Investigating the Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Organizational

Commitment: Is There a Mediating Effect?

Autoria: Renata Simes Guimares e Borges

Abstract
The objective of this research is to investigate the direction of the relationship between job
satisfaction and organizational commitment. We conducted a survey in Brazilian
organizations to answer the research question and to test the hypothesis. This study
contributes to existing literature by providing encouraging evidence that job satisfaction
ultimately affects organizational commitment. To practitioners, the findings suggest that
managers could also enhance employees commitment by increasing job satisfaction within
five dimensions. The main contribution of this research is to provide a basis for a longitudinal
approach to determine the causal ordering between job satisfaction and organizational
commitment.
Keywords: Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, mediation effect

INTRODUCTION
The objective of this research is to investigate the direction of the relationship between
job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Investigating the relationship between both
constructs has important practical and theoretical implications. If organizational commitment
is influenced by job satisfaction, managers could be more assertive in adopting strategies to
enhance commitment indirectly by increasing satisfaction. On the other hand, if
organizational commitment is a predictor of job satisfaction, previous research models on job
satisfaction have made a serious mistake in not including organizational commitment as an
independent variable (Curry et al., 1986).
The conceptual and empirical commonalities and distinctions between job satisfaction
and organizational commitment have been the objective of investigations in previous research
which have aimed to move beyond correlations to try to provide evidence that one construct
precedes the other (Bateman & Strasser, 1984; Currivan, 1999; Harrison et al., 2006; Curry et
al., 1986; Glisson & Durick, 1988; Ting, 1996; Vandenberg & Lance, 1992). However, the
findings as to whether job satisfaction is the antecedent of organizational commitment, or vice
versa, have been inconclusive.
Bateman and Strasser (1984) suggest that organizational commitment precedes job
satisfaction, based on the assumption that individuals behave according to the situations to
which they have previously committed. In this sense, employees become committed to an
organization ultimately because they joined the organization, and this act (along with other
conditions) determines their attitudes towards their work (Vandenberg & Lance, 1992). In
fact, Bateman and Strassers (1984) longitudinal study on 786 nurses supports the assumption
that employees become committed to an organization before attitudes of satisfaction emerge.
Vandenberg and Lances (1992) empirical findings on 455 employees of a multinational
software research and development company also support this perspective.
Curry et al. (1986) replicated Bateman and Strassers (1984) study, taking into account
measurement errors, statistical controls, and temporal sources of error, which had been
ignored by prior research. Their results provided no evidence that organizational commitment
is causally related to job satisfaction; however, the study also failed to find evidence that
satisfaction precedes commitment. Currivan (1999) also holds to the possibility that there is
no causal relationship between both constructs, through analyses of employee turnover
models. Although the results suggest that there is no causal relationship, the author argues that
the findings should be interpreted with caution because, in the structural equation models, the
correlations between both constructs remain significant even with the influence of other
variables. Rayton (2006) proposes that the variety of results can be explained by the
interdependence between both constructs, which creates a significant correlation.
The most commonly held position in the literature is that job satisfaction influences
organizational commitment (Bateman & Strasser, 1984; Currivan, 1999; Curry et al., 1986;
Malik, Waheed, & Malik, 2010; Rayton, 2006; Vandenberg & Lance, 1992). The rationale is
that employees who are satisfied with their jobs are more willing to remain in the
organization, resulting in a positive relationship between job satisfaction and organizational
commitment (Malik et al., 2010).
Previous research is therefore inconclusive. Further empirical evaluation is needed to
investigate whether there is a casual relationship between satisfaction and commitment, and to
indicate the direction of this relationship. Indeed, a meta-analytic study conducted by Meyer
et al. (2002) identifies job satisfaction as a correlate to organizational commitment, since there
is no consensus in the literature concerning causal ordering. Whilst assuming the most
commonly held position that job satisfaction precedes organizational commitment, this study
investigates whether job satisfaction has a mediating effect on the relationship between job2

