A PROJECT REPORT

On

THE RELATIONSHIP OF JOB EMBEDDEDNESS WITH ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT AND PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT

Academic Session 2009-11

LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI

INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT,

DELHI.

SUBMITTED TO

Prof. Mahima Thakur

SUBMITTED BY

Dr. Daman Walia (13/2009)

Koustubha Bhutra (25/2009)

Ashank Mathur (29/2009)

Abhinaw Srivastava (67/2009)

Harsh Khemka (117/2009)

Sunanda Mitra (149/2009)

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 3

ABSTRACT 4

1 INTRODUCTION 5

2 OBJECTIVE OF STUDY 6-7

3 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 8-13

4 METHODOLOGY 14

5 HYPOTHESIS FORMATION 15-17

6 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 18-21

7 DISCUSSION 22

8 REFERNCES 23-25

9 QUESTIONNAIRE 26-28

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The success of any research study depends upon a number of factors among which the

proper guidance from the experts in the industry and a faculty plays an important role.

We take this opportunity to convey our sincere thanks and gratitude to all those who have

directly or indirectly helped and contributed towards the completion of this project.

We take here a great opportunity to express our sincere and deep sense of gratitude to Prof.

Mahima Thakur for giving us an opportunity to work on this project. The support & guidance

from Ma’am, was of great help & it was extremely valuable.

3

ABSTRACT

This research studies the relationship between job embeddedness, organization commitment

and psychological empowerment. Further, the study links each dimension of psychological

empowerment (meaning, competence, self-determination and impact) with job

embeddedness. Affective and Normative Commitment are also linked to embeddedness. In a

sample of xx, analysis revealed that job embeddedness is positively related to both

commitment and empowerment. Implications are discussed.

4

INTRODUCTION

This research studies the relationship between job embeddedness and organizational

commitment. It also studies the relationship between job embeddedness and psychological

empowerment. We used Job Embeddedness instead of Job Satisfaction. The difference

between JS and JE: First, the focus of JS is on-the-job, not off-the-job. Second, there are

multiple measures of JS (e.g., Job Descriptive Index, Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire)

and most measures include multiple dimensions. These dimensions include attributes about

one's work environment, supervision, co-workers and pay (Griffeth et al., 2000). Sacrifice-

organization is meant to focus on what people would “give up” if they left their job. It does

not include items assessing one's affective reactions to the work itself, their supervision or co-

workers.

Nonetheless, we do include items on compensation and benefits (e.g., health care,

retirement). Thus, sacrifice-organization has some conceptual similarity with compensation

satisfaction. Heneman and Schwab’s (1985) Pay Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ) is the most

frequently used instrument in current compensation research. While it does include

satisfaction with pay and benefits, the PSQ also includes items referring to raises, the pay

structure (distribution) in the organization and procedures involved with pay administration.

Thus, the PSQ includes constructs and items which are not conceptualized as part of job

embeddedness.

In summary, job satisfaction has some similarities with and differences from job

embeddedness.

5

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

This study has the following objectives:

First, we sought to show how job embeddedness affects organizational commitment of

employees. Although job embeddedness was originally conceptualized to explain

Job stability or “why people stay” in their organizations, research has been done on the

relationship between embeddedness and employee performance (Sekiguchi, Burton and

Sablynski). There are numerous investigations that have studied the relationship between

organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Currivan, 1999). The predominant view is

that job satisfaction is an antecedent to organizational commitment (Lincoln & Kalleberg,

1990; Mowday; Porter, & Steers, 1982; Mueller, Boyer, Price, & Iverson, 1994; Williams &

Hazer, 1986). There is also some support for the reverse causal ordering, organizational

commitment as an antecedent to job satisfaction (Vandenberg & Lance, 1992). However,

these researches do not talk about organizational commitment in relation with job

embeddedness. We choose to focus on job embeddedness, as opposed to job satisfaction,

because it is a broader construct that captures a greater range of factors that provoke

organizational commitment. In Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, and Erez’s (2001) original

formulation, the job embeddedness construct addressed how well people fit in their jobs (e.g.,

personal skills are well suited to the work assigned) and community (e.g., they like the

amenities a community provides); the interpersonal links they have on and off the job (e.g.,

their number of ties to people and groups); and what they would have to give up or sacrifice

in leaving their place of employment or community (e.g., what opportunities they would

forego). In sum, job embeddedness includes several individual-level factors that enmesh

employees in their jobs, and numerous studies have shown it to be a good predictor of an

employee’s commitment to the organization (Allen, 2006; Crossley, Bennett, Jex, &

Burnfield, 2007; Holtom, Mitchell, & Lee, 2006; Holtom & O’Neill, 2004; Lee, Mitchell,

Sablynski, Burton, & Holtom, 2004; Mitchell et al., 2001; Van Dijk & Kirk-Brown, 2003;

Zatzick & Iverson 2006).

