Conscientiousness and Job satisfaction
The moderating role of Transformational Leadership.
Master thesis
August, 2010
Word count: 4961
Allard Koen Vat
Paterswoldseweg 77a
9727 BB GRONINGEN
Tel: +31(0)6 21 26 13 50
Email: a.k.vat@student.rug.nl
Student number: s1838458
Supervisor; drs. N. Manheim
Human Resource Management
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
ABSTRACT
This study reports an exploration of the dispositional source of job satisfaction as the relationship with conscientiousness as a predictor is researched. The influence of leadership is also considered in this context by adding transformational leadership as a moderator. Theory expects the direct relationship between conscientiousness and satisfaction to be positive and that this relationship would only be stronger for high levels of transformational leadership. Results show a positive significant effect of conscientiousness on job satisfaction whereas no significant evidence is found for the moderating effect of transformational leadership in this research. However the latter leadership style correlates strongly positive with job satisfaction providing interesting new insights. The (inter)active role of a leader is more predictive of the level of job satisfaction than the personality of subordinates.
INTRODUCTION
influences the level of job satisfaction from a dispositional point of view. The associations of leadership styles with job satisfaction are a popular subject for scientific research as they have much value in daily business practice and can affect job satsfaction factors.
A rather large amount of research is dedicated to describing the relation between personality traits, also known as the Big Five (Goldberg, 1990), and outcome variables like job satisfaction (Furnham et al., 2009; Judge et al., 2002). The Big Five model of personality is seen as the most comprehensive and complete model for describing and measuring personality. The five dimensions (agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, openness, emotional stability (or lack of neuroticism), are supposed to measure and include all important aspects of personality, making the Big Five fundamental for any personality study. In an early study by Staw and Ross (1985) it was found that personality accounts for a significant proportion of the variance in job satisfaction. In their longitudinal study, the same authors found that job satisfaction remained consistent, independently from changing external factors such as the influence of employers and work environment, arguing for personality as a predictor of job satisfaction. Similarly it was found by Arvey et al. (1989) that besides the often studied effects of external factors, genetic influences account for 30 per cent of variance in job satisfaction. This implies that job satisfaction is, in part, dispositionally based (House, Shane & Herold, 1996; Staw & Ross, 1985).
a higher level of job satisfaction than non-conscientious individuals. The Big Five literature implies that emotional stability and conscientiousness respectively are the strongest and second strongest correlates to job satisfaction. Of these two, the correlation of conscientiousness with job satisfaction is much less elaborately studied than that of emotional stability. It is therefore considered to be more valuable for this study to research this relatively lesser known relationship.
it is likely that a transfomational leadership style has a positive effect on the level of job satisfaction of conscientious subordiates. A positive effect of TL on the relationship between conscientiousness and job satisfaction is therefore expected in this study.
In sum, conscientious individuals are expected to be more satisfied with their job than non-conscientious individuals and this relationship is strengthened by TL. The hypotheses resulting from this expectation will be tested among 168 individuals in a Dutch working context and are further explored in this study.
Theoretical framework
Conscientiousness
In general, conscientious individuals are well organized and prefer working orderly. It is reasonable to assume that these individuals take their job seriously and take satisfaction from doing their best and achieving their goals. Conscientious individuals place high value on the opportunity to make use of their skills and be responsible (Furnham, 2009). This is most likely a consequence of their achievement-oriented nature.
Job satisfaction
The relationship between Conscientiousness and Job Satisfaction
There is good reason for considering the personality trait conscientiousness as being of great influence on job satisfaction. In a meta-analysis done by Judge et al. (2002) the correlations of personality traits with job satisfaction were measured. Conscientiousness correlated relatively strong to job satisfaction (.26) as compared to openness (.02).
In an early work, Carl Jung (Jung, 1921) asserted that an individual‟s personality traits can predispose them to favoring particular ways of perceiving, understanding and behaving. This corresponds to the three job attitude dimensions that indicate the level of job satisfaction mentioned earlier. It is therefore very likely that the level of conscientiousness of an individual affects their level of job satisfaction.
Individuals with high levels of conscientiousness have a higher need to take responsibility and to achieve goals The orderly workstyle of conscientious individuals and the way they work decisively towards the achievement of their goals will increase the possibility of performing well.This aim for goal achievement increases their level of job satisfaction. The structured work style of the conscientious individual adds to a consistency in their achievements, work performance.and consequently their level of job satisfaction.
