Personality and Individual Differences 76 (2015) 56–61

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Employee achievement orientations and personality as predictors of job

satisfaction facets
Rachel E. Avery a,⇑, Luke D. Smillie b, Chris R. Fife-Schaw a
a
University of Surrey, AD Building, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, UK
b
Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, Victoria 3010, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper examines the incremental value of achievement orientations (Mastery-Approach; Mastery-
Received 17 June 2014 Avoid; Performance-Approach; Performance-Avoid), above Extraversion and Neuroticism, in predicting
Received in revised form 31 October 2014 two different types of satisfaction outcomes; expectation-based-job-satisfaction (EX-JS) and satisfac-
Accepted 16 November 2014
tion-with-one’s-own-job-performance (P-JS). Using structural equation modelling, data from 242 UK
government body employees showed that only Extraversion shared a (positive) relationship with EX-JS.
Whereas, the strongest relations with P-JS were found for Neuroticism and Mastery-Approach with both
Keywords:
sharing positive relationships with this satisfaction outcome. Analyses indicated that Mastery-Approach
Achievement orientation
Employee motivation
accounted for unique variance in P-JS beyond Extraversion and Neuroticism. Findings show that there
Personality is scope for experiences of satisfaction at work to be traced to stable approach competence specific
Job satisfaction motivational tendencies.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction policy (Churchill, Ford, & Walker, 1979). Personality taxonomies

Achievement Goal Theory (Dweck, 1986) proposes that individ-
uals engage in behaviour with a competence-specific purpose. This
purpose, an achievement orientation, thus describes the pattern of
cognition and action that results from pursuing various goals
(DeShon & Gillespie, 2005). These orientations have been theorised
to reflect dispositional, trait-like motivational characteristics
(Nicholls, 1989) that are distinct from basic personality traits
(Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien, 2007). Importantly, they have also
been found to relate to workplace outcomes such as learning,
training and job performance (Payne et al., 2007; Steele-Johnson,
Beauregard, Hoover, & Schmidt, 2000). In the present study, we
investigate the extent to which an employee’s achievement orien-
tation may also predict different forms of satisfaction in the work-
place, beyond that of two major personality traits already known
to impact satisfaction – Extraversion and Neuroticism.
1.1. Satisfaction in the workplace
Job satisfaction is typically conceptualised as a multidimen-
sional construct encompassing satisfaction with one’s manager,
peers, pay, promotional opportunities, job security and company
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 (0)1483686862; fax: +44 (0)1483689553.
E-mail addresses: r.e.avery@surrey.ac.uk (R.E. Avery), lsmillie@unimelb.edu.au
(L.D. Smillie), c.fife-schaw@surrey.ac.uk (C.R. Fife-Schaw).
have provided vital support for the role of dispositions in job satis-
faction (see Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000; Furnham, Petrides,
Jackson, & Cotter, 2002; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002). The current
research addresses dispositional relations not to global job satis-
faction but to two important conceptual distinctions, that of expec-
tation-based-job-satisfaction (EX-JS), and, satisfaction-with-one’s-
own-job-performance (P-JS). Inclusion of these distinct forms of
job satisfaction allows for exploration of multiple facets of job sat-
isfaction, which, could be differentially affected by personality and/
or achievement orientations. The current satisfaction facets relat-
ing to ‘expectations’ and ‘own performance’ are investigated given
theoretical relevance to achievement orientations, as described
below. EX-JS is concerned with an employee’s satisfaction in rela-
tion to whether they feel their job expectations are being fulfilled
in their current position and ‘‘emphasises the match between
expectations and perceived reality for aspects of the job taken as
a whole’’ (Bacharach, Bamberger, & Conley, 1991, p. 45). Research
has shown such satisfaction to negatively relate to role conflict
(Bacharach et al., 1991) and role overload (Bacharach & Mitchell,
1982). EX-JS is useful in assessing and understanding the extent
to which employee dispositions might differentially influence
attitudes towards job expectations currently being met. EX-JS is
thus an externally referenced measure of satisfaction in the
workplace.
