Job Satisfaction, Attitudes,

Work Beliefs
Lecture material for 5 classes.
Learning Objectives
● Understand why an employer should even care about job satisfaction and organizational
commitment
● Be able to identify the individual differences in the predisposition to be satisfied
● Learn ways to increase employee satisfaction and commitment
● Understand the methods used to measure job satisfaction
● Understand why employees are absent from work and what can be done to reduce
absenteeism
● Understand why employees quit their jobs and what can be done to reduce turnover
Why does Jean Davis love her job and Maria McDuffie hate the same job?

Why do Rhonda Beall and David Spoto have such different attitudes about their jobs and careers?

What is Raynes Manufacturing doing better than Simmons Enterprises?

In this chapter, we will answer these questions about job satisfaction—the
attitude an employee has toward her job—and organizational commitment—the
extent to which an employee identifies with and is involved with an organization.
What is an attitude?
It can be defined as a relatively stable affective, or evaluative disposition toward a specific entity. 3
components…

1. Belief: about the object; also referred to as the cognitive component

2. Evaluative: assessing value or desirability of something (emotional component)
3. Tendency or disposition: to act in a certain way toward the attitude object.
Why should we care about
employee attitude?
Many job-related attitudes have been studied by psychologists, but the two most commonly studied are job-
satisfaction and organizational-commitment.

Meta-analyses indicate that

● satisfied employees tend to be committed to an organization (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005), and
● employees who are satisfied and committed are more likely to attend work(Hackett,1989),
● Stay with an organization (Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000),
● arrive at work on time (Koslowsky, Sagie, Krausz, & Singer, 1997),
● perform well (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001),
● Engage in behaviors helpful to the organization (LePine,Erez, & Johnson,2002),
● Not behave in counterproductive ways (Dalal, 2005),
● and engage in ethical behavior (Kish-Gephart, Harrison,&Treviño,2010)

Than are employees who are not satisfied or committed.

The relationship between job satisfaction and performance is not consistent across people or jobs.

For example,

Jobs: for complex jobs, there is a stronger relationship between job satisfaction and performance than for jobs of low or
medium complexity (Judge et al., 2001).

People: For employees who have strong, consistent beliefs about their level of job-satisfaction (called affective-
cognitive consistency), the relationship between job satisfaction and performance is much stronger than it is for
employees whose job satisfaction attitudes are not so well developed (Schleicher, Watt, & Greguras, 2004).

Though the relationships between job satisfaction and organizational commitment and attendance, performance,
tardiness, and turnover are not as large as one would expect, it is important to note that there are many other factors
affecting work behaviors...

For example, a dissatisfied employee may want to quit her job but not be able to because no other jobs are available.
Likewise, a dissatisfied employee may want to miss work but realizes that she will lose pay if she does. Thus, we often
find that job satisfaction and organizational commitment are related more to a desire to quit, miss work, or reduce
effort than they are to actual behaviors
What Causes Employees to Be
Satisfied with and Committed to
Their Jobs?
 We are going to explore several theories that seek to explain why workers are satisfied with and
committed to their jobs, but none of the theories completely explains these job-related attitudes.

Each is valuable, however, because it suggests ways to increase employee satisfaction and commitment.
Thus, even though a theory itself may not be completely supported by research, the resulting
suggestions have generally led to increased performance or longer tenure.

It’s important to note that both of these work-related attitudes are multifaceted. That is, employees may
be satisfied with one facet of work (e.g., their pay) but not another (e.g., their coworkers).

The most commonly studied facets of job- satisfaction are pay,supervision,coworkers,work,and

promotion opportunities.

Many other facets such as satisfaction with equipment, the work facility, the worksite, and company
policy are also important but have not received as much research attention.
It is thought that there are three motivational facets to organizational commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1997).

1. Affective commitment is the extent to which an employee wants to remain with the organization, cares about
the organization, and is willing to exert effort on its behalf. For example, an employee of the Red Cross might like
her coworkers and her boss, share the altruistic goals of the organization, and realize that her efforts will result in
better organizational performance.

