International journal of Innovative Research in Management
ISSN 2319 – 6912
(November 2013, issue 2 volume 11)
THE JOB SATISFACTION -EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE
RELATIONSHIP: A THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE
Miss Vartikka Indermun
Academic Lecturer at Management College of Southern Africa (MANCOSA)
&
Prof Mohamed SaheedBayat
Academic Dean- Management College Southern Africa and
Adjunct Professor University of Fort Hare
Abstract
Organisations face strong pressures in competitive environments to be efficient and at the same
time produce products of value. By ensuring that their workforce is optimal at all times most
organisations can gain competitive advantage. Satisfied employees form a bond with the
company and take pride in their organisational membership, they believe in the goals and values
of the organisation. Therefore, these employees display high levels of performance and
productivity. Dissatisfied employees display characteristics of low productivity, absenteeism,
and turnover. These traits are highly costly for the organisation. Therefore, it is crucial that
research is done to determine the relationship between job satisfaction and employee
performance.
Keywords: Job satisfaction, employee performance, productivity, motivation.
1.
INTRODUCTION
Rue and Byars (1992) refer to job satisfaction as an individual’s mental state about their job. Job
satisfaction refers to how content an individual is in his/her current position. Job satisfaction is a
very important attribute which is frequently measured by organisations in order to ensure that
their workforce is optimal. Employee performance can be defined as the productivity and quality
of work of an individual employee. Studies have revealed that job satisfaction enhances
employee performance.
Employees are changing; they no longer stay in jobs that do not motivate or satisfy them. Fair
salaries are no longer strong enough incentives to keep them loyal. In contemporary times,
organisations must do more to ensure that they retain talent.
Research has suggested that understanding job satisfaction, as a management philosophy is
essential to managing an organisation and improving its overall performance (Putman, 2002: 1).
The components of job satisfaction include employees’ thoughts, feelings, interactions and
performance (Zain, Ishak and Ghani. 2009: 1). Understanding these components and its
correlation to job performance can assist South African organisations to evaluate their current
practices in terms of employees (Buchanan, 2006).
According to Glenn Bassett (2004), Since the Hawthorne studies of the 1920s and 1930s, the
working hypothesis of the human relations movement in management has consistently proposed
that the satisfied worker is a productive worker. In the last few decades, thousands of scholarly
studies have used worker satisfaction as a central research variable. But this flood of research has
offered little support to the proposition that a satisfied worker is a greater producer. The original
Hawthorne studies have themselves been subject to radical criticism in that span of time.
1
International journal of Innovative Research in Management
ISSN 2319 – 6912
(November 2013, issue 2 volume 11)
Research is now moving to the opposite direction, researchers now believe that employee
performance influences job satisfaction (Bassett, 2004: 1).
2.
THE CONCEPT OF JOB SATISFACTION
Job satisfaction is one of the most researched areas of organisational behaviour. Researchers
have argued that job satisfaction is the most significant factor in understanding worker
motivation, effectiveness, retention and performance (Bashayreh,2009).Job satisfaction has been
linked with enhanced job performance, positive work values, high levels of employee
motivation, and lower rates of absenteeism, turnover and burnout (Ngo, 2009). Therefore, it is
essential that managers be concerned with the level of satisfaction in their organisation.
Dissatisfied employees may cause undesirable job outcomes by stealing, moonlighting and
demonstrating high rates of absenteeism. As a result, these employees may withdraw from the
position psychologically, and display disruptive behaviours, such as, not being punctual, not
attending meetings or wandering about trying to look busy. Dissatisfaction produces a series of
withdrawal cognitions in which employees examine the costs and benefits associated with
leaving their jobs, hence this type of thinking causes them to slip on productivity.
An individual’s choice of employment helps shape their view of themselves, broaden their daily
life, and help to give meaning to their existence. Therefore, if there is poor satisfaction with
work, the individual questions him/herself in more aspects than just work factors (Van Der Zee,
2009:11).Also, it has been demonstrated that satisfied employees have better health and live
longer, and satisfaction on the job carries over to the employees life outside the job. From a
management point of view, a satisfied workforce translates into higher productivity due to fewer
interruptions caused by absenteeism, or good employees quitting (Van Der Zee, 2009).
