TAKING STOCK OF THE JOB SATISFACTION SURVEY:

ITS VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY IN A DIFFERENT TIME AND PLACE

Submitted for Human Resource Management/Organisational Behaviour Streams

DAVID LAMOND

Macquarie Graduate School of Management

Macquarie University

NSW 2109 AUSTRALIA

Telephone: +61 2 9850 8984

Fax: +61 2 9850 9033

email: david.lamond@mq.edu.au

PAUL E. SPECTOR

Department of Psychology

University of South Florida

Tampa, FL 33620 USA

Telephone: +1 813 949-6427

Fax: +1 813 974-4617

email: spector@chuma.cas.usf.edu

1
 TAKING STOCK OF THE JOB SATISFACTION SURVEY:
ITS VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY IN A DIFFERENT TIME AND PLACE

This study reports on the reliability and validity of the Job Satisfaction Survey
(Spector, 1985) when administered to three different groups of respondents in
different parts of the world – United States, Hong Kong and Australia. The results
show that concept equivalence cannot be taken for granted and reinforce the
importance of ensuring that what is a valid and reliable measure in one place at one
point in time remains so in different places and at different times.

Introduction

There is great interest in the concept of job satisfaction ("the extent to which people like
(satisfaction) or dislike (dissatisfaction) their jobs" (Spector, 1997:2), and the number of studies
on the topic is extraordinary (Spector, 1997). The importance of having satisfied employees (cf
Prickett, 1998), combined with the fact that employees continue to express significant levels of
dissatisfaction with their jobs, (see, for example, Anon, 1998), suggests we need to gain a better
understanding of job satisfaction.

A variety of research results indicates that many different aspects of the job, related to
pay (Taylor and Vest, 1992), promotion (US Merit Systems Protection Board, 1987),
supervision (Emmert and Taher, 1992, DeSantis and Durst, 1996, McNeese-Smith, 1996),
fringe benefits (Bergmann, Bergmann, and Grahn, 1994), performance based rewards (Drago,
Estrin, and Wooden, 1992), operating procedures (Bogg and Cooper, 1995), one's coworkers
(Emmert and Taher, 1992), and the nature of the work itself (DeSantis and Durst, 1996), are
associated with expressed levels of satisfaction. It is important therefore, not only to know
whether or not employees are satisfied, but also with what aspects of the job they are
dis/satisfied. The facet approach, measuring satisfaction with various aspects of the job as well
as overall satisfaction, allows researchers and organizations to find out not only whether people
are satisfied with their jobs but also, more importantly, which parts of the job are related to
satisfaction or dissatisfaction (see, for example, Hackman and Oldham, 1975, Smith, Kendall
and Hulin, 1969; Spector, 1985).

As companies look to translate their global visions into the reality of multicountry
operations, we also need to understand whether what makes our home country employees
satisfied also operates in a different national setting - what works well in one country may be
entirely inappropriate in another. To date, the number of comparisons of job satisfaction
between countries has been very limited (Ryan, Chan, Ployhart, and Slade, 1999; Spector,
1997). One study (Spector and Wimalasiri, 1986) has highlighted the importance of using a
facet approach to intercountry comparisons, finding no difference in overall level of satisfaction
between a group of workers from the US and a group of Singaporean workers, but significant
differences in such areas as supervision and coworkers. One might ask however, whether the
differences identified by Spector and Wimalasiri (1986) reflected real differences between the
countries in each of those facets, or perhaps differences in the relevance of the facets
themselves.

A more recent study by Lamond (1999), involving employee samples from Hong Kong
and Australia, found that the relationships between job satisfaction and a group of individual
and organisational variables previously shown to influence job satisfaction were different for
the two groups. This suggests that there may be differences in the relevance of the facets
themselves. Indeed, we may well ask whether, for these four different national groups –
Australian, American, Hong Kong and Singaporean – there was conceptual equivalence for the
facets considered. In other words, can each of the constructs be discussed meaningfully in each
culture and do they have a similar meaning across cultures (Brett, Tinsley, Janssens, Barsness,

2
& Lytle, 1997)? These are significant questions because, as Ryan et al (1999) point out,
nonequivalence in an employee attitude measure, such as a job satisfaction survey, can lead to
incorrect conclusions about intercountry differences, as well as to misguided interventions.

