T.C. MARMARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ

SOSYAL BİLİMLER ENSTİTÜSÜ İNGİLİZCE İŞLETME ANABİLİM DALI

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR BİLİM DALI

THE EFFECTS OF PERSON-JOB FIT, PERSON-ORGANIZATION FIT AND SOCIAL SUPPORT ON JOB STRESS:

A STUDY IN CALL CENTERS

Yüksek Lisans Tezi

ELİF YILDIRIMBULUT

İstanbul, 2006

T.C.

MARMARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ SOSYAL BİLİMLER ENSTİTÜSÜ

İNGİLİZCE İŞLETME ANABİLİM DALI ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR BİLİM DALI

THE EFFECTS OF PERSON-JOB FIT, PERSON-ORGANIZATION FIT AND SOCIAL SUPPORT ON JOB STRESS:

A STUDY IN CALL CENTERS

Yüksek Lisans Tezi

ELİF YILDIRIMBULUT

Tez Danışmanı: Yrd. Doç. Dr. A. Alev Torun

İstanbul, 2006

5

TEŞEKKÜR

Bu tezi, evlendiğimiz günden bu yana benden koşulsuz sevgisi ve desteğini esirgemeyen eşim İbrahim Yıldırımbulut’a adıyorum. Yazacağım hiçbir teşekkür yazısı, ona olan duygularımı tam olarak ifade edemez.

Tezimin her aşamasında gösterdiği sınırsız sabır, ilgi ve rehberlik için tez danışmanım Sayın Yardımcı Doçent Dr. Alev Torun’a, binlerce teşekkürü bir borç biliyorum.

Ayrıca, tezin anket sonuçlarının bilgisayara aktarılmasında bana yardımcı olan erkek kardeşim Erdem Orbay’a, literatür taraması aşamasında deneyimi ve imkanlarından faydalandığım arkadaşım Yardımcı Doçent Dr. Berrin Erdoğan’a, moderatör analizlerinde benden desteğini esirgemeyen bölüm asistanı Dr. Kutlu Çalışkan’a, üç yıllık yüksek lisans eğitimim sırasında yanımda olan tüm Örgütsel Davranış Bölümü öğrenci ve hocalarına teşekkür ederim. Tez savunma jürimin üyeleri Sayın Yardımcı Doçent Dr. Deniz Börü’ye ve özellikle de Sayın Profesör Dr. Suna Tevrüz’e, değerli fikirleriyle bana katkıda bulundukları için minnettarım.

Son olarak, tezimi yazarken yeterince ilgilenemediğim, ama o minicik yüreğinde bana karşı herhangi bir kızgınlık olmadığını bildiğim sevgili oğlum Mert Yıldırımbulut’a, hayatıma getirdiği güzellik ve renkler için teşekkür etmek istiyorum.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

No. LIST OF TABLES ii LIST OF FIGURES iii 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 4 2.1. Person- job fit 4 2.1.1. Definition of the concept 4 2.1.2. Relationship with other organizational variables 6 2.2. Person- organization fit 9 2.2.1. Definition of the concept 9 2.2.2. Relationship with other organizational variables 12 2.3. Social support 17 2.3.1. Definition of the concept 17 2.3.2. Relationship with other organizational variables 19 2.4. Job stress 23 2.4.1. Definition of the concept 23 2.4.2. The Person-Environment Fit Theory of job stress 27 2.4.3. Job stress in call centers 35 2.5. The theoretical model and hypotheses 39 2.5.1. The main effect of person- job fit on job stress 39 2.5.2. The main effect of person- organization fit on job stress 39 2.5.3. The moderating effect of social support on the relationships among person-job fit, person-organization fit, and job stress

40

3. METHODOLOGY 42 3.1. Sample 42 3.2. Instruments 43 3.3. Procedure 47 3.4. Statistical analyses 47 4. FINDINGS 48 4.1. Factor and reliability analyses 48 4.2. Means, standard deviations, and correlations 52 4.3. Multiple regression analyses 55 5. CONCLUSION 65 5.1. Discussion 65 5.2. Limitations and recommendations 70 REFERENCES 72 APPENDICES 83

ii

LIST OF TABLES Page

No. Table 1. Distributions of gender/ marital status/ education level/ position. 42 Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and ranges of age/ tenure/ total experience. 43 Table 3. The transformation of algebraic differences into fit scores. 46 Table 4. Factor analysis and reliability analysis results of person-job fit scale. 49 Table 5. Factor analysis and reliability analysis results of person- organization fit scale.

50

Table 6. Factor analysis and reliability analysis results of social support scale. 51 Table 7. Factor analysis and reliability analysis results of job stress scale. 52 Table 8. Means, standard deviations, and correlations of all factors. 53 Table 9. Results of multiple regression analyses for testing the main effects of person-job fit, person-organization fit, and social support on job stress dimensions.

55

Table 10. Results of hierarchical multiple regression analyses for testing the moderating effects of social support on the relationships among person-job fit, person-organization fit, and job stress.

57

iii

LIST OF FIGURES Page

No. Figure 1. Person-job fit. Adapted from Edwards (1991). 5 Figure 2. Person-organization fit conceptualizations. Adapted from Kristof (1996). 10 Figure 3. An illustration of how buffering effects occur. Adapted from Cohen and Wills (1985).

20

Figure 4. The definitional approaches to stress. 24 Figure 5. The person-environment fit model of job stress. Adapted from Caplan and Harrison (1993).

29

Figure 6. The theoretical model of the present study. 41 Figure 7. The plot of the interaction between “decisiveness” and “co-worker support” (in the hierarchical regression of “frustration about job”).

59

Figure 8. The plot of the interaction between “managing difficult situations” and “supervisor support” (in the hierarchical regression of “exhaustion”).

60

Figure 9. The plot of the interaction between “personality” and “supervisor support” (in the hierarchical regression of “frustration about job”).0

61

Figure 10. The plot of the interaction between “managing difficult situations” and “supervisor support” (in the hierarchical regression of “frustration about job”).

62

Figure 11. The plot of the interaction between “team orientation” and “supervisor support” (in the hierarchical regression of “frustration about job”).

63

Figure 12. The plot of the interaction between “openness to change” and “supervisor support” (in the hierarchical regression of “frustration about job”).

63

Figure 13. The plot of the interaction between “decisiveness” and “supervisor support” (in the hierarchical regression of “frustration about job”).

64

1. INTRODUCTION

Today, the organizational world is concerned with some key issues such as

productivity, customer orientation, innovativeness, and employee health. The future will

certainly hold risks for those who cannot adapt themselves and their companies to the ever-

changing needs of the stakeholders. One major set of stakeholders involve the employees,

who are growing both in quantity and quality. They also work harder and harder, in order to

outrun the competition of the unemployed, or even of the less skilled.

The worklife, in general, poses a threat to the well-being of the employees. What the

companies can do today to improve the employee wellness, will in turn help to improve the

competitiveness of the companies themselves in the long run. Although this simple fact is

being acknowledged by all, the companies are far from effectively managing employee

health.

Today, many people take sick leaves and even quit their jobs because of job-related

stress. For instance in the United Kingdom, stress is the second largest category of

occupational ill-health, which accounts for 40% of sickness absence (International Stress

Management Association, UK, 2000). The Mental Health Foundation (2000) estimated that

these stress-related sickness absences cost approximately four billion pounds annually. In the

USA, the total cost of occupational stress is estimated to range from 200 to 300 billion dollars

per year (Le Fevre, Matheny, and Kolt, 2003). Europe has tried to overcome the problem by

establishing a preventive occupational safety and health policy. In a recent report by Federal

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (FIOSH, 2003), three to four percent of the gross

national product (GNP) of the European Union is estimated to be spent on mental health

issues at the workplace. Statistics for our country have not yet been formally declared,

although one could easily assume that Turkish employees are facing similar, if not greater,

levels of job stress and related outcomes.

The examples stated in the last paragraph clearly demonstrate the severity of the

negative effects of poor employee health on national economies. Yet, for many companies,

the issue of job stress is still considered to be a taboo: Managers and employees are both

reluctant to admit they lose control over their jobs.

2

One of the most stressful jobs as revealed by both popular and academic publications

alike is that of the call center employee (bagisiklik.com, 2005; De Ruyter, Wetzels, and

Feinberg, 2001; Holdsworth and Cartwright, 2002; Varca, 1999, 2001). Also known to have

other titles such as “Customer Service Representative”, “Client Services Representative”, and

“Claims Representative”, the call center employees are faced with many problems that

influence their health, such as low control over their work and high demands from the

customers (Holman, 2002).

In order to achieve a better stress management at the call center, the managers need

to be equipped with the necessary information, such as the root causes and consequences of

this phenomenon. This information is amply provided by the job stress literature; however,

the literature to date is so vast and multidisciplinary that the plain businessman is unable to

grasp it in full. The field of organizational behavior (OB) is more directly addressing this

issue, since it provides quite a number of theories and directions for further research, as well

as recommendations for the management. Although the field has been dealing extensively

with job stress phenomenon since 1950’s (Eulberg, Weekley, and Bhagat, 1988), it lacks an

integrated approach and the researchers are left to their own devices when selecting an

appropriate theoretical model.

The common view among researchers is that “no model can claim to be literally

true or accurate..... however, they do offer a means of representing possible relationships

between variables, and a method of thinking about the concept of organizational stress”

(Briner and Reynolds, 1999, p.650).

In an attempt to provide as comprehensive a model as possible, the present study

focuses on one of the earlier models that was established: The Person-Environment Fit theory

of job stress (French, Rogers, and Cobb, 1974). Basically, the theory states that job stress

occurs when there is a misfit between the demands of the environment and the abilities of the

person, or between the supplies of the environment and the needs of the individual (Cooper

and Dewe, 2004).

3

The theory itself is not very specific about the “demands/abilities” or

“supplies/needs” regarding which characteristics in the environment and the person are

needed to be considered in each category. In this study, the research questions specifically

address this issue. Mainly, the environment is specified as the job and the organization.

Those characteristics of the environment which are taken into consideration are the

requirements of the job, and the values of the organization. The “Person” side of the Person-

Environment equilibrium is characterized by the competencies (the knowledge-skills-abilities)

and the values of the individual.

As a result, there are two entities within the Person-Environment Fit concept: The

Person-Job fit, and the Person-Organization fit. The former is defined as the fit (or the

congruence) between the requirements of the job and the competencies of the person. The

latter is defined as the fit (or the congruence) between the values of the organization and the

values of the person.

The job stress literature is fairly consistent in providing a moderating factor effecting

the relationship between stress causes (stressors) and symptoms (strains): Social support.

Most researchers agree on the conceptualization by House (1981, as quoted in Cooper, Dewe,

and O’Driscoll, 2001) who differentiated four kinds of support: Instrumental support,

emotional support, informational support, and appraisal support. The stress-buffering

hypothesis of social support, as it is widely known, states that as a person’s perception of

social support relationships increases, his or her experience of strains decreases. The main

reasoning behind this hypothesis is that support shields or protects individuals from the

harmful consequences of aversive events (Cooper et al., 2001).

The present study is an attempt to establish relationships between four different

variables: Person-job fit, person-organization fit, job stress, and social support. It also aims to

enhance our knowledge of a call center environment, which is still an under-researched area

in Türkiye.

4

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

In the first three sections of the literature review, person-job fit, person-organization

fit, and social support are briefly discussed.

The fourth section involves the dependent variable of the study, job stress. Job stress

is one of the most extensively covered topics in the social sciences, which makes the task of a

researcher quite complicated when she or he tries to aggregate the literature in this area. In the

present study, the approach to the literature review is therefore one that briefly summarizes

the conceptualization of job stress, and focuses on the theory of concern, which is the Person-

Environment Fit model. The section concludes with a review of job stress studies conducted

specifically in call centers.

The final section presents the theoretical model of the study, based on detailed

discussions of the relationships of person-job fit, person-organization fit, social support, and

job stress. The resultant hypotheses are stated in this section, as well.

2.1. Person- job fit

One of the independent variables in this study is person-job fit. This section begins

with the definition of the concept, and then moves on to summarize the related areas of

research.

2.1.1. Definition of the concept

Person-job fit is defined as the fit, or the congruence, between the abilities of a

person and the demands of a job, or the desires of a person and the attributes of a job

(Edwards, 1991; Kristof, 1996). Here, “job” means those set of tasks that a person is expected

to accomplish in exchange for employment (Kristof, 1996).

The first part of the person-job fit definition stated above, i.e. the fit between the

abilities of the person and the demands of the job, is commonly referred to as demands-

abilities fit, whereas the fit between the desires of the person and the attributes of the job is

labeled as needs-supplies fit (Kristof, 1996; Sekiguchi, 2004). Another common name for the

second type of person-job fit is the supplies-values fit (Shaw and Gupta, 2004).

5

Figure 1 illustrates these two kinds of person-job fit concept.

In the person-job fit literature, the demands of a job include qualitative and

quantitative work load, and job requirements for adequate performance. The employee

abilities that meet those demands have typically been described in terms of employee

aptitudes, experience, and education (Edwards, 1991). Employee desires are commonly

described in various terms, such as psychological needs, goals, values, interests, and

preferences. Each one refers to the attractiveness of various job attributes to the employee

and, therefore, may be considered under the general heading of desires. Job supplies range

from general occupational characteristics to specific job attributes, such as pay, participation

in decision-making, role clarity, and enriched jobs (Edwards, 1991).

The person-job fit can be evaluated in two ways: Perceived fit, or subjective fit,

which is the judgment of the individual that he or she fits well with the job; and actual fit, or

objective fit, which is the comparison between separately rated individual and job

characteristics (Kristof, 1996; Sekiguchi, 2004). Perceived fit is typically measured by

explicitly asking people how good they believe a fit exists. Actual fit is measured by

comparing characteristics of the individuals (in terms of employee desires or abilities), as

reported by themselves or by others, and job characteristics (in terms of job supplies or

demands), which are typically rated by job incumbents.

This study focuses on the demands-abilities fit conceptualization of person-job fit,

consequently it is operationalized as the fit between employee aptitudes and job requirements.

The Person -Desires

* Needs * Goals * Preferences * Values * Interests

-Abilities * Aptitudes * Experience * Education

The Job -Supplies

* Occupational characteristics * Job attributes

- Demands * Workload * Job requirements

Needs- Supplies Fit

Demands- Abilities Fit

Figure 1. Person-job fit. Adapted from Edwards (1991)

6

The evaluation of person-job fit is made by comparing the demands of the job and the

individuals’ characteristics. In other words, in the present study an objective fit measure is

employed.

2.1.2. Relationship with other organizational variables

The person-job fit is a major concept in the fields of organizational behavior and

industrial psychology. In essence, this fit implies that the person and the job are joint

determinants of individual and organizational outcomes. This basic notion underlies many

research areas, such as motivation, job satisfaction, job stress, and vocational choice

(Edwards, 1991).

In a literature review of 92 studies published from 1960 through 1989, Edwards

(1991) reported major findings regarding the effects of person-job fit on other organizational

variables. He comments that the vast majority of these studies had focused on the fit between

employee desires and job supplies, that is, needs-supplies fit. With few exceptions, the studies

indicated that fit, which was operationalized as “job supplies minus employee desires” was

positively related to job satisfaction (Edwards, 1991).

Relationships with job performance were less consistent; there was a mixture of

positive, negative, and null results (i.e. Ivancevich, 1979; London and Klimoski, 1975;

Sheridan and Slocum, 1975; Tziner, 1987; as quoted in Edwards, 1991, p.326). Studies of

other outcomes demonstrated negative relationships with absenteeism, turnover, and

resentment (Crosby, 1982; Hollenbeck, 1989; Hrebiniak and Roteman, 1973; as quoted in

Edwards, 1991, p.326), and positive relationships with job involvement, commitment, trust,

and various indices of employee well-being (i.e. Alutto and Acito, 1974; French, Caplan, and

Harrison, 1982; Hall, Schneider, and Nygren, 1970; as quoted in Edwards, 1991, p.326).

In the same review, those studies that operationalized fit as “the absolute difference

between job supplies and employee desires” found negative relationships with job

satisfaction, organizational commitment, interest in work, and employee well-being (French,

Caplan, and Harrison, 1982; Hrebiniak and Alutto, 1972; Meir and Engel, 1986; O’Brien and

Dowling, 1980; Swaney and Prediger, 1985; as quoted in Edwards, 1991, p.327).

7

The minority of the studies reviewed by Edwards (1991) had operationalized fit in

terms of ratio, product, categorical agreement indices, or interaction of desires and supplies as

simultaneous predictors, which showed a similar pattern of relationships with criterion

variables. In sum, the literature review concludes that “across a variety of measures, samples,

job content areas, and operationalizations, person-job fit has demonstrated the expected

relationship with outcomes” (Edwards, 1991, p.328).

Although most studies reviewed in Edwards’ (1991) research were concerned with

needs-supplies fit, there are plenty of examples of person-job fit studies that focused on

demands-abilities fit. One of such studies is that of Coburn (1975). He analyzed the

incongruence between the demands of the job and the capacity of the person to cope with

those demands. In his analysis, he defined work overload and underload as demands of the

job. The sample consisted of 780 male workers in Victoria, British Columbia area. He

reported the findings that job incongruence was associated with lower psychological well-

being and, in the case of extreme incongruence, perceptions of poor health increased (Coburn,

1975). Unfortunately, he failed to report the correlations and significance levels of the

findings.

One area of research where person-job fit is operationalized as demands-abilities fit

is in employee selection literature (Sekiguchi, 2003). A fundamental principle of industrial

psychology is that high congruence between the demands of a job and a person’s abilities lead

to high performance (Cable and DeRue, 2002). Therefore, employee selection practices of

most organizations have traditionally focused on achieving person-job fit (Sekiguchi, 2004).

In a recent literature review by Sekiguchi (2004); a study by Cable and Judge (1997)

reported that recruiters’ perception of applicants’ person-job fit predicted their hiring

recommendations, which in turn directly affected the hiring decisions of their organizations

(Sekiguchi, 2004). The review quotes other studies, i.e. Kinnicki, Lockwood, Hom, and

Griffeth (1990) and Kristof-Brown (2000) that revealed similar findings.

In the literature, there is a tendency to determine person-job fit based on perceptions

rather than objective criteria (i.e. Brkich, Jeffs, and Carless, 2002; Cable and DeRue, 2002;

Kristof-Brown, 2000; Shaw and Gupta, 2004), where fit is evaluated by individuals as they

8

perceive it. Alternatively, Caldwell and O’Reilly (1991) have proposed a Q-sort based

technique, called the profile comparison process, which provides an objective means to

measure person-job fit. Q-sort technique is a procedure, where an individual is asked to sort a

large number of items into usually nine categories according to some criterion (Caldwell and

O’Reilly, 1991). Each category has a specific number of items, so that the individual is forced

to rank items in order to produce a somewhat flattened normal distribution.

Caldwell and O’Reilly (1991, p.650) argue that

“if job experts Q-sort the set of skills and abilities in terms of how important they are for successful performance of the job, and the same items are Q-sorted according to how descriptive they are of an individual, the correlation of the profiles created by the two Q-sorts represents the extent to which the individual’s strengths match those required by the job.”

In this method, the items including all relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities are

generated by means of well-structured job analysis interviews. These items are then screened

and finalized by a second set of job experts.

The study by Caldwell and O’Reilly (1991) reports seven separate investigations,

where the profile-comparison process was used to explore the extent to which congruence

between individual skills and job requirements affect job performance and other outcomes.

Each investigation focused on different job profiles of occupations such as finance manager,

production supervisor, and telemarketing representative. The results from the first six

investigations indicated that the relationship between person-job fit and job performance was

high (the rank order correlations vary from .45 to .98, with significance levels ranging from p

< .10 to p < .001). The last investigation indicated that although the correlation of person-job

fit and overall job satisfaction was positive, it was insignificant; however, intrinsic job

satisfaction was significantly and positively correlated with the fit index ( .53, p < .01). Also,

job ambiguity (-.39, p < .05), physical stress symptoms (-.55, p < .01), and intent to leave

(-.45, p < .05) were all negatively correlated with person-job fit.

To summarize, person-job fit literature has reported relationships with behavioral and

attitudinal variables such as job satisfaction, job performance, absenteeism, turnover,

9

intention to leave, resentment, job involvement, commitment, trust, and various indices of

employee well-being.

