THE EFFECTS OF AFFECTIVITY ON JOB PERFORMANCE ACROSS JOB TYPES

THE EFFECTS OF AFFECTIVITY ON JOB PERFORMANCE ACROSS JOB TYPES J.N. MURRE

Master Thesis, MSc HRM

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

ABSTRACT

Interest in and research about the effects of a person’s trait affectivity on job performance

have extended remarkably in recent years, yet little work has specifically tried to determine

these effects across various jobs types. Hence, the present study examines the effects of

positive affectivity (PA) on task performance, and it investigates perceived job complexity

and perceived emotional demands as moderating job characteristics in this relationship.

Hypotheses were tested in a sample of 138 individuals from 25 independent work teams.

Contrary to my expectations, results showed that PA did not predict task performance, and

that neither perceived job complexity nor perceived emotional demands moderated the

relationship between PA and task performance. Discussion focuses on the theoretical and

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, many researchers have been investigating affectivity and its effects on job

performance in organizations (e.g., Barsade & Gibson, 2007; Elfenbein, 2005; Johnson,

Tolentino, Rodopman & Cho, 2010; Kaplan, Bradley, Luchman & Haynes, 2009; Ruthig,

Perry, Hladkyj, Hall, Pekrun & Chipperfield, 2008; Van Yperen, 2003). An important reason

for this increasing interest is the general finding that a person’s feelings can influence

organizational performance. One question that remains, however, is: in what specific job

types can such feelings be most impactful for organizations and employees?

This thesis presents a research on the effects of positive affectivity (PA) on task

performance and the moderating effect of job types. PA is known in the literature as a long-

term experience of positive feelings like enthusiasm, alertness and joviality and is related to

optimism and extraversion (Kaplan et al., 2009; Watson & Clark, 1988). Being high on PA

means that an individual often experiences high energy, full concentration and pleasurable

engagement, whereas a low PA accounts for frequent experiences of sadness and melancholy

(Watson & Clark, 1988; Watson, Wiese, Vaidya & Tellegen, 1999). PA, as a trait affect (i.e. a

stable personality characteristic), should not be confused with state affect, which are

short-term mood experiences. Deficits in PA play a role in the loss of pleasure in activities,

melancholic depression, and reduction in goal-directed behavior, therefore organizations can

benefit from being aware of the emotions and traits workers are dealing with (Watson et al.,

1999).

A recent meta-analysis by Kaplan et al. (2009) showed evidence of PA predicting

individual employees’ task performance. Task performance is described by Rotundo and

Sackett (2002) as the activities, tasks or responsibilities that are formally part of the job and

that are contributing to the organization’s technical core. Baron (1990) found that individuals

require creativity. Experiencing PA makes an individual more helpful and these effects can

therefore be beneficial for teamwork. However, these effects might differ per context in which

the worker is performing tasks.

We cannot expect PA to be equally effective in all jobs, as the environment and the context

in which the worker operates differ per organization. A routine job which is very well

structured has static procedures and little space for personal initiative. Therefore, it may be

less affected by PA than a more complex job, for example, which requires more personal

initiative and has more unanticipated challenges (Chung-Yan & Butler, 2011). Moreover,

Kaplan et al.’s (2009) meta-analysis suggests that performance will benefit more from PA in

contexts that impose high emotional demands on employees.

Though several researchers have acknowledged the effects of PA on an employee’s tasks,

few of them have investigated the effects across different job types. Barsade and Gibson

(2007) and George (1991) point to a specific study involving salespeople and how PA affects

their work-related performance and behavior, but next to that literature is limited. Moreover,

simply selecting one or more certain job types can be problematic, as employees generally

perceive characteristics of jobs to vary, despite objective similarities (Stone & Gueutal, 1985).

A more reliable way to assess the PA-task performance linkage across job types is therefore to

focus on certain perceived characteristics of the job and on the extent to which employees

perceive these to represent their job.

