job satisfaction and organizational commitment relationship effect of personality

Forster 159

Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment Relationship: Effect of Personality Variables

Shalini Srivastava

AbstractThe purpose of the study was to explore the relationship between Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment and to investi- gate the moderating effects of Trust and Locus of Control on the relationship between Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment. The study was administered on 247 middle level managers belonging to private sector organizations. Four validated instruments were used in the study. Statistical tools like Descriptive Statistics, Factor Analysis, Pearson Product Moment Correlation and Hierarchical Regression Analysis were used to analyze the data. The study found that Job satisfaction was positively related to Organizational Commitment and Trust and Locus of Control moderated Job satisfaction and Organizational Commitment relationship. The findings of this study can assist the administrator and policy makers to understand the managerial effectiveness from the perspective of personal traits. Efforts can be made to explore managers’ perception towards themselves and their roles. The future academic endeavours might make use of the present study as a stepping-stone for further exploratory and confirmatory research towards a more complete understanding of the satisfaction considerations in particular.

Key Words Research Paper, Organizational Commitment, Locus of Control, Trust, Job Satisfaction, Private Sector Managers

Organizations over the years are confronted with one of the toughest challenge of having a committed workforce in order to feature in the worldwide economic competition. The factors that lead to Organizational Commitment have suddenly started gaining a lot of attention. In a non-professional’s word, commitment is nothing but a positive attitude towards something.

Some authors have argued that organizational commitment, as a construct, is too broad for effective organizational analyses (Benkhoff, 1997). In response, Meyer and Allen (1991) proposed a distinction between the dimensions of affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment. Affective commitment refers to employees’ perceptions of their emotional attachment to or identification with their organization. Continuous commitment refers to employees’ perceptions of the costs associated with leaving the organization. Finally, normative commitment refers to employees’ perceptions of their obligation to their organization. For instance, if an organization is loyal to the employee or has supported his/her educational efforts, the employee may report higher degrees of normative commitment. ‘This reflects a difference between a preference to stay with the present organization arising out

of a sense of attachment, compared to one rooted in a sense of economic necessity or of moral obligation’ (Gallie et al., 2001, p. 1085). This three-pronged classification allows for identification of the underlying basis for each type of commitment and researchers have clarified the unique antecedents and outcomes related to each type (Meyer et al., 2002). Like job satisfaction, reliable measures of the three types of commitment have also been developed and validated (Meyer and Allen, 1991).

Job SatisfactionIt is a positive feeling towards one’s job. In the works of Newstrom (2007), ‘Job Satisfaction is a set of favourable or unfavourable feelings and emotions with which employees view their work.’ An employee’s interpretation of values may vary regarding satisfaction or dissatisfaction. For example, some employees may feel a sense of accomplishment in their jobs while other employees may not. The finding by Hackman and Oldham’s (1980) was found to be similar. They surveyed blue and white-collar workers and determined that completing interesting tasks was not as important as job security and compensation for blue-collar employees. The findings also indicated that

Vision17(2) 159–167

© 2013 MDISAGE Publications

Los Angeles, London,New Delhi, Singapore,

Washington DCDOI: 10.1177/0972262912483529

http://vision.sagepub.com

Article

160 Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment Relationship

Vision, 17, 2 (2013): 159–167

interesting and varied assignments were of higher importance to white-collar workers when compared to blue-collar workers (Hackman and Oldham, 1980).

