Nama :wahyu satrio winarto

Judul : Job satisfaction and organizational commitment in relation to work performance and turnover intentions

IntroductionPhenomena

Problems

Many studies have reported a significant association between organizational commitment and turnover intentions (Ferrs & Aranya, 1983; Hom, Katerberg, & Huln, 1979; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979; O’Reilly & Cald Well, 1980; Steers, 1977; Stumpf &Hartman, 1984; Weiner &Vardi,1980). Other research has established a relationship between job satisfaction and turnover intentions. Overall job satisfaction appears to be associated with turnover intentions (Angle & Perry, 1981 ; Bedeian & Armenakis, 1981). Studies of facet satisfactions also have reported siginificant correlations between turnover intentions and satisfication with the work itself (Hom et al.,1979; Kraut, 1975; Waters, Roach, & waters, 1976) and pay and promotion (Hom et al., 1979; Waters et al., 1976).

Research has also compared the independent and joint effect of job satisfaction and organizational commitment on turnover intentions. Foxexample, Peters, Bhagat, and O’Connor (1981) found that organizational commitment had a stronger relationship with turnover than job satisfactions, through satisfaction did make an independent contribution to the prediction of turnover intentions. Arnold and Feldman (1982) also found that bouth work attitudes correlated significantly with turnover intentions, though organizational commitment showed the stronger relationship. Hom et al (1979) compared organizational commitment with facet satisfaction and reported the organizational commitment was a better predictor of intentions to re-enlist in the National guard. Althoough both of these studies shed light on the differential ability of job satisfaction and organizational commitment to predict turnover intentions and turnover, the present study contributes to the literature by expanding on their ideas in two ways. First, it includes a second outcomes variable, job performance, that allows for comparison of the differential effect of the two work attudes. Second, it provides a test of a

model that proposes that job ans organizational attitudes are distinct constructs that yield differential relationship to the same outcome variables.

It appears that both satisfaction and commitment are related to turnover intentions. However, these studies also show that organizational commitment is associated more strongly than job satisfaction with turnover intention. An additional issue when researching turnover intentions is the utility of such concept. Stel and Ovalle’s (1984) meta-analysis suggest that turnover intention is a valuable concept as it is linked with actual turnover behavior. Anoother benefit of using turnover intentions to test the nnotion that job and organizational attitudes lead to defferent outcome is thet this intentions is under more individual control than turnover. Turnover is much more difficult to predict than intentions since there are many external factors that affect turnover behavior (Bluedorn, 1982; price & Mueller, 1981).

Research also has been conducted that investigates the relationship that job performance has with job satisfaction and organizational commitment. While some literature suggest job satisfaction and job performance are related (Petty, McGee, & Cavender, 1984), other analyses of the job satisfaction literature have concluded that satisfaction show negligible retionship with jo performance (Iaffaldano & Muchinsk, 1985 ; Locke, 1976). There is much less research on the relationship between organizational commitment and job performance. Booth Steers (1977) and Wiener and Vardi (1980) concluded that organizational commitment was not clearly related to job performance.

Literatur Review

Description

Theoretical and empirical finding

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is how content an individual is with his or her job. Scholars and human resource professionals generally make a distinction between Thompson (2012) and Moorman (1993) Affective job satisfaction is the extent of pleasurable emotional feelings individuals have about their jobs overall, and is different to cognitive job satisfaction which is the extent of individuals’ satisfaction with particular facets of their jobs, such as pay, pension arrangements, working hours, and numerous other aspects of their jobs.

Affect theory

Edwin A. Locke’s Range of Affect Theory (1976) is arguably the most famous job satisfaction model. The main premise of this theory is that satisfaction is determined by a discrepancy between what one wants in a job and what one has in a job. Further, the theory states that how much one values a given facet of work (e.g. the degree of autonomy in a position) moderates how satisfied/dissatisfied one becomes when expectations are/aren’t met. When a person values a particular facet of a job, his satisfaction is more greatly impacted both positively (when expectations are met) and negatively (when expectations are not met), compared to one who doesn’t value that facet. To illustrate, if Employee A values autonomy in the workplace and Employee B is indifferent about autonomy, then Employee A would be more satisfied in a position that offers a high degree of autonomy and less satisfied in a position with little or no autonomy compared to Employee B. This theory also states that too much of a particular facet will produce stronger feelings of dissatisfaction the more a worker values that facet.