To address this issue, the present research will examine two potential moderators for the

PA-task performance linkage, focusing on perceived job complexity and perceived emotional

demands of the job in particular (see Figure 1). A job is perceived to be complex when it is

mentally challenging, requires a number of complex skills, has a lack of structure and is

characterized by ambiguity and difficulty (Chung-Yan & Butler, 2011; Humphrey, Nahrgang

measure job characteristics (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Scott, 1987; Sims, Szilagyi & Keller,

1976; Stone & Gueutal, 1985) and it is therefore a well-known job feature. Furthermore, Taris

& Schreurs (2009) describe jobs to be emotionally demanding when they require the worker

to display certain emotional expressions as part of their tasks and deal with high numbers of

clients. This second moderator shows some overlap with emotional labor (EL), which is what

employees perform in job-relevant interactions that require them to express or project certain

emotions (Blau, Fertig, Tatum, Connaughton, Park and Marshall, 2010; Brotheridge &

Grandey, 2002). The extent to which this interaction is present differs per job: employees

engaged in “people work” (i.e. service employees, human service workers) usually report

higher levels of emotional demands than clerical workers (Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002).

--- Insert Figure 1 about here ---

In sum, this thesis attempts to make a contribution to the PA-task performance literature by

providing new insights in PA’s effects across job types. So far, the PA-task performance

relationship has been extensively researched by many scholars and its effects are well

documented, yet little work has specifically tried to determine these effects across various job

types. Kaplan et al. (2009) already requested for further research in this area. This thesis is

among the first ones to step out of the comfort zone by involving two job characteristics as

moderators and will therefore provide a fuller picture of the PA-task performance

relationship.

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

The question whether and how an employee’s positive feelings influence their work

performance has been intriguing researchers for a long time. Especially effects on job

contextual performance, OCB and CWB (Dalal, 2005; Cacioppo, Gardner & Berntson, 1999;

Spector & Fox, 2002; Watson et al., 1999; Williams & Shiaw, 1999). The present study pays

attention to the third dimension of job performance, task performance, which too has been a

center of attention in previous research (Baron, 1990; Barsade & Gibson, 2007; Johnson,

Tolentino, Rodopman & Cho, 2010; Kaplan et al., 2009; Van Yperen, 2003).

The expected positive relationship between PA and task performance can be explained by

several reasons. First, PA has been argued and shown to facilitate creative problem solving,

effective decision making and flexible cognitive processing (e.g., Baron, 1990; Barsade &

Gibson, 2007; Johnson et al., 2010). In many jobs, these are requirements for effective task

performance. This was confirmed by the research of Baron (1990), who showed that

employees high in PA organize information differently and perform more effectively on

difficult tasks that involve creative problem solving. Baron (1990) adds to this that PA

increases benevolence towards others, which can be useful in negotiations or conflicts, as

benevolence may enhance cooperativeness and reduces anger. Such behavior is referred to as

a form of role-prescribed prosocial behavior by George (1991), which is more likely to be

expressed by employees with high PA. George (1991) also showed in her research that in a

service setting, such role-prescribed prosocial behavior was positively associated with sales

performance.

The second explanation results from performance expectancies held by the worker (i.e.

expectancy theory; Reinhard & Dickhäuser, 2011). Before executing a task, one typically has

expectancies of how one will perform on the task. The formation of these expectancies is

partially influenced by one’s self-perceived ability and task difficulty (Reinhard &

Dickhäuser, 2011). Moreover, Kaplan et al. (2009) and Barsade and Gibson (2007) confirm

that PA is associated with positive moods, optimism, confidence, and self-efficacy, which all

expectations and a more confident approach to interpersonal tasks, he or she will select and

complete more demanding goals, demonstrate greater determination and engage in effective

problem-solving strategies (Barsade & Gibson, 2007). Reinhard and Dickhäuser (2011) did an

empirical research in this area and demonstrated that both positive moods and performance

expectancies predict performance. Individuals with higher expectancies tried harder, which

resulted in a better performance.

Finally, in addition to the expectancy theory, Forgas and George (2001) argued that PA

also stimulates ongoing motivation while performing a task. Motivation makes the employee

strive for higher performance. Logically, these tendencies should foster behaviors beneficial

to task performance. Next to that, Johnson et al. (2010) also empirically showed that PA has a

consistent positive relationship with task performance. They argued that nowadays the nature

of work is more interdependent, and therefore achieving high task performance requires

effective social interactions. A high state of PA is beneficial in such situations, as it increases

social cohesion and interaction at work and entails tendencies to be receptive to others

(Johnson et al., 2010; Watson et al., 1988).

