Note to Instructor: The Job Attitudes module would be a natural fit if your students have recently been introduced to social psychology.
The definition of attitude that we have included here is adapted from Steers & Porter (1991). Obviously, different authors define attitudes in different ways. Saal & Knight (1988) define attitudes as &quot;relatively stable affective, or evaluative, dispositions toward a specific person, situation or other entity.&quot; Fishbein (1967) defines attitude thusly: &quot;an attitude is characterized as a learned implicit response that varies in intensity and tends to guide (mediate) an individual's overt responses to an object.&quot; In Fishbein's conceptualization, attitude refers only to the evaluation of a concept and there is a mediating evaluative response to every stimulus. Consequently, according to Fishbein, people have attitudes toward all objects, which may be positive, negative, or neutral.
1) One ramification of the fact that attitudes are hypothetical constructs is that we must infer their existence from people's statements and behaviors. 2) Since attitudes are unidimensional constructs, they can be measured along a continuum. 3) The third assumption may be the most critical - that attitudes and behavior are related, but that the relationship is much more complex than researchers originally thought. In the field of social psychology, the work of Ajzen & Fishbein (1970, 1973, 1974, 1977) is frequently cited as a theoretical framework concerned with attitude formation, behavioral intentions, and the prediction of overt behaviors. In general, research findings support the framework.
Attitude has been a central concept in social psychology throughout its history. Early examples include Allport (1935) and Newcomb, (1950). Kornhauser & Sharp (1932) are credited with the initial investigation of attitudes and productivity in an industrial setting.
ATTITUDE FORMATION: Again, the work of Ajzen & Fishbein is often cited here. However, there are other conceptualizations. For instance, Breckler (1984), believes that attitudes have three different components: affective, behavioral, and cognitive. The affective component consists of the feelings that a particular topic arouses. The behavioral component consists of a tendency to act in a particular way with respect to a particular topic. The cognitive component consists of a set of beliefs about a topic--beliefs that can be expressed in words. The affective components of attitudes can be very strong and pervasive. Like other emotional reactions, these feelings can be strongly influenced by direct or vicarious classical conditioning. Direct classical conditioning is fairly straightforward. For example, suppose you meet someone who is always very complementary toward you. The person seems to go out of his or her way to complement your intelligence, appearance, etc. After a few encounters with this person, the sight of him or her or the sound of his or her voice is likely to immediately evoke positive feelings in you. Your attitude toward him or her would likely be positive. Vicarious classical conditioning undoubtedly plays a major role in transmitting parents' attitudes to their children. The affective component of attitudes tends to be rather resistant to change. The cognitive components of attitudes can be acquired quite directly. We hear or read a fact or opinion, or other people reinforce our statements expressing a particular attitude. Children, in particular, form attitudes through imitating, or modeling, the behavior of others. As research indicates, behavioral components of attitudes are not as clear cut as once believed. People do not always behave as their expressed attitudes and beliefs would lead us to expect. In a classic study, LaPierre (1934) drove through the U.S. with a Chinese couple. They stopped at over 250 restaurants and hotels and were refused service only once. Several months later, the owners were surveyed on whether they would serve Chinese people. The response was overwhelmingly negative, 92 percent of those surveyed said that they would not. In this case, clearly, their behavior gave less evidence of racial bias than their expressed attitudes did. ATTITUDE CHANGE: Although we usually regard our attitudes as causes of our behavior, our behavior also affects our attitudes. Festinger's (1957) theory of cognitive dissonance attempts to explain the impact of behavior on attitude formation and change. According to Festinger, when we perceive a discrepancy between our attitudes and our behavior, between our behavior and self-image, or between one attitude and another, an unpleasant state of dissonance results, a state that people are motivated to eliminate. A person can achieve dissonance reduction by (1) reducing the importance of one of the dissonant elements, (2) adding consonant elements, or (3) changing one of the dissonant elements. Example: a student believes that she is very intelligent yet invariably receives bad grades. Because the obvious prediction is that intelligent people get good grades, the discrepancy causes the student to experience dissonance. To reduce dissonance, she may decide that grades are not important and intelligence is not closely related to grades. She is using strategy 1, reducing the importance of one of the dissonant elements. Or the student can dwell on the belief that her professors were unfair or that her job leaves little time to study. In this case, she is using strategy 2, reducing dissonance by adding consonant elements. Finally, the student can use strategy 3 to change one of the dissonant elements: She can either start getting good grades or revise her opinion of her own intelligence.
