German General Job Satisfaction Scale

1. Abstract

The German General Job Satisfaction Scale (known in German psychometrics as Allgemeine Arbeitszufriedenheit [AAZ] or Skala zur Messung der allgemeinen Arbeitszufriedenheit [SAZ]) is an established multidimensional self-report inventory formulated by German work and organizational psychologists Lorenz Fischer and Helmut E. Lück in 1972. Developed to capture both overarching cognitive-evaluative work attitudes and specific operational facets of the employment experience, the instrument addresses the foundational relationship between work conditions, individual cognitive appraisals, and organizational behaviors. The full-length scale comprises 37 standardized items, preceded by an introductory item (“Aufmacher”) designed to alleviate initial response bias and establish rapport, yielding 36 scored items that evaluate four primary latent dimensions: Self-Realization (Selbstverwirklichung), Resignation (Resignation), Satisfaction with Payment (Zufriedenheit mit der Bezahlung), and Evaluation of the Company (Einschätzung der Firma). In addition to the comprehensive 37-item inventory, Fischer and Lück derived an 8-item short form (Kurzskala zur Messung allgemeiner Arbeitszufriedenheit) optimized for large-scale organizational surveys and rapid screening environments where operational parsimony is paramount.

The scale employs five-point Likert-type scales with calibrated anchored response categories customized according to item phrasing (e.g., degree of agreement, subjective satisfaction, frequency, and personal probability). Psychometric evaluation of the instrument demonstrates robust measurement properties. Split-half reliability coefficients calculated via the Spearman-Brown formula range from r_tt = .87 to .96 across varying item splits and demographic subgroups (including male, female, blue-collar wage earners, and white-collar salaried employees). Corrected item-total correlations (part-whole corrected, r_it-i) for the full inventory span from .36 to .72 (mean r ≈ .56), while the short scale achieves corrected item-total correlations between .65 and .72 (mean r = .70). Construct and criterion-related validity are substantiated by statistically significant correlations with general life satisfaction, subjective job involvement, occupational status differentials relative to paternal socio-economic background, self-reported absenteeism due to illness, and turnover intentions. The instrument represents an enduring methodological cornerstone in German industrial and organizational psychology, providing researchers and practitioners with an empirically substantiated diagnostic tool to evaluate employee welfare, occupational health, and organizational dynamics.

2. Keywords

Allgemeine Arbeitszufriedenheit, job satisfaction, occupational psychology, industrial and organizational psychology, employee morale, work attitudes, self-realization, resignation, compensation satisfaction, organizational climate, psychometrics, Fischer and Lück, employee turnover intention, absenteeism.

3. Authors

The German General Job Satisfaction Scale was developed and standardized by two prominent figures in German psychological scholarship:

• Prof. Dr. Lorenz Fischer: Formerly affiliated with the Institute for Economic and Social Psychology (University of Cologne; Institut für Wirtschafts- und Sozialpsychologie, Universität zu Köln), Herbert-Lewin-Str. 2, 50931 Köln, Germany. Dr. Fischer is a recognized authority in organizational psychology, work-related stress, and behavioral economic decision-making.
• Prof. Dr. Helmut E. Lück: Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the Institute of Psychology, FernUniversität in Hagen (Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences; Fachbereich Erziehungs- und Sozialwissenschaften, Lehrgebiet Psychologie), Feithstr. 140, 58097 Hagen, Germany. Prof. Lück is widely distinguished for his prolific contributions to social psychology, historical foundations of psychology, group dynamics, and empirical psychometric methodology.

4. Purpose

The primary rationale underlying the creation of the German General Job Satisfaction Scale stems from the critical need in European industrial and organizational psychology during the early 1970s for a psychometrically rigorous, linguistically native German instrument capable of assessing both micro-level affective-evaluative responses to specific tasks and global attitudinal dispositions toward the organizational environment. Prior to its publication in 1972, German researchers and human resource diagnosticians frequently relied on unstandardized ad-hoc questionnaires, direct unvalidated translations of Anglo-American tools, or disparate single-item indicators lacking demonstrated reliability and structural stability.

