Employee Attitudes and Job Satisfaction - Article Example

Employee Attitudes and Job Satisfaction Name: Lecturer: Course: Date: Introduction Saar and Judge (2004), in their article “Employee Attitudes and Job Satisfaction,” argue that job satisfaction is the most focal employee attitude. Indeed, this is their thesis statement. To explore the thesis, the authors attempt to show that three major gaps exist between the HR practice and the scientific research when it comes to HR practice and the scientific research in employee attitudes and employee satisfaction. The three include the causes of employee attitudes, the effects positive and negative job satisfaction, and lastly, the processes of measuring and influencing employee attitudes. However, with respect to the thesis statement, it is clear that the article has several strengths and weaknesses, which put the validity of scope and content of the article under question. I agree with the thesis statement. My reason for this is since job satisfaction is a type of employee attitude, which is also the most cited in organisational behaviour research. In fact, a review of organisational behaviour literature shows that job satisfaction is at the centre of modern-day research, compared to other attitudes, such as job involvement, organizational commitment, perceived organizational support, and employee engagement. Again, subsequent meticulous review of the published literature by the author to validate the thesis statement increases the level of objectivity of the findings. As Belt et al (2011) argue, review of literature to validate a thesis statement provides it with authenticity, as it augments its objectivity and comprehensiveness. In particular, this expands an understanding of the author’s argument due to the huge depth research employed. Theoretically, the author’s argument also points to the link between job satisfaction and attitudes. As Srivastav and Das (2013) argue, the attitudes, or what employees perceive about the working conditions, job tasks, or even compensation, shape the job satisfaction. What this shows is that while job satisfaction is the most prevalent employee attitude, it is also a determinant of the level of employee productivity. In which case, when an organisation has more positive attitudes regarding the aspects of their workplace, chances are that they will have greater job satisfaction, leading to greater work productivity. This is consistent with the author’s statement that “happy employees are productive employees.” In an attempt to justify the validity of his thesis, the authors addressed three gaps between the HR practice and the scientific research when it comes to HR practice and the scientific research in employee attitudes and employee satisfaction. However, I do not feel they were justified in addressing the gaps, as these are nearly out of touch with the thesis statement or the assumption that “happy employees are productive employees.” In fact, addressing the gaps was a little confusing, as it was easy to conclude that the author had veered into a different scope of study. At any rate, it is the content of his discussions that really counts, and in my view, they attempt to reflect on the link between employee attitudes and job satisfaction. The first gap the author discusses is the cause of employee attitude and job satisfaction. Here, I agree with the author that work situation as a cause of employee attitudes. In fact, this assumption has been initially explored and validated by Noah and Steve (2012). A later study by Srivastav and Das (2013) showed that work situational factors, such as organisational culture has significant influences on job satisfaction, something that the authors of the article under review agree with. The authors, Saar and Judge (2014), had attempted to show that among the most significant areas that shape job satisfaction and employee attitude is the work itself, an idea that can be proved by an empirical study by Noah and Steve (2012). In their study, Noah and Steve (2012) investigate the link between work environment and employee attitude within a service-oriented company in Nigeria and established significant relationship between the two variables. It is, therefore, clear that work situation influences employee attitude and job satisfaction. To further support the thesis statement, the authors argue that different employee disposition or temperament also determine their job satisfaction and attitude. This issue has been explored by a large body of literature, and I tend to agree with it. One such study was by Vaessen (2010), in his study of individual dispositions and job satisfaction. Vaessen’s (2010) findings indicated that the degree of job satisfaction was not shaped by situational factors (such as salary) alone. Rather, dispositional factors (like individual’s personality traits) also shaped the level of job satisfaction. Based on the five factor model, the dispositional effects on job satisfaction include openness to experience, neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. While these hint to the role of dispositional factors in shaping employee attitude, they still leave a room for doubt. In particular, Vaessen’s (2010) study is problematic as it was only based on qualitative document analysis of literature, as there was no follow up quantitative study to validate the findings. It is, therefore, difficult to completely agree with the authors, Saar and Judge (2014), that dispositional outcomes influences employee attitude and job satisfaction. Indeed, Weiss and Cropanzano (1996), whom the authors cited, left a room for doubt when they argued that disposition “may” shape experience of emotionally significant events at work that in turn shape job satisfaction. The