Research Article
Austin J Bus Adm Manage. 2023; 7(1): 1054.
A Cross Sectional Study to Investigate Work Satisfaction among Nurses: The Impact of Occupational Features
*Corresponding author: Paraskevi Theofilou General Hospital of Thoracic Diseases SOTIRIA, Athens, and Hellenic Open University, School of Social Sciences, Patra, Greece
Received: December 14, 2022; Accepted: January 09, 2023; Published: January 16, 2023
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to investigate work satisfaction among nurses as well as the impact of occupational features. A hundred and fifty two nurses (28 men and 124 women) participated in the survey. To collect the data, Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) was used. There were statistically significant differences between the positions regarding satisfaction (total score) (p<0.05) with those nurses who had a position of responsibility (supervisors) showing the greatest satisfaction (p<0.05). Also, there were statistically significant differences between hours regarding satisfaction (dimensions) (p<0.05) with those nurses who had morning work showing the highest satisfaction (p<0.05) in the salary dimension. An effect on the level of satisfaction of the nursing staff is observed from the factors of years of service, position of responsibility, working hours and monthly salaries.
Keywords: Work satisfaction; Nurses; Occupational features
Introduction
Job satisfaction is defined as the effective navigation one has man towards his work and consists of two aspects, the positive and the negative negative effectiveness. Positive efficacy is shown with high energy levels, enthusiastic mood and fun engagement, while the negative effectiveness is indicated by discomfort, unfun engagement and bitterness [1].
Job satisfaction can otherwise be described as the how much each person likes or dislikes their job [2] or whether feels that his claims and demands are met by his work [3]. There is a commonality among various models that explain the term labor satisfaction: can be affected by environmental factors such as working conditions that prevail in each workplace, as well as from personal factors, such as self-efficacy beliefs [4].
The main factor affecting nursing job satisfaction staff is the salary [5] and the recognition of his work. Often, nurses are not satisfied with extrinsic rewards praise and recognition of their work, which reflects on their belief that their stressful profession is not adequately covered financially and they do not morally compensated. Nurses feel the need for support from the team with which they are working on but also their subordinates regarding the existing ones difficulties, such as lack of resources [6]. Much of the nurses believe that the state does not recognize their profession and they do not give the corresponding importance and appreciation that is due to it, although the people express reverence [7].
Another factor that can affect job satisfaction is the circular time.It has a negative effect both mentally and physically condition.It can also take on social dimensions, since it often can it interferes with the family’s daily life and habits and schedule, beyond of work, of each person [8]. More specifically, nursing staff are often not happy with the program, the balance between work and family and group interaction, a worsening situation from the heavy workload caused by the outbreak of the COVID‐19 disease [9]. Other factors that affect job satisfaction are: education, the duration of work and the type of participation against the pandemic as negative factors, while experience and daily sleep duration as positive [9]. Also the overwork, the lack of clarity, the conflicts between the role and the duties of each employee but also the lack of organization and of methodicality in the workplace affect nurses’ satisfaction with his profession as well as the adverse work situations he may have they concern the facilities and services of a workplace [8].
The aim of the present study is to investigate work satisfaction among nurses as well as the impact of occupational features.
Method
Questionnaire
In this research, to collect the data, the following tool was used: Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS), a tool that has been widely used to assess job satisfaction worldwide and was created in 1997 by Paul E. Spector, a professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of South Florida. Although it was developed for research in healthcare organizations, it has finally been used in other types of organizations that wish to measure the job satisfaction of their employees. This survey tool is freely available online for educational and research purposes at http:// paulspector.com/ in the English language. The tool translated into the Greek language of the present research comes from the translations into languages of other countries from the same web address together with the instructions for completing it, as well as the instructions for evaluating its results. The Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) questionnaire is structured on the basis of 36 work-related items and describes 9 work factors that may be factors of satisfaction or dissatisfaction for employees. Each of the 9 factors corresponds to 4 elements and a total score is calculated from all the elements. Assessment of job satisfaction is achieved through the use of a Likert scale, with six options per item ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. The items are written in both directions, with negative and positive wording, so that about half of the items must be reversed. The nine factors are salary, promotion, supervision/ supervision, perks/benefits, contingent rewards (performancebased rewards), operating conditions (required rules and procedures), coworkers, nature of work, and communication. The internal consistency index ranges from 60-91 (http:// paulspector.com/scales/our-assessments/job-satisfactionsurvey- jss/). In addition to the aforementioned questionnaire, there were questions related to the socio-demographic and work characteristics of the sample, e.g. gender, age, educational level, years of service, etc.
