Measuring job-satisfaction — practice questions

Global measure problem: Single item masks facet patterns — staff may rate 5/7 overall because co-workers are friendly while pay and promotion facets score poorly (facet model, 4.5.1).

JDI advantage: Separate pay, promotion, supervision, work, co-workers scores reveal promotion stagnation and supervision issues driving turnover (4.5.3) despite moderate global satisfaction.

Validity concerns: Even JDI is self-report — social desirability if not anonymous; common method bias if same mood affects all facet ratings.

Improvement: Anonymous administration, longitudinal repeats, combine with objective data (absence, exit interviews).

Evaluation: Standardised scales allow cross-company comparison but may not capture organisation-specific concerns. Discrepancy theory suggests measuring expectations vs reality, not just current satisfaction.

The JDI scoring gives 3 points for a 'satisfying' answer, 0 for a 'dissatisfying' answer, and 1 for '?'.

Step 1: Score the 'satisfying' responses.

• 'Yes' to a favorable item is satisfying. Score: 10 items * 3 points = 30 points.
• 'No' to an unfavorable item is satisfying. Score: 4 items * 3 points = 12 points.
• Total from satisfying responses = 30 + 12 = 42 points.

Step 2: Score the 'dissatisfying' responses.

• 'No' to a favorable item is dissatisfying. Score: 2 items * 0 points = 0 points.
• 'Yes' to an unfavorable item is dissatisfying. Score: 2 items * 0 points = 0 points.
• Total from dissatisfying responses = 0 + 0 = 0 points.

Step 3: Calculate the total facet score.

• Total Score = 42 + 0 = 42 points.

Step 4: Interpret the score.

• The maximum possible score for an 18-item facet is 18 * 3 = 54 points.
• The employee's score is 42 out of 54.
• Conclusion: This score (42/54 ≈ 78%) indicates a high level of satisfaction with the work itself. The HR department can be confident that the nature of the tasks is not a primary source of dissatisfaction for this employee.