Job Satisfaction Evaluation - Article Example

Every organization is faced with people challenges. How do you get the public moving in the right direction? Start where they are. The first step is to provide feedback to employees from their current point of view. That is where Inscape Publishing comes in. For nearly 30 years, Inscape guides have been the first choice for research-based self-assessments. They've helped over 30 million people worldwide progress performance, increase job satisfaction and value differences (Hines, 1990).

Test a hypothesis to see whether the average overall job satisfaction (in the population of all workers in the USA) is equal to 4.5 with a = .05.

Null hypothesis & Alternative hypothesis:
Ho: m = 4.5
Ha: m ≠ 4.5
Significance level: a = 0.05.

Since the computed value of z falls within the rejection region, so we reject the null hypothesis (at a = 0.05). So there is sufficient evidence that the average overall job satisfaction is not equal to 4.5.

The significance value of the F test in the ANOVA table is 0.000 and 0.002 for intrinsic and extrinsic cases respectively. Thus, we must reject the hypothesis that average satisfaction assessment scores are equal across both intrinsic and extrinsic groups. Now that we know the groups differ in some way, we need to learn more about the structure of the differences.

Taking overall job satisfaction as a factor -, when a job is routine, these elements would be routine. What is routine is ordinary, and what is ordinary cannot be perfect. To have a perfect job, one has to break through these formal walls that are built to enclose a so-called professional world.

Employee expectations of certain standards for working conditions at the beginning of employment may be considered an implicit social contract with the employer. If those standards are not met, a violation of the contract occurs and system inequity results. System inequity may be the most powerful predictor of dissatisfaction given that, in addition to working conditions, it is an antecedent to pay dissatisfaction. Firms seeking to reduce system inequity must promote realistic expectations of both pay and working conditions, particularly at the time of employment (Happell, 2003).

In summary, this article has filled a gap in the literature on workplace inequity by focusing on working conditions rather than on pay as the source of inequity. By using global job satisfaction rather than facet-based satisfaction with working conditions, this study has demonstrated the generalizability of the effects of inequity in working conditions on overall satisfaction with the job.