Investigating the Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment: Is There a Mediating Effect?

Transcription

1 Abstract Investigating the Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment: Is There a Mediating Effect? Autoria: Renata Simões Guimarães e Borges The objective of this research is to investigate the direction of the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. We conducted a survey in Brazilian organizations to answer the research question and to test the hypothesis. This study contributes to existing literature by providing encouraging evidence that job satisfaction ultimately affects organizational commitment. To practitioners, the findings suggest that managers could also enhance employees commitment by increasing job satisfaction within five dimensions. The main contribution of this research is to provide a basis for a longitudinal approach to determine the causal ordering between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Keywords: Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, mediation effect 1

2 INTRODUCTION The objective of this research is to investigate the direction of the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Investigating the relationship between both constructs has important practical and theoretical implications. If organizational commitment is influenced by job satisfaction, managers could be more assertive in adopting strategies to enhance commitment indirectly by increasing satisfaction. On the other hand, if organizational commitment is a predictor of job satisfaction, previous research models on job satisfaction have made a serious mistake in not including organizational commitment as an independent variable (Curry et al., 1986). The conceptual and empirical commonalities and distinctions between job satisfaction and organizational commitment have been the objective of investigations in previous research which have aimed to move beyond correlations to try to provide evidence that one construct precedes the other (Bateman & Strasser, 1984; Currivan, 1999; Harrison et al., 2006; Curry et al., 1986; Glisson & Durick, 1988; Ting, 1996; Vandenberg & Lance, 1992). However, the findings as to whether job satisfaction is the antecedent of organizational commitment, or vice versa, have been inconclusive. Bateman and Strasser (1984) suggest that organizational commitment precedes job satisfaction, based on the assumption that individuals behave according to the situations to which they have previously committed. In this sense, employees become committed to an organization ultimately because they joined the organization, and this act (along with other conditions) determines their attitudes towards their work (Vandenberg & Lance, 1992). In fact, Bateman and Strasser s (1984) longitudinal study on 786 nurses supports the assumption that employees become committed to an organization before attitudes of satisfaction emerge. Vandenberg and Lance s (1992) empirical findings on 455 employees of a multinational software research and development company also support this perspective. Curry et al. (1986) replicated Bateman and Strasser s (1984) study, taking into account measurement errors, statistical controls, and temporal sources of error, which had been ignored by prior research. Their results provided no evidence that organizational commitment is causally related to job satisfaction; however, the study also failed to find evidence that satisfaction precedes commitment. Currivan (1999) also holds to the possibility that there is no causal relationship between both constructs, through analyses of employee turnover models. Although the results suggest that there is no causal relationship, the author argues that the findings should be interpreted with caution because, in the structural equation models, the correlations between both constructs remain significant even with the influence of other variables. Rayton (2006) proposes that the variety of results can be explained by the interdependence between both constructs, which creates a significant correlation. The most commonly held position in the literature is that job satisfaction influences organizational commitment (Bateman & Strasser, 1984; Currivan, 1999; Curry et al., 1986; Malik, Waheed, & Malik, 2010; Rayton, 2006; Vandenberg & Lance, 1992). The rationale is that employees who are satisfied with their jobs are more willing to remain in the organization, resulting in a positive relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Malik et al., 2010). Previous research is therefore inconclusive. Further empirical evaluation is needed to investigate whether there is a casual relationship between satisfaction and commitment, and to indicate the direction of this relationship. Indeed, a meta-analytic study conducted by Meyer et al. (2002) identifies job satisfaction as a correlate to organizational commitment, since there is no consensus in the literature concerning causal ordering. Whilst assuming the most commonly held position that job satisfaction precedes organizational commitment, this study investigates whether job satisfaction has a mediating effect on the relationship between job- 2