Both the Lamond (1999) and Spector and Wimalasiri (1986) studies utilized the Job
Satisfaction Survey (JSS), a facet approach developed in the United States and for which
evidence as to its validity was provided (Spector, 1985, 1997). The JSS is a 36 item, nine facet
scale - Pay (Subscale 1), Promotion (2), Supervision (3), Fringe Benefits (4), Contingent
Rewards (5), Operating Conditions (6), Co-workers (7), the Nature of the Work (8), and
Communication (9) - designed to assess employees' attitudes about specific aspects of their
jobs. Each facet is assessed with four items, with six choices per item (from "strongly
disagree" to "strongly agree"), and a total score is computed from the sum of all item scores
(see Table 1 for items and facets).

The purpose of this study was twofold. First, it was designed to determine whether the
U.S. developed JSS, as an example of the facet approach to job satisfaction, would be a
transportable measure when used outside the United States, in this case in the Australian and
Hong Kong contexts. The similarity in language and cultural values between the United States
and Australia (at least according to Hofstede, 1980; 1991), suggests it would be reasonable to
expect that the JSS would be easily transported to Australia, maintaining its psychometric
properties. On the other hand, the differences in language and cultural values between the
United States/Australia, and Hong Kong (again according to Hofstede, 1980; 1991), suggests
that the JSS may not transport well to Hong Kong. One reason for this is related to the notion
of conceptual equivalence. A recent study of item equivalence in a organizational attitude
survey, for groups of employees from the USA, Australia, Mexico and Spain, has found that the
measure in question was equivalent only across the US and Australian samples (Ryan et al,
1999). While the study by Ryan et al (1999) included a question on overall job satisfaction, it
did not explore particular aspects of the job.

The second aim of the study was to examine the psychometric properties of the JSS in its
home country context. The JSS was developed in the US more 15 years ago, and the world of
work has changed significantly in the intervening period (cf McGraw, 1997; Townsend,
DeMarie, and Hendrickson, 1998). For example, with the contemporary emphasis on self-
managing teams as a basis for organizing, coworkers have become team members and
supervisors have become performance managers. As such, the nature of the facets or factors
underlying job satisfaction may have changed. Further, given the worldwide variation in the
way employees are managed and their jobs are structured (cf Brewster and Hegewisch, 1994), it
is quite likely that there will be variation in addition to any culture and language differences in
responding to questionnaire.

Although differences were anticipated, in light of the findings of, inter alia, Ryan et al
(1999), the nature of those differences was likely to be both complex and uncertain. As such,
and given the essentially exploratory nature of the research, no specific hypotheses were
formulated.

3
 Table 1

Facet Names, Descriptions and Items for the Job Satisfaction Scale (Spector, 1997:8)

