Content uploaded by Shahzad Ali Gill
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Shahzad Ali Gill on Nov 10, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
SPECIAL ISSUE PAPER
Intelligence quotient, job satisfaction, and job performance:
The moderating role of personality type
Muhammad Hamid Murtza
1
| Shahzad Ali Gill
2
| Hassan Danial Aslam
1
|
Amna Noor
1
1
School of Business Management &
Administrative Sciences, The Islamia University
of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Pakistan
2
Department of Political Science, The Islamia
University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur,
Pakistan
Correspondence
Muhammad Hamid Murtza, School of Business
Management & Administrative Sciences, The
Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Baghdad ul
Jadeed Campus, Bahawalpur, Pakistan
Email: hamidmurtza@yahoo.com, hamid.
murtza@iub.edu.pk
The purpose of this study is to investigate whether the intelligence quotient (IQ) of
employees is associated with their job satisfaction and performance. The moderating
effect of personality type has also been explored. Drawing on trait theory, a concep-
tual model has been developed, which links personality dimensions to job perfor-
mance through satisfaction. Primary data were collected from 378 respondents from
10 Universities situated in Lahore, Pakistan, for empirically testing our model. Find-
ings reveal that IQ is a predictor of employee's job performance and job satisfaction.
Moreover, this relationship is also moderated by the personality type (A/B) of the
respondents. The study outcomes will be helpful for the management of the institu-
tions to frame policy guidelines for hiring employees and have more informed deci-
sions in terms of personality types and IQ of employees.
1|INTRODUCTION
Human resource is of pivotal importance in organizations for gaining
competitive advantage nowadays. Organizations tend to hire the most
competent people as they want to achieve their goals by adding effi-
ciency in their operations. Undoubtedly, the management of organiza-
tions must take into consideration the subjective qualities of
employees. To ensure efficiency and effectiveness in today's competi-
tive environment, organizations should evaluate the idiosyncratic
capabilities of their human resource. The impact of technological
advancements is undeniable but, in some way or the other, its usage
is dependent on the cognitive abilities of human resource profiting
from it. Acquiring technological or financial resources may not be that
challenging for organizations as developing human resource might be
for bringing change or gaining and sustaining the competitive advan-
tage. Organizations, therefore, must focus on uplifting the systematic
knowledge and intelligence quotient (IQ) level of their staff members.
The industrial psychologists have reached a consensus that indi-
viduals with higher intelligence have been found to assimilate job-
related expertise exceptionally well resulting into greater learning
experiences, various work-related developments, and improvised task
performance individually, as well as at the group level. The personal
ability to perceive, indoctrinate, and conclude a particular situation is
defined as intelligence and denoted as IQ (Reynolds, Chastain, Kauf-
man, & McLean, 1987). In simple words, IQ is a yardstick to check the
academic ability of an individual regarding rational usage of informa-
tion for answering a particular question. IQ score is denoted numeri-
cally, which bares how consistently a person is capable in attaining,
examining, and making use of any organized information. The impor-
tance of IQ amplifies due to the reason that it helps in identifying per-
sonal cognitive abilities. It does not merely identify the capacity to
tackle the information or its interpretation by someone, it reveals the
cognitive capacity developed by suitable preparation, thoughtful rea-
soning, and thinking and taking care of issues.
Allport and Odbert (1936) believed that the identity of an individ-
ual can be described by individual traits. Personality is a set of human
characteristics that can also be termed as personal attributes associ-
ated with various behavioral aspects. Each individual possesses a par-
ticular set of characteristics, which can be classified into repetitive
behavioral, rational, and sentimental patterns. Trait theory puts
emphasis on quantifying these characteristics. All these models of per-
sonal attributes and characteristics are named as “Personality Traits.”
People with varied set of characteristics react in a different way
whenever they encounter particular circumstances (Ashill, Semaan,
Gibbs, & Gazley, 2020). Human behavior is a product of personality
attributes resulting from interaction between various cognitive
Received: 4 June 2020 Revised: 16 July 2020 Accepted: 19 July 2020
DOI: 10.1002/pa.2318
J Public Affairs. 2020;e2318. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 1of12
https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2318
models (Kamdar & Van Dyne, 2007). Cattell (1973) has developed var-
ious personality factor models and found that each person can be
characterized as a unique combination of expression of these traits.
However, the studies have revealed that individual differences exist in
response to similar work conditions and situations, and these differ-
ences may be styled as the personality of individuals. These differ-
ences particularly refer to their type of personality. It may also be
defined as one's behavior toward a specific situation or circumstance.
It includes everything about an individual, particularly the prediction
of how s/he will react to a given circumstance. Eysenck (1991)
suggested that personality traits are the product of the brain. Current
research studies have divided individuals into these two basic types of
personality first—“Type A Personality”and “Type B Personality”. The
individuals who belong to “Type A Personality”possess the qualities
of being ambitious, determined, relatively more intimidate, and sensi-
tized very quickly over minor issues. They often exhibit impulsiveness
and inflexibility, resulting into frustration and anger. Stress, along with
achievement-driven mentality, also constitutes the salient attributes
of “Type A Personality.”According to this theory, the individuals hav-
ing “Type B Personality,”in general, experience reduced level of anxi-
ety by normally working calmly, enjoy making progress toward their
goals, and in case they fail to achieve the desired objective they do
not experience stressful situations.
This study reveals that no matter what type of organization you
are dealing with, whether academic institutions or business organiza-
tions, the performance of individuals has become the fundamental
element for achieving a competitive advantage. The study contributes
to the literature by testing whether the IQ of employees predicts their
job performance via satisfaction. It further explains the differences in
personalities of individuals, which may result into greater inspiration
and solid desire for achievement. The findings of this study may help
the management of organizations to frame policy guidelines regarding
hiring of employees and have more informed decisions in terms of
personality types and IQ of employees.
Figure 1 explains the theoretical model of our study:
2|INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT, JOB
SATISFACTION, AND JOB PERFORMANCE
IQ is defined as “a total score derived from a set of standardized tests
designed to assess human intelligence”(Neisser et al., 1996).
Wechsler (1958) described IQ as something that is used to assess the
capability of an individual to perceive, analyze, and explain a particular
situation. It is a cognitive ability of an individual that can be measured
and indicated in numerical terms. Sternberg (1985) termed IQ as a
capacity of one's mind that requires understanding and adaptation of
the context in which one exists. IQ is the cognizant brainpower of an
individual that empowers him/her to understand and examine logical
and hypothetical problems. From a wider perspective, it is an ability to
think rationally, which is widely applicable in some areas of daily life.
It also represents a consistent capability for almost all types of assign-
ments, operations, and jobs. This is why higher intelligence can be so
useful. It is not just the diverse knowledge that these individuals have
acquired. In fact, it demonstrates the ability to acquire the right skills
for training, thinking, and problem solving. Advanced intelligence can
be useful in almost any area. We all need to learn and solve problems,
especially when there are so many technological and social changes
are happening. A recent study on smartphone usage suggested that
appropriate utilization of smart devices can enhance the flexibility in
learning (Nand, Pitafi, Kanwal, Pitafi, & Rasheed, 2020). Smart people
are more beneficial for organizations, compared to individuals having
lower IQ, because they can learn and plan better.
An individual's IQ is determined by multiple factors. These factors
include specialized knowledge, memorizing and vocabulary skills,
understanding of illustrations, and perceptual skills. Individuals with
good knowledge, reasoning ability, understanding of graphical repre-
sentations, and remembrance can get higher score in IQ tests. In addi-
tion to the genetic vulnerability, there are some other environmental
factors that play a pivotal role in this connection. These factors
include education, training, nutrition, mental weakness, or illness.