Hence, I propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: PA will be positively related to task performance.

I suggest, however, that an employee’s perceived job complexity will moderate the

association between his or her PA and task performance. Hackman and Oldham (1976) argue

that every worker responds differently to the complexity of a job, depending on their

personality. As noted before, PA leads to creative problem solving, effective problem solving

strategies, optimistic goal setting, and flexible cognitive processing. These features appear

greater autonomy, vary in skills needed, are less routine, and require the employee to

complete a whole and identifiable piece of work (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Scott, 1967;

Stone & Gueutal, 1985). Hence, a high PA can be particularly beneficial when dealing with

complex aspects of a job.

Moreover, as noted before, individuals high in PA persist longer in tasks than individuals

low in PA, as they are thought to be more achievement oriented (Fortunato & Williams,

2006). Hence, the challenges and difficulties provided by complex tasks might be seen as

opportunities for rewards by those with high PA. Research by Fortunato and Williams (2006)

showed, accordingly, that individuals high in PA preferred difficult tasks over easy ones and

showed more positive task attitudes (i.e. task enjoyment, task satisfaction) when they were

facing those difficult tasks. Logically, this might motivate them to achieve a higher

performance. As Mohd-Sanusi and Iskandar (2007) state accordingly, motivation inspires

correct behaviors that may increase performance. All in all, this reasoning suggests that

employees’ performance may benefit from high PA to a particularly great extent in highly

complex jobs.

On the other hand, PA should largely be unrelated with performance in jobs with low job

complexity. First of all, Forgas and George (2001) state that PA promotes a more flexible,

open and generative processing style. It also positively affects the selection of the most useful

thoughts and memories where elaborate processing is required. In low complexity jobs that

are often characterized by routine actions, little flexibility, and a lot of structure, there is less

need for such creative and constructive thinking. The employee will be able to use more

standard procedures and simple processing strategies in this type of job. Therefore, low

complexity jobs are less likely to benefit from PA. Second, low complex jobs often represent

low utilization of an employee’s abilities (Grebner, Semmer, Faso, Gut, Kälin, & Elfering,

even increased intention to quit (Chung-Yan, 2010; Grebner et al., 2003). Hence, the

employee is less mentally challenged under conditions of low task variety and routine, and

presumably benefits less from PA in low complex jobs.

Taken together, I expect a positive influence of job complexity on the PA-task

performance relationship.

Hypothesis 2: Job complexity moderates the positive relationship between PA and task

performance, such that this relationship is more pronounced under conditions of higher

rather than lower job complexity.

Employees with high PA are in general more often experiencing positive feelings like

moods and emotions (Barsade & Gibson, 2007; Duffy, Ganster & Shaw, 1998). The extent to

which one is required to actually express these emotions on the job and engage in emotional

interactions depends on role expectations and display rules, causing emotional demands

(Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987). Hence, the current research is focused on the extent to which

employees perceive their job as emotionally demanding, and I suggest such emotional

demands to moderate the role of PA for task performance.

Taris and Schreurs (2009) describe a job to be emotionally demanding when it requires the

employee to comply with specific display rules that are governing their emotional expressions

in order to influence their clients’ feelings, attitudes and behaviors, thereby improving

organizational outcomes. For many occupations the display rules encourage positive

emotional expressions, for example in service occupations (Trougakos, Jackson, & Beal,

2011; Walter & Lam, 2012). When the required emotions are congruent with the feelings an

employee actually experiences, emotional harmony exists (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987). For

employees high in PA, to comply with display rules and express positive emotions such as

enthusiasm and optimism are part of their natural affective tendencies, the employee will

unintentionally comply with the display rules even if he or she is not aware of them.

Consequently, the authentic positive expressions will be beneficial for task performance

(Walter & Lam, 2012). For example, in a customer service job with high emotional demands,

an employee with high PA may be able to draw on his or her natural affect to comply with

existing display rules, and transfer (i.e. intentional or unintentional) positive emotion

expressions toward customers (Trougakos et al., 2011). Conveying expressions of positive

affect tends to elevate the mood of customers and also allows the employee to better attune to

the other (Barsade & Gibson, 2007; Verbeke, 1997; Taris & Schreurs, 2009). As such, the

employee’s PA may help him or her to meet a critical job requirement and, therefore, achieve

high task performance.

