Job Embeddedness

A PROJECT REPORT On THE RELATIONSHIP OF JOB EMBEDDEDNESS WITH ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT AND PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT Academic Session 2009-11

LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, DELHI. SUBMITTED TO Prof. Mahima Thakur SUBMITTED BY Dr. Daman Walia (13/2009) Koustubha Bhutra (25/2009) Ashank Mathur (29/2009) Abhinaw Srivastava (67/2009) Harsh Khemka (117/2009) Sunanda Mitra (149/2009)

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. NO.

PARTICULARS

PAGE NO.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

3

ABSTRACT

4

1

INTRODUCTION

5

2

OBJECTIVE OF STUDY

6-7

3

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

8-13

4

METHODOLOGY

5

HYPOTHESIS FORMATION

15-17

6

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

18-21

7

DISCUSSION

22

8

REFERNCES

23-25

9

QUESTIONNAIRE

26-28

14

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The success of any research study depends upon a number of factors a mong which the  proper guidance from the experts in the industry and a faculty plays an important role.

We take this opportunity to convey our sincere thanks and gratitude to all those who have directly or indirectly helped and contributed towards the completion of this project.

We take here a great opportunity to express our sincere and deep sense of gratitude to Prof. Mahima Thakur for giving us an opportunity to work on this project. The support & guidance from Ma’am, was of great help & it was extremely valuable.

3

ABSTRACT This research studies the relationship between job embeddedness, organization commitment and psychological empowerment. Further, the study links each dimension of psychological empowerment (meaning, competence, self-determination and impact) with job embeddedness. Affective and Normative Commitment are also linked to embeddedness. In a sample of xx, analysis revealed that job embeddedness is positively related to both commitment and empowerment. Implications are discussed.

4

INTRODUCTION This research studies the relationship between job embeddedness and organizational commitment. It also studies the relationship between job embeddedness and psychological empowerment. We used Job Embeddedness instead of Job Satisfaction. The difference  between JS and JE: First, the focus of JS is on-the-job, not off-the-job. Second, there are multiple measures of JS (e.g., Job Descriptive Index, Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire) and most measures include multiple dimensions. These dimensions include attributes about one's work environment, supervision, co-workers and pay (Griffeth et al., 2000). Sacrificeorganization is meant to focus on what people would “give up” if they left their job. It does not include items assessing one's affective reactions to the work itself, their supervision or coworkers.

 Nonetheless, we do include items on compensation and benefits (e.g., health care, retirement). Thus, sacrifice-organization has some conceptual similarity with compensation satisfaction. Heneman and Schwab’s (1985) Pay Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ) is the most frequently used instrument in current compensation research. While it does include satisfaction with pay and benefits, the PSQ also includes items referring to raises, the pay structure (distribution) in the organization and procedures involved with pay administration.

Thus, the PSQ includes constructs and items which are not conceptualized as part of job embeddedness.

In summary, job satisfaction has some similarities with and differences from job embeddedness.

5

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY This study has the following objectives:

First, we sought to show how job embeddedness affe cts organizational commitment of  employees. Although job embeddedness was originally conceptualized to explain Job stability or “why people stay” in their organizations, research has been done on the relationship between embeddedness and employee performance (Sekiguchi, Burton and Sablynski). There are numerous investigations that have studied the relationship between organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Currivan, 1999). The predominant view is that job satisfaction is an antecedent to organizational commitment (Lincoln & Kalleberg, 1990; Mowday; Porter, & Steers, 1982; Mueller, Boyer, Price, & Iverson, 1994; Williams & Hazer, 1986). There is also some support for the reverse causal ordering, organizational commitment as an antecedent to job satisfaction (Vandenberg & Lance, 1992). However, these researches do not talk about organizational commitment in relation with job embeddedness. We choose to focus on job embeddedness, as opposed to job satisfaction,  because it is a broader construct that captures a greater range of factors that provoke organizational commitment. In Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, and Erez’s (2001) original formulation, the job embeddedness construct addressed how well people fit  in their jobs (e.g.,  personal skills are well suited to the work assigned) and community (e.g., they like the amenities a community provides); the interpersonal links they have on and off the job (e.g., their number of ties to people and groups); and what they would have to give up or  sacrifice in leaving their place of employment or community (e.g., what opportunities they would forego). In sum, job embeddedness includes several individual-level factors that enmesh employees in their jobs, and numerous studies have shown it to be a good predictor of an employee’s commitment to the organization (Allen, 2006; Crossley, Bennett, Jex, & Burnfield, 2007; Holtom, Mitchell, & Lee, 2006; Holtom & O’Neill, 2004; Lee, Mitchell, Sablynski, Burton, & Holtom, 2004; Mitchell et al., 2001; Van Dijk & Kirk-Brown, 2003; Zatzick & Iverson 2006).

