This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Emerald Article: Personality, motivation and job satisfaction: Hertzberg meets the Big Five Adrian Furnham, Andreas Eracleous, Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic
To cite this document: Adrian Furnham, Andreas Eracleous, Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, (2009),"Personality, motivation and job satisfaction: Hertzberg meets the Big Five", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 24 Iss: 8 pp. 765 - 779 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940910996789 Downloaded on: 08-05-2012 References: This document contains references to 39 other documents To copy this document: email@example.com This document has been downloaded 12337 times.
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by EDITH COWAN UNIVERSITY For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help for authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Motivation can be deﬁned as “an internal state .com/0268-3946. It is often the case that the two concepts are discussed side by side. Keywords Motivation (psychology). relatively few individual difference factors have been considered. conscientiousness and job status were both signiﬁcant predictors of job satisfaction.e. the Big ﬁve personality factors) to salient work motivation and job satisfaction measures. and between 11 and 13 per cent of the variance was accounted for by personality and other demographic variables. motivation and job satisfaction: Hertzberg meets the Big Five Adrian Furnham and Andreas Eracleous University College London. London. 24 No. 288). 2002. 1992. Research limitations/implications – This study was restricted to self-report measure. UK. 8. Practical implications – Implications are discussed in terms of attempts to improve employee attitudes without considering the effects of individual differences.1108/02683940910996789 . . 2002). on the other hand. Job satisfaction. In line with previous ﬁndings (Judge et al. 2009 pp. It also showed personality factors accounted for very little evidence of the variance. Job satisfaction. March 2009 Accepted March 2009 Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic Goldsmiths University of London. Design/methodology/approach – A total of 202 fulltime workers completed three questionnaires measuring their personality. is deﬁned as “the extent to which people are satisﬁed with their work” (Warr.The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.). Whilst theorists have offered many explanations for the sources of both work motivation and job satisfaction.emeraldinsight. Originality/value – The value of this paper was that it looked at how personality and demographic factors may inﬂuence a person’s work satisfaction. giving rise to a desire or pressure to act” (Westwood. work motivation and satisfaction. It never took into consideration other potential confounds like a person’s job history.htm Personality. and Personality. . level and responsibilities. Personality Paper type Research paper It has long been an aim of work psychology to uncover the reasons why individuals vary in their motivation to work. may contribute to the design of effective work reorganisation schemes that are better suited to the employees they seek to beneﬁt. as it is arguable that the extent to which an individual is satisﬁed at work is dictated by the presence of factors and Journal of Managerial Psychology Vol. London. This study set out to explore the relationship of established individual differences (i. UK Abstract Purpose – The current study aims to investigate the extent to which personality and demographic variables contribute to motivation and job satisfaction as deﬁned by the two-factor theory. p. 765-779 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0268-3946 DOI 10. Findings – Results demonstrate that between 9 and 15 per cent of the variance in motivation is accounted for by demographic variables and the Big Five personality traits. p. motivation and job satisfaction 765 Received August 2008 Revised December 2008. as well as how individual differences interact with organisational/situational factors to inﬂuence individual satisfaction and motivation (Furnham. An acknowledgement that individual differences can affect the success of an intervention. 1).
JMP 24. 1985). company policies. but two separate entities caused by quite different facets of work – these were labelled as “hygiene factors” and “motivators”. People select organisations who select and shape them. working conditions.. La Bier. whilst 60 per cent was associated with environmental factors and error variance (Keller et al. Examples include: supervision.8 766 circumstances that motivates him or her (Furnham. There is a longstanding debate as to whether hygiene factors really contribute to job satisfaction (Furnham et al. are intrinsic to the job itself and include aspects such as achievement. Researchers have given comparatively more attention to the dispositional traits that contribute to job satisfaction partly because on no clear theoretical account of how the . Motivators. Warr. Organisational interventions may be mediated both by dispositional factors and individual differences. Similarly. development. however. On the other hand intrinsic factors have long been acknowledged as important determinants of motivation. traits and motivation. This contention is supported by a longitudinal study by Staw and Ross (1985). O’Reilly et al. despite changing extrinsic circumstances as recommended by motivational theories. Job redesign programmes often have mixed success. 1992). prior attitudes were a stronger predictor of job satisfaction than changes in pay and promotions. 1976) while neglecting individual differences (Staw and Ross. salary. The rationale behind contemporary theories of motivation and job satisfaction is to provide a framework through which organisations can better inﬂuence their employees’ drive to work and increase their enthusiasm with their roles. 1999. responsibility and recognition. 40 per cent of variance in observed work values. Indeed. There is a rich theoretical tradition surrounding the concept of “psychostructure” that supports this fundamental point (Carr. research carried out on twins separated at birth have demonstrated that on average. Most job satisfaction and motivation research literature is concerned with organisational or situational predictors (such as pay and supervision) (Locke. 8). Herzberg et al. to see causal patterns in how people change work environments and they change those working in them. however difﬁcult and expensive. 1991. Indeed. 1987). thus suggesting that some individual differences must have an effect on work attitudes. This paper however is a correlational study in the psychometric tradition seeking to explore the relationship between attitudes. 2003).’s (1959) seminal two-factor theory of motivation postulated that satisfaction and dissatisfaction were not two opposite extremes of the same continuum. p.. In this sense it is always advisable to do longitudinal research. in which employee attitudes (including job satisfaction and work values) were shown to be stable across a ﬁve-year period despite changes in both occupations and employers. It would be misleading to suggest a dichotomy between individual difference and situational factors in the determinants of job motivation and satisfaction. Hygiene factors are characterised as extrinsic components of job design that contribute to employee dissatisfaction if they are not met. was accounted for by genetic factors. 1986. and relations with co-workers. 1992). Differential psychologists have long stressed individual difference predictor of work performance. Some attitudes and behaviours are encouraged while others are suppressed. even if the job description and the tasks they had to perform remained constant. early psychological approaches to motivation conceptualised the desire to act as an intention to “maximise positive results and minimise negative results” (Stress and Porter. Maccody. 1999. (1980) discovered that individuals’ signiﬁcantly differ in the way they perceive their jobs.
