Reactions to job content plateaus: examining role ambiguity and hierarchical plateaus as moderators.

Plateauing research often reveals a negative relationship between job content plateauing (i.e., lacking challenge in one's job) and work attitudes. This study explores situations where job content plateauing is associated with fewer negative work attitudes, revealing role ambiguity (i.e., being unclear about job duties and responsibilities) and hierarchical plateauing (i.e., low likelihood of promotions) as moderators of the job content plateau-work attitude relationship. Specifically, job content plateaued employees reported greater job satisfaction and organizational commitment if they were not also experiencing a hierarchical plateau. Job content plateaued employees also reported greater job satisfaction when role ambiguity was low.

**********

Because of the rapidly increasing number of downsizings and layoffs that characterizes the world of work today, it is important to ensure that those employees who are able to remain with their companies can make the best of their career situations. According to recent data from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2004), employers engaged in 1,379 mass layoffs in June 2004, resulting in the loss of jobs for 134,588 individuals. Although this is not a new trend, the pace at which organizations flatten and restructure or rely on outsourcing and teams continues to increase (e.g., Noe, 2002). Therefore, remaining employees will likely face the reality of fewer promotions. As a result, some find themselves experiencing a hierarchical plateau, a point at which the likelihood of hierarchical advancement is low (Ference, Stoner, & Warren, 1977). The longer an employee remains in the same position, the more likely it is that he or she will experience a job content plateau, which can occur when employees become bored with their jobs (Bardwick, 1986). In fact, Bardwick (1986) asserted that "virtually everyone who works in an organization will plateau" (p. 7) at some time in his or her career.

Most of the research examining plateaus has focused on its negative outcomes, including absenteeism (e.g., Near, 1985), reduced satisfaction (e.g., Chao, 1990), and voluntary turnover (e.g., Veiga, 1981). However, little attention has been directed to the notion that in some cases experiencing a plateau may have fewer negative outcomes and may even prove functional for employees. Indeed, some authors have urged researchers to focus on the potential positive outcomes associated with hierarchical and job content plateaus (e.g., Allen, Russell, Poteet, & Dobbins, 1999), arguing that employees may have more positive reactions when experiencing a job content plateau depending on the existence of other factors at work. Identifying the factors that reduce the negative effects of plateaus on work attitudes has the potential to enhance theory development and may provide insight into why some plateaued employees continue to be effective performers whereas others do not (Ference et al., 1977).

The present study fills a gap in the literature by examining the circumstances under which employees who have reached a job content plateau may experience fewer negative work attitudes. We chose to focus on job content plateaus because they are a distinct form of plateauing that has not received much empirical attention, despite substantial scholarly writing on the topic (Bardwick, 1986; Feldman, 1988). In addition, in one of the few empirical studies examining both job content and hierarchical plateaus, job content plateaus were associated with more negative work attitudes than hierarchical plateaus (Allen, Poteet, & Russell, 1998). The work attitudes examined in the present study are job satisfaction (i.e., general positive affective reactions toward one's job) and organizational commitment (i.e., felt loyalty or attachment to one's organization). Research consistently finds that plateauing is negatively related to job satisfaction, although most research focuses on hierarchical plateaus (e.g., Chao, 1990). Organizational commitment is less frequently studied, but it is relevant because plateauing occurs in the context of organizational life, and the experience of a job content plateau may trigger reactions toward the organization as a whole. In addition, two moderator variables are considered as possible buffers of the job content plateau-work attitude relationship: role ambiguity and hierarchical plateau. Role ambiguity indicates a lack of clarity about the duties, responsibilities, and objectives of one's work and is a form of role stress (Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970). We argue, therefore, that for individuals reporting greater role ambiguity, job content plateauing may afford a period of rest that allows them to more effectively cope with the ambiguity they are experiencing in their current jobs. Similarly, job content plateauing may be less detrimental to work attitudes among employees who are not also experiencing a hierarchical plateau because, under these conditions, individuals may still perceive that they have an opportunity for upward advancement.

