JOB SATISFACTION:
FACTORS THAT MAKE EMPLOYEES SATISFIED AND RELATED
GENDER DIFFERENCES
Master thesis, MSc., Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
July 4, 2012 Rosanne Hogendoorn Student number: 1741446 Singel 43-D 1012 VC Amsterdam tel.: +31 (0)6 52 61 41 19 e-mail: rosannehogendoorn@hotmail.com Supervisor Dr. P.H. van der Meer
Co-assessor Prof. dr. O. Janssen
ABSTRACT
Job satisfaction has a strong relationship with job performance. Therefore, it is important for organisations to have employees that are satisfied in fulfilling their job. In general, women score higher on job satisfaction compared to men. Job content related factors as well as factors related to social aspects of work contribute to job satisfaction. It was assumed that job satisfaction among men mainly depends on job content, while job satisfaction among women mainly depends on social aspects of work. This is not confirmed based on the results retrieved from the ‘European Working Conditions Survey 2010’. The results showed that for both men and women job satisfaction depends on job content as well as on social aspects of work. For both genders applies that ‘health condition’ and ‘the feeling of work well done’ are the most important predictors for job satisfaction. On the other hand, ‘hours of work per week’ does predict job satisfaction, however, in a reverse manner. This means that the level of job satisfaction decreases, when the amount of working hours increase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‘good friends at work’ is a more important predictor of job satisfaction for women than for men. The factors ‘educational level’ and ‘income’ are more important predictors of job satisfaction for men than for women.
1. INTRODUCTION
Most people spend much time of their life in employment. For the majority, the choice to work is not a real choice because money must be earned to survive and maintain a household. However, several studies show that employment creates a sense of happiness (Hass & Ed, 2007). Since work covers an extensive part of our lives, it is interesting to obtain more information about job satisfaction. Several studies discuss the contributing factors to job satisfaction. Particularly work related factors such as earnings, working hours, work environment, workplace socialisation, autonomy, organisational control, and participation in training are shown to affect job satisfaction. In addition, studies show that non-work related factors influence job satisfaction as well; those factors are mainly related to personality and work-life balance (Georgellis et al., 2012).
As mentioned above, there is an extensive research on causal factors of job satisfaction. However, little is known about the difference between men and women related to this topic. Before this will be discussed extensively, there will be first looked at happiness and job satisfaction in the broad sense.
nature - and environmental - nurture - explanations (Jayaratne et al., 2009). For example, someone can easily feel happy according to his or her personality, this is due to his or her genes (nature). On the other hand, a person can also be happy through external, environmental factors (nurture). The opposite of happiness can be seen as depression (Park et al., 2011). Happiness versus depression can be measured by The Depression-Happiness Scale (McGreal & Joseph, 1993). Such measurements can determine someone’s level of happiness, which is defined differently in several studies. In this paper, happiness is defined as “individuals’ experiences of positive feelings, emotions and moods over negative ones”. People generally appreciate the feeling of happiness. Moreover, people review SWB as the most important part of their life, even more important than material success (Diener, 2000). However, people can experience differences in the extent to which they value happiness. Eid & Diener (2001) explains this statement as follows. While some people see happiness as a nice thing to experience sometimes, other people see it as a necessary prerequisite in their life. More and more, researchers are trying to investigate what exactly makes people - in this article employees - happy and how those feelings can be developed and maintained. This field of study already exists, but is becoming increasingly important (Silverblatt, 2010).
Life satisfaction is divided into different elements. One important part of life satisfaction is job satisfaction, because most of the people are employed much of their lives. When employees are happy in their work, it is mentioned as a job satisfaction. Tamini & Kord (2011) find that there is a significant positive correlation between job satisfaction and life satisfaction. Other research (Kahneman & Krueger, 2006) shows that the level of happiness is higher for working people than for unemployed people. This effect is even stronger in case of jobs which requires specialized education or training and when there are excellent secondary benefits.
employees´ SWB and health (Leitner & Resch, 2005). A more detailed description of the term job satisfaction will be given in the theoretical framework. From various perspectives can be looked at job satisfaction, including age, fulltime or part-time employees or gender differences. In this article the latter - gender differences in job satisfaction - will be examined and analyzed.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This section discusses the theoretical background of job satisfaction followed by literature about gender differences associated with this issue.
