JOB PERFORMANCE AND SATISFACTION-A STUDY OF THEIR VARIOUS ASPECTS

S.DIVYA MHRM

ABSTRACT

Attempting to understand the nature of job satisfaction and its effects on work performance is not easy. For at least 50 years industrial/organizational psychologists have been wrestling with the question of the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance. Researchers have put a considerable amount of effort into attempts to demonstrate that the two are positively related in a particular fashion: a happy worker is a good worker. Although this sounds like a very appealing idea, the results of empirical literature are too mixed to support the hypothesis that job satisfaction leads to better performance or even that there is a reliable positive correlation between these two variables. On the other hand some researchers argue that the results are equally inconclusive with respect to the hypothesis that there is no such relationship. As a result of this ambiguity, this relationship continues to stimulate research and re-examination of previous attempts.The hypothesis that job satisfaction affects employee performance or favorable service behaviors could be considered a well-worn topic. However, this paper studies the various aspects of job performance and job satisfaction, the motivation theories to motivate the employees, the practical implications, how mentoring and performance appraisal can affect job performance and satisfaction and the influence of job performance outcomes on ethical assessments.

INTRODUCTION

For many decades now, the view that job satisfaction affects employee performance has received much attention in the literature. The general consensus from numerous studies was that employee satisfaction is only mildly, but positively, linked to general measures of performance. Some scholars even downplayed the link between employee satisfaction and general measures of performance. It was only when other scholars focused on qualitative conceptualization and measures of employee performance, that these researchers identified significant linkages between job satisfaction and performance. Consequently, the view that satisfied employees will deliver quality service or improved performance has almost become an axiom in the service literature.

The relationship between job satisfaction and performance is an issue of continuing debate and controversy. One view, associated with the early human relation's approach, is that satisfaction leads to performance. An alternative view is that

performance leads to satisfaction. However, a variety of studies suggest that research has found only a limited relationship between satisfaction and work output and offer scant comfort to those seeking to confirm that a satisfied worker is also a productive one. Labor turnover and absenteeism are commonly associated with dissatisfaction, but although there may be some correlation, there are many other possible factors. No universal generalizations about worker dissatisfaction exist, to offer easy management solutions to problems of turnover and absenteeism. The study suggests that it is primarily in the realm of job design, where opportunity resides for a constructive improvement of the worker's satisfaction level.

Individual performance is generally determined by three factors. Motivation, the desire to do the job, ability, the capability to do the job, and the work environment, the tools, materials, and information needed to do the job. If an employee lacks ability, the manager can provide training or replace the worker. If there is an environmental problem, the manager can also usually make adjustments to promote higher performance. But if motivation is the problem, the manager's task is more challenging. Individual behavior is a complex phenomenon, and the manager may not be able to figure out why the employee is not motivated and how to change the behavior. Thus, also motivation plays a vital role since it might influence negatively performance.

Ethical behavior long has been of considerable interest to researchers, and the staggering breadth of recent ethical scandals in major organizations (e.g. WorldCom, Enron, Global Crossing, Arthur Anderson, Adelphi) and across entire industries has refocused attention on the importance of improving ethical behavior within organizations. Top managers are increasingly extolling the importance of ethics, and evidence suggests that more US-based and multinational corporations are formally adopting statements espousing ethical values, corporate credos, or a code of ethics. Despite increased concern and interest in promoting ethical behavior within organizations, however, the subjective processes involved in the day-to-day ethical assessment of employees are not well understood. That is, relatively little research in the ethical domain has directly addressed the subjective nature of ethical performance and measurement. Most empirical research has either been prescriptive or focused on surveys regarding perceptions or opinions of ethical performance. Theoretical work primarily has consisted of the development of models of the determinants of ethical behavior that propose various personal and organizational variables that influence ethical behavior.

More recently researchers have recommended that ethical behavior be explicitly incorporated into performance appraisals in order to integrate ethical expectations into employees' formal role identities and to make ethical behavior at work both relevant and rewarding for employees. Of particular interest is whether or not performance appraisal effectiveness influences employee assessment?

REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE

JOB PERFORMANCE IN RELATION TO JOB SATISFACTION

In the field of Industrial/Organizational psychology, one of the most researched areas is the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001). Landy (1989) described this relationship as the “Holy Grail” of Industrial psychology. Research linking job performance with satisfaction and other attitudes has been studied since at least 1939, with the Hawthorne studies (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939). In Judge et al. (2001), it was found by Brayfield and Crockett (1955) that there is only a minimal relationship between job performance and job satisfaction. However, since 1955, Judge et al. (2001) cited that there are other studies by Locke (1970), Schwab & Cummings (1970), and Vroom (1964) that have shown that there is at least some relationship between those variables. Iaffaldano and Muchinsky (1985) did an extensive analysis on the relationship between job performance and job satisfaction. Across their many studies, they found a mean correlation of .17 (Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985). There are also stronger relationships depending on specific circumstances such as mood and employee level within the company (Morrison, 1997). Organ (1988) also found that the job performance and job satisfaction relationship follows the social exchange theory; employees’ performance is giving back to the organization from which they get their satisfaction

JOB PERFORMANCE

Job performance is a commonly used, yet poorly defined concept in industrial and organizational psychology, the branch of psychology that deals with the workplace. It most commonly refers to whether a person performs their job well. Despite the confusion over how it should be exactly defined, performance is an extremely important criterion that relates to organizational outcomes and success. Among the most commonly accepted theories of job performance comes from the work of John P. Campbell and colleagues. Coming from a psychological perspective, Campbell describes job performance as an individual level variable. That is, performance is something a single person does. This differentiates it from more encompassing

constructs such as organizational performance or national performance which are higher level variables.

There are several key features to Campbell’s conceptualization of job performance which help clarify what job performance means.

1. PERFORMANCE VS OUTCOMES

First, Campbell defines performance as behavior. It is something done by the employee. This concept differentiates performance from outcomes. Outcomes are the result of an individual’s performance, but they are also the result of other influences. In other words, there are more factors that determine outcomes than just an employee’s behaviors and actions.

Campbell allows for exceptions when defining performance as behavior. For instance, he clarifies that performance does not have to be directly observable actions of an individual. It can consist of mental productions such as answers or decisions. However, performance needs to be under the individual's control, regardless of whether the performance of interest is mental or behavioral.

The difference between individual controlled action and outcomes is best conveyed through an example. On a sales job, a favorable outcome is a certain level of revenue generated through the sale of something (merchandise, some service, insurance). Revenue can be generated or not, depending on the behavior of employees. When the employee performs this sales job well, she is able to move more merchandise. However, certain factors other than employees’ behavior influence revenue generated. For example, sales might slump due to economic conditions, changes in customer preferences, production bottlenecks, etc. In these conditions, employee performance can be adequate, yet sales can still be low. The first is performance and the second is the effectiveness of that performance. These two can be decoupled because performance is not the same as effectiveness.

Another closely related construct is productivity. This can be thought of as a comparison of the amount of effectiveness that results from a certain level of cost associated with that effectiveness. In other words, effectiveness is the ratio of outputs to inputs- those inputs being effort, monetary costs, resources, etc.

Utility is another related construct which is defined as the value of a particular level of performance, effectiveness, or productivity. Utilities of performance, effectiveness, and productivity are value judgments.

2. ORGANIZATIONAL GOAL RELEVANCE

Another key feature of job performance is that is has to be goal relevant. Performance must be directed toward organizational goals that are relevant to the job or role. Therefore, performance does not include activities where effort is expended toward achieving peripheral goals. For example, the effort put toward the goal of getting to work in the shortest amount of time is not performance (except where it is concerned with avoiding lateness).

3. MULTIDIMENSIONLITY

Despite the emphasis on defining and predicting job performance, it is not a single unified construct. There are a vastly many jobs each with different performance standards. Therefore, job performance is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct consisting of more than one kind of behavior. Campbell (1990) proposed an eight factor model of performance based on factor analytic research that attempts to capture dimensions of job performance existent (to a greater or lesser extent) across all jobs.

