Job satisfaction survey

Job satisfaction surveyamong employees insmall businesses

Grace Davis

The author

Grace Davis is an Assistant Professor in the PsychologyDepartment at Marshall University Huntington West VirginiaUSA

Keywords

Job satisfaction Employee attitudes Small enterprisesUnited States of America

Abstract

This study applied Job Descriptive Index (JDI) to measure jobattitudes among approximately 80 employees of four differentsmall businesses Through a standardized procedure eachemployee filled out the survey form responded to a structuredinterview and then completed the survey form again Employeesshowed significant difference in job satisfaction before and afterthe structured interview Medians from four dimensions ndash worksupervision promotion and co-worker ndash were found tobesimilar to norms but the medians of pay were much lower thanthe norm Nevertheless pay did not represent the lowestcorrelation with job satisfaction Satisfaction at supervision didAlso employees reported work to have the highest correlationwith job satisfaction Demographic factors such as age workstatus gender and seniority did not show significant impact overjob satisfaction

Electronic access

The Emerald Research Register for this journal isavailable atwwwemeraldinsightcomresearchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal isavailable atwwwemeraldinsightcom1462-6004htm

Introduction

Practitioners and professionals in applied

sciences have recognized that the growth of small

businesses defined as companies with less than

100 employees (Heneman and Berkley 1999)

determines the economy of the USA Many

industrial trends including technology

increasing number of women in work place

virtual offices and unsecured job environment

eventually support and activate dreams of owners

of small businesses and enterprises (Cooper and

Lewis 1999 Gutek et al 1999) As the numbers

of small businesses continually break records

every year small businesses encounter

dramatically intense competition internationally

and domestically cost efficiency and supportive

resources have repeatedly been reported as

crucial factors for small businesses to survive

(Heneman and Berkley 1999 Martin and

Staines 1994)

For decades interview has been found as the

most commonly-used strategy in personnel

selection and collection of organizational

information (Muchinsky 2003 Rynes et al

2000 Smith and Hoy 1992) especially in small

businesses (Heneman and Berkley 1999) In

literature the majority of studies further indicate

that structured interview increases objectivity and

validity compared to non-structured interview

Unfortunately findings from the past literature

are primarily based on middle or large sizes of

organizations (May 1997 Smith and Hoy

1992) These findings or conclusions may or may

not be applicable to small businesses For small

businesses whose interview formats tend to be

informal or non-structure the effect of interview

regardless structured or unstructured remain as

a myth and a concern because rarely is

structured interview used (Van der Zee et al

2002) especially when testing or an

organizational theory is involved This study is

concerned about how employers in small

businesses benefit from interview in general

How do their employees react to the structured

interview after they have been so used to an

interview process

Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development

Volume 11 middot Number 4 middot 2004 middot pp 495-503

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited middot ISSN 1462-6004

DOI 10110814626000410567143

The author would like to acknowledge assistance

from owners and managers of small businesses and

their employees Without their efforts this study will

never be completed Also eight student facilitators

who made a great deal of contribution in data

collection should not be neglected They are

Camelle Davis Jennifer Full Nora Gao Sabrina Lee

Keri McDorman Michelle Robinette Brian Sider

and Chandra Wood

495

Structured interview

Cortina et al (2000) confirmed the validity of

structured interview and indicated that these

predicted job performance as well as mental ability

did Schmidt and Rader (1999) conducted a

meta-analysis and emphasized that interview

showed validity as r frac14 040 Huffcutt et al (1996)

noticed that cognitive ability is related to interview

and has attributed to the validity of interview In

particular interview for a low complexity job is

more highly correlated with cognitive ability than

that for a high complexity job In a study of

construct validity of interview Huffcut et al

(2001) identified six most tested constructs of

interview as basic personality applied social skills

mental ability job knowledge and job skills

further they concluded that a structured

interview can have three times more correlation

with mental ability compared to an unstructured

interview

Noticeably missions and outcomes from

structured or unstructured interviews vary

Structured interviews tend to focus on job

knowledge skills person-organization fit

interpersonal skill and relationships at work

However unstructured interviews emphasize on

general intelligence work experience and

education etc This study designed to evaluate

employeesrsquo job satisfactions with pay supervisor

co-worker environment and promotion includes

a structured interview method as part of the whole

research process

It is absolutely inappropriate to conclude that

structure interview is always superior to the

unstructured one One of the drawbacks of

structured interview is that structured interviews

can lead to negative perceptions and conclusions

about the subject matter (Latham and Finnegan

1993) because participants prefer to reserve the

lead of interview A highly structured interview

in fact creates negative feelings that evoke

decreased attractiveness and desirableness of

outcomes On the other hand an unstructured

interview was thought by managers to be more

practical and realistic (Latham and Finnegan

1993) Following the literature this study

hypothesizes that there will be a difference in job

satisfaction before and after a structured interview

as reported by employees in small businesses

(hypothesis 1) More particularly job satisfaction

will decrease after a structure interview

(hypothesis 2)

Job satisfaction

Job satisfaction is defined as positive affect of

employees toward their jobs or job situations

(Locke 1976) Many studies have researched its

stability (Schneider and Dachler 1978 Staw and

Ross 1985) significance with other factors such

as absenteeism (Hackett and Guion 1985 Hulin

1991) turnover (Carsten and Spector 1987) and

performance (Iaffaldano and Muchinsky 1985

Ostroff 1992 Podsakoff and Williams 1986) In

general researchers perceive job satisfaction as a

general attitude rather than specific or actual (Jex

2002) Therefore job satisfaction is stable across

different jobs due to attributes of personality and

other dispositions positive affectivity job

characteristics time lag between different job

satisfaction surveys (Staw and Ross 1985 Lam

1995 Dormann and Zapf 2001) locus of control

and self-esteem (Judge et al 1998)

Referred to as ldquoone of the best-researched

concepts in workrdquo job satisfaction mediates the

relationships between one individual worker with

work conditions and organizational and individual

outcomes (Dormann and Zapf 2001 Jex 2002

Judge and Church 2000) In the real work places

organizations regardless of their size can hardly

avoid problems There always are problems and

concerns in any organization For small

businesses an organizational problem when it

occurs is less likely to be tackled scientifically

sophistically or timely (May 1997 Martin and

Staines 1994) Small businesses were also

reported to provide more frequent interpersonal

contact between workers customers and

supervisors (Smith and Hoy 1992) along with

high degree of complexity and challenge of jobs

What makes employees in small businesses

satisfied most when being evaluated by a

well-known job satisfaction questionnaire Job

Descriptive Index Do they perceive job

satisfaction differently compared to the existing

norms collated from studies that dominantly

highlighted large sample size This study

hypothesizes that there will be no difference in job

satisfaction across groups of different businesses

(hypothesis 3)