2.1 Job Satisfaction
There are various definitions of job satisfaction. According to Morris & Venkatesh (2010) job satisfaction is “the level of positive reactions of an employee to its job resulting from his or her appraisal of the job and to what extent this is congruent to his or her personal values”. Yilmaz (2009) states that job satisfaction is defined as the "attitude of the employees towards their work, which is the consequence of the comparison between their emotions, thoughts and tendencies towards their work and working environment". Another definition comes from Natarajan & Nagar (2011) who stated that “job satisfaction is determined by an employee’s perception to what extent their job provides the things that are considered as important”. As can be seen above, there is no unambiguous definition for this term.
Research from CBS shows that job satisfaction among Dutch employees is high. Heavy working conditions generally result in lower job satisfaction and a lower willingness to work until the age of 65. However, health care employees in 2009 score with a percentage of 82 above average in terms of job satisfaction. Only in the construction sector and the cultural and other services sector employees were more satisfied. As can be seen in figure 1 the difficult working conditions in health care does not lead to a lower willingness to work until 65. More than 40 percent of the employees in the health and welfare sector are willing to reach the retirement age by working. That is in line with the average in other sectors (www.cbs.nl).
FIGURE 1
What previously was been doubted, is confirmed by a meta-analytic study by Judge et al. (2001), namely that there is a positive relationship between job satisfaction and work performance. People in positive moods are more flexible in problem solving which subsequently leads to a better work performance. Conversely, when individuals are more unhappy, they are less motivated to do their job and therefore, the level of performance reduces. This is in line with Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller (2011), who stated that one of the numerous positive outcomes of job satisfaction is productivity. It is apparent that job satisfaction is important for two reasons. Firstly, because it affects the overall life satisfaction. Secondly, job satisfaction leads to better work performance. The question now arises is which specific factors make employees happy? The following section shows some of these determining factors.
Figure 2 shows how different job characteristics (e.g. task significance, task identity, skill variety, autonomy and feedback) positively influence job satisfaction, according to the research model of Hackman & Oldham (1980).
FIGURE 2
Research model (Hackman & Oldham, 1980)
One might wonder why these factors lead to a higher level of job satisfaction. Wall et al. (1978) explain this as follows in their article about this model. The model predicts that work with high levels of skill significance, task identity, task variety, autonomy, and feedback will lead to increased responsibility, experience of meaningfulness, and knowledge of the results of the work activities. This in turn will result in higher job satisfaction and other positive work-related outcomes including improved work performance, better work motivation, and less absenteeism (Wall et al., 1978). Surprising is the fact that Hackman & Oldham (1980) do not mention factors like number of working hours, knowledge, salary or contextual factors. In the following paragraphs we will have a look at these and other types of factors which can have an effect on job satisfaction as well. An example is given by Natarajan & Nagar (2011), who investigated that permanent employees of an organisation show higher levels of job satisfaction than temporal employees, which is logical. In addition, hours of work have a relationship with job satisfaction as well, according to López Bóo et al. (2010). They found unexpected results, namely that women who are working full-time have a higher level of job satisfaction than women who are working part-time. Thereby, they found an even stronger relationship between a full-time job and job satisfaction, with regard to men. This can be explained by the suggestion that employees who work part-time have less career opportunities than employees who work full-time. The statement that full-time working employees are happier than part-time working employees is contrary to the findings of van der Meer & Wielers (2013), who argue that part-time working employees are happier than full-time working employees. This is due to the following explanation; income shows to have a positive effect on happiness, while working hours show to have a negative effect on happiness, but the negative effect of working hours is larger than the positive effect of income. Therefore, van der Meer & Wielers (2013) found a clear negative effect of working hours on happiness. In conclusion, the topic of part time and full time working related to job satisfaction show some contradictions.
income is low, you will be more satisfied than when you earn a lot but in fact do not intrinsically like your job. As there is much inconsistency and debate when it comes to the relationship between income and satisfaction, Judge et al. (2010) have conducted a meta-analysis. The results showed that the level of income is only slightly related to job satisfaction. They explain that there is another factor between pay level (income) and job satisfaction, namely ‘pay satisfaction’. This means that pay level leads to pay satisfaction - how satisfied you are with your salary -, which is a component of overall job satisfaction (Judge et al., 2010).
Several factors which ensure job satisfaction are mentioned. However, the type of sector where someone is working is also decisive. One example is given by Duffy & Richard (2006). They examined the relation of some work related factors to job satisfaction among physicians. This investigation showed that - regarding to physicians - the following factors have the highest positive correlation with job satisfaction; sense of accomplishment, income, creativity, autonomy, and security. No significant differences were found between males and females. Different factors have shown to determine job satisfaction, but little is said about gender differences. What are the gender differences that contribute to this topic?
