The Impact of Job Dissatisfaction
What happens when employees dislike their jobs? One theoretical model—the exit–voice–loyalty–neglect framework—is helpful for understanding the consequences of dissatisfaction. The framework’s four responses differ along two dimensions: constructive/destructive and active/passive. The responses are as follows:51
Exit. The exit response directs behavior toward leaving the organization, including looking for a new position or resigning. To measure the effects of this response to dissatisfaction, researchers study individual terminations and collective turnover—the total loss to the organization of employee knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics.52
Voice. The voice response includes actively and constructively attempting to improve conditions, including suggesting improvements, discussing problems with superiors, and undertaking union activity.
Loyalty. The loyalty response means passively but optimistically waiting for conditions to improve, including speaking up for the organization in the face of external criticism and trusting the organization and its management to “do the right thing.”
Neglect. The neglect response passively allows conditions to worsen and includes chronic absenteeism or lateness, reduced effort, and an increased error rate.
Exit and neglect behaviors are linked to performance variables such as productivity, absenteeism, and turnover. But this model expands employee responses to include voice and loyalty—constructive behaviors that allow individuals to tolerate unpleasant situations or improve working conditions. As helpful as this framework is, it’s quite general. We next address behavioral responses to job dissatisfaction.
Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB)
Substance abuse, stealing at work, undue socializing, gossiping, absenteeism, and tardiness are examples of behaviors that are destructive to organizations. They are indicators of a broader syndrome called counterproductive work behavior (CWB; related terms are deviant behavior in the workplace, or simply withdrawal behavior; see Chapter 1).53 Like other behaviors we have discussed, CWB doesn’t just happen—the behaviors often follow negative and sometimes long-standing attitudes. Therefore, if we can identify the predictors of CWB, we may lessen the probability of its effects.
Generally, job dissatisfaction predicts CWB. People who are not satisfied with their work become frustrated, which lowers their performance54 and makes them more likely to commit CWB.55 Other research suggests that, in addition to vocational misfit (being in the wrong line of work), lack of fit with the organization (working in the wrong kind of organizational culture; see person–organization fit, Chapter 5) predicts CWB.56 Our immediate social environment also matters. One German study suggests that we are influenced toward CWB by the norms of our immediate work environment, such that individuals in teams with high absenteeism are more likely to be absent themselves.57 CWB can, furthermore, be a response to abusive supervision from managers, which then spurs further abuse, starting a vicious cycle.58
One important point about CWB is that dissatisfied employees often choose one or more specific behaviors due to idiosyncratic factors. One worker might quit. Another might use work time to surf the Internet or take work supplies home for personal use. In short, workers who don’t like their jobs “get even” in various ways. Because those ways can be quite creative, controlling only one behavior with policies and punishments leaves the root cause untouched. Employers should seek to correct the source of the problem—the dissatisfaction—rather than try to control the different responses.
According to U.K. research, sometimes CWB is an emotional reaction to perceived unfairness, a way to try to restore an employee’s sense of equity exchange.59 It therefore has complex ethical implications. For example, is someone who takes a box of markers home from the office for his children acting unethically? Some people consider this stealing. Others may want to look at moderating factors such as the employee’s contribution to the organization before they decide. Does the person generously give extra time and effort to the organization, with little thanks or compensation? If so, they might see CWB behavior as part of an attempt to “even the score.”
As a manager, you can take steps to mitigate CWB. You can poll employee attitudes, for instance, and identify areas for workplace improvement. If there is no vocational fit, the employee will not be fulfilled,60 so you can try to screen for that to avoid a mismatch. Tailoring tasks to a person’s abilities and values should increase job satisfaction and reduce CWB.61 Furthermore, creating strong teams, integrating supervisors with them, providing formalized team policies, and introducing team-based incentives may help lower the CWB “contagion” that lowers the standards of the group.62
Absenteeism
We find a consistent negative relationship between satisfaction and absenteeism, but the relationship is moderate to weak.63 Generally, when numerous alternative jobs are available, dissatisfied employees have high absence rates, but when there are few alternatives, dissatisfied employees have the same (low) rate of absence as satisfied employees.64 Organizations that provide liberal sick leave benefits are encouraging all their employees—including those who are highly satisfied—to take days off. You may find work satisfying yet still want to enjoy a three-day weekend if those days come free with no penalties.
Turnover
The relationship between job satisfaction and turnover is stronger than between satisfaction and absenteeism.65 Overall, a pattern of lowered job satisfaction is the best predictor of intent to leave. Turnover has a workplace environment connection too. If the climate within an employee’s immediate workplace is one of low job satisfaction leading to turnover, there will be a contagion effect. This suggests managers should consider the job satisfaction (and turnover) patterns of coworkers when assigning workers to a new area.66 Employees’ job embeddedness—connections to the job and community that result in an increased commitment to the organization—can be closely linked to their job satisfaction and the probability of turnover such that where job embeddedness is high, the probability of turnover decreases, particularly in collectivist (group-centered; see Chapter 4) cultures where membership in an organization is of high personal value. Job embeddedness also negatively predicts important employment outcomes of OCB, CWB, and absenteeism, and positively predicts job performance.67 Embedded employees thus seem more satisfied with their jobs and are less likely to want to consider alternative job prospects.
Lastly, the satisfaction–turnover relationship is affected by alternative job prospects. If an employee accepts an unsolicited job offer, job dissatisfaction was less predictive of turnover because the employee more likely left in response to “pull” (the lure of the other job) than “push” (the unattractiveness of the current job). Similarly, job dissatisfaction is more likely to translate into turnover when other employment opportunities are plentiful. Furthermore, when employees have high “human capital” (high education, high ability), job dissatisfaction is more likely to translate into turnover because they have, or perceive, many available alternatives.68
Understanding the Impact
Given the evidence we’ve just reviewed, it should come as no surprise that job satisfaction can affect the bottom line. One study by a management consulting firm separated large organizations into those with high morale (more than 70 percent of employees expressed overall job satisfaction) and medium or low morale (fewer than 70 percent). The stock prices of companies in the high-morale group grew 19.4 percent, compared with 10 percent for the medium- or low-morale group. Despite these results, many managers are unconcerned about employee job satisfaction. Others overestimate how satisfied employees are, so they don’t think there’s a problem when there is one. For example, in one study of 262 large employers, 86 percent of senior managers believed their organizations treated employees well, but only 55 percent of employees agreed; another study found 55 percent of managers, compared to only 38 percent of employees, thought morale was good in their organization.69
Regular surveys can reduce gaps between what managers think employees feel and what they really feel. A gap in understanding can affect the bottom line in small franchise sites as well as in large companies. As manager of a KFC restaurant in Houston, Jonathan McDaniel surveyed his employees every three months. Results led him to make changes, such as giving employees greater say about which workdays they had off. McDaniel believed the process itself was valuable. “They really love giving their opinions,” he said. “That’s the most important part of it—that they have a voice and that they’re heard.” Surveys are no panacea, but if job attitudes are as important as we believe, organizations need to use every reasonable method find out how they can be improved.70