Talk:Job satisfaction

message: Hello I am here because as a class project I have to contribute to articles in wikipedia. I will like to contribute your subtitle Personality. Check out the sandbox to see what I want to add. Thanks in advance. Sandbox Personality
Ant N York (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: I will like to contribute

message: I am an Industrial Organizational Psychology student, and am writing a paper that involves job satisfaction.  I wrote one the previous semester as well. I read a number of articles and never came across the JGI until now.  A search on EBSCO Host and Google Scholar turns up very little relevant info, and I could not find a validity or reliability study or a study comparing it to the JDI.  Unless someone can provide a citation then I am going to remove the part about it being better than the JDI.  While the JDI does have problems, it has been studied numerous times and so we know much about its limitations, as I said, I've never seen anything on the JGI, and I couldn't find any information in a few quick searches.  Any objections?   Edit: 4/1 With a bit of luck I've found out it's called the Job in General Scale (I was searching for Index).  Once I get some more time to investigate I will update this post.14:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Considering deleting statement about the JGI 

message: External link "Are You Satisfied?" was to a DeVry recruiting site. Link deleted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.43.63 (talk) 03:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted Advertisement 

message: I disagree that the article is too technical. I have only personal (not personnel) experience to rely upon and the article makes sense to me. I've done a bit of copy editing on it as the statistics were a bit techy, and some of the article reads like it has been edited and re-edited until the contributor's eyes have glazed over. It's not perfect yet, but I think the tag should go. Wikiwayman (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and am removing the tag.  It isn't even close to being too technical to understand. Guy Macon 20:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too technical? 

message: Why does the Job Descriptive Index redirect to this article?  The JDI is a specific instrument that, although mentioned in the article, probably merits its own article rather than a redirect.  Moreover, there are many other measures of Job Satisfaction and from what I can tell, none redirect here. I am proposing the creation of a separate JDI article, and your feedback is appreciated.  I am going to assign a student to begin the process.  More information on the JDI can be found here:  http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/psych/io/jdi/index.html Mjtagler (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That could be a good idea. Sometimes redirects are made simply because there was no article to hand and nobody was about to write one, so it's easier just to send readers to a closely related concept... looking at the sources, I'm confident that an article on the JDI would pass the notability guideline. bobrayner (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks for the speedy feedback.  Question:  When the student is ready to start the JDI article, how do they remove the redirect? Thanks. Mjtagler (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You can edit the redirect like any other article: just replace the "#REDIRECT" keyword with your text (and categories and templates and everything else that makes a new article). This could also be done in reverse, if you ever want to merge articles. bobrayner (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  JDI as it's own article? 

message: Hi,
*Some new sources have been added, and new content has built on these. The discrepancy-theory and opponent process theory sections are nice additions. I'm not an SME but I did some spot-checks and the text generally seemed to be saying exactly the same as the underlying source.
*Alas, the "history" section is still unsourced. This is a shame as it has a lot of potential - the history of Taylorism, the Hawthorne effect, &c is quite interesting. Maybe even a little Weber? Who knows, maybe there's some mention of job satisfaction in more classical literature (the fashion for Sun Tzu has probably passed but I daresay it's mentioned in one of the mirrors-for-princes).
*You've done a good job of discussing several theories, but I think it could be possible to compare/contrast them rather than treating them as standalone sections.
*The presentation is OK. Not great, but OK. Reasonable layout, a handful of grammar or typo problems. (Ie. "Hertzberg", or the genetics study oscillating between present and past tense)
*The wording generally sticks quite closely to what sources say, sentence by sentence, which is great for accuracy of course, but a side-effect is that an article built in a patchwork like this can be a struggle for readers. It might be a good idea to try slimming down some of the wording, breaking it up, or doing anything else you could think of to improve readability.
*Some sources have been used repeatedly; that's not a problem in itself, but the references list starts to look rather repetitive unless you name and reuse refs in the same way as the Hackman & Oldham or the Stahl one.
*Have you tried exploring other kinds of sources? The "core" of the article is built on the right kind of sources, but maybe less-academic books or even other media could provide some nice little details. Case-studies from particular industries &c could be very helpful.
Have fun,
bobrayner (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review etc. 