Researchers of job satisfaction have widely

adopted Job Descriptive index (JDI) as the

instrument to measure five organizational and

individual outcomes related to job satisfaction

work pay supervision co-worker and

supervision The past literature agreed upon its

solid construct validity (Kinicki et al 2002) and

validity (Bowling Green State University 1997

Spector 2002) In general job satisfaction is more

highly correlated to performance in complex jobs

in relevance to the relationship in less complex

jobs This could be explained by greater autonomy

in complex jobs (Johnson and Johnson 2000

Judge and Church 2000) such as those in small

businesses and enterprises Following what has

been hypothesized in hypothesis 1 about the

Job satisfaction survey among employees in small businesses

Grace Davis


Volume 11 middot Number 4 middot 2004 middot 495-503

496

structured interview this study expects that job

satisfaction from employees in small businesses

will be different from norms reported by Smith

et al (1969) with respect to employeesrsquo attitudes of

middle or large organizations However unlike

workers from other large or medium organizations

both employees and employers in small businesses

perceive pay issue as one of top challenges in small

businesses They feel vulnerable and continually

have to fight for limited resources (Heneman and

Berkley 1999) It is hypothesized that employees

in small businesses will show lower satisfaction

with pay than the norm reported by Smith et al

(1969) (hypothesis 4) Also satisfaction of pay will

indicate the lowest correlation with job

satisfaction compared to other four dimensions

(hypothesis 5) Satisfaction with supervision will

be in high rank to reflect supervisorsrsquo interests in

this study (hypothesis 6) In contrast to the current

aging population small businesses tend to have

proportionally larger number of younger

employees (Smith and Hoy 1992) Age was found

to significantly impact employeesrsquo job satisfaction

organizational commitment and supervision

(Smith and Hoy 1992) This study supports this

finding and hypothesizes that there will be a

significant impact of age over job satisfaction

(hypothesis 7) Older people defined as

older than 40 tend to be more satisfied

with jobs than younger people (less than 40)

(hypothesis 8)

Thus this study hypothesizes the following

H1 There will be a difference in job satisfaction

before and after a structured interview

as reported by employees in small

businesses

H2 Job satisfaction decreases after a structure

interview

H3 There will be no difference in job

satisfaction across groups

H4 Employees in small businesses will show

lower satisfaction with pay than the norm

reported by Smith et al (1969)

H5 Satisfaction with pay will indicate the lowest

correlation with job satisfaction compared

to other four dimensions work supervision

co-work and promotion

H6 Satisfaction with supervision will be in high

rank to reflect supervisorsrsquo interests in this

study

H7 There is a significant impact of age over job

satisfaction

H8 Older people defined as older than 40 tend

to be more satisfied at jobs than younger

people (less than 40)

Methodology

Participants

The researcher first contacted the local Chamber

of Commerce to get a list of the organizations that

have fewer than 50 employees Invitations and

contact numbers were randomly mailed to 20

small businesses Phone calls and site visits were

made by the researcher to further explain the

purpose of this study and to modify the items in

case there were particular organizational interests

In consequence only two items in the open-ended

questions for the structured interview were

modified for one company Through several trials

four small service businesses specializing in health

insurance assisted residence agency home

improvement and janitorial decided to

participate in this study totally there were possibly

around 140 employees Participants were

scheduled individually to allow sufficient time to

finish the study during their work hours They

were guaranteed that even though supervisors and

managers would receive a formal presentation

about the findings in the end data would be

collected anonymously in-group No individual

information would be provided by any means

Process

During the study each employee was requested to

fill out a Job Descriptive Index (JDI) followed by a

structured and standardized face-to-face

interview and finally to complete JDI again The

process lasted for approximately 45 minutes Eight

graduate and undergraduate students acted as

facilitators to collect data from JDI and interview

Students received several training sessions outside

class During the training they learned of the

purpose importance and requirements of

objectivity standardization and their role during

the whole process They were instructed to write

down employeesrsquo answers and pay close attention

to avoid possible deception or subjectivity They

practiced interview skills through a paired role-

playing activity Students were also responsible for

scheduling a meeting with each employee

separately If an employee preferred the study

could be completed off site at a restaurant for

instance Ideally each facilitator would only survey

a small number of employees in the end no

student performed more than 19 surveys

Following data collection students received

training in how to code enter analyze and

interpret quantitative data received from JDI by

using statistical computer software SPSSw

Finally each of them prepared a formal

presentation regarding findings from the

quantitative job satisfaction survey in front of the

employer andor the site manager Qualitative


Grace Davis



497

information from interviews which had been

designed to assist employees to better associate

their jobs was not rated nor reported

Measurement

Job Descriptive Index (JDI) designed by Smith

et al in 1969 was used to assess employeesrsquo job

attitudes including their perceptions of pay (with

nine items) co-worker (with 18 items) work

environment (with 18 items) supervision (with 18

items) and promotion (with nine items) This

72-item instrument can be responded by giving

ldquoNrdquo if the item does not fit to the true job

situation ldquoYrdquo if the item fits into the true

situation or ldquordquo if it is not sure If the responded

answer matches with the standard answer (Smith

et al 1969) the person earns 3 points otherwise 0

point and if the answer is ldquordquo earns 1 point Any

missing data were not coded Scores from items of

the same dimension were computed to determine

the sum of their dimension Dimensional scores

then were computed to determine total job

satisfaction (Dormann and Zapf 2001)

In addition to the JDI 18 additional items were

used in a standardized and structured interview (as

per Appendix) Five of these included

demographic data including employeersquos gender

age (20-30 31-40 41-50 older than 50) work

status (part- or full-time) years of employment at

this organization (less than one year 1-4 years 4-7

years 7-10 years 10-13 years 13-16 years) and

whether they have been holding the same position

(ldquoYesrdquo or ldquoNordquo) The other 13 open-ended items

inquired about employeersquos opinions on their jobs

interpersonal relationships with supervisors and

co-workers their expectation on pay raise

perceived promotion opportunities and

suggestions for organizational growth The

researcher and student facilitators had verified

wording and content before the study in the early

stage This interview took around 20-25 minutes

Each facilitator had no prior contact with any

employee

Results

In total 78 employees completed the research

Among these 78 participants there were 13

employees (165 percent) working on a part-time

basis the rest 65 (823 percent) worked full time

17 of them were in health insurance (100 percent

participation) 28 were in janitorial (70 percent of

participation) 16 were in home improvement (100

percent participation) and 18 were in assisted

residence business (95 percent of participation)