Fischer and Lück constructed the AAZ to address two interrelated empirical objectives: first, to establish a diagnostic benchmark for scientific investigations examining organizational behavior, occupational health, and psychological well-being; and second, to deliver a viable diagnostic system for applied organizational settings. In occupational medicine and workplace health management (Betriebliches Gesundheitsmanagement), the instrument assists in identifying work environments characterized by chronic motivational deficits, structural alienation, and psychological strain. Given that sustained organizational dissatisfaction directly precipitates physiological exhaustion, increased sickness absence, operational error rates, and industrial scrap production, the scale functions as an early warning diagnostic metric for structural workplace pathology.

In applied organizational research, the AAZ enables cross-sectional and longitudinal evaluations of organizational restructuring, leadership development programs, compensation model transitions, and ergonomic workplace redesigns. By segmenting satisfaction into discrete components—such as individual capacity for self-realization, protective psychological resignation, perceptions of wage equity, and trust in corporate leadership—the instrument allows organizational psychologists to pinpoint specific leverage points for human resource interventions. Furthermore, the availability of both a 37-item comprehensive battery and an 8-item unifactorial short scale accommodates diverse research architectures, spanning multi-wave longitudinal panel surveys where questionnaire length must be minimized to extensive diagnostic organizational audits demanding exhaustive facet-level granularity.

5. Psychological Construct

In contemporary organizational science, job satisfaction is conceptualized as an evaluative state expressing an employee’s cognitive appraisals, affective responses, and behavioral tendencies regarding their employment situation. Fischer and Lück posited that overall job satisfaction does not represent a monolithic, unidimensional construct; rather, it emerges from the complex integration of discrete experiential domains and broad psychological reactions to the labor context. The 36 scored items of the AAZ operationalize four distinct, empirically identified latent dimensions:

Self-Realization (Selbstverwirklichung)

The Self-Realization subscale comprises 8 items (Items 2, 7, 12, 17, 21, 22, 24, and 27) capturing the degree to which the work environment fosters personal growth, autonomy, intrinsic cognitive challenge, and the full utilization of professional competencies. Rooted in humanistic and growth-oriented theories of occupational motivation, this dimension assesses whether the workplace allows employees to act with self-determination, take responsibility, enact personal creative initiatives, and experience genuine professional fulfillment. An illustrative item from this domain is Item 12: “Ich kann hier meine Ideen verwirklichen” (“I can realize my ideas here”) and Item 7: “Meine Arbeit gibt mir die Möglichkeit, Verantwortung zu übernehmen und Entscheidungen zu fällen” (“My work gives me the opportunity to take responsibility and make decisions”). High scores on this subscale reflect intrinsically rewarding employment characterized by high cognitive task variety, developmental potential, and self-actualizing potential.

Resignation (Resignation)

The Resignation subscale comprises 8 items (Items 5, 8, 9, 11, 14, 19, 20, and 30) that index defensive psychological adaptation, chronic emotional fatigue, task-induced passivity, and diminished aspirations in response to adverse or stagnant working conditions. Rather than merely assessing the absence of joy, this dimension operationalizes cognitive and emotional withdrawal strategies wherein workers reduce their emotional investment, adapt to unalterable monotony, and count the days until the work week concludes. Prototypical items include Item 11: “Meine Arbeit macht mir wenig Spaß, aber man sollte nicht zu viel erwarten” (“My work brings me little pleasure, but one should not expect too much”), Item 19: “Ich habe es aufgegeben, daran zu denken, dass ich mal weiterkommen könnte” (“I have given up thinking that I could ever advance”), and Item 5: “Wenn ich am Montag zur Arbeit gehe, warte ich schon wieder auf den Freitag” (“When I go to work on Monday, I am already waiting for Friday”). Elevated scores indicate psychological resignation, chronic emotional exhaustion, and learned helplessness within the corporate hierarchy.

