Job embeddedness: a multifoci theoretical extension.

Journal of Applied Psychology 2015, Vol. 100, No. 3, 641– 659

© 2015 American Psychological Association 0021-9010/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038919

INTEGRATIVE CONCEPTUAL REVIEW

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Job Embeddedness: A Multifoci Theoretical Extension Kohyar Kiazad

Brooks C. Holtom

Monash University

Georgetown University

Peter W. Hom

Alexander Newman

Arizona State University

Monash University

Integrating the expanding job embeddedness (JE) literature, in this article we advance a multifoci model of JE that is theoretically grounded in conservation of resources (COR) theory. From COR theory, we posit that employees’ motivation to acquire and protect resources explains why they become embedded and how they behave once embedded. Our COR-based JE model highlights contextual antecedents that clarify how employees become embedded within different foci. Its multifoci theoretical lens also illustrates how different forms of work-focused embeddedness differentially affect work outcomes and how they interact with nonwork foci to influence those outcomes. Along with directions for further research, we further discuss theoretical and practical implications of our integrative formulation. Keywords: job embeddedness, conservation of resources, turnover, work performance

and absenteeism (T. W. Lee et al., 2014; T. W. Lee, Mitchell, Sablynski, Burton, & Holtom, 2004; Ng & Feldman, 2009). Given that the JE construct is increasingly deployed to account for outcomes other than staying in an organization (e.g., job performance) and other forms of staying (e.g., occupational embeddedness; Ng & Feldman, 2009), we believe that additional theoretical refinements are needed to better ground the expanding construct space. The purpose of this article is to articulate a more complete JE model with theoretical roots in conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 2001). In particular, we seek to demonstrate how COR theory offers a parsimonious explanation for the growing nomological network relating JE to its many antecedents and consequences. Indeed, the originators of the JE construct recently prescribed more explanatory accounts. As T. W. Lee et al. (2014) noted, “[W]e highlight that we did not feel that the underlying theory for how JE affects performance is very strong. These mechanisms need to be explained and examined if we are to move forward” (p. 211). In the following sections, we review JE and COR theory before describing how the latter can inform the former. Integrating both views, we then introduce a framework that yields testable propositions that promote understanding of organizational participation and performance (March & Simon, 1958).

As originally articulated by Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, and Erez (2001), their driving research purpose was to “present a new construct called job embeddedness . . . a key factor in understanding why people stay on their jobs” (p. 1102, emphasis added). More than a decade of subsequent research has investigated the predictive validity of job embeddedness (JE), evaluated alternative ways to measure the JE construct, and yielded sufficient findings to complete a meaningful meta-analysis of the behavioral outcomes associated with JE (Jiang, Liu, McKay, Lee, & Mitchell, 2012). All told, various narrative and quantitative reviews (Holtom, Mitchell, Lee, & Eberly, 2008; Jiang, Liu, et al., 2012; T. W. Lee, Burch, & Mitchell, 2014) have concluded that JE clearly predicts staying across a variety of contexts. Although originally conceived to explain staying, JE also predicts other important work outcomes, including in-role and extrarole performance, counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs)

This article was published Online First March 16, 2015. Kohyar Kiazad, Department of Management, Monash Business School, Monash University; Brooks C. Holtom, McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University; Peter W. Hom, Department of Management, Arizona State University; Alexander Newman, Department of Management, Monash Business School, Monash University. We are grateful to Robert Ployhart and two anonymous reviewers for their many helpful recommendations throughout the review process. We also thank Craig Crossley for his valuable suggestions on an earlier version of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kohyar Kiazad, Department of Management, Monash Business School, Monash University, Caulfield, Victoria, 3145, Australia. E-mail: kohyar.kiazad@ monash.edu

A COR Perspective on JE: A Theoretical Integration JE Underpinnings Mitchell et al. (2001) construed JE as the totality of forces that solidify staying in organizations. The amalgam of theories invoked to define the JE construct yielded three key dimensions. In partic641


642

KIAZAD, HOLTOM, HOM, AND NEWMAN

ular, employees’ formal or informal ties to other individuals or groups at work or in the community (links) keep them from departing. In addition, people stay due to their fit— or overall compatibility with the job or surrounding environment. Further, sacrifices embed people who would otherwise forfeit material or psychological benefits when leaving organizations or communities. Two fundamental underpinnings of JE are worth noting. First, JE represents a state of inertia (“stuckness”) as opposed to an energizing force because “most of the time, [staying] is not even seen or considered as a choice process” (Mitchell & Lee, 2001, p. 213). From a turnover perspective (March & Simon, 1958), JE reduces the desirability of movement. Second, Mitchell et al.’s (2001) view implies that JE links, fit, and sacrifices manifest additive and compensatory effects on staying. For example, dissatisfied employees may not necessarily leave if they have many attachments to people or feel compatible with the work setting (Mitchell & Lee, 2001). Thus, embedding forces likely differ in strength with stronger (or more numerous) forces compensating for weaker ones. Although conceived as an integrated web of forces, various theoretical mechanisms were promulgated to account for how the three JE dimensions embed people. For example, job links may foster staying (Allen, 2006; Mitchell & Lee, 2001) by imposing normative pressures to stay (Maertz, Stevens, & Campion, 2003) or building social capital (Holtom, Mitchell, & Lee, 2006). Relationships off the job (e.g., friends) or community memberships (church, volunteer groups) also may exert normative control over staying (Hom, Mitchell, Lee, & Griffeth, 2012; Maertz & Griffeth, 2004). To explain why work environment fit impacts staying, JE scholars applied Schneider’s (1987) attraction-selectionattrition (ASA) paradigm. Through an ASA lens, individuals and organizations select one another when they are mutually attracted (Wheeler, Gallagher, Brouer, & Sablynski, 2007). An employee remains in an employing institution insofar as mutual attraction persists; if— or when— either party no longer fits, she or he voluntarily or involuntarily leaves (Wheeler et al., 2007). Moreover, individuals’ appreciation of community qualities (e.g., climate, locale, culture, amenities, activity levels; Mitchell et al., 2001) was purported to enhance their fit to the places where they live. Explanatory mechanisms translating the impact of sacrifices were grounded in turnover theories (Mobley, 1977; Rusbult & Farrell, 1983; Shaw, Delery, Jenkins, & Gupta, 1998). These theories posit that higher perceived costs of leaving deter incumbents from vacating jobs. For example, nonportable benefits or training become investments that escalate over time and embed people (Mitchell & Lee, 2001). Other less conspicuous benefits, such as a window office or familiarity with office politics (“better the devils you know than those you do not”), can likewise become sacrifices when leaving. Extending turnover perspectives, JE theorists also recognized how community sacrifices can prove embedding. That is, people also stay where they live to avoid giving up family friendly neighborhoods or even “football tickets or ballet seats that took 20 years of seniority to obtain” (Mitchell et al., 2001, p. 1105). In sum, the JE foundation rests on a broad range of eclectic theories (T. W. Lee et al., 2014).

COR Theory According to COR theory, individuals strive to acquire, protect, and retain resources— or “those objects, personal characteristics, conditions, or energies that are valued” (Hobfoll, 1989, p. 516). Resources are valued because they help people meet external demands (e.g., added domestic duties when spouses travel for work), attain valued goals (e.g., promotion; Halbesleben, Neveu, Paustian-Underdahl, & Westman, 2014), or protect against potential future resource loss (e.g., lost paychecks due to dismissal). Aside from personal (e.g., self-esteem, communication skills) and environmental (e.g., coworker aid, work tools) resources, Hobfoll (1989, 2001) distinguishes between resources valued for their own sake (e.g., health, companionship, home) from instrumental resources (e.g., optimism, money, time) that can be invested for the acquisition or protection of other valued resources. COR theory puts forth two principles. The first principle —“the primacy of resource loss”— holds that resource loss elicits stronger affective and behavioral reactions than equivalent resource gains. When deciding whether to stay or accept another job, an employee may fear giving up existing job benefits (sacrifices) more than he would experience anticipatory satisfaction of equivalent benefits in a new job. The second principle—“resource investment”—posits that individuals invest resources to accumulate resources that enable them to meet demands, attain goals, recover from resource loss, or protect against future losses. Thus, one might invest in education or training to increase the odds of promotion (resource acquisition) or minimize the odds of layoff (resource protection). Hobfoll (2001) further deduced corollaries based on the resource investment principle. The first is that people already endowed with ample resources are less vulnerable to resource loss and more capable of gain. Two more corollaries concerned resource losses or gains over time. Because resources must be invested to attain more resources or prevent loss, people lacking resources may risk ever-increasing resource losses (or a “resource loss spiral”). On the other hand, initial resource gains beget additional gains for resource-endowed individuals. A fourth corollary stated that resource-depleted persons conserve resources or adopt a conservative stance toward resource investment. That is, they become increasingly protective over resources (including refraining from investments) as their resources dwindle. In brief, individuals express hedonistic tendencies in investing and conserving valued resources.

JE: A COR Theoretical Perspective We believe that COR tenets provide a viable, unifying theoretical foundation to clarify how JE influences staying and other vital work outcomes. To illustrate, JE theorists asserted that people stay and perform well due to fit, links, and sacrifices (T. W. Lee et al., 2004). A COR perspective can parsimoniously explain why: people stay to retain resources that hold intrinsic (sacrifices) or instrumental (fit and links) value as resource loss is distressing (Principle 1). Furthermore, JE promotes job performance because instrumental resources (fit and links) enable employees to fulfill job responsibilities more effectively, enabling them to acquire more resources (e.g., recognition, promotion; Principle 2). COR theory also can help account for compensatory and buffering JE effects. Illustrating compensatory effects, Mitchell and Lee (2001) contended that incumbents dissatisfied with a job may


MULTIFOCI JOB EMBEDDEDNESS

nonetheless stay by focusing on other desirable features in the work environment (e.g., attachments to projects or people). Explaining such compensatory JE effects, the resource substitution COR hypothesis holds that resources from one domain (e.g., colleague support) can be expropriated to substitute for resources lost in another domain (e.g., emotional exhaustion; Halbesleben, 2006). Demonstrating buffering effects, Burton, Holtom, Sablynski, Mitchell, and Lee (2010) observed that job-embedded employees do not react with worse performance or lower organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) when experiencing negative job shocks, such as poor performance reviews or low pay raises. In COR parlance, buffering arises because embedded individuals have more resources and thus can better withstand job-related resource losses (e.g., demotions, pay cuts, image violations; T. W. Lee & Mitchell, 1994). When confronted with resource loss, embedded employees may thus focus on compensatory embedding resources (e.g., “feeling valuable to others,” “status/seniority at work”; Hobfoll, 2001) or respond by investing more resources to stave off further resource losses (e.g., improve job performance to restore self-confidence; avoid dismissal). Based on this overview of how COR theory offers parsimonious explanatory mechanisms for JE effects, we seek to accomplish four objectives. First, we discuss the diverse focal points or foci in which people can become embedded. Second, we explore the variety of contextual antecedents that embed individuals in different foci. Third, we examine outcomes associated with the varied foci. Fourth, we review the implications of an expanded JE model based on COR (see Figure 1) that undergirds future inquiry into JE.

