A Thesis



Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of
Texas A&M University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of


August 2008

Major Subject: Psychology



A Thesis



Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of
Texas A&M University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of


Approved by:

Chair of Committee, Daniel A. Newman
Committee Members, Winfred E. Arthur, Jr.
Bradley L. Kirkman
Head of Department, Leslie C. Morey

August 2008

Major Subject: Psychology



Job Satisfaction and Job Performance: Is the Relationship Spurious? (August 2008)

Allison Laura Cook, B.A., Purdue University

Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Daniel A. Newman

The link between job satisfaction and job performance is one of the most studied

relationships in industrial/organizational psychology. Meta-analysis (Judge, Thoresen,

Bono, & Patton, 2001) has estimated the magnitude of this relationship to be ρ = .30.

With many potential causal models that explain this correlation, one possibility is that

the satisfaction-performance relationship is actually spurious, meaning that the

correlation is due to common causes of both constructs. Drawing upon personality

theory and the job characteristics model, this study presents a meta-analytic estimate of

the population-level relationship between job satisfaction and job performance,

controlling for commonly studied predictors of both. Common causes in this study

include personality trait Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and core self-

evaluations, along with cognitive ability and job complexity. Structural equation

modeling of the meta-analytic correlation matrix suggests a residual correlation of .16

between job satisfaction and performance—roughly half the magnitude of the zero-order

correlation. Following the test of spuriousness, I then propose and find support for an

integrated theoretical model in which job complexity and job satisfaction serve as

mediators for the effects of personality and ability on work outcomes. Results from this

which illuminates mediators in some of the effects of personality and ability. which is an advancement because the attitude-behavior link has not been estimated in light of personality and job characteristics. iv model suggest that job complexity is negatively related to satisfaction and performance. Another contribution is the integrated theoretical model. . Contributions of this paper include estimating the extent to which the satisfaction-performance relationship is partly spurious. once ability and personality are controlled.

I would also like to thank the other members of my committee. suggestions. Winfred Arthur. for his help in completing this thesis. Daniel Newman. and support. love. His knowledge of the field and guidance has been invaluable. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to thank my committee chair. Also. and Bradley Kirkman. Their expertise. and time were greatly appreciated. thanks to my parents for their continual encouragement. Jr. . comments.

........................................... 40 Literature Search...................................................... 60 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................ 40 Rules for Inclusion in the Meta-Analyses .................................................................................................................................................... 7 Spurious Relationships............................................................................................................................................................. 12 Partial Correlations .......... 25 Cognitive Ability ........................................................................................................................... 18 Job Characteristics ........................................................... 53 Implications for Practice ......... ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW .......... viii LIST OF TABLES... vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ............................ 61 ................................................................ 29 II METHOD……………………………………………………………................. vi LIST OF FIGURES .............................................. 6 Models of the Job Satisfaction-Job Performance Relationship ........................................................................................................................................................................ 42 III RESULTS……………………………………………………………... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......... v TABLE OF CONTENTS................ 16 Theoretical Common Causes of Job Satisfaction and Job Performance ................................................................................................................................ 41 Meta-Analytic Procedures....... 17 Personality Variables .... 59 Limitations and Contributions....... 1 History of the Job Satisfaction-Job Performance Relationship ................................................................................................. 27 An Integrated Theoretical Model...... 46 IV DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS .....................................

............................................................................................................................................................. 63 APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................... 91 .............................. vii Page REFERENCES .............. 79 VITA ..

....... and Cognitive Ability to Job Satisfaction and Job Performance.............................................................................................. Job Characteristics............ 17 Figure 5 Proposed Theoretical Model to Test for Spuriousness ................ 15 Figure 4 Graph of Partial Correlations ....... 39 Figure 7 Meta-Analytic Model Results Relating Personality............................................................................ 51 ........................... 29 Figure 6 Integrated Theoretical Model of the Relationships Among Personality........................ Job Characteristics.......... 15 Figure 2 Fully Spurious Relationship ................................................................................. viii LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1 Non-Spurious Relationship .................................. 15 Figure 3 Partly Spurious Relationship ........ and Job Performance ... 49 Figure 8 Structural Equations Model Result of the Integrated Theoretical Model ..................... Cognitive Ability...................................................................

........................ ix LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1 Meta-Analytic Sources........ 50 Table 5 Fit Indices for Structural Model ........ 48 Table 4 Results of Controlling for Variables in the Satisfaction- Performance Relationship ... 43 Table 2 Overall Meta-Analytic Correlation Matrix ......... and Meta-Analyses Conducted ............ Estimates.................................... 47 Table 3 Meta-Analytic Correlation Matrix with Core Self-Evaluations ..................................... 52 ..............................

Schleicher. and stems from classic industrial/organizational and social psychological theory (e. 2001). job performance. and common causes of these two variables. 1989).. p. 2004). 1969. Lawler & Porter. It has been referred to as the “Holy Grail” of industrial/organizational psychology (Landy. The purpose of the current paper is to examine a model of the satisfaction-performance relationship that is specified as partly spurious. Job satisfaction has been defined as “feelings or affective responses to facets of the (workplace) situation” (Smith. & Roth. & Greguras.g. . & Hulin. Thoresen. In addition. Kendall. Newman. & Patton. More recently. 1967. 6). Watt. I will suggest a theoretical model that includes the relationships among job satisfaction. 2006. Wicker. 1969). The connection between workplace attitudes and behavioral outcomes continues to be a prevalent research topic (Harrison. researchers have acknowledged that job satisfaction is a phenomenon best described as having both cognitive (thoughts) and affective (feelings) character. Bono. 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW The relationship between job satisfaction and job performance has been studied extensively throughout the history of industrial/organizational psychology (Judge. Brief and Weiss (2002) suggested that employee reports of affect at work can be used to measure job satisfaction and that affective experiences while on the job are also a cause of job ____________ This thesis follows the style of the Journal of Applied Psychology.

twins reared apart. both over time and over different situations (see Ilies & Judge. employee job satisfaction is the affective state of employees regarding multiple facets of their jobs (Brown & Peterson. 1993). The dispositional source of job satisfaction has been supported by studies that show stability in job satisfaction. One reason for this dispositional nature of job satisfaction could come from an individual’s genetic makeup. Arvey. Job satisfaction is also believed to be dispositional in nature. Because identical twins have the same genetic makeup but are reared apart and as such do not have the same environmental influences. or identical. 2 satisfaction. Another study that has supported the dispositional nature of job satisfaction found a strong and consistent relationship in attitudes over time as well as a relationship in attitudes across different situations or settings (Staw & Ross. The dispositional approach of job . Segal. 1985). In other words. They found that even when they were not raised together. This cognitive component is made up of judgments and beliefs about the job whereas the affective component comprises feelings and emotions associated with the job. and Abraham (1989) found support for a genetic component to job satisfaction in their study of monozygotic. this similarity in job satisfaction ratings is argued to represent a genetic component. Bouchard. There is also a cognitive component to job satisfaction (Organ & Near. so job satisfaction comprises employee feelings regarding multiple aspects of the job. This dispositional viewpoint assumes that measuring personal characteristics can aid in the prediction of job satisfaction (Staw & Ross. identical twins tended to have job satisfaction levels that were significantly correlated. 1985). 2003). 1985).


satisfaction is not a mirage and individual dispositions do indeed affect job satisfaction

(Staw & Cohen-Charash, 2005).

Satisfaction in the workplace is valuable to study for multiple reasons: (a)

increased satisfaction is suggested to be related to increased productivity, and (b)

promoting employee satisfaction has inherent humanitarian value (Smith et al., 1969).

In addition, job satisfaction is also related to other positive outcomes in the workplace,

such as increased organizational citizenship behaviors (Organ & Ryan, 1995), increased

life satisfaction (Judge, 2000), decreased counterproductive work behaviors (Dalal,

2005),and decreased absenteeism (Hardy, Woods, & Wall, 2003). Each of these

outcomes is desirable in organizations, and as such shows the value of studying and

understanding job satisfaction.

Job performance, on the other hand, consists of the observable behaviors that

people do in their jobs that are relevant to the goals of the organization (Campbell,

McHenry, & Wise, 1990). Job performance is of interest to organizations because of the

importance of high productivity in the workplace (Hunter & Hunter, 1984).

Performance definitions should focus on behaviors rather than outcomes (Murphy,

1989), because a focus on outcomes could lead employees to find the easiest way to

achieve the desired results, which is likely to be detrimental to the organization because

other important behaviors will not be performed. Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, and Sager

(1993) explain that performance is not the consequence of behaviors, but rather the

behaviors themselves. In other words, performance consists of the behaviors that

employees actually engage in which can be observed.


In contrast to the strictly behavioral definitions of job performance, Motowidlo,

Borman, and Schmit (1997) say that rather than solely the behaviors themselves,

performance is behaviors with an evaluative aspect. This definition is consistent with

the dominant methods used to measure job performance, namely performance ratings

from supervisors and peers (Newman, Kinney, & Farr, 2004). Although Motowidlo et al.

(1997) emphasize this evaluative idea in defining the performance domain, they still

maintain that job performance is behaviors and not results. One further element of

performance is that the behaviors must be relevant to the goals of the organization

(Campbell et al., 1993).

Classic performance measures often operationalize performance as one general

factor that is thought to account for the total variance in outcomes. In their theory of

performance, Campbell et al. (1993) stated that a general factor does not provide an

adequate conceptual explanation of performance, and they outline eight factors that

should account for all of the behaviors that are encompassed by job performance (i.e.,

job-specific task proficiency, non-job-specific task proficiency, written and oral

communication task proficiency, demonstrating effort, maintaining personal discipline,

facilitating peer and team performance, supervision/leadership, and

management/administration). They therefore urge against the use of overall performance

ratings and suggest that studies should look at the eight dimensions of performance

separately, because the “general factor cannot possibly represent the best fit” (Campbell

et al., 1993, p. 38) when measuring performance. Other researchers have stated that even

though specific dimensions of performance can be conceptualized, there is utility in


using a single, general factor. Using meta-analytic procedures to look at the relationships

between overall performance and its dimensions, Viswesvaran, Schmidt, and Ones

(2005) found that approximately 60 percent of the variance in performance ratings

comes from the general factor. Further, this general factor is not explainable by rater

error (i.e., a halo effect). Thus, overwhelming empirical evidence suggests that

researchers should not dismiss the idea of a general factor, and that unidimensional

measures of overall performance may have an important place in theories of job


In the performance literature, a distinction is made between in role and extra-role

performance (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Extra-role performance is also conceptualized as

organizational citizenship behaviors (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). Based on this

research, Borman and Motowidlo (1993) suggested that performance can be divided into

two parts, task and contextual performance. Task performance involves the

effectiveness with which employees perform the activities that are formally part of their

job and contribute to the organization’s technical core. Contextual performance

comprises organizational activities that are volitional, not prescribed by the job, and do

not contribute directly to the technical core (cf. Organ, 1997). Contextual performance

includes activities such as helping, cooperating with others, and volunteering, which are

not formally part of the job but can be important for all jobs. Although this distinction

does exist, the current study focuses on task, or in-role, performance.

other reviews of the satisfaction-performance relationship have also been published (e. The Hawthorne studies in the 1930s and the human relations movement stimulated interest in the relationship between employee attitudes and performance. One of the most optimistic of these reviews is that of Herzberg et al. Mausner. & Campbell. Following these reviews. 1970. (1957) in which they express confidence in a relationship between job satisfaction and job performance. Peterson.g. 1970). Specifically. performance. 6 History of the Job Satisfaction-Job Performance Relationship The satisfaction-performance relationship has been studied for decades. both empirically investigating the relationship and also looking specifically at potential mediators and moderators of the . researchers began to more closely consider the satisfaction-performance relationship. this review was limited by the small number of primary studies existent at the time that examined the satisfaction-performance relationship. 1970. 1970).. Schwab & Cummings. Schwab and Cummings (1970) explain that a premature focus on the satisfaction-performance relationship has been problematic because of the lack of theory involved. 1964. Locke. Herzberg. but suggest that previous correlations have been low because researchers were not correctly measuring satisfaction and performance. 1957. Vroom. Brayfield and Crockett (1955) published a narrative review of the satisfaction-performance relationship in which they concluded that the relationship was minimal or nonexistent. and their relationship (Locke. These reviews have differed in their perceptions of the satisfaction-performance relationship. A common theme among these reviews is a necessity for theoretical work on satisfaction. However. Since Brayfield and Crockett’s influential review. Schwab & Cummings.

As performance was conceptualized as being at a general level. As such.30. Judge et al. 2001). Thus.30 rather than Iaffaldono and Muchinsky’s (1985) correlation of . Iaffaldano and Muchinsky (1985) conducted an empirical investigation of the satisfaction-performance relationship and found the true population correlation to be .. Judge et al. 7 relationship (Judge et al. They also discuss two additional models of the satisfaction-performance relationships. When looking at the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance. one would expect that measuring satisfaction at the facet level would result in lower correlation than measuring satisfaction at the more general global level. Models of the Job Satisfaction-Job Performance Relationship Now that the job satisfaction and job performance constructs have been defined and the history of the job satisfaction-job performance relationship reviewed. I turn to discussing the possible causal models underlying the relationship between the two. In the more recent meta-analysis. Because these . (2001) estimated a true population correlation of . and the other is that alternative conceptualizations of job satisfaction and/or performance should be used. they concluded that satisfaction and performance are only slightly related. it is reasonable to believe that the true correlation between satisfaction and performance is closer to Judge et al’s (2001) correlation of .17. (2001) specified and found five different models to be empirically plausible.17. which they conclude are not plausible. They explain that this result is different from the one obtained by Iaffaldano and Muchinsky (1985) because the Iaffaldono and Muchinsky study examined satisfaction at the facet rather than global level. One of these models is that there is actually no relationship between satisfaction and performance.

