Employee Satisfaction Survey—2007

Report of Activities

Submitted to: Prepared by:

A State Government Agency

September 3, 2007
 Employee Satisfaction Survey – Report of Activities 2007 Page 2 of 12

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page

Overview ................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3

Method........................................................................................................................................ 4
Participants............................................................................................................................ 4
Procedure .............................................................................................................................. 4
Measures ............................................................................................................................... 5

Results ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Reliability ............................................................................................................................. 5
Correlations .......................................................................................................................... 6
Employee satisfaction at this State Agency .......................................................................... 6

Summary..................................................................................................................................... 11

References ................................................................................................................................ 12

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Dimensions of Employee Satisfaction........................................................................... 4

Table 2. Reliability Estimates and Correlations among the Study Variables in 2007.................... 6
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Overall Job Satisfaction, the
Satisfaction Dimensions, Perceived Organizational Support, and
Organizational Commitment in 2007 ..................................................................................... 7
Table 4. Descriptive Statistics for Overall Job Satisfaction, the Satisfaction
Dimensions, Perceived Organizational Support, and
Organizational Commitment by Job Level in 2007 ................................................................ 8
Table 5. Descriptive Statistics for Employee Satisfaction in 2005, 2006, and 2007........................ 9
Table 6. Means for Employee Satisfaction in 2005, 2006, and 2007 by Job Level ....................... 10
 Employee Satisfaction Survey – Report of Activities 2007 Page 3 of 12

OVERVIEW

The primary objectives of the present project were to (a) assess current levels (i.e., 2007) of
satisfaction among a sample of employees at this state agency1 (TSA) and (b) compare levels of
satisfaction reported in 2006 and 2007. This report describes the data collection activities
undertaken in the project, data analyses, results, and conclusions.

INTRODUCTION

Employee job satisfaction is related to numerous outcomes critical to organizations such as job
performance (e.g, Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001), work-related stress (e.g., Cavanaugh,
Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau, 2000), physical health (e.g., Duffy, Ganster, & Shaw, 1998),
employee helping behaviors (e.g., Bateman & Organ, 1983), turnover (Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner,
2000), and commitment to the organization (e.g., Schappe, 1998). Therefore, employee satisfaction
benefits both employees and organizations because higher levels of satisfaction are associated with
increases in job performance, as well as the other aforementioned outcomes. Furthermore,
organizations have the capability of increasing these positive outcomes by enhancing job
satisfaction through the policies and procedures used to interact with and treat employees. For
example, norms regarding the treatment of employees stem from management who translates formal
policies, procedures, and practices into action. In addition, organizations have control over job
design features that influence satisfaction such as the work environment, perceived safety and
security, pay, benefits, and training opportunities. So, the accurate measurement of employee
satisfaction is crucial not only for assessing current levels of satisfaction, but also for diagnosing
areas of dissatisfaction, which might help guide the implementation of interventions. Employee
satisfaction surveys also can be used to evaluate the impact of interventions and provide feedback to
management about employee concerns. In addition, the process of conducting a survey can, in and
of itself, boost satisfaction because the process gives employees the opportunity to express their
attitudes towards various work-related aspects (i.e, gives them voice) and signals that the
organization is committed to employee well-being.

Therefore, the process of collecting data on employee satisfaction is important to many

organizational stakeholders (e.g., management, employees). As such, the two primary objectives of
the present study were to (a) assess current levels of satisfaction (i.e., 2007) among a sample of
employees at the TSA and (b) compare levels of satisfaction reported by a sample in 2005, 2006,
and 2007. In addition to employee satisfaction, we collected data for perceived organizational
support and organizational commitment. In the focus groups with current TSA employees, it was
discovered that organizational support was important to employees. For instance, many of the
dimensions of satisfaction identified in the focus group interviews are conceptually similar to the
idea of a supportive environment. One of the outcomes of job satisfaction is organizational
commitment. That is, satisfied employees are more likely to exhibit a commitment to their
organization and engage in behaviors that support this commitment than unsatisfied employees
(Locke, 1976).

1
We do not refer clients by their name in public reports.
 Employee Satisfaction Survey – Report of Activities 2007 Page 4 of 12

Table 1.
Dimensions of Employee Satisfaction

● Benefits ● Work Environment

– compensation – main computer database
– flex time/alternative schedules – building
– sick leave – office space and equipment
● Job Stressors ● Supervision
– dealing with customers – recognition/appreciation
– adequate staffing – leadership
– workload – perceived support
● Coworkers ● Job (in general)
– interpersonal relationships – opportunities for promotion
– perceived support – task work
– customer interactions
● Climate ● Safety/Security
– differences across office locations – security cameras
– politics – security guards
Note. The categories are not ranked in terms of their importance to employees.