TrustThere is an evidence that workers of all generations are sceptical of their organizations and have many reasons for their distrust (Brandes et al., 2008). In addition to the growing acceptance that trust is a multi-dimensional concept, organizational researchers are starting to realize that just like organizational commitment, trust has multiple bases and foci or referents. McCauley and Kuhnet (1992) identified the notion that trust consists of lateral and vertical elements. Lateral trust according to them was the relationship among the employees whereas, vertical trust referred to the trust amongst the employee, his supervisor, his subordinates and top management. The pervasiveness of trust and distrust in the workplace is well documented in the literature (e.g., Barber, 1983; Fox, 1974; Kanter, 1977; Kramer, 1996; Kramer and Tyler, 1985; Sitkin and Roth, 1993; Whitner et al., 1998). The extant research focuses on how subordinates’ trust in managers affect their (i.e., subordinates’) perceptions, behaviour and job related outcomes (e.g., Ross, 1994; Fulk et al., 1985). However, according to our knowledge, research on the question of how managers’ trust in subordinates may influence the managers’ control behaviour (i.e., how the managers control subordinates when they trust and distrust) is extremely rare.

Locus of ControlLocus of Control refers ‘to the extent to which people believe them or external factors such as chance and powerful others are in control of the events that influences their lives’ (Firth et al., 2004).

One of the most important variables that has been extensively researched in organizational settings is Locus of Control. Numerous researches have opined that employees with internal locus of control are more contended with their jobs, they are less stressed and resulting in elongated job term (Spector, 1982). A study done in the past revealed that employees with internal locus of control owned the authority to make judgement and perceive challenges as an opportunity for knowledge and professional development (Knoop, 1981). In contrast, someone with an external locus of control would close the eyes to these challenges due to their intellect that learning will not have a bang on him or her. Findings of a study by Judge et al. (1998) confirmed that locus of control is highly linked with self-efficacy. They define self-efficacy as one’s estimation of one’s potential to marshal the motivation,

cognitive capital and route of action needed to implement general rule over events in one’s life.

Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment

Numerous studies use different facets of satisfaction to predict employee attributes such as performance, organizational commitment and service quality (Dienhart and Gregoire,1993; Oshagbemi, 2000a, 2000b; Yousef, 1998). It is a debateable issue whether job satisfaction is the predictor of organizational commitment or vice versa. Several researchers have made the case that job satisfaction is a predictor of organizational commitment (Porter et al., 1974; Price, 1977; Rose, 1991). Slattery and Selvarajan (2005) examined the associations between job satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover intention among temporary employees. They found positive associations between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Several studies have focused directly on testing the causal relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Bateman and Strasser, 1984; Curry et al., 1986; Dossett and Suszko, 1990; Farkas and Tetrick, 1989; Lance, 1991).

Pettijohn et al. (2001) examined the relationships existing between performance appraisals, salesperson organizational commitment and job satisfaction. If various characteristics of performance appraisals that build commitment and satisfaction could be identified, then managers may be more capable of using performance appraisals that yield positive results. A survey of 185 retail salespeople and 58 retail sales managers provided the data required to evaluate the relationship between satisfaction, commitment and various aspects of performance appraisals. The results of the study indicate that managerially mediated factors may be used to enhance salesperson job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

When an employee leaves, organizations incur hiring, orientation and decreased productivity costs as well as temporary replacement costs. Estimates of these substantial costs are 1.2 to 1.3 times the one year salary of a registered nurse (RN) (Jones, 2004, 2005) to replace a single RN, or up to 5 per cent of a hospital’s budget for yearly turnover costs (Waldman et al., 2004). These costs often are paid by the government as a major payer of health care costs in the United States.

The present study, wants to gauge the relationship between Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment. Thus, the first hypothesis for the present study is:

H1: Job-Satisfaction and Organizational Commit-ment will show a positive relationship.

Shalini Srivastava 161

Vision, 17, 2 (2013): 159–167

Locus of Control and Organizational CommitmentLocus of control is linked to a range of variables concerning internals and externals on diverse sets of principles (Spector, 1982). He states that internals are devoted more to their respective organizations and are more contented with their work than those with an external locus of control. Those with an internal locus of control are also likely to continue in their jobs longer and they have a propensity to execute better. The individual trait of locus of control was found to temperate the control of work-related quality on job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Loscocco and Roschelle, 1991).

