JBR-08681; No of Pages 6

Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Antecedents of employee job satisfaction: Do they matter?

Ins Alegre , Marta Mas-Machuca, Jasmina Berbegal-Mirabent
Department of Economy and Business Organization, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, C. Immaculada, 22, Barcelona 08017, Spain

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 1 February 2015
Received in revised form 1 July 2015
Accepted 1 September 2015
Available online xxxx
Keywords:
Job satisfaction,
Organizational goals, Workfamily balance,
Autonomy, Supervisor support, Teamwork
Supervisor support
Teamwork

a b s t r a c t
This research investigates the collective effect of (1) the employeeorganization relationship, (2) the employee
supervisor relationship, and (3) the employeecoworker relationship on employee job satisfaction. The empirical
application considers a data sample comprising 374 valid observations and uses qualitative comparative analysis
(QCA) in its fuzzy set variant to test the model. A second-stage analysis compares the results with the results of
alternative methodologies. The ndings reveal that three different paths explain job satisfaction: (1) teamwork,
identication with the strategy, and the absence of employee workfamily balance; (2) employee workfamily
balance, autonomy, and identication with the strategy; and (3) supervisor support and identication with the
strategy. The study concludes with a discussion of managerial applications.
2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The academic literature has a long history of investigating employee
job satisfaction. According to Locke (1976), job satisfaction is a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job
or job experiences. Spector (1997) adds that employee satisfaction is
now a common concern among companies. As this emotional state is
a key factor in an employee's life, job satisfaction is a stimulating topic
to study.
Most academic research on this topic focuses on measuring and
assessing job satisfaction (Chang & Cheng, 2014; Fila, Paik, Griffeth, &
Allen, 2014; Macintosh & Krush, 2014; Spagnoli, Caetano, & Santos,
2012). Researchers from elds such as industrial-organizational psychology, organizational behavior, and human resource management
(HRM) devote considerable effort to analyzing the antecedents and consequences of job satisfaction.
Previous studies, however, provide a partial view of job satisfaction
since they usually focus on the one-to-one relationship between an antecedent condition and job satisfaction, without taking a global view to
show how different factors simultaneously affect job satisfaction. This
research posits that a combination of factors (e.g., organization, coworkers, and supervisor) affects employee job satisfaction. Accordingly,
this empirical study adopts a qualitative comparative analysis using

The authors thank the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and
suggestions.
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ialegre@uic.es (I. Alegre), mmas@uic.es (M. Mas-Machuca),
jberbegal@uic.es (J. Berbegal-Mirabent).

fuzzy sets (fsQCA) to explore the association between employee job satisfaction and the different relationships that employees develop in organizations. In addition, this study uses regression and structural equation
models (SEM) and compares the results of the different methodologies.
This study contributes to the literature by investigating the collective
effect of different employee relationships on job satisfaction. Second,
the study extends the literature by using an uncommon methodology
in the eld of management, the fuzzy set methodology. Finally, the
paper compares the results from the fsQCA with those obtained by
using regression analysis and SEM to show the commonalities and differences in the application of fsQCA.

2. Theoretical background
Three main relationships affect employee satisfaction: (1) the employeeorganization relationship, (2) the employeesupervisor relationship, and (3) the employeecoworker relationship (Tang, Siu, &
Cheung, 2014). Following Adams, King, and King (1996) and Allen,
Shore, and Griffeth (2003), the employeeorganization relationship underlines the importance of employee identication with and commitment to organizational strategy and company goals. This relationship
also includes other factors, such as a company's support of employee
workfamily balance. Authors such as Edgar and Geare (2005) and
Fila et al. (2014) consider the employeesupervisor relationship a key
factor that inuences employee job satisfaction. In this regard, factors
such as the extent to which a supervisor delegates and gives autonomy
to employees greatly inuence employees' assessments of their jobs. Finally, the relationship between employees and colleagues is also an

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.113
0148-2963/ 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Alegre, I., et al., Antecedents of employee job satisfaction: Do they matter?, Journal of Business Research (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.113

I. Alegre et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxxxxx

important source of job satisfaction (Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001; Sageer,