Loosely applying Fishbein and Ajzen’s theory. organizational researchers have theorized that attitudes toward the job.e. discussed below]. they will not be discussed further. most commonly . not due to a substantive causal mechanism between them). 1974). 1982).. Aside from the three direct causal models described above. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) state that positive or negative attitudes toward a behavior can lead to enactment of that behavior. because much of the satisfaction-performance data is cross-sectional and therefore cannot unequivocally demonstrate causation (Kenny. Lawler& Porter. 1970. 1979. Mulaik. 8 two models are not suggested to be plausible. it depends upon one or more conditional variables). In considering the possibility that satisfaction causes performance. should be related to job behaviors. two alternative models of the satisfaction-performance relationship suggest that other. by way of behavioral intentions. or that it may be spurious (i. (b) performance causing satisfaction (Locke..e. These include the idea that the relationship may be moderated (i. Of the models that were determined to be empirically plausible. and (c) a reciprocal causal relationship between the two (e. 2001). the relationship is due to a one or more common causes of job satisfaction and job performance. exogenous variables may determine the relationship between satisfaction and performance (Judge et al. three models involve direct causal satisfaction-performance relationships: (a) satisfaction causing performance [Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) theory of attitude-behavior relations.. Wanous. & Brett. These models have often been hard to distinguish empirically in past research. specifically job satisfaction.g. James.. 1967). Theories behind the five causal models of satisfaction and performance are reviewed below.

and then to actual performance of the behavior. When considering the relationship between satisfaction and performance. thus satisfaction with the job would not necessarily lead to higher levels of performance. 1998) – the Theory of Reasoned Action may not be applicable to the relationship between job satisfaction and performance. 2004). It is possible for employees to have a different attitude toward the job than they do toward the behaviors they perform on the job. The most basic idea behind expectancy-value theories is that individuals who . then the attitude will not necessarily lead to these behaviors. Although the theoretical proposition that attitudes cause behavior makes intuitive sense – and is supported by a great deal of empirical research (Sutton. 1991) suggests that attitudes regarding a behavior lead to intentions to perform. For example. if satisfaction with the job does not have to do with performance behaviors. an employee may be very satisfied with her/his job overall. The Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen. performance evaluations would be low if they were based on the one behavior that the employee did not like. an employee with low performance might be very satisfied at work because s/he is extroverted and enjoys the opportunities that the job offers in terms of being able to interact with other people. but dissatisfied with one specific behavior that s/he must perform. 9 measured as performance. For example. the employee bases her/his attitude on the social aspect of work rather than on task performance. In this situation. Theoretical models suggesting that job performance causally precedes job attitudes are typically based on the expectancy-value framework (Locke & Latham. In this case. even though the employee’s overall attitude toward the job was positive.

In his model.. If performance is defined using supervisor evaluations of job behavior. 10 have high expectances. and satisfaction comes from whether one’s performance met these goals. 1974). Locke (1970) also supported the idea that satisfaction could be conceived of as an outcome of performance. & Pritchard. they do not fully consider the impact of employee personality and job characteristics. 2001. Past researchers have explicitly detailed the likelihood that job satisfaction and performance simultaneously cause each other (Judge et al. Wanous. the phenomena of job satisfaction causing performance and of job performance causing satisfaction are not mutually exclusive.. performance is based on goal-directed behavior. Although the above-described models attempt to explain the relationship between satisfaction and performance. One early model of this kind was introduced by Lawler and Porter (1967). This model is consistent with the definition of job performance as not actually a behavior but rather an evaluation of a behavior (Motowidlo et al. or anticipations about an outcome. They believed that high levels of performance would lead to rewards for the employees. ranging from strongly positive to strongly negative. then this operationalization is especially likely to be tied to organizational rewards. using goal theory. Of course. I focus on an explanatory model in which the satisfaction-performance relationship is specified as partly spurious. which would in turn increase their satisfaction with the job. will also affect their behavior. The value that individuals place on the outcomes. 1997). will behave differently than individuals with low expectancies (Jorgenson. Dunnette. 1973). A spurious relationship is present when covariation between two variables is actually due . In the current study.

both unidirectional and reciprocal. This paper seeks to make three contributions to theory on the job satisfaction-job performance relationship. By completing these meta-analyses. and representing many employed individuals. a spurious relationship between job satisfaction and job performance would suggest that the causal effects between satisfaction and performance. Cohen. First and foremost. but lacks clarity as to why the variables are related. and cognitive ability. generalized self-efficacy. the true population level correlations will be estimated. The inclusion of common causes will fill the gap that exists in many previously- tested theoretical models of the satisfaction-performance relationship. 26 original meta-analyses will be performed to estimate the mean population-level correlations: (a) job satisfaction and cognitive ability. This test is based upon meta-analytic data compiled from multiple study effects. Conscientiousness. & Aiken. and locus of control with Extraversion. Third and . where personality and job characteristics were omitted. Extraversion. (c) both self- reports and more ‘objective’ non-self-reports of job complexity with Conscientiousness. in order to test the model of spuriousness. job complexity. Second. Also. and (d) self-perceptions of Job Complexity with Emotional Stability. 2003). 11 to common causes. Agreeableness. (b) self-esteem. This is a valuable contribution because it will help to specify the mechanism underlying a relationship that has received much empirical support. Agreeableness. rather than a direct relationship (see Cohen. and objective job complexity. may be more limited in magnitude than previously thought. it will provide a large-scale empirical test of a causal model in which the satisfaction-performance relationship is specified as spurious. and cognitive ability. West.

To test this. p. and believe that the bones had really been put together substantially in their individual grouping. other definitions of “spurious correlation” have arisen. a theoretical model of the interrelationships among all of the variables in the study will be created and tested. a biologist takes the indices femur/humerus and tibia/humerus. which are asserted to be those of individual skeletons. 1919. According to Blalock (1964): . and are put together in groups. or simply a spurious correlation. 490). but in actuality one does not exist: A quantity of bones are taken from an ossuarium.I term this a spurious organic correlation. He might reasonably conclude that this correlation marked organic relationship. p. the contemporary usage of the term spurious correlation has been to describe correlations which can be attributed to common causes.. I understand by this phrase the amount of correlation which would still exist between the indices. Differing from Pearson’s description of spuriousness as due to chance permutations.. Spurious correlations have been referred to as a “master imposter” of a true relationship (Simon. Spurious Relationships The term “spurious correlation” was originally introduced by Karl Pearson in 1897 when describing a situation in which there appears to be a correlation between two variables. which have ultimately supplanted the original definition. 1985. 5) and as an “illusory association” between two variables (Yule. 51). 12 finally. were the absolute lengths on which they depend distributed at random (p. Since Pearson’s first use of the term. This model specifies job satisfaction and job complexity as mediators of some of the individual difference effects in the model.

In the current paper I index non-spuriousness with a residual correlation between two variables. . Although Pearson’s (1897) original definition of spuriousness suggested that there was no true relationship between two variables. Spurious correlations can involve more than one common cause (Blalock. once a set of external variables has been partialled out. A spurious relationship is one that can be explained away by causal relationships of X and Y with a third variable (Kenny. such tests for spuriousness are highly necessary and very appropriate in any piece of research (p. 1964). 1979). but rather is due to the presence of a third variable (Kenny. In view of the fact that in the exploratory stages of any science one of the most important tasks is to eliminate numerous possible explanatory variables. contemporary researchers have come to think of a spurious relationship as one in which the covariation between X and Y is not due to causal effects of either variable. Empirically. 1979). 13 One of the most common sorts of models tested in empirical research is one in which we postulate that the relationship between X and Y is spurious owing to one or more common causes. 1975). spuriousness is the prediction that the correlation between X and Y will be zero once Z is controlled (Blalock. Nonspuriousness is a condition that is necessary for a causal relationship to exist (Cook & Campbell. Simon (1985) explains that when testing for a spurious correlation. although most discussions of the phenomenon use only one exogenous variable. 84). one must clarify the relation between the two variables of interest by introducing a third variable. 1964).

. when controlling for Z. but does not completely disappear. Spuriousness can potentially explain a substantial portion of the correlation between two variables. the relationship between X and Y completely disappears. such that when covariation with Z is removed from X and Y. two constructs may be correlated because of common causes that they share. and thus a smaller correlation between the two variables once they have been residualized. part of the correlation between it and the variable it causes will be due to spuriousness (Kenny. Specifically. If a variable is not completely exogenous. That is. If there is random measurement error in the Z variable. Partial spuriousness can also occur and is a situation in which the relationship between X and Y decreases. 14 I further draw a distinction between complete spuriousness and partial spuriousness. Figure 1 shows a causal diagram in which the relationship is not spurious because the full correlation between X and Y remains when Z is added to the equation. 1979). the relationship between X and Y lessens. Figure 2 shows a relationship that is completely spurious. Looking at the connection between X and Y. Figure 3 displays a relationship that is partly spurious. This is noted by the dotted line. even if there is little or no actual causation between them. when a common predictor of both X and Y is added to the equation. the relationship between X and Y may not vanish completely but it may decrease.

15 Figure 1. Partly spurious relationship . Fully spurious relationship Figure 3. Non-spurious relationship Figure 2.

the partial correlation between X and Y generally decreases (note that Equation 1 is symmetric with respect to X and Y). as determined by Equation 1.25. 1969). true residual correlations. I define spuriousness as a residual correlation between two variables. 1 (1  rXZ2 )(1  rYZ 2 ) Using this equation. as the correlation between Z and X (and also between Z and Y) increases.30. For example. This information will provide a better picture of the relationship between satisfaction and performance than can be . if rXZ and rYZ are both . Thus. Eq. with the prior variables controlled.55. One method that can be used to accomplish this is to look at the partial correlation between the two variables. after a set of external variables has been partialled out. The idea of a spurious correlation can be illustrated by looking at a graph of partial correlations. the partial correlation between X and Y will be minimized when both rXZ and rYZ are maximized. Again. it is possible to identify small. variables that are believe to be antecedent to both are controlled (Linn & Werts. The formula for a partial correlation of X with Y controlling for Z is rXY  (rXZ )(rYZ ) Partial r = . If both rXZ and rYZ are . By using meta-analytic methods.30. it is possible to see how different correlations between X and Z and between Y and Z affect the level of partial correlation (see Figure 4). 16 Partial Correlations In order to remove the spurious association between two variables. the partial correlation between X and Y will drop to less than r = . the partial correlation will be zero. Holding the zero-order relationship between X and Y constant at r = .

I organize these constructs into three general categories: (a) personality constructs. by accounting for theorized common causes of the two.15 0. These antecedents will be discussed below.4 r_ZX = 0 0. note that I am not the first to suggest that the job .25 0. 0.55 r_ZX = 0.1 r_ZX = 0.4 0 r_ZX = 0.2 r_ZX = 0.5 0. 17 gleaned from the simple bivariate association. Graph of partial correlations Theoretical Common Causes of Job Satisfaction and Job Performance Several commonly-studied constructs have been proposed to cause both job satisfaction and job performance outcomes.4 0.55 0.1 r_ZX = 0.45 0.2 Partial Correlation r_ZX = 0.15 0. Before turning to these explanations.1 r_ZX = 0. along with the theoretical mechanisms generally thought to explain their effects on job attitudes and behavior.3 0.5 -0.3 r_ZX = 0.35 r_ZX = 0.6 -0.2 0.45 r_ZX = 0.05 0. (b) job and role characteristics. and (c) cognitive ability.1 0.2 0 0.35 0.05 r_ZX = 0.3 r_ZX = 0.6 r_ZY Figure 4.25 0.

and empirically demonstrated that a statistically significant relationship between job satisfaction and performance became non-significant when controlling for a third variable (Brown and Peterson’s [1993] partial r = . so does an individual’s sensitivity to reinforcement (Gray.. This theory considers traits of Emotional Stability and Extraversion and how they cause people to react differently to situations. Decreased job performance can be explained by this idea if an individual is low on Emotional Stability and they receive praise or a reward for . I review theoretical associations of several common causes with both job satisfaction and job performance. 1999). Looking first at Emotional Stability. individuals differ on their levels of arousabilty and sensitivity to reinforcements or rewards. Gardner and Pierce’s [1998] partial r = . Earlier studies made precisely such a claim. Below.09.05. controlling for organization-based self-esteem). & Gray. 1992). controlling for role ambiguity. 2001). 18 satisfaction-performance relationship may be partly spurious (see Judge et al. Integrative studies are needed that have high statistical power to detect small. Personality Variables According the Gray’s Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (1970). People low in Emotional Stability have exaggerated responses to rewards (Pickering. However. even when a small true direct effect exists. It is quite possible for a relationship to lose its statistical significance upon partialing out alleged common causes. 1970). such tests of spuriousness—which are based on loss of statistical significance—are largely driven by statistical power. as levels of Emotional Stability decrease. Corr. non- spurious effects (see Schmidt.


a small bit of good performance, they will amplify the praise they received and think that

they are performing very well, which may cause their subsequent performance to suffer.

Looking at Emotional Stability in general, and not just from the reinforcement

sensitivity perspective, it has been one of the strongest dispositional predictors of job

satisfaction, ρ = .29 (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002). Low levels of Emotional Stability

lead people to experience more negative life events (Magnus, Diener, Fujita, & Pavot,

1993). This negative perception can influence, and therefore lower, the perception of

satisfaction in the work place. The connection between Emotional Stability and job

performance has also been established (Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001). Individuals

who are low in Emotional Stability are more likely to be irritable, depressed, or anxious,

and these traits inhibit the completion of workplace tasks (Barrick & Mount, 1991).

Thus, low levels of Emotional Stability will lead to decreases in both job satisfaction and

job performance because of the negative moods and perceptions that typically occur in

emotionally unstable individuals.

Turning back to the Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory, introverts are more

sensitive to punishment and frustrative nonreward than are extroverts (Gray, 1970).

Extroverts have low sensitivity to punishment cues (Pickering et al., 1999) which could

help to explain why they would have higher levels of job satisfaction. If people high and

low on Extraversion both receive the same feedback, the less extroverted people would

be more likely to notice indications of punishment. Thus, their satisfaction would be

lowered because of the perception that they were being punished. The Reinforcement

Sensitivity Theory also suggests that individuals low in Extraversion are more prone to


fear than are their more extroverted counterparts (Gray, 1970). If low Extraversion

employees are at their job, continuously feeling fear because of their dispositional

susceptibility to fear, they will likely be less satisfied with the job. The fear could come

from many different sources, including a fear of failing or of being punished or fired.

