• No results found

Understanding the Relationship between Extraversion and Job Satisfaction

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Understanding the Relationship between Extraversion and Job Satisfaction"

Copied!
43
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Understanding the Relationship between Extraversion and

Job Satisfaction

A Sociability Perspective

Master Thesis

MSc Human Resource Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

June 2015

Sandra Deterding

Student number: 2525321

Tel.: +31 (0) 637695206

e-mail: s.deterding@student.rug.nl

(2)

2

Abstract

The paper examines the relationship between extraversion and job satisfaction. Specifically, it is hypothesised that extraversion influences job satisfaction through LMX as a mediator. Furthermore, work unit size is suggested to have a moderating effect on the relationship of extraversion and LMX. The results of a survey among 86 individuals have not supported the hypotheses of the developed moderated mediation model. However, within an exploratory analysis significant effects were found for neuroticism on job satisfaction and for LMX as a mediator in this relationship. Implications for theory and practice are given.

(3)

3

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ... 4 THEORY AND HYPOTHESES ... 7

Extraversion and job satisfaction 8

LMX 12

Work unit size 15

Moderated mediation model 16

METHODS ... 17

Participants and Procedures 17

Measures 18 Control Variables 19 Data analysis 19 RESULTS ... 20 Descriptive Statistics 20 Hypotheses testing 22 Exploratory analysis 24 DISCUSSION ... 27 Theoretical implications 28

Limitations and directions for future research 32

Practical implications 33

(4)

4

Introduction

“Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you

haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle.”

Steve Jobs (The Wall Street Journal, 2011)

The stated quote raises hope for many people that are not happy with their work. The statement that change is needed to increase job satisfaction could encourage an individual to search for new positions, when satisfaction with the current job is low. Companies could reason that unhappy employees need a change in job characteristics or work environment. This emphasizes the importance of situational factors and especially the person-job-fit. However, research has found that job satisfaction is rather stable for individuals over different jobs (Judge, Bono & Locke, 2000). Some studies even give evidence for a genetic pre-disposition of job satisfaction (Arvey et al., 1989). It seems that not only the job itself influences a person’s job satisfaction, but also specific (personality) traits that are inherent to an individual. This would have practical implications for example concerning the selection of employees (e.g. Kamdar & van Dyne, 2007). Whereas work-related aspects have long been examined as antecedents of job satisfaction, individual factors, such as personality, have only been subject to studies later in time (Parker, 2007). Therefore, the present study focuses on personal factors and seeks to give insight to the process foregoing job satisfaction.

(5)

5

& Bedeian, 1994). Additionally, such findings should be considered in employee development and training. The awareness of internal mechanisms and relevant attitudes might influence subordinates’ perceptions and hereby their job satisfaction (Connolly and Viswesvaran, 2000). Thus, theorists as well as practitioners have great interest in uncovering the underlying mechanisms of the relationship between personality traits and job satisfaction.

(6)

6

1997). This leads to the assumption that extroverts are more likely to have a high quality relationship with their superior. As a result, a high LMX quality provides employees with various benefits, such as being involved in decision making processes. These assets then lead to a higher level of job satisfaction (Vollmer et al., 2011). Therefore LMX could explain why extraverts are more satisfied with their job, meaning LMX could function as a mediator in the relationship between extraversion and job satisfaction.

(7)

7

This paper aims to give more insight into the relationship of extraversion and job satisfaction and tries to identify the relevance of LMX and work unit size for the interaction process. If LMX and group size can be identified as mediating and moderating constructs, this would give organizations more insight to the development of their employees’ job satisfaction. Human Resource Management could include these findings’ implications and adjust HR practices accordingly. For instance, leadership training could inform about the relationship of their subordinates level of extraversion and their job satisfaction, in order not to neglect less extraverted individuals. Another possibility would be to change the structure of work teams or communication practices. This paper therefore contributes to the evaluation of suitable and effective HRM practices.

Theory and Hypotheses

In the following section the concepts and assumed relationships of the above presented conceptual model are explained. At first extraversion and job satisfaction are defined and latest empirical findings presented. Afterwards, a theoretical explanation for the positive relationship is given with some empirical studies supporting these statements. Next, the concept of leader member exchange (LMX) is introduced and the assumed relationship with extraversion on the one hand and job satisfaction on the other hand outlined. From this follows the role of LMX as a mediator. Finally, the importance of identifying moderators is discussed and work unit size as a possible moderator introduced.

Extraversion of subordinate

Work unit size

(8)

8

Extraversion and job satisfaction

Extraversion is a concept that has long been researched and underwent some theoretical evolution, during its first introduction by Jung in 1921 (e.g. Watson & Clark, 1997). The encyclopedia of social psychology (Lucas, 2007, p.334) gives the following broad definition: “[...] extraversion reflects the extent to which a person is interested in and enjoys

social interaction.” During the last years personality psychology has been greatly influenced

by factor analytical studies which supported the idea of five broad dimensions of personality (Big Five), with extraversion being one of them (ibid.). Although this personality trait has been the subject of many studies and represents one of the most examined personality traits, there is no common understanding about the most defining facets of extraversion (ibid.). Watson and Clark (1997) summarised the existing conceptualisations of extraversion and identified one underlying common ground, which they claim to be positive affectivity. Positive affectivity is understood as the tendency of positive emotional experience, meaning an individual with a high level of positive affectivity evaluates his or her surroundings in a more positive way, leading to more positive emotions compared to an individual with a low level of positive affectivity.Watson and Clarks empirical results nurture their assumption that positive emotional experience represents the core of extraversion (ibid.).