in an often quoted meta-analysis by Judge et al. and conscientiousness (0. To illustrate. Based upon an average multiple correlation of 0. However.49 with motivation criteria. expectancy theory and self-efﬁcacy motivation based on 150 correlations.25). Staw et al. thus conﬁrming the contentions made by Furnham (1997) and Gray (1975). 1990). Loehlin and Nichols.26). Thus. 1976). with correlations of 0.5 (Goldsmith. as such rewards comply with their sociable nature.31 respectively. what is important to the individual). include individuals’ high in openness being more satisﬁed with jobs which allow them to learn new skills and be innovative (Furnham et al. (1999). Results demonstrated that conscientiousness and neuroticism were the strongest and most consistent associates of performance motivation across the three theories. (2002) utilised 334 correlations from over 100 independent samples. Particularly strong associations were found between job satisfaction and neuroticism (2 0. and this is likely to affect the type of jobs that are sought. which thus far has only received minimal attention from researchers.24 and 2 0. which also stipulated that extraverts would respond more readily to reward (motivator factors) than introverts. Results demonstrated that extraverts (identiﬁed by the Eysenck Personality Proﬁler) regarded motivator factors as more important than Introverts.29).. Furnham (1997) speculated that extraverts may be highly motivated by intrinsic factors such as recognition and positive feedback. 474). Personality..e. Extraverts responded more to reinforcement and Introverts more to punishment. A meta-analysis carried out by Judge and Illies (2002) investigated the relationship between the “Big Five” and three models of motivation: goal setting theory. research has demonstrated that “attempts to empirically link personality characteristics to motivational variables have produced inconsistent results” (Gellatly. An example of a recent study investigating the contribution of personality to Herzberg et al. extraversion (0. who he believed were motivated to avoid punishment. Taken with the marginally signiﬁcant relationship between psychoticism and hygiene factors. and provided the basis for future study. These ﬁndings mirror those of Gupta (1976) who found that in a sample of individuals performing a linguistic task. it would therefore be reasonable to assume that personality accounts for at least a part of this contribution (Arvey et al. Arvey et al. 2005). genetic inﬂuences account for 30 per cent of variance in job satisfaction. it was concluded that the Big Five are an important source of performance motivation. (1986) argued that individual disposition may have a profound inﬂuence over how the working world is perceived (i. Taken with the fact that most studies regarding the heritability of personality report an average of 0. it would be beneﬁcial to investigate the effects of the Big Five on other models of motivation such as the two-factor theory. 1996.process works (Kanfer. (1989) showed that in addition to the well-documented contribution of environmental factors.’s (1959) theory of work motivation is that of Furnham et al. Additional speculative examples of how personality may affect work attitudes. motivation and job satisfaction 767 . The authors also concluded that in light of the results presented in the meta-analysis. 1983.41 with job satisfaction. accounting for 20-30 per cent of variance. p. Results also showed that neurotics placed more importance upon hygiene factors than non-neurotics. 1989). The Big Five personality traits showed a multiple correlation of 0. Theoretical support for the aforementioned speculation is provided by Gray’s (1975) theory. it appeared that Personality factors had a sizeable impact on work motivation.
