engaged in engagement: we are delighted we did it in engagement: we are delighted we did it ......

RESPONSE

Engaged in Engagement: We AreDelighted We Did It

WILLIAM H. MACEYValtera Corporation

BENJAMIN SCHNEIDER2Valtera Corporation and University of Maryland

AbstractWe emphasize that science and practice issues are equally salient when pursuing thinking and research onemployee engagement. We agree with much of what the commentaries have to say, especially that organizationalcompetitive advantage is the relevant focus of engagement research and practice and that engagement is not a newconstruct but one that required clarification vis-a-vis existing constructs. We also agree that state engagement canbe highly variable, that disengagement needs study, that negative situations can induce engagement behaviors,that engagement surveys should yield actionable data, and that people can be hired who are more likely to beengaged. We disagree with the idea that all employee attitudes are essentially equal and that existing conceptu-alizations of performance make engagement behavior a nonuseful construct.

We eagerly anticipated the commentaries,and as we expected, we have now seena diverse set of ideas, some building onwhatwe provided, others seeking to clarify, andyet others taking positions quite differentfrom our own. To all of those, we say ‘‘yes!’’Yes to those who say engagement is behav-ior, yes to thosewho say engagement is state,and yes to those who say the focus shouldbe on trait individual differences. It wouldnot be possible for us to reconcile thesecommentaries; rather, we simply agree thatengagement is all of those things and empha-size our position that engagement is aninclusive multidimensional construct.

We feel it necessary to repeat that wewrote our paper to bridge science and prac-tice by (a) noting how survey practiceincludes much of what we think of as

engagement but does so in inconsistentand sporadic ways and (b) identifying thefacets of existing scholarly constructs (in-volvement, satisfaction, and commitment)that tap the construct as we define it. To thatpoint, the commentaries prove that scholarsand practitioners think and speak aboutengagement in different ways. Interestingly,10 of the 13 commentaries are written byscholars in academic settings; 1 of the 3remaining (Harter & Schmidt) arguably wasprepared from a nonpractitioner point ofview. We do not find that troublesome asmuch as indicative of the size of the gapbetween what scholars and practitionerssee as relevant and important vis-a-vis theusefulness of the engagement construct. Asa result,muchof our reply is directed (appro-priately for some audiences) at framing thenuances important for scientific purposesso that they are useful in practice. That 3is,because we wrote our focal article in anattempt to bridge the practitioner–science

William H. Macey, Valtera Corporation; BenjaminSchneider, Valtera Corporation and University ofMaryland.

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1 (2008), 79–86.Copyright ª 2008 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 1754-9426/08

79

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

535455

BI O P S 0 0 1 6

Journal Name Manuscript No.

Dispatch: 21.12.07 Journal: IOPS CE: Tamil Selvi

Author Received: No. of pages: 8 ME: Pradeep

gap, and the arguments presented in thecommentaries are largely focused on thescience side of the issues, the balance ofour reply will be to ‘‘interpret’’ what we havelearned from the academic commentariesfor the practitioner audience.

In what follows, we have clustered thevarious commentaries into four clusters.The first cluster concerns the issue of organi-zational effectiveness because we believethis is where thinking about everythingrelated to engagement needs to be. The sec-ond cluster addresses in some detail issueshaving to do with operationalization of theengagement construct. The third cluster isa series of issues raised appropriately bycommentators and that are important forconsideration as part of the engagementconstruct space. The fourth and last clusterquestions whether we even need the en-gagement construct given all of the workon job attitudes that already exists. By put-ting this issue last, readers can seewe think itis not correct in its assumptions.

Engagement and Organizational

Effectiveness

The intended focus of our article was onorganizational effectiveness. Graen remindsus of that, and we concur with his view thatwe need methods for facilitating successfulchange in organizations and that having anengaged employee base can facilitate suchchange when needed. Pugh and Dietz arealso concerned with organizational effec-tiveness and the ways by which the engage-ment construct can be studied at differentlevels of analysis. A very nice part of theircontribution is the thought that the organiza-tion is an appropriate unit of analysis notonly for behavioral engagement but also forstate and trait engagement as well. That is animportant contribution, for it highlightswhatour sponsors pay for; that is, they pay us forimprovements in organizational effective-ness, and all facets of the engagement con-struct can be studied at that level. Executivescare about creating competitive advantagefor their organizations so they sponsor em-ployee survey research programs to drive

organizational change. The kind of researchparadigm implemented by researchers atGallup (Harter & Schmidt), for example,illustrates that point. Their intra- and inter-company linkage research implicitly recog-nizes that what matters to the sponsor iscreating a difference at the unit and organi-zational level and that surveydata need to beactionable in order to achieve that. In a realsense, they argue, what you call ‘‘it’’ is notrelevant. What is relevant, they might con-tinue, is that ‘‘it’’ works, and the fact thatmanagement has adopted a new label for‘‘it’’ is only important because ‘‘it’’ is a newway to sell old wine.