The second outcome of interest, P-JS (see Steele-Johnson,
Heintz, & Miller, 2008), concerns the extent to which an individual

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.037
0191-8869/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 R.E. Avery et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 76 (2015) 56–61
is content with their own performance. P-JS is a more self-referen-
tial measure of satisfaction in the workplace compared to EX-JS.
Measures of P-JS have been previously used in laboratory settings
with P-JS often increasing in a linear fashion during the course of a
laboratory task and higher P-JS being reported under low, relative
to high, cognitive load conditions (Steele-Johnson et al., 2000).
There is no evident research which has addressed possible rela-
tionships between satisfaction with one’s own performance and
dispositional tendencies within an organisational framework. By
considering these two specific satisfaction outcomes, one can take
into account the possible non-similarity of expectations satisfac-
tion versus performance judgment satisfaction across individual
personality and achievement characteristics.
1.2. Extraversion and Neuroticism, and satisfaction at work
In examining the relation between achievement orientations
and job satisfaction, it is important to consider incremental validity
beyond broad aspects of personality that are already known to pre-
dict this outcome. Extraversion and Neuroticism – the ‘Big Two’
personality traits that appear in most major personality taxono-
mies – play significant roles in explaining job satisfaction
(Barrick & Mount, 1991). Indeed, in their influential review of per-
sonality and significant life outcomes, Ozer and Benet-Martinez
(2006) note that, while other traits are more salient predictors of
‘‘how well one does at work’’, Extraversion and Neuroticism are
the most salient predictors of ‘‘how one feels about work’’. Extra-
version positively relates, and Neuroticism negatively relates, to
global satisfaction at work (Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000;
Furnham et al., 2002; Judge & Bono, 2001; Judge, Higgins,
Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999). Judge et al. (2002) estimated true score
correlations with job satisfaction of .29 for Neuroticism and .25
for Extraversion, generalising across studies. These observations
are highly consistent with findings in the subjective well-being lit-
erature that Extraversion positively relates, and Neuroticism nega-
tively relates, to overall satisfaction with life (e.g., DeNeve &
Cooper, 1998). A comprehensive theoretical explanation for these
associations is currently lacking, however these associations are
potentially explained by the susceptibility of extraverts to positive
affective experiences and of highly-neurotic individuals to nega-
tive affective experiences (Elliot & Thrash, 2002; Larsen &
Ketelaar, 1991; Watson, Weise, Vaidya & Tellegen, 1999). Our
aim in this study is not to evaluate a particular theory of the rela-
tion between personality and job satisfaction, but rather to exam-
ine the predictive validity of achievement orientation above and
beyond personality variables that have a known link with job sat-
isfaction. For our first hypotheses, we predict that the associations
of Extraversion and Neuroticism with global job satisfaction will
generalise to the more specific conceptualisations of job satisfac-
tion, EX-JS and P-JS.
Hypothesis 1. Extraversion is positively related, whereas Neurot-
icism is negatively related, to EX-JS.
Hypothesis 2. Extraversion is positively related, whereas Neuroti-
cism is negatively related, to P-JS.
1.3. Employee achievement orientations and satisfaction at work
Dweck (1986) proposed individuals can be mastery or perfor-
mance orientated; those with a mastery-orientation are typically
concerned with developing their competence and acquiring new
skills; those with a performance-orientation are focused on the
demonstration and verification of their ability (Elliot & Dweck,
57
1988). Dweck (1986) suggested that mastery-oriented individuals
tend to hold an incremental theory reflecting beliefs that self-attri-
butes such as intelligence and skills are developable entities.