3 related, organizational, and individual factors and organizational commitment. This research intends to contribute to the literature by offering empirical evidence that contrasts some of the existing findings, providing a basis for further research using a longitudinal approach, and employing a different approach regarding both constructs i.e. a mediating relationship. LITERATURE REVIEW Job satisfaction Job satisfaction is defined as a result from the perception that one s job fulfills or allows the fulfillment of one s important job values (Locke, 1976, p. 1307). Thus, identifying these job values and how employees perceive their satisfaction is crucial to job satisfaction research. This has been assessed in the organizational behaviour literature through two main approaches. The first focuses on the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational outcomes such as performance, productivity, absenteeism, and turnover. The second analyzes job satisfaction in terms of determining its predictors. These studies have traditionally assigned job characteristics, organizational characteristics, and individual characteristics as determinants of job satisfaction (Glisson & Durick, 1988). Job characteristics are aspects of workers tasks that determine how the employee perceives his/her particular activities within the organization. These perceptions are related to internal motivation because identifying the job as meaningful, challenging, and interesting can affect workers overall behaviour and feelings of happiness, health, safety, and caring about professional colleagues (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Moreover, the perception of a job as meaningful is related to the individual s fit in the organization, the amount of complex and different abilities employees are required to use to perform their tasks, and the tasks overall importance to co-workers, organizations, and society. The job characteristics model proposed by Hackman and Oldham (1980) still represents a predominant perspective in organizational literature (Clegg & Spencer, 2007; Reid, Riemenschneider, Allen, & Armstrong, 2008). According to Hackman and Oldham (1980), organizations can promote job satisfaction by enhancing jobs along five dimensions: skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. These dimensions lead to critical psychological states that directly affect work results, such as satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, productivity, turnover, and absenteeism. This is why, among the predictors of job satisfaction, job characteristics have received the most empirical attention in the literature (Finley, Martin, Roman & Blum, 1995; Glisson & Durick, 1988; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007; Ting, 1996). The context in which employees are embedded is also expected to influence, in different ways, the overall level of job satisfaction of public and private workers. Organizational characteristics have been linked to job satisfaction in the literature from various perspectives, such as type of service, organization age, workgroup size, workgroup budget, and workgroup age (Glisson & Durick, 1988); core organizational values such as effectiveness, reputation, and efficiency (Wal & Huberts, 2008); and organizational factors such as group culture and sense of organizational purpose (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007). It is important that employees perceive organizations to be doing the best they can, within their economic, environmental, and financial constraints, to fulfill employees expectations. Therefore, human resource policies and practices are suitable to represent organizational characteristics in this sense. Human resource practices are the concrete representation of the explicit or implicit human resource politics that guide the organization s decision-making in relation to human assets. They are also designed to communicate to employees what is expected in terms of appropriate behaviors, in order to meet organizational 3

4 values and goals through formal programs and procedures (Judge & Cable, 1997). Rothbard, Philips, and Dumas (2005) suggest that job satisfaction will be low where organizational policies and employees expectations do not match. Bright (2008) adds that an adequate match between the characteristics of individuals skills, goals, and values and the characteristics of organizations culture, values, goals, and resources is significantly related to employees job satisfaction. Thus, organizational characteristics are expected to influence job satisfaction. Specifically, the six core human resources practices in organizations (communication, wellness, recruitment and selection, training and development, rewards and benefits, and career planning) are expected to influence job satisfaction. The category of individual characteristics has also been pointed out as one of the predictors of job satisfaction, although compared to the other predictors, it has received less attention (Glisson & Durick, 1988). In management literature, individual differences have usually been assessed as gender, age, marital and parental status, education level, and tenure. However, empirical findings are not consistent in relating individual characteristics and job satisfaction. The positive relationship between age and job satisfaction can be attributed to a progressive change of values as a result of professional experience (Henne & Locke, 1985). Older employees tend to be more positive about their jobs because they are more likely to possess traditional values and be better adjusted in terms of expectations to the working environment (Bright, 2008; DeSantis & Durst, 1996; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007; Ting, 1996). Regarding educational level, researchers suggest that there is a negative relationship between education and job satisfaction, because employees who are more educated have higher expectations that organizations may be unable to meet (Ting, 1996). Bright (2008) reports that employees who are highly educated are more likely to leave their jobs, compared to their lesseducated counterparts. Finally, the length of tenure in the same organization has been found to negatively influence job satisfaction (DeSantis & Durst, 1996; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007). This means that employees feel less engaged and satisfied with their jobs the longer they remain members of the same organization. Moynihan and Pandey (2007) suggest that employees who have remained in the same organization for a long period have more limited points of reference for comparison, which leads them to believe that other organizations are better to work for. Organizational Commitment In the organizational behavior literature, most authors agree that organizational commitment is a psychological state that characterizes an individual s relationship with the organization he/she works for, and which determines the likelihood that he/she will leave the organization (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Meyer & Allen, 1991). Porter, Steers, Mowday and Boulian (1974) define organizational commitment as the strength of an employee s identification with, and involvement in, a particular organization via a strong belief and acceptance of organizational goals and values; a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization; and finally, a definite desire to stay in the organization. Among several conceptual interpretations involving organizational commitment, the sociological, behavioral, attitudinal, affective, continuance, and normative perspectives have been highlighted. The sociological perspective suggests that the relationship between employees and the organization in which they work is based upon the legitimacy that rules the employment contract (Becker, 1960; Halaby, 1986). This is why employees bring to work a whole set of norms that specify their roles as subordinates, as well as the morally right form of domination employed in the work environment. Influenced by social psychology, the behavioral perspective implies that employees are committed as a result of their own behaviors (Salancik, 1977). The attitudinal approach focuses on the antecedent conditions that 4

