It was proposed that there is no inherent relationship between satisfaction and productivity, and that relationships between the two variables are highly dependent upon performance-reward contingencies . Ninety 5s performed a task for 1 hr. A monetary reward was then delivered to 21 of 42 high performers and 21 of 42 low performers. The 5s next completed self-report measures of satisfaction and attitudes and performed the same task for another hour. Correlations between self-reports of satisfaction and second-hour productivity over all 5s was .00. Significant positive correlations, however, were found between satisfaction and productivity of appropriately reinforced 5s (rewarded high performers and nonrewarded low performers) while significant negative correlations were found for inappropriately reinforced 5s (rewarded low performers and nonrewarded high performers). Many current speculations on the relationship between worker satisfaction and task performance, as reviewed by Schwab and Cummings (1970), still imply that performance and satisfaction are causally related in one direction or the other. Some theorists have now added moderating variables to their behavioral formulas in hopes of facilitating the prediction of one variable from the other. In contrast, the present authors postulate not only that (a) there is no inherent relationship between satisfaction and performance, but also that (b) one can produce about any empirical relationship between task performance and self-reports of satisfaction that one wishes. The first proposition is consistent with the conclusions of empirical reviews such as Brayfield and Crockett (1955) and with theoretical positions such as those of Porter and Lawler (1968). The second proposition was derived from operational proposals by Skinner (1969) and Bandura (1969) and from speculations by a variety of reinforcement theorists (e.g., Berlyne, 1967; Bindra, 1968; Rescorla & Solomon, 1967; and Weiskrantz, 1968).
[1]
A. H. Brayfield,et al.
Employee attitudes and employee performance.
,
1955,
Psychological bulletin.
[2]
R. Rescorla,et al.
Two-process learning theory: Relationships between Pavlovian conditioning and instrumental learning.
,
1967,
Psychological review.
[3]
W. E. Scott,et al.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALES AS MEASURES OF “MORALE”
,
1967
.
[4]
D. Berlyne,et al.
Arousal and Reinforcement
,
1967
.
[5]
Lyman W. Porter,et al.
Managerial attitudes and performance
,
1968
.
[6]
D. Bindra.
Neuropsychological interpretation of the effects of drive and incentive-motivation on general activity and instrumental behavior.
,
1968
.
[7]
L. Weiskrantz.
Analysis of behavioral change
,
1968
.
[8]
B. Skinner.
Contingencies of reinforcement : a theoretical analysis
,
1969
.
[9]
A. Bandura.
Principles of behavior modification
,
1969
.
[10]
W. E. Scott,et al.
The generality and significance of semantic differential scales as measures of “morale”
,
1970
.
[11]
Donald P. Schwab,et al.
Theories of Performance and Satisfaction: A Review
,
1970
.