (1 972) study of junior middle managers both involve the Should Be component: one based on a discrepancy score (Should be-Is Now), the other being the weighted version of this score. The more basic Is Now of Evans correlates as highly as the Should Be-Is Now, and all three of these correlations exceed the highest correlation ( I = 0.59) of the engineering sample. It should be noted again, however, that Evans’s measure of over-all satisfaction was based on the Brayfield-Rothc instrument.
The findings related to a comparison of correlations with the direct measures of facet and over-all satisfaction are also significant. For the blue-collar sample, the relative order or importance of all seven operational definitions is maintained when correlated with the single item satisfaction scow. However, the results obtained for the engineering sample indicate some divcrgcnce among the importance of operational definitions, from Equations 36,4b, 56, 66, 76,86, and 96 to 36, 56, 66, 46, 96, 86, and 76. In other words, the divergence shows most clearly among the different theoretical implications of the meaning of job satisfaction (fulfilment vs. equity vs. desires) rather than in terms of the form of the model (additive vs. multiplicative). A similar trend was noted by M’anous and Lawler (1972,
From a theoretical standpoint, perhaps the most important set of findings is that the relationship of job attraction and satisfaction formulations to the over-all (single-item) attraction score revealed several differences between the two samples. There is, first, the difference in terms of which formulations, satisfaction or attraction, correlate higher with over-all attraction. For the engineers, i t is generally the job satisfaction definitions. For the blue collars, the attraction formulations have the higher correlations.
.\ sccond important difference is that the three attraction formulations (Equations 3a, 4a, 5 a ) which correlated highest with facet satisfaction and over-all satisfaction retained their order of importance when correlated with over-all attraction as reported by the blue-
p. 102).
RICHARD T. BARTH 65
/ 0 0
e c z s o 0
/I L? c ? c h
o c
66 EXAUISATION OF JOB ATTRACTION ATTD JOB SATISFACTION 3lEASURES
collar sample. The pattern which emerged for the engineering sample was not as consistent. >loreover, each of the three operational definitions (Equations 6a, 9a, 8a) strongly related to over-all attraction involved the importance component, and two are more complex formulations coupling facet importance with a discrepancy score involving Would Like or Should Be, and Expect.
The question of why the results from the two samples differ somewhat, and why the results reported here are somewhat different from those reported by Wanous and Lawler (1572) and Evans (1972), must remain somewhat tentative. Clearly, the reason is partly based on differences between the samples. I t may be, as suggested by Evans, that blue collars (and some managers) are more external in their orientation than managers (and some blue collars). In other words, Internal/External control (Rotter, 1966) may well moderate the strength of some or all of the relationships considered, with relationships being stronger for those lcith an internal orientation than for those with a n external orientation (Evans, 1973). Were this SO, questions about (or experienced concern with) aspirations may be more meaningful to professionals and white collars of some managerial standing, for they probably do perceive a more complex career and job progression picture. If high on internal control beliefs, thcy are more likely to believe that expected reward payoff will be due to their behaviours between now and some future time, rather than due to random or other events in the work situation over which they have Iittle or no control. This implies that Intcrnals are more likely to behave in ways consistent with a path-goal mndcl of motivation (Evans, 1973, p. 38), may have greater control over obtaining objcc- tive access to reinforcement, and perhaps view attraction to various facets of their jobs as depending primarily on the ‘would like’, ‘should be’, and ‘expect’ features, with the ‘how Inuch now’ being of less importance. The findings of the present study suggest that a discrepancy score procedure as a measure of attraction (and satisfaction) is more appro- priate for such respondents (in the present case engineering professionals).
For the External, satisfaction may be based mostly on the amount of reward that is present, and the ‘is now’ score is a better indicator of over-all satisfaction (Evans, 1973).
indicated by the consistently high correlations of this measure (Equation 36 in Table 3 ) with the two over-all satisfaction measures, it does appear that the blue collars of this study were mostly Externals. Lioreover, the correspondingly high correlation of the ‘expect’ mcasure (Equation 3a in Table 3 ) with over-all attraction suggests that the attraction of Esteriials to their jobs is influenced to an equal degree by a relatively straightforward aspiration curve.
Given this line of speculation, some of the discrepancies between this study, Evans’s ( IY72) , and M’anous and Lawler’s (1972) would appear to fall into place:
For inlcrnafs (most managers and professionals, some blue collars) : over-all job attrac- tion appears to be a function of the discrepancies Should Be - Expect, Would Like-Expect as well as ofjob facet importance. Over-all job satisfaction is a function of the corrcsponding satisfaction discrepancy, Should Be-Is KOW, of facet importance, and of goal attainment.
For exlernals (most blue collars, some managers, and professionzls) : over-all job attrac- tion is primarily a function of facet expectation (Expect) and importance. Over-all job satisfaction appears to be a function of goal attainment (Is Now) and facet importance.
