CHAPTER –III

THEORETICAL CONCEPTS OF JOB SATISFACTION

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Growth

3.3 The idea of Job Satisfaction

3.4 Significance of Job Satisfaction

3.5 Job Satisfaction – different schools of thought

3.6 Theories of Job Satisfaction

3.7 Measuring of Job Satisfaction

3.8 A model of dimension satisfaction

3.9 Determinants of Job Satisfaction and dissatisfaction

3.10 Performance and contentment

3.11 Job Satisfaction and organizational behaviour

3.12 Summary

3.1 Introduction

Job Satisfaction is a very significant emotional and psychological requirement for

a teacher to bring out the best in him. In the absence of this, they will not work at the

optimum level and ultimately the institution will suffer. No doubt, without getting good

and reasonable salary, a teacher cannot be expected to have satisfaction over his job. Still,

it has to be understood that salary alone will not give a complete contentment. In addition

to the salary, designation, furniture, power and privacy also matter a great deal. Hence it

has to be understood that not only economic factors but also other non-economic and

88
psychological factors play a greater role in determining the job-satisfaction level of the

teacher.

3.2 Growth

This has assumed greater importance today in the current setup than it had ever

been before in industrial history. The working force is getting better organized each day.

It is conscious of its power of members, and is much more politically active today than it

had ever been. As such employers can hope to seek its willing co-operation if only it is

kept reasonably satisfied with its job. A dissatisfied and disgruntled work group could

create havoc in the organizations through go-slow tactics, agitations and strikes. Apart

from human considerations, keeping the workers reasonably satisfied on the job is the

demand of expediency for the smooth organizational functioning in the present day setup.

3.3 The idea of Job Satisfaction.

Job satisfaction is a motivation factor and an integration factor as well. It is

equally a morale booster. Job satisfaction refers to the attitude of the employee towards

his job. It is related to the degree to which the employee’s personal needs are fulfilled in

the job situation. Thus, job satisfaction is the favourableness with which employees view

their work.

Thus, job satisfaction is an expected outcome of positive job involvement. High

job satisfaction contributes to organizational commitment, job involvement, better

physical and mental health and quality of life to the employees. On the other hand, job

89
dissatisfaction, leads to absenteeism, labour turnover, labour problems and a negative

organizational climate.

3.4 Significance of job satisfaction

Obviously job satisfaction significantly contributes to employees’ productivity

and morale. An industrial organization can be substantially benefited if it cares to develop

general individual attitudes in its personnel that can effectively contribute to job

satisfaction. If an organization or company appropriately discovers attitudes or factors

related to the job, it can take necessary steps to prevent bad situations and thereby

improve it. Vroom examined the relationship between job satisfaction and certain aspects

of job behaviour, namely “turnover, absenteeism, accidents and job performance”. He

found that “the higher the employee’s satisfaction, the less aptitude he has to leave his

job; there is little relationship between the amount of job satisfaction and the degree of

work absenteeism; there is negative or no relationship between accidents and job

satisfaction sine there is considerable evidence to show that most accidents are caused

simply by chance factors1.

Thus while each of the categories considered by Vroom is concerned with

job-related behaviour and job satisfaction, none of them seems to be directly related to

actual job performance, that is, how well the employee actually accomplishes the job

assigned to him.

90
3.5 Job satisfaction – Different schools of Thought

Research on job satisfaction can be divided into different schools of thought. That

is what can be called the psychological needs school – exemplified by psychologists such

as Maslow, Herzberg, Likert and others. They see motivation as the central factor in job

satisfaction and concentrate their attention of stimuli which are believed to lead to

motivation. The needs of individuals for achievement, recognition, responsibility, status

and advancement are the stimuli2.

A sound school devotes its attention to leadership as a factor in job satisfaction.

Psychologists see the behaviour of supervisors as an important influence on employees’

attitudes and divert their observations at leadership style and the response of

subordinates.

The third school, strongly represented at the Manchester Business School by

Lupton, Gowler and Legge, approach job satisfaction from a quite different angle and

examine the effort-reward bargain as an important variable. This leads to a consideration

of how the wages and salaries of particular groups are constructed and the influences of

factors such as overtime pay and the state of labour market on earnings and employee’s

attitudes to them.

Yet another school of thought approaches job satisfaction from an entirely

different angle and sees management ideology and values as an important behaviour as

‘punishment-centered’, and ‘mock’ bureaucracy. Punishment-centered bureaucracy is the

type of management behaviour which responds to deviations from rules and procedures.

