工作滿意度調(diào)查研究外文翻譯

1、<p><b>　　附件3</b></p><p><b>　　外文翻譯</b></p><p><b>　　原文1</b></p><p>　　Job satisfaction and quality of working life: A reassessment</p>&

2、lt;p>　　The usefulness of job satisfaction measures in assessing job characteristics and in improving quality of working life is problematic. Public opinion polls and organizational surveys have shown high and stable l

3、evels of job satisfaction for many years, while signs of employee frustration and alienation have been in-creasing. Closer examination of this paradoxical finding leads to the conclusion that, whatever rigorous job satis

4、faction surveys are measuring, it is not the information needed to mod</p><p>　　Job satisfaction as a concept has become an embarrassing ambiguity. For many investigators in the social sciences, an interest

5、in job satisfaction frequently represents an interest in quality of working life and industrial humanism, and suggests a concern with improving the experience of people with jobs and work. Since the 1930s this interest h

6、as been concerned with monitoring the factory model of work design which has been diffused from manufacturing into the service and clerical sectors. It m</p><p>　　The embarrassment with respect to job 's

7、atisfaction' measurement is that surveys of American employees continue to show that extremely high percentages of those measured report satisfaction with their jobs, while at the same time the incidence of decreased

8、 worker commitment as expressed through increases in absenteeism (especially part-week absenteeism), strikes (for other reasons than wages), employee rejection of negotiated contracts, and sabotage of product and plant,

9、is high and apparently b</p><p><b>　　AIM</b></p><p>　　The present paper is intended to address this reconciliation not in terms of reducing sampling errors, guarding against response

10、 set, or the use of more sophisticated statistical tests of satisfaction data as currently defined and measured, but in terms of aquite different mode of research. In so doing I do not seek to criticize the job satisfact

11、ion research per se, but rather to criticize the use of that variable in evaluating and attempting to improve the quality of working life. The particula</p><p><b>　　APPROACH</b></p><p&

12、gt;　　The issue of what the job satisfaction statistics really mean has been previously approached from several points of view. The debate over unitary versus multiple measures of satisfaction with work has long intereste

13、d investigators, beginning with the intrinsic versus extrinsic factors studied by Kahn & Morse (1951), and finding a forum most recently in Work in America (1973). The present position in that debateurges the use of

14、new, specific measures of various job characteristics, increasingly p</p><p>　　In this ISR survey, 'JOBSAT '70' (the additive measure) and 'Overall Job Satisfaction' (the unitary measure)

15、 were found to be related to each other at surprisingly low levels (Herrick&Quinn, 1971). </p><p>　　Some other of the recent job satisfaction discussions totally avoid either definitional or measurement

16、debates in favour of more direct appeals to the underlying social issues. For example, part of the support for industrial humanism has been generated by extrapolating the absolute numbers of American workers presumed rep

17、orting dissatisfaction based on the job satisfaction statistics currently available (Rosow, 1974). Using this doughnut vs. hole approach, dissatisfaction is defined as an import</p><p>　　THE PROBLEM</p>

18、;<p>　　In spite of these reconceptualizations the supreme authority for the state of American workers still seems to be the percentages from job satisfaction indices. Whether these indices are the crude single ite

19、m measures taken in Gallup or other national polls, or are the very sophisticated multiple item scales such as those already mentioned, the proportion of workers reporting satisfaction remains inexplicably high. The stat

20、istical fact is that, regardless of what degree of measurement sophisticat</p><p>　　A Imberman, of the consulting firm of Imberman and DeForest of Chicago, reported a survey of 3800 employees in five factori

21、es which revealed that 79-85 percent reported satisfaction with assembly line work (Imberman, 1972). Researchers at the Rutgers University Medical School reported that of 576 UAW members interviewed in 1968, 95 per cent

22、were satisfied with their jobs in an auto plant (Siassi,Crocetti & Spiro, 1974). Although these investigators state that their sample was representative of a</p><p>　　These results are consistent with mo

23、re carefully sampled national surveys reported from time to time. For example, a 1954 national survey of half a million workers by Science Research Associates (SRA) of Chicago reported 81 per cent of those polled were sa

