Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TABLE OF CONTENT
1 INTRODUCTION
........................................................................................................................... ................3
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
........................................................................................................................... ................6
2.1 Job Satisfaction (Dissatisfaction)
7
2.2 Theories of Job Satisfaction / Dissatisfaction................................................7
2.3 Performance:.................................................................................................9
2.4 How can HRM be a Major Player in improving Performance?........................12
2
RESEARCH STUDY: JOB SATISFACTION & PERFORMANCE
5 CONCLUSION............................................................................. ...............................32
6 APPENDIX
........................................................................................................................ .................33
1 INTRODUCTION
Attempting to understand the nature of job satisfaction and its effects on work performance is not
easy. For at least 50 years industrial/organizational psychologists have been wrestling with the
question of the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance. Researchers have put
a considerable amount of effort into attempts to demonstrate that the two are positively related in
a particular fashion:
A happy worker is a productive worker
Although this sounds like a very appealing idea, the results of empirical literature are too mixed
to support the hypothesis that job satisfaction leads to better performance or even that there is a
reliable positive correlation between these two variables. On the other hand some researchers
argue that the results are equally inconclusive with respect to the hypothesis that there is no such
relationship. As a result of this ambiguity, this relationship continues to stimulate research and
re-examination of previous attempts. This report strives to describe the relation of job
satisfaction and performance, keeping in mind the value this relation has for organizations.
Job Satisfaction – An Internal State
Job satisfaction is a complex and multifaceted concept, which can mean different things to
different people. Job satisfaction is usually linked with motivation, but the nature of this
relationship is not clear. Satisfaction is not the same as motivation. "Job satisfaction is more an
attitude, an internal state. It could, for example, be associated with a personal feeling of
achievement, either quantitative or qualitative." In recent years attention to job satisfaction has
become more closely associated with broader approaches to improved job design and work
organization, and the quality of working life movement.
Relationship between Job Satisfaction & Job Performance
The relationship between job satisfaction and performance is an issue of continuing debate and
controversy. One view, associated with the early human relation's approach, is that satisfaction
leads to performance. An alternative view is that performance leads to satisfaction. However, a
variety of studies suggest that research has found only a limited relationship between satisfaction
and work output and offer scant comfort to those seeking to confirm that a satisfied worker is
RESEARCH STUDY: JOB SATISFACTION & PERFORMANCE
also a productive one. Labor turnover and absenteeism are commonly associated with
dissatisfaction, but although there may be some correlation, there are many other possible
factors. No universal generalizations about worker dissatisfaction exist, to offer easy
management solutions to problems of turnover and absenteeism. The study suggests that it is
primarily in the realm of job design, where opportunity resides for a constructive improvement
of the worker's satisfaction level.
Spector & Gibson Findings
Some say job satisfaction is simple how people feel about their jobs and different aspects of their
jobs (Spector, 1997). This assumes that if employee like their jobs or certain aspects of their jobs,
they will be satisfied or happy. If they don’t like their jobs or certain aspects of their jobs, they
will be satisfied or happy. If they don’t like their jobs or certain aspects of their jobs, they will be
dissatisfied or unhappy. Others view job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction as feelings of
happiness or unhappiness associated with doing a particular job as expressed by the job-holder
(Gibson et al. 2000). This assumes that if employees verbally say they are happy with their jobs,
we must assume that they are satisfied with their work. If they verbally say they are unhappy
with the jobs, we must assume that they are dissatisfied.