6

Second, we sought to show the relationship between embeddedness and psychological empowerment. Earlier studies related psychological empowerment to access information and resources, role ambiguity (Spreitzer, 1996), effectiveness, work satisfaction, and job related strain (Spreitzer et al .,1997). Menon (2001) relates psychological empowerment to organizational commitment, job involvement, and citizenship behavior. Bhatnagar (2005) also relates psychological empowerment to organizational commitment. Psychological empowerment has been found to be significantly related to job satisfaction; however, the individual constructs have received varied results (Carless, 2004; Seibert, Silver, & Randolph, 2004; Liden, Lucas, & Sparrowe, 2000; Spreitzer et al., 1997). We sought to show the relationship of these individual dimensions of psychological empowerment, with job embeddedness (which is a broader concept than job satisfaction). When considering embeddedness, Mitchell et al. (2001) found, using a sample of retail employees and hospital workers, that job embeddedness was associated with lower intention to leave as well as actual voluntary turnover. Crossley, Bennett, Jex, and Burnfield (2007) confirmed these findings, extending Mitchell et al.’s study by finding that embeddedness interacted with satisfaction to  predict turnover in a study of employees of an assisted living organization.

7

REVIEW OF LITERATURE  Job Embeddedness The term “embeddedness” has been used in the sociological literature to explain the process  by which social relations influence and constrain economic action (Granovetter, 1985; Uzzi, 1996, 1997). This process reflects the idea of social networks as a constraint or “stuckness.” Based on the sociological concept of embeddedness, Mitchell and his colleagues (2001) first conceptualized job embeddedness as focusing narrowly on individuals staying with their  organization. Specifically, they saw job Embeddedness as representing the totality of forces that keep employees in their current employment. Employees become tied to their  organizations through many different types of links, investments and affective and cognitive appraisals that create a net or web of restraining forces. Individuals with more types of  restraining forces are more embedded and less likely to voluntarily exit the organization. Reflecting the idea of employees’ being “situated or connected in a social web,” job embeddedness has several key aspects: (a) the extent to which people have links to other   people or activities in and outside the organization, (b) the extent to which their jobs and communities fit other aspects in their “life spaces,” and (c) what they would give up if they left their present settings. Mitchell and his colleagues refer to these three dimensions as links, fit, and sacrifice, respectively, and these dimensions have both on-the-job factors (e.g., the organization or job) and off-the-job factors (e.g., family or community).

The theoretical basis for using embeddedness, not engagement

Both job embeddedness and work engagement have their roots in the literature on how one is attached to their job. That said, they have unique characteristics and have taken somewhat different ‘‘paths’’ through the literature. However, their conceptualizations suggest some clear differences. For example, Schaufeli and Salanova (2007) characterize engagement in terms of a mood that, while not entirely momentary and fleeting, is not particularly stable. One can contrast this with embeddedness, where the components of links and sacrifice (and to a lesser extent, fit) should develop slowly over time, and as a result, should remain more stable. While engagement may change if job conditions (such as demands or resources) change, embeddedness should change more slowly and would likely require more radical events or ‘‘shocks’’ to decrease (Mitchell et al., 2001).

