|
2007 Annual International CHRIE Conference & Exposition
107
ignored: it means that there is more concern about adapting the reward system to the changing business
environment, to the corporate objectives and to the objectives of other HR sub-systems within the organization
(Heneman et al., 2000). A review of the literature reveals that many elements must be studied in order to understand
satisfaction with reward, including the personal and work contributions, the monetary and non-monetary results, the
comparison process and the reward policies (Lum et al., 1998). Some of the consequences of satisfaction with
reward refer to a great variety of undesirable behaviors by employees, including absenteeism, lower performance at
work, the wish to go on strike, and turnover (Heneman, 1985). The work of Kim (1999) includes pay and promotion
opportunities as structural variables that favor organizational commitment. Thus, pay is considered an important
factor that explains job satisfaction and organizational commitment since it functions as a strong incentive by
rewarding the employee’s contributions to the organization. Moreover, promotion opportunities also favor those two
attitudes by stimulating a career in the organization and consequently guaranteeing job security and other future
compensations (income, power, status) for employees. Based on those considerations, the following hypothesis is
proposed:
H2: Satisfaction with reward exercises a direct and positive influence on the employee’s organizational
commitment.
Supervisors play an important role in structuring the work context and providing employees with
information and feedback (Griffin et al., 2001), which is essential when orienting employee behavior toward the
pursuance of corporate goals. On an empirical basis, it can be said that levels of motivation can increase with the use
of suitable supervisory action (Ross and Boles, 1994). Therefore, relations with the subordinate are extremely
important to the evaluation of employee satisfaction (Schyn and Croon, 2006), which leads to the adoption of the
theoretical perspectives of the leader-member exchange theory. Following the development of the leader-member
exchange theory to explain leadership, it is important to focus on dyadic exchange relationships between supervisors
and each of their subordinates (Gerstner and Day, 1997). According to Jansen and Van Yperen (2004), the quality of
those exchange relationships determines that they are characterized by mutual trust, respect and obligations, on the
one hand, or formal interactions based on predominantly contractual roles and exchanges, on the other. Moreover,
supervisor support for the employee materializes in increased employee satisfaction (Griffin et al., 2001). As a
result, individual satisfaction with the style of supervision used by one’s supervisor is going to be conditioned by
those aspects. Managerial support has a positive influence on organizational commitment (Gaertner, 2000). When
the manager increases the trust, efficacy and motivation of the employee, this style of supervision, related to
transformational leadership, has a strong direct effect on organizational commitment (Walumbwa et al., 2005).
Tepper (2000) states that, if the employee perceives that the supervisor’s treatment of him/her is abusive or negative,
his/her organizational commitment decreases. All the above enables us to put forward the following hypothesis:
H3: Satisfaction with relations with the supervisor a direct and positive influence on the employee’s
organizational commitment.
The evaluation patterns of social interaction with colleagues may also be a key element in defining the level
of commitment to the organization and the wish to remain part of it. Such interactions mark the social structure
surrounding the employee and form the framework in which professional and affective relations with colleagues
take place. Good relations with colleagues bring enormous benefits at individual and corporate levels. The employee
satisfies his/her social and affiliation needs by means of interaction with colleagues (Robbins, 2003). Osterloh and
Frey (2000) demonstrate that participation and personal relations promote the intrinsic motivation of employees
because they increase their perceived self-determination and psychological contacts are established: in other words,
“team-spirit” appears. Furthermore, on many occasions, good relations between colleagues permits the development
of the closeness, trust and ease of communication that are necessary for the smooth transfer of knowledge that
makes it possible to perform tasks efficiently and effectively. Sargent and Terry (2000) show empirically how the
support from one’s colleagues is fundamental to job satisfaction. Friendly relations are linked to organizational
commitment (Yoon et al., 1994). In that context, satisfaction with relations with colleagues, both on the professional
side more related to technical aspects of the job and on the informal side in terms of orientation to friendship, may
be related to the feeling that the organization has a good atmosphere that stimulates a strong connection with it. That
leads to the proposal of the following hypothesis:
H4: Satisfaction with relations with colleagues exercises a direct and positive influence on the employee’s
organizational commitment.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