In our ownwork,we also stress the impor-tance of using survey results to drive organi-zational effectiveness but we believe thatour sponsors deserve more specific ways tothink about and measure engagement. Tomakeour case about employee engagement,we both focus on helping them think aboutwhat engagement means and then focuson organizational criteria that matter. Withregard to what engagement means, we donot agree with Newman and Harrison thatit does notmatter what you call it or howyoumeasure it because it is all the same thing.Our sponsors understand the differencebetween satiation (satisfaction) and vigor(energy) and are interested for different rea-sons in both; we say more about this later.

With regard to organizational criteriathat matter, examples of the kinds of cri-teria that we think are important include (a)organization-level customer satisfaction data,as they are known indicators of cash flowand brand equity, (b) return on assets, (c)profits, and (d) shareholder value once cor-rected for the replacement cost of assets.These criteria speak directly to competitiveadvantage and their relevance is unques-tioned. And we have evidence that bothstate and behavioral engagement at thecompany level of analysis (as Pugh andDietzsuggest) relate significantly to these competi-tive advantage outcomes (Schneider, Macey,Young, & Lee, 2007).

The question of how individual engage-ment feelings and behaviors emerge to cre-ate organizational success is complex, and

80 W.H. Macey and B. Schneider1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253

we are in need of models that help us todescribe that phenomenon. Griffin, Parker,and Neal make an important point in thisregard. As they indicate, what wewould callengagement behavior (and within theirmodel are labeled proactivity and adaptiv-ity) can have individual, team, and organi-zational referents. We believe this is a mosthelpful and critical point because it estab-lishes how engagement behaviors aggregateto create organizational effectiveness. Tothe scholar, this provides a way to discusshow different behaviors emerge at differentlevels of analysis. To the practitioner, itpoints a path to the kinds of interventionsthat can impact behavior that we call en-gagement while keeping a sharp focus onorganizational effectiveness as the criterion.We think that is a powerful contribution onboth fronts.

When we talk about employee surveydata to our clients, we point out that ourfocus is not individual feelings and behav-iors (and survey results) but the aggregateresults for awork group, a larger unit of focuswithin the company, or the whole company.An important pointworthmaking here is thatour reference point for thinking about whatis positive with regard to levels of engage-ment changes aswe consider different levelsof analysis within an organization. The unitmanager responsible for a work group of 10frontline employees thinks very differentlyabout the meaning of 8 out of 10 peoplebeing engaged than does a divisionmanagerwho thinks about 8,000 out of 10,000; theseare the same proportion with very differentimplications for the kinds of interventionsthey think about and the likely consequen-ces of their change efforts.

In summary, we think it essential thatresearchers and practitioners have companycompetitive advantage as their starting pointwhen thinking about employee engagementand that research should operate at that levelof analysis or, at aminimum, at the unit levelof analysis. We firmly believe that studiesaround individual variability may be alrightfor academic pursuits but they are not usefulwhen it comes to corporate competitive ad-vantage. Evidence is beginning to accumu-

late that research under the engagementrubric or allied concepts reveals significanteffects on important organizational out-comes. Thus, work on organizational energy(Bruch, Cole, Vogel, &Menges, in press) andpositive organizational behavior (Luthans &Youssef, 2007), as well as our own work onengagement (Schneider et al., 2007), isencouraging.

Operationalization Issues

Meyer and Gagne remind us that there is noconsensus on how to measure engagement,a point made in detail by Newman andHarrison in their comparison of the Utrechtengagement items typically found in themeasurement of the overlapping psycholog-ical constructs we identified. Their table onthis comparison makes the following pointperfectly: The typical employee opinion sur-vey contains items that tap the engagementconstruct space as we define it but they arespread out among large numbers of itemsthat are not specifically relevant to engage-ment and theyare not scored as engagement.We made no claims to have invented a newconstruct; we claimed that it existed but hadnot been well defined.

