combined effects of positive and negative affectivity and job satisfaction on job performance and...

This article was downloaded by: [Michigan State University]On: 29 November 2013, At: 22:12Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The Journal of Psychology:Interdisciplinary and AppliedPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjrl20

Combined Effects of Positiveand Negative Affectivityand Job Satisfaction on JobPerformance and TurnoverIntentionsDave Bouckenooghe a , Usman Raja a & Arif NazirButt ba Brock Universityb Lahore University of Management SciencesPublished online: 10 Jan 2013.

To cite this article: Dave Bouckenooghe , Usman Raja & Arif Nazir Butt (2013)Combined Effects of Positive and Negative Affectivity and Job Satisfaction on JobPerformance and Turnover Intentions, The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary andApplied, 147:2, 105-123, DOI: 10.1080/00223980.2012.678411

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2012.678411

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjrl20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00223980.2012.678411

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2012.678411

losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

higa

n St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:12

29

Nov

embe

r 20

13

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Journal of Psychology, 2013, 147(2), 105–123Copyright C© 2013 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Combined Effects of Positive andNegative Affectivity and Job Satisfaction

on Job Performance and TurnoverIntentions

DAVE BOUCKENOOGHEUSMAN RAJABrock University

ARIF NAZIR BUTTLahore University of Management Sciences

ABSTRACT. Capturing data from employee–supervisor dyads (N = 321) from eight or-ganizations in Pakistan, including human service organizations, an electronics assemblyplant, a packaging material manufacturing company, and a small food processing plant,we used moderated regression analysis to examine whether the relationships between traitaffect (positive affectivity [PA] and negative affectivity [NA]) and two key work outcomevariables (job performance and turnover) are contingent upon the level of job satisfaction.We applied the Trait Activation Theory to explain the moderating effect of job satisfac-tion on the relationship between affect and performance and between affect and turnover.Overall, the data supported our hypotheses. Positive and negative affectivity influencedperformance and the intention to quit, and job satisfaction moderated these relationships.We discuss in detail the results of these findings and their implications for research andpractice.

Keywords: negative affectivity, positive affectivity, job satisfaction, turnover, job perfor-mance

SCHOLARLY WORK EXAMINING AFFECT, although largely neglected forseveral decades, has burgeoned in recent years both within industrial and organi-zational psychology (Barsade & Gibson, 2007; Elfenbein, 2008) and in psychol-ogy in general (Lyubomirsky, King & Diener, 2005; Watson, 2000). Given thecentral role of dispositional affect in influencing critical organizational behaviors

Address correspondence to Dave Bouckenooghe, Goodman School of Business, BrockUniversity, 500 Glenridge Avenue, Taro Hall (Office 417), St. Catharines, Ontario L2S3A1, Canada; [email protected] (e-mail).

105

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

higa

n St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:12

29

Nov

embe

r 20

13

106 The Journal of Psychology

(Funder, 2000) and attitudes (Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000) and because em-ployees’ organizational lives are imbued with affect, it is critical to understandhow positive affectivity (PA) and negative affectivity (NA) relate to key behaviorsand attitudes (e.g., job performance, turnover intention, and job satisfaction).

The relationship between affect and job satisfaction (Bruk-Lee, Khoury,Nixon, Goh, & Spector, 2009; Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000; Judge & Larsen,2001; Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, Warren, & deChermont, 2003), job performance(Johnson, Tolentino, Rodopman, & Cho, 2010; Kaplan, Bradley, Luchman,& Haynes, 2009), and turnover (Chiu & Francesco, 2003; Thoresen et al.;Zimmerman, 2008) has been widely researched. Job satisfaction has been shownto be significantly related to both employee turnover (Carsten & Spector, 1987;Tett & Meyer, 1993) and job performance (Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985; Judge,Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001; Petty, McGee, & Cavender, 1984). Despitethis voluminous research, few studies focused on the mechanisms by whichdispositional affect (PA and NA) shapes job performance and turnover. Therefore,this inquiry explores the moderating role of job satisfaction on the relationshipsof PA and NA with job performance and turnover intentions (TOI).

From a human capital perspective, there is increasing interest in examiningthe influence of dispositional traits on job performance and TOI. Recent meta-analyses (e.g., Kaplan et al., 2009; Zimmerman, 2008) showed that there is asubstantial amount of non-artifact variance in these relationships (affect with jobperformance and turnover) that needs further explanation and calls for more carefulconsideration of potential moderators (Tett & Burnett, 2003). Thus, there is animportant black box of variables concerning the relationships between affect andperformance and between affect and turnover that should be explored to refine ourknowledge about these relationships. In this inquiry, we view job satisfaction as animportant moderator that can shape the relationships between affect and our keywork behaviors. PA and NA are positive or negative resource caravans of energy(Watson, 2000) that may motivate people to perform well or discourage them fromdoing so. Whether one will mobilize these negative or positive sources of energywill depend on the evaluation or assessment of his or her own job. For example, ifa person has a dispositional tendency to experience negative emotions, but he orshe experiences a positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of his or herjob or job experience (i.e., high job satisfaction [Locke, 1976]), this feeling mayoffset the negative effects of NA on job performance and turnover. This paper willexamine how job satisfaction affects the ways in which PA and NA will manifestthemselves in job performance or turnover.