Besides this theory with an emphasis on positive affectivity, Hogan (1986) has another perspective on extraversion. He describes the construct as being composed of two facets: sociability and ambition (Salgado, Moscoso & Alonso, 2013). Individuals which are high in sociability are described as being more assertive and dominant and ambition is related to gregariousness and exhibitionism (ibid.). Other authors emphasise that extraverts have “a

tendency towards incentives” (Carver, Sutton & Scheier, 2000: 748), meaning they are highly

(9)

9

behavioural approach system (Smits & Boeck, 2006). All of the mentioned different perspectives on extraversion, offer possible explanations for a positive relationship of extraversion and job satisfaction. Before these are presented, the concept of job satisfaction will be explained in the following paragraph.

Job satisfaction is one of the most investigated concepts of industrial and organisational psychology (Parker, 2007). Locke (1969: 316) defines job satisfaction and dissatisfaction as “a function of the perceived relationship between what one wants from one’s

job and what one perceives it as offering or entailing.”. Its importance is not only justified by

its own means, but also because of its great influence on significant individual and organisational outcomes. Positive outcomes include organisational citizenship behaviours, individual and organisational performance. Low levels of job satisfaction lead to more counterproductive behaviour as well as job withdrawal (Parker, 2007). Because of its great importance theorists and practitioners have great interest in identifying ways to influence job satisfaction and finding the antecedents. Both situational as well as personal factors play a role. However, most studies focus on situational causes such as skill variety, autonomy or task significance (ibid.). For instance, the job characteristics model (Fried, 1975) implies that five factors lead to a higher job satisfaction, namely skill variety, task significance, task identity, autonomy and feedback. The job descriptive index (JDI) on the other hand focuses on the individual’s level of satisfaction with five different facets: the work itself, pay, opportunities for promotion, supervision and co-workers (Stanton et al, 2001).

(10)

10

positive affectivity functions as a cognitive catalyst through which individuals come to a sense of job satisfaction. Another explanation could be that if extraverts have a tendency to approach incentives, are more ambitious and active in order to achieve their goals, it is to be assumed that their needs are fulfilled to a higher extent. Referring to the job context, it would mean that individuals high in extraversion have for instance more success in receiving a pay raise or a promotion, because they place more effort in it. Furthermore, when a person has an approach tendency it is likely that he or she looks more actively for a job that suits his or her preferences. Taking the job characteristics model into account, there are five factors that influence the level of job satisfaction (Fried, 1975). For instance, an employee high in extraversion who values autonomy highly would specifically and actively look for and most likely also find a job which gives him more decision rights. The discrepancy between what the individual wants from his job and what he gets from his job – which is how Locke (1969) defined job Satisfaction – is minimised by the actions of the extraverted individual. Another explanation for the positive relationship between extraversion and job satisfaction is sociability, as stated by Hogan (1986; Salgado, Moscoso & Alonso, 2013). Extraverts seek for social contacts and create better facilities to build interpersonal relationships (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Therefore, they experience a higher satisfaction with social contacts at work, which can be seen as social incentives. Also non-social incentives, such as promotions, raises in salary or task assignments are often accomplished through personal interaction (Carver, 2000). Therefore, achieving these non-social incentives should also be more likely for more extraverted people. Both types of incentives, social as well as non-social, are related to higher job satisfaction and could give insight into the relationship between extraversion and job satisfaction.

(11)

11

executed a meta-analysis about the five-factor model of personality and how it relates to job satisfaction. They found that extraversion has a positive relationship with job satisfaction (r = .19, ρ = .25) and therefore is an important personality trait in its prediction. Judge et al. compare their results to those of Connolly and Viswesvaran (2000) which investigate the relationship between affection and job satisfaction. They legitimate this by mentioning that researchers have suggested positive affection represents the variable extraversion in the five-factor model (Judge, Heller & Mount, 2002), as explained earlier. Considering this assumption the meta-analysis shows similar results and confirms the positive relationship between extraversion/positive affection and job satisfaction.

(12)

12

mediating role tested. The following section will explain the concept and argue the possible role of LMX.

LMX

(13)

13

the other person and their relationship by keeping track of the things they offered and what they received in return (Uhl-Bien, 2007).

A relationship between LMX and extraversion could be based on the sociability and activity of extraverts. Role making needs both the leader as well as the member to actively take part in the process. Extraverted individuals with their higher level of sociability are more interested and active in shaping this relationship. Introverts on the other hand are more socially aloof and less effective in building interpersonal relationships (Watson & Clark, 1997). Thus extraverts are reaching higher levels of LMX quality compared to introverts. Phillips and Bedeian (1994) extend this view by assuming that extraverted subordinates while positively influencing the relationship with their leader at the same time improve the chances to get more interesting assignments by doing so. Another explanation is related to a higher activity of extraverted individuals. Leaders’ perception of relevant talents and motivation of subordinates is important for the development of LMX. An increased level of activity might make these more obvious for leaders (ibid.).