8

One way to conceptualize these differences is to consider the role of resources in the development of each construct. Conservation of Resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1988, 1998) proposes that individuals are motivated by the desire to obtain and protect resources, or  those things they personally value. As resources are acquired, they may be further invested to obtain additional resources (Hobfoll, 2001). Both engagement and embeddedness develop as a result of an abundance of resources (Gorgievski & Hobfoll, in press). However, as suggested in the preceding paragraph, engagement and embeddedness have different resource  bases. As such, we would expect them to be independent constructs. For example, the resources contributing to engagement are more specific to the nature of the work (De Lange, De Witte, & Notelaers, 2008; Hakanen, Schaufeli, & Ahola, 2008; Van den Broeck, De Witte, Lens, & Vansteenkiste, 2008). While these resources may be somewhat  job- or workplace-dependent (e.g., one may be afforded more flexibility at some organizations or in certain positions), they tend to focus on the nature of the work. As an example, many of the resources that faculty can draw on to further their engagement in research and teaching are quite similar as they move from university to university (e.g., skill utilization and task autonomy; cf., Van den Broeck et al., 2008). Conversely, embeddedness resources are restricted to the organization and position. When an individual moves to another organization, he or she would not move the links with other people with him or her; further, the perceived fit necessarily changes due to the new work environment. Gorgievski and Hobfoll (in press) suggest that specific motivational resources (e.g., flexibility, balance, diversity, interdependence, and tolerance for failure) increase engagement with work. For  example, they define individual flexibility as including cognitive flexibility (ability to consider alterative viewpoints) and emotional flexibility (tolerating a wide range of  emotions). Balance is defined in terms of the appropriate management of demands within various domains (e.g., work, family) in order to replenish motivational resources. Diversity supports engagement through the challenge of coordinating conflicting ideas and a mix of  skills among team members. Interdependence encourages engagement by developing 244 Jonathon R.B. Halbesleben et al. collective efficacy, supporting the desire to perform at high levels for group success. Tolerance for failure is necessary for engagement to the extent that it supports creativity and risktaking, the rewards from which can further support engagement. These resources may be more fleeting than those associated with embeddedness, which tend to emerge over long periods (e.g., links to other people in the organization, higher sacrifice if  one leaves). Moreover, engagement can be eroded when resources are expended to meet demands at work. 9

For example, where balance of role demands (e.g., work_family balance) is a resource leading to engagement, it may be expended when an employee is swamped with a specific  project that requires all of his or her attention. In sum, both engagement and embeddedness result from an accumulation of individual resources. As such we would expect them to be related constructs (both resource-based), but  because their resource bases differ, they are independent constructs. As we will argue in the following sections, these differences in resources help to explain their unique contribution to outcome variables.

Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment is the relative strength of an employee’s attachment or  involvement with the organization where he or she is employed, in this case the dairy  business. Organizational commitment is important because committed employees are less likely to leave for another job and are more likely to perform at higher levels. There are three dimensions of organizational commitment: • Affective commitment is a feeling of emotional attachment. For example, “I work here  because the people are great and the work is fun.” • Normative commitment is a feeling of obligation. For example, “I work here because they hired me when I needed a job so I owe it to them.” • Continuance commitment is a feeling that the costs of leaving are too high or it is too much trouble to go somewhere else. For example, “I’d leave if I knew I could get another job that  paid as much.”

Affective Commitment

Affective Commitment (AC) is the degree of an employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization (Allen and Meyer, 1990). AC is defined as the employee’s emotional attachment to the organization. As a result, he or she strongly identifies with the goals of the organization and desires to remain a part of the organization. The employee makes a commitment to the organization because he/she “wants to”.

10

Normative Commitment

 Normative Commitment (NC) is the degree to which an employee feels some sense of  obligation to remain with an organization. The individual commits to and remains with an organization because of the feeling of obligation. For instance, the organization may have invested resources to train an employee, who then feels an obligation to put forth the effort on the job and stay with the organization to “repay the debt”. It may also reflect an internalized norm, developed before the person joins the organization, through family or other  socialization processes that one should be loyal to one’s organization. The employee stays with the organization because he/she “ought to”.

Psychological Empowerment

Psychological empowerment has its roots in early work on employee alienation and quality of  work life. Rather than focusing on managerial practices that share power with employees at all levels, the psychological perspective is focused on how employees experience empowerment at work. This perspective refers to empowerment as the personal beliefs that employees have about their role in relation to the organization. When people are feel empowered at work, they experience four dimensions including: 1) Meaning: Meaning involves a fit between the needs of one's work role and one's  beliefs, values and behaviours. 2) Competence: Competence refers to self-efficacy specific to one's work, or a belief in one's capability to perform work activities with skill. 3) Self-determination: Self-determination is a sense of choice in initiating and regulating one's actions. It reflects a sense of autonomy over the initiation and continuation of  work behaviour and processes (e.g., making decisions about work methods, pace, and effort). 4) Impact: Impact is the degree to which one can influence strategic, administrative, or  operating outcomes at work.

