Psychological Capital Moderate the Influence of Job Satisfaction on Performance Yanhong Zhou*#1, Jinjin Gao*#2, Yiwen Chen*3 *
Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences 4A Datun Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, P.R. China #
Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences 19A Yuquan Road, Shi Jingshan District, Beijing, P.R. China 1
[email protected] 2
[email protected] 3
[email protected]
Abstract—This study aimed to explore the interaction effect of psychological capital and job satisfaction on performance. Then the concept psychological capital of positive psychology and job satisfaction was used in conceiving a model which was about the moderate effect of psychological capital on performance. An experimental design between subjects was conducted with 321 IT employees. The indications of the results are as follows: (1) older IT employees had better task performance and contextual performance than younger; (2) the higher psychological capital and job satisfaction, the better task performance and contextual performance; (3) psychological capital could moderate the influence of job satisfaction on contextual performance, rather than task performance. In fact, it could improve the satisfaction of employees and the performance of the organization by enhancing the psychological capital. Keywords-psychological capital; job satisfaction; performance; moderate effect
I.
INTRODUCTION
Performance could be affected by many factors, including organization level and individual level. Many studies have demonstrated that job satisfaction was related to performance [1, 2]. According to Herzberg, influencing job satisfaction could be classified as physical environment factors, social factors and individual psychological factors, in other words, job satisfaction was determined by enterprises to some extent [3]. However, these factors were relatively stable in enterprises. How did create better performance in these enterprises? Schneider (1983) held that organizational structure combined with personal characteristics could improve performance effectively. With the development of psychology, Seligman, pointing out that it was very importance to pay attention to and understand people’s positive qualities and strength, proposed the positive psychology and put forward the concept of psychological capital in 2002[4]. Psychological capital was a psychological quality with different characteristics and statuses [5]. Poropat supported that personality could also influence performance [6].As a personal characteristics, psychological capital could make better results in predicting performance and job
978-1-4673-0719-2/12/$26.00 ©2012 IEEE
satisfaction than the big five personality [7] . However, it remains to be discussed about the interaction effects of job satisfaction and personal characteristics on performance. If the interaction effect exists, there will be a new research perspective and management application. II.
THEORIES AND HYPOTHESES
A. Performance There were two definitions of performance: one was considered as results. Bernardin thought that performance was the result in specific work function or activity in a certain period [8]; another was considered as behavior. Murphy pointed out that performance was a set of behavior relating to the goal of a person’s organization or unit that he works in [9]. Campbell added that only the behavior that help the organization achieve its goal could be seen as performance [10]. In thus, the paper held that performance should be consist of behavior and results by combined with management. Therefore, it adopted Motowidlo and Van’s structure of performance [11]. According to them, performance could be divided into task performance and contextual performance. The former referred to all the behavior that was ruled by the organization and related to key technological activities in specific jobs; the latter was the automatic behavior that belonged to all organizational members with nothing to do with specific tasks, including that was favorable to the society and that was contribution to the organization. Though not directly related to key technological activities, it maintained a wide organizational, social and psychological environment for them. B. Job satisfaction Job satisfaction was defined in many ways. The paper favored the comprehensive definition of job satisfaction by Cavanagh [12], that is, job satisfaction was the level that a person enjoyed his job and affected by cultural, individual factors and the organizational environment. To a certain extent, job satisfaction could reflect an individual’s satisfaction toward the organization. If a person was highly satisfied with the organization, then he would probably show
3212
more willingness to work hard. Therefore we hypothesize as follows. H1a: the higher an individual’s job satisfaction is, the better his task performance becomes. H1b: the higher an individual’s job satisfaction is, the better his contextual performance becomes. C. Psychological capital Luthans, Youssef and Avolio thought that psychological capital was an individual’s positive psychological state of development characterized by having confidence ( selfefficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks; making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future; persevering toward goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed; and when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resiliency) to attain success [13]. Psychological capital was positively related to work performance outcomes [14]. So we hypothesize as follows. H2a: the stronger an individual’s psychological capital is, the better his task performance becomes. H2b: the stronger an individual’s psychological capital is, the better his contextual performance becomes. In terms of individual factors, Motowidlo and Van carried out research and showed that experience exerted a greater effect on task performance than contextual performance, while individual’s personalities had a greater effect on contextual performance than task performance [11]. Borman and Motowidlo proposed a theory of individual difference, pointing out that the major variables affecting task performance were different from those affecting contextual performance [15]. Psychological capital was positively related to job satisfaction [16]. To explore the interaction effect of job satisfaction and individual’s personalities, hypothesis 3 is as follows. H3: psychological capital can moderate the influence of job satisfaction on contextual performance. III.
•
•
Job satisfaction was measured by Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) [12], which was consisted of 20 items, dividing into intrinsic job satisfaction and extrinsic job satisfaction. The mark of job satisfaction was the mean of these two marks. All 20 items were measured on Likert 6-point scale. The reliability coefficient of the questionnaire was 0.95. Performance was measured by the questionnaire developed by Motowidlo and Scotter, consisted of 15 items divided into task performance and contextual performance [11]. All 15 items were measured on Likert 6-point scale. The reliability coefficient of the questionnaire was 0.94. IV.
RESULTS
A. Correlation analysis The results showed the four dimensions of psychological capital were positively related （r=0.584-0.800，P
