Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 1 –20

© The Author(s) 2017Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0899764016685859

journals.sagepub.com/home/nvs

Article

Is It the Job or the Support? Examining Structural and Relational Predictors of Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intention for Nonprofit Employees

Joshua R. Knapp1, Brett R. Smith2, and Therese A. Sprinkle3

AbstractWe examine the relative efficacy of two theoretically distinct variables for predicting job satisfaction and turnover intentions for workers in nonprofit organizations. The first, perceived job characteristics, reflects the structure of jobs in terms of autonomy, skill variety, task identity, task significance, and feedback. The second, perceived organizational support, reflects the quality of the employee–organization relationship. We collected data from 196 full-time, nonprofit employees across two time periods, and we tested hypotheses using hierarchical regression and relative importance analysis. Results emphasize the significance of managing employees in a supportive manner and structuring jobs so that employees can work autonomously.

Keywordsjob characteristics, perceived organizational support, relative importance analysis, job satisfaction, turnover intentions, job structure

1University of Wisconsin–Whitewater, WI, USA2Miami University, Oxford, OH, USA3Quinnipiac University, Hamden, CT, USA

Corresponding Author:Joshua R. Knapp, College of Business and Economics, University of Wisconsin–Whitewater, 809 W. Starin Road, Whitewater, WI 53190-1790, USA. Email: knappjr@uww.edu

685859 NVSXXX10.1177/0899764016685859Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector QuarterlyKnapp et al.research-article2017

2 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

Nonprofit organizations rely extensively on their full-time employees to achieve their goals. Often, these employees are attracted to these kinds of organizations because of their social missions and of the meaningfulness of their work (Macy, 2006). However, there remain concerns about the ability of nonprofit organizations to retain qualified and satisfied full-time employees (Light, 2000). Some of these issues are rooted in demo-graphic trends such as the increasing number of Baby Boomers retiring from nonprofit employment (J. L. Johnson, 2009). Other issues are related to the fact that nonprofit organizations often have flat organizational hierarchies and scarce financial resources. Consequently, they have limited ability to provide material extrinsic rewards such as pay, benefits, and promotion (Handy & Katz, 1998; J. Johnson & Ng, 2016; Light, 2002). Regardless of the reason, managing employee satisfaction and turnover under conditions of economic scarcity is a critical contemporary concern (Nonprofit HR, 2016).

As an alternative to managing job satisfaction and turnover intentions through expensive compensation and promotion-oriented human resource practices, we explore a more holistic view of nonprofit employment that examines structural and relational variables. From a structural perspective, we consider perceptions of core job characteristics that reflect degrees of autonomy, feedback, skill variety, task identity, and task significance (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). These kinds of perceptions are judgments related to how tasks are organized. From a relational perspective, we con-sider the perception of organizational support (POS). This kind of perception reflects a judgment related to whether employees believe that their organization values their contributions and cares about their individual well-being (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986). Interestingly, despite substantial theoretical differences and bodies of empirical research that are distinct from each other, job characteristics and POS are sometimes related to similar desirable employee outcomes (e.g., Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007; Kurtessis et al., in press).

Given nonprofit organizations’ practical need to manage under conditions of eco-nomic scarcity, and given that job characteristics (a structural variable) and POS (a relational variable) appear to be theoretically distinct predictors of desirable attitudes and behaviors, we designed our research to explore two questions. First, do the percep-tions of job characteristics and POS exhibit simultaneous predictive validity among employees of nonprofit organizations for job satisfaction and turnover intentions? Second, are perceptions of structural job characteristics or the perception of relational POS the most robust predictor?

In our study, we seek to make several contributions. First, we develop and test a more holistic understanding of nonprofit employment by bridging the research on organizational job structures with the research on the employee-organization relation-ship. More specifically, we examine and compare core job characteristics (structural) and POS (relational) theories as potential explanations for predicting job satisfaction and turnover for nonprofit employees. This contribution is particularly important because both theories have been developed primarily in for-profit contexts and because nonprofit and for-profit employment are dissimilar in a variety of ways (e.g., compen-sation practices: J. Johnson & Ng, 2016; working conditions: Mirvis & Hackett, 1983; and employee attitudes: Lee, 2016). Thus, we extend our understanding of how these

Knapp et al. 3

theories generalize across different employment sectors. Second, we not only intro-duce the concept of POS to the nonprofit literature, but we also provide evidence that it is a particularly robust and important predictor of job satisfaction and turnover inten-tions. Relative importance analysis revealed that POS explained significantly more variance in the dependent variables than any of our other measures. This finding sug-gests that nonprofit employees may care more about their relationship with their orga-nization than they do about how their work is structured. Third, we examine the discrete predictive validity for all five core job characteristics. Through a combination of hierarchical regression and post hoc mediation, we found that autonomy had a direct relationship with job satisfaction and an indirect relationship with turnover intentions that was fully mediated by job satisfaction. No significant relationships were found for the other four core job characteristics when POS was controlled for. These findings are meaningful because they imply that, despite previous research sug-gesting broad applicability of job characteristics theory, the context of nonprofit work may prove to be a partial boundary condition.

