employee attitudes and job satisfaction

13
“Happy employees are productive employ- ees.” “Happy employees are not productive employees.” We hear these conflicting state- ments made by HR professionals and man- agers in organizations. There is confusion and debate among practitioners on the topic of employee attitudes and job satisfaction— even at a time when employees are increas- ingly important for organizational success and competitiveness. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to provide greater under- standing of the research on this topic and give recommendations related to the major practitioner knowledge gaps. As indicated indirectly in a study of HR professionals (Rynes, Colbert, & Brown, 2002), as well as based on our experience, the major practitioner knowledge gaps in this area are: (1) the causes of employee at- titudes, (2) the results of positive or negative job satisfaction, and (3) how to measure and influence employee attitudes. Within each gap area, we provide a review of the scien- tific research and recommendations for practitioners related to the research find- ings. In the final section, additional recom- mendations for enhancing organizational practice in the area of employee attitudes and job satisfaction are described, along with suggestions for evaluating the imple- mented practices. Before beginning, we should describe what we mean by employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Employees have attitudes or viewpoints about many aspects of their jobs, their careers, and their organizations. How- EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES AND JOB SATISFACTION Human Resource Management, Winter 2004, Vol. 43, No. 4, Pp. 395–407 © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20032 Lise M. Saari and Timothy A. Judge This article identifies three major gaps between HR practice and the scientific research in the area of employee attitudes in general and the most focal employee attitude in particular—job satisfaction: (1) the causes of employee attitudes, (2) the results of positive or negative job satis- faction, and (3) how to measure and influence employee attitudes. Suggestions for practition- ers are provided on how to close the gaps in knowledge and for evaluating implemented prac- tices. Future research will likely focus on greater understanding of personal characteristics, such as emotion, in defining job satisfaction and how employee attitudes influence organizational performance. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Correspondence to: Lise M. Saari, IBM Corporation, Global Workforce Research, North Castle Drive MD 149, Armonk, NY 10504-1785, tel: 914-765-4224, [email protected]

Upload: lise-m-saari

Post on 11-Jun-2016

232 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Employee attitudes and job satisfaction

“Happy employees are productive employ-ees.” “Happy employees are not productiveemployees.” We hear these conflicting state-ments made by HR professionals and man-agers in organizations. There is confusionand debate among practitioners on the topicof employee attitudes and job satisfaction—even at a time when employees are increas-ingly important for organizational successand competitiveness. Therefore, the purposeof this article is to provide greater under-standing of the research on this topic andgive recommendations related to the majorpractitioner knowledge gaps.

As indicated indirectly in a study of HRprofessionals (Rynes, Colbert, & Brown,2002), as well as based on our experience,the major practitioner knowledge gaps in

this area are: (1) the causes of employee at-titudes, (2) the results of positive or negativejob satisfaction, and (3) how to measure andinfluence employee attitudes. Within eachgap area, we provide a review of the scien-tific research and recommendations forpractitioners related to the research find-ings. In the final section, additional recom-mendations for enhancing organizationalpractice in the area of employee attitudesand job satisfaction are described, alongwith suggestions for evaluating the imple-mented practices.

Before beginning, we should describewhat we mean by employee attitudes and jobsatisfaction. Employees have attitudes orviewpoints about many aspects of their jobs,their careers, and their organizations. How-

EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES AND JOBSATISFACTION

Human Resource Management, Winter 2004, Vol. 43, No. 4, Pp. 395–407© 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20032

Lise M. Saari and Timothy A. Judge

This article identifies three major gaps between HR practice and the scientific research in thearea of employee attitudes in general and the most focal employee attitude in particular—jobsatisfaction: (1) the causes of employee attitudes, (2) the results of positive or negative job satis-faction, and (3) how to measure and influence employee attitudes. Suggestions for practition-ers are provided on how to close the gaps in knowledge and for evaluating implemented prac-tices. Future research will likely focus on greater understanding of personal characteristics, suchas emotion, in defining job satisfaction and how employee attitudes influence organizationalperformance. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Correspondence to: Lise M. Saari, IBM Corporation, Global Workforce Research, North Castle Drive MD149, Armonk, NY 10504-1785, tel: 914-765-4224, [email protected]

Page 2: Employee attitudes and job satisfaction

396 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Winter 2004

ever, from the perspective of research andpractice, the most focal employee attitude isjob satisfaction. Thus, we often refer to em-ployee attitudes broadly in this article, al-though much of our specific focus will con-cern job satisfaction.

The most-used research definition of jobsatisfaction is by Locke (1976), who definedit as “. . . a pleasurable or positive emotionalstate resulting from the appraisal of one’s jobor job experiences” (p. 1304). Implicit inLocke’s definition is the importance of bothaffect, or feeling, and cognition, or thinking.When we think, we have feelings about whatwe think. Conversely, when we have feelings,we think about what we feel. Cognition andaffect are thus inextricably linked, in our psy-chology and even in our biology. Thus, whenevaluating our jobs, as when we assess mostanything important to us, both thinking andfeeling are involved.

Gap 1—The Causes of EmployeeAttitudes

The first major practitioner knowledge gapwe will address is the causes of employee at-titudes and job satisfaction. In general, HRpractitioners understand the importance ofthe work situation as a cause of employee at-titudes, and it is an area HR can help influ-ence through organizational programs andmanagement practices. However, in the pasttwo decades, there have been significant re-search gains in understanding dispositionaland cultural influences on job satisfaction aswell, which is not yet well understood bypractitioners. In addition, one of the mostimportant areas of the work situation to in-fluence job satisfaction—the work itself—isoften overlooked by practitioners when ad-dressing job satisfaction.

