Individual Dispositions & Job Satisfaction

Organizational Behaviour

Bachelor Thesis Tim Vaessen, June 11, 2010

Individual Dispositions & Job Satisfaction

Bachelor Thesis Organization & Strategy

2010

Tim Vaessen

679457

Organizational Behavior Pre-master Logistics & Operations Management Supervisor

Drs. M. Röthengatter

Word count

6.114

2

Management summary This bachelor thesis evaluates the extent to which different individual dispositions have influence on job satisfaction. Job satisfaction can be seen as an attitude that individuals maintain towards their job. Like all attitudes job satisfaction has an affective (feelings),

a cognitive (beliefs) and a

behavioural component. Job satisfaction is not only an important issue for employees, but it is also an important issue for managers and organizations, since it is related to important work-related outcomes such as higher levels of job performance, and productivity, as well as lower levels of absenteeism. The level of job satisfaction is not only determined by situational factors (e.g. salary). Dispositional factors (e.g. personality traits, individual characteristics) also seem to influence the determination of an individual’s level of job satisfaction. There are different dispositional frameworks that explain individual dispositions. Three well-known frameworks (affectivity model, five factor model, and the core self-evaluation model) are discussed in this thesis and their relation with job satisfaction is described. This literature review tries to explain the influence of individual dispositions on job satisfaction. After analysing the dispositional frameworks and the three components of the attitude “job satisfaction”, an attempt will be made to explain their relation.

3

Table of contents Chapter 1: Introduction ......................................................................................................................5 1.1 Problem indication....................................................................................................................5 1.2 Problem statement ...................................................................................................................6 1.3 Research questions ...................................................................................................................6 1.4 Relevance .................................................................................................................................7 1.5 Research design ........................................................................................................................7 1.6 Data collection ..........................................................................................................................7 1.7 Thesis structure ........................................................................................................................8 Chapter 2: Individual dispositions ......................................................................................................9 2.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................9 2.2 Definitions ................................................................................................................................9 2.3 Theories about individual dispositions ......................................................................................9 2.3.1 Affectivity model ...............................................................................................................9 2.3.2 Five factor model ............................................................................................................. 10 2.3.3 Core self-evaluation ......................................................................................................... 12 2.4 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 13 Chapter 3: Job Satisfaction ............................................................................................................... 14 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 14 3.2 Tripartite model ...................................................................................................................... 14 3.2.1 Affective component ....................................................................................................... 15 3.2.2 Cognitive component ....................................................................................................... 15 3.2.3 Behavioral component ..................................................................................................... 15 3.4 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 16 Chapter 4: The relationship between individual dispositions and job satisfaction ........................... 17 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 17 4.2 The relationship between individual dispositions and job satisfaction ..................................... 17 4.3 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 19 Chapter 5: Conclusions and recommendations ................................................................................ 20 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 20 5.2 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 20 5.3 Limitations and recommendations .......................................................................................... 21 References ....................................................................................................................................... 22

4

Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Problem indication Job satisfaction is one of the most frequently researched topics in organizational behaviour (Lent, 2008). A people’s job covers a significant number of years of their lifetime. Therefore job satisfaction is an important issue for employees. However, it is also an important issue for managers and organizations, since job satisfaction is related to important work-related outcomes such as higher levels of job performance, organizational commitment, and productivity, as well as lower levels of absenteeism, lateness and turnover (Hulin & Judge, 2003). Therefore, research into the antecedents of job satisfaction is considered as an important topic of research.

According to Pool (1997) job satisfaction is an attitude that individuals maintain towards their job, which is developed from the perception of their job. Many psychologists believe that situational characteristics of the job are the predominant determinants of job satisfaction (Kulik, Oldham & Hackman, 1987; O’reiilly & Roberts, 1975). However, in the past 15 years, an expanding literature has accumulated that job satisfaction is not only determined by situational factors. Dispositional factors (e.g. personality traits, individual characteristics) seem to have influence on determining an individual’s level of job satisfaction as well (Cohrs, Abele & Dette, 2006). Despite this widespread acceptance, a broad array of traits has been investigated, nevertheless there has been little integration in the literature (Judge, Heller & Mount, 2002). Dispositional approaches are supported by results that suggest that job satisfaction is moderately stable over time and across job changes (Dormann & Zapf, 2001). One accumulating body of research suggest that variance in job satisfaction across individuals can be traced to measures of affective temperament that can be divided into positive (PA) and negative affectivity (NA) (Motowidlo, 1996). NA

reflects individuals tendencies to experience aversive

emotional states, whereas PA reflects the propensity to experience positive states. Another body of research that relates individual dispositions with job satisfaction is based on the so called core self-evaluation (i.e., self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, internal control beliefs, and emotional stability). These core-evaluations are conceptualized as feelings about the self that have a general affect on emotional reactions to the environment (Judge & Bono, 2001). Though traditionally less studied in research on dispositional effects on job satisfaction, the five factor model (i.e., neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, conscientiousness and agreeableness ), provides a comprehensive taxonomy to organize traits relevant to job satisfaction (Judge, Heller & Mount, 2002). Judge et al. (2002) concluded that organizing personality traits

5

according to the five factor model leads to substantial support for the dispositional influence on job satisfaction. The literature about this topic provides scattered knowledge, and the literature. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to evaluate the extent to which different individual dispositions have influence on job satisfaction. Even though organizations have no direct influence on employee dispositions, the use of sound selection methods and a good match between employees and jobs will ensure people are selected and placed into jobs most appropriate for them, which, in turn, will help enhance their job satisfaction (Erez, 1994).