Job Characteristics and POS as Predictors of Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions

The Perception of Job Characteristics

Hackman and Lawler (1971) observed that structuring jobs to promote efficiency through simplification and specialization (i.e., scientific management) can demotivate employees. They theorized that certain job characteristics facilitate recognition, responsibility, and growth, thereby benefiting employees by fulfilling higher order needs. Building on this idea, Hackman and Oldham (1974, 1975) theorized that five core job characteristics—skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback—may lead to positive individual-level outcomes. Each component repre-sents a structural element in the overall design of a job that makes it more interesting and engaging. For example, jobs with high skill variety let employees use multiple personal competencies. Employees who work in jobs with high task identity perceive that they are completing a whole and identifiable piece of work. Employees in jobs with high task significance believe their work is important. High autonomy jobs pro-mote responsibility and independence. And finally, high feedback jobs provide infor-mation that helps employees determine whether they are performing the job well. Furthermore, Hackman and Lawlor (1971), Hackman and Oldham (1974), and Hackman and Oldham (1975) suggested that when a job is designed to include optimal levels of these five characteristics, the employee experiences meaningfulness, increased accountability, and self-actualization, resulting in intrinsic motivation to produce optimal work performance. Numerous researchers have built on this work by exploring how the characteristics link to improved attitudes, intentions, and motiva-tion (Humphrey et al., 2007).

Although a majority of job characteristics research has been conducted in the for-profit context, similar research of nonprofit organizations tends to take one of three

4 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

approaches. The first approach is primarily descriptive and examines quantitative job characteristic levels without testing predictive relationships (e.g., Mirvis & Hackett, 1983; Oldham, Hackman, & Stepina, 1978). The second approach tests quantitative predictive relationships but does so by combining individual job characteristic mea-sures into a single composite measure (e.g., Jaskyte, 2008). The third approach draws on job characteristics research as a theoretical mechanism but stops short of collecting core characteristics data (e.g., Bassous, 2015; Benz, 2005). Although we know the job characteristics model applies to the nonprofit workplace, researchers have not yet empirically examined the predictive validity of each core characteristic, which limits our understanding of how specific facets of job structure link to the attitudes and intentions.

Using job characteristics to predict job satisfaction. Job satisfaction, a feeling of content-ment resulting from having job expectations met (Bacharach, Bamberger, & Conley, 1991), is an important variable due to its negative relationship with outcomes detract-ing from organizational functioning (e.g., withdrawal; Tett & Meyer, 1993), and posi-tive relationships with outcomes supporting organizational functions (e.g., citizenship behavior; Bateman & Organ, 1983). And, in for-profit organizations, past research has already documented that all five individual core job characteristics are robust predic-tors of job satisfaction through meta-analysis (e.g., Humphrey et al., 2007).

Given that we already know that job characteristics theory is applicable to non-profit contexts when used for descriptive purposes (e.g., Mirvis & Hackett, 1983) and when used for predictive purposes with aggregate measures (e.g., Jaskyte, 2008), we expect the job characteristics-job satisfaction relationship to be generalizable from the for-profit to the nonprofit context. Specifically, autonomy will have a positive rela-tionship with job satisfaction because workers have higher order needs for responsibil-ity and independence. Skill variety will have a positive relationship with job satisfaction because employees prefer interesting jobs. Task identity will have a positive relation-ship with job satisfaction because work becomes more meaningful to employees who know how they are contributing to a larger whole. Task significance will have a posi-tive relationship with job satisfaction because doing jobs that are important enhances employees’ self-worth. Finally, feedback will have a positive relationship with job satisfaction because employees will experience less ambiguity, be better able to gauge the quality of their work, and better know how to improve.

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Perceptions of autonomy, skill variety, task identity, task sig-nificance, and feedback will each have positive relationships with job satisfaction.

Using job characteristics to predict turnover intentions. Turnover intentions reflect employees’ desire to leave their organization and represent one of the best predictors of actual turnover (Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000; Steel & Ovalle, 1984). Previous research, often in for-profit contexts, has predicted a negative relationship between turnover intentions and job characteristics. The logic suggests employees who have engaging and important jobs should be less inclined to quit their jobs because they

Knapp et al. 5

fulfill higher order needs. Interestingly, even though the logic for using job character-istics to predict turnover intentions is straightforward, documenting a robust empirical relationship has been elusive in for-profit research. For example, Humphrey et al.’s (2007) meta-analysis did not find a significant relationship between job characteristics and turnover intentions, and Slattery, Selvaragjan, Anderson, and Sardessai’s (2010) more recent study of temporary employees found only small significant relationships with task identity, autonomy, and feedback.

One explanation for these previous findings is related to how the job’s larger con-text influences the effects of job characteristics on turnover intentions (Oldham & Hackman, 2010). For example, researchers have acknowledged variance contingent on work type (Yan, Peng, & Francesco, 2011), organizational climates and structures (Morgeson, Dierdorff, & Hmurovic, 2010), and national cultures (Huang & Van De Vliert, 2003). Given variation based on context, the relationship between job charac-teristics and turnover intentions may be muted among for-profit employees because the choice to work in this sector tends to be motivated by economic rewards (Benz, 2005; Leete, 2000). Consequently, for-profit employees may be more willing to con-tinue doing jobs with less desirable characteristics to receive desired extrinsic benefits than their nonprofit counterparts who tend to choose employment based on the nature of their work. Also, after the decision to work in a particular sector is made, nonprofit employees may consider structural job characteristics to be more salient because of the relatively lower pay and promotion opportunities they experience. Thus, for nonprofit employees, we make a prediction that aligns with theory more than past empirical findings: Perceptions of all five core job characteristics will have a negative relation-ship with turnover intentions.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Positive perceptions of autonomy, skill variety, task identity, task significance, and feedback will each have negative relationships with turnover intentions.

The POS

In contrast to structural job characteristics, POS captures a relational aspect of organi-zational life. Employees who believe their organization values their contributions and cares about their individual well-being (high POS) tend to act and think in a positive manner, while employees who view their organization as uncaring (low POS) tend to think and behave more negatively (Eisenberger, Armelli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001; Eisenberger et al., 1986). As such, there is a significant body of empir-ical literature that links higher levels of POS to greater job satisfaction and lower turnover intentions (e.g., Kurtessis et al., in press; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Riggle, Edmondson, & Hansen, 2009) in for-profit contexts through three theoretical dynamics.