(14)

14

Also the relationship between LMX and job satisfaction finds theoretical and empirical support. For instance, Uhl-Bien (2007) argues that through higher quality LMX relationships the influence of individuals on each other increases, which leads to higher motivation and extra-role behaviour. Vollmer et al. (2011) have summarised the theoretical explanations offered by literature into three main aspects: 1. A high quality relationship with their leader provides employees with desirable resources and positive interpersonal experiences. 2. Additionally, employees can feel privileged compared to their co-workers, which would result in a higher job-satisfaction, as job satisfaction relies on the equation of expectancies and perceived reality (e.g. Locke, 1969). 3. High LMX quality leads to job satisfaction through more suitable job characteristics, such as task identity, task significance, autonomy, skill variety and task feedback. Many studies have investigated the relationship between LMX and followers’ outcomes, including job satisfaction. For instance, Dulebohn et al. (2012) have found a significant positive relationship between LMX and general job satisfaction (r = .42, ρ = .49). An earlier meta-analysis by Gerstner and Day (1997) shows similar results (r = .46).

In their meta-analysis about the antecedents and consequences of LMX, Dulebohn et al. (2012) state that LMX might operate as a mechanism through which certain antecedents influence certain outcomes. Considering the preceding theoretical reasoning and empirical findings significant influence of extraversion on LMX and of LMX on job satisfaction was explained and shown. Including the explanations about extraversion and the importance of personal relationships, I suggest that LMX mediates the relationship between extraversion and job satisfaction.

Therefore, I hypothesise that

(15)

15

Hypothesis 2: LMX quality is positively related to job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 3: The positive relationship between extraversion and job satisfaction is mediated

by higher LMX quality.

Work unit size

(16)

16

Besides these theoretical considerations, empirical studies showed controversial results about the relationship of work unit size and LMX. Cogliser and Schriesheim (2000) did not find a significant correlation between unit size and LMX quality. On the contrary, Green, Anderson and Shivers (1996) as well as Green, Liden & Blank (1983) have shown a significant negative relationship (r = -.27 and -.22, respectively) of these variables in different contexts. A possible explanation for the different empirical results could lie in other factors that play a role in this relationship. This paper therefore makes another approach towards the work unit size by including it as a boundary condition in the relationship between LMX quality and extraversion. It is assumed that introverted subordinates suffer in their LMX quality if they work in a large group as they seek less interpersonal contact with their leader compared to their more extroverted colleagues. Work unit size will therefore be included as a moderator, influencing the relationship between extraversion and LMX.

Therefore, I hypothesise that

Hypothesis 4: Work group size moderates the relationship between extraversion and LMX,

such that this relationship is stronger when the group size is large rather than small.

Moderated mediation model

(17)

17

Therefore, I state the overall hypothesis that

Hypothesis 5: Work unit size moderates the indirect relationship between extraversion and job

satisfaction through LMX quality, such that this indirect relationship is stronger when the group size is large rather than small.

Methods

Participants and Procedures

In order to collect the needed data a number of different people from the environment of the researcher were contacted and asked to forward the survey in order to ensure a great variety of participants. The participants should be employees above 18 years of age and not be leading other employees. The survey was completed online, by using the online software Qualtrics and making the link available to the possible participants.

(18)

18

69.8% of the participants worked more than 36 hours per week, with only 1,2% working less than 12 hours.

Measures

The measures for the four variables of the conceptual model are given and explained in this section. Please note that all items can be found in the appendix.

Extraversion was measured using the 25-item scale by John and Srivastava (1999)

including all of the Big Five personality traits: extraversion (α = .69), conscientiousness (α = .83), openness for experience (α = .70), neuroticism (α = .79) and agreeableness (α = .77). The scale included a self-rating concerning five different adjectives for each personality trait, such as “I am outgoing.” or “I am talkative.” for extraversion.

Job satisfaction was measured using Judge and Klinger’s (2008) version of a

commonly used scale by Brayfield and Rothe (1951). The scale measures overall job satisfaction in contrast to satisfaction with different facets of one’s job. It consists of five items, with two items being reverse coded. An example is: “I find real enjoyment in my work.” (α = .88).

LMX was measured with the scale developed by Bernerth et al. (2007) (LMSX),

(19)

19

propose a new scale. Their scale includes components that have been part of VDL measurement as well as new items that take the social exchange view on LMX into account. In order to include recent findings, this study will use the scale developed by Bernerth et al. (2007) to measure LMX. An example item is: “Voluntary actions on my part will be returned in some way by my manager.” (α = .93).

Work Unit Size will be measured by self-report from the employees. The question is

“How many employees, including yourself, report to your line-manager?”

Control Variables

Additionally to the above mentioned variables, several control variables were included in the analysis. Age and organisational tenure were shown to have a negative relationship with job satisfaction (e.g. Bedeian & Ferris, 1992; Hunt & Saul, 1975). Different effects on job satisfaction have also been reported for gender (e.g. Hodson, 1989; Hunt & Saul, 1975). Furthermore, higher educated individuals experience a lower satisfaction with their work than less educated workers (e.g. Lee & Wilbur, 1985; Burris, 1983). Also the hours that are spent at the work place seem to have an influence on the overall job satisfaction (Eberhardt & Shani, 1984). Due to those findings age, gender, education, different types of tenure (organisational, team, line-manager) and working hours were included in the survey. Next to extraversion all other personality traits of the Big Five (openness to experience, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness) were surveyed, as several studies reported them to be related with job satisfaction (e.g. Bruk-Lee et al., 2009; Judge, Heller & Mount, 2002).

