Factors Affecting Stayers’ Job Satisfaction in Response to a Coworker Who Departs for a Better Job1

Two studies examined the consequences of turnover, by investigating factors affecting the job satisfaction of people who remain (i. e., stayers) in response to a coworker (i. e., leaver) who departed for a better job. Consistent with Tesser and Campbell's (1983) self-esteem maintenance model, three factors were found to influence the job satisfaction level of stayers: (a) the extent to which they compared their job situation to the leaver's new one, which was negatively related to stayers’ level of satisfaction, (b) the relevance of the leaver to the stayer for social comparison purposes, which was negatively related to the stayers’ level of satisfaction, and (c) the stayers’ trait self-esteem, which was positively related to the stayers’ level of job satisfaction. Theoretical implications, limitations, and future research directions are discussed.     

The roles of self-esteem and self-consciousness in the Wortman-Brehm model of reactance and learned helplessness

The present experiments were designed to study the conditions under which failure would enhance or inhibit subsequent task performance. Based on the theory of Wortman and Brehm (1975), it was expected that small amounts of failure would produce reactance (manifested by improved performance at a subsequent task), whereas large amounts would lead to learned helplessness (i.e., impaired later performance). It was further expected that individual differences in self-esteem and private self-consciousness would serve as moderator variables for the above effects. In Experiment 1, subjects were exposed to either a small amount of failure or no failure before working on an anagrams task. As predicted, subjects high in self-consciousness, who have shown greater reactance arousal in attitude change studies, performed better on the anagrams task than subjects low in self-consciousness in the small-failure condition, but not in the no-failure condition. Further analyses revealed that this Self-Consciousness X Small Failure interaction was attributable to the performance data of the low, but not the high self-esteem subjects. Experiment 2 was designed to replicate and extend these results. Subjects were pretreated with either a small amount of failure, an extended amount of failure, or no failure before working on the anagrams task. A significant Self-Esteem X Helplessness Training interaction emerged. Relative to the no-failure condition, in which the two self-esteem groups did not differ, low self-esteem participants (low SEs) performed marginally better than did high self-esteem individuals (high SEs) in the small-failure condition but significantly worse than high SEs in the extended-failure condition. The effect of private self-consciousness was considerably weaker in this study, possibly because the sample included few low SEs (who are especially influenced by self-focused attention) who were also relatively low in self-consciousness. Questionnaire data from Experiment 2 were consistent with the notion that enhanced performance reflected reactance, whereas impaired performance signified helplessness.     

Factors affecting entrapment in escalating conflicts: The importance of timing

Entrapping conflicts are those in which individuals continue to invest their resources—even in seemingly losing propositions-in large part to justify previous unfilled expenditures. It has been demonstrated that individuals define their motivation for investing very differently at the various stages of an entrapping conflict. One implication of this motivational dynamic is that various factors may differentially affect degree of entrapment (i.e., amount invested), depending upon the point in time at which they are introduced. The present studies were designed to test this notion. All subjects were given an initial monetary stake and had the opportunity to win more by taking part in an entrapping investment situation. In Experiment 1, half the subjects were provided with a payoff chart that made salient the costs associated with investing (Highcost salience condition) whereas half were not (Low-cost salience condition). Moreover, for half of the subjects the payoff chart was introduced before they were asked to invest (Early condition) whereas for the other half it was introduced after they had invested a considerable portion of their resources (Late condition). Entrapment was lower in the High salience-Early than in the Low salience-Early condition. However, there was no difference between groups in the Late condition. In Experiment 2, the perceived presence of an audience interacted with personality variables related to face-saving to effect entrapment. When the audience was described as “experts in decision making,” subjects high in public self-consciousness (or social anxiety) became less entrapped than those low on these dimensions. When the audience consisted of individuals who “wished simply to observe the experimental procedure,” however, high public self-consciousness (or social anxiety) individuals were significantly more entrapped than lows. Moreover, these interaction effects occurred when the audience was introduced late, but not early, into the entrapment situation. Taken together, these (and other) findings suggest that economic factors are more influential determinants of behavior in the earlier stages of an entrapping conflict, whereas face-saving variables are more potent in the later phases. Alternative explanations are discussed.     

It's different to give than to receive: predictors of givers' and receivers' reactions to favor exchange

The present research examines episodes of favor exchange among peer employees. We posit that favor receivers' and favor givers' commitment to their exchange relationships with one another will be accounted for by different factors. As predicted, in 2 different organizational contexts, receivers' commitment to their relationships with givers was found to be more related to their judgments of the givers' interactional justice when performing the favor, whereas givers' commitment to their relationships with receivers was shown to be more associated with their judgments of the favorability of the outcomes associated with the favor that they performed. The implications of these findings for how givers and receivers can better manage favor exchange, and hence their relationships with each other, are discussed.     