Whereas, performance-orientated individuals tend to believe that
self-attributes are fixed entities (Dweck, 1999; VandeWalle,
2003). Since this two-factor conceptualisation, both orientations
have been suggested to vary in motivational direction. Perfor-
mance-orientated individuals can be motivated either to demon-
strate superior competence relative to others (Performance-
Approach), or to avoid demonstrating inferior competence relative
to others (Performance-Avoid) (Elliot, 1999). Mastery-orientated
individuals are assumed to be motivated to either focus on the
development of competence through task mastery (Mastery-
Approach) or to strive to avoid deterioration/leaving the task
incomplete (Mastery-Avoid) (Baranik, Barron, & Finney, 2007;
Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Although there is a relative paucity of
research directly addressing the achievement orientation-job satis-
faction relationship, Joo and Park (2010) found performance-orien-
tation predicted career satisfaction (a workplace-satisfaction
variable) but no relations for mastery-orientation. Janssen and
Van Yreren (2004), and Van Yperen and Janssen (2002) found a
positive correlation between a mastery-orientation, but no relation
for performance-orientation, and global job satisfaction. These
researchers only examined the original two-factor (mastery/per-
formance) framework without considering motivational directions
(approach/avoid). Furthermore, these researchers examined satis-
faction at the global level. Some job characteristics encompassed
at this level may not be equally important to individuals with dif-
ferent achievement orientations. Considering the dimensions of
EX-JS and P-JS addresses this; how achievement orientations might
differentially relate to satisfaction concerned with ones ‘job expec-
tations’ (EX-JS) compared to a more self-orientated satisfaction
dimension (P-JS), is now outlined.
Mastery-Approach has been found to beneficially relate to
intrinsic interest in learning and training (Fisher & Ford, 1998),
higher worker self-efficacy (Phillips & Gully, 1997) and job perfor-
mance (Payne et al., 2007). With an incremental view on skill
development, Mastery-Approach individuals view the exertion of
effort (in the pursuit of competence development) as an indication
of success in itself, allowing one to gain enjoyment from their
efforts (Duda, 2001; Dweck, 1999; Elliot, 1999). As such, it is
expected that such individuals will be disposed to experience high
self-referential satisfaction (P-JS), and, given their approach like
temperament, to make more positive judgments of expectation
fulfilment (EX-JS).
Mastery-Avoid has been found to be associated with less adap-
tive outcomes including worry and test anxiety (Elliot & McGregor,
2001). Mastery-Avoid, like Mastery-Approach, stems from the per-
ception that skills are malleable (incremental view) and predomi-
nantly under one’s control (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Mastery-
Avoid individuals can also be considered to view the maintenance
of their competence (and ultimately their own performance) to
result from their exertion of effort (Elliot & McGregor, 2001) sug-
gesting Mastery-Avoid individuals would be likely to perceive their
own exerted effort as indicative of success. This encourages the
perception that Mastery-Avoid individuals would score high on a
self-referential satisfaction variable like P-JS. However, with the
observed associations between Mastery-Avoid and less affective
outcomes, and with other research finding theoretically meaning-
ful links between negative affectivity and avoidance like tempera-
ments (Elliot & Thrash, 2002), one might expect that the avoidance
nature of this dimension would generally contribute to the ten-
dency to have more diminished levels of satisfaction (at a less
self-oriented level) when thinking about expectations being met
at work (EX-JS).
58 R.E. Avery et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 76 (2015) 56–61
Performance-Approach has been found to relate to various out-
comes including the use of adaptive learning strategies in situations
where this is necessary to outperform others (Linnenbrink &
Pintrich, 2002), persistence where success is likely (Harackiewicz,
Barron, Carter, Lehto, & Elliott, 1997), and job performance
(Payne et al., 2007). Given that those high in this motivational ori-
entation view abilities as fixed (entity view), for them working
hard actually signifies low ability in the attempt to meet normative
standards (Dweck, 1999). One might expect as such, that Perfor-
mance-Approach individuals would be likely to experience self-
orientated satisfaction at work (P-JS) as means of endorsing their
competence to have met required standards of performance. Such
individuals, given their approach like temperament, are also
expected (alike Mastery-Approach individuals) to make more posi-
tive judgments on expectation fulfilment (EX-JS).
