job satisfaction and job performance of university librarians: a disaggregated examination

Library & Information Science Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

LIBINF-00740; No. of pages: 9; 4C:

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Library & Information Science Research

Job satisfaction and job performance of university librarians:A disaggregated examination

Yu-Ping PengDepartment of Library and Information Science, Fu Jen Catholic University, 510, Zhongzheng Road, Xinzhang District, New Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC

E-mail addresses: [email protected], 084361@

0740-8188/$ – see front matter © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2013.02.006

Please cite this article as: Peng, Y.-P., Job satInformation Science Research (2014), http:

a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f o
Available online xxxx
University librarians are required to continuously adjust to keep up with changing customers' needs. The studyuses structural equation modeling (SEM) to examine the effects of different facets of job satisfaction on thetask performance and contextual performance of university librarians. Specifically, the study breaks down theoverall measure of job satisfaction first into its intrinsic and extrinsic components, and then into sub-facetsof these components, in order to isolate in detail how they influence job performance. Findings from competingstatistical models demonstrate that certain facets of intrinsic job satisfaction strongly predict both taskperformance and contextual performance. The findings can be particularly useful for providing a comprehensiveunderstanding of the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance in the university library context.Finally, the study considers managerial implications.
© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

An impressive body of research has examined the antecedents ofjob performance, especially with regard to job satisfaction (Edwards,Bell, Arthur, & Decuir, 2008; Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001).Organizations continually make choices that influence both satisfactionand performance. Because the relationship between the twois likely to be strong (Judge et al., 2001), their choices could resultin a workforce that is both happier and more productive (Edwardset al., 2008). Job satisfaction contributes materially to bothpersonal well being and organizational effectiveness (Lim, 2008).The practical benefits of librarians' job satisfaction have beenobserved by researchers such as Siggins (1992) and Peng, Hwang,and Wong (2010), who have reported that librarians' motivationto voluntarily undertake new duties in support of their organizations'overall effectiveness increases along with their sense of jobsatisfaction.

Previous research has conceptually separated job satisfaction intointrinsic job satisfaction and extrinsic job satisfaction (Weiss, Dawis,England, & Lofquist, 1967). Similarly, a great deal of attention hasrecently been paid to two broad classes of employee behavioralperformance: task performance and contextual performance (Borman& Motowidlo, 1993). However, rarely have studies investigated theeffects of different aspects of job satisfaction on job performance.Based on the two-dimensional natures of both job satisfaction andjob performance, it is worthwhile to examine the various facets oftheir interaction.

mail.fju.edu.tw.

ghts reserved.

isfaction and job performanc//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.20

2. Problem statement

The usefulness of a library to its patrons depends on more thanits physical facilities. Most library users also depend heavily on theguidance they receive from individual library staff members. Thus, thededication and goodwork of each librarian add up over time to improvethe overall effectiveness of the library (Shaughnessy, 1995). Forexample, an increase in the volume of patrons' requests for informationoften gives rise to feelings of frustration and inadequacy on the part oflibrary staff, as their time is increasingly occupied by attempts to acquirethe new skills necessary to provide effective service. The most pressingneed for managers is to find specific and reliable ways to motivatetheir employees to constantly improve their performance (Stajkovic &Luthans, 2003). Thus, it is important to better understand the positiveantecedents of job performance in the library profession.

Abundant studies support the contribution of job satisfaction tomeasures of overall job performance or to specifically task-based andcontextual components of performance. However, only a few studieshave integrated both aspects of job satisfaction and job performancesimultaneously (e.g., Jawahar, Meurs, Ferris, & Hochwarter, 2008).Little detailed knowledge has been developed about the four separatechannels through which extrinsic and intrinsic job satisfaction mightaffect the two types of performance. This is particularly true in libraryand information science (LIS). Although work in this area continues(e.g., Lim, 2008), empirical knowledge of university librarians' jobsatisfaction and its effect on their job performance is still very limited.Kwon and Gregory (2007) have provided new insights about referencelibrarians' task performance, and Peng et al. (2010) have examined thecontextual performance of university librarians. However, the fact thatthese studies' focus on only one dimension of job performance (taskor contextual performance) or one specific type of librarian (reference

e of university librarians: A disaggregated examination, Library &13.02.006

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2013.02.006

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07408188


2 Y.-P. Peng / Library & Information Science Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

librarians) diminishes their overall usefulness in the university libraryenvironment. No comprehensive study has fully explored the domainof job performance (both task and contextual performance) for thegeneral workforce of university librarians. Synthesizing a more compre-hensive and cohesive framework including all dimensions of job perfor-mance and every kind of academic librarian can reflect a greater breadthof research and promote the generalization of research findings.

Predicting a more specific behavioral criterion requires a more spe-cificmeasure of attitude. The connections between attitudes and behav-iors are likely to be strongest in circumstances where specific types ofjob satisfaction can bematched to specific attributes of job performance,thus improving compatibility (Ajzen, 2005; Edwards et al., 2008; Fisher,1980). LIS research needs to examine the effects of both facets of job sat-isfaction (intrinsic and extrinsic) on task and contextual performance.There is still a need to define a comprehensive framework from whichone can draw the facets (Jordan, 1978) in order to assess how variouskinds of job satisfaction might affect job performance. Studies of thetype undertaken here can present a more integrated and holistic viewof this relationship. They are designed to detect subtler but potentiallyinteresting linkages between motivation and performance. This studypresents a model to integrate task and contextual performance into amore thorough model of job satisfaction and job performance for uni-versity librarians, highlighting the additional understanding that canbe obtained from disaggregating satisfaction and performance intotheir conceptual component parts. Pitting competing models againsteach other not only yields a better understanding of satisfaction's effecton performance, it also allows us to express these findings in a waythat fully respects the philosophical and theoretical foundations ofthe prior work that has been done in analyzing both the causes (extrin-sic and intrinsic satisfaction) and their effects (task and contextualperformance).

