An employee’s attitude, level of job satisfaction and their behavior are not always closely related. On the surface it may seem generally obvious that an individual’s behavior is a direct result of their though process or attitudes (Robbin & Judge, 2011, p.73). It is true that people desire continuity in their lives. Most people find security and a since of personal satisfaction when their attitudes and behavior are not duplicitous. When the average person’s behavior or job performance does not match their attitude or professed expectations, the result is internal conflict. There are two options for addressing this conflict. 1. The person adjusts their behavior and /or attitude; or 2. The individual rationalizes their behavior to explain the incongruences (Robbin & Judge, 2011, p.74).
The belief that job contentment and job displeasure indicate significantly different concepts is classically based on the theory of Frederick Herzberg. Herzberg contended that the work environment is composed of dual components. The first component relates to basic human needs: safety and money. The second component relates individual business or corporate policies. The company policies are directly related to employee satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Poor or unfair company policies are abrasive to employee physiological needs and result in diminished job satisfaction. When the employee’s physiological needs are unfulfilled in the workplace, frustration increases (Credé, Chernyshenko, 2009, p. 246).
Employee fulfillment has been widely discussed as it related to individuals who are financially compensated; however not as