Intelligence has been widely perceived as a major driver of aptitude
and skills (Pomerantz & Saxon, 2001). Therefore, the managers are
always concerned about the IQ level of their employees while
selecting them for higher-level responsibilities. The performance of an
employee is considered to be a substantial measure that is related to
managerial accomplishments and organizational success (Mahlamäki,
Rintamäki, & Rajah, 2019). Measuring employees' performance is
important to achieve the goals set by an organization. The analysis of
employees' skills and measuring their productivity, in order to manage
effectively, improves the standards of an organization (Mero,
Motowidlo, & Anna, 2003) as the productivity and success of an orga-
nization is directly proportional to its employees' performance and
success. A successful employee will certainly produce great results.
FIGURE 1 Theoretical background
and hypotheses
2of12 MURTZA ET AL.
This mainly involves their interaction, quality, and commitment with
their organization. Schmidt and Hunter (2000) have described that
employees' performance can be very precisely measured by intelli-
gence. Therefore, it has been observed that hiring on the basis of
intelligence has brought great developments and subsequently con-
tributed to value addition for organizations. Individuals with high IQ
tend to be more intelligent and can improvise quickly followed by bet-
ter job performance (I. W. Hunter & Korenberg, 1986; Ree, Carretta, &
Teachout, 1995). Jobs generally vary depending on the different IQ
ranges of the employees. Individuals with IQ ranging from 120 and
above are considered to be competitively proficient in almost all occu-
pations. It accounts for 10% of the population. On the other hand,
individuals with an IQ below 80 have less competitive job options. In
some countries, such as the United States of America (USA), there are
laws that prohibit anyone with an IQ below 80 from serving in the mil-
itary because of insufficient training capacity. But private employers
hire them for those jobs which that less cognitive ability. Individuals
having lower IQ level generally need a specific environment for socio-
economic growth. Contrary to this, individuals having higher IQ are
only subject to failure under abnormal circumstances. Empirical stud-
ies have validated that various personality characteristics like intelli-
gence and critical thinking resulted in higher performance at work.
However, it is hard to specify particular attributes that anticipate
higher performance in every occupation. Generally, hypothesizing
which personal characteristics or patterns of behavior may result in
performance in most of the professions is not judicious (Stewart &
Barrick, 2004). Personality characteristics of human beings differenti-
ate them from one another in a way that individuals with rich cogni-
tive resources outperform in various occupations those who lack
these resources. Personality characteristics are of ultimate importance
for anticipating person–job fit and other behavioral attributes
(Fretwell, Lewis, & Hannay, 2013).
Is there any importance of being intelligent to be successful in
life? Research in the past has found the relationship between IQ and
occupational achievement (Zagorsky, 2007). Brown and Reyn-
olds' (1975) examination of association among general aptitude and
earnings showed positive results. Nyborg and Jensen (2001) investi-
gated the relationship between IQ and work performance, and rev-
ealed that having equal scores of IQ, no difference was found
between the performance of black fellows to white.
Lynn, Vanhanen, and Stuart (2002) penned a book titled “IQ and
the Wealth of Nations”that takes GDP as representation of national
treasure. This book presented a detailed analysis of the national
wealth of 185 nations for the period from 1820 to 1998, representing
“the intelligence quotient of populations has been a major factor for
the national difference in the economic growth for the gap in per-
capita income between rich and poor nations.”Barber (2005) further
extended the investigation by incorporating individual-level intelli-
gence and education parameter to infer that individual-level education
increases critical thinking and decision making, ultimately contributing
not only to the performance of an individual but to the economy of
that nation as well. Dickerson (2006) added by investigating the rela-
tionship between IQ and gross domestic product (GDP) and found an
exponential impact between the two. These results showed more
impact than already reported. Whetzel and McDaniel (2006) studied
this relationship by enhancing the period of analysis till 2002 and
came up with more convincing results, cutting the IQ score to 90 by
applying a curvilinear model.
Intelligence of individuals is associated with better performance
and ultimately resulting in financial wellbeing of the nations, Stanley
and Danko (1996) have argued in their most popular book titled “The
Millionaire Next Door”that mere IQ is not the only predictor of the
financial well-being. It further says that “It is seldom luck or inheri-
tance or advanced degree or even intelligence that enables individuals
to perform better to amass fortune”. However, it is worth mentioning
that this is merely a statement and no evidence has been given to sup-
port this idea.
IQ is considered to be a renowned forecaster of educational and
work-related success globally (Neisser et al., 1996). It is evident from
the past research that the relationship between intelligence and
acquiring a job is proven; however, the youth struggling to get a job
has overlooked it (Rehermann & Mortensen, 2010). Most of the indi-
viduals consider non-cognitive elements, for example, family back-
ground and social status, as a barrier to success in their educational
and professional careers (Rustin, 2015). Caspi, Wright, Moffitt, and
Silva (1998) found that low IQ level is substantially related to lower
qualifications and greater risk of remaining unemployed. All countries
have particular contextual factors related to education system plus
elasticity in the job market, which can modify the function of intelli-
gence in forecasting educational and professional achievements
(Zagorsky, 2007). The countries where free education is provided to
students of all grades, the state provides finances for research and
development, and comparatively high attention is provided to the stu-
dents to fulfil their unique educational requirement, IQ could play a
greater role for educational and professional achievements in compar-
ison to socioeconomic issues. Strenze (2007) reported that IQ is a
consistent forecaster for educational and professional achievements
and low IQ is related with the greater risk of unemployment.
Byington and Felps (2010) suggest that IQ facilitates individuals
to enhance their learning capabilities while attending work-related
training programs. Schmidt and Hunter (2004) have studied general
mental ability in practical life. This study reveals that generally cogni-
tive capabilities of individuals anticipate occupational achievements
and work accomplishments. Furthermore, these findings endorse pre-
vious recommendations by Spearman regarding significance of “gen-
eral mental abilities”in predicting undertakings of the individuals. Ree
and Earles (1992) have also pointed out the significance of adopting
intelligence-based criteria for hiring individuals in order to ensure
maximum performance in academia and industrial sector.
Schmidt (2002) while introducing performance appraisal mechanism
emphasized that the cognitive capabilities of individuals are critically
associated with their performance at the workplace.
Gottfredson (2002) reported cognitive intelligence to be a signifi-
cant predictor of job performance, explaining 25% of variance.
Schmidt and Hunter (2004) have also reported the same finding that
correlation between general intelligence and job performance ranged
MURTZA ET AL.3of12
from 0.31 to 0.73, showing a positive relationship. They have also
considered intelligence as an excellent predictor of performance at
workplace. Kuncel, Ones, and Sackett (2010) found IQ forecast job
performance much better than talent, personality trait, and disposi-
tion, which have been experienced. According to the results reported
by J. E. Hunter and Hunter (1984), cognitive intelligence is of signifi-
cant importance for calculating the work performance of individuals.
Spector (1997) found job satisfaction as a sign of subjective qual-
ity of life of a professional. It is equally good for the employees' well-
being and organizational productivity. It is argued that job satisfaction
comprises both environmental and personal characteristics (Judge &
Larsen, 2001). In addition to the contextual elements, personality fea-
tures are also related to job satisfaction. For better understanding of
particular circumstances and personal characteristics, Akkerman, Kef,
and Meininger (2018) studied job satisfaction among people with vul-
nerable intellectual capacity and found negative relationship between
low intelligence and job performance. This discussion leads us to
assume the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 There is a positive relationship between IQ and job
performance.
