The evidence about job satisfaction seems confusing. I’ve been guided by the counsel of a 2006 meta-analysis published in one of our best research journals, The Academy of Management Journal, that found a strong relationship between job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and multiple measures of employee effectiveness (job performance, extra-role behaviors, and withdrawal behaviors). This study advised that job satisfaction and commitment are the most useful things managers can focus on to help employees be more effective at work.
A separate meta-analysis published in a good but lesser journal in 2007 concluded that the relationship between job satisfaction and performance is spurious. This study maintains that when you account for personality factors, any statistical relationship between satisfaction and performance weakens. But if you read the study very closely, even after controlling for numerous personality traits, the relationship between satisfaction and performance never disappeared.
Unfortunately, the 2007 study did not cite the 2006 study, so the author left unexplained the conflicting findings. I checked how often each study has been cited in studies of job satisfaction since they were published. The 2006 study has been cited 58 times, while the 2007 study has been cited only 9 times. The number of citations is an indicator of how other social scientists view the value of an article.
Fortunately, a new meta-analysis published in 2010 in Personnel Psychology helps settle the debate. This study found a significant relationship between unit level satisfaction and unit level performance. This confirms something I’ve been teaching for years – just because an individual is satisfied might not necessarily mean they will perform well (or vice versa), but an organization full of satisfied individuals will almost always outperform an organization full of dissatisfied individuals.
It is therefore not enough to focus on the satisfaction of individual employees (e.g. through individual training, career building, etc.); the savvy manager will recognize that it is also necessary to raise the collective satisfaction levels of the unit. (e.g. through team building exercise, group projects, etc.)….if managers want to realize the performance benefits of increased unit-level satisfaction, they may be better served in implementing policy changes that affect the unit level (e.g. casual dress Friday) rather than only the individual level (e.g. a bonus for being the top salesperson). (Whitman, et al. 2010, pp 69-70).
The relationship between satisfaction and performance is not a myth. Not only does satisfaction scale, it is also contagious. If you are accountable for performance in your organization, you would be wise to do whatever you can to “infect” your people with satisfaction.
Bret L. Simmons, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Management in the College of Business at the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), where he teaches courses in organizational behavior, leadership, and personal branding to both undergraduate and MBA students. Bret blogs about leadership, followership, and social media at his website Positive Organizational Behavior. You can also find Bret on Twitter, Facebook, and Linkedin.
Related Posts From Positive Organizational Behavior:
Does Pay Level Affect Job Satisfaction?
Smart Leadership Advice Gone Bad
Employee Engagement And Performance: Finally Some Credible Evidence