Pay-Satisfaction with pay and pay raises

1. I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do.
10. Raises are too few and far between
19. I feel appreciated by the organization when I think about what they pay me.
28. I feel satisfied with my chances for salary increases.
Promotion-Satisfaction with promotion opportunities
2. There is really too little chance for promotion on my job.
11. Those who do well on the job stand a fair chance of being promoted.
20. People get ahead as fast here as they do in other places.
33. I am satisfied with my chances for promotion
Supervision-Satisfaction with person’s immediate supervisor
3. My supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job.
12. My supervisor is unfair to me.
21. My supervisor shows too little interest in the feelings of subordinates.
30. I like my supervisor.
Fringe Benefits-Satisfaction with fringe benefits
4. I am not satisfied with the benefits I receive.
13. The benefits we receive are as good as most other organizations offer.
22. The benefit package we have is equitable.
29. There are benefits we do not have which we should have.
Contingent Rewards-Satisfaction with rewards (not necessarily monetary) given for good
performance
5. When I do a good job I receive the recognition for it that I should receive.
14. I do not feel that the work I do is appreciated.
23. There are few rewards for those who work here.
32. I don’t feel my efforts are rewarded the way they should be.
Operating Conditions-Satisfaction with rules and procedures
6. Many of our rules and procedures make doing a good job difficult.
15. My efforts to do a good job are seldom blocked by red tape.
24. I have too much to do at work.
31. I have too much paperwork.
Coworkers-Satisfaction with coworkers
7. I like the people I work with.
16. I find I have to work harder because of the incompetence of people I work with.
25. I enjoy my coworkers.
34. There is too much bickering and fighting at work.
Nature of Work-Satisfaction with the type of work done
8. I sometimes feel my job is meaningless
17. I like doing the things I do at work.
27. I feel a sense of pride in doing my job.
35. My job is enjoyable.
Communication-Satisfaction with communication within the organization
9. Communications seem good within this organization.
18. The goals of this organization are not clear to me.
26. I often feel that I do not know what is going on with the organization.
36. Work assignments are not fully explained.

4
 Method

The sample comprised groups of employees who were undertaking part-time university
study in Florida, USA (n = 100: 24 female, 76 male), Sydney, Australia (n= 101: 36 female, 65
male) and Hong Kong (n= 278: 158 female, 120 male) who were surveyed over the period
1997-1999. They were either sent the JSS by mail, and asked to bring the completed survey to
their first class, or completed the survey during class. A part of the survey gathered a series of
demographic data on respondents, related to age, sex, and level of management/non-
management occupied, and organizational data related to the size and sector of the organization
(number of employees and whether private or public sector organization).

The resultant data were analyzed using the Windows version of the Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences (SPSS), Release 7.5. 1. The reliability of the JSS, in terms of the
internal consistency of its subscales and the overall scale, was measured using Cronbach's
alpha. Evidence for convergent validity of the JSS has already been provided through
correlation analysis using comparison with other facet measures of job satisfaction such as the
JDI (Spector, 1985, 1997). However, it was decided not to use confirmatory factor analysis for
several reasons. As Stevens (1996) points out, confirmatory factor analysis is used when the
researcher ‘knows’ how many factors there are and forces items to load only on a specific
factor. This ability to specify the factors is based on a strong theoretical and/or empirical
foundation. Based on the literature review, it was anticipated there would be differences, but it
was unclear as to what shape those differences might take. At the same time, the focus of
interest was on not only whether the constructs reflected in the JSS scales were relevant in
contemporary Australian and Hong Kong contexts but, if not, what those constructs might be.
Confirmatory factor analysis might well confirm that the factor structures were different, but
not what the appropriate factor structures might be. It was decided therefore, to analyze the
factor structure of the JSS using principal component analysis with varimax rotation.

Results

Table 2 summarizes the demographic details of the sample groups. It shows that,
although the sample had a reasonable overall gender balance (44% female, 56% male), there
were significant intercountry differences. While the Hong Kong sample was reasonable in
balance, two-thirds of the Australian sample was male, with the American sample being
overwhelmingly female. At the same time, it should be noted that the findings from research
over the last decade or so consistently indicate no sex differences in levels of job satisfaction
(Lamond, 1999). In regard to other characteristics, we see that the respondent groups from
Hong Kong and Australia were otherwise quite similar, being relatively young groups of
employees, with 50% in the modal group of 30-39 years. They comprised mainly junior and
middle managers (70%), working for medium (25%) and large (60%) organizations, of
which 60% were in the private sector. The American sample is different in that it is a much
younger cohort, with much smaller numbers in management positions and many working for
small to medium enterprises. While age and seniority are positively related to expressed job
satisfaction (a more complex relationship exists between size of organization and satisfaction)
(Lamond, 1999), there is no reason to believe that these demographic differences would
influence the subsequent results in relation to the factor structure and reliability of the JSS
scale.