Existing Research on Plateaus

The earliest comprehensive study of plateauing was provided by Ference et al. (1977). Their model categorized managerial careers in terms of one's current performance and the likelihood of future promotion. Managers who perform at a high level and are likely to be promoted are referred to as "stars" (high-potential employees), those who are high performers but have a low likelihood of promotion are referred to as "solid citizens," low performers with a high likelihood of promotion are "learners" (newcomers or recently promoted managers who have not mastered the position yet), and managers who are low performers with a low likelihood of future promotion are referred to as "deadwood." Thus, solid citizens and deadwood are considered plateaued employees, because they represent employees with a low likelihood of future promotions. Ference et al. also noted that solid citizens, who are effectively hierarchically plateaued, make up the largest group of managers in organizations. However, attention is seldom focused on these employees; learners receive assessment and training, stars receive managerial development, and deadwood are offered training or outplacement (Ference et al., 1977).

Previous conceptualizations of plateaus have typically considered only hierarchical plateaus, often relying on tenure as a measure of plateauing (e.g., Slocum, Cron, Hansen, & Rawlings, 1985; Veiga, 1981). For example, Veiga classified employees as plateaued if tenure in their current position was 7 or more years. He further subdivided these plateaued employees into Ference et al.'s (1977) categories of deadwood and solid citizens, using their average salary increases over the preceding year as a measure of performance. Veiga found that deadwood were more likely than solid citizens to change companies, and both groups of plateaued employees reported significantly lower levels of advancement satisfaction and marketability than did nonplateaued employees.

Bardwick (1986) extended the conceptualization of plateaus to consider three distinct kinds: (a) structural or hierarchical plateaus, which occur as the number of positions and opportunities for upward mobility in organizations decrease; (b) content plateaus, which occur as employees master their current positions and become bored; and (c) life plateaus, which result from an inability to find fulfillment in any area of life. According to Bardwick, this differentiation is important because different types of plateaus may have unique antecedents and outcomes. Moreover, different remedies may exist for various types of plateaus. Allen et al. (1999) also distinguished between hierarchical and job content plateaus, finding some marked differences in the predictors of each. For example, Allen et al. found that peer support, supervisor support, motivation to learn, and education level were more predictive of hierarchical plateaus than job content plateaus, whereas career exploration and organizational tenure were more predictive of hierarchical plateaus than job content plateaus.

Although most research has focused on hierarchical plateaus, in the current business climate understanding job content plateaus seems particularly important. As organizations downsize and restructure, hierarchical plateauing seems inevitable for many employees. Furthermore, there may be fewer practical strategies to reduce this type of plateau. In contrast, there are many potential solutions to job content plateauing, such as lateral promotions, job rotations, and job enrichment. In addition, it has been suggested that most workers may be able to master their jobs after only 3 years (Bardwick, 1986), and if not provided with new challenges, these workers could be on the verge of a job content plateau. Taken together, these findings suggest that job content plateaus are likely to be commonplace but also may be practically remedied by organizational interventions.

Moderators of the Job Content Plateau-Work Attitude Relationship

Despite the negative outcomes associated with plateaus (e.g., Allen et al., 1998; Chao, 1990), it seems likely that situations may exist in which employees may have fewer negative reactions to their plateaued status. In support of this idea, Feldman and Weitz (1988) suggested that plateaus might be functional for employees who need to improve their skills, find balance between their work and family lives, or simply recuperate and gain energy for future work responsibilities. Therefore, employees who feel unsure about their job responsibilities might perceive a job content plateau as an opportunity to reduce the amount of stress present in their current positions. One example of such role stressors is role ambiguity, which occurs when the duties of a position are unspecified or formal definitions of role requirements are lacking (Rizzo et al., 1970). Employees who are unsure what is expected of them by the organization may wish to avoid taking on any added challenge or responsibility. Therefore, the experience of a job content plateau may have less of a negative impact on their work attitudes. In effect, role ambiguity may moderate or buffer the negative relationship typically found between job content plateauing and work attitudes. Thus, we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Perceptions of job content plateauing will be associated with lower levels of job satisfaction. However, role ambiguity will moderate this relationship such that the negative relationship between job content plateauing and job satisfaction will be weaker among employees experiencing high levels of role ambiguity compared with those reporting low levels of role ambiguity.

Hypothesis 2: Perceptions of job content plateauing will be associated with lower levels of organizational commitment. However, role ambiguity will moderate this relationship such that the negative relationship between job content plateauing and organizational commitment will be weaker among employees experiencing high levels of role ambiguity compared with those reporting low levels of role ambiguity.