The first hypothesis that will be tested is formulated accordingly:
H1: There is a positive relationship between conscientiousness and job satisfaction. Figure 1
Theoretical Model
Transformational leadership
transforming the values and goals of their followers in order for them to become more aware of why they need to do what they are asked to do.
The moderating role of transformational leadership
The second hypothesis tested in this research concerns the moderating effect of TL on the relationship between conscientiousness and job satisfaction;
H2: Transformational leadership strengthens the positive relationship between conscientiousness and job satisfaction.
METHOD
Procedure and respondents
For this study 40 teams operating in the Netherlands were approached to participate. The teams consisted of at least four members and one team leader and they all operated in an actual working environment in which they needed co-operation to achieve commonly shared team goals. The teams were requested to co-operate on a voluntary basis. Participating teams operated in a wide range of workareas such as service or production organizations, housing, non-profit, education, government etc.. Accordingly, the teams were asked to fill in the „team work‟ questionnaire as it was called. Feedback was offered to the participants on the team level in return for the time they spent. Complete confidentiality was promised as only the researchers would be able to see the results, furthermore no names were requested. The study in this report considered data solely on the individual level.
In order to get the most reliable outcome of the regression analysis as possible, organizational tenure was used as a control variable. This was measured as the time worked within their current organization. The mean organizational tenure was 8.4 years with a standard deviation of 9.3 months.
Measurement instruments
Conscientiousness
Conscientiousness was measured using six conscientiousness items of the 30 items Big Five personality scale from Hendriks, Hofstee and De Raad (1999). The items were measured on a 5 point Likert-scale ranging from (1) „not at all‟ to (5) „very much‟. The six items measuring Conscientiousness were questions like; „are you a person who likes to do things according to plan?‟. The 5 items proved to be reliable (α = .69).
Job Satisfaction
The items measuring the level of Job Satisfaction were adopted from the research of Ilies et al., 2006) who published a 5 item scale. The items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1) „not at all‟ to (5) „very much‟. An item was for example; „I am very enthusiastic about my work at the moment‟ and proved to be reliable (α = .78).
Transformational Leadership
has a motivation vision of the future of our team‟. This measurement proved to be reliable (α= .91).
Organizational tenure
Outcomes are controlled for the influence of organizational tenure. It is expected that this has a considerable effect on the sense of job satisfaction of the participants as it is assumed that participants, who have worked within their current organization for a long period of time, have a relatively higher sense of job satisfaction than participants who have not. The control variable „organizational tenure‟ was measured by asking the participants to fill in an open question about the time worked for the current organization in months.
Data analysis
term was entered in the test being the product of the standardized independent variable and the standardized moderator.
RESULTS
The results of the data analysis and hypothesis testing are elaborated in this section. Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations and correlations of the control variable and the dependent, independent and moderator variables. The letter r stands for the strength of the correlation and the letter p indicates the level of significance. The higher the r-value, the stronger the correlation. It was expected that there is a positive relationship between conscientiousness and job satisfaction. Between the independent (conscientiousness) and the dependent variable (job satisfaction) a positive correlation is visible although it does not prove to be sufficiently significant (r= .13, p= .08). The correlation between TL and job Satisfaction is strongly positive and statistically significant (r=.44, p<0.01). No statistically significant correlation was found for the relationship between TL and conscientiousness (r= .11, p= .15).
Table 1.
Variable correlations
Mean Std. Deviation 1 2 3
1 Organizational tenure (yrs) 8.50 9.30
2 Conscientiousness 3.55 0.71 .30** 3 Job Satisfaction 3.99 0.75 -.02 .13 4 Transformational
Leadership 3.64 0.70 .09 .11 .44** **. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
N=168
Hypothesis testing
To test the hypotheses, a multiple hierarchical regression analysis was conducted. The outcomes of this analysis are depicted in table 2. The first hypothesis was that there is a positive direct relationship between conscientiousness and job satisfaction. The second hypothesis stated that transformational leadership has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between conscientiousness and job satisfaction.