Table 3 presents the alpha reliability scores of each of the facet and total scores for the
respective country groups.

5
 Table 2

Descriptive Statistics of the Respondents and their Organizations

Variable Australia Hong Kong United States Total Chi-square

% (n = 101) % (n = 278) %(n = 100) % (n = Results
335)
Sex 2, df =2 33.333;p = 0.000
Female 36a 57c 76e 56
Male 64b 43d 24f 44
Age 2, df =6 82.269;p = 0.000
20-29 33a 27a 76e 39
years
30-39 46b 57b 14f 46
years
40-49 20 c 16c 9g 15
years
50+ years 2d 0d 1h 1
Level of respondent 2, df =10 161.323;p = 0.000
Non-Mgt 14a 13 a 73f 26
Junior 20b 26b 12g 22
Mgt
Middle 39c 46c 10g 36
Mgt
Senior 26d 16d 4 15
Mgt
CEO/MD 2e 1e 1e 1
Size (No of employees) 2, df =6 67.054;p = 0.000
0-49 13a 10a 39e 17
50-99 2b 7b 15f 8
c,g c g
100-499 24 27 20 25
500+ 61d 56d 26h 51
Sector 2, df =2 4.554; p = 0.103
Private 58 62 50 59
Public 42 38 50 41

a,b,c, etc
those percentages with different superscripts in each category differ significantly.

6
 Table 3

Interitem Reliabilities (Cronbach’s α) of JSS Scores by Location

Location Australia Hong Kong USA

Scale/Subscale
1. Pay 0.7645 0.7549 0.7611
2. Promotion 0.8153 0.5840 0.8171
3. Supervision 0.7688 0.8180 0.8932
4. Benefits 0.7381 0.7725 0.8231
5. Rewards 0.8242 0.7427 0.8637
6. Procedures 0.3691 0.4445 0.5535
7. Coworkers 0.7095 0.6614 0.8355
8. Nature of Work 0.8116 0.8220 0.8603
9 Communication 0.6737 0.6865 0.7307
10. Total 0.9138 0.9045 0.9418

As can be seen from Table 3, the reliability of the scale overall for each of the three
groups is high (α > 0.90), while the subscale reliabilities improve considerably. As one might
expect, nearly all the reliabilities for the US sample are acceptable (α > 0.70). The Australian
sample also reveals acceptable reliabilities, with the exception of Operating Procedures and
Communication, while the Hong Kong sample has a greater proportion of subscales with only
moderate reliability (Promotion, Coworkers, Communication and Operating Procedures). This
Table is, therefore, suggestive that the further one is removed from US language and cultural
values, the less reliable the JSS becomes. It is also clear from the consistently low subscale
reliabilities for the Operating Procedures scale that it is not a reliable measure of “rules and
procedures”. This is reinforced by the results of the factor analysis below, which indicates that
these items are related to at least two quite different dimensions of the job.

Table 4 summarizes the results of the factor analysis, which extracted 9 factors for each
of the samples, accounting for between 62% and 72% of the variance in the JSS scores. It
shows that the factor structures for each of the groups are clearly different from each other and
from that which would be suggested by the scales. Further, it is noted that between 30% and
50% of the 36 items load significantly on more than one factor (using ±0.3 as the critical
value). This suggests, in turn, a complex series of interactions, which differ according to the
group of interest. These are considered in turn, commencing with the US data.

Not surprisingly, the factor structure for the US data is closest to the original 9 subscales,
with Factors 2,3 and 4 corresponding identically to the Promotion, Benefits and Nature of
Work subscales, while Factor 5 almost corresponds to the Communication scale. The most
obvious difference is in the way the items linked to Supervision and Contingent Rewards load
together on Factor 1 (accounting for 35% of the variance). Meanwhile Factor 9 splits off two
of the Operating Procedures items relating to amount of work, and Factors 6 and 7 reflect two
quite diverse collections of items. The significance of these findings, and the similarities and
differences with the Australian and Hong Kong samples, is discussed further below.

