See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/309878713

Does positivity enhance work performance?: Why, when, and what we don’t
know

Article  in  Research in Organizational Behavior · November 2016

DOI: 10.1016/j.riob.2016.11.002

CITATIONS READS

62 5,146

3 authors, including:

Elizabeth R. Tenney Ed Diener

University of Utah University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
31 PUBLICATIONS   739 CITATIONS    431 PUBLICATIONS   153,235 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Measurement and psychosocial factors of well being View project

Health psychology View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Elizabeth R. Tenney on 22 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

G Model
RIOB 95 No. of Pages 20

Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research in Organizational Behavior

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

Does positivity enhance work performance?: Why, when, and

what we don’t know
Elizabeth R. Tenneya,* , Jared M. Poolea , Ed Dienera,b
a
University of Utah, United States
b
University of Virginia, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history:
Available online xxx There is evidence, spanning many decades of research, that the subjective well-being
(SWB) of workers, including life satisfaction, job satisfaction, and positive affect, positively
correlates with the performance of workers and organizations. However, the size of the
Keywords: relationships is typically small to moderate. In this review we address the question of why
Subjective well-being the relationships are not stronger. We first review evidence of a relationship moving from
Job satisfaction well-being to performance through various pathways. Workers who are high in SWB are
Affect now understood to have: 1. better health, 2. lower absenteeism, 3. greater self-regulation, 4.
Performance
stronger motivation, 5. enhanced creativity, 6. positive relationships, and 7. lower turnover.
Productivity
Each of these variables can predict individual and organizational performance. However,
the sheer number of known and possible pathways means the relationships are bound to be
complex, and there are mitigating conditions at every turn. Thus, second, we review the
evidence of moderators of these mediators, hypothesizing when a happier workforce is a
more productive one, and when not. Future research is needed to firmly establish the
pathways from different types of SWB through the mediators to metrics of performance, to
further establish the moderating conditions in which these relations are most likely to
occur, and to evaluate how much SWB is needed to maximize effectiveness. We end by
urging scholars to conduct this future research using the highest standards of scientific
integrity.
ã 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Contents

1. How is SWB measured? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

2. SWB and performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2.1. SWB and individual performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2.2. SWB and organizational performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2.3. How large is the benefit? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3. Why (and why not) SWB influences performance—the mediators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.1. Relationships between SWB and seven mediators . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.1.1. SWB and health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: tenney@business.utah.edu (E.R. Tenney),
jared.poole@utah.edu (J.M. Poole), ediener@illinois.edu (E. Diener).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.11.002
0191-3085/ã 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Please cite this article in press as: E.R. Tenney, et al., Does positivity enhance work performance?: Why, when, and what we
don’t know, Research in Organizational Behavior (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.11.002
G Model
RIOB 95 No. of Pages 20

2 E.R. Tenney et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

3.1.2. SWB and absenteeism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

3.1.3. SWB and self-regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.1.4. SWB and motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.1.5. SWB and creativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.1.6. SWB and relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.1.7. SWB and job turnover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.2. Relationships between seven mediators and performance outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.2.1. Health and performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.2.2. Absenteeism and performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.2.3. Self-regulation and performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.2.4. Motivation and performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.2.5. Creativity and performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.2.6. Relationships and performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.2.7. Turnover and performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
4. Summary of mediators and moderators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
5. Future scholarship and research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
5.1. How much SWB is enough? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
5.2. Issue of what types of SWB are beneficial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
5.3. More sophisticated and ambitious research methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
5.4. Scientific integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
6. Summary of future scholarship and research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

For many decades organizational scholars have studied
the relationship between positivity and subjective well-
being (SWB) and work performance and generally
conclude that the strength of the relationship is small to
moderate (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001; Kinicki,
Schriesheim, Mckee-Ryan, & Carson, 2002; Riketta, 2008).
The issue we address in this chapter is why the relationship
is not stronger. SWB is defined as people’s evaluations of
their lives, both cognitive appraisals and responses of the
affect system (moods and emotions) to events (Diener,
Lucas, & Oishi, 2016). We can examine SWB in life as a
whole, but we can also focus on specific facets within the
global category of SWB that relate to life at work, including
job satisfaction, positive affect at work, and absence of job
stress or negative affect at work (Bowling, Eschleman, &
Wang, 2010; Rice, Near, & Hunt, 1980). These facets of SWB
can be divided into yet narrower categories, such as
satisfaction with one’s supervisor or anger on the job, and
they can reflect a general dispositional tendency or a more
temporary state response.
It seems as though SWB should matter a great deal for
work performance; happy workers are more likely to show
up, try hard, and excel. Indeed, we review evidence of the
many pathways through which SWB can predict work
performance. We discuss potential benefits of high SWB
for health, absenteeism, self-regulation, motivation, crea-
tivity, relationships, and turnover, and we review evidence
tying these outcomes to individual and organizational
performance. In light of the many pathways, we therefore
wonder, why is the overall relationship not much stronger?
We suggest that the answer is that for each of the pathways
there are constraining conditions that determine whether
each step in that pathway will matter or not. Going from
SWB to mediators, as well as from these mediators to
performance, we hypothesize that certain circumstances
must be in place before that pathway will benefit
performance.
In this chapter, we first briefly review the literature on
SWB and individual and organizational performance,
emphasizing the modest effect sizes usually found. We
then review the relationship between SWB and a number
of mediators of performance, and we describe the
circumstances that may make the connections between
SWB and these mediators stronger or weaker. Next, we
review how these mediators can relate to performance
(e.g., productivity, profitability, customer satisfaction), and
we suggest reasons that they may or may not predict it.
Finally, we suggest areas of focus for future research, such
as how much SWB is enough to optimize performance and
why various types of SWB might predict different aspects
of performance. We end by encouraging researchers to
conduct this future research using more sophisticated
research methods and the highest standards of scientific
integrity.
We believe that the next decade of research in this area
should focus on when and when not the various pathways
from SWB to performance have an effect. Thus, we reframe
the question of whether work SWB is related to work
performance to the question of when it is and when it is
not. Such answers will help organizational scholars more
knowledgeably advise management on the actual likely
benefits and costs of worker SWB.
1. How is SWB measured?
We thought it would be useful to include a brief
summary of how researchers have studied and operation-
alized SWB and SWB at work. More extensive and
comprehensive reviews can be found elsewhere (e.g.,
Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999; Diener et al., 2016; Judge
& Klinger, 2008). SWB is an umbrella term that spans levels
of specificity (e.g., life as a whole or specific aspects of life,
such as work), constructs (e.g., positive affect, absence of
negative affect, positive mood, mental health, and more

