Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide


  1. 1. EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES AND JOB SATISFACTION Lise M. Saari and Timothy A. Judge This article identifies three major gaps between HR practice and the scientific research in the area of employee attitudes in general and the most focal employee attitude in particular—job satisfaction: (1) the causes of employee attitudes, (2) the results of positive or negative job satis- faction, and (3) how to measure and influence employee attitudes. Suggestions for practition- ers are provided on how to close the gaps in knowledge and for evaluating implemented prac- tices. Future research will likely focus on greater understanding of personal characteristics, such as emotion, in defining job satisfaction and how employee attitudes influence organizational performance. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.“Happy employees are productive employ- this area are: (1) the causes of employee at-ees.” “Happy employees are not productive titudes, (2) the results of positive or negativeemployees.” We hear these conflicting state- job satisfaction, and (3) how to measure andments made by HR professionals and man- influence employee attitudes. Within eachagers in organizations. There is confusion gap area, we provide a review of the scien-and debate among practitioners on the topic tific research and recommendations forof employee attitudes and job satisfaction— practitioners related to the research find-even at a time when employees are increas- ings. In the final section, additional recom-ingly important for organizational success mendations for enhancing organizationaland competitiveness. Therefore, the purpose practice in the area of employee attitudesof this article is to provide greater under- and job satisfaction are described, alongstanding of the research on this topic and with suggestions for evaluating the imple-give recommendations related to the major mented practices.practitioner knowledge gaps. Before beginning, we should describe As indicated indirectly in a study of HR what we mean by employee attitudes and jobprofessionals (Rynes, Colbert, & Brown, satisfaction. Employees have attitudes or2002), as well as based on our experience, viewpoints about many aspects of their jobs,the major practitioner knowledge gaps in their careers, and their organizations. How-Correspondence to: Lise M. Saari, IBM Corporation, Global Workforce Research, North Castle Drive MD 149, Armonk, NY 10504-1785, tel: 914-765-4224, Resource Management, Winter 2004, Vol. 43, No. 4, Pp. 395–407© 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley InterScience ( 10.1002/hrm.20032
  2. 2. 396 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Winter 2004 ever, from the perspective of research and study, childhood temperament was found to practice, the most focal employee attitude is be statistically related to adult job satisfac- job satisfaction. Thus, we often refer to em- tion up to 40 years later (Staw, Bell, & ployee attitudes broadly in this article, al- Clausen, 1986). Evidence even indicates though much of our specific focus will con- that the job satisfaction of identical twinsEvidence even cern job satisfaction. reared apart is statistically similar (seeindicates that The most-used research definition of job Arvey, Bouchard, Segal, & Abraham, 1989).the job satisfaction is by Locke (1976), who defined Although this literature has had its criticssatisfaction ofidentical twins it as “. . . a pleasurable or positive emotional (e.g., Davis-Blake & Pfeffer, 1989), an ac-reared apart is state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job cumulating body of evidence indicates thatstatistically or job experiences” (p. 1304). Implicit in differences in job satisfaction across em-similar. Locke’s definition is the importance of both ployees can be traced, in part, to differences affect, or feeling, and cognition, or thinking. in their disposition or temperament (House, When we think, we have feelings about what Shane, & Herold, 1996). we think. Conversely, when we have feelings, Despite its contributions to our under- we think about what we feel. Cognition and standing of the causes of job satisfaction, affect are thus inextricably linked, in our psy- one of the limitations in this literature is that chology and even in our biology. Thus, when it is not yet informative as to how exactly dis- evaluating our jobs, as when we assess most positions affect job satisfaction (Erez, 1994). anything important to us, both thinking and Therefore, researchers have begun to explore feeling are involved. the psychological processes that underlie dis- positional causes of job satisfaction. For ex- Gap 1—The Causes of Employee ample, Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) sug- Attitudes gest that disposition may influence the experience of emotionally significant events The first major practitioner knowledge gap at work, which in turn influences job satis- we will address is the causes of employee at- faction. Similarly, Brief (1998) and Mo- titudes and job satisfaction. In general, HR towidlo (1996) have developed theoretical practitioners understand the importance of models in an attempt to better understand the work situation as a cause of employee at- the relationship between dispositions and job titudes, and it is an area HR can help influ- satisfaction. ence through organizational programs and Continuing this theoretical develop- management practices. However, in the past ment, Judge and his colleagues (Judge & two decades, there have been significant re- Bono, 2001; Judge, Locke, Durham, & search gains in understanding dispositional Kluger, 1998) found that a key personality and cultural influences on job satisfaction as trait, core self-evaluation, correlates with (is well, which is not yet well understood by statistically related to) employee job satisfac- practitioners. In addition, one of the most tion. They also found that one of the primary important areas of the work situation to in- causes of the relationship was through the fluence job satisfaction—the work itself—is perception of the job itself. Thus, it appears often overlooked by practitioners when ad- that the most important situational effect on dressing job satisfaction. job satisfaction—the job itself—is linked to what may be the most important personality Dispositional Influences trait to predict job satisfaction—core self- evaluation. Evidence also indicates that Several innovative studies have shown the some other personality traits, such as extra- influences of a person’s disposition on job version and conscientiousness, can also in- satisfaction. One of the first studies in this fluence job satisfaction (Judge, Heller, & area (Staw & Ross, 1985) demonstrated Mount, 2002). that a person’s job satisfaction scores have These various research findings indicate stability over time, even when he or she that there is in fact a relationship between changes jobs or companies. In a related disposition or personality and job satisfac-