They consisted of 34 male (43 percent) and 45

female (57 percent) employees Taking 40 as the

cutoff there were 43 employees younger than 40

(544 percent) and 36 employees older than 40 (46

percent) including 9 people older than 50 About

64 employees (78 percent) have worked with their

companies for less than four years Among these

30 employees have worked for less than one year

and 32 employees have worked between one to

four years The majority of employees (more than

696 percent) have been holding the same position

Results from correlation analyses indicated that

before interview relationships between job

satisfaction and work supervision pay

promotion and co-worker were all significantly

positive (p 005) Supervision was not

significantly correlated with either pay or

promotion Pay and coworker was not highly

correlated either After interview noticeably the

relationship between co-worker and pay was

modified and became significantly correlated (see

Tables I and II)

A repeated t-measure was first conducted to

assess the difference of job satisfaction before and

after interview The result showed that there was a

significant difference in job satisfaction before and

after interview (teth77THORN frac14 26682 p 005) This

study then confirmed that there was a significant

difference in job satisfaction before and after the

structured interview (H1) In fact means of job

satisfaction increased after the structured

interview Before interview mean was 15242 that

increased to 15912 after interview Thus H2 that

had proposed the decrease of job satisfaction was

not confirmed (see Table III)

To test the group differences an analysis of

variance (ANOVA) was conducted with grouping

as the independent factor The result showed

that these four groups were different in terms of

their job satisfaction They were different before

the interview (Feth3THORN frac14 13458 p 05) and after

the interview (Feth3THORN frac14 9459 p 005) Resultsshowed groups were different in terms of their

job satisfaction and rejected H3 Job satisfaction

was not the same across different business

natures H3 then was rejected Mean

comparisons and contrasts across groups were

shown in Table IV

Before interview median of pay satisfaction for

male workers was 1900 (mean frac14 1703SD frac14 778 95 percent confidence interval from

1427-1979) that for female workers was 1300

(mean frac14 1240 SD frac14 6864 95 percent

confidence interval from 1034-1446) After

interview pay median for male workers was still 19

(mean frac14 1776 SD frac14 694 95 prcent confidence

interval from 1530-2022) that for female

workers was 13 (mean frac14 1273SD frac14 6517 95percent confidence interval from 1078-1469)

(see Table V) According to norms of pay


Grace Davis



498

satisfaction achieved by Smith et al (1969) the

50th percentile rank for male workers was 30 and

for female workers was 28 This study then

confirmed that pay satisfactions either for male or

female workers were much lower than norms (H4)

As shown in Table I before interview the

correlations ranked from high to low were as

follows work (the highest) followed by co-worker

promotion pay and supervision (the lowest) As

shown in Table II after interview the rank from

high to low changed with work as the highest

followed by co-worker promotion pay and

supervision Work was reported to have the highest

correlation with job satisfaction (r frac14 0812 before

interview and r frac14 0830 after interview) and

supervision had the lowest correlation (r frac14 0554

before interview and r frac14 0564 after interview)

Pay (r frac14 0645 before interview and r frac14 0672

after interview) did not have the lowest

correlations with job satisfaction This result

rejectedH5 (pay would have the lowest correlation

with job satisfaction) and H6 (supervision would

be in high rank compared to pay co-worker

promotion and work)

Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)

was conducted to test the age effect over job

satisfaction before and after interview The result

showed that before interview there was no age

impact before interview (F(3 78) frac14 2201

p 005) Again there was no age impact after

interview (Feth3 78THORN frac14 2176 p 005) after

interview This study disagreed with Smith and

Hoy (1992) with respect to age effect and work

attitudes in small businesses H7 was not

confirmed To evaluate H8 age groups were then

combined with 40 as the cutoff Groups aged

below 40 were dummy-coded as ldquo1rdquo (totally 43

employees) and groups aged over 40 were

dummy-coded as ldquo2rdquo (totally 36 employees) An

independent t-test measure was conducted to test

H8 which proposed that older people would be

more satisfied at jobs than younger people As a

Table III Repeated t-measures of all dimensions

95 confidence

interval of the

difference

Mean Std deviation Std error mean Lower Upper t df

Sig

(2-tailed)

Pair 1 WORK-POSTW 2247 5116 0579 21363 2132 24271 77 0000

pair 2 SUPER-POSTS 2076 3546 0402 2156 004 21884 77 0063

Pair 3 PAY-POSTPAY 2050 3202 0363 2122 022 21379 77 0172

Pair 4 PROMO-POSTPRO 2058 3379 0383 2134 018 21508 77 0136

Pair 5 COWORKER-POSTCO 2238 6300 0713 2381 2096 23343 77 0001

Pair 6 JOBSAT-POSTJOBS 2669 8845 1002 2869 2470 26682 77 0000

Table I Correlation matrix before interview

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Work 1 0357 0448 0520 0457 0812

2 Supervision 1 0110 0058 0455 0554

3 Pay 1 0647 0170 0645

4 Promotion 1 0293 0717

5 Co-worker 1 0734

6 Job satisfaction 1

Notes correlation is significant at the 005 level (2-tailed) correlation is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Table II Correlation matrix after interview

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Work 1 0384 0417 0538 0561 0830

2 Supervision 1 0139 0037 0494 0564

3 Pay 1 0677 0271 0672

4 Promotion 1 0348 0726

5 Co-worker 1 0643




Grace Davis



499

result there was no significant difference between

two groups in terms of employeesrsquo job satisfaction

either before interview (teth77THORN frac14 20096 p 005)

or after interview (teth77THORN frac14 20080 p 005) H8

was not confirmed

Discussion and conclusion

In addition to the above quantitative information

this study has provided qualitative information

collected through employeersquos descriptions during

the structured interview As presented in the

following paragraphs many of indicated comments

and notions can be very valuable for other owners

and practitioners of small businesses

Healthcare business

Under the arrangement and assistance of the site

manager all of its 17 employees participated in

this study In the end its employees showed the

highest overall job satisfaction with smallest

availabilities compared to the other three small

businesses Yet more than 70 percent of

employees highlighted the needs for training

During the presentation meeting the researcher

pinpointed this need and suggested the manager to

follow up with another survey in order to identify

the purposes for training from which employees

will most benefit

Table IV Analysis of variance of job satisfaction across groups

ANOVA

Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig

JOBSAT

Between groups 26688156 3 8896052 13458 0000

Within groups 49575439 75 661006

Total 76263595 78

POSTJOBS

Between groups 20533502 3 6844501 9459 0000

Within groups 53546459 74 723601

Total 74079962 77

Multiple comparisons 95 confidence intervalDependent variable (I) Group (J) Group Mean difference (I-J) Std error Sig Lower bound Upper boundJOBSAT 1 2 4575 7905 0000 2314 6836

