Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 12 November 2014, At: 08:51Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
Journal of Social ServiceResearchPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wssr20
Work Attitudes of SocialWorkers Across Three Sectorsof Welfare OrganizationsAnat Freund PhD aa School of Social Work , University of Haifa , MountCarmel, Haifa, 31905Published online: 25 Sep 2008.
To cite this article: Anat Freund PhD (2005) Work Attitudes of Social Workers AcrossThree Sectors of Welfare Organizations, Journal of Social Service Research, 31:3,69-92, DOI: 10.1300/J079v31n03_04
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J079v31n03_04
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
08:
51 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
Work Attitudesof Social Workers Across Three Sectors
of Welfare Organizations:Public, For-Profit, and Third Sector
Anat Freund
ABSTRACT. The main aim of this research was to trace the impact onthe social services sector in Israel of the accelerating process of privat-ization and the massive increase in non-profit organizations by com-paring work attitudes of social workers in the three organizationalgroups that today make up the field of the social services: (1) public,(2) for-profit, and (3) third sector.
Traditionally, public organizations primarily covered the existing socialservices needs of the population, with private organizations gradually de-veloping in parallel. Over the past 20 years a third organizational form hasentered the field with the move toward privatization–i.e., the significantshift from public toward private management with public supervision–andthe emergence of non-profit organizations, i.e., the third-sector services.
Participants were chosen randomly from the list of social workers inIsrael. They were asked to report their work and workplace attitudes.ANOVA results showed that type of organization had a strong effect onwork and workplace attitudes.
Suggestions for further investigation of the relationship betweenwork and workplace attitudes and type of organization are offered. [Ar-ticle copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service:1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website:<http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights re-served.]
Anat Freund, PhD, is affiliated with the School of Social Work, University of Haifa,Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905 (E-mail: [email protected]).
Journal of Social Service Research, Vol. 31(3) 2005http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JSSR
© 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.Digital Object Identifier: 10.1300/J079v31n03_04 69
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
08:
51 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
KEYWORDS. Public, for-profit, third sector social welfare organiza-tions, social workers, work attitudes, workplace attitudes
SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND
Social services in Israel have traditionally been provided by publicorganizations, with independent for-profit organizations gradually de-veloping in parallel. The past 20 years, however, have seen the gradualemergence of a third organizational form, the so-called “third sector ser-vices,” resulting from accelerated privatization. This sector indicates anevident shift from public to private management, albeit with public su-pervision, and a massive rise in non-profit organizations. These threemajor organizational groups, public, for-profit, and the third sector,constitute the arena in which social services are conducted.
This rapidly changing organizational environment of the social ser-vices confronts social workers themselves with increasingly complexprofessional challenges to which they have to find adequate responses ifthey want to remain successful in their field. One of the main challengesis that of job security. Personal contracts have begun to replace tenuredpositions, social workers tend to move among organizational groups,and they are increasingly called upon to take an active part in fundrais-ing to help balance or even augment their organization’s budget(Ben-Zion, 1999).
To date there has been very little research on the significance of thesedevelopments on the social workers themselves. In consequence, socialplanners have no means of correctly assessing either the repercussionsof these structural changes on the planning and goals of welfare work ortheir impact in practical terms. The research reported here set out to fillthis lacuna and trace the impact of the accelerating process of privatiza-tion and the massive increase in non-profit organizations on the socialservices sector in Israel. The study compared the work attitudes of so-cial workers in the three main organizational groups of the social ser-vices field: public, for-profit, and the third sector.
Many studies have examined the differences between the thirdsector, for-profit, and public sectors, but differences in the behaviorsand motivations of individual employees, especially social workers,have generally been neglected (Goulet & Frank, 2002). The overallgoal of this study was to create a profile of professional attitudesthrough an in-depth comparison of the three major organizational groups(Mannheim & Papo, 2000).
70 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SERVICE RESEARCH
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
08:
51 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
More in particular, the objectives of the present study were (1) to mapwork attitudes among social workers according to the three relevant or-ganizational groups–public, private, and third sector; and (2) to assessand analyze the correlation between the organization and the work out-comes of the social worker in each organizational group.
As outlined above, welfare organizations can be divided into the fol-lowing three structural categories:
PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS
In the past, the provision of social services was for the most part inthe hands of the government, which was also responsible for their bud-gets. This meant that the welfare organizations themselves were not as-sessed primarily according to economic criteria, which in turn made itpossible to assess their success based on the achievement of social goals(Ames, Grube, & Moore, 2000). One of the major difficulties typical ofthis organizational sector is whether it is possible to maintain work pat-terns that require a high level of bureaucracy, while simultaneously sub-scribing to professional values and goals (Randall & O’Driscoll, 1997).
FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
For-profit welfare agencies are particularly active in the care-givingsector. Their number sharply increased following the Care-Giving Ser-vices Law, enacted in 1996. Theoretically, cooperation between thegovernment and the for-profit sector allows strict limitations to beplaced on the cost of the services and fosters a drive for efficientchanges.
THE THIRD SECTOR
The third sector consists of (a) privatized organizations and (b) allnon-profit or non-governmental organizations. Prompted by the finan-cial, social, and political upheavals of the 1980s in Israel, many welfareagencies experienced a time of crisis (Hasenfeld, 1989). Part of the so-lution was structural, i.e., to place welfare work in the hands of privaterather than public organizations while maintaining public supervision(Gidron, 1997). This arrangement of course entails the risk that the goal
Anat Freund 71
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
08:
51 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
of profit seeking will take priority over that of high quality service(Hasenfeld, 1989).
Organizational theories generally posit that every organization that isnot a public or a private for-profit organization may be categorized as athird sector organization. As for determining what this organizationalgroup is, rather than what it is not, organizational theories provide noclear-cut explanations or definitions. Research interest in the third sec-tor has been growing more rapidly in Israel than in any other countryover the past two decades because of its important economic, social, andpolitical implications. Today this sector in Israel consists of about30,000 different organizations (Gidron, 1997 ; Gidron & Katz, 2001).