related, organizational, and individual factors and organizational commitment. This research
intends to contribute to the literature by offering empirical evidence that contrasts some of the
existing findings, providing a basis for further research using a longitudinal approach, and
employing a different approach regarding both constructs i.e. a mediating relationship.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction is defined as a result from the perception that ones job fulfills or
allows the fulfillment of ones important job values (Locke, 1976, p. 1307). Thus,
identifying these job values and how employees perceive their satisfaction is crucial to job
satisfaction research. This has been assessed in the organizational behaviour literature through
two main approaches. The first focuses on the relationship between job satisfaction and
organizational outcomes such as performance, productivity, absenteeism, and turnover. The
second analyzes job satisfaction in terms of determining its predictors. These studies have
traditionally assigned job characteristics, organizational characteristics, and individual
characteristics as determinants of job satisfaction (Glisson & Durick, 1988).
Job characteristics are aspects of workers tasks that determine how the employee
perceives his/her particular activities within the organization. These perceptions are related to
internal motivation because identifying the job as meaningful, challenging, and interesting can
affect workers overall behaviour and feelings of happiness, health, safety, and caring about
professional colleagues (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Moreover, the perception of a job as
meaningful is related to the individuals fit in the organization, the amount of complex and
different abilities employees are required to use to perform their tasks, and the tasks overall
importance to co-workers, organizations, and society.
The job characteristics model proposed by Hackman and Oldham (1980) still
represents a predominant perspective in organizational literature (Clegg & Spencer, 2007;
Reid, Riemenschneider, Allen, & Armstrong, 2008). According to Hackman and Oldham
(1980), organizations can promote job satisfaction by enhancing jobs along five dimensions:
skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. These dimensions lead
to critical psychological states that directly affect work results, such as satisfaction, intrinsic
motivation, productivity, turnover, and absenteeism. This is why, among the predictors of job
satisfaction, job characteristics have received the most empirical attention in the literature
(Finley, Martin, Roman & Blum, 1995; Glisson & Durick, 1988; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007;
Ting, 1996).
The context in which employees are embedded is also expected to influence, in
different ways, the overall level of job satisfaction of public and private workers.
Organizational characteristics have been linked to job satisfaction in the literature from
various perspectives, such as type of service, organization age, workgroup size, workgroup
budget, and workgroup age (Glisson & Durick, 1988); core organizational values such as
effectiveness, reputation, and efficiency (Wal & Huberts, 2008); and organizational factors
such as group culture and sense of organizational purpose (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007).
It is important that employees perceive organizations to be doing the best they can,
within their economic, environmental, and financial constraints, to fulfill employees
expectations. Therefore, human resource policies and practices are suitable to represent
organizational characteristics in this sense. Human resource practices are the concrete
representation of the explicit or implicit human resource politics that guide the organizations
decision-making in relation to human assets. They are also designed to communicate to
employees what is expected in terms of appropriate behaviors, in order to meet organizational
3

values and goals through formal programs and procedures (Judge & Cable, 1997). Rothbard,
Philips, and Dumas (2005) suggest that job satisfaction will be low where organizational
policies and employees expectations do not match. Bright (2008) adds that an adequate
match between the characteristics of individuals skills, goals, and values and the
characteristics of organizations culture, values, goals, and resources is significantly related
to employees job satisfaction.
Thus, organizational characteristics are expected to influence job satisfaction.
Specifically, the six core human resources practices in organizations (communication,
wellness, recruitment and selection, training and development, rewards and benefits, and
career planning) are expected to influence job satisfaction. The category of individual
characteristics has also been pointed out as one of the predictors of job satisfaction, although
compared to the other predictors, it has received less attention (Glisson & Durick, 1988). In
management literature, individual differences have usually been assessed as gender, age,
marital and parental status, education level, and tenure. However, empirical findings are not
consistent in relating individual characteristics and job satisfaction.
The positive relationship between age and job satisfaction can be attributed to a
progressive change of values as a result of professional experience (Henne & Locke, 1985).
Older employees tend to be more positive about their jobs because they are more likely to
possess traditional values and be better adjusted in terms of expectations to the working
environment (Bright, 2008; DeSantis & Durst, 1996; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007; Ting, 1996).
Regarding educational level, researchers suggest that there is a negative relationship between
education and job satisfaction, because employees who are more educated have higher
expectations that organizations may be unable to meet (Ting, 1996). Bright (2008) reports that
employees who are highly educated are more likely to leave their jobs, compared to their lesseducated counterparts. Finally, the length of tenure in the same organization has been found to
negatively influence job satisfaction (DeSantis & Durst, 1996; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007).
This means that employees feel less engaged and satisfied with their jobs the longer they
remain members of the same organization. Moynihan and Pandey (2007) suggest that
employees who have remained in the same organization for a long period have more limited
points of reference for comparison, which leads them to believe that other organizations are
better to work for.
Organizational Commitment
In the organizational behavior literature, most authors agree that organizational
commitment is a psychological state that characterizes an individuals relationship with the
organization he/she works for, and which determines the likelihood that he/she will leave the
organization (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Meyer & Allen, 1991). Porter, Steers, Mowday
and Boulian (1974) define organizational commitment as the strength of an employees
identification with, and involvement in, a particular organization via a strong belief and
acceptance of organizational goals and values; a willingness to exert considerable effort on
behalf of the organization; and finally, a definite desire to stay in the organization.
Among several conceptual interpretations involving organizational commitment, the
sociological, behavioral, attitudinal, affective, continuance, and normative perspectives have
been highlighted. The sociological perspective suggests that the relationship between
employees and the organization in which they work is based upon the legitimacy that rules the
employment contract (Becker, 1960; Halaby, 1986). This is why employees bring to work a
whole set of norms that specify their roles as subordinates, as well as the morally right form
of domination employed in the work environment. Influenced by social psychology, the
behavioral perspective implies that employees are committed as a result of their own
behaviors (Salancik, 1977). The attitudinal approach focuses on the antecedent conditions that
4