Dispositional theory

Another well-known job satisfaction theory is the Dispositional Theory. It is a very general theory that suggests that people have innate dispositions that cause them to have tendencies toward a certain level of satisfaction, regardless of one’s job. This approach became a notable explanation of job satisfaction in light of evidence that job satisfaction tends to be stable over time and across careers and jobs. Research also indicates that identical twins have similar levels of job satisfaction.

A significant model that narrowed the scope of the Dispositional Theory was the Core Self-evaluations Model, proposed by Timothy A. Judge, Edwin A. Locke, and Cathy C. Durham in 1997. Judge (1997). Judge et al. argued that there are four Core Self-evaluations that determine one’s disposition towards job satisfaction: self-esteem, general self-efficacy, locus of control, and neuroticism. This model states that higher levels of self-esteem (the value one places on his/her self) and general self-efficacy (the belief in one’s own competence) lead to higher work satisfaction. Having an internal locus of control (believing one has control over her\his own life, as opposed to outside forces having control) leads to higher job satisfaction. Finally, lower levels of neuroticism lead to higher job satisfaction. Judge & Corbit(1997).

===Opponent process theory=== event in question. Events that seem negative in manner will give rise to the feelings of stress or anxiety. Events that are positive give rise to the feeling of content or relaxation. The other process is the opponent process, which induces feelings that contradict the feelings in the primary processes. Events that are negative give rise to

feelings of relaxation while events that are positive give rise to feelings of anxiety. A variety of explanations have been suggested to explain the uniformity of mood or satisfaction. This theory shows that if you try to enhance the mood of individual it will more likely fail in doing so. The opponent process theory was formulated to explain these patterns of observations. Judge & Corbit (1974).

Equity theory

Equity Theory shows how a person views fairness in regard to social relationships. During a social exchange, a person identifies the amount of input gained from a relationship compared to the output, as well as how much effort another persons puts forth. Berscheid and Walster. (1973) Equity Theory suggests that if an individual thinks there is an inequality between two social groups or individuals, the person is likely to be distressed because the ratio between the input and the output are not equal.Huseman, Hatfield, and Miles, (1987). For example, consider two employees who work the same job and receive the same benefits. If one individual gets a pay raise for doing the same or less work than the other, then the less benefited individual will become distressed in his workplace. If, on the other hand, one individual gets a pay raise and new responsibilities, then the feeling of inequality is reduced. Huseman, Hatfield, and Miles, (1987).

Other psychologists have extended the equity theory, suggesting three behavioral response patterns to situations of perceived equity or inequity (Huseman, Hatfield, & Mile, 1987; O'Neil & Mone 1998). These three types are benevolent, equity sensitive, and entitled. The level by each type affects motivation, job satisfaction, and job performance.

1. Benevolent-Satisfied when they are under-rewarded compared with co-workers

2. Equity sensitive-Believe everyone should be fairly rewarded3. Entitled-People believe that everything they receive is their just

due. Schultz, Duane P. Schultz, Sydney Ellen (2010).

Discrepancy theory

The concept of discrepancy theory explains the ultimate source of anxiety and dejection. Higgins, E. T. (1999b). An individual, who has not fulfilled his responsibility feels the sense of anxiety and regret for not performing well, they will also feel dejection due to not being able to achieve

their hopes and aspirations. According to this theory, all individuals will learn what their obligations and responsibilities for a particular function, over a time period, and if they fail to fulfill those obligations then they are punished. Over time, these duties and obligations consolidate to form an abstracted set of principles, designated as a self-guide. Higgins, E. T. (1987). Agitation and anxiety are the main responses when an individual fails to achieve the obligation or responsibility. Strauman, T. J. (1989). This theory also explains that if achievement of the obligations is obtained then the reward can be praise, approval, or love. These achievements and aspirations also form an abstracted set of principles, referred to as the ideal self guide. Higgins, E. T. (1987). When the individual fails to obtain these rewards, they begin to have feelings of dejection, disappointment, or even depression.Strauman, T. J. (1989).