1. The first factor is task specific behaviors which include those behaviors that an individual undertakes as part of a job. They are the core substantive tasks that delineate one job from another.

2. On the other hand, non-task specific behaviors, the second factor, are those behaviors which an individual is required to undertake which do not pertain only to a particular job. Returning to the sales person, an example of a task specific behavior would be showing a product to a potential customer. A non-task specific behavior of a sales person might be training new staff members.

3. Written and oral communication tasks refer to activities where the incumbent is evaluated, not on the content of a message necessarily, but on the adeptness with which they deliver the communication. Employees need to make formal and informal oral and written presentations to various audiences in many different jobs in the work force.

4. An individual’s performance can also be assessed in terms of effort, either day to day, or when there are extraordinary circumstances. This factor reflects the degree to which people commit themselves to job tasks.

5. The performance domain might also include an aspect of personal discipline. Individuals would be expected to be in good standing with the law, not abuse alcohol, etc.

6. In jobs where people work closely or are highly interdependent, performance may include the degree to which a person helps out the groups and his or her colleagues. This might include acting as a good role model, coaching, giving advice or helping maintain group goals.

7. Many jobs also have a supervisory or leadership component. The individual will be relied upon to undertake many of the things delineated under the previous factor and in addition will be responsible for meting out rewards and punishments. These aspects of performance happen in face a face to face manner.

8. Managerial and administrative performance entails those aspects of a job which serve the group or organization but do not involve direct supervision. A managerial task would be setting an organizational goal or responding to external stimuli to assist a group in achieving its goals. In addition a manager might be responsible for monitoring group and individual progress towards goals and monitoring organizational resources.

.

DIFFERENT TYPES OF PERFORMANCE

Another way to divide up performance is in terms of task and contextual (citizenship and counterproductive) behaviors. Whereas task performance describes obligatory behaviors, contextual behaviors are behaviors that do not fulfill specific aspects of the job’s required role. Citizenship behaviors are defined as behaviors which contribute to the goals of the organization through their effect on the social and psychological conditions. Counterproductive behaviors, on the other hand, are intentional actions by employees which circumvent the aims of the organization.

DETERMINANTS OF PERFORMANCE

Campbell (1990) also suggested determinants of performance components. Individual differences on performance are a function of three main determinants:

1. Declarative knowledge 2. Procedural knowledge and skill

3. Motivation

Declarative knowledge refers to knowledge about facts and things. It represents the knowledge of a given task’s requirements. For instance, declarative knowledge includes knowledge of principles, facts, etc.

If declarative knowledge is knowing what to do, procedural knowledge and skill is knowing how to do it. For example, procedural knowledge and skill includes cognitive skill, perceptual skill, interpersonal skill, etc.

The third predictor of performance is motivation, which refers to “a combined effect from three choice behaviors—choice to expend effort, choice of level of effort to expend, and choice to persist in the expenditure of that level of effort”. It reflects the direction, intensity, and persistence of volitional behaviors. Campbell (1990) emphasized that the only way to discuss motivation as a direct determinant of behavior is as one or more of these choices.

JOB SATISFACTION

Job satisfaction describes how content an individual is with his or her job.

The happier people are within their job, the more satisfied they are said to be. Job satisfaction is not the same as motivation, although it is clearly linked. Job design aims to enhance job satisfaction and performance, methods include job rotation, job enlargement and job enrichment. Other influences on satisfaction include the management style and culture, employee involvement, empowerment and autonomous work groups. Job satisfaction is a very important attribute which is frequently measured by organizations. The most common way of measurement is the use of rating scales where employees report their reactions to their jobs. Questions relate to rate of pay, work responsibilities, variety of tasks, promotional opportunities the work itself and co-workers.

Job satisfaction has been defined as a pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job; an affective reaction to one’s job; and an attitude towards one’s job. Weiss (2002) has argued that job satisfaction is an attitude but points out that researchers should clearly distinguish the objects of cognitive evaluation which are affect (emotion), beliefs and behaviors. This definition suggests that we form attitudes towards our jobs by taking into account our feelings, our beliefs, and our behaviors.