Performance-Avoid refers to the withdrawal of effort in the face
of failure (Dweck & Leggett, 1988), the experience of negative
affect following failure (Turner & Meyer, 1999), and lower intrinsic
motivation and poor performance (Elliot & Church, 1997;
Middleton & Midgley, 1997). It is the undesirable combination of
the avoidance orientation along with the theorised roots to view-
ing skills as being fixed and out of one’s control (entity view) that
contributes to the observed association with negative outcomes.
On the basis of this one might expect those high in this disposition
to generally experience dissatisfaction with their own perfor-
mance, and expectations having been met, at work.
In sum, the following hypotheses are suggested:
Hypothesis 3. The approach dimensions of mastery and perfor-
mance orientation are positively related, whereas the avoidance
dimensions of mastery and performance orientation are negatively
related, to EX-JS.
Hypothesis 4. The approach and avoidance dimensions of mastery
orientation, and performance-approach, are positively related,
whereas performance-avoidance is negatively related, to P-JS.
Personality only partly accounts for criterion variance in work-
related outcomes (Paunonen & Ashton, 2001). Extraversion and
Neuroticism are predictors of satisfaction at work, however these
traits have also been viewed as components of broad motivational
(achievement) constructs (see Elliot & Thrash, 2002). Given that
the current research is drawing upon a social-cognitive perspective
to explain satisfaction in the workplace, the extent to which more
comprehensive measures of achievement orientations can explain
unique variance in both satisfaction outcomes beyond that
explained by Extraversion and Neuroticism is of interest. Accord-
ingly, the following two hypotheses are suggested:
Hypothesis 5. Achievement orientation relates incrementally to
EX-JS over and above Extraversion and Neuroticism.
Hypothesis 6. Achievement orientation relates incrementally to P-
JS over and above Extraversion and Neuroticism.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Participants were 242 UK government employees (50.4% male).
Age was recorded in 1 of 6 possible ranges with a modal age range
of 46–55 years, accounting for 36.4% of the sample (M = 3.21,
SD = 1.18). On average, participants had worked for their organisa-
tion for 9.1 years (SD = 7.45) (85.1% full time, 14.9% part time
workers).
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Personality
The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised (short form)
(EPQ-RS; Eysenck, Eysenck, & Barrett, 1985) was used to measure
Extraversion (11-items) and Neuroticism (12-items). The Extraver-
sion subscale (a = .81in the present data set) includes items such as
‘Are you a talkative person?’, and the Neuroticism subscale (a = .85
in the present data set) includes items such as ‘Does your mood often
go up and down?’. Participants were required to respond yes or no
to items presented.
2.2.2. Achievement orientation
Elliot and McGregor’s (2001) Achievement Goals Questionnaire
(3 items per achievement dimension) was used to assess mastery-
approach (a = .85 in the present data set; e.g., ‘it is important for me
to understand things as thoroughly as possible’), mastery-avoidance
(a = .75 in the present data set; e.g., ‘I worry that I may not learn
all that I possibly could’), performance-approach (a = .79 in the pres-
ent data set; e.g., ‘it is important for me to do better than others’), and
performance-avoidance scale (a = .69 in the present data set; e.g.,
‘my fear of performing poorly is often what motivates me’). For the
purpose of the current research all items were adapted with the
word ‘work’ where appropriate in order to make items more con-
text specific. Participants responded on a scale from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
2.2.3. Expectation based job satisfaction
A 5-item scale developed by Bacharach et al. (1991) (a = .85 in
the present data set) was used with participants responding on a
scale from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 7 (very satisfied), to the items
such as ‘your present job in light of your career expectations’ and
‘your present job when you compare it to jobs in other organisations’
following the headed question ‘how satisfied or dissatisfied are you
with. . .’.
