員工敬業度近年來在商業咨詢公司和媒體中已成為一個廣受歡迎的熱點話題。然而很少有學術文獻和相關人員會研究它的淵源和結果。本研究基于社會交換理論，目的是測試一個有關工作和機構敬業度的前身和結果的模型。設計/方法/措施——在不同的工作和組織完成的一項對102名員工的調查。平均年齡在34歲，60%是女性員工。參與者在他們目前的崗位上的平均工作時間為四年并有平均12年的工作經歷。調查包括工作企業敬業度的測試方法，
創新點：這是第一份關于區別工作跟公司敬業度并測量各種工作和組織參與的前因和后果的研究。因此，考慮到缺乏關于員工敬業度的學術研究，這肯定是一份最新的管理研究。
近年來,已經有大量的公司對員工敬業度產生興趣。許多人聲稱,員工敬業度預示了員工的產出,組織的成功,和財務表現。但與此同時,據報道,當今員工敬業度呈下降趨勢,員工離職率正在惡化。甚至現在有人報道說,大多數的工人占大約一半的美國勞動力沒有全心投入，這些被每年大約花費美國企業每年3000億美元的生產力損失，被稱為勞力缺口。
 
Abstract摘要

Purpose – Employee engagement has become a hot topic in recent years among consulting ?rms and in the popular business press. However, employee engagement has rarely been studied in the academic literature and relatively little is known about its antecedents and consequences. The purpose of this study was to test a model of the antecedents and consequences of job and organization engagements based on social exchange theory. Design/methodology/approach – A survey was completed by 102 employees working in a variety of jobs and organizations. The average age was 34 and 60 percent were female. Participants had been in their current job for an average of four years, in their organization an average of ?ve years, and had on average 12 years of work experience. The survey included measures of job and organization engagement as well as the antecedents and consequences of engagement. Findings – Results indicate that there is a meaningful difference between job and organization engagements and that perceived organizational support predicts both job and organization engagement; job characteristics predicts job engagement; and procedural justice predicts organization engagement. In addition, job and organization engagement mediated the relationships between the antecedents and job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intentions to quit, and organizational citizenship behavior.
Originality/value – This is the first study to make a distinction between job and organization engagement and to measure a variety of antecedents and consequences of job and organization engagement. As a result, this study addresses concerns about that lack of academic research on employee engagement and speculation that it might just be the latest management fad.
         In recent years, there has been a great deal of interest in employee engagement. Many have claimed that employee engagement predicts employee outcomes, organizational success, and ?nancial performance (e.g. total shareholder return) (Bates, 2004; Baumruk, 2004; Harter et al., 2002; Richman, 2006). At the same time, it has been reported that employee engagement is on the decline and there is a deepening disengagement among employees today (Bates, 2004; Richman, 2006). It has even been reported that the majority of workers today, roughly half of all Americans in the workforce, are not fully engaged or they are disengaged leading to what has been referred to as an “engagement gap” that is costing US businesses $300 billion a year in lost productivity (Bates, 2004; Johnson, 2004; Kowalski, 2003).
Unfortunately, much of what has been written about employee engagement comes from the practitioner literature and consulting ?rms. There is a surprising dearth of research on employee engagement in the academic literature (Robinson et al., 2004). The purpose of this study was to investigate the antecedents and consequences of two types of employee engagement: job and organization engagements. Previous research has focused primarily on engagement in one’s job. However, there is evidence that one’s degree of engagement depends on the role in question (Rothbard, 2001). Thus, it is possible that the antecedents and consequences of engagement depend on the type of engagement. In the next section, employee engagement is de?ned followed by a discussion of employee engagement models and theory and the study hypotheses.
 
What is employee engagement?員工敬業度是什么?

