The Association between Sensitivity, Group Size and Satisfaction

Authors

  • Kamarul Zaman Ahmad Faculty of Business and Accounting, University Malaya, Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32890/mmj2002.6.5

Abstract

Previous research have looked at the relationship between sensitivity and satisfaction, and between group size and satisfaction. However there appears to be no reported studies that have investigated the interacting effects of group size on the relationship between sensitivity and satisfaction. Data from 257 shop floor workers in a light manufacturing plant in the U.K were collected and analysed. Group size was significantly negatively related to satisfaction with co-workers. Statistical tests of hierarchical multiple regression were used to determine the significance of the interaction terms (sensitivity x group size) on pay and co-worker satisfaction. Support for both hypotheses were obtained. Results suggested that group size significantly moderated the relationship between sensitivity and pay satisfaction, and the relationship between sensitivity and co-worker satisfaction. Linear regression plots showed that the relationship between sensitivity and satisfaction (pay and co-worker) were negative in large groups but positive in small groups.

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aamodt, M. G. (1991). Applied Industrial/ Organisational Psychology. California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Bing, M. N. & Burroughs, S. M. (2001). The pre-dictive and interactive affects of equity sen-sitivity in teamwork-oriented organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 271-290. Buboltz, W. C., Ebberwein, C., Watkins, C. E. &

Savickas, M. L. (1995). A comparison of the content, authors and institutions represented in the Career Development Quarterly and the Journal of Vocational Behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46, 216-226.

Caplan, R. D. (1987). Person-environment fit theory and organizations: commensurate di-mensions, time perspectives, and mecha-nisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 248-267.

Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W. & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1992). Handbook for the Sixteen Person-ality Questionnaire. Champaign Illinois: IPAT.

Cohen, J. & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied Multiple Regression/ Correlation Analysis for the Be-havioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Edwards, J. R. (1996). An examination of com-peting versions of the person—environment fit approach to stress. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 39, 2,292—339.

Frank, F. & Anderson, L. R. (1971). Effects of task and group size upon group productivity and member satisfaction. Sociometry, 34, 135-149.

Gati, I., Garty, Y. & Fassa, N. (1996). Using ca-reer related aspects to assess person-environ-ment fit. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 2, 196-206. Hair, J. F. Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. &

Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. (Sth ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Harkins, S. G. (1987). Social loafing and social facilitation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 1-18.

Kerr, N. L. & Bruun, S. E. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses — free-rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1, 78-94.

Kristof, A. (1996). Person-organisation fit: an in-tegrative review of it’s conceptualisations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper.

Meir, E. I., Hadas, C. & Noyfeld, M. (1997). Per-son-environment fit in small army units. Journal of Career Assessment, 5, 21-29. Malaysian Management Journal 6 (1&2), 53-61 (2002) //mmj.uum.edu.my http

Moskowitz, D. S. & Cote, S. (1995). Do interper-sonal traits predict affect — a comparison of 3 models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 5, 915-924.

Muchinsky, P. M. & Monohan, C. J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supple-mentary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 268-277.

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in Personal-ity. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Parsons, F. (1909). Choosing a Vocation. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Pervin, L. A. (1989). Persons, situations, interac-tions: the history and a discussion of theo-tetical models. Academy of Management Re-view, 14, 3, 350-360.

Roberts, H. E. & Foti, R. J. (1998). Evaluating the interaction between self-leadership and work structure in predicting job satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 12, 3, 257-267.

Schneider, B. (1978). Person-situation selection: a review of some ability-situation interaction research. Personnel Psychology, 31, 281-297.

Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group Dynamics. The Psy-chology of Small Group Behavior. New York: McGraw Hill.

Slater, P. E. (1958). Contrasting correlates of group size. Sociometry, 21, 129-139.

Smith. P.C., Kendall L. M. & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement. A Strategy for the Study of Atti-tudes. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company.

Stacey, A. (1965). Inequity in Social Exchange. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychol-ogy, Vol. 2, Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), New York Academic Press.

Worthy, J. C. (1950). Organizational structure and employee morale. American Sociologi-cal Review, 15, 169-179, Malaysian Management Journal 6 (1&2), 53-61 (2002)

Downloads

Published

01-12-2002

Issue

Vol. 6 No. 1&2 (2002): Malaysian Management Journal (MMJ) Vol. 6 No. 1&2 June/December 2002

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Ahmad, K. Z. (2002). The Association between Sensitivity, Group Size and Satisfaction. Malaysian Management Journal, 6(1&2), 53-61. https://doi.org/10.32890/mmj2002.6.5

Research impact

Harvested 2026-09-07
0 citations recorded so far

Counts differ between services because each indexes a different body of literature. None of them is the whole picture.

Identifiers DOI 10.32890/mmj2002.6.5

Most read articles by the same author(s)