Conceptualizing Job Involvement and Org Commitment_AMR1987

7/31/2019 Conceptualizing Job Involvement and Org Commitment_AMR1987

1/16

Acode.my of M a n a g e rn e n ! R e m e w , 1987 Vol 12, No 2. 288300

Conceptualizing How Job Involvementand Organizational CommitmentAffect Turnover and AbsenteeismGARY 3. BLAUTemple University

KIMBERLY B. BOALUniversity of Nevada, Reno

This paper prasents one conceptualization of how job involvementand organizational commitment could interact to affect turnover an dabsenteeism.

Th e costs of turnover a n d absenteeism to or-ganizations a r e well-documented (Mirvis& Law-ler , 1977; Steers & Rhodes , 1978; Wanous, 1980);such costs ar e one reason why much effort ha sgone into understanding the cau ses or antece-dents of these va riables. Despite the differencesbetween turnover an d absenteeism a s job be-haviors (Porter & Steers, 19731, past research e f-forts overlap in identifying presumed anteced-ents of turnover a nd absentee ism. Work-relatedattitudes, especially satisfaction facets, ar e com-monly the focus in turnover and absenteeismresearch (Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, & Meglino,1979; Steers & Rhodes, 1978).The inability of sat-isfaction facets alone to account for a high per-cen tage (over 15 percent) of var iance in turnoveran d absenteeism ha s led to other approaches.These approaches include using withdrawalcognitions to predict turnover (Mobley, 1977), orfocusing on other work-related attitudes such asjob involvement a n d organizational commit-ment a s independ ent predictors of turnover an dabsenteeism.

Several models (Mobley et al., 1979; Steers &Rhodes, 1978) link organizational commitment,or job involvement conceptually to turnover a n dabsenteeism. Empirical research on organiza-tional commitment generally ha s shown commit-

ment to be a significant predictor of turnover. Asa predictor of turnover, organizational commit-ment ha s accounted for a s much a s 34 percent ofthe variance (Hom, Katerberg, & Hulin, 1979)anda s little a s 3 percent (Michaels& Spector, 1982).Of course, inconsistencies across previous stud-ies may be d ue to any cf a combination of threereasons: (a)the wa y organizational commitmenthas been conceptualized and operationalized(Steers & Porter, 1983), (b ) he wa y turnover ha sbeen conceptualized and operationalized (Price,19771, or (c ) he result of statistical artifacts sucha s sampling an d measurement errors or a re-striction of range (Hunter, Schmidt, & Jackson,1982). For example, the interested reader m aycompare the studies of Arnold an d Feldman(1982) with that of Cleg g (1983).The relationshipbetween organizational commitment and absen-teeism also has b een inconsistent (Angle& Perry,1981; Hamm er, Landau , & Stern , 1981; Mowday,Steers, & Porter, 1979; Steers, 1977). For example,Hammer et al . (1981) found a significant nega-tive relationship be tween organizational commit-ment and absenteeism, while Angle and Perry(1981) did not. Again, conceptualization and mea-surement issues relating to both the indepen-dent an d dependent variables ma y account forthese inconsistencies. For example, Chadwick-


2/16

Jones, Brown, Nicholson, an d Shep pard ( 1971)listed seven ways absenteeism h as bee n oper a-tionalized in various studies.

Less empirical r esear ch exists about the rela-tionship of job involvement with turnover a n dabsenteeism. However, a similar pattern of find-ings, a s with organizational commitment, isexhibited. Job involvement s eem s to more consis-tently predict turnover than absenteeism, ac-counting for a s much a s 16 percent of the vari-an ce (Farris, 1971)an d a s ittle a s 2 percent (Beehr& Gupta , 1978).Again, differences in studies mayaccount for these discrepancies. In studies whe rejob involvement significantly predicts ab sen tee -ism, the amount of var iance dep end s on howabsenteeism is measured (Cheloha & Farr, 1980).

As implied a bo ve , one gen era l difficulty in in-terpreting the findings abou t organizational com-mitment and job involvement with absenteeismis that either the type of absenteeism is not noted,or different types of absenteeism a re lumped to-gether in several studies (Angle & Perry, 1981;Siege1 & Ruh, 1973; Steers , 1977). The met a-analysis by Boal an d Cidambi (1984)suggests thatjob involvement is a better predictor of frequencyof ab sence than duration. It is more likely that asmal l num ber of ab sences of long duration ac -tually ar e du e to medical reasons. Conversely,frequent absences of short duration m ay reflectattitudinal problems. Thus, distinguishing typesof absen teeism m ay b e important. For example ,Blau (1 985 ~)ound job involvement to be signifi-cantly negatively related to excused personalabsence, but not to unexcused absence.

Beyond the cited methodological differencesin past studies, one potential reason why thereported amoun ts of turnover a n d absenteeismvariance accounted for by job involvement andorganizational commitment ha ve not bee n moreconsistent is that job involvement a n d organiza-tional commitment may interact with ea ch otherto affect turnover an d absenteeism. Conceptualmodels and empirical research, along with jobinvolvement and organizational commitment,hav e bee n used a s separa te predictors of g en-eral turnover a n d absenteeism. However, usingjob involvement an d organizational commitment

jointly (in a n interaction) to understand or to pre-dict specific types of turnover a n d absenteei smhas not been often attempted.

