工作滿意度調(diào)查研究外文翻譯

工作滿意度調(diào)查研究外文翻譯附件3

外文翻譯

原文1

Jobsatisfactionandqualityofworkinglife:AreassessmentTheusefulnessofjobsatisfactionmeasuresinassessingjobcharacteristicsandinimprovingqualityofworkinglifeisproblematic.Publicopinionpollsandorganizationalsurveyshaveshownhighandstablelevelsofjobsatisfactionformanyyears,whilesignsofemployeefrustrationandalienationhavebeenin-creasing.Closerexaminationofthisparadoxicalfindingleadstotheconclusionthat,whateverrigorousjobsatisfactionsurveysaremeasuring,itisnottheinformationneededtomodifyjobsandworkinordertoreduceemployeefrustration.Toovercomeflawsinthemeasurementofsatisfactionforthispurposeemployeesthemselvesneedtobemoreinvolvedinthemeasurementprocess.Recentexperiencewithemployeeparticipationinactionresearchonqualityofworkinglifeisnoted,andtheextensionandfurtheranceofthismodelisproposed.

Jobsatisfactionasaconcepthasbecomeanembarrassingambiguity.Formanyinvestigatorsinthesocialsciences,aninterestinjobsatisfactionfrequentlyrepresentsaninterestinqualityofworkinglifeandindustrialhumanism,andsuggestsaconcernwithimprovingtheexperienceofpeoplewithjobsandwork.Sincethe1930sthisinteresthasbeenconcernedwithmonitoringthefactorymodelofworkdesignwhichhasbeendiffusedfrommanufacturingintotheserviceandclericalsectors.Itmustbeasserted,however,thatmuchofwhathaspassedforjobsatisfactionresearchhasfailedtostudythejobortheworkitself.Jobsatisfactionresearchhashistoricallybeenusedeithertosupportortoattackthestatusquo,andthetrendcontinues.

Theembarrassmentwithrespecttojob'satisfaction'measurementisthatsurveysofAmericanemployeescontinuetoshowthatextremelyhighpercentagesofthosemeasuredreportsatisfactionwiththeirjobs,whileatthesametimetheincidenceofdecreasedworkercommitmentasexpressedthroughincreasesinabsenteeism(especiallypart-weekabsenteeism),strikes(forotherreasonsthanwages),employeerejectionofnegotiatedcontracts,andsabotageofproductandplant,ishighandapparentlybecominggreater.Increasingpublicattentionhasbeendrawnto

1

theseissuesofemployeealienation.Ifpublicconcerncontinuestogrowforwhatisincreasinglyseenasemployees'quietdesperationwithwork,thenthepressuresforareconciliationbetweenthesefactsandthecarefullyprepared,rigorousjobsatisfactionsurveyswillbecomeinexorable.

AIM

Thepresentpaperisintendedtoaddressthisreconciliationnotintermsofreducingsamplingerrors,guardingagainstresponseset,ortheuseofmoresophisticatedstatisticaltestsofsatisfactiondataascurrentlydefinedandmeasured,butintermsofaquitedifferentmodeofresearch.InsodoingIdonotseektocriticizethejobsatisfactionresearchperse,butrathertocriticizetheuseofthatvariableinevaluatingandattemptingtoimprovethequalityofworkinglife.Theparticularresearchmodelproposedisanactionresearchapproach(Lewin,1946;Davis,1971)modelof'democratizationofjobdesign'(Elden,1976;Taylor,1976;Herbst&Getz,1977)—whichindicatorsofwhatwouldimprovethequalityofworkinglifeforemployeesingivenworksettingsareappliedwiththeinvolvementandcommitment,andinthelanguage,ofthoseconcerned.Inthismodeliscapturedtheabilitytomeasurenewcriteriamorerelevanttothepersonaldevelopmentofthejobholder,asrecentlydescribedbyBlackler&Brown(1975).

APPROACH

Theissueofwhatthejobsatisfactionstatisticsreallymeanhasbeenpreviouslyapproachedfromseveralpointsofview.Thedebateoverunitaryversusmultiplemeasuresofsatisfactionwithworkhaslonginterestedinvestigators,beginningwiththeintrinsicversusextrinsicfactorsstudiedbyKahn&Morse(1951),andfindingaforummostrecentlyinWorkinAmerica(1973).Thepresentpositioninthatdebateurgestheuseofnew,specificmeasuresofvariousjobcharacteristics,increasinglyprojectivemeasuresusinghypotheticalcases,orotherwiseapproachingtherespondentmorecautiouslyorwithindirectquestionsbecausedirectquestionsmaybetoothreatening.Thisdebate,althoughheated,remainslargelyunresolved,inspiteofrigorousandcarefullydonestudiessuchasthe'SurveyofWorkingConditions,1970'fromtheUniversityofMichigan'sInstituteforSocialResearch(ISR)whichundertooktocomparetheunitaryandadditiveapproachestojobsatisfactionscales.