2. Continuance commitment is the extent to which an employee believes she must remain with the organization
due to the time, expense, and effort that she has already put into it or the difficulty she would have in finding
another job.

for example, a chamber of commerce director who spent 10 years making business contacts, getting funding for a
new building, and earning the trust of the local city council. Though she could take a new job with a chamber in a
different city, she would need to spend another 10 years with that chamber just to make the gains she has already
made.

As another example, an employee might hate her job and want to leave, but realizes that no other organization
would hire her or give her the salary she desires.
3. Normative commitment is the extent to which an
employee feels obligated to the organization and, as a result
of this obligation, must remain with the organization.

A good example of normative commitment would be an

employee who was given her first job by an organization, was
mentored by her manager, and was trained at great cost to
the organization. The employee may feel that she is ethically
obligated to remain with the organization because of its
extensive investment in her.
Antecedents and Consequences of Job Satisfaction and
Organizational Commitment
What Individual Differences Affect
Job Satisfaction?
one of the factors (called antecedents) that influence levels of job satisfaction and commitment is our personal
predisposition to be satisfied.

Going back to our examples at the beginning, what would explain why David Spoto loves his current job and Rhonda
Beall hates hers?

According to theories involving individual differences, the key to the answer is the fact that David has been satisfied
at every job he has had, whereas Rhonda has never been satisfied with a job.

Individual difference theory postulates that some variability in job satisfaction is due to an individual’s personal
tendency across situations to enjoy what she does. Thus, certain types of people will generally be satisfied and
motivated regardless of the type of job they hold. This idea also makes intuitive sense.

We all know people who constantly complain and whine about every job they have, and we also know people who
are motivated and enthusiastic about their every job or task.
For individual-difference theory to be true, it would be essential that job satisfaction
be consistent across time and situations. Research seems to support this notion, as
meta-analysis results indicate that the average correlation between job satisfaction
levels, measured an average of three years apart, is .50 (Dormann & Zapf, 2001).

Because there seems to be at least some consistency in job satisfaction across time
and jobs, the next question concerns the types of people that seem to be
consistently satisfied with their jobs.

Research in this area has focused on genetic predispositions (Lykken & Tellegen,
1996), core self-evaluations (Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998), and life
satisfaction (Tait, Padgett, & Baldwin, 1989).
 Genetic Predispositions

An interesting and controversial set of studies suggests that job satisfaction not only may be fairly stable
across jobs but also may in part be genetically determined. Arvey and his colleagues arrived at this
conclusion by comparing the levels of job satisfaction of 34 sets of identical twins who were separated from
each other at an early age.

If job satisfaction, is purely environmental, there should be no significant correlation between levels of job
satisfaction for identical twins who were raised in different environments and who are now working at
different types of jobs. But if identical twins have similar levels of job satisfaction despite being reared apart
and despite working at dissimilar jobs, then a genetic predisposition for job satisfaction is likely.

On the basis of their three studies, Arvey and his colleagues found that approximately 30% of job
satisfaction appears to be explainable by genetic factors. Such a finding does not of course mean that there
is a “job satisfaction gene.” Instead, inherited personality traits such as negative affectivity (the tendency to
have negative emotions such as fear, hostility, and anger) are related to our tendency to be satisfied with
jobs (Ilies & Judge, 2003).
Implications of those findings…

It may be that some people will probably not be satisfied with any job, and
supervisors should not lose sleep over the fact that these employees are not happy
or motivated. Furthermore, one way to increase the overall level of job satisfaction in
an organization would be to hire only those applicants who show high levels of
overall job and life satisfaction.
 Core Self-Evaluations

Whether the consistency in job satisfaction is due to genetic or environmental factors, a

series of personality variables appear to be related to job satisfaction. That is, certain types of
personalities are associated with the tendency to be satisfied or dissatisfied with one’s job.

Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997) have hypothesized that four personality variables are
related to people’s predisposition to be satisfied with their life and jobs: emotional stability,
self-esteem, self-efficacy (perceived ability to master their environment), and internal locus of
control (perceived ability to control their environment).