Sample
This is a cross-sectional study. The population and sample of the research was the nursing staff of all levels of hospitals in the broader area of Athens, with at least one year of experience. This particular sample is a sample of convenience. Participants were selected based on the inclusion criteria for the study, which are as follows: • The consent of the nursing staff • Age over eighteen years • Experience of at least one year • Ability to communicate in the Greek language All research participants were informed in writing and verbally and signed a consent form.The collection of the sample was preceded by written approval from the Scientific Committee of the Hospitals, following a relevant request of the researcher.
Data Collection Process
The data collection took place at the hospitals between May 2019 and June 2019, after the required permission was granted by the organization’s Scientific Council. The data collection was done after distributing the questionnaires placed in yellow opaque envelopes with the instruction to the participant that after completing it, he should enclose it, seal the envelope and deliver it to a specific delivery point, which was designated by the researcher. This method ensured the complete anonymity of the participants and the confidentiality of their answers. The research participants with consent were also assured of the availability of the results in case they requested it.
Statistical analysis
For the presentation of the results related to the responses of the patients to the questionnaires, who participated in the research, a frequency analysis was carried out. Additionally, the descriptives command was run to examine the averages. Quantitative variables are presented as mean (± standard deviation) while qualitative variables are presented as frequency (%). Also, a test of normality of the sample was performed using the Kolmogorov Smirnov test. Non-parametric and parametric tests (Mann-Whitney test/Independent samples t test, Kruskal Wallis test/One-Way anova) were performed in order to investigate possible associations between nursing staff satisfaction and socio-demographic and work factors. The tool used in this research showed good reliability (Cronbach a), ranging at 0.741. Statistical analysis was performed with the IBM SPSS Statistics 23 statistical program. A p value <0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.
Results
A hundred and fifty two nurses (28 men and 124 women) participated in the survey, with the majority of them being in the 45-54 age group (70 people, 46.1%). The majority were also married (114 people, 75%), 2.6% (4 people) widowed, 13.8% (21 people) single while 7.2% (11 people) were divorced. With regard to their educational level, 75 had a degree from HEI/ TEI (higher education) (49.3%). Only 18 nurses held master’s/ doctorate degrees (11.8%). Regarding the professional status, the majority (147 people, 96.7%) stated that they are permanent employees and only 5 nurses (3.3%) were contracted.
(Table 1) shows all the work characteristics of the sample. In particular, as can be seen in the said table, the majority of nurses had 11-20 years of experience, belonged to the category of nurses, worked shifts, received 1000-1500 euros and were permanent employees.
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Years of work
1-10 years
16
10,5
10,5
10,5
11-20 years
59
38,8
38,8
49,3
21-30 years
38
25,0
25,0
74,3
31 years and above
39
25,7
25,7
100,0
Total
152
100,0
100,0
Table 1: Work characteristics of the sample.
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Position
Supervisor
9
5,9
5,9
5,9
Department manager position
12
7,9
7,9
13,8
Nurse
68
44,7
44,7
58,6
Nurse's assistant
63
41,4
41,4
100,0
Total
152
100,0
100,0
Table 1 of 1:
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Hours
Morning work
38
25,0
25,0
25,0
Shifts
114
75,0
75,0
100,0
Total
152
100,0
100,0
Table 1 of 2:
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Monthly income
Up to 1000 euro
54
35,5
35,5
35,5
1000-1500 euro
95
62,5
62,5
98,0
1501-2000 euro
3
2,0
2,0
100,0
Total
152
100,0
100,0
Table 1 of 3:
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Type of work
Permanent employee
147
96,7
96,7
96,7
Contract holder
5
3,3
3,3
100,0
Total
152
100,0
100,0
Table 1 of 4:
In the table below, we see the descriptive elements of the questionnaire dimensions. In particular, the overall score reached an average of 107.2237. Supervision/supervision reached 16.6579 and nature of work at 15.4276.