1.2 Problem statement From the problem indication it becomes clear that understanding the influence of individual dispositions on job satisfaction can support organizations in selecting employees that suit their organization best. Therefore the problem statement is as follows:

“What is the influence of individual dispositions on job satisfaction?”

Both individual dispositions and job satisfaction are analyzed by using theories about individual dispositions, job satisfaction, and the relationship between these two.

1.3 Research questions In order to identify and answer this problem statement, the following research questions need to be investigated: 

Which theories about individual dispositions can be identified? Here an explanation of individual dispositions is given, and three important dispositional frameworks are discussed.



What is job satisfaction and what different theories about job satisfaction are developed? Here job satisfaction is explained by using the tripartite model.



What is the relationship between individual dispositions and job satisfaction? After answering the two research questions above the relationship between individual dispositions and job satisfaction is discussed. By doing this an answer to the problem statement is given.

6

1.4 Relevance There are several individual dispositions that seem to influence job satisfaction. Therefore this research investigates what influence different individual dispositions have on job satisfaction. Several existing theories on individual dispositions and job satisfaction are examined and combined to get more comprehension on this relationship. The goal of this thesis is to provide the reader with a clear explanation of the relationship between individual dispositions and job satisfaction. This way it will support managers in selecting employees who are easier satisfied with their jobs.

1.5 Research design This thesis is a literature review and is descriptive in nature. The problem statement and research questions are answered by using existing literature. The characteristics of individual dispositions and job satisfaction are described and examined in order to find out to what extent they are related to one another.

1.6 Data collection The information that is collected for this thesis comes by means of secondary data. This approach will rely on multiple research papers of secondary sources. Useful data is gathered via the library of the University of Tilburg (UvT). The search engine of the library provides reliable data from different databases, such as ABI/Inform and UvT catalogue. These databanks provide papers written by scientists from all over the world. The databases are searched for recent papers relating to individual dispositions, job satisfaction and the relation between these two. More information is gathered by looking at references in the relevant papers which gives new data concerning the same topic. To make sure that the papers are valid and reliable, a list of quality journals is used. This list can be found on the Blackboard Learning System of Tilburg University. Another way to check the quality of the journals is by testing the impact of the journal in the field via the “Journal Citation Reports” tool in the Web of Science database. To make sure the collected data is up to date, the most recent information is consulted. This is done by checking the date on which the article is published. Older articles are only used when they still prove their relevance in current research.

7

1.7 Thesis structure In the next chapter is explained what theories about individual dispositions are known. Three different dispositional frameworks, the affectivity model, the five factor model, and the core selfevaluation model, are explained. Chapter three covers definitions of job satisfaction, and also the most important issues and theories related to job satisfaction. In chapter four a conclusion is drawn and an answer to the problem statement is given. Finally the limitations of this study are discussed and recommendations for further research are given.

8

Chapter 2: Individual dispositions 2.1 Introduction Individual dispositions refer to a tendency why people act in a specific way. It explains individual behavior as a result of internal characteristics or personalities that reside within the individual (Krull, 2001). An Individual disposition is a longstanding pattern of behavior expressed across time and in many different situations (Dormann & Zapf, 2001). Individual dispositions are partly genetic determined (Arvey, McCall, Bouchard, Taubman, & Cavanaugh, 1994). This chapter describes three important dispositional frameworks, which partly explain why individuals act in a certain way and which different personalities they can own. First the affectivity model is explained. The second model is the five factor model, and finally the core self-evaluation model is described. Before these theories are explained a definition of individual dispositions is given.

2.2 Definitions Individual dispositions contain all factors, including personality taxonomies, that explain human behaviour over time and in different situations (Dormann & Zapf, 2001). Individual dispositions can be defined as follows:

“A disposition is a habit, a preparation, a state of readiness, or a characteristic tendency to act in a specified way” (Cohrs, Abele & Dette, 2006, p. 346).

