Job Satisfaction

Academy of Management Journal
2014, Vol. 57, No. 2, 353382.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.1087
THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL CONTEXT ON THE RELATIONSHIP

BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL JOB SATISFACTION AND
ABSENTEEISM: THE ROLES OF DIFFERENT FOCI OF JOB
SATISFACTION AND WORK-UNIT ABSENTEEISM
STEFAN DIESTEL
Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors
JRGEN WEGGE
Institute for Work, Organizational and Social Psychology, TU Dresden
KLAUS-HELMUT SCHMIDT
Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors
Building upon recent conceptualizations of different foci of job satisfaction and theories of social-contextual influence, we develop and test an integrative cross-level model
of the individual relationships between both externally focused satisfaction (referring to job conditions) and internally focused satisfaction (referring to the work unit)
and absenteeism. For both of these foci, we hypothesize differential three-way interactive effects of work-unit absenteeism patterns as characterized by their mean and
dispersion levels, as well as individual satisfaction levels on subsequent individual
absenteeism. Based on two German multi-level samples, our analyses demonstrate that
the negative relationship between externally focused satisfaction and individual absenteeism is strongest in the presence of high mean and dispersion levels of work-unit
absenteeism, whereas this relationship is weaker when either the mean or dispersion
levels of work-unit absenteeism, or both, are low. In contrast, the negative relationship
between internally focused satisfaction and individual absenteeism is strongest under
conditions of low mean and dispersion levels of work-unit absenteeism, whereas this
relationship is weaker when either the mean or dispersion levels of work-unit absenteeism, or both, are high. The present findings suggest that simultaneously improving
individual internally focused satisfaction and reducing work-unit absenteeism is the
most promising approach to reducing individual absenteeism.
Roth, 2006), may tempt scholars to conclude that

job satisfaction is not a trustworthy predictor of
absenteeism. Nevertheless, the prevailing scholarly
interest in this relationship results from the empirical observation that job attitudeabsenteeism relations are notably susceptible to the moderating effects of variables that are embedded in the
job-related context (Biron & Bamberger, 2012;
Hausknecht et al., 2008; Xie & Johns, 2000). Although a focus on such combined effects seems
promising when explaining the satisfactionabsenteeism relation, the limited predictive power may
also be due to the mono-level view that has been
predominantly applied in past research. In extending this view, recent theoretical developments and
empirical findings regarding the role of the social
context call for a broader perspective that explicitly
accounts for contextual cues and stimuli from
Given the high costs of losses in productivity

resulting from absenteeism and the theoretical
complexity of attitudes toward work and withdrawal from work, scholars and managers continue
to devote their attention to the effects of workrelated attitudes, especially the effect of job satisfaction on absenteeism (Dineen, Noe, Shaw, Duffy,
& Wiethoff, 2007; Hausknecht, Hiller, & Vance,
2008; Wegge, Schmidt, Parkes, & van Dick, 2007).
According to findings from meta-analyses, however, the moderate correlation between job satisfaction and absenteeism, which ranges from .21 to
.23 (Hackett, 1989; see also Harrison, Newman, &
We thank the action editor Jason D. Shaw and three

anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and
suggestions.
353
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holders express
written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
354
higher organizational levels when predicting withdrawal behavior on the basis of individual job attitudes (Johns, 2006; Liu, Mitchell, Lee, Holtom, &
Hinkin, 2012).
In addition to the empirical evidence of the influential role of the social context on withdrawal
behavior (Bamberger & Biron, 2007; Felps, Mitchell, Hekman, Lee, Holtom, & Harman, 2009), there
are at least two more interrelated reasons for using
a multi-level framework to disentangle the satisfactionabsenteeism relationship. First, for the purposes of high effectiveness and productivity, a
growing number of organizations have adopted
work-unit structures that persist over time (Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009). Therefore, to provide a comprehensive understanding of organizational behaviors such as absenteeism and to derive
effective managerial recommendations, theories on
job satisfaction and absenteeism must take the
characteristics of work units that represent distinct
social-contextual features into account. Second,
and more importantly, scholars have characterized
absenteeism as a meaningful organizational event
that is perceived and evaluated by members of a
work unit and, thus, may be closely tied to social
and normative expectations particular to work
groups (Hausknecht et al., 2008: 1223). Consistent
with this conceptualization, past studies have repeatedly reported considerable amounts of variance in absenteeism between (even highly homogeneous) work units (Chadwick-Jones, Nicholson, &
Brown, 1982; Harrison & Martocchio, 1998; Mathieu & Kohler, 1990). Moreover, shared understandings or normative expectations in terms of
absence cultures (Bamberger & Biron, 2007; Xie &
Johns, 2000) and mean levels of work-unit absenteeism (Mathieu & Kohler, 1990; Schmidt, 2002)
have been found to predict individual absenteeism
(for a review, see Rentsch & Steel, 2003); that is, the
occurrence of absenteeism is highly influenced by
social-contextual features of work units that may
also determine the degree to which job satisfaction
levels relate to patterns of absence behavior. This
proposition relies on the empirically well-founded
notion that attitude behavior relations are influenced by the social context (Mischel, 1977; Wallace, Paulson, Lord, & Bond, 2005).
However, extant theories have only considered
the implications of social-contextual influences on
the satisfactionabsenteeism relationship at higher
organizational levels. For example, Dineen et al.
(2007) developed a framework that explains how
different foci of job satisfaction interact with social-
April
contextual factors to predict absence rates in teams.

Their framework relied on the conceptual dichotomy of internal (referring to the team or work
unit) and external (referring to the job or organization) foci of work-related attitudes (Siders,
George, & Dharwadkar, 2001). The differential interactions of both foci with social-contextual factors found in the study by Dineen et al. (2007)
demonstrate that the two foci of satisfaction play
different roles in predicting absenteeism. However,
because different psychological mechanisms materialize at different organizational levels, especially
with respect to withdrawal behavior (Johns, 2006;
Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Rentsch & Steel, 2003),
further research regarding the specific conditions
under which employees decide to take a sickie
when they are dissatisfied with certain aspects of
their job is warranted.
To further contribute to the scholarly understanding of the satisfactionabsenteeism relationship at the individual level, we develop and test a
multi-level model that accounts for both foci of job
satisfaction and social context (see Figure 1). We
conceptualize social contexts via combinations of
the level and the consistency of contextual features
that have been found to jointly influence individual behavior (Liao, Liu, & Loi, 2010; Liu et al.,
2012). In particular, on the basis of Chans (1998)
typology of composition models, the strength of a
social context is defined by the mean levels of
work-unit absenteeism, which are normative reference points, and by the dispersion levels of workunit absenteeism, which indicate the uniformity of
absence behavior within a work unit. Social information processing theory (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978)
and attitude representation theory (Lord & Lepper,
1999) suggest different impacts of the absence context (mean and dispersion levels of absence behavior) depending on the satisfaction focus. Therefore,
we derive distinct predictions of how each of the
satisfaction foci interacts with work-unit absenteeism to influence individual absenteeism.
In explaining our model, we provide a conceptual definition of the different job satisfaction foci.
Next, we elaborate the theoretical and empirical
arguments for conceptualizing the absence contexts
of work units through both their mean and their
dispersion levels of absence. Finally, we present
our hypotheses regarding the moderating effects of
work-unit absenteeism on the negative relationship
between individual externally and internally focused satisfaction on the one hand and individual
absenteeism on the other.
2014
Diestel, Wegge, and Schmidt
355
FIGURE 1
Theoretical Framework
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND

HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
Job Satisfaction Foci and Their Relationships
with Absenteeism
According to widely accepted definitions, individual job satisfaction is a work-related attitude
that reflects the extent to which an employee evaluates certain aspects of his or her jobsuch as
co-workers, the supervisor, career opportunities,
the organization, and working conditionsas beneficial to him or her (Hausknecht et al., 2008;
Locke, 1976; Schleicher, Watt, & Greguras, 2004;
Weiss, 2002). In light of these different aspects, a
growing body of research points to the necessity of
distinguishing between different targets or foci of
job-related attitudes (Becker, 1992; Dineen et al.,
2007; Siders et al., 2001). This necessity is heightened by the empirical finding that different foci of
job attitudes exhibit different relationships with
organizational outcomes, such as performance and
absenteeism. Based on Siders et al.s (2001) conclusion that the foci distinction is useful in explaining
the typically weak relationship between broader
measures of attitudes and organizational outcomes
(see also Schleicher et al., 2004), Dineen et al.
(2007) differentiated between externally and inter-
nally focused job satisfaction. According to their

definition, externally focused satisfaction reflects employees attitudes concerning their jobs in
general, whereas internally focused satisfaction
is defined as the extent to which an employee derives enjoyment from working with others in his or
her work unit. The attributes external and internal indicate whether the attitudinal targets generalize across work units and characterize the job in
general or are specific to the work unit, respectively. To disentangle the role of social context in
the relationship between job satisfaction and absenteeism, Dineen et al. (2007) noted that research
on this issue should take different foci or targets of
job satisfaction into account because they have different influences on the way that employees respond to the social context. In the present study,
we predict that specific patterns of interactions between social contexts and individual satisfaction
levels on absenteeism are contingent upon the attitudinal focus.
Our prediction draws on attitude representation
theory (Lord & Lepper, 1999; Watt, Maio, Rees, &
Hewstone, 2007), which proposes that an attitudinal response is mainly influenced by how the attitudinal target is mentally represented. According to
this theory, specific features or characteristics of an
356
attitudinal target determine its representation,

which shapes the function of the attitude. The
function of an attitude characterizes its meaning
and regulates how people respond to both the attitudinal object and the social context (Snyder &
DeBono, 1989). Abelson and Prentice (1989) distinguished between instrumental functions, which
provide information about the usefulness of the
attitudinal object from an individuals point of
view, and social-adjustive functions, which express group identity needs and indicate the extent
to which an individual perceives herself or himself
as integrated into a group (see also Smith, Bruner, &
White, 1956). On a conceptual level, with career
opportunities, working conditions, and management included in the focus, we advance externally
focused job satisfaction as an attitude that fulfills
an instrumental function. In defining the attitudinal targets of externally focused job satisfaction, we
concentrate on features that are more task-related
(resources, equipment, and facilities) or instrumentally based (opportunities for advancement and
qualification, rules and regulations within the organization), rather than features that are value- or
affect-based (Weiss, 2002). In contrast, including
entities of the social context or work unit (colleagues and supervisor) in the focus, we conceptualize internally focused job satisfaction as an attitude that fulfills social-adjustive functions.
Because employees derive group identity from
their work unit that is defined by an interdependent collection of individuals and provides a basis
for familiarity, cohesion, and reciprocal social support (Moreland & Levine, 2001; van Knippenberg &
van Schie, 2000), satisfaction with the colleagues
and supervisor in the work unit should indicate the
degree of social integration or identification that an
employee experiences as a result of interactions
within his or her work unit (Dineen et al., 2007:
626).
Research indicates that instrumental and socialadjustive attitudes differ in how they relate to behavioral outcomes and interact with social-contextual influences (Ledgerwood & Trope, 2010; Watt et
al., 2007). In the case of an instrumental attitude, a
behavioral response primarily serves instrumental
or calculative purposes, and, thus, derives from a
more global evaluation, which involves the integration of information from different sources, e.g., the
social context. In line with this argument, Harrison
et al. (2006) posited that absenteeism is a behavioral strategy or a controllable form of input reduction that aims to maintain a balanced exchange of
April
resources between the employee and the organization (reducing the level of investment in an unbalanced relationship with the employer or using the
time to find alternative jobs). One implication of
this conceptualization is that, when more instrumental aspects of the job are in the satisfaction
focus, employees consider or interpret social-contextual information within the environment (work
unit) as potential constraints or opportunities that
affect their response to their evaluation of the external target (Biron & Bamberger, 2012; Salancik &
Pfeffer, 1978). Thus, we predict that the social context moderates the effects of individual externally
focused satisfaction on absenteeism. Some empirical support for our prediction has been provided by
Hausknecht et al. (2008), who reported that the
negative relationship between both job satisfaction
and organizational commitment and absenteeism at
the work-unit level is attenuated as a function of
the local unemployment rate. According to their
line of reasoning, dissatisfied employees or those
with a low level of commitment interpret absenteeism as a risky strategy because a high unemployment rate as a contextual cue indicates a scarcity of
potential job alternatives (see also Markham, 1985).
In contrast, social-adjustive attitudes function to
coordinate social actions and interactions within
an interdependent collection of individuals and the
resulting behavioral response is mainly directed at
social alignment with or avoidance of the attitudinal objects (e.g., work-unit colleagues or the supervisor). Consistent with this view, Gellatly and Allen (2012) argued that high or low levels of
individual absence behavior can also serve as a
form of social alignment whereby employees display compliance with a group norm. Conversely,
low levels of work-unit identification result in
alienation and demotivation that manifest in avoidance or withdrawal behaviors, such as absenteeism
(Dineen et al., 2007; van Dick, van Knippenberg,
Kerschreiter, Hertel, & Wieseke, 2008). Thus, when
employees evaluate their satisfaction with the entities of the social context (work-unit colleagues
and the supervisor), their attitudinal responses (absenteeism) reflect their level of enjoyment resulting
from social interaction within the work unit. In
other words, the social context directly guides a
focal employees behavior if internally focused satisfaction, which determines behavioral alignment
with the context, is high. Bamberger and Biron
(2007) have provided some support for this line of
reasoning by showing that co-workers absence
norms were most strongly related to employees
2014
absence behavior when the focal employees reported that they were prone to being influenced by
peers in their group. This finding suggests that,
even in the case of high work-unit satisfaction,
employees are likely to engage in withdrawal behavior if the social context in which they are embedded provides strong cues for withdrawing (Liu
et al., 2012).
Conceptualization of Work-Unit Absenteeism as
a Social-Context Factor
In light of the hypothesized role of the social
context in the relationships between both satisfaction foci and absenteeism, research must define the
relevant social-contextual facets or manifestations
that are most likely to affect these relationships.
Mowday and Sutton (1993: 198) defined context as
stimuli and phenomena [such as behavior of others] that surround and thus exist in the environment external to the individual, most often at a
different level of analyses. On the basis of this
definition, Johns (2006: 386) argued that the social
context is a strong influential factor that affect[s]
the occurrence and meaning of organizational behavior as well as functional relationships between
variables. In support, previous studies have repeatedly demonstrated that the social context not
only influences behavior but also shapes the conditions under which the functional relationships
between individual job attitudes and behavioral
outcomes materialize (Bamberger & Biron, 2007;
Duffy, Scott, Shaw, Tepper, & Aquino, 2012; Liu et
al., 2012).
For two interrelated theoretical reasons, we assert that work-unit absenteeism is the most salient
and influential social-contextual cue or stimulus
that influences the satisfactionabsenteeism relationship (Mathieu & Kohler, 1990; Schmidt, 2002).
First, Ajzen and Fishbeins (1977) compatibility
principle predicts that attitudes are only related to
corresponding behavior if the attitudes, context,
and behavior match each other; that is, the degree
of correspondence between the context and the target behavior determines whether and to what extent attitudes influence behavior. Specifically, people embedded in groups are particularly sensitive
to contextual stimuli with respect to their focal
behaviors, and their responses to their own attitudes are mostly likely to be influenced by the
corresponding behavioral patterns of their group.
Because employees recognize whether their own
absence behavior matches the patterns of absentee-
357
ism in their social environment (e.g., work unit),

