MEASUREMENT OF JOB SATISFACTION

Measurement of Job Satisfaction

Measurement of Job Satisfaction

Introduction

Most managers agree on the importance of performance management as a leader and would probably rate themselves fairly proficient in this role. In mid 2002, the Corporate Executive Board's Learning and Development Roundtable analyzed survey responses from nearly 20,000 employees and managers on a wide range of manager-related activities involving performance management. Overall, managers received a poor report card on their performance on these activities as only 30-40 percent of employees agreed that their managers communicated performance standards and provided fair and accurate feedback to help them do their jobs better.

Immediate Feedback Works Interestingly, most of the performance improvement activities that managers can utilize have minimal impact on individual employee performance. The results clearly show that managers have a much better chance of vastly improving employee performance by targeting their efforts on a much smaller list of activities. In fact, managers who set clear performance standards, become more knowledgeable about employee performance, and provide fair and accurate informal feedback on performance strengths can significantly improve individual performance. And when discussing weaknesses, managers who clearly focus on specific suggestions for improvement or development can improve employee performance; those who emphasize weaknesses can dramatically decrease performance. In short, managers who provide feedback that is voluntary, detailed, immediate, and positive can positively influence employee performance (Austin 2000).

Discussion

This information shouldn't surprise most managers as we've heard it all before and it seems intuitive. However, survey responses show some disparities in perceptions between employees and managers. The majority of employees believe that formal performance reviews do nothing to actually help their on-the-job performance, yet they crave voluntary and detailed informal performance feedback, especially on strengths. Interestingly, the majority of managers view formal performance reviews as an administrative requirement rather than as an influential lever to positively influence employee performance. In fact, many managers report that they specifically cite performance weaknesses to lower an employee's rating below the highest mark rather than emphasizing strengths to raise performance ratings above minimally successful. On informal feedback, employees report that most managers provide general praise, rather than specific and detailed recognition (Pfeiffer 1998).

Manager-Led Employee Development

Few managers would disagree on the importance of their crucial role in employee development and many spend a considerable amount of their valuable time on manager-led development activities. In early 2003, the Corporate Leadership Council's Learning and Development Roundtable analyzed survey responses from nearly 8,500 employees and their managers on a wide range of employee development activities. The results confirm that a vast majority of managers (3 out of 4) agree that helping their employees develop is crucial to organizational success and spend about 15-20 percent of their time on employee development activities. However, the results also indicate that employees rate their managers barely above average (4.07 out of 7.0) on their effectiveness in this role and most managers do not see a significant return on their time investment.2 By examining the employee development activities of the highest rated managers, we see that some ...