2.2 Job Satisfaction and Gender Differences
Men and women are different in many ways; there are also differences between genders according to job satisfaction. However, findings about gender differences and job satisfaction vary. Tamini & Kord (2011) have studied the relationship between job satisfaction and gender and found that the results are indeed ambiguous. A few examples from several studies will now be discussed.
FIGURE 3
Labour force (www.stateline.cbs.nl)
Total persons employed Average hours worked
Sex x 1 000 hours
Men 4 403 36.7
Women 3 829 25.4
Van der Meer & Wielers (2013) mentioned in their article that there is another factor that might affect happiness of employees, namely contact with colleagues; this implies the possibility to talk with colleagues during working time. As women have higher levels of social competence (Margalit & Eysenck, 1990), they are also suggested to have more interpersonal relationships at work and that this will lead to higher job satisfaction. However, there was no solid evidence found in the study of van der Meer & Wielers (2013) for the assumption that contact with colleagues affects the happiness of employees. In line with this, Brass (1985) found that female employees engage in informal networks, especially with other women, more than male employees. This may suggest that women appreciate contact with colleagues more than men. Whether this has impact on job satisfaction is not clear in his study.
of superiors (formal) or support of direct colleagues (informal) - within the working environment, which may conceal more specific results. Further on in this study will be looked at social support from colleagues, therefore the focus lies on informal support instead of formal support.
According to Maslach et al. (2001), burnouts occurs more frequently among women. However, Purvanova & Muros (2010) are convinced that speculations that women are more likely to obtain burnouts are dangerous for two reasons. First, colleagues and supervisor may perceive women more susceptible for burnouts than men, which may lead to a different, subjective approach to men and women. Secondly, it ensures reduced attention for burnouts among men, while men need a totally different treatment than women.
To this point, the main effects of job satisfaction among women are discussed. The most important effects on men will now be discussed.
According to the traditional gender roles, men are likely to be viewed as the breadwinner. Research from more than three decades ago demonstrates that men attach more value to high earnings, compared to women (Lacy et al., 1980). Job security and job opportunities should also be more important to men because these factors ensure the security of income, which is necessary to maintain a household (Konrad et al., 2000). Male employees have more responsibilities at work than females (Tamini & Kord, 2011). This can ensure that they feel strained earlier, which in turn leads to a lower level of job satisfaction. They continue by saying that low levels of job satisfaction and high levels of role conflict and their tendency to leave their job would possibly be related to burnouts. This is contrary to the earlier mentioned that women suffer more frequently from burnouts than men (Maslach et al., 2001).
As mentioned above, literature shows that factors leading to job satisfaction are different regarding gender differences. Several theories about job satisfaction have been treated. Men are mostly seen as the ‘breadwinner’ and they tend to find job opportunities highly important (job content), while women attach more value to social support and colleagues (social aspects of work). In order to answer the research question, five hypotheses are constructed:
Hypothesis 2: Factors of job satisfaction are different regarding men and women. Hypothesis 3a: Job satisfaction among men mainly depends on job content.
Hypothesis 3b: Job satisfaction among women mainly depends on social aspects of work.
2.3 The Model
As demonstrated by the hypotheses, it is assumed that job satisfaction depends on different factors regarding men and women. Job satisfaction is important and job satisfaction partly depends on job content as well as social aspects of work. Following the literature there are indications that men find job content more important than women and that women find social aspects more important than men. This will be tested in the next section. A graphic representation of this can be find in the model (figure 4) below.
FIGURE 4 Job Satisfaction model
* Task significance, skill variety, autonomy, feedback, and task identity are factors retrieved from the model of
3. METHOD
3.1 DataTo measure the above mentioned and to test the hypotheses, survey data from Eurofound is used (www.eurofound.europa.eu). Eurofound is an European foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions. It was formed to contribute to the planning and design of better living and working conditions in Europe. The survey used in this article is called the ‘European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS)’. The data are freely available from their website, after registration. The European Working Conditions Survey was carried out five times: in 1991, 1995, 2000, 2005 and in 2010. This has resulted in a considerable body of knowledge and expertise, enabling the improvement of the methodological approach and quality standards for conducting the survey. In this article the latest version, the version of 2010, is used. In countries where an updated, high quality address or population register was available, this was used as the sampling framework. If this was not the case, a random procedure was used.
