A qualitative and quantitative review of the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance is provided. The qualitative review is organized around 7 models that characterize past research on the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance. Although some models have received more support than have others, research has not provided conclusive confirmation or disconfirmation of any model, partly because of a lack of assimilation and integration in the literature. Research devoted to testing these models waned following 2 meta-analyses of the job satisfaction-job performance relationship. Because of limitations in these prior analyses and the misinterpretation of their findings, a new meta-analysis was conducted on 312 samples with a combined N of 54,417. The mean true correlation between overall job satisfaction and job performance was estimated to be .30. In light of these results and the qualitative review, an agenda for future research on the satisfaction-performance relationship is provided.

Despite an emerging body of research on a personality trait termed core self-evaluations, the trait continues to be measured indirectly. The present study reported the results of a series of studies that developed and tested the validity of the Core Self-Evaluations Scale (CSES), a direct and relatively brief measure of the trait. Results indicated that the 12-item CSES was reliable, displayed a unitary factor structure, correlated significantly with job satisfaction, job performance, and life satisfaction, and had validity equal to that of an optimal weighting of the 4 specific core traits (self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, neuroticism, and locus of control), and incremental validity over the 5-factor model. Overall, results suggest that the CSES is a valid measure that should prove useful in applied psychology research.

The present study investigated the relationship of traits from the 5factor model of personality (often termed the "Big Five") and general mental ability with career success. Career success was argued to be comprised of intrinsic success (job satisfaction) and extrinsic success (income and occupational status) dimensions. Data were obtained from the Intergenerational Studies, a set of 3 studies that followed participantsfrom early childhood to retirement. The most general findings were that conscientiousness positively predicted intrinsic and extrinsic career success, neuroticism negatively predicted extrinsic success, and general mental ability positively predicted extrinsic career success. Personality was related to career success controlling for general mental ability and, though adulthood measures of the Big Five traits were more strongly related to career success than were childhood measures, both contributed unique variance in explaining career success.Considerable evidence has accumulated regarding the antecedents of career success. A recent review of the career success literature (Tharenou, 1997) identified several categories of influences on career success. The most commonly investigated influences were human capital attributes (training, work experience, education) and demographic factors (age, sex, marital status, number of children). Although these classes of influences have provided important insights into the determinants of career success, there is room for further development. Specifically, little research has entertained the idea that career success may have dispositional causes. There have been a few exceptions, such as Bray's (1988, 1994) study of the career advancement of AT&T managers. However, as Tharenou noted, few studies have taken a more comprehensive, personological approach to career success.

The authors present results of 4 studies that seek to determine the discriminant and incremental validity of the 3 most widely studied traits in psychology-self-esteem, neuroticism, and locus of control-along with a 4th, closely related trait-generalized self-efficacy. Meta-analytic results indicated that measures of the 4 traits were strongly related. Results also demonstrated that a single factor explained the relationships among measures of the 4 traits. The 4 trait measures display relatively poor discriminant validity, and each accounted for little incremental variance in predicting external criteria relative to the higher order construct. In light of these results, the authors suggest that measures purporting to assess self-esteem, locus of control, neuroticism, and generalized self-efficacy may be markers of the same higher order concept.

In a departure from the organizational development literature, this study hypothesized that managerial responses to organizational change are influenced by 7 dispositional traits (locus of control, generalized self-efficacy, self-esteem, positive affectivity, openness to experience, tolerance for ambiguity, and risk aversion). Data were collected from 6 organizations (N = 514) to test the hypotheses. The 7 traits were reduced to 2 factors: Positive Self-Concept and Risk Tolerance. Both of these trait factors significantly predicted self-reports and independent assessments of coping with change. Results also indicated that coping with organizational change was related to extrinsic (salary, job level, plateauing, job performance) and intrinsic (organizational commitment, job satisfaction) career outcomes and that coping mediated roughly half of the relationships between the dispositional factors and these career outcomes.In a recent review of the literature, Quinn, Kahn, and Mandl (1994) noted that research in the field of organizational change and development has evolved from four major paradigms: organizational development, strategic choice, resource dependence-institutional theory, and population ecology. That all four of these paradigms consider change at the organizational level is a telling depiction of the organizational change literature. Research dealing with organizational change has been largely dominated by a macro, systems-oriented focus. Some researchers have called for a more micro, person-oriented focus pertaining to issues important in change (Bray, 1994), yet micro-level research on organizational change remains limited. Studies of individual behavior in relation to organizational change typically have