Editing Job satisfaction (section)

== Models ==

=== Affect theory ===
[[Edwin A. Locke]]'s Range of Affect Theory (1976) is arguably the most famous job satisfaction model. The main premise of this theory is that satisfaction is determined by a discrepancy between what one wants in a job and what one has in a job. Further, the theory states that how much one values a given facet of work (e.g. the degree of autonomy in a position) moderates how satisfied/dissatisfied one becomes when expectations are/are not met. When a person values a particular facet of a job, their satisfaction is more greatly impacted both positively (when expectations are met) and negatively (when expectations are not met), compared to one who does not value that facet.

To illustrate, if Employee A values autonomy in the workplace and Employee B is indifferent about autonomy, then Employee A would be more satisfied in a position that offers a high degree of autonomy and less satisfied in a position with little or no autonomy compared to Employee B. This theory also states that too much of a particular facet will produce stronger feelings of dissatisfaction the more a worker values that facet.

=== Dispositional approach ===
The dispositional approach suggests that individuals vary in their tendency to be satisfied with their jobs, in other words, job satisfaction is to some extent an individual trait.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Staw | first1 = B. M. | last2 = Bell | first2 = N. E. | last3 = Clausen | first3 = J. A. | year = 1986 | title = The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime longitudinal test | journal = Administrative Science Quarterly | volume = 31 | issue = 1| pages = 56–77 | doi=10.2307/2392766| jstor = 2392766 }}</ref> This approach became a notable explanation of job satisfaction in light of evidence that job satisfaction tends to be stable over time and across careers and jobs.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Staw | first1 = B. M. | last2 = Cohen-Charash | first2 = Y. | year = 2005 | title = The dispositional approach to job satisfaction: More than a mirage, but not yet an oasis: Comment | journal = Journal of Organizational Behavior | volume = 26 | issue = 1| pages = 59–78 | doi=10.1002/job.299}}</ref> Research also indicates that identical twins raised apart have similar levels of job satisfaction.<ref name="Job satisfaction: Environmental and">{{cite journal | last1 = Arvey | first1 = R. D. | last2 = Bouchard | first2 = T. J. | last3 = Segal | first3 = N. L. | last4 = Abraham | first4 = L. M. | year = 1989 | title = Job satisfaction: Environmental and genetic components | journal = Journal of Applied Psychology | volume = 74 | issue = 2| pages = 187–192 | doi=10.1037/0021-9010.74.2.187}}</ref>

A significant model that narrowed the scope of the dispositional approach was the [[Core self-evaluations|Core Self-evaluations Model]], proposed by Timothy A. Judge, Edwin A. Locke, and Cathy C. Durham in 1997.<ref name=Judge1997>{{cite journal | last1 = Judge | first1 = T. A. | last2 = Locke | first2 = E. A. | last3 = Durham | first3 = C. C. | year = 1997 | title = The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach | journal = Research in Organizational Behavior | volume = 19 | pages = 151–188 }}</ref> Judge et al. argued that there are four core self-evaluations that determine one's disposition towards job satisfaction: [[self-esteem]], general [[self-efficacy]], [[locus of control]], and [[neuroticism]]. This model states that higher levels of self-esteem (the value one places on oneself) and general self-efficacy (the belief in one's own competence) lead to higher work satisfaction. Having an internal locus of control (believing one has control over one's own life, as opposed to outside forces having control) leads to higher job satisfaction. Finally, lower levels of neuroticism lead to higher job satisfaction.<ref name="Judge1997"/><ref>[https://dailyscrawl.com/self-work-satisfaction/ "dailyscrawl", job satisfaction, October 19, 2019]</ref>

=== Equity theory ===
Equity Theory shows how a person views fairness in regard to social relationships such as with an employer. A person identifies the amount of input (things gained) from a relationship compared to the output (things given) to produce an input/output ratio. They then compare this ratio to the ratio of other people in deciding whether they have an equitable relationship.<ref>Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 276-299). New York: Academic Press.</ref><ref>Walster, E. E. Berscheid and G. W. Walster. (1973). "New Directions in Equity Research." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. pp. 151-176.</ref> Equity Theory suggests that if an individual thinks there is an inequality between two social groups or individuals, the person is likely to be distressed because the ratio between the input and the output are not equal.<ref name=autogenerated5>{{cite journal | last1 = Huseman | first1 = R. | last2 = Hatfield | first2 = J. | last3 = Miles | first3 = E. | year = 1987 | title = A New Perspective on Equity Theory: The Equity Sensitivity Construct | journal = Academy of Management Review | volume = 12 | issue = 2| pages = 232–234 | doi=10.5465/amr.1987.4307799| s2cid = 44052138 }}</ref>

