6th International Scientific Conference
May 13–14, 2010, Vilnius, Lithuania
BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT 2010
Selected papers. Vilnius, 2010
ISSN 2029-4441 print / ISSN 2029-428X CD
doi:10.3846/bm.2010.131
http://www.vgtu.lt/en/editions/proceedings
© Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, 2010
EXPECTATIONS AND JOB SATISFACTION:
THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL APPROACH
Ramunė Čiarnienė1, Vilmantė Kumpikaitė2, Milita Vienažindienė3
Kaunas University of Technology, Laisves ave. 55, LT-44309 Kaunas, Lithuania
E-mail:[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Abstract. Job satisfaction refers to the extent to which employees gain enjoyment from their efforts at the
workplace. It is generally believed that higher job satisfaction is associated with better organizational and
individual performance, commitment; increased productivity, lower absenteeism, and lower employee
turnover. There are many heuristic models explaining differences in job satisfaction, and these include a
number of external and internal factors affecting it. The main research question in the current study is “To
what extent is job satisfaction influenced?” At the same time, the empirical research also aims to contribute to a better understanding of students’ expectations of work.
Keywords: job satisfaction, expectations of work, students, Lithuania.
1. Introduction
they have a positive attitude towards his or her job.
On the other hand, there are a number of factors
that can affect employees’ job satisfaction such as
satisfaction with: supervision at work, work itself,
pay and conditions, appraisal, promotion practices
and co-workers (Hackman, Oldham 1980).
There are many heuristic models explaining
differences in job satisfaction, and these include a
variety of variables. In the first place, some studies
include individual characteristics of the workers,
such as race, gender, age, and educational qualifications. Although these variables seem to have
some effect on job satisfaction, they often fail to
explain much of the variance (Reiner, Zhao 1999;
Ting 1997).
Other studies have shown that variables linked
to the organizational context and the job provides
explanations accounting for differences in job satisfaction. Herzberg (1966) was one of the first who
noted the importance of the work environment as
the primary determinant of employee job satisfaction. Using a two-factor model, Maidani (1991)
stated that intrinsic factors, such as job content and
task variety, contribute to satisfaction, whereas
extrinsic factors, such as pay and job security, can
act as dissatisfies. Building on his work, Hackman
and Oldham (1980) built a new classic model and
identified several key factors in the work environment determining job satisfaction. An important
element in their model, however, is that satisfaction is determined not only by objective characteristics but also by the needs and work values people
have. In other words, obtaining self-fulfilment
from a job is especially important for those who
attach value to it. Their model has been widely
tested, debated, and extended in the literature
(Reiner, Zhao 1999).
Job satisfaction is a widely researched subject. A
review of the literature suggests that higher job
satisfaction is associated with better organizational
and individual performance, increased productivity, lower absenteeism, and lower employee turnover. Unmet expectations from work have been
found to be associated with low job satisfaction
(Hackman, Oldham 1980; Kim 2002; Turnley,
Feldman 2000; Taris et al. 2004, 2006).
Research object – expectations from work and
job satisfaction.
The goal of research is to disclose the theoretical and practical aspects of expectations from
work and job satisfaction.
Research methods – the analysis of scientific
literature and empirical research (structured questionnaire survey).
The paper is divided into two main parts.
Theoretical background of job satisfaction, work
motives and expectations is presented in the first
part. Data of empirical research of students’ expectations from work, motives for studies, evaluation
of the most important necessary skills and factors
influencing students’ work career are introduced in
the second part.
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction refers specifically to the attitude
an individual has towards his or her job. According to Fogarty (1994) job satisfaction refers to the
extent to which employees gain enjoyment from
their efforts at the workplace. When an employee
has a high level of job satisfaction, it means that
978
EXPECTATIONS AND JOB SATISFACTION: THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL APPROACH
Scientific literature review lets to disclose the
main external and internal factors affecting job
satisfaction (Table 1 (Ciarniene, Vienazindiene
2009)).
