3. JOB SATISFACTION 3.1.

Introduction
Job satisfaction emerged as an objective of studies in 1930s (tikar, 1996) and nowadays plays a major role in the research in the field of organisational psychology (Brewer, McMahanLanders, 2003a, 2003b; Cranny, Smith, Stone, 1992; Hopkins, 1983; Spears, Parker, 2002, Sweeney et al, 2002; Topolosky; 2000; in Brewer, Hun Lim, Cross, 2008). Numerous studies on job satisfaction and other aspects, for example work factors, motivation, absenteeism and other withdrawal behaviours, have emerged and confirmed various relationships between job satisfaction and other work related issues (see further in the chapter). In addition to these associations, Urban (2003) also links job satisfaction with quality of production, customers' satisfaction, fluctuation, and employees loyalty. Hence, we can assume that job satisfaction is a key construct in work behaviour generally as it is associated and interconnected with a great number of various work aspects. In the last decades, human resources practitioners have seen this phenomenon as focal trying to enhance their employees satisfaction as much as possible. Since the primary concern of this paper is job satisfaction, we feel the need to include some knowledge obtained in the research in order to provide basic orientation and comprehension in the field of job satisfaction.

3.2. Definition of Job Satisfaction and Related Concepts

Locke (1976) created the most quoted job satisfaction definition describing it as a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of ones job or job experiences (p. 1304, in Saari, Judge, 2004). This definition implicitly includes the importance of both feeling (affect) and cognition because whenever we think about work, we have certain feelings about it. Spector (1997) explains job satisfaction as how people feel about their job and various aspects of their job or the extent to which employees like (satisfaction) or dislike (dissatisfaction) their jobs. The author states that, in the past, job satisfaction was perceived in the view of need-fulfilment, which means that job satisfaction was evaluated by meeting or not meeting employees physical and psychological needs, such as pay. However, this approach is no

longer up-to-date as researchers tend to focus on cognitive aspects rather than needs, thus making job satisfaction an attitudinal variable (Spector, 1997). In the view of better job satisfaction comprehension, it is useful to distinguish satisfaction with work and satisfaction at work (Stikar, 1996). Satisfaction with work is more specific and refers to matters related to work activities, such as mental and physical demands, work schedule, prestige, and so forth. In teachers, these activities can be lesson preparation, the lessons themselves, discussions with students, teachers schedule, management, and evaluation. Satisfaction at work then includes a wider range of activities or influences, such as employees personality, situational factors (for example physical) and common organisational conditions. tikar (1996) adds that this wider conception of job satisfaction is dominant in the sphere of research. In teachers context, for example relations between the teacher and students, company management, relations among teachers, materials used, equipment and so forth can be perceived as factors influencing final career satisfaction and therefore items evaluating these conditions have been included in the research method.

3.3. Dimensions of Job Satisfaction

Since job satisfaction is very complex, it is believed to have specific characteristics. Luthans (1992; in tikar 1996), found three following dimensions in which job satisfaction is perceived: 1) as emotional response towards a specific work situation; 2) as a reaction to fulfilled or unfulfilled work-related expectance; 3) as a phenomenon which consists of interrelated work attitudes. Kollrik (1986) identified characteristics of job satisfaction which are crucial for understanding the phenomenon and research, hence he states that it is important to differentiate between: 1) global job satisfaction capturing overall job satisfaction and facet job satisfaction which refers to separate factors (for more information, see part Assessment of Job Satisfaction); 2) job satisfaction characteristics as stability and intensity (the extent to which an individual feels satisfied or dissatisfied with their job ranging from absolute satisfaction to absolute dissatisfaction); 3) job satisfaction as an individual or social feature (teams or personnels relationship to their influence in an organisation); 4) job satisfaction as a immediate state (reflects satisfaction at one time) or process (development of global satisfaction and measuring

changes in facet satisfaction in order to improve working conditions); 5) job satisfaction as a situational reaction or disposition (for more information see Approaches in Job Satisfaction).