Multifoci View of Embeddedness Originally, Mitchell et al. (2001) conceived two prime foci—the job and the community—within which employees become embedded. Recent theoretical extensions have highlighted other embedding foci for individuals (Feldman & Ng, 2007) or their families

643

(Feldman, Ng, & Vogel, 2012; Ramesh & Gelfand, 2010). The different embeddedness foci are empirically distinct and differentially affect outcomes (staying, performance, work–family conflict; T. W. Lee et al., 2004; Ng & Feldman, 2009, 2012a; Ramesh & Gelfand, 2010). In the following sections, we review the emerging literature on multifoci JE. On-the-job and organizational embeddedness. Ng and Feldman (2007) first distinguished between on-the-job and organizational embeddedness. Mitchell et al. (2001) assumed that people embedded in jobs also were embedded in organizations. However, Ng and Feldman (2007) reasoned that incumbents could be embedded in one but not necessarily the other. For example, employees may fit job demands, have multiple ties to colleagues in local work environs, and sacrifice a corner office if they leave a job. Yet these employees may lack fit with corporate values, have few links to employees outside work units, and possess few organizational perks (e.g., pension) that they forfeit on leaving. In short, they are embedded in a particular job but not the organization. Because jobs are nested within firms, on-the-job embeddedness often translates into higher workplace retention. Jobembedded incumbents may nonetheless quit if their employer reassigns (or promotes) them to a different job that they find less fulfilling or perform less proficiently (Ng & Feldman, 2007). Despite how on-the-job and organizational embeddedness can differ, JE researchers have largely treated them synonymously. Following Ng and Feldman (2007), we thus advocate separating these distinct embedding foci as they may differentially affect work outcomes. Occupational embeddedness. Feldman and Ng (2007) introduced occupational embeddedness— or “the totality of forces that keep people in their present occupations” (p. 353)—to clarify why incumbents remain in occupational fields and may even leave companies to hone or practice their professional skills elsewhere. Unlike Mitchell et al.’s (2001) original JE construct, this embed-

Figure 1. Expanded model of job embeddedness. HPWPs ⫽ high-performance work practices; P ⫽ proposition; CWBs ⫽ counterproductive work behaviors; OCB ⫽ organizational citizenship behaviors.


644


dedness form may not necessarily promote staying in a specific organization. Feldman and Ng (2007) further conceptualized that people were embedded in occupations via links (e.g., industry contacts, involvement in professional societies), fit (e.g., compatibility with occupational demands and rewards), and sacrifices (e.g., human capital investments, occupational status). In support, Ng and Feldman (2009) found that occupational embeddedness explained unique variance in task performance, CWBs, and creativity after controlling organizational embeddedness. Community embeddedness. Influences outside workplaces—such as family responsibilities, work–family conflicts, or spousal retirement preferences (Hom & Kinicki, 2001; Lee, Mitchell, Wise, & Fireman, 1996; Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, & Meglino, 1979; Price & Mueller, 1981)— have been sporadically noted in prevailing turnover research (Hom et al., 2012). Capturing these diverse concepts and findings, Mitchell et al. (2001) envisioned a broad set of “community” forces that shape staying: community links (family, friends, social institutions), fit (compatibility with weather and local culture), and sacrifices (safe neighborhood, brief work commutes; Holtom & Inderrieden, 2006). Such forces play a dominant role when leaving jobs for alternatives entails geographic relocation, particularly if a person actively participates in community organizations (e.g., church leadership) or has a working partner or children in school (Hom et al., 2012; Mitchell et al., 2001). Recent meta-analytic evidence (Jiang, Liu, et al., 2012) shows that off-the-job embeddedness is inversely related to turnover. However, its effects on quit intentions and behavior (corrected correlations are ⫺.22 and ⫺.12, respectively) are weaker relative to on-the-job embeddedness (–.48 and ⫺.19, respectively). Though off-the-job embedding forces translate into higher job retention, their effects may prove immaterial if local labor markets offer abundant employment prospects such that leavers can change jobs without relocating (Allen, 2006). Family embeddedness in the community. Recent embeddedness viewpoints advance a major reconceptualization of outside-work forces keeping individuals bound to their current locale (Feldman et al., 2012; Ramesh & Gelfand, 2010). Defining off-the-job embeddedness “as the cumulative forces of an individual’s family, community, and nonwork activities which bind an individual to his or her current location” (p. 215), Feldman and associates (2012) differentiated what personally embeds an individual in the community (e.g., recreational pursuits) from that which embeds an individual indirectly through his or her family (e.g., domestic partner and other relatives living in the household). Thus, an employee’s family may be embedded in a geographic area (e.g., spouse owns a local business, teenagers attend magnet schools), thereby embedding the employee. Such “embeddedness by proxy” (or “family embeddedness in community”; FEC) should not be conflated with other extrafamilial community forces for people may remain to avoid disrupting spousal careers or children’s schooling, but not feel community attachment. Likewise, Hom et al. (2012) also theorized that felt extrinsic constraints (i.e., family pressure) can emanate from family embeddedness and drive different withdrawal states than do other embedding forces. Ramesh and Gelfand (2010) also promulgated “family embeddedness” as families becoming embedded within workplaces when they favorably appraise firms, befriend other employees, and partake of job benefits. People may thus stay in a job or community they misfit because their families prefer that they stay or receive

benefits from their employment (e.g., health insurance, family status). In support, Ramesh and Gelfand (2010) demonstrated that family embeddedness in the organization explains additional variance in turnover beyond that of on-the-job and community embeddedness. Following Mitchell et al.’s (2001) original view of embedding family influences and Feldman et al.’s (2012) recent “embeddedness by proxy” extension, we thus emphasize FEC.

Multifoci Job Embeddedness: A COR Perspective People become embedded in foci to avoid losing resources that hold value in those contexts (Halbesleben et al., 2014). Some resources hold intrinsic value in a specific context (e.g., safe neighborhood), thus becoming sacrifices embedding individuals in that context (i.e., community). Other resources (links and fit) have instrumental value because they help individuals acquire more resources within a domain (e.g., ability to meet job demands can garner higher pay). So, based on COR, resources hold value—and thus embed individuals—within a given context either because they are desired ends in their own right or because they are instrumental for attaining desired resources in that context (Halbesleben et al., 2014).

Antecedents to Embeddedness Foci According to Hobfoll (2001, 2002), resources can be tangible (e.g., money) or intangible (e.g., energy and time), and can reside within the individual (e.g., hardiness or resilience) or can be obtained from the social contexts of the individual (e.g., a company’s human resource management system, family). In the present paper we highlight contextual variables that supply resources that embed individuals in specific foci. Hence, our taxonomy of antecedents is not exhaustive as we omit individual differences, such as personality or demographic characteristics (Giosan, Holtom, & Watson, 2005). Mitchell and Lee (2001; Mitchell et al., 2001) originally—and later Feldman et al. (2012)— envisioned a broad array of embedding contextual forces. We identify the most salient contextual characteristics (both work- and nonwork related) and theoretically ground their antecedent role in COR.

Organizational Practices Strategic human resource management (HRM) scholars increasingly have emphasized “bundles” of high-performance work practices (HPWPs) that affect firm performance (Becker & Huselid, 1998). Efforts to identify HPWP combinations often adopt the ability-motivation-opportunity (A-M-O) framework (Combs, Liu, Hall, & Ketchen, 2006; Lepak, Liao, Chung, & Harden, 2006). Likewise, we use the A-M-O framework to describe different bundles of HPWPs (skill-enhancing, opportunity-enhancing, and motivation-enhancing) that differentially embed employees in occupations, organizations, or jobs. This taxonomy succinctly captures the range of HRM practices that embed employees (Allen, 2006; Hom et al., 2009; Trevor & Nyberg, 2008). We expect differential effects as resources supplied by different bundles likely hold more value in certain contexts (embedding foci), thereby embedding individuals more strongly in those foci. Skill-enhancing HPWPs. Skill-enhancing bundles increase the collective stock of human capital— or knowledge, skills, and



abilities (KSAs)— of the workforce, primarily via staffing and training investments (e.g., rigorous hiring, socialization, tuition reimbursement; Gardner, Wright, & Moynihan, 2011). According to COR theory, these practices produce resources (e.g., “advancement in education or job training”; Hobfoll, 2001, p. 342) that embed employees in their occupations, organizations, and jobs via fit, links, and sacrifices. Fit. Developmental programs and opportunities (e.g., workshops to improve leadership skills; Kraimer, Seibert, Wayne, Liden, & Bravo, 2011) that nurture transferable skills (Gardner et al., 2011; Loewenstein & Spletzer, 1999) build demands-abilities occupational fit (Ng & Feldman, 2009). Furthermore, HRM practices, such as formal training and tuition assistance, boost needssupplies fit as employees receive more recognition from professional peers and cultivate movement capital (facilitating mobility; Trevor, 2001) helping them secure better professional positions in occupational labor markets (Feldman & Ng, 2007). Links. Organizations that use skill-enhancing practices also foster employees’ links to professional colleagues and associations (e.g., funding membership in professional societies and travel to their conferences), thus expanding their extra-organizational networks and embedding them in vocations. For example, off-site training and high potential programs allow employees to interact with similar peers spanning multiple organizations, helping them feel part of an “elite” group (N. Lin, 1999). Such occupational ties are likely weak— because professional colleagues interact infrequently—yet instrumental (and thus valuable) in the context of facilitating human capital development and higher status occupational attainment (Defillippi & Arthur, 1994; N. Lin, 1999; Ng & Feldman, 2009, 2010). Sacrifices. Skill-enhancing practices engender occupational sacrifices because accumulated human capital investments (e.g., training, educational credentials; Feldman & Ng, 2007), investment costs (e.g., time, opportunity costs), and occupational status (e.g., Snape & Redman, 2003) would be lost if one changes occupations (Blau, 2003). Given that potential resource loss is more motivating than expected equivalent gains (Hobfoll, 2001), incumbents would feel reluctant to squander such investments and amassed resources to retrain for another occupation. Although skill-enhancing practices may enhance all three forms of work-focused embeddedness, we expect them to most promote occupational embeddedness. For example, recruiting people with the right KSAs and training them for task mastery may strengthen abilities-demands job fit (Hom et al., 2009; Ostroff & Bowen, 2000), while training investments and developmental opportunities might constitute organizational sacrifices (e.g., Kraimer et al., 2011). Yet intensive skill-enhancing practices also may enhance movement capital (Gardner et al., 2011), enabling employees to abandon a job or firm to move upward in their profession elsewhere to acquire more resources (e.g., higher pay and status). Recent empirical findings of positive associations between skillenhancing practices and voluntary turnover support this logic (Gardner, Moynihan, Park, & Wright, 2001; Gardner et al., 2011). Thus, we offer the following propositions: Proposition 1a: Skill-enhancing HPWPs are positively related to occupational, organizational, and on-the-job embeddedness.

645

Proposition 1b: Skill-enhancing HPWPs are more positively related to occupational embeddedness than they are to organizational or on-the-job embeddedness. Opportunity-enhancing HPWPs. Opportunity-enhancing practices improve employees’ capacity to more fully contribute to organizational objectives by empowering them with expanded decisionmaking authority, autonomous teamwork, and dispute resolution (Gardner et al., 2011). These HRM practices yield resources (e.g., “understanding from my employer,” “stable employment”; Hobfoll, 2001, p. 342) that primarily embed employees in their organization and job. Fit. Companies that allow employee input into decisions and treat them with respect foster person– organization (P–O) fit by satisfying employees’ competence and autonomy needs (Gardner et al., 2011). By offering job security, flexible scheduling, and procedures for airing grievances, such firms also signal commitment to employees’ long-term employment and well-being (Subramony, 2009), thereby satisfying essential material and psychic needs. Finally, quality improvement groups and suggestion systems enhance demands-abilities P–O fit by increasing employees’ role-breadth self-efficacy (S. K. Parker, 1998). Links. Opportunity-enhancing practices encourage extra-unit collaborations (e.g., working parties, joint management–worker committees), thus connecting people who do not usually interact (Combs et al., 2006; Hom et al., 2009). From a social network perspective, these practices also yield social capital, such as novel information from cross-functional relationships (Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001), access to resources from higher management levels (Seibert et al., 2001), and power when network ties span structural holes (allowing one to broker resource and information flow between disconnected parties; Burt, 2005; Carpenter, Li, & Jiang, 2012; Phelps, Heidl, & Wadhwa, 2012). The teamwork and social interactions inherent in opportunity-enhancing practices also foster more stable and enduring (thus more embedding) links throughout the organization (Holtom et al., 2008) as employees share information, exchange resources, and take greater responsibility for their interpersonal processes and collaborative efforts (Batt & Colvin, 2011). Sacrifices. Bountiful resources from opportunity-enhancing practices create firm-based sacrifices (e.g., participative decisionmaking, firm-specific KSAs; Combs et al., 2006) that embed incumbents who are resource-loss averse. Indeed, opportunityenhancing practices produce abundant COR resources (e.g., feelings of control, status and seniority; Hobfoll, 2001) that would be forfeited on leaving. When employees have sufficient resources to meet organizational requirements or fulfill their needs, they remain to continue such resource flow—a prime human motive states COR theory. We expect opportunity-enhancing practices to most bolster organizational embeddedness. Indeed, such practices as employee involvement and job rotation integrate employees into the organization’s larger social system (Subramony, 2009). This entices them to remain long term as they acquire greater organizational know-how, enabling them to accomplish their career goals within the organization (Kraimer et al., 2011). Employees in misfit jobs might nevertheless stay in anticipation of a desirable transfer or promotion within the firm (Maertz & Campion, 2004; Mobley et al., 1979). Moreover, COR theory suggests employees are loathe

646


to part with strong and nontransferrable organizational ties as they are motivated to avoid loss. Thus, accumulated internal social capital may have an inertial effect because it has limited transferability (Borgatti & Cross, 2003; Levin, Whitener, & Cross, 2006). In support, research has shown that opportunity-enhancing practices are a strong predictor of retention (Gardner et al., 2011; Jiang, Lepak, Hu, & Baer, 2012).


