Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Stony Brook University]On: 25 October 2014, At: 02:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
The Journal of SocialPsychologyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20
Social Support at Work andAffective Commitment to theOrganization: The ModeratingEffect of Job ResourceAdequacy and AmbientConditionsVincent Rousseau a & Caroline Aubé ba University of Montrealb HEC MontréalPublished online: 08 Aug 2010.
To cite this article: Vincent Rousseau & Caroline Aubé (2010) Social Support atWork and Affective Commitment to the Organization: The Moderating Effect of JobResource Adequacy and Ambient Conditions, The Journal of Social Psychology, 150:4,321-340, DOI: 10.1080/00224540903365380
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224540903365380
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:54
25
Oct
ober
201
4
321
The Journal of Social Psychology, 2010, 150(4), 321–340Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
VSOC0022-4545The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 150, No. 4, May 2010: pp. 0–0The Journal of Social Psychology
ARTICLES
Social Support at Work and Affective Commitment to the Organization: The
Moderating Effect of Job Resource Adequacy and Ambient Conditions
The Journal of Social PsychologyRousseau & Aubé VINCENT ROUSSEAUUniversity of Montreal
CAROLINE AUBÉHEC Montréal
ABSTRACT. This study investigated whether both supervisor and coworker support maybe positively related to affective commitment to the organization on one hand; and on theother hand, it examined the moderating effect of job resource adequacy and ambientconditions on these relationships. The sample included 215 participants working within ahealth care organization. Results of regression analysis showed that supervisor andcoworker support have an additive effect on affective commitment. Hierarchical regres-sion analyses indicated that supervisor and coworker support are more strongly related toaffective commitment when job resource adequacy is high. Furthermore, ambient condi-tions moderate the relationship between supervisor support and affective commitment insuch a way that favorable ambient conditions strengthen this relationship. Overall, thesefindings reinforce the importance of taking into account contingent factors in the study ofantecedents of affective commitment to the organization.
Keywords: affective organizational commitment, coworker support, supervisor support, work
MANY STUDIES SHOW THAT EMPLOYEES’ COMMITMENT to the organi-zation is strongly related to job performance (see the meta-analysis of Riketta,2002) and to behavioral outcomes, such as turnover (see the meta-analysis ofGriffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000) and absenteeism (see the meta-analysis of Meyer,
Address correspondence to Vincent Rousseau, University of Montreal, School of Indus-trial Relations, C.P. 6128, succ. Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec, H3C 3J7, Canada;[email protected] (e-mail).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:54
25
Oct
ober
201
4
322 The Journal of Social Psychology
Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). Considering the benefits for the indi-viduals and the organizations, managers may want to take action to reinforceemployees’ affective commitment toward their employing organization. In order tobe effective, these promotional efforts should be based on a fine-tuned understand-ing of the determinants of organizational commitment and the contingent factors.Though research indicates that organizational commitment may be enhanced byimmediate supervisors’ and coworkers’ social support (see the meta-analyses ofChiaburu & Harrison [2008] and Ng & Sorenson [2008]), the specific influence inthe workplace of each one of these two sources of social support in regard toemployees’ organizational commitment remains unclear. Indeed, most of thestudies consider either the immediate supervisor (e.g., Kidd & Smewing, 2001;Rafferty & Griffin, 2004; Stinglhamber & Vandenberghe, 2003) or the coworkers(e.g., Mueller, Finley, Iverson, & Price, 1999; Wallace, 1995), which does not makepossible the identification of the unique contribution of each source of social support.
Furthermore, prior studies focused mainly on main effects of supervisor andcoworker support on organizational commitment without taking account of mod-erating factors (e.g., Rafferty & Griffin, 2004). The cross-study variability ineffect size of the main effects emphasizes the importance of understanding therole of situational characteristics. According to the contingency approach (e.g.,Schaubroeck & Fink, 1998; Zeffane, 1994), the presence of situational factorscan strengthen (or weaken) the effects of supervisors’ and coworkers’ actions onindividual outcomes. Thus, the efficacy of the support provided by immediatesupervisor and coworkers to improve employees’ affective commitment may beconstrained by environmental conditions.
The goals of this study are twofold. First, we aim to test the additive effect ofsupervisor and coworker support on affective commitment to the organization. Byexamining this additive effect, we expect that the support provided by the immedi-ate supervisor and by the coworkers may independently build up affective commit-ment. Second, consistent with the contingency approach, we examine in this studythe moderating role of two contextual characteristics at work— namely, jobresource adequacy and ambient conditions. More precisely, we propose that themagnitude of the effect of supervisor and coworker support on affective commit-ment depends on the adequacy of job resources and the favorableness of ambientconditions. We consider these two distinct work context characteristics becausethey reflect proximal conditions to the employees and are conducive to workaccomplishment (Bacharach & Bamberger, 1995; Carlopio, 1996). This study con-stitutes a step forward in the refinement of the understanding of the antecedents oforganizational commitment.
Affective Commitment: The Role of Supervisor Support and Coworker Support
Affective commitment may be defined as an emotional attachment to theemploying organization (Allen & Meyer, 1996; Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:54
25
Oct
ober
201
4
Rousseau & Aubé 323
2001). A high level of affective commitment is characterized by feelings ofbelonging, pride, and loyalty. When employees are highly committed, they tendto identify with their organization and to be actively involved in the workplace(Allen & Meyer, 1990). Moreover, as Allen and Meyer (1996) stated, “employ-ees with strong affective commitment remain with the organization because theywant to do so” (p. 253).