The model presented here is adapted from Fishbein (1967), - most &quot;attitude models&quot; seem to have belief/evaluation/behavioral intention components, although not always using those same terms. In the example presented here, negative beliefs about the job (e.g. this job is dull, boring, provides little autonomy, etc.) lead to negative job attitudes (e.g. job dissatisfaction, low job involvement), which in turn lead to behavior intentions (e.g. intention to leave, intention to reduce effort). These behavioral intentions are then often translated into actual behavior, such as leaving the organization, assuming that the person is able to carry out the intention. Or, an individual who is dissatisfied may decide to put forth less effort on the job as a way of expressing his or her frustrations with the job. In both cases, this traditional model suggests that behaviors (including job performance) are largely influenced by attitudes. Recently, this traditional model has been criticized as being overly simple (Steers & Porter, 1991). There are also arguments in the literature over whether an attitude should contain, or be measured with, an affective or emotional component. Some suggest that the attitude should be treated as essentially cognitive, and that emotional reactions to workplace events and features should be treated separately.
Fisher & Locke (1992) presented an interesting model of the choice process for responding to job dissatisfaction. This model is a good illustration of the &quot;newer&quot;, more complex research frameworks being used to understand the relationship between job attitudes and actual behavior. NOTE: The model is somewhat complex, and if presented in class, should be presented graphically if possible. The model begins with the job situation, which is perceived and appraised based on one's personal values and goals. Appraisal may also include comparing one's situation with those of others, and making attributions about causes of the situation. For example, it may be much more dissatisfying to be singled out for rude treatment by a supervisor, than to be one of many subordinates treated rudely by a supervisor who is under unusual pressure. This appraisal process results in feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Fisher and Locke suggest that a person's prior level of satisfaction is also important for determining whether the employee will proceed toward action. If one is more satisfied or more dissatisfied than before, he or she is likely to perform additional behavior to reflect the new feelings. In contrast, individuals who are chronically dissatisfied, perhaps due to a dispositional characteristic called negative affectivity (Staw, Bell & Clausen, 1986) may be unlikely to express these feelings in either destructive or remedial ways. However, someone who is just as dissatisfied, but for whom this is a new and uncharacteristic state, may be quite active in trying to change or avoid the job situation. Appraisal should trigger a search for action alternatives and an evaluation of alternatives. Past experiences in the organization, behavior modeled by other organizational members, and awareness of group/organizational norms provide clues to action alternatives. In addition, company or union mechanisms may supply action alternatives. Action alternatives will be evaluated in terms of acceptability to group norms, constraints on implementation, and expected positive consequences in mitigating feelings of dissatisfaction (either by changing the objective situation or by getting even) or fulfilling reciprocity norms in the case of satisfaction (Organ, 1977). In addition, expected negative consequences will be weighed. These might include damage to one's reputation or credibility, being punished by the organization, or being ostracized by peers. Finally, action alternatives will be compared to the self-concept and personal standards for behavior. A dissatisfied individual may have to decide whether he or she is the type of person who slacks off, screams at the boss, or steals from the employer, no matter how badly provoked. Personality characteristics such as need for achievement (Puffer, 1987) and introversion/extraversion may play a role. Individuals with external locus of control or learned helplessness in their job situation may evaluate most contemplated actions negatively and fail to proceed to the choice and action stages.
