You are on page 1of 100




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoresen.g. . 1969). In addition. The connection between workplace attitudes and behavioral outcomes continues to be a prevalent research topic (Harrison. 1969. Newman. 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. Bono.. More recently. 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. researchers have acknowledged that job satisfaction is a phenomenon best described as having both cognitive (thoughts) and affective (feelings) character. p. 1989). 1967. & Hulin. Lawler & Porter. & Patton. 2006. 6). job performance. Kendall. Watt. and common causes of these two variables. I will suggest a theoretical model that includes the relationships among job satisfaction. & Roth. The purpose of the current paper is to examine a model of the satisfaction-performance relationship that is specified as partly spurious. Schleicher. Job satisfaction has been defined as “feelings or affective responses to facets of the (workplace) situation” (Smith. 2004). and stems from classic industrial/organizational and social psychological theory (e. & Greguras. 2001). Wicker. It has been referred to as the “Holy Grail” of industrial/organizational psychology (Landy.

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


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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1979). Simon (1985) explains that when testing for a spurious correlation. 1975). Spurious correlations can involve more than one common cause (Blalock. such tests for spuriousness are highly necessary and very appropriate in any piece of research (p. 1979). once a set of external variables has been partialled out. spuriousness is the prediction that the correlation between X and Y will be zero once Z is controlled (Blalock. one must clarify the relation between the two variables of interest by introducing a third variable. Although Pearson’s (1897) original definition of spuriousness suggested that there was no true relationship between two variables. 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. Nonspuriousness is a condition that is necessary for a causal relationship to exist (Cook & Campbell. but rather is due to the presence of a third variable (Kenny. 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. 84). Empirically. A spurious relationship is one that can be explained away by causal relationships of X and Y with a third variable (Kenny. 1964). 1964). In the current paper I index non-spuriousness with a residual correlation between two variables. . although most discussions of the phenomenon use only one exogenous variable. 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.

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

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

the partial correlation between X and Y will be minimized when both rXZ and rYZ are maximized. it is possible to identify small. the partial correlation between X and Y generally decreases (note that Equation 1 is symmetric with respect to X and Y).30. the partial correlation will be zero. Thus. the partial correlation between X and Y will drop to less than r = . as the correlation between Z and X (and also between Z and Y) increases. Eq. as determined by Equation 1. The formula for a partial correlation of X with Y controlling for Z is rXY  (rXZ )(rYZ ) Partial r = . 16 Partial Correlations In order to remove the spurious association between two variables. This information will provide a better picture of the relationship between satisfaction and performance than can be .55. variables that are believe to be antecedent to both are controlled (Linn & Werts. 1 (1  rXZ2 )(1  rYZ 2 ) Using this equation. true residual correlations. Again.25. By using meta-analytic methods. with the prior variables controlled. The idea of a spurious correlation can be illustrated by looking at a graph of partial correlations. For example. if rXZ and rYZ are both . If both rXZ and rYZ are .30. I define spuriousness as a residual correlation between two variables. 1969). One method that can be used to accomplish this is to look at the partial correlation between the two variables. 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). Holding the zero-order relationship between X and Y constant at r = . after a set of external variables has been partialled out.

1 r_ZX = 0. 0.35 r_ZX = 0. and (c) cognitive ability.2 r_ZX = 0. Before turning to these explanations. by accounting for theorized common causes of the two. note that I am not the first to suggest that the job .1 r_ZX = 0. (b) job and role characteristics.6 r_ZY Figure 4.05 r_ZX = 0.05 0.55 r_ZX = 0.3 0.2 Partial Correlation r_ZX = 0. 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.5 0.1 0.3 r_ZX = 0.35 0. I organize these constructs into three general categories: (a) personality constructs.5 -0. along with the theoretical mechanisms generally thought to explain their effects on job attitudes and behavior.45 r_ZX = 0.4 0.15 0.55 0.4 r_ZX = 0 0.45 0.2 0.6 -0.25 0.4 0 r_ZX = 0.1 r_ZX = 0.2 0 0. These antecedents will be discussed below.3 r_ZX = 0. 17 gleaned from the simple bivariate association.25 0.15 0.