For example, consider two employees who work the same job and receive the same pay and benefits. If one individual gets a pay raise for doing the same work as the other, then the less benefited individual will become distressed in the workplace. If, on the other hand, both individuals get pay raises and new responsibilities, then the feeling of equity will be maintained.<ref name=autogenerated5 />

Other psychologists have extended the equity theory, suggesting three behavioral response patterns to situations of perceived equity or inequity.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Huseman |first1=Richard C. |last2=Hatfield |first2=John D. |last3=Miles |first3=Edward W. |date=April 1987 |title=A New Perspective on Equity Theory: The Equity Sensitivity Construct |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/258531 |journal=The Academy of Management Review |volume=12 |issue=2 |pages=222 |doi=10.2307/258531 |jstor=258531 |issn=0363-7425}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=O'Neill |first1=Bonnie S. |last2=Mone |first2=Mark A. |date=1998 |title=Investigating equity sensitivity as a moderator of relations between self-efficacy and workplace attitudes. |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.5.805 |journal=Journal of Applied Psychology |volume=83 |issue=5 |pages=805–816 |doi=10.1037/0021-9010.83.5.805 |issn=0021-9010}}</ref> These three types are benevolent, equity sensitive, and entitled. The level by each type affects [[motivation]], job satisfaction, and job performance.

#Benevolent-Satisfied when they are under-rewarded compared with co-workers
#Equity sensitive-Believe everyone should be fairly rewarded
#Entitled-People believe that everything they receive is their just due<ref>{{cite book|last=Schultz|first=Duane P. Schultz, Sydney Ellen|title=Psychology and work today : an introduction to industrial and organizational psychology|year=2010|publisher=Prentice Hall|location=Upper Saddle River, N.J.|isbn=978-0205683581|page=71|edition=10th}}</ref>

=== Discrepancy theory ===
The concept of discrepancy theory is to explain the ultimate source of anxiety and dejection.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Higgins | first1 = E. T. | year = 1999b | title = When do self-discrepancies have specific relations to emotions? The second-generation question of Tangney, Niedenthal, Covert, and Barlow (1998) | journal = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | volume = 77 | issue = 6| pages = 1313–1317 | pmid = 10626372 | doi=10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1313}}</ref> An individual who has not fulfilled their responsibilities may feel a sense of anxiety and regret for not performing well. They may also feel dejection due to not being able to achieve their hopes and aspirations.

According to this theory, all individuals will learn what their obligations and responsibilities are for a particular function, and if they fail to fulfill those obligations then they are punished. Over time, these duties and obligations consolidate to form an abstracted set of principles, designated as a self-guide.<ref name="autogenerated3">{{cite journal | last1 = Higgins | first1 = E. T. | year = 1987 | title = Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect | journal = Psychological Review | volume = 94 | issue = 3| pages = 319–340 | doi=10.1037/0033-295x.94.3.319| pmid = 3615707 | citeseerx = 10.1.1.586.1458 }}</ref> Agitation and anxiety are the main responses when an individual fails to achieve the obligation or responsibility.<ref name="autogenerated2">{{cite journal | last1 = Strauman | first1 = T. J. | year = 1989 | title = Self-discrepancies in clinical depression and social phobia: Cognitive structures that underlie emotional disorders? | journal = Journal of Abnormal Psychology | volume = 98 | issue = 1| pages = 14–22 | doi=10.1037/0021-843x.98.1.14| pmid = 2708634 }}</ref>
This theory also explains that if achievement of the obligations is obtained then the reward can be praise, approval, or love. These achievements and aspirations also form an abstracted set of principles, referred to as the ideal self guide.<ref name="autogenerated3" /> When the individual fails to obtain these rewards, they begin to have feelings of dejection, disappointment, or even depression.<ref name="autogenerated2" />