2.2. Person- organization fit

The second independent variable in this study is person-organization fit. In this

section, the first part concerns with the definition of the concept, and the second part attempts

to summarize the related area of research.

2.2.1. Definition of the concept

According to Kristof (1996), most researchers broadly define person-organization

fit as the compatibility between individuals and organizations. Compatibility, however, is

conceptualized in a variety of ways. In order to clarify these multiple conceptualizations, two

distinctions stated in the literature will be mentioned here: One is the distinction between

supplementary and complementary fit, and the other is the distinction between needs-supplies

and demands-abilities fit.

Supplementary fit occurs when a person “supplements, embellishes, or possesses

characteristics which are similar to other individuals” in an environment (Muchinsky and

Monahan, 1987, p.269, as quoted in Kristof, 1996). Supplementary fit is represented as the

relationship between the fundamental characteristics of an organization and a person. For the

organization, these characteristics traditionally include the culture, climate, values, goals, and

norms. On the person side of the model, the characteristics most often studied are values,

goals, personality, and attitudes. Supplementary fit is said to exist when there is similarity

between an organization and a person on the relevant characteristics (Kristof, 1996).

This congruence is differentiated from the complementary fit, which occurs when

“a person’s characteristics ‘make whole’ the environment or add to it what is missing”

(Muchinsky and Monahan, 1987, p.271; as quoted in Kristof, 1996). In complementary fit, the

organization or the person supplies those characteristics that are demanded by the other.

More specifically, organizations supply financial, physical, and psychological resources as

well as the task-related, interpersonal, and growth opportunities that are demanded by

10

employees. Similarly, organizations demand contributions from their employees in terms of

time, effort, commitment, knowledge, skills, and abilities (Kristof, 1996).

Cable and Edwards (2004) conclude that complementary and supplementary fit are

interrelated, and that these two types of fit contribute independently to individual and

organizational outcomes.

A second perspective on person-organization fit is offered by the needs-supplies and

demands-abilities fit distinction (Kristof, 1996). In fact, these two types of fit form the basis

of complementary fit that was just discussed. Needs-supplies fit occurs when an organization

satisfies individuals' needs, desires, or preferences. In contrast, demands-abilities fit occurs

when an individual has the abilities required to meet organizational demands.

Characteristics: - Personality - Values - Goals - Attitudes

Characteristics: - Culture/Climate - Values - Goals - Norms

Supplies: - Resources financial physical psychological - Opportunities task-related interpersonal

Supplies: - Resources time effort commitment experience - KSAs task interpersonal

Supplementary Fit

Demands: - Resources time effort commitment experience - KSAs task interpersonal

Demands: - Resources financial physical psychological - Opportunities task-related interpersonal

Organization Person

Complementary Fit

Figure 2. Person-organization fit conceptualizations. Adapted from Kristof (1996)

A B

Arrow A: Demands-abilities fit Arrow B: Needs-supplies fit.

11

As illustrated in Figure 2, supplementary fit conceptualization is related to the level

of similarity between the person and the organization, while complementary fit

conceptualization is concerned with the level of fulfillment of mutual interests of the two

parties. In terms of demands-abilities fit, the extent to which the person supplies those

resources and abilities that are demanded by the organization is considered. For needs-

supplies fit, the extent to which the organization provides resources and opportunities that are

demanded by the person is taken into consideration.

According to a literature review by Kristof (1996), the person-organization fit

literature has focused primarily on four operationalizations of fit. The most frequently used

operationalization is the congruence between individual and organizational values (i.e. Cable

and Parsons, 2001; Finegan, 2000; O’Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell, 1991). Several

researchers have also used individuals' goal congruence with those of organizational leaders

and peers to operationalize fit. What these two operationalizations have in common is a

supplementary fit perspective.

The third operationalization reflects a complementary fit perspective by defining fit

as the match between individual preferences or needs and organizational systems and

structures. The fourth describes fit as a match between the characteristics of individual

personality and organizational climate – sometimes labeled organizational personality. This

final approach reflects both supplementary and needs-supplies fit perspectives, in the sense

that organizational climate is frequently measured through organizational supplies such as

reward systems and communication patterns (Kristof, 1996).

There are two ways of assessing person-organization fit. Some researchers tend to

ask people directly whether they think a good fit exists, which is called a direct measure of –

or perceived – fit. Some drawbacks regarding the use of direct measures are the possibility

of consistency bias, i.e. “I think that I fit well, so I must be satisfied with my job”, or the low

probability of ensuring that people use relevant characteristics of the organization and the

person to judge the level of fit.

To overcome these drawbacks, a second method is used to assess the level of person-

organization fit, which is called the indirect measure of – or actual, or objective – fit. Indirect

12

measures of fit involve an explicit comparison between separately rated individual and

organizational characteristics, where the rating is usually done by individuals and their

supervisors and/or co-workers. This type of measurement reflects actual fit because it allows a

verifiable assessment of similarity, without directly asking for judgments of fit.

The present study has a supplementary fit approach, that is, person-organization fit is

conceptualized as the fit between individual and organizational values, where an objective fit

measurement is employed.

2.2.2. Relationship with other organizational variables

As person-job fit and person-organization fit definitions are reviewed, it becomes

quite clear that these two concepts are somewhat related. In the literature, there are attempts at

distinguishing between the two (i.e. Cable and DeRue, 2002; Kristof-Brown, 2000).

Non-significant correlations between measures of person-organization and person-

job fit also support that, despite the potential overlap, individuals may experience varying

degrees of fit at the job and at the organization level (Kristof, 1996).

Kristof-Brown (2000) conducted two studies to assess whether recruiters form

distinguishable perceptions of applicant person-job fit and person-organization fit. In the first

study, actual recruiters were asked to rate mock applicants, where it was found that

knowledge, skills, and abilities were relied on more frequently to assess person-job fit, and

values and personality traits were used more often to assess person-organization fit. The

second study, which involved actual recruiters making decisions about applicants in a field

setting, supported person-job fit and person-organization fit perceptions as two separate

factors. Study 2 also revealed that these two types of perceived fit offered unique predictions

of hiring recommendations. Taken together, these results present evidence that recruiters

discriminate between applicants' person-job fit and person-organization fit during early

interviews.

In a study by Cable and DeRue (2002), whether employees develop separate

perceptions of person-organization fit, needs-supplies fit, and demands-abilities fit was tested.

Results from a longitudinal investigation, with a sample of 187 managers, supported both the

13

convergent and the discriminant validity of different fit perceptions. Furthermore, person-

organization fit perceptions were found to be related to organizational outcomes (correlations

with organizational identification, perceived organizational support, citizenship behaviors,

and turnover decisions were .48, .53, .22 and -.17 respectively, with significance p < .05 or

less).

In his review of employee selection literature, Sekiguchi (2004) reports person-

organization fit studies, which provide evidence that a high level of fit is related to a number

of positive outcomes. For instance, person-organization fit was found to be positively

correlated with job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Bretz and Judge, 1994;

Chatman, 1991; as quoted in Sekiguchi, 2004). Fit was also negatively correlated with

intention to quit and turnover (Chatman, 1991; Vancouver, Millsap, and Peters, 1994; as

quoted in Sekiguchi, 2004).

Other studies reported that person-organization fit was positively related to prosocial

behaviors such as contextual performance, organizational citizenship behaviors, and self-

reported teamwork (Goodman and Svyantek, 1999; O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986; Posner,

1992; as quoted in Sekiguchi, 2004). Finally, a number of studies revealed positive

relationships with self-reported work performance and objectively-measured work

performance (Bretz and Judge, 1994; as quoted in Sekiguchi, 2004; Tziner, 1987; as quoted in

Edwards, 1991).

In a study by O’Reilly et al. (1991), an objective person-organization fit measure

was obtained through a new instrument called the Organizational Culture Profile (OCP). The

researchers developed the OCP, which contained 54 value statements, in order to assess the

values of a target organization and an individual’s preference for those values. They asked

respondents to sort these items into nine categories, where each category had a required

number of items, from most to least desirable (for individual value preferences) or from most

to least characteristic (for the organization values). Thus, they followed the same Q-sort

methodology that they used in assessing person-job fit (Caldwell and O’Reilly, 1991).

Person-organization fit, also named person-culture fit by the researchers, was

calculated by correlating the profile of organizational values with the profile of individual’s

14

preferences, which was called “profile comparison process”. They used a longitudinal design

to test the relationships of person-organization fit and work-related outcomes. Person-

organization fit, which was measured at time 1, was found to have a positive relationship with

normative commitment (r= .25, p < .01) and overall job satisfaction (r= .35, p < .01) and a

negative relationship with intent to quit (r= -.37, p < .01), which were all measured at time 2,

a year later (O’Reilly et al., 1991).

Judge and Cable (1997) have used an abbreviated version of the OCP to assess

objective fit, where they examined the relationship of individuals’ cultural fit with

organizational attraction. Data were collected from 182 college students at the time of job

search. Results showed that objective and subjective fit were related to organizational

attraction. The researchers concluded that job seekers were attracted to organizational cultures

that matched their value preferences.

Cable and Parsons (2001) studied the antecedents of person-organization fit, where

they examined how organizations’ socialization tactics help establish person-organization fit

of newcomers. In a two-year longitudinal design survey, they recruited an initial number of

461 respondents. The second and third waves of the survey, however, could only reach 139

and 101 respondents. Their results revealed that certain types of socialization tactics improved

both objective and subjective person-organization fit, i.e. sequential and fixed tactics (where

organizations provide newcomers with exact information on sequences and timings of

activities they will go through) improved subjective fit, while serial and investiture tactics

(where experienced members of the organization act as role models for new recruits)

improved objective fit.

In Türkiye, only a few studies on person-organization fit were conducted.

In a recent investigation by Erdogan, Kraimer, and Liden (2004), data from a sample

of 520 teachers from 30 high schools revealed that objective values congruence (person-

organization fit) was positively related to job and career satisfaction, when perceived

organizational support was low. Also, leader-member exchange had been found to

compensate for organizational support.

15

In a study by Yahyagil (2005), the OCP (Organizational Culture Profile, O’Reilly et

al., 1991) was tested for adaptability to Turkish organizations. Yahyagil (2005) conducted an

initial study in a sample of working MBA students in Yeditepe Üniversitesi to determine

those values unique to the Turkish culture, and introduced an additional 10 value item pool

prior to applying the OCP in a sample of 137 municipality employees in Istanbul. His findings

revealed that overall job satisfaction and person-organization fit were positively related.

Sağnak (2005) aimed to determine the levels of congruence between the personal

and the organizational values of principals and teachers working at primary schools. The

population consisted of 66 principals and 541 teachers who worked in central primary schools

in Erzincan, during the academic year 2002-2003. He used the 24 value dimensions from a

study by McDonald and Gandz (1991). He reported significant positive rank correlations

between personal and organizational values, which represented significant person-

organization value congruences of the study population.

In an article by Arbak and Özmen (2000), three different studies of person-culture fit

in employee selection are reviewed. The first one, conducted by Arbak, Uyguç, and Duygulu

(1997), attempted to investigate the moderating effects of two personality characteristics

(need for achievement and self-esteem) on the relationships of six organizational

characteristics (opportunity for promotion, job relevant to vocational interests, training

opportunities, job security, support for innovative and creative thinking, and appraisal based

on personal performance) and organizational attraction. In a sample of 646 students from

Dokuz Eylül University and Celal Bayar University Business Administration departments, the

findings revealed that:

• Individuals with a higher need for achievement were more attracted to those

organizations that provide jobs relevant to vocational interests, support

innovative and creative thinking, and supply training opportunities, and

• Individuals with higher self-esteem were more attracted to organizations with

support for innovative and creative thinking, whereas individuals with lower

self-esteem were more attracted to those organizations with job security.

16

The second study reported by Arbak and Özmen (2000) investigated the relationship

between individual’s personality and organization’s culture (Arbak, 1998). The sample

consisted of 305 students from Dokuz Eylül University, Faculty of Administrative Sciences.

The results showed that the Big Five personality traits were significantly related to the kind of

organizational culture preferred by the individuals when they were asked to select a job offer

among several alternatives. Here, the culture was measured using a two-factor model created

by Arbak (1998), where the factors were named “supportive” and “achievement-oriented”.

These two studies investigated the relative effects of person and organization and

were not specifically interested in the person-organization fit construct. Last study, however,

attempted to conceptualize this construct using the profile-comparison methodology

developed by O’Reilly and his colleagues (1991). Conducted by Arbak, Özmen, and Özcan

(1997), this study had a student sample of 100 individuals, again from Dokuz Eylül

University, Business Administration department. The students were asked to rank 54 value

statements according to two different criteria: one for importance of values that should ideally

exist in a faculty and the other for actually existing values that are characteristic of their

current faculty. The person-organization fit for each individual was calculated using rank

order correlation, and the figure ranged between -1 (total misfit) and 1 (total fit). The final

analysis involved a correlation of person-organization fit and organizational citizenship

behavior, and the results revealed that fit and two factors of the citizenship construct – loyalty

and obedience – had positive and significant relationships (r= .21, p < .05 and r= .30, p < .01

respectively).

To summarize, person-organization fit literature has reported relationships with

behavioral and attitudinal variables such as organizational identification, perceived

organizational support, turnover intentions, hiring recommendations, organizational

attraction, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behaviors,

self-reported teamwork, contextual and work performance.

17

2.3. Social support

The moderating variable of the study is social support. This section first covers its

definition, and then some relevant research results.

2.3.1. Definition of the concept

There are numerous studies of social support in the literature, many of which use

different conceptualizations and measurements of the concept. In fact, the definition of the

concept varies according to the approach taken by the researcher. As Cutrona and Russell

(1990) point out, most theorists agree that social support is a multidimensional phenomenon.

Consequently, it becomes hard to define social support in terms of a single construct.

According to Cooper and his colleagues (2001), several definitions and models of

social support have been proposed, but in the organizational field one of the most frequently

used conceptualizations is that advanced by House (1981). He differentiated between four

kinds of support: Instrumental, emotional, informational, and appraisal.

These four categories are defined as follows:

1. Instrumental support: Giving direct help, often of a practical nature.

2. Emotional support: Showing interest in, understanding of, caring for, and

sympathize with a person’s difficulties.

3. Informational support: Giving the person information that may help him or her

deal with problems.

4. Appraisal support: Providing feedback about the person’s functioning that may

enhance his or her self-esteem.

This categorization leads to the following definition of the concept: Social support

is the set of social interactions or relationships, which provide individuals with practical help

or information on how to deal with problems, and create a feeling of being loved, esteemed,

and cared for.

18

Other researchers who theorized alternative models of social support include Cobb

(1979), Cohen, Mermelstein, Kamarck, and Hoberman (1985), Kahn (1979), Schaefer, Coyne,

and Lazarus (1981), and Weiss (1974). In a comparison of these social support models,

Cutrona and Russell (1990) comment that these models have much in common. Also, House’s

(1981) model incorporates most components of all five models. Consequently, the present

study utilizes the latter model in conceptualizing social support.

Just as many different conceptualizations of social support exist, so do the

assessment methods. Currently available measures of social support tend to focus on three

different aspects (Sarason, Sarason, and Pierce, 1990): Network, received – or enacted –

support, and perceived support.

Network measures focus on the individual’s social integration into a group and the

interconnectedness of those within that group. These intruments tend to ask for the size of the

network, i.e. the number of individuals within the network, or about the quality of each

relationship in terms of durability, frequency of contact, and intensity. Received (enacted)

support measures usually ask the individual whether she or he notes specific actions from

others that are intended as support. Finally, perceived support measures, which the majority

of social support instruments fall into, ask respondents of their perceptions of its availability

and their satisfaction regarding the quality and adequacy of social support.

Another distinction among different assessment methods is that of structural versus

functional (Jones and Bright, 2001). Structural measures are those that describe the existence

of relationships, i.e. the number of people an individual has social contact with, whereas

functional measures are those that directly assess the extent to which these relationships

provide particular support functions, i.e. the level of emotional, instrumental, informational,

and appraisal support an individual receives (Cohen and Wills, 1985).

Social support resources fall into two general categories of organizational and

personal resources (Torun, 1995). An individual may receive organizational social support

either from his or her co-workers, or supervisors. Personal social support resources include

family and friends, which help the individuals improve their coping abilities with both work

demands and life events. Cited in Torun (1995), a study by Fenlason and Beehr (1994)

19

investigated communication content of co-workers, and the researchers commented that

talking with co-workers about positive aspects of the work increased an individual’s self-

confidence, while talking about the negative aspects provided an emotional discharge. In

addition, talking about non-work gave opportunity for moving away from stressful events.

According to Cordes and Dougherty (1993) and Holahan and Moos (1982), when co-workers

and supervisors have friendly and supportive attitudes, individuals perceive their coping

abilities better, and develop new abilities which help them improve their performance (as

quoted in Torun, 1995).

2.3.2. Relationship with other organizational variables

The construct of social support is almost always associated with well-being. The role

of social support in the maintenance of health is proven by findings from social sciences, as

well as from animal research and experiments (Cohen and Wills, 1985).

Numerous studies have shown that social support is linked to psychological and

physical health outcomes. Several prospective epidemiological studies (defined as “medical

investigations that measure the incidence of disease and infection in a population over time”

in Viruses: Risks and benefits to society, 2006), for instance, have related social support to

mortality (Berkman and Syme, 1979; Blazer, 1982; as quoted in Cohen and Wills, 1985). In

these studies, mortality from all causes was greater among persons with relatively low levels

of social support.

Jones and Bright (2001) provide research history of social support, where several

studies which associate support with a wide range of disorders, such as cancer, coronary heart

disease, and infectious diseases are quoted. Similarly, prospective research has revealed a

positive relationship between social support and mental health (Aneshensel and Frerichs,

1982; Billings and Moos, 1982; Williams, Ware, and Donald, 1981; as quoted in Cohen and

Wills, 1985).

In a literature review of social support, Cohen and Wills (1985) argue that the

positive association between social support and well-being may result from two different

processes, which they call main, or direct effect model and buffering model. In the buffering

model, it is proposed that support is related to well-being only for persons under stress, and

20

that support protects, or buffers, people from the potentially harmful effects of stressful

events. The direct effect model argues that, the positive effect of social support occurs

regardless of whether an individual is under stress or not.

Figure 3 depicts the buffering model, emphasizing the two points at which social

support may interfere with the hypothesized causal link between stressful events and illness.

As the illustration clearly indicates, the first point where support comes in between the

potential stressful event and its harmful effects is during the appraisal process. That is, one’s

perception that others will provide support increases an individual’s ability to cope with the

demands posed by the situation and hence prevent that situation from being appraised as

stressful (Cohen and Wills, 1985).

The second point of intervention is at the stage of physiological or behavioral

responses to the stressful event. Here, social support may lessen the impact of stress appraisal

by providing a solution to the problem, or by reducing the perceived importance of the

problem, or even by facilitating healthful behaviors.

POTENTIAL STRESSFUL EVENT(S)

ILLNESS AND/OR ILLNESS BEHAVIOR

EMOTIONALLY LINKED PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSE OR BEHAVIORAL ADAPTATION

EVENT(S) APPRAISED AS STRESSFUL

APPRA ISAL PROCESS

SOCIAL S UPPORT may prevent stress

appraisal

SOCIAL SUPPORT may result in

reappraisal, inhibition of maladjustive

responses, or facilitation of adjustive counter

responses

Figure 3. An illustration of how buffering effects occur. Adapted from Cohen and Wills (1985)

21

In the direct effect model, support has a beneficial effect on well-being, with or

without a stressful incidence. Here, support provides individuals with regular positive

experiences and stable and rewarding roles in the community, generating an overall positive

affect, a sense of stability in one’s life situation, and a recognition of self-worth. Being

embedded in a social network may help people to avoid negative experiences, such as

economic or legal problems which otherwise would increase the likelihood of psychological

or physiological health issues (Cohen and Wills, 1985).

Both of these models provide valid arguments, and they have supporting evidence

from empirical studies (Jones and Bright, 2001).

In Türkiye, a number of social support studies were conducted.

An unpublished master’s thesis by Soygüt (1989) investigated the effects of life

events, social support, and work status on the level of depressive symptoms in married

Turkish women. In a sample of 100 women living in Ankara, husbands’ social support was

found to have a negative relationship with reported depressive symptomatology level.