According to Morrow (1983), job involvementan d organizational commitment ar e related, butdistinct, types of work attitudes beca us e of theirdifferent referents. For employees with a highlevel of job involvem ent, the job is important toone 's self-image (Kanungo, 1982).These individ-uals identify with a nd ca re about their jobs. Em-ployees with a high level of organizat ional com-mitment feel positively about the organizationsthey work for: They identify with a particular or-ganization an d wish to maintain mem bership init (Porter, Cramp on, & Smith, 1976). Workers withhigh levels of both job involvement an d organi-zational commitment should be the most moti-vated because they are attracted by both the joband the organization. As such , job involvementand organizational commitment may functiona s interactive "orientations."

For example , the job itself ca n help a n individ-ual meet hislher intrinsic growth needs (Kan-ungo, 1982), while the organization ca n help a nindividual meet hislher social and other extrin-sic reward n eeds (Angle & Perry, 1983; She ldon,1971). Also, based o n past empirical research, itseems that job involvement and organizationalcommitment complement one another a s predic-tors of turnover a n d absenteeism. Gene rally , jobinvolvement accoun ts for a greater percentageof varianc e in absen teeism than organizationalcommitment, while organizational commitmentaccounts for a greate r percen tag e of turnovervar iance than job involvement (Boal& Cidambi,1984). From either a n analysis of var iance or amoderated regression standpoint (Saunders,1956), on e would predict that the job involve-ment by o rganizational commitment interactionterms will be significant. Also, specific interac-tive combinations of job involvement an d organi-zational commitment levels will help to predictparticular types of turnover an d abs en ce behav -iors. The degree to which prior research indi-rectly cap tured these more complex interactivecombinations also helps explain the wide ran gesof turnover an d absen ce varian ce.


3/16

Operationalizing Job Involvementand Organizational Commitment

Different inte rpreta tion s of job involvem entha ve evolved while studying the relationship ofjob involvement to numerous var iable s, includ-ing job characteristics, performance, turnover,a n d absenteeism (Kanungo, 1982). A literaturereview revea led se veral different conceptualiza-tions of job involvement, including job involve-ment defined as: (a)the de gree of importance ofone's job to one's self-image (Lodahl & Kejner,1965; Lawler & Hall, 1970); b ) he degree to whicha n individual is actively participating in hislherjob (Allport, 1943; Bass, 1965); a n d (c) he d eg reeto which a n ndividual's self-esteem or self-worthis affected by hi sh er perce ived performance lev-el (French & Kahn, 1962; Gurin , Veroff, & Feld,1960). For the conceptual framework presentedin this pape r, job involvement is defined a s theextent to which the individual identifies psycho-logically with hislher job (Blau, 1985b).

Two different app roa che s hav e been taken indefining organizational commitment (Steers &Porter, 1983). In the first approach , organiza tionalcommitment is referred to a s a behavior, whilein the second ap pro ach , organizational commit-ment is referred to a s a n attitude. In the behav -ioral ap pro ach , the individual is viewed as com-mitted to a n organization if h elshe is bound bypast actions of "sunk costs" (fringe benefits, sal-ary as a function of a g e or tenure). Thus, a n in-dividual becomes "committed" to a n organiza-tion becaus e it ha s become too costly for h i d h e rto leave. In this approach, organizational com-mitment is depicted as more calculative in nature(Etzioni, 1961), a nd the works of Becker (19601,Hrebiniak a n d Alutto ( 1972), an d Salancik (1977)a re incorporated.

In contrast, in the attitudinal approach, organi-zational commitment is viewed a s a more posi-tive individual orientation toward the organiza-tion; here, organizational commitment is defineda s a state in which a n employee identifies with aparticular organization an d its goals, a n d helshewishes to maintain membersh ip in the organiza-tion in order to facilitate its goals. Incorporated

into this approa ch a re the works of Etzioni (1961),Kanter (1968),an d, especially, Porter a n d his col-leagu es (Porteret al ., 1976; Porter & Smith, 1970;Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974). Sincethis conceptual framework emphasizes linkingjob involvement an d organizational commitmenta s work-related attitudes to turnover an d abse n-teeism, the attitudinal definition of organizationalcommitment will be used.

Turnover, Absenteeism, and TheirRelationship to the Conceptual ModelDalton, Todor, a n d Krackhardt's (1982) impor-

tant distinction between two types of turnover,dysfunctional an d functional, will be used here.From the organization's perspective, dysfunc-tional turnover occurs when a n employee leavesvoluntarily, but the organization 's evaluat ion ofthe employee is positive. However, from theorganization's perspective, functional turnoveroccurs when a n employee leaves voluntarily an dthe organization's evaluation of the employ ee isnegative.

In terms of distinguish ing amon g types ofabsence, one simple distinction that previousstudies (Blau, 1985a; Che loha & Farr , 1980; Fitz-gibbons & Moch, 1980) mak e is between organ i-zationally excused versus organizationally unex-cused absences. Based upon these studies, itseem s that organizations operationalize excusedabsence to inc lude (within defined limits) catego-ries such as: personal sickness, jury duty, reli-gious holiday, funeral leave , an d transportationproblems. However, a s Joh ns a n d Nicholson(1982) noted, a bse nce behavior c an hav e a vari-ety of meanings for individuals. Examining dif-ferent levels of individua l job involvement an dorganizational commitment ca n give research-ers some insight into these me anings an d it ca nhelp them understand the cau ses of abse nce.Also, it is important to connect the meanings ofabsenc e with operationalizable absenc e behav-iors.