That is, people prone to be satisfied with their jobs and with life in general have high self-
esteem and a feeling of being competent, are emotionally stable, and believe they have
control over their lives, especially their work lives.
This view is supported by several meta-analyses and studies: As shown in Table 10.2, a meta-analysis by Judge and
Bono (2001) found these four variables to be related to both job satisfaction and job performance.
Culture & Intelligence
Culture:

workers in different countries have different levels of job satisfaction. The 2013 Randstad Workmonitor
Global Press Report found that, of 32 countries surveyed, employees in Denmark, Norway, and Mexico
were the most satisfied and employees in Hong Kong, Hungary, and Japan the least. U.S. employees
ranked 11th in the survey, and employees in the United Kingdom ranked 23rd.

Intelligence:

In 1997, a police department in New London,Connecticut,created controversy when it announced that

applicants who were “toosmart” would not be hired. The police chief’s reasoning was that really smart
people would be bored and have low job satisfaction.

Though there has been little research on the topic, a study by Ganzach(1998) suggests that bright
people have slightly lower-job-satisfaction than do less intelligent employees in jobs that are not
complex. In complex jobs, the relationship between intelligence and satisfaction is negligible. A meta-
analysis of seven studies by Griffeth, Hom, and Gaertner (2000) found that intelligence and turnover
were not significantly related.
Are Employees Satisfied with Other Aspects of Their
Lives?
Judge et al. (1998), Judge and Watanabe (1993), and Tait et al. (1989) have theorized
not only that job satisfaction is consistent across time but that the extent to which a
person is satisfied with all aspects of life (e.g., marriage, friends, job, family, and
geographic location) is consistent as well.

Furthermore, people who are satisfied with their jobs tend to be satisfied with life.

These researchers found support for their theory, as their data indicate that job
satisfaction is significantly correlated with life satisfaction. Thus people happy in life
tend to be happy in their jobs and vice versa.
In an interesting study, Judge and Watanabe (1994) found that for about two-thirds
of participants, high levels of life satisfaction are associated with high levels of job
satisfaction. In other words, satisfaction with one’s job “spills over” into other
aspects of life, and satisfaction with other aspects of life spills over into satisfaction
with one’s job. For the remaining 30% or so of the population, either there is no
relationship between life and job satisfaction or there is a negative relationship.

That life-satisfaction can influence job-satisfaction in the vast majority of people is

an important finding.

In the twenty-first century, managers are being asked to work miracles in making
even the worst of jobs satisfying
What we are suggesting here is that an employee’s needs can be met in a variety of non-work activities such as hobbies and
volunteer work.

A mistake we have made for years has been to assume that a job must satisfy all of a person’s needs. Instead, an organization
should work toward fulfilling those needs that it can and should help employees find alternative avenues to meet their other
needs.

An interesting study by Judge (1993) demonstrates the importance of individual differences. Judge had more than 200 nurses
in a medical clinic complete a questionnaire tapping their propensity to gripe about things in everyday life and also asking
them to indicate how satisfied they were with their jobs.

Judge then compared the nurses’ levels of job satisfaction with whether or not they quit their jobs with the clinic over the next
10 months.

The results of this study indicated that for the people who griped about everything in life, there was no significant relationship
between satisfaction and turnover (r .05); however, for the nurses who were not chronic gripers, satisfaction was significantly
correlated with turnover (r .39).

In other words, people who are unhappy in life and unhappy on their jobs will not leave their jobs, because they are used to
being unhappy. But for people who are normally happy in life, being unhappy at work is seen as a reason to find another job.

To get an idea about your own tendency to be satisfied with work and life, complete Exercise 10.4 in your workbook.
Are Employees’ Job Expectations Being Met?

As we discussed in previous chapters, employees come to a job with certain needs,

values,and expectations. If there is a discrepancy between these needs, values, and
expectations and the reality of the job, employees will become dissatisfied and less
motivated.

Inatestof this discrepancy theory, a meta-analysis byWanous,Poland, Premack, and

Davis (1992) concluded that when an employee’s expectations are not met, the
results are lower job satisfaction(r .39),decreased organizational commitment(r .39),
andan increased intent to leave the organization (r .29). These results support the
importance of ensuring that applicants have realistic job expectations.
Though the meta-analysis results supported the “met expectations” theory, Irving and Meyer (1994)
criticized the studies that were included in the meta-analysis.