influence of culture on job satisfaction is, however, sufficiently agreed with given the extensive body of empirical researchers, both quantitative and qualitative, that have brought evidences (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller 2012). The second gap the authors explore is the outcome of either positive or negative job satisfaction. This reflects in the right direction towards linking job satisfaction and employee attitude. However, the authors failed to provide any explanation for concentrating on the negative and positive effects of job satisfaction and their link to employee attitude. Rather, they concentrated on how to measure and influence employee attitudes. In this respect, they examined the various methods for measuring employee attitudes, including the use of focus groups, interview, and employee surveys. Besides these, the authors also changed tact to examine two key outcomes: life satisfaction and job withdrawal. Saar and Judge (2014) provided convincing empirical evidence drawn from literature to establish a link between life satisfaction and job satisfaction. I believe that the article would have been focused more on the link between employee attitude and job satisfaction to reflect the thesis statement. At any rate, in discussing the conception of job satisfaction, they suggested three likely types of relationship between life satisfaction and job satisfaction, such as spillover, segmentation, and compensation. However, there is a weakness in the author’s argument in the link between life satisfaction and job satisfaction. Analysis of life satisfaction and job satisfaction by Dolan (1998) based on the Contingency Model failed to satisfactorily find a link, as it only showed patterns emerging to show a relationship. Another study by Parlow (2010) shows that the two only served to influence each other, what he called spillover. The authors also cited Judge and Watanabe (1994), who argued that “spillover, segmentation, and compensation” may exist for different employees and were not certain of the effects. The third gap the authors attempt to explore is how employee attitudes can be measured and influenced. Critically, this confirms that the authors shifted from the real scope of the study, they had earlier pointed in the thesis statement – which is to establish a link between job satisfaction and employee attitude. I believe that this weakened the study in many respects, including making it less focused on the real scope. At this stage, the authors argue that using employee attitude surveys to measure job satisfaction facilitates an understanding of the results and allows an organisation to take the right actions to improve employee’s attitudes and job satisfaction. While I agree with the statement, I do not agree that measuring job satisfaction facilitates an understanding of the link between job satisfaction and employee attitude. Conclusion The article’s thesis statement is that job satisfaction is the most focal employee attitude. I agree with the statement since job satisfaction is a type of employee attitude, which is at the centre of organisational behaviour research. Theoretically, the author’s argument also points to the link between job satisfaction and attitudes. However, rather than try to establish the relationship between job satisfaction and employee attitude, the authors attempted to show that three major gaps exist between the HR practice and the scientific research when it comes to HR practice and the scientific research in employee attitudes and employee satisfaction. The authors erred in their explanations and scope of study, which in turn put the validity of scope and content of the article under question. In addressing the first gap, I agree with the author that “work situation” and culture cause of employee attitudes. However, I disagree that differences in employee disposition or temperament also determine their job satisfaction and attitude, as there is no strong empirical evidence to support the argument. In addressing the second gap, there is a weakness in the author’s argument in the link between life satisfaction and job satisfaction. In addressing the third gap, the authors shifted from the real scope of the study, which weakened the study in many respects, as it does not establish a link between employee attitude and job satisfaction. Reference List Srivastav, A and Das, P 2013, “A Study on Employees Attitude towards the Organization and Job Satisfaction, " International Journal of Science and Research, vol 6 n0 14, pp.102-107 Belt, P, Mottonen, M, Harkonen, J 2011, “Tips for Writing Scientific Journal Articles,” Industrial Engineering and Management Working Papers 2011 / Judge, T & Kammeyer-Mueller, J 2012, “Job Attitudes,” Annual Review Psychology vol 63, pp341–67 Noah, Y and Steve, M 2012, "Work Environment and Job Attitude among Employees in a Nigerian Work Organization," Journal of Sustainable Society, vol 1, No 2, pp.36-43 Saari, L & Judge, T 2004, “Employee Attitudes and Job Satisfaction. Human Resource Management, vol 43 no4, 395–407 Judge, T & Watanabe, S 1994, “Individual differences in the nature of the relationship between job and life satisfaction,” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, vol 67, 101–107. Weiss, H, & Cropanzano, 1996, “Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work,” Research in Organizational Behavior, vol 18, 1–74. Parlow, A 2010, The work life conflict: The relationship between job and life satisfaction, viewed 29 Sept 2015, Dolan, S 1998, Job Satisfaction and Life Satisfaction: Analysis of Contingency mode with social demographic moderators, viewed 29 Sept 2015, Vaessen, T 2010, Individual Dispositions and Job Satisfaction, viewed 29 Sept 2015, Read More