InthisISRsurvey,'JOBSAT'70'(theadditivemeasure)and'OverallJobSatisfaction'(theunitarymeasure)werefoundtoberelatedtoeachotheratsurprisinglylowlevels(Herrick&Quinn,1971).

2

Someotheroftherecentjobsatisfactiondiscussionstotallyavoideitherdefinitionalormeasurementdebatesinfavourofmoredirectappealstotheunderlyingsocialissues.Forexample,partofthesupportforindustrialhumanismhasbeengeneratedbyextrapolatingtheabsolutenumbersofAmericanworkerspresumedreportingdissatisfactionbasedonthejobsatisfactionstatisticscurrentlyavailable(Rosow,1974).Usingthisdoughnutvs.holeapproach,dissatisfactionisdefinedasanimportantsocialproblembecausetheworkerswhoreportdispleasurewiththeirworkmustnumberinthemillions.

THEPROBLEM

InspiteofthesereconceptualizationsthesupremeauthorityforthestateofAmericanworkersstillseemstobethepercentagesfromjobsatisfactionindices.WhethertheseindicesarethecrudesingleitemmeasurestakeninGalluporothernationalpolls,oraretheverysophisticatedmultipleitemscalessuchasthosealreadymentioned,theproportionofworkersreportingsatisfactionremainsinexplicablyhigh.Thestatisticalfactisthat,regardlessofwhatdegreeofmeasurementsophisticationisbroughttobear,80percentormoreofthoseAmericanssurveyedreportbeingsatisfiedwiththeirjobs.Thisistruewhetherthestudiesusedataspecifictoworkersinassemblyplantsortonationalrandomsamples.

AImberman,oftheconsultingfirmofImbermanandDeForestofChicago,reportedasurveyof3800employeesinfivefactorieswhichrevealedthat79-85percentreportedsatisfactionwithassemblylinework(Imberman,1972).ResearchersattheRutgersUniversityMedicalSchoolreportedthatof576UAWmembersinterviewedin1968,95percentweresatisfiedwiththeirjobsinanautoplant(Siassi,Crocetti&Spiro,1974).AlthoughtheseinvestigatorsstatethattheirsamplewasrepresentativeofaninsuredgroupofUAWmembersinaprepaidunionhealthplaninBaltimore,itshouldbenotedthattheirsampleischaracterizedaswhitemales,averaging40yearsofage,about13years'service,andearning$9000ormoreannually.

Theseresultsareconsistentwithmorecarefullysamplednationalsurveysreportedfromtimetotime.Forexample,a1954nationalsurveyofhalfamillionworkersbyScienceResearchAssociates(SRA)ofChicagoreported81percentofthosepolledweresatisfiedwiththeirwork.MorerecentlytheGalluporganizationhasreported87percentsatisfiedina1964poll,and77percentsatisfiedin1973.Veryrecentsurveyresults,reportedbytheSurveyResearchCenteratISR,revealfully91percentofmaleworkersaresatisfiedwiththeirjobs.Theselastresultsareashigh

3

asthosereportedinearliersurveys(whicharesummarizedovertheperiod1958-1973byKaplan,1976).

ThesedifferentstudiesallclearlysuggestthatanoverwhelmingmajorityofAmericanworkersreportsatisfactionwiththeirwork.Theseresultsalsoshowlittlechange(onlyfourpercentagepoints)overthe20-yearintervalbetweentheboomyears1954-1973.Itseemsthatundertherangeofmostnormalcircumstancesjobsatisfaction(ortheabsenceofdissatisfaction)rangesfromalowofabout79percenttoahighof95percent.ThistrendisapparentlynotexclusivelyanAmericanphenomenon,asCherns(1975)pointsoutinadiscussionofrecentjobsatisfactionresearchintheUnitedKingdom.