2.3 Theories about individual dispositions There are several theories that are based on individual dispositions. These theories attempt to explain different personality dispositions. One of these theories is the affectivity model which consists of positive affectivity and negative affectivity of an individual. The five-factor model is also a theory based on individual dispositions. This model categorizes all personality measures under the umbrella of a 5-factor model of personality (Goldberg, 1990). Another model that evolves from individual dispositions is the core self-evaluations model (Judge & Bono, 2001). This concept represents the fundamental assessments that people make about themselves and their worthiness, competence, and capabilities. All three theories are examined in the next paragraphs. 2.3.1 Affectivity model The first dispositional theory that is explained, is the affectivity model. This model describes two dimensions of dispositional affect, namely positive affectivity (PA) and negative affectivity (NA) (Judge & Larson, 2001). NA refers to individual differences in the dispositional tendency to

9

experience negative feeling states, leading to self-recrimination, and dissatisfaction (Watson & Clark, 1984). PA, the positive analogue of NA, refers to individual differences in the dispositional tendency of individuals to experience positive feeling states (e.g. happy, active) (Watson, Clark & Tellegen 1988). According to George and Brief (1992) PA and NA have different antecedents and consequences, and are relatively independent of one another. People with high level of NA tend to report distress, stress, or even health problems. Low levels of NA are associated with feelings such as serenity and calmness (Watson et al.,1988). People with high PA tend to feel highly energetic, alertness, enthusiastic, and active. However people with low PA appear unconcerned, nonchalant, or inactive (Watson et al., 1988). In practice people may bring these feelings of PA or NA into their environments. For example, in their work environments they link positive or negative dispositions with their job experience. This can lead to satisfaction or dissatisfaction in their work environment as a result (Staw, Bell & Clausen, 1986). NA is mostly used as a method factor to investigate the influence of NA on the relationship between self-reports of stressors and strains (George & Brief, 1992). Whereas PA is mostly used in studies as a method factor on measures of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, leader-contingent reward behavior, and job complexity (Williams & Anderson, 1994). PA was found only weakly related to stressors and strains. In the existing literature PA is less used as a method factor as NA.

2.3.2 Five factor model The most prominent factor model of personality is the five factor model (McCrae &Costa, 1989). This model is often used to describe the most important aspects of personality (Judge et al., 2002). The five factor model of personality is a hierarchical organization of personality traits that covers five basic dimensions (traits): Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience. Traits can be described as single dimensions of individual differences expressed consistently over time and pervasively across situations (Crick & Bigbee, 1998). However, the same trait dimension can be expressed in different ways. Research has shown that virtually all personality measures can be placed under the umbrella of the five factor model of personality (Goldberg, 1990). The model is structured hierarchical. The higher order traits make a broad, but somewhat imprecise, predictions about behaviour, whereas the lower order traits make more precise but somewhat narrow predictions about behaviour (Costa McCrae, 1989). This model is a widespread investigated personality model, and has proven its relevance to many areas in organizational behavior (Barrick & Mount, 1991). The dimensions composing the five factor

10

model (neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) are discussed below.

Neuroticism Neuroticism is the most prominent trait in nearly every measure of personality. In general, neuroticism refers to a lack of positive psychological adjustment and emotional stability (Costa & McCrae, 1989). It leads to tendencies such as dealing with anxiety (instability and stress proneness), and dressing ones well being (personal insecurity and depression). Individuals who are high on neuroticism, are likely to feel anxious, angry and hostile, depressed, self-conscious, impulsive, and vulnerable. The opposite of neuroticism is emotional stability, that is, a tendency to be free of worry, calm and controlled (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Furthermore, neuroticism is conceptually equivalent to NA of the affectivity model, which is mentioned in the previous paragraph (Digman, 1990).

Extraversion Extraversion is also a prominent factor in personality measurement. Extraverts experience positive emotions, have a great number of close friends, and are more likely to take on leadership roles (Watson & Clark, 1997). Furthermore they are characterized as more sociable, more active and impulsive, and they like people and large groups. Extraversion, includes the facets of warmth, a tendency to be assertive, energetic, dominant and forceful, and have a tendency toward joy, happiness, love, and optimism (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Furthermore, extraversion is conceptually related to PA of the affectivity model, which is described in the previous paragraph (Judge et al., 1998).

Openness to experience Openness to experience consist of the facets of fantasy, the use of imagination and creativity to enrich life, and is related to scientific and artistic creativity. Openness to experience is also characterized with the ability to appreciate art, aesthetics, poetry, and beauty. Furthermore it is related to feelings and deep emotional experience, such as a preference for novelty, ideas and intellection curiosity and willingness to entertain unconventional ideas (Costa & McCrae, 1992).

Agreeableness Agreeableness determines one’s interpersonal intimacy (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Individuals who are high on agreeableness represent persons who are cooperative, caring, and trusting, as well as likeable, cheerful and gullible (Zhao & Seibert, 2006). Individuals low on agreeableness can be seen as suspicious, self-centered and ruthless (Costa & McCrae, 1992) .

