See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/247753105

Job Satisfaction Of Restaurant Employees: An Empirical Investigation Using The

Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire

Article  in  Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research · February 2003

DOI: 10.1177/1096348002238882

CITATIONS READS

129 20,446

2 authors, including:

Murat Hancer
University of Central Florida
57 PUBLICATIONS   1,420 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Murat Hancer on 02 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ARTICLE
10.1177/1096348002238882
Hancer,
JOURNAL George / RESTAURANT
OF HOSPITALITY EMPLOYEES’
& TOURISM JOB SATISFACTION
RESEARCH

JOB SATISFACTION OF RESTAURANT

EMPLOYEES: AN EMPIRICAL
INVESTIGATION USING THE MINNESOTA
SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE
Murat Hancer
Adnan Menderes University, Turkey
R. Thomas George
Ohio State University

The primary purpose of this study was to examine job satisfaction of restaurant employees
working in nonsupervisory positions. A survey instrument including the Minnesota Satis-
faction Questionnaire (MSQ) short form and demographic questions was used in the study.
Factor analysis was conducted to investigate the dimensions of the MSQ short form. A total
of 798 usable surveys from 52 restaurants, representing a 50.5% response rate, were in-
cluded in the analysis. The factor analysis resulted in a four-factor structure of the MSQ
short form. A low level of satisfaction was indicated by 50.2% of the respondents, whereas
25.6% indicated an average level and 24.2% a high level of job satisfaction. Security was
ranked as the highest and compensation was ranked as the lowest of the examined items.
Significant differences in job satisfaction scores were found between the pairs within the
subgroups of age, job tenure, gender, and job type.

KEYWORDS: job satisfaction; restaurant employees; hospitality; Minnesota Satisfac-

tion Questionnaire short form.

The restaurant industry has certain characteristics that differentiate it from

many other industries with respect to production, delivery, and consumption of
products. It is dependent on a variety of individuals having direct contact with the
guest. In such an environment, employee job satisfaction is an important factor for
customer retention and establishment success. Locke (1976, p. 1300) defined job
satisfaction as a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from one’s job or
job experiences. Job satisfaction also has been shown to have a significant rela-
tionship to organizational commitment and employee turnover (Schlesinger &
Zornitsky, 1991; Testa, 2001). Employees who are satisfied with their jobs are
considered to be more stable with their organizations (Hartman & Yrle, 1996).

Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 27, No. 1, February 2003, 85-100
DOI: 10.1177/1096348002238882
© 2003 International Council on Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Education
85
86 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Growth in the interest of the quality of work has caused researchers to investi-
gate various aspects of jobs and their contributions to improving productivity over
a long period of time. Among these aspects, job satisfaction is considered the most
often researched organizational variable in the organizational behavior literature
(Blau, 1999; Kiechel, 1989). Locke (1976) conducted a review of job satisfaction
and stated that more than 3,350 articles had been written about job satisfaction
between 1957 and 1976. A literature search using the ABI/Inform search engine
was conducted for the current study using job satisfaction as the selected subject.
For the years 1978 through 2001, this search identified 4,019 citations. Beck
(1990) reported that almost all aspects of job satisfaction, including various theo-
ries, measures, and definitions, as well as the motivational, emotional, and infor-
mational components, have been discussed in the management literature.

THE INVESTIGATION OF JOB SATISFACTION

Herzberg, Mausner, and Synderman (1959) proposed a two-factor theory of

motivation based on a study designed to explore the various factors influencing
job satisfaction. They concluded that there are two types of job-related factors in
describing job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Motivators or intrinsic factors,
which were related to content of the job or the job itself, were considered to satisfy
people’s psychological needs, such as recognition, responsibility, achievement,
advancement, and the work itself (Herzberg, 1987). These intrinsic factors were
also called “satisfiers.” Hygiene or extrinsic factors are related to the job environ-
ment and included compensation, supervision, working conditions, and company
policy, which when lacking could generate dissatisfaction. Herzberg claimed that
hygiene factors are not directly related to job satisfaction; therefore, these factors
will not distinctly improve performance (Herzberg, 1982). According to Spillane
(1973), this approach has strongly influenced job satisfaction research.
A variety of instruments has been devised to measure job satisfaction. Some
have concentrated on the measurement of satisfaction on specific facets relating to
the job, whereas others have sought to measure overall job satisfaction. Among
these is the Job Descriptive Index (P. C. Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969). The
index results from a 72-item inventory designed to measure level of satisfaction
on five facets relating to the satisfaction of the employee on the job. The facets
include work, pay, promotion, supervision, and coworkers. The facets have been
updated with an overall satisfaction score, job in general, added by the authors
(Balzer et al., 1990).
Hackman and Oldham (1975, 1976) developed the Job Diagnostic Survey to
examine several factors related to job satisfaction. This approach suggests that
personal and organizational outcomes are influenced by five job characteristics:
autonomy, task identity, task significance, skill variety, and job feedback. This
survey was considered one of the most used tools in the measurement of job satis-
faction (Renn, Swiercz, & Icenogle, 1993). Another popular instrument is the
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) (Weiss, Dawis, England, &
Lofquist, 1967). This instrument contains 100 items in the long form and 20 items
in the short form. MSQ scores may be computed into one overall level of satisfac-
 Hancer, George / RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES’ JOB SATISFACTION 87