Thispatternreceivesadditionalsupportfromtheexaminationofdatasystematicallycollectedfromsome20000employeesatalllevels(non-supervisorytomanagement)inavarietyofdifferentorganizations.TheCenterforResearchontheUtilizationofScientificKnowledge(CRUSK)attheUniversityofMichigancollectedthesedatabetween1966and1970fromsome33officesandplantsin15UScompanies(CRUSK,1970;Taylor&Bowers,1972).Althoughtheywerenotsystematicallysampled,theseorganizationsdifferedwidelyondimensionslikemanagementphilosophyandeconomiccondition;aswellassize,technology,collarcolourandthelike.Overall,85percentofall20000peoplereportedbeingsatisfied(ormorespecificallynotbeingdissatisfied)withtheirjobs,whileacrosstheseorganizationstherangeofthisstatisticwasquitenarrow.Aninsuranceofficeof200peopletoppedthelistof33organizationswith95percentnotdissatisfied.Apapermillemploying440peoplesetthelowpointamongthe33organizationswith76percentreportingnodissatisfactionwiththeirjobs.InspiteofnotbeingtakenfromascientificsampleofAmericanorganizations,thisrangeofsatisfactionreportedisnotunlikethenationalsurveysalreadydescribed.

Atthesametimethatwefindthisoverwhelmingproportionofemployeesinalloftheseverydifferentorganizationsreportingtheyarenotdissatisfiedwiththework,wefindindicationsthatthisreliablemeasureofjobsatisfactionisnotashighlyrelatedtoabsenteeism,withinthoseorganizations,aswemightexpect.Inthesamestudieswithgrievancesandturnovermeasures(wherelessdataareavailable),therelationshipswithjobsatisfactionarenotconsistentlyhighorlow.Ifwelookatdifferencesamongworkgroupswithintheseorganizationsthecausalrelationshipsbetweensatisfactionandorganizationalbehaviourarenotveryhigh(Taylor&

4

Bowers,1972,pp.77-79,89).Thesefindingsmaybeexplainedonthebasisthat,regardlessofhowwellwedefineworksatisfactionandhowmanycarefulcategoriesweseparateandrecombineitinto,wearestillmeasuringmorethanperceptionsoftheworkitself.Wecannotexpecttomeasureallthatisimportanttoworkersortogetbeyondtheirinternaldefencesorexpectationswithprecodedquestionnairemeasuresalone.

Author:JAMESC.TAYLOR

Nationality:USA

Originatefrom:JournalofOccupationalPsychology,1977.Vol.50

5

譯文1

重新評(píng)估工作滿意度和工作生活質(zhì)量

有效的工作滿意度的措施在評(píng)估工作特性和提高工作生活質(zhì)量中是有問(wèn)題的。民意調(diào)查顯示，雖然多年以來(lái)，工作滿意度水平高且穩(wěn)定，員工的挫折感和異化跡象卻一直在增加。經(jīng)過(guò)更密切的檢查，這調(diào)查得出的結(jié)論是矛盾的，即無(wú)論再嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)?shù)墓ぷ鳚M意度調(diào)查及測(cè)量，得到的只是減少員工的挫折感和修改工作兩方面的沒(méi)必要的信息。根據(jù)以往的經(jīng)驗(yàn)以及對(duì)工作生活質(zhì)量的研究表明，為了克服這個(gè)缺陷，在測(cè)量工作滿意度的時(shí)候，員工本身需要更多地參與測(cè)量。

工作滿意度已經(jīng)成為一個(gè)模糊不清的尷尬概念。許多代表著工業(yè)人文主義利益的社會(huì)科學(xué)調(diào)查員都對(duì)工作滿意度十分有興趣，他們提出了建議：要提高工作滿意度就必須關(guān)注和改善人與職位的關(guān)系。從19xx年開(kāi)始，這種興趣引起的關(guān)注已經(jīng)從制造業(yè)擴(kuò)展到服務(wù)和文職部門。然而，可以斷言，很多過(guò)去的工作滿意度的研究都沒(méi)有研究工作或工作本身。歷史上曾經(jīng)有過(guò)對(duì)工作滿意度的研究，這種可以支持或者攻擊現(xiàn)狀的趨勢(shì)還將繼續(xù)下去。

在對(duì)美國(guó)員工工作滿意度的繼續(xù)調(diào)查研究中，出現(xiàn)的尷尬是——他們工作的滿意程度是用極高的百分比來(lái)衡量的，而在同一時(shí)間內(nèi)降低對(duì)工人的承諾，員工通過(guò)增加缺勤率，尤其是部分缺勤率，而拒絕談判達(dá)成的合同以及破壞產(chǎn)品的比率顯然變得更大，這是除了工資以外原因引起的罷工。員工異化的這些問(wèn)題已經(jīng)提起公眾的注意，但是如果公眾的關(guān)注繼續(xù)增長(zhǎng)，為什么員工安靜的工作越來(lái)越被看作是壓力的緩解，這些精心的準(zhǔn)備和事實(shí)將使對(duì)工作滿意度的嚴(yán)格調(diào)查成為必然。