3 1032 8995 0723 21529 3594

4 3060 8695 0009 573 5547

2 1 24575 7905 0000 26836 22314

3 23543 8057 0001 25847 21238

4 21515 7767 0291 23737 706

3 1 21032 8955 0723 23594 1529

2 3543+ 8057 0001 1238 5847

4 2028 8834 0163 2499 4554

4 1 23060 8695 0009 25547 2573

2 1515 7767 0291 2706 3737

3 22028 8834 0163 24554 499

POSTJOBS 1 2 4933 8329 0000 1650 6415

3 851 9370 0843 21830 3531

4 2627 9098 0047 024 5230

2 1 24033 8329 0000 26415 21650

3 23182 8487 0005 25610 2754

4 21406 8185 0406 23747 936

3 1 2851 9370 0843 23531 1830

2 3182 8487 0005 754 5610

4 1776 9243 0304 2868 4421

4 1 22627 9068 0047 25230 2024

2 1406 8185 0406 2936 3747

3 21776 9243 0304 24421 868

Table V Comparisons of medians in Job Descriptive Index

M (34) JDI Before After F (45) JDI Before After

Work 38 36 39 37 34 37

Pay 30 19 19 28 13 13

Promotion 18 24 24 14 16 17

Supervision 44 45 46 42 48 51

Co-workers 46 45 48 44 48 48


Grace Davis



500

Janitorial business

Here 28 employees participated in this study

accounting for 70 percent of its total employees

Participated employees reported the lowest job

satisfaction among the four businesses indicated

no desire of work environment and absolutely no

opportunity for promotion However several

addressed appreciation of compassion of the

supervisor (also the owner) and flexibility of work

schedule The owner later emphasized that his

absolute concern was how to strengthen ability and

skills in personnel selection and interview in

particular how to select the ldquorightrdquo employees

instead of the ldquoqualifiedrdquo ones

Home improvement business

All of 16 employees of this franchise including the

manager participated in this study With only one

female worker this company was surrounded by a

ldquobrotherhoodrdquo culture Even though the store

manager played a unique role in making the final

decision the whole work team interacted with and

supported each other in a very dynamic manner

The single female worker strongly recommended

hiring more female workers Apparently she did

not receive hostility Generally employees were

satisfied with their jobs except pay

Assistance residential business


accounting for 95 percent of total human force

The majority of employees possessed special

license or qualification as nurse or health assistant

and had to take different work shifts This deprives

them of promotion opportunity unless they are

able to fulfill those requirements with advanced

education or certificate For years the supervisor

has been tackling pay issue with caring

communication and cooperation as much as she

could for instance flexible work shift when

necessary In turn employees were highly satisfied

with supervision

As found from this study the most dramatic

difference is pay Pay satisfaction has dramatically

decreased compared to the norm reported by

Smith et al in 1969 In literature there are

discussions about the concern of pay from

employees in small businesses this study enables

to testify this concern with statistic data However

it is noticed that pay satisfaction does not account

for the least variance in job satisfaction either

before or after interview Satisfaction with

supervision does while satisfaction with work

accounts for the most variance in job satisfaction

all of the time

As the number of employees in small businesses

grows significantly and consecutively every year it

is important to establish updated indications of job

attitudes with this specific work population

(Kinicki et al 2002) Researchers all agree that

employees in small businesses perceive job

satisfaction differently (May 1997) There may be

other variables besides pay supervision work co-

worker and promotion that can account for their

job satisfaction These should be verified by

further research

Researchers agree that practitioners and

employees lack enthusiasm appreciation and

interest in research such as job satisfaction even

though job satisfaction has generally been accepted

as conceptually important in organizations (Judge

and Church 2000) This lack of organizational

interests eventually caused a major difficulty in the

implementation of this quasi-experimental study

and directly influenced its sample size

Nevertheless detailed planning and legitimate

control had been administered to prevent and to

eliminate possible bias or error These included

structured and standardized procedures and

several sections of pre-training for student

facilitators

Due to sample size this study was not planned

to evaluate the construct of structured interview or

its impact nor attempted to conclude that

differences pre- post interview was caused by the

structured interview Repeated t-measures indicate

significant improvement on work co-worker and

job satisfaction in general after interview

Questions included in the structured interview

show high face validity as they explicitly address

issues regarding employeesrsquo relationships with

supervisors and co-workers concerns with pay

organizational growth promotion and morale

This effect of the structured interview can be

explained by the high correlation between

interview and cognitive ability (Huffcutt et al

1996 2001) It is plausible that after structured

interview employees retrieve concrete memories

of work environments that mediate their

perceptions of job satisfaction (Cortina et al

2000) As a result the structured interview

enhances employeersquos positive attitudes of job

satisfaction pay co-worker promotion

supervision and work

This study has presented a scientific method of

organizational survey for small businesses Other

researchers especially professionals in

industrialorganizational psychology and applied

sciences are highly encouraged to implement

research with small businesses to continually assist

them to grow Besides researchers should draw

more attention to scientific methods in identifying

and resolving organizational problems and

concerns This can also create opportunities of

interactions and enhance mutual interests in


Grace Davis



501

improvement of workplace among academic and

industrial professionals

References

Bowling Green State University (2002) ldquoThe job descriptiveindexrdquo available at wwwbgsuedudepartmentspsychJDI (accessed September 13)

Carsten JM and Spector PE (1987) ldquoUnemployment jobsatisfaction and employee turnover a meta-analytic testof the Muchinsky modelrdquo Journal of Applied PsychologyVol 72 pp 374-81

Cooper C and Lewis S (1999) ldquoGender and the changingnature of workrdquo in Powell GN (Ed) Handbook ofGender and Work Sage Publications Thousand Oaks CApp 37-46

Cortina JM Goldstein NB Payne SC Davison HK andGalliland SW (2000) ldquoThe incremental validity ofinterview scores over and above cognitive ability andconscientiousness scoresrdquo Personnel Psychology Vol 53pp 325-51

