Job satisfaction has been defined as a “pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (Locke, 1976, p. 1304). Building on
this definition, recent theorizing (Fisher, 2000; Weiss, 2000) describes job satisfaction as an attitude (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) with both an affective component (mood, emotions) and a cognitive component (belief, judgment, comparison).
21
Job satisfaction is related to the leader and the employees have to be emotional satisfaction.
Comfortableness of employee arising from the experience of the individual. The satisfaction and comfortableness are the result of work that has made the needs of the body and psychological. The difference between work that the leader assign with employee’s expectations leads to satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Job Satisfaction (Beers, 1994) is the feeling of a person to work on the job that they are doing, include duty responsibilities, trust, good relations both with leader and subordinates, colleagues, work environment, expectations and progress in work (Beers, 1994). That relate the concept of Cooper (1958) describe that
"satisfied in Performance is work that interest, good equipment in operation, paid a fair salary, the opportunity to progress in their career, including the hours of operation, appropriate workplace, accommodation and working with leader and colleagues are satisfied."
Hackman and Oldman (1976) suggested that there are five works characteristic make job more satisfying for worker. First, Autonomy is the degree to which the jobholder is free to schedule the pace of his or her work and determine the procedures to be used. Second, Skill Variety describes the degree to which a job requires the exercise of a number of different skills, abilities, or talents. Such activities must not merely be different, but they must be distinct enough to require different skills. Third, Task Identity defines the extent to which a job requires completion of a whole and identifiable piece of work. Forth, Task Significance refers to the importance of the job; the degree to which the job has an impact on the lives of other people, the immediate organization or the external environment. And the last one, Feedback from the job involves the degree to which the individual doing a job obtains information about the effectiveness of his/her performance. Feedback does not only refer to supervisory feedback, but also the ability to observe the results of the work.
Those work characteristic were expected to increase positive behavioral (job performance) and attitudinal (job satisfaction) outcome and decrease negative behavioral outcome. Fried and Ferris (1987) found that these five characteristic were strongly relate to job satisfaction, growth satisfaction and internal work motivation, with weaker relationships to job performance and absenteeism.
2.4.1 Proactive personality and job satisfaction
The dispositional approach proposes that job satisfaction may be partly determined by one or more enduring characteristics of people, in part on the basis of evidence that job satisfaction
22
is relatively stable overtime and across situations (e.g., Ilies& Judge, 2003; Staw et al., 1986;
Staw& Cohen-Charash, 2005). Consistent with this perspective, meta-analytic results have indicated that proactive is strongly related to subjective career satisfaction (job and career satisfaction) (Ng, E by, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005). Proactive is associated with job satisfaction because proactive people tend to create conditions more conducive to personal success at work.
In summary of this study, Proactive personality is important for innovation and implementing organizational change so it is important to sustain a proactive workforce and we have found that job satisfaction is important, not just as an instigator of proactive, but as a force for maintaining momentum (Karoline Strauss). It might seem obvious that happy employees work harder and are better promoters of change, but research does reveal some variance in this. Job satisfaction leads to a more compliant workforce, and did find that highly satisfied employees who had not tried to promote change at work were unlikely to do so in the future.
But also found that those with high levels of job satisfaction who were proactive personality maintained. Low levels of job satisfaction may motivate high levels of proactive behavior in the short term as workers looked to change things to become more satisfied, but this is not sustained over the long term. These workers will either succeed in changing their environment at work or so no longer see the need to seek change, or fail, become frustrated and not persevere with their proactive behavior.
2.4.2 Leader member exchange and Job satisfaction
There were several studies found a direct relationship between LMX and job satisfaction (Wech, 2002, p.356; Fix and Sias, 2006, p.41; Mardanov et al., 2008, p.170; Jordan and Troth, 2011, p.269; Volmer et al., 2011, p.534; Cheung and Wu, 2012, p.72). In their meta-analytic study, determined that higher quality LMX leads to greater job satisfaction (Lapierre and Hackett, 2007) and only the affect facet of LMX has a significant effect on job satisfaction (Bang, 2011), included four facets of job satisfaction (satisfaction with the leader; with withholder; with job conditions and with the task) and they found a relationship between LMX and satisfaction with only the leader. LMX and job satisfaction have a negative impact on unethical behaviors. Thus, organizations can reduce unethical behavior by increasing positive employee-leader relationships and job satisfaction.