Data analysis

(20)

20

satisfaction were tested concerning their internal consistency, by using Cronbach’s Alpha (α). If the value for α was above 0.6 the scale was seen as reliable and the items were computed into new variables in order to have one value for each of the constructs. Afterwards, a correlation matrix for all variables was examined to identify variables that significantly correlated with the dependent variable of the given construct. Because age and neuroticism significantly correlate with job satisfaction, they were included as control variables in further analyses, as recommended by Becker (2005). For all further steps of the analysis, all variables were standardised.

The relationships between extraversion and LMX, and between LMX and job satisfaction were tested by performing linear regression analyses (Hypotheses 1 and 2). The mediating role of LMX (Hypothesis 3) and the moderating role of Work Unit Size (Hypothesis 4), as well as the predicted moderated mediation (Hypothesis 5) were tested using Model 8 of A.F. Hayes’ tool for SPSS, called PROCESS.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

(21)

21

Table 1: Correlations between variables

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 Age 36.57 12.15 1 2 Gender 1.36 .48 .03 1 3 Education 3.98 1.55 -.14 .02 1 4 Working hours 3.56 .75 .02 .25* .00 1 5 Organisational Tenure 76.43 100.81 .58** .14 -.26* .05 1 6 Group Tenure 64.39 144.75 .19 -.06 -.01 -.11 .32** 1 7 Line-Manager Tenure 34.29 48.35 .40** -.03 -.20 -.13 .57** .81** 1 8 Agreeableness 5.89 .62 -.04 -.34** -.03 -.03 .05 .11 .02 1 9 Conscientiousness 5.57 1.10 -.11 -.30** .11 -.04 -.06 .09 .03 .36** 1 10 Neuroticism 3.56 1.12 -.15 -.34 .03 -.10 -.10 .12 .12 .04 .18 1 11 Openness 5.35 .81 -.16 -.16 .07 -.14 -.12 .16 -.17 .29** .01 -.05 1 12 Extraversion 5.28 .84 -.02 -.24* .19 -.07 -.02 .14 -.07 .25* .18 .01 .47** 1 13 Work Unit Size 19.86 22.01 -.03 -.06 -.04 .11 -.10 -.12 -.15 .12 .17 -.07 -.10 -.07 1

14 LMX 4.84 1.24 -.13 .03 .08 -.15 -.02 .02 -.09 .01 .05 -.22* .11 .10 .08 1

15 Job Satisfaction 5.10 1.20 .32** .03 .14 -.13 .13 .14 .13 -.04 .07 -.36** -.01 .01 .06 .47** 1 Note: gender was coded 1=female, 2=male; highest completed education was coded 1=primary education, 2=secondary education, 3=intermediate vocational education, 4=higher vocational education, 5=university education (bachelor), 6=university education (master), 7=doctorate; working hours was coded 1=0-12 hours, 2=13-24 hours, 3=25-36 hours, 4=more than 36 hours; Organisational, Group and LM Tenure in months; Big Five dimensions, LMX and Job Satisfaction were measured on 7-point scale from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree.

(22)

22

Hypotheses testing

Hypotheses 1 and 2 were tested using regression analysis (results in Table 2). Hypothesis 1 postulated a positive relationship between extraversion and LMX quality. A regression analysis showed no significant relationship between the two variables (B = .09; p = .40). Hypothesis 2 predicted a positive relationship between LMX and job satisfaction. This was supported when controlling for age and neuroticism (B = .47; p < .01). As pair wise correlation is needed between all three variables when testing a mediation model, it was to be assumed that the hypothesis 3 will not be supported. However, Hypothesis 3 was tested using Model 4 of the PROCESS tool for SPSS. The mediating role of LMX in the relationship between extraversion and job satisfaction (indirect effect .03; 95% CI -.07 to .15) was not supported (see Table 3). The remaining hypotheses (4 and 5), concerning the moderating role of work unit size as well as the overall moderated mediation model were tested using Model 7 of the PROCESS tool. The results are displayed in Table 3. The role of work unit size as a moderator (B = -.14; p = .11) in the relationship between extraversion and LMX was not supported. Consequently, the proposed moderated mediation was not supported by the analysis. This was shown by no significant difference of the indirect relationship between extraversion and job satisfaction for low values (M-1SD; indirect effect = .08; 95% CI = -.10 to .25) and high values of work unit size (M+1SD; indirect effect = -.04; 95% CI = -.23 to .12).