Over the years, one of the most strongly held beliefs among managers and I/O psychologists has been that there is a direct relationship between a worker's job satisfaction and his performance. Unfortunately, this belief has not proved to be valid. For over 60 years, psychologists have been looking for the link between satisfaction and performance, and for over 60 years they have found little or nothing of substance (Brayfield & Crockett, 1955; Vroom, 1964). Using modern meta-analysis techniques, Iaffaldano & Muchinsky (1985) examined 217 correlations, found in the published research literature, between measures of satisfaction and performance. The mean correlation was .146, which is not only very small, but also virtually identical to the result that Vroom obtained 21 years earlier. Iaffaldano & Muchinsky concluded that the satisfaction-performance relationship is itself what Chapman & Chapman (1969) called an illusory correlation, a perceived relation between two variables that we logically or intuitively believe should interrelate, but in fact do not. Judge et al. (2001) conducted the most recent and sophisticated meta-analysis on this relationship and found a correlation of .30 between satisfaction and performance.
1) a) How is &quot;job performance&quot; defined?: Organ (1988) argues that organizational researchers may need to re-define what we mean by &quot;job performance&quot;, to essentially broaden this construct to include such non-productivity or extra-role dimensions such as cooperation, informal modes of helping co-workers and superiors, and generalized tendencies toward compliance. It may be said that Organ advocates the inclusion of these and other &quot;organizational citizenship behaviors&quot; (OCB's) when we define job performance. Relatedly, Ostroff has linked OCB measured at an aggregate level with performance measured at an organizational level. Thus, happy may not equal productive, but it does seem to equal good corporate citizen, which in the aggregate equals an effective organization. b) Predicting specific behaviors from a general attitude: Fisher (1980) suggests a reason for the weak relationship between job satisfaction and performance. Job satisfaction is typically conceptualized as a general attitude toward an object, the job. Behavior is usually measured as a single type of act (output, absenteeism, and so on), assessed over a limited span of time and measured by a single method. Thus, job performance measures are often highly specific. Attitude theorists have suggested and convincingly supported the idea that strong attitude-behavior correlations will only occur when there is correspondence between the levels of aggregation represented in the attitude and behavior measures (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). In order to predict a specific act, one should measure attitudes toward that act, or even more immediately, behavioral intention. As expected, intention to quit is a better predictor of quitting than is overall job satisfaction. NOTE: Another &quot;research and measurement&quot; issue that we chose not to include on the slide is the difference in results produced by correlational versus experimental/quasi-experimental studies. Correlational research tends to show modest relationships, at best, between satisfaction and performance. Experimental research that features the manipulation of some independent variable such as pay or supervisory practices often shows an impact on both satisfaction and performance, thus implying a stronger link between the two. 2) Researchers' inability to discover a consistent bivariate relationship between satisfaction and performance led them in part to begin to examine the role of moderator variables in the satisfaction-performance relationship. It may be said that most &quot;modern&quot; job satisfaction researchers examine the job satisfaction-job performance relationship within the context of a larger model, often incorporating a number of motivational theories. A study presented by Katzell, Thompson & Guzzo (1992) is a good example of these new models. Using data collected from 1200 employees and their supervisors via surveys, work group performance checklists, and interviews, the authors test a multivariate model of the job satisfaction-job performance relationship. Using path analysis, the relationships among 14 different variables such as goal setting, effort, management norms, etc., were tested. The results, in short, indicate that job satisfaction and job performance have only a little direct impact on one another. However, they are each determined by many factors, some of which are common to the two, and some of which furnish indirect links between them. This suggests that treatments that affect those elements will cause job satisfaction and job performance to covary. Specifically, the model indicates such roles for valence of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, for equity, instrumentality, job involvement, and goal setting. 3) Following publication of clinical and personality research such as Clark and Watson’s work on the PANAS (positive affect, negative affect survey), I/O researchers began to investigate whether job satisfaction might have a persistent, personality-like component. Most of the resulting research seemed to suggest that indeed a substantial amount of the variability in job satisfaction seems to have its origin in some form of trait affect, a stable way of looking at the world optimistically or pessimistically and all of the shades of gray in between. If one assumes that part of job satisfaction is simply determined by personality (and is therefore not malleable), this leaves that much less variance in satisfaction that can predict job performance.