Dispositional Influences

Several innovative studies have shown theinfluences of a person’s disposition on jobsatisfaction. One of the first studies in thisarea (Staw & Ross, 1985) demonstratedthat a person’s job satisfaction scores havestability over time, even when he or shechanges jobs or companies. In a related

study, childhood temperament was found tobe statistically related to adult job satisfac-tion up to 40 years later (Staw, Bell, &Clausen, 1986). Evidence even indicatesthat the job satisfaction of identical twinsreared apart is statistically similar (seeArvey, Bouchard, Segal, & Abraham, 1989).Although this literature has had its critics(e.g., Davis-Blake & Pfeffer, 1989), an ac-cumulating body of evidence indicates thatdifferences in job satisfaction across em-ployees can be traced, in part, to differencesin their disposition or temperament (House,Shane, & Herold, 1996).

Despite its contributions to our under-standing of the causes of job satisfaction,one of the limitations in this literature is thatit is not yet informative as to how exactly dis-positions affect job satisfaction (Erez, 1994).Therefore, researchers have begun to explorethe psychological processes that underlie dis-positional causes of job satisfaction. For ex-ample, Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) sug-gest that disposition may influence theexperience of emotionally significant eventsat work, which in turn influences job satis-faction. Similarly, Brief (1998) and Mo-towidlo (1996) have developed theoreticalmodels in an attempt to better understandthe relationship between dispositions and jobsatisfaction.

Continuing this theoretical develop-ment, Judge and his colleagues (Judge &Bono, 2001; Judge, Locke, Durham, &Kluger, 1998) found that a key personalitytrait, core self-evaluation, correlates with (isstatistically related to) employee job satisfac-tion. They also found that one of the primarycauses of the relationship was through theperception of the job itself. Thus, it appearsthat the most important situational effect onjob satisfaction—the job itself—is linked towhat may be the most important personalitytrait to predict job satisfaction—core self-evaluation. Evidence also indicates thatsome other personality traits, such as extra-version and conscientiousness, can also in-fluence job satisfaction (Judge, Heller, &Mount, 2002).

These various research findings indicatethat there is in fact a relationship betweendisposition or personality and job satisfac-

Evidence evenindicates thatthe jobsatisfaction ofidentical twinsreared apart isstatisticallysimilar.

Page 3: Employee attitudes and job satisfaction

Employee Attitudes and Job Satisfaction • 397

Even thoughorganizationscannot directlyimpactemployeepersonality, theuse of soundselectionmethods and agood matchbetweenemployees andjobs will ensurepeople areselected andplaced into jobsmostappropriate forthem, which, inturn, will helpenhance theirjob satisfaction.

tion. Even though organizations cannot di-rectly impact employee personality, the useof sound selection methods and a goodmatch between employees and jobs will en-sure people are selected and placed into jobsmost appropriate for them, which, in turn,will help enhance their job satisfaction.

Cultural Influences

In terms of other influences on employee at-titudes, there is also a small, but growingbody of research on the influences of cultureor country on employee attitudes and job sat-isfaction. The continued globalization of or-ganizations poses new challenges for HRpractitioners, and the available research oncross-cultural organizational and human re-sources issues can help them better under-stand and guide practice (Erez, 1994; House,1995; Triandis, 1994).

The most cited cross-cultural work onemployee attitudes is that of Hofstede (1980,1985). He conducted research on employeeattitude data in 67 countries and found thatthe data grouped into four major dimensionsand that countries systematically variedalong these dimensions. The four cross-cul-tural dimensions are: (1) individualism-col-lectivism; (2) uncertainty avoidance versusrisk taking; (3) power distance, or the extentto which power is unequally distributed; and(4) masculinity/femininity, more recentlycalled achievement orientation. For example,the United States was found to be high onindividualism, low on power distance, andlow on uncertainty avoidance (thus high onrisk taking), whereas Mexico was high oncollectivism, high on power distance, andhigh on uncertainty avoidance.

The four dimensions have been a usefulframework for understanding cross-culturaldifferences in employee attitudes, as well asrecognizing the importance of cultural causesof employee attitudes. More recent analyseshave shown that country/culture is as stronga predictor of employee attitudes as the typeof job a person has (Saari, 2000; Saari &Erez, 2002; Saari & Schneider, 2001).

There have been numerous replicationsof Hofstede’s research (reviewed by Sonder-gaard, 1994). The importance of culture has

also been found in how employees areviewed and valued across countries/cultures(Jackson, 2002)—countries systematicallyvary on the extent to which they view em-ployees in instrumental versus humanisticways. In terms of practical recommenda-tions, an awareness of, and, whenever possi-ble, adjustments to, cultural factors thatinfluence employee attitudes and measure-ment are important for HR practitioners asemployee attitude surveys increasingly crossnational boundaries.

Work Situation Influences

As discussed earlier, the work situation alsomatters in terms of job satisfaction and or-ganization impact. Contrary to some com-monly held practitioner beliefs, the most no-table situational influence on job satisfactionis the nature of the work itself—often called“intrinsic job characteristics.” Research stud-ies across many years, organizations, andtypes of jobs show that when employees areasked to evaluate different facets of their jobsuch as supervision, pay, promotion opportu-nities, coworkers, and so forth, the nature ofthe work itself generally emerges as the mostimportant job facet (Judge & Church, 2000;Jurgensen, 1978). This is not to say thatwell-designed compensation programs or ef-fective supervision are unimportant; rather,it is that much can be done to influence jobsatisfaction by ensuring work is as interest-ing and challenging as possible. Unfortu-nately, some managers think employees aremost desirous of pay to the exclusion of otherjob attributes such as interesting work. Forexample, in a study examining the impor-tance of job attributes, employees ranked in-teresting work as the most important job at-tribute and good wages ranked fifth, whereaswhen it came to what managers thought em-ployees wanted, good wages ranked firstwhile interesting work ranked fifth (Kovach,1995).

Of all the major job satisfaction areas,satisfaction with the nature of the work it-self—which includes job challenge, auton-omy, variety, and scope—best predicts overalljob satisfaction, as well as other importantoutcomes like employee retention (e.g., Fried

Page 4: Employee attitudes and job satisfaction

398 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Winter 2004

& Ferris, 1987; Parisi & Weiner, 1999;Weiner, 2000). Thus, to understand whatcauses people to be satisfied with their jobs,the nature of the work itself is one of the firstplaces for practitioners to focus on.

