1 / 18

Lecture 2: Job Satisfaction

Lecture 2: Job Satisfaction. Positive or negative attitude About one’s job or Aspect of the job (facet) supervisor, pay, coworkers, etc.). Job Satisfaction. Attitude: three components Belief (cognitive) E.g. “ My boss is nuts” Affective (feeling) Leaning toward + or against (-)

telder
Download Presentation

Lecture 2: Job Satisfaction

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lecture 2: Job Satisfaction • Positive or negative attitude • About one’s job or • Aspect of the job (facet) • supervisor, pay, coworkers, etc.)

  2. Job Satisfaction • Attitude: three components • Belief (cognitive) • E.g. “My boss is nuts” • Affective (feeling) • Leaning toward + or against (-) • Behavioral • - e.g. worked after hours without pay • implies + affect…or not

  3. Pisa Towerwith an attitude

  4. Work Practices and Job Sat. Figure 9.1

  5. Overall vs. Facet Satisfaction • Overall satisfaction • combined facet scores • or a single overall evaluative rating of the job • Facet satisfaction • Information related to specific aspect of job • Pay, supervision, nature of the work

  6. Job Satisfaction Survey, Paul Spector • JSS overview • JSS scoring instructions • JSS score interpretation • JSS norms

  7. Faces Scale (Kunin)

  8. Satisfaction Questionnaires • Job Descriptive Index (JDI) • Assesses satisfaction with work itself, supervision, people, pay, & promotion • Heavily researched but lengthy • Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) • Calculates “extrinsic” & “intrinsic” satisfaction scores

  9. Commitment • Psychological (or) • Emotional attachment to a • job • organization • occupation Royalty-Free/CORBIS

  10. Forms of Organizational Commitment(Meyer & Allen) • Affective commitment • Emotional attachment to an organization • Continuance commitment • Perceived cost of leaving the organization • Normative commitment • Obligation to remain in the organization

  11. Employee Engagement • Positive work-related orientation • Dedication – committed to • Absorption - • Vigor (high levels of energy, enthusiasm, and • Inferred from • Attitudes toward job • Behaviors exhibited on the job e.g. • “discretionary” work- related behaviors not required • OCBs

  12. Engagement Attitudes Predict Discretionary and Non-Discretionary Work Behaviors Tom Mitchell, University of Baltimore(tmitchell@ubalt.edu) Matthew Ancona, University of Baltimore Abstract Employee engagement has generated much interest in both business and academic domains. However, researchers have yet to agree upon a uniform definition of employee engagement (Robinson, Perryman, & Hayday, 2004). But a number of them include components of both attitudes and behaviors. We consider engagement attitudes and behaviors to be distinct constructs. A large sample of government employees completed the Engagement Attitudes Scale and the Engagement Behaviors Scale. Engagement attitudes predicted both and discretionary engagement behaviors such as extending help to co-workers and non-discretionary engagement behaviors such as proficiency in one’s tasks. Hypotheses • Engagement Attitudes will predict both Discretionary and Non-Discretionary Engagement Behaviors Results Scales Psychometrics: • Subscale inter-correlations r = .30 to .69 • Cronbach’s a = .6 to .9 Regression Outcomes: • Discretionary Engagement Behaviors: (R2 adj = .289, F(3, 934) = 263.34, p < .001) • Non-discretionary Engagement Behaviors: (R2adj = .266, F(3,1934) = 235.26, p < .001) • Total Engagement Behaviors (Figure 1): (R2adj = .329, F(3,1934) = 316.28, p < .001) Method Participants: • N = 1,938 (63% response rate) from large State agency • Age: 20 to 75 years (M = 45.4; SD = 11.2) • Tenure: 1 to 48 years (M = 15.8; SD = 11.4) Measures: Engagement Attitudes Scale (MSPB, 2007) (5 subscales, 15 items): • Pride in Work or Workplace (4) • Satisfaction with Leadership (2) • Opportunity to Perform Well (4) • Satisfaction with Recognition Received (2) • Positive Work Environment with a teamwork focus (3) Engagement Behaviors Scale (Warr et al., 2013) (6 subscales, 18 items) Discretionary Behaviors subscales: • Task Proactivity (3) • Taking Charge (3) • Strategic Scanning (3) • Problem Prevention (3) • Extra Role Behavior, Altruism, Org advocacy (3) Non-Discretionary Behaviors subscale: (1 scale, 3 items) • Task Proficiency - required duties - (3) Figure 1. Beta weights for Predictors of Engagement behaviors Pride in Work or Workplace b= .379 Engagement Behaviors Opportunity to Perform Well b= .182 b= .073 Positive Work Environment Discussion Our findings support the notion that engagement attitudes predict both non-discretionary (required) and discretionary engagement behaviors. Thus, engagement researchers should consider both attitudinal and behavioral definitions of employment engagement. The primary limitation of this study was that both attitudes and behaviors were self-reported and therefore did not control for common method variance. These findings may help managers identify specific drivers for performance and target them for interventions. Both non-discretionary and discretionary behaviors are subject to varying levels of engagement. However, enhancements in performance may be more likely to achieved by focusing more on discretionary activities such as citizenship behavior, searching for better ways to work, and anticipating problems that lie ahead. Interventions that improve the attitudes that drive engagements behaviors will likely result in enhanced performance and lead to greater job satisfaction. References MSPB Engagement Scale (2007, Feb). Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey, Washington, DC, Robinson, D., Perryman, S., & Hayday, S. (2004, April). The drivers of employee engagement (Report 408). Brighton, UK: Institute for Employment Studies. Warr, P., Bindl, U. K., Parker, S. K., & Inceoglu, I. (2014, May). Four-quadrant investigation of job-related affects and behaviors. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23, 342-363,

  13. Figure 1. Beta weights for significant predictors of job engagement behaviors Pride in Work or Workplace b= .379 Engagement Behaviors b= .182 Opportunity to Perform Well b= .073 Positive Work Environment

  14. Distinctions AmongEmotions and Related Constructs

  15. Genetics & Job Satisfaction • In a 1986 study, disposition in adolescence predicted job satisfaction as long as 50 years later • Additional research has been conducted in this controversial area, but considerably more research is necessary on the links between genetics and job satisfaction M. Freeman/PhotoLink/Getty Images

  16. Dispositions (Personality) & Affectivity: PANA (Watson, Clark, and Tellegen) • Negative affectivity (NA) • Malcontents (don’t like any job..you know one!) • Stable trait across jobs • Positive affectivity (PA) • Pollyanna (happy about whatever they have to do!) • cheerful, (disgustingly so sometimes!)

  17. Core Evaluations(Judge & Bono, 2001) • Assessments individuals make of their circumstances • Include self-esteem, self-efficacy, & LOC • Have effects on both job & life satisfaction

  18. Elements of Core Evaluations

More Related