There is great confusion in the use of the term "job satisfaction" and the factors that contribute to it. A review of the numerous studies carried out in this field leads us to the conclusion that job satisfaction is almost anything that a researcher measures when he thinks he is measuring "job satisfaction" (?).
We need to clear up the confusion that exists between the terms "staff attitude", "job satisfaction" and "organizational morale." Although, in many cases, they are used synonymously, they are not. An "attitude" is not "job satisfaction," although it can contribute to it, since it is made up of attitudes. Similarly, "job satisfaction" is not the same as "organizational morale," although it can contribute to it.
An employee 'attitude' can be seen as a willingness to act one way rather than another, in relation to specific factors related to the position.
"Job satisfaction" is the result of various attitudes an employee has toward his job, related factors, and life in general.
The "organizational morale" can be defined as the possession of a feeling, on the part of the employee, to see himself accepted and to belong to a group of workers, by means of the adherence to common goals and the confidence in the convenience of those aims.
"Morale" is a by-product of a group and it is this group who generates it. It has four determinants:
- feeling of group solidarity, need for a goal, observable progress towards goal; and, individual participation in meaningful tasks that are necessary to achieve the goal.
There are authors and researchers who have measured relationships in work groups and, at times, have called them job satisfaction, at other times moral, and at other times simply attitudes.
Attitude
"A mental and nervous state of disposition, organized through experience, which exerts a directing or dynamic influence on the individual's response to all the objects and situations he faces"
"A tendency to act towards or against some environmental factor, which thereby becomes a positive or negative value."
Others seem to infer that "attitude" and "opinion" are practically synonymous terms, but while it is true that opinions often reflect attitudes, it is clear that what a person says does not always agree with what he does.
We then define attitude as a concept that describes the different ways in which people respond to their environment.
Stimulus - response
A stimulus does not always receive the same response. We must recognize the importance of the organism in influencing behavior.
The stimulus caused by a pin prick almost always carries a rapid contraction in response; but on higher levels, behavior can no longer be reduced to a simple stimulus-response relationship, but depends largely on the way in which the individual receives the stimulus.
Based on the above, we can say then that the attitude functions as a hypothetical mental structure in order to explain the transition from the stimulus to the response, and the fact that the stimulus is experienced in the way it is.
Example: employees of a certain department reveal resentment because they have seen two supervisors talking. Clearly, your response cannot be fully explained in terms of the target stimulus. It must be assumed that they adopt an attitude of suspicion towards the management of the company, which makes them feel in the situation described that they are the subject of unfavorable comments.
All complex behavior depends on the way in which experience teaches the individual to grasp the environment around him.
Example: The manager of a company is surprised to learn that his factory, which he considers a friendly, attractive and interesting place, is not seen as such by his employees.
The very simple explanation is that employees do not "experience" the same company. From the point of view of its needs, the company is a very different place than the one the manager "experiences."
For each separate group within the building, each individual perceives everything according to their own attitudes and mental perspective.
All behavior is capable of being understood if it is seen in its own context, while taken in isolation, it may well appear ridiculous.
Example: A newspaper comments on the absurd conduct of industrial workers (equally absurd behaviors of Management are rarely mentioned in the newspapers), who went on strike because a worker refused to shave, or because instead of serving the coffee with milk with four little lumps of sugar, they were reduced to three or something else like that. You are likely to forget that this is precisely what has happened.
It is as if we looked from the window of our office to the square in front and, seeing a man who dances, shouts and writhes extraordinarily, we decide that he was completely crazy, without possible discussion. But if we bothered to get closer and saw a swarm of bees attacking him, his actions would immediately become understandable.
If we want to indicate that certain behavior is inappropriate to deal with a given situation, we have the right to describe some actions as irrational, but no behavior is irrational in the sense of being incomprehensible or without cause.
This is a fundamental principle of psychology, which Dr. Norman Maier expresses thus:
What we want to demonstrate is that all behavior is comprehensible, regardless of its apparent simplicity or complication.