In the model presented here, a four-categorytaxonomy describes the meaning s of a bse nce .While future studies should attempt to obtain the


4/16


5/16

implicit conceptual models relating to absentee-ism a nd turnover. These models are: (a )Indepen-den t forms model-where absen teeism an d turn-over a re viewed a s unrelated to ea ch other eitherbecause of differences in caus es or consequenc-es; (b)Spillover model-where a n adver sive workenvironment is ass ume d to cau se a generalizednonspecific avoidance response; (c)Progression-of-withdrawal model-where individuals en ga gein a hierarchically ord ered sequ ence of with-drawal including absenteeism and ending inquitting; (dl )Behavioral alte rna te forms--wherethe likelihood of one form of wi thdrawal, for ex-ample, absence, is a function of the constrain tson the alternative behavior, for example, quit-ting; (d2)Attitudinal alternate forms-where anegative attitude may fail to translate into vol-untary turnover if the employee feels this re-sponse is inappropriate (e.g., if the employeedoes not want to lose accum ulated benefits); a n d(el Compensatory model-where ab senc e an dturnover both represent me an s of avoiding a nunpleasant work environment, then they shouldbe related negatively.

The literature on these models ranges fromnonexistent to contradictory (Rosse& Miller, 1984).One reason for this ambiguity is that differentmodels may d escribe different individuals in dif-ferent situations. Another reason is that initiallyit may b e difficult to distinguish b etw een thesemodels. For example, it m r q be necessary togather additional variables, such a s perceivedease of mobility, to distinguish empirically be-tween the behavioral altern ate forms a n d com-pensatory models.

On e goal of this conceptual framework is tolink these conceptual models relating abs entee -ism a n d turnover to individuals who have differ-ent combinations of job involvement an d organi-zational commitment. For example, perhapsbecau se the in depen dent forms model isa resultof individuals high on job involvement an d or-ganizationa l commitment, operationally no rela-tionship is found between absentee ism and turn-over behav iors . However, if the progression-of-withdrawal model is due to individuals being

high on job involvement a n d low on organiza-tional commitment, operationally this translatesinto significant positive relationships between ab-senteeism and turnover behaviors. Some re-search (Beehr & Gu pta, 1978; Clegg, 1983) ha sfound a positive relationship betwe en absent ee-ism an d turnover, while other research (Angle&Perry, 1981) ha s not. Classifying the sam ples ofthese studies first into job involvement a nd or-ganizational commitment levels and then look-ing at the relationships between absenteeism an dturnover behaviors according to the above-mentioned models, ma y help research ers to un-derstand prior inconsistent findings. Of course,a n individual's absenc e a nd turnover behaviorcould reflect some combination of these five mod-els linking absenteeism an d turnover an d, thus,would b e more difficult to explain. Although thisconcep tual framework of job involvement an dorganizational commitment implies differencesbetween individuals in absenteeism and turn-over, individuals ca n ch an ge their own levels ofjob involvement or organizational commitment,or both, over time. This framework can connectsuch chan ges to different ab senteeism a nd turn-over patterns that a n individual exhibits.

The Conceptual FrameworkTable 1 presents the conceptual framework,

using high an d low combinations of job involve-ment a n d organizational commitment to predictturnover an d absenteeism. Job nvolvement andorganizational commitment ar e partitioned intohigh and low categories and, then, combinedinto four cells: (1) high job involvement-highorganizational commitment; (2)high job involve-ment-low organizat ional commitment; (3) lowjob involvement-high organizational commit-ment; an d (4) ow job involvement-low organi-zational commitment. Each cell is predicted tohave a different impact on turnover an d absen-teeism. These proposed categories may be de-rived using a median split on questionnairescale s, for example, job involvement (Kanungo,1982)or organ izational commitment (Porter et al.,1976).


6/16

Table 1Using High Versus Low Levels o f ob Involvement and Organizational Commitment to Predict Turnoverand Absenteeism (Hypothetical)

Impact on Model DescribingCell Salient Voluntary Turnover Cate gory Describing Relationship Between(Describing Satisfaction (Organization's Meaning of Absence Turnover &Individual) Effort Focus Facet s Label Perspective) Behavior Absenteeism

1. High Job individual work itself Institution- Dysfunctional Medical Independent FormsInvolvement task-related = future with alized & higher; group compa ny Stars High maintenance- pay

Organizational related = co-worker Commitment higher supervisor

2. High Job individual work itself Lone Mixed, Depen ds Care er-Enhanci ng Progression-of-Involvement task-related = working Wolves on Task Interde- withd rawal & higher; group conditions pende nce Low maintenance- pay

Organizational related = Commitment lower

3. Low Job individual co-worker Corporate Mixed, Depen ds Normative Attitudinal AlternateInvolvement task-related = Citizens on Task Interde- Forms & lower; group penden ce High maintenance.