. Looking first at Emotional Stability. Gardner and Pierce’s [1998] partial r = . as levels of Emotional Stability decrease. Earlier studies made precisely such a claim. non- spurious effects (see Schmidt. Integrative studies are needed that have high statistical power to detect small. 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 = . even when a small true direct effect exists. such tests of spuriousness—which are based on loss of statistical significance—are largely driven by statistical power. controlling for organization-based self-esteem). People low in Emotional Stability have exaggerated responses to rewards (Pickering. Below. 2001). 1999). 18 satisfaction-performance relationship may be partly spurious (see Judge et al. 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 . so does an individual’s sensitivity to reinforcement (Gray. Corr. However. 1992). I review theoretical associations of several common causes with both job satisfaction and job performance.05. controlling for role ambiguity. This theory considers traits of Emotional Stability and Extraversion and how they cause people to react differently to situations. & Gray. It is quite possible for a relationship to lose its statistical significance upon partialing out alleged common causes.09. Personality Variables According the Gray’s Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (1970). 1970). individuals differ on their levels of arousabilty and sensitivity to reinforcements or rewards.


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

1998). When looking at self-esteem and its effect on performance. For this . employees with high self-esteem are likely to have high levels of job satisfaction. Performance may also be increased for employees who have high levels of self-esteem because high self- esteem reduces anxiety and anxiety-related behaviors. achieving high performance may be easier. self-esteem relates to performance through affective states (Chen et al. as a “strong. 2003. p. & Ross.. Arndt. 2007). Greenberg. 2004b) and with an overall positive view of oneself. which would allow for higher levels of performance (Pyszczynski. & Schimel. even when they face failure (Dodgson & Wood. The self-esteem hypothesis “suggests that people who feel better about themselves perform better” (Baumeister et al. 14). 1989. high self- esteem individuals have positive feelings about themselves and are able to perform better because of this.. & Baldwin. 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. p. 2004). Holmes. When looking at individuals with low self-esteem rather than those with high self- esteem. 2003). self-esteem evokes optimism and confidence in people (Zhang & Baumeister. This enhanced happiness and overall satisfaction should also lead to higher levels of satisfaction on the job. 504). Because of this continual optimism. Thus.. positive relationship” between job satisfaction and overall life satisfaction (Tait. 22 considerably happier than people with lower levels of self-esteem (Baumeister et al. Padgett. In addition. 2006) and individuals with high levels of self-esteem tend to maintain this optimism. Solomon.

Judge. 2003).. self-efficacy relates to perceptions of their ability accomplish tasks or meet a goal. & Caper. Bandura & Locke. 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. according to Vancouver. which would lead to higher satisfaction with their jobs.. and Putka (2002) at the within-persons level of analysis. 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. 2004). 2004b). Employees who are high on the trait of general self-efficacy are likely to be motivated and persistent (Chen et al. Thompson. 2004). Whereas self-esteem relates to an individual’s sense of self worth. 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. Goddard. Generalized self-efficacy is a relatively stable trait regarding beliefs of one’s own competence (Chen et al. 23 reason. including job satisfaction (Chen. To clarify this result. However. 1995). employees with low self-esteem may have lower levels of performance than their counterparts with higher self-esteem. . another study was done which manipulated the sign of feedback that participants received (Vancouver & Tischner. especially in new situations (Eden & Zuk. & Thoresen (1997) suggested that generalized self-efficacy would be related to job satisfaction. Tischner. 2004b). Martocchio. thus performing better. 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)..

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed theoretical model to test for spuriousness An Integrated Theoretical Model Figure 5 is not. and job performance. the only plausible model of the relationships between individual differences. job characteristics. job satisfaction. A more sophisticated way to model the interrelationships amongst the study variables would be to constrain several . 29 Figure 5. By nature. so by design the model has perfect fit. however. 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).

used to measure job complexity. 1991). 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. 2002). job complexity should be related to both job satisfaction and job performance. By design. . Along these same lines. 159). 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. However most of the research that is conducted regarding job characteristics uses incumbent self-ratings of the characteristics (Spector & Jex. In their Job Characteristics Model. based upon theory. “provides measures of objective job characteristics” (p. 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. Thus. 1991) and research shows that individuals’ emotions or affective states can influence their judgments (Brief & Weiss. it is necessary to use theoretical reasoning to determine which paths should not be included in the integrated theoretical model. 30 paths to zero. 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. As such. They suggest that researchers be cautious when using self-reports of job characteristics as predictors of actual job outcomes. emotions could influence individual ratings of their own job characteristics.