message: This article has recently been edited by students as part of their course work for a university course.  As part of the quality metrics for the education program, we would like to determine what level of burden is placed on Wikipedia's editors by student coursework.
If you are an editor of this article who spent time correcting edits to it made by the students, please tell us how much time you spent on cleaning up the article.  Please note that we are asking you to estimate only the negative effects of the students' work.  If the students added good material but you spent time formatting it or making it conform to the manual of style, or copyediting it, then the material added was still a net benefit, and the work you did improved it further.  If on the other hand the students added material that had to be removed, or removed good material which you had to replace, please let us know how much time you had to spend making those corrections. This includes time you may have spent posting to the students' talk pages, or to Wikipedia noticeboards, or working with them on IRC, or any other time you spent which was required to fix problems created by the students' edits. Any work you did as a Wikipedia Ambassador for that student's class should not be counted.
Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:
* 0 -No unproductive work to clean up
* 1 - A few minutes of work needed
* 2 - Between a few minutes and half an hour of work needed
* 3 - Half an hour to an hour of work needed
* 4 - More than an hour of work needed
Please also add any comments you feel may be helpful. We welcome ratings from multiple editors on the same article. Add your input here. Thanks! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Impact of recent student edits

message: Hi, my name isJasmine R. B. and I am apart of Psychology I/O, Spring, 2013 provided by York College taught by my professor, Dr. Ashton. As a part of our class assignment we are required to make an edit on a Wikipedia article that strikes our interest, as well as things we think needed to be added to the article. Here is a link to my sandbox(/sandbox MsPsychology Sandbox), I wanted to add additional information to your article regarding Race. --MsPsychology (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Race

message: hello i am taking part in a psychology class this semester where we must making edits on wiki pages involving matters of i/o psychology. I found a section on your article where i would like to add a little more information to it. I would like if you can take a look at the edit I wish to make and comment with your feedback, thank you. [] DJames5 (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Equity Theory

message: :Employees that are satisfied with their jobs tend to be more productive. In an analysis of hundreds of studies, it has been found that companies with a high employee satisfaction rating had over 30 percent higher results in productivity and sales, with creativity being three times higher than companies not rated as high in satisfaction . This means that happy employees beget higher profits. Virgin Atlantic and Virgin Mobile, headed by Richard Branson, work well and have a great employee foundation, because they incorporate the idea that if the employee is happy, that happiness goes forward to the customer.
::The first half is a misenterpretation of the source, which does have some text on the subject, but is says not what the wikipedian says, and  Forbes itself makes unverifiable claim, because the reference it cites does not say what Forbes says - a double whammy. The second half is a shameless promotional plug-in, WP:PEACOCK. Wikipedia does not use promotional bragging of VIPs as a source of information. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, when a VIP talks about his happy employees it is bragging.  Staszek Lem (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted piece 

message: :The history section seemed insignificantly simple. Of course there has to be history on the topic, but it seemed like all the history was woven throughout the rest of the article. For example, past research on the topic was referred to often in the rest of the article. That information should be included in the sections where it was relevant of course, but the history section seems to not contain much substance although there is history on the topic. Ca.craft (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: History Section

message: "Spector (1997)[1] lists 14 common facets: Appreciation, Communication, Coworkers, Fringe benefits, Job conditions, Nature of the work, Organization, Personal growth, Policies and procedures, Promotion opportunities, Recognition, Security, and Supervision." Those are 13. What's missing? Cognita (talk) 06:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numerical problem in intro 

message: — Assignment last updated by ZhegeID (talk) 08:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU23 - Sect 200 - Thu