First, POS improves employees’ sense of well-being by fulfilling relational and socio-emotional needs for self-enhancement and belonging. Consequently, high POS employees often report higher levels of job satisfaction and lower turnover

6 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

intentions simply because they are receiving desired personal benefits (Kurtessis et al., in press). Second, employees often feel obligated to return like-for-like in a reactionary quid pro quo manner (i.e., the norm of reciprocity; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Gouldner, 1960). As such, POS can inspire employees to reciprocate in a positive manner (Eisenberger et al., 2001). For example, employees who have been treated politely and fairly may loyally reciprocate by not seeking other employ-ment opportunities. The opposite dynamic is also likely. The perception of unfair and uncaring treatment can generate negative reciprocal reactions, such as with-drawal and anger (Eisenberger, Lynch, Aselage, & Rohdieck, 2004). Third, employ-ees often participate in social exchanges that reflect long-term sequences of actions and reactions. As such, they may engage in mental accounting with an eye toward repayment and investing (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). From this perspective, employees who are treated well tend to think and act in a manner sup-porting organizational functions not only because they feel obligated to “pay” for social benefits already received but they also believe that they are earning additional rewards that will be provided at some ambiguous time in the future. Conversely, employees who are treated poorly will tend to become disgruntled and uncoopera-tive because they feel that they are owed past-due rewards, and they do not trust that further investment will result in future benefits.

Despite a lack of POS research among nonprofit workers, we believe that POS is likely to be a highly salient issue because of limited opportunities to earn higher wages and because frustration with management is often a key reason for leaving (Brown & Yoshioka, 2003). Indeed, in an organization designed to be exceptionally lean so as to better serve a social mission with limited resources, providing caring support may be one of a few positive levers of influence the organization can imple-ment on a regular basis. For example, nonprofit organizations can adopt a culture that emphasizes open communication (M. W. Allen, 1995) and participative deci-sion-making (D. G. Allen, Shore, & Griffeth, 2003). In this way, they show employ-ees that they care enough to keep them informed and to ask their opinion. Also, while it may be difficult to provide additional rewards, nonprofit organizations can demonstrate care by establishing fair procedures that distribute rewards in a way that accurately reflects work contributions (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Finally, although promotion opportunities may be limited, it is still possible to demonstrate support by offering training opportunities that expand knowledge and skills in a meaningful way (D. G. Allen et al., 2003).

Because POS fulfills socio-emotional needs, we hypothesize that POS will have a positive relationship with job satisfaction. As POS inspires positive reciprocity and encourages ongoing social exchange, we also hypothesize that nonprofit workers with high POS will report lower turnover intentions.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): POS will have a positive relationship with job satisfaction.Hypothesis 4 (H4): POS will have a negative relationship with turnover intentions.

Knapp et al. 7

Establishing the Relative Importance of POS and Job Characteristics on Outcomes

As already noted, the academic literature examining for-profit contexts contains paral-lel bodies of empirical literature that separately link job characteristics and POS to the outcomes of job satisfaction and turnover intentions. What has yet to be answered in any context is whether these variables predict employee attitudes and intentions simul-taneously and robustly.

We hypothesize that both kinds of variables offer valid and simultaneous predictors of job satisfaction and turnover intentions, albeit for different reasons. While POS predicts these criteria because it reflects employees’ perception of how they are being treated by their organization, job characteristics predict because they reflect the struc-tural design and organization of the tasks employees do. Although we predict simulta-neous relationships, we also predict that POS will be the relatively more important predictor. That is, POS will explain more variance in job satisfaction and turnover intentions than any of the perceived job characteristics, and this difference will be statistically significant (Tonidandel & LeBreton, 2011; Tonidandel, LeBreton, & Johnson, 2009). This is because the choice to work (Preston, 1989) and continue to work (Brown & Yoshioka, 2003) in nonprofit organizations is often driven by the moral value (Frank, 1996) and social goals (Hull & Lio, 2006) of the organizational mission rather than the nature of the specific job being done. Consequently, workers who perceive that they are being treated well by an organization that they value so highly have a particularly strong reason to be satisfied with their jobs (Benz, 2005) and intend to continue working for them (Borzaga & Tortia, 2006).

Hypothesis 5 (H5): POS will be a relatively more important predictor of job satis-faction and turnover intentions than perceived job characteristics.

Method

Participants and Procedure

We recruited participants and collected data online through Cint data collection ser-vices (www.cint.com). This independent contractor provides access to research-quality survey panels. This company verifies member demographics, ensuring that panel members do not complete multiple surveys for the same study, and it removes mem-bers who provide inappropriate responses.

An invitation to participate in a longitudinal academic study was e-mailed to mem-bers of a panel who were pre-screened as full-time employees in nonprofit organiza-tions. This invitation linked to a webpage explaining the purpose of the study and informed consent. Only participants who acknowledged this disclosure could access the survey.

Respondents were not initially informed that they were contacted based on the nature of their employment, nor were they informed that participation was dependent

8 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

on full-time employment in a nonprofit. Preliminary screening questions asked respon-dents to identify their employment status. Respondents who did not self-identify as full-time employees of nonprofits were informed that they did not qualify for partici-pation and were blocked from the survey. This procedure helped corroborate the pre-screening criteria and helped alleviate the potential for participants to misrepresent themselves in an attempt to receive incentives.

Participants who completed the survey received noncash “points” from Cint as an incentive. They can accumulate and redeem these points for an assortment of premi-ums (e.g., entry into a sweepstakes, gift cards to retailers, charitable donations). The actual value of points given for participating in this study was less than US$5.

Online questionnaires were hosted on Zoomerang.com. Separating the web-hosting and data collection services from the recruitment services allowed us to keep respon-dents completely anonymous. Only Cint had access to e-mail addresses of respon-dents, and only we had access to responses on the Zoomerang website.