Table 2: Results for testing hypotheses 1 and 2 Regression analysis

Predictor Mediator Variable: LMX

B SE T P

Hypothesis 1

Constant 0.00 .11 .00 1.00

(23)

23

Predictor Dependent Variable: Job Satisfaction (controlled for Age and Neuroticism) B SE T P Hypothesis 2 Constant 0.00 .09 .00 1.00 Age .35 .09 4.01 .00 Neuroticism -.20 .09 -2.27 .03 LMX .47 .09 5.27 .00

Table 3: Results for testing hypotheses 3, 4 and 5 PROCESS model 4 and model 7

Predictor Indirect relationship between Extraversion and Job Satisfaction through LMX (controlled for Age and Neuroticism)

Indirect effect SE 95% confidence interval Hypothesis 3

.03 .06 -.07; .15

Predictor Mediator variable: LMX (controlled for Age and Neuroticism)

B SE t p Hypothesis 4 Constant .01 .11 .04 .97 Extraversion .05 .11 .46 .65 Work Unit Size .01 .12 .07 .94 Extraversion  Work Unit Size -.14 .11 -1.19 .24 Age -.12 .11 -1.03 .31 Neuroticism -.22 .11 -1.99 .05

Predictor Dependent variable: Job Satisfaction (controlled for Age and Neuroticism)

B SE t p Hypothesis 5 Constant -.02 .09 -.23 .82 LMX .51 .09 5.58 .00 Extraversion .06 .09 .65 .52 Age .34 .09 3.77 .00 Neuroticism -.19 .09 -2.18 .03

Predictor Indirect relationship between Extraversion and Job Satisfaction through LMX at low, middle and high values of Work Unit Size (controlled for

(24)

24 Conditional indirect effect SE 95% confidence interval Hypothesis 5 Work Unit Size Low (M-1SD) .08 .09 -.10; .25 Middle .03 .06 -.08; .15 High (M+1SD) -.04 .09 -.23; .12 Exploratory analysis

An exploratory analysis was done in order to examine other possible relationships between the variables based on the correlations reported in Table 1. At first it was examined if a positive relationship between extraversion and job satisfaction would be supported, as it was found in many former studies and this study intended to further clarify this relationship. However, the regression analysis (Table 4) showed no significant results, when controlled for Age and Neuroticism (B = .07; p = .51).

(25)

25

between neuroticism and LMX examining the same moderated mediation model for neuroticism as was originally hypothesised for extraversion. However, the results for moderation tested by using Model 7 of the PROCESS tool did not show significant results. The interaction effect of neuroticism and work unit size was B = -.14 (p = .32).

Table 4: Exploratory analysis – Extraversion Regression analysis

Predictor Dependent Variable: Job Satisfaction (controlled for Age and Neuroticism) B SE t P Constant 0.00 .10 .00 1.00 Age .29 .10 2.82 .01 Neuroticism -.32 .10 -3.19 .00 Extraversion .07 .10 .67 .51

Table 5: Exploratory analysis – Neuroticism Regression analysis

Predictor Dependent Variable: Job Satisfaction (controlled for Age)

B SE t P

Constant .00 .10 .00 1.00

Age .27 .10 2.75 .01

Neuroticism -.32 .10 -3.21 .00

Predictor Mediator Variable: LMX

B SE T P

Constant .00 .11 .00 1.00

Neuroticism -.22 .11 -2.11 .04

Predictor Dependent Variable: Job Satisfaction (controlled for Age)

B SE T P

Constant .00 .09 .00 1.00

Age .39 .09 4.40 .00

(26)

26

Table 6: Exploratory analysis – Neuroticism PROCESS model 4 and model 7

Predictor Indirect relationship between Neuroticism and Job Satisfaction through LMX (controlled for Age)

Indirect effect SE 95% confidence interval

-.12 .06 -.28; -.03

Predictor Mediator variable: LMX (controlled for Age)

B SE t p

Constant .01 .11 .05 .97

Neuroticism -.25 .11 -2.32 .02

Work Unit Size .04 .11 .36 .72

Neuroticism  Work Unit Size

-.14 .13 -1.01 .32

Age -.15 .11 -1.36 .18

Predictor Dependent variable: Job Satisfaction (controlled for Age)

B SE t P

Constant -.02 .09 -.22 .82

LMX .51 .09 5.64 .00

Neuroticism -.19 .09 -2.20 .03

Age .33 .09 3.73 .00

Predictor Indirect relationship between Neuroticism and Job Satisfaction through LMX at low, middle and high values of Work Unit Size (controlled for

Age) Conditional indirect

effect

SE 95% confidence interval Work Unit Size

Low (M-1SD) -.07 .09 -.29; .08

Middle -.13 .07 -.28; -.02

(27)

27

Discussion

The intention of this paper was to examine the relationship between extraversion and job satisfaction in order to get more insight in the development of job satisfaction. It was hypothesised that LMX could explain this relationship, based on the high sociability of extraverted individuals. Furthermore, work unit size was suggested to have an influence on the relationship between extraversion and LMX. More specifically, extraversion was suggested to have a stronger relationship with LMX when the unit size is larger rather than when it is small.

Most of the hypotheses were not supported by the results of the analysis. A relationship between extraversion and LMX, although broadly supported by former research, was not supported within this study. Thus, a higher level of extraversion was not associated with a higher quality of leader-member exchange. A highly significant positive relationship between LMX and job satisfaction was found, being in line with theory and former research. Meaning, people with a higher quality relationship with their line-managers experience a higher level of job satisfaction. The suggested mediating effect of LMX in the relationship between extraversion and job satisfaction was not found. This implicates that the relationship between leader and follower does not explain how extraversion is related to job satisfaction. Finally, moderation was tested in order to identify whether the size of the work unit had an influence on the relationship between extraversion and LMX. However, this suggested effect was not supported.