In a study by Ekinci and Ekici (2003), the role of social support as a stress

management strategy was explored. The researchers assessed the difference in perceptions of

managers regarding social support. The sample consisted of 111 managers from Sivas-based

private sector companies. According to overall findings, majority of managers perceived

social support as an effective stress management strategy.

In a doctoral dissertation, Torun (1995) studied the relationships of family structure,

social support, and burnout, in addition to the occupational and demographic differences in all

the variables of the study. A sample of 210 people from a variety of occupations such as

traffic policemen, teachers, salespeople, and laboratory workers provided input. The

correlation analyses revealed that emotional exhaustion, which was a dimension of burnout,

was negatively associated with all dimensions of social support, while toughness, another

dimension of burnout, was negatively related with emotional and companionship dimensions

of social support. Furthermore, liveliness and attention to others dimensions of burnout were

positively associated with companionship and emotional dimensions of social support

respectively. Also, family structure and social support were positively associated with each

22

other. In addition, multiple regression analysis results indicated that family structure and

social support had significant effects on two dimensions of burnout, emotional exhaustion and

toughness. Finally, there was no significant difference in the social support levels across the

four occupational groups.

Kaymakçıoğlu (2001), in her master’s thesis, examined the effects of social support

and other variables, i.e. perceived stress, expectancies, and coping style on psychological

stress symptoms. A sample of 220 students received and completed the questionnaires in

group sessions. The results regarding the social support scale are quoted as follows: The

correlations of total perceived social support with depression and anxiety symptoms were

insignificant. When total perceived social support increased, the total amount of efforts in

dealing with the stressful event increased as well. It was observed that when a person

perceived a higher level of social support for a specific event, he or she tended to engage in

more positive reappraisal and to express his or her emotions more frequently in dealing with

that specific event.

Özcan (1997) aimed to investigate the relationships of job stress, social support, and

demographic variables of marital status and gender. Her study revealed a negative relationship

between job stress and social support. Women respondents preferred emotional support,

especially from friends and colleagues, more than men; participants with higher levels of

perceived job stress preferred informational support, especially from family, friends, and

colleagues, more than those with lower perceived job stress. Single individuals, compared

with married individuals, perceived higher support from friends and were more satisfied with

this source of support. In contrast, married men and single women were found to receive more

social support from the family and to be more satisfied with this source.

Güngör (1997) examined the direct effect of social support on burnout, as well as the

buffering effect of social support between job stressors and burnout. She found that all

subscales of social support, including friends and family, supervisor, and peer support, were

negatively correlated with burnout; also, under conditions of higher social support, stressful

work experiences were less likely to produce burnout.

23

Recently, Özdevecioğlu (2004) investigated the effects of social support and life

satisfaction on the occupational stress of the businessowners in Kayseri. In a sample of 264

businessman, the results showed a negative relation between social support and job stress, on

the one hand, and a positive relation between social support and life satisfaction on the other.

In sum, social support literature provides associations with well-being in general, and

with psychological and physical stress symptoms in particular.

2.4. Job stress

The present study is concerned with job stress as the dependent variable. In the

following part, the conceptualization of job stress is provided. Next, the Person-Environment

Model of job stress is discussed. Finally, the call center employees’ job stress is briefly

reviewed based on some previous research in this area.

2.4.1. Definition of the concept

Job stress has been extensively researched and a vast body of knowledge is gathered,

yet it seems there is still more to do, because of the on-going debates regarding the definition

and conceptualizations of the term “stress”.

Although there is no concensus on a single definition of stress, there are some

common points across many definitions of different theorists. First, it can be positively stated

that the concept is multidimensional, meaning that there are various dimensions of stress,

which in turn implies that stress consists of many variables and processes (Cooper and Dewe,

2004).

Second, people define and use the term meaning a group of related but distinct

constructs that is different for each individual, which implies that stress is a perceptual

concept. For instance, Güler, Başpınar, and Gürbüz (2001) list several Turkish words which

all indicate stress, such as boredom, sadness, problem, worry, tension, anxiety, and hardship,

yet none of these quite adequately convey the complete meaning of stress. Similarly, Gmelch

(1982) lists more than 50 words of what people usually say when asked to define stress,

including those with negative meanings such as frustration, tension, and burden; those with

24

neutral meanings such as issue, balance, and ambiguity; and also those with positive

meanings such as stimulation and challenge.

It should be noted that a range of factors, including the discipline of the researcher,

the direction of the research, and the research questions asked, will influence whether a

particular definitional approach is adopted (Cooper et. al., 2001).

With these specifics in mind, the various approaches to the definition of stress are

summarized next. These approaches are response-based, stimulus-based, interactional, and

transactional, as depicted in Figure 4.

Response-based approach: According to this approach, stress is broadly defined as

a response to disturbing or threatening situations (Işıkhan, 2004). Individual’s responses,

which are also called strains, are generally classified into psychological, physiological, and

behavioral categories.

STRESSORS: - environmental - organizational - interpersonal - private life

STRAINS: - p sychological - physiological - behavioral

- Stimulus-based approach Response-based

approach

Interactional approach

PROCESS: - appraisal - coping

Transactional approach

Figure 4. The definitional approaches to stress

25

Psychological strains typically include anxiety, depression, job dissatisfaction, and

burnout (Artan, 1985; Jones and Bright, 2001; Şahin, 1994). Physiological strains include

heart rate and blood pressure increase, sudden change in weight, headache, backpain,

neckpain, sleeping disorder, increased sweating of hands, feet, and the body, and systemic

disorders of the heart, stomach, endocrine glands, and lungs (Özgür, 2002).

Behavioral strains commonly involve drinking alcohol, smoking, using other

substances, number of accidents at work, turnover, absenteeism (Cooper et al., 2001), and

other similar overt behaviors, which are typical of stressed individuals.

The origins of the response-based definitions can be found in medicine. The work of

Dr. Hans Selye (1956; as quoted in Cooper et al., 2001) in the 1930’s and 1940’s marks the

beginning of stress studies. In 1936, he introduced the general adaptation syndrome, GAS

in short, where he defined three successive stages of response to a threatening situation. These

stages are named Alarm – Resistance – Exhaustion.

In the alarm stage, the organism reacts to the stimulus, which is the generator of

stress responses, by a varying mixture of alertness and anticipation. Here, the defense

mechanisms are activated, forming the emergency reaction known as the “fight-or-flight”

response (Cannon, 1935; as quoted in Cooper et al., 2001). As the stimulus persists over time,

the body enters the second stage, resistance. However, resistance cannot continue

indefinitely, and if the stimulus continues over an extended period, the energy needed for

adaptation becomes depleted, which brings forth the final stage of exhaustion. It is at this

stage that many negative consequences of stress, including pyhsical and mental illnesses,

begin to appear.

Stimulus-based approach: According to this approach, stress is defined as those

factors which impose demands on the individual and create disruption. Stimulus-based

definitions of stress have their roots in physics and engineering (Cooper et al., 2001); in these

fields stress is defined as a force exerted, which results in a demand or load reaction.

The stimuli which generate reactions from an individual are called stressors. In

general, there are two types of stressors. Personal stressors include all non-work factors

which induce tensions, such as family problems, economical/financial problems, and life style

26

and habits. Organizational stressors are generally grouped into six categories (Işıkhan,

2004):

1. Work related: These typically include work overload and underload, job

complexity, occupational category, and time pressure.

2. Role related: These stressors include role conflict, role overload, role ambiguity,

and work/family conflict.

3. Interpersonal: In this category, stressors are relationship conflict with co-

workers, subordinates, and supervisors, and leadership style.

4. Career related: Job insecurity, unrealized promotion expectations, or promotion

beyond the capabilities of an individual create this type of stressors.

5. Structure and climate related: Factors such as bureaucracy, ineffective

communication channels, organizational politics, and participation in decision

making are listed under this category.

6. Physical: These stressors are noise, temperature, illumination, and office design.

Interactional approach: This approach focuses on the statistical interaction between

the stimulus and the response. Stress is defined as a correlational relationship existing

between a stimulus and a response. This definition views stress as a static cause and effect

relation. The various factors which moderate this relationship are also taken into

consideration. Such moderators are personality, negative affectivity, hardiness, self-esteem,

optimism, locus of control, and social support (Cooper et al., 2001).

Transactional approach: In this approach, stress is conceptualized as a dynamic

cognitive state. From a transactional perspective, the experience of stress is defined first by an

individual’s realization that something is at stake, which is called primary appraisal. Once

an encounter is appraised as a threat or challenge, the secondary appraisal begins, which is

concerned with the identification and availability of coping resources to deal with the threat.

These two stages of appraisal are fundamental in the stress-coping process. The distinguishing

27

elements of this approach are its emphasis on the process of appraisal and coping, and its

focus on understanding the adaptive process itself (Cooper et al., 2001).

In this study, job stress is conceptualized as an individual’s psychological,

physiological, and behavioral responses to a demanding work situation, thus a response-based

approach is taken.

2.4.2. The Person-Environment Fit Theory of job stress

Of all the models in the job stress literature, the most widely discussed one is the

person-environment (P-E) fit model (Cooper and Dewe, 2004).

In essence, this theory argues that strain occurs when there is a misfit between the

person and the environment. The theory was developed in the 1960’s in the University of

Michigan, Institute for Social Research (ISR) by John R.P. French and his colleagues (French,

1963; French, 1973; French, Caplan, and Harrison, 1982; as quoted in Caplan and Harrison,

1993; French, Rogers, and Cobb, 1974).

The P-E fit paradigm rests on the scientific foundations laid by the work of famous

social scientist, Kurt Lewin (1951; as quoted in Puccio, Joniak, and Talbot, 1995), who

formulated human behavior as a function of the person and the environment, i.e. B = f (P,E).

This equation means that human behavior is shaped not just by an individual’s personality, or

by situational factors alone, but by an interaction of the two. Thus, P-E fit represents an

interactionist approach to the study of human behavior.

French et al. (1974) defined the basic concepts of the P-E fit model. For instance,

they defined adjustment as the goodness of fit between the characteristics of the person and

the properties of his or her environment. Here, environment has two different meanings: (1)

the objective environment that exists independently of the person’s perception, and (2) the

subjective environment as it is perceived and reported by the individual.

A parallel distinction is made between the objective person, as he or she really is as

evaluated by objective criteria, and the subjective person, or self-concept. Because self-

perception is not always correct, the subjective and objective person are not usually identical.

28

These distinctions imply that there are at least two conceptions of adjustment, one

being the objective fit between the objective person and the objective environment, and the

other, the subjective fit between the subjective person and the subjective environment.

In these definitions, the word “objective” implies a direct method of measuring the

relevant aspects of environment and person. Here, an outside source that is other than the

person provides assessment on the environment and the person. This source may be company

records, physical or psychological tests, and reports by experts or other individuals who have

adequate information regarding the environment and/or the person. The term “subjective” on

the other hand, means that the evaluation is done by the person, who may incorrectly report

oneself or the environmental characteristics because of insufficient information, or distorted

perception, or even personality that may lead to present something other than his or her true

picture of self and the environment (French et al., 1974).

The degree of reality of the individual’s subjective report of the environment is

called contact with reality. The subjective report has more resemblance to the objective

environment, when the individual’s contact with reality is high.

Likewise, the subjective report of the person’s characteristics corresponds to the

objective person characteristics, when his or her self-assessment becomes more accurate.

Thus, the relationship between the objective person and his or her subjective evaluation is

called accuracy of self-assessment.

The objective misfit between the person and the environment may lead to various

coping behaviors by the individual, whereas the perceptions of low fit may lead to several

defensive behaviors. Coping behaviors involve changing the relevant aspects of the objective

environment, or of the objective person in order to achieve a better objective fit. For instance,

an individual who lacks the necessary ability to deal with a certain environmental demand

(which is a case of an objective misfit), may act to improve his or her ability.

A defensive behavior, on the other hand, cannot change the objective environment or

the person, rather it can create a distortion in the subjective perceptions. Thus, the perception

regarding either the person or the environment is changed for a better subjective fit. An

individual, for instance, who lacks the qualifications for the current job, may either perceive

29

having higher qualifications or less job demands, so as to achieve a better subjective person-

environment fit.

When there is a discrepancy between an individual’s perceived self and the

subjective environment, the resulting subjective misfit, if not corrected with essential

defensive behaviors, leads to strains, which may increase the likelihood of physical and

mental illnesses.

The model is depicted in Figure 5.

The model distinguishes P-E fit in terms of two kinds of demands and two kinds of

corresponding supplies to meet those demands. First, the needs and motives of the person can

be conceptualized as demands that must be met by the supplies of the environment, and

second, the demands which emanate from the environment, such as role requirements or job

demands must be met by the abilities of the person.

Figure 5. The person-environment fit model of job stress. Adapted from Caplan and Harrison (1993)

30

The model assumes that the corresponding measures of the person and the

environment are commensurate; thus, they focus on conceptually and methodologically

identical characteristics or dimensions when assessing both person and environment (Puccio

et. al., 1995). The P-E fit theorists argue that the use of commensurate scales allows

researchers to make direct and explicit comparisons between the demands or the provisions of

the environment and the skills or preferences of the person.

To operationalize commensurate scales, the environment must be measured in terms

of the person (Schneider, 1987; as quoted in Puccio et al., 1995). This position is supported by

the argument that the nature of the working environment is influenced by the behavior of the

people in that environment.

One of the pioneering studies investigating the validity of the P-E fit model was

conducted by French and his colleagues (1982; as quoted in Edwards, 1991). In a sample of

318 male blue and white collar workers, the researchers identified key characteristics of the

environment and the person in order to find out the level of person-environment fit and its

relationship with stress symptoms.

Those supplies in the environment, which would fulfill the needs or desires of the

person, were identified as job complexity, role ambiguity, responsibility for persons,

workload, overtime, and income. Also, the demands of the environment which would be

fulfilled by the supplies or abilities of the person were recognized as length of service and

education.

The P-E fit was operationalized as the algebraic difference between supplies (actual

attributes of the environment) and desires (those preferred by the individual). For instance,

individuals were asked to rate the actual level of role ambiguity in their jobs, and then the

amount of role ambiguity they could tolerate. The algebraic difference between the two

responses was small for an individual with a high P-E fit. Various forms of the algebraic

difference were used in the analyses, such as the simple algebraic difference, the absolute

difference, the squared difference, the deficiency (setting all positive scores to zero), and the

excess (setting all negative scores to zero).

31

Overall findings of the study revealed that, when individuals’ preferred levels of job

complexity, role ambiguity, responsibility for persons, workload, overtime, and income were

not congruent with the actual levels in the environment, job and workload satisfaction

decreased, and boredom, depression, anxiety, and irritation increased.

For the past twenty-four years, many investigators followed the path taken by French

et al. (1982), and all of these researchers tried to identify the specific characteristics of the

person and the environment, that when perceived as misfit, would create job strain and

ultimately impact the physical and psychological health of the individuals.

Meir and Melamed (1986) focused on those characteristics of the person such that,

when not in congruence with the environment, would impose strains on the individual.

According to the researchers, the three aspects of congruence were vocational, avocational,

and skill utilization. The vocational congruence refers to the degree of correspondence

between the person’s personality type and his or her vocational type (Holland, 1973; as

quoted in Meir and Melamed, 1986). Holland (1973) defined six different types of

personality, which he named realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, and

conventional. He used the same typology in order to classify vocational types.

The avocational congruence is defined as the correspondence level between one’s

personality type and his or her choice of avocational activities, which are done for the purpose

of recreation and relaxation and are not related to one’s profession. The abilities congruence

refers to the degree of correspondence between one’s skills and one’s job requirements (also

called ‘skills utilization’).

The researchers used a variety of well-being measures such as occupational and work

satisfaction, somatic complaints, and anxiety. In a sample of 74 primary school teachers,

results revealed that vocational and avocational congruences had positive relationships with

occupational satisfaction ( r= .26 , p < .05 and r= .34, p < .01 respectively); avocational and

skill utilization congruences had positive relationships with work satisfaction (r= .29 and .26

with p < .05); and vocational and skill utilization congruences had negative relationships with

somatic complaints (r= -.28 and -.24, p < .05).

32

A recent investigation by Fogarty and Machin (2003) studied the preferred and actual

levels of exposure to job stressors, whereby respondents were asked to rate how often they

were exposed to a stressor in their environment and how often they could tolerate to be

exposed to that same stressor. The researchers aimed to test for interactions between person

and environment measures in the prediction of occupational strain. Thus, the person-

environment fit was taken as the interaction of person and environment scores, which was

investigated through hierarchical regression analyses. They concluded that only environment

measures, i.e. the job stressors are valid predictors of occupational strain, and there was no

interaction effect of person and environment measures of job stressors on strains.

The P-E fit approach to stress is considered as one of the major theories of job

stress, and more than twenty years after its first declaration, it still offers a wide avenue of job

stress research. Yet, some theorists argue that the theory has some conceptual and

methodological flaws.

For instance, Jones and Bright (2001) state that the P-E Fit Theory is very general,

that there is a lack of clarity about what variables in the Person are critical, and what features

of the Environment they should match. Eulberg, Weekley, and Bhagat (1988) criticize the

theory using similar arguments, adding that the theory is so general that it is essentially not

falsifiable.

The most critical challenge to the P-E Fit Theory comes from Edwards and Cooper

(1990), who argue that severe methodological and theoretical problems exist in the literature,

which threaten the validity of most empirical evidence. For instance, they criticize using

needs-supplies fit and demands-abilities fit as interchangable versions of P-E fit. Instead, they

suggest that these two types of fit should be differentiated in terms of distinct processes, and

different outcomes that are related to each one should be tested.

Another point of criticism lies at the three forms of P-E fit which are used throughout

the literature as conceptualizing the same construct, i.e. the congruence between the person

and the environment. The first form measures fit as the difference between commensurate

Person and Environment components. The second form takes the product of the two

components while the third form measures the proportion of Person that is fullfilled by the

33

Environment. Edwards and Cooper (1990) argue that each form of fit represents a different

approach to the relationship between P-E fit and job strains and they suggest that these forms

should not be used interchangeably, because each form necessitates a different statistical

procedure.

Two important methodological issues regarding the P-E fit literature are the

measurement of Person and Environment components and the analysis of relationships among

both components and strain. First, as stated previously, measures of Person and Environment

should be commensurate, since comparing the two components at separate dimensions would

not yield meaningful results. Second, fit measured along several dimensions is a better

construct than one that is measured using only limited dimensions. So, the two researchers

invite all investigators to apply more comprehensive measures in evaluating the P-E fit.

Edwards and Cooper’s (1990) most serious criticism targets the use of algebraic

difference between Person and Environment measures. They argue that the difference

between the two constructs has a lower reliability than either of the two. Furthermore, the use

of correlation coefficient between the two measures is also condemned (Edwards, 1993; as

quoted in Kristof, 1996).

Instead of pooling the person and the environment measures into a fit index, they

suggest an alternative method, called polynomial regression, where each component is

considered separately. This procedure includes a multiple regression where Person and

Environment components, the squares of these components, and their product term are

entered into the equation.

The polynomial regression has been used in several P-E fit studies, and Edwards

(2001) claims that results from polynomial regression are more comprehensive and

conclusive than those obtained from difference scores; yet Edwards himself acknowledges

several limitations of the procedure (Edwards, 2001). The most important limitation is that,

when testing congruence hypotheses that pertain to multiple dimensions, polynomial

regression equations can contain many terms. Such equations may require enormous sample

sizes to provide adequate statistical power. Additional information regarding the limitations of

polynomial regression can be found in the Methodology section of the present study.

34

Although Edwards and his colleagues (Edwards, 2001; Edwards and Cooper, 1990;

Edwards and Harrison, 1993) oppose using a fit index, the significant findings from the

studies applying the difference scores as P-E fit warrant a second thought. In addition, some

researchers have argued that difference scores may represent something conceptually distinct

from their components (Tisak & Smith, 1994; as quoted in Kristof, 1996). Then, Edwards'

technique of analyzing the component parts does not address the same construct as would

analyzing a difference score.

