Job satisfaction leads to increased job performance. This statement has supplanted earlier thought on how job performance doesn’t necessarily depend on job satisfaction. What has caused the shift in thought over the years, and do you agree with this assessment?


For the past 30 years or so, the debate has raged in the OB literature as to what causes what. Do happy employees perform better or do high performing employees cause increased job satisfaction? What's likely is new is that in the earlier line of thought (job sat improves job performance), the fact is that the rewards were not included in that analysis. We now understand that rewards (whether intrinsic or extrinsic) lead to job performance, and not the other way around. Performance is predicated on rewards, but the major issue today is how do we define performance in this globally-distributed world of work? Once that has been achieved, reward systems can be more easily developed and administered. Once that has occurred, we can more easily define performance, and thus the link between job satisfaction and performance can be more closely monitored.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is it possible to have a knowledge of what an organizational culture is before you become a part of the organization? How important is it for you to align yourself with your organizational culture?

Organizational culture is artifacts and shared values and assumptions. Artifacts may be observable before you become a part of the organization but the shared organizational values and assumptions are the intangibles and difficult to decipher before you become a part of it. It is important to align with the organizational culture because it represents the way things work in the organization. Organizational culture acts as the control system, the social glue and sense making. Any violation of what is shared by members of an organization is likely to create alienation for a new member.
Read more

“All decisions are ethical decisions.” Comment on this statement, particularly by referring to the concepts of moral intensity and moral sensitivity.

This sweeping statement is false. In other words, not all decisions are having equal right/wrong or good/bad dimensions. We are saying there is a threshold which defines ethical concern, and it is a function of moral intensity and moral sensitivity. For a decision to have an ethical dimension, i t has to have some moral intensity associated with it. Moral intensity is a characteristic of the situation. It refers to the degree to which an issue demands the application of ethical principles. “Who should be laid off?” would have high moral intensity. On the other hand, a decision to take an umbrella to work because it might rain has no moral intensity. This is because morally intense issues involve others in the society who may think the decision is good or evil, or the issue quickly affects people. Moral sensitivity refers to a characteristic of the decision maker, not the situation. Faced with the same issue, two decision makers may be more or less moral sensitive, depending on emp...
Read more

Administrative theorists concluded many decades ago that the most effective organizations have a narrow span of control. Yet today’s top-performing manufacturing firms have a wide span of control. Why is this possible? Under what circumstances, if any, should manufacturing firms have a narrow span of control?

There are at least two reasons why many organizations are moving toward flatter organizational structures with a wider span of control. First, flatter structures require less overhead -- there are fewer middle managers and more people directly involved in the production of goods and/or services. Second, flatter structures are consistent with the trend toward greater autonomy and employee involvement. Managers necessarily have a wide span of control in flatter structures, and they are unable to engage in close supervision. Instead, employees (and work teams) are given more freedom to make decisions without management review. A narrow span or control would be most appropriate with a workforce that is low skilled and made up of workers with a high power distance. In such cases, the close supervision and control would be less likely to be viewed as a lack of trust among workers.
Read more