3.4. The Approaches to Job Satisfaction

There has been a discussion whether job satisfaction is a cognition, a stable personality trait, en emotion, a mood state, or an attitude (e.g. Staw and Ross, 1985; Gerhart, 1987; Lewin and Stokes, 1989; Newton and Keenan, 1991; in Taber and Alliger, 1995). These beliefs have resulted in more types of approaches state theories, mood theories, and trait theories. Theoretically, job satisfaction can be interpreted by two different ways situational (bottom-up) and dispositional (top-down) explanations. Anderson et al. (2005) adds interactive approach representing the idea that job satisfaction is a result of both situational and dispositional influences. 3.4.1. Situational Models A fair number of situational factors have been examined. Locke (1976) linked job satisfaction to pay, opportunities for promotion, working conditions, and the opportunity to use valued abilities and skills (in Heller, Judge, Watson, 2002). Anderson et al. (2005) proposed the following three most influential situational theories: 1) Herzbergs 2-factor theory; 2) social information processing; and 3) job characteristics model. Herzbergs 2-factor theory has already been included under chapter concerning motivation theories, thus, we will provide a brief theoretical outline of remaining two theories since they have influenced the research of job satisfaction.
3.4.1.1.

Herzbergs 2-Factor Theory (see chapter 2.4.3., page 11) Social Information Processing

3.4.1.2.

This theory states that job satisfaction is a social construct of reality (Salancik, Pfeffer, 1977, 1978; in Anderson et al. 2005). In other words, employees job satisfaction is created only when they are asked about it, and when they are asked, they tend to judge their job satisfaction from social context such as the interpretation of their behaviours, expectation of what they should answer, and at the same time, their satisfaction can be influenced by co-

workers, or the item itself. This perception has been criticised due to the fact that the same job attributes appear to predict job satisfaction in various cultures, which, naturally, have different values and other social perspectives. 3.4.1.3. Job Characteristics Model (JCM) This model argues that intrinsically motivating jobs lead to higher levels of job satisfaction, work performance, and lower job withdrawal. Heller, Judge and Watson (2002) described Hackman and Oldhams Job Characteristics Model (1976) as the most influential. This model focuses on 5 core job characteristics (Anderson et al., 2005; Heller, Judge, Watson, 2002): a) task identity representing the degree to which an employees sees their work from the beginning until the end; b) task significance means the extent to which an individual considers his work important and significant; c) skill variety represents the degree to which a job allows an individual to carry out various tasks; d) autonomy stands for the extent to which employees have control over the methods of conducting their job; and e) feedback meaning the degree to which work provides feedback on employees job performance. In accordance with the theory, the jobs including these core characteristics are more probable to cause high job satisfaction and motivation than the ones in which the core characteristics are absent. Furthermore, the five core characteristics are thought to be the cause of meaningfulness of work, responsibility of the work outcomes, and knowledge of results (Anderson et al., 2005). This model started as a situational one but shortly switched to interactional approach adding the variable of Growth-Need Strength (or GNS, representing employees desire for personal development), which moderates the relationship between the intrinsic job characteristics (concerning the nature of the work) and job satisfaction making intrinsic job characteristics more satisfying for people with higher GNS. This theory is widely accepted among the researchers and we think that its importance lies in linking work motivation and satisfaction. Hence it shows that it is necessary to consider work motivation when dealing with job satisfaction. We agree with this proposal, therefore the thesis includes a brief outline of work motivation theories, even though job satisfaction is a primary concern.