         Employee engagement has become a widely used and popular term (Robinson et al., 2004). However, most of what has been written about employee engagement can be found in practitioner journals where it has its basis in practice rather than theory and empirical research. As noted by Robinson et al. (2004), there has been surprisingly little academic and empirical research on a topic that has become so popular. As a result, employee engagement has the appearance of being somewhat faddish or what some might call, “old wine in a new bottle.”
         To make matters worse, employee engagement has been de?ned in many different ways and the de?nitions and measures often sound like other better known and established constructs like organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior (Robinsonet al., 2004). Most often it has been de?ned as emotional and intellectual commitment to the organization (Baumruk, 2004; Richman, 2006; Shaw, 2005) or the amount of discretionary effort exhibited by employees in their jobs (Frank et al., 2004).
         In the academic literature, a number of de?nitions have been provided. Kahn (1990, p. 694) de?nes personal engagement as “the harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances.” Personal disengagement refers to “the uncoupling of selves from work roles; in disengagement, people withdraw and defend themselves physically, cognitively, or emotionally during role performances” (p. 694). Thus, according to Kahn (1990, 1992), engagement means to be psychologically present when occupying and performing an organizational role.
         Rothbard (2001, p. 656) also de?nes engagement as psychological presence but goes further to state that it involves two critical components: attention and absorption. Attention refers to “cognitive availability and the amount of time one spends thinking about a role” while absorption “means being engrossed in a role and refers to the intensity of one’s focus on a role.”
         Burnout researchers de?ne engagement as the opposite or positive antithesis of burnout (Maslach et al., 2001). According to Maslach et al. (2001), engagement is characterized by energy, involvement, and ef?cacy, the direct opposite of the three burnout dimensions of exhaustion, cynicism, and inef?cacy. Research on burnout and engagement has found that the core dimensions of burnout (exhaustion and cynicism) and engagement (vigor and dedication) are opposites of each other (Gonzalez-Roma et al., 2006).
         Schaufeli et al. (2002, p. 74) de?ne engagement “as a positive, ful?lling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption.” They further state that engagement is not a momentary and speci?c state, but rather, it is “a more persistent and pervasive affective-cognitive state that is not focused on any particular object, event, individual, or behavior” (p. 74).
         In the academic literature, engagement is said to be related to but distinct from other constructs in organizational behavior. For example, Robinsonet al.(2004, p. 8) state that: ... engagement contains many of the elements of both commitment and OCB, but is by no means a perfect match with either. In addition, neither commitment nor OCB re?ect suf?ciently two aspects of engagement – its two-way nature, and the extent to which engaged employees are expected to have an element of business awareness. Organizational commitment also differs from engagement in that it refers to a person’s attitude and attachment towards their organization. Engagement is not an attitude; it is the degree to which an individual is attentive and absorbed in the performance of their roles. And while OCB involves voluntary and informal behaviors that can help co-workers and the organization, the focus of engagement is one’s formal role performance rather than extra-role and voluntary behavior.
         Engagement also differs from job involvement. According to May et al. (2004), job involvement is the result of a cognitive judgment about the need satisfying abilities of the job and is tied to one’s self-image. Engagement has to do with how individuals employ themselves in the performance of their job. Furthermore, engagement involves the active use of emotions and behaviors in addition to cognitions. May et al. (2004, p. 12) also suggest that “engagement may be thought of as an antecedent to job involvement in that individuals who experience deep engagement in their roles should come to identify with their jobs.”#p#分頁標題#e#
         In summary, although the de?nition and meaning of engagement in the practitioner literature often overlaps with other constructs, in the academic literature it has been de?ned as a distinct and unique construct that consists of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components that are associated with individual role performance. Furthermore, engagement is distinguishable from several related constructs, most notably organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and job involvement.
 