Hypothesis 2 There is a positive relationship between IQ and job
satisfaction.
2.1 |Mediating role of job satisfaction
In terms of definition, satisfaction is “a state in which a person feels
glad, happy, and good or wherein someone achieves some specified
goal or when something occurs which a person wanted to occur”
(Dinham & Scott, 1998). Judge, Cable, Boudreau, and Bretz Jr (1995)
explain that various factors determine an employee's attitude, which
lead to inner satisfaction. Loi and Ngo (2010) also contend that satis-
faction is of immense importance for workers and an organization for
sustainable competitive advantage in every profession. Organizational
objectives are easy to achieve when human resource is satisfied with
their job. Studies in the past report an association between work sat-
isfaction and overall performance of an organization (Edmans, 2012;
Maharani, Troena, & Noermijati, 2013). Various evidence exists to
substantiate the argument that job dissatisfaction has led to the loss
of skilled labor (Aydogdu & Asikgil, 2011; Chen, Zhao, Liu, &
Wu, 2012; Delobelle et al., 2011; Mobley, Horner, &
Hollingsworth, 1978). The findings of meta-analysis have revealed
that unsatisfied employees tend to remain absent and there is a
greater likelihood that they may quit their jobs (Anderson &
Geldenhuys, 2011). In particular circumstances, more experienced and
satisfied individuals have shown more commitment toward their job
and performed better as compared to less satisfied individuals
(Singh & Das, 2013).
Researchers have established the significance of satisfied work-
force with regard to their performance since as early as 1940s, and
various methodologies have been used so far to assess the link
between the two (Brody, 1945). Scholars have argued that “a happy
worker is a productive worker; however, evidence is not conclusive in
this regard”(Cranny, Smith, & Stone, 1992). Researchers have devel-
oped various scales to measure job satisfaction; some have adapted
the already established measures. Studies have been conducted by
using self-reported evaluations to measure job performance, and, in
contrast, some research evaluated the same by using supervisor and
peer reports (Davar & Bala, 2012). Vroom (1964) supported the idea
that improved job performance is the ultimate result of job satisfac-
tion since this belief is supported by the natural instinct of human
behavior. Strauss (1968) mentioned that the early human relationists
viewed the morale–productivity relationship quite simple: higher
morale would lead to improved productivity. Manjunath and
Shashidahra (2011) studied job satisfaction among agrarian scientists
and discovered substantial correlations with their scientific productiv-
ity. Petty, McGee, and Cavender (1984) conducted a meta-analysis on
the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance. They
included 16 published studies from five journals for the period
1964–1983. The result indicated consistent and higher correlations
between job satisfaction and job performance as compared with the
results of the previous studies. Iaffaldano and Muchinsky (1985) fur-
ther analyzed 74 published studies on job satisfaction and job perfor-
mance and found a significant positive relationship.
Bateman and Organ (1983) theoretically explained the relation-
ship between job satisfaction and job performance using social
exchange theory. Organ and Ryan (1995) explored job satisfaction as
an antecedent of job performance. Their research also indicated that
contextual job performance (OCB) is also predicted by job satisfaction.
Various researchers have emphasized that often work productivity of
task performance is increased when employees like their job most and
feel satisfied (Edwards, Bell, Arthur, Winfred, & Decuir, 2008). Keep-
ing in view the robustness of the relationship between job satisfaction
and job performance, organizations have opted to make strategies
that influence both and result into more pleased and productive work-
force (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001). Job satisfaction was
found to have significant contributions for workers' well-being, as well
as organizational effectiveness (Lim, 2008). Peng (2014) studied the
relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction with task
and contextual job performance. The results of the study revealed
that intrinsic as well as extrinsic satisfaction has significant contribu-
tion for improvising task and contextual performance. Job satisfaction
and performance of workers have also been critically evaluated in var-
ious organizational settings. Cummings (1970) pointed out three most
important perspectives regarding this relationship. Job performance is
caused by satisfaction, job satisfaction is caused by performance, and
reward is of both, that is, satisfaction and performance. Mirvis (1980)
provided resounding results regarding the relationship between job
satisfaction and performance of bank cashiers. Interestingly, more sat-
isfied cashiers never came up with showing shortage of cash and they
also showed fewer turnover intentions. Kornhanuser and Sharp (1976)
carried out various studies to find out the relationship between satis-
faction and performance in different industries. They found a positive
4of12 MURTZA ET AL.
relationship between these variables in almost 30 studies. Currall,
Towler, Judge, and Kohn (2005) found that productivity and output of
organizations are measured through the performance of its
employees. Satisfied worker makes great output, which leads to the
ultimate performance of the organizations. Sousa-Poza and Sousa-
Poza (2000) studied the antecedents and outcomes of well-being of
workers and found that higher job satisfaction leads toward better
performance at the workplace. Nanda and Browne (1977) while
studying job satisfaction and productivity of employees reported vari-
ous employee performance pointers and established that employee
productivity is significantly affected by motivation and job satisfac-
tion. Those who perform better will be more demanding in terms of
financial emoluments and other benefits. Retaining the high-performing
resource is becoming more difficult for the management of organiza-
tions (Rai, 2004). Those employees that show low satisfaction are less
committed to their job and, therefore, affect organizational objective
achievement, resulting in reduced performance (Meyer, 2002).
Yoke and Panatik (2016) studied the role of occupational satisfac-
tion as a mediator in the relationship between emotional intelligence
and job performance in education sector. The result of the study pro-
vided significant support to the notion that the premeditated relation-
ship between emotional intelligence and job performance is mediated
by satisfaction. The intrinsic factors demonstrated more support in
comparison to extrinsic factors of job satisfaction. Nisar and
Rasheed (2020) studied that job satisfaction mediates the relationship
between stressful situation at workplace and performance. Fishbein
and Ajzen (1981) found that the behavior of an individual is a product
of attitude, which is based upon his well-being. Higher level of human
intelligence develops the capacities of an individual, which ultimately
result in positive attitude (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). The mediating role
of satisfaction among the relationship between IQ and job perfor-
mance is possible because the study of job satisfaction around nomo-
logical network proved its function as a mediator in the association
between several antecedents and behavior at workplace (Crede,
Chernyshenko, Stark, Dalal, & Bashshur, 2007). Here, we assume the
following hypotheses;
Hypothesis 3 There is a positive relationship between job satisfaction
and job performance.
Hypothesis 4 Job satisfaction mediates the relationship between IQ
and job performance.
2.2 |Moderating role of personality types
The significance of personality traits cannot be ignored while studying
the performance of individuals (Owens, Irwing, & Clarke, 2019), since
specific attributes of personality are associated with certain jobs.