前言

本文是以在不減少防范反應(yīng)和抽樣誤差的情況下，使用更精密的統(tǒng)計(jì)測(cè)試為目的，對(duì)滿意度的數(shù)據(jù)在不同的模式下進(jìn)行界定和衡量。我這樣做并不是刻意對(duì)工作滿意度研究本身進(jìn)行批評(píng)，而是對(duì)使用該變量的評(píng)價(jià)并試圖改善工作生活質(zhì)量進(jìn)行批評(píng)。這里要特別提出的一個(gè)研究模式是行動(dòng)研究方法(Lewin，1946；Davis，1971)，一個(gè)關(guān)于職務(wù)設(shè)計(jì)的民主化模型(Elden，1976；Taylor，1976；Herbst&Getz，1977)。那些指標(biāo)會(huì)改善值得關(guān)注的工作生活質(zhì)量和員工在特定的工作設(shè)置中的參與，以及使用的語(yǔ)言。在這個(gè)模型中，要抓獲具備能力衡量更

6

多有關(guān)個(gè)人發(fā)展新標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的工作持有人，這些描述是由Blackler和Brown在19xx年提出的。

研究背景

以前有幾點(diǎn)關(guān)于工作滿意度到底意味著什么的看法。長(zhǎng)期以來(lái)，有興趣的調(diào)查員就一直在研究措施使員工對(duì)工作更滿意。從19xx年起，Kahn&Morse就開(kāi)始研究影響工作滿意度的外在因素與內(nèi)在因素，并于19xx年在美國(guó)工作時(shí)創(chuàng)辦了一個(gè)論壇。那次辯論的立場(chǎng)是呼吁利用越來(lái)越多的新措施來(lái)具體針對(duì)各項(xiàng)工作的特點(diǎn)，如投影措施。我們應(yīng)該使用假設(shè)性的案件或者以其他方式或間接的問(wèn)題接近受訪者，因?yàn)橹苯拥膯?wèn)題可能過(guò)于威脅性而使得受訪者變得更加謹(jǐn)慎。這次辯論雖然激烈，盡管有如調(diào)查工作條件這樣嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)和仔細(xì)的研究，但在很大程度上問(wèn)題仍然懸而未決。

從密歇根大學(xué)的社會(huì)研究所（ISR）在19xx年對(duì)工作滿意度的規(guī)模單一添加劑的辦法的比較中令人驚訝地發(fā)現(xiàn)：70年代的采用單一措施的整體工作滿意度的水平低(Herrick&Quinn，1971)。

其他一些關(guān)于工作滿意度的最近討論，在完全避免任何的測(cè)量或定義的辯論中，反對(duì)者更直接上訴潛在的社會(huì)問(wèn)題。舉例來(lái)說(shuō)，部分支持工業(yè)的人文主義在推定報(bào)告的基礎(chǔ)上所產(chǎn)生的目前可用的工作滿意度的絕對(duì)數(shù)字可以推斷出美國(guó)工人的不滿（Rosow，1974）。這種使用甜甜圈與孔的方法的不滿，被界定為一種重要的社會(huì)問(wèn)題，因?yàn)楣と斯ぷ鳚M意度低的報(bào)告已經(jīng)數(shù)以百萬(wàn)記。

存在的問(wèn)題

盡管有這些國(guó)家的最高權(quán)威，美國(guó)工人的工作滿意度指數(shù)仍然只是一個(gè)很小的百分比。在蓋洛普或者其他國(guó)家的調(diào)查中，這些指標(biāo)是否由單一項(xiàng)目所采取的措施或者是非常復(fù)雜的多個(gè)項(xiàng)目的規(guī)模，例如那些已經(jīng)提到的對(duì)這一比例仍舊莫名其妙的感到滿意的工人報(bào)告。統(tǒng)計(jì)的事實(shí)是，要承擔(dān)不論在何種程度上測(cè)量所帶來(lái)的復(fù)雜性。事實(shí)是不論是否研究使用數(shù)據(jù)的具體的工人在組裝廠或國(guó)家隨機(jī)抽樣，80%或更多的接受調(diào)查的美國(guó)人都滿意他們的工作。。

Imberman和Deforest在芝加哥報(bào)道，一項(xiàng)由咨詢公司對(duì)五家工廠的3800名員工的調(diào)查顯示，79-85%的員工對(duì)裝配生產(chǎn)線的工作感到滿意（Imberman，1972）。Rutgers大學(xué)醫(yī)學(xué)院的研究人員報(bào)告稱，在19xx年調(diào)查的576名聯(lián)合汽

