Job satisfaction survey

among employees in
small businesses
Grace Davis
The author
Grace Davis is an Assistant Professor in the Psychology
Department at Marshall University, Huntington, West Virginia,
USA.
Keywords
Job satisfaction, Employee attitudes, Small enterprises,
United States of America
Abstract
This study applied Job Descriptive Index (JDI) to measure job
attitudes among approximately 80 employees of four different
small businesses. Through a standardized procedure, each
employee lled out the survey form, responded to a structured
interview, and then completed the survey form again. Employees
showed signicant difference in job satisfaction before and after
the structured interview. Medians from four dimensions work,
supervision, promotion, and co-worker were found to
besimilar to norms but the medians of pay were much lower than
the norm. Nevertheless, pay did not represent the lowest
correlation with job satisfaction. Satisfaction at supervision did.
Also employees reported work to have the highest correlation
with job satisfaction. Demographic factors, such as age, work
status, gender, and seniority did not show signicant impact over
job satisfaction.
Electronic access
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1462-6004.htm
Introduction
Practitioners and professionals in applied
sciences have recognized that the growth of small
businesses, dened 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 ofces, 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 efciency 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 ndings from the past literature
are primarily based on middle or large sizes of
organizations (May, 1997; Smith and Hoy,
1992). These ndings 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 benet 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 Number 4 2004 pp. 495-503
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited ISSN 1462-6004
DOI 10.1108/14626000410567143
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) conrmed 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 0:40. 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) identied 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 t,
interpersonal skill, and relationships at work.
However unstructured interviews emphasize on
general intelligence, work experience, and
education, etc. This study designed to evaluate
employees 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 dened 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), signicance 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 specic 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 one of the best-researched
concepts in work, 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 scientically,
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
satised 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 ve 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
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development
Volume 11 Number 4 2004 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 employees attitudes of
middle or large organizations. However, unlike
workers fromother large or mediumorganizations,
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 ght 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 reect supervisors 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 signicantly impact employees job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and supervision
(Smith and Hoy, 1992). This study supports this
nding and hypothesizes that there will be a
signicant impact of age over job satisfaction
(hypothesis 7). Older people, dened as
older than 40, tend to be more satised
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 reect supervisors interests in this
study.
H7. There is a signicant impact of age over job
satisfaction.
H8. Older people, dened as older than 40, tend
to be more satised at jobs than younger
people (less than 40).
Methodology
Participants
The researcher rst 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
modied 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 sufcient time to
nish the study during their work hours. They
were guaranteed that even though supervisors and
managers would receive a formal presentation
about the ndings 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
ll out a Job Descriptive Index (JDI), followed by a
structured and standardized face-to-face
interview, and nally 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 employees 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 ndings from the
quantitative job satisfaction survey in front of the
employer and/or the site manager. Qualitative
Job satisfaction survey among employees in small businesses
Grace Davis
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development
Volume 11 Number 4 2004 495-503
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 employees 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
N, if the item does not t to the true job
situation, Y, if the item ts into the true
situation, or ?, 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 ?, 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 employees 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
(Yes or No). The other 13 open-ended items
inquired about employees 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 veried
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 (16.5 percent) working on a part-time
basis, the rest 65 (82.3 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
(54.4 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
69.6 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 signicantly
positive (p , 0:05). Supervision was not
signicantly 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
modied and became signicantly correlated (see
Tables I and II).
A repeated t-measure was rst conducted to
assess the difference of job satisfaction before and
after interview. The result showed that there was a
signicant difference in job satisfaction before and
after interview (t77 26:682, p , 0:05). This
study then conrmed that there was a signicant
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 152.42 that
increased to 159.12 after interview. Thus, H2 that
had proposed the decrease of job satisfaction was
not conrmed (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 (F3 13:458; p , :05) and after
the interview (F3 9:459; p , 0:05). Results
showed 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 19.00 (mean 17:03,
SD 7:78, 95 percent condence interval from
14.27-19.79); that for female workers was 13.00
(mean 12:40, SD 6:864, 95 percent
condence interval from 10.34-14.46). After
interview, pay median for male workers was still 19
(mean 17:76, SD 6:94; 95 prcent condence
interval from 15.30-20.22); that for female
workers was 13 (mean 12:73; SD 6:517, 95
percent condence interval from 10.78-14.69)
(see Table V). According to norms of pay
Job satisfaction survey among employees in small businesses
Grace Davis
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development
Volume 11 Number 4 2004 495-503
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
conrmed 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 0:812 before
interview and r 0:830 after interview) and
supervision had the lowest correlation (r 0.554
before interview and r 0:564 after interview).