“Type A Personality”is attributed with “a cluster of behaviors which
include increased competitiveness, strife for achievement, aggression,
impatience, restlessness, hyper alertness, explosive speech stylistics
and chronic sense of urgency”(Rose, 1987). “Type B Personality”is
marked with “more contemplation and a will to take time to ponder
alternatives. They usually feel there is plenty of time”(Frost &
Wilson, 1983). The literature suggests that there are three attributes
of “Type A Personality”: (a) Competitive and achievement-oriented,
(b) hurried and timebound, and (c) aggressive and assertive. Evidence
has shown that “Type A”individuals have better work performance,
professional attitude, and better quality of work as compared with
“Type B”individuals (Helmreich, Spence, & Pred, 1988). Carver and
Glass (1978) found that “Type A Personality”has further two dimen-
sions, which include success-endeavor and impatience. Al-
Mashaan (2003) reported that “Type A Personality”exhibited high sat-
isfaction with their job. The cause of low satisfaction is considered to
be due to environmental factors. However, individual characteristics
also play an important role in satisfaction within the same environ-
ment (Omundson, Schroeder, & Stevens, 1996). Omundson
et al. (1996) also found that “Type A Personality”has a significant pos-
itive relationship with job satisfaction. Gondal and Husain (2013) con-
ducted comparative analysis between IQ scores and emotional
perspective of intelligence for predicting achievements at the work-
place. The results reveal insignificant correlations between IQ and
performance in comparison to emotional intelligence. This study
emphasized the need to create an emotionally intelligent workforce
rather than depending upon intelligence test scores for creating a
competitive advantage in the industry's high growth rate.
Wolfe and Kim (2013) conducted another study to work out the
potential association among emotional intelligence (EI) and length of ser-
vice as determinants of satisfaction at workplace. The results disclosed
that various determining factors of satisfaction were predicted by the EI.
Watson and Humrichouse (2006) maintain that the concept of
“Type A Personality”has developed over the years, associating very
distinctive personality characteristics toward it. These characteristics
include but not limited to crave for maximizing achievements, due dili-
gence in time scheduling, being logical, and using resentment while
dealing with stressful situation. Carver and Glass (1978) while study-
ing the antecedents of anger and vexation established that personal
attributes take charge of the various situations observed in individuals
with personality type A.
Individuals having the characteristics of type A personality gen-
erally exhibit forceful determination toward their lifestyle and rou-
tine behavior (Watson & Humrichouse, 2006). Personality A
individuals are considered more dynamic, aggressive, industrious,
goal oriented, conscientious, and extraordinarily devoted to their
professional life (Nahavandi, Mizzi, & Malekzadeh, 1992). Some of
the other attributes associated with them are that they go the extra
mile to achieve their self-established, relatively uncompromising, and
hard-hitting goals by giving maximum output with minimum possible
resources. Nahavandi et al. (1992), after studying the behavioral
aspects of various executives, opined that type A individuals out-
perform others in various occupations. Talking about the aspirations
of higher ranks in professional life, this study discovered type A indi-
viduals to be more passionate and rational. However, it was also rev-
ealed that in case they do not achieve their desired objective they
also become violent.
MURTZA ET AL.5of12
Mahajan and Rastogi (2011) argued regarding personality differ-
ences with a view that both personality characteristics of A and B are
contrasting, and generally type B individuals are found to be relaxed
and serene. They do not like to cause agitation or hassle—whether it
is a matter of time management or their professional conduct. As far
as setting goals and achievement of work-related objective are con-
cerned, they put their utmost energy to accomplish the task with a
balanced approach rather than become relentless or extraordinarily
conscious about meeting deadlines as type A do (Mahajan &
Rastogi, 2011). Watson and Humrichouse (2006) distinguished both
types of personalities by arguing that individuals possessing type A
characteristics show unwavering leadership qualities that enable them
to take up administrative assignments in an effective manner. Con-
versely, type B individuals perceive things from different perspective,
taking lenient view over governing people preferring collaborative
decision making. Spector and O'Connell (1994) identified two signifi-
cant attributes associated with type A personality that segregate them
from others. The element of intolerance in their personality often
results in impatience, and the element of achievement results in moti-
vation to achieve their objective. A study on personality differences
and leadership style found that there is a significant impact of person-
ality differences of a leader on the performance of employees (Akhtar,
Maik, Butt, Ishfaq, & ur Rehman, 2019).
There exists inconsistency in the findings regarding the relation-
ship between IQ and employees' satisfaction. In this regard, some
writers (Liu & Jung, 1980; Pike, 1994) found support for association
between IQ and satisfaction at workplace; however, (Bean &
Bradley, 1986) some have not found such association altogether. On
the other hand, Centra and Rock (1971) relate their finding to those
who validate that IQ is associated with better performance and
rewards ultimately resulting in satisfied labor. Likewise, some
researchers discovered various demographical and socioeconomic
parameters also contributing majorly toward satisfaction (Rienzi, Allen,
Sarmiento, & McMillin, 1993) in particular occupations. Motlagh and
Abbaspour (2013) studied satisfaction among university employees
and reported significant associations among academic achievement,
satisfaction, and performance. Okpara, Squillace, and Erondu (2005)
stated that there exists a relationship among the attempts of teaching
staff, for their improvised performance, and satisfaction at workplace.
The academic background of teachers and professional development
contributed toward better learning, performance, and satisfaction.
The fundamental concept of that studied model shows that advance-
ment in acumen contributed in better performance, which leads
toward higher satisfaction of teachers. Paul and Phua (2011) while
studying various parameters related to satisfaction among teachers of
public establishment determined that the satisfaction level of partici-
pants varied according to age, gender, socioeconomic status, and the
number of years a worker spent in the institution. These arguments
helped us to assume the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 5 Personality type moderates the indirect relationship
between IQ and job performance (via job satisfaction) such that
the relationship is stronger for personality Type A than for person-
ality Type B.
3|RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 |Procedures and participants
We collected the data required for this study through a survey con-
ducted in Lahore city, Pakistan. We distributed 500 questionnaires
among the faculty members of universities in Lahore, the provincial
capital of the Punjab province of Pakistan during 2019, and received
378 (75.6% response rate) useable responses.
Participants of the study consisted of five age groups. The first
group included participants of age below 30, which are 02%. The sec-
ond group included participants of age between 31 and 35, which are
39.7%. The third group included participants of age between 36 and
40, which are 27.3%. The fourth group included participants of age
41–45, which are 24%, and the fifth group included participants
above 46 years, which are 7% of the sample size. The number of male
respondents was 326, which is 86.2% and female respondents are
52, which is 13.8%. The average tenure/work experience of the par-
ticipants was 4.5 years.
3.2 |Measures
3.2.1 |Intelligence quotient
We used a standardized IQ test designed by Carter (2014), asking
10 questions from each employee to identify the IQ score. The respon-
dents were asked MCQs relating to the measurement of IQ and their
score was calculated by keeping in view the correct answers.
3.2.2 |Personality type
We used a questionnaire consisting of 20 items to assess the person-
ality type of the employees who comprised the subjects of the study.
This questionnaire was adopted from the book titled “Executive
Health”composed by Dr. Howard Glazer. This questionnaire con-
tained two columns of opposite behaviors and the respondents were
asked to rate themselves according to their opinion about themselves.
The respondents who scored 80 and above were grouped in column
“Type-A”and the respondents whose score was below 80 were
grouped in column “Type-B.”
3.2.3 |Employee performance
The five-point Likert scale (Goe, Holdheide, & Miller, 2011) question-
naire has been adopted for measuring the employees' performance.
6of12 MURTZA ET AL.
The respondents were given five options from Unacceptable = 1 to
Outstanding = 5. For this study, the internal reliability of this ques-
tionnaire was 0.77.
3.2.4 |Job satisfaction
For measuring job satisfaction, five-point Likert scale questionnaire
was adopted (Spector, 1985). The respondents were given five
options from strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 5. For this
study, the internal reliability of this questionnaire was 0.70.