and thus suggests that this trait is a relatively consistent predictor of job satisfaction (Furnham et al.’s (1959) two-factor theory. H2. the purpose of this investigation is to further assess the extent to which individual differences have an effect upon motivation and job satisfaction. whilst high scores in the hygiene-related factor were negatively associated with both extraversion and openness.. 2002. Judge et al.8 768 A part replication of Furnham et al. Regression analyses revealed that personality variables.. 170). Based on ﬁndings in the literature (e. 1997. it was observed that between 8 per cent and 13 per cent of the variance in job satisfaction was explained by personality factors. 1999) conscientiousness will be positively. thus demonstrating a cross-cultural relevance for Herzberg et al. H4. age and gender accounted for between 5 and 13 per cent of the variance for each factor. Based on previous research and speculative observations. (2002) not only attempted to illustrate the impact of personality on work values but also on job satisfaction. 2002).g. 2005). personality variables will account for a signiﬁcant proportion of the variance (Staw and Ross. A more recent study by Furnham et al.. 1985. The inﬂuence of conscientiousness is mirrored in previous ﬁndings in job satisfaction literature (e.. H3. Salgado. Davies et al. when a Big Five measure was used. (2005) sought to ﬁnd the associations between personality and work values for samples in the UK and Greece. 2002. motivator concerns were associated positively with extraversion and negatively with openness. (1976) this study will use a sample consisting of more than 170 individuals (N . which suggests that as individuals get older they tend to be more satisﬁed in their jobs. Findings were not replicated. (2005) a wider range of participant demographics will be investigated. 1997. Salgado. Furnham et al. 1999). Furnham et al. Following the statistical advice of Schmidt et al. Furnham et al. and neuroticism negatively. It is believed that when a measure of the Big Five is regressed on satisfaction/motivation factor scores.. 1983) will reﬂect between two and four components that can be categorised according to Herzberg et al. 1991. Factor scores demonstrated that responses from both samples could be classiﬁed according to intrinsic/extrinsic categories. thus consequently increasing job satisfaction. with the personality super factors from the Eysenck Personality Proﬁler only accounting for 5 per cent of the variance in the sample. Therefore.’s (1959) theory. the following predictions can be made: H1.g. Additionally. Based upon previous ﬁndings in the literature (Furnham et al. The factorial structure of the work values questionnaire (Mantech. by Furnham et al.JMP 24.. Due to the likely association between age and job tenure/overall years in full time employment it is believed that these variables will also have a positive association with job satisfaction. job tenure. these are: years in full time employment. As suggested by Furnham et al.. the signiﬁcant inﬂuence of age is supported by previous literature.. Furnham et al. In this instance. there will be a signiﬁcant relationship between age and job satisfaction. 2002). However. (1999). A potential explanation for its inﬂuence is that conscientious individuals are likely to receive higher intrinsic and extrinsic rewards due to their efﬁcient nature. 1991). potentially because they are more capable of aligning their work values to their choice of vocation (Davies et al. . associated with extrinsic motivation. and job status. 1999... Judge et al.
g. 0. motivation and job satisfaction 769 . The job satisfaction scale (Warr et al.g. Correlational Analyses Table I illustrates the correlations between the personality and demographic variables and job satisfaction scores.. They were employed in very different jobs in the retail. Responses are given on a seven-point scale and can be summed to create and overall satisfaction score as well as an intrinsic and extrinsic value. recognition etc. Participation was anonymous and participants’ were instructed to copy an internet link into their web browser that would take them to the website on which the questionnaire was located. perks) and Motivator factors (e. Previous studies have indicated that between two and four factors tend to be extracted. manufacturing and healthcare. In addition. The work values questionnaire (WVQ) (Furnham et al.01). The WVQ is a revised version of Mantech’s (1983) questionnaire. The authors report extensive data showing good reliability and validity of this instrument. SD ¼ 10:21. 0. as well as the pre-requisites for taking part..05). 0. mean age ¼ 38:3. power. 2003): the ten items of this measure are scored using a seven-point scale. years in full time employment. All three job satisfaction scores were positively correlated with conscientiousness (all p . 202 fulltime employees (81 males. responsibility and personal growth) and extrinsic (e. and 121 females. and that these often correspond to Herzberg et al. Both overall and intrinsic job satisfaction were positively correlated with job status (all p . Instruments The ten item personality inventory (Gosling et al. job tenure and job status were positively associated with each other (all p . which outlined the purpose of the questionnaire. Method Participants In all. Procedure All questionnaires were completed via a website. seven of which measure intrinsic satisfaction. Participants were unpaid and recruited through a group e-mail. 1979): this scale consists of 15 items. whilst the remaining eight measure extrinsic job satisfaction.01).g.. Results 1. it was noted that age. whilst extrinsic job satisfaction was negatively correlated with job status ( p .H5.’s (1959) hygiene and motivator factors (Figure 1).) it is believed that this variable will be positively associated with job satisfaction responses. bonus. Participants were contacted by a group e-mail. pay and beneﬁts) components are important to them on a six-point scale. Personality. SD ¼ 11:17) took part in this study.05). 2005): this inventory consists of 37 items and requires individuals to report the extent to which intrinsic (e. An increased job status according to Herzberg et al. (1959) provides individuals with both increased hygiene (e.g. pay. with two statements (one reversed) used to measure each personality variable. mean age ¼ 28:4. 0.
The work values questionnaire (WVQ) .JMP 24.8 770 Figure 1.
