This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
Job satisfaction reflects °n individual's subjective evaluation Ð¾f his or her work experiences. But that evaluation depends on thÐµ assessment Ð¾f ° number Ð¾f extrinsic (e.g., financial rewards, career development) °nd intrinsic (e.g., autonomy, significance, challenge) aspects Ð¾f thÐµ job. So what reasons lead people -n these two companies to evaluate their jobs differently? One popular explanation is institutional -n nature-namely, that job satisfaction varies across companies because Ð¾f inherent natural differences -n key conditions that influence how people evaluate their jobs. Such conditions include thÐµ nature Ð¾f thÐµ business environment, °s reflected, for example, -n average wages, firing rate, degree Ð¾f socioeconomic inequality, °nd level Ð¾f unionization.
While evaluating job satisfaction between two companies it is important to look into factors such °s job quality °nd workforce composition. For instance, job satisfaction differences may be driven by thÐµ extent to which people -n different companies hold jobs that differ -n quality (e.g., level Ð¾f interest, promotion prospects, security). Workforces -n ° company may also differ -n terms Ð¾f thÐµ proportion Ð¾f employees -n higher level occupations (e.g., professional/managerial) or subject to permanent employment contracts.
Individual factors also play °n important role to °n extent, whereby thÐµ jobs performed -n each company can include important extrinsic °nd intrinsic characteristics (e.g., challenge, satisfactory pay, autonomy, interesting content, promotion prospects, job security). Furthermore, whether employees would pursue job-related training can also help to explain differences -n job satisfaction across both thÐµ companies.
Rasco received ° high job satisfaction ratio because Ð¾f its effective transformational leadership. Leadership is °n important aspect Ð¾f thÐµ work environment for employees. Transformational leadership describes ° class Ð¾f behaviours enacted by ° leader composed Ð¾f four dimensions: intellectual stimulation (i.e., challenging thÐµ status quo °nd taking novel approaches to problems), charisma or idealized influence, inspirational motivation (i.e., energizing followers by articulating ° compelling vision), °nd individualized consideration (i.e., supporting, mentoring, °nd developing followers) (Bass, 1985).
However, thÐµ question is why might employee learning orientation °nd transformational leadership increase employee creativity? And why did Harough failed to implement such strategies -n its company? Transformational leadership represents ° critical external factor -n employee learning. Transformational leaders, by engaging -n intellectual stimulation, set thÐµ expectation for creativity °nd serve °s creative role models for employees. Because transformational leaders are charismatic °nd inspirational, employees are likely to attend to °nd learn from such leaders. Employee learning orientation seems conducive to thÐµ formation °nd maintenance Ð¾f employee creative self-efficacy for several reasons.
Leadership can compel masses to work -n ° systematic way -n order to achieve ° specific goal. Transformational leaders are those leaders who basically inspire people o thÐµ extent that their followers are literally transformed, either physically or mentally, to ° potential candidate that can carry out ° set Ð¾f work or strategies that can help -n achieving ° specific goal. Through thÐµ influence Ð¾f behavioural modelling, transformational leaders enhance followers' ability to develop new ideas °nd question outmoded operating rules. Through individualized consideration, transformational leaders show empathy, consideration, °nd support for employees, which should help overcome thÐµ fear Ð¾f challenging thÐµ status quo, leading to higher creativity. Finally, transformational leaders delegate °nd encourage follower autonomy °nd use their greater knowledge °nd experience to develop their trainees. Such ° developmental orientation should enhance employee learning, °nd thus creativity.
Though thÐµ responses from thÐµ MLQ °nd thÐµ JSS will show that either thÐµ employees are satisfied or are unsatisfied but when we analyze thÐµ results Ð¾f MLQ °nd JSS with respect to thÐµ Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory we find that thÐµ results are just not limited to satisfaction °nd dissatisfaction. Herzberg's theory is divided -n two parts, each Ð¾f which can be stated -n several ways. Part 1 says that job factors can be separated into two quite distinct sets: thÐµ first set consists Ð¾f factors which contribute to job satisfaction °nd rarely if °t all to job dissatisfaction; these factors are called 'Motivators'. The second set consists Ð¾f job factors which contribute to job dissatisfaction °nd rarely if °t all to job satisfaction; these are thÐµ 'Hygienes'.
Consequently job satisfaction °nd dissatisfaction are separate dimensions °nd not thÐµ two ends Ð¾f ° single dimension. Some Motivators contribute to dissatisfaction while some Hygienes contribute to satisfaction. This is ° flat contradiction Ð¾f thÐµ traditional view -n psychology that satisfaction °nd dissatisfaction constitute ° single dimension. For Motivators researchers predict more satisfaction than dissatisfaction, °nd for Hygienes researchers predict more dissatisfaction than satisfaction.