5 lead to organizational commitment, such as the congruence of values and goals between the individual and the organization (O Reilly & Caldwell, 1981; Pfeffer & Lawler, 1980). The affective approach proposed by Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979) focuses on the emotional identification of employees with the organization. Commitment then originates from the individual desire to retain membership in the organization. The continuance perspective suggests that the satisfaction of an individual s needs and expectations in relation to financial rewards, status, and autonomy affects commitment. In other words, organizational commitment is a result of an individual s evaluation of the benefits and costs associated with organizational membership (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). Lastly, Weiner and Vardi (1990) propose that the normative commitment is a result of culture and individual motivation. The culture or shared values in which employees are embedded can produce a sense of obligation or normative pressures; these pressures, in association with reward systems, can influence individual behavior toward commitment. The individual s commitment at work is a construct that has drawn the attention not only of academics, but also of practitioners in business administration, because it has been successfully linked with important organizational outcomes (Meyer et al., 2002). Having a committed workforce helps to enhance the product and the quality of a process (Hausknecht, Hiller, & Vance, 2008); decrease costs related to waste and increase the time utilization of machines (Hackman & Wageman, 1995; Nair, 2006); reduce absenteeism and turnover rates (Cotton & Tuttle, 1986; Droege & Hoobler, 2003; Lee, Gerhart, Weller, & Trevor, 2008; Steel & Ovalle, 1984); increase performance (Hunter & Thatcher, 2007); and expedite the implementation of changes (Walton, 1990). Therefore, one of the new challenges of the human resources department is to maintain employee commitment while the organization faces changes, especially during downsizing and layoffs (Ulrich, 1998). Collins and Smith (2006) suggest that managing the employer-employee relationship with a commitment orientation creates an organizational climate that fosters workers motivation by affecting levels of trust, cooperation, and shared codes and languages. Nevertheless, some authors (Boardman & Sundquist, 2009; Boyne, 2002; Perry & Wise, 1990) advocate that the employer-employee relationship might differ across sectors due to the nature of the job, and that those who are less materialistic can be motivated and committed for very different reasons compared to those who are more so. In organizational behavior literature, the predictors of organizational commitment, in the same way as for job satisfaction, can be grouped into three major categories job characteristics, organizational characteristics, and individual characteristics with the distinction that, generally, more attention has been placed on job and individual characteristics than on organizational characteristics (Glisson & Durick, 1988). Regarding job characteristics, organizational commitment is consistently found to be significantly influenced by autonomy, task variety, task significance, and feedback (Glisson & Durick, 1988; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007). Glisson and Durick (1988) report that among 319 human service workers from 22 service organizations, organizational commitment was significantly affected by the application of different abilities to perform tasks, as well as by the social meaning of the job in terms of work-related characteristics. Moynihan and Pandey (2007) found that feedback from managers and supervisors positively affects employees commitment. In this case, supervisory feedback is linked to the clarity of the organizational goals that guide how employees perform their tasks, and is also represented by the constant feedback that superiors are required to give. Few studies have investigated organizational characteristics as predictors of organizational commitment, in comparison to job-related and individual characteristics (Glisson & Durick, 1988). Perceived organizational support throughout organizational policies and practices can enhance organizational commitment in the affective and normative 5

