Journal of The Knowledge Economy

Knowledge-Based Work and Job
Satisfaction: Evidence from Spain
Joan Torrent-Sellens, Jackeline Velazco-

Portocarrero & Clara Vias-Bardolet
Journal of the Knowledge Economy
ISSN 1868-7865
J Knowl Econ
DOI 10.1007/s13132-015-0349-1
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Springer Science
+Business Media New York. This e-offprint is
for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com.
1 23
Author's personal copy
J Knowl Econ
DOI 10.1007/s13132-015-0349-1
Knowledge-Based Work and Job Satisfaction:

Evidence from Spain
Joan Torrent-Sellens 1 & Jackeline Velazco-Portocarrero 2,3 &

Clara Vias-Bardolet 3
Received: 23 September 2015 / Accepted: 28 December 2015

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
Abstract The aim of the article is to address the determinants of job satisfaction for
knowledge-based workers in Spain. The empirical analysis is focused on wage earners
aged between 16 and 65 years. To do this, microdata of 6499 workers from the 2010
Survey of Quality of Life at Work (Encuesta de Calidad de Vida en el Trabajo, ECVT
in Spanish) was used. An ordered probit model, which is designed to model the choice
between discrete alternatives, was preferred for the econometric analysis. Our results
highlight the fact that knowledge-based workers perceived significantly higher job
satisfaction than less-knowledge-based workers. Evidence suggests that financial (only
satisfaction with social benefits provided by firm) and non-financial (work organisa-
tion, labour relations and skills and training) job dimensions are the most important
determinants of knowledge-based workers satisfaction in Spain. Additionally, stress,
monotony, physical effort, labour discrimination, risk levels and commuting time have
negative effects.
Keywords Knowledge-based work . Job satisfaction . Work organisation .

Work intensity . Microdata . Ordered probit models . Spain
* Joan Torrent-Sellens
jtorrent@uoc.edu; http://i2tic.net/en/people/joan-torrent-sellens/
Jackeline Velazco-Portocarrero
jvelazc@pucp.edu.pe; http://i2tic.net/en/people/jackeline-raquel-velazco-portocarrero/
Clara Vias-Bardolet
cvinasb@uoc.edu; http://i2tic.net/en/people/clara-vinas-bardolet/
1
Economics and Business Studies, and Internet Interdiciplinary Institute (IN3), Open University of
Catalonia (UOC), Tibidabo Avenue, 39-43, 08035 Barcelona, Spain
2
Economics Department, Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, Lima, Peru
3
Internet Interdisciplinary Institute, Open University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain
J Knowl Econ
Introduction
At present, economic activity is undergoing a process of profound transformation,

which can be summarised as having started with the migration from an industrial
economy towards a new structure characterised by the decisive importance of knowl-
edge streams. This process of disruptive change is, in fact, characterised by (1)
interconnection over a network; (2) investment, falling prices and the persistent and
innovative use of information and communication technologies (ICT); and (3) the
increasing presence of knowledge streams in the economic flows, within a context
dominated by the globalisation of economic relations. There has been a consensus to
identify this process of transition from an industrial economy towards a knowledge-
based economy (Castells 2004; Foray 2004; Rooney et al. 2005; Dolfsma and Soete
2006; Torrent-Sellens 2015).
The increase in the use of ICT and knowledge in employment flows is likely to have
changed the labour market in many dimensions. It has been found that ICT users hold
jobs of higher quality and earn substantially higher wages than non-users. In addition,
ICT is particularly used by more highly educated workers, suggesting that skill
advantages play a crucial role in explaining employment structure and wages. Thus,
it is still unclear whether these observed better jobs or higher wages are a result of ICT
skills, or whether there are other sources underlying these occupational and wages
differentials (Borghans and Ter Weel 2005). What is clear is that the adoption of ICT
has been accompanied by an increase in cognitive demands, autonomy improvements,
hierarchical control reductions, job quality increases and better wages (Autor et al.
2003). However, could it be asserted that, with the adoption of ICT and knowledge
streams, employees feel happier at work? Which are the determinants or explanatory
factors of job satisfaction for knowledge-based workers? These are the questions
explored in this article.
In Spain, the proportion of knowledge-intensive private work rose from 15.7 % in
2000 to 16.2 % in 2008 (OECD 2011). Despite this trend, the levels continue to lag
well behind European countries such as Luxemburg (31.5 %), Belgium (27.5 %) and
Germany (27.3 %). On the other hand, job satisfaction has become a topic of interest in
the social sciences. It is recognised that around a quarter of our lives are spent at work.
Therefore, social scientists attempt to understand peoples satisfaction in the changing
workplace.
The aim of the article is to address the determinants of job satisfaction for
knowledge-based work in Spain. In spite of the growing number of studies on job
satisfaction (Rose 2003, 2005; Gallie et al. 2012; Roach-Anleu and Mack 2014), the
proposed subject has received limited attention in the empirical literature. Therefore,
this article aims to fill this gap in knowledge. The analysis of job satisfaction in Spain is
relevant because, in recent years, its labour market has deteriorated ostensibly as a
result of the economic crisis. First, there has been a rapid rise in unemployment, which
currently stands at 25 % of the working-age population. Second, there has been a
marked deterioration in working conditions, which particularly manifest themselves as
wage cuts, work precariousness and poorer work organisation and promotion condi-
tions. In this context, empirical evidence has indicated that one of the main reasons for
the serious deterioration of the labour market in Spain is its failure to adapt to the flow
of knowledge-based work. The analysis of job satisfaction in Spain, according to
J Knowl Econ
knowledge intensity, can provide evidence for the future dynamics of companies and
suggest policies to reconfigure labour markets. To this end, microdata was used of 6499
waged workers from the 2010 (latest year available) Survey of Quality of Life at Work,
prepared annually by the Spanish Ministry of Labour and Immigration. This is the only
survey available in Spain that collects qualitative and quantitative data on the various
internal and external job dimensions that influence worker satisfaction.
Literature Review
Job Satisfaction
In the past few decades, there has been a great deal of consolidated and growing social
research studying the determinants of job satisfaction, as an important part of overall
life satisfaction and well-being (Veenhoven 1993, 1999, 2000). In the 1970s, econo-
mists started to analyse the factors that shape well-being at work by introducing a
variable of job satisfaction, enriching the explanatory models of labour market behav-
iour. Although wages were important to explain overall job satisfaction, this academic
literature reports that other factors exist with equally or more important effects,
especially workers individual characteristics, working conditions, work organisation,
health and safety, among others (Hamermesh 1977). Also, Freeman (1978) confirmed
that job satisfaction was a major determinant of labour market mobility, in part as a
result of capturing aspects of the workplace not captured by the current standard
objective variables.
Regarding demographic variables, empirical studies have shown that there is a U-
shaped relationship between age and job satisfaction, declining on average until
workers reach their 30s (Clark and Oswald 1996; Clark et al. 1996). Different reasons
can explain this U-shaped relationship. First of all, older workers are better rewarded.
Second is the importance of changes in expectations with increasing age. Older workers
are more satisfied not only because they are better rewarded but also because they
expect less or because they care less about such comparisons. In a cohort analysis,
Jrges (2003) found a strong U-shaped cohort effect being the 19551960s born
generation the least satisfied. However, focusing on the age effects, the age effects
are mostly positive, but hump-shaped rather than U-shaped.
Clark (1997) also observed this U-shaped trend for both men and women separately,
having the same shape and the minimum ages across sexes. Although the evidence
shows that women enjoy their jobs more than men (Clark 1996; Oswald 2002), no
differences are found between genders in explaining job satisfaction (Gamero-Burn
2004). This implies that identical men and women with the same jobs and expectations
would indeed report identical job satisfaction. Unlike what would be expected, the
literature points out that difference exist in the labour values and in the individual or job
characteristics between genders, concluding that womens expectations are lower than
mens. Following this statement, Ahn and Garca (2004) found that female workers
declare higher pay satisfaction but lower work hour satisfaction. When important job
characteristics are controlled for, women declare higher job satisfaction levels than
men. However, the sign of the effect reverses when job characteristics are included.
Another reason can be inferred from the importance of social capital in the workplace,
J Knowl Econ
suggesting that several different sorts of trust have direct effects on well-being.
Although female workers earn less than males, Helliwell and Huang (2011) found
differences between genders. Female workers have equal or greater satisfaction with
their jobs and their lives, attaching a lower value to income and a higher value to trust
in management.
The empirical literature also confirms a negative relationship between levels of
education and job satisfaction, holding income constant (Ahn and Garca 2004;
Grund and Sliwka 2004). This negative relationship can be explained by the levels of
aspirations and the utility of work. When analysing job satisfaction among highly
educated workers, Belfield and Harris (2002) conclude that job satisfaction is neutral
across graduates of different education qualities. Other individual characteristics such
as the type of households seem to be significant. In addition to this, married and
widowed workers reported to be more satisfied with their work. The presence of three
or more children at home also has positive effects on job satisfaction. On the other
hand, the reported job satisfaction with respect to good health-perceived status or health
satisfaction is highly and positively associated (Lvy-Garboua et al. 2007).
It is worth noting that wage is important for overall job satisfaction. Assuming that
the perceived utility of a job does depend not only on the absolute wage but also on
wage increases, there is interesting literature that explores the impact of both wages and
wage increases on job satisfaction. In a pioneering study comparing income, Clark and
Oswald (1996) state that job satisfaction levels are inversely related to their comparison
wage rates. Clark (1999) also finds positive effects of both wages and wage increases,
but no significant effect of the absolute amount of the wage alone. Grund and Sliwka
(2004) confirm, which is empirically established, that current job satisfaction rises with
absolute wage level as well as with wage increases, having a significant positive impact
on job satisfaction. In a life satisfaction study, Ahn (2005) found that household income
affects positively individuals life satisfaction, while individual labour income loses its
effect when other job characteristics, especially subjective job evaluation variables, are
included.
Further research confirms that wage plays a relatively small role, but other variables
like health and safety, job match quality, contract type and job status (working hours,
flexibility and security) are also important determinants of overall job satisfaction
(Clark 2009; Salvatori 2010). Various studies show that workers who rate themselves
as unhappy with their work are more likely to become absentees or quit their jobs than
satisfied workers (Shields and Ward 2001). Green (2010) found asymmetric effects of
both job satisfaction and job-related well-being on quitting. Low well-being or job
satisfaction was associated with greater quitting, and high well-being or job satisfaction
was not significantly associated with reduced quitting.
Based on the case in Spain, Muoz de Bustillo and Fernndez (2004) report
that the income level is the variable most closely related to job satisfaction.
Gamero-Burn (2009) provides evidence that wages have a higher influence on
womens and immigrants well-being and their employment choice is basically
wage-based. Gamero-Burn (2007), when studying the type of contract on
perceived job satisfaction, concludes that temporary contracts have negative
effects on overall workers satisfaction.
Dueas et al. (2010) in a job quality research showed that for all employment,
women enjoy higher levels of job satisfaction than men. This holds true for young
J Knowl Econ
people, workers with medium levels of education and highly skilled white collar
workers earning the highest wages. Differentiating by activity sectors, they conclude
that workers in services activities report higher job satisfaction levels than the rest of
other sectors.
Knowledge-Based Work
The impact of technological change on work is the combined result of innovations in