HISTORY

One of the biggest preludes to the study of job satisfaction was the Hawthorne studies. These studies (1924-1933), primarily credited to Elton Mayo of the Harvard Business School, sought to find the effects of various conditions (most notably illumination) on workers’ productivity. These studies ultimately showed that novel changes in work conditions temporarily increase productivity (called the Hawthorne Effect). It was later found that this increase resulted, not from the new conditions, but from the knowledge of being observed. This finding provided strong evidence that people work for purposes other than pay, which paved the way for researchers to investigate other factors in job satisfaction.

Scientific management (aka Taylorism) also had a significant impact on the study of job satisfaction. Frederick Winslow Taylor’s 1911 book, Principles of Scientific Management, argued that there was a single best way to perform any given work task. This book contributed to a change in industrial production philosophies, causing a shift from skilled labor and piecework towards the more modern approach of assembly lines and hourly wages. The initial use of scientific management by industries greatly increased productivity because workers were forced to work at a faster pace. However, workers became exhausted and dissatisfied, thus leaving researchers with new questions to answer regarding job satisfaction. It should also be noted that the work of W.L. Bryan, Walter Dill Scott, and Hugo Munsterberg set the tone for Taylor’s work.

Some argue that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory, a motivation theory, laid the foundation for job satisfaction theory. This theory explains that people seek to satisfy five specific needs in life – physiological needs, safety needs, social needs, self-esteem needs, and self-actualization. This model served as a good basis from which early researchers could develop job satisfaction theories.

MODELS OF JOB SATISFACTION

1. AFFECT THEORY

Edwin A. Locke’s Range of Affect Theory (1976) is arguably the most famous job satisfaction model. The main premise of this theory is that satisfaction is determined by a discrepancy between what one wants in a job and what one has in a job. Further, the theory states that how much one values a given facet of work (e.g. the

degree of autonomy in a position) moderates how satisfied/dissatisfied one becomes when expectations are/aren’t met. When a person values a particular facet of a job, his satisfaction is more greatly impacted both positively (when expectations are met) and negatively (when expectations are not met), compared to one who doesn’t value that facet. To illustrate, if Employee A values autonomy in the workplace and Employee B is indifferent about autonomy, then Employee A would be more satisfied in a position that offers a high degree of autonomy and less satisfied in a position with little or no autonomy compared to Employee B. This theory also states that too much of a particular facet will produce stronger feelings of dissatisfaction the more a worker values that facet.

2. DISPOSITIONAL THEORY

Another well-known job satisfaction theory is the Dispositional Theory. It is a very general theory that suggests that people have innate dispositions that cause them to have tendencies toward a certain level of satisfaction, regardless of one’s job. This approach became a notable explanation of job satisfaction in light of evidence that job satisfaction tends to be stable over time and across careers and jobs. Research also indicates that identical twins have similar levels of job satisfaction.

A significant model that narrowed the scope of the Dispositional Theory was the Core Self-evaluations Model, proposed by Timothy A. Judge in 1998. Judge argued that there are four Core Self-evaluations that determine one’s disposition towards job satisfaction: self-esteem, general self-efficacy, locus of control, and neuroticism. This model states that higher levels of self-esteem (the value one places on his/her self) and general self-efficacy (the belief in one’s own competence) lead to higher work satisfaction. Having an internal locus of control (believing one has control over her\his own life, as opposed to outside forces having control) leads to higher job satisfaction. Finally, lower levels of neuroticism lead to higher job satisfaction.