In their own study, Irving and Meyer found that an employee’s experiences on the job were most related
to job satisfaction and that the difference between their expectations and experiences was only
minimally related to job-satisfaction. More studies using methods similar to Irving and Meyer’s are
needed to clarify this issue.

In a related meta-analysis,Zhao,Wayne,Glibkowski,and Bravo(2007) investigated the effect of employees

perceiving that an organization has not fulfilled its promises and obligations (called psychological
contracts) to an employee.

When such psychological contract breaches occur, job-satisfaction and organizational commitment go
down and employee intentions to leave the organization increase.

The results of these two meta-analyses support the importance of ensuring not only that applicants
have realistic job expectations but that any promises made to employees must be kept.
Is the Employee a Good Fit with the
Job and the Organization?
When employees consider how well they “fit” with a job or an organization, they consider the
extent to which their values, interests, personality, lifestyle, and skills match those of their
vocation (e.g., a career such as nursing, law enforcement, or psychology), job (its particular
tasks), organization, coworkers, and supervisor

In addition to these five aspects of fit, Cable and DeRue (2002) believe that needs/supplies fit is
also important. Needs/supplies fit is the extent to which the rewards, salary, and benefits
received by employees are perceived to be consistent with their efforts and performance.

Why is “employee fit” important???

Employees who perceive a good fit with their organization, job, coworkers, and supervisor tend
to be satisfied with their jobs, identify with the organization, remain with the organization,
perform better, and engage in Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs).
Another “fit” factor that has been shown to be related to job satisfaction and
commitment is the extent to which employees’ desire for a particular work schedule
(e.g., shift, number of hours) matches their actual schedule.

Branham (2012) believes that there are certain signs to which an organization should
pay attention that indicate a job/person mismatch. Some of these signs are that the
employee

● does not seem excited when first hired or assigned to a job;

● starts asking for some tasks to be given to other employees;
● applies for other jobs in the organization;
● begins to ask for new projects; and
● appears bored or unchallenged.
Other factors that contribute to Job Satisfaction...

Are the Tasks Enjoyable?

Do Employees Enjoy Working with Supervisors and Coworkers?

Are Coworkers Outwardly Unhappy? Let’s talk about this in detail….

Are Coworkers Outwardly
Unhappy?
Social information processing theory, also called social learning theory,
postulates that employees observe the levels of motivation and
satisfaction of other employees and then model those levels:

if an organization’s older employees work hard and talk positively

about their jobs and their employer, new employees will model this
behavior and be both productive and satisfied. The reverse is also true.

In general, the research on social information processing theory

supports the idea that the social environment does have an effect on
employees’ attitudes and behaviors
An IT company in Germany, Nutzwerk, believes
so strongly in this theory that it makes new
employees sign a contract agreeing not to whine
and complain.

The policy was created after employees started

complaining about a woman who kept
complaining!

So far, two employees have been fired for

excessive whining.
Group 1-Adv Group 2-Disadv
1. Reduce leg pulling, 1. .chain of command would weaken
2. Promotes growth in company due to lack of connection
3. .improve employee productivity 2. .adjustment of employees would
4. .more task achievement, lower
5. .goal orientation 3. .restrictive environment
6. .reputation of company stays good 4. .turnover would increase
(conducive comp culture) 5. .
7. . 6. .
7. .
Are Rewards and Resources Given Equitably?
One factor related to both job satisfaction and employee motivation is the extent to which
employees perceive that they are being treated fairly –

equity-theory is based on the premise that our levels of job satisfaction and motivation are
related to how fairly we believe we are treated in comparison with others.

One of the greatest problems with the equity and justice theories is that despite their rational
sense, they are difficult to implement. That is, based on equity and justice theories,the best way
to keep employees satisfied would be to treat them all fairly, which would entail paying the
most to those employees who contributed the most.
 Why is it difficult to apply equity theory?
REASON 1: practicality.