(28)

28

Theoretical implications

Several theoretical implications can be drawn from the discussed results. First, it is to be kept in mind that this study was based on earlier findings that job satisfaction is influenced by an individual’s level of extraversion (e.g. Judge, Heller & Mount, 2002). However, this positive relationship between extraversion and job satisfaction could not be replicated within this study. This could have several reasons, for instance covariates that were not included in the survey, the used methods or the characteristics of the sample. Concerning variables that have an influence on job satisfaction, but were not included in this study, situational factors are to be mentioned. For instance, the characteristics of the job described by Fried (1975), namely skill variety, task significance, task identity, autonomy and feedback, influence job satisfaction. Within this study, with a relatively small sample size, those situational factors could have influenced the outcome of the analysis significantly and distort the results of the effects of extraversion. Mentioning the sample, also this factor alone could have distorted the results and be responsible for a non-significant relationship between extraversion and job satisfaction, e.g. the size of the sample or the variety and distribution of the participants characteristics (Cohen, 1992). Lastly, the used methods are a possible source for a non-significant effect. The Big Five scale, for instance, can be subject to social desirability bias as the answers are self-reported. However, Judge, Heller and Mount (2002) and Bruk-Lee et al. (2009) have examined the influence of different scales without significant results.

(29)

29

examined relationship is not based on sociability but on other facets of extraversion. Some of them which were discussed earlier are approach tendency or ambition. According to some authors, extraverts are more ambitious in achieving their goals (Salgado, Moscoso & Alonso, 2013) and have a tendency to approach incentives (Carver, 2000). Therefore, it was argued that they are more likely to be successful in reaching their goals, which would in turn lead to higher satisfaction, including their satisfaction at the work place. If these factors explain the relationship between extraversion and job satisfaction, the examination of leader-member exchange quality would not clarify this relationship. Meaning, if instead of sociability ambition and approach tendency are the reason for a positive relationship of extraversion and job satisfaction, interpersonal relationships would not play an important role in this relationship. These considerations are in line with the results of the analysis concerning the indirect effect of extraversion on job satisfaction through LMX.

(30)

30

(31)

31

one’s supervisor and hence, affects the development of LMX. Third, Judge, Locke and Durham (1997) found that people with a high level of neuroticism have constraints concerning their interpersonal skills. This negatively affects their success in developing satisfying and long lasting relationships (Bernerth et al., 2007).

Furthermore, a negative relationship was found between neuroticism and job satisfaction. Therefore, it is to be assumed that individuals with a high level of neuroticism are less likely to experience high satisfaction with their work. This negative relationship has been reported in several empirical studies (e.g. Bruk-Lee et al., 2009; Judge, Bono & Locke, 2000). Judge, Heller and Mount (2002) for instance, have found a strong negative effect of neuroticism on job satisfaction (ρ = -.34), being stronger than their reported effect of extraversion on job satisfaction (ρ = .19). The negative relationship between neuroticism and job satisfaction finds theoretical explanation in negative affectivity similar to the effect on LMX. Individuals high in neuroticism focus more on negative aspects of their work and therefore report a lower job satisfaction than individuals with a lower level of neuroticism (Costa & McCrae, 1980).

(32)

32

variables can be explaining mechanisms for the relationship between personality traits and job satisfaction. However, it is possible that the similar explanations for extraversion and neuroticism based on sociability are applicable for both personality traits. In this case, the non-significant effects for extraversion within this study could be due to other factors as discussed above, including moderators or the sample. These considerations have implications for future research, which will be discussed hereafter.

Limitations and directions for future research

Several limitations have been mentioned previously and will now be summarized and complemented. First, the sample itself is to be seen as a limitation. As the sample size is rather small the chance to draw false conclusions from the analysis is increased. For instance, outlier bias can be a major distortion to small sample sizes as the influence of extreme values is higher. This can lead to falsely accepting or rejecting hypotheses (Cohen, 1992). In future research the sample size should be increased in order to produce results with a higher reliability.

Second, the methods for data collection have to be considered as limitations. A survey including self-report scales was used to gather information and this method can be subject to common-method bias. Those biases can affect the variance of variables as well as relationships between variables significantly. For instance, social desirability can influence the results as participants tend to answer questions in a way that they perceive to be desired by others. Another possible common-method bias is the mood state of individuals, as the current emotional state of participants influences their responses and can distort the results (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

(33)

33

However, it is important to consider those factors could play a role in the processes concerning personality and job satisfaction. For instance, LMX as well as job satisfaction have a strong relationship with job performance (Dulebohn et al., 2012; Barrick & Mount, 1991). Additionally, characteristics of the job, such as task significance and autonomy, have an effect on the overall job satisfaction (Judge, Bono & Locke, 2000). Future research could include the mentioned variables and hence, broaden the scope of the analysis.

Practical implications

Albeit the presented limitations practical implications can be drawn from the results of the analysis. In line with previous research, this study has confirmed the positive relationship between LMX and job satisfaction. The relationship between extraversion and LMX on the contrary, has not been replicated. Examination of the newly developed construct including hypotheses 3, 4 and 5 has not given new inside to the relationship between extraversion and job satisfaction. Meaning, no support was found neither for the mediating role of LMX nor for work unit size as a moderator. Hence, the analysis of the developed hypotheses does not give reason for new practical implications.