Employee engagement models and theory 員工敬業度模型理論

         Given the limited research on employee engagement, there has been little in the way of model or theory development. However, there are two streams of research that provide models of employee engagement. In his qualitative study on the psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work, Kahn (1990) interviewed summer camp counselors and organizational members of an architecture ?rm about their moments of engagement and disengagement at work. Kahn (1990) found that there were three psychological conditions associated with engagement or disengagement at work: meaningfulness, safety, and availability. In other words, workers were more engaged at work in situations that offered them more psychological meaningfulness and psychological safety, and when they were more psychologically available.
         In the only study to empirically test Kahn’s (1990) model, Mayet al. (2004) found that meaningfulness, safety, and availability were signi?cantly related to engagement. They also found that job enrichment and role ?t were positive predictors of meaningfulness; rewarding co-worker and supportive supervisor relations were positive predictors of safety while adherence to co-worker norms and self-consciousness were negative predictors; and resources available was a positive predictor of psychological availability while participation in outside activities was a negative predictor.
         The other model of engagement comes from the burnout literature which describes job engagement as the positive antithesis of burnout noting that burnout involves the erosion of engagement with one’s job (Maslach et al., 2001). According to Maslach et al. (2001), six areas of work-life lead to burnout and engagement: workload, control, JMP 21,7 602rewards and recognition, community and social support, perceived fairness, and values. They argue that job engagement is associated with a sustainable workload, feelings of choice and control, appropriate recognition and reward, a supportive work community, fairness and justice, and meaningful and valued work. Like burnout, engagement is expected to mediate the link between these six work-life factors and various work outcomes.
         Although both Kahn’s (1990) and Maslach et al.’s (2001) models indicate the psychological conditions or antecedents that are necessary for engagement, they do not fully explain why individuals will respond to these conditions with varying degrees of engagement. A stronger theoretical rationale for explaining employee engagement can be found in social exchange theory (SET).
         SET argues that obligations are generated through a series of interactions between parties who are in a state of reciprocal interdependence. A basic tenet of SET is that relationships evolve over time into trusting, loyal, and mutual commitments as long as the parties abide by certain “rules” of exchange (Cropanzano and Mictchell, 2005). Rules of exchange usually involve reciprocity or repayment rules such that the actions of one party lead to a response or actions by the other party. For example, when individuals receive economic and socioemotional resources from their organization, they feel obliged to respond in kind and repay the organization (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). This is consistent with Robinson et al.’s (2004) description of engagement as a two-way relationship between the employer and employee.
         One way for individuals to repay their organization is through their level of engagement. That is, employees will choose to engage themselves to varying degrees and in response to the resources they receive from their organization. Bringing oneself more fully into one’s work roles and devoting greater amounts of cognitive, emotional, and physical resources is a very profound way for individuals to respond to an organization’s actions. It is more dif?cult for employees to vary their levels of job performance given that performance is often evaluated and used as the basis for compensation and other administrative decisions. Thus, employees are more likely to exchange their engagement for resources and bene?ts provided by their organization.
         In summary, SET provides a theoretical foundation to explain why employees choose to become more or less engaged in their work and organization. The conditions of engagement in both Kahn’s (1990) and Maslach et al.’s (2001) model can be considered economic and socioemotional exchange resources within SCT. When employees receive these resources from their organization they feel obliged to repay the organization with greater levels of engagement. In terms of Kahn’s (1990) de?nition of engagement, employees feel obliged to bring themselves more deeply into their role performances as repayment for the resources they receive from their organization. When the organization fails to provide these resources, individuals are more likely to withdraw and disengage themselves from their roles. Thus, the amount of cognitive, emotional, and physical resources that an individual is prepared to devote in the performance of one’s work roles is contingent on the economic and socioemotional resources received from the organization.
 
Study hypotheses研究假設

         Figure 1 shows a model of employee engagement. At the core of the model are two types of employee engagement: job and organization engagements. This follows from Employee engagement 603the conceptualization of engagement as role related (Kahn, 1990; Rothbard, 2001); that is, it re?ects the extent to which an individual is psychologically present in a particular organizational role. The two most dominant roles for most organizational members are their work role and their role as a member of an organization. Therefore, the model explicitly acknowledges this by including both job and organization engagements. This also follows from the notion that people have multiple roles and as suggested by Rothbard (2001) as well as May et al. (2004), research should examine engagement in multiple roles within organizations.
 