different branches of production, labour market specific conditions (internal and
external) and the institutional framework (Sanders 2005; Saint-Paul 2008). When a
firm introduces an innovation leading to an employment increase, the effects on the
overall labour market are indirect and spread to other sectors. The employment lost
due to technological change tends to materialise in the manufacturing labour force
and in less-educated workers, while the new jobs require more skill and focus on
services. The final impact will be positive if the conditions necessary for an efficient
transition are fulfilled, especially macroeconomic stability and microeconomic effi-
ciency (Aghion et al. 1999; Heckman 2005). Additionally, some constraints relative
to the adaptation to a changing labour market and to the institutions affecting this
market must also be met (Van Reenen 1997). A full analysis of the linkages between
technology, knowledge and work must be approached from a broad conceptual
framework that takes into account the different effects, direct and indirect, of this
relationship (Vivarelli and Pianta 2000).
The empirical literature on the linkages between ICT change, knowledge and job
creation/destruction clearly confirms the approximation, already existing in the litera-
ture, on skill-biased technical change (SBTC). Under this approach, the process of
introducing technology that generates more trained workers and better skills, or that can
only be used by these workers, is behind the observed increase in the employment of
the most skilled workers, both in the firm as in the national and international domain
(Krueger 1993; Autor et al. 1998; Machin and Van Reenen 1998; Berman and Machin
2000; Machin 2003). Although the literature has shown that there is a link between ICT
use, job creation in knowledge-intensive services and job destruction in non-
knowledge-intensive manufacturing (Baccini and Cioni 2010; Kalleberg 2008; Cunha
et al. 2010), and also a link between ICT use, organisational change and job training in
explaining work change (Bresnahan et al. 2002; Black and Lynch 2004; Foss 2005),
there is little evidence that integrates both results in a single model (Oort et al. 2009).
In this sense, OECD (2003) defines the knowledge-intensive industries as all
industries that generate and/or exploit new technology and knowledge to some extent.
However, some are more technology- and/or knowledge-intensive than others. To
gauge the importance of technology and knowledge, it is useful to focus on the leading
producers of high-technology goods and on the activities (including services) that are
intensive users of high technology and/or have the relatively highly skilled workforce
necessary to benefit fully from technological innovations.
However, this definition does not take into account that knowledge economy is
present in all sectors, not only in the knowledge intensive industries. There is no
consensus around a unique definition of the knowledge worker. Alternative
approaches and definitions have been discussed over the time. Drucker (1959, 1995,
1999) was the first one who used the term knowledge worker defining the workers who
J Knowl Econ
work with intangible resources. For a detailed review of these definitions and
knowledge work classifications, see Pyri (2005) and Greene and Myerson (2011).
Moreover, the literature on knowledge management has also made significant
advances in the analysis of the effects that knowledge made on the business activity,
especially with regard to the knowledge development and social capital. In particular, it
has been shown that market-specific and firm-specific knowledge is an important driver
of an alliance forming learning (Ratten and Suseno 2006; Suseno and Ratten 2007).
Similarly, it has also been revealed that various dimensions of knowledge would be
linked with the firms innovative strength and their perfomance (Tidd and Bessant
2009). Particularly, it has been found that firms with the greatest innovation potential
implement management processes to search for new product ideas, offer support to
manage new ideas and involve all departments in management processes. Also,
teamwork, ease of horizontal and vertical communication, innovation incentives and
reward systems, and an innovation-friendly environment constitute the organisational
factors fundamental to attaining high innovation performance. These high-innovation
firms train staff, dedicate time to reviewing projects to achieve future improvements,
share experiences with other firms, record knowledge and apply measures to identify
improvement opportunities. Finally, networking, especially local networks, enables
firms to raise innovation performance (Ferreira et al. 2015a, b). So, workers knowl-
edge intensity constitutes a very relevant issue to explain the innovation performance of
the firms.
Following Brinkley (2006) and Wilczyska et al. (2015), we define knowledge-
based work using information related to individual training and professional status.
Thus, a knowledge-based worker is characterised as having a university education and
occupies a high professional level. We assume that the levels of knowledge use are
associated with the intensity of ICT use.
Knowledge-Based Work and Job Satisfaction
Although the relationship between ICT, knowledge and well-being seems significant,
more specifically on job satisfaction, currently the research linking these two areas is
rather scarce (Brian et al. 1997). Some recent articles analyse the sources of perceived
job quality (Handel 2005; Green 2006; Olsen et al. 2010) and obtain a wide range of
factors (financial and non-financial determinants), including some indicators of
knowledge-based work, such us training or ICT uses. However, the relationship
between knowledge work and job satisfaction has not been widely explored in the
subjective well-being literature yet. There is some research suggesting that there are
some motivational needs like personal growth, and organisational environments en-
couraging operational autonomy and task achievement, that contribute positively to
knowledge workers well-being (Tampoe 1993). More recently, Green (2006) considers
that technological change has helped to facilitate some of the changes in the balance of
labour market power and ICT use is positively linked to perceived job quality: Changes
in firms work organisation have been accompanied by greater task flexibility and the
involvement of workers in firms decision making.
Brinkley (2006) finds that a good job skills match was positively associated with (1)
high levels of job and life satisfaction and (2) good perceptions of the current job, and
negatively associated with (3) health interference with work. Knowledge
J Knowl Econ
workers did report better overall health, more job role challenge, autonomy,
social capital, job satisfaction and less absence than non-knowledge workers.
Other studies following Brinkleys definition of knowledge worker find that
knowledge workers report more job role challenge, autonomy, social capital and
less absenteeism than non-knowledge workers and that they enjoy significantly
better job quality and job satisfaction than the other clusters of workers
(Brinkley et al. 2010). Finally, Wilczyska et al. (2015) in their study of the
relationships between job security, employment stability and job satisfaction in
Poland found that job satisfaction of knowledge workers was more influenced
by job security and that this was the most influential factor on job satisfaction
above and beyond the other variables studied. They also found that knowledge
workers with temporary contracts were more satisfied than less knowledge
workers with the same type of contract. Most of the other findings replicated
the results of previous studies such as the fact that men are less job-satisfied and
that more years of education are inversely related with job satisfaction.
Data and Descriptive Statistics
Data Sources
The data used in this article is drawn from the 2010 Quality of Working Life Survey
(Encuesta de Calidad de Vida en el Trabajo, ECVT). The ECVT is a statistical survey
conducted by the Ministry of Employment and Social Security of the Spanish Gov-
ernment. The survey allows us to link objective information, derived from the research
of the situations and activities taking place in the working environment, with subjective
information, based on the levels of satisfaction in relation to the performed job, the
relationships that working people have at work, and the physical and emotional
conditions resulting from the job itself. The ECVT provides information on the
employment status and the family environment of the worker; the occupation or job
place characteristics; job mobility; job satisfaction; the work organisation; collective
bargaining; labour relations; working hours; compensation, training and job security;
and worklife balance.
The population under study is the population of wage earners aged between 16 and
65, residing in main family dwellings. The geographical scope is the entire Spanish
territory. The sample size is 6499 wage earners employed population in 2010, with a
fraction of sampling [(n/N) * 1000] of 0.320. The survey collection was conducted
during the last quarter of 2010 through computer-assisted telephone interviews. When
it was not possible to locate a worker by phone, a personal interview was carried out.
The validated questionnaire (Requena-Santos 2000) is divided into three main sections:
socio-demographic data, employment status and quality of life at work (Ministry of
Employment and Social Security 2010). It is important to note that due to the
overrepresentation of Catalan workers (region of Spain) in the national sample, both
descriptive statistics and econometric analysis were carried out using weights.
One key challenge is related to the empirical definition of knowledge-based work. It
is recognised that there is a lack of agreement in the literature about what a knowledge
worker is. In order to overcome this problem, Brinkley (2006) and Wilczyska et al.
J Knowl Econ
(2015) suggest that there are at least three ways of defining knowledge workers: (1) all
those who work in the top three standard occupational classifications (managers,
professionals, associate professionals); (2) all those with high level skills, indicated
by degree or equivalent qualifications; and (3) all those who perform tasks that require
expert thinking and complex communication skills with the assistance of computers.
Given the available data from the Survey on Quality of Life at Work, the following two
criteria were taken simultaneously into account: university education and high-skilled
occupation. The target groups are those who meet both these two criteria. For the
former, it consisted of workers whose educational achievement was mid-level college
or higher. The latter criterion, using the National Occupational Classification, considers
business management and general government; technical, professional, scientific and
intellectual; skilled agricultural and fishery workers; and artisans and skilled workers in
manufacturing, construction and mining. It is a cross-sectorial approach and takes into
account the first two above components mentioned.
Table 1 compares some features of knowledge-based workers (17.0 % of the
total workforce) with less-knowledge-based workers in Spain. Regarding age,
both groups have an average age of 40. A different pattern of job allocation is
found according to gender. Of knowledge-based workers, 52.8 % are women.
Among the less-knowledge-based workers, the participation of women accounts
for 42.5 %. With respect to educational achievement, as expected, knowledge-
based workers have a higher educational level and the other workers show a
wider range of education levels.
Focusing on size of the firm, a striking difference is identified. Of knowledge-based
work, 64.5 % is concentrated in firms with more than 50 workers, while in less-
knowledge-based work, the figure is 42.3 %. The allocation of workforce according
to economic activity shows a similar pattern across groups. Knowledge-based employ-
ment is massively concentrated in the service sector, followed by industry, construction
and a marginal presence in agriculture. Turning to the professional situation, a different
distribution between public and private sector workers is observed. For knowledge-
based work, private and public workers are distributed in a similar way (40.2 and
41.3 %, respectively). On the other hand, for less-knowledge-based work, private
workers account for 66.0 % of total employment and public workers are 15.3 %.
Measure of Job Satisfaction
Regarding job satisfaction, the variable was approximated by declared worker satisfac-
tion, measured on a scale of 0 to 10, from total dissatisfaction to complete satisfaction.
The specific question is, BSpeaking of job satisfaction in general, could you place
yourself on this scale? Where 0 is very dissatisfied and 10 is very satisfied^. Table 2
shows the distribution of job satisfaction according to the full and sub-samples of wage
earners. It is observed that only a small fraction of workers are explicitly dissatisfied. Of
knowledge-based waged workers, 62.0 % report very satisfied job satisfaction (levels 8
to 10). Of the less-knowledge-based waged workers, 41.5 % report satisfied job
satisfaction (levels 5 to 7). Analysing the job satisfaction mean score (7.7 in
knowledge-based waged workers and 7.3 in less-knowledge-based waged workers),
the difference in means between the two groups allows testing for a statistically
significant difference (p < 0.001).
J Knowl Econ
Table 1 Comparison of workers characteristics in Spain 2010
Sub-samples
Knowledge-based Less-knowledge-
Full sample workers based workers
Total employmenta 18,409,625 3,136,412 15,273,213