Proposition 2a: Opportunity-enhancing HPWPs are positively related to occupational, organizational, and on-the-job embeddedness. Proposition 2b: Opportunity-enhancing HPWPs are more positively related to organizational embeddedness than they are to occupational or on-the-job embeddedness. Motivation-enhancing HPWPs. Motivation-enhancing practices energize, sustain, and direct employees’ efforts toward pursuing work objectives (Subramony, 2009). Inducements such as regular performance feedback, individual and group incentives, and other pay-for-performance rewards fuel extrinsic motivation by linking employees’ efforts to external rewards (Jiang, Lepak, et al., 2012). Such HRM practices supply resources (“positively challenging routine,” “acknowledgment of my accomplishments,” “motivation to get things done”; Hobfoll, 2001, p. 342) that induce on-the-job embeddedness. Fit. Coupled with incentive compensation, performance appraisals (incorporating goal-setting and performance feedback) build demands-abilities job fit by encouraging desired behaviors and cultivating necessary skills and knowledge (Hom et al., 2009; Ostroff & Bowen, 2000). Motivation-enhancing practices also furnish financial (generous individual and team incentives) and psychological (performance feedback, growth opportunities) resources that satisfy employees’ competence and relatedness needs (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Links. Because incentives and pay-for-performance rewards concentrate employees’ efforts toward achievement of individual or team performance goals (Subramony, 2009), such variable pay will likely prompt employees to form job-specific, high-density advice networks, “through which individuals share resources such as information, assistance, and guidance related to the completion of their work” (Sparrowe, Liden, Wayne, & Kraimer, 2001, p. 317). In particular, collective performance-based incentives can “create feelings of group belonging” (Gardner et al., 2011, p. 320) or task and outcome interdependencies (Van Der Vegt, Emans, & Van De Vliert, 1998, 1999). Such interdependency may impel individuals to help group members (e.g., share materials, information, advice), resulting in stronger links to immediate colleagues and workgroups (C. P. Lin, Hung, & Chiu, 2008). Sacrifices. Motivation-enhancing practices foster job-specific sacrifices because competitive compensation, incentive plans, and elite status based on membership in high-performing teams are lost by changing jobs (Peterson & Luthans, 2006). Other job-specific inducements, such as developmental appraisals, also become sacrifices incumbents would relinquish on leaving a job, thus diminishing the desirability of intrafirm mobility (e.g., transfer, promotion) as well. In short, COR theory implies that motivation-enhancing practices embed incumbents in their job by providing resources enabling them to meet performance objectives and by rewarding them for achieving these objectives.

Although motivation-enhancing practices may foster occupational (e.g., acquire more credentials to gain higher payoffs) and organizational (reward structure is idiosyncratic to the organization) embeddedness, we expect them to most deepen job-focused embeddedness. For example, organizational compensation policies broadly dictate reward type and criteria for specific jobs, yet managers often have significant leeway in distributing rewards to individual incumbents, including offering rewards not specified in employment contracts (e.g., special job assignments or recognition; Kristof, 1996). Indeed, some employees may receive nonreplicable idiosyncratic deals (nonstandard, individualized agreements with superiors; Ng & Feldman, 2008; Rousseau, 2001) binding them to their job. Finally, workgroups— even within the same organization— differ in interdependencies and effectiveness (Kristof, 1996; Van Der Vegt et al., 1998). Thus, the social capital available to members of a workgroup may not be available in other workgroups in the organization. Proposition 3a: Motivation-enhancing HPWPs are positively related to occupational, organizational, and on-the-job embeddedness. Proposition 3b: Motivation-enhancing HPWPs are more positively related to on-the-job embeddedness than they are to occupational or organizational embeddedness.

Off-the-Job Characteristics We reviewed embeddedness perspectives (Feldman et al., 2012; Mitchell et al., 2001) and related scholarship in other disciplines (e.g., sociology, environmental psychology, information management/technology) to identify contextual off-the-job characteristics that offer resources embedding employees or their families where they live. Although striving to be comprehensive, we pay special attention to off-the-job characteristics that supply resources addressing demands imposed on working individuals or families (e.g., Gareis & Barnett, 2008; Voydanoff, 2001, 2005). We then grouped antecedents into three broad categories: nearby extended family, community characteristics, and professional communities. Nearby extended family. Accessible support from family members living nearby can help employees (or their immediate families) manage conflict between work and family demands, thus embedding them where they live— directly or indirectly. Quite likely, this embedding effect depends on the structural and qualitative features of those familial ties (Feldman et al., 2012; Price & Mueller, 1986). In particular, nearby extended family ties are more likely to supply embedding resources when they are strong (e.g., frequent contact, greater interdependency and emotional intensity; Granovetter, 1973; N. Lin, 2001), represent a higher proportion of one’s entire family (i.e., having all or most of one’s family nearby), and have a positive valence ascribed to them (e.g., looking forward to dinner with the in-laws). Fit. Strong and high-quality ties to nearby extended family can satisfy residents’ needs-supplies community fit (e.g., babysitting, family gatherings for holidays, dining, or birthday celebrations), thus strengthening their attachment to a geographic place. Indeed, “community saved” perspectives of urban communities (e.g., Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974) have long recognized that family ties foster community fit by nurturing feelings of inclusion, compatibility, and belongingness (Raymond, Brown, & Weber, 2010),



thus embedding employees or their immediate families (i.e., spouses and children) where they live. Links. Frequent interaction and high relational quality with local relatives (e.g., employee’s parents, children’s cousins) create stronger and more enduring links through ongoing (social) exchange of valued resources. Indeed, COR maintains that people are motivated to continually gain resources and will invest resources where they can expect the most return (Halbesleben & Wheeler, in press). Individuals who receive valued resources from nearby relatives (e.g., help with tasks and childcare; Hobfoll, 2001) will in turn reinvest in those relationships to fortify links to continue receiving resources (or repay social debt, such as adult children caring for elderly parents). Sacrifices. Resources from local extended family become sacrifices as strong or high-quality family bonds are not easily replicated in other communities (DaVanzo & Morrison, 1981). Such nonportable kinship support (e.g., retired parents who care for children or drive them to school, siblings lending emotional comfort during divorce) is valuable to individuals (especially dualincome couples) in meeting job demands and lessening family-towork conflicts (Hobfoll, 2001). Further, as individuals are motivated to safeguard the health and emotional well-being of their loved ones (e.g., “children’s health,” “spouse/partner’s health”; Hobfoll, 2001, p. 342), they might avoid uprooting them to prevent familial resource losses to household members (e.g., children spending less time with grandparents or cousins). Proposition 4a: Having nearby extended family members that furnish nonwork embedding resources is positively related to community embeddedness. Proposition 4b: Having nearby extended family members that furnish nonwork embedding resources is positively related to FEC. Community characteristics. Workers and their immediate families live in communities—a physically bounded space, such as a neighborhood, city, town, or suburb—that vary in resources they offer, such as nearby elementary schools or public transportation (Bookman, 2005). Based on COR theory, communities that supply abundant resources are likely to bind workers (or their families; Feldman et al., 2012) to their residential locales. Fit. Some communities better conform to peoples’ (or their families’) values or interests (i.e., person– group fit; KristofBrown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005), such as those embracing ethnic, retirement, or gay-friendly enclaves (Feldman et al., 2012). Other communities offer more amenities and employment prospects, better satisfying employees’ (or their families’) needs and aspirations (e.g., employees can fish year-round, domestic partners can start businesses, children can attend parochial schools; Barnett & Gareis, 2008; Cowell & Green, 1994). A community’s natural environment or biophysical aspects (e.g., climate, mountains, beaches, wildlife; Brehm, 2007) can also maximize person– environment fit by enhancing a sense of belonging (Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001) or lifestyle fit (opportunities to surf or ski). In short, such geographic characteristics sustain community fit by supplying resources that satisfy values and lifestyle needs and strengthen identification and feelings of belonging outside of work (e.g., Voydanoff, 2005).

647

Links. Some environments furnish a wider range of community organizations or social institutions (e.g., civic or religious organizations, sporting clubs; Feldman et al., 2012; Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974) that become links binding individuals to their current residence. To illustrate, urban residents participate in leisure and social activities more than rural dwellers (Sampson, 1988; Theodori & Luloff, 2000). The family’s community participation further expands employees’ off-the-job links via their family’s own networks of friends and acquaintances. One may thus come to know the coach of children’s sporting teams and parents of children’s schoolmates. In addition, a community’s natural amenities help foster links with community and family (e.g., regular hiking with friends or family). Overall, based on COR theory, such community attributes expand off-the-job links by helping employees (or their families) bond with local institutions and find “friends with similar values and at similar life stages” (Feldman et al., 2012, p. 215). Sacrifices. Greater access to amenities and services (e.g., dog kennels, elder care, retail markets) become sacrifices that directly (e.g., Terence Mitchell’s Seattle Seahawk season tickets; T. W. Lee et al., 2014) or indirectly (e.g., physician-spouse has large patient clientele; Feldman et al., 2012) diminish movement desirability. Resident families might feel reluctant to leave communities that supply full-day childcare, special medical services (e.g., cancer center, renown neurosurgeon), retail and supermarket access outside of regular work hours, and natural landscapes and outdoor recreation— especially if attractive features are distinctive or unique to their particular locale (e.g., Brehm, 2007). Based on COR theory, residents value such amenities because they enhance the quality of life and reduce family conflicts. Proposition 5a: Community characteristics that supply nonwork embedding resources are positively related to community embeddedness. Proposition 5b: Community characteristics that supply nonwork embedding resources are positively related to FEC. Professional communities. Professional communities are pervasive within the increasingly “boundaryless” career environment (P. Parker, Arthur, & Inkson, 2004; Zeitz, Blau, & Fertig, 2009). Advances in online technology also brought into existence virtual professional communities through which participants can derive career support, professional development, and specialist knowledge (Chen & Hung, 2010). Humanities and Social Sciences Online (http://www.h-net.org/) thus permits humanities and social sciences scholars to disseminate expertise and adopt new methods and practices. Professional communities primarily reinforce occupational embeddedness as they principally offer career-relevant resources (P. Parker et al., 2004). Fit. Involvement in professional communities can help socialize occupational newcomers who become enmeshed in their occupation’s language, rituals, and norms through face-to-face or online interactions (Chiu, Hsu, & Wang, 2006; P. Parker et al., 2004). They further deepen occupational fit as community participants receive meaningful information and support from peers with specialist knowledge and shared professional interests (“involvement with others who have similar interests,” “people I can learn from”; Hobfoll, 2001, p. 342). What is more, professional communities may foster needs-supply fit through access to job oppor-