Rafat, & Agarwal, 2012). Fig. 1 shows these relationships.
To foster employee commitment to and identication with organizational goals, organizations must clearly dene their objectives
(Patterson et al., 2005). Organizational identity refers broadly to what
organizational members perceive, feel, and think about their organizations (Hatch & Schultz, 1997). Organizational commitment exists
when individuals identify with organizational goals. Allen et al. (2003)
suggest that employees' organization commitment and identity explain
employee satisfaction, and Bart, Bontis, and Taggar (2001) link employee satisfaction to the organizational mission and strategy.
Most employees divide their daily life between work and family.
Thus, organizational responses to workfamily (WF) conict inuence
employees' attitudes toward their jobs (Ornstein & Isabella, 1993). Exploring the relationships among WF conict, organizational policies,
and job and life satisfaction Kossek and Ozeki (1998) nd a consistent
negative relationship between WF conict and job and life satisfaction.
Dixon and Sagas (2007) further empirically demonstrate the theorized
relationship between WF conict and job-life satisfaction, and Qu and
Zhao (2012) investigate the impact of life satisfaction on job satisfaction
in different situations of WF conict.
Rowold, Borgmann, and Bormann (2014) propose that the leadership style of an employee's supervisor positively affects the employee's
organizational commitment and job satisfaction. In particular, the extent to which an employee's supervisor provides encouragement and
support to the employee concerning the employee's work is a strong determinant of the employee's attitude toward his or her job (Grifn,
Patterson, & West, 2001). Numerous studies investigate this relationship in various job contexts (Yukl, 1989). For instance, Kirkman and
Rosen (1999) underline the importance of promoting a supportive
work environment and adequate supervisor support, as these factors affect employees' work-related attitudes and perceptions. Tang et al.
(2014) further suggest that WF enrichment fully mediates the relationship between job satisfaction and both supervisor and organizational
support.
Autonomy refers to the extent to which individual employees can
structure and control how and when they perform their specic job.
Highly autonomous jobs increase both job performance and satisfaction
(Spector, 1986). Accordingly, autonomy and exibility are common antecedents of job satisfaction (Chang & Cheng, 2014; Grifn, Patterson, &
West, 2001).
Finally, teamwork involves cooperative work between interdependent groups to obtain an outcome; thus, it reects the relationship
between employees and colleagues (Parker & Wall, 1998). Much of
the research interest in teamwork is due to the idea that work teams
are able to generate greater returns than individuals alone (Ilgen,

Autonomy
(A)

Teamwork
(T)

T*W*I*S*A

Work-family
balance (W)

Supervisor
support (S)
Identification with
the strategy (I)
Source: Self-reported
Fig. 1. Relationships between employees at different levels.

Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005). Communicating and collaborating

within a team, sharing information and knowledge, and prioritizing the
group over individual outcomes are important team features that enhance the benets of teamwork. According to Grifn et al. (2001), job
enrichment can result from teamwork, partly explaining the link between teamwork and job satisfaction. Work policies that promote employees' initiatives foster higher levels of autonomy.
All in all, job satisfactions stands as an emotion that involves a
person's overall evaluation with respect their work environment. Because previous studies mainly use SEM, hierarchical regression analysis
or meta-analytic combinations to examine job satisfaction this study
adopts fsQCA to better understand the antecedents of job satisfaction.
3. Data and methods
3.1. Sample and procedure
The sample of the study includes employees of a Spanish pharmaceutical company, and the eldwork contains information from 463 surveys (March 2013) using both online and paper-and-pencil formats.
After the exclusion of incomplete questionnaires, data for the analysis
comprises 374 valid surveys (a response rate of 80.78%). The empirical
application uses the mean of nearby points to treat missing data points.
Managers' interest in the study allows the use of participative strategies,
such as a rafe, facilitating a high response rate.
3.2. Scales
The survey includes six scales (identication with and commitment to
organizational goals, workfamily balance, autonomy, supervisor support,
teamwork, and job satisfaction) in the form of statements to which
respondents indicate their level of agreement/disagreement on a fourpoint Likert scale. All item loadings are higher than 0.6. As the original
language of the items in the scales is English, this study applies
forward/backward translation (FBT) to adapt the questionnaire (Chen
& Bates, 2005).
An extensive review of the relevant literature supports the validity
of the scales (see Table 1).
Finally, one single-item overall measure captures job satisfaction.
According to Dolbier, Webster, McCalister, Mallon, and Steinhardt
(2005) and Wanous, Reichers, and Hudy (1997), from a psychometric
perspective, the use of single-item measures to operationalize this
construct compares favorably with the use of multiple-item measures.
3.3. Methodology
This study uses fsQCA as the study methodology. QCA addresses
complex causality perspectives by assuming asymmetric relationships
among observations. This approach facilitates the determination of
which combination of antecedent conditions is most likely to cause an
outcome. The result is a number of combinations that enable the production of the outcome under analysis (Longest & Vaisey, 2008).
QCA entails the analysis of the necessary and sufcient conditions to
produce an outcome (Meyer, Tsui, & Hinings, 1993; Wu, Yeh, Huan, &
Woodside, 2014) and involves various stages. First, a calibration process
transforms variables into sets according to their degree of membership
to each of the conditions (Ragin, 2008). A score of 1 indicates full
membership, and 0 indicates full non-membership. Breakpoints
allow for the calibration of all original values into membership values.
Typically, 0.95 indicates full membership, and 0.05 denotes full nonmembership. The crossover point (0.5) designates cases with the maximum ambiguity regarding their membership in the set.
The second stage includes the analysis of the truth table, which consists of all logically possible combinations of condition sets (Fiss, 2011).
Next, using Boolean algebra, QCA computes the commonalities among
the congurations that lead to the outcome. Finally, the Quine