As direct measurements from the model of Hackman & Oldham (1980) are not available and therefore these factors are unable to be tested, there will be measured in an indirect way. Job characteristics retrieved from their model are linked to some statements obtained from the ‘EWCS 2010’. Firstly, ‘feeling of doing useful work’ is related to Hackman & Oldhams’ ‘task significance’ and ‘skill variety’. Secondly, ‘feeling of work well done’ is related to the job characteristics ‘autonomy’ and ‘feedback’. Lastly, ‘apply own ideas in work’ is related to the job characteristic ‘task identity’. Hackman & Oldham (1980) did not mention factors in their model which are related to social aspects of work, therefore, for this purpose we use the following items retrieved from the EWCS 2010: ‘good friends at work’, ‘support of colleagues’ and ‘emotionally involving’ (www.eurofound.europa.eu, EWCS, 2010).
3.2 Sample
study is about job satisfaction, this age category is chosen. The sample consisted of 51.4% men (n = 19.386) and 48.6% women (n = 18.324). The average age of all respondents was 42.1 years. Men work an average of 42.8 hours a week, while women work an average of 36.6 hours a week. Participants were either employed, employer with employees or self-employed without employees. They possess all possible employment contracts. Participants work in varying sectors - private sector, public sector, joint private-public organisation or company, non-for-profit sector or other - and in both large and small organisations. For the entire questionnaire please visit www.eurofound.europa.eu.
3.3 Measurements
A few questions from the EWCS 2010 are selected to give more insight in the causes of job satisfaction from different perspectives. Those questions are specifically interesting and important with regard to the stated hypothesis and in order to answer the research question “Is it true that job satisfaction among men mainly depends on job content, while job satisfaction for women mainly depends on social aspects of work?”.
3.3.1 Dependent variable
Job satisfaction. The focus in this study lies on one dependent variable - job satisfaction. To
measure job satisfaction, one main question is used from the EWCS 2010. This question is about job satisfaction and working conditions (q76): “On the whole, are you very satisfied, satisfied, not very satisfied or not at all satisfied with working conditions in your main paid job?”. As can be seen, this question is rated on an 4 point scale - after recoding the scores which leads to ascending scores - from ‘one’ (“not at all satisfied”) to ‘four’ (“very satisfied”). In case an ‘eight’ has been filled in this means that the respondent do not know the answer (“DK”) and in case a ‘nine’ has been filled in this means that the respondent refuses to answer (“refusal”). Those items - “DK” and “refusal” - were excluded from the analyses.
3.3.2 Independent variables
The independent variables of main interest are job content and relationship with colleagues. In addition, some general information was obtained. These control variables will be presented including a description how they will be measured.
Job content. Hypothesis 3a states that job satisfaction among men mainly depends on job
determine where the differences are located, three specific questions are useful. Firstly, q51j was used: “You have the feeling of doing useful work”. Secondly, q51h was used: “Your job gives you the feeling of work well done”. Lastly, q51i was used: “You are able to apply your own ideas in your work”. All question are rated on a 5 point scale - after recoding the scores - from ‘one’ (“never”) to ‘five’ (“always”) with in addition the options “DK” and “refusal”. As mentioned above, those latter items were excluded from the analyses.
Social aspects of work. Hypothesis 3b states that job satisfaction among women mainly
depends on social aspects of work. In order to gather information about relationships with colleagues and work environment, and to determine where the differences are located, three questions were used. The first question states “I have very good friends at work” (q77e). The second question is about the supporting of colleagues: “Your colleagues help and support you” (q51a). The last question is as follows: “You get emotionally involved in your work” (q51m). Question q77e is rated on a 5 point scale from ‘one’ (“strongly disagree”) to ‘five’ (“strongly agree”). Questions q51a and q51m are rated on a 5 point scale - after recoding the scores - from ‘one’ (“never”) to ‘five’ (“always”). There are three additional options this time: “DK”, “refusal” and “not applicable”. The same way is used as shown above, the additional items were excluded from the analyses.
Control variables. Some general information was obtained including the following: h2a:
gender (“male” or “female”); hh2b: age (between “25” and “60”); ef1_isce: educational level (seven options, from “preprimary education” to “second stage of tertiary education”); q68: health condition (rated from “very bad” to “very good”), q18: hours of work per week and ef11_rec: income (total yearly net earnings of main job from low to high).