In fact, in current survey practice, themost commonoperationalization of engage-ment includes questions that relate to orga-nizational loyalty (or the ‘‘intent to stay withthe organization’’), pride (or the ‘‘willingnessto recommend the company to a friend’’),and overall satisfaction with the company.Indeed, it is the latter mix of typical surveyquestions ostensibly defining engagementthat prompted our original concern overthe meaning of engagement when we setout to draw the distinctions between the var-ious psychological constructs that overlapwith the meaning of state engagement.

Pugh and Dietz make the point that ques-tions tapping behavioral engagement shouldbe written at the unit level. We agree, and inour own work ask respondents to describewhat they see in the behavior of otherswithin their work unit (persistence, adapt-ability, and taking initiative). Our approachextends the earlier work of Schneider and

Engaged1 in engagement 811234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253

colleagues (Schneider, White, & Paul, 1998)on organizational climate, and our engage-ment behavior results can be interpreted interms of a ‘‘climate for engagement.’’

On a related point, we agree with Saks(2006) that it is important to distinguishamong work roles in our survey questions.We4 made the point in our manuscript thatdifferent psychological constructs that over-lap with engagement differ in terms of theorganizational and job referent (p. 15). Thatreferent is often explicit butwe agree that theinterpretation of job and organizationalreferents is often ignored in practice (thesame is true for global measures of ‘‘satisfac-tion’’). However, we disagree with theapproach of crafting items that use ‘‘engage-ment’’ as either a state or a verb in the word-ing, such as in ‘‘I am highly engaged in thisorganization’’ or ‘‘I amhighly engaged in thisjob’’ (Saks, 2006). To extend Griffin et al.’spoint, there is a need to craft survey itemsthat address the form of behavior that wewould call ‘‘engagement.’’ When that formis clear, the link to organizational effective-ness is clear by design. In5 an earlier manu-script (Macey & Schneider, 2006), we showhow the differences suggested by Griffinet al. in the behavioral focus of items (in thatcase OCB items) yield very different rela-tionships with strategically specific organi-zational criteria (in that case, customersatisfaction).

Harter and Schmidt correctly indicatethatweposition engagement differently thanthey do and suggest measuring it differently.Aswe stated in our focal article, engagementis not measured by indicators of the workenvironment. It is important to understandthat Harter and Schmidt present their modelof engagement in formative terms. That is,they measure engagement in a model where12 individual components are formed incomposite as causes of engagement, notreflective indicators of engagement. Asnoted by MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Jarvis(2005), the ‘‘full meaning of the compositelatent construct is derived from its meas-ures.’’ A nontrivial point is that any othermeaning of engagement not measured isnot part of the engagement definition. In this

context, Harter and Schmidt’s causes ofengagement completely define the con-struct, nothing less and nothing more.

We do not disagree with the choice todevelop a formative model of engagement.Also, we absolutely agree that employee sur-veys should measure important actionableaspects of the work environment that leadto employee engagement, and we think thatthe kinds of conditions represented in theQ12� are important to measure in thatregard. However, in their own words, the‘‘Q12� measure comprises ‘engagementconditions,’ each of which is a causal con-tributor.’’ However, given the nature of theformative model, that means that sayingengagement occurs when ‘‘individuals areemotionally connected and cognitively vigi-lant’’ simply is not allowable as it requires aninference not supported by the nature of themodel. Therefore, we do not understandhow measures of the causes of engagementcan be extended to embrace a definition ofa psychological state outside the formativeindicators used todefine the latent construct.So, we agree that certain measures of thework environment are causes of engage-ment; we reiterate the point that measuresof work environment characteristics are notmeasures of engagement.

Newman and Harrison suggest that anymeasure of state engagement is simply re-dundantwithwhat alreadyexists. They furthersuggest that their attitudinal–engagementmodel fully captures the measures of be-havioral engagement and that they are likelyto be colinear with measures of state en-gagement. Building on their earlier work(Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006), theysuggest that engagement is a broad behav-ioral construct embracing the entire domainof in-role, extra-role, andwithdrawal behav-iors. We do not argue with their data. Wesimply argue with its relevance.

