An improved job dimension scale to measure job satisfaction in sales reps

Journal of the Academy of Business and Economics, March, 2004 by James H. Turner, Gene Brown

ABSTRACT

As part of a larger study exploring compensation systems, job attitudes, and performance among sales reps, an improved scale to measure job satisfaction in sales reps was developed. The new scale is based on the Job Dimension Scale (Schletzer, 1965, as modified by Lucas, Parasuraman, Davis, & Enis, 1987) which had been used in marketing research in spite of marginally acceptable measures of reliability. The improved scale has excellent reliability measures and is valid for measuring job satisfaction in sales reps.

1. INTRODUCTION

Job satisfaction has been the subject of research at least since the Hawthorne studies of the 1920s (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939). Job satisfaction is defined as the "pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job or job experiences" (Locke, 1976 p. 1300). Churchill, Ford, & Walker (1974 p. 225) define job satisfaction for salespeople as "all characteristics of the job itself and the work environment which salesmen find rewarding, fulfilling, and satisfying, or frustrating and unsatisfying ."

An individual's attitude about his or her job should have meaningful implications about how he or she does it. Many human-relations era researchers sought to establish job satisfaction as a driver of performance (e. g. McGregor, 1960). Brayfield & Crockett (1955), however, cited conflicting research results and questioned this view. Porter & Lawler (1968) espoused the contrary view that performance leads to job satisfaction. This has become the generally accepted view. Even so, the strength of the relationship appears to be very weak (Iaffaldo & Muchinsky, 1985).

Greater job satisfaction has also been generally related to reduced intent to leave the organization (Brayfield & Crockett, 1955; Mowday, Koberg, & McArthur, 1984) and with reduced rates of absenteeism (Porter & Steers, 1973). In addition, job satisfaction has been shown to be strongly related to organizational commitment (Porter, Steers, & Mowday, 1974) and to organizational citizenship behaviors (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983; Organ, 1988).

The importance of job satisfaction lies not in its relationship with performance but with its stabilizing effects (reducing tardiness, absenteeism, and turnover) and through its effects on cohesion (increasing organizational citizenship behaviors and organizational commitment). Job satisfaction appears to mediate the effects of in-role performance, role conflict, and job-induced tension on intent to leave and extra-role performance.

Babakus, Cravens, Grant, Ingram, & LaForge, (1996), reviewed organizational variables related to job satisfaction. They concluded the salesperson's perception of fairness in the company's compensation program also affects the job satisfaction of salespeople. They postulated that the type of control system employed by management would influence job satisfaction, i.e., the greater the extent of compensation control or outcome control, the less job satisfaction experienced by sales representatives.

Job satisfaction in salespeople has been measured and studied by numerous researchers (Bagozzi, 1978; Churchill, et al., 1974; Teas, 1983). Bagozzi (1978), using the Job-Related Tension Index developed by Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, & Snoek (1964) to measure role stress, found job-related tension significantly and negatively related to performance, generalized self-esteem, and job satisfaction. Gupta and Beehr (1979) demonstrated a positive relationship between job stress and withdrawal behaviors, which they suggested was mediated by job dissatisfaction.

These relationships illustrate the centrality of job satisfaction in a network including many of the most important constructs in organizational behavior and marketing. They will also serve as a validating network establishing nomological validity of the resulting job satisfaction scale.

Herzberg (1966) found job dissatisfaction to result from hygienic factors. Hygienic factors, however, are inherently extrinsic to the work; they are measured as extrinsic job satisfaction. In fact, the complement of extrinsic job satisfaction provides a measure of job dissatisfaction--directly following Herzberg's theoretical development. He also found that job satisfaction derives from the work itself; those factors intrinsic to the job provide the true satisfactions from the work. Of course, the intrinsic factors (job satisfiers) and extrinsic factors (job dissatisfiers) are not totally independent. There are some factors which seem to influence both, e.g. pay, promotions, coworkers. The measure of job satisfaction developed in this study included measures of intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction.

Deci (1971, 1972) found that reward contingency may act to diminish intrinsic motivation; because the provision of incentives is necessarily extrinsic to the work itself, the relationship of each dimension to the other study variables may add to the understanding of the role incentives play.

The basis for the improved two-dimensional job-satisfaction scale is the Job Dimension Scale (Schletzer, 1965) as modified by Lucas, Parasuraman, Davis, & Enis (1987). In their study, however, Lucas, et al., report marginally acceptable coefficient alphas of .612 for the intrinsic job satisfaction scale and .617 for the extrinsic job satisfaction scale. These scales, as all scales in this study, utilized a 7-point rating (from strongly disagree to strongly agree) for each item.