7

車工會(huì)成員中，95％的工人對(duì)他們?cè)谄嚬S的工作感到滿意（Siassi，Crocetti＆Spiro，19xx年）。雖然這些調(diào)查者稱，他們的調(diào)查樣本是工作滿意度和工作生活質(zhì)量：對(duì)一個(gè)在巴爾的摩預(yù)付聯(lián)盟健康計(jì)劃的聯(lián)合汽車保險(xiǎn)集團(tuán)代表的重估，但是，樣本應(yīng)該被定格為約13年的服務(wù)期，平均40歲以下的，并每年賺取九千美元以上的白人男子。

這些結(jié)果一直以來(lái)和全國(guó)性的更仔細(xì)取樣的調(diào)查報(bào)告是一致的。舉例來(lái)說(shuō)，一項(xiàng)于19xx年由芝加哥科學(xué)研究聯(lián)營(yíng)公司對(duì)50萬(wàn)受訪者的全國(guó)調(diào)查稱，81％的受訪者對(duì)他們的工作感到滿意。最近蓋洛普組織報(bào)告稱，在19xx年的調(diào)查者中87％的工人對(duì)他們的工作感到滿意，19xx年調(diào)查中的77％的工人對(duì)他們的工作感到滿意。一項(xiàng)由ISR調(diào)查中心最近做的調(diào)查的結(jié)果，顯示91％的男性工人對(duì)他們的工作感到滿意。這些最近的調(diào)查結(jié)果和早前的調(diào)查在一個(gè)水平線上（這是總結(jié)了Kaplan19xx年至19xx年間的研究成果，19xx年）。

這些不同的研究都明確地表明，多數(shù)的美國(guó)工人對(duì)他們的工作感到滿意。這些結(jié)果還顯示了，在19xx年至19xx年間的一些小改變。這展現(xiàn)了工作滿意度從低到高約79％到約95％的一個(gè)轉(zhuǎn)變進(jìn)度。這種趨勢(shì)顯然不完全是Cherns（1975）在聯(lián)合國(guó)于最近的工作滿意度研究討論中指出的美國(guó)現(xiàn)象。

這一模式得到了在各種不同的組織中系統(tǒng)收集到的約20萬(wàn)名各個(gè)階層（非主管管理）的員工數(shù)據(jù)測(cè)試的額外支持。美國(guó)密西根大學(xué)科學(xué)知識(shí)（CRUSK）開(kāi)端研究中心19xx年和19xx年間在15個(gè)美國(guó)公司中約33個(gè)工廠和辦事處收集到這些數(shù)據(jù)（CRUSK，19xx年；Taylor&Bowers，19xx年）。這些組織在各個(gè)維度方面如：管理、經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況，以及規(guī)模、衣領(lǐng)的顏色、技術(shù)等都是大不同的，雖然他們沒(méi)有被系統(tǒng)地采樣。整體而言，報(bào)道稱20萬(wàn)人中的85％的工人對(duì)他們的工作感到滿意，更多的人不感到不滿意，但這些組織的統(tǒng)計(jì)范圍是相當(dāng)狹窄的。一個(gè)200人的保險(xiǎn)公司有95%的員工對(duì)他們的工作感到不滿，該公司在33個(gè)公司中排名首位。440人的造紙廠有76％的工人對(duì)他們的工作感到不滿意，這一公司排在33個(gè)組織中不滿意度最低位。盡管不是從美國(guó)組織中選取的科學(xué)樣本，滿意度調(diào)查的范圍也不是不同于全國(guó)性的調(diào)查。

同時(shí)，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)在這些所有不同組織中這個(gè)大比例的員工，表示對(duì)他們的工作沒(méi)有感到不滿意。像我們預(yù)測(cè)一樣，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)工作滿意度的可靠措施，并不是

8

和這些組織的曠工高度相關(guān)的。與怨氣和營(yíng)業(yè)額的措施（如少有數(shù)據(jù)可查的），人際關(guān)系與工作滿意度并不是一貫的高或低。如果我們看看之間的分歧，工作組在這些組織之間的因果關(guān)系的滿意度和組織行為都不甚高（Taylor&Bowers，19xx年，p77–79，89）。這些研究結(jié)果也許可以解釋，無(wú)論我們?cè)诖嘶A(chǔ)上如何界定以及對(duì)工作滿意度多么仔細(xì)分類包括單獨(dú)和重組，我們?nèi)匀恢皇菍?duì)工作本身進(jìn)行衡量。我們不能期望來(lái)衡量所有要工人擺脫其內(nèi)部的抗辯或期望的問(wèn)卷措施。