3.2.5 |Control variables
Age, gender, and average tenure/work experience were used as con-
trol variables of the study. These control variables have contributed
toward explaining the performance and satisfaction of employees in
various studies, previously.
4|RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
SPSS PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2015; Rockwood & Hayes, 2017) was
applied to test our conceptual research model. In carrying out the
analysis of the results of this study, we followed the suggestion of
Aiken, West, and Reno (1991) in this regard.
4.1 |Descriptive statistics
Table 1 exhibits mean, SD, and inter-correlation among the constructs
used in this study. IQ is positively associated with job satisfaction
(r = 0.637, p= .01) and employee performance (r = 0.460, p= .01).
Similarly, job satisfaction is positively associated with employee per-
formance (r = 0.471, p= .01). Demographic variables were not signifi-
cantly associated to any of the study variables. Therefore, they were
not included in any analysis.
4.2 |Hypothesis testing
For testing our fully hypothesized research model, we utilized SPSS
PROCESS macro Model 14. PROCESS results are given in Tables 1
and 2. These results are consistent with our preliminary analysis, as IQ
has shown a positive relationship with job satisfaction (B = 0.03,
t = 17.42, p= .001) and employee performance (B = 0.01, t = 2.67,
p= .053). Similarly, job satisfaction (B = 0.83, t = 9.30, p= .001) has
shown a positive association with employee performance. These
results confirm our hypotheses, H1, H2, and H3.
We also calculated the indirect effects of IQ on employee perfor-
mance through job satisfaction. The results demonstrate that there is
a mediation role of job satisfaction in the indirect relationships
between IQ (estimate of indirect effect = 0.0021, 95%, CI [0.004,
0.01]) and employee performance. Thus, our hypothesis H4 is
accepted.
For moderated mediation model, we further calculated the condi-
tional indirect effects of IQ on employee performance through job
satisfaction across the levels of our moderator, that is, personality
type. As reported in Table 1, we have found that the conditional indi-
rect effects of IQ on employee performance through job satisfaction
is strong (magnitude indirect effect = 0.031, 95% CI [0.024, 0.037])
when personality level is high (at +1 SD), that is, “Personality Type A”
than when it is low (at -1SD), i.e., “Personality Type is B”(magnitude
indirect effect = 0.024, 95% CI [0.015, 0.31]). This supports our H5.
5|DISCUSSION
The instant research was conducted to investigate whether IQ of
employees is associated with their job satisfaction and performance,
keeping in view their personality dimensions, IQ in the universities of
provincial capital of the Punjab province of Pakistan. A theoretical
model was established to have an understanding of the association
between IQ with job satisfaction and performance. It was further pro-
posed that the personality types of employees have a moderating
effect on job satisfaction and performance. Based on the analysis of
this study, it has been disclosed that the hypothesized theoretical
model has found support. The result of moderated-mediation analysis
proved that participants having higher IQ perform better than those
with lower IQ. These findings are similar to the outcomes of the previ-
ous study conducted by Byington and Felps (2010) and Schmidt and
Hunter (2004). The institutional learning and knowledge help the
human resource of organizations to enhance their analytical and
problem-solving skills. The employees with higher IQ levels get more
benefits in terms of capacity building as they have the tendency to
learn more. The opportunities for growth and capacity building in an
organization are provided on the basis of IQ reflective criteria. It is
TABLE 1 Mean, SDs, and inter-correlations
Variable Mean SD 123
1. IQ 85.27 12.81
2. Personality 3.63 1.59 .30**
3. Employee performance 3.49 1.11 .46** .41**
4. Job satisfaction 3.34 .67 .63** .47** .63**
Note: N = 378. Significant at*p< .05(two-tailed) and **p< .01 (two-tailed).
MURTZA ET AL.7of12
hereby argued that individuals having higher IQ possess greater
problem-solving skills, which enable them to perform their jobs in a
better way. This research provides the evidence that workers having
superior IQ perform better compared with workers with lower level of
IQ. Based upon the results of the performance reports of the
employees in educational institutions, it is further argued that perfor-
mance is strongly predicted by IQ of the employees. The organizations
do recognize the importance of intelligence test scores in anticipating
subjective qualities of employees for hiring at various positions.
Therefore, it is emphasized that in order to achieve competitive
advantage of human resource, hiring policies should be made by tak-
ing into consideration the subjective attributes regarding mental
capacity of the applicants.
The results of this study also exhibit that the intelligence attri-
butes help individuals to better learn, understand, and resolve job
related-problems, which lead to better performance, and ultimately
resulting in satisfied worker. Previous research also came up with the
same findings (Liu & Jung, 1980). In other words, it can be interpreted
that better IQ may become the source of satisfaction at particular
organizations where learning contributes toward achieving objectives.
Evidence also exists where researchers have already identified satis-
faction of individuals result into innovative ideas, better teamwork,
and increased profitability (Eskildsen & Dahlgaard, 2000; Li-Ping Tang,
Kim, & Shin-Hsiung Tang, 2000). Personality types A/B have got sub-
stantial importance in the literature related to stress. This research
study has also examined Type A/B individuals regarding the relation-
ship between personality and performance. Glass and Carver (1980)
found that individuals with Type A personality are hyperreactive to
the stressful situations that are not under their control. However,
under the routine circumstances being more competitive, they out-
perform Personality B employees. Ganster, Fusilier, and Mayes (1986)
also found same correlations in their study, as it states that Type B
personality individuals are less responsive to stressful situations at
job. Consistent with these findings, this study is of the view that Type
A personality individuals perform better than personality B employees
in normal conditions. The organizations can hold emotional intelli-
gence trainings for the employees to make them more emotionally
stable so that they can perform better. This study holds implications
for human resource managers to identify the personality complica-
tions in the employees and by providing them suitable trainings they
make them productive employees.
5.1 |Limitations and future directions of the study
Like other empirical studies, there are some limitations associated
with this research. The research design to take up this study was
cross-sectional; therefore, generalizations of the results may be made
carefully. It is also recommended to go for a longitudinal design to
understand the phenomenon more clearly. Time- and finance-related
constraints restricted researchers to collect data beyond a certain
number of higher educational institutes. A more vastly randomized
sample may bring varied findings. Participants of the study also lack
female representation, which was almost about 14%. Increased female
representation may also have different implications regarding gender.
The measures of this study also brought a particular contextual factor
with them. Replacement of these measures with more robust tools
may also produce new insights.
In future, researchers could investigate the relationship between
IQ and job performance for workers of different ages in the regions
where there have been major shifts toward or away from stratification
of educational or workplace resources based on IQ. The implications
of the phenomenon under consideration of intelligence and perfor-
mance are not limited to the particular field, or division, or
TABLE 2 Results of moderated mediation
Mediator Dependent variable
Job satisfaction Employee performance
BSET R
2
BSEt R
2
Constant .41 .43
IQ −2.85 0.17 17.01*** 2.20 .38 7.42***
.03 .00 17.42*** .01 .00 2.67**
Job satisfaction ——— .83 .09 9.30***
Indirect effects Effect SE LLCI ULCI
IQ to job satisfaction through employee performance .0021 .0015 .004 .01
Conditional indirect effects at specific value of moderator (SS) at ± 1 SD
95% CI
Dependent variable Effect SE Lower limit CI Upper limit CI
IQ? Job satisfaction? (-1SD) .024 .004 .015 0.031
Employee performance (+1SD) .031 .004 .024 .037
Note: N = 378. Significant at *p< .05 and **p< .01.