the degree to which their absence behaviors correspond to their satisfaction levels should be influenced by the absence patterns within their work
unit (Johns & Nicholson, 1982; Mason & Griffin,
2003). Several studies have demonstrated that individual patterns of a specific behavior, such as job
search behavior and tardiness, are often highly related to corresponding patterns of that behavior at
the work-unit level (Eder & Eisenberger, 2008;
Felps et al., 2009).
Second, social conformity theory (Asch, 1956,
1966; Sherif, 1936) asserts that groups develop implicit or explicit expectations and norms concerning meaningful behavior (such as absenteeism) due,
for example, to convergence effects, social conformity pressures, or the intention to stabilize or enhance a self-image that is consistent with the perceived norms of the group (Bamberger & Biron,
2007). In contrast to absence cultures, which are
expected to be explicitly perceived and adopted by
the members of work units in which such cultures
exists (Xie & Johns, 2000), we argue that work-unit
absenteeism exerts its effects through behavioral
convergence, implicit norms, and alignment processes that are not manifest in a salient culture. In
line with this argument, Postmes, Spears, Sakhel,
and De Groot (2001) reported that, even in anonymous situations, individuals within groups develop implicit norms through the observation of the
behavioral patterns of others and that these norms
lead to behavioral convergence.
A growing body of multi-level research demonstrates that the extent to which the social context
(work-unit absenteeism) influences an individuals
behavior depends not only on the level of a particular cue but also on the consistency of the contextual information surrounding it (see also Dineen et
al., 2007; Gonzlez-Roma, Peir, & Tordera, 2002;
Liu et al., 2012: 1364). This finding is in line with
the notion of situational strength (Cooper & Withey,
2009; Mischel, 1977), according to which the combination of the level and consistency of contextual
information determines the strength of a particular
context. Social context strength is commonly defined as the degree to which an in-group situation
is characterized by consistently high or low levels
of observable behavior across the members of a
particular group due to consensual notions regarding the meaning of the focal behavior, the situational constraints, or the social agreements (e.g.,
Schneider, Salvaggio, & Subirats, 2002). Strong situations or strong contexts lead everyone to con-
358
strue the particular events the same way, [and]

induce uniform expectancies regarding the most
appropriate response pattern (Mischel, 1977: 347).
In other words, uniform patterns of behavior among
group members provide clear and consistent cues
(Liu et al., 2012: 1365) through which employees
can gain a sense of their social environment and
adapt their behavioral responses accordingly. In
support, Liu et al. (2012) recently found that mean
levels of job satisfaction in work units were only
negatively related to individual and work-unit
turnover when the dispersion levels of job satisfaction were low. Therefore, the level of work-unit
absenteeism should influence individual absenteeism only when work-unit members show uniform
or consistent absence patterns.
Consequently, we conceptualize absence context
through both the mean and the dispersion levels of
work-unit absenteeism. The mean levels of workunit absenteeism are defined as normative reference points (see also Hausknecht et al., 2008: 1224;
Mathieu & Kohler, 1990). Our definition is in line
with Chans (1998) additive composition model,
according to which the mean level of work-unit
absenteeism is a contextual cue that reflects the
level of absence that is allowed within a work unit.
To capture the contextual consistency that moderates the effect of the mean level, we advance dispersion levels of work-unit absenteeism as the degree of uniformity in the absence patterns within a
work unit. Consistent with Chans (1998) dispersion composition model, high within-unit variance
in individual absences reveals a low level of consistency in behavioral patterns and a weaker contextual strength, whereas low within-unit variance
indicates a high degree of contextual strength that
is driven by agreements within a work unit, cohesiveness, norms, or supervisors instructions (see
also Cole, Bedeian, Hirschfeld, & Vogel, 2011; Harrison & Klein, 2007).
Adopting the concept of situational strength, we
delineate a context-based framework of how the
mean and dispersion levels of work-unit absence
jointly moderate (cross-level, three-way interactions) the individual negative relationships between both of the satisfaction foci and absenteeism
(see Figure 2). Accordingly, externally focused satisfaction should only negatively relate to individual absenteeism when both the mean and the dispersion levels are high, indicating a weak context.
Conversely, regardless of externally focused satisfaction, mean levels of work-unit absenteeism
should predict individual absenteeism when dis-
April
persion levels are low, indicating a strong context.

In contrast, internally focused satisfaction should
only be negatively related to individual absenteeism when both the mean and the dispersion levels
of work-unit absence are low, whereas individual
absenteeism should be higher at all levels of internal satisfaction when a strong context favors high
levels of absenteeism (high mean and low dispersion). In other words, for those with high levels of
internally focused satisfaction, the mean levels of
work-unit absenteeism predict individual absence
when the dispersion is low, whereas those with
low levels of internal satisfaction should often be
absent regardless of their work units absence
patterns.
Externally Focused Job Satisfaction, Work-Unit
Absenteeism and Patterns of Individual
Absenteeism
One of the core premises of social information
processing theory is that employees within work
units gather information about appropriate behavioral patterns from their social environment and
use this information to adapt their attitudes and
behaviors accordingly (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978:
226). On the basis of this premise, Thomas and
Griffin (1989) theorized that such information influences the relationships between job attitudes
and behavioral outcomes through evaluation and
choice processes. In other words, implicit norms
within groups, communication processes, social
constraints, behavioral observations, and modeling
influence the extent to which job attitudes manifest
in specific behavioral patterns. In support, Wellen,
Hogg, and Terry (1998) reported that the attitude
behavior relationship varies as a function of group
norms. When salient group norms strongly suggest
specific behavioral patterns, participants are less
likely to be influenced by their own attitudes and
most likely to follow those norms. According to
Mischel (1977), such conditions indicate a strong
context that inhibits the effects of attitudes on behavior. Because externally focused job satisfaction
has an instrumental function, we predict that a
strong absence context attenuates the negative relationship between individual external satisfaction
and individual absenteeism, whereas a weak absence context strengthens this relationship. In the
following section, we elaborate on two theoretical
reasons for our prediction.
First, in the case of instrumental attitudes, behavioral responses draw on calculative or instrumental
2014
359
FIGURE 2
Expected Patterns of Relationships between Both of the Satisfaction Foci and Individual Absenteeism,
Contingent upon Mean and Dispersion Levels of Work-Unit Absenteeism
reasoning, global evaluation, and choice. Thus,

when externally focused job satisfaction is low,
employees should tend to gather relevant information from the social context to determine whether
absenteeism is an appropriate reaction in their social environment. An absence context that is characterized by low mean and dispersion levels of
work-unit absenteeism reflects a low tolerance
level and suggests that higher individual absenteeism would be highly visible to other work-unit
members and could lead to unpleasant consequences. Thus, low mean and dispersion levels as
social-contextual cues (highly visible to employees) should be evaluated as social constraints (e.g.,
due to clear instructions from the supervisor)
within the work unit that interdict absence behavior in cases of low externally focused satisfaction
(see the lower left quadrant of Figure 2). Likewise,
when absence behavior is consistently high within
a work unit (see the upper left quadrant of Fig-
ure 2), employees may infer that high absenteeism

is a part of the behavioral norms of their work unit
and is thus somewhat expected (Gellatly & Allen,
2012). Under such conditions, employees may underemphasize their own evaluation of the job in
general; that is, for instrumental purposes (e.g.,
avoiding negative consequences or maintaining social support), employees adapt or align their absence behavior to the mean level of work-unit
absenteeism when dispersion levels are low, regardless of their levels of externally focused job
satisfaction. Conversely, with increasing mean and
dispersion levels of work-unit absenteeism, employees should perceive their social environment
as less assertive because inconsistent social-contextual cues and a generally high level of absenteeism
reveal a high tolerance for absence within a work
unit. In such a weak context, a focal employee may
interpret absenteeism as a possible alternative for
reducing his or her investment in an unbalanced
360
relationship with the employer or organization (see