Antecedents of employee engagement員工敬業前因

         Although there is little empirical research on the factors that predict employee engagement, it is possible to identify a number of potential antecedents from Kahn’s (1990) and Maslach et al.’s (2001) model. While the antecedents might differ for job and organization engagement, identical hypotheses are made for both types of engagement given the lack of previous research and this being the ?rst study to examine both job and organization engagement.
         Job characteristics. Psychological meaningfulness involves a sense of return on investments of the self-in-role performances (Kahn, 1992). According to Kahn (1990, 1992), psychological meaningfulness can be achieved from task characteristics that provide challenging work, variety, allow the use of different skills, personal discretion, and the opportunity to make important contributions. This is based on Hackman and Oldham’s (1980) job characteristics model and in particular, the ?ve core job characteristics (i.e. skill variety, task identity, task signi?cance, autonomy, and feedback). Jobs that are high on the core job characteristics provide individuals with the room and incentive to bring more of themselves into their work or to be more engaged (Kahn, 1992). May et al. (2004) found that job enrichment was positively related to meaningfulness and meaningfulness mediated the relationship between job enrichment and engagement.
         The workload and control conditions from the Maslach et al. (2001) model also suggest the importance of job characteristics for engagement. In fact, job characteristics, especially feedback and autonomy, have been consistently related to burnout (Maslach et al., 2001). From a SET perspective, one can argue that employees who are provided with enriched and challenging jobs will feel obliged to respond with higher levels of engagement. Therefore, H1 is the following:
         H1. Job characteristics will be positively related to (a) job engagement and (b) organization     engagement.
         Rewards and recognition. Kahn (1990) reported that people vary in their engagement as a function of their perceptions of the bene?ts they receive from a role. Furthermore, a sense of return on investments can come from external rewards and recognition in addition to meaningful work. Therefore, one might expect that employees’ will be more likely to engage themselves at work to the extent that they perceive a greater amount of rewards and recognition for their role performances. Maslach et al. (2001) have also suggested that while a lack of rewards and recognition can lead to burnout, appropriate recognition and reward is important for engagement. In terms of SET, when employees receive rewards and recognition from their organization, they will feel obliged to respond with higher levels of engagement. Thus, the second hypothesis is as follows:
         H2. Rewards and recognition will be positively related to (a) job engagement and (b)         organization engagement.
         Perceived organizational and supervisor support. Psychological safety involves a sense of being able to show and employ the self without negative consequences (Kahn, 1992). An important aspect of safety stems from the amount of care and support employees’ perceive to be provided by their organization as well as their direct supervisor. In fact, Kahn (1990) found that supportive and trusting interpersonal relationships as well as supportive management promoted psychological safety. Organizational members felt safe in work environments that were characterized by openness and supportiveness. Supportive environments allow members to experiment and to try new things and even fail without fear of the consequences (Kahn, 1990). In their empirical test of Kahn’s model, May et al. (2004) also found that supportive supervisor relations was positively related to psychological safety.
         Social support is also one of the conditions in the Maslach et al. (2001) model and a study by Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) found that a measure of job resources that includes support from colleagues predicted engagement. A lack of social support has also consistently been found to be related to burnout (Maslach et al., 2001).
         Two variables that are likely to capture the essence of social support are perceived organizational support (POS) and perceived supervisor support (PSS). POS refers to a general belief that one’s organization values their contribution and cares about their well-being (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). The basic premise of organizational support research is SET. In particular, POS creates an obligation on the part of employees to care about the organization’s welfare and to help the organization reach its objectives (Rhoades et al., 2001). Although POS has been found to be related to a number of favorable outcomes (e.g. job satisfaction, organizational commitment, performance) (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002), no previous study has related it to employee engagement.
         However, one reason that POS might lead to positive outcomes is through employee engagement. In other words, employees’ who have higher POS might become more engaged to their job and organization as part of the reciprocity norm of SET in order to help the organization reach its objectives (Rhoades et al., 2001). In other words, when employees believe that their organization is concerned about them and cares about their well-being, they are likely to respond by attempting to ful?ll their obligations to the organization by becoming more engaged. In addition, because employees tend to view their supervisor’s orientation toward them as indicative of the organization’s support (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002), PSS is also likely to be an important predictor of employee engagement. In fact, a lack of support from supervisors has been Employee engagement 605found to be an especially important factor linked to burnout (Maslach et al., 2001). In addition, ?rst-line supervisors are believed to be especially important for building engagement and to be the root of employee disengagement (Bates, 2004; Frank et al., 2004). Therefore, H3 and H4 are as follows:
         H3. Perceived organizational support (POS) will be positively related to (a) job engagement      and (b) organization engagement.
         H4. Perceived supervisor support (PSS) will be positively related to (a) job engagement and       (b) organization engagement.
         Distributive and procedural justice. The safety dimension identi?ed by Kahn (1990) involves social situations that are predictable and consistent. For organizations, it is especially important to be predictable and consistent in terms of the distribution of rewards as well as the procedures used to allocate them. While distributive justice pertains to one’s perception of the fairness of decision outcomes, procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness of the means and processes used to determine the amount and distribution of resources (Colquitt, 2001; Rhoades et al., 2001). A review of organizational justice research found that justice perceptions are related to organizational outcomes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, withdrawal, and performance (Colquitt et al., 2001). However, previous research has not tested relationships between fairness perceptions and employee engagement.
         The effect of justice perceptions on various outcomes might be due in part to employee engagement. In other words, when employees have high perceptions of justice in their organization, they are more likely to feel obliged to also be fair in how they perform their roles by giving more of themselves through greater levels of engagement. On the other hand, low perceptions of fairness are likely to cause employees to withdraw and disengage themselves from their work roles. Fairness and justice is also one of the work conditions in the Maslach et al. (2001) engagement model. A lack of fairness can exacerbate burnout and while positive perceptions of fairness can improve engagement (Maslach et al., 2001). Therefore, H5 and H6 are as follows:
         H5. Perceptions of procedural justice will be positively related to (a) job engagement and (b)    organization engagement.
         H6. Perceptions of distributive justice will be positively related to (a) job engagement and (b)   organization engagement.
 
