Job satisfaction – a buzzword or a necessity

”Job satisfaction” is a popular word and it has become more important now when we have entered into flexible work agreements. We in DNV have reports that describe how employees experience their work and engagement. Participation, involvement, and job crafting is very important factors for employees to be happy and to deliver work of good quality through life.

NINA IVARSEN, CHAIR VEFF, WITH KRISTIANIA UNIVERSITY

In § 4-2 of the Working Environment Act (Arbeidsmiljø Loven), there are requirements for facilitation, participation, and development at work. Also, in § 4-3, there are requirements set for psychosocial working environment.

Researchers, consultants and organizations on both the employer’s and the employee’s side, have analyzed what creates a well-functioning working life. A search in Atekst/Retriever shows that the use of the term “job satisfaction” increased from the 2000s and until 2013, before it experienced a slight decline. In 2021, however, the use is on its way up again, and there is reason to expect a further rise in 2022 due to Covid and now the war in Ukraine.

It has become clear that job satisfaction embraces many concepts. The benefits of having job satisfaction in a business, results in increased productivity, higher customer satisfaction, more innovation, greater job loyalty and lower sickness absence (Brøgger & Salomon, 2013).

COMMITMENT AND ACHIEVEMENT, TWO IMPORTANT FACTORS IN JOB SATISFACTION

Engaged employees feel better at work (Lauring & Selmer, 2015) and have reduced risk of being burned out (Yin, 2018), but when we get to the relationship between commitment and achievement, we can see that the results from research clarify the findings. Kim, Kolb and Kim (2013) reviewed 20 empirical studies that looked at connections between commitment and achievement. In eleven of the studies there was a direct or indirect connection between commitment and performance. Nine other studies also found similar connections, but then with commitment as a mediating factor (Kim, Kolb & Kim, 2013). An example of how commitment can be a mediating factor can be found in Nasurdin et al. (2018).

But what kind of performance does engagement actually contribute to? Bailey et al. (2017) did one similar review as Kim, Kolb and Kim (2013). Also, their review showed, in the majority of studies, a positive relationship between commitment and performance.

In summary, performance affected engagement in two ways:

1) Task performance: Employees perform their tasks better. Examples of task achievements can be team performance, customer loyalty and quality of care.

2) Extra-role behavior: Employees contribute positively beyond the formal tasks, including taking initiative, sharing knowledge and come up with new ideas (Bailey et.al, 2017; Yin, 2018). Other surveys confirm that commitment leads to creativity and innovation (Kim & Koo, 2017). In addition, engaged employees will engage less in “counterproductive behavior”, a term that describes a behavior where the employee deliberately wants to “destroy” the organization he/she works for and its employees (Yin, 2018).

BUT IS IT THE CASE, THAT THE MORE COMMITMENT, THE BETTER FOR BOTH EMPLOYEE AND EMPLOYER?

Although commitment appears to have a positive influence on performance, several studies show that this effect is curvilinear, i.e., diminishing as it increases engagement. Bouckenooghe et al. (2022) found such a diminishing effect among a wide composite selection of employees from different industries and cultures. However, they found that one diminishing effect could be counteracted if employees sought feedback from their surroundings.

Several researchers have also taken a closer look at less positive consequences of commitment, what is referred to as the “dark side” of commitment (Bouckenooghe et al., 2022). One can, for example, imagine an exaggerated commitment that drains workers for personal resources, which is not sustainable over time. Employees with commitment and workaholism have in common that they are characterized to be hardworking and dedicated. Yet, while committed employees work hard because they find work meaningful and interesting, workaholics work hard because an inner drive makes them feel they have to (Bakker et al. 2014).