Please cite this article as: Alegre, I., et al., Antecedents of employee job satisfaction: Do they matter?, Journal of Business Research (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.113

I. Alegre et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Table 1
Scales measurements.
Construct

Original construct

Adapted from

Cronbach's alpha

Autonomy
Teamwork
Supervisor support
Identication with the strategy
Employee workfamily balance

Autonomy
Integration
Supervisor support
Clarity of organizational goals
Workfamily

Organizational climate measure (OMC)

Patterson et al. (2005)

0.68
0.74
0.816
0.80
0.74

McCluskey algorithm provides a logical reduction of statements (Fiss,

2007; Quine, 1955). At this stage, two parameters are in order:
(a) coverage and (b) consistency. The former indicates the empirical
relevance of a solution (the higher the better), and the latter quanties
the extent to which cases that share similar conditions yield the same
outcome.
The STATA software package (version 13) supports the statistical
treatment of the data.
4. Results
Table 2 shows the calibration process and indicates the transformation of both the outcome and the antecedent conditions into fuzzy
terms.
Tables 2 and 3 display the relationship between the outcome (job
satisfaction) and the various antecedent conditions considered. As
Table 3 shows, all causal conditions relate to the outcome variable,
with coincidence scores above 0.85 in all cases. Notwithstanding,
Table 4 indicates that no single set (alone) is most sufcient for
predicting the outcome, suggesting that the analysis can proceed to
examine the consistency of different congurations when combining
causal conditions.
The rst step involves the identication of congurations with yconsistencies (positive outcome) that are signicantly greater than
their n-consistencies (negation of the outcome). According to Table 4,
23 congurations fulll the requirements.
The second stage involves the determination of which congurations have y-consistency levels signicantly higher than a threshold
value. According to Ragin (2008), a minimum consistency of 0.8 is
sufcient to indicate goodness of t. In order to restrict the number of
conditions that fulll the requirement, this study employs a more
stringent cutoff point: 0.9. As Table 4 shows, twelve congurations are
consistent at the 0.05 level of signicance.
The next step consists of selecting only those congurations that
pass both tests. This step yields twelve common sets; however, they
may overlap. The QuineMcCluskey algorithm then provides a logical
reduction of the congurations. The nal reduction set includes three
congurations, indicating that the congurations in Table 4 collapse
into three. Table 5 presents the results. In this table, each row represents
a conguration of causal conditions with their corresponding raw
coverage, unique coverage and solution consistency. The numbers at
the bottom of the table represent the coverage and consistency of the
solution as a whole. According to the results of the analysis, the solution
yields coverage close to 60% and consistency of 91.6%.
The rst conguration of the solution, teamwork*strategy* ~
workfamily, represents the combination of factors that lead to job