6 aspects when they meet employees expectations (Grant, Dutton, & Rosso, 2008; Reid et al., 2008; Rothbard et al., 2005). Reid et al. (2008) find in public organizations that, consistent with previous findings in the public and private sectors, the perception of organizational support and pay for performance is strongly linked to organizational commitment. In the same way, Rothbard et al. (2005) conclude that organizational commitment is higher when organizational policies are congruent with employees desires. Lastly, affective commitment is significantly enhanced when employees feel that the organization supports and cares beyond standard human resource practices of reward and benefit, recognition, and training and development (Grant et al., 2008). In sum, organizational characteristics play an important role in predicting organizational commitment. Glisson and Durick (1988) argue, based on their empirical findings, that organizational characteristics are the primary antecedents of commitment. Individual characteristics have usually been assessed in the organizational commitment literature through demographic characteristics, although a variety of worker characteristics such as personal needs, values, and personality traits also appear in the commitment research (Glisson & Durick, 1988). Meyer and Allen (1991) conclude that the relationship between individual characteristics and organizational commitment is not consistent, and whenever the findings indicate a significant relationship, it is generally weak. The organizational commitment literature suggests three directions regarding individual differences: the first is that commitment is the result of a rational balance between expectations (that might be realistic or not) and other alternatives; the second is that individuals differ in terms of their qualifications, which assures competent workers better opportunities; and the third is the behavioral approach, which suggests that workers tend to persist with previous choices, particularly if these were free choices (O Reilly & Caldwell, 1981). The three alternatives suggest that expectations, opportunities, and persistence can be influenced, even if not entirely, by an individual s age, tenure, and education, which explains why individual characteristics have been weakly associated with organizational commitment. Empirical findings show that tenure has been positively associated with organizational commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991), as well as age (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007), whereas education has been negatively related to commitment (Glisson & Durick, 1988). In other words, employees who remain in the organization for many years; older employees; and less educated employees tend to present higher levels of organizational commitment. The Relationship between Job satisfaction and Organizational Commitment Job satisfaction is defined as an individual s perception about the degree to which his/her job fulfills important job values (Locke, 1976), while organizational commitment is defined as the strength of an employee s identification and involvement in the organization (Porter et al., 1974). In sum, job satisfaction refers to one s work role or position, whereas organizational commitment is related to a broader environment, which is the entire organization. Glisson and Durick (1988) add that besides conceptual distinctions, empirically, with respect to measurement, job satisfaction has been modeled as a function of job experiences, and organizational commitment has been modeled as a function of beliefs about the organization. Regarding conceptual distinctions, most authors agree that there is a clear difference between both constructs (Curry et al., 1986; Harrison et al., 2006). However, despite empirical and conceptual distinctions, there is evidence that job satisfaction and organizational commitment share great variance, probably because both constructs represent conceptually different attitudes related to dimensions of the same work context (Glisson & Durick, 1988). Actually, the combination of job satisfaction and organizational commitment has been largely utilized in the literature as a dependent variable 6

7 to indicate underlying overall employee attitudes and behaviors, such as work motivation (Harrison et al., 2006; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007), which explains the high correlation. Empirical findings confirm the overlap between job satisfaction and organizational commitment in different ways. As mentioned previously, Harrison et al. (2006) and Moynihan and Pandey (2007) combine both constructs to examine work motivation. They find high correlations between job satisfaction and organizational commitment in US public and private organizations [r =.526, n = 274], and in a meta-analysis of the links between contextual performance and other job behaviors [r =.600, n= 112], respectively. Most commonly, job satisfaction and organizational commitment have been assessed as two independent variables that only correlate with each other. Rothbard et al. (2005) confirm the high correlation between both constructs [r =.570, n= 460] in a study that investigates the role of work-family policies on commitment and satisfaction. Satisfaction and commitment were also significantly correlated [r =.641, n= 269] in the research, linking the effects of strategic human resource management to satisfaction and commitment in an American manufacturing company (Green, Wu, Whitten, & Medlin, 2006). Glisson and Durick (1988) report a correlation of.640 [n=319] in research that analyzes the predictors of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Finally, Hausknecht et al. (2008) find a correlation of.750 [n=530] in a longitudinal study that analyzes the effects of satisfaction, commitment, labor market conditions, and time over work-unit absenteeism in the large US Department of Transportation. In a different manner, Grant et al. (2008) controlled for job satisfaction to investigate how employee support programs and the pro-social sensemaking process strengthen commitment by enabling employees to give support. The authors state that controlling for job satisfaction allows them to assess the relationships between the variables with additional rigor, since job satisfaction has been strongly related to organizational commitment [r =.620, n= 249]. As mentioned in the introduction, Meyer et al. (2002) conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the antecedents, correlates, and outcomes of organizational commitment. They consider correlates of commitment relationships in which there is no consensus regarding the causal ordering. Their results indicate that among all the correlates identified in previous research, job satisfaction has the strongest correlation. In fact, all five components of job satisfaction were found to be strongly correlated to the three dimensions of organizational commitment. The difficulty in establishing a causal ordering between job satisfaction and organizational commitment has culminated in studies which report only the correlation between both constructs (Reid et al., 2008). Curry et al. (1986) replicate Bateman and Strasser s (1984) study, which supports the tenet that commitment influences satisfaction. However, the results put forth by Curry et al. (1986), in their longitudinal study of 2,192 employees of nursing departments in hospitals, also fail to provide a basis for the assertion that organizational commitment influences job satisfaction. The authors conclude that no causal effect seems to exist, in either direction, between commitment and satisfaction over time. In the same manner, Ting (1996) proposes that job satisfaction is affected by organizational commitment because employees become committed to the organization after developing positive job attitudes. The author s results involving federal employees confirm this assumption, but a definitive causality cannot be established due to the nature of the survey. We should interpret these results with some caution because organizational commitment could be caused by (rather than be a predictor of) job satisfaction (Ting, 1996, p. 449). Indeed, the variety of measurement in both concepts seems to contribute to the conflicting findings. If job satisfaction is defined as job attitudes, as Ting (2006) suggests, it 7