Locus of Control and Job SatisfactionFor years, industrial psychologists and organizational behaviourists have debated the influence of a person’s disposition on job satisfaction. Various researchers have argued the person versus situation debate (Judge et al., 1998; Bell and Staw, 1989). Bell and Staw (1989) considered locus of control to be a dispositional (personality) trait. As a personality characteristic, internal locus of control is hypothesized to be an important variable that influences the employee. The internal–external locus of control of a person has a tremendous impact on his performance and job satisfaction (Brownell, 1981; Dailey, 1980; Kasperson, 1982). A study conducted by Dailey on scientists in the year 1980 found that scientists with an internal locus of control were more satisfied, motivated and had a high level of participation within their jobs as compared with those who had external locus of control. Those scientists were associated with low job satisfaction and psychological distress. Research has also shown that having an internal locus of control is related to organizational satisfaction (Organ and Greene, 1974). Internals are more inclined to take action, are better performers and consequently receive promotions and rewards related to their performance.

Trust and Organizational CommitmentMoye (2003) examined the extent to which employee empowerment and employee commitment to the organization are related to interpersonal-level and system-level trust in the organization. The results indicated that employees who possess higher levels of commitment to the organization also possess higher levels of interpersonal-level trust and system-level trust. Employees who feel empowered in their work environment also tend

to have higher levels of interpersonal-level trust and system-level trust.

Trust, Locus of Control, Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment RelationshipAn important element in building a successful organization is trust. Organizational trust provides the basis for employee’s motivation, effective team-building, open communication and employee retention. An employee will be committed to the organization if he trusts the organization of its capabilities and its limitations. When trust is a ‘guiding principle in the corporate culture, it provides a firm foundation to build job satisfaction and committed staff’ (DeFrank and Ivancevich, 1998). When trust becomes less than a back-and-forth commitment, there is a potential for a decrease in employees’ Job Satisfaction and Commitment to the task at hand and to the organization as a whole. Similarly, employees with Internal Locus of Control will tend to be more satisfied with their jobs because they will try to introspect for any unpleasant situation before reacting to it. This dimension of personality will make him more adjustable and thus, will be more satisfied and committed to their job. Studies usually recommend that internal subjects have a propensity to be more content with their job than the external ones. They see their superiors as higher on concern and initiating composition account, less role stress, observe more sovereignty and control and have a tendency to support elongated job term (Spector, 1982) .

Although there have been numerous studies linking job satisfaction with other personality variables, the moderating role of Trust and Locus of Control on the relationship between Job satisfaction and Organizational commitment of Managers has not received much attention. Increasing or decreasing level of trust certainly affects the intensity or the nature of relationship between Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment.

The present study intends to fulfil this vacuum by testing the postulation that Trust and locus of control serves as a moderator for Job satisfaction and Organizational commitment relationship.Thus, the hypothesis are:

H2: Trust moderates the effect of Job satisfaction on Organizational Commitment.

H3: Internal Locus of control moderates the effect of Job satisfaction on Organizational Commit- ment.

Objectives of the study: The study aims to examine Job-Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment relationship


Vision, 17, 2 (2013): 159–167

Figure 1. Conceptual Model of Hypotheses

Independent Variable Moderating Variable Dependent Variable

H1

H2H3+ve +ve

+ve Job Satisfaction Organizational Commitment

• Internal Locus of Control

• Trust

Source: Developed by the author on the basis of data collected for the present study.

and the moderating effects of Internal Locus of control and Trust on Job-Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment relationship.

Conceptual Model of HypothesesBased on the research presented in the literature review, a conceptual model is developed. The model postulates the relationship between Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment and the moderating effects of Trust and Internal Locus of control (Figure 1).

MethodThe present study was done on middle level managers. They belonged to BPO, Banks and IT Sectors. The sample size was 247. Descriptive statistics along with Exploratory Factor Analysis, Pearson Product Moment Correlation and Regression Analysis was used for data analysis.

MeasuresOrganizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ): A

15 item scale developed by Mowday et al. (1979) was used for the study. It examines the possible feelings the individuals may have about the organization for which they work and is measured on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’ (7). The Cronbach ά was found to be 0.76 for this scale.