Cheung and Scherling Finsings
Cheung and Scherling (1999) assert that job satisfaction or dissatisfaction from the perspective
of fairness and processes used to meet out rewards. If people feel fairly treated from the
outcomes they receive, or the processes used, they will be satisfied. If on the other hand, people
feel unfairly treated from the outcomes they receive, or the processes used to disseminate those
outcomes, they will be dissatisfied. Job satisfaction consists of the feelings and attitudes one has
about one’s job. All aspects of a particular job, good and bad, positive and negative are likely to
contribute to the development of feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction
Basic Factors of Job Satisfaction
Individual performance is generally determined by three factors of Job Satisfaction. Motivation,
the desire to do the job, ability, the capability to do the job, and the work environment, the
tools, materials, and information needed to do the job. If an employee lacks ability, the manager
can provide training or replace the worker. If there is an environmental problem, the manager can
also usually make adjustments to promote higher performance. But if motivation is the problem,
the manager's task is more challenging. Individual behavior is a complex phenomenon, and the
manager may not be able to figure out why the employee is not motivated and how to change the
behavior. Thus, also motivation plays a vital role since it might influence negatively performance
and because of its intangible nature.
Practical Implications
Job Satisfaction can be an important indicator of how employees feel about their jobs and a
predictor of work behaviors such as organizational citizenship, absenteeism, and turnover.
Further, job satisfaction can partially mediate the relationship of personality variables and
deviant work behaviors.
One common research finding is that job satisfaction is correlated with life satisfaction. This
correlation is reciprocal, meaning people who are satisfied with life tend to be satisfied with their
2
RESEARCH STUDY: JOB SATISFACTION & PERFORMANCE
job and people who are satisfied with their job tend to be satisfied with life. However, some
research has found that job satisfaction is not significantly related to life satisfaction when other
variables such as non work satisfaction and core self-evaluations are taken into account.
An important finding for organizations to note is that job satisfaction has a rather tenuous
correlation to productivity on the job. This is a vital piece of information to researchers and
businesses, as the idea that satisfaction and job performance are directly related to one another is
often cited in the media and in some non-academic management literature.
In short, the relationship of satisfaction to productivity is not necessarily straightforward and can
be influenced by a number of other work-related constructs, and the notion that "a happy worker
is a productive worker" should not be the foundation of organizational decision-making.
With regard to job performance, employee personality may be more important than job
satisfaction. The link between job satisfaction and performance is thought to be a spurious
relationship; instead, both satisfaction and performance are the result of personality.
RESEARCH STUDY: JOB SATISFACTION & PERFORMANCE
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
In the field of Industrial / Organizational psychology, one of the most researched areas is the
relationship between job satisfaction and work performance (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton,
2001). Landy (1989) described this relationship as the “Holy Grail” of Industrial psychology.
Research linking job performance with satisfaction and other attitudes has been studied since at
least 1939 with the Hawthorne studies (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939). In Judge et al. (2001),
it was found by Brayfield and Crockett (1955) that there is only a minimal relationship between
job performance and job satisfaction. However, since 1955 Judge et al. (2001) cited that there are
other studies by Locke (1970), Schwab & Cummings (1970), and Vroom (1964) that have shown
that there is at least some relationship between those variables. Iffaldano and Muchinsky (1985)
did an extensive analysis on the relationship between job performance and job satisfaction.
There are also strong relationships depending on specific circumstances such as mood and
employee level within the company (Morrison, 1997). Organ (1988) also found that the job
performance and job satisfaction and job performance relationship follows the social exchange
theory; employees’ performance is giving back to the organization from which they get their
satisfaction.
Judge et al. (2001) argued that 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 the unidirectional, that either job satisfaction
causes job performance or vice versa. Another model stated that the relationship is a Personality
and Job Reciprocal one; this has been supported by the research of Wanous (1974). 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 that there is either an outside factor that causes a seemingly relationship
between the factors of that there is no relationship at all. However , neither of these models have
much research.
2
RESEARCH STUDY: JOB SATISFACTION & PERFORMANCE
The final model is “Alternative Conceptualizations of Job Satisfaction or Job Performance.” This
model discusses how positive attitudes towards one’s job can predict a high degree of job
performance. George and Brief (1996) and Isen and Baron (1991) both found that employees’
attitudes are reflected in their job performance. If this is the case then it can be argue that that
there is a relationship between employees’ jobs satisfaction and job performance, as satisfaction
is an attitude about their job. 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.
