Satisfaction at Work

Job satisfaction is how positive or negative a person feels about their job — an attitude toward work, shaped by the work itself, conditions, pay, colleagues and management.

Why organisations care. Job satisfaction is linked (to varying degrees) with:

• organisational commitment and staff retention (satisfied workers stay),
• lower absenteeism and turnover,
• better wellbeing, and
• productivity — though the satisfaction–productivity link is weaker and more complex than people assume (a happy worker is not automatically more productive).

Satisfaction as an attitude. Like any attitude, satisfaction has cognitive (beliefs about the job), affective (feelings) and behavioural (e.g. effort, attendance) components — which is why it links to behaviours like absenteeism.

Why this matters for the exam. Hold two ideas: (1) job satisfaction is an attitude with real behavioural consequences (commitment, absence), and (2) the satisfaction–productivity link is weak/complex — a ready evaluation point. These frame the theories, measures and absenteeism that follow.

Herzberg's two-factor theory (also a motivation theory — see [[motivation-to-work]]) distinguishes:

• Motivators (the work itself — achievement, recognition, responsibility, advancement) → cause satisfaction;
• Hygiene factors (the context — pay, conditions, policy, supervision) → only prevent dissatisfaction. So enriching the work (more motivators) raises satisfaction; improving pay/conditions only stops people being unhappy.

The Job Characteristics Model (Hackman & Oldham). Job satisfaction comes from designing jobs with five core dimensions:

• Skill variety — using a range of skills,
• Task identity — completing a whole, identifiable piece of work,
• Task significance — the job matters to others,
• Autonomy — freedom over how to do it,
• Feedback — clear information on performance. These produce three psychological states — experienced meaningfulness, responsibility and knowledge of results — which lead to satisfaction, motivation and quality. The model also notes a person's growth-need strength moderates the effect (it works best for people who want growth).

Evaluation in brief. Both theories have strong application (job enrichment and job redesign) and shift focus to intrinsic job content. But Herzberg's evidence rests on a specific interview method (possible bias), and the Job Characteristics Model relies on self-report and works better for some people (high growth-need) than others — so effects vary by individual and culture.

Job satisfaction is usually measured by self-report, because it is an attitude.

Job Descriptive Index (JDI). A widely used questionnaire measuring satisfaction across five facets: the work itself, pay, promotion, supervision and co-workers. Respondents indicate whether words/phrases describe each facet, giving a profile rather than a single score — useful because someone can like the work but hate the pay.

Quality of Working Life (QWL) surveys. Broader measures covering wellbeing, work–life balance, conditions and involvement.

Rating scales / single-item measures. E.g. Likert scales ('how satisfied are you with…?') and faces scales — quick but less detailed.

Evaluation in brief. These measures are practical, standardised (allowing comparison) and capture the employee's own view. But they are self-report, so prone to social desirability and mood at the time of completion; satisfaction is multifaceted (a single score hides facet differences); and meaning/translation can vary across cultures. Combining standardised scales with interviews (qualitative) gives a fuller picture.

Beyond satisfaction with the job, employees have attitudes toward the organisation.

Organisational commitment (Allen & Meyer's three-component model):

• Affective commitment — an emotional attachment to the organisation ('I want to stay'); the strongest, most positive form.
• Continuance commitment — staying because leaving is costly ('I need to stay' — losing pension, no alternatives).
• Normative commitment — a sense of obligation ('I ought to stay' — loyalty/duty).

Why it matters. High (especially affective) commitment is linked to lower turnover and absenteeism, more effort and 'going the extra mile'. Commitment and satisfaction overlap but differ — you can be satisfied with the job yet not committed to the organisation, or vice versa.

Building commitment: fair treatment, involvement, development opportunities, supportive leadership and a positive culture.

Evaluation in brief. The model is useful and applied (retention strategies), but it relies on self-report, the components can overlap, and what builds commitment is culturally and individually variable.

Absenteeism is failure to attend work; it is costly and often (though not only) linked to low satisfaction/commitment.

Causes:

• Voluntary (avoidable) — low satisfaction, low commitment, stress, escaping a poor job (a withdrawal behaviour);
• Involuntary (unavoidable) — genuine illness, caring duties, transport. Models distinguish absence driven by motivation to attend vs ability to attend.

Measuring absenteeism: absence frequency (number of spells) and time lost (total days), plus self-report and records — though records can be unreliable and definitions vary.

Managing absenteeism:

• increase satisfaction/commitment (job redesign, fair treatment),
• reward good attendance (incentives/token economy) — though this can encourage 'presenteeism' (attending while ill),
• return-to-work interviews, flexible working, and tackling causes (stress, conditions).

Pulling it together for Paper 3 'evaluate / discuss':

• Strengths: strong application (retention, wellbeing, absence management); useful standardised measures (JDI).
• Weaknesses: heavy reliance on self-report; satisfaction–productivity (and satisfaction–absence) links are weak/correlational; individual and cultural differences in what satisfies.
• Debates: application to everyday life; individual vs situational; idiographic vs nomothetic (one scale vs the individual); use of quantitative vs qualitative data.