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Total score
152
52,00
175,00
107,2237
21,24633
Salary
152
4,00
24,00
7,9276
3,79456
Promotion
152
4,00
23,00
9,8224
3,98856
Supervising
152
4,00
24,00
16,6579
5,49666
Benefits
152
4,00
19,00
8,6974
3,59919
Performance-based rewards
152
4,00
24,00
10,0000
4,43496
Operating conditions
152
4,00
21,00
12,8026
2,84486
Collaborators
152
4,00
23,00
14,5461
4,22048
Nature of work
152
4,00
24,00
15,4276
3,81978
Communication
152
4,00
22,00
11,3421
4,03971
Table 2: Descriptive data of questionnaire dimensions.
Based on the results of the (Table 3), the majority of nurses (82 people, 53.9%) had a lack of satisfaction and only 6 people (3.9%) were satisfied.
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
36-108 lack of satisfaction
82
53,9
53,9
53,9
108-144 of questionable rating
64
42,1
42,1
96,1
144 to 216 satisfaction
6
3,9
3,9
100,0
Total
152
100,0
100,0
Table 3: Levels of satisfaction
In the table below, the values of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test regarding the normality of the sample are displayed. There was no normality in any of the dimensions (p<0.05) other than the total score (p>0.05).
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic
df
Sig.
Total score
,044
152
,200*
Salary
,161
152
,000
Promotion
,095
152
,002
Supervising
,143
152
,000
Benefits
,131
152
,000
Performance-based rewards
,109
152
,000
Operating conditions
,124
152
,000
Collaborators
,089
152
,005
Nature of work
,100
152
,001
Communication
,080
152
,019
Table 4: Sample normality.
As can be seen from (Table 5), there were no statistically significant differences between years of service regarding satisfaction (total score) (p<0.05).
Years of work
N
Mean Rank
Sig.
Salary
1-10 years
16
76,38
0,783
11-20 years
59
72,49
21-30 years
38
81,78
31 years and above
39
77,47
Total
152
Promotion
1-10years
16
65,91
0,771
11-20 years
59
78,55
21-30 years
38
78,16
31 years and above
39
76,13
Total
152
Supervising
1-10 years
16
82,94
0,243
11-20 years
59
70,72
21-30 years
38
71,68
31 years and above
39
87,29
Total
152
Benefits
1-10 years
16
81,28
0,238
11-20 years
59
78,15
21-30 years
38
84,03
31 years and above
39
64,71
Total
152
Performance-based rewards
1-10 years
16
93,72
0,214
11-20 years
59
70,85
21-30 years
38
82,34
31 years and above
39
72,29
Total
152
Operating conditions
1-10 years
16
80,91
0,131
11-20 years
59
85,45
21-30 years
38
72,55
31 years and above
39
65,00
Total
152
Collaborators
1-10 years
16
82,03
0,608
11-20 years
59
72,70
21-30 years
38
73,17
31 years and above
39
83,22
Total
152
Nature of work
1-10 years
16
64,91
0,048
11-20 years
59
71,07
21-30 years
38
72,76
31 years and above
39
93,12
Total
152
Communication
1-10 years
16
86,84
0,222
11-20 years
59
70,41
21-30 years
38
86,38
31 years and above
39
71,85
Total
152
Table 5: Differences between years of work regarding satisfaction (dimensions).
Total score
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Supervisor
9
126,4444
30,04210
10,01403
103,3520
149,5368
83,00
175,00
Department manager position
12
104,4167
20,65940
5,96385
91,2903
117,5430
71,00
139,00
Nurse
68
106,2059
20,78357
2,52038
101,1752
111,2366
52,00
144,00
Nurse’s assistant
63
106,1111
19,56718
2,46523
101,1832
111,0390
67,00
151,00
Total
152
107,2237
21,24633
1,72331
103,8188
110,6286
52,00
175,00
Table 6: Differences between positions regarding satisfaction (total score).