lead to organizational commitment, such as the congruence of values and goals between the
individual and the organization (OReilly & Caldwell, 1981; Pfeffer & Lawler, 1980).
The affective approach proposed by Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979) focuses on the
emotional identification of employees with the organization. Commitment then originates
from the individual desire to retain membership in the organization. The continuance
perspective suggests that the satisfaction of an individuals needs and expectations in relation
to financial rewards, status, and autonomy affects commitment. In other words, organizational
commitment is a result of an individuals evaluation of the benefits and costs associated with
organizational membership (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). Lastly, Weiner and Vardi (1990)
propose that the normative commitment is a result of culture and individual motivation. The
culture or shared values in which employees are embedded can produce a sense of obligation
or normative pressures; these pressures, in association with reward systems, can influence
individual behavior toward commitment.
The individuals commitment at work is a construct that has drawn the attention not
only of academics, but also of practitioners in business administration, because it has been
successfully linked with important organizational outcomes (Meyer et al., 2002). Having a
committed workforce helps to enhance the product and the quality of a process (Hausknecht,
Hiller, & Vance, 2008); decrease costs related to waste and increase the time utilization of
machines (Hackman & Wageman, 1995; Nair, 2006); reduce absenteeism and turnover rates
(Cotton & Tuttle, 1986; Droege & Hoobler, 2003; Lee, Gerhart, Weller, & Trevor, 2008;
Steel & Ovalle, 1984); increase performance (Hunter & Thatcher, 2007); and expedite the
implementation of changes (Walton, 1990).
Therefore, one of the new challenges of the human resources department is to
maintain employee commitment while the organization faces changes, especially during
downsizing and layoffs (Ulrich, 1998). Collins and Smith (2006) suggest that managing the
employer-employee relationship with a commitment orientation creates an organizational
climate that fosters workers motivation by affecting levels of trust, cooperation, and shared
codes and languages. Nevertheless, some authors (Boardman & Sundquist, 2009; Boyne,
2002; Perry & Wise, 1990) advocate that the employer-employee relationship might differ
across sectors due to the nature of the job, and that those who are less materialistic can be
motivated and committed for very different reasons compared to those who are more so.
In organizational behavior literature, the predictors of organizational commitment, in
the same way as for job satisfaction, can be grouped into three major categories job
characteristics, organizational characteristics, and individual characteristics with the
distinction that, generally, more attention has been placed on job and individual
characteristics than on organizational characteristics (Glisson & Durick, 1988).
Regarding job characteristics, organizational commitment is consistently found to be
significantly influenced by autonomy, task variety, task significance, and feedback (Glisson &
Durick, 1988; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007). Glisson and Durick (1988)
report that among 319 human service workers from 22 service organizations, organizational
commitment was significantly affected by the application of different abilities to perform
tasks, as well as by the social meaning of the job in terms of work-related characteristics.
Moynihan and Pandey (2007) found that feedback from managers and supervisors positively
affects employees commitment. In this case, supervisory feedback is linked to the clarity of
the organizational goals that guide how employees perform their tasks, and is also represented
by the constant feedback that superiors are required to give.
Few studies have investigated organizational characteristics as predictors of
organizational commitment, in comparison to job-related and individual characteristics
(Glisson & Durick, 1988). Perceived organizational support throughout organizational
policies and practices can enhance organizational commitment in the affective and normative
5

aspects when they meet employees expectations (Grant, Dutton, & Rosso, 2008; Reid et al.,
2008; Rothbard et al., 2005). Reid et al. (2008) find in public organizations that, consistent
with previous findings in the public and private sectors, the perception of organizational
support and pay for performance is strongly linked to organizational commitment. In the same
way, Rothbard et al. (2005) conclude that organizational commitment is higher when
organizational policies are congruent with employees desires. Lastly, affective commitment
is significantly enhanced when employees feel that the organization supports and cares
beyond standard human resource practices of reward and benefit, recognition, and training
and development (Grant et al., 2008). In sum, organizational characteristics play an important
role in predicting organizational commitment. Glisson and Durick (1988) argue, based on
their empirical findings, that organizational characteristics are the primary antecedents of
commitment.
Individual characteristics have usually been assessed in the organizational
commitment literature through demographic characteristics, although a variety of worker
characteristics such as personal needs, values, and personality traits also appear in the
commitment research (Glisson & Durick, 1988). Meyer and Allen (1991) conclude that the
relationship between individual characteristics and organizational commitment is not
consistent, and whenever the findings indicate a significant relationship, it is generally weak.
The organizational commitment literature suggests three directions regarding individual
differences: the first is that commitment is the result of a rational balance between
expectations (that might be realistic or not) and other alternatives; the second is that
individuals differ in terms of their qualifications, which assures competent workers better
opportunities; and the third is the behavioral approach, which suggests that workers tend to
persist with previous choices, particularly if these were free choices (OReilly & Caldwell,
1981).
The three alternatives suggest that expectations, opportunities, and persistence can be
influenced, even if not entirely, by an individuals age, tenure, and education, which explains
why individual characteristics have been weakly associated with organizational commitment.
Empirical findings show that tenure has been positively associated with organizational
commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991), as well as age (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007), whereas
education has been negatively related to commitment (Glisson & Durick, 1988). In other
words, employees who remain in the organization for many years; older employees; and less
educated employees tend to present higher levels of organizational commitment.
The Relationship between Job satisfaction and Organizational Commitment
Job satisfaction is defined as an individuals perception about the degree to which
his/her job fulfills important job values (Locke, 1976), while organizational commitment is
defined as the strength of an employees identification and involvement in the organization
(Porter et al., 1974). In sum, job satisfaction refers to ones work role or position, whereas
organizational commitment is related to a broader environment, which is the entire
organization. Glisson and Durick (1988) add that besides conceptual distinctions, empirically,
with respect to measurement, job satisfaction has been modeled as a function of job
experiences, and organizational commitment has been modeled as a function of beliefs about
the organization. Regarding conceptual distinctions, most authors agree that there is a clear
difference between both constructs (Curry et al., 1986; Harrison et al., 2006).
However, despite empirical and conceptual distinctions, there is evidence that job
satisfaction and organizational commitment share great variance, probably because both
constructs represent conceptually different attitudes related to dimensions of the same work
context (Glisson & Durick, 1988). Actually, the combination of job satisfaction and
organizational commitment has been largely utilized in the literature as a dependent variable
6