24、tisfied with their work. More recently the Gallup organization has reported 87 percent satisfied in a 1964 poll, and 77 per cent satisfied in 1973. Very recent survey results, reported by the Survey Research Center at IS

25、R, reveal fully 91 per c</p><p>　　These different studies all clearly suggest that an overwhelming majority of American workers report satisfaction with their work. These results also show little change (onl

26、y four percentage points) over the 20-year interval between the boom years 1954-1973. It seems that under the range of most normal circumstances job satisfaction (or the absence of dissatisfaction) ranges from a low of a

27、bout 79 percent to a high of 95 percent. This trend is apparently not exclusively an American phenomenon, a</p><p>　　This pattern receives additional support from the examination of data systematically colle

28、cted from some 20 000 employees at all levels (non-supervisory to management) in a variety of different organizations. The Center for Research on the Utilization of Scientific Knowledge (CRUSK) at the University of Michi

29、gan collected these data between 1966 and 1970 from some 33 offices and plants in 15 US companies(CRUSK, 1970; Taylor & Bowers, 1972). Although they were not systematically sampled, these or</p><p>　　At

30、the same time that we find this overwhelming proportion of employees in all of these very different organizations reporting they are not dissatisfied with the work, we find indications that this reliable measure of job s

31、atisfaction is not as highly related to absenteeism, within those organizations, as we might expect. In the same studies with grievances and turnover measures (where less data are available), the relationships with job s

32、atisfaction are not consistently high or low. If we look </p><p>　　Author: JAMES C. TAYLOR</p><p>　　Nationality: USA</p><p>　　Originate from: Journal of Occupational Psychology, 197

33、7.Vol.50 </p><p><b>　　譯文1</b></p><p>　　重新評估工作滿意度和工作生活質(zhì)量</p><p>　　有效的工作滿意度的措施在評估工作特性和提高工作生活質(zhì)量中是有問題的。民意調(diào)查顯示，雖然多年以來，工作滿意度水平高且穩(wěn)定，員工的挫折感和異化跡象卻一直在增加。經(jīng)過更密切的檢查，這調(diào)查得出的結(jié)論是矛盾的，即無論

34、再嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)?shù)墓ぷ鳚M意度調(diào)查及測量，得到的只是減少員工的挫折感和修改工作兩方面的沒必要的信息。根據(jù)以往的經(jīng)驗(yàn)以及對工作生活質(zhì)量的研究表明，為了克服這個(gè)缺陷，在測量工作滿意度的時(shí)候，員工本身需要更多地參與測量。</p><p>　　工作滿意度已經(jīng)成為一個(gè)模糊不清的尷尬概念。許多代表著工業(yè)人文主義利益的社會(huì)科學(xué)調(diào)查員都對工作滿意度十分有興趣，他們提出了建議：要提高工作滿意度就必須關(guān)注和改善人與職位的關(guān)系。從1930年開始，

35、這種興趣引起的關(guān)注已經(jīng)從制造業(yè)擴(kuò)展到服務(wù)和文職部門。然而，可以斷言，很多過去的工作滿意度的研究都沒有研究工作或工作本身。歷史上曾經(jīng)有過對工作滿意度的研究，這種可以支持或者攻擊現(xiàn)狀的趨勢還將繼續(xù)下去。</p><p>　　在對美國員工工作滿意度的繼續(xù)調(diào)查研究中，出現(xiàn)的尷尬是——他們工作的滿意程度是用極高的百分比來衡量的，而在同一時(shí)間內(nèi)降低對工人的承諾，員工通過增加缺勤率，尤其是部分缺勤率，而拒絕談判達(dá)成的合同以及破

36、壞產(chǎn)品的比率顯然變得更大，這是除了工資以外原因引起的罷工。員工異化的這些問題已經(jīng)提起公眾的注意，但是如果公眾的關(guān)注繼續(xù)增長，為什么員工安靜的工作越來越被看作是壓力的緩解，這些精心的準(zhǔn)備和事實(shí)將使對工作滿意度的嚴(yán)格調(diào)查成為必然。</p><p><b>　　前言</b></p><p>　　本文是以在不減少防范反應(yīng)和抽樣誤差的情況下，使用更精密的統(tǒng)計(jì)測試為目的，對滿意度