Together, these four cognitions reflect an active, rather than passive, orientation to one's work  role. In other words, the experience of empowerment is manifest in all four dimensions – if  any one dimension is missing, then the experience of empowerment will be limited. For  example, if people have discretion to make decisions (i.e., self-determination) but they don’t 11

care about the kinds of decisions they can make (i.e., they lack a sense of meaning), they will not feel empowered. Alternatively, if people believe they can make an impact but don’t feel like they have the skills and abilities to do their job well (i.e., they lack a sense of  competence), they will not feel empowered as well. A working definition of psychological empowerment c an be proposed as follows: the  psychologically empowered state is a cognitive state characterized by a sense of perceived control, competence and goal internalization. Empowerment is thus considered a multifaceted construct reflecting different dimensions of being psychologically enabled, and is conceived of as a positive additive function of these three dimensions.

Perceived Control

Perceived Control (PC) includes beliefs about authority, decision-making, availability of  resources, and autonomy in the scheduling and performance of work, etc .

Perceived Competence

Perceived Competence (COMP) reflects role-mastery, which besides requiring the skilful accomplishment of one or more assigned tasks, also requires successful coping with nonroutine role-related situations.

Goal Internalization

Goal Internalization (GI) dimension captures the energizing property of a worthy cause or  exciting vision provided by the organizational leadership.

In recent times, “organizational researchers and business practitioners have focused more on  psychological empowerment in the workplace” (Spreitzer  et al., 1999). This observation of  Spreitzer et al. (1999) , is supported by Menon (2001) who looks at workplace empowerment as “the major new industrial weapon against domestic and international threats”. This growing interest in employee empowerment is the result of studies conducted in leadership and management skills (Bennis and Nanus, 1985), power and control (Kanter, 1979), and team building (Beckhard, 1969). These studies suggest that employee empowerment is a  principal component of managerial and organizational effectiveness, and plays a crucial role in team development and maintenance (Conger and Kanungo, 1988). Empowerment has been defined by Conger and Kanungo (1988) as “a process of enhancing feelings of self-efficacy 12

among members of organizations through the identification of conditions that foster   powerlessness and their removal both by formal organizational practices and informal techniques of providing efficacy information”. Thomas and Velthouse (1990) further, developed the general approach to empowerment taken by Conger and Kanungo. Thomas and Velthouse argued that empowerment is a multifaceted approach, and defined it more broadly as “increased intrinsic task motivation” manifested in a set of four cognitions reflecting an individual’s orientation to his or her work role: impact, competence, meaning, and choice (Spreitzer, 1995). Impact is seen as “making a difference” in terms of accomplishing the  purpose of the task (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). Competence is an individual’s ability to  perform activities skillfully (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). Meaning is the value of the task  goal or purpose, judged in relation to the individual’s own ideals or standards (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990), while choice is “causal responsibility for a person’s actions” (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). Spreitzer (1995) did the research on Thomas and Velthouse’s multidimensional conceptualization and began the process of construct validation. Several studies have been conducted using Spreitzer’s empowerment measurement. Although Spreitzer’s (1995, 1996) measure assesses multiple dimensions of empowerment, “it does not tap into that aspect of empowerment that is related to inspiring leadership or an exciting organizational vision” (Menon, 2001). Menon (2001) developed a new instrument to measure  psychological empowerment. Menon’s 15-item, three component instrument attempts to capture feelings of goal internalization, perceived control and perceived competence (Menon, 2001).

13

METHODOLOGY ADOPTED

Measures

In the questionnaire, respondents were asked to respond to questions related to their  demographic information (job position, gender, and ethnicity), the revised job embeddedness questionnaire, as well as measures of organizational commitment and psychological empowerment. For all variables, the mean of the items represented the final score.

Psychological Empowerment

Respondents were asked to use a five-point scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” to report on perceived level of empowerment.

Organizational Commitment

Affective commitment denotes a sense of belonging and emotional attachment to the organization (e.g., “I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization”). Normative commitment denotes the individual’s obligation to remain with the organization (e.g., “I owe a great deal to my organization”). Items were anchored by a five point scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree).

