Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups

7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups

1/42

SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / June 2002Mason, Griffin / GROUP TASK SATISFACTION

GROUP TASK SATISFACTION

Applying the Construct ofJob Satisfaction to Groups

CLAIRE M. MASON

MARK A. GRIFFIN

Queensland University of Technology

This article reviews evidence for considering job satisfaction at the group level of analysis.

Group-level job satisfaction is functionally independent of individual-level job satisfaction.

This construct is labeledgroup tasksatisfaction andis defined as thegroups shared attitudetoward its task and the associated work environment. The authors propose that group task

satisfaction develops out of within-group homogeneity in individual job satisfaction, which

in turn is a product of the shared work conditions, social influence processes, attraction-

selection-attrition effects, and emotional contagion effects associated with work groups.

They predict that through group interaction, the within-group homogeneity in job satisfac-

tion will come to be perceived as a characteristic of the group. Once identified as a group

characteristic, group task satisfaction will be subject to processes such as polarization and

prototyping, with the result that group task satisfaction should function independently of the

mean level of jobsatisfactionwithinthe group. Theauthors predict that grouptask satisfac-

tionwill be related to themean level of individualjob satisfaction within thegroup, thequal-

ity of the groups processes, and the performance of the group, thus serving as an important

indicator of team viability.

This article represents a theoretical investigation of job satisfac-

tion as a group-level construct. The job satisfaction construct has

been thoroughly researched at the individual level. In contrast, only

a small number of studies have investigated job satisfaction at the

group level and organizational level, and in these studies, group-

level and organizational-level job satisfaction have been

271

AUTHORSNOTE: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Claire

M. Mason, Australian Centre in Strategic Management, Queensland University of Technol-

ogy, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, Queensland, 4001, Australia; telephone: +61 7-3864-1238;

fax: +61 7-3864-1766; e-mail: [email protected].

SMALL GROUP RESEARCH, Vol. 33 No. 3, June 2002 271-312

2002 Sage Publications


2/42

operationalizedby aggregating measures of individual job satisfac-

tion (e.g., Hecht & Riley, 1985; Ostroff, 1992; Ryan, Schmit, &Johnson, 1996). No studies have been reported that investigate

group-level job satisfaction independently of individual job satis-

faction. The aim of this article is to illustrate why job satisfaction

should be investigated as a functionally independent group-level

variable.

BACKGROUND

Work groups and teams are prevalent in the contemporary work-

place (Beyerlein, Johnson, & Beyerlein, 1995; Devine, Clayton,

Philips, Dunford, & Melner, 1999; Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford,1992). In a survey of 128organizations in the United States, Devine

et al. (1999) found that nearly 50% of organizations used work

groups. Workgroups have been seen as providinga means of gener-

ating higher employee involvement and satisfaction, while at the

same time delivering improved performance for the organization

(Banker, Field, Schroeder, & Singha, 1996; Cannon-Bowers, Oser,

& Flanagan, 1992; Dunphy & Bryant, 1996). Given these aims and

the prevalence of teams within the workplace, it is important to

understand the full range of effects associated with groups.

Traditionally, when researching group processes in organiza-

tions, organizational psychologists have tended to concentrate on a

restricted range of variables, such as group size, group cohesion,group structure, and group heterogeneity (of composition). How-

ever, more recent research has begun to uncover a wider range of

effects associated with groups. Comparison of individuals working

alone with individuals working in groups has identified group

effects on productivity, decision making, turnover, and absentee-

ism (Cordery, Mueller, & Smith, 1991; Freeman, 1996; Myers &

Lamm, 1976; Wall, Kemp, Jackson, & Clegg, 1986). In addition,

groups have been found to have effects on the behavior and affec-

tive states of their members (Hackman, 1987). Individuals belong-

ing to the same group have been found to display normative behav-

iors (Coch & French, 1948), affect (George, 1990), job attitudes

272 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / June 2002


3/42

(Pfeffer, 1980), and absenteeism levels (Gellatly, 1995). Conse-

quently, researchers have begun exploring a range of new groupconstructs based on individual-level variables, such as group

potency (Guzzo, Yost, Campbell, & Shea, 1993), collective effi-

cacy (Lindsley, Brass, & Thomas, 1995; Zaccaro, Blair, Peterson,

& Zazanis, 1995), group affective tone (George, 1990; George &

Brief, 1992), and group beliefs (Bar-Tal, 1990). This research has

created a broader understanding of the range of effects associated

with groups.

WHY STUDY JOB SATISFACTION

AT THE GROUP LEVEL?

The research cited above has demonstrated that it can be worth-

while to investigate individual-level variables at the group level of

analysis, but it is still necessary to explain why job satisfaction in

particular is worth investigating as a group attribute. Individual job

satisfaction has been a focus of research effort within the field of

organizational psychology for several decades (e.g., Brayfield &

Rothe, 1951; Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959), and a wide

range of outcomes have been linked with the job satisfaction con-

struct. Specifically, individual job satisfaction has been found to be

positively related to individual performance (e.g., Iaffaldano &

Muchinsky, 1985; Petty, McGee, & Cavender, 1984), organiza-

tional commitment (e.g., Bateman & Strasser, 1984; Curry,Wakefield, Price, & Mueller, 1986), and organizational citizenship

behavior (e.g., Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith, Organ, & Near,

1983), and negatively related to stress (ODriscoll & Beehr, 2000),

anxiety (Jex & Gudanowski, 1992), absenteeism (e.g., Chadwick-

Jones, Nicholson, & Brown, 1982; Steers & Rhodes, 1978), and

turnover (Carson & Spector, 1987; Judge, 1993). Despite the vast

literature in this area, job satisfaction has been consistently treated

as an individual-level variable, even though there are both theoreti-

cal reasons and empirical evidence to suggest that individuals

working in groups should develop a shared attitude toward its work

and work environment. Assuming the job satisfaction construct

Mason, Griffin / GROUP TASK SATISFACTION 273


4/42

does exhibit group-level properties, the group-level variable may

explain unique group-level variance in some of the outcome vari-ables that are traditionally associated with the job satisfaction con-

struct. Although it is inappropriate to assume that relationships at

one level of analysis will automatically carry over to the group level

of analysis, research that has demonstrated a relationship between

the mean level of individual job satisfaction within the group and

group performance (Vroom, 1964), absenteeism (Hunt, Good-

man, & Quintela, 1998; Kerr, Koppelmeier, & Sullivan, 1951;

Mann & Baumgartel, 1952), and citizenship behavior (see

Karambayya, 1989, cited in Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie,

1997) suggests that at least some of the relationships exhibited by

individual job satisfaction will carry over to the group level. Fur-

thermore, by assessing the group-level job satisfaction constructdirectly (rather than using the mean level of individual job satisfac-

tion as a proxy), we may observe stronger relationships at the group

level than have been reported previously.

In addition, although individual job satisfaction has often been

investigated as a predictor of other variables, individual job satis-

faction represents an outcome of interest in its own right. If groups

do develop a shared level of job satisfaction, this group-level con-

struct is likely to have an effect on the level of individual job satis-

faction experienced by group members. Group members should

find it more rewarding to work in a group characterized by a posi-

tive attitude toward its work than to work in a group that has a nega-

tive attitude toward its work and the work environment. There aretherefore two bases on which the study of group-level job satisfac-

tion is justified. First, group-level job satisfaction may explain

group-level variance in outcome variables traditionally associated

with the job satisfaction construct. Second, group-level job satis-

faction is likely to have an effect on the individual job satisfaction

of group members.

What, then, are the reasons for predicting that job satisfaction

will function as a group-level construct?Although group-level con-

structs can take several different forms (Chan, 1998), the key crite-

rion for the identification of a group-level construct is usually that



5/42

there should be within-group homogeneity with regard to the con-

struct in question. Below, we identify four factors that should con-tribute to within-group homogeneity in job satisfaction.

