Job satisfaction: Difference between revisions

'''Job satisfaction''', '''employee satisfaction''' or '''work satisfaction''' is a measure of workers' contentednesscontentment with their job, whether they like the job or individual aspects or facets of jobs, such as nature of work or supervision.<ref name="Spector 1997">{{cite book|last=Spector|first=P.E.|title=Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and consequences|year=1997|publisher=SAGE|location=Thousand Oaks, CA}}</ref> Job satisfaction can be measured in cognitive (evaluative), affective (or emotional), and behavioral components.<ref name="Hulin, C. L. 2003 pp. 255-276">Hulin, C. L., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Job attitUdes. In W. C. Borman, D. R. ligen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 255-276). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.</ref> Researchers have also noted that job satisfaction measures vary in the extent to which they measure feelings about the job (affective job satisfaction).<ref name="Thompson">{{cite journal|last1=Thompson|first1=E.R.|author2=Phua F.T.T.|title=A Brief Index of Affective Job Satisfaction|journal=Group & Organization Management|year=2012|volume=37|issue=3|pages=275–307 |doi=10.1177/1059601111434201 |s2cid=145122368}}</ref> or cognitions about the job (cognitive job satisfaction).<ref name="Moorman">{{cite journal|last=Moorman|first=R.H.|title=The influence of cognitive and affective based job satisfaction measures on the relationship between satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior|journal=Human Relations|year=1993|volume=46|issue=6|pages=759–776|doi=10.1177/001872679304600604|s2cid=146393339}}</ref>

One of the most widely used definitions in organizational research is that of [[Edwin Locke|Edwin A. Locke]] (19691976), who defines job satisfaction as "a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job or job experiences" (p.&nbsp;1304).<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Locke, |first=Edwin E.A. |date=1969-11(1976). |title=WhatThe isnature and causes of job satisfaction?. |url=https://linkinghubIn M.elsevierD.com/retrieve/pii/0030507369900130 |journal=OrganizationalDunnette Behavior(Ed.), andHandbook Humanof Performanceindustrial |language=enand |volume=4organizational |issue=4psychology |pages=309–336 |doi=10(pp.1016/00301297-5073(691349)90013-0}}. Chicago: Rand McNally.</ref>. Others have defined it as simply how content an individual is with his or hertheir job; whether he or shethey likeslike the job.<ref>{{cite book|title=Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and consequences|last=Spector|first=P.E.|publisher=SAGE|year=1997|location=Thousand Oaks, CA}}</ref>

Hulin and Judge (2003) have noted that job satisfaction includes multidimensional [[psychological]] responses to an individual's job, and that these personal responses have cognitive (evaluative), affective (or emotional), and behavioral components.<ref name="Hulin, C. L. 2003 pp. 255-276"/> Job satisfaction scales vary in the extent to which they assess the affective feelings about the job or the cognitive assessment of the job. Affective job satisfaction is a subjective construct representing an emotional feeling individuals have about their job.<ref name="Spector 1997"/><ref name="Thompson" /><ref name="Moorman" /><ref>{{cite journal|last=Kalleberg|first=A.L.|title=Work values and job rewards—Theory of job satisfaction|journal=American Sociological Review|year=1977|volume=42|issue=1|pages=124–143|doi=10.2307/2117735|jstor=2117735|s2cid=34927611|url=https://semanticscholar.org/paper/9c33eb324f2119863a13e5d004b2758b198614d7}}</ref> Hence, affective job satisfaction for individuals reflects the degree of pleasure or happiness their job in general induces.

Cognitive job satisfaction is a more objective and logical evaluation of various facets of a job. Cognitive job satisfaction can be unidimensional if it comprises evaluation of just one facet of a job, such as pay or maternity leave, or multidimensional if two or more than two facets of a job are simultaneously evaluated. Cognitive job satisfaction does not assess the degree of pleasure or happiness that arises from specific job facets, but rather gauges the extent to which those job facets are judged by the job holder to be satisfactory in comparison with objectives they themselves set or with other jobs. While cognitive job satisfaction might help to bring about affective job satisfaction, the two constructs are distinct, not necessarily directly related, and have different antecedents and consequences.<ref name="Moorman" />

[[Edwin A. Locke]]'s Range of Affect Theory (1976) is arguably the most famous job satisfaction model. The main premise of this theory is that satisfaction is determined by a discrepancy between what one wants in a job and what one has in a job. Further, the theory states that how much one values a given facet of work (e.g. the degree of autonomy in a position) moderates how satisfied/dissatisfied one becomes when expectations are/are not met. When a person values a particular facet of a job, histheir satisfaction is more greatly impacted both positively (when expectations are met) and negatively (when expectations are not met), compared to one who does not value that facet.

