MT302 Unit 8 Job Satisfaction and Performance Study Example

Course	MT302 Organizational Behavior
Unit	Unit 8
Paper type	Job satisfaction study
Length	About 840 words, 6 pages double-spaced
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Purdue University Global
Program	BS in Business Administration
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for MT302 Unit 8

Strong on Leaving, Weak on Performing: An MT302 Unit 8 Attitudes and Satisfaction Study of Four Title Office Teams

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

MT302: Organizational Behavior

Unit 8 Attitudes and Satisfaction Study

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The office, teams and data are composite; the measure and studies cited are real.

What this part is doingStating the three findings in the lead keeps attitudes and outcomes separate from the start.

The Measure

Job satisfaction here means a person's evaluation of their job. Our office's quarterly pulse survey includes the three-item job satisfaction subscale of the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire, which asks how far people agree that, all in all, they are satisfied with their job, that in general they do not like their job (reversed) and that in general they like working here. Answers use a seven-point scale. Bowling and Hammond (2008), in a meta-analysis of the subscale, found that it showed good reliability and correlated with other satisfaction measures as expected, which supports using such a short measure. The office reports results only as team averages, and no individual response appears anywhere in this study.

The Data

Four teams, closing coordinators, examiners, escrow officers and post-closing, over six quarters gave twenty-four team-quarters. For each, I recorded mean satisfaction, files handled per person, audited error rate and voluntary departures in the following quarter.

Satisfaction ranged from 4.1 to 5.9, with the coordinators lowest in four of six quarters. Files per person ranged from 88 to 142 a quarter. Error rate ranged from 1.1 to 4.0 percent. Departures ranged from zero to two per team in the following quarter, eleven in total.

Three Correlations

1. Satisfaction and files per person: 0.09. Essentially no relationship. Satisfied teams did not handle more files.

2. Satisfaction and error rate: negative 0.21. A weak relationship. More satisfied teams made somewhat fewer errors, but the pattern was loose.

3. Satisfaction and next-quarter departures: negative 0.56. A strong relationship for data of this kind. Teams with lower satisfaction lost more people in the following quarter.

A scatter plot shows the third relationship, one dot per team-quarter, satisfaction on the horizontal axis and departures on the vertical. The four dots with two departures all sit below 4.6 on satisfaction.

In this office, how people feel about the job says little about how many files they close and a great deal about whether they will still be here next quarter.

What this part is doingGiving each correlation a plain reading shows the analysis separates feeling from performing as the unit asks.

Discussion

The office data fit the published research. Judge et al. (2001), combining many studies, found a moderate relationship between individual job satisfaction and job performance, stronger than earlier reviews had suggested, and noted that the direction of causation is unresolved: satisfaction may lead to performance, but rewarded performance may also lead to satisfaction. Our team-level relationship with files handled is much weaker than that, perhaps because files are assigned by volume rather than chosen, so a satisfied team cannot easily close more.

The departure finding is stronger and more consistent with research on turnover. Griffeth et al. (2000), in a meta-analysis of turnover predictors, found job satisfaction among the attitudes related to leaving, alongside organizational commitment and intentions to quit. In our office, low satisfaction appears to be an early warning of departures rather than a cause of poor work.

Why the Coordinators

The coordinators' low satisfaction matches findings from earlier units: low task identity and feedback in their job design, and the equity problem created by the officers' bonus. Five of the eleven departures were coordinators. If the office wants to keep coordinators, satisfaction is worth watching, even though it does not predict their output.

Limits

Twenty-four points. Correlations from twenty-four team-quarters are unstable. A single unusual quarter can move them noticeably.

Team level, not individual. These are relationships between team averages. They cannot show that a dissatisfied person performs worse or is more likely to leave; assuming so would be an ecological fallacy.

Repeated teams. The twenty-four points come from four teams, so they are not independent observations.

Correlation only. Nothing here shows that satisfaction causes departures. Another factor, such as a difficult manager, could lower both satisfaction and retention.

Short measure. Three items capture overall satisfaction but not its sources, such as pay or supervision.

A Closer Look at One Team

The coordinator team shows the pattern most clearly. In the two quarters when coordinator satisfaction fell lowest, 4.1 and 4.3, three coordinators left in the following quarters. Both quarters followed changes covered in earlier units: the officer bonus in March and a month-end in which phone coverage fell entirely on coordinators. Files per coordinator stayed high in both quarters, which is exactly the separation between feeling and performing the correlations describe. The team kept producing while it was losing people, which is why output alone gave the office no warning.