37、的數(shù)據(jù)在不同的模式下進(jìn)行界定和衡量。我這樣做并不是刻意對工作滿意度研究本身進(jìn)行批評，而是對使用該變量的評價(jià)并試圖改善工作生活質(zhì)量進(jìn)行批評。這里要特別提出的一個(gè)研究模式是行動(dòng)研究方法(Lewin，1946；Davis，1971)，一個(gè)關(guān)于職務(wù)設(shè)計(jì)的民主化模型(Elden，1976；Taylor，1976；Herbst & Getz，1977)。那些指標(biāo)會(huì)改善值得關(guān)注的工作生活質(zhì)量和員工在特定的工作設(shè)置中的參與，以及使用的語言。在這

38、個(gè)模型中，要抓獲具備能力衡量更多有關(guān)個(gè)人發(fā)展新標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的工作持有人，這些描述是由Blackler和Brown在1975年提出的。</p><p><b>　　研究背景</b></p><p>　　以前有幾點(diǎn)關(guān)于工作滿意度到底意味著什么的看法。長期以來，有興趣的調(diào)查員就一直在研究措施使員工對工作更滿意。從1951年起，Kahn & Morse就開始研究影響工作滿意度

39、的外在因素與內(nèi)在因素，并于1973年在美國工作時(shí)創(chuàng)辦了一個(gè)論壇。那次辯論的立場是呼吁利用越來越多的新措施來具體針對各項(xiàng)工作的特點(diǎn)，如投影措施。我們應(yīng)該使用假設(shè)性的案件或者以其他方式或間接的問題接近受訪者，因?yàn)橹苯拥膯栴}可能過于威脅性而使得受訪者變得更加謹(jǐn)慎。這次辯論雖然激烈，盡管有如調(diào)查工作條件這樣嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)和仔細(xì)的研究，但在很大程度上問題仍然懸而未決。 </p><p>　　從密歇根大學(xué)的社會(huì)研究所（ISR）在197

40、0年對工作滿意度的規(guī)模單一添加劑的辦法的比較中令人驚訝地發(fā)現(xiàn)：70年代的采用單一措施的整體工作滿意度的水平低(Herrick&Quinn，1971)。</p><p>　　其他一些關(guān)于工作滿意度的最近討論，在完全避免任何的測量或定義的辯論中，反對者更直接上訴潛在的社會(huì)問題。舉例來說，部分支持工業(yè)的人文主義在推定報(bào)告的基礎(chǔ)上所產(chǎn)生的目前可用的工作滿意度的絕對數(shù)字可以推斷出美國工人的不滿（Rosow，1974

41、）。這種使用甜甜圈與孔的方法的不滿，被界定為一種重要的社會(huì)問題，因?yàn)楣と斯ぷ鳚M意度低的報(bào)告已經(jīng)數(shù)以百萬記。</p><p><b>　　存在的問題</b></p><p>　　盡管有這些國家的最高權(quán)威，美國工人的工作滿意度指數(shù)仍然只是一個(gè)很小的百分比。在蓋洛普或者其他國家的調(diào)查中，這些指標(biāo)是否由單一項(xiàng)目所采取的措施或者是非常復(fù)雜的多個(gè)項(xiàng)目的規(guī)模，例如那些已經(jīng)提到的對這

42、一比例仍舊莫名其妙的感到滿意的工人報(bào)告。統(tǒng)計(jì)的事實(shí)是，要承擔(dān)不論在何種程度上測量所帶來的復(fù)雜性。事實(shí)是不論是否研究使用數(shù)據(jù)的具體的工人在組裝廠或國家隨機(jī)抽樣，80%或更多的接受調(diào)查的美國人都滿意他們的工作。。</p><p>　　Imberman和Deforest在芝加哥報(bào)道，一項(xiàng)由咨詢公司對五家工廠的3800名員工的調(diào)查顯示，79-85%的員工對裝配生產(chǎn)線的工作感到滿意（Imberman，1972）。Rutge