1. Physiological needs. The first level encompasses the needs involved with basic physiological
requirements. Basic income is directly relevant to
the satisfaction of these physiological needs. Questions derived from this dimension cover the following areas: an adequate salary; comfortable and
flexible work conditions and convenient, efficient,
and effective workplace and facilities layout.
2. Safety security needs. The second level in
the hierarchy is composed of safety security needs.
In terms of this study, it includes job security, protection from physical harm, and avoidance of the
unexpected. The following areas were covered for
questions in this category: job security, benefits, a
non-competitive atmosphere to minimize stressful
work environment, a clearly defined assignment to
minimize anxiety on misunderstood job responsibilities and a clearly defined workspace.
3. Social needs. The third level describes a
person’s need to ‘‘belong” and be accepted by
others. People desire social contacts and have a
basic need to be affiliated with others. The workplace provides numerous opportunities for people
to satisfy these needs through work groups, clubs,
and committees as well as the formal and informal
interaction with peers, subordinates, and superiors.
The areas covered for social needs for the study
are as follows: work relations with co-workers that
provide harmonious relations with others and organized activities that provide participation.
4. Self-esteem needs. Above social needs, selfesteem needs describe a person’s desire to feel a
sense of accomplishment and achievement. People
need external validation of their worth in addition to
internal self-respect and a sense of importance.
There are several ways a person’s job provides the
opportunity to satisfy these ego needs: feedback on
performance, social recognition, titles, and positions. The following areas are covered for questions
in this study: recognition of good performance and
opportunities for advancement, challenging tasks
with more responsibilities, licensing and professional titles to enhance self-esteem, and influence
over others and leadership positions.
5. Self-actualization needs. At the apex of the
hierarchy, Maslow described self-actualization as
an individual’s urge “to develop and actualize his
fullest potentialities and capacities ... what a man
can be, he must be” (Maslow 1954). For this
study, the following areas are included: selfexpression, creativity, and freedom to experiment
with new ideas; opportunity to use one’s skills and
talents (Kumpikaite 2007; Zakarevicius, Zuperkiene 2008; Kumpikaite, Ciarniene 2008; Kaklauskas
et al. 2009) and interest, satisfaction of curiosity,
and attraction to particular areas.
Table 1. Factors affecting job satisfaction
External factors
Company‘s name
Privity of employees about
the company‘s situation
Work itself
Possibility to realize one’s
potential
Supervision and management processes
Evaluation and promotion
policies practices
Favourable work conditions
Organisational climate
Supportive co-workers
Organisational policies
Internal factors
Self-expression demand
Educational qualifications
Age
Gender
Seniority
Race
Job satisfaction can be an important indicator
of how employees feel about their jobs and a predictor of work behaviours such as organizational
citizenship, absenteeism, and turnover. Further,
job satisfaction can partially mediate the relationship of personality variables and deviant work behaviours.
One common research finding is that job satisfaction is correlated with life satisfaction. This
correlation is reciprocal, meaning people who are
satisfied with life tend to be satisfied with their job
and people who are satisfied with their job tend to
be satisfied with life.
However, some research has found that job
satisfaction is not significantly related to life satisfaction when other variables such as non-work
satisfaction and core self-evaluations are taken
into account.
2.2. Hierarchy of Needs
Some argue that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory laid the foundation for job satisfaction theory.
This model served as a good basis from which
early researchers could develop job satisfaction
theories.
As a base for empirical study, the five dimensions of the Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow 1954)
were used to understand student’s needs. Questions of the poll in relation to job attributes were
developed from the five dimensions (LaMarre,
Hopkins 1984). These dimensions and related indicators are briefly described below.
979
2.3. Expectations
R. Čiarnienė, V. Kumpikaitė, M. Vienažindienė
– There is a positive correlation between efforts and performance,
– Favourable performance will result in a
desirable reward,
– The reward will satisfy an important need,
– The desire to satisfy the need is strong
enough to make the effort worthwhile.