Pay (r 0:645 before interview and r 0:672
after interview) did not have the lowest
correlations with job satisfaction. This result
rejected H5 (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) 2.201,
p . 0.05). Again there was no age impact after
interview (F3; 78 2:176; p . 0:05) after
interview. This study disagreed with Smith and
Hoy (1992) with respect to age effect and work
attitudes in small businesses. H7 was not
conrmed. To evaluate H8, age groups were then
combined with 40 as the cutoff. Groups aged
below 40 were dummy-coded as 1 (totally 43
employees) and groups aged over 40 were
dummy-coded as 2 (totally 36 employees). An
independent t-test measure was conducted to test
H8, which proposed that older people would be
more satised at jobs than younger people. As a
Table III Repeated t-measures of all dimensions
95% condence
interval of the
difference
Mean Std deviation Std error mean Lower Upper t df
Sig.
(2-tailed)
Pair 1 WORK-POSTW 22.47 5.116 0.579 213.63 21.32 24.271 77 0.000
pair 2 SUPER-POSTS 20.76 3.546 0.402 21.56 0.04 21.884 77 0.063
Pair 3 PAY-POSTPAY 20.50 3.202 0.363 21.22 0.22 21.379 77 0.172
Pair 4 PROMO-POSTPRO 20.58 3.379 0.383 21.34 0.18 21.508 77 0.136
Pair 5 COWORKER-POSTCO 22.38 6.300 0.713 23.81 20.96 23.343 77 0.001
Pair 6 JOBSAT-POSTJOBS 26.69 8.845 1.002 28.69 24.70 26.682 77 0.000
Table I Correlation matrix before interview
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Work 1 0.357* 0.448** 0.520* 0.457* 0.812**
2 Supervision 1 0.110 0.058 0.455** 0.554**
3 Pay 1 0.647** 0.170 0.645**
4 Promotion 1 0.293** 0.717**
5 Co-worker 1 0.734**
6 Job satisfaction 1
Notes: * correlation is signicant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed); ** correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Table II Correlation matrix after interview
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Work 1 0.384** 0.417** 0.538** 0.561** 0.830**
2 Supervision 1 0.139 0.037 0.494** 0.564**
3 Pay 1 0.677** 0.271* 0.672**
4 Promotion 1 0.348** 0.726**
5 Co-worker 1 0.643**
6 Job satisfaction 1
Notes: * correlation is signicant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed); ** correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Job satisfaction survey among employees in small businesses
Grace Davis
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development
Volume 11 Number 4 2004 495-503
499
result, there was no signicant difference between
two groups in terms of employees job satisfaction
either before interview (t77 20:096; p . 0:05)
or after interview (t77 20:080; p . 0:05). H8
was not conrmed.
Discussion and conclusion
In addition to the above quantitative information,
this study has provided qualitative information
collected through employees 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 benet.
