Cross-generational conflict is an important antecedent to organizational stressors, especially in high stress environments.  It is also important to individual stress responses and to the distress as exhibited in absenteeism.  As a result, there may be possible intervention programs that can be applied to employees falling into to Gen Y, Gen X, and Baby Boomer generational classifications that will allow for better coping mechanisms.

Organizational stressors are discussed in conjunction with generational differences of age cohorts and suggestions for practitioners.

The affects of organizational stressors on employee health and withdrawal behavior or non-participation, which includes tardiness, turnover, strikes, work stoppages, and absenteeism, have been studied for decades.  While traditional models have purported the resulting stress to be a psychophysical situation, other factors such as cross-generational conflicts may act as antecedents to work stress and the individual stress response.  When considering generational differences, such as Baby Boomers (1946-1960) and Generation X or Gen Xers (1961-1979) to Generation Y or Gen Yers (1980-1995), the combined antecedent bundle of variables for each generation may affect outcomes in different ways.  In just the area of employee absenteeism, which is the focus of this paper, the volume of research is considerable, resulting in at least ten different general theories on the subject.  However, more than half of the work is in the postdictive mode, without the proper attention given to defining, studying, tracking, and confirming all the possible origins and/or antecedents, such as which organizational stressors act directly as predictors for the absence phenomenon (Harrison & Martocchio, 1998; Daboval, 1998; Quick et al, 1997; Barley & Knight, 1992).

Even though researchers recognize that that there is a positive or healthy response (eustress) to certain organizational stressors, this paper will concentrate on the unhealthy side or distress/strain response as manifested in absenteeism.  In addition, while some models or frameworks recognize role conflict and role ambiguity (Quick et al, 1997) as potential stressors, none indicate the potential stress and resulting coping mechanisms that may arise from cross-generational conflict, such as between Baby Boomers and Gen Xers or Gen Xers and Gen Yers.

This paper contends that cross-generational conflict is an important antecedent to organizational stressors, especially in high stress environments.  It is also important to individual stress responses and to the distress as exhibited in absenteeism.  As a result, there may be possible intervention programs that can be applied to employees falling into to Gen Y, Gen X, and Baby Boomer generational classifications that will allow for better coping mechanisms.

Literature review

While some of the literature point to work stress as a cause of absenteeism, they fail to decompose and pinpoint the specific components of the causal relationship.  As a result, one might question what is really known about the different kinds of stress and their direct affect on absenteeism.  Researchers have called on their colleagues to restrict their efforts by focusing on one or a few stressors, which can be measured over time via longitudinal studies.  In addition to using self-reported data, researchers need to use outcome measures that more properly reflect the metrics of stress such as numbers of accidents, incidence and frequency of voluntary and involuntary absences, number of sick days, and total amount of health claims (Ganster & Schaubroeck, 1991).

Going forward, researchers need to “capture variance from heterogeneous samples of people, times, and contexts to try to identify those moderators” (Harrison & Martocchio, 1998, p. 325) that are the specific variables in the origins of absenteeism.  Currently, by putting these considerations into a timeline, all one can do with the results from hundreds of articles is to include them in a general framework for further study.  Such a time-lined framework presents independent variables so numerous that one wonders how any specific causal relations can be established.  For the long term, the framework as suggested by Harrison and Martocchio (1998) shows that demographics and culture, substance abuse, depression, and exercise levels all are associated with work non-attendance.  Next, levels of satisfaction and involvement on the job, meaningful work, positive organizational involvement, group or cultural norms on absenteeism, non-union or professional environments with less paid sick time, and a day schedule, especially with flextime, are all components of mid-term attendance behavior or lack thereof.  The list goes on for the short term, where research has unrealistically defined the non-absent employee as the person who “works under attendance incentives, who can somehow avoid acute stressors such as infections, injuries, and injustices, who can discount the utility of non-work behaviors, who enjoys attending work, and who feels social pressure to attend work with no impediments to do so, [and who] will surely have a stellar attendance record” (Harrison & Martocchio, 1998, p. 325).  Given this ideal picture, one must surely question if such an employee could ever be a reality?

While the time framework is both helpful and necessary as a general starting point, one needs to separate organizational components from the other factors, such as demographics or family problems, and apply just those organizational or work stressors believed to affect absence taking.  In so doing, researchers may be able to find more direct evidence, which is currently lacking, on the links between specific job stressors and absenteeism and health effects.  In the correlation of job stressors and absenteeism, the literature clearly indicates a stronger relationship over other factors or stressors, but specific causes were not singled out and traced.  In some cases, researchers found occupation-specific stressors as causes for absenteeism.  Additionally, workers with high stress jobs did not resort to short-term voluntary absenteeism as a coping mechanism.  Rather, they may have let their health deteriorate, which had led to high levels of physician-excused absences.  While general intervention or band-aid programs continue to be applied, researchers now know that such programs have been proven over time not to work as effectively as individually directed ones where specific origins, responses and outcomes can be linked and treatment devised (Hemingway & Smith, 1999; Bunce & West, 1996; Jacobson et al, 1996; Heaney & Clemans, 1995; Dewe, 1994; Ganster & Schaubroeck, 1991; Morey & Luthans, 1984).

Over twenty years ago, researchers used a process model to present a comprehensive theory on absenteeism.  Their verbal model revealed attendance factors as falling into two parts: an employee’s ability to attend and an employee’s motivation to attend (Steers & Rhodes, 1978).  More recently, researchers have attempted to include the range of origins, outcomes and offshoots, as they are now known, in a time-line context of absenteeism (Harrison & Martocchio, 1998).  The Harrison and Martocchio review and the meta-analyses of others reveal that, up to this point, hundreds of papers have already been written on absenteeism with multiple variables identified and empirically studied (Harrison & Martocchio, 1998; Kaiser, 1998; Mathieu & Kohler, 1990).

The Harrison and Martocchio (1998) meta-analysis shows that the causes of employee absences fall into five classes or attendance groupings within three time periods, where a person’s daily attendance or absence at work is affected by the mid- and/or long-term grouping:

A.  Long-term (distal, more than twelve months) — (1) personality and (2) demographic;

B.     Mid-term (medial, from three to twelve months) — (3) job-related attitudes and (4) social context; and

C.     Short-term (proximal, from one day to three months) — (5) decision-making mechanisms (Harrison & Martocchio, 1998).

Some see absence as an interdisciplinary, interdependent combination of individual, social, and economic factors (Kaiser, 1998).  However, no researcher has synthesized the volume of meaningful yet esoteric data into a single big picture application for human resource practitioners.  If one combines the specific empirical results of each of the many interdisciplinary, interdependent aspects of absenteeism from the last twenty years, one comes up with an individual unique in the workforce (Harrison & Martocchio, 1998) suggesting that absenteeism is all but inevitable for the workforce in general, and perhaps will continue at the current or higher levels, regardless of any interventions.

Given the diverse list of origins, offshoots and outcomes in employee absenteeism, how can companies develop an all-encompassing employee attendance model?  Employers report that absenteeism is a problem and has broad economic implications for employer and employee alike.  However, since the reported instances cover so wide a variety of individual excuses, they may defy causality, even though they can be individually categorized (Martocchio, 1994).

Guidance from the current literature may apply, especially since researchers repeatedly point out that there is definitely a need to better understand the causes and consequences of absenteeism to help cut its staggering costs (Paget, Lang, & Shultz, 1998; McMurray, 1997).  Beyond bottom-line productivity effects, absenteeism can contribute to reduced product quality and lowered levels of service, leading to serious deterioration in customer satisfaction.

