外文翻译--重新评估工作满意度和工作生活质量

外文 翻译 阿房宫赋翻译下载德汉翻译pdf阿房宫赋翻译下载阿房宫赋翻译下载翻译理论.doc --重新评估工作满意度和工作生活质量 毕业论文(或毕业设计) 外 文 文 献 翻 译 译文: 重新评估工作满意度和工作生活质量 译文: 1重新评估工作满意度和工作生活质量 有效的工作满意度的措施在评估工作特性和提高工作生活质量中是有问题的。民意调查显示，虽然多年以来，工作满意度水平高且稳定，员工的挫折感和异化迹象却一直在增加。经过更密切的检查，这调查得出的结论是矛盾的，即无论再严谨的工作满意度调查及测量，得到的只是减少员工的挫折感和修改工作两方面的没必要的信息。根据以往的经验以及对工作生活质量的研究表明，为了克服这个缺陷，在测量工作满意度的时候，员工本身需要更多地参与测量。 工作满意度已经成为一个模糊不清的尴尬概念。许多代表着工业人文主义利益的社会科学调查员都对工作满意度十分有兴趣，他们提出了建议:要提高工作满意度就必须关注和改善人与职位的关系。从1930年开始，这种兴趣引起的关注已经从制造业扩展到服务和文职部门。然而，可以断言，很多过去的工作满意度的研究都没有研究工作或工作本身。历史上曾经有过对工作满意度的研究，这种可以支持或者攻击现状的趋势还将继续下去。 在对美国员工工作满意度的继续调查研究中，出现的尴尬是——他们工作的满意程度是用极高的百分比来衡量的，而在同一时间内降低对工人的承诺，员工通过增加缺勤率，尤其是部分缺勤率，而拒绝谈判达成的 合同 劳动合同范本免费下载装修合同范本免费下载租赁合同免费下载房屋买卖合同下载劳务合同范本下载 以及破坏产品的比率显然变得更大，这是除了工资以外原因引起的罢工。员工异化的这些问题已经提起公众的注意，但是如果公众的关注继续增长，为什么员工安静的工作越来越被看作是压力的缓解，这些精心的准备和事实将使对工作满意度的严格调查成为必然。 前 言 本文是以在不减少防范反应和抽样误差的情况下，使用更精密的统计测试为目的，对满意度的数据在不同的模式下进行界定和衡量。我这样做并不是刻意对 1 作者:James C. Taylor 国籍:美国 出处:职业心理学, 1977.50卷 工作满意度研究本身进行批评，而是对使用该变量的评价并试图改善工作生活质量进行批评。这里要特别提出的一个研究模式是行动研究方法(Lewin，1946;Davis，1971)，一个关于职务设计的民主化模型(Elden，1976;Taylor，1976;Herbst & Getz，1977)。那些指标会改善值得关注的工作生活质量和员工在特定的工作设置中的参与，以及使用的语言。在这个模型中，要抓获具备能力衡量更多有关个人发展新 标准 excel标准偏差excel标准偏差函数exl标准差函数国标检验抽样标准表免费下载红头文件格式标准下载 的工作持有人，这些描述是由Blackler和Brown在1975年提出的。 研究背景 以前有几点关于工作满意度到底意味着什么的看法。长期以来，有兴趣的调查员就一直在研究措施使员工对工作更满意。从1951年起，Kahn & Morse就开始研究影响工作满意度的外在因素与内在因素，并于1973年在美国工作时创办了一个论坛。那次辩论的立场是呼吁利用越来越多的新措施来具体针对各项工作的特点，如投影措施。我们应该使用假设性的案件或者以其他方式或间接的问题接近受访者，因为直接的问题可能过于威胁性而使得受访者变得更加谨慎。这次辩论虽然激烈，尽管有如调查工作条件这样严谨和仔细的研究，但在很大程度上问题仍然悬而未决。 从密歇根大学的社会研究所(ISR)在1970年对工作满意度的规模单一添加剂的办法的比较中令人惊讶地发现:70年代的采用单一措施的整体工作满意度的水平低(Herrick&Quinn，1971)。 其他一些关于工作满意度的最近讨论，在完全避免任何的测量或定义的辩论中，反对者更直接上诉潜在的社会问题。举例来说，部分支持工业的人文主义在推定报告的基础上所产生的目前可用的工作满意度的绝对数字可以推断出美国工人的不满(Rosow，1974)。这种使用甜甜圈与孔的方法的不满，被界定为一种重要的社会问题，因为工人工作满意度低的报告已经数以百万计。 存在的问题 尽管有这些国家的最高权威，美国工人的工作满意度指数仍然只是一个很小的百分比。在盖洛普或者其他国家的调查中，这些指标是否由单一项目所采取的措施或者是非常复杂的多个项目的规模，例如那些已经提到的对这一比例仍旧莫名其妙的感到满意的工人报告。统计的事实是，要承担不论在何种程度上测量所带来的复杂性。事实是不论是否研究使用数据的具体的工人在组装厂或国家随机抽样，80%或更多的接受调查的美国人都满意他们的工作。 Imberman和Deforest在芝加哥报道，一项由咨询公司对五家工厂的3800名员工的调查显示，79-85%的员工对装配生产线的工作感到满意(Imberman，1972)。Rutgers大学医学院的研究人员报告称，在1968年调查的576名联合汽车工会成员中，95,的工人对他们在汽车工厂的工作感到满意(Siassi，Crocetti ,Spiro，1974年)。虽然这些调查者称，他们的调查样本是工作满意度和工作生活质量:对一个在巴尔的摩预付联盟健康 计划 项目进度计划表范例计划下载计划下载计划下载课程教学计划下载 的联合汽车保险集团代表的重估，但是，样本应该被定格为约13年的服务期，平均40岁以下的，并每年赚取九千美元以上的白人男子。 这些结果一直以来和全国性的更仔细取样的 调查报告 行政管理关于调查报告关于XX公司的财务调查报告关于学校食堂的调查报告关于大米市场调查报告关于水资源调查报告 是一致的。举例来说，一项于1954年由芝加哥科学研究联营公司对50万受访者的全国调查称， 81,的受访者对他们的工作感到满意。最近盖洛普组织报告称，在1964年的调查者中87,的工人对他们的工作感到满意，1973年调查中的77,的工人对他们的工作感到满意。一项由ISR调查中心最近做的调查的结果，显示91,的男性工人对他们的工作感到满意。这些最近的调查结果和早前的调查在一个水平线上(这是总结了Kaplan1958年至1973年间的研究成果，1976年)。 这些不同的研究都明确地表明，多数的美国工人对他们的工作感到满意。这些结果还显示了，在1954年至1973年间的一些小改变。这展现了工作满意度从低到高约79,到约95,的一个转变进度。这种趋势显然不完全是Cherns(1975)在英国于最近的工作满意度研究讨论中指出的美国现象。 这一模式得到了在各种不同的组织中系统收集到的约2万名各个阶层(非主管管理)的员工数据测试的额外支持。美国密西根大学科学知识(CRUSK)开端 研究中心1966年和1970年间在15个美国公司中约33个工厂和办事处收集到这些数据(CRUSK，1970年;Taylor & Bowers，1972年)。这些组织在各个维度方面如:管理、经济状况，以及规模、衣领的颜色、技术等都是大不同的，虽然他们没有被系统地采样。整体而言，报道称2万人中的85,的工人对他们的工作感到满意，更多的人不感到不满意，但这些组织的统计范围是相当狭窄的。一个200人的保险公司有95%的员工对他们的工作感到不满，该公司在33个公司中排名首位。440人的造纸厂有76,的工人对他们的工作感到不满意，这一公司排在33个组织中不满意度最低位。尽管不是从美国组织中选取的科学样本，满意度调查的范围也不是不同于全国性的调查。 同时，我们发现在这些所有不同组织中这个大比例的员工，表示对他们的工作没有感到不满意。像我们预测一样，我们发现工作满意度的可靠措施，并不是和这些组织的旷工高度相关的。与怨气和营业额的措施(如少有数据可查的)，人际关系与工作满意度并不是一贯的高或低。如果我们看看之间的分歧，工作组在这些组织之间的因果关系的满意度和组织行为都不甚高(Taylor & Bowers，1972年，p77–79，89)。这些研究结果也许可以解释，无论我们在此基础上如何界定以及对工作满意度多么仔细分类包括单独和重组，我们仍然只是对工作本身进行衡量。我们不能期望来衡量所有要工人摆脱其内部的抗辩或期望的问卷措施。 