WORK COMMITMENT–FIVE UNIVERSAL FORMS
Recent studies have highlighted the importance of exploring interre-lations among different forms of work commitment (Cohen, 1999;Morrow, 1993; Randall & Cote, 1991), and their association with workoutcomes (Carson, Carson, Roe, Birkenmeier, & Phillips, 1999; Cohen,2000). The rationale behind these is that “by failing to consider thelarger web of relationships encompassing the various work commit-ment constructs, researchers may incorrectly identify the strength anddirection of the relationship between these constructs” (Randall & Cote,1991, p. 194).
Morrow, in her seminal study The Theory and Measurement of WorkCommitment (1993), took an essential step towards advancing researchon work commitment, for which she set out precisely to create a morevalidated and generalized concept (Carmeli & Freund, 2003). She didso by concentrating on five fundamental constructs of work commit-ment, which she called universal forms of work commitment. They arethe Protestant Work Ethic, Career Commitment, Job Involvement, Or-ganizational Commitment, Continuance and Affective Commitment(Morrow, 1993).
The importance of attributive work styles for the organization hasbeen noted in many studies (Karen & Hopkins, 2002). An employeewho is committed to the organization and who is satisfied with his/herjob will presumably serve his/her clients better. In these organizations itis difficult to develop economic or any other measurements to assess theworkers output. Only by measuring the attributive styles that the workeradopts toward his/her organization and position/role can we learn abouthis/her ability to provide adequate service.
72 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SERVICE RESEARCH
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
08:
51 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
JOB SATISFACTION
There is a broad range of literature on the influence of job satisfactionon work outcomes (e.g., Hochwarter, Perrewe, Ferris, & Brymer, 1999;Dormann & Zape, 2001). What is missing, however, is an evaluation ofthe relationships between joint commitment constructs, job satisfaction,and work outcomes regarding the three organizational groups understudy here (Koslowsky, 1991).
WORK OUTCOMES
Usually, the clients of welfare services were perceived as weak peo-ple who lacked the ability to demand adequate professional service. Foryears the perception that welfare organizations provide “poor servicefor poor people” accompanied these organizations.
Recently this perception has changed. Nowadays welfare organiza-tions function with regard to effectiveness, adequate service, and otherconcepts taken from economic-organizational perspectives. It is impor-tant to understand how these changes affected the social worker’s attrib-utive work styles in different welfare organizations, and what we canlearn from these changes about the way welfare organizations work. Inaddition, numerous studies have dealt with the five obligations accord-ing to Morrow (Morrow, 1993) as a measure of the worker’s ability toprovide good, professional service (Christina, 2001; Hodson, 2002).The assessment of role performance and good-citizenship behavior inan organization were found in a number of studies to constitute organi-zational output because these attributive styles reflect the worker’s per-ception of his/her job in the organization, not only his/her feelings.
JOB PERFORMANCE
The current study treated job performance as the key measure of or-ganizational performance (Pearce & Porter, 1986). Several require-ments have been described as necessary for an organization to achieveits goals. One is the evaluation of organizational performance, includ-ing the organization’s ability to practically achieve its goals, producequality work at high organizational levels, and keep pace with theschedule determined by the organization (Joe, 1996). Another majormeasure of organizational performance is employees’ ability to assess
Anat Freund 73
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
08:
51 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
their own personal performance. The job performance model was foundto be the most adequate in social work as regards the organizational per-formance of social workers (Sum, 1998).
ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR (OCB)
In general, OCB stands for behaviors that do not fall within an em-ployee’s formal job definition and that are not required by an organiza-tion’s normal reward system (Organ, 1990). Not only does OCBcontribute to achieving organizational goals, it has also been found toencourage other members of the organization (Becker, 1992) therebyhelping to improve the way the work teams and the social systems oper-ate within the organization (Bateman & Organ, 1983).
OCB can be divided into two major aspects (Organ & Paine, 1999).OCB Altruism is behavior directed toward a certain person in the orga-nization, as in supporting and assisting another team member or helpinga new worker. OCB Compliance is behavior directed toward the wholeorganization, not specifically toward one person (Organ, 1990).
ORGANIZATIONAL REPUTATION
Organizational Reputation refers to outsiders’ beliefs about what dis-tinguishes an organization, and to the organization members’ own viewsof outsiders’ beliefs (McDonald, 1995). Each member’s view of the orga-nization’s external image may or may not match the reputation of the or-ganization as it is reflected in the minds of outsiders (Mor, 2000).
WITHDRAWAL INTENTIONS
Workers’ intentions to leave the organization appear in the researchliterature as a mediating factor between work attitudes and actual rota-tion (Wiener & Vardi, 1980). A worker’s intention to leave an organiza-tion successively traverses mere thoughts of quitting the organization,the search for alternatives in another organization, and statements of in-tent made by the worker indicating a desire to withdraw from the orga-nization (Inglehart, 1990). Only after passing through all these stagesdoes the worker actually leave the organization (Jaros, Jermier,Koehler, & Sincich, 1993; Tett & Meyer, 1993).
74 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SERVICE RESEARCH
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
08:
51 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
DETAILED HYPOTHESES
The first hypothesis of this study expected no difference in the rela-tionship between the Protestant Work Ethic and the type of organiza-tion. The Protestant Work Ethic (PWE) is defined as the extent to whichone believes in the importance of hard work and that leisure and excessmoney are not good things (Morrow, 1993: 3). According to this defini-tion, we did not expect PWE to be affected by the organization type.
The second hypothesis concerned organizational commitment, whichwe expected to be related to organizationally-oriented behaviors and atti-tudes. We expected to find that affective commitment was related lessstrongly to the public organization sector and more strongly to thefor-profit and third sector organization. Continuance commitment wouldbe related more strongly to public organizations and less strongly to eitherfor-profit or third sector organizations (Saks, Mudrack, & Ashford, 1996).
