JOB SATISFACTION AS THE MEDIATOR IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EXTRAVERSION AND EMPLOYEE JOB PERFORMANCE
Master thesis, MscBA, specialization Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
May 29, 2015 JAN PLOEG Studentnumber: 2781727 Kremersheerd 158 9737 PE Groningen Tel.: +31 (0)6-31560154 e-mail: j.h.ploeg.1@student.rug.nl Supervisor: R. Said
2
JOB SATISFACTION AS THE MEDIATOR IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EXTRAVERSION AND EMPLOYEE JOB PERFORMANCE
This study examines job satisfaction as the mediator in the relationship between extraversion and employee job performance. To empirically investigate this mediation model, we collected data by sending online questionnaires to supervisors and employees from multiple companies in the Netherlands. In contrast to
3
INTRODUCTION
Which manager does not want his/her employees to perform at the top of their abilities? For every manager, it is important that their employees fulfill their jobs in an effective manner. Especially in these times of crisis many companies are focused on efficiency and performance. Competition in most industries is high, and more and more companies are becoming bankrupt, partly because of poorly performing
employees. Therefore, to survive, a company has to be efficient and needs to perform well, and this all begins with well-performing employees. Thus, it is important to examine factors that may stimulate employee job performance. Employee job performance refers to actions, behaviors and outcomes that employees engage in or bring about that are linked with and contribute to organizational goals (Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000).
Previous research has shown that personality characteristics are important antecedents of employee job performance (e.g. Barrick & Mount, 1991; Barrick & Mount, 1993; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Salgado, 1997; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991). In this research we investigate why and how extraversion, as personality characteristic from the Big Five, is related to employee job performance. People scoring high on extraversion are happy, enthusiastic, confident, active, and energetic (Watson & Clark, 1997). Therefore, in general, research has argued and shown that extraversion is beneficial to employee job performance (e.g. Barrick & Mount, 1991; Barrick & Mount, 1993; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Salgado, 1997; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991).
4
& Rothstein, 1991), far less is known about the processes underlying this relationship. Therefore, in this research we investigate job satisfaction as the mediator in the positive relationship between extraversion and employee job performance. Job satisfaction is defined as a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences (Locke, 1969). We expect that extraverted employees in general perform better than those scoring low on extraversion, because they have higher job satisfaction. Indeed, happy, extraverted employees are in general more satisfied with their job (Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000), and when employees are more satisfied their performance in general increases (Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985).
This research contributes to both research and practice. While previous research has found a positive relationship between extraversion and employee job performance (e.g. Barrick & Mount, 1991; Barrick & Mount, 1993; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Salgado, 1997; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991), in the current literature there are still limited explanations of why/how extraversion is positively related to employee job performance. This research intends to show that job
satisfaction is a viable explanatory variable of the relationship between extraversion and employee job performance. So, this research fills a clear gap in the literature. Also, for managers it is important to know why and how having extraverted employees may lead to better employee job performance. Managers may use this knowledge in their selection process for hiring new employees.
After this introduction, in the theory section we further explain the
5
research, and we discuss the conclusions and limitations. To test our hypotheses, we collected data among employees and supervisors from various companies in the Netherlands.
THEORY
The relationship between extraversion and employee job performance Much research demonstrated that personality variables are associated with employee job performance (e.g. Barrick & Mount, 1991; Barrick & Mount, 1993; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Salgado, 1997; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991). Many of these studies focused on the personality variables from the Big Five. The personality variables from the Big Five are extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience (Goldberg, 1990). In our study, we specifically focus on the personality variable extraversion. Research in general has shown that extraversion has a positive relationship with employee job performance (e.g. Barrick & Mount, 1991; Barrick & Mount, 1993; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Salgado, 1997; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991).
Traits that are frequently associated with extraversion include sociable, assertive, talkative, and active (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Watson and Clark (1997) further add that extraverted employees are more happy, enthusiastic, confident, and energetic than those scoring low on extraversion. Additionally, extraversion is also related to the experience of positive emotions (Watson & Clark, 1997). These are all positive properties for employees, and positive and energetic employees are in general more motivated to perform their job at a higher level (Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998). Therefore, we expect that extraverted employees have a higher employee job
6
Hypothesis 1: extraversion is positively related to employee job performance. The relationship between extraversion and job satisfaction
Job satisfaction is one of the most important and widely researched variables in the industrial-organizational psychology (Locke, 1976). In the current literature there is also much written about the relationship between personality and job satisfaction (for example see Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000; Furnham & Zacherl, 1986; Hart, 1999; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002). Extraversion in general is found to be a positive predictor of job satisfaction (Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000; Furnham & Zacherl, 1986; Hart, 1999; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002).