  3. 3. Employee Attitudes and Job Satisfaction • 397tion. Even though organizations cannot di- also been found in how employees arerectly impact employee personality, the use viewed and valued across countries/culturesof sound selection methods and a good (Jackson, 2002)—countries systematicallymatch between employees and jobs will en- vary on the extent to which they view em- Even thoughsure people are selected and placed into jobs ployees in instrumental versus humanistic organizations cannot directlymost appropriate for them, which, in turn, ways. In terms of practical recommenda- impactwill help enhance their job satisfaction. tions, an awareness of, and, whenever possi- employee ble, adjustments to, cultural factors that personality, theCultural Influences influence employee attitudes and measure- use of sound ment are important for HR practitioners as selection methods and aIn terms of other influences on employee at- employee attitude surveys increasingly cross good matchtitudes, there is also a small, but growing national boundaries. betweenbody of research on the influences of culture employees andor country on employee attitudes and job sat- Work Situation Influences jobs will ensureisfaction. The continued globalization of or- people are selected andganizations poses new challenges for HR As discussed earlier, the work situation also placed into jobspractitioners, and the available research on matters in terms of job satisfaction and or- mostcross-cultural organizational and human re- ganization impact. Contrary to some com- appropriate forsources issues can help them better under- monly held practitioner beliefs, the most no- them, which, instand and guide practice (Erez, 1994; House, table situational influence on job satisfaction turn, will help enhance their1995; Triandis, 1994). is the nature of the work itself—often called job satisfaction. The most cited cross-cultural work on “intrinsic job characteristics.” Research stud-employee attitudes is that of Hofstede (1980, ies across many years, organizations, and1985). He conducted research on employee types of jobs show that when employees areattitude data in 67 countries and found that asked to evaluate different facets of their jobthe data grouped into four major dimensions such as supervision, pay, promotion opportu-and that countries systematically varied nities, coworkers, and so forth, the nature ofalong these dimensions. The four cross-cul- the work itself generally emerges as the mosttural dimensions are: (1) individualism-col- important job facet (Judge & Church, 2000;lectivism; (2) uncertainty avoidance versus Jurgensen, 1978). This is not to say thatrisk taking; (3) power distance, or the extent well-designed compensation programs or ef-to which power is unequally distributed; and fective supervision are unimportant; rather,(4) masculinity/femininity, more recently it is that much can be done to influence jobcalled achievement orientation. For example, satisfaction by ensuring work is as interest-the United States was found to be high on ing and challenging as possible. Unfortu-individualism, low on power distance, and nately, some managers think employees arelow on uncertainty avoidance (thus high on most desirous of pay to the exclusion of otherrisk taking), whereas Mexico was high on job attributes such as interesting work. Forcollectivism, high on power distance, and example, in a study examining the impor-high on uncertainty avoidance. tance of job attributes, employees ranked in- The four dimensions have been a useful teresting work as the most important job at-framework for understanding cross-cultural tribute and good wages ranked fifth, whereasdifferences in employee attitudes, as well as when it came to what managers thought em-recognizing the importance of cultural causes ployees wanted, good wages ranked firstof employee attitudes. More recent analyses while interesting work ranked fifth (Kovach,have shown that country/culture is as strong 1995).a predictor of employee attitudes as the type Of all the major job satisfaction areas,of job a person has (Saari, 2000; Saari & satisfaction with the nature of the work it-Erez, 2002; Saari & Schneider, 2001). self—which includes job challenge, auton- There have been numerous replications omy, variety, and scope—best predicts overallof Hofstede’s research (reviewed by Sonder- job satisfaction, as well as other importantgaard, 1994). The importance of culture has outcomes like employee retention (e.g., Fried
  4. 4. 398 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Winter 2004 & Ferris, 1987; Parisi & Weiner, 1999; between job satisfaction and performance Weiner, 2000). Thus, to understand what was trivial. causes people to be satisfied with their jobs, However, further research does not agree the nature of the work itself is one of the first with this conclusion. Organ (1988) suggests places for practitioners to focus on. that the failure to find a strong relationshipWe hear between job satisfaction and performance isdebates and Gap 2—The Results of Positive or due to the narrow means often used to defineconfusion about Negative Job Satisfaction job performance. Organ argued that whenwhethersatisfied performance is defined to include importantemployees are A second major practitioner knowledge gap behaviors not generally reflected in perfor-productive is in the area of understanding the conse- mance appraisals, such as organizational citi-employees, and quences of job satisfaction. We hear debates zenship behaviors, its relationship with jobHR and confusion about whether satisfied em- satisfaction improves. Research tends to sup-practitioners ployees are productive employees, and HR port Organ’s proposition in that job satisfac-rightfullystruggle as they practitioners rightfully struggle as they must tion correlates with organizational citizenshipmust reduce reduce costs and are concerned about the ef- behaviors (Organ & Ryan, 1995).costs and are fects on job satisfaction and, in turn, the im- In addition, in a more recent and com-concerned pact on performance and other outcomes. prehensive review of 301 studies, Judge,about the The focus of our discussion in this section is Thoresen, Bono, and Patton (2001) foundeffects on jobsatisfaction on job satisfaction, because this is the em- that when the correlations are appropriatelyand, in turn, ployee attitude that