Mock bureaucracy is said to exist when an organization has rules and procedures but

91
neither management nor the workers identify it with these or accept them as legitimate. In

consequence, they are generally ignored. Although a discussion of values as such does

not appear often in the job satisfaction literature, it is clear that the kind of legislation

formulated by management, and employees’ perceptions of the legitimacy of this, must

have an influence on job satisfaction.

Fifthly there are behavioural scientists who say that the factors described above

are extrinsic to the tasks an employee is required to carry out and therefore a less

important factor in job satisfaction than the work itself and the way it is structured. This

group concentrates on the contents of work and on the job design factors. In Europe, they

are represented by cooper at Livepool, Herbst Thorsmd and Gulowsen in Norway and the

Taristook Institute in London.

Sixthly, some contributes thinking on the subject, including the Herbery School;

seem to suggest that it is only necessary to identify the needs of an employee. The

organization for which he works must then ensure that these needs are met, if it wishes to

secure the advantages of a labour force performing at a high level of job satisfaction. As

such, job satisfaction is positively related to the degree to which one’s personal needs are

fulfilled in the job situation. A more realistic approach to job satisfaction may be to look

at the individual’s needs in the work situation and to examine also the needs of the firm

and the demands which it has to make of its employees because of pressure exerted by

the environment in which it operates. This leads to a consideration of job satisfaction in

terms of the degree of fitness between what an organization requires of its employees and

what the employees seek from the firm.

92
3.6 Theories of Job Satisfaction

Regardless of the authors, generally it is agreed that job satisfaction involves the

attitudes, emotions, and feelings about a job, and how these attitudes, emotions and

feelings affect the job and the employee’s personal life. Given the many definitions of job

satisfaction, many scholars have proposed various theories of job satisfaction. These

theories have been developed, then either supported or rejected by others in the field of

work motivation and behavioral research. Today the classic theories of Maslow (1943),

Herzberg (1968), and Vroom (1964) on job satisfaction are the basis for much of the

modern day studies. These classic theories have served as a basis for the evolution of job

satisfaction research and have served as a springboard for research inside and outside the

field of education. Because these classic theories have transcended into the field of

education, from a historical perspective, it is important to look at the classic theories of

job satisfaction.

In their book on theories of job satisfaction, Campbell, Dunnettee, Lawler, and

Weik (1970) divide the present-day theories of job satisfaction into two groups, content

theories which give an account of the factors that influence job satisfaction and process

theories that try to give an account of the process by which variables such as

expectations, needs, and values relate to the characteristics of the job to produce

job satisfaction. Maslow’s (1943) Needs Hierarchy Theory and its development by

Herzberg into the two factor theory of job satisfaction are examples of content theory.

Equity, fulfillment and Vroom’s (1964) expectancy theory are examples of process

theory.

93
3.6.1 Content Theories

Content theories were concerned with the specific identity of what it is within an

individual or his/her environment that energizes and sustains behavior. In other words,

what specific things motivate people (Campbell et al, 1970)? Maslow (1954) suggested

that people are driven by unsatisfied needs that shape their behavior. He theorized that

after a person has moved from a lower to a higher level of need, the higher-level needs

assume less prominence since they have been adequately met. Although lower level

needs may at times increase in importance as a consequence of progressing through

stages of psychological development, a person tends to develop a “personality structure”

in which his various needs form a hierarchical system. Maslow (1954) and Hoppock

(1935) suggested that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction share a single continuum. They

reasoned that both intrinsic and extrinsic factors have the capacity to create satisfaction

and dissatisfaction. Maslow described one end of this continuum as “growth” needs and,

at the other end of the continuum “deficiency” needs. Pinder (1998) describes the first set

of needs as basic survival needs, which can be looked at as those needs being concerned

with the avoiding of pain and discomfort and as providing primary needs such as sex,

thirst, and hunger. Pinder describes the second set of growth needs as those that express

themselves in attempts by people to become all that they are capable of becoming.

3.6.2 Process Theories

Process theories try to explain and describe the process of how behavior is

energized, directed, sustained, and stopped. To explain and describe behavior these

theories try to define the major variables that are important for explaining motivated

people (Campbell et al. 1970).

94
 Process theorists see job satisfaction as being determined not only by the nature of

the job and its context within the organization, but also by the needs, values and

expectations that the individuals have in relation to their job (Gruneberg. 1979). For

example some individuals have a greater need for pay and achievement than others and

where a job gives no opportunity for increased pay of achievement; such individuals are

likely to be more frustrated than those whose need for higher pay and achievement is less.

Three sub-theories of process theory have been developed; theory based on discrepancy

between what the job offers and what is expected, theory based on what an individual

needs, and theory based on what the individual values.