the upper right quadrant of Figure 2).
Second, work units are social environments that
shape the meanings of organizational behaviors by
providing cues regarding the interpretation of
meaningful events such as absenteeism (Johns,
2006; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Strong contexts
with uniform absence levels may suggest that absenteeism is an inadequate or disadvantageous response to evaluations of the job because of the
social interdependence among work-unit members
(Dineen et al., 2007) or the cohesiveness within a
work unit (Xie & Johns, 2000). Therefore, in the
presence of uniformly low or high absence patterns
within a work unit, a focal employee should perceive a highly restricted scope of interpretation of
absenteeism and, thus, should adapt his or her
behavior in accordance with that of the work unit.
Otherwise, a weak context characterized by both
high levels of and high variability in unit members
absence behavior may generate conflicting social
cues regarding the meaning of absenteeism. Thus,
as social influence declines with increasing ambiguity and tolerance of the context (Asch, 1966;
Wallace et al., 2005), the interpretation of absence
behavior is strongly influenced by the focal employees own evaluation, and actual individual absence patterns should correspond to levels of externally focused satisfaction when mean and
dispersion levels are high. On the basis of these
arguments, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1. The mean and dispersion levels
of work-unit absenteeism jointly moderate the
negative relationship between externally focused job satisfaction and individual absenteeism (three-way interaction): the relationship is
strongest when the mean and dispersion levels
of work-unit absenteeism are high, whereas the
relationship is weaker when either the mean or
the dispersion levels or both are low.
Internally Focused Job Satisfaction, Work-Unit
Absenteeism and Patterns of Individual
Absenteeism
As we elaborated above, when entities of the
social context (colleagues and the supervisor in the
work unit) are in the attitudinal focus, internally
focused satisfaction fulfills a social-adjustive function and can be considered an indicator of the level
of social integration or identification that a focal
employee experiences in his or her work unit
April
(Dineen et al., 2007). An employee who is dissatisfied with his or her supervisor and colleagues is
unlikely to socially identify with the work unit.
Research shows that with decreasing integration,
people perceive themselves as disconnected from
others in their social environment, resulting in social differentiation (Duffy et al., 2012: 647; Opotow,
1995) and withdrawal behavior (Schneider, 1987).
In contrast, when employees are satisfied with their
work-unit colleagues and supervisor, strong contexts (e.g., uniformly high or low absenteeism)
should have stronger impacts on their behavior because social integration causes employees to align
with the social environment from which they derive their identification (Tajfel, 1978).
Therefore, we predict that in the case of a strong
context with a low level of absenteeism (low mean
and low dispersion of work-unit absenteeism; see
the lower left quadrant of Figure 2), the negative
relationship between individual internal satisfaction and individual absenteeism should be stronger
than it is in other contextual conditions. With decreasing levels of internal satisfaction, employees
tend to be absent often because a low perceived fit
or level of integration causes employees to be resistant to social-contextual influences and to avoid
the dissatisfying context. Thus, as the experience of
not fitting in is likely to disconnect employees from
social constraints or implicit normative expectations within their work unit, uniformly low absence patterns as strong contextual cues should
exert no impact on individual absenteeism. Research has repeatedly demonstrated that weak
bonds between group members are associated with
higher levels of absenteeism (Keller, 1983; Xie &
Johns, 2000). Group members do not blindly conform to group norms; instead, conformity depends
on the level of members in-group identification
(Falomir-Pichastor, Gabarrot, & Mugny, 2009):
Hekman, Steensma, Bigley, and Hereford (2009)
showed that social influence on behavior declines
with decreasing identification. Conversely, as a
strong context with low absence levels provides
clear cues for consistent attendance at work, employees who are satisfied with their work-unit colleagues and supervisors should rarely be absent
because they construe that their work unit expects
low absenteeism. Thus, in line with theories on
attitudes and social influences in groups (Asch,
1966; Wallace et al., 2005), patterns of uniformly
low levels of absence will most likely be adopted
by the focal employee if he or she strongly identi-
2014
fies with the work unit, as manifested in high levels

of internally focused satisfaction.
In contrast, a strong context that favors high levels of absenteeism (high mean and low dispersion
of work-unit absenteeism; see the upper left quadrant of Figure 2) is predicted to attenuate the negative effects of individual internally focused satisfaction on individual absenteeism. In the presence
of such a context, individual absenteeism should
be high across all levels of internally focused satisfaction. Employees with high levels of internally
focused satisfaction should adapt their absence behavior to the level of absenteeism within their work
unit, whereas those with low levels of internally
focused satisfaction should often be absent because
of their behavioral tendency to avoid the dissatisfying targets (their supervisor and colleagues). Behavioral alignment of those with higher levels of
satisfaction can be explained by behavioral contagion and the spillover effects of withdrawal behavior. For example, Felps et al. (2009: 547) argued that
social comparisons among co-workers result in behavioral adaptations (even toward risky and uncertain behaviors) because employees focus on the behavioral patterns of others to obtain a clear sense of
the meanings of those behaviors. Liu et al. (2012)
posited that, when a focal employee observes consistent withdrawal-related patterns within the social
context, he or she may readily infer that withdrawal
behavior is a reasonable response, increasing the likelihood of withdrawal. Thus, because behavioral
alignment to the social context mainly results from a
positive social-adjustive attitude toward the context,
employees who are satisfied with their work-unit colleagues and supervisor adapt their absence behavior
accordingly. Conversely, as noted above, low levels of
internally focused satisfaction prompt employees to
withdraw from their social environment. Thus, under
conditions of uniformly high absenteeism patterns
within a work unit, higher individual absenteeism
reflects avoidance behavior of those with low levels
of satisfaction regarding their work-unit colleagues
and supervisor.
Finally, with decreasing consistency of behavioral
patterns or diminishing strength of the social context
(in terms of higher variability), employees are less
able to develop a concept of absenteeism that conforms to that of the work unit, thus social influence
declines. In other words, in the presence of a high
degree of absence dispersion within a work unit (see
the two right-hand quadrants of Figure 2), the individual relationship between internally focused satisfaction and absenteeism should be weaker compared
361
to a case in which there is a low mean and dispersion

of work-unit absenteeism. Integrating all of the relevant contextual conditions, we propose the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2. The mean and dispersion levels
of work-unit absenteeism jointly moderate the
negative relationship between internally focused satisfaction and individual absenteeism
(three-way interaction): the relationship is
strongest when the mean level and dispersion
of work-unit absenteeism are low, whereas the
relationship is weaker when either the mean or
the dispersion levels or both are high.
OVERVIEW OF THE PRESENT RESEARCH
We tested our predictions in two studies that
were conducted in different German organizations.
In the first study, we surveyed health-care workers
who provided care for elderly people. Past research
has repeatedly found that nursing organizations are
often faced with high absence rates (Schmidt,
2010). To test whether the hypothesized interactions are generalizable across different occupational and organizational settings, we conducted a
second study in a tax and revenue organization in
which tasks, procedures, and processes are highly
formalized. Both datasets had nested structures
that allowed for multi-level modeling.
STUDY 1METHODS
Participants and Procedures
Participants in this study were health-care workers at a residential elderly care organization located
in a federal state in Germany. The organization is a
limited company operating as a public utility and,
thus, belongs to the services sector. All participants
were involved in the daily care of elderly people,
which included physical care, medical support,
and social activities. Approximately 80% of the
participants daily working time was invested in
interactions with elderly people. Participants were
recruited through announcements at staff meetings
and memos sent by the work-unit managers. Participants were assured that completing the questionnaire was voluntary and that their data would remain confidential. A response rate of 75% yielded
a sample of 432 participants who completed the
questionnaire and consented to the use of their
absenteeism data, which were assessed before and
after the survey was administered. After the survey,
362
20 participants left the organization (final n 412).

According to a one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA), the mean scores for the study variables
(absenteeism and satisfaction levels) of those who
left the organization did not differ from those who
remained in the study (p .15). Participants were
organized into 63 work units (MSIZE 6.54, range
314) that remained intact throughout the study.
One supervisor led each work unit. The average
age of the participants was 39.5 years (SD 9.99,
range 19 64). The organizational tenure of the
participants ranged from 0 to 35 years (M 6.67,
SD 6.1), and 88% were women. All participants
had completed junior high school and had been
trained as geriatric nurses.
Measures
Individual externally and internally focused
job satisfaction. Using Kunins (1955) faces, job
satisfaction was assessed on a five-item scale that
was developed by Neuberger and Allerbeck (1978).
Consistent with Dineen et al.s (2007; Study 1) operationalization of both satisfaction foci, the item
wording was similar to that of the items developed
by Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh (1983).
We assessed externally focused satisfaction using
three items ( .83) that relate to working conditions (All in all, are you satisfied with your working conditions?), organization and management
(All in all, are you satisfied with the organization
and management?), and career opportunities (All
in all, are you satisfied with your career opportunities?). For each item, the scale provided a clear
explanation of the reference object:working conditions: This question relates to the general conditions under which you are working (e.g., resources, equipment, facilities, etc.); organization
and management: This question relates to how
you view the organization as a whole, how different
work units cooperate, and how you evaluate procedures, rules, and regulations, as well as the upper
management; career opportunities: This question
relates to your personal development (your past
and current opportunities for advancement, qualification, and job enlargement). Internally focused
satisfaction was measured with two items ( .77)
that referred to work-unit colleagues and the workunit supervisor (All in all, are you satisfied with
your colleagues? and All in all, are you satisfied
with your supervisor?). To ensure that both items
were answered in reference to the work unit, we
again provided additional explanations for each
April
item colleagues: This question relates to the colleagues with whom you directly work and interact; supervisor: This question relates to your direct supervisor, who is one hierarchical position
above you and gives you directions. Confirmatory
factor analyses supported the distinctness of both
of the satisfaction foci: a two-factor model had a
better fit (2 3.76, df 4, p .44, RMSEA .00,
95% CI [.00 .07], CFI 1.00, SRMR .01) than
did a one-factor model (2 170.18, df 5, p .01,
RMSEA .28, 95% CI [.25.32], CFI .72,
SRMR .11). The analysis of the intraclass correlations (ICC(1)) of both dimensions lent further
support to the supposed foci distinction. Internally
focused satisfaction should indicate the level of
social integration within a work unit (Dineen et al.,
2007) and, thus, may vary substantially between
work units, whereas externally focused satisfaction
reflects individual evaluations of targets that do not
refer to the work unit and, thus, should be less
consistent across work unit members. Supporting
our conceptualization, 18% of the variation in
internal satisfaction resided between the work
units. In comparison, an ICC(1) of .08 showed
that the between-group variance in external satisfaction was substantially lower. Because the
survey items associated with colleagues and supervisors were presented before the other items,
it seems unlikely that the participants interpreted
the terms conditions or management to include colleagues or supervisors.
Individual and work-unit absenteeism. We
used absence frequency (the number of absence
events) to assess voluntary absenteeism (Sagie,
1998). Absence frequency referred to short-term absences that included absences of fewer than four
consecutive workdays. Absences due to vacation
days or holidays, maternity leave, military service,
participation in training courses, or long-term absences that encompassed more than three consecutive workdays were not included in the data. According to German Civil Code, employees have to
provide documentation from a physician if their
absence encompasses more than three days (longterm absence). Consistent with Hausknecht et al.
(2008), long-term absences were therefore assumed
to be medically, rather than motivationally, based.
The management of the nursing homes did not
apply official regulations or procedures to reduce
or to sanction short-term absenteeism (such as setting goals or providing incentives to avoid absenteeism). In addition, extra days off or personal days
were not used as rewards, and work-unit managers
2014
did not receive any reports on the absences of their

employees. Provided that no official procedures
were applied by the management, our measure
did not distinguish between unexcused absences
and excused absences that may have been sanctioned by the work-unit manager (see also Sagie,
1998: 162). The absenteeism data were obtained
from archival records and were restricted to a period of 6 months before (referred to hereafter as
pre 6 months) and 6 months after (hereafter post
6 months) the administration of the questionnaires. Because the distribution of absence frequency deviated from the thresholds that are commonly seen as critical for unbiased parameter
estimations (Hammer & Landau, 1981), all individual raw scores were subjected to a square root transformation (Clegg, 1983). After this transformation,
the skewness and kurtosis of the pre- and postquestionnaire absence frequencies were either
within or below the ranges deemed acceptable by
Hammer and Landau (1981; see also Steel (2003).
The transformed archival data were also used to
measure the mean and dispersion levels of workunit absenteeism. Consistent with previous research on work-unit absenteeism (Hausknecht et
al., 2008; Schmidt, 2002), we averaged the absence
frequency of employees within each work unit. An
ICC(1) of .23 indicated a variation of 23% in absence frequency (pre 6 months) between all 63
work-units. An ICC(2) of .66 also justified the mean
aggregation of absence frequency (pre 6 months) to
the work-unit level.
In line with Chans (1998) dispersion model,
which utilizes within-group variation and has been
put forward to conceptualize consistency, the dispersion levels of work-unit absenteeism were operationalized as the standard deviations between the
work-unit employee absence frequency levels.1 Our
1
Our conceptualization of work-unit absenteeism suggests that all work-unit members constitute the social
context, and the absence aggregates should capture the
absence patterns within the whole work unit. Consequently, a low response rate might affect the validity of
our measure because non-responders in our study may
have higher absence rates. To provide further evidence
for the validity of the absence aggregates in our study, we
tested whether the presence of study dropouts within
work units would considerably change the values of our
absence aggregates. Specifically, we chose work units
with response rates of at least 90% (max. one member
missing: Nlevel 2 29; 23 work units had a response rate
of 100%) and randomly dropped members to create re-
363
operationalization draws on Harrison and Kleins