2.2.4. Satisfaction with one’s own job performance
A 2-item scale developed by Steele-Johnson et al. (2000) (a = .73
in the present data set) was used with items being taken form a lar-
ger performance perception scale developed by Steele-Johnson
et al. (2000) previously found to demonstrate good internal reli-
ability (Steele-Johnson et al., 2008; a = .80). So as to make the
items specific to the context of the current research, items were
adapted for example, ‘I am satisfied with my overall performance
on the task during this session’ became ‘I am satisfied with my overall
job performance at present’. Items were scored on a scale from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
2.3. Procedure
Paper copies of questionnaires were distributed and displayed
(along with a poster outlining voluntary survey, all welcome) in
participating departments. A total of 400 paper questionnaires
were initially distributed, and thus a response rate of 60.5% was
achieved. Participants were instructed in the questionnaire docu-
ment to post completions to an allocated collector within the orga-
nisation’s internal mail system (envelopes were provided).
Participation was voluntary and the opportunity to participate
lasted for 2 weeks. Completion of a questionnaire took approxi-
mately 15 min and employees were given the opportunity to com-
plete the questionnaire during working hours. Each questionnaire
contained a detachable information sheet assuring participants of
confidentiality and providing them with full contact details of
the primary researchers.
 R.E. Avery et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 76 (2015) 56–61 59

3. Results
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics and correlations for
all variables. To assess the relationships between the personality
variables, the achievement orientation variables and the two job
satisfaction variables a structural model was proposed with and
tested in two stages. Analyses were conducted on the covariance
matrix using ML estimation (see Fig. 1). Given the large number
of indicators of the EPQ-RS variables Extraversion and Neuroticism,
composite scores for these variables were calculated and their
known reliabilities used to calculate their respective disturbance
terms. Table 2 outlines the correlations between all the observed
variables presented in Fig. 1. In the first stage only
Extraversion and Neuroticism were allowed to predict the two
job satisfaction variables with the paths relating the achievement
orientation variables fixed to be zero. This model yielded fit indices
of v2(171) = 326.77, p < 0.01, NNFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.06,
SRMR = 0.07, suggesting moderate levels of fit. The reduced form
squared multiple correlations for EX-JS and P-JS respectively were
0.13 and 0.19.
At the second stage the direct paths between the four achieve-
ment orientation measures and the two job satisfaction measures
were freely estimated yielding model fit statistics of
v2(163) = 304.39, p < 0.01, Dv2(8) = 22.38, p < 0.005, NNFI = 0.92,
CFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.07 suggesting an improvement
in fit as a result of including the achievement orientation variables.
The reduced form squared multiple correlations for EX-JS and P-JS
increased to 0.14 and 0.27 respectively with Mastery-Approach
contributing to the increase in explained variance in P-JS only.
Fig. 1 presents this model. Extraversion predicts both forms of
job satisfaction, as predicted, and Neuroticism predicts P-JS though
not EX-JS. Of note is the unanticipated positive relationship

Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlations among study variables.

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Extraversion 6.89 3.18 –
2. Neuroticism 4.34 3.53 .25 –
3. Mastery-approach 10.69 2.97 .25 .01 –
4. Mastery-avoid 9.09 2.77 .09 .22 .14 –
5. Performance-approach 8.93 2.91 .18 .01 .24 .05 –
6. Performance-avoid 9.24 2.62 .10 .18 .04 .23 .07 –
7. P-JS 9.10 3.42 .27 .08 .35 .02 .13 .06 –
8. EX-JS 20.90 7.50 .30 .02 .20 .04 .18 .03 .51 –

Note. Correlations r P |.13|, p < .05, r P |.17|, p < .01, r P |.21|, p < .001.

Fig. 1. Structural model relating personality and achievement orientation variables with job satisfaction factors. [Figures are standardised coefficients. Paths denoting
correlations between exogenous variables have been omitted for clarity. Extrav = Extraversion; neurot = Neuroticism; em1 = Elliot and McGregor (2001) item1; satperf1 = P-
JS item 1; js1 = EX-JS item 1; MASTAPP = Mastery-Approach; MASTAV = Mastery-Avoid; PERFAPP = Performance-Approach; PERFAV = Performance-Avoid].