Hayman (2005)

satisfaction: teamwork and cooperation between employees, identication with the strategy of the company, and absence of employee work
family balance. This conguration indicates that when employees identify with the organizational strategy and when a positive relationship
exists between employees and both colleagues and team members, employees can achieve positive levels of job satisfaction even if their job is
demanding and even if reconciling work and family is difcult. These
employees enjoy being at work, even at certain personal cost.
The second combination of antecedent conditions is autonomy*
strategy*workfamily. In contrast to the previous recipe, in this combination employee workfamily balance is relevant for job satisfaction, as
are autonomy and identication with the organizational strategy. The
implications of this combination are that employees value job autonomy because it allows them to make their own decisions about their
work and schedule and thereby facilitates workfamily balance. Thus,
according to this combination, employees appreciate their job because
of the autonomy inherent in the job, whereas according to the previous
conguration, employees value team membership and collaboration.
The third conguration that emerges from the analysis (supervisor*
strategy) indicates that a combination of supervisor support and identication with the organizational strategy also lead to job satisfaction. This
combination addresses another source of support for employees in addition to colleagues: supervisor support. In this sense, supervisor support
enhances job satisfaction. Notably, in all three congurations, employee
identication with the organizational strategy is a signicant factor
through which employees achieve positive levels of job satisfaction.
To further corroborate the results, additional tests use regression
analysis and SEM to examine the data. Although all these methodologies
differ in scope and purpose, comparing the results of dissimilar approaches might lead to interesting results, not only in terms of the
models but also in terms of the inherent methodological issues.
First, this study conducts a regression analysis to examine the explanatory power of the ve antecedent conditions in explaining the outcome (job satisfaction). The ndings reveal that both supervisor support
(p-value = 0.003) and employees' identication with the organizational strategy (p-value = 0.000) positively relate to job satisfaction. Normal probability plots of the residuals corroborate that residuals follow
a normal distribution. Additionally, the data do not suffer from collinearity problems, as the maximum VIF is 2.46 (Rogerson, 2001).
Concerning the use of SEM, this study adopts the maximum likelihood method from the asymptotic variancecovariance matrix to estimate the model by using EQS software version 6.1. The t indices in
the measurement model estimation show good general t: 2 =
87.580 with 63 of freedom and a p-value of 0.0220; 2/df is 1.39,
which is under the acceptable limit of 5, RMSEA is 0.032, and the CFI is
0.988. Although the model t is acceptable, the results show that

Table 2
Distribution of each variable and its corresponding set.
Variable

Coding

Full non-membership (0.05)

Crossover point (0.5)

Full membership (0.95)

Job satisfaction
Autonomy
Teamwork
Supervisor support
Identication with the strategy
Employee workfamily balance

Jobsat
Autonomy
Teamwork
Supervisor
Strategy
Workfamily

0.150
0.248
0.308
0.314
0.358
0.232

1.500
2.484
3.075
3.137
3.578
2.315

2.850
4.719
5.843
5.960
6.797
4.398

Please cite this article as: Alegre, I., et al., Antecedents of employee job satisfaction: Do they matter?, Journal of Business Research (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.113

I. Alegre et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Table 3
Coincidence matrix and sufciency and necessity matrix.
Jobsat

Autonomy

Teamwork

Supervisor

Strategy

Workfamily

1.000
0.869
0.888
0.897
0.874
0.834

1.000
0.809
0.832
0.790
0.768

1.000
0.831
0.805
0.726

1.000
0.806
0.750

1.000
0.757

1.000

Sufciency and necessity matrix

Jobsat
1.000
Autonomy
0.869
Teamwork
0.888
Supervisor
0.897
Strategy
0.874
Workfamily
0.834

0.626
1.000
0.809
0.832
0.790
0.768

0.608
0.770
1.000
0.831
0.805
0.726

0.645
0.831
0.831
1.000
0.806
0.750

0.674
0.790
0.805
0.806
1.000
0.757

0.595
0.760
0.726
0.743
0.700
1.000

Coincidence matrix
Jobsat
Autonomy
Teamwork
Supervisor
Strategy
Workfamily

Table 4
Sufciency and necessity matrix.