(2007) separation concept; that is, differences in
position along a continuum represent dissimilarity
in behavior. Meeting Cooper and Witheys (2009)
requirement to confirm that the situational strength
systematically varied across the conditions of the
study, Bartletts test (Snedecor & Cochran, 1983)
showed significant differences in the variances of
absence frequency (pre 6 months) between the
work units (p .01).
Consistent with recommendations from prior
longitudinal research on absenteeism (Mathieu &
Kohler, 1990), we controlled for individual absenteeism in the 6 months prior to the questionnaire
survey when predicting absence frequency in the
6 months after the questionnaire survey in the
multi-level analyses.
Control variables. Because previous research
has revealed that age, gender, and organizational
tenure are significant predictors of individual absenteeism (e.g., George, 1989; Wegge et al., 2007),
we controlled for these variables in predicting absenteeism. In addition, Hausknecht et al. (2008)
have reported that the local unemployment rate is
related to absenteeism. Because the perception of
having job alternatives is a significant precursor to
withdrawal behavior (Trevor, 2001), and because
the work units in this study were located in different regions, we introduced the local unemployment rate as a control variable at the work unit
level. The unemployment data were obtained from
the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (2012) for
each district in which a work unit operated. Finally, because medical reasons cannot be completely ruled out in predicting individual shortterm absenteeism, we included a measure of health
disorders comprising a broad spectrum of physical
and psychological symptoms (24 items; 4-level response format ranging from 1 not at all to 4
a great deal; .91), such as headaches, insomnia, poor concentration, neck pain, rheumatic
sponse rates of approximately 80 and 70%. After reducing the sample sizes within the work units, the mean and
dispersion levels of work-unit absence frequency were
recalculated and correlated with the mean and dispersion levels of the 90% response rate values. The high and
significant correlations (approx. 80% response rate:
rmean levels .98; p .01/rdispersion levels .96; p .01;
approx. 70% response rate: rmean levels .96; p .01/
rdispersion levels .86; p .01) indicated that study dropouts would not considerably bias our assessment of
work-unit absenteeism in the nursing sample.
364
pains, nausea, and shortness of breath (von Zerssen, 1976). Past research has repeatedly documented significant relationships between these
symptoms and individual absenteeism (Darr &
Johns, 2008; Schmidt, 2010).
STUDY 1RESULTS
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics and correlations for all variables. We used hierarchical linear modeling (HLM; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) to
test our hypotheses because our model (Figure 1)
predicts cross-level effects, and our data had a
nested structure.
Table 2 presents the HLM results. First, we specified and tested a null model without independent
variables. Second, we entered all of the individualand work-unit-level variables (Model 1: control
variables at level 1 and level 2, previous individual
absenteeism, both satisfaction foci at level 1, and
mean and dispersion levels of work-unit absenteeism at level 2). Next, we estimated the cross-level,
two-way interactions in a slope-as-outcomes model
(Model 2). To avoid the biasing effects of multicollinearity (Aiken & West, 1991), the mean and dispersion levels of work-unit absence frequency (pre
6 months) were standardized prior to calculating
the two-way interaction of these variables. Finally,
we simultaneously analyzed both of the hypothesized cross-level, three-way interactions between
both of the satisfaction foci and both work-unit
absenteeism variables (Model 3). To provide an
unbiased estimate of the cross-level interactions,
we group-mean centered both satisfaction variables (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). To separate
level 1 and level 2 effects and reduce possible
problems with multicollinearity at both levels
April
(Hofmann & Gavin, 1998), we centered all other

level 1 and level 2 variables (except for gender)
around their grand means (see also Erdogan &
Enders, 2007: 325).
The null model allowed us to determine the between-work unit variance in individual absence
frequency (post 6 months). An ICC(1) of .19 indicated that 19% of the variance to be explained by
level 2 variables resided between work units. A
precondition for analyzing cross-level interactions
is that the slopes of the relation between both satisfaction foci and absence frequency (post 6
months) vary across the work units. HLM estimates
revealed that the slope variances for both of the
satisfaction foci were significant (externally focused satisfaction: U1 .02, p .05; internally
focused satisfaction: U1 .03, p .05).
Main effects at level 1 and 2. As Table 2 (Model
1) shows, health disorders ( .17, p .05) and the
mean levels of absence frequency (pre 6 months)
( .23, p .001) were significantly related to
absence frequency (post 6 months) after controlling
for previous levels of absence frequency (pre 6
months) at level 1. Both of the individual satisfaction foci exhibited significant and negative relationships to absence frequency (externally focused
satisfaction: .16, p .01; internally focused
satisfaction: .12, p .05).
Cross-level, three-way interactions (Hypotheses 1 and 2). We predicted two cross-level, threeway interaction effects of the mean and dispersion
levels of work-unit absenteeism and both job satisfaction foci on subsequent individual absenteeism.
As seen in Model 3 of Table 2, HLM estimations
revealed significant three-way interactions for externally ( .08, p .01) and internally (
.09, p .01) focused satisfaction. Both interac-
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Study 1 Variables
1.1: Individual-Level Variables
Variable
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Age
Gender (1 female; 2 male)
Tenure
Health disorders
Absence frequency (pre 6 months)
Externally focused satisfaction
Internally focused satisfaction
Absence frequency (post 6 months)
SD
39.54
1.12
6.67
0.90
0.95
4.90
5.51
0.93
9.99
0.32
6.13
0.50
1.40
1.28
1.19
1.35
.10*
.30**
.11*
.02
.11*
.03
.08
.07
.09
.04
.03
.04
.01
.05
.08
.02
.03
.05
.12*
.11*
.14**
.20**
.13**
.14**
.15**
.33**
.40**
.34**
Notes. (n 412). Descriptive statistics of absence frequency represent non-transformed scores.

* p .05; ** p .01
2014
365
1.2: Work-Unit Level Variables

Variable
1.
2.
3.
4.
Team size
Unemployment rate
Mean levels of absence frequency (pre 6 months)
Dispersion levels of absence frequency (pre 6 months)
SD
6.54
0.10
0.86
0.96
2.44
0.02
0.68
0.72
.10
.27*
.04
.11
.02
.24
Notes. (n 63). Descriptive statistics of absence frequency represent non-transformed scores.

*p .05; ** p .01
tions explained an additional 3% of the variance

(and, in combination with conditional two-way
interactions, an additional 23% of the variance)
in absence frequency (post 6 months). To facilitate the interpretation of the different interaction
patterns, we conducted simple slope analyses
(Preacher, Curran, & Bauer, 2006; Shacham,
2009) and visualized the interactions using the
procedure described by Aiken and West (1991)
(Figure 3 and Figure 4).
Hypothesis 1 predicted that low externally focused satisfaction would translate into higher levels of individual absenteeism only when both the
mean and the dispersion levels of work-unit absenteeism were high. As Figure 3 reveals, the pattern of
results lends strong support to this hypothesis. In
predicting individual absence frequency (post 6
months) based on externally focused job satisfaction, the slope for high mean and dispersion levels
of work-unit absence frequency (pre 6 months) was
negative and significant ( .34, p .01). In
contrast, the slope ( .05, n.s.) was not significant
in cases of low mean and dispersion levels of workunit absence frequency (pre 6 months). In both of
the other conditions (low mean and high dispersion/high mean and low dispersion), the slopes
were also not significant ( .07, n.s./ .04,
n.s., respectively). Finally, the mean and dispersion of work-unit absence frequency (pre 6 months)
jointly influenced the individual levels (intercepts)
of absence frequency (post 6 months). Specifically,
when the dispersion levels were low, the mean
levels of work-unit absence frequency were positively related to individual absence frequency. This
result indicates that, regardless of external satisfaction, employees adapted their absence behavior to
the absence level of their work-unit in the presence
of uniformly low or high absenteeism (strong context: low absence dispersion).
Hypothesis 2 posited that internally focused job
satisfaction would exhibit a strong negative relationship with individual absenteeism only when
both the mean and dispersion levels of work-unit

absenteeism were low. Figure 4 shows that the
pattern of the significant cross-level three-way interaction supports Hypothesis 2. In cases of low
mean and dispersion levels of work-unit absence
frequency (pre 6 months), the slope was negative
and significant ( .42, p .01), whereas the
relationship between internal satisfaction and individual absence frequency (post 6 months) failed to
reach significance when either or both of the mean
and dispersion levels of work-unit absence frequency (pre 6 months) were high (high mean and
low dispersion: .04, n.s.; low mean and high
dispersion: .04, n.s.; high mean and high
dispersion: .06, n.s.) Again, individual absence
frequency (intercepts) was positively related to
mean levels of work-unit absence frequency under
conditions of low dispersion levels; that is, employees tended to show absence levels similar to
the mean levels of their work unit when the work
unit was characterized by uniformly high or low
absence frequency. Only individuals who reported
low internal satisfaction were frequently absent regardless of work-unit absence patterns. In conclusion, the data from Study 1 provide strong support
for both of our hypotheses.
Supplementary analyses. Although our operationalization of the mean and dispersion levels of
work-unit absenteeism as indicators of the social
environment is consistent with conceptual developments in previous studies on the cross-level effects of social contexts (Hirst, van Knippenberg,
Chen, & Sacramento, 2011; Liu et al., 2012; Mathieu
& Kohler, 1990), scholars have noted that the simple aggregation of individual variables to higherlevel constructs necessarily includes the data of the
focal individual and, thus, may result in a biased
assessment of the context, which should only capture the patterns of the other individuals in a particular work unit (Eder & Eisenberger, 2008; Gellatly & Allen, 2012). To cross-validate our findings
using a measure of work-unit absenteeism that is
366
April
TABLE 2
Study 1 HLM Analyses Predicting Individual Absence FrequencyPost 6 Monthsa
Model 1
Variable
Intercept
Level 1 variables
Age
Gender
Organizational tenure
Health disorders
Level 2 variables
Team size
Unemployment rate
Absence frequency mean (pre 6 months)
Absence frequency dispersion (pre 6 months)
Absence frequency mean Absence frequency
dispersion (pre 6 months)
Cross-level interaction terms
Externally focused satisfaction Absence frequency
mean (pre 6 months)
dispersion (pre 6 months)
mean Absence frequency dispersion
(pre 6 months)
Internally focused satisfaction Absence frequency
mean (pre 6 months)
Internally focused satisfaction Absence frequency dispersion
(pre 6 months)
mean Absence frequency dispersion (pre 6 months)
R2Level 1b
R2Level 2
R2Slope: externally focused satisfaction
R2Slope: internally focused satisfaction
R2Totalc
2d
Model Deviance
Coefficient
Model 2
SE
Coefficient
Model 3
SE
Coefficient
SE
0.64**
0.14
0.68**
0.11
0.67**
0.11
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.06
0.17*
0.16**
0.12*
0.00
0.10
0.01
0.05
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.06
0.22**
0.09**
0.12**
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.04
0.07
0.02
0.03
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.04
0.23**
0.07*
0.09**
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.04
0.07
0.02
0.03
0.02
1.61
0.23**
0.05
0.02
2.06
0.04
0.04
0.01
1.34
0.14*
0.01
0.16*
0.03
1.92
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.01
1.43
0.15*
0.00
0.12*
0.03
1.93
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.11**
0.02
0.12**
0.02
0.11**
0.03
0.07*
0.03
0.08**
0.02
0.18
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.21
126.10**
820.66
0.17**
0.04
0.14**
0.04
0.07
0.03
0.10*
0.04
0.09**
0.03
0.41
0.41
0.74
0.58
0.41
172.66**
716.72
0.44
0.42
0.88
0.78
0.44
169.31**
710.70
Notes.
a
Employee n 412; work-unit n 63.
b
Level 1 variance includes both slope variances, when calculating R2Level 1 (Mathieu et al., 2012: 957; Shin, Lee, Kim, & Bian, 2012).
c
R2Total R2Level 1 (1 ICC(1)) R2Level 2 ICC(1) (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).
d
Chi-square values refer to level 2 variance (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).
* p .05; ** p .01 two-tailed tests.
not affected by the absence behavior of target employees, we adopted the split-sample procedure,
which allows for separation of focal employee data
from the data of the other employees (i.e., contextual data) (Dollard, Tuckey, & Dormann, 2012).
Specifically, to maintain statistical power at the
individual level (Mathieu, Aguinis, Culpepper, &
Chen, 2012), we selected only work units with 5 or
more employees and then randomly defined cases
that were used to calculate the mean and dispersion levels of absence frequency for each work unit,
which were subsequently excluded from the focal
individuals dataset. On the basis of a reduced sample size (Nlevel 1 244; Nlevel 2 50), we reanalyzed
both of the cross-level, three-way interactions using
the same specifications as described above. HLM
estimations revealed a significant cross-level,
three-way interaction effect between external satis-
2014
367
FIGURE 3
Study 1: Three-Way Interaction Effect of Mean and Dispersion Levels of Work-Unit Absence Frequency
and Externally Focused Job Satisfaction on Individual Absence Frequency
faction and work-unit absence frequency on subsequent individual absenteeism. The pattern of this
interaction was similar to that observed in Figure 3.
In addition, both mean absence frequency and its
interaction with dispersion levels were significantly related to subsequent individual absenteeism. Finally, mean levels of work-unit absence
frequency moderated the negative relationships between both the satisfaction foci and individual absence frequency, with signs corresponding to our
expectations (Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2). Although the three-way interaction with internal satisfaction was not significant, the signs of the parameters suggested that the interaction was similar
to that observed in Figure 4 and that the lack of
significance was due to reduced statistical power.

