|
|
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Psychology sidebar}}
| | Andrew Berryhill is what his wife enjoys to contact him and he completely digs that title. Invoicing is what I do for a living but I've usually wanted my own business. For a while I've been in Mississippi but now I'm considering other options. She is really fond of caving but she doesn't have the time lately.<br><br>my page - tarot card readings ([http://server2.shiatv.net/uprofile.php?u=A00O try server2.shiatv.net here]) |
| Job satisfaction is how content an individual is with his or her job. Scholars and human resource professionals generally make a distinction between '''[[Affective events theory|affective job satisfaction]]''' <ref name="Thompson">{{cite journal|last=Thompson|first=E.R.|coauthors=Phua F.T.T.|title=A Brief Index of Affective Job Satisfaction|journal=Group & Organization Management|year=2012|volume=37|issue=3|pages=275–307|doi=10.1177/1059601111434201 |url=http://gom.sagepub.com/content/37/3/275}}</ref> and '''cognitive job satisfaction'''.<ref name="Moorman">{{cite journal|last=Moorman|first=R.H.|title=The influence of cognitive and affective based job satisfaction measures on the relationship between satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior|journal=Human Relations|year=1993|volume=6|pages=759–776}}</ref> Affective job satisfaction is the extent of pleasurable emotional feelings individuals have about their jobs overall, and is different to cognitive job satisfaction which is the extent of individuals’ satisfaction with particular facets of their jobs, such as pay, pension arrangements, working hours, and numerous other aspects of their jobs.
| |
| | |
| ==Definition==
| |
| At its most general level of conceptualization, job satisfaction is simply how content an individual is with his or her job. At the more specific levels of conceptualization used by academic researchers and human resources professionals, job satisfaction has varying definitions. Affective job satisfaction is usually defined as an unidimensional subjective construct representing an overall emotional feeling individuals have about their job as a whole.<ref name="Thompson" /><ref name="Moorman" /><ref>{{cite journal|last=Kalleberg|first=A.L.|title=Work values and job rewards—Theory of job satisfaction|journal=American Sociological Review|year=1977|volume=42|pages=124–143|doi=10.2307/2117735}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Spector|first=P.E.|title=Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and consequences|year=1997|publisher=SAGE|location=Thousand Oaks, CA}}</ref> Hence, affective job satisfaction for individuals reflects the degree of pleasure or happiness their job in general induces. Cognitive job satisfaction is usually defined as being a more objective and logical evaluation of various facets of a job. As such, cognitive job satisfaction can be unidimensional if it comprises evaluation of just one aspect of a job, such as pay or maternity leave, or multidimensional if two or more facets of a job are simultaneously evaluated. Cognitive job satisfaction does not assess the degree of pleasure or happiness that arises from specific job facets, but rather gauges the extent to which those job facets are judged by the job holder to be satisfactory in comparison with objectives they themselves set or with other jobs. While cognitive job satisfaction might help to bring about affective job satisfaction, the two constructs are distinct, not necessarily directly related, and have different antecedents and consequences.<ref name="Moorman" />
| |
| | |
| ==History==
| |
| One of the biggest preludes to the study of job satisfaction was the Hawthorne studies. These studies (1924–1933), primarily credited to [[Elton Mayo]] of the [[Harvard Business School]], sought to find the effects of various conditions (most notably illumination) on workers’ productivity. These studies ultimately showed that novel changes in work conditions temporarily increase productivity (called the [[Hawthorne Effect]]). It was later found that this increase resulted, not from the new conditions, but from the knowledge of being observed. This finding provided strong evidence that people work for purposes other than pay, which paved the way for researchers to investigate other factors in job satisfaction.
| |
| | |
| [[Scientific management]] (aka [[Taylorism]]) also had a significant impact on the study of job satisfaction. [[Frederick Winslow Taylor]]’s 1911 book, Principles of Scientific Management, argued that there was a single best way to perform any given work task. This book contributed to a change in industrial production philosophies, causing a shift from skilled labor and [[piecework]] towards the more modern of [[assembly lines]] and [[hourly wage]]s. The initial use of scientific management by industries greatly increased productivity because workers were forced to work at a faster pace. However, workers became exhausted and dissatisfied, thus leaving researchers with new questions to answer regarding job satisfaction. It should also be noted that the work of W.L. Bryan, [[Walter Dill Scott]], and [[Hugo Münsterberg|Hugo Munsterberg]] set the tone for Taylor’s work.