Taber and Alliger (1995) differentiate between state and mood theories. Even though they are perceived as contrast theories, we assume that they can be subcategories of situational models as both of them highlight the role of job satisfaction changeability. State theories conceptualize job satisfaction as an attitude which predisposes an employee to react to job situation in a favourable or unfavourable way (Seashore, Taber, 1975; in Taber and Alliger, 1995) or as a feeling subjective reaction to a specific job event, which is either pleasant or unpleasant (Fiske, Taylor, 1984; in Taber and Alliger, 1995). Furthermore, it can be assumed that job satisfaction is a malleable state which is developed and maintained by an employees past experiences, current experiences, and anticipations of future experiences at work. On the other hand, mood theories claim that job satisfaction is an emotional condition without any particular source or target. Due to this fact, it can change abruptly and short-term swings may occur due to either the external or intra-personal environment (George, 1989, 1991; in Taber and Alliger, 1995). Nonetheless, Diener et al. (1999; in Heller, Judge, Watson, 2002) summarised that these external influences or life events, even when taken into account together with other objective factors (e.g. demographic variables), account for little variance in well-being (not job satisfaction). Hence, scientists started to focus on the influence of dispositional factors.

3.4.2. Trait (Dispositional) Theories Although the role of personality has been long recognised, the earliest studies come from the 1980 focusing mainly on indirect measures of time stability in job satisfaction across time (Staw, Ross, 1985), or on genetic evidence in twin studies (Arvey et al. 1989; in Heller, Judge, Watson, 2002). Accordingly, Staw and Ross (1985) estimated job satisfaction test-retest correlations to be 0.42 and 0.29 over 2-year and 4-year intervals, and 0.33 and 0.19 for employees changing occupations (Gerhart, 2005). Similarly, Staw, Bell, and Clausen (1986) found that childhood temperament statistically related to job satisfaction even up to 40 years later (in Saari, Judge, 2004). Thus, Staw and Ross (1986) among others (for example Bell and Clausen, 1986) claimed that job satisfaction is a relatively stable personality characteristic according to which an

individual responds positively or negatively regardless of the specific job situation and can be at least partially genetically determined (Taber and Alliger, 1995; Gerhart, 2005). Even though the evidence points out that differences in job satisfaction across employees can be partly traced to differences in employees disposition or character (House, Shane, Herold, 1996, in Saari, Judge, 2004), some limitations of this model have appeared. One of the major limitations seen by Gerhart (1987) is that important situational variables were omitted or poorly measured and therefore predictive power of previous job satisfaction may seem greater (Gerhart, 2005). Secondly, these theories do not explain how exactly the dispositions influence job satisfaction (Erez, 1994, in Saari, Judge, 2004). Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) attempted to clarify the relationship by suggesting that disposition may affect the experience of emotionally significant work events, which then influences job satisfaction (in Saari, Judge, 2004). Furthermore, Davis-Blake and Pfeffer (1989) argued that this stability can be simply caused by the stability of a significant situational determinant of job satisfaction (in Gerhart, 2005). Nowadays, three main trait taxonomies are recognised positive affectivity/negative affectivity (PA/NA), the five-factor model of personality (Big 5), and core self-evaluations taxonomy (Judge et al, 1997; in Heller, Judge, Watson, 2002; Gerhart, 2005).

3.4.2.1.

Positive/negative affectivity has been identified by Watson and his colleagues (Watson, Tellegen, 1985) defining individuals with high positive affectivity (PA) as people with high energy, enthusiasm, and pleasure engagement, while the ones with high negative affectivity (NA) are characterised by distress, unpleasurable engagement, and nervousness (Heller, Judge, Watson, 2002). In their meta-analysis, Connolly and Viswesvaran (2000) estimated true correlations of PA with job satisfaction to be 0.49 (k=15) and NA with job satisfaction was reported to be -0.33 (k=27) (in Gerhart, 2005). Thus, both PA and NA show moderately strong correlations with job satisfaction. As mentioned in the introduction of this chapter, early trait studies used indirect assessment of personality. Due to the critique of this procedure, scientists have started to measure dispositional affect directly by using positive/negative affectivity assessment techniques and then correlating them with variables like job satisfaction (Gerhart, 2005). Other manner of measuring affectivity, used by Judge (1993), was Weitz (1952) neutral

objects satisfaction scale (NOSQ) asking respondents how satisfied they are with neutral objects such as telephone number or paper size (in Gerhart, 2005). In conclusion, Staw and Ross (1985) pointed out that although employees with negative affectivity may be difficult to work with, not much is know about the relationship of such a disposition and work performance, thus employees should be matched according to the extent of critical thinking or level of enthusiasm and energy (in Gerhart, 2005).
3.4.2.2.