Two-factor theory (motivator-hygiene theory)

Frederick Herzberg’s Two-factor theory (also known as Motivator Hygiene Theory) attempts to explain satisfaction and motivation in the workplace. Hackman , Oldham (1976) This theory states that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are driven by different factors – motivation and hygiene factors, respectively. An employee’s motivation to work is continually related to job satisfaction of a subordinate. Motivation can be seen as an inner force that drives individuals to attain personal and organizational goals (Hoskinson, Porter, & Wrench, p. 133). Motivating factors are those aspects of the job that make people want to perform, and provide people with satisfaction, for example achievement in work, recognition, promotion opportunities. Aristovnik, A., & Jaklič, K. (2013). These motivating factors are considered to be intrinsic to the job, or the work carried out.Hackman , Oldham (1976) Hygiene factors include aspects of the working environment such as pay, company policies, supervisory practices, and other working conditions. Hackman , Oldham (1976)

While Herzberg's model has stimulated much research, researchers have been unable to reliably empirically prove the model, with Hackman & Oldham suggesting that Herzberg's original formulation of the model may have been a methodological artifact.Hackman , Oldham (1976) Furthermore, the theory does not consider individual differences, conversely predicting all employees will react in an identical manner to changes in motivating/hygiene factors. Hackman , Oldham (1976) Finally, the model has been criticised in that it does not specify how motivating/hygiene factors are to be measured.Hackman , Oldham (1976)

History

One of the biggest preludes to the study of job satisfaction was the Hawthorne studies. These studies (1924–1933), primarily credited to Elton

Mayo of the Harvard Business School, sought to find the effects of various conditions (most notably illumination) on workers’ productivity. These studies ultimately showed that novel changes in work conditions temporarily increase productivity (called the Hawthorne Effect). It was later found that this increase resulted, not from the new conditions, but from the knowledge of being observed. This finding provided strong evidence that people work for purposes other than pay, which paved the way for researchers to investigate other factors in job satisfaction.

Scientific management (aka Taylorism) also had a significant impact on the study of job satisfaction. Frederick Winslow Taylor’s 1911 book, Principles of Scientific Management, argued that there was a single best way to perform any given work task. This book contributed to a change in industrial production philosophies, causing a shift from skilled labor and piecework towards the more modern of assembly lines and hourly wages. The initial use of scientific management by industries greatly increased productivity because workers were forced to work at a faster pace. However, workers became exhausted and dissatisfied, thus leaving researchers with new questions to answer regarding job satisfaction. It should also be noted that the work of W.L. Bryan, Walter Dill Scott, and Hugo Munsterberg set the tone for Taylor’s work.

Some argue that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory, a motivation theory, laid the foundation for job satisfaction theory. This theory explains that people seek to satisfy five specific needs in life – physiological needs, safety needs, social needs, self-esteem needs, and self-actualization. This model served as a good basis from which early researchers could develop job satisfaction theories. Benson (2003)

Job satisfaction can also be seen within the broader context of the range of issues which affect an individual's experience of work, or their quality of working life. Job satisfaction can be understood in terms of its relationships with other key factors, such as general well-being, stress at work, control at work, home-work interface, and working conditions.

Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment is the individual's psychological attachment to the organization. The basis behind many of these studies was to find ways to improve how workers feel about their jobs so that these workers would become more committed to their organizations. Organizational commitment predicts work variables such as turnover, organizational citizenship behavior, and job performance. Some of the factors such as role stress, empowerment, job insecurity and employability,

and distribution of leadership have been shown to be connected to a worker's sense of organizational commitment.

Organizational commitment can be contrasted with other work-related attitudes, such as job satisfaction, defined as an employee's feelings about their job, and organizational identification, defined as the degree to which an employee experiences a 'sense of oneness' with their organization.