| |
| | |
| Some argue that [[Maslow’s hierarchy of needs]] theory, a motivation theory, laid the foundation for job satisfaction theory. This theory explains that people seek to satisfy five specific needs in life – physiological needs, safety needs, social needs, self-esteem needs, and self-actualization. This model served as a good basis from which early researchers could develop job satisfaction theories.<ref>Benson, S. G., & Dundis, S. P. (2003). Understanding and motivating health care employees: Integrating Maslow's hierarchy of needs, training and technology. Journal of Nursing Management, 11, 315-320.</ref>
| |
| | |
| Job satisfaction can also be seen within the broader context of the range of issues which affect an individual's experience of work, or their [[quality of working life]]. Job satisfaction can be understood in terms of its relationships with other key factors, such as general well-being, stress at work, control at work, home-work interface, and working conditions.<ref> Tomaževič, N., Seljak, J. & Aristovnik A. (2014) Factors Influencing Employee Satisfaction in the Police Service: The Case of Slovenia. Personnel Review, 43, 2.</ref>
| |
| | |
| ==Models of job satisfaction==
| |
| | |
| ===Affect theory===
| |
| Edwin A. Locke’s Range of Affect Theory (1976) is arguably the most famous job satisfaction model. The main premise of this theory is that satisfaction is determined by a discrepancy between what one wants in a job and what one has in a job. Further, the theory states that how much one values a given facet of work (e.g. the degree of autonomy in a position) moderates how satisfied/dissatisfied one becomes when expectations are/aren’t met. When a person values a particular facet of a job, his satisfaction is more greatly impacted both positively (when expectations are met) and negatively (when expectations are not met), compared to one who doesn’t value that facet. To illustrate, if Employee A values autonomy in the workplace and Employee B is indifferent about autonomy, then Employee A would be more satisfied in a position that offers a high degree of autonomy and less satisfied in a position with little or no autonomy compared to Employee B. This theory also states that too much of a particular facet will produce stronger feelings of dissatisfaction the more a worker values that facet.
| |
| | |
| ===Dispositional theory===
| |
| Another well-known job satisfaction theory is the Dispositional Theory. It is a very general theory that suggests that people have innate dispositions that cause them to have tendencies toward a certain level of satisfaction, regardless of one’s job. This approach became a notable explanation of job satisfaction in light of evidence that job satisfaction tends to be stable over time and across careers and jobs. Research also indicates that identical twins have similar levels of job satisfaction.
| |
| | |
| A significant model that narrowed the scope of the Dispositional Theory was the [[Core self-evaluations|Core Self-evaluations Model]], proposed by Timothy A. Judge, Edwin A. Locke, and Cathy C. Durham in 1997.<ref name=Judge1997>Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151–188.</ref> Judge et al. argued that there are four [[Core self-evaluations|Core Self-evaluations]] that determine one’s disposition towards job satisfaction: [[self-esteem]], general [[self-efficacy]], [[locus of control]], and [[neuroticism]]. This model states that higher levels of self-esteem (the value one places on his/her self) and general self-efficacy (the belief in one’s own competence) lead to higher work satisfaction. Having an internal locus of control (believing one has control over her\his own life, as opposed to outside forces having control) leads to higher job satisfaction. Finally, lower levels of neuroticism lead to higher job satisfaction.<ref name="Judge1997"/>
| |
| | |
| ===Opponent process theory===
| |
| Events that seem negative in manner will give rise to the feelings of stress or anxiety. Events that are positive give rise to the feeling of content or relaxation. The other process is the opponent process, which induces feelings that contradict the feelings in the primary processes. Events that are negative give rise to feelings of relaxation while events that are positive give rise to feelings of anxiety. A variety of explanations have been suggested to explain the uniformity of mood or satisfaction. This theory shows that if you try to enhance the mood of individual it will more likely fail in doing so. The opponent process theory was formulated to explain these patterns of observations.<ref>Solomon, R. L., & Corbit, J. D. (1973). An opponent-process theory of motivation: II. Cigarette addiction. Journal Of Abnormal Psychology, 81(2), 158-171.</ref><ref>Solomon, R. L., & Corbit, J. D. (1974). An opponent-process theory of motivation: I. Temporal dynamics of affect. ''Psychological Review'', 81(2), 119-145.</ref>
| |
| | |
| ===Equity theory===
| |
| Equity Theory shows how a person views fairness in regard to social relationships. During a social exchange, a person identifies the amount of input gained from a relationship compared to the output, as well as how much effort another persons puts forth.<ref>Walster, E. E. Berscheid and G. W. Walster. (1973). "New Directions in Equity Research." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. pp. 151-176.</ref> Equity Theory suggests that if an individual thinks there is an inequality between two social groups or individuals, the person is likely to be distressed because the ratio between the input and the output are not equal.<ref name=autogenerated5>Huseman, R., Hatfield, J., and Miles, E. "A New Perspective on Equity Theory: The Equity Sensitivity Construct. Academy of Management Review. 1987. 12(2). pp. 232-234</ref>
| |
| | |
| For example, consider two employees who work the same job and receive the same benefits. If one individual gets a pay raise for doing the same or less work than the other, then the less benefited individual will become distressed in his workplace. If, on the other hand, one individual gets a pay raise and new responsibilities, then the feeling of inequality is reduced.<ref name=autogenerated5 />
| |
| | |
| Other psychologists have extended the equity theory, suggesting three behavioral response patterns to situations of perceived equity or inequity (Huseman, Hatfield, & Mile, 1987; O'Neil & Mone 1998). These three types are benevolent, equity sensitive, and entitled. The level by each type affects [[motivation]], job satisfaction, and job performance.
