Why Are Fewer and Fewer U.S. Employees Satisfied With Their Jobs?

Original Article

Two items caught my eye this month. I'm wondering whether they have anything to do with one another. The first is a news release from The Conference Board reporting that its most recent periodic poll showed that only 45 percent of workers in the U.S. were satisfied with their jobs, the lowest level in the 23-year history of the poll—this in an era in which we are told that jobs are being enhanced by information technology.

The second is an article by Jeffrey Pfeffer pointing out the prevalence of "green" initiatives by business organizations. Invariably these initiatives are associated with saving the external environment. Pfeffer asks why, in the face of the evidence of its importance, do so few of these initiatives involve the sustainability of workers in these same organizations? Citing Wal-Mart and BP, he maintains that the same organizations that are lauded for their efforts to sustain the external environment are, at the same time, exercising cost-cutting efforts (such as low wages, poor benefits, no health insurance for many employees in the case of Wal-Mart, fines for safety violations in the case of BP) in dealing with their employees.

Pfeffer cites a large body of epidemiological and public health research that suggests that an organization's practices have profound effects on the health of its employees. A large body of research offers evidence of the following: (1) Organizations implementing health and wellness programs for their employees realize significant cost savings through reduced disability expenses, (2) Health insurance affects health status positively, (3) Layoffs are harmful to everything from mental and physical well-being to work behavior, (4) Work schedules and length of hours affect physical well-being and family relationships, both of which can have positive or negative effects on productivity, (5) Job design that allows employees to have control over their work is conducive to lower stress levels and better health outcomes (for example, the higher one rises in an organization, the lower the risk of cardiovascular problems), and (6) Policies that promote inequality in income and education can, by extension, lead to poor health outcomes.

Much of the research that does explore the impact of organizational practice focuses on outcomes such as cost and profitability. For example, satisfied, engaged employees have been found to be more productive, a finding that essentially treats them as means to an end. Why is that? Among other things, Pfeffer speculates that one reason is that we assume correctly that polar bears can't do much to affect their own well-being. Humans, on the other hand, can take steps to improve theirs. As a result, to varying degrees around the world, we adopt a "laissez faire" attitude toward issues of human sustainability. Does this help explain the findings of The Conference Board?

Has concern about the sustainability of our environment taken precedent over issues associated with sustaining organizations? Or are we just revisiting age-old issues with new vocabulary? Would more than 1.3 million Wal-Mart employees worldwide see this issue the same way as those who assume what's good for them? Why are fewer and fewer employees satisfied with their jobs, in spite of the adoption of information technology that should make them more interesting? What kinds of responses, if any, are called for? What do you think?

To read more:

The Conference Board, "U.S. Job Satisfaction at Lowest Level in Two Decades," January 5, 2010.

Jeffrey Pfeffer, "Building Sustainable Organizations: The Human Factor," Academy of Management Perspectives, February, 2010, pp. 34-45.