In this chapter we will explore the theories job satisfaction and performance. These theories
attempt to explain the relationship between job satisfaction and work performance.
The theories of work motivation used to explain what energizes people to strive or put an effort
in what they do. The same theories could be utilized to elucidate why other people are satisfied
in their jobs and others not. Foe example, Maslow’s need theory would say that people would be
happier in their jobs if their needs are met, but unhappy if their needs are not met. Learning
theories would propose that people would be motivated by seeing others rewarded for achieving
certain standards of performance, and therefore put more efforts in their duties so that they could
earn the same or more rewards then their role models, and hence be satisfied. Conversely, if
people see others being punished for not achieving certain standards of performance, people
might exert more efforts to avoid the pain of punishment and so on. These theories will therefore
not be repeated in this section, the focus will be on examining job satisfaction or dissatisfaction,
related theories and literature.
of effort that culminates in high performance levels, he will perceive that he deserves a
substantial reward (Dipboye, Smith, and Howell. 1994).
2.2.2Comparison Theory:
Lawler (1973) in Dipboye, Smith and Howell (2000) incorporated the concepts of attained versus
described needs in his model of facet satisfaction. This model is an extension of the Porter-
Lawler (1968) of motivation explained above. It is a facet satisfaction model because satisfaction
with various components or facets of a job, such as supervision, pay, or the work itself, is
considered. Lawler’s model specifies that workers compare what their jobs should provide in
term of job facets, such as promotions and pay, to what they currently from their jobs. However,
simple need comparison theory is extended by also weighing the influence of certain worker
characteristics (such as skills, training, and age) and job characteristics (such as degree of
responsibility and difficulty). In addition the model draws concepts from the equity theory of
motivation by assuming that workers ultimately determine their job satisfaction by comparing
their relevant job inputs and outputs to referent (comparison) other (Dipboye, Smith and Howell,
2000).
Simple interpretation of the facet model of satisfaction is that:
o If the employee perceives that the amount that should be received (A) is equal to the
amount received (B), the worker will be satisfied or happy
o If the employee perceives that the amount that should be received (A) is greater then the
amount received (B) the worker will be dissatisfied of unhappy
o If the employee perceives that the amount that should be received (A) is smaller than the
amount received (B) the worker will feel guilty, uncomfortable because of perceived
inequality.
2
RESEARCH STUDY: JOB SATISFACTION & PERFORMANCE
2.3 Performance:
Every manager, no matter what his or her role, knows that exceptional employee performance is
critical in today’s world. The need for human resource managers to move beyond HR’s
traditional performance management approaches and partner with line managers to remove
barriers to exceptional employee performance that exists in organizational work environments.
There are certain basic strategies, through the mix in the final “recipe” will vary from workplace
situation to situation. Essentially, there is a gap between an individual’s actual state and some
desired state the manager tries to reduce this gap.
Motivation is, in effect, a means to manipulate and reduce this gap. It is inducing others in a
specific way towards goals specifically stated by the motivator. Naturally, these goals must
conform to the corporate policy of the organization. The motivational system must be tailored to
the situation and to the organization.
2
RESEARCH STUDY: JOB SATISFACTION & PERFORMANCE
poor job of implementing a benefits change or if they are preoccupied with work schedules they
consider unfair.
This is a big step beyond yesterday’s solution of fix the employee with training and discipline.
The competency area currently tested by the Human Resource Certification Institute (HRCI)
reflects this broad area of knowledge. These areas truly are a critical foundation for improved
employee performance, but they are not also enough. We must do more. We are looking at
personal system factors outside of work as they impact employees, but still not looking hard
enough at the system factors at work.