Organizational related = Commitment higher

4. Low Job individual reward Apathetic Functional Calculative Spillover/BehavioralInvolvement task-related = Employees Alternate Forms & lower; group Low maintenance-

Organizational related = Commitment lower


7/16

The first cell contains individuals who havehigh levels of job involvement an d organizationalcommitment. Since work is important to their self-image, it is expected that these individuals wouldexert a high level of personal task-related efforton their jobs. Effort typically is viewed in termsof intensity, an d it ca n b e operationalized a s a namount of time spent working on the task (Hall,Goodale, Rabinowitz, & Morgan, 1978; Terborg,1977). In addition, because these individualsstrongly identify with the organization and itsgoals, it is expected that they will exert a highlevel of group m aintenance effort to help main-tain the organization. Indirect support for thisproposed relationship comes from Buchanan(1974) an d Rhodes an d Steers (1981). In bothstudies, group norms regarding work were re-lated positively to organizational commitment.

As such , the individuals in this first cell repre-sent the most valuab le members to a n organiza-tion, that is, institutionalized stars. From a long-ran ge caree r development perspective, it is ex-pected that eventually these individuals wouldbecome mentors, if not sponsors. If these indi-viduals leave the organization voluntarily, theimpact of this turnover on the organization ismost dysfunctional becau se generally it is diffi-cult and costly to replace them. Mobiey (1982)suggested that the negative consequences of em-ployee turnover include: (a)for organizations-replacement costs, loss of high performers, andproductivity loss, a nd (b ) for "stayers"--disrup-tion of social an d communication patterns, lossof functionally valued co-workers, an d decreasedsatisfaction. Although it seems that such nega-tive consequences would be relevant particu-larly when institutionalized stars leave, researchspecifically addressing this concept is needed. Itis expected that individuals in this cell will hav ethe lowest level of absences because of their highlevels of job involvement and organizationalcommitment. Limited empirical support for thisidea is found in a study (Blau, in press) wherenurses with higher levels of job involvement andorganizational commitment showed less unex-cused absenteeism than nurses with lower lev-

els of job involvement and organizational com-mitment.

Each of the four types discussed ab ov e willrespond to different organizational an d personalcues when deciding whether to quit, or to beabsent; this is also true when they choose themeanings they attribute to their withdrawing.With respect to institutionalized stars, the pres-ent authors believe that multiple facets of jobsatisfaction will b e equally salient in a ny deci-sion to withdraw. For them, five facets of particu-lar sa lience are : satisfaction with the work itself;satisfaction with their future within the company;satisfaction with supervision a nd co-workers; andsatisfaction with their pay , especially a s it re-flects both internal a nd external equity. Becauseof the importance of work to their self-image,institutionalized stars would be especially sensi-tive to the kind of work they do. Because of theircommitment to the organization, they would besensitive to their role an d future in the organiza-tion, their relationship to the supervisor an d theirco-workers, and the organization's treatment ofits employees. Background empirical researchsupporting these positive links among job involve-ment, organizational commitment, and job satis-faction facets come from previous work (Cheloha& Farr, 1980; Hom, Katerberg, & Hulin, 1979;Saal, 1978).

Finally, because institutionalized stars will behigh in both individual task and team-relatedeffort, it is believed that they will be especiallysensitive to both internal and external percep-tions of pay equity. Mowdcry (1979) pointed o l ~ tthat the concept of equity often is interpreted a sthe association between a n employee's effort atwork and the pay h e or she receives. For institu-tionalized stars to quit, they would need to be:(a)unhappy/disillusioned with the organization[Disillusionment could occur becau se of eithergoal displacement or a ch ang e in the organiza-tional culture or climate.]; (b) dissatisfied withtheir work; an d (c) feel underrew arded. [Condi-tion (a)would serve to move the institutional starfrom Cell 1 to Cell 2, i. e. , one wolf. Condition (b )would serve to move the institutional star from


8/16

Cell 1 to Cell 3, i.e ., corporate citizen. The presentauthors hypothesize these ch ang es occurring be-fore an y ac tua l turnover.] The unlikely co-occur-rence of all three leads to the prediction thatinstitutionalized stars generally do not activelyseek other positions, though they would besought after. Regarding absen teeism, institution-alized sta rs would make the greatest effort to beat work, due to their high levels of job involve-ment a nd organizational commitment. Therefore,it is hypothesized that medical reasons (Johns&Nicholson, 1982) will do mina te the potentialcauses of absenteeism for them. Finally, sincevoluntary turnover is not actively sought but mayoccur while absenteeism is a sporadic functionof health, family dem and s, a nd so on, the pre-sent authors do not believe there will be a con-sistent relationship between turnover and ab-senteeism among institutionalized stars. Thus,the independen t forms model best describes therelationship between absenteeism a nd turnoverfor them.