tion score or combined to form subscales measuring extrinsic and intrinsic

factors.
The measurement of general satisfaction was the aim of the Job in General
Scale (Ironson, Smith, Brannick, Gibson, & Paul, 1989). This 18-item inventory
is designed to give an overall job satisfaction score rather than scores for individ-
ual facets. The authors believe that an overall assessment of satisfaction is better
than a sum of the parts (Spector, 1997). Other inventories include the Job Satisfac-
tion Survey (Spector, 1985) and a subscale set of the Michigan Organizational
Assessment Questionnaire (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1979).

JOB SATISFACTION RESEARCH IN THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY

Motivation and job satisfaction research in the hospitality industry has been
performed using a variety of instruments and populations. Sneed (1988) used the
Job Characteristics Inventory to survey school food service supervisors and
employees. The finding was that the employees were generally satisfied with their
jobs and that there was no significant difference between the two groups in level of
satisfaction.
The Job Descriptive Index was used by Tas, Spalding, and Getty (1989) to
examine the employee turnover process for full-time and part-time employees by
identifying job satisfaction determinants. They found no statistically significant
differences between part-time and full-time employees on their level of satisfac-
tion with present pay, supervision, coworkers, and job in general.
K. Smith, Gregory, and Cannon (1996) found that intrinsic factors were not the
major source of job satisfaction for employees from 94 lodging companies in the
United States. Extrinsic factors for employees were more important than intrinsic
factors in their research. On the other hand, a recent study conducted in Hong
Kong to investigate hotel employees’ choice of job-related motivators revealed
that maintaining high satisfaction with extrinsic factors does not ensure actual sat-
isfaction; therefore, intrinsic factors must be satisfied as well (Wong, Siu, &
Tsang, 1999).
Ghiselli, LaLopa, and Bai (2001) used the MSQ short form to identify the sat-
isfaction levels of food service managers. Their average satisfaction score was
73.8 (n = 12.4, SD = 12.4). The facets receiving the highest levels of satisfaction
were activity, social service, security, and moral values. The facets receiving the
lowest satisfaction scores were compensation, recognition, company policies and
practices, and social status. They also found that job satisfaction did not vary sig-
nificantly among the managerial categories or by gender, marital status, ethnicity,
education, or length of industry experience.
To investigate the relationships of customer focus and job satisfaction, job
involvement, and job security for quick-service restaurant employees, Dienhart
and Gregoire (1993) conducted research in a national restaurant chain. The results
of their study suggest that as an employee’s job satisfaction and job security
improve, his or her customer focus would also improve. Spinelli and Canavos
(2000) examined the data from a survey of hotel employees and guests to deter-
mine the extent of a relationship between employee and guest satisfaction and
88 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

financial success. With respect to employee satisfaction, they indicated that “a

satisfied employee is one who is involved in decision making, receives adequate
training and benefits, and has an effective general manager” (p. 32). They also
concluded, “A happy employee does influence the guest’s attitude toward the
hotel” (p. 33). It may also be thought that an unhappy or dissatisfied employee will
also influence the guest, although in a more negative manner. Koys (2001), in a
study of employees in a regional restaurant chain, found some support for the
proposition that employee satisfaction influences customer satisfaction. It was
also suggested that customer satisfaction might also affect employee satisfaction.
Rogers, Clow, and Kash (1994) highlighted several points for consideration
when exploring ways to increase the job satisfaction of service personnel. First,
they suggested that maintaining effective communication and having clear goals
in a service organization help service personnel to respond to the needs of custom-
ers in a quick and accurate manner. They also claimed that empathy, which is the
individualized attention the firm provides its customers (Parasuraman, Zeithaml,
& Berry, 1988), generates satisfied employees and satisfied customers. Rogers
et al. concluded that working in an environment where empathy is a dominant ele-
ment of doing business requires empowerment and that freedom to express empa-
thy toward customers will let employees feel less tension on the job, which will
turn into higher job satisfaction.
In a longitudinal study involving a fast food chain, with responses from both
customers and employees, Bernhardt, Donthu, and Kennett (2000) found that job
satisfaction is positively correlated to customer satisfaction. They suggested that
the positive and significant relationship between employee satisfaction and cus-
tomer satisfaction has also been supported by other research (i.e., Schneider,
1991; Tornow & Wiley, 1991; Wiley, 1991).
Although job satisfaction has been a popular research topic in the hospitality
literature, nonsupervisory employees working in casual restaurants have not been
extensively studied. Most studies of job satisfaction have examined employees
holding managerial positions in hospitality firms and employees working in
hotels. Furthermore, few studies have used the MSQ short form as a research
instrument. Weiss et al. (1967) suggested that the MSQ, with its 20 facets of job
satisfaction, helps obtain a more individualized representation of job satisfaction
than other measures of job satisfaction.
The constructs of employee motivation and job satisfaction have been
approached from many directions. Contributing factors have been often identified
as intrinsic or extrinsic. The primary purpose of this study was to examine the job
satisfaction of nonsupervisory restaurant employees working in casual restau-
rants. The MSQ short form was used in this study to explore underlying dimen-
sions of job satisfaction. Selected categories of employees were compared with
respect to derived satisfaction scores. Another purpose of this study was to test the
factor structure of the MSQ short form.
The research questions of this study are as follows:

1. What is the factor structure of the MSQ when participants are nonsupervisory
employees in casual restaurants?
 Hancer, George / RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES’ JOB SATISFACTION 89

2. What is the level of satisfaction of nonsupervisory restaurant employees utilizing

the MSQ factors?

METHOD

Instrument
Due to its ease of completion and general acceptance as a research instrument,
the MSQ short form was used to measure job satisfaction for restaurant employ-
ees. A request for participant information was a part of the survey instrument. This
included categorical items (gender, education, ethnic background, job position)
and open-ended items for age and length of experience in the job.
The MSQ (Weiss et al., 1967) was the outcome of the Work Adjustment Pro-
ject. The intent of this project was to develop a diagnostic tool for assessing the
work adjustment of the prospective applicants and the evaluation of work adjust-
ment outcomes. The long form of the MSQ consists of 100 items, 5 items per
facet. A short form was also created for research purposes. The MSQ short form
consists of 20 items (1 item per facet), which are divided into intrinsic and extrin-
sic job context items.
A Likert-type scale from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied) is used for
each of the items (Likert, 1932). Scores for each respondent’s intrinsic, extrinsic,
and general satisfaction are calculated by adding the scores for the associated
questions. Six of the 20 questions are used for measuring extrinsic satisfaction,
and 12 questions are used for measuring intrinsic satisfaction. The remaining 2
items are included when measuring general job satisfaction. General satisfaction
is found by measuring all 20 items. It is suggested that the validity of the short
form may be inferred from the validity of the long form (Weiss et al., 1967). A
study by Hirschfeld (2000) concluded that revising the MSQ short form resulted
in no significant difference in the factor structure.

Participants
The participants of this study were employees of a regional restaurant chain.
The chain employed more than 4,486 people in 54 restaurants. At the time of the
study, approximately 4,000 of the total employees worked in nonsupervisory
positions. Survey packages were sent to 54 restaurants, with each packet contain-
ing 30 survey instruments. This resulted in 1,620 individual survey instruments
available for use. From the 54 survey packages sent, 52 packets with a total of 857
instruments were returned (a 54.2% participant response). This was an average of
16 respondents per restaurant. A total of 59 instruments were found to be not
usable for the purposes of the study. The final count resulted in 798 usable instru-
ments (50.5% of the mailing). This translated into approximately 15 returns per
restaurant or 50% of the number of instruments sent to each restaurant. An exami-
nation of the demographics of the respondents indicated that there are no signifi-
cant differences between the respondents of the various restaurants. In essence,
the employees of the restaurants are similar. Due to restrictions placed on the
researchers, a nonrespondent follow-up was not conducted.
90 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Procedure
The research materials included a letter to the restaurant general manager
explaining the nature of the study, a letter of support from the corporate office, and
cover letters for the employees with the survey instruments. These were mailed in
packet form to the general managers of each of the 54 restaurants. The general
manager of each restaurant carried out the distribution and collection of the instru-
ments. Questionnaires were to be given to 30 employees on duty at the time and
representing all positions. No other restrictions were placed on the distribution. In
essence, this was a convenience sample. As the general managers were to collect
the completed survey instruments, accompanying individual envelopes were used
for each employee survey to ensure confidentiality. Employees were instructed to
put the completed form into the individually provided envelope and seal the enve-
lope prior to giving it to the manager for return to the researcher. In addition, an
addressed and stamped return envelope was included for ease of return by the gen-
eral managers of these restaurants. All store survey instruments were to be
returned at the same time. Although employees were encouraged to complete and
return the instruments, no inducement or pressure was used to increase the return.
The forms were coded in such a way as to identify the restaurant and ensure the
confidentiality of the respondent.