Another factor that may influence the extent to which a job content plateau relates to negative work attitudes is whether individuals also feel hierarchically plateaued. Specifically, encountering a job content plateau may have less of a negative impact on those who are not also hierarchically plateaued. Employees experiencing a job content plateau may be frustrated with the lack of challenge present in their jobs, but if they still see an opportunity for upward mobility in their careers, they may be more likely to remain more positive about their jobs and the organization as a whole. Thus, we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3: Perceptions of job content plateauing will be associated with lower levels of job satisfaction. However, hierarchical plateauing will moderate this relationship such that the negative relationship between job content plateauing and job satisfaction will be weaker among employees reporting less hierarchical plateauing compared with those reporting more hierarchical plateauing.

Hypothesis 4: Perceptions of job content plateauing will be associated with lower levels of organizational commitment. However, hierarchical plateauing will moderate this relationship such that the negative relationship between job content plateauing and organizational commitment will be weaker among employees reporting less hierarchical plateauing compared with those reporting more hierarchical plateauing.

Method

Participants

The data used in the present study were part of a larger multiorganizational study of job-related relocation. Neither the specific relationships examined in the present study nor the broader topic of job content plateauing has been examined in research published from this data set. Participants were employees from 76 organizations of varying sizes, industries, annual revenues, and employment sectors that had relocated within the previous 5 years. Sixteen states in the United States were represented (85% of sample), along with the United Kingdom (9% of sample) and one province of Canada (6% of sample). The most frequently reported industries were communications (32%) and energy (24%), although nine other industries were represented (e.g., auto, banking, health services, mining). Most organizations were public corporations (70%), with the remainder being private corporations (24%), governmental agencies (3%), and nonprofits (3%). Organizational size varied greatly, with the average number of employees being 74,930 (SD= 155,381; range = 155-750,000).

Of 4,850 randomly selected employees, 1,767 returned usable surveys (36% response rate). However, only 1,708 participants completed the measures necessary for this study. The mean age of participants was 38 years (SD = 8.26), 22% of the respondents were female, and individuals worked in a variety of jobs (e.g., production, technical support, information technology). The most common jobs held by participants were general management (27%), sales/marketing (21%), engineering/research (14%), and financial (10%). Although we do not have data on the racial/ethnic composition of the sample, the organizations participating in the study reported that the characteristics of their workforce were, on average, 78% Caucasian, 14% African American, 5% Hispanic, 2% Asian, and 1% other.

Materials and Procedure

Organizations received cover letters explaining the study and encouraging their participation. Human resource management representatives completed a brief survey that asked for background information on their organizations and distributed surveys to employees. In small organizations, all employees were sampled, and in larger organizations the human resource management representative distributed surveys to a random sample of employees. Participants returned completed surveys directly to the researchers in postage-paid envelopes.

Measures

Job content plateau was measured using Milliman's (1992) six-item scale (see Appendix), which elicited employees' perceptions of the probability of future challenges and responsibilities in their jobs ([alpha] = .78) and has been used in previous research on job content plateauing (e.g., Allen et al., 1998; Allen et al., 1999). Role ambiguity was measured with three items that asked about the clarity of responsibilities, goals, and objectives of employees' jobs ([alpha] = .85; Rizzo et al., 1970). Hierarchical plateau was measured with one item developed for this study. This item asked respondents to indicate how likely it was that they would be asked to relocate again given their current position. The rationale for using this measure is twofold. First, relocation is typically associated with increases in job responsibility and pay, and in many organizations relocation is used to groom individuals for advancement (Brett, 1992; Feldman, 1988; Pinder & Walter, 1984). Second, lack of relocation opportunity is often cited as a reason why some individuals do not achieve the same level of career success as other individuals (Eby, Allen, & Douthitt, 1999; Markham & Pleck, 1986; Stroh, Brett, & Reilly, 1992). As such, individuals' perceptions that they will not be asked to move again is a reasonable surrogate for perceptions of hierarchical plateauing, particularly because the individuals surveyed were working in organizations where mobility is commonplace. Higher scores on this measure indicate greater perceptions of being hierarchically plateaued. Job satisfaction was measured using three items ("All in all, I am satisfied with my job"; "I like my current job"; and "In general, I like working in this organization") that assessed overall job satisfaction ([alpha]= .90; Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1979). Organizational commitment was measured using four items ("I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this organization be successful"; "I talk up this organization to my friends as a great organization to work for"; "For me, this is the best possible of all organizations to work for"; and "I find that my values and the organization's values are very similar") from Porter and Smith's (1970) Organizational Commitment Questionnaire ([alpha] = .83). All items were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale.