60 R.E. Avery et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 76 (2015) 56–61

Table 2
Correlations among observed variables (as presented in Fig. 1).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
1. Extraversion –
2. Neuroticism .245 –
3. EM1 .184 .072 –
4. EM2 .174 .020 .569 –
5. EM3 .293 .071 .636 .759 –
6. EM4 .215 .073 .133 .165 .315 –
7. EM5 .170 .049 .130 .149 .270 .649 –
8. EM6 .092 .140 .154 .080 .199 .532 .543 –
9. EM7 .097 .158 .104 .059 .054 .023 .039 .016 –
10. EM8 .087 .176 .103 .142 .106 .014 .054 .012 .496 –
11. EM9 .029 .219 .146 .128 .067 .079 .106 .092 .424 .618 –
12. EM10 .032 .131 .022 .098 .039 .023 .072 .000 .067 .131 .252 –
13. EM11 .068 .088 .020 .061 .001 .015 .026 .133 .146 .148 .211 .323 –
14. EM12 .123 .209 .018 .006 .008 .101 .061 .159 .144 .054 .203 .370 .512 –
15. P-JS 1 .293 .024 .256 .340 .327 .199 .140 .131 .074 .028 .008 .007 .073 .100 –
16. P-JS 2 .177 .113 .187 .234 .257 .046 .085 .010 .052 .039 .034 .012 .042 .007 .562 –
17. EX-JS 1 .159 .062 .122 .121 .144 .118 .042 .020 .034 .040 .027 .014 .056 .138 .403 .465 –
18. EX-JS 2 .267 .084 .148 .134 .099 .035 .003 .083 .004 .021 .028 .120 .053 .018 .291 .287 .600 –
19. EX-JS 3 .250 .083 .068 .118 .084 .112 .005 .036 .076 .009 .014 .060 .068 .044 .357 .311 .560 .684 –
20. EX-JS 4 .209 .050 .164 .134 .167 .279 .364 .251 .032 .066 .044 .150 .024 .054 .364 .296 .421 .440 .524 –
21. EX-JS 5 .288 .068 .209 .169 .259 .209 .120 .069 .071 .031 .009 .060 .062 .051 .419 .381 .573 .590 .572 .449 –

Note. EM1 = Elliot and McGregor (2001) item 1; P-JS 1 = P-JS item 1; EX-JS 1 = EX-JS item 1. Correlations r P |.13|, p < .05, r P |.17|, p < .01.

between Neuroticism and P-JS which is discussed below. The
model suggests that of the achievement orientation variables only
Mastery-Approach has an independent contribution to the vari-
ance in P-JS over and above that of Extraversion and Neuroticism.
4. Discussion
The current research aimed to extend research into personality
and job satisfaction by exploring the additive value of achievement
orientations in explaining different forms of satisfaction at work.
Only partial support was found for the predicted relations. First,
Extraversion was found to positively relate to both EX-JS and P-
JS, which is in line with the robust association this trait has with
overall satisfaction at work dimensions (Connolly & Viswesvaran,
2000; Furnham et al., 2002; Judge & Bono, 2001; Judge et al.,
1999). Second, no support was found for the predicted negative
relation between Neuroticism and both of our satisfaction mea-
sures. This finding contradicts previous findings of a negative rela-
tion between Neuroticism and satisfaction in the workplace
(Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000; Furnham et al., 2002; Judge &
Bono, 2001; Judge et al., 1999). Neuroticism may not relate to
how satisfied one is in the context of their expectations about
work, simply because their expectations are not positive or opti-
mistic in the first place. In addition, low satisfaction with one’s
own performance might reflect the belief that one has scope for
harder work and effort. As neurotic individuals tend to score lower
on measures of organisational commitment and higher on mea-
sures of burnout and fatigue (Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006), they
may be less likely to endorse this belief. This may explain why
more neurotic individuals indicated that they were more satisfied
with their own performance in the current sample. Future research
would benefit from exploration of this these possibilities.