The second cell contains individuals who ex-hibit a high level of job involvement and a lowlevel of organizational commitment. Althoughwork is important to them, they do not identifywith the organization or its goals . Therefore, suchemployees will exert a higher level of individualtask-related effort, but will not show much groupmaintenance-related effort. These individualsrepresent the lone wolves of a n organization.Individuals in this cell may becom e mentors in alimited sense because they may attract otherswho sh are a n interest in their work. Gouldner's(1958) definition of cosmopolitans shares m uchin common with individuals in this cell. Accord-ing to him, cosmopolitans a re "those low on loy-alty to their employing organization, high oncommitment to specialized role skills, and likelyto use a n outer reference group orientation" (p.290). Lone wolves a r e especial ly sensitive to ei-ther the satisfaction facets of the work environ-ment that directly involve their work, for example,the work itself, physical working conditions, orthe facets that reflect the importance of their work,such a s pay. Because lone wolves a re not bound

to the organization, such individuals would seekto leave voluntarily if better task-related oppor-tunities aro se elsewhere.

The impact of turnover by lone wolves wouldbe mixed. Despite the higher individual task-related effort, from which a n organization c anbenefit, lone wolves never attempt to integratethemselves into the organization. They can breedresentment among other group members by in-creasing such members' group maintenance ac-tivity workload. Perceived inequitable work over-load can da ma ge the cohesiveness of a group(Hackman, 1976). However, this impact will bemediated by the amoun t of task interde pen-dence . Thus, turnover am ong lone wolves cancreate greate r problems for stayers , whose tasksare sequentially or reciprocally interdependent(Thompson, 1967), because of the stayers' reli-anc e on lone wolves. Stayers who hav e pooledinterdependent tasks, however, will not feel suchrepercussions because of the more independentnature of such tasks. It should be noted that jobswith pooled interdependence typically requirelonger training times. Thus, turnover on thesetasks is more undesirable per s e because of re-placement costs. Absenteeism among lone wolveswould reflect career-enhancing behaviors. Withtheir combination of high job involvement an dlow organizational commitment, lone wolves be-lieve in maximizing their work opportunities.Such individuals a re more willing to violate theorganization's absen ce policy if there is a con-flict between persona l an d organizational goals,because of the impor tance of their own workagenda. Accordingly, it is expected that therewould be a positive relationship between absen-teeism an d turnover. Thus, empirically the pro-gression-of-withdrawal model should best de-scribe the relationship between absenteeism a ndturnover for lone wolves. [The progression-of-withdrawal model predicts that individuals wouldmove hierarchically through a bse nce a nd otherforms of withd rawal (e.g ., tardiness) up to even-tual turnover. I

The third cell contains individuals who exhibita low level of job involvement and a high level


9/16


10/16

commitment to the organization, their attachmentand compliance with organizational expectations1norms is base d on calculative judgments (Etzioni,1961). Thus, they would be most sensitive to feel-ings of reward satisfaction (pay , promotions) andto the availability of o ther opportunities in deci-sions to withdraw .

It is hoped, a s a result of initial screening tech-niques and favorable market conditions, apa-thetic employees will not be hired by the or-ganization . Unfortunately, promising employeessometimes cha nge an d organizations can do lit-tle because they ar e protected by a kind of in-stitutionalized job security (Dalton et al., 1982).Examples of institutionalized job security includeuniversity tenure and collective bargaining agre e-ments. From the organ ization's perspective, ifapathetic employees leave voluntarily, such turn-over is functional, especially if these employ-ee s ar e rep laced by individuals who fall into theother cells.

Concerning absenteeism, it is expected thatapathetic employees would take advant age, tothe maximum , of a ny compan y policy that doesnot penalize absenteeism. For example, it is ex-pected that absenteeism rules that reflect a "useit or lose it" philosophy would result in the high-est levels of ab senteeism am ong apa thetic em-ployees. An interesting research question wouldbe to what d egr ee d o other types of employees(e .g ., institutionalized stars, lone wolves) takeadv ant age of such absentee ism rules. Based onthe ab ov e suppositions, the spillover model gen-erally describes apathe tic employees. However,whether their lack of att ach ment results in highrates of absenteeism or turnover depen ds on theconstraints associated with each behavior, forexample, labor market conditions limiting jobopportunities. Thus, the behavioral version of thealternate forms model also would describe theirbehavior.

Interestingly, while reciprocal a nd pooled taskinterdependence can create the greatest organi-zational problem s from the standpoint of turn-over, absenteeism results in greater problemswhen employees work on tasks requiring recip-rocal or sequential interdependence. The formeris due to the fact that employee education andtraining levels are high, thus mahng it moredifficult an d costly to replace these individuals.The latter is d ue to the amount of task interde-pend ence . Absenteeism here could crea te bottle-necks or shut down the productionlservice func-tion altogether while absenteeism on tasks re-quiring pooled interdependence would onlylengthen the service queue. The literature ontask design (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Rous-se au , 1977) suggested tha t it is most likely thatapathetic . employees will be working with long-linked technologies. Thus, high levels of ab se n-teeism, which a re expected, would cre ate spe-cial problems for other workers.

ConclusionJob involvement and organizational commit-

ment have been used to predict general turn-over an d absentee ism. This pape r describes howjob involvement and organizational commitmentca n enh anc e our understanding of task-relatedeffort a s well a s withdrawal behaviors. Empiri-cal resea rch is needed to test the ad equ acy ofthis model. However, to do so, researchers willneed to: (a)utilize such techniques a s moder-at ed regression (Saun der s, 1956) to test for thesignificance of the interaction effect which ourmodel suggests will b e significant an d la rge; a nd(b)attempt to assess the reasons for the absen-teeismlturnover a s well a s the frequency or se-verity of the act itself.