Please cite this article in press as: E.R. Tenney, et al., Does positivity enhance work performance?: Why, when, and what we
don’t know, Research in Organizational Behavior (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.11.002
G Model
RIOB 95 No. of Pages 20
E.R. Tenney et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
colloquially, happiness and morale), and levels of stability
(e.g., trait or state). The goal when measuring SWB is to
assess how people evaluate their own lives or aspects of
their own lives (hence, subjective well-being), focusing on
how good they feel and how content or satisfied they are
(Diener et al., 1999). Typically (although not always), SWB
is measured via self-report, and there are several
established questionnaires (e.g., Satisfaction with Life
Scale (SWLS), Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985).
Examples of items on the SWLS are, “I am satisfied with my
life” and “The conditions of my life are excellent.” This scale
and others have been adapted to be specific to work
situations. For example, questionnaires assessing job
satisfaction ask people how much they agree with state-
ments like, “I feel fairly satisfied with my present job”
(Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000). This item assesses global job
satisfaction, but other measures get more specific,
separating job satisfaction into satisfaction with compen-
sation, coworkers, supervisors, and the work itself (Smith,
Kendall, & Hulin, 1969; Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist,
1967) or assessing emotions felt at work (Van Katwyk, Fox,
Spector, & Kelloway, 2000).
In experiments, researchers try to manipulate SWB
short term to examine its immediate effects on behavior.
They try to put participants in a good mood via praise, gifts,
funny or uplifting movies, upbeat songs, an experience of
success, or remembering a positive event. Experimenters
have tried to put participants in a less good mood via sad or
fear-inducing movies, music in a minor key, remembering
a sad event, an experience of failure at a task, and anxiety-
provoking situations like public speaking (see Lyubomir-
sky, King, and Diener, 2005, for a review). Thus, there is
versatility in how researchers manipulate and measure
SWB, work SWB, and experimentally-induced SWB;
nevertheless, such data provide a valuable window into
how people evaluate life outside of and within organiza-
tions.
2. SWB and performance
Next, a note on what we mean by performance. To date,
the literature exploring SWB and performance has used
myriad measures of performance. In this way, the
literature on SWB and performance is representative of
the literature on performance in the field of organizational
behavior as a whole. Specifically, studies of SWB have
included objective measures of financial outcomes
(Schneider, Hanges, Smith, & Salvaggio, 2003), objective
measures of productivity (Hollenbeck & Williams, 1986;
Miner & Glomb, 2010; Mirvis & Lawler, 1977; see Moore &
Tenney, 2012b, on the distinction between productivity
and performance), subjective performance evaluations
(Hosie & Sevastos, 2009; Ostroff, 1992; Staw, Sutton, &
Pelled, 1994), and industry-specific performance metrics
such as standardized test scores (Ostroff, 1992) and
professionalism exhibited on phone calls in a call center
(Rothbard & Wilk, 2011). The benefit of having these
diverse ways of measuring performance across different
organizations and experimental settings in the literature is
that researchers have largely been able to capture the
nuances and idiosyncrasies of performance in different
Please cite this article in press as: E.R. Tenney, et al., Does positivity enhance work performance?: Why, when, and what we
don’t know, Research in Organizational Behavior (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.11.002
3
industries. But the challenge is in drawing coherent
connections across them to understand the causes of a
complex and multifaceted dependent variable.
With this in mind, in the next sections, we attempt to
strike a balance by extracting broad trends when possible
but using specific operationalizations of performance
when describing specific research studies to maintain
the nuances. We discuss the evidence from longitudinal,
cross-cultural, and sometimes experimental research that
SWB is associated with performance outcomes at the
individual and organizational levels; however, the size of
these relationships is usually modest.
2.1. SWB and individual performance
At the individual level, there is compelling evidence
that employees with higher SWB tend to be more
successful in the workplace, often earning higher salaries,
although the effects are typically not huge (which we
discuss further in the next section). One meta-analysis
found a small cross-sectional correlation between job
satisfaction and pay level, r = .15 (Judge, Piccolo, Podsakoff,
Shaw, & Rich, 2010). Despite the small size of the effect,
longitudinal studies suggest a reliable effect. In a large and
representative sample of individuals in the U.S., using
siblings as comparison controls, as well as controlling for
intelligence and health, higher positive affect in adoles-
cents and young adults predicted significantly higher later
levels of income (with rs around .08 or .09 at each time
point) (De Neve & Oswald, 2012). Likewise, cheerful
adolescents later had higher incomes, controlling for
parental income, as well as lower rates of unemployment
(Diener, Nickerson, Lucas, & Sandvik, 2002). This income
finding has been replicated across cultures and also across
various forms of SWB (e.g., life satisfaction and “residual
happiness” after controlling for many of the usual
determinants of it). For example, SWB positively predicted
later income in Australia (Marks & Fleming, 1999), Russia
(Graham, Eggers, & Sukhtankar, 2004), and South Korea
(Koo & Suh, 2013).
The higher income of people with greater SWB is
potentially based at least in part on better objective
performance. For example, bank employees with greater
job satisfaction on average produced more revenue
(Dotson & Allenby, 2010), and customer service represen-
tatives who started the day in a bad mood logged fewer
calls per hour (Rothbard & Wilk, 2011). In addition to
measures of performance based on client or customer
interactions, peer and supervisors’ subjective evaluations
of employees show a similar pattern. The rated perfor-
mance of happier people on average is often superior. Job
satisfaction, trait positive affect, and absence of trait
negative affect all related to supervisors’ performance
ratings of employees (Bouckenooghe, Raja, & Butt, 2013;
Wright, Cropanzano, & Bonett, 2007), and MBA students
who were high in dispositional positive affect had higher
peer-ratings and staff-observer ratings in terms of their
contributions to discussions, competence, and leadership
potential (Staw & Barsade, 1993). These studies are
consistent with the idea that people use high SWB as a
clue when evaluating others’ performance; they assume
G Model
RIOB 95 No. of Pages 20
4 E.R. Tenney et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
workers high in SWB are more competent (Fisher, 2003;
Tenney, Logg, & Moore, 2015). These studies also could
suggest that if happy workers perform better at work, their
high performance gets noticed by customers, peers, and
supervisors.
A positive relationship between SWB and performance
is also uncovered when researchers assess dimensions of
SWB related to mental health and psychological well-
being. A meta-analysis found that depression and anxiety
were inversely related to individual performance, includ-
ing task performance (e.g., productivity and proficiency);
contextual performance (e.g., helping others; going above
and beyond); and supervisor or peer-rated performance
(Ford, Cerasoli, Higgins, & Decesare, 2011). The magnitude
of these effects were similar to one another, and small
(r = .18). Stress is often found to be associated with lower
levels of performance (e.g., Kazmi, Amjad, & Khan, 2008;
but see Lupien and Lepage, 2001). But it depends on where
the stress comes from; stress from a good challenge has
different, less detrimental, effects than stress from
something like red tape or role ambiguity (Lepine,
Podsakoff, & Lepine, 2005). There is also potentially an
inverted U-shape relationship between stress and cogni-
tive performance on tasks requiring memory and atten-
tion, but this refers to acute episodes of stress rather than
more chronic psychological stress (Kagan, 2016; Kazmi
et al., 2008). Thus, although the relationship between
stress and performance is complex, chronic stress and poor
mental health are likely related to lower individual
performance at work.
The correlational and longitudinal findings described
above suggest that high SWB predicts later work success;
however, they cannot establish a causal relationship
between SWB and performance. There are some experi-
mental findings that provide evidence for a causal
relationship (Boehm & Lyubomirsky, 2008), which we
describe below, but this research has some limitations
(e.g., small sample sizes and high researcher degrees of
freedom; see Simmons, Nelson, and Simonsohn, 2011) and
should be interpreted cautiously. The experimental evi-
dence in support of a link between SWB and performance
is strongest for performance in social situations and/or
when oneself or others provide subjective (rather than
objective) evaluations of performance. For example,
researchers found that participants in a positive mood
(who viewed cartoons and received a gift) were more
collaborative and had better joint outcomes during a role-
played negotiation than a neutral control condition,
particularly when the negotiation was face-to-face (Car-
nevale & Isen, 1986). In other social tasks (e.g., singing in
front of someone, public speaking), participants who were
coached to reappraise their anxiety as positive, excited
feelings (versus calm or neutral feelings) also performed
better at the tasks (Brooks, 2014). In addition to better
performance in social situations, induced SWB appears to
benefit performance when performance is rated subjec-
tively (e.g., by oneself or others). For example, under-
graduates imagined a happy, sad, or neutral situation of
their choosing for 12 min and then performed a mental-
rotation task. Those in the happy condition rated
themselves as having performed better on the difficult
Please cite this article in press as: E.R. Tenney, et al., Does positivity enhance work performance?: Why, when, and what we
don’t know, Research in Organizational Behavior (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.11.002
task, when it was ambiguous to them how well they
actually performed, and were more optimistic about their
future performance (Wright & Michel, 1982). Thus, high
SWB may help make a positive impression and win people
over, and it may lead to optimism and self-efficacy.
However, when examining performance on individual,
cognitive tasks using objective performance metrics, SWB
inductions are not likely to have an immediate effect.
Researchers investigating this link randomly assigned
participants to receive positive or negative feedback that
affected their optimism about doing well on an upcoming
task (e.g., a short math test or a visual search). They found
that the induced optimism had essentially zero effect on
performance, though it did increase participants’ task
persistence slightly, which could turn into better perfor-
mance in the long run (Tenney et al., 2015). Thus,
experimentally induced SWB likely improves some per-
formance metrics related to work; however, SWB might be
beneficial primarily for social situations, getting people to
approach difficult tasks, or to enhance learning and
performance over time, when persistence matters, rather
than for boosting immediate improvement on cognitive
tasks (Bandura, 1977; Tenney et al., 2015; but see Oswald,
Proto, & Sgroi, 2015).
2.2. SWB and organizational performance
Relative to individual performance, there is consider-
ably less research exploring the link between SWB and
performance at the organizational level; however, there is
some evidence that employee SWB helps predict an
organization’s performance, which we review below.
Focusing on financial performance, employee satisfac-
tion tends to be associated with higher firm earnings. One
review comparing Fortune magazine’s 100 best companies
to work for in America (which is based largely on whether
employees give the company positive evaluations) from
1984 to 2011 to peer companies that did not make the list
found that the “Best Companies” had higher firm value and
future stock returns (Edmans, 2012). Employee satisfaction
(determined from employees’ reviews on Glassdoor.com)
also predicted firm value among the “Best Companies” list,
such that organizations on the list with higher employee
satisfaction also tended to have higher firm earnings
(Moniz & de Jong, 2014). In company acquisitions,
employee-friendly practices (e.g., employee involvement
in management decision making; strong benefits) pre-
dicted the performance of the acquired company, and this
relationship was strongest in human-capital intensive
firms (Ertugrul, 2013). Longitudinal studies corroborate
these findings. Employee satisfaction at Time 1 significant-
ly correlated with profits and customer satisfaction in a
restaurant chain a year later (Koys, 2001). Similarly,
another longitudinal study found that across multiple
waves of data collection, job satisfaction (summed across
various aspects of the job) significantly predicted future
return on assets and earnings per share (Schneider et al.,
2003). In sum, having satisfied workers seems to predict
later revenue, sales, and profit.
Likewise, employee SWB helps predict organizational
performance according to nonfinancial metrics. Employee
G Model
RIOB 95 No. of Pages 20
E.R. Tenney et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
satisfaction among teachers was positively correlated with
student achievement test scores, student behavior, and
student satisfaction, aggregated to index school-level
performance (Ostroff, 1992). Teachers with higher life
satisfaction also ended up with higher student success
measures than their less satisfied peers (Duckworth,
Quinn, & Seligman, 2009). And in a meta-analysis across
different types of organizations (including schools, banks,
restaurants, retail stores, and health care units), employee
satisfaction was positively correlated with customer
satisfaction, productivity, and composite business-unit
performance scores, and were negatively correlated with
workdays lost due to safety incidents. These outcome
variables were all analyzed at the business-unit level
(Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002).
However, not all findings are supportive of a link from
worker SWB to individual or organization performance.
For example, employee satisfaction predicted grocery store
profitability in a large dataset of over 38,000 employee
surveys, controlling for store size (Keiningham, Aksoy,
Daly, Perrier, & Solom, 2006); however, Silvestro (2002)
found the opposite; that employee satisfaction was
inversely related to grocery store profitability. Wright,
Cropanzano, Denney, and Moline (2002) found in a
longitudinal study of public sector managers that although
psychological well-being predicted their job performance
(as rated by supervisors), both job satisfaction and
dispositional affect failed to do so. The inconsistencies
fit with some hypotheses that positive affect will not
necessarily benefit performance in all situations (Clore &
Huntsinger, 2009; Forgas & George, 2001; Gruber, Mauss, &
Tamir, 2011). Thus, there are likely important moderators
of the relationship between SWB and performance, and we
should not assume that the relationship is positive or even
exists in all business contexts.
In sum, at both the individual and organizational levels,
a considerable body of evidence indicates that happiness
and performance can go together. Studies using various
forms of SWB and generalizing across cultures indicate
that SWB can predict higher later income, controlling for
some possible confounding factors (for reviews, also see
Barsade & Gibson, 2007, 2012; Brief & Weiss, 2002).
However, as we discuss in more detail next, this relation-
ship, while nontrivial, is not always present, and is not
large. Overall, reviews and meta-analyses have found
small-to-moderate relationships between job satisfaction
and employee or organization performance (Judge et al.,
2001; Kinicki et al., 2002; Riketta, 2008).
2.3. How large is the benefit?
Given the many studies purporting a positive relation-
ship between SWB and individual or organizational
performance, one might predict that the effect of employee
SWB on productivity and profits would be immense.
Instead, we see that the size of the relationships are usually
modest to moderate, and sometimes are not found at all
(Judge et al., 2001; Kinicki et al., 2002; Riketta, 2008). For
example, in a large meta-analysis, employee satisfaction
and aggregate business unit performance was correlated
.22, which is a small effect (it became a moderate effect
Please cite this article in press as: E.R. Tenney, et al., Does positivity enhance work performance?: Why, when, and what we
don’t know, Research in Organizational Behavior (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.11.002
5
when measurement error was statistically corrected, .37).
The correlations were strongest for the specific dependent
variable of customer loyalty, r around .3, and smallest for
profitability, r = .15 (Harter et al., 2002).
If we assume SWB should affect performance, why
would the measured relationship be small? Several factors
may be at work. First, employee satisfaction may be costly
to organizations, and this cost may offset the potential
gains. Second, there are many determinants of individual
and organizational performance, and SWB is only one of
them. When there are so many variables at play, any one
factor such as SWB is bound to have only a moderate
influence. Third, there is a possibility that the relationship
between SWB and performance could be curvilinear; for
example, people who are at the extremely high end in SWB
compared to high could have lower incomes if they instead
focus on volunteer work or other hobbies (Oishi & Koo,
2008; Oishi, Diener, & Lucas, 2007) or if their high SWB
makes them seem annoyingly overconfident or arrogant to
their colleagues (Murphy et al., 2015; Tenney & Spellman,
2011). Fourth, there is the possibility of measurement
error, in that studies using subjective ratings of perfor-
mance may show bias toward those who are more likeable
and have positive dispositions, whereas actual perfor-
mance effects may not be as large (Staw et al., 1994). In the
remaining sections, we explore two additional potential
suppressors. We propose that the path between SWB and
performance is indirect, operating through multiple
mediators (see Fig. 1), and we propose that these
mediators are often situation-specific in their relationships
with SWB and with performance. For example, the
strength and direction of the relationship between SWB
and each mediator will depend on many factors; likewise
the relationship between each mediator and performance
will depend on many factors (e.g., characteristics of the
individual, the task, the organization, and the current
economy). The mediation pathways do not uniformly
benefit organizations in all situations (see Table 1). In the
next sections, we explore these fifth and sixth possibilities
regarding mediators, focusing first on the relationships
between SWB and each mediator, and then turning to the
relationships between each mediator and performance.
3. Why (and why not) SWB influences performance—the
mediators
What are the processes that connect worker SWB with
performance? In Fig. 1, we present a list of potential
mediators linking worker to individual and organizational
performance. Although several mediators (e.g., absentee-
ism, motivation, turnover) could be considered perfor-
mance variables in and of themselves, we defer to the
distinction between process and outcome performance (see
e.g., Taris and Schaufeli, 2015), with the former being
behaviors people do on the job to achieve (or not achieve)
their work goals, and the latter referring to quality and
quantity of what gets produced. Thus, we treat the
mediators as process variables, and we explore these
mediators in turn.
In line with the aims of this review, we examine seven
variables that are likely important players in the pathway
G Model
RIOB 95 No. of Pages 20
6 E.R. Tenney et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Fig. 1. A simplified model of many pathways by which subjective well-being is related to individual and organizational work performance. There are
moderating forces that can operate at each line in the model.
between SWB and performance (see Fig. 1). We purport
that these variables function as mediators and can help
explain why SWB is related to performance; however, the
path to and from any given mediator is not straightforward
and not necessarily strong. As will become apparent in the
remainder of this review, there are many caveats, nuances,
and reversals that can occur (see Table 1). In other words,
there are many moderators that can affect the pathways
among SWB, the mediators, and performance. We attempt
to highlight them. These mediators and the circumstances
moderating them could explain why the relationship
between SWB and performance is relatively small. We first
explore the relationships between SWB and each mediator.
Then we explore the relationships between each mediator
and performance.
3.1. Relationships between SWB and seven mediators
3.1.1. SWB and health
The most straightforward mediator between SWB and
performance is probably that of individuals’ health. Broad
reviews and meta-analyses of research confirm that
positive moods and various forms of SWB are correlated
with better health and greater longevity, even when initial
health and other factors are controlled (Chida & Steptoe,
2008; Diener & Chan, 2011; Diener, Kanazawa, Suh, & Oishi,
2015; Howell, Kern, & Lyubomirsky, 2007; Lyubomirsky
et al., 2005; Pressman & Cohen, 2005; Rugulies, 2002; Russ
et al., 2012).
SWB has been shown to be associated with specific
physiological markers of good health (Ong, 2010). For
example, among middle-aged men and women, those high
in positive affect had lower inflammatory, cardiovascular,
and neuroendocrine problems, lower ambulatory heart
rate, and lower cortisol output across the day (Steptoe,
Wardle, & Marmot, 2005). Furthermore, positive affect was
associated with lower blood fat and blood pressure and a
healthier body mass index (Blanchflower, Oswald, &
Stewart-Brown, 2013), whereas depression was associated
with the tendency to suffer illnesses such as diabetes and
cardiovascular disease (Strine, Chapman, Balluz, Moriarty,
& Mokdad, 2008). Suggesting the direction of the
Please cite this article in press as: E.R. Tenney, et al., Does positivity enhance work performance?: Why, when, and what we
don’t know, Research in Organizational Behavior (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.11.002
relationship going from SWB to health, a longitudinal
study following over 6000 adults for 15 years (who were
initially symptom-free) found that participants who had
high “emotional vitality” [an amalgam of: 1) energy and
pep, 2) happiness and life satisfaction, and 3) emotional
stability and security], or were high on any category of
emotional vitality, were less likely to develop coronary
heart disease over the course of the study (Kubzansky &
Thurston, 2007). The experimental literature provides
further evidence of a directional link from SWB to health,
although the individual experiments have small samples
compared to today’s standards (e.g., fewer than 50 partic-
ipants per condition). Inducing positive feelings in
participants led to quicker cardiovascular recovery after
viewing an anxiety-inducing film or after prepping for
public speaking (Fredrickson & Levenson, 1998; Fredrick-
son, Mancuso, Branigan, & Tugade, 2000). Interventions to
reduce negative affect have led to signs of temporary
improvements in immune function (Kiecolt-Glaser et al.,
1986).
In addition to physiological markers of health, we can
also examine healthy behaviors and choices. Boehm and
Kubzansky (2012) and Boehm, Peterson, Kivimaki, and
Kubzansky (2011) discovered that those with positive
moods were more likely to exercise often and eat a
nutritious diet. Experimental evidence also suggests that
happiness improves patients’ adherence to their own plan
of care. For example, in a randomized controlled experi-
ment of people with hypertension, researchers made
periodic phone calls asking participants to think about
small good things in their lives, gave participants small
gifts before each phone call, and they encouraged self-
affirmation exercises. This positive affect treatment group
showed significantly greater medication adherence (42%
versus 36%) than a control group that received only
educational instruction (Ogedegbe et al., 2012), although
the p-value was high (p = .049), and there were no clear
differences between groups in terms of ultimate health
outcomes during the course of the experiment.
Some research has also found that specifically work
SWB predicts health. For example, job satisfaction was
associated with better mental health and fewer somatic
G Model
RIOB 95 No. of Pages 20

E.R. Tenney et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 7

Table 1
List of mediators, propositions, and modifications.