43、rs大學(xué)醫(yī)學(xué)院的研究人員報(bào)告稱，在1968年調(diào)查的576名聯(lián)合汽車工會(huì)成員中，95％的工人對他們在汽車工廠的工作感到滿意（Siassi，Crocetti ＆Spiro，1974年）。雖然這些調(diào)查者稱，他們的調(diào)查樣本是工作滿意度和工作生活質(zhì)量：對一個(gè)在巴爾的摩預(yù)付聯(lián)盟健康計(jì)劃的聯(lián)合汽車保險(xiǎn)集團(tuán)代表的重估，但是，樣本應(yīng)該被定格為約13年的服務(wù)期，平均40歲以下的，并每年賺取九千美元以上的白人男子。</p><p>　

44、　這些結(jié)果一直以來和全國性的更仔細(xì)取樣的調(diào)查報(bào)告是一致的。舉例來說，一項(xiàng)于1954年由芝加哥科學(xué)研究聯(lián)營公司對50萬受訪者的全國調(diào)查稱， 81％的受訪者對他們的工作感到滿意。最近蓋洛普組織報(bào)告稱，在1964年的調(diào)查者中87％的工人對他們的工作感到滿意，1973年調(diào)查中的77％的工人對他們的工作感到滿意。一項(xiàng)由ISR調(diào)查中心最近做的調(diào)查的結(jié)果，顯示91％的男性工人對他們的工作感到滿意。這些最近的調(diào)查結(jié)果和早前的調(diào)查在一個(gè)水平線上（這是總結(jié)

45、了Kaplan1958年至1973年間的研究成果，1976年）。</p><p>　　這些不同的研究都明確地表明，多數(shù)的美國工人對他們的工作感到滿意。這些結(jié)果還顯示了，在1954年至1973年間的一些小改變。這展現(xiàn)了工作滿意度從低到高約79％到約95％的一個(gè)轉(zhuǎn)變進(jìn)度。這種趨勢顯然不完全是Cherns（1975）在聯(lián)合國于最近的工作滿意度研究討論中指出的美國現(xiàn)象。</p><p>　　這一模

46、式得到了在各種不同的組織中系統(tǒng)收集到的約20萬名各個(gè)階層（非主管管理）的員工數(shù)據(jù)測試的額外支持。美國密西根大學(xué)科學(xué)知識（CRUSK）開端研究中心1966年和1970年間在15個(gè)美國公司中約33個(gè)工廠和辦事處收集到這些數(shù)據(jù)（CRUSK，1970年；Taylor & Bowers，1972年）。這些組織在各個(gè)維度方面如：管理、經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況，以及規(guī)模、衣領(lǐng)的顏色、技術(shù)等都是大不同的，雖然他們沒有被系統(tǒng)地采樣。整體而言，報(bào)道稱20萬人中的8

47、5％的工人對他們的工作感到滿意，更多的人不感到不滿意，但這些組織的統(tǒng)計(jì)范圍是相當(dāng)狹窄的。一個(gè)200人的保險(xiǎn)公司有95%的員工對他們的工作感到不滿，該公司在33個(gè)公司中排名首位。440人的造紙廠有76％的工人對他們的工作感到不滿意，這一公司排在33個(gè)組織中不滿意度最低位。盡管不是從美國組織中選取的科學(xué)樣本，滿意度調(diào)查的范圍也不是不同于全國性的調(diào)查。</p><p>　　同時(shí)，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)在這些所有不同組織中這個(gè)大比例的

48、員工，表示對他們的工作沒有感到不滿意。像我們預(yù)測一樣，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)工作滿意度的可靠措施，并不是和這些組織的曠工高度相關(guān)的。與怨氣和營業(yè)額的措施（如少有數(shù)據(jù)可查的），人際關(guān)系與工作滿意度并不是一貫的高或低。如果我們看看之間的分歧，工作組在這些組織之間的因果關(guān)系的滿意度和組織行為都不甚高（Taylor & Bowers，1972年，p77–79，89）。這些研究結(jié)果也許可以解釋，無論我們在此基礎(chǔ)上如何界定以及對工作滿意度多么仔細(xì)分類包括

