Job embeddedness: is it always a good thing?

Journal of Managerial Psychology Job embeddedness: is it always a good thing? Shelly Marasi Susie S. Cox Rebecca J Bennett

Article information:

Downloaded by Doctor Shelly Marasi At 14:47 16 February 2016 (PT)

To cite this document: Shelly Marasi Susie S. Cox Rebecca J Bennett , (2016),"Job embeddedness: is it always a good thing?", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 31 Iss 1 pp. 141 - 153 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMP-05-2013-0150 Downloaded on: 16 February 2016, At: 14:47 (PT) References: this document contains references to 49 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 35 times since 2016*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: Maria J Chambel, Laura Lorente, Vânia Carvalho, Isabel Maria Martinez, (2016),"Psychological contract profiles among permanent and temporary agency workers", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 31 Iss 1 pp. 79-94 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMP-02-2014-0070 Rasidah Arshad, (2016),"Psychological contract violation and turnover intention: do cultural values matter?", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 31 Iss 1 pp. 251-264 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ JMP-10-2013-0337 Inge van Seggelen - Damen, Karen van Dam, (2016),"Self-reflection as a mediator between self-efficacy and well-being", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 31 Iss 1 pp. 18-33 http:// dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMP-01-2013-0022 Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Token:JournalAuthor:92F94AF8-5C04-41F2-8F7E-FD2E9BBA53DD:

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

Job embeddedness: is it always a good thing?

Job embeddedness

Shelly Marasi Department of Management Studies, University of Minnesota, Duluth, Minnesota, USA

Susie S. Cox Department of Management, Marketing, and Business Administration, McNeese State University, Lake Charles, Louisiana, USA, and Downloaded by Doctor Shelly Marasi At 14:47 16 February 2016 (PT)

Rebecca J. Bennett

141 Received 29 May 2013 Revised 23 October 2013 31 May 2014 24 October 2014 24 November 2014 Accepted 26 November 2014

Department of Management, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, Louisiana, USA Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to compare the explanatory power of reactance theory and power dependence theory in predicting the moderating effect of job embeddedness on the organizational trust-workplace deviance relationship. Design/Methodology/Approach – Cross-sectional data were collected from a sample of nurses (n ¼ 353) via an online survey organization. The data were analyzed using hierarchical regression. Findings – Job embeddedness significantly moderated the organizational trust-workplace deviance relationship such that participants who experienced low organizational trust and high job embeddedness engaged in more workplace deviance than those experiencing low organizational trust and low job embeddedness. Practical implications – Organizations should attempt to build and maintain employees’ organizational trust since employees who lack organizational trust are more likely to act deviantly. Additionally, organizations should realize that job embeddedness is not always beneficial. Therefore, organizations should seek to reduce negative perceptions of job embeddedness by alerting employees (especially those who are the most distrusting) of other job opportunities and providing more generalizable skill training, to enhance employees’ perceptions of mobility. Originality value – This study demonstrates that job embeddedness can be applied to models (i.e., the organizational trust-workplace deviance relationship) beyond those that have previously included turnover as an outcome (i.e., Lee et al., 2014), and that such influences may be negative. More notably, the results provide evidence supporting the notion of the negative side of job embeddedness. Keywords Organizational trust, Job embeddedness, Workplace deviance Paper type Research paper

Workplace deviance has plagued organizations since the Industrial Revolution (Klotz and Buckley, 2013). Since organizations suffer both the direct costs (such as stolen or damaged merchandise and equipment) and the indirect costs from attempts to reduce and prevent deviant acts (such as monitoring employee behavior and ethics training), workplace deviance is estimated to cost organizations billions of dollars annually (Case, 2000; Harris and Ogbonna, 2006). Moreover, a majority of employees admit to engaging in some form of deviant behavior (Harper, 1990; Harris and Ogbonna, 2002; Slora, 1991). It is important to enhance our understanding of workplace deviance for the benefit of the organization’s overall well-being and success. A critical factor that has been found to provoke employees to behave deviantly is low organizational trust (Berry et al., 2007; Thau et al., 2007). Therefore, this research builds

Journal of Managerial Psychology Vol. 31 No. 1, 2016 pp. 141-153 © Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0268-3946 DOI 10.1108/JMP-05-2013-0150