On the other hand, emotional demands are not equally central to all workers and all jobs

(Taris & Schreurs, 2009). In jobs that are not perceived to be emotionally demanding,

employees with high PA will benefit less from their affective trait. For example, employees

are not required to express positive emotions to achieve high job performance, as task

performance is determined largely by other factors than meeting emotional display rules.

Therefore, employees high in PA will benefit less from increased benevolence towards others

and authentic expressions, but may still experience additional benefit from the

decision-making effectiveness and increased creativity aspect of PA. As such, it appears that PA may

be particularly favorable in jobs that impose high emotional demands for expressions of

positive affect and less beneficial in jobs where positive display rules are low. Hence:

Hypothesis 3: Perceived emotional demands of the job moderates the positive relationship

between PA and task performance, such that this relationship is more pronounced under

METHODS Sample description and data collection

In total employees from 25 teams have agreed to participate in the present research. These

teams were derived from 22 different organizations in 17 different areas, for example:

hospitality, sports, energy, publishing, education, and e-business. All organizations were

approached based on previous personal contacts between the researcher and the particular

organization. In total, a sample of 138 individuals (i.e., employees) provided their cooperation

(response rate = 50.5%). The participants in this study were primarily female (68.8%),

between 17 and 60 years old (M = 31.5) and have been employed by the company for 5.5

years on average.

A survey was distributed to all individual participants involved, either online using

thesistools.com or via paper and pencil, to measure self-rated PA, job complexity, emotional

demands of the job, and task performance. Validated scales were translated into Dutch by the

researcher and cross checked by an independent reader to eliminate spelling errors or

incorrect translations. Surveys were returned directly to the researchers, and confidentiality

was assured.

Measures

Positive affectivity. The level of PA was measured using 9 items of the Dutch version of the Job-related Affective Well-being Scale (JAWS) by Schaufeli and Van Rhenen (2006).

Participants were asked to rate all items on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = almost never, 7 =

daily, α = .84). The respective items include enthusiastic, satisfied, contented, excited, at ease,

energetic, relaxed, inspired, and calm.

Task performance. The original perceived group task performance scale by Conger, Kanungo and Menon (2000) was converted to the individual level in order to fit the present

perception (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree, α = .82). Example items are: “I always

have a high work performance” and “I always set a high standard of task accomplishment”.

Perceived job complexity. To measure job complexity, a semantic differential scale was used based on the “My Job” scale by Scott (1967). Originally the scale consists of 25 items,

however, only the seven items with the strongest loadings in Scott’s study (Scott, 1967; i.e.

.55 or higher) were selected and used in the current research (α = .72). Examples of items are:

“interesting-boring”, “complex-simple”, and “varied-routine”. Participants were asked to rate

each item by placing a mark under the quantifier “extremely” if the item was closely related to

one end of the scale (in their perception). If they perceived the item to be quite closely related,

but not extremely, the participants marked the quantifier “quite”, and so on. Overall, a

seven-point scale was used. If the participant felt that the item could not be applied to his or her job,

or perceived the item to be neutral, he or she marked “neither one nor the other”. This

measure was coded such that higher scores indicate higher job complexity.

Perceived emotional demands. A five-item scale from Taris and Schreurs (2009) was used to measure the perceived emotional demands of the job. Participants rated the items from their

perception (1 = not at all, 7 = to a large degree, α = .83), for example: “Are you in your work

confronted with things that really upset you emotionally”.

Control variables. According to the meta-analysis by Else-Quest, Hyde, Goldsmith and Van Hulle (2006), women score higher on smiling, openness, and positive emotions than men

do. Therefore, gender was included as potential control. Participants reported their gender at

the end of the survey (1 = male, 2 = female). Further, as workers age, they typically grow in

their job. They often receive more responsibilities, because they have gained experience

during the years, potentially increasing the level of job complexity. Based on this information,

age and tenure were also included as potential controls and answered by the participant at the

RESULTS

Table 1 summarizes means, standard deviations and correlations for all variables. The

significant correlations are limited. Regarding to the conceptual model of this thesis, there

was only one significant correlation: PA is positively correlated with task performance (r =

.17, p < .05).