Results

The data were analyzed using hierarchical regression to examine the main effects of job content plateau on job satisfaction and organizational commitment, as well as interactive effects with role ambiguity and hierarchical plateau. Because some researchers have found differences in plateauing and work attitudes as a function of employee gender, education level, and pay, these variables were controlled for in all regression models. In addition, organizational size (operationalized as the number of employees worldwide), industry type (dummy coded: public, private, government), and employee job type (dummy coded: e.g., financial, administrative/managerial) were also used as controls because these variables may influence the availability of advancement opportunities or be associated with work attitudes. In Step 1 of the hierarchical sequence, the control variables and main effects were entered. In the second step, the interaction term was entered (e.g., Job Content Plateau x Role Ambiguity, Job Content Plateau x Hierarchical Plateau) and the change in [R.sup.2] for this step of the hierarchical sequence was examined for significance. If both the change in [R.sup.2] for Step 2 and the beta weight associated with the interaction term were significant, a new variable was created to represent high (1 SD above the mean) and low (1 SD below the mean) role ambiguity (or hierarchical plateau). Then we computed partial correlations between plateauing and attitudes for the high and low role ambiguity (hierarchical plateau) groups.

Table 1 provides means, standard deviations, and correlations between study variables. Job content plateau was negatively related to both job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In addition, those experiencing greater role ambiguity as well as those who were hierarchically plateaued reported lower levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment (see Table 1). Table 2 provides results of hierarchical regression analyses for job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In Step 1, the beta weights associated with plateauing and role ambiguity were negative and significant for job satisfaction (see Table 2). Moreover, the increment in [R.sup.2] for the interaction term in Step 2 was significant, F(1, 1709) = 20.29, p < .01. However, Hypothesis 1 was not supported because counter to prediction, the negative relationship between job content plateau and job satisfaction was more pronounced for employees experiencing high levels of role ambiguity ([beta] = -.58) than for those experiencing low levels of role ambiguity ([beta] = -.32). Results also revealed a significant and negative main effect for both hierarchical plateau and job content plateau on job satisfaction (see Table 2). Moreover, the increment in [R.sup.2] for the interaction term was significant in Step 2, F(1, 1698) = 7.43, p < .05. Hypothesis 3 was supported because the negative relationship between job content plateau and job satisfaction was weaker for those who reported less hierarchical plateauing ([beta] = -.53) compared with those who reported more hierarchical plateauing ([beta] = -.57).

With respect to Hypotheses 2 and 4, as expected the beta weight associated with job content plateau and organizational commitment was significant and negative in both equations (see Table 2). Role ambiguity also demonstrated a significant and negative main effect with organizational commitment, but the increment in [R.sup.2] associated with Step 2 was not significant (see Table 2). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was not supported. Hierarchical plateau demonstrated a significant and positive relationship with organizational commitment, and the increment in [R.sup.2] for the interaction term in Step 2 was significant, F(1, 1698) = 13.04, p < .001; see Table 2). Furthermore, Hypothesis 4 received support because a weaker negative relationship was found between job content plateau and organizational commitment among those reporting lower levels of hierarchical plateau ([beta] = -.32) than among those reporting higher levels of hierarchical plateau ([beta] = -.49).

Discussion

These results shed some light on the question of how job content plateaued employees may continue to remain somewhat satisfied and committed by revealing two situations under which employees experiencing a job content plateau may report fewer negative work attitudes. First, when role ambiguity is low, individuals responded less negatively to job content plateaus. Although counter to our prediction, this finding may be a result of the stressful nature of plateauing (e.g., Allen et al., 1998) and role ambiguity (Feldman & Weitz, 1988). Thus, the combined effect of being in a job that lacks challenge and not being sure about the roles and responsibilities associated with one's job appears to engender a particularly negative reaction toward work. Future research should replicate this unexpected finding before reaching solid conclusions about role ambiguity. Moreover, it may be useful to examine how other role stressors, such as role overload and role conflict (Rizzo et al., 1970), may interact with plateauing in predicting work attitudes. For instance, it may be that when individuals feel that their workload is excessive (i.e., high role overload), job content plateauing is associated with fewer negative work attitudes because under such circumstances the heavy workload is at least routine. This may be preferable to working in a job characterized by excessive work demands that are also highly challenging, because the latter situation is likely to lead to greater physical and psychological exhaustion.