3.6.3 Reference Group Theory

Reference group theory gave rise to the thought that employees compare their

inputs and outputs from his/her job to others, such as his/her friends, co-workers, and

others in the industry. One can easily see this is prevalent in the field of education as

teachers and administrators often compare salary and benefits between districts and

states. Theorists, such as Hulin and Blood (1968) have argued that the understanding of

the groups to whom the individuals relate is critical to understanding job satisfaction.

3.6.4 Work Adjustment Theory

In 1964, the first version of work adjustment theory was published by Dawis,

England, and Lofquist. The theory was revised in 1968, and extended forms of the theory

were published in book form in 1969 (Lofquist & Dawis, 1969). The theory of work

adjustment is based on the concept of correspondence between the individual and

environment (Davis & Lofquist, 1984).

95
 This theory includes a basic assumption that the individual seeks to achieve and to

maintain correspondence with the environment. While many kinds of environments exist

for an individual – home, school, work, church – to which an individual must relate,

achieving and maintaining correspondence with one environment may affect the

correspondence with other environments.

Work then represents one such environment in which one must relate. Satisfaction

then indicates the correspondence between the individual and the work environment

(Davis & Lofquist, 1984).

Davis, England and Lofquist (1964) formulated a theory of vocational psychology

that was based on the idea that the individual is a responding organism. As individuals

respond to their environment, their responding becomes associated with reinforcements

in the environment. Davis et al. (1964) summarized the theory of work adjustment in the

following statements:

1. Work is conceptualized as an interaction between an individual and a work

environment.

2. The work environment requires that certain tasks be performed, and the individual

brings skills to perform the tasks.

3. In exchange, the individual requires compensation for work performance and

certain preferred conditions, such as a safe and comfortable place to work.

4. The environment and the individual must continue to meet each other’s

requirements for the interaction to be maintained. The degree to which the

requirements of both are met may be called correspondence.

96
 5. Work adjustment is the process of achieving and maintaining correspondence.

Work adjustment is indicated by the satisfaction of the individual with the work

environment and by the satisfaction of the work environment with the individual,

by the individual’s satisfaction.

6. Satisfaction and satisfactoriness result in tenure, the principal indicator of work

adjustment.

7. Work personalities and work environments can be described in terms of

structure and style variables that are measured on the same dimensions (p.9-10).

Looking at these seven summary statements of work adjustment, it is easy

to see why many researchers use this instrument when exploring aspects

of job satisfaction (Chen. 2000: Genzen, 1993: Sutter, 1994: Waskiewicz, 1999).

Each of the seven statements adds to the concept that individuals act, react, and

come to terms with their work environment thus adjusting to the work

environment.

3.6.5 Dispositional Theory

Another well-known job satisfaction theory is the Dispositional Theory. It is a

very general theory that suggests that people have innate dispositions that cause them to

have tendencies toward a certain level of satisfaction, regardless of one’s job. This

approach became a notable explanation of job satisfaction in the light of evidence that job

satisfaction tends to be stable over time and across careers and jobs. Research also

indicates that identical twins have similar levels of job satisfaction.

97
 A significant model that narrowed the scope of the Dispositional Theory was the

Core Self-evaluations Model, proposed by Timothy A. Judge in 1998. Judge argued that

there are four Core Self-evaluations that determine one’s disposition towards job

satisfaction: self-esteem, general self-efficacy, locus of control, and neuroticism. This

model states that higher levels of self-esteem (the value one places on his/her self) and

general self-efficacy (the belief in one’s own competence) lead to higher

work satisfaction. Having an internal locus of control (believing one has control over

her/his own life, as opposed to outside forces having control) leads to higher job

satisfaction. Finally, lower levels of neuroticism lead to higher job satisfaction.

3.6.6 Affect Theory

Edwin A. Locke’s Range of Affect Theory (1976) is arguably the most famous

job satisfaction model. The main premise of this theory is that satisfaction is determined

by a discrepancy between what one wants in a job and what one has in a job. Further, the

theory states that how much one values a given fact of work (e.g. the degree of autonomy

in a position) moderates how satisfied/dissatisfied one becomes when expectations

are/aren’s met. When a person values a particular facet of a job, his satisfaction is more

greatly impacted both positively (when expectations are met) and negatively (when

expectations are not met), compared to one who doesn’t value that facet. To illustrate, if

Employee A values autonomy in the workplace and Employee B is indifferent about

autonomy, then Employee A would be more satisfied in a position that offers a high

degree of autonomy and less satisfied in a position with little or no autonomy compared

to Employee B. This theory also states that too much of a particular facet will produce

stronger feelings of dissatisfaction the more a worker values that facet.