Unmet expectations have been found to be
associated with lower levels of identification
with the organization and job involvement (Ashforth, Saks 2000), higher levels of voluntary
turnover (Buckley et al. 1998; Lance et al.
2000), low job satisfaction (Nelson, Sutton
1991; Turnley, Feldman 2000; Wanous et
al.1992), higher levels of distress (Nelson, Sutton 1991), lower commitment (Wanous et al.
1992), and lower levels of interpersonal trust
(Robinson 1996; Young, Perrewe 2000). In the
context of work socialization and adjustment,
unmet expectations have been found to predict
averse scores on work adjustment (Feij et al.
1995), even more strongly than personal dispositions such as general self efficacy and negative
affectivity (Saks, Ashforth 2000).
The degree to which individuals feel that
their expectations are met may be construed to
reflect their evaluation of the outcome of their
exchange relationship with the organization,
emphasizing the powerful role possessed by individual psychological contracts (i.e., how well
did the organization fulfil one’s pre-entry expectancies, Dabos, Rousseau 2004; Lance et al.
2000). Based on their re-entry expectations regarding the outcomes of this exchange relationship, newcomers consciously or unconsciously
decide how much they will ‘‘invest’’ in this relationship (e.g., in terms of time, skill, effort,
motivation). If this relationship does not reap the
anticipated returns (e.g., in terms of job security,
variety, satisfaction, opportunities for further
development, recognition from others), the exchange with the organization is inequitable (Adams 1965), possibly leading workers to reduce
their investments in this exchange relationship
to make it more equitable (Taris et al. 2004).
The greater the difference between expectations and experiences, the larger the gap to
which an individual must respond, and the more
likely it is that an individual will take action to
reduce or remove this gap, especially when experience does not live up to one’s initial expectations (i.e., things are worse than expected). In
this sense, unmet expectations may be considered a stressor that individuals must cope with
(Taris et al. 2006).
Unlike Maslow, Vroom does not concentrate on
needs, but rather focuses on outcomes. Whereas
Maslow looks at the relationship between internal
needs and the resulting effort expended to fulfil
them, Vroom separates effort (which arises from
motivation), performance, and outcomes. He realizes that an employee’s performance is based on
individuals’ factors such as personality, skills,
knowledge, experience and abilities.
Vroom’s Expectancy Theory assumes that
behaviour results from conscious choices among
alternatives whose purpose it is to maximize
pleasure and minimize pain. The relationship between people’s behaviour at work and their goals
is not as simple as was first imagined by other
scientists. Vroom’s theory is based upon the following three beliefs: valence, expectancy and
instrumentality (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. People’ beliefs according to Vroom’s theory
1. Valence. Valence refers to the emotional
orientations people hold with respect to outcomes
(rewards). The depth of the want of an employee
for extrinsic (money, promotion, time-off, benefits) or intrinsic (satisfaction) rewards. Management must discover what employees’ value.
2. Expectancy. Employees have different expectations and levels of confidence about what
they are capable of doing. Management must discover what resources, training, or supervision
employees need.
3. Instrumentality. The perception of employees whether they will actually get what they
desire even if it has been promised by a manager.
Management must ensure that promises of rewards are fulfilled and that employees are aware
of that.
The expectancy theory says that individuals
have different sets of goals and can be motivated
if they believe that:
980
EXPECTATIONS AND JOB SATISFACTION: THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL APPROACH
3. Empirical research
work, gaining knowledge, getting specialty and a
diploma.
3.1. Description of research
The goal of this study was to investigate students’
expectations from work. The empirical research
method was structured questionnaire survey, based
on theoretical background (Maslow’s hierarchy of
needs and factors affecting job satisfaction (Table
1)). The data were gathered via Internet. The main
tasks of this research were to find out:
1.What are students’ motives for studies?
2.What needs students want to satisfy from
their work?
3.What skills are the most important?