Organizational scientists have also developed many nuanced definitions of organizational commitment, and numerous scales to measure them. Exemplary of this work is Meyer and Allen's model of commitment, which was developed to integrate numerous definitions of commitment that had been proliferated in the literature. Meyer and Allen's model has also been critiqued because the model is not consistent with empirical findings. There has also been debate surrounding what Meyers and Allen's model was trying to achieve.

Meyer and Allen's (2007) three-component model of commitment was created to argue that commitment has three different components that correspond with different psychological states. Meyer and Allen created this model for two reasons: first "aid in the interpretation of existing research" and second "to serve as a framework for future research." Meyer, (2007). Their study was based mainly around previous studies of organizational commitment. Meyer and Allen’s research indicated that there are three "mind sets" which can characterize an employee's commitment to the organization:

Affective Commitment

AC is defined as the employee's positive emotional attachment to the organization. Meyer and Allen pegged AC as the “desire” component of organizational commitment. An employee who is affectively committed strongly identifies with the goals of the organization and desires to remain a part of the organization. This employee commits to the organization because he/she "wants to". This commitment can be influenced by many different demographic characteristics: age, tenure, sex, and education but these influences are neither strong nor consistent. The problem with these characteristics is that while they can be seen, they cannot be clearly defined. Meyer and Allen gave this example that “positive relationships between tenure and commitment maybe due to tenure-related differences in job status and quality” Meyer and Allen (2006) In developing this concept, Meyer and Allen drew largely on Mowday, Porter, and Steers's (2006) ; Mowday (2006). concept of commitment, which in turn drew on earlier work by Kanter (1968) . Kanter, (1968).

Continuance Commitment

Continuance Commitment is the “need” component or the gains verses losses of working in an organization. “Side bets,” or investments, are the gains and losses that may occur should an individual stay or leave an organization. An individual may commit to the organization because he/she perceives a high cost of losing organizational membership (cf. Becker's 1960 "side bet theory" Becker HS (1960). Things like economic costs (such as pension accruals) and social costs (friendship ties with co-workers) would be costs of losing organizational membership. But an individual doesn’t see the positive costs as enough to stay with an organization they must also take into account the availability of alternatives (such as another organization), disrupt personal relationships, and other “side bets” that would be incurred from leaving their organization. The problem with this is that these “side bets” don’t occur at once but that they “accumulate with age and tenure”. Meyer, and Allen, (1991).

Normative Commitment

The individual commits to and remains with an organization because of feelings of obligation, the last component of organizational commitment. These feelings may derive from a strain on an individual before and after joining an organization. For example, the organization may have invested resources in training an employee who then feels a 'moral' obligation to put forth effort on the job and stay with the organization to 'repay the debt.' It may also reflect an internalized norm, developed before the person joins the organization through family or other socialization processes, that one should be loyal to one's organization. The employee stays with the organization because he/she "ought to". But generally if an individual invest a great deal they will receive “advanced rewards.” Meyer and Allen based their research in this area more on theoretical evidence rather than empirical, which may explain the lack of depth in this section of their study compared to the others. They drew off Wiener’s (2005) Wiener, (1982). research for this commitment component.

Critique to the Three-Component Model

Since the model was made, there has been conceptual critique to what the model is trying to achieve. Specifically from three psychologists, Omar Solinger, Woody Olffen, and Robert Roe. To date, the three-component conceptual model has been regarded as the leading model for organizational commitment because it ties together three aspects of earlier commitment research (Becker, 2005; Buchanan, 2005; Kanter, 1968; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; Salancik, 2004; Weiner, 2004; Weiner & Vardi, 2005). However, a collection of studies have shown that the model is not consistent with empirical findings. Solinger, Olffen, and Roe use a later model by Alice Eagly and Shelly Chaiken, Attitude-behavior Model (2004), to present that TCM combines different attitude phenomena. They have come to the conclusion that TCM is a model is for predicting turnover. In a sense the model describes why people should stay with the