3. TWO FACTOR THEORY (MOTIVATION – HYGIENE THEORY )

Frederick Herzberg’s Two factor theory (also known as Motivator Hygiene Theory) attempts to explain satisfaction and motivation in the workplace. This theory states that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are driven by different factors – motivation and hygiene factors, respectively. An employee’s motivation to work is continually related to job satisfaction of a subordinate. Motivation can be seen as an inner force that drives individuals to attain personal and organization goals. Motivating factors are those aspects of the job that make people want to perform, and provide people with satisfaction, for example achievement in work, recognition, promotion opportunities. These motivating factors are considered to be intrinsic to the job, or the work carried out. Hygiene factors include aspects of the working environment such as pay, company policies, supervisory practices, and other working conditions.

While Hertzberg's model has stimulated much research, researchers have been unable to reliably empirically prove the model, with Hackman & Oldham suggesting that Hertzberg's original formulation of the model may have been a methodological artifact. Furthermore, the theory does not consider individual differences, conversely predicting all employees will react in an identical manner to changes in motivating/hygiene factors. Finally, the model has been criticized in that it does not specify how motivating/hygiene factors are to be measured.

4. JOB CHARECTERISTICS MODEL

Hackman & Oldham proposed the Job Characteristics Model, which is widely used as a framework to study how particular job characteristics impact on job outcomes, including job satisfaction. The model states that there are five core job characteristics (skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback) which impact three critical psychological states (experienced meaningfulness, experienced responsibility for outcomes, and knowledge of the actual results), in turn influencing work outcomes (job satisfaction, absenteeism, work motivation, etc.). The five core job characteristics can be combined to form a motivating potential score (MPS) for a job, which can be used as an index of how likely a job is to affect an employee's attitudes and behaviors. A meta-analysis of studies that assess the framework of the model provides some support for the validity of the JCM.

CATTELL’S 16 PERSONALITY FACTORS

Raymond Cattell developed the 16PF in 1949. The 16PF is a personality assessment that measures a person’s complete personality on the basis of 16 different factors. The factors measure everything from how people think about things, to how they view rules and laws to how people are in social situations and how open they are to disclosing information about themselves, to how emotional they are to others and to how they make decisions and their confidence with those decisions. There are 16 primary factors and five global factors. A description of each factor follows.

1. Warmth (A) This factor refers to how people are involved with others and their interactions with others: the amount of warmth they show when being involved with someone.

2. Reasoning (B) This factor measures people’s ability to derive answers and use logic and reasoning to find an answer.

3. Emotional Stability (C) The emotional stability factor deals with how people live with daily challenges and adaptability.

4. Dominance (E) This factor measures how inclined one is to have control over others versus letting others have their way. This does not measure assertiveness because the dominance factor looks at how one wants to have power over others rather than just protect their own beliefs.

5. Liveliness (F) This factor measures how spontaneous and restrained a person acts in situations. It measures the self-expression levels.

6. Rule consciousness (G)The rule consciousness factor measures how inclined a person is to follow the cultural norms and what is considered right and wrong.

7. Social Boldness (H) This factor measures people act in social groups and situations: whether they like to be exhibitionists or stay to themselves.

8. Sensitivity (I) This is the second factor that has a gender difference: women tend to score slightly higher than men. This factor measures how people make decisions and how they make judgments.

9. Vigilance (L) This factor measures people’s tendency to believe in and trust others. It looks at how much people look at others motivations for actions.

10. Abstractedness (M) The abstractedness factor looks at the way that people give their attention to various things. This factor measures the thought process that one goes through when paying attention to things.

11. Privateness (N)This factor measures how willing or not people are to discuss themselves and things personal to them.

12. Apprehension (O) This is the third factor that has differences between men and women. On this factor, women tend to score higher than men. This factor measures how much people tend to worry about things in their life. It also measures how they feel about the decision once it has been made.

13. Openness to Change (Q1) This factor measures how willing people are to change what is familiar to them: whether they like experimenting and change or like things to stay the same. Personality and Job 21

14. Self-Reliance (Q2) The self-reliance factor measures how much people like to have close relationships with others. It looks at if one needs to feel part of a group or if they like to be on their own.

15. Perfectionism (Q3) This factor measures how much people like to have things go their way and do things right. It looks at how inclined people are to keep things organized and also how much they like planning things.