4.What factors have an impact on students’
career plans?
Survey was made in December of 2009. 380
students (334 from university and 46 from college)
participated in the poll. The authors of this paper
working with these students in different institutions and faculties invited them to take part in the
survey. Information about students’ age groups
and work experience is provided in Table 2. As we
can see 40 % of respondents do not have any work
experience and 50 % have experience up to 3
years.
To gain a background
In percent
40
Up to 1 year
30
4–5 years
6
1–3 years
6–10 years
More than 10
years
20
3
Age
Under 20
Over 35
1
31–35
To gain knowledge
52
Parents wanted
50
17
8
Fig. 2. Students’ motives for studies
3.3. Students’ Expectations from Work
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs was used to explore
students’ expectations they want to satisfy from
the work.
According to Table 3, we can see that the
biggest evaluation from three needs groups
(physiological, safety and higher needs) as very
important have got good work atmosphere
(80 %). Work conditions were mentioned as very
important for 79 % of respondents, salary – 72 %
of all answers. It means that the most of all students want to satisfy their physiological needs
and probably to get financial independence from
their parents.
From higher needs students emphasized possibilities to be promoted (63 % from all answers)
and possibility to use skills and knowledge
(62 %). The lowest expectations from students’
view deal with wish to belong to some social
group (18 %) and prestige (22 %). Besides, prestige is more important for students having work
experience. It was found statistical dependence
between these factors (Spearmen‘s correlation
0.133, when p = 0,01).
40
58
53
Like studying
In percent
21–30
To gain speciality
To get a diploma
Table 2. Respondents‘Age and Work Experience
Work
experience
No
73
1
1
31 % of students study Management, 5 % –
Business and administration, 37 % – Economics,
21 %– Information technologies and 3 percent
other specialties. The biggest part (69 % of students are the second, 5 % –the third and 24 % the
fourth year. 59 % of respondents were female.
3.4. Evaluation of skills
Evaluating students’ skills it was used Katz’s
(1974) description of three essential type of skills
as technical, human (interpersonal) and conceptual
adding personal (Kumpikaitė, Alas 2009).
Looking at Figure 3 we can see that students
evaluated their personal skills the most of all. The
highest evaluation got responsibility sense. 63 %
of respondents stated this skill as very well and
30 % as well ranked. The average of positive
evaluation of interpersonal, conceptual and personal skills is similar. Around 40 % of respondents
evaluated them well and very well.
3.2. Motives for studies
Students’ motives for studies are presented on
Figure 2. Respondents marked these main motives from the list: background (73 %), speciality
(53 percent), knowledge (52 %) and diploma
(50 %). Looking at the results we can see that
students want to prepare themselves for future
981
R. Čiarnienė, V. Kumpikaitė, M. Vienažindienė
own opinion, ability to work in team and all other
personal skills.
The lowest evaluation average is for technical
skills. 31 % of respondents evaluated them well
and very well. However it should be mentioned
that even 64 % of respondents evaluated their subject skills well. It is one of the highest assessments.
Students having work experience evaluate
most of their skills better than students not having
it. Weak correlation link (varies from 0.118 (self
reliance) to 0.188 (aplication experience)) was
found between work experience and skills‘ evaluation. Almost no statitical difference was found
between personal skills and work experience
(except activity, where Spearmen‘s correlation is
0.163, when p = 0.01). It shows that personal skills
are not connected with working period. No statistical difference was found between work
experience and subject knowledge, ability to show
3.5. Factors Influencing Students’ Work Career
Looking at the results dealing with work career,
we can see that the most important effecting factor
is education (Fig. 4). Even 63 % of students’ suggested like very important and 32 % like important. Students’ health is on the second place. 61 %
of respondents state it as very important. Experience is on the third place. 55 % of students point
up it as very important. The lowest scores in scale
“very important” got educational politics of government (11 %) and family (12 %).
No statistical difference was found between
factors, influencing students‘ career and work
experience.