Table 4

7
 JSS Item Factor Loadings by Location, (% Total Variance Explained) & Implied Facet

Factor/ Group Australia Hong Kong United States

Sample (62) (69) (62) (72)
1 8 12 14 16 1 4* 10 13* 19* 22 1* 10* 11 19* 20 3* 5* 12 14* 21 30
18* 21 34 36 23* 28* 29* 32* (28) 23* 28* 32* 33 (25) 32* (35)
(21) Salary Package Advancement Performance
Management
2 7* 17 25* 27 5 12* 14* 21 30* 36 3 12 14* 21 30 (8) 2* 11 20 33 (8)
35 (12) (10)
Performance Supervision Promotion
Management
3 11 20 28 33 7* 17 25* 27 35 (7) 8 17 27 35 (6) 4 13* 22 29 (6)
(6) Work Context Nature of Work Benefits
4 4 10 19* 23* 2 11* 20* 33 (6) 4 13 22 29 (5) 8* 17 27 35* (6)
29 32* (5) Promotion Benefits Nature of Work
5 3 5* 30 (4) 8* 16* 18* 26 34* (5) 5* 9 18 26 36 (5) 9* 18 26 34* (4)
Organization Climate Communication Communication
6 1* 13 22 (4) 24 31 (4) 24 31 (4) 1 15 16* 19 (4)
Amount of Work Amount of Work Organization
7 24 31 (3) 15 (4) 7 25 34* (3) 6* 10 23* 28* 36
(3)
‘The System’ Coworkers ‘The System’
8 9* 26* (3) 6 (3) 6 15* (3) 7 25 (3)
Procedures ‘The System’ Coworkers

9 2* 6* 15 (2) 3* 9* (3) 2 16* (3) 24 31 (3)

Information Promotion Amount of Work

For the Australian sample, only Factor 4 corresponds to one of the subscales
(Promotion). Whereas Factor 1 in the American data saw a combination of Supervision and
Contingent Rewards, here the combination is between Pay and Fringe Benefits, accounting for
28% of total variance. The low internal stability of the Operating Procedures subscale is
reinforced here, with items 15 and 6 loading separately on Factors 7 and 8 respectively, while
items 24 and 31 again load together on Factor 6. The rest of the factors contain mixtures of
two, five, or six items from different scales.

For the Hong Kong sample, Factors 3 and 4 are straightforward, corresponding
identically to the Nature of Work and Benefits subscales respectively. Meanwhile, Factors 2, 5
and 7 are almost identical to the Supervision, Communications and Coworker subscales, with
one subscale item more or less. The items that load on Factor 1 (accounting for 25% of the
variance) are a combination of the Pay and Promotion subscale items. Yet again, two items of
the Operating Procedures subscale loaded together on a separate factor. Indeed, of all the items,
these are the only two which load unambiguously on a single factor across all three groups.
The remaining factors have only two items each, with Factor 8 having a ‘sub’ subscale of
Conditions, while the Factor 9 items are from different scales.

A detailed explication of these results is beyond the scope of this paper. It is clear,
however, that the item loadings can be explained in terms of the changing nature of jobs and
differences in the organizations and cultures within which they are embedded. This is done
with reference in particular to the item loadings for each of the groups’ primary factor, Factor 1.

In Australia, Factor 1 contains all the items related to each of the Pay and Benefits
subscales, and one from the Contingent Reward subscale. This appears to reflect the increasing
propensity in Australia to 'package' pay and benefits (O'Neill, 1997), to equate 'reward' with

8
remuneration, and for Australian employees to see them as closely related rather than separate
facets of the job. In both Hong Kong and the US, on the other hand, benefits are quite separate
as a job facet.