11

Conscientiousness Conscientiousness consists of three facets, namely – achievement orientation (hardworking and persistent), dependability (responsible and careful), and orderliness (planned and organized). Thus, conscientiousness seems to be related to an individual’s degree of self-control, as well as a need for achievement, order and persistence (Zhao & Seibert, 2006). 2.3.3 Core self-evaluation Over the years considerable research has centered on a broad personality trait termed core self evaluations. Judge, Locke, Durham and Kluger (1998), introduced the core self-evaluations concept as basic conclusions or bottom-line evaluations about themselves and their worthiness, competence, and capabilities. The core self-evaluation theory is related to several organizational concepts, such as motivation, job performance, leadership, and job satisfaction (Judge & Bono, 2001). People can make fundamental evaluations with respect to oneself, other people, and the world. The difference between core self-evaluations and external core evaluations, is that core self-evaluations are selfappraisals, and external core-evaluations are appraisals individuals make of their environment (Judge et al., 1997).

In the core-self-evaluation theory, the core concept is indicated by four traits: self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, neuroticism, and locus of control. Self-esteem is the general appraisal people make of themselves. As its core, self-esteem is the most fundamental core-evaluation of the self, because it represents the overall value that one places on oneself as a person (Harter, 1990). Generalized self-efficacy is an appraisal of how well one can handle life challenges. Judge et al. (1997) defined generalized self-efficacy as “one’s estimate of one’s capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to exercises general control over events in one’s life” (p. 19). Neuroticism is a tendency to have a negativistic outlook and to focus on negative aspects of the self. Research often indicates NA and neuroticism as closely related concepts (McCrae & Costa, 1989). People with high levels of neuroticism and NA have a negative view towards their environment. Finally, locus of control is concerned with beliefs that individuals have control about events in their life (internal locus of control), and when individuals believe that the environment controls events (external locus of control) (Rotter, 1966). Although locus of control is theoretically related to generalized self-efficacy, they differ in one important aspect. Self-efficacy refers to confidence towards one’s actions or behaviours, whereas locus refers to confidence in being able to control outcomes (Judge et al., 1997).

12

2.4 Summary There are several dispositional frameworks that describe individual dispositions and explain why people act in a specific way. The PA and NA model is one of those theories, and describes general dispositions to experience higher levels of pleasure and satisfaction versus dispositions that cause experiencing distress and dissatisfaction (Connoly & Viswesvaran, 2000). People with high levels of PA react more positively towards their environment, than people with high levels of NA. The five factor model also describes individual dispositions, and is based on five broad dimensions of personality that can be used to describe the most prominent aspects of personality (Goldberg, 1990). This model is one of the most investigated personality taxonomies, and has proven its relevance to many area’s in organizational psychology, such as leadership, work motivations, job performance, and, in a lesser degree, job satisfaction (Barrick & Mount, 1991). The last dispositional framework that is identified is the core self-evaluation theory. This theory describes feelings about the self that have a general effect on emotional reactions to the environment (Judge & Bono, 2001). Although these three dispositional frameworks have proven their empirically worthiness separately, the previous paragraphs show that they are clearly linked to one another.

13

Chapter 3: Job Satisfaction 3.1 Introduction Job satisfaction is one of the most widely researched concepts within organizational behaviour, much of which is aimed at enhancing operations within the world of business (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002). It is associated with important work-related and general outcomes (e.g., higher levels of job performance, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behaviour, and life satisfaction) as well as with lower levels of absenteeism, lateness and turnover (Hulin & Judge, 2003). Since job satisfaction is such a central construct in the research of organizational behaviour, many definitions have been formed through the years. However there is no universally accepted definition of job satisfaction. As indicated in the problem definition, job satisfaction can be defined as follows:

“Job satisfaction is an attitude that individuals maintain about their jobs. This attitude is developed from the perceptions of their jobs” (Pool, 1997, p.272).

Since job satisfaction is an attitude, it can be explained by the traditional view of attitude. This view is based on the tripartite model which assumes that attitude has three well known components: an affective, a cognitive and a behavioural component (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). This chapter describes job satisfaction based on the components of the tripartite model.

3.2 Tripartite model Job satisfaction can be described by means of an influential model of attitude, namely the tripartite model (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). According to the tripartite model, an attitude is comprised of three components: affect, cognition, and behavior. Conceptualizing attitudes based on these three components has been one of the most popular ways clarifying the information upon which attitudes exists (Olson & Zanna, 1993). Attitude can be defined as a response to an attitude-object (e.g. oneself, other people, issues, job etc.) (Breckler, 1984). Affect, cognition, and behavior are three correlated, but distinct classes of response to that object. The affective component of attitude describes the feelings one has towards an attitude-object, whereas the cognitive component includes beliefs about attitude-objects and judged evaluative favorability towards an attitude object (Farley & Stasson, 2003). The behavioral component is a behavioral outcome to the affective and cognitive component (Niklas & Dormann, 2005).