The other situation resulting in fewer negative outcomes occurred when job content plateaued employees were not also experiencing a hierarchical plateau. Perhaps those who still perceive the opportunity for upward advancement believe their jobs will become more challenging as they advance, so work attitudes are not as negatively affected by the present lack of challenge on the job. Alternatively, it may be that under these situations the lack of challenge simply matters less to an employee because he or she feels a sense of career satisfaction by the prospect of attaining career goals through upward mobility.

Our findings have several implications for theory. First, we confirmed other researchers' speculations that there may be situations where job content plateaus are not as negative an experience for individuals as might be expected (e.g., Allen et al., 1999). Thus, we encourage additional work on the positive aspects of career plateaus by expanding the outcome variables examined. For example, job content plateauing may have a less negative effect on absenteeism or turnover intentions if individuals feel hopeful about future hierarchical advancement prospects. More broadly, our findings suggest that theoretical work is needed that considers the full range of outcomes, both positive and negative, and speculates on conditions where such outcomes may be likely.

Our findings also have implications for both individual and organizational career management. In situations where individuals experience role ambiguity, they should be proactive in seeking out information from managers and coworkers to clarify job objectives, responsibilities, and expectations in an attempt to reduce this stress (particularly if they are also feeling somewhat stifled in their current jobs). Similarly, organizations should attempt to reduce the amount of role ambiguity present in jobs through the use of clear job descriptions and performance appraisal systems that are aligned closely with job analysis information. Organizations might also consider these results in determining which employees to target for interventions. For example, employees who are also experiencing hierarchical plateaus may be at higher risk of being negatively affected by a job content plateau, and as such they may be more receptive to career management interventions (i.e., job rotations) designed to prevent job content plateaus.

Like all research, the present study has several limitations. One limitation involves the generalizability of findings to other samples. Our sample consisted primarily of middle-aged men working in professional and managerial jobs. Although these sample characteristics are consistent with existing research on plateaus (e.g., Allen et al., 1998; Chao, 1990), they do place boundaries on the types of jobs and individuals to which these findings can be generalized. It also highlights a broader limitation of the literature on plateaus; little is known about the plateau experiences of blue-collar employees. In terms of gender, some researchers have examined gender and plateauing, generally finding small or nonsignificant effects (e.g., Allen et al., 1998; Greenhaus, Parasuraman, & Wormley, 1990). We conducted post hoc regression analyses examining the relationship between gender and plateauing, controlling for education level, pay, organizational size, industry type, and job type. Although the [R.sup.2] associated with both regression models was significant, the beta weight associated with gender was significant only for job content plateauing. As one might expect, women reported higher levels of job content plateaus than men did. Another sample-related limitation is that although our sample was highly diverse in many ways (e.g., wide range of job types; many different organizations, industries, and sectors), participants had relocated for their companies within the preceding 5 years. Thus, participants were likely higher performers ("stars" or "solid citizens" in Ference et al.'s, 1977, terminology) and therefore may have been different from other employees in the organizations studied. However, it is worth noting that research on plateauing typically focuses on managerial and professional employees (e.g., Allen et al., 1998; Allen et al., 1999; Veiga, 1981), and these individuals also tend to be highly mobile geographically (Brett, 1992; Feldman, 1988). Using a sample of recently relocated individuals may also provide an alternative explanation for the findings related to role ambiguity. Specifically, because participants had relocated within the past 5 years, they may not have been plateaued long enough to experience the benefits presumed to accompany the period of stability afforded by a plateau. These limitations highlight the need for longitudinal research to better understand not only the conditions under which individuals may benefit from job content plateaus, but also when they may find plateaus helpful.

Another limitation involves the research design. The design was cross-sectional, and the measures were self-reports. This type of design leads to concerns about common method bias and reverse causality. However, the correlations between study variables in Table 1 suggest little evidence of multicollinearity. In addition, common method bias would not explain the pattern of interactions obtained across study variables. In terms of reverse causality, it seems unlikely that work attitudes would create perceptions of a job content plateau. The use of a single-item measure of hierarchical plateau is also a limitation. Although the use of single-item measures is less than ideal, single-item measures are frequently used to measure unidimensional constructs, including work reactions. Perhaps more important, numerous studies find that single-item measures have comparable validity to multi-items measures of the same construct (e.g., Cook & Perri, 2004; Dunham, Smith, & Blackburn, 1977; Gardner, Cummings, Dunham, & Pierce, 1998; Nagy, 2002; Patrician, 2004; Wanous, Reichers, & Hudy, 1997).