11/16

ReferencesAllport. G. (1943) The e go in contemporary psychology.

Psychological Review, 50, 451-478.Angle, H., & Perry, J. (1981)An empirica l assessment of or-

ganizational commitment and organizational effectiveness.Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 1-14.

Angle. H., & Perry, J . (1983) Organizational commitment:Individual and organizational influences. Work and Oc-cupations, 10, 123-146.

Arnold, H. J.,& Feldma n, D. C. (1982)A multivariate analy -sis of the de terminants of job turnover. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 67, 35&360.

Bass, B. (1965) Organizational psychology. Boston: Allyn &Bacon.

Becker, H. (1960) Notes on the conce pt of commitment .American Journal of Sociology, 66, 32-42.

Beehr, T., & Gu pta, N. (1978)A note on the structure of em -ployee withdrawal. Organizational Behavior and HumanPerformance, 21, 7S79.

Blau, G. (1985a) Relationship of extrinsic, intrinsic, a nd de -mogra phic predictors to variou s types of with draw albehaviors. lournal of Applied Psychology, 70, 442-450.

Blau, G . (198533)A mult~pletudy investigation of the dimen-sionality of job involvement. Journal of Vocational Be-havior, 27, 19-36.

Blau, G. (in press) Job involvement a nd organizational com-mitment a s interactive predictors of tardin ess an d abse n-teeism. Journal of Management.

Boal, K ., & Cidambi, R. (1984)Attitudinal correla tes of turn-over and absenteeism: A meta analysis. Pape r presentedat the meeting of the American Psychological Association,Toronto, Ca nad a.

Buchanan, B. (1974)Building organization commitment: Thesocialization of ma nagers in work crganizations. Admin-~s trat iveScience Quarterly, 22, 533-546.

Chadwick-Jones, J. K., Brown, C. A., Nicholson, N., & Shep-pard. C. (1971) Absence measures : Their reliability a ndstability in a n ndustrial setting. Personnel Psychology, 24,463470.

Cheloha, R., & Farr, J. (1980) Absentee ism, job involvement,an d job satisfaction in a n organizational setting. lourn alof Applied Psychology, 65, 467-473.

Clegg, C . (1983)Psychology of employee lateness, ab sen ceand turnover: A methodological critique and empiricalstudy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 88-101.

Dalton, D., Todor, W., & Krachardt, D. (1982) Turnoveroverstated: The functional taxonomy. Academy of Man-agement Review, 7, 117-123.

Etzioni, A. (1961)A comparative analy sis of complex organ -izations. New York: Free Press.

Farris, G. (1971) A predictive study of turnover. PersonnelPsychology, 24, 31 13 28 .

Fishbein, M. (1967) Attitude an d the prediction of behavior.In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Attitude theory and m easu remen t(pp . 477-492). New York: Wiley.

Fitzgibbons, D., &Moch, M. ( 1980) Employee absenteeism: Amultivariate an alys is with replication. Organ izational Be-havior and Human Performance, 26, 349-372.

French, J., & Kahn, R. (1962) A programmatic ap pro ach tostudying the industrial environment and mental health.Journal of Social Issues, 18, 1-47.

Gouldner, A. (1958) Cosmopolitans a nd locals: Towards a nanaly sis of latent social roles. Administrative Science Qu ar-terly, 2, 281306.

Gurin, G. , Veroff, J., & Feld , S. i1960) Amer icans view theirmental health. New York: Basic Books.

Hackman, J. (1976)Group influences on individuals. InM. D.Dunnette (Ed.),Handbook of industrial an d organizationalpsychology (pp. 145S1526). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Hackman, R., & Lawler, E. E. III. (1971) Employee reactionsto job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology Mono-graph, 55, 25S-286.

Hackman, R., & Oldham, G. (1976) Motivation through thedesign of work: Test of a theory. Organiza tional Behavioran d Human Performance, 16, 250-279.

Hall, D., Goodale, J ., Rabinowitz, S., & Morgan, M. (1978)Effects of top-down depa rtmental a nd job chang e uponperceived employee behavior a nd attitudes: A natural fieldexperiment. lournal of Applied Psychology, 63, 62-72.

Hom, P., Katerberg, R., & Hulin, C. (1979) Comparat ive ex-amination of three approaches to the prediction of turnover.Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 280-290.

Hammer, T., Landau, J.,& Stem, R. (1981)Absenteeism whenworkers have a volce: The case of employee ownership .lournal of Applied Psychology, 66, 561-573.

Hrebiniak, L., & Alutto, J. (1972) Personal and role-relatedfactors in the development of organization al commitment.Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 555-572.

Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L.,& Jackson, G. B. (1982) Meta-analysis: Cummulating research across studies. BeverlyHills, CA: Sage.

Johns, G., & Nicholson, N. (1982)The meanings of absence :New strategies for theory an d research . In B. M. Staw &L. L. Cummings (Eds. , Research in organizational behav-ior (pp. 127-172). Greenwich , CT: JAI Press.


12/16

Kanter, R. (1968)Commitment and social organization: Astudy of commitment mechanisms in utopian communities.American Sociological Review, 33, 49S-517.