Table 3. Students’ expectations from work
Physiological
Safety security
needs
needs
Understanding
supervisor
Good interpersonal relations
Whish to belong to some
social group
Quick career
Prestige
Possibilities to
be promoted
Self-expression
Good work atmosphere
Possibility to
use your skills
and knowledge
Work conditions
Important
Little important
Not important
Salary
Very
important
Higher needs
72.0
79.0
80.0
64.0
58.0
18.0
62.0
23.0
22.0
63.0
58
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
33.0
4.0
26.0
30.0
2.0
8
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
0
24.0
19.0
16.0
32.0
36.0
41.0
Fig. 3. Evaluation of Skills
982
31.0
48.0
42.0
32.0
31
EXPECTATIONS AND JOB SATISFACTION: THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL APPROACH
Very important
Important
Education
Health
Experience
Economic situation of
country
Political situation of
country
Family/Parents
Educational politics
of government
Little important
Not important
63
32
3
61
26
9
2
38
40
4
11
3
9
23
12
11
11
29
55
44
36
35
39
35 39
13
Fig. 4. Factors, influencing students‘ career, in percent
Summarizing, we can say that students do not
plan their career for a long time but their attitude
towards studies and work is positive.
4. Conclusions
Analysis of scientific literature showed strong link
between individuals’ expectations and their job
satisfaction. Every person has different sets of
goals and can be motivated if he/she believes in
positive correlation between efforts and performance; desirable reward, which will satisfy an important need and if desire to satisfy the need is
strong enough to make the effort worthwhile.
To conclude the results of empirical research
about expectations from work and motives for
studies, we can say that students state their background as the most important motive for studies.
Physiological and safety needs according to
students view are the main expectations they want
to satisfy from the work. These results confirm the
essence of Maslow hierarchy theory of needs.
Evaluating students’ skills using Katz’s methodology we can state that personal skills, especially responsibility, are the most important for
their work. And the main factor, influencing students’ career is education. It was not found strong
statistical difference according to work experience
and analyzed factors.
References
Adams, J. S. 1965. Inequity in Social Exchange, in
Berkowitz, L. (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 2: 267–299.
Ashforth, B. E.; Saks, A. M. 2000. Personal Control in
Organizations: A Longitudinal Investigation with
983
Newcomers, Human Relations 53: 311–339.
doi:10.1177/0018726700533002
Buckley, R. M.;
Fedor, D. B.;
Veres, J. G.,
Wiese, D .S.; Carraher, S. M. 1998. Investigating
Newcomer Expectations and Job Related Outcomes,
Journal of Applied Psychology 83: 452–461.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.452
Čiarnienė, R.; Vienažindienė, M. 2009. Determinants of
Job Satisfaction: A Theoretical Approach, in VII International Scientific Conference "Management and
Engineering'09", 22–24 June, 2009, Sozopol, Bulgaria Technical University, conference proceedings
3(113): 242–247.
Dabos, G. E.; Rousseau, D. M. 2004. Mutuality and
Reciprocity in the Psychological Contracts of Employees and Employers, Journal of Applied Psychology 89: 52–72.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.52
Feij, J. A.; Whitely, W. T.; Peiro, J. M.; Taris, T. W.
1995. The Development of Career-Enhancing
Strategies and Content Innovation: A Longitudinal
Study of New Workers, Journal of Vocational Behavior 46: 231–256. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1995.1017
Fogarty, T. 1994. Public Accounting Experience: The
Influence of Demographic and Organisational Attributes, Managerial Auditing Journal 9(7): 12–20.
doi:10.1108/02686909410067552
Hackman, J.; Oldham, G. 1980. Work Redesign. Reading, Ma: Addison Wesley.
Kaklauskas, A.; Zavadskas, K.; Budzevičienė, R. 2009.