Gap 2—The Results of Positive orNegative Job Satisfaction

A second major practitioner knowledge gapis in the area of understanding the conse-quences of job satisfaction. We hear debatesand confusion about whether satisfied em-ployees are productive employees, and HRpractitioners rightfully struggle as they mustreduce costs and are concerned about the ef-fects on job satisfaction and, in turn, the im-pact on performance and other outcomes.The focus of our discussion in this section ison job satisfaction, because this is the em-ployee attitude that is most often related toorganizational outcomes. Other employee at-titudes, such as organizational commitment,have been studied as well, although theyhave similar relationships to outcomes as jobsatisfaction.

Job Satisfaction and Job Performance

The study of the relationship between job sat-isfaction and job performance has a contro-versial history. The Hawthorne studies, con-ducted in the 1930s, are often credited withmaking researchers aware of the effects ofemployee attitudes on performance. Shortlyafter the Hawthorne studies, researchersbegan taking a critical look at the notion thata “happy worker is a productive worker.” Mostof the earlier reviews of the literature sug-gested a weak and somewhat inconsistent re-lationship between job satisfaction and per-formance. A review of the literature in 1985suggested that the statistical correlation be-tween job satisfaction and performance wasabout .17 (Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985).Thus, these authors concluded that the pre-sumed relationship between job satisfactionand performance was a “management fad”and “illusory.” This study had an importantimpact on researchers, and in some cases onorganizations, with some managers and HRpractitioners concluding that the relationship

between job satisfaction and performancewas trivial.

However, further research does not agreewith this conclusion. Organ (1988) suggeststhat the failure to find a strong relationshipbetween job satisfaction and performance isdue to the narrow means often used to definejob performance. Organ argued that whenperformance is defined to include importantbehaviors not generally reflected in perfor-mance appraisals, such as organizational citi-zenship behaviors, its relationship with jobsatisfaction improves. Research tends to sup-port Organ’s proposition in that job satisfac-tion correlates with organizational citizenshipbehaviors (Organ & Ryan, 1995).

In addition, in a more recent and com-prehensive review of 301 studies, Judge,Thoresen, Bono, and Patton (2001) foundthat when the correlations are appropriatelycorrected (for sampling and measurementerrors), the average correlation between jobsatisfaction and job performance is a higher.30. In addition, the relationship between jobsatisfaction and performance was found tobe even higher for complex (e.g., profes-sional) jobs than for less complex jobs. Thus,contrary to earlier reviews, it does appearthat job satisfaction is, in fact, predictive ofperformance, and the relationship is evenstronger for professional jobs.

Job Satisfaction and Life Satisfaction

An emerging area of study is the interplay be-tween job and life satisfaction. Researchershave speculated that there are three possibleforms of the relationship between job satisfac-tion and life satisfaction: (1) spillover, wherejob experiences spill over into nonwork lifeand vice versa; (2) segmentation, where joband life experiences are separated and havelittle to do with one another; and (3) compen-sation, where an individual seeks to compen-sate for a dissatisfying job by seeking fulfill-ment and happiness in his or her nonwork lifeand vice versa. Judge and Watanabe (1994)argued that these different models may existfor different individuals and were able to clas-sify individuals into the three groups. On thebasis of a national sample of U.S. workers,they found 68% were the spillover group, 20%

We heardebates andconfusion aboutwhethersatisfiedemployees areproductiveemployees, andHRpractitionersrightfullystruggle as theymust reducecosts and areconcernedabout theeffects on jobsatisfactionand, in turn,the impact onperformanceand otheroutcomes.

Page 5: Employee attitudes and job satisfaction

Employee Attitudes and Job Satisfaction • 399

Numerousstudies haveshown thatdissatisfiedemployees aremore likely toquit their jobsor be absentthan satisfiedemployees…

in the segmentation group, and 12% in thecompensation group. Thus, the spillovermodel, whereby job satisfaction spills into lifesatisfaction and vice versa, appears to charac-terize most U.S. employees.

Consistent with the spillover model, a re-view of the research literature indicated thatjob and life satisfaction are correlated (aver-age true score correlation: .44; Tait, Padgett,& Baldwin, 1989). Since a job is a significantpart of one’s life, the relationship betweenjob satisfaction and life satisfaction makessense—one’s job experiences spill over intoone’s life. However, it also seems possible thecausality could go the other way—a happy orunhappy life spills over into one’s job experi-ences and evaluations. In fact, the researchsuggests that the relationship between joband life satisfaction is reciprocal—job satis-faction does affect life satisfaction, but lifesatisfaction also affects job satisfaction(Judge & Watanabe, 1994).

Also in support of a spillover model forjob and life satisfaction, the research litera-ture shows a consistent relationship betweenjob satisfaction and depression (Thomas &Ganster, 1995). One might speculate on thepossibility that the relationship is simply dueto personality traits that cause both low jobsatisfaction and depression. However, tocounter this, there is evidence that job lossand other work events are in fact associatedwith depression (Wheaton, 1990). Thus, thisresearch suggests that dissatisfaction result-ing from one’s job can spill over into one’spsychological well-being.

Based on this research, one conclusion isthat organizations only have so much controlover a person’s job satisfaction, because formany people, their job satisfaction is a result,in part, of spillover of their life satisfaction.However, continuing to take actions to ad-dress low job satisfaction is not only impor-tant for organizational effectiveness, but bynot doing so, organizations can causespillover of employees’ low job satisfactioninto their life satisfaction and well-being.

Job Satisfaction and Withdrawal Behaviors

Numerous studies have shown that dissatis-fied employees are more likely to quit their

jobs or be absent than satisfied employees(e.g., Hackett & Guion, 1985; Hulin,Roznowski, & Hachiya, 1985; Kohler &Mathieu, 1993). Job satisfaction shows corre-lations with turnover and absenteeism in the–.25 range. Job dissatisfaction also appears tobe related to other withdrawal behaviors, in-cluding lateness, unionization, grievances,drug abuse, and decision to retire.

