Employees' Job Satisfaction and Performance - Coursework Example

ITGM01: Applied Research Methods Employees' job satisfaction and performance I. Literature Review Researchers have historically attempted to show a link between individual employee satisfaction and performance, but results have often been inconclusive (laffaldano & Muchinsky,1985). Part of this could be attributable to the limited performance domain that has been studied. The continual broadening of the performance realm has helped researchers address more issues in the unexpectedly complicated employee satisfaction performance connection. Employee Satisfaction. Employee job satisfaction has been described under different names including employee engagement, employee involvement and employee attitudes; in the 1930s the use of the term "morale" was very common (Judge et al., 2001 a). Sometimes these terms are used interchangeably and at other times distinctions are drawn. For example, Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes (2002) made a distinction between employee engagement and satisfaction by referring to the former as an ". . .individuals involvement and satisfaction with as well as enthusiasm for work" (p. 269). Harter et al. acknowledge that engagement typically accounts for a significant portion of the variance in overall employee satisfaction but still decided to make a distinction and use the term employee engagement to differentiate these actionable work group level facets from the more generalizable theoretical construct of employee satisfaction (p. 269). Harter and his colleagues found a high correlation between the two constructs (p = .91) in their meta-analysis and very similar true score correlations with various outcomes including customer satisfaction, profit, and turnover; uncorrected correlations demonstrated even greater convergence. As far back as the 1930s, many organizations were already measuring employee attitudes and morale (Schneider, Ashworth, Higgs, & Carr, 1996). Interest in employee satisfaction has a long history, but most observers point to the Hawthorne studies (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939) as the starting point for research on the satisfaction-performance relationship. Although exploring this association was not the original intent of the Hawthorne studies, it nonetheless served as an impetus for stimulating more research in this area. Since this time, it has been estimated that over 30 constructs have been investigated as either antecedents or consequences of employee satisfaction (Brown & Peterson, 1993). Even with the great number of outcomes studied, past research exploring the relationship between employee satisfaction and performance has been largely inconsistent (cf. Bhagat, 1982). A review of the literature points to several potential reasons why previous research has not found a consistent relationship between the two constructs. Evidence is now mounting that indicates some researchers may have erroneously concluded that satisfaction and performance are not related. In the area of job performance, for instance, researchers have spent more time attempting to delineate its predictors, instead of focusing on the construct itself (Austin & Villanova,1992; Campbell, 1990); the same can be said for the study of employee satisfaction. It is a difficult task to understand a relationship without knowledge of the many behaviors that comprise job performance (Hulin & Judge, 2003). Although researchers have begun to remedy this deficiency (e.g., Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sager, 1993; Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000; Viswesvaran, Schmidt, & Ones, 2005), the vast majority of satisfaction performance studies were conducted before these theories were available to draw upon. This left many early researchers attempting to predict organizational outcomes based on limited theoretical rationale. The lack of a relationship between employee satisfaction and performance could be due to the limited performance domain that has conventionally been studied (Organ, 1988). Accordingly, studies have moved from attempting to predict traditional outcomes, such as turnover (Mobley, 1977; Spencer & Steers., 1981), to more recently developed constructs like organizational citizenship behavior (OCB; Konovsky & Organ, 1996; Koys, 2001; Organ & Ryan, 1995). Broadening the performance realm has allowed researchers to demonstrate that employee satisfaction is predictive of other important outcomes and this has served to stimulate renewed interest in the construct and its correlates. Another possibility is that employee satisfaction and job performance are weakly related through a process of distal mediation. Research is needed on these mediating factors and will be necessary to help tease apart the possible indirect causal nature of this relationship (Hulin & Judge, 2003). As discussed below, the current study examines several hypothesized mediators (e.g., efficiency) in an attempt to enhance organizational knowledge and understanding in this area. One of the most cogent suggestions for the low correlation between job satisfaction and performance is based on the level of analysis that has typically been evaluated. In a widely cited and influential meta analysis, Iaffaldano and