Newman and Harrison argue that wehave relabeled reshuffled items. The pointwe made in our propositions was that itemsthat capture the energic and affective com-ponents of existing constructs overlap withthe conceptual domain of engagement. Wedo not claim that the notion of engagement


captured by these items is simply anothermanifestation of the same latent generaljob attitudinal construct. We would expectthat a measure embracing the kinds of ques-tions tapping the energic and affectivecomponents—the very kinds of questionsthat are represented in the Utrecht scale—would correlatemore highly with the kind ofcriteria we believe we should be predictingthan would, for example, the Faces scale.We agree that this is an empirical proposi-tion, but from a practical standpoint, it begsthe issue of what engagement is; we tried toshow what it is and how it is related to whatalready exists.

The criterion we have in mind when wethink about engagement is not a generalbehavioral criterion such as Newman andHarrison have in mind. It is helpful toremember that Fishbein and Ajzen (1975)made the point that it is the match in spe-cificity between criterion and attitudinalmeasure that matters. This is confirmed byHarrison et al. (2006). Elsewhere, we (Macey& Schneider, 2006) have emphasized theimportance of defining behavioral engage-ment in a way that has strategic relevance,a point expressed by Griffin et al., as wenoted earlier, who suggest that we considerthe form of behavior that is organizationallyrelevant. Executiveswouldsay this is amatterof alignment. We argue and demonstrate(Macey&Schneider, 2006) howcompetitiveadvantage is best attained through engage-ment behavior aligned with organizationalgoals. Engagement conceived of as a notionthat encompasses all forms of in-role, extra-role, and withdrawal behavior misses thetarget of strategic relevance.

We again emphasize our point of agree-ment with Harter and Schmidt that it is crit-ical that survey data be actionable. There isno practical value in a measurement pro-gram that has as a single measure generalemployee attitudes toward work. What mat-ters is in the details. Employee surveys arevaluable tools only when they lead to actionwith the intent to improve organizationaleffectiveness. Our goal as practitioners isnot to establish a single measure most pre-dictive of a general criterion but to build

models for communicating survey resultsthat can be used to foster lasting and relevantchange.

In summary, we have clearly not solvedthe problem of operationalizing engage-ment. What the commentaries have done ispermit us to further illuminate (a) the issueswe see as in the engagement construct spaceand those that are formative of it, (b) the factthat engagement is not just another manifes-tation of a generic job attitude, and (c) theimportance of designing employee surveysthat are actionable.

Some Things We Wished We Said

On state engagement and intraindividualvariability. We agree with Dalal, Brum-mel, Wee, and Thomas that consideration ofintraindividual variance in state engagementis important. This is the issueofwhether or notstate engagement is stable over time for peo-ple or has variability. In the article, we notedthat executives are concerned with movingthe needle in the aggregate, that is, acrosspeople but we did not focus on the variabilityitself. An extension of the issue Dalal et al.raise is to ask the following question: Do weas practitioners have a responsibility to figureout how to change the relative frequency ofengaging moments in ways that avoid burn-out? That is, people cannot expend theirenergy at the highest levels all the time—there is a need for recovery to ensure contin-ued employee well-being. We wish we hadexplored that issuemore fully because a per-sistent state of engagement could be toomuch of a good thing.

Interventions to enhance engagement donot need to focus exclusively on the workenvironment. Burke shows us that thekinds of behaviors that management wantsto see happen can be influenced greatlythrough interventions focused on skill-basedlearning and not just on factors influenc-ing the immediate work environment. Weclearly missed this point. As Burke alsopoints out, engagement is important notjust in role performance but in the learningenvironment. Both have implications for


organizational success. Burke also notedthat the engagement construct is not all thatnew because it has been used in other socialscience disciplines; we should have alsonoted that.

Engagement matters most under conditionsof uncertainty. Griffin et al. remind usthat engagement kinds of behavior (proactiv-ity and adaptivity),whether at the individual,team, or organizational level, can be bestunderstood as a result of and in a context ofuncertainty. Indeed, the idea that engage-ment is a most relevant construct in today’schanging world of uncertainty was alsoeffectively made by many people includingGraen, Vosburgh, Masson, Royal, Agnew,and Fine and Frese. This point reminds usas well of the position that an effectiveapproach to organizational strategy is tobuild an organization designed to be adapt-able (Courtney, 2001).