Theory and Hypotheses

Nature of NA and PAWithin the field of affect research, a distinction has been made between affect

as a trait or state (Watson & Clark, 1984). State affect usually refers to one’sfeelings at any given moment in time. Alternatively, trait affect or affectivity is the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

higa

n St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:12

29

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Bouckenooghe, Raja, & Butt 107

dispositional tendency to experience certain affective states over time. In this study,our emphasis is on trait affect. Researchers have debated extensively which factorsor dimensions most closely capture dispositional affect (e.g., Watson, Wiese,Vaidya, & Tellegen, 1999). A full review of the debate on the structure of affectgoes beyond the scope of this paper; however, the majority of studies have usedthe positive activation–negative activation approach (Barsade, Brief, & Spataro,2003). Moreover, the vast majority of these studies adopted the conceptualizationadvanced by Watson, Clark, and Tellegen (1988) that treats positive affect andnegative affect as two distinct but related factors (Diener & Emmons, 1984).

Positive affect reflects pervasive individual differences in positive emotion-ality and self-concept. The PA refers to the tendency to experience positivelyactivated emotions. Individuals with high PA exhibit high energy, enthusiasm, andpleasurable engagement (Watson et al., 1988). These individuals have a gener-alized sense of well-being and are predisposed to experience positive emotionalstates (Burke, Brief, & George, 1993). High PA refers to the tendency to espousepositive views of oneself and the world. Conversely, negative affectivity (NA) isthe dispositional tendency of an individual to experience a variety of negativeemotions across time and situations (Watson, 2000; Watson et al., 1988). HighNA individuals tend to dwell on their failures and shortcomings (Watson, 2000;Watson & Clark, 1984) and see themselves as unhappily engaged (George, 1992).In sum, individuals high in NA are easily distressed, agitated, and pessimistic(Watson & Clark, 1984).

Both PA and NA have also been linked to the major personality traits of ex-traversion and neuroticism from the Big Five model of personality traits (Larsen &Ketelaar, 1991; George, 1992; Watson et al., 1988). Despite their conceptual rela-tionship to other personality factors, PA and NA are not redundant to extraversionand neuroticism, respectively (e.g., Lucas, Diener, & Suh, 1996). In fact, a recentmeta-analysis demonstrated that PA and NA predict job outcomes more stronglythan does any other dispositional characteristic (Thoresen et al., 2003). Both PAand NA act as frames of reference through which a person appraises and reactsto a situation, using consistent and stable ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving(Mischel & Shoda, 1998).

Building on Gray’s work (1970), we suggest that PA and NA are a part of twobasic bio-behavioral systems that are linked to the behavioral activation system(BAS) and the behavioral inhibition system (BIS), respectively. In the presence offavorable stimuli, positive emotional experiences and positive stimuli should fosterthe vigor, energy, and excitement that accompany reward seeking (BAS) (Kaplanet al., 2009). Conversely, the BIS is characterized by a “stop, look and listensystem” (Watson et al., 1999). The BIS reactivity is dispositionally associatedwith hyper-vigilance to impending punishment, even in the absence of any clearenvironmental stressor.

These findings suggest a positive relationship between PA and job perfor-mance and a negative relationship between NA and job performance. Theserelationships may exist for a few reasons. First, the qualities associated with high

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

higa

n St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:12

29

Nov

embe

r 20

13


PA (e.g., enthusiasm and pleasurable engagement) and high NA (e.g., insecurityand irritability) can strengthen or damage social relationships with supervisorsand co–workers (George, 1991). Second, the positively valenced emotions andqualities of PA create increased performance motivation, whereas people higherin NA tend to encounter and create more constraints on and barriers to attainingsuccessful performance (Spector & Jex, 1998). In the case of NA, the activationof negatively valenced emotions such as distress and anxiety will deplete the re-sources required for effective performance on the job (Keith & Frese, 2005). Basedon the aforementioned findings, we formulate the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Positive affectivity will be positively related and negative affectivitywill be negatively related to job performance.

Turnover is a significant and challenging issue for most organizations, ascontinuously changing marketplaces, rising customer expectations, and rapidlyevolving technologies create increasingly stressful challenges (Jones, Chonko,Rangarajan, & Roberts 2007). Turnover intention (TOI) here refers to one’s desireor willingness to leave an organization. There has recently been an increasing in-terest in the role that disposition plays in most models of turnover (Thoresen et al.,2003; Zimmerman, 2008). The so-called “Hobo Syndrome” (Ghiselli, 1974) is amanifestation of the underlying dispositional nature of job withdrawal behavior,referring to the tendency of certain individuals to change jobs more frequentlythan their peers (Judge & Watanabe, 1995).