is most often related to corrected (for sampling and measurementthe impact on organizational outcomes. Other employee at- errors), the average correlation between jobperformance titudes, such as organizational commitment, satisfaction and job performance is a higherand other have been studied as well, although they .30. In addition, the relationship between joboutcomes. have similar relationships to outcomes as job satisfaction and performance was found to satisfaction. be even higher for complex (e.g., profes- sional) jobs than for less complex jobs. Thus, Job Satisfaction and Job Performance contrary to earlier reviews, it does appear that job satisfaction is, in fact, predictive of The study of the relationship between job sat- performance, and the relationship is even isfaction and job performance has a contro- stronger for professional jobs. versial history. The Hawthorne studies, con- ducted in the 1930s, are often credited with Job Satisfaction and Life Satisfaction making researchers aware of the effects of employee attitudes on performance. Shortly An emerging area of study is the interplay be- after the Hawthorne studies, researchers tween job and life satisfaction. Researchers began taking a critical look at the notion that have speculated that there are three possible a “happy worker is a productive worker.” Most forms of the relationship between job satisfac- of the earlier reviews of the literature sug- tion and life satisfaction: (1) spillover, where gested a weak and somewhat inconsistent re- job experiences spill over into nonwork life lationship between job satisfaction and per- and vice versa; (2) segmentation, where job formance. A review of the literature in 1985 and life experiences are separated and have suggested that the statistical correlation be- little to do with one another; and (3) compen- tween job satisfaction and performance was sation, where an individual seeks to compen- about .17 (Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985). sate for a dissatisfying job by seeking fulfill- Thus, these authors concluded that the pre- ment and happiness in his or her nonwork life sumed relationship between job satisfaction and vice versa. Judge and Watanabe (1994) and performance was a “management fad” argued that these different models may exist and “illusory.” This study had an important for different individuals and were able to clas- impact on researchers, and in some cases on sify individuals into the three groups. On the organizations, with some managers and HR basis of a national sample of U.S. workers, practitioners concluding that the relationship they found 68% were the spillover group, 20%
  5. 5. Employee Attitudes and Job Satisfaction • 399in the segmentation group, and 12% in the jobs or be absent than satisfied employeescompensation group. Thus, the spillover (e.g., Hackett & Guion, 1985; Hulin,model, whereby job satisfaction spills into life Roznowski, & Hachiya, 1985; Kohler &satisfaction and vice versa, appears to charac- Mathieu, 1993). Job satisfaction shows corre- Numerousterize most U.S. employees. lations with turnover and absenteeism in the studies have shown that Consistent with the spillover model, a re- –.25 range. Job dissatisfaction also appears to dissatisfiedview of the research literature indicated that be related to other withdrawal behaviors, in- employees arejob and life satisfaction are correlated (aver- cluding lateness, unionization, grievances, more likely toage true score correlation: .44; Tait, Padgett, drug abuse, and decision to retire. quit their jobs& Baldwin, 1989). Since a job is a significant Hulin et al. (1985) have argued that or be absent than satisfiedpart of one’s life, the relationship between these individual withdrawal behaviors are all employees…job satisfaction and life satisfaction makes manifestations of “job adaptation” and havesense—one’s job experiences spill over into proposed that these individual behaviors beone’s life. However, it also seems possible the grouped together. Because the occurrence ofcausality could go the other way—a happy or most single withdrawal behaviors is quiteunhappy life spills over into one’s job experi- low, looking at a variety of these behaviorsences and evaluations. In fact, the research improves the ability for showing the relation-suggests that the relationship between job ship between job attitudes and withdrawaland life satisfaction is reciprocal—job satis- behaviors (Hulin, 1991). Rather than pre-faction does affect life satisfaction, but life dicting isolated behaviors, withdrawal re-satisfaction also affects job satisfaction search and applied practice would do better,(Judge & Watanabe, 1994). as this model suggests, to study patterns in Also in support of a spillover model for withdrawal behaviors—such as turnover, ab-job and life satisfaction, the research litera- senteeism, lateness, decision to retire, etc.—ture shows a consistent relationship between together. Several studies have supported this,job satisfaction and depression (Thomas & showing that when various withdrawal be-Ganster, 1995). One might speculate on the haviors are grouped together, job satisfactionpossibility that the relationship is simply due better predicts these behavioral groupingsto personality traits that cause both low job than the individual behaviors.satisfaction and depression. However, to Based on the research that shows job sat-counter this, there is evidence that job loss isfaction predicts withdrawal behaviors likeand other work events are in fact associated turnover and absenteeism, researchers havewith depression (Wheaton, 1990). Thus, this been able to statistically measure the finan-research suggests that dissatisfaction result- cial impact of employee attitudes on organi-ing from one’s job can spill over into one’s zations (e.g., Cascio, 1986; Mirvis & Lawler,psychological well-being. 1977). Using these methods can be a power- Based on this research, one conclusion is ful way for practitioners to reveal the costs ofthat organizations only have so much control low job satisfaction and the value of im-over a person’s job satisfaction, because for proved employee attitudes on such outcomesmany people, their job satisfaction is a result, as absenteeism and part, of spillover of their life satisfaction.However, continuing to take actions to ad- Gap 3—How To Measure and Influencedress low job satisfaction is not only impor- Employee Attitudestant for organizational effectiveness, but bynot doing so, organizations can cause The third major practitioner knowledge gap isspillover of employees’ low job satisfaction in the area of how to measure and influenceinto their life satisfaction and well-being. employee attitudes. There are a number of possible methods for measuring employee at-Job Satisfaction and Withdrawal Behaviors titudes, such as conducting focus groups, in- terviewing employees, or carrying out em-Numerous studies have shown that dissatis- ployee surveys. Of these methods, the mostfied employees are more likely to quit their accurate measure is a well-constructed em-