Relationship between subjective well-being (SWB) and mediator Relationship between mediator and performance

Mediator Proposition Modification Proposition Modification

Health SWB is associated Companies that provide employees with Better health is 1. Better health is associated with better
with better health opportunities to exercise and participate in associated with performance especially in occupations for
(physiological and fitness programs likely attenuate the better which energy and vigor is important
healthy choices) relationship between SWB and health by performance 2. Better health is associated with better
bringing more workers up to healthier levels performance especially when taking sick
days is particularly costly (see absentee-
ism)

Absenteeism SWB predicts lower 1. When the unemployment rate is low, job Lower 1. Lower absenteeism predicts better per-
absenteeism prospects are good, and so dissatisfied absenteeism formance primarily on teams that need to
employees may feel freer to shirk work predicts better stay synchronized
obligations without fear of joblessness, performance 2. Lower absenteeism predicts better per-
thereby increasing the relationship be- formance especially for specialized roles
tween SWB and low absenteeism requiring high expertise
2. Family dynamics can matter: “sole bread-
winners” and employees with children are
less likely to be absent, weakening the
influence of SWB on absenteeism
3. Workers without sick day benefits are less
likely to be absent even if ill, weakening
the influence of SWB on absenteeism

Self- SWB predicts more SWB does not have the chance to affect self- Self-regulation Self-regulation does not have the chance to
regulation self-regulation regulation much when jobs have high predicts better affect performance much when jobs have
external regulation (e.g., supervisor) or low performance high external regulation (e.g., supervisor) or
flexibility low flexibility
Motivation SWB is associated Sometimes negative affect and dissatisfaction Stronger 1. Motivation likely does not help perfor-
with stronger with the status quo help motivation motivation mance as much as people think it does
motivation predicts given the importance of talent, luck, and
improved skill
performance 2. The type of motivation (e.g., financial
incentives) should fit with the person and
task to be most effective

Creativity SWB predicts Sometimes negative affect and dissatisfaction Enhanced In some work, creativity is not valued and will
enhanced creativity with the status quo help creativity creativity not help performance enough to offset the
predicts resources needed to foster it
improved
performance
Relationships SWB predicts more 1. Sometimes lower SWB predicts more Positive 1. Positive relationships predict better per-
positive relationships positive relationships when people expe- relationships formance particularly in occupations in
rience negative affect and can commiser- predict better which social interactions are central to the
ate about a common antagonist performance job
2. Sometimes lower SWB strengthens rela- 2. Positive relationships could hurt perfor-
tionships because emotions like guilt and mance if people distract each other in the
embarrassment help repair relationships process of relationship building and
maintenance

Turnover SWB predicts lower SWB at work is a clear predictor of turnover Lower turnover 1. Lower turnover is especially beneficial to
turnover especially when the job market is strong and predicts better performance when expertise is critical
workers are highly skilled so that they have a performance 2. Lower turnover is not as beneficial to
choice of jobs performance when weak employees and
those with poor fit to their jobs stick
around
3. Lower turnover is not as beneficial to
performance when the company needs
fresh perspectives

symptoms and insomnia (Janyam, 2009). A large meta-
analysis of the literature, which included 485 studies,
found that the relation between job satisfaction and health
was moderate, r = .31. The relation with mental health was
the strongest, but even for physical illness the relation was
r = .29 (Faragher, Cass, & Cooper, 2005). These
relationships are only moderate possibly because there
are so many determinants of health, and in fact, for this
reason, the effect sizes are actually surprisingly large. Also,
companies that provide employees with opportunities to
exercise and participate in fitness programs likely attenu-
ate the relationship between SWB and health by bringing