TABLE 1 Descriptive statistics
Men Women
Mean SD Mean SD
Job satisfaction 2.95 .76 3.00 .73
Feeling of doing useful work 4.31 .91 4.34 .89
Feeling of work well done 4.21 .91 4.23 .88
Apply own ideas in work 3.66 1.33 3.57 1.35
Good friends at work 3.91 .93 3.88 .96
Support of colleagues 3.98 1.05 3.97 1.07
Emotionally involving 2.89 1.44 3.16 1.40
Age 41.97 9.89 42.30 9.65
Educational level 3.26 1.28 3.48 1.28
Health condition 4.01 .79 3.93 .79
Hours of work per week 42.81 12.19 36.61 12.04
Income 10.64 4.88 9.52 4.36
N 19.386 18.324
3.4 Mixed model analysis
4. RESULTS
4.1 Data analysisThe results of the survey will now be analyzed. This will lead to detailed information of job satisfaction regarding both men and women and show the main differences between them. The following analyses have been conducted:
• Correlation analysis • Mixed model analysis
4.2 Correlation Analysis
The relationships between the dependent variable - job satisfaction - and the independent variables - feeling of doing useful work, feeling of work well done, apply own ideas in work, good friends at work, support of colleagues and emotionally involving - were investigated using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. A distinction is made between men and women. The results can be find in table 2 and 3.
TABLE 2
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations - Men
Variable Mean SD N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Job Satisfaction 2.95 .76 19152
2. Feeling of doing useful work 4.31 .91 19175 .25**
3. Feeling of work well done 4.21 .91 19141 .29** .62** 4. Apply own ideas in work 3.66 1.33 19133 .22** .41** .40** 5. Good friends at work 3.91 .93 17930 .22** .23** .23** .15** 6. Support of colleagues 3.98 1.05 16852 .18** .22** .24** .17** .31** 7. Emotionally involving 2.89 1.44 19013 .06** .22** .18** .23** .07** .06** **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
TABLE 3
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations - Women
Variable Mean SD N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Job Satisfaction 3.00 .73 18125
2. Feeling of doing useful work 4.34 .89 18154 .27**
3. Feeling of work well done 4.23 .88 18119 .32** .60** 4. Apply own ideas in work 3.57 1.35 18096 .27** .41** .38** 5. Good friends at work 3.88 .96 17081 .25* .22** .21** .16** 6. Support of colleagues 3.97 1.07 16063 .20** .21** .19** .16** .33** 7. Emotionally involving 3.16 1.40 18057 .08** .26** .18** .26** .09** .07** **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 2 and 3 show higher scores of job satisfaction for women (M = 3.00, SD = .73) than for men (M = 2.95, SD = .76).
Job content. Looking at feeling of doing useful work, women score higher (M = 4.34, SD =
.89) than men (M = 4.31, SD = .91). For feeling of work well done, higher scores were found for women (M = 4.23, SD = .88) compared to men (M = 4.21, SD = .91). However, regarding to apply own ideas in work, that shows higher scores for men (M = 3.66, SD = 1.33) in comparison with women (M = 3.57, SD = 1.35).
Social aspects of work. Good friends at work shows a higher score for men (M = 3.91, SD =
.93) compared to women (M = 3.88, SD = .96). When it comes to support of colleagues, men score slightly higher (M = 3.98, SD = 1.05) than women (M = 3.97, SD = 1.07) as well. But lastly, emotionally involving is higher among women (M = 3.16, SD = 1.40) compared to men (M = 2.89, SD = 1.44).
With regard to men; there was a significant positive relationship found between job satisfaction on the one hand and feeling of doing useful work (.25), feeling of work well done (.29), apply own ideas in work (.22), good friends at work (.22), support of colleagues (.18) and emotionally evolving (.06) on the other hand. This means that - regarding to men - all variables related to job content and interpersonal relations at work are positively related to job satisfaction. The results can be find in table 2.
The same is the case regarding to women; there was a significant positive relationship between job satisfaction on the one hand and feeling of doing useful work (.27), feeling of work well done (.32), apply own ideas in work (.27), good friends at work (.25), support of colleagues (.20) and emotionally evolving (.08) on the other hand. This means that regarding to women all variables related to job content and interpersonal relations at work are positively related to job satisfaction. The results can be find in table 3.
4.3 Mixed model analysis
More specifically, mixed model analysis can indicate how well a set of variables is able to predict a particular outcome, in this case job satisfaction.
In order to estimate a comparison, this analysis is executed three times; once for men, once for women and lastly altogether with a dummy for gender, in order to statistically test the differences between men and women. The results are shown below in table 4.