Scholars have been encouraged to develop additional absence/motivation theories and hypotheses for testing (Buschak, Craven, & Ledman, 1996), since the dollar loss due to absenteeism and the effect on GDP are significant.  Additionally, in industries that have some level of customer service as a component of their product offering, users may turn to other products as alternatives when the promised service falls off.  As a result, greater productivity is expected of the workers that regularly show up, presenting the possibilities of their burn out.  At the customer contact level, this could result in customer frustration and significant loss of brand image and future sales (Buschak, Craven, & Ledman, 1996).

The problem is higher for manufacturing than in other kinds of jobs and larger with blue-collar workers than white collar or no collar (Buschak, Craven, & Ledman, 1996; Hazzard, 1990).  Union settings have higher absenteeism than non-union ones, with women absent more than men (Dunn & Youngblood, 1996).  Single people are absent more that married people; perhaps reflecting more of a pressure on married people to attend work due to family needs (Drago & Wooden, 1992).  Absenteeism is strongly affected by family issues.  They are the number one reason for 26% of employees’ lack of attendance; and stress, the number two reason, was named for 16%.  These data come from a 1998 survey of employers in all major industry segments detailed in Worklife Report from CCH, Inc. (1998).  In its prior year’s report (Managing Office Technology, 1997), CCH surveyed employees directly and found that employee loyalty to supervisors in mid-sized companies kept absenteeism down, while fear of management reprisal was the main reason for attendance in large companies.

Organizational stressors and absenteeism

There are three major types of stressors: organizational, extraorganizational, and transitional.  For organizational stressors, there are four major categories: physical, task, role, and interpersonal; each having further specific delineations.  Resulting absenteeism or likelihood of being absent from work in response to these stressors is grouped as voluntary or involuntary absences (Paget et al, 1998; Quick et al, 1997).

While employer data appear significant, the validity and reliability of measures based on employers’ input have long been questioned by researchers (Nicholson & Payne, 1987).  As a result, the separate constructs of involuntary and voluntary worker absences were proposed to lay the foundation for future absenteeism models and to better predict and control unplanned absences.  In one study, although the sample was limited in size, findings showed that personal illness and domestic problems were the prime reasons for missing work.  They did not miss work due to disagreements with coworkers, depression, disagreements with the boss, and difficulty getting up for work (Paget, Lang and Shultz, 1998).  However, it has been shown that employees experiencing work-related stress incline to more absences; and their data suggest that reporting reasons for absence as illness implies a concept broader that physical sickness per se and accounts for the phrase “mental health day” (Hackett & Bycio, 1996, p.335) or a broader term such as the doldrums, which includes tiredness, personal problems, and/or stress as well.

For absenteeism and the application of behavioral change programs, most of the literature presents a narrow set of implications.  Suggestions for practitioners were based on each individual researcher’s study results, or one-dimensional programs that should be considered, or general programs that are outlined step-by-step for review but are lacking in application data.  Space does not allow an individual listing and analysis here.  However, observations revealed that some programs are social psychology-based, while others use incentives for attendance, policy conformation and/or communications for compliance.  In some cases, absenteeism can be reduced by working from an accurate information base developed from each individual absence, specific cause, and developed indices; followed by supervisor involvement in communications and complimented with sick-pay programs, attendance bonuses, and health counseling (Fowler, 1998).  The two incentive approaches that scored the highest with employees via national surveys were paid time-off (PTO) and a no-fault program that sets a limit on unplanned absences regardless of reason (McMurray, 1997; Markowich, 1993).  In other incentive studies, flexible schedules, on their own, or in combination with a level of autonomy, job satisfaction, job responsibility, and organizational commitment were the motivation needed to keep attendance up (Dalton & Mesch, 1990).  An incentive plan may be a crucial element in The Marketing Concept-based system, which incorporates employee satisfaction tracking and feedback as critical to reducing absenteeism, along with an eight-step communication plan, which should be an integral part of an employer-activated attendance motivation and compliance program (Bell & Winters, 1993; Post & Young, 1993).

Based on past research, it appears that a combination of variables, from various disciplines, grouped in a time frame of reference, is the proper approach to study and understand absenteeism. Stressors, individual stress response, moderators and the resulting distress need to be studied in this context.  In this framework, generational conflict becomes an important antecedent.  Additionally, it may follow that the individual’s voluntary absenteeism is more affected by the group culture he or she resides in and the individual and group’s commitment to the organization (Harrison & Martocchio, 1998; Kaiser, 1998).  It is important to separate involuntary absenteeism from this discussion as illness or injury is its primary antecedent and may cause it.  In addition, based on a sample study, work stress could be seen as the possible cause of illness and therefore contributing to involuntary absenteeism.  However, the conclusions from the sample did not support the hypothesis that employees use short-term, voluntary (non-physician excused) absence as a coping mechanism for stress (Heaney & Clemans, 1995).

There are many origins and outcomes to employee absenteeism where work stress is a definite contributor.  However, the actual cause and effect sequence is unclear because “theory-based, randomized experiments about absence-taking are rare”(Harrison & Martocchio, 1998, p.305).   Much has been written on the effects of absence culture on the individual (e.g. Martocchio, 1994; Mathieu & Kohler, 1990).  In addition, normative effects have been well documented in relation to motivational processes and performances of employees (Mathieu & Button, 1992; Meyer & Gellatly, 1988).  However, the combined effect of various personal, group and organizational conditions that may form performance norms across all work situations are not as yet fully understood (Gellatly & Luchak, 1998).  The idea of an absence culture may be broadened to incorporate other relevant behaviors allowing for greater connections between performance criteria and social context but the results need further study and social conditions may positively or negatively affect interventions aimed at improving performance.  Earlier studies showed that the success of reward-based programs for absence control was inconsistent; perhaps due to the inability to link the normative effects of absence and the control programs (Rhodes & Steers, 1990).

To understand the individual absenteeism construct, one must review all the origins, offshoots, and outcomes of absenteeism.  In so doing, all the major theories and studies regarding absenteeism from sociology, economics, behavioral medicine, ergonomics and rehabilitation must be considered.  Only then, in the context of these paradigms, can management efforts against absenteeism be fully appreciated (Harrison & Martocchio, 1998).   Thus, the time-frame flow is one of long-term influences leading to mid-term; and mid-term influences, to short-term.  As such, there is an indirect path, but suggested causality, of long-term variables to absenteeism, connected and mediated by mid-term and short-term variables, and where an additive, linear model is framed in time (Harrison & Martocchio, 1998; Harrison & Bell, 1995).  Due to the abundance of absentee research, in some cases, building on prior work, and in others, breaking new ground or stimulating new discussion, the time-frame analysis is most helpful in trying to organize the scholarship to direct and help both the academician and the practitioner.  However, in the case of organizational stressors, this still leaves researchers with multiple independent variables without direct causal linkages to distress and the attendant outcomes.

Many of the absenteeism studies are at the micro level, unable to inductively apply the findings to the workforce as a whole.  “Absences clearly do arise from a mix of causes; no one had discovered a magic absenteeism bullet (Johns, 1997)” (Harrison & Martocchio, 1998, p.26).  Furthermore, “A considerable research investment spanning almost half a century has yielded little cumulative knowledge regarding the determinants of absenteeism” (Kaiser, 1998, p.80).  While much of the effort to understand absenteeism has an empirical base, many of the studies have included small samples (because of research constraints and/or other limitations) and may not be truly representative or generalizable to the total employee population.  On the other hand, because there are so many diverse employer-employee situations, a proper sample may never be possible.