In the present study, the use of algebraic difference is preferred. However, a simple

solution is applied, where the difference scores are first converted to absolute difference

scores, which are then transformed to an itemized rating scale representing the level of

person-organization and person-job fit. Hence, the fit constructs of this study will not violate

the statistical concerns raised by the criticisms of Edwards (for details of the transformation

procedure, please refer to the Methodology section).

By converting simple algebraic difference to absolute difference in order to obtain fit

indeces, this study is based on the assumption that the direction of the fit does not affect its

relationship with job stress. In other words, same amount of difference between personal and

organizational characteristics, being either positive or negative, is expected to cause same

amount of job stress symptoms in the individual.

Although prevalent in the United States of America, it seems P-E fit theory of job

stress has not aroused much interest in Türkiye, as the research into post-graduate theses and

other academic work revealed no investigations of P-E fit that was conducted here.

As a concluding remark, it can be stated that in general, job stress research in

Türkiye has focused on issues such as (1) managerial job stress, (2) job stressors in a variety

of occupations such as brokers and dealers, teachers, doctors and nurses, policemen, and

academic personnel, (3) job stress symptoms such as anxiety, depression, and burnout, (4) job

stress and its relationship with other outcomes such as job performance, physical health,

organizational commitment, and job satisfaction.

35

Most of this work has utilized either a stimulus or a response approach to defining

job stress, and only one study was based on a theory of job stress, i.e. Eğrigözlü (2002), where

Job Demand-Job Control model by Karasek (1979) was used as a basis for research.

2.4.3. Job stress in call centers

In the Western world, the modern business symbolizes technology and innovation,

with a special emphasis on customer service. All of these factors are combined in the call

centers, which have been labeled “electronic sweatshops”, “electronic panopticans” and “the

dark satanic mills of the twenty-first century”, as Holman (2003) reports. These pessimistic

remarks may carry some truth, as the following passage will demonstrate in due course.

The first call center was opened in the late 1960’s, when a US federal judge ordered

Ford company to establish a "free phone line" to facilitate the recall of faulty cars (Bagnara,

Gabrielli, and Marti, 2000). To comply with such an obligation, AT&T and Ford developed

the "800" number. Since then, the call centers have become a basic business requirement for

customer support, service, and marketing (Hillmer, Hillmer, and McRoberts, 2004).

The phenomenal growth in call centers in almost every economic sector reflects an

increasing drive among organizations to reduce costs and improve customer service facilities

through the use of computer and telephone based technologies. Through technology,

knowledge can be shared and disseminated more widely. However, communication between

individuals via electronic media reduces the social aspects of communication associated with

working together (Cartwright, 2003).

For many organizations, the front-line employees, frequently referred to as customer

service representatives, are the employees with the most direct knowledge of customers. They

are familiar with the questions, concerns, and desires of their customers long before others in

the organization are. Often, the call center representative is the sole personal contact available

to customers and thus plays a significant role in shaping the customer's perception of the

organization.

With this critical role, enormous demands are placed on call center employees and

their management. These employees must handle elevated customer expectations, understand

36

complex products and services, navigate sophisticated technology, operate within regulatory

limitations, and meet or exceed challenging individual performance expectations (Hillmer et

al., 2004).

The performance of call center employees are mostly evaluated using the quantitative

statistics for variables such as call length and sales quotas that is generated by the electronic

monitoring systems. However, these criteria are usually in direct conflict with the objective to

deliver quality service.

According to Anton (1997; as quoted in Feinberg, Hokama, Kadam, and Kim, 2002),

the quality of call center service is rated by tracking such criteria as: (1) average speed of

answer, (2) queue time (amount of time caller is in the line for answer), (3) percentage of

callers who have satisfactory resolution on the first call, (4) abandonment rate (the percentage

of callers who hang up or disconnect prior to answer), (5) average talk time (total time caller

was connected to call center representative), (6) adherence (are employees in their seats as

scheduled), (7) average work time after call (time needed to finish paper work, do research

after the call itself has been completed), (8) percentage calls blocked (percentage of callers

who receive a busy signal and could not even get in to the queue), (9) time before abandoning

(average time caller held on before giving up in queue), (10) inbound calls per call center

representative in eight hour shift, (11) call center representative turnover (the number of

employees who left in a period of time, usually annually), (12) total calls, and (13) service

levels (calls answered in less than x seconds divided by number of total calls).

Call center employees who attempt to serve both internal and external masters and

achieve both qualitative and quantitative performance standards will ultimately face role

conflict (Chung and Schneider, 2003).

Parallel to the increased technological and skill requirements of today's call centers,

management of the typical center is highly structured, with close surveillance and work

controls of the call center employees. Work times are precisely managed, with breaks and

meals carefully scheduled. Frequently, the pace of the job is extremely fast, with little time

between calls. In many call centers, the agents may deal with upset, angry, or frustrated

individuals and may have to endure verbal abuse without reacting negatively. Often, the

37

flexibility to respond to customers based upon their own judgment or discretion is severely

limited.

What these characteristics of the work environment bring forth is usually negative,

such as high levels of stress and turnover in the call center industry (e.g. Datamonitor, 1998;

Deloitte Touche Consulting Group, 1999; Kinnie, Hutchinson, and Purcell, 2000; as quoted in

Holdsworth and Cartwright, 2002).

In an extensive study within three call centers of a British bank by Holman (2002),

the effects of job design, employee monitoring, HR practices, and team leader support on four

measures of employee well-being; anxiety, depression, and intrinsic and extrinsic job

satisfaction, were examined. The results revealed that method control, which was defined as

the extent to which people had control over the methods they used in their work and how they

talked to customers, had a strong positive association with well-being (i.e. low method control

was associated with high anxiety and depression, and low intrinsic and extrinsic job

satisfaction). Engagement in a wide variety of tasks also had a positive association with

intrinsic job satisfaction.

Further interesting findings were related to the relationship between job demands and

well-being, which tended to be non-significant or opposite of the predicted direction. Thus,

although attention demand had the predicted positive association with anxiety, it had an

unexpected positive association with intrinsic job satisfaction. This indicates that, in a call

center, although the requirement to pay constant attention to one’s work may cause feelings of

worry and anxiety (e.g. about making a mistake), actively attending to and meeting a

customer’s needs may also prove satisfying.

In a study by Deery, Iverson, and Walsh (2002; as quoted in Deery and Kinnie,

2002), a relatively high incidence of stress was found among call center staff in Australia.

Using survey data from more than 400 telephone service operators in five call centers in the

telecommunications industry, they found that emotional exhaustion was associated with high

workloads and pressure from management to maximize the number of customer calls at the

expense of customer service. Moreover, the longer employees worked in call centers, the

more burnt out they became. However, those who spent more time with customers on calls

38

experienced lower levels of burnout. The study also demonstrated that higher levels of

emotional exhaustion were associated with higher rates of absenteeism.

Varca (2001) conducted a study in the United States. In a sample of 193 call center

representatives, it was found that reports of job tension increased as perceived control

decreased. The tenure of employees, however, did not have a significant effect on job tension.

Two such studies investigating the stressful environment of the call center have been

conducted in Türkiye. The first study was administered by Küçükarslan (1994) in Turkish

Telecommunication Company’s Istanbul Headquarters. She investigated the stressors, the

strains, and the job satisfaction of telephone operators working in three different groups,

which were “Unknown Numbers”, “Call”, and “Break-down”. A comparison of the operator

groups in terms of stress and job satisfaction indicated that groups assessed work conditions

and work overload differently. However, all operators showed burnout symptoms at high

levels, regardless of their group. More than 80 % of the operators reported health problems,

which was consistent with the medical records of the employees within the past year.

Some workplace stressors that were reported as affecting the stress levels of the

telephone operators were the following: Working at night shift, workload, no participation in

decision making, time pressure, inadequate training, high noise and limited work space, and

monotonous job. Some factors such as person-job misfit, lack of promotion and benefits, and

supervisor-subordinate relationships were found to be effective in reducing the overall job

satisfaction level of the employees.

The second study of call center stress was implemented by Özgür (2002). She

investigated the stress levels, job stressors, and coping strategies of call center employees, as

well was banking sector service personnel. Call center employees were represented by 50

individuals. According to the findings, call center employees were facing job stressors of time

pressure, work conditions, equipment failure, lack of participation in decision making, and

insufficient rewards. Some job strains which were reported by the call center employees were

fatigue, tension, impatience, emotional exhaustion, dissatisfaction, and cigarette smoking.

Physical symptoms of job stress included head and stomach aches, as well as occupation-

specific ones such as husky voice, sore throat, ear pain, blurred vision, and throat pain.

39

As all of these past research findings confirm, the call center representatives facing

the continuous demands and sub-optimum conditions in the work environment, such as role

conflict, close electronic surveillance, low job control, and time pressure, may experience

high levels of job stress, and in subsequence, are under the risk of developing physical and

psychological symptoms.

2.5. The theoretical model and hypotheses

This section proposes the theoretical model which develops from the discussions

made in the last four sections. Consequently, the resultant hypotheses are presented.

2.5.1. The main effect of person- job fit on job stress

Person-job fit, which is conceptualized by the fit between employee abilities and job

demands, provides an individual with the perception that he or she is capable of doing the

assigned job tasks, performing at an acceptable level. Therefore, an increase in person-job fit

will result in an increase in an individual’s self-assessment of coping with the job demands.

It is logical that this will, in turn, result in an appraisal of the job as less demanding,

reducing the negative effects of stressful conditions on employees.

In accordance with the findings of Caldwell and O’Reilly (1991), who have stated

that person-job fit was negatively related to physical stress symptoms, and Furnham and

Schaeffer (1984), who found a negative relation between mental stress symptoms and person-

job fit, the following hypothesis is developed:

H1: Person-job fit will be negatively related to job stress.

2.5.2. The main effect of person- organization fit on job stress

In an organization where individuals have similar values to those of the prevalent

company culture, the employees will have more positive attitudes toward job, organization,

and other employees. For instance, O'Reilly et al. (1991) demonstrated that when the fit

between personal values and organizational values is high, employees are less likely to quit,

40

and are more satisfied, committed, and productive. These positive attitudes and behaviors will

in turn affect an individual’s appraisal of stressful incidences at work.

Ivancevich and Matteson (1984), who explored the congruence of person and

organization in terms of Type A and B personalities, showed that when individuals joined an

organization with a personality like their own, they experienced significantly less stress at

work (Schneider, Goldstein, and Smith, 1995).

Following from these arguments, the expected relationship between person-

organization fit and job stress is stated in the second hypothesis.

H2: Person-organization fit will be negatively related to job stress.

2.5.3. The moderating effect of social support on the relationships among

person-job fit, person-organization fit, and job stress

As it was previously argued, when person-job fit and person-organization fit are low,

individuals will face more job stress symptoms. Therefore, these two types of fit are important

sources of job stress, i.e. stressors. The social support literature provides researchers with the

strong evidence for the buffering effect of social support on the relationship between stressors

and strains (Cohen and Wills, 1985). Social support received from co-workers and

supervisors, in terms of practical help, esteem enhancement, emotional reinforcement, and

provision of valuable information to deal with environmental demands, increases an

individual’s coping abilities with the workplace stressors. This improvement is reflected in

employee’s perception of the stress-evoking conditions, leading to a decrease in negative

effects of such conditions on well-being.

For those individuals with low person-job fit and person-organization fit, social

support from supervisors and co-workers becomes a valuable tool to lessen the stress

symptoms.

41

PERSON-JOB

FIT

Thus, the following hypothesis is constructed:

H3: When employees experience high social support, the negative relation between

person-job fit and job stress, and the negative relation between person-organization fit and job

stress will be weaker.

All hypothesized relationships are depicted in Figure 6.

PERSON-

ORGANIZATION

FIT

JOB STRESS

SOCIAL

SUPPORT

H1

H2

H3

H3

Figure 6. The theoretical model of the present study

42

3. METHODOLOGY

This section provides information on the sample studied, the instruments used, the

procedure applied, and the statistical analyses conducted.

3.1. Sample

The present study aimed to target a population of call center employees. In a

convenience sampling of 144 call center employees from banking and outsourcing sectors,

71% consisted of females and 29% of males. Fifteen percent of the respondents were married

and 84% were single [with 1% missing]; 25% were high school graduates, 73% were

university graduates, and 2% were not specified; 9% were supervisors/managers and 91%

were employees. The average age of the sample was 25.2 (range: 19-35), the mean of total job

experience was 3.96 years (range: 2 months-15 years), and the mean of tenure in the current

company was 1.67 years (range: 1 month-7 years).

The details of sample descriptive statistics are tabulated in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1. Distributions of gender/marital status/education level/position

Variable Groups N Percentage Male 42 29 Female 102 71

Gender

TOTAL 144 100

Married 22 15 Single 121 84 Missing 1 1

Marital status

TOTAL 144 100

High school 36 25 University 105 73 Missing 3 2

Education level

TOTAL 144 100

Manager/Supervisor 13 9 Employee 131 91

Position

TOTAL 144 100

43

3.2. Instruments

A four-page survey form including the measures of person-job fit, person-

organization fit, social support, job stress, and a demographic questionnaire was used (see

Appendix 1).

Call Center Job Profile: The researcher developed this instrument for the present

study where it was used to assess person-job fit. The items of this scale were collected from

O*Net (2005), an official occupational information network in the USA. The call center

representative job title was retrieved from this website, and the knowledge, skills, abilities,

and other personality characteristics associated with this job title were translated into Turkish

by the researcher. The items were given to two Human Resources professionals and a

manager of a call center and these individuals were asked to read and revise these items

according to call center employee job requirements. A total of 32 items were finally selected.

The respondents were asked to rate this profile twice. First instruction was “please

rate the extent to which the following statements are characteristic of an ideal call center

employee”, and the second was “please rate the extent to which the following statements are

characteristic of you”. The rating was done on a 5-point itemized rating scale, where 1= most

characteristic and 5=least characteristic.

The absolute difference of individuals’ characteristics and job requirements – as

determined by the characteristics of an ideal call center employee – was used to obtain

measures of person-job fit. The person-job fit score for each job profile item is constructed by

transforming the absolute differences of 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 (where 0 denotes no difference

between personal characteristic and ideal call center employee characteristic item and 4

Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and ranges of age/tenure/total experience Variable N Mean SD Range Age 143 25.2 2.66 19 - 35 Tenure 144 1.67 1.43 1 month – 7 years Total experience 142 3.96 3.06 2 months – 15 years

44

denotes the largest difference between personal characteristic and ideal call center employee

characteristic item) into 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1, respectively (where 5 denotes highest person-job fit

and 1 denotes lowest person-job fit). The first three columns of Table 3 demonstrate this

transformation procedure.

The English and the Turkish versions of Job Profile are found in Appendix 2.

The OCP (Organizational Culture Profile): The short version of the instrument

was used to measure person-organization fit (O’Reilly et al., 1991). The original OCP consists

of 54 value items, whereas its short version has a total of 40.

This short version of the instrument is widely used in the literature (Cable and

Judge, 1997; Cable and Parsons, 2001; Judge and Cable, 1997). In a study of Cable and Judge

(1997), 10 experienced doctoral students reviewed the OCP and grouped similar values

together, retaining those that were unique, thereby developing its reduced version.

When constructing the OCP scale items, the researcher asked Marmara Üniversitesi

Organizational Behavior Department’s master program students to translate the original

items, then reviewed and compared those items to translations in previous studies (Erdogan et

al., 2004; Yahyagil, 2005). The researcher made the final choice of words, with the major aim

of keeping all items simple and clear, so that misunderstandings would be minimal.

The respondents were asked to rate the OCP items twice: First instruction was

“please rate the extent to which the following values are characteristic of your ideal

organization and of its people”, and the second was “please rate the extent to which the

following values are characteristic of the organization where you’re currently employed and

of its people”. The rating scale was 5-point itemized, where 1= most characteristic and 5=

least characteristic.

The literature review has shown that, this instrument is mostly used by utilizing a Q-

sort methodology (Cable and Parsons, 2001; Dineen, Ash, and Noe, 2002; Judge and Cable,

1997) and thus is regarded as an ipsative and ordinal measure. However, Edwards (1993; as

quoted in Kristof, 1996) asserted that the person-organization fit index, calculated by

correlating the person and organization profiles, cannot provide information regarding the

45

magnitude of the differences between the individual and the organization. Kristof (1996)

proposed using Likert-type rating scales to assess values, contrary to the indication by the

value literature that these scales are prone to social desirability bias. Yahyagil (2005) quotes

recent investigations where this proposal is taken into consideration, such as Chow, Harrison,

McKinnon, and Wu (2001) and Tepeci and Bartlett (2000). He himself used the same

approach in assessing personal and organizational values, whereby he utilized a 7-point Likert

scale.

Although Edwards (1993) severely criticized the use of algebraic differences, or any

other single fit index in general, and proposed an alternative procedure of polynomial

regression (as it was previously mentioned in the literature review of this text), his technique

is not without its limitations. First of all, there are statistical issues such as high level of

multicollinearity between lower and higher order terms in the polynomial regression equation,

and high number of degrees of freedom creating a dependence on sample size and

significance. Also, a conceptual concern is raised, such that additional higher order terms in

the equation would lack conceptual validity.

The present study uses the absolute value of the algebraic difference of individual

and organizational values to obtain measures of person-organization fit. In a recent study by

İslamoğlu and Börü (2005), the similar measurement strategy is used to assess the fit between

individuals’ preferences of and their organization’s existing power distance. Kristof (1996)

states that such an indirect measurement of fit with organizational values – as they are

perceived by the individuals – may have a stronger impact on individual outcome variables

such as stress, satisfaction, and commitment than fit with actual organizational values.

Similar to the assessment methodology of person-job fit, the person-organization fit

score for each OCP item is obtained by transforming the absolute differences of 0, 1, 2, 3, and

4 (where 0 denotes no difference between personal and organizational value item and 4

denotes the largest difference between personal and organizational value item) into 5, 4, 3, 2,

and 1, respectively (where 5 denotes highest person-organization fit and 1 denotes lowest

person-organization fit). This transformation procedure is demonstrated in the last three

columns of Table 3. The English and the Turkish items of the OCP are found in Appendix 3.

46

Table 3. The transformation of algebraic differences into fit scores

PERSON-JOB FIT PERSON-ORGANIZATION FIT Difference between personal and ideal employee characteristic

Absolute difference

Person-job fit score

Difference between personal and organizational value

Absolute difference

Person-organization fit score

4 or -4 4 1 4 or -4 4 1 3 or -3 3 2 3 or -3 3 2 2 or -2 2 3 2 or -2 2 3 1 or -1 1 4 1 or -1 1 4

0 0 5 0 0 5

Social support instrument: This measure includes a total of eight items. After a

thorough review of Özcan (1997), Torun (1995), Güngör (1997), and House (1981), four

functional (instrumental, emotional, informational, appraisal) items of co-worker support and

similarly, four items of supervisor support were constructed. The respondents were asked to

rate the frequency with which their supervisors and co-workers provided each type of support.

The responses were given on a 5-point itemized rating scale, where 1= never and 5= always.

This instrument is found in Appendix 4.

Job stress instrument: This scale includes a total of 30 items. Again, a thorough

literature review was conducted, and items from Gümüşay (1997), Özgür (2002), Kırel

(1991), Gümüştekin and Öztemiz (2004), Şahin and Durak (1997), Tezcanlı (1989), and Türk

(1997) were evaluated. Those items that were common in most of the studies were then

selected to construct job stress symptoms (psychological, physiological, behavioral) scale.

The instruction regarding this instrument was “please rate the frequency with which you

experienced the following situations or emotions”. A 5-point itemized rating scale was used,

where 1= never and 5= always. The items 8, 26, and 30 were reverse. Job stress items are

given in Appendix 5.

Demographics: Seven demographic items included age, gender, marital status, level

of education, position, total experience, and tenure (experience in the organization currently

employed).

47

3.3. Procedure

The researcher contacted the managers of two call centers, one at a banking

institution and the other at an outsourcing company, and with the help of a supervisor in

charge of the process in both organizations, distributed 340 surveys to all call center

personnel, including managers/supervisors, and employees.

The questionnaire consisted of a cover letter, aiming to ensure strict confidentiality

by asking respondents not to write their names on the survey forms and requesting an open

and honest response, without omitting any questions. The letter also advised respondents to

return the completed forms at a survey box stationed within their departments. The survey

boxes were taken back from the departments by the researcher after a couple of weeks. The

response rate was 42 % (n= 144).