So although objective and self-report measures of job complexity are meant to measure the same construct. 2000). 1988).. their different developments and purposes could be a reason for differences between them. ‘objective’) ratings of job complexity could occur for a couple of different reasons. Whereas self-reports of job complexity are perceptual in nature. 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. On the other hand. Specifically. individuals respond affectively to jobs based on their perceptions of the job characteristics. . objective job complexity is structural in nature. 31 This difference between self-report and non-self-report (i. First. the history and purpose of these two types of measures are very different (Gerhart. Job complexity is an aspect of the work environment that can influence the affective experiences for individuals at work (Saavedra & Kwun. 1996). objective measures of job complexity were developed to provide job information in order to match individual characteristics and abilities to the job. So job complexity can have an influence on satisfaction and performance through affective reactions. Affective experiences in the workplace can lead to both attitudinal and behavioral outcomes (Weiss & Cropanzano. 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.e.

Jenkins. Because of this propensity to affective experiences and the fact that perceived job characteristics influence affective experiences. 32 The idea that perceived job characteristics are related to affective responses can explain why one would expect perceived job complexity. Extraverts are especially susceptible to positive affect (Rusting & Larsen. but examining the difference between self-ratings and objective measures is likely to show differences in the relationships. and as such they could actually be measuring different constructs and . or self-reports of job complexity to be related to Extraversion. one can expect that they would relate differently to outcomes such as satisfaction and performance. 1976). 1997). & Gupta. If employees respond to job satisfaction measures and job characteristics measures. Self-report measures of job complexity correlate higher with work outcomes than do objective measures (Spector & Jex. affect is the mechanism for the relationship between self-perceived job characteristics and Extraversion. 1991). Because of the difference between self-reports and objective measures of job complexity. This could be partially due to contamination from common method variance (Glick. 1986). 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. they are likely to be more strongly related than if the job complexity measures come from a different source. Hackman and Oldham (1975) suggested that job characteristics should be positively related to both satisfaction and performance.

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

1963). 1997). Scott. & Rich. Jackson. and core self-evaluations should be specified to take their effects on job performance by way of job satisfaction and job characteristics. Theoretically. 2007). 1997). and originality (Goldberg. 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. few self-report measures of the Big Five personality traits are correlated with cognitive ability (Ackerman & Heggestad. 1990). 1997). Openness to experience. is related to cognitive ability because of the knowledge component of this trait (Ackerman & Heggestad. knowledge. In a recent meta-analysis. Extraversion predicts job performance because . 34 can be removed. This knowledge component is apparent when looking at the factors that comprise openness. Shaw. In research. One personality trait has been consistently related to cognitive ability. These correlations are usually nonsignificant or of a small size. Another theoretical modification to Figure 5 is that the personality variables of Extraversion.09 with cognitive ability (Judge. which is similar to other personality constructs including intellectence and the intelligence factor. Agreeableness. such as wisdom. As mentioned in an earlier section. none of the Big Five traits included in this study had a correlation of above . Ackerman and Heggestad (1997) found that only openness to experience had at least a medium sized correlation with cognitive ability. Specifically. 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.

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

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

and core self-evaluations are related to satisfaction. 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. So. self-worth. which will lead to higher levels of performance. individuals with high Emotional Stability are predisposed to experience positive events (McCrae & Costa. So feelings of competence. 1990). 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. rather than core self-evaluations having a direct effect on job performance. Agreeableness is related to job satisfaction because agreeable individuals are likely to form satisfying interpersonal relationship at work (Goldberg. they are also related to higher levels of behavioral engagement. 1991).. As such. individuals with an internal locus of control will be more satisfied because they will not stay in a job that is dissatisfying (Spector. 37 can handle the job and they see a potential for greater intrinsic rewards (Judge et al. Harrison. Agreeableness. 1970). and Roth (2006) suggest that employee attitudes are related to behavioral engagement in work roles. 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.. the effect may actually be due to the fact that positive self- evaluations lead individuals to jobs in which they can perform well. 1982). 1993). So employees with high levels of job satisfaction are more likely to be engaged in their work. and finally individuals with high generalized self-efficacy are . Newman. 2000). it can be expected that because Extraversion.

