14
Job attitudes and absenteeism: A study in the English speaking Caribbean Betty Jane Punnett a, * , Dion Greenidge a,1 , Jase Ramsey b,2 a Department of Management Studies, University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, Barbados b Moore College of Business, University of South Carolina, United States Abstract This paper examines the relationships of job attitudes (facets of job satisfaction and organizational commitment) and personality characteristics to absenteeism, in five manufacturing companies in Barbados, an English-speaking Caribbean country. The relationships examined are based on well-established theories from the developed world, especially the USA. In addition, individualism, uncertainty avoidance, and power distance were measured. The results show that an employee’s levels of satisfaction with co-workers, activity, responsibility, and job security, as well as loyalty to the organization, are related to absenteeism. These results are similar to those found in past research in the developed world. The most important single predictor of absence was satisfaction with co-workers. Respondents were moderate on individualism, high on uncertainty avoidance, and low on power distance. The cultural scores are used to help interpret the results. The implications of the results are discussed in terms of expanding the reach of an established theory, and relative to decreasing absenteeism in Barbados. # 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Job satisfaction; Organizational commitment; Personality characteristics; Cultural values; Absenteeism The focus of this research is on absenteeism in an English speaking Caribbean developing country, Bar- bados. The relationships examined in the research were based on well-established theories regarding absentee- ism, from studies done in the USA, as well as other developed countries. Very little work on absenteeism has been done in developing countries, and the authors found no published research on the English speaking Caribbean. The study was undertaken for practical as well as theoretical reasons. From a practical perspective, absences are a particular concern in today’s competitive, global environment. It is no longer other local organizations, facing similar levels of absenteeism that constitutes the competition. Local organizations now compete with firms from other countries, where absenteeism levels may be different. In the Barbados and Caribbean context, concern with absenteeism from work has been growing in recent years. Interviews with businesspeople in St. Vincent and Barbados during 2001 (Punnett, Dick-Forde, & Robinson, 2006) suggested that it was a key concern for many businesses. Reports of absenteeism, in the press and from public speeches, from Barbados indicated that days lost due to absences was increasing substantially in 2001, and the consensus in the press in 2004 was that absenteeism had reached crisis proportions. Many recent news articles have stressed www.socscinet.com/bam/jwb Journal of World Business 42 (2007) 214–227 * Corresponding author. Tel.: +246 417 4309; fax: +246 438 9167. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B.J. Punnett), [email protected] (D. Greenidge), [email protected] (J. Ramsey). 1 Tel.: +246 417 4309; fax: +246 438 9167. 2 Tel.: +1 803 269 4923; fax: +1 803 777 6782. 1090-9516/$ – see front matter # 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2007.02.006

Job attitudes and absenteeism: A study in the English speaking Caribbean

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Job attitudes and absenteeism: A study in the English speaking Caribbean

www.socscinet.com/bam/jwb

Journal of World Business 42 (2007) 214–227

Job attitudes and absenteeism: A study in the

English speaking Caribbean

Betty Jane Punnett a,*, Dion Greenidge a,1, Jase Ramsey b,2

a Department of Management Studies, University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, Barbadosb Moore College of Business, University of South Carolina, United States

Abstract

This paper examines the relationships of job attitudes (facets of job satisfaction and organizational commitment) and personality

characteristics to absenteeism, in five manufacturing companies in Barbados, an English-speaking Caribbean country. The

relationships examined are based on well-established theories from the developed world, especially the USA. In addition,

individualism, uncertainty avoidance, and power distance were measured. The results show that an employee’s levels of satisfaction

with co-workers, activity, responsibility, and job security, as well as loyalty to the organization, are related to absenteeism. These

results are similar to those found in past research in the developed world. The most important single predictor of absence was

satisfaction with co-workers. Respondents were moderate on individualism, high on uncertainty avoidance, and low on power

distance. The cultural scores are used to help interpret the results. The implications of the results are discussed in terms of expanding

the reach of an established theory, and relative to decreasing absenteeism in Barbados.

# 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Job satisfaction; Organizational commitment; Personality characteristics; Cultural values; Absenteeism

The focus of this research is on absenteeism in an

English speaking Caribbean developing country, Bar-

bados. The relationships examined in the research were

based on well-established theories regarding absentee-

ism, from studies done in the USA, as well as other

developed countries. Very little work on absenteeism

has been done in developing countries, and the authors

found no published research on the English speaking

Caribbean. The study was undertaken for practical as

well as theoretical reasons.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +246 417 4309; fax: +246 438 9167.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B.J. Punnett),

[email protected] (D. Greenidge),

[email protected] (J. Ramsey).1 Tel.: +246 417 4309; fax: +246 438 9167.2 Tel.: +1 803 269 4923; fax: +1 803 777 6782.

1090-9516/$ – see front matter # 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2007.02.006

From a practical perspective, absences are a

particular concern in today’s competitive, global

environment. It is no longer other local organizations,

facing similar levels of absenteeism that constitutes

the competition. Local organizations now compete

with firms from other countries, where absenteeism

levels may be different. In the Barbados and

Caribbean context, concern with absenteeism from

work has been growing in recent years. Interviews

with businesspeople in St. Vincent and Barbados

during 2001 (Punnett, Dick-Forde, & Robinson, 2006)

suggested that it was a key concern for many

businesses. Reports of absenteeism, in the press

and from public speeches, from Barbados indicated

that days lost due to absences was increasing

substantially in 2001, and the consensus in the press

in 2004 was that absenteeism had reached crisis

proportions. Many recent news articles have stressed

Page 2: Job attitudes and absenteeism: A study in the English speaking Caribbean

B.J. Punnett et al. / Journal of World Business 42 (2007) 214–227 215

the need to deal with absenteeism in Barbados, and

the wider Caribbean.

There are currently no reliable statistics on

absenteeism in Barbados, but the information from a

variety of sources (personal communication) indicates

an absenteeism level of about 7%, calculated as the

number of days lost to absenteeism divided by the

number of days available (not including vacation days)

to give a percentage figure; this is substantially higher

than reported rates in the USA of about 2% (CCH

Survey reported on http://www.radford.edu/). The 7%

absenteeism figure translates to about fifteen days of

absence compared to about four days for the 2% figure

(these are estimates only, but give a sense of the order of

magnitude represented by these absenteeism figures).

This comparison suggests that lowering absenteeism

rates could potentially have a substantial impact in

Barbados.

While the research had an immediate and practical

purpose, it also had a broader objective of examining

well established relationships in a new context, and thus

broadening the global reach of an accepted theoretical

framework. The purpose of the present study was to

investigate whether the absenteeism relationships

identified in the North American literature were

applicable to Barbados.

Barbados is classified as a developing country, thus,

to some extent this project extends research and theories

from the developed world to a developing country

context. According to the World Bank (2005) World

development report, Barbados is classified as an upper

middle income country (economies are divided accord-

ing to Gross National Income (GNI) per capita,

calculated using the World Bank Atlas method; upper

middle income countries have a GNI per capita ranging

from $3036–9385.

The following brief literature review explains the

relationships that have been established in the devel-

oped world research, and the theoretical underpinnings

for this project.

1. A brief review of the absenteeism literature

The focus of this research is on absenteeism and the

factors that influence an employee’s decision to be

absent from work. The strongest evidence from research

in North America and the developed world is a

consistent relationship between levels of job satisfac-

tion and absence from work (Farrell & Stamm, 1988;

Harrison & Martocchio, 1998). The more satisfied

employees are with the workplace, the less likely they

are to be absent, conversely, the more dissatisfied

employees are with the workplace, the more likely they

are to be absent. Three Meta-analyses of the relation-

ship between employee absenteeism and job satisfac-

tion (Scott & Taylor, 1985; Hackett & Guion, 1985)

showed that job satisfaction was found consistently to

be negatively associated with absence (Scott & Taylor,

1985; Hackett, 1989). Job satisfaction was also shown

to be negatively associated with absence, and found to

be the most significant predictor of absenteeism by

Brooke (1989).

