Satisfaction with Initial Work Assignment and Organizational Commitment'

L. ALAN WIT$

MARK N. BEORKREM FAA Civil Aeromedicnl Institute

Washington Uniwrsity

The present study examined the moderating effects of role stressors on the relationship between initial work assignment satisfaction and organizational commitment. Moderated multiple regression analyses on data collected from 76 employees of an American military Research and Development (R&D) laboratory indicated that initial work assignment satisfaction accounted for little variance in commitment among workers low in role conflict but considerable variance among workers high in role conflict. However, role ambiguity had no moderating effect on the initial work assignment satisfaction-commitment relationship.

For some time now, researchers have focused on methods to increase job satisfaction and organizational commitment among research scien- tists (e.g., McCarrey & Edwards, 1973; Miller, 1967; Miller, 1977). This work has been consistent with the assumption implicit in the organiza- tional behavior literature that the antecedents of job attitudes such as commitment are under management's capacity to influence (Angle & Perry, 1983). Job attitudes held by research scientists in Department of Defense (DOD) laboratories are becoming increasingly important for two reasons. First, in light of probable budget cuts, researchers may be expected to work harder with less resources to maintain expected levels of performance. Second, a recent report by a Defense Science Board panel (Charles, 1988) suggested that both the performance of and morale among researchers in DOD (R&D) organizations are low.

McCarrey and Edwards (1973, p. 440) defined the effective perfor- mance of the research scientist as the degree to which he or she achieves

"lhe authors gratefully acknowledge the helpful suggestions made by Lendell G. Nye, the reviewers, and the editor. This research was conducted while the first author was at Western Illinois University. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1989 meet- ing of the American Psychological Assodation, New Orleans. The research was sponsored by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research/AFSC, United States Air Force, under contract No. F49620-87-R-ooo4. The United States Government is authorized to reproduce and dis- tribute reprints for government purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation hereon.

'Requests for reprints should be sent to L. Alan Witt, FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute, AAM-522, PO Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125.

1783

1784 W i n AND BEORKREM

the personal and professional goals of “applied creative problem-solving and innovation.” Implicit in their definition is the notion that the oppor- tunity to do creative and challenging work is central to the job satisfac- tion of researchers. Over two decades ago, Hall and Lawler (1969) argued that a major factor in the formulation of a researcher’s attitudes about his or her employing organization and subsequent performance is the researcher’s first working assignment in the organization. This argu- ment is in line with data reported by Pierce and Dunham (1987) indicat- ing a relationship between initial work experience and organizational commitment among nonresearcher hospital personnel.

Hall and Lawler (1969) suggested that many researchers are given unchallenging initial work assignments, and, as a consequence, develop unfavorable and long-lasting attitudes about the organization and con- gruent work efforts. If Hall and Lawler were correct, then researchers given unsatisfying initial work assignments may be less likely to develop a commitment to the laboratory than those given satisfying initial work assignments. Thus, we hypothesized that the researcher’s affective response to his or her first work assignment (initial work as- signment satisfaction) would be positively related to his or her commit- ment to the organization (i.e., desire to remain in the organization, accept its values, work hard on its behalf).

Although satisfaction with the initial work assignment may have an influence on subsequent commitment to the laboratory, current lab- oratory conditions may affect the degree of its influence. Given the lack of clarity present in some DOD laboratories, two sources of work-related stress that may moderate the initial work assignment satisfaction- commitment relationship are role conflict and role ambiguity.

Kahn (1973) defined role conflict as ’logically incompatible demands made upon an individual by two or more persons” (p. 5 ) and role ambiguity as “the discrepancy between the amount of information that a person has and the amount that he requires to perform his role ade- quately’’ (p. 9). It is likely that researchers experiencing a lack of clarity in their work roles (i.e., greater conflict and/or greater role ambiguity) may be more likely to attend to past cues (e.g., initial work experiences) in the formulation of present job attitudes (e.g., commitment) than workers whose expected behaviors are fairly clear.

When one’s current job assignments and responsibilities are ambigu- ous or in conflict, past experiences may be relevant in the decision of whether or not to be committed, for two reasons. First, the greater the emotional stress, the less the individual typically will attend to cues in

SATISFACTION WITH INITIAL WORK ASSIGNMENT 1785

the environment (Easterbrook, 1959). In other words, workers experienc- ing role stress may be less likely to be aware of other aspects of the work environment but more likely to rely on previous cognitions and feelings in developing current job attitudes. Second, the generally positive effects of the first job assignment may be most strongly felt when people are later working under stressful conditions, as individuals may look to pre- vious good feelings to help cope with current stress and facilitate com- mitment. Alternatively, people may look to previous negative affect about the job to reinforce current stress-induced context-relevant negative affect and form low levels of commitment. In line with these notions, we hypothesized that role conflict and role ambiguity would moderate the relationship between initial work assignment satisfaction and organizational commitment. More specifically, we hypothesized that this relationship would be stronger among individuals experiencing greater role stress (high role conflict and role ambiguity) than among those experiencing less or little stress (low role conflict and role am- biguity).