Total score
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Between Groups
3567,916
3
1189,305
2,725
,046
Within Groups
64594,479
148
436,449
Total
68162,395
151
Table 6 of 1:
As can be seen from (Table 7), there were statistically significant differences between the positions regarding satisfaction (dimensions) (p<0.05) with those nurses who had a position of responsibility (supervisors) showing the greatest satisfaction (p<0.05) indimensions of salary, promotion and nature of work. In the dimension of working conditions, nursing assistants presented the highest levels of satisfaction.
Position
N
Mean Rank
Sig.
Salary
Supervisor
9
114,83
0,023
Department manager position
12
80,75
Nurse
68
78,44
Nurse’s assistant
63
68,12
Total
152
Promotion
Supervisor
9
120,33
0,017
Department manager position
12
83,00
Nurse
68
73,19
Nurse’s assistant
63
72,57
Total
152
Supervising
Supervisor
9
90,44
0,746
Department manager position
12
75,71
Nurse
68
77,52
Nurse’s assistant
63
73,56
Total
152
Benefits
Supervisor
9
69,83
0,154
Department manager position
12
54,83
Nurse
68
83,74
Nurse’s assistant
63
73,76
Total
152
Performance-based rewards
Supervisor
9
97,44
0,361
Department manager position
12
66,08
Nurse
68
78,51
Nurse’s assistant
63
73,32
Total
152
Operating conditions
Supervisor
9
44,83
0,012
Department manager position
12
49,04
Nurse
68
80,19
Nurse’s assistant
63
82,27
Total
152
Collaborators
Supervisor
9
98,22
0,300
Department manager position
12
73,04
Nurse
68
71,14
Nurse’s assistant
63
79,84
Total
152
Nature of work
Supervisor
9
106,33
0,001
Department manager position
12
99,29
Nurse
68
62,19
Nurse’s assistant
63
83,34
Total
152
Communication
Supervisor
9
97,39
0,183
Department manager position
12
85,46
Nurse
68
79,42
Nurse’s assistant
63
68,66
Total
152
Table 7: Differences between positions regarding satisfaction (dimensions).
As can be seen from (Table 6), there were statistically significant differences between the positions regarding satisfaction (total score) (p<0.05) with those nurses who had a position of responsibility (supervisors) showing the greatest satisfaction (p<0.05).
As can be seen from (Table 8), there were no statistically significant differences between the hours regarding satisfaction (total score) (p<0.05).
Hours
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Sig.
Total score
Morning work
38
109,8421
24,87648
4,03550
0,382
Shifts
114
106,3509
19,93751
1,86732
Table 8: Differences between hours regarding satisfaction (total score).
As can be seen from (Table 9), there were statistically significant differences between hours regarding satisfaction (dimensions) (p<0.05) with those nurses who had morning work showing the highest satisfaction (p<0.05) in the salary dimension.In the dimension of working conditions, nurses who worked shifts presented the highest levels of satisfaction.
Hours
N
Mean Rank
Sum of Ranks
Sig.
Salary
Morning work
38
90,22
3428,50
0,025
Shifts
114
71,93
8199,50
Total
152
Promotion
Morning work
38
84,41
3207,50
0,199
Shifts
114
73,86
8420,50
Total
152
Supervising
Morning work
38
81,71
3105,00
0.398
Shifts
114
74,76
8523,00
Total
152
Benefits
Morning work
38
65,46
2487,50
0,073
Shifts
114
80,18
9140,50
Total
152
Performance-based rewards
Morning work
38
80,42
3056,00
0,525
Shifts
114
75,19
8572,00
Total
152
Operating conditions
Morning work
38
56,66
2153,00
0,001
Shifts
114
83,11
9475,00
Total
152
Collaborators
Morning work
38
78,12
2968,50
0,793
Shifts
114
75,96
8659,50
Total
152
Nature of work
Morning work
38
86,09
3271,50
0,119
Shifts
114
73,30
8356,50
Total
152
Communication
Morning work
38
83,26
3164,00
0,272
Shifts
114
74,25
8464,00
Total
152
Table 9: Differences between hours regarding satisfaction (dimensions).