When does high procedural fairness reduce self-evaluations following unfavorable outcomes?: The moderating effect of prevention focus

The present studies were designed to delineate when procedural fairness would be more versus less likely to be inversely related to people’s self-evaluations in response to unfavorable outcomes. Prior theory and research have shown that: (1) the more that people assign psychological significance to unfavorable outcomes, the more likely are their self-evaluations to be adversely affected by such outcomes, and (2) people who are more prevention focused in their self-regulatory orientation assign greater psychological significance to unfavorable outcomes. Consequently, we predicted that in the face of unfavorable outcomes, the inverse relationship between procedural fairness and self-evaluations would be more likely to emerge among those who are more prevention focused. Using different conceptions or operationalizations of all of the independent and dependent variables, we found support for this prediction in three studies, spanning different cultures, contexts, and methodologies.     

The relation of trait self-esteem and positive inequity to productivity

The present study explored the relation of trait self-esteem and positive inequity to productivity Subjects worked on proofreading task, and received hourly (rather than piece-rate) compensation that was either greater than (positive inequity condition) or equal to (equity condition) the amount that they deserved The results showed that individuals of high and medium self-esteem were more productive (i e, completed more of the task) in the positive inequity condition than in the equity condition Low self-esteem participants however, were actually less productive (i e, completed less of the task) in the positive inequity than in the equity condition Theoretical implications are discussed     

Layoffs,self-esteem,and survivor guilt: Motivational,affective, and attitudinal consequences

The present study explored the effect of layoffs on the subsequent productivity of “survivors”. All participants performed a proofreading task either after witnessing the dismissal of a co-worker (Layoff condition) or not (No-Layoff condition). Consistent with equity theory, the quantity of workers' performance was greater in the Layoff than in the No-Layoff condition. A Worker Self-Esteem × Layoff interaction effect revealed that the Layoff effect was entirely attributable to the low, rather than the medium or high, self-esteem participants. Additional analyses revealed that the layoff caused participants to (1) experience increased feelings of remorse and (2) develop more negative attitudes toward their co-worker, both of which are also consistent with equity theory. Practical and theoretical implications are discussed.     

Face-saving and entrapment

Entrapping conflicts are those in which individuals: (1) have made substantial, unrealized investments in pursuit of some goal, and (2) feel compelled to justify these expenditures with continued investments, even if the likelihood of goal attainment is low. It was hypothesized that entrapment (i.e., amount invested) would be influenced by the relative importance individuals attach to the costs and rewards associated with continued investments. Two experiments tested the notion that entrapment would be more pronounced when costs were rendered less important (and/or rewards were made more important). In Experiment 1, half of the subjects were instructed beforehand of the virtues of investing conservatively (Cautious condition), whereas half were informed of the advantages of investing a considerable amount (Risky condition). Investments were more than twice as great in the Risky condition. Moreover, consistent with a face-saving analysis, (1) the instructions had a greater effect on subjects with high rather than low social anxiety, and (2) individuals with high social anxiety who participated in front of a large audience were more influenced by the instructions than were individuals with low social anxiety who participated in front of a small audience. In the second experiment, the importance of costs and rewards were varied in a 2 × 2 design. As predicted, subjects invested significantly more when cost importance was low rather than high. Contrary to expectation, reward importance had no effect. Questionnaire data from this study also suggested that entrapment was at least partially mediated by the participants' concern over the way they thought they would be evaluated. Theoretical implications are discussed.     

Self-esteem,anxiety, and the avoidance of self-focused attention

The present study was designed to provide converging support for the hypothesis that individuals with low self-esteem (low SEs) find self-focused attention more anxiety provoking, relative to people with high self-esteem (high SEs). Subjects were premeasured for their self-esteem and given a brief opportunity to “practice” two tasks that they believed they would be required to perform in a later part of the experiment. One task was practiced in front of a self-focusing stimulus—a large mirror (mirror task)—whereas the other was not (no-mirror task). Subjects evaluated the tasks after they had practiced each one. Consistent with the notion that self-focused attention is more anxiety provoking for individuals with lower self-esteem, it was observed that: (1) relative to high SEs, lowmedium SEs rated the mirror, but not the no-mirror, task as less enjoyable, and (b) low-medium, but not high, SEs preferred to avoid the mirror task for the alleged upcoming part of the experiment. Subjects high in dispositional private selfconsciousness also wanted to avoid the mirror task, particularly if they were also low in self-esteem. Contrary to prediction, success-failure feedback from a previous task had no effect on subjects' task preferences. Theoretical explanations and implications are discussed.     

The influence of interdependent self-construal on procedural fairness effects

Various theories have been shown to account for the effects of procedural fairness on people’s attitudes and behaviors. We propose that a logical next step for organizational justice researchers is to delineate not whether, but rather when certain explanations are likely to account for people’s reactions to procedural fairness information. Accordingly, the present research tested the hypothesis that social psychological explanations would be particularly applicable to people high in interdependent self-construal. As predicted, the results of three studies showed that interdependent self-construal (ISC) moderated the relationship between procedural fairness and a variety of dependent variables (cooperation, positive affect, and desire for future interaction with the other party). In different types of interpersonal encounters (social dilemmas, reward allocations, and negotiations), procedural fairness had more of an influence on participants’ reactions among those high rather than low in ISC. Theoretical implications are discussed.