Job Satisfaction survey (JSS): The Scale was developed by Paul E. Spector, Department of Psychology, University of South Florida (1985). It is a 36 item, nine facet scale to assess employee attitudes about the job and aspects of the job. Each facet is assessed with four items and a total score is computed from all items. The scale was significantly related to workplace factors such as Pay, Promotion, Supervision, Fringe

benefits, Contingent Rewards, Operation Procedures, Co-workers, Nature of work, Communication. The Cronbach ά was found to be 0.84 for this scale.

Trust Questionnaire: The Trust Questionnaire developed by Robinson (1996) was used to measure the level of Commitment. The scale consists of 7 items. Examples of the items include an example item is ‘In general, I believe my supervisor’s motives and intentions are good, My supervisor is open and upfront with me.’ The Cronbach ά was found to be .86 for this scale.

Locus of Control Inventory (LOCO): Udai Pareek (1992) developed this scale. The LOCO inventory has 10 items each for internality, externality (others) and externality (luck). A five-point scale is used in scoring responses ranging from ‘hardly feel’ (0) to ‘Strongly feel’ (4). The three dimensions of Locus of control are: Internal (I), External (E-O), External (E-C). The Cronbach ά was found to be 0.86 for this scale.

ResultsAs the KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) measure of sampling adequacy was found to be adequate (0.60) and the Bartlett test of sphericity as significant, it indicated that factor analysis can be conducted. Factor Analysis with principal axis factoring method and varimax rotation was then used to cluster the variables into several factors related to Job Satisfaction Scale and Locus of Control Scale. A minimum Eigen value of one (1) was used in the factor analysis in order to control the number of factors extracted. Only six (6) factors in the section of Job Satisfaction and one in the section of Locus of Control were retained and interpreted. These factors are depicted in Tables 1 and 2.

Factor Analysis of Job Satisfaction Scale is depicted in Table 1. The six factors namely Pay, Promotion, Superiors, Fringe Benefits, Co-Workers, Contingent Rewards


Vision, 17, 2 (2013): 159–167

Table 1. Factor Analysis of Job Satisfaction Scale Rotated Factor Matrix

Factors

Items 1 2 3 4 5 6

Pay 1 0.426Pay 2 0.773Pay 3 0.528Pay 4 0.624Prom 1 0.458Prom 2 0.732Prom 3 0.713Prom 4 0.624Sup 1 0.624Sup 2 0.538Sup 3 0.618Sup 4 0.724Fr.B 1 0.534Fr.B 2 0.628Fr.B 3 0.462 Fr.B 4 0.726 Co-w 1 0.427Co-w 2 0.624Co w 3 0.532Co w 4 0.626CoR 1 0.423Co R 2 0.511Co R 3 0.624Co R 4 0.528Eigen

Values2.46 2.24 2.18 2.02 1.96 1.68

%age of Variance

14.26 14.02 13.98 13.26 12.82 12.26


Note: Prom = Promotion, Sup = Superiors; Fr.B = Fringe Benefits, Cow = Co-Workers; CoR = Contingent Rewards.

Table 2. Factor Analysis of Locus of Control Scale Rotated Factor Matrix

Factor

Item 1

ILOC 1 0.528ILOC 2 0.452ILOC 3 0.624ILOC 4 0.527ILOC 5 0.728ILOC 6 0.624ILOC 7 0.436ILOC 8 0.612 ILOC 9 0.522ILOC 10 0.458

Eigen Value 3.18


Note: ILOC = Internal Locus of Control.

Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities and Correlations among the Variables (N = 247)

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

OC 0.76Pay 0.38** 0.75Prom 0.42** 0.26** 0.73Sup 0.46** 0.63** 0.44** 0.82Fr.B 0.24** 0.56** 0.48* 0.36** 0.73Cow 0.42** 0.39** 0.28** 0.32** 0.32** 0.76Co-R 0.36** 0.19* 0.35** 0.28** 0.32** 0.42** 0.68JS 0.72** 0.64** 0.56** 0.68** 0.72** 0.64** 0.58** 0.84Trust 0.38** 0.35** 0.31** 0.31** 0.46** 0.38** 0.49** 0.56** 0.76ILOC 0.48** 0.54** 0.62** 0.56** 0.47** 0.56** 0.37** 0.62** 0.44** 0.86Mean 72.14 22.13 24.27 21.62 23.17 27.28 26.22 128 4.76 24.82SD 15.34 7.26 8.12 6.88 7.54 8.64 8.02 24.26 1.15 8.24

Source: Developed by the author on the basis of data collected for the present study. Notes: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. Coefficient alphas are reported along the diagonals. OC = Organizational Commitment, Prom = Promotion; Sup = Superiors; Fr.B = Fringe Benefits;

Cow = Co-Workers; CoR = Contingent Rewards, ILOC = Internal Locus of Control.

accounted for 14.26, 14.02, 13.98, 13.26, 12.82 and 12.26 respectively. The total variance explained by these factors in combination explained 80.6 per cent of variance.

Principal component analysis with varimax rotation revealed only one factor with Eigen value of 3.18 was sorted out. The factor identified from the data was Internal Locus of control.

Zero Order CorrelationTable 4 presents the Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities, mean scores, standard deviations and the Zero-order correlations among the studies variables. As depicted in Table 3, a significant positive relationship was found between Job


Vision, 17, 2 (2013): 159–167

satisfaction and Organizational Commitment (r = 0.72, p < 0.01) thereby supporting Hypothesis 1.

Hierarchical Regression AnalysisTo test the main effect and find if Trust and internal Locus of Control moderates the relationship between Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment, a hierarchi-cal moderated regression analysis was conducted.

As indicated in Step 1, in the coefficient of determination (R2) was found to be 0.26 indicating that Job Satisfaction explains 26.6 per cent of Organizational Commitment. In step 2, by adding Trust as independent variables, the R2 increased to 58.4 per cent which was found to be significant. It can thus be implied that the additional 31.8 per cent of the variation in Organizational commitment is explained by Trust. As can be seen from Table 4, Job Satisfaction had a positive relationship with Organizational Commitment, which proves our first hypothesis.

The interactive effects of trust and various dimensions of Job Satisfaction on predicting Organizational Commitment was also examined in the last step of hierarchical regression. It can be seen that the additional variance explained by the interaction term of 28.8 per cent was significant at .01 level. The result derived from the final step proved our second hypothesis of the study that Trust serves as a moderator for Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment relationship.

Table 4. Hierarchical Regression Analysis with Trust as a Moderating Variable

Variables Beta R² Adj R² R² Change F Change

Step 1Independent VariablesPayPromotionSupervisionFringe BenefitsCo-WorkersContingent RewardsJob Satisfaction

0.43**0.24**0.28*0.32**0.26*0.42**0.72**

0.266 0.252 0.266 0.000

Step 2Moderating VariablesTrust

0.38**0.584 0.582 0.318 0.000

Step 3Interaction TermPay* TrustPromotion* TrustSupervision* TrustFringe Benefits* TrustCo-workers* TrustContingent Rewards* TrustJob Satisfaction* Trust

0.34**0.28**0.31**0.26**0.32**0.34**0.43**

0.872 0.866 0.288 0.000

Source: Developed by the author on the basis of data collected for the present study. Note: ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.0.

When Internal Locus of Control was entered into the equation in order to gauge its impact on the Organizational Commitment, it was perceived that the R2 increased from 26.6 per cent to 76.4 per cent (Table 5).Thus, it explains that 49.8 per cent of change which is significant at .01 level is due to Internal Locus of Control.

In the last step, it can be seen that the additional variance explained by the interaction term of 17.2 per cent which was significant at 0.01 level proved our third hypothesis of the study that Internal Locus of control serves as a moderator for Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment relationship.