Dormann C and Zapf D (2001) ldquoJob satisfaction ameta-analysis of stabilitiesrdquo Journal of OrganizationalBehavior Vol 22 pp 483-504

Gutek BA Cherry B and Groth M (1999) ldquoGender andservice deliveryrdquo in Powell GN (Ed) Handbook ofGender and Work Sage Publications Thousand Oaks CApp 37-46

Hackett RD and Guion RM (1985) ldquoA reevaluation of theabsenteeism-job satisfaction relationshiprdquo OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes Vol 35pp 340-81

Heneman HG and Berkley RA (1999) ldquoApplicant attractionpractices and outcomes among small businessesrdquo Journalof Small Business Management Vol 37 No 1 pp 53-74

Huffcutt AI Roth PL and McDaniel MA (1996)ldquoA meta-analytic investigation of cognitive ability inemployment interview evaluations moderatingcharacteristics and implications for incremental validityrdquoJournal of Applied Psychology Vol 81 pp 459-73

Huffcutt AI Conway JM Roth PL and Stone NJ (2001)ldquoIdentification and meta-analytic assessment ofpsychological constructs measured in employmentinterviewsrdquo Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 86pp 897-913

Hulin CL (1991) ldquoAdaptation commitment and persistence inorganizationsrdquo in Dunnette MD and Hough LM (Eds)Handbook of Industrial and Organizational PsychologyVol 2 Consulting Psychologists Press Palo Alto CA

Iaffaldano MT and Muchinsky PM (1985) ldquoJob satisfactionand job performance a meta-analysisrdquo PsychologicalBulletin Vol 97 pp 251-73

Jex S (2002) Organizational Psychology John Wiley amp SonsNew York NY

Johnson GJ and Johnson WR (2000) ldquoPerceived over-qualification and dimensions of job satisfactiona longitudinal analysisrdquo Journal of Psychology Vol 134No 5 pp 537-56

Judge TA and Church AH (2000) ldquoJob satisfaction researchand practicerdquo in Cooper CL and Locke EA (Eds)Industrial and Organizational Psychology Linking Theorywith Practice Blackwell Business Malden MA pp 166-98

Judge TA Locke EA Durham CC and Kluger AN (1998)ldquoDispositional effects on job and life satisfaction the role

of core evaluationsrdquo Journal of Applied PsychologyVol 83 pp 17-34

Kinicki AJ McKee-Ryan FM Schriesheim CA andCarson KP (2002) ldquoAssessing the construct validity ofthe job descriptive index a review and meta-analysisrdquoJournal of Applied Psychology Vol 87 No 1 pp 14-32

Lam S (1995) ldquoQuality management and job satisfaction anempirical studyrdquo International Journal of Quality ampReliability Management Vol 12 No 4 pp 72-7

Latham GP and Finnegan BJ (1993) ldquoPerception ofunstructured patterned and situational interviewsrdquo inSchuler H Farr JL and Smith M (Eds) PersonnelSelection and Assessment Individual and OrganizationalPerspectives Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Hillsdale NJ

Locke EA (1976) ldquoThe nature and causes of job satisfactionrdquoin Dunnette MD (Ed) Handbook of Industrial andOrganizational Psychology Rand-McNally Chicago ILpp 1297-349

Martin G and Staines H (1994) ldquoManagerial competences insmall firmsrdquo Journal of Management DevelopmentVol 13 No 7 pp 23-33

May KE (1997) ldquoWork in the 21st century understanding theneeds of small businessesrdquo available at httpsioporgtipbackissuestipjul97mayhtml (accessed September 162002)

Muchinsky PM (2003) Psychology Applied to Work 7th edWadsworth Belmont CA

Ostroff C (1992) ldquoThe relationship between satisfactionattitudes and performance an organizational levelanalysisrdquo Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 77pp 963-74

Podsakoff PM and Williams LJ (1986) ldquoThe relationshipbetween job performance and job satisfactionrdquo inLocke EA (Ed) Generalizing from Laboratory to FieldSettings Heath Lexington MA pp 207-53

Rynes SL Barber AE and Varma GH (2000) ldquoResearch onthe employment interview usefulness for practice andrecommendations for future researchrdquo in Cooper CL andLocke EA (Eds) Industrial and OrganizationalPsychology Linking Theory with Practice BlackwellBusiness Malden MA pp 250-77

Schmidt FL and Rader M (1999) ldquoExploring the boundaryconditions for interview validity meta-analytic findings fora new interview typerdquo Personnel Psychology Vol 52pp 445-64

Schneider B and Dachler HP (1978) ldquoA note on the stability ofthe Job Descriptive Indexrdquo Journal of Applied PsychologyVol 63 pp 650-3

Smith PC Kendall IM and Hulin CI (1969) Measurement ofSatisfaction in Work and Retirement Rand-McNallyChicago IL

Smith PL and Hoy F (1992) ldquoJob satisfaction and commitmentof older workers in small businessesrdquo Journal of SmallBusinesses Management Vol 30 October pp 106-15

Spector PE (2002) Industrial Organizational PsychologyResearch and Practice 3rd ed John Wiley amp SonsNew York NY

Staw BM and Ross J (1985) ldquoStability in the midst of changea dispositional approach to job attitudesrdquo Journal ofApplied Psychology Vol 70 pp 469-80

Van der Zee KI Bakker AB and Bakker P (2002) ldquoWhy arestructured interviews so rarely used in personnelselectionrdquo Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 87 No 1pp 176-84


Grace Davis



502

Appendix Interview form

(1) You are currently working on a

____ part-time or _____ full-time basis

(2) Gender _____ Male _____ Female

(3) Your age ____ 20 _____ 20-30

_____ 31-40 _____ 41-50 _____ over 50

(4) How long have you been working with this

organization

___ less than one year ____ 1-4 years ____

4-7 years ____7-10 ____ 10-13 ___ 13-16

____ more than 16 years

(5) Have you been working at the same position

___ Yes ____ No If No please provide

details

(6) How does the current position match with

your career expectations

(7) How do you describe your job (What did

you do)

(8) Whatrsquos the best point working in this

company

(9) What is the worst point working in this

company

(10) What will be your suggestion(s) for

improvementchange of the above

(11) What do you think your supervisor will say

about your suggestion(s)

(12) How do you describe your relationship with

your supervisor

(Encourage the person to address

specifically (GoodBad) in terms of what

more specific or in what way)