8of12 MURTZA ET AL.
geographical boundaries. Future research on other than educational
institutions or within educational sector, particularly distance learning
institutes, may provide new understandings to the subject. The instru-
ment used in the present study is a standardized test for measuring
IQ. In future, the researchers may use different instruments and con-
sequently the results may be different and worthier to be generalized.
In the present study, personality types (A and B) have been studied
and more research might be conducted on other personality traits of
the teaching faculty employed in different universities of Pakistan.
5.2 |Policy implications
The IQ measures can be used to enhance and improve the overall
effectiveness of the human resources (HR). The HR managers of the
organizations should look into the selection of employees based on
IQ-based criteria because individuals with high IQ possess institution-
ally endowed tools and competencies. The findings of the personality
dimensions would provide guidance for designing and implementing
the systems where the nature of the job involves interaction with
others. The employee's indifferences about job satisfaction, which
have been identified in the research, may be applied to other facets of
life. This study will help institutions to have an idea about assessing
more competent employees in terms of IQ and personality. This study
has defined how IQ level and personality type help employees per-
form better in the institution. The federal and provincial authorities
responsible for selection of public servants and other recruiting agen-
cies facilitating private sector may introduce IQ-based criteria of
selection of personnel as policy matter. The employees can also seek
help from this study to become more dedicated toward their work
and professionally successful by having greater inspiration and solid
desire for achievement.
6|CONCLUSION
Intelligence quotient may indubitably be a significant component for
predicting employees' job performance but some of the highly quali-
fied individuals with brilliant academic record still lack problem-solving
and analytical capabilities. One of the many causes of this deficiency
is low IQ. It does not indicate that the qualification or academic record
should completely be overlooked. However, it shows that IQ is also
an important concept that can enhance the performance of individuals
and organizations as well. This study has also examined the personal-
ity differences regarding performance and satisfaction. Consistent
with previous studies, personality plays an important role in determin-
ing the performance and satisfaction of employees, which has impor-
tant implications for the practice of personnel selection.
ORCID
Muhammad Hamid Murtza https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1188-
883X
Amna Noor https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2477-2705
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing
and interpreting interactions. Sage. books.google.com.
Akhtar, H., Maik, K. N., Butt, M. F., Ishfaq, S., & ur Rehman, Z. (2019).
Impact of personality traits and paternalistic management style on job
performance of employees in Pakistan. Journal of Research in Psychol-
ogy,1(2), 1–5.
Akkerman, A., Kef, S., & Meininger, H. P. (2018). Job satisfaction of people
with intellectual disability: Associations with job characteristics and
personality. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabil-
ities,123(1), 17–32.
Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study.
Psychological Monographs,47(1), i.
Al-Mashaan, O. S. (2003). Comparison between Kuwaiti and Egyptian
teachers in Type A behavior and job satisfaction: A cross-cultural
study. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal,31(5),
523–533.
Anderson, B., & Geldenhuys, D. J. (2011). The relationship between absen-
teeism and employer-sponsored child care. Southern African Business
Review,15(3), 21–45.
Ashill, N. J., Semaan, R. W., Gibbs, T., & Gazley, A. (2020). Personality trait
determinants of frontline employee customer orientation and job per-
formance: A Russian study. International Journal of Bank Marketing,38
(05), 1215–1234.
Aydogdu, S., & Asikgil, B. (2011). An empirical study of the relationship
among job satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover
intention. International Review of Management and Marketing,1(3),
43–53.
Barber, N. (2005). Educational and ecological correlates of IQ: A cross-
national investigation. Intelligence,33(3), 273–284.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good sol-
dier: The relationship between affect and employee “citizenship”.
Academy of Management Journal,26(4), 587–595.
Bean, J. P., & Bradley, R. K. (1986). Untangling the satisfaction-
performance relationship for college students. The Journal of Higher
Education,57(4), 393–412.
Brody, M. (1945). The relationship between efficiency and job satisfaction.
(Unpublished master's thesis). New York, NY: New York University.
Brown, W. W., & Reynolds, M. O. (1975). A model of IQ, occupation, and
earnings. The American Economic Review,65(5), 1002–1007.
Byington, E., & Felps, W. (2010). Why do IQ scores predict job perfor-
mance?: An alternative, sociological explanation. Research in Organiza-
tional Behavior,30, 175–202.
Carter, P. (2014). Advanced IQ tests. London, Philadelphia, PA: Kogan Page
Limited.
Carver, C. S., & Glass, D. C. (1978). Coronary-prone behavior pattern and
interpersonal aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
36(4), 361–366.
Caspi, A., Wright, B. R. E., Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1998). Early failure
in the labor market: Childhood and adolescent predictors of unem-
ployment in the transition to adulthood. American Sociological Review,
63, 424–451.
Cattell, R. B. (1973). Personality and mood by questionnaire, APA PsycNet:
Jossey-Bass.
Centra, J. A., & Rock, D. (1971). College environments and student aca-
demic achievement. American Educational Research Journal,8(4),
623–634.
Chen,X.H.,Zhao,K.,Liu,X.,&Wu,D.D.(2012).Improving
employees' job satisfaction and innovation performance using con-
flict management. International Journal of Conflict Management,23,
151–172.
Cranny, C., Smith, P. C., & Stone, E. (1992). Job satisfaction: How people feel
about their jobs, Bowling Green State University: Wiley Online Library.
Crede, M., Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., Dalal, R. S., & Bashshur, M.
(2007). Job satisfaction as mediator: An assessment of job
MURTZA ET AL.9of12
satisfaction's position within the nomological network. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology,80(3), 515–538.
Cummings, K. (1970). Job satisfaction and performance. Journal of Social
Psychology,141(5), 541–563.
Currall, S. C., Towler, A. J., Judge, T. A., & Kohn, L. (2005). Pay satisfaction
and organizational outcomes. Personnel Psychology,58(3), 613–640.
Davar, S., & Bala, R. (2012). Relationship between job satisfaction & job
performance: A meta-analysis. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations,48(2),
290–305.
Delobelle, P., Rawlinson, J. L., Ntuli, S., Malatsi, I., Decock, R., &
Depoorter, A. M. (2011). Job satisfaction and turnover intent of pri-
mary healthcare nurses in rural South Africa: A questionnaire survey.
Journal of Advanced Nursing,67(2), 371–383.
Dickerson, R. E. (2006). Exponential correlation of IQ and the wealth of
nations. Intelligence,34(3), 291–295.
Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (1998). A three domain model of teacher and
school executive career satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administra-
tion,36(4), 362–378.
Edmans, A. (2012). The link between job satisfaction and firm value, with
implications for corporate social responsibility. Academy of Manage-
ment Perspectives,26(4), 1–19.
Edwards, B. D., Bell, S. T., Arthur, J., Winfred, Jr, & Decuir, A. D. (2008).
Relationships between facets of job satisfaction and task and contex-
tual performance. Applied Psychology,57(3), 441–465.
Eskildsen, J. K., & Dahlgaard, J. J. (2000). A causal model for employee sat-
isfaction. Total Quality Management,11(8), 1081–1094.
Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16, 5 or 3?—Criteria for a
taxonomic paradigm. Personality and Individual Differences,12(8),
773–790.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, L. (1981). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An
Introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fretwell, C. E., Lewis, C. C., & Hannay, M. (2013). Myers-Briggs type indi-
cator, A/B personality types, and locus of control: Where do they
intersect? American Journal of Management,13(3), 57–66.