What the Office Could Do

Treat a team's satisfaction falling below about 4.6 as a signal to talk with that team before the next quarter, since that is where departures cluster. Do not use satisfaction scores to judge performance. And add one open question to the survey asking what would make the job better, so the office learns what lies behind the numbers.

What this part is doingEnding with uses that respect the limits shows the study's findings were not stretched beyond the data.

References

Bowling, N. A., & Hammond, G. D. (2008). A meta-analytic examination of the construct validity of the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire Job Satisfaction Subscale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(1), 63-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.01.004

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(3), 463-488. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600305

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376-407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376

Reading the MT 302 Unit 8 instructions

In Unit 8 students study the relationship between a work attitude, usually job satisfaction, and outcomes such as performance or turnover. The paper should define the attitude and describe the measure accurately, including its length and scale. Data should be presented clearly, with privacy protected. Students are often asked to calculate or report correlations and explain each in plain language. Instructors expect attitude and behavior to be treated as separate variables, with the relationship tested rather than assumed. Results should be compared with published research. A limits section is essential, especially on sample size, level of analysis and causation. The paper should close with uses of the findings that respect those limits and that a manager could put into practice.

Inside the MT302 Unit 8 example

The sample defines job satisfaction as an evaluation of the job and describes the three survey items and seven-point scale. Data from twenty-four team-quarters are summarized by range. Three correlations are reported with plain readings, under the highlighted line that feeling says little about files closed and a great deal about who stays. A scatter plot is described. The discussion compares the results with Judge and colleagues and with Griffeth and colleagues on turnover. A section on the coordinator team links low satisfaction to findings from earlier units. Five limits follow, including the ecological fallacy and repeated teams. Three practical uses close the study, including a survey question about what would improve the job.

Where the points sit in the MT302 Unit 8 rubric

Attitude studies in this course are often judged on how the attitude is measured, how results are reported, how they compare with published work and how honestly limits are stated. High marks go to papers that keep attitude and behavior separate throughout. The measure should be described precisely. Each result should be given a plain-language reading. Comparison with meta-analytic findings shows how the case fits the wider evidence. Limits should address sample size, level of analysis, independence of observations and causation. Recommendations should not overreach the data. Privacy should be protected by reporting only aggregated results. Research and measurement sources should appear in APA 7. Studies that treat a correlation as proof that satisfaction causes performance usually lose marks.

MT302 Unit 8 help: mistakes that cost points

Satisfaction studies often assume that happy workers are productive and look only for evidence of that. Another common error is treating team-level correlations as if they described individuals. Some students report correlations without explaining what they mean. Measures are frequently described vaguely. Limits may be missing or limited to sample size. Before drafting, check what survey data your workplace already collects and at what level it is reported, then line it up with one or two outcomes such as turnover or error rates. That summary is the raw material a writer would start from.

Get an MT302 Unit 8 example written to your instructions

Survey data supplied by your Unit 8 prompt, or a study you are asked to design: either works. Share the data or describe the workplace, attach the rubric, and the first custom sample, free and ready in 24-48h, keeps how people feel and how they perform as separate, tested outcomes. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.

More MT302 papers and BS in Business Administration samples

MT302 Unit 8 questions, answered

Are satisfied employees more productive?

Somewhat, on average. Meta-analytic research finds a moderate positive correlation between individual job satisfaction and performance, stronger for complex jobs in some analyses, and causation may run either way. Satisfaction predicts absence and turnover more reliably. A paper should present the relationship as real but modest, never as a simple cause and effect.

What is the Michigan satisfaction subscale?

A three-item measure of overall job satisfaction from the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire, asking broadly whether respondents are satisfied with and like their job. It is short, widely used in research and easy to add to a pulse survey. Its brevity limits what it shows, since it captures overall satisfaction rather than facets such as pay or supervision.

Can team averages answer an individual-level question?

Only with care. Relationships among team averages can differ in size and even direction from relationships among individuals, a problem known as the ecological fallacy. A paper using team data should state its level of analysis clearly and limit conclusions to teams, which has the added benefit of protecting individual respondents.

Where can I find a free MT302 Unit 8 sample paper?

The complete MT302 Unit 8 attitudes and satisfaction study is on this page, relating team satisfaction to performance and departures.

Which result is strongest in the MT302 Unit 8 sample?

Satisfaction and next-quarter departures, at negative 0.56, compared with 0.09 for files handled and negative 0.21 for errors.