Influencing Factors on Job Satisfaction in Federal Employees: Study of Individual, Job Att, Study notes of Public Policy

Download Influencing Factors on Job Satisfaction in Federal Employees: Study of Individual, Job Att and more Study notes Public Policy in PDF only on Docsity! Determinants of Job Satisfaction Among Federal Employees Table of Contents Introduction Importance of Job Satisfaction Literature Review: Determinants of Job Satisfaction 1. Individual Attributes 2. Job Characteristics 3. Organizational Characteristics 4. Public Service Motivation (PSM) 5. Government Reinvention Data & Methods 1996 Merit Principles Survey Data MSPB Survey Methodology Model Specification Dependent Variable Independent Variables Measuring Public Service Motivation Measuring Attitudes Towards Government Reinvention Multicollinearity Diagnostics Empirical Results: Multivariate Regression Models Model 1: Traditional model including individual attributes, job & organizational characteristics. Model 2: Traditional model plus PSM. Model 3: Traditional model plus PSM and Government Reinvention. Conclusion and Discussion Table 1 Levels of Job Satisfaction by Demographic Characteristics “In general, I am satisfied with my job.” Percent Responding Satisfied Dissatisfied N All Employees 71% 14% 9,545 Gender Men 74% 13% 5,808 Women 71% 17% 3,530 Race Whites 73% 15% 6,846 Minorities 71% 15% 2,699 Years of Service 10 Years or Less 71% 16% 2,498 11 to 15 Years 75% 13% 1,557 16 to 20 Years 72% 15% 1,895 21 to 25 Years 71% 15% 1,805 26 Years and Above 76% 14% 1,749 Education H.S. Graduate 76% 13% 821 Some College 73% 13% 3,606 Bachelor’s Degree 71% 16% 1,821 Graduate Degree 71% 16% 1,982 Pay Grade GS 1 - 8 67% 18% 2,274 GS 9 - 11 74% 13% 2,314 Table 3 Determinants of Job Satisfaction Among Federal Employees Model Design: Most of the questionnaire responses are measured on a 5-point Likert scale using the following coding: 0 = STRONGLY DISAGREE, 1 = DISAGREE, 2 = NEITHER, 3 = AGREE, 4 = STRONGLY AGREE, DON’T KNOW/CAN’T JUDGE = SYSTEM MISSING. Dependent Variable: Job Satisfaction. “In general, I am satisfied with my job.” Independent Variables: A. Individual Attributes: Gender, Age, Education, Race, Tenure, Pay Grade. B. Job Characteristics: “My organization makes good use of my knowledge and skills.” “I have been given greater flexibility in how I do my job.” “Overall, I am satisfied with my current pay.” “The work I do in government is meaningful to me.” “My work provides the public a worthwhile return on their tax dollars.” C. Organizational Characteristics: “A spirit of cooperation and teamwork exists in my work unit.” “My opinions seem to count where I work.” “Overall, I am satisfied with my supervisor.” D. Public Service Motivation: “Meaningful public service is very important to me.” “I am not afraid to go to bat for the rights of others even if it means I will be ridiculed.” “Making a difference in society means more to me than personal achievements.” “I am prepared to make enormous sacrifices for the good of society.” “I am often reminded by daily events how dependent we are on one another.” E. Government Reinvention: NPR Question 1: “The efforts of the National Performance Review (NPR), which has been working on reinventing government, have had a positive impact in bringing change to government.” NPR Question 2: “The National Performance Review has had a positive impact on improving customer service to the public.” DOWNSIZING Question 1: “Downsizing has helped my organization to accomplish its mission more effectively.” DOWNSIZING Question 2: “Downsizing has seriously eroded the institutional memory in my agency.” (Reversed) ______________________________________________________________________ Table 4 Bivariate Correlations with Job Satisfaction. Individual Attributes Rank Coefficient Significance Tenure 21 .0268 p = .000 Gender 18 .0454 p = .000 Age 16 .0606 p = .000 Education 20 -.0310 p = .003 Grade of Pay 14 .0761 p = .000 Race* 22 .0090 p = .378 Job Characteristics Rank Coefficient Significance Skill Utilization 2 .4686 p = .000 Job Flexibility 5 .3601 p = .000 Satisfied with Pay 7 .2955 p = .000 Meaningful Job 1 .5429 p = .000 Worthwhile Return on Tax Dollars 8 .2853 p = .000 Organizational Characteristics Rank Coefficient Significance Satisfied with Supervisor 4 .3791 p = .000 Cooperative Work Unit 6 .3563 p = .000 My Opinions Count at Work 3 .4415 p = .000 Public Service Motivation Rank Coefficient Significance Public Policy Doesn’t Appeal to Me* 19 .0419 p = .000 Meaningful Public Service is Important 12 .1473 p = .000 Not Afraid to Go to Bat for Rights of Others 15 .0733 p = .000 Making a Difference in Society Means More 17 .0509 p = .000 I’m Prepared to Make Sacrifices for Society 13 .0801 p = .000 I’m Reminded How Dependent We Are 11 .1571 p = .000 Government Reinvention Rank Coefficient Significance Positive Impact of NPR’s Reinvention 9 .2162 p = .000 Positive Impact on Customer Service 10 .2104 p = .000 Downsizing Helped My Agency 14 .1019 p = .000 Downsizing Hasn’t Eroded Agency Memory 13 .1060 p = .000 __________________________________________________________________________________ N = 9,545 / 2-Tailed Significance. * Variable was dropped from my analysis. Table 6 F-Test Comparison of Model 2 and Model 1. Model 2. Added Public Service Motivation (PSM). PSM computed as: (q35 + q36 + q37 + q38 + q39)/5 . Dependent Variable.. JOBSAT I am satisfied with my job Block Number 1. Method: Enter Q93 Q95A Q96 Q97 Q99 Q16A Q19A Q32A Q22A Q13A Q4A Q33A Q1B PSM Multiple R .66515 R Square .44243 Adjusted R Square .44147 Standard Error .74587 Analysis of Variance DF Sum of Squares Mean Square Regression 14 SSR 3604.72592 257.48042 Residual 8166 4542.91324 .55632 MSE F = 462.82749 Signif F = .0000 ________________________________________________________________________ Comparison of Model 2 and Model 1. To see which model is best, I performed a special F-test using the following formula: SSR Full Model 2 - SSR Reduced Model 1 ---------------------------------------- / MSE Full Model 2 Change in DF F* = 3605 - 3597 ----------- / .55632 = 14.38 1 F* of 14.38 > 2.04 F-Table Critical Value. Conclusion: Looking at the F-distribution table, with 14 independent variables as the numerator df (used 15 on table), and infinity as the denominator df (n-k-1), at .01 alpha the critical F-value is 2.04. Since my F* of 14.38 is greater than the critical F-value of 2.04, I concluded that adding my PSM index significantly improves my regression model and helps to explain greater variation in job satisfaction with a lower standard error. Table 7 F-Test Comparison of Model 3 and Model 2. Model 3. Added Government Reinvention Variables. NPR = (q10 + q11)/2 "Positive Impact of NPR Reinvention Efforts." DOWNSIZE = (q27 + q30 reversed)/2 "Positive Impact of Downsizing" Dependent Variable.. JOBSAT I am satisfied with my job Block Number 1. Method: Enter Q93 Q95A Q96 Q97 Q99 Q16A Q19A Q32A Q22A Q13A Q4A Q33A Q1B PSM NPR DOWNSIZE Multiple R .66784 R Square .44602 Adjusted R Square .44493 Standard Error .74355 Analysis of Variance DF Sum of Squares Mean Square Regression 16 SSR 3633.97562 227.12348 Residual 8164 4513.66354 .55287 MSE F = 410.80511 Signif F = .0000 __________________________________________________________________ Comparison of Model 3 and Model 2. To see which model is best, I performed a special F-test using the following formula: SSR Full Model 3 - SSR Reduced Model 2 ---------------------------------------- / MSE Full Model 3 Change in DF F* = 3633 - 3605 ----------- / .55287 = 25.32 2 F* of 25.32 > 2.04 F-Table Critical Value. Conclusion: Looking at the F-distribution table, with 16 independent variables as the numerator df (used 15 on table), and infinity as the denominator df (n-k-1), at .01 alpha the critical F-value is 2.04. Since my F* of 25.32 is greater than the critical F-value of 2.04, I concluded that adding the government reinvention variables significantly improves my regression model and helps to explain greater variation in job satisfaction with a lower standard error. References Berry, William D. and Stanley Feldman (1985). Multiple Regression in Practice. A SAGE University Paper. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Inc. Blackburn, J.W. and W. Bruce (1989). “Rethinking Concepts of Job Satisfaction: The Case of Nebraska Municipal Clerks.” Review of Public Personnel Administration 10 (Fall):11-28. Brass, Daniel J. (1981). “Structural Relationships, Job Characteristics, Worker Satisfaction and Performance.” Administrative Science Quarterly 26:331-348. Bruce, Willa M. and J. Walton Blackburn (1992). Balancing Job Satisfaction and Performance: A Guide for Human Resource Professionals. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Carmines, Edward G. and Richard A. Zeller (1979). Reliability and Validity Assessment. A SAGE University Paper. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Inc. Carroll, James D. (1995). “The Rhetoric of Reform and Political Reality in the National Performance Review.” Public Administration Review 55:3(May/June):302-312. Cranny, C.J., P.C. Smith, and Eugene F. Stone, Editors (1992). Job Satisfaction: How People Feel About Their Jobs and How it Affects Their Performance. NY: Lexington Books. Daley, D. (1988). “Performance Appraisal in a Public Agency: Multiple Measurements Supporting Common Conclusions.” Review of Public Personnel Administration 9(Fall):11-28. Daley, Dennis M. (1986). “Humanistic Management and Organizational Success: The Effect of Job and Work Environment Characteristics on Organizational Effectiveness, Public Responsiveness, and Job Satisfaction.” Public Personnel Management 15:131-142. Dewar, Robert and James Werbel (1979). “Universalistic and Contingency Predictions of Employee Satisfaction and Conflict.” Administrative Science Quarterly 24:426-448. Emmert, Mark A. and W.A. Taher (1992). “Public Sector Professionals: The Effects of Public Sector Jobs on Motivation, Job Satisfaction and Work Involvement.” American Review of Public Administration 22:37-48. Hackman, J.R. and E. Lawler (1971). “Employee Reactions to Job Characteristics.” Journal of Applied Psychology 55:259-286. Hackman, J.R. and G. Oldham (1975). “Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey.” Journal of Applied Psychology 60(April):159-170.