Five-factor model or Big 5 is believed to describe the most important personality characteristics divided into 5 traits extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness. Empirical research links these 5 traits with job satisfaction. Negative nature of neurotic people (Magnus et al., 1993), extraverts inclination to experience positive emotions (Watson, Clark, 1997), and the underlying tendency for work-involvement of conscientious individuals (Organ, Lingl, 1995) provokes a relationship of these factors and job satisfaction (in Heller, Judge, Watson, 2002). Recent meta-analysis (Judge et al., 2002; in Heller, Judge, Watson, 2002) offers following estimated correlations: - 0.29 for neuroticism (k=92), 0.25 (k=75) for extraversion, and 0.26 (k=79) for conscientiousness.

3.4.2.3.

Core self-evaluations are fundamental premises which individuals have about themselves and their functioning in the world indicated by four traits: a) self-esteem (the basic appraisal which people make of themselves), b) generalised self-efficacy (an individuals global estimate of their ability to mobilise the motivation, cognitive resources, and behaviour needed to attain important outcomes), c) locus of control (the extent to which a person thinks that they control events in their lives rather than fate), and d) neuroticism (Judge et al., 1997; in Heller, Judge, Watson, 2002). Judge et al. (2000) found that core self-evaluations correlated 0.41 (p < 0.01) with job satisfaction when both aspects were self-reported, and 0.19 (p < 0.05) when core self-evaluations were reported by significant others (in Heller, Judge, Watson, 2002). They also discovered that the perception of the job itself was one of the primary causes of the relationship between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction. Hence, the job itself, the most important situational effect upon job satisfaction, seems to be linked to core self-evaluations (Saari, Judge, 2004).

To summarise the debate about the significance of either situational or dispositional factors, some personality researchers, e.g. Funder (2001), recognise that dispositional consistency is very unlikely to constrain the effect of situational interventions on outcomes such as job satisfaction (in Gerhart, 2005). Thus, both dispositional and situational factors can simultaneously affect job attitudes. This is the key notion in interactive theories which have been set up as the third major group of job satisfaction theories in addition to situation and dispositional approach (Anderson et al., 2005). Even though organisations cannot directly impact employee personality, Saari, Judge (2004) suggest that use of proper selection procedures and creating a match between employees and jobs should ensure that people do the most appropriate jobs for them, which, in turn, can help to improve their job satisfaction. In our opinion, situational and dispositional factors do not limit each other, they work more or less in a cooperative fashion giving a score of job satisfaction, and thus none can be neglected. Furthermore, it appears to us that dispositions influence most global satisfaction which captures general opinions about the occupation and other facet-satisfactions (such as relationships with management, satisfaction with communication, pay, equipment etc.) may be less modified by the personality. Our research does not focus on employees dispositional characteristics due to the fact that, as mentioned above, they cannot be modified by management once the employee is chosen for the job. Nonetheless, we felt an urge to include these various conceptions of job satisfaction in the thesis as their comprehension is crucial since the overall job satisfaction seems to be a combination of all of them. The questionnaire, however, is constructed in accordance with state theories, trying to assess situational work factors which can be modified in order to enhance greater career satisfaction.

3.5. Factors of Job Satisfaction

There are numerous factors influencing job satisfaction. For example, Pauknerov et al. (2006) list following important aspects influencing job satisfaction: work itself (content and character), income, work conditions, management, colleagues, work system, physical work conditions, human resources.