(34)

34

selection of new employees. The selection process can be designed in such a way that it favours candidates with a low level of neuroticism. In practice, this would mean that organisations select employees that are less likely to experience a low job satisfaction. Hereby, organisations can influence the job satisfaction of their workforces at a very early stage. Furthermore, the results of the analysis support the role of LMX as a mediator in the relationship between neuroticism and job satisfaction. This means the negative relationship between neuroticism and job satisfaction can partly be explained by the exchange-relationship between an employee and the line-manager. This, as well, has practical implications for companies. When the effect of neuroticism on job satisfaction is mediated by LMX, this means that the negative effect of neuroticism could be changed by influencing the relationship quality between leader and member. If line-managers learn about these connections, they could influence the exchange-relationship to employees in question. This way, supervisors have the possibility to work against the negative effect of neuroticism as a personal pre-disposition of an employee.

To summarize the practical implications, two suggestions are made drawing from the results of this study, in order to improve the overall job satisfaction of a workforce. First, organisations should examine the level of neuroticism when recruiting new employees and favour candidates with a low level of neuroticism. Second, line-manager should be trained in such a way, that they notice the possible negative effect of a high level of neuroticism. Furthermore, supervisors should learn how to influence the exchange relationship with such employees in a positive way in order to counteract the negative effect of neuroticism.

Conclusion

(35)

35

(36)

36

References

Arvey, R.D., Bouchard, T.J., Segal, N.L., Abraham, L.M. (1989). Journal of Applied

Psychology, 74/2: 187-192.

Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K. (1991). The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44: 1-26.

Becker, T.E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: An analysis with recommendations. Organizational research methods, 8: 274-289. Bedeian, A.G., Ferris, G.R. (1992). Age, Tenure, and Job Satisfaction: A Tale of Two Perspectives. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 40: 33-48.

Bernerth, J.B., Armenakis, A.A., Feild, A.S., Giles, W.F., Walker, H.J (2007). Leader-member social exchange (LMSX): development and validation of a scale. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 28: 979-1003.

Bernerth, J.B., Armenakis, A.A., Feild, H.B., Giles, W.F., Walker, H.J. (2008). The influence of Personality Differences Between Subordinates and Supervisors on Perceptions of LMX. An Empirical Investigation. Group & Organization Management, 33/2: 216-240.

Bernerth, J.B., Armenakis, A.A., Feild, H.S., Giles, W.F., Walker, H.J. (2007). Is personality associated with perceptions of LMX? An empirical study. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 28/7: 613-631.

(37)

37

Burris, V. (1983). The Social and Political Consequences of Overeducation. American

Sociological Review, 48/4: 454-467.

Carver, C.S., Sutton, S.K., Scheier, M.F. (2000). Action, emotion, and personality: Emerging conceptual integration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26: 741-751.

Cogliser, C.C., Schriesheim, S.A. (2000). Exploring work unit context and leader-member exchange: a multi-level perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21: 487-511. Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical Power Analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1/3: 98-101.

Connolly, J.J., Viswesvaran, C. (2000). The role of affectivity in job satisfaction: a meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 29: 265-281.

Costa, P.T., Jr, McCrae, R.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.

Dansereau, F., Graen, G. &Haga, W.J. (1975). A Vertical Dyad Linkage Approach to Leadership within Formal Organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance, 13: 46-78.

Dulebohn, J.H., Bommer, W.H., Liden, R.C., Brouer, R.L., Ferris, G.R. (2012). A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents and Consequences of Leader-Member Exchange: Integrating the Past With an Eye Toward the Future. Journal of Management, 38/6: 1715-1759.

(38)

38

Fried, Y., Ferris, G.R. (1987). The Validity of the Job Characteristics Model: A Review and Meta-Analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40: 287-322.

Gerstner, C.R., Day, D.V. (1997). Meta-Analytic Review of Leader-Member Exchange Theory: Correlates and Construct Issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82/6: 827-844. Green, S.G., Anderson, S.E., Shivers, S.L. (1996). Demographic and Organizational Influences on Leader-Member Exchange and Related Work Attitudes. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66/2: 203-214.

Green, S.G., Liden, R.C., Blank, W. (1983). Market and Organizational Influences on Bank Employees’ Work Attitudes and Behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68/2: 298-306.

Hodson, R. (1989). Gender Differences in Job Satisfaction: Why Aren’t Women More Dissatisfied? The Sociological Quarterly, 30/3: 385-399.

House R.J., Rousseau D.M., Thomas-Hunt M. (1995). The Meso Paradigm: A Framework for the Integration of Micro Organizational Behavior. In Cummings L.L., Staw B.M. (Eds.),

Research in Organizational Behavior. Greenwich: JAI Press.

Hunt, J.W., Saul, P.N. (1975). The Relationship of Age, Tenure, and Job Satisfaction in Males and Females. The Academy of Management Journal, 18/4: 690-702.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory

and research. New York: Guilford Press.

(39)

39

Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Locke, E.A. (2000). Personality and Job Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Job Characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85/2: 237-249.

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., Locke, E.A. and Durham, C.C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: a core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19: 151-88. Kamdar, D., Van Dyne, L. (2007). The Joint Effects of Personality and Workplace Social Exchange Relationships in Predicting Task Performance and Citizenship Performance.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 92/5: 1286-1298.