23 2.5 Job performance
Job performance can be defined as “all the behaviors employees engage in while at work”
(Jex, 2002).More commonly, job performance refers to how well someone performs at his or her work. Definitions range from general to specific aspects and from quantitative to qualitative dimensions. Initially, researchers were optimistic about the possibility to define and measure job performance. However, soon enough they started to realize that determining the dimensions of a job and its performance requirements was not a straightforward process.
Nowadays it is generally agreed that job performance consists of complicated series of interacting variables pertaining to aspects of the job, the employee and the environment(Milkovich et al 1999).Historically, there have been three approaches to define the dimensions of job performance(Milkovich et al 1991 p. 48) as a function of outcome behavior and personal traits
2.5.1 Proactive personality and job performance
I summarized individual, team, and organizational level outcomes of proactive personality on job performance.
Individual-level outcomes
Proactive personality has both conceptually, as well as empirically, been linked to leader performance. Particularly in uncertain contexts, taking charge of the situation rather than passively waiting to be instructed, should have performance benefits (Griffin et al., 2007).
Some illustrative findings include:
• Grant, Parker and Collins (2009) found that proactive individuals were rated more positively in their overall job performance by leader, especially if the employees were low in negative affect and high in prosaically motivation.
• Employees who engaged in network building and personal initiative were evaluated more favorably by their leader (Thompson, 2005).
• Employees who engaged in voice were rated higher in individual performance by their leader six months later (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998).
• Morrison (1993a, 1993b) found a positive influence of proactive information seeking on individual performance.
By being proactive, individuals seem to be able to craft better jobs for themselves to achieve jobs that represent advances in their career and/or jobs that are satisfying. For example:
• Higher levels of career initiative and individual innovation predicted substantial increases in career satisfaction and in actual promotions at work (Seibert et al., 2001).
24
• Career-oriented proactive behaviors such as several types of information proactively sought (Morrison, 1993b), feedback seeking, relationship building and positive framing (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000) have all been linked to higher levels of job satisfaction.
Team-level Outcomes of Proactive
Most proactivity research has been conducted at the individual-level of analysis, although there are some studies which have focused on the team-level of analysis. These studies suggest that proactivity is a relevant team-level concept. For example:
• Kirkman and Rosen (1999) found that leader-rated team proactive behavior was positively related to leaders' assessments of team customer service and team productivity, as well as to team members’ job satisfaction and commitment.
• Hyatt and Ruddy (1997) showed a positive association between team-level proactivity and team performance in the field of customer service.
• Druskat and Kayes (2000) showed that team-level proactivity positively related to team learning and team performance
Organizational-level Outcomes of Proactive
Even fewer studies have examined organizational-level outcomes. Studies have shown that small enterprise owners’ proactivity is positively related with firm success (cited in Frese&
Fay, 2001). In a further study of small scale firm owners, Frese, Van Gelderen and Ombach (2000) reported that reactive business strategies (non-proactive) related negatively with profit.
2.5.2 Leader member exchange and job performance
LMX is associated with better role adjustment in terms of performance, as research has consistently found that LMX and performance are related across a wide-range of jobs (Gerstner & Day, 1997). For example, in a cross-sectional study Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, and Taylor (2000) found that, in their sample of university employees with an average tenure of seven years, performance was related to LMX. Similarly, Wayne, Shore, and Liden (1997) studied employees with at least five years of work experience and found a positive relationship between LMX and performance. Settoon, Bennett, and Liden (1996) discovered that LMX and performance were related in their sample of hospital employees with approximately six years of tenure. For their sample of expatriates, Kraimer et al. (2001) found a similar relationship. In one of the few studies of new employees that included performance
25
as an outcome, Bauer and Green (1996) studied new college graduates and found that LMX and performance were related at two months on the job as well as nine months on the job.
LMX researchers have posited several mechanisms relating LMX to performance. For example, new employees need information to do their jobs and to gain clarity for role expectations (Bauer et al., 1998). Indeed, the literature shows a strong relationship between LMX and role clarity, perhaps because individuals in high LMX relationships interact more frequently with their leaders (Kramer, 1995). Further, high LMX members often enjoy more challenging assignments, sponsorship, and greater access to information relevant to the job (Graen & Scandura, 1987).