14

3.2.1 Affective component Researchers become more and more interested in the affective component of attitude. In the literature about job satisfaction this affective component can be seen as mood and emotions at work (Fisher & Ashkanasy, 2000). However the affective state is a complex component, therefore the distinction has to be made between discrete emotions as affective state and moods as affective state (Weiss, 2002). Discrete emotions are affective states directed towards an attitude-object (person, job etc). Moods are not directly oriented towards an attitude-object, and produce relatively longer lasting emotional states. However affective states are states, and therefore they are temporary (Weis, 2002). A person can be happy now and might not be later. Therefore, another distinction that can be made is between affective states (one’s mood at the moment) and typical states (one’s generally mood). This is the part where individual dispositions, such as personality, play a role. Individual dispositions control peoples’ tendency to experience certain moods (e.g., states and emotions at work). In turn these affective experiences influence the evaluations of the situational job aspects (cognitive component), that indicate the broader attitude of job satisfaction (Ilies & Judge, 2004). To measure the affective component of job satisfaction from the perspective of mood, it can be connected to the degree of pleasantness that characterizes the affective experience (ranging from positive to negative mood) at any specific time (Ilies & Judge, 2004). 3.2.2 Cognitive component As mentioned before, the cognitive component of attitude can been seen as beliefs toward the attitude-object and judged evaluative favorability towards an attitude object (Weiss, 2002). Job beliefs are appraisals of the job situation and represent the individuals assessment of what their job provides them. The most notable job situation that has influence on job satisfaction is the nature of the work itself—often called “intrinsic job characteristics” (Saari & Judge, 2004). Analyzing job satisfaction from the perspective of Locke’s (1969) value-percept theory that defines satisfaction as a function of what one wants from a job and what one perceives oneself as receiving (what one believes his or her job provides), it becomes apparent that job beliefs should have a direct positive effect on job satisfaction. In this component of job satisfaction, the perceived intrinsic job characteristics play an important role. 3.2.3 Behavioral component As mentioned above the behavioural component of attitudes is a behavioral outcome to the affective and cognitive component (Niklas & Dormann, 2005). It can be described as productive ( e.g., lower levels of absenteeism, lateness and turnover) or counterproductive behavior at work (e.g., lower

15

levels of performance, and productivity). The behavioral component of job satisfaction is thought to be a cause or a consequence of job satisfaction, instead of being part of the job satisfaction attitude. Therefore the behavioral component is rarely included in definitions of job satisfaction (Niklas & Dormann, 2005). The behavioral component of attitudes describes self-report measures of past behavior, behavioral intentions, or observations/reports of actual behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1975).

3.4 Summary As indicated in the problem definition, job satisfaction can be defined as follows: “Job satisfaction is an attitude that individuals maintain about their jobs. This attitude is developed from the perceptions of their jobs ” (Pool, 1997, p.272). The traditional view of attitude structure is based on the influential tripartite model that assumes attitudes to have affective, cognitive, and behavioural components (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002). The affective state is a complex component, and is divided into discrete emotions as affective state and moods as affective state (Weiss, 2002). Furthermore, there is a distinction between affective states (one’s mood at the moment) and typical states (one’s generally mood). This is the part where individual dispositions, such as personality, play a role. Affective dispositions control peoples tendency to experience certain moods, states, and emotions at work, and in turn these affective experiences influence the state evaluations of the job situation that indicate the broader attitude of job satisfaction (Ilies & Judge, 2004). The cognitive component of attitude can be seen as beliefs toward the attitude-object (Weis, 2002). Job beliefs are appraisals of the job situation and represent the individuals’ assessment of what their job provides them. Therefore, job satisfaction is described as a function of what one wants from a job and what one perceives oneself as receiving (what one believes his or her job provides). In addition to the direct effect of beliefs on job satisfaction, beliefs can also have an indirect effect on job satisfaction (trough mood), because beliefs (and job cognitions in general) can both influence experienced affect (mood) and be influenced by it (Judge & Larsen, 2001). Thus, mood and beliefs should have both direct (independent) and mediated effect on job satisfaction. At last, the behavioural component of attitudes is described as a behavioral outcome to the affective and cognitive component

16

Chapter 4: The relationship between individual dispositions and job satisfaction 4.1 Introduction In the previous chapters several theories concerning individual dispositions and job satisfaction are considered. An accumulating body of research has indicated that differences in job satisfaction can partly be traced to differences in individual dispositions (House, Shane & Herold, 1996). Therefore this chapter discusses the relationship between individual dispositions and job satisfaction by linking the mentioned theories.

4.2 The relationship between individual dispositions and job satisfaction As indicated, the affective component of job satisfaction includes one’s mood or emotional state at work. According to Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) dispositions may influence the experienced emotional state at work (affective component of attitude), which in turn influences job satisfaction. The Affectivity model is, due to its affective nature, well suited to the affective nature of job satisfaction (Brief, 1998). According to many researchers (Connoly & Viswesvaran, 2000; Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, Warran & de Chermont, 2003) higher levels of PA and NA are correlated with job satisfaction. People with high PA are predisposed to experience positive affective states (Johnson & Johnson, 2000). These people seem to be happy in life, and this positive emotionality makes them more likely to experience higher levels of job satisfaction (Judge et al. 2002). On the other hand, people with high NA experience negative affective states. These people possess a negative nature, and tend to be dissatisfied with themselves, their jobs, and life in general (Judge et al. 2002). It could be assumed that these positive and negative affective states not only have influence on the affective component of job satisfaction, but also on the cognitive component. People with high PA might evaluate the intrinsic job characteristics more positively than people with high NA, and therefore have more positive beliefs toward their jobs. However in the existing literature little research on the relationship between the affectivity model and the cognitive component of job satisfaction has been done.

