Causal ordering of stress, satisfaction and

commitment, and intention to quit: a structural

equations analysis

A.R. Elangovan
Faculty of Business, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Keywords
Staff turnover, Stress,
Job satisfaction, Commitment
Abstract
This study addresses the
confusion prevailing over the
nature of the relationship between
satisfaction and commitment in
regard to employee turnover, and
examines the causal pattern of
relationships among stress,
satisfaction, commitment, and
turnover intentions by employing a
structural equations analysis
approach. The results indicate
that there are strong causal links notion that intention to quit is probably the
between stress and satisfaction
(higher stress leads to lower
satisfaction) and between
satisfaction and commitment
(lower satisfaction leads to lower
commitment), and a reciprocal
relationship between commitment decision to quit. But what about the
and turnover intentions (lower
commitment leads to greater
intentions to quit which, in turn, would argue against the contention that
further lowers commitment).
Received: November 2000
Revised/accepted:
March 2001
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
22/4 [2001] 159±165
# MCB University Press
[ISSN 0143-7739]
Turnover has long been an important area of
research in several disciplines (e.g.
psychology, sociology, economics,
organizational behaviour) (Williams and
Hazer, 1986). The general trend has been
towards developing conceptual models of the
turnover process and, later, subjecting them to
empirical tests. Although researchers have
postulated and identified a number of variables
as being associated with turnover, satisfaction,
commitment and intention to quit have been
generally accepted as important antecedents to
turnover. There is considerable support for the
most important and immediate antecedent of
turnover decisions (Mobley et al., 1979;
Mitchel, 1981; Bluedorn, 1982). Intention to quit
represents an attitudinal orientation or a
cognitive manifestation of the behavioural
antecedents to intentions to quit? While few
intention to quit is the immediate antecedent
to turnover, considerable diversity of opinion
exists concerning the antecedents to intention
to quit. Several models have postulated job
satisfaction and organizational commitment to
be antecedents of turnover (e.g. Williams and
Hazer, 1986; Farkas and Tetrick, 1989; Arnold
and Feldman, 1982). Clegg (1983) contends that
satisfaction and commitment have been the
most frequently investigated components of
affect with regard to turnover decisions.
Although considerable research effort has
been invested in understanding job attitudes
and turnover processes, four major limitations
have stifled progress in this area. First, studies
examining the causal relationship between job
satisfaction and organizational commitment
have been sparse, and their results often
contradictory. For example, Porter et al. (1974)
suggested that satisfaction represents one
specific component of commitment. Later,
Steers (1977) proposed that satisfaction would
The research register for this journal is available at
http://www.mcbup.com/research_registers
probably influence commitment more than
would job characteristics. Meanwhile,
Williams and Hazer (1986) found that
satisfaction causally affects commitment,
while a study by Bateman and Strasser (1984)
showed that commitment is causally
antecedent to satisfaction. On the other hand,
Curry et al. (1986) found no support for either
of the hypothesized causal linkages between
job satisfaction and commitment (i.e. neither
causally affected the other). To add to the
controversy, a study by Farkas and Tetrick
(1989) suggested that the two variables may be
either cyclically or reciprocally related. It is
important that we determine the causal
relationships between these two work attitudes
for several reasons. From a theoretical
standpoint, a causal relationship between the
two variables (either direction) would imply
that studies which omit the relationship or the
relevant variable have employed mis-specified
models, and their results are suspect (Curry et
al., 1986). Also, correct specification of the roles
of variables in absenteeism and turnover
models requires knowledge of correct causal
ordering. From a practical standpoint,
knowledge of the causal ordering has
implications for intervention strategies by
managers to affect commitment and employee
turnover (Curry et al., 1986).
Second, the notion of job satisfaction and
organizational commitment being causally
related has not been incorporated in most
turnover models (Farkas and Tetrick, 1989).
Studies have:
1 failed to include both satisfaction and
commitment in their models;
2 neglected to specify causal relationships
between them; or
3 failed to adequately examine their
antecedents.
For example, satisfaction played a critical
role in affecting intention to quit in a study
by Bluedorn (1979), but organizational
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com/ft

[ 159 ]
A.R. Elangovan
Causal ordering of stress,
satisfaction and commitment,
and intention to quit: a
structural equations analysis
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
22/4 [2001] 159±165
[ 160 ]
commitment was not included. Studies by
Arnold and Feldman (1982) and Michaels
and Spector (1982) included both variables
but their causal relationship was not
considered. Further causal analyses of the
process leading to intentions to quit are
sparse (e.g. Bluedorn, 1979; Bedeian and
Armenakis, 1981). The result has been an
inadequate understanding of the role
played by satisfaction and commitment in
affecting turnover intentions, and
confusion regarding the relationship
between satisfaction and commitment.