  6. 6. 400 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Winter 2004 ployee attitude survey. Thus, we first provide There are two additional issues with an overview of the major research on em- measuring employee attitudes that have ployee attitude surveys. To positively influ- been researched and provide potentially use- ence employee attitudes, understanding of ful knowledge for practitioners. First, mea- some of the research already discussed is im- sures of job satisfaction can be faceted (such…measures of portant. In addition, knowledge of important as the JDI)—whereby they measure variousjob satisfaction considerations for analyzing employee survey dimensions of the job—while others arecan be faceted results is essential for taking appropriate global—or measure a single, overall feeling(such as theJDI)—whereby steps to improve attitudes. Finally, practition- toward the job. An example of a global mea-they measure ers often use survey feedback discussion sure is “Overall, how satisfied are you withvarious meetings as a means for acting on employee your job?” If a measure is facet-based, over-dimensions of attitude surveys—the final part of this section all job satisfaction is typically defined as athe job—while addresses research related to this topic and sum of the facets. Scarpello and Campbellothers are the most important ways to support action. (1983) found that individual questionsglobal—ormeasure a about various aspects of the job did not cor-single, overall Employee Attitude Surveys relate well with a global measure of overallfeeling toward job satisfaction. However, if one uses jobthe job. Two major research areas on employee atti- satisfaction facet scores—based on groups tude surveys are discussed below: employee of questions on the same facet or dimension attitude measures used in research and facet rather than individual questions—to predict versus global measures. The areas discussed an independent measure of overall job satis- are not meant to provide knowledge of all rel- faction, the relationship is considerably evant considerations for designing employee higher. As has been noted elsewhere (e.g., surveys, but rather provide background on Judge & Hulin, 1993), job satisfaction facets the research and an overview of some major are sufficiently related to suggest that they areas of study. are measuring a common construct—overall In the research literature, the two most job satisfaction. extensively validated employee attitude sur- Second, while most job satisfaction re- vey measures are the Job Descriptive Index searchers have assumed that overall, single- (JDI; Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969) and the item measures are unreliable and therefore Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire should not be used, this view has not gone (MSQ; Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, unchallenged. Wanous, Reichers, and Hudy 1967). The JDI assesses satisfaction with five (1997) found that the reliability of single- different job areas: pay, promotion, cowork- item measures of job satisfaction is .67. For ers, supervision, and the work itself. The JDI the G. M. Faces scale, another single-item is reliable and has an impressive array of val- measure of job satisfaction that asks individ- idation evidence. The MSQ has the advan- uals to check one of five faces that best de- tage of versatility—long and short forms are scribes their overall satisfaction (Kunin, available, as well as faceted and overall mea- 1955), the reliability was estimated to be .66. sures. Another measure used in job satisfac- Therefore, respectable levels of reliability tion research (e.g., Judge, Erez, Bono, & can be obtained with an overall measure of Thoresen, in press) is an updated and reliable job satisfaction, although these levels are five-item version of an earlier scale by Bray- somewhat lower than most multiple-item field and Rothe (1951). All of these measures measures of job satisfaction. have led to greater scientific understanding of Based on the research reviewed, there is employee attitudes, and their greatest value support for measuring job satisfaction with may be for research purposes, yet these mea- either a global satisfaction question or by sures may be useful for practitioners as well. summing scores on various aspects of the In practice, organizations often wish to ob- job. Therefore, in terms of practice, by mea- tain a more detailed assessment of employee suring facets of job satisfaction, organiza- attitudes and/or customize their surveys to as- tions can obtain a complete picture of their sess issues unique to their firm. specific strengths and weaknesses related to
  7. 7. Employee Attitudes and Job Satisfaction • 401employee job satisfaction and use those facet company externally to other companies andscores for an overall satisfaction measure, or the competition.they can reliably use overall satisfactionquestions for that purpose. Comparisons and Numerical Accuracy. Com- …it is helpful paring data is one of the most useful survey when interpretingAnalyzing and Interpreting Survey Results for analysis techniques, such as described above survey data toAction for using norms to compare a company’s sur- know how the vey results to other companies. Comparisons survey resultsEffective analysis and interpretation of em- for the same organization or unit over time compare toployee attitude survey data is necessary in with a trended survey are also valuable to industry norms or countryorder to understand the results and, in turn, measure progress. At the same time, compar- norms.take appropriate actions to improve em- isons must be done with professional care,ployee attitudes and job satisfaction. Re- taking into account measurement issuessearch on employee attitude measurement (Cascio, 1986). This is one of the majorand statistical analyses is a key contribution areas of practitioner misinterpretation in ourof the field of psychology (e.g., Edwards, experience.2001; Macey, 1996). Highlights of the re- Of particular concern are organizationssearch on survey analyses and the most im- using unreliable survey data, based on lowportant issues for HR practitioners to con- numbers of survey respondents and/or de-sider are reviewed below. partment size, to compare departments/man- agers or to inappropriately measure changeThe Use of Norms. Ratings