Global Job Satisfaction Scale

Abstract

The Global Job Satisfaction scale is a concise psychometric instrument designed to capture an employee’s overall affective reaction to their job role, distinct from satisfaction with specific job facets. Originally developed by Quinn and Shepard (1974), the measure was subsequently refined by Pond and Geyer (1991) and Rice et al. (1991), who introduced a revised sixth item. While the standard version consists of six items, researchers have frequently utilized shorter versions, including three-item (Fields & Blum, 1997), four-item (Eisenberger et al., 1997), and five-item configurations (McFarlin & Rice, 1992), demonstrating the scale’s adaptability and robustness across various organizational research contexts.

Keywords

Global Job Satisfaction, Job Satisfaction, Affective Reaction, Organizational Behavior, Psychometrics, Quinn and Shepard, Work Attitudes.

Authors

Quinn, R. P., Shepard, L. J., Pond, S. B., Geyer, P. D., Rice, R. W., Gentile, D. A., McFarlin, D. B.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Global Job Satisfaction scale is to provide a rapid and accurate assessment of an individual’s general, non-facet-specific emotional response to their current employment situation. Unlike multi-faceted scales that break down satisfaction into components like pay or supervision, this instrument focuses on the holistic, overall feeling an employee has about their work.

This measure is crucial for researchers and practitioners needing a quick, reliable indicator of general job well-being, often used as a key outcome variable in studies examining organizational commitment, turnover intentions, and organizational climate.

Construct

The scale measures Global Job Satisfaction, defined as the overall degree to which an employee likes their job. It is an affective, rather than cognitive, construct that captures the summary evaluation of the job experience. The design ensures that the score reflects the employee’s internal state regarding the job as a whole, rather than specific environmental factors.

The construct is designed to be empirically distinct from satisfaction with individual job facets (e.g., pay, promotion opportunities) and other related constructs like perceived organizational support or organizational commitment, as confirmed by various factor analyses.

Validity

The Global Job Satisfaction scale has demonstrated robust construct validity through its pattern of correlations with numerous work-related variables. Positively, it correlates significantly with satisfaction concerning specific job facets, including supervision, promotion, pay, interactions with a boss, customer contact, job freedom, learning opportunities, and satisfaction with co-workers (Fields & Blum, 1997; Pond & Geyer, 1991).

Furthermore, global satisfaction exhibits positive associations with crucial organizational attitudes such as affective commitment to both the occupation and the organization, and heightened job involvement. Conversely, the measure shows negative correlations with dysfunctional outcomes and stressors. Specifically, global job satisfaction is negatively associated with continuance commitment, perceived job alternatives, role conflict, role ambiguity, employee turnover, and the perceived importance of extrinsic rewards like pay and promotion (Mossholder et al., 1998; McFarlin & Rice, 1992).

Reliability

The scale exhibits strong internal consistency across its various item configurations, typically exceeding standard thresholds for reliable measures. For the full six-item version, the reported Coefficient alpha (1) was 0.89 (Pond & Geyer, 1991).

Reliability remains high even in abbreviated forms: the five-item measure consistently showed Coefficient alpha (2) values ranging from 0.81 to 0.89 (Birnbaum & Somers, 1993; Williams et al., 1996). The four-item version maintained good consistency, with alpha values ranging from 0.75 to 0.85 (Eisenberger et al., 1997). Even the shortest three-item version reported an acceptable Coefficient alpha (3) of 0.78 (Fields & Blum, 1997).

Factor Analysis

Multiple studies have utilized factor analysis to confirm the unidimensionality and distinctiveness of the Global Job Satisfaction construct. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (1) performed by Williams et al. (1996) demonstrated that the measure possesses a single dimension, confirming its intended global focus.