TABLE 4 Mixed model
Men Women Men and women
(including dummy ‘sex’) Model Estimate Std. error Estimate Std. error Estimate Std. error
Intercept .439* .063 .550* .060 .559 .055
Feeling of doing useful work .044* .008 .050* .008 .004 .010 Feeling of work well done .128* .008 .137* .008 .019 .010 Apply own ideas in work .048* .005 .061* .005 .008 .006
Good friends at work .070* .006 .089* .006 .014* .008
Support of colleagues .047* .006 .049* .005 .001 .007
Emotionally involving -.005 .004 -.017* .004 -.008 .005
Age .002* .001 .001* .001 -.001 .001
Educational level .031* .005 .008 .005 -.020* .006
Health condition .209* .008 .200* .007 -.003 .010
Hours of work per week -.003* .001 -.004* .001 .001 .001
Income .024* .002 .020* .002 -.008* .002
N 13.566 13.305 26.871
–2 restricted log likelihood 25813.522 24595.125 50374.252
Residual variance .3899 .0047 .3693 .0045 .3801 .0033
Intercept variance .0158 .0042 .0135 .0037 .0140 .0036
Dependent variable: Job Satisfaction *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
!"#$% &'()&*% #+% ,'-.% )//% "-*'6'-*'-#% ;)&")1/'4% '82'6#% 3+&% !"#$%#&'(()* %&+#(+%&,% )&'% 4"(-"3"2)-#% )#% #$'% =BC% /';'/=% A$"4% ,')-4% #$)#% )//% +#$'&% ;)&")1/'4% D% -!!(%&,* #-* .#%&,* /0!-/(% 1#23.%-!!(%&,*#-*1#23*1!((*.#&!.%'44()*#1&*%.!'0*%&*1#23.%,##.*-2%!&.0*'$*1#23.%0/44#2$*#-* 5#((!',/!0.%',!.%!./5'$%#&'(*(!+!(6%7!'($7%5#&.%$%#&.%7#/20%#-*1#23*4!2*1!!3%)-*%%&5#"!%D% )&'%6+#'-#")//:%",6+&#)-#%6&'*"2#+&4%+3%#$'%*'6'-*'-#%;)&")1/'%8#9*0'$%0-'5$%#&=%%
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
Differences between men and women
In order to understand the differences between men and women, a mixed model analysis is executed including a dummy variable for gender, whereby men are encoded as ‘zero’ and women are encoded as ‘one’. Surprisingly, almost no differences were found between men and women regarding the independent variables and their ability to predict job satisfaction. The estimations which were significant are: ‘good friends at work’, ‘educational level’ and ‘income’, which means that there is a significant difference between men and women when it comes to those three variables and how these can predict job satisfaction. Regarding to good friends at work, a significance positive result was found (.014).Women show a higher score and the estimation is positive, therefore, good friends at work is a more important predictor of job satisfaction for women than for men. Regarding to educational level, a significance negative result was found (-.020). Men show a higher score and the estimation is negative, therefore, educational level is a more important predictor of job satisfaction for men than for women. Regarding to income, a significance negative result was found (-.008). Men show a higher score and the estimation is negative, therefore, income is a more important predictor of job satisfaction for men than for women.
satisfaction and with regard to women, ‘educational level’ is not able to predict job satisfaction. All other variables do have a significant effect to the prediction of job satisfaction, either positive or negative. Contrary to the expectations stated in hypothesis 3a and 3b, which argue that job satisfaction among men mainly depends on job content and job satisfaction among women depends mainly on social aspects of work, among men as well as among women, job satisfaction mainly depends on factors related job content and social aspects of work, while this was thus not assumed. No significant differences were found when men and women were compared, except for ‘good friends at work’, ‘educational level’ and ‘income’. ‘Good friends at work’ is a more important predictor of job satisfaction for women than for men. ‘Educational level’ and ‘income’ are more important predictors of job satisfaction for men than for women. Table 5 shows an overview of the hypothesis and their related confirmation or rejection.
TABLE 5 Hypothesis testing
Hypothesis Confirmed or Rejected
5. DISCUSSION
5.1 FindingsAs work covers a large part of our lives, it is important to understand the existence of job satisfaction. More specifically, it is interesting to understand the factors that make employees satisfied. That is exactly what is examined in this study. Literature shows that there are numerous factors that lead to job satisfaction whereby differences exist between men and women. Therefore, the research question in this study relates to job satisfaction and the causal factors regarding men and women: “Is it true that job satisfaction among men mainly depends on job content, while job satisfaction for women mainly depends on social aspects of work?” Firstly, a literature study was conducted to acquire in-depth knowledge about this topic. The main findings which have been found can be divided into two parts, from men perspective as well as from women perspective. Subsequently, data from Eurofound is used to answer the research question. Eurofound has different surveys and for this study, the ‘European Working Conditions Survey 2010’ is used. After data collection, the data is analyzed by means of a mixed model analysis.
colleagues and emotional involvement (www.eurofound.europa.eu, EWCS, 2010). These job characteristics are assumed to be especially important to women instead of men. Looking at the results, job content related factors contribute to and predict job satisfaction among men as well as women, which can be find in the mixed model analysis. These results were not expected according to hypothesis 3a.