When looking at the control variables it becomes clear that gender is positively correlated

with PA (r = .18, p < .05), indicating that women scored higher on PA. As I expected, age

showed a significant correlation with both perceived job complexity (r = .19, p <.05) and

tenure (r = .70, p < .01). The older the worker gets, the longer they work for the organization,

and the more complex their job usually gets. As age and tenure are highly correlated with

each other, I will only control for gender and age in testing the hypotheses in order to

decrease the effects of multicollinearity (Blumberg, Cooper & Schindler, 2008).

--- Insert Table 1 about here ---

Moderated hierarchical regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses. The results of

this analysis are presented in Table 2. Model 1 of the analysis in Table 2 shows a significant

and positive relationship between gender and task performance (β = .19, p <.05).

--- Insert Table 2 about here ---

In the second step, PA was added to the analysis. Contrary to my expectations, there was

no significant relationship with task performance (β = .14, p > .05). In the following steps,

the main effects and interaction terms were added, but the PA-task performance relationship

remained insignificant (β = .13, p > .05 in both step 3 and 4). Hence, Hypothesis 1 was not

In the third step, the moderating variables were added to the analysis. Neither perceived

job complexity nor perceived emotional demands were significantly related with task

performance. The fourth and final step included the interaction terms of PA and perceived job

complexity as well as perceived emotional demands. As Table 2 shows, both interaction terms

were not significantly related to employee’s ratings of task performance (β = .01 , p > .05 for

perceived job complexity and β = .03, p > .05 for perceived emotional demands).

Additionally, the fourth step did not explain any variance in the analysis (∆R² = .00). Both

interaction coefficients were also tested separately, in order to check for differences. Still,

however, none of them was significant. Hence, Hypothesis 2 and 3 were not supported.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this research was to create insight in possible differences in the relationship

between PA and task performance across job types. To assess job types, I focused on two

specific perceived characteristics of the job, i.e. perceived job complexity and perceived

emotional demands. The results of this study were somewhat unexpected, as there was no

support for my hypotheses.

The present study extended prior research on PA by considering job characteristics as a

moderator in the relationship with task performance. The major part of previous research in

the area of affectivity shows a positive and significant relationship with task performance

(Baron, 1990; Barsade & Gibson, 2007; Kaplan et al., 2009; George, 1991; Wright & Staw,

1999). Therefore, the lack of main effect in the current research is an interesting outcome. The

meta-analysis by Kaplan et al. (2009) already argued that PA may relate differently to various

aspects of job performance and that there have been studies that demonstrated no significant

relationship between affectivity and performance. Forgas and George (2001) give an

explanation that may explain the lack of significance. High PA creates an ongoing motivation

might result in suboptimal performances because of rose-coloured perceptions. The employee

might misread his or her positive mood as indicating that he or she has done enough effort to

perform the task, which is especially dangerous when no previous standards are available. In

other words, the employee uses the personal affectivity to determine the adequacy of the

effort performed. This was confirmed by the findings of Fortunato & Williams (2006), who

argued that a high PA is more likely to signal that performance is going well and no additional

effort is needed. Additionally, Forgas and George (2001) showed that this had a negative

influence on situations where creativity was needed. Moreover, Judge and Ilies (2004) state

that being too positive about oneself might lead to exaggerated self-esteem. As a result, the

employee might experience loss in relationships with others and increased risk for depression

when he or she fails on a task.

For the second hypothesis, I proposed that perceived job complexity would moderate the

PA-task performance relationship. The results did not demonstrate a significant result for this

interaction effect. Chung-Yan and Butler (2011) argue that job complexity does indeed

motivate employees, but only to some extent. When job complexity exceeds the personal

capabilities of the employee, it will become aversive and negatively affect the employee

(Chung-Yan & Butler, 2011). In other words, job complexity might go along with both

positive and negative implications, which might explain the absence of a clear-cut interaction

effect.

Finally, the third hypothesis suggested a positive moderating effect for perceived

emotional demands in the PA-task performance relationship. The results did not confirm my

expectations, which can be explained by the average response for perceived emotional

demands which was rather low in the present research (M = 2.85, SD = 1.24). This means that

an emotionally demanding context in the current research may be explained by range

restriction.