JMP 31,1


142

on the established relationship between low organizational trust and workplace deviance (Berry et al., 2007; Thau et al., 2007) by investigating job embeddedness as a potential moderator for this relationship. Job embeddedness has been considered a boon for organizations as an indirect way to reduce turnover costs, with many organizations striving to have their employees feel embedded. However, job embeddedness may interact with low organizational trust to impact workplace deviance. Following Platt’s (1964) suggestion for developing a strong inference, competing hypotheses are presented with theoretical arguments inferred from psychological reactance theory (Brehm, 1966) and power dependence theory (Emerson, 1972; Molm, 2003), which suggest opposing paths by which job embeddedness may either multiply or mitigate the impact of organizational trust on workplace deviance. Thus, the major objective of this study is to compare the explanatory power of reactance theory and power dependence theory in predicting the moderating effect of job embeddedness on the organizational trust-workplace deviance relationship. Theory and hypotheses Organizational trust is defined as an employee’s attitudes and expectations about the probability that the employing organization’s future actions will be favorable and advantageous, or at least not detrimental to employees’ interests (Robinson, 1996). The trust dynamic builds on an integrated social attachment-exchange perspective in that an employee’s level of trust is based on past interactions with his/her employer and the belief that future interactions will be similar to those in the past. Provided that the organization has treated the employee favorably in the past, the employee will expect positive future exchanges (Robinson, 1996), which builds trust and perhaps encourages the employee to behave cooperatively in future exchanges with the organization (Axelrod and Hamilton, 1981; Deutsch, 1958). However, if the employee experiences negative interactions with his/her organization then adverse future relations will be expected, leading to low levels of organizational trust and possibly pushing employees to behave selfishly and engage in deviant acts, such as sabotage, gossip, and harassment. Behaviors such as these fit the definition of workplace deviance, which is defined as purposeful, norm-violating behaviors that may harm the organization and/or its members (Robinson and Bennett, 1995). Prior research has demonstrated that employees’ lack of organizational trust influences their engagement in deviant behaviors (Berry et al., 2007; Thau et al., 2007). Although a lack of organizational trust has been investigated previously as an antecedent for workplace deviance, it may be the case that not all employees experiencing low organizational trust engage in higher levels of workplace deviance. For instance, it may be that those who are embedded or “stuck” in their jobs and perceive themselves as having little opportunity to leave the organization in which they do not trust may engage in more or less workplace deviance than those who are less embedded. Therefore, job embeddedness is expected to moderate the relationship between low organizational trust and workplace deviance since not all employees experiencing low organizational trust may engage in the same intensity of workplace deviance and it may depend on how embedded (or stuck) the employee is in his/her job. Job embeddedness is defined as the extent to which employees are enmeshed or entrenched within, connected, attached, or tied to their job which keeps them from leaving their current job (Mitchell et al., 2001; Yao et al., 2004). Job embeddedness is comprised of two sub-dimensions. The first sub-dimension, on-the-job embeddedness,


pertains to how entrenched an employee is with his/her employing organization (i.e., promise of a near future promotion or salary increase, and high perceived costs of exit such as loss of benefits); whereas, the second sub-dimension, off-the-job embeddedness, refers to how embedded an employee is in his/her community (i.e., family obligations and community involvement: Crossley et al., 2007; Mitchell et al., 2001). Additionally, both of these sub-dimensions are characterized by three aspects: links (informal and formal ties between the employee and organization or other people), fit (an employees’ compatibility or comfort with work and non-work environments), and sacrifice (cost of material or psychological benefits that may be forfeited by leaving one’s job: Crossley et al., 2007; Mitchell et al., 2001). Organizations have continuously attempted to discover ways to create and expand job embeddedness in their employees to increase retention and reduce costs associated with turnover, training, and recruitment. Correspondingly, management scholars have generally viewed higher levels of job embeddedness positively since embedded employees are less likely to voluntarily terminate their employment (Harman et al., 2009; Hom et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2004; Mallol et al., 2007; Mitchell et al., 2001; Sekiguchi et al., 2008). However, sociologists have long viewed job embeddedness as an explanation of “the process by which social relations influence and constrain economic action” (Granovetter, 1985; Uzzi, 1997), and thereby, a negative notion for organizations. Based on the sociological perspective, job embeddedness is viewed as limiting, restricting, or constraining an employee’s ability to change or alter their current job situation. In this regard, job embeddedness may create obstacles for employees who desire to leave their current job but are restrained from doing so for various reasons (such as having non-transferable job skills or inability to achieve the same level of benefits elsewhere) and thereby, enhance anguish and frustration in the employee, which may potentially have harmful or negative effects on the employee and/or organization. Additionally, these feelings of frustration and/or negative outcomes have been argued to potentially lead to an increase in workplace deviance (Ng and Feldman, 2010; Sekiguchi et al., 2008). Therefore, we argue that although job embeddedness may result in reduced organizational turnover, it may not be the panacea for the bottom line as it has been presented and is likely more complex. The extent to which job embeddedness interacts with low organizational trust with respect to workplace deviance is unclear since there are strong theoretical arguments supporting two suppositions. The competing hypotheses presented below provide a test of strong inference (Platt, 1964) to identify the role job embeddedness plays in the relationship between low organizational trust and workplace deviance. Reactance theory (Brehm, 1966) argues that when employees experience a loss of autonomy such that their freedom to make choices is interrupted, they will engage in “reactance” by becoming motivated to restore their perception of control. Additionally, reactance theory suggests that employees who feel restricted and unable to ameliorate their situation may become frustrated and are more likely to engage in negative and perhaps destructive forms of “reactance,” such as workplace deviance, to compensate for the loss of autonomy and control (Mitchell et al., 2011; Rothbaum et al., 1982; Spector, 1978). Prior research supports this view of workplace deviance as “reactance” such that workplace deviance is more likely to occur in situations where employees perceive themselves to be powerless (Bennett, 1998). Consequently, we anticipate that employees experiencing low organizational trust will withdraw cooperative behaviors and desire to terminate their employment, but if these employees are also embedded in their jobs and unable to easily leave their current employment they will become frustrated at their lack of autonomy and