Furthermore, factor analytic studies confirm its empirical distinction from related but separate constructs. Eisenberger et al. (1997) used confirmatory factor analysis (2) to show that overall job satisfaction is empirically distinct from perceived organizational support. Similarly, multivariate analysis (Rice et al., 1991) confirmed that overall job satisfaction is distinct from satisfaction derived from any of the 12 specific job facets examined. The measure also proved empirically distinct from organizational commitment, role ambiguity, role overload, role conflict, job complexity, and negative affectivity.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report psychometric scale

Format: Likert-type scales (typically 5-point, though the revised sixth item uses a 7-point scale)

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: Employees/Workers (Blue-collar and general workforce)

Age Group: Adult working population (Older and younger groups studied)

Population Details: Applicable to various industries and organizational levels, validated extensively in organizational behavior research.

Test Methodology: Standard questionnaire administration, often used in cross-sectional or longitudinal organizational surveys.

Keywords

Organizational Psychology, Human Resources, Affective Commitment, Job Satisfaction, Internal Consistency, Turnover, Coefficient alpha (4), Role Ambiguity.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Information not provided in source)

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A (Information not provided in source)

Correspondence Address: N/A (Information not provided in source)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The original conceptualization dates back to 1974 (Quinn and Shepard). Key modifications and validation studies occurred in 1991 (Pond & Geyer; Rice et al.). The items were reprinted with permission from Academic Press (1991) and the American Psychological Association (1991). Specific fee structures are not provided, but researchers should consult the original journal publications for permissions regarding large-scale use.

Reference’s

• Birnbaum, D., & Somers, M. J. (1993). Correlates of commitment to the organization and the occupation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(7), 653-662.
• Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 812-820.
• Fields, M. W., & Blum, T. C. (1997). Employee benefits and job satisfaction: The role of health insurance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 11(4), 483-496.
• Martin, T. N., & Roman, P. M. (1996). Job stress and job satisfaction among older workers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48(1), 1-22.
• McFarlin, D. B., & Rice, R. W. (1992). The role of facet importance in job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(3), 351-358.
• Mossholder, K. W., Bennett, N., & Martin, T. N. (1998). A multi-level examination of the effects of core job characteristics on organizational commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(1), 1-18.
• Pond, S. B., & Geyer, P. D. (1991). Differences in the relation between job satisfaction and perceived work alternatives among older and younger blue-collar workers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39, 251-262. Items were taken from text, p. 254. Copyright© 1991 by Academic Press. Reprinted with permission.
• Quinn, R. P., & Shepard, L. J. (1974). The 1972-73 Quality of Employment Survey: Descriptive statistics, with comparison data from the 1969-70 survey. Ann Arbor, MI: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
• Rice, R. W., Gentile, D. A., & McFarlin, D. B. (1991). Facet importance and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(1), 31-39. Item was taken from text, p. 33. Copyright© 1991 by the American Psychological Association. Reprinted with permission.
• Taber, T. D., & Alliger, G. M. (1995). A cross-study analysis of the relationship between job satisfaction and perceived job alternatives. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(5), 451-468.
• Williams, M. L., Gavin, M. B., & Williams, J. L. (1996). Measurement of the affective component of organizational commitment (2). Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(3), 251-266.

Items of the Global Job Satisfaction scale

Items and response scales:

The original wording of the items is in parentheses.

1. (Knowing what you know now), If you had to decide all over again whether to take the job you now have, what would you decide?

Responses range from 1 = definitely not take the job to 5 = definitely take the job.

2. If a (good) friend asked if he/she should apply for a job like yours with your employer, what would you recommend?

Responses range from 1 = not recommend at all to 5 = recommend strongly.

3. How does this job compare with your ideal job (job you would most like to have)?

Responses range from 1= very far from ideal to 5= very close to ideal.

4. (In general) how does your job measure up to the sort of job you wanted when you took it?

Responses range from 1 = not at all like I wanted to 5 = just like what I wanted.

5. All (in all) things considered, how satisfied are you with your current job?

Responses range from 1 = not at all satisfied to 5 = completely satisfied.

6. In general, how much do you like your job? Responses range from 1 = not at all to 5 = a great deal. Revised sixth item from Rice et (1991):

How do you feel about your job overall?

Possible responses are 1 = terrible, 2 = unhappy, 3 = mostly dissatisfied, 4= mixed ( about equally dissatisfied and satisfied), 5= mostly satisfied, 6 = pleased, and 7 = delighted.