Historically, withdrawal theory has been used to

account for the job satisfaction–absenteeism relation-

ship (Steers & Rhodes, 1978, 1984). This theory

suggests that when individuals become dissatisfied with

their jobs, this reduces their motivation to attend work,

culminating in absence behavior. Further, Steers and

Rhodes (1978) predicted that the effects of all other job-

related and organizational variables on absence would

work their way through job satisfaction. Although the

withdrawal theory has seen substantial support in the

literature, a more recent meta-analysis has shown that

absence behavior is much more complex than a simple

direct relationship between job satisfaction and absence

behavior (Harrison & Martocchio, 1998). This meta-

analysis concluded that a number of direct relationships

exist in addition to the job satisfaction, absence

relationship. These authors challenged the credibility

of the Steers and Rhodes (1978) model by referring to it

as a framework rather than a theory because it ‘‘specifies

broad collections of variables [satisfaction] rather than

relations between well-defined constructs’’ (p. 312).

Ultimately, these meta-analyses provided evidence that

work attitudes do not explain the whole phenomenon of

absenteeism in the work place.

We can conclude, therefore, that job satisfaction, one

of the most-studied variables in organizational behavior

research (Spector, 1997), results from a complex

evaluative and emotional process (Weiss, 2002) that

goes beyond a reflection of ‘‘objective’’ working

conditions. Job satisfaction has, in fact, been linked

with a wide range of antecedents, including culture

(Judge, Parker, Colbert, Heller, & Ilies, 2002; Spector

et al., 2002), gender (Muhonen & Torkelson, 2004),

core self-evaluations (Rode, 2004), work locus of

control (Muhonen & Torkelson, 2004), and personality

(Judge et al., 2002; Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt,

2003). It has also been linked with other outcomes such

as career success (Burke, 2001) and life satisfaction

(Rode, 2004).

In addition, the question of the meaning of job

satisfaction is relevant here. A global satisfaction

variable has been shown to predict absenteeism;

Page 3: Job attitudes and absenteeism: A study in the English speaking Caribbean

B.J. Punnett et al. / Journal of World Business 42 (2007) 214–227216

however, this is not very helpful in making changes in

the workplace to improve satisfaction levels. Conse-

quently, a variety of facets of job satisfaction have been

identified, and survey instruments have been designed

to measure these. Broadly, intrinsic job satisfaction has

been differentiated from extrinsic job satisfaction –

intrinsic is defined as satisfaction with the job itself, and

extrinsic as the satisfaction with factors external to the

job (Weiss, Davis, England, & Lofquist, 1967).

Research has looked at many facets of job satisfaction

extensively in North America, and found them, to

varying degrees, to be related to absenteeism.

The literature on absenteeism also suggests that

dedication to the company, or organizational loyalty and

commitment, relate both to job satisfaction and to

absenteeism. Loyal and committed employees are

believed to feel a sense of responsibility to their

employer and organization. Consequently they do not

want to be absent because of the potential negative

impact on the employer and organization. Organiza-

tional commitment, like job satisfaction, is a general

attitude, and thus also subject to the predictions of

withdrawal theory – ‘‘employees with high levels of

organizational commitment identify with a particular

firm; they are less likely to miss work because it

jeopardizes their membership in it’’ (Harrison &

Martocchio, 1998, p. 320). Results of studies in North

America have found that the more loyal and committed

employees are, the more satisfied they are, and the less

likely they are to be absent – i.e., loyalty and

commitment are positively correlated with satisfaction

(Rizzo, House, & Litzman, 1970; Porter & Steers, 1973;

Oliver & Brief, 1977; Bedeian & Armenakis, 1981;

Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; Bateman & Strasser,

1984; Clark & Larkin, 1992; Igbaria & Guimaraes,

1993; Deconinck & Bachmann, 1994; Fletcher &

Williams, 1996), thus suggesting that as organizational

commitment increases, job satisfaction increases

(Yousef, 2000; Bennett, 2002), and consequently,

absenteeism decreases (Hammer, Landau, & Stern,

1981; Terborg, Lee, Smith, Davis, & Turbin, 1982;

Farrell & Stamm, 1988; Dunham, Grube, & Castaneda,

1994; Somers, 1995), or, as organizational commitment

decreases, absences from work increase (Blau & Boal,

1987; Savery, Travaglione, & Firns, 1998; Lok &

Crawford, 2001; Bennett, 2002). Meta-analysis (Hack-

ett, 1989) shows similar outcomes on job satisfaction–

absenteeism relationship ( p = �.14) as the organiza-

tional commitment–absenteeism relationship

( p = �.11).

Personal characteristics have also been linked to

absenteeism (Furnham & Miller, 1997; Hackett, 1990;

Harrison & Martocchio, 1998; Hogan & Holland,

2003). Three personal characteristics that have received

considerable attention are need for achievement, locus

of control, and self-efficacy. A high need for achieve-

ment means that individuals work hard to achieve the

goals that they set for themselves, including work goals

– high need for achievement is expected to be related

negatively to absenteeism. Locus of control ranges from

internal to external – internal locus of control means

that individuals attribute causality to their own activities

while external locus of control means the individuals

attribute causality to factors outside of their control. The

more internal a person’s locus of control the more likely

they are to attend work in the face of difficulties, while

the more external a person’s locus of control the more

likely the are to be absent because they feel they have

little control over external factors. Self-efficacy refers to

the degree to which people feel that they are capable of

achieving what they set out to achieve – a high sense of

self-efficacy is expected to be negatively related to

absenteeism, as employees want to demonstrate their

capability at work and are reluctant to be absent.

Based on the literature, a series of hypotheses were

developed, relating personality characteristics, facets of

job satisfaction, and facets of organizational commit-

ment, to absenteeism.

1.1. Hypotheses

Hypotheses utilizing personality variables:

H1a. Need for achievement is negatively related to

absenteeism.

H1b. Internal locus of control is negatively related to

absenteeism.

H1c. Self-efficacy is negatively related to absenteeism.

Hypotheses utilizing satisfaction variables. Hypoth-

eses H2a–H2k are intrinsic satisfaction variables, and

H2l–H2t are extrinsic satisfaction variables.

H2a. Ability utilization satisfaction is negatively

related to absenteeism.

H2b. Achievement satisfaction is negatively related to

absenteeism.

H2c. Activity satisfaction is negatively related to

absenteeism.

H2d. Authority satisfaction is negatively related to

absenteeism.

H2e. Creativity satisfaction is negatively related to

absenteeism.

Page 4: Job attitudes and absenteeism: A study in the English speaking Caribbean

B.J. Punnett et al. / Journal of World Business 42 (2007) 214–227 217

H2f. Independence satisfaction is negatively related to

absenteeism.

H2g. Moral values satisfaction is negatively related to

absenteeism.

H2h. Responsibility satisfaction is negatively related

to absenteeism.

H2i. Social service satisfaction is negatively related to

absenteeism.

H2j. Social status satisfaction is negatively related to

absenteeism.

H2k. Variety satisfaction is negatively related to absen-

teeism.

H2l. Advancement satisfaction is negatively related to

absenteeism.

H2m. Company policy satisfaction is negatively

related to absenteeism.

H2n. Compensation satisfaction is negatively related

to absenteeism.

H2o. Co-worker satisfaction is negatively related to

absenteeism.

H2p. Recognition satisfaction is negatively related to

absenteeism.

H2q. Security satisfaction is negatively related to

absenteeism.