to indicate underlying overall employee attitudes and behaviors, such as work motivation
(Harrison et al., 2006; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007), which explains the high correlation.
Empirical findings confirm the overlap between job satisfaction and organizational
commitment in different ways. As mentioned previously, Harrison et al. (2006) and Moynihan
and Pandey (2007) combine both constructs to examine work motivation. They find high
correlations between job satisfaction and organizational commitment in US public and private
organizations [r = .526, n = 274], and in a meta-analysis of the links between contextual
performance and other job behaviors [r = .600, n= 112], respectively.
Most commonly, job satisfaction and organizational commitment have been assessed
as two independent variables that only correlate with each other. Rothbard et al. (2005)
confirm the high correlation between both constructs [r = .570, n= 460] in a study that
investigates the role of work-family policies on commitment and satisfaction. Satisfaction and
commitment were also significantly correlated [r = .641, n= 269] in the research, linking the
effects of strategic human resource management to satisfaction and commitment in an
American manufacturing company (Green, Wu, Whitten, & Medlin, 2006). Glisson and
Durick (1988) report a correlation of .640 [n=319] in research that analyzes the predictors of
job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Finally, Hausknecht et al. (2008) find a
correlation of .750 [n=530] in a longitudinal study that analyzes the effects of satisfaction,
commitment, labor market conditions, and time over work-unit absenteeism in the large US
Department of Transportation.
In a different manner, Grant et al. (2008) controlled for job satisfaction to investigate
how employee support programs and the pro-social sensemaking process strengthen
commitment by enabling employees to give support. The authors state that controlling for job
satisfaction allows them to assess the relationships between the variables with additional
rigor, since job satisfaction has been strongly related to organizational commitment [r = .620,
n= 249].
As mentioned in the introduction, Meyer et al. (2002) conducted a meta-analysis to
investigate the antecedents, correlates, and outcomes of organizational commitment. They
consider correlates of commitment relationships in which there is no consensus regarding the
causal ordering. Their results indicate that among all the correlates identified in previous
research, job satisfaction has the strongest correlation. In fact, all five components of job
satisfaction were found to be strongly correlated to the three dimensions of organizational
commitment.
The difficulty in establishing a causal ordering between job satisfaction and
organizational commitment has culminated in studies which report only the correlation
between both constructs (Reid et al., 2008). Curry et al. (1986) replicate Bateman and
Strassers (1984) study, which supports the tenet that commitment influences satisfaction.
However, the results put forth by Curry et al. (1986), in their longitudinal study of 2,192
employees of nursing departments in hospitals, also fail to provide a basis for the assertion
that organizational commitment influences job satisfaction. The authors conclude that no
causal effect seems to exist, in either direction, between commitment and satisfaction over
time. In the same manner, Ting (1996) proposes that job satisfaction is affected by
organizational commitment because employees become committed to the organization after
developing positive job attitudes. The authors results involving federal employees confirm
this assumption, but a definitive causality cannot be established due to the nature of the
survey. We should interpret these results with some caution because organizational
commitment could be caused by (rather than be a predictor of) job satisfaction (Ting, 1996,
p. 449).
Indeed, the variety of measurement in both concepts seems to contribute to the
conflicting findings. If job satisfaction is defined as job attitudes, as Ting (2006) suggests, it
7

seems rational to suppose that commitment will influence job satisfaction. Notwithstanding,
in this study, both constructs are defined in terms of perception of either job value fulfillment,
or identification in and involvement with the organization. Thus, it makes more sense to
assume that employees first feel satisfied or unsatisfied with how well their job fulfills
important job values; one could later suppose that this satisfaction will help in defining the
strength of their identification with and involvement in the organization. In other words,
employee satisfaction will influence organizational commitment. Hence, we hypothesize that
job satisfaction is an antecedent of organizational commitment, by analyzing the mediating
effect of job satisfaction on the relationship between work-related, organizational, and
individual characteristics and organizational commitment. The following hypothesis is
therefore posed:
Hypothesis 1. Job satisfaction will mediate the relationship between job,
organizational, and individual characteristics and organizational commitment.
METHOD
This research intends to address the discussion of the relationship direction between
job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In order to answer the research question and
test the hypothesis, we conducted explanatory research. Individuals who are employed in
public and private organizations are the unit of analysis in this research.
Instrument Development
The data collection instrument utilized in this survey is a questionnaire. The
questionnaire is comprised of five sections. The first section assesses the individual
characteristics. Demographic questions are included, however these do not identify the
respondents, but rather just list their membership to the organization. The second section
measures job characteristics. The items were taken from the job diagnostic survey (JDS)
developed by Hackman and Oldham (1980). The JDS is a well-known and largely utilized
instrument developed to assess the characteristics related to the job itself (Glisson & Durick,
1988; Rothbard et al., 2005).
The third section measures the perceptions of human resource practices. The questions
were developed based on a combination of the previous instruments available, and focus on
the six core practices identified in the literature. The composite measure of reliability, which
indicates the internal consistency of the measures for human resource practices is .91 (Borges,
2009). According to Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson and Tatham (2006), acceptable values
must be greater than .70 to indicate the consistency of measures.
The fourth section measures the dependent variable job satisfaction. This was
developed based on Hackman and Oldhams (1980) contextual satisfaction measurements.
The fifth section assesses the dependent variable organizational commitment, which was
developed based on Meyer and Allens (1991) organizational commitment components
questionnaire. The items were taken from Meyer, Allen and Smith (1993). We used a fivepoint Likert-type scale to measure all the items.
Systematic errors in the measure can arise from self-reported questionnaires as result
of social desirability, negative affectivity, and acquiescence effects. We therefore attempted to
reduce the likelihood of common method variance by counterbalancing the order of the
questions, using well-established measures available in the literature, employing different
scales to assess the constructs, and assuring the respondents confidentiality and anonymity,
that there are no right or wrong answers, and that they should answer each item honestly
(Malhotra, Kim & Patil, 2006).
8