Meyer and colleagues’ (2002) meta-analysis shows that work experiencesmay substantially influence the affective attachment to an organization. Indeed,according to Allen and Meyer (1996), “affective commitment is expected to becorrelated with those work experiences in, and characteristics of, the organiza-tion that make the employee feel ‘psychologically comfortable’ and that enhancehis or her sense of competence” (p. 263). Considering that employees tend toengage in enduring exchanges with their immediate supervisor and coworkers,these social interactions in the workplace are likely to shape employees’ workexperiences.
Both immediate supervisor and coworkers can provide support that createspositive work experiences and that may lead individuals to become affectivelytied to the organization. Supervisor support encompasses, for instance, caringabout subordinates, valuing their contributions, helping them on work-relatedissues, and facilitating their skill development (Oldham & Cummings, 1996;Rafferty & Griffin, 2004). Coworker support refers to the degree of assistanceenacted by work colleagues (Liao, Joshi, & Chuang, 2004). The support fromcoworkers includes the provision of caring, tangible aid, and information(Ducharme & Martin, 2000; Parris, 2003). The support provided by immediatesupervisors and coworkers may increase employees’ comfort within the organi-zation by fulfilling needs for esteem, approval, and affiliation (Stinglhamber &Vandenberghe, 2003). Thus, employees have an emotionally satisfying workexperience and, with time, they develop an emotional attachment to theiremploying organization. Prior studies show that supervisor support is related toaffective commitment to the organization (e.g., Kidd & Smewing, 2001; Mottaz,1988; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996; Rafferty & Griffin, 2004;Schaubroeck & Fink, 1998; Stinglhamber & Vandenberghe, 2003). The rela-tionship between coworker support and affective commitment is also corrobo-rated by empirical studies (e.g., Mottaz, 1988; Mueller et al., 1999; Schaubroeck &Fink, 1998; Wallace, 1995).
In this study, we test whether supervisor support and coworker support havean additive effect on affective commitment, which means that they are bothlikely to explain significant proportions of variance in employees’ affective com-mitment to the organization. Indeed, immediate supervisor and coworkers havedifferent statuses in organizations, and the support they can provide may beenacted differently (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Ng & Sorenson, 2008). In otherwords, individuals may develop exchange relationships with their immediatesupervisor that are different from those they experience with their coworkers.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:54
25
Oct
ober
201
4
324 The Journal of Social Psychology
Immediate supervisors are agents of the organization who are entrusted tomanage their employees’ performance and to maintain performing employeeswithin the organization (Thomas, Bliese, & Jex, 2005). Employees generally per-ceive them as representatives of the organization (Eisenberger, Stinglhamber,Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002). Thus, the support provided by thesupervisors may be interpreted as formal interventions to sustain employees’functioning in the organizational setting because supervisors are in position ofauthority over employees. Coworkers are employees’ colleagues who are at thesame level of hierarchy and interact with them on work-related issues (Chiaburu& Harrison, 2008). Coworker support is likely to be perceived as informalbecause there is no authority relationship with colleagues. Moreover, coworkersperform the same kind of work or complementary tasks. By experiencing similarsituations at work, coworkers may provide focused situation-related support.Considering these distinctions between supervisors and coworkers, the supportprovided by each of these two sources may have a unique effect on employees’affective commitment. This additive effect of supervisor support and coworkersupport on affective commitment has not been specifically examined in reviewedresearch. Though Richardsen, Burke, and Martinussen’s (2006) study providessome evidence consistent with this additive effect, they have not established theunique contribution of these sources of support in explaining affective commit-ment variance. Consequently, the following hypothesis is formulated:
Hypothesis 1: Supervisor support and coworker support have an additiveeffect on affective commitment to the organization.
The Moderating Effect of Job Resource Adequacy
In this study, we propose that job resource adequacy may moderate the rela-tionships between both supervisor and coworker support and affective commit-ment to the organization. Job resource adequacy may be defined as the extent towhich individuals have the means at their disposal in their immediate work situa-tion to fully utilize their relevant abilities and motivation to accomplish work-related goals (Bacharach & Bamberger, 1995; Villanova & Roman, 1993).Resources needed by individuals to perform their tasks may include equipmentand tools, materials, facilities, support services, space, and time (Fuller, Marler,& Hester, 2006; Jex, Adams, Bachrach, & Sorenson, 2003; Martínez-Tur, Peiró,& Ramos, 2005; Spreitzer, 1996). These resources are generally beyond thecontrol of employees in the sense that they have to deal with the resources athand (Bacharach & Bamberger, 1995; Philips & Freedman, 1984). Moreover,when job resources are inadequate, employees may be more or less able tocompensate for them (Martínez-Tur et al., 2005). Therefore, a lack of jobresources makes it more demanding for employees to complete their tasks and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:54
25
Oct
ober
201
4
Rousseau & Aubé 325
may shrink performance to levels below their full potential (Jex et al., 2003;Martínez-Tur et al., 2005).