A significant model that narrowed the scope of the dispositional approach was the [[Core self-evaluations|Core Self-evaluations Model]], proposed by Timothy A. Judge, Edwin A. Locke, and Cathy C. Durham in 1997.<ref name=Judge1997>{{cite journal | last1 = Judge | first1 = T. A. | last2 = Locke | first2 = E. A. | last3 = Durham | first3 = C. C. | year = 1997 | title = The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach | journal = Research in Organizational Behavior | volume = 19 | pages = 151–188 }}</ref> Judge et al. argued that there are four core self-evaluations that determine one's disposition towards job satisfaction: [[self-esteem]], general [[self-efficacy]], [[locus of control]], and [[neuroticism]]. This model states that higher levels of self-esteem (the value one places on his/her selfoneself) and general self-efficacy (the belief in one's own competence) lead to higher work satisfaction. Having an internal locus of control (believing one has control over her\hisone's own life, as opposed to outside forces having control) leads to higher job satisfaction. Finally, lower levels of neuroticism lead to higher job satisfaction.<ref name="Judge1997"/><ref>[https://dailyscrawl.com/self-work-satisfaction/ "dailyscrawl", job satisfaction, October 19, 2019]</ref>

Equity Theory shows how a person views fairness in regard to social relationships such as with an employer. A person identifies the amount of input (things gained) from a relationship compared to the output (things given) to produce an input/output ratio. They then compare this ratio to the ratio of other people in deciding whether they have an equitable relationship.<ref>Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 276-299). New York: Academic Press.</ref><ref>Walster, E. E. Berscheid and G. W. Walster. (1973). "New Directions in Equity Research." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. pp. 151-176.</ref> Equity Theory suggests that if an individual thinks there is an inequality between two social groups or individuals, the person is likely to be distressed because the ratio between the input and the output are not equal.<ref name=autogenerated5>{{cite journal | last1 = Huseman | first1 = R. | last2 = Hatfield | first2 = J. | last3 = Miles | first3 = E. | year = 1987 | title = A New Perspective on Equity Theory: The Equity Sensitivity Construct | url = https://semanticscholar.org/paper/1d6568e33f2ffcccf76d9c5b0a81657389d675cb| journal = Academy of Management Review | volume = 12 | issue = 2| pages = 232–234 | doi=10.5465/amr.1987.4307799| s2cid = 44052138 }}</ref>

For example, consider two employees who work the same job and receive the same pay and benefits. If one individual gets a pay raise for doing the same work as the other, then the less benefited individual will become distressed in histhe workplace. If, on the other hand, both individuals get pay raises and new responsibilities, then the feeling of equity will be maintained.<ref name=autogenerated5 />

Other psychologists have extended the equity theory, suggesting three behavioral response patterns to situations of perceived equity or inequity.<ref>{{Cite journal |lastlast1=Huseman |firstfirst1=Richard C. |last2=Hatfield |first2=John D. |last3=Miles |first3=Edward W. |date=April 1987 |title=A New Perspective on Equity Theory: The Equity Sensitivity Construct |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/258531 |journal=The Academy of Management Review |volume=12 |issue=2 |pages=222 |doi=10.2307/258531 |jstor=258531 |issn=0363-7425}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |lastlast1=O'Neill |firstfirst1=Bonnie S. |last2=Mone |first2=Mark A. |date=1998 |title=Investigating equity sensitivity as a moderator of relations between self-efficacy and workplace attitudes. |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.5.805 |journal=Journal of Applied Psychology |volume=83 |issue=5 |pages=805–816 |doi=10.1037/0021-9010.83.5.805 |issn=0021-9010}}</ref> These three types are benevolent, equity sensitive, and entitled. The level by each type affects [[motivation]], job satisfaction, and job performance.

The concept of discrepancy theory is to explain the ultimate source of anxiety and dejection.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Higgins | first1 = E. T. | year = 1999b | title = When do self-discrepancies have specific relations to emotions? The second-generation question of Tangney, Niedenthal, Covert, and Barlow (1998) | journal = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | volume = 77 | issue = 6| pages = 1313–1317 | pmid = 10626372 | doi=10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1313}}</ref> An individual who has not fulfilled histheir responsibilityresponsibilities feelsmay thefeel a sense of anxiety and regret for not performing well. They willmay also feel dejection due to not being able to achieve their hopes and aspirations.

