Consequences of Job Satisfaction
Past studies have shown that OCBs (Bateman & Organ,1983; Organ, 1988; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983;), turnover (Irvine & Evans, 1995; Slattery, 2005; Smith & Speight, 2006) and performance (Brayfield & Corckett, 1995;Grant et al. , 2001, as cited by Garrido et al. , 2005) are consequences of job satisfaction. Turnover. It is defined as intentional and unintentional permanent withdrawal from the organization (Robbins, 2005). Previous studies have shown that satisfaction is inversely related to turnover (Lovelace & Rosen, 1996; Lyons & O’ Brien, 2006; Porteret al. , 1976).
Furthermore, greater job satisfaction was expected to have a negative effect on the probability of quitting (Tett & Mayer, 1993) For example, employees who are satisfied tend to stay and be maintained by the organization. Satisfied employees will have lower rate of turnover for the reason that organization has fulfilled the needs of their employees making them satisfied and in return employees will have the intention to remain with the organization (Porter et al. , 1976).
Organizational citizenship behaviors. OCBs are behaviors that are discretionary, indirectly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the collective support the effective functioning of the organization (Organ, 1988). Prior studies have shown that satisfied employees elicit
For example, employees who are satisfied engage in OCBs (Organ & Ryan, 1995 as cited by Bolino & Turnley, 2005). Futhermore employees who are given satsfying task will likely to exhibit OCBs (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). Satisfied employees find ways to exert more effort to accomplishing things that serve as a reciprocation to the organization (Schanke, 1991 as cited by Turnipseed, 1996). Procedural justice. It focuses on the fairness of the decision making process (Cropanzano & Folger, 1989).
Positive and significant relationship between procedural justice and job satisfaction has been found by previous studies (Agho, Price, & Muller, 1993; Fields, Pang, & Chin, 2000). For example, when employees are satisfied, it can be said that the policies and procedures are fair for the reason of the firm has an actual control over the process and outcomes of decisions (Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997; Schappe, 1996; Thibaut & Walker, 1975).
Furthermore, when employees feel that they are treated fairly they will likely to display OCBs (Organ & Ryan, 1995, as cited by Bolino & Turnley, 2005). Organizational Trust Trust is an individual’s expectation, assumption, or belief about the likelihood that another’s future action will be beneficial, favorable, or at least not detrimental to one’s interests (Meyer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995; Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998).
Trust is considered to be an essential component in organizations since it is a consistent mechanism that supports organizational change and development in an unpredictable environment than hierarchical power and direct surveillance (Kramer & Tyler, 1996). Several studies clearly indicate that the formation of trust within workplace relationships is complex and elusive (Tzafrir, 2003). Furthermore, workplace trust is a necessary element for the development of competitive advantage through support, co-operation, and improvement of systems (Rocha, 2001).
Trust is viewed as a feature of the social foundation that begins interactions among parties (Mayer & Davis, 1999). According to Kramer and Tyler (1996), there is a need for organizational trust for the reason of there are organizational needs that are not to be disclosed and one of the elements to address these requirements are employees that trusts their organization. Currall and Judge (1995) defined trust as an individual’s reliance on another person under conditions of dependence and risk.
Dependence means that one’s outcomes are reliant on the trustworthy or untrustworthy behavior of another. Furthermore, risk means that one would experience negative outcomes from the other person’s untrustworthy behavior (Kramer & Tyler, 1996). Organizational trust involves ability, benevolence, and risk (Meyer et al. , 1995 , Kramer & Tyler, 1996). Ability is a group of skills, competencies, and characteristics that allow a party to have control in some specific degree (Meyer et al. , 1995).
Benevolence is the extent to which a trustee is perceived to want to do something favorable to the trustor, aside from an egocentric profit motive (Meyer et al. , 1995). Risk is where one would experience negative outcomes from the other person’s untrustworthy behavior (Kramer & Tyler, 1996). Types of Organizational Trust There are three types of organizational trust. These are deterrence-based, knowledge-based, and identification-based (Kramer & Tyler, 1996). Deterrence-based trust is the fear of revenge if trust is violated (Kramer & Tyler, 1996).
This works only to the point that punishment is possible. When the consequences are clear, the punishment is actually imposed for this to be continuous. Possibility of the loss of future interaction with the other person must be more than the potential profit that comes from violating trust. Furthermore, the person who has been negatively affected by the breach of trust must have an initiative to introduce harm to the person who abused their trust. For example, have no qualms about speaking badly of the other party.