206 * * 0.202 * * 0.038 2 0.028 0. Gender coding.794 * * Notes: n ¼ 202.069 0.343 * * – 20.108 20.022 0. Job status 4.054 0.036 0. Employment years 5.054 0.106 2 0. personality and job satisfaction variables . Openness 9. Job satisfaction (JS) 12.154 * 0.017 0.096 20.047 20.071 0.165 0.014 0.018 0.465 * * 0. motivation and job satisfaction 771 Table I.010 0. Gender 2.055 0.143 * 0.009 0.010 0.218 * * 2 0. Age 3. Job tenure 6.008 0.210 * * 2 0.948 * * – 0.018 0.164 0.128 0.062 0.028 – 20. * *p .174 * – 0.088 0.033 – 0.025 0.175 * 0.049 20.026 0.091 0.015 0.005 2 0.05.087 0.052 – 0. Conscientiousness 11.093 0.01 Personality.104 – 20. Neuroticism 7.769 * * 0. Agreeableness 10.085 0.136 0.198 * * 0.468 * * – 20.057 0.042 0.066 0.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1.040 0.253 * * 0.428 * * 0.025 2 0.267 * * – 0.061 20. 0.079 20.209 * * 0. 0. Correlations among demographic.142 * 0.544 * * – 20.191 * * 0.039 0. 1 ¼ Male and 2 ¼ Female.946 * * 0.165 * 0. Extraversion 8.162 * 20.141 * 20.098 0.038 0. *p . Intrinsic JS 13.065 – 20.080 0. Extrinsic JS – 0.
695 0.9. Factor pattern matrix for the work values questionnaire Personal development and stimulation (factor 3) Personal Growth (M) Stimulation (M) Intellectual (M) Personal relevance (M) Responsibility (M) Supervision (H) 0.532 0.665 0.741 0. Factor analysis on the WVQ The 37 items in the WVQ (see Figure 1) was treated to a Principal Components Analyses.560 0.45 are suppressed.537 0. Factor 2 Item and classiﬁcation Security and conditions (factor 1) Safety (H) Regularity (H) Tranquillity (H) Condition (H) Simplicity (M) Comfort (H) Security (H) Effortlessness (M) Clarity (M) Insurance (H) Status and rewards (factor 2) Power (M) Promotion (M) Perks (H) Recognition (M) Bonus (H) Status (M) Visibility (M) Competition (M) Pay (H) 1 0.524 0. M ¼ Motivator/intrinsic.697 0.JMP 24. An initial factor analysis was run to check for multicolinearity and revealed that no SMC was approaching 0. (3) Factor 3: personal development and stimulation (accounting for 11. (2) Factor 2: status and rewards (accounting for 14. Items that did not sufﬁciently load onto the extracted factors were removed.7 per cent of the variance).546 0.4 per cent of the variance).713 0.565 0.511 0.562 0.605 0.8 772 2.576 0.674 0.571 0. and the three factors were given the following names (Table II): (1) Factor 1: security and conditions (accounting for 19. Loadings less than 0.708 0. A varimax rotation was then run and the scree plot indicated that three clear factors emerged.485 Table II.680 0. Hygiene items largely deﬁned the ﬁrst factor and motivators predominantly deﬁned the remaining two factors.689 0.473 Notes: n ¼ 202. H ¼ hygiene/ extrinsic .518 0.549 0.576 0.486 3 0.6 per cent of the variance as revealed by the rotated sums of squares loadings).
017 0.55 2.54 * 1. Regression analyses on job satisfaction scores Regression analyses were also used to assess the extent to which the Big Five and demographic variables inﬂuenced job satisfaction scores (intrinsic.64 2. motivation and job satisfaction 773 Security and conditions (factor 1) Fð10.015 20. 0.23 0. 0. The variance accounted for by the ﬁve personality factors was not signiﬁcant (all p . job status appeared as a signiﬁcant positive predictor of the factor ( p . 191Þ ¼ 3:42. gender. 191Þ ¼ 2:37. employment years. 0.040 0.075 0.242 0. conscientiousness was a statistically signiﬁcant predictor of the factor (both p . 0.025 2 0.163 20. whilst Age and Agreeableness were positive signiﬁcant predictors ( p . Of the personality variables. 191Þ ¼ 3:42 * * R 2 ¼ 0:152 b t Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness Age Gender Years in fulltime employment Job tenure Job status 20. extrinsic and Personal development and stimulation (factor 3) Fð10.94 0.090 0. 0.69 20. and the output is illustrated in Table III in compact form.235 0.3. job tenure.1 per cent of the variance in the status and rewards factor (Fð10.102 0.147 0. 0.01 Table III. 191Þ ¼ 2:21.038 0.87 * * Notes: n ¼ 202.066 0.05).77 22.36 0. 0. .051 20.22 * 0. Both job status and total years working full-time were signiﬁcant negative predictors in the equation ( p .05). 0.06 22.272 20.44 2. The output revealed that no demographic variable signiﬁcantly contributed to the equation (all p . p . p . Regressions of work value factors onto gender.54 * Status and rewards (factor 2) Fð10.37 Personality.05). 