作者：JAMESC.TAYLOR

國(guó)籍：美國(guó)

出處：職業(yè)心理學(xué),1977.50卷

9

原文2

MOVESTOWARDSCHANGE

ReportsofstudiesrecentlyfundedbytheNationalScienceFoundation(NSF)onsatisfactionandproductivity(Katzell&Yankelovich,1975;Srivastraetal.1975)havefoundthattheimportantlinkinimprovingbothoftheseoutcomesrestsinimprovementsinafewworkrelatedvariables.Thesevariables(taskvariety,informationfeedback,work-relatedcommunicationamongemployees,participationindecisionmaking,andtechnicalcharacteristicsofthejobs)areverysimilartosomeofthoseproposedbyotherinvestigatorsandactionresearchersseekingtoimprovequalityofworkingUfe(e.g.Thorsrud,1972).Thorsrudhoweverpointsoutthattheseconceptsmustbeincorporatedinjobdesign(forexampleinrecognizingandmeasuringthem)tocreateaself-fulfillinghypothesisor'HawthorneEffect'oftheirown,inordertoreplacetheself-fulfillinghypothesisofworkdesignofolderindustrialmodelswhichhaveshapedtheirhumanoccupantstoexpectlittlelearning,littlechallenge,andlittleparticipationonthejob.Anactionresearchapproachtostudyingjobsatisfactionhasbeenproposed(Davis,1971;Thorsrud,1972)whichwouldbreaktheviciouscircleoftheexistingself-fulfillinghypotheses,currentlyexemplifiedbyhighlevelsofjobsatisfactioncoupledwithabsenteeismandothersignsofworkerdistress.SuchanapproachaimstowardthesortofjobcharacteristicsdescribedinthetwoNSFstudiesaboveasrelatedtobothsatisfactionandproductivity.

AmpleevidenceexiststosupportthepositionthatsomethingdramaticishappeningtotheAmericanworkethic.PursuasivereportssuchasWorkinAmerica(1973),andthosearticlesreprintedinManAgainstWork(Zimpel,1974)documenttheratesofnegativeworkerbehaviourobservedduringthelate1960sandearly1970s.Thisincludesincreasedabsenteeismandturnover,increasedsabotageofproductandplant,andadecreasingwillingnesstoacceptauthoritywithoutquestion.

Inspiteofarecessionaryeconomy,andthepressuresthatsuchasituationplacesonemployeestoacceptworkasgiven,recentabsenteeismrates(especiallypart-weekrates)reportedbytheBureauofLaborStatisticsshownochangefromthehighlevelsof1971whenworkerdiscontentseemedatitspeak.Thisisinrevealingcontrasttovoluntaryturnoverfiguresforthesameperiodwhichshowamarkeddeclineby1975.Employeesarestayingwiththeirjobswhile

10

thejobmarketistight,buttheycontinueapparentlytotakeoffforlongweekendsasawayofimprovingthequalityoftheirlives.Othersignsofcontinuedemployeeresponseincludereportsofcollegeeducatedyouthenteringcorporatepositionsingreaternumbers,butincreasinglyunwillingtoacceptthecorporatephilosophyasgiven.

Thequestionisnolongerwhetherthereportedhighlevelsofjobsatisfactionmakesense,butratherwhytheydonotrelatetotheotherfindingsnotedabove.Anumberofstudiesbasedoninterviewswithworkersgivessomeinsightintowhyemployeesmightreportsatisfactioninagivensituation.AquotationfromWorkinAmerica(citedfromGeorgeStrauss,seep.14)suggests,asweallknow,thatwetendtoansweridlequestionsdealingwithourselvesorourhealthinanoffhandway.Itisculturallyacceptabletoanswer'Howareyou?',or'How'syourjob?',withtheresponse'Prettygood'.FurtherquestioninginStrauss'scaserevealedthat'good'reallymeant'...anO.K.job-abotasgoodasaguylikememightexpect'.Otherdescriptionsofwhata'goodjob'isresultinawholevarietyofanswers.Apersonalexampleoftheauthor's,ofa'goodjob'beingonewhereautonomy(eveninminutequantity)makesadifference,cameupinaninformalinterviewwithanautoworker.ThismandescribedthejobofdrivingcompletedcarsfromtheStorageyardtorailwaycarsandtransporttrailersasa'goodjob'becausehecouldtakeworkbreakswhenhewantedthemsimplyby'losing'ignitionkeys,dischargingbatteries,orfloodingcarburettorsinwayssuchthatheremainedblameless.