Job embeddedness

143

JMP 31,1


144

attempt to compensate for this loss of control by negatively “acting out” against the organization through participation in deviant behaviors. Hence, reactance theory suggests that low organizational trust will interact with high job embeddedness to produce higher levels of workplace deviance than situations of low organizational trust and low job embeddedness. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed: H1a. Job embeddedness moderates the relationship between organizational trust and workplace deviance such that when organizational trust is low and job embeddedness is high, workplace deviance is higher than when organizational trust is low and job embeddedness is low. On the other hand, power dependence theory (Emerson, 1972; Molm, 2003) argues for a different effect of job embeddedness in low organizational trust situations. According to power dependence theory, individuals with little dependence on their partner in an exchange relationship (i.e., employees not embedded in their jobs) are perceived to be more powerful than those with greater dependence on their partner (i.e., employees stuck in their jobs: Emerson, 1972). Power dependence theory further suggests that powerful (less embedded) employees’ willingness to cooperate with the organization will be lower than those who are dependent on the organization because of their embeddedness (Molm et al., 1999). Therefore, employees experiencing lower levels of job embeddedness will have the ability or power to leave their job if they desire and are less likely to engage in cooperative behaviors, and perhaps behave deviantly, since they believe they have greater power in the exchange relationship. On the other hand, power dependence theory suggests that employees who are embedded or stuck in their job (and perceive they have less power to quit their job at will) will behave rationally and cooperatively, such as by not engaging in deviant behaviors, since they do not want to endanger their current employment. Thus, power dependence theory implies that high job embeddedness (or high power dependence) will make employees less likely to engage in workplace deviance since they cannot risk being fired even though their lack of organizational trust may make them desire to engage in such uncooperative behaviors. Based on this argument, the following counter hypothesis is proposed: H1b. Job embeddedness moderates the relationship between organizational trust and workplace deviance such that when organizational trust is low and job embeddedness is high, workplace deviance is lower than when both organizational trust and job embeddedness are low. Method Sample Nurses were chosen as the sample due to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (2002) predicting a growing shortage of nurses over the next decade, with an anticipated 29 percent loss in available nurses by year 2020. Additionally, Juraschek et al. (2012) have forecasted a nationwide shortage of nurses from 2009 to 2030. Healthcare organizations are making tremendous efforts to decrease this projected shortage through multiple retention methods, such as enhancing employee’s organizational trust in hopes of them becoming more embedded in their jobs (Cohen, 2006; Holtom and O’Neill, 2004). Therefore, considering the healthcare industry’s increased retention efforts, particularly attempts of enlarging job embeddedness, nurses seemed an appropriate and relevant population to sample.


