job involvement: Outcomes
The most noted outcomes of job involvement, presented from throughout the literature, are performance, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). The following research studies serve to highlight the current research regarding these relationships.
Job Performance
In this cross-sectional study, Boatham (2013) looked at job involvement as a healthy and positive engagement in work of certain job duties. However, Boatham actually looked at how both core competencies, an individual’s inner attribute that helps one perform in a certain manner, and job involvement lead to performance. Boatham defined both concepts as distinct and not affecting one another, but relating to one’s overall job performance. This relationship can be seen in Figure 1. Boatham hypothesized higher job involvement would lead to higher job performance. Three hundred accountants from a number of companies in Thailand were mailed a questionnaire, from which 66 total individuals responded. Just over half of the participants were female, held higher than a Bachelor’s degree and had more than five years of experience (Baotham, 2013). Job involvement was measured on Kanungo’s ten-item, five-point Likert-type scale, and performance was measured on a new, unspecified 24 item scale. The results of the study showed a strong positive relationship (r = 0.67) between job involvement and performance. Boatham (1996) cautions against assuming this job involvement-to-performance direction of this relationship, given the cross-sectional design of the study. Nevertheless, the relationship is important to have identified because, as Boatham mentions as managerial contributions of the study, conscious awareness of individuals’ level of involvement can influence their performance. Job involvement is still highlighted as a “powerful indicator” of performance, and thus an important variable to consider when looking into performance (Baotham, 1996). |
Organizational Commitment
Job involvement can be cited throughout the research as predicting whether one will be committed to an organization. Khan et al. (2011) dissected organizational commitment into its three distinct forms of affective, continuance and normative commitment [insert link to Hannah’s wiki]. To begin, Khan et al. presented an extensive review of the literature, and the relationships between job involvement and other constructs. They then presented a review of organizational commitment, in order to outline how job involvement could plausibly affect the construct. The researchers distributed a survey to 211 participants across 11 public and private organizations in Pakistan, using Kanungo’s ten-item job involvement scale. Participants had a mean age of 30 years-old who had received at least a high school diploma. Khan et al. hypothesized a positive correlation between job involvement and all three types of organizational commitment and can be seen in Figure 1. The results of the study confirmed Khan et al.’s (2011) hypothesized relationships. Job involvement is strongly positively correlated with both affective and normative commitment at the same correlation (r = 0.59 and r = 0.56 respectively). There was moderate positive correlation between job involvement and continuous commitment (r = 0.34). Though the model presented in Figure 1 is quite basic, it is an important relationship in highlighting that all three components of organizational commitment. However, Khan et al. note the importance of continuing research on mediator or moderator variables which could contribute to the existence of the relationship between job involvement and the three types of organizational commitment. |
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCB's)
In reaction to Brown’s (1996) meta-analysis claimed that job involvement does not relate to performance, Diefendorff et al. (2002) conducted a study to more closely examine this relationship, since it is generally believed employee involvement leads to better organization-wide performance. To do so, Diefendorff et al. removed the confounding factor of work centrality (work in general is viewed as a main component in life) from the operational definition of job involvement. Additionally, the expanded the definition of performance to include the extra-role behaviors associated with organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB’s). This is important to highlight because these types of behaviors are more associated with attitudes and beliefs, whereas in-role performance relies more on job-specific abilities over which employees do not have choice. Diefendorff et al. explain that OCB’s then play an indirect role in affecting organizational performance. Thus, Diefendorff et al. hypothesized that job involvement positively correlated with all types of OCB’s (conscientiousness, civic virtue, sportsmanship, courtesy and altruism), and to a greater extent than it correlates with in-role performance.
Diefendorff et al. (2002) studied a sample of employed undergraduate students. Employees responded to a 27-item job involvement scale with a 7-point Likert scale, developed by Paullay et al. in 1994. The scale consisted of two dimensions; role and setting. OCB’s were measured by Podsakoff et al.’s Organizational Citizenship Behavior Questionnaire, on which supervisors rated the employees. Diefendorff et al. utilized correlation and multiple regression to determine the incremental predictability job involvement on OCB’s and in-role performance. The results of the study showed job involvement was significantly positively correlated with all types of OCB’s except courtesy (altruism r = 0.20, sportsmanship r = 0.18, civic virtue r = 0.34, conscientiousness r = 0.20). However, Diefendorff et al. found that job involvement predicted OCB’s as well as it predicted in-role performance (r = 0.25). This suggests job involvement plays an equal role in influencing whether an individual exhibits OCB’s or performs well.
Nevertheless, Diefendorff et al.’s (2002) contribute some significant findings to the job involvement literature. It was the first study to explicitly highlight and discover the relationship between job involvement and OCB’s. Such results were able to be shown because Diefendorff et al. better operationalized the definition of job involvement to not include work centrality. This suggests that future research needs to distinguish between these in order to find results that truly reflect how job involvement contributes to various outcomes, as well as how factors may contribute to the construct. To expand upon these results, Diefendorff et al. suggest there is a need to determine the causal direction of this relationship, because it may be that engaging in OCB’s leads to increased employee involvement. Therefore, this study was a good stepping stone in the study of job involvement’s role in OCB’s and overall performance.
In reaction to Brown’s (1996) meta-analysis claimed that job involvement does not relate to performance, Diefendorff et al. (2002) conducted a study to more closely examine this relationship, since it is generally believed employee involvement leads to better organization-wide performance. To do so, Diefendorff et al. removed the confounding factor of work centrality (work in general is viewed as a main component in life) from the operational definition of job involvement. Additionally, the expanded the definition of performance to include the extra-role behaviors associated with organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB’s). This is important to highlight because these types of behaviors are more associated with attitudes and beliefs, whereas in-role performance relies more on job-specific abilities over which employees do not have choice. Diefendorff et al. explain that OCB’s then play an indirect role in affecting organizational performance. Thus, Diefendorff et al. hypothesized that job involvement positively correlated with all types of OCB’s (conscientiousness, civic virtue, sportsmanship, courtesy and altruism), and to a greater extent than it correlates with in-role performance.
Diefendorff et al. (2002) studied a sample of employed undergraduate students. Employees responded to a 27-item job involvement scale with a 7-point Likert scale, developed by Paullay et al. in 1994. The scale consisted of two dimensions; role and setting. OCB’s were measured by Podsakoff et al.’s Organizational Citizenship Behavior Questionnaire, on which supervisors rated the employees. Diefendorff et al. utilized correlation and multiple regression to determine the incremental predictability job involvement on OCB’s and in-role performance. The results of the study showed job involvement was significantly positively correlated with all types of OCB’s except courtesy (altruism r = 0.20, sportsmanship r = 0.18, civic virtue r = 0.34, conscientiousness r = 0.20). However, Diefendorff et al. found that job involvement predicted OCB’s as well as it predicted in-role performance (r = 0.25). This suggests job involvement plays an equal role in influencing whether an individual exhibits OCB’s or performs well.
Nevertheless, Diefendorff et al.’s (2002) contribute some significant findings to the job involvement literature. It was the first study to explicitly highlight and discover the relationship between job involvement and OCB’s. Such results were able to be shown because Diefendorff et al. better operationalized the definition of job involvement to not include work centrality. This suggests that future research needs to distinguish between these in order to find results that truly reflect how job involvement contributes to various outcomes, as well as how factors may contribute to the construct. To expand upon these results, Diefendorff et al. suggest there is a need to determine the causal direction of this relationship, because it may be that engaging in OCB’s leads to increased employee involvement. Therefore, this study was a good stepping stone in the study of job involvement’s role in OCB’s and overall performance.