The relationship between job satisfaction and extroversion can also be explained by

extraverted employees’ tendencies to be outgoing and form friendships at work. These

social interactions can lead to higher levels of satisfaction in the workplace. Also,

extraverts are more likely to perceive positive events in their lives (Magnus et al., 1993),

which would lead to higher levels of job satisfaction. When looking at performance and

Extraversion, Extraversion is especially important in jobs that are people- or service-

oriented (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000). Also, extraverts strive to obtain status and rewards

at work, thus increasing their performance (Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2002). The

idea that extraverts have higher levels of social interaction in the workplace could

increase their performance as well as their satisfaction because if extraverts know more

people in the workplace, they would likely have a better idea of whom to go to for

advice or help. In general, extraverts will have higher levels of both job satisfaction and

job performance because of their overall positive perceptions, social interactions on the

job, and desire to gain status in the work place.

Conscientious individuals are seen as dependable and tend to strive to be

successful. Organ and Lingl (1995) suggest that Conscientiousness and job satisfaction

may be related because highly conscientious people tend to respond favorably to the

rules inherent in organizations. Conscientiousness should be related to higher levels of


employee performance because most jobs require employees to be reliable and

effectively complete their work tasks. Conscientiousness comprises subfacets of

dependability and responsibility, and people high in these dimensions would be expected

to have high levels of job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Thus,

Conscientiousness is related to both increased satisfaction and performance.

When looking at Agreeableness, the relationship with job satisfaction is much

like that of Extraversion. Agreeable individuals tend to get along well with others and

form satisfying interpersonal relationships (Goldberg, 1990). These relationships in the

workplace could lead to higher levels of overall satisfaction for employees. As with

Extraversion, Agreeableness would be most likely to affect performance in jobs that are

people-oriented (Hurtz & Donnovan, 2000). Friendliness and the ability to cooperate

with others, both of which are characteristic of agreeable people, would lead to better

performance when interacting with others. Unlike Extraversion, however,

Agreeableness is not connected to status seeking, but rather to communion seeking

(Barrick et al., 2002).

Core self-evaluations, which is a higher-order construct including self-esteem,

self-efficacy, locus of control, and Emotional Stability, has also been related to both

performance and satisfaction (Judge & Bono, 2001). Self-esteem is defined as how

much value people put on themselves (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003).

Individuals who are high in self-esteem tend to feel good about themselves, regardless of

the abilities or skills that they possess (Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2004). Self-esteem is one

of the strongest predictors of overall life satisfaction--people with high self-esteem are

Arndt. self-esteem evokes optimism and confidence in people (Zhang & Baumeister. p. employees with high self-esteem are likely to have high levels of job satisfaction. achieving high performance may be easier. as a “strong. even when they face failure (Dodgson & Wood. positive relationship” between job satisfaction and overall life satisfaction (Tait. Thus. it has been found that successful performance can cause low self-esteem individuals to be insecure and uncomfortable because high levels of performance do not fit with their own evaluations of themselves (Marigold. 2003). 504). Solomon. The self-esteem hypothesis “suggests that people who feel better about themselves perform better” (Baumeister et al. Greenberg. Because of this continual optimism. high self- esteem individuals have positive feelings about themselves and are able to perform better because of this. self-esteem relates to performance through affective states (Chen et al. Performance may also be increased for employees who have high levels of self-esteem because high self- esteem reduces anxiety and anxiety-related behaviors. 2006) and individuals with high levels of self-esteem tend to maintain this optimism. which would allow for higher levels of performance (Pyszczynski. 22 considerably happier than people with lower levels of self-esteem (Baumeister et al. For this . 2004). & Ross. When looking at individuals with low self-esteem rather than those with high self- esteem. Padgett. In addition.. 1989. 2003. 2007). 1998). Holmes. & Baldwin. & Schimel. This enhanced happiness and overall satisfaction should also lead to higher levels of satisfaction on the job.. 2004b) and with an overall positive view of oneself. When looking at self-esteem and its effect on performance. 14). p..

2004). and Putka (2002) at the within-persons level of analysis. 2003). Judge. Martocchio. Employees who rate themselves as competent and capable are likely to have higher levels of satisfaction at work because their general positive evaluations of themselves will “cascade-down” to their attitudes at work. Employees who are high on the trait of general self-efficacy are likely to be motivated and persistent (Chen et al. employees with low self-esteem may have lower levels of performance than their counterparts with higher self-esteem. Thompson. & Thoresen (1997) suggested that generalized self-efficacy would be related to job satisfaction. due to the idea that individuals who are high in self-efficacy are more likely to believe they can achieve their goals (and to subsequently achieve them). 2004b). according to Vancouver. Tischner... & Caper. self-efficacy can lead to lower levels of performance because individuals with high self-efficacy can become overconfident in their abilities and make more errors while playing a logic game (cf. especially in new situations (Eden & Zuk. However. 1995). 2004). another study was done which manipulated the sign of feedback that participants received (Vancouver & Tischner. Whereas self-esteem relates to an individual’s sense of self worth. thus performing better. Generalized self-efficacy is a relatively stable trait regarding beliefs of one’s own competence (Chen et al. Bandura & Locke. When individuals received negative feedback and were allowed to reaffirm themselves by listing previous achievements or rewards. It is how individuals judge their own abilities. 23 reason. which would lead to higher satisfaction with their jobs. 2004b). self-efficacy relates to perceptions of their ability accomplish tasks or meet a goal. Goddard. including job satisfaction (Chen. To clarify this result. ..

Locus of control refers to how people perceive the link between their own actions and the outcomes of their actions (Rotter. whereas individuals with an external locus of control believe that these outcomes are attributable to people or forces outside of themselves. 24 their performance suffered because they reallocated their resources in a way that they would be able to protect their sense of self-worth. If employees believe they are highly capable of performing well. they are more likely to seek other employment options if they are unhappy at work. if participants were not allowed to reaffirm. it is the case that high self-efficacy can be associated with high levels of performance. they will tend to do so (Eden & Zuk. Employees who have an external locus of control are less likely to perceive a relationship between their own inputs and efforts at work and outcomes that they experience (Raja.. Cooper. their performance was not harmed. et al. having a more internal locus of control has been associated with more positive well being off the job. 1975). 1982). 2002). Sanchez. Sparks. Because internals attribute control over events to themselves. O’Driscoll. People with an internal locus of control perceive that their outcomes are under their own personal control. Bernin. Another explanation for internals having higher job satisfaction is that internals tend to repress or forget failures or unpleasant experiences they have (Rotter. Thus. & . and this could also be true when the individual is at work (Spector. Also. satisfaction will be higher. 1995). Employees with an internal locus of control are more satisfied with their jobs because they are less likely to stay in a position which is dissatisfying (Spector. Self-efficacy may also be related to performance because of self-fulfilling prophecies. Johns. If an employee represses unpleasant things that happen at work. 1966). However.

knowledge characteristics (job complexity. and feedback. individuals with an internal locus of control can be expected to have higher levels of job performance than externals because they believe that effort will lead to good performance and rewards. task significance. and feedback from the job). Job Characteristics In classifying job characteristics. They found that these four dimensions showed a strong positive correlation with job satisfaction. Thus. task identity. all four components should be maximized. Also. 25 Ntalianis. autonomy. task significance. problem solving. task identity. 2006). 2004). which could cause problems because some characteristics of the job are omitted (Morgeson & Humphrey. and specialization). skill variety. Hackman and Oldham’s (1975) Job Characteristics Model identified five core dimensions of job complexity. It was suggested that for maximum employee motivation on the job. Recently it has been suggested that Hackman and Oldham’s model of job characteristics is too narrow. Job complexity is composed of feedback. externals can be expected to have lower performance on the job than internals because internals will put in more effort to bring about better performance. Complex or rich jobs are expected to increase both job satisfaction and job performance for employees (Hackman & Oldham. information processing. which led to the creation of the Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ). a measure that assesses 21 characteristics of work including task characteristics (autonomy. and skill variety. It was stated that a more comprehensive work design measure is needed. autonomy. 1976). Hackman and Lawler (1971) identified four core components: variety. . task identity. thus they exert more effort on the job (Spector. task variety. 1982).

Fried and Ferris (1987) found empirical relationships between job complexity and both job satisfaction and job performance. work conditions. In a meta-analytic review of Hackman and Oldham’s original job characteristics model. With regards to the relationships of job complexity with satisfaction and performance. and equipment use). However. employees feel a sense of meaningfulness and responsibility regarding their jobs (also see Judge. If employees are in complex jobs. These feelings in turn lead to increased levels of job satisfaction. 2000). Bono. 1975). & Locke. and feedback from others). the individual difference of growth need strength can affect this relationship with job performance (Hackman & Oldham. 26 social characteristics (interdependence. Nahrgang. interaction outside the organization. they will feel that their job is worthwhile and not a waste of time. physical demands. Employee performance can also be increased with higher levels of job complexity because these job characteristics were specifically identified to show that productivity would increase if jobs were designed in a way that would make them more meaningful and challenging to the employees (Hackman & Lawler. and contextual characteristics (ergonomics. Increased satisfaction can be expected as a result of increased job complexity because when the job characteristics that make up job complexity are increased. Humphrey. This is a malleable difference that influences how employees will respond to jobs that have high job complexity such that employees with high growth need strength will respond more favorably to high complexity jobs. 1971). thus increasing job performance. and Morgeson (2007) found that “34% of the variance in performance and more than 55% of the variance in satisfaction” was a .

Schmidt & Hunter. it seems that s/he would most likely also be more invested in it than someone with lower levels of satisfaction. 1998). Cognitive Ability Cognitive ability is one of the best predictors of job performance. 1986). Desmarais. It predicts performance better than all other measures of ability. Hunter. They also found that the job characteristics- outcomes relationships are mediated by critical psychological states proposed by Hackman and Oldham (1976). traits. 27 function of job characteristics (p. Cognitive ability is a good predictor of job performance because people with higher levels of cognitive ability acquire a greater amount of knowledge and are thus able to better perform a variety of behaviors on the job (Schmidt. and interests (Ackerman’s 1996 PPIK model). When studying how individuals differ in their levels of cognitive ability. Furnham. & . but also somewhat on processes. individual personality. or dispositions that have been tested (Schmidt & Hunter. it has been found that knowledge is not only based on individual ability. & Outerbridge. accounting for over 25% of the variance in performance (Hunter & Hunter. One of the non-ability traits that has been studied is an individual’s level of investment. & Ackerman. 2004). According to the gravitational hypothesis. An individual’s investment in a particular job or activity can partly determine the knowledge that they attain (Chamorro-Premuzic. employees will gravitate toward jobs that have ability requirements that match their cognitive abilities (Wilk. If an individual is satisfied with her/his job. 1984. The PPIK model suggests that knowledge is based on both ability and non-ability traits. 2006). 1346).

1995). both individuals who. In other words. a proposed model of the common antecedents of job satisfaction and job performance is depicted in Figure 5. These types of jobs are likely to be more satisfying. such as jobs that have higher ability requirements thus higher pay or jobs that are higher on dimensions that are related to increased satisfaction. Because of this phenomenon. due to the tendency for high-ability individuals to occupy jobs with more desirable characteristics.and over-qualified for their jobs will likely seek other employment opportunities that are a better match for their abilities. are under. in terms of cognitive ability. people with high cognitive ability will be in better jobs. In summary of the above sections. the parameter of greatest interest for the current study is the residual correlation between job satisfaction and job performance. In the proposed model. controlling for the above-described factors. In other words. such as the job characteristics defined by Hackman and Oldham (1975). 28 Sackett. . cognitively ability should be positively correlated to job satisfaction.

however. By nature. job satisfaction. job characteristics. and job performance. A more sophisticated way to model the interrelationships amongst the study variables would be to constrain several . Proposed theoretical model to test for spuriousness An Integrated Theoretical Model Figure 5 is not. the model to test the spuriousness of the satisfaction-performance relationship (Figure 5) is saturated (there are no degrees of freedom as every possible path is included in the model). 29 Figure 5. the only plausible model of the relationships between individual differences. so by design the model has perfect fit.

Hackman and Oldham (1975) specify that two of the outcomes associated with high levels of job complexity are high satisfaction with the work and high quality work performance. 1991) and research shows that individuals’ emotions or affective states can influence their judgments (Brief & Weiss. Hackman and Oldham (1975) stated that the Job Diagnostic Survey. Spector and Jex (1991) found that incumbent ratings of job complexity were not highly correlated with job complexity ratings based on the job description or job complexity as recorded in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (United States Department of Labor. Along these same lines. it is necessary to use theoretical reasoning to determine which paths should not be included in the integrated theoretical model. 2002). 159). Schwab and Cummings (1976) argued that using self-report measures of job characteristics can confound an individual’s preferences with the characteristics of the job. 30 paths to zero. By design. However most of the research that is conducted regarding job characteristics uses incumbent self-ratings of the characteristics (Spector & Jex. Thus. . used to measure job complexity. “provides measures of objective job characteristics” (p. emotions could influence individual ratings of their own job characteristics. job complexity should be related to both job satisfaction and job performance. An important conceptual distinction to be made when discussing job complexity involves the differences between self-reported perceptions of one’s job and non-self- reported job complexity. based upon theory. They suggest that researchers be cautious when using self-reports of job characteristics as predictors of actual job outcomes. 1991). As such. In their Job Characteristics Model.

e. individuals respond affectively to jobs based on their perceptions of the job characteristics. 1988). Self-report measures of job complexity were developed from job design theory in order to see the effects of enriched jobs on employee attitudes and behaviors. Specifically. . 31 This difference between self-report and non-self-report (i. 2000).. Whereas self-reports of job complexity are perceptual in nature. their different developments and purposes could be a reason for differences between them. So although objective and self-report measures of job complexity are meant to measure the same construct. So job complexity can have an influence on satisfaction and performance through affective reactions. objective measures of job complexity were developed to provide job information in order to match individual characteristics and abilities to the job. ‘objective’) ratings of job complexity could occur for a couple of different reasons. Another explanation for a difference between objective and self-report measures of job complexity is that with self-report measures individuals’ affective states are involved in the ratings whereas objective job complexity comes from either a published source such as the Dictionary of Occupational Titles or from someone other than the incumbent rating the job complexity. the history and purpose of these two types of measures are very different (Gerhart. Affective experiences in the workplace can lead to both attitudinal and behavioral outcomes (Weiss & Cropanzano. objective job complexity is structural in nature. Job complexity is an aspect of the work environment that can influence the affective experiences for individuals at work (Saavedra & Kwun. First. 1996). On the other hand.