| |
|
| |
| #Benevolent-Satisfied when they are under-rewarded compared with co-workers
| |
| #Equity sensitive-Believe everyone should be fairly rewarded
| |
| #Entitled-People believe that everything they receive is their just due<ref>{{cite book|last=Schultz|first=Duane P. Schultz, Sydney Ellen|title=Psychology and work today : an introduction to industrial and organizational psychology|year=2010|publisher=Prentice Hall|location=Upper Saddle River, N.J.|isbn=978-0205683581|page=71|edition=10th ed.}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| ===Discrepancy theory===
| |
| The concept of discrepancy theory explains the ultimate source of anxiety and dejection.<ref>Higgins, E. T. (1999b). When do self-discrepancies have specific relations to emotions? The second-generation question of Tangney, Niedenthal, Covert, and Barlow (1998). ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology'', 77, 1313-1317</ref> An individual, who has not fulfilled his responsibility feels the sense of anxiety and regret for not performing well, they will also feel dejection due to not being able to achieve their hopes and aspirations.
| |
| According to this theory, all individuals will learn what their obligations and responsibilities for a particular function, over a time period, and if they fail to fulfill those obligations then they are punished. Over time, these duties and obligations consolidate to form an abstracted set of principles, designated as a self-guide.<ref name=autogenerated3>Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. ''Psychological Review'', 94, 319-340</ref> Agitation and anxiety are the main responses when an individual fails to achieve the obligation or responsibility.<ref name=autogenerated2>Strauman, T. J. (1989). Self-discrepancies in clinical depression and social phobia: Cognitive structures that underlie emotional disorders? ''Journal of Abnormal Psychology'', 98, 14-22</ref>
| |
| This theory also explains that if achievement of the obligations is obtained then the reward can be praise, approval, or love. These achievements and aspirations also form an abstracted set of principles, referred to as the ideal self guide.<ref name=autogenerated3 /> When the individual fails to obtain these rewards, they begin to have feelings of dejection, disappointment, or even depression.<ref name=autogenerated2 />
| |
| | |
| ===Two-factor theory (motivator-hygiene theory)===
| |
| [[Frederick Herzberg]]’s [[Two-factor theory]] (also known as Motivator Hygiene Theory) attempts to explain satisfaction and motivation in the workplace.<ref name="HackmanOldham1976">{{cite journal |author=HackmanOldham1976| title=Motivation through design of work | journal=Organizational behaviour and human performance | volume=16 | pages=250–279 | year = 1976 | doi=10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7 |author1=J. R. Hackman |author2=G. R. Oldham |author-separator=, |issue=2}}</ref> This theory states that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are driven by different factors – motivation and hygiene factors, respectively. An employee’s motivation to work is continually related to job satisfaction of a subordinate. Motivation can be seen as an inner force that drives individuals to attain personal and organizational goals (Hoskinson, Porter, & Wrench, p. 133). Motivating factors are those aspects of the job that make people want to perform, and provide people with satisfaction, for example achievement in work, recognition, promotion opportunities.<ref>Aristovnik, A., & Jaklič, K. (2013). Job satisfaction of older workers as a factor of promoting labour market participation in the EU : the case of Slovenia. Rev. soc. polit.., 20( 2), 123-148. http://www.rsp.hr/ojs2/index.php/rsp/article/viewFile/1126/1227</ref> These motivating factors are considered to be intrinsic to the job, or the work carried out.<ref name="HackmanOldham1976"/> Hygiene factors include aspects of the working environment such as pay, company policies, supervisory practices, and other working conditions.<ref name="HackmanOldham1976"/>
| |
| | |
| While Herzberg's model has stimulated much research, researchers have been unable to reliably empirically prove the model, with Hackman & Oldham suggesting that Herzberg's original formulation of the model may have been a methodological artifact.<ref name="HackmanOldham1976"/> Furthermore, the theory does not consider individual differences, conversely predicting all employees will react in an identical manner to changes in motivating/hygiene factors.<ref name="HackmanOldham1976"/> Finally, the model has been criticised in that it does not specify how motivating/hygiene factors are to be measured.<ref name="HackmanOldham1976"/>
| |
| | |
| ===Job characteristics model===
| |
