The Mediating Effects of Job Satisfaction and Propensity to Leave on Role Stress-Job Performance Relationships: Combining Meta-Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling

Fried, Yitzhak; Shirom, Arie; Gilboa, Simona; Cooper, Cary L.

doi:10.1057/9781137310651_11

Cited by 38 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They found support for the mediating effects of job satisfaction on the relationship between off-job interference and psychological strain. Similarly, Fried, Shirom, Gilboa, and Cooper (2008) evaluated the mediating effects of job satisfaction in the relationship between role stress and job performance. Their findings found support for the mediation effects of job satisfaction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does job satisfaction mediate the relationship between work–family conflict and psychological strain? A study of Australian social workers

Kalliath¹,

Kalliath²

2013

Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated the mediating effects of job satisfaction on the relationship between work-family conflict and psychological strain among Australian social workers. Data for the study were collected by an online survey of the membership of the Australian Association of Social Workers, yielding 439 usable responses. The results provide evidence that job satisfaction mediates the relationship between work-to-family conflict, family-to-work conflict and psychological strain. These findings contribute significantly to the social work literature on work-family interface and confirm the importance of developing and targeting not only strategies that aim to reduce work -family conflict, but also those that aim to increase job satisfaction among social workers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does job satisfaction mediate the relationship between work–family conflict and psychological strain? A study of Australian social workers

Kalliath¹,

Kalliath²

2013

Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Specifically, for consideration and initiating structure we tested three additional alternative models: (i) commitment as a consequence of the satisfaction and role constructs (for rationale, see Gaertner, ; Mathieu & Zajac, ; Tett & Meyer, ); (ii) satisfaction constructs as a consequence of the role constructs (for rationale see Fried, Shirom, Gilboa, & Cooper, ); and (iii) covariation of disturbance terms of similar constructs (follower job satisfaction and satisfaction with leadership, role ambiguity and role conflict, and task performance and OCB) to account for unmeasured common causes. For contingent rewards, we assessed the following four alternative models: (i) trust and affective commitment as consequences of the other plausible mediators (for rationale see Cohen‐Charash & Spector, ; Colquitt et al, ; Dirks & Ferrin, ; Meyer et al, ); (ii) follower job satisfaction as a consequence of the justice constructs, the role constructs, and LMX (for rationale see Cohen‐Charash & Spector, ; Colquitt et al, ; Fried et al, ); (iii) the justice and role constructs as consequences of LMX (for rationale see Colquitt et al, ; Dulebohn et al, ); and (iv) covariation of disturbance terms of similar constructs (procedural justice and distributive justice, role ambiguity and role conflict, and task performance and OCB) to account for unmeasured common causes. Finally, for transformational leadership, we assessed the following three alternative models: (i) trust and affective commitment as consequences of follower job satisfaction and LMX (for rationale see Dirks & Ferrin, ; Dulebohn et al, ; Meyer et al, ); (ii) follower job satisfaction as a consequence of LMX (for rationale see Dulebohn et al, ); and (iii) covariation of disturbance terms of similar constructs (task performance and OCB) to account for unmeasured common causes.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leadership behaviors and follower performance: Deductive and inductive examination of theoretical rationales and underlying mechanisms

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are competing theoretical rationales and mechanisms used to explain the relation between leadership behaviors (e.g., consideration, initiating structure, contingent rewards, and transformational leadership) and follower performance (e.g., task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors). We conducted two studies to critically examine and clarify the leadership behaviors-follower performance relation by pitting the various theoretical rationales and mechanisms against each other. We first engaged in deductive (Study 1) and then inductive (Study 2) theorizing and relied upon 35 meta-analyses involving 3327 primary-level studies and 930 349 observations as input for meta-analytic structural equation modeling. Results of our dual deductive-inductive approach revealed an unexpected yet surprisingly consistent explanation for why leadership behaviors affect follower performance. Specifically, leader-member exchange is a mediating mechanism that was empirically determined to be involved in the largest indirect relations between the four major leadership behaviors and follower performance. This result represents a departure from current conceptualizations and points to a common underlying mechanism that parsimoniously explains how leadership behaviors relate to follower performance. Also, results lead to a shift in terms of recommendations for what leaders should focus on to bring about improved follower performance.Why do positive leadership behaviors improve various types of follower performance? This question is critically important for theoretical progression in the leadership domain because if we do not understand why these specific relations occur, we do not have a solid theory (Bacharach, 1989;Dubin, 1978;Sutton & Staw, 1995;Whetten, 1989). Additionally, if we do not clearly understand why leadership behaviors-follower performance relations occur, we will be limited in our ability to provide accurate and actionable recommendations for leaders that will result in the most favorable performance outcomes.While the question above is critically important for theoretical and practical reasons, results to date have led to multiple answers across the various leadership behaviors-follower performance relations. For example, consider one of the most well-researched leadership behavior-follower performance relation: transformational leadership and task performance. An examination of the literature reveals that there are at least eight empirically supported mediators explaining this relation, including self-congruence, empowerment, positive effect, trust, person/job fit, core job characteristics, leader-member exchange (LMX), and work engagement (Aryee, . Similar observations can be made for other often-researched leadership behaviors. For consideration, initiating structure, contingent rewards, and transformational leadership (i.e., the four most frequently studied leadership behaviors), the presence of multiple mediating mechanismsoftentimes more than 10serving as explanations for their relations with follow...

show abstract

“…Our focal outcome in the present study, job satisfaction, can be defined as ‘a positive (or negative) evaluative judgment one makes about one's job or job situation’ (Weiss, , p. 175). Meta‐analytic evidence indicates that job satisfaction has important direct and indirect influences on a variety of distal outcomes such as task and contextual job performance (Eatough, Chang, Miloslavic, & Johnson, ; Fried, Shirom, Gilboa, & Cooper, ; Harrison, Newman, & Roth, ) as well as burnout, self‐esteem, depression, anxiety and physical illness (Faragher, Cass, & Cooper, ). Existing empirical research has also shown that there is a strong within‐person relationship between job satisfaction and performance.…”

Section: Job Stressors and Job Satisfactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential Reactivity and the Within-person Job Stressor-Satisfaction Relationship

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An experience sampling methodology was used to study the direct and conditional within-person relationship between job stressors and job satisfaction. One hundred and one full-time administrative staff completed momentary measures of job stressors and job satisfaction three times a day on six different workdays over a 3-week period (N = 1818 observations). Multilevel random coefficients models were specified, and the results suggest that within-person stressors are negatively related to within-person job satisfaction. These results stand when controlling for the effects of time, demographics, work characteristics, baseline levels of job stressors and satisfaction, and between-person effects of job stressors. Furthermore, consistent with the differential reactivity model, the results suggest that the observed within-person stressors-satisfaction relationship is conditional upon locus of control and positive affect. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

The Mediating Effects of Job Satisfaction and Propensity to Leave on Role Stress-Job Performance Relationships: Combining Meta-Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling

Cited by 38 publications

References 41 publications

Does job satisfaction mediate the relationship between work–family conflict and psychological strain? A study of Australian social workers

Does job satisfaction mediate the relationship between work–family conflict and psychological strain? A study of Australian social workers

Leadership behaviors and follower performance: Deductive and inductive examination of theoretical rationales and underlying mechanisms

Differential Reactivity and the Within-person Job Stressor-Satisfaction Relationship

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About