Satisfaction with Payment (Bezahlung)

The Payment subscale contains 6 items (Items 29, 31, 32, 33, 36, and 37) measuring cognitive satisfaction with financial remuneration, equitable compensation structures, and perceived career trajectories within the broader industry. Crucially, the items capture both absolute monetary adequacy and social comparative equity—evaluating compensation relative to internal colleagues, external social reference networks (friends and acquaintances), and industry-wide wage standards. Items loading onto this factor also capture occupational mobility tendencies, as inadequate remuneration frequently serves as a direct catalyst for turnover. Representative items include Item 31: “Sind Sie mit der Bezahlung zufrieden?” (“Are you satisfied with the payment?”) and Item 32: “Sind Sie mit der Bezahlung zufrieden, wenn Sie sie vergleichen mit der Ihrer Freunde und Bekannten?” (“Are you satisfied with the payment when you compare it with that of your friends and acquaintances?”).

Evaluation of the Company (Firma)

The Company Evaluation subscale consists of 7 items (Items 10, 23, 25, 26, 28, 34, and 35) assessing institutional trust, perceived fairness of leadership, supervisory feedback style, institutional advancement opportunities, and overall organizational climate (Betriebsklima). This dimension measures the macro-level organizational context in which individual tasks are embedded. Key indicators include perceptions of supervisory procedural justice, promotional pathways within the enterprise, and institutional loyalty expressed via willing advocacy to external job-seekers. Prototypical items include Item 28: “Sind Sie mit der Gerechtigkeit Ihres Vorgesetzten zufrieden?” (“Are you satisfied with the fairness of your supervisor?”) and Item 34: “Wenn Sie einen guten Bekannten hätten, der Arbeit sucht, würden Sie Ihm raten, in Ihren Betrieb zu kommen?” (“If you had a good acquaintance looking for work, would you advise them to join your company?”).

An additional set of 7 items (Items 3, 4, 6, 13, 15, 16, and 18) contribute to the composite 36-item score but do not map uniquely onto a single subscale due to complex factor cross-loadings or factorial loadings falling below the rigorous λ ≥ .50 inclusion threshold. These general items measure core aspects such as acute turnover intentions, organizational disregard for worker input, and general enterprise pride.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture underpinning the German General Job Satisfaction Scale is grounded in classical cognitive-appraisal and occupational stress models, integrating foundational perspectives from mid-twentieth-century industrial sociology, social psychology, and motivation theory. Fischer and Lück explicitly posited that psychological, physiological, and social behavioral responses exhibited by workers do not occur in an environmental vacuum; rather, they are systematically determined by subjective appraisals of discrete characteristics of the work environment. Low job satisfaction initiates a cascading sequence of negative organizational phenomena, ranging from subjective alienation and psychophysiological strain to objective consequences including heightened absenteeism, production deficits, and industrial turnover.

The development of the AAZ was conceptually informed by several seminal theoretical frameworks:

• The Need-Hierarchy and Growth Tradition: Influenced by Abraham Maslow‘s hierarchy of needs and Frederick Herzberg‘s Two-Factor (Motivator-Hygiene) theory, the scale distinguishes between extrinsic context factors (hygiene elements such as company policy, supervisor relations, and base pay) and intrinsic motivators (responsibility, challenging work, and self-realization). Herzberg’s assertion that intrinsic work characteristics foster genuine satisfaction while extrinsic conditions prevent dissatisfaction resonates throughout the distinction between the Selbstverwirklichung and Firma/Bezahlung subscales.
• Resigned Work Satisfaction (Bruggemann’s Model): Although finalized concurrently with Agnes Bruggemann’s (1974) renowned dynamic taxonomy of job satisfaction, the conceptualization of the Resignation dimension anticipated the critical psychometric requirement to distinguish between constructive, progressive satisfaction and resigned satisfaction. According to this framework, an individual faced with suboptimal working conditions may not necessarily express active protest; instead, they downscale their internal aspiration levels, adopting cognitive resignation as a psychological defense mechanism to maintain equilibrium in an unfulfilling position.
• Social Comparison and Equity Theory: Drawing upon J. Stacy Adams‘ equity theory and Leon Festinger‘s social comparison theory, the compensation subscale intentionally incorporates social referents. Fischer and Lück recognized that satisfaction with payment is rarely an absolute function of raw financial income; rather, it is cognitively modulated by perceived equity relative to co-workers within the same enterprise and peer cohorts across the individual’s broader societal circle.
• Empirical Instrument Translation and Synthesis: Methodologically, the scale represents an empirical synthesis and refinement of established international measurement instruments. The authoring team integrated translated and modified items from Brayfield and Rothe’s (1951) General Job Satisfaction questionnaire, Hoppock’s (1935) Job Satisfaction Blank, Heron’s (1954) Job Satisfaction Inventory for Bus Drivers, and Werbik’s (1964) specialized facet catalog. Fischer and Lück combined these items with newly formulated indicators tailored to the socio-cultural and industrial context of post-war German manufacturing and service industries.