3. Literature review

3.1. Job performance

Despite the ease of describing job performance as simply the productof the amount and the quality of work performed, for many researchersthis approach has proven to be insufficiently detailed and difficult toapply. Job performance may be described alternatively to emphasizejust those behaviors and actions that are under the control of the work-er, and contribute to the organization's goals (Campbell, 1990; Rotundo& Sackett, 2002; Smith, 1976). Borman andMotowidlo (1993) indicatedthat two distinct types of job performance criteria exist: task and con-textual performance. So-called “task performance” describes anindividual's execution of the core duties that might be formally listedin his or her job description. This refers to activities directly contributingto or enabling the production of goods or services (Motowidlo, Borman,& Schmit, 1997). By contrast, “contextual performance” refers to spon-taneous behaviors through which a worker supports and enhances theworkplace environment. These might include the ability to “see whatneeds to be done” even when it is not explicitly part of one's formaljob description, as well as transmission of positive attitudes toand among managers, colleagues and patrons (Borman & Motowidlo,1993, 1997). Contextual performance is conceptually the same asorganizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and citizenship perfor-mance (Borman & Penner, 2001; Edwards et al., 2008). Althoughthe organizational citizenship literature and the citizenship perfor-mance literature developed independently, the behaviors, causesand effects and attitudes they describe differ very little form oneanother (Organ, 1997). In this study the hypotheses draw on bothliteratures, but keep the label “contextual performance” in orderto facilitate comparison to the research of Motowidlo and VanScotter (1994).

Organizational effectiveness depends on both task and contextualperformance, and both types of performance create value for the

Please cite this article as: Peng, Y.-P., Job satisfaction and job performanInformation Science Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.20

organization (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997; Conway, 1999). Moreover,contextual performance deserves more attention in the library contextfor several reasons. Because the recent trend toward downsizing increas-ingly requires employees to be adaptable and exhibit extra effort, contex-tual performance has becomemore andmore important in organizations(Borman & Motowidlo, 1997). Contextual performance (OCB) has beenfound to be particularly meaningful in the service sector, such as univer-sity libraries (Bettencourt, Meuter, & Gwinner, 2001). Specifically, Penget al. (2010) illustrated the consequences of contextual perfor-mance (OCB) in the library context by describing the day-to-dayoperation of university libraries. Contextual performance enablesan employee to sustain and contribute to a reciprocally beneficialrelationship with the organization (e.g. Edwards et al., 2008;Organ, 1988).

3.2. Job satisfaction

Job satisfaction has been characterized as “a pleasurable or positiveemotional state resulting from the self-appraisal of one's job or job ex-periences” (Locke, 1976, p. 1300). Common aspects of job satisfactioninclude “work, pay, promotions, recognition, benefits, working condi-tions, supervision, co-workers, company and management” (Locke,1976, p. 1302). Locke integrated the alternative versions of the two-factor theory developed by Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman(1959) and Maslow's (1970) hierarchy of human needs. These defini-tions have played a valuable role in the development of so-called “con-tent theories” of job satisfaction, that try to identify the individualcomponents that must be attained before an individual can feel fullysatisfied with his/her job (Sierpe, 1999).

Job satisfaction is by nature multifaceted. Research has shown thatthe different facets of job satisfaction can be classified two dimensions:intrinsic and extrinsic (Hirschfeld, 2000; Spector, 1997; Weiss et al.,1967). Intrinsic attributes of thework itself (e.g., sense of independence,responsibility, achievement) contribute to the former, whereas thelatter is derived from the work environment and the compensationreceived (e.g., pay, working conditions, supervisor, co-workers andpolicies). Therefore, intrinsic satisfaction reflects the sense that one'swork is inherently worthwhile, and that others concur in recognizingit as such. As such it reflects the professional's sense of self-efficacy.Extrinsic satisfaction depends on more tangible factors likecompensation or working conditions, but nonetheless affects anemployee's internal motivation.

A number of researchers have studied job satisfaction of university li-brarians. Some included comparisons of demographic and backgroundvariables (e.g., gender, age, years of professional experience, and occu-pational groups) in their determinations of job satisfaction facets, butthe findings have shown inconsistent results (Fitch, 1990; Horenstein,1993; Mirfakhrai, 1991; Voelck, 1995; Wahba, 1975). In addition todemographic and background variables, a number of other aspectshave been studied and correlated with job satisfaction. Some studiesreported on specific job functions, such as information technologyworkers and catalogers (Chwe, 1978; Leysen & Boydston, 2009;Lim, 2008). Several studies have focused on investigating the na-tionality or ethnic background of librarians (e.g., Thornton, 2000;Togia, Koustelios, & Tsigilis, 2004).

3.3. Relationships between facets of job satisfaction and job performance

The relationship between job satisfaction and job performance hasbeen of central interest to research in organizational psychology. An im-pressive body of empirical and meta-analysis research (e.g., Organ &Ryan, 1995) has explored the antecedents of overall job performance,especially with regard to job satisfaction (Iaffaldano & Muchinsky,1985; Judge et al., 2001; Organ, 1977, 1988; Petty, Mcgee, & Cavender,1984). Social exchange theory has been offered as a theoretical explana-tion for this relationship (Bateman & Organ, 1983). Numerous studies

ce of university librarians: A disaggregated examination, Library &13.02.006


Extrinsic job

satisfaction

H1a 0.43 (t = 8.40)

H2a 0.48 (t = 7.95)

H1b 0.20 (t = 3.71)

H2b 0.22 (t = 3.94)

Intrinsic job

satisfactionTask

performance

Contextual

performance

Fig. 1. The theoretical model.

