Gallup Workplace Audit
Cain, Dana, & Newman, 2014 used laboratory games such as the dictator game. Dalal (2005) used PsycINFO searches and manual searches were also conducted in the Journal of Applied Psychology, Academy of Management Journal, Personal Psychology, Human Performance, and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes (2002) used an instrument developed from work satisfaction, work motivation, supervisory practices, and work-group effectiveness. Also, the Gallup Workplace Audit (GWA; the Gallup Organization, 1992-1999). Judge, Thoresen, Bono and Patton (2001) Meyer et al (2002) have tested the validity of the three-dimensional model on broad empirical database. A questionnaire developed by Meyer and Allen (1991) was
applied in this study, which allows the identification of the three components of commitment. The data obtained was compared to the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ). In the article of Shantz, Alfes and Latham (2015) 509 employees were invited to participate in two surveys conducted 12 months apart where employees were informed of the purpose of the study and assured anonymity. Employee work engagement was measured using the nine-item version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9). Spector et al (2006) gathered data from three previous studies that used 45-item Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist.
Strengths and Limitations
Cain, Dana, & Newman, 2014 indicated that natural observations seem to be inconsistent with the dictator games because behaviors in laboratory games is very sensitive to the context of these games. However, multiple results showed consistency across different replications. Shantz, Alfes and Latham (2015) identified the measures of turnover intentions and deviant behavior as a limitation. Spector et al (2006) asserted that the samples were comprised by employed students and there was no assurance that their answers match other employed groups, thus there is a concern about generalizability. Meyer et al (2002) mention that there was less attention given to the development of normative commitment. Also, since they were dealing with correlation it made impossible to verify the direction of causality.
applied in this study, which allows the identification of the three components of commitment. The data obtained was compared to the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ). In the article of Shantz, Alfes and Latham (2015) 509 employees were invited to participate in two surveys conducted 12 months apart where employees were informed of the purpose of the study and assured anonymity. Employee work engagement was measured using the nine-item version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9). Spector et al (2006) gathered data from three previous studies that used 45-item Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist.
Strengths and Limitations
Cain, Dana, & Newman, 2014 indicated that natural observations seem to be inconsistent with the dictator games because behaviors in laboratory games is very sensitive to the context of these games. However, multiple results showed consistency across different replications. Shantz, Alfes and Latham (2015) identified the measures of turnover intentions and deviant behavior as a limitation. Spector et al (2006) asserted that the samples were comprised by employed students and there was no assurance that their answers match other employed groups, thus there is a concern about generalizability. Meyer et al (2002) mention that there was less attention given to the development of normative commitment. Also, since they were dealing with correlation it made impossible to verify the direction of causality.