Consequences of employee engagement員工敬業的后果

         The driving force behind the popularity of employee engagement is that it has positive consequences for organizations. As indicated earlier, there is a general belief that there is a connection between employee engagement and business results (Harter et al., 2002). However, engagement is an individual-level construct and if it does lead to business results, it must ?rst impact individual-level outcomes. Along these lines, there is reason to expect employee engagement to be related to individuals’ attitudes, intentions, and behaviors.#p#分頁標題#e#
         Although neither Kahn (1990) nor May et al. (2004) included outcomes in their studies, Kahn (1992) proposed that engagement leads to both individual outcomes (i.e. quality of people’s work and their own experiences of doing that work), as well as JMP 21,7 606organizational-level outcomes (i.e. the growth and productivity of organizations). Furthermore, the Maslach et al. (2001) model treats engagement as a mediating variable for the relationship between the six work conditions and work various outcomes and like burnout, should be related to outcomes such as increased withdrawal, lower performance, job satisfaction, and commitment (Maslach et al., 2001).
         There are a number of reasons to expect engagement to be related to work outcomes. For starters, the experience of engagement has been described as a ful?lling, positive work-related experience and state of mind (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; Sonnentag, 2003) and has been found to be related to good health and positive work affect (Sonnentag, 2003). These positive experiences and emotions are likely to result in positive work outcomes. As noted by Schaufeli and Bakker (2004), engaged employees likely have a greater attachment to their organization and a lower tendency to leave their organization.
         According to SET, when both parties abide by the exchange rules, the result will be a more trusting and loyal relationship and mutual commitments (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). Thus, individuals who continue to engage themselves do so because of the continuation of favorable reciprocal exchanges. As a result, individuals who are more engaged are likely to be in more trusting and high-quality relationships with their employer and will, therefore, be more likely to report more positive attitudes and intentions toward the organization.
         In addition, there is some empirical research that has reported relationships between engagement and work outcomes. For example, engagement has been found to be positively related to organizational commitment and negatively related to intention to quit, and is believed to also be related to job performance and extra-role behavior (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; Sonnentag, 2003). Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) found that engagement was negatively related to turnover intention and mediated the relationship between job resources and turnover intention. Therefore, it is predicted that job and organization engagement will be related to work outcomes as follows:
         H7. Job engagement will be positively related to (a) job satisfaction, (b) organizational     commitment, and (c) organizational citizenship behavior, and negatively related to (d)         intention to quit.
         H8. Organization engagement will be positively related to (a) job satisfaction, (b)      organizational commitment, and (c) organizational citizenship behavior, and negatively       related to (d) intention to quit.
         Finally, given that the antecedents are expected to predict engagement and engagement predicts the outcomes, it is possible that engagement mediates the relationship between the antecedents and the consequences. This is consistent with the Maslach et al. (2001) model and is all the more likely given that most of the antecedents (e.g. job characteristics, POS, justice perceptions) have been associated with various work outcomes. Furthermore, several studies have found that engagement mediates the relationship between antecedent variables and outcomes (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; Sonnentag, 2003). Therefore, the ?nal hypothesis of this study is the following:
         H9. Job and organization engagement will mediate the relationship between the      antecedents and the consequences. Employee engagement 607
 
Method方法
 
Participants準備

         Participants included 102 employees working in a variety of jobs and organizations. The average age was 34; 60 percent were female. Participants had been in their current job for an average of four years, and in their organization an average of ?ve years. They had on average 12 years of work experience. The sample is slightly younger than the median age of population in the area (36.9) and the percent of female participants in the study is somewhat higher than the percent of females in the population (52 percent).
 