An organization certainly can control such variables as salary, hours worked, and benefits, but it cannot easily
control other variables, such as how far an employee lives from work or the number of friends an employee
makes on the job.

REASON 2: employee’s perception of inputs and outputs determines equity, not the actual inputs and outputs

______________________________

Although equity theory is historically interesting, a more useful approach to fairness issues has been the study of
three aspects of organizational justice:

● Distributive justice The perceived fairness of the decisions made in an organization.

● Procedural justice The perceived fairness of the methods used by an organization to make decisions.
● Interactional justice The perceived fairness of the interpersonal treatment that employees receive in an
organization.
Is There a Chance for
Growth and Challenge?
For many employees, job satisfaction is affected by
opportunities for challenge and growth

To help satisfy employee self-actualization needs,

organizations can do many things. The easiest and
most common are job rotation, job enlargement,
andjob enrichment.
In their job characteristics theory that was discussed, Hackman and Oldham (1975,
1976) theorized that enriched jobs are the most satisfying.

Enriched jobs allow a variety of skills to be used, allow employees to complete an

entire task (e.g., process a loan application from start to finish) rather than parts of a
task, involve tasks that have meaning or importance, allow employees to make
decisions, and provide feedback about performance.

Hackman and Oldham developed the Job Diagnostic Survey(JDS)to measure the
extent to which these characteristics are present in a given job.

If we look again at the job of college professor, job enrichment is clearly an inherent
part of the job. That is, the professor decides what she will research and what she
will teach in a particular course. This authority to make decisions about one’s own
work leads to higher job satisfaction.
So what can be done to enrich the typical factory
worker’s job?
1. One method is to give workers more responsibility over their jobs.
2. Even when increased decision-making responsibilities are not possible, job
enrichment ideas can still be implemented
3. showing employees that their jobs have meaning and that they are meeting
some worth while goal through their work.
4. The final method for increasing employees’ self-actualization needs that we will
discuss here is the use of self-directed teams, or quality circles.
a. With quality circles, employees meet as a group to discuss and make
recommendations about work issues. These issues range from something as trivial as
the music played in the work area to something as important as reducing waste or
improving productivity.
 we have discussed many theories of job
satisfaction.

The question you must be asking (other than

“When does this chapter end?”) is,“How, then,
do we satisfy employees?”
Measuring Job Satisfaction and
Commitment
Job Satisfaction & Commitment
Generally, job satisfaction is measured in one of two ways: standard job satisfaction inventories or
custom-designed satisfaction inventories. Commitment is usually measured through standard
commitment inventories.
Measures of Job Satisfaction
1. Kunin 1955: Faces Scale A measure of job satisfaction in which raters place a mark under a facial
expression that is most similar to the way they feel about their jobs.

the scale is easy to use, it is no longer commonly administered partly because it lacks sufficient detail,
lacks construct validity, and because some employees believe it is so simple that it is demeaning.
2. Job Descriptive Index (JDI): Smith, Kendall, and
Hulin in 1969
3. Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ)

JobinGeneral(JIG)Scale.
MSQ
commonly used measure of organizational commitment is that developed by Allen and
Meyer(1990).TheAllenandMeyersurveyhas24items,8eachforthe3factorsofaffective, continuance, and
normative commitment

Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ): A 15-item questionnaire developed by Mowday,

Steers, and Porter (1979) to measure three commitment factors: acceptance of the organization’s values
and goals, willingness to work to help the organization, and a desire to remain with the organization.
Although the questions tap three factors, most people using the scale combine the factors to yield one
overall commitment score (Kacmar, Carlson, & Brymer, 1999).