THE SHARED WORK ENVIRONMENT

The fact that individuals working in groups tend to share similar

work conditions and events provides the first reason for expecting

job satisfaction to exhibit within-group homogeneity (Ryan et al.,

1996). Experiences in the work environment, such as poor manage-

ment or inadequate working conditions, tend to be shared by all

members of the group, and these experiences have been found to

affect job attitudes (e.g., Newman, 1975; Pritchard & Karasick,

1973; Rousseau, 1978). Therefore, the commonality of the workenvironment experienced by group members should contribute to

the development of similar job attitudes.

SOCIAL INFORMATION

Social information processes occurring within groups should

also contribute to homogeneity of job attitudes (Salancik & Pfeffer,

1978). The complexity of the work environment and pressure to

conform to the norms and standards of the workplace should give

salience to social information provided by coworkers. Coworkers

provide information about their own evaluation of the workplace,

draw attention to particular features of the work environment, pro-vide interpretations of events in the workplace, and discuss their

own work-related needs and values (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978).

Such social information affects individuals perceptions of the

environment and, ultimately, their attitudes toward that environ-

ment. Individuals who work in a group are exposed to similar social

information, and consequently, they should develop similar job

attitudes. The social information processing model has been tested

and supported in several studies (Bateman, Griffin, & Rubenstein,

1987; OConnor & Barrett, 1980; Schnake, 1991; Weiss & Shaw,

1979; White, Mitchell, & Bell, 1977).



6/42

ATTRACTION, SELECTION, AND ATTRITION PROCESSES

Furthermore, homogeneity in job attitudes is predicted bySchneiders (1987) Attraction, Selection, Attrition (ASA) frame-

work. Although individual needs, values, and dispositions influ-

ence job satisfaction, Schneider argued that the extent of individual

variability within an organization will be restricted as a result of

ASA processes. Schneiders framework is traditionally used to pre-

dict organizational-level homogeneity, but George (1990) showed

that the ASA framework can also be applied to groups. George

argued that the assignment of employees to work groups tends to be

affected by personality factors. In addition, employees tend to be

attracted to work groups consisting of others with similar personal-

ities to their own, and such preferences may also be taken into

account when assigning employees to groups. Finally, employees

should also be more likely to remain in a group where they fit in,

and more likely to seek a transfer when they do not get along with

group members. The result will be a trend toward homogeneity in

group members. Given that individual personality characteristics

have been shown to be related to job satisfaction (Brief, Burke,

George, Robinson, & Webster, 1988; Cropanzano, James, &

Konovsky, 1993; Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000; Staw, Bell, &

Clausen, 1986; Staw & Ross, 1985), homogeneity of individual

characteristicswithin thegroupshould resultin homogeneity of job

attitudes within groups.

EMOTIONAL CONTAGION

An additional factor that is expected to contribute to within-

group homogeneity in job satisfaction is emotional contagion.

Emotional contagion refers to the process whereby people auto-

matically mimic other peoples expressive displays and, as a result,

end up experiencing similar emotions to the person whom they

were mimicking (Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994). Ashforth

and Humphrey(1995) argued that organizational subunits are espe-

cially vulnerable to emotional contagion because of the interdepen-

dency, proximity, and shared social identity that is associated with



7/42

working in groups. Two studies have investigated convergence of

mood and affect withinorganizational work groups. The first study,conducted by George (1990), found that groups of salespeople in a

department store exhibited high agreement in their reported job

affect. The second study, conducted by Totterdell, Kellett,

Teuchmann, and Briner (1998), found that a team members mood

at a given point in time was able to be predicted from the mean of

other team members moods, even after controlling for negative

events experienced by the team. Therefore, the association between

an individuals mood and the mood of the rest of his or her team did

not simply reflect the effect of shared negative events. Although

emotional contagion effects are usually associated with conver-

gence in mood, they can also be expected to have an indirect effect

on attitudes, because job affect and job satisfaction are usuallyhighly correlated (e.g., Fisher, 2000; Kraiger, Billings, & Isen,

1989). Therefore, the existence of emotional contagion is another

factor that should lead to homogeneity of job satisfaction within

groups.

To summarize, it is expected that there will be greater homoge-

neity within groups than between groups in terms of the work envi-

ronment, social information, personality traits, and emotions. Each

of these factors is known to affect job satisfaction. Therefore, they

should engender within-group homogeneity in job satisfaction.

EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

These theoretical arguments are supported by empirical studies

that demonstrate that individuals job attitudes tend to display

homogeneity within groups. Homogeneity is an importantcriterion

for identifying aggregate-level constructs. If groupmembers do not

share similar attitudes toward their work, there is no basis for argu-

ing that the combination of membersattitudes represents a specific

attribute of the group (James, 1982). Three studies provide evi-

dence of homogeneity in job satisfaction. First, Herman and Hulin

(1972) found that by grouping employees according to their hierar-

chical level, functional division, or departmental task specializa-



8/42

tion, a significant proportion of the variance in individuals evalua-

tions of working conditions and satisfaction levels could bepredicted. Similarly, Herman, Dunham, and Hulin (1975) found

that department, job level, shift, apprentice program, and tenure

predicted a significant proportion of the variance in the individual

satisfaction facets measured by the Job Descriptive Index. Finally,

Pfeffer (1980) found that subunit membership predicted percep-

tions of task characteristics, individual needs, and job attitudes,

even after controlling for tenure and supervisory level.

Further support for within-group homogeneity in job satisfac-

tion is provided by network research, which has demonstrated that

job-related attitudes reflect patterns of interaction in the workplace

(Burkhardt, 1994; Hartman & Johnson, 1989; Meyer, 1994; Rice &

Aydin, 1991). For example, network links have been shown to pre-dict similarities in task and role perceptions (Hartman & Johnson,

1989; Meyer, 1994). Because members of the same work group are

likely to interact frequently, these findings suggest that members of

the same work group will tend to have similar job attitudes.

HOW WILL JOB SATISFACTION FUNCTION

AS A GROUP-LEVEL CONSTRUCT?

A group-level construct may take several forms (Chan, 1998),

depending on the nature of the functional relationship that is

hypothesized to exist between the individual-level construct andthe group-level construct. In its most basic form, the existence of

within-group homogeneity is sufficient to identify a group-level

construct. However, the group-level job satisfaction construct is

expected to fit the referent-shift consensus model identified in

Chans typology. According to this model, the higher level attribute

derives from the original individual-level construct, butonce devel-

oped, it should be conceptually distinct and independent from the

individual-level construct.

Because job satisfaction represents a psychological construct, it

appears to be intrinsically tied to the individual. It is therefore

worth explaining how an attitudinal variable could become inde-



9/42

pendent of the individuals from which it derives. Morgeson and

Hofmann (1999) described how group-level variables can emergeout of interactional processes initiating at the individual level:

Mutual dependence (or interdependence) between individuals cre-ates a context for their interaction. This interaction, in turn, occa-sions a jointly produced behavior pattern, which lies between theindividuals involved. Collective action, thus, has a structure thatinheres in thedouble interact ratherthan withineither of theindivid-uals involved. As interaction occurs within larger groups of individ-uals, a structure of collective action emerges that transcends theindividuals who constitute the collective. (p. 252)

Interaction between group members is likely to be critical to the

development of group-level job satisfaction. Through interaction,group members will become aware of the homogeneity in individ-

ual job satisfaction, thus eventually perceiving the shared level of

job satisfaction as a characteristic of the group. However, whereas

group-level job satisfaction should derive from homogeneity in

individual job satisfaction, the groups level of satisfaction may

come to differ from the mean level of individual job satisfaction

within the group, due to the effect of naturally occurring group pro-

cesses (Lindsley et al., 1995).

One such process is group polarization (Myers & Lamm, 1976).

Group polarization research has found that after discussion, group

members attitudes become more extreme than they were prior to

the discussion. In the context of group-level job satisfaction, thismeans that when members of thegroup discuss their work andwork

experiences, their attitudes maybecome more positive or more neg-

ative. Because discussions such as these would represent an impor-

tant source of information about the attitudes of the group, this may

result in the perception that the group as a whole is characterized by

relatively positive or negative attitudes toward the task or the work

environment. As a result, group attitudes may come to differ from

the mean attitude of individuals within the group. This example

illustrates one process through which a group-level construct based

on psychological processes may come to be perceived and function

independently of the associated individual-level construct.