Job Embeddedness

Although most items corresponded directly to Mitchell and associates’ measure of job embeddedness, a few minor edits were required to fit the measure to the current sample’s setting. Items were anchored by a five-point scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree).

Sample

Mailed questionnaires were used to collect data from the sample. The total sample size was 12 with the number of males being 11 and the number of females, 1.

14

HYPOTHESIS FORMATION Above we have presented a theory on job embeddedness, organizational commitment and  psychological empowerment. We now offer two specific hypotheses. First, we hypothesize that an employee is more likely to be committed to the organization if he/she is more “embedded” in their jobs. We choose to focus on job embeddedness, as opposed to job satisfaction, because it is a broader construct that captures a greater range of factors that  provoke leaving. In Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, and Erez’s (2001) original formulation, the job embeddedness construct addressed how well people fit  in their jobs (e.g.,  personal skills are well suited to the work assigned) and community (e.g., they like the amenities a community provides); the interpersonal links they have on and off the job (e.g., their number of ties to people and groups); and what they would have to give up or  sacrifice in leaving their place of employment or community (e.g., what opportunities they would forego). In sum, job embeddedness includes several individual-level factors that enmesh employees in their jobs, and numerous studies have shown it to be a good predictor of an employee’s commitment to the organization (Allen, 2006; Crossley, Bennett, Jex, & Burnfield, 2007; Holtom, Mitchell, & Lee, 2006; Holtom & O’Neill, 2004; Lee, Mitchell, Sablynski, Burton, & Holtom, 2004; Mitchell et al., 2001; Van Dijk & Kirk-Brown, 2003; Zatzick & Iverson 2006).

Rationale for the Hypothesis

There are numerous investigations that have studied the relationship between organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Currivan, 1999). They found a positive relationship  between the two factors. Job Embeddedness is a broader term than job satisfaction and based on the review of literature (Allen, 2006; Crossley, Bennett, Jex, & Burnfield, 2007; Holtom, Mitchell, & Lee, 2006; Holtom & O’Neill, 2004; Lee, Mitchell, Sablynski, Burton, & Holtom, 2004; Mitchell et al., 2001; Van Dijk & Kirk-Brown, 2003; Zatzick & Iverson 2006)., we believe that there should be a positive correlation between organization commitment and job embeddedness.

 Hypothesis 1: Job Embeddedness is positively related to organization commitment.

15

Second, we hypothesize that an employee will be more embedded if he/she enjoys a greater   psychological empowerment. Let us briefly take some examples from the Mitchell et al. (2001) job embeddedness measure to provide a more grounded understanding of how job embeddedness is directly related to psychological empowerment. Imagine a workplace where most people strongly agree with the following statements: “I feel like I am a good match for  my organization,” “I really love the place I live,” “I would sacrifice a lot if I left this job,” “My family roots are in this community,” and “I work closely with my co-workers.” Such setting is possible when the employee feels that he/she is empowered to make a decision. Contrast this situation with a workplace populated by those who are less embedded in their   jobs and communities (e.g., people who feel they don’t fit in their work group or community, or people who have little to sacrifice in renegotiating their relationships to their jobs). In this sort of environment, even if they like their jobs, employees will not enjoy the same  psychological empowerment as in the previous case.

Rationale for the Hypothesis

Psychological empowerment has been found to be significantly related to job satisfaction; however, the individual constructs have received varied results (Carless, 2004; Seibert, Silver, & Randolph, 2004; Liden, Lucas, & Sparrowe, 2000; Spreitzer et al., 1997). In empirical studies, meaning has received strong support as being positively associated with  job satisfaction. Staples (1990) argued that empowerment dealt with the efforts of individuals and groups to increase their control. Deci, Connell and Ryan (1989) describe this as being able to initiate and regulate personal behavior. In other words, employees with selfdetermination have some control over what they will do, how much effort they will put in, and when they will start and stop (Spector, 1986). Deci and Ryan (1987) presented selfdetermination as related to job satisfaction. Researchers (Gist, 1987; Harackiewicz, Sansone, & Manderlink, 1985) have also argued that competence or self-efficacy is related to intrinsic motivation. Theories of self-efficacy have also suggested that an individual’s mood may affect self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982; Gist, 1987; Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Therefore, to the extent that attitudes such as job satisfaction affect moods, and since attitudes are accepted as less temporary than moods, job satisfaction may affect feelings of competence or selfefficacy through its effect on the individual’s mood at work. . Job Embeddedness is a broader  term than job satisfaction and based on the review of literature (Carless, 2004; Seibert, Silver, & Randolph, 2004; Liden, Lucas, & Sparrowe, 2000; Spreitzer et al., 1997), we believe that

16

there should be a positive correlation between psychological empowerment and job embeddedness.