Differences in generational cultures

Because there are so many independent variables in the absenteeism debate, perhaps a simpler way to start the process is to look to the major population groupings that have occurred and have been named in recent times; namely; the Baby Boomer (those born between 1946 and 1961) and the Generation X or Gen Xers (1961-1979) segments.  Here, there appear to be generational conflicts detailed by many practitioners that are worthy of study.  The Generation Y or Gen Yers segment (1980-1995) does not yet significantly impact the work environment, so it is safe to say that the bulk of the current workforce is made up of those workers born between 1946 and 1979.  However, this new group is about to launch itself onto the work scene.  Organizational commitment is multidimensional and a critical component to an individual employee’s motivation to attend work.  Commitment is also defined by generational culture as “a set of people having a common history or sharing important experiences [who] develop specific attitudes and cultural norms” (Daboval, 1998, p.3).  Additionally, “These attitudes are brought to the workplace and become an important part of the workplace culture and contribute to employee behavior patterns” (Daboval, 1998, p.80).

If researchers can agree on the broad variables associated with the generations, and the inherent self-reported and measured stress points, then perhaps some common group variables may emerg.  From this, a generational profile can be drawn for first level application to absenteeism and employee work needs.  If one considers the Generation X segment, many are “latchkey kids” with a large number of non-intact families and who have nontraditional attitudes about work, especially when considering Xers versus Baby Boomers or older generations (Daboval, 1998).  Generation Xers have seen that personal loyalty and commitment to the firm do not translate to job security.  As a result, they have different attitudes toward commitment and attendance.  By using these generalizations along with the 5-part time-lined effort, practitioners may be able to reduce absenteeism rates.  If they understand the needs of the Gen Xers in conjunction with all the other absenteeism variables, behavioral change programs may be devised that work better than current general interventions thus reducing absentee rates.  Once applied, the components need to be studied at various levels to understand their interrelational effect and to assess their impact.  If one can at least see positive results from application of the whole, then there may be a deductive pathway to better study the parts.

Generation Y characteristics

Interchangeably called Gen Y, Echo Boomers, Millennials, or Generation Next, people born into this group (1980-1995) constitute the largest segment of future workers at 70 million strong since the Baby Boomers.  They are expected to expand on the 1990s’ productivity gains of their Gen X parents and siblings.  They may have many of the same characteristics of Gen Xers, such as demanding a balance between work and family life, being ambitious, and presenting a complete comfort with technology.  However, they are significantly different that Gen Xers in that they exhibit new levels of altruism, desire for fairness, and teamwork, with a desire in “renewing a sense of decorum that some believe left the American workplace with dress-down Fridays” (Lovern, 2001).  They want work flexibility and benefits options like flextime, special health coverage, and self-service computer access to their company records. They do not like bureaucracy and worry about being stuck in a job without chance for promotion.  Like Gen Xers, they do no expect to expend their entire career with one company, or even in one industry, like Baby Boomers may have.  Gen Yers see this movement from one job to another and one employer to another as a plus, whereas Baby Boomers saw this as a negative situation.

Lovern (2001) outlines eight critical steps employers need to take into consideration to accommodate this newly emerging group of employees.  First, employers need to clearly define career paths and specify the steps up the ladder.  Gen Yers are more ambitious and driven and want to see how they will get ahead versus the Gen Xers.  Second, as a result, employers need to offer wide and enticing growth opportunities to attract and keep Gen Yers.  Third, employers need to provide complete formalized orientation programs, where new workers can master parts of the new job within hours or days, with steps to complete understanding and job practice within a short period thereafter.  Fourth, employers must assign mentors to these new employees, as Gen Yers look for this assistance.  They may have a different frame of reference of what work is all about, even though many typically have some job experience through part-time work or college internships.  In any case, they have an idea of how they want to be managed.  Whether just high school or college graduate, they took their secondary education packed with before- and after-school activities.  Many have never worked at a full-time job before.  Gen Yers have been trained to work in teams and look for older workers as an expected resource and safety net unlike their Gen X counterparts.  The worst thing an employer can do with Gen Yers is to stick them in a no-growth job and leave them to fend for themselves without a mentor or coaching resource.  This does not mean one should micro-manage and constantly look over their shoulder.  To the contrary, once the job or project is assigned, they want to be left alone to solve it in their own way and in their own time.  Gen Yers want coaching and expect fair treatment and feedback from their supervisors, with opportunities to talk to them about their progress.  Fifth, employers must provide workers with the latest technology.  Gen Yers have grown up with it, expect it, and may be totally lost without it.  While they are more comfortable with technology than any other generation, they also have become totally dependent on it.  Sixth, employers must offer new directions in benefits and compensation.  Gen Yers expect to be paid for performance not seniority.  This attitude could be a source of future frustration and stress, challenging seniority policies, tenure, and other such systems based on age and/or time in the job.  This may also be true for team performance, goal establishment, and reward systems.  Gen Yers are used to playing and performing in teams and expect rewards based on team performance.  Seventh, considering Gen Yers’ new level of self-esteem and optimism about their possible contributions and their future, employers need to provide a greater sense of fairness in their dealings with all employees than in the past.  Gen Yers will strongly vocalize their feelings in this area, especially if they believe that their supervisors and senior management are incompetent, insensitive, or lacking in integrity.  In return, Gen Yers expect to conform more that Gen Yers through greater office decorum, and other work standards, formality, and professionalism (Lovern, 2001; Martin, 2000).  These new workers will speak out more, push for better working conditions, and act more collectively, which will be a real challenge for future labor management.  Businesses may see newly dedicated workers but only to their individual jobs and team members, not to their company.  Additionally, they tend to be more entrepreneurial that their pessimistic progenitors.

Gen Yers constitute probably the most diverse, cross-cultural, interracial/interethnic group of any but with an identity that keeps shifting because of its diversity.  As such, employers need to be aware that such diversity precludes cookie-cutter management approaches and applications.  Due to technology and the speed of global communications, they are much more worldly and knowledgeable than their forebears, quickly spotting and adopting new trends faster, especially if it will move them ahead quicker in their jobs (Deutsch, 1999; Gubbins, 1999).

What else do Gen Yers expect from their employers?  Aside from offering meaningful, challenging work, companies need to clearly communicate job expectations, but allow Gen Y workers the flexibility to produce results in their own way.  Since they are used to working in teams, greater delegation of responsibility and authority to the teams working directly on a problem or project or dealing with the customers may ultimately provide greater returns to the employer.  As a reward, Gen Yers would expect increased responsibility and authority.  In addition, they want a low stress work place, where management spends time getting to know them, treats them as equals, congratulates them when they have done a good job, is respectful and provides only constructive feedback, balances the supervisory role with team play, is able to have fun with the workers and joke around while getting the job done, and provides opportunity for employees to obtain ongoing training (Martin, 2000).  As to absenteeism, Gen Yers are not as linked to the company and may be absent for minor reasons, whether work- or life-related.

Discussion

What is the linkage between the cross-generational conflicts, the organizational stressors, each individual’s stress response, and the absenteeism outcome?  While one may intuit such a linkage, the literature does not as yet support such a framework.  However, there is a large body of work that does show direct connections between the organizational task, role, interpersonal, and physical stressors and an absenteeism outcome, although this is not the only possible outcome (Quick et al, 1997).

The literature recognizes distress as a major initiator of absenteeism as a coping mechanism, but not in all cases, and not for all jobs or organizations, or even in high stress environments.  Since many individuals may ultimately give in to other direct or indirect responses to distress, such as in critical health problems or in turnover, absenteeism is not the only outcome.  The specific stress-to-absenteeism linkage continues to be a difficult area to isolate and track.  As a result, the framework, as proposed, cannot be supported by the literature.  However, due to the apparent and intuitive affect of cross-generational conflict, researchers may need to reconsider its role and where it fits in the stress-to-absenteeism model.