Research designs that use data from a single source run the risk of inflating rela-tionships between variables due to common method variance (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003; Spector, 2006). This dynamic can create problems when a single survey contains self-report measures. To avoid this risk, we collected data for our independent and dependent variables in two different surveys, separated by a 3-month interval.

A unique aspect of using online data collection services is that the Time 1 sample size is determined a priori. Data collection is stopped after the contracted number of responses is attained. Using Green’s (1991) guidelines for adequate sample size in multiple regression (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013), we estimated that we would need at least 130 nonprofit workers to complete both the Time 1 and Time 2 survey. Dropout rates from longitudinal studies are sometimes large, so we contracted for 550 Time 1 participants. After eliminating cases with inappropriate or incomplete responses, we retained 504 Time 1 participants. Then, 3 months later, these respondents were e-mailed an invitation to participate in Time 2, and we received 216 responses. After eliminating cases with inappropriate or incomplete responses, we had a final sample size of 196 individuals who completed both surveys—a 35.63% completion rate. Matching of responses from Times 1 and 2 was done by a respondent-specific code embedded in the invitation e-mails sent out by Cint and identification numbers pro-vided by respondents.

Respondents were 82.65% Caucasian and 71.93% female. Average organizational tenure was 8.98 years, ranging from 1 to 43. Average age of respondents was 42.70 years, ranging from 19 to 67. A total of 67.3% of respondents earned less than US$55,000 a year.

Measures

All independent and dependent variables were measured by using a 7-point Likert-type scale. The perception of job characteristics was measured at Time 1 by using Idaszak and Drasgow’s (1987) revised version of Hackman and Oldhams’s (1974) job

Knapp et al. 9

diagnostic survey. Respondents indicated the degree to which their job contained vari-ous characteristics by answering three questions for each of the five job characteristic scales. The skill variety measure (sample item: “The job requires me to use a number of complex or high level skills”) had a Cronbach’s alpha = .85, the task identity mea-sure (sample item: “The job is arranged so that I can do an entire piece of work from beginning to end”) had a Cronbach’s alpha = .82, the task significance measure (sam-ple item: “The job is one where a lot of people can be affected by how well the work gets done”) had a Cronbach’s alpha = .87, the autonomy measure (sample item: “The job gives me considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my work”) had a Cronbach’s alpha = .83, and the feedback measure (sample item: “After I finish a job, I know whether I performed well”) had a Cronbach’s alpha = .84. We measured POS at Time 1 by using Eisenberger, Fasolo, and Davis-LaMastro’s (1990) 9-item short-form measure. Respondents indicated their level of agreement with state-ments, such as “The organization strongly considers my goals and values” and “The organization really cares about my well-being.” Cronbach’s alpha = .97.

Job satisfaction was measured at Time 2 by using Bacharach et al.’s (1991) 5-item measure. This measure asks respondents to indicate the degree to which they are satis-fied with various aspects of their job, including “your present job when you compare it to jobs in other organizations” and “the progress you are making toward the goals set for yourself in your present position.” Cronbach’s alpha = .96. Turnover intentions were measured at Time 2 by using 4 items reflecting employees’ intention to leave their current employer (e.g., Bluedorn, 1982). Respondents indicated their level of agreement with statements, such as “I will still be working for this organization six months from now” and “I would like to quit this organization within the next six months.” Cronbach’s alpha = .92.

The control variables of age, gender, tenure, and salary were measured using sin-gle-item questions. Age data were reported in years and were collected so as to par-tially alleviate the concern that generational differences in work values (e.g., Twenge, Campbell, Hoffman, & Lance, 2010) could confound our results. Gender data were indicated by a check box and were collected to account for the tendency of nonprofit organizations to employ more women than men (Themudo, 2009). Tenure data were reported in years and were collected to account for previously known relationships with job satisfaction (Bedeian, Ferris, & Kacmar, 1992) and turnover (Griffeth et al., 2000). Salary data were indicated by marking a check box and were collected to account for nonprofit organizations’ tendency to compensate at lower levels than for-profit organization (Handy & Katz, 1998) and as a proxy for organizational position.

Analyses and Results

Table 1 reports means, standard deviations, and correlations. Prior to hypotheses test-ing, we evaluated the validity of our measures by using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The standards for evaluating our CFA were root-mean-square error of approxi-mation (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990) using a standard of < .08, comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990) using a standard of > .90, and standardized root-mean-square residual

10

Tab

le 1

. M

eans

, Sta

ndar

d D

evia

tions

, and

Inte

rcor

rela

tions

.

Var

iabl

esM

SD1

23

45

67

89

1011

12

1.

Age

42.7

011

.61

2

. Se

x.7

2.4

5−

.21*

*

3.

Ten

ure

8.98

8.46

.51*

*−

.13

4

. Sa

lary

3.12

1.63

.09

−.1

7*.0

9

5.

Skill

Var

iety

4.97

1.49

.13

.08

.08

.28*

(.85)

6

. T

ask

Iden

tity

5.35

1.27

.15*

.11

.03

.09

.23*

*(.8

2)

7.

Tas

k Si

gnifi

canc

e5.

831.

21.1

8**

.07

.07

.17*

.50*

*.4

2**

(.87)

8.

Aut

onom

y5.

611.

10.1

6*.0

8.1

1.1

3.5

3**

.48*

*.5

5**

(.83)

9

. Fe

edba

ck5.

251.

24.2

9**

.02

.11

.21*

*.4

4**

.53*

*.4

9**

.63*

*(.8

4)

10.

POS

4.71

1.53

.08

.05

−.0

5.1

2.4

6**

.39*

*.3

4**

.49*

*.5

4**

(.97)

11

. Jo

b Sa

tisfa

ctio

n4.

