CHAPTER 1

Introduction

This chapter examines the nature and the sources ofjob satisfaction and explores its determinants. It discusses the conceptof job satisfaction and its importance not only to the individualworker but also to his or her organisation. One way of looking atthe importance of job satisfaction is to examine the consequencesof job dissatisfaction for the individual and their implications tothe organisation. Comments on the theories of job satisfaction andexplanations of a popular model of job satisfaction are given.

What is job satisfaction?

Job satisfaction describes how content an individual is with his orher job. It refers to individuals' positive emotional reactions to allthe circumstances affecting their jobs. It is an affective reaction toa job that results from a person's comparison of actual outcomeswith those that are desired, anticipated or deserved. After decades ofresearch there seems to be a high level of agreement among socialscientists on the meaning of the construct. Typically, job satisfactionis conceptualised as a general attitude towards the job. It is thisconstruct, which so many writers have attempted to explain anddefine, that gives rise to a plethora of definitions.

Locke (1969, p.316; 1976, p.1300) stated that job satisfaction can beviewed as a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from theappraisal of one's job or job experience as achieving, or facilitatingthe achievement of one's job values. Locke sees job satisfaction anddissatisfaction to be a function of the perceived relationship betweenwhat one wants from one's job and what one perceives it as offeringor entailing. Lofquist and Dawis (1969, p.53) noted that satisfaction is"a function of the correspondence between the reinforcer system ofthe work environment and the individual's needs". Locke and Henne(1986, p.21) wrote that "the achievement of one's job values in thework situation results in the pleasurable emotional state known as jobsatisfaction". Porter et al. (1975, pp.53-54) characterised satisfactionas a feeling about a job that "is determined by the difference betweenthe amount of some valued outcome that a person receives and theamount of outcome she feels she should receive".

Job satisfaction is therefore a broad term which refers to anindividual's general attitude to his or her job. A person with ahigh level of job satisfaction holds positive attitudes towards thejob, whereas a person who is dissatisfied with his or her job holdsnegative attitudes about it. The term encapsulates the degree towhich workers feel their work is satisfying in terms of how secureit is, how useful, how much sense of achievement it brings andhow well it is regarded by others. When people speak of employeeattitudes, more often than not they mean job satisfaction. In fact thetwo terms are frequently used synonymously. Attitudes are evaluativestatements—either favourable or unfavourable—concerning objects,people or events. They reflect how people feel about something.Similarly, job satisfaction refers to a person's feelings—positive ornegative—about his or her job. It is sometimes explained as thedifference between the amount of the reward workers receive andthe amount they believe they should receive. Anyone who expectslittle will be easily satisfied. At the same time, the person who expectsa great deal and gets it will also be satisfied. However, if one expectsa lot but gets little, one will be dissatisfied. The argument is that jobsatisfaction is a psychological process involving the match betweenexpectations and reality in any individual case. Therefore, as indicatedearlier, job satisfaction represents an attitude rather than behaviour,although an individual's behaviour tends to follow from, and isgenerally consistent with, his or her attitude to a given subject.

As we can see, various definitions result from differentconceptualisations of job satisfaction. There is a corresponding varietyof publications on the subject and the number grows daily. Lockeestimated in 1976, that some 3,350 articles or dissertations had beenwritten on the topic. Cranny et al. (1992, p.1), suggested that morethan 5000 studies of job satisfaction have been published. Oshagbemi(1996, p.389) suggested that a fresh count of relevant articles anddissertations would double Locke's estimate of only 20 years earlier.

It is sometimes useful to distinguish sources of job satisfaction,because they generally fall into two categories: intrinsic andextrinsic. Intrinsic sources originate from within the individualand have psychological value. Autonomy, which means a degree ofindependence, such as the ability to choose one's own work pace, isone intrinsic source of satisfaction. In higher education, for example,most academic staff members choose what subject to teach and thetopics to research. This gives them intrinsic job satisfaction.

Extrinsic sources of satisfaction originate from outside theindividual:—they come from his or her environment. Forcesbeyond the individual's control determine the frequency and extentof satisfaction. Working conditions, job security, fringe benefits andfriendly co-workers are examples of sources of extrinsic satisfaction.Some sources of satisfaction serve a dual purpose in that theycan be extrinsic or tangible in nature while having intrinsic orpsychological value because of what they symbolise. A high salaryand rapid career progress (promotion) would be dual sources ofsatisfaction to most workers, (i.e. intrinsic as well as extrinsic).