3.4. Statistical analyses

Person-organization fit, person-job fit, social support, and job stress instruments were

analyzed by principal components analysis using varimax rotation, and the reliabilities of the

constructs in each scale were determined by using Cronbach Alpha. The correlations among

the variables were calculated by Pearson’s Product Moment correlation. Multiple regression

analysis was conducted to test the main effects of study variables on job stress, while the

moderating effect of social support was tested using hierarchical multiple regression analyses.

The SPSS (Statistical Program for Social Sciences) 11.5 for Windows was used in all data

analyses.

48

4. FINDINGS

This section covers the results of the statistical analyses.

4.1. Factor and reliability analyses

In order to find the factor structures of person-job fit, person-organization fit, social

support, and job stress measures, factor analysis using principal components analysis method

with varimax rotation was conducted for each instrument. In each step, any item with a factor

loading less than .50, or which loaded to more than one factor with a .10 or less difference, or

loaded singly on a factor, was discarded on a one-item-at-a-time basis. Those factors with

Eigenvalues 1.00 or more were taken into consideration in total variance explained. The

internal consistencies were calculated by Cronbach Alpha reliability, and the factors with

Alpha values of .60 or more were considered as having sufficient reliability.

All 32 items of the job profile instrument, which were transformed into person-job fit

scores by the procedure stated in Table 3, were then entered into factor analysis. The results

indicated that items 1-3-4-7-8-9-10-11-12-14-15-16-18-19-21-22-26-32 should be removed.

The remaining 14 items were loaded on three factors, which explained 65.644 % of total

variance. The resulting factors, “personality”, “communication skills”, and “managing

difficult situations” had .9065, .8091, and .7382 Cronbach Alpha reliabilities respectively.

These numbers indicate fairly high internal consistencies.

The detailed findings regarding person-job fit scale analysis are presented in Table 4.

Forty items of the short version of OCP (Organizational Culture Profile, O’Reilly et

al., 1991) were transformed into person-organization fit scores by the procedure stated in

Table 3, and then were entered into factor analysis with varimax rotation. The factor analysis

and reliability analysis procedures resulted in discarding the following items of the OCP: 2-5-

6-8-9-12-13-14-15-16-17-20-21-22-23-24-28-30-31.

The resulting factor structure of the person-organization fit measure involves five

factors, having a total of 21 items, which explain 65.684 % of total variance. The factors,

49

which are named “quality orientation”, “recognition of high performance”, “team

orientation”, “openness to change”, and “decisiveness” have fairly high internal

consistencies, as indicated by the following Cronbach Alpha reliabilities respectively: .8933,

.7956, .7695, .7417, and .8085.

The detailed findings regarding person-organization fit scale analysis are exhibited

in Table 5.

A total of eight social support items were conveniently loaded on two factors, with

very high internal consistencies. The factors “co-worker support” and “supervisor

support” had an explanatory power of 76.818 %, having Cronbach Alphas of .8964 and

.8944 respectively.

Table 4. Factor analysis and reliability analysis results of person-job fit scale

Person- job fit factors Factor loading

Factor variance %

Cronbach Alpha

Factor 1: Personality 32.924 .9065 23. Cooperation .795 30. Concern for others .776 13. Critical thinking .744 31. Independence .681 29. Adaptability/Flexibility .679 24. Dependability .675 28. Initiative .672 17. Deductive reasoning .655 20. Inductive reasoning .515 Factor 2: Communication skills

18.161 .8091

5. Active listening .846 2. Language .845 6. Reading comprehension .762 Factor 3: Managing difficult situations

14.559 .7382

25. Self-control .891 27. Stress tolerance .739 Total variance explained % 65.644 Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy= .889 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity= Approx. Chi-Square: 938.949; df: 91; sig.: .000.

50

Table 5. Factor analysis and reliability analysis results of person-organization fit scale Person-organization fit factors Factor

loading Factor

variance % Cronbach

Alpha

Factor 1: Quality orientation 21.618 .8933 50. Being socially responsible .781 51. Being results oriented .729 49. Having a good reputation .724 47. An emphasis on quality .704 52. Having a clear guiding philosophy

.698

48. Being distinctive-different from others

.665

54. Being highly organized .653 53. Being competitive .642 Factor 2: Recognition of high performance

12.636 .7956

37. Security of employment .791 36. High pay for good performance

.742

46. Not being constrained by many rules

.687

38. Offers praise for good performance

.666

Factor 3: Team orientation 11.367 .7695 16. Sharing information freely .811 15. Being team oriented .683 11. Being rule oriented .626 41. Developing friends at work .526 Factor 4: Openness to change 10.063 .7417 6. Being quick to take advantage of opportunities

.764

5. Being innovative .755 2. Adaptability .694 Factor 5: Decisiveness 9.999 .8085 27. Decisiveness .849 26. Being aggressive .783 Total variance explained % 65.684 Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy= .870 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity= Approx. Chi-Square: 1219.209; df: 210; sig.: .000.

51

In Table 6, the details of social support scale analysis are demonstrated.

Table 6. Factor analysis and reliability analysis results of social support scale

Social support factors Factor loading

Factor variance %

Cronbach Alpha

Factor 1: Co-worker support 38.860 .8964 6. Appraisal support .886 4. Informational support .878 2. Emotional support .854 8. Instrumental support .831 Factor 2: Supervisor support 37.958 .8944 5. Appraisal support .885 3. Informational support .880 1. Emotional support .866 7. Instrumental support .793

Total variance explained % 76.818

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy= .798 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity= Approx. Chi-Square: 746.731; df: 28; sig.: .000.

Final scale analysis is concerned with job stress. First of all, items 8, 26, and 30 were

reversed, then all 30 items of job stress instrument were entered into factor analysis, which

resulted in discharging the following items: 1-6-9-11-12-13-14-15-19-21-30. The rest of the

items, which were a total of 19, loaded on six factors that explained 70.010 % of variance.

These factors include “panic” (Alpha= .8282), “exhaustion” (Alpha= .8360), “frustration

about job” (Alpha= .8294), “avoidance” (Alpha= .6283), “dizziness” (Alpha= .6476), and

“general health” (Alpha= .6211). The first three factors have fairly high internal

consistencies, whereas the last three are slightly below the generally accepted sufficiency

level of .70. If these three factors were discarded, the remaining items would not adequately

explain the variance in job stress, therefore, there was a tolerance of 10 % in the sufficiency

level of Cronbach Alphas.

The items which made up “General health” factor were those reversed before

conducting the factor analysis, thus any finding related to this factor should be considered

with an opposite sign. The results of job stress scale analysis are shown in Table 7.

52

Table 7. Factor analysis and reliability analysis results of job stress scale

Job stress factors Factor loading

Factor variance %

Cronbach Alpha

Factor 1: Panic 15.304 .8282 23. Being out of breath .849 24. Feeling panic .789 22. Chest pain .764 25. General sense of being sick .658 Factor 2: Exhaustion 15.220 .8360 2. Having a quick temper .839 3. Being tense .813 4. Being harsh on others .774 5. Being tired and worn out .669 Factor 3: Frustration about job 11.948 .8294 27. Working under great tension .804 16. Feeling unhappy about work .775 29. Monotonous and boring job .768 Factor 4: Avoidance 10.127 .6283 17. Absenteeism without just cause .741 28. Taking sedatives .671 10. Taking sleeping pill .647 Factor 5: Dizziness 9.253 .6476 18. Dizziness .716 7. Over/under-eating .711 20. Sweating hands .695 Factor 6: General health 8.157 .6211 26. Perfect health (R) .823 8. Being relaxed and peaceful (R) .813 Total variance explained % 70.010

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy= .815 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity= Approx. Chi-Square: 1068.699; df: 171; sig.: .000.

(R) Reverse item

4.2. Means, standard deviations, and correlations

The means, standard deviations, and correlations related to all factors of independent,

dependent, and moderator variables of the study, including valid sample sizes, are detailed in

Table 8. In general, all significant correlation coefficients imply low to moderate

relationships, ranging from .194 (p < .05) to .575 (p < .01), and they are all in the anticipated

direction.

53

Table 8. Means, standard deviations, and correlations of all factors

a N Mean SD 1 JS1

2 JS2

3 JS3

4 JS4

5 JS5

6 JS6

7 SS1

8 SS2

9 PJF1

10 PJF2

11 PJF3

12 POF1

13 POF2

14 POF3

15 POF4

16 POF5

1 142 2.040 .9092 1 2 143 3.087 .7778 .34** 1 3 140 2.721 .9984 .386** .532** 1 4 142 1.349 .6167 .386** .199* .307** 1 5 144 2.252 .8493 .475** .275** .354** .253** 1 6 142 3.169 .9028 .196* .335** .296** .148 .244** 1 7 144 3.906 .8849 -.055 .026 -.062 -.147 -.009 -.052 1 8 141 3.157 1.0055 -.059 -.103 -.276** -.158 -.123 -.316** .353** 1 9 135 4.488 .5375 -.119 -.101 -.212* -.154 -.017 -.047 .119 .126 1 10 141 4.503 .5809 .111 -.093 -.125 -.062 .057 .014 .121 .068 .494** 1 11 143 4.171 .7624 -.107 -.162 -.354** -.067 -.042 -.086 -.019 .036 .575** .322** 1 12 133 4.055 .6926 -.019 -.112 -.372** -.121 -.112 -.1 .064 .408** .296** .37** .278** 1 13 139 3.449 .9964 -.062 -.212* -.318** -.055 -.121 -.083 .03 .32** .306** .329** .272** .515** 1 14 137 4.237 .7086 .049 -.035 -.207* -.134 .027 .02 .041 .398** .303** .251** .246** .531** .515** 1 15 137 4.211 .6689 .023 -.049 -.097 -.042 .006 -.087 .116 .274** .194* .246** .104 .444** .424** .575** 1 16 141 4.124 .9007 -.05 -.149 -.166 -.098 .005 -.069 .032 .212* .319** .292** .262** .495** .454** .488** .421** 1 * Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). a All factors in the table are represented by the following symbols: Job stress factors: JS 1: Panic, JS 2: Exhaustion, JS 3: Frustration about job, JS 4: Avoidance, JS 5: Dizziness, JS 6: General health, Social support factors: SS 1: Co-worker support, SS 2: Supervisor support, Person-job fit factors: PJF 1: Personality, PJF 2: Communication skills, PJF 3: Managing difficult situations, Person-organization fit factors: POF 1: Quality orientation, POF 2: Recognition of high performance, POF 3: Team orientation, POF 4: Openness to change, POF 5: Decisiveness. Note: All variables are scored on a scale of 1 to 5.

54

When the data is further examined, it is observed that there are significant positive

correlations between “supervisor support” and all person-organization fit factors, and also

between person-job fit and person-organization fit factors, except for “managing difficult

situations” (person-job fit) and “openness to change” (person-organization fit) factors. The

correlations between person-job fit and person-organization fit factors are not high enough to

pose any multicollinearity problems in the multiple regression analyses that follow.

There are significant negative correlations between “exhaustion” factor of job stress

and “recognition of high performance” factor of person-organization fit, and between

“general health” factor of job stress and “supervisor support”. Here, it should be noted that

the items making up “general health” factor have been reverse-coded, therefore, an increase

in general health factor means a decrease in individuals’ perceptions of “perfect health” and

“being relaxed and peaceful”.

Additional significant correlations, which are negative, exist between “frustration

about job” factor of job stress and five other factors, namely “supervisor support”,

“managing difficult situations” factor of person-job fit, and three factors of person-

organization fit (“quality orientation”, “recognition of high performance”, and “team

orientation”).

The factors, which have no significant correlations with any of the other variables,

are “co-worker support” and the three factors of job stress, namely “panic”, “avoidance”,

and “dizziness”.

When means and standard deviations of the 16 dimensions are examined, it is seen

that job stress dimensions have low to medium scores (means ranging from 1.349 to 3.169,

standard deviations below 1.0), while social support, person-job fit, and person-organization

fit dimensions have medium to high scores (the lowest mean is 3.157, belonging to

“supervisor support” dimension, while the highest is 4.503, of person-job fit dimension of

“communication skills”).

55

4.3. Multiple regression analyses

First, multiple regressions, one for each factor of the dependent variable job stress,

were conducted for the purpose of testing the first two hypotheses of the study. Then, a

number of hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted, one for each interaction

term of the independent and moderator variables, in order to test the third hypothesis.

The multiple regression results are demonstrated in Table 9.

Table 9. Results of multiple regression analyses for testing the main effects of person-job fit, person-organization fit, and social support on job stress dimensions Dependent variables:

Independent variables

JS2

Exhaustion JS3

Frustration

about job

JS4

Avoidance

Person-job fit factors PJF1. Personality -.049 .008 -.097 PJF2. Communication skills -.034 .023 .007 PJF3. Managing difficult situations -.056 -.277** .071 Person-organization fit factors POF1. Quality orientation -.010 -.360** -.032 POF2. Recognition of high performance -.263** -.187 .085 POF3. Team orientation -.023 -.127 -.252** POF4. Openness to change .014 .014 -.037 POF5. Decisiveness -.086 .054 -.084 Social support factors SS1. Co-worker support .013 .009 -.052 SS2. Supervisor support -.151 -.171 -.123 R2 .069 .255 .063 Adjusted R2 .061 .241 .055 F 7.969** 17.946*** 7.246** df 108 107 108 Entries for all independent variables are standardized Betas * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

For the dependent variable “exhaustion”, the multiple regression results displayed a

significant negative main effect of “recognition of high performance” factor of person-

organization fit. The results for the dependent variable “frustration about job” revealed

significant negative main effects of “managing difficult situations” factor of person-job fit

and “quality orientation” factor of person-organization fit. Lastly, for the dependent variable

“avoidance”, the results proclaimed that there was a significant negative main effect of

56

“team orientation” factor of person-organization fit. The model for “frustration about job”

had a somewhat higher explained variance (R2 =.255) than the other two models.

Thus, Hypothesis 1 of the present study, stating: “Person-job fit will be negatively

related to job stress” has found only partial support with the finding of the negative

relationship between “managing difficult situations” factor of person-job fit and

“frustration about job” factor of job stress; and Hypothesis 2, which states: “Person-

organization fit will be negatively related to job stress” has found some support from the

findings of the negative relationships between “team orientation” factor of person-

organization fit and “avoidance” factor of job stress, “quality orientation” factor of

person-organization fit and “frustration about job” factor of job stress, and “recognition

of high performance” factor of person-organization fit and “exhaustion” factor of job

stress.

In hierarchical regressions; independent, moderator, and interaction terms, which are

calculated by multiplying an independent and a moderator variable, are entered into

regression equations at successive steps. A significant change in the variance explained by the

regression step and a significant beta coefficient for an interaction term constitutes a

moderating effect (Grandey, Fisk, and Steiner, 2005, p. 898). Often, however, interaction

terms and independent variables have very high correlations among them, creating a serious

multicollinearity problem for the regression analysis. In order to avoid such a problem,

several researchers, such as Grandey et al. (2005), Van Knippenberg and Van Knippenberg

(2005), and Bolino and Turnley (2005) have used a procedure recommended by Aiken and

West (1991), where all variables had been centered before they were entered into multiple

regressions. In other words, each variable was transformed into a new “centered” variable by

subtracting the mean of the variable from every single score. In the present study, the

procedure summarized above is applied before conducting hierarchical multiple regressions.

In the first step of each hierarchical regression, an independent variable (person-job

fit or a person-organization fit factor) was entered, followed by a moderating variable (social

support factor) in the second step. In the final step, the interaction term of the two variables,

i.e. “person-job fit x social support” or “person-organization fit x social support” was

entered.

57

The results from the hierarchical regressions are displayed in Table 10.

Table 10. Results of hierarchical multiple regression analyses for testing the moderating effects of social support on the relationships among person-job fit, person-organization fit, and job stress

Dependent variable: JS2 Exhaustion

Independent variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 PJF3. Managing difficult situations -.172* -.169* -.172* SS2. Supervisor support -.097 -.065 PJF3 x SS2 -.177* R² .030 .039 .069 ∆ R² .009 .030 F 4.178* 2.756 3.350*

Dependent variable: JS3 Frustration about job

Independent variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 PJF1. Personality -.212* -.182* -.199* SS2. Supervisor support -.245** -.188* PJF1 x SS2 -.179* R² .045 .104 .132 ∆ R² .059 .028 F 5.997* 7.355** 6.413*** PJF3. Managing difficult situations -.378*** -.368*** -.372*** SS2. Supervisor support -.263** -.234** PJF3 x SS2 -.210** R² .143 .212 .255 ∆ R² .069 .043 F 22.376*** 17.916*** 15.086*** POF3. Team orientation -.245** -.169 -.271** SS2. Supervisor support -.197* -.166 POF3 x SS2 -.214* R² .060 .093 .130 ∆ R² .033 .037 F 8.206** 6.547** 6.307** POF4. Openness to change -.117 -.044 -.105 SS2. Supervisor support -.264** -.194* POF4 x SS2 -.271** R² .014 .078 .145 ∆ R² .064 .067 F 1.793 5.443** 7.249*** POF5. Decisiveness -.166 -.165 -.137 SS1. Co-worker support -.061 -.067 POF5 x SS1 -.179* R² .028 .031 .062 ∆ R² .003 .031 F 3.824 2.161 2.955* Entries for all independent variables are standardized Betas * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

58

Table 10. Continued

Dependent variable: JS3 Frustration about job

Independent variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 POF5. Decisiveness -.181* -.125 -.191* SS2. Supervisor support -.251** -.216* POF5 x SS2 -.259** R² .033 .093 .155 ∆ R² .060 .062 F 4.485* 6.687** 7.959*** Entries for all independent variables are standardized Betas * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

In the third step of each hierarchical regression, the interaction terms contributed a

significant increase in R2 (ranging from .028 to .067, p < .001). As for the significant

interaction effects, “co-worker support” was found to moderate the relationship between

“decisiveness” factor of person-organization fit and “frustration about job”.

“Supervisor support”, on the other hand, was found to moderate the relationships

between:

• “Managing difficult situations” factor of person-job fit and “exhaustion”,

• “Personality” factor of person-job fit and “frustration about job”,

• “Managing difficult situations” factor of person-job fit and “frustration

about job”,

• “Team orientation” factor of person-organization fit and “frustration

about job”,

• “Openness to change” factor of person-organization fit and “frustration

about job”,

• “Decisiveness” factor of person-organization fit and “frustration about

job”.

59

When the probing procedure recommended by Aiken and West (1991) was

conducted (Dawson, 2006), the resulting interaction plots clearly demonstrated the nature of

the moderating effects of “co-worker support” and “supervisor support”.

When the interaction plot (Figure 7) between “decisiveness” factor of person-

organization fit and “co-worker support” is examined, it is seen that the relationship

between “decisiveness” and “frustration about job” is negative only on the condition that

“co-worker support” is high. When the sample is split at the median into high and low-

support groups, no relationship between these two factors can be found in low “co-worker

support” condition.

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

Low POF5 High POF5

JS3 Low SS1

High SS1

Note: POF5: “Decisiveness” factor of person-organization fit, SS1: “Co-worker support” factor of social support, JS3: “Frustration about job” factor of job stress.

Figure 7. The plot of the interaction between “decisiveness” and “co-worker support” (in the hierarchical regression of “frustration about job”)

As displayed in Figure 8, there exists a significant negative relationship between

“managing difficult situations” factor of person-job fit and “exhaustion” factor of job stress

only when “supervisor support” is high. After the sample is split at the median into two

groups of high and low “supervisor support”, additional regression analysis reveals that,

60

when “supervisor support” is low, there is no significant relationship between these two

factors.

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

Low PJF3 High PJF3

JS2 Low SS2

High SS2

Note: PJF3: “Managing difficult situations” factor of person-job fit, SS2: “Supervisor support” factor of social support, JS2: “Exhaustion” factor of job stress.

Figure 8. The plot of the interaction between “managing difficult situations” and “supervisor support” (in the hierarchical regression of “exhaustion”)

The plot of the interaction between “personality” factor of person-job fit and

“supervisor support” can be found in Figure 9. As the figure illustrates, there exists a

significant negative relationship between “personality” factor of person-job fit and

“frustration about job” factor of job stress only when “supervisor support” is high. When

the sample is split at the median into two groups of high and low “supervisor support”,

additional analysis reveals that, for low “supervisor support” group, there is no significant

relationship between these two factors.

