Determinants of Job Satisfaction of Municipal Government Employees

• Date: 01 December 2001
• Published date: 01 December 2001
• Author: Kay Logsdon,Mark C. Ellickson
• DOI: 10.1177/0160323X0103300302
• Subject Matter: General Interest

State and Local Government Review
Vol. 33, No. 3 (Fall 2001): 173–84
Determinants of Job Satisfaction of Municipal
Government Employees
Mark C. Ellickson and Kay Logsdon
ORGANIZATIONAL SCHOLARS have long are currently employed by local governments
been interested in why some peo-
throughout the United States (Burns et al.
ple report being very satisfied
1998), an increase of over 20 percent in the
with their jobs and others express much lower
past 10 years according to the 1999 Sta-
levels of satisfaction (Locke 1976). The drive
tistical Abstract of the United States. More-
to understand and explain job satisfaction
over, the continued devolution of federal
has been motivated by utilitarian reasons
power to the state and local levels assures
(e.g., to increase productivity and organiza-
the continued growth of the municipal em-
tional commitment, lower absenteeism and
ployee sector for years to come (Starling
turnover, and ultimately, increase organiza-
1998).
tional effectiveness) as well as humanitarian
Most studies assume that the work mo-
interests (i.e., the notion that employees de-
tivations and attitudes of those employed in
serve to be treated with respect and have
the public sector are essentially the same
their psychological and physical well-being
as those of their private-sector counterparts
maximized). Satisfied workers also tend to
(Perry and Wise 1990). Yet, public manage-
engage in organizational citizenship behav-
ment scholars often make sharp distinctions
iors; that is, altruistic behaviors that exceed
between public- and private-sector employ-
the formal requirements of a job (Schnake
ees in terms of their organizational behavior
1991; Organ and Ryan 1995). Dissatisfied
and motivational profiles (Vasu, Stewart, and
workers show an increased propensity for
Garson 1998).
counterproductive behaviors, including with-
In this article, we employ regression analy-
drawal, burnout, and workplace aggression
sis to test the relative influence of 11 environ-
(Spector 1997).
mental variables and 3 demographic factors
Despite researchers’ and practitioners’ in-
on variation in job satisfaction among local
terest in job satisfaction among workers gen-
government employees. Job satisfaction was
erally, few studies have sought to explain
defined and measured as overall job satisfac-
variation in job satisfaction among govern-
tion, not as satisfaction with various facets
ment employees, especially municipal em-
of the job. Over 50 percent of the variation
ployees, one of the fastest-growing sectors of
in job satisfaction among municipal employ-
the U.S. workforce. Over 11 million people
ees is explained using this model.
Fall 2001
173