Disengagement deserves attention. Al-though we specifically chose to not addressthe opposites of engagement, we agree withMasson et al. that it is important to under-stand the continuum of engagement. Thereis much interesting work along these linesby Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) that speaksto what the opposites of engagementmight be. As food for thought, it is helpfulto consider that disengagement can havedifferent meanings. For one, it can be con-sidered a passive response. However, it canalso have a more toxic meaning, as impliedby Masson et al. when they refer to ‘‘activedisengagement.’’ To the scholar, there aresignificant opportunities for fleshing outthe structure of engagement and its oppo-site(s) as well as the relevant moderators.For the practitioner, it means there is nopanacea of an engagement solution andthat boundary conditions exist on the likelyeffectiveness of interventions to promoteengagement or remedy disengagement,perhaps including burnout. We would alsoadd that we need to be very careful inromancing the notion of engagement whenit embraces behaviors more closely alignedwith workaholic tendencies that are dys-

functional to the individual and eventuallyto the organization.

What can pass as engagement is oftencaused by negative situations. Frese focu-ses our attention on the fact that certainbehaviors that we would nominally identifyas engagement are often the result of some-thing other than being positively engaged inwork. We agree that certain behaviors thatwe would consider adaptive responses tothework environment can be driven by statesof dissatisfaction and/or alienation from thework itself. This is a critical point not justbecause it speaks to how different statescan drive behavior, as Griffin et al. also note,but because it highlights the importance ofwhat organizations do to sustain engage-ment. Although we agree with Frese, wewould also submit that the kinds of behaviorsthat are specifically aligned with organiza-tional goals are more likely to be determinedby positive mind-sets than negative psycho-logical states.

We can hire people disposed to engage.While 6wenoted the importance of trait enga-gement and spoke to it briefly, Vosburghidentifies the significant opportunity forI–O psychologists by telling us exactly whatorganizations need: People who are predis-posed to be engaged. It is critical to note hissecond point: After hiring such people, youmust then create the work environment toensure that the individual energy employeesbring to the job can become manifest and isthen sustained.

Hirschfield and Thomas add significantlyto this perspective by addressing how theconstruct of agency can be used to representtrait engagement and thereby show the pathto addressing Vosburgh’s need. The variousconstructs that are captured within theagentic orientation include achievementstriving, the proactive personality, intrinsicmotivation orientation, as well as trait posi-tive affectivity. From the vantage point of lastto speak, we would add that measures ofcore self-efficacy could hold significantpromise for those looking to that specificpredictive measure. Hirschfield and Thomas


also suggest that measures of work centralitywould complement such measures. For thepractitioner, there is a clear suggestion of theviability of biodata-based measures for pre-dicting engagement behavior. Of course, wedo need to emphasize Vosburgh’s point thatit is essential to provide a work environmentthat permits this agentic or engagementorientation to flourish.

Is Engagement a Necessary

Construct at All?

We remind the reader that we did not inventthe term ‘‘engagement.’’ Rather, we haveresponded to the use of the term by tryingto carefully articulate how engagement canbe understood in terms of many well-researched constructs in the I–O literature.Readers of this journal may very well takea different position but that will not changein any way the use of the term in the humanresources and management communities.We believe I–O psychologists are betterserved by considering how they addressthose communities in terms of our science.To that end, the polemicofwhat engagementis and how it can be reasonably communi-cated is vitally important to the visibility andpractice of our profession.

Arguably, the debate on these pages illus-trates what is called by management schol-ars the ‘‘research–practice gap’’ (also calledevidence-based management; Pfeffer &Sutton, 2006). The significance of this gapis evidenced by the fact that much of a cur-rent issue of the Academy of ManagementJournal (Rynes, 2007) is devoted to this topicas is much of the Academy of ManagementLearning and Education (Ashkanasy, 2007).

We will not speculate here on why thisgap exists, but we were certainly surprisedby the balance of the commentaries andspecifically by their seemingly exclusiveresearch-focused nature, with little appar-ent empathy for what practitioners strugglewith when dealing with their clients andpotential sponsors. The notion, for exam-ple, that all job attitudes are the same thingsimply does not square with the experien-ces of managers—and does not square with

our experiences either. It does not squarewithmanagers orwith us because the impli-cations for interventions are so different asa function of the items used in the surveyson which action might be based.

Conclusion

We began our exploration of the conceptualspace of the engagement construct froma practice perspective:What is this constructevery practitioner and consulting firm is talk-ing about? We discovered that the constructwas being used in many different ways bymany different people and we decided toclarify what it means. That is, if we weregoing to have a measure, we wanted to beclear about the conceptual space the mea-sure would occupy. Much to our delight, thesearch produced a paper that has resulted insome excellent minds presenting their ownperspectives on what we wrote and whatthey have written. We have learned muchfrom the commentaries and could not bemore enthused about the viability of theengagement construct!