Our third hypothesis was more specific: We posited that the attrac-tion of the present job and search intentions behavior represented moregeneral attitudes. An employee would develop a general approachrather than a compelling attitude toward the possibility of changing em-ployment. Therefore, the attraction of the present job and the intent toseek a better career were expected to be related more strongly to thefor-profit or third sector organization and less to public organization(Cunha & Cooper, 2002).
Hypothesis 1a. The Protestant Work Ethic will not vary accordingto the type of the organization.
Hypothesis 1b. Affective commitment will be greater in for-profitand third sector organizations than in public organizations. Thecontinuance commitment will be greater in public organizationsthan in for-profit and third sector organizations.
Hypothesis 1c. There is a relation between the type of organiza-tion, job involvement, and career commitment, such that workers’career commitment and job involvement will be stronger in privateand third sector organizations than in public organizations.
Locke (1969: 314) defined job satisfaction and dissatisfaction as“complex emotional reactions to the job.” Conceptualizing job satisfac-tion as “feeling or affective responses to facets of the situation” (Smith,Kendall, & Hulin, 1969: 6) suggests that job satisfaction is a very fragile
Anat Freund 75
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
08:
51 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
variable. As such, job satisfaction is expected to be influenced by the typeof organization (Carson et al., 1999), which constitutes a much more du-rable variable. We expected that for-profit workers would be the mostsatisfied with their jobs, and that public workers would be less satisfied.
Hypothesis 2. There is a relation between the type of organizationand job satisfaction, such that workers’ job satisfaction will begreater in for-profit and third sector organizations than in publicorganizations.
Furthermore, the type of organization was expected to be related towork outcomes, because of the influence of the organization’s perceivedexternal prestige on work performance (Carmeli & Freund, 2002). Thus,the present study expected that work outcomes would differ according tothe type of organization. We anticipated that organizational citizenshipbehavior, organizational reputation, and job performance would behigher in third sector or for-profit organizations than in public organiza-tions. In addition, more withdrawal intentions would be found in publicorganizations than in third sector or for-profit organizations (Schappe,1998).
This assumption is based on a number of studies on organizations(John, 2001). Those results showed that public management organiza-tions entailed more bureaucracy and caused more attrition, and theworkers of these organizations generally exhibited lower outputs andhigher quitting tendencies.
Hypothesis 3. There is a differential relation between the type oforganization and work outcomes, such that turnover intentionswill be lower, and organizational reputation, job performance, andOCB will be higher, in for-profit and third sector organizationsthan in public organizations.
MEASURES
Research Tools
The major tool in this study was a closed, self-reporting question-naire. All the variables were checked on a scale between 1 and 7, inwhich all items sampled were measured on a seven-point scale rangingfrom 1 = “strongly disagree” to 7 = “strongly agree.” Every variable had a
76 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SERVICE RESEARCH
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
08:
51 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
different number of items, as detailed below. All variables were vali-dated by a series of standardization processes grounded in the literature.In addition, this study is accompanied by a report explaining its signifi-cant contribution to the field of social work (Carmeli & Freund, 2002).
THE COMMITMENT MODEL
Career commitment has been defined as “one’s attitude toward one’sprofession or vocation” (Blau, 1985, p. 20). It was assessed by a measuredeveloped by Blau (1985) (a = 0.86). A sample item is: “I definitely wantto pursue and develop a career in the field of social work.”
Job involvement is “a belief that relates to one’s present job situationand tends to be a function of how much the job can satisfy one’s presentneeds” (Kanungo, 1982, p. 342). Job involvement was estimated by ameasure developed by Kanungo (1982), which consists of ten items (a =0.83). A sample item is: “Most of my goals are associated with my job.”
Organizational commitment. One element of this construct, namelyContinuance commitment, has been defined as “the extent to which em-ployees feel committed to their organizations by virtue of the costs thatthey feel are associated with leaving” (Meyer & Allen, 1984, p. 375). Theother element, Affective commitment, is “positive feelings of identifica-tion with, attachment to, and involvement in, the work organization”(Meyer & Allen, 1984, p. 375). Employees with strong continuance com-mitment remain because they need to and those with strong affectivecommitment remain because they want to (Allen & Meyer, 1990; 1996).The measures of organizational commitment used for continuance com-mitment (eight items) (a = 0.81), and those for affective commitment(eight items) (a = 0.86) were collected, assessed, and developed by Allenand Meyer (1990). A sample item of continuance commitment is: “It willbe very hard for me to leave the organization now, even if I want to.” Asample item of affective commitment is: “I will be very happy to spendthe rest of my career in this organization.”
Protestant Work Ethic (PWE) has been defined as the extent to whichone believes that hard work is important and that leisure and excessmoney are detrimental (Morrow, 1993). PWE was assessed using ameasure developed by Mirels and Garrett (1971), which consists of 19items (a = 0.73). A sample item is: “Our society will have fewer prob-lems if people have less spare time.”
Anat Freund 77
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
08:
51 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
JOB SATISFACTION
Job satisfaction was estimated by a measure employed by Tsui,Egan, and O’Reilly (1992), consisting of six items rated on a seven-point scale (a = 0.79). A sample item is: “I am very satisfied with mydirect manager/supervisor.”
WORK OUTCOMES
Job performance was evaluated by a measure developed by Pearceand Porter (1986) and used by Black and Porter (1991) (a = 0.93). Onesample item asks participants to rate themselves in terms of their “abil-ity to get along with others.” Although difficulties with self-enhance-ment, objectivity, and reliability could be encountered, Mabe and West(1982) showed that self-evaluation measures were more valid than priorresearch assumed (see also Hochwarter et al., 1999).
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) was tested using the scaleof Smith, Organ, and Near (1983). It includes OCB’s two components,Altruism and Compliance, and has seven items for each (a = 0.75). Onesample item is: “I am punctual.”