Itisnotmerelytherichnessofsuchdatathatisimportant,althoughcollectionssuchasTerkel's(1974)contributesignificantlyinthisrespect,butthefactthattalkingwithworkers(atalllevelsandcollarcolours),andwatchingwhattheydo,helpsinanimportantwaytoexplainjobsatisfactionasaconstructbybasingtheanalysisontheirownlanguage.Meissner(1976)hassummarizedthisdistinctionnicely,andfromhisanalysiswecanconcludethatmuchwillbelearnedfrombasingstudiesonwhatiscommunicablebyemployeesinthe'languageofwork';thesedatacannotbeobtainedfromthembymoreformalmethodspresentedinanalienformofexpression.AsDavis(1971)haspointedout,informationaboutvalues,concerns,fearsandambitionscannotbeobtainedatarm'slength.Itisprivilegedinformation,andassuchrequiresacollaborativeandtrustingrelationshipbetweentheworkerandtheinvestigator.

Thedangerisgreatofassumingatthispointthatprecodedsatisfactionmeasurescanbemodifiedintoothermoreunderstandableorcommunicableversions,orotherwisesmoothedto

11

counternearlyanymethodologicalobjection.Howeverattractivethisstrategymayseem,thevarietyandnatureofthepossibleinternalweaknessesofthesemeasuresaresimplytoogreatforthemtobeusedinunderstandingwhatcanbedonetoimprovethequalityofworkinglifeinaparticularsetting,orincommunicatingtoothersthestateofworkerresponsetothatworklife.

PROBLEMSOFPRESENTMETHODOLOGY

Inthefollowingdiscussion,theseweaknessesinprecodedinstrumentationwillbeclassedasdefinitionalandmethodological.Theformerclassnotesthedifferencesintreatingsatisfactionasfulfilmentofhumanneedsorwants;whilethelatterdealswiththeeffectsofsuchproblemsaschangingexpectations,unknownnorms,alternativegoals,andcognitivedissonancebetweenevaluationsofselfandjob.

ThedefinitionalargumentfollowsSchwab&Cummings(1970)indistinguishingbetweendefiningsatisfactionasthefulfilmentof'needs'(orinnate,unlearnedcharacteristics)versusthefulfilmentof'wants'expressedasanattitudetowardsthejobasanobjectdefinedbysociety.Thenarrowerofthetwo,theneed-fulfilmentmodel,tiesfixedhumanneeds(suchasthoseintheMaslowhierarchy)tostatementsofsatisfactionwiththejobasitpresumablyfulfilsthem.

Thebroadermodelofattitudestowardavarietyofspecificjobactivitiesandcharacteristicsdealswithemployeelikesanddislikes.Thisdefinitionofsatisfactionofwantsismoreambiguousbecauseitreliesonthefactthatwecanlikeordislikeonlywhatisknown.Wecannotwantsomething(thereforeallowingtheopportunityfordissatisfactionorfrustration)untilweknowaboutitoruntilweknowitisavailable.Expectationsofwhatis'outthere'differwitheducation,exposuretoalternatives,andwithmuchmore.Iftwoworkershavethesameknowledgeaboutsomeaspectoroutcomeofajobactivity,theycanstilldifferonefromanotherintheirassessmentofthepotentialavailabilityandoftheimportanceoftheseexpectationstoeachofthem.Inaddition,theawesometaskofguaranteeingthatallaspectsoftheworkplace,whicharepotentiallyimportanttojoboccupants,areincludedinprecodedmeasurementmakesthiswant-satisfactionapproachevenmoregeneralandambiguousthanwasimpliedabove.Inthislight,usingconceptslikeattitudesandwantsseemstoleadinvestigatorsnottomeasuresofwhatworkandjobsarelike,butmoretowardthevagariesofwhatisknown,orisseentobeavailable,ortothenormsorstandardsthattherespondentstojobsatisfactionstudiesbringwiththem.Theseissuesaremethodological,butresultfromtheimproper,oratleastincomplete,definitionofsatisfaction.

12

Thereareothermethodologicalproblemsinmeasuringandinterpretingmeasurementofsatisfaction.Satisfactioncanalsobeseenasafunctionofone'sabilitytoadjusttoagivenworksituation,ortomodifythatsituationtoone'sneeds.Inotherwordsworkersmayreportsatisfactionwithajobtowhichtheyhaveadjustedtheirneedsorrequirements,irrespectiveoftherealqualityofthatjoboroftheirworkinglife.Iftheseemployeesseenoavenuesofescapeandiftheyhavemadeasuitableadjustment,thentheycouldwellseetheirworkassatisfactory.Whenthiskindofadjustmentsatisfactionismeasured,itmayormaynotbemeasuringastablecharacteristic.Amostdestructiveaswellasunstablepersonaladjustmentmechanismison-the-jobdrinkingorothernarcoticuse.Tothedegreethatthischaracteristicisanunstableone,satisfactionisalessreliablemeasureofqualityofworkinglife.