METHOD

Participants

Questionnaires were mailed in June 2007 to all employees that work for TSA (i.e., approximately
800 employees). Of these, 222 employees returned completed questionnaires (28% response rate)
which constituted the final sample. The race/ethnicity makeup of the sample was 179 Whites, 35
African Americans, 2 Hispanic, 2 Asians, and 4 employees did not report their race/ethnicity. The
sample was 89% female. Regarding the job level within TSA, 139 were analysts, 14 were
supervisors, 59 were managers, and 10 did not report their job level. In sum, the present sample
appears to be representative of all employees at TSA.

Procedure

The present study is part of a larger research and training project in which we collected data from
employees at the TSA on the following variables: employee satisfaction, perceived organizational
support, organizational commitment, and high involvement work practices. We are currently
collecting performance data from supervisors for each employee for the following variables: task
performance, contextual performance, and customer service performance. We did not report the
results on high-involvement work practices because those are tied to the larger training project
which has not commenced. Also, we did not present the result of supervisor ratings of performance
because those are currently being collected. Results of high-involvement work practices and
employee performance will be provided in the final technical report. The employee surveys were
 Employee Satisfaction Survey – Report of Activities 2007 Page 5 of 12

distributed by the administrator of TSA to all employees via mail. The completed surveys were
mailed back to the AOE Group. AOE analyzed the data and is responsible for this report.

Measures

Employee Satisfaction. The employee satisfaction survey contained 16 items that measured 8
dimensions of satisfaction: benefits, job stressors, work environment, coworkers, supervision,
climate, job (in general), and safety/security. These dimensions are defined in Table 1. Responses
to the items were made on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree).
We obtained scores for satisfaction using two different measures: (a) we measured overall
satisfaction with one item: "Overall, I am satisfied with my job" (using the same 5-point scale), and
(b) we obtained the mean of 2 items measuring each of the 8 satisfaction dimensions.

Perceived Organizational Support. Perceived organizational support contained items based on the
conceptual definition of perceived organizational support and information collected from the focus
group interviews with TSA employees. Participants rated each item on a 5-point Likert scale (1 =
completely disagree, 5 = completely agree). Scores were obtained by taking the mean rating of the
10 items. Example items are "The TSA values my contribution to its success" and "Help is available
from the TSA when I have a problem."

Organizational Commitment. Organizational commitment was measured with four items.

Participants rated each item on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely
agree). Scores were obtained by taking the mean rating of the four items. An example item is "I feel
a high level of loyalty to the TSA."

RESULTS

Reliability
First, we computed internal consistency estimates for employee satisfaction (across the 16 items),
perceived organizational support (10 items), and organizational commitment (4 items). The
reliability estimate (coefficient alpha) for scores on all 16 items of employee satisfaction was .86.
The reliability estimates for perceived organizational support was .96 and for organizational
commitment was .84. It is important to note that reliabilities cannot be computed for single-item
measures and are considered unstable for 2-item measures. Thus, we did not report reliabilities for
the single-item measure of overall satisfaction or for the 2-item measures of the satisfaction
dimensions.
 Employee Satisfaction Survey – Report of Activities 2007 Page 6 of 12

Correlations
We computed correlations between all the study variables (i.e., employee satisfaction, perceived
organizational support, and organizational commitment). For employee satisfaction, we reported
correlations using the (a) single-item measure of overall satisfaction, and (b) the 2-item measure for
each of the 8 satisfaction dimensions.

The correlations are presented in Table 2. All but two of the correlations among the variables were
significant. That is, overall employee satisfaction, the eight dimensions of satisfaction, perceived
organizational support, and organizational commitment were positively related. These results make
sense, intuitively and theoretically, in that employees who are more satisfied overall and with
various aspects of the job are also likely to report higher levels of perceived organizational support
and organizational commitment.

Table 2.
Reliability Estimates and Correlations among the Study Variables in 2007

Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

1. Overall ES —

2. Benefit .34 —

3. Job Stessors .55 .34 —

4. Environment .31 .37 .35 —

5. Coworkers .47 .17 .39 .23 —

6. Supervision .54 .22 .49 .31 .38 —

7. Job .81 .36 .59 .36 .45 .50 —

8. Safety .24 .32 .29 .41 *.00 *.12 .27 —

9. Climate .64 .38 .54 .36 .45 .64 .61 .22 —

10. Support .69 .33 .51 .36 .42 .61 .67 .22 .76 —

11. OC .68 .32 .46 .34 .41 .52 .69 .17 .59 .73
Note. N = 222. *These two correlations were not statistically significant. Overall ES = the single-item measure of
overall employee satisfaction; Support = perceived organizational support; OC = organizational commitment. Variables
2-9 are the 8 dimensions of employee satisfaction.