6

Second, we sought to show the relationship between embeddedness and psychological

empowerment. Earlier studies related psychological empowerment to access information and

resources, role ambiguity (Spreitzer, 1996), effectiveness, work satisfaction, and job related

strain (Spreitzer et al.,1997). Menon (2001) relates psychological empowerment to

organizational commitment, job involvement, and citizenship behavior. Bhatnagar (2005)

also relates psychological empowerment to organizational commitment. Psychological

empowerment has been found to be significantly related to job satisfaction; however, the

individual constructs have received varied results (Carless, 2004; Seibert, Silver, &

Randolph, 2004; Liden, Lucas, & Sparrowe, 2000; Spreitzer et al., 1997). We sought to show

the relationship of these individual dimensions of psychological empowerment, with job

embeddedness (which is a broader concept than job satisfaction). When considering

embeddedness, Mitchell et al. (2001) found, using a sample of retail employees and hospital

workers, that job embeddedness was associated with lower intention to leave as well as actual

voluntary turnover. Crossley, Bennett, Jex, and Burnfield (2007) confirmed these findings,

extending Mitchell et al.’s study by finding that embeddedness interacted with satisfaction to

predict turnover in a study of employees of an assisted living organization.

7

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Job Embeddedness

The term “embeddedness” has been used in the sociological literature to explain the process

by which social relations influence and constrain economic action (Granovetter, 1985; Uzzi,

1996, 1997). This process reflects the idea of social networks as a constraint or “stuckness.”

Based on the sociological concept of embeddedness, Mitchell and his colleagues (2001) first

conceptualized job embeddedness as focusing narrowly on individuals staying with their

organization. Specifically, they saw job Embeddedness as representing the totality of forces

that keep employees in their current employment. Employees become tied to their

organizations through many different types of links, investments and affective and cognitive

appraisals that create a net or web of restraining forces. Individuals with more types of

restraining forces are more embedded and less likely to voluntarily exit the organization.

Reflecting the idea of employees’ being “situated or connected in a social web,” job

embeddedness has several key aspects: (a) the extent to which people have links to other

people or activities in and outside the organization, (b) the extent to which their jobs and

communities fit other aspects in their “life spaces,” and (c) what they would give up if they

left their present settings. Mitchell and his colleagues refer to these three dimensions as links,

fit, and sacrifice, respectively, and these dimensions have both on-the-job factors (e.g., the

organization or job) and off-the-job factors (e.g., family or community).

The theoretical basis for using embeddedness, not engagement

Both job embeddedness and work engagement have their roots in the literature on how one is

attached to their job. That said, they have unique characteristics and have taken somewhat

different ‘‘paths’’ through the literature. However, their conceptualizations suggest some

clear differences. For example, Schaufeli and Salanova (2007) characterize engagement in

terms of a mood that, while not entirely momentary and fleeting, is not particularly stable.

One can contrast this with embeddedness, where the components of links and sacrifice (and

to a lesser extent, fit) should develop slowly over time, and as a result, should remain more

stable. While engagement may change if job conditions (such as demands or resources)

change, embeddedness should change more slowly and would likely require more radical

events or ‘‘shocks’’ to decrease (Mitchell et al., 2001).

8

One way to conceptualize these differences is to consider the role of resources in the

development of each construct. Conservation of Resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1988,

1998) proposes that individuals are motivated by the desire to obtain and protect resources, or

those things they personally value. As resources are acquired, they may be further invested to

obtain additional resources (Hobfoll, 2001). Both engagement and embeddedness develop as

a result of an abundance of resources (Gorgievski & Hobfoll, in press). However, as

suggested in the preceding paragraph, engagement and embeddedness have different resource

bases. As such, we would expect them to be independent constructs.