We already argued that the behaviors and attitudes that extraverted people show can be classified as ‘positive’. Job satisfaction – defined as a pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job as achieving or facilitating the achievement of one’s job values (Locke, 1969) – is expected to be positively influenced by extraversion because extraverted employees can earlier reach such a pleasurable emotional state compared to employees who score lower on extraversion (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Extraversion is the dimension underlying a broad group of traits, including sociability, activity, and the tendency to experience positive emotions such as joy and pleasure (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Positive emotionality generally leads to higher job satisfaction (Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000). Therefore, we expect that extraverted employees have higher job satisfaction than those employees scoring low on extraversion. As a result, our second hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 2: extraversion is positively related to job satisfaction
7
(Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001). Both quantitative (e.g. Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985; Petty, McGee, & Cavender, 1984) and qualitative research (e.g. Brayfield & Crockett, 1955; Locke, 1970; Schwab & Cummings, 1970) has been conducted on the relationship between job satisfaction and employee job
performance. We will use insights from both streams of research.
Iaffaldano and Muchinsky (1985), in their meta-analysis, showed that the relationship between job satisfaction and employee job performance was positive. To explain this relationship, we have to go back to Locke’s (1970) theoretical analysis of the relationship between job satisfaction and employee job performance. As argued by Locke (1970), emotions such as satisfaction are important incentives to employee actions. Thus, when employees are satisfied with their job, they will be more likely to take actions and perform in an adequate manner. Namely, when employees are
satisfied with their job, this leads to better goal setting, and this leads to better employee job performance (Locke, 1970).
Moreover, Kraus (1995) argued that attitudes significantly and substantially predict future behavior. Job satisfaction can be inferred from individuals´ attitude towards their work (Brayfield & Rothe, 1951). Given that employee job performance is a positive behavior that employees can show when they are satisfied with their job, we expect that job satisfaction will positively predict employee job performance. As a result, our third hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 3: job satisfaction is positively related to employee job performance.
8
Following the three direct effects above, we also expect job satisfaction to mediate the positive relationship between extraversion and employee job
performance. Mount, Ilies and Johnson (2006) state that employees’ attitudes about their jobs explain, in part, personality-behavior associations. From this statement we can conclude that job satisfaction could be a viable mediator in the relationship between extraversion and employee job performance.
When employees are more (compared to less) extraverted, they earlier experience positive emotions (Costa & McCrae, 1992). These positive emotions in general will lead to more job satisfaction (Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000). More job satisfaction leads to better goal setting, and this leads to more employee job
performance (Locke, 1970). Therefore, by means of this explanation, we expect that job satisfaction can explain why extraverted employees in general have better employee job performance than those employees scoring low on extraversion. As a result, our fourth and final hypothesis is:
Hyptothesis 4: job satisfaction will mediate the positive relationship between extraversion and employee job performance.
METHODS Sample and procedures
9
variety of companies participated, from different sectors such as teaching and education, accountancy, banking and finance, healthcare, sales and public services.
In total, 263 employees and 48 supervisors participated in our research. From the 263 employees, 164 were women, 98 men, and 1 respondent did not report gender. The mean age of the employees was 40.91 years, with a standard deviation of 11.84 years and a range from 19 years to 64 years. Most employees had a HBO degree (150) and 64 employees had a MBO degree. The average current organizational tenure of the employees was 9.59 years, with a standard deviation of 9.42 years and a range from 0 years to 40 years. From the 48 supervisors, 19 were women and 29 men. The mean age of the supervisors was 44.56 years, with a standard deviation of 10.69 years and a range from 26 years to 70 years. Most supervisors had a HBO (25) or university degree (12). The average current organizational tenure of the supervisors was 12.02 years, with a standard deviation of 7.42 years and a range from 2 years to 31 years. Measures
All the variables used in this research were measured on a 5-point likert scale. This scale ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).
The measure of extraversion came from the article of John and Srivastava (1999). We measured employee extraversion with five words that can describe how people in general are, and an example item is ‘energetic.’ Cronbach’s alpha was .78.
The measure of job satisfaction came from the article of Judge, Bono and Locke (2000). We measured job satisfaction with five items, and an example item is ‘Most days I am enthusiastic about my work.’ Cronbach’s alpha was .85.
10
and an example item is ‘This employee performs his/her duties in an effective manner.’ Cronbach’s alpha was .86.
Analytic approach
First, we examined the correlations between extraversion, job satisfaction and employee job performance. Second, we ran regression analyses to test the hypotheses. To test our mediation model, we used the method suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986). Baron and Kenny (1986) mention multiple conditions to establish mediation. First, the independent variable (extraversion) should affect the dependent variable (employee job performance); second, the independent variable (extraversion) should affect the mediator (job satisfaction); third, the mediator (job satisfaction) should affect the dependent variable (employee job performance). To establish full mediation, the direct effect of extraversion on employee job performance should become non-significant when controlling for job satisfaction. Finally, to test the significance of our mediation model, we performed the Sobel test (Sobel, 1982).
