Individual and group antecedents of satisfaction: One lab- multilevel study
This study examines the simultaneous effect of individual (self-efficacy) and group variables (cohesion and gender diversity) on satisfaction. A laboratory study was conducted involving 373 college students randomly distributed across 79 small groups, who performed a laboratory task in about five hours. Two-level Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) method was used. Results show the main effect from individual self-efficacy to satisfaction (both level 1), the cross-level effect from group cohesion (level 2) to individual satisfaction (level 1), and the interaction effect between self-efficacy and gender diversity to satisfaction. These results suggest that in a work group, satisfaction has a background in individual and group variables. Group cohesion and gender diversity have important effects on satisfaction. The article concludes with practical strategies and with limitations and suggestions for future research.
Ali, M., Kulik, C.T., & Metz, I. (2011). The gender diversity performance relationship in services and manufacturing organizations. International journal of human resource management, 22, 1464-1485. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.561961
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide to the Construction of Self-Efficacy Scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents (pp. 307–337), Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Birx, E., La Sala, K.B., & Wagstaff, M. (2011). Evaluation of a Team-Building Retreat to Promote Nursing Faculty Cohesion and Satisfaction. Journal of Professional Nursing, 27, 174-178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2010.10.007
Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and Heterogeneity. New York: The Free Press.
Brawley, L. R., Carron, A. V., & Widmeyer,W. N. (1993). The influence of the group and its cohesiveness on perceptions of group goal-related variables. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 15, 245-260.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2002). Hierarchical linear models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Diego, R., Diego, J., & Olivar, S. (2001). Satisfaction in banking workers. Psicothema, 13(4), 629-635.
Giambatista, R. C., & Bhappu, A. (2010). Diversity’s harvest: Interactions of diversity sources and communication technology on creativity group performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111, 116–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.11.003
Green, S.G., & Taber, T.D. (1980). The effects of three social decision schemes on decision group process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 97-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(80)90027-6
Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307-338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.307
Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group Influences on Individuals in Organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press.
Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation variety or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1199–1228. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.26586096
Hofmann, D. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23, 723–744.
Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24, 623-641. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639802400504
Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. I., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J. A., & Pey-ronnin, K. (1991). Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 675-689. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.675
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85
Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 599–627. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.41331491
Judge, T. A., &. Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of Core Self-Evaluations, Traits Self Esteem, Generalized Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, and Emotional stability with Satisfaction and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.80
Kirchmeyer, C. (1995). Demographic similarity to the work group: A longitudinal study of managers at the early career stage. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 67-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.4030160109
Konrad, A.M., Winter, S., & Gutek, B.A. (1992). Diversity in work group sex composition: Implications for majority and minority members. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 10, 115–140.
Kunin, T. (1955). The construction of a new type of attitude measure. Personnel Psychology, 9, 65–78.
Lee, C., & Farh, J.L. (2004). Joint effects of group efficacy and gender diversity on group cohesion and performance. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53(1), 136-154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00164.x
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1343). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Marquis, D.G. (1962). Individual responsibility and group decision involving risk. Industrial Management Review, 3, 8-23.
Martens, R., & Peterson, J. A. (1971). Group cohesiveness as a determi-nant of success and member satisfaction in team performance. International Review of Sport Sociology, 6, 49-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/101269027100600103
Martínez, I. M., & Mejías, R. J. (2003). Efectos del anonimato y el género sobre el nivel de consenso, cohesión y satisfacción en grupos con apoyo de sistemas informáticos. Revista de Psicología Social, 18, 107-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1174/021347403321645230
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: interaction and performance. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Mullen, B., & Cooper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohe-siveness and performance: integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210–227.
Osca, A., & García-Salmonez, L. (2010). El impacto del tamaño y la diversidad en los procesos y resultados grupales. Psicothema, 22(1), 137-142.
Price, J. L., & Muller, C. W. (1986). Handbook of organizational measurement. Marchfield, MA: Pittman Publishing Inc.
Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applica-tions and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Salanova, M., Llorens, S., Cifre, E., Martinez, I. M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Perceived collective efficacy, subjective well-being and task performance among electronic work groups: An experimental study. Small Group Research, 34, 43-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496402239577
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1059–1069. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.001
Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Smith, P. C. (1992). In pursuit of happiness. In C. J. Cranny, P. C. Smith, & E. F. Stone (Eds), Satisfaction. New York: Lexington.
Tsui, A., Egan, T., & O’Reilly, C. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549–588. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393472
Van Andel, P., Erdman, R.A., Karsdorp, P.A, Appels, & Trijsburg, R.V. (2003). Group cohesion and working alliance: prediction of treatment outcome in cardiac patients receiving cognitive behavioral group psychotherapy. Psychother Psychosom, 72, 141-149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000069733
Wegge, J., Roth, C., Neubach, B, Schmidt, K.H., & Kanfer, R, (2008). Age and gender diversity as determinants of performance and health in a public organization: The role of task complexity and group size. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1301–1313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012680
Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). The complexity of diversity: A review of forty years of research. In B. Staw & R. Sutton (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (pp. 21-140). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
The works published in this journal are subject to the following terms:
1. The Publications Service of the University of Murcia (the publisher) retains the property rights (copyright) of published works, and encourages and enables the reuse of the same under the license specified in paragraph 2.
2. The works are published in the online edition of the journal under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 (legal text). You can copy, use, distribute, transmit and publicly display, provided that: i) you cite the author and the original source of publication (journal, editorial and URL of the work), ii) are not used for commercial purposes, iii ) mentions the existence and specifications of this license.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
3. Conditions of self-archiving. Is allowed and encouraged the authors to disseminate electronically pre-print versions (version before being evaluated and sent to the journal) and / or post-print (version reviewed and accepted for publication) of their works before publication, as it encourages its earliest circulation and diffusion and thus a possible increase in its citation and scope between the academic community. RoMEO Color: Green.