made by employ- over time. In general, the lower the number,ees on survey questions can systematically the greater the effects of random error onvary—and vary widely—no matter what com- data, like the differences between flipping apany they work for. For example, ratings of coin 10 times versus 1,000 times. Thus,pay are typically low and ratings of workgroup comparisons of groups or departments withcooperation are typically rated very high. small numbers generally should not be done,Similar systematic variations are found when especially when the survey is a sample surveycomparing survey data for many companies and designed to provide data only at higheracross countries. For example, Switzerland levels. Even for surveys of all employees thattends to have some of the highest ratings, provide survey results to each manager/de-Italy some of the lowest. Therefore, it is help- partment, numerical accuracy is still of con-ful when interpreting survey data to know cern and comparisons across time or be-how the survey results compare to industry tween managers should be avoided—data atnorms or country norms. Survey norms are the workgroup level is best provided to eachdescriptive statistics that are compiled from manager for department feedback and localdata on the same survey questions from a actions. To avoid these measurement issues,number of companies and are obtained by it is helpful to have a lower limit on the or-joining a consortium. Comparability of the ganization size and/or number of respon-companies, company size, and number of dents needed to create reports for compar-companies are important factors in the value isons (most organizations we have workedof the norms (Morris & LoVerde, 1993). In with set this at a maximum margin of error ofaddition, the professionalism in the norms plus/minus 9 percentage points, which isprocess and the age of the norms will affect generally around 100 respondents). Numeri-their relevance and accuracy (Bracken, 1992; cal accuracy and appropriate comparisonsR. H. Johnson, 1996). If survey norms are not are especially important when using surveyan option, overall company or unit results can data for performance targets and employ-serve as internal norms, although they en- ment-related decisions.courage an inward focus and potentially in-ternal competition. Actions determined Global Considerations. For organizations op-through normed-based comparisons can be erating in more than one country, under-strong drivers of change and help focus a standing survey data by country is also valu-
  8. 8. 402 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Winter 2004 able for improving employee attitudes. How- are predictive of important financial perfor- ever, making comparisons across countries is mance measures, such as market share (e.g., another type of analysis that should be con- Ashworth, Higgs, Schneider, Shepherd, & ducted with caution. As stated earlier, there Carr, 1995; Colihan & Saari, 2000; Harter, are country/cultural influences on employee Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002).One of the attitudes, and the use of country norms is Linkage research can be done in any or-newest areas of preferable. In other words, comparisons are ganization where there is some way to groupresearch that best made against an appropriate country enough survey data—such as in stores,assists withidentifying norm rather than comparing one country’s branches, districts, and even countries—andimportant areas survey results to another country’s results. In then correlate it with financial and/or cus-for survey addition to cultural factors, linguistic factors tomer data for the same groups. This type ofaction is to across countries can affect survey results survey measurement and analysis helps prac-statistically link (Ryan, Chan, Ployhart, & Slade, 1999). Con- titioners demonstrate the impact of em-employee cepts—such as “employee recognition”—can ployee attitudes on the business, as well asattitudes tobusiness have different meanings due to different cul- identify key levers for action.outcomes. tural meanings (Hui, 1990; Hui & Triandis, 1985), and this can affect the equivalence of Survey Feedback and Action the measurements of employee attitudes across countries. To help minimize linguistic Employee surveys, used effectively, can be and other issues, professional translations, catalysts for improving employee attittudes back translations (translations back into and producing organizational change. This English then checked against the original statement is based on two important as- English), and country reviews are recom- sumptions, both supported by research al- mended. Other guidance on administrative ready reviewed in this article: first, that em- and practical issues when conducting a ployee attitudes affect behavior and second, multinational employee attitude survey is that employee attitudes are important levers also available (e.g., S. R. Johnson, 1996). of organizational performance. Survey feedback and action help support Linking Employee Attitudes to Business Mea- and drive organizational change, and the sures. One of the newest areas of research that “ability to manage change” is evaluated by assists with identifying important areas for line managers as the most important compe- survey action is to statistically link employee tency for HR professionals (Ulrich, Brock- attitudes to business outcomes. This research bank, Yeung, & Lake, 1995). There are many is an extension of the research discussed ear- variations of survey feedback and action, lier that correlated job satisfaction with job though an important research finding is that performance. Schneider and his colleagues participation in feedback sessions alone will carried out the groundbreaking studies in this not result in change—and this is often where area, showing how employee attitudes about organizations fall short. In fact, Rynes et al. various human resources practices correlated (2002) found that one of the highest per- with customer satisfaction measures, thus in- centages of HR professionals responding dicating key levers to improve customer satis- contrary to the research facts was to the faction. For example, they found that when statement “Ensuring employees participate employees reported higher satisfaction with in decision making is more important for im- work facilitation and career development, cus- proving organizational performance than set- tomers reported higher service quality ting performance goals.” Extensive research (Schneider & Bowen, 1985). Other re- does not support this statement, yet 82% of searchers (e.g., Wiley, 1996) have developed HR professionals marked it as true. In fact, linkage models that identify the organizational actual action, not just involvement in survey practices—as rated by employee attitude sur- feedback discussions and the development of veys—that relate to high levels of organiza- plans, is critical for an employee survey to re- tional performance. In addition, a variety of sult in improved performance. Feedback ses- studies have shown how employee attitudes sions that result in concrete goals and result-