7. Validity

Fischer and Lück (1972) subjected the AAZ to extensive empirical testing, evaluating construct, convergent, criterion-related, and discriminant validity across stratified occupational cohorts totaling N = 167 individuals (comprising 46 male blue-collar workers, 51 male white-collar employees, 42 female blue-collar workers, and 28 female white-collar employees).

Convergent and Criterion-Related Validity

Criterion validity was documented via systematic correlations between AAZ scores and external behavioral, demographic, and psychological criteria:

• Relationship with General Life Satisfaction: Theoretical literature dictates that job satisfaction and life satisfaction exhibit substantial positive spillover. Fischer and Lück assessed life satisfaction using the standardized index by Wiendieck (1970) alongside a five-item measure of personal work engagement adapted from Weissenberg and Gruenfeld’s (1968) Job Involvement Index. For respondents exhibiting high work involvement (scores of 9–10 points), the correlation between general job satisfaction and life satisfaction was highly positive and robust, reaching r = .67 (n = 22, p < .01). Conversely, among respondents reporting low work involvement (scores of 5 points), the correlation attenuated to r = .47 (n = 18, p = .05). Subscale correlations with life satisfaction ranged from .42 (Company) and .45 (Payment) to .50 (Self-Realization) and .54 (Resignation).
• Turnover Intentions (Withdrawal Cognitions): Turnover intention was assessed using a standardized five-point behavioral intention scale evaluating how frequently the employee seriously contemplated quitting. Job satisfaction correlated negatively with turnover intentions across the entire sample (r = −.43). Subgroup analyses revealed that this protective effect was pronounced for white-collar employees (r = −.57) and male workers (r = −.62), while exhibiting moderate associations among blue-collar workers (r = −.43) and an attenuated, non-significant correlation among female workers (r = −.19), reflecting labor market dynamics and gendered vocational mobility constraints of the early 1970s.
• Absenteeism and Sick Days: Retrospective health-related absenteeism (self-reported days missed from work during the preceding calendar year due to illness or other personal reasons) demonstrated a selective, statistically significant negative correlation with job satisfaction exclusively among blue-collar wage earners (r = −.26, p ≤ .05), corroborating findings by Metzner and Mann (1953) regarding the heightened sensitivity of manual labor absenteeism to workplace climate.
• Remuneration Levels: Absolute net wage correlated weakly to moderately with general job satisfaction among blue-collar laborers (r = .23) and white-collar employees (r = .18), supporting the theoretical premise that subjective compensation satisfaction is mediated by equity appraisals rather than absolute wage figures.
• Intergenerational Social Mobility: Testing the sociological hypothesis formulated by Form and Geschwender (1962)—which states that individuals whose occupational prestige falls below that of their fathers experience reduced job satisfaction—the authors calculated a social status differential across five stratification classes. The correlation between the status discrepancy index and job satisfaction was r = .19 (p > .05), aligning in direction with theoretical predictions.

