Job in General Scale

Abstract

The Job in General Scale (JIG) is an 18-item psychometric instrument developed by Ironson, Smith, Brannick, Gibson, and Paul (1989) to assess an individual’s global job satisfaction. Developed specifically to provide a measure of overall satisfaction that is conceptually distinct and independent from satisfaction with specific job facets, the JIG addresses the potential for differing frames of reference when respondents evaluate general versus specific satisfaction inquiries. The scale is frequently utilized either as a standalone measure or in conjunction with the Job Descriptive Index (JDI), which assesses satisfaction across five distinct job components.

Keywords

Job satisfaction, global job satisfaction, Job Descriptive Index (JDI), organizational commitment, employee attitudes, work attitudes, turnover intentions, organizational psychology, psychometrics.

Authors

Gail H. Ironson, Patricia C. Smith, Michael T. Brannick, Mary W. Gibson, Kenneth B. Paul.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Job in General Scale is to provide a comprehensive, holistic assessment of an employee’s overall affective reaction to their job role. Unlike measures that focus on specific components (facets) of the job, the JIG captures the broad, overarching sentiment regarding the total work experience.

This independent assessment is crucial in organizational research because empirical evidence suggests that individuals often employ different cognitive frameworks when evaluating overall job satisfaction versus satisfaction with specific elements (e.g., pay, supervision). By focusing solely on the global construct, the JIG ensures its measurement remains uncontaminated by localized facet evaluations, allowing researchers to accurately compare global satisfaction with composite facet satisfaction derived from other instruments.

Construct

The psychological construct measured by the JIG is Global Job Satisfaction. This construct represents an employee’s general, overall affective attitude toward their job, viewing the work role as an integrated whole rather than a mere collection of separate parts.

Global job satisfaction is conceptualized as an overarching affective state—a feeling of contentment or dissatisfaction—that summarizes an individual’s cumulative evaluation of their employment situation. The 18 items are designed to capture this broad, emotional evaluation using descriptive adjectives and phrases, providing a single, unified score of overall job sentiment.

Validity

The Job in General Scale demonstrates robust evidence of construct validity through its established correlational relationships with several key organizational variables, supporting its effectiveness in measuring global job satisfaction.

The scale showed significant positive correlations (convergent validity evidence) with several critical outcomes, including affective organizational commitment, trust in management, satisfaction with the job itself, tenure with a supervisor, pay satisfaction, satisfaction with supervision, satisfaction with promotion prospects, and judgments concerning procedural and outcome fairness (Crapanzano, James, & Konovsky, 1993; Konovsky & Crapanzano, 1991). Conversely, research consistently showed that global job satisfaction, as measured by the JIG, correlated negatively with detrimental workplace outcomes, particularly turnover intentions (Crapanzano et al., 1993; Major et al., 1995), providing evidence of its predictive validity regarding employee stability and retention.

Reliability

Internal consistency reliability for the Job in General Scale has been consistently high across diverse organizational research samples. Studies cited by Konovsky & Crapanzano (1991), Long (1993), and others reported Coefficient alpha values ranging robustly from .82 to .94.

This narrow and high range indicates that the 18 items reliably measure a single underlying construct (global job satisfaction). The consistently strong alpha coefficients suggest that the JIG is a highly dependable and internally consistent measure suitable for use in industrial-organizational psychology and human resource assessment.

Factor Analysis

The Job in General Scale is specifically designed and utilized as a unidimensional measure of global job satisfaction. The empirical evidence of high internal consistency reliability (Coefficient alpha values consistently above .80) strongly supports the contention that the 18 items coalesce into a single, dominant factor representing overall affective job sentiment.

The original research by Ironson et al. (1989) implicitly confirms this global factor structure, contrasting it with the multi-facet structure of companion scales like the JDI to emphasize its singular focus on the overarching evaluation of the employment experience.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-Report Attitudinal Scale

Format: Trinary response format (“Yes,” “No,” or “?”) based on descriptive adjectives. Items denoted with (R) are reverse scored.

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: Employed Adults/Organizational Employees

Age Group: Adult Working Population (Typically 18+)

Population Details: Applicable across various industries, organizational levels, and job roles where the assessment of general job satisfaction is required.

Test Methodology: Respondents are asked to indicate whether each of the 18 descriptive items applies to their job in general. Scoring is achieved by assigning numerical values to the responses, with positively and negatively worded items weighted accordingly to produce a single score for global job satisfaction.

Keywords

Ironson, Smith, Brannick, organizational behavior, industrial psychology, global measure, employee retention, satisfaction facets.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not Specified

Affiliation Email addresses: Not Specified

Correspondence Address: Not Specified

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1989

Permissions/Fees: The original items were published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, copyrighted by the American Psychological Association (APA). Researchers intending to use the scale must obtain formal permission and address any associated licensing fees from the APA or the primary authors. The scale is often managed in conjunction with the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) materials, which may share similar licensing requirements.

Reference’s

• Ironson, G., Smith, P., Brannick, M., Gibson, M., & Paul, K. (1989). Construction of a Job in General Scale: A comparison of global, composite and specific measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 193-200.
• Crapanzano, R., James, K., & Konovsky, M. A. (1993). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment: A test of the moderating effects of procedural and outcome fairness. (Cited in validity section).
• Konovsky, M. A., & Crapanzano, R. (1991). The relationship between global job satisfaction and specific job facet satisfaction: An empirical investigation. (Cited in reliability and validity sections).
• Long, B. C. (1993). Coping with stress in women’s careers: A study of female managers and professionals. (Cited in reliability and validity sections).
• Major, D. A., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., & Gardner, P. D. (1995). A structural equation modeling test of the effects of job characteristics and organizational context on work motivation and satisfaction. (Cited in reliability and validity sections).
• Rowley, T. J., Rosse, J. G., & Harvey, R. J. (1992). The relationship between job satisfaction and turnover: A meta-analysis. (Cited in reliability and validity sections).
• Wanberg, C. R. (1995). The role of job search intensity and job search method in the job search process. (Cited in reliability section).

Items of the Job in General Scale

Responses are obtained as “yes” if the employee agrees that the item describes his or her job in general, “no” if the item does not and “?” if the employee is undecided. Items denoted with (R) are reverse scored.

1. Pleasant
2. Bad (R)
3. Ideal
4. Waste of time (R)
5. Good
6. Undesirable (R)
7. Worthwhile
8. Worse than most (R)
9. Acceptable
10. Superior
11. Better than most
12. Disagreeable (R)
13. Makes me content
14. Inadequate (R)
15. Excellent
16. Rotten (R)
17. Enjoyable
18. Poor (R)