Hulin et al. (1985) have argued thatthese individual withdrawal behaviors are allmanifestations of “job adaptation” and haveproposed that these individual behaviors begrouped together. Because the occurrence ofmost single withdrawal behaviors is quitelow, looking at a variety of these behaviorsimproves the ability for showing the relation-ship between job attitudes and withdrawalbehaviors (Hulin, 1991). Rather than pre-dicting isolated behaviors, withdrawal re-search and applied practice would do better,as this model suggests, to study patterns inwithdrawal behaviors—such as turnover, ab-senteeism, lateness, decision to retire, etc.—together. Several studies have supported this,showing that when various withdrawal be-haviors are grouped together, job satisfactionbetter predicts these behavioral groupingsthan the individual behaviors.

Based on the research that shows job sat-isfaction predicts withdrawal behaviors liketurnover and absenteeism, researchers havebeen able to statistically measure the finan-cial impact of employee attitudes on organi-zations (e.g., Cascio, 1986; Mirvis & Lawler,1977). Using these methods can be a power-ful way for practitioners to reveal the costs oflow job satisfaction and the value of im-proved employee attitudes on such outcomesas absenteeism and retention.

Gap 3—How To Measure and InfluenceEmployee Attitudes

The third major practitioner knowledge gap isin the area of how to measure and influenceemployee attitudes. There are a number ofpossible methods for measuring employee at-titudes, such as conducting focus groups, in-terviewing employees, or carrying out em-ployee surveys. Of these methods, the mostaccurate measure is a well-constructed em-

Page 6: Employee attitudes and job satisfaction

400 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Winter 2004

ployee attitude survey. Thus, we first providean overview of the major research on em-ployee attitude surveys. To positively influ-ence employee attitudes, understanding ofsome of the research already discussed is im-portant. In addition, knowledge of importantconsiderations for analyzing employee surveyresults is essential for taking appropriatesteps to improve attitudes. Finally, practition-ers often use survey feedback discussionmeetings as a means for acting on employeeattitude surveys—the final part of this sectionaddresses research related to this topic andthe most important ways to support action.

Employee Attitude Surveys

Two major research areas on employee atti-tude surveys are discussed below: employeeattitude measures used in research and facetversus global measures. The areas discussedare not meant to provide knowledge of all rel-evant considerations for designing employeesurveys, but rather provide background onthe research and an overview of some majorareas of study.

In the research literature, the two mostextensively validated employee attitude sur-vey measures are the Job Descriptive Index(JDI; Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969) and theMinnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire(MSQ; Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist,1967). The JDI assesses satisfaction with fivedifferent job areas: pay, promotion, cowork-ers, supervision, and the work itself. The JDIis reliable and has an impressive array of val-idation evidence. The MSQ has the advan-tage of versatility—long and short forms areavailable, as well as faceted and overall mea-sures. Another measure used in job satisfac-tion research (e.g., Judge, Erez, Bono, &Thoresen, in press) is an updated and reliablefive-item version of an earlier scale by Bray-field and Rothe (1951). All of these measureshave led to greater scientific understanding ofemployee attitudes, and their greatest valuemay be for research purposes, yet these mea-sures may be useful for practitioners as well.In practice, organizations often wish to ob-tain a more detailed assessment of employeeattitudes and/or customize their surveys to as-sess issues unique to their firm.

There are two additional issues withmeasuring employee attitudes that havebeen researched and provide potentially use-ful knowledge for practitioners. First, mea-sures of job satisfaction can be faceted (suchas the JDI)—whereby they measure variousdimensions of the job—while others areglobal—or measure a single, overall feelingtoward the job. An example of a global mea-sure is “Overall, how satisfied are you withyour job?” If a measure is facet-based, over-all job satisfaction is typically defined as asum of the facets. Scarpello and Campbell(1983) found that individual questionsabout various aspects of the job did not cor-relate well with a global measure of overalljob satisfaction. However, if one uses jobsatisfaction facet scores—based on groupsof questions on the same facet or dimensionrather than individual questions—to predictan independent measure of overall job satis-faction, the relationship is considerablyhigher. As has been noted elsewhere (e.g.,Judge & Hulin, 1993), job satisfaction facetsare sufficiently related to suggest that theyare measuring a common construct—overalljob satisfaction.

Second, while most job satisfaction re-searchers have assumed that overall, single-item measures are unreliable and thereforeshould not be used, this view has not goneunchallenged. Wanous, Reichers, and Hudy(1997) found that the reliability of single-item measures of job satisfaction is .67. Forthe G. M. Faces scale, another single-itemmeasure of job satisfaction that asks individ-uals to check one of five faces that best de-scribes their overall satisfaction (Kunin,1955), the reliability was estimated to be .66.Therefore, respectable levels of reliabilitycan be obtained with an overall measure ofjob satisfaction, although these levels aresomewhat lower than most multiple-itemmeasures of job satisfaction.

Based on the research reviewed, there issupport for measuring job satisfaction witheither a global satisfaction question or bysumming scores on various aspects of thejob. Therefore, in terms of practice, by mea-suring facets of job satisfaction, organiza-tions can obtain a complete picture of theirspecific strengths and weaknesses related to

…measures ofjob satisfactioncan be faceted(such as theJDI)—wherebythey measurevariousdimensions ofthe job—whileothers areglobal—ormeasure asingle, overallfeeling towardthe job.

Page 7: Employee attitudes and job satisfaction

Employee Attitudes and Job Satisfaction • 401

…it is helpfulwheninterpretingsurvey data toknow how thesurvey resultscompare toindustry normsor countrynorms.

employee job satisfaction and use those facetscores for an overall satisfaction measure, orthey can reliably use overall satisfactionquestions for that purpose.