Analyses
Responses concerning participant characteristics were recorded in a manner
that would give information for the individual, by comparison group, and for the
total sample. Responses from the age and experience items were averaged and
then categorized.
For the purpose of identifying and examining the underlying dimensions of the
instrument, a factor analysis using principal component method was used. A total
of 798 responses were included in the analysis. The mean scores for each item
replaced the missing scores. The suitability of the data was examined before using
the factor analysis. The correlation matrix, Bartlett’s test of sphericity, measures
of sampling adequacy (MSA) for the matrix and for individual variables, and ini-
tial estimate of communality for each variable in the observed variable set were
taken into consideration while conducting the analysis. The correlation matrix
was used to examine the existence of relationships between observed variables. It
was discovered that correlations among variables supported factor analysis. Bart-
lett’s test of sphericity, which is a measure of the multivariate normality of the set
of distributions, showed a significant value, meaning that these data did not pro-
duce an identity matrix; therefore, they were acceptable for factor analysis (Hair,
Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). The MSA results, which ranged from .85 to
.95, were found acceptable and supported factor analysis. To look at whether the
distribution of the values in the set was adequate for conducting factor analysis,
the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure was used. Values of KMO range from 0
to 1. The most desirable value is 1 for supporting the appropriateness of factor
analysis. In the current study, KMO was .92, indicating that factor analysis was
feasible (Hair et al., 1998). Communalities ranging from .36 to .74 for 20 items
 Hancer, George / RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES’ JOB SATISFACTION 91

indicated the strength of the association among variables in the observed vari-
able set.

Limitations of Method
Reliance on the general managers to distribute the employee surveys might
have caused a sample selection problem. Although the managers were informed
as to how they should distribute the surveys, this instruction might not have been
followed to the extent desired. Contacting the employees directly may increase
the rate of response.
Although the sample size for the study was fairly high, the sample was
obtained from the data collected from a regional chain with 52 restaurants located
in 12 states. In addition, collecting data from managers and customers may help to
find different outcomes about job satisfaction in the hospitality industry.

RESULTS

Participants
The demographics of the respondents are shown in Table 1. Of the respon-
dents, 38.2% were males and 61.2% were females, the mean age was 26 years, and
the mean years of job tenure was 2.5. With respect to education, more than 52% of
the respondents indicated that they had some college or post–high school techni-
cal education, and nearly 18% were college graduates. Two thirds of the respon-
dents were full-time employees in the restaurant. Nearly 71% were members of
the waitstaff, with the remainder working in a variety of positions. All job catego-
ries in the restaurant were represented. Characteristics indicated the respondents
of the restaurants were similar.

Analysis of Results
Overall job satisfaction raw scores were determined by adding up the values
for the 20 items of the MSQ short form. Cronbach’s alpha for the current study
was .90, indicating high scale reliability. Listing the scores of the facets from high
to low allows an assessment of sample preference in relation to the job (see Table
2). A list of descending mean scores is presented with standard deviations of the
MSQ short form items calculated. Security, social service, moral values, and
activity had the highest level of satisfaction mean scores. Authority, social status,
advancement, and compensation had the lowest level of satisfaction mean scores.
The raw scores for the MSQ scale can be converted to percentile scores using
the normative data provided for the short form of the MSQ (Weiss et al., 1967).
Because there is no norm group available for the restaurant employees in the MSQ
manual, the raw scores of this survey’s respondents were listed from lowest to
highest and then converted to a percentile score using SPSS. Using these percen-
tile scores, employees who had low, average, and high levels of job satisfaction
were found. Weiss et al. (1967) suggested a percentile score lower than 25 would
indicate a low level of satisfaction and a percentile score higher than 75 would
indicate a high level of satisfaction.
92 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Table 1
Respondent Characteristics and Overall Job Satisfaction Mean Scores

Job
Satisfaction
Characteristic na Percentage Score
b
SD

Age (years)
Younger than 19 131 16.4 74.07 11.17
20 to 25 364 45.6 72.67 12.18
26 to 31 137 17.2 71.93 12.64
32 to 37 66 8.3 75.45 11.40
38 to 43 54 6.8 79.61 10.82
44 and older 36 4.5 84.42 9.95
No response 10 1.2
Gender
Male 305 38.2 72.63 12.49
Female 488 61.2 74.85 11.91
No response 5 0.6
Education
Some high school 41 5.2 76.84 12.42
High school graduate 192 24.1 75.22 12.25
Some college/technical 417 52.3 73.33 12.15
College graduate 127 15.9 73.29 12.32
Graduate degree 15 1.9 75.71 9.77
No response 6 0.8
Job tenure
Less than 3 months 113 14.2 77.82 9.02
3 months to less than 1 year 215 26.9 74.65 12.32
1-2 years 144 18.0 73.01 12.78
2-5 years 212 26.6 71.95 12.60
5-10 years 73 9.1 72.69 11.97
10 years or more 32 4.0 77.55 12.27
No response 9 1.1
Job type
Waiter/waitresses 563 70.6 73.96 11.72
Cook 111 13.9 71.75 13.18
Bartender 42 5.3 75.05 11.52
Variety of positions 74 9.3 77.00 13.79
No response 8 1.0
Job status
Part-time 265 33.2 74.18 11.43
Full-time 527 66.0 73.91 12.50
No response 6 0.8

a. N = 798.
b. The possible range was from 20 to 100.