y-consistency vs. n-consistency

Set

YCons

NCons

~autonomy* ~ teamwork*supervisor* ~ strategy*workfamily

~autonomy* ~ teamwork*supervisor*strategy* ~ workfamily
~autonomy* ~ teamwork*supervisor*strategy* workfamily
~autonomy*teamwork* ~ supervisor* ~ strategy* workfamily
~autonomy*teamwork* ~ supervisor*strategy* ~ workfamily
~autonomy*teamwork* ~ supervisor*strategy* ~ workfamily
~autonomy*teamwork*supervisor* ~ strategy* ~ workfamily
~autonomy*teamwork*supervisor* ~ strategy* workfamily
~autonomy*teamwork*supervisor*strategy* ~ workfamily
~autonomy*teamwork*supervisor*strategy* workfamily
autonomy* ~ teamwork* ~ supervisor*strategy* ~ workfamily
autonomy* ~ teamwork* ~ supervisor*strategy* workfamily
autonomy* ~ teamwork*supervisor* ~ strategy* ~ workfamily
autonomy* ~ teamwork*supervisor* ~ strategy* workfamily
autonomy* ~ teamwork*supervisor*strategy* ~ workfamily
autonomy* ~ teamwork*supervisor*strategy* workfamily
autonomy*teamwork* ~ supervisor* ~ strategy* workfamily
autonomy*teamwork* ~ supervisor*strategy* ~ workfamily
autonomy*teamwork* ~ supervisor*strategy* workfamily
autonomy*teamwork*supervisor* ~ strategy* ~ workfamily
autonomy*teamwork*supervisor* ~ strategy* workfamily
autonomy*teamwork*supervisor*strategy* ~ workfamily
autonomy*teamwork*supervisor*strategy* workfamily

0.915
0.944
0.950
0.908
0.931
0.926
0.922
0.927
0.952
0.952
0.926
0.943
0.913
0.928
0.936
0.953
0.910
0.933
0.943
0.913
0.922
0.953
0.946

0.439
0.383
0.363
0.455
0.393
0.395
0.406
0.394
0.342
0.328
0.421
0.367
0.427
0.372
0.368
0.301
0.403
0.377
0.339
0.373
0.327
0.268
0.213

96.45
185.24
218.2
85.85
146.72
129.64
117.97
130.13
243.09
268.65
124.62
192.59
99.04
147.82
169.55
304.67
103.64
151.64
220.31
117.31
165.36
343.43
464.72

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

y-consistency vs. set value

Set

YConsist

Set value

~autonomy* ~ teamwork*supervisor*strategy* ~ workfamily

~autonomy* ~ teamwork*supervisor*strategy* workfamily
~autonomy*teamwork* ~ supervisor*strategy* ~ workfamily
~autonomy*teamwork*supervisor*strategy* ~ workfamily
~autonomy*teamwork*supervisor*strategy* workfamily
autonomy* ~ teamwork* ~ supervisor*strategy* workfamily
autonomy* ~ teamwork*supervisor*strategy* ~ workfamily
autonomy* ~ teamwork*supervisor*strategy* workfamily
autonomy*teamwork* ~ supervisor*strategy* ~ workfamily
autonomy*teamwork* ~ supervisor*strategy* workfamily
autonomy*teamwork*supervisor*strategy* ~ workfamily
autonomy*teamwork*supervisor*strategy* workfamily

0.944
0.950
0.931
0.952
0.952
0.943
0.936
0.953
0.933
0.943
0.953
0.946

0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9

15.54
20.77
5.42
27.06
25.69
11.78
6.47
20.64
4.66
11.14
21.07
15.58

0
0
0.020
0
0
0.001
0.011
0
0.032
0.001
0
0

Common sets
~autonomy* ~ teamwork*supervisor*strategy* ~ workfamily ~autonomy* ~ teamwork*supervisor*strategy* workfamily
~autonomy*teamwork* ~ supervisor*strategy* ~ workfamily ~autonomy*teamwork*supervisor*strategy* ~ workfamily ~autonomy*teamwork*supervisor*strategy*
workfamily
autonomy* ~ teamwork* ~ supervisor*strategy* workfamily autonomy* ~ teamwork*supervisor*strategy* ~ workfamily autonomy* ~ teamwork*supervisor*strategy*
workfamily autonomy*teamwork* ~ supervisor*strategy* ~ workfamily autonomy*teamwork* ~ supervisor*strategy* workfamily
autonomy*teamwork*supervisor*strategy* ~ workfamily autonomy*teamwork*supervisor*strategy* workfamily
Note: ~ indicates the negation of the condition.