Several frameworks tried to capture the underlying nature of TOI (Ajzen,2002; March & Simon, 1958; Steers & Mowday, 1981); however, few models areas comprehensive as Hom and Griffeth’s (1995). We focused on this integrativemodel because it includes the dispositional trait NA as an antecedent of turnoverdecisions. This model assumed that affective tendencies shape how people assessjob-related outcomes (Levin & Stokes, 1989). In the case of NA, workers arepredisposed to rely on maladaptive psychological processes, such as encodingand recalling negative information (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). This recallingof negative information encourages withdrawal behavior. In addition, individualshigh in negative affectivity often experience higher levels of stress, promptingthem to engage in withdrawal behavior because those who are stressed will of-ten seek change by changing jobs (Bernardin, 1977; Chiu & Francesco, 2003;Necowitz & Roznowski, 1994). Conversely, high PA individuals tend to expe-rience more positive emotions and are more likely to attain their desired workgoals, thereby reducing the likelihood of job withdrawal (George & Jones, 1996).Furthermore, people with high PA have stronger coping mechanisms for deal-ing with stressful situations, making them less likely to choose the option of jobwithdrawal (Iverson, 1996). Based on this discussion, we formulate the followinghypothesis:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

higa

n St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:12

29

Nov

embe

r 20

13


Hypothesis 2: Positive affectivity will be negatively related and negative affec-tivity positively related to TOI.

Moderating Role of Job SatisfactionA number of studies and meta-analyses have been conducted over the past

two decades that examined the relationship of personality traits to job performance(Barrick & Mount, 1991; Tett & Burnett, 2003) and TOI (Zimmerman, 2008).These meta-analyses have suggested that a substantial amount of the variancein the relationships between personality and performance and turnover remainsunexplained. In those meta-analyses, the percentage of variance explained by theartifacts for each of the dispositional traits is fairly low, indicating the potentialof moderators. This observation is significant because it indicates that there areother variables that moderate the relationships between traits and performance andbetween traits and TOI.

In this inquiry, we are interested in the role of job satisfaction as a keymoderator variable that enables us to better understand the relationships betweenaffect and job performance and between affect and TOI. Job satisfaction hereis defined as a pleasurable or positive emotional state stemming from a per-son’s appraisal of his or her work, including day-to-day activities, responsibilities,and relationships with colleagues (Locke, 1976). The energy that ensues fromthis positive emotional state is crucial in influencing the effort put into the job(Williams & Anderson, 1991). Drawing from the Trait Activation Theory (Tett &Guterman, 2000), we assume that the affect expression in job performance andother job outcomes (e.g., withdrawal behavior) may be contingent upon the levelof job satisfaction. The principle of the Trait Activation Theory holds that PAand NA are expressed as responses to trait-relevant cues (Tett & Burnett, 2003).Therefore, the extent to which individuals perceive their jobs and work environ-ments as positive and supportive or negative and unsupportive determines theeffect that PA and NA will exhibit on job performance and turnover. A study byLarsen and Ketelaar (1991) showed that people with high PA were more respon-sive to positive mood induction, whereas NA individuals were more responsiveto negative mood induction. Based on these findings, we expect that an indi-viduals with high PA will be more responsive to pleasurable emotional statesresulting from the appraisal of his or her job (high job satisfaction), whereasan individual with high NA will react more to negative appraisals of his or herjob (low job satisfaction). Job satisfaction is likely to function as a facilitatorin the context of job performance (Tett & Burnett, 2003). A facilitator makesmore salient trait-relevant information that already exists in a given situation.In the case of PA, high job satisfaction will strengthen the positive relationshipbetween PA and job performance; whereas, in the case of NA, low job satisfac-tion will strengthen the negative relationship between NA and job performance.Conversely, in the context of TOI, high job satisfaction will strengthen the neg-ative relationship between PA and TOI, and low job satisfaction will strengthen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

higa

n St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:12

29

Nov

embe

r 20

13


the positive relationship between NA and TOI. Thus, we formulate the followinghypotheses:

Hypothesis 3: Job satisfaction will moderate the relationships between PA andperformance and between PA and TOI such that the relationships will be amplifiedwhen job satisfaction is high.

Hypothesis 4: Job satisfaction will moderate the relationships between NA andperformance and between NA and TOI such that the relationships will be ampli-fied when job satisfaction is low.

Method

Data Collection and SampleWe collected data through the onsite administration of a survey to employees

working in eight organizations in the city of Lahore, the second largest city inPakistan, with an estimated population of more than seven million. The sampleincluded nursing staff from different units of five hospitals and employees workingat an electronics assembly plant, a packaging material manufacturing company,and a small food processing plant. To avoid problems associated with the commonmethod or self-report bias, we collected data using self and supervisor reports forthe different variables in the study. We measured PA and NA, job satisfaction, andTOI using self-reports, and we measured job performance with supervisor reports.

The cover letter on both questionnaires explained the purpose and scope ofthe study, assured the respondents of the strictest confidentiality of the responses,and stated that participation in the study was voluntary. Supervisor–subordinatedyads worked together for at least one year, and no supervisor rated more thanthree subordinates. Therefore, data nesting was not an issue in this study.