Job satisfaction emphasises the specific task environment of the employee. It is also the
individual’s affective attitude or orientations for work (Bashayreh, 2009: 7). According to
Bashayreh (2009), job satisfaction is a pleasurable positive state resulting from one's job and job
experience. Individuals show pleasurable positive attitudes when they are satisfied with their job.
Job satisfaction is a general attitude which is the result of many specific attitudes.
Many factors affect employees’ job satisfaction. Bashayreh (2009) divides the factors into the
intrinsic satisfactory factors related to work and the extrinsic satisfactory factors not directly
related to work it-self. Researchers consider that personal attributes and environment play major
role in influencing job satisfaction (Bashayreh, 2009: 7).
As mentioned, satisfied employees are more likely to work harder and provide better services via
organisational citizenship behaviours. Employees who are satisfied with their jobs tend to be
more involved in their employing organisations, and more dedicated to delivering services with a
high level of quality. Previous research has also suggested that loyal employees are more eager
to and more capable of delivering a higher level of service quality. Researchers have argued that
service quality is influenced by job satisfaction of employees. The argument that employee
satisfaction improves service quality is grounded on the theory of equity in social exchanges
(Zafirovski, 2005: 1-2).
Although there are different views on social exchange theory, theorists agree that social
exchange involves a series of interactions to generate obligations that are unspecified. These
interactions are usually seen as independent of the actions of another person. The underlying
2
International journal of Innovative Research in Management
ISSN 2319 – 6912
(November 2013, issue 2 volume 11)
reason is that an exchange requires a bidirectional transaction – something is given and
something is returned. The transaction also has the potential of generating high-quality
relationships among the parties involved. The underlying assumption of equity in social
exchanges is that most people expect social justice or equity to prevail in interpersonal
transactions.
An individual accorded some manner of social gift that is inequitably in excess of what is
anticipated will experience gratitude and feel an obligation to reciprocate the benefactor. Such
positive reciprocal relationships evolve over time into trusting, loyal, and mutual commitments.
In the context of social exchange theory, when an employer offers favourable working conditions
that make its service employees satisfied, the latter will in return tend to be committed to making
an extra effort to the organisation as a means of reciprocity for their employer, leading to a
higher level of service quality. Based on the theory of equity in social exchanges, we posit that
employee satisfaction leads to higher service quality (Zafirovski, 2005).
3.
DEFINITIONS OF JOB SATISFACTION
According to Evans (2001), there are 4 levels of understanding represented by work in jobrelated attitudes such as job satisfaction. The first level has its basis in conventional wisdom and
common sense, but is characterised by over simplistic reasoning. On this level, job satisfaction is
usually equated with centrally initiated policy and conditions of service, such as pay. On the
other end of the scale, the fourth level is characterized by in-depth analysis and recognition for
the need of conceptual clarity and precision. On this level, individualism is recognised, and
although there is still a search for commonalities and generalities, these are accurate as they are
free from contextual specificity.
Evans (2001), argues that this level has contributed not only to an understanding of what job
satisfaction is, but also to what its determinants are, such as individual needs fulfilment,
expectations fulfilment or values congruence. Therefore Evan (2001) defines job satisfaction as
“a state of mind encompassing all those feelings determined by the extent to which the individual
perceives her/his job-related needs to be being met” (Evans, 2001:12).
According to Robbins et al., (2003), individuals with high job satisfaction will display a positive
attitude towards their job, and the individual who are dissatisfied will have a negative attitude
about the job. Sempane, Rieger and Roodt (2002) states that job satisfaction is an individual’s
personal assessment of conditions prevalent in the job (Sempane, Rieger and Roodt, 2002).
Although there are many definitions put in different ways, most of these definitions say the same
thing, that job satisfaction is a crucial part of the employees psyche and behaviours.
4.
EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE IN RELATION TO JOB SATISFACTION
MODELS
According to Skibba (2002), in the field of Organisational psychology, one of the most
researched areas is the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance. Research
linking job performance with satisfaction and other attitudes has been studied since at least 1939,
with the Hawthorne studies, mentioned earlier. According to Skibba (2002) the underlying
theory of this reciprocal model is that if the satisfaction is extrinsic, then satisfaction leads to
performance, but if the satisfaction is intrinsic, then the performance leads to satisfaction. Other
models suggest there is either an outside factor that causes a seemingly relationship between the
3
International journal of Innovative Research in Management
ISSN 2319 – 6912
(November 2013, issue 2 volume 11)
factors or that there is no relationship at all, however, neither of these models have much
research.
Although this is the case, in recent studies, correlations between the two variables have been
found. There are also stronger relationships between the variables depending on specific
circumstances, such as mood and employee level within the company. Skibba (2002) states that
job performance and job satisfaction relationship follows the social exchange theory; employees’
performance is giving back to the organization from which they get their satisfaction (Skibba,
2002: 2). According to Skibba (2002) there are seven different models that can be used to
describe the job satisfaction and job performance relationship.
Some of these models view the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance to be
unidirectional, that either job satisfaction causes job performance or vice versa. Another model
states that the relationship is a reciprocal one; this has been supported by the research (Skibba,
2002: 2). The final model is “Alternative Conceptualizations of Job Satisfaction and/or Job
Performance.” This model discusses how positive attitudes toward one’s job can predict a high
degree of job performance. Industrial psychologists do not justify any relationship between job
satisfaction and job performance; although it has been found that a positive mood is related to
higher levels of job performance and job satisfaction (Skibba, 2002).
These models are valuable to the study as it explores the alternative views on the subject. If one
looks at the social exchange theory mentioned earlier and compare it with these models, they
seem very similar. It all boils down to the fact that a reciprocal relationship at work between
employer and employee can only lead to a mutual beneficial relationship for both parties.
5.
DIMENSIONS OF JOB SATISFACTION
The idea of job satisfaction is very complicated and argumentative. Over the years researchers
have identified the following dimensions of job satisfaction: work, benefits and reward systems,
promotions, working conditions, supervision and co-workers.
5.1
REWARD AND BENEFITS
Employees don’t work for free; most businesses are not volunteer services, so employers have to
compensate them in some way for their time and effort. What used to be called “pay” and then
became “remuneration” is today often termed “reward”. It refers to all of the monetary, nonmonetary, and psychological payments that an organisation provides for its employees
(Anonymous 1, 2008).
There are extrinsic rewards, which cover the basic needs of income to survive (to pay bills), a
feeling of stability and consistency (the job is secure), and recognition (my workplace values my
skills). In Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, these are at the lower end. One could also call these the
financial rewards.
On the other hand, there are intrinsic rewards, the most important of which is probably job
satisfaction, a feeling of completing challenges competently, enjoyment, and even perhaps the
social interactions which arise from the workplace. These are at the upper, self-efficacy end of
the need hierarchy. One could also call these psychological rewards.
Reward systems have three main objectives: to attract new employees to the organisation, to
elicit good work performance, and to maintain commitment to the organisation. A reward system
is intended to attract and retain suitable employees. An employer who develops a reputation as
4
International journal of Innovative Research in Management
ISSN 2319 – 6912
(November 2013, issue 2 volume 11)
“cheap” is unlikely to be desirable in the job market, because potential employees will think it
does not reward effort. Such an organisation is likely to end up with the people that nobody else
wants. Rewards are also intended to maintain and improve performance.
According to Anonymous 1(2008) nobody can truly motivate: employee motivation can only
come from within. But the promise of a bonus or a pay rise is intended to encourage employees
to motivate themselves to reap the rewards. Performance-related pay is very popular in today’s
organisations. In Canada, over 70 per cent of companies offer it in some form. Some companies
have three different kinds of performance-related pay: individual, team, and organisation. The
main problem with individual performance-related pay (IPRP) is that it assumes that pay alone
satisfies workers, but this is not correct.
Consider the intrinsic rewards or psychological rewards mentioned earlier. A worker with high
pay but who receives no intrinsic rewards will probably go elsewhere. The reward system also
serves to maintain and strengthen the psychological contract. It indicates what behaviour the
organisation values, i.e. what is paid for. For example, if your company values teamwork, then
there will probably be a team bonus of some kind. The psychological contract will partly
determine what employees perceive to be “fair” in terms of reward for the work they do.
