Wright, T. A. and R. Cropanzano; «Psychological Well-Being and Job Satisfaction as Predictors of Job Performance », Journal of Educational Health Psychology, 2000.5, 84-94
1. Cadre théorique (option épistémologique) de l’auteur
This text analyzes the happy-productive worker hypothesis. This hypothesis was often examined as a relation of job satisfaction and performance or psychological well-being and performance. This study is the first the comparative analysis of these two variables as predictors of performance. At same moment, it tries to be stimulus that provokes more research on this theme.
The text includes two studies that test the same hypotheses. Due to difficulties, mainly of methodological character, revealed by the first study, authors decided to conduct the second with appropriate adjustments. Yet, both studies offer similar results.
2. Hypothèses ou propositions principales
Study 1 & 2 (hypotheses for both studies are the same)
Hypothesis 1composite job satisfaction will be positively related to supervisory rating of job performance.
Hypothesis 2psychological well-being will be positively related to job performance ratings.
Hypothesis 3the relative contributions of psychological well-being and composite job satisfaction as predictors are examined
3. Méthodologie utilisée (échantillon, méthodes de collecte de données et méthodes d’analyse, s'il y a lieu)
Study 1
Hypotheses were tested on 47 human services workers of northern California county agency, college-educated, 74% male and average age 39.
Psychological well-being was measured by Index of psychological well-being;
Job satisfaction was measured by three-dimensional measure (satisfaction with job, coworkers and supervision).
Job performance was assessed by supervisors as an overall job performance (one question measure).
Study 2
Hypotheses were tested on 37 Juvinale probation officers of West coats county agency, college-educated, 78% male and average age 39.6.
Measures of psychological well-being and job satisfaction were the same as those of study 1
Job performance was assessed by supervisor in four dimensions – work facilitation, goal emphasis, team building, and support.
The techniques used for testing hypotheses are the same for both studies. Hypothesis 1 & 2 are tested by correlation analyses. Hypothesis 3 was tested by regression analyses. To control other variables such as age, gender of job tenure, two hierarchical regressions were performed.
4. Principaux résultats obtenus (s’il y a lieu)
Both studies produced almost the same results. Hypothesis 1 was rejected. The connection between psychological well-being and performance (hypothesis 2) was supported, correlation between both variables was 0, 32 (study 1) and 0, 34 (study 2) both with p < 0, 05.
In regression analysis testing hypothesis 3, both studies showed relative importance of psychological well-being in explaining the job performance variance. The part of this variance explained by regression measured by R2 significantly increased when well-being component included into analysis. This effect did not occurred when including job satisfaction data.
5. Conclusion du ou des auteurs
Despite methodological and conceptual problems that occurs during the analysis, it is clear the there exists relation between psychological well-being and job performance. The well-being matters. Moreover, this well-being (as definition of happiness) is more important than job satisfaction.
6. Critique(s) et appréciation personnelle
The critics of this article could concern two issues – the data measures and the sample selection. The way each variable is measured could represent a huge problem but it is not a case of this study. I do not really understand the relevance of the measures of job satisfaction and well-being so I do not feel confident to criticize these. The performance measure seems correct because the performance was assessed in both overall as well as detailed way (the difference between study 1 & 2). Moreover, it is also a subject to critique by authors.
After the first lecture of this text, I mainly wanted to criticize the sample selection because it seemed to me that the sample was quite small, it included people with the same occupation, with predominance of male sex. But after detailed analysis, I discovered two reasons of inadequacy of this critique. Firstly, authors themselves point the sample selection to be one of the weaknesses of their study. Secondly, I realized that the difference in occupation within the sample would introduce another variable that could turn the analysis too complex. Furthermore, each study treated different profession and still gave almost the same result.
I appreciated this study because it shows that happiness of employees is a great potential of the firm. What seems interesting is that more satisfied worker does not always means more performing worker. This is a quite interesting conclusion because simple logic would indicate differently (there is actually a proposed explanation in the text – it could be due to measure of job satisfaction that do not (or marginally) include the assessment of emotional aspect of job satisfaction).
7. Citation(s) intéressante(s) tirée(s) du texte
“First, well-being is a phenomenological event. Second, well-being involves some emotional conditions and third, well-being refers to one’s life as a whole.”
“Job satisfaction can be best defined as “an internal state that is expressed by affectively and/or cognitively evaluating an experienced job with some degree of favor and disfavor.”