Situational constraint effects on performance, affective reactions, and turnover: A field replication and extension.

Exploring the exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect typology: The influence of job satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and investment size

“…Employees who are generally satisfied with their jobs (e.g., with respect to pay, supervision, co-worker relations; Hulin & Smith, 1965) should feel optimistic about the possibilities for improving working conditions, and should feel more strongly motivated to restore favorable conditions. Prior research supports this assertion: Low job satisfaction has been shown to be associated with destructive behaviors such as intentions to quit (Rosse & Hulin, 1985), actual quitting (Abelson, 1987;Colarelli, Dean, & Konstans, 1987;O'Connor, Pooyan, Weekly, Peters, Frank, & Erenkrantz, 1984), absences (Blau, 1985;Rosse & Hulin, 1985), and lateness (Blau, 1985). In contrast, high job satisfaction has been linked with voice-like behaviors such as suggesting improvements and grievance filing (Allen & Keaveny, 1985;Dalton & Todor, 1982;Price, Dewire, Nowack, Schenkel, & Ronan, 1976;VanZelst & Kerr, 1953) as well as with loyalist behaviors such as good citizenship behavior and job commitment (Aranya, Kuchnir, & Valency, 1986;Bateman & Organ, 1983;Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983;Ferris & Aranya, 1983).…”

Situational constraints on the achievement – performance relationship: a service sector study

“…Situational constraints were found to have a negative impact on performance in several laboratory studies which manipulated constraints (e.g., Freedman and Phillips, 1983 ± working paper, University of Houston, Texas; Peters et al, , 1982. Results from ®eld studies were mixed with two studies ®nding support (O'Connor et al, 1984;Steel and Mento, 1983 ± working paper, Air Force Institute of Technology, Ohio) and two studies ®nding no support (Pooyan et al, 1982;O`Connor et al, 1984 ± Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Boston). Similarly, wth respect to the prediction that situational constraints would be associated with reduced variance in performance, Peters et al (1982) found support in a laboratory study, but found no support in the laboratory and O' Connor et al (1984 presented paper) found no support in the ®eld.…”

Rethinking the effects of stressors: A longitudinal study on personal initiative.

“…Focusing on a typical supervisory task, Fried and Tiegs (1995) found that supervisors' role stressors decreased the accuracy with which they made performance ratings of their subordinates: Role conflict was positively associated with actual performance ratings, indicating a leniency error. For three different levels of managers of a convenience store organization, O'Connor et al (1984) reported a negative relationship between situational constraints and performance ratings. Similar results were found in a financial services company (Steel & Mento, 1986).…”