| Hackman & Oldham proposed the [[Job Characteristic Theory |Job Characteristics Model]], which is widely used as a framework to study how particular job characteristics impact on job outcomes, including job satisfaction. The model states that there are five core job characteristics (skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback) which impact three critical psychological states (experienced meaningfulness, experienced responsibility for outcomes, and knowledge of the actual results), in turn influencing work outcomes (job satisfaction, absenteeism, work motivation, etc.).<ref>Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.</ref> The five core job characteristics can be combined to form a [[#Motivating Potential Score|motivating potential score (MPS)]] for a job, which can be used as an index of how likely a job is to affect an employee's attitudes and behaviors. A [[meta-analysis]] of studies that assess the framework of the model provides some support for the validity of the JCM.<ref>Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the Job Characteristics Model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40(2), 287-322.</ref>
| |
| | |
| ====Motivating Potential Score====
| |
| | |
| The motivating potential score (MPS) can be calculated, using the core dimensions discussed above, as follows;
| |
| | |
| :<math>{\text{MPS}}=\frac{\text{Skill Variety + Task Identity + Task Significance } }{\text{3} }{\text{ x Autonomy x Feedback}}</math>
| |
| | |
| Jobs that are high in motivating potential must be also high on at least one of the three factors that lead to experienced meaningfulness, and also must be high on both Autonomy and Feedback.<ref name=Steel2012>Steel, Piers. Motivation: Theory and Applied. Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions, 2012. Print. pp. 49</ref> If a job has a high MPS, the job characteristics model predicts that motivation, performance and job satisfaction will be positively affected and the likelihood of negative outcomes, such as absenteeism and turnover, will be reduced.<ref name=Steel2012 />
| |
| | |
| ==Factors that influence job satisfaction==
| |
| | |
| ==={{underline|Environmental factors}}===
| |
| | |
| ====Communication overload and communication underload====
| |
| One of the most important aspects of an individual’s work in a modern organization concerns the management of communication demands that he or she encounters on the job.<ref name=autogenerated4>Krayer, K.J., & Westbrook, L. (1986). The relationship between communication load and job satisfaction. World Communication, 15, 85-99.</ref> Demands can be characterized as a communication load, which refers to “the rate and complexity of communication inputs an individual must process in a particular time frame.”<ref name=autogenerated1>Farace, R. V., Monge, P. R., & Russell, H. M. (1977). Communicating and organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.</ref> Individuals in an organization can experience communication over-load and communication under- load which can affect their level of job satisfaction. Communication overload can occur when “an individual receives too many messages in a short period of time which can result in unprocessed information or when an individual faces more complex messages that are more difficult to process.<ref name=autogenerated1 />” Due to this process, “given an individual’s style of work and motivation to complete a task, when more inputs exist than outputs, the individual perceives a condition of overload<ref name=autogenerated4 /> which can be positively or negatively related to job satisfaction. In comparison, communication under load can occur when messages or inputs are sent below the individual’s ability to process them.”<ref name=autogenerated1 /> According to the ideas of communication over-load and under-load, if an individual does not receive enough input on the job or is unsuccessful in processing these inputs, the individual is more likely to become dissatisfied, aggravated, and unhappy with their work which leads to a low level of job satisfaction.
| |
| | |
| ====Superior-subordinate communication====
| |
| [[Superior-subordinate communication]] is an important influence on job satisfaction in the workplace. The way in which subordinates perceive a supervisor's behavior can positively or negatively influence job satisfaction. Communication behavior such as facial expression, eye contact, vocal expression, and body movement is crucial to the superior-subordinate relationship (Teven, p. 156). Nonverbal messages play a central role in interpersonal interactions with respect to impression formation, deception, attraction, social influence, and emotional.<ref>Burgoon, J.K. Buller, D.B. and Woodall, W.G. (1996) Nonverbal Communication, New York: McGraw-Hill</ref> Nonverbal immediacy from the supervisor helps to increase interpersonal involvement with their subordinates impacting job satisfaction. The manner in which supervisors communicate with their subordinates non-verbally may be more important than the verbal content (Teven, p. 156). Individuals who dislike and think negatively about their supervisor are less willing to communicate or have motivation to work whereas individuals who like and think positively of their supervisor are more likely to communicate and are satisfied with their job and work environment. A supervisor who uses nonverbal immediacy, friendliness, and open communication lines is more likely to receive positive feedback and high job satisfaction from a subordinate. Conversely, a supervisor who is antisocial, unfriendly, and unwilling to communicate will naturally receive negative feedback and create low job satisfaction in their subordinates in the workplace.