RESULTS Correlations
11
correlated with employee job performance (B = -.26, p < .01), but not significantly correlated with extraversion (B = .00, p > .10) and job satisfaction (B = .08, p > .10).
--- Insert Table 1 about here. --- Hierarchical regressions
In Table 2, the regression analyses are shown. In every regression we include the control variables gender and age. Results first showed that extraversion is not significantly related to employee job performance (B = .09, p > .10). Therefore, we can state that hypothesis 1 is rejected. Following hypotheses 2, results showed that extraversion is positively and significantly related to job satisfaction (B = .14, p < .05). Therefore, we can state that hypothesis 2 is confirmed. Moreover, results showed that job satisfaction is positively and significantly related to employee job
performance (B = .22, p < .01). Therefore, we can state that hypothesis 3 is confirmed. In the fourth regression we can see that job satisfaction is positively and significantly related to employee job performance again (B = .21, p < .01). Extraversion is again not significantly related to employee job performance (B = .06, p > .10), and the strength of the relationship (coefficient) is lower than in the second regression (B = .09, p > .10). The Sobel test showed that this decrease is significant using a one-tailed probability (Z = 1.66, p < .05), and marginally significant using a two-tailed
12
--- Insert Table 2 about here. ---
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Summary of results
The results showed that most of the hypotheses of this study were confirmed. Hypothesis 1 is the only one that was rejected, because there was no significant direct relationship between extraversion and employee job performance. In line with
hypotheses 2 and 3, we found positive and significant relationships between extraversion and job satisfaction, and between job satisfaction and employee job performance. Finally, because we found evidence for partial mediation, also hypothesis 4 was confirmed.
Theoretical and managerial implications
13
other people, like psychologists and marketing executives). This bring us to the conclusion that extraverts do not perform better in general than employees who score lower on extraversion. This may be an explanation for the insignificant relationship between extraversion and employee job performance.
In line with earlier mentioned literature, we found that extraverts are more satisfied with their jobs (e.g. Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000; Furnham & Zacherl, 1986; Hart, 1999; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002) and that job satisfaction has a positive relationship with employee job performance (Iaffaldano and Muchinsky, 1985). Thus, we complement research by adding additional empirical evidence for these relationships.
Importantly, we add to the stream of literature about the relationship between personality and employee job performance, that job satisfaction can act as a mediator in the relationship between extraversion and employee job performance. This fills a gap in the literature, because there was not much known about mediators that may explain the relationship between extraversion and employee job performance. Therefore, now we know that more (compared to less) extraverted people perform better by having more job satisfaction. However, given that we found evidence for partial mediation, there are also other important mediators in the relationship between extraversion and employee job performance. We come back to this with discussing future directions.
There are also multiple managerial implications of this research. For
14
including the Big 5 personality dimensions. Employees scoring high on extraversion are earlier satisfied with their job than employees scoring low on extraversion, and by having more job satisfaction the employees scoring high on extraversion perform their jobs better than the employees scoring low on extraversion. However, as we explained earlier, it is not in general the case that more (compared to less) extraverted people perform their jobs better. Therefore, managers cannot hire employees just because they score high on extraversion. It depends on the situation, on the type of job, and on what sort of employees the manager need. Therefore, to ensure that their employees fulfill their jobs in an effective manner, managers also have to look at person-job fits, and examine whether the vacant job is more suitable for extraverts or introverts. Limitations and future directions
Although this research has clear implications, there are some improvement points of this research. The theory used for the relationship between extraversion and employee job performance was too general. In the future, it would be better to focus on specific situations and/or specific type of jobs. For example, we could have
included theories about person-job fit (Edwards, 1991). Because we cannot claim that more (compared to less) extraverted employees perform their job better in general, this relationship seems to be situation-dependent. It is interesting for the literature and for managers to know in which situations and/or in which specific type of jobs more (compared to less) extraverted people perform their job better. This is a good point for future research.
15
Although multi-source data is already a big plus to empirical research, we could, for example, also have included performance ratings from employees’ yearly appraisals.
Finally, we concluded that job satisfaction acted as a partial mediator in the relationship between extraversion and employee job performance. As earlier
mentioned, this means that there are more mediators than job satisfaction. A next step for research could be searching for other mediators between extraversion and
employee job performance. An example is to test well-being as a mediator in this relationship. Costa and McCrae (1980) argued that extraversion has a positive relationship with being, and Wright and Cropanzano (2000) argued that well-being is a predictor of employee job performance. Therefore, well-well-being could be another important mediator between extraversion and employee job performance. Conclusion
Employees scoring high on extraversion are very useful for companies,
because they in general experience higher job satisfaction than employees scoring low on extraversion. In addition, higher job satisfaction in general leads to better
employee job performance. Concluding, job satisfaction can partly explain why extraversion leads to higher employee job performance.