Employee Satisfaction at the TSA

The overall means and standard deviations for the employee satisfaction dimensions, perceived
organizational support, and organizational commitment are presented in Table 3. As seen in Table
3, mean scores on the 8 dimensions ranged from 2.91 to 4.05 (M = 3.38, SD = 0.36). In fact, the
average scores for all 8 dimensions were at or above the midpoint, which is an indication that most
of the respondents were satisfied with the level of their job stressors, work environment, coworkers,
supervision, climate, job in general, and safety/security. Finally, based on the single item measure,
employees reported high levels of overall job satisfaction (M = 3.78, SD = 0.91).
 Employee Satisfaction Survey – Report of Activities 2007 Page 7 of 12

We also present means for reported levels of satisfaction across job levels (i.e., motor vehicle
compliance analysts, supervisors, managers) and across employment locations (i.e., Region 1,
Region 2, Region 3, and Headquarters). The means and standard deviations for the study variables
by job level are presented in Table 4. An inspection of the means in Table 4 showed that, in general,
supervisors, managers, and job compliance analysts reported similar levels of satisfaction, perceived
organizational support, and organizational commitment.

Table 3.
Descriptive Statistics for Overall Job Satisfaction, the Satisfaction Dimensions, Perceived
Organizational Support, and Organizational Commitment in 2007

Variable M SD
Employee satisfaction
Overall satisfaction 3.78 0.91
Benefits 2.91 0.90
Job stressors 3.17 0.96
Environment 3.40 0.82
Coworkers 4.05 0.72
Supervision 3.66 1.21
Job (in general) 3.62 0.83
Safety/security 3.19 0.98
Climate 3.02 1.07

Perceived Organizational Support 3.10 0.95

Organizational Commitment 3.64 0.87
Note. N = 222. M = mean or average score, SD = standard
deviation. Overall satisfaction = the single-item measure of
overall employee satisfaction.
 Employee Satisfaction Survey – Report of Activities 2007 Page 8 of 12

Table 4.
Descriptive Statistics for Overall Job Satisfaction, the Satisfaction Dimensions, Perceived
Organizational Support, and Organizational Commitment by Job Level in 2007

Job Level
Variable Analysts Supervisors Managers
M SD M SD M SD
Employee satisfaction
Overall satisfaction 3.68 0.96 3.57 0.94 4.02 0.68
Benefits 2.90 0.90 2.57 0.94 2.94 0.89
Job stessors 3.14 0.99 3.04 0.89 3.11 0.85
Environment 3.38 0.85 3.18 0.61 3.53 0.77
Coworkers 4.00 0.78 3.86 0.63 4.16 0.57
Supervision 3.58 1.28 3.18 1.37 3.88 0.93
Job (in general) 3.52 0.89 3.43 0.94 3.84 0.57
Safety/security 3.25 1.03 2.79 0.78 3.14 0.91
Climate 2.89 1.12 2.64 0.89 3.29 0.81

Perceived Support 2.97 0.98 2.92 0.94 3.40 0.70

Organizational Commit 3.54 0.94 3.59 0.76 3.90 0.60
Note. M = mean or average score, SD = standard deviation, Overall satisfaction = the single-item
measure of overall employee satisfaction. Perceived support = perceived organizational support.
Organizational commit = organizational commitment. Analysts = job compliance analysts. Analysts
(n = 139), Supervisors (n = 14), Managers (n = 59), 10 respondents did not report their job level.
 Employee Satisfaction Survey – Report of Activities 2007 Page 9 of 12

Comparisons of current levels (i.e., 2007) of satisfaction, perceived support, and commitment with
those reported in 2005 and 2006.

Participant data collected in 2005, 2006, and 2007 were not matched. Thus, although the three
samples likely overlap, it is impossible to determine the degree of overlap and the samples must be
treated as independent. As such, direct comparisons of attitudes and perceptions cannot be made
among 2005, 2006, and 2007. In addition, the number of items measuring the satisfaction
dimensions were not the same in 2005 as in 2006 and 2007. Nevertheless, we can compare rates of
employee satisfaction across both years for illustrative purposes and examine such comparisons
with caution. Perceived organizational support and organizational commitment were not measured
in 2005, so no comparisons can be made for these two variables. The means for each satisfaction
variable measured in 2005, 2006, and 2007 are reported in Table 6. Table 7 and Table 8 contain the
means for each year by job level and by location, respectively. We did not compute statistical
significance tests to test for differences between means, but the general trend is that levels of
satisfaction are lower in 2006 and 2007 than in 2005, but that there was very little change from
2006 to 2007.