Table 2
Regression steps and outcomes
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Sig. B 1 Organizational tenure -0.02 0.74 2 Organizational tenure -0.07 0.20 Conscientiousness 0.10 0.08 Transf_Leadership 0.31 0.00** 3 Organizational tenure -0.07 0.21 Conscientiousness 0.11 0.07 Transf_Leadership 0.32 0.00** Interaction -0.03 0.53
**. Relation is significant at the .01 level. N=168
TL appears to have a far greater positive effect on job satisfaction than conscientiousness. This effect is also statistically significant (b=.31, p=< 0.01). Remarkably, the effect of transformational leadership is three times stronger than that of conscientiousness. Despite its strength, the direct relationship between TL and job satisfaction was not part of the hypotheses of this research.
In the third step of the analysis, the second hypothesis concerning the interaction effect of conscientiousness and TL on job satisfaction can be tested with the interaction term. Here it becomes clear that the interaction term is not statistically significant (b= -.03, p=.53). This is supported by the fact that the interaction term only accounts for an additional 0.2% (R2 = .19) of the variance in job satisfaction. The second hypothesis therefore has to be rejected.
DISCUSSION
Findings
Hypothesis 1
The testing outcomes for hypothesis 1 indicate that conscientiousness has a positive effect on job satisfaction. This outcome indicates that in general, conscientious individuals have higher levels of job satisfaction than non- conscientious individuals. This finding is according to expectations as described in the introduction. This outcome confirms that personality has a fair amount of influence on whether someone feels satisfied with their job. This confirms findings of DeNeve & Cooper (1998) researching the happy personality. It appeared in that study that some personalities are associated with positive affection towards life and work and others are associated with negative affection. They also found that of the Big Five traits, conscientiousness associated strongest with life satisfaction and happiness. Conscientiousness helps individuals to perform their tasks at a satisfactory level which increases their level of job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 2
The interaction effect between conscientiousness and TL on job satisfaction turned out to be not significant. This means that contrary to expectations, TL does not influence the relationship between conscientiousness and job satisfaction. So as conscientiousness has a positive effect on job satisfaction, transformational leadership has no effect on this relationship. This means conscientious individuals are affected by the transformational leader in the same way as non-conscientious individuals. This indicates that conscientiousness and TL do not interact with each other at all. It is clear that an external factor can not influence the personality of a person. However a possible explanation for the lack of proof for the second hypothesis is most likely found while reconsidering both concepts in more detail.
conceptual background of the variables is a possible reason for a lacking interaction between the two variables.
In the introduction. the interaction effect between conscientiousness and TL was expected to originate from the desire for autonomy and individual goal setting of conscientious individuals as this is stimulated by the transformational leader. The lacking interaction proves that this effect is very weak or even absent. Apparently the effect of the transformational leader on these two factors is the same for conscientious and non-conscientious subordinates. Seemingly these two factors do not correlate to conscientiousness strong enough to be influential on the interaction with TL.
TL as predictor of Job Satisfaction
An additional finding next to the results of testing the hypotheses, was that TL has a strong effect on the level of job satisfaction of subordinates. This considerable effect is well established in literature (e.g., Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; Howell & Frost, 1989; Medley & LaRochelle, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 1990). Support for this effect was also found as it appeared that the charisma dimension of TL has substantial influence on the level of job satisfaction among subordinates (Howell & Frost, 1989). This was underpinned later by Podsakoff et al. (1996) who found that charismatic leader behavior (a form of transformational leadership behavior) results in greater job satisfaction for subordinates than directive leader behavior.
correlated to job satisfaction this leadership style actively influences job satisfaction while interacting with subordinates. The focus of TL on individual support and intellectual development already indicates some relationship with job satisfaction as those are valued work aspects for most team members. In general, one could say that any external factor can more actively and interactively influence someone‟s level of job satisfaction than personality. If a leader for example notices a subordinate‟s need for more individual attention, this can be increased for that specific subordinate. It plausible that the effect of TL on job satisfaction for that reason is stronger than that of conscientiousness.
Theoretical implications
The outcome of the test of the first hypothesis confirms what was found earlier in research on the subject. It appeared from literature that some personalities have different effects on the level of job satisfaction than others. Apparently some people are better naturally equiped to feel satisfied with their work than others. However this effect of personality on job satisfaction is much weaker than that of leadership.
acceptance is even more important. The charisma of a leader depends highly on whether followers perceive their leader to be charismatic. The missing interaction in this study indicates that the level of acceptance of the transformational leadership style was probably very low. In (this) case of low leader acceptance, the leader can still be transformational but when subordinates perceive it differently, they will not behave accordingly. As followers and leader have less similarities, acceptance will be even lower. The missing interaction can then be explained by a lack of acceptance of the style of the leader due to a low number of similarities.