For example, the resources contributing to engagement are more specific to the nature of the

work (De Lange, De Witte, & Notelaers, 2008; Hakanen, Schaufeli, & Ahola, 2008; Van den

Broeck, De Witte, Lens, & Vansteenkiste, 2008). While these resources may be somewhat

job- or workplace-dependent (e.g., one may be afforded more flexibility at some

organizations or in certain positions), they tend to focus on the nature of the work. As an

example, many of the resources that faculty can draw on to further their engagement in

research and teaching are quite similar as they move from university to university (e.g., skill

utilization and task autonomy; cf., Van den Broeck et al., 2008). Conversely, embeddedness

resources are restricted to the organization and position. When an individual moves to

another organization, he or she would not move the links with other people with him or her;

further, the perceived fit necessarily changes due to the new work environment. Gorgievski

and Hobfoll (in press) suggest that specific motivational resources (e.g., flexibility, balance,

diversity, interdependence, and tolerance for failure) increase engagement with work. For

example, they define individual flexibility as including cognitive flexibility (ability to

consider alterative viewpoints) and emotional flexibility (tolerating a wide range of

emotions). Balance is defined in terms of the appropriate management of demands within

various domains (e.g., work, family) in order to replenish motivational resources. Diversity

supports engagement through the challenge of coordinating conflicting ideas and a mix of

skills among team members. Interdependence encourages engagement by developing 244

Jonathon R.B. Halbesleben et al. collective efficacy, supporting the desire to perform at high

levels for group success. Tolerance for failure is necessary for engagement to the extent that

it supports creativity and risktaking, the rewards from which can further support engagement.

These resources may be more fleeting than those associated with embeddedness, which tend

to emerge over long periods (e.g., links to other people in the organization, higher sacrifice if

one leaves). Moreover, engagement can be eroded when resources are expended to meet

demands at work.

9

For example, where balance of role demands (e.g., work_family balance) is a resource

leading to engagement, it may be expended when an employee is swamped with a specific

project that requires all of his or her attention.

In sum, both engagement and embeddedness result from an accumulation of individual

resources. As such we would expect them to be related constructs (both resource-based), but

because their resource bases differ, they are independent constructs. As we will argue in the

following sections, these differences in resources help to explain their unique contribution to

outcome variables.

Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment is the relative strength of an employee’s attachment or

involvement with the organization where he or she is employed, in this case the dairy

business. Organizational commitment is important because committed employees are less

likely to leave for another job and are more likely to perform at higher levels. There are three

dimensions of organizational commitment:

• Affective commitment is a feeling of emotional attachment. For example, “I work here

because the people are great and the work is fun.”

• Normative commitment is a feeling of obligation. For example, “I work here because they

hired me when I needed a job so I owe it to them.”

• Continuance commitment is a feeling that the costs of leaving are too high or it is too much

trouble to go somewhere else. For example, “I’d leave if I knew I could get another job that

paid as much.”

Affective Commitment

Affective Commitment (AC) is the degree of an employee’s emotional attachment to,

identification with, and involvement in the organization (Allen and Meyer, 1990). AC is

defined as the employee’s emotional attachment to the organization. As a result, he or she

strongly identifies with the goals of the organization and desires to remain a part of the

organization. The employee makes a commitment to the organization because he/she “wants

to”.

10

Normative Commitment

Normative Commitment (NC) is the degree to which an employee feels some sense of

obligation to remain with an organization. The individual commits to and remains with an

organization because of the feeling of obligation. For instance, the organization may have

invested resources to train an employee, who then feels an obligation to put forth the effort on

the job and stay with the organization to “repay the debt”. It may also reflect an internalized

norm, developed before the person joins the organization, through family or other

socialization processes that one should be loyal to one’s organization. The employee stays

with the organization because he/she “ought to”.

Psychological Empowerment

Psychological empowerment has its roots in early work on employee alienation and quality of

work life. Rather than focusing on managerial practices that share power with employees at

all levels, the psychological perspective is focused on how employees experience

empowerment at work. This perspective refers to empowerment as the personal beliefs that

employees have about their role in relation to the organization. When people are feel

empowered at work, they experience four dimensions including:

1) Meaning: Meaning involves a fit between the needs of one's work role and one's

beliefs, values and behaviours.

2) Competence: Competence refers to self-efficacy specific to one's work, or a belief in

one's capability to perform work activities with skill.

