Intelligence and job satisfaction in the USA and China

Abstract

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 405387 [] For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -This study aims to evaluate both intelligence and job satisfaction of workers in the USA and China. Each topic will be studied individually, first, to determine the relationship between intelligence and job satisfaction. The statistics between China and the USA will then be compared and contrasted to assess how different cultures will affect emotional intelligence and job satisfaction of those in the workforce. Design/methodology/approach -A review of the empirical studies on intelligence and job satisfaction was performed and used to develop a model to guide future research. Findings -There is a negative relationship between intelligence and job satisfaction in the USA, but no studies have been done to compare both constructs cross-culturally. Research limitations/implications -The proposed study can be used to gain an understanding of the relationship between intelligence and job satisfaction across different cultures. Practical implications -The link between job satisfaction and intelligence can be used by employers to determine information about other aspects of their business, such as turnover rates of productive employees. Originality/value -Although there has been some research on the relation between intelligence and job satisfaction, notably by Ganzach (1998), very little has been done across cultures.

Combining Associations Between Emotional Intelligence, Work Motivation, and Organizational Justice With Counterproductive Work Behavior: A Profile Analysis via Multidimensional Scaling (PAMS) Approach

“…At first glance, this might seem contradictory to the abovementioned finding that this combination leads to higher levels of emotional exhaustion, interpersonal deviance, and organizational deviance. Indeed, a review of the literature indicates mixed results in this respect, with some studies reporting a positive relationship between job satisfaction and emotional intelligence (e.g., Rezvani et al, 2016), and others indicating a negative relationship (e.g., Thompson and Samuel, 2014).…”

Systematic Literature Review: Professional Situation of Gifted Adults

“…Thus, general intelligence predicts occupational performance better than special talents as well as non-cognitive factors such as occupational interest and other personality traits (Hunter, 1986 ; Ree et al, 1994 ; Schmidt and Hunter, 1998 , 2004 ; Gottfredson, 2003 ; Schmidt et al, 2016 ). Additionally, intelligence correlates positively with job satisfaction in most studies (Wulff et al, 2009 ; Thompson and Lane, 2014 ; Murtza et al, 2020 ).…”

Strengthening of Intellectual Capital Dimension

“…Job satisfaction is key element when it comes to employee turnover (Griffeth et al, 2000), important prerequisite for effective performance and given that the organizational climate arises from mutual efforts and relations of groups within the organization (Hashemi & Sadeqi, 2016), one of the important determinants for understanding the employee turnover (Arekar et al, 2016), make sure their employees have a high enough level (Thompson & Lane, 2014), only through quality motivation systems can company increase its competitive advantage and value (Hashemi & Sadeqi, 2016), tends to be one of the best predictors of employee turnover (Griffeth et al, 2000), studied not just to handle the turnover but also there are other adverse effects of dissatisfaction like absenteeism, low performance, lower morale, low contribution to the team, less coordination, less orientation (Varma, 2017).…”