For the Hong Kong sample, the items loading on Factor 1 include all those in the Pay
subscale, three items from the Promotion subscale, and two of the Contingent Rewards items.
Collectively, these items are suggestive of a notion of ‘advancement’, where pay, promotion
and reward are closely linked. In discussion with the Hong Kong respondents, it is clear that
one’s career progression is measured in these terms and that they are indeed taken together (as
one is promoted, one gets commensurate pay increases, and these are seen as reward for effort).
No similar combination exists for either of the Australian or US respondents.

Factor 1 in the US incorporates all of the Supervision items, and three of the Contingent
Reward items. Taken together, these appear to represent a move beyond supervision per se, to
management of worker performance - supervising the work and providing contingent rewards -
as part of a performance management system (Kramar, 1997). A similar kind of combination
appears in the Australian responses (loading on Factor 2), for the same kinds of reasons as
mentioned by Kramar (1997). In Hong Kong, on the other hand, the emphasis is more clearly
on Supervision (Factor 2). This latter finding is consistent with anecdotal evidence from the
Hong Kong respondents and with the cultural value of power distance (Hofstede, 1980, 1991)

Apart from Factor1 for each group, another point of particular interest is the fate of the
items in the Operating Procedures subscale. It was noted earlier that, while the Operating
Procedures subscale had low internal consistency reliability, two of the items, relating to
amount of work per se and the amount of paperwork attached to the job, load together on a
single factor. . This accent on the amount of work as a job facet is not surprising for the
Australian respondents, since, as Parker (1997) reports, there is strong statistical evidence
indicating that the amount and intensity of work for all levels of employees in Australia has
increased during the 1990s. Discussion with the Hong Kong respondents suggests that, for
them, ‘it was ever thus’, while in the US, the Protestant work ethic (Weber, 1930) is clearly
alive and well.

At the same time, the ‘resting places’ of the other two Operating Procedures items
(relating to ‘rules and procedures’ and ‘red tape’) are revealing. In Australia, they appear as
two separate factors, which have been characterised here as “Procedures’ and ‘The System’
respectively. Again, given the well-known Australian disdain for rules and ‘red tape’, this is
not surprising, although the fact that they load on separate factors is puzzling. In Hong Kong,
these two items load together on the same factor, but with no other items. They are clearly seen
in Hong Kong as one and the same thing (a legacy of its colonial forebears?). In the US, the
loading is much more complex, with ‘rules and procedures’ linked with two of the Pay items
and (?) and ‘red tape’ tied up with the other two Pay items. This suggests they may be linked
to notions of procedural and distributive fairness.

Individually and collectively, these various constructions of the key factors in each of the
groups’ responses mark some of the changes that have taken place in the way jobs are devised
and managed over the last 10-15 years. They also indicate that how I understand the
relationships between the various aspects of my job and its context will differ according to the
wider social and cultural environment of my workplace. As a consequence, they suggest that
simple comparisons of JSS subscale scores between, for example, US, Hong Kong and
Australian samples, may find differences that reflect variance in the ways the facets are
understood in the three countries rather than real differences in satisfaction.

Conclusion

9
 Facet scales of job satisfaction were developed to measure satisfaction with the various
aspects of jobs, as the jobs were constructed at the time and place the scales were devised. The
evidence from this study suggests that they may not maintain their psychometric properties
when utilized in another time and place. Subsequently, the nature of jobs and the organizations
within which they are embedded have changed. Contemporary management strategies, such as
salary and benefit 'packaging', performance management, and team/group working, together
with an emphasis on the organizational climate within which the work is carried out, have
influenced the way employees understand and respond to the various aspects of their jobs.
These influences appear to be reflected in the results of this study.

For those who employ job satisfaction measures that use a facet approach, it is necessary
to review the content of their scales to ensure that the facets their subscales represent remain
relevant in the contemporary work environment. It is also important to increase research efforts
to identify the extent to which facets of job satisfaction may differ from country to country and
culture to culture. It will also be necessary for scale developers to look to producing items and
scales that, as far as possible, have similar meanings in different cultures. Meanwhile, future
researchers need to be cognisant of concept equivalence, and begin by comparing the factor
structures of the different country responses rather than a comparison of scores per se.