Procedure過程

         The data for this study was collected by students enrolled in a graduate course in research methods at a large Canadian University in Toronto. At the time of the study, the unemployment rate in the area was 7.71 percent. Each of 24 students in the course was asked to distribute the survey to ?ve currently employed individuals as part of a class project on survey research. The survey included a cover letter/consent form that informed participants about the purpose of the study. Participants were asked to complete the survey as part of a study on employee work experiences and attitudes. Participation was voluntary and participants were informed that their responses would remain anonymous and con?dential. Participants returned their survey in a sealed envelope to the students who then handed them over to the lead investigator. A total of 102 surveys were returned representing a response rate of 85 percent.
 
Measures手段

         Job and organization engagement. Two six-item scales were designed for this study to measure job engagement and organization engagement. Items were written to assess participant’s psychological presence in their job and organization. A sample item for job engagement is, “Sometimes I am so into my job that I lose track of time” and for organization engagement, “One of the most exciting things for me is getting involved with things happening in this organization.” Participants indicated their response on a ?ve-point Likert-type scale with anchors (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree.
         A principal components factor analysis with a promax rotation resulted in two factors corresponding to job and organization engagements. All of the job engagement items except one loaded 0.70 or higher with cross-factor loadings less than 0.20. The one item loaded below 0.30 and had a higher cross-factor loading so it is was removed from the job engagement scale resulting in a ?ve-item scale (a ¼ 0.82). All six of the organization engagement items loaded 0.75 or higher and all of the cross-factor loadings were less than 0.30 (a ¼ 0.90).
         Antecedents of engagement. Job characteristics were measured by six items from Hackman and Oldham (1980) with each item corresponding to a core job characteristic (autonomy, task identity, skill variety, task signi?cance, feedback from others, and feedback from the job). Participants indicated the extent or amount of each characteristic in their job using speci?c seven-point anchors such as (1) very little to (7) very much (a ¼ 0.79). POS was measured by the eight-item short-form of the survey of perceived organizational support (SPOS) and PSS was measured by the four-item scale adapted from the SPOS (Rhoades et al., 2001). Participants’ responded using a ?ve-point Likert-type scale with anchors (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. A sample item for POS is “My organization really cares about my well-being” and for JMP 21,7 608supervisor support, “My supervisor cares about my opinions” (a ¼ 0.89 for both scales). Rewards and recognition was measured by a ten-item scale designed for this study. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they receive various outcomes for performing their job well. They responded using a ?ve-point Likert-type scale with anchors (1) to a small extent to (5) a large extent to items such as, “A pay raise,” “A promotion,” “Praise from your supervisor,” and “Some form of public recognition” (a ¼ 0.80). Colquitt’s (2001) seven-item scale was used to measure procedural justice and his four-item scale was used to measure distributive justice. Participants responded using a ?ve-point Likert-type scale with anchors (1) to a small extent to (5) a large extent. A sample item for procedural justice is, “Have you been able to appeal the (outcome) arrived at by those procedures,” and a sample item for distributive justice is, “Does your (outcome) re?ect the effort you have put into your work?” (a ¼ 0.89 for procedural justice and a ¼ 0.92 for distributive justice).
         Consequences of engagement. Job satisfaction was measured by Cammann et al. (1983) three-item scale. A sample items is, “All in all, I am satis?ed with my job” (a ¼ 0.84). Organizational commitment was measured by the six-item affective commitment scale used by Rhoades et al. (2001). A sample item is, “I feel personally attached to my work organization” (a ¼ 0.90). Intention to quit was measured by Colarelli’s (1984) three-item scale. A sample item is, “I am planning to search for a new job during the next twelve months” (a ¼ 0.82). Participants responded to all items for the above scales using a ?ve-point Likert-type scale with anchors (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. Organizational citizenship behavior directed to the individual (OCBI) and organization (OCBO) was each measured by four-items each from Lee and Allen (2002). Participants responded using a ?ve-point Likert-type scale with anchors (1) never to (5) always. A sample item from the OCBI scale is, “Willingly give your time to help others who have work-related problems” (a ¼ 0.75) and a sample item from the OCBO scale is, “Take action to protect the organization from potential problems” (a ¼ 0.73).