98
3.6.7 Fulfillment Theory

Schaffer has argued that “Job Satisfaction will vary directly to the extent to which

those needs of an individual which can be satisfied are actually satisfied”3.

Vroom also sees job satisfaction in terms of the degree to which a job provides

the person with positively valued outcomes. He equates satisfaction with valence and

adds, “If we describe a person as satisfied with an object, we mean that the object has

positive valence for him. However, satisfaction has a much more restricted usage. In

common parlance, we refer to a person’s satisfaction only with reference to objects which

he possesses4. Researchers who have adopted the fulfillment approach measure people’s

satisfaction by simply asking how much of a given facet or outcome they are receiving.

Thus, these researchers view satisfaction as depending on how much of a given outcome

or group of outcomes a person receives. Fulfillment theories have considered how facet-

satisfaction measures combine to determine overall satisfaction. The crucial issue is

whether the facet- satisfaction measures should be weighted by their importance to the

person when they combine. Some job factors are more important than other job factors

for each individual. Therefore, the important factors need to be weighted more in

determining the individual’s total satisfaction. However, there is evidence that the

individual’s facet satisfaction scores reflect this emphasis already and thus do not need to

be further weighted.

A great deal of research shows that people’s satisfaction is a function both of

how much they receive and of how much they feel they should and want to receive.

A foreman, for example, may be satisfied with a salary of Rs.12,000, while the

99
President of a company may be dissatisfied with a salary of Rs.100,000, even though the

President correctly perceives that he receives more than the foreman. The point is that

people’s reactions to what they receive are not simply a function of how much they

receive; their reactions are strongly influenced by such individual-difference factor which

suggests that the fulfillment theory approach to job satisfaction is not valid, since this

approach fails to take into account differences in people’s feelings about what outcomes

they should receive.

Morse stated this point of view as follows; At first, satisfaction would simply

a function of how much a person received from the situation or what we have called

the amount of environmental return. It made sense to feel that those who were in more

need-fulfilling environments would be more satisfied. But the amount of environmental

return did not seem to be the only factor involved. Another factor obviously had to be

included in order to predict satisfaction accurately. This variable is the strength of an

individual’s desires, or his level of aspiration in a particular area. If the environment

provided little possibility for need satisfaction, those with the strongest desires, or highest

aspirations, were the least happy5. Discrepancy theory represents an attempt to take into

account the fact that people do differ in their desires.

3.6.8. Discrepancy Theory

Recently many psychologists have argued for a discrepancy approach to thinking

about satisfaction. They maintain that satisfaction is determined by the differences

between the actual outcome a person receives and some other outcome level. The theories

differ widely in their definitions of this other outcome level the person feels should be

100
received, and for other theories it is the outcome level the person expects to receive. All

of the theoretical approaches argue that what is received should be compared with

another outcome level, and when there is a difference when received outcome is below

the other outcome level, dissatisfaction results. Thus, if a person expects or thinks he

should he satisfied with further pay, the prediction is that he will be more dissatisfied

than the person who receives a salary Rs.9000 and expects or thinks he should receive a

salary of Rs.10,000.

Katzell and Locke have probably presented the two most completely developed

discrepancy theory approaches to satisfaction. According to Katzell, satisfaction = 1 –

[(1x-v1)v], where X equals the actual amount of the outcome and V equals the desired

amount of outcome6. Like many discrepancy theorists, he sees satisfaction as the

difference between an actual amount and some desired amount; but, unlike most

discrepancy theorists, he presumes that this difference should be divided by the desired

amount of outcome. By using Katzell’s formula, it is to be believed that the more a

person wants of an outcome, the less dissatisfied he would be with a given discrepancy.

He offers no evidence for this assumption, and it is hard to support logically.

A discrepancy from what is desired would seem to be equally dissatisfying regardless

of how much is desired. Katzell also speaks of ‘actual’ discrepancies, while most

discrepancy theorists talk of “perceived” discrepancies. Note also that by Katzell’s

formula, getting more than the desired amount should produce less satisfaction than

getting the desired amount.

101
 Locke has stated a discrepancy theory that differs from Katzell’s in several ways.

First, Locke emphasizes that the perceived discrepancy, not the actual discrepancy, is

important. He also argues that satisfaction is determined by the simple difference

between what the person wants and what he perceives to receive. The more his wants

exceed what he receives the greater is his dissatisfaction. Locke says, “Job satisfaction

and dissatisfaction are a function of the perceived relationship between what one wants

from one’s job and what one perceives it is offering.