Conclusions

Absenteeism will be reduced when the identified, separate reasons for non-attendance of GenY, Gen X, and Baby Boomer employees are addressed through special, more generationally focused attendance programs.  Generational conflict also needs to be considered for its affect on individual roles within the organization and the work group or team and in the employee/supervisor/management relationships.  While no studies have been done to assess the level or value of the conflict considerations, many employers have addressed generational differences in the their recruitment, benefits, and retention programs (Madigan, 2000; Flynn, 1996).

From the information available from current efforts, researchers and practitioners alike should be able to overlay the generational components and potential conflicts onto the preventive stress management framework of Quick et al (1997) and others and test the validity of such a move.  Much has been written about the components and conflicts.  Now researchers need to see how it fits into the framework and whether it is worthy of further study.

Implications for practitioners

Many practitioners have already initiated an informal response to the known generational components and conflicts in hiring, training, and retaining valuable employees.  What needs to be done now is to formalize such a program and measure which of the components and stressor conflicts can be adjusted or ignored.  An important way to start would use focus group input for issue identification and employee assessments and feedback in self-reported survey mechanisms.  Match the response and cross-test for major issues raised therein or not raised as identified by secondary research as collected and reported above.  Look for withdrawal linkages from the possible conflicts and potential outcomes and test for educational and/or incentive programs to help reduce the effect on absenteeism.  It appears that the Gen Yers now coming into the work force may mesh better with Baby Boomers at some levels in mentoring and other enrichment programs.  While Gen Yers may have much in common with their Gen X counterparts, they may be in more direct conflict with them than anyone currently realizes due to their level of dedication; need for supervision, inclusion, and feedback; altruism, sense of fair play, and demand for understanding for pressures outside of work.  Even though they may be more dedicated than the Gen Xers, they will still be in conflict with Baby Boomers in their commitment to one company or one industry.  Companies will be frustrated by Gen Yers demands for instant gratification and advancement, without having earned their stripes on the line.  However, by playing back their demands with their sense of fair play, employers may be able to better integrate individual employee demands with increased organizational success in sales and profit beyond even the productivity gains of their cynical Gen X forerunners.

Limitations/delimitations

Organizational stressors are only one part of the absenteeism construct.  As such, the literature and related empirical work appears to be limited.  Additionally, the scope of this paper does not allow for a more complete investigation of the subject.  Many questions remain as to specific antecedents and their linkage to, and affect upon, absenteeism as an outcome.  Generally speaking, one can see the linkages and intuit at their associations and affects.  However, empirical work does not appear to exist to support such directions.

As to the generational conflicts between groups, nothing exists in the literature that studies such effects on distress and absenteeism.  Perhaps due to time or monetary constraints, only a few applied researchers seem to be working in this area.  However, no one has associated such conflicts directly to absenteeism.

Considerations for future research

Given the changes and challenges of each generation, and the ability and techniques available to collect data from them, more needs to be done to empirically link specific components of the framework presented here and in part by others.  Researchers need to gain a better understanding of the importance of the generational components and conflicts and their value as possible predictors of withdrawal behavior, in general, and of absenteeism, specifically.

References

Bell, R. & Winters, L.(1993). Using marketing tools to improve employee relations. The Cornell H.R.A. Quarterly, 34 (6), 38.

Barley, S. & Knight, D. (1992). Toward a cultural theory of stress complaints. In Research in Organizational Behavior, 14, p.1, JAI Press.

Bunce, D., & West, M. (1996). Stress management and innovation interventions at work. In The

Tavistock Institute,  p. 209, London: The Klower Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Buschak, M., Craven, C., & Ledman, R. (1996). Managing absenteeism for greater productivity. Advanced  Management  Journal, 61, (1), 26.

CCH/IR Research Services, (1997).  Fear, devotion to duty squelch unscheduled absences. Managing Office Technology, 42, (10), 35.

CCH/IR Research Services (1998).  Family problems and stress boost US absenteeism rate. Worklife Report, 11, (3), 7.

Daboval, J., (1998). A comparison between baby boomer and generation x employees’ bases and foci of commitment. (Doctoral dissertation, Nova Southeastern University, 1998). ProQuest Digital Dissertations, AAT9823312.

Dalton, D., & Mesch, D.(1990).The impact of flexible scheduling on employee attendance and turnover.  Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 370.

Deutsch, K. (1999). Why Generation Y? Here’s why! Retrieved July 17, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.specialtyretail.net/issues/June99/why.htm.

Dewe, P. (1994). EAPs and stress management: From theory to practice to comprehensiveness. Personnel Review, 23, (7), 21.

Drago, R., & Wooden, M. (1992). Determinants of labor absence: Economic factors and workgroup norms across countries. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 45, 764.

Dunn, L., & Youngblood, S., (1986). Absenteeism as a mechanism for approaching an optimal labor market equilibrium: An empirical study.  Review of Economics and Statistics, 68, 688.

Elloy, D., Everett, J., & Flynn, W. R. (199 1). An examination of the correlates of job involvement. Group and Organizational Studies, 16 (2), 160.

Flynn, G. (1996). Xers vs. Boomers: Teamwork or trouble? Personnel Journal, 75, (11), 86-90.

Fowler, A., (1998). How to cut absenteeism.  People Management, 4, (1), 44.

Frayne, C., & Latham, G. (1987). Application of social learning theory to employee self- management of attendance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 387.

Ganster, D., & Schaubroeck, J. (1991). Work stress and employee health. Journal of Management, 17, (2), 235-271.

Gellatly, L., & Luchak, A. (1998). Personal and organizational determinants of perceived absence norms. Human Relations, 52, (3), 1085.

Gubbins, T. (1999). Generation Y knows what’s hot, who’s cool, and how to spend a ton of money.  Dallas Morning News, March 22.  Retrieved on July 12, 2001 from the World Wide Web.

Harrison, D., & Bell, M. (1995). Social expectations and attendance decisions: Implications for absence control programs. Presented at the national meeting of the Academy of Management, Vancouver, BC.

Hackett, R., & Bycio, P. (1996). An evaluation of employee absenteeism as a coping mechanism among hospital nurses. Journal of Occupational   and Organizational  Psychology , 69, (4), 327.

Harrison, D., & Martocchio, J. (1998). Time for absenteeism: A 20-year review of origins, offshoots, and outcomes. Journal  of  Management,, 24 (3), 305.

Hazzard, L. (1990). A union says yes to attendance.  Personnel Journal, 11, 47.

Heaney, C., & Clemans, J. (1995). Occupational stress, physician-excused absences, and absences not excused by a physician. American Journal  of  Health Promotion, 10, (2), 117-124.

Hemingway, M., & Smith, C. (1999). Organizational climate and occupational stressors as predictors of withdrawal behaviors and injuries in nurses. Journal of Occupational  & Organizational Psychology, 72, (3), 285-300.

Jacobson, B., Aldana, S., Goetzel, R., Vardell, K., Adams, T., & Pietras, R. (1996). The relationship between perceived stress and self-reported illness-related absenteeism. American Journal  of  Health Promotions,11, (1),54.

Kaiser, C. (1998). What do we know about employee absence behavior: an interdisciplinary interpretation.  Journal of Socio-Economics, 27 (1), 79.

Kanungo, R. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 341.

Lovern, E. (2001). New kids on the block. Modern Healthcare, 31, (5), 28-32.