971.

64.0

8.1

2.0

9.0

9.4

6**

.31*

*.3

9**

.52*

*.4

4**

.62*

*(.9

6)

12.

Tur

nove

r In

tent

ions

2.53

1.78

−.1

3−

.05

−.2

0**

−.1

3−

.35*

*−

.21*

*−

.30*

*−

.37*

*−

.29*

*−

.49*

*−

.78*

*(.9

2)

Not

e. A

ge a

nd t

enur

e re

port

ed in

yea

rs. M

ale

code

d 0

and

fem

ale

code

d 1.

Sal

ary

code

d: 1

= <

US$

25,0

00, 2

= U

S$25

,001

-US$

40,0

00, 3

= U

S$40

,001

-U

S$55

,000

, 4 =

US$

55,0

01-U

S$70

,000

, 5 =

US$

70,0

01-U

S$85

,000

, 6 =

US$

85,0

01-U

S$10

0,00

0, 7

≥ U

S$10

0,00

0. N

= 1

96. R

elia

bilit

ies

for

indi

vidu

al m

easu

res

are

repo

rted

on

the

diag

onal

. All

nonc

ontr

ol m

easu

res

use

a 7-

poin

t Li

kert

-typ

e sc

ale:

1 =

str

ongl

y di

sagr

ee t

o 7

= s

tron

gly

agre

e. P

OS

= p

erce

ptio

n of

or

gani

zatio

nal s

uppo

rt.

*p ≤

.05.

**p

≤ .0

1.

Knapp et al. 11

(SRMSR, Hu & Bentler, 1999) using a standard of < .10. Error terms for within-mea-sure reverse coded items were allowed to covary a priori. All items loaded on the intended factor, and the model exceeded our criteria for good fit, RMSEA = .066, CFI = .925, and SRMR = .057.

We tested H1 through H4 using hierarchical regression. We entered control vari-ables in step one, job characteristics measures in step two, and the POS measure in step three. Table 2 reports results. When job satisfaction was examined as the criterion without analyzing POS, only skill variety and autonomy were significant predictors in step two. When POS was considered in conjunction with job characteristics in step 3, only tenure, autonomy, and POS were significant predictors. There was a total R2 of .48. When turnover intentions were examined, only tenure and POS had significant relationships, and there was a total R2 of .33. These results provide partial support for H1: Perceived job autonomy and perceived skill variety each explained variance in job satisfaction in step two of the hierarchical regressions, but only autonomy remained a significant predictor in Step 3. H2 was not supported: Job characteristics were not significant predictors of turnover intentions. H3 and H4 were both fully supported in that POS was a consistent predictor.

We tested H5 by doing a relative importance analysis using the web-based tool recommended by Tonidandel and LeBreton (2015) at http://relativeimportance.david-son.edu. This methodology holds two advantages over an examination of standardized

Table 2. Results of Hierarchical Regression for POS and Job Characteristics.

Job satisfaction Turnover intentions

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Age .05 −.08 −.06 −.08 .01 −.01Sex .16* .06 .07 −.10 −.03 −.05Tenure .07 .07 .12 −.16 −.16* −.21**Salary .11 −.04 −.02 −.12 −.02 −.03Skill Variety .22** .11 −.13 −.03Task Identity .03 −.02 −.03 .02Task Significance .06 .08 −.09 −.11Autonomy .28** .21** −.19 −.11Feedback .14 −.02 −.05 .10POS .47** −.46**R2 .04 .35 .48 .06 .20 .33Adjusted R2 .02 .32 .45 .04 .16 .29ΔR2 .31 .13 .14 .13df 4 9 10 4 9 10F 1.87 10.73** 16.56** 3.05* 5.03** 8.80**ΔF 17.17** 45.41** 6.28** 34.42**

Note. Standardized coefficients reported. POS = perception of organizational support.*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.

12 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

regression weights. First, regression can exaggerate differences among independent variables when they are correlated. Relative importance analysis overcomes this issue by transforming independent variables so that their predictive relationships are orthog-onal (Tonidandel & LeBreton, 2004, 2011). Second, regression procedures assume that data exhibits multivariate normality. Relative importance analysis does not con-tain this assumption as it uses bootstrapping techniques to test for significant differ-ences in variance explained among predictors (Tonidandel, LeBreton, & Johnson, 2009). Our analysis supported H5 as POS was found to explain significantly more variance in job satisfaction and turnover intentions than any of the job characteristics variables as indicated by comparative bootstrapping confidence intervals that were universally below 0 (see Table 3). Results were based on 10,000 bootstrapping replica-tions and tested at alpha .05.

Discussion

In an effort to better understand full-time workers in nonprofit organizations, we examined how structural (core job characteristics) and relational (POS) perceptions predict job satisfaction and turnover intentions. Contrary to our expectations and some previous empirical findings in for-profit settings (e.g., Humphrey et al., 2007; Slattery et al., 2010), we found that job characteristics had limited predictive validity, particu-larly in the presence of POS. More in line with expectations, we found POS was a consistent and robust predictor. These findings suggest that employees of nonprofits may care more about how they are treated than about their jobs. These findings raise a number of issues for discussion.

Table 3. Test of Significant Differences in Relative Importance Between POS and Job Characteristics.

Job satisfaction Turnover intentions

Lower boundary Upper boundary Lower boundary Upper boundary

Age −.29 −.13 −.24 −.07Sex −.29 −.12 −.24 −.07Tenure −.29 −.12 −.21 −.03Salary −.29 −.13 −.23 −.07Skill Variety −.24 −.03 −.20 −.01Task Identity −.28 −.11 −.23 −.06Task Significance −.26 −.08 −.22 −.04Autonomy −.22 −.03 −.20 −.02Feedback −.24 −.08 −.22 −.06

Note. If 0 is not included within confidence intervals, significant differences in relative importance exist. Negative signs indicate relationship with the criterion is smaller than relationship POS has with the criterion. Results based on 10,000 bootstrapping replications. Tested at alpha .05. POS = perception of organizational support.