We cannot explain the inappropriate behavior of the group in terms of the abnormal psychology of the individual.
If one has the impression that this point is so self-evident that it does not require going into more detail, why is there a tendency in certain sectors to speak as if nations, social classes, or groups of individuals could be considered literally sick in a psychiatric sense ?.
There are people who accept that the Germans (in the past), the Iraqis or the Israelis as a nation can suffer from paranoia, and other social groups (for example the workers) from abnormal laziness or aggressiveness.
This is a dangerous mental attitude, since it readily leads to three conclusions:
- that the group in question is "abnormal" while we (the observers) are "normal", that, in one way or another, the behavior observed is mysterious, meaningless; and, that to face the situation it is necessary to resort to a complicated psychoanalytic arsenal.
With these beliefs, the group making the diagnosis is in a position to feel morally superior, to ignore the part that its own actions play in producing the undesirable result, and to assume that some complex "treatment" will be necessary to cure the other group.
This type of attitude is easily observed among some company managers who often seem to regard the behavior of workers with the expression of helplessness, mildly amusing embarrassment, and self-righteousness seen in the man who takes his crazy old uncle, consult a psychiatrist.
His attitude seems to say, “Of course, I had nothing to do with this, but I want to do my best for the good old man, so if you cure him, I'll be happy to pay. Money doesn't count.
But it is forgotten that the position of Management before the workers is not that of the man who has a senile and unbalanced uncle, but rather that of the father who takes his "problem-son" to a clinic for the orientation of the child, and he is alarmed to learn that the psychologist works on the principle that "there are no problem children, but difficult parents."
In modern times, most of the work in the orientation of the child refers to the treatment of his parents, who are the cause of the child's bad behavior; If the parents refuse to cooperate and admit their mistakes, nothing can be done for the child.
It is clear, then, that the labor sociologist called to deal with the problems of a company, will seek:
- The sources of the problem in the real situation, in ordinary human terms and not psychiatric (that is, without doing psychologism) You will face the total social structure, paying special attention to the management of the company.
Unless the management of the companies is prepared to admit its share of responsibility for the undesirable results in the management of managing its Human Resources, there will be no possible solution.
The undeniable fact is that the task of management is to direct, and that, although it is true that there are external and internal factors in the company over which it has little control, this is not enough to absolve it of its responsibility.
It is the management that is in a position to amend the situation and create a good or bad organizational climate, while the employees do not have such power or have very little and cannot do it.
It is the "bad leaders" ("problem parents") who must be dealt with first.
For organizational analysis purposes, the important questions about attitudes are:
- How they should be discovered and measured Whether they can be modified
Measurement of attitudes
The simplest method of discovering and measuring attitudes is by taking a "census of opinions." Because, while it is true that an attitude is not exactly an opinion, the opinions of a group or an individual provide clear indications about their attitudes.
Although this type of study is mainly concerned with discovering whether the general state in the organization is good or bad, it is also possible to use attitude tests to discover the opinions of personnel on special aspects, such as projected changes within the company.
As a sample of the types of questions asked, we give the following, representative of some of the surveys that are carried out in practice:
Do you like your current job?
- I don't like it. I would prefer something else. I accept it; I neither like it nor dislike it, I like it quite a bit, I like it a lot.
The atmosphere of the place where you work is:
- Extremely hot; cold; airy; or dusty Almost always unpleasant Occasionally unpleasant Generally satisfactory Most of the time excellent
Most of the colleagues in my department are:
- Not very friendly Indifferent towards me Good Cooperatives Very friendly.
In his personal attitude towards you, your immediate supervisor is:
- Always unfair, Often unfair, sometimes fair, sometimes not, generally fair, fair every time.
Compared to other businesses in the community, how does the company treat its employees?
- Most other companies are better. Some companies are better. As well as the average company. Our company is better than many. Our company is decidedly the best of all.
When desirable vacancies occur, how are they usually filled?