| |
| | |
| ===Strategic Employee Recognition===
| |
| <ref name="Corporate Leadership Council">{{cite web|title=KEY FINDINGS Linking Employee Satisfaction with Productivity, Performance, and Customer Satisfaction .|url=http://www.keepem.com/doc_files/clc_articl_on_productivity.pdf|accessdate=11 July 2012}}</ref> A Watson Wyatt Worldwide study identified a positive outcome between a collegical and flexible work environment and an increase in shareholder value. Suggesting that employee satisfaction is directly related to financial gain.
| |
| Over 40 percent of the companies listed in the top 100 of Fortune magazine’s, “America’s Best Companies to Work For” also appear on the Fortune 500. It is possible that successful workers enjoy working at successful companies, however, the Watson Wyatt Worldwide Human Capital Index study claims that effective human resources practices, such as employee recognition programs, lead to positive financial outcomes more often than positive financial outcomes lead to good practices.
| |
| | |
| Employee recognition is not only about gifts and points. It's about changing the corporate culture in order to meet goals and initiatives and most importantly to connect employees to the company's core values and beliefs. Strategic employee recognition is seen as the most important program not only to improve employee retention and motivation but also to positively influence the financial situation.<ref>[http://www.cfo-insight.com/human-capital-career/talent-management/how-employee-recognition-programmes-improves-retention/ How Employee Recognition Programmes Improve Retention] ''CFO Insight Magazine'', January 2013</ref> The difference between the traditional approach (gifts and points) and strategic recognition is the ability to serve as a serious business influencer that can advance a company’s strategic objectives in a measurable way. "The vast majority of companies want to be innovative, coming up with new products, business models and better ways of doing things. However, innovation is not so easy to achieve. A CEO cannot just order it, and so it will be. You have to carefully manage an organization so that, over time, innovations will emerge."<ref>[http://www.forbes.com/sites/freekvermeulen/2011/05/30/five-mistaken-beliefs-business-leaders-have-about-innovation/ Five mistaken beliefs business leaders have about innovation] from Freek Vermeulen in ''Forbes'', May 2011</ref>
| |
| | |
| ==={{underline|Individual factors}}===
| |
| | |
| ====Emotion====
| |
| [[Mood (psychology)|Mood]] and [[emotion]]s form the affective element of job satisfaction. Moods tend to be longer lasting but often weaker states of uncertain origin, while emotions are often more intense, short-lived and have a clear object or cause.<ref>Weiss HM, Cropanzano R. (1996). Affective events theory: a theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior 8: 1±74</ref>
| |
| | |
| Some research suggests moods are related to overall job satisfaction.<ref>Brief AP, Roberson L. (1989). Job attitude organization: an exploratory study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 19: 717±727.</ref><ref>Weiss HM, Nicholas JP, Daus CS. (1999). An examination of the joint effects of affective experiences and job beliefs on job satisfaction and variations in affective experiences over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 78: 1±24</ref> Positive and negative emotions were also found to be significantly related to overall job satisfaction.<ref name = Fisher>Fisher D. (2000). Mood and emotions while working: missing pieces of job satisfaction? ''Journal of Organizational Behavior'' 21, 185±202</ref>
| |
| | |
| Frequency of experiencing net positive emotion will be a better predictor of overall job satisfaction than will intensity of positive emotion when it is experienced.<ref name=Fisher/>
| |
| | |
| [[Emotion work]] (or emotion management) refers to various types of efforts to manage emotional states and displays. Emotion management includes all of the conscious and unconscious efforts to increase, maintain, or decrease one or more components of an emotion. Although early studies of the consequences of emotional work emphasized its harmful effects on workers, studies of workers in a variety of occupations suggest that the consequences of emotional work are not uniformly negative.<ref>Pugliesi K. (1999). The Consequences of Emotional Labor: Effects on Work Stress, Job Satisfaction, and Weil-BeinMotivation and Emotion, Vol. 23/2</ref>
| |
| | |
| It was found that suppression of unpleasant emotions decreases job satisfaction and the amplification of pleasant emotions increases job satisfaction.<ref name = cote >Cote S.,Morgan LM (2002). A longitudinal analysis of the association between emotion regulation, job satisfaction, and intentions to quit. Journal of Organizational Behavior
| |
| vol 23, 947–962</ref>
