Q.4. Briefly explain the Vroom’s theory & stogdill’s theory of job satisfaction.
Ans. Vroom’s Theory: -
In Vroom’s model, job satisfaction reflects valence of the job for its incumbent. From proposition 2 it would therefore follow that the strength of the force on a worker to remain on his job is an increasing function of the valence of his job. Thus satisfaction should be negatively related to turnover and absenteeism, which it seems to be. Whether or not this valence should also lead to greater production while on the job is less clear, however-a point which again seems to be upheld by the highly ambiguous existing data.
STOGDILL’S THEORY: -
Stogdill (1959, extremely concerned with this, decide that it was time to stop trying to view satisfaction as “causer’ of job performance (that is, as an input variable). Instead, he felt it much more appropriate to view the individual in term of the context of the total organization.
In a extremely well-documented and well-organized book, he proceed logically to integrate prior research findings. His conclusion were that the “output” of organizations are group integration, production, and morale. Further, satisfaction of individual expectations results in group integration and cohesiveness but is not necessarily related to production. Instead, both morale and production are a function group structure. Therefore morale and production will only be related to satisfaction when the conditions which lead to high morale and production are also those which lead to the reinforcement of worker expectations.
Q.5. Briefly describe the job satisfaction relationships.
Related Questions -
Q. How is Job Satisfaction influencing Job Behaviour? (AKTU. 2010 - 11)
Ans. The research relating job satisfaction to job behavior variables, Vroom draws a number of conclusions which are worthy of repeating here.
(1) There is a consistent negative relationship between job satisfaction and the probability of resignation. This relationship appears when scores on job satisfaction are obtained from individuals and used to predict subsequent voluntary dropouts and when mean scores on job satisfaction for organizational units are correlated with turnover rates for these units.
(2) There is a less consistent negative relationship between job satisfaction and absences. This relationship appears to emerge most consistently with measures of unexcused absences, and when frequency of absence rather than actual days lost are used.
(3) There is some indication of a negative relationship between job satisfactionship and accidents. However, the number of existing studies of this relationship is too small to permit any firm conclusions.
(4) There is no simple relationship between job satisfaction and job performance. Correlations between these variables vary within an extremely large range and the median correlation of 0.14 has little theoretical or practical importance. We do not yet know the conditions which affect the magnitude and direction of relationships between satisfaction and performance. Obtained correlations are similar for analyses based on individuals and groups and do not seem to depend to any appreciable extent on the occupational level of the subjects or on the nature of the criterion (objective or ratings) employed.
Q.6. Differentiate between job enrichment and job enhancement. (AKTU. 2009 - 10)
Ans. Job enrichment is an attempt to motivate employees by giving them the opportunity to use the range of their abilities. It is an idea that was developed by the American psychologist Frederick Herzberg in the 1950s. It can be contrasted to job enlargement which simply increases the number of tasks without changing the challenge. As such job enrichment has been described as ‘vertical loading’ of a job, while job enlargement is ‘horizontal loading’. An enriched job should ideally contain:
- A range of tasks and challenges of varying difficulties (Physical or Mental)
- A complete unit of work - a meaningful task
- Feedback, encouragement and communication
Job enlargement means increasing the scope of a job through extending the range of its job duties and responsibilities. This contradicts the principles of specialisation and the division of labour whereby work is divided into small units, each of which is performed repetitively by an individual worker. Some motivational theories suggest that the boredom and alienation caused by the division of labour can actually cause efficiency to fall. Thus, job enlargement seeks to motivate workers through reversing the process of specialisation. A typical approach might be to replace assembly lines with modular work; instead of an employee repeating the same step on each product, they perform several tasks on a single item. In order for employees to be provided with Job Enlargement they will need to be retrained in new fields which can prove to be a lengthy process. However results have shown that this process can see its effects diminish after a period of time, as even the enlarged job role become the mundane, this in turn can lead to similar levels of demotivation and job dissatisfaction at the expense of increased training levels and costs. The continual enlargement of a job over time is also known as ‘job creep,’ which can lead to an unmanageable workload.