Please cite this article in press as: E.R. Tenney, et al., Does positivity enhance work performance?: Why, when, and what we
don’t know, Research in Organizational Behavior (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.11.002
G Model
RIOB 95 No. of Pages 20
8 E.R. Tenney et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
more workers up to healthier levels (Falkenberg, 1987;
Parks & Steelman, 2008; Shore, Prasad, & Zroback, 1989;
but see Van Dongen et al., 2011).
3.1.2. SWB and absenteeism
Absenteeism is related to health in that it is absence
from work due to illness or some other factor when
attendance is either scheduled or expected (Harrison &
Price, 2003). Scholars sometimes assess the effect of
absenteeism by counting the number of sick days employ-
ees use (Goetzel, Hawkins, Ozminkowski, & Wang, 2003)
or the number of absences during a certain period of time
(Knies et al., 2012).
Several studies found that job satisfaction predicts
reduced absenteeism (Hackett, 1989; Sagie, 1998). For
example, bus drivers who felt good about their jobs tended
to have fewer absences (Kohler & Mathieu, 1993). A large
meta-analysis estimated that the aggregate effect size
across 11 measures of job satisfaction and across 3 meas-
ures of absenteeism was r = .09, suggesting that satisfac-
tion accounts for less than 4% of the variance in
absenteeism. This effect is small. The authors point out
that statistical artifacts account for a lot of variance;
absenteeism is often a skewed distribution, with few
absences per employee per year, and therefore a noisy
measure (Hackett & Guion, 1985), and the type of job
satisfaction measure used also accounts for some variance
(Scott & Taylor, 1985). Moreover, if people are ill, whether
they need to take a leave is not always discretionary.
Nonetheless, more dramatic indicators of low SWB such as
burnout (Firth & Britton, 1989; Gil-Monte, 2008) and
depression (Kessler et al., 1999) were more strongly
positively associated with absenteeism. Workers suffering
from depression might find some relief in absence-taking
(Hardy, Woods, & Wall, 2003; Staw & Oldham, 1978).
Researchers have studied social and environmental
factors that also influence the relationship between SWB
and absenteeism, such as the unemployment rate and
workplace norms (Diestel, Wegge, & Schmidt, 2014;
Hausknecht, Hiller, & Vance, 2008). When the unemploy-
ment rate is low, job prospects are good, and so dissatisfied
employees may feel freer to shirk work obligations without
fear of joblessness, thereby increasing the relationship
between low SWB and absenteeism (Hausknecht et al.,
2008). Workers’ family obligations also matter, but in the
opposite direction. For instance, “sole bread-winners” and
employees with children are more likely to come to work
regardless of whether they enjoy their job, potentially
weakening the influence that satisfaction has on absen-
teeism (Ilgen & Hollenback, 1977). Hourly workers without
sick day benefits are also less likely to be absent even if ill.
Thus, aspects of the job as well as workers’ personal lives
and economic trends have the potential to mitigate or
magnify the relationship between SWB and absenteeism.
3.1.3. SWB and self-regulation
Self-regulation is the ability to use one’s mental and
physical resources to plan action and persevere in attempts
to achieve a goal (Bandura, 1991; Wagner & Heatherton,
2014). Its formal definition emphasizes the specific process
by which people plan, monitor, and work towards their
Please cite this article in press as: E.R. Tenney, et al., Does positivity enhance work performance?: Why, when, and what we
don’t know, Research in Organizational Behavior (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.11.002
goals. Importantly, self-regulation comes from within an
individual as opposed to coming from an external source
(e.g., a supervisor monitoring and shaping behavior). Thus,
as people move into higher level jobs or more creative jobs
with less oversight, self-regulation becomes particularly
important (Brief & Hollenbeck, 1985).
Although humans are generally effective at self-
regulation, it is effortful, and failures are common. There
is a vast literature on trying to understand self-regulation
failures, and negative affect features prominently. In a
review of ways that people fail at achieving their goals,
researchers explain, “the ability to self-regulate can be
undermined by a variety of threats that act by impairing
awareness [of whether one is on track], exhausting limited
resources, or increasing the salience of temptations—” and,
most relevant for the current review, the researchers claim,
“Perhaps the most potent of these threats is negative
affect,” (Wagner & Heatherton, 2013; p. 613).
When people experience stress, or if they feel negative
emotion (e.g., depressed, ashamed, anxious, excluded, or
sad), they believe they are more likely to give in to
temptation or distractions and stray from their goals
compared to when they feel good. For example, people
who were dieting or trying to quit smoking reported
negative affect as a main cause of their falling off the
wagon (see Haedt-Matt & Keel, 2011; and Kassel, Stroud, &
Paronis, 2003, for reviews). Inducing negative affect in the
lab (e.g., by giving negative performance feedback or by
having participants prepare for speaking in public) also led
to increased cravings among dieters and substance abusers
(e.g., Childress et al., 1994; Heatherton, Herman, & Polivy,
1991; Willner & Jones, 1996). Depressed mood was also
correlated with unproductive Internet use among under-
graduates (LaRose, Lin, & Eastin, 2003), inability to delay
gratification (Mischel, Ebbesen, & Zeiss, 1973; Tice,
Baumeister, Shmueli, & Muraven, 2007), and procrastina-
tion (Turban, Lee, Veiga, Haggard, & Wu, 2013), which are
considered self-regulation failures. However, the mecha-
nism by which SWB influences self-regulation needs
further research, especially because recently a series of
meta-analytic tests of lab experiments studying self-
regulation revealed strong evidence of publication bias
(i.e., studies not showing an effect exist but are not part of
the published record) and small-study effects (i.e., studies
with larger sample sizes had smaller effects) (Carter, Kofler,
Forster, & McCullough, 2015). The authors concluded that
there is no solid evidence from lab experiments that self-
regulation is a limited resource. Thus, high SWB might
facilitate self-regulation (or low SWB undermines it), but
more rigorous investigations into how self-regulation
works and when and why it fails are desperately needed.
3.1.4. SWB and motivation
Positive affect can be important for maintaining
intrinsic motivation (and performing intrinsically moti-
vating tasks can also increase positive affect). When people
experience positive affect, the task, if already slightly
interesting, could become even more interesting and more
satisfying (Isen & Reeve, 2005; Kraiger, Billings, & Isen,
1989). For one, people might attribute their good mood to
G Model
RIOB 95 No. of Pages 20
E.R. Tenney et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
the task itself, making them feel that they enjoy the task
and want to complete it (Forgas, 1995).
Second, relatedly, people in a good mood might have
different expectations about the task from the outset
compared to people in a worse mood. If people experienc-
ing positive affect are more likely to expect an upcoming
task to be enjoyable compared to people experiencing
negative or more neutral affect, they could be more
motivated to initiate or engage with the task from the
outset. Third, positive affect can make people patient and
forward-looking rather than focused on immediate grati-
fication (Ifcher & Zarghamee, 2011; Lerner, Li, & Weber,
2013; Pyone & Isen, 2011). Patience can be helpful when
completing tasks that will not pay off highly or not pay off
immediately.
The idea that positive affect could make people see
tasks in a better light and be more patient and intrinsically
motivated to complete them stands in contrast to the idea
that people in a positive mood would try to avoid work
tasks in order to maintain their good mood (Wegener &
Petty, 1994). Another way to think about these two
competing predictions is to think of them as predicting
a tradeoff between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation—
does positive affect increase people’s motivation to do
interesting activities while it decreases their willingness to
do less interesting activities for an external reward?
Interestingly, research does suggest that people in a
positive mood tend to seek out activities that allow them
to maintain their positive mood (Wegener & Petty, 1994),
but research does not support the idea that happy workers
shirk their responsibilities (Erez & Isen, 2002; Isen & Reeve,
2005). Instead, in a study to examine the intrinsic-extrinsic
motivation tradeoff, participants in a positive mood
condition (who received a gift) spent similar amounts of
time completing an uninteresting-but-extrinsically-moti-
vating task as participants in a neutral mood condition
(who did not receive a gift) when that task was described as
work that needed to be done. When the task was not
specifically described as work to be done, then participants
in a positive mood spent most of their time on a different,
more intrinsically motivating task, and to a greater extent
than participants in the neutral condition (Isen & Reeve,
2005). Thus, positive affect can increase intrinsic motiva-
tion, but it does not necessarily create a situation in which
workers avoid work. However, more research is needed to
ensure these findings replicate in additional contexts and
with larger samples.
One could make a case that negative affect or at least a
shift away from positive, optimistic thinking would also be
motivating (Sweeny, Carroll, & Shepperd, 2006). Having
low expectations due to a negative or pessimistic outlook
could motivate people to want to avoid realizing the bad
outcome they anticipate (Norem & Cantor, 1986). Also, if
people receive bad performance evaluations or fail at a
task, common sources of negative affect at work, they
might be motivated to work hard to try to improve (Dweck,
1986). Experts or those who are already committed to
pursuing a goal might be especially motivated by feelings
of inadequacy or possible failure (see Schroeder & Fish-
bach, 2015; for a review). In a study of cultural differences,
failure at a creative associations task (the RAT) was
Please cite this article in press as: E.R. Tenney, et al., Does positivity enhance work performance?: Why, when, and what we
don’t know, Research in Organizational Behavior (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.11.002
9
demotivating for North Americans, who spent less time
on the task later, but motivating for Japanese participants;
the reverse was true for early success (Heine et al., 2001).
Thus, in some circumstances and for some people, negative
affect can increase motivation.
3.1.5. SWB and creativity
Creativity has been formally defined as the ability to
foster ideas that are at once innovative, of high quality, and
appropriate for the task (Kaufman & Sternberg, 2010). A
large laboratory experimental research literature has
investigated whether individuals who are put in a positive
mood are more creative than people in a bad or neutral
mood; the idea being that people in a positive would show
greater mental flexibility and have broader attention,
which are helpful for creative problem solving (e.g., Baas,
De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2008; Johnson, Waugh, & Fredrickson,
2010; Rowe, Hirsh, & Anderson, 2007). Researchers have
furthermore claimed that positive mood inductions at the
group level were associated with greater creativity in
terms of the number of original ideas produced (Grawitch,
Munz, Elliott, & Mathis, 2003), although the sample size in
these studies were small (e.g., ns < 30 per mood cell). Thus,
greater creativity may result from positive moods because
of more flexible and broad mental processing, but
additional research would be beneficial for strengthening
confidence in this conclusion.
Outside of the lab, workers have been shown to be more
creative when they experience positive moods (Amabile,
Barsade, Mueller, & Staw, 2005). Optimism also predicted
employee creativity as reported by supervisors (Rego,
Sousa, Margues, & Cunha, 2012). At the group and
organizational levels of analysis, aggregate job satisfaction
of business units predicted subsequent organizational
innovation, controlling for the original levels of innovation
and profitability (Shipton, West, Parkes, Dawson, &
Patterson, 2006). The authors suggest that in organizations
where most employees have job satisfaction, they will
endorse and not resist innovation, and are more likely to
work together to generate creative ideas.
Positivity is not the only projected path to creativity.
Under certain conditions and circumstances, job dissatis-
faction and negative moods may be related to creativity
(George & Zhou, 2002, 2007; To, Fisher, Ashkanasy, &
Rowe, 2012; Zhou, Hirst, & Shipton, 2012). These findings
have been explained largely through persistence. If people
stop to evaluate whether they are satisfied with their work,
those in a negative mood state are especially likely to
decide that they are not satisfied, and that they need to
keep going to become satisfied. Thus, negative affect and
general dissatisfaction can lead workers to keep searching
for answers and ways to improve, resulting in further
pursuit of innovative or creative solutions (provided that
workers are optimistic that their continued efforts will be
fruitful).
Researchers administering questionnaires and using
experience sampling methods have recently proposed that
creativity is the highest in the presence of both frequent
positive and some negative emotions (George & Zhou,
2007; To et al., 2012). They found that when the workplace
environment was highly supportive, with strong norms for
G Model
RIOB 95 No. of Pages 20
10 E.R. Tenney et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
helpfulness and mutual trust among employees and
supervisors, employees will nevertheless experience some
negative emotions over the course of a regular work week,
which is natural. Likewise, the creative process itself often
involves a high degree of failure along the way. Negative
emotions, amidst a broader culture of positivity, may
facilitate employee creativity the most.
3.1.6. SWB and relationships
Positive relationships are connections between people
that are sustained over time and are characterized by
mutual benefit (Ragins & Dutton, 2007). As an example of
mutual benefit, positive or good relationships can mean
fulfillment of people’s needs for respect, trust, personal
growth, and belonging (Kahn, 2007) or a quid-pro-quo
exchange of services (Batson, 1993; Clark & Mills, 1979), or
benefits from joint investments (e.g., shared contacts)
(Rusbult, 1983). Consistent across each type of mutual
benefit is the idea that resources are exchanged and/or
jointly created.
Correlational studies have found that SWB is associ-
ated with having positive relationships outside of work.
For example, individuals with high positive affect also
tend to be social and have high quality relationships with
friends, family, and romantic partners, according to self-
and peer-reports (Diener & Seligman, 2002; Lucas &
Fujita, 2000). Likewise, naturalistic observations of
participants’ conversations showed that SWB predicted
less time spent alone and more substantive conversa-
tions with others (Mehl, Vazire, Holleran, & Clark, 2010).
The positive association between SWB and positive
relationships was also found in work contexts. Employ-
ees who reported feeling frequent positive emotions at
work received greater social support (e.g., praise of good
work; personal interest) from their supervisors a year
and half later (Staw et al., 1994). According to a study
with participants from Australia, England, and Germany,
people who reported higher life satisfaction were less
likely to be fired, change jobs, or relocate in the next five
years (Luhmann, Lucas, Eid, & Diener, 2013). Thus, there
is likely a link between high SWB and longer-lasting,
positive work relationships.
SWB appears to cause good relationships and social
support rather than merely follow from them (see Moore,
Diener, & Tay, 2017; for a review). Early experimental work
in this area found that positive mood induction, achieved
by informing participants that they had performed
extremely well on a series of perceptual-motor skills tasks
(regardless of their actual performance) led individuals to
be more helpful to a confederate who dropped a book than
participants who were informed that they had performed
poorly (Isen, 1970), although this set of studies had
particularly small samples (ns  10 per condition). Other
studies with slightly larger samples (ns around 20–
50 participants per condition) found similar results. This
same positive (versus negative) mood induction increased
interpersonal communication and self-disclosure (Cun-
ningham, 1988) and improved children’s scores on social
skills assessment tests (Kazdin, Esveldt-Dawson, & Matson,
1982). Researchers found convergent results using other
manipulations of mood besides positive feedback, such as
Please cite this article in press as: E.R. Tenney, et al., Does positivity enhance work performance?: Why, when, and what we
don’t know, Research in Organizational Behavior (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.11.002
film clips (Cunningham, 1988; Whelan & Zelenski, 2012).
Simply perceiving happiness in others could also lead
individuals to be more cooperative. When participants in a
study saw happy faces, they tended to infer that a social
situation was cooperative, whereas when they saw angry
faces, they inferred that a social situation was competitive
(Van Doorn, Heerdink, & Van Kleef, 2012).
According to the broaden-and-build hypothesis (Fre-
drickson, 1998), positive emotions make people more open
to engaging with others and more playful, and so a reason
that SWB could improve relationships is that people who
are in a good mood are more pleasant and fun to be around,
leading to more shared positive experiences. Openness to
engaging with others in a positive, playful way, along with
helpfulness, a desire to be social, communication, and good
social skills allows people to bond and build strong,
functional relationships.
However, in practice, researchers have identified some
instances when negative affect could improve relation-
ships and social interactions at work. Consider the massive
success of Steve Jobs, founder and CEO of Apple Computers,
who did not seem to attempt to create high work SWB
among his employees. He was described as an “abrupt,
demeaning, and intolerant dictator who often took credit
for others’ ideas and did not hesitate to put someone down
for less-than-stellar performance,” (Stoverink, Umphress,
Gardner, & Miner, 2014, p. 1059). This type of management
style can contribute to a climate marked by negative
emotions and feelings of injustice (Simons & Roberson,
2003) and have costly downstream effects (e.g., stress,
turnover); however, in terms of relationships, when
adversity is experienced as a team, there could be some
relational benefits. People who can complain to each other
about a common antagonist unite over shared negative
feelings and experiences and become more socially
cohesive (Stoverink et al., 2014). They may help each
other and defend each other. There are other examples of
when negative emotions can help relationships at and
outside of work, such as when people experience guilt or
embarrassment after making a mistake. When people feel
guilty, they are more likely to take action to repair
relationships that they may have damaged; and when
people act embarrassed about a mistake, others are more
apt to forgive them (Gruber et al., 2011; Keltner &
Anderson, 2000). Thus, although high SWB typically leads
to good relationships, it is not always the case for teams nor
for every situation.
3.1.7. SWB and job turnover
Researchers have generally found a negative relation-
ship between SWB and turnover, indicating that people
who are happy in general or are satisfied with their job are
more likely to stay at an organization rather than seek
employment elsewhere (Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Bou-
lian, 1974). A large meta-analysis found that job satisfac-