Knapp et al. 13

Post Hoc Examination of Mediation

While not addressed by our initial hypotheses and analyses, job satisfaction can mediate the relationship between predictors and turnover intentions (e.g., Côté & Morgan, 2002), and we examined this dynamic post hoc. We used the bootstrapping techniques of Preacher and Hayes (2004) to identify two significant relationships. First, autonomy had a significant indirect relationship with turnover intentions that was fully mediated by job satisfaction. Bias-corrected estimate of indirect effects was −.27, with the 95% confidence interval lower boundary being −.49 and the upper boundary being −.05. Second, the previously identified relationship between POS and turnover intentions was partially mediated by job satisfaction. Bias-corrected estimate of indirect effects operating through job satisfaction was −.45, with the 95% confidence interval lower boundary being −.63 and the upper bound-ary being −.26. These findings lend support to a growing body of literature that identifies job satisfaction as an important mediator that sometimes intervenes between independent and dependent variables.

Implications of Findings Related to Core Job Characteristics

When controlling for POS, skill variety, task identity, task significance, and feed-back did not predict either job satisfaction or turnover intentions. Only autonomy was found to be a significant predictor in that it had a direct relationship with job satisfaction and an indirect relationship with turnover intentions (identified post hoc) that was fully mediated by job satisfaction. To some extent, these findings are consistent with past research in for-profit settings that has found difficulty identify-ing a theorized relationship between job characteristics and turnover intentions (e.g., Humphrey et al., 2007; Slattery et al., 2010). However, the lack of findings related to satisfaction contrasts with previous research in the for-profit context and suggests that the nonprofit context may be a partial boundary condition to job characteristics theory. Future researchers seeking to determine the extent to which nonprofit employees are truly unique in this regard may benefit from following the example of researchers who collect data in both for-profit and nonprofit contexts so as to pro-vide a more direct comparison (Benz, 2005: Borzaga & Tortia, 2006; Brown & Yoshioka, 2003).

Beyond the nonprofit context, our results also suggest the importance of separately examining the relationships among the five job characteristics. Researchers often expect each of the characteristics to have similar relationships with other variables (e.g., Humphrey et al., 2007), and some researchers have combined the five into a single, aggregated measure (e.g., Jaskyte, 2008; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006). However, only autonomy was a consistent and significant predictor in our data. Thus, we suggest that future researchers design their studies to separately measure each characteristic. By following this advice, they can gain a more finely grained understanding of the relationships and better identify the specific perception(s) that explain variance in their dependent variables.

14 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

Closing the Gap Between Structural and Relational Research

Consistent with research suggesting that nonprofit employees who feel unappreciated leave their organizations (Kim & Lee, 2007), we found POS to be a consistent (as determined by hierarchical regression) and important (as determined by relative weight analysis) predictor of higher job satisfaction and lower turnover intentions in our data. Thus, POS appears to be an overlooked but critical predictor of nonprofit employee satisfaction and turnover. Even further, these results provide initial evidence that relational aspects of the work environment may matter more than structural aspects when predicting outcomes in the nonprofit sector.

However, our work is only an initial step to future research on bridging the gap between structural and relational theories. Future researchers will want to examine a variety of structure-related knowledge, social environment, and general context vari-ables (Humphrey et al., 2007; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006), each of which has the potential to be a more consistent and important predictor than relational variables. Furthermore, POS represents only one of many relational constructs and may not maintain primacy when examined in conjunction with variables related to employee belonging and need fulfillment (Knapp, Smith, & Sprinkle, 2014; Masterson & Stamper, 2003). Finally, it is important for future researchers to examine the relative importance of structural and relational aspects of the work environment with a variety of different outcomes, including performance and discretionary behavior (Organ, 1997). Only after these kinds of contingencies are systematically examined will we fully understand how the nature of work structure and the nature of work relationships co-influence employees.

Methodological Considerations

One strength of our study is the collection of data over two time periods separated by 3 months, which alleviated issues related to common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Spector, 2006). This longitudinal design is an improvement over many of the cross-sectional tests of job satisfaction and turnover in for-profit and nonprofit set-tings. However, we do acknowledge that a two-stage design is not robust enough to draw conclusions regarding causal influence (Cole & Maxwell, 2003). Future research-ers may want to address issues of causality by designing field experiments or collect-ing data over three (or more) time periods.

Another strength of our study is that we controlled for variation in age, gender, tenure, and salary, thereby helping to alleviate concerns that our results might be driven by extraneous individual-level variables. Nonetheless, organizations in the nonprofit sector are diverse, and the relationships we have identified may vary accord-ingly. For example, future researchers may find that the perceptions of job character-istics predict satisfaction among employees at larger nonprofits that have corporation-like rewards, cultures, and governance. Researchers who want to examine this potential variation may want to collect and consider additional organizational data related to specific sub-sectors and organizational characteristics.

Knapp et al. 15

Another methodological issue worth noting is our choice to use hierarchical regres-sion rather than structural equation modeling (SEM) to test hypotheses. Because H1 to H4 predict direct relationships with a single dependent variable, we felt that regression provided a parsimonious and robust analysis of the data. In contrast, we were con-cerned about the use of SEM because it requires large samples when effect sizes are small. The online calculator (at www.danielsoper.com/statcalc/calculator.aspx?id=89) estimated that we would need 444 respondents to identify an effect size of .2 with a probability level of .05. These concerns being noted, we did perform exploratory SEM analysis and found that the overall pattern of results remained largely the same; the only meaningful difference was that the p value for autonomy’s relationship with sat-isfaction went from being significant at the p < .01 level using hierarchical regression to being nonsignificant at the p < .06 level using SEM. This change is consistent with our sample size concerns.

