Job satisfaction is a concept that is believed to be researched the most when it comes to human resources and in particular industrial psychology. The fact produced by this research is that job satisfaction is co related with productivity. There is no dispute in the correlation of satisfaction of job with productivity but on the contrary, there is no as such evidence related to it. There are three ways of explaining the correlation. When one employee is more satisfied towards hi job then he becomes more productive too. Thus, when he becomes productive it becomes a source of contentment for them with their job. Last but not the least, when the job matching is high with the employee then he will experience more job satisfaction and thus will be productive .
All three of the above facts are important for human resource practitioners but which one is the most important can vary from one to other. If the first fact becomes the most important for the human resource practitioner or an employee than he would strive for making their work more skilled and full of variety so as to enjoy his workplace and nature of job. When one believes, that second fact is important; than he would work on the optimization of process in order to increase productivity. Lastly for the third fact to be believed employer should work effectively on the recruitment process for the optimization of job fit.
Before measuring job satisfaction in an organization, the employer and HR specialists must decide which fact to be followed and how to use the desired result. The understanding of job’s natured and its result to work performance is not an easy job. Since last fifty years, many psychologists are striving to find out the answer to the question regarding the correlation of satisfaction of job with its performance. Many researchers have put a lot of effort in concluding the positive correlation that a content worker is a productive one too. Although this seems to be a great idea in particular but on the contrary some researcher states that result associated to it is inconclusive and there is no basic relationship. This research describes the relationship of performance and satisfaction of job .
The concept of job satisfaction is difficult to understand and have multi meaning to different people. It is mostly linked with employee’s motivation but the relationship between the two is vague. Satisfaction differs from motivation. Satisfaction of job is more associated towards attitude which is internal. It can be linked with an individual’s feeling of achievement which can be qualitative as well as quantitative. Recently, job satisfaction is more linked with an improvement to designing of job and its organization and quality of job life. This relationship of performance and satisfaction of job is a debatable issue and more of a controversy. On one hand, it is seen that satisfaction results to productive performance whereas on the other hand, it is found that there is just a limited relation in satisfaction and performance .
Disappointment of employees with the management turns to nonappearance and high labor turnover. But other than dissatisfaction, there are many other reasons for absenteeism. There is no simple way in the universe which can help management to reduce the rate of turnover and absence. This article tells that largely in the empire of job design, wherever opportunity exists for beneficial development of the worker’s happiness level. The performance of employee is the result of three factors. These factors include motivation, capability of doing a job, its desire and the need for it. Other factors are working environment, infrastructure and tools regarding job. If the individual doesn’t have the required ability, it can be replaced by any other worker. If the environment has a certain issue, the employer can make adjustments for the promotion of higher performance. When motivation is considered as a problem than off course the manager‘s job is pretty much challenging than other subordinates. On the other hand, the behavior of an individual is a separate phenomenon which can differ from individual to individual. This cannot be understood by the manager because of its behavior and therefore he cannot help the individual to solve his problem. In a nutshell, motivation plays a significant role because it might have a negative influence on performance having an intangible nature .
There is a limit of highest productivity and the duration maintained to that work. When an employee is happy with the management his productivity increase adjacently fatigue decreases the productivity. Some employees are encouraged by their own maximum productivity and exhaust bit by bit. For example, there is a man working for two shifts from 3P.M to 7A.M in seven days a week with high productivity. Suddenly he dies on morning. That firm has to hire 4 employees against him in order to equalize the productivity with him .
In 1980s, places around the US implied cross training for the employees became chief objective for food and hospitality firms. When the minimum wage rate increases in 2008 this training occurred again. As the wage rate increased, the workers in a shift were reduced however the workload increases on workforce. These entities decreases the labor unions by which the workers could accomplish any function practically in the plant i.e. restaurants, convenient stores etc. In some businesses, there is more labor required as the business is large and turnover is higher than ordinary business and on the other hand, some small businesses need to tighter their costs in order to attain the similar percentage of profits. Thus, each employee who is skilled and fully trained can handle different range of sales but small shops doesn’t have that high end range. Similarly small business with small turnover will have no work for labor as such .
In previous years of 80’s there was a concept of “run labor” where worker is sent to home and encourage other workers who are present in the organization to handle the business activity faster and in a proper way. Sometimes manager helps them and sometimes they are left alone to build the confidence. There is no doubt that work productivity increases with an increase in job satisfaction. However, middle level of satisfaction sometime leads to complacency. Several initiatives have been taken so as to make the turnover low and productivity of employee high and some quits the work that is not adjusted to such circumstances.
