Job Satisfaction

| Категория реферата: Рефераты по менеджменту
| Теги реферата: антикризисное управление предприятием, лечение пяточной шпори
| Добавил(а) на сайт: Разумов.

Working conditions. One more factor imposing moderate impact on job satisfaction is working conditions. If conditions are good (e.g. offices are neat and cosy, clean and engaging), staff could easier manage their job. If bad working conditions were available (e.g. it is hot or noisy in the office), it would be more difficult for employees to implement their work. Otherwise, working conditions affect job satisfaction similar to working group’s influence. If all were favorably around, there would not be problems with job satisfaction.

A majority of people does not pay any special attention, if only these are not excessively bad. Moreover, availability of numerous claims on working conditions often testifies an availability of other problems. For example, a manager may claim on that evening before his office has been badly cleaned, however anger indeed is the result of his morning meeting with chiefs during that he had been reproved for bad implementation.
Nonetheless, for the last years working conditions obtain once again great importance in terms of work force diversification. For instance, several organizations included an opportunity to choose a flexible work schedule in employers’ working conditions that illustrates a fragment “Diversification management in action: Flexible approach –key to success”.

The consequences of Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is presented desirable as from a viewpoint of a single employer as society in total.
Never the less, pragmatically, from personnel effective management side and organization in the whole, it is important to determine, in which detailed way job satisfaction corresponds to the results of industrial activity.
Otherwise, if employers are content with the job, it is asked, whether it means that they would work better, and also whether organization productivity will increase in the whole. On other hand, by the low satisfaction one may ask, if there would be problems with productivity and low efficiency. During many years this question interests as researches, engaged in the given sphere, as managers-practicians. There are no simple answers for these questions.9 Observing the results of job satisfaction, it is necessary to break analysis apart onto some specific sub chapters. The most important of them could be considered below.

Job satisfaction and labor productivity. So, one can say that employees satisfied with their labor are of high productivity than those who are discontented with the job? An absence of direct correlation between satisfaction and labor results during many years embarrasses researches.
Indeed, it is natural to suppose a direct dependence between satisfaction and labor results, however the data given show that there is no close correlation between them. In particular, implemented metaanalysis of scientific literature on the given question shows that only in 17 cases out of 100 between these two parameters it is succeeded in the direct correlation identification. Not always satisfaction experiencing employees are characterized with utmost productivity. There are different altering factors influencing on this dependence. The most important form such factors, apparently, is material encouragement for employers. If people receive material spur that they consider as adequate their satisfaction increases, and altogether, as a rule, and labor productivity. Further, recently certificates were gotten that even if job satisfaction does not lead to the productivity growth of separate employers, it can forward positive budges on the level of the whole organization.10 At last, alive discussions are still kept arising if job satisfaction leads to the productivity growth or not or, on the contrary, the growth of productivity
– to job satisfaction.

Job satisfaction and personnel turnover. Does a high degree of employees’ labor satisfaction lead to low stuff turnover? In difference from labor productivity in correlation between labor satisfaction and personnel turnover it can be noticed some laws-guidance. High degree of satisfaction cannot itself hold turnover at the low level, however, undoubtedly, can improve situation significantly. On one hand, in case of low labor satisfaction it is likely to have a high staff turnover. One group of researchers revealed that for women of age from 18 to 25 years old a degree of their labor satisfaction helps foretell if they would change their jobs. On other hand, by the process of augmenting their length of service (duration of working in the given company) a likelihood of their move to another job place decreases. Service length for men is a serious factor as well, neutralizing later discontent feeling with their job.11

There are also other factors, such as devotion to organization, which plays important role in the correspondence defining between job (labor) satisfaction and personnel turnover. Some people just cannot imagine themselves at any other place, which is why they stay working at the same work place regardless of contentment degree. Another factor is a common economy state. When economical situation is stable and unemployment rate is low, personnel turnover as a rule magnifies, insofar people start seeking for them new better places in other organizations. Even if they are content with their available job, many still desire leave in that case if in another place there would be better opportunities, scopes, or chances granted. When an opposite situation is observed, i.e. by the lack of job places, employees can stay at their job, even if it does not suffice them.
Summarizing above-mentioned, one must note that labor, or job satisfaction plays important role in the defining of personnel turnover. Although full absence of this staff turnover not always fruitful for organization, none the less, maintaining at the low level, as a rule, imposes favorable impact on organization due to costs decrease on training and costs linked to the utilization of unqualified employees at the work places.