We distributed a total of 450 surveys and received back 321 paired usableresponses, resulting in an effective response rate of 71.3%. The respondents had amean age of 31.31 years (SD = 7.78), and 52% were male. Mean work experiencewas 7.8 years (SD = 6.63), and education level ranged from high school to master’sdegree. More than 80% of the respondents held a university degree.

MeasurementWe measured affect (i.e., PA and NA), job satisfaction, and TOI using

the self–report questionnaires, and we assessed job performance using thesupervisor–reported questionnaires. English is not only the language of instructionin all high school (and higher) education but also the default language of workand the medium of official correspondence in Pakistan. Therefore, consistent withother research conducted in Pakistan (e.g., Butt, Choi, & Jaeger, 2005; Raja, Johns,& Natlianis, 2004; Raja & Johns, 2010), we presented the questionnaires in En-glish. The on-site administrator reported no comprehension problems. For a fulloverview of the items administered, please refer to the Appendix.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

higa

n St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:12

29

Nov

embe

r 20

13


Positive and Negative Affectivity. We measured PA and NA using the Watsonet al. (1988) PANAS Scale. Several studies tested the underlying latent structureof the PANAS and found strong evidence that the structure consists of two cor-related factors that represent the PA and NA scales (Crawford & Henry, 2004;Tuccitto, Giacobbi, & Leite, 2010). The respondents report how they generallyfeel pertaining to a list of ten positive (PA) and ten negative (NA) emotions. Themean of each set of ten questions reflects PA and NA. The reliabilities of the PAand NA measures were .86 and .82, respectively.

Job Satisfaction. We measured job satisfaction using Hoppock’s (1935) scale,which is comprised of four multiple-choice questions, each of which offers sevenanswer options. The reliability of the job satisfaction measure was .87. The fourquestions are listed in the Appendix.

Turnover Intention (TOI). We measured turnover intention using a 3-item, 7-point subscale (1 = completely agree to 7 = completely disagree) of the MichiganOrganizational Assessment Questionnaire (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh,1983; Seashore, Lawler, Mirvis, & Cammann, 1982). We established the reliabilityand validity for this scale with a coefficient alpha of .77. We averaged the threeitems for an overall score, and these values are listed in the Appendix.

Job Performance. We used supervisor-ratings of the 7-item measure devel-oped by Williams and Anderson (1991) to gauge job performance. Deleting oneitem from the original scale resulted in a substantial gain in reliability (.65 to .77).We measured the six items along a 7-point Likert format scale (1 = completelyagree to 7 = completely disagree) and averaged these values for an overall score.

Control Variables. The one-way ANOVA revealed that there were significantdifferences across the organizations in the reported dependent variables. Furtherexploration revealed that the differences emerged primarily between two groupsof organizations. Therefore, we controlled for organization effects using dummyvariables (1 = “Human service organizations” and 0 = “others”). The resultsof the one–way ANOVA also showed that there were significant differences inthe reported outcomes across gender. Therefore, we controlled for the effects ofgender using dummy variables (0 = Male and 1 = Female).

Results

Table 1 displays the means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlationsfor PA and NA, job satisfaction, turnover intention, and supervisor-rated job per-formance. We first examined the correlations among the variables to test the maineffects of PA and NA on TOI and job performance. In general, these results wereconsistent with our hypotheses. The bivariate correlations indicated a positive cor-relation between PA and job performance (r = .43, p < .001), a negative correlationbetween NA and job performance (r = −.33, p < .001), a negative correlationbetween PA and turnover (r = −.13, p < .05), and a positive correlation betweenNA and turnover (r = .14, p < .05).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

higa

n St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:12

29

Nov

embe

r 20

13


TABLE 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for All Variables

M SD 1 2 3 4

1. Positive affectivity 3.99 .83 (.86)2. Negative affectivity 1.96 .73 −.59∗∗∗ (.82)3. Job satisfaction 5.14 1.26 .62∗∗∗ −.35∗∗∗ (.87)4. Job performance 3.84 .61 .43∗∗∗ −.33∗∗∗ .47∗∗∗ (.77)5. Turnover 2.51 .89 −.13∗ .14∗ −.27∗∗∗ −.03 (.77)

Note. N = 321; Alpha reliabilities are given in parenthesis.∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01. ∗∗∗p < .001.

Following the suggestions of Aiken and West (1991), we used hierarchicalregression analysis to test all of the hypotheses. In step 1, we controlled for genderand the type of organization. We controlled the main effects of NA and PA byentering these values in step 2 of the regression, and we similarly controlled theeffects of job satisfaction in the third step. We entered the PA and NA and satisfac-tion in separate steps to see their independent effects on the dependent variables.Finally, in the fourth step, we entered into the regression the interactions of PAand NA with job satisfaction. A significant interaction indicated moderator effects.Following Aiken and West, we centered the independent variables and based theinteraction terms on these centered scores. We also tested for the significance ofthe simple slopes using ±1 SD rule. We display the results of these regressionanalyses in Table 2.