Thus, the split-sample procedure indicates that the
focal employees absence data did not bias the
cross-level effects of work-unit absenteeism when
the measure included the absence levels of the
target individuals.
Furthermore, for at least three additional reasons,
we believe that our design is conceptually appropriate for testing our hypotheses. First, in accordance with gestalt characteristics theory (Ariely &
Carmon, 2000) and social information processing
theory (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), evidence from
research on social-contextual influences demonstrates that individuals in groups consider their
own attributes (behavior and attitudes) when inter-
368
April
FIGURE 4
and Internally Focused Job Satisfaction on Individual Absence Frequency
preting socially relevant and meaningful aspects of

their environment (Johns, 2001; Xie & Johns, 2000).
In particular, in developing a clear sense of the
normative expectations within their work unit, focal employees recognize their own past behavioral
pattern as an important gestalt (informational cue)
that is viewed in conjunction with the behavioral
patterns of others (Liu et al., 2012). Thus, the absence behavior of focal employees constitutes a
relevant part of the social context as represented by
the mean and dispersion levels of work-unit absenteeism. Second, both hypotheses assert that under
conditions of low dispersion (i.e., uniform patterns
of absence behavior) individual absence levels will
either increase with decreasing satisfaction (Hy-
pothesis 2) or will correspond to mean levels of

work-unit absence (Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis
2). Thus, large differences in absenteeism between
focal employees and other work-unit members
would create a condition that is not relevant to our
core predictions. The same is true for conditions
of high mean and dispersion levels of work-unit
absenteeism (Hypothesis 1); specifically, a target
employees own contribution to a high mean and
dispersion of absenteeism within his or her work
unit is relatively marginal given the absence distribution that is required to create such a condition. Finally, in predicting individual absenteeism (post 6 months), we controlled for previous
individual absenteeism and thus partialled out
2014
the potential influences of focal employees absences on the moderating effect of work-unit absenteeism on the individual relationship between
satisfaction levels and absenteeism (Mathieu &
Kohler, 1990).
STUDY 2METHODS
Participants and Procedures
The second study was carried out in a tax and
revenue organization of a federal state in Germany
with the purpose of analyzing the stress levels and
well-being of employees in the realm of administrative work. After gaining approval from the
management, all employees in the organization
were asked to participate. A total of 441 employees (response rate of 88%) voluntarily participated in the survey. Questionnaires were distributed at the workplace during working hours. All
participants were assured that their responses
would remain confidential and that their answers
would be matched with individual absence data
through an individual code number that was
given solely to the researchers and remained in
their hands only.
Of the 441 respondents, we identified 350
employees who were allocated to 53 work units
(MSIZE 6.23, range 317) that remained intact
throughout the study. In identifying work units, we
made sure that the tasks performed (evaluating tax
declarations) were similar across individuals and
units, and that each work unit was led by a single
supervisor. After the questionnaire was administered, 20 participants left either their work units or
the entire organization. ANOVAs revealed no significant differences in study variables between
those who left and those who remained (p .20).
The remaining sample of 330 participants was
69% female. The average age of the participants
was 34.6 years (SD 8.6, range 19 60), and
the mean organizational tenure was 14 years
(SD 9.2, range 0 42).
Measures
Control variables. As in Study 1, we included
age, gender, organizational tenure, and health disorders (von Zerssen, 1976; .89) as control variables at level 1 and unemployment rate (Federal
Statistical Office of Germany, 2012) as a control
variable at level 2 in our analyses.
369
Individual externally and internally focused

job satisfaction. The assessment of both satisfaction foci was based on the same instrument as that
used in Study 1. Again, confirmatory factor analyses provided support for the distinctness of externally ( .83) and internally focused satisfaction
( .76), and a two-factor model had a superior fit
(2 5.86, df 4, p .21, RMSEA .04, 95% CI
[.00.10], CFI 1.00, SRMR .02) compared with
that of a one-factor model (2 103.66, df 5, p
.01, RMSEA .25, 95% CI [.21.29], CFI .78,
SRMR .11). An ICC(1) of .16 revealed substantial
variation in internal satisfaction between the 53
work units, whereas external satisfaction did not
vary across the work units (ICC(1) .01). Thus, the
analysis of between-group variance provided further support for our distinction between the
two foci.
Individual and work-unit absenteeism. In
Study 2, we took absence frequency to be an indicator of voluntary absence (Sagie, 1998). Again, this
index referred to short-term absences, defined as
absences of fewer than four consecutive workdays,
and did not involve absences due to holidays or
vacation days, maternity leave, military service,
participation in training courses, or long-term absences. As in Study 1, the absenteeism data were
obtained from archival records and included data
from a period of 6 months before and 6 months after
the administration of the questionnaires. Again, the
management did not apply any official procedures
to control or to sanction short-term absenteeism,
and the organization did not inform work-unit
managers about absence rates. Due to deviations
from the normal distribution, absence frequency
was subjected to a square root transformation. After
the transformation procedure, skewness and kurtosis did not exceed the threshold values summarized by Steel (2003).
An ICC(1) value of .18 suggests that there was
considerable variance in absence frequency (pre 6
months) between the 53 work units. Compared
with Study 1, the ICC(2) value (.57) was somewhat
lower. Although our values are slightly below the
recommended levels (Glick, 1985), they indicate a
high enough level of reliability of the work-unit
mean to allow the mean aggregation of the indices
(see also Liao & Rupp, 2005; Schneider, White, &
Paul, 1998). Again, the dispersion levels of workunit absenteeism were operationalized as the standard deviation of both of the absence variables (pre
370
April
TABLE 3
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Study 2 Variables
3.1: Individual Level Variables
Variable
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Age
Gender (1 female; and 2 male)
Tenure
Health disorders
Absence frequency (post 6 months)
SD
34.55
1.31
14.04
0.69
1.64
3.01
5.17
1.35
8.58
0.46
9.19
0.43
1.58
1.05
1.12
1.21
.21**
.82**
.04
.11*
.25**
.01
.00
.17**
.07
.12*
.09
.02
.05
.05
.09
.25**
.03
.07
.18**
.17**
.20**
.26**
.09
.14*
.20**
.32**
.27**
.23**
Note. (n 330). Descriptive statistics of absence frequency represent non-transformed scores.

* p .05; **p .01.
6 months) within the work units.2 Bartletts test

confirmed that the work units significantly differed with respect to variations in absence frequency (p .01).
STUDY 2RESULTS
Descriptive statistics for all the variables are presented in Table 3. Age and tenure were highly
correlated (r .82; p .01). To avoid the biasing
effects of multicollinearity, we excluded age from
our design because tenure contains more occupationally relevant information (Ng & Feldman,
2010). As in Study 1, the Study 2 sample allowed
us to use HLM. We applied the same procedures for
model specification as in Study 1. Table 4 depicts
the results.
The estimation of the null model revealed an
ICC(1) of .15 for absence frequency (post 6 months).
The slopes of the relationships between both of the
satisfaction foci and absence frequency (post 6
months) significantly varied across the work units
2
As in Study 1 (see footnote 2 above), we tested the
validity of the absence aggregates. Again, we chose work
units with response rates of at least 90% (max. one member missing: Nlevel 2 28; 26 work units had a response
rate of 100%) and created response rates of approximately 80% and 70% for these work units. Correlations
between the lower and higher response rate values (mean
and dispersion levels of work-unit absence frequency)
demonstrated that study dropouts would not considerably change the values of the absence aggregates in the
sample of tax and revenue offices (approx. 80% response rate: rmean levels .98; p .01/rdispersion levels
.96; p .01; approx. 70% response rate: rmean levels .96;
p .001/rdispersion levels .94; p .01).
(externally focused satisfaction: U1 .08, p .01;

internally focused satisfaction: U1 .04, p .01).
Main effects at level 1 and 2. Table 4 (Model 1)
depicts the estimations of the linear relationships
of level 1 and level 2 variables with individual
absence frequency (post 6 months). As in Study 1,
only health disorders explained variance in individual absenteeism ( .22, p .01). Both satisfaction foci were negatively and significantly related to absence frequency (external: .16, p
.01; internal: .13, p .01). Again, the mean
levels of work-unit absence frequency (pre 6
months) predicted subsequent individual absence
frequency (post 6 months) ( .24, p .01).
Cross-level, three-way interactions (Hypotheses 1 and 2). As Table 4 reveals, the mean and
dispersion levels of absence frequency (pre 6
months) jointly moderated the negative individual
relationship between externally focused satisfaction and absence frequency (post 6 months) (
.10, p .01). However, the cross-level, three-way
interaction between work-unit absenteeism variables and internally focused satisfaction was nonsignificant. In sum, the cross-level interactions in
Model 3 explained an additional 1% of the variance (and, in combination with the conditional
two-way interactions, an additional 21% of the
variance) in individual absence frequency (post 6
months). To interpret the significant three-way interaction, we applied simple slope analyses and
plotted the interaction pattern (Figure 5).
According to Hypothesis 1, we expected that
externally focused satisfaction would be most
strongly related to individual absenteeism when
both the mean and the dispersion levels of workunit absenteeism were high. The regression lines in
2014
371
3.2: Work-Unit Level Variables

Variable
1.
2.
3.
4.
Team size
Unemployment rate
Mean levels of absence frequency (pre 6 months)
Dispersion levels of absence frequency (pre 6 months)
SD
6.23
0.10
1.54
1.09
2.78
0.03
0.90
0.67
.18
.14
.25
.09
.00
.06
Note. (n 53). Descriptive statistics of absence frequency represent non-transformed scores.

* p .05; **p .01
Figure 5 correspond to the hypothesized interaction pattern. In the cases of high mean levels and
dispersions of absence frequency (pre 6 months)
within work units, the slope was negative and significant ( .43, p .01). In contrast, the slope
for low mean levels and dispersions of absence
frequency was not significant ( .06, n.s.) When
either the mean or the dispersion was high, the
estimated relationships between external satisfaction and individual absence frequency (post 6
months) were also not significant ( .02, n.s./
.04, n.s., respectively). As in Study 1, regardless of external satisfaction, the mean levels of absence frequency were related to individual absence
frequency when the dispersion level was lower.
Thus, the results suggest that employees aligned their
absence behavior with the mean work-unit absenteeism in the presence of uniform absence patterns. In
sum, Hypothesis 1 was strongly supported by the
data of the tax and revenue organization.
In Models 2 and 3, the two-way interaction between the mean absence frequency and internally
focused satisfaction was significant ( .10, p
.01). This result indicates that the relationship between internal satisfaction and individual absenteeism was moderated by the social context in
terms of work-unit absenteeism. We visualized the
interaction and analyzed the significance of the
slopes. Figure 6 shows that the slope was negative
and significant when the mean levels of work-unit
absence frequency (pre 6 months) were low (
.20, p .01), whereas the slope was non-significant when the mean absence frequency was high
( .01, n.s.). In cases of high absence means
within work units, the intercept for the relationship
was high. Thus, internally satisfied employees
showed high levels of absenteeism when the absence mean of their work unit was also high. Although the dispersion levels of work-unit absence
frequency did not exert moderating effects (neither
alone nor in combination with mean levels), and
thus Hypothesis 2 was not fully supported by the
data from Study 2, the present results provide some