Practical Implications

Managers of nonprofit organizations should generally be cautious when applying pre-scriptions commonly used in for-profit organizations because the nature of the work and work environment may be considerably different. However, we did find POS theory to be generalizable in our sample of nonprofit workers, and we believe that management techniques related to POS should be effective at improving job satisfac-tion and decreasing turnover. Interestingly, many of these techniques require very few economic resources to implement, thereby making them ideal for application in non-profit organization. For example, encouraging open communication (M. W. Allen, 1995), engaging in participative decision-making (D. G. Allen et al., 2003), and estab-lishing fair procedures (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002) require only a commitment of time and effort.

Given that we found few significant relationships related to perceived job charac-teristics, we are more cautious when it comes to prescriptions for job design and enrichment. Autonomy related directly to job satisfaction and indirectly to turnover intentions; thus, a well-executed plan to increase employee independence and respon-sibility should benefit morale and retention. Yet, we caution against a global approach of manipulating all characteristics of every job because none of the other job charac-teristics were significant predictors. These (non)findings suggest that changing other aspects of job structure may have limited benefits. However, it is worth remembering that nonprofit organizations are diverse, and our study did lack controls for organiza-tional variables. Thus, managers will still want to consider the applicability of job enrichment activities in their own context, particularly if their organization contains a large number of menial or repetitive jobs.

Conclusion

Our pattern of results suggests that researchers and managers would benefit from a more complete understanding of how organizational structures and organizational

16 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

relationships differentially predict and influence employee outcomes. POS was an important and consistent predictor of job satisfaction and turnover intentions in our study. Job characteristics exhibited limited predictive validity. Thus, it appears that nonprofit employees care more about how they are treated than about the jobs they do, and it is possible that nonprofit organizations represent a partial boundary condition for job characteristics theory. Given these results and potential implications, we believe there is a critical need for additional empirical research aimed at bridging the gap between structural and relational theories.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M., & Griffeth, R. (2003). The role of perceived organizational support and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process. Journal of Management, 29, 99-118. doi:10.1177/014920630302900107

Allen, M. W. (1995). Communication concepts related to perceived organizational support. Western Journal of Communication, 59, 326-346. doi:10.1080/10570319509374525

Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Conley, S. (1991). Work-home conflict among nurses and engineers: Mediating the impact of role stress on burnout and satisfaction at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 39-53. doi:10.1002/job.4030120104

Bassous, M. (2015). What are the factors that affect worker motivation in faith-based nonprofit organizations? Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26, 355-381. doi:10.1007/s11266-013-9420-3

Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee “citizenship.” Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587-595. doi:10.2307/255908

Bedeian, A. G., Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Age, tenure, and job satisfaction: A tale of two perspectives. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, 33-48. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(92)90045-2

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 238-246. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.107.2.238

Benz, M. (2005). Not for the profit, but for the satisfaction?—Evidence on worker well-being in nonprofit firms. KYKLOS, 58, 155-176. doi:10.1111/j.0023-5962.2005.00283.x

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley.Bluedorn, A. C. (1982). The theories of turnover: Causes, effects, and meaning. Research in the

Sociology of Organizations, 1, 75-128.Borzaga, C., & Tortia, E. (2006). Worker motivations, job satisfaction, and loyalty in pub-

lic and nonprofit social services. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35, 225-248. doi:10.1177/0899764006287207

Knapp et al. 17

Brown, W. A., & Yoshioka, C. F. (2003). Mission attachment and satisfaction as factors in employee retention. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 14, 5-18. doi:10.1002/nml.18

Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 558-577. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.558

Côté, S., & Morgan, L. M. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of the association between emotion regulation, job satisfaction, and intentions to quit. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 947-962. doi:10.1002/job.174

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874-900. doi:10.1177/0149206305279602

Eisenberger, R., Armelli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 42-51. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.86.1.42

Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 51-59. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.1.51

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500

Eisenberger, R., Lynch, P., Aselage, J., & Rohdieck, S. (2004). Who takes the most revenge? Individual differences in negative reciprocity norm endorsement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 789-799. doi:10.1177/0146167204264047

Frank, R. H. (1996). What price the moral high ground? Southern Economic Journal, 63, 1-17. doi:10.2307/1061299

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178. doi:10.2307/2092623

Green, S. B. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do regression analysis? Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26, 449-510. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2603_7

Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463-488. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(00)00043-X

Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 259-286. doi:10.1037/h0031152

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1974). The Job Diagnostic Survey: An instrument for the diagnosis of jobs and the evaluation of job redesign projects. Available from http://eric.ed.gov/

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170. doi:10.1037/h0076546

Handy, F., & Katz, E. (1998). The wage differential between nonprofit institutions and cor-poration: Getting more by paying less? Journal of Comparative Economics, 26, 246-261. doi:10.1006/jcec.1998.1520

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structural analy-sis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

Huang, X., & Van De Vliert, E. (2003). Where intrinsic job satisfaction fails to work: National moderators of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 159-179. doi:10.1002/job.186

18 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

Hull, C. E., & Lio, B. H. (2006). Innovation in nonprofit and for-profit organizations: Visionary, strategic, and financial considerations. Journal of Change Management, 6, 53-65. doi:10.1080/14697010500523418

Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1332-1356. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332

Idaszak, J. R., & Drasgow, F. (1987). A revision of the Job Diagnostic Survey: Elimination of a measurement artifact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 69-74. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.72.1.69