Porter in measuring satisfaction asks people how much of a given outcome there

should be for their job and how much of a given outcome there actually is; he considers

the discrepancy to be the most widely used. It differs from Loke’s approach since it sees

satisfaction as influenced not by how much a person wants but by how much he feels he

should receive.7

A few researchers have argued that satisfaction is determined by what a person

expects to receive rather than what he wants or feels he should receive. Thus, the

literature on job satisfaction contains three different discrepancy approaches; the first

looks at what people want, the second at what people feel they should receive, and the

third what people expect to receive. The last of these approaches has seldom been used

and can be dismissed. As Locke points out, the expectation approach is hard to define

logically. Admittedly, getting what is not expected may lead to surprise, but it hardly

leads to dissatisfaction.

102
 It is not obvious on logical grounds that either of the first two approaches can be

rejected as meaningless. Both approaches seem to be addressing important but perhaps

different effective reactions to a job. There clearly is a difference between asking people

how much they want and how much they think they should receive. People do respond

differently to such questions. A person’s satisfaction with the fairness of what he receives

for his present job would seem to be more influenced by what he feels he should receive

than what he ultimately aspires to. The difference between what the person aspires to or

wants and what he receives, gives an insight into his satisfaction with his present

situation relative to his long-term aspired to or desired, situation. These two discrepancy

measures can yield different results. For example, a person can feel that his present pay is

appropriate for his present job, and in this sense he can be satisfied; however, he can feel

that his present pay is much below what he wants, and in this sense he can be satisfied. In

most cases, however, these two discrepancies probably are closely related and influence

each other. Thus, the difference between the two discrepancies many not be as large or as

important as some theorists have argued.

Like the fulfillment theorists, many discrepancy theorists argue that total job

satisfaction is influenced by the sum of discrepancies that are present for each job factor.

Thus, a person’s overall job satisfaction would be equal to his pay satisfaction

discrepancy plus his supervision- satisfaction discrepancy and so on. It has been argued

that in computing such a sum, it is important to weigh each of the discrepancies by the

importance of that factor to the person, the argument being that important factors

influence job satisfaction more strongly than unimportant ones. Locke, however, argues

103
that such a weighing is redundant, since the discrepancy score is a measure of importance

in itself, because large discrepancies tend to appear only for important items.8

Most discrepancy theories allow for the possibility of a person saying he is

receiving more outcomes than he should receive, or more outcomes than he wants to

receive. However, the theories do not stress this point, which presents some problems for

them. It is not clear how to equate dissatisfaction (or whatever this feeling might be

called) due to over-reward with dissatisfaction due to under-reward.

3.6.9 Equity Theory

Equity theory is primarily a motivation theory, but is has some important things to

say about the courses of satisfaction / dissatisfaction. Adams (1963, 1965) argues in his

version of equity theory that satisfaction is determined by a person’s perceived input-

outcome balance in the following manner: the perceived equity of a person’s rewards is

determined by his input-outcome balance; this perceived equity, in turn, determines

satisfaction.9

Satisfaction results when perceived equity exists, and dissatisfaction results when

perceived inequity exists. Thus, satisfaction is determined by the perceived ratio of what

a person receives from his job, relative to what a person puts into his job. According to

equity theory, either under-reward or over-reward can lead to dissatisfaction, although the

feelings are somewhat different. The theory emphasizes that over-reward leads to feelings

of guilt, while under-reward leads to feelings of unfair treatment.

104
 Equity theory emphasizes the importance of other people’s input-outcome balance

in determining how a person will judge the equity of his own input-outcome balance.

Equity theory argues that people evaluate the fairness of their own input-outcome balance

with their “Comparison – with others” (the person they compare with). This emphasis

does not enter into either discrepancy theory or fulfillment theory as they are usually

stated. Although there is an implied reference to “other” in the discussion of how people

develop their feelings about what their outcomes should be, discrepancy theory does not

explicitly states that this perception is based on perceptions of what other people

contribute and receive. This difference points out the strength of equity theory relative to

discrepancy theory. Equity theory rather clearly states how a person assesses his inputs

and outcomes in order to develop his perception of the fairness of his input-outcome

balance. Discrepancy theory, on the other hand, is vague about how people decide what

their outcomes should be.

3.6.10 Two-factor Theory

Modern two-factor theory was originally developed by Herzberg, Manusner,

Perterson and Capwell (1957), in which the authors stated that job factors could be

classified according to whether the factors contribute primarily to satisfaction or to

dissatisfaction.10 Two years later, Herberg, Manusner and Snyderman published the

results of a research study, which they interpreted as supportive of the theory.

Since 1959, much research has been directed towards testing the two-factor theory.

