人力資源管理外文翻譯--員工的態(tài)度和工作滿意度

1、<p>　　8860漢字，5445單詞,31400英文字符</p><p>　　出處：Saari L M, Judge T A. Employee attitudes and job satisfaction[J]. Human resource management, 2004, 43(4): 395-407.</p><p><b>　　原文</b>&l

2、t;/p><p>　　EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES AND JOB SATISFACTION</p><p>　　Lise M. Saari and Timothy A. Judge</p><p>　　This article identifies three major gaps between HR practice and the scientific

3、research in the area of employee attitudes in general and the most focal employee attitude in particular—job satisfaction: (1) the causes of employee attitudes, (2) the results of positive or negative job satisfaction, a

4、nd (3) how to measure and influence employee attitudes. Suggestions for practitioners are provided on how to close the gaps in knowledge and for evaluating implemented practices. Future research will </p><p>

5、;　　“Happy employees are productive employees.” “Happy employees are not productive employees.” We hear these conflicting statements made by HR professionals and managers in organizations. There is confusion and debate am

6、ong practitioners on the topic of employee attitudes and job satisfaction even at a time when employees are increasingly important for organizational success and competitiveness. Therefore, the purpose of this article is

7、 to provide greater understanding of the research on this topic</p><p>　　As indicated indirectly in a study of HR professionals (Rynes, Colbert, &Brown,2002), as well as based on our experience, the majo

8、r practitioner knowledge gaps in this area are: (1) the causes of employee attitudes, (2) the results of positive or negative</p><p>　　job satisfaction, and (3) how to measure and influence employee attitude

9、s. Within each gap area, we provide a review of the scientific research and recommendations for practitioners related to the research findings. In the final section, additional recommendations for enhancing organizationa

10、l practice in the area of employee attitudes and job satisfaction are described, along with suggestions for evaluating the implemented practices.</p><p>　　Before beginning, we should describe what we mean by

11、 employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Employees have attitudes or viewpoints about many aspects of their jobs, their careers, and their organizations. However, from the perspective of research and practice, the most

12、 focal employee attitude is job satisfaction. Thus, we often refer to employee attitudes broadly in this article, al-though much of our specific focus will concern job satisfaction.</p><p>　　The most-used re

13、search definition of job satisfaction is by Locke (1976), who defined it as “. . . a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (p. 1304). Implicit in Locke’s de

14、finition is the importance of both affect, or feeling, and cognition, or thinking. When we think, we have feelings about what we think. Conversely, when we have feelings, we think about what we feel. Cognition and affect

15、 are thus inextricably linked, in our psycho</p><p>　　Gap 1—The Causes of Employee Attitudes</p><p>　　The first major practitioner knowledge gap we will address is the causes of employee attitud

16、es and job satisfaction. In general, HR practitioners understand the importance of the work situation as a cause of employee attitudes, and it is an area HR can help influence through organizational programs and manageme

17、nt practices. However, in the past two decades, there have been significant re-search gains in understanding dispositional and cultural influences on job satisfaction as well, which is not</p><p>　　Dispositi

18、onal Influences</p><p>　　Several innovative studies have shown the influences of a person’s disposition on job satisfaction. One of the first studies in this area (Staw & Ross, 1985) demonstrated that a

19、person’s job satisfaction scores have stability over time, even when he or she changes jobs or companies. In a related study, childhood temperament was found to be statistically related to adult job satisfaction up to 40

20、 years later (Staw, Bell, &Clausen, 1986). Evidence even indicates that the job satisfaction of identi</p><p>　　Despite its contributions to our under-standing of the causes of job satisfaction, one of t

21、he limitations in this literature is that it is not yet informative as to how exactly dispositions affect job satisfaction (Erez, 1994).Therefore, researchers have begun to explore the psychological processes that underl

22、ie dispositional causes of job satisfaction. For ex-ample, Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) suggest that disposition may influence the experience of emotionally significant events at work, which</p><p>　　Continui

23、ng this theoretical development, Judge and his colleagues (Judge &Bono, 2001; Judge, Locke, Durham, &Kluger,1998) found that a key personality trait, core self-evaluation, correlates with (is statistically relate

24、d to) employee job satisfaction. They also found that one of the primary causes of the relationship was through the perception of the job itself. Thus, it appears</p><p>　　that the most important situational