Analyzing and Interpreting Survey Results forAction

Effective analysis and interpretation of em-ployee attitude survey data is necessary inorder to understand the results and, in turn,take appropriate actions to improve em-ployee attitudes and job satisfaction. Re-search on employee attitude measurementand statistical analyses is a key contributionof the field of psychology (e.g., Edwards,2001; Macey, 1996). Highlights of the re-search on survey analyses and the most im-portant issues for HR practitioners to con-sider are reviewed below.

The Use of Norms. Ratings made by employ-ees on survey questions can systematicallyvary—and vary widely—no matter what com-pany they work for. For example, ratings ofpay are typically low and ratings of workgroupcooperation are typically rated very high.Similar systematic variations are found whencomparing survey data for many companiesacross countries. For example, Switzerlandtends to have some of the highest ratings,Italy some of the lowest. Therefore, it is help-ful when interpreting survey data to knowhow the survey results compare to industrynorms or country norms. Survey norms aredescriptive statistics that are compiled fromdata on the same survey questions from anumber of companies and are obtained byjoining a consortium. Comparability of thecompanies, company size, and number ofcompanies are important factors in the valueof the norms (Morris & LoVerde, 1993). Inaddition, the professionalism in the normsprocess and the age of the norms will affecttheir relevance and accuracy (Bracken, 1992;R. H. Johnson, 1996). If survey norms are notan option, overall company or unit results canserve as internal norms, although they en-courage an inward focus and potentially in-ternal competition. Actions determinedthrough normed-based comparisons can bestrong drivers of change and help focus a

company externally to other companies andthe competition.

Comparisons and Numerical Accuracy. Com-paring data is one of the most useful surveyanalysis techniques, such as described abovefor using norms to compare a company’s sur-vey results to other companies. Comparisonsfor the same organization or unit over timewith a trended survey are also valuable tomeasure progress. At the same time, compar-isons must be done with professional care,taking into account measurement issues(Cascio, 1986). This is one of the majorareas of practitioner misinterpretation in ourexperience.

Of particular concern are organizationsusing unreliable survey data, based on lownumbers of survey respondents and/or de-partment size, to compare departments/man-agers or to inappropriately measure changeover time. In general, the lower the number,the greater the effects of random error ondata, like the differences between flipping acoin 10 times versus 1,000 times. Thus,comparisons of groups or departments withsmall numbers generally should not be done,especially when the survey is a sample surveyand designed to provide data only at higherlevels. Even for surveys of all employees thatprovide survey results to each manager/de-partment, numerical accuracy is still of con-cern and comparisons across time or be-tween managers should be avoided—data atthe workgroup level is best provided to eachmanager for department feedback and localactions. To avoid these measurement issues,it is helpful to have a lower limit on the or-ganization size and/or number of respon-dents needed to create reports for compar-isons (most organizations we have workedwith set this at a maximum margin of error ofplus/minus 9 percentage points, which isgenerally around 100 respondents). Numeri-cal accuracy and appropriate comparisonsare especially important when using surveydata for performance targets and employ-ment-related decisions.

Global Considerations. For organizations op-erating in more than one country, under-standing survey data by country is also valu-

Page 8: Employee attitudes and job satisfaction

402 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Winter 2004

able for improving employee attitudes. How-ever, making comparisons across countries isanother type of analysis that should be con-ducted with caution. As stated earlier, thereare country/cultural influences on employeeattitudes, and the use of country norms ispreferable. In other words, comparisons arebest made against an appropriate countrynorm rather than comparing one country’ssurvey results to another country’s results. Inaddition to cultural factors, linguistic factorsacross countries can affect survey results(Ryan, Chan, Ployhart, & Slade, 1999). Con-cepts—such as “employee recognition”—canhave different meanings due to different cul-tural meanings (Hui, 1990; Hui & Triandis,1985), and this can affect the equivalence ofthe measurements of employee attitudesacross countries. To help minimize linguisticand other issues, professional translations,back translations (translations back intoEnglish then checked against the originalEnglish), and country reviews are recom-mended. Other guidance on administrativeand practical issues when conducting amultinational employee attitude survey isalso available (e.g., S. R. Johnson, 1996).

Linking Employee Attitudes to Business Mea-sures. One of the newest areas of research thatassists with identifying important areas forsurvey action is to statistically link employeeattitudes to business outcomes. This researchis an extension of the research discussed ear-lier that correlated job satisfaction with jobperformance. Schneider and his colleaguescarried out the groundbreaking studies in thisarea, showing how employee attitudes aboutvarious human resources practices correlatedwith customer satisfaction measures, thus in-dicating key levers to improve customer satis-faction. For example, they found that whenemployees reported higher satisfaction withwork facilitation and career development, cus-tomers reported higher service quality(Schneider & Bowen, 1985). Other re-searchers (e.g., Wiley, 1996) have developedlinkage models that identify the organizationalpractices—as rated by employee attitude sur-veys—that relate to high levels of organiza-tional performance. In addition, a variety ofstudies have shown how employee attitudes

are predictive of important financial perfor-mance measures, such as market share (e.g.,Ashworth, Higgs, Schneider, Shepherd, &Carr, 1995; Colihan & Saari, 2000; Harter,Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002).

Linkage research can be done in any or-ganization where there is some way to groupenough survey data—such as in stores,branches, districts, and even countries—andthen correlate it with financial and/or cus-tomer data for the same groups. This type ofsurvey measurement and analysis helps prac-titioners demonstrate the impact of em-ployee attitudes on the business, as well asidentify key levers for action.

Survey Feedback and Action

Employee surveys, used effectively, can becatalysts for improving employee attittudesand producing organizational change. Thisstatement is based on two important as-sumptions, both supported by research al-ready reviewed in this article: first, that em-ployee attitudes affect behavior and second,that employee attitudes are important leversof organizational performance.