H2r. Supervision-technical satisfaction is negatively

related to absenteeism.

H2s. Supervision-human relations satisfaction is nega-

tively related to absenteeism.

H2t. Working conditions satisfaction is negatively

related to absenteeism.

Hypotheses utilizing organizational commitment

variables:

H3a. Loyalty is negatively related to absenteeism.

H3b. Job involvement is negatively related to absen-

teeism.

H3c. Job identification is negatively related to absen-

teeism.

2. Methodology

In the following discussion we identify the sample

details and procedures, and describe the measures used

in the study.

2.1. Sample and procedures

The survey was filled out individually by employees

at each organization. The employees gathered in small

groups, at convenient times, and the lead researcher, or

an assistant, explained the purpose of the project and the

procedure for completing the survey. The lead

researcher or an assistant remained to assist if anyone

needed help. A small number of persons needed help

because of literacy difficulties, and the survey items

were read to these persons. The researchers were careful

to simply read the questions, and not to influence

responses. A notation was made on these surveys, so

that they could be considered separately in the analysis.

The number of persons requiring assistance was too

small to influence the overall results. The survey was

relatively lengthy, and took between twenty minutes

and ninety minutes to complete. Surveys were

completed between mid-April and the end of May,

2004.

The companies provided the lead researcher with a

list of employees, and each employee was randomly

assigned a number. Respondents were asked to provide

this number on the completed surveys voluntarily. This

allowed the researchers to link the survey data with

absenteeism data. Respondents were assured of con-

fidentiality and that the surveys would be available only

to the research team and not to the companies. Each

company where the survey was completed provided

absenteeism data for individual employees. Absences of

less than a day were not considered in this research;

absence includes both medically certified and non-

certified absences.

A total of three hundred and fifty two (352) surveys

were completed; of these, eighty eight (88) declined to

provide their assigned numbers. Only those who

provided their assigned number were included in the

analysis relating to absenteeism – a total of two hundred

and sixty four (264). All three hundred and fifty two

respondents were included in the results not relating to

absenteeism. Of the sample population 50.4% were

male and 49.6% were female. The mean age for the

sample population was 36.5 years with a minimum age

of 17 and a maximum age of 63.

2.2. Measures

The Dependent variable, absence frequency, was

calculated by summing explained and unexplained

absences, over the previous year, into an overall

measure. The distinction between explained and

unexplained is whether the employee had an approved

Page 5: Job attitudes and absenteeism: A study in the English speaking Caribbean

B.J. Punnett et al. / Journal of World Business 42 (2007) 214–227218

Table 1

Measures of intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction

Intrinsic job satisfaction facets

Ability utilization – The chance to do something that makes use

of my abilities

Achievement – The feeling of accomplishment that I get from

the job

Activity – Being able to keep busy

Authority – The chance to tell other people what to do

Creativity – The chance to try my own methods of doing the job

Independence – The chance to work alone on the job

Moral values – Being able to do things that don’t go against

my conscience

Responsibility – The freedom to use my own judgment

Social service – The chance to do things for other people

Social status – The chance to be ‘‘somebody’’ in the community

Variety – The chance to do different things from time to time

Extrinsic job satisfaction facets

Advancement – The chances to advance on this job

Company policies and procedures – The way company policies

are put into practice

Compensation – My pay and the amount of work I do

Co-workers – The way my co-workers get along with each other

Recognition – The praise I get for doing a good job

Security – The way my job provides steady employment

Supervision (technical) – The competence of my supervisor

in making decisions

Supervision (human relations) – The way my boss handles his

people

Working conditions – The physical environment where I work

excuse for being absent. After discussing the distinction

with managers and employees, we concluded that the

distinction was largely subjective, and decided to

include all absences in the overall measure. We

examined each component for normality assumptions,

and based on the results, we aggregated the two

measures. The mean number of explained absences was

6.2 days per year (s.d. = 8.1) and the mean number of

unexplained absences was 4.7 (s.d. = 4.0), for a total

absence of 11 days per year. A Pearson correlation

coefficient between the two absenteeism items was

0.48, in line with Clark and Watson’s recommendations

(1995). Absence data was based on the year prior to

collecting data on the independent variables based on

earlier findings that absence behavior is stable over

time, and that previous absence is the best predictor of

future absence (Rentsch & Steel, 1998).

A survey instrument was compiled to measure the

independent variables – personality characteristics, job

satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Job satis-

faction was measured by the long-form Minnesota Job

Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ). The long-form MSQ

consists of 100 items measuring twenty (20) subscales.

Each subscale or facet was measured by 5 items. The

twenty facets of job satisfaction measured by the long

form MSQ are summarized in Table 1. Each item was

answered on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very

dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). Intrinsic and extrinsic

job satisfaction was computed separately by a mean score

for all items of subscales theorized to measure that

particular factor of job satisfaction (Table 1).

Organizational commitment was measured by a 23

item revised version of Buchanan’s (1974) organiza-

tional commitment questionnaire. The questionnaire

measured three facets of organizational commitment –

job involvement (6 items), job identification (6 items),

and loyalty (11 items). Each item was answered on a 5-

point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to

5 (strongly agree). Buchanan’s (1974) organizational

commitment questionnaire was revised because the

original version used a 7 point Likert scale from

strongly disagree to strongly agree, and it was felt that

assigning the same 5 point Likert scale to all measures

in the study would aid participants in completing the

questionnaire in a timely and accurate manner. Some

items were worded negatively and were reversed scored

at the data entry stage. The mean for all (23-items) was

computed to determine participants’ level of organiza-

tional commitment on a scale from 1 = low to 5 = high

organizational commitment.

Personality characteristics were measured using the

following scales:

Self-efficacy was measured by a 17-item scale

(Sherer et al., 1982). Each item was answered on a 5-

point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to

5 (strongly agree). Some items were worded negatively

and were reversed scored at the data entry stage. The

mean for all 17 items was computed to determine

participants’ perceived self-efficacy ranging on a scale

from 1 = low to 5 = high self-efficacy.

Need for achievement was measured by a 22-item

revised version of Jackson’s (1989) personality research

form. Each item was answered on a 5-point Likert scale

ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Jackson (1989) personality research form was revised

because the original version used a response of either

agree or disagree. It was felt that a 5-point Likert scale

would allow for the measurement of relative intensity of

responses to items and that consistency across scales

would make the questionnaire simpler for respondents.

Some items were worded negatively and were reversed

scored at the data entry stage. The mean for all 22 items

was computed to determine participants’ need for

achievement ranging on a scale from 1 = low to

5 = high.

Page 6: Job attitudes and absenteeism: A study in the English speaking Caribbean

B.J. Punnett et al. / Journal of World Business 42 (2007) 214–227 219

Locus of control was measured by a 24 item revised

version of Spector’s (1988) locus of control scale. Each

item was answered on a 5-point Likert scale ranging

from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Spector’s locus of control scale was revised because

the original version used a 6 point Likert scale from

disagree very much to agree very much, and it was felt

that assigning the same 5-point Likert scale to all

measures in the study would aid participants in

completing the questionnaire in a timely and accurate

manner. Some items were worded negatively and were

reversed scored at the data entry stage. The mean for all

24 items was computed to determine participants’

internal locus of control on a scale from 1 = low to

5 = high. A low score indicates that the participant

exhibits an external locus of control and a high score

indicates that the participant exhibits a greater internal

locus of control.