A final limitation involves the moderators examined in the present study. First, we focused on only two moderator variables. Most likely there are other potential moderators of the job content plateau-work attitude relationship. For example, individual factors such as age, financial security, risk aversion, and need for achievement may play a role in one's attitudes toward being plateaued. Future research should examine the moderating role of additional variables. Second, the increment in [R.sup.2] associated with the interaction effects was very small, which may raise concerns about practical significance. However, it should be noted that interactions generally account for far less variance in prediction than do main effects because of the difficulty in detecting interactions in field settings and issues related to statistical power detecting interactions with moderated regression techniques (Aguinis, 2004; Champoux & Peters, 1987). In fact, in a review of 22 studies of the job design literature, Champoux and Peters found that the median [DELTA][R.sup.2] associated with interaction terms was .02 (2% of the variance explained) and concluded that the [DELTA][R.sup.2] is not the most informative measure of practical significance with respect to interactions. Moreover, the practical value of an interaction effect is not necessarily commensurate with the magnitude of the [DELTA][R.sup.2] in the same way that main effects are (Aguinis, 2004; Champoux & Peters, 1987).

In summary, the present study provides some initial evidence that perhaps a more optimistic view of job content plateaus is warranted. Furthermore, we demonstrate the importance of examining moderator variables to understand the job content plateau-work attitude relationship. It is hoped that the present study can be used as a springboard for additional empirical and theoretical work on the job content plateau.

References

Aguinis, H. (2004). Regression analysis for categorical moderators. New York: Guilford Press.

Allen, T. D., Poteet, M. L., & Russell, J. E. A. (1998). Attitudes of managers who are more or less career plateaucd. The Career Development Quarterly, 47, 159-172.

Allen, T. D., Russell, J. E. A., Poteet, M. L., & Dobbins, G. H. (1999). Learning and development factors related to perceptions of job content and hierarchical plateauing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1113-1137.

Bardwick, J. M. (1986). The plateauing trap: How to avoid it in your career. New York: Amacom.

Brett, J. M. (1992). Job transfer. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 7, 323-362.

Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Champoux, J. E., & Peters, W. S. (1987). Form, effect size, and power in moderated regression analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 60, 243-255.

Chao, G. T. (1990). Exploration of the conceptualization and measurement of career plateau: A comparative analysis. Journal of Management, 16, 181-193.

Cook, C. L., & Perri, M. (2004). Single-item vs. multiple-item measure of stage of change in compliance with prescribed medications. Psychological Reports, 94, 115-124.

Dunham, R. B., Smith, F. J., & Blackburn, R. S. (1977). Validation of the Index of Organizational Reactions with the JDI, the MSQ, and Faces Scales. Academy of Management Journal, 20, 420-432.

Eby, L. T., Allen, T. D., & Douthitt, S. S. (1999). The role of nonperformance factors on job-related relocation opportunities: A field study and laboratory experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, 29-55.

Feldman, D. C. (1988). Managing careers in organizations. New York: Scott, Foresman.

Feldman, D. C., & Weitz, B. A. (1988). Career plateaus reconsidered. Journal of Management, 14, 69-80.

Ference, T. P., Stoner, J. A., & Warren, E. K. (1977). Managing the career plateau. Academy of Management Review, 2, 602-612.

Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., Dunham, R. B., & Pierce, J. L. (1998). Single-item versus multiple-item measurement scales: An empirical comparison. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 898-915.

Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W. M. (1990). Effects of race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 64-86.

Markham, W. T., & Pleck, J. H. (1986). Sex and willingness to move for occupational advancement: Some national sample results. Sociological Quarterly, 27, 121-143.

Milliman, J. F. (1992). Causes, consequences, and moderating factors of career plateauing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Nagy, M. S. (2002). Using a single-item approach to measure facet job satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 77-86.

Near, J. P. (1985). A discriminant analysis of plateaued versus nonplateaued managers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 26, 177-188.

Noe, R. A. (2002). Employee training and development (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Patrician, P. A. (2004). Single-item graphic representational scales. Nursing Research, 53, 347-352.

Pinder, C. C., & Walter, G. A. (1984). Personnel transfer and employee development. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 2, 187-218.

Porter, L. W., & Smith, F. J. (1970). The etiology of organizational commitment. Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Irvine.