Causal analyses of models that include both
satisfaction and commitment, and examine
causal relationships between them are
required to enhance our comprehension of
the turnover process.
Third, the research in this area has also
been criticized for failing to examine the
antecedents of satisfaction and commitment
(point (3) above). One factor that has been
frequently associated with both work
attitudes and turnover intentions is job
stress. Lofquist and Dawis (1969) argued that
increasing levels of job tension or stress may
lead to a decision to quit. A study by
Sheridan and Abelson (1983) showed that
when individuals' perceived job tension
exceeded a threshold limit, they quit.
Bedeian and Armenakis (1981) found that job-
induced tension causally affected satisfaction
which, in turn, influenced propensity to
leave. There appears to be strong support for
stress playing an important role in affecting
intention to quit, but this needs to be
examined in the context of satisfaction and
commitment. Does stress have a direct causal
effect on intention to quit or does it influence
turnover intentions by affecting job
attitudes? If it affects job attitudes, does it
affect satisfaction or commitment or both?
What is the pattern of relationships among
the three variables in affecting turnover
intentions?
Finally, the role played by turnover
intentions in the actual process needs to be
reconsidered. As mentioned earlier,
intention to quit is probably the most
important antecedent to the turnover
decision. But intentions, once formed, might
also affect the way the individual perceives
the job and organization. There are two
possible explanations for this proposed
relationship. First, according to Bem's (1972)
self-perception theory, employees might
perceive/modify their job attitudes based on
an awareness of their intentions to quit. This
suggests that an employee who becomes
aware of his/her intention to quit might
attribute that to low satisfaction and/or
commitment, thus, subsequently, reducing
satisfaction and commitment. Another
explanation for the proposed link would be
that the employee might rationalize or justify
his/her intentions to quit by ``discovering''
more negative aspects of the job/
organization, thus subsequently
experiencing lower satisfaction and
commitment. In other words, initially job
attitudes affect intentions to quit, but these
intentions, in turn, might causally affect
subsequent job attitudes (while not
precluding the continued effect of job
attitudes on turnover intentions). This
implies that apart from the initial time
period, there will be a reciprocal relationship
between job attitudes and turnover
intentions. This should be especially visible
in cross-sectional analyses such as those
done by Williams and Hazer (1986) and
Bedeian and Armenakis (1981). This proposed
reciprocal relationship between job attitudes
and turnover intentions needs to be tested
using causal analysis.
In summary, the limited causal research
suggests that employee's satisfaction,
commitment, and stress are significantly
related to turnover intentions. But
researchers are yet to systematically explore
these propositions and map the pattern of
causal relationships among these variables.
To address these issues, this study examines:
. the simultaneous causal effects of
satisfaction, commitment and stress on
turnover intentions;
. the causal ordering among job
satisfaction, organizational commitment
and job stress; and
. the reciprocal relationship between
satisfaction and commitment and
intention to quit.
Reflecting the differing findings and
theoretical viewpoints in prior research, a
series of models highlighting these
differences are tested in this paper. The
intent here is to assess and evaluate different
models, all of which are theoretically well-
grounded in prior research, rather than to
solely test one specific viewpoint.
Method
Sample
Data were collected from 155 graduate
business students enrolled in a large, public
university. Most subjects were part-time
students and employed at the time of study.
The subjects had, on average, eight years of
full-time work experience and the mean age
was 31.
A.R. Elangovan Procedure graphic representation of the model. The
Causal ordering of stress, Subjects were given the option of model consists of two parts:
satisfaction and commitment,
 ‡ , (1)
and intention to quit: a
structural equations analysis
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
22/4 [2001] 159±165
participating or declining to participate
before the survey questionnaires were
administered to them. They were briefly
informed at the beginning that the study
pertained to how they felt about their jobs
and the organization they work for. The
subjects were given the opportunity to clarify
any doubts and ask questions. Finally, they
were encouraged to answer all questions
candidly and were assured of complete
anonymity.
Measures
Stress. Perceived stress at work was
measured by using the Parker and DeCotiis
(1983) scale. The reliability analysis revealed
a coefficient alpha of 0.88 for the 13-item
scale.