organization whether it is because they want to, need to, or ought to. The model appears to mix together an attitude toward a target, that being the organization, with an attitude toward a behavior, which is leaving or staying. They believe the studies should return to the original understanding of organizational commitment as an attitude toward the organization and measure it accordingly. Although the TCM is a good way to predict turnover, these psychologists do not believe it should be the general model. Because Eagly and Chaiken's model is so general, it seems that the TCM can be described as a specific subdivision of their model when looking at a general sense of organizational commitment. It becomes clear that affective commitment equals an attitude toward a target, while continuance and normative commitment are representing different concepts referring to anticipated behavioral outcomes, specifically staying or leaving. This observation backs up their conclusion that organizational commitment is perceived by TCM as combining different target attitudes and behavioral attitudes, which they believe to be both confusing and logically incorrect. The attitude-behavioral model can demonstrate explanations for something that would seem contradictory in the TCM. That is that affective commitment has stronger associations with relevant behavior and a wider range of behaviors, compared to normative and continuance commitment. Attitude toward a target (the organization) is obviously applicable to a wider range of behaviors than an attitude toward a specific behavior (staying). After their research, Sollinger, Olffen, and Roe believe Eagly and Chaiken's attitude-behavior model from 1993 would be a good alternative model to look at as a general organizational commitment predictor because of its approach at organizational commitment as a singular construct, which in turn would help predicting various behaviors beyond turnover. Solinger, van Olffen, & Roe, (2008)

History

Distribution of Leadership

A study conducted by Hulpia et al. focused on the impact of the distribution of leadership and leadership support among teachers and how that affected job satisfaction and commitment. The study found that there was a strong relationship between organizational commitment and the cohesion of the leadership team and the amount of leadership support. Previously held beliefs about job satisfaction and commitment among teachers was that they were negatively correlated with absenteeism and turnover and positively correlated with job effort and job performance. This study examined how one leader (usually a principal) effected the job satisfaction and commitment of teachers. The study found that when leadership was distributed by the 'leader' out to the teachers as well workers reported higher job satisfaction and organizational commitment than when most of the leadership fell to one person. Even when it was only the perception of distributed leadership roles workers still reported high levels of job satisfaction/commitment. Hulpia, Hester (2009)

Job Performance

Job performance is a commonly used, yet poorly defined concept in industrial and organizational psychology, the branch of psychology that deals with the workplace. It's also part of Human Resources Management. It most commonly refers to whether a person performs their job well. Despite the confusion over how it should be exactly defined, performance is an extremely important criterion that relates to organizational outcomes and success. Among the most commonly accepted theories of job performance comes from the work of John P. Campbell and colleagues. (Campbell, 1990; Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sager, 1993). Coming from a psychological perspective, Campbell describes job performance as an individual level variable. That is, performance is something a single person does. This differentiates it from more encompassing constructs such as organizational performance or national performance which are higher level variables.

Core self-evaluationsJob performance is a consistent and important outcome of core self-

evaluations (CSE). Bono & Judge (2003).; Erez, A., & Judge, T. A. (2001).; Kacmar, Harri.; Collins, & Judge, (2009).; Judge, Erez, & Bono, (1998). The concept of core self-evaluations was first examined by Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997) as a dispositional predictor of job satisfaction, Judge, Locke, & Durham, (1997) and involves four personality dimensions; locus of control, neuroticism, self-efficacy, and self-esteem. The way in which people appraise themselves using core self-evaluations has the ability to predict positive work outcomes, specifically, job satisfaction and job performance. The most popular theory relating the CSE trait to job performance argues that people with high CSE will be more motivated to perform well because they are confident they have the ability to do so. Bono & Judge (2003). Motivation is generally the most accepted mediator of the core self-evaluations and job performance relationship. Erez, & Judge (2001). These relationships have inspired increasing amounts of research on core self-evaluations and suggest valuable implications about the importance this trait may have for organizations.

History

Performance versus outcomes

First, Campbell defines performance as behavior. It is something done by the employee. This concept differentiates performance from outcomes. Outcomes are the result of an individual's performance, but they are also the result of other influences. In other words, there are more factors that determine outcomes than just an employee's behaviors and actions.

Campbell allows for exceptions when defining performance as behavior. For instance, he clarifies that performance does not have to be directly observable actions of an individual. It can consist of mental productions such as answers or decisions. However, performance needs to be under the individual's control, regardless of whether the performance of interest is mental or behavioral.