Survey feedback and action help supportand drive organizational change, and the“ability to manage change” is evaluated byline managers as the most important compe-tency for HR professionals (Ulrich, Brock-bank, Yeung, & Lake, 1995). There are manyvariations of survey feedback and action,though an important research finding is thatparticipation in feedback sessions alone willnot result in change—and this is often whereorganizations fall short. In fact, Rynes et al.(2002) found that one of the highest per-centages of HR professionals respondingcontrary to the research facts was to thestatement “Ensuring employees participatein decision making is more important for im-proving organizational performance than set-ting performance goals.” Extensive researchdoes not support this statement, yet 82% ofHR professionals marked it as true. In fact,actual action, not just involvement in surveyfeedback discussions and the development ofplans, is critical for an employee survey to re-sult in improved performance. Feedback ses-sions that result in concrete goals and result-

One of thenewest areas ofresearch thatassists withidentifyingimportant areasfor surveyaction is tostatistically linkemployeeattitudes tobusinessoutcomes.

Page 9: Employee attitudes and job satisfaction

Employee Attitudes and Job Satisfaction • 403

Today,organizationsneed more fromHR thansomeone toadminister thetactical aspectsof an employeesurvey and tocheck thatmanagers areholdingfeedbackdiscussions andhave actionplans.

ing actions have the most impact. This issupported by extensive research on goal-set-ting theory, which shows that having specificgoals is a major factor for motivation andperformance (Locke, Feren, McCaleb, Shaw,& Denny, 1980; Locke & Latham, 2002).

How To Close the Gaps and Evaluate theEffectiveness of Practice

Throughout this article, as we discussed therelevant research for each of the threeknowledge gaps, we provided suggestionsfor closing the gaps. In this section, weoffer some final suggestions, as well asideas for evaluating the effectiveness of im-plemented practices.

One important way to close the gap be-tween research and practice is to be betterinformed about the research. Given the de-mands on HR practitioners’ time, this is adifficult task, yet one that is increasingly ex-pected of HR professionals. Today, organi-zations need more from HR than someoneto administer the tactical aspects of an em-ployee survey and to check that managersare holding feedback discussions and haveaction plans. Organizations need HR practi-tioners who know how to develop effectiveand research-based employee attitude mea-sures, understand and derive valuable in-sights from the data, and use the results toimprove employee attitudes and job perfor-mance and help lead organizational change.There are many excellent and emergingways to gain this knowledge—professionalHR organizations (e.g., the Society forHuman Resource Management) are in-creasingly offering ways to get summarizedresearch information, and new ways to gainknowledge through online and other meth-ods are emerging.

Another suggestion relates to improvingknowledge of basic statistics. The need tomeasure, understand, and improve employeeattitudes is essential for organizations oftoday. Yet, without the numeric comfortneeded to fully understand and discuss em-ployee attitude measurements, what theymean, and how they relate to other businessmeasures, HR cannot be at the table to assistwith achieving this goal.

In terms of evaluating the practices dis-cussed in this article, the most rigorous anddefensible methods are to apply return oninvestment (ROI) principles. These involvedefining the objectives of a program—suchas assess employee attitudes that predict or-ganizational performance and improve em-ployee attitudes and job satisfaction—andthen evaluating, through appropriate re-search designs and measurements, whetherthese objectives were met. Approaches forcarrying out ROI and cost-based evaluationsare described in the literature (e.g., Cascio,1986). These evaluation approaches are themost rigorous, yet can be resource- andtime-intensive.

In terms of more straightforward sugges-tions for evaluating the practices imple-mented, we offer the following questionsthat HR practitioners can ask themselves:“Do we have an employee attitude surveythat measures areas important for employeejob satisfaction as well as organizational suc-cess?” “How do we know this and make thiscase to line management?” “Is the surveyroutinely used as part of decision making?”“Is the survey a respected source of infor-mation about the people side of the busi-ness?” “Am I at the table with line manage-ment using the survey insights for neededaction and organizational change?” “Can Idiscuss these measures in light of other keybusiness measures?” These may be new eval-uation criteria for many HR professionalswho have traditionally evaluated themselvesin areas such as attitude survey responserates, timeliness of action plans submittedby managers, and the number of reports dis-tributed. In the end, the evaluation of thepractices implemented should considerthese two important points: Are measures ofemployee attitude used as important infor-mation for the business? Ultimately, do em-ployee attitudes and job satisfaction move inthe desired direction?

Conclusions and Future Directions

The field of industrial/organizational psy-chology has a long, rich, and, at times, con-troversial history related to the study and un-derstanding of employee attitudes and job

Page 10: Employee attitudes and job satisfaction

404 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Winter 2004

satisfaction. Some of this research is veryspecific and aimed primarily at other re-searchers, while other publications providepractical guidance on understanding, mea-suring, and improving employee attitudes(e.g., Edwards & Fisher, 2004; Kraut, 1996).

One likely future direction of employeeattitude research will be to better understandthe interplay between the person and the sit-uation and the various internal and externalfactors that influence employee attitudes. Inparticular, a better understanding of the roleof emotion, as well as broader environmental

impacts, is needed and has been largely over-looked in past research.

In addition, ongoing research will pro-vide more in-depth understanding of the ef-fects of employee attitudes and job satisfac-tion on organizational measures, such ascustomer satisfaction and financial mea-sures. Greater insights on the relationshipbetween employee attitudes and businessperformance will assist HR professionals asthey strive to enhance the essential peopleside of the business in a highly competitive,global arena.

Lise M. Saari, PhD, is the director of global workforce research for IBM. Previously,she was the senior manager of people research at Boeing and, prior to that, a researchscientist at the Battelle Research Institute. Dr. Saari has authored numerous articles,chapters, and presentations on employee attitudes and motivation. She served on theboard of the Mayflower Group, a consortium of companies engaged in professionalsurveys. She also has served on the editorial boards for the Journal of Applied Psy-chology and Personnel Psychology. Dr. Saari is a member of the International Associa-tion of Applied Psychology, the European Congress of Work and Organizational Psy-chologists, and the Society for I-O Psychology.