Figure 2 further shows the finding summary of the regression analyses.

Discussion and ConclusionThe foremost aim of the current study was to find out the effect of Job satisfaction on Organizational commitment and explore the moderating outcome of Trust and Locus of control on Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment relationship. Results of the study have proved the hypotheses. The result derived that Job Satisfaction is positively related to Organizational Commitment. The result found has found a strong evidence from the study done in the past (Koslowsky et al., 1991; Knoop, 1995; Shore and Martin, 1989). The moderating roles of Trust and Locus of control between Job satisfaction and Organizational Commitment relationship,


Vision, 17, 2 (2013): 159–167

Table 5. Hierarchical Regression Analysis with Internal Locus of Control as a Moderating Variable

Variables Beta R² Adj R² R² Change F Change

Step 1Independent VariablesPayPromotionSupervisionFringe BenefitsCo-WorkersContingent RewardsJob Satisfaction

0.43**0.24**0.28*0.32**0.26*0.42**0.72**

0.266 0.252 0.266 0.000

Step 2Moderating VariablesILOC

0.48**0.764 0.762 0.498 0.000

Step 3Interaction TermPay* ILOCPromotion* ILOCSupervision* ILOCFringe Benefits* ILOCCo-workers* ILOCContingent RewardsJob Satisfaction* ILOC

0.24**0.32**0.18**0.19**0.20**0.34**0.46**

0.936 0.929 0.172 0.000

Source: Developed by the author on the basis of data collected for the present study. Note: ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.0.

Figure 2. Findings Summary of Regression


has not received much attention in earlier studies. Though few studies have supported the relationship between organizational commitment and trust (Buch and Aldridge, 1991; Robinson, 1996; Rousseau,1989), Locus of control and Job Satisfaction ((Dailey, 1980; Brownell, 1981; Kasperson, 1982; Organ and Greene, 1974), Locus of Control and Organizational Commitment. Both the moderating effects of Trust and Locus of Control have not been studied as per my knowledge. The present study derived that Managers with Internal Locus of control are more satisfied with their jobs and hence they are more

committed towards their Organization. Managers with Internal locus of control will be able to handle stressful situations more effectively and thus, will be more efficient. Similarly, Manager’s trust in the Organization has a positive impact on Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment relationship. Trust helps in making a satisfied employee more committed to the organization.

The previous work shows that the present study is the first to consider the moderating effect of Locus of Control and Trust on Job Satisfaction-Organizational Commitment relationship.


Vision, 17, 2 (2013): 159–167

Managerial Implications

The findings of this study can assist administrator and policy makers to understand the managerial effectiveness from the perspective of personal traits. Efforts can be made to explore managers’ perception towards themselves and their roles. Managers can be helped to develop control over the situation instead of being externally controlled. Trust can help in strengthening the link between organizational commitment and Job satisfaction. A manager who has an internal locus of control will tend to be more satisfied and thus, his behaviour will reflect commitment towards the organization. For an Organization it is the need of an hour because a committed staff will lead to a healthy organization.

Limitations and Scope for Future Study

One of the most important limitation of the present study is that the impact of gender on job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment could not be ascertained. The literature shows that women are bound to be more dominated by external control than men. The future academic endeavours might make use of the present study as a stepping stone for further exploratory and confirmatory research towards a more complete understanding of the satisfaction considerations in particular.

ReferencesBarber, B. (1983). The logic and limits of trust. New Jersey:

Rutgers University Press.Bateman, T.S., & Strasser, S. (1984). A longitudinal analysis of

the antecedents of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 95–112.

Bell, N., & Staw, B. (1989). People as sculptors versus sculpture: The roles of personal and personal control in organizations. In J. Ott (Ed.), Classic readings in organizational behavior (pp. 365–378). Florida: Harcourt Brace & Company.

Benkhoff, B. (1997). Disentangling organizational commitment. Personnel Review, 26, 114–131.