The sample consisted of employed nurses from across the USA. The nurses were recruited using an online survey organization. Those successfully completing the anonymous survey were awarded points that could later be redeemed for merchandise provided by the online survey organization. There were 420 completed surveys, of which 353 were useable and 67 were excluded because of missing values. Females composed 92 percent of the sample. The average age of the respondents was 49 years old (SD ¼ 9.70). In total, 93 percent of the respondents identified themselves as Caucasian. Registered Nurses made up 68 percent of the sample and 43 percent reported having 25 or more years in the nursing profession. Measures Workplace deviance was measured with 16 items from Bennett and Robinson’s (2000) scale. Item examples are “Made fun of someone at work” and “Taken property from work without permission.” Items were averaged to produce the scale (α ¼ 0.80). Organizational trust was measured with Gabarro and Athos’s (1976) six-item scale. Examples of the items are “My employer is open and upfront with me” and “I believe my employer has high integrity.” Two items were reverse coded. The items were averaged to produce the scale (α ¼ 0.92). Job embeddedness was measured with a seven-item global job embeddedness scale developed by Crossley et al. (2007). “I’m too caught up in this organization to leave” and “I am tightly connected to this organization” are examples of the items used in the scale. One item (“It would be easy for me to leave this organization”) was reverse coded. The scale was produced by averaging the items (α ¼ 0.94). All scale items were measured on a seven-point Likert-type scale. Additionally, several demographic variables were controlled for in the analyses. Job tenure and hours worked per week were controlled for since both offer employees more time and opportunities for organizational trust development (Gilbert and Tang, 1998; More and Tzafrir, 2009; Schoorman et al., 2007). Age was also a control variable since previous studies have found that younger employees have a tendency to participate in more deviant behaviors (Berry et al., 2007; Ng and Feldman, 2008). Although males tend to engage in more workplace deviance than females (Hershcovis et al., 2007), gender was not included as a control variable due to its distribution in the sample. All control variables were analyzed categorically. Specifically, the control variables were coded as follows: job tenure – 1 ⩽ 1 year (6.8 percent), 2 ¼ 1-4 years (29.1 percent), 3 ¼ 5-15 years (34.8 percent), 4 ¼ 16-25 years (17.8 percent), 5 ⩾ 25 years (11.5 percent); amount of hours worked (based on per week) – 1 ⩽ 10 hours (2.3 percent), 2 ¼ 10-20 hours (5.3 percent), 3 ¼ 21-30 hours (13.8 percent), 4 ¼ 31-40 hours (51.4 percent), 5 ⩾ 40 hours (27.3 percent); age – 1 ¼ not given (0.3 percent), 2 ¼ in the 20’s (3 percent), 3 ¼ in the 30’s (11.3 percent), 4 ¼ in the 40’s (29.8 percent), 5 ¼ in the 50’s (42.6 percent), 6 ¼ in the 60’s (12.3 percent), 7 ¼ in the 70’s (0.8 percent). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) A CFA was conducted to test the measurement model. The CFA resulted with the χ2 of the overall model being 922.55 (374 df), with a p-value o 0.01. The RMSEA of the overall model was 0.064 with a 90 percent confidence interval of 0.059-0.069, indicating a good fit (Hair et al., 2010). The CFI was 0.889, indicating a moderate fit (Hair et al., 2010; Kline, 2005). Additionally, the job embeddedness construct had an AVE of 71.06 percent, with all standardized loading estimates being greater than 0.70, and the

Job embeddedness

145

JMP 31,1


146

reliability was 0.94. The organizational trust construct had an AVE of 66.11 percent, with all standardized loading estimates being greater than 0.70, and the reliability was 0.92. Therefore, the job embeddedness and organizational trust constructs demonstrated adequate convergence (Hair et al., 2010). The workplace deviance construct had an AVE of 21.87 percent, with all but one standardized loading estimates being greater than 0.30, and the reliability was 0.81. Typically, the AVE for the workplace deviance construct would be considered to have fallen below minimum standards; however, due to the nature of the scale items in that each represents a deviant act that is completely separate from the other acts, it is feasible that an employee may engage in one form of deviant behavior but not in the other deviant acts. This is demonstrated by the workplace deviance scale having an appropriate reliability, but low AVE. Additionally, the extent to which an employee engages in deviant behaviors varies, and since the workplace deviance scale is not equidistant and not symmetrical it is expected for the standardized loading estimates to be lower, yet still appropriate as demonstrated in this study. For discriminant validity, each of the squared correlation estimates was less than the two corresponding average variance-extracted estimates. Therefore, discriminant validity was demonstrated for each of the constructs (Hair et al., 2010). Additionally, a one-factor model, where all individual items load on one latent factor, was examined to perform a Harmon’s single factor test and examine the possibility of common-method bias. The one-factor model did not adequately fit the data ( χ2 of 2622.9 [377 df], p-value o0.01; CFI ¼ 0.55; RMSEA ¼ 0.13). Thus, common-method bias did not appear to be a major concern. Results The descriptive statistics including bivariate correlations and Cronbach’s α coefficient are reported in Table I. As shown in Table I, workplace deviance has a significantly negative correlation with organizational trust but no relationship with job embeddedness. Also, organizational trust is significantly positively correlated with job embeddedness. Hypotheses tests Hierarchical regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses. In all of the analyses the independent variables were centered to reduce the effects of non-essential ill conditioning by having the mean represent a meaningful zero point for better result interpretation (Cohen et al., 2003). As shown in Table II, the control variables accounted for 5 percent (p o 0.01) of the variance in workplace deviance. When organizational trust and job embeddedness Variable