Frost, T. F., & Wilson, H. G. (1983). Effects of locus of control and AB per-
sonality type on job satisfaction within the health care field. Psycholog-
ical Reports,53(2), 399–405.
Ganster, D. C., Fusilier, M. R., & Mayes, B. T. (1986). Role of social support
in the experience of stress at work. Journal of Applied Psychology,71
(1), 102–110.
Glass, D. C., & Carver, C. S. (1980). Helplessness and the coronary-prone
personality. In Human helplessness: Theory and applications
(pp. 223–243). New York: Academic Press.
Goe, L., Holdheide, L., & Miller, T. (2011). A practical guide to designing com-
prehensive teacher evaluation systems: A tool to assist in the development
of teacher evaluation systems, Washington, DC: National Comprehensive
Center for Teacher Quality. www.tqsource.org.
Gondal, U. H., & Husain, T. (2013). A comparative study of intelligence
quotient and emotional intelligence: Effect on employees' perfor-
mance. Asian Journal of Business Management,5(1), 153–162.
Gottfredson, L. S. (2002). Where and why g matters: Not a mystery.
Human Performance,15(1–2), 25–46.
Hayes, A. F. (2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Mul-
tivariate Behavioral Research,50(1), 1–22.
Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., & Pred, R. S. (1988). Making it without los-
ing it: Type A, achievement motivation, and scientific attainment
revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,14(3), 495–504.
Hunter, I. W., & Korenberg, M. J. (1986). The identification of nonlinear
biological systems: Wiener and Hammerstein cascade models. Biologi-
cal Cybernetics,55(2–3), 135–144.
Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative pre-
dictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin,96(1), 72–98.
Iaffaldano, M. T., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,97(2),
251–273.
Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D., Jr. (1995). An
empirical investigation of the predictors of executive career success.
Personnel Psychology,48(3), 485–519.
Judge, T. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). Dispositional affect and job satisfaction:
A review and theoretical extension. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes,86(1), 67–98.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job
satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantita-
tive review. Psychological Bulletin,127(3), 376–407.
Kamdar, D., & Van Dyne, L. (2007). The joint effects of personality and
workplace social exchange relationships in predicting task perfor-
mance and citizenship performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,92
(5), 1286–1298.
Kornhanuser, F., & Sharp, P. (1976). Job satisfaction and motivation of
employees in industrial sector. Journal of Social Psychology,145, 323–342.
Kuncel, N. R., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2010). Individual differences as
predictors of work, educational, and broad life outcomes. Personality
and Individual Differences,49(4), 331–336.
Lim, S. (2008). Job satisfaction of information technology workers in aca-
demic libraries. Library & Information Science Research,30(2), 115–121.
Li-Ping Tang, T., Kim, J. K., & Shin-Hsiung Tang, D. (2000). Does attitude
toward money moderate the relationship between intrinsic job satisfac-
tion and voluntary turnover? Human Relations,53(2), 213–245.
Liu, R., & Jung, L. (1980). The commuter student and student satisfaction.
Research in Higher Education,12(3), 215–226.
Loi, R., & Ngo, H.-Y. (2010). Mobility norms, risk aversion, and career satis-
faction of Chinese employees. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,27
(2), 237–255.
Lynn, R., Vanhanen, T., & Stuart, M. (2002). IQ and the wealth of nations,
Santa Barbara, California, United States: Greenwood Publishing Group.
www.greenwood.com.
Mahajan, E., & Rastogi, R. (2011). Psychological wellbeing of students with
type A and type B personalities. IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior,
10(1).57–74.
Maharani, V., Troena, E. A., & Noermijati, N. (2013). Organizational citizen-
ship behavior role in mediating the effect of transformational leader-
ship, job satisfaction on employee performance: Studies in PT bank
Syariah Mandiri Malang East Java. International Journal of Business and
Management,8(17), 1–12.
Mahlamäki, T., Rintamäki, T., & Rajah, E. (2019). The role of personality
and motivation on key account manager job performance. Industrial
Marketing Management,83, 174–184.
Manjunath, L., & Shashidahra, K. (2011). Determinates of scientific produc-
tivity of agricultural scientists. Indian Research Journal of Extension Edu-
cation,11(1), 7–12.
Mero, N. P., Motowidlo, S. J., & Anna, A. L. (2003). Effects of accountabil-
ity on rating behavior and rater accuracy. Journal of Applied Social Psy-
chology,33(12), 2493–2514.
Meyer, M. (2002). Managing human resource development: An outcomes-
based approach, New York City, United States: LexisNexis But-
terworths. Lexisnexis.com.
Mirvis, C. (1980). Lawer (1977) Job satisfaction and job performance in
bank tellers. Journal of Social Psychology,133(4), 564–587.
Mobley, W. H., Horner, S. O., & Hollingsworth, A. T. (1978). An evaluation
of precursors of hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology,63(4), 408–414.
Motlagh, F. S., & Abbaspour, M. J. (2013). Proposing a Model for Deter-
mining the Relationship Between Academic Fascinations, Academic
Satisfaction with Students' Achievement Based on Mediation of Edu-
cational Efforts. Farhad Shafiepour Motlagh Assistant Professor of
Educational Administration, Islamic Azad University. https://scholar.
google.com/citations?user=eNzMAh8AAAAJ&hl=en
Nahavandi, A., Mizzi, P. J., & Malekzadeh, A. R. (1992). Executives' type A
personality as a determinant of environmental perception and firm
strategy. The Journal of Social Psychology,132(1), 59–67.
10 of 12 MURTZA ET AL.
Nand, S., Pitafi, A. H., Kanwal, S., Pitafi, A., & Rasheed, M. I. (2020). Under-
standing the academic learning of university students using
smartphone: Evidence from Pakistan. Journal of Public Affairs,20(1),
e1976.
Nanda, R., & Browne, J. J. (1977). Hours of work, job satisfaction and pro-
ductivity. Public Productivity Review,2,46–56.
Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N.,
Ceci, S. J., …Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and
unknowns. American Psychologist,51(2), 77–101.
Nisar, S. K., & Rasheed, M. I. (2020). Stress and performance: Investigating
relationship between occupational stress, career satisfaction, and job
performance of police employees. Journal of Public Affairs,20(1),
e1986.
Nyborg, H., & Jensen, A. R. (2001). Occupation and income related to psy-
chometric g. Intelligence,29(1), 45–55.
Okpara, J. O., Squillace, M., & Erondu, E. A. (2005). Gender differences and
job satisfaction: A study of university teachers in the United States.
Women in Management Review,20(3), 177–190.
Omundson, J. S., Schroeder, R. G., & Stevens, M. B. (1996). Type A person-
ality, job satisfaction, and tlrnover intention among certified public
accountants: A comparison of Euro-Americans and Hispanics. Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Sciences,18(1), 39–50.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and
dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Person-
nel Psychology,48(4), 775–802.
Owens, C. E., Irwing, P., & Clarke, S. (2019, August). Personality and job per-
formance: Using innovative techniques to improve predictive validities.
Paper presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings.
Paul, E. P., & Phua, S. K. (2011). Lecturers' job satisfaction in a public ter-
tiary institution in Singapore: Ambivalent and non-ambivalent relation-
ships between job satisfaction and demographic variables. Journal of
Higher Education Policy and Management,33(2), 141–151.
Peng, Y.-P. (2014). Job satisfaction and job performance of university
librarians: A disaggregated examination. Library & Information Science
Research,36(1), 74–82.