=== Two-factor theory (motivator-hygiene theory) ===
{{Main|Two-factor theory}}
[[Frederick Herzberg]]'s two-factor theory (also known as motivator-hygiene theory) attempts to explain satisfaction and motivation in the workplace.<ref name="HackmanOldham1976">{{cite journal |last1=Hackman |first1=J. Richard |last2=Oldham |first2=Greg R.|author2-link=Greg Oldham |title=Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory |journal=Organizational Behavior and Human Performance |date=1 August 1976 |volume=16 |issue=2 |pages=250–279 |doi=10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7 |s2cid=8618462 }}</ref> This theory states that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are driven by different factors – motivation and hygiene factors, respectively. An employee's motivation to work is continually related to job satisfaction of a subordinate. Motivation can be seen as an inner force that drives individuals to attain personal and organizational goals.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Porter |first1=Heidi |last2=Wrench |first2=Jason S. |last3=Hoskinson |first3=Crissy |date=2007-02-27 |title=The Influence of Supervisor Temperament on Subordinate Job Satisfaction and Perceptions of Supervisor Sociocommunicative Orientation and Approachability |url=https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370600998517 |journal=Communication Quarterly |volume=55 |issue=1 |pages=129–153 |doi=10.1080/01463370600998517 |s2cid=9606328 |issn=0146-3373}}</ref> Motivating factors are those aspects of the job that make people want to perform, and provide people with satisfaction, for example achievement in work, recognition, promotion opportunities.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Aristovnik |first1=Aleksander |last2=Jaklič |first2=Ksenja |title=Job Satisfaction of Older Workers as a Factor of Promoting Labour Market Participation in the EU: The Case of Slovenia |journal=Revija za socijalnu politiku |date=31 July 2013 |volume=20 |issue=2 |pages=123–148 |doi=10.3935/rsp.v20i2.1126 |s2cid=147128260 |doi-access=free }}</ref> These motivating factors are considered to be intrinsic to the job, or the work carried out.<ref name="HackmanOldham1976"/> Hygiene factors include aspects of the working environment such as pay, company policies, supervisory practices, and other working conditions.<ref name="HackmanOldham1976"/>

Herzberg's model has stimulated much research. In the 1970s, researchers were unable to reliably empirically prove the model however, with Hackman & Oldham suggesting that Herzberg's original formulation of the model may have been a methodological artifact.<ref name="HackmanOldham1976"/>

The theory has been criticized because it does not consider individual differences, conversely predicting all employees will react in an identical manner to changes in motivating/hygiene factors.<ref name="HackmanOldham1976"/> The model has also been criticised in that it does not specify how motivating/hygiene factors are to be measured.<ref name="HackmanOldham1976"/> Most studies use a quantitative approach by for example using validated instruments such as the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire.<ref>[[David J. Weiss|Weiss, D. J.]], Dawis, R. V., & England, G. W. (1967). "Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire." Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, 22, 120.</ref> There are also studies that have utilized a qualitative methodology such as by means of individual interviews.<ref>Holmberg, C., et al. (2017) "Job satisfaction among Swedish mental health nursing personnel: Revisiting the two-factor theory." International Journal of Mental Health Nursing. {{DOI:|10.1111/inm.12339}}.</ref>

=== Job characteristics model ===
{{Main|Job characteristic theory}}
Hackman & Oldham proposed the job characteristics model, which is widely used as a framework to study how particular job characteristics impact job outcomes, including job satisfaction.  The five core job characteristics can be combined to form a motivating potential score (MPS) for a job, which can be used as an index of how likely a job is to affect an employee's attitudes and behaviors. Not everyone is equally affected by the MPS of a job. People who are high in growth need strength (the desire for autonomy, challenge and development of new skills on the job) are particularly affected by job characteristics.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Hackman | first1 = J. R. | last2 = Oldham | first2 = G. R. | year = 1976 | title = Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory | journal = Organizational Behavior and Human Performance | volume = 16 | issue = 2| pages = 250–279 | doi=10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7| s2cid = 8618462 }}</ref>  A [[meta-analysis]] of studies that assess the framework of the model provides some support for the validity of the JCM.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Fried | first1 = Y. | last2 = Ferris | first2 = G. R. | year = 1987 | title = The validity of the Job Characteristics Model: A review and meta-analysis | journal = Personnel Psychology | volume = 40 | issue = 2| pages = 287–322 | doi=10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00605.x}}</ref>