Sample
We administered standardized, paper-based questionnaires in public and private
organizations in Brazil within the health, education, public management, and mining
industries. Administration of the questionnaires followed the same procedures for all
organizations. The managers of each department were informed about the research objectives
and invited to meet the researchers in the companys auditorium at a scheduled time. They
were also asked to extend this invitation to their subordinates. Hence, this is a convenience
sample in which individuals were selected due to their accessibility.
The respondents were informed about all aspects of the research project and that there
was no need for individual identification; the voluntary nature of their participation was also
explained. In addition, on the first page of the paper-based questionnaire, a letter reinforced
the objectives of the research, their voluntary participation, their anonymity, and the
confidentiality of the information. We reached a total sample size of 670 after detecting
missing data; handling outliers; and checking for linearity, normality, and homoscedasticity
assumptions.
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Analysis Method
The data analysis consisted of employing a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to
assess the measurement model (Hair et al., 2006), and a multiple regression analysis to test
the hypothesis. Regression analysis is appropriate to predict the values of one dependent
variable from a collection of prediction variables (Johnson & Wichern, 1988). It is also
suitable for investigating moderation and mediation effects (Baron & Kenny, 1986). We used
EQS software to run the confirmatory factor analysis, and SPSS software to run the multiple
regression analysis.
The results of the measurement model provide evidence of an adequate
unidimensionality: [X(194) = 1394.6, p < .01]; the CFI (.90) and GFI (.95) indices are greater
than .90; and the RMSEA (.09) is below the .10 threshold. All standardized factor loadings
are greater than .50; the AVE of the latent variables is greater than 50%; and, finally, the
Cronbachs alpha reliability measure exceeds the .70 value, indicating good convergent
validity for all latent variables in the measurement model.
Table 1 shows the standardized factor loadings, average variance extracted (AVE),
and reliability values for job satisfaction and organizational commitment constructs, variables,
and related items to job characteristics and human resource practices.
The discriminant validity, the degree to which a latent variable is distinct from other
latent variables, is measured by comparing the squared correlation between the variables and
the AVE. The AVE must be greater than the squared correlation to evidence good
discriminant validity. No squared correlations exceeded the AVE for the variables, suggesting
no problems with discriminant validity.
Multiple Regression Analysis
Multiple regression analysis is broadly suitable for prediction and explanation
purposes (Hair et al., 2006). In this study, we employed multiple regression analysis to
examine the mediating effect of job satisfaction in the relationship between organizational
commitment and its predictors.
Job satisfaction will mediate the relationship between the independent variables and
organizational commitment if the following conditions are met: (1) the independent variables
are significantly related to job satisfaction; (2) the independent variables are significantly
9

related to organizational commitment; and (3) after adding job satisfaction as an independent
variable, the relationship between the independent variables and organizational commitment
is no longer significant. When all three requirements are met, job satisfaction is a full
mediator. Nonetheless, when condition three remains significant after conditions one and two
are met, job satisfaction will be a partial mediator (Baron & Kenny, 1986).
Table 1
Measurement model reliability and validity
Construct
Job characteristics

Variables
Task Identity
Autonomy
Skill Variety

Task Significance
Feedback

Human
resource
practices

Communication

Welness
Recruitment and selection

Training and development

Reward and benefits

Career planning

Work Satisfaction

Organizational
Commitment

Security
Compensation
Possibility of Growth
Supervision
Organizational Environment
Affective
Normative
Continuance

Items
it_1
it_2
au_1
au_2
vh_1
vh_2
vh_3
st_1
st_2
fe_1
fe_2
fe_3
rhcmn_1
rhcmn_2
rhcmn_3
rhqvt_1
rhqvt_2
rhrcsl_1
rhrcsl_2
rhrcsl_3
rhtrds_1
rhtrds_2
rhtrds_3
rhtrds_4
rhrmbn_1
rhrmbn_2
rhrmbn_3
rhrmbn_4
rhplcr_1
rhplcr_2
rhplcr_3
rhplcr_4
rhplcr_5
rhplcr_6

