job involvement: Overall model
Brown (1996) Meta-analysis
In a meta-analysis by Brown (1996), certain predictors, mediators, moderators and outcomes of job involvement were identified. Brown set out to conduct the meta-analysis because up to that point no comprehensive analysis had yet been done of the large base of accumulating evidence on job involvement. Previous research exhibited large differences in both the operational definition and dimensionality of job involvement. Additionally, Brown highlighted the minor disagreement among researchers concerning what scale to utilize in assessing job involvement. In the article, Brown summarizes the research on the antecedents of personality, job characteristics, supervisory support and role perceptions. Following that synopsis, Brown identifies the correlates of demographic variables and broad involvement concepts (eg. work and career involvement). Brown then presents the consequences of job involvement throughout the literature as work behaviors, job attitudes and side effects (social, psychological and physiological). Finally, Brown identifies moderators seen throughout the research which affected the identified relationships with job involvement as the measurement scales used, and whether the organization was public or private.
Brown (1996) conducted the analysis on 212 studies which met the criteria of having reported relationships between job involvement and other constructs only within the context of work, not outside of that domain. The results were as follows:
Antecedents:
o Personality variables. Three significant relationships were identified between work ethic endorsement, internal motivation and self-esteem. As such, the results support that job involvement is related to variations among individuals.
o Situational variables. Nearly all the relationships examined showed a significant relationship between situational variables and job involvement. What this means is
that job design is related to one’s level of job involvement. Additionally, there is a statistically significant relationship between job involvement and various supervisory variables, or behaviors.
o Role perceptions. Weak and some negative correlations were see between these factors and job involvement, especially in relation to their stronger levels of correlation with other job attitudes.
Correlates:
o Demographic variables. No relationships were shown between these and job involvement.
o Career and work involvement. Both were strongly correlated with job involvement (r = 0.60 and r = 0.53 respectively).
Consequences:
o Work behaviors and outcomes. Most were only weakly correlated with job involvement, including a weak relationship between job involvement and absenteeism and turnover. One moderate relationship was shown between job involvement and effort (r = 0.25). Surprisingly Brown (1996) found no statistically significant relationship between job involvement and performance (r -0.09).
o Job attitudes. A strong correlation was found only between work satisfaction and job involvement (r = 0.53). Nearly all other attitudes were moderately correlated with involvement, including supervisor satisfaction (r = 0.26), organizational commitment (r = 0.50) and turnover intentions with a negatively moderate relationship at r = -0.31.
o Side effects. Showed no significant relationships.
Moderators:
o Scales. No significant relationship exists between job involvement and different measures which utilize different scales.
o Public versus private. The data seems to support that individuals in private organizations are more sensitive the situational factors, changing the outcome of one’s performance when compared to individual within a public organization.
The results of the meta-analysis suggest there may be little to no significant difference between utilizing different scales to measure job involvement, of particular importance because of fierce debate over this in previous research (Brown, 1996). Brown (1996) also compares existing relationships for organizational commitment with job involvement. In terms of this research, two of the most important findings were that job involvement is slightly more strongly correlated with job characteristics. In comparison, organizational commitment more strongly correlates with job satisfaction. To further this research and understand the results Brown found within this meta-analysis, he suggests further research needs to explore how psychological processes may serve to mediate the relationships he identified. It is also important to consider and study other possible behavioral measures, which may help account for why no relationship was found between job involvement and performance (Brown, 1996). Brown summarized his results into the model in Figure 2.
In a meta-analysis by Brown (1996), certain predictors, mediators, moderators and outcomes of job involvement were identified. Brown set out to conduct the meta-analysis because up to that point no comprehensive analysis had yet been done of the large base of accumulating evidence on job involvement. Previous research exhibited large differences in both the operational definition and dimensionality of job involvement. Additionally, Brown highlighted the minor disagreement among researchers concerning what scale to utilize in assessing job involvement. In the article, Brown summarizes the research on the antecedents of personality, job characteristics, supervisory support and role perceptions. Following that synopsis, Brown identifies the correlates of demographic variables and broad involvement concepts (eg. work and career involvement). Brown then presents the consequences of job involvement throughout the literature as work behaviors, job attitudes and side effects (social, psychological and physiological). Finally, Brown identifies moderators seen throughout the research which affected the identified relationships with job involvement as the measurement scales used, and whether the organization was public or private.
Brown (1996) conducted the analysis on 212 studies which met the criteria of having reported relationships between job involvement and other constructs only within the context of work, not outside of that domain. The results were as follows:
Antecedents:
o Personality variables. Three significant relationships were identified between work ethic endorsement, internal motivation and self-esteem. As such, the results support that job involvement is related to variations among individuals.
o Situational variables. Nearly all the relationships examined showed a significant relationship between situational variables and job involvement. What this means is
that job design is related to one’s level of job involvement. Additionally, there is a statistically significant relationship between job involvement and various supervisory variables, or behaviors.
o Role perceptions. Weak and some negative correlations were see between these factors and job involvement, especially in relation to their stronger levels of correlation with other job attitudes.
Correlates:
o Demographic variables. No relationships were shown between these and job involvement.
o Career and work involvement. Both were strongly correlated with job involvement (r = 0.60 and r = 0.53 respectively).
Consequences:
o Work behaviors and outcomes. Most were only weakly correlated with job involvement, including a weak relationship between job involvement and absenteeism and turnover. One moderate relationship was shown between job involvement and effort (r = 0.25). Surprisingly Brown (1996) found no statistically significant relationship between job involvement and performance (r -0.09).
o Job attitudes. A strong correlation was found only between work satisfaction and job involvement (r = 0.53). Nearly all other attitudes were moderately correlated with involvement, including supervisor satisfaction (r = 0.26), organizational commitment (r = 0.50) and turnover intentions with a negatively moderate relationship at r = -0.31.
o Side effects. Showed no significant relationships.
Moderators:
o Scales. No significant relationship exists between job involvement and different measures which utilize different scales.
o Public versus private. The data seems to support that individuals in private organizations are more sensitive the situational factors, changing the outcome of one’s performance when compared to individual within a public organization.
The results of the meta-analysis suggest there may be little to no significant difference between utilizing different scales to measure job involvement, of particular importance because of fierce debate over this in previous research (Brown, 1996). Brown (1996) also compares existing relationships for organizational commitment with job involvement. In terms of this research, two of the most important findings were that job involvement is slightly more strongly correlated with job characteristics. In comparison, organizational commitment more strongly correlates with job satisfaction. To further this research and understand the results Brown found within this meta-analysis, he suggests further research needs to explore how psychological processes may serve to mediate the relationships he identified. It is also important to consider and study other possible behavioral measures, which may help account for why no relationship was found between job involvement and performance (Brown, 1996). Brown summarized his results into the model in Figure 2.