In this essay, job performance has been defined and the main categories of job performance have been laid out to show the exact difference between task, contextual and counterproductive performance. Also, the association between job performance and satisfaction has been reviewed thoroughly to prove what matters most in order for an organization’s employees to perform at soaring levels. Job performance is formally defined as the value of the set of employee behaviors that contribute, either positively or negatively, to organizational goal accomplishment (Colquitt, Wesson and LePine, 2009, p. 7).Job performance comprises of actions which are under the employees’ control, however it puts a limit on which actions are and are not significant to job performance.

Under job performance, there are mainly three behaviors fit into categories that are significant. Task and contextual performance are the two categories that supportively promote the organization. Counterproductive behavior is the third category which promotes harmfully to the organization.Task performance includes the employee behaviors that are directly involved in the transformation of organizational resources into the goods or services that the organization produces (Colquitt et al. 2009, p. 38).

In other words, the group of clear responsibilities which an employee should accomplish in order for obtaining reimbursement and continuous occupation is known as task performance. Whereas, contextual performance (OCB) is defined as voluntary employee activities that may or may not be rewarded but contribute to the organization by improving the overall quality of the setting in which the work takes place (Colquitt et al. 009, p. 43).OCB is applicable in practically any work, irrespective of the actual nature of its duties, and in respect of the efficiency of work units and organizations, these behaviors provide many benefits.

An examination of 30 restaurants indicated that greater heights of OCB brought improved operational productivity, greater consumer contentment, greater revenue, and greater performance value, reduced consumer criticisms, and reduced food leftovers. Therefore, this gives the impression that OCB has a substantial effect after all. OCB seems to be unpaid and non-compulsory in nature.On the other hand, task responsibilities are paid and compulsory in nature. Nevertheless, overlooking OCB is not a good thought, since superiors judge it as being non-compulsory. Actually, studies conducted amid insurance representatives, pharmaceutical sales executives, petrochemical salesmen, office furniture producers, sewing machine workers, computer salesmen have made known that OCB is a matter of concern to superior assessments of job performance, also when variances in task performance are studied.

In many companies, superiors’ assessments of job performance have substantial parts in controlling remuneration and raises.To be sure, OCB was discovered to control pay and raises the employees get on their performance in tasks. In other words, it pays to instill organizational citizenship behavior in a workplace (Colquitt et al. 2009, p. 46). A Meta analytic study conducted by Lapierre and Hackett (2007) linked organizational citizenship behavior to job satisfaction, trait conscientiousness (being determined and setting a goal to achieve) and leader-member-exchange (LMX - studies the relationship between supervisor and subordinate) quality and created an integrative model, where it was shown that OCB was the result of job satisfaction and higher LMX quality.

The model was built upon the assumption that conscientious employees behave in ways that lead to rewards which keeps them satisfied at work. One of the goals to achieving success was to engage in OCB to benefit one’s supervisor, thereby nurturing LMX quality, and attracting job or career enhancing opportunities. This ‘instrumentality’ perspective of OCB had received empirical support. Specifically, when employees expect their OCB to be rewarded, they are more likely to display these behaviors.Those employees that are higher in conscientiousness will be more likely to be driven to show OCB as a possible means of satisfying their personal need for success and accomplishment. Scholars suggested that OCB could be driven by the desire to have an increase in job satisfying experiences and not just the desire to help others or reciprocate favorable treatment.

LMX quality enhances job satisfaction, which further increases OCB. An average corrected correlation of . 36 was found between job satisfaction and OCB. This is proved by pointing out the correlation between trait conscientiousness and job satisfaction (. 21).

Scholars and practitioners have regarded OCB as a valuable form of behavior since OCB’s use by the employees can be used for attaining greater LMX quality and satisfying job experiences and not just for signifying the response from the satisfaction stemming from a better valued LMX relationship (Lapierre and Hackett, 2007, p. 550). Counterproductive behavior is defined as employee behaviors that intentionally hinder organizational goal accomplishment (Colquitt et al. 2009, p. 46).

The definition uses the word ‘intentionally’, meaning that the employees who enact such behavior have every intention of doing so, and they are not ignorant.Research shows that counterproductive behaviors in a restaurant eat up to 2-3 percent of the revenues in a year, but the nature of these counterproductive behaviors is more disturbing. A study revealed that due to employee theft the inventory store shrunk 47 percent and that such thefts cost the organizations heavily approx. $14. 6 billion/yr (Colquitt et al. 2009, p.

48). Indications of past experiences show that people who participate in a type of counterproductive behavior participate in every type of it. To put it simply, such actions lead to a set of actions rather than one-time events.Like citizenship behavior, counterproductive behavior is present in every business. The employees who engage in counterproductive behavior are also a surprise.

A feeble negative link lies between behavior and task performance, usually people suspect lowly task performers to engage in counterproductive behavior. But in fact it is quite the opposite, the task performers who are considered the best may also be the ones to escape from such events, since they would never be questioned (Colquitt et al. 2009, p. 51).