Standirdized
loadings
0,806
0,876
0,869
0,930
0,813
0,796
0,912
0,921
0,955
0,762
0,779
0,708
0,800
0,885
0,766
0,792
0,877
0,807
0,883
0,625
0,637
0,882
0,903
0,788
0,786
0,699
0,725
0,852
0,753
0,795
0,769
0,804
0,795
0,648
0,695
0,793
0,940
0,556
0,509
0,680
0,962
0,485

AVE
0,709

Reliability
0,830

0,810

0,889

0,709

0,874

0,880

0,933

0,563

0,784

0,670

0,862

0,698

0,815

0,607

0,802

0,655

0,875

0,589

0,845

0,581

0,895

0,513

0,708

0,541

0,772

Note: All the standardized loadings are significant at p < .05

10

To test Hypothesis 1, which states that job satisfaction will mediate the relationship
between job, organizational, and individual characteristics and organizational commitment,
we ran a multiple regression analysis. We controlled for gender, salary level, and position.
Following Baron and Kennys (1986) suggestion, the three regression equations were
estimated:
(1) Path A: regressing the mediator on the independent variables;
(2) Path B: regressing the independent variables on the dependent variable; and,
(3) Path C: regressing the dependent variable on both the mediator and the
independent variables.
The findings indicate that job satisfaction fully mediates the relationship between the
communication HR practice and organizational commitment, since we found that (1) the
communication HR practice is significantly related to job satisfaction [B = .10(.02), p < .001];
(2) the communication HR practice is significantly related to organizational commitment [B =
.04(.03), p < .05]; and (3) there is no significant relationship between the communication HR
practice and organizational commitment [B = -.01(.03), p = .92] when job satisfaction is
related to organizational commitment [B = .24(.06), p < .001].
Following this reasoning, the results indicate that job satisfaction partially mediates
the relationship between: tenure and organizational commitment [B = 1.18(.30), p < .001];
skill variety and organizational commitment [B = .12(.03), p < .05]; training and development
HR practice and organizational commitment [B = .14(.04), p < .001]; and career planning HR
practice and organizational commitment [B = .20(.04), p < .001]. Finally, the relationships
between task significance and organizational commitment, and between the wellness HR
practice and organizational commitment, are not mediated by job satisfaction, since the results
indicate that there are no significant relationships between the independent variables and the
mediator (requirement one).
Baron and Kenny (1986) also suggest that to test whether the regression significance is
a result of the mediation effect, rather than a result of the lack of significance when a smaller
coefficient is found after adding another variable to the regression, researchers should run the
Sobel test, which provides the significance level for the indirect effect of independent
variables on the dependent variable via the mediator. The results indicate a significant
mediation effect of job satisfaction between skill variety [Sobel = 2.14(.002), p < .05];
communication HR practice [Sobel = 3.12(.01), p < .01]; career planning HR practice [Sobel
= 3.12(.01), p < .01]; training and development HR practice [Sobel = 2.63(.01), p < .01]; and
tenure [Sobel = 2.12(.07), p < .05] and the dependent variable organizational commitment.
Table 2 shows the results of the three regression equations.
Before making our final judgments we ran a regression analysis, adding organizational
commitment along with the independent variables, and job satisfaction as the dependent
variable. The results indicate that organizational commitment is not an antecedent of job
satisfaction [B = .06(.03), p = .07] and, consequently, cannot be a mediator of the
relationships between the independent variables and job satisfaction [R change = .00, F
(1,613) = 3.79, p = .06]. On the other hand, on Path C in Table 3, we notice that job
satisfaction significantly antecedes organizational commitment [B = .24(.06), p < .001].
Finally, we conclude that the direction of the relationship between job satisfaction and
organizational commitment goes from job satisfaction to organizational commitment, rather
than the other way around. This means that, as hypothesized, employees are satisfied with
their jobs first, before becoming committed to the organization, hence supporting Hypothesis
1.

11

Table 2
Results of multiple regression analyses
Variables
Intercept

Path A
-4.61**

Path B
-3.9**

Path C
-6.23**

-,08
-0.25*
-.37*

-,06
.284*
-.91*

-,08
,21
.31*

,46
.58**
.65*
,01
.02*
.07*
,04
.13**
-,02
.10**
,02
.09*
.12**
.24**

,19
,08
1.04**
.11*
0.12*
,05
-,01
,05
-,01
.04*
.08*
.17**
,00
.26**

,50
,22
1.18**
.11*
.12*
,04
-,01
,04
-,02
-,01
.08*
.14**
-,06
.20**

Control
Gender
Salary level
Position
Independent
Age
Educational level
Tenure
Task significance
Skill variety
Autonomy
Task identity
Feedback
HR Recuitment&Selection
HR Communication
HR Wellness
HR Training&Development
HR Reward&Benefits
HR Career planning
Mediator
Work satisfaction
R
Adjusted R
F
N
Note:

* p < .05

.24**
,69
,67
56.92**
654

,52
,48
32.39**
647

,51
,47
14.64**
631

** p < .001

CONCLUSION
This research sought to determine the direction of the relationship between job
satisfaction and organizational commitment. Based on the literature, job satisfaction is defined
in terms of employees perceptions on the extent to which important job values are fulfilled,
while organizational commitment relates to employees levels of identification with the
organization. Hence, it is logical that employees feel satisfied with their jobs first, and later
become committed to their organization.
We hypothesized that job satisfaction mediates the relationship between job,
organizational, and individual characteristics and organizational commitment. We therefore
included in the analysis individual, job-related, and organizational factors that influence both
constructs in order to investigate the direction of the relationship between job satisfaction and
organizational commitment.
12