C. Tomorrow’s Solution:
A relatively simple but highly effective way of looking at this issue was provided by Tom Gilbert
1994, who developed a diagnostic tool called the Behavior Engineering Model (BEM). There
are other approaches but the BEM will serve as a good example. It looks at the following six
areas:
1. Information
2. Resources
3. Incentives
4. Skills and Knowledge
5. Capacity
6. Motivation
Let’s look at each of these in a bit more detail. Information is critical for obvious reasons. It
starts with output specifications. People have to know what they are expected to produce. They
need to get a feedback. They need to be aware of policy and procedures and the reasons for these
policies and procedures, and so on. Resources, again is fairly obvious. No matter how skilled an
employee without the tools and materials (and information can overlap with resources here)
needed to do the job, it probably isn’t going to get done. The best welder in the world cannot
weld without a torch. The issue of incentives is a bit more complex, but boils down to this. In the
work environment, are these truly incentives for good performance and truly consequences for
poor performance? Often we end up in effect, punishing our best performers. They get all the
tough jobs because we know we can count on them and the poor performers get the easier work.
“Skills and knowledge” is certainly a familiar area. People have to know how to do their jobs.
Capacity is important for obvious reasons also. No matter how committed the employee, if we
hire someone 5’10’’ to guard an NBA center in the low post, he isn’t going to get the job done.
Motivation is important also, a strictly person based definition of performance is that
performance is a function of motivation and ability. We can work on the ability, it’s harder to
work on motivation because it is so internal to the individual, but we can work on the
environment and make sure we remove the barriers to performance. Gilbert also developed a list
RESEARCH STUDY: JOB SATISFACTION & PERFORMANCE
of questions he called the PROBE questionnaire, to help determine in which of these areas the
cause of an employee performance shortfall could be found.
How well do we currently address these person and system factors in HRM? If we have done the
things we currently teach that we should (today’s solution), then we probably do fairly well in
the person factors skills and knowledge, capacity and motivation. We may have a corporate
university and provides excellent training for our employees, focusing on the skills that will be
needed tomorrow as well as today. Our promotion and selection systems may be good enough to
ensure that employee capacity is never an issue. The rewards, training (including well trained
supervisors or team leaders) and career focus may combine to help motivate our employees. But
all this may not be enough if there are major problems in the system factors. This is not to say
the system factors are ignored. We put a lot of effort into communication programs and
comfortable facilities, and tweak our compensation program endlessly. But too frequently, this is
not dome with performance improvement in mind and does not result in high performance.
2
RESEARCH STUDY: JOB SATISFACTION & PERFORMANCE
traditional HR area of expertise. Rather, they should be true business partners, stay with the
people with the problem, help find the expertise needed and ensure the solution is designed and
implemented in such a way that it leverages our employee’s capabilities.
In an order to study the relationship between Job Satisfaction & Job performance, we conduct a
survey in various Telecommunication Companies in Islamabad. To make a clear picture of it, we
divide the Job Satisfaction into three elements:
• Task Satisfaction
• Employee Satisfaction
• Market Satisfaction
Task satisfaction comes from performing the tasks required of the job. Increasing a person's
salary may make an undesirable task more bearable, but it doesn't necessarily make it more
enjoyable.
Market satisfaction is comprised of forces external to the company that affect the individual's
job. Political situations and public laws can easily affect job satisfaction. An individual may be
unhappy because of some environmental factor but the company cannot waive the requirement to
improve an individual's job satisfaction. In most cases, market satisfaction will be consistent
across the job market; the same external forces will be present even if the employee changes
employers. However there are differences in the external forces affecting jobs within the
government and those within the private sector.
2
RESEARCH STUDY: JOB SATISFACTION & PERFORMANCE
Keeping in mind these basic elements of Job Satisfaction, we prepared a Questionnaire and
conduct a study. The analyses of these questionnaires are:
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Very
1 2.5 2.5 2.5
Dissatisfied
Not Satisfied 3 7.5 7.5 10.0
Somewhat
19 47.5 47.5 57.5
Satisfied
Satisfied 17 42.5 42.5 100.0
Total 40 100.0 100.0
50
40
30
20
nP
rc
te
10
0
Very Dissatisfied Not Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Satisfied
Most of the employees are quite content with the communication and information flow in the
Company. This shows that there is an efficient system of information flow within the
Organization. The Company works on an Intranet Application so that the information is readily
available throughout the different levels of the Organization.