Two aspects of the theory are unique and amount for the attention it has received.

First, the two-factor theory says that satisfaction and dissatisfaction do not exist on a

continuum running for satisfaction through neutral to dissatisfaction. Two independent

105
continuums exist, one running from satisfied to neutral and another running from

dissatisfied to neutral. Second the theory stresses that different job facets influence the

feeling of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. The result of a study made by Herberg which

shows that factors such as achievement, recognition, work itself, and responsibility are

mentioned in connection with satisfying experiences, while working conditions,

interpersonal relations, supervision, and company policy are usually mentioned in

connection with dissatisfying experiences. The study shows the frequency with which

each factor is mentioned in connection with high (satisfying) and low (dissatisfying)

work experiences.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Herzberg’s theory is that at the same time a

person can be highly satisfied and highly dissatisfied. Also the theory implied that factors

such as better working conditions cannot increase or cause satisfaction, as they can only

affect the amount of dissatisfaction that is experienced. The only way satisfaction can be

increased is by effecting changes in those factors contributing primarily to satisfaction.

The result of the studies designed to test the two-factor theory, have not provided

clear-cut support for the theory, nor have these studies allowed the total rejection of the

theory. Even proponents of the theory admit that the same factors can cause both

satisfaction and dissatisfaction and that a given factor can cause satisfaction in one group

of people and dissatisfaction in another. The researchers point out that results supporting

the theory seem to be obtainable only when certain limited research methodologies are

used.

106
 The major unanswered question in respect of the two-factor theory is whether

satisfaction and dissatisfaction really are two separate dimensions. The evidence is not

sufficient to establish that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are separate making this the

crucial unproven aspect of the theory. Neither the fact that some factors can contribute to

both satisfaction and dissatisfaction nor the fact that, in some populations, some factors

contribute to satisfaction while, in other populations, the same factors contribute to

dissatisfaction, which is sufficient reason to reject the theory. Although these findings

raise questions about the correctness of the theory, they do not destroy its core concept

that satisfaction, and dissatisfaction are, in fact, on different continua.

Significantly, while considerable research has tried to determine which factors

contribute to satisfaction and dissatisfaction, little attention has been directed towards

testing the motivation and performance implications of the theory. In agreement with the

theory, the subjects reported that the presence of satisfiers boosted performance, while

the presence of dissatisfies reduced performance. At best, the result of this study gives

weak evidence that these job factors influence performance as suggested by the theory.

Only self-reports of performance were used, and in many cases, the subjects were

reporting on events that had happened some time prior to the date of the interviews. The

evidence, although not at all conclusive, at least suggests the kinds of experiences that

might lead to a strong motivation to perform effectively. Unfortunately, Herzberg and

others did not develop any theoretical concept to explain why the job factors should

affect performance. Their theory contains little explanation of why outcomes are

attractive, and it fails to consider the importance of associative connections in

determining which of a number of behaviours a person would choose to perform in order

107
to obtain a desired outcome. Thus, it is not a theory of motivation, rather, it is a theory

primarily concerned with explaining the determinants of job satisfaction and

dissatisfaction.

3.7 Measuring job satisfaction

There are many methods for measuring job satisfaction. By far, the most common

method for collecting data regarding job satisfaction is the Likert Scale (named after

Rensis Likert). Other less common methods for gauging job satisfaction include:

Yes/No questions. True/False questions, point systems, checklists, and forced choice

answers. This data is typically collected using an Enterprise Feedback Management

(EFM) system.

The Job Descriptive Index (JDI), created by Smith, Kendall, & Hulin (1969), is

a specific questionnaire of job satisfaction that has been widely used. It measures one’s

satisfaction in five facets: pay, promotions and promotion opportunities, coworkers,

supervision, and the work itself. The scale is simple, participants answer either yes, no, or

can’t decide (indicated by ‘?’) in response to whether given statements accurately

describe one’s job.

The Job in General Index is an overall measurement of job satisfaction. It is an

improvement to the Job Descriptive Index because the JDI focuses too much on

individual facets and not enough on work satisfaction in general.

108
Other job satisfaction questionnaires include: the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire

(MSQ), the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS), and the Faces Scale. The MSQ measures job

satisfaction in 20 facets and has a long form with 100 questions (five items from each

facet) and a short form with 20 questions (one item from each facet). The JSS is a 36 item

questionnaire that measures nine facets of job satisfaction. Finally, the Faces Scale of job

satisfaction, one of the first scales used widely, measured overall job satisfaction with

just one item which participants respond to by choosing a face.