Hypothesis 1 predicted the primary influences of affect on performance, andHypothesis 2 predicted the key influences of affect on TOI. Step 2 of Table 2 showsthat PA (β = .32, p < .001) was significantly related to job performance, and NA(β = −.09, n.s.) was not related to job performance. These results provide supportfor Hypothesis 1. In the case of TOI, only PA (β = −.15, p < .05) emerged asa significant predictor, resulting in partial support for hypothesis 2. Though nothypothesized, job satisfaction was significantly related to job performance (β =.33, p < .001) and TOI (β = −.33, p < .001).

Hypotheses 3 and 4 predicted the moderator effects of job satisfaction on therelationship between affect and work behavior. As reported in step 4 of Table 2,we detected significant interactions between affect and job satisfaction for jobperformance (�R2 = .06, p < .01) and TOI (�R2 = .04, p < .01). The PA × Jobsatisfaction interaction was significant for performance (β = −.26, p < .001) andTOI (β = −.31, p < .001). Similarly, the NA × Job satisfaction interaction wassignificant for job performance (β = .11, p < .05) and TOI (β = −.17, p < .05).1

The nature of these interactions is displayed in Figures 1 through 4. We plottedregression lines for the high and low levels of satisfaction (+ 1 and −1 standarddeviations from the mean).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

higa

n St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:12

29

Nov

embe

r 20

13


TABLE 2. Results of Moderated Regression Analyses

Job PerformanceTurnoverIntentions

β �R2 β �R2

Step 1Gender −.14∗ .00Organization .07 .04∗∗ .10 .01

Step 2Positive Affectivitya .32∗∗∗ −.15∗

Negative Affectivitya .09 .14∗∗∗ .06 .04∗∗

Step 3Job Satisfactiona .33∗∗∗ .07∗∗∗ −.33 .07∗∗∗

Step 4Positive Affectivity x Job Satisfactiona −.26∗∗∗ −.31∗∗∗

Negative Affectivity x Job Satisfactiona .11∗ .06∗∗∗ −.17∗ .04∗∗∗

Note. N = 321; Control variables include gender and organization; �R2 shown is for entirecorresponding step.aCentered values of variable was used.∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01. ∗∗∗p < .001.

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

AP hgiHAP woL

Per

form

ance

Low Satisfaction High Satisfaction

FIGURE 1. Interactive effects of positive affectivity (PA) and job satisfactionon performance.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

higa

n St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:12

29

Nov

embe

r 20

13


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

AP hgiHAP woL

Tu

rnov

er I

nten

tion


FIGURE 2. Interactive effects of positive affectivity (PA) and job satisfactionon turnover intentions.

Figure 1 shows the plot of PA × Job satisfaction for supervisor—rated per-formance. Contrary to our prediction, we found a strong positive relationshipbetween PA and job performance when job satisfaction was low, and there wasno relationship between PA and job performance (the slope was not significant).Figure 2 shows that, for individuals with low job satisfaction, there was a positiverelationship between PA and turnover. However, the slope was not significant forthe high job satisfaction group. These results together provide partial support forHypothesis 3 for TOI only.

Figure 3 shows that, as predicted, the relationship between NA and job per-formance was stronger when satisfaction was low. Similarly, Figure 4 shows that,in the case of low job satisfaction, there was a positive relationship betweenNA and TOI, whereas there was no relationship (the slope was not significant)when individuals experienced high job satisfaction. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 wassupported.

Discussion

Meta-analyses of the relationships between the trait affect variables and jobperformance and TOI (Thoresen et al., 2003; Zimmerman, 2008) have revealedthat there is substantial unexplained variance in the correlations across studies.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

higa

n St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:12

29

Nov

embe

r 20

13


3.8

3.9

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

Low NA High NA

Per

form

ance


FIGURE 3. Interactive effects of negative affectivity (NA) and job satisfactionon performance.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Low NA High NA

Tu

rnov

er I

nte

nti

on


FIGURE 4. Interactive effects of negative affectivity (NA) and job satisfactionon turnover intentions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

higa

n St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:12

29

Nov

embe

r 20

13


This study heeds the call to focus on finding the moderating effects that explainthe conditions that facilitate or constrain the influence of affect on job perfor-mance and TOI. Our results indicate that one such moderator is job satisfaction.The results are interesting in that they suggest that the interaction between traitaffect and attitude toward the job (i.e., job satisfaction) may positively or nega-tively affect job performance and TOI. The only deviation from our expectationswas the finding that PA was positively related to performance when satisfactionwas low and not related to performance when satisfaction was high. A possibleexplanation for this result may be that when people experience dissonance be-tween PA and feelings about their jobs (i.e., job satisfaction), they will attemptto reduce this dissonance (Festinger, 1957) by putting extra effort into changingthe conditions, thereby increasing their satisfaction. Some studies have illustratedthat, when organizational members are dissatisfied with their jobs, this discontentcan be a trigger for change when those who are dissatisfied seek to learn from thecurrent conditions and devise new and better ways to improve the situation (VanGundy, 1987; Zhou & George, 2001). Consistent with this reasoning, a number ofauthors noted that lower levels of job satisfaction may have a positive influence onorganizational effectiveness (March & Simon, 1958; Staw, 1984). However, thissituation will occur only when employees have enough positive energy (i.e., PA)to engage in efforts to improve the conditions, which may then result in higherlevels of performance (Hobfoll, 1989).