% 100.0 17.0 83.0
Sex (%)
Man 55.7 47.2 57.5
Woman 44.3 52.8 42.5
Age (average in years) 40.8 40.9 40.8
Education (%)
Primary 13.9 0.0 16.8
Compulsory secondary 20.5 0.0 24.7
Lower vocational and technical training 12.9 0.0 15.6
Upper vocational and technical training 11.8 0.0 14.2
Upper secondary general 13.8 0.0 16.6
Higher education: medium degree 12.2 40.0 6.5
Higher education: superior degree 14.9 60.0 5.6
Size of the firm (%)
1 worker 10.7 5.9 11.7
2 to 9 workers 25.0 14.7 27.2
10 to 49 workers 18.2 14.9 18.8
50 to 249 workers 13.5 14.3 13.3
Over 250 workers 32.6 50.2 29.0
Economic activity (%)
Agriculture 5.0 0.6 5.8
Industry 14.5 7.7 15.9
Construction 8.7 3.9 9.7
Services 71.9 87.9 68.6
Professional situation (%)
Public sector worker 19.5 40.2 15.3
Private sector worker 61.8 41.3 66.0
Entrepreneur, professional or self-employed 17.2 18.0 17.0
Other 1.4 0.4 1.7
Source: Authors calculations from ECVT (2010)

a
All figures refer to weighted data
Empirical Model and Variables
Model
It is important to point out some methodological caveats associated to the empirical

analysis of subjective well-being. One is related to the relative small percentage in
J Knowl Econ
Table 2 Distribution of overall job satisfaction in Spain for wage earners 2010
Full sample Sub-samples
Knowledge-based Less-knowledge-based
workers workers
Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage
Original scale
0 (fully unsatisfied) 27 0.4 4 0.4 23 0.4
1 33 0.5 0 0.0 33 0.6
2 76 1.2 2 0.2 74 1.4
3 87 1.3 8 0.7 80 1.5
4 135 2.1 13 1.2 122 2.3
5 532 8.2 48 4.4 485 9.0
6 723 11.1 85 7.9 639 11.8
7 1373 21.1 250 23.1 1122 20.7
8 1982 30.5 412 38.1 1568 28.9
9 850 13.1 172 15.9 677 12.5
10 (fully satisfied) 681 10.5 88 8.1 594 11.0
Total 6499 100.0 1082 100.0 5417 100.0
Grouped levels
Unsatisfied (04) 358 6.0 28 3.0 331 6.1
Satisfied (57) 2628 40.0 382 35.0 2247 41.5
Very satisfied (810) 3513 54.0 672 62.0 2839 52.4
Job satisfaction (mean score) 7.4 7.7 7.3
All figures refer to weighted data. Source: Authors calculations from ECVT (2010)
changes in well-being explained by socio-economic and demographic variables, and

the second one relates to the concern of causation (Ferrer-i-Carbonell and Frijters
2004). The authors draw attention to the fact that when studying well-being, it is
difficult to account for unobserved workers characteristics and, therefore, models
without fixed effects are likely to produce misleading results and that should not be
interpreted in causal terms. Hence, the empirical findings should be taken with caution.
Following the tradition of happiness economics (Frey and Stutzer 2002), the section
relies on a microeconomic model which assumes the maximisation of a standard utility
function of a worker. Therefore, job satisfaction, a proxy for subjective well-being,
depends on worker attributes, financial and non-financial job characteristics: work
organisation, working conditions, labour relations, skills and training, work intensity,
health and safety and reconciling work/personal life.
This section empirically investigates the determinants of job satisfaction in Spain
with special focus on knowledge-based waged workers and less-knowledge-based
waged workers. An ordered probit model, which is designed to model the choice
between discrete alternatives, was preferred for the econometric analysis. In general,
it is assumed that there are N workers (i = 1.N), with a vector xki containing
J Knowl Econ
observations on K independent variables that explain workers job satisfaction. The

empirical specification is formulated in terms of a latent response variable, y*i , which
represents job satisfaction scales and is defined by the following structural equation:
X
K
y*i ki xki i i N ID0; 1 1
k1
where i is the surveyed worker, xki is a vector of independent variables that explain job
satisfaction; k are parameters that indicate the effect of xk on y*i , and i is a normally
distributed independent error term for worker i.
Therefore, the ordered probit model with three alternatives is defined as follows:
8
<1 if y*i < d 1
yi 2 if d 1 y*i < d 2
:
3 if d 2 y*i < d 3
where d1 < d2 < d3. The parameter d is called the Bthreshold parameter^, and the model
is estimated using maximum likelihood estimation.
Let yi be a discrete random variable whose value ranges from 1 to 3. So, the job
satisfaction variable was grouped in three categories for the model estimation (see
Table 2): unsatisfied (1), satisfied (2) and very satisfied (3).
Independent Variables
The set of independent variables posited to explain the level of job satisfaction
comprises the following:
1. Worker characteristics such as age, age squared education and gender. The age
variables denote the stage of the worker in his life cycle, as well as his experience.
The effect of age may be non-linear, and hence the age squared variable was
included. Education variables are captured by dummies (primary, secondary, upper
secondary general, vocational and technical training and higher education).
2. A dummy variable for the knowledge-based waged worker. Dummy variables for
regions (Centre, South, Northeast, Northwest and East), Madrid being the reference
category.
3. Dummy variables for economic activities such as agriculture, services, construction
and industry (reference category).
4. Dummy variables referring to household types such as couples with children,
couples without children, single with children and single without children (refer-
ence category).
5. Financial job characteristics consist of the logarithm of monthly net income. Income
was collected in nine categories and was transformed by taking logarithms of the
midpoints. Another variable is satisfaction with social benefits provided by firm.
6. Non-financial job characteristics, consisting of 24 indicators, include the following
job dimensions: work organisation, working conditions, labour relations, skills and
J Knowl Econ
training, work intensity, health and safety and reconciling work/family life (Daz
et al. 2014). Most of these job dimensions are subjective valuations of job
characteristics. Respondents rated (on a scale of 0 to 10) their satisfaction, and
these scales were transformed into binary variables before being introduced as
regressors in the econometric models. In order to do this, a weighted sample
median was taken as a benchmark value. Therefore, it takes the value of one if
the worker job satisfaction for any job dimension is higher than its median value;
otherwise, the zero value was imputed.
In order to analyse if the job dimensions variables are interrelated, a collinearity
test was implemented. The test found no problems of imperfect collinearity in these
variables. The mean variance inflation factor is equal to 1.50. This implies that all
variables could be safely considered in a single model. Moreover, there is abundant
empirical literature exploring the relationship between job satisfaction and
working organisation dimensions. For instance, from a Spanish perspective,
Gamero (2007, 2009) has widely used the Survey of Quality of Life at Work
database and included variables such as satisfaction with decision making, partic-
ipation in teamwork, satisfaction with promotion prospects, level of monotony and
routine and level of physical effort. Other recent and relevant international litera-
ture in line with this approach are Bos et al. (2009), Clark et al. (2010), Ercikti et al.
(2011) and Helliwell and Huang (2011).
7. Additional variables include a dummy that captures macroeconomic conditions
such as the comparison of the 2010 national GDP per capita with the regional GDP
per capita. Regressions were also carried out considering another region-specific
variable such as unemployment rate. At the regional level, GDP per capita and
unemployment rate present a correlation coefficient of 0.753 (p < .001). This
strong and negative correlation suggests that labour market conditions are captured
by the level of economic activity (Clark et al. 2010). So, a dummy takes a value of
1 if a worker resides in a region with a GDP per capita above the national average.
Another variable captures the city size. It takes a value of 1 if a worker is in a city
with less than 100,000 inhabitants.
For the empirical analysis, three main groups are considered. As a result, the sample
is divided according to the worker being a knowledge-based waged worker or not. The
first group consists of the full sample and a dummy variable capturing a knowledge-
based waged worker was included. The second and third groups consist of the sub-
sample of workers. Table 5, in the Appendix, shows descriptive data for variables used
in the analysis according to the three above mentioned samples.
In order to carry out a careful analysis of the relevance of each job dimension as
determinant of job satisfaction, the following strategy was implemented. First, Tables 6,
7 and 8 in the Appendix show a set of models for each sample. Model 1 is related to the
determinants of job satisfaction, taking into account only socio-demographic variables.
From models 2 to 8, the different job dimensions are added individually to model 1,
facilitating the assessment of each individual job dimension as a determinant of job
satisfaction.
Second, an attempt was made to reduce the number of explanatory variables by
computing indexes that summarise some job dimensions. All indexes were computed
as an average of the respondent scores for the relevant variables. Five indexes were
J Knowl Econ
created: working condition index, labour discrimination index, stress, monotony and
physical effort index as part of the work organisation dimension. In addition to this, a
labour relation index and work intensity index were estimated. The first index is based
on workers assessment of air conditioning, heating, ventilation, noise and lighting. The
second index consisted of the following dimensions of discrimination: sex, age,
nationality, mobbing and sexual harassment. The third index consists of the assessment
of negative aspects of the work organisation dimension: stress, monotony, routine and
physical effort. The labour relation index summarises the satisfaction with relationships
between managers and workers as well as between co-workers. A work intensity index
comprises satisfaction with holidays and leave periods, flexibility of timetable and job
stability. Model 9 in Tables 6, 7 and 8 display the outcomes when the indexes were
used. Finally, Table 3 summarises the models for the three samples, when all job
dimensions are considered simultaneously.
For robustness checks, a probit regression was also estimated with the
probability of a worker being satisfied with his job as the dependent variable.
By doing this, the identical set of variables used in Eq. (1) was considered. In
order to reduce the job satisfaction variable scales from 11 to only 2, the
sample median was used as a benchmark. Therefore, if for any worker his
job satisfaction scale is greater than the median, a value of 1 was imputed;
otherwise, it was 0. Results from the probit model have confirmed the previous
findings based on the ordered probit model.
Results
For all models presented in Tables 6, 7 and 8 and based on the p value for the chi-
square test, it is concluded that the hypothesis related to the zero coefficient for all
explanatory variables can be rejected. The analysis from models 2 to 8 across the three
samples corroborates the importance of individual job dimensions as determinants of
job satisfaction, being statistically significant in all cases. As expected, a negative
relationship was found with the stress, monotony and physical effort index, labour
discrimination index, commuting time and level of risk.
Model 1 in Table 6 focuses on socio-demographic workers features, location
variables and the knowledge-based variable. The latter is highly significant, denoting
that knowledge-based waged workers have higher job satisfaction than other workers.
A workers characteristic, such as age, exhibits a negative association with job satis-
faction. Age squared is also significant and the U-shaped relationship between age and
job satisfaction is confirmed, 35 being the minimum age of the convex relationship.
This is in line with the findings reported in empirical studies carried out in Spain
(Gamero-Burn 2004, 2007, 2009). Worker residence in the South, North West and
East regions displays higher job satisfaction when compared to the Madrid region. A
similar finding was reported by Iglesias et al. (2011). Turning to the economic activity
variables, workers in the agricultural sector show lower job satisfaction than workers in
industry, a result also confirmed by Dueas et al. (2010). Regarding the size of city
variable, a worker living in a city with less than 100,000 inhabitants reports signifi-
cantly higher levels of job satisfaction. The type of household and region with GDP
above national were not significant variables in explaining job satisfaction.
Table 3 Ordered probit determinants of job satisfaction in Spain 2010
Model (1) Model (2) Model (3)