49、單獨(dú)和重組，我們?nèi)匀恢皇菍ぷ鞅旧磉M(jìn)行衡量。我們不能期望來衡量所有要工人擺脫其內(nèi)部的抗辯或期望的問卷措施。</p><p>　　作者：JAMES C. TAYLOR </p><p><b>　　國籍：美國</b></p><p>　　出處：職業(yè)心理學(xué), 1977.50卷</p><p><b>　　原文2&

50、lt;/b></p><p>　　MOVES TOWARDS CHANGE</p><p>　　Reports of studies recently funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) on satisfaction and productivity (Katzell & Yankelovich, 1975; Sr

51、ivastra et al. 1975) have found that the important link in improving both of these outcomes rests in improvements in a few work related variables. These variables (task variety, information feedback, work-related communi

52、cation among employees, participation in decision making, and technical characteristics of the jobs) are very similar to some of those prop</p><p>　　Ample evidence exists to support the position that somethi

53、ng dramatic is happening to the American work ethic. Pursuasive reports such as Work in America (1973),and those articles reprinted in Man Against Work (Zimpel, 1974) document the rates of negative worker behaviour obser

54、ved during the late 1960s and early 1970s. This includes increased absenteeism and turnover, increased sabotage of product and plant, and a decreasing willingness to accept authority without question. </p><p&g

55、t;　　In spite of a recessionary economy, and the pressures that such a situation places on employees to accept work as given, recent absenteeism rates (especially part-week rates) reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistic

56、s show no change from the high levels of 1971 when worker discontent seemed at its peak. This is in revealing contrast to voluntary turnover figures for the same period which show a marked decline by 1975. Employees are

57、staying with their jobs while the job market is tight, but they </p><p>　　The question is no longer whether the reported high levels of job satisfaction make sense, but rather why they do not relate to the o

58、ther findings noted above. A number of studies based on interviews with workers gives some insight into why employees might report satisfaction in a given situation. A quotation from Work in America (cited from George St

59、rauss, see p. 14) suggests, as we all know, that we tend to answer idle questions dealing with ourselves or our health in an offhand way. It is cul</p><p>　　It is not merely the richness of such data that is

60、 important, although collections such as Terkel's (1974) contribute significantly in this respect, but the fact that talking with workers (at all levels and collar colours), and watching what they do, helps in an imp

61、ortant way to explain job satisfaction as a construct by basing the analysis on their own language. Meissner (1976) has summarized this distinction nicely, and from his analysis we can conclude that much will be learned

62、from basing st</p><p>　　The danger is great of assuming at this point that precoded satisfaction measures can be modified into other more understandable or communicable versions, or otherwise smoothed to cou

63、nter nearly any methodological objection. However attractive this strategy may seem, the variety and nature of the possible internal weaknesses of these measures are simply too great for them to be used in understanding

64、what can be done to improve the quality of working life in a particular setting, or in communicat</p><p>　　PROBLEMS OF PRESENT METHODOLOGY</p><p>　　In the following discussion, these weaknesses

65、in precoded instrumentation will be classed as definitional and methodological. The former class notes the differences in treating satisfaction as fulfilment of human needs or wants; while the latter deals with the effec

66、ts of such problems as changing expectations, unknown norms, alternative goals, and cognitive dissonance between evaluations of self and job.</p><p>　　The definitional argument follows Schwab & Cummings(

67、1970) in distinguishing between defining satisfaction as the fulfilment of 'needs'(or innate, unlearned characteristics) versus the fulfilment of 'wants' expressed as an attitude towards the job as an obj

68、ect defined by society. The narrower of the two, the need-fulfilment model, ties fixed human needs (such as those in the Maslow hierarchy) to statements of satisfaction with the job as it presumably fulfils them.</p&g

69、t;<p>　　The broader model of attitudes toward a variety of specific job activities and characteristics deals with employee likes and dislikes. This definition of satisfaction of wants is more ambiguous because it

70、relies on the fact that we can like or dislike only what is known. We cannot want something (therefore allowing the opportunity for dissatisfaction or frustration) until we know about it or until we know it is available.