| |
| | |
| The understanding of how emotion regulation relates to job satisfaction concerns two models:
| |
| # '''[[Emotional dissonance]]'''. Emotional dissonance is a state of discrepancy between public displays of emotions and internal experiences of emotions,<ref>Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional labor in service roles: the influence of identity. Academy of
| |
| Management Review, 18, 88–115</ref><ref>Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1989). The expression of emotion in organizational life. Research in Organizational Behavior, 11, 1–42.</ref> that often follows the process of emotion regulation. Emotional dissonance is associated with high emotional exhaustion, low organizational commitment, and low job satisfaction.<ref>Abraham, R. (1999). The impact of emotional dissonance on organizational commitment and intention to turnover. Journal of Psychology, 133, 441–455</ref><ref>Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1997). Managing emotions in the workplace. Journal of Managerial Issues, 9,257–274</ref>
| |
| # '''Social interaction model'''. Taking the social interaction perspective, workers’ emotion regulation might beget responses from others during interpersonal encounters that subsequently impact their own job satisfaction. For example: The accumulation of favorable responses to displays of pleasant emotions might positively affect job satisfaction.<ref name=cote/>
| |
| | |
| ====Genetics====
| |
| It has been well documented that genetics influence a variety of individual differences.<ref>Rowe, D. C. (1987). Resolving the person–situation debate: Invitation to an interdisciplinary dialogue. ''American Psychologist'', 42, 218–227. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/42/3/218/</ref> Some research suggests genetics also play a role in the intrinsic, direct experiences of job satisfaction like challenge or achievement (as opposed to extrinsic, environmental factors like working conditions). One experiment used sets of monozygotic twins, reared apart, to test for the existence of genetic influence on job satisfaction. While the results indicate the majority of the variance in job satisfaction was due to environmental factors (70%), genetic influence is still a minor factor. Genetic heritability was also suggested for several of the job characteristics measured in the experiment, such as complexity level, motor skill requirements, and physical demands.<ref>Arvey, R. D., Bouchard, T. J., Segal, N. L., & Abraham, L. M. (1989). Job satisfaction: Environmental and genetic components. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 74(2), 187-192. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/apl/74/2/187/</ref>
| |
| | |
| ====Personality====
| |
| Some research suggests an association between personality and job satisfaction. Specifically, this research describes the role of [[negative affectivity]] and [[positive affectivity]]. Negative affectivity is related strongly to the personality trait of [[neuroticism]]. Individuals high in negative affectivity are more prone to experience less job satisfaction. Positive affectivity is related strongly to the personality trait of [[extraversion]]. Those high in positive affectivity are more prone to be satisfied in most dimensions of their life, including their job. Differences in affectivity likely impact how individuals will perceive objective job circumstances like pay and working conditions, thus affecting their satisfaction in that job.<ref>Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. ''Annual Review of Psychology'', 53, 279–307</ref>
| |
| | |
| There are two personality factors related to job satisfaction, [[Social alienation|alienation]] and [[locus of control]]. Employees who have an internal locus of control and feel less alienated are more likely to experience job satisfaction, job involvement and organizational commitment. A meta-analysis of 135 studies of job satisfaction concluded that there is a positive relationship between internal locus of control and job satisfaction. The study also showed characteristics like high self-esteem, self-efficacy and low neuroticism are also related to job satisfaction.<ref>{{cite book|last=Schultz & Schultz|first=Duane|title=Psychology and work today|year=2010|publisher=Prentice Hall|location=New York|isbn=978-81-317-3370-7|page=133}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| ==={{underline|Psychological factors}}===
| |
| | |