10/42

Self-categorization theory (Turner, 1987) provides another

framework for explaining how group attitudes may differ from theattitudes of the individuals that constitute the group. According to

self-categorization theory, individuals categorize themselves in

terms of either a personal identity or a social identity. The categori-

zation that is chosen will be influenced by the situational context

(Hogg & Terry, 2000). When individuals are asked to report on

their own attitude toward the groups work, personal identity

should be more salient and individuals responses may display het-

erogeneity. However, when individuals are asked to report on the

groups level of satisfaction toward its work, social identity will

become more salient and the individuals response will be based on

his or her perception of the groups attitude toward its work and the

work environment. Self-categorization research has revealed thatperceptions of the group are based on prototypes that serve to dis-

tinguish the in-group from the out-groupby maximizing intergroup

differences and minimizing in-group differences (Tajfel & Wilkes,

1963). The prototypical attitude for the group maybe more extreme

than the mean attitude of individuals within the group, if this serves

to differentiate the in-group from the out-group (Hogg, Turner, &

Davidson, 1990). Therefore, the process of self-categorization and

the motivation to differentiate the in-group from the out-group can

create a difference between the mean level of individual job satis-

faction (based on personal identity) and the group-level job satis-

faction (which should reflect the group prototype).

The distinction between individual-level job satisfaction andgroup-level job satisfaction can be further clarified by reviewing

likely sources of homogeneity, independence, and heterogeneity

for the two constructs. Thus far, this article has concentrated on

illustrating why we should observe group-level variance in individ-

ual job satisfaction. However, individual characteristics such as age

(Goh, Koh, & Low, 1991; Joshi, 1998; Singh & Singh, 1980;

Weaver, 1980), education level (Singh & Singh, 1980; Weaver,

1980), negative affectivity (Cropanzano et al., 1993; Necowitz &

Roznowski, 1994; Staw et al., 1986), and work experience (Joshi,

1998) all contribute to individual-level variability in job satisfac-

tion. These factors should lead to some degree of heterogeneity of



11/42

job attitudes within groups. As a result, individual job satisfaction

should exhibit within-group variance as well as within-grouphomogeneity.

In contrast, group-level job satisfaction should not exhibit any

individual-level variability. As a group-level construct, group-level

job satisfaction should be perfectly homogenous within groups.

When measured through individual perceptions, there is likely to

be variability in perceptions of group-level job satisfaction, due to

the fact that judgments of group attitudes are subjective and there-

fore vulnerable to individual perceptual biases. Whereas within-

group variability in individual job satisfaction reflects substantive

factors, within-group variability in group-level job satisfaction

should reflect measurement error alone.

Although a group-level variable should exhibit within-grouphomogeneity, it should also exhibit between-group variance. That

is, groups operating within the same organization should exhibit

varying levels of job satisfaction. If this were not the case, job satis-

faction would need to be treated as an organizational-level con-

struct rather than as a group-level construct. Demonstrating the

existenceof between-group variance in group-level job satisfaction

is vital to establishing the validity of job satisfaction as a group-

level construct.

There are several reasons for arguing that job satisfaction should

be treated as a group-level construct rather than as an organizational-

level construct. First, the theoretical processes that are assumed to

underlie the development of a shared level of job satisfaction aremainly group-level processes. Most of the evidence regarding

social influence effects and emotional contagion effects has been

derived from studies of groups (e.g., Bateman et al., 1987; Forgas,

1990; George, 1990; Schnake & Dumler, 1985; Totterdell et al.,

1998). Researchers have focused on small groups because these

effects are assumed to occur through social interaction occurring

within small groups (Bettenhausen, 1991) in an individuals imme-

diate work environment (R. W. Griffin, 1983). Second, shared

working conditions should also contribute to group-level homoge-

neity rather than organizational-level homogeneity. Most of the

work conditions that contribute to job satisfaction vary at the group



12/42

level rather than the organizational level. For instance, coworkers,

supervision, availability of resources, autonomy, and the workitself will be consistent for all members of the group but are

unlikely to be consistent for all groups within an organization.

Finally, ASA processes are likely to contribute to both organizational-

and group-level homogeneity. ASA processes were originally

identified at the organizational level (Schneider, 1987), but George

(1990) made arguments for predicting that these processes will also

operate at the group level.

Overall, the processes contributing to homogeneity in job atti-

tudes are expected to havea stronger effect at the group level than at

the organizational level. Therefore, group-level job satisfaction

should exhibit both within-group homogeneity and between-group

variance.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE COMPOSITIONAL MODEL

FOR GROUP-LEVEL JOB SATISFACTION

The compositional model for group-level job satisfaction has

implications for the operationalization of the construct. In some

instances, group- and organizational-level variables have been

measured by aggregating their individual-level counterparts (e.g.,

George, 1990; Ostroff, 1992). Given that group-level job satisfac-

tion is hypothesized to differ from the mean level of individual job

satisfaction within the group, it would not be appropriate to

operationalize group-level job satisfaction by aggregating individ-ual job satisfaction. Group-level job satisfaction should be

operationalized directly so that effects unique to the group-level

construct can be observed. To measure group-level job satisfaction

directly, survey items should be framed with a group referent. That

is, instead of asking group members to rate their own level of satis-

faction, the question should ask group members to rate the groups

level of satisfaction. For instance, group members could be asked to

rate their level of agreement with the statement My group is satis-

fied with its task. If ratings of the groups satisfaction are obtained

from each group member, it is necessary to check that group mem-

bers ratings demonstrate within-group agreement and between-



13/42

group variance before aggregating them to thegroup level. Alterna-

tively, a consensus method can be employed, whereby the groupdiscusses and consensually arrives at a rating of the groups level of

satisfaction.

In addition, if the group- and individual-level job satisfaction

constructs are perceptually distinguishable, then the empirical rela-

tionship between these two variables should be investigated.

Group-level job satisfaction and individual job satisfaction should

have a reciprocal relationship. In the aggregate, the level of individ-

ual job satisfaction within the group should influence group-level

job satisfaction. However, once developed, the shared attitude

within the group is likely to exert an effect on the attitudes of indi-

viduals withinthe group. Pressures for conformity withinthe group

are likely to bring individual attitudes in line with group attitudes(Georgopoulos, 1965; Jewell & Reitz, 1981). In addition, individu-

als should find it more satisfying to work in a group with a positive

attitude than in a group with a negative attitude, and therefore high

levels of group-level job satisfaction should result in higher levels

of individual job satisfaction. The reciprocal relationship operates

such that the individual reacts to the perceived situation, at thesame

time acting in such a way as to create and maintain that situation

(M. A. Griffin, 1997).

DEFINING GROUP-LEVEL JOB SATISFACTION

Having specified the form that the group-level job satisfaction

construct is expected to take, it is appropriate to develop a defini-

tion of the construct. Lockes (1976) classic review of the job satis-

faction literature wasused to identify the defining characteristics of

the job satisfaction construct. In this review, Locke defined job sat-

isfaction as a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting

from the appraisal of ones job or job experiences (p. 1300). Three

important elements are contained within this definition. First, the

reference to job satisfaction as an emotional state implies that there

is an affective component to the job satisfaction construct. Second,

the referenceto an appraisal process implies that there is a cognitive



14/42

or evaluative component to the job satisfaction construct. Finally,

Locke restricted the focus of the construct to the job and job experi-ences, thus differentiating the domain of job satisfactionfrom other

forms of satisfaction (e.g., quality of life). The three elements of

Lockes definition (i.e., affective, cognitive, and job-focused) are

contained in many different definitions of individual job satisfac-

tion (e.g., Cook, Hepworth, Wall, & Warr, 1981; Cranny, Smith, &

Stone, 1992; Dawis & Lofquist, 1984) and should be reflected in

the group-level job satisfaction construct.

