Job Satisfaction

American University in Kyrgyzstan

[pic]

Organizational Behavior

Camilla Sharshekeeva

Research and Reflection Paper

Theme:

“Job Satisfaction”

Student: Kanatbek Beishekeev

Group ВА-498

Bishkek-2001

Do people really like their jobs? Definitely, everyone knows from the

news about dissatisfied workers going on strike or even acting violently

toward their supervisors, directors, but overall people are quite satisfied

with their jobs. According to the surveys percentage of satisfied people

averages in the US is about 85 percent. The feelings, reflecting attitudes

toward one’s job, are known as job satisfaction.

Settings, related to the personnel job satisfaction and devotion to

the company, are presenting special interest for the theory of

organizational behavior and practice of human resource management.

A discussion of the job satisfaction problem concentrates attention on

the employees’ attitude toward their job, and a discussion of organization

devotion –on the attitude toward the organization in the whole.

What is job satisfaction once more?

Lock gives a following detail definition of job satisfaction: “

pleasant, positive emotional condition coming from your job evaluation or

job experience.”1 Job satisfaction is a result of the very employees

perception of the fact for how much their job provides important, from

their viewpoint, things.

There are three most important parameters of job satisfaction. First,

job satisfaction represents emotional reaction for the situation lay at the

office. It’s impossible to see it, it can be only experienced. Second, job

satisfaction is defined often by that extent how much results of work

correspond to expectations. For instance, if organization employees see

they work much more, than other department employees, but receive less for

that, more probably, they will have negative attitude toward their job,

supervisor and colleagues.

They will experience dissatisfaction feeling. From another hand, if

they see, they get favorable attitude and materially rewarded, their

attitude toward the job will be positive. They will experience satisfaction

feeling from their job. Third, through job satisfaction some another

settings are expressed. Smit, Hendall and Hulin suppose that there is five

parameters of job, most exactly characterizing it from the viewpoint of

those affective reactions, which job causes by people. These parameters are

enumerated below:

1. Job itself. The extent, in which job gives people interesting

assignments, opportunities to perceive new, experience responsibility

feeling for the job laid upon.

2. Payment. The sum of money reward, which is paid for the job, and that in

which way the given sum corresponds to reward, receiving by other

organization member.

3. Promotion possibilities. Career promotion opportunities.

4. Management. The capacity of a head to provide as technical, as moral

support.

5. Colleagues. The extent of technical knowledge of colleagues and the

level of social support.2

Factors influencing on Job Satisfaction

Let’s mark several factors, influencing on Job Satisfaction. For

example, last research show that if after college graduation students are

immediately employed according their specialization, then on the basis of

both events coincidence it’s probable to predict a following job

satisfaction.3 There are the main factors influencing on Job Satisfaction

below:

Job itself. The main source of satisfaction is, of course, job itself.

Thus, for instance, research, dedicated to job characteristics and carried

out in correlation with working place projecting, testify that the very

content of work and autonomy by its implementation represent two most

important motivation factors correlated with labor. As research indicated,

other main components of job satisfaction are interesting and difficult job

without time for tedium and job giving a man one certain status.4

Payment. The system of money rewards is considered as a significant

but multicomplex and multisided job satisfaction factor. Money not only

gives people an opportunity to satisfy their primary needs, but also

fosters satisfaction of higher levels needs. Employees more often perceive

their salary’s level as a reflection of that how management estimates their

contribution to the company’s activity. Additional indulgences are also

important, but their role is less meaningful. One of the reasons is that

employee more often have no the slightest idea about the amount of received

as indulgences. Moreover, many are prone to underestimate these

indulgences; insofar they do not see their practical value.5 Nonetheless,

recent research indicated that if employees have an opportunity to choose

themselves to some extent independently indulgences from the whole package

rendered by the company that is named a flexible indulgences system, then

they receive greater satisfaction from indulgences receivables and the job

in the whole.6

Job promotion. Promotion opportunities make different influence on job

satisfaction. That comes because of that promotions can be implemented in

various forms and be accompanied with diverse rewards. For instance, people

receiving promotion for the length of service, although experience

satisfaction from job but not in such an extent as employees, which receive

promotion for the results achieved. Aside from, job promotion with salary

increase of 10% usually does not give that pleasure as position promotion

with a supplement of 20%. These differences can explain, why promotions on

the level of high management bring larger contenting than advancements on

the lower levels of organization.