The five factor model is one of the most researched models, whose traits have proven their worthiness to many criteria in organisational behaviour (Judge, Heller & Klinger, 2008). However, most research of the five factor model has been done with respect to job performance, and much less

with

respect

to

job

satisfaction

(Judge,

Heller

&

Mount,

2002).

Toker and Subich (1997) found negative correlations between neuroticism and job satisfaction, and

17

positive correlations between extraversion and job satisfaction. According to Judge et al., (2002) three of the big five factors, namely neuroticism, extraversion and conscientiousness, were found to be of unique influence on predicting job satisfaction. Neuroticism can be seen as the primary source of NA (Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000). Therefore the relationship between neuroticism and job satisfaction is equivalent to the one between NA and job satisfaction, which is described above. Extraversion is also related to the affectivity model, and is conceptually equivalent to PA (Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000). Therefore the relationship between extraversion and job satisfaction can be explained based on the relationship between PA and job satisfaction, which is also mentioned before. As mentioned earlier conscientiousness represents a general work involvement tendency, and thus leads to satisfying work rewards (e.g., pay, promotions, recognition, respect) (Organ & Lingl, 1995). Therefore it is assumed that there is a indirect positive relationship between conscientiousness and job satisfaction. According to judge and Bono (2001) there is a correlation between the personality trait “core selfevaluation” and job satisfaction. According to Judge, Locke, Durham and Kluger (1998) it is that people with positive self-evaluation experience their lives and jobs more positively, because they hold the individual dispositions that allow them to do so. For example, individuals who feel personally important, also experience their work as important. However, the primary cause of the relationship between core self-evaluation and employee job satisfaction was through the perception of the job itself (the cognitive component “belief”) (Judge & Bono, 2001). People with positive selfevaluations are more satisfied with their jobs, not only because they feel happy in general or feel more in control, but they evaluate their intrinsic job characteristics (e.g., work challenges, work variety) more positive. According to Judge, Bono, Erez, and Locke (2005) all four traits of the core self-evaluation concept (self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, neuroticism, and locus of control) seem to have effects on job satisfaction. So it appears that the most important situational effect on job satisfaction -the job itself- is linked to one of the most important personality trait to predict organisational behaviour – core selfevaluation. Judge, et al. (1998) showed that people with positive self-evaluations were more likely to rate their job satisfaction at higher levels than people with less positive self-evaluation. However, this link between core self-evaluation and job satisfaction is mediated by the perceptions of intrinsic job characteristics (beliefs) (Judge et al., 1998).

18

4.3 Summary The previous paragraph shows that there is in fact a relationship between individual dispositions and job satisfaction. Since both the affectivity model and job satisfaction have an affective nature it is likely that they are related to one another (Brief, 1998). People with high NA experience positive affective states, and are therefore more likely to experience higher levels of job satisfaction. People with high NA on the other hand, experience negative affective states and tend to be dissatisfied with their jobs (Judge et al., 2002). The five factor model also seems to be related with job satisfaction. However, only three of the five factors (neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness) were found to be of unique influence on predicting job satisfaction (Judge et al., 2002). Neuroticism is equivalent to NA of the affectivity model, whereas extraversion is equivalent to PA (Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000). Conscientiousness represents a general work involvement tendency, and thus leads to satisfying work rewards (e.g., pay, promotions, recognition, respect) (Organ & Lingl, 1995). Therefore it is assumed that there is a indirect positive relationship between conscientiousness and job satisfaction. The core self-evaluation also related to job satisfaction. According to Judge, Locke, Durham and Kluger (1998) it is that people with positive self-evaluation experience their lives and jobs more positively, because they hold the individual dispositions that allow them to do so. However, the primary cause of the relationship between core self-evaluation and employee job satisfaction was through the perception of the job itself (the cognitive component “belief”) (Judge & Bono, 2001). People with positive self-evaluations are more satisfied with their jobs, not only because they feel happy in general or feel more in control, but they evaluate their intrinsic job characteristics (e.g., work challenges, work variety) more positive.

19

Chapter 5: Conclusions and recommendations. 5.1 Introduction The final chapter gives an answer to the problem statement and concludes this thesis. The problem statement is defined as follows: “What is the influence of individual dispositions on job satisfaction?”