The expected moderating effect of job resource adequacy may be described asfollows: Supervisor support and coworker support may be more strongly related toaffective commitment when job resources are adequate than when they are not. Inother words, inadequate job resources may limit the influence of social support atwork on affective commitment. Specifically, when the supply of job resources isinadequate, the accomplishment of valued work-related goals may be inhibited orimpeded (Peters & O’Connor, 1980; Philips & Freedman, 1984). This situation islikely to make individuals feel frustrated and powerless (Peters, O’Connor, &Eulberg, 1985; Spreitzer, 1996). Thus, coping with inadequate job resources erodesthe positive reactions that could be stimulated by supervisor and coworker support.This context reduces the efficacy of social support from supervisors and coworkersto increase affective commitment. However, when job resource adequacy is high,individuals can orient their energy toward obtaining desired outcomes (Peters &O’Connor, 1980). In this situation, they are more likely to fully appreciate the sup-port provided by their supervisor and their coworkers. Indeed, the positive workexperiences generated by the social support may be translated in affective commit-ment (Wegge, van Dick, Fischer, West, & Dawson, 2006). None of the reviewedstudies tested the moderating effect of job resource adequacy on the relationshipsbetween both supervisor and coworker support and affective commitment to theorganization. Therefore, we formulate the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2: Job resource adequacy moderates the relationship betweensupervisor support and affective commitment, such that this relationshipis stronger for individuals having a high level of job resource adequacythan for those having a low level of job resource adequacy.
Hypothesis 3: Job resource adequacy moderates the relationship betweencoworker support and affective commitment, such that this relationship isstronger for individuals having a high level of job resource adequacy thanfor those having a low level of job resource adequacy.
The Moderating Effect of Ambient Conditions
Ambient conditions represent another facet of employees’ proximal envi-ronment at work that may moderate the effect of supervisor support andcoworker support on affective commitment. Ambient conditions include, forinstance, lighting, temperature, sound, and air quality (Donald & Siu, 2001;Lee & Brand, 2005; Sundstrom, Bell, Busby, & Asmus, 1996; Zalesny,Farace, & Kurchner-Hawkins, 1985). To perform their tasks effectively,employees need favorable physical environmental conditions, such as anadequate level of lighting (neither dazzling nor dim), an appropriate level oftemperature (not too cold, not too hot), and a low level of noise (McCoy &
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:54
25
Oct
ober
201
4
326 The Journal of Social Psychology
Evans, 2005; Parsons, 2000; Vischer, 2007). Indeed, a misfit between theseconditions and individuals’ needs may create an uncomfortable situation thatmay impede the accomplishment of task-related goals because the individualshave to devote time and energy to solve these discrepancies, which are unre-lated to goal attainment.
We expect that the favorableness of ambient conditions may strengthen therelationships between both supervisor and coworker support and affectivecommitment. Specifically, when ambient conditions are unfavorable, employeesmay be repeatedly distracted from goal attainment and may feel demotivated(Lee & Brand, 2005; Parsons, 2000). In this situation, the support provided bythe immediate supervisor and the coworkers may not engender a valuable workexperience that could reinforce affective commitment because employees have tostruggle repeatedly with distractions from ambient features (McCoy & Evans,2005). Conversely, when the ambient conditions are comfortable, employeeswork in a setting that is conducive to perform work-related tasks (Carlopio, 1996;Vischer, 2007). Thus, employees are favorably disposed to benefit from the sup-port provided by their supervisor and their coworkers, which may stimulate posi-tive work experiences that are reflected in affective commitment. We are notaware of studies that have explicitly tested these moderating effects of ambientconditions. Consequently, the following hypotheses are formulated:
Hypothesis 4: Ambient conditions moderate the relationship between super-visor support and affective commitment, such that this relationship isstronger when the favorableness of ambient conditions is high than whenthe favorableness of ambient conditions is low.
Hypothesis 5: Ambient conditions moderate the relationship betweencoworker support and affective commitment, such that this relationship isstronger when the favorableness of ambient conditions is high than whenthe favorableness of ambient conditions is low.
In sum, adequate job resource and favorable ambient conditions representbasic conditions required to accomplish assigned tasks. When job resources andambient conditions are inadequate, the efficacy of the support provided by imme-diate supervisors and coworkers is somewhat constrained, which may attenuatethe effect of these two sources of support on affective commitment.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Data were collected from employees working in a Canadian health careorganization. Top management and unions supported the research and wereinterested in exploring the factors influencing work-related attitudinal outcomes.A letter was sent to all employees inviting them to participate in this study by
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:54
25
Oct
ober
201
4
Rousseau & Aubé 327
completing a survey during regular work hours. This letter indicated that the goalof the study was to explore different facets of the quality of work life. A trainedresearch assistant, who was unaware of the hypotheses of the study, was respon-sible for administering the survey in the workplace. It should be noted that partic-ipants were informed in the invitation letter and prior to the administration of thesurvey that their participation in the survey was voluntary and their responseswould remain confidential.
The sample included 215 participants, which represents a 48% response rate.The participants held a variety of occupations, such as health care practitioners(e.g., nurses, counselors), laboratory technologists, administrative support, andmaintenance staff. All participants were unionized. A majority of the participantswere female (83%). The average age of participants was 38.5 years (standarddeviation = 11.3). The mean tenure was 12.8 years (standard deviation = 11.0).All of the sample participants were employed full time.
Measures
The study was conducted in a French-speaking setting. Therefore, the exam-ples of items shown below have been translated into English or are the originalEnglish items. For the following measures, responses were scored on a 5-pointscale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).
Supervisor support. Supervisor support was assessed with six items developedby Oldham and Cummings (1996). A sample item is “My supervisor helps mesolve work-related problems.” Following the procedure recommended by Brislin(1986), a bilingual expert translated these items from English to French andanother bilingual expert back-translated them into English. Then, the two expertscompared the original English version and the back-translated version in order tofine-tune the French version.