There is, however, one additional component to the definition of

group-level job satisfaction. A group-level variable must, by defini-

tion, apply to all members of the group. Therefore, it is necessary to

specify that group-level job satisfaction represents an attitude that

is shared by all members of the group. This characteristic differen-tiates group-level job satisfaction from individual-level job satis-

faction, which is unique to the individual.

Given that the group-level job satisfaction construct represents a

shared attitude, its focus is likely to be on aspects of the groups

work and work environment that are shared by all group members.

Although group members share responsibility for carrying out the

groups task, the jobs performed by each group member may vary.

In some instances, group members may have responsibilities that

fall outside of the scope of the shared group task, which represent

part of their job. Therefore, although the groups task is common to

the group, individualsjobs mayvary and therefore are less likely to

be subject to shared attitudes. Because the task represents the ele-ment that is common to the group, it is likely to be the focus of the

group-level construct. On the basis of this differentiation between

group-level job satisfaction and individual-level job satisfaction,

the group-level job satisfaction construct was labeled group task

satisfaction.

Group task satisfaction is defined as the groups shared attitude

toward its task and the associated work environment. This defini-

tion reflects the three elements of the definition of individual job

satisfaction. That is, having been defined as an attitude, group-level

job satisfaction should incorporate an emotional reaction and a



15/42

cognitive appraisal (Bagozzi & Burnkrant, 1979; Katz & Stotland,

1959; Zajonc & Markus, 1982), just as individual-level job satis-faction does. The job focus of the job satisfaction construct is

reflected in the fact that the groups task and work environment is

the subject of the group-level construct. The change of focus, from

job to task, does not materially alter the nature of the construct but

rather reflects the fact that there is sometimes a shift in the nature of

a construct as it is manifested at different levels of analysis (Rous-

seau, 1985). Throughout this review we will use the terms group-

level job satisfaction and group task satisfaction interchangeably

because we view group task satisfaction as the group-levelcounter-

part to individual job satisfaction.

WHAT IS THE CONTENT DOMAIN OF THE CONSTRUCT?

We have defined group task satisfaction as the groups shared

attitude toward its task and its work environment. This definition is

broad and potentially incorporates the full range of stimuli that fall

within the scope of the groups task and work environment. To

specify the content domain of the group task satisfaction construct,

it is necessary to identify the features of the groups task and work

environment that are most likely to be represented in the groups

attitude toward its task and work environment.

Three areas of research were reviewed, with the goal of identify-

ing potential facets of the group-level job satisfaction construct.

Studies that explored the facet structure of individual job satisfac-tion provided the first source of data for this review, because it

seemed likely that some of the facets associated with individual job

satisfaction would also be represented by group task satisfaction.

Second, group climate research was reviewed to identify dimen-

sions of the work environmentthat are described similarly by mem-

bers of work units. This research was included in the review

because similar perceptions of the work environment are likely to

underlie shared attitudes toward the work environment. Finally,

because many of the facets of individual job satisfaction could

potentially be described as predictors of individual job satisfaction



16/42

(e.g., promotional opportunities, leadership, and coworkers),

potential facets of group task satisfaction were identified fromresearch investigating predictors of team effectiveness.

This review was used to identify facets and variables that

appeared across these three areas of research. Only facets and vari-

ables that represented aspects of the work environment that were

likely to be common to all group members were considered,

because shared attitudes are most likely to develop in relation to

shared aspects of the work environment. The facets and variables

were also evaluated in terms of how proximal they were to the

groups experience of work. On this basis, six themes were identi-

fied from the review as potential facets of group task satisfaction:

satisfaction with the work itself, satisfaction with the groups inter-

nal work environment (group processes), satisfaction with supervi-sion or leadership, satisfaction with external agents and the wider

organization, satisfaction with rewards, and satisfaction with the

physical work environment.

It is necessary to recognize that although members of traditional

work groups share the same task, internal work environment,

supervision, organizational membership, intrinsic rewards, and

physical work environment, in other types of teams this might not

be the case. For example, in cross-functional teams, members rep-

resent different departments or functions and may spend most of

their time at work in different work areas (Wellins, Byham, &

Dixon, 1994). These group members might experience quite differ-

ent physical work environments in their day-to-day work, and thephysical work environment shared by the group (when the group

meets) may have little effect on the groups task satisfaction

because of therelatively small amount of time spent in that environ-

ment. As another example, in virtual teams, it is rare for group

members to meet in person. In these instances, the physical work

environment is not shared by the group and the group should not

develop a shared attitude toward the physical work environment.

Therefore, the facets identified above may not apply to all types of

work groups.

At this stage, it is not necessary to make definitive statements

about the dimensional structure of the group task satisfaction con-



17/42

struct. The purpose of this review was to identify features of the

groups task and work environment that were likely to represent afocus of the group-level job satisfaction construct, with the goal of

delineating the content domain of the construct.

DIFFERENTIATING GROUP TASK SATISFACTION

FROM RELATED GROUP CONSTRUCTS

Having developed a definition for theconstruct of group task sat-

isfaction, the issue of discriminant validity can be considered. It is

necessary to be able to demonstrate that group task satisfaction can

be differentiated from the recognized group constructs in this

research area. Morale, group cohesion, group potency, group cli-mate, and group affective tone were identified as group-level con-

structs that were fairly similar to the job satisfaction construct and

that might therefore be considered to adequately represent the

group-level job satisfaction construct. To illustrate the differentia-

tion between group task satisfaction and these group constructs,

each construct was evaluated in relation to the defining characteris-

tics of group task satisfaction identified above.

GROUP TASK SATISFACTION VERSUS MORALE

The first reason for rejecting morale as the group-level counter-

part to individual job satisfaction is because it is not clear whethermorale represents a group- or an individual-level construct. For

instance, Leighton (1943) viewed morale as a group characteristic,

defining it as the capacity of any group of people to pull together

consistently for a common purpose. However, Ingraham and

Manning (1981) defined morale as a psychological state of mind,

characterized by a sense of well-being based on confidence in self

and in primary groups (p. 6), thus clearly treating the construct as

an individual characteristic. Several other researchers also defined

morale as an individual-level attribute (e.g., Guba, 1958; Woods,

1944), and in a recent review, Manning (1991) concluded that

because the majority of researchers support the conceptualization



18/42

of morale as an individual attribute, it should be regarded in this

way.The fact that morale is often treated as an individual-level con-

struct is one reason why this construct would not provide a good

representation of the group-level job satisfaction variable. The con-

struct of group task satisfaction has been proposed so that group-

level job satisfaction can be assessed directly rather than through

individual jobsatisfaction. It is therefore critical that group task sat-

isfaction can be clearly identified as a group-level construct.

Furthermore, although morale may incorporate the affective

component associated with job satisfaction, it is not an attitudinal

variable, and it does not appear to focus specifically on the groups

task or the work environment. Motowidlo et al. (1976) reviewed the

literature and concluded that most definitions of morale make ref-erence to the concepts of satisfaction, motivation, and group mem-

bership. Rousseau (1985) compared individual job satisfaction and

morale and differentiated between them, arguing that althoughboth

constructs have an affective component, only morale implies the

existence of group cohesion and identification. Locke (1976)

argued that morale tends to be future oriented and is dependent on a

sense of common purpose and goals, whereas job satisfaction tends

to be based on an individuals appraisal of his or her job situation in

the past and present. Therefore, in addition to the fact that morale is

not clearly defined as a group-level construct, the construct has a

different focus than the construct of job satisfaction.