The difference between individual controlled action and outcomes is best conveyed through an example. On a sales job, a favorable outcome is a certain level of revenue generated through the sale of something (merchandise, some service, insurance). Revenue can be generated or not, depending on the behavior of employees. When the employee performs this sales job well, he is able to move more merchandise. However, certain factors other than employees' behavior influence revenue generated. For example, sales might slump due to economic conditions, changes in customer preferences, production bottlenecks, etc. In these conditions, employee performance can be adequate, yet sales can still be low. The first is performance and the second is the effectiveness of that performance. These two can be decoupled because performance is not the same as effectiveness. Campbell, Dunnette., Lawler, & Weick, (1970).

Another closely related construct is productivity. Campbell, & Campbell, (1988). This can be thought of as a comparison of the amount of effectiveness that results from a certain level of cost associated with that effectiveness. In other words, effectiveness is the ratio of outputs to inputs—those inputs being effort, monetary costs, resources, etc.

Utility is another related construct which is defined as the value of a particular level of performance, effectiveness, or productivity. Utilities of performance, effectiveness, and productivity are value judgments.

Job Performance

Research also has been conducted that investigates the relationship that job performance has with job satisfaction and organizational commitment. While some literature suggest job satisfaction and job performance are related (Petty, McGee, & Cavender, 1984), other analyses of the job satisfaction literature have concluded that satisfaction show negligible retionship with jo performance (Iaffaldano & Muchinsk, 1985 ; Locke, 1976). There is much less research on the relationship between organizational commitment and job performance. Booth Steers (1977) and Wiener and Vardi (1980) concluded that organizational commitment was not clearly related to job performance.

No studies were found that smulataneously examined that joint effects of job satisfaction and organizational commitment on job performance. A study by Lee and Mowdy (1987) presented correlations between job performance and both satisfaction (r = .11, p < .05) and organizational commitment (r = .09, p < .05), and showed very similar relationships. However, they did not compare variance accounted for by each work attitude on job performance. Therefore, an empirical research base for determining which work attitude is a better predictor of job performance does not appear to exist. However, the theoretical framework provided by porter et al. (1974) and Weiner and Vardi (1980) on the connection between the focus of work attitudes (job vs. organizational attitudes) and work outcomes suggest that job satisfaction would be a better predictor than organizational commitment of job performance.

The present study focused on a nuber of issues that contribute to the literature. The first purpose was to provide additional evidence establishing jobsatisfaction and organiationalcommitment as distinct, they should related attitudes. That is, if these attitudes are often treated as different without sufficient evidence oh this distinctiveness (Gechman & Wiener, 1975; Morrow, 1983; Scholl, 1981). A second pupose was to provide information on the velue of the theoretical perspective presented by porter et al.(1974) and Weiner and Vardi (1980). A third contribution of the study was to provide additional insight into the relationship between both work attitudes and job performance, since the research in this area is inconclusive. An additional objective of this study was to conduct an exploratory analysis of the differences between professional and nn professional employees. Two samples were utilized to evaluate the relationships between the work attitudes and work outcomes. The samples were chosen partially to test the generalizability of the results across different groups, but also to evaluate potential differences among to the two samples, with professionalism as the variable of interest. Given the research and theory reviewed, two hypotheses were formulated.

Hypothesis 1. Organiational commitment will be more highly related than job satisfaction with turnover intentions.

Hypothesis 2. Job satisfaction will be more highly related than organizational commitment with job performance.

The hypotheses were eavaluated by comparing (1) the relative correlations of job satisfaction and organizational commitment with the two

outcome masures, and (2) the relative contribution of each predictor to the explained variance of each outcome measure using multiple regression. The significance of sifference in correlations was assessed using hotelling’s test as modified by steiger (1980). Table I contains descriptive statistics and correlations for both samples. The results of the regression analysis are ontained in table II.

The results provided partial support for thr first hypothesis. Organizational commitment had a significanetly higher correlation (r = .76) than job satisfaction (r = .60) with intention to stay for the clerical sample (t(68) = -2.15; p < .025; one-tailed probabilities are reported for this and following test).