0.21 20.051 0.05).00 * 1.054 20.185 2 0. Results demonstrated that the variables accounted for 15. Additionally.050 0. job tenure and job status.2 per cent of the variance for the security and conditions factor (Fð10. with the three factor scores regressed onto the Big Five. The third regression demonstrated that the ten variables accounted for 9 per cent of the variance in the personal development and stimulation factor (Fð10.01 1.006 20. 0.05).76 0.030 0.203 0. 191Þ ¼ 2:206 * R 2 ¼ 0:090 b t 0. Both gender and years in full time employment were revealed as negative predictors in the equation (with women more likely to favour this factor). whilst openness was near signiﬁcant (p ¼ 0:054).91 1.05. 191Þ ¼ 2:37 * R 2 ¼ 0:111 b t 0. 4.35 2 1.80 0.60 2.069 0.05). it should be noted that current employment length was approaching signiﬁcance as positive predictors in the equation (both p ¼ 0:054). *p . Regression analyses on WVQ factor scores In order to investigate the impact of individual differences upon motivation/work values.055 0.203 20. All three regressions were shown to be signiﬁcant (all p .52 * 2 0.128 0.026 0. three regressions were performed.21 20.01).01).015 20. p .150 0. The second regression revealed that. 0.99 0.25 * 22. age.28 * 20.160 20.92 22. In addition. age.05). total years working full-time. * *p .45 0. job status and personality . the predictor variables accounted for 11.05).06 0.
age.088 0. Furnham et al.76 * * Intrinsic job satisfaction Fð10. * *p .226 1. Regressions of job satisfaction (overall. 0.67 2.5 and 12.1 per cent of the variance (Fð10. As expected. job tenure. In line with previous research (Furnham et al.18 1.003 0.05).43 * 2 1.’s (1959) two-factor theory.353 0.58 0.047 2 0.04 0..33 2. 191Þ ¼ 2:774. conscientiousness was a signiﬁcant correlate of job satisfaction scores in both Overall job satisfaction Fð10.7 per cent of the variance could be accounted for by the personality and demographic variables (Fð10. Table III illustrates the results in compact form and reveals that all three regressions were statistically signiﬁcant (all p .10).77 1.59 * * 2 1.002 0. (all p .01 4. 0.40 2 0.5 per cent of the variance in the extrinsic job satisfaction scores (Fð10. As predicted.35 * * Extrinsic job satisfaction Fð10.8 774 overall job satisfaction).014 20.05).59 2. the ten variables collectively account for 10. personality and demographic variables were signiﬁcant correlates of the extracted factors.01). 191Þ ¼ 2:64 * * R2 ¼ 0:121 b t Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness Age Gender Years in fulltime employment Job tenure Job status 0.075 0.039 20.198 0. p .01). intrinsic and extrinsic) onto gender..05).7 per cent of the variance. As with the previous regressions conscientiousness and job status were signiﬁcant predictors of the variable ( p . 0.46 2 1. 0.186 2 0.091 0. Whilst the remaining variables were not signiﬁcant contributors to the equation. 2002.048 20. it should be noted that both agreeableness and age were both approaching statistical signiﬁcance (both p . accounting for between 9 and 15.03 3.177 20.69 2 0.21 1. 0.075 0. 0.137 0.064 0. 0. 0. Results of the regression with intrinsic job satisfaction scores revealed that 12. 191Þ ¼ 2:24 * R2 ¼ 0:105 b t 0.122 0. 191Þ ¼ 2:639). Further examination of the coefﬁcients table revealed that both conscientiousness and job status were signiﬁcant positive predictors of the variable (both p .001 0.033 2 0.80 0.01 .306 1. 0.17 0.01). Discussion This study set out to investigate the extent to which personality and demographic factors explain variance in motivation and job satisfaction as deﬁned by Herzberg et al.05). 0.JMP 24.101 0. 0.45 * 20. job status and personality Notes: *p .66 21. employment years.057 0.11 21.23 0. The regression carried out upon the overall job satisfaction scores revealed that the ten variables collectively accounted for 12.05). 191Þ ¼ 2:240. 191Þ ¼ 2:77 * * R2 ¼ 0:127 b t 20. personality and demographic variables were also signiﬁcantly related to all three job satisfaction scores and accounted for between 10.04 2. both conscientiousness and job status were positive predictors in the equation (both p .05.050 2 0.07 20.21 0.127 20.2 per cent of the variance. Similarly.33 2 0. p .085 0. As Table IV illustrates.175 20. and these essentially corresponded to the motivator/hygiene factor categorisation. 2005). p . As with overall job satisfaction.129 0.75 * * Table IV.01 1.19 2 1.008 20.088 0. three factors were extracted from the WVQ.