support for our assertion that internally focused
satisfaction is negatively related to individual absence when work-unit absence is low.
Supplementary analyses. As in Study 1, employing the split-sample procedure, we reanalyzed
the data from the tax and revenue offices to test
whether the absence behavior of focal employees
may bias their assessment of the absenteeism context within their work unit. After reducing the dataset due to the small sizes of several work units,
the sample comprised 167 individuals and 39 work
units. HLM estimations revealed a significant
cross-level relationship between the mean levels of
work-unit absence frequency (pre 6 months) and
individual absence frequency (post 6 months).
Moreover, we found that the negative individual
relationships between satisfaction foci and absenteeism were moderated by the mean and dispersion
levels (dispersion: only for external satisfaction) of
work-unit absenteeism and that the signs corresponded to our expectations. While we did not find
a three-way interaction (most likely due to reduced
statistical power), the pattern of results suggests
that the operationalization of work-unit absenteeism and the analysis of its interactive effects are not
biased by the focal employees absence data.
DISCUSSION
The present study drew on recent research on
different job satisfaction foci and work-unit absenteeism (Dineen et al., 2007; Hausknecht et al., 2008)
and was designed to disentangle the individual
relationships of externally and internally focused
job satisfaction with absenteeism. To this end, we
delineated and tested a cross-level model that expatiates upon the social-contextual boundary conditions of these relationships. Inspired by several
theories on social influences within groups, we
conceptualized the absence context through the
combination of the mean and dispersion levels of
372
April
TABLE 4
Study 2 HLM Analyses Predicting Individual Absence FrequencyPost 6 Monthsa
Model 1
Variable
Intercept
Level 1 variables
Gender
Organizational tenure
Health disorders
Level 2 variables
Team size
Unemployment rate
Absence frequency mean (pre 6 months)
Absence frequency dispersion (pre 6 months)
Absence frequency mean Absence
frequency dispersion (pre 6 months)
Cross-level interaction terms
Externally focused satisfaction Absence
frequency mean (pre 6 months)
Externally focused satisfaction Absence
frequency dispersion (pre 6 months)
mean (pre 6 months)
Internally focused satisfaction Absence frequency dispersion
(pre 6 months)
R2Level 1b
R2Level 2
R2Slope: externally focused satisfaction
R2Slope: internally focused satisfaction
R2Totalc
2d
Model Deviance
Coefficient
Model 2
SE
Coefficient
Model 3
SE
Coefficient
SE
1.02**
0.08
0.99**
0.08
0.99**
0.08
0.05
0.00
0.08
0.22**
0.16**
0.13**
0.06
0.00
0.05
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.00
0.05
0.18*
0.09*
0.11**
0.05
0.00
0.04
0.07
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.04
0.16*
0.09*
0.10**
0.05
0.00
0.04
0.07
0.03
0.03
0.00
1.55
0.24**
0.04
0.01
1.61
0.04
0.03
0.01
1.80
0.23**
0.01
0.06
0.01
1.59
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.01
1.96
0.22**
0.00
0.08
0.01
1.56
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.14**
0.03
0.14**
0.03
0.18**
0.03
0.11**
0.04
0.10**
0.03
0.04
0.10**
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.04
0.10**
0.01
0.19
0.51
0.00
0.00
0.24
71.57
578.80
0.42
0.57
0.84
0.67
0.44
108.46**
504.57
0.43
0.57
0.91
0.74
0.45
107.18**
506.20
Notes.
a
Employee n 330; work unit n 63.
b
Level 1 variance includes both slope variances, when calculating R2Level 1 (Mathieu et al., 2012: 957; Shin et al., 2012).
c
R2Total R2Level 1 (1 ICC(1)) R2Level 2 ICC(1) (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).
d
Chi-square values refer to level 2 variance (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).
* p .05; ** p .01 two-tailed tests.
work-unit absenteeism and analyzed different

cross-level, three-way interaction effects between
both of these facets of work-unit absenteeism and
both of the job satisfaction foci on individual absenteeism. On the basis of two multi-level datasets
from different occupational contexts, our results
indicated that an individuals level of externally
focused job satisfaction predicted subsequent absenteeism only when both the mean and the dispersion of work-unit absenteeism were high (Hypothesis 1). Conversely, in the presence of a low
level of dispersion of work-unit absence, individ-
ual absenteeism was predicted by the mean levels

of work-unit absence regardless of external satisfaction. Moreover, the mean and dispersion levels of
work-unit absenteeism jointly moderated the negative relationship between internally focused satisfaction and individual absenteeism among participants
in Study 1. Specifically, in cases of low absence
means and dispersions within work units, the relationship between internal satisfaction and individual
absenteeism was strongest (Hypothesis 2). Conversely, individual absenteeism was high for all levels of internal satisfaction when the absence mean
2014
373
FIGURE 5
and Externally Focused Job Satisfaction on Individual Absence Frequency
was high and the absence dispersion was low. In

Study 2, we found a similar pattern: specifically, the
negative relationship between internal satisfaction
and individual absenteeism was attenuated as a function of the mean level of work-unit absenteeism.
Theoretical Implications
Since Hacketts (1989) meta-analytic examination of the individual satisfactionabsenteeism relationship, scholars have repeatedly searched for
boundary conditions, primarily from a mono-level
perspective, that would explain the broad range of
correlations that have been found between satisfaction and absenteeism. In light of both the inconsistent pattern of results and the low predictive power
that have been reported across studies (Harrison et

al., 2006; Sagie, 1998; Somers, 1995; Wegge et al.,
2007), this enterprise has been of little theoretical
value. Provided that absenteeism is a meaningful
event that draws the attention of other group or
work-unit members (Hausknecht et al., 2008; Johns
& Nicholson, 1982), the social and normative expectations within the immediate environment constitute relevant boundary conditions that may have
a higher explanatory power. To capture such social-contextual influences, we adopted the concept
of situational strength (Cooper & Withey, 2009;
Mischel, 1977), which encompasses two contextual
cues: the degree and the consistency of meaningful
organizational behavior (namely, absenteeism). In
other words, the combination of both pieces of
374
April
FIGURE 6
Study 2: Two-way Interaction Effect of Mean Levels of Work-Unit Absence Frequency and Internally
Focused Job Satisfaction on Individual Absence Frequency
information (mean and dispersion) reflects the

strength of the absence context within a work unit
and provides behavioral guidance for employees in
aligning their behavior with the social and normative expectations of their work unit. This line of
reasoning calls for a multi-level perspective on the
individual satisfactionabsenteeism relationship,
and is further supported by our empirical finding
that only under specific contextual conditions do
satisfaction levels predict individual absenteeism.
Compared with the rather moderate correlations
ranging from .21 to .23 found in a previous
meta-analysis (Hackett, 1989), our simple slope results indicate a more convincing degree of predictive power. As a result, we were able to observe the
interplay of contextual factors that drive the effect of
individual job satisfaction on absenteeism. In the following sections, we will further elaborate on the implications of our findings for theories on individual
satisfactionabsence relationships, absenteeism in organizations, and social information processing.
Individual satisfactionabsenteeism relationships. Both of the different interaction patterns that
we found enrich our knowledge about the nature of
the satisfactionabsenteeism relationship. When

the context (the work unit) is ambiguous and
unclear with regard to the importance and the
occurrence of absenteeism, dissatisfaction with the
external entity (e.g., job conditions, career opportunities, and the organization itself) results in individual absenteeism. This finding is consistent with
equity theory (Adams, 1965) and social exchange
theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), which contend
that dissatisfied employees reduce their investments when they perceive an unbalanced relationship with their organization (Harrison et al., 2006).
Specifically, in the case of a weak context, the
meaning of absenteeism is highly influenced by an
employees evaluation of his or her job conditions.
In contrast, as a close inspection of the intercepts
showed, employees adapt their absence pattern to
the work-unit absence level (irrespective of their
own evaluation) when the work unit demonstrates
uniformly high or low absence levels. In other
words, in the case of a strong context with consistent absence patterns, the importance and occurrence of individual absenteeism are determined by
2014
the social environment rather than by externally

focused job satisfaction.
However, the cross-level interactive effect of internally focused satisfaction and work-unit absenteeism on subsequent individual absenteeism indicates that satisfaction with the work unit can be
associated with high individual absenteeism, particularly when work-unit colleagues are also frequently absent. This inverse moderator effect of
work-unit absenteeism is consistent with the theoretical prediction that a high level of perceived
social integration motivates employees to align
with their social environment (Fredrickson, 2001;
Schneider, 1987). Although it is seemingly paradoxical that employees who are satisfied with their
work unit should avoid their pleasant environment, it should be noted that our operationalization
of absenteeism only included short-term absences
and that this effect may reflect a shared understanding of work-related behavior (as indicated by
high work-unit absenteeism) that is not beneficial
to the organization (Goodman, Ravlin, & Schminke,
1987). Similar effects have been reported in studies
on cohesion, which, in combination with low performance norms, can lead to low performance (e.g.,
Gammage, Carron, & Estabrooks, 2001). In this case,
absenteeism may not be a form of avoidance or
withdrawal behavior; instead, we suggest that absenteeism is driven by a high degree of attendance
flexibility within a work unit or by a consensual
agreement that justifies short-term absences. Moreover, on the basis of social information processing
theory, Gellatly and Allen (2012: 107) recently argued that in cases of high group absence, employees may infer that such behavior [is] both expected
and accepted. From a social exchange perspective
(Blau, 1964), this argument implies that behavioral
alignment is a form of compliance with a group
norm that is exchanged for social approval from
others. As our results indicate, such processes are
most likely to occur when employees have a positive attitude toward their work unit, which is reflected by high internally focused satisfaction.
Absenteeism in organizations. From a more general perspective, the conclusions drawn from both
interaction patterns have encouraged us to develop
a context-based theory of absence (see Figure 2)
that elaborates the conditions under which individual absence patterns reflect behavioral manifestations of attitudinal differences or shared understandings of absenteeism within organizational
structures, such as work units, groups, or whole
organizations (Gellatly & Allen, 2012; Rentsch &
375
Steel, 2003). According to this theory, our results

suggest that the mean level of work-unit absenteeism is only a meaningful contextual cue and is
therefore predictive of individual absenteeism
when the dispersion level of work-unit absenteeism is low. In other words, consistent with the
notion of situational strength (Cooper & Withey,
2009), social influences on individual absenteeism
and their relationships with attitudes can only be
understood by conceptualizing and examining absence levels in combination with the consistency of
absence patterns within social structures. Cooper
and Withey (2009: 70) explicitly called for empirical studies that include variations on situational
strength and are devoted to testing its moderating
effects on the relationships between individual attributes and theoretically relevant behavior. In
this study, we have demonstrated that the concept
of situational strength applies to absenteeism in
organizations. Going beyond absenteeism, our research invites scholars to thoroughly consider situational strength when building theories about
other forms of meaningful organizational behavior
(such as organizational citizenship behavior) that
are often embedded in social contexts and are
thus observed, evaluated, and adopted by others
(Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004).
Social information processing. The present results also enhance our understanding of how employees in organizations translate relevant and
meaningful information from their social environment into behavior (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Although Thomas and Griffin (1989: 71) have suggested moderating effects of social cues and
contextual information on attitude behavior relationships, the relevant factors and mechanisms influencing the interactions between contexts and
attitudes have remained largely unclear to date. As
revealed by both of the different cross-level interactions we found, one relevant factor is the function of an attitude, which influences the ways in
which employees construe social-contextual information and respond to attitudinal targets. Specifically, when evaluating instrumental aspects of a job
(externally focused satisfaction), the immediate environment conditions the attitudinal response (individual absenteeism) in cases of clear and consistent contextual cues (low mean and/or low
dispersion levels of work-unit absenteeism). In
contrast, when attitudes (e.g., toward the work
unit) have a social-adjustive function and are positive (internally focused satisfaction), employees
adapt their attitudinal responses (individual absen-
376
teeism) to the behavioral patterns (work-unit absenteeism) they observe within their social environment. Thus, the distinction between different
attitudinal functions, as represented by different
attitudinal foci, has turned out to be useful in explaining the interaction effect of social-contextual
factors and individual attitudes on organizational
behavior. Given that previous studies have documented different effects of internal and external
foci of job attitudes on absenteeism and job performance (Becker, Billings, Eveleth, & Gilbert, 1996;
Dineen et al., 2007; Siders et al., 2001), social information processing theory may benefit from distinguishing between the different functions of job attitudes when deriving predictions regarding socialcontextual influences on organizational behaviors,
such as turnover (Liu et al., 2012), creativity (Hirst et
al., 2011), and job performance (Liao & Rupp, 2005).
Limitations and Avenues for Future Research
Our research is subject to several limitations that
suggest avenues for future research. First, although
our multi-level analyses drew on longitudinal data,
our research design was, nonetheless, correlational
and did not permit strong causal inferences. Given
the dynamic nature of job satisfaction (Chen, Ployhart, Thomas, Anderson, & Bliese, 2011), our predictions should be further tested in designs in which
changes in absenteeism and satisfaction over time are
modeled (e.g., Liu et al., 2012). However, in view of
our control of temporal changes in individual absenteeism and that work-unit absenteeism is relatively
stable even after controlling for dynamic effects
(Hausknecht et al., 2008), we assert that our design
provides valuable insights into the functional role of
work-unit absenteeism in the processes determining
the effect of job satisfaction on individual absence.
Second, our conceptualization and operationalization of job satisfaction only refer to five aspects
of jobs, whereas other relevant aspects, such as task
types or payment levels, were not included. For
example, given that the evaluation of tasks is subject to specific requirements (e.g., overcoming inner resistance in cases of unattractive tasks) that
relate to absenteeism (Diestel & Schmidt, 2011),
social-contextual factors can be thought to play a
pivotal role in task satisfaction. In addition, although our definition of attitudinal targets, which
are specific to instrumental and social-adjustive
attitudinal functions, draws on past research (e.g.,
Dineen et al., 2007), a more explicit distinction
between different relevant attitudinal components
April
(such as beliefs, global evaluations, and affective