Limitations

There are some limitations in this study that have to be kept in mind when interpreting the

results. First, the response rate of only 50.5% is rather low, which might result in

non-response bias. Moreover, the sample represented 22 organizations from 17 different areas,

meaning that the sample per area was rather small. Future research could achieve better

results by collecting larger samples per area, potentially obtaining more variance in terms of

perceived job characteristics.

Second, to measure task performance, participants rated their own performance from their

perception. As people that are in a good mood tend to recall more positive information from

their memory, making them to appraise their performance more positively (Forgas & George,

2001), supervisory ratings of task performance might have resulted in a more accurate

assessment.

A third limitation was found in the choice of the scale used to measure the level of positive

affect. Despite the fact that this scale has been validated and extensively used in previous

empirical research (i.e. Brotheridge & Lee, 2003; Johnson et al., 2010; Watson et al., 1988;

Watson et al., 1999), Wright and Staw (1999) question whether activation-based affect is a

good predictor of performance in all organizational settings. Their research showed a

relationship between affect and performance measured with a pleasantness-based predictor,

but none when measured with an activation-based predictor. In additional research, the source

of evaluation should be varied to get a better judgment.

Fourth, the present study employs a cross-sectional survey design, making it impossible to

conclusively establish the direction of causality. Given the amount of previous research

Johnson, Tolentino, Rodopman & Cho, 2010; Kaplan et al., 2009; Van Yperen, 2003), the

direction of causality that I suggest seems likely. Nevertheless, an experimental research

design is needed to gain more confidence about the direction of causality.

Finally, from a generalizability perspective, it has to be mentioned that the present research

was conducted in the Netherlands within Dutch companies only. Management and

organizations are penetrated with culture and likely to differ between countries (Hofstede,

1983). There is a reasonable chance that the same research would have different results when

conducted in a different country. For the present research this means that the results are only

valid for a Dutch organizational context.

Future research directions

The limitations aside, scholars could expand the present research by adding to or replacing

the current moderating variables. This study focuses on two specific job characteristics in

order to assess the effects of PA across job types. Examining alternative, extra characteristics

might raise new insights and results. For example, replacing emotional demands with display

rules would give a narrower view on the expression of emotions on the job. Display rules can

enforce the PA-task performance relationship, as strong display rules enable employees high

in PA to benefit from their natural affective tendencies (Walter & Lam, 2012). However,

display rules can also have adverse outcomes, like stress, because it asks for the suppression

of emotions. Therefore it can also hinder performance (Taris & Schreurs, 2009; Trougakos et

al. 2011). Hence, it would be interesting to investigate display rules as a moderator.

Autonomy might also be a characteristic to be examined in future research, as in the present

research the complexity-scale by Scott (1967) does not include this characteristic. In jobs that

are high in autonomy, employees usually have to deal more with decision making and

negotiating (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). PA, on its turn, has a positive influence on decision

Furthermore, examining positive mood in combination with positive trait affectivity might

be an interesting addition to the present study. Kaplan et al. (2009) suggests that it is the

interaction between state and trait affect best predicts behavior. In accordance with this

suggestion, George (1991) states that although PA influences positive moods at work, it is the

positive mood that leads to prosocial behavior at work. For example, employees high in PA

may not necessarily experience positive moods at work because of situational factors. Hence,

the influence of PA on task performance might be stronger when employees are experiencing

congruent moods. Therefore, adding positive mood as a moderator might be interesting for the

PA-task performance relationship.

Expanding the performance concept with OCB could also be a valuable contribution to the

understanding of the effects of PA. Especially extrarole behaviors, like helping coworkers,

making constructing suggestions, and spreading goodwill might give a more complete

impression of performance (Forgas & George, 2001). This could also give a different result in

the present study, as people have different perceptions of performance. Earlier research by

Wright and Staw (1999) already suggested that aspects of behavior like being ‘attentive’ or

‘assisting coworkers’ could take on more importance than actual task performance from an

employee’s perception. So, varying the type of performance and the source of evaluation (i.e.

also let the supervisor rate the employee’s performance) makes it possible for future research

to judge generalizability.