(13) Could you give me one specific event to

describe the above


your co-workers

(15) How supportive your company is in assisting

you to get promoted

(16) If there is a chance for you to ask for a raise

what amount yoursquoll ask Why

(17) In your opinion what can make this

company more successful in terms of

organizational growth

(18) In your opinion what can the company do to

increase employeesrsquo morale


Grace Davis



503

Structured interview

Cortina et al (2000) confirmed the validity of

structured interview and indicated that these

predicted job performance as well as mental ability

did Schmidt and Rader (1999) conducted a

meta-analysis and emphasized that interview

showed validity as r frac14 040 Huffcutt et al (1996)

noticed that cognitive ability is related to interview

and has attributed to the validity of interview In

particular interview for a low complexity job is

more highly correlated with cognitive ability than

that for a high complexity job In a study of

construct validity of interview Huffcut et al

(2001) identified six most tested constructs of

interview as basic personality applied social skills

mental ability job knowledge and job skills

further they concluded that a structured

interview can have three times more correlation

with mental ability compared to an unstructured

interview

Noticeably missions and outcomes from

structured or unstructured interviews vary

Structured interviews tend to focus on job

knowledge skills person-organization fit

interpersonal skill and relationships at work

However unstructured interviews emphasize on

general intelligence work experience and

education etc This study designed to evaluate

employeesrsquo job satisfactions with pay supervisor

co-worker environment and promotion includes

a structured interview method as part of the whole

research process

It is absolutely inappropriate to conclude that

structure interview is always superior to the

unstructured one One of the drawbacks of

structured interview is that structured interviews

can lead to negative perceptions and conclusions

about the subject matter (Latham and Finnegan

1993) because participants prefer to reserve the

lead of interview A highly structured interview

in fact creates negative feelings that evoke

decreased attractiveness and desirableness of

outcomes On the other hand an unstructured

interview was thought by managers to be more

practical and realistic (Latham and Finnegan

1993) Following the literature this study

hypothesizes that there will be a difference in job

satisfaction before and after a structured interview

as reported by employees in small businesses

(hypothesis 1) More particularly job satisfaction

will decrease after a structure interview

(hypothesis 2)

Job satisfaction

Job satisfaction is defined as positive affect of

employees toward their jobs or job situations

(Locke 1976) Many studies have researched its

stability (Schneider and Dachler 1978 Staw and

Ross 1985) significance with other factors such

as absenteeism (Hackett and Guion 1985 Hulin

1991) turnover (Carsten and Spector 1987) and

performance (Iaffaldano and Muchinsky 1985

Ostroff 1992 Podsakoff and Williams 1986) In

general researchers perceive job satisfaction as a

general attitude rather than specific or actual (Jex

2002) Therefore job satisfaction is stable across

different jobs due to attributes of personality and

other dispositions positive affectivity job

characteristics time lag between different job

satisfaction surveys (Staw and Ross 1985 Lam

1995 Dormann and Zapf 2001) locus of control

and self-esteem (Judge et al 1998)

Referred to as ldquoone of the best-researched

concepts in workrdquo job satisfaction mediates the

relationships between one individual worker with

work conditions and organizational and individual

outcomes (Dormann and Zapf 2001 Jex 2002

Judge and Church 2000) In the real work places

organizations regardless of their size can hardly

avoid problems There always are problems and

concerns in any organization For small

businesses an organizational problem when it

occurs is less likely to be tackled scientifically

sophistically or timely (May 1997 Martin and

Staines 1994) Small businesses were also

reported to provide more frequent interpersonal

contact between workers customers and

supervisors (Smith and Hoy 1992) along with

high degree of complexity and challenge of jobs

What makes employees in small businesses

satisfied most when being evaluated by a

well-known job satisfaction questionnaire Job

Descriptive Index Do they perceive job

satisfaction differently compared to the existing

norms collated from studies that dominantly

highlighted large sample size This study

hypothesizes that there will be no difference in job

satisfaction across groups of different businesses

(hypothesis 3)

Researchers of job satisfaction have widely

adopted Job Descriptive index (JDI) as the

instrument to measure five organizational and

individual outcomes related to job satisfaction

work pay supervision co-worker and

supervision The past literature agreed upon its

solid construct validity (Kinicki et al 2002) and

validity (Bowling Green State University 1997

Spector 2002) In general job satisfaction is more

highly correlated to performance in complex jobs

in relevance to the relationship in less complex

jobs This could be explained by greater autonomy

in complex jobs (Johnson and Johnson 2000

Judge and Church 2000) such as those in small

businesses and enterprises Following what has

been hypothesized in hypothesis 1 about the


Grace Davis



496































(hypothesis 8)





businesses


interview












study


satisfaction




Methodology

Participants
























Process
































Grace Davis



497




Measurement






































employee

Results































Tables I and II)

























shown in Table IV












Grace Davis



498
























promotion and work)




















95 confidence

interval of the

difference


Sig

(2-tailed)

Pair 1 WORK-POSTW 2247 5116 0579 21363 2132 24271 77 0000

pair 2 SUPER-POSTS 2076 3546 0402 2156 004 21884 77 0063

Pair 3 PAY-POSTPAY 2050 3202 0363 2122 022 21379 77 0172





1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Work 1 0357 0448 0520 0457 0812

2 Supervision 1 0110 0058 0455 0554

3 Pay 1 0647 0170 0645

4 Promotion 1 0293 0717

5 Co-worker 1 0734




1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Work 1 0384 0417 0538 0561 0830