 Hypothesis 2: Job Embeddedness is positively related to psychological empowerment.

17

RESULT AND ANALYSIS Descriptive Measures

Job embeddedness Mean

3.691667

Median Mode Standard deviation

4 4 1.090801

As the standard deviation is very close to 1 most of the respondents are in consensus

Organisational commitment Affective Mean 3.458333

Normative 3.604167

Overall 3.516667

Median Mode Standard

4 4 1.086466

4 4 1.012388

4 4 0.963233

deviation The overall organisation commitment score lies between affective and normative

Psychological empowerment meaning

competency

Self  

impact

overall

3.666666667

3.648148

4 4 1.09014

4 4 1.016819

Mean

3.777778

3.472222

determination 3.75

Median Mode Standard

4 4 0.929243

4 4 1.055221339

4 4 1.055289706

deviation The results reveal that self determination is the most important aspect in psychological empowerment with a mean score of 3.75. The respondents strongly agree to it.

18

19

Correlation coefficient between normative organisational commitment and Job embeddedness = 0.137860189 Correlation coefficient between Psychological Empowerment and Job embeddedness =

0.293135 There exists a very low correlation between organisational commitment and job embeddedness, the reason of which might be small sample size. Similarly, there is a low correlation between psychological empowerment and job embeddedness. Correlation coefficient between normative PE (competence) and PE (meaning) = 0.250941

Comparative study between TCS and Others

Job embeddedness

OC- Affective

OC- Normative

OC- Overall

Psychological

Mean

TCS 3.475

Others 3.6375

Median/Mode Standard deviation

3/3 1.012423

4/4 1.152828

Mean

3.708333

3.333333

Median/Mode Standard deviation

4/4 0.750604

3/3 3.333333

Mean

3.5625

3.625

Median/Mode

3.5

4/4

Standard deviation

/3 0.963933

1.157026

Mean

3.65

3.45

Median/Mode Standard deviation

4/4 0.83359

4/4 1.089652

Mean

3.527778

3.708333

20

Empowerment Median/Mode Standard deviation

4/4 0.9706

4/4 1.040551

TCS has lower job embeddedness as compared to other organizations in the sample. However, the organizational commitment is higher owing to higher affective organizational commitment. Psychological Empowerment is also higher f or other organizations.

21

DISCUSSION The current study is unique in that it tests the relationship between Job Embeddedness, Organizational Commitment and Psychological Empowerment. It is important to emphasize that embeddedness was conceptualized specifically as reflecting the totality of forces that constrain one from leaving his or her current employment. It captures those factors that embed and keep one in the present position.

First, Job Embeddedness seems to have a positive, but very low and maybe insignificant, correlation with Organizational Commitment. This rejects our initial hypothesis. The reasons for this maybe: Small Sample Size: The sample size of the study was 12. This is really small and no serious inferences can be made from such a small sample. We also acknowledge that we did not include the community dimension of job embeddedness. To some extent, this was intentional, as a comparison between commitment and community embeddedness would have limited value as they are conceptually quite different constructs. However, community embeddedness has specific value in predicting work outcomes, particularly turnover (Lee et al., 2004) and thus should be considered in future research.

The data collected is from a single source, i.e. Employee Rating. Management Rating could also have been included for more accurate results.

Second, Job Embeddedness seems to have a positive but low correlation with Psychological Empowerment. The reasons for this are the similar to those cited above.

22

REFERENCES Allan, P. (2002). The contingent workforce: Challenges and new directions. American Business Review, 20(2), 103-110.

Befort, S. D. (2003). Revisiting the black hole of workplace regulation: A historical and comparative perspective of contingent work. Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor  Law, 24(1),153-179.