How is job satisfaction linked to job performance?Job satisfaction is the collection of feelings and beliefs that people have about their current jobs (George and Jones, 2005, p. 80). The mysterious connection between job performance and satisfaction had fascinated organizational scientists for approximately 50 years. A positive relationship is assumed to exist between job satisfaction and job performance, even though studies say that the relation among the two variables is not at all prevalent . A meta analysis conducted about 20 years ago showed that the correlation between job performance and satisfaction worked out to (. 7) which was the best estimate (Iaffaldano and Muchinsky, 1985, p.

251). Similar findings approximately 20 yrs in the past reported performance and satisfaction are vaguely connected. Chapman and Chapman (1969) named the satisfcation-performance relation as a imaginary connection; a recognized link among two variables which people rationally or automatically consider that they must connect however they do not (Iaffaldano and Muchinsky, 1985, p. 270). ‘High satisfaction leads to high performance’ is an old myth adhered to by managers which is incorrect.

Satisfied workers actually may be high, average, or even low producers, and they will tend to continue the level of performance that previously brought them satisfaction. Expert sportspersons frequently encounter the consequences of being too excessively mollified with their victories. Previous truimphs at times turn them to become too contented and they do not pay attention to their games which gives the team a setback. Certain duties of the instructor include to repress the team members and to make them unhappy with their performances, to implant a new longing for success, and to inspire team members to do much better.This shows that even unhappiness can bring greater performance (Newstrom, 2007, p. 208).

A much better precise declaration of the causal connection is better performance gives more satisfaction in doing work. Usually being better at performance rewards employees financially, socially and psychologically (Newstrom, 2007, p. 208). When employees feel that they are being granted justifiably in accordance to their performance, then their satisfaction improves, and they start to work even more better.Or otherwise, when they are not rewarded justifiably, they become unhappy.

Eitherways, the height of satisfaction brings either more or less dedication, that alters the effort put in and ultimately alters performance. In the end, a never ending loop is formed between satisfaction-performance-effort (Newstrom, 2007, p. 209). Expectancy-based theories of motivation most commonly specify that satisfaction comes from incentives offered by performance. Lawler and Porter (1967) were expectancy theorists who claimed that by providing rewards hether intrinsic or extinsic in nature to employees, performance would steer to satisfaction. Locke (1970) observed satisfaction stems from performance, but over here satisfaction was seen more like a purpose of goal-directed behavior and value attainment.

Deci and Ryan’s (1985) self-determination theory, for example, claimed that satisfaction comes from the incentives that are provided to the employee because of his/her behavior, however, the motivation involved to bring forth the behavior is also significant (Judge, Thoresen, Bono and Patton, 2001, p. 378).Five studies conducted approximately 30 years ago have examined the likelihood of a joint connection between job performance and satisfaction. Out of these studies, two of them proposed that satisfaction comes from performance and not the opposite.

The study conducted by Sheridan and Slocum (1975) bore an incomplete proof for a joint connection. Another researcher named Wanous (1974) brought proof to support this join connection, but it was contingent upon the form of satisfaction –performance leads to satisfaction in intrinsic satisfaction and satisfaction leads to performance in extrinsic satisfaction.Ultimately, Prestwich (1980) discovered no important causal effect in either side (Judge et al. 2001, p. 379).

Organ (1998) proposed that the reason why a connection between performance and satisfaction was failed to be seen was because of the constricted ways used repeatedly to describe job performance. As usually, scientists have connected job performance with performance of specific job tasks. Nevertheless, certain scientists have opened up the area of performance to take in OCB.A lot of researchers have claimed that such behaviors like OCB, that comprise of notifying the organisation in advance to take a leave, staying in extra time to help other workers, providing constructive suggestions to staff, form the societal and mental background where task performance comes into the picture.

Hence, Organ proposed that when performance was abstracted largely – to take in task performance and OCB – its relationship with job satisfaction would grow higher. A meta analysis conducted by Organ and Ryan (1995) confirmed the connection between job satisfaction and OCB (. 28) (Judge et al. 2001, p. 81).

A more sophisticated meta-analysis conducted by Tim Judge and his colleagues on 312 samples with a combined N of 54,417 found the mean true correlation to be . 30. This latest analysis thus shows a much stronger connection among satisfaction and performance (Luthans, 2005, p. 215). Van Scotter (2000) conducted a survey of Air Force mechanics, whereby he concluded that contextual performance influences job satisfaction.

He studied that task and contextual performance assessments for employees who continued to remain in organization were greater than the assessments of those who had exited the organization.Employees whose contextual performance was higher also reported that they were more satisfied with their jobs and more committed to the organization. These results show that contextual performance is valued by supervisors; they recognize it and reward it (Van Scotter, 2000, p. 93). To conclude, the relationship between performance and satisfaction is a very complex one in the subject of organizational behavior.

In order to encourage good performance in the workplace, the supervisor must encourage organizational citizenship behavior and provide good jobs to employees.Even if it means to redesign the jobs to fit the employees’ interest; this not only fulfills the need of the employees but it also make work more satisfying. Employees must be refrained from engaging in bad behavior by keeping restrictions, rules or penalties (Colquitt et al. 2009, p. 51). And it has been proved that only by engaging in good and challenging activities does the employee feel satisfied and looks forward to his/her job.

Thus, stating that performance matters first, and then comes satisfaction.