Because of this propensity to affective experiences and the fact that perceived job characteristics influence affective experiences. 1986). 1976). one can expect that they would relate differently to outcomes such as satisfaction and performance. This could be partially due to contamination from common method variance (Glick. 32 The idea that perceived job characteristics are related to affective responses can explain why one would expect perceived job complexity. 1997). affect is the mechanism for the relationship between self-perceived job characteristics and Extraversion. Hackman and Oldham (1975) suggested that job characteristics should be positively related to both satisfaction and performance. Extraverts are especially susceptible to positive affect (Rusting & Larsen. If employees respond to job satisfaction measures and job characteristics measures. It can also be expected that there would be differences between the self-report job complexity-performance relationship and the objective job complexity-performance relationship because self-report measures of job complexity are influenced by individuals’ affect whereas objective measures are not (Schwab & Cummings. but examining the difference between self-ratings and objective measures is likely to show differences in the relationships. Jenkins. and as such they could actually be measuring different constructs and . they are likely to be more strongly related than if the job complexity measures come from a different source. 1991). Self-report measures of job complexity correlate higher with work outcomes than do objective measures (Spector & Jex. & Gupta. Because of the difference between self-reports and objective measures of job complexity. or self-reports of job complexity to be related to Extraversion.

33 cause differential relationships with performance. This can increase the relationship between self-report and job complexity because if a person is performing poorly. the high ability individuals will have higher job satisfaction. that could affect and lower their job complexity ratings. 1995). thus increasing the relationship between the two. job complexity is the mechanism for the relationship between cognitive ability and job satisfaction. and as such would be related to performance differently than self-ratings of job complexity. Warren. skill variety. For example. Using this same explanation. Thoresen. & de Chermont. Kaplan. 1976. it can be expected that individuals will gravitate toward jobs in which the job complexity matches their abilities. such as autonomy. Objective job complexity ratings are not affected by how an individual feels about the job. As mentioned above. or personal biases can influence the self-ratings of job complexity (Schwab & Cummings. Objective and self-measures of job complexity could related differently to job satisfaction because affect. the relationship between cognitive ability and satisfaction is explained by the gravitational hypothesis. in which employees gravitate toward jobs that have ability requirements that match their cognitive abilities (Wilk et al. Thus. Because job complexity is positively related to job satisfaction. 2003).. or task identity. high ability individuals will be drawn to jobs with high levels of job complexity. mood. Barsky. Job characteristics are also specified as a mediator of the effects of cognitive ability on satisfaction. Another theoretically-derived modification to the saturated spuriousness model shown in Figure 5 is that the paths between the personality traits and cognitive ability .

knowledge. 1997). Extraversion predicts job performance because . As mentioned in an earlier section. 2007). Jackson. Specifically. and originality (Goldberg. In research. 1963). These correlations are usually nonsignificant or of a small size. & Rich. Shaw. few self-report measures of the Big Five personality traits are correlated with cognitive ability (Ackerman & Heggestad. which is similar to other personality constructs including intellectence and the intelligence factor. Another theoretical modification to Figure 5 is that the personality variables of Extraversion. Personality is measured as typical performance because it tells us what a person is likely to do whereas cognitive ability is measured as maximal performance because then it is a purer measures that is wholly determined by one’s capabilities (Fiske & Butler. such as wisdom. is related to cognitive ability because of the knowledge component of this trait (Ackerman & Heggestad. This knowledge component is apparent when looking at the factors that comprise openness. one reason that one would not expect personality and cognitive ability to be related is that personality measures typical performance and cognitive ability measures maximal performance (Ackerman & Heggestad. Scott. 1997). Ackerman and Heggestad (1997) found that only openness to experience had at least a medium sized correlation with cognitive ability. none of the Big Five traits included in this study had a correlation of above . One personality trait has been consistently related to cognitive ability. and core self-evaluations should be specified to take their effects on job performance by way of job satisfaction and job characteristics.09 with cognitive ability (Judge. 1990). Openness to experience. 34 can be removed. Agreeableness. Theoretically. In a recent meta-analysis. 1997).

Sheldon. So. satisfaction mediates the relationship between Extraversion and performance. job complexity could play this same mediating role. but because they are more satisfied at work when they are being rewarded and recognized. As with Extraversion. So again. if performance is related to Extraversion because of the social relationships that are formed.. It can be hypothesized that both of these explanations are related to job satisfaction. It might be that extraverts strive to obtain status and reward not because they want to perform well. 2002) and because of their high level of social interaction which allows them to know exactly whom they can go to for advice or help to improve their performance. Agreeableness predicts job performance in people-oriented jobs because it is characterized by friendliness and an ability to cooperate with others. and as such job satisfaction is the mechanism for the Extraversion-performance relationship. 2000). 35 extraverts strive to obtain status and rewards at work (Barrick et al. would be most likely to affect performance in jobs that are people-oriented (Hurtz & Donnovan. because social relationships could be formed to increase satisfaction but they can also increase performance. . it may actually be the case that those relationships are formed in order to increase individual satisfaction rather than performance as relationships. Just as satisfaction could mediate the relationship between personality variables and performance. 1992) which could them satisfied because of interpersonal relationships. the Extraversion-performance relationship should be mediated by job complexity. satisfaction can mediate this relationship because the social interactions that help job performance actually arise to increase satisfaction first. Specifically. Also. as extraverted people are talkative and sociable (Goldberg.

As such. One of the motives is to achieve enhanced personal control or autonomy. such as skill variety. the core-self evaluations- performance relationship should also be mediated by job complexity. In contrast to Extraversion. job complexity is unrelated to Agreeableness. rewards. one would not expect Agreeableness to be related to job characteristics because rather than being related to status striving. Like the Extraversion-performance relationship. and status at work (Barrick et al. Job complexity comprises facets of the job itself.. 2002).. 2007.. 36 Elliot. and other dimensions. The main point here is that extraverts’ striving for autonomy and a challenging job may ultimately motivate them to perform at higher levels. Humphrey et al. extroverts tend to strive for success. Positive core self evaluations lead individuals to seek out more complex jobs because they feel that they . Barrick. are aimed at creating a more challenging job. trait Agreeableness is related to performance through communion striving (Barrick et al. 1976). and Stewart (2003) suggest that Extraversion is related to performance because of the tendency of extraverts to strive for status and that they have sensitivity to rewards at work. Kim. One of the dimensions of job complexity is autonomy. Sims et al. not the social situations that one will encounter on the job (cf. 2003). Mitchell. and Kasser (2001) found that people are motivated to achieve certain motives in their lives. and another is to have challenging work that can demonstrate one’s competence. As mentioned earlier. This idea of status striving means that Extraversion is related to performance in part due to a mechanism whereby extraverts seek jobs that are more autonomous and challenging.

1991). individuals with an internal locus of control will be more satisfied because they will not stay in a job that is dissatisfying (Spector. and Roth (2006) suggest that employee attitudes are related to behavioral engagement in work roles. 37 can handle the job and they see a potential for greater intrinsic rewards (Judge et al. and personal control over their life lead individuals to complex jobs because they feel that they will be successful in any challenges that the job brings. 1990).. it can be expected that because Extraversion. So feelings of competence. and core self-evaluations are related to satisfaction. and core self-evaluations are related to job satisfaction because high self-esteem individuals choose jobs that are consistent with their interests and thus lead to higher satisfaction (Korman. So. self-worth. Agreeableness. they are also related to higher levels of behavioral engagement. and finally individuals with high generalized self-efficacy are .. Harrison. Agreeableness is related to job satisfaction because agreeable individuals are likely to form satisfying interpersonal relationship at work (Goldberg. individuals with high Emotional Stability are predisposed to experience positive events (McCrae & Costa. Remember that Extraversion is related to job satisfaction because according to Gray’s Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (1970) Extraverts are less sensitive to punishment and they have a tendency to view life events in a positive light (Magnus et al. which will lead to higher levels of performance. So employees with high levels of job satisfaction are more likely to be engaged in their work. 1993). 1982). 1970). 2000). rather than core self-evaluations having a direct effect on job performance. As such. the effect may actually be due to the fact that positive self- evaluations lead individuals to jobs in which they can perform well. Newman.

Agreeableness and cognitive ability. because cognitive ability is related to satisfaction via job characteristics. 38 likely to be satisfied on the job because they are more likely to obtain valued outcomes and thus be satisfied on the job (Judge & Bono. Also. and Conscientiousness with cognitive ability). which are now used to assess how well the theoretical model in Figure 6 fits with the actual data. because Extraversion. Agreeableness. four paths were removed from the model (Extraversion and cognitive ability. By removing several paths from Figure 5 to create Figure 6. 2001). the direct relationship between cognitive ability and satisfaction was removed. Specifically. ten degrees of freedom were created. Finally. the paths between Agreeableness and both of the job complexity variables can be constrained to zero. some paths have been removed from the model used to test the spuriousness of the satisfaction-performance relationship. because cognitive ability is uncorrelated with personality factors. and core self-evaluations are related to performance only through job satisfaction and job complexity. the three direct paths between these variables and job performance can be removed. Next. core self-evaluations with cognitive ability. because Agreeableness is unrelated to job characteristics. Considering these theoretical arguments. . The new integrated theoretical model of the antecedents of job satisfaction and job performance appears in Figure 6.

job characteristics. 39 Figure 6. and job performance . Integrated theoretical model of the relationships among personality. job satisfaction. cognitive ability.

self-esteem. locus of control. task variety. searches were conducted in online databases for studies containing any combination of the variable names. job complexity. correlations from these published meta-analytic studies were used. self-efficacy. Surgency. Extraversion. Emotional Stability. task significance. job characteristics. Searches for job complexity included the terms job complexity. In looking for studies regarding core self-evaluations. Extraversion. emotional adjustment. Searches for studies about personality traits used the keywords Big Five. self-esteem. searches included the terms core self-evaluations. job performance. Emotional Stability. and Agreeableness. Because several primary studies only include a few of the dimensions of job complexity (but not an overall complexity . Neuroticism. task autonomy. Conscientiousness. First. a search of the PsycINFO database was conducted to identify journal articles as well as unpublished doctoral dissertations. Agreeableness. Efforts were made to ensure that all potential studies were found by including many alternative labels for each variable. generalized self-efficacy. Conscientiousness. 40 CHAPTER II METHOD Literature Search In order to locate studies regarding the relationships among job satisfaction. skill variety. For relationships that have been the subject of published meta-analyses. and Cognitive Ability. and locus of control.. task identity and task feedback. Extroversion. job autonomy. Dependability.

Szilagyi. 2006). Sims. Hogan. studies were only included in the analyses . Eysenck. First. For instance. 41 measure). studies examining generalized self-efficacy were included in the analyses. Costa and McCrae’s (1985) NEO measure. Hurtz & Donovan. unit-weighted composite correlations were created for the job complexity estimates. Eber. to locate job characteristics studies. the IPIP (Goldberg.e.g. only studies with working adult participants were included in analyses. and Idaszak & Drasgow’s (1987) JDS Revision. These rules were consistent with previous meta- analyses in the industrial/organizational Psychology literature (e. 2000). I searched through abstracts of all studies that cited Hackman and Oldham’s (1975) Job Diagnostic Survey. Second. Third. & Gough. Goldberg’s (1992) Big Five Measure. Cloninger. Ashton. 2001. rules for inclusion in the meta-analyses were set. Judge & Bono. Studies that used children or special populations. such as psychiatric patients or other clinical samples. were excluded from the analyses. whereas studies examining self-efficacy regarding any specific activity or dimension were excluded. I also identified studies using the Social Sciences Citation Index. and Barrett’s revised EPQ (1985). studies of locus of control that are very specific (i. heath locus of control) were excluded. and Rotter’s (1966) Internal-External scale. In this same manner. Johnson. Rules for Inclusion in the Meta-Analyses For the relevant studies that were identified in the literature search. searching for common measures of the various constructs. Eysenck. SSCI searches for personality traits included Saucier’s (2002) Mini-Modular Markers. & Keller’s (1976) Job Characteristics Index.

studies investigating Emotional Stability or Neuroticism were included in the analyses. Although this is not an ideal situation. All of the studies that met these criteria were then examined to determine if they contained the information necessary to be included in the meta-analyses. Cells containing an “x” indicate where new meta-analyses were necessary. Because of the lack of information regarding these two relationships. Studies had to report a correlation or some other type of statistic that could be transformed into a correlation. 42 if they directly measured the constructs of interest. but studies about negative affectivity were not included. this imputation allows for analysis of the model with job complexity- . all final meta-analytic estimates are based upon at least N > 300 respondents. These correlations are between non-self ratings of job complexity and both Conscientiousness and Agreeableness. 27 original meta-analyses needed to be conducted in order to determine the correlations for all of the relevant relationships. For example. Previously published meta-analytic results as well as the original meta-analyses that were conducted are presented in Table 1. Whereas several of these meta-analyses were necessarily small-scale. Zimmerman (2006) also noted that no studies could be found regarding these two relationships. There were two cells in the meta-analytic correlation matrix for which no primary studies are available. Studies also had to report a sample size. I imputed the values from the self- report measures of job complexity with Conscientiousness and Agreeableness into the cells for non-self report measures of job complexity. Meta-Analytic Procedures In all.