Organizational Reputation is a measure based on Fortune’s AnnualSurvey of America’s Most Admired Corporations, which has been pub-lished since 1982 (Ames et al., 2000; Vanderberghe, 1999). The attrib-utes included are: quality of management, quality of products orservices, and community and environmental responsibility (a = 0.78).A sample item is: “In my organization, management works to improveworkers’ skills and strives to keep talented people on board.”
Turnover intentions were estimated using a measure developed byMobley, Griffeth, Hand, and Meglino (1979) that has obtained empiri-cal validation (a = 0.90) in other studies (e.g., Miller, Katerberg &Hulin, 1979; Michaels & Spector, 1982). A sample item is: “I think a lotabout leaving the organization.”
DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
Respondents were asked to indicate their demographic variables, in-cluding personal as well as organizational variables. Personal variables
78 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SERVICE RESEARCH
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
08:
51 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
were: family status; education: B.A or M.A. degree; gender; age; tenurein the organization; and income.
Organizational variables were: type of organization (third sector, pub-lic, or for-profit); work method (case management, community work, orgeneralist); workload (full or part-time); status in the organization (regu-lar employee, team leader, manager); and contract work (permanent ortemporary personal contract).
The categories of demographic variables isolate permanent employ-ment contract versus temporary employment contract from part-timejob versus full-time job.
RESULTS
Participating organizations were randomly chosen from a list of wel-fare organizations provided by the Ministry of Labor and Welfare. Thebasic requirement in compiling the list was that all organizations on itprovide generally the same service so that there would be no differencesin the type of clients and the type of service they received; such a differ-ence might influence the results. The initial list consisted of about 200organizations, of which 76 were chosen randomly. There were 43 pub-lic management organizations and 18 third sector organizations. Therest were private organizations.
The target population invited to participate in the study were all 600social workers employed in the three sectors of welfare organizations inIsrael. All received the questionnaire and 515 usable questionnaireswere returned, a response rate of 85%, as follows: 88 from social work-ers at for-profit organizations (17%), 299 from social workers at publicorganizations (58%), and 128 from social workers in the third sector(25%). Of these 515 social workers, 86.8% were females. The averageage of respondents was 36.8 years, and the mean period of tenure in theorganization was 6.6 years. Managerial positions were held by 4.6% ofthe respondents, 16.8% were team leaders, and the remainder wererank-and-file employees. Married employees comprised 69.4% of therespondents, 67.8% held a B.A. degree, and 32.8% an M.A. degree. Ofthe total number of respondents, 51.2% worked full time and 64.1%held a permanent contract.
Table 1 presents the intercorrelations among work attitudes and workoutcomes in the survey. It also shows descriptive statistics and reliabilitiesof the research variables. The findings show good reliabilities for all the re-
Anat Freund 79
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
08:
51 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
TA
BLE
1.D
escr
iptiv
eS
tatis
tics,
Rel
iabi
litie
san
dC
orre
latio
nsA
mon
gth
eR
esea
rch
Var
iabl
esin
Gen
eral
(Rel
iabi
litie
sin
Par
enth
eses
)
Mea
nS
.D.
12
34
56
78
910
1.C
aree
rco
mm
itmen
t5.
181.
04(.
86)
2.Jo
bin
volv
emen
t3.
85.8
5.5
59**
*(.
79)
3.A
ffect
ive
orga
niza
tiona
lcom
mitm
ent
4.66
.94
.501
***
.522
***
(.78
)
4.C
ontin
uanc
eor
gani
zatio
nalc
omm
itmen
t3.
82.9
3–.
247*
*–.
115*
*–.
126*
*(.
68)
5.P
rote
stan
tWor
kE
thic
3.67
.61
.149
***
.364
***
.105
*.0
45(.
73)
6.Jo
bsa
tisfa
ctio
n4.
33.8
6.4
65**
*.5
27**
*.7
81**
*.2
09**
*.1
20**
(.81
)
7.Jo
bpe
rfor
man
ce5.
47.8
4.1
45**
*.2
12**
*.2
50**
*–.
132*
*.0
32.3
62**
*(.
93)
8.O
rgan
izat
iona
lCiti
zens
hip
Beh
avio
r5.
13.7
0.4
59**
*.4
72**
*.5
33**
*.1
58**
*.1
43**
.566
***
.434
***
(.79
)
9.O
rgan
izat
iona
lRep
utat
ion
4.72
.86
.434
***
.485
***
.734
***
.181
***
.162
***
.837
***
.311
***
.537
***
(.71
)
10.W
ithdr
awal
Inte
ntio
n2.
401.
17–.
572*
**–.
429*
**–.
662*
**–.
315*
**–.
070
–.69
0***
–.17
5***
–.44
7***
–.61
0***
(.91
)
*P<
0.05
;**P
<0.
01;*
**P
<0.
001
N=
515
80
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
08:
51 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
search measures; each of them exceeded the value of a = 0.68. Almost allthe correlations outlined in the research model were significant. The find-ings also revealed acceptable reliabilities regarding the research variables.None of the correlations between work attitudes and work outcome vari-ables exceeded .837, suggesting that no problem of multicollinearity ex-isted (Nunnaly, 1978).
Table 2 displays the differences across sectors on selected demo-graphic characteristics and working situations. The third sector had thehighest rates of part-time workers and social work generalists. The pub-lic sector employed more permanent employees while the for-profitsector employed a large numbers of social workers working under apersonal contract.