71、 Expectations of what is 'out there' differ with education, exposure to alt</p><p>　　There are other methodological problems in measuring and interpreting measurement of satisfaction. Satisfaction ca

72、n also be seen as a function of one's ability to adjust to a given work situation, or to modify that situation to one's needs. In other words workers may report satisfaction with a job to which they have adjusted

73、 their needs or requirements, irrespective of the real quality of that job or of their working life. If these employees see no avenues of escape and if they have made a suita</p><p>　　On the other hand, peop

74、le can adjust jobs and work to suit themselves instead of adjusting themselves to the job. Recent examples of such adjustment range from the harmless or even helpful acts of using room deodorizers and incense, or working

75、 ahead to build a buffer stock (to be able to control work pace), to more 'negative' acts such as 'soldiering' on the job, and sabotage of product or plant, which also represent workers' attempts to m

76、odify the job or workplace in order to satisfy some feeli</p><p>　　There is a special case of the personal adjustment mechanism. Let us call this methodological issue the problem of cognitive dissonance. We

77、find that the job satisfaction usually increases for people who stay on jobs over a period of time, and is higher for people with longer time in job or grade. For example, job satisfaction where people have held jobs for

78、 five to ten years is usually lower than satisfaction with similar jobs in the same organization for people who have held those jobs 15 to 2</p><p>　　Methodologically, job satisfaction measures are always re

79、lative measures. They sment of one's state relative to something else: am satisfied with this job because my needs are more fulfilled'; 'I am satisfied with this job because my wants are properly seen to. I l

80、ike this job because this job is better than other jobs I have known, or than other jobs in this plant'; 'I am satisfied with this job because I have to do it and am thereby able to tolerate it better. I like thi

81、s job because I have ch</p><p>　　This is in the nature of attitudinal measurement. When we are talking about jobs and work, however, we are talking about certain phenomena that exist in more absolute time an

82、d space-something that can be measured in a behavioral way and for which behaviors are undertaken. Job satisfaction measures, however, are attitudinal rather than behavioral. They are not measures of on-the-job behavior.

83、 They are not perceptions of that on-the-job behavior. And in fact they are not even opinions about certai</p><p>　　These are not the only limitations to definition or measurement of satisfaction. Meissner (

84、1976) and Davis (1971) have criticized survey measurement schemes more generally in terms of distance of the investigator from the subject whether in terms of social class or personal concern. How much, they ask, can any

85、 worker be expected to tell middle class researchers by answering precoded questions framed by the latter? Their implicit answer is that workers cannot tell us as much as they or we would l</p><p>　　Author:

86、Abdulmonem H. Alzalabani</p><p>　　Nationality: UK</p><p>　　Originate from: British Journalism Review, 2010（4）.25-29 </p><p><b>　　譯文2</b></p><p><b>　　轉(zhuǎn)

87、型與改變</b></p><p>　　由美國國家科學(xué)基金會(huì)（NSF）資助的對滿意度和生產(chǎn)力的最近研究報(bào)告發(fā)現(xiàn)了，重要環(huán)節(jié)在于提高這兩項(xiàng)成果在改善幾個(gè)有關(guān)的工作變數(shù)方面。這些變數(shù)（任務(wù)，品種，信息反饋，員工之間與工作有關(guān)的聯(lián)系和溝通，參與決策的，和技術(shù)特點(diǎn)的就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)）與一些人提出的其他行動(dòng)調(diào)查和研究尋求提高質(zhì)量的工作非常相似(例如Thorsrud, 1972)。Thorsrud 指出，這些概念在職位設(shè)計(jì)

88、（例如，在認(rèn)識和衡量他們中）必須納入創(chuàng)造一個(gè)自我實(shí)現(xiàn)的假設(shè)或“霍桑效應(yīng)”，以取代自我實(shí)現(xiàn)的假設(shè)，塑造他們的人權(quán)占用期望不大不小的挑戰(zhàn)，就要設(shè)計(jì)工作老年人的工業(yè)模式。研究工作滿意度者提議，根據(jù)行動(dòng)研究方法，這將打破現(xiàn)有的自我實(shí)現(xiàn)的假設(shè)以及再加上曠工和其他標(biāo)志的工人所體現(xiàn)高水平的工作滿意度遇險(xiǎn)的惡性循環(huán)。這種做法的目的是對這類工作的特點(diǎn)所描述的兩個(gè)NSF的研究，即上述有關(guān)雙方的生產(chǎn)力和滿意度。</p><p>　　戲