Table I. Means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities

M

SD

1

2

3

Job tenure 2.96 1.08 − Hours worked 3.95 0.91 −0.06 − Age 4.50 1.00 0.31** −0.16** − Workplace deviance 1.55 0.50 0.16** 0.07 −0.08 Organizational trust 4.61 1.36 0.01 −0.04 0.11* Job embeddedness 4.00 1.50 0.23** 0.04 0.10 Notes: n ¼ 353. Reliabilities are in parentheses. *p o0.05; **p o0.01

4

5

6

(0.80) −0.20** −0.06

(0.92) 0.54

(0.94)

Model 1 ΔR2 β

0.05** Step 1: control variablesa Job tenure 0.20** 0.19** 0.18** Hours worked 0.06 0.05 0.05 Age −0.13* −0.11* −0.11* Step 2: main effect 0.04** Organizational trust −0.20** 0.12 Job embeddedness 0.02 0.41** Step 3: interaction 0.02** Organizational trust X job embeddedness −0.64* Total R2 0.10 Total F value (df regression, residual) 6.30** (6, 346) Notes: n ¼ 353. Standardized β coefficients are shown. ΔR2 is based upon variables included in each step. aAn additional analysis was conducted with only female participants. The results of the analysis was not significantly different than those presented. *po 0.05; **p o0.01

Job embeddedness

147

Table II. Results of hierarchical regression analysis

were added to the model, an additional 4 percent ( p o 0.01) of the variance was explained and the interaction explained another 2 percent (p o 0.01) of the variance in the last step. Additionally, Model 2 shows organizational trust was significantly negatively correlated with workplace deviance ( β ¼ −0.20, p o 0.01); thus, the hypotheses testing of the interaction effect is permissible. Job embeddedness was predicted in H1a and H1b to moderate the relationship between organizational trust and workplace deviance, albeit in opposite directions. As shown in Model 3, job embeddedness significantly moderated the relationship between organizational trust and workplace deviance (β ¼ −0.64, p o 0.01), such that employees experiencing low organizational trust and high job embeddedness engaged in more deviant behaviors than those experiencing low organizational trust and low job embeddedness. The form of this significant interaction is shown in Figure 1. The simple slope of the regression of workplace deviance on organizational trust when job embeddedness was high was significant (−0.13, t (347) ¼ −2.768, p o 0.01). The simple slope for workplace deviance on organizational trust when job embeddedness was low was not significant (simple slope −0.04), t (347) ¼ −1.219, p o 0.22. Thus, the reactance theory hypothesis has more explanatory power in that the relationship between organizational trust and workplace deviance is significant when 3.5

Workplace Deviance


Variable

Workplace deviance Model 2 Model 3 ΔR2 β ΔR2 β

3.25

3 Low Job Embeddedness High Job Embeddedness 2.75 Low Organizational Trust

High Organizational Trust

Figure 1. Plot of interaction between organizational trust and workplace deviance

JMP 31,1


148

job embeddedness is high. Alternatively, the organizational trust-workplace deviance relationship was much weaker and nonsignificant when job embeddedness was low, and thereby the power dependence theory hypothesis offered no significant explanatory power. Discussion Workplace deviance continues to be an area of interest to researchers and managers alike due to its associated high costs (Case, 2000; Harris and Ogbonna, 2006). This study contributes to the growing body of knowledge on workplace deviance in several distinct ways. The first contribution of this study is the noted connection that the organizational trust-job embeddedness interaction has with workplace deviance. The results show reactance theory’s premise had more explanatory power by demonstrating that employees experiencing low organizational trust who are also embedded or stuck in their jobs are more inclined to engage in deviant behaviors than employees experiencing low organizational trust and low job embeddedness. Therefore, employees who perceive they have little control or choice in terminating their employment are likely to attempt to regain their autonomy in some manner, even if it is recovered or compensated for by negative actions, such as workplace deviance. It is logical that these employees will engage in deviant behaviors without concern for being terminated involuntarily because they are probably already unhappy, frustrated, and dissatisfied with their employment (since they are stuck and expect future interactions with their organization to be uncooperative and negative due to low organizational trust) and only desire to harm the organization to make up for their lack of control and autonomy. Additionally, even though reactance theory’s argument has more explanatory power in this situation (i.e., a mainly female sample), the opposing power dependence theory hypothesis may find support in other situations (i.e., other samples such as those comprised of mainly males). The results also showed that employees who were lacking organizational trust and were highly embedded in their jobs had higher levels of workplace deviance engagement than employees in situations with high levels of organizational trust and high or low levels of job embeddedness. Additionally, it should be noted that although employees experiencing low organizational trust and low job embeddedness may easily be able to terminate employment rather than engage in workplace deviance since they are not stuck in their job, all of the respondents falling in the low organizational trust-low job embeddedness category were in fact still currently employed at the organization in which they claimed to have this experience. The second contribution of this research is that it extends the current research on job embeddedness. First, the findings of this study show that job embeddedness can have a moderating effect on relationships not involving employee turnover as an outcome. More notably, while our research did not hypothesize nor find a main effect for job embeddedness on workplace deviance, job embeddedness had a significant moderating effect on the organizational trust-workplace deviance relationship and thereby, demonstrated the negative side of job embeddedness. As a result, this study provides support for the notion of job embeddedness having negative outcomes (for employees and organizations) in some organizational contexts, despite earlier research implying that job embeddedness was good for the organization since it reduced turnover and costs associated with replacing employees. Essentially, this research calls for organizations to ask “Do we really want employees to be embedded in their job so that they feel like they ‘have to’ stay or are ‘stuck’ in their jobs?” However, even though