16. Tension (Q4) The tension factor looks at how nervous a person acts: whether they have a lot of energy and are fidgety or are relaxed. It also looks at how irritable a person can be when made to wait or when things are not going right.

MEASURING JOB SATISFACTION

There are many methods for measuring job satisfaction. By far, the most common method for collecting data regarding job satisfaction is the. Other less common methods of for gauging job satisfaction include: Yes/No questions, True/False questions, point systems, checklists, and forced choice answers. This data is typically collected using an Enterprise Feedback Management (EFM) system.

The Job Descriptive Index (JDI), created by Smith, Kendall, & Hulin (1969), is a specific questionnaire of job satisfaction that has been widely used. It measures one’s satisfaction in five facets: pay, promotions and promotion opportunities, coworkers, supervision, and the work itself. The scale is simple, participants answer either yes, no, or can’t decide (indicated by ‘?’) in response to whether given statements accurately describe one’s job.

The Job in General Index is an overall measurement of job satisfaction. It is an improvement to the Job Descriptive Index because the JDI focuses too much on individual facets and not enough on work satisfaction in general.

Other job satisfaction questionnaires include: the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ), the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS), and the Faces Scale . The MSQ measures job satisfaction in 20 facets and has a long form with 100 questions (five items from each facet) and a short form with 20 questions (one item from each facet). The JSS is a 36 item questionnaire that measures nine facets of job satisfaction. Finally, the Faces Scale of job satisfaction, one of the first scales used widely, measured overall job satisfaction with just one item which participants respond to by choosing a face.

SUPERIOR – SUB-ORDINATE COMMUNICATION

Superior-subordinate communication is an important influence on job satisfaction in the workplace. The way in which subordinate’s perceive a supervisor’s behavior can positively or negatively influence job satisfaction. Communication behavior such as facial expression, eye contact, vocal expression, and body movement is crucial to the superior-subordinate relationship. Nonverbal messages play a central role in interpersonal interactions with respect to impression formation, deception, attraction, social influence, and emotional expression. Nonverbal immediacy from the supervisor helps to increase interpersonal involvement with their subordinates impacting job satisfaction. The manner in which supervisors communicate their subordinates may be more important than the verbal content. Individuals who dislike and think negatively about their supervisor are less willing to communicate or have motivation to work where as individuals who like and think positively of their supervisor are more likely to communicate and are satisfied with their job and work environment. The relationship of a subordinate with their supervisor is a very important aspect in the workplace. Therefore, a supervisor who uses nonverbal immediacy, friendliness, and open communication lines is more willing to receive positive feedback and high job satisfaction from a subordinate where as a supervisor who is antisocial, unfriendly, and unwilling to communicate will naturally receive negative feedback and very low job satisfaction from their subordinate’s in the workplace.

JOB SATISFATION AND EMOTIONS

Mood and emotions while working are the raw materials which cumulate to form the affective element of job satisfaction. Moods tend to be longer lasting but often weaker states of uncertain origin, while emotions are often more intense, short-lived and have a clear object or cause.There is some evidence in the literature that state moods are related to overall job satisfaction. Positive and negative emotions were also found to be significantly related to overall job satisfaction.

Frequency of experiencing net positive emotion will be a better predictor of overall job satisfaction than will intensity of positive emotion when it is experienced.Emotion regulation and emotion labor are also related to job satisfaction. Emotion work (or emotion management) refers to various efforts to manage emotional states and displays. Emotion regulation includes all of the conscious and unconscious efforts to increase, maintain, or decrease one or more components of an emotion. Although early studies of the consequences of emotional labor emphasized its

harmful effects on workers, studies of workers in a variety of occupations suggest that the consequences of emotional labor are not uniformly negative.

