Abstract
The relationship between four job stresses (role ambiguity, role overload, underutilization of skills, and resource inadequacy) and two employee withdrawal behaviors (absenteeism and turnover) was investigated. The joint prediction of employee withdrawal from measures of job stress and selected background variables was also investigated. Data were obtained regarding 651 employees in five organizations through personal interviews and company records. Analysis indicated that job stress is related to employee withdrawal behaviors, that prediction of subsequent behaviors is stronger than prediction of prior behaviors, and that the predictive power of job stress and background variables taken together is as strong as, or stronger than, the predictive power of background variables alone. Confidence in the strength of the findings is enhanced by the use of multiple data sources and multiple data points.
- ☆
- This research was conducted under contract with the Manpower Administration of the U. S. Department of Labor. Researchers undertaking such projects under government sponsorship are encouraged to express their own judgment. Interpretation or viewpoints stated in this paper do not necessarily represent the official position or policy of the Department of Labor. The authors thank David Gilmore, G. Douglas Jenkins, Jr., Edward E. Lawler, III, and Robert P. Quinn for their many helpful comments on earlier drafts.
- A second possibility is that expectancy perceptions have a direct effect on
- perceived job valence (Rynes & Lawler, 1983). That is, applicants who perceive
- high probabilities of receiving an offer may cognitively distort their
- perceptions of job characteristics in a favorable direction (Soelberg, 1967). It
- should be noted, however, that this hypothesis is inconsistent with expectancy
- theory, which posits the independence of expectancies and valences.
- Post-Hire Effects. Basically, explanations of how recruitment practices
- influence post-hire outcomes fall into one of two categories: self-selection or
- adjustment. The self-selection hypothesis suggests that variations in
- recruitment practices create differences in the type of individual who enters the
- organization in the first place. The best-known articulation of this view comes
- from the realistic recruitment literature, which hypothesizes that applicants
- self-select on the basis of "fit" between personal needs and organizational
- climates (Wanous, 1980).
- PREVIOUS RESEARCH
- Recruiters
- Overview. Prior to publication of the first Handbook, most recruitment
- research focused on applicant likes and dislikes with respect to organizational
- recruiters (e.g., Downs. 1969). The implicit assumption behind this research was
- that recruiters are capable of affecting applicants' job choice decisions. That
- assumption was not formally tested, however; impressions of recruiters were not
- linked empirically to other attitudes or behaviors.
- Beginning with Alderfer & McCord (1970), recruiter characteristics began to
- be treated explicitly as independent variables, potentially capable of
- influencing a variety of dependent variables. Thus, for the first time,
- perceptions of recruiters were empirically linked to choice-related outcomes such
- as perceived organizational attractiveness and probability of job acceptance.
- Table 1 summarizes recruiter research fo~lowing the publication of Alderfer
- & McCord's (1970) ground-breaking study. To qualify for inclusion in the table,
- a study had to (1) present new empirical findings (literature reviews were
- excluded); (2) address recruiters as central, rather than secondary issues,
- PREVIOUS RESEARCH
- Recruiters
- Overview. Prior to publication of the first Handbook, most recruitment
- research focused on applicant likes and dislikes with respect to organizational
- recruiters (e.g., Downs. 1969). The implicit assumption behind this research was
- that recruiters are capable of affecting applicants' job choice decisions. That
- assumption was not formally tested, however; impressions of recruiters were not
- linked empirically to other attitudes or behaviors.
- Beginning with Alderfer & McCord (1970), recruiter characteristics began to
- be treated explicitly as independent variables, potentially capable of
- influencing a variety of dependent variables. Thus, for the first time,
- perceptions of recruiters were empirically linked to choice-related outcomes such
- as perceived organizational attractiveness and probability of job acceptance.
- Table 1 summarizes recruiter research fo~lowing the publication of Alderfer
- & McCord's (1970) ground-breaking study. To qualify for inclusion in the table,
- a study had to (1) present new empirical findings (literature reviews were
- excluded); (2) address recruiters as central, rather than secondary issues, (PREVIOUS RESEARCH
- Recruiters
- Overview. Prior to publication of the first Handbook, most recruitment
- research focused on applicant likes and dislikes with respect to organizational
- recruiters (e.g., Downs. 1969). The implicit assumption behind this research was
- that recruiters are capable of affecting applicants' job choice decisions. That
- assumption was not formally tested, however; impressions of recruiters were not
- linked empirically to other attitudes or behaviors.
- Beginning with Alderfer & McCord (1970), recruiter characteristics began to
- be treated explicitly as independent variables, potentially capable of
- influencing a variety of dependent variables. Thus, for the first time,
- perceptions of recruiters were empirically linked to choice-related outcomes such
- as perceived organizational attractiveness and probability of job acceptance.
- Table 1 summarizes recruiter research fo~lowing the publication of Alderfer
- & McCord's (1970) ground-breaking study. To qualify for inclusion in the table,
- a study had to (1) present new empirical findings (literature reviews were
- excluded); (2) address recruiters as central, rather than secondary issues,PREVIOUS RESEARCH
- Recruiters
- Overview. Prior to publication of the first Handbook, most recruitment
- research focused on applicant likes and dislikes with respect to organizational
- recruiters (e.g., Downs. 1969). The implicit assumption behind this research was
- that recruiters are capable of affecting applicants' job choice decisions. That
- assumption was not formally tested, however; impressions of recruiters were not
- linked empirically to other attitudes or behaviors.
- Beginning with Alderfer & McCord (1970), recruiter characteristics began to
- be treated explicitly as independent variables, potentially capable of
- influencing a variety of dependent variables. Thus, for the first time,
- perceptions of recruiters were empirically linked to choice-related outcomes such
- as perceived organizational attractiveness and probability of job acceptance.
- Table 1 summarizes recruiter research fo~lowing the publication of Alderfer
- & McCord's (1970) ground-breaking study. To qualify for inclusion in the table,
- a study had to (1) present new empirical findings (literature reviews were
- excluded); (2) address recruiters as central, rather than secondary issues,
Nice topic....
ReplyDelete