All workers Knowledge-based waged workers Less-knowledge-based waged workers
Coefficient Marginal effecta Coefficient Marginal effecta Coefficient Marginal effecta
Male 0.637 0.025 0.124 0.044 0.047 0.019

Age 0.002 0.001 0.007 0.002 0.002 0.001
Age2/100 0.003 0.001 0.010 0.003 0.003 0.001
Knowledge-based waged worker (dummy) 0.072 0.028
City with less than 100,000 inhabitants (dummy) 0.043 0.017 0.118 0.042 0.027 0.011
Region with GDP above national average (dummy) 0.923 0.036 0.025 0.009 0.127 0.050
Education (ref.: primary)
Secondary 0.028 0.011
Upper secondary general 0.097 0.038
Vocational and technical training 0.058 0.023
Higher education 0.011 0.004
Type of Household (ref.: single without children)
Couples with children 0.124 0.048 0.404** 0.143 0.052 0.020

Couples without children 0.043 0.017 0.472** 0.154 0.052 0.020
Single with children 0.111 0.043 0.497** 0.166 0.029 0.011
Economic sector (ref.: manufacturing)
Agriculture 0.713*** 0.276 0.408 0.129 0.778*** 0.296
Construction 0.111 0.044 0.053 0.019 0.128 0.051
Services 0.066 0.025 0.062 0.022 0.087 0.034
Region (ref.: Madrid)
South region 0.179 0.069 0.009 0.003 0.241* 0.094
J Knowl Econ
Table 3 (continued)

J Knowl Econ
North West region 0.173 0.066 0.276 0.103 0.263** 0.101

North East region 0.119 0.045 0.176 0.065 0.162* 0.063
East region 0.103 0.040 0.043 0.015 0.138* 0.054
Centre region 0.201 0.077 0.258 0.087 0.232* 0.090
Financial job characteristics
Monthly net income in Euros (log) 0.441** 0.173 0.232 0.083 0.536*** 0.212
Satisfaction with social benefits provided by firm 0.271*** 0.106 0.437*** 0.158 0.242*** 0.095
Work organisation (non-financial job characteristics)
Satisfaction with level of motivation 0.576*** 0.215 0.636*** 0.210 0.554*** 0.211
Satisfaction with career advancement 0.299*** 0.115 0.630*** 0.215 0.202*** 0.076
Satisfaction with level of autonomy 0.009 0.003 0.096 0.034 0.058 0.023
Satisfaction with managers valuation of performed work 0.130** 0.051 0.276** 0.095 0.098 0.039
Satisfaction with decision making 0.342*** 0.133 0.386*** 0.139 0.342*** 0.134
Participation in teamwork (dummy) 0.210*** 0.083 0.077 0.028 0.2334*** 0.093
Satisfaction with promotion prospects 0.277*** 0.108 0.162 0.058 0.313*** 0.123
Stress, monotony and physical effort index 0.060*** 0.023 0.108*** 0.038 0.054*** 0.021
Working conditions (non-financial job characteristics)
Working conditions index (air, noise and lighting) 0.062*** 0.024 0.036 0.013 0.070*** 0.028
Commuting time in hours 0.066 0.026 0.305** 0.109 0.026 0.010
Labour relations (non-financial job characteristics)
Relationships between managers and workers 0.152** 0.059 0.270** 0.093 0.162** 0.064
Table 3 (continued)

Relationships with co-workers 0.058 0.022 0.375*** 0.136 0.002 0.001

Labour discrimination index (sex, age, nationality, 0.088*** 0.035 0.066* 0.024 0.095*** 0.037
mobbing and sexual harassment)
Skills and training (non-financial job characteristics)
Degree to which academia training is useful for work 0.137** 0.053 0.251** 0.091 0.101 0.040
Satisfaction with training provided by firm 0.221*** 0.086 0.189* 0.067 0.220*** 0.087
Work intensity (non-financial job characteristics)
Monthly hours worked in main job (log) 0.169 0.066 0.359 0.128 0.159 0.063
Satisfaction with holidays and leaves 0.116* 0.045 0.301** 0.106 0.052 0.021
Satisfaction with flexibility of timetable 0.312*** 0.121 0.029 0.010 0.412*** 0.161
Satisfaction with job stability 0.108* 0.042 0.005 0.002 0.127** 0.050
Health and safety at work (non-financial job char.)
Level of risk 0.098** 0.038 0.051 0.018 0.123** 0.049

Satisfaction with health and safety 0.077 0.030 0.014 0.005 0.101 0.040
Reconciling work/family life (non-financial job char.)
Satisfaction with work-family life balance 0.181*** 0.070 0.129 0.046 0.182*** 0.071
Statistics
Cut1 1.017* 0.487* 1.408***
Cut2 3.047*** 2.694** 3.446***
Number of Observations 5,691 1,067 4,624
Wald Chi2 1,191.73 267.28 1,048.33
J Knowl Econ
Table 3 (continued)

J Knowl Econ
Prob > Chi2 0.000 0.000 0.000

Log likelihood function 3,618.6 593.2 2,976.9
Restricted log-likelihood 4,825.2 805.2 4,000.7
Pseudo-R2 0.25 0.26 0.26
Obs. correctly predicted (%) 70.8 72.6 70.3
Robust standard errors were computed. Source: authors calculations from ECVT (2010)
*Coefficients are significant at the 10 % level; ***coefficients are significant at the 5 % level; ***coefficients are significant at the 1 % level
a
Marginal effects on Pr (job satisfaction = 2)
J Knowl Econ
Table 3 reports the results for the three samples. For all regressions, the hypothesis
that the coefficients associated with each of the explanatory variables are jointly zero
can be rejected (the p value for the chi-square test is smaller than 0.001 for each of the
specifications). Regarding the goodness of fit, pseudo-R2 ranges from 0.01 to 0.26.
Model 1 in Table 3 is an extension of model 1 from Table 6 and considers financial
and non-financial job characteristic variables. However, only workers in the agricultural
sector variable remain significant from model 1, and the knowledge-based work
variable became insignificant.
In order to untangle the lack of significance of the knowledge-based waged worker
variable, different model specifications are displayed in Table 4, which shows the
coefficients obtained for the knowledge-based waged worker variable. The first spec-
ification indicates that the variable is significant and positively correlated when includ-
ed as single regressor. This implies that the unconditional distributions of job satisfac-
tion are different by type of worker. Therefore, the knowledge-based waged worker
exhibits a higher level of job satisfaction than the other workers.
The basic model specification (BM) corresponds to model 1 of Table 6 and confirms
the significance of the knowledge-based waged worker variable. In order to check
which job characteristics are responsible for the variable loses of significance, we have
proceeded to add, alternately, each of the job dimensions as shown in Table 4. It is
observed that the knowledge-based waged worker variable maintains the level of
significance and the positive sign when adding the individual job dimensions. The
Table 4 Ordered probit estimation of the coefficients related to knowledge-based work in Spain according to
alternative models 2010
Coefficient of knowledge- Pseudo-R2 Observations

based waged work correctly predicted
Alternative models Variable Percentage Percentage
Only knowledge-based employment 0.272*** 0.004 54.6