Method

Participznfs and Procedure

Letters from the commander of an American military R&D lab- oratory requesting voluntary participation in an attached survey were sent through the interoffice mail system to the lab‘s 90 employees. Seventy-six employees (84%; males = 50; females = 26) returned the questionnaires through the interoffice mail.

Role stress was measured by the Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970) %item role conflict scale (M = 29.08; SD = 8.34; alpha = 32; e.g., “I often receive incompatible requests from two or more people”) and 5-item role ambiguity scale (M = 15.79; SD = 4.84; alpha = .85; e.g., “I have clear, planned goals and objectives for my job” [reverse scored]). High scores reflect greater role conflict and role ambiguity, respectively.

Commitment was assessed by the 4-item Hrebriniak and Alutto (1972) Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (M = 20.43; SD = 4.8; alpha = .73). This scale is based on exchange theory and measures the worker’s calculative involvement with the organization by four items

1786 WlTT AND BEORKREM

Table I

Intercorrelations Among the Variables

2 3 4

1. Initial satisfaction .05 -.18 .24* 2. Role conflict .36** -.06 3. Role ambiguity -.26* 4. Commitment

*p c .05. **p < .01.

that assess his or her propensity to leave the organization as a function of alternative inducements (e.g., ”Given the chance, I would leave this organization to work in a position with slightly more freedom” [reverse scored]). High scores reflect greater commitment to the organization.

Workers were asked to express their satisfaction with ”the first work assignment you received upon amval here” on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = extremely dissatisfied; 7 = extremely satisfied; M = 4.31; SD = 1.81).

Table 1 presents the intercorrelations among the variables. As shown there, initial work assignment satisfaction was weakly related to organi- zational commitment (r = 24, p c .02).

Moderated multiple regression analyses were used to assess the moderating effects of role conflict and role ambiguity, the results of which are presented in Table 2. Commitment scores were regressed on initial work assignment satisfaction and role conflict, after which their cross-product term was added to the equation. This procedure was repeated substituting role ambiguity for role conflict scores. Adding the cross-product term as a separate predictor in the equation permits evaluation of a moderator relationship (sunders, 1956; Zedeck, 1971). Following Cohen and Cohen (1975), the significance of the incremental R2 (AR2) caused by the addition of the cross-product term was assessed. As shown in Table 2, the cross-product term added significant variance

SATISFACTION WITH INITIAL WORK ASSIGNMENT 1787

Table 2

Results of Hierarchical Moderated Multiple Regression on Commitment

F P< Predictor R2 of R2 of variable Full model reduced model

Role conflict .18585 .09046 .09439 5.9 .01 Role ambiguity .19866 .18087 .01779 1.6 ns

Note. The reduced model included the predictor variable and initial work assignment satisfaction scores. The full model also included their cross-produc t term.

(over-and-above the variance contributed by the two predictors of commitment) in the equation with initial work assignment satisfaction and role conflict (AR2 = .09439, F = 5.9, p c .01) but not in the equation with initial work assignment satisfaction and role ambiguity (AR2 = .01779, F = 1.6, FZS).

In line with the arguments advocated by Stone and Hollenbeck (1989), we plotted the regression lines to identify the form of the inter- actions. Figure 1 graphically represents the role conflict x initial work as- signment satisfaction interaction effect on commitment. Consistent with the procedure outlined by Cohen and Cohen (1975) for plotting inter- actions among two quantitative variables, three separate slopes were produced: one for a high role conflict score (one standard deviation above the mean, f = 37.411, one for an average role conflict score (at the mean, f = 29.071, and one for a low role conflict score (one standard de- viation below the mean,f = 20.73). As shown in Figure 1, the initial work assignment satisfaction-commitment relationship was greater at the high role conflict level than at the average and low role conflict levels.

Figure 2 graphically represents the role ambiguity x initial work assignment satisfaction interaction effect on commitment. As shown there, the differences in the slopes for the high (f = 20.631, average <f = 15.79), and low (f= 10.95) role ambiguity levels were minimal.

Discussion

Before implications are discussed, several caveats should be em- phasized. First, the data were collected from personnel working in one

1788 WllT AND BEORKREM

Moderating E f f e c t of Role Conflict

Commitment

Role C o n f l i c t Levels:

Lor + ATE * HiEh - 14 I

1 4 7

Satisfaction w/ Initial Work Assignment

Note. Low score = 1 standard deviation below the mean; high score = 1 standard deviation above the mean. Commitment = [((-2.1491 + LO9523 * 0) * Initial Work Assignment Satisfaction] + [(-.48831 * 0 + 32.0321. f = score on the moderator variable (role conflict).

Fig. 1. Commitment regression on initial work assignment satisfaction: Low, average, and high role conflict scores.