Ix‘hile it is a truism to say that a good deal of further research is needed, it is suggcsted here that the long-run pay-off for researchers and managers interested in the job attraction approach will come through a longitudinal field study effort. From a conceptual point of view, key questions seem to be:lo ( a ) How many constructs are there empirically?, and ( b ) \\’hat behaviours are these constructs related to, both as determinants and con- sequences ?
.Associated with these questions are several specific areas deserving of consideration in future studies in order to cement the basic job attraction framework considered.
RICHARD T. BARTH 67
1. Job attraction definitions and measures must be further refined so that systematic attempts at cross-study and cross-sample comparability can be achieved.
2. Time trends in various facets of respondents’ jobs should be investigated, and their relationship with measures of behaviour and outcome variables in intervening and sub- sequent time periods examined. For example, after answering the job facet items as in this study, respondents could be asked to go over the items twice again: first, to compare the present situation with the past situation (‘How satisfied were you with this characteristic - some time ago?’); next, to indicate more fully what they expect in the future (‘How .&.fied do you expect lo be with this characteristic some time from now?’).
3. I t is not at all clear whether asked a person to indicate his job attraction on two scales (e.g., ‘would like’ and ‘expect’), and then taking their difference as a measure of attraction, produces different results than asking him to simply rate attraction on a direct discrepancy scale [i.e., ‘Compared to what you would like, how much do you realistically expect to get some time from now?’, with the scale for each item extending from ‘expect to get very little’ (1) to ‘expect to receive as much as I would like’ (7)].
4. Emphasis should be given to including measures of possibly important moderating variables (e.g., internal/external orientation, self-esteeem). The question of whether dis- crepancy constructs are more predictive for Internals and absolute levels more predictive for Externals is worthy of consideration in future studies. The key difference may be in the time period over which the discrepancy is conceptualized. In the extreme (as suggested by Cummings, 1974), Externals (persons who have been reinforced for perceiving only in the ‘here and now’ and who have not been reinforced for present deprivation) may possess such short time perspectives that the ‘should be-is now’ or the ‘expect -is now’ difference is equated to a zero time lag.
A research strategy employing these suggestions should bear fruitful results. Dis- crepancies between how individuals see their job now and as they expect it to be some time from now may provide valuable diagnostic and theoretical information.
REFERENCES
BLOOD, M. R. (1971). ‘The validity of importance’, 3. Appl. Psychol. 55, 487-8. BRAYFIELD, A. H., and ROTHE, H. F. (1951). ‘An index ofjob satisfaction’, ibid. 35, 307-1 1. CAMPBELL, D. T., and FISKE, D. W. (1959). ‘Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait multi-
EVANS, hf. G. (1969~). ‘Conceptual and operational problems in the measurement of various aspects of job
- (19696). ‘Convergent and discriminant validities between the Cornell job descriptive index and a
- (1972). ‘Relations among weighted and non-weighted measures of job satisfaction’, Stud. P ~ s . Psychol.
_- (1973). ‘The moderating effects of internal versus external control on the relationship between various
EWEN, R. B. (1967). ‘Weighting components ofjob satisfaction’, 3. Appl. Psychol. 51, 68-73. GRAEN, G. (1969). ‘Instrumentality theory of work motivation: Some experimental results and suggested
HAYS, W. L. (1963). Stutisfkfm Psychologirls (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston). HOUSE, R. J., and RIZZO, R. T. (1972). ‘Toward the measurement of organizational practices: Scale develop
GTZELL, R. A. (1964). ‘Personal values, job satisfaction and job behaviour’, in BOROW, H. (ed.), Man in u
LAWLER. E. E.. 111. (1967). ‘The multi-trait multi-rater approach to measuring managerial performance’,
method matrix’, Psychol. Bull. 56, 81-105.
satisfaction’, J. ANl. Psychol. 53, 93-101.
measure of goal attainment’, ibid. 53, 102-6.
4, 45-54.
aspects of job satisfaction’, ibid. 5, 37-45.
modifications’, ibid. 53, 2, pt 2.
ment and validation’, 3. Appl. Psychol. 56, 388-96.
World at Work, 341-63. (Boston: Houghton-Mi&). ..
J. Appl. P&hol. 51, 369-81. Lo-, E. A. (1969). ‘What is job satisfaction?’, Organizuf. B e h . and Hum. P n f . 4, 309-36. PORTER, L. W. (1961). ‘A study of perceived need satisfaction in bottom and middle management jobs’, J.
ApPl. Psychol. 45, 1-10.
68 EXAMINA’TION OF JOB ATTRACTIOX AYD JOB SATISFACTION MEASURES
R o ~ R , J. R. (19G6j. ‘Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement’, Psychol.