as control variable
Basic model (BM)1 0.278*** 0.017 55.0
BM and financial variables 0.077 0.040 55.8
BM and work organisation variables 0.079 0.198 68.0
BM and working condition variables 0.278*** 0.057 58.4
BM and labour relation variables 0.339*** 0.076 61.0
BM and skills and training variables 0.147*** 0.072 60.4
BM and work intensity variables 0.224*** 0.097 63.6
BM and health and safety at work variables 0.267*** 0.054 58.3
BM and reconciling work/family life variable 0.270*** 0.051 49.1
BM and all job dimension variablesb 0.072 0.250 70.8
***Coefficients are significant at 1 % level, respectively
a
This corresponds to model (1) from Table 4 in the Appendix
b
This corresponds to model (1) from Table 7
J Knowl Econ
exception is when financial job characteristics and working organisation variables were
considered. The loss of significance when considering simultaneously all job dimen-
sions may be due to the fact that many of them could be highly correlated with the
knowledge-based waged worker variable.
Focusing on model 1 in Table 3, it is important to assess the magnitude of the
significant variables using marginal effects. With regard to the non-financial job
characteristics variables, it is found that work organisation (satisfaction with
level of motivation, satisfaction with level of autonomy and decision making)
and work intensity (satisfaction with flexibility of timetable) are the job charac-
teristics associated to the greatest marginal effect. This finding has to some
extent been confirmed by Daz et al. (2014). Another equally important dimen-
sion corresponds to labour relations. Relationships between manager and workers
variable has a positive effect on job satisfaction, while labour discrimination
index is associated with a lower level of job satisfaction. Moreover, health and
safety at work and skills and training dimensions and reconciling work and
family life dimension are significant determinants of job satisfaction. With
respect to the variables related to financial job characteristics, satisfaction with
social benefits and net monthly income is positive and highly significant variable
in explaining job satisfaction, in line with findings reported in empirical studies
from Spain and other countries (Grund and Sliwka 2004; Clark 2009; Kristensen
and Johansson 2008; Salvatori 2010; Helliwell and Huang 2011).
Model 2 and model 3 aim to identify any difference in the way in which knowledge-
based waged workers and less-knowledge-based waged workers determine their job
satisfaction. The analysis across all samples suggests that no major differences are
found regarding the same set of variables that are relevant in explaining job satisfaction.
It is important to mention that workers attributes variables have no impact on job
satisfaction in both samples and that the greatest influence on job satisfaction is derived
from financial and non-financial job dimension variables for the less-knowledge-based
waged workers and mainly from non-financial job dimensions for the knowledge-based
waged workers.
By comparing the magnitude of marginal effects from models 2 and 3, some
interesting conclusions emerge. Regarding net monthly income, a financial job char-
acteristic variable, less-knowledge-based waged workers exhibit the largest marginal
effect. This finding could denote that salary issue is an area of greater concern for this
group. This should not come as a surprise given its lower net monthly income when
compared with knowledge-based waged workers.
Focusing on non-financial characteristics, particularly among the work organisation
dimensions, it is observed that knowledge-based waged workers display a higher
impact on job satisfaction associated with the level of motivation, satisfaction with
decision making, career advancement and managers valuation, when compared to less-
knowledge-based waged workers. Moreover, the stress, monotony and physical effort
index has a significant effect on both groups of workers, affecting negatively their job
satisfaction.
With respect to another job dimension such as labour relations, it is noted that
relationships between managers and employees display a higher impact on job satis-
faction for knowledge-based waged workers. On the other hand, the labour discrimi-
nation index has a negative impact on both sub-samples.
J Knowl Econ
It is observed that satisfaction with relationships with co-workers for the knowledge-
based waged worker exhibits a negative impact on job satisfaction. This unexpected
finding does not hold if we compare the outcomes from model 5 and model 9 in
Table 7, showing a positive impact from each item of labour relations dimension as
well as the labour relations index.
In relation to the skills and training dimension, satisfaction with training provided by
firms is significant for both groups. Turning to the work intensity dimension, satisfac-
tion with working hours is not significant. By contrast, satisfaction with holidays and
leave is only significant for the knowledge-based waged workers, while satisfactions
with flexibility of timetable and job stability are relevant only for less-knowledge-based
waged workers.
Concerning the health and safety at work dimension, level of risk is negatively
associated to job satisfaction largely for less-knowledge-based waged workers, and
satisfaction with health and safety is not significant. Finally, looking at the reconciling
workfamily life dimension, this is only significant for the less-knowledge-based
waged workers.
Concluding Remarks and Discussion
This article dealt with the question of the determinants of job satisfaction for
knowledge-based workers in Spain. In spite of the growing number of studies on job
satisfaction, the proposed subject has received limited attention in the empirical
literature. Therefore, this article aimed to fill this gap in knowledge. Over the past
40 years, the labour markets of the advanced industrialised world have been signifi-
cantly modified. The increase in the adoption and use of information and communica-
tion technologies (ICT) and knowledge in employment flows is likely to have changed
the labour market in many dimensions. On the other hand, job satisfaction has become
a topic of interest in the social sciences. It is recognised that around a quarter of our
lives is spent at work. Therefore, social scientists attempt to understand peoples well-
being in the workplace. Given this scenario, the aim of the article was to explore the
determinants of job satisfaction for knowledge-based workers in Spain. To do this,
microdata from the 2010 Survey of Quality of Life at Work, consisting of 6499 wage
earners, was used for the empirical analysis.
After considering the full sample of workers and sub-samples according to the
worker being a knowledge-based waged worker or not, the econometric analysis
revealed important insights. Regarding the whole sample of workers, one model
focused on socio-demographic workers features, location variables and the
knowledge-based variable. The latter was highly significant, denoting that
knowledge-based waged workers have a higher job satisfaction than other workers.
A workers characteristic, such as age, exhibits a negative association with job satis-
faction. Age squared was also significant, and the U-shaped relationship between age
and job satisfaction was confirmed, 35 being the minimum age of the convex
relationship.
An alternative model was an extension of the first model and considered financial
and non-financial job characteristic variables. A high number of these variables were
statistically significant. Focusing on the magnitude of the significant variables using
J Knowl Econ
marginal effects, it was found that work organisation (satisfaction with level of
motivation, decision making, satisfaction with career development, satisfaction with
managers valuation of performed work and stress level) and work intensity (satisfac-
tion with job stability and satisfaction with holidays and leave) were the job character-
istics associated to the greatest marginal effect.
Other equally important dimensions corresponded to labour relations. The
relationships between manager and employees variable had a positive effect on
job satisfaction, while the labour discrimination index was associated with a
lower level of job satisfaction. Moreover, health and safety at work and
reconciling work and family life dimensions were significant determinants of
job satisfaction. With respect to the variables related to financial job character-
istics, net monthly income was a positive and highly significant variable in
explaining job satisfaction.
The analysis across the two sub-samples, knowledge- and less-knowledge-based
waged workers, suggested that no major differences were found regarding the same set
of variables which were relevant in explaining job satisfaction. However, the magnitude
of the marginal effects denoted that there were subtle differences between the two
groups.
It is important to mention that workers attribute variables had no impact on job
satisfaction in both samples and that the greatest influences on job satisfaction were
derived from financial and non-financial job dimension variables. Finally, by identify-
ing a set of significant variables determining job satisfaction, our results could be
valuable for firm managers looking for measures to enhance or improve job satisfaction
in knowledge-based waged work.
In this sense, our results suggest that if worker satisfaction is important for economic
and firm growth, and also for the social welfare, the actions for both groups should be
addressed differently by public employment policies or directly the employer. Focusing
in our results, the knowledge-based waged workers actions should focus on the
workplace, which necessitates of flexible labour market regulations together with a
horizontal culture of work relations. Actions directed towards less-knowledge-based
waged workers would do well in stressing traditional industrial relations labour policies
protecting workers from health and safety risks, providing live-long training opportu-
nities and guaranteeing that legally binding agreements on working hours are complied
with, for example.
Finally, if, as evidenced by the literature, worker satisfaction is important to achieve
higher levels of engagement and to improve firm performance, the satisfaction of
knowledge-based waged workers is also important and given its future strategic
relevance deserves further attention. The fact that the satisfaction of knowledge-based
waged workers is determined by factors related to work organisation and working
conditions factors such as promotion of workers, job security, and professional and
social relations in the firm or organisation, and with reconciling workfamily life
factors, suggests the need to reconsider the content of human resources practices, since
nowadays they are still too focused on the quantity of employment and remuneration
and not enough on the non-financial characteristics of the jobs. The consideration of
new forms of work organisation and social relations at work should be addressed more
urgently by firms strategy as an instrument to promote better job quality and innova-
tion performance.
J Knowl Econ
Appendix
Table 5 Descriptive statistics
Sub-samples
Full sample Knowledge- Less-knowledge-

based waged based waged
workers workers
Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
Job satisfaction 7.37 1.78 7.67 1.42 7.31 1.83

Male 0.54 0.50 0.46 0.50 0.56 0.50
Age 40 1.08 41 9.99 40 1.09
Age2/100 17.21 8.85 17.46 8.42 1.72 8.94
Knowledge-based worker (dummy) 0.17 0.38
City with less than 100.000 inhabitants 0.59 0.49 0.49 0.50 0.61 0.49
(dummy)
Region with GDP above national 0.48 0.50 0.54 0.50 0.47 0.50
average (dummy)
Education
Primarya 0.13 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.37
Secondary 0.21 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.43
Upper secondary general 0.14 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.37
Vocational and technical training 0.24 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.45
Higher education 0.28 0.45 1.00 0.00 0.14 0.34
Type of household
Single without childrena 0.04 0.19 0.03 0.18 0.04 0.20
Couples with children 0.51 0.50 0.49 0.50 0.52 0.50
Couples without children 0.17 0.38 0.20 0.40 0.17 0.37
Single with children 0.28 0.45 0.28 0.45 0.28 0.45
Economic activity
Manufacturinga 0.16 0.37 0.08 0.28 0.18 0.38
Agriculture 0.03 0.18 0.01 0.08 0.04 0.19
Construction 0.08 0.27 0.04 0.20 0.09 0.28
Services 0.73 0.45 0.87 0.34 0.70 0.46
Region
Madrida 0.17 0.37 0.21 0.41 0.16 0.36
South region 0.22 0.41 0.20 0.40 0.22 0.42
North West region 0.09 0.29 0.08 0.28 0.09 0.29
North East region 0.10 0.30 0.11 0.32 0.10 0.30
East region 0.31 0.46 0.31 0.46 0.31 0.46
Centre region 0.12 0.32 0.09 0.29 0.12 0.33
Monthly net income in Euros (log) 3.082.35 0.19 3.25 0.17 3.047.53 0.17
Satisfaction with social benefits 0.49 0.50 0.63 0.48 0.46 0.50
provided by firm
J Knowl Econ
Table 5 (continued)
Sub-samples
Full sample Knowledge- Less-knowledge-

based waged based waged
workers workers
Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