[[Frederick Herzberg]]'s two-factor theory (also known as motivator-hygiene theory) attempts to explain satisfaction and motivation in the workplace.<ref name="HackmanOldham1976">{{cite journal |last1=Hackman |first1=J. Richard |last2=Oldham |first2=Greg R.|author2-link=Greg Oldham |title=Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory |journal=Organizational Behavior and Human Performance |date=1 August 1976 |volume=16 |issue=2 |pages=250–279 |doi=10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7 |s2cid=8618462 }}</ref> This theory states that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are driven by different factors – motivation and hygiene factors, respectively. An employee's motivation to work is continually related to job satisfaction of a subordinate. Motivation can be seen as an inner force that drives individuals to attain personal and organizational goals.<ref>{{Cite journal |lastlast1=Porter |firstfirst1=Heidi |last2=Wrench |first2=Jason S. |last3=Hoskinson |first3=Crissy |date=2007-02-27 |title=The Influence of Supervisor Temperament on Subordinate Job Satisfaction and Perceptions of Supervisor Sociocommunicative Orientation and Approachability |url=https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370600998517 |journal=Communication Quarterly |volume=55 |issue=1 |pages=129–153 |doi=10.1080/01463370600998517 |s2cid=9606328 |issn=0146-3373}}</ref> Motivating factors are those aspects of the job that make people want to perform, and provide people with satisfaction, for example achievement in work, recognition, promotion opportunities.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Aristovnik |first1=Aleksander |last2=Jaklič |first2=Ksenja |title=Job Satisfaction of Older Workers as a Factor of Promoting Labour Market Participation in the EU: The Case of Slovenia |journal=Revija za socijalnu politiku |date=31 July 2013 |volume=20 |issue=2 |pages=123–148 |doi=10.3935/rsp.v20i2.1126 |s2cid=147128260 |doi-access=free }}</ref> These motivating factors are considered to be intrinsic to the job, or the work carried out.<ref name="HackmanOldham1976"/> Hygiene factors include aspects of the working environment such as pay, company policies, supervisory practices, and other working conditions.<ref name="HackmanOldham1976"/>

Herzberg's model has stimulated much research. In the 1970s, researchers were unable to reliably empirically prove the model however, with Hackman & Oldham suggesting that Herzberg's original formulation of the model may have been a methodological artifact.<ref name="HackmanOldham1976"/> However, emerging studies have a new-found interest in the theory, particularly among employees in the public sector and among certain professions such as nurses.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Holmberg | first1 = C. | display-authors = etal | year = 2016 | title = Job Satisfaction Among Swedish Mental Health Nursing Staff: A Cross-Sectional Survey | journal = International Journal of Public Administration | volume = 39 | issue = 6| pages = 429–436 | doi = 10.1080/01900692.2015.1018432 | s2cid = 155783787 }}</ref>

The theory has been criticized because it does not consider individual differences, conversely predicting all employees will react in an identical manner to changes in motivating/hygiene factors.<ref name="HackmanOldham1976"/> The model has also been criticised in that it does not specify how motivating/hygiene factors are to be measured.<ref name="HackmanOldham1976"/> Most studies use a quantitative approach by for example using validated instruments such as the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire.<ref>[[David J. Weiss|Weiss, D. J.]], Dawis, R. V., & England, G. W. (1967). "Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire." Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, 22, 120.</ref> There are also studies that have utilized a qualitative methodology such as by means of individual interviews.<ref>Holmberg, C., et al. (2017) "Job satisfaction among Swedish mental health nursing personnel: Revisiting the two-factor theory." International Journal of Mental Health Nursing. {{DOI:|10.1111/inm.12339}}.</ref>