Another notable finding is that employees high in NA become even morestuck trying to attain high levels of performance when they are dissatisfied on thejob. Thus, negative feelings toward one’s job reinforce the negative emotions anddistress experienced by people with high NA. Usually, people with high NA tendto dwell on their shortcomings (Watson, 2000); that characteristic, combined withthe fact that they are dissatisfied with their jobs, fuels negative emotions, whichhave been found to be detrimental to job performance (Izard, 1993; Rowold &Rohmann, 2009).

These findings are important to the literature and suggest that job satisfactionplays an instrumental role in predicting both job performance and TOI. Morespecifically, the Trait Activation Theory (Tett & Guterman, 2000) helps to explainour findings; that is, the expression of PA and NA in job performance and TOI iscontingent upon the emotional state one experiences pertaining to his or her job.One of the strengths of our inquiry is that we used supervisor–rated performancedata, thereby avoiding the problems associated with self–report bias. Althoughwe found strong support for the moderator role of job satisfaction in our inquiry,post–hoc analyses revealed that job satisfaction partially mediated the relationshipsbetween affect and job performance and TOI (Kaplan et al., 2009). Hence, weconducted tests using several alternative models. All of these models failed toexplain similar or higher levels of variance or failed to find significant relationshipscompared with the model described in this inquiry.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

higa

n St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:12

29

Nov

embe

r 20

13


The results from this study have important scholarly and practical implica-tions. The interrelationships among affect, job satisfaction, and turnover intentionsuggest that both dispositional affect and job satisfaction are important to job per-formance and TOI. Put differently, the results indirectly speak to the relationshipbetween job satisfaction and performance, which in itself has remained a point ofcontroversy in management literature for a long time. Although the meta-analysisby Judge and colleagues (2001) revealed a consistent positive relationship be-tween satisfaction and performance, their results indicated that the relationshipmay be moderated by other factors. Our study demonstrates that job satisfactionand trait variables together can enhance or inhibit the satisfaction–performancerelationship. In three out of the four moderator hypotheses, our results indicatedthat alignment between job satisfaction and affect makes the influence of affecton job performance and TOI more pronounced.

Based on these findings, human resources managers could include testingmethods that measure affect when selecting and hiring new people. At the sametime, management should invest in creating a work environment that optimizesthe level of job satisfaction among its employees. It is not enough to assume thatemployees that score high on PA tend to be more satisfied; one should also createan environment where a positive attitude toward one’s job is developed. Isen andBaron (1991) suggested a number of actions management can undertake to inducejob satisfaction and amplify the positive effects of PA on job performance and TOI.Examples of suggested interventions include improving the physical environment,creating an organizational culture that fosters a positive attitude toward employees,and enhancing the participation of employees in organizational communicationand decision-making.

This study has both strengths and weaknesses that highlight potential di-rections for future research. A typical limitation of cross-sectional studies is theirinability to prove a cause and effect relationship. Therefore, we highly recommenda longitudinal design if replication of this project is to establish the predictive func-tions of disposition over time and space. Furthermore, the majority of scholarlyendeavors concerning affect and the dynamics of job satisfaction and work behav-iors are rooted in the principles of the Westernized business mindset and are testedmainly within North American and European contexts. It is striking to observe thatsuch a pivotal area of research has yet to be adequately addressed in nonwesternsettings. In that respect, we believe our dataset and findings are important becausethey contribute to the cross-validation of a robust western business model in anonwestern context.

NOTE

1. Although the literature treats PA and NA as distinct constructs (Crawford, & Henry,2004; Tuccitto et al., 2010), the high correlation between both constructs led us to conduct

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

higa

n St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:12

29

Nov

embe

r 20

13


separate analyses including only PA or NA. However, these separate analyses did notproduce findings different from the combined analyses reported in this article.

AUTHOR NOTES

Dave Bouckenooghe received a PhD from Ghent University (Belgium) andis an associate professor of Human Resources Management and OrganizationalBehavior at Goodman School of Business at Brock University in Canada. Hisresearch addresses the topics of commitment to change, social capital, work en-gagement, organizational justice, creativity, and emotional intelligence. UsmanRaja is an associate professor of management at Goodman School of Businessat Brock University in Canada. He received a PhD in Organizational Behaviorfrom the John Molson School of Business at Concordia University in Canada. Hisresearch interests include personality, psychological contracts, perceived politics,and perceived organizational justice. Arif Nazir Butt is an Associate Professor ofManagement in the Suleman Dawood School of Business at the Lahore Universityof Management Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan where he teaches in the area of Orga-nizational Behavior and Human Resource Management in the graduate and PhDprograms. His research interest is in the area of stress management, negotiationand conflict management, emotions, and global values.

REFERENCES

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interac-tions. Newbury Park, London: Sage.

Ajzen, I. (2002). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52,27–58.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and jobperformance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.

