4.5 Satisfaction at work
- Syllabus
- 9990–2028–2029
- Topic
- 4.5
- Level
- A2
Learning objectives
4.5.1Theories of job satisfaction• 4.5.1 Theories of job satisfaction- theories of job satisfaction: Herzberg's two factor theory including hygiene and motivational factors.- Hackman and Oldham's job characteristics theory including job characteristics and psychological states.- techniques of job design: enrichment, rotation and enlargement, e.g. Belias and Sklikas, (2013).- Relevant issues and debates and methodology for this topic include: application to everyday life, cultural differences, reductionism versus holism, idiographic versus nomothetic, generalisations.4.5.2Measuring job satisfaction• 4.5.2 Measuring job satisfaction- job satisfaction rating scales and questionnaires focusing on the job descriptive index (JDI).- Walton's quality of working life (QWL) including eight dimensions to evaluate QWL.- Relevant issues and debates and methodology for this topic include: individual and situational explanations, quantitative and qualitative data, psychometrics, validity, reliability.4.5.3Attitudes to work• 4.5.3 Attitudes to work- workplace sabotage including methods and reasons for sabotage (exemplified by the following key study).- Key study reasons for sabotage in the workplace: Giacalone and Rosenfeld (1987).- Blau and Boal's absenteeism and organisational commitment model including types of absence, categories of commitment.- Relevant issues and debates and methodology for this topic include: application to everyday life, individual and situational explanations, reductionism versus holism, idiographic versus nomothetic, generalisations. knowledge and skills to explore the challenges plays a key role in every student's education.'
Job satisfaction needs both a sound context and meaningful work
| Herzberg factor | Examples | Predicted function |
|---|---|---|
| Hygiene/context | Pay, security, policy, supervision, relationships and conditions | Poor hygiene creates dissatisfaction; adequate hygiene prevents dissatisfaction but need not create strong satisfaction |
| Motivator/job content | Achievement, recognition, responsibility, advancement, growth and the work itself | Presence can create satisfaction and intrinsic motivation |
| Hackman–Oldham job characteristic | Psychological route |
|---|---|
| Skill variety + task identity + task significance | Experienced meaningfulness of work |
| Autonomy | Experienced responsibility for outcomes |
| Feedback from the job | Knowledge of actual results |
When all three psychological states are present, the model predicts higher internal motivation, satisfaction and effective performance, with lower absence/turnover. Effects are not identical for everyone: knowledge/skill, growth need and context can moderate whether a richer job is welcomed and successfully performed.
| Job-design technique | What changes | Likely benefit and risk |
|---|---|---|
| Rotation | Worker moves among tasks/jobs over time | Variety/learning; requires training and may disrupt mastery |
| Enlargement | Adds more same-level tasks horizontally | Broader task identity/variety; can become ‘more work’ without autonomy |
| Enrichment | Adds vertical responsibility, decision control, meaningful whole work and feedback | Strengthens autonomy/meaning/knowledge; poor support can create overload, unfairness or short-term performance loss |
Removing bad conditions is not the same as creating fulfilling work, and adding tasks is not automatically enrichment. Diagnose the missing factor/characteristic, co-design the change, provide training and check satisfaction, safety and performance over time and across cultures.
Job-satisfaction scores reveal selected facets, not the whole experience
| Job Descriptive Index (JDI) | Operational detail |
|---|---|
| Format | Standardised self-report, commonly 72 descriptive items; answer Yes, No or ? (cannot decide) |
| Five facets | Work itself, pay, promotion opportunities, supervision and co-workers |
| Output/use | Separate numeric facet scores; compare with updated norms or before/after policy to locate a specific problem |
| Strength/limit | Easy, readable and comparable; forced choices omit reasons and unlisted sources of satisfaction |
| Walton QWL dimension | What it asks organisations to evaluate |
|---|---|
| Fair and adequate compensation | Pay, comparison, benefits and participation in results |
| Safe and healthy conditions | Physical/psychological protection |
| Use/development of capacities | Skill, autonomy, information and whole-task opportunity |
| Growth and security | Career development and continuity |
| Social integration | Belonging, equality and relationships |
| Constitutionalism | Rights, procedures, privacy and voice |
| Work and total life space | Balance with non-work life |
| Social relevance | Social responsibility/value of organisation and work |
QWL uses Likert-type satisfaction ratings across a broader 35-item work-life framework; JDI uses simpler adjective/statement choices across five job facets. Choose JDI for focused standardised diagnosis and norms; choose QWL when pay, rights, growth, life balance and social relevance all matter.
Standard wording/scoring supports reliability and quantitative comparison, not objectivity of the underlying self-report. Social desirability, fear about employment, acquiescence, ambiguous/complex QWL vocabulary, fatigue and cultural interpretation can reduce validity. Use anonymity, accessible piloting, facet-level reporting and optional interviews/open comments; never treat one total as the employee's complete experience.
Work attitudes predict different forms of withdrawal—not one bad-worker type
Workplace sabotage is intentional employee behaviour aimed at causing production or profit loss. Giacalone and Rosenfeld grouped methods as work slowdowns, destruction of machinery/premises/products, dishonesty and causing chaos; reported reasons included revenge, deserved harm, prior hurt, release of frustration, fun, no-one being hurt and job protection.
| Giacalone & Rosenfeld (1987) | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Sample/context | 38 volunteer unionised labourers in a north-eastern US electrical factory |
| Method | Anonymous questionnaire designed with a recently resigned insider; rated 11 reasons and 29 sabotage forms on 1–7 scales; reason totals split high/low at median 25.5 |
| Result | High reason-acceptors justified slowdowns, destructiveness and chaos more than low acceptors, but not dishonesty |
| Ethics/validity | No names/management access reduced retaliation and encouraged honesty; cover story reduced demand, but sensitive self-report, deception, tiny single factory and insider-defined forms constrain validity/generalisation |
Job involvement is identification with and active investment in the work itself. Organisational commitment is attachment and loyalty to the organisation and its goals. Blau and Boal combine these independent dimensions rather than assuming that someone who loves the work must love the employer.
| Blau–Boal profile | Job involvement | Organisational commitment | Predicted withdrawal pattern |
|---|---|---|---|
| Institutionalised star | High | High | Lowest absence/turnover; mainly infrequent medical/uncontrollable absence |
| Lone wolf | High | Low | Strong task effort but more likely to leave/pursue career-enhancing absence |
| Corporate citizen | Low | High | Loyal/group-maintaining; absence follows workplace/group norms |
| Apathetic employee | Low | Low | Highest calculative absence/turnover, using absence as exchange/time strategy |
Four absence meanings: medical (illness/injury/fatigue/family demands), career-enhancing (pursues task/career goals such as interviews), normative (habitual response to group absence norms), and calculative (deliberate use of allowed/unallowed absence to rebalance the employment exchange or non-work time).
Questionnaire acceptance of a reason is not observed sabotage, and an absence category is an interpretation—not proof of motive. Use records, context and employee voice before intervention. Reducing sabotage or withdrawal should address fair pay, voice, job design, leadership and security as well as proportionate controls; blanket surveillance may suppress reporting and deepen the grievance.