The possible range for raw scores, assuming a response to all items, is from 20
to 100. In the present study, a raw score of 67 or below would fall into the low
motivation category, and a raw score of 83 or higher would fall into the high moti-
vation category. Respondents in this study were categorized as having job satis-
faction that was classified as a low level of satisfaction (50.2%, 386), an average
level of satisfaction (25.6%, 197), or a high level of satisfaction (24.2%, 186).
 Hancer, George / RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES’ JOB SATISFACTION 93

Table 2
Respondent Job Satisfaction Results for MSQ Short Form (N = 798)

Facet Type Ma SD

Security Intrinsic 4.2 0.8

Social service Intrinsic 4.1 0.7
Moral values Intrinsic 4.1 0.8
Activity Intrinsic 3.9 0.7
Responsibility Intrinsic 3.9 0.9
Working conditions General 3.9 0.9
Coworkers General 3.8 1.0
Variety Intrinsic 3.8 1.0
Independence Intrinsic 3.8 0.9
Supervision-Technical Extrinsic 3.7 1.0
Creativity Intrinsic 3.7 1.0
Supervision−Human relations Extrinsic 3.6 1.1
Ability utilization Intrinsic 3.6 1.1
Achievement Intrinsic 3.5 1.0
Recognition Extrinsic 3.3 1.2
Company policies and practices Extrinsic 3.3 1.1
Authority Intrinsic 3.3 0.8
Social status Intrinsic 3.3 1.0
Advancement Extrinsic 3.3 1.0
Compensation Extrinsic 3.1 1.2

Note: MSQ = Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire.

a. The scale ranged from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied).

Factor Analysis
Principal component analysis using varimax rotation was used for the study to
explore the dimensions in the data set. Items with eigenvalues greater than 1 were
retained in the factor. In addition to the eigenvalue criterion, the scree plot was
visually inspected to decide how many factors should be retained. A four-factor
structure (see Table 3) has been captured from the instrument. Cumulative vari-
ance explained by these four factors was 55.5%.
Factor 1 contains 7 items. Supervision-technical, supervision−human rela-
tions, company policies and practices, recognition, and compensation that
appeared to represent extrinsic job satisfaction were loaded on this factor. Two
items about supervision measure the extent to which one is satisfied with his or her
supervisor’s behavior and decision-making ability during the performance of the
job. Company policies and practices, working conditions, and compensation
measure the extent to which individuals are satisfied with the organizational and
managerial characteristics of a company and its pay system. Recognition mea-
sures the extent to which one is satisfied with his or her feelings of receiving favor-
able notice or attention resulting from doing the job. Working conditions and
coworkers, originally general satisfaction items, also loaded on Factor 1. The per-
centage of total variance explained by the first factor was 35.9. This factor was
named Extrinsic Job Satisfaction.
94

Table 3
MSQ Short Form Factor Analysis for Nonsupervisory Restaurant Employees

Facet Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Original Scale Communality

Supervision-Technical .76 Extrinsic .71

Supervision−Human relations .75 Extrinsic .70
Company policies and practices .68 Extrinsic .58
Working conditions .67 General .58
Recognition .66 Extrinsic .64
Coworkers .60 General .40
Compensation .43 Extrinsic .36
Social status .73 Intrinsic .60
Ability utilization .73 Intrinsic .62
Authority .68 Intrinsic .46
Achievement .58 Intrinsic .63
Social service .53 Intrinsic .48
Variety .47 Intrinsic .49
Security .65 Intrinsic .50
Activity .63 Intrinsic .46
Moral values .57 Intrinsic .41
Independence .55 Intrinsic .42
Creativity .81 Intrinsic .74
Responsibility .75 Intrinsic .73
Advancement .46 Extrinsic .53

Eigenvalue 7.17 1.78 1.13 1.01

Percentage of total variance explained 35.87 8.93 5.66 5.04
Cumulative variance explained 35.87 44.80 50.46 55.50

Note: MSQ = Minnesota Satisfication Questionnaire.