GROUP TASK SATISFACTION VERSUS GROUP COHESION

Cohesion has been defined as a dynamic process that is

reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain

united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for the sat-

isfaction of member affective needs (Carron, Brawley, &

Widmeyer, 1998, p. 213). Although cohesion is usually treated as a

group attribute, it has traditionally lacked the work focus that is

central to the construct of job satisfaction. More recently, however,

researchers have begun to distinguish between social (or interper-

sonal) cohesion and task cohesion (Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley,



19/42

1985; Widmeyer, Brawley, & Carron, 1985; Zaccaro, Craig, &

Quin, 1991; Zaccaro & Lowe, 1988). The construct of task cohe-sion embodies the task focus associated with the construct of group

task satisfaction, but as currently defined, task cohesion is specifi-

cally concerned with the groups shared commitment to achieving

the groups goals and objectives (Carron et al., 1985; Zaccaro &

Lowe, 1988). It therefore lacks the emotional and evaluative ele-

ment that is an important component of the job satisfaction con-

struct. The relationship between group task satisfaction and task

cohesion may therefore be similar to the relationshipbetween orga-

nizational commitment and individual job satisfaction (Bateman &

Strasser, 1984; Curry et al., 1986; Farkas & Tetrick, 1989; Lance,

1991; Williams& Hazer, 1986). That is, thegroups commitment to

achieving its task (represented by task cohesion) could eitherreflect the groups attitude toward the task or serve to engender a

more positive attitude toward the groups task. However, the con-

struct of group task satisfaction does not appear to be redundant

with either the construct of group or task cohesion.

GROUP TASK SATISFACTION VERSUS GROUP POTENCY

Group potency and collective efficacy are both concerned with

the perceived effectiveness of the group. Potency is the collective

belief in a group that it can be effective (Guzzo et al., 1993),

whereas collective efficacy represents the groups (or organiza-

tions) collective belief that it can successfully perform a specifictask (Lindsley et al., 1995, p. 648). Like task cohesion, group

potency and collective efficacy embody the work focus that is cen-

tral to the construct of jobsatisfaction. However, group potency and

collective efficacy are defined as beliefs rather than attitudes, and

therefore they do not capture the affective component of the job sat-

isfaction construct.

In addition, group potency and collective efficacy focus specifi-

cally on the groups effectiveness rather than on the nature of the

groups task and work environment. Consequently, measures of

grouppotency and collective efficacy evaluate the grouprather than

the task or the work environment. For this reason, it is possible for a



20/42

group to experience a high level of potency or efficacy while simul-

taneously evaluating the task or the work environment negatively(or vice versa). The independence of group task satisfaction and

group potency is supported by recent research that has found that

group potency and aggregatedindividual job satisfaction were only

weakly correlated (r = .29, p < .05) (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999).

Group task satisfaction can therefore be differentiated from both

group potency and collective efficacy.

GROUP TASK SATISFACTION VERSUS GROUP CLIMATE

Individual job satisfaction and organizational climate have

always been closely linked. Measures of organizationalclimate and

job satisfaction have been found to show significant content over-lap and moderate to strong correlations (Johannesson, 1973;

LaFollette & Sims, 1975; Pritchard & Karasick, 1973). In addition,

the concept of climate has been applied to groups as well as to orga-

nizations (Howe, 1977; Powell & Butterfield, 1978; Schneider,

1975). Given the content overlap between climate measures and

job satisfaction measures, and the fact that climate can be treated as

a group attribute, the climate construct might adequately represent

job satisfaction at the group level.

However, to date, investigations of group climate have focused

on dimensions such as support, respect for rules, innovation, coop-

eration, openness, friendliness, and warmth (James & Sells, 1981;

Piero, Gonzalez-Roma, & Ramos, 1992; Totterdell et al., 1998).These dimensions representqualities of the group rather than quali-

ties of the groups task or work environment. In addition, the cli-

mate and satisfaction constructs can be differentiated because the

former is a descriptive variable and the latter is an attitudinal vari-

able. Research has shown that this distinction is substantive

respondents can differ in their levelof satisfaction even thoughthey

describe the climate similarly (Lyon & Ivancevich, 1974; Schnei-

der & Snyder, 1975). Therefore, group-level job satisfaction and

group-level climate can be differentiated both by their focus (the

environment within the group vs. the groups work environment)

and their nature (descriptive vs. attitudinal).



21/42

GROUP TASK SATISFACTION VERSUS

GROUP AFFECTIVE TONE

The concept of group affective tone was introduced by George

(1990), whodefinedit as consistent or homogenous affective reac-

tions within a group (p. 108). A closely related construct is group

mood (Bartel & Saavedra, 2000), which represents the shared

mood of work groups. Group affective tone and group mood differ

from the concept of group task satisfaction in two respects. First,

group affective tone and group mood are affective constructs, and

as such, they do not incorporate the evaluative or cognitive compo-

nent of the job satisfaction construct. Second, whereas group task

satisfaction is concerned with the groups attitude toward its work

and work environment, group affective tone and group mood do not

have a specific focus. George (1990) and Bartel and Saavedra(2000) measured group affective tone and group mood, respec-

tively, in work groups in an organizational setting. However, these

constructs do not seem to be limited to the work environment, and

even withinthe work environment, a groups affective tone or mood

may not derive from the groups task or work environment. There-

fore, whereas the group task satisfaction construct is specifically

task-focused, group affective tone and group mood are not limited

to affect that derives from a groups task or work environment.

The above review demonstrates that group task satisfaction can

be differentiated from existing recognized group-level constructs.

The distinguishing characteristics of grouptask satisfaction and the

other four group constructs are summarized in Table 1.

RELATIONSHIPS INVOLVING

GROUP TASK SATISFACTION

The theoretical development of the group task satisfaction con-

struct has progressed to the point where it is possible to develop

some hypotheses about the pattern of relationships the construct

should exhibit. To provide a structure for this discussion, the rela-

tionships associated with group task satisfaction are grouped

according to the type of variable involvedindividual-level,



22/42

organizational-level, or group-level. As group task satisfaction is

expected to have its strongest relationships with other group-level

variables, the group-level variables are broken down into subcate-

gories, specifically, group processes, group attributes, task charac-

teristics, and group outcomes. Relationships between group task

satisfaction and these group-level variables are discussed first.

GROUP TASK SATISFACTION AND GROUP PROCESSES

Numerous researchers have identified a relationship between

the level of job satisfaction within a group and the quality of group

processes (Campion, Papper, & Medsker, 1996; Gladstein, 1984;

Hagen & Burch, 1985; Keyton, 1991; V. D. Wall, Galanes, & Love,

1987; Witteman, 1991). The relationship between group processes

and job satisfaction is likely to be equally strong, if not stronger,

when group-level job satisfaction is measured directly, because the

quality of the groups processes will affect the groups experience


TABLE 1: Conceptual Distinctions Between Constructs

Level DistinguishingConstruct Individual Group Organization Features

Job Individual job Group task Attitudinal with affective

satisfaction satisfac tion satisfaction and cognitive compo-

nents; focused on job/task

and work environment

Morale Individual Group Organizational Affective; based on sense

morale morale morale of well-being and

common purpose

Cohesion Attraction to Group Affective; reflects group

the group cohesion processes

Efficacy Self-efficacy Group potency/ Beli ef; focused on capabil -

collective ity to perform task

efficacy

Climate Psychological Group Organizational Descriptive; focused on

climate climate climate work environment

Affect Job affect Group Affective; may derive from

affective events outside of the

tone work environment


23/42

of carrying out its task. In addition, the internal environment of the

group was identified as a potential facet of group task satisfaction.For this reason, group processes may be as important as the task

itself in determining the level of group task satisfaction.

Whereas group processes are likely to affect group task satisfac-

tion, group task satisfaction should also affect group processes.

Hackman (1976) argued that shared commitment to the groups

task would improve group processes because individuals are com-

mitted to facilitating the groups task activities. A high level of

group task satisfaction indicates that the group as a whole has a rel-

ativelypositive attitude toward the workand the workenvironment.

Under these conditions, group members should be motivated to

engage in more cooperative behaviors and foster better teamwork.

However, when attitudes toward the work and the work environ-ment are negative, the dissatisfaction within the group may lead to

conflict between group members. Therefore, the relationship

between group task satisfaction and group processes should be

reciprocal and strong.