648


tunities (e.g., professional associations maintain forums for job market information; LinkedIn [http://www.linkedin.com/] users receive hiring notifications from companies). Links. Participation in professional communities can also bolster the breadth and strength of links to occupational peers, institutions, or associations. For example, the Academy of Management conference (http://aom.org/annualmeeting/) brings together geographically dispersed members, and LinkedIn members can “follow” companies. On the one hand, professional communities can abet the formation of weak ties through local networking meetings, breakfast events, or online users’ groups where participants can maintain large, dispersed networks with little investment of time and energy (Wellman et al., 1996; Zeitz et al., 2009). Such weak ties yield social capital, such as job contacts or tacit knowledge useful for solving complex work problems (Chiu et al., 2006; Zeitz et al., 2009). On the other hand, professional communities also can promote strong links. For example, they facilitate trust and resource exchange as members are brought together by shared interests, goals, or needs (Chiu et al., 2006; Zeitz et al., 2009). The “placelessness” of online communities also enables enduring relationships despite geographic distance among members (Wellman et al., 1996) and can assist those who otherwise have difficulties developing and maintaining companionships in the “real world” (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007). Finally, professional communities yield opportunities to build developmental ties, through which one can secure mentoring services (e.g., exposure, visibility, sponsorship; Higgins & Kram, 2001), building occupational embeddedness (e.g., MentorNet, Society for Human Resource Management Mentor Program; “Creating a Mentor Program,” n.d.; http://mentornet.org/). Sacrifices. Participation in professional communities can create occupational sacrifices by upgrading occupation-specific know-how and professional status (Allen & Lewis, 2006), reinforcing one’s professional identity and career focus (Ellison et al., 2007; P. Parker et al., 2004), and providing career-relevant support systems and development opportunities (Ensher, Heun, & Blanchard, 2003; Higgins & Kram, 2001; Zeitz et al., 2009). From COR theory, such side bets or investments should thwart occupational change as employees fear the loss of such resources (e.g., status and seniority, companionship; Hobfoll, 2001). Proposition 6: Involvement in professional communities is positively related to occupational embeddedness. Having discussed how and why employees become embedded in work- and nonwork foci, we now consider organizational outcomes of these diverse foci. From COR theory, we contend incumbents more readily stay in situations where they possess valued resources and will invest in relevant foci when they have instrumental resources helping them acquire more resources in that domain. Further, building on Mitchell et al.’s (2001) articulation of direct JE effects, we synthesize the growing JE literature that points to both direct and indirect effects.

Embeddedness Foci and Work-Related Outcomes Besides deterring turnover, JE also influences various forms of organizational contributions, such as OCBs and job performance (Jiang, Liu, et al., 2012). Consistent with earlier scholarship (Feldman et al., 2012; T. W. Lee et al., 2004; Ng & Feldman, 2009), we

examine three classes of organizational contributions commonly associated with JE. Core task performance represents activities required as part of the job that are recognized by the organization’s formal reward system and contribute to its technical core (Motowidlo, Borman, & Schmit, 1997). OCBs are behaviors not formally required by the employment contract or job description but nonetheless can sustain organizational functioning (e.g., attend voluntary functions, defend the company against criticism; K. Lee & Allen, 2002). Finally, we include CWBs, broadly defined as “intentional employee behavior that harms or intends to harm organizations and its members” (e.g., theft, sabotage, wasting time, withholding effort, mocking coworkers; Spector et al., 2006, p. 447). Based on the resource investment COR principle, we suggest that JE should elicit higher work performance because embedded employees possess the instrumental resources (fit and links) that can help them acquire more resources (e.g., pay raises) via superior performance.

Direct Effects of Embeddedness Foci T. W. Lee et al. (2004) first documented that on- and off-the-job embeddedness decrease turnover and absenteeism, while increasing OCB and job performance. Later research corroborated and extended those findings, demonstrating that on-the-job embeddedness affects workplace attitudes (turnover intentions, job satisfaction, affective commitment) and behaviors (job search, performance) more strongly than does off-the-job embeddedness (Allen, 2006; Jiang, Liu, et al., 2012; Ng & Feldman, 2014; Wheeler, Harris, & Sablynski, 2012). COR offers three parsimonious explanations for why on-the-job embeddedness affects workplace outcomes more strongly than does off-the-job embeddedness. First, off-the-job embedding forces have little impact on turnover when employees live in communities where they can easily find alternative employment (Allen, 2006). Under such circumstances, employees can readily switch jobs (for better fit or greater benefits) without having to move. They can thus maintain or continue amassing valued offthe-job resources from their residential locale. In short, off-the-job embedding forces do not discourage incumbents from vacating their job when they can readily secure alternative jobs locally. Second, COR’s resource substitution premise holds that resources may be substituted for one another to achieve the same goal (Halbesleben et al., 2014). Because many desirable characteristics that make particular communities attractive devolve from the larger economic, social, and cultural context (ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012), they may not be unique to any particular location (Feldman et al., 2012). For example, good weather, childcare, public transport, and nightlife recreation are available in many places. Thus, even if relocation is a requirement, other geographic locales might supply equivalent resources that similarly serve personal or family needs. However, sacrifices binding employees to their occupations (professional status), organizations (senioritybased benefits), or jobs (i-deals; Rousseau, 2001) may be more idiosyncratic and less easy to replicate in other places of employment. Finally, the COR premise that resources must be useful for a given purpose (or in a given setting) to be invested profitably can explain why on-the-job embeddedness exerts greater effects on organizational contributions (Wheeler et al., 2012). From the COR



perspective, we argue embeddedness prompts workplace contributions because people strive to build their stock of resources. Not all resources however have instrumental value within a given setting or for a given purpose (Hobfoll & Lilly, 1993). Off-the-job links or fit (e.g., social capital from community and family ties) may be more instrumental for resource gain in the nonwork domain than for attaining desired work outcomes (Halbesleben, 2006; Hobfoll, 2001). Because individuals “are somewhat strategic in how they determine resource investment” (Halbesleben et al., 2014, p. 13), their willingness and capacity to invest in their work contributions to amass more resources should mostly rest on work-related instrumental resources. Put simply, work-related instrumental resources (e.g., social resources inherent in organizational networks; Hom & Xiao, 2011) can be invested more profitably to accumulate work-related resources as both resource domains are bound by the same context. To be clear, we do not imply that off-the-job forces are immaterial to turnover and performance. Rather, our COR viewpoint holds that they are less important. The foregoing rationale thus yields the following propositions: Proposition 7a: Work-based and nonwork embeddedness foci are negatively related to organizational turnover and CWBs. Proposition 7b: Work-based and nonwork embeddedness foci are positively related to OCBs and task performance. Proposition 7c: Work-based embeddedness foci are more negatively related to organizational turnover and CWBs than are nonwork embeddedness foci. Proposition 7d: Work-based embeddedness foci are more positively related to OCBs and task performance than are nonwork embeddedness foci. Although all three forms of work-based embeddedness might affect voluntary turnover and performance in the same direction, the relative strength of these relationships might differ based on resources having more or less value in the different foci. We organize our discussion of differential foci effects around different outcomes. Organizational turnover. Consistent with past JE research, our theorizing focuses on organizational turnover— or “voluntary cessation of membership in an organization” (Hom & Griffeth, 1995, p. 5)—as opposed to other forms of turnover (job or occupational). From COR theory, employees stay in organizations to avoid loss of intrinsic (sacrifices) or instrumental (links and fit) resources. All three forms of work-related embeddedness should therefore lessen turnover due to the primacy-of-resource-loss principle (Hobfoll, 2001). However, organizational embeddedness should be the strongest (negative) predictor of turnover. As turnover involves leaving the organization (rather than job or occupation per se), resources derived from the organizational context (i.e., organizational fit, links, and sacrifices) should be most subject to a primacy-of-loss effect. Indeed, interorganizational mobility (within the same industry) does not necessarily diminish one’s occupational resources (e.g., professional connections or occupation-specific know-how). Along similar lines, on-the-job embeddedness should matter less to turnover decisions as well. Although job-embedded incumbents might remain in the organization to conserve job-based resources

649

(e.g., Feldman & Ng, 2007), such loss avoidance will likely be more transient and less powerful than loss salience associated with strong intrinsic attachment to the organization (e.g., Hom et al., 2012). After all, employees can often find equivalent well-fitting jobs elsewhere (e.g., sales, skilled trades, physical therapists) where they can perform as effectively (as jobs require similar KSAs) and experience as satisfying (offering similar intrinsic rewards). Furthermore, as with occupational embeddedness, jobfocused losses might be less applicable to turnover decisions as employees can remain organizational members, despite having low on-the-job embeddedness. For example, incumbents who misfit with their job or superior can transfer to another job internally rather than quit (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Proposition 8a: Occupational, organizational, and on-the-job embeddedness are negatively related to organizational turnover. Proposition 8b: Organizational embeddedness is more negatively related to organizational turnover than is occupational or on-the-job embeddedness. CWBs. CWBs (e.g., Internet surfing, abusing colleagues) can lead to termination, lost opportunities for advancement, or a tarnished reputation, thus depleting one’s resources (Feldman et al., 2012; T. W. Lee et al., 2004; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). As COR’s primacy-of-loss principle implies, all forms of work-related embeddedness should lessen CWBs. However, in the case of CWBs, the losses should be felt most intensely for those highly embedded in their occupation (Ng & Feldman, 2009). This is because resource losses can spill over into the occupational context (professional reputation, employability within the industry; Ng & Feldman, 2009), hampering occupational goals and aspirations (making career advancement more difficult). The greater difficulty of changing occupations versus changing jobs or organizations further magnifies such losses (Blau, 2000). Furthermore, high occupational embeddedness may suppress CWBs directed at organizations (not just occupations) in which employees implement their professional skills (e.g., Mayo Clinic doctors, Ford automotive engineers, Google software engineers). They may avoid abusing coworkers or taking excessive breaks there. In fact, occupation-embedded individuals in disagreeable jobs or organizations are more likely to emerge as “job crafters” (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) who invest time and energy to alter their task and relationship boundaries to build positive resources. Thus, CWBs should be least likely among occupation-embedded incumbents: Proposition 9a: Occupational, organizational, and on-the-job embeddedness are negatively related to CWBs. Proposition 9b: Occupational embeddedness is more negatively related to CWBs than is organizational or on-the-job embeddedness. OCBs. COR theorists maintain that individuals invest resources (e.g., effort, time, opportunity costs; Halbesleben et al., 2014) into extrarole behaviors (e.g., socializing newcomers, attending outside work functions, helping colleagues) as a means to accumulate more resources (support, extrinsic rewards, recognition; Halbesleben & Wheeler, in press; Ng & Feldman, 2012b; Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009). Thus, one might