Job (Labor) satisfaction. Researches enough convincing show converse proportional dependence between labor satisfactions and absents. If satisfaction degree is high, a number of absents is insignificant, if it is low – their number increases. Never the less, like other cases, there are some averaging factors, such as people realization of the importance of their work. For example, research carried out among governmental institutions employees showed that people considering their job important more rarely afforded absents than those that thought otherwise. Aside from, one should remember that if high labor contentment not compulsory brings to absent number decrease, then low satisfaction would lead to their number boost with a high likelihood.12

Other consequences of job (labor) satisfaction. In addition to above- mentioned there are other consequences caused by high contentment with their job. The results of researches show that employees experiencing job satisfaction feeling with their job possess better physical and moral health, master faster necessary skills, more rarely suffer from industrial traumatism and come with claims. Another positive factor disclosed in one recent research is that employees satisfied with their labor more often demonstrate examples of pro-social, “civilized” behavior and deeds, for instance more frequent assist their colleagues and clients and in common exert inclination to co-operation.13

In the very whole overview researches occupied in a sphere of organization behavior equally with managers-practicians consider that labor contentment is very important for organization. Some critics notice that this statement still a conjecture, insofar, positive affect of labor contentment still little researched. On other hand, negative impact of labor contentment on organization is unquestionably acknowledged fact. That is why even if consider job satisfaction as a minimal claim, it represents a certain value for the whole health and efficacy of organization and, therefore, deserves study and utilizing in sphere of organizational behavior.

References

1 Terence R. Mitchell and James R. Larson, Jr. People in Organization, 3d ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1987, p.146
2 P. C. Smith, L. M. Kendall, and C. L. Hulin, The Measure of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement, Rand Mc Nally, Chicago, 1969.
3 Mary Ann M. Fricko and Terry A. Beehr, “A Longitudinal Investigation of
Interest Congruence and Gender Concentration as Predictors of Job satisfaction”, Personnel Psychology, September 1992, pp. 99-118.
4 Jane Ciabattari, “The Biggest Mistake Top Managers Make”, Working Woman,
October 1986, p.48
5 Brenda Major and Ellen Konar, “An Investgation of Sex Differences in pay
Expectations and Their Possible Causes”, Academy of Management Journal,
December 1984, pp.777-792.
6 Alison E. Barber, Randall B. Dunham, and Roger A. Formisano, “The Impact of Felxible Benefits on Employee Satisfaction: A Field Study”, Personnel
Psychology, September 1992, pp.55-76.
7 “Labor Letter”, The Wall Street Journal, Dec.22, 1987, p.1.
8 Katharine I. Miller and Peter R. Monge, “Participation, satisfaction, and
Productivity: A Meta-Analytic Review”, Academy of Management Journal,
December 1986, p.748.
9 Look, e.g.: Barry M. Staw and Sigal G. Barsade, “Affect and Managerial
Performance: A Test of the Sadder-but-Wiser vs. Happier-and-Smarter
Hypotheses”, Administrative Science Quarterly, June 1993, pp. 304-331.
10 Cheri Ostroff, “The Relationship Between Job Performance and Job
Satisfaction”, in E. A. Locke (ed.), Generalizing from Laboratoryto Field
Settings, Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass., 1986.
11 Herbert Parnes, Gilbert Nestel, and Paul Andrisiani, The Pre-Retirement
Years: A Longitudinal Study of the Labor Market Experience of Men, vol.3,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1973, p.37.
12 C. W. Clegg, “Psychology of Employee Lateness, Absenteeism, and
Turnover: A Methodological Critique and an Empirical Study: Journal of
Applied Psychology, February 1983, pp.88-101.
13 D. W. Organ, Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier
Syndrome, Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass., 1987