Strong points and limitations
The teams that cooperated in this research were highly heterogenous. Almost all teams were functioning in different branches. In addition they also differed on education level, knowledge base, composition etc. This has a positive influence on the generalizability and reliability of the results. This means the outcomes of this research can be relevant and important to a relatively large diversity of teams.
Limitations
observed that sometimes large series of questions are responded to with the same answer which indicates a lack of accuracy. Some respondents have also, intentionally or not, skipped entire pages of the questionnaire. This has considerable influence on the validity of the scales theat were used and consequently the outcomes of the research. In general, as answers are more randomly given, the validity of the questionnaire becomes lower which influences relationship significance and strength which in this study has been the case.
A second limitation of this study is that the language used in the questionnaire did not seem to be equally comprehensible for all participants. The questionnaire was first composed out of English scales which were accordingly translated into Dutch. These Dutch scales were re-translated to see whether no alterations were made. This English version then was translated into Bulgarian for a number of teams. It is very likely that this last translation has caused slightly different outcomes for these Bulgarian teams. This negatively affects the accuracy of the outcomes as the validity and significance are influenced.
Practical implications
factors that influence job satisfaction as well, personality is a factor to take into consideration.
REFERENCES
Arvey, R.D., Bouchard, T.J., Segal, N.L., & Abraham, L.M. (1989). Job satisfaction: Environmental and genetic components. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 187-192.
Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 715-722.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bums, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
DeNeve, K.M., Cooper, H. (1998). The Happy Personality: A Meta -Analysis of 137 Personality Traits and Subjective Well-Being. Psychological Bulletin,124 (2), 197-229.
Felfe, J., Schyns, B. (2009) Followers‟ Personality and the Perception of Transformational Leadership: Further Evidence for the Similarity Hypothesis. British Journal of Management, 21 (2), 393-410.
Gellatly, L.R. (1996). Conscientiousness and task performance: test of a cognitive process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 474-482.
Goldberg, L.R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.
Gruenfeld, L.W., Weissenberg, P., 1970, Field Independence and Articulation of Sources of Job Satisfaction, Journal of Applied Psychology, 54 (5), 424 - 426
Hendriks, A.A.J., Hofstee, W.K.B., De Raad, B. (1999). The Five-Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI). Personality and Individual Differences. 27 (2), 307-325.
House, R.J., Shane, S.A., Herold, D.M. (1996). Rumors of the Death of Dispositional Research are Vastly Exaggerated. Academy of Management Review, 21 (1), 203-234.
Howell, J.M., Frost, P.J. (1989). A Laboratory Study of Charismatic Leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43 (2), 243-269.
Judge, T.A., Heller, D., Mount, M.K. (2002). Five-Factor Model of Personality and Job Satisfaction: A Meta Analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (3), 530-541.
Judge, T.A., Ilies, R. (2004). Affect and job satisfaction: A Study of their Relationship at Work and at Home. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (4), 661-673.
Jung C.G., Psychological types. Princeton: Princeton University Press: 1921.
Kuhnert, K.W., Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and Transformational Leadership: ”A Constructive/Developmental Analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12 (4), 648-657.
Locke, E. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, (pp. 1297−1349). Chicago: Rand McNally.
MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M., Rich, G.A. (2001). Transformational and Transactional Leadership and Salesperson Performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29 (2), 115-134.
Northouse, P.G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and Practice, 3rd ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Piedmont, R.L., McCrae, R.R., Costa, Jr, P.T., (1992). An Assessment of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule From the Perspective of the Five-Factor Model, Journal of Personality Assessment, 58 (1), 67-78.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Bommer, W.H. (1996). Transformational leaderBehaviors and Substitutes for Leadership as Determinants for Employee Satisfaction, Commitment, Trust, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Journal of Management, 22 (2), 259-298.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers‟ trust in leader, satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.
Roberts, B.W., Chernyshenko, O.S., Stark, S., Goldberg, L.R. (2005). The Structure of Conscientiousness: an Empirical Investigation Based on Seven Major Personality Questionnaires. Personnel Psychology, 58, 103-139.
Staw, B.M., & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the midst of change: A dispositional approach to job attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70 (3), 469-480.