The key point made on this slide and the next is that companies do not necessarily face a choice between having a satisfied workforce and a productive one - it is not an &quot;either/or&quot; proposition.
Katzell, Thompson & Guzzo (1992; Chapter 8, p. 195 in the Cranny, Smith, and Stone book referenced in the last slide) presented a model containing &quot;action levers&quot; for intervening to change both performance and satisfaction. Organizational leaders can choose to act by manipulating these levers one at a time, or conversely, by simultaneously making use of several levers. Those authors advocate the use of a multilever approach, a perspective that Staw (1986) also holds. A meta-analysis of organizational development interventions also showed that the strongest favorable changes in job satisfaction were obtained when multiple changes rather than a single change were implemented (Neuman, Edwards & Raju, 1989). Staw's 1986 article also makes several other interesting points. The key point may be that it can be difficult to make changes in both satisfaction and performance - in effect, Staw hopes to make our expectations a little more realistic. The pursuit of the goal is still noble, but we should move away from the typical fanfare/despair cycle that occurs every time a management fad (e.g. TQM) is popularized toward a reasoned but sustainable pursuit of the happy and productive worker. Staw postulates that the central difficulty in changing job attitudes is that job satisfaction may be determined as much by dispositional properties of the individual as by any changes in the situation. Relatedly, scholars and practitioners alike must keep in mind that how people respond perceptually to their objective job conditions is critically important. Perceptions of job characteristics do not necessarily reflect reality, yet they can determine how we respond to that reality. Staw also surfaces the possibility that job performance itself may be somewhat intransigent. Performance may be constrained by an individual's innate level of ability and effort. Additionally, jobs themselves may be designed so that performance is not under the control of the individual employee, regardless of ability or effort.
Attitude Surveys - Perhaps most obvious attitude-related activity of I/O psychologists. Often conducted annually or biannually, organizations use the survey to learn about employees' attitudes on employment issues such as compensation, quality of supervision, work/non-work balance, etc. I/O psychologists can play a role in all survey stages (design, data collection, data analysis, report presentation, implementation of remedial actions, etc.). Many organizations now administer attitude surveys electronically. Principal weakness of attitude surveys is often management's failure to actually use the data and to make recommended changes. Job Design - I/O's work with companies to design jobs in such a way that satisfaction may be increased by improving a job in terms of its variety (doing a wider number of things), identity (seeing how one's various tasks make a meaningful whole), responsibility (being in charge of one's own work and its quality), feedback (knowing when one has done a good job), and significance (the meaning or relative importance of one's contribution to the organization or society in general). It is important to remember that how an employee perceives these job design changes may be just as important as the changes themselves. Personnel Selection - I/O's have been instrumental in developing reliable and valid prediction tools that incorporate attitudinal components. Many selection instruments in use today assess individuals' dispositions and tendencies, factors such as orientation toward work, cooperativeness, emotional stability, etc. Change Management - May be one of the most crucial areas that I/O's work in now, given the speed with with organizations must adapt to their competition, to technological and regulatory changes, etc. How employees view changes, their attitudes toward them - specifically whether or not they &quot;buy into&quot; what the organization is doing, are critical determinants of the success of change efforts. I/O's can be involved on two levels here. The first is in designing/implementing the change itself, such as the consolidation of four geographically-based sales forces into one, centralized sales function. The second is by helping leaders manage employees' reactions to the change. This can be done by helping leaders to articulate a vision and mission, and to develop communication plans to keep employees updated about the change, its' intended benefits, and what they can do personally to support the change. Training - An obvious example here is diversity training, geared toward increasing people's acceptance of those with different viewpoints, life experiences, ethnic backgrounds, etc. As with any training intervention, a key question is how much of what is learned in training is translated into behavioral change when back on the job. Appraisal - Many performance appraisal (PA) instruments in use today incorporate some attitudinal elements, such as team orientation, etc. However, from a performance improvement perspective, research indicates that in order to give constructive feedback (a precursor to behavior change) the feedback given during a PA session needs to be pinpointed, in that it is inadequate to simply say that an employee &quot;has a lousy attitude&quot; or &quot;isn't a team player&quot;, specific,objective, behavioral examples need to be included.