Barsade, S. G., Brief, A. P., & Spataro, S. E. (2003). The affective revolution in organiza-tional behavior: The emergence of a paradigm. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), OB: The state ofthe science (pp. 3–52). Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Barsade, S., & Gibson, D. E. (2007). Why does affect matter in organizations? Academy ofManagement Perspectives, 21, 36–59.

Bernardin, H. J. (1977). The relationship of personality variables to organizational with-drawal. Personnel Psychology, 30, 17–27.

Bruk-Lee, V., Khoury, H., Nixon, A. E., Goh, A., & Spector, P. E. (2009). Replicatingand extending past personality/job satisfaction meta-analyses. Human Performance, 22,156–189.

Burke, M. J., Brief, A. P., & George, J. M. (1993). The role of negative affectivity inunderstanding relations between self-reports of stressors and strains: A comment on theapplied psychology literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 402–412.

Butt, A. N., Choi, J. N., & Jaeger, A. (2005). The effects of self-emotion, counterpartemotion, and counterpart behavior on negotiator behavior: A comparison of individual-level and dyad-level dynamics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 681–704.

Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. R. (1983). The Michigan Organiza-tional Assessment Questionnaire. In S.E. Seashore, E.E. Lawler, P.H. Mirvis, C., & C.Cammann (Eds.), Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures andpractices (pp. 71–138). New York, NY: Wiley.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

higa

n St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:12

29

Nov

embe

r 20

13


Carsten, J. M., & Spector, P. E. (1987). Unemployment, job satisfaction and employeeturnover: A meta-analytic test of the Muchinsky model. Journal of Applied Psychology,72, 199–212.

Chiu, R. K., & Francesco, A. M. (2003). Dispositional traits and turnover intention. Ex-amining the mediating role of job satisfaction and affective commitment. InternationalJournal of Manpower, 24, 284–298.

Connolly, J.J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2000). The role of affectivity in job sat-isfaction: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 265–281.

Crawford, J. R., & Henry, J. D. (2004). The positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS):Construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non-clinicalsample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 245–265.

Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). The independence of positive and negative affect.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1105–1117.

Elfenbein, H. A. (2008). Emotion in organizations: A review and theoretical integration.Academy of Management Annals, 1, 315–386.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford UniversityPress.

Funder, D.C. (2000). Gone with the wind: Individual differences in heuristics and biasesundermine the implication of systematic irrationality. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,23, 673–674.

George, J. M. (1991). State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors atwork. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 299–307.

George, J.M. (1992). The role of personality in organizational life: Issues and evidence.Journal of Management, 18, 185–213.

George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1996). The experience of work and turnover intentions:Interactive effects of value attainment, job satisfaction, and positive mood. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 81, 318–325.

Ghiselli, E. E. (1974). Some perspectives for industrial psychology. American Psychologist,80, 80–87.

Gray, J. A. (1970). The psychophysiological basis of introversion-extraversion. BehaviourResearch and Therapy, 8, 249–266.

Hobfoll, S.E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.American Psychologist, 44, 513–524.

Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (1995). Employee turnover. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.Hoppock, R. (1935). Job Satisfaction. New York, NY: Harper.Iaffaldano, M. T., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance: A

meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 251–273.Isen, A. M., & Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive affect as a factor in organizational behavior.

Research in Organizational Behavior, 13, 1–53.Iverson, R. D. (1996). Employee acceptance of organizational change: The role of orga-

nizational commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 7,122–149.

Izard, C. E. (1993). Organizational and motivational functions of discrete emotions. InM. Lewis and J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions. New York, NY: GuilfordPress.

Johnson, R. E., Tolentino, A. L., Rodopman, O. B., & Cho, E. (2010). We (sometimes) knownot how we feel: Predicting work behaviors with an implicit measure of trait affectivity.Personnel Psychology. 63, 197–219.

Jones, E., Chonko, L., Rangarajan, D., & Roberts, J. (2007). The role of overload onjob attitudes, turnover intentions, and salesperson performance. Journal of BusinessResearch, 60, 663–671.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

higa

n St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:12

29

Nov

embe

r 20

13


Judge, T. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). Dispositional affect and job satisfaction: A reviewand theoretical extension. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86,67–98.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–jobperformance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin,127, 376–407.

Judge, T. A., & Watanabe, S. (1995). Is the past prologue? A test of Ghiselli’s hobosyndrome. Journal of Management, 21, 211–229.

Kaplan, S., Bradley, J. C., Luchman, J. N., & Haynes, D. (2009). On the role of positiveand negative affectivity in job performance: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 94, 162–176.

Keith, N., & Frese, M. (2008). Performance Effects of Error Management Training: AMeta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 59–69.

Larsen, R. J., & Ketelaar, T. (1991). Personality and susceptibility to positive and negativeemotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 132–140.

Levin, I., & Stokes, J.P. (1989). Dispositional approach to job satisfaction: Role of negativeaffectivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 752–758.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.),Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1350). Chicago: RandMcNally.

Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-being measures.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 616–628.

Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect:Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803–855.

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.Mischel, W., &, Shoda, Y. (1998). Reconciling processing dynamics and personality dis-

positions. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 229–258.Necowitz, L. B., & Roznowski, M. (1994). Negative affectivity and job satisfaction: Cog-

nitive processes underlying the relationship and effects on employee behaviors. Journalof Vocational Behaviour, 45, 270–294.