3) Self-determination: Self-determination is a sense of choice in initiating and regulating

one's actions. It reflects a sense of autonomy over the initiation and continuation of

work behaviour and processes (e.g., making decisions about work methods, pace, and

effort).

4) Impact: Impact is the degree to which one can influence strategic, administrative, or

operating outcomes at work.

Together, these four cognitions reflect an active, rather than passive, orientation to one's work

role. In other words, the experience of empowerment is manifest in all four dimensions – if

any one dimension is missing, then the experience of empowerment will be limited. For

example, if people have discretion to make decisions (i.e., self-determination) but they don’t

11

care about the kinds of decisions they can make (i.e., they lack a sense of meaning), they will

not feel empowered. Alternatively, if people believe they can make an impact but don’t feel

like they have the skills and abilities to do their job well (i.e., they lack a sense of

competence), they will not feel empowered as well.

A working definition of psychological empowerment can be proposed as follows: the

psychologically empowered state is a cognitive state characterized by a sense of perceived

control, competence and goal internalization. Empowerment is thus considered a multifaceted

construct reflecting different dimensions of being psychologically enabled, and is conceived

of as a positive additive function of these three dimensions.

Perceived Control

Perceived Control (PC) includes beliefs about authority, decision-making, availability of

resources, and autonomy in the scheduling and performance of work, etc.

Perceived Competence

Perceived Competence (COMP) reflects role-mastery, which besides requiring the skilful

accomplishment of one or more assigned tasks, also requires successful coping with non-

routine role-related situations.

Goal Internalization

Goal Internalization (GI) dimension captures the energizing property of a worthy cause or

exciting vision provided by the organizational leadership.

In recent times, “organizational researchers and business practitioners have focused more on

psychological empowerment in the workplace” (Spreitzer et al., 1999). This observation of

Spreitzer et al. (1999), is supported by Menon (2001) who looks at workplace empowerment

as “the major new industrial weapon against domestic and international threats”. This

growing interest in employee empowerment is the result of studies conducted in leadership

and management skills (Bennis and Nanus, 1985), power and control (Kanter, 1979), and

team building (Beckhard, 1969). These studies suggest that employee empowerment is a

principal component of managerial and organizational effectiveness, and plays a crucial role

in team development and maintenance (Conger and Kanungo, 1988). Empowerment has been

defined by Conger and Kanungo (1988) as “a process of enhancing feelings of self-efficacy

12

among members of organizations through the identification of conditions that foster

powerlessness and their removal both by formal organizational practices and informal

techniques of providing efficacy information”. Thomas and Velthouse (1990) further,

developed the general approach to empowerment taken by Conger and Kanungo. Thomas and

Velthouse argued that empowerment is a multifaceted approach, and defined it more broadly

as “increased intrinsic task motivation” manifested in a set of four cognitions reflecting an

individual’s orientation to his or her work role: impact, competence, meaning, and choice

(Spreitzer, 1995). Impact is seen as “making a difference” in terms of accomplishing the

purpose of the task (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). Competence is an individual’s ability to

perform activities skillfully (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). Meaning is the value of the task

goal or purpose, judged in relation to the individual’s own ideals or standards (Thomas and

Velthouse, 1990), while choice is “causal responsibility for a person’s actions” (Thomas and

Velthouse, 1990). Spreitzer (1995) did the research on Thomas and Velthouse’s

multidimensional conceptualization and began the process of construct validation. Several

studies have been conducted using Spreitzer’s empowerment measurement. Although

Spreitzer’s (1995, 1996) measure assesses multiple dimensions of empowerment, “it does not

tap into that aspect of empowerment that is related to inspiring leadership or an exciting

organizational vision” (Menon, 2001). Menon (2001) developed a new instrument to measure

psychological empowerment. Menon’s 15-item, three component instrument attempts to

capture feelings of goal internalization, perceived control and perceived competence (Menon,

2001).

13

METHODOLOGY ADOPTED

Measures

In the questionnaire, respondents were asked to respond to questions related to their

demographic information (job position, gender, and ethnicity), the revised job embeddedness

questionnaire, as well as measures of organizational commitment and psychological

empowerment. For all variables, the mean of the items represented the final score.

Psychological Empowerment

Respondents were asked to use a five-point scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to

“strongly agree” to report on perceived level of empowerment.

Organizational Commitment

Affective commitment denotes a sense of belonging and emotional attachment to the

organization (e.g., “I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this

organization”). Normative commitment denotes the individual’s obligation to remain with the

organization (e.g., “I owe a great deal to my organization”). Items were anchored by a five-

point scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree).