Kanungo, R. (1982)Work alienation:An iniegrative approach.New York: Praeger.

Katz, D. , & Kahn, R. (1978)The social psychology of organ-izations. New York: Wiley.Landy, F., Vasey, . , & Smith, F. (1984)Methodological prob-lems and strategies in predicting absence. In P. Goodman,R. Atkin, & Associates (Eds.), bsenteeism (pp.110-137).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lawler, E., & Hall, D . (1970)Relationship o f job characteris-tics to job involvement, satisfaction,and intrinsic motiva-tion. lournal o f Applied Psychology, 54 , 305312.

Lodahl, T . , & Kejner, M. (1965)The definitionand measure-ment of ob involvement. ournal ofAppliedPsychology,49,2633.

Michaels, C., & Spector, P. (1982)Causes o f employee turn-over: A test of the Mobley, Griff eth,Hand, and Meglinomodel. lournal o f Applied Psychology, 67, 53-59.

Mirvis, P . , & Lawler, L. (1977)Measuring the financial im-pact of employee attitudes. Journal o f Applied Psychol-ogy, 62 , 1-8.

Mobley, W . (1977) ntermediate linkages in the relationshipbetween job satisfaction and employee turnover. Iournalof Applied Psychology, 62 , 237-240.

Mobley, W . (1982)Some unanswered questions in turnoverand withdrawal research. Academy of Management Re-view, 7 , 111-116.

Mobley, W ., Griffeth,R., Hand, H., & Meglino, R. (1979)Review and conceptual analysis of he employee turnoverprocess. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 493-522.

Morrow, P. (1983)Concept redundancy in organizationalresearch:The case of work commitment. Academy o fMan-agement Review, 8 , 48&-500.

Mowday, R., Steers,R . , & Porter, L. (1979) he measurementof organizational commitment. Iournal of Vocational Be-havior, 14 , 7S-94.

Porter, L. (1973)Organizational work, and personal factorsin employee turnover and absentee ism. Psychological Bul-letin, 80, 151-176.

Porter, L. , Crampon, W. ,& Smith, F . (1976)Organizationalcommitment and managerial turnover: A longitudinalstudy. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,15 , 87-98.

Porter, L., & Smith, F . (1970)The etiology o f organizationalcommitment. Unpublished p a p e r , University of California,Irvine.

Porter,L. , Steers, R., Mowday, R., & Boulian, P. (1974)Organ-izational commitment, ob satisfaction, nd turnover amongpsychiatric technicians. lournal o f Applied Psychology,59, 603-609.

Price, J .L. (1977)The study o f turnover. Ames: Iowa StateUniversity Press.

Rhodes, S . , & Steers, R. (1981)Conventional versus workerowned organizations. Human Relations, 34, 1013-1035.Ritti. R., & Funkhouser, G. (1977)The ropes to skip and the

ropes to know. Columbus, OH: Grid.Rosse, J .G., & Miller, H . E. (1984)Relationship between ab-

senteeism and other employee behwiors. In P. Goodman,E. Atkin, & Associates (Eds.),Absenteeism (pp. 194-228).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Rousseau, D. (1977) echnological differences n job charac-teristics, employee satisfaction ,and motivation:A synthe-sis of job design research and sociotechnical systemstheory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,19, 1842.

Saal, F. (1978)?ob involvement: A multivariate approach.lournal of Applied Psychology, 63, 5-1.Salancik, G . (1977)Commitment and the control oforganiza-

tional behavior and belie f. n B. Staw & G. Salancik (E ds.) ,New directions in organizational behavior (pp . 1-21). Chi-cago: St. Clair Press.

Saunders, D . R. (1956) Moderator variables in prediction.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 16,209-222.

Sheldon,M . (1971) nvestments and involvements as mecha-nisms producing commitment to the organization.Admin-istrative Science Quarterly, 16 , 142-150.

Siegel, A., & Ruh, R. (1973) ob nvolvement, participation indecision making, personal background, and job behcrvlor.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9 ,318-329.

Steers, R. (1977)Antecedents and outcomes of organizationalcommitment. Admin~strative cience Quarterly, 22, 4&-56.

Steers, R., & Porter, L. (1983)Employee commitment toorganizations. In R. Steers & L. Porter (Eds.),Motivationand work behavior (pp .21g230).New York:McGraw-Hill.

Steers, R., & Rhodes, S . (1978)Major influenceson employeeattendance:A process model. lournal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 63, 391-407.

Terborg, J. 1977)Validation and extension of an individualdifferencesmodel o f work performance. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance, 18 , 188-216.

Thompson, J . (1967)Organizations in action. New York:McGraw-Hill.


13/16

Wanous, J. (1980)Organizational entry: Recruitment, selec- Weiner, Y., & Vardi, J . (1980) Relationships between job,tion, and socialization of newcomers. Reading, MA: Addi- organization, and career commitments and work out-co me s- an integrative approach. Organizational Behav-ior and Human Performance,26 , 81-96.

Gary Blau (Ph.D.,Universityof Cincinnati) s an Assis-tant Professor in the Human Resource AdministrationDepartment, School o f Business and Management ,Temple University,Philadelphia, PA 19122.Kimberly Boal fPh.D., University of Wisconsin, Modi-son) is an Associate Professor in the Managerial Sci-ences Department of the College ofBusiness Adminis-tration, University ofNevada at Reno. Correspondencecan be sent to him at: College of Business Administra-tion. Managerial Sciences Department, University ofNevada, Reno, NV 895574016 .