Hackman & Oldham proposed the job characteristics model, which is widely used as a framework to study how particular job characteristics impact job outcomes, including job satisfaction. The five core job characteristics can be combined to form a motivating potential score (MPS) for a job, which can be used as an index of how likely a job is to affect an employee's attitudes and behaviors. Not everyone is equally affected by the MPS of a job. People who are high in growth need strength (the desire for autonomy, challenge and development of new skills on the job) are particularly affected by job characteristics.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Hackman | first1 = J. R. | last2 = Oldham | first2 = G. R. | year = 1976 | title = Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory | journal = Organizational Behavior and Human Performance | volume = 16 | issue = 2| pages = 250–279 | doi=10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7| s2cid = 8618462 }}</ref> A [[meta-analysis]] of studies that assess the framework of the model provides some support for the validity of the JCM.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Fried | first1 = Y. | last2 = Ferris | first2 = G. R. | year = 1987 | title = The validity of the Job Characteristics Model: A review and meta-analysis | journal = Personnel Psychology | volume = 40 | issue = 2| pages = 287–322 | doi=10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00605.x}}</ref>

One of the most important aspects of an individual's work in a modern organization concerns the management of communication demands that hethey or she encountersencounter on the job.<ref name=autogenerated4>{{cite journal | last1 = Krayer | first1 = K.J. | last2 = Westbrook | first2 = L. | year = 1986 | title = The relationship between communication load and job satisfaction | journal = World Communication | volume = 15 | pages = 85–99 }}</ref> Demands can be characterized as a communication load, which refers to "the rate and complexity of communication inputs an individual must process in a particular time frame."<ref name=autogenerated1>Farace, R. V., Monge, P. R., & Russell, H. M. (1977). Communicating and organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.</ref>

Some research suggests moods are related to overall job satisfaction.<ref>Brief AP, Roberson L. (1989). Job attitude organization: an exploratory study. ''Journal of Applied Social Psychology'' 19: 717±727.</ref><ref>Weiss HM, Nicholas JP, Daus CS. (1999). An examination of the joint effects of affective experiences and job beliefs on job satisfaction and variations in affective experiences over time. ''Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes'' 78: 1±24</ref> Positive and [[negative emotionsemotion]]s were also found to be significantly related to overall job satisfaction.<ref name = Fisher>Fisher D. (2000). Mood and emotions while working: missing pieces of job satisfaction? ''Journal of Organizational Behavior'' 21, 185±202</ref>

The influence that genetics has had on a variety of individual differences is well documented.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Rowe | first1 = D. C. | year = 1987 | title = Resolving the person–situation debate: Invitation to an interdisciplinary dialogue | journal = American Psychologist | volume = 42 | issue = 3| pages = 218–227 | doi=10.1037/0003-066x.42.3.218}}</ref> Some research suggests genetics also play a role in the intrinsic, direct experiences of job satisfaction like challenge or achievement (as opposed to extrinsic, environmental factors like working conditions).<ref>{{Cite Onejournal experiment|last1=Li used|first1=Wen-Dong sets|last2=Stanek |first2=Kevin C. |last3=Zhang |first3=Zhen |last4=Ones |first4=Deniz S. |last5=McGue |first5=Matt |date=November 2016 |title=Are genetic and environmental influences on job satisfaction stable over time? A three-wave longitudinal twin study. |url=http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/apl0000057 |journal=Journal of Applied Psychology |language=en |volume=101 |issue=11 |pages=1598–1619 |doi=10.1037/apl0000057 |pmid=27504661 |issn=1939-1854|doi-access=free }}</ref> Notably, Arvey et al (1989) examined job satisfaction in 34 pairs of monozygotic twins, who were reared apart, to test for the existence of genetic influence on job satisfaction. WhileAfter thecorrecting resultsfor indicateage theand majoritygender, they obtained an intra-class correlation of the.31. This suggests that 31% of variance in job satisfaction washas duea togenetic environmentalbasis, factorsthe (70%),estimate geneticwould influencebe isslightly stilllarger aif minorcorrected factor.for Geneticmeasurement heritabilityerror. hasThey also suggestedfound forthat severalevidence of thegenetic heritability for job characteristics measured in the experiment, such as complexity level, motor skill requirements, and physical demands.<ref name="Job satisfaction: Environmental and"/>