GROUP TASK SATISFACTION AND GROUP ATTRIBUTES

Several other group attributes shouldbe related to group task sat-

isfaction. Group affective tone, group cohesion, grouppotency, and

group climate were identified as being conceptually similar to the

group task satisfaction construct. It follows that these variables are

likely to be closely related to group task satisfaction. For instance,group task satisfaction and group affective tone should be closely

related because the affect characteristically experienced in a situa-

tion (group affective tone) is likely to both influence and be influ-

enced by the attitude toward that situation (group task satisfaction).

Group climate should contribute to group task satisfaction because

the climate of the group forms part of the groups internal work

environment. Group potency should also contribute to group task

satisfaction because if the group does not feel capable of carrying

out the task successfully, it is unlikely to have a positive attitude

toward the task. Similarly, if a group does not have a sense of unity

or togetherness (i.e., if the group has low cohesion), the group is



24/42

less likely to have a positive attitude toward a task that requires

group members to work together.In general, it is likely that any group-level variables that are

known to have a relationship with individual job satisfaction will

also have a relationship with group task satisfaction. This proposi-

tion is based on the assumption that the group-level job satisfaction

construct will usually have a more direct relationship with other

group constructs than the individual-level job satisfaction con-

struct. Some of the group-level constructs that have previously

been linked with individual job satisfaction are group size (Cam-

pion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993; Mullen, Symons, Hu, & Salas,

1989), group heterogeneity (Schoenecker, Martell, & Michlitsch,

1996), leadership style (Weiner, 1998), group status (Ellemers,

Knippenberg, & Wilke, 1990), and team empowerment (Kirkman &Rosen, 1999). Each of these group-level variables should also be

related to group task satisfaction.

GROUP TASK SATISFACTION AND TASK CHARACTERISTICS

Just as job characteristics have been shown to affect individual

job satisfaction, task characteristics are likely to affect group task

satisfaction. Some task characteristics have been identified as

intrinsically more satisfying than other task characteristics. For

instance, Hackman (1987) argued that a group task offering chal-

lenge and variety, with significant outcomes, should be more moti-

vating than a task involving routine preprogrammed work with noopportunity for feedback. In support of this view, Campion et al.

(1993) found that ratings of participation, task variety, and task sig-

nificance were significantly related to groupmemberssatisfaction,

although task identity and self-management were not. In addition,

T. D. Wall et al. (1986) and Cordery et al. (1991) have conducted

field studies that have shown that redesigning group tasks can result

in increased job satisfaction.

On the basis of this research, task characteristics are expected to

have an effect on the level of group task satisfaction. In general,

well-defined tasks with skill variety, autonomy, and meaningful

and observable outcomes should be associated with higher group



25/42

task satisfaction than tasks without these characteristics. It is

hypothesized that task characteristics will also have an indirecteffect on group task satisfaction due to the fact that task characteris-

tics have been shown to affect group processes (Collins &

Guetzkow, 1964; Hackman & Morris, 1975; Sorenson, 1971) and

group performance (Collins & Guetzkow, 1964; Hackman, 1968;

Weinstein & Holzbach, 1973). Therefore, the total effect of task

characteristics on group task satisfaction is likely to be strong.

POTENTIAL OUTCOMES OF GROUP TASK SATISFACTION

Many important outcomes have been linked with the job satis-

faction construct, including performance (e.g., Iaffaldano &

Muchinsky, 1985; Petty et al., 1984), absenteeism (e.g., Chadwick-Jones et al., 1982; Steers & Rhodes, 1978), organizational commit-

ment (e.g., Bateman & Strasser, 1984; Curry et al., 1986), turnover

(Carson & Spector, 1987; Judge, 1993), stress (e.g., Judge,

Boudreau, & Bretz, 1994), and organizational citizenship behavior

(e.g., Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith et al., 1983). At least some of

these relationships shouldcarry over to the group level, particularly

where these outcome variables have been found to exhibit group-

level variance. Performance, organizational citizenship behavior,

and absenteeism have all been treated as group-level constructs in

previous research (Hill, 1982; Markham & McKee, 1995;

Podsakoff et al., 1997), so these variables seem most likely to be


Group performance. The individual-level relationship between

satisfaction and performance has been the subject of a great deal of

research. Researchers have argued both that satisfaction will affect

performance and that performance will affect satisfaction. For

example, a more satisfied employee may be willing to expend

greater effort and therefore be more productive. Alternatively, per-

formance may engender feelings of satisfaction by generating

intrinsic and extrinsic rewards (Lawler & Porter, 1967). Despite the

intuitive appeal of these arguments, the empirical evidence indi-

cates that the relationship between satisfaction and performance is



26/42

fairly weak. Meta-analyses and reviews suggest that the correlation

between satisfaction and performance lies somewhere between .14and .41 (Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985; Petty et al., 1984; Vroom,

1964).

The arguments that have been given for expecting a relationship

between satisfaction and performance at the individual level apply

equally well at the group level. For example, groups that perform

well tend to receive reinforcement (either in terms of status and

praise or material rewards) and should therefore experience higher

group task satisfaction. On the other hand, satisfaction may lead to

performance because groups with a positive attitude toward their

task should be more willing to expend effort and should therefore

achieve a higher level of performance.

However, at the group level, additional factors come into playthat may strengthen the relationship between satisfaction and per-

formance. Studies comparing the performance of groups versus

noninteracting individuals have shown that in some instances,

group performance exceeds the level that would be predicted on the

basis of group membersabilities and skills, and in other instances,

group performance falls below this level (Hill, 1982; Salazar,

1995). The difference between group performance and aggregated

individual performance has been attributed to phenomena such as

social facilitation (Zajonc, 1965), social loafing (Latane, Williams, &

Harkins, 1979), groupthink (Janis, 1971), and group norms

(Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1991). More generally, the difference

can be attributed to the role of group processes in determininggroup performance. Group performance is dependent on the ability

of the group to manage and coordinate group member inputs suc-

cessfully, that is, on the quality of the groups processes (Collins &

Guetzkow, 1964; Sorenson, 1971; Steiner, 1972). A high level of

grouptask satisfaction should motivate groupmembers to subsume

their individual needs and desires to group goals and needs, thus

reducing group conflict and promoting cooperation and teamwork.

Therefore, the relationship between satisfaction and performance

should be stronger at the group level than at the individual level due

to the mediating effect of group processes.



27/42

Organizational citizenship behavior. Organizational citizenship

behaviors (Organ, 1988) represent another aspect of performancethat may be related to group task satisfaction. Organizational citi-

zenship behaviors are less constrained by situational factors and

individual abilities than task performance (Bateman & Organ,

1983; Organ, 1988), so there is greater potential for attitudinal fac-

tors to determine the level of organizational citizenship behavior.

This theory has been supported by studies that have reliably found a

significant relationship between individual job satisfaction and

organizational citizenship behavior (Bateman & Organ, 1983;

Moorman, 1993; Shotland & Traver, 1996; Smith et al., 1983; Wil-

liams & Andersen, 1991).

The group is likely to be a particularly important determinant of

organizational citizenship behaviors. Many of the organizationalcitizenship behaviors identified by researchers are directed toward

coworkers, and most coworker relationships occur within the pri-

mary work group (George & Bettenhausen, 1990). As organiza-

tional citizenship behavior has been shown to be determined by

social exchange perceptions (Bateman & Organ, 1983), groups are

likely to develop normative levels of organizational citizenship

behavior. In addition, empirical studies support the existence of

group-level effects on citizenship behavior (George, 1990, 1995;

Podsakoff et al., 1997; see also Karambayya, 1989, cited in

Podsakoff et al., 1997). For example, Podsakoff et al. (1997) have

found that group membership accounts for approximately 58% of

the variance in organizationalcitizenship behavior. Thereare there-fore theoretical and empirical grounds for predicting that group

task satisfaction will be related to the level of organizational citi-

zenship behavior within a group.

Absenteeism. Another important outcome variable that has been

frequentlylinked with the job satisfaction construct is absenteeism.