原文: 1Job satisfaction and quality of working life: A reassessment 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 levels 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 satisfaction surveys are measuring, it is not the information needed to modify jobs and work in order to reduce employee frustration. To overcome flaws in the measurement of satisfaction for this purpose employees themselves need to be more involved in the measurement process. Recent experience with employee participation in action research on qualiof working life is noted, and the extension and furtherance of this model is proposed. ty Job satisfaction as a concept has become an embarrassing ambiguity. For many investigators in the social sciences, an interest 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 has been concerned with monitoring the factory model of work design which has been diffused from manufacturing into the service and clerical sectors. It must be asserted, however, that much of what has passed for job satisfaction research has failed to study the job or the work itself. Job satisfaction research has historically been used either to support or to attack the status quo, and the trend continues. The embarrassment with respect to job 'satisfaction' 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 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, is high and apparently becoming greater. Increasing public attention has been drawn to these issues of employee alienation. If public concern continues to grow for what is increasingly seen as employees' quiet desperation with work, then the pressures for a reconciliation between these facts and the carefully prepared, rigorous job satisfaction surveys will become inexorable. 1 Author: James C. Taylor，Nationality: USA，Originate from: Journal of Occupational Psychology， 1977.Vol.50. AIM The present paper is intended to address this reconciliation not in terms of reducing sampling errors, guarding against response 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 satisfaction research per se, but rather to criticize the use of that variable in evaluating and attempting to improve the quality of working life. The particular research model proposed is an action research approach (Lewin, 1946; Davis, 1971) model of 'democratization of job design' (Elden, 1976; Taylor, 1976; Herbst & Getz, 1977)—which indicator s of what would improve the quality of working life for employees in given work settings are applied with the involvement and commitment, and in the language, of those concerned. In this model is captured the ability to measure new criteria more relevant to thepersonal development of the job holder, as recently described by Blackler & Brown (1975). APPROACH 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 interested 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 new, specific measures of various job characteristics, increasingly projective measures using hypothetical cases, or otherwise approaching the respondent more cautiously or with indirect questions because direct questions may be too threatening. This debate, although heated, remains largely unresolved, in spite of rigorous and carefully done studies such as the 'Survey of Working Conditions, 1970' from the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research (ISR) which undertook to compare the unitary and additive approaches to job satisfaction scales. In this ISR survey, 'JOBSAT '70' (the additive measure) and 'Overall Job Satisfaction' (the unitary measure) were found to be related to each other at surprisingly low levels (Herrick&Quinn, 1971). Some other of the recent job satisfaction discussions totally avoid either definitional or measurement 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 reporting dissatisfaction based on the job satisfaction statistics currently available (Rosow, 1974). Using this doughnut vs. hole approach, dissatisfaction is defined as an important social problem because the workers who report displeasure with their work must number in the millions. THE PROBLEM 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 item 