A cultural profile, consisting of the dimensions

(based on Hofstede, 1980) of individualism, uncertainty

avoidance, and power distance, was also examined

(Dorfman & Howell, 1988). The researchers believed

that understanding the cultural profile of a developing

country like Barbados would contribute to interpreting

the findings of the study. The cultural dimension –

masculinity/femininity – was excluded from the study,

as there has been concern that this dimension does not

corroborate with most people’s understanding of

masculinity and femininity (Adler, 2000), as well as

because the masculinity/femininity dimension is best

examined at the cultural, not the individual, level

(Hwang, 2004). Note that the exclusion of one or more

of the cultural dimensions of Hofstede’s (1980) cultural

model is relatively commonplace in cultural research,

for example, studies conducted by Earley (1989),

Gomez et al. (2000), Morris, Davis, and Allen (1994)

only measured individualism/collectivism while studies

conducted by Bochner and Hesketh (1994), Kanungo

and Wright (1983) only measured power distance, and a

study conducted by Birnbaum and Wong (1985)

measured power distance and uncertainty avoidance

only (Boyacigilller, Kleinberg, Phillips, & Sackman,

2004).

The complete survey instrument was pre-tested first

with a small group of administrative employees at one

company. Based on their responses, questions, and

comments, the instrument was modified. These respon-

dents strongly recommended that the responses for all

items should be a consistent one to five Likert scale, and

based on this recommendation we revised some of the

original scales. This was felt to be especially important

because some respondent’s literacy could be relatively

low, and different response arrays could be confusing.

Following the modifications, the instrument was further

pre-tested with a group of employees at one of the

manufacturing companies. Based on the results of the

second pre-test, the decision was made to continue with

the instrument as it was, and arrangements were made to

administer the survey throughout the five manufactur-

ing companies.

3. Results

A factor analysis to establish the convergent and

discriminant validity of the measures confirmed that the

original constructs could be used, except in the case of

Need for Achievement and Power Distance, where a

more reliable estimate of the underlying latent variable

was provided by a subset of questions. The Cronbach’s

alpha reliabilities of the various scales ranged from .62

(need for achievement) to .92 (recognition). Most of the

reliabilities were above .70, the commonly accepted

rule of thumb (Cortina, 1993). Although all reliabilities

may be considered acceptable for cross-cultural

research (Strauss, in press), the lower reliabilities for

need for Achievement (.62), and Power Distance (.65),

were improved following the results of the factor

analysis for these variables. The principal components

analysis for Need for Achievement showed more than

one factor, so we kept only the 7 variables which loaded

on the primary factor, resulting in a reliability estimate

of .70. The analysis of Power Distance resulted in a 5

item solution, with a reliability estimate of .66.

Although this is lower than the .70 cutoff, we decided

to report the results; however the somewhat low

reliability for PD must be recognized as a limitation,

and these scores should be interpreted with caution.

Table 2.1 shows reliabilities for each of the scales.

Results were compared across the companies – we

tested the heterogeneity between companies and did

not find enough variance to justify examining the

companies separately (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).

Results were therefore combined and are reported for

the five companies together, as one dataset. Signifi-

cance levels of .05 are used as a cutoff; however where

results are significant at the .01 level this is reported in

the results.

Due to the fact that there are not any negative values

in absence measures and because there is a high

frequency of low values, the distribution is truncated,

and an Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) estimator may be

both biased and inefficient (Hammer & Holland, 1981).

The Tobit estimator (Tobin, 1958) was ‘‘designed to

handle criterion variables that assume some value with a

Page 7: Job attitudes and absenteeism: A study in the English speaking Caribbean

B.J. Punnett et al. / Journal of World Business 42 (2007) 214–227220

Table 2.1

Descriptive statistics and correlations

Variable Mean s.d. ABSEN SE LC NA OC AU ACH ACT AD LOY

ABSEN 12.89 15.05

SE 4.23 .646 .05 (.80)

LC 3.58 .463 �.08 .21** (.74)

NA 3.48 .538 �.14* .22** .35** (.70)

OC 3.16 .481 �.12* �.02 .25** .19** (.84)

AU 3.61 .745 �.18** .02 .21** .21** .46** (.86)

ACH 3.73 .646 �.19** .13* .30** .29** .46** .68** (.79)

ACT 3.78 .847 �.18** .07 .22** .18** .25** .35** .39** (.79)

AD 2.97 .849 �.13* �.13* .20** .13* .55** .56** .51** .26** (.89)

LOY 3.05 .397 �.14* �.08 .24** .20** .88** .40** .42** .22** .48** (.79)

CPP 2.97 .820 �.07 �.06 .19** .03 .50** .40** .38** .26** .62** .45**

Note: N = 264, *p < .05, **p < .01, Cronbach Alpha reported in parenthesis. ABSEN, absenteeism; SE, self-efficacy; LC, locus of Control; NA, need

for achievement; OC, organizational commitment; AU, ability utilization ACH, achievement; ACT, activity; AD, advancement; LOY, loyalty; CPP,

company policies and practices; COM, compensation; COW, co-workers; CRE, creativity; IND, independence; MV, moral values; RES,

responsibility; REC, recognition; Sec, security; SOS, social serve; SST, social status; S-HR, supervision (human relations); S-TEC, supervision

(technical); VAR, variety; WC, working conditions; INTRS, intrinsic job satisfaction; EXTRS, extrinsic job satisfaction; JIN, job involvement; JID,

job identification; AUT, authority.

high probability (zero in the case of absence) and are

continuously distributed beyond this point with the

remaining probabilities’’ (Baba, 1990, p. 428). The

Tobit analysis may be considered more consistent,

reliable, and less biased because it does not encounter

heteroskedasticity (Leigh, 1985). At the same time,

Rasmussen and Dunlop (1991) showed that parametric

Table 2.2

Descriptive statistics and correlations

Variable Mean s.d. a ABSEN SE LC NA

COM 3.10 .854 .86 �.06 �.05 .16** .02

COW 3.31 .822 .85 �.29** �.02 .08 .02

CRE 3.49 .676 .81 �.18** .03 .22** .18**

IND 3.60 .624 .81 �.15* .20** .17** .27**

MV 3.76 .532 .72 �.14* .22** .30** .31**

RES 3.06 .962 .76 �.20** �.11 .14* .06

REC 3.51 .602 .92 �.21** .04 .22** .23**

SEC 3.55 .661 .79 �.14* .06 .28** .21**

SOS 3.80 .596 .77 �.13* .10 .29** .29**

SST 3.30 .575 .77 �.19** �.04 .17** .09

S-HR 3.08 .842 .83 �.10 �.14* .11 .04

S-TEC 3.24 .749 .87 �.12* �.01 .18** .16**

VAR 3.54 .660 .79 �.18** .08 .27** .26**

WC 2.98 .885 .90 �.18** �.10 .12* .07

INTRS 3.59 .488 .87 �.17** .11 .31** .31**

EXTRS 3.09 .661 .81 �.19** �.10 .19** .9

JIN 3.41 .717 .79 �.09 .02 .25** .19**

JID 3.12 .658 .83 �.08 �.06 .15** .17**

AUT 3.41 .560 .86 �.15* .05 .19** .29**

Note: N = 264, *p < .05, **p < .01, a, Cronbach Alpha. ABSEN, absenteeis

OC, organizational commitment; AU, ability utilization; ACH, achievement;

and practices; COM, compensation; COW, co-workers; CRE, creativity;

recognition; Sec, security; SOS, social serve; SST, social status; S-HR, superv

WC, working conditions; INTRS, intrinsic job satisfaction; EXTRS, extrins

authority.

analysis of transformed data had superior statistical

power to nonparametric analysis or parametric analysis

of the raw skewed data (Hardy, Woods, & Wall, 2003).

We decided to use the Tobit analysis in addition to the

analysis reported below, to confirm the findings. The

results were essentially the same, therefore we report

only the OLS for simplicity.