3Y.-P. Peng / Library & Information Science Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

indicate that overall job satisfaction has a positive effect oncontextual performance (OCB) (Organ, 1988; Organ & Ryan, 1995;Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). Several researchers have stressed thatemployees who like their work often respond by increasing theirwork effort and their task performance (Edwards et al., 2008; Hackman& Oldham, 1980).

Some LIS studies have hinted at the importance of job satisfactionfor job performance (Landry, 2000; Peng et al., 2010; Siggins, 1992).However, a rigorous empirical description of different types of jobsatisfaction and their effects on job performance is still lacking. Only afew studies have ventured into this territory (Kwon & Gregory, 2007;Peng et al., 2010).

4. Research questions and hypotheses

4.1. Research questions

Law, Wong, and Mobley (1998) have demonstrated that, whenconducting structural equation modeling (SEM) analyses basedon multidimensional concepts, the parameter estimates obtainedare sensitive to the model specification used. Several studies haveused SEM to test competing models (Bigné, Andreu, & Gnoth,2005; Law & Wong, 1999). Building on the research objectivesand the characteristics of multidimensional constructs (job satisfactionand job performance). SEM was used to address four researchquestions.

1. To what extent is job satisfaction related to task performance?

(1) Towhat extent is intrinsic job satisfaction related to task perfor-mance?

(2) To what extent is extrinsic job satisfaction related to taskperformance?

2. Towhat extent is job satisfaction related to contextual performance?(1) To what extent is intrinsic job satisfaction related to contextual

performance?(2) To what extent is extrinsic job satisfaction related to contextual

performance?3. Is the effect of intrinsic job satisfaction on task performance stronger

than the effect of extrinsic job satisfaction on task performance?4. Is the effect of intrinsic job satisfaction on contextual performance

stronger than the effect of extrinsic job satisfaction on contextualperformance?

4.2. Research hypotheses

Social exchange theory explains that when an employee feels satis-faction with his/her job, he/she will respond with positive job perfor-mance behaviors to the benefit of the organization (Bateman & Organ,1983; Organ & Ryan, 1995). Therefore, university librarians exhibiting

Please cite this article as: Peng, Y.-P., Job satisfaction and job performancInformation Science Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.20

higher job satisfaction might be expected to demonstrate correspond-ingly higher job performance to repay their obligations to their organi-zation, their managers, and their colleagues. Accordingly, the followinghypotheses were proposed:

H1. There is a positive correlation between job satisfaction and taskperformance.

H1a. There is a positive correlation between intrinsic job satisfactionand task performance.

H1b. There is a positive correlation between extrinsic job satisfactionand task performance.

H2. There is a positive correlation between job satisfaction andcontextual performance.

H2a. There is a positive correlation between intrinsic job satisfactionand contextual performance.

H2b. There is a positive correlation between extrinsic job satisfactionand contextual performance.

Hackman and Oldham (1980) observed that high intrinsic motiva-tion can satisfy higher-order needs (e.g., self-actualization and self-esteem). They conjecture that this leads to improved task performancebecause performingwell creates positive affect. Likewise, Kanfer (1991)noted that intrinsic motivation correlates with individuals' freedom andinclination to choosewhich particular tasks towork on at any givenmo-ment. In this way they are likely to acquire specific task-related skillsmore rapidly, and increase the total quantity of work performed aswell as its quality.

Also according to previous studies, employees are more likely toengage in contextual performance (OCB) when they are motivatedby intrinsic satisfaction than when they are extrinsically stimulated(e.g. Lee & Allen, 2002; Organ, 1990). Individuals probably performdiscretionary behaviors that exceed formal job requirements to satisfysome fundamental personal need tomake their work behavior conformto their own internally determined standards. Becausework of this typeis less likely to be formally compensated than obligatory job behaviors,it is likely to be undertaken for reasons that are intrinsic and self-generated (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006).

Thus, H3 and H4 specifically assert that intrinsic job satisfactionlikely has a greater effect on task and contextual performance thanextrinsic job satisfaction has:

H3. The effect of intrinsic job satisfaction on task performanceis stronger than the effect of extrinsic job satisfaction on taskperformance.



Table 1Overall fits of theoretical model and competing models.

Model fit indexes Recommended level Theoretical model(Baseline)

Competing model I Competing model II Competing model III

χ2(df) p N 0.05 1288.91(350) 1526.77(354) 1563.92(353) 1557.18(351)

NCI (χ2/df) 2–5 3.68 4.31 4.43 4.44NFI N0.90 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.97NNFI N0.90 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.97CFI N0.90 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.97GFI N0.90 0.87 0.84 0.84 0.84AGFI N0.90 0.82 0.80 0.79 0.79RMSEA b0.08 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08Δχ2

(df) p b 0.05 – 237.86(4)⁎ 275.01(3)⁎ 268.27(1)⁎

⁎ p b 0.05.


H4. The effect of intrinsic job satisfaction on contextual performanceis stronger than the effect of extrinsic job satisfaction on contextualperformance.

5. Procedures

5.1. Theoretical structure

To support the theoretical model described in Fig. 1, measures arerequired for four distinct variable types, including the two previouslydefined categories of job satisfaction, along with task performance andcontextual performance. Fig. 1 summarizes the hypothesized relation-ships between them.

5.2. Data collection

The subjects were full-time university librarians working longerthan one year in their work unit in Taiwan. A random sample wasused to find some of the subjects willing to help to distribute and collectthe questionnaires. Each received an average of 3–5 pairs of question-naires which they helped to distribute and retrieve in the library. Theyalso served as performance raters of an average of 3–5 librarians each.Questionnaires, coded to preserve confidentiality while allowing eachlibrarian to be paired with one colleague for observational purposes,were distributed to 735 librarians and colleagues at 80 universitylibraries in Taiwan. Of returned questionnaires, 554 dyads of matchingquestionnaires were usable and valid. The effective response rate was75.38%.