89、劇性的是，支持存在立場的充分證據(jù)是發(fā)生在美國的一些工作倫理，這些轉(zhuǎn)載于六十年代后期和七十年代初期對負(fù)面工人的行為觀察（《Work in America》，Zimpel，1973）的文章。這包括增加了破壞的產(chǎn)品和植物，增加了營業(yè)額和缺勤率，并減少?zèng)]有問題的愿意接受權(quán)威。</p><p>　　盡管由勞工局的統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)字顯示在一個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退以及充滿壓力的地方，并沒有改變員工接受的最近的缺勤率（特別是一部分，為期一周的費(fèi)率計(jì)算

90、）、工作給予，員工的不滿從高水平的1971年起似乎在其高峰期。這自愿交出的同期數(shù)字是在對比了1975年后得出的。但由于就業(yè)市場緊張，員工仍然要留住他們的工作機(jī)會(huì)，他們顯然是要繼續(xù)起飛執(zhí)行長周末以改善他們生活品質(zhì)的一種方式。其他的跡象，包括大學(xué)學(xué)歷的年輕人進(jìn)入企業(yè)的立場反應(yīng)，員工們越來越不愿意接受企業(yè)的理念作為。</p><p>　　問題是為什么他們不涉及到如上所述的其他調(diào)查結(jié)果，而不再是是否報(bào)道高水平的工作滿意度

91、的意義。在與工人面談基礎(chǔ)上的多項(xiàng)研究提出為何雇員在一個(gè)特定的情況下可能感到滿意的一些見解。從工作在美國，顧名思義，大家都知道，我們傾向于閑置的問題用另一種方式回答，處理與我們自己的健康有關(guān)的事。這是文化上可以接受的答案：“你好嗎？”或者“你是如何就業(yè)的呢？”得到的反應(yīng)是“不錯(cuò)”。在斯特勞斯的案情的進(jìn)一步調(diào)查中透露，“良好”的真正意思是“OK——一個(gè)可能和我一樣期望求職的家伙。”其他說明什么是“好”的結(jié)果是，這只是一個(gè)人的例子，作者在對一

92、個(gè)汽車工人的非正式的采訪中，在整個(gè)不同的答案中，發(fā)現(xiàn)“好”字的自主權(quán)，即差異（即使只是在分鐘的數(shù)量）。是因?yàn)樗梢圆扇〉墓ぷ?，這名男子把汽車從堆場駕駛到鐵路運(yùn)輸?shù)让枋龀梢粋€(gè)好工作，而休息時(shí)，他只當(dāng)他們“失去”點(diǎn)火鑰匙或電池放電等方式，但是，他依然清白。</p><p>　　它不僅豐富了這些數(shù)據(jù)，更為重要的是，它只是集合，但在事實(shí)上，他以一個(gè)重要的方式，用自己的語言，對工作滿意度做了一個(gè)建設(shè)性的依據(jù)分析（Terke

93、l，1974）。從Meissner（1976）的分析中我們可以從大部分立足語言工作研究什么是傳播的雇員得到結(jié)論；這些不能得到介紹外國人表現(xiàn)形式的更正式的數(shù)據(jù)方法很好地概括了這種區(qū)分。正如Davis（1971）提出的那樣，我們不能像得知手臂的長度那樣獲得信息的價(jià)值、關(guān)注的問題以及恐懼和野心等。這是保密的資料，需要調(diào)查并與工人建立協(xié)作和信任的關(guān)系。</p><p>　　危險(xiǎn)的是，在這一點(diǎn)預(yù)先編碼滿意的措施是很大的假設(shè)