08i .59e x x x Self-Efficacy 8. 2006. 1984. 11. d – Ilies & Judge. & Morgeson.25d . f – Zimmerman. Agreeableness .00d 6. 2007.51e x x x .10f .Table 1 Meta-Analytic Sources. 10. Shaw.25b .26b . Job performance .01i . Extraversion . 2000.23e . 2002. Estimates.66e x x x . 5.12c . 7. 3.08f -. 2003.17d . Self-Esteem . 1997.45e . Nahrgang.17b .26d . Scott.09c . Job Complexity – . 2. 4..63e . j – Judge. and Meta-Analyses Conducted 1.02i .24c .17f x x x x x Objective 11.27d 7. 8. b – Judge et al.20j x x x x Note. g – Humphrey. Locus of Control .15c 4. & Rich. h – Hunter & Hunter.22e .59e 10.17g x x x x x x x x Self perceptions 11.29b . i – Ackerman & Heggestad. Job satisfaction 2.26e .55g .15i .26e . c – Hurtz & Donovan. 2007 43 . e – Judge & Bono. 6. a – Judge et al.20f . Conscientiousness . 2001.32e . 2001.30a 3. 1.19d 5. Jackson. Generalized .53h . 9. Job Complexity – .. Emotional Stability .85e 9. Cognitive Ability x .

and locus of control. 44 personality correlations that one could assume will be approximations close to the actual values. Eq. self-esteem. including the 1’s in the diagonal.80 (Jöreskog & Sörbom. and RX is the average element of the correlation matrix amongst the Xs. In order to combine Emotional Stability.composite = . reports of internal consistency reliability were used. If authors did not report reliabilities. a composite correlation was created to combine the four variables that make up Core-Self Evaluations. I employed Hunter and Schmidt’s (2004) meta-analytic procedure. Structural equations modeling (SEM) was used to calculate the residual correlation between job satisfaction and job performance. For the data analysis. then an average reliability for studies of the relevant construct were imputed. self-efficacy. the residual correlation between . This equation is R XY ry. 2006). correcting for sampling error and unreliability attenuation. 2 (RX ) where RXY is the average correlation between each X variable and the criterion variable Y. After compiling correlations from all of the studies collected for meta-analyses. To correct the observed measures for unreliability. Although a large portion of the studies reported internal consistency reliability estimates. some studies omitted this information. The model is depicted in Figure 5. Nunnally’s (1978) linear combination formula was used. With this method. The meta-analytic correlation matrix among all variables was entered into LISREL 8.

e.. with factor loadings fixed to unity for job satisfaction. core self-evaluations. 45 job satisfaction and job performance while controlling for all of the other predictor variables can be estimated as a correlation among disturbance terms (i. Agreeableness. for the purpose of testing the integrated theoretical model.80. Conscientiousness. and cognitive ability. The theoretical model was estimated as a single-indicator model. Mulaik. Extraversion. objective and self ratings of job complexity.  matrix). The same meta-analytic correlation matrix that was used to test the spuriousness of the satisfaction-performance relationship was entered into LISREL 8. in which job satisfaction and job complexity are mediators of some of the personality- performance relationships. job performance. James. SEM was also used to test the integrated theoretical model (Figure 6). and Brett (2006) suggest testing full mediation models using SEM techniques. which they say should be used for testing partial mediation. This is in contrast to using Baron and Kenny’s (1986) mediation testing methods. .

The first question posed in this study was whether or not the job satisfaction-job performance relationship is spurious. specifically Extraversion. self-esteem. These values are the estimated population correlations. Because of this perfect fit. to job satisfaction and job performance. by design. and locus of control are combined into one core self-evaluations variable is presented in Table 3. the theoretical model presented in Figure 5 was tested. Conscientiousness. 46 CHAPTER III RESULTS The overall correlation matrix between the study variables is presented in Table 2. core self- evaluations. self-efficacy. Agreeableness. and cognitive ability. job complexity. this model is saturated and therefore has perfect fit. . The results of this model are provided in Figure 7. The meta-analytic correlation matrix in which Emotional Stability. This model includes the links from the common causes. Using structural equation modeling. meaning that they are the attenuation-corrected correlations. fit indices are not reported. As stated previously.

08 .09 Self-Efficacy 12/12903 10/1122 14/1888 7/2067 14/3483 6/1099 8.19 (no self-reports) 15/11578 4/842 4/928 2/470 6/1008 6/1008 3/954 1/348 1/348 11. c – Hurtz & Donovan. 2001.45e .24c .03 .22e . Locus of Control .29b .66e .46 .40 .26d . f – Zimmerman.09 .28 3/6159 425/32124 61/21404 61/21602 56/15429 38/11190 26/4578 4/1836 8/4326 6/51344 3/9038 Note.09i . & Rich. 2003. Agreeableness . e – Judge & Bono. Extraversion .25d .59e . g – Humphrey. 1984. 1997.53h . 2001. Job satisfaction 2.26e .00i .23e . b – Judge et al.13 . h – Hunter & Hunter.09 .20* . Nahrgang. 2006.15c Stability 92/24527 37/5671 4.20 . Self-Esteem .09c .49 .42 . Cognitive Ability . 47 .08f .51e .32 -. & Morgeson.20 .85e 56/20819 40/5145 18/2297 25/8502 19/4357 13/3439 14/1894 9. 2007. Conscientiousness .10f . 2007 * Correlations imputed from self-perceptions of job complexity.20 . Shaw.30 (self perceptions) 125/60790 14/1897 7/1831 4/749 6/1008 6/1008 1/348 3/680 2/2506 2/568 12.. Job Complexity .26e .03* . Job Complexity . Scott.63e . a – Judge et al.17f .17d . j – Judge. Generalized .12c .00d 79/21719 45/8083 587/490296 632/683001 6.Table 2 Overall Meta-Analytic Correlation Matrix 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1.17b . Emotional .32e .04i . i – Ackerman & Heggestad.26 . Job performance . d – Ilies & Judge.02i -.17 .17g . Entries in the table are corrected correlations.55g . 2002.19d 75/20184 39/6453 710/440440 5..22 . Below each correlation appears the number of studies (k) and then the total same size for the combined studies (N).30a 312/54471 3.27d 38/11856 40/6447 561/415679 243/135529 344/162975 7.20i -.19 .08 .25b . 2000.64 .05 .59e 80/18491 35/4310 16/2175 23/5142 11/5127 5/1037 14/1888 16/2175 10.20f .24 . Jackson.26b .

*Correlations imputed from self-perceptions of job complexity.26 .25 . Harmonic mean = 2010.17 .12 .20 .28 3/6159 425/32124 61/21602 56/15429 38/11190 7/3497 6/51344 3/9038 Note. .05 .30 (self perceptions) 125/60790 14/1897 4/749 6/1008 6/1008 2/756 2/568 9.04 .03* .00 79/21719 45/8083 632/683001 5.14 (no self-reports) 15/11578 4/842 2/470 6/1008 6/1008 2/508 8.24 .08 .09 75/20184 39/6453 4.53 .40 . Extraversion .Table 3 Meta-Analytic Correlation Matrix with Core Self-Evaluations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1.27 38/11856 40/6447 243/135529 344/162975 6. Job performance .17 .02 -.39 . 48 . Core Self.20* .03 .30 312/54471 3. Job satisfaction 2.25 . Job Complexity .20 .45 . Job Complexity .17 .20 .00 . Conscientiousness .08 .17 .22 Evaluations 32/18150 22/2677 17/4808 18/5536 8/1348 7. Cognitive Ability .55 . Entries in the table are corrected correlations. Agreeableness .30 .25 . Below each correlation appears the number of studies (k) and then the total sample size for the combined studies (N).

where I first controlled for personality traits only. controlling for only subsets of the common causes.16. When controlling for the personality variables of Extraversion. and core self-evaluations. Agreeableness. Meta-analytic model results relating personality.05 To summarize the results in Figure 7. and cognitive ability to job satisfaction and job performance. the residual correlation between job satisfaction and job performance is . These results can be seen in Table 4. It is also possible to look at the residual satisfaction-performance relationship. *p < . cognitive ability. . 49 Figure 7. then controlled for personality and cognitive ability. after controlling for the theoretically-relevant personality traits. and job characteristics. job characteristics. and finally controlled for all of the common causes together. Conscientiousness.

Paths marked with an asterisk are significant at the . The resulting model with path estimates is presented in Figure 8. So. which specifies the relationships between the personality variables.18.30 to .16). job characteristics.16. when controlling for the full set of common causes. Cognitive Ability.17 Ability Personality.18 Personality & Cognitive . A.05 level. all of the hypothesized paths are statistically significant. and job performance. . the job satisfaction-job performance relationship is indeed partly spurious. Table 4 Results of Controlling for Variables in the Satisfaction-Performance Relationship Controlling for: ψ Personality (E. although several were in the opposite .80. C. That is. 50 the residual correlation between satisfaction and performance reduces to . As can be seen in the figure.16 & Job Complexity The second section of this paper addresses the theoretical model presented in Figure 6. as controlling for common causes reduces the relationship magnitude from . & CSE) .16. job satisfaction.17. and when finally adding job complexity to the model the satisfaction-performance relationship reduces to . When cognitive ability is added to the model. it reduces to . cognitive ability. The theoretical model was tested by entering the meta-analytic correlation matrix into Lisrel 8. the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance is reduced to approximately half of the raw correlation (ψ = .

05 The fit indices for this model are presented in Table 5. Figure 8. but several paths are negative in the empirically estimated model). I estimated the direct paths individually. and found that none of them improved the practical fit (the largest improvement was when adding the . 1998). To test whether job satisfaction and job complexity are indeed mediators of the relationships between personality variables and job performance. *p < .e. Structural equations model results of the integrated theoretical model.. all paths were positive in the hypothesized model. This table shows that the hypothesized model has good fit (Hu & Bentler. 51 direction from the hypothesized model (i.

99 .004). Table 5 Fit Indices for Structural Model χ2 df RMSEA CFI NNFI SRMR 42. ΔCFI(1) =. Also. because unlike changes in Ch- square.97 . the lack of a direct path from cognitive ability to job satisfaction (ΔCFI(1) =.24 10 . I chose to conduct model comparisons by looking at changes in the comparative fit index (CFI).02 .04 . 52 direct path from Extraversion to job performance. changes in CFI are not a direct function of sample size.000) confirmed the status of job complexity as a mediator.

by incorporating individual differences. which mediated the relationship between cognitive ability and job satisfaction. Another mediator in the model is job complexity. Finally. objective and self-ratings of job complexity are separate constructs and related differentially to the outcome variables.. Some specific characteristics of this model are that job satisfaction mediates the relationships of Extraversion. Specifically. 53 CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The job-satisfaction-job performance relationship has been the object of much research in the area of industrial/organizational psychology. Although multiple models of the relationship have been suggested. Also specified in this integrated model. as well as some of the personality variables and job performance. meaning that part of the relationship is actually due to common causes of satisfaction and performance rather than a substantive causal relationship between the two. The second part of this study focused on an integrated theoretical model containing all of the same variables as the test of spuriousness. The results of the current study suggest that the relationship between satisfaction and performance is partly spurious. In specifying this . 2001). approximately one half of the satisfaction-performance relationship is spurious. cognitive ability is not related to the personality variables. This finding is important because it helps to theoretically clarify a commonly studied relationship. to date research has not determined the appropriate causal model to explain this relationship (Judge et al. and core self-evaluations with job performance. Agreeableness.

job satisfaction follows job perceptions and they are related reciprocally (James & Tetrick. 2008). Negative suppression is defined as occurring when variables have a positive correlation with the criterion. 1975) job complexity should lead to improvements in both job satisfaction and job performance. but a negative β weight in a multiple regression equation (Darlington. job complexity is specified to come before job satisfaction as it has been found that causally. First of all. The fact that meta-analytic correlations of objective and self-reports of job complexity with both performance and satisfaction are positive. suggests that statistical suppression might be occurring. 54 model. Suppressed variables can be identified by having direct and indirect effects with opposite signs (Tzelgov & Henik. rather than performance leading to satisfaction because it has been found that job attitudes are more likely to influence performance than for performance to influence attitudes (Riketta. there were some interesting and unexpected findings. Along with these findings. objective job complexity was negatively related to job satisfaction and job performance when controlling for individual differences including personality and cognitive ability. 1986). In addition. 1991). These findings were unexpected. It is interesting and counterintuitive that job complexity relates negatively to satisfaction and performance when controlling for personality and cognitive ability. but then become negative in the overall model. Suppressor effects are not simply a . self-ratings of job complexity were negatively related to job performance. job satisfaction leads to performance. because according to the Job Characteristics Model (Hackman & Oldham. In addition. 1968).

It may be easiest to understand this by considering exactly what job complexity means when personality and cognitive ability are held constant. the more people will answer that item incorrectly). in comprehensively modeling the relationships amongst personality. according to the model advanced in the current study. consider the following example. the function of individual difference variables (personality and mental ability) may be to remove some of the unwanted variance from job complexity. With these held constant. the task is meaningful and seems important (task significance). 55 statistical artifact. rather than just being responsible for one part (task identity). and job performance. Lower satisfaction could occur because with a harder . 1974). Hackman & Oldham. the poorer most people will perform (this is akin to saying that the more difficult a test item is. When holding personality and cognitive ability constant. job satisfaction. job complexity. The idea that lower performance occurs with a harder job is easier to understand because it follows that the more difficult the work. high job complexity means that the job is harder for employees. but rather are obtained because they remove some irrelevant conceptual variance in the predictor (Conger. cognitive ability. the fact that the job is harder leads to lower satisfaction and worse performance. Take two employees who have the same levels of cognitive ability and the same personality profiles. So. are involved in a task from beginning to end. The employee with the more complex job will be less satisfied and worse performing (which is contrary to job characteristics theory. and employees are more responsible for their own actions (autonomy). To better understand the suppression effect with job characteristics. 1976). as they have more skills to perform (skill variety).

employees have to work harder. As discussed earlier. which could mean more time or energy spent on the job. taking away from satisfaction. The JCM does allow for individual differences with the inclusion of the growth need strength variable (Hackman & Oldham. but this is not included in most of the studies that look at job complexity. but a negative relationship between objective measures of job characteristics and job satisfaction. 1975). 1976). it is reasonable to believe that the frequently observed positive job complexity-job satisfaction correlation is actually due to individual differences rather than the actual characteristics of the job. or contaminated. self-report measures can be influenced. not because of the actual complexity of the job. When considering the relationship between job complexity and job satisfaction. but it appears that this is not the case. 56 job. If this is indeed the case. So it appears from the integrated theoretical model (Figure 6) that high job complexity only leads to high satisfaction and performance because of the personality and ability of individuals in the job. Hackman and Oldham (1975) designed the JDS to measure objective job characteristics. and . by individual affect that is unrelated to the actual job characteristics (Schwab & Cummings. much of the ostensible empirical support for the relationships proposed in the JCM could just be attributable to individual difference effects. the model shows there is a fairly strong positive relationship between self-reports of job characteristics and job satisfaction. Because the positive relationship between job complexity and job satisfaction is only supported for self-report measures of job complexity.