In the main, investigations of the relationship between absenteeism

and job satisfaction at the individual-level have produced only

weak and inconsistent findings (Chadwick-Jones et al., 1982;

Hackett & Guion, 1985; Nicholson, Brown, & Chadwick-Jones,



28/42

1976). However, more recently, researchers have discovered that

departments, occupational groups, and even nations display char-acteristic absenteeism profiles (Chadwick-Jones et al., 1982;

Markham & McKee, 1995; Steers & Rhodes, 1978). These patterns

in absenteeism behavior suggest that absenteeism is, at least in part,

socially determinedthe product of absenteeism norms or absen-

teeism cultures (Chadwick-Jones et al., 1982). Absenteeism norms

are thought to regulate individual absenteeism by providing guide-

lines as to the appropriate level of absenteeism and rules for deter-

mining when absenteeism is justified (Chadwick-Jones et al., 1982;

Johns, 1994). These rules may be relatively tolerant or intolerant of

voluntary absenteeism. Consequently, it is important to identify the

factor or factors that determine whether absenteeism norms will be

directed toward inhibiting or encouraging absenteeism within thegroup. Group task satisfaction may be one such factor.

The rationale for predicting a relationship between group task

satisfactionand absenteeism norms is based on the same premise as

the hypothesized relationship between group task satisfaction and

organizational citizenship behavior. That is, groups with a positive

attitude toward their task and their work environments should be

more likely to develop norms thatsupport positive task behaviors

whether these behaviors involve helping out fellow workers and the

organization or avoiding unnecessary absenteeism. This proposi-

tion is supported by empirical research that has shown a significant

negative relationship between the mean level of job satisfaction

within the group and the mean level of absenteeism within thegroup (Hunt et al., 1998; Kerr et al., 1951; Mann & Baumgartel,

1952). These findings support the existence of a relationship

between group task satisfaction and group absenteeism norms, as

the average level of individual job satisfaction within a group is

likely to be closely related to the level of group task satisfaction.

In summary, it is proposed that group task satisfaction should be

correlated with group performance, organizational citizenship

behavior, and absenteeism norms. These variables have been

explored as outcomes of individual job satisfaction. However,

because all of these variables exhibit group-level variance, they are

equally (if not more) likely to be related to group task satisfaction.



29/42

Furthermore, if group task satisfaction is related to group perfor-

mance, citizenship behavior, absenteeism, and group processes,then this construct should serve as an indicator of team viability.

Many models of team effectiveness identify the long-term viability

of the team, or the capacity of the team to work together in the

future, as a component of team effectiveness (Cohen, Ledford, &

Preitzer, 1996; Cummings, 1978; Hackman & Morris, 1975; Hack-

man & Walton, 1986; Sundstrom, De Meuse, & Futrell, 1990). In

the past, researchers have used group member satisfaction to repre-

sent the viability component of team effectiveness (e.g., Campion

et al., 1993, 1996; Cohen et al., 1996; Gladstein, 1984), but as it is

directly linked to the group, group task satisfaction should provide

a better measure of team viability.

GROUP TASK SATISFACTION AND INDIVIDUAL ATTRIBUTES

When we look at individual-level variables, three types of vari-

ables can be identified that are likely to have a relationship with

group task satisfaction. First, variables that affect the groups abil-

ity to perform its task should have an effect on group task satisfac-

tion. These variables include both task-specific skills and interper-

sonal skills. Previous research has shown that task-specific skills

contribute to the level of group potency (Guzzo et al., 1993),

whereas interpersonal skills affect the quality of group processes

(Hackman, 1987). However, both types of variables should affect

the groups task satisfaction because they should help determinewhether the groups experience of performing the task is a positive

or a negative one. If group members do not have the requisite

knowledge or ability to perform the task, the group should develop

a more negative attitude toward its task. Similarly, if group mem-

bers lack the interpersonal skills required to manage their group

processes, the group will experience inefficiency and conflict and

should ultimately develop a more negative attitude toward the

groups task. Stevens and Campion (1994, 1999) have derived and

validated a selection test that assesses a range of knowledge, skills,

and abilities that are required by individuals if they are to function

effectively in teams. These include knowledge, skills, and ability



30/42

for conflict resolution; collaborative problem solving; communica-

tion; goal setting and performance management; and planning andtask coordination. Each of these variables should be positively


The second type of individual-level variable that should be

investigated in relation to group task satisfaction is personality

variables. In particular, negative affectivity and preference for

group work (versus working alone) should affect group task satis-

faction. Negative affectivity represents an individuals propensity

to experience negative emotions across a wide range of situations

(Watson & Clark, 1984) and has been found to be a very strong pre-

dictor of individual job satisfaction (Brief, Butcher, & Roberson,

1995; Cropanzano et al., 1993; Necowitz & Roznowski, 1994;

Staw et al., 1986). It was therefore predicted that the average levelof negative affectivity within the groupwould influence the groups

task satisfaction, such that high negative affectivity would tend to

be associated with low group task satisfaction.

Employees who prefer to work in groups should be more satis-

fied and effective in groups than employees who prefer to work

alone (Campion et al., 1993; Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Shaw,

Duffy, & Stark, 2000). Campion et al. (1993)and Shaw et al. (2000)

have reported a positive relationship between group member pref-

erence for teamwork and group member satisfaction. It seems

likely that this finding will generalize such that, in the aggregate,

group members preference for teamwork will affect the groups

task satisfaction.Many other personality characteristics are likely to be related to

group task satisfaction, at least in the aggregate. For example,

Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, and Mounts (1998) research has shown

that the mean level of cognitive ability, extraversion, and emotional

stability within the team predicted the viability of the team or the

likelihood that the team would stay together in the future. Given

that group task satisfaction should be affected by the quality of the

groups processes, these personality characteristics are likely to

have an effect on the groups task satisfaction. Other potentially

important personality variables include positive affectivity (Staw &

Ross, 1985), collectivistic versus individualistic orientation



31/42

(Earley, 1993), the tendency to evaluate oneself positively (Judge

et al., 2000), locus of control (Spector & OConnell, 1994), agree-ableness (Neuman & Wright, 1999), and conscientiousness

(Neuman & Wright, 1999).

The third type of individual-level variable that should be related

to group task satisfaction is work-related attitudes. The most

important variable in this category is individual job satisfaction. As

stated earlier, group task satisfaction and individual job satisfaction

are expected to have a strong reciprocal relationship. However,

other job-related attitudes that have been shown to be related to

individual job satisfaction, such as organizational commitment

(Farkas & Tetrick, 1989; Lance, 1991; Williams & Hazer, 1986)

and psychological empowerment (Spreitzer, Kizilos, & Nason,

1997), may also have a relationship with group task satisfaction.

ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

AND GROUP TASK SATISFACTION

Organizational characteristics are also likely to have an effect on

group task satisfaction. Unfortunately, due to the difficulty

involved in collecting data from a large number of organizations,

most research investigating organizational characteristics has

tended to look at the association between individuals perceptions

of the organization and various outcome variables (Payne,

Fineman, & Wall, 1976). Although this research has demonstrated

a relationship between perceived organizational characteristics andindividual job satisfaction (Batlis, 1980; Johnson & McIntye,

1998; LaFollette & Sims, 1975; Muchinksy, 1977; Porter &

Lawler, 1965), the relationship may simply reflect the effect of job

satisfaction on perceptions of the environment.

However, in the absence of other information, this research does

suggest some potentially important organizational attributes that

should be relevant to group task satisfaction. These include the

organizations reward structure (James & Sells, 1981; Pokorney,

1998), the opportunities for growth and advancement (James &

Sells, 1981), the style of organizational leadership (Skogstad &

Einarsen, 1999), the hierarchical structure of the organization (Por-



32/42

ter & Lawler, 1965) and, more generally, the organizational climate

(Friedlander & Margulies, 1969; Gunter & Furnham, 1996). It washypothesized that perceptions of these organizational characteris-

tics would be related to perceptions of group task satisfaction.