it is somewhat contradictory owing to that fact that age is strongly associated with both years in working full-time and job status. thus suggesting they are more motivated by the prospect of power and status than their male counterparts. Results also demonstrated that women rated this factor as more important than men. The development and stimulation factor was concerned with the extent to which work allows for intellectual stimulation. and should thus be further investigated before any ﬁrm evaluations can be made. This factor was positively associated with agreeableness which Furnham et al.correlational and regressional analyses. A potential reason for this is that those in high status positions may take the safety. age. A potential explanation for the former observation is that those who are lower in job status (as revealed by signiﬁcant correlations) may be more orientated towards the hygiene aspects of a job as demonstrated in the results for the security and conditions regression.e. physiological needs and security). individuals shift their focus to higher order needs. However. culminating in self-actualisation. they can be interpreted as associates of increased power. (2005) agreed is a robust correlate of work values. perks and pay). Whilst hygiene components are present in this factor (bonuses. which ascertained that once lower order needs have been achieved (e. graduate positions and non-managerial roles) are more concerned with working conditions and clarity in their work than those of a higher status and individuals who have been working for longer periods. in line with predictions and the two-factor theory. Conscientious Personality. motivators). Negative relationships were observed between the security and conditions factor and job status. and are instead motivated by the prospect of more power and status (i. Similarly. and was positively associated with conscientiousness.g. as individuals move up in the company hierarchy it maybe the case that hygiene factors are no longer as salient as they have been achieved/taken for granted.g. as individuals gain more experience in full-time work they may become accustomed to the regularity associated with work. While a positive relationship between scores in this factor and age was found. 1987). These results suggest that individuals with low job status (e. motivation and job satisfaction 775 . recognition. personal growth and responsibility. The negative association between this factor and years in full-time employment is somewhat contradictory given the latter’s positive correlation with job status. job status was signiﬁcantly associated with these scores. However. This category was concerned with the extent to which work provides intrinsic rewards (such as promotion/development prospects and power) and to a lesser degree extrinsic rewards (such as pay. The security and conditions factor extracted from participants’ responses to the WVQ was largely characterised by hygiene issues regarding physical conditions of the workplace and the extent to which work is stable and clearly deﬁned. perks and bonuses). it is important to remember that job status is not always synonymous of experience. Contrary to expectations. Items associated with the status and rewards factor were largely Motivator orientated in origin. status and recognition. job tenure and years working full time were not signiﬁcantly related to job satisfaction scores. High scores were positively associated with job status and were negatively associated with the number of years participants had worked full time. quality of conditions and regularity of work for granted (Warr. as well as years in full-time employment. This is in line with Maslow’s (1954) seminal theory of motivation. however.
intrinsic and extrinsic) were signiﬁcantly associated with conscientiousness. it may be the case that they place more importance on the prospect of increased stimulation and personal growth than others.g. PriceWaterhouseCoopers runs a beneﬁts scheme named “Choices” (source: www. Such schemes seem to appreciate the role of individual differences in the value placed upon certain rewards (e. such as Judge et al. 1991.8 776 individuals may place higher value on the opportunity to apply themselves and be responsible. Scores for all three job satisfaction categories were also positively associated with job status. However. There is theoretical support in Lawler’s (1973) expectancy theory.com). and therefore some incentives will motivate them more than others. Davies et al. age. This observation is in line with previous research investigating the personality correlates of job satisfaction. individuals’ high in conscientiousness are likely to be rewarded both extrinsically (in the form of bonuses and other perks) and intrinsically (in the form of more responsibility and expanded job roles).g. work reorganisation strategies focused on the alteration of extrinsic factors alone are unlikely to be successful in their intentions to increase job satisfaction/employee motivation without considering the impact of individual differences.’s (2002) meta-analysis. 2002). The results of the current study have demonstrated that the inﬂuence of demographic variables should not be underestimated. However. which demonstrated an average correlation of 0.26 between conscientiousness and job satisfaction. job tenure and years working full-time were not signiﬁcantly related to job satisfaction. As a whole. this line of thought is adopted in cafeteria-style rewards systems introduced by large organisations (Furnham. In accordance to Herzberg et al. which ascertains that different employees are likely to place different value on certain rewards. as a consequence of their achievement-orientated nature.g.. 2002). and illustrates that some organisations are acknowledging motivation research and applying aspects to the design of reward systems. Furnham et al. and power as well as satisfactory pay/bonuses and better quality physical working conditions (e. thus accounting for its signiﬁcance. Because such individuals are ﬂexible and creative. the current study suggests that aspects such as job tenure and number of years working full-time can be . A near signiﬁcant relationship was found between scores in this factor and individuals’ high in openness to experience. 2002).JMP 24.e. all three categories (overall.’s (1959) this would fulﬁl both the hygiene and motivator pre-requisites for job satisfaction. which is also logical when interpreted in relation to Herzberg’s two-factor theory. which offers incentives including discounts on ﬂight tickets. recognition. a personal ofﬁce). the results of the current study are in line with previous ﬁndings and further validates the contentions proposed by Keller et al.. (1992) – i. the near-signiﬁcant contribution of age (as well as agreeableness) for intrinsic job satisfaction suggests that a larger sample may have produced different results that would be more in line with previous literature (e.. For example. childcare vouchers and sabbatical programmes. Whilst age has not consistently shown to contribute to work attitudes (Furnham et al. Individuals of a high job status are more likely to have both hygiene and motivator factors fulﬁlled by their positions as such roles are likely to involve more variety. This maybe because of their attention to detail. In practice.pwc. With regards to job satisfaction. the priorities of parents’ are likely to differ from those of graduates).