The concept of job satisfaction

Although research into and theorising on the nature, causes andcorrelates of job satisfaction have mushroomed, the concept remainsproblematic in terms of a clear and straightforward explanation.Some writers have equated job satisfaction with 'employee attitude'whereas others regard it as 'industrial morale'; the latter termrefers to, a group as opposed to an individual phenomenon. Theconceptual problem of a precise and unambiguous definition ledKatz and Maanem (1976, p.173) to conclude:

There is perhaps no area in the social sciences fraught withmore ambiguity, conflicting opinion or methodologicalnuance than that of work [job] satisfaction ... It is indeeda complex, cumbersome and many sided concept forwhich simple schemes do not exist.

Nevertheless, it is apparent, according to Ejiogu (1980, p.2), thatseveral definitions have a common focus, namely:

a recognition of the fact that an individual's expression ofjob satisfaction is an emotional affective personal response asa result of his estimation of the degree to which some factof job reality is congruent or incongruent with his values.

Cameron (1973, p.1) introduced another dimension to the constructwhen she said that 'even if a man's job satisfies his needs, he willnot express satisfaction with it if he perceives some comparable jobas satisfying his needs better or with less effort required'. Thus thenotion of equity is to be seen as an important element: it is notsimply a matter of need fulfilment. An individual's needs may befulfilled, but any feeling of satisfaction will still depend on whetherhe sees his position as comparing satisfactorily with others.

Zaleznik et al. (1958, pp.256-257) suggest that a 'total' approach tothe question of job satisfaction is desirable, because "the individual'ssatisfaction or dissatisfaction is determined by his total situation atwork and at home, in every aspect of his life". This suggests that jobsatisfaction is a theoretical concept which is difficult to separate fromoverall 'life satisfaction'. In this book, job satisfaction is viewed as aunitary rather than a group concept. It is also a concept which canbe analysed separately from the life satisfaction of which it is a part(Cranny et al. 1992, p.8). Job satisfaction is, in the words of Hoppock(1935, p.47), 'a combination of psychological, physiological andenvironmental circumstances that causes a person truthfully to say,"I am satisfied with my job". In other words, "people's perceptionsof their job satisfaction are related to the value which they place onthe various aspects of their job and its environment as sources ofsatisfaction and dissatisfaction" (Ejiogu, 1980, p.5).

What determines job satisfaction?

As the term implies, work-related variables generally determine jobsatisfaction, such as the nature of the work, equitable pay and otherrewards, supportive colleagues and working conditions. During researchinto the job satisfaction of university teachers, we incorporated someof these elements in a model of overall job satisfaction. They includedthe nature of the work (broken down into teaching, research andadministration and management), pay, opportunities for promotion,supervision/supervisor's behaviour, colleagues' behaviour and physicalconditions/facilities (see Oshagbemi, 1996). Our model of overall jobsatisfaction closely approximates that of the job descriptive index (JDI)(Smith et al. 1969, 1975, 1985) which is based on five elements: thework itself, pay, promotion, supervision and co-workers. The JDI andits various modifications have been widely used all over the world injob satisfaction studies.

Research suggests that employees tend to prefer a job that givesthem opportunities to use their skills and abilities and offers a varietyof tasks, freedom to do the job in their own way and feedbackon how well they are doing. Workers also want pay systems andpromotion policies that they perceive as just, unambiguous and inline with their expectations. Employers and employees are similarlyconcerned with the work environment for reasons of both personalcomfort and job facilitation. They prefer physical surroundings andfacilities that are safe, comfortable, clean, and have a minimum ofdistractions. In addition, for most employees, work also fills the needfor social interaction. It is therefore not surprising that friendly andsupportive co-workers lead to increased job satisfaction.

It is important, nevertheless, to point out that there are other modelsand measures of job satisfaction. Cross (1973) suggested that the JDI, asa global measure, may suffer from an American bias. More importantly,a major criticism of the scale is that it was designed to be used acrossall levels of an organisation whereas the items on the original scalecannot be of equal value to every worker within an organisation. Itemssuitable for the lower grades of workers are unlikely to be suitablefor managers and vice versa. (See the items in the final version of theJDI in Table 1.) To overcome the difficulty of scoring in the originalversion of the JDI, we quantified levels of satisfaction on each of thedimensions used in our own questionnaire rather than employing theitems on the original version. The JDI has largely been validated byseveral researchers (e.g. Brooke et al., 1988; Roznowski, 1989). Indeedan impressive body of data has been built up to evaluate the JDI andaccording to Vroom (1964, p.100), it "is without doubt the mostcarefully constructed measure of job satisfaction in existence".

