Measuring job satisfaction There are many methods for measuring job satisfaction.

By far, the mostcommon method for collecting data regarding job satisfaction is the Likert scale(named afterRensis Likert). Other less common methods of for gauging jobsatisfaction include: Yes/No questions, True/False questions, point systems,checklists, and forced choice answers. This data is typically collected using anEnterprise Feedback Management (EFM) system. The Job Descriptive Index (JDI), created by Smith, Kendall, & Hulin (1969), is aspecific questionnaire of job satisfaction that has been widely used. It measuresones satisfaction in five facets: pay, promotions and promotion opportunities,coworkers, supervision, and the work itself. The scale is simple, participantsanswer either yes, no, or cant decide (indicated by ?) in response to whethergiven statements accurately describe ones job. The work itselfresponsibility, interest, and growth. Quality of supervisiontechnical help and social support. Relationships with co-workerssocial harmony and respect. Promotion opportunitieschances for further advancement. Payadequacy of pay and perceived equity vis--vis others. The Job in General Index is an overall measurement of job satisfaction. It is animprovement to the Job Descriptive Index because the JDI focuses too much onindividual facets and not enough on work satisfaction in general.Other job satisfaction questionnaires include: the Minnesota SatisfactionQuestionnaire (MSQ), the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS), and the Faces Scale. TheMSQ measures job satisfaction in 20 facets and has a long form with 100questions (five items from each facet) and a short form with 20 questions (oneitem from each facet). The JSS is a 36 item questionnaire that measures ninefacets of job satisfaction. Finally, the Faces Scale of job satisfaction, one of thefirst scales used widely, measured overall job satisfaction with just one itemwhich participants respond to by choosing a face. Some general myths relating to Job Satisfaction.Argument: Satisfaction Causes Performance -If job satisfaction causeshigh levels of performance, the message to managers is quite simple: Toincrease employees work performance, make them happy. Research, however,indicates that no simple and direct link exists between individual job satisfactionat one point in time and work performance at a later point. This conclusion iswidely recognized among OB scholars, even though some evidence suggeststhat the relationship holds better for professional or higher level employees than for nonprofessionals or those at lower job levels. Job satisfaction alone is not aconsistent predictor of individual work performance. Argument: Performance Causes Satisfaction :If high levels of performance cause job satisfaction, the message to managers is quitedifferent. Rather than focusing first on peoples job satisfaction, attention shouldbe given to helping people achieve high performance; job satisfaction would beexpected to follow. Research indicates an empirical relationship betweenindividual performance measured at a certain time period and later jobsatisfaction. A basic model of this relationship, based on the work of Edward E.Lawler and Lyman Porter, maintains that performance accomplishment leads torewards that, in turn, lead to satisfaction. In this model rewards are interveningvariables; that is, they link performance with later satisfaction. In addition, amoderator variableperceived equity of

rewardsfurther affects therelationship. The moderator indicates that performance will lead to satisfactiononly if rewards are perceived as equitable. If an individual feels that his or herperformance is unfairly rewarded, the performancecausessatisfactionrelationship will not hold. Argument: Rewards Cause Both Satisfaction and Performance : This finalargument in the job satisfactionperformance controversy is the mostcompelling. It suggests that a proper allocation of rewards can positivelyinfluence both performance and satisfaction. The key word in the previoussentence is proper. Research indicates that people who receive high rewardsreport higher job satisfaction. But research also indicates that performance-contingent rewards influence a persons work performance. In this case, the sizeand value of the reward vary in proportion to the level of ones performanceaccomplishment. Large rewards are given for high performance; small or norewards are given for low performance. And whereas giving a low performer onlysmall rewards initially may lead to dissatisfaction, the expectation is that theindividual will make efforts to improve performance in order to obtain greaterrewards in the future. The point is that managers should consider satisfactionand performance as two separate but interrelated work results that are affectedby the allocation of rewards. Whereas job satisfaction alone is not a goodpredictor of work performance, well-managed rewards can have a positiveinfluence on both satisfaction and performance. What kindles dissatisfaction? Earnings or benefits Job quality or workplace support Lack of appreciation Stagnation or no growth Lack of freedom Best Practices -Employee Satisfaction