Satisfaction. A shortened version of the
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ)
(Johnson and Weiss, 1971) was used. The
reliability analysis showed a coefficient
alpha of 0.89 for the scale.
Commitment. The Mowday, Steers and
Porter (1979) commitment scale was used to
the structural model:  ˆ  ‡
the measurement model: x ˆ x  ‡ , (2)
y ˆ y  ‡ ", (3)
Model specifications
Measurement model. The x and y matrices
in the program contain the specification for
the measurement parameters. Since the
latent constructs, both endogenous and
exogenous ( and ), were measured using
single indicators (X and Y variables), the
associated lambda parameters were assigned
a value of 1 to fix the scale. The
corresponding error terms (in  and "
matrices) were assigned a conservative value
of 0.2 which constitutes the upper end of
values derived by subtracting the square root
of the reliability coefficients of the various
measurement scales from 1. This
specification or variations of it are used
when a correlation matrix is analysed with
LISREL (e.g. see Curry et al., 1986). Using this
strategy provides an estimation of causal
effects among the latent variables controlling
for errors in measurement.
Structural model. The
and  matrices in
measure commitment. The scale had a
the program contain the specifications for
coefficient alpha reliability of 0.92.
the structural parameters. As mentioned
Intention to quit. A modified version of
earlier, the various links or paths in the
Arnold and Feldman's (1982) measure was
model between exogenous constructs and
used. Five items using a seven-point scale
endogenous constructs (
) and between
ranging from 1 (very low) to 7 (very high)
measured both subjects' intention to change
organizations as well search for alternatives.
Analyses yielded a coefficient alpha
reliability of 0.72 for the scale.
Model development
The data were analysed using linear
structural relations modelling. The
structural equation model specifies the
phenomenon under study in terms of
putative cause and effect variables and
indicators, and is especially useful when
analysing data from surveys, quasi-
experimental designs and longitudinal
studies to identify causal relationships. For
survey data, it represents a statistical
approach for drawing out a pattern of causal
relationships among a set of related
variables. Each equation represents a causal
link and so parameters do not coincide with
regression coefficients. The LISREL program
(Joreskog and Sorbom, 1985) was used to
develop and test the model in this study. The
program estimates unknown coefficients in
the set of linear structural equations by the
maximum likelihood method using the
correlation/ variance-covariance matrix of
observed variables. Figure 1 shows the
endogenous constructs () are based on
findings from prior research (discussed
earlier). None of the structural parameters
were fixed or constrained but were allowed to
be free for estimation.
Model evaluation
Goodness of fit of the estimated model is
assessed by comparing the reproduced
covariance matrix, based on the specified
constraints, with the observed covariance
matrix. LISREL provides indices of fit such
as the chi-square statistic, the root-mean-
square-residual (RMSR), the goodness of fit
index (GFI) and the adjusted goodness of fit
index (AGFI). The chi-square (2 ) and
probability level (p) tests the likelihood that
the covariance matrix estimated is the same
as the observed sample covariance matrix
and that the variables are not arbitrarily
correlated. In effect, a small chi-square (non-
significant chi-square value) is needed so
that the null hypothesis fails to be rejected
(i.e. proposed model is accepted). The sample
size of 155 ensures that accepting the null
hypothesis of no difference is not due to a
small sample size (small sample sizes of 50
and below increase the possibility of the null
hypothesis being accepted) (Bentler and
[ 161 ]
A.R. Elangovan
Causal ordering of stress,
satisfaction and commitment,
and intention to quit: a
structural equations analysis
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
22/4 [2001] 159±165
Bonett, 1980). A value for p greater than 0.10
is usually taken to indicate that a model
adequately fits the data. The RMSR is a
measure of the average residuals between the
observed covariance matrix and the
estimated matrix. The smaller the RMSR
relative to the average of the observed
variances and covariances, the better the fit
of the model. But GFI represents the
proportion of the variance and covariance
explained and so the closer this value is to
1.00, the better the fit. The AGFI adjusts the
GFI for the degrees of freedom used to
estimate free parameters. T-values indicate
poor fit thus suggests that the specifications
of Model A are not an accurate (or a good
enough) representation of the relationships
among the variables.
Models B to E were subsequently tested to
determine if they had a good fit to the data.