Muchinsky (1985) reported a modest correlation of .17 between individual employee satisfaction and performance. A more recent meta analysis found a larger correlation of .30 between the same constructs (Judge et al., 2001b). Both of these meta analyses included samples at the individual level of analysis. Research on employee satisfaction has experienced a renaissance of sorts. Where skepticism once reigned, more optimism now exists and there is again additional reason to care about how workers feel about their jobs. The study of this link has again moved past a conceptual desirability and back to a promising empirical area of inquiry based on recent research findings. In particular, the results of the aforementioned meta analysis by Judge and colleagues should spur more researchers to consider studying employee satisfaction in earnest. Their meta analysis was based on individual data and still came to a promising conclusion; these findings could be even more positive when aggregate data are used (Ostroff, 1993). Antecedents of Employee Satisfaction. Researchers have spent a considerable amount of time and effort attempting to delineate various determinants of employee satisfaction. Research long ago moved beyond the narrow assumption that pay is all that matters, and has turned to examining other aspects of employee satisfaction in more detail. Cotton and Tuttle (1986) suggest that employee satisfaction results from a combination of work related, personality and external variables. Studies have explored work related characteristics of the job such as autonomy (Loher, Noe, Moeler, & Fitzgerald, 1985) and equity perceptions (Janssen, 2001) in an attempt to better understand the prediction of employee satisfaction. Other researchers have looked beyond job characteristics and have examined factors as diverse as the core self evaluation personality construct (Judge & Bono, 2001; Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2003), affectivity (Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000), genetics (Arvey, Bouchard, Segal, & Abraham, 1989; Bouchard, 1997), and even the impact of terrorist attacks on employee satisfaction (Ryan, West, & Carr, 2003). More recently, the genetic foundation of employee satisfaction established by Arvey and colleagues has been shown to be mediated by affect and personality variables (Ilies & Judge, 2003). More specifically, Ilies and Judge found that the Big 5 personality traits mediate nearly 24% of the genetic influence on employee satisfaction; positive and negative affect account for roughly 45% of the effects. Other studies have also shown a strong relationship between affectivity and employee satisfaction (e.g., Griffin, 2001). In a large meta analysis, affective states were found to be moderately correlated with employee satisfaction (Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, Warren, & de Chermont, 2003). Interestingly, even after reliability corrections, satisfaction correlated the same ( .34), albeit in the opposite direction, with positive and negative affect. Although the meta-analysis clearly demonstrated that the two constructs have an influence on one another, issues of causality are yet to be resolved. This parallels the larger employee satisfaction literature where empirical investigations involving issues of causality remain one of the most pressing areas of research need and where longitudinal data are required. Outcomes of Employee Satisfaction. With all of the effort directed towards understanding antecedents of employee satisfaction, one would expect to know a great deal on the other end about what it is predictive of. This is not the case. The conceptual link between employee satisfaction and performance is easy to grasp, but the empirical link has been more elusive. Job Performance. As mentioned, the study of the employee satisfaction-performance relationship is one of the most hallowed traditions in industrial and organizational psychology and is almost as old as the field itself (Judge et al., 2001b). Even with this strong tradition, attempts to demonstrate the validity of the claim that employee satisfaction leads to job performance have not been as easy and straightforward as expected. The literature reviews of Brayfield and Crockett (1955) and Vroom (1964) both reached the same conclusion and asserted that small correlations were to be found across all domains and that there was only dubious support for the hypothesis that satisfaction leads to performance. As mentioned, Iaffaldano and Muchinsky (1985) reported a moderate correlation of only. 17 in a meta analysis that involved 217 correlations across 74 studies. These findings led some researchers to summarily dismiss this line of research and others to at times question their own results if they were incongruent. The amount of credence given to the results of Iaffaldano and Muchinsky is probably no more apparent than in a recent study conducted on job satisfaction and performance in temporary employees. Ellingson, Gruys, and Sackett (1998) found a correlation of.30 between overall satisfaction and job performance. The authors were skeptical of this finding that and obtained another measure of performance for a subset of the sample. This subset had a correlation (.16) more similar to what was expected. It may