OC AU ACH ACT AD LOY CPP

.44** .29** .36** .13* .60** .33** .47**

.25** .71** .32** .11 .32** .19** .38**

.529** .51** .66** .30** .62** .47** .54**

.248** .55** .48** .31** .29** .19** .29**

.351** .50** .60** .34** .29** .30** .26**

.46** .66** .57** .24** .703** .40** .61**

.49** .55** .72** .36** .54** .44** .53**

.57** .71** .55** .35** .57** .50** .57**

.49** .62** .69** .47** .50** .41** .40**

.53** .46** .55** .21** .60** .41** .48**

.50** .58** .50** .31** .59** .43** .69**

.52** .58** .59** .35** .71** .47** .70**

.50** .70** .64** .31** .58** .41** .52**

.49** .41** .38** .16** .62** .45** .62**

.58** .84** .82** .54** .63** .50** .55**

.60** .58** .52** .29** .834** 51** .81**

.91** .41** .40** .18** .50** .74** .46**

.82** .39** .39** .25** .46** .56** .41**

.42** .62** .50** .33** .45** .34** .28**

m; SE, Self-efficacy; LC, locus of control; NA, need for achievement;

ACT, activity; AD, advancement; LOY, loyalty; CPP, company policies

IND, independence; MV, moral values; RES, responsibility; REC,

ision (human relations); S-TEC, supervision (technical); VAR, variety;

ic job satisfaction; JIN, job involvement; JID, job identification; AUT,

Page 8: Job attitudes and absenteeism: A study in the English speaking Caribbean

B.J. Punnett et al. / Journal of World Business 42 (2007) 214–227 221

Table 2.3

Descriptive statistics and correlations

Variable COM COW CRE IND MV RES REC SEC SOS SST S-HR S-TEC VAR WC INTRS EXTRS JIN JID

COM

COW .32**

CRE .35** .31**

IND .19** .25** .52**

MV .17** .24** .58** .59**

RES .52** .43** .57** .33** .32**

REC .35** .46** .77** .56** .54** .56**

SEC .54** .38** .52** .33** .43** .55** .55**

SOS .36** .35** .61** .49** .58** .49** .61** .58**

SST .47** .40** .59** .42** .45** .54** .59** .53** .55**

S-HR .43** .46** .56** .30** .31** .69** .57** .54** .44** .49**

S-TEC .46** .45** .65** .42** .43** .68** .65** .61** .55** .55** .81**

VAR .40** .34** .76** .57** .59** .51** .69** .51** .62** .57** .51** .63**

WC .48** .36** .50** .29** .26** .54** .49** .51** .38** .43** .56** .53** .51**

INTRS .44** .41** .83** .68** .73** .61** .84** .70** .82** .72** .59** .71** .83** .51**

EXTRS .69** .59** .66** .38** .36** .84** .66** .69** .56** .64** .84** .85** .64** .76** .71**

JIN .45** .25** .47** .26** .35** .40** .43** .51** .46** .52** .44** .47** .46** .44** .53** .55**

JID .37** .23** .44** .19** .26** .42** .42** .49** .42** .46** .44** .42** .44** .41** .49** .51** .64**

AUT .28** .34** .58** .47** .45** .40** .62** .49** .59** .55** .40** .48** .58** .33** .74** .48** .38** .36**

Note: N = 264, * p < .05, ** p < .01. ABSEN, absenteeism; SE, self-efficacy; LC, locus of control; NA, need for achievement; OC, organizational

commitment; AU, ability utilization; ACH, achievement; ACT, activity; AD, advancement; LOY, loyalty; CPP, company policies and practices;

COM, compensation; COW, co-workers; CRE, creativity; IND, independence; MV, moral values; RES, responsibility; REC, recognition; Sec,

security; SOS, social serve; SST, social status; S-HR, supervision (human relations); S-TEC, supervision (technical); VAR, variety; WC, working

conditions; INTRS, intrinsic job satisfaction; EXTRS, extrinsic job satisfac

Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations for

variables measured in this study are presented in

Tables 2.1–2.3. There were:

� s

ignificant negative relationships between absentee-

ism and need for achievement (r = �.124, p < .05),

overall organizational commitment (r = �.123,

p < .05), overall extrinsic job satisfaction

(r = �.191, p < .01), and overall intrinsic job

satisfaction (r = �.175, p < .01).

� T

he following facets of extrinsic satisfaction were

significantly negatively associated with absenteeism

(reported in order of size of r) – co-workers

(r = �.294, p < .01), recognition (r = �.202,

p < .01), working conditions (r = �.180, p < .01),

security (r = �143, p < .05), advancement

(r = �.139, p < .05), and technical supervision

(r = �.126, p < .05). The following facets of intrinsic

job satisfaction were significant (reported in order of

size of r) – responsibility (r = �.211, p < .01),

achievement (r = �.196, p < .01), social status

(r = �.190, p < .01), activity (r = �.189, p < . 01),

creativity (r = �.188, p < .01), variety (r = �.183,

p < .01) ability utilization (r = �.181, p < .01),

authority (r = �.157, p < .05), independence

(r = �.157, p < .05), moral values (r = �.147,

p < .05), and social service (r = �.134, p < .05).

Multiple regression analyses were computed to test

the effect of variables on absenteeism. The collinearity

diagnostics were examined by bivariate correlations

(reported in Tables 2.1–2.3), and variance inflation

factors – VIFs (reported in Table 3). Results of the

collinearity diagnostics indicated that there were no

multicollinearities between variables in the regression

models, as bivariate correlations between variables in

the regression models were not above .8 and VIFs were

below 10 (see Howell, 1999).

The results of the multiple regression analysis testing

for the effect of locus of control, self-efficacy, need for

achievement, facets of organizational commitment, and

facets of job satisfaction are reported in Table 3. The

overall regression equation for the model is statistically

significant (F = 3.689, p < .01), and explains 22.2% of

the variance in absenteeism. Additionally, the adjusted

R2 = .131, which is substantially smaller than the 22%

previously mentioned due to the large number of IVs in

relation to the number of subjects (Cohen, Cohen, West,

& Aiken, 2003). The following factors were shown to

have contributed significantly and negatively to the

prediction of absenteeism – organizational commitment

facet loyalty (b = �.167, p < .05); intrinsic job

satisfaction facets – activity (b = �.193, p < .01) and

responsibility (b = �.141, p < .05), and extrinsic job

satisfaction facets – co-workers (b = �.290, p < .01)

tion; JIN, job involvement; JID, job identification; AUT, authority.

Page 9: Job attitudes and absenteeism: A study in the English speaking Caribbean

B.J. Punnett et al. / Journal of World Business 42 (2007) 214–227222

Table 3

The effect of locus of control, need for achievement, self-efficacy, ogranzational commitment facets, intrinsic sactisfaction facets, and extrinsic

sastisfaction facets on absenteeism

Variables Coefficients

b Beta t p VIF

Personality characteristics

Locus of control �1.772 �.055 �.814 .418 1.563

Need for achievement �2.490 �.089 �1.131 .259 1.928

Self-efficacy �.300 �.010 �.124 .902 1.317

Organizational commitment facets

Loyalty �6.622 �.167 �2.419 .019* 2.675

Job identification �.475 �.021 �.254 �.800 2.143

Job involvement �2.402 �.114 �1.104 �.271 3.238

Intrinsic job satisfaction facets

Ability utilization �2.118 �.105 �.987 .325 3.385

Achievement �1.987 �.085 �.774 .440 3.513

Activity �3.421 .�193 �2.739 .007** 1.478

Authority �.297 �.011 �.128 .898 2.238

Creativity �.320 �.014 �.121 .904 4.196

Independence �.989 �.041 �.500 .618 1.987

Moral values �.402 �.014 �.158 .870 2.474

Responsibility �3.252 �.141 �1.995 .045* 4.368

Social service 1.203 .048 .471 .638 3.169

Social status �1.652 �.063 �.681 .496 2.547

Variety .126 .006 .051 .950 3.231

Extrinsic job satisfaction facets

Advancement .223 .013 .112 .910 3.675

Company policies and procedures 1.324 .072 .723 .470 2.781

Compensation 1.070 .061 .729 .467 2.614

Co-workers �5.307 �.290 �3.948 .000** 1.715

Recognition �2.590 �.166 �1.643 .102 3.118

Security �4.904 �.215 �2.338 .020* 2.521

Supervision – human relations 1.760 .098 .849 .397 4.116

Supervision – technical .621 .031 .241 .810 4.219

Working conditions �2.110 �.124 �1.446 .149 2.332

R Squared = .222

Adjusted R Squared = .131

F = 3.689, p < .001

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

and security (b = �.215, p < .05); i.e., as organizational

loyalty, satisfaction with co-workers, activity, respon-

sibility, and security decreases, absenteeism increases.