8 seems rational to suppose that commitment will influence job satisfaction. Notwithstanding, in this study, both constructs are defined in terms of perception of either job value fulfillment, or identification in and involvement with the organization. Thus, it makes more sense to assume that employees first feel satisfied or unsatisfied with how well their job fulfills important job values; one could later suppose that this satisfaction will help in defining the strength of their identification with and involvement in the organization. In other words, employee satisfaction will influence organizational commitment. Hence, we hypothesize that job satisfaction is an antecedent of organizational commitment, by analyzing the mediating effect of job satisfaction on the relationship between work-related, organizational, and individual characteristics and organizational commitment. The following hypothesis is therefore posed: Hypothesis 1. Job satisfaction will mediate the relationship between job, organizational, and individual characteristics and organizational commitment. METHOD This research intends to address the discussion of the relationship direction between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In order to answer the research question and test the hypothesis, we conducted explanatory research. Individuals who are employed in public and private organizations are the unit of analysis in this research. Instrument Development The data collection instrument utilized in this survey is a questionnaire. The questionnaire is comprised of five sections. The first section assesses the individual characteristics. Demographic questions are included, however these do not identify the respondents, but rather just list their membership to the organization. The second section measures job characteristics. The items were taken from the job diagnostic survey (JDS) developed by Hackman and Oldham (1980). The JDS is a well-known and largely utilized instrument developed to assess the characteristics related to the job itself (Glisson & Durick, 1988; Rothbard et al., 2005). The third section measures the perceptions of human resource practices. The questions were developed based on a combination of the previous instruments available, and focus on the six core practices identified in the literature. The composite measure of reliability, which indicates the internal consistency of the measures for human resource practices is.91 (Borges, 2009). According to Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson and Tatham (2006), acceptable values must be greater than.70 to indicate the consistency of measures. The fourth section measures the dependent variable job satisfaction. This was developed based on Hackman and Oldham s (1980) contextual satisfaction measurements. The fifth section assesses the dependent variable organizational commitment, which was developed based on Meyer and Allen s (1991) organizational commitment components questionnaire. The items were taken from Meyer, Allen and Smith (1993). We used a fivepoint Likert-type scale to measure all the items. Systematic errors in the measure can arise from self-reported questionnaires as result of social desirability, negative affectivity, and acquiescence effects. We therefore attempted to reduce the likelihood of common method variance by counterbalancing the order of the questions, using well-established measures available in the literature, employing different scales to assess the constructs, and assuring the respondents confidentiality and anonymity, that there are no right or wrong answers, and that they should answer each item honestly (Malhotra, Kim & Patil, 2006). 8

9 Sample We administered standardized, paper-based questionnaires in public and private organizations in Brazil within the health, education, public management, and mining industries. Administration of the questionnaires followed the same procedures for all organizations. The managers of each department were informed about the research objectives and invited to meet the researchers in the company s auditorium at a scheduled time. They were also asked to extend this invitation to their subordinates. Hence, this is a convenience sample in which individuals were selected due to their accessibility. The respondents were informed about all aspects of the research project and that there was no need for individual identification; the voluntary nature of their participation was also explained. In addition, on the first page of the paper-based questionnaire, a letter reinforced the objectives of the research, their voluntary participation, their anonymity, and the confidentiality of the information. We reached a total sample size of 670 after detecting missing data; handling outliers; and checking for linearity, normality, and homoscedasticity assumptions. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Analysis Method The data analysis consisted of employing a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the measurement model (Hair et al., 2006), and a multiple regression analysis to test the hypothesis. Regression analysis is appropriate to predict the values of one dependent variable from a collection of prediction variables (Johnson & Wichern, 1988). It is also suitable for investigating moderation and mediation effects (Baron & Kenny, 1986). We used EQS software to run the confirmatory factor analysis, and SPSS software to run the multiple regression analysis. The results of the measurement model provide evidence of an adequate unidimensionality: [X²(194) = , p <.01]; the CFI (.90) and GFI (.95) indices are greater than.90; and the RMSEA (.09) is below the.10 threshold. All standardized factor loadings are greater than.50; the AVE of the latent variables is greater than 50%; and, finally, the Cronbach s alpha reliability measure exceeds the.70 value, indicating good convergent validity for all latent variables in the measurement model. Table 1 shows the standardized factor loadings, average variance extracted (AVE), and reliability values for job satisfaction and organizational commitment constructs, variables, and related items to job characteristics and human resource practices. The discriminant validity, the degree to which a latent variable is distinct from other latent variables, is measured by comparing the squared correlation between the variables and the AVE. The AVE must be greater than the squared correlation to evidence good discriminant validity. No squared correlations exceeded the AVE for the variables, suggesting no problems with discriminant validity. Multiple Regression Analysis Multiple regression analysis is broadly suitable for prediction and explanation purposes (Hair et al., 2006). In this study, we employed multiple regression analysis to examine the mediating effect of job satisfaction in the relationship between organizational commitment and its predictors. Job satisfaction will mediate the relationship between the independent variables and organizational commitment if the following conditions are met: (1) the independent variables are significantly related to job satisfaction; (2) the independent variables are significantly 9