Mastery-Approach was only positively related to P-JS, sharing
no relationship with EX-JS. The dispositional tendency to focus
on development of competence through task mastery appears to
play a more significant role in the experience of self-referential sat-
isfaction at work. This observed relationship with P-JS is consistent
with the theoretical propositions of Dweck (1986) that because
mastery-orientated individuals hold an incremental theory about
their self-attributes being developable and under their own con-
trol, they are more likely to derive enjoyment from exertion of
their efforts to increase competence. No significant relations for
any of the other achievement orientations (Mastery-Avoid, Perfor-
mance-Approach, Performance-Avoid) with either satisfaction out-
come were found. Thus the previously supported links between
Mastery-Avoid and Performance-Avoid with less affective out-
comes (Baranik et al., 2007; VandeWalle, 2003), were not sup-
ported when considering two different facets of job satisfaction.
Likewise, there was no support for previous findings for Perfor-
mance-Approach being positively related to more affective out-
comes in the workplace (Harackiewicz et al., 1997; Linnenbrink
& Pintrich, 2002; Payne et al., 2007). Analyses did however further
reveal that after controlling for Extraversion and Neuroticism, Mas-
tery-Approach was incrementally related to P-JS. This relation was
modest, but provides some support in favour of the previous prop-
ositions of researchers (Judge & Locke, 1993), that moving beyond
broad personality domains and drawing upon an existing social-
cognitive perspective to understand the dispositional source of sat-
isfaction in the workplace, is beneficial.
4.1. Limitations, implications and future directions
Current findings confirm that Extraversion and Neuroticism
play a role in the experience of satisfaction in the workplace, but
furthermore that the achievement orientation of Mastery-
Approach plays an incremental role in explaining who is more or
less likely to be satisfied with their job performance. The present
research also investigated, for the first time, both approach and
avoidance forms of achievement orientations as antecedents of sat-
isfaction at work. A novel finding was the observed positive rela-
tion of Neuroticism to P-JS. Identification of this relationship in
the current research illustrates that when different forms of satis-
faction are considered, a deeper understanding of the dispositional
source of satisfaction at work can be considered. Importantly,
although the value of considering EX-JS and P-JS rather than global
job satisfaction are implied in the current work, no global measure
was taken to substantiate this. Empirical evidence for the distinc-
tiveness of EX-JS and P-JS relative to global satisfaction is neces-
sary. It is important to note that more empirical evidence for the
reliability and validity of the two item P-JS measure within an
organisational rather than lab context, in particular, is also
essential.
 R.E. Avery et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 76 (2015) 56–61
Findings specific to Mastery-Approach in the current research
contribute to the growing consensus of this construct’s practical
value in understanding behavioural and emotional manifestations
in the workplace (Steele-Johnson et al., 2000). On the basis of such
an understanding and given that one’s achievement orientation is
found to be fairly stable over time (Chen, Gully, Whiteman, &
Kilcullen, 2000), practical implications can be considered to also
hold at a personnel selection level. With the aim of selecting
employees more likely to experience the affective state of satisfac-
tion with their own performance, organisations might benefit from
using selection methods that measure a prospective employee’s
Mastery-Approach tendencies. In sum, the current findings provide
an important illustration of how satisfaction at work can be linked
with stable competence specific motivational tendencies.
References
Bacharach, B. P., Bamberger, P., & Conley, S. (1991). Work-home conflict among
nurses and engineers: Mediating the impact of role stress on burnout and
satisfaction at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 1239–1253.
Bacharach, S., & Mitchell, S. (1982). The quality of working life of professional,
technical, and scientific employees of New York State. NYSSILR, Cornell University,
Ithaca, N.Y: Report to the Joint Committee on Professional Development and
QWL.
Baranik, L. E., Barron, K. E., & Finney, S. J. (2007). Measuring goal orientation in a
work domain: Construct validity evidence for the 2  2 framework. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 67, 697–718.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job
performance. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
Chen, G. M., Gully, S. M., Whiteman, J., & Kilcullen, R. N. (2000). Examination of
relationships among trait-like individual differences, state-like individual
differences, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
835–847.