These results provided partial support for Hypothesis 1

(need for achievement was significantly related to levels

of absenteeism), moderate support for Hypotheses 2

(several facets of intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction

were significantly related to levels of absenteeism) and

partial support for Hypothesis 3 (organizational loyalty

was significantly related to levels of absenteeism).

4. Discussion

In the Barbados context, it was surprising to

managers that satisfaction with supervision was not

one of the especially important variables in relationship

to absenteeism. Managers believe that an employee’s

attitude towards their supervisor should be central to

attendance or absence – if an employee is dissatisfied

with supervision, he or she should stay away from work.

There are a number of possible explanations for not

finding such a relationship. Most simply, it may be that

supervision is not a big aspect of employees’ level of

satisfaction. Alternatively, it may be that employees are

reluctant to express dissatisfaction with their super-

visors, even where their responses are confidential, it

may be seen as too risky. Satisfaction with supervision

may also show up in other facets of the model. For

example, satisfaction with co-workers may well be

influenced by supervisory style. It may be that those

Page 10: Job attitudes and absenteeism: A study in the English speaking Caribbean

B.J. Punnett et al. / Journal of World Business 42 (2007) 214–227 223

who are more satisfied with co-worker relationships are

those who also get on well with their supervisors, and

are in the ‘‘in group’’ that is favored by the supervisor,

while those who are less satisfied may be part of the

‘‘out group’’. Satisfaction with ability utilization,

achievement, and so on, are an intrinsic part of a given

job, but these can also be a function of supervisory style,

and satisfaction with these facets of the job can

indirectly reflect satisfaction with supervision.

4.1. Scores on personal and cultural characteristics

Average scores on all the personal and cultural

characteristics are of interest in providing a profile of

the Barbados workforce, at least in these manufacturing

companies. Scores on the personal and cultural

characteristics can range from 1 = low to 5 = high. A

score of two or less is considered low, a score from two

to three is moderate, and a score above three is high.

Mean scores were as follows:

The scores on the personal characteristics were: self

efficacy – 4 (relatively high), need for achievement – 3.5

(moderate), locus of control – 3.6 (moderate – not

predominantly internal or external). These scores

indicate that, on average, employees are confident of

their ability (self efficacy), and that they attribute causes

for performance both to their own ability and outside

forces (locus of control), and that their need for

achievement is neither high nor low. This profile

suggests that employees will respond well to delegation

(self efficacy and locus of control) but that, on average,

they will not seek high levels of achievement. There

will, of course, be individuals who differ from these

scores, and individual employees may be high or low on

any of these personal variables.

The scores on the cultural characteristics were:

individualism – 3.2 (moderate), uncertainty avoidance –

4.2 (relatively high), power distance – 2.6 (relatively

low). The scores indicate, on average, neither strong

individualism nor collectivism, a relatively strong

preference for certainty, and a preference for equality

and power sharing rather than hierarchy (remember the

somewhat low reliability for power distance). The

scores on the cultural dimensions are identical to scores

obtained in other research projects in the Caribbean,

with quite different populations. The similarity of the

scores for different populations and countries provides

support for putting this forward as a good description of

the cultural value profile for the English-speaking

Caribbean. This cultural value profile suggests that

employees will react well to both individual and team

activities, that they will be most comfortable where

there is security and certainty, and that they will be

motivated when power is shared and hierarchy

differences are minimized.

The preference for certainty may be part of the

explanation for the importance of job security to these

current respondents. Similarly, the low score on power

distance may be related to the importance of authority

for these respondents. The importance of co-workers

may be explained by the moderate level of individu-

alism as well as the low power distance. This profile

suggests that the group (co-workers) is important and

that shared power is desired – such a cultural profile

could mean that relationships with co-workers are

especially important, and that satisfaction with co-

worker relationships plays a critical role in absenteeism.

From a practical perspective, the results of this study

lead to the question ‘‘what can be done to influence

absenteeism rates?’’ There is substantial evidence from

research in North America that improving job satisfac-

tion levels can have a direct and significant impact on

absenteeism levels. The current research results suggest

that in the Barbados context job satisfaction is also

linked to absenteeism. To the extent that job satisfaction

can be improved, absenteeism should decline.

In addition, previous research has shown that job

satisfaction results in employees who care more about

the quality of their work, are more productive, more

committed to the organization, and more likely to

remain with the company. It seems that increasing job

satisfaction can potentially provide financial benefits

for a company. One guide to performance management

(Singer, 2005) says, ‘‘Management’s role is to provide

the conditions to ensure optimal performance’’. A focus

on improving the workplace to ensure employee

satisfaction is a critical aspect of providing the

conditions for optimal performance.

A focus of much of the discussion of absenteeism in

Barbados has been on developing policies to deal with

the symptom – absenteeism. For example, it has been

suggested that methods must be devised to ensure that

doctors do not issue unjustified sickness certificates, to

ensure that workers do not report that they are sick when

they are not really ill, and to provide deterrents to

absenteeism, such as punishments for employees who

are absent frequently (one employer reported a

monetary reward system for employees with good

attendance record, but, in essence, this also punishes

those with high absenteeism rates). None of these

approaches deals with the question of why employees

choose to be absent rather than to attend work. Unless

the reasons for absenteeism are understood, and steps

taken to change the factors leading to absenteeism, we

Page 11: Job attitudes and absenteeism: A study in the English speaking Caribbean

B.J. Punnett et al. / Journal of World Business 42 (2007) 214–227224

are dealing only with the symptom, rather than the

problem. Dealing with absenteeism through these

methods can actually worsen the problem and create

others in the long run.

As an example, if employees who have been absent

more than the allowed number of times are punished,

the results may be negative rather than positive.

Employees may come to work because of the policy,

but they may feel that they have been treated unfairly,

and this makes them unhappy about their job and the

company. In turn, their productivity and quality may

suffer, they may experience substantial stress because of

this, and may actually become sick, and have to be

absent, as well as affecting the work of co-workers. The

end result thus can be negative.

Finally, our results suggest that managers should

focus on specific facets of both intrinsic and extrinsic

satisfaction in order to reduce absenteeism. For

instance, satisfaction with both activity and responsi-

bility (intrinsic variables) were significantly related to

absenteeism. Therefore, a manager should allow more

flexibility on how the employee allocates his or her time

on the job. The increased flexibility will increase the

perceived responsibility while at the same time permit

the employee to allocate his or her time in an optimal

manner to keep busy. Furthermore, our results show a

significant relationship between absenteeism and co-

worker and security satisfaction (extrinsic variables).

When employees are concerned about their job security,

a competitive environment emerges among the co-

workers, resulting in a negative satisfaction with co-

workers. A manager could moderate the relationships

between co-worker and security satisfaction with

absenteeism by providing greater job security.