As can be find in the theoretical framework, most studies show that with regard to women, job satisfaction mainly depends on social aspects of work. For example, Margalit & Eysenck (1990) stated that women have higher levels of social competence, which provides more interpersonal relationships at work, which will lead to higher job satisfaction for female employees. Another example is given by Brass (1985). He found that women more engage in informal networks than men. However, the latter can also be explained by characteristic traits rather than gender difference. More specifically, people who are generally more extrovert and outgoing are more likely to engage in informal networks than people who are generally more introvert and shy. If this is especially related to gender differences is not clear. Nevertheless, the above mentioned examples from Margalit & Eysenck (1990) and Brass (1985) can be linked to three different topics derived from the EWCS 2010: ‘good friends at work’, ‘support of colleagues’ and ‘emotionally involving’. Surprisingly, results showed that there were no large differences found between men and women regarding this topic, while it was assumed that job satisfaction among women mainly depends on social aspects of work (hypothesis 3b). The only difference which was find related to social aspects of work is the fact that ‘good friends at work’ is a more important predictor of job satisfaction for women than for men. This is in accordance with above mentioned statement of Margalit & Eysenck, which argue that women have more interpersonal relationships at work, which in turn leads to a higher level of job satisfaction. Furthermore, there may be doubted whether ‘emotionally involving’ is a proper standard to measure social aspects of work, as this factor shows a negative impact on job satisfaction, both among men and women - however not significant for men. This means that job satisfaction decreases, when emotionally involvement increases, which is not in line with the other outcomes.
to the prediction of job satisfaction as health is an important component of life as a whole. However, it is not entirely clear whether it concerns mental or psychosocial health, physical health or a combination. Impaired mental health conditions may result in burn outs, which are related to dissatisfaction (Tamini & Kord, 2011). Faragher, Cass & Cooper (2005) also found a strong link between low levels of job satisfaction and burnouts. However, they argue that job dissatisfaction is weaker associated with other mental health problems including depression, low self-esteem and anxiety. Physical health has a relationship with job satisfaction as well. However, Faragher, Cass & Cooper (2005) found that job satisfaction has a stronger relationship with mental problems than with physical complaints.
The other factor which is an important predictor of job satisfaction is ‘feeling of work well done’, which means that respondents with a high score on this question feel that they are doing good work or they have done good work. I would suggest that the highly significant association between this and job satisfaction can be explained by the fact that people in general likes the feeling of adding value, therefore also at work. Another striking result is that job satisfaction decreases when the amount of working hours per week increases. This is in line with the earlier mentioned statement by van der Meer & Wielers (2013), who argue that part-time working employees are happier than full-time working employees.
In summary, it can be stated that job satisfaction depends on several factors, including factors related to job content and factors related to social aspects of work. These contributing factors are at some points different regarding men and women. However, what was stated in respectively hypothesis 3a and hypothesis 3b - job satisfaction among men mainly depends on job content and job satisfaction among women mainly depends on social aspects of work - is not confirmed. These findings lead to a disconfirming answer on the research question.
5.2 Limitations and future research
REFERENCES
Anleu, S. R. & Mack, K. (2009). Gender, Judging and Job Satisfaction, Feminist Legal
Studies, 17 (1), 79 – 99.
Barker, K. (2009). Investing in workers’ happiness is smart, even in a recession, Nation's
Restaurant News, 43 (27), 28 – 88.
Brass, D. J. (1985). Men's and women's networks: A study of interaction patterns and influences in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 327 – 343.
Cropanzano, R. & Wright, T. A. (2001). When a “happy” worker is really a “productive” worker: A review and further refinement of the happy-productive worker thesis, Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 53 (3), 182 – 199.
Diener, E. (1994). Assessing subjective well-being: Progress and opportunities, Social
Indicators Research, 31, 103 – 157.
P"'-'&.%Q=%EIBBBG=%R?10'2#";'%5'//D1'"-(S%A$'%42"'-2'%+3%$)66"-'44.%)-*%)%6&+6+4)/%3+&%)% -)#"+-)/%"-*'8.%!"#$%&'()*+,&-./.0%+1.%CC.%LF%T%FL=%
Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (1999). Personality and subjective well-being. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (213 – 229). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smilh, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress, Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276 – 302.
Duffy, R.D. & Richard, G.V. (2006). Physician job satisfaction across six major specialties,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68 (3), 548 – 559.
Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2001). Norms for experiencing emotions in different cultures: Inter- and intranational differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (5), 869 – 885.