As can be seen from (Table 10), there were no statistically significant differences between salaries regarding satisfaction (total score) (p<0.05).
Total score
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Up to 1000 euro
54
104,4074
18,40172
2,50416
99,3847
109,4301
58,00
147,00
1000-1500 euro
95
108,5474
22,78193
2,33738
103,9065
113,1883
52,00
175,00
1501-2000 euro
3
116,0000
17,34935
10,01665
72,9018
159,0982
105,00
136,00
Total
152
107,2237
21,24633
1,72331
103,8188
110,6286
52,00
175,00
Table 10: Differences between salaries regarding satisfaction (overall score).
As can be seen from (Table 11), there were statistically significant differences between salaries regarding satisfaction (dimensions) (p<0.05) with those nurses who had salaries of 1501-2000 euros showing the greatest satisfaction (p<0.05) indimension of supervision/supervision.
Net monthly income (after taxes and deductions)
N
Mean Rank
Sig.
Salary
Up to 1000 euro
54
67,27
0,110
1000-1500 euro
95
80,95
1501-2000 euro
3
101,67
Total
152
Promotion
Up to 1000 euro
54
71,96
0,083
1000-1500 euro
95
77,41
1501-2000 euro
3
129,33
Total
152
Supervising
Up to 1000 euro
54
64,39
0,032
1000-1500 euro
95
82,59
1501-2000 euro
3
101,50
Total
152
Benefits
Up to 1000 euro
54
79,46
0,392
1000-1500 euro
95
75,83
1501-2000 euro
3
44,50
Total
152
Performance-based rewards
Up to 1000 euro
54
74,00
0,713
1000-1500 euro
95
78,38
1501-2000 euro
3
62,00
Total
152
Operating conditions
Up to 1000 euro
54
79,56
0,275
1000-1500 euro
95
75,97
1501-2000 euro
3
38,17
Total
152
Collaborators
Up to 1000 euro
54
76,99
0,811
1000-1500 euro
95
75,73
1501-2000 euro
3
92,17
Total
152
Nature of work
Up to 1000 euro
54
72,22
0,368
1000-1500 euro
95
77,99
1501-2000 euro
3
106,17
Total
152
Communication
Up to 1000 euro
54
82,06
0,424
1000-1500 euro
95
72,96
1501-2000 euro
3
88,67
Total
152
Table 11: Differences between salaries regarding satisfaction (dimensions).
As can be seen from (Table 12), there were no statistically significant differences between working relationships regarding satisfaction (total score) (p<0.05).
Type of work
Total score
Permanent employee
147
107,2517
21,52280
1,77517
0,930
Contract holder
5
106,4000
11,48042
5,13420
Table 12: Differences between work relationships regarding satisfaction (total score).
As can be seen from (Table 13), there were no statistically significant differences between working relationships regarding satisfaction (dimensions) (p<0.05).
Type of work
N
Mean Rank
Sum of Ranks
Sig.
Salary
Permanent employee
147
76,57
11256,50
0,909
Contract holder
5
74,30
371,50
Total
152
Promotion
Permanent employee
147
76,76
11283,00
0,697
Contract holder
5
69,00
345,00
Total
152
Supervising
Permanent employee
147
77,29
11361,50
0,230
Contract holder
5
53,30
266,50
Total
152
Benefits
Permanent employee
147
76,99
11317,50
0,455
Contract holder
5
62,10
310,50
Total
152
Performance-based rewards
Permanent employee
147
76,60
11260,50
0,876
Contract holder
5
73,50
367,50
Total
152
Operating conditions
Permanent employee
147
76,61
11261,50
0,868
Contract holder
5
73,30
366,50
Total
152
Collaborators
Permanent employee
147
75,57
11109,00
0157
Contract holder
5
103,80
519,00
Total
152
Nature of work
Permanent employee
147
75,40
11084,00
0,094
Contract holder
5
108,80
544,00
Total
152
Communication
Permanent employee
147
76,68
11272,50
0,780
Contract holder
5
71,10
355,50
Total
152
Table 13: Differences between work relationships regarding satisfaction (dimensions).