Most of the respondents were female (82.3%), and younger thanforty years in age (60.8%). 97.3% of those surveyed had completed atleast a bachelor's degree.

Table 2Correlation matrix showing the constructs.

Constructs Mean SD 1 2

1. Intrinsic job satisfaction 5.37 0.72 0.792. Extrinsic job satisfaction 4.90 1.02 0.71⁎⁎ 0.713. Task performance 5.69 0.94 0.35⁎⁎ 0.27⁎⁎4. Identification with the company 5.51 1.05 0.35⁎⁎ 0.27⁎⁎5. Altruism toward colleagues 5.53 1.05 0.35⁎⁎ 0.27⁎⁎6. Impersonal harmony 5.87 1.07 0.38⁎⁎ 0.32⁎⁎7. Protecting company resources 5.39 1.22 0.24⁎⁎ 0.26⁎⁎8. Conscientiousness 5.10 1.05 0.31⁎⁎ 0.32⁎⁎

Notes:a. Correlation estimates are obtained from a factor measurement confirmation model.b. Bold numbers on the main diagonal are the square roots of each construct's AVE value.c. Constructs 4–8 are subordinate categories of contextual performance.⁎⁎ p b 0.01.


5.3. Measures

Thequestionnaires contained three distinct sections devoted respec-tively to pre-tested questions about job satisfaction, job performance,and demographic information. Items were scored on a 7-point ratingscale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Mostof the information was provided directly by the librarians themselves,except for the performance-related ratings, which were provided bytheir colleagues. This approach minimizes any risk of common methodvariance by following the design safeguards suggested in Podsakoff,MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003).

Measures of intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction were obtainedusing twenty items from the Short Form Minnesota SatisfactionQuestionnaire (MSQ) first employed by Weiss et al. (1967). The fivemeasures related to task performance were adapted from the work ofBettencourt and Brown (1997). An additional 20 questions documentingcontextual performance were obtained from the OCB scale developedby Farh, Earley, and Lin (1997). Scale items of the constructs areshown in Appendix 1. Finally, the questionnaire contained seven itemsasking for participants' demographic information.

5.4. Analysis methods

SEM combines aspects of other multivariate techniques such asfactor analysis, path analysis and regression. It also incorporates ameasurement model along with a structural model (Sin, 2012). SEM iswell adapted to the task of testing theories in LIS. It can test hypothesesabout path models, taking account of latent variables, and simulta-neously decreasing measurement error. Because of its interdisciplinarynature, LIS research requires the flexibility of SEM to sort through mul-tiple models and alternative definitions in the field. Where researchissues concern theoretical modeling, the generalizability of the research

3 4 5 6 7 8

0.910.70⁎⁎ 0.900.72⁎⁎ 0.70⁎⁎ 0.860.53⁎⁎ 0.72⁎⁎ 0.80⁎⁎ 0.870.47⁎⁎ 0.53⁎⁎ 0.37⁎⁎ 0.50⁎⁎ 0.860.75⁎⁎ 0.47⁎⁎ 0.35⁎⁎ 0.44⁎⁎ 0.70⁎⁎ 0.86



Table3

Resu

ltsof

themea

suremen

tmod

elof

variab

les.

Cons

truc

tSu

bcons

truc

tSe

cond

-order

factorload

ing(Error)

Item

Factor

load

inga

Errorva

rian

ceCo

nstruc

trelia

bilityb

Ave

rage

varian

ceex

tractedc

Intrinsicjobsatisfaction

––

IS1–

IS12

0.70

–0.85

0.27

–0.51

0.95

0.63

Extrinsicjobsatisfaction

––

ES1–

ES8

0.50

–0.75

0.32

–0.50

0.89

0.50

Task

performan

ce–

–TP

1–TP

50.84

–0.97

0.13

–0.30

0.96

0.82

Contex

tual

performan

ceIden

tification

withtheco

mpa

ny0.51

(11.47

)CP

1–CP

40.82

–0.88

0.22

–0.33

0.92

0.73

Altruism

towardco

lleag

ues

0.67

(15.99

)CP

5–CP

80.84

–0.92

0.15

–0.30

0.93

0.76

Impe

rson

alha

rmon

y0.92

(18.25

)CP

9–CP

120.72

–0.92

0.15

–0.48

0.92

0.74

Protecting

compa

nyresources

0.94

(20.28

)CP

13–CP

150.76

–0.83

0.31

–0.42

0.83

0.62

Cons

cien

tiou

sness

0.80

(12.60

)CP

16–CP

200.50

–0.88

0.23

–0.75

0.87

0.57

Notes:

aAllcompletelystan

dardized

estimates

(λ)arestatically

sign

ificant,p

b0.05

.b

Cons

truc

trelia

bility=

(∑λ)2(var)/((∑

λ)2(var)+

∑errors)(Jöresko

g&Sö

rbom

,199

3).

cAve

rage

varian

ceex

tracted(ρvc)=

(∑λ2)/(

(∑λ2)+

∑errors)(Jöresko

g&Sö

rbom

,199

3).



design can be advanced by validation using SEM techniques (Du, 2009).Testing of eachmeasurementmodel is necessary to verify the variables'discriminant validity. The fit of themeasurementmodel in this casewasevaluated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). In accordance withBell andMenguc (2002), thefit of the hypothesizedmodelwas assessedusing SEM. Many specialized computer programs including LISREL, areavailable with which to do this (Du, 2009). In LISREL, a data model'sgoodness of fit is indicated by the following indices: chi-square withits associated degrees of freedom and probability level, normed incre-mental fit indexes (NFI), non-normed incremental fit indexes (NNFI),comparativefit indexes (CFI), the goodness offit index (GFI), the adjustedgoodness of fit index (AGFI) and the root mean square error of approxi-mation (RMSEA).