Eurofound, (2011). Sampling Implementation Report, retrieved from
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/surveys/ewcs/2010/documents/sampling.pdf
Faragher, E.B., Cass, M. & Cooper, C.L. (2005). The relationship between job satisfaction and health: a meta-analysis, Occup Environ Med, 62, 105 – 112.
Georgellis, Y., Lange, T., Tabvuma, V. (2012). The impact of life events on job satisfaction,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 464 – 473.
Harris, J.I., Moritzen, S.K., Robitshek, C., Imhoff, A., & Lynch, J.L.A. (2001). The
comparative contributions of congruence and social support in career outcomes. The Career
Development Quarterly, 49 (4), 314 – 324.
Hass, S.C. & Ed, M. (2007). Work: The Key to Wealth, Health, and Happiness, Journal of
Financial Service Professionals, 61 (1), 19 – 21.
Jayaratne, T., Gelman, S., Feldbaum, M., Sheldon, J., Petty, E. & Kardia, S. (2009). The perennial debate: Nature, nurture, or choice? Black and white americans’ explanations for individual differences, Review of General Psychology, 13 (1), 24 – 33.
Judge, T. & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. (2011). Happiness as a Societal Value, Academy of
Management Perspectives, 25 (1), 30 – 41.
Judge, T.A., Piccolo, R.F., Podsakoff, N.P., Shaw J.C. & Rich, B.L. (2010). The relationship between pay and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the literature, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 77, 157 – 167.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E. & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review, Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376 – 407.
Kahneman, D. & Krueger, A. B. (2006). Developments in the Measurement of Subjective Well-Being, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20 (1), 3 – 24.
Konrad, A. M., Ritchie, J. E., Lieb, P & Corrigall, E. (2000). Sex differences and similarities in job attribute preferences, Psychological Bulletin, 126 (4), 593 – 641.
Lacy, W. G., Bokemeier, J, & Shepard, J. M. (1980). Job attribute preferences and work commitment of men and women in the United States, Personnel Psychology, 36, 315 – 329. Leitner, K., & Resch, M. G. (2005). Do the effects of job stressors on health persist over time? A longitudinal study with observational stressor measures, Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 10, 18 – 30.
López Bóo, F., Madrigal, L. & Page, C. (2010). Part-time work, gender and job satisfaction: evidence from e developing country, Journal of Development Studies, 46 (9), 1543 – 1571. Margalit, M. & Eysenck, S. (1990). Prediction of coherence in adolescence: gender
differences in social skills, personality, and family climate, Journal of Research in
Personality, 24, 510 – 521.
Meer, P.H. van der, & Wielers, R. (2013). What makes workers happy? Applied Economics, 45, 357 – 368.
"
Morris, M. & Venkatesh, V. (2010). Job characteristics and job satisfaction: understanding the role of enterprise resource planning system implementation, MIS Quarterly, 34 (1), 143 – 161.
Narayanan, R. (2012). Case Study: Social Support among Industrial Employees, Advances in Management, 5 (5), 55 – 58.
Natarajan, N. & Nagar, D. (2011). Induction age, training duration & job performance on organizational commitment & job satisfaction, The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 46 (3), 491 – 497.
Park, H., Monnot, M., Jacob, A. & Wagner, S. (2011). Moderators of the relationship between person-job fit and subjective well-being among Asian employees, International Journal of
Stress Management, 18 (1), 67 – 87.
Pugliesi, K. (1995). Work and well-being: Gender differences in the psychological consequences of employment, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 57 – 71. Purvanova, R.K., Muros, J.P. (2010). Gender differences in burnout: A meta-analysis,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 168 – 185.
Silverblatt, R. (2010). In search of workplace happiness, U.S. News & World Report, 147 (5), 32 – 34.
Statline, (2009). Labour force; main figures by sex and other personal characteristics, retrieved from http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/
Tamini, B.K. & Kord, B. (2011). Burnout Components as Predictors of Job & Life
Satisfaction of University Employees, The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 47 (1), 126 – 137.
Thompson, B.M. & Cavallaro, L. (2007). Gender, work-based support and family outcomes,
Stress and Health, 23, 73 – 85.
Yilmaz, E. (2009). Examining organizational commitment of primary school teachers regarding their job satisfaction and their school's organizational creativity, Elementary
Education Online, 8 (2), 476 – 484.
Wall, T.D., Clegg, C.W. & Jackson, P.R. (1978). An evaluation of the Job Characteristics Model, Journal of Occupational Psychology, 51, 183 – 196.
Warr, P. (2006). Work, well-being, and mental health. In J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway, & M. R. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress (547 – 573). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