Also. ten degrees of freedom were created. 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. 2001). because cognitive ability is related to satisfaction via job characteristics. and core self-evaluations are related to performance only through job satisfaction and job complexity. Considering these theoretical arguments. The new integrated theoretical model of the antecedents of job satisfaction and job performance appears in Figure 6. because Agreeableness is unrelated to job characteristics. Finally. By removing several paths from Figure 5 to create Figure 6. which are now used to assess how well the theoretical model in Figure 6 fits with the actual data. the paths between Agreeableness and both of the job complexity variables can be constrained to zero. Specifically. four paths were removed from the model (Extraversion and cognitive ability. the direct relationship between cognitive ability and satisfaction was removed. and Conscientiousness with cognitive ability). 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. Agreeableness. . Next. core self-evaluations with cognitive ability. because Extraversion. the three direct paths between these variables and job performance can be removed. Agreeableness and cognitive ability.

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

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

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

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

55g . Emotional Stability .17b . Scott..26d . Jackson. 7. Agreeableness .85e 9.26b . 1997. 8. 2007. Nahrgang.17f x x x x x Objective 11. Self-Esteem .15i .32e . Job satisfaction 2. Generalized . e – Judge & Bono. Shaw. 2001. & Morgeson. Conscientiousness .59e x x x Self-Efficacy 8. Cognitive Ability x .24c . & Rich. 1984.45e .66e x x x . g – Humphrey. 9. j – Judge.51e x x x . 2. i – Ackerman & Heggestad. 3. 1. and Meta-Analyses Conducted 1. b – Judge et al. Extraversion .08f -..30a 3. 2001. Job Complexity – . c – Hurtz & Donovan.08i . 2006. 5.10f .25b .23e .63e . Locus of Control .00d 6. Job performance . d – Ilies & Judge.15c 4.59e 10.12c .27d 7. 2000.26e .02i .53h .25d . a – Judge et al. 2002. Job Complexity – .19d 5.17g x x x x x x x x Self perceptions 11. Estimates.20f .09c . 2007 43 . f – Zimmerman.29b .26e . h – Hunter & Hunter. 2003.20j x x x x Note. 10.17d . 4.01i .Table 1 Meta-Analytic Sources. 6. 11.22e .

including the 1’s in the diagonal. I employed Hunter and Schmidt’s (2004) meta-analytic procedure. 2006). To correct the observed measures for unreliability. Although a large portion of the studies reported internal consistency reliability estimates.composite = . and RX is the average element of the correlation matrix amongst the Xs. In order to combine Emotional Stability. With this method. then an average reliability for studies of the relevant construct were imputed. a composite correlation was created to combine the four variables that make up Core-Self Evaluations. reports of internal consistency reliability were used. 44 personality correlations that one could assume will be approximations close to the actual values. Eq. The model is depicted in Figure 5. self-esteem. 2 (RX ) where RXY is the average correlation between each X variable and the criterion variable Y. self-efficacy. some studies omitted this information. Nunnally’s (1978) linear combination formula was used. and locus of control. correcting for sampling error and unreliability attenuation. the residual correlation between . If authors did not report reliabilities. Structural equations modeling (SEM) was used to calculate the residual correlation between job satisfaction and job performance. For the data analysis. The meta-analytic correlation matrix among all variables was entered into LISREL 8.80 (Jöreskog & Sörbom. After compiling correlations from all of the studies collected for meta-analyses. This equation is R XY ry.