Jaskyte, K. (2008). Employee creativity in U.S. and Lithuanian nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 18, 465-483. doi:10.1002/nml.198

Johnson, J., & Ng, E. (2016). Money talks or Millennials walk: The effect of compensation on nonprofit Millennial workers sector-switching intentions. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 36, 283-305. doi:10.1177/0734371X15587980

Johnson, J. L. (2009). The nonprofit leadership deficit: A case for more optimism. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 19, 2185-2304. doi:10.1002/nml.220

Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2007). Is mission attachment an effective management tool for employee retention? An empirical analysis of a nonprofit human services agency. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 27, 227-248. doi:10.1177/0734371X06295791

Knapp, J. R., Smith, B., & Sprinkle, T. (2014). Clarifying the roles of psychological owner-ship, perceived insider status, and organizational identification. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21, 273-285. doi:10.1177/1548051814529826

Kurtessis, J. N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M. T., Buffardi, L. C., Stewart, K. A., & Adis, C. S. (in press). Perceived organizational support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support the-ory. Journal of Management. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0149206315575554

Lee, Y.-j. (2016). Comparison of job satisfaction between nonprofit and public employees. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45, 295-313. doi:10.1177/0899764015584061

Leete, L. (2000). Wage equity and employee motivation in nonprofit and for-profit organiza-tions. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 43, 423-446. doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(00)00129-3

Light, P. C. (2000). Making nonprofits work: A report on the tides of nonprofit management reform. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Light, P. C. (2002). The content of their character: The state of the nonprofit workforce. Nonprofit Quarterly, 9, 6-19.

Macy, G. (2006). Outcomes of values and participation in values-expressive nonprofit agencies. Journal of Behavioral & Applied Management, 7, 165-181.

Masterson, S. S., & Stamper, C. L. (2003). Perceived organizational membership: An aggregate framework representing the employee-organization relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 473-490. doi:10.1002/job.203

Mirvis, P. H., & Hackett, E. J. (1983). Work and work force characteristics in the nonprofit sec-tor. Monthly Labor Review, 103, 3-12. doi:10.1126/science.323.5918.1161a

Morgeson, F. P., Dierdorff, E. C., & Hmurovic, J. L. (2010). Work design in situ: Understanding the role of occupational and organizational context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 351-360. doi:10.1002/job.642

Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321-1339. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321

Knapp et al. 19

Nonprofit HR. (2016). 2016 nonprofit employment practices survey results. Retrieved from http://www.nonprofithr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2016NEPSurvey-final.pdf

Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. (2010). Not what it was and not what it will be: The future of job design research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 463-479. doi:10.1002/job.678

Oldham, G. R., Hackman, J. R., & Stepina, L. P. (1978). Norms for the job diagnostic survey (Technical Report Number-06). Retrieved from http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA057268

Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85-97. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1002_2

Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 327-340. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2006.20786079

Podsakoff, P., Mackenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717-731. doi:10.3758/BF03206553

Preston, A. E. (1989). The nonprofit worker in a for-profit world. Journal of Labor Economics, 7, 438-463. doi:10.1086/298216

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the litera-ture. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 398-714. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.698

Riggle, R. J., Edmondson, D. R., & Hansen, J. D. (2009). A meta-analysis of the relationship between perceived organizational support and job outcomes: 20 years of research. Journal of Business Research, 62, 1027-1030. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.05.003

Slattery, J. P., Selvaragjan, T. T., Anderson, J. E., & Sardessai, R. (2010). Relationship between job characteristics and attitudes: A study of temporary employees. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 1539-1565. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00628.x

Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221-232. doi:10.1177/1094428105284955

Steel, R. P., & Ovalle, N. K. (1984). A review and meta-analysis of research on the relationship between behavioral intentions and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 673-686. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.69.4.673

Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval esti-mation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173-180. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover inten-tion, and turn-over: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46, 259-293. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00874.x

Themudo, N. S. (2009). Gender and the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 663-683. doi:10.1177/0899764009333957

Tonidandel, S., & LeBreton, J. M. (2004). History and use of relative importance indices in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 238-257. doi:10.1177/ 1094428104266510

20 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

Tonidandel, S., & LeBreton, J. M. (2011). Relative importance analysis: A useful supplement to regression analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 1-9. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9204-3

Tonidandel, S., & LeBreton, J. M. (2015). A free, comprehensive, web-based, and user-friendly tool for relative weight analyses. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 207-215. doi:10.1007/s10869-014-9351-z

Tonidandel, S., LeBreton, J. M., & Johnson, J. W. (2009). Determining the statistical signifi-cance of relative weights. Psychological Methods, 14, 387-399. doi:10.1037/a0017735

Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J., & Lance, C. E. (2010). Generational differ-ences in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing. Journal of Management, 36, 1117-1142. doi:10.1177/0149206309352246

Yan, M., Peng, K. Z., & Francesco, A. M. (2011). The differential effects of job design on knowledge workers and manual workers: A quasi-experimental field study in China. Human Resource Management, 50, 407-424. doi:10.1002/hrm.20428

Author Biographies

Joshua R. Knapp is Associate Professor of Human Resources and Organizational Behavior at the University of Wisconsin–Whitewater. His PhD was granted by the University of Cincinnati. His primary research interests relate to understanding how employees navigate the organiza-tional environment, including topics related to social exchange, social cognition, and employee-organization relationships.

Brett R. Smith is Professor of Entrepreneurship and Founding Director, Center for Social Entrepreneurship, at the Farmer School of Business, Miami University (Ohio). His research interests focus on social entrepreneurship with specific emphases on identity, scaling, and development models.

Therese A. Sprinkle is Assistant Professor of Management at Quinnipiac University. She received her PhD from the University of Cincinnati after a long corporate career. She is keenly interested in organizational justice, leadership, and roles/role behavior.