Table IV Analysis of variance of job satisfaction across groups
ANOVA
Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
JOBSAT
Between groups 26688.156 3 8896.052 13.458 0.000
Within groups 49575.439 75 661.006
Total 76263.595 78
POSTJOBS
Between groups 20533.502 3 6844.501 9.459 0.000
Within groups 53546.459 74 723.601
Total 74079.962 77
Multiple comparisons 95% condence interval
Dependent variable (I) Group (J) Group Mean difference (I-J) Std error Sig. Lower bound Upper bound
JOBSAT 1 2 45.75* 7.905 0.000 23.14 68.36
3 10.32 8.995 0.723 215.29 35.94
4 30.60* 8.695 0.009 5.73 55.47
2 1 245.75* 7.905 0.000 268.36 223.14
3 235.43* 8.057 0.001 258.47 212.38
4 215.15 7.767 0.291 237.37 7.06
3 1 210.32 8.955 0.723 235.94 15.29
2 35.43+ 8.057 0.001 12.38 58.47
4 20.28 8.834 0.163 24.99 45.54
4 1 230.60* 8.695 0.009 255.47 25.73
2 15.15 7.767 0.291 27.06 37.37
3 220.28 8.834 0.163 245.54 4.99
POSTJOBS 1 2 49.33* 8.329 0.000 16.50 64.15
3 8.51 9.370 0.843 218.30 35.31
4 26.27* 9.098 0.047 0.24 52.30
2 1 240.33* 8.329 0.000 264.15 216.50
3 231.82* 8.487 0.005 256.10 27.54
4 214.06 8.185 0.406 237.47 9.36
3 1 28.51 9.370 0.843 235.31 18.30
2 31.82* 8.487 0.005 7.54 56.10
4 17.76 9.243 0.304 28.68 44.21
4 1 226.27* 9.068 0.047 252.30 20.24
2 14.06 8.185 0.406 29.36 37.47
3 217.76 9.243 0.304 244.21 8.68
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
Job satisfaction survey among employees in small businesses
Grace Davis
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development
Volume 11 Number 4 2004 495-503
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 exibility of work
schedule. The owner later emphasized that his
absolute concern was howto strengthen ability and
skills in personnel selection and interview; in
particular, how to select the right employees,
instead of the qualied 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
brotherhood culture. Even though the store
manager played a unique role in making the nal
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
satised with their jobs except pay.
Assistance residential business
Here, 18 employees participated in this study,
accounting for 95 percent of total human force.
The majority of employees possessed special
license or qualication as nurse or health assistant
and had to take different work shifts. This deprives
them of promotion opportunity unless they are
able to fulll those requirements with advanced
education or certicate. For years, the supervisor
has been tackling pay issue with caring,
communication, and cooperation as much as she
could, for instance exible work shift when
necessary. In turn employees were highly satised
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 signicantly and consecutively every year, it
is important to establish updated indications of job
attitudes with this specic 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 veried 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 difculty in the
implementation of this quasi-experimental study
and directly inuenced 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
signicant 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 employees 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 employees positive attitudes of job
satisfaction, pay, co-worker, promotion,
supervision, and work.
This study has presented a scientic method of
organizational survey for small businesses. Other
researchers, especially professionals in
industrial/organizational 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 scientic methods in identifying
and resolving organizational problems and
concerns. This can also create opportunities of
interactions and enhance mutual interests in
Job satisfaction survey among employees in small businesses
Grace Davis
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development
Volume 11 Number 4 2004 495-503
501
improvement of workplace among academic and
industrial professionals.
References
Bowling Green State University (2002), The job descriptive
index, available at: www.bgsu.edu/departments/psych/
JDI (accessed September 13).
Carsten, J.M. and Spector, P.E. (1987), Unemployment, job
satisfaction, and employee turnover: a meta-analytic test
of the Muchinsky model, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 72, pp. 374-81.
Cooper, C. and Lewis, S. (1999), Gender and the changing
nature of work, in Powell, G.N. (Ed.), Handbook of
Gender and Work, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 37-46.
Cortina, J.M., Goldstein, N.B., Payne, S.C., Davison, H.K. and
Galliland, S.W. (2000), The incremental validity of
interview scores over and above cognitive ability and
conscientiousness scores, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 53,
pp. 325-51.
Dormann, C. and Zapf, D. (2001), Job satisfaction: a
meta-analysis of stabilities, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 22, pp. 483-504.
Gutek, B.A., Cherry, B. and Groth, M. (1999), Gender and
service delivery, in Powell, G.N. (Ed.), Handbook of
Gender and Work, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 37-46.
Hackett, R.D. and Guion, R.M. (1985), A reevaluation of the
absenteeism-job satisfaction relationship, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 35,
pp. 340-81.
Heneman, H.G. and Berkley, R.A. (1999), Applicant attraction
practices and outcomes among small businesses, Journal
of Small Business Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 53-74.
Huffcutt, A.I., Roth, P.L. and McDaniel, M.A. (1996),
A meta-analytic investigation of cognitive ability in
employment interview evaluations: moderating
characteristics and implications for incremental validity,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 459-73.
Huffcutt, A.I., Conway, J.M., Roth, P.L. and Stone, N.J. (2001),
Identication and meta-analytic assessment of
psychological constructs measured in employment
interviews, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86,
pp. 897-913.