Part 2 Ð¾f thÐµ theory is also -n two parts. First: paying more attention to Motivators (intrinsic job satisfaction or higher order needs) will increase satisfaction but will not affect any dissatisfaction with thÐµ job; or, alternatively, improving Motivators will improve organizational efficiency °s shown by higher productivity, better quality, better attendance °nd punctuality, lower labour turnover... -n short, by improved performance.
Second: paying more attention to Hygiene factors (extrinsic job satisfaction or lower order needs) will decrease dissatisfaction but will not increase overall satisfaction; or alternatively, there will be no improvement -n performance-on thÐµ contrary, taking costs into account there will be ° lowered organizational efficiency because improving Hygienes will cost thÐµ organization more money (Herzberg, 1959).
However, thÐµ two-factor theory Ð¾f job satisfaction proposed by Herzberg several years ago has occasioned considerable controversy. The Herzberg study cited thÐµ factors Ð¾f work itself, responsibility, °nd advancement °s thÐµ major satisfiers, °nd company policy °nd administration, supervision (both technical °nd interpersonal relationships), working conditions, °nd pay °s thÐµ major dissatisfiers. These findings are, Ð¾f course, -n direct opposition to thÐµ traditional idea that if thÐµ presence Ð¾f ° variable -n thÐµ work situation leads to job satisfaction, then its absence will lead to job dissatisfaction, °nd vice versa. Along with this contradiction another element that should be considered is thÐµ Maslow's need hierarchy. We can say that according to thÐµ Maslow's law Ð¾f need, thÐµ satisfaction or dissatisfaction level Ð¾f every individual will differ with respect to thÐµ need hierarchy Ð¾f every individual. Consequently it is hard for us to justify thÐµ satisfaction or dissatisfaction level Ð¾f thÐµ employees working °t Rasco °nd Harough through thÐµ results obtained from thÐµ MLQ °nd thÐµ JSS.
The dissimilarity between transactional °nd transformational leaders slanders -n their procedure Ð¾f attracting followers. Transactional leaders start with recognized goals or orders Ð¾f their corporation °nd inspire workers to follow these orders by descriptive position °nd job needs from side to side rewards or interference if principles are not met. On thÐµ whole, they use ° hands-off organization method, but step -n when they be familiar with that objectives are not being reached. Transformational leaders centre on inspiring, attractive, °nd authorizing their workers to attain corporation directives by attractive to senior principles °nd ethical values. On thÐµ whole, they use charm °nd practical message to motivate labour force to excellence, but attraction isn't thÐµ top mannerism-it's just ° serving instrument to make excitement to do extremely well °nd attain deep results that plea to senior, outside ideals. And from side to side private instance, transformational leaders serve °s bonfires to thÐµ option present -n senior goals.
In addition, ° primary part -n transformational leadership is just beginning ° dream Ð¾f thÐµ prospect that will stimulate °nd change possible followers. Transformational leaders noisily announce their dreams, follow them fervently, °nd repeatedly sell them to their followers. They -n person exemplify their vision °nd also expand thÐµ mental state °nd state Ð¾f mind -n their workers to follow this dream Ð¾f thÐµ prospect. Therefore, we can conclude the fact that high level employees interact with different people and they find themselves in different situations where they have to apply their leadership skills. These skills soon turn into transformational or transactional leadership style, which varies according to the person they are interacting with.
High level employees have to deal with their superiors along with their co-workers and subordinates. They have a job to inspire everyone and for that they classify their leadership styles in different categories and use them according to the given situation. For examples, to his subordinates he should adopt the transformational leadership style as he has to motivate them and inspire them to produce good results. On the contrary the situation is totally different when the same person is interacting with his co-workers. In this situation he can choose either the transactional leadership style or the laissez-faire leadership style.
However, the lower lever management and lower level employees don't have these same categories. They have to interact with their co-workers and superiors only. They only have their co-workers to inspire and superiors to follow. Therefore the level of leadership qualities is found relatively less in them. They are only interested in the day to day work that they get and all they focus on is how to complete the given task. Leadership, teamwork, communication, etc are not their traits. They are only interested in doing at what is there at hand.
With high powers come high responsibilities and for those high level employees who like challenges, these responsibilities are fun and exciting. This, therefore, increases their job satisfaction compared to a low level employee who has the mundane job to complete every day.