Bakker et al. (2014) found that high engagement is positive for the workhome-life balance (“work-family facilitation”), and that it leads to higher quality of life, while at the same time familyfriendly management behavior stimulates increased commitment (Matthews et al., 2014). For workaholics it was the opposite, they had a demanding workhome balance and a lower quality of life (Bakker et al., 2014). Shimazu (2015) concludes that there is a positive correlation between commitment and workaholism, but that the concepts should nevertheless be understood as independent phenomena. Furthermore, it could perhaps be thought of that way because committed employees work so hard, they can easily become burned out. Research done on this shows that it is not necessarily the case (Rabenu et al., 2021). Burnout is linked to negative health conditions, such as depression, anxiety, and alcohol addiction. Engagement, on the other hand, is linked to active, positive emotions (Bakker, Demerouti & Sanz-Vergel, 2014).

The international research on job satisfaction is voluminous and heavy on concepts. Individual and psychological factors that create job satisfaction is still the belief in one’s own abilities, personality traits, the experience of meaningful work, mindset, and good self-management. Newer research also emphasizes how job satisfaction is a dynamic and relational concept which does not occur in a vacuum, but within the conditions set by the organization. There are more social and relational factors that recent research highlights as important for job satisfaction. Positive interactions with colleagues, feedback, recognition from the manager and positive relational energy. Findings also emphasize that it is not only this factors that are linked directly to the work tasks that create job satisfaction, but that the organizations also have one important direct and indirect effect on job satisfaction. For example, the research shows the importance of good HR(M) processes that give the employees opportunities for development, co-determination, and gives the employee an experience of being valued in the organization as a whole.

References

Akhtar, R., Boustani, L., Tsivrikos, D. & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2015). The engageable personality: personality and trait EI as predictors of work engagement. Personality and Individual Differences, 73, 44- 49, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. paid.2014.08.040

Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K., & Fletcher, L. (2017). The meaning, antecedents and outcomes of employee engagement: A narrative synthesis. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(1), 31-53, https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12077

Bouckenooghe, D., De Clercq, D., Naseer, S., & Syed, F. (2022). A curvilinear relationship between work engagement and job performance: the roles of feedback-seeking behavior and personal resources. Journal of Business and Psychology, 37(2), 353-368, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-021-09750-7 Brøgger, B. & Salomon, R. (2013). Å jobbe med arbeidsglede – hva kan virksomheter få ut av det? En kunnskapsstatus. R2013:6. Arbeidsforskningsinstituttet

Edelbroek, R., Peters, P., & Blomme, R. J. (2019). Engaging in open innovation: The mediating role of work engagement in the relationship between transformational and transactional leadership and the quality of the open innovation process as perceived by employees. Journal of General Management, 45(1), 5-17, https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0306307019844633

Kim, M. S., & Koo, D. W. (2017). Linking LMX, engagement, innovative behavior, and job performance in hotel employees. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(12), 3044-3062, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-06-2016-0319

Kim, W., Kolb, J. A., & Kim, T. (2013). The relationship between work engagement and performance: A review of empirical literature and a proposed research agenda. Human Resource Development Review, 12(3), 248-276, https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1534484312461635

Lauring, J., & Selmer, J. (2015). Job engagement and work outcomes in a cognitively demanding context: the case of expatriate academics. Personnel Review, 44(4), 629-647. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2013-0216

Matthews, R. A., Mills, M. J., Trout, R. C., & English, L. (2014). Family-supportive supervisor behaviors, work engagement, and subjective well-being: A contextually dependent mediated process. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(2), 168-181, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036012

Nasurdin, A. M., Ling, T. C., & Khan, S. N. (2018). Linking social support, work engagement and job performance in nursing. International Journal of Business & Society, 19(2), 363-381.

Rabenu, E., Shkoler, O., Lebron, M. J., & Tabak, F. (2021). Heavywork investment, job engagement, managerial role, personorganization value congruence, and burnout: A moderatedmediation analysis in USA and Israel. Current Psychology, 40(10), 4825-4842, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00423-6 Yin, N. (2018). The influencing outcomes of job engagement: an interpretation from the social exchange theory. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 67(5), 873-889. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-03-2017-0054

Arbeidsglede – moteord ellernødvendighet? Forfattere: Silje Wiig-Abban, Hans Erik Næss, Sindre Olafsrud og Mari Svendsen KRISTIANIA RAPPORT 2022 / 04