Disruptive behaviour such as theft in the workplace is often an attempt to restore “fairness” to
remuneration. Violation of the psychological contract is far more likely to cause problems with
employees more than any other single factor (Anonymous 1, 2008).
6.
EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE
According to Yee et al (2007), research on employee attributes and performance has traditionally
resided in the domain of organizational psychology, not operational
management. However,
as operations managers are increasingly involved in service management, they find employee
attributes potentially a vital factor for operational efficiency. On the other hand, the relationship
between employee attributes and performance has long been of interest to behaviour researchers.
In spite of decades of research, the findings have remained elusive. Most researchers believe that
employee satisfaction has little direct influence on business performance in most instances.
Although much research has been successfully conducted to correlate employee satisfaction with
individual work behaviours such as turnover, absenteeism, lateness, drug use, and sabotage, the
relationship between employee satisfaction and operational performance is less explicit as little
rigorous empirical research has been conducted. Although much research in operational
management has been conducted to investigate the relationships between quality, customer
satisfaction and business performance, research on the impact of employee satisfaction on
operational performance is relatively scarce.
In the last few decades, the importance of human resources to operational performance has been
noted by a few researchers. This is a strange concept as organisational knowledge residing in
employees is the primary determinant of superior service quality, influencing market
performance. A dedicated workforce may serve as a valuable, scarce, non-imitable resource to
enhance profitability from a strategic perspective (Yee et al, 2007: 4-7).
5
International journal of Innovative Research in Management
ISSN 2319 – 6912
(November 2013, issue 2 volume 11)
7.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JOB SATISFACTION AND EMPLOYEE
PERFORMANCE
According to Saari and Judge (2004: 395) the study of the relationship between job satisfaction
and job performance has a controversial history. Shortly after the Hawthorne studies, researchers
began taking a critical look at the notion that a “happy worker is a productive worker”. Most of
the earlier reviews of the literature suggested a weak and somewhat inconsistent relationship
between job satisfaction and performance. A review of the literature in 1985 suggested that the
statistical correlation between job satisfaction and performance was about .17. Thus, it was
concluded that the presumed relationship between job satisfaction and performance was a
management fad and illusory.
This study had an important impact on researchers, and in some cases, on organizations, with
some managers and HR practitioners concluding that the relationship between job satisfaction
and performance was trivial. However, further research does not agree with this conclusion. The
failure to find a strong relationship between job satisfaction and performance is due to the
narrow means often used to define job performance. According to Saari and Judge (2004: 397 )
when performance is defined to include important behaviours not generally reflected in
performance appraisals, such as organisational citizenship behaviours, its relationship with job
satisfaction improves.
Research tends to support this proposition in that job satisfaction correlates with organizational
citizenship behaviours. In addition, in a more recent and comprehensive review of 301 studies,
according to Saari and Judge (2004), found that when the correlations are appropriately corrected
(for sampling and measurement errors); the average correlation between job satisfaction and job
performance is as higher at .30. In addition, the relationship between job satisfaction and
performance was found to be even higher for complex (e.g., professional) jobs than for less
complex jobs.
Thus, contrary to earlier reviews, it does appear that job satisfaction is, in fact, predictive of
performance, and the relationship is even stronger for professional jobs (Saari and Judge, 2004).
According to Anonymous2 (2006), happy workers may not necessarily be productive workers,
because at the individual level, the evidence suggests the reverse to be more accurate, that
productivity is likely to lead to satisfaction. If one moves from the individual level to that of the
organisation, there is renewed support for the original satisfaction –performance relationship.
When satisfaction and productivity data are gathered for the organisation as a whole, rather than
at the individual level, it is found that the organisations with more satisfied employees tend to be
more effective than organisations with fewer satisfied employees. Studies have focused on
individuals rather than on the organisation and at individual level measures of productivity do
not take into consideration all the interactions and complexities in the work process.