Madigan, C. (2000). Managing across generations. Business Finance, March, 47-52.  Retrieved on July 12, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.businessfinancemag.com/archives/Static/wcd00002/wcd00275.htm.

Markowich, M. (1993). Attendance required.  Small Business Reports. 13.

Martin, C. (2000). Managing Generation Y: Younger siblings of Gen X pose positive challenge to employers. Today’s Careers, The Employment Paper, 11, (38). Retrieved on July 12, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.todays-careers.com/11_38_third_article.htm.

Mathieu, J., & Kohler, S. (1990). A cross-level examination of group absence influences on individual absence.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 75 (2), 217.

McMurray, C., (1997). Finding a cure for the time-off blues.  Employee Benefits Journal, 22 (4), 2.

Merrill, C. (1999). The ripple effect reaches Gen Y. American Demographics, 21, (11), 15-17.

Meyer, J., & Gellatly, I. (1988). Perceived performance norm as a mediator in the effect of assigned goal on personal goal and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 410.

Morey, N. & Luthans, F. (1984). An Emic perspective and ethnoscience methods for organizational research. Academy of  Management Review, 9, (1), 27.

Nicholson, N., & Payne, R. (1987). Absence from work: Explanations and attributions. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 36,121.

Paget, K., Lang, D., & Shultz, K. (1998). Development and validation of an employee absenteeism scale. Psychological Reports, 82, 1144.

Post, J., & Young, M. (1993).  Managing to communicate, communicating to manage: how leading companies communicate with employees. Organizational Dynamics, 22(1), 31.

Quick, J. C., Quick, J. D., Nelson, D., & Hurrell, J. Jr. (1997).  Preventive Stress Management in Organizations. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Steers, R. & Rhodes, S.(1978). Major influences on employee attendance: a process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 391.

Watkins, C. (1999). Grads to grannies: Managing the generation gap. Food Management, Sept. Retrieved on July 12, 2001 from the World Wide Web:

http://findarticles.com/cf_o/mOBGE/9_34/56229228/print.jhtml.

]]> http://infosciencetoday.org/type/research-type/cross-generational-conflicts-as-antecedents-to-organizational-stressors-and-absenteeism.html/feed 0 http://infosciencetoday.org/type/research-type/enhancing-the-human-side-of-the-organization-the-faces-model.html http://infosciencetoday.org/type/research-type/enhancing-the-human-side-of-the-organization-the-faces-model.html#comments Sat, 28 Nov 2009 23:55:04 +0000 admin http://infosciencetoday.org/?p=564 Introduction
Managing human capital in an environment characterized by down-sizing, right-sizing, reengineering, technological innovation,  and global competition is increasingly challenging for organizations. An effective strategy for managing the internal attributes of an organization must rely heavily on the capabilities of people to provide a competitive edge.

Barney (1995) describes four internal attributes important to an organization’s ability to develop, manage and deliver products and services: physical, financial, organizational, and human. Of these, the human element is the cornerstone of  the internal resources of an organization, and effective management of this element can make or break  a business or other entity.

Enhancing the effectiveness of people in organizations requires consideration of a number of factors. The purpose of this article is to summarize relevant  recent literature related to these dimensions, and present a conceptual model for effective management of the human element of the organization. The dimensions are summarized into five categories: fit, attitudes, compensation, empowerment, and selection (FACES). Components of the FACES model are:

1.      Fit – matching an employee’s attributes to an appropriate employment climate,  often known as person-organization fit.

2.      Attitudes – recognizing the importance of employee attitudes and satisfaction with the employment environment.

3.      Compensation – considerations of effective compensation and performance management systems.

4.      Empowerment – elements of employee success, development and wellness.

5.      Selection – effective methods for selecting appropriate employees.

Fit

Matching people with appropriate organizations has a number of positive benefits. Perhaps the most important effects derived from matching individuals to the organization’s environment were determined through a study by Bretz and Judge (1994). Their study found that person-organization fit accounted for statistically significant increases in both tenure (up to 11 percent of the variance) and job satisfaction (up to 32 percent of the variance).

Rynes and Gerhart (1990) found that interviewers rate applicants differently on general versus firm-specific criteria. Interrater reliability was higher for firm-specific criteria than for general employability criteria, suggesting that interviewers in the same organization share common ideas about applicant-organization fit. This research was confirmed by Adkins, Russell and Werbel (1994), who also found that recruiters perceptions of person-organization fit are distinct from those of general employability. Adkins, et al. (1994) noted that higher person-organization fit ratings were associated with  similarities in work values between recruiter and applicant.

Barrett (1995) examined person-environment congruence as measured by the Performance Priority Survey (PPS). This survey requires supervisors and subordinates to indicate priorities for behaviors important to the subordinate’s job. Correlations between scale values are assigned to assess the degree of congruence between supervisor and subordinate scores in two areas: applicant-supervisor pairs and applicant-organization congruence.

The author hypothesized that significant agreement between subordinate and supervisor would predict the supervisor’s satisfaction with the employee. Also, “high agreement between the applicant and organizational climate would lead to the prediction that the applicant would fit the organization” (p.658).

Barrett (1995) analyzed three studies which utilized the PPS to determine correlations of agreement scores and applicant-supervisor and applicant-organization fit. Analysis of the agreement ratings through various jobs and organizations revealed a moderate positive correlation between agreement scores and supervisor  ratings of subordinates, and to a lesser degree  subordinates’ rankings of supervisors.

Correlations between agreement scores of subordinates with averaged supervisor scores, postulated to be representative of organizational climate, indicated that agreement scores correlated with supervisor performance ratings. This correlation showed predictive validity for organizations with which the employee had no prior contact and for organizations with which the employee was familiar.

Employers should note that recruiters apparently distinguish between general employability of an applicant and an applicant’s suitability for a particular organizational environment. Given the associations between person-organization fit and tenure and satisfaction, employers should consider congruence between applicant and organization.

Attitudes

A recent survey by Hewitt Associates, LLC, found that, of 46,500 employees from 38 companies, 74 percent reported general satisfaction with their work, (“How satisfied”, 1997). The work itself and people/coworkers received the highest satisfaction ratings, with advancement opportunities, recognition and pay issues ranked the lowest.

Issues related to employee attitudes and satisfaction are important to the assessment of how human resources management and planning contribute to performance objectives (Morris, 1995). Morris (1995) recognizes seven elements related to employee satisfaction.

1.         The job itself – including content, variety, training.

2.            Supervisor relationships – related to respect, recognition, feedback and fairness in evaluation.

3.            Management beliefs – related to trust, information sharing, and valuing employees.

4.            Opportunity – for career advancement and job security.

5.         Work environment – physical facilities, availability of resources.

6.         Pay, benefits, rewards – compensation and rewards.

7.         Co-worker relationships – cooperation, teamwork, communications.

These categories are evidenced in the Hewitt Associates survey results. Lieber (1998)summarizes the components needed for high levels of satisfaction into only three categories: inspiring leadership, great facilities, and a sense of purpose for employees.

Chase (1996) claims that even reengineering, done properly, can result in improvement in employee attitudes and satisfaction. Chase (1996) indicates that reengineering efforts related to processes benefit from employee input, and that input can be encouraged in a non-threatening (e.g. no job reductions) manner.

Further, involvement of people in studying processes can result in increased levels of trust.

Discussion of person-environment fit indicated possible connections between a match between employee and organization and job satisfaction. This relationship was explored by research conducted by Sims and Kroeck (1994)in terms of the ethical climate of a firm. They found that employees choose to work for companies that have ethical climates similar to that expressed by their preferences, that this similarity was negatively associated with turnover intentions, and that similarity increased organizational commitment. The relationship between ethical climate and job satisfaction was not statistically significant. However, both organizational commitment and negative turnover intentions imply some degree of satisfaction.