In accordance with Herzbergs two-factor theory, 2 interpretations of job satisfaction can be seen intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic job satisfaction can be perceived as intra-individuals satisfaction with work, whereas extrinsic job satisfaction is described as satisfaction with outside work conditions (Pauknerov et al, 2006). According to the theory, when the extrinsic (or hygiene) factors are at low level, they lead to job dissatisfaction unlike intrinsic factors, which enhance job satisfaction (for more detail, see Herzbergs Two-Factor Theory which is classified under Work Motivation Theories). Even though Herzbergs 2-factor theory measuring job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction as 2 opposed individual phenomena has not been confirmed (similarly to other 2-factors theories) and research (e.g. Graen, 1968; Hulin, Waters, 1971) is more supportive of traditional theories (one-factor theories, i.e. theories measuring only one phenomenon - job satisfaction which is a continuum from absolute dissatisfaction to absolute satisfaction), this division of job satisfaction factors, unlike the mechanism, remained the same across various studies (e.g. Gagn, Deci, 2005; Huang, Van de Vliert, 2003; Stikar et al., 1996). These researchers, however, claim that both intrinsic and extrinsic factors predict job satisfaction. Anderson et al. (2005) state that pay and promotion are examples of extrinsic factors, while coworkers, supervision, and the work itself are perceived as intrinsic factors of job satisfaction. Overall, Lawler and Porter (1967; in Taylor, Tashakkori, 1995) define intrinsic factors of job satisfaction as the ones which reside within the employee and are connected to performance, whereas extrinsic satisfaction comes from rewards given by the organisation (such as salary, benefits, promotion, status, a safe environment, and job security). Trist (1977; in Taylor, Tashakkori, 1995) adds that work itself leads to intrinsic satisfaction; therefore we assume that it is perceived as intrinsic factor of job satisfaction. Stikar et al. (1996), on the other hand, defines extrinsic factors as the ones which are not influenced by an individual and list following such factors: income, work itself, work technique, management style, work group, and work conditions. We cannot explain this incongruence between the examples of extrinsic and intrinsic factors. Urban (2003) sees four factors of job satisfaction, which cause a significant part of job dissatisfaction, and can be influenced by management. Such dissatisfaction lies in: 1) management style - when a manager avoids problem solving, distrusts their employees, does not listen to employees comments, does not provide full explanation, does not keep promises and so

forth; 2) selection of employees - when a manager takes on individuals who are not flexible, cooperative, or when the manager employs their family or friends; 3) definition of work roles, which should not be defined either too narrowly as this brings monotony, or too freely as this could cause employee's confusion and anxiety concerning their work roles; 4) lack of objective feedback - when incentives or income is not consistent with an employee's performance. In this chapter, only common findings in demographic influences upon job satisfaction are mentioned as the rest of them are included in the part concerning specific aspects of job satisfaction in teachers. The reason is that the importance and significance of work satisfaction factors depend on (Stikar et al., 1996): specific features of a resort (e.g. differences in health service, education resort, or agriculture); specific features of a profession and the environment where they are carried out (for example teacher in a public elementary school and in a private language school); specific individual features and peoples preferences (for example, some people perceive good work relationships as the most important, other feel that that high income is the most important for them). This decision is supported by the fact that particular factors differ in importance and the share of influence on job satisfaction. Nonetheless, demographic variables are present in all professions, although their share of influence contributing to career satisfaction may vary.

3.5.1. Demographic variables Research in the area of organisation psychology showed that demographic differences among employees are related to job satisfaction (Brewer, Hun Lim, Cross, 2008). One of the explanations of such an effect can be found in expectations, i.e. the notion that employees expectations are associated with responses to work situations. Hence, workers tend to partially explain and perceive the situation by comparing them to their colleagues in attributes such as age, sex, education and seniority (Oldham, Nottenburg, Kassner, Ferris, Fedor, Masters, 1982; in Brush, Moch, Pooyan, 1987). This assumption has been supported by Vecchio (1981) who claimed that differences in job satisfaction leading from education can be attributed to different expectations and by Garvin and Ewen (1974) also provided the same argument to explain variations in job satisfaction by race (in Brush, Moch, Pooyan, 1987). Various tendencies in