the findings of this study demonstrate how high job embeddedness may be unfavorable or negative in a certain situation (such as when combined with low organizational trust), there are some instances where high job embeddedness may be favorable or positive and potentially make workplace deviance engagement least likely (such as when combined with high organizational trust). Organizational implications The findings of this study offer several implications for organizations and managers. First, the replicated finding that employees who trust their organizations are less likely to engage in deviant behaviors suggests that organizations should strive to treat employees in a consistent and positive manner during all employee interactions to help build and maintain trust. Additionally, organizations should be aware that not only do employees who experience low organizational trust appear to participate in more workplace deviance, but higher engagement levels occur when employees are embedded in their jobs. Therefore, building and preserving employees’ organizational trust is an important recommendation for organizations because the results demonstrate that when employees are embedded in their job having high organizational trust will assist them in offsetting the negative situation of being stuck in their job, and potentially leading to less workplace deviance engagement. Organizations can accomplish this by providing employees with positive and consistent interactions, clear and open communication, and explanations for organizational changes or decisions. Furthermore, organizations should be wary of retention efforts for employees who lack organizational trust as these strategies may negatively impact employees by signaling or heightening their level of job embeddedness, potentially resulting in an increase in workplace deviance engagement. Even though this study demonstrates the situation of high job embeddedness being negative, organizations should not treat employees who are stuck in their jobs better or differently than non-embedded employees, especially since high job embeddedness sometimes creates positive situations (such as low employee turnover). It is recommended that organizations attempt to avoid creating the situation where employees feel embedded or stuck in their job when they already experience a lack of organizational trust. However, if this situation is unavoidable, organizations should attempt to help employees recognize that they are not as embedded or stuck in their job as they might believe or indicate to the employees the positive aspects of remaining in the organization (such as those with longer tenure receive more training or higher pay raises). Limitations The results of this study are only the first step in answering the overall research question due to limitations of the study design (such as sample characteristics and the possibility of hidden mediating variables that were not measured). Future research correcting the shortcomings of this study design should be conducted to strengthen the results of this study. One limitation is that all measures were self-report and cross-sectional. Consequently, causal inferences are not warranted as it is unknown what may happen over time as organizational trust and/or job embeddedness develops or deteriorates. Additionally, the potential existence for common-method bias due to the self-report nature of the data are unlikely since there was a statistically significant

Job embeddedness

149

JMP 31,1


150

interaction (Evans, 1985) and the results of the Harmon’s single factor test showed that the measurement model demonstrated a better fit than the one-factor model. Social desirability bias may have been another problem. The nature of the constructs being measured required the use of self-report data since employees tend to keep their participation in deviant acts quiet, not allowing others (such as coworkers and/or supervisors) to know their degree of engagement (Spector, 1992). However, the anonymity of the data makes it unlikely that social desirability was a problem since employees have been surprisingly honest in reporting high levels of workplace deviance on anonymous surveys (i.e., Bennett and Robinson, 2000). We expect this was the case in the present study since surveys were not completed at the participants’ employing organizations and no identifying information was collected on the participants or their employers. Therefore, social desirability is unlikely to be an issue in the present study. A final limitation is the lack of measurement regarding participants’ perceptions of control, choice, and autonomy in the study. These variables were proposed to be the causal mechanisms in the theoretical model; however, their lack of measurement prevents us from knowing whether they actually mediate the overall interaction as described in this paper. Future research that successfully replicates these findings while concomitantly analyzing and confirming the mediating effects of autonomy, control, and choice on the overall interaction will deeply strengthen the overall findings of this study. This prospective research will fully answer the research question presented in this study by offering further support for reactance theory’s premise. Additionally, the true mechanism of job embeddedness when interacted with low organizational trust is unknown since the particular measure utilized in this study does not distinguish between on-the-job embeddedness and off-the-job embeddedness, or between the sub-dimensions (i.e. lack, fit, and sacrifice) in its items. Therefore, prospective research should examine the extent to which different job embeddedness dimensions impact the interaction on the organizational trust-workplace deviance relationship. For instance, on-the-job embeddedness and off-the-job embeddedness may have different moderating effects since the factors causing the embedded situation are dissimilar. Future research There are several avenues for future research. First, future research should investigate the causal nature of the model presented in this paper, especially if actual deviant behavior can be measured. It would also be beneficial for future research to analyze the mediating effects of autonomy, control, and choice on the organizational trust-job embeddedness interaction to support the theories arguments of this paper and to strengthen the overall findings of this study. As previously mentioned, prospective research should analyze the moderating effect of job embeddedness on the organizational trust-workplace deviance relationship for different samples, especially those comprised of mainly males and equal in genders, and then compare those findings to the results in this study. This type of future research may yield interesting results by either demonstrating higher workplace deviance engagement or the power dependence theory hypothesis may have more explanatory power in a different context. Since the sample primarily consisted of females, future research might want to consider samples with a higher percentage of males to examine potential gender differences. Additionally, the extent to which different job embeddedness dimensions (such as on-the-job embeddedness and off-the-job embeddedness) impact the interaction on the organizational trust-workplace deviance relationship should also be analyzed.