650


act altruistically toward superiors or colleagues to build goodwill and reciprocity to repay such kindness (earning them higher performance reviews, including favorable 360-degree feedback). Drawing from the resource investment COR principle, we infer that people embedded in occupations, organizations, or jobs should be willing to exhibit more OCBs. This is because they are motivated to invest resources to build resources, and because they have the instrumental resources (fit and links) to help them do so (Hobfoll, 2001). COR theory however states that instrumental resources can be utilized more profitably to gain more resources when they are useful for a given purpose (Hobfoll, 2001). This principle implies that organizational embeddedness should be the strongest (positive) predictor of OCBs (Ng & Feldman, 2009). That is, organization-focused instrumental resources (corporate fit and links) should be more useful to individuals wishing to perform OCBs to convey a favorable workplace impression (and establish goodwill) to procure more rewards (Rioux & Penner, 2001). For example, better P–O fitting—and thus more trusted— employees who perform OCBs are likely to be seen as “genuinely nice people . . . who are also willing to go the extra mile” (Bolino, Varela, Bande, & Turnley, 2006, p. 294). Likewise, employees with broad links within and outside their business units can keep up with latest developments and offer ideas to improve organizational functioning (K. Lee & Allen, 2002). On the other hand, occupational and on-the-job fit and links may not invoke OCBs as much because they are less useful for employees wishing to perform them. Moreover, the finite nature of resources means that individuals likely invest them in ways that best helps them meet goals or environmental demands (Halbesleben et al., 2014). For one thing, high embeddedness in occupational or job domains can drain resources, leaving people with less time and energy to invest in OCBs toward the firm. All the same, the return on investment associated with OCBs might not be as lucrative for job- or occupation-embedded employees, who strive for higher accomplishments in a job (earning better pay or job assignments) or profession (expediting career advancement). Particularly in the case of job-focused embeddedness, diverting resources toward OCBs could lead to lower in-role performance and subsequent loss of valued benefits (Halbesleben & Bowler, 2007). Proposition 10a: Occupational, organizational, and on-the-job embeddedness are positively related to OCBs. Proposition 10b: Organizational embeddedness is more positively related to OCBs than is occupational or on-the-job embeddedness. Task performance. High performing employees can expect greater extrinsic (e.g., favorable reviews, pay raises, promotions) and intrinsic (e.g., feeling valuable, competent) benefits (Lanaj, Chang, & Johnson, 2012; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002; Salamin & Hom, 2005). People embedded in occupations, organizations, and jobs should thus be motivated to invest time and effort toward superior task performance to acquire (or protect) resources that enable them to meet professional goals. Yet, on-the-job embeddedness should most promote job performance. This is because job-embedded incumbents have the requisite demands-abilities job fit (Kristof, 1996) and links (social capital from high-density colleague networks; Sparrowe et al., 2001) to reach high perfor-

mance standards, and thus, will be most motivated to invest resources toward this performance domain to maximize their return (Halbesleben et al., 2014). For example, strong demandsabilities job fit helps employees improve their work group’s efficiency and effectiveness, leading to more rewards (Erdogan & Bauer, 2005). Because employees embedded in occupations and organizations strive to “get ahead” (Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2002) through inter- or intra- organizational advancements (Feldman & Ng, 2007), their motivation to accomplish work tasks should also be high. Yet, at the same time, their heavy investments in areas outside in-role performance (e.g., leading organizational committees and participating in professional associations) may deplete resources and thus their capacity to be fully task focused. Furthermore, consistent with COR thinking, those embedded in occupations or organizations may be more selective in how they allocate resources as they seek maximal return from their investments (Halbesleben & Bowler, 2007). Hence, they may resist copiously investing in the task domain, which could actually diminish their chances for desired mobility within (supervisors are reluctant to transfer or promote them) or outside (skills become too job specific) the firm (Feldman & Ng, 2007). In fact, their attachment to the job may last only until more attractive organizational (e.g., managerial promotion) or professional opportunities come along. Job-focused embeddedness, on the other hand, compels more intense and enduring attachment to the immediate job, producing greater motivation toward task accomplishment (Hom et al., 2012). Proposition 11a: Occupational, organizational, and on-the-job embeddedness are positively related to task performance. Proposition 11b: On-the-job embeddedness is more positively related to task performance than is occupational or organizational embeddedness.

Nonwork Embeddedness Foci: Moderating Effects According to Feldman and colleagues (2012), the effects of work-focused embeddedness on work outcomes should be highest when employees also have high off-the-job embeddedness. From COR theory, we add precision to this perspective by proposing that whether off-the-job embeddedness strengthens or weakens workfocused embeddedness effects depends on the nature of the work outcome (e.g., OCB vs. CWB). Beginning with March and Simon (1958), organizational scholars (e.g., Hanisch & Hulin, 1991; Hom et al., 2012; T. W. Lee et al., 2004) have differentiated organizational contributions based on their association with the decision to stay (participate) or perform. Whereas withdrawal behaviors such as voluntary turnover and work avoidance (a form of CWB where employees distance themselves from work; Harrison & Newman, 2013) reflect employees’ motivation to (not) stay, OCBs and task performance reflect motivation to perform (Hanisch & Hulin, 1991; Hom et al., 2012; T. W. Lee et al., 2004). Because off-the-job embeddedness foremost compels “the desire to remain in the present location—and the necessity of maintaining employment to do so” (Feldman et al., 2012, p. 227, emphasis added), it should increase work-focused embeddedness effects on behaviors reflecting the desire to stay (turnover and CWBs). On the other hand, off-the-job resources (e.g., community social capital) should not facilitate better work



performance because they are less instrumental in the work context (Halbesleben, 2006). For example, off-the-job links may help employees meet work performance obligations (e.g., relatives help alleviate work–family conflict), yet such support is less useful for enabling exceptional work performance (e.g., formulating workrole or organizational improvements). In fact, individuals may feel compelled to reinvest into supportive nonwork relationships to continue acquiring resources from those sources (Halbesleben & Wheeler, in press). As resources are finite and “a heavy investment of time in the personal life domain is likely to cut into time which can be spent at work” (Feldman et al., 2012, pp. 225–226), individuals will have less time and energy to invest in work performance. This suggests that off-the-job embeddedness should attenuate the beneficial impact of work-focused embeddedness on OCBs and in-role performance. In the following sections, we expand our reasoning for each of the outcome variables in turn. Moderating effects on organizational turnover. From the COR view, employees whose families are embedded in the community (Feldman et al., 2012) will stay to protect resources available to their family and to them indirectly (i.e., harmonious family relations, spousal income supplement). When they also are embedded via work-focused fit, links, and sacrifices, their motivation to stay due to loss avoidance should be elevated. Together then, due to the primacy-of-resource-loss COR tenet, the negative effects of work-focused embeddedness on turnover should be strongest when employees also are embedded in their communities, directly or indirectly due to family pressures (or altruistic concerns for family well-being; Feldman et al., 2012). Indeed, Mitchell et al. (2001) reported that the additive effect of on- and off-the-job embeddedness on turnover was stronger than the effect of each dimension individually. Because we proposed that organizational embeddedness would have the strongest negative relationship with turnover, we expect these moderating effects to likewise be strongest for organizational embeddedness. Proposition 12a: The negative effects of occupational, organizational, and on-the-job embeddedness on organizational turnover are stronger for employees whose families are embedded in the community. Proposition 12b: FEC moderates the effect of organizational embeddedness on organizational turnover more strongly than the effects of occupational or on-the-job embeddedness. Proposition 12c: The negative effects of occupational, organizational, and on-the-job embeddedness on organizational turnover are stronger for employees embedded in the community. Proposition 12d: Community embeddedness moderates the effect of organizational embeddedness on organizational turnover more strongly than the effects of occupational or on-thejob embeddedness. Moderating effects on CWBs. For reasons similar to those given in the previous section, high off-the-job embeddedness also should have an additive effect, intensifying negative relationships between work-focused embeddedness and CWBs (especially extreme acts, such as violence or sabotage; Feldman et al., 2012). From the COR perspective, we deduce that when employees are

651

highly embedded in the work domain, they assiduously refrain from CWBs to avoid personal resource losses. Because workbased losses can spillover and produce resource losses in the nonwork context (e.g., less income to support recreational pursuits or family’s material needs), the motivation to refrain from such behaviors should be strongest when both work-focused and offthe-job embeddedness are high. Indeed, termination can make reemployment in the immediate community more difficult (Feldman et al., 2012). Being forced to relocate under such circumstances could create enormous off-the-job losses that are detrimental to familial well-being (e.g., “family stability,” “good marriage”; Hobfoll, 2001, p. 342). Proposition 13a: The negative effects of occupational, organizational, and on-the-job embeddedness on CWBs are stronger for employees whose families are embedded in the community. Proposition 13b: FEC moderates the effect of occupational embeddedness on CWBs more strongly than the effects of organizational or on-the-job embeddedness. Proposition 13c: The negative effects of occupational, organizational, and on-the-job embeddedness on CWBs are stronger for employees who are embedded in the community. Proposition 13d: Community embeddedness moderates the effect of occupational embeddedness on CWBs more strongly than the effects of organizational or on-the-job embeddedness. Moderating effects on OCBs. From a COR perspective, employees invest time and effort in OCBs to procure organizational rewards and career benefits (e.g., Halbesleben & Wheeler, in press). Moreover, individuals endowed with instrumental resources are in a better position to invest resources to acquire more resources as instrumental resources enhance their capability to do so (Hobfoll, 2001). Community embeddedness and FEC, while contributing to one’s overall pool of resources (Feldman et al., 2012), may not actually enhance one’s capability to acquire resources through OCBs. For example, one’s fit with community amenities and climate or family links to local clubs and institutions possess little instrumental value for someone wishing to assist colleagues with heavy workloads or implement ideas for workplace improvements (e.g., Halbesleben, 2006). On the contrary, exorbitant community embeddedness (marathon training, volunteer work, church roles) deplete time and energy, leaving one with less time and energy to devote to OCBs (Feldman et al., 2012). Based on the resource substitution COR hypothesis, high community embeddedness might diminish motivation to build resources at work because off-the-job resources are already fulfilling psychic needs (meaningful relationships with friends and relatives in town; Hobfoll, 2001). Likewise, FEC (e.g., spouse works or studies full-time, is actively involved in local politics) also imposes demands on an employee that interfere with his or her workplace contributions (Bakker, Demerouti, & Dollard, 2008). For example, spousal embeddedness outside the home (e.g., long work hours or extensive volunteer service) can drain an employee’s personal resources (that could be deployed for OCBs) as the employee must expend more time and energy to carry out domestic chores (e.g., preparing meals, taking dogs to veterinari-

652


ans, chauffeuring children) (Bakker et al., 2008). Because those whose partners (or families) are highly embedded in the community face more external demands, they will have less discretionary time to invest in OCBs (Feldman et al., 2012). Indeed, they must reinvest resources into the family unit (i.e., fulfill expanded domestic duties) to maintain family harmony or well-being. Taken together, community embeddedness and FEC should mitigate the positive impact of work-focused embeddedness on OCBs.


Proposition 14a: The positive effects of occupational, organizational, and on-the-job embeddedness on OCBs are weaker for employees whose families are embedded in the community. Proposition 14b: FEC moderates the effect of organizational embeddedness on OCBs more strongly than the effects of occupational or on-the-job embeddedness. Proposition 14c: The positive effects of occupational, organizational, and on-the-job embeddedness on OCBs are weaker for employees who are embedded in the community. Proposition 14d: Community embeddedness moderates the effect of organizational embeddedness on OCBs more strongly than the effects of occupational or on-the-job embeddedness. Moderating effects on task performance. High off-the-job embeddedness may likely weaken the beneficial impact of workfocused embeddedness on task performance. Unlike OCBs, failure to fulfill role requirements directly leads to dismissal or sanctions (e.g., demotion, pay cut), which can reduce personal or family resources. Thus, high off-the-job embeddedness might interfere with an employee’s ability to achieve outstanding productivity (Lanaj et al., 2012). This is because greater external demands (e.g., partners or families are highly embedded in the community) draw from peoples’ (or spouses’) finite pool of resources, preventing them from expending intense effort toward in-role tasks (working longer hours and weekends, achieving stretch targets). Such external resource drains will exert downward pressure on employees’ ability to meet high performance standards (Halbesleben et al., 2014) and may eventually lead them to perform at a level that is “just enough not to get fired” (Hom et al., 2012, p. 842). Off-thejob embeddedness should thus attenuate the positive effects of work-focused embeddedness on task performance. Proposition 15a: The positive effects of occupational, organizational, and on-the-job embeddedness on task performance are weaker for employees whose families are embedded in the community. Proposition 15b: FEC moderates the effect of on-the-job embeddedness on task performance more strongly than the effects of occupational or organizational embeddedness. Proposition 15c: The positive effects of occupational, organizational, and on-the-job embeddedness on task performance will be weaker for employees who are embedded in the community. Proposition 15d: Community embeddedness moderates the effect of on-the-job embeddedness on task performance more

strongly than the effects of occupational or organizational embeddedness.