We hope that the focal article and thecommentaries help scholars locate interest-ing questions for further research. We alsoobviously hope that the article and the com-mentaries produce for practitioners increas-ing insights into what engagement is, howit can be measured, and the potential posi-tive organizational competitive advantageslurking with effective measurement andchange efforts.

References

Ashkanasy, N. M. (2007). From the editor: Evidence-based inquiry: Learning, and education: What arethe pros and cons? Academy of Management Learn-ing and Education, 6, 5–8.

Bruch, H., Cole, M., Vogel, B., & Menges, J. (in press).Linking productive organizational energy to firmperformance and individuals’ satisfaction. Journalof Organizational Behavior. 7

Courtney, H. (2001). 20/20 foresight, crafting strategyin an uncertain world. Boston: Harvard BusinessSchool Press.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, inten-tion, and behavior: An introduction to theory andresearch. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006)How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic


comparisons of integrativebehavioral outcomes andtime sequences. Academy of Management Journal,40, 305–325.

Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positiveorganizational behavior. Journal of Management,33, 321–349.

Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2006). Employee expe-riences and customer satisfaction: Toward a frame-work for survey design with a focus on serviceclimate. InA. I. Kraut (Ed.),Getting action fromorga-nizational surveys:Newconcepts, technologies andapplications (pp. 53–75). New York: Pfeiffer/Wiley.8

MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Jarvis, C.(2005). The problem of measurement model mis-specification in behavioral and organizationalresearch and some recommended solutions. Journalof Applied Psychology, 90, 710–730.

May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). Thepsychological conditions of meaningfulness, safetyand availability and the engagement of the humanspirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organi-zational Psychology, 77, 11–37.9

Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006). Hard facts, dangeroushalf-truths, and total nonsense. Boston: HarvardBusiness School Press.

Rynes, S. L. (2007). Editor’s forward: Tackling the ‘‘greatdivide’’ between research production and dissemi-nation in human resources management. Academyof Management Journal, 50, 985–987.

Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequencesof employee engagement. Journal of ManagerialPsychology, 21, 600–619.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands,job resources and their relationship with burnoutand engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 25, 293–315.

Schneider, B., Macey, W. H., Lee, W., & Young, S. A.(2007). Employee engagement: Fad, fashion andfolderol—with some validity (Working paper).Rolling Meadows, IL: Valtera Corporation. 10

Schneider, B.,White, S. S., & Paul,M. C. (1998). Linkingservice climate and customer perceptions of servicequality: Test of a causal model. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 83, 150–163.


Author Query Form

Journal: Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Article : iops_16

Dear Author,

During the copy-editing of your paper, the following queries arose. Please respond tothese by marking up your proofs with the necessary changes/additions. Please write youranswers on the query sheet if there is insufficient space on the page proofs. Please writeclearly and follow the conventions shown on the attached corrections sheet. If returningthe proof by fax do not write too close to the paper’s edge. Please remember that illegiblemark-ups may delay publication.Many thanks for your assistance.

QueryNo.

Query Remark

1 Please check the short title introduced.

2 Please indicate the corresponding author along with the department

name (if any), complete address, city, state, ZIP code, and e-mail in

the correspondence field.

3 Please clarify if ‘‘practitioner–science’’ in the sentence ‘‘That is,

since we wrote our .’’ can be changed to ‘‘practice–science.’’

4 Please provide the opening and closing quotes in the sentence ‘‘We

made the point in our manuscript .’’

5 Please clarify if ‘‘OCB’’ in the sentence ‘‘In an earlier manuscript,

.’’ can be spelled out as ‘‘organizational citizenship behavior.’’

6 Please clarify if ‘‘I–O’’ in the sentence ‘‘While we noted the

importance .’’ can be defined as ‘‘industrial–organizational.’’

7 Please update ‘‘Bruch et al. (in press).’’

8 Please retain any one publisher name for ‘‘Macey and Schneider

(2006).’’

9 Please note that ‘‘May et al. (2004)’’ is not cited. Please add an

in-text citation or delete from the list and also please check the edits

to the journal title.

10 Please provide the working paper number (if any) for ‘‘Schneider

et al. (2007).’’

engaged in engagement: we are delighted we did it in engagement: we are delighted we did it ......

Documents