The set of Hypotheses 1 expected that the commitment forms wouldrelate differentially to the type of organization, with the exception ofHypothesis 1a, which predicted that the Protestant work ethic would not
Anat Freund 81
TABLE 2. Descriptive Statistics Among the Research Variables in Public, For-Profit, and Third Sector Organizations
PublicN = 299
For-ProfitN = 88
Third SectorN = 128
TotalN = 515
c2
Gender Male 12.3% 14.9% 13.6% 13.2% 0.857
Female 87.7% 85.1% 86.4% 86.8%
Family status Unmarried 27.4% 18.5% 19.4% 24.3%0.002***
Married 68.4% 77.8% 67.6% 69.4%
Divorced 4.2% 3.7% 13.0% 6.3%
Education B.A. 68.4% 68.7% 61.9% 67.2% 0.367
M.A. 31.6% 31.3% 38.1% 32.8%
Method CaseWork
46.4% 47.5% 33.9% 47.7%
0.076*Community
Work11.6% 7.5% 15.3% 11.9%
Generalist 42.0% 45.0% 50.8% 40.4%
Working Part Full time 54.3% 62.9% 38.9% 51.2% 0.000***
Part time 45.7% 37.1% 61.1% 48.8%
Status RegularEmployee
83.9% 67.1% 74.2% 78.6%
0.006***TeamLeader
13.1% 26.8% 18.5% 16.8%
Manager 3.0% 6.1% 7.3% 4.6%
Contract Permanent 71.4% 43.6% 57.9% 64.1%
0.000***Temporary 13.3% 5.1% 7.1% 10.3%
PersonalContract
15.3% 51.3% 35.0% 25.6%
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
08:
51 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
differ according to type of organization. The data supported these hy-potheses. No significant relation was found between type of organiza-tion and the Protestant work ethic (see Table 3). The other four variablesof the commitment model demonstrated a significant correlation withtype of organization (see Table 3).
The first part of hypothesis 1b predicted that affective commitmentwould be more strongly related to for-profit and third sector organiza-tions than to public sector organizations. The findings shown in Table 3evinced strong support for this hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1c predicted that job involvement and career commit-ment would relate differentially to type of organization. The data pro-vided only partial support for this hypothesis. The degree of careercommitment varied according to the organization type, whereas the jobinvolvement data showed differences only between the third sector andthe other two organization types.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that the relationship between job satisfactionand type of organization would be stronger in for-profit and third sectororganizations than in the public sector. Here too, the data supportedonly part of the hypothesis. Public and third sector organizations provednot to differ from for-profit ones. Significant differences in job satisfac-tion were found only between public and for-profit organizations.
Note finally that hypothesis 3 obtained some support from the find-ings set down in Table 3. In fact, these findings provided strong supportfor differential correlations between organization type and organiza-
82 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SERVICE RESEARCH
TABLE 3. Mean Scores Among the Research Variables in General, Third Sector,Public and For-Profit Welfare Organizations
PublicN = 295
For-ProfitN = 84
Third SectorN = 126
TotalN = 506
ANOVAtest
Career Commitment 4.8 5.0 5.2 4.9 0.004***
Job Involvement 4.2 4.3 4.6 4.3 0.000***
Affective Organizational Commitment 4.4 4.8 5.0 4.6 0.000***
Continuance Organizational Commitment 3.9 3.6 3.7 3.8 0.018*
Protestant Work Ethic 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.7 0.776
Job Satisfaction 4.8 5.0 5.2 4.9 0.000***
Job Performance 5.5 5.4 5.5 5.5 0.706
Organizational Citizenship Behavior 5.0 5.2 5.3 5.1 0.005**
Organizational Reputation 4.6 4.9 4.9 4.7 0.000***
Withdrawal Intention 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.4 0.011*
Tenure 7.6 5.4 5.0 6.6 0.000***
Age 36.6 37.7 37.1 36.8 0.610
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
08:
51 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
tional citizenship behavior, as well as between organizational reputa-tion and withdrawal intention but not between organization type and jobperformance (see Table 3). Organizational citizenship behavior had adifferential correlation with public and third sector organizations, butnot with for-profit organizations. As this hypothesis suggested, wefound differential correlations between organizational reputation andboth for-profit and third sector organizations, but no such correlationwith public sector organizations. The data strongly supported this find-ing. Finally, withdrawal intention did not differ for third sector andfor-profit organizations, but did demonstrate a differential correlationwith public organizations.
DISCUSSION
This study examined the relationship between the type of organiza-tion–public, third sector, and for-profit–and work attitudes. It was de-signed to investigate and compare this relationship in three organizations.In the literature, the need for a cross-comparative analysis of multiplecommitments and their correlates has been mentioned occasionally(Goulet & Frank, 2002), but has rarely been applied. This study re-sponded to this need and has provided an important insight into the rela-tionship between work attitudes and the type of organization in anattempt to increase our understanding of the implications of a changingorganizational environment in welfare organizations (Karen, 2002).
Generally, all the hypotheses were supported by the data. Researchon the population of social workers in particular, and welfare workers ingeneral, is just beginning. So far, most research on the population of so-cial workers has had little to do with the organizational behavior of thisgroup. The present study advances efforts in this regard and reveals theorganizational behavior of social workers, by comparing the three orga-nizational groups that currently form the organizational field of socialwork: public, for-profit, and third sector organizations. Its main contri-bution lies in its survey of social workers’ job attitudes and organiza-tional attitudes nationwide (Gidron, 1997).
A comparison of demographic variables reveals that there were nogender, age, or education differences in the social workers at all of theorganizations. This finding showed us to see that in essence the socialworkers constituted a very homogeneous population and that the differ-ences related to organization type. Concerning education, no specificorganization apparently required the acquisition of broader knowledge;
Anat Freund 83
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
08:
51 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
rather, we may assume that the motivation arose from the social worker.The differences in regard to work methods must also be interpreted withcare, because attitude differences between community workers andcase-workers have been shown to be minor (Goulet & Frank, 2002). Soin respect of this factor we may cautiously assume that the responsescollected in this study reflect the attitudes of the individual workersrather than those of the organization.
Meaningful differences were found concerning seniority in the orga-nization, employment status, part-time positions, and contract workers.In Israel, social workers are engaged according to payment agreements,backed by a strong and well organized workers’ association. Neverthe-less, the employing organization carries much weight, a circumstancethat gives rise to questions of job security for the social worker (Cohen,2000).