2 Supervision 1 0139 0037 0494 0564

3 Pay 1 0677 0271 0672

4 Promotion 1 0348 0726

5 Co-worker 1 0643




Grace Davis



499





was not confirmed









Healthcare business












will most benefit


ANOVA


JOBSAT

Between groups 26688156 3 8896052 13458 0000

Within groups 49575439 75 661006

Total 76263595 78

POSTJOBS

Between groups 20533502 3 6844501 9459 0000

Within groups 53546459 74 723601

Total 74079962 77


3 1032 8995 0723 21529 3594

4 3060 8695 0009 573 5547

2 1 24575 7905 0000 26836 22314

3 23543 8057 0001 25847 21238

4 21515 7767 0291 23737 706

3 1 21032 8955 0723 23594 1529

2 3543+ 8057 0001 1238 5847

4 2028 8834 0163 2499 4554

4 1 23060 8695 0009 25547 2573

2 1515 7767 0291 2706 3737

3 22028 8834 0163 24554 499

POSTJOBS 1 2 4933 8329 0000 1650 6415

3 851 9370 0843 21830 3531

4 2627 9098 0047 024 5230

2 1 24033 8329 0000 26415 21650

3 23182 8487 0005 25610 2754

4 21406 8185 0406 23747 936

3 1 2851 9370 0843 23531 1830

2 3182 8487 0005 754 5610

4 1776 9243 0304 2868 4421

4 1 22627 9068 0047 25230 2024

2 1406 8185 0406 2936 3747

3 21776 9243 0304 24421 868



Work 38 36 39 37 34 37

Pay 30 19 19 28 13 13

Promotion 18 24 24 14 16 17

Supervision 44 45 46 42 48 51

Co-workers 46 45 48 44 48 48


Grace Davis



500

Janitorial business







































with supervision













all of the time











further research















facilitators




































Grace Davis



501



References




































Grace Davis



502





(3) Your age ____ 20 _____ 20-30

_____ 31-40 _____ 41-50 _____ over 50


organization


4-7 years ____7-10 ____ 10-13 ___ 13-16




details




you do)


company


company






your supervisor





describe the above


your co-workers


you to get promoted









Grace Davis



503































(hypothesis 8)





businesses


interview












study


satisfaction




Methodology

Participants
























Process
































Grace Davis



497




Measurement






































employee

Results































Tables I and II)

























shown in Table IV












Grace Davis



498
























promotion and work)




















95 confidence

interval of the

difference


Sig

(2-tailed)

Pair 1 WORK-POSTW 2247 5116 0579 21363 2132 24271 77 0000

pair 2 SUPER-POSTS 2076 3546 0402 2156 004 21884 77 0063

Pair 3 PAY-POSTPAY 2050 3202 0363 2122 022 21379 77 0172





1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Work 1 0357 0448 0520 0457 0812

2 Supervision 1 0110 0058 0455 0554

3 Pay 1 0647 0170 0645

4 Promotion 1 0293 0717

5 Co-worker 1 0734




1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Work 1 0384 0417 0538 0561 0830

2 Supervision 1 0139 0037 0494 0564

3 Pay 1 0677 0271 0672

4 Promotion 1 0348 0726

5 Co-worker 1 0643




Grace Davis



499





was not confirmed









Healthcare business












will most benefit


ANOVA


JOBSAT

Between groups 26688156 3 8896052 13458 0000

Within groups 49575439 75 661006

Total 76263595 78

POSTJOBS

Between groups 20533502 3 6844501 9459 0000

Within groups 53546459 74 723601

Total 74079962 77


3 1032 8995 0723 21529 3594

4 3060 8695 0009 573 5547

2 1 24575 7905 0000 26836 22314

3 23543 8057 0001 25847 21238

4 21515 7767 0291 23737 706

3 1 21032 8955 0723 23594 1529

2 3543+ 8057 0001 1238 5847

4 2028 8834 0163 2499 4554

4 1 23060 8695 0009 25547 2573

2 1515 7767 0291 2706 3737

3 22028 8834 0163 24554 499

POSTJOBS 1 2 4933 8329 0000 1650 6415

3 851 9370 0843 21830 3531

4 2627 9098 0047 024 5230

2 1 24033 8329 0000 26415 21650

3 23182 8487 0005 25610 2754

4 21406 8185 0406 23747 936

3 1 2851 9370 0843 23531 1830

2 3182 8487 0005 754 5610

4 1776 9243 0304 2868 4421

4 1 22627 9068 0047 25230 2024

2 1406 8185 0406 2936 3747

3 21776 9243 0304 24421 868



Work 38 36 39 37 34 37

Pay 30 19 19 28 13 13

Promotion 18 24 24 14 16 17

Supervision 44 45 46 42 48 51

Co-workers 46 45 48 44 48 48


Grace Davis



500

Janitorial business







































with supervision













all of the time











further research















facilitators




































Grace Davis



501



References




































Grace Davis



502





(3) Your age ____ 20 _____ 20-30

_____ 31-40 _____ 41-50 _____ over 50


organization


4-7 years ____7-10 ____ 10-13 ___ 13-16




details




you do)


company


company






your supervisor





describe the above


your co-workers


you to get promoted









Grace Davis



503




Measurement






































employee

Results































Tables I and II)

























shown in Table IV












Grace Davis



498
























promotion and work)




















95 confidence

interval of the

difference


Sig

(2-tailed)

Pair 1 WORK-POSTW 2247 5116 0579 21363 2132 24271 77 0000

pair 2 SUPER-POSTS 2076 3546 0402 2156 004 21884 77 0063

Pair 3 PAY-POSTPAY 2050 3202 0363 2122 022 21379 77 0172





1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Work 1 0357 0448 0520 0457 0812

2 Supervision 1 0110 0058 0455 0554

3 Pay 1 0647 0170 0645

4 Promotion 1 0293 0717

5 Co-worker 1 0734




1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Work 1 0384 0417 0538 0561 0830

2 Supervision 1 0139 0037 0494 0564

3 Pay 1 0677 0271 0672

4 Promotion 1 0348 0726

5 Co-worker 1 0643




Grace Davis



499





was not confirmed









Healthcare business












will most benefit


ANOVA


JOBSAT

Between groups 26688156 3 8896052 13458 0000

Within groups 49575439 75 661006

Total 76263595 78

POSTJOBS

Between groups 20533502 3 6844501 9459 0000

Within groups 53546459 74 723601

Total 74079962 77


3 1032 8995 0723 21529 3594

4 3060 8695 0009 573 5547

2 1 24575 7905 0000 26836 22314

3 23543 8057 0001 25847 21238

4 21515 7767 0291 23737 706

3 1 21032 8955 0723 23594 1529

2 3543+ 8057 0001 1238 5847

4 2028 8834 0163 2499 4554

4 1 23060 8695 0009 25547 2573

2 1515 7767 0291 2706 3737

3 22028 8834 0163 24554 499

POSTJOBS 1 2 4933 8329 0000 1650 6415

3 851 9370 0843 21830 3531

4 2627 9098 0047 024 5230

2 1 24033 8329 0000 26415 21650

3 23182 8487 0005 25610 2754

4 21406 8185 0406 23747 936

3 1 2851 9370 0843 23531 1830

2 3182 8487 0005 754 5610

4 1776 9243 0304 2868 4421

4 1 22627 9068 0047 25230 2024

2 1406 8185 0406 2936 3747

3 21776 9243 0304 24421 868



Work 38 36 39 37 34 37

Pay 30 19 19 28 13 13

Promotion 18 24 24 14 16 17

Supervision 44 45 46 42 48 51

Co-workers 46 45 48 44 48 48


Grace Davis



500

Janitorial business







































with supervision













all of the time











further research















facilitators




































Grace Davis



501



References




































Grace Davis



502





(3) Your age ____ 20 _____ 20-30

_____ 31-40 _____ 41-50 _____ over 50


organization


4-7 years ____7-10 ____ 10-13 ___ 13-16




details




you do)


company


company






your supervisor





describe the above


your co-workers


you to get promoted









Grace Davis



503
























promotion and work)




