Data analysis includes assessment of the measurement model through a confirmatory

factor analysis. To test the research hypothesis, we ran a regression analysis controlling for
gender, salary level, and position. The empirical findings suggest that job satisfaction affects
organizational commitment, instead of the reverse. In general, the results indicate that job,
organizational, and individual characteristics are better predictors of job satisfaction than they
are of organizational commitment. This correlation helps to support the finding that job
satisfaction mediates the relationship between those characteristics and organizational
commitment.
This study contributes to existing literature because it provides encouraging evidence
that job satisfaction ultimately affects organizational commitment. The main contribution of
this research is to provide a basis for a longitudinal approach focused on determining the
causal ordering between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In terms of
contributing to the organizational commitment literature, our data, rather than considering
work satisfaction as a correlate variable to organizational commitment, indicates that job
satisfaction works better as a predictor of the affective, continuance, and normative
dimensions of commitment.
Our findings contradict those of Bateman and Strasser (1984), which suggest that
organizational commitment is an antecedent of job satisfaction. Both constructs have been
largely handled in the literature as distinct variables that share a large amount of variance
(Glisson & Durick, 1988; Green et al., 2006; Harrison et al., 2006; Moynihan & Pandey,
2007; Rothbard et al., 2005), but few studies have investigated the direction of the
relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Bateman & Strasser,
1984; Curry et al., 1986; Ting, 1996). In this sense, this study adds to the meta-analysis
research of Meyer et al. (2002) by indicating the direction of the relationship between both
constructs.
To practitioners, the research findings suggest that managers could also enhance
employees commitment by increasing job satisfaction within five dimensions (job security,
rewards and benefits, organizational environment, supervision, and possibility of growth).
The results also reveal the job-related characteristics and organizational factors that
significantly affect both employees satisfaction and commitment. Therefore, managers might
consider these factors when dealing with employee involvement. Lastly, regarding individual
characteristics, our empirical findings suggest that the longer employees remain members of
the same organization, the more satisfied and committed they will be.
However, this study presents some limitations. The methodological limitations include
sample selection method and common method bias. Since this is a cross-sectional study, it is
not possible to assess the causal relationship between the constructs only the direction of the
relationship between them. The last potential limitation of this study relates to the variables
selected as antecedents of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Future research
could include different variables or utilize other measurement models, selecting from the wide
range available in the literature.
Further research could also replicate this study in order to confirm the findings and
enhance comprehension about the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational
commitment. It could extend the analysis regarding the mediating effects of job satisfaction
on organizational commitment, by investigating not only the direction of the relationship
between both constructs, but also the causal relationship between job satisfaction and
organizational commitment. Finally, this study points out a need for longitudinal research in
order to better understand the causal ordering between work satisfaction and organizational
commitment.

13

REFERENCES
Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Bateman, T.S., & Strasser, S. (1984). A longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of
organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 95-112.
Becker, H.S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. Journal of Sociology, 66, 32-40.
Boardman, C., & Sundquist, E. (2009). Toward understanding work motivation: Worker
attitudes and the perception of effective public service. The American Review of
Public Administration, 39(5), 519-535.
Borges, R.S. (2009). Organizational change implementation and the role of human resource
practices. Brazilian Business Review, 6(3), 299-311.
Boyne, G.A. (2002). Public and private management: Whats the difference? Journal of
Management Studies, 39(1), 97-122.
Bright, L. (2008). Does public service motivation really make a difference on the job
satisfaction and turnover intentions of public employees? The American Review of
Public Administration, 38(2), 149-166.
Clegg, C., & Spencer, C. (2007). A circular and dynamic model of the process of job design.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 321-339.
Collins, C.J., & Smith, K.G. (2006). Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of
human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms. Academy of
Management Journal, 49(3), 544-560.
Cotton, J.L., & Tuttle, J.M. (1986). Employee turnover: A meta-analysis and review with
implications for research. Academy of Management Review, 11, 55-70.
Currivan, D.B. (1999). The causal order of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in
models of employee turnover. Human Resource Management Review, 9(4), 495-524.
Curry, J.P., Wakefield, D.S., Price, J.L., & Mueller, C.W. (1986). On the causal ordering of
job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal,
29(4), 847-858.
DeSantis, V., & Durst, S.L. (1996). Comparing job satisfaction among public- and privatesector employees. American Review of Public Administration, 26(3), 327-343.
Droege, S.B., & Hoobler, J.M. (2003). Employee turnover and tacit knowledge diffusion a
network perspective. Journal of Managerial Issues, 15, 50-64.
Finlay, W., Martin, J.K., Roman, P.M., & Blum, T.C. (1995). Organizational structure and job
satisfaction: do bureaucratic organizations produce more satisfied employees?
Administration & Society, 27(3), 427-450.
Glisson, C., & Durick, M. (1988). Predictors of job satisfaction and organizational
commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 61-81.
Grant, A.M., Dutton, J.E., & Rosso, B.D. (2008). Giving commitment: Employee support
programs and the prosocial sensemaking process. Academy of Management Journal,
51(5), 898-918.
Green, K.W., Wu, C., Whitten, D., & Medlin, B. (2006). The impact of strategic human
resource management on firm performance and HY professionals work attitude and
work performance. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(4),
559-579.
Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hackman, J.R., & Wageman, R. (1995). Total quality management: Empirical, conceptual,
and practical issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 309-342.