A more precise examination reveals that the greatest differencesamong the social workers at the three types of organizations, which con-cern part-time job positions, are between for-profit and third sector or-ganizations. At the for-profit organizations, about two thirds of theworkers (62.9%) reported working full time, whereas in the third sectororganizations, only about one third (38.9%) reported working full time.The literature relates full-time employment to high commitment, desireto advance in the organization, and commitment to efficient perfor-mance. In such cases, organizations that employ social workers have tobe aware of the organizational cost of having workers who invest fewerresources in the workplace. However, it is of crucial significance thatthe majority of social workers are women, who because of their life val-ues are interested in only a part-time job. Therefore, working part-timemay have a positive effect on the workers, and at least in the short termcan be an advantage to organizations. This issue should be investigatedfurther in relation to its effects on the organization.
As regards employment status, most of the study participants ap-peared to be rank-and-file social workers in all organizations. Yet dif-ferences between the organizations did exist. We expected to find moresenior and junior managers in public organizations, which are perceivedas bureaucratic, than in other organizations. The interesting finding wasthat public organizations had the fewest senior and junior managers,which might indicate that public organizations are efficient and thatthey don’t burden the organization with too many administrators. Still,caution is required with the findings. First, the public organizations thatwere studied are field and not staff organizations. If staff organizationshad been included in the study the results presumably would have been
84 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SERVICE RESEARCH
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
08:
51 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
different, and the manager-worker ratio would have changed. Further-more, third sector and for-profit organizations in the field of welfare areusually very small and employ few people; therefore, the man-ager-worker ratio is larger. In addition, recall that in most for-profit or-ganizations the manager is also the profiting owner, whereas in thirdsector organizations, the manager is merely another employee.
As for type of employment, in public organizations most of the work-ers were found to be permanent employees, while in for-profit organiza-tions less than half of them were, and the rest were employed by personalcontract (Ben-Zion, 1999). This finding is interesting in a few ways. First,although we might have assumed that almost all the workers in public or-ganizations would be permanent, in fact only 71.4% proved to be so. Thisfinding indicates that public organizations too are gradually moving frompermanent to temporary contracts. A careful conclusion might be drawn,namely, that a decline in the number of permanent workers will affectworkers’ job performance. Many studies have found a relation betweenjob permanency and lower output (Cunha & Cooper, 2002). This findingcomplements an earlier one presented in this paper regarding the man-ager-worker ratio, and indicates that for the public organization to be-come profitable there should be considerably fewer managers, whilemore workers should have a personal employment contract. Yet,for-profit organizations are the most profitable, followed by the third sec-tor organizations.
The last meaningful demographic difference in the list is seniority inthe organization. The highest seniority rate was found in the public or-ganizations, which was significant compared with for-profit or thirdsector organizations. This may be due to various reasons. For instance,because public organizations offer a greater likelihood of promotion,these organizations are bigger and provide more opportunities for em-ployment development. Nevertheless, the general observation is thatsocial workers do not stay long in the same organization, but moveabout as much among organizations as among different organizationalgroups (Hasenfeld, 1989).
Obviously, we cannot learn from a sole case study about the long-term influences of an organization on the social worker’s self-image.Therefore it is important to continue testing the demographic features ofsocial workers in different organizations in an attempt to comprehendthe meaning of the differences between them.
Another finding of the present study regarding job attitudes showedthat the way that social workers perceived themselves was not influ-enced by the organization they were in. The participants in the present
Anat Freund 85
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
08:
51 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
study did not demonstrate differences in the Protestant Work Ethic or inthe job performance evaluation. Therefore, we may assume that thispopulation perceived itself as having an average but stable work ethic.In respect of workers’ job attitudes, no difference was derived from thekind of organization in which they invested their personal resources.The workers always felt that they possessed a certain work ethic andthey valued their own contribution to the organization (Ben-Zion,1999).
Taking this into account, it would be interesting to discern differ-ences associated with the organization. Affective commitment, whichcauses the worker to adhere to goals and organizational values, wasstronger among employees of third sector organizations than amongthose of public or for-profit organizations. Workers in third sector orga-nizations evinced greater belief in the organization and its objectives,and they also believed that these objectives were similar to their ownpersonal-professional goals (Hopkins, 2002).
By contrast, the professional goals of social workers coincided lesswith those of the public welfare organizations than with those of eitherprivate or third sector organizations. The literature on the subject identi-fies distinct correlations between affective commitment and a long listof work results, such as job performance, efficiency, and withdrawal in-tentions. Therefore, in third sector organizations more efficient workersand a greater tendency to stay in the organization will presumably befound than in other organizations. This finding is in line with the factthat in Israel, like everywhere else in the world, public welfare organi-zations are shifting toward the third sector as a result of privatizationprocesses (Gidron & Katz, 2001). This shift, it is believed, enables or-ganizations to handle more efficiently the workers’–and perhaps eventhe clients’–professional objectives.
Regarding continuance organizational commitment, the differencesin this area appeared to be very small, though significant. This may beattributed to the salary and other rewards offered to social workers ingeneral, regardless of the organization. The salary and the fringe bene-fits are usually relatively low; therefore, there is a feeling that the work-ers are not satisfied with them regardless of the organization. Given thegeneral view of both affective and continuance organizational commit-ment, we can assume that social workers are attached to the organiza-tion by virtue of their belief in professional objectives rather thanemolument. This finding is in keeping with the professional ethics, jobperception, and public commitment to clients, which characterizes thepopulation of social workers (Carmeli & Freund, 2002).
86 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SERVICE RESEARCH
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
08:
51 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
Also on the subject of organizational commitment, workers belong-ing to the third sector seemed to be the most satisfied with their job,while those in the public organizations were the least satisfied. It wouldbe plausible to assume that here too bureaucracy characterizes publicorganizations: thus, the public organization’s workers’ feeling that itwas hard to realize personal-professional goals must have had a nega-tive effect on their job satisfaction. In contrast, in third sector organiza-tions, a more pliable bureaucratic structure, most likely allowed forgreater personal-professional accomplishments and rendered relativelyhigher scores in job satisfaction (Schappe, 1998).