Turnover Intentions

In human resources context, turnover or staff turnover or labour turnover is the rate at which an employer gains and loses employees. Simple ways to describe it are "how long employees tend to stay" or "the rate of traffic through the revolving door". Turnover is measured for individual companies and for their industry as a whole. If an employer is said to have a high turnover relative to its competitors, it means that employees of that company have a shorter average tenure than those of other companies in the same industry. High turnover may be harmful to a company's productivity if skilled workers are often leaving and the worker population contains a high percentage of novice workers.

In the United States, the average total non-farm seasonally adjusted monthly turnover rate was 3.3% for the period from December 2000 to November 2008. However rates vary widely when compared over different periods of time or different job sectors. For example, during the period 2001-2006, the annual turnover rate for all industry sectors averaged 39.6% before seasonal adjustments, during the same period the Leisure and Hospitality sector experienced an average annual rate of 74.6%.

Many studies have reported a significant association between organizational commitment and turnover intentions (Ferrs & Aranya, 1983; Hom, Katerberg, & Huln, 1979; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979; O’Reilly & Cald Well, 1980; Steers, 1977; Stumpf &Hartman, 1984; Weiner &Vardi,1980). Other research has established a relationship between job satisfaction and turnover intentions. Overall job satisfaction appears to be associated with turnover intentions (Angle & Perry, 1981 ; Bedeian & Armenakis, 1981). Studies of facet satisfactions also have reported siginificant correlations between turnover intentions and satisfication with

the work itself (Hom et al.,1979; Kraut, 1975; Waters, Roach, & waters, 1976) and pay and promotion (Hom et al., 1979; Waters et al., 1976).

Research has also compared the independent and joint effect of job satisfaction and organizational commitment on turnover intentions. Foxexample, Peters, Bhagat, and O’Connor (1981) found that organizational commitment had a stronger relationship with turnover than job satisfactions, through satisfaction did make an independent contribution to the prediction of turnover intentions. Arnold and Feldman (1982) also found that bouth work attitudes correlated significantly with turnover intentions, though organizational commitment showed the stronger relationship. Hom et al (1979) compared organizational commitment with facet satisfaction and reported the organizational commitment was a better predictor of intentions to re-enlist in the National guard. Althoough both of these studies shed light on the differential ability of job satisfaction and organizational commitment to predict turnover intentions and turnover, the present study contributes to the literature by expanding on their ideas in two ways. First, it includes a second outcomes variable, job performance, that allows for comparison of the differential effect of the two work attudes. Second, it provides a test of a model that proposes that job ans organizational attitudes are distinct constructs that yield differential relationship to the same outcome variables.

It appears that both satisfaction and commitment are related to turnover intentions. However, these studies also show that organizational commitment is associated more strongly than job satisfaction with turnover intention. An additional issue when researching turnover intentions is the utility of such concept. Stel and Ovalle’s (1984) meta-analysis suggest that turnover intention is a valuable concept as it is linked with actual turnover behavior. Anoother benefit of using turnover intentions to test the nnotion that job and organizational attitudes lead to defferent outcome is thet this intentions is under more individual control than turnover. Turnover is much more difficult to predict than intentions since there are many external factors that affect turnover behavior (Bluedorn, 1982; price & Mueller, 1981).

Model

Job satisfaction Organizational comitment

Work Performance Turnover Intention

Measurement of job satisfaction

VARIABEL REFERENSI PERETANYAANjob satisfaction Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E.,

& Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: the mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of applied psychology, 85(2), 237.

1. I feel that I am a person of worth at least on an equal basis with others and at times I think I am no good at all.

2. I am strong enough to overcome life’s struggles and I often feel that there is nothing that I can do well

3. When I get what I whant, it’s usually because I am lucky and my life is determined by my own actions.

Measurement of Organizational commitment

Work Performance Turnover Intention

Measurement of Job Performance

VARIABEL REFERENSI PERTANYAANJob Performance Judge, T. A., Erez, A.,

Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The Core Self-Evaluations Scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 303-331.