Job satisfaction is often measured as a global construct (e.g., overall, how satisfied are you with your job), but there are also many scales and methods for digging deeper. For instance, the Job Descriptive Index separately assesses attitudes toward supervisors, coworkers, pay, promotion opportunities, and the work itself. Additionally, there are attitudes or attitude-like constructs that are quite distinct from satisfaction but have similar predictive power in understanding issues like turnover and absenteeism. For instance, researchers often measure organizational commitment to ascertain the degree to which workers feel emotionally committed to their organization, stuck with their job, and/or compelled by social norms (e.g., pressures from family and friends) to stay in their current position. Another very interesting and somewhat new variable that researchers have begun to investigate is the degree to which some workers have that their work and home/family lives are out of balance or in conflict with one another. This variable appears to predict work-related stress reactions.
The attitudes exercise should take approximately 15 minutes. Approximately 3 minutes should be spent setting up the exercise (this slide) and 10-12 minutes actually conducting the exercise (the next slide). You can either review these two slides via overhead or hand out individual copies to your students.
There is no &quot;right&quot; or &quot;wrong&quot; answer to these questions, or to the exercise itself - the goal is to get students to think analytically about the situation, and to be able to articulate their thinking. You could approach the actual exercise in one of two ways. The first way would be to take the class through it as a group, fostering discussion when possible. The second way would to be to break the class into teams for about 5 minutes, and have them generate some thoughts on their own, and then bring everyone back together for a 5 minute de-briefing. Either way, here is an outline of possible discussion points: 1) A first step in examining the turnover problem may be to classify the turnover into several categories. For example, 30% of the RA's may have left for personal, and therefore unavoidable, reasons. 10% may have been fired or were performing so poorly that they would have been fired anyway - a type of &quot;functional&quot; turnover. Lastly, 60% of the RA's that left may have been performing well and ended up taking other jobs on campus. 2) A second step may be to administer a job satisfaction survey to all of the RA's on campus, such as the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) which measures satisfaction with issues such as the work itself, supervision, pay, promotions, and co-workers. Note: Given what your students know of RA's jobs, there may be important topics that the JDI does not cover. For example, after interviewing a group of RA's, one might discover that they are unhappy with the odd hours that they have to be on duty. Are there other facets of RA's jobs that may be influencing their attitudes? 3) Given what researchers know about the link between behavioral intentions and actual behavior, are there additional survey questions that we would like to ask? One possibility would be to develop a series of questions that address the likelihood that RA's intend to leave their jobs. 4) For argument's sake, let's say that you conclude that the odd hours (working overnight shifts, weekends, etc.) is the issue that is driving RAs' dissatisfaction, and in turn, their intent to leave their jobs. Based on your expertise as an I/O psychologist, what recommendations might you make? A &quot;job design&quot; recommendation might focus on examining the amount of time all RAs spend working odd hours, and if possible, adjusting schedules so that these shifts are minimized. A &quot;personnel selection&quot; recommendation might focus on clarifying the scheduling expectations that RA candidates have during the interviewing process. Other recommendations?