---

Ellickson and Logsdon
Literature Review
and Mueller 1987; Ting 1997; Iverson and
and Research Expectations
Maguire 2000) and pay (Liou, Sylvia, and
Brunk 1990; Ting 1997; Blau 1999) to in-
Job satisfaction is commonly defined as the
creased job satisfaction. The impact of fringe
extent to which employees like their work
benefits on job satisfaction has been less fre-
(Agho, Mueller, and Price 1993), an attitude
quently examined, although available research
based on employee perceptions (negative or
strongly suggests that a positive relation-
positive) of their job or work environment
ship exists (Barber, Dunham, and Formisano
(Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell 1991; Pool
1992).
1997). Most efforts to explain job satisfac-
Extrinsic rewards have sometimes been
tion have been dominated by the person-
characterized as “investments” that an orga-
environment fit paradigm (Mottaz 1985; Kris-
nization uses to help strengthen ties between
tof 1996; Brief 1998). Simply stated, the more
itself and its employees (Behn 1995). Accord-
a person’s work environment fulfills his or
ing to Romzek (1990), “investments” in the
her needs, values, or personal characteristics,
public sector usually focus on opportunities
the greater the degree of job satisfaction. In
for career development, performance bonuses
terms of job satisfaction, the person-environ-
and salary, and various benefits (e.g., vaca-
ment fit approach has been applied to stud-
tion and sick leave, medical plan, and re-
ies of need fulfillment (Maslow 1954; Herz-
tirement benefits). Based on a review of the
berg 1968; Stone 1992), job characteristics
literature, we propose the following three hy-
(Hackman and Oldham 1980), met expecta-
potheses:
tions (Wanous et al. 1992), value attainment
(Locke 1976; 1984; Mottaz 1985), equity
Hypothesis 1: Satisfaction with opportuni-
(Adams 1963; Vecchio 1982; Witt and Nye
ties for promotions is positively related to
1992; Mowday 1996), organizational justice
overall job satisfaction.
(Greenberg 1990; McFarlin and Sweeney
Hypothesis 2: Satisfaction with pay is posi-
1992; Sheppard, Lewicki, and Minton 1992;
tively related to overall job satisfaction.
Trevino 1992; Cropanzano and Folger 1996),
Hypothesis 3: Satisfaction with fringe ben-
and personal traits (Brush, Mock, and Poo-
efits is positively related to overall job sat-
yan 1987; Arvey et al. 1989; Watson and Slack
isfaction.
1993; Motowidlo 1996; Ganzach 1998).
Regardless of the theoretical approach used
Research by Peters, O’Connor, and Eul-
to study job satisfaction, most studies have
berg (1985) and Peters and O’Connor (1988)
identified at least two general categories of
indicates that organizational obstacles or con-
antecedent variables: environmental factors
straints such as inadequate tools and equip-
and personal characteristics (see Zeffane1994,
ment, insufficient training, cramped work-
61; Spector 1997, 30). Environmental ante-
spaces, unsafe work environments, and uneven
cedents of job satisfaction pertain to factors
workload distributions among coworkers may
associated with the work itself or work en-
be important predictor variables of employee
vironment. Personal factors focus on indi-
attitudes, motivation, and performance. Most
vidual attributes and characteristics.
studies in this area have focused primarily on
the adverse effect of constraints on organiza-
Environmental Antecedents
tional performance, but a few have examined
Previous studies of job satisfaction have iden-
the influence of organizational constraints
tified a number of important environmental
on employee job satisfaction (Eulberg et al.
antecedents. An abundance of literature links
1984). In their study of bank employees,
extrinsic rewards such as promotional op-
Brown and Mitchell (1993) documented nu-
portunities (Price and Mueller 1981; Blegen
merous significant negative links between var-
174
State and Local Government Review

---

Determinants of Job Satisfaction
ious organizational obstacles and employee
Hypothesis 9: Satisfaction with one’s imme-
job satisfaction. Furthermore, the literature
diate supervisor is positively related to over-
concerning total quality management (TQM)
all job satisfaction.
is clear on the importance of removing all or-
Although organizational scholars have long
ganizational obstacles to optimizing organi-
discussed the conditions necessary for maxi-
zational performance and employee attitudes
mizing an employee’s sense of equity and fair-
(Deming 1986; Walton 1986). Thus, we hy-
ness in the workplace (Adams 1963), rarely
pothesize that the perceived absence of orga-
has this debate been extended to include the
nizational obstacles in the work environment
performance appraisal process and subse-
will have a positive effect on job satisfaction.
quent job satisfaction (Daley 1986). In a
In other words, the fewer the obstacles, the
recent longitudinal study of medical tech-
higher the job satisfaction:
nicians, Blau (1999) reexamines the impor-
Hypothesis 4: Overall job satisfaction is pos-
tance of performance appraisal satisfaction
itively influenced by employee perceptions
on job satisfaction, presenting persuasive evi-
of adequate work equipment and resources.
dence of a significant, positive relationship
Hypothesis 5: Overall job satisfaction is posi-
between employee performance appraisal sat-
tively influenced by employee perceptions
isfaction and overall job satisfaction. We
of sufficient physical workspace.
therefore propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 6: Overall job satisfaction is posi-
Hypothesis 10: Satisfaction with employee
tively influenced by employee perceptions
performance appraisal is positively related
of a safe work environment.
to overall job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 7: Overall job satisfaction is posi-
Work group esprit de corps is also a rel-
tively influenced by employee perceptions
atively new variable linked to job satisfac-
of adequate training or training opportu-
tion. Sometimes categorized under the general
nities.
heading of work group characteristics, work
Hypothesis 8: Overall job satisfaction is posi-
group esprit de corps refers specifically to the
tively influenced by employee perceptions
extent to which members take pride in their
of an evenly distributed workload among
work group (Jones and James 1979). Work
coworkers.
group esprit de corps has also been discussed
as a vital component of an organization’s psy-
As Hopkins (1983, 56) observes, “The
chological climate (James and James 1992),
nature of supervision in the workplace is de-
which in turn is thought to influence em-
fined by the relationship between the indi-
ployee job satisfaction. Finally, the notion
vidual employee and the immediate super-
that interpersonal relations among workers
visor.” Numerous studies have shown that
may lead to...