Research Implications Our COR-based JE model yields propositions that provide direction for future research. Besides furnishing a more robust theoretical foundation for JE, the basic assumptions of our model also can be extrapolated to related research domains (i.e., human and social capital; Feldman & Ng, 2007; Ng & Feldman, 2007) to enrich understanding of JE linkages with those domains. In the following sections, we expand on these implications (including model testing requirements) and suggest new research avenues. Our COR-grounded model of JE furnishes theoretical integration and parsimony for explaining JE antecedents and outcomes. That is, our model identifies key mediating mechanisms—namely, motivation to protect and accumulate resources—that explain how JE works, addressing the lack of compelling or integrative theory underpinning this construct (T. W. Lee et al., 2014). Along these lines, our model reframes the predominant view of JE as a passive state of stuckness (e.g., Feldman et al., 2012) because individuals can make proactive and strategic choices to “protect against resource loss, recover from losses, and gain resources” (Hobfoll, 2001, p. 349). Overall, our COR approach goes beyond the prevailing academic wisdom to understand JE in new ways. To begin, our formulation provides a more informative account of why employees become embedded in various foci. They become embedded because they seek to avoid losing resources that hold intrinsic (sacrifices) or instrumental (fit and links) value in those contexts (Halbesleben et al., 2014). Our model also furnishes a more nuanced perspective on the differential effects of embeddedness foci on work outcomes. Embeddedness scholars have established that relative to off-the-job embeddedness, workfocused embeddedness more strongly determines work outcomes (e.g., Jiang, Liu, et al., 2012). Going further, our model asserts differential effects among work-related foci as well. Finally, the model lends new insight into the question of whether off-the-job embeddedness reinforces or weakens the effects of work-focused embeddedness on work outcomes (Feldman et al., 2012). Embeddedness scholars generally concur that the effects of job embeddedness are strongest when employees are highly embedded off the job as well (Feldman et al., 2012; T. W. Lee et al., 2004; Mitchell et al., 2001). Yet COR theory clarifies that the type of work outcome determines whether off-the-job embeddedness yields synergistic or counteractive effects.

Links to Human Capital We specified resources that build human capital (i.e., skillenhancing practices) embedding employees in their occupations. Yet, it is important to explore how embeddedness affects subsequent human capital development behaviors (e.g., Ng & Feldman, 2010). Our model offers opportunities to comprehend this relationship in new ways. For example, people who invest too much in off-the-job activities or have too many links in the community might have limited time and energy to invest in human capital development. After all, human capital investments consume considerable time and energy (e.g., formal training at/outside work, learning a second language, weekend MBA program).



Ng and Feldman (2010) posited “when employees have no intentions of leaving their current employers, they are likely to gradually decrease the intensity of their investments in both general and job-specific human capital” (p. 701). Such investments may thus be less likely among organization-embedded incumbents but more likely among occupation- and job-embedded incumbents. Further, Ng & Feldman (2010) suggested “that as employees feel more embedded, they may start seeing fewer benefits associated with adding more human capital and start decelerating their investments in activities geared toward that end” (p. 701). Adding theoretical precision to this argument, we suggest it depends on type of embeddedness: The decelerating effect is more likely for organization-embedded incumbents.

Links to Social Capital Drawing from COR theory, we inferred that links embed incumbents in foci by providing access to social capital holding value in those contexts. Our model also can incorporate additional ways by which relationships yield social capital and thus embed incumbents. To date, JE scholarship has not fully delineated how embedding links engender social capital as JE researchers have primarily scrutinized the number rather than quality of links or links’ interconnectivity (Holtom et al., 2008; Hom & Xiao, 2011). Integrating social capital theory (Burt, 1997; N. Lin, 2001), we next discuss how different network structures can embed incumbents and how impending social capital losses can de-embed incumbents. Link strength. Besides sheer number of links, N. Lin (2001) proposed that strong or high-status links may confer additional resources. Work friends may offer support (empathy, comfort) to employees under duress (Ng & Feldman, 2012a), while superiors with whom employees have favorable leader–member exchanges (LMX, Sparrowe & Liden, 2005) may express confidence that employees can surmount challenges (psychosocial support; Higgins & Kram, 2001). Employees also can receive instrumental resources from close work ties (N. Lin, 2001), such as a colleague’s help to finish job assignments (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008) and supervisory authorization for more job influence (Sparrowe & Liden, 2005). Our COR model suggests that strong or powerful links should embed employees where they are (e.g., Feldman et al., 2012) as they would suffer resource losses if they should sever such links by leaving. Network centrality. Social capital scholars also have recognized that an employee’s prominence in social networks— or “network centrality”— can deliver social assets (Feeley & Barnett, 1997; Feeley, Hwang, & Barnett, 2008; Mossholder, Settoon, & Henagan, 2005). Traditional JE research assessed the number of links that employees perceive that they have (or their out-degree centrality). However, in-degree centrality measures—the number of times other network contacts claim an (ego) respondent as a friend or informational source— have been shown to decrease turnover (Mossholder et al., 2005). Also, unlike other measures, betweenness centrality captures social capital available to respondents who join together disconnected parties in social networks (Mehra, Kilduff, & Brass, 2001). Such “go-betweens” control information flow and knowledge sharing across the firm (Feeley, 2000; Mehra et al., 2001), thus amassing more social influence and becoming more embedded in the firm.

653

Network closure. Network closure (Hom & Xiao, 2011) can yield distinct types of embedding social capital. Participants in closed networks are mutually affiliated and thus can end up closer as “repeated contact . . . is more likely between people with. . .many mutual friends and acquaintances” (Burt, 2001, p. 622). When enmeshed in multiple third-party ties (Burt, 2005), dyadic ties thus evolve into trusting, robust “Simmelian ties” (Krackhardt, 1998) in which parties more freely and amply exchange resources (e.g., Halbesleben & Wheeler, in press). What is more, close-knit networks more promptly deliver expressive resources as interconnected friends readily notice and attend to each other’s need for comfort (Balkundi & Harrison, 2006). They can thus receive more and timelier emotional support to help them cope with work stress (Lazarova, Westman, & Shaffer, 2010), making it harder for them to quit (or relocate) and thereby relinquish such support. Social capital losses. Krackhardt and Porter (1986) first demonstrated how exiting network contacts may influence others in equivalent roles to also leave. Later, Felps et al. (2009) extended these findings on turnover contagion, showing that coworkers who are poorly embedded or actively seeking jobs can induce others to quit. Likewise, turnover scholars find that exiting leaders may prompt subordinates to quit. For example, subordinates are more liable to quit when leaders with whom they have favorable LMX (and thus derive social capital) exit (Ballinger, Lehman, & Schoorman, 2010). Likewise, Feeley and Barnett (1997) found that employees more often quit if their friends exit as they suffer psychic costs when deprived of friends (Shah, 2000). Fitting COR theory, subordinates may thus leave to join colleagues or leaders in other workplaces where they can maintain access to (or avoid loss of) their resources. Overall, JE scholars should assess other social relationship features to more fully document how links embed incumbents.

Model Testing Attempting a complete model test is challenging as rigorous testing of our propositions requires longitudinal data from multiple sources (employees, their families and colleagues, HR managers, supervisors, archival records, etc.), firms, and geographical locations. Given our model’s complexity and its data requirements, we thus recommend that subsets of propositions be bundled and tested in more focused studies (contextual antecedents ¡ JE foci; JE foci ¡ outcomes; moderating effects on JE foci ¡ outcomes relationships). Antecedents of JE foci (Propositions 1– 6) could be investigated using HR manager ratings of HPWPs (Gardner et al., 2011), social network name generators (e.g., Seibert et al., 2001) to assess social capital derived from nearby extended family, and archival data on community characteristics (“Forbes’ Best Cities for Working Parents”; Dill, 2014). Existing valid scales are available for assessing embeddedness foci (Crossley, Bennett, Jex, & Burnfield, 2007; Felps et al., 2009; Ng & Feldman, 2009, 2012a, 2013; Mitchell et al., 2001), excepting FEC. For the latter, community embeddedness scales could be adapted to include quality of spousal employment (e.g., job rank, prestige, income), family links to the community (e.g., spouse’s parents live nearby), family community participation (e.g., children belong to varsity sports teams), and sacrifices owing to relocation (e.g., children’s education is disrupted; Feldman et al., 2012). For Propositions 7 to 15, we suggest soliciting peer and supervisory ratings of performance,


654


OCBs, and CWBs. Personnel records can be tapped to assess turnover voluntariness and date (for Cox regression). We recommend multilevel analysis (i.e., multilevel structural equation modeling or random coefficient modeling) for analyzing the model. After all, individual employees are nested in multiple organizations as well as multiple communities. Indeed, the data structure may actually represent three levels if investigators sample employees (Level 1) from firms (Level 2) that are in turn nested within communities (Level 3). For a two-level analysis, investigators should sample at least five employees from at least 40 organizations or communities to achieve adequate statistical power (Scherbaum & Ferreter, 2009). Because the model focuses on cross-level effects of higher level antecedents on lower level outcomes, sampling even more firms or communities to test how their characteristics affect average embeddedness or performance scores would attain higher statistical power than sampling more employees (Mathieu, Aguinis, Culpepper, & Chen, 2012). As Mathieu et al. (2012) stated, “if the researcher is . . . interested in testing cross-level direct effects, that may suggest emphasizing the number of units that are sampled” (p. 960).

Measurement Issues Our model’s assumptions also bring a new perspective on the issue of whether embeddedness should be measured as a global gestalt variable (Crossley et al., 2007) or an equally weighted composite (Mitchell et al., 2001). Both the global and composite JE indexes have strengths and shortcomings (Zhang, Fried, & Griffeth, 2012). In terms of strength, the global measure recognizes that different embedding facets and dimensions may be more or less important to different people depending on their personal circumstances. Thus, respondents can subjectively weigh different forces binding them to the firm or community based on their importance. However, unlike the composite, the global scale focuses on the feeling or motivational state of being embedded (Hom et al., 2012; Meyer, Stanley, Parfyonova, 2012) rather than explicitly referencing antecedents of this condition, such as links, fit, and sacrifices. Yet these dimensions help differentiate job embeddedness from related constructs and best match Mitchell et al.’s (2001) initial conceptualization of a formative-indicator construct defined by its dimensions. By capturing embedding fit, links, and sacrifices, the composite measure allows researchers to understand their differential associations with antecedents and outcomes. On balance, we believe a composite measure may yield more precise tests of our propositions. Based on COR theorizing, we associated fit and links with instrumental resources that enable resource acquisition (by enhancing performance capability). By comparison, we associated sacrifices with intrinsically valued resources that deter leaving, yet possess little instrumental value in terms of facilitating work performance (e.g., Kiazad, Seibert, & Kraimer, 2014). Thus, despite a high preference for staying (driven by high organizational sacrifices), those lacking instrumental fit or links in a job or organization may not be high performers (e.g., Hom et al., 2012). Indeed, Feldman et al. (2012) noted that sometimes only one factor might drive embeddedness in work (e.g., excellent benefits) or nonwork (e.g., ailing parents) domains. The composite measure overcomes this by helping to establish the differential effects of embedding dimensions toward lessening turnover or improving performance (Jiang, Liu, et al., 2012) for a

particular sample of respondents when distinct dimensions are inputted as separate predictors in a regression equation.

Time Issues We encourage future researchers to adopt longitudinal methods to test the hypothesis that resource-context fit may underlie JE fluctuations over time (Ng & Feldman, 2013). Barring few exceptions (Ng & Feldman, 2007, 2010, 2013), issues of time have not been adequately addressed in JE scholarship. Ng and Feldman (2007) eloquently captured time issues, describing how different resources yield embedding influence at different career stages. Building on these ideas, and fitting COR, it would be useful to test the impact of “resource usefulness” over time to capture changes in JE over time. Because the value of resources depends on their utility in a given context, people should become increasingly embedded over time if the resources they accumulate persist in satisfying their particular needs or goals (Halbesleben et al., 2014). However, resources may become less embedding should they no longer meet individuals’ particular needs or goals. For example, nightlife and outdoor opportunities might embed a young couple in their neighborhood, yet such embedding force might diminish once they have children and their needs change.