Coworker support. A measure of coworker support was specifically designed inFrench for this study in order to capture many forms of support that employeescould provide to each other in the setting of this study. The six-item scale wasdeveloped by three subject matter experts based on social support literature (e.g.,Ducharme & Martin, 2000; Haddad, 1998; Ladd & Henry, 2000; Ray & Miller,1994). The items are (1) “My colleagues help me when I need them”; (2) “Mycolleagues care about my physical and mental well-being”; (3) “My colleaguesrecognize my contributions and my strengths”; (d) “My colleagues communicatework-related information to me”; (4) “My colleagues help me to develop myskills and my competencies”; and (5) “My colleagues share their knowledge andtheir work experience with me.” A pilot study conducted with a sample of 48employed undergraduate students yielded a coefficient alpha of .89, which sup-ports the reliability of this scale.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:54
25
Oct
ober
201
4
328 The Journal of Social Psychology
Job resource adequacy. Job resource adequacy was measured by six items basedon the work of Tesluk and Mathieu (1999) and Peters and O’Connor (1980).These items were formulated in French by three subject matter experts. Thisscale takes account of basic resources required to accomplish work-related goals.The items are (1) “I have adequate materials and supplies to do my job”; (2) “Ihave adequate tools and equipment to accomplish my work”; (3) “I can get ade-quate training to do my job”; (4) “I have access to technical support whenneeded”; (5) “I have the space needed to execute my tasks”; and (6) “I have thetime needed to complete the assigned work.” A pilot study conducted with a sam-ple of 48 employed undergraduate students indicated that the coefficient alphawas .72, which was acceptable.
Ambient conditions. A f5-item scale was used to measure ambient conditions.Four of the items were taken from Donald and Siu (2001) and 1 item from Carlopio(1996) was added. These items were translated in French by using the back-translation procedure described above. The features considered in this scale aretemperature, lighting, sound, ventilation, and cleanliness. Sample items include“I am satisfied with the lighting in my work area,” and “I am satisfied with thecleanliness of the facilities at work.” A pilot study conducted with a sample of 48employed undergraduate students showed that the coefficient alpha for this scalewas .80, which was more than acceptable.
Affective commitment to the organization. Meyer, Allen, and Smith’s (1993) 6-itemscale was used to measure affective commitment to the organization. The Frenchversion of this scale has been used in Aubé, Rousseau, and Morin’s (2007) study.A sample item includes “I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization.”Two of the items were reverse-coded so that high scores on the scale reflectaffective organizational commitment.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
In order to ensure that the measures assess distinct constructs (i.e., supervi-sor support, coworker support, job resource adequacy, ambient conditions, andaffective commitment), we conducted confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) byusing AMOS 7.0 and a maximum likelihood estimation. Thus, we comparedseveral models of which the number of latent variables varies. Specifically, themodels tested are the following: (1) a five-factor model representing the five con-structs under study; (2) a one-factor model with only one latent factor gatheringall the items; and (3) a three-factor model with one factor for supervisor andcoworker support (i.e., a social support factor), one factor for job resourceadequacy and ambient conditions (i.e., a contextual factor), and one factor for
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:54
25
Oct
ober
201
4
Rousseau & Aubé 329
affective commitment (i.e., an outcome factor). Fit indices indicated that theadjustment to the data is better for the five-factor model (Tucker-Lewis index[TLI] = .90; comparative fit index [CFI] = .91; root-mean-square error of approx-imation [RMSEA] = .060) than for the one-factor model (TLI = .56; CFI = .59;RMSEA = .124) and the three-factor model (TLI = .79; CFI = .81; RMSEA =.086). Furthermore, the chi-square difference test showed that the five-factormodel was superior to the one-factor model (cdiff
2[10] = 919.20, p < .001) andthe three factor-model (cdiff
2[7] = 301.15, p < .001). Consequently, the five con-structs are considered empirically distinct.
The summary statistics (i.e., means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alpha,and intercorrelations) for the variables under study are shown in Table 1. Allmeasures demonstrate an acceptable level of internal consistency (.77 < Cronbach’salpha < .90). As expected, the simple correlations reveal that supervisor andcoworker support are significantly and positively related to affective commitment(r = .44 and .36 respectively, p < .01). Consistent with prior studies (e.g., Richardsenet al., 2006; Thompson & Prottas, 2005), the coefficient of correlation betweensupervisor support and coworker support (r = .54, p < .01) indicates that theseconstructs are correlated, but they are sufficiently distinct to test their additiveeffect on affective commitment.
Additive Effect of Supervisor Support and Coworker Support
Hypothesis 1 posited that supervisor and coworker support have an addi-tive effect on affective commitment. The procedure used to test this hypothesisconsisted of regressing both supervisor and coworker support on affectivecommitment. The additive effect is supported when each independent variableshows a significant regression coefficient. Results indicated that both supervi-sor support (b = .35, p < .01) and coworker support (b = .17, p < .05) are
TABLE 1. Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), Reliabilitiesa, and Correlations Between Variablesb
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Supervisor support 3.98 .85 (.90)2. Coworker support 4.16 .66 .54 (.87)3. Job resource adequacy 3.95 .74 .45 .55 (.78)4. Ambient conditions 3.87 .82 .32 .38 .67 (.77)5. Affective commitment 3.65 .82 .44 .36 .33 .37 (.80)
Note. aReliability estimates (Cronbach’s alphas) are in parentheses.bAll correlations are significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).N = 215 participants.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:54
25
Oct
ober
201
4
330 The Journal of Social Psychology
positively and significantly related to affective commitment (see Table 2 ).These two sources of support in the workplace explain 21.6% of the affectivecommitment variance. Table 3 indicates that when coworker support is enteredafter supervisor support into the regression model, coworker support incremen-tally accounts for 2.1% of the affective commitment variance. Likewise, theaddition of supervision support after coworker support in the regression modelincrementally explains 8.8% of the affective commitment variance. Conse-quently, these results support Hypothesis 1.