Furthermore the limitations to this research are described, and recommendations for further research is given. 5.2 Conclusion Throughout the years, many researchers believed that situational characteristics of the job were the predominant determinants of job satisfaction (Kulik, Oldham & Hackman, 1987; O’reiilly & Roberts, 1975). However, in the last two decenia, expanding literature has accumulated that dispositional factors (e.g. personality traits, individual characteristics) also seem to have influence on determining an individual’s level of job satisfaction(Cohrs, Abele & Dette, 2006). Since, there is such an ambiguity in the literature about the determinants of job satisfaction, this thesis provides more insight in the dispositional sources of job satisfaction. After consulting different scientific literature concerning this topic, an answer to the problem statement can now be given.

Several innovative studies have shown the influences of individual dispositions on job satisfaction (Saari & Judge, 2004). In this thesis all of the three mentioned dispositional frameworks seemed to have influence on determining job satisfaction. The first dispositional framework that has been attempted is the affectivity model. The Affectivity model is, due to its affective nature, well suited to the affective nature of job satisfaction (Brief, 1998). According to many researchers (Connoly & Viswesvaran, 2000; Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, Warran & de Chermont, 2003) higher levels of PA and NA are correlated with job satisfaction. The five factor model also has influence in the determination of job satisfaction. According to Judge et al., (2002) three of the big five factors, namely neuroticism, extraversion and conscientiousness, were found to be of unique influence on predicting job satisfaction. However, the five factor model and the affectivity model are mainly influencing the affective component of job satisfaction (Illies & Judge, 2003). The last dispositional framework that has been tested as a determinant of job satisfaction is the core self-evaluation model. According to judge and Bono (2001) this model also is correlated with job satisfaction. All four traits of the core self-evaluation concept (self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, neuroticism, and locus of control) seem to have effects on job satisfaction (Judge, Bono, Erez, and

20

Locke, 2005). The difference between the core self-evaluation model and the other two mentioned models, is that the primary cause of the relationship between core self-evaluation and employee job satisfaction was through the perception of the job itself (the cognitive component “belief”), whereas the other two models were primary related through the affective component (Judge & Bono, 2001). In sum it can be concluded that individual dispositions have significant influence on the determination of job satisfaction.

However, individual dispositions cannot be seen as exclusive determinants of job satisfaction (Gerhart, 2005). According to Cohrs et al. (2006) individual dispositions are related with situational characteristics in the explanation of job satisfaction. Although individual dispositions play a significant role in the determination of job satisfaction, they do not stand on their own. Situational influences also play an important role, therefore both influences have to be taken into account, since they independently seem to explain different portions of variance in job satisfaction.

5.3 Limitations and recommendations There are also studies who claim that childhood temperament is a determinant of adult job satisfaction (Saari & Judge, 2004). Childhood temperament can be seen as an individual disposition. However the influence of this disposition on job satisfaction has not been taken into account for this thesis, and therefore might be interesting for further research. Furthermore, job satisfaction is described as an attitude towards one job, and like other attitudes, it has both affective and cognitive components. However, to what extent the affective and cognitive component play a role in explaining job satisfaction does not become clear. Therefore this also might be interesting for further research. As indicated job satisfaction seem to be important for organizations, since it is related to positive work-related outcomes (e.g. performance) (Hulin & Judge, 2003). Nevertheless, there are studies who claim that the job satisfaction – job performance relation is only limited, and that it varies across contexts (Kaplan, Bradley, Luchman & Haynes, 2009). This also might be interesting for taking into account in further research.

21

References Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M. (1975). A Bayesian analysis of attribution processes. Psychological Bulletin, 82(2), 261-277. Arvey, R. D., McCall, B. P., Bouchard, T. J., Taubman, P. (1994). Genetic influences on job satisfaction and work value. Personality and Individual Differences, 17(1), 21-33. Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26. Brief, A. P.(1998) Attitudes in and around organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc, 266. Cohrs, J. C., Abele, A. E., Dette, Dorothea E. (2006) Integrating Situational and Dispositional Determinants of Job Satisfaction: Findings from Three Samples of Professionals. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 140(4), 363-395. Connolly, J. J., Viswesvaran, C. (2000). The role of affectivity in job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 29(2), 265-281. Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R. (1992) 'Four ways five factors are not basic': Reply. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(8), 861-865. Crick, N. R., Bigbee, M. A. (1998). Relational and overt forms of peer victimization: A multi-informant approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(2), 337-347. Dormann, C., Zapf, D. (2001). Job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of stabilities. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(5), 483-504. Erez, M. (1994). Work motivation from a cross-cultural perspective. In: Journeys into cross-cultural psychology. Bouvy, Anne-Marie (Ed.); van de Vijver, Fons J. R. (Ed.); Boski, Pawel (Ed.); Schmitz, Paul G. (Ed.); Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers, 1994. 386-403 George, J. M., Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112(2), 310-329. Gerhart, B. (2005). The (affective) dispositional approach to job satisfaction: Sorting out the policy implications. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(1), 79-97. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative 'description of personality': The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216-1229. Harter, S. (1990). Causes, correlates, and the functional role of global self-worth: A life-span perspective. In: Competence considered. Sternberg, Robert J. (Ed.); Kolligian, John, Jr. (Ed.); New Haven, CT, US: Yale University Press, 1990. pp. 67-97. House, R. J., Shane, S. A., Herold, D. M. (1996). Rumors of the death of dispositional research are vastly exaggerated. The Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 203-224.

