2.d.4 Job Satisfaction and Performance PDF

Preview

Summary

Gramham Rodwell...

Description

2.d.4 Job Satisfaction and Performance    Measures of job satisfaction and job related well being are important in themselves as indicators of the overall quality of work life. But for the last eighty years, considerable effort has gone into trying to make a ‘business case’ for paying attention to job satisfaction and other attitudes by showing that they are related to performance. However, about thirty years ago an influential meta-analysis of 74 studies was published by laffaldano and Muchinsky (1985) in which they concluded that job satisfaction and job performance were “only slightly related to each other”. This “finding” was included in many reviews and textbooks. For example, the work psychologist Michael Argyle wrote that there was a “modestly positive” correlation of about 0.15 between job satisfaction and productivity, absenteeism and labour turnover (Argyle 1989).   Over the last two decades, the premature conclusion by Iaffaldano and Muchinsky has been re-evaluated. (see note below) When Judge and colleagues used a different approach to analysis, they recalculated the correlation as 0.33. (Judge et.al. 2001) When they added additional studies, they found, from 254 studies, an overall correlation of 0.30. Conventionally, a correlation of this size is described as (just) ‘moderate’. In general, the relationship tended to be stronger in high complexity and administrative work where performance levels may be more under the control of the worker.  Since the meta-analysis by Judge, a number of similar meta-analyses have been carried out on the relationship between job satisfaction and different work outcomes including: voluntary behaviour that benefits the organization (OCB), motivation, employee health, counterproductive work behaviours, absenteeism, lateness, absence frequency, absence duration, days of sick leave, coworker aggression and turnover. Judge et. al. (2009) calculated the average correlation between job satisfaction and these outcomes as 0.22. (see Table 1 in the next text). In other words, job satisfaction is clearly related to a wide range of outcomes. The strength of relationships, they said, “are not large but neither are they negligible”.  Although there may typically be a weak to moderate correlation between job satisfaction and a wide range of outcomes, this does not necessarily mean that changes to job satisfaction are likely to have much effect on performance or behaviour. In other words, the strength of correlation does not necessarily indicate the strength of causation. Some of the correlation may be due to the reverse effects of performance on job satisfaction. People who perform better may sometimes feel more satisfied with their work. In addition there may be third variables which affect both performance and job satisfaction. For example, someone who is conscientious and emotionally stable may perform better and also be more satisfied. In her Masters thesis, Cook (2008) found that, when she controlled

for personality traits, the residual correlation between job satisfaction and performance dropped from 0.3 to 0.18.  One way of exploring causation is through the use of panel studies. In a panel study, the variables are measured at two or more times. For example, a group of workers may complete a job satisfaction questionnaire and have their performance rated at time 1 and then again six months later. The researchers then correlate the measures at time 1 with the measures at time 2. If the level of satisfaction at time 1 can help predict performance at time 2, then this is some indication of a causal connection. Riketta (2009) carried out a meta-analysis of 16 panel studies looking at the relationship between job satisfaction and performance over periods from 1.5 to 18 months. Although he found a ‘statistically significant’ relationship (i.e. a relationship that is unlikely to be due to chance), the relationship was quite small.  The overall results of these studies may appear quite disappointing to someone who is trying to make a ‘business case’ for trying to improve job satisfaction. But a relatively new direction in research on attitudes and performance may still come to the rescue. It has become clear that more general and abstract concepts of attitudes and behaviour often have a much stronger correlation than specific attitudes and specific behaviours. Using 17 previous meta-analyses and some additional studies, Harrison et.al. (2006) used a somewhat complicated mathematical technique called structural equation modelling to identify the causal model with the best fit to the data. In this proposed model, overall job attitude was a strong predictor of a general behavioural variable. which they called “desirable contributions made to one’s work role” (r=0.59). One interpretation, then, is that individuals with a generally favourable attitude towards their work have a strong predisposition to make some kind of positive contribution to their work and organization. This may not sound like a surprise. But given the moderate and weak results reported above it is significant evidence in favour of the importance of work attitudes.  Most of the research on job satisfaction and behaviour have been carried out at the individual level. The fundamental question at this level is whether differences in individual job satisfaction help to predict differences in types of individual behaviour and performance. Some studies, however, have been carried out at the organizational level. In these studies, the main question is whether differences in average job satisfaction are related to differences in organizational performance. According to a meta-analysis carried out by Kokkinou and Dalal and reported by Judge, Hulin and Dalal (2009), there is also a small to moderate correlation of about 0.3 at this level. Analysis of panel studies suggests that the impact of average satisfaction at time 1 on organizational performance at time 2 may be greater than the impact of organizational performance at time 1 on average satisfaction at time 2.    

References  2009 Judge T., Hulin C., and Dalal R., “Job Satisfaction and Job Affect” in S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.  2001 Judge T., Thoresen C., Bono J., Patton G., “The Job Satisfaction-Job Performance Relationship: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review” Psychological Bulletin Vol.127 No.3 376-407  1989 Argyle M. “Do Happy Workers Work Harder? The effect of job satisfaction on work performance” in Ruut Veenhoven (ed), (1989) “How harmful is happiness? Consequences of enjoying life or not”, Universitaire Pers Rotterdam, The Netherlands,  1985 laffaldano. M. T., & Muchinsky, P. M. “Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis.” Psychological Bulletin, 97, 251-273  2008 Cook A., “OB Satisfaction and Job Performance: Is the relationship spurious?” M.A. Thesis, Psychology, Texas A. and M. University  2006 Harrison D., Newman D. and Roth P. “How Important are Job Attitudes? Meta-Analytic Comparisons of Integrative Behavioural Outcomes and Time Sequences” Academy of Management Journal Vol. 49, No. 2, 305–325.  2009 Riketta, M. “The causal relation between job attitudes and performance: A meta-analysis of panel studies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 2, 472–481.  Note: The Methodological Problems With The Initial Study By Iaffaldano and Muchinsky  Two methodological issues were identified with their study. Firstly, correlational studies of this kind apply a correction to the initial correlations that allows for “measurement error”. For measures of performance that are based on supervisor ratings, this correction can be based on the variability between supervisors (inter-rater reliability) or the variability in the ratings of individual supervisors when they assess the same person twice (internal consistency). Iaffaldano and Muchinsky used an internal consistency correction which is usually much smaller than an inter-rater reliability correction. The second issue had to do with the level of aggregation of the variables. Iaffaldano and Muchinsky used an average of the correlations between different aspects of job satisfaction and job performance. It isn’t clear why they did this. The usual approach would be to combine these facets into a composite job satisfaction score....