Moderating Effect of Job Resource Adequacy and Ambient Conditions
According to Hypotheses 2 to 5, job resource adequacy and ambient condi-tions may moderate the relationships between both supervisor and coworker
TABLE 2. Regression of Affective Organizational Commitment on Supervisor Support and Coworker Support
Model B SEB b a R2
Dependent variable: Affective commitmentSupervisor support .34 .07 .35**
Coworker support .21 .09 .17* .216**
Note. aStandardized regression coefficient.*p < .05, two-tailed. **p < .01, two-tailed. N = 215 participants.
TABLE 3. Summary of Changes in R2 for Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Affective Organizational Commitment on Supervisor Support and Coworker Support
Model R2 ΔR2
Dependent variable: Affective commitmentStep 1: Supervisor support .195Step 2: Coworker support .216 .021*
Dependent variable: Affective commitmentStep 1: Coworker support .129Step 2: Supervisor support .216 .088**
* p < .05, two-tailed. **p < .01, two-tailed. N = 215 participants.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:54
25
Oct
ober
201
4
Rousseau & Aubé 331
support and affective commitment. Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003) pro-pose the use of a two-step hierarchical multiple regression analysis to test a mod-erating effect. Specifically, in the first step, affective commitment was regressedon one independent variable (supervisor or coworker support) and one moderat-ing variable (job resource adequacy or ambient conditions). The second step con-sisted of adding to this regression model an interaction term produced from themultiplication of the scores of the independent and moderating variables thatwere centered beforehand. A moderating effect is detected when the regressioncoefficient of the interaction term is significant. Then, the results are interpretedby representing the regression equations graphically in order to establish whetherthe moderating effect is consistent with the hypothesis.
The results presented in Table 4 indicate that job resource adequacy signifi-cantly moderates the relationship between supervisor support and affectivecommitment (b = .17, p < .01), as well as the relationship between coworker sup-port and affective commitment (b = .19, p < .01). These moderating effectsexplain respectively 2.6% and 3.4% of the affective commitment variance. Fur-thermore, ambient conditions significantly moderate the relationship betweensupervisor support and affective commitment (b = .18, p < .01). This moderatingeffect adds 2.8% to the explained variance of affective commitment. However,the results revealed that ambient conditions did not moderate the relationshipbetween coworker support and affective commitment (b = .07, p > .05).
In order to interpret the significant moderating effects, it is preferable tographically represent them according to the procedure suggested by Cohen et al.(2003). This procedure consists of calculating the regression equations involvingone of the independent variables (supervisor and coworker support) and the
TABLE 4. Moderating Effect of Job Resources Adequacy
Model B SEB b a ΔR2
Dependent variable: Affective commitmentStep 1: Supervisor support (SS) .39 .07 .40**
Job resource adequacy (JRA) .18 .07 .16* .217**
Step 2: SS × JRA .21 .08 .17** .026**
Dependent variable: Affective commitmentStep 1: Coworker support (CS) .37 .09 .30**
Job resource adequacy (JRA) .21 .08 .19* .154**
Step 2: CS × JRA .31 .10 .19** .034**
Note. aStandardized regression coefficient.*p < .05, two-tailed. **p < .01, two-tailed. N = 215 participants.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:54
25
Oct
ober
201
4
332 The Journal of Social Psychology
dependent variable (affective commitment) according to the levels low, moderate,and high of the moderating variable (job resource adequacy and ambient conditions)that correspond respectively to one standard deviation below the average, theaverage, and one standard deviation above the average. Figure 1 demonstratesthat the greater the job resource adequacy, the stronger the relationship betweensupervisor support and affective commitment. As for Figure 2, it shows that jobresource adequacy exerts the same type of moderating effect on the relationshipbetween coworker support and affective commitment. Figure 3 indicates that thestrength of the relationship between supervisor support and affective commit-ment increases as a function of the level of favorableness of ambient conditions.
In addition to plotting the moderating effects, we conducted simple slopesanalyses (Cohen et al., 2003). First, the simple slopes of the regression of affectivecommitment onto supervisor support were significant when job resource adequacywas high (b = .55, t[213] = 5.73, p < .01), moderate (b = .39, t[213] = 5.89, p < .01),and low (b = .24, t[213] = 3.00, p < .01). Second, the simple slope concerning therelationship between coworker support and affective commitment was significantwhen job resource adequacy was high (b = .60, t[213] = 4.50, p < .01) and moder-ate (b = .37, t[213] = 3.97, p < .01), but the simple slope was non-significant at thelow level of job resource adequacy (b = .14, t[213] = 1.33, p >.05). Third, the rela-tionship between supervisor support and affective commitment was significantwhen the level of ambient conditions is high (b = .55, t[213] = 5.98, p < .01),moderate (b = .40, t[213] = 6.43, p < .01), and low (b = .23, t[213] = 3.08, p < .01).Therefore, the examination of Figures 1 to 3 and the results of simple slopesanalyses make it possible to corroborate Hypotheses 2, 3 and 4 concerning themoderating effect of job resource adequacy and ambient conditions.