Petty, M. M., McGee, G. W., & Cavender, J. W. (1984). A meta-analysis of the relationshipsbetween individual job satisfaction and individual performance. Academy of ManagementReview, 9, 712–721.

Raja, U., & Johns, G. (2010). Joint effects of personality and job scope on organizationalbehaviors. Human Relations, 63, 985–1007.

Raja, U., Johns, G., & Natlianis, F. (2004). The impact of personality on psychologicalcontracts. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 350–367.

Rowold, J., & Rohmann, A. (2009). Transformational and transactional leadership styles,followers’ positive and negative emotions, and performance in German nonprofit orches-tras. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 20, 41–59.

Seashore, S. E., Lawler, E. E., Mirvis, P., & Cammann, C. (1982). Observing and measuringorganizational change: A guide to field practice. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of jobstressors and strain: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational ConstraintsScale, Quantitative Workload Inventory, and Physical Symptoms Inventory. Journal ofOccupational Health Psychology, 3, 356–367.

Staw, B. M. (1984). Organizational behavior: A review and reformulation of the field’soutcome variables. In M. R. Rosenzweig, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review ofpsychology (pp. 627–666). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

Steers, R. M., & Mowday, R. T. (1981). Employee turnover and post-decision accommoda-tion processes. In L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior(pp. 235–281). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

higa

n St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:12

29

Nov

embe

r 20

13


Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of jobperformance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500–517.

Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research inPersonality, 34, 397–423.

Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnoverintention: Path analyses on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46, 259–293.

Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A., Warren, C. R., & deChermont, K. (2003). Theaffective underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic review andintegration. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 914–945.

Tuccitto, D. E., Giacobbi, P. R., & Leite, W. L. (2010). The internal structure of posi-tive and negative affect: A confirmatory factor analysis of the PANAS. Educational &Psychological Measurement, 70, 125–141.

Van Gundy, A. (1987). Organizational creativity and innovation. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.),Frontiers of creativity research. Buffalo, NY: Bearly.

Watson, D. (2000). Mood and temperament. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Watson, D., & Clark, L.A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience

aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465–490.Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief

measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.

Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J., & Tellegen, A. E. (1999). The two general activationsystems of affect: Structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiologicalevidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 820–838.

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussionof the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw& L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 1–74). Greenwich,CT: JAI Press.

Williams, L., & Anderson, S. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment aspredictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management,17, 601–617.

Zhou, J., & George, J. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouragingthe expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 682–696.

Zimmerman, R. D. (2008). Understanding the impact of personality traits on individuals’turnover decisions: A meta-analytic path model. Personnel Psychology, 61, 309–348.

Original manuscript received March 22, 2011Final version accepted March 16, 2012

APPENDIX

PANAS Measure

Positive Affectivity Measure1. interested2. distressed3. excited4. upset

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

higa

n St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:12

29

Nov

embe

r 20

13


5. strong6. guilty7. scared8. hostile9. enthusiastic

10. proud

Negative Affectivity Measure1. irritable2. alert3. ashamed4. inspired5. nervous6. determined7. attentive8. jittery9. active

10. afraid

Job Satisfaction Measure

A. Which one of the following shows how much of the time you feel satisfiedwith your job?

1. Never.2. Seldom.3. Occasionally.4. About half of the time.5. A good deal of the time.6. Most of the time7. All the time.

B. Choose the one of the following statements which best tells how well youlike your job.

1. I hate it.2. I dislike it.3. I don’t like it.4. I am indifferent to it.5. I like it.6. I am enthusiastic about it.7. I love it.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

higa

n St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:12

29

Nov

embe

r 20

13


C. Which one of the following best tells how you feel about changing yourjob?

1. I would quit this job at once if I could.2. I would take almost any other job in which I could earn as much as I am

earning now.3. I would like to change both my job and my occupation.4. I would like to exchange my present job for another one.5. I am not eager to change my job, but I would do so if I could get a better

job.6. I cannot think of any jobs for which I would exchange.7. I would not exchange my job for any other.

D. Which one of the following shows how you think you compare with otherpeople?

1. No one dislikes his job more than I dislike mine.2. I dislike my job much more than most people dislike theirs.3. I dislike my job more than most people dislike theirs.4. I like my job about as well as most people like theirs.5. I like my job better than most people like theirs.6. I like my job much better than most people like theirs.7. No one likes his job better than I like mine.

Turnover Intentions Measure

1. I will probably look for a new job next year.2. How likely is it that you will actively look for a new job in the next year?3. I often think about quitting.

Job Performance Measure

1. Adequately completes assigned duties2. Fulfills responsibilities specified in job description3. Performs tasks that are expected of him/her4. Meets formal performance requirements of the job5. Engages in activities that will directly affect his/her performance evalua-

tion6. Fails to perform essential duties (R)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

higa

n St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:12

29

Nov

embe

r 20

13

combined effects of positive and negative affectivity and job satisfaction on job performance and...

Documents