10 related to organizational commitment; and (3) after adding job satisfaction as an independent variable, the relationship between the independent variables and organizational commitment is no longer significant. When all three requirements are met, job satisfaction is a full mediator. Nonetheless, when condition three remains significant after conditions one and two are met, job satisfaction will be a partial mediator (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Table 1 Measurement model reliability and validity Construct Variables Items Standirdized loadings AVE Reliability Job characteristics Task Identity it_1 0,806 0,709 0,830 it_2 0,876 Autonomy au_1 0,869 0,810 0,889 au_2 0,930 Skill Variety vh_1 0,813 0,709 0,874 vh_2 0,796 vh_3 0,912 Task Significance st_1 0,921 0,880 0,933 st_2 0,955 Feedback fe_1 0,762 0,563 0,784 fe_2 0,779 fe_3 0,708 Human Communication rhcmn_1 0,800 0,670 0,862 resource rhcmn_2 0,885 practices rhcmn_3 0,766 Welness rhqvt_1 0,792 0,698 0,815 rhqvt_2 0,877 Recruitment and selection rhrcsl_1 0,807 0,607 0,802 rhrcsl_2 0,883 rhrcsl_3 0,625 Training and development rhtrds_1 0,637 0,655 0,875 rhtrds_2 0,882 rhtrds_3 0,903 rhtrds_4 0,788 Reward and benefits rhrmbn_1 0,786 0,589 0,845 rhrmbn_2 0,699 rhrmbn_3 0,725 rhrmbn_4 0,852 Career planning rhplcr_1 0,753 0,581 0,895 rhplcr_2 0,795 rhplcr_3 0,769 rhplcr_4 0,804 rhplcr_5 0,795 rhplcr_6 0,648 Work Satisfaction Security 0,695 0,513 0,708 Compensation 0,793 Possibility of Growth 0,940 Supervision 0,556 Organizational Commitment Organizational Environment 0,509 Affective 0,680 0,541 0,772 Normative 0,962 Continuance 0,485 Note: All the standardized loadings are significant at p <.05 10

11 To test Hypothesis 1, which states that job satisfaction will mediate the relationship between job, organizational, and individual characteristics and organizational commitment, we ran a multiple regression analysis. We controlled for gender, salary level, and position. Following Baron and Kenny s (1986) suggestion, the three regression equations were estimated: (1) Path A: regressing the mediator on the independent variables; (2) Path B: regressing the independent variables on the dependent variable; and, (3) Path C: regressing the dependent variable on both the mediator and the independent variables. The findings indicate that job satisfaction fully mediates the relationship between the communication HR practice and organizational commitment, since we found that (1) the communication HR practice is significantly related to job satisfaction [B =.10(.02), p <.001]; (2) the communication HR practice is significantly related to organizational commitment [B =.04(.03), p <.05]; and (3) there is no significant relationship between the communication HR practice and organizational commitment [B = -.01(.03), p =.92] when job satisfaction is related to organizational commitment [B =.24(.06), p <.001]. Following this reasoning, the results indicate that job satisfaction partially mediates the relationship between: tenure and organizational commitment [B = 1.18(.30), p <.001]; skill variety and organizational commitment [B =.12(.03), p <.05]; training and development HR practice and organizational commitment [B =.14(.04), p <.001]; and career planning HR practice and organizational commitment [B =.20(.04), p <.001]. Finally, the relationships between task significance and organizational commitment, and between the wellness HR practice and organizational commitment, are not mediated by job satisfaction, since the results indicate that there are no significant relationships between the independent variables and the mediator (requirement one). Baron and Kenny (1986) also suggest that to test whether the regression significance is a result of the mediation effect, rather than a result of the lack of significance when a smaller coefficient is found after adding another variable to the regression, researchers should run the Sobel test, which provides the significance level for the indirect effect of independent variables on the dependent variable via the mediator. The results indicate a significant mediation effect of job satisfaction between skill variety [Sobel = 2.14(.002), p <.05]; communication HR practice [Sobel = 3.12(.01), p <.01]; career planning HR practice [Sobel = 3.12(.01), p <.01]; training and development HR practice [Sobel = 2.63(.01), p <.01]; and tenure [Sobel = 2.12(.07), p <.05] and the dependent variable organizational commitment. Table 2 shows the results of the three regression equations. Before making our final judgments we ran a regression analysis, adding organizational commitment along with the independent variables, and job satisfaction as the dependent variable. The results indicate that organizational commitment is not an antecedent of job satisfaction [B =.06(.03), p =.07] and, consequently, cannot be a mediator of the relationships between the independent variables and job satisfaction [R² change =.00, F (1,613) = 3.79, p =.06]. On the other hand, on Path C in Table 3, we notice that job satisfaction significantly antecedes organizational commitment [B =.24(.06), p <.001]. Finally, we conclude that the direction of the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment goes from job satisfaction to organizational commitment, rather than the other way around. This means that, as hypothesized, employees are satisfied with their jobs first, before becoming committed to the organization, hence supporting Hypothesis 1. 11