Broschak, J. P., & Davis-Blake, A. (2006). Mixing standard work and nonstandard deals: The consequences of heterogeneity in employment arrangements. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 371-393.

Burton J. P., et. al. 2008. THE Role of Job Embeddedness On Employee Performance: The Interactive Effects With Leader-Member Exchange And Organization Based Self Esteem. Personnel Psychology. 61, 761-792.

Chen, X. P., Hui, C., & Sego, D. J. 1998. The role of organizational citizenship behavior in turnover: Conceptualization and preliminary test of key hypotheses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 922–  931.

Fink, J. S. (2005). Extensions and Further Examination of the Job Embeddedness Construct. Journal of Sport Management, 19, 319-335.

Gouldner, A. W. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25: 161–178.

Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. 2000. A metaanalysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the millennium. Journal of Management, 26: 463–488.

23

Hanish, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. 1991. General attitudes and organizational withdrawal: an evaluation of a causal model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39: 110– 128.

Lee, T., et. al. 2004. THE Effects Of Job Embeddedness On Organizational Citizenship, Job Performance, Volitional Absences, And Voluntary Turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 711-722

Mitchell, T.R., Holtom, B.C., Lee, T.W., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 11021121.

Spector, P. E. 1997. Job satisfaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Van Emmerik, I.J.H. & Sanders, K. (2004). Social embeddedness and job performance of  tenured and non-tenured professionals. Human Resource Management Journal, 14, 4054.

Werbel, J. D., & Gilliland, S. W. 1999. The use of person-environment fit in the selection  process. In G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (Vol. 17). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Wheeler, A. R. (2008). The relative roles of engagement and embeddedness in predicting job  performance and intention to leave. Work and Stress, 22(3), 2462-256.

Wheeler, A.R., Gallagher, V.C., Brouer, R.L. & Sablynski, C.J. (2007). When personorganization (mis)fit and (dis)satisfaction lead to turnover: The moderating role of perceived  job mobility. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 203-219.

Williams LJ, Anderson SE. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as  predictors of citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617.

Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. 1998. Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job  performance and voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 486-491.

24

Yao X, Lee TW,Mitchell TR, Burton JP, Sablynski CJ. (2004). Job embeddedness: Current research and future directions. In Griffeth R, Hom P (Eds.), Innovative theory and empirical research on employee turnover (pp. 153–187). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

25

Questionnaire

Name: __________________________

Organization Name:_____________________ 

Designation: _____________________

Gender: _______________________________ 

Father’s Occupation: _____________

No. of Companies worked for: ____________ 

Mother’s Occupation: _____________

No. of Companies worked for: ____________ 

Please read the questions and answer them in the next page.

1. My job utilizes my skills and talents well. 2. I feel like I am a good match for my organization. 3. If I stay with my organization, I will be able to achieve most of my goals. 4. I really love the place where I work. 5. The place where I live is a good match for me. 6. I have enough freedom on this job to pursue my goals. 7. Keeping things in view, I can say that there cannot be a better place for me to work. 8. I believe the prospects for continuing employment with my organization are excellent. 9. I work closely with my co-workers 10. I love my organisation, so I want to give my level best. 11. On the job, I interact frequently with my work group members. 12. In my priorities, my organisation comes first.

26

13. I participate in recreational activities in organisation. 14. I feel as though the organization’s problems are my own. 15. It will be hard to find a more worthwhile place to work. 16. I am a professional first and them the member of my organisation 17. My job fits into what the organisation is trying to accomplish. 18. My job utilizes my skills and gives me opportunity for self development. 19. I feel what my organization is trying to achieve is worthwhile. 20. I can see how my job contributes to the overall success of my organization. 21. I am open to change. 22. I have a significant autonomy in determining how I do my job. 23. My impact on what happens in my department is large. 24. I can decide on my own, how to go about doing my work. 25. The work I do is meaningful to me. 26. In my priorities my profession comes first. 27. I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom on how I do my job. 28. I am satisfied working in my organization. 29. I should be working for my organisation. Please rate your level of agreement for the previously mentioned questions in the scale of 1 to 5. (1- Strongly disagree, 2- Disagree, 3- No opinion, 4- Agree and 5- Strongly agree)

Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6

1

2

3

27

4

5

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

28