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

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

26e .42 .26e .30a 312/54471 3.29b .25b . c – Hurtz & Donovan. Nahrgang. Locus of Control . Job satisfaction 2.03* .17 . Generalized .85e 56/20819 40/5145 18/2297 25/8502 19/4357 13/3439 14/1894 9.55g .00d 79/21719 45/8083 587/490296 632/683001 6.15c Stability 92/24527 37/5671 4.24 .24c . d – Ilies & Judge. 1997. Agreeableness .22e .22 . f – Zimmerman.09 .23e . h – Hunter & Hunter.17g . g – Humphrey. i – Ackerman & Heggestad.20 .40 .08 . Below each correlation appears the number of studies (k) and then the total same size for the combined studies (N).09c .59e .63e .13 .46 . 2003.27d 38/11856 40/6447 561/415679 243/135529 344/162975 7.20 .25d .30 (self perceptions) 125/60790 14/1897 7/1831 4/749 6/1008 6/1008 1/348 3/680 2/2506 2/568 12. Cognitive Ability .04i .17d .Table 2 Overall Meta-Analytic Correlation Matrix 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1. j – Judge.26b . 2000.32 -.19 .17b .00i . e – Judge & Bono.26 .20* .05 .17f .09 Self-Efficacy 12/12903 10/1122 14/1888 7/2067 14/3483 6/1099 8. Job Complexity . 2007 * Correlations imputed from self-perceptions of job complexity. Shaw.53h .20 . 2007.. 2006. Job performance . Emotional . & Rich. Scott. b – Judge et al.51e .19d 75/20184 39/6453 710/440440 5.66e . & Morgeson. 47 .03 . Conscientiousness .02i -. a – Judge et al.10f . Jackson. 2002.08 .64 . Extraversion . 2001. 1984.28 3/6159 425/32124 61/21404 61/21602 56/15429 38/11190 26/4578 4/1836 8/4326 6/51344 3/9038 Note.09i .59e 80/18491 35/4310 16/2175 23/5142 11/5127 5/1037 14/1888 16/2175 10.12c .20i -.08f .09 .32e .26d . Self-Esteem .19 (no self-reports) 15/11578 4/842 4/928 2/470 6/1008 6/1008 3/954 1/348 1/348 11..45e . Job Complexity . Entries in the table are corrected correlations. 2001.49 .20f .

08 .30 312/54471 3. Job Complexity . Agreeableness .45 .02 -.03* .26 .25 .25 . *Correlations imputed from self-perceptions of job complexity.40 .12 .Table 3 Meta-Analytic Correlation Matrix with Core Self-Evaluations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Extraversion .39 .20 .00 79/21719 45/8083 632/683001 5.24 . Job Complexity .17 .04 .20* . Core Self.05 .20 .17 . Cognitive Ability . . Below each correlation appears the number of studies (k) and then the total sample size for the combined studies (N). Conscientiousness .03 . Job satisfaction 2.30 . Job performance .22 Evaluations 32/18150 22/2677 17/4808 18/5536 8/1348 7.30 (self perceptions) 125/60790 14/1897 4/749 6/1008 6/1008 2/756 2/568 9.00 . Entries in the table are corrected correlations.14 (no self-reports) 15/11578 4/842 2/470 6/1008 6/1008 2/508 8.08 .17 .09 75/20184 39/6453 4.53 .28 3/6159 425/32124 61/21602 56/15429 38/11190 7/3497 6/51344 3/9038 Note.25 .55 . 48 .20 . Harmonic mean = 2010.17 .27 38/11856 40/6447 243/135529 344/162975 6.

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

Table 4 Results of Controlling for Variables in the Satisfaction-Performance Relationship Controlling for: ψ Personality (E. it reduces to . all of the hypothesized paths are statistically significant.18. So.17. As can be seen in the figure. and job performance.80.30 to . job satisfaction.18 Personality & Cognitive . as controlling for common causes reduces the relationship magnitude from . C. cognitive ability.16. & CSE) . The resulting model with path estimates is presented in Figure 8. The theoretical model was tested by entering the meta-analytic correlation matrix into Lisrel 8.16. which specifies the relationships between the personality variables. Paths marked with an asterisk are significant at the . Cognitive Ability.05 level. That is. the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance is reduced to approximately half of the raw correlation (ψ = . the job satisfaction-job performance relationship is indeed partly spurious. job characteristics. and when finally adding job complexity to the model the satisfaction-performance relationship reduces to .17 Ability Personality.16 & Job Complexity The second section of this paper addresses the theoretical model presented in Figure 6. When cognitive ability is added to the model. 50 the residual correlation between satisfaction and performance reduces to . A. when controlling for the full set of common causes.16). . although several were in the opposite .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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