 Hancer, George / RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES’ JOB SATISFACTION 95

Factor 2 comprises 6 items. Social status, ability utilization, authority, achieve-

ment, social service, and variety were loaded on this factor, representing original,
intrinsic job satisfaction items. Authority and variety measure one’s satisfaction
with controlling others and doing different activities in a job. Ability utilization
and achievement measure the extent to which individuals are satisfied with the
feeling of success and being able to use their abilities in a job. Social status mea-
sures the extent to which a person is satisfied with his or her job in terms of being
recognized by others by working in a job. Social service measures the extent to
which one is satisfied with having an opportunity to do things for other people.
The percentage of total variance explained by Factor 2 was 8.9. This factor was
named Intrinsic Job Satisfaction.
Factor 3 includes 4 items. These items were security, activity, moral values,
and independence. Security measures one’s satisfaction with the signs of exis-
tence or nonexistence of job security. Activity measures the extent of one’s satis-
faction with performing a dynamic job, and moral values measures the extent to
which one is satisfied with performing a job without considering the conse-
quences because of the requirements of the job. Independence measures the extent
to which individuals have the chance to work alone on the job. This factor was
named Satisfaction From the Nature of the Job. The percentage of total variance
explained by Factor 3 was 5.7.
Factor 4 consists of 3 items. These items were creativity, responsibility, and
advancement. Creativity and advancement measure the extent to which individu-
als are satisfied with the opportunity to use personal initiative while performing
job tasks and to promote on the job. Responsibility measures the extent to which
one is satisfied with having independence to use judgment. The percentage of
total variance explained by Factor 4 was 5.0. This factor was named Perceived
Autonomy.
The factor structure of the MSQ short form for this study was different from the
factor structure of the original MSQ short form. Although a two-factor composi-
tion—intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction—was proposed in the original scale,
this study introduces a four-factor structure.
A number of studies have indicated different factor structures (e.g.,
Schriesheim, Powers, Scandura, Gardiner, & Lankau, 1993; Tan & Hawkins,
2000) and problematic construct validity (e.g., Arvey, Dewhirst, & Brown, 1978)
for the MSQ short form. For example, in a content and adequacy analysis,
Schriesheim et al. (1993) concluded that the MSQ short form subscales are debat-
able. In their analysis, 13 of the original items were unchanged and 7 items
changed. Social status (originally, intrinsic) became a general item, the general
items coworkers and working conditions became extrinsic items, security (origi-
nally, intrinsic) became extrinsic, compensation and advancement (originally,
extrinsic items) became general items, and recognition (originally extrinsic)
became a general item. This is in contrast to the Hirschfeld (2000) study, which
found no significant difference in factor structure after several revisions.
Tan and Hawkins (2000) also found a different factor structure for the MSQ
short form for the respondents participating in vocational rehabilitation. A princi-
pal component analysis with varimax rotation revealed a three-factor structure for
96 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

the MSQ short form. These factors were named intrinsic and extrinsic factors in
addition to a factor pertaining to satisfaction derived from participating in voca-
tional rehabilitation.
ANOVAs and t tests were performed to examine whether job satisfaction
scores differed by category of employee. To investigate whether the ANOVA
assumptions were violated, a series of tests was computed. Kolmogorov-Smirnov
and Shapiro-Wilk normality tests showed that the scores were normally distrib-
uted (Hair et al., 1998). Levene’s test of homogeneity of variance was computed to
test the ANOVA assumption that each group of the independents had the same
variance (Hair et al., 1998). Levene’s statistic was not statistically significant;
therefore, it was assumed that the groups had equal variances. All characteristics
of the respondents were treated as categorical variables. The specific classifica-
tion of the demographic variables was carefully made, and essential distinctions
were attempted to be captured. Age, education, job tenure, and job type produced
categories, as shown in Table 1. ANOVAs and t tests were computed to determine
differences in level of job satisfaction within the subcategories related to age, gen-
der, job tenure, job type, education, and job status. Significant differences were
found among job satisfaction scores for age, job tenure, gender, and job type. No
significant differences were found for education and job status (see Table 4).
Female workers were significantly more satisfied with their jobs than male work-
ers. Employees who were working in various job positions (i.e., kitchen help,
undefined positions) were significantly more satisfied than those classified as
waitstaff, bartenders, or cooks. Respondents having less than 3 months of job ten-
ure were significantly more satisfied with their jobs than workers with other job
tenures. In their 1993 study of job satisfaction using the short form of MSQ,
Dienhart and Gregoire (1993) found that the demographic variables of age, job
position, and gender do not influence job satisfaction.

DISCUSSION

This study examined the concept of job satisfaction among 798 employees of a
regional restaurant chain. The MSQ short form was used as the primary instru-
ment. The MSQ short form items were subjected to a principal component analy-
sis with varimax rotation. A four-factor structure was obtained as a result of the
analysis. The first two factors were named Extrinsic Job Satisfaction and Intrinsic
Job Satisfaction, the third factor was called Satisfaction From the Nature of the
Job, and the fourth factor was called Perceived Autonomy. This factor structure
differed from the original two-factor structure obtained by Weiss et al. (1967).
The uniqueness of the sample may be one of the reasons that a different factor
structure was obtained. Restaurant employees as a category are different from any
of the occupational groups in which the MSQ short form was previously used. The
literature has reported different factor structures for the MSQ short form. More-
over, Weiss et al. reported more complex factor structures for several occupational
groups (e.g., social workers, office clerks, truck drivers, and warehousemen). The
current study revealed evidence to support findings of several studies reporting
different factor structures for different occupational groups. It is suggested that
 Hancer, George / RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES’ JOB SATISFACTION 97