3.8 A Model of dimension satisfaction

The model assumes that the same psychological process operates to determine

satisfaction, with job factors ranging from pay to supervision and satisfaction with the

work itself. The model indicates that when the person’s perception of what his outcome

level is and his perception of what his outcome level should be in agreement, the person

would be satisfied. When a person perceives his outcome level as falling below what he

feels it should be, he would be dissatisfied. However, when a person’s perceived outcome

level exceeds what he feels it should be, he would have feelings of guilt and inequity and

perhaps some discomfort.11 Thus, for any job factor, the assumption is that satisfaction

with the factor will be determined by the differences between how much of the factor

there is and how much of the factor the person feels there should be.

Present outcome level is shown to be the key influence on a person’s perception

of what rewards he receives, but his perception is also shown to be influenced by his

perception of what his “referent others” receive. The higher the outcome level of his

“referent others”, the lower his outcome level will appear. Thus, a person’s psychological

109
view of how much of a factor he receives is said to be influenced by more than just the

objective amount of the factor. Because of the psychological influence, the same amount

of reward often can be seen quite differently by two people; to one person it can be a

small amount, while to another person, it can be a large amount.

The model given also shows that a person’s perception of what his reward level

should be in influenced by a number of factors. Perhaps the most important influence is

perceived to be job inputs. These include all of the skills, abilities, and training a person

brings to the job as well as the behaviour he exhibits on the job. The greatest he perceives

his inputs to be, the higher will be his perception of what his outcomes should be.

Because of this relationship, people with high job inputs must receive more rewards than

people with low job inputs or they will be dissatisfied. The model also shows that a

person’s perception of what his outcomes should be is influenced by his perception of the

job demands. The greater the demand made by the job, the more he will perceive he

should receive. Job demands include such things as job difficulty, responsibilities, and

organization level. If outcomes do not rise along with these factors, the clear prediction of

the model is that the people who perceive they have the more difficult, higher-level jobs

will be the most dissatisfied.

The model shows that a person’s perception of what his outcomes should be

is influenced by what the person perceives his “Comparison – other’s” inputs and

outcomes to be. This aspect of the model is taken directly from equity theory and is

included to stress the fact that people look at the inputs and outcomes of others in order to

determine what their own outcome level should be. If a person’s “Comparison – other’s”

110
inputs are the same as the person’s inputs but the other’s outcomes are much higher,

the person will feel that he should be receiving more outcomes and will be dissatisfied

as a result.

The model allows for the possibility that people will feel that their outcomes

exceed what they should be. The feeling produced by this condition is quite different

from those produced by under-reward. Because of this difference, it does not make sense

to refer to a person who feels over-rewarded as being dissatisfied. There is considerable

evidence that very few people feel over-rewarded, and this fact can be explained by the

model. Even when people are highly-rewarded, the social-comparison aspect of

satisfaction means that people can avoid feeling over-rewarded by looking around and

finding someone to compare with who is doing equally well. Also, a person tends to

value his own inputs much higher than they are valued by others. Because of this

discrepancy, a person’s perception of what his outcomes should be is often not shared by

those administering his rewards, and is often above what he actually receives. Finally, the

person can easily increase his perception of his inputs and thereby justify a high reward

level.

As a way of summarizing some of the implications of the model, statements can

be made about who should be dissatisfied if the model is correct, other things being

equal.

i) People with high perceived inputs will be more dissatisfied with a given fact

than people with low perceived inputs.

ii) People who perceive their job to be demanding will be more dissatisfied with a

given fact than people who perceive their jobs as undemanding.

111
 iii) People who perceive others similar as having a more favourable input-

outcome balance will be more dissatisfied with a given fact than people who perceive

their own balance as similar to or better than that of others.

iv) People who receive low outcome level will be more dissatisfied than those

who receive a high outcome level.

v) The more outcomes the other receives in comparison, the more dissatisfied

the person will be with his own outcomes. This should be particularly true

when the ‘Comparison – other’ is seen to hold a job that demands the same or

fewer inputs.

3.9 Determinants of job satisfaction and Dissatisfaction

The determinants of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction are yet to be completely

found out. So far, many researches have been done on this. Still, their complete details

are yet to be explored and unearthed.

The studies of Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman and the two-factor theory

of job satisfaction – dissatisfaction proposed by them provide possibly the broadest

scope so far in understanding the relevant factors prevailing across countries as well as

in India.

Herzberg and his associates explored job satisfaction from a basically dynamic

view and offered an approach to an understanding of motivation to work. They noted an

important distinction between two kinds of factors. One group of factors dealt with the

nature of job and the others were related to the environment in which the job was done.