  9. 9. Employee Attitudes and Job Satisfaction • 403ing actions have the most impact. This is In terms of evaluating the practices dis-supported by extensive research on goal-set- cussed in this article, the most rigorous andting theory, which shows that having specific defensible methods are to apply return ongoals is a major factor for motivation and investment (ROI) principles. These involve Today,performance (Locke, Feren, McCaleb, Shaw, defining the objectives of a program—such organizations need more from& Denny, 1980; Locke & Latham, 2002). as assess employee attitudes that predict or- HR than ganizational performance and improve em- someone toHow To Close the Gaps and Evaluate the ployee attitudes and job satisfaction—and administer the Effectiveness of Practice then evaluating, through appropriate re- tactical aspects search designs and measurements, whether of an employee survey and toThroughout this article, as we discussed the these objectives were met. Approaches for check thatrelevant research for each of the three carrying out ROI and cost-based evaluations managers areknowledge gaps, we provided suggestions are described in the literature (e.g., Cascio, holdingfor closing the gaps. In this section, we 1986). These evaluation approaches are the feedbackoffer some final suggestions, as well as most rigorous, yet can be resource- and discussions and have actionideas for evaluating the effectiveness of im- time-intensive. plans.plemented practices. In terms of more straightforward sugges- One important way to close the gap be- tions for evaluating the practices imple-tween research and practice is to be better mented, we offer the following questionsinformed about the research. Given the de- that HR practitioners can ask themselves:mands on HR practitioners’ time, this is a “Do we have an employee attitude surveydifficult task, yet one that is increasingly ex- that measures areas important for employeepected of HR professionals. Today, organi- job satisfaction as well as organizational suc-zations need more from HR than someone cess?” “How do we know this and make thisto administer the tactical aspects of an em- case to line management?” “Is the surveyployee survey and to check that managers routinely used as part of decision making?”are holding feedback discussions and have “Is the survey a respected source of infor-action plans. Organizations need HR practi- mation about the people side of the busi-tioners who know how to develop effective ness?” “Am I at the table with line manage-and research-based employee attitude mea- ment using the survey insights for neededsures, understand and derive valuable in- action and organizational change?” “Can Isights from the data, and use the results to discuss these measures in light of other keyimprove employee attitudes and job perfor- business measures?” These may be new eval-mance and help lead organizational change. uation criteria for many HR professionalsThere are many excellent and emerging who have traditionally evaluated themselvesways to gain this knowledge—professional in areas such as attitude survey responseHR organizations (e.g., the Society for rates, timeliness of action plans submittedHuman Resource Management) are in- by managers, and the number of reports dis-creasingly offering ways to get summarized tributed. In the end, the evaluation of theresearch information, and new ways to gain practices implemented should considerknowledge through online and other meth- these two important points: Are measures ofods are emerging. employee attitude used as important infor- Another suggestion relates to improving mation for the business? Ultimately, do em-knowledge of basic statistics. The need to ployee attitudes and job satisfaction move inmeasure, understand, and improve employee the desired direction?attitudes is essential for organizations oftoday. Yet, without the numeric comfort Conclusions and Future Directionsneeded to fully understand and discuss em-ployee attitude measurements, what they The field of industrial/organizational psy-mean, and how they relate to other business chology has a long, rich, and, at times, con-measures, HR cannot be at the table to assist troversial history related to the study and un-with achieving this goal. derstanding of employee attitudes and job
  10. 10. 404 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Winter 2004 satisfaction. Some of this research is very impacts, is needed and has been largely over- specific and aimed primarily at other re- looked in past research. searchers, while other publications provide In addition, ongoing research will pro- practical guidance on understanding, mea- vide more in-depth understanding of the ef- suring, and improving employee attitudes fects of employee attitudes and job satisfac- (e.g., Edwards & Fisher, 2004; Kraut, 1996). tion on organizational measures, such as One likely future direction of employee customer satisfaction and financial mea- attitude research will be to better understand sures. Greater insights on the relationship the interplay between the person and the sit- between employee attitudes and business uation and the various internal and external performance will assist HR professionals as factors that influence employee attitudes. In they strive to enhance the essential people particular, a better understanding of the role side of the business in a highly competitive, of emotion, as well as broader environmental global arena. Lise M. Saari, PhD, is the director of global workforce research for IBM. Previously, she was the senior manager of people research at Boeing and, prior to that, a research scientist at the Battelle Research Institute. Dr. Saari has authored numerous articles, chapters, and presentations on employee attitudes and motivation. She served on the board of the Mayflower Group, a consortium of companies engaged in professional surveys. She also has served on the editorial boards for the Journal of Applied Psy- chology and Personnel Psychology. Dr. Saari is a member of the International Associa- tion of Applied Psychology, the European Congress of Work and Organizational Psy- chologists, and the Society for I-O Psychology. Timothy A. Judge, PhD, is the Matherly-McKethan Eminent Scholar, Department of Management, Warrington College of Business, University of Florida. He holds a bachelor of business administration degree from the University of Iowa, and master’s and doctoral degrees from the University of Illinois. Dr. Judge worked as a manager at Kohl’s Department Stores and was formerly a full professor at the University of Iowa and associate professor at Cornell University. His research interests are in per- sonality, leadership and influence behaviors, staffing, and job attitudes. He serves on the editorial review boards of the Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. REFERENCES Bracken, D. W. (1992). Benchmarking employee at- titudes. Training and Development Journal, 46, Arvey, R. D., Bouchard, T. J., Segal, N. L., & Abra- 49–53. ham, L. M. (1989). Job satisfaction: Environ- Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of mental and genetic components. Journal of Ap- job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, plied Psychology, 74, 187–192. 