Rizzo, J. R., House, J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163.

Slocum, J. W., Jr., Cron, W. L., Hansen, R. W., & Rawlings, S. (1985). Business strategy and the management of plateaued employees. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 133-154.

Stroh, L. K., Brett, J. M., & Reilly, A. H. (1992). All the right stuff: A comparison of female and male managers' career progression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 251-260.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2004). Mass layoffs in June 2004. Retrieved August, 25,2004, from http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/archives/mmls_07222004.pdf

Veiga, J. F. (1981). Plateaued versus non-plateaued managers: Career patterns, attitudes, and path potential. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 566-578.

Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247-252.

APPENDIX

Job Content Plateau Items

1. I do not expect to be constantly challenged in my job in the future.

2. I will not continue to learn and grow in my current job.

3. My current job tasks and activities will become routine for me in the future.

4. My current job responsibilities will not increase significantly in the future.

5. My current job will not continually require me to develop my abilities and knowledge.

6. I will not be challenged in my current job.

Carrie S. McCleese and Lillian T. Eby, Department of Psychology, The University of Georgia. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Carrie S. McCleese, Psychology Building, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-3013 (e-mail: [e-mail]).

TABLE 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Between Study
Variables

Independent Variable          M          SD          1       2

1. Job content plateau             2.73        0.92  --
2. Role ambiguity                  2.91        1.31   .32**  --
3. Hierarchical plateau            3.44        1.75   .06**   .10**
4. Gender                                             .06*    .01
5. Education level                 3.05        0.82   .06**   .13**
6. Pay.                            2.93        1.07  -.04     .00
7. Organizational size        74,929     155,382      .04     .04
8. Job satisfaction                5.62        1.13  -.55**  -.46**
9. Organizational commitment       5.26        1.13  -.44**  -.41**

Independent Variable          3       4       5       6    7      8

1. Job content plateau
2. Role ambiguity
3. Hierarchical plateau       --
4. Gender                      .00    --
5. Education level             .01    -.10**  --
6. Pay.                        .03    -.23**   .27**  --
7. Organizational size        -.05    -.00     .03    .03  --
8. Job satisfaction           -.10**  -.00    -.11**  .02  -.05*  --
9. Organizational commitment  -.09**   .00    -.08**  .01  -.05*  .66**

Note. Education level was coded 1 = high school degree; 2 = some
college; 3 = college degree; 4 = master's degree; 5 = PhD. Pay was
measured in terms of employees' annual salary and coded 1 = under
$35,000; 2 = $35,001-$50,000; 3 = $50,001-$75,000; 4 = $75,001-$100,000;
5 = $100,001 and above. Organizational size was measured in terms of the
number of employees worldwide.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

TABLE 2 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Completed on Job
Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment

                        Job              Organizational
                        Satisfaction     Commitment
Independent Variable    Step 1  Step 2   Step 1  Step 2

                              Role Ambiguity

Gender                   .03      .03     .05      .05
Education level         -.04*    -.04*   -.11**   -.11**
Pay                      .02      .02     .04*     .04*
Organizational size     -.01     -.01    -.00     -.00
Industry type            .04*     .04*    .10**    .09**
Job type                -.00     -.01    -.08**   -.08**
Job content plateau     -.44**   -.26**  -.34**   -.40**
Role ambiguity          -.31**   -.09*   -.27**   -.34**
Interaction                      -.34**            .10
[R.sup.2] at each step   .39**    .40**   .31**    .31**
[DELTA][R.sup.2]                  .01              .00
F for [DELTA][R.sup.2]          20.29**           1.49

                              Hierarchical Plateau

Gender                   .03      .03     .04*     .04*
Education level         -.07**   -.07**  -.13**   -.13**
Pay                      .03      .03     .05*     .04*
Organizational size     -.02     -.02    -.01     -.01
Industry type            .05*     .04*    .11**    .10**
Job type                -.04*    -.04*   -.11**   -.11**
Job content plateau     -.53**   -.43**  -.42**   -.28**
Hierarchical plateau    -.06**    .10    -.05**    .16**
Interaction                      -.20**           -.27**
[R.sup.2] at each step   .31**    .31**   .25**    .26**
[DELTA] [R.sup.2]                 .00              .01
F for [DELTA][R.sup.2]           7.43*           13.04**

Note. Values given in the table are standardized regression weights.
*p < .05, one-tailed. **p < .01, one-tailed.