have been more appropriate to instead examine reasons why the unique sample of temporary workers showed a higher correlation between satisfaction and performance. Despite, and perhaps because of, these less than desirable findings, others have taken a more optimistic view of the relationship. The assumption that employee satisfaction should be related to job performance continues to intrigue organizational researchers. It seems as if the elusiveness of the desired link between satisfaction and performance has only served to stimulate more critical thinking about research in this domain. A recent broad scale meta analysis (Judge et al., 2001b) found a much stronger relationship between satisfaction and performance than has previously been found. In addition, Judge and colleagues reanalyzed the Iaffaldano and Muchinsky (1985) dataset and were able to identify analytic decisions that led to the lower correlations that were reported. In particular, they noted that Iaffaldano and Muchinsky improperly considered facet employee satisfaction scores. Facet scores of satisfaction were each treated as an overall score. This led to violations of the independence assumption and to a downwardly biased estimate of the true relationship. Judge and his colleagues more appropriately created composite satisfaction scores from each of the facet scores in any given study. This maintained the independence assumption and also resulted in a higher correlation than was previously reported based on the facet score approach. In addition, Iaffaldano and Muchinsky only included published studies in their meta analysis and used internal consistency estimates of reliability for job performance, which attenuates the size of the corrected correlations, and potentially underestimates the true correlation. Internal consistency estimates generally result in an overestimation of reliability for job performance assessment and impact the corrected correlation (Viswesvaran, Ones, & Schmidt, 1996). When Judge and colleagues reanalyzed the results, taking these points into consideration, results across the two meta analyses were more comparable and supported their hypothesis that Iaffaldano and Muchinsky's results were a downwardly biased estimate. It should also be noted that one meta analysis was actually conducted before Iaffaldano and Muchinsky. Petty, McGee, and Cavender (1984) located 16 studies (20 r's) and reported a true score correlation of .31(.23 before correction). However, given the large size of the laffaldano and Muchinsky analysis, and because that two studies were published one year apart, the meta analysis of Petty and colleagues is generally overlooked. In fact, Petty et al. acknowledged that their results could be regarded as inconclusive until larger meta analyses are conducted on the topic. Ironically, their overlooked results (in terms of the overall correlation) are similar to the findings of Judge and colleagues (2001). Research on employee satisfaction has experienced a renaissance of sorts. Where skepticism once reigned, more optimism now exists and there is again additional reason to care about how workers feel about their jobs. The study of this link has again moved past a conceptual desirability and back to a promising empirical area of inquiry based on recent research findings. In particular, the results of the aforementioned meta analysis by Judge and colleagues should spur more researchers to consider studying employee satisfaction in earnest. Their meta analysis was based on individual data and still came to a promising conclusion; these findings could be even more positive when aggregate data are used (Ostroff, 1993). The employee satisfaction job performance relationship has been depicted in many ways. Judge and colleagues (2001b) provide a discussion of seven of the most prominent, which I briefly review. The two simplest models propose that a) satisfaction leads to performance, or b) performance leads to satisfaction. A third model proposes that there is a reciprocal relationship between the two constructs. The fourth model suggests a spurious relationship (i.e., an unmeasured variable accounts for the association) and the fifth model proposes that moderators are involved. The sixth model postulates no relationship and the final model suggests that a new conceptualization is needed to include other variables (e.g., affect). Enough evidence has now been collected to indicate that the sixth model is not plausible. Even the generally negative conclusions presented by laffaldano and Muchinsky (1985) are large enough (i.e., correlations) to fail to support it at the individual level of analysis. Initial studies (e.g., Koys, 2001) have also failed to support the sixth model at the aggregate level of analysis. The profit chain postulates that employee satisfaction, customer satisfaction, and performance are all intertwined. Other important variables such as employee turnover are also involved in the profit chain. According to this perspective, when one of these suffers, the others will be detrimentally impacted. The reciprocal relationship postulated by Heskett and his colleagues, which they have termed the satisfaction mirror, underscores the need to incorporate longitudinal data into studies of this nature. Reciprocal models of employee satisfaction