1. "I am confident I get the success I deserve in life."

2. "Sometimes I feel depressed."

VARIABEL REFERENSI PERTANYAANOrganizational commitment

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the" side-bet theory" of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of applied psychology, 69(3), 372.

1. this organization has a great deal for personal meaning for me and i do not feel emotionally attached do this organization

2. it would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now, even if i wanted to and it would not be too costly for me to leave my organization in the near future

3. I am very interested in what others think about my organization.

3. Sometimes when I fail I feel worthless."

4. I am filled with doubts about my competence."

5. I determine what will happen in my life."

Measurement of Turnover Intention

Turnover Intention Crossley, Craig D.; Rebecca J. Bennett, Steve M. Jex, Jennifer L. Burnfield (2007). "Development of a global measure of job embeddedness and integration into a traditional model of voluntary turnover.". Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (4):

1. I feel attached to this organization.

2. It would be difficult for me to leave this organization

3. I’m too caught up in this organization to leave.

4. I feel tied to this organization.

5. I simply could not leave the

organization I work for.

Referensi

Thompson, E.R.; Phua F.T.T. (2012). "A Brief Index of Affective Job Satisfaction". Group & Organization Management 37 (3): 275–307.

Moorman, R.H. (1993). "The influence of cognitive and affective based job satisfaction measures on the relationship between satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior". Human Relations 6: 759–776.

Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 687-732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.;

Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance: In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations (pp. 35-70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

"Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey". Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2008. Retrieved 2009-01-21.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, total non-farming separations (not seasonally adjusted), Series ID JTU00000000TSR, http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?jt "Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey "

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, total separations Leisure and Hospitality (not seasonally adjusted), Series ID JTU70000000TSR, http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?jt "Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey

Shore, L. M., & Martin, H. J. (1989). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment in relation to work performance and turnover intentions. Human Relations, 42(7), 625-638.

Benson, S. G., & Dundis, S. P. (2003). Understanding and motivating health care employees: Integrating Maslow's hierarchy of needs, training and technology. Journal of Nursing Management, 11, 315-320.Meyer, JP and Allen, NJ (2007). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations, Human Resource Management Review, 1, pp. 61-98.

Meyer, J P and Allen, N J (2006)."A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations, Human Resource Management Review, 1, pp. 61-98.

Mowday, R., Porter, L., and Steers, R. (2006). Employee Organization Linkages. New York: Academic Press.

Kanter, R. (1968). Commitment and social organization: A study of commitment mechanisms in utopian communities. American Sociological Review, 33, 499-517.

Becker HS (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. Am. J. Sociol. 66: 32−40.

Meyer, J P and Allen, N J (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations, Human Resource Management Review, 1, pp. 61-98.

Wiener, Y. 1982. Commitment in organizations. A normative view. Academy of Management Review. 7(3). 418-428

Solinger, O. N., van Olffen, W., & Roe, R. A. (2008). Beyond the three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 70-83

Hulpia, Hester et al. "The relationship between the perception of distributed leadership in secondary schools and teachers’ and teacher leaders’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment" School Effectiveness and School Improvement, United Kingdom, September 2009.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Core self-evaluations: A review of the trait and its role in job satisfaction and job performance. European Journal of Personality, 17(Suppl1), S5-S18. doi:10.1002/per.48

Erez, A., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1270-1279.

Kacmar, K. M.; Harris, K. J.; Collins, B. J. & Judge, T. A. (2009). Core self-evaluations and job performance: the role of the perceived work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (6), 1572-1580.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. E. (1998). The power of being positive: The relation between positive self-concept and job performance. Human Performance, 11(2-3), 167-187.

Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151–188.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: the mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of applied psychology, 85(2), 237.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the" side-bet theory" of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of applied psychology, 69(3), 372.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The Core Self-Evaluations Scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 303-331.

Crossley, Craig D.; Rebecca J. Bennett, Steve M. Jex, Jennifer L. Burnfield (2007). "Development of a global measure of job embeddedness and integration into a traditional model of voluntary turnover.". Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (4):