Timothy A. Judge, PhD, is the Matherly-McKethan Eminent Scholar, Departmentof Management, Warrington College of Business, University of Florida. He holds abachelor of business administration degree from the University of Iowa, and master’sand doctoral degrees from the University of Illinois. Dr. Judge worked as a managerat Kohl’s Department Stores and was formerly a full professor at the University ofIowa and associate professor at Cornell University. His research interests are in per-sonality, leadership and influence behaviors, staffing, and job attitudes. He serves onthe editorial review boards of the Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology,and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

REFERENCES

Arvey, R. D., Bouchard, T. J., Segal, N. L., & Abra-ham, L. M. (1989). Job satisfaction: Environ-mental and genetic components. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 74, 187–192.

Ashworth, S. D., Higgs, C., Schneider, B., Shep-herd, W., & Carr, L. S. (1995, May). The link-age between customer satisfaction data andemployee-based measures of a company’sstrategic business intent. Paper presented atthe Tenth Annual Conference of the Society forIndustrial and Organizational Psychology, Or-lando, FL.

Bracken, D. W. (1992). Benchmarking employee at-titudes. Training and Development Journal, 46,49–53.

Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index ofjob satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology,35, 307–311.

Brief, A. P. (1998). Attitudes in and around organi-zations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cascio, W. F. (1986). Managing human resources:Productivity, quality of work life, profits. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Colihan, J., & Saari, L. M. (2000). Linkage re-search: A global, longitudinal approach over 12“web years.” In J. W. Wiley (Chair), Linking

Page 11: Employee attitudes and job satisfaction

Employee Attitudes and Job Satisfaction • 405

employee, customer, and business measures:Longitudinal insights and implications. Sympo-sium conducted at the Fifteenth Annual Con-ference of the Society for Industrial and Orga-nizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.

Davis-Blake, A., & Pfeffer, J. (1989). Just a mirage:The search for dispositional effects in organiza-tional research. Academy of Management Re-view, 14, 385–400.

Edwards, J. E. (2001). Digging deeper to better un-derstand and interpret employee survey result.Paper presented at the Sixteenth Annual Con-ference of the Society for Industrial and Orga-nizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.

Edwards, J. E., & Fisher, B. M. (2004). Evaluatingemployee survey programs. In J. E. Edwards, J.C. Scott, & N. S. Raju (Eds.), The human re-sources program-evaluation handbook (pp.365–386). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Erez, M. (1994). Toward a model of cross-culturalindustrial and organizational psychology. In H.C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough(Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organiza-tional psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 559–608). PaloAlto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of thejob characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40(2), 287–322.

Hackett, R. D., & Guion, R. M. (1985). A re-evalu-ation of the absenteeism-job satisfaction rela-tionship. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 35, 340–381.

Harter, J. K., & Creglow, A. (1998). A meta-analysisand utility analysis of the relationship betweencore employee perceptions and business out-comes. Princeton, NJ: SRI/Gallup.

Harter, J. W., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002).Business-unit-level relationship between em-ployee satisfaction, employee engagement, andbusiness outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 87, 268–279.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: Inter-national differences in work-related values.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1985). The interaction between na-tional and organizational value systems. Journalof Management Studies, 22, 347–357.

House, R. J. (1995). Leadership in the twenty-firstcentury: A speculative inquiry. In A. Howard(Ed.), The changing nature of work. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

House, R. J., Shane, S. A., & Herold, D. M. (1996).

Rumors of the death of dispositional researchare vastly exaggerated. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 21, 203–224.

Hui, C. H. (1990). Work attitudes, leadership stylesand managerial behaviour indifferent cultures.In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Applied cross-culturalpsychology (pp. 186–208). Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1985). Measurementin cross-cultural psychology: A review and com-parison of strategies. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 16, 131–152.

Hulin, C. L. (1991). Adaptation, persistence, andcommitment in organizations. In M. D. Dun-nette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of in-dustrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2,pp. 445–505). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psy-chologists Press.

Hulin, C. L., Roznowski, M., & Hachiya, D. (1985).Alternative opportunities and withdrawal deci-sions: Empirical and theoretical discrepanciesand an integration. Psychological Bulletin, 97,233–250.

Iaffaldano, M. R., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Jobsatisfaction and job performance: A meta-analy-sis. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 251–273.

Jackson, T. (2002). The management of peopleacross cultures: Valuing people differently.Human Resource Management, 41, 455–475.

Johnson, R. H. (1996). Life in the consortium: TheMayflower Group. In A. I. Kraut (Ed.), Organiza-tional surveys: Tools for assessment and change(pp. 285–309). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Johnson, S. R. (1996). The multinational opinionsurvey. In A. I. Kraut (Ed.), Organizational sur-veys: Tools for assessment and change (pp.310–329). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship ofcore self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, gener-alized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emo-tional stability—with job satisfaction and jobperformance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 86, 80–92.

Judge, T. A., & Church, A. H. (2000). Job satisfac-tion: Research and practice. In C. L. Cooper &E. A. Locke (Eds.), Industrial and organiza-tional psychology: Linking theory with practice(pp. 166–198). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J.(in press). The core self-evaluation scale(CSES): Development of a measure. PersonnelPsychology.

Page 12: Employee attitudes and job satisfaction

406 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Winter 2004

Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002).Five-factor model of personality and job satis-faction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 87, 530–541.

Judge, T. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1993). Job satisfactionas a reflection of disposition: A multiple-sourcecausal analysis. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 56, 388–421.

Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger,A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job andlife satisfaction: The role of core evaluations.Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 17–34.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton,G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job perfor-mance relationship: A qualitative and quantita-tive review. Psychological Bulletin, 127,376–407.

Judge, T. A., & Watanabe, S. (1994). Individual dif-ferences in the nature of the relationship be-tween job and life satisfaction. Journal of Oc-cupational and Organizational Psychology, 67,101–107.

Jurgensen, C. E. (1978). Job preferences (Whatmakes a job good or bad?). Journal of AppliedPsychology, 63, 267–276.