explaining this correlations have emerged; other researchers suggested that relationship between demographic differences and job satisfaction is caused by unequal values and beliefs, objective conditions (rewards on the job), and cohort membership (Brush, Moch, Pooyan, 1987). Research results have been very inconsistent; most of the studies differ in number of demographic variables influencing job satisfaction. To illustrate, Brewer, Hun Lim, Cross (2008) list following demographic variables race, gender, educational background, age, and work assignment. Chapman and Lowther (1982), on the other hand, include only gender and age in their demographic variables. For better understanding, we have decided to include more of the variables separately in the following section with finding and limitations listed for each one. 3.5.1.1. Gender Studies on this topic have not showed homogenous results. Brush, Moch, Pooyan (1987) found in their meta-analysis of 21 papers that several studies have reported a significant relationship between gender and job satisfaction - most of them showing that males are usually more satisfied than females. OECD (2001), however, reports that women tend to be more satisfied in their jobs than men. The latest OECD publication (2009), which included data from 21 OECD countries, reports little difference by gender; none was found in average. This relation, however changes in some countries. We have decided to mention these variations in Portugal and the Czech Republic, as these two countries are the ones where the research was conducted. In Portugal women referred to lower satisfaction than men, whereas in the Czech Republic women felt more satisfied than men (for more information see OECD, 2009). 3.5.1.2. Age Age results have been problematic as well. Although it has been significantly associated to job satisfaction, the nature of the relationship varies among studies. Brush, Moch, Pooyan (1987) found a mean correlation of 0.22 and proposed that job satisfaction increases with age. This effect was explained by more skills, benefits or better jobs older people have. Allen and Keaveny (1981) went further to prove this notion, and controlled salary influence in their study what resulted in elimination of

satisfaction differences by age. In addition to this, older employees are also in a different life stage (Jason, Martin, 1982; in Brush, Moch, Pooyan, 1987) and career phase (Van Maanen, Katz, 1976; in Brush, Moch, Pooyan, 1987). Other studies discovered a U-shaped relationship between age and job satisfaction (Clark, 1997; Clark and Oswald, 1996; in OECD, 2001). Zeitz (1990; in Spector, 1997) found a similar relationship interpreting it as decline in job satisfaction in early working experience, flattening in middle age, and increase after the age of 45. Trans-cultural study conducted by OECD (2009) shows that job satisfaction improves slightly with age until a person reaches the age of 65. These changes, however, vary significantly among countries included.
3.5.1.3.

Race and Ethnicity Differences in job satisfaction by race have been assigned as a cause of cultural factors (Alper, 1975; Bloom, Barry, 1967; Gold, Webb, Smith, 1982, and others in Brush, Moch, Pooyan, 1987). Brush, Moch, Pooyan (1987) cite lower level of satisfaction in black people when compared to white. Jones et al. attributed such differences to various expectations black people can hold (in Brush, Moch, Pooyan, 1987). Brewer, Hun Lim, and Cross (2008) found that individuals from minor ethnicities showed lower job satisfaction, especially in facets measuring benefits and operating conditions.

3.5.1.4.

Education Explanation of education effect upon job satisfaction is similar to the interpretation of variation by race. As mentioned above, Vecchio (1981) suggests that this difference is caused by shift in expectations while Herman and Hulin (1972) offer an explanation due to differences in beliefs (in Brush, Moch, Pooyan, 1987). To conclude, the authors of the meta-analysis agree that these differences depend on the type of organisation (for example industry resort versus services). An example given by them is the controversial effect of education as it may be negatively linked with satisfaction in manufacturing organisations, and positively in service resort. The explanation given is that education can lead to the increase of expectations which are no

longer achievable in the manufacturing company. On the other hand, education can be positively related to job satisfaction in service organisations since these types of firms can meet or even exceed the expectations of more educated employees (Brush, Moch, Pooyan, 1987).
3.5.1.5.