12 Table 2 Results of multiple regression analyses Variables Path A Path B Path C Intercept -4.61** -3.9** -6.23** Control Gender -,08 -,06 -,08 Salary level -0.25*.284*,21 Position -.37* -.91*.31* Independent Age,46,19,50 Educational level.58**,08,22 Tenure.65* 1.04** 1.18** Task significance,01.11*.11* Skill variety.02* 0.12*.12* Autonomy.07*,05,04 Task identity,04 -,01 -,01 Feedback.13**,05,04 HR Recuitment&Selection -,02 -,01 -,02 HR Communication.10**.04* -,01 HR Wellness,02.08*.08* HR Training&Development.09*.17**.14** HR Reward&Benefits.12**,00 -,06 HR Career planning.24**.26**.20** Mediator Work satisfaction.24** R²,69,52,51 Adjusted R²,67,48,47 F 56.92** 32.39** 14.64** N Note: * p <.05 ** p <.001 CONCLUSION This research sought to determine the direction of the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Based on the literature, job satisfaction is defined in terms of employees perceptions on the extent to which important job values are fulfilled, while organizational commitment relates to employees levels of identification with the organization. Hence, it is logical that employees feel satisfied with their jobs first, and later become committed to their organization. We hypothesized that job satisfaction mediates the relationship between job, organizational, and individual characteristics and organizational commitment. We therefore included in the analysis individual, job-related, and organizational factors that influence both constructs in order to investigate the direction of the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. 12

13 Data analysis includes assessment of the measurement model through a confirmatory factor analysis. To test the research hypothesis, we ran a regression analysis controlling for gender, salary level, and position. The empirical findings suggest that job satisfaction affects organizational commitment, instead of the reverse. In general, the results indicate that job, organizational, and individual characteristics are better predictors of job satisfaction than they are of organizational commitment. This correlation helps to support the finding that job satisfaction mediates the relationship between those characteristics and organizational commitment. This study contributes to existing literature because it provides encouraging evidence that job satisfaction ultimately affects organizational commitment. The main contribution of this research is to provide a basis for a longitudinal approach focused on determining the causal ordering between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In terms of contributing to the organizational commitment literature, our data, rather than considering work satisfaction as a correlate variable to organizational commitment, indicates that job satisfaction works better as a predictor of the affective, continuance, and normative dimensions of commitment. Our findings contradict those of Bateman and Strasser (1984), which suggest that organizational commitment is an antecedent of job satisfaction. Both constructs have been largely handled in the literature as distinct variables that share a large amount of variance (Glisson & Durick, 1988; Green et al., 2006; Harrison et al., 2006; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007; Rothbard et al., 2005), but few studies have investigated the direction of the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Bateman & Strasser, 1984; Curry et al., 1986; Ting, 1996). In this sense, this study adds to the meta-analysis research of Meyer et al. (2002) by indicating the direction of the relationship between both constructs. To practitioners, the research findings suggest that managers could also enhance employees commitment by increasing job satisfaction within five dimensions (job security, rewards and benefits, organizational environment, supervision, and possibility of growth). The results also reveal the job-related characteristics and organizational factors that significantly affect both employees satisfaction and commitment. Therefore, managers might consider these factors when dealing with employee involvement. Lastly, regarding individual characteristics, our empirical findings suggest that the longer employees remain members of the same organization, the more satisfied and committed they will be. However, this study presents some limitations. The methodological limitations include sample selection method and common method bias. Since this is a cross-sectional study, it is not possible to assess the causal relationship between the constructs only the direction of the relationship between them. The last potential limitation of this study relates to the variables selected as antecedents of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Future research could include different variables or utilize other measurement models, selecting from the wide range available in the literature. Further research could also replicate this study in order to confirm the findings and enhance comprehension about the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. It could extend the analysis regarding the mediating effects of job satisfaction on organizational commitment, by investigating not only the direction of the relationship between both constructs, but also the causal relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Finally, this study points out a need for longitudinal research in order to better understand the causal ordering between work satisfaction and organizational commitment. 13