A study of the impact of leadership styles on employee attitudes was conducted by Savery (1993). This research investigated the connection between closeness of fit between perceived and desired leadership styles and job satisfaction. Additionally, it was hypothesized that perceived democratic leadership would have a positive impact on job satisfaction. This study confirmed that smaller differences (or dissonance) between perceived and desired leadership styles correlated with greater job satisfaction. However, perceptions of democratic leadership style did not necessarily lead to increased job satisfaction. In sum, the actual leadership style is less important to job satisfaction than the congruence between perceived and preferred styles (Savery, 1993).

The practical upshot of job satisfaction and positive employee attitudes is that in addition to the benefits realized by employees, organizations benefit from higher perceptions of customer service.  Schmit & Allscheid (1995) simultaneously studied samples of both employee attitudes and the company’s customers’ perceptions of quality service. The results indicated that there was a relationship between positive employee attitudes and perceptions of customer service.

Compensation

Although workers generally report that having an interesting and meaningful job is the main key to job satisfaction, good compensation and rewards systems and meaningful performance management processes can enhance employer-employee relationships. Accordingly, inequitable or ineffective systems can result in reduced levels of satisfaction.

Compensation and Rewards

Compensation is affected by both external and internal factors (Sherman & Bohlander, 1992). External factors include labor market conditions, local wage rates, collective bargaining efforts and governmental regulation. Internal factors include the employer’s ability to pay, worth of the job, and the value of an employee’s relative contribution. Also important to compensation systems are fringe benefits. Fringe benefits often add 25 to 30 percent to compensation costs, over and above base salaries (Penson, 1995).

Compensation plans traditionally have been formal plans rooted in job hierarchy and individual performance, controlled by a bureaucratic human resources function. Recent trends indicate a shift, to more flexible models focusing on team and organizational performance, with control of compensation decisions fixed more with line managers and even workers (Risher, 1997). Risher (1997) notes that the structure of organizations is becoming more team oriented, resulting in the need to compensate individuals to some extent based upon their contributions to achieving team and organizational goals.

Compensation systems have not kept pace with organizational structures that utilize more work teams. In a recent survey, 87 percent of responding companies reported use of work teams, but only 41 percent offered some form of team-based compensation (“Paying for teamwork”, 1997). While few advocate dropping all considerations of individual employee performance in compensation decisions, the importance of team achievements should not be overlooked. It is also important to assure that emphasis on team performance is not undermined by the rewards system. For example, it would be difficult to focus employee efforts on team achievements if a piece-work incentive is in place (“Paying for teamwork”, 1997).

As reengineering efforts have revised work processes, organization structure has become flatter and more work teams are utilized (Flynn, 1996). Compensation and rewards systems need to be reviewed in light of these developments. Broadbanding is an attempt to increase flexibility in compensation plans in order to deal with compensation issues based upon team and productivity issues. Broadbanding is an infrastructure concept which allows compensation schemes to incorporate elements other than pay grades or ranges in determining pay and bonuses (Schuster & Zingheim, 1996). Essentially, broadbanding allows pay ranges to vary more so that compensation can include incentives other than those related strictly to individual performance. Advantages include reducing the hierarchical pay grade focus, providing more flexibility in determining employee rewards, and giving managers more power and latitude in compensation-related decisions (Flynn, 1996).

Contributions to productivity by individuals and teams are recognized through gainsharing (Jackson & Roper, 1996). Gainsharing provides compensation based on operational, financial or team performance (Masternak, 1997). Masternak (1997) studied 17 facilities involved in gainsharing plans. He suggests several elements that contribute to an effective gainsharing plan:

1.         Each organization should customize gainsharing plans according to the nature of individual plants, locations, or business units.

2.            Structured employee participation is necessary, particularly in developing fair and achievable performance baselines and goals.

3.         Regular communication of performance goals and gainsharing results.

4.         Provide individual, team and organizational recognition to promote the gainsharing plan and maintain employee focus.

5.          Support the gainsharing plan by providing employees the resources for success, including training.

6.          Payments related to productivity should become significant over time, and distributed frequently in order to sustain momentum.

7.            Maintain organization-wide commitment to the plan.

Changes in the nature of relationships between suppliers and customers have provided the basis for other trends in compensation, especially in sales. Many customers have shifted their purchasing strategy from one of low initial cost to one that considers the total value (including quality and service issues in addition to costs) of the product to the customer (O’Connell & Marchese, 1995).

This trend has resulted in many firms reducing their number of supplier relationships drastically, which has resulted in pressures to reward salespersons appropriately for retaining customers, not just acquiring new business. This has led firms to develop life cycle compensation systems to help retain sales representatives (and their established client bases) throughout their entire careers. These new plans include awarding bonuses for accounts retained and contracts renewed, and recurring payments in consideration of multi-year sales results.

Another recent trend involves increased flexibility in employee benefit choices and administration. Owens-Corning, for example, has reduced the fixed level of guaranteed benefits in favor of employee credits. These credits can be used to purchase traditional fringe benefits, as well as other rewards such as time off or even additional money (McCafferty, 1996).

Performance Management

In order for employees to be accountable and rewarded for performance it is necessary to develop individual and team performance objectives, determine reward structures, and provide clear feedback of performance results (Jones, 1996). According to Sherman and Bohlander (1992), a performance management system has four objectives:

1.         To allow employees to discuss performance issues and standards with supervisors on a regular basis.

2.         To allow supervisors to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of employee performance.

3.         To provide a mechanism for developing individual performance improvement programs.

4.         To provide a basis for compensation decisions.

Additionally, regular performance appraisal serves as a means of documenting performance which can serve as a basis for disciplinary decisions, thereby providing notice to employees as part of due process. One positive result of good performance measurement is that it can provide insight into training needs to support an organizational development plan.

The predominant trends in compensation, rewards and performance management relate to individual and team incentives. Many organizations have flatter structures due to reduction in organizational layers and other elements of bureaucracy (Flynn, 1996). Compensation based upon individual, team, and organizational performance is gaining acceptance. Managers have assumed more responsibility for compensation administration and pay decisions (Flynn, 1996). Elements of employee responsibility for the success or failure of their employers is becoming a focus of compensation, rewards and performance management.

Empowerment

Recent trends toward flatter organizational structures and use of work teams have resulted in increased pressures on employees in terms of both performance and decision making. In order to succeed in this environment, employees must have the knowledge and resources, and organizations must empower employees through training, development and concern for their wellness.

Training

Training is a particularly important component of the development and learning process. Nadler and Nadler (1994) have developed the Critical Events Model (CEM), an open systems model designed for the systematic implementation of training and learning programs. Implementation of the CEM is a sequential process which includes the following components:

1.            Identifying the needs of the organization. This involves discussions with managers and other diagnostic efforts to determine the goals and objectives of the training. The diagnosis is followed by evaluation and feedback.

2.         Specify job performance. Discussions with first line supervisors and employees helps determine job performance in terms of quality and quantity.

3.         Identify learner needs. This involves analysis of the gap in knowledge, skills or abilities to be addresses by the training in order to achieve the desired level of performance.

4.            Determine objectives. The specific measurable objectives are derived from analysis up to this point in the process.

5.         Build curriculum and select instructional strategies. This involves determining the content of the training and the methods of delivery. Choices for delivery techniques include general to specific, specific to general, and concrete to abstract concept techniques.