Are you satisfied with the communication and information flow of your organization?
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Somewhat
1 2.5 2.5 2.5
Dissatisfied
Not Satisfied 3 7.5 7.5 10.0
Somewhat
29 72.5 72.5 82.5
Satisfied
Satisfied 7 17.5 17.5 100.0
Total 40 100.0 100.0
80
60
40
nP
rc
te
20
0
Somewhat Dissatisfied Not Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Satisfied
Are you satisfied with the communication and interpersonal relationship in your organization?
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Not Satisfied 8 20.0 20.0 20.0
Somewhat
23 57.5 57.5 77.5
Satisfied
Satisfied 9 22.5 22.5 100.0
Total 40 100.0 100.0
2
RESEARCH STUDY: JOB SATISFACTION & PERFORMANCE
60
50
40
30
nP
rc
e
20
t
10
0
Not Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Satisfied
Do you receive enough opportunities to interact with other employees on a formal level?
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Very
1 2.5 2.5 2.5
Dissatisfied
Not Satisfied 11 27.5 27.5 30.0
Somewhat
12 30.0 30.0 60.0
Satisfied
Satisfied 16 40.0 40.0 100.0
Total 40 100.0 100.0
40
30
20
nP
rc
te
10
0
Very Dissatisfied Not Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Satisfied
which ultimately affects the overall satisfaction level of the employees. The results have shown
that more than 80% of the employees are happy with the outcome of their efforts.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Not Satisfied 4 10.0 10.0 10.0
Somewhat
29 72.5 72.5 82.5
Satisfied
Satisfied 7 17.5 17.5 100.0
Total 40 100.0 100.0
80
60
40
nP
rc
te
20
0
Not Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Satisfied
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Somewhat
5 12.5 12.5 12.5
Satisfied
Not Satisfied 11 27.5 27.5 40.0
Somewhat
18 45.0 45.0 85.0
Satisfied
Satisfied 6 15.0 15.0 100.0
Total 40 100.0 100.0
2
RESEARCH STUDY: JOB SATISFACTION & PERFORMANCE
50
40
30
20
nP
rc
te
10
0
Somewhat Satisfied Not Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Satisfied
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Somewhat
3 7.5 7.5 7.5
Dissatisfied
Not Satisfied 21 52.5 52.5 60.0
Somewhat
9 22.5 22.5 82.5
Satisfied
Satisfied 7 17.5 17.5 100.0
Total 40 100.0 100.0
60
50
40
30
P
20
n
rc
te
10
0
Somewhat Dissatisfied Not Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Satisfied
steady process for it to be effectively implemented. The overall result of 42.5% NOT
SATISFIED shows that the employees are not quite content with the methods by which the
change is being implemented at the workplace.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Somewhat
2 5.0 5.0 5.0
Dissatisfied
Not Satisfied 17 42.5 42.5 47.5
Somewhat
21 52.5 52.5 100.0
Satisfied
Total 40 100.0 100.0
60
50
40
30
nP
rc
e
20
t
10
0
Somewhat Dissatisfied Not Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid .00 1 2.5 2.5 2.5
Not Satisfied 10 25.0 25.0 27.5
Somewhat
23 57.5 57.5 85.0
Satisfied
Satisfied 6 15.0 15.0 100.0
Total 40 100.0 100.0
2
RESEARCH STUDY: JOB SATISFACTION & PERFORMANCE
60
50
40
30
P
20
n
rc
te
10
0
.00 Not Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Satisfied
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Somewhat
1 2.5 2.5 2.5
Dissatisfied
Not Satisfied 13 32.5 32.5 35.0
Somewhat
21 52.5 52.5 87.5
Satisfied
Satisfied 5 12.5 12.5 100.0
Total 40 100.0 100.0
60
50
40
30
P
20
n
rc
te
10
0
Somewhat Dissatisfied Not Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Satisfied
3.11Conflict resolution
It is a common practice that the employees face issues working with one another. Successful
organizations follow effective methods of conflict resolution to overcome these issues. Serious
conflicts may lead to job dissatisfaction and ultimately resulting in decreasing the overall
employee’s performance. Through the surveys which we have conducted, we found that around
40% of the employees are not satisfied with the conflict resolution methods being practiced at
their workplace.