In other words. Also. as . 2003). ratings of job complexity may not be a fair mental average of the actual job characteristics. perceptual biases can come into play when these ratings are made. both objective and self- ratings. Situations in the work place that occurred the most recently can have an exaggerated impact on ratings. so negative aspects of the workplace could have a larger impact on ratings than positive or neutral situations. or the perceptions of the job complexity dimensions can be biased by some type informational cues in the situation (O’Reilly & Caldwell. and as such. some theoretical contributions of this model can be illuminated. job satisfaction mediates the effects of Extraversion. One reason that self-reports of job complexity may not relate as expected to satisfaction and performance is that it might not be an actual representation of what the characteristics of the job actually are. the reason that cognitive ability is related to job satisfaction is job complexity. a recency effect can affect ratings of job complexity. Also.. but instead the relationships can be explained through the effects of these personality variables on job satisfaction. in the relationship between cognitive ability and job satisfaction. people tend to remember or focus on negative things. Agreeableness. An individual’s mood can affect perceptions of the characteristics of the job (Thoresen et al. First. These personality variables are not directly related to performance. 57 the use of non-objective measures has a notable impact on outcomes related to job complexity. Another mediator that becomes apparent in this model is job complexity. Indeed. In considering the model in Figure 6. in other words. and core self-evaluations on job performance. 1979).

58 shown in Figure 6 cognitive ability pretty strongly positively predicts both objective and subjective job complexity. they are not. If looking simply at the small bivariate ability- satisfaction correlation. . positive relationship). exert more effort. Although it has been suggested that core self-evaluations are related to objective job complexity because of high self-evaluators’ propensity to seek out complex jobs. objective is negatively related and self-reports are positively related. It might be that individuals with high core self evaluations perceive their jobs to be more complex but in actuality. which leads to the negative relationship.. The combined effect is an overall weak relationship between cognitive ability and job satisfaction. In other words. but these two mediators then predict job satisfaction in opposite directions. The differential relationships between the objective and self-ratings of job complexity shine light on the fact that they likely do not measure the same constructs and researchers should not confuse the two. the relationship is negative. One explanation could be that there is a difference in the way people perceive job complexity and how it actually is. maybe people have incorrect perceptions regarding the complexity of jobs. This finding is especially interesting in that objective job complexity and self- reports of job complexity relate differentially to core self-evaluations. when controlling for cognitive ability and other personality traits. 2000). the substantive job complexity mechanisms would not have been appreciated. Another unexpected finding was that core self-evaluations was negatively related to objective job complexity when controlling for other personality traits and cognitive ability (contrary to the hypothesized. and persist in the face of failure (Judge et al.

Job performance is about 50 percent who you hire (50% attributable to individual differences) and 50 percent not due to individual differences. Hackman. Another important implication for practice regards job characteristics and the redesign of jobs to increase performance and satisfaction. This can be seen in various experiments that have examined the effects of job redesign to increase job complexity on satisfaction and performance. Implications for Practice Regarding the finding that the job satisfaction-job performance is partly spurious. and Wolfe (1978) found that . Paul. Luthans. On the other hand. Pearce. Results of the current study imply that the work redesign movement may have been a bit backwards. but also on who is hired. Or it could be the case the after a job complexity-increasing intervention both satisfaction and performance decrease. and Taylor (1987) found that increased job complexity led to higher performance but not a statistically significant increase in satisfaction. If an organization does an intervention to increase job complexity. Changes in an employee’s performance likely depend not only on changes in job satisfaction. one important implication for practice is that satisfaction and performance are not as strongly causally related as some people consider them to be. whereas the self-reports of job complexity is solely based on how employees experience job characteristics. So whom an organization hires is important. Kemmerer. 59 Objective job complexity does not take into account the job characteristics as employees experience or perceive them. in light of personality and ability. it might be that satisfaction increases but performance does not increase as much.

therefore we can reasonably assume that they come before. Another limitation of this study is that because it uses a non-experimental design. and influence. Limitations and Contributions One limitation of this study is that some of the individual meta-analyses were quite small. It is necessary to understand that making a job more complex will not necessarily improve satisfaction and performance as suggested in the Job Characteristics Model. it is not possible to show causal relationships. not the jobs themselves. Also. The reasons for the positive job complexity-performance relationship may actually be the individuals who are in the jobs. primary studies did not exist for two of the cells in the correlation matrix. some of the job complexity correlations had fewer than three primary correlations. satisfaction and performance. personality and ability are theoretically antecedent to job satisfaction and job performance. For example. The conclusions drawn from this study are at the . so long as the personalities and abilities of employees remain stable. but not increased performance. none of these studies included controls for individual personality. However. and imputation from another cell was used. One more limitation of this study is that there could be moderators that limit the generalizablity of the meta-analysis. Conducting more primary studies would help to improve this limitation and increase confidence in the results. 60 increased job complexity led to increased satisfaction. However. Griffeth (1985) also found an increase in satisfaction following a job complexity increasing intervention.

and job complexity literature. Extraversion and core self-evaluations) and job performance. This was accomplished. Conclusion The purpose of this study was twofold. The second purpose of the investigation was to examine a theoretical model containing the variables that were a part of the investigation of spuriousness. First. Specifically. it was to examine the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance to estimate the decrement in magnitude of the relationship after accounting for individual differences. and if there are moderators that were not tested. Specifically. acting as such in the relationship between cognitive ability and job satisfaction. both unidirectional and reciprocal. This study also makes contributions to the satisfaction-performance. the integrated theoretical model provided new information regarding the relationships between the included variables. 61 mean population level. the goal was . the integrated model shows that satisfaction fully mediates the relationship between some personality variables (e. personality. Also. the results may not generalize to the actual population. These estimates provide a clearer picture of the relationships amongst all of the variables in the study. and results showed that the satisfaction-performance relationship is partly spurious.. Another contribution of the current study is that it shows that the causal effects. Job complexity is also a mediator. cognitive ability.g. First. this study included conducting 24 original meta-analyses. between job satisfaction and job performance may be more limited in magnitude than previously thought as these relationships are approximately half spurious.

and is therefore one currently appropriate representation of the relationships among the variables. . 62 to determine if an integrated theoretical model fit with the data. Results showed that the model fit well.

. R.. interests. Personnel Psychology. 22. personality. Job satisfaction: Environmental and genetic components. M. (1991). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. San Francisco. (1997). R. Baron. L. 121. G. (1989). & Locke. In M. D. R. 1173-1182. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual. Ackerman. Arvey. & Heggestad. Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations (pp. L. strategic. L. Barrick.. R. A. & Kenny. R. Journal of Applied Psychology. Psychological Bulletin. I. L. K. & Mount. (1996)... 63 REFERENCES Ackerman. M. M. L. (1986). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.. Jr. M. A. Bouchard. D. 1-26. (1991). P. & Stewart. Barrick & A. A. 187-192. 219-245. D. A theory of adult intellectual development: Process. and statistical considerations. N. 87-99. E. and knowledge.. . The theory of planned behavior. and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Intelligence. T. 88. 179-211. T. 227-257. (2003). M. Bandura. Ajzen. CA: Jossey-Bass. 50.. (2003). Ryan (Eds. Intelligence. Situational and motivational influences on trait-behavior relationships. M. The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. Segal. 74. 51. J.). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. P. & Abraham. Mitchell. personality. 60-82). R. 44. E. Barrick.

(2002). Krueger. S.. Personality and job performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. L. 396-425. (1993). M. S. A. Brief. University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill. M. interpersonal success. J. Employee attitudes and employee performance. H. 52. C. H. D. or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest. . P. 279-307. J. Stewart. W. Causal inferences in nonexperimental research.. (2002). R. Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment. Psychological Bulletin. happiness. Mount. 43-51. P. A. W. 1-44. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Brayfield. Baumeister. J. H. Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. T. 4. K. Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. K. F. & Vohs. Antecedents and consequences of salesperson job satisfaction: Meta-analysis and assessment of causal effects. M... M. M. 30. Journal of Applied Psychology. & Piotrowski. Personnel selection in organizations (pp. NC. D. & Motowidlo.. G. R. 64 Barrick. I. & Peterson. 63-77. M.. Annual Review of Psychology. 87. A. 9. Journal of Marketing Research. (2003). Barrick. H.. In N. Brown. (1993). & Weiss. Campbell. 9-30. (1955). (2001). Borman (Eds. R. Schmit & W. & Crockett. 53. R.).. Does high self- esteem cause better performance... (1964). 71-98). & Judge. Blalock. A. C. Borman.

A revised definition for suppressor variables: A guide to their identification and interpretation. H. L. & Ackerman.. J. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. D. D. . Campbell. W. Personnel Psychology. & Wise. A. 25. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. General self-efficacy and self-esteem: Toward theoretical and empirical distinction between correlated self-evaluations. (3rd ed).. 43. S. L.) Personnel selection in organizations (pp. D. G. McHenry. Goddard.. (1974). G.. S. C. S. 313-333. (2004b). McCloy.. J. 249-370. Oppler... Boston. Cohen. R. Journal of Organizational Behavior. J. Examination of the relationships among general and work-specific evaluations.. T. T. (2004a). & Sager. & Eden. J... G. 34. J. & Aiken. (2003). Educational and Psychological Measurement.. (2006). Mahwah. 41. 419-429. Modeling job performance in a population of jobs. Borman (Eds. Gully. Schmitt & W. P. Chen. Cohen. (1979). C. work-related control beliefs. & Casper. 65 Campbell. J. L. & Campbell. and job attitudes. S. 53. J. MA: Houghton Mifflin. 375-395. L. 35-46. CA: Jossey-Bass. Chen.. West. Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. San Francisco. M.. A. G. P. P. Personality and Individual Differences. 35-70). Ability and personality correlates of general knowledge. Conger. Furnham.. Cook. Applied Psychology: An International Review. (1990). In N. Chamorro-Premuzic. T. E. A. P. T. (1993) A theory of performance.

D. .. J. MA: Addison-Wesley. Fiske.. (1975). M. Psychological Bulletin. G. FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology. & Zuk. R. 249- 266. (1985). 75. R. attitude. Fried.. Journal of Applied Psychology. S. 287-322. 178-197. W. D. (1968). R. The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis.. 21-29. 6. B.. B.. R. 40. 90. & Wood. Jr. Personnel Psychology. Multiple regression in psychological research and practice.. 66 Costa. (1995). V. G. G. Dalal. Odessa. 1241-1255. Reading. Seasickness as a self-fulfilling prophecy: Raising self- efficacy to boost performance at sea. M. & McCrae. Personality and Individual Differences. T. Eysenck. (2005). and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Educational and Psychological Measurement. (1998) Self-esteem and the cognitive accessibility of strengths and weaknesses after failure. Eysenck. & Ferris. (1987). & Ajzen. Eden. P. P. & Barrett. Y. 23. A revised version of the psychoticism scale. Dodgson. (1985). & Butler. 69. Y. (1963). I. The experimental conditions for measuring individual differences. P. S. 628- 635. 161-182. The NEO Personality Inventory manual. A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. intention. J. Fishbein. 80. R. H. J. Darlington. Belief..

. L. Hogan. Jr. Employee reactions to job characteristics. 8. J. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.. 73-93. A. 40. Group & Organization Management. Ashton. The psychological basis of introversion-extraversion. R. G. Johnson. 73. R. 1216-1229. & Pierce. Journal of Applied Psychology.. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. D. C. & Gough. L. J. (1971). 29. L. H. Psychological Assessment. J. (1988). Griffeth. The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Sources of variance in incumbent perceptions of job complexity. Cloninger. 23.. 48-70. Glick. . R. An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. D. 259-286. C. C. Eber. E.. & Lawler III. & Gupta. (1990). Gerhart.. R. Moderation of the effects of job enrichment by participation: A longitudinal field experiment. (1992).. Goldberg. J.. W. W. R. 35. R. Goldberg. (1985). Gray. W. Method versus substance: How strong are underlying relationships between job characteristics and attitudinal outcomes? Academy of Management Journal. (2006). 84-96. The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. H. R.. (1998). E.. Behavioral Research and Therapy. (1986). Journal of Applied Psychology. 67 Gardner. L. 154-162. (1970). M. Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the organizational context. Hackman. 26-42. Jenkins. H. 4. 59. 441-464. Goldberg.. G. 249-266. 55. A. Journal of Research in Personality. N. B.

The impact of psychological distress on absence from work. Humphrey. Harrison. PA: Psychological Service of Pittsburg. Hu. J. O. B. E. social. (1957). Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. Mausner. & Morgeson. Pearce. Newman. Pittsburg.. G. M. 305-325. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. F. D. C. J. R. & Campbell. Hackman. & Roth. How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparison of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. R. R. and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. D. Peterson. R. G. (1975). P. Herzberg. Woods.. J. J. D. P. 1332-1356. R. 306-314. F.. Nahrgang. 88. F. 250-279. L. 21. Integrating motivational. A. Psychological Methods. R.. & Wolfe. 49. T. 3.. 68 Hackman. D. (2007). Journal of Applied Psychology. E.. 424- 453... (2003). Hackman. . Journal of Applied Psychology. P. (1976). (1978). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory.. G. & Oldham. D. S. J. & Oldham.. Job attitudes: Review of research and opinion. 289-304. L. 60. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitive to underparameterized model misspecification. 159-170... A. 92. (1998). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey.. & Wall. & Bentler. 16. L. Hardy. Journal of Applied Psychology. Effects of changes in job characteristics on work attitudes and behaviors: A naturally occurring quasi- experiment. J. (2006).. Academy of Management Journal. D.

