Lecture 13* March 16

Job Satisfaction and performance: Is a Happy Worker a Productive Worker?

For decades, researchers have been concerned with the job satisfaction-job performance relationship (the implicit assumption guiding this research has been that a happy worker is a productive worker).

Even William Shakespeare wrote: "To business that we love we eagerly arise, and go to with delight."

3 performance related outcomes of job satisfaction have been studied over the years:

• performance measures (ratings, quantity measures)
• absenteeism
• turnover

1. Correlational analyses: Incontrovertible evidence that satisfaction and performance are weakly related

Recent meta-analysis by Muchinsky & Iaffaldano (1985) found corrected r = .17

2. Causal analysis suggests that performance is more likely to cause satisfaction than vice versa (a productive worker is a happy worker)
3. It should be noted that some moderators of the job satisfaction – job performance relationship have been found. Specifically, the strength of the correlation between satisfaction and performance depends on performance-reward contingencies: higher correlations have been found when rewards are strongly tied to performance.

1. First of all, research has adopted a very narrow view of performance (productivity or supervisory ratings). These measures are highly contaminated.
2. Situational (and ability) constraints on performance often exist (can’t perform as well as one wants)
3. Performance floor effects exist for dissatisfaction: both organizational sanctions and self-esteem prevent dissatisfied workers from performing too poorly.

1. Bivariate studies: weak negative relationship between satisfaction and absenteeism (-.25 Johns, 1997)
2. Multivariate studies: job satisfaction rarely predicts absenteeism over the effects of other variables, age, sex, prior absence, organizational policies and group absence rates.
3. other researchers argue that absenteeism is the result of social exchange processes between workers and the organization and the "absence culture" that exists within an organization (Chadwick-Jones, Nicholson & Brown, 1982, Johns & Nicholson, 1982)

Absence-culture is defined as "the set of shared understandings about absence legitimacy… and the established ‘custom and practice’ of employee absence behavior and its control" (Johns & Nicholson, 1982, p.136)

Conclusion: satisfaction may affect the motivation to attend, but other organizational, group, and individual variables have a more direct influence on actual attendance behavior.

Research evidence:

1. A weak negative relationship between job satisfaction and turnover exists (-.40)
2. Satisfaction rarely emerges as a significant predictor in multivariate studies
3. Satisfaction may be one component of the turnover decision process, but many other factors are important too, including availability of other jobs.

Categories of OCBs:

1. Altruism
2. Conscientiousness
3. Promoting the organization’s image

Organ (1988): job satisfaction should be more strongly related to OCBs than in-role behavior because of their discretionary nature.

Organ (1988): job satisfaction more strongly linked to OCB than to job performance (rs = .30)

George & Brief (1992): job affect (mood) is related to OCBs.

Recent meta-analysis (Shotland and Traver, 1995) suggests a much lower correlation between job satisfaction and OCBs.

What Causes Job Satisfaction: The Situation Or the Person?

(causes of job satisfaction)

Descriptive studies of job satisfaction

Definition: a "hedonic variable -- a point on a pleasant-unpleasant continuum that (has) implications for action"

• Although distributions of job satisfaction ratings are skewed (most people report being satisfied), there is still considerable variability in satisfaction ratings.

What is responsible for this variability?

• Situational Perspective: satisfaction varies because work conditions vary
• Dispositional Perspective: satisfaction varies because affective dispositions vary

1. Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory

Job Content factors ("motivators"), such as responsibility, recognition, the nature of work itself, are responsible for presence or absence of job satisfaction.

Job Context factors ("hygiene factors") such as pay and working conditions are responsible for the presence or absence of job dissatisfaction.

2. Equity-based models

Lawler's Facet satisfaction model: satisfaction is a function of the extent to which the perceived amount of job rewards one receives matches the perceived deserved rewards.

3. Locke's Value theory

Satisfaction is a function of the extent to which one's job is perceived as fulfilling important values; do perceived job characteristics match desired characteristics? - Satisfaction is determined by the discrepancy between preferred levels of job factors (pay, autonomy, etc.) and the actual level.

4. Job Enrichment Research

e.g., Loher et al.: complexity has a positive effect on job satisfaction

Vroom (1964) - job satisfaction = valence of the job; differences in valence of jobs are due in part to differences in properties of jobs.

Positively valent outcomes: use of skills & abilities, control over pacing, decision authority.

Differences in satisfaction rates among occupations reflect differences in job properties:

Graph. Showing satisfaction (%) for employees in different occupations (ranging from unskilled(=low) to professionals(=high))

Situational Approach: the evidence

Empirical work suggest that satisfaction relates to the nature of the work itself, social relationships at work, and economic benefits of work.

Variables most strongly related to satisfaction:

Variable : Correlation with satisfaction

Autonomy +

Perceived control +

Complexity +

Pay level +

Coworker Satisfaction +

Workload _

Quality of interpersonal +

relationships

Dispositional Approaches

Staw & Ross (1985) : job attitudes are highly stable across situations, indicating a dispositional influence.

In their study, they examined the correlation of job satisfaction ratings of workers over various time intervals (controlling for changes in employers and occupations).

Observed test-retest correlations:

1 month: .71

1 year: .57

3-5 years: .30-.40

This was taken as evidence that job attitudes are more a function of the person, than the situation.

Dispositional Approaches: The Evidence

Staw et al. (1986): studied the influence of affective disposition on job attitudes over long period of time

• Subjects: IGS data from Berkeley studies
• Measures of personality traits and affective disposition as adolescents was obtained from the studies initial data. Job satisfaction measured at two points in time in adulthood (up to 50 years later).
• results: overall job attitudes as adults was significantly predicted from affective disposition during early adolescence.

Arvey, Bouchard, Segal, & Abraham (1989) - the stability of job satisfaction may have a genetic basis

• examined 34 pairs of monozygotic twins reared apart.

- Twins were more alike in terms of job attitudes than non-twins

• Suggested that 30% of observed variance in job satisfaction can be attributed to genetic factors (even when controlling for job characteristics).
• The Situational Proponents Respond:
• Gerhart (1987) - large national probability sample.
• Predicted current job satisfaction from (1) prior satisfaction (3 yrs prior), pay, and job complexity.
• Found that pay, status and job complexity predicted current job satisfaction over and above the effects of past job satisfaction.
• Job complexity was the strongest predictor of current job satisfaction.
• These results counter Staw's suggestion that job design interventions are not likely to work because of dispositional basis of job satisfaction ratings.

Summary of "What work related variables determine satisfaction?"

More important factors conducive to job satisfaction are:

• mentally challenging wok
• equitable rewards
• supportive working conditions
• supportive colleagues
• personality-job fit
• It’s in the genes (Robbins, 1998)