Web-Based Model of Multiple Criteria Ethical Decision-Making for Ethical Behaviour of Students,
Journal of Business Economics and Management
10(1): 71–84.
doi:10.3846/1611-1699.2009.10.71-84
Katz, R. L. 1974. Skills of an Effective Administrator,
Harvard Business Review September–October: 90–
102.
Kim, S. 2002. Participative Management and Job Satisfaction: Lessons for Management Leadership, Pub-
R. Čiarnienė, V. Kumpikaitė, M. Vienažindienė
Reiner, M. D.; Zhao, J. 1999. The Determinants of Job
Satisfaction among United States Air Force Security
Police, Review of Public Personnel Administration
19(3): 5–18. doi:10.1177/0734371X9901900301
Taris, T. W.; Feij, J. A.; Capel, S. 2006. Great Expectations – And what Comes of It: The Effects of Unmet
Expectations on Work Motivation and Outcomes
among Newcomers, International Journal of Selection and Assessment 14(3) September: 256–268.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00350.x
Taris, T. W.; Van Horn, J. E.; Schaufeli, W. B.; Schreur
s, P. J. G. 2004. Inequity, Burnout and Psychological Withdrawal among Teachers: A Dynamic Exchange Model, Anxiety, Stress, and Coping 17: 103–
133. doi:10.1080/1061580031000151620
Turnley, W. H.; Feldman, D. C. 2000. Re-examining
the Effect of Contract Violations: Unmet Expectations and Job Dissatisfaction, Journal of Organizational Behavior 21: 25–42. doi:10.1002/(SICI)10991379(200002)21:1<25::AID-JOB2>3.0.CO;2-Z
Wanous, J. P.; Poland, T. D.; Premack, S. L.; Davis, K. S. 1992. The Effects of Met Expectations on
Newcomer Attitudes and Behaviours: A Review and
Meta-Analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology 77:
288–297. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.77.3.288
Young, A. M.; Perrewe, P. L. 2000. What Did You Expect? An Examination of Career-Related Support
and Social Support among Mentors and Protégé´s,
Journal of Management 26: 611–632.
doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(00)00049-0
Zakarevičius, P.; Zuperkiene, E. 2008. Improving the
Development of Managers’ Personal and Professional Skills, Inzinerine ekonomika – Engineering
Economics 5(60): 104–113.
lic Administration Review 62 (2): 231–241.
doi:10.1111/0033-3352.00173
Kumpikaitė, V.; Alas, R. 2009. Students' Attitudes to
Work and Studies: Practical Case, Economics and
Management [Ekonomika ir vadyba] 14: 582–588.
Kumpikaite, V. 2008. Human Resource Development in
Learning Organization, Journal of Business Economics
and
Management
9(1):
25–31.
doi:10.3846/1611-1699.2008.9.25-31
Kumpikaite, V.; Ciarniene, R. 2008. New Training Technologies and Their Use in Training and Development Activities: Survey Evidence from Lithuania,
Journal of Business Economics and Management 9(2): 155–159.
doi:10.3846/1611-1699.2008.9.155-159
Kumpikaite, V. 2007. Human Resource Training Evaluation, Inzinerine ekonomika – Engineering Economics 5(55): 29–36.
LaMarre, S. E., Hopkins, D. M. 1984. Career Values of
the New Life Style Professionals. Bethlehem, PA:
College Placement Council Research Report.
Lance, C. E.; Vandenberg, R. J.; Self, R. M. 2000. Latent Growth Models of Individual Change: The Case
of Newcomer Adjustment, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 83: 107–140.
doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2904
Maidani, E. A. 1991. Comparative Study of Herzberg’s
Two-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction among Public and Private Sectors, Public Personnel Management 20(4): 441–448.
Maslow, A. 1954. Motivation and Personality. New
York: Harper and Brothers.
Nelson, D. L.; Sutton, C. D. 1991. The Relationship
between Newcomer Expectations of Job Stressors
and Adjustment to the New Job, Work and Stress 5:
241–251. doi:10.1080/02678379108257022
984