Please cite this article as: Alegre, I., et al., Antecedents of employee job satisfaction: Do they matter?, Journal of Business Research (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.113

I. Alegre et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Table 5
Sufciency and necessity matrix.
Set congurations
teamwork*strategy* ~ workfamily
autonomy*strategy*workfamily
supervisor*strategy
Total coverage = 0.591
Solution consistency = 0.916

Raw
coverage

Unique
coverage

Solution
consistency

0.301
0.425
0.538

0.025
0.022
0.070

0.933
0.930
0.929

employees' identication with the organizational strategy is the only

factor that exerts a signicant inuence on job satisfaction. Supervisor
support is almost signicant but does not enter in the model.
In both cases, the results from these two complementary methodologies seem to support the above argument that employee identication
with organizational strategy is a key factor that affects job satisfaction.
5. Discussion
The present results contribute to research on job satisfaction by
outlining several combinations of antecedents that affect employee
job satisfaction. Specically, a high level of teamwork and high levels
of organizational identication and commitment foster a high level of
job satisfaction even in the presence of a low level of workfamily balance. Thus, when an employee has a good relationship with his/her colleagues and identies with the company's objectives and goals despite a
possible WF conict, the employee can achieve high job satisfaction. In
this way, having a good relationship with one's coworkers and identifying with the direction and aim of the company compensate for the interference of WF conict. For employees, working in a company may
require effort to meet family obligations and achieve life satisfaction;
nevertheless, working in a friendly environment and identifying with
the company's goals can improve job satisfaction.
In addition, the empirical results indicate that higher levels of autonomy in the decision-making process, higher levels of organizational
identication and commitment and higher levels of WF balance lead
to high levels of job satisfaction for employees. Thus, when employees
share the organization's strategy and mission, have autonomy to structure and manage their work, and have the ability to balance their work
with family or leisure, their job satisfaction will be high.
The collective effect of identication with organizational goals and
supervisor support is also notable. When a company's strategy aligns
with managerial support, job satisfaction increases. Employees feel
comfortable in a company if they share the organization's mission
(Bart et al., 2001). Furthermore, employees need to be comfortable
with their supervisor. These two factors can thus explain employee
job satisfaction.
As predicted, the ndings clearly support the view that job satisfaction is a complex construct and that many types of relationships shape
job satisfaction. According to these ndings, to achieve employee satisfaction and well-being, organizations should develop practices or initiatives aimed at increasing perceptions of organizational commitment,
WF balance, autonomy, supervisor support, and collaboration through
teamwork.
6. Conclusion
This study contributes to a large body of work on the antecedents of
job satisfaction. The results corroborate previous research on employee
satisfaction examining important relationships such as the employee
organization, employeecoworker, and employeesupervisor relationships. However, while previous studies focus on the one-to-one associations between these relationships and job satisfaction, this study
contributes to different streams of research on job satisfaction by studying the effect of all of these relationships simultaneously. In addition, research on HRM, psychology, and management can also benet from the

approach and methodology that this study adopts. Although information science and operations research applies QCA, this methodology is
largely absent from the management literature. The application of the
fuzzy set methodology in an area dominated by regressions and SEM
can offer multiple research opportunities to business and management
scholars. This study thus contributes to widening the scope and application of new quantitative techniques by comparing several methodologies and results.
The results of this research also have practical implications for managers because they may provide them with a more holistic understanding of the antecedents of job satisfaction. How can rms satisfy their
employees? This question is relevant for practice.
This research has several limitations, the most critical of which relates to the data source. The data in this study come from a single Spanish company, which may diminish the generalizability of the results.
Nevertheless, the subject of interest is at the individual level, and the
company has several sites and different departments, which adds necessary variability to the variables studied, such as employees' relationships with their team members and supervisors.
Future research could replicate this study in other companies and
countries or regions. Additionally, future studies could include other organizational variables (e.g., leadership, communication, and internal
processes) to examine the possible mediating or moderating roles of
such variables in the associations with job satisfaction.