Although it might not be true to say that a happy worker is more productive, it might be true that
happy organisations are more productive. Research bears witness to the fact that satisfied
workers are less likely to face accidents as compared to dissatisfied ones(Anonymous 2, 2006:
1).It was concluded that accidents are closely linked to job satisfaction of workers and
organisations with a low accident toll are likely to have a satisfied workforce (Anonymous2,
2006).
6
International journal of Innovative Research in Management
ISSN 2319 – 6912
(November 2013, issue 2 volume 11)
According to Anonymous2 (2006:1), other studies reveal that highly satisfied workers have a
higher efficiency rating as well. Being well adjusted on the job, the satisfied worker is sure to
perform better. In other words, a worker with better job satisfaction tends to be better adjusted on
the job, in his home and in social and emotional areas. On the other hand, discontentment with
working life is likely to affect the worker’s job adjustment and also in social, emotional and
domestic life. Results of a study showed that the rate of absenteeism increased down the ladder
of hierarchy, with managers having the lowest absence rate, technical workers having the highest
absence rate and supervisors occupying the intermediate position (Anonymous 2, 2006: 1).
Managers were the most satisfied employees with their jobs, followed by the supervisors, and
technical staff. Absenteeism was positively correlated to job satisfaction and to the feeling of
insecurity. Also, absenteeism was negatively correlated with achievement motivation. A
satisfied worker has a positive attitude towards his work and will try to avoid being absent from
work. This does not mean that workers who are highly satisfied with their jobs would almost
never be absent. However, absenteeism would be less among those who are satisfied than those
who are dissatisfied with their jobs (Anonymous2, 2006).
According to the literature identified above, the topic of job satisfaction versus employee
performance is a controversial matter, research on both sides of the argument state different
outcomes. Some research suggests that there is indeed a positive correlation between the two
variables, whilst, other research begs to differ (Saari and Judge, 2004: 395).
8.
MODERATORS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JOB SATISFACTION
AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE
It is important to remember that the relationship between job satisfaction and employee
performance is moderated or regulated by many other variables (Judge, Thoreson, Bono &
Patton, 2001). One of the most common of these variables is the possibility of gaining a reward.
In other words, those who place a high value on compensation or rewards would be satisfied in
their jobs leading them to perform better because of the eventuality of them receiving a reward or
compensation from a better or higher performance.
Some individuals however do not place much emphasis on compensation as a motivator
(extrinsic motivation) and would place higher value on factors that intrinsically motivate them.
Variables such as, for example: the nature of work itself, job complexity, and a sense of
accomplishment and achievement that individuals derive from their work, lead to job satisfaction
and consequently, improved performance at work. Hence, stimulating and interesting jobs are
more satisfying than tedious and monotonous jobs.
Thus, the above factors provide an intrinsic satisfaction to the individuals who value them, as
compared to compensation which provides an extrinsic satisfaction. Studies have however found
that the relationship between job satisfaction and performance is stronger in cases where pay or
compensation is linked to the employee’s performance as opposed to cases where there was no
possibility of pay being linked to performance. Other variables that moderate the relationship
between satisfaction and performance include: self-esteem of the individual, organisational
tenure, cognitive ability, need for achievement, career development, affective disposition and
situational constraints (Judge, Thoreson, Bono & Patton, 2001).
Unfortunately, not much research has been conducted on the importance or significance of these
variables therefore further research is required in these areas to evaluate the validity and strength
of these variables in the satisfaction-performance relationship.
7
International journal of Innovative Research in Management
ISSN 2319 – 6912
(November 2013, issue 2 volume 11)
9.
CONCLUSION
By looking at the information presented in this article, it is evident that there must be a
correlation between job satisfaction and employee performance. When one reviews the identified
literature, only one conclusion can be obtained, that job satisfaction has an undeniable influence
on employee performance.
This article offers many different outlooks on the subject; some theorists believe that there is no
correlation between the two variables while others disagree. The literature also identifies that
both psychological and physical rewards play a role in job satisfaction. Organisations must
motivate their employees and guarantee job satisfaction as this satisfaction is necessary to
employees realising their worth and potential; this realisation subsequently will have a
significant, positive impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of workers and thus, the
productivity of the organisation.