It was found that suppression of unpleasant emotions decreases job satisfaction and the amplification of pleasant emotions increases job satisfaction. The understanding of how emotion regulation relates to job satisfaction concerns two models:

1. EMOTIANAL DISSONANC E.

Emotional dissonance is a state of discrepancy between public displays of emotions and internal experiences of emotions that often follows the process of emotion regulation. Emotional dissonance is associated with high emotional exhaustion, low organizational commitment, and low job satisfaction. Social interaction model. Taking the social interaction perspective, workers’ emotion regulation might beget responses from others during interpersonal encounters that subsequently impact their own job satisfaction. For example: The accumulation of favorable responses to displays of pleasant emotions might positively affect job satisfaction.performance of emotional labor that produces desired outcomes could increase job satisfaction.

RELATIOSHIPS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Job Satisfaction can be an important indicator of how employees feel about their jobs and a predictor of work behaviors such as organizational citizenship, absenteeism, and turnover. Further, job satisfaction can partially mediate the relationship of personality variables and deviant work behaviors.

One common research finding is that job satisfaction is correlated with life satisfaction. This correlation is reciprocal, meaning people who are satisfied with life tend to be satisfied with their job and people who are satisfied with their job tend to be satisfied with life. However, some research has found that job satisfaction is not significantly related to life satisfaction when other variables such as nonwork satisfaction and core self-evaluations are taken into account.

An important finding for organizations to note is that job satisfaction has a rather tenuous correlation to productivity on the job. This is a vital piece of information to researchers and businesses, as the idea that satisfaction and job performance are directly related to one another is often cited in the media and in some non-academic management literature. A recent meta-analysis found an average uncorrected

correlation between job satisfaction and productivity to be r=.18; the average true correlation, corrected for research artifacts and unreliability, was r=.30 Further, the meta-analysis found that the relationship between satisfaction and performance can be moderated by job complexity, such that for high-complexity jobs the correlation between satisfaction and performance is higher (ρ=.52) than for jobs of low to moderate complexity (ρ=.29). In short, the relationship of satisfaction to productivity is not necessarily straightforward and can be influenced by a number of other work-related constructs, and the notion that "a happy worker is a productive worker" should not be the foundation of organizational decision-making.

With regard to job performance, employee personality may be more important than job satisfaction. The link between job satisfaction and performance is thought to be a spurious relationship; instead, both satisfaction and performance are the result of personality.

EFFECTS OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL POLITICS ON JOB SATISFACTION

METHOD

1. SAMPLE AND PROCEDURE

Executive MBA students enrolled as part-time students in a large university were surveyed using a structured questionnaire. Participants were briefed on the general purpose of the study, told that the study is solely for academic purposes, and asked to complete the questionnaire anonymously. All the 127 participants (79 men, 48 women) held full-time jobs. More than 90 percent of the sample had an undergraduate degree and 39 percent were married. The mean age was 30.30 (SD=5.22). Years of work experience ranged from 1 to 28 with a mean of 6.42 (SD=4.87). The sample represented a wide range of functional backgrounds and occupations including administrative, managerial, professional, and technical jobs.

2. MEASURES

The major measures for the study were

perceptions of appraisal politics job satisfaction intention to quit

Participants were asked to respond to all questionnaire items for these measures using a rating scale ranging from 0 (totally disagree) to 10 (totally agree). Ratings on items for each measure were averaged to form an overall score for the measure. A higher score indicated a higher standing on the measure.

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

This study attempted to examine the effects of perceptions of performance appraisal politics on job satisfaction and turnover intention. The original intent was to look at perceptions of appraisal politics as a single general variable, as suggested by. However, a factor analysis of the items used to assess this variable revealed two independent factors, one relating to political motives that appear to benefit employees (labeled motivational motive) and the other less so (labeled personal bias and punishment motive). Thus, the two factors were analyzed as separate variables.

The study hypotheses received support so far as the personal bias and punishment motive variable was used to indicate performance appraisal politics. When employees perceived performance ratings to be manipulated for affective reasons such as personal liking and for the purpose of punishing employees, they experienced reduced job satisfaction. These perceptions also influenced employees' intention to quit, albeit indirectly, through reduced job satisfaction. Manipulations of ratings due to personal bias or aimed at punishing employees are likely to be viewed as unjustified and unfair, thus resulting in low job satisfaction and high turnover intention. Whether or not this is indeed the case can only be determined in

future research that integrates relevant theories such as organizational justice theory into studies of this nature.