The last attitude group relates to work outcomes. As regards organi-zational reputation, social workers were found to perceive public orga-nizations as having the lowest reputation of all. This finding matchesthe results for job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment.Traditionally, the organizational image of public welfare organizationswas low both with the workers themselves and with clients or society(Hopkins, 2002). An attempt to deal with this image was made by amassive shift into the third sector, with the idea that this would improvethe image of welfare organizations (Ames, Grube, & Moore, 2000). Acertain improvement of the image can be seen, for the organizationalreputation of third sector organizations differed significantly from thatof public sector organizations. Social workers in either third sector orfor-profit organizations felt that they worked in organizations with abetter reputation than that found in the public sector (Ben-Zion, 1999).The literature also shows that the workers’ perception of their organiza-tion’s reputation also affects the way clients perceive the organization(Carmeli & Freund, 2002).
The issue of withdrawal intentions and the desire to move to anotherorganization elicited two interesting findings. First, the differences be-tween groups were minor, albeit significant. Social workers tended toremain in their organization, although they might have felt that theirwages were not high enough and that organizational objectives did notaccord with their own. This may be explained by the fact that the profes-sional alternatives available would be similar to the existing ones, andthat there were fewer alternatives because of economic conditions. An-other explanation might be that Israeli society is still more conservativethan other Western societies, and occupational mobility is perceived assomething threatening instead of positive (Cohen, 2000).
The findings could be tested conceptually in two principal ways:analysis of the study’s population on the personal level and on the orga-nizational level. On the personal level, both demographically and in
Anat Freund 87
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
08:
51 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
terms of job attitudes a few issues seem to pertain to social workersalone. Age, gender, and education proved similar in every organizationthat employed social workers, whereas in job attitudes, the ProtestantWork Ethic and job performance were not found to differ across organi-zations (Mannheim & Papo, 2000).
These findings illustrate that with the exception of organizational dif-ferences, i.e., viewing the personal aspects in isolation, the socialworker has a definite attitude to professional output, the job, and theprofession. These findings have much to do with the professional ethicsof social work, and they support the assumption that social workers inevery organization have a uniform work ethic. The same findings pro-vide the initial, though not a sufficient, basis for the continuation of theprivatization process of welfare organizations, based on the idea that so-cial workers will not abandon their professional level and ethics, re-gardless of the type of organization (Gidron, 1997).
Nevertheless, it is necessary to test the type of organizations, espe-cially the differences between them. An interesting difference regardingreputation perception and affective organizational commitment wasnoted. Such important findings also indicate that the process of privat-ization is attaining its goal (Mor, 2000). A worker who feels that the or-ganization meets his/her standards in personal-professional objectives,and also feels that the organization has a good reputation, will be morededicated and will produce a larger output. This change is especiallymeaningful in welfare organizations that have a poor professional im-age, weak clients, and a tempestuous organizational environment. Theshift towards the third sector, according to the results of the presentstudy, does serve to change this image. Nevertheless, these findings areto be interpreted with caution. First, they are only initial findings, espe-cially those concerning Israel (Mannheim & Papo, 2000). Therefore, itis necessary to continue research on social workers’ population regard-ing the multiple changes in the structure of welfare organizations. Sec-ond, this is a study of attitudes, so that its results are to be viewed withcaution. However, the fact that the sample was large and random, andthat three groups were compared might advantageously have counter-balanced the fact that it is a study of attitudes. Future studies would dowell to gather data concerning the clients of these three groups, whichmay validate the findings of the present study.
Finally, the reader is cautioned to recognize the limitations of thisstudy. The study is based on self-report data, and thus it may carry a biasof general method variance. However, validated and usable measureswere employed to reduce the possibility of bias in general method vari-
88 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SERVICE RESEARCH
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
08:
51 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
ance. Furthermore, using participants that have been chosen at random,as well as the participants’ composition (regular employees, teamleader, managers) also reduced the probability of bias in general methodvariance. Finally, the data were obtained from social workers whoworked in various welfare organizations; this raised the possibility thatthe participants used different criteria in their evaluation of work atti-tudes.
REFERENCES
Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, con-tinuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of OccupationalPsychology, 63, 1-18.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitmentto the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Be-havior, 49 (3), 252-276.
Ames, G.M., Grube, J.W., & Moore, R.S. (2000). Social control and workplace drink-ing norms: A comparison of two organizational cultures. Journal of Studies on Al-cohol, 2, 203-219.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The rela-tionship between affect and employee “citizenship.” Academy of ManagementJournal, 26, 587-595.
Becker, H.S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Soci-ology, 66 (1), 33-42.
Ben-Zion, C. (1999). The willingness to seek help: Its role in social workers’ profes-sional commitment. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 26, 21-35.
Black, J., & Porter, L. (1991). Managerial behavior and job performance: A successfulmanager in Los Angeles may not succeed in Hong Kong. Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies, 22, 99-114.
Blau, G.J. (1985). The measurement and prediction of career commitment. Journal ofOccupational Psychology, 58, 277-288.
Carmeli, A., & Freund, A. (2002). The impact of work and workplace attitudes on or-ganizational reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 5(1), 51-70.
Carmeli, A., & Freund, A. (2003). An empirical assessment: Reconstructed model for fiveuniversal forms of work commitment. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 708-725.
Carson, K.D., Carson, P. P., Roe, C.W., Birkenmeier, B.J., & Phillips, J.S. (1999). Fourcommitment profiles and their relationships to empowerment, service recovery, andwork attitudes. Public Personnel Management, 28 (1), 1-13.
Christina, L. S. (2001). Work status and organizational citizenship behavior: A fieldstudy of restaurant employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(5), 517-536.
Cohen, A. (1999). Relationships among five forms of commitment: An empirical as-sessment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 285-308.
Anat Freund 89
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
08:
51 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
Cohen, A. (2000). The relationship between commitment forms and work outcomes: Acomparison of three models. Human Relations, 53 (3), 387-417.