6.         Obtain instructional resources. This includes development of reference materials, physical space and scheduling considerations.

7.            Conduct the training. An opening meeting is conducted, reference materials are distributed, and the training schedule is begun.

8.            Evaluation and feedback. Both during training, to correct for any weaknesses determined in the process, and at the conclusion of training, to determine its effectiveness.

Organizational Development

In addition to training efforts, which generally provide process-related instruction, organizational development interventions are used to improve the social functioning of organizations, using behavioral science techniques applied to organizational processes. They focus on interactions among people within organization, with the goal of increasing organizational effectiveness and health (Hodge, et al., 1996).

Organizational development can target both the structural and process dimensions of an organization (Theodore, 1996). The support for planned organizational change must come from top management, but in order to be effective, change has to affect all employees involved. The components of organizational development may include gathering information from workers and providing feedback, study of organizational processes, team building, and various types of training (Hodge, et al., 1996).

Neuman, Edwards and Raju (1989) conducted a meta-analysis of organizational development interventions to determine their effects on satisfaction and attitudes. This analysis divided organizational development interventions into three categories: human processes, techno-structural, and multi-faceted  interventions.

Human processes organizational development interventions include laboratory training, participation in decision making, goal setting, team building, grid OD, survey feedback techniques, and management by objectives. Techno-structural interventions include job redesign, job enlargement, job enrichment, and flextime. Multi-faceted interventions use combinations of intervention techniques.

Multi-faceted interventions proved to have greater impact in modifying satisfaction and attitudes than any single technique. Of the individual interventions, team building and lab training had the greatest impact on changing attitudes and satisfaction. Overall, the authors concluded that organizational development appears to affect attitudes more than satisfaction (Neuman, et al., 1989).

Management development is another key element of the empowerment and development process. The development of management competencies required for implementing strategic change and enhancing the understanding of competition is the focus of Holistic management (Wilson, 1994). According to Wilson (1994), this is accomplished by emphasizing “functional relationships between the organization’s parts and the whole” (p. 12).

Holistic management involves both quality systems and human resources; both the way individuals work and the way they are trained (Hoare, 1995). Successful implementation of strategies through the holistic approach requires a shared vision communicated throughout the organization, communicated through a strategic plan which has been endorsed by top management (Wilson, 1994).

Employee Health and Wellness

The American Institute of Stress estimates that illnesses related to stress cost the American economy $150 billion per year in terms of lost productivity and health costs (Minter, 1991). A recent survey by Harris Research found that of 5,400 adults in 16 countries, 54 percent reported that the leading cause of stress was work (Romano, 1995). Job and career path uncertainty is the top cause of workplace stress, but other factors such as poor communications and perceptions of workload inequity contribute as well (Minter, 1991).

Holmes and Rahe (1967) defined “stress” or “stressor” as any environmental, social, or internal demand which requires the individual to readjust his or her usual behavior patterns. Stressors related to organizations include factors intrinsic to the job, organizational structure and control, reward systems, and leader relationships (Ivancevich & Matteson, 1987).

Research over the past few decades has linked personality to stress-related illnesses, especially coronary heart disease. The “Type A” behaviors associated with susceptibility to stress-related illnesses include hard-driving, competitive, aggressive, hostile, and time-urgent behaviors (Ivancevich & Matteson, 1987).

Addressing the problems of workplace stress, including those exacerbated by Type A personality factors requires a concerted effort. Dewe  (1994) suggests that many stress interventions fail because they offer only a partial solution or place the burden for change on the individual. Dewe (1994) suggests a three-level approach to the problem:

1.         Primary interventions – reduce organizational-level stressors such as poor communications, role ambiguity, poor leader relationships, and red tape.

2.            Secondary interventions – equip individuals to better cope with stress through relaxation training, meditation, biofeedback, cognitive restructuring, and exercise.

3.         Tertiary interventions – assist individuals who have stress-related illnesses through Employee Assistance Programs and wellness programs.

Maintaining the health and well-being of employees is critical to productivity and employee satisfaction. Given the costs associated with this problem, both in terms of financial and human capital, employers must be pro-active in dealing with these issues.

Selection

Managing human capital involves a great deal of emphasis on selecting the right employees for the organization and for specific jobs. Effective employee selection is important, as the cost of replacing an employee is estimated by the U.S. Department of Labor to cost an employer one-third of an employee’s salary to acquire a replacement (White, 1995). Employee selection methods include employment interviews, assessment centers, realistic job previews, and the use of a variety of test instruments.

Employment interviews are the most widely used method of assessment, but their reliability is suspect, as they rarely show correlations with performance greater than .20 (Lane, 1992). However, Pulakos and Schmidt (1995) found that experience-based interviews derived from thorough job analysis found correlations with supervisory ratings as high as .32, indicating that this type interview can be a good predictor of performance.

Assessment centers utilize a variety of methods to judge performance, including in-basket exercises, leaderless group sessions, often complemented by cognitive ability and personality tests. According to Dulewicz (1991), assessment centers are the best predictors of future performance of all generally researched assessment tools, and can provide correlations with performance as high as .43 (Lane, 1992). Although considered rather costly, assessment centers have the advantage of showing little adverse impact on any protected group (Lane, 1992). Determining key competencies through job analysis and thorough training of assessors improves the validity of assessment center ratings (Dulewicz, 1991).

Realistic job previews are used by organizations to provide potential employees a balanced picture of the positive and negative aspects of the jobs they are seeking. The use of realistic job previews has been demonstrated to have a positive impact on job satisfaction and to be negatively correlated with turnover (Collari & Stumpf, 1995).

One author estimates that 5,000 to 6,000 employers use personality tests as part of their hiring processes (O’Meara, 1994). Research suggests that personality tests can be better predictors of job performance if the factors that comprise effective performance in a specific job are clearly understood, and even then, should be used to complement other methods and not  as a stand-alone selection tool (Adler, 1994).

Barrick and Mount (1991) classified results from 117 criterion-related personality studies into personality dimensions according to Norman’s “big five” taxonomy. The “big five” personality dimensions are Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Openness to Experience.

Analysis across occupational categories revealed that Extraversion was positively correlated with performance in management and sales jobs, ones which involve good interpersonal skills. Agreeableness was expected to be positively correlated with performance in management and sales, but very little support was found for this hypothesis.

The Emotional Stability dimension was expected to predict success across all occupational groups, but actual correlations were, in fact, mixed (even negative for management jobs). The most consistent predictor of performance across occupational types was the Conscientiousness dimension. The authors found that the Openness to Experience and Extraversion dimensions were associated with training proficiency.

In order to use personality factors in the selection process to predict performance, it is necessary to choose an instrument. Employers must be concerned whether an ostensibly neutral employment practice such as personality testing can be shown to have an adverse impact on a protected group or invade privacy,  (O’Meara, 1994).

Conclusions

The FACES model provides a framework for enhancing the effectiveness of people in organizations. Employee-organization fit, employee attitudes, effective compensation and performance management systems, employee empowerment, and effective selection methods are components of the internal organizational environment  which, if optimized, contribute to achieving this goal.

References

Adler, S. (1994). Personality tests for sales force selection: Worth a fresh look. Review of Business, 16, 27 – 31.

Barney,  J. B. (1995). Looking inside for competitive advantage. Academy of Management Executive, 9, 49 – 61.

Barrett,  R. S. (1995). Employee selection with the performance priority survey. Personnel Psychology, 48, 653 – 662.

Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 78, 111 – 118.

Bretz, R. D. & Judge, T. A. (1994). Person-organization fit and the theory of work adjustment: Implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 32 – 54.