The chi-square value is significant, thus indicating a lack of fitbetween the empirical data and the theoretical model (Bagozzi & Yi,1988). However, a limitation of the chi-square test is that it is stronglyinfluenced by sample size. Instead of the chi-square value, if the valueof the normed chi-square index (NCI, χ2/df) falls between 2 and 5, themeasurement model can be accepted (Marsh & Hocevar, 1985). Thegoodness-of-fit between a proposed model and the supporting datacan be described either by a chi-square test, as in the approach usedby Jöreskog and Sörbom (1989), or by using NFI and NNFI, in theapproach taken by Bentler and Bonett (1980). In sum, NFI, NNFIand chi-square can all be considered indicators of incremental fit be-cause they measure the marginal improvement of the target model'sfit by comparing it with a more restrictive baseline model. A nested“null model” in which none of the observed variables are correlatedis most commonly used as a baseline model. Values of NFI, NNFIand CFI exceeding 0.9 indicate a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Valuesof the chi-square test depend on the sample size, with larger valuesmore likely to yield statistically significant chi-square values thatsuggest a poor fit between the data and the model (Stevens, 1996).

Using either approach, a goodness of fit index (GFI) can be estimatedto indicate how much of the variance and covariance the model suc-ceeds in explaining. When adjusted for degrees of freedom, reflectingthe complexity as well as the sample size of the model, the result is anadjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI). Both indices have a minimumvalue of zero and a maximum value of unity, with an acceptable fitindicated by values in excess of 0.9 (Kelloway, 1998).

Good model fitness can also be described by the root mean squarederror of the approximation (RMSEA), as calculated from the modelresiduals. Smaller RMSEA values are associated with closer correspon-dence between model predicted values and those actually observed.McDonald and Ho (2002) maintained that an RMSEA value less than0.08 is generally acceptable as evidence of an acceptable fit. Theseindices and their recommended values are shown in Table 1.

6. Results

Table 2 presents descriptive statistics and the correlation matrixamong the constructs of the theoretical framework. All of the correla-tion coefficients were statistically significant.

6.1. Measurement model

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to verify thetheoretical model's adequacy and that of the measurement indexconstructs. CFA was conducted for four variables including both typesof job satisfaction and both types of job performance. Because contextu-al performance is based on five different sub-concepts, a second-orderCFA procedure was used to test the fit between the measurementsand the model (Bartholomew & Knott, 1999). The chi-square valuewas significant (χ2

(123) = 377.15, p b 0.05), indicating a poor or insig-nificant fit (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988), but other tests managed to achievetheir standard threshold values. The NCI value of this theoreticalmodel was 3.07, which suggests a reasonable fit of the theoretical



Job satisfaction Job performance

Fig. 2. Competing model I.


model with the data. Other indices also achieved the standardvalue, including CFI (=0.99, N0.90), NFI (=0.98, N0.90), NNFI (=0.98,N0.90), GFI (=0.94, N0.90), and RMSEA (=0.06, b0.08). AGFI (=0.89)was very close to the desired value of 0.90. Based on the above results,the measurement model was considered acceptable.

The chi-square value of the measurement model of dependentvariables is also significant (χ2

(260) = 1003.12, p b 0.05). The NCIvalue of thismeasurementmodelwas 3.86,which suggests a reasonablefit of the measurement model with the data. Other indices also achievethe standard value, including CFI (=0.98, N0.90), NFI (=0.98, N0.90),NNFI (=0.98, N0.90), and RMSEA (=0.07, b0.08). GFI (=0.87) andAGFI (=0.84) were closer to 0.90. In summary, these results indicatethat the fit of the measurement model was acceptable.

Bagozzi and Yi (1988) suggest that a reliability test should be basedon three requisites: a set of standardized estimates (between 0.50 and0.97), a composition reliability criterion (CR) (i.e., CR value, N0.60)(Fornell & Larcker, 1981), and finally an acceptable p-value (b0.05).Factor loadings are presented in Table 3, and for most variables, thevalues are close to or greater than 0.50. Furthermore, all constructsdemonstrated CR values between 0.83 and 0.96.

As implied by Fornell and Larcker (1981), discriminant validity canbe demonstrated by comparing the squared pair-wise correlations andthe AVE value for each construct. Discriminant validity is demonstratedwhen the correlation is low between variablesmeasuring different con-structs (Kline, 2005; Sin, 2012). The bold numbers along the diagonal(from 0.71 to 0.90) indicate the square roots of each construct's AVEvalue, which should be greater than their correlations with the otherconstructs (Table 3). Correlations between each construct and theother constructs were listed in the off-diagonal entries. Thus, discrimi-nant validity is achieved.

6.2. Main effects of job satisfactions on job performance

The overall structural model appears to fit the data adequately:(χ2

(350) = 1288.91; RMSEA = 0.07; CFI = 0.98; NFI = 0.98; NNFI =0.98; GFI = 0.87; AGFI = 0.82). The significantly positive effect of in-trinsic job satisfaction on task performance is reflected in the structuralestimate value of 0.43 (t = 8.40). By way of comparison, the corre-sponding effect of extrinsic job satisfaction on task performance wasweaker but still significant 0.20 (t = 3.71). This suggests that both in-trinsic and extrinsic satisfaction perceived by a university librarian con-tributed to that person's expected level of task performance. Similarly,intrinsic satisfaction seemed to contribute more strongly to contextualperformance, with a structural estimate value of 0.48 (t = 7.95), than

Job satisfaction

Fig. 3. Competin


did extrinsic satisfaction with a structural estimate value of 0.22(t =3.94). These results support both H1 and H2 (Fig. 1).