61

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

Low PJF1 High PJF1

JS3

Low SS2

High SS2

Note: PJF1: “Personality” factor of person-job fit, SS2: “Supervisor support” factor of social support, JS3: “Frustration about job” factor of job stress. Figure 9. The plot of the interaction between “personality” and “supervisor support” (in the hierarchical regression of “frustration about job”)

Figure 10 demonstrates the moderating effect of “supervisor support” on the

relationship between “managing difficult situations” factor of person-job fit and

“frustration about job”. According to the interaction plot, the negative relationship between

“managing difficult situations” and “frustration about job” exists only when “supervisor

support” is high. Further analysis, conducted after the sample was split into two groups of

high and low “supervisor support”, led to the conclusion that for low-support group, there

was no relationship between these factors.

62

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

Low PJF3 High PJF3

JS3 Low SS2

High SS2

Note: PJF3: “Managing difficult situations” factor of person-job fit, SS2: “Supervisor support” factor of social support, JS3: “Frustration about job” factor of job stress.

Figure 10. The plot of the interaction between “managing difficult situations” and “supervisor support” (in the hierarchical regression of “frustration about job”)

The probing procedure regarding the moderating effect of “supervisor support” on

the relationship between “team orientation” factor of person-organization fit and

“frustration about job” has resulted in the interaction plot in Figure 11. Thus, it is

concluded that the negative relationship between “team orientation” and “frustration about

job” exists only when “supervisor support” is high. As data is further examined, it is seen

that for low “supervisor support” group, there exists no significant relationship between the

two factors.

As displayed in Figure 12, there exists a significant negative relationship between

“openness to change” factor of person-organization fit and “frustration about job” factor

of job stress only when “supervisor support” is high. After the sample is split at the median

into two groups of high and low “supervisor support”, further regression analysis reveals

that, when “supervisor support” is low, there is no significant relationship between these

two factors.

63

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

Low POF3 High POF3

JS3 Low SS2

High SS2

Note: POF3: “Team orientation” factor of person-organization fit, SS2: “Supervisor support” factor of social support, JS3: “Frustration about job” factor of job stress.

Figure 11. The plot of the interaction between “team orientation” and “supervisor support” (in the hierarchical regression of “frustration about job”)

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

Low POF4 High POF4

JS3 Low SS2

High SS2

Note: POF4: “Openness to change” factor of person-organization fit, SS2: “Supervisor support” factor of social support, JS3: “Frustration about job” factor of job stress.

Figure 12. The plot of the interaction between “openness to change” and “supervisor support” (in the hierarchical regression of “frustration about job”)

64

Finally, there exists a significant negative relationship between “decisiveness” factor

of person-organization fit and “frustration about job” factor of job stress only when

“supervisor support” is high (as can be seen in Figure 13). After the sample is split at the

median into two groups of high and low “supervisor support”, further regression analysis

reveals that, when “supervisor support” is low, there is no significant relationship between

these two factors.

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

Low POF5 High POF5

JS3 Low SS2

High SS2

Note: POF5: “Decisiveness” factor of person-organization fit, SS2: “Supervisor support” factor of social support, JS3: “Frustration about job” factor of job stress.

Figure 13. The plot of the interaction between “decisiveness” and “supervisor support” (in the hierarchical regression of “frustration about job”)

Thus, the findings related to the moderated relationships are contrary to Hypothesis

3, which states: “When employees experience high social support, the negative relation

between person-job fit and job stress, and the negative relation between person-organization

fit and job stress will be weaker”. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 is not supported.

65

5. CONCLUSION

As the final section, the following discussions attempt at aggregating all the findings

of this study with previous research results. Lastly, some limitations of the study are reviewed

and recommendations for further research are presented.

5.1. Discussion

The results indicate that call center employees have low job stress levels, which is

contrary to the previous research conducted in call centers (Holdsworth and Cartwright, 2002;

Küçükarslan, 1994; Özgür, 2002), and high person-job fit, person-organization fit, and social

support scores. Given the limited amount of sample size, it should be wise to avoid any

generalizations, but it is safe to state that for those call centers where this study was

implemented, the employees have good fit with both their organization’s culture and their

jobs as call center representatives. Also, social networks within these call centers seem to be

providing employees with adequate support in terms of direct help, understanding,

appropriate information, and encouragement.

The study findings also show that, call center representatives, who reported a high fit

with their organization’s value for recognition of high performance, were experiencing

decreased levels of exhaustion. Hence, feelings of anger, tension, tiredness, and harsh

behaviors towards other people seem to have significant relations with value incongruence on

job security, praise of and fair payment for good performance. The stress symptoms will

surely decrease, when employees who value rewards associated with high performance seek

to achieve better performance standards, and therefore receive satisfactory rewards from their

organizations.

Although no example in the literature exists, which relates person-organization

culture fit and exhaustion, perhaps the study by Ivancevich and Matteson (1984) may provide

a related confirmatory finding. These researchers defined person-organization fit in terms of

Type A and B personalities, and showed that when individuals had a good personality fit with

that of their organization, they were likely to experience less burnout symptoms at work.

66

Furthermore, call center representatives who feel they have better fit with their job

requirements in terms of managing difficult situations, reported lower levels of job frustration.

It follows that when employees have high self-control and stress-tolerance, and therefore

manage difficult customers and their demands more efficiently, they feel more happy with

their jobs and think of their jobs as more interesting and valuable.

This result is consistent with reports from the study by Caldwell and O’Reilly

(1991), who found that a similar concept called intrinsic job satisfaction, which is defined

with such attitudes toward job as “freedom to use own judgment" and "the feeling of

accomplishment one gets from the job", was significantly and positively correlated with the

person-job fit index.

Another finding of the present study is concerned with the negative relationship

between value fit on quality orientation and frustration about job. Stated differently, this

relationship implies that employees, who have a higher fit with their organization’s value of

quality, distinctiveness, social responsibility, competitiveness, results-orientation, a good

reputation, and a guiding philosophy, will have less negative attitudes towards their jobs.

This finding is consistent with previous body of person-organization fit research

(Erdogan and her colleagues, 2004; Yahyagil, 2005), which provide ample support for a

positive person-organization fit and job satisfaction relationship, where job satisfaction is

defined as an individual’s general attitude toward his or her job (Robbins, 2005).

Those individuals with low value congruence regarding team orientation have

reported more incidences of taking sedatives and sleeping pills, as well as being absent from

work without a valid excuse. This finding is not surprising, given the fact that employees with

notions of teamwork, cooperation, and workplace friendships being quite different from their

peers and employers, will surely feel more detached from and alienated to their work

environments. This remoteness will result in increased absenteeism, and perhaps an increase

in physical stress symptoms, which will necessitate taking sleeping pills and sedatives.

The major contribution of this study to the literature is that the findings provide more

in-depth information on person-job fit and person-organization fit dimensions, which will

67

potentially impact individuals’ attitudes toward their jobs in a positive way, in addition to

decreasing physical, psychological, and behavioral symptoms of job stress.

The final set of findings of importance is related to the concept of social support.

This study revealed that co-worker and supervisor support have moderating effects on person-

environment fit and job stress relationships. However, the nature of this moderating effect

appears to be contrary to the previous literature on social support (Cohen and Wills, 1985).

For instance, for those individuals who perceive obtaining high support from their

co-workers, person-organization fit on values of decisiveness and aggressiveness has a

negative effect on the level of frustration about job. Accordingly, when individuals with lower

fit with their organization’s decisiveness value receive co-worker support, they experience

more frustration about their jobs.

On the other hand, yet again unexpectedly, for employees who perceive acquiring

high supervisory support, person-job fit in terms of managing difficult situations at work has a

negative effect on the exhaustion level. This implies that, low social support from supervisors

diminishes the relationship between “managing difficult situations” fit and exhaustion. As a

result, those individuals with low fit in managing difficult situations will experience more

exhaustion if they receive social support from their supervisors.

Supervisor support, when perceived as plenty, has also been found to affect those

employees with low fit on personality requirements of the job, leading to an increase in their

frustrations about their jobs. Likewise, those with low levels of fit on managing difficulties on

the job, will potentially feel more frustrated with their jobs.

Also, high supervisor support has been found to affect those call center

representatives with low fit on values such as team-orientation, openness to change, and

decisiveness, which will eventually lead to more negative attitudes towards work, especially

increasing their levels of frustration about their jobs.

What these findings signify is that:

• When call center employees have low fit with organizational values of

decisiveness and aggressiveness, it is better not to provide too much co-

68

worker support, mainly because this may lead to an increase in their

frustration levels,

• When call center employees have low fit with their job requirements

regarding managing stress and difficulties of the job, it is wise to be cautious

with providing supervisory support, because this may bring forth an increase

in exhaustion, and

• When call center employees have low fit with their job requirements in terms

of personality characteristics and managing difficult situations, or low fit with

organizational values of team-work, change, and decisiveness; management

should control the level of supervisory support so as not to increase job

frustration of employees.

A possible explanation for the first incident can be that an employee who already has

low value congruence in decisiveness and aggressiveness may think the co-workers intend no

favor when they provide support, but rather they want to prove that without their help, she or

he is unable to cope with the work demands. Thus, this employee will have more frustration

regarding the job, feeling that it has little value and importance.

For the second incident, a plausible explanation may be that an individual who has

difficulties with self-control and stress tolerance may perceive his or her supervisors’ attempt

to give support as an additional burden, which eventually leads to increased symptoms of

stress such as harshness, temper, and weariness.

The third circumstance may indeed be based on this very same reason: Let us

consider an employee who has a low fit on personality and stress tolerance requirements of

the job, and on organizational values of team-spirit, willingness to change, and being decisive.

This person would have a distorted perception of his or her supervisor’s attempt at providing

support and therefore would feel more negatively towards job, leading to an increase in job

frustration.

The unexpected nature of social support interaction may also be due to the specific

work atmosphere of a call center environment. As previously stated, call centers are known to

69

have a high degree of surveillance. Thus, employees who receive high support may perceive

this as a part of this surveillance system, rather than a favorable act of assistance. A study by

Deelstra, Peeters, Schaufeli, Stroebe, Zijlstra, and Van Doornen (2003) has demonstrated

similar effects of social support. In this study, researchers found that instrumental support at

work, when imposed on the employee, could lead to such outcomes as negative affect, lower

self-esteem, and some negative physiological reactions.

The findings of the present study can have many implications for call centers, which

play an increasingly more important part in our lives. The improvement and diversification of

call center applications in Türkiye will undoubtedly mean an improvement in customer

service quality, and therefore will lead to a shift in life standards of all of us. Call centers

develop parallel to the development of the country they are located in, and of its economy.

The need for call centers will intensify as service quality expectations of the customers

increase.

Call centers in Türkiye have spread to a wide range of sectors, including finance,

industry, and service. Apart from this, Türkiye has become a global sourcing country of call

center services, giving call center support to many European countries in their own languages.

The stressful environment of call centers is generally acknowledged, therefore

theorists and practitioners alike should seek to discover means to overcome job stress at call

centers, focusing on those factors which may improve an individual’s abilities to cope with

workplace stressors.

Clearly, a good person-job fit on such job requirements as managing stress and

difficulties of the job will be a perfect tool in improving attitudes of employees toward their

jobs. Call center representatives who will be taught stress management techniques, or given

on-the-job training will have more positive attitudes toward work, including an increase in

their job satisfaction levels.

Person-organization fit is certainly an important criterion for selecting and retaining

employees. Managers and Human Resources professionals should be eager to recruit those

individuals with similar values to those of the organization. A good fit on such values as

recognition of high performance, quality, and team work will in turn have a reducing effect on

70

employee stress levels. This clearly places a greater emphasis on selection and recruitment

efforts of the organizations.

Here, another important tool is social support, which will have a significant effect on

employee morale and attitudes. However, as the results of the present study suggest,

management should be cautious in promoting social support, especially when employees have

low value fit regarding team-orientation, openness to change, decisiveness or low person-job

fit on personality characteristics or managing difficult situations at work.

5.2. Limitations and Recommendations

One clear limitation is the insufficient sample size, which makes it difficult to

capture the true factor structures of the OCP, job profile, and job stress symptoms scales.

Especially the OCP factor structure is not very descriptive, such that some items loading on

the same factor have little or no connection. This may be due to the fact that the OCP items

are short and open to different interpretations. Hence, respondents may have assigned

different meanings to the same item.

Social desirability bias may also have affected the call center representatives’ person-

job fit scores, especially when evaluating their personal characteristics in job profile

instrument.

Respondents with similar characteristics such as age, gender, marital status,

personality, abilities, skills, and education provided input, which probably affected the normal

distribution of responses. Limiting the sample to call center personnel of only two

organizations may have produced the same biased distribution of survey results.

Hence, future research should aim to reach a greater sample size, from as many

organizations as possible, with a wide range of individual characteristics in order to achieve a

better distribution of responses.

Person-environment fit concept is defined by two different constructs in the present

study. As the low levels of variance (R2) in the multiple regression implies, person-job fit and

person-organization fit have not provided strong main effects on job stress. Thus, future

research can also consider other constructs, such as person-person fit (the congruence between

71

an individual and his or her direct supervisor) or person-group fit (defined by Kristof (1996)

as the compatibility between individuals and their work groups), within the same framework.

The low level of variance change (signified by a small increase in R2 in the third step

of hierarchical regressions) implies that social support may not be such a critical moderating

factor in the relationship between person-environment fit and job stress. Thus, other factors

such as personality, locus of control, and self-efficacy (Robbins, 2005) can also be

investigated in order to find out whether they contribute to the congruence-stress relationship.

72

REFERENCES

Aiken, L.S., and S.G. West. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Alutto, J.A. and F. Acito. (1974). “Decisional participation and sources of job satisfaction: A study of manufacturing personnel.” Academy of Management Journal, vol.17, pp.160-167. As quoted in Edwards, J.R. (1991).

Aneshensel, C.S., and R.R. Frerichs. (1982). “Stress, support, and depression: A longitudinal causal model.” Journal of Community Psychology, vol.10, pp.363-376. As quoted in Cohen, S., and T.A. Wills. (1985).

Anton, J. (1997). Call center management by the numbers. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. As quoted in Feinberg, R.A., L. Hokama, R. Kadam, and I. Kim. (2002).

Arbak, Y. (1998). Çekim sürecinde kişi-kültür uyumu boyutları. Unpublished associate professorship paper. As quoted in Arbak, Y., and Ö.N.T. Özmen. (2000).

Arbak, Y., and Ö.N.T. Özmen. (2000). “Eleman seçiminde kişi-kültür uyumunu belirlemeye yönelik üç görgül çalışma.” In Aycan Z. (Ed.). Akademisyenler ve profesyoneller bakış açısıyla Türkiye’de yönetim, liderlik ve insan kaynakları uygulamaları, (pp.91-118). Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği Yayınları.

Arbak, Y., T.Ö. Özmen, and H. Özcan. (1997). “Kişi-kültür uyumu örgütsel vatandaşlık ilişkisi: Fakülte öğrencileri üzerinde bir uygulama.” Paper presented at the 5. National Management Congress, Başkent Üniversitesi, Ankara. As quoted in Arbak, Y., and Ö.N.T. Özmen. (2000).

Arbak, Y., N. Uyguç, and E. Duygulu. (1997). “Örgüt-kişi uyumundan hareketle örgütsel çekicilik.” Paper presented at the 5. National Management Congress, Başkent Üniversitesi, Ankara. As quoted in Arbak, Y., and Ö.N.T. Özmen. (2000).

Artan, İ. (1985). Örgütsel stres kaynakları ve yöneticiler üzerinde bir uygulama. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Marmara Üniversitesi.

Bagisiklik.com. (2005). Retrieved Feb. 28, 2005 from http://www.bagisiklik.com/ bagisiklik_nedir/bs_neden_gucsuz_kalir_stres.asp.

Bagnara, S., F. Gabrielli, and P. Marti. (2000). “Human work in the call centres.” Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Annual Meeting at Santa Monica, vol.1, pp. 553-556.

Berkman, L.F., and S.L. Syme. (1979). “Social networks, host assistance, and mortality: A nine-year follow-up study of Alameda County residents.” American Journal of Epidemiology, vol.109, pp.186-204. As quoted in Cohen, S., and T.A. Wills. (1985).

73

Billings, A.G., and R.H. Moos. (1982). “Stressful life events and symptoms: A longitudinal model.” Health Psychology, vol.1, pp.99-117. As quoted in Cohen, S., and T.A. Wills. (1985).

Blazer, D.G. (1982). “Social support and mortality in an elderly community population.” American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 115, pp.684-694. As quoted in Cohen, S., and T.A. Wills. (1985).

Bretz, R.D., and T.A. Judge. (1994). “Person-organization fit and the theory of work adjustment: Implications for satisfaction, tenure, and careeer success.” Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol.44, pp.32-54. As quoted in Sekiguchi, T. (2004).

Briner, R.B., and S. Reynolds. (1999). “The costs, benefits, and limitations of organizational level stress interventions.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol.20, pp. 647-664.

Brkich, M., D. Jeffs, and S.A. Carless. (2002). “A global self-report measure of person-job fit.” European Journal of Psychological Assessment, vol.18, issue 1, pp.43-51.

Bolino, M.C., and W.H. Turnley. (2005). “The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work-family conflict.” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol.90, no.4, pp.740-748.

Cable, D.M., and T.A. Judge. (1997). “Interviewers’ perception of person-organization fit and organizational selection decisions.” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol.82, pp.546-561. As quoted in Sekiguchi, T. (2004).

Cable, D.M., and C.K. Parsons. (2001). “Socialization tactics and person-organization fit.” Personnel Psychology, vol.54, issue 1, pp.1-23.

Cable, D.M., and D.S. DeRue. (2002). “The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions.” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol.87, no.5, pp.875-884.

Cable, D.M., and J.R. Edwards. (2004). “Complementary and supplementary fit: A theoretical and empirical integration.” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol.89, no.5, pp.822-834.

Caldwell, D.F., and C.A. O’Reilly. (1991). “Measuring person-job fit with a profile-comparison process.” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol.75, no.6, pp.648-657.

Cannon, W. (1935). “Stresses and strain of homeostatis.” American Journal of Medical Science, vol. 189, no.1, pp.1-14. As quoted in Cooper, C.L., P.J. Dewe, and M.P. O’Driscoll. (2001).

Caplan, R.D., and R.V. Harrison. (1993). “Person-environment fit theory: Some history, recent developments, and future directions.” Journal of Social Issues, vol.49, no.4, pp.253-275.

Cartwright, S. (2003). “New forms of work organization: Issues and challenges.” Leadership and Organization Development Journal, vol.24, issue 3, pp.121-122.

74

Chatman, J. (1991). “Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting firms.” Administrative Science Quarterly, vol.54, pp.459-484. As quoted in Sekiguchi, T. (2004).

Chow, C.W, G.L. Harrison, J.L. McKinnon, and A. Wu. (2001). Organizational culture association with affective commitment, job satisfaction, propensity to remain, and information sharing in Chinese cultural context. San Diego University, working paper series, publication no.111, retrieved May, 2000 from www.sdsu.edu/ciber. As quoted in Yahyagil, M.Y. (2005).

Chung, B.G., and B. Schneider. (2003). “Serving multiple masters: Role conflict experienced by service employees.” Journal of Services Marketing, vol.16, no.1, pp.70-87.

Cobb, S. (1979). “Social support and health through the life course.” In Riley, M.W. (Ed.). Aging from birth to death: Interdisciplinary perspectives, (pp. 93-106). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. As quoted in Cutrona, C.E., and D.W. Russell. (1990).

Coburn, D. (1975). “Job-worker incongruence: Consequences for health.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, vol. 16, no.2, pp.198-212.

Cohen, S., and T.A. Wills. (1985). “Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.” Psychological Bulletin, vol.98, no.2, pp.310-357.

Cohen, S., R. Mermelstein, T. Kamarck, and H. Hoberman. (1985). “Measuring the functional components of social support.” In Sarason, I.G., B.R. Sarason. (Eds.). Social support: Theory, research, and applications, (pp. 73-94). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. As quoted in Cutrona, C.E., and D.W. Russell. (1990).