25、 effect on job satisfaction—the job itself—is linked to what may be the most important personality trait to predict job satisfaction—core self-evaluation. Evidence also indicates that some other personality traits, such

26、 as extra-version and conscientiousness, can also influence job satisfaction (Judge, Heller, &Mount, 2002).</p><p>　　These various research findings indicate that there is in fact a relationship between

27、disposition or personality and job satisfaction. Even though organizations cannot directly impact employee personality, the use of sound selection methods and a good match between employees and jobs will en-sure people a

28、re selected and placed into jobs most appropriate for them, which, in turn,will help enhance their job satisfaction.</p><p>　　Cultural Influences</p><p>　　In terms of other influences on employe

29、e attitudes, there is also a small, but growing body of research on the influences of culture or country on employee attitudes and job sat-isfaction. The continued globalization of organizations poses new challenges for

30、HR practitioners, and the available research on cross-cultural organizational and human re-sources issues can help them better under-stand and guide practice (Erez, 1994; House,1995; Triandis, 1994).</p><p>

31、　　The most cited cross-cultural work on employee attitudes is that of Hofstede (1980,1985). He conducted research on employee attitude data in 67 countries and found that the data grouped into four major dimensions and

32、that countries systematically varied along these dimensions. The four cross-cultural dimensions are: (1) individualism-collectivism; (2) uncertainty avoidance versus risk taking; (3) power distance, or the extent to w

33、hich power is unequally distributed; and (4) masculinity/femin</p><p>　　The four dimensions have been a useful framework for understanding cross-cultural differences in employee attitudes, as well as recogni

34、zing the importance of cultural causes of employee attitudes. More recent analyses have shown that country/culture is as strong a predictor of employee attitudes as the type of job a person has (Saari, 2000; Saari &E

35、rez, 2002; Saari & Schneider, 2001).</p><p>　　There have been numerous replications of Hofstede’s research (reviewed by Sondergaard, 1994). The importance of culture has also been found in how employees

36、are viewed and valued across countries/cultures (Jackson, 2002)—countries systematically vary on the extent to which they view employees in instrumental versus humanistic ways. In terms of practical recommendations, an

37、awareness of, and, whenever possible, adjustments to, cultural factors that influence employee attitudes and measuremen</p><p>　　Work Situation Influences</p><p>　　As discussed earlier, the

38、work situation also matters in terms of job satisfaction and organization impact. Contrary to some commonly held practitioner beliefs, the most no-table situational influence on job satisfaction is the nature of the work

39、 itself—often called</p><p>　　“intrinsic job characteristics.” Research studies across many years, organizations, and types of jobs show that when employees are asked to evaluate different facets of their jo

40、b such as supervision, pay, promotion opportunities, coworkers, and so forth, the nature of the work itself generally emerges as the most important job facet (Judge & Church, 2000; Jurgensen, 1978). This is not to sa

41、y that well-designed compensation programs or effective supervision are unimportant; rather, it is that muc</p><p>　　Of all the major job satisfaction areas, satisfaction with the nature of the work it-self—

42、which includes job challenge, autonomy, variety, and scope—best predicts overall job satisfaction, as well as other important outcomes like employee retention (e.g., Fried & Ferris, 1987; Parisi & Weiner, 1

43、999; Weiner, 2000). Thus, to understand what causes people to be satisfied with their jobs, the nature of the work itself is one of the first places for practitioners to focus on.</p><p>　　Gap 2—The Results

44、of Positive or Negative Job Satisfaction</p><p>　　A second major practitioner knowledge gap is in the area of understanding the consequences of job satisfaction. We hear debates and confusion about whether s

45、atisfied employees are productive employees, and HR practitioners rightfully struggle as they must reduce costs and are concerned about the effects on job satisfaction and, in turn, the impact on performance and other ou

46、tcomes. The focus of our discussion in this section is on job satisfaction, because this is the employee attitude that is m</p><p>　　Job Satisfaction and Job Performance</p><p>　　The study of th

47、e relationship between job satisfaction and job performance has a controversial history. The Hawthorne studies, con-ducted in the 1930s, are often credited with making researchers aware of the effects of employee attitud

48、es on performance. Shortly after the Hawthorne studies, researchers began taking a critical look at the notion that a “happy worker is a productive worker.” Most of the earlier reviews of the literature suggested a weak

49、and somewhat inconsistent relationship betwee</p><p>　　However, further research does not agree with this conclusion. Organ (1988) suggests that the failure to find a strong relationship between job satisfac