Table 4
Analysis of Variance Examining Job Satisfaction and Respondent Characteristics

Characteristic df MS F Significance

Age 5 1258.77 8.95** .00

Education 4 206.81 1.39 .23
Gender 1 865.00 5.87* .02
Tenure 5 668.84 4.62** .00
Job type 3 441.41 3.00* .03
Job status 1 17.66 0.012 .73

*Significant at p ≤ .05. **Significant at p ≤ .01.

users of the MSQ short form should conduct a factor analysis to examine the fac-
tor structure for their sample.
From the scores, it may be concluded that restaurant workers exhibit a moder-
ately high level of overall job satisfaction. The average overall job satisfaction raw
score was 74.1, with an overall facet mean of 3.7. The examination of the results of
the MSQ factors showed those factors receiving the highest satisfaction levels
(Security, Social Service, Moral Values, Activity, and Responsibility) are all
intrinsic to the job. The next two factors were the general satisfaction factors of
Working Conditions and Coworkers. The remaining factors, Extrinsic and Intrin-
sic, were mixed. Advancement and Compensation, both extrinsic factors,
received the lowest level of satisfaction scores. These scores were comparable to
the scores found by Ghiselli et al. (2001) in their study of food service managers.
The results of the present study differ from the findings of K. Smith et al. (1996),
who found intrinsic factors were not the major source of satisfaction. Wong et al.
(1999) also suggested attention to the intrinsic factors.
In their exploration of the environmental and generic components of job satis-
faction, Arvey, Bouchard, Segal, and Abraham (1989) suggested that organiza-
tions have a low degree of control over the individuals’feelings about job satisfac-
tion. Even though some environmental effects accelerate intrinsic job
satisfaction, certain boundaries still exist for each individual.
It may be that restaurant workers like their jobs, but there are some facets of sat-
isfaction that could be improved to increase overall job satisfaction. Restaurant
managers have the opportunity to pay more attention to those employees in which
there are lower levels of satisfaction expressed. Supervisory practices and com-
pany policies may have to be reexamined to identify those practices and policies
that contribute to employee dissatisfaction. Managers might attempt to give more
recognition and status to the employees as well as authority to make decisions
related to the performance of their jobs. The opportunity to perform a variety of
jobs and to use more of their abilities and creativity might also be encouraged.
Although compensation will always be an issue, the development of incentive
programs and the opportunity to receive bonuses based on performance may help
to increase the level of satisfaction on these items. These programs should include
all employees, not just one classification.
98 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Future Research
It is desirable that the continued use of the MSQ will result in the establishment
of a set of norms for the restaurant industry. These might pertain to both manage-
rial/supervisory and nonsupervisory personnel. In recognizing the limitations of
this study, it is recommended that the study be expanded to a larger sample con-
taining individuals from many restaurant companies and a larger geographic area.
It is further suggested that the level of satisfaction of managers/supervisors be
identified and that comparisons be made with the nonsupervisory personnel.
Cross-cultural studies might also be conducted to determine the effect of culture
on job-related satisfaction.
Correlations of levels of employee satisfaction might be made with customer
satisfaction to help determine the relationship between happy employees and
happy customers. Employee satisfaction scores might also be examined in rela-
tion to changes in sales and net profits of the establishment. The systematic study
of job-related satisfaction may lead to the development of programs directed at
employee retention, customer satisfaction, and greater profits for the
organization.

REFERENCES

Arvey, R. D., Bouchard, T. J., Segal, N. L., & Abraham, L. M. (1989). Job satisfaction:
Environmental and genetic components. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 187-192.
Arvey, R. D., Dewhirst, D. H., & Brown, E. M. (1978). A longitudinal study of the impact
of changes in goal setting on employee satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 31, 595-
608.
Balzer, W. K., Smith, P. C., Krovitz, D. E., Lovell, S. E., Paul, K. B., Reilly, B. A., et al.
(1990). User’s manual for the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) and the Job in General (JIG)
Scales. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University.
Beck, R. C. (1990). Motivation theories and principles. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bernhardt, K. L., Donthu, N., & Kennett, P. A. (2000). A longitudinal analysis of satisfac-
tion and profitability. Journal of Business Research, 47, 161-171.
Blau, G. (1999). Testing the longitudinal impact of work variables and performance
appraisal satisfaction on subsequent overall job satisfaction. Human Relations, 52,
1099-1113.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan Organizational
Assessment Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor.
Dienhart, J. R., & Gregoire, M. B. (1993). Job satisfaction, job involvement, job security,
and customer focus of quick-service restaurant employees. Hospitality Research Jour-
nal, 16, 29-43.
Ghiselli, R. F., LaLopa, J. M., & Bai, B. (2001). Job satisfaction, life satisfaction, and turn-
over intent. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 28-37.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170.
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.
 Hancer, George / RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES’ JOB SATISFACTION 99