The patterns of causal relationships in
these models appear in Figures 2-5. The
goodness of fit estimates from the LISREL
analyses are shown below each model. For
Model B, although the goodness of fit
estimates are acceptable ( 2 = 0.52, df = 1, p
= 0.473, RMSR = 0.008, GFI = 0.998, AGFI =
0.983), two major structural parameters
the significance of individual causal paths. (satisfaction ? turnover intentions (31)
and commitment ? turnover intentions
Results
Several models specifying different patterns
of relationships were tested using LISREL
analyses to determine the best fitting model.
These models are shown in Figures 1 to 6.
These models (A to F) are all based on prior
research findings and represent the diverse
standpoints taken by researchers regarding
the relationships among the variables. The
11) in Model D was not
pattern of relationships in the first model
(Model A) is shown in Figure 1.
The parameter specifications for Model A
were based on the common notion that
commitment directly affects turnover
intentions, and satisfaction affects turnover
intentions directly as well as through
commitment. Stress was also specified as
independently affecting turnover
intentions. The results of the analysis for
Model A are: 2 = 10.59, df = 2, p = 0.005,
11); satisfaction was hypothesized to have
RMSR = 0.122, GFI = 0.968, and AGFI = 0.839.
(32)) are inappropriately large and non-
significant (indicated by dotted lines in
Figure 2). This is an indication that the
model has a poor fit to the data. The results
for Models C and D also indicate a poor fit of
the models to the data (for Model C, 2 =
11.34, df = 3, p = 0.010, RMSR = 0.027, GFI =
0.968, AGFI = 0.892; for Model D, 2 = 29.99,
df = 3, p = 0.000, RMSR = 0.121, GFI = 0.912,
AGFI = 0.708). Further, the stress ?
satisfaction link (
significant (indicated by a dotted line in
Figure 4). The iterations for Model E failed
to converge, indicating that the model
specifications do not fit the data (Figure 5).
The final model tested (Model F) was
based on the discussion in the earlier part
of the paper and on the results of the models
tested above. The specifications of Model F
are as follows: stress was hypothesized to
have a negative causal effect on satisfaction
(
a positive causal effect on commitment
The probability level of 0.005 indicates that (21); and commitment and intention to quit
the model fits the data inadequately. In were hypothesized to have reciprocal
addition, the three of the four specified negative causal effects on each other (23
relationships failed to attain significance and 32). Figure 6 shows the pattern of
(based on T-values produced by LISREL; causal relationships in the model and
indicated by dotted lines in Figure 1). The results of the LISREL analysis are

Figure 1
Specifications for Model A

[ 162 ]
A.R. Elangovan
Causal ordering of stress,
satisfaction and commitment,
and intention to quit: a
structural equations analysis
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
22/4 [2001] 159±165
Figure 2
Specifications for Model B
Figure 3
Specifications for Model C
Figure 4
Specifications for Model D
presented in Table I. The goodness of fit
estimates indicate an extremely good fit of
the model to the data (2 = 0.67, df = 2, p =
0.717, RMSR = 0.012, GFI = 0.998, AGFI =
0.989). All hypotheses were supported ± the
relationships were significant (T-value
greater than 2.000) and in the predicted
direction. The implications of the findings
are discussed in the next section.
Discussion
This study focused on three key issues:
1 the causal effects of satisfaction,
commitment and stress on turnover
intentions;
2 the causal ordering among job
satisfaction, organizational commitment
and job stress; and
3 the proposed reciprocal relationship
between satisfaction and commitment and
intentions to quit.
The results of LISREL analyses yielded
strong support for all the hypotheses (Model
F). The primary findings of the study are a
strong causal stress ? satisfaction ?
commitment ? turnover intentions link, and
a turnover intentions ? commitment link.
With regard to the role played by stress,
satisfaction and commitment in affecting
turnover, the results indicated that only
commitment directly affected turnover
intentions. Commitment had a very strong
negative effect on turnover intentions (±
0.756), i.e. the lower the commitment, the
higher the propensity for the employee to
leave. Satisfaction and stress did not directly
affect turnover intentions but only through
commitment. This finding concurs with that
of Williams and Hazer (1986), and is along the
lines of models proposed by Steers (1977) and
Porter et al. (1974). The finding that stress
does not directly affect turnover intentions
refutes suggestions by Lofquist and Dawis
(1969) regarding a causal relationship
between the variables. Further, the results
imply that models of turnover that do not
include commitment (e.g. Bluedorn, 1979;
Bedeian and Armenakis, 1981) are
misspecified, and that the satisfaction ?
turnover intentions causal link is spurious.