6.3. Relative effects of job satisfaction on job performance

An invariance test was used to compare the effect of intrinsicsatisfaction on both task performance and contextual performancewith that of extrinsic satisfaction. Each hypothesis was tested with achi-square difference test at one degree of freedom in which the twopaths are constrained to be equal in one model (constrained model),but are freely estimated in another (free model). H3 posited that theeffect of intrinsic satisfaction on task performance is stronger than theeffect of extrinsic satisfaction, and the hypothesis was supported(Δχ2

(1) = 4.09). H4 posited that the effect of intrinsic satisfactionon contextual performance is stronger than the effect of extrinsic satis-faction, the hypothesis was supported (Δχ2

(1) = 8).

6.4. Comparison with the theoretical model and competing models

In order to confirm that the theoreticalmodel is not only explicit, butalso parsimonious, the theoretical model was compared with threecompeting models (Figs. 2, 3, and 4). According to Van den Broeck,Vansteenkiste, DeWitte, and Lens's (2008) testing procedure, differencetests for chi-squarewere used to test differences inmodelfit. A theoreticalmodel was set as a baseline used to compare with different competingmodels (Table 1).

In model I, intrinsic job satisfaction and extrinsic job satisfactionwere combined to form a single latent variable: job satisfaction.Task performance and contextual performance were combined asjob performance. The model fit of model I was poorer than baseline(χ2

(354) =1526.77, p b 0.05). The different of chi-square value be-tween Model I and the baseline was significant (Δ χ2

(4) = 237.86,p b 0.05). In model II, job satisfaction was designed as single latentvariable and measured by the items of both intrinsic job satisfactionand extrinsic job satisfaction. It is the attendant of task performanceand contextual performance (χ2

(353) = 1563.92, p b 0.05). The dif-ferent of chi-square value between Model II and baseline was signif-icant (Δχ2

(3) = 275.01, p b 0.05). In model III, task performance andcontextual performance were combined as single latent variable: jobperformance, which was predicted by intrinsic job satisfaction andextrinsic job satisfaction (χ2

(351) = 1557.18, p b 0.05). The differentof chi-square value between Model III and baseline was also signifi-cant (Δχ2

(1) = 268.27, p b 0.05). In sum, the model fit index chi-square of the hypothesized model (baseline) is significantly betterthan three competing models. Other model fit indexes (such as GFI,

Contextual performance

Taskperformance

g model II.



Intrinsic

job satisfaction

Job performance

Extrinsic

job satisfaction

Fig. 4. Competing model III.


AGFI, RMSEA, CFI, NFI, and NNFI) of theoretical model (baseline) alsoindicate relatively well than three competing models.

7. Discussion

Extending the results of earlier studies, the results of this empiricalexamination advance the understanding of the relationship betweenfacets of job satisfaction (intrinsic and extrinsic) and dimensions ofjob performance (task and contextual performance). Several importantfindings emerge. The findings of H1a and H1b accord with the results ofprevious studies (Organ& Ryan, 1995; Peng et al., 2010), and the resultsof H2a and H2b also fall in line with the findings of Hackman andOldham (1980). As H1a, H1b, H2a and H2b predicted, each dimensionof job satisfaction is significantly related to each facet of job perfor-mance. The results demonstrate that both intrinsic and extrinsic jobsatisfaction contribute importantly to improving the task and contextu-al performance of university librarians.

Tests of the relative effects hypotheses (H3 and H4) are supported.The relationships between the two facets of job satisfaction and bothdimensions of job performance remain significant. However, whenthe influence of both intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction is simulta-neously examined, relative effects emerge. Intrinsic job satisfactionis more strongly related to both task performance and contextualperformance than extrinsic job satisfaction. Several researchers haveadvanced reasons as to why intrinsic job satisfaction should be morestrongly related to both dimensions of job performance than extrinsicjob satisfaction. Librarianship is classified as a helping profession in anon-profit service industry. The ability to influence job performanceby offering intangible rewards is of particular importance to serviceindustries in the non-profit sector, since they tend to have lowerbenefits and wages (Mirvis & Hackett, 1983). The attraction of a careerin librarianship does not stem from remuneration or prestige, but fromthe sense of fulfillment that can be obtained by assisting others (Drake,1993). Comparison of the results across two predictors of job perfor-mance highlights the increased importance of intrinsic job satisfactionin comparison to extrinsic job satisfaction, and enhancing intrinsic jobsatisfaction might offer one more important avenue to simultaneouslyenhance both task and contextual job performance than is currentlyrecognized.

These results support Herzberg et al.'s (1959) assertion thatmotiva-tion derives from within. Employees whose motivation comes fromwithin exert a large amount of effort in their jobs while attempting toconduct high-quality social exchanges with their directors. Intrinsicjob satisfaction may be particularly valuable for encouraging workersto be more innovative. From a practical perspective, intrinsic job satis-faction should be of concern to library administrators. Those who failto consider adequately the degree of intrinsic job satisfaction of theirlibrarians may miss an important non-salary-based driver of motiva-tion. They need to see that intrinsic job satisfaction is a key determinantof job performance of librarians, and that it would be wise to design aculture and practices that facilitate intrinsic job satisfaction. Leadership


training for library administrators should includemethods for establish-ing a supportive and encouraging workplace atmosphere. This kindof workplace atmosphere may enhance intrinsic job satisfaction oflibrarians in many ways, such as letting librarians experiment withtheir own self-devised work strategies and so obtain a higher feelingof accomplishment. Measures like this will be likely to result inimproved librarians' task performance and contextual performance.