35, 307–311. Ashworth, S. D., Higgs, C., Schneider, B., Shep- Brief, A. P. (1998). Attitudes in and around organi- herd, W., & Carr, L. S. (1995, May). The link- zations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. age between customer satisfaction data and Cascio, W. F. (1986). Managing human resources: employee-based measures of a company’s Productivity, quality of work life, profits. New strategic business intent. Paper presented at York: McGraw-Hill. the Tenth Annual Conference of the Society for Colihan, J., & Saari, L. M. (2000). Linkage re- Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Or- search: A global, longitudinal approach over 12 lando, FL. “web years.” In J. W. Wiley (Chair), Linking
  11. 11. Employee Attitudes and Job Satisfaction • 405 employee, customer, and business measures: Rumors of the death of dispositional research Longitudinal insights and implications. Sympo- are vastly exaggerated. Academy of Manage- sium conducted at the Fifteenth Annual Con- ment Review, 21, 203–224. ference of the Society for Industrial and Orga- Hui, C. H. (1990). Work attitudes, leadership styles nizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA. and managerial behaviour indifferent cultures.Davis-Blake, A., & Pfeffer, J. (1989). Just a mirage: In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Applied cross-cultural The search for dispositional effects in organiza- psychology (pp. 186–208). Newbury Park, CA: tional research. Academy of Management Re- Sage. view, 14, 385–400. Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1985). MeasurementEdwards, J. E. (2001). Digging deeper to better un- in cross-cultural psychology: A review and com- derstand and interpret employee survey result. parison of strategies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Paper presented at the Sixteenth Annual Con- Psychology, 16, 131–152. ference of the Society for Industrial and Orga- Hulin, C. L. (1991). Adaptation, persistence, and nizational Psychology, San Diego, CA. commitment in organizations. In M. D. Dun-Edwards, J. E., & Fisher, B. M. (2004). Evaluating nette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of in- employee survey programs. In J. E. Edwards, J. dustrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, C. Scott, & N. S. Raju (Eds.), The human re- pp. 445–505). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psy- sources program-evaluation handbook (pp. chologists Press. 365–386). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hulin, C. L., Roznowski, M., & Hachiya, D. (1985).Erez, M. (1994). Toward a model of cross-cultural Alternative opportunities and withdrawal deci- industrial and organizational psychology. In H. sions: Empirical and theoretical discrepancies C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough and an integration. Psychological Bulletin, 97, (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organiza- 233–250. tional psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 559–608). Palo Iaffaldano, M. R., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Job Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analy-Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the sis. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 251–273. job characteristics model: A review and meta- Jackson, T. (2002). The management of people analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40(2), 287–322. across cultures: Valuing people differently.Hackett, R. D., & Guion, R. M. (1985). A re-evalu- Human Resource Management, 41, 455–475. ation of the absenteeism-job satisfaction rela- Johnson, R. H. (1996). Life in the consortium: The tionship. Organizational Behavior and Human Mayflower Group. In A. I. Kraut (Ed.), Organiza- Decision Processes, 35, 340–381. tional surveys: Tools for assessment and changeHarter, J. K., & Creglow, A. (1998). A meta-analysis (pp. 285–309). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. and utility analysis of the relationship between Johnson, S. R. (1996). The multinational opinion core employee perceptions and business out- survey. In A. I. Kraut (Ed.), Organizational sur- comes. Princeton, NJ: SRI/Gallup. veys: Tools for assessment and change (pp.Harter, J. W., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). 310–329). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Business-unit-level relationship between em- Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of ployee satisfaction, employee engagement, and core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, gener- business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of alized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emo- Applied Psychology, 87, 268–279. tional stability—with job satisfaction and jobHofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: Inter- performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Ap- national differences in work-related values. plied Psychology, 86, 80–92. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Judge, T. A., & Church, A. H. (2000). Job satisfac-Hofstede, G. (1985). The interaction between na- tion: Research and practice. In C. L. Cooper & tional and organizational value systems. Journal E. A. Locke (Eds.), Industrial and organiza- of Management Studies, 22, 347–357. tional psychology: Linking theory with practiceHouse, R. J. (1995). Leadership in the twenty-first (pp. 166–198). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. century: A speculative inquiry. In A. Howard Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (Ed.), The changing nature of work. San Fran- (in press). The core self-evaluation scale cisco: Jossey-Bass. (CSES): Development of a measure. PersonnelHouse, R. J., Shane, S. A., & Herold, D. M. (1996). Psychology.