Finally, the interaction of workplace context variables such as job embeddedness should continue to be investigated as a moderator for other personality and situational variables. For example, are conscientious employees more likely to engage in deviant behaviors if they perceive themselves to be “stuck” in an organization? Are individuals with high negative affectivity or high narcissism more likely to react when they perceive themselves as being “controlled” by retention measures designed to increase job embeddedness? Gaining a better understanding of the antecedents of workplace deviance can help organizations develop processes to prevent deviance from occurring. References Axelrod, R. and Hamilton, W.D. (1981), “The evolution of cooperation”, Science, Vol. 211 No. 4489, pp. 1390-1396. Bennett, R.J. (1998), “Perceived powerlessness as a cause of employee deviance”, in Griffin, R., O’Leary-Kelly, A. and Collins, J. (Eds), Dysfunctional Workplace Behavior, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 221-239. Bennett, R.J. and Robinson, S.L. (2000), “Development of a measure of workplace deviance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 3, pp. 349-360. Berry, C.M., Ones, D.S. and Sackett, P.R. (2007), “Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: a review and meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 410-424. Brehm, J.W. (1966), A Theory of Psychological Reactance, Academic Press, New York, NY. Case, J. (2000), Employee Theft: The Profit Killer, John Case & Associates, Del Mar, CA. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G. and Aiken, L.S. (2003), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Mahwah, NJ. Cohen, J.D. (2006), “The aging nursing workforce: how to retain experienced nurses”, Journal of Healthcare Management, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 233-245. Crossley, C.D., Bennett, R.J., Jex, S.M. and Burnfield, J.L. (2007), “Development of a global measure of job embeddedness and integration into a traditional model of voluntary turnover”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 4, pp. 1031-1042. Deutsch, M. (1958), “Trust and suspicion”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 265-279. Emerson, R.M. (1972), “Sociological theories in progress”, in Berger, J., Zelditch, M. and Anderson, B. (Eds), Exchange Theory, Part I: A Psychological Basis for Social Exchange, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA, pp. 38-57. Evans, M.B. (1985), “A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 305-323. Gabarro, J.J. and Athos, J. (1976), Interpersonal Relations and Communications, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Gilbert, J.A. and Tang, T.L. (1998), “An examination of organizational trust antecedents”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 321-336. Granovetter, M. (1985), “Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 481-510. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Harman, W.S., Blum, M., Stefani, J. and Taho, A. (2009), “Albanian turnover: is the job embeddedness construct predictive in an Albanian context?”, Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 192-205.

