The study of affect in the workplace began and peaked in the 1930s, with the decades that followed up to the 1990s not being particularly fertile. Whereas job satisfaction generally continues to be loosely but not carefully thought of and measured as an affective state, critical work in the 1990s has raised serious questions about the affective status of job satisfaction in terms of its causes as well as its definition and measurement. Recent research has focused on the production of moods and emotions at work, with an emphasis, at least conceptually, on stressful events, leaders, work groups, physical settings, and rewards/punishment. Other recent research has addressed the consequences of workers' feelings, in particular, a variety of performance outcomes (e.g., helping behaviors and creativity). Even though recent interest in affect in the workplace has been intense, many theoretical and methodological opportunities and challenges remain.

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR: Affect in the Workplace

The authors investigated the negative consequences of emotional exhaustion for individual employees and their employers. On the basis of social exchange theory, the authors proposed that emotional exhaustion would predict job performance, 2 classes of organizational citizenship behavior, and turnover intentions. In addition, the authors posited that the relationship between emotional exhaustion and effective work behaviors would be mediated by organizational commitment. With only a few exceptions, the results of 2 field studies supported the authors' expectations. In addition, emotional exhaustion exerted an independent effect on these criterion variables beyond the impact of age, gender, and ethnicity.

The relationship of emotional exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors.

https://research.sabanciuniv.edu/13660/1/Gunday_et_al_Effects_of_Innovation_on_Firm_Performance.pdf

Effects of innovation types on firm performance

This study involves a metanalysis of 25 articles concerning the relationship between demographic variables, personal perceptions, and organizational conditions and either turnover or intention to leave. It finds that burnout, job dissatisfaction, availability of employment alternatives, low organizational and professional commitment, stress, and lack of social support are the strongest predictors of turnover or intention to leave. Since the major predictors of leaving are not personal or related to the balance between work and family but are organizational or job‐based, there might be a great deal that both managers and policy makers can do to prevent turnover.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/info/10.1086/323166

Antecedents to Retention and Turnover among Child Welfare, Social Work, and Other Human Service Employees: What Can We Learn from Past Research? A Review and Metanalysis

Although a flurry of meta-analyses summarized the justice literature at the turn of the millennium, interest in the topic has surged in the decade since. In particular, the past decade has witnessed the rise of social exchange theory as the dominant lens for examining reactions to justice, and the emergence of affect as a complementary lens for understanding such reactions. The purpose of this meta-analytic review was to test direct, mediating, and moderating hypotheses that were inspired by those 2 perspectives, to gauge their adequacy as theoretical guides for justice research. Drawing on a review of 493 independent samples, our findings revealed a number of insights that were not included in prior meta-analyses. With respect to social exchange theory, our results revealed that the significant relationships between justice and both task performance and citizenship behavior were mediated by indicators of social exchange quality (trust, organizational commitment, perceived organizational support, and leader‐member exchange), though such mediation was not apparent for counterproductive behavior. The strength of those relationships did not vary according to whether the focus of the justice matched the target of the performance behavior, contrary to popular assumptions in the literature, or according to whether justice was referenced to a specific event or a more general entity. With respect to affect, our results showed that justice‐performance relationships were mediated by positive and negative affect, with the relevant affect dimension varying across justice and performance variables. Our discussion of these findings focuses on the merit in integrating the social exchange and affect lenses in future research.

http://media.terry.uga.edu/socrates/publications/2013/05/ColquittScottRodellLongZapataConlonWesson2013.pdf

Justice at the millennium, a decade later: a meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives.

Mapping the critical links between organizational culture and TQM/Six Sigma practices

Effects of procedural and distributive justice on factors predictive of turnover.

https://isiarticles.com/bundles/Article/pre/pdf/5291.pdf

An integrative model of the empowerment process

The purpose of this study was to distinguish the effects of distributive, instrumental procedural, and noninstrumental (i.e. group-value effects) procedural justice in a field study. As predicted by the group-value model (Lind & Tyler, 1988), noninstrumental procedural justice captured unique variance in organizational commitment, turnover intentions, as well as both individual and group performance. Furthermore, noninstrumental justice explained more unique variance in commitment and performance than did distributive justice or instrumental procedural justice. These findings provide a greater understanding of why procedural justice, as a whole, has been found to be more predictive of these outcomes in prior research.

Short Research Note: Using the group‐value model to explain the role of noninstrumental justice in distinguishing the effects of distributive and procedural justice

This field study used structural equation modeling to investigate the relationships among: (1) distributive and procedural justice; (2) justice components and organizational commitment; and (3) justice components and behaviors/behavioral intentions. The results suggest that, over time, procedural justice judgments are likely to influence perceptions of distributive justice, but not vice versa. In addition, the results suggest that both distributive justice and procedural justice have reciprocal relationships with commitment and turnover intentions, although in some cases they are contingent on lagged effects. Relationships between procedural justice and behaviors (i.e. compliance, performance) were unidirectional, significant only in the justice-to-behavior direction.

Tina L. Robbins

Papers

Mapping the critical links between organizational culture and TQM/Six Sigma practices

Effects of procedural and distributive justice on factors predictive of turnover.

An integrative model of the empowerment process

Short Research Note: Using the group‐value model to explain the role of noninstrumental justice in distinguishing the effects of distributive and procedural justice

Intra- and inter-justice relationships: Assessing the direction