Practical implications

This paper has taken the first steps towards the understanding of the PA-task performance

relationship across job types. As in previous research, positive correlation was found between

PA and task performance, however, this correlation disappears when controlling for other

basic demographics. Hence, the effects of PA might be weaker than previously assumed. The

Notwithstanding the possible limitations, the present study suggests that an employee’s PA

might be an important resource to increase task performance. Therefore, organizations need to

take measures to optimally benefit from employees’ PA and increase the functionality of

affect in work behavior. For example, Kaplan et al. (2009) argues that attempts to enhance

employee performance and well-being should entail promoting positive emotions and

minimize negative ones. Also, frequent positive interactions and environmental events can

result in lasting changes in well-being, thereby influencing the working environment in such a

way that it satisfies the employee (Kaplan et al., 2009).

I hope that the present findings enable future scholars to broaden the current knowledge

about the effects of PA and how they can differ across job types, eventually contributing to a

REFERENCES

Baron, R. A. 1990. Environmentally induced positive affect: Its impact on self-efficacy, task

performance, negotiation, and conflict. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20(5):

368-384.

Barsade, S.G. & Gibson, D.E. 2007. Why does affect matters in organizations? Academy of

Management Perspectives, 21(1): 36-59.

Blau, G., Fertig, J., Tatum, D.S., Connaughton, S., Park, D.S. & Marshall, C. 2010. Further

scale refinement for emotional labor. Career Development International, 15(2):

188-216.

Blumberg, B., Cooper, D.R. & Schindler, P.S. 2008. Business research methods (2nd ed.).

New York: McGraw-Hill Education.

Brotheridge, C.M. & Grandey, A.A. 2002. Emotional labour and burnout: Comparing two

perspectives of “people work”. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60: 17-39.

Cacioppo, J.T., Gardner, W.L. & Berntson, G.G. 1999. The affect system has parallel and

integrative processing components: Form follows function. Journal of Personality &

Social Psychology, 76(5): 839-855.

Chung-Yan, G.A. & Butler, A.M. 2011. Proactive personality in the context of job

complexity. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 43(4): 279-286.

Chung-Yan, G.A. 2010. The nonlinear effects of job complexity and autonomy on job

satisfaction, turnover, and psychological well-being. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 15(3): 237-251.

Conger, J.A., Kanungo, R.N. & Menon, S.T. 2000. Charismatic leadership and follower

effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21: 747-767.

Dalal, R.S. 2005. A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship

Duffy, M.K., Ganster, D.C. & Shaw, J.D. 1998. Positive affectivity and negative outcomes:

The role of tenure and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6):

950-959.

Eisenkraft, N. & Elfenbein, H.A. 2010. The way you make me feel: Evidence for individual

differences in affective presence. Psychological Science, 21(4): 505-510.

Else-Quest, N.M., Hyde, J.S., Goldsmith, H.H. & Van Hulle, C.A. 2006. Gender differences

in temperament. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1): 33-72.

Forgas, J.P. & George, J.M. 2001. Affective influences on judgments and behavior in

organizations: An information processing perspective. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 86(1): 3-34.

Fortunato, V.J. & Williams, K.J. 2002. The moderating effect of dispositional affectivity on

performance and task attitudes in a goal-setting context. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 32(11): 2321-2353.

George, J. M. 1991. State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at work.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2): 299-307.

Grebner, S., Semmer, S.K., Faso, L.L., Gut, S., Kälin, W. & Elfering, A. 2003. Working

conditions, well-being, and job-related attitudes among call centre agents. European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12(4): 341-365.

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.

Hofstede, G. 1983. The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of

International Business Studies, 14(2): 75-89.

Humphrey, S.E., Nahrgang, J.D. & Morgeson, F.P. 2007. Integrating motivational, social, and

contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension

Johnson, R.E., Tolentino, A.L., Rodopman, O.B. & Cho, E. 2010. We (sometimes) know how

we not feel: Predicting job performance with an implicit measure of trait affectivity.

Personnel Psychology, 63: 197-219.

Judge, T.A. & Ilies, R. 2004. Is positiveness in organizations always desirable? Academy of

Management Executives, 18(4): 151-155.

Kaplan, S., Bradley, J.C. Luchman, J.N. & Haynes, D. 2009. On the role of positive and

negative affectivity in job performance: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 94(1): 162-176.