are perhaps the most intriguing conceptual model (Schneider et al., 2003) and need continued research. Although the profit chain can be interpreted at both the individual and organizational levels, most of the supportingAlthough the relationship between satisfaction and performance can be depicted bivariately, it is best understood in an integrated manner. Accordingly, on the basis of their meta analytic findings, Judge and colleagues (2001b) combined the models above into a unified framework, which also considers the impact of mediating variables. In this dissertation I test how several proposed mediators fit into the model. It is incumbent upon researchers to determine what variables should be considered causally dependent (March & Sutton, 1997). The empirical findings on the employee satisfaction performance link are equivocal and research is needed to shed light on issues of causality. It is not known if employee satisfaction leads to job performance or if the reverse is true. What is known, however, is that a positive relationship nearly always emerges and evidence increasingly indicates that employee satisfaction is related to a variety of specific job behaviors (Hulin & Judge, 2003). Even if these correlations are not large, they can generate significant cost savings when thousands of individuals are involved and their output is combined. Models with short term (e.g., efficiency) and long term (e.g., profit) outcomes need to be developed and tested (Harter et al., 2002). Proposed Hypothesis Hypothesis 1: There is a positive correlation between job performance and job satisfaction. II. Methodology In this research, quantitative research method is selected. Data Collection Based on Castle (2007), a Job Satisfaction Questionnaire which contains a 22-question instrument consisting of seven subscales is constructed. The seven subscales are: 1. Coworkers subscale, which measures relations with other workers in the facility. 2. Work demands subscale, which measures resources and demands of the job. 3. Work content, which measures the complexity and challenges of the work. 4. Work load subscale, which measures time pressures. 5. Training subscale, which measures preparation for the position. 6. Rewards subscale, which measures benefits of the job. 7. Quality of care subscale, which measures how well nurse aides perceive residents are cared for. In addition, two global job satisfaction questions are included on the questionnaire. A visual analogue rating scale is used by respondents to answer the questions. The scale ranges from 1 to 10, with the higher numbers indicating a more preferable score. The questionnaire was developed using a review of the literature, an expert panel, and cognitive testing with nurse aides (Castle, 2004). Cognitive testing is a method used to verify that respondents understand the question asked and are able to respond to the question. This approach of using nurse aides in developing the instrument ensured the instrument had both face validity and content validity. The reliability of the final instrument will be validated using the selected sample. The psychometric properties of the instrument were described previously as extremely robust (Castle, 2004). Cronbach's alphas for all of the subscales will be tested (Saunders et al., 2006). Types of Data The questionnaire will be mailed to employees of selected organizations. To establish a study population, a sample of facilities willing to participate was first needed. A random facility sample of approximately of nursing homes from five random states (New York, Oregon, Michigan, Colorado, and Florida) was chosen (Saunders et al., 2006). III. Data Analysis Descriptive analyses were performed for each of the questionnaire items. The total sample percent or mean and distribution of scores also were determined for each subscale (Saunders et al., 2006). A model will be tested with the following equation: Performance = b0 + b1 Job Satisfaction ………………….. eq. (1) IV. Ethical Issues This study must carefully monitor respondents’ ethical concerns. Sometimes employees may not truly reflect their attitude of job satisfaction due to limited time frame. V. Limitations The questionnaire may be subject to some limitations. For example, the developers purposefully chose not to use negatively worded items because this was shown to confuse some nurse aides. However, because of this approach, a response set bias may result, wherein respondents may use the same response categories for all questions. In addition, the performance will be self-evaluation. Sometimes, it may not be able to exclude the bias. References: Arvey, R. D., Bouchard, T. J., Segal, N. L., & Abraham, L. M. (1989). Job satisfaction: Environmental and genetic components. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,187192. Austin, J. T., & Villanova, P. D. (1992). The criterion problem: 1917 1992. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 836 874. Bhagat, R. S. (1982). Conditions under which stronger job performance job satisfaction relationships may be observed: A closer look at two situational contingencies. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 772 789. Brown, S. P., & Peterson, R. A. (1993). Antecedents and consequences of salesperson job satisfaction: Meta analysis and assessment of causal effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 63 77. Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 687 732). Palo Alto: CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 35 70). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Connolly, J. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2000). The role of affectivity in job satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 265 281. Cook, W. L., & Kenny, D. A. (2004). Application of the social relations model to family assessment. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 361 371. Cotton, J. L., & Tuttle, J. M. (1986). Employee turnover: A meta analysis and review with implications for research. Academy of Management Review, 11, 55 70. Dalton, D. R., Krackhardt, D. M., & Porter, L. W. (1981). Functional Turnover: An empirical assessment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 716 721. Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463 488. Griffin, M. A. (2001). Dispositions and work reactions: A multilevel approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,1142 1151. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business unit level relationships between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268 279. Hulin, C. L., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Job attitudes. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 255 276). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Iaffaldano, M. T., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 251 273. Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2003). On the heritability of job satisfaction: The mediating role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 750 759. Janssen, 0. (2001). Fairness perceptions as a moderator of the relationships between job demands, and job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 44,1039 1050. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self evaluation traits Self¬ esteem, generalized self efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80 92. Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self evaluations scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56, 303 332. Judge, T. A., Parker, S., Colbert, A. E., Heller, D., & Vies, R. (2001). Job satisfaction: A cross cultural review. In N. Anderson, D. Ones, H. Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 25 52). London: Sage. 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, 3, 376 407. Konovsky, M. A., & Organ, D. W. (1996). Dispositional and contextual determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 253-266. Koys, D. J. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and turnover on organizational effectiveness: A unit level, longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 2001,101 114. Kozlowski, S. W., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal and emergent properties. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 3 90). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Loher, B. T., Noe, R. A., Moeler, N. L., & Fitzgerals, M. P. (1985). A meta analysis of the relation of job characteristics to job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 280 289. Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 237 240. Organ, D. W. (1988). A restatement of the satisfaction performance hypothesis. Journal of Management,14, 547 557. Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802. Petty, M. M., McGee, G. W., & Cavender, J. W. (1984). A meta analysis of the relationships between individual job satisfaction and individual performance. Academy of Management Review, 9, 712 721. Ryan, A. M., West, B. J., & Carr, J. Z. (2003). Effects of the terrorist attacks of 9111101 on employee attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 647 659. Schlesinger, L. A., & Zornitsky, J. (1991). Job satisfaction, service capability, and customer satisfaction: An examination of linkages and management implications. Human Resource Planning, 14,141 149. Spencer, D. G., & Steers, R. M. (1981). Performance as a moderator of the job satisfaction turnvover relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 511 514. Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., Warren, C. R., & Chermont, K. d. (2003). The affective underpinnings of j ob perceptions and attitudes: A meta analytic review and integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 914 945. Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Perspectives on Models of Job Performance.International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 216 226. Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 557- 574. Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Ones, D. S. (2005). Is there a general factor in ratings of job performance? A meta analytic framework for disentangling substantive and error influences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,108 131. Castle, Nicholas G. Assessing Job Satisfaction of Nurse Aides in Nursing Homes: The Nursing Home Nurse Aide Job Satisfaction Questionnaire. Journal of Gerontological Nursing. Thorofare: May 2007. Vol.33, Iss. 5; pg. 41 Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A. 2006 .Research Methods for Business Students 3rd edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Read More