Job Satisfaction & Organizational Commitment

...

The best model of job satisfaction is Hulin's Integrative Model which is created by Hulin. Roznowski, Hachiya (1985) and Hulin (1991). This model attempts to integrate previous theories of attitude formation. The model suggest that job satisfaction is a function of the balance between role and inputs. the role is the work role which what the individual puts into, such as training, experience, time, and effort. On other hand, compared to role outcomes which include pay, status, working conditions, and intrinsic factors. The more outcomes received relative to inputs invested, the higher work role satisfaction will be, all else being equal. Finally, the Hulin model considers about an individual’s frames of reference. it define as past experience with outcomes, and influence how individuals perceive current outcomes received. The fewer, or less valued, the outcomes received in the past, the same outcomes per inputs will increase job satisfaction. Even though Hulin's Integrative Model is impressive model, this model is still lack of direct tests.

The results of job satisfaction studies can separate to two groups which are internal and external to the job itself. Internal includes searches of the relative importance of various job-related spur and features of the work environment. External factors include such aspects of the broader job context as company policies, training, and management as well as the workers' personal feature.

Internal and external are important factors in job satisfaction. They have been studied for accountants and engineers. The nature of the work itself, responsibility, recognition, and advancement are belong to Internal factors which were most frequently cited by these workers as sources of satisfaction. External may cause the greatest sources of dissatisfaction for employees. As a result, factors within the broader job context can produce dissatisfaction but not satisfaction. Feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction in the relative contributions of internal and external factors is not now resolved. Nevertheless, it is evident that both the more specific aspects of the job and the general context in which work is performed have considerable bearing upon workers' attitudes.

One of the typical steps applied for this type of study is to require that employees consider a list of job feature and rank or rate them in order of their become aware of importance. The 10 factors ranked as most important by employees in six companies is shown in Table 13-1. This table also shows the expectations of executives in these companies and labor leaders about the ranks that the employees would assign to these factors.

The needs of employees often are not well understood either by executives or by labor leaders. That is a very important conclusion from such studies. For example, "information on success or failure at the job," was ranked as very important by workers but removed from the top 10 ranks expected by administrators and labor leaders. The latter group, in particular, tended to overestimate the extent of employee concern about union matters. The rank assigned by employee groups to any job factor is, of course, a function of the specific factors that employees are asked to consider. The perceived importance of certain intrinsic factors has, however, been explored with sufficient frequency to permit for generalizations about the extent to which they bear upon job satisfaction.[pic 1]

Measurement of Job Satisfaction.

Many different measures can test job satisfaction. They focus primarily on employees’ cognitive descriptions, evaluations of various facets of the job, or both. All of those measures can, and have, been studied. However, most of these known measures of job satisfaction include facets such as the supervisor, coworkers, amount of pay and benefits, chances for promotion, and the work itself.

Studies often require simply average of satisfaction scores in an attempt to evaluate overall job satisfaction. This behavior is, however, impermissible from a notional standpoint if it does not follow assumptions which are (a) the assumption should relate all facet to every employee’s job which are measured and that no facet irrelevant to any employee’s job is measured. For example, that there are no errors of omission and commission, respectively. (b) The assumption should include the various facets because it should be weighted equally in determining overall job satisfaction. And (c) the assumption should have facets combine in a linear, and add fashion in determining overall job satisfaction (Balzer et al., 2000; Ironson, Smith, Brannick, Gibson, & Paul, 1989; Scarpello & Campbell, 1983).

What kind of circumstances should global measures be used in instead of facet measures? Research in social psychology (e.g., Ajzen, 2005) and industrial and organizational psychology (e.g., Lavelle, Rupp, & Brockner, 2007) has suggested that attitudes predict behavior best when the attitude and behavior are at the same level of generality when they are directed toward the same object. For example, employees’ unusual behavior led toward their supervisor should be better forecasted by their satisfaction with the supervisor than by their overall job satisfaction. However, employees’ overall unusual behavior should be better forecasted by their overall job satisfaction than by their satisfaction with the supervisor. The point of here is simple because neither a global nor a facet measure of satisfaction is innately better than the other: The usefulness of both global and facet measures are important for a thorough understanding of employees’ responses to the job situation, and both depends on the specific behavior being forecasted.

Many measures of job satisfaction have been developed. Maybe the two most significantly used measures are the Job Descriptive Index (JDI; Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969) and the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ; Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, Minneapolis, 1967). The JDI evaluates satisfaction with five different job way: pay, promotion, coworkers, supervision, and the work itself. The JDI is trusty and has a dramatic range of proof evidence behind it. On the other measure, the MSQ has the advantage of usefulness on long and short forms are existing, arid faceted and overall measures are existing. Many researchers have widely used these measures, though these measures do not carry with them validation evidence as impressive as the JDI or MSQ.

Measures of satisfaction on work itself, supervision, and coworkers have 18 items. Other measures of satisfaction on pay and promotions have nine items. Therefore, the JDI consists