and that both literature and organisations should further investigate the variables that contribute to these values with the intention of increasing job satisfaction and performance. pp.S. One obvious issue in this study and those related to it (Furnham et al. and Robertson. (1992). A. Segal. however a lack of familiarity with the internet may have prevented some individuals’ from participating in the study – indeed. and Abraham.inﬂuential. (1991). G. C. “Job satisfaction: environmental and genetic components”.. motivation and job satisfaction 777 . through effective selection methods and pervasive job interventions. 14.J. 74. Journal of Managerial Psychology. Chichester.R. Future avenues of research could involve the further investigation of demographic variables and their impact upon motivation and satisfaction. C. It should be noted that the use of an Internet survey allowed a large number of participants to be acquired with ease. (1999). Another methodological concern of the current study is that of common method variance that arises from the use of self-report questionnaires. 573-85. pp. 2005) is how relatively little variance personality factors account for when examining both motivation and satisfaction. London. (1997). T. only individuals with email access were able to receive the request to take part. “The psychodynamics of organisational change”. A.. these could include education level and socio-economic status. Future studies could tackle this issue by administering personality inventories at different time periods or perhaps use a behaviour rated scale. Furnham. 187-92. References Arvey.. To conclude. Through the exploration of such variables. which could in turn inform businesses’ how to be more successful in their attempts to inﬂuence work attitudes through selection processes and interventions. and Wong. Furnham. demographic and work factors only accounted for 9-15 per cent of the variance.L. Mathews. Vol.’s (1959) two-factor theory.. Carr. This begs the obvious and important question as to what accounts for the remaining 80-90 per cent of the variance in these two very important factors at work. the majority of participants were below 40. Bouchard. (1989). A. in Copper. This investigation may have beneﬁted from a more representative sample of the workforce. Psychology Press.K. L. John Wiley & Sons. and thus it would be of interest to see whether similar results would be gained from a quota sample consisting of a set number of participants for each age/job status/job tenure bracket. D. 1st ed. Routledge. R. Personality. Personality at Work: the Role of Individual Differences in the Workplace. International Review of individual and Organizational Psychology. 6. Davies. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. N. Though it is unlikely that jobs change people’s temperaments they may well change their attitudes and beliefs..D.L. London. Vol. These results further validate the contention that work attitudes are not the product of situational factors alone. As Tables III and IV illustrate personality. this study demonstrates that personality and demographic variables can be signiﬁcantly related to both job satisfaction and motivation as deﬁned by Herzberg et al. I. 1999.M. However it is important to note that this was a correlational study and that causality cannot be inferred. The Psychology of Behaviour at Work. “Age and work behaviour”. organisations may be in a better position to understand what variables impact upon motivation and job satisfaction. 2002.T. While there was a wide range of ages. Only longitudinal behavioural studies can really answer questions of causality. (Eds).
221-39. and career success across the life span”. Vol. Maccody. 1035-43. (1996). Reading. Chicago.. and Garrod. New York. (1954). and Illies..A. 54. Vol... 47-52. (1999). A. Heredity. 87. “Extraversion and reinforcement in verbal operant conditioning”.. K. T. R.. (1976). pp. “A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains”. 797-807. I. and Ferrari. A.. Rentfrow. London. (1976).M. Vol. 79-88. Motivation and Personality. (2005). (1983).J. 1297-350. D. Furnham. (1973). Pappas. A. 67. Mantech (1983). Goldsmith.. G. and Swann. (1992). in Dunette. Journal of Applied Psychology. R.).. Work Values Questionnaire. Higgins. general mental ability. Monterey. Keller. Furnham. Lawler. 1325-42. O’Reilly.8 778 Furnham. MA. Judge. (1959). Vol. (1990).. B. pp. Rand McNally.. Forde. Tsaousis.. “Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: a meta-analysis”. I. T. Journal of Applied Psychology.. “The big ﬁve personality traits. 33. Vol. R. E. T. 474-82. B. 118-31. 2nd ed. Vol. Environment.V. Judge. D.H. C. 621-52. Petrides. “Genetic inﬂuences on personality from infancy to adulthood”. Psychology Press.. Personality and Individual Differences. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. “Conscientiousness and task performance: test of a cognitive process model”. F. (2002). Elements of a Two-process Theory of Learning. Journal of Psychology. Heller.J. 23. (2002).A.A.V. (2002). IL. Furnham. (1999). C. British Journal of Psychology. pp. 139. 