It should be easiest to predict behaviors based on attitudes when, assuggested by Ajzen (2005), the attitudes and the behaviors match upwell in terms of specificity or logical compatibility. In order to under-stand the relationship between performance and satisfaction moreclearly, we need to consider not only the distinction between task andcontextual performance, but also the ways in which these outcomeswill be affected by the different aspects of job satisfaction (Edwardset al., 2008). The results of this study support these views and highlightthe need to take account of different aspects in the satisfaction–performance relationship, and also the need to match predictors andcriteria with their levels of specificity.

The limitations of this study suggest several avenues for futureinvestigation. Obviously, the generalizability of the results to otherkinds of libraries (e.g., public or special) is not known. Conditions else-where differ in many aspects from those found in university libraries,and thus differences could be observed. Likewise, the study did notfully explore other antecedents and the demographic variables thatmay affect job performance of university librarians. There is a need foradditional research to obtain a better comprehension of the factorsencouraging or prohibiting high-quality job performance of universitylibrarians. Lastly, future research could examinemore thanone categoryof predictors (such as by combining leadership and cohesiveness)in the same study. Combining different categories of predictors in thesame investigation could provide a more precise mapping of allthe determining factors that bear on job performance.

Future studies might also extend to exploring the influenceof job performance of university librarians on library service quality.Employee attitudes and behaviors are contagious, spilling over ontocustomers during service encounters (Bettencourt & Brown, 1997).The positive effect of this relationship of job satisfaction and job perfor-mance might improve library service quality.

8. Conclusion

The findings of this study are likely to be useful in several differentways. To begin with, they document in detail the relationship betweendifferent aspects of job satisfaction and job performance (including bothtask and contextual performance) for university librarians. This extendsthe existing body of research to integrate contextual performance andtask performance into a comprehensive model of job satisfaction andjob performance in the university library context, where most previousresearch had only considered either contextual performance or taskperformance, or had not adequately measured both dimensions of jobperformance simultaneously. Secondly, this is thefirst study to compare




and highlight relative effects of intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction oncontextual performance and task performance of university librarians.Finally, the study may give more insight into how predictors weightand combine information to arrive at a comprehensive prediction ofevery dimension of job performance in the LIS field. The results shednew light on the advanced understanding of these differential relation-ships. Some attention to intrinsic job satisfaction may shed additionallight on human resource management approaches in the library context.This could open up new theoretical avenues to a better understanding ofjob satisfaction in the LIS literature.

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2013.02.006.

References

Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality, and behavior (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press.Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation model. Journal of

the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 16(1), 74–94.Bartholomew, D. J., & Knott, M. (1999). Latent variable models and factor analysis. London,

UK: Arnold.Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The

relationship between affect and employee citizenship. Academy of ManagementJournal, 26(4), 587–595.

Bell, S. J., & Menguc, B. (2002). The employee–organization relationship, organizationalcitizenship behaviors, and superior service quality. Journal of Retailing, 78(2),131–146.

Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis ofcovariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606.

Bettencourt, L. A., & Brown, S. W. (1997). Contact employees: Relationships amongworkplace fairness, job satisfaction and prosocial service behaviors. Journal ofRetailing, 73(1), 39–61.

Bettencourt, L. A., Meuter, M. L., & Gwinner, K. P. (2001). A comparison of attitude,personality, and knowledge predictors of service-oriented organizational citizenshipbehaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 29–41.

Bigné, J. E., Andreu, L., & Gnoth, J. (2005). The theme park experience: An analysis ofpleasure, arousal and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 26(6), 833–844.

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to includeelements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt, & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnelselection in organizations (pp. 71–98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextualperformance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance,10(2), 99–109.

Borman, W. C., & Penner, L. A. (2001). Citizenship performance: Its nature,antecedents, and motives. In B. W. Roberts, & R. Hogan (Eds.), Personalitypsychology in the workplace (pp. 45–61). Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial andorganizational psychology. In M.D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook ofindustrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 1. (pp. 687–732). Palo Alto, CA: ConsultingPsychologists Press.

Chwe, S. S. (1978). A comparative study of job satisfaction: Catalogers and referencelibrarians in university libraries. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 4, 139–143.

Conway, J. M. (1999). Distinguishing contextual performance from task performance formanagerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 3–13.

Drake, D. (1993). The “A” factor: Altruism and career satisfaction. American Libraries,24(10), 922–924.

Du, Y. (2009). A review of structural equation modeling and its use in library andinformation studies. Library & Information Science Research, 31, 257–263.

Edwards, B.D., Bell, S. T., Arthur, W., & Decuir, A.D. (2008). Relationships between facetsof job satisfaction and task and contextual performance. Applied Psychology:An International Review, 57(3), 441–465.

Farh, J. -L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. -C. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justiceand organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 42(3), 421–444.

Fisher, C. (1980). On the dubious wisdom of expecting satisfaction to correlate withperformance. Academy of Management Review, 5(4), 607–612.

Fitch, D. K. (1990). Job satisfaction among library support staff in Alabama academiclibraries. College & Research Libraries, 51, 313–320.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models withunobservable variables and measurement errors. Journal of Marketing Research,18(1), 39–50.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd ed.).

New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Hirschfeld, R. R. (2000). Does revising the intrinsic and extrinsic subscales of the

Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire Short Form make a difference? Educationaland Psychological Measurement, 60(2), 255–270.

Horenstein, B. (1993). Job satisfaction of academic librarians: An examination ofthe relationships between satisfaction, faculty status, and participation. College &Research Libraries, 54, 255–269.


Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structureanalysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural EquationModeling, 6(1), 1–55.

Iaffaldano, M. T., & Muchinsky, P.M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance:A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97(2), 251–273.