However, given the limited research in this area, it was not possible

to make specific predictions about the nature of the relationship

between group task satisfaction and these organizational character-

istics. These relationships may reflect the effect of organizational

characteristics on group task satisfaction, the effect of group task

satisfaction on perceptions of the organization, or the effect of a

third variable such as individual job satisfaction.

DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH

The idea that individuals working in groups will develop a

shared attitude toward the groups task has important practical

implications. It suggests that to bring about sustainable change in

individual job attitudes, it may be necessary to target interventions

at the group. Furthermore, if individuals job attitudes are indeed

affected by the groups task satisfaction, the individuals level of

job satisfaction should be affected by changing group membership.

When individuals move from one group to another, there should be

some shift in the individuals job attitudes to bring them in line with

the attitudes of the new group. If this proposition is correct, manag-

ers would need to be aware of the implications of assigning a satis-fied individual to work in a group that is known to have a negative

attitude toward its work. One way of investigating this question

would be to track change in individuals job attitudes associated

with change in group membership. If group task satisfaction has an

effect on individual job satisfaction, a dissatisfied employee should

become more satisfied when he or she moves into a group with a

high level of task satisfaction. Conversely, a satisfied employee

should become less satisfied when he or she joins a group that has a

lower level of group task satisfactionthan hisor her previous group.

Another direction for this research would be to investigate whether

certain individual characteristics (such as field independence)



33/42

buffer group members from the effect of negative group task satis-

faction, and whether other individual characteristics (such as needfor affiliation) make individuals more sensitive to the effects of

group task satisfaction (Stone, 1992).

However, the first priority for empirical research is to determine

whether job satisfaction can be meaningfully treated as a group-

level construct, that is, whether group members ratings of group

task satisfaction exhibit within-group agreement, between-group

variance, and a theoretically consistent pattern of relationships

with other variables. Hopefully, this review will stimulate empiri-

cal research that measures group-level job satisfaction directly

rather than employing aggregated individual job satisfaction as a

surrogate measure of group task satisfaction. It is through investi-

gating new group-level constructs like group task satisfaction thatwe have the potential to explain additional variance in outcomes

and to develop a better understanding of individuals experience of

working in groups.

REFERENCES

Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal.

Human Relations, 48, 97-125.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Burnkrant, R. E. (1979). Attitude organization and the attitude-behavior

relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 913-929.

Banker, R. D.,Field, J. M.,Schroeder,R. G.,& Singha, K. K. (1996). Impact of work teams

on manufacturing performance: A longitudinal field study. Academy of ManagementJournal, 39, 867-890.

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member

ability and personality to work-team process and team effectiveness.Journal of Applied

Psychology, 83, 377-391.

Bar-Tal, D. (1990). Group beliefs: A conception for analyzing group structure, processes,

and behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Bartel, C. A., & Saavedra, R. (2000). The collective construction of work group moods.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 197-231.

Bateman, T. S., Griffin, R. W., & Rubenstein, D. (1987). Social information processing and

group-induced shifts in responses to task design. Group and Organization Studies, 12,

88-108.

Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relation-

ship between affect and employee citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 26,

587-595.



34/42

Bateman, T. S., & Strasser,S. (1984). A longitudinalanalysisof the antecedents of organiza-

tional commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 95-112.

Batlis, N. C. (1980). The effect of organizational climate on job satisfaction, anxiety, andpropensity to leave. Journal of Psychology, 104, 233-240.

Bettenhausen, K. L. (1991). Five years of group research: What have we learned and what

needs to be addressed. Journal of Management, 17, 345-381.

Bettenhausen, K. L., & Murnighan, J. K. (1991). The development of an intragroup norm

and the effects of interpersonal and structural challenges. Administrative Science Quar-

terly, 36, 20-35.

Beyerlein, M. M., Johnson, D. A., & Beyerlein, S. T. (Eds.). (1995). Advances in interdisci-

plinary studies of work teams: Knowledge w ork in teams (Vol. 2). Stamford, CT: JAI

Press.

Brayfield,A. H.,& Rothe,H. F. (1951). Anindexof jobsatisfaction.Journal of Applied Psy-

chology, 35, 307-311.

Brief,A. P., Burke,M. J.,George,J. M.,Robinson, B.S., & Webster, J. (1988). Shouldnega-

tive affectivity remain an unmeasured variable in the study of job stress? Journal of

Applied Psychology, 73, 193-198.

Brief, A. P., Butcher, A. H., & Roberson, L. (1995). Cookies, disposition, and job attitudes:The effects of positive mood-inducing events and negative affectivityon job satisfaction

in a field experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62(1),

55-62.

Burkhardt, M. E. (1994). Social interaction effects following a technological change: A lon-

gitudinal investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 869-898.

Campion,M. A.,Medsker, G.J., & Higgs,A. C.(1993).Relationsbetweenworkgroup char-

acteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Person-

nel Psychology, 46, 823-850.

Campion,M. A.,Papper, E.M., & Medsker,G. J.(1996).Relations between workteamchar-

acteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49,

429-452.

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Oser, R., & Flanagan, D. L. (1992). Work teams in industry: A

selected review and proposed framework. In R. W. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams:

Their training and performance (pp. 31-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R.,& Widmeyer, W. N. (1998). The measurementof cohesiveness

insportgroups.In J. L. Duda (Ed.),Advances in sport and exercise psychology measure-

ment(pp. 213-226). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Carron, A. V., Widmeyer,W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985).The developmentof an instrument

to assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of

Sport Psychology, 7, 244-266.

Carson, J. M.,& Spector,P. E. (1987). Unemployment, jobsatisfaction,and employee turn-

over: A meta-analytic test of the Muchinsky model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72,

374-381.

Chadwick-Jones, J. K., Nicholson, N., & Brown, C. (1982). Social psychology of absentee-

ism. New York: Praeger.

Chan,D. (1998).Functional relationsamong constructsin thesame content domain at differ-

ent levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychol-

ogy, 83, 234-246.

Coch, L., & French, J. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1, 512-

532.



35/42

Cohen,S. G.,Ledford,G. E.,& Preitzer, G. M. (1996). A predictive model ofself-managing

work team effectiveness. Human Relations, 49, 643-676.

Collins, B., & Guetzkow, H. (1964). A social psychology of group processes for decision-making. New York: John Wiley.

Cook, J. D., Hepworth, S. J., Wall, T. D., & Warr, P. B. (1981). The experience of work: A

compendium and review of 249 measures and their use . London: Academic Press.

Cordery, J. L., Mueller, W. S., & Smith, L. M. (1991). Attitudinal and behavioral effects of

autonomous group working: A longitudinal field study. Academy of Management Jour-

nal, 34, 464-476.

Cranny, C. J., Smith, P. C., & Stone, E. F. (Eds.). (1992). Job satisfaction: How people feel

about their jobs and how it affects their performance . Sydney, Australia: Lexington

Books.

Cropanzano, R., James,K., & Konovsky,M. A. (1993). Dispositionalaffectivityas a predic-

torof work attitudesand jobperformance.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 595-

606.

Cummings, T. G. (1978). Self-regulating work groups: A socio-technical synthesis. Acad-

emy of Management Review, 3, 625-634.

Curry, J. P., Wakefield, D. S.,Price, J. L.,& Mueller,C. W. (1986). Onthe causalorderingofjob satisfaction and organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 29,

847-858.

Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minne-

apolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Devine, D.J., Clayton,C. D.,Philips, J. L.,Dunford, B.B., & Melner, S.B. (1999). Teamsin

organizations: Prevalence, characteristics, and effectiveness. SmallGroupResearch, 30,

678-711.

Dunphy, D., & Bryant, B. (1996). Teams: Panaceas or prescriptions for improved perfor-

mance? Human Relations, 49, 677-699.

Earley, P. C. (1993). East meets West meets Mideast: Further explorations of collectivistic

and individualistic work groups. Academy of Manag

Documents

Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups