By 
Trying to understand the nature of job satisfaction and its effects on job performance is not easy. For at least 50 years, industrial/organizational psychologists have been wrestling with the question of the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance. Researchers have gone to considerable lengths to try to show that the two are positively related in one particular way: a happy worker is a good worker. Although this sounds like a very attractive idea, the results in the empirical literature are too mixed to support the hypothesis that job satisfaction leads to better performance or even that there is a reliable positive correlation between these two variables. On the other hand, some researchers argue that the results are equally inconclusive regarding the hypothesis that there is no such relationship. As a result of this ambiguity, this relationship continues to stimulate investigation and re-examination of earlier attempts. This paper strives to describe the relationship between satisfaction and job performance, taking into account the value that this relationship has for organizations.
Job satisfaction is a complex and multifaceted concept, which can mean different things to different people. Job satisfaction is often linked to motivation, but the nature of this relationship is unclear. Satisfaction is not the same as motivation. “Job satisfaction is more of an attitude, an internal state. It could, for example, be associated with a personal feeling of achievement, either quantitative or qualitative.” In recent years, attention to job satisfaction has become more closely associated with broader approaches to improving work design and organization, and the quality of work life movement.
The relationship between job satisfaction and performance is a subject of ongoing debate and controversy. One view, associated with the early human relations approach, is that satisfaction leads to performance. An alternative view is that performance leads to satisfaction. However, a variety of studies suggest that research has found only a limited relationship between satisfaction and job performance and offers little reassurance to those seeking to confirm that a satisfied worker is also productive. Job turnover and absenteeism are commonly associated with dissatisfaction, but while there may be some correlation, there are many other possible factors. There are no universal generalizations about worker dissatisfaction to offer easy management solutions to turnover and absenteeism problems. The study suggests that it is mainly in the realm of job design where the opportunity for a constructive improvement in the level of worker satisfaction lies.
Individual performance is generally determined by three factors. Motivation, the desire to do the job, skill, the ability to do the job, and the work environment, tools, materials, and information needed to do the job. If an employee lacks capacity, the manager can provide training or replace the worker. If there is an environmental problem, the manager can usually make adjustments to promote higher performance as well. But if motivation is the problem, the manager’s task is more challenging. Individual behavior is a complex phenomenon and the manager may not be able to understand why the employee is not motivated and how to change the behavior. Thus, motivation also plays a vital role since it can negatively influence performance and due to its intangible nature.