Job Embeddedness

Although most items corresponded directly to Mitchell and associates’ measure of job

embeddedness, a few minor edits were required to fit the measure to the current sample’s

setting. Items were anchored by a five-point scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree).

Sample

Mailed questionnaires were used to collect data from the sample. The total sample size was 12 with the number of males being 11 and the number of females, 1.

14

HYPOTHESIS FORMATION

Above we have presented a theory on job embeddedness, organizational commitment and

psychological empowerment. We now offer two specific hypotheses. First, we hypothesize

that an employee is more likely to be committed to the organization if he/she is more

“embedded” in their jobs. We choose to focus on job embeddedness, as opposed to job

satisfaction, because it is a broader construct that captures a greater range of factors that

provoke leaving. In Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, and Erez’s (2001) original

formulation, the job embeddedness construct addressed how well people fit in their jobs (e.g.,

personal skills are well suited to the work assigned) and community (e.g., they like the

amenities a community provides); the interpersonal links they have on and off the job (e.g.,

their number of ties to people and groups); and what they would have to give up or sacrifice

in leaving their place of employment or community (e.g., what opportunities they would

forego). In sum, job embeddedness includes several individual-level factors that enmesh

employees in their jobs, and numerous studies have shown it to be a good predictor of an

employee’s commitment to the organization (Allen, 2006; Crossley, Bennett, Jex, &

Burnfield, 2007; Holtom, Mitchell, & Lee, 2006; Holtom & O’Neill, 2004; Lee, Mitchell,

Sablynski, Burton, & Holtom, 2004; Mitchell et al., 2001; Van Dijk & Kirk-Brown, 2003;

Zatzick & Iverson 2006).

Rationale for the Hypothesis

There are numerous investigations that have studied the relationship between organizational

commitment and job satisfaction (Currivan, 1999). They found a positive relationship

between the two factors. Job Embeddedness is a broader term than job satisfaction and based

on the review of literature (Allen, 2006; Crossley, Bennett, Jex, & Burnfield, 2007; Holtom,

Mitchell, & Lee, 2006; Holtom & O’Neill, 2004; Lee, Mitchell, Sablynski, Burton, &

Holtom, 2004; Mitchell et al., 2001; Van Dijk & Kirk-Brown, 2003; Zatzick & Iverson

2006)., we believe that there should be a positive correlation between organization

commitment and job embeddedness.

Hypothesis 1: Job Embeddedness is positively related to organization commitment.

15

Second, we hypothesize that an employee will be more embedded if he/she enjoys a greater

psychological empowerment. Let us briefly take some examples from the Mitchell et al.

(2001) job embeddedness measure to provide a more grounded understanding of how job

embeddedness is directly related to psychological empowerment. Imagine a workplace where

most people strongly agree with the following statements: “I feel like I am a good match for

my organization,” “I really love the place I live,” “I would sacrifice a lot if I left this job,”

“My family roots are in this community,” and “I work closely with my co-workers.” Such

setting is possible when the employee feels that he/she is empowered to make a decision.

Contrast this situation with a workplace populated by those who are less embedded in their

jobs and communities (e.g., people who feel they don’t fit in their work group or community,

or people who have little to sacrifice in renegotiating their relationships to their jobs). In this

sort of environment, even if they like their jobs, employees will not enjoy the same

psychological empowerment as in the previous case.

Rationale for the Hypothesis

Psychological empowerment has been found to be significantly related to job satisfaction;

however, the individual constructs have received varied results (Carless, 2004; Seibert,

Silver, & Randolph, 2004; Liden, Lucas, & Sparrowe, 2000; Spreitzer et al., 1997). In

empirical studies, meaning has received strong support as being positively associated with

job satisfaction. Staples (1990) argued that empowerment dealt with the efforts of individuals

and groups to increase their control. Deci, Connell and Ryan (1989) describe this as being

able to initiate and regulate personal behavior. In other words, employees with self-

determination have some control over what they will do, how much effort they will put in,

and when they will start and stop (Spector, 1986). Deci and Ryan (1987) presented self-

determination as related to job satisfaction. Researchers (Gist, 1987; Harackiewicz, Sansone,