Ontheotherhand,peoplecanadjustjobsandworktosuitthemselvesinsteadofadjustingthemselvestothejob.Recentexamplesofsuchadjustmentrangefromtheharmlessorevenhelpfulactsofusingroomdeodorizersandincense,orworkingaheadtobuildabufferstock(tobeabletocontrolworkpace),tomore'negative'actssuchas'soldiering'onthejob,andsabotageofproductorplant,whichalsorepresentworkers'attemptstomodifythejoborworkplaceinordertosatisfysomefeelingofdistress.Asillustratedaboveintheexampleofthecardriverintheautoplant,afrustratedworkermightsaythatthejobissatisfactoryorsatisfyingifheorshecanexertsomecontrolovertheworkorworkplace,evenifthatcontrolresultsin'negative'behavior.

Thereisaspecialcaseofthepersonaladjustmentmechanism.Letuscallthismethodologicalissuetheproblemofcognitivedissonance.Wefindthatthejobsatisfactionusuallyincreasesforpeoplewhostayonjobsoveraperiodoftime,andishigherforpeoplewithlongertimeinjoborgrade.Forexample,jobsatisfactionwherepeoplehaveheldjobsforfivetotenyearsisusuallylowerthansatisfactionwithsimilarjobsinthesameorganizationforpeoplewhohaveheldthosejobs15to20years,orlonger.Thisresultisfrequentlyexplainedonthebasisthat'webecomewhatwedo'.Thelongerwespendonajobthemorewemaycometodefineourselvesintermsofthatjob,whileatthesametimethelesslikelyitisforustochangethatjobsothatwecometoidentifymorewiththejobandconfuseassessmentsofthejobwithassessmentsofourselves.Therefore,ifweareaskedtoreportthelevelofsatisfactionforajob,andwehavebeenatthatjobforalongtime,withlittlechancethatwewillmovefromthatjob,thenwearemorelikelytosaythatjobissatisfactory.Tosaythatitisunsatisfactory,orthatitisabadjobatthat

13

pointhasmoreofadirectimpactonwhatweareandwhatweseeourselvestobe.

Methodologically,jobsatisfactionmeasuresarealwaysrelativemeasures.Theysmentofone'sstaterelativetosomethingelse:amsatisfiedwiththisjobbecausemyneedsaremorefulfilled';'Iamsatisfiedwiththisjobbecausemywantsareproperlyseento.IlikethisjobbecausethisjobisbetterthanotherjobsIhaveknown,orthanotherjobsinthisplant';'IamsatisfiedwiththisjobbecauseIhavetodoitandamtherebyabletotolerateitbetter.IlikethisjobbecauseIhavechangedthisjobandtherebymadeitmoretolerable.Thus,meansimplicitlyrelativetosomethingelse.Whenweusespecificsatisfactionmeasures,wecanobtainalonglistof'satisfaction'withcertainelements.Wearestillmeasuringeachoneofthosespecificquestionsrelativetosomenormorstandardagainstwhichtosayitis'satisfactory'or'satisfying'-simplybecauseitisbetterthansomethingelse.

Thisisinthenatureofattitudinalmeasurement.Whenwearetalkingaboutjobsandwork,however,wearetalkingaboutcertainphenomenathatexistinmoreabsolutetimeandspace-somethingthatcanbemeasuredinabehavioralwayandforwhichbehaviorsareundertaken.Jobsatisfactionmeasures,however,areattitudinalratherthanbehavioral.Theyarenotmeasuresofon-the-jobbehavior.Theyarenotperceptionsofthaton-the-jobbehavior.Andinfacttheyarenotevenopinionsaboutcertainbehavioralfactsonthejob.Anopinionisaninterpretationorreportonfactsstatedinawaythatattitudescomeintoplay.Ifyoulikethekindofworkyoudo(anattitude),youropinionofthevarietyorchallengeforthisjobmaybemorefavorable(becauseofyourattitudeingeneral)thanitmightbeforsomeoneelsewhoseattitudetowardthatkindofworkwaslower(thatisforsomeonewhodislikeditingeneral).Butpurelyattitudinalmeasuresofgeneraljobsa