  12. 12. 406 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Winter 2004 Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a Five-factor model of personality and job satis- practically useful theory of goal setting and task faction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psy- motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psy- chology, 87, 530–541. chologist, 57, 705–717. Judge, T. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1993). Job satisfaction Macey, W. H. (1996). Dealing with the data: Collec- as a reflection of disposition: A multiple-source tion, processing, and analysis. In A. I. Kraut causal analysis. Organizational Behavior and (Ed.), Organizational surveys: Tools for assess- Human Decision Processes, 56, 388–421. ment and change (pp. 204–232). San Fran- Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, cisco: Jossey-Bass. A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and Mirvis, P. H., & Lawler, E. E. (1977). Measuring the life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. financial impact of employee attitudes. Journal Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 17–34. of Applied Psychology, 62, 1–8. Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, Morris, G. W., & LoVerde, M. A. (1993). Consor- G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job perfor- tium surveys. American Behavioral Scientist, mance relationship: A qualitative and quantita- 36, 531–550. tive review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Orientation toward the job 376–407. and organization: A theory of individual differ- Judge, T. A., & Watanabe, S. (1994). Individual dif- ences in job satisfaction. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), ferences in the nature of the relationship be- Individual differences and behavior in organiza- tween job and life satisfaction. Journal of Oc- tions (pp. 175–208). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. cupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, Organ, D. W. (1988). A restatement of the satisfac- 101–107. tion-performance hypothesis. Journal of Man- Jurgensen, C. E. (1978). Job preferences (What agement, 14, 547–557. makes a job good or bad?). Journal of Applied Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic Psychology, 63, 267–276. review of attitudinal and dispositional predic- Kohler, S. S., & Mathieu, J. E. (1993). An examina- tors of organizational citizenship behavior. Per- tion of the relationship between affective reac- sonnel Psychology, 48, 775–802. tions, work perceptions, individual resource Parisi, A. G., & Weiner, S. P. (1999, May). Retention characteristics, and multiple absence criteria. of employees: Country-specific analyses in a Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, multinational organization. Poster at the Four- 515–530. teenth Annual Conference of the Society for In- Kovach, K. A. (1995). Employee motivation: Ad- dustrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, dressing a crucial factor in your organization’s GA. performance. Employment Relations Today, 22, Ryan, A. M., Chan, D., Ployhart, R. E., & Slade, A. 93–107. L. (1999). Employee attitude surveys in a multi- Kraut, A. I. (1996). Organizational surveys: Tools for national organization: Considering language assessment and change. San Francisco: Jossey- and culture in assessing measurement equiva- Bass. lence. Personnel Psychology, 52, 37–58. Kunin, T. (1955). The construction of a new type of Rynes, S. L., Colbert, A. E., & Brown, K. G. (2002). attitude measure. Personnel Psychology, 8, HR professionals’ beliefs about effective 65–77. Human resource practices: Correspondence be- Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job tween research and practice. Human Resource satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Hand- Management, 41, 149–174. book of industrial and organizational psychol- Saari, L. M. (1999). Global perspectives in service ogy (pp. 1297–1349). Chicago: Rand McNally. quality. Paper presented at the Fourteenth An- Locke, E. A., Feren, D. B., McCaleb, V. M., Shaw, K. nual Conference for Industrial and Organiza- N., & Denny, A. T. (1980). The relative effec- tional Psychology, Atlanta, GA. tiveness of four methods of motivating em- Saari, L. M. (2000). Employee surveys and attitudes ployee performance. In K. D. Duncan, M. M. across cultures. In Business as unusual? Are I/O Gruneberg, & D. Wallis (Eds.), Changes in psychology practices applicable across culture? working life (pp. 363–388). London: Wiley. Paper presented at the Fifteenth Annual Con-
  13. 13. Employee Attitudes and Job Satisfaction • 407 ference of the Society for Industrial and Orga- conflict and strain: A control perspective. Jour- nizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA. nal of Applied Psychology, 80, 6–15.Saari, L. M., & Erez, M. (2002). Cross-cultural di- Triandis, H. C. (1994). Cross-cultural industrial and versity and employee attitudes. Paper presented organizational psychology. In H. C. Triandis, M. at the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook Society for Industrial and Organizational Psy- of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. chology, Toronto. 4, pp. 103–172). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psy-Saari, L. M., & Schneider, B. (2001). Going global: chologists Press. Surveys and beyond. Professional workshop Ulrich, D., Brockbank, W., Yeung, A. K., & Lake, D. presented at the Sixteenth Annual Conference G. (1995). Human resource competencies: An of the Society for Industrial and Organizational empirical assessment. Human Resource Man- Psychology, San Diego, CA. agement, 34, 473–495.Scarpello, V., & Campbell, J. P. (1983). Job satisfac- Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). tion: Are all the parts there? Personnel Psychol- Overall job satisfaction: How good are single- ogy, 36, 577–600. item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology,Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (1985). Employee 82, 247–252. and customer perceptions of service in banks: Weiner, S. P. (2000, April). Worldwide technical re- Replication and extension. Journal of Applied cruiting in IBM: Research and action. In P. D. Psychology, 70, 423–433. Bachiochi (Chair), Attracting and keeping topSmith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). talent in the high-tech industry. Practitioner The measurement of satisfaction in work and Forum at the Fifteenth Annual Conference of retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally. the Society for Industrial and OrganizationalSondergaard, M. (1994). Research note: Hofstede’s Psychology, New Orleans, LA. consequences: A study of reviews, citations and Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & replications. Organization Studies, 15, Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Manual for the Min- 447–456. nesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minneapo-Staw, B. M., Bell, N. E., & Clausen, J. A. (1986). lis: Industrial Relations Center, University of The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A Minnesota. lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Sci- Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective ence Quarterly, 31, 437–453. events theory: A theoretical discussion of theStaw, B. M., & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the midst structure, causes, and consequences of affec- of change: A dispositional approach to job atti- tive experiences at work. Research in Organiza- tudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, tional Behavior, 18, 1–74. 469–480. Wheaton, B. (1990). Life transitions, role histories,Tait, M., Padgett, M. Y., & Baldwin, T. T. (1989). Job and mental health. American Sociological Re- and life satisfaction: A reevaluation of the view, 55, 209–223. strength of the relationship and gender effects Wiley, J. W. (1996). Linking survey results to cus- as a function of the date of the study. Journal of tomer satisfaction and business performance. Applied Psychology, 74, 502–507. In A. I. Kraut (Ed.), Organizational surveys:Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of Tools for assessment and change. San Fran- family-supportive work variables on work-family cisco: Jossey-Bass.
  14. 14. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.