In his own formulation, Cross (1973) introduced the firm as a whole tothe five facets measured by the JDI. He stated that employee attitudestowards the organisation and its policies had been identified as a separategrouping by several researchers (Kahn, 1960; Harrison, 1961). Crosscame up with six facets instead of the five proposed by the JDI. Soutarand Weaver (1982) and Bell and Weaver (1987) have carried out separatestudies which largely validate the instrument proposed by Cross.

It should also be pointed out that the Minnesota SatisfactionQuestionnaire (Weiss et al., 1967) is one of the most widelyencountered in the literature and has been widely validated timeand time again. There are short (25 items) and long (100 items)versions of the questionnaire. The short form is simpler to complete,but provides less information, whereas the long form would yieldmore data but takes considerably longer to complete.

The question of what determines job satisfaction is, therefore, notunrelated to measures of job satisfaction, because each measureattempts to capture the essence of the concept. Although there areseveral measures for collecting data regarding job satisfaction, welimited our research to, perhaps, the most popular one—questionnairesusing Likert scales—which allowed seven responses with the highestand lowest score indicating extreme degrees of either agreement ordisagreement, and with the middle score showing neutrality.

The importance of job satisfaction

From the sheer number of publications on job satisfaction weknow that the topic is important to many people. It is importantbecause of its relevance to the physical and mental well being ofemployees; it has relevance to human health. Work is an importantaspect of people's lives and most people spend a large proportion oftheir time at work. An understanding of the factors involved in jobsatisfaction is relevant to improving the well being of a significantnumber of people. Although the pursuit of increased satisfaction isessentially of humanitarian value, Smith and others stated that "triteas it may seem, satisfaction is a legitimate goal in itself" (Smith etal. 1969, p.3); in addition to its humanitarian value, job satisfactionseems to be extensively researched in a variety of organisations forwork-related objectives. This is because of the implicit assumptionsthat job satisfaction is a potential determinant of productivity,absenteeism, turnover, in-role job performance and extra-rolebehaviour, and that management has the ability to influence theprimary antecedents of job attitudes.

Job satisfaction is exceedingly important not only for the well beingof individual workers but also for the organisation. Low levels of jobsatisfaction have been related to early retirement and such problemsas turnover, absenteeism, union activity, tardiness, grievances andhostile activity. These problems can be costly and disruptive to thesmooth running of an organisation.

Job satisfaction can play an important role in the ability of anorganisation to attract and retain qualified workers. For example, anorganisation that is known for not treating its workers particularlywell will experience problems in this respect. Thus, there areeconomic reasons for organisations to want their employees tobe satisfied with their jobs. An organisation that has satisfied andcapable workers may spend less on recruiting and training newworkers. Palmore (1969) suggested that highly satisfied workers havebetter physical and mental health records and therefore live longer.

It should be pointed out, however, that the evidence is strictly basedon correlation analyses, and causation should not be presumedautomatically. Perhaps other factors such as income and educationallevel could be largely responsible for the observed correlation.However, serious job dissatisfaction often leads to stress, which inturn can result in physiological disorders such as ulcers.

Perhaps the most important reason for governments and employersattending to workers' satisfaction is a moral one. Given that mostpeople must work in order to earn a living and most people spendmost of their adult lives at work, it can be argued that employershave a moral obligation to make the work experience personallyrewarding or, at least, employers should preserve human dignity atwork. It should be seen as one of the social responsibilities of anyorganisation, public or private.

The importance of job satisfaction can also be looked at fromthe consequences of job dissatisfaction, which generally leadsto withdrawal behaviour on the part of the workers who aredissatisfied. People tend to withdraw from situations that are painfulor unrewarding. The principle of reward and punishment helpsto explain employee behaviour in relation to their level of jobdissatisfaction. Studies of absenteeism in the USA have often foundthat less satisfied workers are more likely to be absent from work(Hackett and Guion, 1985). It is interesting to observe that morework time is lost, each year, from absenteeism than from strikes andlockouts. It is also generally believed that poor timekeeping tendsto reflect employee dissatisfaction among other factors (Adler andGolan, 1981).