Table 5.
Descriptive Statistics for Employee Satisfaction in 2005, 2006, and 2007

Variable 2005 2006 2007

Employee satisfaction M SD M SD M SD
Overall satisfaction 4.34 0.85 3.77 0.91 3.78 0.91
Benefits 3.07 0.86 2.99 0.88 2.91 0.90
Job stressors 3.40 0.71 3.13 0.96 3.17 0.96
Environment 3.66 0.87 3.50 0.90 3.40 0.82
Coworkers 4.36 0.74 3.89 0.80 4.05 0.72
Supervision 3.96 1.18 3.65 1.17 3.66 1.21
Job (in general) 3.83 0.70 3.62 0.80 3.62 0.83
Safety/security 2.89 0.97 3.08 1.06 3.19 0.98
Climate 3.11 1.00 3.00 1.05 3.02 1.07

Perceived Support 3.08 0.87 3.10 0.95

Organizational Commit 3.71 0.84 3.64 0.87
Note. 2005 N = 95. 2006 N = 301. 2007 N = 222. Perceived organizational support and
organizational commitment were not measured in 2005.
 Employee Satisfaction Survey – Report of Activities 2007 Page 10 of 12

Table 6.
Means for Employee Satisfaction in 2005, 2006, and 2007 by Job Level.

Job Level

Variable Analysts Supervisors Managers

2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007

M M M M M M M M M

Satisfaction

Overall 4.28 3.69 3.68 4.60 3.92 3.57 4.46 4.01 4.02

Benefits 3.01 2.88 2.90 3.04 3.10 2.57 3.34 3.30 2.94

Stressors 3.40 3.17 3.14 3.20 2.96 3.04 3.32 3.03 3.11

Environment 3.61 3.47 3.38 4.05 3.40 3.18 3.75 3.63 3.53

Coworkers 4.31 3.82 4.00 4.70 3.90 3.86 4.41 4.12 4.16

Supervision 3.83 3.65 3.58 4.00 3.46 3.18 4.46 3.73 3.88

Job 3.74 3.52 3.52 4.10 3.72 3.43 4.10 3.90 3.84

Safety 2.91 3.02 3.25 2.85 2.88 2.79 2.77 3.24 3.14

Climate 3.03 2.93 2.89 3.20 3.14 2.64 3.38 3.25 3.29
Note. The data included in this table are the variables that were measured in 2005, 2006, and 2007.
Overall = the single-item measure of overall employee satisfaction; Stressors - job stressors; Job =
job (in general); Safety = safety/security. The standard deviations were excluded to make room for
means at all job levels in all three years. Analysts (2005 n = 73; 2006 n = 205; 2007 n = 139),
Supervisors (2005 n = 5; 2006 n = 25; 2007 n = 14), Managers (2005 n = 15; 2006 n = 67; 2007 n =
59).
 Employee Satisfaction Survey – Report of Activities 2007 Page 11 of 12

SUMMARY

The primary objectives of the present project were to (a) assess current levels (i.e., 2007) of
satisfaction among a sample of employees at TSA and (b) compare levels of satisfaction reported in
2005, 2006, and 2007. The first objective was accomplished by conducting a survey to assess levels
of satisfaction from all employees at TSA. The second objective was accomplished by comparing
levels of satisfaction in 2005 and 2006 with those in 2007.

An inspection of the means of the ratings for employee satisfaction, perceived organizational
support, and organizational commitment showed that the respondents were generally satisfied with
many aspects of the job (i.e., mean ratings were at or above the midpoint of the scale). In addition, a
comparison of levels of satisfaction reported in 2005, 2006, and 2007 indicated that satisfaction was
lower in 2006 and 2007 than in 2005. The comparison between years should be interpreted with
caution because the sample of participants and the sample of items were different for the three
years.

The survey conducted in 2007 was part of a larger project in which we conducted focus groups and
collected data for several variables as a basis for developing an intervention to boost morale,
attitudes, and perceptions at TSA. The data presented in this report are for the variables of employee
satisfaction, perceived organizational support, and organizational commitment. The results of the
correlational analyses indicated that all dimensions of satisfaction, overall satisfaction, perceived
organizational support, and organizational commitment were significantly related (with the
exception of two correlations noted in Table 1). The analyses of all the data collected in this survey
is ongoing. The final report of this survey will contain data for all the variables and results of an
intervention to increase attitudes, climate of support, and performance at the TSA.
 Employee Satisfaction Survey – Report of Activities 2007 Page 12 of 12

REFERENCES

Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship
between affect and employee citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587-595.

Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An empirical
examination of self-reported work stress among U.S. managers. Journal of Applied Psychology,
85, 65-74.

Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Shaw, J. D. (1998). Positive affectivity and negative outcomes: The
role of tenure and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 950-959.

Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of
employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium.
Journal of Management, 26, 463-488.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job
performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology,
127, 376-407.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook
of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1997). Managing emotions in the workplace. Journal of
Managerial Issues, 9, 257-274.

Schappe, S. P. (1998). The influence of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and fairness
perceptions on organizational citizenship behavior. The Journal of Psychology, 132, 277-290.