Hulin, C.L. (1991), Adaptation, commitment, and persistence in
organizations, in Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, L.M. (Eds),
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 2, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Iaffaldano, M.T. and Muchinsky, P.M. (1985), Job satisfaction
and job performance: a meta-analysis, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 97, pp. 251-73.
Jex, S. (2002), Organizational Psychology, John Wiley & Sons,
New York NY.
Johnson, G.J. and Johnson, W.R. (2000), Perceived over-
qualication and dimensions of job satisfaction:
a longitudinal analysis, Journal of Psychology, Vol. 134
No. 5, pp. 537-56.
Judge, T.A. and Church, A.H. (2000), Job satisfaction: research
and practice, in Cooper, C.L. and Locke, E.A. (Eds),
Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Linking Theory
with Practice, Blackwell Business, Malden, MA, pp. 166-98.
Judge, T.A., Locke, E.A., Durham, C.C. and Kluger, A.N. (1998),
Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: the role
of core evaluations, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 83, pp. 17-34.
Kinicki, A.J., McKee-Ryan, F.M., Schriesheim, C.A. and
Carson, K.P. (2002), Assessing the construct validity of
the job descriptive index: a review and meta-analysis,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 14-32.
Lam, S. (1995), Quality management and job satisfaction: an
empirical study, International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 72-7.
Latham, G.P. and Finnegan, B.J. (1993), Perception of
unstructured, patterned, and situational interviews, in
Schuler, H., Farr, J.L. and Smith, M. (Eds), Personnel
Selection and Assessment: Individual and Organizational
Perspectives, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Locke, E.A. (1976), The nature and causes of job satisfaction,
in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Rand-McNally, Chicago, IL,
pp. 1297-349.
Martin, G. and Staines, H. (1994), Managerial competences in
small rms, Journal of Management Development,
Vol. 13 No. 7, pp. 23-33.
May, K.E. (1997), Work in the 21st century: understanding the
needs of small businesses, available at: http://siop.org/
tip/backissues/tipjul97/may.html (accessed September 16,
2002).
Muchinsky, P.M. (2003), Psychology Applied to Work, 7th ed.,
Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Ostroff, C. (1992), The relationship between satisfaction,
attitudes, and performance: an organizational level
analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77,
pp. 963-74.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Williams, L.J. (1986), The relationship
between job performance and job satisfaction, in
Locke, E.A. (Ed.), Generalizing from Laboratory to Field
Settings, Heath, Lexington, MA, pp. 207-53.
Rynes, S.L., Barber, A.E. and Varma, G.H. (2000), Research on
the employment interview: usefulness for practice and
recommendations for future research, in Cooper, C.L. and
Locke, E.A. (Eds), Industrial and Organizational
Psychology: Linking Theory with Practice, Blackwell
Business, Malden, MA, pp. 250-77.
Schmidt, F.L. and Rader, M. (1999), Exploring the boundary
conditions for interview validity: meta-analytic ndings for
a new interview type, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 52,
pp. 445-64.
Schneider, B. and Dachler, H.P. (1978), A note on the stability of
the Job Descriptive Index, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 63, pp. 650-3.
Smith, P.C., Kendall, I.M. and Hulin, C.I. (1969), Measurement of
Satisfaction in Work and Retirement, Rand-McNally,
Chicago, IL.
Smith, P.L. and Hoy, F. (1992), Job satisfaction and commitment
of older workers in small businesses, Journal of Small
Businesses Management, Vol. 30, October, pp. 106-15.
Spector, P.E. (2002), Industrial Organizational Psychology:
Research and Practice, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons,
New York, NY.
Staw, B.M. and Ross, J. (1985), Stability in the midst of change:
a dispositional approach to job attitudes, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 70, pp. 469-80.
Van der Zee, K.I., Bakker, A.B. and Bakker, P. (2002), Why are
structured interviews so rarely used in personnel
selection?, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 1,
pp. 176-84.
Job satisfaction survey among employees in small businesses
Grace Davis
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development
Volume 11 Number 4 2004 495-503
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) Whats 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
improvement/change 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
specically, (Good/Bad) . . . in terms of what,
more specic . . ., or . . . in what way?)
(13) Could you give me one specic event to
describe the above?
(14) How do you describe your relationship with
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 youll 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 employees morale?
Job satisfaction survey among employees in small businesses
Grace Davis
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development
Volume 11 Number 4 2004 495-503
503