Some employees feel satisfied who doesn’t wish to put more effort physically or can done tasks adequately or up to the standard. For instance, in some programmed jobs that is particularly temporary and is on government bases do not ask for more work to complete. However, some tasks require more number of hours to complete a shift and goal. Whether a work is very little or just too much, both can demoralize employees and sometimes this little work considered to be acceptable to them. On the contrary more work and more commitment towards work makes them irritated and unproductive due to the constant pressure built by the employers and seniors .
This was proven in one of the state owned job program namely JTPA which held in 2000. Some of the staff and workers in that group were highly motivated and produced great productivity due to the bonus that was offered to them where as other group just passed their time by chatting on phone, wasting time on internet, surfing here and there, taking long breaks for lunch or even started sleeping on work. This happened because there was no work as such and thus no remuneration. There was also no one to buck them up because they were considered as a filling to empty slots.
All these employees whether productive or unproductive was paid according to their set rewards but that discouraged hard workers who are not rewarded more as compared to the one that were just passing their time on jobs. This is a negative impact to the one who worked day in and day out for the attainment of their goal in a best possible manner. Therefore, it is necessary to differentiate them with those who are not motivated or productive. Employees that were motivated were highly productive and were searching work for themselves and if they didn’t get any work to do, they started writing and reading articles and newspapers. They consider their time as precious gift which can be utilized by being productive in one way or other. They don’t want to waste any of their skill and expertise therefore; they strive harder and harder to get a better reward and appreciation than before. Both the types although expressed that they are highly satisfied with their jobs but there were some who accepted the presence of boredom in the unmotivated group. Few of them were so fed up with the boredom that they simply decided to quit the job just at the moment they started feeling bored and unproductive. They decided to give less importance to the salary associated with the designation of the job and gave priority to their productivity .
This scenario proved to be right in a compensation system of workers and other programs that are related to it. In some of the non-profit or government based programs there are some jobs which needs to be approved and then a certain amount of fund has to be released and utilized just to make sure that they don’t get scolded by their authorities of not issuing funds and using them properly. This results in jobs that have no specific work and very minimal salary because there is no body who has assigned any sort of work description and job role for this designation. Some employees like this kind of job because they are used to it and some quits because they want themselves to be motivated and productive. There are certain types of people who are lethargic and dull by birth. These individuals are sometime being compelled by their family and friends to work and bring out some money for his livelihood otherwise; he would not be putting any effort to earn his bread and butter. These individuals cannot be motivated by anybody whether it is an employer or even a financial perk or benefit until and unless he is keen to be productive and earn money.
Some people in this type of group is about to retire are complacent and are eager to reach the time as early as possible where as other remains productive and motivated inside out. Some feel motivated when they are a part of a team and have a leader to buck them up which increases their productivity. Whereas, some employees who don’t like their work and reward or appreciation to be shared by others and thus produce less and ineffectively or not up to the set standard. For example, one individual who thinks that the goal set for the team is achievable by him only then he would not want others to participate in achieving that goal because then he has to share his rewards with all other partners. So he would put a less effort than he actually can contribute to the task.
The study above presents an analytical view of the relationship between employees’ job satisfaction and employees’ performance. The proponents of job satisfaction outweigh the opponents due to which most of the successful organizations have adopted to increase their employees’ job satisfaction level. After considering all of the factors contributing to enhance employees’ job performance due to the job satisfaction it can be clearly deduced that employees’ job satisfaction results in increase in employees’ performance.
References
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A. & Wesson, M. J., 2011. Organizational behavior: improving performance and commitment in the workplace. 2nd ed. ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Iaffaldano, M. T. & & Muchinsky, P. M., 1985. Job satisfaction and job performance: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97(2), pp. 251-273.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E. & Patton, G. K., 2001. The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: a qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), pp. 376-407.
Lapierre, L. M. & Hackett, R. D., 2007. Trait conscientiousness, leader-member exchange, job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviour: a test of an integrative model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Volume 80, pp. 539-554.
Motowidlo, S. J. & Van Scotter, J. R., 1994. Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), pp. 475-480.
Spector, P. E., 2006. Industrial and organizational psychology: research and practice. 4th ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..
Van Scotter, J. R., 2000. Relationships of task performance and contextual performance with turnover, job satisfaction, and affective commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 10(1), pp. 79-95.
Williams, L. J. &. A. S. E., 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), pp. 601-617.