tion moderately negatively predicted turnover, r = .25,
and more strongly predicted turnover intentions, r = .58
(Tett & Meyer, 1993). Another, more recent meta-analysis
found that the relationship with actual turnover was more
modest, r = .19, though it varied widely across studies,
suggesting moderators (Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000).
G Model
RIOB 95 No. of Pages 20
E.R. Tenney et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Practically speaking, certain factors are likely to
strengthen the negative relationship between SWB and
turnover. For instance, SWB at work is a clear predictor of
turnover especially when the job market is strong and
workers are highly skilled so that they have a choice of jobs
(Hulin, Roznowski, & Hachiya, 1985). The relationship
between SWB and turnover might also vary depending on
the facet of SWB being measured. Job satisfaction in
particular (compared to a positive or negative disposition)
seems to be especially important in turnover decisions
(Bouckenooghe et al., 2013), but low job satisfaction
coupled with high dispositional positive affect meant
turnover intentions were the highest (Bouckenooghe et al.,
2013). In other words, people who have a happy
disposition are especially likely to leave when they find
their current work situation dissatisfying.
3.2. Relationships between seven mediators and performance
outcomes
In addition to the complexities in the relationships
between SWB and the mediators described above (see
Table 1, left side), there are interesting dynamics between
these mediators and performance outcomes—although
they often are associated with performance, the strength
and direction of the relationships can depend on various
micro and macro factors (see Table 1, right side). We
discuss these next.
3.2.1. Health and performance
Poor health can impair performance. Researchers have
found that mental health problems in particular, such as
feelings of stress and depression, can interfere with the
interpersonal, cognitive, and motivational aspects of work
performance (Motowidlo, Packard, & Manning, 1986). For
example, nurses who reported feeling higher in stress,
hostility, or depression were rated by supervisors and co-
workers as having worse job performance. They were seen
as providing lower quality of patient care, having less
warmth toward other nurses, and less patience with other
nurses and doctors (Motowidlo et al., 1986). The causal
influence of depression is suggested by the fact that in
interventions to treat depression, not only are the negative
feelings reduced, but rates of employment increase
(Schoenbaum et al., 2002). In terms of the cost effective-
ness to employers for treating depression, research
indicates that the reduction in lost work days due to
treatment completely offset the costs of interventions,
without even considering further beneficial outcomes such
as increases in productivity (Zhang, Rost, Fortney, & Smith,
1999). However, the benefit to productivity from good
health likely varies across occupations depending on how
important it is for employees to have high energy and vigor
and depending on how costly it is for employers when
employees use sick days.
3.2.2. Absenteeism and performance
Absenteeism can negatively affect performance both
directly and indirectly, in ways that can be costly to an
organization (Harrison & Martocchio, 1998; Sagie, Birati, &
Tziner, 2002). According to a 2011 Gallup poll of full-time
Please cite this article in press as: E.R. Tenney, et al., Does positivity enhance work performance?: Why, when, and what we
don’t know, Research in Organizational Behavior (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.11.002
11
workers in the U.S., absenteeism cost $153 billion annually
in lost productivity among unhealthy workers. On average,
this is $341 per missed work day (Witters & Agrawal, 2011).
The direct effect of absenteeism to an organization can be
felt in the delays, losses, or missed opportunities to garner
new business that result from an employee not being
present to perform his or her duties. In team situations,
when workers rely on each other’s diverse skill sets to
achieve common goals, or need to stay synchronized and
coordinated (e.g., mining crews), absenteeism is especially
directly detrimental to productivity (Goodman & Leyden,
1991). The indirect effect is the influence that one worker’s
absence has on the rest of the workforce. Individuals’
absenteeism could contribute to alteration of norms,
making other employees more likely to withhold effort
or exhibit absenteeism themselves because they believe
this behavior is acceptable (Sagie et al., 2002). Some have
argued that the indirect effects of absenteeism can also be
felt by adjacent organizations (Goodman & Atkin, 1984).
Empirical evidence supports the notion that absentee-
ism is often negatively correlated with organizational
performance. In a field experiment in India, an incentive
program decreased teachers’ absenteeism by 21% relative
to a control group, and students’ test scores increased by
0.17 standard deviations (Duflo, Hanna, & Ryan, 2012).
Likewise, an incentive program to decrease absenteeism at
a hospital (i.e., randomly selected employees could convert
unused sick leave to additional pay or vacation at the end of
the year) successfully led to a 31% decline in absenteeism
relative to baseline years, and, the authors claim, a positive
return on investment (Schlotzhauer & Rosse, 1985).
But sometimes employees come to their place of work
even though it may be in the organization’s best interest
for them to be absent because they do not perform to their
full potential due to illness, distraction, or some other
factor such as fatigue (Aronsson, Gustafsson, & Dallner,
2000; Johns, 2011; Staw & Oldham, 1978). When in this
state at work, employees may exacerbate a minor ailment,
forcing them to take longer to recover, or spread illness or
apathy to others (Grinyer & Singleton, 2000). Thus,
absenteeism tends to be costly, but simply increasing
attendance may not always translate to increased perfor-
mance.
3.2.3. Self-regulation and performance
What could self-regulation mean for performance at
work? Self-regulation has been linked to focus and impulse
control, which are beneficial for performance on individual
tasks (Baumeister & Heatherton, 1996). Other researchers
have suggested that self-regulation could be beneficial in
complex work tasks, such as when making a series of
difficult decisions (Danziger, Levav, & Avnaim-Pesso, 2011)
or sales (Porath & Bateman, 2006). In one study of
salespeople at a computer company, self-reports of using
self-regulation tactics predicted meeting a greater per-
centage of the sales quota, although not all self-regulation
tactics were clearly helpful (e.g., self-reports of feedback
seeking) (Porath & Bateman, 2006).
Further evidence that self-regulation is related to
worker performance in organizations comes from inter-
vention studies. Training students to use strategies to
G Model
RIOB 95 No. of Pages 20
12 E.R. Tenney et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
increase self-regulation (e.g., self-monitoring and self-
reinforcement) helped those at risk of failing (n = 11) to
complete more lessons per day than before the interven-
tion (Seabaugh & Schumaker, 1994). Likewise, in a field
experiment (N = 60), training salespeople to self-manage
(e.g., set goals, self-monitor, and self-evaluate) led to better
sales performance and higher supervisor ratings compared
to a control group in the months following the training
(Frayne & Geringer, 2000). Thus, there is some evidence
that hiring workers with good self-regulation skills, and
training others to improve theirs, will have benefits for
individual performance in organizations. But again, just
how easily self-regulation can fail, and how it can be
restored, in a way that will noticeably affect performance,
needs to be researched further (Carter et al., 2015).
3.2.4. Motivation and performance
There is a clear association between increased motiva-
tion and performance-related outcomes. For example,
motivation can help people decide to engage in a task
rather than procrastinate or avoid it, and motivation can
also increase effort and persistence (Bandura, 1991;
Campbell & Pritchard, 1976; Higgins et al., 2001). There
is a long history of research documenting the benefits of
motivation in a variety of achievement domains (Call,
Nyberg, & Thatcher, 2015; Cerasoli, Nicklin, & Ford, 2014;
Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998; Walker, Greene, & Mansell,
2006).
Although motivation can lead to better performance, in
practice, people might not be aware of the most effective
time and method to motivate oneself or others; attempts to
increase motivation can sometimes do nothing or even
backfire, wasting time and money. For example, a meta-
analysis found that putting in many hours of practice often
fails to translate into desired or expert-level actual
performance. Across a variety of professions (e.g., comput-
er programming, piloting, soccer refereeing) practice
accounted for, on average, less than 1% of the variance
in performance (Macnamara, Hambrick, & Oswald, 2014).
Thus, motivating others to keep trying may not be helpful.
Another misconception is that financial compensation is
the main way to motivate employees to work hard. Many
managers believe this (Ferraro, Pfeffer, & Sutton, 2005), but
managers overestimate the motivational benefits of
financial incentives (Magee, Kilduff, & Heath, 2011).
Motivation can take several forms, and focusing on
extrinsic (e.g., financial) incentives could mean ignoring
other important incentives, such as getting feedback,
opportunity for social interaction, increased feelings of
self-worth, and opportunity for growth. There is also the
potential that too much motivation of any form can create
performance anxiety, which could lead to suboptimal
performance given one’s skillset (aka choking under
pressure; Baumeister & Showers, 1986). Motivation surely
matters, but there is a chance that managers have been
ignoring nuances about how and when motivation actually
benefits performance, especially when there is a mismatch
between the person, type of motivation, type of task, and
the goal.
Please cite this article in press as: E.R. Tenney, et al., Does positivity enhance work performance?: Why, when, and what we
don’t know, Research in Organizational Behavior (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.11.002
3.2.5. Creativity and performance
Creativity is related to exploration, flexibility, and
problem solving, and creative individuals, coupled with
a culture that permits creativity to thrive, are said to be a
primary reason that businesses advance into exciting new
territories (Anderson, Poto9 cnik, & Zhou, 2014; Jiang &
Tagard, 2014; Simonton, 2000). Without creativity and
innovation, organizations can lose their advantage, espe-
cially in fast-changing industries. However, creativity is
also related to risk-taking, nonconformity, and a willing-
ness to eschew convention. Setting up an organization for
workers to be creative (e.g., hiring workers who value
innovation and have the right skillset for it, creating
psychological safety for workers because (initial) failure is
an inevitable part of the creative process, and being willing
to act on new, untested ideas; see Amabile & Pratt, this
issue) can be quite costly and resource-intensive to do well.
Creativity also means being open to pursuing many paths
that do and (very often) do not amount to much. Thus, the
price of creativity is potentially too high to pay in many
organizational contexts (Staw, 1995). The costs and
benefits of well-being-induced creativity on performance
and profits in various industries should be explored in
greater depth.
3.2.6. Relationships and performance
Organizational scholars have begun to more formally
identify and examine the benefits of positive work
relationships for performance. Preliminary conclusions
are that good relationships are actually extremely impor-
tant. As Ragins and Dutton (2007) observed, “[Relation-
ships] reside deep in the core of organizational life; they are
the means by which work is done and meaning is found in
organizations” (pp. 4–5; italics added for emphasis). One
reason positive relationships are so beneficial is that they
indicate an absence of relationship conflict. Relationship
conflict is marked by hostility and perceived incompati-
bility of goals—factors that often contribute to lower
satisfaction with group decisions, higher stress and
anxiety, and reduced commitment to the organization
(De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Tepper, 2000). Positive
relationships, on the other hand, allow people to disagree
peacefully and productively because people in positive
relationships trust each other to have good intentions even
when they disagree (Simons & Peterson, 2000; Stephens,
Heaphy, Carmeli, Spreitzer, & Dutton, 2013). Another
benefit of positive relationships for performance in
organizations is enhanced cohesiveness and coordination
in groups. People who like and appreciate each other are
more effective at communicating during group tasks (Jehn
& Shah, 1997) and will create more opportunities to be
around each other to exchange ideas, formally (e.g.,
inviting each other to meetings) or informally (e.g., lunch
breaks) (Hargadon & Bechky, 2006). Teams are better able
to express themselves and coordinate when there is
frequent positive contact and exchange of information.
In addition to positive relationships among employees,
forming positive relationships with customers, patients, or
clients in service industries can be especially beneficial for
performance in organizations. For example, in a field study
of physicians (Locke, 1996), researchers observed
G Model
RIOB 95 No. of Pages 20
E.R. Tenney et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
interactions between doctors, patients, and family mem-
bers. They discovered that doctors who tried to form good
relationships (e.g., were funny, warm) were better able to
elicit the cooperation of patients and family members in
treatment. Across several additional studies, customer
service representatives, administrative assistants, and
hotel clerks were better able to connect with customers
in a positive way when they were experiencing or
conveying authentic (as opposed to “surface acted”)
positive emotions. This effort led to higher ratings of
service quality (Grandey, 2003; Grandey, Fisk, Mattila,
Jansen, & Sideman, 2005; Hennig-Thurau, Groth, Paul, &
Gremler, 2006). A meta-analysis estimated that the
positive relationship between extraversion or agreeable-
ness and job performance involving interpersonal inter-
actions (e.g., sales) is small but stable (Hurtz & Donovan,
2000).
Although positive relationships have many benefits for
performance in organizations, researchers have identified
some boundary conditions. One could easily imagine that
in certain types of work situations (e.g., with open floor
plans and cubicles), too much opportunity for relationship
building and maintenance could easily pose a distraction
for people and their coworkers (Block & Stokes, 1989;
Brennan, Chugh, & Kline, 2002; Oldham & Brass, 1979).
3.2.7. Turnover and performance
The correlation between turnover and profits has been
estimated to be small, .03 (Hancock, Allen, Bosco,
McDaniel, & Pierce, 2013), suggesting that on balance
turnover hurts profits just a little, even though the cost of
replacing employees can be quite high (Cascio & Boudreau,
2010). The small overall effect might be due to the fact that
turnover in some organizational settings may have a much
greater impact than turnover in other organizational
settings (e.g., Hausknecht & Holwerda, 2013). For example,
the effect of turnover can depend on characteristics of the
employees who leave, characteristics of the employees
who stay or replace them, how quickly the changes occur,
the type of performance measured, and whether turnover
was voluntary (Cascio & Boudreau, 2010; Hausknecht &
Holwerda, 2013; Kacmar, Andrews, Van Rooy, Steilberg, &
Cerrone, 2006; Park & Shaw, 2013). The main pattern
across these moderators seems to be that in positions
when critical knowledge, skills, and abilities are needed to
execute a certain role effectively, turnover of veterans for
novices can be especially costly (McElroy, Morrow, & Rude,
2001; Shaw, Gupta, & Delery, 2005). Also, when perfor-
mance is operationalized in terms of customer service or
safety of workers, the association is stronger with turnover
than when purely economic metrics are used (Hancock
et al., 2013). Thus, turnover is especially costly when
turnover means extensive training of employees and for
industries that rely on repeat interactions with clients or
customers. Turnover is also particularly costly for an
organization when workers decide to leave (i.e., voluntarily
resign) compared to when the organization selects
extraneous employees and initiates the departure (Park
& Shaw, 2013). Though researchers warn that the net effect
of rising turnover rates is usually negative (Park & Shaw,
2013), some turnover is beneficial, getting rid of weak
Please cite this article in press as: E.R. Tenney, et al., Does positivity enhance work performance?: Why, when, and what we
don’t know, Research in Organizational Behavior (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.11.002
13
employees and those with poor fit to their jobs, and
infusing the company with fresh perspectives (Cascio &
Boudreau, 2010; McEvoy & Cascio, 1987).
4. Summary of mediators and moderators
In sum, SWB likely plays a role in: better health
outcomes, reduced absenteeism, better self-regulation,
higher motivation, more creativity, more positive relation-
ships, and lower turnover. In turn, these variables can
predict performance. These main findings regarding the
relationships from SWB to each mediator and from each
mediator to performance (both individual and organiza-
tional) is summarized in the columns labeled Proposition in
the left and right halves of Table 1, respectively, and see
Fig. 1. However, the pathways depicted are actually
complex and subject to moderation at each level (e.g.,
attenuated or increased given task, company, industry, and
environmental factors). Thus, the columns labeled Modifi-
cation in Table 1 show how each link can be strengthened
or weakened by other factors. For example, when
companies have generally fit employees with good health-
care, the relationship between SWB and health is reduced;
when the unemployment rate is high, the relationship
between SWB and absenteeism or turnover is reduced; and
when positions have high external monitoring (e.g., by a
supervisor), the relationship between SWB and self-
regulation is reduced. In other cases, sometimes negative
affect or low SWB actually predict benefits. For example,
when teams get to commiserate over a common adversary,
low SWB is associated with beneficial team dynamics.
Likewise, the right side of Table 1 describes the
proposed relationships between each mediator and
performance as well as moderators of those relationships.
Some examples are that low rates of absenteeism and low
rates of turnover tend to predict improved organizational
performance (see Proposition column), but they do so more
strongly in industries that rely on people in specialized
roles that require high expertise or training (see Modifica-
tion column). Good relationships tend to correspond with
better performance (see Proposition column) particularly
in healthcare, sales, and other occupations in which social
interactions are central to the job (see Modification
column). Motivation has long been included in complex
models of organizational effectiveness as a mediator of the
relationship between individual behavior and job perfor-
mance (Porter, Lawler, & Hackman, 1975). If people are
motivated to work hard and to try to improve, motivation
can often benefit performance (Proposition column). But
motivation does not always matter much, for example,
when people are motivated to keep practicing a skill that
depends largely on talent, luck, or other factors (Macna-
mara et al., 2014) (Modification column).
Despite the apparent complexity, considering the
pathways and the moderators described above helps us
understand under what circumstances SWB is and is not
positively related to performance. Examining the relation-
ships in this way helps explain why the association
between SWB and performance is, on balance, only small