Hunter. E. 72. 251-273. R.. Psychological Bulletin. & Brett. 96. 72-98. (1985). Hurtz. R. S.. J. (2006).. 69- 74. (1984). 71. Beverly Hills. (1987) A revision of the Job Diagnostic Survey: Elimination of a measurement artifact. Journal of Applied Psychology.. Confirmatory analytic tests of three causal models relating job perceptions to job satisfaction. R.. James. J. & Judge. (2003). IL: Scientific Software International. 869-879. CA: Sage. Idaszak. Ilies. 85. M. R. J. Organizational Research Methods. & Tetrick. Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. L. (1982). 88. & Hunter. Mulaik. J. E. M. & Muchinsky. Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. 69 Hunter. Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Mulaik. J.E. M. & Brett. G. James. J. R. (2006). Conditions for confirmatory analysis and causal inference.. Thousand Oaks. A tale of two methods. L. K. R. & Drasgow. On the heritability of job satisfaction: The mediating role of personality. Iaffaldano. F. S. T. L. J. A. A. P. T.. Jöreskog. 9.. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. & Donovan. F.. (2000). Journal of Applied Psychology. Psychological Bulletin. Chicago. (2004). L. A. .. & Sörbom. L. Journal of Applied Psychology. M. CA: Sage.. 233-244. 750-759. & Schmidt. F. 97. D. M. Journal of Applied Psychology. (1986). James. LISREL 8:80 (Student Edition). 77-82.

92.. Five-factor model of personality and employee absence. E. D. & Locke. pp. & Pritchard. 86. J. Encyclopedia of Psychology (Vol. & Bono. Self- efficacy and work-related performance. O. A.A. Jackson. (2000). 80-92. C. 530-541. Heller. E. K. (2001).. Journal of Applied Psychology. A. D. & Rich.. C. D. Journal of Applied Psychology. B. (2007). (2000).). Judge. (2002). Judge. & Thoresen. 399-403). (1997). . Washington. D. A. T. T. DC: American Psychological Association. (1973). 57. locus of control. T. Relationship of core self-evaluations traits – Self- esteem. Dunnette. E. Kazdin (Ed. Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics. Bono. T . T. J. Scott. Martocchio.. generalized self-efficacy. 271-280.. L.. In A.. J.. Judge. Effects of the manipulations of a performance-reward contingency on behavior in a stimulated work setting. Judge. Journal of Applied Psychology. J. T. Judge. Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. A. A. 4.. and emotional stability – With job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. M. A. 87. M. 237- 249. 107- 127. Journal of Applied Psychology. Job satisfaction. L. R. 85. C. 745-755. E. Journal of Applied Psychology. 82. A. J.. J. Shaw. 70 Jorgenson. & Mount. Journal of Applied Psychology. B. Judge...

Locke. A. & Taylor. 12. Academy of Management Review. and partial regression coefficients. Group & Organization Studies. E. L. J.. Katz. E. T. 71 Judge. (1967). & Latham. C. What should we do about motivation theory? Six recommendations for the twenty-first century. Journal of Applied Psychology. R. 388-403. Job satisfaction and job performance: A theoretical analysis. (2004). G. E. Psychological Bulletin. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. L. Psychology of work behavior. C. F. (1969). New York: Wiley. (2001). 127. Toward a hypothesis of work behavior. Kenny. . New York: Wiley.. Luthans. K.. 5. L.. & Werts. Lawler. (1970). & Kahn. D. W. A. partial correlations. Correlation and causality. K. D. (1979). The effect of performance on job satisfaction.. A. 307-310. E. Locke. Psychological Bulletin. Landy. G. Paul. F. & Patton. R. 376-407. 31-41.. B. 29. A. The social psychology of organizations. Assumptions in making causal inferences from part correlations. P. Kemmerer. E. (1970). Bono. L. 20-28. 484-500. CA: Brooks/Cole. 55-72. (1978). (1987)... E. J. Korman. (1989). Linn. & Porter. Pacific Grove. 7. J.. 72. R. Industrial Relations. Thoresen. The job satisfaction- job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. 54. The impact of a job redesign intervention on salespersons’ observed performance behaviors.

& Schmit.. Volume 4: Industrial and organizational assessment (pp. 1046-1053. 72 Magnus. K. Psychometric theory. Extraversion and neuroticism as predictors of objective life events: A longitudinal analysis. R. F. Dillon and J. McGraw-Hill: New York. Pellegrino (Eds. McCrae. Motowidlo. A. More than words: Reframing compliments from romantic partners fosters security in low self-esteem individuals. Borman.) Testing: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives (pp. Fujita. 232-248. & Costa. Human Performance.. Marigold. 218-247). (1993).. W. In R. Morgeson. Diener. The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Newman. 91. G. J. S. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Holmes. 10. & Farr. C. & Ross. 1321-1339. C. J. Kinney. C. (2007). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. In J. W... 92. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. J. Adding Liebe und Arbeit: The full five-factor model and well-being. C. 65. (1991). NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Hoboken. J.. (1978). Jr. D. Thomas (Ed. P. R. (2006). P. T. F. K. (1997) A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. E. F. Job performance ratings. W.. L.. M. . (2004). R.). M. D. & Humphrey. T. Nunnally. 71-83. 373-389). (1989). New York: Praeger.. Dimensions of job performance. S. 17. Murphy. 227-232.. & Pavot. Journal of Applied Psychology.. Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment. E. J.

. Informational influence as a determinant of perceived task characteristics and job satisfaction. & Gray. affect in measures of job satisfaction. D. A. (1995). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London.. W. 135. (2004). satisfaction.. International Journal of Psychology. A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. P. The Journal of Social Psychology. 130. and organizational citizenship behavior. K. Pyszczynski. (1997). 357-365. Corr. D. J. 775-804. D. J. (1985).. Why do people need self-esteem? A theoretical and empirical review. III. A. W. K. W. J. A. & Ryan. 64. . 157-165. D. Special Issue: Job Satisfaction. 73 O’Reilly. Organ. Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution: On a form of spurious correlation which may arise when indices are used in the measurement of organs. C. P. Journal of Applied Psychology. & Lingl. (1979). D. 60. J.. (1999). 85-97. (1995). & Schimel. Pickering.. Organ. (1897). & Near. J. 20. Personality and Individual Differences. 10. Pearson. Personality. Personnel Psychology. J. Organ. A. 26. Greenberg. 48. S. 489-498. 339-350. Solomon.. Interactions and reinforcement sensitivity theory: A theoretical analysis of Rusting and Larsen (1997). 241- 253. Human Performance. W. Psychological Bulletin. 435-486. & Caldwell. Organ. Arndt. F. D. Cognition vs. T.. Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time.

Academy of Management Journal. The impact of personality on psychological contracts. 36. meta-analysis. J. (2004). . Reexamining the job satisfaction-performance relationship: The complexity of attitudes. J.. (2000). 165-177. L. 56-67. J. D. B. K. Orthogonal markers for orthogonal factors: The case of the Big Five. F. G. J. R. Saucier. Psychological Monographs. & Kwun. (1992). 22. 43. Extraversion. Watt. Rotter. 607-612. 47. 1173- 1181. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. S. G. 350-367. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. (1966). Saavedra. 1-28... 131-146. Schmidt. Journal of Organizational Behavior. & Larsen. 21. F. 80.. D. L. (1975). R. (2004). and cumulative knowledge in psychology. G. Personality and Individual Differences. Schleicher. 1-31. and susceptibility to positive and negative affect: A test of two theoretical models. American Psychologist.. 47. Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. Johns.. C. J. (2002). Rotter. Journal of Applied Psychology. J. & Ntalianis. & Greguras. U. B. What do data really mean? Research findings. Affective states in job characteristics theory. 89. Rusting. Journal of Research in Personality. (1997). 74 Raja. neuroticism.

Aldine Sims. 432-439.. 80. A. General mental ability in the world of work: Occupational attainment and job performance. Schmidt. L. Academy of Management Journal. Schwab. Schwab. N. 71. (1976)... Hunter. D. F. 195-212. H. & Hunter. .. The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications for 85 years of research findings. The measurement of job characteristics. In H. J. A. J. (1970). R. J. & Outerbridge. A. 408-430. H. Szilagyi. A. Academy of Management Review. & Keller. 124.. 86. L. Psychological Bulletin. Industrial Relations. T. P. K. (2004). F. M. E. 162-173. 325-339. Elliot. 9. (1976).. Spurious correlation: A causal interpretation. L. The impact of job experience and ability on job knowledge. 26. Blalock (Ed. (1985). & Cummings. New York. E. Journal of Applied Psychology. & Hunter. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. & Kasser. P. D. F. L. Impact of task scope on employee productivity: An evaluation using expectancy theory. L. (1998).. (2001).M. L. & Cummings. Y. Theories of performance and satisfaction: A review. J. and supervisory ratings of job performance. work sample performance. What is satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. R. Causal models in the social sciences (pp. 23-35. 262-274... (1986).. Simon. 1. E.. Kim. L. Sheldon. Schmidt.). 5-17). 75 Schmidt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

453-466. E. W.. M. Psychological Bulletin. S. C. L. J. & Jex.. (1983). A. Spector. (2002).. Staw. M. C. IL. & Hulin.. absence. 469-480. T. L. 1317-1338. (1991). et al. 482-497. 76 Smith. (1982) Behavior in organizations as a function of employee’s locus of control. & Baldwin. C. Bernin. S. and health. The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Spector. J. M. L. M. 653-663. Sparks. Tait. P. Staw. Job and life satisfaction: A reevaluation of the strength of the relationship and gender effects as a function of the date of study. Stability in the midst of change: A dispositional approach to job attitudes. Padgett.. Cooper. P. but not yet an oasis. 74. Kendall. 59-78. turnover intentions. Rand McNally & Company: Chicago. 46-53. & Ross. K. 502-507. Y. B. Sutton. M. M. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents... Organ. J. (2005). (1969)... B. 26. 70... Journal of Applied Psychology. P. T. E. & Cohen-Charash. 45. D. O’Driscoll. 76. Predicting and explaining intentions and behavior: How well are we doing? Journal of Applied Social Psychology. P. & Near. Spector.. The dispositional approach to job satisfaction: More than a mirage. M. Y. (1985). . I. Journal of Applied Psychology.. Journal of Applied Psychology. 91. E. 68. P. Relations of job characteristics from multiple data sources with employee affect. Locus of control and well-being at work: How generalizable are western findings? Academy of Management Journal. (1989).. Journal of Applied Psychology. C. P. Sanchez. 28. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Smith. (1998).

Journal of Applied Psychology.. & Putka. Work and motivation. E. Schmidt. 129. C. (2003). Tischner. 506-516. J. C. & de Chermont. Moderating influence of self-esteem on relationships between job complexity. Viswesvaran. & Tischner. S. C.. 914-945. A. A... & Harker. . Suppression situaions in psychological research: Definitions. 623-632. (2002). (1984). Is there a general factor in ratings of job performance? A meta-analytic framework for disentangling substantive and error influences. Vancouver. P. 90.. J. 77 Tharneou. Warren. P. Barsky. The affective underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic review and integration. Vancouver. B. V. Two studies examining the negative effect of self-efficacy on performance. S. Psychological Bulletin.. C. Journal of Applied Psychology. (2004)... 89. J. 108-131. implications. 524- 536. (1964).. Thompson. D. D. C. K. Dictionary of occupational titles (4th ed.. 69.. Kapalan. and applications. E. performance. A. Vroom. Washington. B. M. & Henik. J. and satisfaction. 109. Journal of Applied Psychology. DC: Author. (2005). (1991). C. J. The effect of feedback sign on task performance dependson self-concept discrepancies.). 1092-1098.. Journal of Applied Psychology. New York: Wiley. & Ones. R. United States Department of Labor (1991). H. P. 87. L. Thoresen. Psychological Bulletin. F. Tzelgov.

Cummings (Eds. (1974). pp.. M. Desmarais. R. 59. M. B. Your money or your self-esteem: Threatened egotism promotes costly entrapment in losing endeavors. Zhang. (2006). (1996).. England: Charles Griffin. (Vol. Wilk. 25. L. 79-85. causes. University of Iowa. 41-78. F. 139-144. 1-74). A causal-correlational analysis of the job satisfaction and performance relationship. P.. H. Staw and L. S. Journal of Applied Psychology. L. and consequences of affective experiences at work. L. G. & Baumeister. 78 Wanous. Affective Events Theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure. Iowa City. (1919). Journal of Social Issues. Journal of Applied Psychology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Zimmerman. R.). Weiss. An introduction to the theory of statistics. In B. & Sackett. Yule.. 32. D. P. 881-893. London. (1969). 18. Gravitation to jobs commensurate with ability: Longitudinal and cross-sectional tests. . Attitudes versus actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. A. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. L. Wicker. & Cropanzano. J. Understanding the impact of personality traits on individuals’ turnover decisions. U. W. (1995). Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews. R. (2006). R. New York: JAI Press/Elsevier Science. 80.