Job embeddedness

151

JMP 31,1


152

Harper, D.C. (1990), “Spotlight abuse – Save profits”, Industrial Distribution, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 47-51. Harris, L.C. and Ogbonna, E. (2002), “Exploring service sabotage: the antecedents, types, and consequences of frontline, deviant, antiservice behaviors”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 163-183. Harris, L.C. and Ogbonna, E. (2006), “Service sabotage: a study of antecedents and consequences”, Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 543-559. Hershcovis, M.S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K.A., Dupre, K.E., Inness, M., Leblanc, M.M. and Sivanathan, N. (2007), “Predicting workplace aggression: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1, pp. 228-238. Holtom, B. and O’Neill, B. (2004), “Job embeddedness: a theoretical foundation for developing a comprehensive nurse retention plan”, The Journal of Nursing Administration, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 216-227. Hom, P.W., Tsui, A.S., Wu, J.B., Lee, T.W., Zhang, A.Y., Fu, P.P. and Li, L. (2009), “Explaining employment relationships with social exchange and job embeddedness”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 2, pp. 277-297. Juraschek, S.P., Zhang, X., Ranganathan, V. and Lin, V.W. (2012), “United States registered nurse workforce report card and shortage forecast”, American Journal of Medical Quality, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 241-249. Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and Practices of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed., Guilford Press, New York, NY. Klotz, A.C. and Buckley, M.R. (2013), “A historical perspective of counterproductive work behavior targeting the organization”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 114-132. Lee, T.W., Mitchell, T.R., Sablynski, C.J., Burton, J.P. and Holtom, B.C. (2004), “The effects of job embeddedness on organizational citizenship, job performance, volitional absences, and voluntary turnover”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 711-722. Mallol, C.M., Holtom, B.C. and Lee, T.W. (2007), “Job embeddedness in a culturally diverse environment”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 35-44. Mitchell, M., Vogel, R., Bennett, R.J. and Crossley, C. (2011), “New directions in turnover research”, paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, August, San Antonio, TX. Mitchell, T.R., Holtom, B.C., Lee, T.W., Sablynski, C.J. and Erez, M. (2001), “Why people stay: using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 1102-1121. Molm, L.D. (2003), “Theoretical comparisons of forms of exchange”, Sociological Theory, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-17. Molm, L.D., Peterson, G. and Takahashi, N. (1999), “Power in negotiated and reciprocal exchange”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 64 No. 6, pp. 876-890. More, K.V. and Tzafrir, S.S. (2009), “The role of trust in core team employees: a three nation study”, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 410-433. Ng, T.W.H. and Feldman, D.C. (2008), “The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 2, pp. 392-423. Ng, T.W.H. and Feldman, D.C. (2010), “The effects of organizational embeddedness on development of social capital and human capital”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 4, pp. 696-712. Platt, J.R. (1964), “Strong inference”, Science, Vol. 146 No. 3642, pp. 347-353. Robinson, S.L. (1996), “Trust and breach of the psychological contract”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 574-599. Robinson, S.L. and Bennett, R.J. (1995), “The typology of deviant workplace behaviors: a multidimensional scaling study”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 555-572.


Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J.R. and Snyder, S.S. (1982), “Changing the world and changing the self: a two-process model of perceived control”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 5-37. Schoorman, F.D., Mayer, R.C. and Davis, J.H. (2007), “An integrative model of organizational trust: past, present, and future”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 344-354. Sekiguchi, T., Burton, J.P. and Sablynski, C.J. (2008), “The role of job embeddedness on employee performance: the interaction effects with leader-member exchange and organization-based self-esteem”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 761-792. Slora, K.B. (1991), “An empirical approach to determining employee deviance base rates”, in Jones, J. (Ed.), Preemployment Honesty Testing: Current Research and Future Directions, Qurorum Books, Westport, CT, pp. 21-38. Spector, P. (1992), “A consideration of the validity and meaning of self-report measures of job conditions”, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds), International Review of Industrial and Organziational Psychology, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 123-155. Spector, P.E. (1978), “Organizational frustration: a model and review of the literature”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 815-829. Thau, S., Crossley, C., Bennett, R.J. and Sczesny, S. (2007), “The relationship between trust, attachment, and antisocial work behaviors”, Human Relations, Vol. 60 No. 8, pp. 1155-1179. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (2002), “Health Resources and Services Administration, Bureau of Health Professions, projected supply, demand, and shortages of registered nurses: 2000-2020”, National Center for Health Workforce Analysis, available at: www.ahcancal.org/research_data/staffing/Documents/Registered_Nurse_Supply_Demand. pdf (accessed April 2, 2011). Uzzi, B. (1997), “Social structure and competition in inter-firm networks: the paradox of embeddedness”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 33-67. Yao, X., Lee, T.W., Mitchell, T.R., Burton, J.P. and Sablynski, C.S. (2004), “Job embeddedness: current research and future directions”, in Griffith, R. and Hom, P. (Eds), Understanding Employee Retention and Turnover, InformationAge, Greenwich, CT, pp. 153-187. Further reading Lee, T.W., Burch, T.C. and Mitchell, T.R. (2014), “The story of why we stay: a review of job embeddedness”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 199-216. About the authors Dr Shelly Marasi is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] Dr Susie S. Cox, SPHR, is a Professor of Management at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. She received a Doctorate in business administration from the Louisiana Tech University. Her research focusses on workplace conflict, workplace engagement, effective communication as well as assessment practices. Dr Rebecca J. Bennett is the Herbert McElveen Professor and the Department Head of the Management Department at the Louisiana Tech University in Ruston, Louisiana. She received her PhD in organizational behavior from the Northwestern University. Her research focusses on organizational and interpersonal workplace deviance behaviors, responses to workplace offenses, injustice, and cybersecurity.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

Job embeddedness

153