References
Adams, G. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1996). Relationships of job and family involvement, family social support, and workfamily conict with job and life satisfaction.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 411420.
Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M., & Griffeth, R. W. (2003). The role of perceived organizational support and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process. Journal of
Management, 29(1), 99118.
Bart, C. K., Bontis, N., & Taggar, S. (2001). A model of the impact of mission statements on
rm performance. Management Decision, 39(1), 1935.
Chang, M., & Cheng, C. (2014). How balance theory explains high-tech professionals' solutions of enhancing job satisfaction. Journal of Business Research, 67(9), 20082018.
Chen, H., & Bates, R. A. (2005). Instrument translation and development strategies for
crosscultural studies. Proceedings of the 2005 Academy of Human Resource Development International Conference (pp. 693700) (USA).
Dixon, M. A., & Sagas, M. (2007). The relationship between organizational support, work
family conict, and the job-life satisfaction of university coaches. Research Quarterly
for Exercise and Sport, 78(3), 236247.
Dolbier, C. L., Webster, J. A., McCalister, K. T., Mallon, M. W., & Steinhardt, M. A. (2005).
Reliability and validity of a single-item measure of job satisfaction. American Journal
of Health Promotion, 19(3), 194198.
Edgar, F., & Geare, A. (2005). HRM practice and employee attitudes: Different
measuresDifferent results. Personnel Review, 34(5), 534549.
Fila, M. J., Paik, L. S., Griffeth, R. W., & Allen, D. (2014). Disaggregating job satisfaction: Effects of perceived demands, control, and support. Journal of Business and Psychology,
29(4), 639649.
Fiss, P. C. (2007). A set-theoretic approach to organizational congurations. Academy of
Management Review, 32(4), 11801198.
Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393420.
Grifn, M. A., Patterson, M. G., & West, M. A. (2001). Job satisfaction and teamwork: The
role of supervisor support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(5), 537550.
Hatch, M., & Schultz, M. (1997). Relations between organizational culture, identity and
image. European Journal of Marketing, 31(5/6), 356365.
Hayman, J. (2005). Psychometric assessment of an instrument designed to measure work
life balance. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 13(1), 8591.
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From
inputprocessoutput models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56,
517543.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1),
5874.
Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2001). The impact of cultural values on job satisfaction and
organizational commitment in self-managing work teams: The mediating role of employee resistance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(3), 557569.
Kossek, E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Workfamily conict, policies, and the job-life satisfaction
relationship: A review and directions for organizational behaviorhuman resources
research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 139149.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Longest, K. C., & Vaisey, S. (2008). Fuzzy: A program for performing qualitative comparative analyses (QCA) in Stata. Stata Journal, 8, 79104.

Please cite this article as: Alegre, I., et al., Antecedents of employee job satisfaction: Do they matter?, Journal of Business Research (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.113

I. Alegre et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Macintosh, G., & Krush, M. (2014). Examining the link between salesperson networking
behaviors, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment: Does gender matter?
Journal of Business Research, 67(12), 26282635.
Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S., & Hinings, C. R. (1993). Congurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 11751195.
Ornstein, S., & Isabella, L. A. (1993). Making sense of careers: A review 19891992. Journal
of Management, 19(2), 243267.
Parker, G., & Wall, T. D. (1998). Job and work design: Organizing work to promote well-being
and effectiveness. 4, . London, UK: Sage.
Patterson, M. G., West, M. A., Shackleton, V. J., Dawson, J. F., Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S., ...
Wallace, A. M. (2005). Validating the organizational climate measure: Links to
managerial practices, productivity and innovation. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 26(4), 379408.
Qu, H., & Zhao, X. (2012). Employees' workfamily conict moderating life and job
satisfaction. Journal of Business Research, 65(1), 2228.
Quine, W. V. (1955). A way to simplify truth functions. The American Mathematical
Monthly, 62(9), 627631.
Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Rogerson, P. (2001). Statistical methods for geography. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Rowold, J., Borgmann, L., & Bormann, K. (2014). Which leadership constructs are important for predicting job satisfaction, affective commitment, and perceived job

performance in prot versus nonprot organizations? Nonprot Management and

Leadership, 25(2), 147164.
Sageer, A., Rafat, S., & Agarwal, P. (2012). Identication of variables affecting employee
satisfaction and their impact on the organization. IOSR Journal of Business and
Management, 5, 3239.
Spagnoli, P., Caetano, A., & Santos, S. C. (2012). Satisfaction with job aspects: Do patterns
change over time? Journal of Business Research, 65(5), 609616.
Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning
autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 39(11), 10051016.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences.
Solid Action on Globalization and Environment, 3, (London, UK).
Tang, S., Siu, O., & Cheung, F. (2014). A study of workfamily enrichment among Chinese
employees: The mediating role between work support and job satisfaction. Applied
Psychology, 63(1), 130150.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are
single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 247252.
Wu, P., Yeh, S., Huan, T., & Woodside, A. G. (2014). Applying complexity theory to deepen
service dominant logic: Congural analysis of customer experience-and-outcome assessments of professional services for personal transformations. Journal of Business
Research, 67(8), 16471670.
Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of
Management, 15(2), 251289.

Please cite this article as: Alegre, I., et al., Antecedents of employee job satisfaction: Do they matter?, Journal of Business Research (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.113