Some research suggests an association between personality and job satisfaction.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Judge | first1 = T. A. | last2 = Heller | first2 = D. | last3 = Mount | first3 = M. K. | year = 2002 | title = Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis | journal = Journal of Applied Psychology | volume = 87 | issue = 3| pages = 530–541 | doi=10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.530| pmid = 12090610 | citeseerx = 10.1.1.461.558 | s2cid = 10486565 }}</ref> Specifically, this research describes the role of [[negative affectivity]] and [[positive affectivity]]. Negative affectivity is related strongly to the personality trait of [[neuroticism]]. Individuals high in negative affectivity are more prone to experience less job satisfaction. Positive affectivity is related strongly to the personality trait of [[extraversion]]. Those high in positive affectivity are more prone to be satisfied in most dimensions of their life, including their job. Differences in affectivity likely impact how individuals will perceive objective job circumstances like pay and working conditions, thus affecting their satisfaction in that job.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Brief | first1 = A. P. | last2 = Weiss | first2 = H. M. | year = 2002 | title = Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace | journal = Annual Review of Psychology | volume = 53 | pages = 279–307 | doi=10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135156| pmid = 11752487 }}</ref>

[[Psychological well-being]] (PWB) is defined as "the overall effectiveness of an individual's psychological functioning" as related to primary facets of one's life: work, family, community, etc.<ref name="Wright, T. A. 2000">{{cite journal | last1 = Wright | first1 = T. A. | last2 = Cropanzano | first2 = R. | year = 2000 | title = Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as predictors of job performance | url = https://semanticscholar.org/paper/09827dde1db6d3a4fe17dc2a83ebd20ad2e99754| journal = Journal of Occupational Health Psychology | volume = 5 | issue = 1| pages = 84–94 | doi = 10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.84 | pmid = 10658888 | s2cid = 19053832 }}</ref> There are three defining characteristics of PWB. First, it is a [[Phenomenology (psychology)|phenomenological]] event, meaning that people are happy when they subjectively believe themselves to be so. Second, well-being involves some emotional conditions. Particularly, psychologically well people are more prone to experience positive emotions and less prone to experience [[negative emotionsemotion]]s. Third, well-being refers to one's life as a whole. It is a global evaluation.<ref name="Wright, T. A. 2000"/> PWB is primarily measured using the eight-item Index of Psychological Well-Being developed by Berkman (IPWB). IPWB asks respondents to reply to a series a questions on how often they felt "pleased about accomplishing something", "bored", "depressed or unhappy", etc.<ref name="Wright, T. A. 2000"/>

Other job satisfaction questionnaires include: the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ), theThe '''Job Satisfaction Survey''' (JSS),<ref>Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Development of the Job Satisfaction Survey. ''American Journal of Community Psychology'', ''13''(6), 693-713.</ref> and the Faces Scale.<ref name="Spector 1997"/> The MSQ measures job satisfaction in 20 facets and has a long formsatifaction with 100 questions (five items from each facet) and a short form with 20 questions (one item from each facet). The JSS is a 36 item questionnaire that measures nine facets of job satisfaction.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://paulspector.com/assessments/pauls-no-cost-assessments/job-satisfaction-survey-jss/|title =Pay, JobPromotion, SatisfactionSupervision, Survey}}</ref>Fringe FinallyBenefits, theContingent FacesRewards, ScaleOperating ofProcedures, job satisfactionCoworkers, oneNature of the first scales used widelyWork, measuredand overallCommunication. job satisfaction with just one item which participants respond to by choosing a face.

Job satisfaction can be indicative of work behaviors such as organizational citizenship,<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Organ | first1 = D. W. | last2 = Ryan | first2 = K. | year = 1995 | title = A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior | journal = Personnel Psychology | volume = 48 | issue = 4| pages = 775–802 | doi=10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01781.x}}</ref> and withdrawal behaviors such as [[absenteeism]],<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Wegge | first1 = J. | last2 = Schmidt | first2 = K. | last3 = Parkes | first3 = C. | last4 = van Dick | first4 = K. | year = 2007 | title = 'Taking a sickie': Job satisfaction and job involvement as interactive predictors of absenteeism in a public organization | url = https://semanticscholar.org/paper/35d56939b8328a961d466e644a2a2526901a94f8| journal = Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology | volume = 80 | pages = 77–89 | doi=10.1348/096317906x99371| s2cid = 55773617 }}</ref> and [[Turnover (employment)|turnover]].<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Saari | first1 = L. M. | last2 = Judge | first2 = T. A. | year = 2004 | title = Employee attitudes and job satisfaction | journal = Human Resource Management | volume = 43 | issue = 4| pages = 395–407 | doi=10.1002/hrm.20032| citeseerx = 10.1.1.390.5512 }}</ref> Further, job satisfaction can partially mediate the relationship of personality variables and deviant work behaviors.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Mount | first1 = M. | last2 = Ilies | first2 = R. | last3 = Johnson | first3 = E. | year = 2006 | title = Relationship of personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating effects of job satisfaction | url = https://semanticscholar.org/paper/dff7ede8b9bcb70a33000335e3abd31b77c567bb| journal = Personnel Psychology | volume = 59 | issue = 3| pages = 591–622 | doi=10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00048.x| s2cid = 16269260 | doi-access = free }}</ref> The most important predictor of job satisfaction was perceived organizational support, followed by organizational health. Positive psychological capital was also predicted by organizational health, which was highly related to work satisfaction.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Viseu |first1=João |last2=Pinto |first2=Patrícia |last3=Borralha |first3=Sérgio |last4=de Jesus |first4=Saul Neves |date=October 2020 |title=Role of individual and organizational variables as predictors of job satisfaction among hotel employees |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1467358420924065 |journal=Tourism and Hospitality Research |language=en |volume=20 |issue=4 |pages=466–480 |doi=10.1177/1467358420924065 |s2cid=219410963 |issn=1467-3584}}</ref>