Organizational Commitment Scale (OCS): A nine-item survey developed by Balfour and Wechsler (1996)
that measures three aspects of commitment: identification, exchange, and affiliation. Sample questions
include, “I felt like a part of the family at this organization” and “What this organization stands for is
important to me.”
Group
Exercise:
Past policies Suggestions

1. Flexible hours→ effective 1. Monitor attendance by making a team to keep

2. Time constraints → effective track of absentees
3. Paper attendance → not eff 2. Improve workplace morale
4. Attendance in grade → effec 3. Eradicate paper based attendance
5. Low attendance → exam barred 4. Early reminders about attendance
5. 2-3-more absentees you cannot be in exams
6. Through biometric attendance can happen -
reduces manipulation
7. Annual leaves can be provided to higher
attendance ones
8. Can be awarded percentage in grading
9. Surprise quiz
10. End of class attendance
11. Making them aware about consequences
Past policies Suggestions
1. 70/80% → eff 1. Reinforcements to regular ones,
2. First 15 min attendance → eff 2. Irregularity ought to be punished,
3. Exceptional cases/allowances → ineff 3. Regular ones → scholarships/fee
4. Application based → eff concession
5. Medical leave/certificate → eff 4. Recognition in assembly
a. 50 PKR fine per day 5. Public display of names - of regular
6. Biometric attendance - salary ones
deduction on 3 day late → eff 6. New adhoc activities to keep curiosity
7. Machines are at a walk’s distance → eff 7. Transport allowance, Medical
8. Paid leaves, if not utilized, allowance, insurance
compensated in salary → eff 8. Interactive environment
9. Refreshment for employees, monthly,
for regular ones
Consequences of Dissatisfaction and Other Negative
Work Attitudes
1. Absenteeism:
a. The basis behind rewarding attendance and punishing absenteeism is that
employees make a decision each day as to whether they will or will not attend
work. Although the decision-making process is not clearly understood, it
probably includes weighing the consequences of going to work (or to class)
against the consequences of not going.
b. Attendance can be increased through the use of financial incentives,time
off,and recognition programs.
c. Increasing Attendance by Reducing Employee Stress
d. Clear Policies and Better Record Keeping
e. Increasing Attendance by Reducing Illness
f. Reducing Absenteeism by Not Hiring “Absence-Prone” Employees
g. Uncontrollable Absenteeism Caused by Unique Events
2. Turnover:

a. administering attitude surveys to current employees and conducting exit interviews

with employees who are leaving.
b. Salary surveys can also be useful because they allow you to compare your
organization’s pay and benefit practices with
c. Unavoidable turnover includes such reasons as school starting (e.g., quitting a
summer job) or ending (e.g., a student quits her job as a part-time receptionist
because she has graduated and will be moving), the job transfer of a spouse,
employee illness or death, or family issues (e.g., employees staying home to raise
their children or take care of their parents).
d. Employees often leave organizations to pursue promotions or better pay.
e. Employees whose needs are unmet will become dissatisfied and perhaps leave the
organization.
f. A common reason employees leave an organization is to escape from people,
working conditions, and stress.
Concept of “embeddedness”
There are many times when employees remain with an organization even though characteristics of their jobs
suggest that they would leave.

Lee,Mitchell,Sablynski,Burton,and Holtom(2004) suggest that the extent to which an employee is embedded

in the organization or the community might explain this lack of turnover.

Embeddedness is described as the extent to which employees have links to their jobs and community, the
importance of these links, and the ease with which these links could be broken and re-established elsewhere.

That is, if an employee has many friends at work or in the community, is actively involved in community
organizations, and has a spouse who also has an excellent job; it would be difficult to leave an organization if
the only alternative was to relocate to another community.

Ramesh and Gelfand(2010) have expanded the concept of embeddedness to include the extent to which an
employee fits with the culture of the organization and community, the employee’s links to people in the
organization and the community, and the sacrifices an employee would make if he left the organization or the
community.
3. Counterproductive Behaviors
Cropanzano and Greenberg (1997) found that employees who were unhappy with the way in which they
were treated by their supervisors had an increased likelihood of stealing from their employers.

The interesting finding of this study was that the employees tended to take things that were of value to
the organization but not to them.

That is, they didn’t steal because they wanted an item, they stole because they wanted to hurt the
organization.
4. Lack of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors
Employees who engage in Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs) are motivated to help the
organization and their coworkers by doing the “little things”that they are not required to do. Examples of
OCBs include staying late to get a project done, helping a coworker who is behind in her job, mentoring
a new employee, volunteering for committees, and flying in coach when the employee might been titled
to first class.