| Course | IOP-5100 Industrial and Organizational Psychology |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 7 |
| Paper type | Written assignment: organizational attitudes and behaviors |
| Length | About 543 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | Master of Science in Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for IOP 5100 Module 7
Feelings With Consequences: Using an Engagement Survey to Reduce Agent Turnover
Student Name
Master of Science in Management, Thomas Edison State University
IOP-5100: Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
Feelings With Consequences: Using an Engagement Survey to Reduce Agent Turnover
The Survey
In March, 391 of our 450 agents, 87 percent, completed a 24-item survey covering satisfaction with pay, schedules, supervisors and the work itself, commitment to the company and engagement. Annual agent turnover is 46 percent, and leadership hopes the survey will explain it.
Three Different Attitudes
The survey mixes three attitudes that research treats separately. Job satisfaction is how people feel about their job and its parts. Meyer et al. (2002) split organizational commitment into three kinds: wanting to stay because one feels attached (affective), needing to stay because leaving costs too much (continuance) and feeling one ought to stay (normative). Engagement, as measured in Harter et al. (2002), combines satisfaction with conditions that let people do their best work, such as clear expectations, the right tools and recognition. Treating them as one score would hide which matters for which outcome.
What Research Says
Judge et al. (2001) reviewed the long-debated link between job satisfaction and performance and found a moderate correlation, about 0.30, stronger than earlier reviews had concluded, though the direction of influence remains uncertain. Meyer et al. (2002) found in a meta-analysis that affective commitment had the strongest negative relationship with turnover intentions and turnover among the three forms, and positive relationships with attendance and performance. Harter et al. (2002) compared thousands of business units in many firms and found the units whose people were more satisfied and engaged also had happier customers, higher output and profit and fewer people quitting.
Our Results
Pay satisfaction is low everywhere and varies little, so it cannot explain why some teams lose agents faster than others. Satisfaction with the supervisor, affective commitment and recognition vary widely by team. When we matched survey results to team turnover over the previous year, teams in the bottom third on supervisor satisfaction and recognition had turnover of 61 percent, compared with 33 percent for teams in the top third. This is a correlation from one survey and could reflect other differences among teams, but it is consistent with the research.
| Measure | Center average (1 to 5) | Range across 32 teams |
|---|---|---|
| Satisfaction with pay | 2.6 | 2.3 to 2.9 |
| Satisfaction with supervisor | 3.4 | 2.1 to 4.5 |
| Affective commitment | 3.0 | 2.0 to 4.1 |
| "I know what is expected of me at work" | 3.9 | 3.2 to 4.6 |
| "In the last seven days I received recognition" | 2.4 | 1.4 to 3.8 |
Recommendations
First, report results to each team, not only the center average, since action belongs where the variation is. Second, ask each supervisor to hold a team meeting on the results within a month and choose one action, with recognition as the default focus where scores are lowest. Third, train supervisors in brief, specific recognition during call monitoring, a practice that costs little. Fourth, address pay at the center level through a market review, since it is a shared concern, but do not expect it alone to change turnover differences between teams. Fifth, resurvey in six months and compare changes with turnover.
Conclusion
Attitudes matter because of their consequences. Research links affective commitment most strongly to turnover and unit-level engagement to service outcomes. Our survey points to supervisors and recognition, which vary by team, as the most promising targets.
References
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376-407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20-52. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842
IOP 5100 Module 7 instructions, in plain terms
IOP-5100's Module 7, Organizational Attitudes and Behaviors, is paired here with one of the eight written assignments that together count for 48 percent, as the syllabus does not place them by module. Expect to define job satisfaction, organizational commitment and engagement, explain what research shows about their links to performance, turnover and citizenship behavior, and apply that research to data or a situation in an organization. Muchinsky and Culbertson's chapter on attitudes is the starting point, with meta-analyses providing the evidence. If you have survey results, analyze them; if not, describe how you would measure attitudes and what you would do with the results. Keep the three attitudes distinct throughout, because research links each to different outcomes.