TABLE 5. Moderating Effect of Ambient Conditions
Model B SE B b a ΔR2
Dependent variable: Affective commitmentStep 1: Supervisor support (SS) .40 .06 .41**
Ambient conditions (AC) .24 .06 .24** .252**
Step 2: SS × AC .19 .07 .18** .028**
Dependent variable: Affective commitmentStep 1: Coworker support (CS) .33 .08 .27**
Ambient conditions (AC) .27 .07 .27** .190**
Step 2: CS × AC .11 .10 .07 .004
Note. aStandardized regression coefficient.*p < .05, two-tailed. **p < .01, two-tailed. N = 215 participants.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:54
25
Oct
ober
201
4
Rousseau & Aubé 333
FIGURE 1. Relationship between supervisor support and affectivecommitment for low, moderate, and high levels of job resourceadequacy (JRA).
3
4
5
Low HighSupervisor Support
Aff
ecti
ve C
om
mit
men
t
Low JRA
High JRA
Moderate JRA
FIGURE 2. Relationship between coworker support and affectivecommitment for low, moderate, and high levels of job resourceadequacy (JRA).
3
4
5
Low HighCoworker Support
Aff
ecti
ve C
om
mit
men
t
Low JRA
High JRA
Moderate JRA
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:54
25
Oct
ober
201
4
334 The Journal of Social Psychology
Discussion
The goals of the present study were to test the specific influence of supervi-sor and coworker support on affective commitment to the organization and toinvestigate the moderating effect of job resource adequacy and ambient condi-tions on these relationships. As expected, the results concerning the possible ben-eficial effects of supervisor and coworker support on affective commitment areconsistent with those in other studies (e.g., Kidd & Smewing, 2001; Mueller etal., 1999; Rafferty & Griffin, 2006; Richardsen et al., 2006; Schaubroeck & Fink,1998; Stinglhamber & Vandenberghe, 2003; Wallace, 1995). However, thecurrent study stands out from the others by corroborating the additive effect ofboth these sources of social support on affective commitment and by specifyingthe unique contributions of supervisor and coworker support. Indeed, results showedthat supervisor support and coworker support are directly and simultaneouslyrelated to affective commitment, each contributing independently to theexplained variance. Specifically, while statistically controlling for the othersource of support, the unique contribution to affective commitment explainedvariance is 8.8% for supervisor support and 2.1% for coworker support. Thus, itappears that supervisors may contribute more than coworkers to the strengthen-ing of employees’ emotional attachment toward their employing organization.
In addition, the study results revealed that job resource adequacy can exert amoderating effect. Specifically, supervisor, and coworker support may more
FIGURE 3. Relationship between supervisor support and affectivecommitment for low, moderate, and high levels of ambient conditions(AC).
3
4
5
Low HighSupervisor Support
Aff
ecti
ve C
om
mit
men
t
High AC
Low AC
Moderate AC
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:54
25
Oct
ober
201
4
Rousseau & Aubé 335
strongly influence affective commitment when individuals have adequate jobresources. These findings are in line with the contingency approach, which statesthat situational factors may modulate the efficacy of individuals’ actions toachieve desired outcomes (e.g., Schaubroeck & Fink, 1998; Zeffane, 1994). Thecapacity of supervisor and coworker support to enhance affective commitmentdepends on job resource adequacy, which is a situational factor. Inadequate jobresources may be a major impediment to task accomplishment because individu-als do not have at their disposal, in their proximal work situation, all the means toproduce output required to meet task-related goals (Bacharach & Bamberger,1995; Villanova & Roman, 1993). This inadequacy cannot be overcome throughsupport provided by the supervisor and the coworkers. When individuals are hin-dered in attaining valued outcomes, they are likely to feel frustrated and demoti-vated (Peters et al., 1985; Spreitzer, 1996), which prevents supervisor andcoworker support from boosting affective commitment to the organization.
While job resource adequacy appeared to moderate the effect of both supervi-sor and coworker support on affective commitment, the results revealed that ambi-ent conditions exercise a moderating role specifically on the relationship betweensupervisor support and affective commitment. More precisely, favorable ambientconditions reinforce this relationship. This finding is consistent with the hypothe-sis formulated. Thus, previous studies have shown that adverse ambient conditionsmay have a detrimental effect on employees (Lee & Brand, 2005; Parsons, 2000;Vischer, 2007), and the current study indicates that these conditions may modulatethe efficacy of supervisor support to increase affective commitment. However, theresults showed that ambient conditions did not moderate the relationship betweencoworker support and affective commitment. This effect of coworker support onaffective commitment may not be contingent on the ambient conditions. This non-significant moderating effect may be explained by a process of social comparison(e.g., see Buunk & Gibbons, 2007). Indeed, through social interactions, individu-als may realize that they and their work colleagues have to attain work-relatedgoals in the same setting. In other words, the members of a work unit may experi-ence the same ambient conditions, whereas the ambient conditions are likely to bedifferent between supervisors and employees. This common experience withcoworkers may neutralize the interference effect of inappropriate ambient condi-tions on the relationship between coworker support and affective commitment.Thus, no matter the adequacy of ambient conditions, employees may be inclinedto benefit from the support of their coworkers, which in turn enhances affectivecommitment. Further studies are necessary to investigate this potential moderatingeffect of ambient conditions to permit valid conclusions to be drawn.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
It is worth noting some limitations to this study and proposing avenues forfuture research. First, the cross-sectional design of this study precludes drawing
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:54
25
Oct
ober
201
4
336 The Journal of Social Psychology
conclusions about causality. Although the current study considers that supervisorand coworker support can positively influence affective commitment, the resultsobtained could also be interpreted by considering an effect of affective commit-ment on the perception of supervisor and coworker support, or by suggesting theeffect of a third variable. In order to specify the direction of the relationshipsbetween these variables, it would be beneficial to carry out longitudinal studies.A second limitation relates to the common method bias. Considering that all thedata were collected by the same method (i.e., by questionnaire), it is possible thatthe strength of the relationships between the variables is over-estimated. In orderto be able to assess the possible effect of this bias, future research would gain byusing different sources of evaluation (e.g., supervisors, work colleagues) and bycollecting data at various times. Third, in this study, supervisor support andcoworker support were considered unidimensional constructs. In future research,discrete dimensions of social support could be investigated in order to determinewhich type of social support has a stronger positive effect on affective commit-ment. In this view, Ducharme and Martin (2000) distinguish two dimensions ofsupport—namely, instrumental and emotional support. Lastly, some factors canlimit the generalization of the results. Indeed, this study was conducted within ahealth care organization where the proportion of women is very high (83%) andthe support provided by coworkers is high (M = 4.16), which is not necessarilyrepresentative of other work settings. Moreover, considering that all participantswere unionized, it is plausible that the presence of unions may have amplified themoderating effects of job resource adequacy and ambient conditions becauseemployees may use formal mechanisms for signaling inadequate working condi-tions and making them more salient. It would be advantageous to verify whetherthe results obtained can be reproduced in other organizations.