As noted in the introduction, Barbados is classified as

a developing country, thus to some extent, this research

can be seen as extending the research on absenteeism to

developing countries. The results of this project suggest

that the job satisfaction/absenteeism relationship holds in

a developing country. This may have wider implications

for developing countries more generally. At the same

time, Barbados is a classified as an upper middle income

country, and it can be argued that it may be quite similar

to more developed countries, because of influence from

these countries, as well as a relatively robust economy.

We should be cautious in interpreting these results in the

broad context of the developing countries.

5. Limitations and future research

This project tried to include the main variables that

we thought might directly influence absenteeism levels

in Barbados, and, as such, the survey instrument was

quite long, and took a substantial amount of time to

complete. Nevertheless, there were a variety of other

variables and relationships that could have been

examined. For example, organizational justice and

perceptions of equity may influence absences (Geurts,

Buunx, & Schaufeli, 1994; Geurts, Schaufeli, & Rutte,

1999), individuals’ integrity may influence absences,

and environmental factors – such as the availability of

transportation – may also influence absences. All of

these provide avenues for further investigation. Addi-

tionally, an insightful reviewer posited the mediating

role of job satisfaction on the organizational commit-

ment-absence relationship. We tested this relationship

using Baron and Kenny’s (1986) protocol and found

partial support for general satisfaction, and full support

for both extrinsic and intrinsic satisfaction. Sobel’s

(1987) test for indirect effects also supported these

findings. Further research should be conducted on the

specific satisfaction facets in order to provide more

detail of the mediation.

Surveys, by their nature, are limited in terms of the

variables that are addressed. It is always possible that

the most important variable is not measured in the

survey. Variables unique to the Barbados, or Caribbean,

context could be uncovered using other research

techniques, such as interviews, focus groups, and in-

depth case studies. All of these can provide valuable

additional information on the causes of absenteeism. In

turn, these would contribute to the effective design and

implementation of interventions to decrease absentee-

ism.

A major potential limitation of the study was that it

could not be anonymous. Confidentiality could be

assured, but in order to link the variables measured with

actual absenteeism statistics, it was necessary for the

researchers to have individual information. The

participants did not seem to have undue concern in

this regard, but we cannot be sure that this did not bias

responses.

Past absenteeism has been demonstrated to be the

best predictor of future absenteeism, and this suggests

that the results from this study should hold true if we

looked at job attitudes relative to absenteeism in a

period of time following the survey. Nevertheless, the

approach here of relating attitudes to past absenteeism is

a weakness. An alternative approach would be to

measure attitudes, then measure absenteeism, and look

at the predictive value of a proposed model. Unfortu-

nately, this approach introduces its own problems, as

measuring attitudes may influence future absenteeism,

especially in an environment where attitudinal mea-

Page 12: Job attitudes and absenteeism: A study in the English speaking Caribbean

B.J. Punnett et al. / Journal of World Business 42 (2007) 214–227 225

surement is rare, as is the case in Barbados. The

researchers, nevertheless, intend to continue the

research in this direction, as well as others.

The researchers also intend to rigorously examine

the effectiveness of various interventions. It is inter-

esting to note that the literature does not clearly identify

interventions that have had a major impact on

absenteeism. This is a major area for future research

in all contexts.

The current project is seen as the beginning of a

series of projects which can provide both theoretical and

practical knowledge and information for Barbados, and

perhaps the Caribbean region, in its links to a global

business environment. The current project examined

one specific aspect of the workplace, and considered

well established relationships identified in North

America, from a Caribbean perspective. The results

of this project serve to support the local links of a theory

with global roots. There are many other workplace

phenomena that could be examined in a similar way. It

is particularly important to extend management theory

from the developed world to the developing world to

establish a truly global understanding of management.

This project examines a specific theory that has been

well researched in the developed world in a developing

country context.

References

Adler, N. (2000). International dimensions of organizational beha-

viour (fourth ed.). South Western Canada.

Baba, V. V. (1990). Methodological issues in modeling absence: A

comparison of least squares and Tobit analysis. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 75(4): 428.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator

variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,

strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality &

Social Psychology, 51(6): 1173–1182.

Bateman, T. S., & Strasser, S. (1984). A longitudinal analysis of the

antecedents of organizational commitment. Academy of Manage-

ment Journal, 27(1): 95–112.

Bedeian, A. G., & Armenakis, A. A. (1981). A path-analytic study of

consequences of role conflict and ambiguity. Academy of Manage-

ment Journal, 24: 417–424.

Bennett, H. (2002). Employee commitment: The key to absence

management in local government.. Leadership and Organiza-

tional Development Journal, 23(8): 430–441.

Birnbaum, P. H., & Wong, G. Y. Y. (1985). Organizational structure of

multinational banks in Hong Kong from a culture-free perspective.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(2): 262–277.

Blau, G. J. (1986). Job involvement and organizational commitment as

interactive predictors of tardiness and absenteeism. Journal of

Management, 12: 577–584.

Blau, G., & Boal, K. (1987). Conceptualizing how job involvement

and organizational commitment affect turnover and absenteeism.

Academy of Management Review, 12(2): 288–300.

Bochner, S., & Hesketh, B. (1994). Power distance, individualism, and

job-related attitudes in a culturally diverse work group. Journal of

Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2(2): 233–257.

Boyacigilller, N., Kleinberg, J., Phillips, M., & Sackman, S. (2004).

Conceptualizing culture: Elucidating the streams of research in

international cross-cultural management. In B. J. Punnett & O.

Shenkar (Eds.), Handbook for International Management

Research, (2nd ed., pp. 99–168). Ann Arbor: The University of

Michigan Press.

Brooke, P. (1989). The determinants of employee absenteeism: an

empirical test of a causal model. Journal of Occupational Psy-

chology, 62: 1–19.

Buchanan. (1974). Organizational commitment questionnaire. In J. D.

Cook, S. Hepworth, T. Wall, & P. Warr (Eds.), The Work Experi-

ence. (pp. 88–89). New York: Academic Press.

Burke, R. J. (2001). Managerial women’s career experiences, satis-

faction and well-being: A five country study. Cross Cultural

Management, 8(3–4): 117–133.

Clark, C. E., & Larkin, J. M. (1992). Internal auditors: Job satisfaction

and professional commitment. Internal Auditing, 8(1): 9–17.

Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues

in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3):

309.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., & Aiken, L. (2003). Applied multiple

regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mah-

way, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of

theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 98–

104.

Deconinck, J., & Bachmann, D. P. (1994). Organizational commit-

ment and turnover intentions of marketing managers. Journal of

Applied Business Research, 10(3): 87–95.

Dunham, R., Grube, J., & Castaneda, M. (1994). Organizational

commitment, the unity of an integrative definition. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 79: 370–380.

Dorfman, R. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of national

culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited.

Advances in International Comparative Management, 3: 127–150.

Earley, P. C. (1989). Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of

the United States and the People’s Republic of China. Adminis-

trative Science Quarterly in Business, 34: 565–581.

Farrell, D., & Stamm, C. L. (1988). Meta-analysis of the correlates of

employee absence. Human Relations, 41: 211–227.

Fletcher, C., & Williams, R. (1996). Performance management, job

satisfaction and organizational commitment. British Journal of

Management, 7(2): 169–179.

Furnham, A., & Miller, T. (1997). Personality, absenteeism and

productivity. Productivity and Individual Differences, 23(4):

705–707.

Geurts, S. A., Buunx, B. P., & Schaufeli, W. B. (1994). Social

comparisons and absenteeism: A Structural Modelling Approach.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24: 1871–1890.

Geurts, S. A., Schaufeli, W. B., & Rutte, C. G. (1999). Absenteeism,

turnover intent and inequity in the employment relationship. Work

and Stress, 13(3): 253–267.