50、tion and performance is due to the narrow means often used to define job performance. Organ argued that when performance is defined to include important behaviors not generally reflected in performance appraisals, such a

51、s organizational citizenship behaviors, its relationship with job satisfaction improves. Research tends to sup-port Organ’s prop</p><p>　　In addition, in a more recent and comprehensive review of 301 studies

52、, Judge, Thoresen, Bono, and Patton (2001) found that when the correlations are appropriately corrected (for sampling and measurement errors), the average correlation between job satisfaction and job performance is a hig

53、her.30. In addition, the relationship between job satisfaction and performance was found to be even higher for complex (e.g., professional) jobs than for less complex jobs. Thus, contrary to earlier reviews, it </p>

54、;<p>　　Job Satisfaction and Life Satisfaction</p><p>　　An emerging area of study is the interplay between job and life satisfaction. Researchers have speculated that there are three possible forms of

55、the relationship between job satisfaction and life satisfaction: (1) spillover, where job experiences spill over into non work life and vice versa; (2) segmentation, where job and life experiences are separated and have

56、little to do with one another; and (3) compensation, where an individual seeks to compensate for a dissatisfying job by seeking fulfill</p><p>　　Consistent with the spillover model, a re-view of the research

57、 literature indicated that job and life satisfaction are correlated (aver-age true score correlation: .44; Tait, Padgett,& Baldwin, 1989). Since a job is a significant part of one’s life, the relationship between job

58、 satisfaction and life satisfaction makes sense—one’s job experiences spill over into one’s life. However, it also seems possible the causality could go the other way—a happy or unhappy life spills over into one’s job ex

59、pe</p><p>　　Also in support of a spillover model for job and life satisfaction, the research litera-ture shows a consistent relationship between job satisfaction and depression (Thomas & Ganster, 1995).

60、One might speculate on the possibility that the relationship is simply due to personality traits that cause both low job satisfaction and depression. However, to counter this, there is evidence that job loss and other w

61、ork events are in fact associated with depression (Wheaton, 1990). Thus, this research su</p><p>　　Based on this research, one conclusion is that organizations only have so much control over a person’s job s

62、atisfaction, because for many people, their job satisfaction is a result, in part, of spillover of their life satisfaction. However, continuing to take actions to ad-dress low job satisfaction is not only important for o

63、rganizational effectiveness, but by not doing so, organizations can cause spillover of employees’ low job satisfaction into their life satisfaction and well-being.</p><p>　　Job Satisfaction and Withdrawa

64、l Behaviors</p><p>　　Numerous studies have shown that dissatisfied employees are more likely to quit their jobs or be absent than satisfied employees (e.g., Hackett & Guion, 1985; Hulin, Roznowski,

65、 & Hachiya, 1985; Kohler & Mathieu, 1993). Job satisfaction shows corre-lations with turnover and absenteeism in the–.25 range. Job dissatisfaction also appears to be related to other withdrawal behaviors, in

66、cluding lateness, unionization, grievances, drug abuse, and decision to retire.</p><p>　　Hulinetal.(1985) have argued that these individual withdrawal behaviors are all manifestations of “job adaptation” and

67、 have proposed that these individual behaviors be grouped together. Because the occurrence of most single withdrawal behaviors is quite low, looking at a variety of these behaviors improves the ability for showing the re

68、lation-ship between job attitudes and withdrawal behaviors (Hulin,1991). Rather than predicting isolated behaviors, withdrawal re-search and applied practice wo</p><p>　　Based on the research that shows jo

69、b satisfaction predicts withdrawal behaviors like turnover and absenteeism, researchers have been able to statistically measure the financial impact of employee attitudes on organizations (e.g., Cascio, 1986; Mirvis &

70、; Lawler, 1977). Using these methods can be a powerful way for practitioners to reveal the costs of low job satisfaction and the value of improved employee attitudes on such outcomes as absenteeism and retention.</p&g

71、t;<p>　　Gap 3—How To Measure and Influence Employee Attitudes</p><p>　　The third major practitioner knowledge gap is in the area of how to measure and influence employee attitudes. There are a number

72、of possible methods for measuring employee attitudes, such as conducting focus groups, interviewing employees, or carrying out employee surveys. Of these methods, the most accurate measure is a well-constructed employee