to moderate. Further research is needed to test these
pathways directly, with full mediation pathways in single
G Model
RIOB 95 No. of Pages 20
14 E.R. Tenney et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
studies, along with further investigations of the circum-
stances that may enhance or dampen them at each step.
Studies with preregistered hypotheses and analysis plans
along with larger sample sizes are also needed to combat
publication bias and prevent the use of questionable
research practices (John, Loewenstein, & Prelec, 2012). We
discuss additional ideas for future research next.
5. Future scholarship and research
5.1. How much SWB is enough?
Although the body of literature investigating whether
SWB at work predicts work performance is extensive, there
has been relatively little research on how much SWB is
needed and when negative feelings might be helpful
instead (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs,
2001; Gruber et al., 2011; Parrott, 2014). When researchers
do study negative feelings, they often encounter the
problem of a restriction of range, because their partic-
ipants tend to be pretty happy (Diener et al., 2015). For
example, in one study reporting a beneficial relationship
between negative affect and transformational leadership,
over 90% of participants appeared to be below the
midpoint of the negative affect scale (Mitchell et al.,
2014). Thus, the beneficial negative feelings appeared to be
very mild. It is also important to consider that the positive
relationship between SWB and performance could be
driven by the rarer instances of low levels of positive affect.
Is it primarily low levels of SWB that truly hurt
performance, and above neutrality various levels of
positivity have little predictive power? Alternatively, is
there a threshold in the positive zone above which more
positivity predicts declines in performance? It may take a
small dose of self-criticism, rather than unconditional self-
love or self-complacency, to be motivated to keep being
creative and productive. A related question is whether
there might be declining marginal utility for SWB such that
more and more of it is required to produce the same effects
as one moves further up the scale. Researchers have not
sufficiently addressed the question of how much SWB
might be enough. Clearly, these are key questions for future
study.
5.2. Issue of what types of SWB are beneficial
Researchers have discussed the merits of various types
of SWB, ranging from optimism to depression, and from
positive feelings to job satisfaction, but no large-scale
systematic analyses have been conducted in which these
forms of SWB could be reliably disentangled. The merits of
particular forms of SWB have been championed, but
without the large samples and rigorous experiments that
will allow their unique empirical effects to be reliably
assessed.
One of the distinctions among facets of SWB that has
received modest attention is comparing cognitive (e.g.,
satisfaction) and affective (e.g., feelings) features (Brief &
Roberson, 1989). The most studied facet of SWB, job
satisfaction, is a person’s evaluation of his or her job,
summarizing across contentment with the job and positive
Please cite this article in press as: E.R. Tenney, et al., Does positivity enhance work performance?: Why, when, and what we
don’t know, Research in Organizational Behavior (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.11.002
feelings about it (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012);
however, historically, much of the research on job
satisfaction focused primarily on the cognitive appraisal
aspect and less on affect (Brief & Weiss, 2002). More
recently, there has been a growing interest in affect at work
because it can predict work behavior in ways that are not
fully captured by typical measures of job satisfaction (Brief
& Weiss, 2002; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). In particular,
affect can naturally be conceptualized and measured at
various trait or state levels: people have a long-term affect
or temperament; a general level of affect at work that may
be carried across various situations at work; and state-
specific affect that arises from momentary causes. Each
type of affect can predict job performance, regardless of
whether the affect derives from the job itself, and could
interact with each other in interesting ways. For example,
positive affect interventions (e.g., a small gift of cookies)
could increase the momentary job satisfaction among
workers high in trait positive affect more than trait
negative affect (Brief, Butcher, & Roberson, 1995), or
positive feedback could affect people’s task persistence
more if they have high (versus low) trait optimism (Tenney
et al., 2015).
Thus, SWB at work is comprised of cognitive judgments
and feelings, and can be conceptualized and measured at
global or more specific levels, related to more general or
more specific work situations over long and short time-
spans. Being mindful of the different levels of analysis is
important in part because of methodological issues when
comparing broad versus narrow constructs (Bowling et al.,
2010; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1974) and practical issues of
deciding when to hire “happy” individuals versus set up
work environments to increase SWB at the state level.
Recent research has just begun to explore how disposi-
tional and situational influences may interact and work
together (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012).
5.3. More sophisticated and ambitious research methods
This field is dominated by cross-sectional correlational
studies, although more advanced research methodologies
are becoming more frequent (see Cortina & Landis, 2013;
Fisher & To, 2012). Longitudinal, quasi-experimental
designs, in which efforts to enhance SWB in organizations
are initiated in a staggered manner over time, in various
units, allow the impact of SWB to be more clearly gauged.
Experience-sampling studies (e.g., asking participants to
report their SWB at various times during the day) are also
helpful to track SWB over time, and the effects of variations
in mood on workplace performance can be gauged within
person (intraindividually) and across persons (interindi-
vidually). Recent recommendations for advanced experi-
ence-sampling methods would allow researchers to
further explore the interplay of short-term emotional
experiences and longer-term change (Ram & Diehl, 2015).
One such method is the “measurement burst” design, in
which researchers gather several measurements from
participants over a short time-span (e.g., minutes, days,
weeks), multiple times (e.g., months or years later). For
example, using this method, researchers have explored
changes in intraindividual emotional reactivity to events
G Model
RIOB 95 No. of Pages 20
E.R. Tenney et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
and the interindividual health outcomes years later (e.g.,
Piazza, Charles, Sliwinski, Mogle, & Almeida, 2013). New
electronic data collection approaches, such as those relying
on mobile electronic devices, are especially useful for
collecting rich experience-sampling data like these (Kill-
ingsworth & Gilbert, 2010; Shiffman, Stone, & Hufford,
2008).
Another benefit of mobile electronic devices is the
ability to record and then “listen in” on actual interactions
and experiences as people go about their daily lives (Mehl,
Pennebaker, Crow, Dabbs, & Price, 2001). An exciting
feature of this method is that researchers can use it to
establish an accuracy criterion or objective measure of
reality (Tenney, Vazire, & Mehl, 2013). For example,
researchers could compare employees’ perceptions of
their experiences at work (e.g., frequency, severity, and
valence of feedback) to what actually occurred. Perhaps
there is a difference in performance for SWB that is
congruent with or incongruent with reality. Other
approaches, such as the Day Reconstruction Method, in
which people reconstruct their day while it is still fresh in
their mind (Kahneman, Krueger, Schkade, Schwarz, &
Stone, 2004) can also be helpful to study moods and
productivity at various points during the day without
mobile electronic devices and without contacting partic-
ipants so often. The field would also benefit from high
impact experiments (Baumeister, Vohs, & Funder, 2007).
For instance, experimental analogue studies using tasks
such as in-basket (e.g., how well people organize and
complete immediate tasks on their desk or “in basket”) can
be used to more precisely gauge the effects of momentary
versus trait based positive moods (Staw & Barsade, 1993).
5.4. Scientific integrity
Like other areas across the social sciences, future
research methods purporting to study SWB and its relation
to performance would benefit immensely from improved
and more transparent research practices. Because there are
so many ways one could measure SWB and performance,
and so many variables one could reasonably include as
covariates (e.g., age, age-squared, sex, socioeconomic
status, etc.), there are many researcher degrees of freedom
(choices in the research process) in this area of research in
particular. During the era that much of the research on
SWB, the mediators we describe, and performance was
conducted, it was common practice for researchers to
report only those results that were statistically significant
or that supported their preferred claims (see Carter et al.,
2015; John et al., 2012). Researchers would selectively
report model specifications (e.g., adding or subtracting
covariates), exclude data from participants that did not
conform to expectations, and end studies when the results
looked promising rather than using an objective stopping
criterion. These practices are problematic because they
increase the probability of false positive findings (Simmons
et al., 2011). Luckily, researchers are discovering and
championing new ways to conduct research to avoid high
rates of false positives. Using larger sample sizes makes
data more robust to researchers’ choices than small sample
sizes. Likewise, preregistering the hypotheses and
Please cite this article in press as: E.R. Tenney, et al., Does positivity enhance work performance?: Why, when, and what we
don’t know, Research in Organizational Behavior (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.11.002
15
statistical approach (e.g., specifying ahead of time on a
website such as https://aspredicted.org or https://osf.io/
how the sample size was determined, any criteria for
excluding data, and which covariates will be used) reduces
researcher degrees of freedom and enhances the integrity
and credibility of the findings, as does publicly posting the
data and all research materials for others to examine and
use (Nosek, Spies, & Motyl, 2012; Simmons et al., 2011;
Simonsohn, 2013). Publishing in open-access journals (and
encouraging more top journals to become open-access)
would also help disseminate findings broadly and quickly
(Moore & Tenney, 2012a; Nosek & Bar-Anan, 2012).
Currently, there is a lot of momentum and desire to
improve social science (e.g., Vazire, 2016), and we see these
new recommended practices as a promising way forward.
6. Summary of future scholarship and research
We have described in some detail research that is still
needed in this exciting area because much is still not
known. We need to understand more precisely the types of
SWB that predict performance, and how they interact with
other characteristics such as skills, motivation, and
experience. We need more longitudinal research with
larger samples, so that the various causal pathways can be
reliably distinguished, and we need more high quality,
rigorous experiments and replications to assess causal
claims. We also need more research on when the mediators
are and are not related to SWB and to performance. A
question that is virtually unaddressed in the research
literature is how much well-being is enough, and whether
there might be threshold or declining marginal utility
effects for the influence of SWB. Naturally, this future
research should be conducted at the highest standards of
scientific integrity. All this might seem like a tall order, but
after all, we are discussing not simply how to make the life
of employees—most adults in the modern world—more
pleasant, but also how to make organizations more
productive and profitable. Furthermore, the substantial
progress to date makes us optimistic that scholars will
solve the new challenges we present.
7. Conclusion
In light of the fact that most adults now spend a large
portion of their waking hours in the workplace, it would be
a good thing if these hours were satisfying and rewarding
in a psychological as well as financial way. The youngest
contingent of the current workforce in particular seems to
care whether their work is fulfilling (Moritz, 2014). The
research literature generally agrees that the SWB of
employees (including job satisfaction, trait positive affect,
and frequency of fleeting, positive moods) can predict
individuals’ work performance and the performance of
organizations; however, when aggregated, the size of the
relationships between SWB and performance are almost
always small or moderate or not found at all. Why? We
proposed that the number and complexity of pathways by
which SWB is linked to performance helps answer this
question. SWB can predict health, absenteeism, self-
regulation, motivation, creativity, relationships, and job
G Model
RIOB 95 No. of Pages 20
16 E.R. Tenney et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
turnover—and these variables, in turn, predict work
performance. But at each step, the effects can wax, wane,
and even reverse in certain predictable circumstances
depending on personal, organizational, and environmental
moderators. These pathways should be explored further
and rigorously in future research. Employers will be more
likely to work to create and maintain higher worker well-
being if we can determine under what conditions SWB will
truly enhance performance.
References
Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (in press). The dynamic componential model
of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress,
making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior.
Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. (2005). Affect and
creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 367–403.
Anderson, N., Poto9cnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in
organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commen-
tary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40, 1297–1333.
Aronsson, G., Gustafsson, K., & Dallner, M. (2000). Sick but yet at work: An
empirical study of sickness presenteeism. Journal of Epidemiology and
Community Health, 54, 502–509.
Baas, M., DeDreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of
24 years of mood creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or
regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134, 779–806.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248–287.
Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2007). Why does affect matter in
organizations? Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 36–59.
Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2012). Group affect: Its influence on
individual and group outcomes. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 21, 119–123.
Batson, C. D. (1993). Communal and exchange relationships: What is the
difference? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 677–683.
Baumeister, R. F., & Showers, C. J. (1986). A review of paradoxical
performance effects: Choking under pressure in sports and mental
tests. European Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 361–383.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is
stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370.
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the
science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened
to actual behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2,
396–403.
Blanchflower, D. G., Oswald, A. J., & Stewart-Brown, S. (2013). Is
psychological well-being linked to the consumption of fruit and
vegetables? Social Indicators Research, 114, 785–801.
Block, L. K., & Stokes, G. S. (1989). Performance and satisfaction in private
versus nonprivate work settings. Environment and Behavior, 21, 277–
297.
Boehm, J. K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Does happiness promote career
success? Journal of Career Assessment, 16, 101–116.
Boehm, J. K., & Kubzansky, L. D. (2012). The heart’s content: The
association between positive psychological well-being and cardio-
vascular health. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 655–691.
Boehm, J. K., Peterson, C., Kivimaki, M., & Kubzansky, L. (2011). A
prospective study of positive psychological well-being and coronary
heart disease. Health Psychology, 30, 259–267.
Bouckenooghe, D., Raja, U., & Butt, A. N. (2013). Combined effects of
positive and negative affectivity and job satisfaction on job
performance and turnover intentions. Journal of Psychology: Interdis-
ciplinary and Applied, 147, 105–123.
Bowling, N. A., Eschleman, K. J., & Wang, Q. (2010). A meta-analytic
examination of the relationship between job satisfaction and
subjective well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 83, 915–934.
Brief, A. P., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1985). An exploratory study of self-
regulating activities and their effects on job performance. Journal of
Occupational Behavior, 6, 197–208.
Brief, A. P., & Roberson, L. (1989). Job attitude organization: An exploratory
study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 717–727.
Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the
workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279–307.
Please cite this article in press as: E.R. Tenney, et al., Does positivity enhance work performance?: Why, when, and what we
don’t know, Research in Organizational Behavior (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.11.002
Brief, A. P., Butcher, A. H., & Roberson, L. (1995). Cookies, disposition, and
job attitudes: The effects of positive mood-inducing events and
negative affectivity on job satisfaction in a field experiment.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 55–62.
Brennan, A., Chugh, J. S., & Kline, T. (2002). Traditional versus open office
design: A longitudinal field study. Environment and Behavior, 34, 279–
299.
Brooks, A. W. (2014). Get excited: Reappraising pre-performance anxiety
as excitement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 1144–
1158.
Call, M. L., Nyberg, A. J., & Thatcher, S. (2015). Stargazing: An integrative
conceptual review, theoretical reconciliation, and extension for star
employee research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 623–640.
Campbell, J. P., & Pritchard, R. D. (1976). Motivation theory in industrial
and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of
industrial & organizational psychology (pp. 63–130).Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Carnevale, P. J. D., & Isen, A. M. (1986). The influence of positive affect and
visual access on the discovery of integrative solutions in bilateral
negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37,
1–13.
Carter, E. C., Kofler, L. M., Forster, D. E., & McCullough, M. E. (2015). A series
of meta-analytic tests of the depletion effect: Self-control does not
seem to rely on a limited resource. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 144, 796–815.
Cascio, W., & Boudreau, J. (2010). Investing in people: Financial impact of
human resource initiatives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and
extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 980–1008.
Chida, Y., & Steptoe, A. (2008). Positive psychological well-being and
mortality: A quantitative review of prospective observational studies.
Psychosomatic Medicine, 70, 741–756.
Childress, A. R., Ehrman, R., Mclellan, A. T., MacRae, J., Natale, M., &
O’Brien, C. P. (1994). Can induced moods trigger drug-related
responses in opiate abuse patients? Journal of Substance Abuse
Treatment, 11, 17–23.
Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and
communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
37, 12–24.
Clore, G., & Huntsinger, J. R. (2009). How the object of affect guides its
impact. Emotion Review, 1, 39–54.
Cortina, J. M., & Landis, R. S. (2013). Introduction: Transforming our field