Practical Implications and Conclusion
The results of this study help to further refine our understanding of thespecific influence of the social interactions at work on affective commitment andto demonstrate the moderating effects of job resource adequacy and ambientconditions. As Mathieu and Zajac (1990) concluded, “[g]aining a better under-standing of how commitment develops and is maintained over time has vastimplications for employees and organizations alike” (p. 192). Thus, organiza-tions may profit from designing interventions that involve both immediate super-visors and coworkers in order to improve affective commitment (e.g., teambuilding-based approach). In this view, considering that supervisor supportappears to be more influential than coworker support in enhancing affectivecommitment, it is advisable to devote increased resources (time and money) inorder to make the supervisors more supportive. For instance, supervisors may betrained in providing support (Kawakami, Kobayashi, Takao, & Tsutsumi, 2005). Fur-thermore, interventions aimed at enhancing affective commitment by increasing
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:54
25
Oct
ober
201
4
Rousseau & Aubé 337
social support should take into account job resource adequacy and ambient con-ditions. Indeed, a favorable context is important for the success of these interven-tions directed at interpersonal relationships. Being aware of the detrimentaleffects of inadequate job resources or adverse ambient conditions, managers cantake actions aimed at increasing the resources needed by individuals to accom-plish their goals and at improving physical working conditions to make themconducive to task accomplishment. Therefore, job resource inadequacy andadverse ambient conditions may not only be an important cause of employeedissatisfaction, but they may also limit the influence that social interventions canhave on work-related outcomes, such as affective commitment.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research was supported by a grant from fonds québécois de la recherchesur la societé et la culture.
AUTHOR NOTES
Vincent Rousseau is an associate professor in the School of IndustrialRelations at the University of Montreal. He holds a PhD in Industrial and Organi-zational Psychology from University of Montreal. Caroline Aubé is an associateprofessor in the Department of Management at HEC Montréal. She holds a PhDin Industrial and Organizational Psychology from University of Montreal.
REFERENCES
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, contin-uance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of OccupationalPsychology, 63, 1–18.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment tothe organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior,49, 252–276.
Aubé, C., Rousseau, V., & Morin, E. M. (2007). Perceived organizational support and orga-nizational commitment: The moderating effect of locus of control and work autonomy.Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 479–495.
Bacharach, S. B., & Bamberger, P. (1995). Beyond situational constraints: Job resourcesinadequacy and individual performance at work. Human Resource ManagementReview, 5, 79–102.
Brislin, R.W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instrument. In W. Lonner &J. Berry (Eds.), Fields methods in cross-cultural research (p. 137–164). Beverly Hill,CA: Sage.
Buunk, A. P., & Gibbons, F. X. (2007). Social comparison: The end of a theory and theemergence of a field. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102,3–21.
Carlopio, J. R. (1996). Construct validity of a physical work environment satisfactionquestionnaire. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 330–344.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:54
25
Oct
ober
201
4
338 The Journal of Social Psychology
Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesisand meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and perfor-mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1082–1103.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.
Donald, I., & Siu, O. L. (2001). Moderating the stress impact of environmental conditions:The effect of organizational commitment in Hong Kong and China. Journal of Environ-mental Psychology, 21, 353–368.
Ducharme, L. J., & Martin, J. K. (2000). Unrewarding work, coworker support, and jobsatisfaction. Work and Occupations, 27, 223–243.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L.(2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational supportand employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 565–573.
Fuller, J. B., Marler, L. E., & Hester, K. (2006). Promoting felt responsibility for construc-tive change and proactive behavior: Exploring aspects of an elaborated model of workdesign. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1089–1120.
Griffeth, R., Hom, P., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and corre-lates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for thenext millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463–488.
Haddad, A. (1998). Sources of social support among school counsellors in Jordan and itsrelationship to burnout. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 20,113–121.
Jex, S. M., Adams, G. A., Bachrach, D. G., & Sorenson, S. (2003). The impact of situa-tional constraints, role stressors, and commitment on employee altruism. Journal ofOccupational Health Psychology, 8, 171–180.
Kawakami, N., Kobayashi, Y., Takao, S., & Tsutsumi, A. (2005). Effects of web-basedsupervisor training on supervisor support and psychological distress among workers: Arandomized controlled trial. Preventive Medicine: An International Journal Devoted toPractice and Theory, 41, 471–478.