- Hiring new workers Promoting favored employees who are not specially trained Giving a senior employee the first chance Taking the most available competent person Choosing the most deserving individual according to skill and service
Here is another model:
- Choose one of the following statements, which is the one that best expresses how much you like your work. Please put an "X" before that statement:
- I hate it I dislike it I don't like it It's indifferent I like it I love it I love it
- Check one of the answers below to show how long you are satisfied with your work:
- All the time Most of the time Good part of the time About half the time Sometimes Rarely Never
- Please mark with an "X" an answer, from the following, that best indicates what you think about a job change:
- I would leave this job immediately, if I could find another I would take almost any other job where I earn the same as now I would like to change jobs and occupation I would like to change my job for another in the same field of occupation I do not feel anxious to change jobs, but I would if I found something better I do not see any job for which I could change the one I have I do not want to change my job for any other
- If you could choose from all the jobs in the world, which would you choose? (check one):
- Your current job Another job in the same occupation A job in another occupation
Objections to attitude tests
- "It is a sign of weakness to try to find out what the staff think, as this is something that the competent employer, who has adequate control over his people, does not need to worry about" (?).
Answer: Control based on fear and authoritarian discipline is no longer possible or advisable, for well-known reasons, and even if it were, it is inefficient and reveals a lack of respect for human dignity. The only alternative is legitimate authority, which is based on cooperation and requires knowing the opinion of others.
These tests help us discover:
Certain abuses or legitimate complaints, which touch on objective data that need to be remedied; and, Certain complaints based on mutual misunderstandings, which can also be remedied through analysis and explanation.
Example: if the majority of the operators answered question 2 of the first questionnaire adversely and criticized the atmosphere in their workshop, the remedy can be reduced to calling the maintenance engineers and doing something about it. On the other hand, our response could be: "We regret the situation, but we have already requested authorization from the Mayor's Office to improve the building and we have not yet obtained permission to proceed."
In either case, workers have been treated like adults and have received a satisfactory explanation of a legitimate complaint.
The possibility remains that a careful investigation will reveal the lack of objective basis for complaints about the workshop atmosphere in relation to temperature, dust, and drafts, but many grounds for complaints about the "atmosphere" in a metaphorical sense.
The protest could refer to an inefficient supervisor, and the objection to the physical conditions be an affective displacement of the real cause of the problem.
In any case, the survey is an instrument to reveal a zone of tension in the factory, and in this matter tension translates into inefficiency.
- "These tests are unnecessary, since Management already knows what the workers think and feel."
Example: Once upon a time there was a textile plant, whose General Manager claimed that the company was "one big happy family", that he knew each employee by their first name and that he was so close to the plant that he completely dominated the situation. Two weeks later, the employees went on strike, severely damaged machinery and sabotaged work in progress. The plant was closed and not opened anymore.
- "They are probably inaccurate because employees may not dare to answer questions frankly, and because opinions may have no direct bearing on actions."
The first difficulty depends, in large part, on the way the test is carried out, but if you insist on complete anonymity, it is not a problem.
The other difficulty has been thoroughly investigated by many occupational psychologists and sociologists, and the results of the tests have been linked to the actions of the individuals surveyed. All research shows that the tests are reasonably accurate.
There is a final objection to opinion polls which, while irrational and often unspoken, represents a very common attitude of Management.
- The existence of fear towards employees that manifests itself in comments such as "… let's let the dogs sleep", or "… let's leave them alone and in peace."
Many managers seem to imagine themselves sitting on the top of a volcano that can erupt at any moment, and instead of solving the problem so that the tension is released, they relentlessly suppress it.
They sincerely fear hearing any opinion from their subordinates. They fear the worst, but they don't want to hear details.
Other means of discovering staff attitudes:
- Exit interviews «directed» interviews «non-directed» interviews Suggestion systems
Overall, however, the attitude survey provides more accurate results than any other method, and with less difficulty.
What are the surveys for?
Attitude surveys have at least three useful functions in organizations:
They are a means of discovering specific sources of irritation among employees early on. They often relate to issues that can be easily corrected as soon as they are known, thus avoiding later difficulties.