by transforming its methods. In J. M. Cortina, & R. S. Landis (Eds.),
Modern research methods for the study of behavior in organizationsNew
York: Routledge.
Cunningham, M. R. (1988). Does happiness mean friendliness? Induced
mood and heterosexual self-disclosure. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 14, 283–297.
Danziger, S., Levav, J., & Avnaim-Pesso, L. (2011). Extraneous factors in
judicial decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108,
6889–6892.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship
conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741–749.
De Neve, J. E., & Oswald, A. J. (2012). Estimating the influence of life
satisfaction and positive affect on later income using sibling fixed
effects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 19953–
19958.
Diener, E., & Seligman, E. P. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological
Science, 13, 81–84.
Diener, E., & Chan, M. Y. (2011). Happy people live longer: Subjective well-
being contributes to health and longevity. Applied Psychology: Health
and Well-Being, 3, 1–43.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction
with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-
being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302.
Diener, E., Nickerson, C., Lucas, R. E., & Sandvik, E. (2002). Dispositional
affect and job outcomes. Social Indicators Research, 59, 229–259.
Diener, E., Kanazawa, S., Suh, E. M., & Oishi, S. (2015). Why people are in a
generally good mood. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19,
235–256.
Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Oishi, S. (2016). Advances and open questions in
the science of subjective well-being (under review).
Diestel, S., Wegge, J., & Schmidt, K. (2014). The impact of social context on
the relationship between individual job satisfaction and absenteeism:
The roles of different foci of satisfaction and work-unit absenteeism.
Academy of Management Journal, 57, 353–382.
G Model
RIOB 95 No. of Pages 20
E.R. Tenney et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Dotson, J. P., & Allenby, G. M. (2010). Investigating the strategic influence
of customer and employee satisfaction on firm financial performance.
Marketing Science, 29, 895–908.
Duckworth, A. L., Quinn, P. D., & Seligman, M. E. (2009). Positive predictors
of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 540–547.
Duflo, E., Hanna, R., & Ryan, S. P. (2012). Incentives work: Getting teachers
to come to school. American Economic Review, 102, 1241–1278.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American
Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.
Edmans, A. (2012). The link between job satisfaction and firm value, with
implications for corporate responsibility. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 26, 1–19.
Erez, A., & Isen, A. M. (2002). The influence of positive affect on the
components of expectancy motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87, 1055–1067.
Ertugrul, M. (2013). Employee-friendly acquirers and acquisition perfor-
mance. Journal of Financial Research, 36, 347–370.
Falkenberg, L. E. (1987). Employee fitness programs: Their impact on the
employee and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 12,
511–522.
Faragher, E. B., Cass, M., & Cooper, C. L. (2005). The relationship between
job satisfaction and health: A meta-analysis. Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, 62, 105–112.
Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2005). Economics language and
assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling. Academy of
Management Review, 30, 8–24.
Firth, H., & Britton, P. (1989). ‘Burnout’, absence and turnover amongst
British nursing staff. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 55
–59.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1974). Attitudes towards objects as predictors of
single and multiple behavioral criteria. Psychological Review, 81, 59–
74.
Fisher, C. D. (2003). Why do lay people believe that satisfaction and
performance are correlated? Possible sources of a commonsense
theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 753–777.
Fisher, C. D., & To, M. L. (2012). Using experience sampling methodology in
organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 865–
877.
Ford, M., Cerasoli, C., Higgins, J., & Decesare, A. L. (2011). Relationships
between psychological, physical, and behavioural health and work
performance: A review and meta-analysis. Work and Stress, 25, 185–
204.
Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM).
Psychological Bulletin, 117, 39–66.
Forgas, J. P., & George, J. M. (2001). Affective influences on judgments and
behavior in organizations: An information processing perspective.
Organizational Behavior and Human decision Processes, 86, 3–34.
Frayne, C. A., & Geringer, J. M. (2000). Self-management training for
improving job performance: A field experiment involving salespeo-
ple. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 361–372.
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of
General Psychology, 2, 300–319.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Levenson, R. W. (1998). Positive emotions speed
recovery from the cardiovascular sequelae of negative emotions.
Cognition and Emotion, 12, 191–220.
Fredrickson, B. L., Mancuso, R. A., Branigan, C., & Tugade, M. M. (2000). The
undoing effect of positive emotions. Motivation and Emotion, 24, 237–
258.
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint
contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory
behaviors to employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 50,
605–622.
Gil-Monte, P. R. (2008). Magnitude of relationship between burnout and
absenteeism: A preliminary study. Psychological Reports, 102, 465–
468.
Goetzel, R. Z., Hawkins, K., Ozminkowski, R. J., & Wang, S. (2003). The
health and productivity cost burden of the top 10 physical and mental
health conditions affecting six large US employers in 1999. Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 45, 5–14.
Goodman, P. S., & Atkin, R. S. (Eds.). (1984). Absenteeism: New approaches to
understanding, measuring, and managing employee absence. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Incorporated Pub.
Goodman, P. S., & Leyden, D. P. (1991). Familiarity and group productivity.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 578–586.
Graham, C., Eggers, A., & Sukhtankar, S. (2004). Does happiness pay? An
exploration based on panel data from Russia. Journal of Economic
Behavior and Organization, 55, 319–342.
Please cite this article in press as: E.R. Tenney, et al., Does positivity enhance work performance?: Why, when, and what we
don’t know, Research in Organizational Behavior (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.11.002
17
Grandey, A. A. (2003). When the show must go on: Surface and deep
acting as determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated
service delivery. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 86–96.
Grandey, A. A., Fisk, G. M., Mattila, A. S., Jansen, K. J., & Sideman, L. A.
(2005). Is service with a smile enough? Authenticity of positive
displays in service encounters. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 96, 38–55.
Grawitch, M. J., Munz, D. C., Elliott, E. K., & Mathis, A. (2003). Promoting
creativity in temporary problem-solving groups: The effects of
positive mood and autonomy in problem definition on idea-
generating performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 7, 200–213.
Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of
antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator
tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of
Management, 26, 463–488.
Grinyer, A., & Singleton, V. (2000). Sickness absence as risk-taking
behavior: A study of organizational and cultural factors in the public
sector. Health, Risk & Society, 2, 7–21.
Gruber, J., Mauss, I. B., & Tamir, M. (2011). A dark side of happiness? How,
when and why happiness is not always good. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 6, 222–233.
Haedt-Matt, A. A., & Keel, P. K. (2011). Revisiting the affect regulation
model of binge eating: A meta-analysis of studies using ecological
momentary assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 660–681.
Hackett, R. D. (1989). Work attitudes and employee absenteeism: A
synthesis of the literature. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 235–
248.
Hackett, R. D., & Guion, R. M. (1985). A reevaluation of the absenteeism–
job satisfaction relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 35, 340–381.
Hancock, J. I., Allen, D. G., Bosco, F. A., McDaniel, K. R., & Pierce, C. A. (2013).
Meta analytic review of employee turnover as a predictor of firm
performance. Journal of Management, 39, 573–603.
Hardy, G. E., Woods, D., & Wall, T. D. (2003). The impact of psychological
distress on absence from work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 306–
314.
Hargadon, A. B., & Bechky, B. (2006). When collections of creatives
become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work.
Organization Science, 17, 484–500.
Harrison, D. A., & Martocchio, J. J. (1998). Time for absenteeism: A 20-year
review of origins, offshoots and outcomes. Journal of Management, 24,
305–350.
Harrison, D. A., & Price, K. H. (2003). Context and consistency in
absenteeism: Studying social and dispositional influences across
multiple settings. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 203–225.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level
relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement,
and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psycholo-
gy, 87, 268–279.
Hausknecht, J. P., & Holwerda, J. A. (2013). When does employee turnover
matter? Dynamic member configurations, productive capacity, and
collective performance. Organization Science, 24, 210–225.
Hausknecht, J. P., Hiller, N. J., & Vance, R. J. (2008). Work-unit absenteeism:
Effects of satisfaction, commitment, labor market conditions and
time. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 1223–1245.
Heatherton, T. F., Herman, C. P., & Polivy, J. (1991). Effects of physical threat
and ego threat on eating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 60, 138–143.
Heine, S. J., Kitayama, S., Lehman, D. R., Takata, T., Ide, E., Leung, C., et al.
(2001). Divergent consequences of success and failure in Japan and
North America: An investigation of self-improving motivations and
malleable selves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 599–
615.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Groth, M., Paul, M., & Gremler, D. D. (2006). Are all
smiles created equal? How emotional contagion and emotional labor
affect service relationships. Journal of Marketing, 7, 58–73.
Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., &
Taylor, A. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories
of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal
of Social Psychology, 31, 3–23.
Hollenbeck, J. R., & Williams, C. R. (1986). Turnover functionality versus
turnover frequency: A note on work attitudes and organizational
effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 606–611.
Hosie, P. J., & Sevastos, P. (2009). Does the happy-productive worker thesis
apply to managers? International Journal of Workplace Health
Management, 2, 131–160.
G Model
RIOB 95 No. of Pages 20
18 E.R. Tenney et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Howell, R. T., Kern, M. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2007). Health benefits: Meta-
analytically determining the impact of well-being on objective health
outcomes. Health Psychology Review, 1, 83–136.
Hulin, C. L., Roznowski, M., & Hachiya, D. (1985). Alternative opportunities
and withdrawal decisions: Empirical and theoretical discrepancies
and an integration. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 233–250.
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The
Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869–879.
Ifcher, J., & Zarghamee, H. (2011). Happiness and time preference: The
effect of positive affect in a random-assignment experiment.
American Economic Review, 101, 3109–3129.
Ilgen, D. R., & Hollenback, J. H. (1977). The role of job satisfaction in
absence behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19,
148–161.
Isen, A. M. (1970). Success, failure, attention, and reaction to others: The
warm glow of success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15,
249–301.
Isen, A. M., & Reeve, J. (2005). The influence of positive affect on intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation: Facilitating enjoyment of play, responsible
work behavior, and self-control. Motivation and Emotion, 29, 295–323.
Janyam, K. (2009). The influence of job satisfaction on mental health of
factory workers. Internet Journal of Mental Health, 7, Retrieved from
http://ispub.com/ijmh/7/1/9829.
Jehn, K. A., & Shah, P. P. (1997). Interpersonal relationships and task
performance: An examination of mediation processes in friendship
and acquaintance groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
72, 775–790.
Jiang, M., & Tagard, P. (2014). Creative cognition and social innovation.
Creativity Research Journal, 26, 375–388.
Johns, G. (2011). Attendance dynamics at work: The antecedents and
correlates of presenteeism, absenteeism, and productivity loss.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16, 483–500.
John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence
of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling.
Psychological Science, 23, 24–532.
Johnson, K. J., Waugh, C. E., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2010). Smile to see the
forest: Facially expressed positive emotions broaden cognition.
Cognition and Emotion, 24, 299–321.
Judge, T. A., & Klinger, R. (2008). Job satisfaction: Subjective well-being at
work. In M. Eid, & R. Larsen (Eds.), The science of subjective well-being
(pp. 393–413).New York: Guilford Publications.
Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2012). Job attitudes. Annual Review
of Psychology, 63, 341–367.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job
satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85, 237.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job
satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quanti-
tative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376–407.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., Podsakoff, N. P., Shaw, J. C., & Rich, B. L. (2010).
The relationship between pay and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of
the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 157–167.
Kacmar, K. M., Andrews, M. C., Van Rooy, D. L., Steilberg, R. C., & Cerrone, S.
(2006). Sure everyone can be replaced . . . but at what cost? Turnover
as a predictor of unit-level performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 49, 133–144.
Kagan, J. (2016). An overly permissive extension. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 11, 442–450.
Kahn, W. A. (2007). Meaningful connections: Positive relationships and
attachments at work. In J. E. Dutton, & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring
positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research
foundation (pp. 189–206).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D. A., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A.
(2004). A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: The
day reconstruction method. Science, 306, 1776–1780.
Kassel, J. D., Stroud, L. R., & Paronis, C. A. (2003). Smoking, stress, and
negative affect: Correlation, causation, and context across stages of
smoking. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 270–304.
Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2010). The Cambridge handbook of
creativity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kazdin, A. E., Esveldt-Dawson, K., & Matson, J. L. (1982). Changes in
children’s social skills performance as a function of preassessment
experiences. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 11, 243–248.
Kazmi, R., Amjad, S., & Khan, D. (2008). Occupational stress and its effect
on job performance: A case study of medical house officers. Journal of
Ayub Medical College of Abbottabad, 20, 135–139.
Keiningham, T. L., Aksoy, L., Daly, R. M., Perrier, K., & Solom, A. (2006).
Reexamining the link between employee satisfaction and store
Please cite this article in press as: E.R. Tenney, et al., Does positivity enhance work performance?: Why, when, and what we
don’t know, Research in Organizational Behavior (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.11.002
performance in a retail environment. International Journal of Service
Industry Management, 17, 51–57.
Keltner, D., & Anderson, C. (2000). Saving face for Darwin: The functions
and uses of embarrassment. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
9, 187–192.
Kessler, R. C., Barber, C., Birnbaum, H. G., Frank, R. G., Greenberg, P. E., Rose,
R. M., et al. (1999). Depression in the workplace: Effects on short-term
disability. Health Affairs, 18, 163–171.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Glaser, R., Strain, E. C., Stout, J. C., Tarr, K. L., Holliday, J.
E., et al. (1986). Modulation of cellular immunity in medical students.
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 9, 5–21.
Killingsworth, M. A., & Gilbert, D. T. (2010). A wandering mind is an
unhappy mind. Science, 330, 932.
Kinicki, A. J., Schriesheim, C. A., Mckee-Ryan, F. M., & Carson, K. P. (2002).
Assessing the construct validity of the job descriptive index: A review
and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 14–32.
Knies, S., Candel, M. J. J. M., Boonen, A., Evers, S. M. A. A., Ament, A. J. H. A.,
& Severens, J. L. (2012). Lost productivity in four European countries
among patients with rheumatic disorders: Are absenteeism and
presenteeism transferable? Pharmacoeconomics, 30, 795–807.
Kohler, S. S., & Mathieu, J. E. (1993). Individual characteristics, work
perceptions, and affective reactions influences on differentiated
absence criteria. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 515–530.
Koo, J., & Suh, E. M. (2013). The influence of happiness on future income
and job performance. Korean Journal of Social and Personality
Psychology, 27, 17–36.
Koys, D. J. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational
citizenship behavior, and turnover on organizational effectiveness: A
unit-level, longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 54, 101–114.
Kraiger, K., Billings, R. S., & Isen, A. M. (1989). The influence of positive
affective states on task perceptions and satisfaction. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 12–25.
Kubzansky, L. D., & Thurston, R. C. (2007). Emotional vitality and incident
coronary heart disease: Benefits of healthy psychological functioning.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 64, 1393–1401.
LaRose, R., Lin, C., & Eastin, M. (2003). Unregulated Internet usage:
Addiction, habit, or deficient self-regulation? Media Psychology, 5,
225–253.
Lepine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & Lepine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of
the challenge stressor-hindrance stressor framework: An explanation
for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 48, 764–775.
Lerner, J. S., Li, Y., & Weber, E. U. (2013). The financial costs of sadness.
Psychological Science, 24, 72–79.
Locke, K. (1996). A funny thing happened! The management of consumer
emotions in service encounters. Organization Science, 7, 40–59.
Lucas, R. E., & Fujita, F. (2000). Factors influencing the relation between
extraversion and pleasant affect. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 79, 1039–1056.
Luhmann, M., Lucas, R. E., Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2013). The prospective
effect of life satisfaction on life events. Social Psychological and
Personality Science, 4, 39–45.
Lupien, S. J., & Lepage, M. (2001). Stress, memory, and the hippocampus:
Can’t live with it, can’t live without it. Behavioural Brain Research, 127,
137–158.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent
positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin,
131, 803–855.
Macnamara, B. N., Hambrick, D. Z., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). Deliberate