SATISFACTION WITH INITIAL WORK ASSIGNMENT 1789

Moderating Effect of Role Ambiguity

Commitment

24 t

16 Role Ambiguity Levels:

Lor + Avg High -t

14 1 1 4 7

Satisfaction w/ Initial Work Assignment

Note. Low score = 1 standard deviation below the mean; high score = standard deviation above the mean. Commitment = [((-.39533 + (.05789 * fl> * initial work assignment satisfaction] + [((-.52829 * p + 26.7711. f = score on the moderator variable (role ambiguity).

Fig. 2. Commitment regressed on initial work assignment satisfaction: Low, average, and high role ambiguity scores.

1790 WllT AND BEORKREM

military R&D organization, which map not be representative of organi- zations where researchers are typically employed. Second, because it can also be stated that personnel who experience certain levels of initial work assignment satisfaction and experience certain levels of commit- ment may report certain levels of role conflict, it is possible that initial work assignment satisfaction may be the moderator of the role conflict- commitment relationship rather than the opposite. Third, logistical dif- ficulties prevented the individuals from completing the questionnaires in more than one sitting; thus, these data may be subject to common method variance. Fourth, in examining this issue, a longitudinal design would provide a more accurate measurement of satisfaction with the first job assignment than relying on retrospective accounts. Future research should examine this issue not only in different settings but also include objective indices of role conflict and longitudinal measurements of job satisfaction and commitment.

These results replicate previous findings (Hall & Lawler, 1969; Pierce & Dunham, 1987) showing that feelings about the initial job assignment contribute to later job attitudes. Moreover, results of moderated multiple regression analyses indicated that role conflict moderated the initial work assignment sa tisfaction-commi tmen t rela tionship. Consistent with work by Easterbrook (1959) and as hypothesized, these data suggest that individuals experiencing greater emotional stress (those higher in role conflict) may have attended less to the current work context and relied on previous feelings (i-e., initial work assignment satisfaction) in developing their commitment to the laboratory. The moderating effect of role conflict may also have been a function of initial job assignment satisfaction helping some people cope with stress while reinforcing old feelings. In other words, among individuals who liked their first job assignment, the early positive work attitude may help them cope with current stress and facilitate commitment. On the other hand, among individuals who disliked their first job assignment, the early negative work attitude may reinforce previous negative feelings and promote noncommitment.

Contrary to the hypothesis, role ambiguity did not have a significant moderating effect on the initial job assignment satisfaction-commitment relationship. The finding may be due to the different natures of role ambiguity and role conflict. Role ambiguity reflects a passive form of role stress, while role conflict is confrontational. The stress felt a s the result of role ambiguity may have been insufficient to bring about the processes described above.

SATISFACTION WITH INITIAL WORK ASSIGNMENT 1791

The importance of one’s initial work experiences and attitudes as a factor in later job attitudes may be intuitively obvious to many, yet managers all too often give new employees unchallenging initial work assignments. As a consequence, these employees may develop unfavor- able and durable attitudes about the organization-attitudes that may have an impact on behaviors at work. The data presented here reinforce this notion and suggest that the importance of satisfaction with initial work assignments may be heightened in times of role conflict. Although the previously mentioned limitations impact the utility of these findings, we urge managers to think carefully about the first work assignments given to new employees.

References

Angle, H. L., & Perry, J. L. (1983). Organizational commitment: Individ- ual and organizational influences. Work and Occupations, 10,123-146.

Charles, D. (1988). Report asks upgrade of military R&D labs. Science, 239,1484.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis ~ O T the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.

Easterbrook, J.A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychological Review, 66,183-201.

Hall, D.T., & Lawler, E.E., 111 (1969). Unused potential in research and development organizations. Research Management, 12,339-354.

Hrebriniak, L.C., & Alutto, J. (1972). Personal and role-related factors in the development of organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17,555-572.

Kahn, R.L. (1973). Conflict, ambiguity, and overload: Three elements in job stress. Occupational Mental Health, 3,2-9.

McCarrey, M.W., & Edwards, S.A. (1973). Organizational climate condi- tions for effective research scientist role performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9,439459.

Miller, G.A. (1967). Professional bureaucracy: Alienation among in- dustrial scientists and engineers. American Sociological Review, 32,

Miller, D.B. (1977). How to improve the performance and productivity of the knowledge worker. Organizational Dynamics, 5,72-80.

Pierce, J.L., & Dunham, R.B. (1987). Organizational commitment: Pre- employment propensity and initial work experiences. Iournal of Management, 13,163-178.

Rizzo, J.R., House, R.J., & Lirtzman, S.I. (1970). Role conflict and

755-767.

1792 WllT AND BEORKREM

ambiguity in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15,150- 163.

Saunders, D.R. (1956). Moderator variables in prediction. Educationaland

Stone, E.F., & Hollenbeck, J.R. (1989). Clarifymg some controversial issues surrounding statistical procedures for detecting moderator variables: Empirical evidence and related evidence. Iournal of Applied Psychology, 74,3-10.

Zedeck, S. (1971). Problems with the use of "moderator" variables. Psychological Bulletin, 76,295-310.

Psychological M m u T m d , 16,209-222.