| [[Psychological well-being]] (PWB) is defined as “the overall effectiveness of an individual’s psychological functioning” as related to primary facets of one’s life: work, family, community, etc.<ref name="Wright, T. A. 2000">Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as predictors of job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 84-94. {{DOI|10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.84}}</ref> There are three defining characteristics of PWB. First, it is a [[Phenomenology (psychology)|phenomenological]] event, meaning that people are happy when they subjectively believe themselves to be so. Second, well-being involves some emotional conditions. Particularly, psychologically well people are more prone to experience positive emotions and less prone to experience negative emotions. Third, well-being refers to one's life as a whole. It is a global evaluation.<ref name="Wright, T. A. 2000"/> PWB is primarily measured using the eight-item Index of Psychological Well-Being developed by Berkman (IPWB). IPWB asks respondents to reply to a series a questions on how often they felt “pleased about accomplishing something,” “bored,” “depressed or unhappy,” etc.<ref name="Wright, T. A. 2000"/>
| |
| | |
| PWB in the workplace plays an important role in determining job satisfaction and has attracted much research attention in recent years.<ref>Baptiste, N. R. (2008). Tightening the link between employee wellbeing at work and performance: A new dimension for HRM. Management Decision, 46(2), 284-309. {{DOI|10.1108/00251740810854168}}</ref> These studies have focused on the effects of PWB on job satisfaction as well as [[job performance]].<ref>Robertson, I. T., Birch, A. J., & Cooper, C. L. (2012). Job and work attitudes, engagement and employee performance: Where does psychological well-being fit in? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 33(3), 224-232. {{DOI|10.1108/01437731211216443}}</ref> One study noted that because job satisfaction is specific to one’s job, the research that examined job satisfaction had not taken into account aspects of one’s life external to the job.<ref name="Wright, T. A. 2007">Wright, T. A., Cropanzano, R., & Bonett, D. G. (2007). The moderating role of employee positive well being on the relation between job satisfaction and job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(2), 93-104. {{DOI|10.1037/1076-8998.12.2.93}}</ref> Prior studies had focused only on the work environment as the main determinant of job satisfaction. Ultimately, to better understand job satisfaction (and its close relative, job performance), it is important to take into account an individual’s PWB. Research published in 2000 showed a significant correlation between PWB and job satisfaction (r = .35, p < .01).<ref name="Wright, T. A. 2000"/> A follow-up study by the same authors in 2007 revealed similar results (r = .30, p < .01).<ref name="Wright, T. A. 2007"/> In addition, these studies show that PWB is a better predictor of job performance than job satisfaction alone.
| |
| | |
| ==Measuring job satisfaction==
| |
| How job satisfaction is measured depends on whether affective or cognitive job satisfaction is of interest. The majority of job satisfaction measures are self-reports and based on multi-item scales. Several measures have been developed over the years, although they vary in terms of how carefully and distinctively they are conceptualized with respect to affective or cognitive job satisfaction. They also vary in terms of the extent and rigour of their psychometric validation.
| |
| | |
| The '''Brief Index of Affective Job Satisfaction''' (BIAJS) is a 4-item, overtly affective as opposed to cognitive, measure of overall affective job satisfaction. The BIAJS differs from other job satisfaction measures in being comprehensively validated not just for internal consistency reliability, temporal stability, convergent and criterion-related validities, but also for cross-population invariance by nationality, job level, and job type. Reported internal consistency reliabilities range between .81 and .87.<ref name="Thompson" />
| |
| | |
| The '''Job Descriptive Index''' (JDI),<ref>Smith,P.C.,Kendall,L.M.,&Hulin,C.L. (1969) The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.</ref> is a specifically cognitive job satisfaction measure. It measures one’s satisfaction in five facets: pay, promotions and promotion opportunities, coworkers, supervision, and the work itself. The scale is simple, participants answer either yes, no, or can’t decide (indicated by ‘?’) in response to whether given statements accurately describe one’s job.
| |
| | |
| Other job satisfaction questionnaires include: the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ), the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS), and the Faces Scale. The MSQ measures job satisfaction in 20 facets and has a long form with 100 questions (five items from each facet) and a short form with 20 questions (one item from each facet). The JSS is a 36 item questionnaire that measures nine facets of job satisfaction. Finally, the Faces Scale of job satisfaction, one of the first scales used widely, measured overall job satisfaction with just one item which participants respond to by choosing a face.