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 statistical fact is that, regardless of what degree of measurement sophistication is brought to bear, 80 per cent or more of those Americans surveyed report being satisfied with their jobs. This is true whether the studies use data specific to workers in assembly plants or to national random samples. A Imberman, of the consulting firm of Imberman and DeForest of Chicago, reported a survey of 3800 employees in five factories 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 were satisfied with their jobs in an auto plant (Siassi,Crocetti & Spiro, 1974). Although these investigators state that their sample was representative of an insured group of UAW members in a prepaid union health plan in Baltimore, it should be noted that their sample is characterized as white males, averaging 40 years of age, about 13 years' service, and earning $9000 or more annually. These results are consistent with more 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 satisfied with their work. More recently the Gallup organization has reported 87 percent satisfied in a 1964 poll, and 77 per cen t satisfied in 1973. Very recent survey results, reported by the Survey Research Center at ISR, reveal fully 91 per cent of male workers are satisfied with their jobs. These last results are as high as those reported in earlier surveys (which are summarized over the period 1958-1973 by Kaplan, 1976). These different studies all clearly suggest that an overwhelming majority of American workers report satisfaction with their work. These results also show little change (only four percentage points) over the 20-year interval between the boom years 1954-1973. It seems that under the range o f most normal circumstances job satisfaction (or the absence of dissatisfaction) ranges from a low of about 79 percent to a high of 95 percent. This trend is apparently not exclusively an American phenomenon, as Cherns (1975) points out in a discussion of recent job satisfaction research in the United Kingdom. This pattern receives additional support from the examination of data systematically collected 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 Michigan 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 organizations differed widely on dimensions like management philosophy and economic condition; as well as size, technology, collar colour and the like. Overall, 85 percent of all 20 000 people reported being satisfied (or more specifically not being dissatisfied) with their jobs, while across these organizations the range of this statistic was quite narrow. An insurance office of 200 people topped the list of 33 organizations with 95 per cent not dissatisfied. A paper mill employing 440 people set the low point among the 33 organizations with 76 per cent reporting no dissatisfaction with their jobs. In spite of not being taken from a scientific sample of American organizations, this range of satisfaction reported is not unlike the national surveys already described. At 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 satisfaction 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 satisfaction are not consistently high or low. If w e look at differences among work groups within these organizations the causal relationships between satisfaction and organizational behaviour are not very high (Taylor & Bowers, 1972, pp.77-79, 89). These findings may be explained on the basis that, regardless of how well we define work satisfaction and how many careful categories we separate and recombine it into, we are still measuring more than perceptions of the work itself. We cannot expect to measure all that is important to workers or to get beyond their internal defences or expectations with precoded questionnaire measures alone.