14

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B., Anderson, R.E., & Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate Data
Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Halaby, C.N. (1986). Worker attachment and workplace authority. American Sociological
Review, 51, 634-649.
Harrison, D.A., Newman, D.A., & Roth, P.L. (2006). How important are job attitudes? Metaanalytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences.
Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 305-325.
Hausknecht, J.P., Hiller, N.J., & Vance, R.J. (2008). Work-unit absenteism: Effects of
satisfaction, commitment, labor market conditions, and time. Academy of Management
Journal, 51(6), 1223-1245.
Henne, D., & Locke, E.A. (1985). Job dissatisfaction: What are the consequences?
International Journal of Psychology, 20, 221-240.
Herscovitch, L. & Meyer, J.P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a
three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 474-487.
Hunter, L.W., & Thatcher, S.M. (2007). Feeling the heat: Effects of stress, commitment, and
job experience on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 953-968.
Johnson, R.A., & Wichern, D.W. (1988). Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis (2nd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Judge, T.A., & Cable, D.M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and
organizational attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50, 359-394.
Lee, T.H., Gerhart, B., Weller, I., & Trevor, C.O. (2008). Understanding voluntary turnover:
Path-specific job satisfaction effects and the importance of unsolicited job offers.
Academy of Management Journal, 51(4), 651-671.
Locke, E.A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M.D. Dunette (Ed.),
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago, IL:
Rand McNaly.
Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S. & Patil, A. (2006). Common method variance in IS research: A
comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management
Science, 52(12), 1865-1883.
Malik, O.F., Waheed, A., & Malik, K.R. (2010). The mediating effects of job satisfaction on
role stressors and affective commitment. International Journal of Business and
Management, 5(11), 223-236.
Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resources Management Review, 1(1), 61-89.
Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., & Smith, C.A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and
occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78(4), 538-551.
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective,
continuance, and normative commitment to organization: A meta-analysis of
antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52.
Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of organizational
commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.
Moynihan, D.P., & Pandey, S.K. (2007). Finding workable levers over job satisfaction:
Comparing job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment.
Administration & Society, 39(7), 803-832.
Nair, A. (2006). Meta-analysis of the relationship between quality management and firm
performance: Implications for quality management development. Journal of
Operations Management, 24, 948-975.

15

O'Reilly, C.A., & Caldwell, D.F. (1981). The commitment and job tenure of new employees:
Some evidence of postdecisional justification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26,
597-616.
Perry, J.L., & Wise, L.R. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public
Administration Review, May/June, 367-373.
Pfeffer, J., & Lawler, J. (1980). Effects of job alternatives, extrinsic rewards, and behavioral
commitment on attitude toward the organization: A field test of the insufficient
justification paradigm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 38-56.
Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T., & Boulian, P.V. (1974). Organizational
commitment, job satisfaction, and turover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 59(5), 603-609.
Rayton, B.A. (2006). Examining the interconnection of job satisfaction and organizational
commitment: An application of the bivariate probit model. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 17(1), 139-154.
Reid, M.F., Riemenschneider, C.K., Allen, M.W., & Armstrong, D.J. (2008). Informations
technology employees in state government: A study of affective organizational
commitment, job involvement, and job satisfaction. The American Review of Public
Administration, 38(1), 41-61.
Rothbard, N.P., Phillips, K.W., & Dumas, T.L. (2005). Managing multiple roles: Workfamily policies and individuals desires for segmentation. Organization Science, 16(3),
243-258.
Salancik, G.R. (1977). Commitment and the control of organizational behavior and belief. In
B. M. Staw, & G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New Directions in Organizational Behavior (pp.
1-54). Chicago, IL: St. Clair Press.
Steel, R.P., & Ovalle, N.K. (1984). A review and meta-analysis of research on the relationship
between behavioral intentions and employees turnover. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 69, 673-686.
Ting, Y. (1996). Analysis of job satisfaction of the federal white-collar work force: Findings
from the survey of federal employees. The American Review of Public Administration,
26(4), 439-456.
Ulrich, D. (1998). Delivering Results: A new mandate for human resource professional.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review.
Vandenberg, R.J., & Lance, C.E. (1992). Examining the causal order of job satisfaction and
organizational commitment. Journal of Management, 18(1), 153-167.
Wal, Z., & Huberts, L. (2008). Value solidity in government and business: Results of an
empirical study on public and private sector organizational values. The American
Review of Public Administration, 38(3), 264-285.
Walton, R.E. (1990). From control to commitment in the workplace. In V. Vroom (Ed.),
Manage People, not Personnel: Motivation and performance appraisal (pp. 89-106).
Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review.
Weiner, Y., & Vardi, Y. (1990). Relationships between organizational culture and individual
motivation: A conceptual integration. Psychological Reports, 67, 295-306.

16