Consequences of low job satisfaction

Lack of job satisfaction can cause job withdrawal, absenteeism and sabotage.

Key negative outcomes

• Job withdrawal - Employees may mentally or physically distance themselves from their role, such as reducing effort or planning to leave the job entirely.
• Absenteeism - This involves frequent or unexplained absences from work, which disrupts productivity and increases costs for the organisation.
• Sabotage - In extreme cases, dissatisfied workers might deliberately harm the organisation, such as damaging equipment or disrupting processes, often as a form of retaliation.

Blau and Boal's organisational commitment model (1987)

Blau and Boal developed a model to explain how this commitment interacts with job involvement to predict absenteeism. Different interpretations of organisational commitment and job involvement had previously led to variations in study results.

Definitions in the model

• Job involvement - The extent to which an individual identifies with their job, making it a key part of their identity.
• Organisational commitment:
  • Behavioural commitment - When a worker stays because leaving would be too costly, such as losing benefits or facing financial penalties.
  • Attitudinal commitment - When a worker identifies with the organisation's values and genuinely wants to remain.

Types of absenteeism

Absenteeism is the habitual non-attendance at work without valid reasons, often stemming from low job satisfaction or commitment. Blau and Boal identified four distinct types, each with unique causes and patterns. Organisations should maintain detailed records of absences to detect patterns.

The four types

1. Medical absenteeism - Caused by genuine health issues, injuries, or family responsibilities like caring for a sick child. This type happens randomly.
2. Career-enhancing absenteeism - When employees take time off to pursue other professional goals, such as attending interviews or training. It is harder to spot but may increase just before a job change or internal promotion.
3. Normative absenteeism - A habitual response based on the organisation's informal rules about acceptable absences, such as taking a 'personal day'. Patterns are predictable, with absences following a regular frequency or timing.
4. Calculative absenteeism - Involves using allowed excused or unexcused days strategically, as per company policy. This type typically shows the highest frequency and total days off.

Framework of Blau and Boal's model

The model creates a framework by combining levels of job involvement and organisational commitment into high/low categories. Each combination predicts a specific type of absenteeism, helping to explain why employees might be absent and how to intervene.

Giacalone and Rosenfeld (1987) study on workplace sabotage

Workplace sabotage involves deliberate actions to harm an organisation, such as slowing down work or damaging property. Giacalone and Rosenfeld investigated this in the context of rising costs from such behaviours, noting a lack of prior research. They classified sabotage into types and explored reasons behind it.

Aim

To examine whether people who accept more reasons for sabotage are more likely to justify it compared to those who accept fewer reasons.

Method

The study used a survey method.

Participants

A volunteer sample of 38 labourers who were union members at an electrical factory in the north-east USA.

Procedure

• Researchers designed two questionnaires: one on methods of sabotage and one on reasons for it.
• Participants rated four types of sabotage:
  • Work slowdowns (e.g., deliberately working slower).
  • Destruction of machinery, premises, or products.
  • Causing chaos (e.g., disrupting workflows).
  • Dishonesty (e.g., falsifying records).
• Responses were grouped into 'high reason acceptors' (above the median in accepting reasons) and 'low reason acceptors' (below the median).

Ethics

• Consent was obtained from participants.
• However, deception was used as the true purpose was not fully disclosed.
• Responses were anonymous and confidential, which protected participants but raised concerns since some actions described could be criminal.

Results

High reason acceptors justified sabotage more than low acceptors across most types, as shown in the mean scores below. The difference for dishonesty was not statistically significant.

Conclusions

• Individuals who accept more reasons for sabotage are more likely to justify it, except for dishonesty.
• Organisations could reduce sabotage by focusing on recognition of warning signs and deterrence strategies, potentially lowering accidents, risks, and financial losses.

Evaluation

• The study provides initial insights but requires further research on links between justification and actual sabotage or reporting behaviours.
• It highlights practical applications, such as encouraging employees to report sabotage or identifying at-risk individuals.

Methodological issues

Issues and debates

Psychological research often involves broader debates about application, methods, and cultural factors. These studies connect to real-world issues and research approaches.

Application to everyday life

By identifying absenteeism patterns, organisations can intervene early to address causes, reducing costs and improving productivity. Further research could explore links between justifying sabotage and actual behaviours, potentially aiding in prevention or encouraging reporting.

Idiographic versus nomothetic approaches

These studies adopt a nomothetic approach, seeking general laws through structured questionnaires and models to apply trends across workforces. However, an idiographic approach, using unstructured interviews or focus groups, could offer deeper, individual insights into motivations for sabotage or absenteeism, revealing unique personal factors.