Practical Implications Our model suggests that organizations should scrutinize the HPWPs they adopt to enhance operational and financial outcomes. Some organizations explicitly try to maximize collective human capital for organizational benefit (i.e., skill-enhancing firms), yet skill-enhancing tactics also might boost collective levels of occupational embeddedness. Although lessening CWBs, occupational embeddedness does not foster motivation to stay long-term and contribute to organizational functioning through OCBs (Feldman & Ng, 2007; Ng & Feldman, 2009). By supplementing skilldevelopment investments with opportunity-enhancing practices that build organizational embeddedness, these unwelcomed side effects on ease of movement and extrarole performance can potentially be offset. Motivation-enhancing tactics may contribute to organizational performance by increasing collective on-the-job embeddedness. At the same time, such practices potentially thwart motivation to elicit behaviors not formally rewarded or recognized, such as OCBs. Furthermore, if transferred to a less-fitting job within the company, job-embedded incumbents may feel little desire to remain, which could cause them to reduce task performance to merely acceptable levels (Hom et al., 2012). Again, it is prudent for organizations to combine motivation-enhancing practices with opportunityenhancing practices to boost collective motivation to stay and contribute broadly to organizational objectives. Overall, our model suggests that managers should supplement their skill- or motivation-enhancing practices with opportunity-enhancing practices to lessen collective turnover and maximize workforce performance (Gardner et al., 2011). Our theoretical arguments for off-the-job embeddedness suggest it can “cut both ways” when it comes to influencing work outcomes. On one hand, off-the-job embeddedness might strengthen negative relationships between work-focused embeddedness and withdrawal outcomes (i.e., turnover and CWBs). On the other



hand, managers should not overlook how nonwork demands make it difficult for employed parents to achieve high performance standards (Bakker et al., 2008). Furthermore, off-the-job embeddedness may be more instrumental for enriching quality of family interactions than high work performance. At the same time, firms might benefit from implementing work–family HRM bundles (e.g., flextime, on-site day care, childcare copayment, elder care assistance; Perry-Smith & Blum, 2000) to furnish more time and energy for employees to contribute toward job and organizational objectives (Trevor & Nyberg, 2008), especially for those lacking such support off the job.

Conclusions Our aim was to strengthen the JE perspective by integrating multifoci insights and theoretically grounding this expanded view within COR. This integrative theoretical extension, we believe, provides a parsimonious lens through which to broaden and enrich understanding of JE antecedents, processes, and consequences.

References Allan, B., & Lewis, D. (2006). The impact of membership of a virtual learning community on individual learning careers and professional identity. British Journal of Educational Technology, 7, 841– 852. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00661.x Allen, D. G. (2006). Do organizational socialization tactics influence newcomer embeddedness and turnover? Journal of Management, 32, 237–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206305280103 Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Dollard, M. F. (2008). How job demands affect partners’ experience of exhaustion: Integrating work-family conflict and crossover theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 901–911. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.901 Balkundi, P., & Harrison, D. A. (2006). Ties, leaders, and time in teams: Strong inference about the effects of network structure on team viability and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 49 – 68. http:// dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.20785500 Ballinger, G. A., Lehman, D. W., & Schoorman, F. D. (2010). Leadermember exchange and turnover before and after succession events. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113, 25–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.04.003 Barnett, R. C., & Gareis, K. G. (2008). Community: The critical missing link in work–family research. In A. L. Marcus-Newhall, D. F. Halpern, & S. J. Tan (Eds.), The changing realities of work and family: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 71– 84). Chichester, England: Blackwell. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781444305272.ch4 Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and job performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 43–51. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.43 Batt, R., & Colvin, A. J. S. (2011). An employment systems approach to turnover: Human resources practices, quits, dismissals, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 695–717. http://dx.doi .org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.64869448 Becker, B., & Huselid, M. (1998). High performance work systems and firm performance: A synthesis of research and managerial implications. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 16, 53–101. Blau, G. (2000). Job, organisational, professional context antecedents as predictors of intent for interrole work transitions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 330–345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1999.1718 Blau, G. (2003). Testing for a four-dimensional structure of occupational commitment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 469 – 488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317903322591596

655

Bolino, M. C., Varela, J. A., Bande, B., & Turnley, W. H. (2006). The impact of impression-management tactics on supervisor ratings of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 281–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.379 Bookman, A. (2005). Can employers be good neighbors? Redesigning the workplace-community interface. Work, Family, Health, and Well-Being, 141–156. Borgatti, S. P., & Cross, R. (2003). A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Science, 49, 432– 445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.4.432.14428 Brehm, J. M. (2007). Community attachment: The complexity and consequence of the natural environment facet. Human Ecology, 35, 477– 488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10745-006-9104-3 Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 339 –365. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393923 Burt, R. S. (2001). Attachment, decay, and social network. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 619 – 643. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job .106 Burt, R. S. (2005). Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Burton, J. P., Holtom, B. C., Sablynski, C. J., Mitchell, T. R., & Lee, T. W. (2010). The buffering effects of job embeddedness on negative shocks. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 42–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j .jvb.2009.06.006 Carpenter, M. A., Li, M., & Jiang, H. (2012). Social network research in organizational contexts: A systematic review of methodological issues and choices. Journal of Management, 38, 1328 –1361. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0149206312440119 Chen, C. J., & Hung, S. W. (2010). To give or to receive? Factors influencing members’ knowledge sharing and community promotion in professional virtual communities. Information & Management, 47, 226 – 236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2010.03.001 Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1082–1103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1082 Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., & Wang, E. T. G. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support Systems, 42, 1872–1888. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2006.04.001 Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., & Ketchen, D. (2006). How much do high-performance work practices matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 59, 501– 528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00045.x Cowell, D. K., & Green, G. P. (1994). Community attachment and spending location: The importance of place in household consumption. Social Science Quarterly, 75, 637– 655. Creating a mentor program. (n.d.). Retrieved from. http://www.shrm.org/ communities/studentprograms/pages/mentorprogram.aspx Crossley, C. D., Bennett, R. J., Jex, S. M., & Burnfield, J. L. (2007). Development of a global measure of job embeddedness and integration into a traditional model of voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1031–1042. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4 .1031 DaVanzo, J. S., & Morrison, P. A. (1981). Return and other sequences of migration in the United States. Demography, 18, 85–101. http://dx.doi .org/10.2307/2061051 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and selfdetermination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7 Defillippi, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1994). The boundaryless career: A competency-based prospective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 307–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.4030150403


656


Dill, K. (2014). The best cities for working parents. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/kathryndill/2014/08/19/the-best-cities-forworking-parents/ Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends”: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143–1168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x Ensher, E., Heun, C., & Blanchard, A. (2003). Online mentoring and computer-mediated communication: New directions in research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 264 –288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S00018791(03)00044-7 Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2005). Enhancing career benefits of employee proactive personality: The role of fit with jobs and organizations. Personnel Psychology, 58, 859 – 891. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570 .2005.00772.x Feeley, T. H. (2000). Testing a communication network model of employee turnover based on centrality. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 28, 262–277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00909880009365574 Feeley, T. H., & Barnett, G. A. (1997). Predicting employee turnover from communication networks. Human Communication Research, 23, 370 – 387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00401.x Feeley, T. H., Hwang, J., & Barnett, G. A. (2008). Predicting employee turnover from friendship networks. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36, 56 –73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00909880701799790 Feldman, D. C., & Ng, T. W. (2007). Careers: Mobility, embeddedness, and success. Journal of Management, 33, 350 –377. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0149206307300815 Feldman, D. C., Ng, T. W., & Vogel, R. M. (2012). Off-the-job embeddedness: A reconceptualization and agenda for future research. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 31, 209 –251. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1108/S0742-7301(2012)0000031008 Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., Hekman, D. R., Lee, T. M., Harman, W., & Holtom, B. (2009). Turnover contagion: How coworkers’ job embeddedness and coworkers’ job search behaviors influence quitting. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 545–561. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/ AMJ.2009.41331075 Gardner, T. M., Moynihan, L. M., Park, H. J., & Wright, P. M. (2001). Beginning to unlock the black box in the HR firm performance relationship: The impact of HR practices on employee attitudes and employee outcomes (CAHRS Working Paper 01–12). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies. Gardner, T. M., Wright, P. M., & Moynihan, L. M. (2011). The impact of motivation, empowerment, and skill enhancing practices on aggregate voluntary turnover: The mediating effect of collective affective commitment. Personnel Psychology, 64, 315–350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j .1744-6570.2011.01212.x Gareis, K. C., & Barnett, R. C. (2008). The development of a new measure for work-family research: Community resource fit. Community, Work & Family, 11, 273–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13668800802133925 Giosan, C., Holtom, B., & Watson, M. (2005). Antecedents to job embeddedness: The role of individual, organizational and market factors. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 5, 31– 44. Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360 –1380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/225469 Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2006). Sources of social support and burnout: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1134 –1145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00219010.91.5.1134 Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Bowler, W. M. (2007). Emotional exhaustion and job performance: The mediating role of motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 93–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.93 Halbesleben, J. R. B., Neveu, J. P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014). Getting to the “COR”: Understanding the role of resources in

conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40, 1334 – 1364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527130 Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Wheeler, A. R. (in press). To invest or not? The role of coworker support and trust in daily reciprocal gain spirals of helping behavior. Journal of Management. Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1991). General attitudes and organizational withdrawal: An evaluation of a causal model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39, 110 –128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(91) 90006-8 Harrison, D. A., & Newman, D. A. (2013). Absence, lateness, turnover and retirement: Narrow and broad understandings of withdrawal and behavioral engagement. In N. Schmitt & S. Highhouse (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 12. Industrial and organization psychology (pp. 262– 291). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. E. (2001). Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A developmental network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 264 –288. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources. A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513 Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50, 337– 421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597 .00062 Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6, 307–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 1089-2680.6.4.307 Hobfoll, S. E., & Lilly, R. (1993). Resource conservation as a strategy for community psychology. Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 128 – 148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(199304)21:2⬍128::AIDJCOP2290210206⬎3.0.CO;2-5 Holtom, B. C., & Inderrieden, E. J. (2006). Integrating the unfolding model and job embeddedness model to better understand voluntary turnover. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18, 435– 452. Holtom, B. C., Mitchell, T. R., & Lee, T. W. (2006). Increasing human and social capital by applying job embeddedness theory. Organizational Dynamics, 35, 316 –331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2006.08.007 Holtom, B. C., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., & Eberly, M. (2008). Turnover and retention research: A glance at the past, a closer review of the present, and a venture into the future. The Academy of Management Annals, 2, 231–274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19416520802211552 Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (1995). Employee turnover. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College. Hom, P. W., & Kinicki, A. (2001). Toward a greater understanding of how dissatisfaction drives employee turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 975–987. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069441 Hom, P. W., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (2012). Reviewing employee turnover: Focusing on proximal withdrawal states and an expanded criterion. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 831– 858. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027983 Hom, P. W., Tsui, A. S., Wu, J. B., Lee, T. W., Zhang, A. Y., Fu, P. P., & Li, L. (2009). Explaining employment relationships with social exchange and job embeddedness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 277–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013453 Hom, P. W., & Xiao, Z. (2011). Embedding social networks: How guanxi ties reinforce Chinese employees’ retention. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116, 188 –202. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.06.001 Jiang, K., Lepak, D. P., Hu, J., & Baer, J. C. (2012). How does human resource management influence organizational outcomes: A metaanalytic investigation of mediating mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1264 –1294. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0088 Jiang, K., Liu, D., McKay, P. F., Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (2012). When and how is job embeddedness predictive of turnover? A meta-