S.A. Journal of Applied Psychology. 197-209. . The City University of New York. (2003). Eating Behaviors. Goal orientation and ability: Interactive effects on self-efficacy. Avolio. & Wulfert. Lar. 497-505. W. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. (1978).. Bell. & Kozlowski. D. A longitudinal study of the leadership development process: Individual differences predicting leader effectiveness. S. J. Dispositional correlates of addictive behaviors in college women: Binge eating and heavy drinking. E. E. B. Dionne.. 435-446. J. Atwater... 43-50. 1543-1562. 52. L. 15. personality. (1997). and knowledge. (2006). L. interpersonal. P. 87. An examination of age and cognitive test performance across job complexity and occupational types. & Heggestad. L. Andreassi. Bagozzi. 137.J. 79 APPENDIX ARTICLES INCLUDED IN THE META-ANALYSES Ackerman. & Waldman. W. B. Intelligence. Journal of Applied Psychology. Psychological Bulletin. B. 121. Human Relations. and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Salesforce performance and satisfaction as a function of individual difference.. (2005). D. Journal of Marketing Research. (2002). D. 219-245. The role of personality and coping in work-family conflict: New directions.. performance. F. R. A. Camobreco. (1990). K. D. Benjamin. 517-531. 6. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied. 75. E. Avery. (1999). Avolio. J. R. and situational factors.. P. Personality as a predictor of the value of voice..

state-like individual differences. Whiteman. Boswell. A. (1988).. Cawley. University of New Hampshire. The virtues scale: A psychological examination of the structure of virtue and the relationships between virtue. & Cheek. 121-130. and subjective well-being. R. (1997). Durham. moral development. State College. 54. (2001). Jr. 34. and demographic predictions of happiness and depression. W. Boudreau. A. M. 663-678. Personality and Individual Differences. The Pennsylvania State University. Personality and cognitive ability and predictors of job search among employed managers. R. Personality and Individual Differences. 835- 847. & Kilcullen. personality. III. Briggs. . J.. J. R. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. & Furnham... (2000). W. G. 28.. 54. domains of aspiration. 80 Black. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Examination of relationships among trait-like individual differences. problems with validity. H.. D. 25-50. & Bretz. self-esteem.. Gully. T. & Joseph. 85.. (1997). Chen. R. Journal of Applied Psychology. Personality. K. N. and learning performance. S. Personnel Psychology. (2003). Judge. S. R.. 347-354. S. A. M. and epistemological style. J.. M. Dimensions of personality. Parallels between adolescent-mother and adolescent-best friend interactions. J. Cheng. (2000). On the nature of self-monitoring: Problems with assessment. Chan.

Journal of Applied Psychology. A. Bowling Green. A. (2001). . Diefendorff. S. 72. M. M. Journal of Social Psychology. D. 375-395. Selected personality correlates of social participation in university students. Farmer. F. OH.. 35. & Konstans... K. Delgado. Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. R. Comparative effects of personal and situational influences on job outcomes of new professionals.. P. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. de Man. (2004). L. L. L. & Noe. J. Contributions to global self-esteem: The role of importance attached to self-concepts associated with the Five Factor Model. R.. R. A. L.. Los Angeles. 17. LePine. University of Southern California. A.. Correlates of job satisfaction among high school principals. 558-566. (1987). M. Colquitt.. J. Work relationships as investments: The unexplored component of continuance commitment. 678-707. (1988). M. Human Performance. & Efraim. J. A. 128. A. Colarelli. F. Berent. Dean. 483-499. A. Jarvis. Journal of Research in Personality. (2000). 85. Bowling Green State University. 81 Cohen. 265-267. (2001). Journal of Applied Psychology. C. Examination of the roles of action-state orientation and goal orientation in the goal-setting and performance process. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. & Corbett. (2007).

Koles. Y. Academy of Management Journal. Ganzach. 95-108. Correlates of networking behavior for managerial and professional employees. Journal of Applied Psychology. Payne.. Krauss. & Whiteman. The impact of error training and individual differences on training outcomes: An attribute- treatment interaction perspective. W. C. S. J. S. 92. N. 143-155.. Special Issue: Careers in the 21st Century. (2002). et al. (1998). 97-122. Journal of Applied Psychology. S. Knoxville. R. Gully. (2001). M. & Pazy. L. L. J. Special Issue: Procrastination: Current Issues and New Directions.. M. P.. education. S. Ganzach. 283-311. & Tangney. K. Work and Occupations.. M. R.. I. A. Factors related to supervisory ratings of employees’ customer service orientation. Intelligence and job satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Grabarkiewicz. K. Business owners’ action planning and its relationship to business success in three African countries. (2000). 526-539. Y. 74. 82 Fausz. Luneng. Forret. (1994). . Y.. L. K. 167-184. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. Procrastination: A means of avoiding shame or guilt? Journal of Social Behavior & Personality. 87. Intelligence.. T. 26. 30. T. 15. Fee. A. Group & Organization Management. & Dougherty. (2003).. 41. Escher. 1481-1498. (2007). (2001). Frese. Within-occupation sources of variance in incumbent perception of job complexity. and facets of job satisfaction.. S. The University of Tennessee. Keith.. Ganzach. T.

& Donovan. & Morgeson.. Hurtz. J. Jackson. Journal of Applied Psychology. On the heritability of job satisfaction: The mediating role of personality. 273-283. generalized self-efficacy. 96. E. (2001).. E. social. T. A. Judge. D. 72-98. K. R. Journal of Health Psychology. A. & Bono. (1996). 92. 11. E. Humphrey. Horner. G. (2007). Labrador. O’Connell. Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. 461-481. & Gerard. R. Incremental validity of locus of control after controlling for cognitive ability and conscientiousness. . and other personal characteristics. 80-92. T. S. & Judge. J. Individuality in vulnerability: Influences on physical health. Nahrgang. L. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality. F. 19. Journal of Applied Psychology. F. Journal of Business and Psychology.. L. Hunter. Diurnal types. D. J. (1998). M. 1332-1356. 83 Hattrup. P. M. Journal of Applied Psychology. and emotional stability – With job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. (2003). S.. K. and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. (1984). (2005). R. Ilies. J. 869-879. J. (2000). 3. Psychological Bulletin.. locus of control. 71-85. Journal of Applied Psychology.. 88. J.. 86. A. the “Big Five” personality factors. Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Integrating motivational. 85. A. Relationship of core self-evaluations traits – Self- esteem. & Hunter. 750-759.

A. Judge. Self- efficacy and work-related performance. Personnel Psychology. 383-391. (1981). T. Bono. A. (2001). 65.. The job satisfaction- job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. T. 84 Judge. Thoresen. . Higgins... G. L. Bono. A. T. M.. A. C. and career success across the life span. Journal of Applied Psychology. A. 92. & Mount. 87. A. & Rich. Thoresen. K. M. B.. V. 797-807. 237- 249. J. 52. M. Shaw. K. (2004). Journal of Applied Psychology. 621-652. The big five personality traits. T.. 127. Judge. & Locke. 87. Kabanoff. Judge. & Patton. (2007). (1999). Scott. 33. J. & Bratton. D. E... Journal of Applied Psychology. E. A. Kacmar. general mental ability. & Barrick.. Psychological Bulletin. A. Jackson. E. L. K... J. 107- 127. 309-331. Australian Journal of Psychology. S. Situational and dispositional factors as antecedents of ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. C. D. 376-407. C. Heller. Journal of Applied Psychology. J. Journal of Vocational Behavior. K. C. B.. A. Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. J. T. R. (2002). Carlson.. C. T. Validation of a task attributes description of leisure. B.. 530-541. Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics. (2000).. 85. (2002). R.. Judge. & Ilies. Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Judge.

and leader acceptance in the classroom. (1979). 53. D. D. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Prototypes and performance: Determining the impact of personality. Psychological Reports. C. West Virginia University. S. W. Morgantown. J. Layton. K. J. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 895-910. Kling. M. N. . C. Law. 532-547. 6. DeKalb. C. The effect of experimentally-provided supportive messages on middle-aged and older adults’ performance on everyday programs. Pullman. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. S. Lefevre. (2003). International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. (2006). prototype congruence. & Karmos. (2004). Internal-external control and weight loss in the obese: Predictive and discriminant validity and some possible clinical implications. J. P and L: An experiment and review. H. (1985). K... Northern Illinois University. Personality and Individual Differences. C. 505-507. 44. (1981). (2003). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Love. 100-103. An examination of personality traits as moderating factors of exhaustion in public accounting. G. 922-932. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Kincey. Strategies to foster labor flexibility. 85 Karmos.. The relationship between externality and E. M.. & Essex. Washington State University. Exploring the influence of personality on depressive symptoms and self-esteem across a significant life transition. Karuppan. Ryff. J. A. 85. Kimbler. (2004). Construct validity analyses of a “nonverbal” measure of self-esteem: The Sliding Person Test. 37.

L. B. G. Counseling Psychology Quarterly. 407-410. D. Development of a personality biodata measure to predict ethical decision making. Psychological Reports. (1997). (2007). Y. & Ju. and subjective well-being. 22. Manley. 664-682. Lin. Y. 255-272. The antecedents of work stress in financial services salespeople: An empirical investigation. Correlates of social support: Personal characteristics and social resources. L. C. Benavidez. (1994).. (1997). E. Montgomery. Masqsud. Oxford. 91. (1995). & Dunn. self-esteem. W. G. and the Big Five Inventory.. 453-462. Journal of Managerial Psychology. (1993). 48. Lu. & Carden. J. R. 23. L. Shih. Relationships of some personality variables to academic attainment of secondary school pupils. 80. The University of Mississippi. Marlar. 13. (2002). Psychological Reports. Educational Psychology.. 173-181. locus of control. Psychological Reports. Relationship between locus of control and extraversion-introversion in predicting academic behavior. & Joubert. Liking of personal names. L. L. Personal and environmental correlates of happiness. J.. M. Personality correlates of the Five-Factor Model for a sample of business owners/managers: Associations with scores on self-monitoring. Personality and Individual Differences. (1981). Morrison. 799-806. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. C. 8. Morris. 86 Lu. K. R. K. A.. Type A behavior. M... S. 11-18. .

& Asendorpg. and individual differences in conditionability in organizations. (2004). 333-347. locus of control.. 40. 20. B. A. D. & Bedeian. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Journal of Health & Social Behavior. Leader-follower exchange quality: The role of personal interpersonal attributes. Organ. 401-404. 37. G. I. Parkes. & Gordon. Academy of Management Journal. Baton Rouge. T. K. (1999). The effects of transition stress: A relocation study. A. & Razavi. B.. D. and dispositions. F. D. (2001). S. Extraversion. Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College. Personality and attitudinal variables as predictors of voluntary union membership. A.. R. (1999). Personality-relationship transaction in young adulthood. (1992). Newman. J. Journal of Applied Psychology. 990- 1001. 81. & Parkes. 87 Moyle. 290-306. task characteristics. Is job (dis)satisfaction contagious? Simultaneous effects of social networks. Pennsylvania State University. 625-646. J. and selected personality variables. State College. Oldham. B. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1190-1204. W. competence. (2004). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. 60. S. Neyer. K. Phillips. (1994). . Personality and Individual Differences. (1975). A. R. Phillips. Job complexity and employee substance use: The moderating effects of cognitive ability. 37. G. P.. Leader-member exchange quality: The relationship of similarity. Journal of Organizational Behavior..

& Ammermann.. Connerley. neuroticism. (1995). University of Colorado.. ability. L. Roberts. Intercorrelations among repression-sensitization. personality. S. 31. 792-802. (1991). J.. Schoedt. and locus of control. Central Michigan University. P. E. Psychological Reports. (1972). need for achievement. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. and interactional approaches to entrepreneurs’ job satisfaction. B. A. M. 76. 350-367. Entrepreneurial job satisfaction: An empirical investigation of the situational. The threat hypothesis. (2000). A. M. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 88 Phillips. & Gully. (2003). Raja. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The role of disposition. 32-52. P. U. S. & Ntalianis. and health. 43-62. (2004). (1997). E. Spector.. M. absence. The impact of personality on psychological contracts. Saks. dispositional. M.. F. M. Johns. Academy of Management Journal. C. social desirability.. The role of personality in perceived free-riding. D. 47. (2002). 39. L. Shriberg. 925-926.. P. and attitudes toward diversity. J. L. & Ashforth. and locus of control in the self-efficacy and goal-setting process. entry stressors. Relations of job characteristics from multiple data sources with employee affect. . Journal of Applied Psychology. G. Boulder. & Jex. 21. A. 82. extroversion. 46-53. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Journal of Applied Psychology. Mount Pleasant. Strauss. Role of goal orientation. turnover intentions. and behavioral plasticity theory in predicting newcomers’ adjustment to work.

1137-1148. C. Hittner. Wayne State University. Trevor. 45. Assessing organizational behavior models: A comparison of linear and nonlinear methods.. Kitos. Work-based resources as moderators of the relationship between work hours and satisfaction with work-family balance. MI. 89 Swickert. that is the question: A re-evaluation of extraversion’s influence on self-esteem. 1512-1523. (2002). Psychological Reports. J. (1999). Job insecurity in a sample of Canadian civil servants as a function of personality and perceived job characteristics. Tivendell. Tierney. Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal. 29. Direct or indirect. L. J. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. (1999). M. 92. N. O. L. Valentine. Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. 207-217. Valcour. & Cox-Fuenzalida.. 621-638. 36. P. Detroit. (2001).. R. . S. (2004). & Farmer. S.B. M. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Personality and Individual Differences. Journal of Applied Psychology. Thomas. Personality and motivational predictors of military leadership assessment in the United States Army Reserve Officer Training Corps... 87. 1028- 1044. 55-60. (2007). & Bourbonnais (2000). 44. J. Interactions among actual ease-of-movement determinants and mob satisfaction in the prediction of voluntary turnover.

religious orientation. job characteristics. E. locus of control. & Feij. L. Token majority: The work attitudes of male flight attendants. J. An investigation of the relationships among personality traits. and the subjective well-being of Midwestern university faculty. University of Florida. L. (2003). 185-197. Sex Roles. H. Young. (2006). D. J. MI. University of Iowa. 11. & James. and life satisfaction: A path analytical study. Global self-esteem in relation to structural models of personality and affectivity. optimism. Gainesville. Iowa City. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Nebraska. & Haig. (1999). 299-319. R.. R. Self-esteem. Zimmerman. Understanding the impact of personality traits on individuals’ turnover decisions. 45. Lincoln. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Evidence for the usefulness of task performance. Van Scooter. P. and work behaviors.. Andrews University.. J. . job dedication. extraversion. (2002). (2001). T. (1994). 326-339. Wigert. 90 van den Berg. interpersonal facilitation as components of overall performance. personal control. Suls. A. D. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. R. Zimmerman. 83. J. (2001). L. J. S. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.. Watson. Complex relationships among personality traits. Battle Creek. International Journal of Selection and Assessment.

Organizational Leadership and Supervision Graduated with Distinction . West Lafayette. 2005 Purdue University.A. IN Minor in Spanish. Education: B.. TX 77843-4235 Email Address: alcook@tamu. 91 VITA Name: Allison Laura Cook Address: Texas A&M University Department of Psychology 4235 TAMU College Station.