Guidance. Guidance also represents moderately important factor by the

analysis of job satisfaction. In some other places the importance of

leadership skills could be analyzed. Here it’s sufficient to restrict

yourself with a comment of that there are two main leadership parameters

influencing on job satisfaction. First is an orientation of the chief on

the employee that is measured by the degree of getting interest of the

management in his colleagues’ favorability. As a rule, this interest exerts

in that if chiefs verify the activity of their subordinate, give advices

regarding his work, support, and also treats him not only officially,

formally, but also informally. In the US employer are usually discontented

with their principals just on the given parameter. For instance, recently

navigated questioning showed that less than half of respondents receive

regular feedback and support in their problems solving from the side of

principals.7

Another parameter is involving or influence; this is illustrated by

the managers’ activity that let their colleagues participate in decision

making that has direct relation to their work. In the majority of cases

this approach draws to the job satisfaction feeling boost. In particular,

deep metaanalysis brought to the conclusion that employees’ involving into

the process of decision-making really positively affects on job

satisfaction. The whole climate of involving created by a principal makes

larger impact on job satisfaction than participation in the making of

decision of limited range.8

Working groups. Direct affect on job satisfaction makes the very

nature of work groups. Benevolent, ready to come to help colleagues are

personally a certain source of job satisfaction feeling for any individual.

Working group serves for a single office worker is a source of support,

comfort, advice and enjoyment from the very job. A “good” working group

fosters a gaining of a greater joy and pleasure from job. On another hand,

when the opposite situation is observed, i.e. when it is hard to get along

with the people, the given factor imposes negative impact on job

satisfaction.

Working conditions. One more factor imposing moderate impact on job

satisfaction is working conditions. If conditions are good (e.g. offices

are neat and cosy, clean and engaging), staff could easier manage their

job. If bad working conditions were available (e.g. it is hot or noisy in

the office), it would be more difficult for employees to implement their

work. Otherwise, working conditions affect job satisfaction similar to

working group’s influence. If all were favorably around, there would not be

problems with job satisfaction.

A majority of people does not pay any special attention, if only these

are not excessively bad. Moreover, availability of numerous claims on

working conditions often testifies an availability of other problems. For

example, a manager may claim on that evening before his office has been

badly cleaned, however anger indeed is the result of his morning meeting

with chiefs during that he had been reproved for bad implementation.

Nonetheless, for the last years working conditions obtain once again great

importance in terms of work force diversification. For instance, several

organizations included an opportunity to choose a flexible work schedule in

employers’ working conditions that illustrates a fragment “Diversification

management in action: Flexible approach –key to success”.

The consequences of Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is presented desirable as from a viewpoint of a

single employer as society in total.

Never the less, pragmatically, from personnel effective management side and

organization in the whole, it is important to determine, in which detailed

way job satisfaction corresponds to the results of industrial activity.

Otherwise, if employers are content with the job, it is asked, whether it

means that they would work better, and also whether organization

productivity will increase in the whole. On other hand, by the low

satisfaction one may ask, if there would be problems with productivity and

low efficiency. During many years this question interests as researches,

engaged in the given sphere, as managers-practicians. There are no simple

answers for these questions.9 Observing the results of job satisfaction, it

is necessary to break analysis apart onto some specific sub chapters. The

most important of them could be considered below.

Job satisfaction and labor productivity. So, one can say that

employees satisfied with their labor are of high productivity than those

who are discontented with the job? An absence of direct correlation between

satisfaction and labor results during many years embarrasses researches.

Indeed, it is natural to suppose a direct dependence between satisfaction

and labor results, however the data given show that there is no close

correlation between them. In particular, implemented metaanalysis of

scientific literature on the given question shows that only in 17 cases out

of 100 between these two parameters it is succeeded in the direct

correlation identification. Not always satisfaction experiencing employees

are characterized with utmost productivity. There are different altering

factors influencing on this dependence. The most important form such

factors, apparently, is material encouragement for employers. If people

receive material spur that they consider as adequate their satisfaction

increases, and altogether, as a rule, and labor productivity. Further,

recently certificates were gotten that even if job satisfaction does not

lead to the productivity growth of separate employers, it can forward

positive budges on the level of the whole organization.10 At last, alive

discussions are still kept arising if job satisfaction leads to the

productivity growth or not or, on the contrary, the growth of productivity

– to job satisfaction.

Job satisfaction and personnel turnover. Does a high degree of

employees’ labor satisfaction lead to low stuff turnover? In difference

from labor productivity in correlation between labor satisfaction and

personnel turnover it can be noticed some laws-guidance. High degree of

satisfaction cannot itself hold turnover at the low level, however,

undoubtedly, can improve situation significantly. On one hand, in case of

low labor satisfaction it is likely to have a high staff turnover. One

group of researchers revealed that for women of age from 18 to 25 years old

a degree of their labor satisfaction helps foretell if they would change

their jobs. On other hand, by the process of augmenting their length of

service (duration of working in the given company) a likelihood of their

move to another job place decreases. Service length for men is a serious

factor as well, neutralizing later discontent feeling with their job.11

There are also other factors, such as devotion to organization, which

plays important role in the correspondence defining between job (labor)

satisfaction and personnel turnover. Some people just cannot imagine

themselves at any other place, which is why they stay working at the same

work place regardless of contentment degree. Another factor is a common

economy state. When economical situation is stable and unemployment rate is

low, personnel turnover as a rule magnifies, insofar people start seeking

for them new better places in other organizations. Even if they are content

with their available job, many still desire leave in that case if in

another place there would be better opportunities, scopes, or chances

granted. When an opposite situation is observed, i.e. by the lack of job

places, employees can stay at their job, even if it does not suffice them.