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analy-
sis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hartman, S. C., & Yrle, A. C. (1996). Can the hobo phenomenon help explain voluntary
turnover? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 8(4), 11-16.
Herzberg, F. (1982). The managerial choice: To be efficient and to be human (2nd ed.). Salt
Lake City, UT: Olympus.
Herzberg, F. (1987). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business
Review, 65(5), 109-120.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Synderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York:
John Wiley.
Hirschfeld, R. C. (2000). Does revising the intrinsic and extrinsic subscales of the Minne-
sota Satisfaction Questionnaire short form make a difference? Educational and Psy-
chological Measurement, 60, 255-270.
Ironson, G. H., Smith, P. C., Brannick, M. T., Gibson, W. M., & Paul, K. B. (1989). Consti-
tution of a Job in General Scale: A comparison of global interest, composite, and spe-
cific measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 193-200.
Kiechel, W. (1989). How important is morale, really? Fortune, 119(4), 121-122.
Koys, D. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior,
and turnover on organizational effectiveness: A unit-level, longitudinal study. Person-
nel Psychology, 54, 101-114.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology,
140, 44-53.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago:
Rand McNally.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item
scale for measuring customer perception of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64, 12-
40.
Renn, R. W., Swiercz, P. M., & Icenogle, M. L. (1993). Measurement properties of the
revised Job Diagnostic Survey: More promising news from the public sector. Educa-
tional and Psychological Measurement, 53, 1011-1021.
Rogers, J. D., Clow, K. E., & Kash, T. J. (1994). Increasing job satisfaction of service per-
sonnel. Journal of Services Marketing, 8, 14-26.
Schlesinger, L. A., & Zornitsky, J. (1991). Job satisfaction, service capability, and cus-
tomer satisfaction: An examination of linkages and management implications. Human
Resource Planning, 14, 141-149.
Schneider, B. (1991). Service quality and profits: Can you have your cake and eat it too?
Human Resource Planning, 14, 151-157.
Schriesheim, C. A., Powers, K. J., Scandura, T. A., Gardiner, C. C., & Lankau, M. J. (1993).
Improving construct measurement in management research: Comments and a quantita-
tive approach for assessing the theoretical content adequacy of paper-and-pencil sur-
vey-type instruments. Journal of Management, 19, 385-417.
Smith, K., Gregory, S. R., & Cannon, D. (1996). Becoming an employer of choice:
Assessing commitment in the hospitality workplace. International Journal of Contem-
porary Hospitality Management, 8(6), 3-9.
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). Measurement and satisfaction in work
and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.
 100 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Sneed, J. (1988). Job characteristics and job satisfaction of school food-service employees.
School Foodservice Research Review, 12(3), 65-68.
Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement of a human service staff satisfaction: Development of
the Job Satisfaction Survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 693-713.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and conse-
quences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spillane, R. (1973). Intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction and job turnover: A question-
naire study of Australian managers. Occupational Psychology, 47, 71-74.
Spinelli, M. A., & Canavos, G. C. (2000). Investigating the relationship between employee
satisfaction and guest satisfaction. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quar-
terly, 41(6), 29-33.
Tan, P. P., & Hawkins, W. E. (2000). The factor structure of the Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire and participants of vocational rehabilitation. Psychological Reports, 87,
34-36.
Tas, R. F., Spalding, J. B., & Getty, J. M. (1989). Employee job satisfaction determinants
within a national restaurant company. Hospitality Education and Research Journal,
13(3), 129-136.
Testa, M. R. (2001). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and effort in the service
environment. Journal of Psychology, 135, 222-236.
Tornow, W. W., & Wiley, W. (1991). Service quality and management practices: A look at
employee attitudes, customer satisfaction, and bottom-line consequences. Human
Resource Planning Science, 20, 61-71.
Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Manual for the Minne-
sota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Industrial
Relation Center.
Wiley, W. (1991). Customer satisfaction: A supportive work environment and its financial
costs. Human Resource Planning, 14, 117-127.
Wong, S., Siu, V., & Tsang, N. (1999). The impact of demographic factors on Hong Kong
hotel employees’ choice of job-related motivators. International Journal of Contempo-
rary Hospitality Management, 11, 230-241.

Submitted May 23, 2001

First Revision Submitted August 30, 2001
Second Revision Submitted November 6, 2001
Third Revision Submitted March 30, 2002
Final Version Submitted July 9, 2002
Refereed Anonymously

Murat Hancer, Ph.D. (e-mail: hancerm@yahoo.com), is an assistant professor in the

School of Tourism and Hotel Management at Adnan Menderes University, Kusadasi, Tur-
key. R. Thomas George, Ed.D. (e-mail: george.2@osu.edu), is an associate professor in
the Hospitality Management Program at the Ohio State University, Columbus.

View publication stats