.SIE.(;LL., S. (1956 :. A’on,baramfric S fah t i c s (Sew York: h4cCraw-Hill). \‘ROOM. \-. H. (1964). Work and ,~4ufiratiun (New York: ll’iley). M’AV~US, J. P., and LAWIER, E. E., 111. (1972). ‘Aleasurement and meaning of job satisfaction’, j. Appl.
\\‘eon, D. .4., and LLBOLD, \V. I;. (1970). ‘Overall job satisfaction and engineering job values, characteristics,
.4fon. 80 (whole number 609).
Psychof., 56. 95-105.
and behaviour’, Proceedings qf the i8ih .4nnuol Convcnlion, American P.rycholosiiaf .4ssocintion, 585-6.
NOTES
1. This research was supported by the Canada Department of Labour and in part by Northwestern University’s Program of Research on the llanagement of Research and Development. The secretarial assistance provided by UBC’s Institute of Industrial Relations is gratefully acknowledged. .4 substantially shorter version of this paper (including only part of the data from the engineering sample) was read at the 33rd Annual Meeting of the .4cademy of Management, Boston, 19-22 August 1973.
2. Requests for reprints should be sent to the author, Faculty of Commerce and Business Administra- tion. Univcrsiy of British Colunibia, 2075 ll’estbrook Place, Vancouver, B C., Canrda V6T 1W5.
3. .4s used here, the notion of job attraction is vie\vrd in trrms of the attraction of the job holder to his presrnt j o h , that is, holding his job in order to extract, at some future point in time, certain extrinsic and intrinsic rcwards from the organization. This view should not be confused with the question of occupational choicc, that is, the attraction of a person to a given career or occupation.
4. A s pointed out by \Vanom and Lawlrr (1972), importance ratings as a measure of valence or affect havc a limitation in that they do not have a directional component. High importance assigned to an outcome or job facet would indicate high aKrct, but does not necessarily indicate whether the direction of that affect is positivc or negativc. However. in the present study this prescnted no problem since all but one of the job facets were in the same direction.
5. The author wishes to thank P. Csiszar and M. Plimley for their assistance in data collection and analysis of the blue collar sample.
6. A number of the items were slightly reworded for the blue-collar sample, and two of the 23 items deleted.
7. The ‘How much do you expect?’ was not part of the IVanous and Lawler (1972) study. With regard to the question on page 4 of the questionnaire, the interesting point concerns how far in the future respondtnts (or people in general) can be exoccted to look. Although evcntually it may be possible to determine the best manner of phrasing this question in order to obtain the best predictability, there may be large individual differcnccs in which will work best (lyanous and Lawler, 1972). In the present study, the ‘some time from now’ Mas specified as ‘in about a year or so’. Pre-questionnaire interviews with a number of respondents rrvealed that this time perspective did not appear to be a problem. From a theoretical perspective, it may be more realistic to express the ‘some time from now’ in terms of a ‘significant evcnt’ (e.g., the next performance asesment or merit review) as defined by the respondent.
8. The mean correlations across the 23 facets were calculated using Fishcr’s I to < transformation (Nays, 19631.
9. A similar analysis (not included in Table 4) of the job satisfaction data for the engineers and of attraction and satisfaction data fix the blue-collar sample, provided, as expected, results which further support thc trcnds reflected in Table 3.
10. The author is indebted to Larry Cummings for providing several helpful suggestionsrelevant to this section of the paper.
ETUDE EMPIRIQCE DE PLUSIECRS YlESLRES D’ATTIRANCE POUR LE TKA\’AIL ET DE SATISFACTION
Cet article propose un cadre conceptucl pcrmettant plusieurs definitions opbrationnelles de l’attirance pour le travail (Job attraction). Des donnees experimentales ont k t e obtenues pour deux echantillons (professionncls, cols bleus) sur les relations de ccs dbfinitions (et des dkfinitions correspondantes de la satisfaction dans le travail) avec une mesure de l’attirance globale pour le travail et deux mesures traditionnelles de satisfaction globale. O n a observe que toutes les dkfinitions operationnelles de l’attirance pour le travail (et de la satisfaction dans lc travail) ne conduisent pas B des mesures, comparablcs empiriquement, de l’attirance
RICHARD T. BARTH 69
et de la satisfaction. Avec les deux tchantillons, plusieurs rnesures corritlent mieux avec la note globale de I’attirance pour le travail que d’autres. Pour I’Cchantillon professionnrl, il s’agit des formulations les plus complexes impliquent B la fois des Cvaluations sur I’impor- tance des facteurs considtrks et des notes de dCcalage. Une analyse de validitk convergente et discriminante pour chaque tchantillon suggkre qu’il est possible de mesurer l’attirance des individus pour diffkrents aspects de Ieur travail. Plusieurs suggestions sont faites cn vue d’ktudes ulttrieures destinkes A dtvelopper une thkorie de I’attirance pour le travail.