Industrial-Organizational Psychology Learning Module Job Attitudes Prepared by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology - SIOP
Lesson Objectives <ul><li>Know what job attitudes are, and be familiar with the assumptions that underlie them. </li></ul><ul><li>Be familiar with the role that social psychology has played in attitude research and theory development. </li></ul><ul><li>Understand the relationship between attitudes and behavior, especially regarding performance on the job. </li></ul><ul><li>Understand how I/O psychologists are helping companies to assess and manage job attitudes and their impact on organizational performance. </li></ul>Prepared by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology - SIOP At the end of this lecture, you should:
Attitudes Defined <ul><li>Briefly defined, an “attitude” represents a predisposition to respond in a favorable or unfavorable way to persons or objects in one’s environment. </li></ul><ul><li>For instance, when we say we “like” something or “dislike” something, we are in effect expressing an attitude toward the person or object. </li></ul><ul><li>What are some examples of people or things that you may have strong attitudes about? </li></ul>
Attitudes: Three Important Assumptions <ul><li>Three important assumptions underlie the concept of attitudes: </li></ul><ul><li>1) An attitude is a hypothetical construct - we cannot actually see attitudes, although we can often see their consequences. </li></ul><ul><li>2) An attitude is a unidimensional construct - it usually ranges from very positive to very negative. </li></ul><ul><li>3) Attitudes are believed to be somewhat related to subsequent behavior, although as we’ll see, this relationship can be unclear. </li></ul>Prepared by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology - SIOP
Social Psychology and Attitude Research I <ul><li>Attitude has been a central concept in social psychology throughout its history. </li></ul><ul><li>An attitude is one of many constructs that social psychologists have invoked to help explain consistencies and differences in behavior. </li></ul><ul><li>For example, if person A responds favorably toward a particular national group and person B responds unfavorably toward that same group, the differences in behaviors can be “explained” by attributing different attitudes toward the two persons. </li></ul>
Social Psychology and Attitude Research II <ul><li>Beginning in the 1950’s, social psychologists studied areas such as: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How attitudes are formed. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How attitudes are changed. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How attitudes relate to behavioral intentions - what people intend to do. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How attitudes relate to behaviors themselves - what people actually do. </li></ul></ul>Prepared by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology - SIOP
Job Attitudes: Three Related Components <ul><li>The job attitude is the middle component in a belief-evaluation-behavior chain: </li></ul><ul><li>1) Beliefs about aspects of the job. </li></ul><ul><ul><li> “ My work has long stretches with nothing to do.” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>2) The evaluative component, i.e., the attitude itself. </li></ul><ul><li>“ I am dissatisfied with my job.” </li></ul><ul><li>3) Work-related b ehavioral intentions that follow from the attitude. </li></ul><ul><li> “ I’m intending to quit my job.” </li></ul>Prepared by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology - SIOP
Job Attitudes and Actual Behavior <ul><li>The belief, attitude, intention sequence is presumably followed by actual behavior. </li></ul><ul><li>For example, if I believe that my job is boring, and if my evaluation of my job is that it is unsatisfying, and I intend to quit, I may indeed actually leave my job. </li></ul><ul><li>This traditional model suggests that behaviors (including job performance) are largely influenced by job attitudes. </li></ul><ul><li>Recently, this traditional model has been questioned as being too simple and some more comprehensive alternatives have been developed. </li></ul>Prepared by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology - SIOP
Is A Happy Worker A Productive Worker? <ul><li>Over the years, one of the most strongly held beliefs among managers and I/O psychologists is that there is a relationship between a worker’s job satisfaction and his/her job performance. </li></ul><ul><li>In 60 year’s worth of research I/O psychologists have found highly variable linkages between job satisfaction and job performance. </li></ul><ul><li>The most recent examination by Timothy Judge and his colleagues suggests a correlation of .30 between satisfaction and performance, a small but meaningful association. </li></ul><ul><li>Why is this association not larger? </li></ul>Prepared by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology - SIOP
Some Possible Explanations: <ul><li>1) Research and Measurement Issues: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Is “job performance” defined correctly? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can you predict specific behaviors from a general attitude toward the job. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>2) “Moderator” Effects: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Satisfaction-performance relationship is highly complex (Katzell, Thompson & Guzzo, 1992) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>For example, the sat-perf relationship may be limited by constraints on performance, e.g., group norms for performance, environmental variables such as the speed of an assembly line. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>3) Dispositional Effects: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Some research has found that a substantial amount of the variability in job satisfaction may relate to “trait affect.” </li></ul></ul>Prepared by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology - SIOP