RESEARCH STUDY: JOB SATISFACTION & PERFORMANCE
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Somewhat
3 7.5 7.5 7.5
Dissatisfied
Not Satisfied 13 32.5 32.5 40.0
Somewhat
19 47.5 47.5 87.5
Satisfied
Satisfied 5 12.5 12.5 100.0
Total 40 100.0 100.0
50
40
30
20
nP
rc
te
10
0
Somewhat Dissatisfied Not Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Satisfied
3.12Utilization of Skills
Employees in any Organization feel pride in themselves if their skills are properly utilized. The
foremost and important thing for this to happen is to have right people at the right place. From
the survey, we found that 22.5% of workforce is not able to utilize their skills completely and
57.5% are those employees who have an ambiguity over it, only 12.5% are those workers who
feel that their skills are properly utilized.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Somewhat
3 7.5 7.5 7.5
Dissatisfied
Not Satisfied 9 22.5 22.5 30.0
Somewhat
23 57.5 57.5 87.5
Satisfied
Satisfied 5 12.5 12.5 100.0
Total 40 100.0 100.0
2
RESEARCH STUDY: JOB SATISFACTION & PERFORMANCE
60
50
40
30
20
nP
rc
te
10
0
Somewhat Dissatisfied Not Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Satisfied
3.13Flexibility allowed
Flexibility in the working environment keeps the employees in a positive frame of mind. The
results from the research concluded that 32.5% of the employees feel that they are given free
hand at work. On the other hand, 27.5% are those employees who do not feel flexible in their
work.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Somewhat
2 5.0 5.0 5.0
Disatisfied
Not Satisfied 11 27.5 27.5 32.5
Somewhat
14 35.0 35.0 67.5
Satisfied
Satisfied 13 32.5 32.5 100.0
Total 40 100.0 100.0
40
30
20
nP
rc
te
10
0
Somewhat Disatisfied Not Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Satisfied
Are you satisfied with the over all climate of the organization?
RESEARCH STUDY: JOB SATISFACTION & PERFORMANCE
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid .00 1 2.5 2.5 2.5
Not Satisfied 8 20.0 20.0 22.5
Somewhat
18 45.0 45.0 67.5
Satisfied
Satisfied 13 32.5 32.5 100.0
Total 40 100.0 100.0
50
40
30
20
nP
rc
te
10
0
.00 Not Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Satisfied
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Very
1 2.5 2.5 2.5
Dissatisfied
Somewhat
5 12.5 12.5 15.0
Dissatisfied
Not Satisfied 17 42.5 42.5 57.5
Somewhat
12 30.0 30.0 87.5
Satisfied
Satisfied 5 12.5 12.5 100.0
Total 40 100.0 100.0
2
RESEARCH STUDY: JOB SATISFACTION & PERFORMANCE
50
40
30
20
nP
rc
te
10
0
Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Not Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied
Dissatisfied Satisfied
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Not Satisfied 9 22.5 22.5 22.5
Somewhat
23 57.5 57.5 80.0
Satisfied
Satisfied 8 20.0 20.0 100.0
Total 40 100.0 100.0
60
50
40
30
20
nP
rc
te
10
0
Not Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Satisfied
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Not Satisfied 10 25.0 25.0 25.0
Somewhat
27 67.5 67.5 92.5
Satisfied
Satisfied 3 7.5 7.5 100.0
Total 40 100.0 100.0
70
60
50
40
30
nP
rc
e
20
t
10
0
Not Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Satisfied
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Not Satisfied 2 5.0 5.0 5.0
Somewhat
25 62.5 62.5 67.5
Satisfied
Satisfied 13 32.5 32.5 100.0
Total 40 100.0 100.0
70
60
50
40
30
nP
rc
te
20
10
0
Not Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Satisfied
3.19Workplace Discrimination
2
RESEARCH STUDY: JOB SATISFACTION & PERFORMANCE
Employees feel discourage at work, if they experience any discrimination, either gender,
educational background, linguistic or race. Successful organizations always try to eliminate any
discrimination they may experience at the workplace. From our survey, we concluded that
majority of the employees do not feel any discrimination at their jobs. Although 20% of them do
feel that there is discrimination, but that figure can be easily overcome by organizing activities
within the organization.