The mere possibility of expressing opinions and resentments serves as an escape valve; Even in factories with unsatisfactory environments, many resentments can be vented. (Of course it would be a mistake to undertake a study without the intention of doing something constructive to remedy the revealed conflicts, but in any case, it is undeniable that the examination itself relieves tension and tends to elevate the general mood.)
The opinions revealed by the attitude study are useful in planning organization and modifications, and in training supervisors.
Dimensions used in these studies
Of all the approaches to the concept of Organizational Climate, the one that has proven most useful is the one that uses as a fundamental element the worker's perceptions of the structures and processes that occur in a work environment (Gonçalves, 1997).
The special importance of this approach lies in the fact that the behavior of a worker is not a result of existing organizational factors, but depends on the worker's perceptions of these factors.
However, these perceptions depend to a large extent on the activities, interactions and other series of experiences that each member has with the company. Hence, the Organizational Climate reflects the interaction between personal and organizational characteristics.
The factors and structures of the organizational system give rise to a certain climate, based on the perceptions of the members. This resulting climate induces certain behaviors in individuals. These behaviors affect the organization, and therefore, the climate, completing the circuit shown in Figure 1.
In order to better understand the concept of Organizational Climate it is necessary to highlight the following elements:
Climate refers to the characteristics of the work environment.
These characteristics are perceived directly or indirectly by the workers who work in this environment.
The weather has repercussions on work behavior.
Climate is an intervening variable that mediates between the factors of the organizational system and individual behavior.
These characteristics of the organization are relatively permanent over time, they differ from one organization to another and from one section to another within the same company.
The Climate, together with the organizational structures and characteristics and the individuals that compose it, form a highly dynamic interdependent system.
The perceptions and responses that encompass the Organizational Climate originate from a wide variety of factors:
Leadership factors and management practices (types of supervision: authoritarian, participatory, etc.).
Factors related to the formal system and the structure of the organization (communication system, dependency relationships, promotions, remuneration, etc.).
The consequences of behavior at work (incentive systems, social support, interaction with other members, etc.).
Based on the preceding considerations, we could arrive at the following definition of Organizational Climate:
According to the previous considerations, Litwin and Stinger (1978) propose the Organizational Climate scheme that is presented on the following page:
From this perspective, the Organizational Climate is a filter through which objective phenomena pass (structure, leadership, decision-making), therefore, evaluating the Organizational Climate, the way the organization is perceived is measured.
The characteristics of the organizational system generate a certain Organizational Climate. This has repercussions on the motivations of the members of the organization and on their corresponding behavior. This behavior obviously has a wide variety of consequences for the organization, such as productivity, satisfaction, turnover, adaptation, etc.
Litwin and Stinger postulate the existence of nine dimensions that would explain the existing climate in a given company. Each of these dimensions is related to certain properties of the organization, such as:
1. Structure
It represents the perception that the members of the organization have about the amount of rules, procedures, procedures and other limitations they face in the development of their work. The extent to which the organization places an emphasis on bureaucracy, versus an emphasis on a free, informal, and unstructured work environment.
2. Responsibility (empowerment)
It is the feeling of the members of the organization about their autonomy in making decisions related to their work. It is the extent to which the supervision they receive is general and not narrow, that is, the feeling of being their own boss and not having a double check at work.
3. Reward
It corresponds to the perception of the members about the adequacy of the reward received for a job well done. It is the extent to which the organization uses the reward more than the punishment.
4. Challenge
It corresponds to the feeling that the members of the organization have about the challenges that work imposes. It is the extent to which the organization promotes the acceptance of calculated risks in order to achieve the proposed objectives.
5. Relationships
It is the perception by the members of the company about the existence of a pleasant work environment and good social relations both between peers and between bosses and subordinates.
6. Cooperation
It is the feeling of the members of the company about the existence of a spirit of help on the part of the managers, and other employees of the group. The emphasis is on mutual support, both from higher and lower levels.
7. Standards
It is the perception of members about the emphasis that organizations place on performance standards.