Organisations need to conduct research in order to remain current on issues such as job
satisfaction. It is research like this that will give them the information they desire in order to
improve their companies.The usefulness of understanding the relationship between satisfaction
and performance is underplayed because of its past popularity, however organisations would do
well if they themselves investigate this significant relationship, as this research will have farreaching consequences not only for the organisation but for the academic community as well.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anonymous 1.(2008).Reward systems. Available from:
http://www.koalacat.com/archive/016RewardSystems.pdf [Date Accessed 14/10/2013]
Anonymous 2.(2006).Employees say money matters when it comes to job satisfaction. Available
from: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3190/is_30_40/ai_n16598328/?tag=rbxcra.2.a.44
[Date Accessed 15/10/2013]
Bashayreh, A,M,K. (2009).Organisational culture and job satisfaction. Available from:
http://ep3.uum.edu.my/1632/1/Anas_Mahmoud_Khaled_Bashayreh.pdf [Date Accessed
14/10/2013]
Bassett G. (2004).The case against job satisfaction - a satisfied worker is not necessary a
productive worker. Business Horizons. FindArticles.com. 13 Jul, 2010. Available from:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1038/is_n3_v37/ai_15505563/: [Date Accessed:
14/10/2013]
Buchanan, K. (2006). Job performance and satisfaction. Available from:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Job-Performance-and-Satisfaction&id=290072 [Date Accessed:
3/10/2013]
Evans, L. (2001). Diving deeper into morale, job satisfaction and motivation among education
professionals: re-examining the leadership dimension. Educational management in
administration, 29(3), 291-306
8
International journal of Innovative Research in Management
ISSN 2319 – 6912
(November 2013, issue 2 volume 11)
Judge, T.A, Thoreson, C.J, Bono, J.E & Patton, G.K. (2001).The Job-Satisfaction-Job
Performance Relationship.Psychological Bulletin, Vol 127 (3), 376-407.
Ngo, D. (2009). Importance of employee satisfaction. [online]. Available from:
http://www.humanresources.hrvinet.com/importance-of-employee-satisfaction/
Accessed: 15/10/2013]
[Date
Putman, D.B. (2002). Job Satisfaction and Performance Viewed From a Two Dimensional
Model. Availablefrom :http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2002/12/putman.html [Date
Accessed: 14/10/2013]
Robbins, S.P. Odendaal. A. and Roodt .G. (2003). Organisational behaviour, 9thed, Cape Town:
Prentice-Hall International.
Rue, L.W., Byars, L.L. (1992).Management skills and application, 6th ed., New Jersey: PrenticeHall International.
Saari, L.M., & Judge, T.A. (2004) Employee Attitudes and Job Satisfaction. Human Resource
Management, 43 (4), 395-407.
Sempane, M.E, Rieger, H.S. and Roodt, G. (2002).Job satisfaction in relation to organisational
culture.SA Journal of industrial psychology.
Skibba, J S. (2002) .Personality and job satisfaction.Menomonie.Applied Psychology:
University of Wisconsin-Stout.
Van Der Zee, D. J. (2009).Organisation commitment and job satisfaction: a quantitative study at
the Durban office of the department of labour .Durban, South Africa. Masters in
Psychology.University of KwaZulu-Natal.
Yee. R. W. Y. A..C. L. Yeung*, T. C. E. Cheng. (2007). The Impact of Employee Satisfaction on
Quality and Profitability in High-contact Service Industries. Available from:
http://repository.lib.polyu.edu.hk/jspui/bitstream/10397/627/1/JOM%20%28Accepted%29.pdf
[Date Accessed: 14/10/2013]
Zafirovski, M. (2005).Social Exchange Theory under Scrutiny: A Positive Critique of its
Economic-Behaviorist Formulations. Electronic Journal of Sociology. Available from:
http://www.sociology.org/content/2005/tier2/SETheory.pdf. [Date Accessed: 14/10/2013]
Zain, Z .M.Ishak, R. Ghani, E.K .(2009). The Influence of Corporate Culture on Organisational
Commitment: A Study on a Malaysian Listed Company. Available from:
http://www.eurojournals.com/ejefas_17_02.pdf. [Date Accessed: 14/10/2013]
9