Individual differences like gender, educational background, and race are respected in your organization?
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Very
2 5.0 5.0 5.0
Dissatisfied
Somewhat
1 2.5 2.5 7.5
Dissatisfied
Not Satisfied 8 20.0 20.0 27.5
Somewhat
16 40.0 40.0 67.5
Satisfied
Satisfied 13 32.5 32.5 100.0
Total 40 100.0 100.0
40
30
20
nP
rc
te
10
0
Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Not Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Satisfied
Dissatisfied
From the analysis of the survey, we find out that all the three elements play an important role in
evaluating the overall Job Satisfaction level of the employees. Though, some factors are more
convincing than the others. That is why; the overall result shows a different picture, for example,
if an employee is satisfied with his salary, it does not mean that he is also satisfied with his job.
There are other factors which come into play when we talk about the term “Job Satisfaction”, i.e.
the working conditions, personal growth, utilization of skills and all others mentioned above. But
one thing is clear from this survey, that all these factors of Job Satisfaction do affect the
performance of the employees – either directly or indirectly.
RESEARCH STUDY: JOB SATISFACTION & PERFORMANCE
2
RESEARCH STUDY: JOB SATISFACTION & PERFORMANCE
To begin our findings, let us again divide job satisfaction as a combination of three elements.
These all three elements have been used collectively in our survey.
1. Task Satisfaction
2. Employment Satisfaction
3. Market Satisfaction
The diagram in Figure below illustrates the simple correlation between job satisfaction and job
performance. The theory is that the employee's performance is in direct correlation to their
satisfaction; improve their satisfaction and you will improve their performance.
After conducting our survey and looking at things in a new ways for performance vs.
satisfaction, let’s start with a very basic view: comparing the satisfaction and performance of a
specific task. We will refer to these as task satisfaction and task performance. Task satisfaction is
strongly influenced by a person's aptitude; it is the satisfaction received by the employee for
performing that specific task.
In the figure below, let us break the relationship of performance and satisfaction into four
quadrants to further explore and explain the complexity of the relationship. This figure helps to
understand the complexity while trying to keep the concept manageable. There are varying
degrees of satisfaction and performance so it is difficult to state exactly where one would draw
the line between high performance and low performance and between high satisfaction and low
satisfaction. Each person is somewhere along those two lines. We can only try to understand
what will happen as the employees move along those lines.
RESEARCH STUDY: JOB SATISFACTION & PERFORMANCE
The above
Figure creates
four
quadrants.
This individual loves his/her job. He/she has the aptitude, the skill, and resources necessary to
perform the assigned task, and he/she performs the task quite well. A person in this quadrant may
become so caught up in his/her task that the person does not realize that he/she has worked past
quitting time.
The manager should consider whether or not something is missing. Does the employee lack the
aptitude, the skills, or the resources necessary to perform the task well? Being in this quadrant
does not mean that the employee is not trying! From the employee's perception, the employee
may be expending a great deal of effort in trying to complete the task. The employee may feel
that he/she is doing everything humanly possible and he/she does not understand why
management is unhappy with his/her performance. This person may experience very low task
satisfaction because he/she finds it difficult or unfavorable to perform the task. This person may
2
RESEARCH STUDY: JOB SATISFACTION & PERFORMANCE
be a clock-watcher, never arriving early or staying late without being mandated and
compensated.
