张建江, 贾继民, 陶宁, 田华, 宋志新, 邱尔臣, 刘继文. 某机械装备密闭空间作业人员付出-回报失衡对工作满意度的影响[J]. 环境与职业医学, 2016, 33(11): 1063-1068. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2016.16310
引用本文: 张建江, 贾继民, 陶宁, 田华, 宋志新, 邱尔臣, 刘继文. 某机械装备密闭空间作业人员付出-回报失衡对工作满意度的影响[J]. 环境与职业医学, 2016, 33(11): 1063-1068. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2016.16310
ZHANG Jian-jiang, JIA Ji-min, TAO Ning, TIAN Hua, SONG Zhi-xin, QIU Erchen, LIU Ji-wen. Effect of Effort-Reward Imbalance on Job Satisfaction of Personnel Working in Sealed Cabin of Mechanical Equipment[J]. Journal of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, 2016, 33(11): 1063-1068. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2016.16310
Citation: ZHANG Jian-jiang, JIA Ji-min, TAO Ning, TIAN Hua, SONG Zhi-xin, QIU Erchen, LIU Ji-wen. Effect of Effort-Reward Imbalance on Job Satisfaction of Personnel Working in Sealed Cabin of Mechanical Equipment[J]. Journal of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, 2016, 33(11): 1063-1068. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2016.16310

某机械装备密闭空间作业人员付出-回报失衡对工作满意度的影响

Effect of Effort-Reward Imbalance on Job Satisfaction of Personnel Working in Sealed Cabin of Mechanical Equipment

  • 摘要: 目的

    了解某机械装备密闭空间作业人员工作满意度状况,并分析付出-回报失衡对工作满意度的影响,为进一步采取有针对性的防护和干预措施奠定实践和理论依据。

    方法

    采用多阶段分层随机抽样,于2016 年8 月上旬选取新疆某机构350 名机械装备密闭空间作业人员作为调查对象,应用中文版明尼苏达满意度量表(MinnesotaSatisfaction Questionnaire,MSQ)和付出- 回报失衡(Effort-Reward Imbalance,ERI)量表对其进行调查,收回问卷348 份,剔除无效问卷,得到有效问卷332 份,有效率为94.86%(332/350)。分析人口信息学特征对MSQ的影响,分别以ERI 3 个分量表得分的均值及ERI 指数1 为界,将调查对象分为两组,比较不同组间工作满意度的得分情况,同时采用分层回归分析方法研究付出- 回报失衡对工作满意度的影响。

    结果

    332 名调查对象的内部满意度得分为43.96±6.60,外部满意度得分为29.17±5.50,总体满意度得分为73.13±11.37。按人口信息学特征,不同文化程度、入伍前身份、职位影响MSQ得分,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);入伍前居住地、是否独生子及吸烟状况对MSQ得分的影响无统计学意义(P<0.05)。付出低得分组的内部满意度、外部满意度和总体满意度均高于高得分组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01);回报低得分组的内部满意度、外部满意度和总体满意度均低于高得分组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01);内在付出低得分组的外部满意度和总体满意度均高于高得分组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01 或P<0.05);ERI 指数≥ 1 组的内部满意度、外部满意度和总体满意度均低于ERI 指数<1 组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01 或P<0.05)。固定人口信息学特征后,对内部满意度有影响的自变量为回报,其影响为正向,b=0.198(P<0.01);对外部满意度有影响的自变量为付出和回报,付出的影响为负向,b=-0.299(P<0.01),回报的影响为正向,b=0.142(P<0.01);对总体满意度有影响的自变量为付出和回报,付出的影响为负向,b=-0.506(P<0.01),回报的影响为正向,b=0.263(P<0.01)。

    结论

    机械装备密闭空间作业人员的文化程度、入伍前身份及职位影响其工作满意度。付出- 回报失衡影响工作满意度,付出对外部满意度和总体满意度具负向预测作用,回报对内部满意度、外部满意度和总体满意度具有正向预测作用。

     

    Abstract: Objective

    To study the job satisfaction of personnel working in sealed cabin of mechanical equipment, assess the effect of effort-reward imbalance on job satisfaction, and to lay a practical and theoretical foundation for further targeted prevention and intervention measures.

    Method

    A multi-stage stratified cluster sampling survey was conducted among 350 personnel working in sealed cabin of mechanical equipment in Xinjiang in early August of 2016. The Chinese version of Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) and the Chinese version of Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) questionnaire were distributed. A total of 348 questionnaires were returned, and after invalid questionnaire eliminated, 332 questionnaires (94.86%, 332/350) were valid. To study the distribution of MSQ score related to demographic characteristics, the subjects were divided into high and low score groups according to the average scores of three ERI sub-scales and ERI index of 1 respectively. The effect of effort-reward imbalance on job satisfaction were assesed by hierarchical regression analysis.

    Result

    The intrinsic, extrinsic, and general satisfaction scores of MSQ were 43.96±6.60, 29.17±5.50, and 73.13±11.37, respectively. Among demographic characteristics, educational level, pre-enlistment identity, and position affected MSQ scores, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05); preenlistment place of residence, whether being only child, and whether smoking had no effect on MSQ scores (P >0.05). The scores of intrinsic satisfaction, extrinsic satisfaction, and general satisfaction of the low effort group were higher than those of the high effort group (P<0.01); while the scores of the low reward group were lower than those of the high reward group (P<0.01). The scores of extrinsic satisfaction and general satisfaction in the low over-commitment group were higher than those of the high over-commitment group (P<0.01 or P<0.05). The scores of intrinsic satisfaction, extrinsic satisfaction, and general satisfaction of the ERI index <1 group were higher than those of the ERI index ≥ 1 group (P<0.01 or P<0.05). After selected demographic variables controlled, the independent variable that affected intrinsic satisfaction was reward, and the impact was positive, b=0.198 (P<0.01); the independent variables that affected extrinsic satisfaction were effort and reward, the impact of effort was negative, b=-0.299 (P<0.01), and the impact of reward was positive, b=0.142 (P<0.01); the independent variables that affected general satisfaction were effort and reward, the impact of effort was negative, b=-0.506 (P<0.01), and the impact of reward was positive, b=0.263 (P<0.01).

    Conclusion

    Educational level, pre-enlistment identity, and position could affect the job satisfaction of personnel working in sealed cabin of mechanical equipment. In selected occupational setting, effort-reward imbalance could affect job satisfaction: Effort has a negative predictive effect on extrinsic satisfaction and general satisfaction, and reward has a positive predictive effect on intrinsic satisfaction, extrinsic satisfaction, and general satisfaction.

     

/

返回文章
返回