experiences; Weiss, 2002), which reflect attitudinal
functions, would enhance scholarly understanding
of how different foci of satisfaction (or job attitudes
in general) relate to organizational behavior. In
light of the different ICC(1) values and the different
moderating effects of the absence context for both
satisfaction foci found in our study, a theoretically
grounded definition and a measure of satisfaction
components are imperative for future research
(Schleicher et al., 2004).
Third, the finding that both of the different interactions are contingent upon satisfaction foci
strongly suggests that the relationships between
both of the satisfaction foci and absenteeism are
driven by different psychological mechanisms. In
other words, mediating processes (e.g., calculative
judgment or social identification) may explain the
different interaction effects that were found in our
studies. However, while we did not measure or test
such mediating effects, we still argue that most of the
theoretically relevant information (e.g., different aspects of a job) relies on the assessment and conceptualization of both satisfaction foci, and that our predictions do not require assumptions about mediating
processes. Because our predictions are grounded in
the concepts of attitude function and situational
strength, analyses of mediating effects would provide
only a marginal improvement to our understanding of
the interaction effects of the social context and the
different satisfaction foci on absenteeism. Nevertheless, theories of contextual effects on organizational
behavior (e.g., absenteeism) would still benefit from
integrating and testing mediating effects.
Fourth, given the broad spectrum of variables
that influence satisfaction and absenteeism, we
cannot fully rule out the possibility of unmeasured
confounding effects. Although we controlled for
relevant demographic variables (Wegge et al.,
2007), local unemployment rate as an indicator of
economic welfare (Hausknecht et al., 2008), and
somatic complaints as predictors of involuntary absences due to illness (Darr & Johns, 2008), other
variables may also play a pivotal role in absenteeism, such as job performance, sanctioned absence,
or specific working conditions. For example, the
reasons for colleagues voluntarily or involuntarily
absences (taking a sickie or taking care of a family
member) may influence the perceived meaning of
or justification for absence. In addition, our absence measure does not explicitly distinguish between excused and unexcused or voluntary and
involuntary cases; specifically, although our mea-
2014
sure only included absences that were short term

(Hausknecht et al., 2008), based on the absence
policies of German organizations, absences due to
sickness or personal issues (e.g., worklife balance)
in addition to attitudinal reasons may have been
counted in our absence data. However, given that
both of the satisfaction foci were substantially related to our absence measure, that our findings
generalized across different organizational and occupational contexts, and that we controlled for
other relevant factors, we assert that the present
results are somewhat protected against confounding effects. Nevertheless, future research should
differentiate between voluntary/involuntary and
excused/unexcused absences (Sagie, 1998) and
consider further relevant control variables (Steel,
Rentsch, & van Scotter, 2007).
Finally, in light of the variety of unit-level antecedents that prior research has found to predict
work-unit absenteeism (Dineen et al., 2007;
Hausknecht et al., 2008; Xie & Johns, 2000), the
specific manifestation of the social (absence) context (configurations of high/low mean and dispersion of work-unit absenteeism) can be considered
as a symptom of contextual influences (such as
leadership, labor market conditions, or group climate or cohesion). Indeed, we did not explicitly
measure the unit-level mechanism that drives
work-unit absenteeism. Provided that prior research has already documented considerable evidence on main and interaction effects of unit-level
variables on work-unit absenteeism (e.g., Dineen et
al., 2007), our main purpose was to examine the
functional role of work-unit absenteeism as a meaningful contextual construct (Mason & Griffin, 2003)
in the relationship between individual job satisfaction and individual absenteeism. Thus, our findings broaden the theoretical understanding of context and shed light on the psychological function of
patterns of meaningful behavior at higher organizational levels. Research on situational strength
suggests that behavioral patterns within the social
environment typically have stronger impacts than
shared attitudes, communication, or other forms of
contextual stimuli on individual behavior (see Cooper & Withey, 2009; Johns, 2006; Mischel, 1977).
The level and dispersion of meaningful behaviors
(such as absenteeism) within social structures constitute relevant forms or manifestations of discrete contexts that moderate individual satisfactionabsenteeism relationships, even after controlling for economic
and individual variables. In conclusion, our research
calls for conceptualizations of contexts that integrate
377
behavioral patterns at higher structural levels (other

than climate or team composition), especially when
explaining the functional relationships between job
attitudes and individual behavior.
Managerial Implications
The present findings point to two factors that reduce employee absenteeism either directly or
through moderating effects: individual internally focused satisfaction and work-unit absenteeism. On the
one hand, irrespective of the level of externally focused satisfaction, the lowest levels of employee absenteeism are most likely to occur when the mean
and dispersion levels of work-unit absenteeism are
both low. On the other hand, the combination of high
internal satisfaction and low work-unit absenteeism
is also associated with low individual absenteeism.
Thus, HR practices should aim at simultaneously increasing individual internally focused satisfaction
while reducing work-unit absenteeism.
The findings described by Dineen et al. (2007)
have already highlighted the influence of cohesion
and social integration on absenteeism. Based on
their study, these researchers recommended that
managers enhance team satisfaction by focusing on
ensuring appropriate team composition. Likewise,
our results indicate that managers should foster
social integration within teams and social relationships among teammates and supervisors who provide support because, irrespective of the contextual conditions of work-unit absenteeism, low
individual levels of internally focused job satisfaction result in higher levels of individual absenteeism. However, as our results clearly show, high
internally focused satisfaction can also be associated with high employee absenteeism when workunit absenteeism is high. Thus, managers should
develop and adopt practices that target the group
level and aim to control work-unit absenteeism
rather than individual behavior directly. For example, clear supervisory instructions, formalized attendance procedures, feedback systems, or unitlevel incentives could decrease the mean and
dispersion levels of work-unit absenteeism. We argue for controlling work-unit absenteeism, and we
emphasize that such interventions or practices are
different from reducing absenteeism at the individual
level. Reducing individual absenteeism often implies
financial incentives for each employee or individual
appraisals with feedback (Hausknecht et al., 2008).
These practices are often extensive, and their effects
378
on individual absenteeism are largely unknown at

present (Camden, Price, & Ludwig, 2011).
Finally, the findings of Hausknecht et al. (2008)
emphasize the influential interplay between satisfaction and commitment at the work-unit level.
When both of these variables are high, low levels of
work-unit absenteeism are likely. Thus, attempts to
control work-unit absenteeism that include increasing shared emotional attachment to the organization (through, e.g., cultural development programs and team-building programs that foster the
shared sense of enjoyment that resides within work
units) appear to be promising.
REFERENCES
Abelson, R. P., & Prentice, D. A. 1989. Beliefs as possessions: A functional perspective. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J.
Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure
and function: 361381. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence.
Adams, S. J. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. In L.
Derkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology, vol. 2: 267299. New York: Academic
Press.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression:
Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. 1977. Attitude behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical
research. Psychological Bulletin, 84: 888 918.
Ariely, D., & Carmon, Z. 2000. Gestalt characteristics of
experiences: The defining features of summarized
events. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13:
191201.
Asch, S. E. 1956. Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70: 170.
Asch, S. E. 1966. Opinions and social pressure. In A. P.
Hare, E. F. Borgatta & R. F. Bales (Eds.), Small
groups: Studies in social interaction: 318 324.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
April
Biron, M., & Bamberger, P. 2012. Aversive workplace

conditions and absenteeism: Taking referent group
norms and supervisor support into account. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 97: 901912.
Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life.
New York: Wiley.
Camden, M. C., Price, V. A., & Ludwig, T. D. 2011. Reducing absenteeism and rescheduling among grocery
store employees with point-contingent rewards.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,
31: 140 149.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G. D., & Klesh, J. R.
1983. Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. In S. E. Seashore, E. E. Lawler, P. H.
Mirvis & C. Cammann (Eds.), Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures, and
practices: 71138. New York: John Wiley.
Chadwick-Jones, J. K., Nicholson, N., & Brown, C. 1982. Social psychology of absenteeism. New York: Praeger.
Chan, D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in
the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of compositional models. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83: 234 236.
Chen, G., Ployhart, R. E., Thomas, H. C., Anderson, N., &
Bliese, P. D. 2011. The power of momentum: A new
model of dynamic relationships between job satisfaction change and turnover intentions. Academy of
Management Journal, 54: 159 181.
Clegg, C. W. 1983. Psychology of employee lateness, absence, and turnover: A methodological critique and
an empirical study. Journal of Applied Psychology,
68: 88 101.
Cole, M. S., Bedeian, A. G., Hirschfeld, R. R., & Vogel, B.
2011. Dispersion-composition models in multilevel
research: A data-analytic framework. Organizational Research Methods, 14: 718 734.
Cooper, W. H., & Withey, M. J. 2009. The strong situation
hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13: 6272.
Darr, W., & Johns, G. 2008. Work strain, health, and
absenteeism: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13: 293318.
Bamberger, P., & Biron, M. 2007. Group norms and excessive absenteeism: The role of peer referent others.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 103: 179 196.
Diestel, S., & Schmidt, K.-H. 2011. Costs of simultaneous

coping with emotional dissonance and self-control
demands at work: Results from two German samples.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 643 653.
Becker, T. 1992. Foci and bases of commitment: Are they

distinctions worth making? Academy of Management Journal, 35: 232244.
Dineen, B. R., Noe, R. A., Shaw, J. D., Duffy, M. K., &

Wiethoff, C. 2007. Level and dispersion of satisfaction in teams: Using foci and social context to explain the satisfactionabsenteeism relationship.
Academy of Management Journal, 50: 623 643.
Becker, T., Billings, R., Eveleth, D., & Gilbert, N. 1996.

Foci and bases of employee commitment: Implications for job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 464 482.
Dollard, M. F., Tuckey, M. R., & Dormann, C. 2012.

Psychosocial safety climate moderates the job de-
2014
mandresource interaction in predicting workgroup

distress. Accident; Analysis and Prevention, 45:
694 704.
Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L., Shaw, J. D., Tepper, B. J., &
Aquino, K. 2012. A social context model of envy and
social undermining. Academy of Management
Journal, 55: 643 666.
Eder, P., & Eisenberger, R. 2008. Perceived organizational
support: Reducing the negative influence of coworker withdrawal behavior. Journal of Management, 34: 55 68.
Ehrhart, M. G., & Naumann, S. E. 2004. Organizational
citizenship behavior in work groups: A group norms
approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 960
974.
Erdogan, B., & Enders, J. 2007. Support from the top:
Supervisors perceived organizational support as a
moderator of leadermember exchange to satisfaction and performance relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 321330.
Falomir-Pichastor, J. M., Gabarrot, F., & Mugny, G. 2009.
Conformity and identity threat: The role of ingroup
identification. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 68: 79
87.
Federal Statistical Office of Germany. 2012. Labor
Market Reports. https://www.destatis.de/EN/Facts
Figures/NationalEconomyEnvironment/LabourMarket/
Unemployment/Unemployment.html. Accessed on
February 05, 2013.
Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., Hekman, D. R., Lee, T. W.,
Holtom, B. C., & Harman, W. S. 2009. Turnover contagion: How coworkers job embeddedness and job
search behaviors influence quitting. Academy of
Management Journal, 52: 545561.
Fredrickson, B. L. 2001. The role of positive emotions in
positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory
of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56:
218 226.
Gammage, K. L., Carron, A. V., & Estabrooks, P. A. 2001.
Team cohesion and individual productivity: The influence of the norms for productivity and the identifiability of individual efforts. Small Group Research, 32: 318.
Gellatly, I. R., & Allen, N. J. 2012. Group mate absence, dissimilarity, and individual absence: Another look at
monkey see, monkey do. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 21: 106 124.
George, J. M. 1989. Mood and absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 317324.
Glick, W. H. 1985. Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Review,
10: 601 616.
379
Goodman, P. S., Ravlin, E. C., & Schminke, M. 1987.