Discussion
The findings from the said research study are significant and can be summarized as follows:
An effect on the level of satisfaction of the nursing staff is observed from the factors of years of service, position of responsibility, working hours and monthly salaries.
Al-Dossary et al. [10] studied 50 Saudi nurses and 167 non- Saudi nurses working in a teaching hospital in Saudi Arabia and found that most socio-demographic factors, namely age, gender and level of education, did not affect the degree of job satisfaction. However, the number of years of nursing experience was significant. Job satisfaction was positively related to pay, contingent rewards, coworkers, supervision, and job nature, while job promotion and working conditions had a moderate association with job satisfaction. The most satisfying factor for nurses was leadership style. Regarding the limitations of the present research, it is noted that the results obtained from the said study can be further investigated in samples from other hospital contexts, private or even public, giving the possibility to control the variables under study, to compare the results, so that more general conclusions can be drawn. However, it should be noted that this study was conducted in only one hospital and therefore, because the sample is small, the results cannot be generalized.
Among all the fields, the field of health is the one that traditionally seems to be the most affected by this type of situation, especially regarding to nurses, who are a professional branch that contains a large responsibility, work demands and insecurity but at the same time great dedication to work [11]. The contribution of nurses to the global health is indisputable and investing in their quality of life would benefit all of them society [12,13].
References
- Hoboubi N, Choobine A, Ghanavati FK, Keshavarzi S, Hosseini AA. The impact of job stress and job satisfaction on workforce productivity in an Iranian petrochemical industry. Saf Health Work. 2017; 8: 67–71.
- Spector PE. Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and Consequences. London: Sage. 1997.
- Klassen RM, Chiu MM. Effects on teachers’ self‐efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2010; 102: 741–756.
- LI‐Ping, Tang T, Gilbert P. Attitudes toward money as related to intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction, stress and work‐related attitudes. Pers Indiv Differ. 1995; 19: 327‐ 332.
- Pfefferbaum B, North CS. Mental health and the Covid‐19 pandemic. N Engl JMed. 2020; 383: 510‐512.
- Khowaja K, Merchant RJ, Hirani D. Registered nurse perception of work satisfaction at a tertiary care university hospital. Journal of Nursing Management. 2005; 13: 32‐39.
- Kantas, A. (1995). Organizational - Industrial Psychology, Part 30. Athens: Greek Letters.
- Said RM, El‐Shafei DA. Occupational stress, job satisfaction, and intent to leave: nurses working on front lines during COVID‐19 pandemic in Zagazig City, Egypt. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2021; 28: 8791‐8801.
- Yu X, Zhao Y, Li Y, Hu C, Xu H, Zhao X, Huang J. Factors Associated With Job Satisfaction of Frontline Medical Staff Fighting Against COVID‐19: A Cross‐Sectional Study in China. Front. Public Health. 2020; 8: 426.
- Al-Dossary R, Vail J, MacFarlane F. Job satisfaction of nurses in a Saudi university teaching hospital: a cross-sectional study. International Nursing Review. 2012; 59: 424-430.
- Ilić IM, Arandjelović MŽ, Jovanović JM, Nešić MM. Relationships of workrelatedpsychosocial risks, stress, individual factors and burnout– Questionnaire surveyamong emergency physicians and nurses. Med Pr. 2017; 68: 167–78.
- Antwi YA, Bowblis JR. The impact of nurse turnover on quality of care andmortality in nursing homes: evidence from the great recession. Am J Health Econ. 2018; 4: 131–163.
- Buchan J, Duffield C, Jordan A. ‘Solving’ nursing shortages: do we need a newagenda? J Nurs Manag. 2015; 23: 543–545.
Download PDF