Petty, M. M., McGee, G. W., & Cavender, J. W. (1984). A meta-analysis of
the relationships between individual job satisfaction and individual
performance. Academy of Management Review,9(4), 712–721.
Pike, G. R. (1994). The relationship between alumni satisfaction and work
experiences. Research in Higher Education,35(1), 105–123.
Pomerantz, E. M., & Saxon, J. L. (2001). Conceptions of ability as stable
and self-evaluative processes: A longitudinal examination. Child Devel-
opment,72(1), 152–173.
Rai, S. (2004). Motivational theories and incentives approaches. IIMB Man-
agement Review,16(4), 43–50.
Ree, M. J., Carretta, T. R., & Teachout, M. S. (1995). Role of ability and
prior knowledge in complex training performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology,80(6), 721–730.
Ree, M. J., & Earles, J. A. (1992). Intelligence is the best predictor of job
performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science,1(3), 86–89.
Rehermann, O., & Mortensen, E. L. (2010). Intelligens og arbejdsevne. Psy-
kolog Nyt,16,14–22.
Reynolds, C. R., Chastain, R. L., Kaufman, A. S., & McLean, J. E. (1987).
Demographic characteristics and IQ among adults: Analysis of the
WAIS-R standardization sample as a function of the stratification vari-
ables. Journal of School Psychology,25(4), 323–342.
Rienzi, B. M., Allen, M. J., Sarmiento, Y. Q., & McMillin, J. D. (1993). Alumni
perception of the impact of gender on their university experience.
Journal of College Student Development,34(2), 154–157.
Rockwood, N. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2017, May). MLmed: An SPSS macro for
multilevel mediation and conditional process analysis. Paper presented at
the Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Psy-
chological Science (APS), Boston, MA.
Rose, M. I. (1987). Type A behaviour pattern: A concept revisited. CMAJ:
Canadian Medical Association Journal,136(4), 345–350.
Rustin, S. (2015). The glaring gap in the english education system is social
class. Support The Guardian, Susanna Rustin, Tue 13 Oct 2015 07.00
BST Last modified on Tue 26 Jun 2018 12.28 BST. https://www.
theguardian.com/education/2015/oct/13/english-education-social-
class-becky-francis-select-committee
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cog-
nition and Personality,9(3), 185–211.
Schmidt, F. L. (2002). The role of general cognitive ability and job perfor-
mance: Why there cannot be a debate. Human Performance,15(1-2),
187–210.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in the world of
work: Occupational attainment and job performance. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology,86(1), 162–173.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2000). Select on intelligence. In Edwin A.
Locke, Handbook of principles of organizational behavior (pp. 3–14).
Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Singh, R., & Das, G. (2013). The impact of job satisfaction, adaptive selling
behaviors and customer orientation on salesperson's performance:
Exploring the moderating role of selling experience. Journal of Busi-
ness & Industrial Marketing,28, 554–564.
Sousa-Poza, A., & Sousa-Poza, A. A. (2000). Well-being at work: A cross-
national analysis of the levels and determinants of job satisfaction. The
Journal of Socio-Economics,29(6), 517–538.
Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction:
Development of the Job Satisfaction Survey. American Journal of Com-
munity Psychology,13(6), 693–713.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and
consequences (Vol. 3), Thousand Oaks, California, United States: Sage
publications.
Spector, P. E., & O'Connell, B. J. (1994). The contribution of personality
traits, negative affectivity, locus of control and Type A to the subse-
quent reports of job stressors and job strains. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology,67(1), 1–12.
Stanley, T. J., & Danko, W. D. (1996). The millionaire next door: The surpris-
ing secrets of America's wealthy (Vol. 16, p. 32). Atlanta, GA: Longstreet
Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence,
Nijmegen: CUP Archive. https://core.ac.uk/reader/16106612.
Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Four lessons learned from the
person–situation debate: A review and research agenda. In Personality
and organizations (pp. 85–110). Psychology Press. https://books.
google.com.pk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qCt5AgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=
PA61&dq=Stewart,+G.+L.,+%26+Barrick,+M.+R.+(2004).+Four+lesso
ns+learned+from+the+person%E2%80%93situation+debate:+a+review
+and+research+agenda+Personality+and+organizations+(pp.+85-110):
+Psychology+Press.&ots=_2jq4vuiB3&sig=6Eugz2jr8AHzEF5wZ1tTh
SmUPlM&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Strauss, G. (1968). Human relations—1968 style. Industrial Relations: A
Journal of Economy and Society,7(3), 262–276.
Strenze, T. (2007). Intelligence and socioeconomic success: A meta-
analytic review of longitudinal research. Intelligence,35(5), 401–426.
Vroom, V. (1964). Motivation and work. New York, NY: Wiley.
Watson, D., & Humrichouse, J. (2006). Personality development in
emerging adulthood: Integrating evidence from self-ratings and
spouse ratings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,91(5),
959–974.
Wechsler, D. (1958). The measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence
(4th ed.). Williams & Wilkins Co. https://doi.org/10.1037/11167-000.
Whetzel, D. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2006). Prediction of national wealth.
Intelligence,34(5), 449–458.
Wolfe, K., & Kim, H. J. (2013). Emotional intelligence, job satisfaction, and
job tenure among hotel managers. Journal of Human Resources in Hos-
pitality & Tourism,12(2), 175–191.
Yoke, L. B., & Panatik, S. A. (2016). Emotional intelligence and job perfor-
mance. International Business Management,10(6), 806–812.
MURTZA ET AL.11 of 12
Zagorsky, J. L. (2007). Do you have to be smart to be rich? The impact of IQ
on wealth, income and financial distress. Intelligence,35(5), 489–501.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Mr. Muhammad Hamid Murtza is Assistant Professor in School of
Business Management & Administrative Sciences, Islamia Univer-
sity of Bahawalpur. He has served leading public and private Uni-
versities of Pakistan on various administrative positions for more
than 10 years. He is PhD scholar and his area of interest include
organizational behavior and project management.
Mr. Shahzad Ali Gill is Assistant Professor (Public Administration)
in the Department of Political Science, the Islamia University of
Bahawalpur. He is also enrolled in PhD (Management) in School
of Business, Management & Administrative Sciences. His areas of
interest include public policy management, public administration,
organizational behavior, project management, organizational
resource planning & development, youth policies, youth empow-
erment, sustainable development and strategic communication.
Dr. Hassan Danial Aslam, an Asian scholar and Management Con-
sultant, is serving as Assistant Professor in The Islamia University
of Bahawalpur, Pakistan. He is author of various research papers
in international refereed journals which include the critical areas
of performance evaluation & development of teachers in higher
education of Pakistan. He has been working as education consul-
tant and human resource advisor in various institutes of Asia and
Middle-East.
Dr. Amna Noor is the Head of the Finance Department at School
of Business, Management & Administrative Sciences. She joined
the Islaima University of Bahwalpur in 2005 as a lecturer in
Finance. She was awarded with Faculty development scholarship
to support her higher studies. She holds MSc in Investment and
Finance from Queen Mary University of London and PhD in
finance from University of Glasgow. Her research interests
include corporate finance, especially within the sub-field of
Mergers and Acquisitions and Capital Structure as well as Behav-
ioral Finance.
How to cite this article: Murtza MH, Gill SA, Aslam HD,
Noor A. Intelligence quotient, job satisfaction, and job
performance: The moderating role of personality type. J Public
Affairs. 2020;e2318. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2318
12 of 12 MURTZA ET AL.