Cooper, C.L., and P. Dewe. (2004). Stress: A brief history. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Cooper, C.L., P.J. Dewe, and M.P. O’Driscoll. (2001). Organizational stress: A review and critique of theory, research, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cordes, C.L., and T.W. Dougherty. (1993). “A review and an integration of research on job burnout.” Academy of Management Review, vol. 18, no. 4, pp.621-656. As quoted in Torun, A. (1995).

Crosby, F. (1982). Relative deprivation and working women. New York: Oxford University Press. As quoted in Edwards, J.R. (1991).

Cutrona, C.E., and D.W. Russell. (1990). “Type of social support and specific stress: Toward a theory of optimal matching.” In Sarason, B.R., I.G. Sarason, and G.R. Pierce. (Eds.). Social support: An interactional view, (pp. 319-366). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Datamonitor. (1998). Call centres in Europe; sizing by call centres and agent position in 13 European Countries. Datamonitor, London. As quoted in Holdsworth, L., and S. Cartwright. (2002).

75

Dawson, J. (2006). Interpreting interaction effects. Retrieved Sept. 20, 2006 from http://www.jeremydawson.co.uk/slopes.htm.

De Ruyter, K., M. Wetzels, and R. Feinberg. (2001). “Role stress in call centers: Its effects on employee performance and satisfaction.” Journal of Interactive Marketing, vol.15, no.2, pp.23-35.

Deelstra, J.T., M.C.W. Peeters, W.B. Schaufeli, W. Stroebe, F.R.H. Zijlstra, and L.P.V. Doornen. (2003). “Receiving instrumental support at work: When help is not welcome.” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol.88, no.2, pp.324-331.

Deery, S., and N. Kinnie. (2002). “Call centres and beyond: A thematic evaluation.” Human Resource Management Journal, vol.12, issue 4, pp.3-13.

Deery, S., R. Iverson, and J. Walsh. (2002). “Work relationships in telephone call centres: Understanding emotional exhaustion and employee withdrawal”. Journal of Management Studies, vol.39, no.4, pp.471-496. As quoted in Deery, S., and N. Kinnie. (2002).

Deloitte Touche Consulting Group. (1999). Call centre agent report: A survey on profit and productivity. Deloitte Touche, Melbourne. As quoted in Holdsworth, L., and S. Cartwright. (2002).

Dineen, B.R., S.R. Ash, and R.A. Noe. (2002). “A web of applicant attraction: Person-organization fit in the context of web-based recruitment.” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol.87, no.4, pp. 723-734.

Edwards, J.R. (1991). “Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique.” In Cooper, C.L., and I.T. Robertson. (Eds.). International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol.6, pp. 283-357.

Edwards, J.R. (1993). “Problems with the use of profile similarity indices in the study of congruence in organizational research.” Personnel Psychology, vol. 46, pp.641-665. As quoted in Kristof, A.L. (1996).

Edwards, J.R. (2001). “Ten difference score myths.” Organizational Research Methods, vol. 4, issue 3, pp.265-287.

Edwards, J.R., and C.L. Cooper. (1990). “The person-environment fit approach to stress: Recurring problems and some suggested solutions.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol.3, no.4, pp. 293-307.

Edwards, J.R., and R.V. Harrison. (1993). “Job demands and worker health: Three dimensional reexamination of the relationship between person-environment fit and strain.” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 78, no.4, pp. 628-648.

Eğrigözlü, E. (2002). Hemşirelerde iş kontrolü, kontrol isteği ile tükenmişlik ve fiziksel sağlık arasındaki ilişkiler. Unpublished master’s thesis, Hacettepe Üniversitesi.

76

Ekinci, H. and S. Ekici. (2003). “İşletmelerde örgütsel stres yönetim stratejisi olarak sosyal desteğin rolüne ilişkin görgül bir araştırma.” Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, vol.27, no.1, pp. 109-120.

Erdogan, B., M.L. Kraimer, and R.C. Liden. (2004). “Work value congruence and intrinsic career success: The compensatory roles of leader-member exchange and perceived organizational support.” Personnel Psychology, vol.57, issue 2, pp.305-332.

Eulberg, J.R., J.A. Weekley, and R.S. Bhagat. (1988). “Models of stress in organizational research: A metatheoretical perspective.” Human Relations, vol.41, no.4, pp.331-350.

Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2003). Final Report- Sector: Working Adults. Retrieved April 4, 2005 from http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ ph_projects/2001/promotion/fp_promotion_2001_annex2_02_en.pdf.

Feinberg, R.A., L. Hokama, R. Kadam, and I. Kim. (2002). “Operational determinants of caller satisfaction in the banking/financial services call center.” The International Journal of Bank Marketing, vol.20, issue 4/5, pp.174-180.

Fenlason, K.J., and T.A. Beehr. (1994). “Social support and occupational stress: Effects of talking to others.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol.15, pp.157-175. As quoted in Torun, A. (1995).

Finegan, J.E. (2000). “The impact of person and organizational values on organizational commitment”. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, vol.73, part 2, pp.149-169.

Fogarty, G.J., and M.A. Machin. (2003). Person-environment fit and stress: Discrepancy between preferred and actual levels of exposure to occupational stressors and resulting feelings of strain. University of Southern Queensland. Retrieved January 2, 2005 from http://www.usq.edu.au/users/fogarty/My%20papers/P-E% 20fit%20paperv4 .pdf.

French, J.R.P. Jr. (1963). “The social environment and mental health.” Journal of Social Issues, vol.19, no.4, pp.39-56. As quoted in Caplan, R.D., and R.V. Harrison. (1993).

French, J.R.P. Jr. (1973). “Person-role fit.” Occupational Mental Health, vol.3, pp.15-20. As quoted in Caplan, R.D., and R.V. Harrison. (1993).

French, J.R.P. Jr, W. Rogers, and S. Cobb. (1974). “Adjustment as person-environment fit.” In Coelho G.V., D.A. Hamburg, and J.E. Adams. (Eds.). Coping and Adaptation, (pp. 316-333). New York: Basic Books.

French, J.R.P. Jr., R.D. Caplan, and R.V. Harrison. (1982). The mechanisms of job stress and strain. London: Wiley. As quoted in Caplan, R.D., and R.V. Harrison. (1993) and Edwards, J.R. (1991).

77

Furnham, A., and R. Schaeffer. (1984). “Person-environment fit, job satisfaction, and mental health.” Journal of Occupational Psychology, vol.57, pp. 295-307.

Gmelch, W.H. (1982). Beyond stress to effective management. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Goodman, S.A., and D.J. Svyantek. (1999). “Person-organization fit and contextual performance: Do shared values matter?” Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol.55, pp.254-275. As quoted in Sekiguchi, T. (2004).

Grandey, A.A., G.M. Fisk, and D.D. Steiner. (2005). “Must ‘service with a smile’ be stressful? The moderating role of personal control for American and French employees.” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol.90, no.5, pp.893-904.

Güler, Z., N.Ö. Başpınar, and H. Gürbüz. (2001). İş yaşamında stres ve kamu kurumlarındaki sekreterler üzerinde bir uygulama. T.C. Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları, no:1322, Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Basımevi.

Gümüşay, T. (1997). Bir metal fabrikasında çalışan işçiler üzerinde stres-özsaygı-verimlilik ilişkisinin incelenmesi. Unpublished master’s thesis, Marmara Üniversitesi.

Gümüştekin, G.E., and A.B. Öztemiz. (2004). “Örgütsel stres yönetimi ve uçucu personel üzerinde bir uygulama.” Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, no.23, pp.61-85.

Güngör, S. (1997). Effects of job stressors and social support on burnout in a Turkish sample. Unpublished master’s thesis, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi.

Hall, D.T., B. Schneider, and H.T. Nygren. (1970). “Personal factors in organizational identification.” Administrative Science Quarterly, vol.15, pp.176-190. As quoted in Edwards, J.R. (1991).

Hillmer, S., B. Hillmer, and G. McRoberts. (2004). “The real costs of turnover: Lessons from a call center.” Human Resource Planning, vol.27, issue 3, pp.34-41.

Holahan, C.J., and R.H. Moos. (1982). “Social support and adjustment: Predictive benefits of social climate indices.” American Journal of Community Psychology, vol. 10, no.4, pp.403-415. As quoted in Torun, A. (1995).

Holdsworth, L., and S. Cartwright. (2002). “Empowerment, stress and satisfaction: an exploratory study of a call centre.” Leadership and Organization Development Journal, vol.24, no.3, pp.131-140.

Holland, J.L. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. As quoted in Meir, E.I., and S. Melamed. (1986).

78

Hollenbeck, J.R. (1989). “Control theory and the perception of work environments: The effects of focus of attention on affective and behavioral reactions to work.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, vol.43, pp.406-430. As quoted in Edwards, J.R. (1991).

Holman, D. (2002). “Employee well-being in call centers.” Human Resource Management Journal, vol.12, issue 4, pp. 35-50.

Holman, D. (2003). “Phoning in sick? An overview of employee stress in call centres.” Leadership and Organization Development Journal, vol.24, no.3, pp.123-130.

House, J. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. As quoted in Cooper, C.L., P.J. Dewe, and M.P. O’Driscoll. (2001).

Hrebiniak, L.G., and J.A. Alutto. (1972). “Personal and role-related factors in the development of organizational commitment.” Administrative Science Quarterly, vol.17, pp.555-573. As quoted in Edwards, J.R. (1991).

Hrebiniak, L.G., and M.R. Roteman. (1973). “A study of the relationship between need satisfaction and absenteeism among managerial personnel.” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol.58, pp.381-383. As quoted in Edwards, J.R. (1991).

International Stress Management Association, UK. (2000). “Stress- a few facts: The scale of the problem.” In Donnellan, C. (Ed.). Coping with Stress, (pp.7-12). Issues series vol. 32. Cambridge: Independence Educational Publishers.

Işıkhan, V. (2004). Çalışma hayatında stres ve başa çıkma yolları. Ankara: Sandal Yayınları.

Ivancevich, J.M. (1979). “An analysis of participation in decision making among project engineers.” Academy of Management Journal, vol.22, pp.253-269. As quoted in Edwards, J.R. (1991).

Ivancevich, J.M., and M.T. Matteson. (1984). “A Type A-B person-work environment interaction model for examining occupational stress and consequences.” Human Relations, vol.37, pp.491-513. As quoted in Schneider, B., H.W. Goldstein, and D.B. Smith. (1995).

İslamoğlu, G., and D. Börü. (2005). “Kadın ve erkekler açısından örgütsel güç aralığı.” Marmara Üniversitesi, Öneri Dergisi, vol.6,no.24, pp.71-87.

Jones, F., and J. Bright. (2001). Stress: Myth, theory, and research. Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited.

Judge, T.A., and D.M. Cable. (1997). “Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organization attraction.” Personnel Psychology, vol.50, issue 2, pp.359-394.

Kahn, R.L. (1979). “Aging and social support. In Riley, M.W. (Ed.). Aging from birth to death: Interdisciplinary perspectives, (pp.77-91). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. As quoted in Cutrona, C.E., and D.W. Russell. (1990).

79

Karasek, R.A. (1979). “Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign.” Administrative Science Quarterly, vol.24, pp.285-308.

Kaymakçıoğlu, Ç. (2001). Effects of perceived stress, social support, expectancies, and coping style on depression and anxiety. Unpublished master’s thesis, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi.

Kırel, Ç. (1991). Örgütlerde stres kaynaklarının çalışan kadınlar üzerindeki etkileri ve Eskişehir bölgesinde bir uygulama çalışması. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Anadolu Üniversitesi.

Kinnicki, A.J., C.A. Lockwood, P.W. Hom, and R.W. Griffeth. (1990). “Interviewers’ predictions of applicant qualifications and interviewer validity: Aggregate and individual analysis.” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol.75, pp.477-486. As quoted in Sekiguchi, T. (2004).

Kinnie, N., S. Hutchinson, and J. Purcell. (2000). “ ‘Fun and surveillance’: The paradox of high commitment management in call centres.’” International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol.11, no.5, pp.967-985. As quoted in Holdsworth and Cartwright (2002).

Kristof, A.L. (1996). “Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications.” Personnel Psychology, vol.49, no.1, pp.1-49.

Kristof-Brown, A.L. (2000). “Perceived applicant fit: Distinguishing between recruiters' perceptions of person-job and person-organization fit.” Personnel Psychology, vol.53, issue 3, pp.643-671.

Küçükarslan, A. (1994). İstanbul Telefon Başmüdürlüğü’nde çalışan telefon operatörlerinin stres-iş doyumu ilişkisinin incelenmesi. Unpublished master’s thesis, Marmara Üniversitesi.

Le Fevre, M., J. Matheny, and G. S. Kolt. (2003). “Eustress, distress, and interpretation in occupational stress.” Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol.18, no.7, pp.726-744.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York: Harper. As quoted in Puccio, G.J., A.J. Joniak, and R.J. Talbot. (1995).

London, M., and R. Klimoski. (1975). “Self-esteem and job complexity as moderators of performance and satisfaction.” Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol.6, pp.293-304. As quoted in Edwards, J.R. (1991).

McDonald, P., and J. Gandz. (1991). “Identification of values relevant to business research.” Human Resource Management, vol.30, pp.217-236. As quoted in Sağnak, M. (2005).

Meir, E.I., and K. Engel. (1986). “Interests and specialty choice in medicine.” Social Science and Medicine, vol.23, pp.527-530. As quoted in Edwards, J.R. (1991).

80

Meir, E.I., and S. Melamed. (1986). “The accumulation of person-environment congruences and well-being.” Journal of Occupational Behavior, vol.4, no.4, pp.315-323.

Muchinsky, P.M., and C.J. Monahan. (1987). “What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit.” Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol.31, pp.268-277. As quoted in Kristof, A.L. (1996).

O*Net. (2005). Summary report for: Call center representative. Retrieved April 25, 2005 from http://online.onetcenter.org.

O’Brien, G.E., and P. Dowling. (1980). “The effects of congruency between perceived and desired job attributes upon job satisfaction.” Journal of Occupational Psychology, vol.53, pp.121-130. As quoted in Edwards, J.R. (1991).

O’Reilly, C.A., and J. Chatman. (1986). “Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior.” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol.71, pp.492-499. As quoted in Sekiguchi, T. (2004).

O’Reilly, C.A., J. Chatman, and D.F. Caldwell. (1991). “People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit.” Academy of Management Journal, vol.34, no.3, pp.487-516.

Özcan, B. (1997). Do men and women utilize social support differently in stressful work environments? Unpublished master’s thesis, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi.

Özdevecioğlu, M. (2004). “Sosyal destek ve yaşam tatmininin mesleki stres üzerindeki etkileri: Kayseri’de faaliyet gösteren işletme sahipleri ile bir araştırma.” Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, vol.22, no.1, pp.209-233.

Özgür, F. (2002). Hizmet sektöründe çalışanların stres düzeylerinin belirlenmesine yönelik karşılaştırmalı bir araştırma. Unpublished master’s thesis, Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi.

Posner, B.Z. (1992). “Person-organization values congruence: No support for individual differences as a moderating influence.” Human Relations, vol.45, pp.351-361. As quoted in Sekiguchi, T. (2004).

Puccio, G.J., A.J. Joniak, and R.J. Talbot. (1995). “Person-environment fit: Examining the use of commensurate scales.” Psychological Reports, vol. 76, pp.931-938.

Robbins, S.P. (2005). Organizational Behavior. 11th edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.

Sağnak, M. (2005). “İlköğretim okullarında görevli yönetici ve öğretmenlerin değer uyum düzeyleri.” Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, vol.5, no.1, pp.207-228.

Sarason, B.R., I.G. Sarason, and G.R. Pierce. (1990). “Traditional views of social support and their impact on assessment.” In Sarason, B.R., I.G. Sarason, and G.R. Pierce. (Eds.). Social support: An interactional view, (pp. 9-25). NY: John Wiley and Sons.

81

Schaefer, C., J.C. Coyne, and R.S. Lazarus. (1981). “The health related functions of social support.” Journal of Behavioral Medicine, vol.4, pp.381-406. As quoted in Cutrona, C.E., and D.W. Russell. (1990).

Schneider, B. (1987). “E= f(P,B): The road to a radical approach to person-environment fit.” Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol.31, pp.353-361. As quoted in Puccio, G.J., A.J. Joniak, and R.J. Talbot. (1995).

Schneider, B., H.W. Goldstein, and D.B. Smith. (1995). “The ASA framework: An update.” Personnel Psychology, vol.48, issue 4, pp.747-776.

Sekiguchi, T. (2003). “A contingency perspective on the importance of P-J fit and P-O fit in employee selection.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Seattle, WA, August, 2003.

Sekiguchi, T. (2004). “Person-organization fit and person-job fit in employee selection: A review of the literature.” Osaka Keidai Ronshu, vol.54, no.6, pp.179-196.

Selye, H. (1956). The stress of life. New York: McGraw-Hill. As quoted in Cooper, C.L., P.J. Dewe, and M.P. O’Driscoll. (2001).

Shaw, J.D., and N. Gupta. (2004). “Job complexity, performance, and well-being: When does supplies-values fit matter?” Personnel Psychology, vol.57, pp.847-879.

Sheridan, J.E., and J.W. Slocum. (1975). “The direction of the causal relationship between job satisfaction and job performance.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, vol.14, pp.159-172. As quoted in Edwards, J.R. (1991).

Soygüt, G. (1989). The relationship of social support, life events, and paid employment on depressive symptoms among married women. Unpublished master’s thesis, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi.

Swaney, K., and D. Prediger. (1985). “The relationship between interest-occupation congruence and job satisfaction.” Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol.26, pp.13-24. As quoted in Edwards, J.R. (1991).

Şahin, N. H. (Ed.). (1994). Stresle başa çıkma: Olumlu bir yaklaşım. Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği Yayınları.

Şahin, N.H, and A. Durak. (1997). “Bir özel hastahane sağlık personelinde iş doyumu ve stres.” Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, vol.12, no.39, pp.57-71.

Tepeci, M., and Bartlett, A.L.B. (2000). “The hospitality industry culture profile: A measure of individual values, organizational culture, and person-organization fit as predictors of job satisfaction and behavioral intentions.” International Journal of Hospitality Management, vol.21, no.2, pp.151-170. As quoted in Yahyagil, M.Y. (2005).

Tezcanlı, E. (1989). Organizational stressors, demographic variables and felt stress: A study on stress at work. Unpublished master’s thesis, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi.

82

The Mental Health Foundation. (2000). “Mental Health in the Workplace.” In Donnellan, C. (Ed.). Coping with Stress, (pp.19-25). Issues series vol. 32. Cambridge: Independence Educational Publishers.

Tisak, J., and C.S. Smith. (1994). “Rejoinder to Edwards's comments.” Journal of Management, vol.20, no.3, pp.691-694. As quoted in Kristof, A.L. (1996).

Torun, A. (1995). Tükenmişlik, aile yapısı ve sosyal destek ilişkileri üzerine bir inceleme. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Marmara Üniversitesi.

Türk, M. (1997). Bir örgütsel stres anketinin (VOS-D) Türkiye’ye uyarlanması: Seri üretim, sürekli üretim teknolojileri ile hizmet sektöründe uygulanması. Unpublished medical specialty thesis, Ege Üniversitesi.

Tziner, A. (1987). “Congruency issue retested using Fineman’s achievement climation notion.” Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, vol.2, pp.63-78. As quoted in Edwards, J.R. (1991).

Vancouver, J.B., R.E. Millsap, and P.A. Peters.(1994). “Multilevel analysis of organizational goal congruence.” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol.79, pp.666-679. As quoted in Sekiguchi, T. (2004).

Van Knippenberg, B., and D. Van Knippenberg. (2005). “Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality.” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol.90, no.1, pp.25-37.

Varca, P.E. (1999). “Work stress and customer service delivery.” Journal of Services Marketing, vol.13, no.3, pp.229-241.

Varca, P.E. (2001). “Service representatives, job control, and white-collar blues.” Journal of Services Marketing, vol.15, no.4, pp. 257-269.

Viruses: Risks and benefits to society. (2006). Retrieved Sept. 16, 2006 from http://www.rhodes.edu/biology/glindquester/viruses/epidemiology.html#Prospective%20Epidemiology.