The effect of satisfaction operates through
commitment. From a practical standpoint,
interventions aimed at affecting turnover
need to focus more on influencing
commitment; influencing satisfaction by
changing job characteristics, pay, etc. will
not directly affect turnover but will only
serve as one indirect approach for affecting
commitment (among other antecedents of
commitment).
The LISREL results of the various models
also provided information on the causal
ordering among stress, satisfaction and
commitment. There was strong support for a
stress ? satisfaction ? commitment causal
link (Model F). Stress had a moderate
negative effect on satisfaction (±0.299),
implying that higher levels of stress lead to
lower job satisfaction. Stress did not have a
direct causal effect on commitment. Analyses
[ 163 ]
A.R. Elangovan
Causal ordering of stress,
satisfaction and commitment,
and intention to quit: a
structural equations analysis
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
22/4 [2001] 159±165
Figure 5
Specifications for Model E
Figure 6
Specifications for Model F
on the causal links from satisfaction and
commitment to stress were also not
supported. This implies that the effect of
stress is primarily on job satisfaction. This
finding concurs with findings in prior
research (e.g. Bedeian and Armenakis, 1981).
The results suggest that models of stress that
do not include job satisfaction as a dependant
variable, and models of job satisfaction that
do not include stress as an antecedent are
misspecified or incomplete. Satisfaction had
a strong positive effect on commitment
(0.538), i.e. the higher the satisfaction, the
higher the commitment. Models specifying a
commitment ? satisfaction link (Model D) or
a reciprocal relationship (Model E) did not fit
the data. This suggests that satisfaction is a
causal antecedent to commitment. While this
is in accord with findings by Williams and
Table I
Results of the LISREL analysis for Model F
Hazer (1986), models by Steers (1977) and
Porter et al. (1974), and the commonly held
position, it refutes findings by Bateman and
Strasser (1984) and Curry et al. (1986). One
explanation for the differences could be
methodological problems in the Bateman and
Strasser study (see Curry et al. (1986) for a
critique). More causal studies need to be done
to gain further insight into these conflicting
findings.
Perhaps the most interesting finding of the
study is the reciprocal link between
commitment and turnover intentions. The
results not only revealed a strong negative
effect of commitment on turnover intentions
(discussed above), but also a strong negative
effect of turnover intentions on commitment
(±0.583). As predicted, the cross-sectional
analysis revealed that higher propensity to
leave further lowered organizational
commitment. But turnover intentions did not
have a causal effect on satisfaction. This
suggests that once the employee becomes
aware of his/her intentions to quit, merely
changing jobs within the organization (job
rotation, transfers, etc.) is not likely to stop
him/her, since it is the individual's attitude
towards the organization that is adversely
affected. This also implies that intervention
strategies aimed at retaining good employees
(especially those who are entertaining ideas
of quitting) should focus on enhancing
organizational commitment rather than
``selling'' job attributes or features.
It is important to note some of the
limitations of the current study, especially
the cross-sectional nature of the data and the
sample characteristics. Although structural
equations analyses are intended for and very
effective in establishing causal relationships
among a comprehensive set of variables, it
remains a statistical approach for
determining causality, not a temporal one.
Future research should employ dynamic
longitudinal designs to obtain a more
accurate picture of the causal relationships.
Longitudinal data for a newly recruited work
group will clearly reveal the initial
commitment ? turnover intentions link, and
the subsequent reciprocal relationship. Also,
this study used single indicators for the
latent constructs ( and ); using multiple
indicators for each latent variable would
increase the methodological rigour of the
analysis. Antecedents other than stress
should be included to obtain a more
comprehensive picture of the pattern of
11 ±0.299 21 0.538 relationships.
23 ±0.583 32 ±0.756 Lastly, although the nature of the sample
Notes: 2 = 0.67; df = 2; p = 0.717; RMSR = 0.012; in this study suggests good generalisability of
GFI = 0.998; AGFI = 0.989 the findings, it also highlights some
constraints. The respondents were primarily
[ 164 ]
A.R. Elangovan
Causal ordering of stress,
satisfaction and commitment,
and intention to quit: a
structural equations analysis
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
22/4 [2001] 159±165
students in a part-time, graduate-level
business program, employed full-time in
various organizations at the time of the study
with an average of eight years of work
experience. While this sample is a suitable
one for the current study, it would be useful
to further explore the role of age and
organizational tenure in affecting job
attitudes and turnover intentions to improve
generalisability. Prior research has noted
that older and longer-serving employees are
often more satisfied and committed than
younger employees. Having a wider range of
age and tenure in the sample ± the average
age of the respondents in the current sample
was only 31 ± might reveal this relationship.