One set of factors, according to them, contributed to satisfaction. They are referred to as

112
intrinsic, job content, motivators, or satisfiers. Another set of factors contributed to

dissatisfaction. They are termed as extrinsic, job content, hygiene, or dissatisfiers.

The details of the two sets of factors are presented in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1

Factors associated with job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in

Two factor theory

SNo. Factors in Job satisfaction Factors in Job dissatisfaction Extrinsic

1. Achievement Salary

2. Recognition Working conditions

3. Work itself Relations with co-employees

4. Responsibility Relations with subordinates

5. Advancement Relations with Superiors and

6. Psychological Technical Supervisors

Growth Technical Supervision

Company Policies and Practices

Job Security

Status

Personal Life

According to the theory, satisfiers (or motivators) which contributed to feelings of

satisfaction had little to contribute to feeling of dissatisfaction. Similarly, dissatisfiers

(or ‘hygiene’) contributed more to dissatisfaction than they did to satisfaction. In other

113
words, it was suggested, that satisfaction and dissatisfaction were two separate, distinct

and independent feelings. They were of unipolar dimensions, that is, the opposite of

satisfaction is no satisfaction instead of dissatisfaction (which was the traditional view)

and the opposite of dissatisfaction is no dissatisfaction instead of satisfaction.

While job satisfaction is obviously of great personal concern, employers are also

concerned with the consequences of job satisfaction, for it greatly affects employees’

behaviour. Hence, it is essential to examine the ways in which job satisfaction /

dissatisfaction affects employees’ behaviour, to consider how job satisfaction affects a

variety of factors, some economic and some personal.

3.10 Performance and contentment

In the 1950’s two major literature reviews showed that in most studies only

a slight relationship was found between satisfaction and performance. A later review

by Vroom also showed that studies had not found a strong relationship between

satisfaction and performance. In other words, better performers did seem to be

slightly more satisfied than poor performers. Lawler and Porter explained this as

“Performance causes satisfaction” Good performance may lead to rewards, which in

turn lead to satisfaction.12

Clearly, a more logical view is that performance is determined by people’s

efforts to obtain the goals and outcomes they desire, and satisfaction is determined

by the outcomes people actually obtain. Yet, for some reason, many people believed –

114
and some people still do believe – that “satisfaction causes performance” view is

the best.

3.11 Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behaviour

The research evidence on the determinants of satisfaction suggests that

satisfaction is very much influenced by the actual rewards a person receives though the

organization has a considerable amount of control over these rewards. Absenteeism and

turnover have a direct influence on organizational effectiveness. The organization can

control absenteeism and turnover by rewarding well the best performers. Although

identifying and rewarding the better performers is not always easy, the effort may have

significant pay-offs in terms of increased organizational effectiveness.

3.12 SUMMARY

The primary motive of a worker is to earn a living to fulfill his physical

and psychological needs. Hence the job should be able to fulfill those needs. If employees

are satisfied, their productivity gets multiplied and eventually the organization gets

benefited.

115
 References

1. V.H.Vroom, Work and Motivation, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1965,
pp.25-30.
2. F.Herzberg, et al., “The Motivation to work”, John Wiley and Sons
New York, 1959, p.45.
3. R.H.Schaffer, “Job Satisfaction as Related to Need Satisfaction in Work”,

Psychological Monographs, 67 (1953): 14, Whole Number 364, p.10.

4. V.H.Vroom, Work and Motivation, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1964, p.70.

5. N.C.Morse, “Satisfaction in the White-collar Job”, Ann Arbor : University of

Michigan, Institute of Social Research, Survey Research Centre, 1953, p.9.

6. R.A : Katzell and E.A.Locke, In Man in a World of Work, Edited by H.Borow,

Boston; Houghton Mifflin, 1964, p.11.

7. L.W.Porter, “A Study of Perceived Need Satisfaction in Bottom and Middle

Management Job”. Journal of Applied Psychology 45, 1961, pp.1-10.

8. E.A.Locke, “What is Job Satisfaction?” Organizational Behaviour and Human

Performance, 4, (1969) pp.309-336.

9. J.S.Adams “Toward an Understanding of Inequality” Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 67, 1963, pp.422-436.

10. F.Herzberg, et al., Job Attitude : Review of Research and Opinion, Pittsburgh,

Psychological Service of Pittsburgh, 1957, pp.

11. J.S.Adams, Toward on Understanding of I equity”, Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, vol.67, 1963, pp.422-436.

12. E.E.Lawler and L.W.Porter, “The effect of Performance on Job Satisfaction”,

Journal of Industrial Relations, vol.7, 1967, pp.20-28.

116