Summarizing above-mentioned, one must note that labor, or job satisfaction

plays important role in the defining of personnel turnover. Although full

absence of this staff turnover not always fruitful for organization, none

the less, maintaining at the low level, as a rule, imposes favorable impact

on organization due to costs decrease on training and costs linked to the

utilization of unqualified employees at the work places.

Job (Labor) satisfaction. Researches enough convincing show converse

proportional dependence between labor satisfactions and absents. If

satisfaction degree is high, a number of absents is insignificant, if it is

low – their number increases. Never the less, like other cases, there are

some averaging factors, such as people realization of the importance of

their work. For example, research carried out among governmental

institutions employees showed that people considering their job important

more rarely afforded absents than those that thought otherwise. Aside from,

one should remember that if high labor contentment not compulsory brings to

absent number decrease, then low satisfaction would lead to their number

boost with a high likelihood.12

Other consequences of job (labor) satisfaction. In addition to above-

mentioned there are other consequences caused by high contentment with

their job. The results of researches show that employees experiencing job

satisfaction feeling with their job possess better physical and moral

health, master faster necessary skills, more rarely suffer from industrial

traumatism and come with claims. Another positive factor disclosed in one

recent research is that employees satisfied with their labor more often

demonstrate examples of pro-social, “civilized” behavior and deeds, for

instance more frequent assist their colleagues and clients and in common

exert inclination to co-operation.13

In the very whole overview researches occupied in a sphere of

organization behavior equally with managers-practicians consider that labor

contentment is very important for organization. Some critics notice that

this statement still a conjecture, insofar, positive affect of labor

contentment still little researched. On other hand, negative impact of

labor contentment on organization is unquestionably acknowledged fact. That

is why even if consider job satisfaction as a minimal claim, it represents

a certain value for the whole health and efficacy of organization and,

therefore, deserves study and utilizing in sphere of organizational

behavior.

References

1 Terence R. Mitchell and James R. Larson, Jr. People in Organization, 3d

ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1987, p.146

2 P. C. Smith, L. M. Kendall, and C. L. Hulin, The Measure of Satisfaction

in Work and Retirement, Rand Mc Nally, Chicago, 1969.

3 Mary Ann M. Fricko and Terry A. Beehr, “A Longitudinal Investigation of

Interest Congruence and Gender Concentration as Predictors of Job

satisfaction”, Personnel Psychology, September 1992, pp. 99-118.

4 Jane Ciabattari, “The Biggest Mistake Top Managers Make”, Working Woman,

October 1986, p.48

5 Brenda Major and Ellen Konar, “An Investgation of Sex Differences in pay

Expectations and Their Possible Causes”, Academy of Management Journal,

December 1984, pp.777-792.

6 Alison E. Barber, Randall B. Dunham, and Roger A. Formisano, “The Impact

of Felxible Benefits on Employee Satisfaction: A Field Study”, Personnel

Psychology, September 1992, pp.55-76.

7 “Labor Letter”, The Wall Street Journal, Dec.22, 1987, p.1.

8 Katharine I. Miller and Peter R. Monge, “Participation, satisfaction, and

Productivity: A Meta-Analytic Review”, Academy of Management Journal,

December 1986, p.748.

9 Look, e.g.: Barry M. Staw and Sigal G. Barsade, “Affect and Managerial

Performance: A Test of the Sadder-but-Wiser vs. Happier-and-Smarter

Hypotheses”, Administrative Science Quarterly, June 1993, pp. 304-331.

10 Cheri Ostroff, “The Relationship Between Job Performance and Job

Satisfaction”, in E. A. Locke (ed.), Generalizing from Laboratoryto Field

Settings, Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass., 1986.

11 Herbert Parnes, Gilbert Nestel, and Paul Andrisiani, The Pre-Retirement

Years: A Longitudinal Study of the Labor Market Experience of Men, vol.3,

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1973, p.37.

12 C. W. Clegg, “Psychology of Employee Lateness, Absenteeism, and

Turnover: A Methodological Critique and an Empirical Study: Journal of

Applied Psychology, February 1983, pp.88-101.

13 D. W. Organ, Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier

Syndrome, Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass., 1987