Mohd-Sanusi, Z. & Iskandar, T.M. 2007. Audit judgment performance: Assessing the effect

of performance incentives, effort and task complexity. Managerial Auditing Journal,

22(1): 34-52.

Reinhard, M. & Dickhäuser, O. 2011. How affective states, task difficulty, and self-concepts

influence the formation and consequences of performance expectancies. Cognition

and Emotions, 25(2): 220-228.

Rafaeli A. & Sutton, R.I. 1987. Expression of emotion as part of the work role. Academy of

Management Review, 12(01): 23-37.

Rotundo, M. & Sackett, P.R. 2002. The relative importance of task, citizenship, and

counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A

policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1): 66-80.

Schaufeli, W. & Van Rhenen, W. 2006. Over de rol van positieve en negatieve emoties bij het

welbevinden van managers: Een studie met de Job-related Affective Well-being Scale

(JAWS). Gedrag en Organisatie, 19(4): 323-344.

Scott, W.E. 1967. The development of semantic differential scales as measures of “morale”.

Personnel Psychology, 20 (2), 179-198.

Academy of Management Journal, 19(2): 195-212.

Spector, P.E. & Fox, S. 2002. An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some

parallels between counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship

behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 12: 269-292.

Stone, E.F. & Gueutal, H.G. 1985. An empirical derivation of the dimensions along which

characteristics of jobs are perceived. Academy of Management Journal, 28(2):

376-396.

Taris, T.W. & Schreurs, P.J.G. 2009. Explaining worker strain and learning: How important

are emotional job demands? Anxiety, stress and coping, 22(3): 245-262.

Trougakos, J.P., Jackson, C.L. & Beal, D.J. 2011. Service without a smile: Comparing the

consequences of neutral and positive display rules. Journal of Applied Psychology,

96(2): 360-362.

Van Yperen, N.W. 2003. On the link between different combinations of Negative Affectivity

(NA) and Positive Affectivity (PA) and job performance. Personality and Individual

Differences, 35: 1873-1881.

Verbeke, W. 1997. Individual differences in emotional contagion of salespersons: Its effects

on performance and burnout. Psychology & Marketing, 14(6): 617-636.

Walter, F. & Lam, C. 2012. Display rules and job performance: Employees’ affect as

moderator. Working paper, University of Groningen.

Watson, D., Clark, L.A. & Tellegen, A. 1988. Development and validation of brief measures

of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 54(6): 1063-1070.

Watson, D., Wiese, D. , Vaidya, J. & Tellegen, A. 1999. The two general activation systems

of affect: Structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological

Williams, S. & Shiaw, W.T. 1999. Mood and organizational citizenship behavior: The effects

of positive affect on employee organizational citizenship behavior intentions. The

Journal of Psychology, 133(6): 656-668.

Wright, T.A. & Staw, B.M. 1999. Affect and favorable outcomes: Two longitudinal tests of

TABLES AND FIGURES

FIGURE 1

Conceptual model: expected relationships.

-

+

TABLE 1

Descriptive statistics and correlations

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Task performance 5.19 1.02 -

2. Positive affectivity 5.30 .73 .17* -

3. Perceived job complexity 4.42 1.05 .12 .13 -

4. Perceived emotional demands 2.85 1.24 .02 -.06 .15 -

5. Gender 1.69 .46 .16 .18* -.09 .05 -

6. Age 31.38 11 .12 .01 .19* .15 -.18 - 7. Tenure 66.54 89.38 .10 .00 .15 .19* -.06 .70**

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

TABLE 2

Multilevel analysis of task performance

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model3 Model 4

β Sig. β Sig. β Sig. β Sig.

Gender .19 .03* .16 .06 .17 .05* .18 .05* Age .15 .08 .15 .09 .13 .14 .13 .14 Positive affectivity .14 .10 .13 .15 .13 .15 Perceived job complexity .10 .26 .10 .26 Perceived emotional demands -.01 .90 -.01 .94 Positive Affectivity * Perceived job complexity .01 .95 Positive Affectivity * Perceived emotional

demands

.03 .75

∆R² .05 .02 .01 .00

Sig. .04* .03* .06 .15