& Manderlink, 1985) have also argued that competence or self-efficacy is related to intrinsic

motivation. Theories of self-efficacy have also suggested that an individual’s mood may

affect self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982; Gist, 1987; Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Therefore, to the

extent that attitudes such as job satisfaction affect moods, and since attitudes are accepted as

less temporary than moods, job satisfaction may affect feelings of competence or self-

efficacy through its effect on the individual’s mood at work. . Job Embeddedness is a broader

term than job satisfaction and based on the review of literature (Carless, 2004; Seibert, Silver,

& Randolph, 2004; Liden, Lucas, & Sparrowe, 2000; Spreitzer et al., 1997), we believe that

16

there should be a positive correlation between psychological empowerment and job

embeddedness.

Hypothesis 2: Job Embeddedness is positively related to psychological empowerment.

17

RESULT AND ANALYSIS

Descriptive Measures

Job embeddedness Mean 3.691667

Median 4Mode 4Standard deviation 1.090801

As the standard deviation is very close to 1 most of the respondents are in consensus

Organisational commitmentAffective Normative Overall

Mean 3.458333 3.604167 3.516667

Median 4 4 4Mode 4 4 4Standard

deviation

0.963233 1.086466 1.012388

The overall organisation commitment score lies between affective and normative

Psychological empowermentmeaning competency Self

determination

impact overall

Mean 3.777778 3.472222 3.75 3.666666667 3.648148

Median 4 4 4 4 4Mode 4 4 4 4 4Standard

deviation

0.929243 1.055221339 1.055289706 1.09014 1.016819

The results reveal that self determination is the most important aspect in psychological

empowerment with a mean score of 3.75. The respondents strongly agree to it.

18

19

Correlation coefficient between normative organisational commitment and Job

embeddedness = 0.137860189

Correlation coefficient between Psychological Empowerment and Job embeddedness =

0.293135

There exists a very low correlation between organisational commitment and job

embeddedness, the reason of which might be small sample size. Similarly, there is a low

correlation between psychological empowerment and job embeddedness.

Correlation coefficient between normative PE (competence) and PE (meaning) = 0.250941

Comparative study between TCS and Others

TCS OthersJob embeddedness Mean 3.475 3.6375

Median/Mode 3/3 4/4Standard deviation 1.012423 1.152828

OC- Affective Mean 3.708333 3.333333

Median/Mode 4/4 3/3Standard deviation 0.750604 3.333333

OC- Normative Mean 3.5625 3.625

Median/Mode 3.5

/3

4/4

Standard deviation 0.963933 1.157026

OC- Overall Mean 3.65 3.45

Median/Mode 4/4 4/4Standard deviation 0.83359 1.089652

Psychological Mean 3.527778 3.708333

20

EmpowermentMedian/Mode 4/4 4/4Standard deviation 0.9706 1.040551

TCS has lower job embeddedness as compared to other organizations in the sample.

However, the organizational commitment is higher owing to higher affective organizational

commitment. Psychological Empowerment is also higher for other organizations.

21

DISCUSSION

The current study is unique in that it tests the relationship between Job Embeddedness,

Organizational Commitment and Psychological Empowerment. It is important to emphasize

that embeddedness was conceptualized specifically as reflecting the totality of forces that

constrain one from leaving his or her current employment. It captures those factors that

embed and keep one in the present position.

First, Job Embeddedness seems to have a positive, but very low and maybe insignificant,

correlation with Organizational Commitment. This rejects our initial hypothesis. The reasons

for this maybe:

Small Sample Size: The sample size of the study was 12. This is really small and no serious

inferences can be made from such a small sample.

We also acknowledge that we did not include the community dimension of job

embeddedness. To some extent, this was intentional, as a comparison between commitment

and community embeddedness would have limited value as they are conceptually quite

different constructs. However, community embeddedness has specific value in predicting

work outcomes, particularly turnover (Lee et al., 2004) and thus should be considered in

future research.

The data collected is from a single source, i.e. Employee Rating. Management Rating could

also have been included for more accurate results.

Second, Job Embeddedness seems to have a positive but low correlation with Psychological

Empowerment. The reasons for this are the similar to those cited above.

22

REFERENCES

Allan, P. (2002). The contingent workforce: Challenges and new directions. American

Business Review, 20(2), 103-110.

Befort, S. D. (2003). Revisiting the black hole of workplace regulation: A historical and

comparative perspective of contingent work. Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor

Law, 24(1),153-179.