practice and performance in music, games, sports, education, and
professions: A meta-analysis. Psychological Science, 25, 1608–1618.
Magee, J. C., Kilduff, G. J., & Heath, C. (2011). On the folly of principal’s
power: Managerial psychology as a cause of bad incentives. Research
in Organizational Behavior, 31, 25–41.
Marks, G. N., & Fleming, N. (1999). Influences and consequences of well-
being among Australian young people: 1980–1995. Social Indicators
Research, 46, 301–323.
McElroy, J. C., Morrow, P. C., & Rude, S. N. (2001). Turnover and
organizational performance: A comparative analysis of the effects of
voluntary, involuntary, and reduction-in-force turnover. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86, 1294–1299.
McEvoy, G. M., & Cascio, W. F. (1987). Do good or poor performers leave? A
meta-analysis of the relationship between performance and turnover.
Academy of Management Journal, 30, 744–762.
Mehl, M. R., Pennebaker, J. W., Crow, M. D., Dabbs, J., & Price, J. H. (2001).
The Electronically Activated Recorder (EAR): A device for sampling
naturalistic daily activities and conversations. Behavior Research
Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 33, 517–523.
G Model
RIOB 95 No. of Pages 20
E.R. Tenney et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Mehl, M. R., Vazire, S., Holleran, S. E., & Clark, C. S. (2010). Eavesdropping
on happiness: Well-being is related to having less small talk and more
substantive conversations. Psychological Science, 21, 539–541.
Miner, A. G., & Glomb, T. M. (2010). State mood, task performance, and
behavior at work: A within-persons approach. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 112, 43–57.
Mirvis, P. H., & Lawler, E. E. (1977). Measuring the financial impact of
employee attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 1–8.
Mischel, W., Ebbesen, E. B., & Zeiss, A. R. (1973). Selective attention to the
self: Situational and dispositional determinants. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 27, 129–142.
Mitchell, R., Boyle, B., Parker, V., Giles, M., Joyce, P., & Chiang, V. (2014).
Transformation through tension: The moderating impact of negative
affect on transformational leadership teams. Human Relations, 67,
1095–1121.
Moniz, A., & de Jong, F. (2014). Sentiment analysis and the impact of
employee satisfaction on firm earnings. In M. de Rijke, T. Kenter, A.
De Vries, C. Zhai, F. de Jong, K. Radinsky, & K. Hofmann (Eds.),
Advances in information retrieval (pp. 519–527).London: Springer-
Verlag.
Moore, D. A., & Tenney, E. R. (2012a). Cheaper and better: Why scientific
advancement demands the move to open access publishing.
Psychological Inquiry, 23, 285–286.
Moore, D. A., & Tenney, E. R. (2012b). Time pressure, performance, and
productivity. In M. A. Neale, & E. A. Mannix (Eds.), Looking back,
moving forward: A review of group and team-based research (research on
managing groups and teams): (Vol. 15. pp. 305–326).Bingley: Emerald
Group Publishing Limited.
Moore, S., Diener, E., & Tay, L. (2017). In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.),
Happiness enhances social relationships: A multi-method explanationE-
Handbook of subjective well-being.
Moritz, B. (2014). The U. S. chairman of PwC on keeping millennials
engaged. Harvard Business Review Retrieved from https://hbr.org/
2014/11/the-us-chairman-of-pwc-on-keeping-millennials-engaged.
Motowidlo, S. J., Packard, J. S., & Manning, M. R. (1986). Occupational
stress: Its causes and consequences for job performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 71, 618–629.
Murphy, S. C., von Hippel, W., Dubbs, S. L., Angilletta, M. J., Wilson, R. S.,
Trivers, R., et al. (2015). The role of overconfidence in romantic
desirability and competition. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 41, 1036–1052.
Norem, J. K., & Cantor, N. (1986). Defensive pessimism: Harnessing
anxiety as motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,
1208–1217.
Nosek, B. A., & Bar-Anan, Y. (2012). Scientific utopia: I. Opening scientific
communication. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 217–243.
Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific utopia II.
Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over
publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 615–631.
Ogedegbe, G. O., Boutin-Foster, C., Wells, M. T., Allegrante, J. P., Isen, A. M.,
Jobe, J. B., et al. (2012). A randomized controlled trial of positive-affect
intervention and medication adherence in hypertensive African
Americans. Archives of Internal Medicine, 172, 322–326.
Oishi, S., & Koo, M. (2008). Two new questions about happiness. In M. Eid,
& R. J. Larsen (Eds.), The science of subjective well-being (pp. 290–306).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Oishi, S., Diener, E., & Lucas, R. (2007). The optimum level of well-being: Can
people be too happy? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 346–360.
Oldham, G. R., & Brass, D. J. (1979). Employee reactions to an open-plan
office: A naturally occurring quasi-experiment. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 24, 267–284.
Ong, A. D. (2010). Pathways linking positive emotion and health in later
life. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 358–362.
Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and
performance: An organizational level analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 77, 963–974.
Oswald, A. J., Proto, E., & Sgroi, D. (2015). Happiness and productivity.
Journal of Labor Economics, 33, 789–822.
Park, T., & Shaw, J. D. (2013). Turnover rates and organizational
performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98,
268–309.
Parks, K. M., & Steelman, L. A. (2008). Organizational wellness programs: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 58.
Parrott, W. G. (2014). The positive side of negative emotions. New York:
Guilford Press.
Piazza, J. R., Charles, S. T., Sliwinski, M. J., Mogle, J., & Almeida, D. M. (2013).
Affective reactivity to daily stressors and long-term risk of reporting a
chronic physical health condition. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 45,
110–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12160-012-9423-0.
Please cite this article in press as: E.R. Tenney, et al., Does positivity enhance work performance?: Why, when, and what we
don’t know, Research in Organizational Behavior (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.11.002
19
Porath, C. L., & Bateman, T. S. (2006). Self-regulation: From goal
orientation to job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91,
185–192.
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulan, P. V. (1974).
Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among
psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603–609.
Porter, L. W., Lawler, E. E., & Hackman, J. R. (1975). Behavior in
organizations. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Pressman, S. D., & Cohen, S. (2005). Does positive affect influence health?
Psychological Bulletin, 131, 925–971.
Pyone, J. S., & Isen, A. M. (2011). Positive affect, intertemporal choice, and
levels of thinking: Increasing consumers’ willingness to wait. Journal
of Marketing Research, 48, 532–543.
Ragins, B. R., & Dutton, J. E. (2007). Positive relationships at work: An
introduction and invitation. In J. E. Dutton, & B. R. Ragins (Eds.),
Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and
research foundation (pp. 3–25).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Ram, N., & Diehl, M. (2015). Multiple time-scale design and analysis:
Pushing towards real-time modeling of complex developmental
processes. In M. Diehl, K. Hooker, & M. Sliwinski (Eds.), Handbook of
intraindividual variability across the lifespan (pp. 308–323).New York,
NY: Routledge.
Rego, A., Sousa, F., Marques, C., & Cunha, M. P. (2012). Optimism predicting
employee’s creativity: The mediating role of positive affect and the
positivity ratio. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 21, 244–279.
Rice, R. W., Near, J. P., & Hunt, R. G. (1980). The job-satisfaction/life-
satisfaction relationship: A review of empirical research. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 1, 37–64.
Riketta, M. (2008). The causal relation between job attitudes and
performance: A meta-analysis of panel studies. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93, 472–481.
Rothbard, N. P., & Wilk, S. L. (2011). Waking up on the right or wrong side
of the bed: Start-of workday mood, work events, employee affect, and
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 959–980.
Rowe, G., Hirsh, J. B., & Anderson, A. K. (2007). Positive affect increases the
breadth of attentional selection. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, 104, 383–388.
Rugulies, R. (2002). Depression as a predictor of coronary heart disease: A
review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Preventative Medicine,
23, 51–61.
Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the Investment Model: The
development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in
heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholo-
gy, 45, 101–117.
Russ, T. C., Stamatakis, E., Hamer, M., Starr, J. M., Kivimaki, M., & Batty, G. D.
(2012). Association between psychological distress and mortality:
Individual participant pooled analysis of 10 prospective cohort
studies. BMJ, 345, e4933.
Sagie, A. (1998). Employee absenteeism, organizational commitment, and
job satisfaction: Another look. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 156–
171.
Sagie, A., Birati, A., & Tziner, A. (2002). Assessing the costs of behavioral
and psychological withdrawal: A new model and an empirical
illustration. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 67–89.
Schlotzhauer, D. L., & Rosse, J. G. (1985). A five-year study of a positive
incentive absence control program. Personnel Psychology, 38, 575–
585.
Schneider, B., Hanges, P. J., Smith, D. B., & Salvaggio, A. N. (2003). Which
comes first: Employee attitudes or organizational financial and
market performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 836–851.
Schoenbaum, M., Unutzer, J., Mccaffrey, D., Duan, N., Sherbourne, C., &
Wells, K. B. (2002). The effects of primary care depression treatment
on patients’ clinical status and employment. Health Services Research,
37, 1145–1158.
Schroeder, J., & Fishbach, A. (2015). How to motivate yourself and others?
Intended and unintended consequences. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 35, 123–141.
Scott, K. D., & Taylor, G. S. (1985). An examination of conflicting findings on
the relationship between job satisfaction and absenteeism: A meta-
analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 599–612.
Seabaugh, G. O., & Schumaker, J. B. (1994). The effects of self-regulation
training on the academic productivity of secondary students with
learning problems. Journal of Behavioral Education, 4, 109–133.
Shaw, J. D., Gupta, N., & Delery, J. E. (2005). Alternative conceptualizations
of the relationship between voluntary turnover and organizational
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 50–68.
G Model
RIOB 95 No. of Pages 20
20 E.R. Tenney et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Shiffman, S., Stone, A. A., & Hufford, M. R. (2008). Ecological momentary
assessment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 1–32.
Shipton, H. J., West, M. A., Parkes, C. L., Dawson, J. F., & Patterson, M. G.
(2006). When promoting positive feelings pays: Aggregate job
satisfaction, work design features, and innovation in manufacturing
organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psycholo-
gy, 15, 404–430.
Shore, G., Prasad, P., & Zroback, M. (1989). A cost-effective fitness program.
Fitness Business, 4, 146–153.
Silvestro, R. (2002). Dispelling the modern myth: Employee satisfaction
and loyalty drive service profitability. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 22, 30–49.
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive
psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis
allow presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 11,
1359–1366.
Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship
conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup
trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102–111.
Simons, T. L., & Roberson, Q. (2003). Why managers should care about
fairness: The effects of aggregate justice perceptions on organiza-
tional outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 432–443.
Simonsohn, U. (2013). Just post it: The lesson from two cases of fabricated
data detected by statistics alone. Psychological Science, 24, 1875–1888.
Simonton, D. K. (2000). Creativity: Cognitive, personal, developmental,
and social aspects. American Psychologist, 55, 151.
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. (1969). The measurement of
satisfaction in work and behavior. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related
performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240–261.
Staw, B. M., & Oldham, G. R. (1978). Reconsidering our dependent
variables: A critique and empirical study. Academy of Management
Journal, 21, 539–559.
Staw, B. M., & Barsade, S. Y. (1993). Affect and managerial performance: A
test of the sadder but wiser vs. happier-and-smarter hypotheses.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 304–331.
Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. I., & Pelled, L. H. (1994). Employee positive emotion
and favorable outcomes at the workplace. Organization Science, 5, 51–
71.
Staw, B. M. (1995). Why no one really wants creativity. In C. Ford, & D.
Gioia (Eds.), Creative a ction in organizations: Ivory tower visions and
real world voicesThousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stephens, J. P., Heaphy, E. D., Carmeli, A., Spreitzer, G. M., & Dutton, J. E.
(2013). Relationship quality and virtuousness: Emotional carrying
capacity as a source of individual and team resilience. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 49, 13–41.
Steptoe, A., Wardle, J., & Marmot, M. (2005). Positive affect and health-
related neuroendocrine, cardiovascular, and inflammatory processes.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 6508–6512.
Stoverink, A. C., Umphress, E. E., Gardner, R. G., & Miner, K. N. (2014).
Misery loves company: Team dissonance and the influence of
supervisor-focused interpersonal justice climate on team cohesive-
ness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 1059–1073.
Strine, T. W., Chapman, D. P., Balluz, L. S., Moriarty, D. G., & Mokdad, A. H.
(2008). The associations between life satisfaction and health-related
quality of life, chronic illness, and health behaviors among U.S.
community-dwelling adults. Journal of Community Health, 33, 40–50.
Sweeny, K., Carroll, P. J., & Shepperd, J. A. (2006). Is optimism always best?
Future outlooks and preparedness. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 15, 302–306.
Taris, T. W., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2015). Individual well-being and
performance at work: A conceptual and theoretical overview. In M.
Van Veldhoven, & R. Peccei (Eds.), Well-being and performance at work:
The role of context (pp. 15–34).London: Taylor & Francis.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of
Management Journal, 43, 178–190.
Tenney, E. R., & Spellman, B. A. (2011). Complex social consequences of
self-knowledge. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 343–
350.
Tenney, E. R., Vazire, S., & Mehl, M. R. (2013). This examined life: The
upside of self-knowledge for interpersonal relationships. PLoS One, 8,
e69605.
Tenney, E. R., Logg, J. M., & Moore, D. A. (2015). (Too) optimistic about
optimism: The belief that optimism improves performance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 377–399.
Please cite this article in press as: E.R. Tenney, et al., Does positivity enhance work performance?: Why, when, and what we
don’t know, Research in Organizational Behavior (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.11.002
View publication stats
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analyses based
on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46, 259–293.
Tice, D. M., Baumeister, R. F., Shmueli, D., & Muraven, M. (2007). Restoring
the self: Positive affect helps improve self-regulation following ego
depletion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 379–384.
To, M. L., Fisher, C. D., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Rowe, P. A. (2012). Within-
person relationships between mood and creativity. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97, 599–612.
Turban, D. B., Lee, F. K., Veiga, S. P., Haggard, D. L., & Wu, S. Y. (2013). Be
happy, don’t wait: The role of trait affect in job search. Personnel
Psychology, 66, 483–514.
Van Dongen, J. M., Proper, K. I., van Wier, M. F., van der Beek, A. J., Bongers,
P. M., van Mechelen, W., et al. (2011). Systematic review on the
financial return of worksite health promotion programmes aimed at
improving nutrition and/or increasing physical activity. Obesity
Reviews, 12, 1031–1049.
Van Doorn, E. A., Heerdink, M. W., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2012). Emotion and
the construal of social situations: Inferences of cooperation versus
competition from expressions of anger, happiness, and disappoint-
ment. Cognition and Emotion, 26, 442–461.
Van Katwyk, P. T., Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Using the
Job-Related Affective Well-Being Scale (JAWS) to investigate affective
responses to work stressors. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
5, 219–230.
Vazire, S. (2016). And now for something a little more uplifting [Blog
post]. Retrieved from http://sometimesimwrong.typepad.com/
wrong/2016/02/announcing-sips.html.
Wagner, D. D., & Heatherton, T. F. (2013). Emotion regulation and self-
regulatory failure, In J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation2nd
ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Wagner, D. D., & Heatherton, T. F. (2014). Self-regulation and its failures, In
M. S. Gazzaniga, & R. Mangun (Eds.), Cognitive neurosciences (pp. 709–
717).5th ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Walker, C. O., Greene, B. A., & Mansell, R. A. (2006). Identification with
academics, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy as pre-
dictors of cognitive engagement. Learning and Individual Differences,
16, 1–12.
Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Mood management across affective
states: The hedonic contingency hypothesis. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 66, 1034–1048.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A
theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of
affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18,
1–74.
Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Manual for
the minnesota satisfaction questionnaire. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota.
Whelan, D. C., & Zelenski, J. M. (2012). Experimental evidence that
positive moods cause sociability. Social Psychological and Personality
Science, 3, 430–437.
Willner, P., & Jones, C. (1996). Effects of mood manipulation on subjective
and behavioural measures of cigarette craving. Behavioural Pharma-
cology, 7, 355–363.
Witters, D., & Agrawal, S. (2011). Unhealthy us workers’ absenteeism costs
153 billion. Retrieved from Gallup website: http://www.gallup.com/
poll/150026/unhealthy-workers-absenteeism-costs-153-billion.
aspx.
Wright, J., & Michel, W. (1982). Influence of affect on cognitive social
learning person variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
43, 901–914.
Wright, T. A., Cropanzano, R., Denny, P. J., & Moline, G. L. (2002). When a
happy worker is a productive worker: A preliminary examination of
three models. Canadian Journal of Behavior Science, 34, 146–150.
Wright, T. A., Cropanzano, R., & Bonett, D. G. (2007). The moderating role
of employee positive well-being on the relation between job
satisfaction and job performance. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 12, 93–104.
Zhang, M., Rost, K. M., Fortney, J. C., & Smith, G. R. (1999). A community
study of depression treatment and employment earnings. Psychiatric
Services, 50, 1209–1213.
Zhou, Q., Hirst, G., & Shipton, H. (2012). Promoting creativity at work: The
role of problem-solving demand. Applied Psychology, 61, 56–80.