Satisfaction with level of motivation 0.28 0.45 0.31 0.46 0.27 0.44
Satisfaction with career advancement 0.32 0.47 0.40 0.49 0.30 0.46
Satisfaction with level of autonomy 0.30 0.46 0.35 0.48 0.29 0.46
Satisfaction with managers valuation 0.30 0.46 0.30 0.46 0.30 0.46
of performed work
Satisfaction with decision making 0.47 0.50 0.58 0.49 0.44 0.50
Participation in teamwork (dummy) 0.82 0.39 0.92 0.27 0.80 0.40
Satisfaction with promotion prospects 0.47 0.50 0.53 0.50 0.46 0.50
Work organisation index 7.18 2.22 6.22 1.21 5.76 1.58
Stress level 5.28 2.08 4.76 1.91 5.38 2.10
Working conditions (non-financial job char.)
Working condition index (air. noise and 7.08 1.99 7.09 1.80 7.08 2.03
lighting)
Commuting time in hours 0.36 0.31 0.43 0.33 0.35 0.31
Labour relations (non-financial job char.)
Relationships between managers and workers 0.31 0.46 0.25 0.43 0.33 0.47
Relationships with co-workers 0.43 0.50 0.37 0.48 0.45 0.50
Labour relation index 7.03 1.97 7.40 1.70 7.14 2.31
Labour discrimination index 0.55 1.25 0.63 1.31 0.54 1.23
(sex. age. nationality)
Skills and training (non-financial job char.)
Degree to which academia training is 0.39 0.49 0.72 0.45 0.32 0.47
useful for work
Satisfaction with training provided by firm 0.42 0.49 0.43 0.50 0.41 0.49
Work intensity (non-financial job char.)
Monthly hours worked in main job 2.17 0.15 2.17 0.13 2.17 0.16
Satisfaction with holidays and leave 0.37 0.48 0.40 0.49 0.36 0.48
Satisfaction with flexibility of timetable 0.45 0.50 0.46 0.50 0.45 0.50
Satisfaction with job stability 0.38 0.49 0.49 0.50 0.36 0.48
Work intensity index 0.17 0.38 7.29 1.62 6.98 2.03
Health and safety at work (non financial job char.)
Level of risk 0.46 0.50 0.35 0.48 0.48 0.50
Satisfaction with health and safety 0.31 0.46 0.32 0.46 0.31 0.46
Reconciling work/family life (non financial job char.)
Satisfaction with work-family life balance 0.41 0.49 0.42 0.49 0.41 0.49
Number of observations 6,499 1,082 5,417
Source: Authors calculations from ECVT (2010)

a
Indicates reference group in the ordered probit analysis
Table 6 Ordered probit determinants of waged workers job satisfaction in Spain 2010
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9

Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient
Male 0.023 0.082 0.004 0.050 0.031 0.002 0.013 0.051 0.107
Age 0.024 0.030* 0.001 0.022 0.001 0.026 0.023 0.004 0.013
2
Age /100 0.034* 0.039* 0.004 0.033 0.007 0.034 0.026 0.009 0.018
Knowledge-based waged worker 0.280*** 0.077 0.079 0.278*** 0.339*** 0.147** 0.224*** 0.257*** 0.048
(dummy)
City with less than 100.000 0.156*** 0.158*** 0.089* 0.110* 0.106* 0.150*** 0.158*** 0.117** 0.003
inhabitants (dummy)
Region with GDP above 0.001 0.056 0.149* 0.049 0.044 0.060 0.042 0.064 0.050
national average (dummy)
Type of household (ref.: single without children)
Couples with children 0.115 0.105 0.067 0.131 0.175* 0.134 0.109 0.100 0.034
Couples without children 0.023 0.001 0.027 0.054 0.131 0.049 0.018 0.000 0.044
Single with children 0.067 0.079 0.041 0.115 0.130 0.084 0.044 0.049 0.023
Agriculture 0.649*** 0.533*** 0.630*** 1.003*** 0.785*** 0.568*** 0.569*** 0.571*** 0.235
Construction 0.064 0.012 0.093 0.154 0.162* 0.073 0.058 0.042 0.034
Services 0.047 0.059 0.018 0.011 0.015 0.017 0.013 0.027 0.012
South region 0.220* 0.238* 0.295** 0.118 0.172 0.219* 0.179 0.270** 0.240*
North West region 0.179* 0.205* 0.210* 0.122 0.137 0.177 0.175 0.219* 0.210
North East region 0.097 0.110 0.062 0.072 0.114 0.127 0.108 0.142* 0.134
East region 0.198*** 0.221*** 0.148* 0.104 0.171** 0.191*** 0.169** 0.219*** 0.089
Centre region 0.121 0.114 0.230* 0.046 0.160 0.178 0.130 0.197 0.229
J Knowl Econ
Table 6 (continued)

J Knowl Econ

Monthly net income in 0.734*** 0.236
Euros (log)
Satisfaction with social 0.393*** 0.119
benefits provided by firm
Satisfaction with level of 0.719***
motivation
Satisfaction with career 0.419***
advancement
Satisfaction with level of 0.101
autonomy
Satisfaction with managers 0.263***
valuation of performed
work
Satisfaction with decision 0.427***

making
Participation in teamwork 0.295***
(dummy)
Satisfaction with promotion 0.401***
prospects
Work organisation index 0.438***
Stress. monotony and physical 0.094*** 0.047***
effort index
Table 6 (continued)


Working conditions index (air. 0.155*** 0.040***
noise and lighting)
Commuting time in hours 0.142* 0.023
Labour relations (non-
financial job characteristics)
Relationships between 0.629***
managers and workers
Relationships with co-workers 0.183***
Labour relation index
Labour discrimination index 0.129*** 0.070***
(sex. age. nationality.
mobbing and sexual
harassment)
Degree to which academia 0.344*** 0.106

training is useful for work
Satisfaction with training 0.629*** 0.247***
provided by firm
Monthly hours worked in 0.275* 0.199
main job (log)
Satisfaction with holidays and 0.329***
leaves
J Knowl Econ
Table 6 (continued)

J Knowl Econ
Satisfaction with flexibility of 0.554*** 0.047***

timetable
Satisfaction with job stability 0.359*** 0.147***
Work intensity index
Level of risk 0.212*** 0.103*
Satisfaction with health and 0.508*** 0.064
safety
Satisfaction with work-family 0.512*** 0.210***
life balance
Statistics
Cut1 1.604 0.531 1.069 0.740 1.104 1.407 0.796 1.078 2.735
Cut2 0.077 2.105 0.786 0.880 0.538 0.213 0.873 0.553 5.156
Number of observations 6499 6499 6499 5793 6374 6499 6499 6499 5691
Wald Chi2 95.34 257.68 982.74 306.46 443.67 433.22 569.30 472.04 1576.46
Prob > Chi2 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Log likelihood function 5484.894 5357.527 4476.138 4647.809 5.036.749 5178.895 5039.045 5148.774 3314.081
Pseudo-R2 0.017 0.039 0.198 0.057 0.076 0.072 0.097 0.077 0.313
Obs. correctly predicted (%) 55.04 55.82 68.04 58.36 60.95 60.42 63.59 61.13 72.8
*Coefficients significant at the 10 % level; **coefficients significant at the 5 % level; ***coefficients significant at the 1 % level
Table 7 Ordered probit determinants of knowledge-based waged workers job satisfaction in Spain 2010

Male 0.016 0.085 0.005 0.050 0.068 0.074 0.040 0.096 0.185
Age 0.067 0.082* 0.013 0.068 0.055 0.053 0.078 0.050 0.071
Age2/100 0.079 0.093 0.013 0.078 0.063 0.064 0.087 0.059 0.085
City with less than 100.000 inhabitants 0.254** 0.278** 0.191 0.221* 0.182* 0.192* 0.235* 0.177 0.083
(dummy)
Region with GDP above national average 0.335 0.397* 0.089 0.386* 0.306 0.297 0.301 0.240 0.270
(dummy)
Type of Household (ref.: single without children)
Couples with children 0.318 0.289 0.322 0.352 0.416* 0.412* 0.427* 0.357 0.383
Single with children 0.258 0.257 0.433* 0.273 0.344 0.399 0.334 0.292 0.445*
Agriculture 0.396 0.176 0.173 0.239 0.005 0.711 0.255 0.226 0.125
Construction 0.028 0.047 0.029 0.138 0.026 0.017 0.007 0.028 0.159
Services 0.186 0.269 0.079 0.225 0.172 0.087 0.125 0.196 0.335
South region 0.455 0.431 0.011 0.527* 0.431 0.433 0.474* 0.347 0.261
North West region 0.278 0.301 0.188 0.331 0.337 0.307 0.316 0.223 0.377
North East region 0.103 0.115 0.144 0.167 0.096 0.042 0.110 0.036 0.051
East region 0.039 0.015 0.008 0.037 0.057 0.053 0.018 0.099 0.152
Centre region 0.026 0.013 0.295 0.107 0.114 0.093 0.013 0.168 0.114
Monthly net income in Euros (log) 0.705* 0.166
J Knowl Econ
Table 7 (continued)

J Knowl Econ
Satisfaction with social benefits provided 0.569*** 0.385***

by firm
Satisfaction with level of motivation 0.640***
Satisfaction with career advancement 0.728***
Satisfaction with level of autonomy 0.085
Satisfaction with managers valuation of 0.242*
performed work
Satisfaction with decision making 0.466***
Participation in teamwork (dummy) 0.088
Satisfaction with promotion prospects 0.279**
Work organisation index 0.124*** 0.481***
Stress. monotony and physical effort 0.100***
index

Working conditions index (air. noise and 0.125*** 0.010
lighting)
Commuting time in hours 0.211 0.193
Relationships between managers and 0.566***
workers
Relationships with co-workers 0.015
Labour relation index 0.020
Table 7 (continued)

Labour discrimination index (sex. age. 0.089* 0.062

nationality. mobbing and sexual
harassment)
Degree to which academia training is 0.363*** 0.234*
useful for work
Satisfaction with training provided by 0.568*** 0.205
firm
Monthly hours worked in main job (log) 0.309 0.355
Satisfaction with holidays and leaves 0.474***
Satisfaction with flexibility of timetable 0.207*
Satisfaction with job stability 0.206
Work intensity index 0.111**

Level of risk 0.175 0.014
Satisfaction with health and safety 0.352*** 0.070
Satisfaction with work-family life balance 0.420*** 0.140
Statistics
Cut1 3.096 0.916 1.172 2.451 2.798 2.399 2.429 2.521 1.374
Cut2 1.401 0.864 0.875 0.714 1.049 0.609 0.654 0.760 3.739
J Knowl Econ
Table 7 (continued)

J Knowl Econ
Wald Chi2 31.75 77.61 198.40 52.73 58.98 87.42 65.49 72.76 276.19
Prob > Chi2 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Log likelihood function 796.207 763.895 645.408 768.460 769.151 756.487 760.798 766.565 594.076
Restricted log-likelihood
Pseudo-R2 0.027 0.066 0.211 0.049 0.056 0.075 0.070 0.063 0.262
Table 8 Ordered probit determinants of less-knowledge-based waged workers job satisfaction in Spain 2010