This person is indicating that they would rather be doing another job, but at the same time their
personal values are such that they are giving this task their best effort. A company should think
that this is a person they want to keep. It may well be worth the company’s effort to look at
developing a graceful transition plan that would allow this individual to move to another position
while minimizing the impact to your present operations.
From a positive viewpoint, a person in this quadrant loves his/her work but he/she is not
performing as expected. The employee may find it hard to quit working on a task knowing that
he/she can always make it better (i.e., a perfectionist that never finishes his task). Or, the person
may enjoy what he/she is doing but lacks the aptitude, skill, or other resources necessary to do
the task quickly.
RESEARCH STUDY: JOB SATISFACTION & PERFORMANCE
5 CONCLUSION
The Model shows that if the person's aptitude is such that they enjoy the tasks and they have the
skills to perform the tasks, then they have the potential of being in the high satisfaction and high
performance quadrant. If the basic needs are not met, then increasing the person's salary is not
going to improve performance.
If a person should be in the high task satisfaction and high task performance quadrant and they
are not performing as expected then the question is one of choice,
"Why did the employee conscientiously or unconscientiously chose to move towards the left
(decreased performance) in Figure?"
The answer is quite simple; factors influencing the person's conscious or unconscious
movements along the performance line include those which are related to employment
satisfaction and market satisfaction.
Though it has been shown in our research that there exists a relationship between Job
Satisfaction and Job Performance, we will never be able to pinpoint an exact correlation between
job satisfaction and performance that will work in every situation. Doing a job well may improve
job satisfaction, being satisfied may encourage a person to try harder, and each person's personal
value system will have an effect on how he/she reacts to motivators and impediments. The best
we can do is try to understand that performance is a complex issue, and recognize where we have
control to address issues affecting an individual's performance.
2
RESEARCH STUDY: JOB SATISFACTION & PERFORMANCE
6 APPENDIX
JOB SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE
Name: ____________________
Organization: _____________
Sector:____________________
Department: _______________
Post: ______________________
Length of services:____________
REFERNCES
o Alderfer, P, 1969, “An empirical test of a new theory of human needs.
Organizational Behavior and Performance”, 142-175.
o Alexander, C. 2000, Organization Behavior, London.
o Arvey, Richard D., L. M. Abraham, T.J. Bocahrd, & N. L. Segal. 1989, “Job
Satisfaction: Environment and Genetic Components”, Journal of Applied
Psychology.
o Amsden, A.H, 1994, “a Review of the World Bank East Asia Study”, World Dev
ANDelopment, pp.627-633.
o Barber AE & Bretz RD, Jr, 2000, Compensation attraction, and retention. In
Rynes SL.
o Beck, R.C, 1994, “Motivation: Theories and Principles. (2nd ED.)” Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
o Berkowitz, L., Fraser, C., Treasure, P, & Cochran, S, 1987. “Pay equity, job
gratifications and comparisons in pay level satisfaction”, Journal of the
applied Psychology, 72, 544-551.
o Blau, Gary, 1994, “Testing the effect of level and Importance of Pay Referents
on Pay Level Satisfaction” Humans Relations 47:1251-68.
o Blau, P. M, 1964, Exchange and power in Social Life, New York.
o Bordia, P., & Blau G, 1998, Pay referent comparison and pay level satisfaction.
o Bretz RD, Jr, Thomas SL. (1992). Perceived equity, motivation, and final offer
arbitration in major league baseball. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 280-
287.
o Herzberg, F. 1968, “One more time: How do you motivated employees?”
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 46, iss. 1, pp. 53-62.
o Taylor, G. S, & Vest, M.J. 1992. “Pay comparison and pay satisfaction among
public sector employees”. Public Personnel Management, 21, 445-445.
o Vroom, V. H, 1995, Work and Motivation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.