Discriminant Validity and Social Desirability

To investigate the degree to which self-reported satisfaction reflected social desirability response bias (soziale Erwünschtheit), expert ratings were gathered for every item on the long form to evaluate whether an affirmative response might be confounded by the respondent’s need for self-favorable presentation. The correlation between the percentage of expert endorsement regarding susceptibility to social desirability and empirical item difficulty was r = .29 (p < .05). The authors concluded that while present, this modest association did not substantively compromise the construct validity of the inventory.

8. Reliability

The reliability of both the 36-item long form and the 8-item short form was evaluated using internal consistency and split-half reliability techniques across multiple split configurations and sample strata:

Split-Half Reliability

Split-half stability estimates corrected via the Spearman-Brown formula demonstrated exceptional internal consistency for the total scale:

• Standard odd-even split-half reliability for the full battery reached r_tt = .95 across the complete standardization sample (N = 167).
• When split deliberately across formal item presentation modalities (dichotomizing declarative statement items versus direct interrogative question items), the resulting split-half coefficient remained highly robust at r_tt = .87, confirming that measurement variance is driven by underlying attitudinal constructs rather than grammatical formatting variations.
• Subgroup-specific split-half reliability calculations revealed uniform stability across demographic segments: male workers yielded r_tt = .96, female workers yielded r_tt = .95, blue-collar workers (Arbeiter) yielded r_tt = .95, and white-collar employees (Angestellte) yielded r_tt = .94.

Item Discrimination and Item-Total Correlations

Corrected item-total correlations (part-whole corrected, r_it-i) for the full 36-item scoring pool were statistically significant at p < .001 across all items:

• Long Form (36 scored items): Part-whole corrected item-total correlations ranged from .36 to .72. The mean item-total correlation across sub-populations was .59 for men, .53 for women, .53 for white-collar staff, and .54 for blue-collar staff, indicating homogeneous item functioning across occupational cohorts. Items exhibiting the highest discriminative power included Item 26 (r_it-i = .72), Item 17 (r_it-i = .71), Item 24 (r_it-i = .70), Item 36 (r_it-i = .70), and Item 21 (r_it-i = .68).
• Short Form (8 items): The 8-item short scale demonstrated elevated part-whole corrected item-total correlations ranging between .65 and .72, with an aggregate average item-total correlation of r = .70. Mean item-total correlations within specific subgroups were .75 for men, .71 for women, .71 for white-collar personnel, and .66 for blue-collar personnel.

9. Factor Analysis

The factorial validity of the German General Job Satisfaction Scale was established through an exploratory factor analysis conducted on the 37 items administered to the standardization sample (N = 167), utilizing orthogonal Varimax rotation.

Factor Extraction and Eigenvalue Distribution

The principal factor extraction revealed four prominent latent dimensions accounting for the systematic variance among the items:

• Factor 1: Self-Realization (Selbstverwirklichung): With an initial eigenvalue of 11.4, this primary factor accounted for the largest proportion of common variance. It captures personal growth, autonomy, utilization of skills, and meaningful task engagement. Eight items met the strict loading inclusion threshold of λ ≥ .50 (Items 2, 7, 12, 17, 21, 22, 24, and 27).
• Factor 2: Resignation (Resignation): Exhibiting an initial eigenvalue of 2.9, this factor captures physical and psychological adaptation, fatigue, diminished aspiration, and habituated work monotony. Eight items met the λ ≥ .50 threshold (Items 5, 8, 9, 11, 14, 19, 20, and 30).
• Factor 3: Compensation and Mobility (Bezahlung): Yielding an initial eigenvalue of 1.6, this factor reflects satisfaction with monetary compensation, comparative wage equity, and occupational switching inclinations. Six items loaded above λ ≥ .50 (Items 29, 31, 32, 33, 36, and 37).
• Factor 4: Evaluation of the Company (Firma): Yielding an initial eigenvalue of 1.4, this factor represents appraisal of organizational leadership, supervisory feedback, institutional fairness, and promotional fairness within the firm. Seven items loaded above λ ≥ .50 (Items 10, 23, 25, 26, 28, 34, and 35).