Brandes, P., Castro, S.L., James, M., Martinez, A.D., Matherly, T.A., Ferris, G.R., & Hochwarter, W. (2008). Interactive effects of job insecurity and organisational cynicism on work effort following layoff. Journal of Leadership and Organisational Studies, 14, 233–247.

Brownell, P. (1981). Participation in budgeting, locus of control and organizational effectiveness. The Accounting Review, 56, 844–860.

Buch, K., & Aldridge, J. (1991). O. D. under conditions of organ-ization decline. Organization Development Journal, 9, 1–5.

Curry, J.P., Wakefield, D.S., Price, J.L., & Mueller, C.W. (1986). On the causal order of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 847–858.

Dailey, R. (1980). Relationship between locus of control, task characteristics, and work attitudes. Psychological Reports, 47, 855–861.

DeFrank, R., & Ivancevich, J. (1998). Stress on the job: An executive update. Academy of Management Executive, 12(2), 55–56.

Dienhart, J.R., & Gregoire, M.B. (1993). Job satisfaction, job involvement, job security and customer focus of quick-service restaurant employees. Hospitality Research Journal, 16(2), 29–44.

Dossett, D.J., & Suszko, M. (1990). Re-examing the causal direc-tion between job satisfaction and organizational commit-ment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Miami, Fl.

Farkas, A.J., & Tetrick, L.E. (1989). A three-wave longitudinal analysis of thecausal ordering of satisfaction and commit-ment on turnover decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 855–868.

Firth, L., Mellor, D.J., Moore, K.A., & Loquet, C. (2004). How can managers reduce employee intention to quit? Journal Managerial Psychology, 19(1/2), 170–87.

Fox, A. (1974). Beyond contract: Work, power and trust rela-tions. London: Faber and Faber Limited.

Fulk, J., Brief, A.P., & Barr, S.H. (1985) Trust-in-supervisor and perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evalua-tions. Journal of Business Research, 13, 299–313.

Gallie, D., Felstead, A., & Green, F. (2001). Employer poli-cies and organizational commitment in Britain 1992–1997. Journal of Management Studies, 38, 1081–1101.

Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley.

Jones, C.B. (2004). The costs of nurse turnover, Part 1: An economic perspective. Journal of Nursing Administration, 34(12), 562–570.

——— (2005). The costs of nurse turnover, Part 2: Application of the nursing turnover cost calculation methodology. Journal of Nursing Administration, 35(1), 41–49.

Judge, T., Locke, E., Durham, C., & Kluger, A. (1998). Dispositional effects on job satisfactions and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of applied psychology, 83, 17–34.

Kanter, R.M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Kasperson, C. (1982). Locus of control and job dissatisfaction. Psychological Reports, 50, 823–826.

Knoop, R. (1981). Locus of control as a moderator between job characteristics and job attitudes. Psychological Reports, 48, 519–525.

——— (1995). Relationships among job involvement, job sat-isfaction, and organizational commitment for nurses. The Journal of Psychology, 129(6), 643–649.

Koslowsky, M., Caspy,T., & Lazar, M. (1991). Cause and effect explanations of job satisfaction and commitment: The case of exchange commitment. The Journal of Psychology, 125(2), 153–162.

Kramer, R.M. (1996). Divergent realities and convergent disap-pointments in the hierarchic relation: Trust in organisations (pp. 216–245). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.


Vision, 17, 2 (2013): 159–167

Kramer, R.M., & Tyler, T.R. (Eds) (1985). Trust in organiza-tions: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 16–38). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Lance, C.E. (1991). Evaluation of a structural model relating job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and precursors to voluntary turnover. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26, 137–162.

Loscocco, K.A., & Roschelle, A.R. (1991). Influences on the quality of work and nonwork life: Two decades in review. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39, 182–225.

Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1991). A three-component concep-tualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–89.

Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., & Gellatly, I.R. (1990). Affective and continuance commitment to the organization: Evaluation of measures and analysis of concurrent and time-lagged rela-tions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 710–720.

Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnyutsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52.

McCauley, D.P., & Kuhnert, K.W. (1992). A theoretical review and empirical investigation of employee trust in management. Public Administration Quarterly, 16(2), 265–282.

Mowday, R., Steers, R., & Porter, L. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–247.

Moye, M.J. (2003). The relationship of employee empowerment and commitment to the organization to interpersonal and system-level trust, Dissertation-Abstracts-International:- Section-B, The Sciences-and-Engineering, 64 (4-B): 1931.

Newstorm, Davis. (2007). Organisation behaviour. Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Co Ltd.

Northcraft, G., & Neale, M. (1987). Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring and adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processing, 39, 84–97.

Organ, D., & Greene, C. (1974). Role ambiguity, locus of control and work satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 101–102.

Oshagbemi, T. (2000a). Correlates of pay satisfaction in higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 14(1), 31–39.

———. (2000b). Is length of service related to the level of job satisfaction? International Journal of Social Economics, 27(3), 213–226.

Pareek, U. (1992). The Pfeiffer library. 8, (2nd edn). Jossey-Bass: Pfieffer.

Paul E. Spector, Department of Psychology, University of South Florida (1985). Available at http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~pspector/scales/jsspag.html

Pettijohn, C.E., Pettijohn, L.S., & Taylor, A.J. (2000) Research note: An exploratory analysis of salesperson perceptions of the criteria used in performance appraisals, job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 20(2), 77–80.

Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T., & Boulian, P.V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603–609.

Price, J.L. (1977). The study of turnover. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

Robinson, S.L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 574–599.

Rose, R.W. (1991). Comparisons of employee turnover in food and beverage and other departments in hotel properties. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertations Services.

Ross, A. (1994). Trust as a moderator of the effect of perform-ance evaluation style on job-related tension: A research note. Accounting Organizations and Society, 19(7), 629–635.

Rousseau, D.M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 121–139.

Shore, L.M., & Martin, H.J. (1989). Job satisfaction and organi-zational commitment in relation to work performance and turnover intentions. Human Relations, 42, 625–638.

Sitkin, S.B., & Roth, N.L. (1993). Explaining the limited effective-ness of legalistic ‘remedies’ for trust/mistrust. Organisation Science, 4, 367–392.

Slattery, Jeffrey P. & Selvarajan, T.T. Rajan (2005). Antecedents to temporary employee’s turnover intentions. Submitted for possible inclusion in the program for the organisation behaviour and organisational theory track at the March 31–April 2, 2005, Midwest Academy of Management’s Annual Meeting.

Spector, P.E. (1982). Behavior in organizations as a function of employee’s locus of control. Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 482–497.

Waldman, J.D., Kelly, F., Arora, S., & Smith, H.L. (2004). The shocking cost of turnover in health care. Health Management Review, 29(1), 2–7.

Whitener, M.E., Brodt, E.S., Korsgaard, A.M., & Werner, M.J. (1998). Managers as initiators oftrust: An exchange rela-tionship framework for understanding managerial trust-worthy behavior. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 513–530.

Yousef, D.A. (1998). Satisfaction with job security as a predictor of organizational commitment and job performance in a mul-ticultural environment. International Journal of Manpower, 19(3), 184–194.

Shalini Srivastava ([email protected]) is working as an Associate Professor (OB & HR) in Jaipuria Institute of Management, Noida. She teaches Organizational Behaviour and Training & Development. She has reviewed various research articles and is a reviewer of various national and international referred journals. She is also a soft skills trainer and has imparted training programmes in organizations like NTPC, ONGC, NHPC, XANSA, Fortis, OBC, etc. Her areas of interest are Employee Engagement, Student Engagement, Emotional Intelligence, Personality dimensions and Managerial Effectiveness.

Copyright of Vision (09722629) is the property of Management Development Institute and itscontent may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without thecopyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or emailarticles for individual use.

job satisfaction and organizational commitment relationship effect of personality

Documents