Implications for Organizational Policy I <ul><li>So, if little direct linkage exists between job satisfaction and job performance, is it possible for leaders to manage organizations so that employees can be both happy and productive? </li></ul><ul><li>Importantly, while job satisfaction and job performance may have little direct impact on one another, the same organizational conditions, or “levers” may impact both. </li></ul>Prepared by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology - SIOP
Implications for Organizational Policy II <ul><li>Research and practice indicate that: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Creating jobs that are intrinsically interesting and important to the people performing them </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Equitably linking extrinsic rewards such as pay to performance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>and setting clear, challenging, acceptable goals… </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Helps companies to perform better on the whole than companies that don’t do these things. </li></ul><ul><li>Organizations need not manage for either satisfaction or performance; high satisfaction and high performance are goals that can be met jointly. </li></ul>
How I/O Psychologists Help Organizations to Assess and to Manage Attitudes <ul><li>Attitude Surveys </li></ul><ul><li>Job Design </li></ul><ul><li>Personnel Selection </li></ul><ul><li>Change Management </li></ul><ul><li>Training </li></ul><ul><li>Performance Appraisal </li></ul>Prepared by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology - SIOP
There’s More to it than just General Job Satisfaction <ul><li>Other commonly measured job attitudes include: </li></ul><ul><li>Attitudes toward specific job features </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Performance evaluations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Benefit programs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Organizational leaders </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Organizational commitment </li></ul><ul><li>Career commitment </li></ul><ul><li>Work-life balance </li></ul>
Attitudes Exercise - Set-Up <ul><li>Situation: You are an I/O psychologist who has been asked to provide your expertise on the following issue. The Residential Life Department of a large university has been experiencing an usually high rate of turnover among it’s Resident Assistants (RA’s) during the last year. Over 60% of the university’s RA’s have recently left their positions, and with those that remain, poor performance is commonplace. This situation is very troubling, given the costs of training RA’s and of replacing them when they leave. </li></ul>Michael J. Laibe, Ph.D. [email_address]
Attitudes Exercise <ul><li>Given what you know about how I/O psychologists help organizations to address the attitudes of their employees, what steps would you undertake to examine the problem? What questions would you ask, and what recommendations might you make? </li></ul>Prepared by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology - SIOP
Summary of Learning Points <ul><li>Most psychologists believe that attitudes are an important precursor to behavior. </li></ul><ul><li>Attitudes on the job - e.g., job satisfaction - are also related to behavior, although not necessarily to summary measures of job performance. </li></ul><ul><li>On the whole, companies whose workers have positive attitudes are more effective than those whose workers do not. </li></ul><ul><li>I/O psychologists help companies assess, understand, and influence job satisfaction through mechanisms such as attitude surveys and job design. </li></ul>
Instructor Resources <ul><li>The following books and journal articles were used in preparation of the Job Attitudes module - you may find them useful in your own preparation. </li></ul><ul><li>1) Cranny, C.J., Smith, P.C. & Stone, E.F.(Eds.) (1992). Job Satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their performance. Lexington Books: NY (Note: Part 3 concerning the consequences of job satisfaction is particularly helpful.) </li></ul><ul><li>2) Steers, R.M. & Porter, L.W (Eds.) (1991). Motivation and Work Behavior. (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill:NY. (Note: Chapter 6 on Job Attitudes and Performance is particularly helpful.) </li></ul><ul><li>3) Shaw, M.E. & Costanzo, P.R. (1982) Theories of Social Psychology (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. (Note: Pages 285-288 concerning theories of attitudes and behavioral intentions are particularly helpful.) </li></ul><ul><li>4) Ajzen I. & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical literature. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888-918. </li></ul><ul><li>5) Iaffaldono, M.T. & Muchinsky, P.M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 251-273. </li></ul><ul><li>6) Muchinsky, P.M. (1999). Psychology applied to work (6th ed.). Wadsworth: Belmont:CA. (Note: Chapter 9 is particularly helpful on the topic of job attitudes.) </li></ul><ul><li>7) Staw, Barry M. (1986). Organizational psychology and the pursuit of the happy/productive worker. California Management Review, 28 (4), 40-53. </li></ul><ul><li>8) Judge, T. A.; Thoresen, C. J.; Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001) The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376-407. </li></ul>