Male 0.024 0.099* 0.003 0.066 0.059 0.015 0.020 0.082 0.080
Age 0.028 0.027 0.008 0.025 0.008 0.027 0.023 0.006 0.002
Age2/100 0.041* 0.037* 0.015 0.040* 0.018 0.037 0.029 0.013 0.005
City with less than 100.000 0.141** 0.131** 0.076 0.085 0.104* 0.145*** 0.143** 0.114* 0.018
inhabitants (dummy)
Region with GDP above 0.055 0.001 0.166* 0.019 0.104 0.118 0.110 0.108 0.133
national average (dummy)
Education (ref.: Primary)
Secondary 0.035 0.005 0.034 0.076 0.088 0.009 0.012 0.065 0.017
Upper secondary general 0.071 0.054 0.059 0.057 0.154 0.027 0.046 0.062 0.106
Vocational and technical 0.222** 0.114 0.158* 0.237** 0.310*** 0.117 0.186* 0.238*** 0.018
training
Higher education 0.130 0.073 0.173 0.165 0.307*** 0.049 0.030 0.108 0.130
Type of household (ref.: single without children)
Couples with children 0.081 0.082 0.027 0.085 0.116 0.089 0.044 0.050
0.046
Single with children 0.024 0.060 0.032 0.068 0.055 0.027 0.022 0.010 0.120
Agriculture 0.636*** 0.537*** 0.625*** 1.018*** 0.790*** 0.555*** 0.567*** 0.559*** 0.272
Construction 0.044 0.013 0.082 0.127 0.153 0.072 0.056 0.023 0.053
Services 0.027 0.052 0.033 0.052 0.054 0.010 0.007 0.009 0.044
South region 0.348*** 0.359*** 0.365** 0.251* 0.298** 0.331** 0.309** 0.369*** 0.344**
North West region 0.249* 0.289** 0.280** 0.195 0.217* 0.254* 0.257** 0.277** 0.333**
J Knowl Econ
Table 8 (continued)

J Knowl Econ
North East region 0.119 0.146 0.095 0.097 0.135 0.147 0.130 0.151 0.153
East region 0.238*** 0.272*** 0.190** 0.138* 0.205* 0.221*** 0.205** 0.241*** 0.131
Centre region 0.168 0.169 0.254* 0.101 0.209 0.216 0.188 0.219 0.278*
Monthly net income in Euros 0.796*** 0.353
(log)
Satisfaction with social 0.364*** 0.070
benefits provided by firm
Satisfaction with level of 0.736***
motivation
Satisfaction with career 0.357***
advancement
Satisfaction with level of 0.144*
autonomy
Satisfaction with managers 0.269***

valuation of performed
work
Satisfaction with decision 0.418***
making
Participation in teamwork 0.299***
(dummy)
Satisfaction with promotion 0.425***
prospects
Work organisation index 0.436***
Table 8 (continued)

Stress. monotony and 0.087*** 0.041**

physical effort index
Working conditions index 0.162*** 0.051***
(air. noise and lighting)
Commuting time in hours 0.161* 0.072
Relationships between 0.655***
managers and workers
Relationships with co- 0.230***
workers
Labour relation index 0.053***
Labour discrimination index 0.143*** 0.075***
(sex. age. nationality.
mobbing and sexual
harassment)

Degree to which academia 0.322*** 0.070
training is useful for work
Satisfaction with training 0.642*** 0.252***
provided by firm
Monthly hours worked in 0.265 0.146
main job (log)
Satisfaction with holidays 0.280***
and leaves
J Knowl Econ
Table 8 (continued)