94、，以其他方式平滑對付幾乎沒有任何方法反對，可以進(jìn)行修改大其他更容易理解或傳播的版本。不過這一戰(zhàn)略有吸引力的似乎是品種和性質(zhì)以及內(nèi)部可能的弱點(diǎn)，他們將這些太大的根本措施用在了解能夠做些什么來改善工作生活質(zhì)量的某一設(shè)定，或在溝通其他國家的工人為響應(yīng)這一工作與生活。</p><p>　　當(dāng)前方法中存在的問題</p><p>　　接下來的討論中，在以前的編碼工具中存在的問題將被按照定義和方法進(jìn)行分

95、類。前級債券的差異，在治療滿意不滿意作為實(shí)現(xiàn)人類的希望或需要，而后者則處理的影響等問題，未知的規(guī)范，替代目標(biāo)，不斷轉(zhuǎn)變的期望及認(rèn)知的不和諧音符之間的自我評價(jià)和求職。定義的論點(diǎn)如下：在區(qū)分界定滿意不滿意作為履行的需要（或無法得知的、天生的特色）作為，Schwab & Cummings（1970）履行的需要表示，對象所界定的社會(huì)的一個(gè)態(tài)度。</p><p>　　定義的論點(diǎn)如下：Schwab & Cum

96、mings（1970）把滿意界定為需求的滿足，而正如被社會(huì)冠以的目標(biāo)一樣，把滿足表達(dá)為對工作的一種態(tài)度。需要實(shí)現(xiàn)的模型，兩個(gè)中范圍較窄的一個(gè)，在假定得到滿足時(shí)，關(guān)聯(lián)到固定人類的需求（如在馬斯洛的需要層次中的那些）對工作滿意度的陳述。更廣泛的態(tài)度模型，適用于各種各樣具體工作活動(dòng)和員工喜惡事件的處理。這個(gè)需要滿意度的定義是更加模糊的，因?yàn)樗蕾囉谝粋€(gè)事實(shí)，即我們可以喜歡或者不喜歡。我們不想要的東西（因此，允許不滿或沮喪的機(jī)會(huì)），直到我們知道

97、它，或直到我們知道它是可利用的。期望不同于教育。如果有兩個(gè)工人對一項(xiàng)工作活動(dòng)結(jié)果的某些方面也有同樣的認(rèn)識，他們?nèi)匀豢梢栽趯ζ谕臐撛谶m用性和重要性的評估方面有所不同。</p><p>　　此外，保證工作場所各方面的任務(wù)對工作占有潛在的重要性。這使得需求滿足的方法更加普遍化和模糊。如需要概念的使用和態(tài)度，鑒于這一點(diǎn)，似乎能帶動(dòng)詹姆斯泰勒調(diào)查人員不去采取措施，測量工作和職位是什么樣的，但是卻帶動(dòng)他們對被認(rèn)為是可用的，

98、或者眾所周知的，或工作滿意度的規(guī)范標(biāo)準(zhǔn)去研究。這些問題都在方法上是合乎邏輯的，但是結(jié)果是對滿意不當(dāng)，或者至少是不完整的定義。在測量和解釋滿足感的措施上還有其他方法上的問題。滿意度也可以被視為一個(gè)人調(diào)整到某一特定的工作情況的或改變工作情況適應(yīng)需求的能力的一種功能。換言之，工人可能不管他們真正的職業(yè)或工作質(zhì)量，而會(huì)報(bào)告他們的工作滿意度。如果這些員工看不到有什么逃生的途徑，并且如果他們提出一個(gè)合適的調(diào)整，那么無論他們的工作是什么，他們都對此感

99、到滿意。當(dāng)這種調(diào)整滿意度被衡量時(shí)，它可能不是也可能是一個(gè)衡量穩(wěn)定特點(diǎn)。像不穩(wěn)定的個(gè)人使用麻醉劑的調(diào)整機(jī)制具破壞性。這個(gè)特點(diǎn)一定程度上是不穩(wěn)定的，滿意度也不是一個(gè)太可靠的衡量工作質(zhì)量的措施。</p><p>　　另一方面，人們不是調(diào)整自己去適應(yīng)工作，而可以調(diào)整工作以使自己適應(yīng)。我們認(rèn)為，在過去一段時(shí)間，工作滿意度通常會(huì)增加留在職位的人，用較長的時(shí)間在工作或職系。舉最近的例子來說，工作的滿足感，對于那些工作五至十年的