An important finding for organizations to note is that job satisfaction has a rather tenuous [[correlation]] to productivity on the job. This is a vital piece of information to researchers and businesses, as the idea that satisfaction and job performance are directly related to one another is often cited in the media and in some non-academic management literature. A recent [[meta-analysis]] found surprisingly low correlations between job satisfaction and performance.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Judge | first1 = T. A. | last2 = Thoresen | first2 = C. J. | last3 = Bono | first3 = J. E. | last4 = Patton | first4 = G. K. | year = 2001 | title = The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review | url = https://semanticscholar.org/paper/a9236de0720ce90b870b8e6fd1cf425970c35f8a| journal = Psychological Bulletin | volume = 127 | issue = 3| pages = 376–407 | doi=10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376| pmid = 11393302 | s2cid = 17456617 }}</ref> Further, the meta-analysis found that the relationship between satisfaction and performance can be moderated by job complexity, such that for high-complexity jobs the correlation between satisfaction and performance is higher than for jobs of low to moderate complexity. Additionally, one longitudinal study indicated that among work attitudes, job satisfaction is a strong predictor of absenteeism, suggesting that increasing job satisfaction and organizational commitment are potentially good strategies for reducing absenteeism and turnover intentions.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Cohen | first1 = A. | last2 = Golan | first2 = R. | year = 2007 | title = Predicting absenteeism and turnover intentions by past absenteeism and work attitudes | url = https://semanticscholar.org/paper/429653783304c130a464e7eac78ba380ea2fe2f2| journal = Career Development International | volume = 12 | issue = 5| pages = 416–432 | doi=10.1108/13620430710773745| s2cid = 17093065 }}</ref> Recent research has also shown that intention to quit alone can have negative effects on performance, organizational deviance, and organizational citizenship behaviours.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Krishnan | first1 = S.K. | last2 = Singh | first2 = M. | year = 2010 | title = Outcomes of intention to quit of Indian IT professionals | journal = Human Resource Management | volume = 49 | issue = 3| pages = 419–435 | doi=10.1002/hrm.20357}}</ref> In short, the relationship of satisfaction to productivity is not as straightforward as often assumed and can be influenced by a number of different work-related constructs, and the notion that "a happy worker is a productive worker" should not be the foundation of organizational decision-making. For example, employee [[wikt:personality|personality]] may even be more important than job satisfaction in regards to performance.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Bowling | first1 = N.A. | year = 2007 | title = Is the Job Satisfaction-Job Performance Relationship Spurious: A Meta-Analytic Examination | journal = Journal of Vocational Behavior | volume = 71 | issue = 2| pages = 167–185 | doi=10.1016/j.jvb.2007.04.007}}</ref> Job satisfaction has also been found to be impacting the shorter job tenure among persons with severe mental illness.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Becker|first1=Deborah R.|last2=Drake|first2=Robert E.|last3=Bond|first3=Gary R.|last4=Xie|first4=Haiyi|last5=Dain|first5=Bradley J.|last6=Harrison|first6=Katherine|date=1998-02-01|title=Job Terminations Among Persons with Severe Mental Illness Participating in Supported Employment|url=https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018716313218|journal=Community Mental Health Journal|language=en|volume=34|issue=1|pages=71–82|doi=10.1023/A:1018716313218|pmid=9559241|s2cid=9699405|issn=1573-2789}}</ref>