MULTIFOCI JOB EMBEDDEDNESS analytic investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1077–1096. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028610 Jorgensen, B. S., & Stedman, R. C. (2001). Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners attitudes toward their properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 233–248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001 .0226 Kasarda, J. D., & Janowitz, M. (1974). Community attachment in mass society. American Sociological Review, 39, 328 –339. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2307/2094293 Kiazad, K., Seibert, S. E., & Kraimer, M. L. (2014). Psychological contract breach and employee innovation: A conservation of resources perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 535– 556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joop.12062 Krackhardt, D. (1998). Simmelian ties: Super strong and sticky. In R. Kramer & M. Neale (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations (pp. 21–38). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/ 9781483345291.n2 Krackhardt, D., & Porter, L. (1986). The snowball effect: Turnover embedded in communication networks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 50 –55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.1.50 Kraimer, M. L., Seibert, S. E., Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., & Bravo, J. (2011). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational support for development: The critical role of career opportunities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 485–500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021452 Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1– 49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person- supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005 .00672.x Lanaj, K., Chang, C. H., & Johnson, R. E. (2012). Regulatory focus and work-related outcomes: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 998 –1034. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027723 Lazarova, M., Westman, M., & Shaffer, M. A. (2010). Elucidating the positive side of the work-family interface on international assignments: A model of expatriate work and family performance. Academy of Management Review, 35, 93–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2010 .45577883 Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010 .87.1.131 Lee, T. W., Burch, T. C., & Mitchell, T. R. (2014). The story of why we stay: A review of job embeddedness. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 199 –216. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091244 Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (1994). An alternative approach: The unfolding model of voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Review, 19, 51– 89. Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Sablynski, C. J., Burton, J. P., & Holtom, B. C. (2004). The effects of job embeddedness on organizational citizenship, job performance, volitional absences, and voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 711–722. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/ 20159613 Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Wise, L., & Fireman, S. (1996). An unfolding model of voluntary employee turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 5–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256629 Lepak, D. P., Liao, H., Chung, Y., & Harden, E. E. (2006). A conceptual review of human resource management systems in strategic human resource management research. In J. J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 25, pp. 217–271). Bingley, England: Emerald Group.

657

Levin, D. Z., Whitener, E. M., & Cross, R. (2006). Perceived trustworthiness of knowledge sources: The moderating impact of relationship length. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1163–1171. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1163 Lin, C. P., Hung, W. T., & Chiu, C. K. (2008). Being good citizens: Understanding a mediating mechanism of organizational commitment and social network ties in OCBs. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 561– 578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9528-8 Lin, N. (1999). Social networks and status attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 467– 487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.467 Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of structure and action. London, England: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511815447 Loewenstein, M. A., & Spletzer, J. R. (1999). General and specific training: Evidence and implications. The Journal of Human Resources, 34, 710 –733. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/146414 Maertz, C. P., & Campion, M. A. (2004). Profiles in quitting: Integrating process and content turnover theory. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 566 –582. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20159602 Maertz, C. P., & Griffeth, R. W. (2004). Eight motivational forces and voluntary turnover: A theoretical synthesis with implications for research. Journal of Management, 30, 667– 683. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jm.2004.04.001 Maertz, C. P., Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (2003). A turnover model for the Mexican maquiladoras. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 111–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00023-4 March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. Oxford, England: Wiley. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028380 Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. (2001). The social networks of high and low self-monitors: Implications for workplace performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 121–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/ 2667127 Meyer, J. P., Stanley, L. J., & Parfyonova, N. M. (2012). Employee commitment in context: The nature and implication of commitment profiles. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.07.002 Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1102–1121. http://dx .doi.org/10.2307/3069391 Mitchell, T. R., & Lee, T. W. (2001). The unfolding model of voluntary turnover and job embeddedness: Foundations for a comprehensive theory of attachment. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 189 –246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(01)23006-8 Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 237–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.62.2.237 Mobley, W. H., Griffeth, R. W., Hand, H. H., & Meglino, B. M. (1979). Review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 493–522. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00332909.86.3.493 Mossholder, K. W., Settoon, R. P., & Henagan, S. C. (2005). A relational perspective on turnover: Examining structural, attitudinal, and behavioral predictors. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 607– 618. http:// dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.17843941 Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10, 71– 83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1002_1


658


Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2007). Organizational embeddedness and occupational embeddedness across career stages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 336 –351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2006.10.002 Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2008). Can you get a better deal elsewhere? The effects of psychological contract replicability on organizational commitment over time. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 268 –277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.05.004 Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2009). Occupational embeddedness and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 863– 891. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.580 Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2010). The effects of organizational embeddedness on development of social capital and human capital. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 696 –712. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0019150 Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2012a). The effects of organizational and community embeddedness on work-to-family and family-to-work conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1233–1251. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/a0029089 Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2012b). Employee voice behavior: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 216 –234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job .754 Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2013). Changes in perceived supervisor embeddedness: Effects on employees’ embeddedness, organizational trust, and voice behavior. Personnel Psychology, 66, 645– 685. http://dx .doi.org/10.1111/peps.12025 Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2014). Community embeddedness and work outcomes: The mediating role of organizational embeddedness. Human Relations, 67, 71–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0018726713486946 Ostroff, C., & Bowen, D. E. (2000). Moving HR to a higher level. In K. J. Klein & S. W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 211–266). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Parker, P., Arthur, M. B., & Inkson, K. (2004). Career communities: A preliminary exploration of member-defined career support structures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 489 –514. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/job.254 Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 835– 852. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.6 .835 Perry-Smith, J. E., & Blum, T. C. (2000). Work-family human resource bundles and perceived organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1107–1117. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1556339 Peterson, S. J., & Luthans, F. (2006). The impact of financial and nonfinancial incentives on business-unit outcomes over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 156 –165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010 .91.1.156 Phelps, C., Heidl, R., & Wadhwa, A. (2012). Knowledge, networks, and knowledge networks: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38, 1115–1166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206311432640 Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 122–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013079 Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1981). A causal model for turnover for nurses. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 543–565. http://dx.doi .org/10.2307/255574 Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. (1986). Absenteeism and turnover of hospital employees. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Ramesh, A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). Will they stay or will they go? The role of job embeddedness in predicting turnover in individualistic and

collectivistic cultures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 807– 823. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019464 Raymond, C. M., Brown, G., & Weber, D. (2010). The measurement of place attachment: Personal, community and environmental connections. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 422– 434. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.08.002 Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1306 –1314. Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 66 – 80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.66 Rousseau, D. M. (2001). The idiosyncratic deal: Flexibility versus fairness. Organizational Dynamics, 29, 260 –273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0090-2616(01)00032-8 Rusbult, C. E., & Farrell, D. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The impact on job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover of variations in rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 429 – 438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010 .68.3.429 Salamin, A., & Hom, P. W. (2005). In search of the elusive U-shaped performance-turnover relationship: Are high performing Swiss bankers more liable to quit? Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1204 –1216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1204 Sampson, R. J. (1988). Local friendship ties and community attachment in mass society: A multilevel systemic model. American Sociological Review, 53, 766 –779. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2095822 Scherbaum, C. A., & Ferreter, J. M. (2009). Estimating statistical power and required sample sizes for organizational research using multilevel modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 347–367. http://dx.doi .org/10.1177/1094428107308906 Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437– 453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00609.x Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 219 – 237. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069452 Shah, P. P. (2000). Network destruction: The structural implications of downsizing. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 101–112. http://dx .doi.org/10.2307/1556389 Shaw, J. D., Delery, J. E., Jenkins, G. D., & Gupta, N. (1998). An organization-level analysis of voluntary and involuntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 511–525. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/ 256939 Snape, E., & Redman, T. (2003). An evaluation of a three-component model of occupational commitment: Dimensionality and consequences among United Kingdom human resource management specialists. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 152–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00219010.88.1.152 Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (2005). Two routes to influence: Integrating leader/member exchange and social network perspectives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 505–535. Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Kraimer, M. L. (2001). Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 316 –325. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/ 3069458 Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 446 – 460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.005 Subramony, M. (2009). A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between HRM bundles and firm performance. Human Resource Management, 48, 745–768. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20315


MULTIFOCI JOB EMBEDDEDNESS ten Brummelhuis, L. L., & Bakker, A. B. (2012). A resource perspective on the work-home interface: The work-home resources model. American Psychologist, 67, 545–556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027974 Theodori, G. L., & Luloff, A. E. (2000). Urbanization and community attachment in rural areas. Society & Natural Resources, 13, 399 – 420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/089419200403839 Trevor, C. O. (2001). Interactions among actual ease-of-movement determinants and job satisfaction in the prediction of voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 621– 638. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2307/3069407 Trevor, C. O., & Nyberg, A. J. (2008). Keeping your headcount when all about you are losing theirs: Downsizing, voluntary turnover rates, and the moderating role of HR practices. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 259 –276. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2008.31767250 Van Der Vegt, G. S., Emans, B. J. M., & Van de Vliert, E. (1998). Motivating effects of task and outcome interdependence in work teams. Group & Organization Management, 23, 124 –143. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/1059601198232003 Van Der Vegt, G. S., Emans, B. J. M., & Van de Vliert, E. (1999). Effects of interdependencies in project teams. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 202–214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224549909598374 Voydanoff, P. (2001). Incorporating community into work and family research: A review of basic relationships. Human Relations, 54, 1609 – 1637. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00187267015412003 Voydanoff, P. (2005). Consequences of boundary-spanning demands and resources for work-to-family conflict and perceived stress. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 491–503.

659

Wellman, B., Salaff, J., Dimitrova, D., Garton, L., Gulia, M., & Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Computer networks as social networks: Collaborative works, teleworks and virtual community. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 213–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.213 Wheeler, A. R., Gallagher, V. C., Brouer, R. L., & Sablynski, C. J. (2007). When person-organization (mis)fit and (dis)satisfaction lead to turnover: The moderating role of perceived job mobility. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 203–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ 02683940710726447 Wheeler, A. R., Harris, K. J., & Sablynski, C. J. (2012). How do employees invest abundant resources? The mediating role of work effort in the job-embeddedness/job-performance relationship. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(Suppl. 1), E244 –E266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j .1559-1816.2012.01023.x Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26, 179 –201. Zeitz, G., Blau, G., & Fertig, J. (2009). Boundaryless careers and institutional resources. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 372–398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585190802670763 Zhang, M., Fried, D., & Griffeth, R. (2012). Job embeddedness: A review of job-embeddedness: Conceptual, measurement issues, and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 22, 220 – 231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2012.02.004

Received October 9, 2013 Revision received January 5, 2015 Accepted January 19, 2015 䡲

The Job Embeddedness instrument: an evaluation of validity and reliability.

Job Embeddedness Demonstrates Incremental Validity When Predicting Turnover Intentions for Australian University Employees.

Independent epileptogenic multifoci in a girl with symptomatic partial epilepsy.

The embeddedness of age: Toward a social control perspective.

Validation of Health Extension Workers Job Motivation Scale in Gamo-Gofa Zone, Southern Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Job demands, job resources, and job performance in japanese workers: a cross-sectional study.

CT: A Case Report.

Stargazing: an integrative conceptual review, theoretical reconciliation, and extension for star employee research.

Wanted: A Job Definition.

[A fascinating job].

On Finding a Job.

Successful treatment of multifoci nocardial brain abscesses: a case report and literature review.

More than just a job.

Job share a consultant post.

Not just a job, but a career.

'Ecological embeddedness' and Its Public Health Implications: Findings From an Exploratory Study.

Job hindrances, job resources, and safety performance: The mediating role of job engagement.

Good job, bad job: Occupational perceptions among Latino poultry workers.

Theoretical role of adjunctive implant positional support in stress distribution of distal-extension mandibular removable partial dentures.

Job sharing.

Asthma history, job type and job changes among US nurses.

Work Demands-Burnout and Job Engagement-Job Satisfaction Relationships: Teamwork as a Mediator and Moderator.

Social embeddedness as a mechanism for linking social cohesion to well-being among older adults: moderating effect of gender.

What is a Medical Teacher's Job?