J Knowl Econ
Satisfaction with flexibility of 0.629***

timetable
Satisfaction with job stability 0.399***
Work intensity index 0.158***
Level of risk 0.231*** 0.145**
Satisfaction with health and 0.543*** 0.062
safety
Satisfaction with work- 0.525*** 0.207***
family life balance
Statistics
Cut1 1.511 0.844 1.077 0.581 0.983 1.330 0.690 0.954 3.262
Cut2 0.005 2.401 0.767 1.038 0.668 0.275 0.983 0.677 5.726
Wald Chi2 82.52 191.27 789.41 281.46 442.02 351.91 570.72 425.20 1325.56
Prob > Chi2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Log likelihood function 4658.493 4564.122 3807.271 3846.702 4219.433 4403.476 4234.508 4348.397 2683.629
Pseudo-R2 0.017 0.037 0.197 0.062 0.086 0.071 0.106 0.082 0.329
J Knowl Econ
References
Aghion, P., Caroli, E., & Garca-Pealosa, E. (1999). Inequality and economic growth: the perspective of the
new growth theories. Journal of Economic Literature, 37(4), 16151660.
Ahn, N. (2005). Factors affecting life satisfaction among Spanish workers: relative importance of wage and
other factors. Working Paper No. 17. Madrid: FEDEA.
Ahn, N., & Garca, J. R. (2004). Job satisfaction in Europe. Working Paper No. 16. Madrid: FEDEA.
Autor, D. H., Katz, L. F., & Krueger, A. B. (1998). Computing inequality: have computers changed the labour
market? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(4), 11691213.
Autor, D., Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2003). The skill content of recent technological change: an empirical
exploration. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 12791333.
Baccini, A., & Cioni, M. (2010). Is technological change really skill-based? Evidence from the
introduction of ICT on the Italian textile industry (19802000). New Technology, Work and
Employment, 25(1), 8093.
Belfield, C. R., & Harris, R. D. F. (2002). How well do theories of job matching explain variations in job
satisfaction across education levels? Evidence for UK graduates. Applied Economics, 34(5), 535548.
Berman, E., & Machin, S. (2000). Skill-biased technology transfer around the world. Oxford Review of
Economic Policy, 16(3), 1222.
Black, S. E., & Lynch, L. M. (2004). Whats driving the new economy: the benefits of workplace innovation.
Economic Journal, 114, 97116.
Borghans, L., & Ter Weel, B. (2005). How computerization has changed the labour market: a review of the
evidence and a new perspective. In L. Soete & B. Ter Weel (Eds.), The economics of the digital society
(pp. 219247). Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Bos, J. T., Donders, N. C., Bouwman-Brouwer, K. M., & Van der Gulden, J. W. (2009). Work characteristics
and determinants of job satisfaction in four age groups: university employees point of view. International
Archives of Occupational Environmental Health, 82(10), 12491259.
Bresnahan, T. F., Brynjolfsson, E., & Hitt, L. M. (2002). Information technology, workplace organization and
the demand for skilled labor: a firm-level evidence. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(1), 339376.
Brian, J. D., Colquitt, J. A., & Raymond, N. A. (1997). Knowledge worker team effectiveness: the role of
autonomy, interdependence, team development, and contextual variables. Personnel Psychology, 50(4),
877904.
Brinkley, I. (2006). Defining the knowledge economy. Knowledge economy programme report. London: The
Work Foundation.
Brinkley, I., Fauth, R., Mahdon, M., & Theodoropoulou, S. (2010). Is knowledge work better for us?
Knowledge workers, good work and wellbeing. London: Knowledge Economy Programme.
Castells, M. (2004). The network society. A cross-cultural perspective. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward
Elgar.
Clark, A. E. (1996). Job satisfaction in Britain. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 34(2), 189217.
Clark, A. E. (1997). Job satisfaction and gender: why are women so happy at work? Labour Economics, 4(4),
341372.
Clark, A. E. (1999). Are wages habit-forming? Evidence from micro data. Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization, 39, 179200.
Clark, A. E. (2009). Work, jobs and well-being across the millennium. Working Paper No. 83. Paris: OECD
Social, Employment and Migration Directorate.
Clark, A. E., & Oswald, A. J. (1996). Satisfaction and comparison income. Journal of Public Economics,
61(3), 359381.
Clark, A. E., Oswald, A. J., & Warr, P. (1996). Is job satisfaction U-shaped in age? Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 69(1), 5781.
Clark, A., Knabe, A., & Rtzel, S. (2010). Boon or bane? Others unemployment, well-being and job
insecurity. Labour Economics, 17, 5261.
Cunha, F., Heckman, J. J., & Schennach, S. M. (2010). Estimating the technology of cognitive and
noncognitive skill formation. Econometrica, 78(3), 883931.
Daz, A., Ficapal, P., & Torrent-Sellens, J. (2014). Economic crisis and job quality in Spain. A multi-
dimensional and micro-data empirical approach. Social Indicators Research. doi:10.1007/s11205-014-
0850-0.
Dolfsma, W., & Soete, J. L. (2006). Understanding the dynamics of a knowledge economy. Cheltenham and
Northampton: Edward Elgar.
J Knowl Econ
Drucker, P. F. (1959). Landmarks of tomorrow: a report on the new post-modern world. New York: Harper &
Row Publishers.
Drucker, P. F. (1995). The age of social transformation. Centre Canadien de Gestion.
Drucker, P. F. (1999). Knowledge-worker productivity: the biggest challenge. California Management Review,
41, 7994.
Dueas, D., Iglesias, C., & Llorente, R. (2010). Job quality, job satisfaction and services in Spain. Journal of
Innovation Economics, 1(5), 145166.
Ercikti, S., Vito, G. F., Walsh, W. F., & Higgins, G. E. (2011). Major determinants of job satisfaction among
police managers. Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 8(1).
Ferreira, J. J., Fernandes, C. I., & Raposo, M. L. (2015a). The effects of location on firm innovation Capacity.
Journal of the Knowledge Economy. doi:10.1007/s13132-015-0281-4.
Ferreira, J. J., Fernandes, C. I., Alves, H., & Raposo, M. L. (2015b). Drivers of innovation strategies: testing
the Tidd and Bessant (2009) model. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 13951403.
Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., & Frijters, P. (2004). How important is methodology for the estimates of the
determinants of happiness? Economic Journal, 114, 641659.
Foray, D. (2004). The economics of knowledge. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Foss, N. J. (2005). Strategy, economic organization, and the knowledge economy. The coordination of firms
and resources. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Freeman, R. B. (1978). Job satisfaction as an economic variable. NBER Working Paper No. 225. Cambridge:
National Bureau of Economic Research.
Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2002). What can economists learn from happiness research? Journal of Economic
Literature, 40(2), 402435.
Gallie, D., Felstead, A., & Green, F. (2012). Job preferences and the intrinsic quality of work: the changing
attitudes of British employees 19922006. Work, Employment and Society, 26(5), 806821.
Gamero-Burn, C. (2004). Satisfaccin laboral de los asalariados en Espaa. Especial referencia a las
diferencias por gnero [Job Satisfaction of employees in Spain. Special reference to gender differences].
Cuadernos de Economia, 27(74), 109145.
Gamero-Burn, C. (2007). Satisfaccin laboral y tipo de contrato en Espaa [Job satisfaction and type of
contract in Spain]. Investigaciones Economicas, 31(3), 415444.
Gamero-Burn, C. (2009). Jobs characteristics valuation by natives and immigrants: the life satisfaction
approach. Principios: Estudios de Economa Poltica, 14, 93111.
Green, F. (2006). Demanding work: the paradox of job quality in the affluent economy. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Green, F. (2010). Well-being, job satisfaction and labour mobility. Labour Economics, 17(6), 897903.
Greene, C., & Myerson, J. (2011). Space for thought: designing for knowledge workers. Facilities, 29(1/2),
1930.
Grund, C., & Sliwka, D. (2004). The further we stretch the higher the sky. On the impact of wage increases on
job satisfaction. Discussion Series Paper in Economics and Management No. 7. Berlin: German
Economic Association of Business Administration, GEABA.
Hamermesh, D. S. (1977). Economic aspects of job satisfaction. In O. E. Ashenfelter & W. E. Oates (Eds.),
Labor market analysis (pp. 5372). New York: John Wiley.
Handel, M. J. (2005). Trends in perceived job quality, 1989 to 1998. Work and Occupations, 32(1), 6694.
Heckman, J. J. (2005). Lessons from the technology of skill formation. NBER Working Paper No. 11142.
Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Helliwell, J. F., & Huang, H. (2011). Well-being and trust in the workplace. Journal of Happiness Studies,
12(5), 747767.
Iglesias, C., Llorente, R., & Dueas, D. (2011). Calidad del empleo y satisfaccin laboral en las regiones
espaolas. Un estudio con especial referencia a la Comunidad de Madrid. [Job quality and job Satisfaction
in Spanish regions. A study to special reference to Madrid]. Investigaciones Regionales, 19, 2550.
Jrges, H. (2003). Age, cohort, and the slump in job satisfaction among West German workers. Labour, 17(4),
489518.
Kalleberg, A. L. (2008). The mismatched worker: when people dont fit their jobs. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 22(1), 2440.
Kristensen, N., & Johansson, E. (2008). New evidence on cross-country differences in job satisfaction using
anchoring vignettes. Labour Economics, 15(1), 96117.
Krueger, A. B. (1993). How computers have changed the wage structure: evidence from microdata, 1984
1989. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108, 3360.
Lvy-Garboua, L., Montmarquette, C., & Simonnet, V. (2007). Job satisfaction and quits. Labour Economics,
14(2), 251268.
J Knowl Econ
Machin, S. (2003). Skill-biased technological change in the new economy. In D. C. Jones (Ed.), New economy
handbook (pp. 565581). London and San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press.
Machin, S., & Van Reenen, J. (1998). Technology and changes in skill structure: evidence from seven OECD
countries. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(4), 12151244.
Ministry of Employment and Social Security (2010). Encuesta de Calidad de Vida en el Trabajo, 2010.
Madrid: Spain, http://www.empleo.gob.es/estadisticas/ecvt/welcome.htm. Accessed: 10 September 2015.
Muoz de Bustillo, R., & Fernndez, E. (2004). Job satisfaction as an indicator of the quality of work. Journal
of Socio-Economics, 34, 656673.
OECD. (2003). OECD science, technology and industry scoreboard 2003. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2011). OECD science, technology and industry scoreboard 2011: innovation and growth in knowl-
edge economies. Paris: OECD.
Olsen, K. M., Kalleberg, A. L., & Nesheim, T. (2010). Perceived job quality in the United States, Great
Britain, Norway and West Germany, 19892005. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 16(3), 221
240.
Oort, F., Oud, J. L., & Raspe, O. (2009). The urban knowledge economy and employment growth: a spatial
structural equation modelling approach. Annals of Regional Science, 43(4), 859877.
Oswald, A. E. (2002). Well-being at work. In A. Argandoa & J. Gual (Eds.), The social dimensions of
employment (pp. 109144). Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Pyri, P. (2005). The concept of knowledge work revisited. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 116
127.
Ratten, V., & Suseno, Y. (2006). Knowledge development, social capital and alliance learning. International
Journal of Educational Management, 20(1), 6072.
Requena-Santos, J. (2000). Satisfaccin, bienestar y calidad de vida en el trabajo [Satisfaction, welfare and
quality of working life]. Revista Espaola de Investigaciones Sociolgicas, 92, 1144.
Roach-Anleu, S., & Mack, K. (2014). Job satisfaction in the judiciary. Work, Employment and Society, 28(5),
683701.
Rooney, D., Hearn, G., & Ninan, A. (2005). Handbook on the knowledge economy. Cheltenham and
Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Rose, M. (2003). Good deal, bad deal? Job satisfaction in occupations. Work, Employment and Society, 13(3),
503527.
Rose, M. (2005). Job satisfaction in Britain: coping with complexity. British Journal of Industrial Relations,
43(3), 455467.
Saint-Paul, G. (2008). Innovation and inequality: how does technical progress affect workers? Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Salvatori, A. (2010). Labour contract regulations and workers wellbeing: international longitudinal evidence.
Labour Economics, 17(4), 667678.
Sanders, M. (2005). Technology and the decline in demand for unskilled labour: a theoretical analysis of the
US and European labour markets. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Shields, M. A., & Ward, M. (2001). Improving nurse retention in the national health service in England: the
impact of job satisfaction on intentions to quit. Journal of Health Economics, 20(5), 677701.
Suseno, Y., & Ratten, V. (2007). A theoretical framework of alliance performance: the role of trust, social
capital and knowledge development. Journal of Management & Organization, 13(01), 423.
Tampoe, M. (1993). Motivating knowledge workers. The challenge for the 1990s. Long Range Planning,
26(3), 4955.
Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2009). Managing innovation: integrating technological, market, and organizational
change. Chichester: Wiley.
Torrent-Sellens, J. (2015). Knowledge products and network externalities. Implications for the business
strategy. Journal of the Knwoledge Economy, 6(1), 138156.
Van Reenen, J. (1997). Employment and technological innovation: evidence from U.K. manufacturing firms.
Journal of Labor Economics, 15(2), 255284.
Veenhoven, R. (1993). Happiness in nations: subjective appreciation of life in 56 Nations 19461992.
Rotterdam: Erasmus University.
Veenhoven, R. (1999). Quality-of-life in individualistic society. Social Indicators Research, 48(2), 159188.
Veenhoven, R. (2000). The four qualities of life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1(1), 139.
Vivarelli, M., & Pianta, M. (2000). The employment impact of innovation. Evidence and policy. London and
New York: Routledge.
Wilczyska, A., Batorski, D., & Torrent-Sellens, J. (2015). Employment flexibility and job security as
determinants of job satisfaction: the case of Polish knowledge workers. Social Indicators Research.
doi:10.1007/s11205-015-0909-6.

Journal of The Knowledge Economy - Torrens-Velazco-Viñas Paper - 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of The Knowledge Economy - Torrens-Velazco-Viñas Paper - 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Knowledge-Based Work and Job

Satisfaction: Evidence from Spain

Joan Torrent-Sellens, Jackeline Velazco-

Knowledge-Based Work and Job Satisfaction:

Joan Torrent-Sellens 1 & Jackeline Velazco-Portocarrero 2,3 &

Received: 23 September 2015 / Accepted: 28 December 2015

Keywords Knowledge-based work . Job satisfaction . Work organisation .

At present, economic activity is undergoing a process of profound transformation,

The impact of technological change on work is the combined result of innovations in

Knowledge-Based Work and Job Satisfaction

Data and Descriptive Statistics

Measure of Job Satisfaction

Table 1 Comparison of workers characteristics in Spain 2010

Total employmenta 18,409,625 3,136,412 15,273,213

Source: Authors calculations from ECVT (2010)

Empirical Model and Variables

It is important to point out some methodological caveats associated to the empirical

Full sample Sub-samples

Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage

changes in well-being explained by socio-economic and demographic variables, and

observations on K independent variables that explain workers job satisfaction. The

Model (1) Model (2) Model (3)

Coefficient Marginal effecta Coefficient Marginal effecta Coefficient Marginal effecta

Male 0.637 0.025 0.124 0.044 0.047 0.019

Couples with children 0.124 0.048 0.404** 0.143 0.052 0.020

Model (1) Model (2) Model (3)

Coefficient Marginal effecta Coefficient Marginal effecta Coefficient Marginal effecta

North West region 0.173 0.066 0.276 0.103 0.263** 0.101

Model (1) Model (2) Model (3)

Coefficient Marginal effecta Coefficient Marginal effecta Coefficient Marginal effecta

Relationships with co-workers 0.058 0.022 0.375*** 0.136 0.002 0.001

Level of risk 0.098** 0.038 0.051 0.018 0.123** 0.049

Model (1) Model (2) Model (3)

Coefficient Marginal effecta Coefficient Marginal effecta Coefficient Marginal effecta

Prob > Chi2 0.000 0.000 0.000

Coefficient of knowledge- Pseudo-R2 Observations

Only knowledge-based employment 0.272*** 0.004 54.6

Concluding Remarks and Discussion

Table 5 Descriptive statistics

Full sample Knowledge- Less-knowledge-

Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

Job satisfaction 7.37 1.78 7.67 1.42 7.31 1.83

Full sample Knowledge- Less-knowledge-

Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

Work organisation (non-financial job characteristics)

Source: Authors calculations from ECVT (2010)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9

Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient

Financial job characteristics

Satisfaction with decision 0.427***

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9

Working conditions (non-financial job characteristics)

Degree to which academia 0.344*** 0.106

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9

Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient

Satisfaction with flexibility of 0.554*** 0.047***

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9

Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient

Satisfaction with social benefits provided 0.569*** 0.385***

Working conditions (non-financial job characteristics)

Level of risk 0.098 0.038 0.051 0.018 0.123 0.049

Satisfaction with flexibility of 0.554* 0.047*

Satisfaction with social benefits provided 0.569* 0.385*

Stress. monotony and 0.087* 0.041