REFERENCES
Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51.6, 1173-1182.
16
Barrick, M., & Mount, M. (1993). Autonomy as a Moderator of the Relationship Between the Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology 78.1, 111-118.
Brayfield, A., & Crockett, W. (1955). Employee attitude and employee performance.
Psychological bulletin 52.5, 396-424.
Brayfield, A., & Rothe, H. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of applied
psychology 35.5, 307-311.
Connolly, J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2000). The role of affectivity in job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Personality and individual differences 29.2, 265-281.
Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on
subjective well-being: happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 38.4, 668-678.
Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO personality inventory. Psychological Assessment 4.1, 5-13.
Edwards, J. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. In C. Cooper, & I. Robertson, International review of
industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 6 (pp. 283-357). Oxford: John
Wiley & Sons.
Furnham, A., & Zacherl, M. (1986). Personality and job satisfaction. Personality and
Individual Differences 7.4, 453-459.
Goldberg, L. (1990). An alternative ''Description of Personality'': The Big-Five Structure. Journal of personality and social psychology 59.6, 1216-1229. Hart, P. (1999). Predicting employee life satisfaction: A coherent model of
personality, work and nonwork experiences, and domain satisfaction. Journal
17
Hurtz, G., & Donovan, J. (2000). Personality and job performance: the Big Five revisited. Journal of applied psychology 85.6, 869-879.
Iaffaldano, M., & Muchinsky, P. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin 97.2, 251-273.
John, O., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History,
measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. Pervin, & O. John, Handbook
of personality: Theory and research 2 (pp. 102-138). New York: The Guilford
Press.
Judge, T., Bono, J., & Locke, E. (2000). Personality and Job Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Job Characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology 85.2, 237-249.
Judge, T., Erez, A., & Bono, J. (1998). The power of being positive: The relation between positive self-concept and job performance. Human Performance
11.2-3, 167-187.
Judge, T., Heller, D., & Mount, M. (2002). Five-Factor Model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 87.3, 530-541. Judge, T., Thoresen, C., Bono, J., & Patton, G. (2001). The job satisfaction-job
performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological
Bulletin 127.3, 376-407.
Kraus, S. (1995). Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Personality and social psychology bulletin 21.1, 58-75. Locke, E. (1969). What is Job Satisfaction? Organizational behavior and human
performance 4.4, 309-336.
Locke, E. (1970). Job satisfaction and job performance: A theoretical analysis.
18
Locke, E. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. Dunnette,
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349).
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating effects of job satisfaction.
Personnel Psychology 59.3, 591-622.
O'Reilly, C. (1977). Personality-job fit: Implications for individual attitudes and performance. Organizational behavior and human performance 18.1, 36-46. Petty, M., McGee, G., & Cavender, J. (1984). A meta-analysis of the relationships
between individual job satisfaction and individual performance. Academy of
management Review 9.4, 712-721.
Salgado, J. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology 82.1, 30-43.
Schwab, D., & Cummings, L. (1970). Theories of performance and satisfaction: A review. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society 9.4, 408-430. Sobel, M. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural
equation models. Socialogical methodology 13, 290-312.
Tett, R., Jackson, D., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology 44.4, 703-742.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. (2000). Perspectives on models of job performance.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment 8.4, 216-226.
19
Wayne, S., Shore, L., & Liden, R. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of
Management Journal 40.1, 82-111.
Wright, T., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as predictors of job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
20
TABLE 1: CORRELATION TABLE
M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Gender1 1.63 .49
2. Age 40.91 11.84 .02
3. Extraversion 3.85 .60 .13** .00 (.78)
4. Job satisfaction 4.18 .65 .14** .08 .15** (.85)
5. Employee job performance 4.18 .73 -.00 -.26*** .08 .18*** (.86)
1 Dummy coded, 1 = male, 2 = female
* p < .10 ** p < .05 *** p < .01
21
TABLE 2: HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION TABLE
Job satisfaction Employee job performance: Leader ratings Predictors 1 Control variables Gender1 .17 (.08)** .00 (.09) -.03 (.09) -.04 (.09) Age .00 (.00) -.02 (.00)*** -.02 (.00)*** -.02 (.00)*** 2 Main effects Extraversion .14 (.07)** .09 (.08) .06 (.08) Job satisfaction .22 (.07)*** .21 (.07)*** R2 .04 .07 .10 .11
1 Dummy coded, 1 = male, 2 = female
* p < .10 ** p < .05 *** p < .01