14 REFERENCES Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), Bateman, T.S., & Strasser, S. (1984). A longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 27, Becker, H.S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. Journal of Sociology, 66, Boardman, C., & Sundquist, E. (2009). Toward understanding work motivation: Worker attitudes and the perception of effective public service. The American Review of Public Administration, 39(5), Borges, R.S. (2009). Organizational change implementation and the role of human resource practices. Brazilian Business Review, 6(3), Boyne, G.A. (2002). Public and private management: What s the difference? Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), Bright, L. (2008). Does public service motivation really make a difference on the job satisfaction and turnover intentions of public employees? The American Review of Public Administration, 38(2), Clegg, C., & Spencer, C. (2007). A circular and dynamic model of the process of job design. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, Collins, C.J., & Smith, K.G. (2006). Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), Cotton, J.L., & Tuttle, J.M. (1986). Employee turnover: A meta-analysis and review with implications for research. Academy of Management Review, 11, Currivan, D.B. (1999). The causal order of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in models of employee turnover. Human Resource Management Review, 9(4), Curry, J.P., Wakefield, D.S., Price, J.L., & Mueller, C.W. (1986). On the causal ordering of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 29(4), DeSantis, V., & Durst, S.L. (1996). Comparing job satisfaction among public- and privatesector employees. American Review of Public Administration, 26(3), Droege, S.B., & Hoobler, J.M. (2003). Employee turnover and tacit knowledge diffusion a network perspective. Journal of Managerial Issues, 15, Finlay, W., Martin, J.K., Roman, P.M., & Blum, T.C. (1995). Organizational structure and job satisfaction: do bureaucratic organizations produce more satisfied employees? Administration & Society, 27(3), Glisson, C., & Durick, M. (1988). Predictors of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, Grant, A.M., Dutton, J.E., & Rosso, B.D. (2008). Giving commitment: Employee support programs and the prosocial sensemaking process. Academy of Management Journal, 51(5), Green, K.W., Wu, C., Whitten, D., & Medlin, B. (2006). The impact of strategic human resource management on firm performance and HY professionals work attitude and work performance. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(4), Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hackman, J.R., & Wageman, R. (1995). Total quality management: Empirical, conceptual, and practical issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40,

15 Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B., Anderson, R.E., & Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Halaby, C.N. (1986). Worker attachment and workplace authority. American Sociological Review, 51, Harrison, D.A., Newman, D.A., & Roth, P.L. (2006). How important are job attitudes? Metaanalytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), Hausknecht, J.P., Hiller, N.J., & Vance, R.J. (2008). Work-unit absenteism: Effects of satisfaction, commitment, labor market conditions, and time. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6), Henne, D., & Locke, E.A. (1985). Job dissatisfaction: What are the consequences? International Journal of Psychology, 20, Herscovitch, L. & Meyer, J.P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), Hunter, L.W., & Thatcher, S.M. (2007). Feeling the heat: Effects of stress, commitment, and job experience on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), Johnson, R.A., & Wichern, D.W. (1988). Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Judge, T.A., & Cable, D.M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organizational attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50, Lee, T.H., Gerhart, B., Weller, I., & Trevor, C.O. (2008). Understanding voluntary turnover: Path-specific job satisfaction effects and the importance of unsolicited job offers. Academy of Management Journal, 51(4), Locke, E.A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M.D. Dunette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp ). Chicago, IL: Rand McNaly. Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S. & Patil, A. (2006). Common method variance in IS research: A comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management Science, 52(12), Malik, O.F., Waheed, A., & Malik, K.R. (2010). The mediating effects of job satisfaction on role stressors and affective commitment. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(11), Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resources Management Review, 1(1), Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., & Smith, C.A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, Moynihan, D.P., & Pandey, S.K. (2007). Finding workable levers over job satisfaction: Comparing job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment. Administration & Society, 39(7), Nair, A. (2006). Meta-analysis of the relationship between quality management and firm performance: Implications for quality management development. Journal of Operations Management, 24,