73、attitude survey. Thus, we first provide an overview of the major research on employee attitude surveys. To positively influence employee attitudes, und</p><p>　　Employee Attitude Surveys</p><p>

74、　　Two major research areas on employee attitude surveys are discussed below: employee attitude measures used in research and facet versus global measures. The areas discussed are not meant to provide knowledge of all rel

75、evant considerations for designing employee surveys, but rather provide background on the research and an overview of some major areas of study.</p><p>　　In the research literature, the two most extensively

76、validated employee attitude survey measures are the Job Descriptive Index (JDI; Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969) and the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ; Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967). The JDI

77、assesses satisfaction with five different job areas: pay, promotion, coworkers, supervision, and the work itself. The JDI is reliable and has an impressive array of validation evidence. The MSQ has the advantage of versa

78、tility—long and</p><p>　　There are two additional issues with measuring employee attitudes that have been researched and provide potentially useful knowledge for practitioners. First, measures of jo

79、b satisfaction can be faceted (such as the JDI)—whereby they measure various dimensions of the job—while others are global—or measure a single, overall feeling toward the job. An example of a global mea-sure is “Ove

80、rall, how satisfied are you with your job?” If a measure is facet-based, over-all job satisfaction</p><p>　　Second, while most job satisfaction re-searchers have assumed that overall, single-item measures ar

81、e unreliable and therefore should not be used, this view has not gone unchallenged. Wanous, Reichers, and Hudy (1997) found that the reliability of single-item measures of job satisfaction is .67. For the G. M. Faces sca

82、le, another single-item measure of job satisfaction that asks individuals to check one of five faces that best de-scribes their overall satisfaction (Kunin,1955), the reliability wa</p><p>　　Based on the res

83、earch reviewed, there is support for measuring job satisfaction with either a global satisfaction question or by summing scores on various aspects of the job. Therefore, in terms of practice, by measuring facets of job s

84、atisfaction, organizations can obtain a complete picture of their specific strengths and weaknesses related to employee job satisfaction and use those facet scores for an overall satisfaction measure, or they can reliab

85、ly use overall satisfaction questions for</p><p>　　Analyzing and Interpreting Survey Results for Action</p><p>　　Effective analysis and interpretation of employee attitude survey data is nece

86、ssary in order to understand the results and, in turn, take appropriate actions to improve employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Re-search on employee attitude measurement and statistical analyses are a key contributi

87、on of the field of psychology (e.g., Edwards, 2001; Macey, 1996). Highlights of the re-search on survey analyses and the most important issues for HR practitioners to consider are reviewed below.</p><p>　　Th

88、e Use of Norms. Ratings made by employees on survey questions can systematically vary—and vary widely—no matter what company they work for. For example, ratings of pay are typically low and ratings of workgroup cooperati

89、on are typically rated very high. Similar systematic variations are found when comparing survey data for many companies across countries. For example, Switzerland tends to have some of the highest ratings, Italy some of

90、the lowest. Therefore, it is helpful when interpreting sur</p><p>　　Comparisons and Numerical Accuracy. Com-paring data is one of the most useful survey analysis techniques, such as described above for usin

91、g norms to compare a company’s survey results to other companies. Comparisons for the same organization or unit over time with a trended survey are also valuable to measure progress. At the same time, comparisons must be

92、 done with professional care, taking into account measurement issues (Cascio, 1986). This is one of the major areas of practitioner misinterp</p><p>　　Of particular concern are organizations using unreliable

93、 survey data, based on low numbers of survey respondents and/or department size, to compare departments/managers or to inappropriately measure change over time. In general, the lower the number, the greater the effects o

94、f random error on data, like the differences between flipping a coin 10 times versus 1,000 times. Thus, comparisons of groups or departments with small numbers generally should not be done, especially when the survey is

95、 a s</p><p>　　Global Considerations. For organizations operating in more than one country, under-standing survey data by country is also valuable for improving employee attitudes. How-ever, making compariso

96、ns across countries is another type of analysis that should be con-ducted with caution. As stated earlier, there are country/cultural influences on employee attitudes, and the use of country norms is preferable. In other

97、 words, comparisons are best made against an appropriate country norm rather than compa</p><p>　　Linking Employee Attitudes to Business Measures. One of the newest areas of research that assists with identif

98、ying important areas for survey action is to statistically link employee attitudes to business outcomes. This research is an extension of the research discussed earlier that correlated job satisfaction with job performan