Gomez, C., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2000). The impact of

collectivism and in-group/out-group membership on the evalua-

tion generosity of team members. Academy of Management, 43(6):

1097–1106.

Hackett, R. D. (1989). Work attitudes and employee absenteeism: A

synthesis of the literature. Journal of Occupational Psychology,

62(3): 235.

Page 13: Job attitudes and absenteeism: A study in the English speaking Caribbean

B.J. Punnett et al. / Journal of World Business 42 (2007) 214–227226

Hackett, R. D. (1990). Age, tenure, and employee absenteeism.

Human Relations, 43(7): 601–619.

Hackett, R. D., & Guion, R. M. (1985). A reevaluation of the

absenteeism-job satisfaction relationship. Organizational Beha-

vior and Human Decision Processes, 35: 340–381.

Hammer, T., & Holland, J. (1981). Methodological issues in the use of

absence data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(5): 574.

Hammer, T., Landau, J., & Stern, R. (1981). Absenteeism when

workers have a voice: The case of employee ownership. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 66: 561–573.

Hardy, G. E., Woods, D., & Wall, T. D. (2003). The impact of

psychological distress on absence from work. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88(2): 306.

Harrison, D. A., & Martocchio, J. J. (1998). Time for absenteeism: A

20-year review of origins, offshoots and outcomes. Journal of

Management, 24(3): 305–350.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differ-

ences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality

and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Jour-

nal of Applied Psychology, 88(1): 100–112.

Howell, D. (1999). Fundamental Statistics for the Behavioural

Sciences (4th ed.). USA: Duxbury Press.

Hwang, Y. (2004). An empirical examination of individual-level

cultural orientation as an antecedent to ERP systems adoption.

12th Annual Cross-Cultural Meeting in Information Systemshttp://

tigger.uic.edu/�evaristo/program12.htm.

Igbaria, M., & Guimaraes, T. (1993). Antecedents and consequences

of job satisfaction among information center employees. Journal

of Management Information Systems, 9(4): 145–174.

Jackson, D. N. (1989). Personality research form manual, sigma

assessment systems. Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press.

Judge, T. A., Parker, S. K., Colbert, A. E., Heller, D., & Ilies, R.

(2002). Job satisfaction: A cross-cultural review. In Anderson, N.,

& Ones, D. Eds. Handbook of industrial, work and organizational

psychology, volume 2: organizational psychology.. (pp.25–52). .

Kanungo, R. N., & Wright, R. W. (1983). A cross-cultural comparative

study of managerial job attitudes. Journal of International Busi-

ness Studies, 14(2): 115–129.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to

theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and

emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.),

Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foun-

dations, extensions, and new directions. (pp. 3–90). San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Leigh, J. P. (1985). The effects of unemployment and the business

cycle on absenteeism. Journal of Economics & Business, 3(2):

159.

Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (2001). Antecedents of organizational com-

mitment and the mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 16(8): 594–613.

Morris, M. H., Davis, D. L., & Allen, J. W. (1994). Fostering corporate

entrepreneurship: Cross-cultural comparisons of the importance of

individualism versus collectivism. Journal of International Busi-

ness Studies, 25(1): 65–89.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-

organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absentee-

ism and turnover. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Muhonen, T., & Torkelson, E. (2004). Work locus of control and its

relationship to health and job satisfaction from a gender perspec-

tive. Stress & Health. Journal of the International Society for the

Investigation of Stress, 20(1): 21–28.

Oliver, R. L., & Brief, A. P. (1977). Determinants and consequences of

role conflict and ambiguity among retail sales managers. Journal

of Retailing, 53: 47–58.

Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (2003). Personality and

absenteeism: A meta-analysis of integrity tests. European Journal

of Personality, 17(1): S19–S38.

Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1973). Organizational, work, and

personal factors in employee turnover and absenteeism. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 80: 151–176.

Punnett, B. J., Dick-Forde, E., & Robinson, J. (2006). Culture and

management in the English speaking Caribbean. Journal of East-

ern Caribbean Studies, 31(2): 44–71.

Rasmussen, J. L., & Dunlap, W. P. (1991). Dealing with nonnormal

data: Parametric analysis of transformed data vs. nonparametric

analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(4):

809.

Rentsch, J. R., & Steel, R. P. (1998). Testing the durability of job

characteristics as predictors of absenteeism over a six year period.

Personnel Psychology, 51(1): 165.

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

ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 15: 150–163.

Rode, J. C. (2004). Job satisfaction and life satisfaction revisited: A

longitudinal test of an integrated model. Human Relations, 57(9):

1205–1230.

Savery, L., Travaglione, A., & Firns, I. (1998). The links between

absenteeism and commitment during downsizing. Personnel

Review, 27(4): 312–324.

Scott, K., & Taylor, G. (1985). An examination of conflicting findings

on the relationship between job satisfaction and absenteeism:

A meta analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 28(3): 599–

612.

Sherer, M., Maddux, J., Merchante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B.,

& Rogers, R. (1982). The self-efficacy scale: Construction and

validation. Psychological Reports 51: 663–671.

Singer, S. M. (accessed November, 2005). Managing and Measuring

Employee Performance. http://www.hrvs-rhsbc.ca/hr_practices/.

Somers, M. (1995). Organizational commitment, turnover and absen-

teeism: an examination of direct and indirect effect. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 16: 49–58.

Spector, P. E. (1988). Development of work locus of control scale.

Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61: 335–340.

Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, cause,

and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Sanchez, J. I., O’Driscoll, M., Sparks, K.,

Bernin, K., Bussing, A., Dewe, P., Hart, P., Luo, L., Miller, K., de

Morales, L. R., Ostrognay, G. M., Pagon, M., Pitariu, H. D.,

Poelmans, S., Radhakrishnan, P., Russinova, V., Salamatov, V., &

Salgado, J. F. (2002). Locus of control and well-being at work:

How generalizable are western findings? Academy of Management

Journal, 45: 453–466.

Sobel, M. E. (1987). Direct and indirect effects in linear structural

equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1):

155.

Steers, R. (1997). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational com-

mitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22: 46–56.

Steers, R. M., & Rhodes, S. R. (1978). Major influences on employee

attendance: A process model. Journal of Applied Psychology,

63(4): 391.

Steers, R. M., & Rhodes, S. R. (1984). Knowledge and speculation

about absenteeism. In P. S. Goodman & R. S. Atkin (Eds.),

Absenteeism: New approaches to understanding, measuring,

Page 14: Job attitudes and absenteeism: A study in the English speaking Caribbean

B.J. Punnett et al. / Journal of World Business 42 (2007) 214–227 227

and managing employee absence. (pp. 229–275). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Strauss, M. A. (in press). Cross cultural reliability and validity of the

multidimensional neglectful behavior scale adult recall short form.

Child Abuse and Neglect.

Terborg, J. R., Lee, T. W., Smith, F. J., Davis, G. A., & Turbin, M. S.

(1982). Extension of the Schmidt and Hunter validity general-

ization procedure to the prediction of absenteeism behavior from

knowledge of job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 67: 440–449.

Tobin, J. (1958). Estimation of relationships for limited dependent

variables. Econometrica, 26: 24–36.

Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: separating

evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences. Human Resource

Management Review, 12(2): 173–194.

Weiss, D., Davis, R., England, G., & Lofquist, L. (1967). Manual for

Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Work Adjustment Project

Industrial Relations Centre Minnesota. University of Minnesota.

World Bank. (2005). World development report 2005: A better invest-

ment climate for everyone. New York: Oxford University Press.

Yousef, D. (2000). Organizational commitment: a mediator of the

relationships of leadership behavior with job satisfaction and

performance in a non-western country. Journal of Managerial

Psychology, 15(1): 6–28.