Churchill, G., Ford, N., & Walker, J. (1979). Personal characteristics of salespeople
and the attractiveness of alternative rewards. Journal of Business Research, 7,
25–50.
Connolly, J. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2000). The role of affectivity in job satisfaction: A
meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 265–281.
DeShon, R. P., & Gillespie, J. Z. (2005). A motivated action theory account of goal
orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1096–1127.
DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137
personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 197.
Duda, J. L. (2001). Achievement goal research in sport: Pushing the boundaries and
clarifying some misunderstandings. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Advances in motivation
in sport and exercise (pp. 129–182). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Books.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American
Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-Theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and
development. Philadelphia, PA: The Psychology Press, Taylor and Francis Group.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals.
Educational Psychologist, 34, 169–189.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance
achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72,
218–232.
Elliot, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and
achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5–12.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2  2 achievement goal framework. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501–519.
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality
approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 82, 804–818.
61
Eysenck, S. B. G., Eysenck, H. J., & Barrett, P. (1985). A revised version of the
psychoticism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 21–29.
Fisher, S. L., & Ford, J. K. (1998). Differential effects of learner effort and goal
orientation on two learning outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 51, 397–420.
Furnham, A., Petrides, K. V., Jackson, C. J., & Cotter, T. (2002). Do personality factors
predict job satisfaction? Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 1325–1342.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., Lehto, A. T., & Elliot, A. J. (1997).
Predictors and consequences of achievement goals in the college classroom:
Maintaining interest and making the grade. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 73, 1284–1295.
Janssen, O., & Van Yreren, N. W. (2004). Employees goal orientations, the quality of
leader–member exchange and the outcomes of job performance and
satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 368–384.
Joo, B., & Park, S. (2010). Career satisfaction, organizational commitment, and
turnover intention. The effects of goal orientation, organizational learning
culture and developmental feedback. Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, 31, 482–500.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits, self-
esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability with
job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 80–92.
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and
job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530–541.
Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big five
personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span.
Personnel Psychology, 52, 621–652.
Judge, T. A., & Locke, E. A. (1993). Effect of dysfunctional thought processes on
subjective well-being and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,
475–490.
Larsen, R. J., & Ketelaar, T. (1991). Personality and susceptibility to positive and
negative emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(1),
132.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic
success. School Psychology Review, 31, 313–327.
Middleton, M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability:
An under-explored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89,
710–718.
Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of
consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421.
Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big five factors and facets and the prediction
of behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 524–539.
Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S., & Beaubien, J. M. (2007). A meta-analytic examination of
the goal orientation nomological net. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 128–150.
Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, need for
achievement, and locus of control in the self-efficacy and goal-setting process.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 792–802.
Steele-Johnson, D., Beauregard, R. S., Hoover, P. D., & Schmidt, A. M. (2000). Goal
orientation and task demand effects on motivation, affect and performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 724–738.
Steele-Johnson, D., Heintz, P., & Miller, C. E. (2008). Examining situationally induced
state goal orientation effects on task perceptions, performance, and satisfaction:
A two-dimensional conceptualization. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38,
334–365.
Turner, J., & Meyer, D. (1999). Integrating classroom context into motivation theory
and research: Rationales, methods and implications. Advances in Motivation and
Achievement, 11, 87–121.
Van Yperen, N. W., & Janssen, O. (2002). Fatigued and dissatisfied or fatigued but
satisfied? Goal orientations and responses to high job demands. Academy of
Management Journal, 45, 1161–1171.
VandeWalle, D. (2003). A goal orientation model of feedback-seeking behaviour.
Human Resource Management Review, 13, 581–604.
Watson, D., Weise, D., Vaidya, J., & Tellegen, A. (1999). The two general activation
systems of affect: Structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and
psychobiological evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(5),
820–838.