Similarly, future research should include the
impact of the nature of the industry and the
economy to make the findings more
generalisable. The competitiveness and the
growth potential of any industry and the
general economic conditions significantly
affect alternate employment options and offer
reference points for comparison which, in
turn, can influence job attitudes and
turnover intentions. Overall, however, this
study represents a useful step towards
understanding the complex nature of the
relationships among work attitudes and
employee turnover intentions.
References
Arnold, H. and Feldman, D. (1982), ``A
multivariate analysis of the determinants of
job turnover'', Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 350-60.
Bateman, T.S. and Strasser, S. (1984), ``A
longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of
organizational commitment'', Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 27, pp. 95-112.
Bedeian, A.G. and Armenakis, A.A. (1981), ``A
path-analytic study of the consequences of
role conflict and ambiguity'', Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 417-24.
Bem, D. (1972), ``Self-perception theory'', in
Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, Vol. 6, Academic Press,
New York, NY.
Bentler, P. and Bonett, D. (1980), ``Significance
tests and the goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures'', Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 88, pp. 588-606.
Bluedorn, A.C. (1979), ``Structure, environment,
and satisfaction: toward a causal model of
turnover from military organizations'',
Journal of Military and Political Sociology,
Vol. 7, pp. 181-207.
Bluedorn, A.C. (1982), ``A unified model of
turnover from organizations'', Human
Relations, Vol. 35, pp. 135-53.
Clegg, C.W. (1983), ``Psychology of employee
lateness, absence, and turnover: a
methodological critique and an empirical
study'', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 68,
pp. 88-101.
Curry, J.P., Wakefield, D.S., Price, J.L. and
Mueller, C.W. (1986), ``On the causal ordering
of job satisfaction and organizational
commitment'', Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 847-58.
Farkas, A.J. and Tetrick, L.E. (1989), ``A three-
wave longitudinal analysis of the causal
ordering of satisfaction and commitment on
turnover decisions'', Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 855-68.
Hinkin, T.R. and Schriesheim, C.A. (1989),
``Development and application of new scales
to measure the French and Raven (1959) bases
of social power'', Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 561-7.
Johnson, D.A. and Weiss, D.J. (1971), Middle
Management, Decision-making and Job
Satisfaction, Educational Research and
development Council, St Paul, MN.
Joreskog, K. and Sorbom, D. (1985), LISREL:
Analysis of Linear Structural Relations by the
Method of Maximum Likelihood, National
Educational Resources, Chicago, IL.
Lofquist, L. and Dawis, R. (1969), Adjustment to
Work, Appleton Century Crofts, New York,
NY.
Michaels, E. and Spector, E. (1982), ``Causes of
employee turnover: a test of the Mobley,
Griffeth, Hand, and Meglino model'', Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 67, pp. 53-9.
Mitchel, J.O. (1981), ``The effect of intentions,
tenure, personal, and organizational
variables on managerial turnover'', Academy
of Management Journal, Vol. 24, pp. 742-51.
Mobley, W.H., Griffeth, R.W., Hand, H.H. and
Meglino (1979), ``Review and conceptual
analysis of the employee turnover process'',
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 86, pp. 493-522.
Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.W.
(1979), ``The measurement of organizational
commitment'', Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 14, pp. 224-47.
Parker, D.F. and DeCotiis, T.A. (1983),
``Organizational determinants of job stress'',
Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, Vol. 32, pp. 160-77.
Porter, W., Steers, M., Mowday, T. and Boulian,
V. (1974), ``Organizational commitment, job
satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric
technicians'', Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 59, pp. 603-9.
Sheridan, J.E. and Abelson, M.A. (1983), ``Cusp
catastrophe model of employee turnover'',
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26
No. 3, pp. 418-36.
Steers, M. (1977), ``Antecedents and outcomes of
organizational commitment'', Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 22, pp. 46-56.
Williams, L.J. and Hazer, J.T. (1986),
``Antecedents and consequences of
satisfaction and commitment in turnover
models: a reanalysis using latent variable
structural equation methods'', Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 219-31.
[ 165 ]