Cunha, C.C., & Cooper, C.L. (2002). Does privatization affect corporate culture andemployee wellbeing? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17 (1), 21-49.
Dormann, C., & Zape, D. (2001). Job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of stabilities. Jour-nal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 483-504.
Gidron, B. (1997). The evaluation of Israel’s third sector: The role of predominant ide-ology. Volutes, 8(1), 11-38.
Gidron, B., & Katz, H. (2001). Patterns of government funding to third sector organiza-tions as reflecting a de facto policy and their implications on the structure of the sec-tor in Israel. International Journal of Public Administration, 24(11), 1133-1159.
Goulet, L. R., & Frank, M.L. (2002). Organizational commitment across three sectors:Public, non-profit, and for-profit. Public Personal Management, 31, 201-210.
Hasenfeld, Y. (1989). Administrative leadership in the social services: The next chal-lenge. Administration in Social Work, 13 (entire issue).
Hochwarter, W.A., Perrewe, P.L., Ferris, G.R., & Brymer, R.A. (1999). Job satisfac-tion and performance: The moderating effects of value attainment and affective dis-position. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 296-313.
Hodson, R. (2002). Management citizenship behavior and its consequences. Work andOccupations, 29(1), 64-96.
Hopkins, K.M. (2002). Organizational citizenship in social service agencies. Adminis-tration in Social Work, 26(2), 1-15.
Inglehart, A.P. (1990). Turnover in the social services: Turning over to the benefits. So-cial Services Review, 64, 649-657.
Jaros, S. J., Jermier, J. M., Koehler, J. W., & Sincich, T. (1993). Effects of continuance,affective and moral commitment on the withdrawal process: An evaluation of eightstructural equation models. Academy of Management, 36, 951-995.
Joe, H. (1996). Great ideas revisited: Looking back: 1996. Training and Development,50, 52-54.
John, J.R. (2001). Moral reasoning as a determinant of organizational citizenship be-havior: A study in the public accounting profession. Journal of Business Ethics,33(3), 233-244.
Kanungo, R.N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 67 (3), 341-349.
Koslowsky, M. (1991). A longitudinal analysis of job satisfaction, commitment and in-tention to leave. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 40, 405-415.
Locke, E.A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and HumanPerformance, 4, 309-336.
Mabe III, P., & West, S. (1982). Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review andmeta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 280-296.
Mannheim, B., & Papo, E. (2000). Differences in organizational commitment and itscorrelates among professional and nonprofessional occupational welfare workers.Administration in Social Work, 23, 119-137.
McDonald, C. (1995). The challenge from within: Organizational commitment in non-profit human service organizations. Australian Social Work, 48, 3-11.
90 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SERVICE RESEARCH
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
08:
51 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the ‘side-bet theory’ of organizational com-mitment: Some methodological considerations. Organizational Behavior and Hu-man Performance, 17, 289-298.
Michaels, C. E., & Spector, P. E. (1982). Causes of employee turnover: A test of the Mobley,Griffeth, Hand and Meglino model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67 (1), 53-59.
Miller, H. E., Katerberg, R., & Hulin, C. L. (1979). Evaluation of the Mobley, Horner andHollingswothmodelof employee turnover.JournalofAppliedPsychology,64 (5),509-517.
Mirels, H.L., & Garrett, J.B. (1971). The Protestant ethic as a personality variable. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 36 (1), 40-44.
Mobley, W. H., Griffeth, R. H., Hand, H. H., & Meglino, B. M. (1979). Review and concep-tual analysis of the employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 493-522.
Mor, B. (2000). Beyond affirmative action: Toward a model of diversity and organizationalinclusion. Administration in Social Work, 23, 47-68.
Morrow, P.C. (1993). The theory and measurement of work commitment. Greenwich, Con-necticut: JAI Press.
Nunnaly, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. (2rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Organ, D.W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. Research
in Organizational Behavior, 12, 43-72.Organ, D.W., & Paine, J.B. (1999). A new kind of performance for industrial and organiza-
tional psychology: Recent contributions to the study of organizational citizenship behavior.International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 14, 337-368.
Organ, D.W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional pre-dictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802.
Pearce, J., & Porter, L. (1986). Employee responses to formal performance appraisal feed-back. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 (2), 211-218.
Randall, M. D., & Cote, J. A. (1991). Interrelationships of work commitment constructs.Work and Occupation, 18, 194-211.
Randall, M.D. & O’Driscoll, M.P. (1997). Affective versus calculative commitment: Humanresource implications. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 606-617.
Saks, A.M., Mudrack, P. E., & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). The relationship between the workethic, job attitudes, intention to quit, and turnover for temporary service employees. Ca-nadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 13, 226-263.
Schappe, S.P. (1998). The influence of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and fair-ness perceptions on organizational citizenship behavior. The Journal of Psychology, 132(3), 277-290.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its na-ture and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663.
Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.H., & Hulin, C.L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in workand retirement: Strategy for the study of attitudes. Chicago: Rand-McNally Company.
Sum, T. (1998). A job performance model for professional social workers. Asia Pacific Jour-nal of Social Work, 8, 51-63.
Tett, R.P., & Meyer, J.P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover in-tention, and turnover: Path analyses on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46(2), 259-293.
Tsui, A.S., Egan, T.D., & O’Reilly III, C.A. (1992). Being different: Relational demogra-phy and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549-579.
Anat Freund 91
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
08:
51 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
Vanderberghe, J. (1999). Organizational culture, person-culture fit, and turnover: A rep-lication in the health care industry. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 175-184.
Weiner, Y., & Vardi, Y. (1980). Relationships between job, organization and work out-comes: An integrative approach. Organizational Behavioral Human Performance,26, 81-96.
RECEIVED: 05/03REVISED: 09/03
ACCEPTED: 10/03
92 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SERVICE RESEARCH
To request single copies of articles from Haworthjournals at only $18.00 each, visit the Haworthwebsite at today!www.HaworthPress.com
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
08:
51 1
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