Understanding groups in organizations. In B. M.
Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 9: 121173. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Hackett, R. D. 1989. Work attitudes and employee absenteeism: A synthesis of the literature. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62: 235248.
Hammer, T. H., & Landau, J. 1981. Methodological issues
in the use of absence data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66: 574 581.
Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. 2007. Whats the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or
disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32: 1199 1228.
Harrison, D. A., & Martocchio, J. J. 1998. Time for absenteeism: A 20-year review of origins, offshoots, and
outcomes. Journal of Management, 24: 305350.
Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. 2006. How
important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time
sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49:
305325.
Hausknecht, J. P., Hiller, N. J., & Vance, R. J. 2008. Workunit absenteeism: Effects of satisfaction, commitment, labor market conditions and time. Academy
of Management Journal, 51: 12231245.
Hekman, D. R., Steensma, H. K., Bigley, G. A., & Hereford, J. F. 2009. Effects of organizational and professional identification on the relationship between administrators social influence and professional
employees adoption of new work behavior. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 94: 13251335.
Hirst, G., van Knippenberg, D., Chen, C. H., & Sacramento, C. A. 2011. How does bureaucracy impact on
individual creativity? A cross-level investigation of
team contextual influences on goal orientation-creativity relationships. Academy of Management
Journal, 54: 624 641.
Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. 1998. Centering decisions
in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research organizations. Journal of Management, 24:
623 641.
Johns, G. 2001. In praise of context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 31 42.
Johns, G. 2006. The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31: 386 408.
Johns, G., & Nicholson, N. 1982. The meanings of absence: New strategies for theory and research. In
B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior, 4: 127172. Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Keller, R. T. 1983. Predicting absenteeism from prior
380
April
absenteeism, attitudinal factors, and nonattitudinal

factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68: 536
540.
ination of group absence influences on individual

absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 217
220.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. 2000. A multilevel

approach to theory and research inorganizations:
Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In
K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel
theory, research and methods in organizations:
Foundations, extensions, and new directions: 390.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A. 2009. Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 535546.
Kunin, T. 1955. The construction of a new type of attitude measure. Personnel Psychology, 8: 6577.
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. 2001. Socialization in

organizations and work groups. In M. E. Turner
(Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research: 69
112. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ledgerwood, A., & Trope, Y. 2010. Attitudes as global

and local action guides. In J. Forgas, J. Cooper & W.
Crano (Eds.), The 12th annual Sydney symposium
of social psychology: The psychology of attitudes
and attitude change. New York: Psychology Press.
Liao, H., Liu, D., & Loi, R. 2010. Looking at both sides of
the social exchange coin: A social cognitive perspective on the joint effects of relationship quality and
differentiation on creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 1090 1109.
Liao, H., & Rupp, D. E. 2005. The impact of justice climate and justice orientation on work outcomes: A
cross-level multifoci framework. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90: 242256.
Liu, D., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., Holtom, B. C., &
Hinkin, T. R. 2012. When employees out step with
coworkers: How job satisfaction trajectory and dispersion influence individual- and unit-level voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal,
55: 1360 1380.
Locke, E. A. 1976. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: 12931349.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Lord, C. G., & Lepper, M. R. 1999. Attitude representation
theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 31: 265343. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Markham, S. E. 1985. An investigation of the relationship
between unemployment and absenteeism: A multilevel approach. Academy of Management Journal,
28: 228 234.
Mason, C. M., & Griffin, M. A. 2003. Group absenteeism
and positive affective tone: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24: 667 687.
Mathieu, J. E., Aguinis, H., Culpepper, S. A., & Chen, G.
2012. Understanding and estimating the power to
detect cross-level interaction effects in multilevel
modeling. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97: 951
966.
Mathieu, J. E., & Kohler, S. S. 1990. A cross-level exam-
Mischel, W. 1977. The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology: 333352. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mowday, R. T., & Sutton, R. I. 1993. Organizational behavior: Linking individuals and groups to organizational contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 44:
195229.
Neuberger, O., & Allerbeck, M. 1978. Messung und Analyse von Arbeitszufriedenheit. Erfahrungen mit
dem Arbeitsbeschreibungsbogen (ABB) [Measuring and analysis of job satisfaction]. Bern, Germany: Huber.
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. 2010. Occupational embeddedness and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30: 863 891.
Opotow, S. 1995. Drawing the line: Social categorization,
moral exclusion, and the scope of justice. In B. B.
Bunker & J. Z. Rubin (Eds.), Conflict, cooperation,
and justice: Essays inspired by the work of Morton
Deutsch: 347369. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., Sakhel, K., & De Groot, D. 2001.
Social influence in computer-mediated communication: The effects of anonymity on group behavior.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27:
12431254.
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. 2006. Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple
linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent
curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31: 437 448.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. 2002. Hierarchical
linear models: Applications and data analysis
methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rentsch, J. R., & Steel, R. P. 2003. What does unit-level
absence mean? Issues for future unit-level absence
research. Human Resource Management Review,
13: 185202.
Sagie, A. 1998. Employee absenteeism, organizational
commitment, and job satisfaction: Another look.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52: 156 171.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. 1978. A social information
2014
381
processing approach to job attitudes and task design.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 23: 224 253.
interaction effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16: 49 58.
Schleicher, D. J., Watt, J. D., & Greguras, G. J. 2004.

Reexamining the job satisfactionperformance relationship: The complexity of attitudes. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89: 165177.
Steel, R. P. 2003. Methodological and operational issues

in the construction of absence variables. Human Resource Management Review, 13: 243251.
Schmidt, K.-H. 2002. Organisationales und individuelles

Abwesenheitsverhalten: Eine Cross-Level-Studie [Organizational and individual absence behavior: A
cross-level study]. Zeitschrift fr Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 46: 69 77.
Schmidt, K.-H. 2010. The relation of goal incongruence
and self-control demands to indicators of job strain
among elderly care nursing staff: A cross-sectional
survey study combined with longitudinally assessed
absence measures. International Journal of Nursing
Studies, 47: 855 863.
Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40: 437 453.
Steel, R. P., Rentsch, J. R., & van Scotter, J. R. 2007.

Timeframes and absence frameworks: A test of
Steers and Rhodes (1978) model of attendance. Journal of Management, 33: 180 195.
Tajfel, H. 1978. Social categorization, social identity, and
social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation
between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations: 6176. London:
Academic Press.
Gonzlez-Rom, V., Peir, J. M., & Tordera, N. 2002. An
examination of the antecedents and moderator influences of climate strength. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 465 473.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. 1959. The social psychology of groups. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Schneider, B., Salvaggio, A. N., & Subirats, M. 2002.

Climate strength: A new direction for climate research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 220
229.
Thomas, J., & Griffin, R. 1989. The power of social information in the workplace. Organizational Dynamics, 18: 6375.
Schneider, B., White, S. S., & Paul, M. C. 1998. Linking

service climate and customer perceptions of service
quality: Test of a causal model. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83: 150 163.
Trevor, C. O. 2001. Interactions among ease-of-movement

determinants and job satisfaction in the prediction of
voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 621 638.
Shacham, R. 2009. A utility for exploring HLM, 2- and

3-way interactions [Computer software]. Available
from http://www.shacham.biz/HLM_int/index.htm.
van Dick, R., van Knippenberg, D., Kerschreiter, R., Hertel, G., & Wieseke, J. 2008. Multiple organizational
identities: The interactive effect of work group and
organizational identification on job satisfaction and
extra-role behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72: 388 399.
Sherif, M. 1936. The psychology of social norms. New

York: Harper.
Shin, S. J., Lee, T.-Y., Kim, J.-Y., & Bian, L. 2012. Cognitive team diversity and individual team member creativity: A cross-level investigation. Academy of
Management Journal, 55: 197212.
Siders, M., George, G., & Dharwadkar, R. 2001. The relationship of internal and external commitment foci to
objective job performance measures. Academy of
Management Journal, 44: 570 579.
Smith, M. B., Bruner, J., & White, R. 1956. . Opinions and
personality. New York: Wiley.
Snedecor, G., & Cochran, W. 1983. Statistical methods
(8th ed.). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
Snyder, M., & DeBono, K. G. 1989. Understanding the
functions of attitudes: Lessons from personality and
social behavior. . In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, &
A. G. Greenwald (Eds.) Attitude structure and function: 339 359. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence.
Somers, M. J. 1995. Organizational commitment, turnover and absenteeism: An examination of direct and
van Knippenberg, D., & van Schie, E. C. M. 2000. Foci

and correlates of organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73: 137147.
von Zerssen, D. 1976. Die Beschwerden-Liste. Manual
[List of complaints. Manual]. Weinheim, Germany:
Beltz.
Wallace, D. S., Paulson, R. M., Lord, C. G., & Bond, C. F.,
Jr.. 2005. Which behaviors do attitudes predict?
Meta-analyzing the effects of social pressure and perceived difficulty. Review of General Psychology, 9:
214 227.
Watt, S. E., Maio, G. R., Rees, K., & Hewstone, M. 2007.
Functions of attitudes towards ethnic groups: Effects
of level of abstraction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43: 441 449.
Wegge, J., Schmidt, K.-H., Parkes, C., & van Dick, R. 2007.
Taking a sickie: Job satisfaction and job involvement as interactive predictors of absenteeism in a
382
public organization. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 80: 77 89.
Weiss, H. M. 2002. Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12:
173194.
Wellen, J. M., Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. 1998. Group
norms and attitude-behavior consistency: The role of
group salience and mood. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2: 48 56.
Xie, J. L., & Johns, G. 2000. Interactive effects of absence
culture salience and group cohesiveness: A multilevel and cross-level analysis of work absenteeism in
the Chinese context. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 73: 3152.
Stefan Diestel (diestel@ifado.de) is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Leibniz Research Centre for Working
Environment and Human Factors at the Technical University of Dortmund. He received his PhD (2011) in work
April
and organizational psychology from the Ruhr University

of Bochum in Germany. His research focuses on absenteeism, emotional labor, job attitudes, and self-control
at work.
Jrgen Wegge (wegge@psychologie.tu-dresden.de) is currently a full professor of work and organizational psychology at the Technical University of Dresden. He
earned his PhD (1994) in industrial and organizational
psychology from the Technical University of Dortmund
in Germany. His research interests are in the fields of
work motivation, leadership, demographic change, and
occupational health.
Klaus-Helmut Schmidt (schmidtkh@ifado.de) is a professor of work and organizational psychology at the Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors at the Technical University of Dortmund.
He holds a PhD (1987) in psychology from the University of Wuppertal in Germany. His research focuses on
absenteeism, occupational stress, and self-control
at work.

Job Satisfaction

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Job Satisfaction

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Academy of Management Journal

2014, Vol. 57, No. 2, 353382.

THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL CONTEXT ON THE RELATIONSHIP

Roth, 2006), may tempt scholars to conclude that

Given the high costs of losses in productivity

We thank the action editor Jason D. Shaw and three

Academy of Management Journal

contextual factors to predict absence rates in teams.

Diestel, Wegge, and Schmidt

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND

nally focused job satisfaction. According to their

Academy of Management Journal

attitudinal target determine its representation,

Diestel, Wegge, and Schmidt

ism in their social environment (e.g., work unit),

Academy of Management Journal

strue the particular events the same way, [and]

persion levels are low, indicating a strong context.

Diestel, Wegge, and Schmidt

reasoning, global evaluation, and choice. Thus,

ure 2), employees may infer that high absenteeism

Academy of Management Journal

relationship with the employer or organization (see

Diestel, Wegge, and Schmidt

fies with the work unit, as manifested in high levels

to a case in which there is a low mean and dispersion

Academy of Management Journal

20 participants left the organization (final n 412).

Diestel, Wegge, and Schmidt

did not receive any reports on the absences of their

operationalization draws on Harrison and Kleins

Academy of Management Journal

(Hofmann & Gavin, 1998), we centered all other

Notes. (n 412). Descriptive statistics of absence frequency represent non-transformed scores.

Diestel, Wegge, and Schmidt

1.2: Work-Unit Level Variables

Notes. (n 63). Descriptive statistics of absence frequency represent non-transformed scores.

tions explained an additional 3% of the variance

both the mean and dispersion levels of work-unit

Academy of Management Journal

Diestel, Wegge, and Schmidt

significance was due to reduced statistical power.

Academy of Management Journal

preting socially relevant and meaningful aspects of

pothesis 2) or will correspond to mean levels of

Diestel, Wegge, and Schmidt

Individual externally and internally focused

Academy of Management Journal

Note. (n 330). Descriptive statistics of absence frequency represent non-transformed scores.

6 months) within the work units.2 Bartletts test

(externally focused satisfaction: U1 .08, p .01;

Diestel, Wegge, and Schmidt

3.2: Work-Unit Level Variables

Note. (n 53). Descriptive statistics of absence frequency represent non-transformed scores.

data from Study 2, the present results provide some

Academy of Management Journal

work-unit absenteeism and analyzed different

ual absenteeism was predicted by the mean levels

Diestel, Wegge, and Schmidt

was high and the absence dispersion was low. In

that have been reported across studies (Harrison et

Academy of Management Journal

information (mean and dispersion) reflects the