Organisational Tenure The meta-analysis of 21 studies conducted by Brush, Moch, and Pooyan (1987) found a significant relationship between organisational tenure (the right to remain permanently in a job) and global job satisfaction the mean correlation referred to be 0.13.

3.6. Relationship between Life and Job Satisfaction

Several models have been constructed in an attempt to explain the relationship between life and job satisfaction. Examples of such models are spillover, segmentation, and compensation theories (Heller, Judge, Watson, 2002; Saari, Judge, 2004). The spillover model suggests that experiences from work spill over into life satisfaction and vice versa and thus describes a positive relationship between these two aspects. The segmentation model, on the other hand, states that job and life experiences have little in common and therefore are uncorrelated. And finally, the compensation model implies that an individual tries to compensate for a dissatisfying job by looking for fulfilment and happiness in non-working life or vice versa and hence suggests that job and life satisfaction are negatively correlated. To clarify which model is best-fitted, Judge and Watanabe (1994) conducted a study which shows that individuals can be categorized into any of these three groups (Heller, Judge, Watson, 2002; Saari, Judge, 2004). The survey proved that 68% of the employees from the United States of America belong under the spillover group, 20% can be classified as members of the segmentation group and 12 % fall into the compensation group. The spillover model is supported by the correlation found between job and life satisfaction: 0.44 (Tait et al., 1989; in Heller, Judge, Watson, 2002). This relationship seems to be reciprocal and scientists are speculating about the possibility of personality lying beneath the relationship of these two variables (see above, chapter Dispositional Theories). Wheaton (1990) confirms the theory of the spillover mechanism by finding evidence that job loss or other work events are

related to life satisfaction (in Saari, Judge, 2004). This finding suggests that dissatisfaction at work can lead to poor well-being. Hence, organisations should be more aware of and take more actions resulting from its employees (dis)satisfaction - not only due to the effectiveness or productivity, but also due to its effect upon employees well-being. We believe that job satisfaction is associated with life satisfaction and vice versa. Thus, one item of life satisfaction is included in the questionnaire.

3.7. Outcomes of Low Job Satisfaction

Hirshman (1970) divided responses to dissatisfaction into either exit or voice. Many companies conducting job satisfaction surveys do so in order to recognise and modify inefficient or poorly received practices and policies (Gerhart, 2005). Without voice mechanisms, employees could only withdraw from the organisation but if such feedback from workers is obtained, low satisfaction, or dissatisfaction, is a powerful means for a change. In this sense, Zhou and George (2001) argue that dissatisfaction should not be necessarily seen as a bad thing and even propose that under some circumstances, such as employees commitment to staying with the organisation and colleagues being supportive, dissatisfaction led to higher creativity evaluated by supervisors (in Saari, Judge, 2004). Nonetheless, various studies have proved that dissatisfied workers tend more to either quit or be more absent than satisfied employees (Hackett, Guion, 1985; Hulin, Roznowski, Hachiya, 1985; Kohler, Mathieu, 1993; in Saari, Judge, 2004). According to a review paper published by Saari and Judge (2004), job satisfaction correlates with turnover and absenteeism in the range of -0.25 and also seems to be related to other withdrawal behaviours such as lateness, unionisation, grievances, drug abuse, and decision to retire. Hulin et al. (1985) claimed that these individual withdrawal behaviours are a way of job adaptation and at the same time proposed that they should be grouped together as an emergence of a single withdrawal behaviour is unusual (in Saari, Judge, 2004).

3.8. Assessment of Job Satisfaction

Taber and Alliger (1995) differentiate between more levels of job satisfaction assessment. The widest concept is global satisfaction referring to a general attitude about the job as a whole. Katz (1964) describes it as an overall assessment of all the satisfactions connected with maintaining membership in the organisation (in Taber, Alliger, 1995). The Hoppock Job Satisfaction Blank