Kohler, S. S., & Mathieu, J. E. (1993). An examina-tion of the relationship between affective reac-tions, work perceptions, individual resourcecharacteristics, and multiple absence criteria.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14,515–530.

Kovach, K. A. (1995). Employee motivation: Ad-dressing a crucial factor in your organization’sperformance. Employment Relations Today, 22,93–107.

Kraut, A. I. (1996). Organizational surveys: Tools forassessment and change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kunin, T. (1955). The construction of a new type ofattitude measure. Personnel Psychology, 8,65–77.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of jobsatisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Hand-book of industrial and organizational psychol-ogy (pp. 1297–1349). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Locke, E. A., Feren, D. B., McCaleb, V. M., Shaw, K.N., & Denny, A. T. (1980). The relative effec-tiveness of four methods of motivating em-ployee performance. In K. D. Duncan, M. M.Gruneberg, & D. Wallis (Eds.), Changes inworking life (pp. 363–388). London: Wiley.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building apractically useful theory of goal setting and taskmotivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psy-chologist, 57, 705–717.

Macey, W. H. (1996). Dealing with the data: Collec-tion, processing, and analysis. In A. I. Kraut(Ed.), Organizational surveys: Tools for assess-ment and change (pp. 204–232). San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mirvis, P. H., & Lawler, E. E. (1977). Measuring thefinancial impact of employee attitudes. Journalof Applied Psychology, 62, 1–8.

Morris, G. W., & LoVerde, M. A. (1993). Consor-tium surveys. American Behavioral Scientist,36, 531–550.

Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Orientation toward the joband organization: A theory of individual differ-ences in job satisfaction. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.),Individual differences and behavior in organiza-tions (pp. 175–208). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Organ, D. W. (1988). A restatement of the satisfac-tion-performance hypothesis. Journal of Man-agement, 14, 547–557.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analyticreview of attitudinal and dispositional predic-tors of organizational citizenship behavior. Per-sonnel Psychology, 48, 775–802.

Parisi, A. G., & Weiner, S. P. (1999, May). Retentionof employees: Country-specific analyses in amultinational organization. Poster at the Four-teenth Annual Conference of the Society for In-dustrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta,GA.

Ryan, A. M., Chan, D., Ployhart, R. E., & Slade, A.L. (1999). Employee attitude surveys in a multi-national organization: Considering languageand culture in assessing measurement equiva-lence. Personnel Psychology, 52, 37–58.

Rynes, S. L., Colbert, A. E., & Brown, K. G. (2002).HR professionals’ beliefs about effectiveHuman resource practices: Correspondence be-tween research and practice. Human ResourceManagement, 41, 149–174.

Saari, L. M. (1999). Global perspectives in servicequality. Paper presented at the Fourteenth An-nual Conference for Industrial and Organiza-tional Psychology, Atlanta, GA.

Saari, L. M. (2000). Employee surveys and attitudesacross cultures. In Business as unusual? Are I/Opsychology practices applicable across culture?Paper presented at the Fifteenth Annual Con-

Page 13: Employee attitudes and job satisfaction

Employee Attitudes and Job Satisfaction • 407

ference of the Society for Industrial and Orga-nizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.

Saari, L. M., & Erez, M. (2002). Cross-cultural di-versity and employee attitudes. Paper presentedat the Seventeenth Annual Conference of theSociety for Industrial and Organizational Psy-chology, Toronto.

Saari, L. M., & Schneider, B. (2001). Going global:Surveys and beyond. Professional workshoppresented at the Sixteenth Annual Conferenceof the Society for Industrial and OrganizationalPsychology, San Diego, CA.

Scarpello, V., & Campbell, J. P. (1983). Job satisfac-tion: Are all the parts there? Personnel Psychol-ogy, 36, 577–600.

Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (1985). Employeeand customer perceptions of service in banks:Replication and extension. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 70, 423–433.

Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969).The measurement of satisfaction in work andretirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Sondergaard, M. (1994). Research note: Hofstede’sconsequences: A study of reviews, citations andreplications. Organization Studies, 15,447–456.

Staw, B. M., Bell, N. E., & Clausen, J. A. (1986).The dispositional approach to job attitudes: Alifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 31, 437–453.

Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the midstof change: A dispositional approach to job atti-tudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70,469–480.

Tait, M., Padgett, M. Y., & Baldwin, T. T. (1989). Joband life satisfaction: A reevaluation of thestrength of the relationship and gender effectsas a function of the date of the study. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 74, 502–507.

Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact offamily-supportive work variables on work-family

conflict and strain: A control perspective. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 80, 6–15.

Triandis, H. C. (1994). Cross-cultural industrial andorganizational psychology. In H. C. Triandis, M.D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbookof industrial and organizational psychology (Vol.4, pp. 103–172). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psy-chologists Press.

Ulrich, D., Brockbank, W., Yeung, A. K., & Lake, D.G. (1995). Human resource competencies: Anempirical assessment. Human Resource Man-agement, 34, 473–495.

Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997).Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology,82, 247–252.

Weiner, S. P. (2000, April). Worldwide technical re-cruiting in IBM: Research and action. In P. D.Bachiochi (Chair), Attracting and keeping toptalent in the high-tech industry. PractitionerForum at the Fifteenth Annual Conference ofthe Society for Industrial and OrganizationalPsychology, New Orleans, LA.

Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., &Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Manual for the Min-nesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minneapo-lis: Industrial Relations Center, University ofMinnesota.

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affectiveevents theory: A theoretical discussion of thestructure, causes, and consequences of affec-tive experiences at work. Research in Organiza-tional Behavior, 18, 1–74.

Wheaton, B. (1990). Life transitions, role histories,and mental health. American Sociological Re-view, 55, 209–223.

Wiley, J. W. (1996). Linking survey results to cus-tomer satisfaction and business performance.In A. I. Kraut (Ed.), Organizational surveys:Tools for assessment and change. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.