Chase, N. (1996). The new face of reengineering: Process design grows up. Quality, 35, 43 – 48.

Collarri, S. M. & Stumpf, S. A. (1995). Compatibility and conflict among outcomes of organizational entry strategies: Mechanistic and social systems perspectives. Behavioral Science, 35, 1 – 10.

Dewe, P. (1994). EAP’s and stress management: From theory to practice to comprehensiveness. Management Review, 23, 21 – 32.

Dulewicz, V. (1991). Improving assessment centres. Personnel Management, 18, 4 – 6.

Flynn, G. (1996). Compare traditional pay with broadbanding. Personnel Journal, 75, 20, 26.

Hoare, C. (1995). A holistic management system. TQM Magazine, 7, 57 – 61.

Hodge, B. J., Anthony, W. P., & Gales, L. M. (1996). Organizational Theory: A Strategic Approach, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentiss-Hall.

Holmes, T. H. & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social adjustment rating scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213 – 218.

How satisfied are your employees?  (1997, Sept.) HR Focus, 12.

Ivancevich, J. M. & Matteson, M. T. (1987). Controlling work stress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jackson, III, J. & Roper, K. (1996). In any field, gainsharing can boost business. Triangle Business Journal, 12, 14Q.

Jones, D. D. (1996). Repositioning human resources: A case study. Human Resource Planning, 19, 51 – 53.

Lane, J. (1992). Methods of assessment. Health Manpower Management, 18, 4 – 6.

Masternak, R. (1997). How to make gainsharing successful: The collective experience of 17 facilities. Compensation and Benefits Review, 29, 43 – 53.

McCafferty, J. (1996). Rewards and resources in the pink. CFO, 12, 11.

Minter, S. G. (1991). Relieving workplace stress. Occupational Hazards, 53, 38 – 42.

Morris, T. (1995). Employee satisfaction: Managing the return on human capital. CMA Magazine, 69, 15 – 17.

Nadler, L. & Nadler, Z. (1994). Designing Training Programs, 2^nd ed., Houston: Gulf Publishing Company.

O’Connell, B. & Marchese, L. (1995). Paying for the relationship, not just the sale. Journal of Compensation and Benefits, 11, 32 – 39.

O’Meara, D. P. (1994). Personality tests raise issues of legality and effectiveness. HR Magazine, 39, 97 – 100.

Neuman, G. A., Edwards, J. E., & Raju, N. S. (1989). Organizational development interventions: A meta-analysis of their effects on satisfaction and other attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 42, 461 – 483.

Paying for teamwork: Winning compensation strategies. (1997). Getting Results…From the Hands-On Manager, 42, 6 – 8.

Pulakos, E. D. & Schmidt, N. (1995). Experience-based and situational interview questions: Studies of validity. Personnel Psychology, 48, 289 – 308.

Risher, H. (1997). The end of jobs: Planning and managing rewards in the new work paradigm. Compensation and Benefits Review, 29, 13 – 19.

Romano, C. (1995). Too much work causes stress. Management Review, 84, 6.

Rynes, S. L. & Gerhart, B. (1990). Interviewer assessments of applicant fit: An exploratory investigation. Personnel Psychology, 43, 13 – 35.

Savery, L. K. 91993). Difference between perceived and desired leadership styles: The effect on employee attitudes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 8, 28 – 32.

Schmidt, M. J. & Allscheid, S. P. (1995). Employee attitudes and customer satisfaction: making theoretical and empirical connections. Personnel Psychology: 48, 521 – 536.

Schuster, J. R. & Zingheim, P. K. (1996). The network discusses: Broadbanding, merit pay, and team participation. Compensation and Benefits Review, 28, 21 – 22.

Sherman, A. W. & Bohlander, G. W. (1992). Managing Human Resources, 9^th ed., (pp. 303 – 338).

Sims, R. L. & Kroeck, K. G. (1994). The influence of ethical fit on employee satisfaction, commitment and turnover. Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 939 – 947.

Theodore, J. D. (1996). Organizational Development. Unpublished paper. JDT Management Consultants, Lakeland, FL.

White, G. L. (1995). Employee turnover: The hidden drain on profits. HR Focus, 72,

15 – 18.

Wilson, J. G. (1994). Holistic management systems. Management Services, 38, 12 – 14.

“As an information scientist it is our duty to stop information explosion, we are jack of all track but master of information”, is what S.M.Mannan, a former chairman of the department of Information Science and Library Management, University of Dhaka had to say about the profession of an information scientist, as well as the roles any information science graduate plays .

The primary role of an information officer is that of creating as much ease in the access of information, as possible. Because he is an employee of an information organization as well as a library, he is an important member of the team engaged in research or activities of crucial importance to the parent body. We can go to the extent of saying that he is an indispensable member of his team. An information officer’s fundamental job is to provide information promptly, specifically, exhaustively and accurately to any member of the parent organization. He provides information on demand and in anticipation.

An information officer should have high qualities and qualifications. Information service is certainly a vocation which demands a special attitude of mind and certain qualities, which cannot always be acquired at will or through training. Therefore everybody can not possibly become a good information officer.

An information officer should possess the following qualities and qualification:
He should be brief, clean in thinking and possess good power of observation, a logical and analytical mind and be able to draw scientific conclusions on the basis of induction.

He should possess a fine sense of judgment. An individual’s integrity is no less important than his academic and professional qualifications because in many an instance a person with lesser qualifications has performed better on a job because of sheer hard work. He should possess a flair for accuracy of details and also not despise the matter of details and should be a natural psychologist, so that he can understand and appreciate the needs of the research scholars. He should possess gift for searching information clarity in expression and flair for good writing. Being widely read and an ability to keep up with the literature of library and information science, and the subject of specialization of his parent organization.

An information officer must be intellectually honest like any genuine scholar. He should possess subject knowledge, especially of technical terms concerning the field of specialization of the parent body. Therefore, a degree in the subject can prove to be an asset. He should have knowledge of at least languages besides his mother tongue. The higher the proficiency in the language better it is. In science and technology, languages like English, German, French, Russian and Japanese have special importance. One year’s certificate may be good for cataloguing and classification purposes but searching for information this would prove to be inadequate.
He should possess skill in library techniques like indexing, abstracting, and writing of reports. He should be familiar with organizing of information materials or library materials and possess knowledge about the sources of information. These techniques can be acquired effectively, if one has done an M.A degree course in Information Science and Library Management. Experience on the job is an important qualification. It can help an information officer to overcome lack of knowledge of the subject. To acquire both quality and qualification, in Bangladesh, Dhaka University Department of Information Science & Library Management has been providing four year Hon’s degree and one year Master degree since 1997. Rajshahi University also provides Hon’s and Master degree in this subject. Simultaneously 12 colleges are providing B.A (pass) degree under national university in this subject in Khulna, Chitagong, Barisal, Tangail, Narsindi, Sirajgong, Jessore, Mymensingh and Kurigram. Recently three private universities have started giving circular that they are starting this subject. For higher education any one can take M Phil and Ph.D. degree from various foreign universities of the world, as well as from Dhaka University.

After passing Hon’s degree from any department, it is possible for any one to take a diploma course to acquire skills in this profession. Library Training Institute of Library Association in Bangladesh has been providing such kind of trainings since 1989. Institute of Library & Information Science located at Nilkhet High School (3rd floor) in Dhaka University campus also provides post Hon’s Diploma courses.

This profession is dynamic. After finishing master’s degree any one can involve in this profession as an information officer in various organizations all over the world or regional organizations in Bangladesh. There are many sources to get a job in Bangladesh.