530-41. University of Texas Press. Arvey. 504-28. C. J. (1986). Gupta. and Snyderman. Vol. L. Mausner. and Cotter. M. “The nature and causes of job satisfaction”.C. London.H. Vol. Vol. Academic Press. (2002). CA. (1976). M. Journal of Applied Psychology. pp. M. Harper.J. The Productive Narcissist: The Promise and Peril or Visionary Leadership. Motivation in Work Organization. Judge. pp. Thoresen.A. and Bloom. and Dawis. differential. A. (Ed.J. Jackson. Gosling..V. D. 2nd ed.S. (1975). 331-55. Gray. NY. Austin.A. Academy of Management Journal. New York. “Personality and work motivation”. Brooks/Cole. Journal of Research in Personality. pp. The Motivation to Work. pp.JMP 24. Herzberg. Gellatly. N. Modern Madness: The Emotional Fallout of Success. . Mantech. Petrides. (2003). “A cross-cultural investigation into the relationships between personality traits and work values”. 37. Bouchard. 87. (1980). 5-33. “Relationship of personality to performance motivation”.L. E. and Barrick.. 52. TX. “Work values: genetic and environmental inﬂuences”. D. NY. K. pp. J. and Nichols. R. New York. Kanfer. pp. Child Development. B.. Maslow. M. Loehlin. Learning and Individual Differences.D. Journal of Applied Psychology. Segal. J. L. and Mount. (2003). “Motivation and individual differences in learning: an integration of developmental. The Psychology of Behaviour at Work.K. John Wiley & Sons. NY. T. P. Vol. 2. Personnel Psychology. pp. Vol. W. K.B. pp. Personality and Individual Differences. pp. Broadway Books. R. T. 81. 77. A.D. La Bier.R. C. “Perceptual measures of task characteristics: the biasing effects of differing frames of reference and job attitudes”. Locke. and Personality: A Study of 850 Sets of Twins.C. pp. Parlette.N. K. and cognitive perspectives”. Auckland. “Do personality factors predict job satisfaction?”.R. pp. Vol. Vol. Addison-Wesley.B. H. 26.R.
psychographic consumer segmentation.com/reprints . (1979). creativity.M.com Or visit our web site for further details: www. 469-80. Vol. Staw. P. and leadership. Schmidt. and Porter. Cook. Warr. 5th ed. Since then he has worked for Hydrogen Talent for Dr Jonathan Smilansky and has contributed to his book Developing Executive Talent and is currently working for the Group Learning and Development team in a FTSE 100 Finance Company in London. and Visiting Professor at NYU-London.Salgado.M. (1992). in Chmiel. musical preferences.. motivation and job satisfaction 779 To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight. Vol. He has published more than 60 scientiﬁc articles and four authored books. “Statistical power in criterion-related validity studies”. “Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and aspects of psychological well-being”. educational achievement. Personality.B.). 30-43. “The dispositional approach to job attitudes: a lifetime longitudinal test”.L. Journal of Applied Psychology. J.. Anderson. and Cunningham-Snell. pp. 129-48. 5th ed. McGraw-Hill. Vol. J.M. and has previously taught at the London School of Economics and the University of Bath. Stress.. 473-85. “The ﬁve-factor model of personality and job performance in the European community”. L. (Ed. B.F. Further reading Anderson. R. Unemployment. About the authors Adrian Furnham has lectured in psychology at University College London for almost 30 years. pp. Adrian Furnham is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: a. N. pp. 56-77. Administrative Science Quarterly. Westwood. (1997). (1991).A.ac. Penguin. and Mental Health. Warr.D. NY. N.emeraldinsight. and Ross. Staw. 31. (Eds) (1997). and Herriot.W. Longman. N. Organizational Behaviour: South East Asian Perspective. Psychology at Work. Research Fellow at UCL. 52. Journal of Occupational Psychology. (1987).. International Handbook of Selection and Assessment. New York. Oxford. and Clausen. (1976). P. P. Harmondsworth. N. Bell.E. J. Chichester. Warr. and Urry.furnham@ucl. Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology.B. R. Motivation and Work Behaviour. (1986). “Personnel selection”.uk Andreas Eracleous is a UCL Psychology graduate who completed his Occupational Psychology MSc at Goldsmiths in 2005. Vol. 82. such as human intelligence and genius. V. P. F. 70. (1985).R. J. pp. Oxford University Press. T. (1999). and Wall. Work. Journal of Applied Psychology. Wiley.B.E. Oxford.. covering a wide range of social and applied topics. 61. pp. J. He is visiting Professor at the Norwegian School of Management and author of 55 books over widely different areas of psychology. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic is a Senior Lecturer at Goldsmiths.W. N. Blackwell. B. Hong Kong. Hunter. Vol. (2002). His current interests are in derailed and failed leaders and in individual difference correlates of creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology. “Stability in the midst of change: a dispositional approach to job attitudes”.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.