95 confidence

interval of the

difference


Sig

(2-tailed)

Pair 1 WORK-POSTW 2247 5116 0579 21363 2132 24271 77 0000

pair 2 SUPER-POSTS 2076 3546 0402 2156 004 21884 77 0063

Pair 3 PAY-POSTPAY 2050 3202 0363 2122 022 21379 77 0172





1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Work 1 0357 0448 0520 0457 0812

2 Supervision 1 0110 0058 0455 0554

3 Pay 1 0647 0170 0645

4 Promotion 1 0293 0717

5 Co-worker 1 0734




1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Work 1 0384 0417 0538 0561 0830

2 Supervision 1 0139 0037 0494 0564

3 Pay 1 0677 0271 0672

4 Promotion 1 0348 0726

5 Co-worker 1 0643




Grace Davis



499





was not confirmed









Healthcare business












will most benefit


ANOVA


JOBSAT

Between groups 26688156 3 8896052 13458 0000

Within groups 49575439 75 661006

Total 76263595 78

POSTJOBS

Between groups 20533502 3 6844501 9459 0000

Within groups 53546459 74 723601

Total 74079962 77


3 1032 8995 0723 21529 3594

4 3060 8695 0009 573 5547

2 1 24575 7905 0000 26836 22314

3 23543 8057 0001 25847 21238

4 21515 7767 0291 23737 706

3 1 21032 8955 0723 23594 1529

2 3543+ 8057 0001 1238 5847

4 2028 8834 0163 2499 4554

4 1 23060 8695 0009 25547 2573

2 1515 7767 0291 2706 3737

3 22028 8834 0163 24554 499

POSTJOBS 1 2 4933 8329 0000 1650 6415

3 851 9370 0843 21830 3531

4 2627 9098 0047 024 5230

2 1 24033 8329 0000 26415 21650

3 23182 8487 0005 25610 2754

4 21406 8185 0406 23747 936

3 1 2851 9370 0843 23531 1830

2 3182 8487 0005 754 5610

4 1776 9243 0304 2868 4421

4 1 22627 9068 0047 25230 2024

2 1406 8185 0406 2936 3747

3 21776 9243 0304 24421 868



Work 38 36 39 37 34 37

Pay 30 19 19 28 13 13

Promotion 18 24 24 14 16 17

Supervision 44 45 46 42 48 51

Co-workers 46 45 48 44 48 48


Grace Davis



500

Janitorial business







































with supervision













all of the time











further research















facilitators




































Grace Davis



501



References




































Grace Davis



502





(3) Your age ____ 20 _____ 20-30

_____ 31-40 _____ 41-50 _____ over 50


organization


4-7 years ____7-10 ____ 10-13 ___ 13-16




details




you do)


company


company






your supervisor





describe the above


your co-workers


you to get promoted









Grace Davis



503





was not confirmed









Healthcare business












will most benefit


ANOVA


JOBSAT

Between groups 26688156 3 8896052 13458 0000

Within groups 49575439 75 661006

Total 76263595 78

POSTJOBS

Between groups 20533502 3 6844501 9459 0000

Within groups 53546459 74 723601

Total 74079962 77


3 1032 8995 0723 21529 3594

4 3060 8695 0009 573 5547

2 1 24575 7905 0000 26836 22314

3 23543 8057 0001 25847 21238

4 21515 7767 0291 23737 706

3 1 21032 8955 0723 23594 1529

2 3543+ 8057 0001 1238 5847

4 2028 8834 0163 2499 4554

4 1 23060 8695 0009 25547 2573

2 1515 7767 0291 2706 3737

3 22028 8834 0163 24554 499

POSTJOBS 1 2 4933 8329 0000 1650 6415

3 851 9370 0843 21830 3531

4 2627 9098 0047 024 5230

2 1 24033 8329 0000 26415 21650

3 23182 8487 0005 25610 2754

4 21406 8185 0406 23747 936

3 1 2851 9370 0843 23531 1830

2 3182 8487 0005 754 5610

4 1776 9243 0304 2868 4421

4 1 22627 9068 0047 25230 2024

2 1406 8185 0406 2936 3747

3 21776 9243 0304 24421 868



Work 38 36 39 37 34 37

Pay 30 19 19 28 13 13

Promotion 18 24 24 14 16 17

Supervision 44 45 46 42 48 51

Co-workers 46 45 48 44 48 48


Grace Davis



500

Janitorial business







































with supervision













all of the time











further research















facilitators




































Grace Davis



501



References




































Grace Davis



502





(3) Your age ____ 20 _____ 20-30

_____ 31-40 _____ 41-50 _____ over 50


organization


4-7 years ____7-10 ____ 10-13 ___ 13-16




details




you do)


company


company






your supervisor





describe the above


your co-workers


you to get promoted









Grace Davis



503

Janitorial business







































with supervision













all of the time











further research















facilitators




































Grace Davis



501



References




































Grace Davis



502





(3) Your age ____ 20 _____ 20-30

_____ 31-40 _____ 41-50 _____ over 50


organization


4-7 years ____7-10 ____ 10-13 ___ 13-16




details




you do)


company


company






your supervisor





describe the above


your co-workers


you to get promoted









Grace Davis



503



References




































Grace Davis



502





(3) Your age ____ 20 _____ 20-30

_____ 31-40 _____ 41-50 _____ over 50


organization


4-7 years ____7-10 ____ 10-13 ___ 13-16




details




you do)


company


company






your supervisor





describe the above


your co-workers


you to get promoted









Grace Davis



503





(3) Your age ____ 20 _____ 20-30

_____ 31-40 _____ 41-50 _____ over 50


organization


4-7 years ____7-10 ____ 10-13 ___ 13-16




details




you do)


company


company






your supervisor





describe the above


your co-workers


you to get promoted









Grace Davis



503

Documents

Job satisfaction survey