Weiss, R.S. (1974). “The provisions of social relationships.” In Rubin, Z. (Ed.) Doing unto others, (pp. 17-26). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. As quoted in Cutrona, C.E., and D.W. Russell. (1990).

Williams, A.W., J.E. Jr. Ware, and C.A. Donald. (1981). “A model of mental health, life events, and social supports applicable to general populations.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, vol.22, pp.324-336. As quoted in Cohen, S., and T.A. Wills. (1985).

Yahyagil, M.Y. (2005). “Birey-organizasyon uyumu ve çalışanların iş tutumlarına etkisi.” Marmara Üniversitesi, Öneri Dergisi, vol.6, no.24, pp.137-149.

83

APPENDICES

84

APPENDIX 1. SURVEY FORM ............... Değerli Çalışan, Marmara Üniversitesi'nde yapmakta olduğum yüksek lisans tezimde, çağrı merkezlerinde çalışanların tutum ve davranışlarını inceliyorum. Araştırmamın sonucunda iş yaşamında karşılaşılan bazı sorunların çözülmesine yönelik yararlı bilgiler elde etmeyi umuyorum. Elinizdeki anket formunda bulunan sorulara vereceğiniz yanıtlarla, bu bilimsel araştırmaya son derece önemli bir katkıda bulunmuş olacaksınız. Tüm soruları içinizden geldiği gibi ve de boş bırakmadan cevaplandırınız. Formun üzerinde herhangi bir yere isminizi yazmayınız. Yanıtlarınız sadece tarafımdan görülecek ve yalnızca bu tez çalışması kapsamında değerlendirilecektir. Formu doldurduktan sonra en geç .............. gününe kadar, departmanınıza yerleştirilmiş anket kutusunun içine bırakmanızı rica ediyorum. Ankete gösterdiğiniz ilgi için çok teşekkür eder, işlerinizde başarılar dilerim. Saygılarımla; Elif Yıldırımbulut Marmara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Örgütsel Davranış Bölümü

İletişim: eyildirimbulut@yahoo.com

İlk olarak, aşağıdaki genel soruları yanıtlayınız.

1 Yaşınız : ______ 2 Cinsiyetiniz : [ ] K [ ] E 3 En son mezun olduğunuz okul : [ ] Lise [ ] Üniversite [ ] Diğer (belirtiniz:________________) 4 Medeni durumunuz : [ ] Evli [ ] Bekar [ ] Dul, boşanmış ya da ayrı 5 Toplam iş deneyiminiz : _____ Yıl_____Ay 6 Bu işyerinde ne kadar süredir çalışıyorsunuz : _____ Yıl_____Ay 7 Pozisyonunuz : [ ] Yönetici ya da süpervizör [ ] Çalışan

85

Aşağıda yer alan ifadelerin; * idealinizdeki işyerini ve orada çalışan insanları ne ölçüde tanımladığını birinci sütuna, * halen çalıştığınız işyerini ve orada çalışan insanları ne ölçüde tanımladığını ikinci sütuna yazınız.

Lütfen her ifade için, en uygun olduğunu düşündüğünüz yanıta ait kutucuğu (X) ile işaretleyiniz.

İdealinizdeki işyerini ve orada çalışanları ne ölçüde tanımlıyor?

Halen çalıştığınız işyerini ve orada çalışanları ne ölçüde

tanımlıyor? Çok iyi İyi Biraz Pek az Hiç Çok iyi İyi Biraz Pek az Hiç 1 Değişikliklere adapte olur 2 Dengelidir 3 Yenilikçidir 4 Fırsatlardan çabuk faydalanır 5 Risk alır 6 Bağımsızdır 7 Kurallara önem verir 8 Analitiktir 9 Detaylara dikkat eder 10 Takım çalışmasına önem verir 11 Bilgiyi serbestçe paylaşır 12 İnsana önem verir 13 Adildir 14 Hoşgörülüdür 15 Resmiyetten uzaktır 16 Sakindir 17 Destekleyicidir 18 Hırslıdır 19 Kararlıdır 20 Düşüncelidir 21 Başarıya önem verir 22 Bireysel sorumluluk alır 23 Performansa yönelik yüksek

beklentileri vardır

24 Profesyonel gelişim için fırsatlar yaratır

25 İyi performansa yüksek ücret verir 26 İş güvencesi sunar 27 İyi performansı över 28 Çatışma ile doğrudan yüzleşir 29 İşyerindeki arkadaşlıkları geliştirir 30 İşini hevesle yapar 31 Uzun saatler boyunca çalışır 32 Kurallarla kısıtlanmaz 33 Kaliteye önem verir 34 Diğerlerinden farklıdır 35 Saygın bir üne sahiptir 36 Sosyal sorumluluk sahibidir 37 Sonuç odaklıdır 38 Belirgin bir yönlendirici felsefesi vardır 39 Rekabetçidir 40 Son derece organizedir

86

Aşağıda yer alan ifadelerin: * ideal bir çağrı merkezi çalışanında olması gereken nitelikleri ne ölçüde tanımladığını birinci sütuna, * sizin niteliklerinizi ne ölçüde tanımladığını ikinci sütuna yazınız.

Lütfen her ifade için, en uygun olduğunu düşündüğünüz yanıta ait kutucuğu (X) ile işaretleyiniz.

İdeal bir çağrı merkezi çalışanını ne ölçüde tanımlıyor?

Sizin niteliklerinizi ne ölçüde tanımlıyor?

Çok iyi İyi Biraz Pek az Hiç Çok iyi İyi Biraz Pek az Hiç 1 Müşteri ve kişisel hizmet bilgisi iyidir 2 Türkçe dil bilgisi iyidir 3 İdari işler bilgisi iyidir 4 Matematik bilgisi iyidir 5 Dikkatli ve ilgili bir dinleyicidir 6 Yazılı bilgileri iyi okuyup anlar 7 Performansını sürekli takip eder ve

geliştirir

8 Kendinin ve başkalarının zamanını iyi yönetir

9 Başkalarına yardım etmenin yollarını arar

10 Öğrendiği bilgileri uygulamaya geçirir 11 İşini daha iyi öğrenmenin en uygun

yolunu bulur

12 Yazılı iletişimi etkilidir 13 Karar almada ve problem çözmede

mantığını kullanır

14 Sözlü bilgileri iyi dinleyip anlar 15 Sözlü iletişimi etkilidir 16 Varolan veya olabilecek problemleri

farkeder

17 Genel kurallardan faydalanarak problemlere çözüm getirir

18 Farklı insanların şivelerini rahatça anlar

19 Anlaşılır ve net konuşur 20 Görünüşte ilgisiz bilgilerden bir sonuca

ulaşır

21 Yakın mesafedeki detayları iyi görür 22 Bilgileri belirli kurallara uygun olarak

düzenler

23 İyi huylu ve yardımseverdir 24 Sorumluluklarını yerine getirir 25 En zor durumlarda bile duygularını

kontrol edebilir

26 İşini yaparken en ufak detayı bile atlamaz

27 Stresli durumlarla iyi baş eder 28 Daha fazla sorumluluk almaktan

kaçınmaz

29 Her türlü değişime açıktır 30 Başkalarının ihtiyaçlarına karşı hassas

ve anlayışlıdır

31 Fazla yönlendirilmeye gerek duymadan işini yapabilir

32 Zorluklardan yılmaz

87

Son aylarda aşağıda belirtilen durum ya da duyguları hangi sıklıkta yaşadınız?

Lütfen her ifade için, en uygun olduğunu düşündüğünüz yanıta ait kutucuğu (X) ile işaretleyiniz. Hiçbir zaman Nadiren Bazen Sık sık Her zaman 1 Ailenizle yeterince ilgilenemediniz 2 Çabuk öfkelendiniz 3 Kendinizi gergin hissettiniz 4 İnsanlara karşı sert davrandınız 5 Kendinizi yorgun ve bitkin hissettiniz 6 Bir gün işinizi kaybedeceğinizi düşündünüz 7 Aşırı yemek yediniz ya da iştahsızlık çektiniz 8 Kendinizi rahat ve huzurlu hissettiniz 9 Kendinizi yalnız hissettiniz 10 Uyuyabilmek için ilaç aldınız 11 Mide yanması ve hazımsızlık hissettiniz 12 İş yüzünden eğlence ve dinlenmeye zaman

ayıramadınız

13 İşinizde hatalar yaptınız 14 İşleri zamanında yetiştiremediniz 15 Aşırı sigara veya içki tükettiniz 16 İşinizle ilgili olarak kendinizi mutsuz hissettiniz 17 Önemli bir nedeniniz olmadığı halde işe gitmediniz 18 Başınız döndü 19 Kalp çarpıntılarınız oldu 20 Elleriniz terledi 21 Baş ağrılarınız oldu 22 Göğüs ağrıları çektiniz 23 Nefes darlığı yaşadınız 24 Panik duygularına kapıldınız 25 Kendinizi genel olarak hasta hissettiniz 26 Sağlığınız mükemmeldi 27 İşyerinde büyük bir gerilim içinde çalıştınız 28 Sakinleştirici ilaç kullandınız 29 İşinizin tekdüze ve sıkıcı olduğunu düşündünüz 30 İşinizin size çok uygun olduğunu düşündünüz Aşağıdaki sorular, birlikte çalıştığınız iş arkadaşlarınız ve amirlerinizin tutum ve davranışları ile ilgilidir.

Lütfen her biri için, en uygun olduğunu düşündüğünüz yanıta ait kutucuğu (X) ile işaretleyiniz.

Hiçbir zaman Nadiren Bazen Sık sık Her zaman 1 Amirleriniz size ne ölçüde duygusal destek

veriyorlar?

2 İş arkadaşlarınız size ne ölçüde duygusal destek veriyorlar?

3 Amirleriniz ne ölçüde sorununuz ile ilgili bilgi vererek size destek oluyorlar?

4 İş arkadaşlarınız ne ölçüde sorununuz ile ilgili bilgi vererek size destek oluyorlar?

5 Amirleriniz ne ölçüde şahsınıza değer verdiklerini göstererek size destek oluyorlar?

6 İş arkadaşlarınız ne ölçüde şahsınıza değer verdiklerini göstererek size destek oluyorlar?

7 Amirleriniz ne ölçüde pratik yardımları ile size destek oluyorlar?

8 İş arkadaşlarınız ne ölçüde pratik yardımları ile size destek oluyorlar?

88

APPENDIX 2. CALL CENTER JOB PROFILE ITEMS

Call Center Job Profile Çağrı Merkezi İş Profili 1. Customer and Personal Service:

Knowledge of principles and processes for providing customer and personal services.

Müşteri ve kişisel hizmet bilgisi iyidir

2. Language: Knowledge of the structure and content of the language.

Türkçe dil bilgisi iyidir

3. Clerical: Knowledge of administrative and clerical procedures and systems.

İdari işler bilgisi iyidir

4. Mathematics: Knowledge of mathematics. Matematik bilgisi iyidir 5. Active listening: Giving full attention to

what other people are saying. Dikkatli ve ilgili bir dinleyicidir

6. Reading comprehension: Understanding written sentences and paragraphs in work related documents.

Yazılı bilgileri iyi okuyup anlar

7. Monitoring: Monitoring/Assessing performance of yourself to make improvements or take corrective action.

Performansını sürekli takip eder ve geliştirir

8. Time Management: Managing one's own time and the time of others.

Kendinin ve başkalarının zamanını iyi yönetir

9. Service Orientation: Actively looking for ways to help people.

Başkalarına yardım etmenin yollarını arar

10. Active Learning: Understanding and using new information for both current and future problem solving and decision-making.

Öğrendiği bilgileri uygulamaya geçirir

11. Learning Strategies: Selecting and using training/instructional methods and procedures appropriate for the situation when learning new things.

İşini daha iyi öğrenmenin en uygun yolunu bulur

12. Writing: Communicating effectively in writing.

Yazılı iletişimi etkilidir

13. Critical Thinking: Using logic and reasoning to identify the strengths and weaknesses of alternative solutions, conclusions or approaches to problems.

Karar almada ve problem çözmede mantığını kullanır

14. Oral Comprehension: The ability to listen to and understand information and ideas presented through spoken words and sentences.

Sözlü bilgileri iyi dinleyip anlar

15. Oral Expression: The ability to communicate information and ideas in speaking.

Sözlü iletişimi etkilidir

16. Problem Sensitivity: The ability to tell when something is wrong or is likely to go wrong.

Varolan veya olabilecek problemleri farkeder

89

Call Center Job Profile Çağrı Merkezi İş Profili 17. Deductive Reasoning: The ability to

apply general rules to specific problems. Genel kurallardan faydalanarak problemlere çözüm getirir

18. Speech Recognition: The ability to identify and understand the speech of another person.

Farklı insanların şivelerini rahatça anlar

19. Speech Clarity: The ability to speak clearly.

Anlaşılır ve net konuşur

20. Inductive Reasoning: The ability to combine pieces of information to form general rules or conclusions (includes finding a relationship among seemingly unrelated events).

Görünüşte ilgisiz bilgilerden bir sonuca ulaşır

21. Near Vision: The ability to see details at close range (within a few feet of the observer).

Yakın mesafedeki detayları iyi görür

22. Information Ordering: The ability to arrange things or actions in a certain order or pattern according to a specific rule or set of rules.

Bilgileri belirli kurallara uygun olarak düzenler

23. Cooperation: Being pleasant with others on the job and displaying a good-natured, cooperative attitude.

İyi huylu ve yardımseverdir

24. Dependability: Being reliable, responsible, and dependable, and fulfilling obligations.

Sorumluluklarını yerine getirir

25. Self Control: Maintaining composure, keeping emotions in check, controlling anger, and avoiding aggressive behavior, even in very difficult situations.

En zor durumlarda bile duygularını kontrol edebilir

26. Attention to Detail: Being careful about detail and thorough in completing work tasks.

İşini yaparken en ufak detayı bile atlamaz

27. Stress Tolerance: Dealing calmly and effectively with high stress situations.

Stresli durumlarla iyi baş eder

28. Initiative: Willingness to take on responsibilities.

Daha fazla sorumluluk almaktan kaçınmaz

29. Adaptability/Flexibility: Being open to change (positive or negative).

Her türlü değişime açıktır

30. Concern for Others: Being sensitive to others' needs and feelings and being understanding.

Başkalarının ihtiyaçlarına karşı hassas ve anlayışlıdır

31. Independence: Developing one's own ways of doing things, guiding oneself with little or no supervision, and depending on oneself to get things done.

Fazla yönlendirilmeye gerek duymadan işini yapabilir

32. Persistence: Being persistent in the face of obstacles.

Zorluklardan yılmaz

90

APPENDIX 3. ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE PROFILE ITEMS

Organizational Culture Profile (*) Örgütsel Kültür Profili 1. Adaptability Değişikliklere adapte olur 2. Stability Dengelidir 3. Being innovative Yenilikçidir 4. Being quick to take advantage of

opportunities Fırsatlardan çabuk faydalanır

5. Risk taking Risk alır 6. Autonomy Bağımsızdır 7. Being rule oriented Kurallara önem verir 8. Being analytical Analitiktir 9. Paying attention to detail Detaylara dikkat eder 10. Being team oriented Takım çalışmasına önem verir 11. Sharing information freely Bilgiyi serbestçe paylaşır 12. Being people oriented İnsana önem verir 13. Fairness Adildir 14. Tolerance Hoşgörülüdür 15. Informality Resmiyetten uzaktır 16. Being calm Sakindir 17. Being supportive Destekleyicidir 18. Being aggressive Hırslıdır 19. Decisiveness Kararlıdır 20. Being reflective Düşüncelidir 21. Achievement orientation Başarıya önem verir 22. Taking individual responsibility Bireysel sorumluluk alır 23. Having high expectations for

performance Performansa yönelik yüksek beklentileri vardır

24. Opportunities for professional growth Profesyonel gelişim için fırsatlar yaratır 25. High pay for good performance İyi performansa yüksek ücret verir 26. Security of employment İş güvencesi sunar 27. Offers praise for good performance İyi performansı över 28. Confronting conflict directly Çatışma ile doğrudan yüzleşir 29. Developing friends at work İşyerindeki arkadaşlıkları geliştirir 30. Enthusiasm for the job İşini hevesle yapar 31. Working long hours Uzun saatler boyunca çalışır 32. Not being constrained by many rules Kurallarla kısıtlanmaz 33. An emphasis on quality Kaliteye önem verir 34. Being distinctive-different from others Diğerlerinden farklıdır 35. Having a good reputation Saygın bir üne sahiptir 36. Being socially responsible Sosyal sorumluluk sahibidir 37. Being results oriented Sonuç odaklıdır 38. Having a clear guiding philosophy Belirgin bir yönlendirici felsefesi vardır 39. Being competitive Rekabetçidir 40. Being highly organized Son derece organizedir (*) The 40-item version of the OCP (O’Reilly et al., 1991).

91

APPENDIX 4. SOCIAL SUPPORT ITEMS

Social Support Scale Sosyal Destek Ölçeği 1. Supervisors provide emotional

support. Amirleriniz size ne ölçüde duygusal destek veriyorlar?

2. Co-workers provide emotional support

İş arkadaşlarınız size ne ölçüde duygusal destek veriyorlar?

3. Supervisors provide informational support.

Amirleriniz ne ölçüde sorununuz ile ilgili bilgi vererek size destek oluyorlar?

4. Co-workers provide informational support

İş arkadaşlarınız ne ölçüde sorununuz ile ilgili bilgi vererek size destek oluyorlar?

5. Supervisors provide appraisal support.

Amirleriniz ne ölçüde şahsınıza değer verdiklerini göstererek size destek oluyorlar?

6. Co-workers provide appraisal support.

İş arkadaşlarınız ne ölçüde şahsınıza değer verdiklerini göstererek size destek oluyorlar?

7. Supervisors provide instrumental support.

Amirleriniz ne ölçüde pratik yardımları ile size destek oluyorlar?

8. Co-workers provide instrumental support

İş arkadaşlarınız ne ölçüde pratik yardımları ile size destek oluyorlar?

92

APPENDIX 5. JOB STRESS ITEMS

Job Stress Scale İş Stresi Ölçeği 1. No time for the family Ailenizle yeterince ilgilenemediniz 2. Having a quick temper Çabuk öfkelendiniz 3. Being tense Kendinizi gergin hissettiniz 4. Being harsh on others İnsanlara karşı sert davrandınız 5. Being tired and worn out Kendinizi yorgun ve bitkin hissettiniz 6. Thinking about losing job Bir gün işinizi kaybedeceğinizi düşündünüz 7. Over/under-eating Aşırı yemek yediniz ya da iştahsızlık çektiniz 8. Being relaxed and peaceful (R) Kendinizi rahat ve huzurlu hissettiniz 9. Being lonely Kendinizi yalnız hissettiniz 10. Taking sleeping pill Uyuyabilmek için ilaç aldınız 11. Stomach burn/ indigestion Mide yanması ve hazımsızlık hissettiniz 12. No time for leisure İş yüzünden eğlence ve dinlenmeye zaman

ayıramadınız 13. Making errors in the job İşinizde hatalar yaptınız 14. Missing deadlines İşleri zamanında yetiştiremediniz 15. Cigarette and alcohol over-

consumption Aşırı sigara veya içki tükettiniz

16. Feeling unhappy about work İşinizle ilgili olarak kendinizi mutsuz hissettiniz

17. Absenteeism without just cause Önemli bir nedeniniz olmadığı halde işe gitmediniz

18. Dizziness Başınız döndü 19. Increased heart rate Kalp çarpıntılarınız oldu 20. Sweating hands Elleriniz terledi 21. Headache Baş ağrılarınız oldu 22. Chest pain Göğüs ağrıları çektiniz 23. Being out of breath Nefes darlığı yaşadınız 24. Feeling panic Panik duygularına kapıldınız 25. General sense of being sick Kendinizi genel olarak hasta hissettiniz 26. Perfect health (R) Sağlığınız mükemmeldi 27. Working under great tension İşyerinde büyük bir gerilim içinde çalıştınız 28. Taking sedatives Sakinleştirici ilaç kullandınız 29. Monotonous and boring job İşinizin tekdüze ve sıkıcı olduğunu

düşündünüz 30. Being in the right job (R) İşinizin size çok uygun olduğunu düşündünüz

(R)Reverse item