| |
| | |
| ==Relationships and practical implications==
| |
| Job Satisfaction can be indicative of work behaviors such as organizational citizenship,<ref>Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802</ref> and withdrawal behaviors such as [[absenteeism]],<ref>Wegge, J., Schmidt, K., Parkes, C., & van Dick, K. (2007). ‘Taking a sickie’: Job satisfaction and job involvement as interactive predictors of absenteeism in a public organization. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 77-89</ref> and [[Turnover (employment)|turnover]].<ref>Saari, L. M., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 43, 395-407</ref> Further, job satisfaction can partially mediate the relationship of personality variables and deviant work behaviors.<ref>Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 59, 591-622.</ref>
| |
| | |
| One common research finding is that job satisfaction is correlated with life satisfaction.<ref>Rain, J.S., Lane, I.M. & Steiner, D.D. (1991) A current look at the job satisfaction/life satisfaction relationship: Review and future considerations. Human Relations, 44, 287–307.</ref> This correlation is reciprocal, meaning people who are satisfied with life tend to be satisfied with their job and people who are satisfied with their job tend to be satisfied with life. However, some research has found that job satisfaction is not significantly related to life satisfaction when other variables such as nonwork satisfaction and core self-evaluations are taken into account.<ref>Rode, J. C. (2004). Job satisfaction and life satisfaction revisited: A longitudinal test of an integrated model. Human Relations, Vol 57(9), 1205-1230.</ref>
| |
| | |
| An important finding for organizations to note is that job satisfaction has a rather tenuous [[correlation]] to productivity on the job. This is a vital piece of information to researchers and businesses, as the idea that satisfaction and job performance are directly related to one another is often cited in the media and in some non-academic management literature. A recent [[meta-analysis]] found surprisingly low correlations between job satisfaction and performance.<ref>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.</ref> Further, the meta-analysis found that the relationship between satisfaction and performance can be moderated by job complexity, such that for high-complexity jobs the correlation between satisfaction and performance is higher than for jobs of low to moderate complexity. Additionally, one longitudinal study indicated that among work attitudes, job satisfaction is a strong predictor of absenteeism, suggesting that increasing job satisfaction and organizational commitment are potentially good strategies for reducing absenteeism and turnover intentions.<ref>Cohen, A., & Golan, R. (2007). Predicting absenteeism and turnover intentions by past absenteeism and work attitudes. Career Development International, 12(5), 416-432</ref> Recent research has also shown that intention to quit alone can have negative effects on performance, organizational deviance, and organizational citizenship behaviours.<ref>Krishnan, S.K., & Singh, M. (2010). "Outcomes of intention to quit of Indian IT professionals", Human Resource Management, 49 (3): 419-435</ref> In short, the relationship of satisfaction to productivity is not as straightforward as often assumed and can be influenced by a number of different work-related constructs, and the notion that "a happy worker is a productive worker" should not be the foundation of organizational decision-making. For example, employee [[wikt:personality|personality]] may even be more important than job satisfaction in regards to performance.<ref>Bowling, N.A. (2007). Is the Job Satisfaction-Job Performance Relationship Spurious: A Meta-Analytic Examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 167-185</ref>
| |
| | |
| ==Job satisfaction and absenteeism==
| |
| [[File:Absenteeism can lead to this - NARA - 534674.jpg|thumb|File:Absenteeism can lead to this - NARA - 534674.jpg]]
| |
| Numerous research was done to discover the correlation of job satisfaction and absenteeism.<ref>Goldberg, C. B., & Waldman, D. A. (2000). Modeling employee absenteeism: Testing alternative measures and mediated effects based on job satisfaction. ''Journal of Organizational Behavior'', 21(6), 665-676. Retrieved from http://york.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/loginurl=http://search.proquest.com/docview/224879009?accountid=15180</ref> 244 employees of a Hospital having different positions, professional and blue collar participated in a following study. Goldberg and Waldman looked at absenteeism in two dimensions as total time lost (number of missed days) and the frequency of time lost.
| |
| Self-reported data and records-based data were collected and compared. Following absenteeism measures were evaluated according to absenteeism predictors.
| |
| | |
| #Self-report time lost
| |
| #self-reported frequency
| |
| #records-based time lost
| |
| | |
| Only three categories of predictors had a significant relationship ratio and were taken in account further:
| |
| | |
| *[[Health]]
| |
| *[[Wages]]
| |
| *Position level
| |
| This research results revealed that absenteeism cannot be predicted by job satisfaction, although many researches are proving opposite hiding details. Authors bring an example of study that compares the intentions of absence with job satisfaction, and not the actual absence.
| |
| | |
| ==Job satisfaction — race==
| |
| In general, more White than non White employees report satisfaction with their job. However, before a person can be concerned with job satisfaction, he or she must have a job. Although there is a large thriving middle class among Black and ethnic minority employees, large numbers of people who want to work are unemployed, are employed irregularly, or are too discouraged to seek employment. Many who have full-time work are confined to low-level jobs that offer marginal pay and little opportunity for advancement or fulfillment. Thus, the primary concern for many workers is not satisfaction but finding a job that pays a decent wage.
| |
| | |
| ==See also==
| |
| {{Div col|5}}
| |
| * [[Aptitude]]
| |
| * [[Core self-evaluations]]
| |
| * [[Person-environment fit]]
| |
| * [[Personality-Job Fit Theory]]
| |
| * [[Organizational Justice]]
| |
| * [[Onboarding]]
| |
| * [[Quality of working life]]
| |
| *[[Stigma management]]
| |
| {{Div col end}}
| |
| | |
| ==References==
| |
| ;Citations
| |
| | |
| {{Reflist}}
| |
| | |
| {{reflist|2}}
| |
| | |
| {{Employment}}
| |
| {{Psychology}}
| |
| | |
| {{DEFAULTSORT:Job Satisfaction}}
| |
| [[Category:Industrial and organizational psychology]]
| |
| [[Category:Industrial relations]]
| |
| [[Category:Organizational behavior]]
| |