Jawahar, I. M., Meurs, J. A., Ferris, G. R., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2008). Self-efficacy andpolitical skill as comparative predictors of task and contextual performance: Atwo-study constructive replication. Human Performance, 21(2), 138–157.

Jordan, J. E. (1978). Facet theory and the study of behavior. In S. Shye (Ed.), Theoryconstruction and data analysis in the behavioral sciences (pp. 192–210). San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.

Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom,D. (1989). LISREL 7: A guide to the programandapplications.Chicago,IL: SPSS.

Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structrual Equation Modeling with theSIMPLIS Command Language (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Scientific Software Interna-tional Inc.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job per-formance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin,127(3), 376–407.

Kanfer, R. (1991). Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology.In M.D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizationalpsychology, Vol. 1. (pp. 75–170). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researcher's guide.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY:Guilford.

Kwon, N., & Gregory, V. L. (2007). The effects of librarians' behavioral performance onuser satisfaction in chat reference services. Reference & User Services Quarterly,47(2), 137–148.

Landry, M. B. (2000). The effects of life satisfaction and job satisfaction on referencelibrarians and their work. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 40(2), 166–177.

Law, K. S., & Wong, C. S. (1999). Multidimensional constructs in structural equationanalysis: An illustration using the job perception and job satisfaction constructs.Journal of Management, 25(2), 143–160.

Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Mobley, W. H. (1998). Toward a taxonomy of multidimensionalconstructs. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 741–755.

Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplacedeviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1),131–142.

Leysen, J. M., & Boydston, J. M. K. (2009). Job satisfaction among academic catalogerlibrarians. College & Research Libraries, 70, 273–297.

Lim, S. (2008). Job satisfaction of information technology workers in academic libraries.Library & Information Science Research, 30, 115–121.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature causes and causes of job satisfaction. In M. C. Dunnette(Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1349). Chicago,IL: Rand McNally.

Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to thestudy of self-concept: First and higher order factor models and their invariance acrossgroups. Psychological Bulletin, 97(3), 562–582.

Maslow, A. H. (1970).Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper and Row.McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural

equation analysis. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 64–82.Mirfakhrai, M. H. (1991). Correlates of job satisfaction among academic librarians in the

United States. Journal of Library Administration, 14(1), 117–131.Mirvis, P. H., & Hackett, E. J. (1983). Work and work force characteristics in the nonprofit

sector. Monthly Labor Review, 106(4), 3–12.Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences

in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10(2), 71–83.Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be

distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4),475–480.

Organ, D. W. (1977). A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfaction–causes–performance hypothesis. Academy of Management Review, 2(1), 46–53.

Organ, D.W. (1988). A restatement of the satisfaction–performance hypothesis. Journal ofManagement, 14(4), 547–557.

Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior.Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 43–72.

Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time.Human Performance, 10(2), 85–97.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional pre-dictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 775–802.

Peng, Y. -P., Hwang, S. -N., & Wong, J. -Y. (2010). How to inspire university librariansto become “good soldiers”? The role of job autonomy. Journal of AcademicLibrarianship, 36(4), 287–295.

Petty, M. M., Mcgee, G. W., & Cavender, J. W. (1984). A meta-analysis of the relationshipsbetween individual job satisfaction and individual performance. Academy ofManagement Review, 9(4), 712–721.

Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors:The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal,49(2), 327–340.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. -Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common methodbiases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommendedremedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, andcounterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 66–80.




http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0740-8188(14)00002-4/rf0005

























































































































































Shaughnessy, T. W. (1995). Key issue: Achieving peak performance in academic libraries.Journal of Academic Librarianship, 21, 155–157.

Sierpe, E. (1999). Job satisfaction among librarians in English-language universities inQuebec. Library & Information Science Research, 21, 479–499.

Siggins, J. A. (1992). Job satisfaction and performance in a changing environment.Library Trends, 41, 299–315.

Sin, S. -C. J. (2012). Modeling the impact of individuals' characteristics and library servicelevels on high school students' public library usage: A national analysis. Library &Information Science Research, 34, 228–237.

Smith, P. C. (1976). Behaviors, results, and organizational effectiveness: The problem ofcriteria. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology(pp. 745–775). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior:Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653–663.

Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences.Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.

Stajkovic, A.D., & Luthans, F. (2003). Behavioral management and task performance inorganizations: Conceptual background, meta-analysis, and test of alternative models.Personnel Psychology, 56(1), 155–194.

Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.


Thornton, J. K. (2000). Job satisfaction of librarians of African descent employed in ARLacademic libraries. College & Research Libraries, 61(3), 217–232.

Togia, A., Koustelios, A., & Tsigilis, N. (2004). Job satisfaction among Greek academiclibrarians. Library & Information Science Research, 26, 373–383.

Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., DeWitte, H., & Lens, W. (2008). Explaining the re-lationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basicpsychological need satisfaction.Work and Stress, 22(3), 277–294.

Voelck, J. (1995). Job satisfaction among support staff in Michigan academic libraries.College & Research Libraries, 56(2), 157–170.

Wahba, S. P. (1975). Job satisfaction of librarians: A comparison between men andwomen. College & Research Libraries, 36(1), 45–51.

Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1967).Manual for the Minnesotasatisfaction questionnaire. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Yu Ping Peng is an assistant professor in the Department of Library and Information Science,Fu Jen Catholic University, New Taipei City, Taiwan. She holds a PhD degree in managementfromMing Chuan University in Taiwan, and a master's degree in library and information sci-ence fromFu JenCatholicUniversity. Her research interests include aspects of librarymanage-ment, specifically human resource management, leadership, organizational behavior, andperformancemanagement. Her research has beenpublished in the Journal of Academic Librar-ianship, and she has given presentations at selected academic conferences.





































job satisfaction and job performance of university librarians: a disaggregated examination

Documents