8. Conflicts
It is the feeling of the degree to which the members of the organization, both peers and superiors, accept dissenting opinions and are not afraid to face and solve problems as soon as they arise.
9. Identity
It is the feeling of belonging to the organization and that it is an important and valuable element within the work group. In general, it is the feeling of sharing personal goals with those of the organization.
Knowledge of the Organizational Climate provides feedback about the processes that determine organizational behaviors, also allowing to introduce planned changes, both in the attitudes and behaviors of the members, as well as in the organizational structure or in one or more of the subsystems that compose it..
The importance of this information is based on the verification that the Organizational Climate influences the manifest behavior of the members, through stabilized perceptions that filter reality and condition the levels of work motivation and professional performance, among others.
Other authors suggest measuring the Organizational Climate through the following dimensions:
- Attitudes toward company and company management Attitudes toward promotion opportunities Attitudes toward job content Attitudes toward supervision Attitudes toward financial rewards Attitudes toward working conditions Attitudes toward coworkers
Steps to carry out an attitude study
- Survey planning. Careful planning is essential for the survey to be successful. Representatives of the various groups involved, mainly managers, supervisors and employees, should discuss the objectives of the survey and determine them clearly and in writing. Design of the The questionnaire used in a survey should cover all aspects of the work situation that are considered to be related to the satisfaction and dissatisfaction of the employees. Attitude surveys are better accepted by company personnel when employees at all levels participate in developing the questionnaire topics. Administration of the questionnaire.The conditions under which the attitude questionnaire is administered are of vital importance for the success of the survey and for the mood of the participants. Managers must be fully geared towards understanding the purpose of the survey. Prior publicity should be done through internal newsletters and printed advertising material. The common procedure is to administer the questionnaire anonymously among large groups during working hours. Data analysis. Tabulating the results divided by departments, employees versus female employees, blue collar versus managerial staff, and other significant categories is the starting point for analyzing the data. If there is data from previous surveys, comparisons can be made. As usual,comparisons are made between departments within the organization. Statistical techniques such as:
- correlation coefficients (Pearson's "r", Spearman's rho), nonparametric measures of association (Yule's Q, Kendall's tau be); and independence tests for contingency tables (e.g. chi square)
- Act appropriately. Once the problems have been identified, it is necessary to act appropriately. It is necessary to give feedback to the staff on the results of the survey and carry out the corrective and follow-up actions that the Directorate has planned. Repeat the study periodically. It is necessary to compare the results obtained over time (eg with a "panel" study) to know if the corrective actions taken have yielded positive results.
It is beyond the objective of this presentation to explain how to achieve the modification of the attitudes of the workers of our organizations.
Bibliography used.
- Bellows, Roger M. «Psychology of personnel in industry and business», Editorial Diana, Mexico DF, 1977.Blum, ML and Naylor, JC «Industrial psychology. Its theoretical and social foundations ", Editorial Trillas, Mexico DF, 1976 Brown, JAC" Social Psychology in Industry ", Fondo de Cultura Económica, Mexico DF, 1981 Dunnette, MD and Kirchner, WK" Industrial Psychology ", Editorial Trillas, Mexico DF, 1974. Fleishman, EA and Bass, AR «Studies of Industrial and Personnel Psychology», Editorial Trillas, Mexico DF, 1976. Friedmann, Georges and Naville, Pierre «Treaty of Labor Sociology», Fondo de Cultura Económica, México DF, 1971. Gonzalves, Alexis P. «Dimensions of the organizational climate», Latin American Society for Quality, Internet, December 1997 Litwin, G. and Stinger, H. «Organizational Climate», Simon & Schuster, N.And, 1978 Maier, Norman RF «Treaty of Labor Sociology», Ediciones Rialp, Madrid, 1971. May, Elton «Social problems of an industrial civilization», Ediciones Nueva Vision, Buenos Aires, 1977 Sherman, AW (jr) and Bohlander "Human Resources Administration", Grupo Editorial Iberoamérica, Mexico DF, 1994.