22

Hulin, C. L., Judge, T. A. (2003). Job attitudes. Industrial and organizational psychology, 12. Borman, Walter C. (Ed.); Ilgen, Daniel R. (Ed.); Klimoski, Richard J. (Ed.); Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc, 2003. pp. 255-276. Ilies, R., Judge, T. A. (2004); An experience-sampling measure of job satisfaction and its relationships with affectivity, mood at work, job beliefs, and general job satisfaction. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(3), 367-389. Judge, T.A., Bono, J. E. (2001); Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80-92. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., Locke, E. A., Core Self-Evaluations and Job and Life Satisfaction: The Role of Self-Concordance and Goal Attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 257-268. 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., Larsen, R. J. (2001). Dispositional affect and job satisfaction: A review and theoretical extension. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1), 67-98. Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham,C.C., Kluger, A. N. (1998).Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1), 17-34. 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. Kulik, C. T., Oldham, G. R., Hackman, J. R. (1987) Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol 31(3), Dec, 1987. Special issue: Conceptual and methodological issues in person environment fit research. pp. 278-296. Lent, R. W. (2008). Understanding and promoting work satisfaction: An integrative review. In S. D.Brown & R. W.Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (4th ed., pp. 462-480). McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T. (1989); More reasons to adopt the five-factor model. American Psychologist, 44(2), 451-452. Motowidlo, S.J., Burnett, Jennifer R., Maczynski, J., Witkowski, S. (1996). Predicting managerial job performance from personality ratings based on a structured interview: An international replication. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 27(2), 139-151. Niklas, C.D., Dormann, C., The impact of state affect on job satisfaction. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14(4), 367-388. O'Reilly, C. A., Roberts, K. H. (1975). Individual differences in personality, position in the organization, and job satisfaction. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 14(1), 144-150. Pool, S. W. (1997). The relationship of job satisfaction with substitutes of leadership, leadership behavior, and work motivation. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 131(3), 271-283. Saari, L. M., Judge, T. A. (2004) Employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 43(4), 395-407.

23

Staw, B. M., Bell, N. E., Clausen, J. A. (1986). The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(1), 1986. pp. 56-77. Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., Warren, C. R., de Chermont, K. (2003). The Affective Underpinnings of Job Perceptions and Attitudes: A Meta-Analytic Review and Integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129(6), 914-945. Watson, D., Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96(3), 465-490. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In: Handbook of personality psychology. Hogan, Robert (Ed.); Johnson, John A. (Ed.); Briggs, Stephen R. (Ed.); San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press, 1997. pp. 767-793. Watson, D., Clark, L. A. (1988). Tellegen, Auke; Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070. Weiss, H. M., Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective Events Theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in organizational behavior, 1-74. Weiss, H. M., Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 173-194. Williams, L. J., Anderson, S. E. (1994). An alternative approach to method effects by using latentvariable models: Applications in organizational behavior research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(3), 323-331. Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E. (2006). The Big Five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 259-271.

24

Appendix Appendix 1 Time schedule Period Student March 1 – 5

Task/Deadline Prepare my research proposal. Deliver a printed version of the proposal in the mailbox of my supervisor

Event

Deadline: March 4, 16.00. March 8 – 12

March 15 – April 9

April 12 – 16

April 19 – 29

May 3-7

May 10 – 21

May 25 – 28

May 31 – June 11

Individual meeting: comments on research proposal. Improve your research proposal and start working on chapter 2 and 3. Submit the work by e-mail to fellow students in the group. Deliver a printed version of my work in the mailbox of my supervisor Deadline: April 8, 16.00 pm. Read the first chapters of my fellow students in the group and prepare a discussion.

Second group meeting: discussion of the first chapters.

Prepare first draft (3000 - 4000 words). Submit my work by e-mail to fellow students in the group. Deliver a printed version of your work in the mailbox ofmy supervisor Deadline: April 29, 16.00. Read first drafts of fellow students in the group and prepare a discussion.

Third group meeting: discussion of first draft.

Rework first draft and prepare a second draft (complete draft version, e.g. 6000 - 8000 words). Submit my work by e-mail to fellow students in the group. Deliver a printed version of my work in the mailbox of my supervisor Deadline: May 20, 16.00. Read final drafts of fellow students in the group and prepare a discussion.

Fourth group meeting: discussion of final draft.

Rework second draft. Deliver 2 printed version of my work in the mailbox of my supervisor

25

Deadline: June 11, 13.00. June 28 – July 9

Last group meeting: Feedback

26