(Hoppock, 1935), and the Brayfield-Rothe Job Satisfaction Scale (1951) can be used for assessing global satisfaction. Other methods, such as Job Descriptive Index (Smith, Kendall, Hulin, 1969), Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Lofquist and Dawis, 1969), SRA Attitude Survey (Science Research Associates, 1973), and the Index of Organizational Reactions (Smith), have been proven not to measure global satisfaction but, instead, they assess satisfaction with particular job facets. Employees are believed to develop attitudes towards various job facets. The majority of researchers recognise following facets: pay, promotion, co-workers, supervision, and the work itself while Locke (1976) adds facets of recognition, working conditions, and company and management (in Anderson et al.2005). Work itself represents an important construct reflecting intrinsic job qualities and is influenced by the variety, interest, challenge, status, autonomy, flow, and other features of the tasks performed on a job (Hackman, Oldham, 1975; in Taber, Alliger, 1995). Spector (1997) reports that nowadays Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) is the most popularly used instrument for measuring job satisfaction. This questionnaire is design to assess 9 facets of job satisfaction: pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating conditions, co-workers, nature of work and communication (in Brewer, Hun Lim, Cross, 2008). Any of these measurements of facet satisfactions can be combined to form a score of global satisfaction. The score, however, is not equivalent to assessing job satisfaction directly (Ferratt, 1989; in Taber, Alliger, 1995) relying on the evidence that assessment at a global level may index different psychological processes that facet-level one. This is the reason why there are included items assessing both global and facet job satisfaction in the questionnaire used for our research. Some of current studies propose a new model task level assessment. This approach is based on the statement that a job is not an entity but a collection of many tasks (Taber, Alliger, 1995). This technique may reflect other processes than global or facet methods. Wong and Campion (1991) found a low correlation of 0.19 between summed task-level motivation and the overall satisfaction. Such a weak correlation implies a more complicated relationship between these two variables, and this was proved to be following: the average level of interdependence among tasks has inverted U-curve relationship to overall job satisfaction.

3.9. Country Differences in Job Satisfaction

Comparisons of job satisfaction in various countries have been made, although the number of countries included is limited. Slocum and Topichak (1972) found that Mexicans were more satisfied than Americans, and Marion-Landais (1993) reported Dominicans to be more satisfied than Americans working for the branches of the same companies in their countries (in Spector, 1997). Griffeth and Hom (1987) found that Latin American managers were less satisfied than those from western Europe (in Spector, 1997). For better comprehension of the influence of country differences upon job satisfaction, Hofstede s framework (1980, 1985) can be introduced. He obtained data from 67 countries and found out that diversities could be grouped into 4 major dimensions 1) individualism versus collectivism; 2) uncertainty avoidance versus risk taking; 3) power distance (the extent to which power is unequally distributed); 4) masculinity versus femininity, which has been recently renamed to achievement orientation (in Saari, Judge, 2004). Job satisfaction is believed to be higher in collectivist countries such as China, Korea, or Japan (Berry, Segall, Kagitibasi, 1997). Nevertheless, many studies point out at the lower satisfaction of Japanese workers compared to the Americans (Lincoln, Hanada, Olson, 1981; in Spector, 1997; Kalleberg, Reve, 1992; Lincoln, Kalleberg, 1985; in (Berry, Segall, Kagitibasi, 1997). OECD (2009) reports that among 21 OECD countries involved in International Social Science Programme (or ISSP, 2005) on average 80% of employees refer to be completely, very or fairly satisfied with their jobs. The study also shows that more people are becoming satisfied with their jobs as the share of satisfied employees has risen by 5 % on average compared to the ISSP results in 1997. Majority of the sample were happy with their current combination of pay and working hours and job security was proven to be of the highest value, followed by high income, opportunities for advancement, and working time flexibility. These aspects, however, submit to great change across the countries (OECD, 2009). At the time of the research, the percentage of satisfied people in Portugal was slightly higher than the one of people in the Czech Republic (approximately 72% and 78% respectively, the exact data cannot be read in the graph, for more information see OECD, 2009). We, however, assume that these data may be different at present due to the world economic crisis, which has brought a lot of restrictions in various job aspects in order to save financial resources.