How this IOP 5100 Module 7 example is built
The paper begins with a real survey, its response rate and the turnover leaders hope it will explain. It separates satisfaction, the three forms of commitment and engagement before reading any numbers. Three meta-analyses supply the evidence: Judge and colleagues on satisfaction and performance, Meyer and colleagues on commitment and turnover, and Harter, Schmidt and Hayes on unit-level outcomes. A five-row table shows center averages and team ranges, and the analysis finds that supervisor satisfaction and recognition, not pay, vary with team turnover, with a caution about correlation. Five recommendations follow, from team reporting to a six-month resurvey. A caution reminds the reader that one survey shows association, not cause.
Reading the IOP 5100 Module 7 grading rubric
Mentors grade this assignment on accurate definitions, correct use of research findings, careful analysis of evidence, practical recommendations and APA writing. Papers earn credit for distinguishing attitudes that are often confused and linking each to the outcomes research associates with it. Reporting effect sizes from meta-analyses, rather than saying satisfaction causes performance, shows care. Looking at variation across units, not only averages, shows analytical skill. Recommendations aimed at the attitudes most linked to the problem, with a plan to measure change, show applied judgment. Mentors also credit plans to measure again, since attitudes can be changed and the change should be checked against outcomes. Credit also goes to actions aimed where the problem sits, in a team or across the center.
Common IOP 5100 Module 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Common weaknesses include treating satisfaction, commitment and engagement as the same thing, claiming that happy workers are always productive and recommending broad culture programs with no link to the data. Others act on overall averages that hide team differences. Define each attitude, report what meta-analyses found with their effect sizes, look for where your data vary and connect that variation to outcomes. Recommend specific actions at the level where the problem lies, and plan to measure again. For a free first draft of your IOP-5100 Module 7 assignment, send your survey or situation. Report response rates and how many people answered in each unit, so readers know how much to trust each result.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More IOP 5100 and Master of Science in Management sample papers
- IOP 5100 Module 1: Discussion: What a Century of I/O Psychology Still Explains About a Call Center
- IOP 5100 Module 2: Written Assignment: Designing a Study of Whether Shift Bidding Cuts Absences
- IOP 5100 Module 3: Written Assignment: Validity, Utility and Fairness in Judging a Chat Agent Test
- IOP 5100 Module 4: Written Assignment: Choosing Predictors for Hiring Contact Center Agents
- IOP 5100 Module 5: Written Assignment: Combining Scores and Setting Cut Scores for Agent Hiring
- IOP 5100 Module 6: Written Assignment: Rebuilding Performance Appraisal for Contact Center Agents
- IOP 5100 Module 8: Written Assignment: Burnout on the Phones and the Demands and Resources Behind It
- IOP 5100 Module 9: Written Assignment: Motivating Agents Beyond the Handle-Time Target
- IOP 5100 Module 10: Discussion: Which Leadership Research Fits a Contact Center Supervisor?
- ORG 5020 Module 3: Five Lenses on Leading an Automation Change
- MKM 5600 Module 1: Challenge Questions: A Roaster Enters Grocery
- EIO 5200 Module 2: Written Assignment: Make or Buy and the Boundaries of the Firm
- LCO 6100 Module 2: Module Paper: Urgency, a Coalition and a Vision for the Second Attempt
IOP 5100 Module 7 questions, answered
Where can I find a free IOP 5100 Module 7 sample paper?
The paper above analyzes a contact center's engagement survey to target agent turnover.
Does job satisfaction predict job performance?
Judge and colleagues found a moderate correlation of about 0.30, though the direction of influence is not settled.
What are the three forms of organizational commitment?
Affective, continuance and normative commitment, with affective commitment most strongly linked to lower turnover.
Is employee engagement linked to business outcomes?
Harter, Schmidt and Hayes found business units with higher engagement had better customer satisfaction, productivity, profit and turnover.
Why look at survey results by team?
Because attitudes such as satisfaction with the supervisor vary across teams, and averages hide where action is needed.