Kwon, S., Weed, N.C. Neuroticism. In: Vohs, K.D., Baumeister, R.F. (Eds.). Encyclopedia of

Social Psychology. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Lee, R., Wilbur, E.R. (1985). Age, Education, Job Tenure, Salary, Job Characteristics, and Job Satisfaction: A Multivariate Analysis. Human Relations, 38/8: 781-791.

Levin, I., Stokes, J.P. (1989). Dispositional Approach to Job Satisfaction: Role of Negative Affectivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 5: 752-758.

Locke, E.A. (1969). What is Job satisfaction? Organizational behavior and human

performance, 4: 309-336.

Lucas, R.E. (2007). Extraversion. In: Vohs, K.D., Baumeister, R.F. (Eds.). Encyclopedia of

Social Psychology. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.

(40)

40

Nahrgang, J.D., Morgeson, F.P., Ilies, R. (2009). The development of leader-member exchanges: Exploring how personality and performance influence leader and member relationships over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108: 256-266.

Parker, S.K. (2007). Job Satisfaction. In: Rogelberg, S.G. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Industrial

and Organizational Psychology. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Phillips, A.S., Bedeian, A.G. (1994). Leader-follower exchange quality: the role of personal and interpersonal attributes. Academy of Management Journal, 37/4: 990-1001.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88/5, 879-903.

Salgado, J.F., Moscoso, S., Alonso, P. (2013). Subdimensional Structure of the Hogan Personality Inventory. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 21/3: 277-285. Smits, D.J.M., Boeck, P.D. (2006). From BIS/BAS to the Big Five. European Journal of

Personality, 20: 255-270.

Spector, P.E. (1997). Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Cause, and Consequences. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Stanton, J.M., Sinar, E.F., Balzer, W.K., Julian, A.L., Thoresen, P., Aziz, S., Fisher, G.G., Smith, P.C. (2002). Development of a compact measure of job satisfaction: The abridged job descriptive index. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61/6: 1104-1122.

(41)

41

Uhl-Bien, M. (2007). Leader-Member Exchange Theory. In: Rogelberg, S.G. (Ed.).

Encyclopedia of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Thousand Oaks: SAGE

Publications, Inc.

Vollmer, J., Niessen, C., Spurk, D., Linz, A., Abele, A.E. (2011). Reciprocal relationships between leader-member exchange (LMX) and job satisfaction: A cross-lagged analysis.

Applied Psychology: An international Review, 60/4: 522-545.

Wall Street Journal (2011). “Find what you love,” Steve Jobs’ at Stanford University. Online: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111903596904576520690515394766.

Watson, D., Clark, L.A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In: Hogan, R., Johnson, J. Briggs, S. (Eds.). Handbook of personality psychology. San Diego: Academic Press.

Wilson, K.S., Sin, H.-P., Conlon, D.E. (2010). What about the leader in leader-member exchange? The impact of resource exchanges and substitutability on the leader. Academy of

Management Review, 35/3: 358-372.

(42)

42

Appendix

Items in measurement scales

Job Satisfaction

1. I feel fairly satisfied with my present job. 2. Most days I am enthusiastic about my work.

3. Each day at work seems like it will never end. (reverse coded) 4. I find real enjoyment in my work.

5. I consider my job to be rather unpleasant. (reverse coded)

Big Five Personality Dimensions

(43)

43 15. Worries (Neuroticism) 16. Assertive (Extraversion) 17. Active (Extraversion) 18. Energetic (Extraversion) 19. Outgoing (Extraversion) 20. Talkative (Extraversion) 21. Wide interests (Openness) 22. Fantastical (Openness) 23. Intelligent (Openness) 24. Original (Openness) 25. Insightful (Openness)

LMSX (leader-member social exchange)

1. My manager and I have a two-way exchange relationship.

2. I do not have to specify the exact conditions to know my manager will return a favour. 3. If I do something for my manager, he or she will eventually repay me.

4. I have a balance of inputs and outputs with my manager. 5. My efforts are reciprocated by my manager.

6. My relationship with my manager is composed of comparable exchanges of giving and taking.

7. When I give effort at work, my manager will return it.

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Niet alleen modieuze tesettür wordt gepromoot, ook niet-islamitische mode komt veel voor in advertenties voor gesluierde vrouwen, zoals bijvoorbeeld in Âlâ.. In dit tijdschrift

We zien dat kennis over voedsel en gezondheid zowel binnen de context van de staat, de markt en het leven van burgers, ofwel consumenten, op verschillende manieren wordt ingezet,

The objective of this research is to determine the relationship between job insecurity, job satisfaction, affective organisational commitment and work locus of control

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

First, Walter &amp; Scheibe (2013) suggest that incorporating boundary conditions in the relationship between leaders’ age and charismatic leadership needs to be the

Additionally, educational level is negatively related to the dummy variable ‘would like to work more hours’ (r = -.20, p &lt;.05) and positively related to the dummy variable

So the hypothesis with respect to neuroticism is that jobs containing high levels of complexity and autonomy are less satisfying for neurotic individuals than for emotionally

Based on the existing literature about job satisfaction, it has been suggested in this research that team process feedback and the quality of the LMX both have a positive influence