Broschak, J. P., & Davis-Blake, A. (2006). Mixing standard work and nonstandard deals:

The consequences of heterogeneity in employment arrangements. Academy of Management

Journal, 49(2), 371-393.

Burton J. P., et. al. 2008. THE Role of Job Embeddedness On Employee Performance: The Interactive Effects With Leader-Member Exchange And Organization Based Self Esteem. Personnel Psychology. 61, 761-792.

Chen, X. P., Hui, C., & Sego, D. J. 1998. The role of organizational citizenship behavior in

turnover: Conceptualization and preliminary test of key hypotheses. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 83: 922–

931.

Fink, J. S. (2005). Extensions and Further Examination of the Job Embeddedness Construct. Journal of Sport Management, 19, 319-335.

Gouldner, A. W. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American

Sociological Review, 25: 161–178.

Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. 2000. A metaanalysis of antecedents and

correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the

millennium. Journal of Management, 26: 463–488.

23

Hanish, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. 1991. General attitudes and organizational withdrawal: an

evaluation of a causal model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39: 110– 128.

Lee, T., et. al. 2004. THE Effects Of Job Embeddedness On Organizational Citizenship, Job

Performance, Volitional Absences, And Voluntary Turnover. Academy of Management

Journal, 47(5), 711-722

Mitchell, T.R., Holtom, B.C., Lee, T.W., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1102-1121.

Spector, P. E. 1997. Job satisfaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Van Emmerik, I.J.H. & Sanders, K. (2004). Social embeddedness and job performance of tenured and non-tenured professionals. Human Resource Management Journal, 14, 4054.

Werbel, J. D., & Gilliland, S. W. 1999. The use of person-environment fit in the selection process. In G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (Vol. 17). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Wheeler, A. R. (2008). The relative roles of engagement and embeddedness in predicting job performance and intention to leave. Work and Stress, 22(3), 2462-256.

Wheeler, A.R., Gallagher, V.C., Brouer, R.L. & Sablynski, C.J. (2007). When person-organization (mis)fit and (dis)satisfaction lead to turnover: The moderating role of perceived job mobility. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 203-219.

Williams LJ, Anderson SE. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617.

Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. 1998. Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job performance and voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 486-491.

24

Yao X, Lee TW,Mitchell TR, Burton JP, Sablynski CJ. (2004). Job embeddedness: Current research and future directions. In Griffeth R, Hom P (Eds.), Innovative theory and empirical research on employee turnover (pp. 153–187). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

25

Questionnaire

Name: __________________________ Organization Name:_____________________

Designation: _____________________ Gender: _______________________________

Father’s Occupation: _____________ No. of Companies worked for: ____________

Mother’s Occupation: _____________ No. of Companies worked for: ____________

Please read the questions and answer them in the next page.

1. My job utilizes my skills and talents well.

2. I feel like I am a good match for my organization.

3. If I stay with my organization, I will be able to achieve most of my goals.

4. I really love the place where I work.

5. The place where I live is a good match for me.

6. I have enough freedom on this job to pursue my goals.

7. Keeping things in view, I can say that there cannot be a better place for me to work.

8. I believe the prospects for continuing employment with my organization are excellent.

9. I work closely with my co-workers

10. I love my organisation, so I want to give my level best.

11. On the job, I interact frequently with my work group members.

12. In my priorities, my organisation comes first.

26

13. I participate in recreational activities in organisation.

14. I feel as though the organization’s problems are my own.

15. It will be hard to find a more worthwhile place to work.

16. I am a professional first and them the member of my organisation

17. My job fits into what the organisation is trying to accomplish.

18. My job utilizes my skills and gives me opportunity for self development.

19. I feel what my organization is trying to achieve is worthwhile.

20. I can see how my job contributes to the overall success of my organization.

21. I am open to change.

22. I have a significant autonomy in determining how I do my job.

23. My impact on what happens in my department is large.

24. I can decide on my own, how to go about doing my work.

25. The work I do is meaningful to me.

26. In my priorities my profession comes first.

27. I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom on how I do my job.

28. I am satisfied working in my organization.

29. I should be working for my organisation.

Please rate your level of agreement for the previously mentioned questions in the scale

of 1 to 5. (1- Strongly disagree, 2- Disagree, 3- No opinion, 4- Agree and 5- Strongly

agree)

Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5123456

27

789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

28