References

Anon (1998) Senior managers and their employees beg to differ. CMA, Vol 72 No 6 p32

Bergmann, TJ, Bergmann, MA and Grahn, JL (1994) How important are employee benefits to
public sector employees. Public Personnel Management, Vol 23 pp397-406.

Bogg , J and Cooper, C (1995) Job satisfaction, mental health and occupational stress among
senior civil servants. Human Relations, Vol 48 No 3 pp327-341.

Brett JM, Tinsley CH, Janssens M, Barsness ZI and Lytle AL (1997). New approaches to the
study of culture in industrial/organizational psychology. In PC Earley and M Erez (eds) New
perspectives on international industrial/organizational psychology. San Francisco: New
Lexington Press.

Brewster, C and Hegewisch, A (1994) (eds) Policy and Research in European Human Resource
Management. London: Routledge.

DeSantis, VS and Durst, SL (1996) Comparing job satisfaction among public- and private-
sector employees. American Review of Public Administration, Vol 26 No 3 pp327- 343.

Drago, R Estrin, S and Wooden, M (1992) Pay for performance incentives and work attitudes.
Australian Journal of Management, Vol 17 No 2 pp217-231.

Emmert, MA and Taher, WA (1992) Public sector professionals: The effect of public sector
jobs on motivation, job satisfaction and work involvement. American Review of Public
Administration, Vol 22 No 1 pp37–48.

Hofstede, G (1980) Culture's consequences: International differences in work related values.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G (1991) Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-
Hill.

Kramar, R (1997) “Performance management”; in R Kramar, P McGraw, and R Schuler (eds)

Human Resource Management in Australia (3rd Ed) Melbourne: Longman pp 352-407.

10
Lamond, DA (1999) Things that Matter: A Comparison of Job Satisfaction in Hong Kong and
Australia. Proceedings of the 4th Asia Pacific Decision Sciences Institute Conference, Shanghai,
China, 9-12 June, 289-291.

McGraw, P (1997) “HRM – History, models, process and directions”; in R Kramar, P McGraw,
and R Schuler (eds) Human Resource Management in Australia (3rd Ed) Melbourne: Longman
pp 2-43.

McNeese-Smith, D (1996) Increasing employee productivity, job satisfaction, and

organizational commitment. Hospital & Health Services Administration, Vol 41 No 2 pp160-
175.

O’Neill, G (1997) “Reward management”; in Robin Kramar, Peter McGraw, and Randall
Schuler (eds) Human Resource Management in Australia (3rd Ed) Melbourne: Longman pp
408-461.

Parker, D (1997) Why are we working so hard? Australian Accountant, Vol 67 No 10 pp18-20.

Prickett, R (1998) Stateside statistics show significance of soft skills People Management, Vol
4 No 5 p19

Ryan, AM, Chan, D, Ployhart, RE and Slade, LA (1999) Employee attitude surveys in a
multinational organization: Considering language and culture in assessing measurement
equivalence .Personnel Psychology, 52(1), 37-58.

Spector, Paul E (1985) Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Development of the
Job Satisfaction Survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol 13 pp693-713.

Spector, Paul E (1997) Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences.
Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.

Spector, Paul E and Wimalasiri, J (1986) A cross-cultural comparison of job satisfaction

dimensions in the United States and Singapore. Applied Psychology: An International Review,
Vol 35 pp147-158.

Stevens, J (1996) Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences (3rd Ed). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Taylor, GS and Vest, J (1992) Pay comparisons and pay satisfaction among public sector
employees. Public Personnel Management, Vol 21 pp445-454.

Townsend, AM, DeMarie, SM and Hendrickson, AR (1998) Virtual teams: Technology and the
workplace of the future The Academy of Management Executive, Vol 12 No 3 pp17-29.

US Merit Systems Protection Board (1987) Working for the Federal Government: Job
Satisfaction and Federal Employees. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.

Weber, M (1930) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Allen & Unwin

11