In contrast, when employees perceived performance ratings to be manipulated for the purpose of rewarding employees (or avoiding negative outcomes for them) and promoting a positive workgroup climate (e.g. by avoiding situations that would create resentments and conflicts), their job satisfaction and turnover intention were not affected. An interesting question for future research is whether or not employees view the manipulations of performance ratings for motivational purposes to be legitimate behaviors because such manipulations represent managerial discretion exercised to ensure the attainment of certain goals (e.g. task-performance goals, interpersonal goals, and strategic goals) and have the potential to benefit individual employees and the organization as a whole. Another question that needs to be answered is whether or not rating manipulations that are perceived as legitimate would actually work as a motivational tool; if the answer is yes, another issue that needs to be addressed is the costs and benefits of accurate ratings versus higher levels of employee motivation.

EFFECTS OF FORMAL MENTORING ON JOB PERFORMANCE

METHOD

The study examined a formal mentoring program conducted at a medium sized manufacturing company. It was conducted for a period of two years as a part of a company wide initiative to reduce turn over of good staff and to help promising staff to fulfill their potential. 39 mentors and mentees were selected. The mentors and mentees were required to meet informally for a minimum of 12 times during the mentoring period. All the mentors were senior managers who were with the company for a minimum period of five years and the mentees were all at the first rung of management, that is, those whose tenure did not extend two years.

The measures that were calculated here are-

1. Opportunities of the mentor and mentee to interact (OTI)2. Closeness of their relationship (CLO)

At the end of the mentoring program, the subjects answered questionnaires, which included questions relating to both the measures. They were asked to rate the questions on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Results indicated that, the better the relationship between the mentor and mentee, the more commitment the mentees showed towards the organization. It showed that mentees who were more physically proximate to their mentors and had less conflicting work schedules gained more from the program. They showed higher commitment, improved job performance and hence they had higher rates of job satisfaction.

“I FEEL SORRY FOR THE PERSON WHO CANNOT GET GENUINELY EXCITED ABOUT HIS WORK. NOT ONLY WILL HE NEVER BE SATISFIED, BUT HE WILL NEVER ACHIEVE ANYTHING WORTHWHILE.”

-WALTER CHRYSLER

BIBILIOGRAPHY

1. ̂ Locke, 1976 cited in Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2001). Organizational behavior: affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279-307, p. 282

2. ̂ Cranny, Smith & Stone, 1992 cited in Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 173-194, p.174

3. ̂ Brief, 1998 cited in Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 173-194, p. 174

4. ̂ Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 173-194

5. ^ a b c d e f J. R. Hackman, G. R. Oldham (1976). "Motivation through design of work". Organizational behaviour and human performance 16: 250–279. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7.

6. ̂ Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.

7. ̂ Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the Job Characteristics Model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40(2), 287-322.

8. ̂ Weiss HM, Cropanzano R. (1996). Affective events theory: a theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior 8: 1±74.

9. ̂ Brief AP, Roberson L.(1989). Job attitude organization: an exploratory study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 19: 717±727.

10. ̂ Weiss HM, Nicholas JP, Daus CS. (1999). An examination of the joint effects of affective experiences and job beliefs on job satisfaction and variations in affective experiences over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 78: 1±24

11. ^ a b Fisher D. (2000).Mood and emotions while working: missing pieces of job satisfaction? Journal of Organizational Behavior 21, 185±202

12. ̂ Pugliesi K. (1999).The Consequences of Emotional Labor: Effects on Work Stress, Job Satisfaction, and Weil-BeinMotivation and Emotion, Vol. 23(2

13. ^ a b Cote S.,Morgan LM (2002).A longitudinal analysis of the association between emotion regulation, job satisfaction, and intentions to quit. Journal of Organizational Behavior vol 23, 947–962

14. ̂ Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional labor in service roles: the influence of identity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 88–115

15. ̂ Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1989). The expression of emotion in organizational life. Research in Organizational Behavior, 11, 1–42.