Kidd, J. M., & Smewing, C. (2001). The role of the supervisor in career and organizationalcommitment. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 25–40.
Ladd, D., & Henry, R. A. (2000). Helping coworkers and helping the organization: Therole of support perceptions, exchange ideology, and conscientiousness. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 30, 2028–2049.
Lee, S. Y., & Brand, J. L. (2005). Effects of control over office workspace on perceptions of thework environment and work outcomes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 323–333.
Liao, H., Joshi, A., & Chuang, A. (2004). Sticking out like a sore thumb: Employeedissimilarity and deviance at work. Personnel Psychology, 57, 969–1000.
Martínez-Tur, V., Peiró, J.M., & Ramos, J. (2005). Linking situational constraints tocustomer satisfaction in a service environment. Applied Psychology: An InternationalReview, 54, 25–36.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents,correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin,108, 171–194.
McCoy, J. M., & Evans, G. W. (2005). Physical work environment. In J. Barling,E. K. Kelloway, & M. R. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress (pp. 219–245). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occu-pations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 78, 538–551.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:54
25
Oct
ober
201
4
Rousseau & Aubé 339
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, contin-uance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents,correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52.
Mottaz, C. J. (1988). Determinants of organizational commitment. Human Relations, 41,467–482.
Mueller, C. W., Finley, A., Iverson, R. D., & Price, J. L. (1999). The effects of group racialcomposition on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and career commitment.Work and Occupations, 26, 187–219.
Ng, T. W. H., & Sorenson, K. L. (2008). Toward further understanding of the relation-ships between perceptions of support and work attitudes. Group & OrganizationManagement, 33, 243–268.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextualfactors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634.
Parris, M. A. (2003). Work teams: Perceptions of a ready-made support system? EmployeeResponsibilities and Rights Journal, 15, 71–83.
Parsons, K. C. (2000). Environmental ergonomics: A review of principles, methods, andmodels. Applied Ergonomics, 31, 581–594.
Peters, L. H., & O’Connor, E. J. (1980). Situational constraints and work outcomes: Theinfluences of a frequently overlooked construct. Academy of Management Review, 5,391–397.
Peters, L. H., O’Connor, E. J., & Eulberg, J. R. (1985). Situational constraints: Sources,consequences, and future considerations. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowlands (Eds.),Research in personnel and human resources management (pp. 79–114). Greenwich,CT: JAI Press.
Philips, J. S., & Freedman, S. M. (1984). Situational performance constraints and taskcharacteristics: Their relationship to motivation and satisfaction. Journal of Manage-ment, 10, 321–331.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leaderbehaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction,commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management,22, 259–298.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Commonmethod biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recom-mended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Dimensions of transformational leadership:Conceptual and empirical extensions. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 329–354.
Ray, E. B., & Miller, K. I. (1994). Social support, home/work stress, and burnout: Whocan help? The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 30, 357–373.
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organiza-tion: The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology,86, 825–836.
Richardsen, A. M., Burke, R. J., & Martinussen, M. (2006). Work and health outcomesamong police officers: The mediating role of police cynicism and engagement. Interna-tional Journal of Stress Management, 13, 555–574.
Riketta, M. (2002). Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 257–266.
Schaubroeck, J., & Fink, L. S. (1998). Facilitating and inhibiting effects of job control andsocial support on stress outcomes and role behavior: A contingency model. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 19, 167–195.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment.Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483–504.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:54
25
Oct
ober
201
4
340 The Journal of Social Psychology
Stinglhamber, F., & Vandenberghe, C. (2003). Organizations and supervisors as sourcesof support and targets of commitment: A longitudinal study. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 24, 251–270.
Sundstrom, E., Bell, P. A., Busby, P. L., & Asmus, C. (1996). Environmental psychology:1989–1994. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 485–512.
Tesluk, P. E., & Mathieu, J. E. (1999). Overcoming roadblocks to effectiveness: Incorpo-rating management of performance barriers into models of work group effectiveness.Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 200–217.
Thomas, J. L., Bliese, P. D., & Jex, S. M. (2005). Interpersonal conflict and organizationalcommitment: Examining two levels of supervisory support as multilevel moderators.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 2375–2398.
Thompson, C. A., & Prottas, D. J. (2005). Relationships among organizational familysupport, job autonomy, perceived control, and employee well-being. Journal of Occu-pational Health Psychology, 10, 100–118.
Villanova, P., & Roman, M. A. (1993). A meta-analytic review of situational constraintsand work-related outcomes: Alternatives approaches to conceptualization. HumanResource Management Review, 3, 147–175.
Vischer, J. C. (2007). The effects of the physical environment on job performance:Towards a theoretical model of workspace stress. Stress and Health, 23, 175–184.
Wallace, J. E. (1995). Organizational and professional commitment in professional andnonprofessional organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 228–255.
Wegge, J. van Dick, R., Fisher, G. K., West, M. A., & Dawson, J. F. (2006). A test ofbasic assumptions of affective events theory (AET) in call centre work. British Journalof Management, 17, 237–254.
Zalesny, M. D., Farace, R. V., & Kurchner-Hawkins, R. (1985). Determinants ofemployee work perceptions and attitudes: Perceived work environment and organiza-tional level. Environment and Behavior, 17, 567–592.
Zeffane, R. M. (1994). Understanding employee turnover: The need for a contingencyapproach. International Journal of Manpower, 15, 22–37.
Received May 7, 2008 Accepted June 5, 2009
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ston
y B
rook
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
2:54
25
Oct
ober
201
4
