There was a five percent poor performance of companies classified as low and moderate morale than their counterparts. Findings from other measure of standards of the performance of the company such as return on asset and ROI was enlightening because they were similar. A similar survey was done by David Maister on the 29 companies' financial performances and over 5500 employees were subjected to 74 detailed questions relating to morale and satisfaction. Those companies that did better at almost everything were the ones that had significantly successful financial offices. The companies whose financial performance was in the top 20% had an average score higher than the rest in sixty nine out of 74 questions. There wasn't any significant score for the remaining five questions. One of the principal takeaways in the study was that financial performance was as a result of the attitude of the employee and not the other way ("The Effects of Employee Satisfaction on Company Financial Performance"). Forum for People Performance Management and Measurement is arguably the leader in this research which was formed to study how the organization performance is impacted by employees. Results from its research on financial performance and employee satisfaction were indeed a breakthrough whereby 5000 employees represented by almost 100 companies in United States were evaluated. There were various key findings: employee satisfaction was explained well by the communication; a key antecedent for employee engagement was employee satisfaction and greater profitability resulted from engaged employees in the companies which had customers using the products more. The study also included those employees whose attitude affected the bottom line even though they did not have direct contact with the customers. The relevance of the study is found principally on the idea that a great portion of the employees of sizable company does not deal with the customers directly. It was concluded that there was a link between financial performance and customer satisfaction which again was linked to the satisfaction of the employees. There is increased documentation of the definable link between high performance and employee satisfaction. This link is also referred to as service profit chain. To attain excellence in service economy most of the attention and time must be devoted to the customer and workers especially at the front line who interact with the customers. This is because of the possible astronomical lifetime value of the customer. Customer satisfaction can then be established once employee satisfaction, productivity and loyalty have been quantified. Then the impact assessment on growth and profitability can be done. Comprehensive strategies can then be crafted which will help in the development of competitive advantage once the relationships between the links are understood ("Corporate leadership council").

T-Mobile USA case can show how employee satisfaction leads to high performance. It is a fast growing telecommunication services provider with over 20 million customers and 13,000 employees on customer service. After the company got low ranks in the surveys of customer satisfaction, the gap between the employee engagement and their brand...

This led to dramatic results. T-Mobiles recognition and reward program resulted in the highest rank of the company in "Wireless Customer Care Performance Study conducted by JD Power and Associates for three consecutive years. There has been a 10% increase in the employee satisfaction and a 15% reduction of attrition. Effective incentive programming is the cause for this kind of performance improvement.
Conclusion

Basing on the many studies which support the correlation between employee satisfaction and high performance, the linkage is becoming more and more acceptable. Employees are one of the most important resources in the company. However as other resources can be easily modified to suit the objectives of the company, the employee satisfaction is complex with and sometimes more specific to the particular employee. To gain the relevant competitive advantage, and differentiate themselves, their greatest asset which are their employees, need to be harnessed. Indeed in contemporary business environment the employees are the most crucial point of differentiation. A clear correlation can be easily found: satisfied customers are generated by satisfied employees who again develop long-term relationships hence spending more money. Most employees in the modern business do not work as effective as they ought to and this can be attributed to the lack of motivation due to not being satisfied in their work. Therefore growth possibilities are endless in the workplace if the leadership is strong enough and the workers are understood and their power to influence high performance valued.

Works Cited

"Corporate leadership council." Linking Employee Satisfaction with Production 17 July. 2003. 8

April. 2010.

Buchanan, Kadence. Job Performance and satisfaction June. 2007. 8 April. 2010.

Fishbein, M. "A theory of reasoned action." Ed. Howe & Page, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1979.

Greenberger, D., Strasser, S., Cummings, L., and Dunham, B. "The impact of personal control on performance and satisfaction," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 43(1989): 29-51.

Grote, Dick. Looking To Increase Employee Performance? Motivation Is Critical 3 May. 2006. 8

April. 2010.

Judge, Timothy, Carl, Thoresen, Joyce, Bono, and Gregory, Patton. "The Job Satisfaction-Job

Performance Relationship: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review,"

Psychological Bulletin 127.3(2001): 376-407

Keaveney, S.M., & Nelson, J.E. "Coping with organizational role stress: Intrinsic motivational orientation, perceived role benefits, and psychological withdrawal," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 21(1993): 113-124.

"The Effects of Employee Satisfaction on Company Financial Performance," Marketing

Innovators International. 6 Sept. 2005. 8 April. 2010.

Weiss, H. "Deconstructing job satisfaction: separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences." Human Resource Management Review 12(2002): 173-194