14/16

You have printed the following article:

Conceptualizing How Job Involvement and Organizational Commitment Affect Turnoverand Absenteeism

Gary J. Blau; Kimberly B. Boal

The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12, No. 2. (Apr., 1987), pp. 288-300.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28198704%2912%3A2%3C288%3ACHJIAO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B

This article references the following linked citations. If you are trying to access articles from anoff-campus location, you may be required to first logon via your library web site to access JSTOR. Pleasevisit your library's website or contact a librarian to learn about options for remote access to JSTOR.

References

An Empirical Assessment of Organizational Commitment and Organizational Effectiveness

Harold L. Angle; James L. Perry

Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 1. (Mar., 1981), pp. 1-14.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-8392%28198103%2926%3A1%3C1%3AAEAOOC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A

Notes on the Concept of Commitment

Howard S. Becker

The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 66, No. 1. (Jul., 1960), pp. 32-40.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9602%28196007%2966%3A1%3C32%3ANOTCOC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U

Review: [Untitled]

Reviewed Work(s):

Prediction of Organizational Behaviorby Norman Frederiksen; Ollie Jensen; Albert E. Beaton;Bruce Bloxom

Paul C. Buchanan

Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2. (Jun., 1974), pp. 287-289.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-8392%28197406%2919%3A2%3C287%3APOOB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0

http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS- Page 1 of 3 -
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28198704%2912%3A2%3C288%3ACHJIAO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-8392%28198103%2926%3A1%3C1%3AAEAOOC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9602%28196007%2966%3A1%3C32%3ANOTCOC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-8392%28197406%2919%3A2%3C287%3APOOB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-8392%28197406%2919%3A2%3C287%3APOOB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9602%28196007%2966%3A1%3C32%3ANOTCOC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-8392%28198103%2926%3A1%3C1%3AAEAOOC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28198704%2912%3A2%3C288%3ACHJIAO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B&origin=JSTOR-pdf


15/16

Turnover Overstated: The Functional Taxonomy

Dan R. Dalton; William D. Todor; David M. Krackhardt

The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 7, No. 1. (Jan., 1982), pp. 117-123.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28198201%297%3A1%3C117%3ATOTFT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D

Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward an Analysis of Latent Social Roles. II

Alvin W. GouldnerAdministrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 4. (Mar., 1958), pp. 444-480.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-8392%28195803%292%3A4%3C444%3ACALTAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3

Personal and Role-Related Factors in the Development of Organizational Commitment

Lawrence G. Hrebiniak; Joseph A. Alutto

Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 4. (Dec., 1972), pp. 555-573.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-8392%28197212%2917%3A4%3C555%3APARFIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L

Commitment and Social Organization: A Study of Commitment Mechanisms in UtopianCommunities

Rosabeth Moss Kanter

American Sociological Review, Vol. 33, No. 4. (Aug., 1968), pp. 499-517.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1224%28196808%2933%3A4%3C499%3ACASOAS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1

Some Unanswered Questions in Turnover and Withdrawal Research

William H. Mobley

The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 7, No. 1. (Jan., 1982), pp. 111-116.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28198201%297%3A1%3C111%3ASUQITA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W

Concept Redundancy in Organizational Research: The Case of Work Commitment

Paula C. Morrow

The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 8, No. 3. (Jul., 1983), pp. 486-500.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28198307%298%3A3%3C486%3ACRIORT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R


http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28198201%297%3A1%3C117%3ATOTFT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-8392%28195803%292%3A4%3C444%3ACALTAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-8392%28197212%2917%3A4%3C555%3APARFIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1224%28196808%2933%3A4%3C499%3ACASOAS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28198201%297%3A1%3C111%3ASUQITA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28198307%298%3A3%3C486%3ACRIORT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28198307%298%3A3%3C486%3ACRIORT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28198201%297%3A1%3C111%3ASUQITA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1224%28196808%2933%3A4%3C499%3ACASOAS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-8392%28197212%2917%3A4%3C555%3APARFIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-8392%28195803%292%3A4%3C444%3ACALTAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28198201%297%3A1%3C117%3ATOTFT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D&origin=JSTOR-pdf


16/16

Investments and Involvements as Mechanisms Producing Commitment to the Organization

Mary E. Sheldon

Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 2. (Jun., 1971), pp. 143-150.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-8392%28197106%2916%3A2%3C143%3AIAIAMP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R

Antecedents and Outcomes of Organizational Commitment

Richard M. SteersAdministrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 1. (Mar., 1977), pp. 46-56.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-8392%28197703%2922%3A1%3C46%3AAAOOOC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M


http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-8392%28197106%2916%3A2%3C143%3AIAIAMP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-8392%28197703%2922%3A1%3C46%3AAAOOOC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-8392%28197703%2922%3A1%3C46%3AAAOOOC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-8392%28197106%2916%3A2%3C143%3AIAIAMP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R&origin=JSTOR-pdf

Documents

Conceptualizing Job Involvement and Org Commitment_AMR1987