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
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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
274 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / June 2002
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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).
Mason, Griffin / GROUP TASK SATISFACTION 275
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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
276 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / June 2002
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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-
Mason, Griffin / GROUP TASK SATISFACTION 277
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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-
278 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / June 2002
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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.
Mason, Griffin / GROUP TASK SATISFACTION 279
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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
280 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / June 2002
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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
Mason, Griffin / GROUP TASK SATISFACTION 281
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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-
282 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / June 2002
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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
Mason, Griffin / GROUP TASK SATISFACTION 283
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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
284 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / June 2002
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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
Mason, Griffin / GROUP TASK SATISFACTION 285
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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-
286 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / June 2002
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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
Mason, Griffin / GROUP TASK SATISFACTION 287
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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,
288 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / June 2002
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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
Mason, Griffin / GROUP TASK SATISFACTION 289
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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).
290 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / June 2002
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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,
Mason, Griffin / GROUP TASK SATISFACTION 291
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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
292 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / June 2002
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
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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
Mason, Griffin / GROUP TASK SATISFACTION 293
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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
294 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / June 2002
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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
related to group task satisfaction.
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
Mason, Griffin / GROUP TASK SATISFACTION 295
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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.
296 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / June 2002
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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,
Mason, Griffin / GROUP TASK SATISFACTION 297
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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.
298 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / June 2002
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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
Mason, Griffin / GROUP TASK SATISFACTION 299
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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
related to group task satisfaction.
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
300 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / June 2002
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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-
Mason, Griffin / GROUP TASK SATISFACTION 301
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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)
302 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / June 2002
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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.
Mason, Griffin / GROUP TASK SATISFACTION 303
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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.
304 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / June 2002
7/30/2019 Applying the Construct of Job Satisfaction to Groups
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