Seven items (Items 3, 4, 6, 13, 15, 16, and 18) exhibited split factor loadings or failed to achieve a loading of λ ≥ .50 on any single factor; consequently, they were not assigned to specific subtests but were retained in the overarching total scale composite due to their substantial correlation with the overall score.

Subscale Intercorrelations

The empirical subscales demonstrate strong convergence with the overall composite score, while maintaining sufficient discriminant divergence to justify multidimensional profiling:

• Self-Realization with Total Scale: r = .64
• Resignation with Total Scale: r = .69
• Satisfaction with Payment with Total Scale: r = .80
• Company Evaluation with Total Scale: r = .72

Regarding the 8-item short form, Fischer and Lück selected the 8 items demonstrating the highest item-total discrimination indices from across the general pool (Items 11, 17, 20, 21, 24, 26, 30, and 36). Unidimensionality was presupposed without separate exploratory factor isolation, establishing the short version strictly as an economic, unifactorial global index of general job satisfaction.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The German General Job Satisfaction Scale is structured as a standardized paper-and-pencil self-report inventory. The diagnostic framework and administration parameters are structured as follows:

• Instrument Designation: German General Job Satisfaction Scale (Allgemeine Arbeitszufriedenheit [AAZ] / Skala zur Messung der allgemeinen Arbeitszufriedenheit [SAZ]).
• Target Population: Adult employees, workers, and administrative personnel across all industrial, commercial, and public service sectors.
• Administration Modality: Individual or group-administered self-report questionnaire (traditionally printed format, easily adaptable to modern computerized survey engines).
• Item Inventory Size:
  • Full-Length Battery: 37 total items administered. Item 1 is an un-scored introductory item (“Aufmacher”), leaving 36 scored items.
  • Short Form Battery: 8 scored items (Items 11, 17, 20, 21, 24, 26, 30, and 36).
• Response Categories and Formatting Scales: Items utilize 5-point Likert response formats, calibrated according to grammatical form:
  • Declarative Statement Items (Items 1–20): Rated on a 5-point agreement continuum:
    • Positively keyed (+): 5 = richtig (correct), 4 = ziemlich richtig (fairly correct), 3 = weder richtig noch falsch (neither correct nor incorrect), 2 = ziemlich falsch (fairly incorrect), 1 = falsch (incorrect).
    • Negatively keyed (−): 1 = richtig, 2 = ziemlich richtig, 3 = weder richtig noch falsch, 4 = ziemlich falsch, 5 = falsch.
  • Satisfaction Interrogatives (Items 23, 25–32): Rated on a satisfaction scale:
    • 5 = ja, sehr zufrieden (yes, very satisfied), 4 = ziemlich zufrieden (fairly satisfied), 3 = weder zufrieden noch unzufrieden (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied), 2 = ziemlich unzufrieden (fairly dissatisfied), 1 = sehr unzufrieden (very dissatisfied).
  • Interest Interrogative (Item 21):
    • 5 = ja, sehr interessant (yes, very interesting), 4 = ziemlich interessant (fairly interesting), 3 = weder interessant noch uninteressant (neither), 2 = ziemlich uninteressant (fairly uninteresting), 1 = sehr uninteressant (very uninteresting).
  • Quality Assessment Interrogatives (Items 22, 35, 37):
    • 5 = ja, sehr gut (yes, very good), 4 = ziemlich gut (fairly good), 3 = weder gut noch schlecht (neither good nor bad), 2 = ziemlich schlecht (fairly bad), 1 = sehr schlecht (very bad).
  • Capability Opportunities Interrogative (Item 24):
    • 5 = ja, sehr viele Möglichkeiten (yes, very many opportunities), 4 = ziemlich viele Möglichkeiten (fairly many opportunities), 3 = weder noch (neither), 2 = ziemlich wenige Möglichkeiten (fairly few opportunities), 1 = sehr wenige Möglichkeiten (very few opportunities).
  • Recommendation and Career Choice Interrogatives (Items 34, 36):
    • 5 = ja, ganz sicher (yes, definitely), 4 = ziemlich sicher (fairly certain), 3 = weder noch (neither), 2 = ziemlich sicher nicht (fairly certainly not), 1 = ganz sicher nicht (definitely not).
  • Alternative Task Desirability Interrogative (Item 33; negatively keyed):
    • 1 = ja, sehr häufig (yes, very frequently), 2 = ziemlich häufig (fairly frequently), 3 = weder noch (neither), 4 = ziemlich selten (fairly rarely), 5 = nie (never).
• Scoring and Quantification Rules:
  • Prior to score calculation, negatively formulated items (Items 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 19, 20, and 33) are reverse-coded such that higher numeric values uniformly correspond to higher job satisfaction.
  • Item 1 is discarded from total sum computation as an introductory buffer item.
  • The Total Score (Long Form) is computed by summing the numerical scores of the 36 active items. Scores theoretically range from 36 to 180 points.
  • The Short Form Score is calculated by summing the 8 designated items (Items 11, 17, 20, 21, 24, 26, 30, and 36). Scores theoretically range from 8 to 40 points.
  • Subscale Scores are derived by summing items affiliated with the four factor dimensions:
    • Self-Realization: Sum of 8 items (Items 2, 7, 12, 17, 21, 22, 24, 27); score range: 8–40.
    • Resignation: Sum of 8 items (Items 5, 8, 9, 11, 14, 19, 20, 30); score range: 8–40.
    • Payment: Sum of 6 items (Items 29, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37); score range: 6–30.
    • Company Evaluation: Sum of 7 items (Items 10, 23, 25, 26, 28, 34, 35); score range: 7–35.
• Normative Reference Values:
  • Full Scale Standardization (N = 167): Total mean score = 109 (SD = 28). Distribution exhibits bimodal tendencies across employment sectors. Blue-collar wage earners (Arbeiter; N = 88) averaged M = 97 (SD = 25), whereas white-collar salaried personnel (Angestellte; N = 79) averaged M = 123 (SD = 24), a statistically significant difference (t = 7.0, p < .01). Gender distributions yielded no significant divergence: Men (N = 97) averaged M = 110 (SD = 29) versus Women (N = 70) with M = 108 (SD = 26; t = 0.47, ns).
  • Short Form Standardization (N = 167): Total mean score = 25 (SD = 8). Blue-collar workers averaged M = 21 (SD = 7), white-collar workers averaged M = 29 (SD = 7). Men averaged M = 25 (SD = 9), and women averaged M = 25 (SD = 8).

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The German General Job Satisfaction Scale was developed and published in 1972 by Dr. Lorenz Fischer and Prof. Dr. Helmut E. Lück. As an academic psychometric assessment instrument published within scholarly research monographs and psychometric reference compendia (including the documentation by the GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences in ZIS / Open Access Repository), the scale is accessible for academic research, university teaching, and non-commercial scientific inquiries without royalty fees. However, researchers are expected to cite the original 1972 publication appropriately.

Commercial deployment, inclusion within commercial HR enterprise software, or proprietary test battery publishing requires appropriate administrative clearance and formal permission from the authors or their legal academic successors. Inquiries regarding original test protocols and authorized permissions may be directed to:

• Dr. Lorenz Fischer: Universität zu Köln, Institut für Wirtschafts- und Sozialpsychologie, Herbert-Lewin-Str. 2, 50931 Köln, Germany.
• Prof. Dr. Helmut E. Lück: FernUniversität in Hagen, Fachbereich Erziehungs- und Sozialwissenschaften, Lehrgebiet Psychologie, Feithstr. 140, 58097 Hagen, Germany.

12. References

The theoretical framework, psychometric standardization, and empirical validation of the German General Job Satisfaction Scale are documented in the following scientific literature:

• Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2
• Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35(5), 307–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055617
• Brayfield, A. H., Wells, R. V., & Strate, M. W. (1957). Interrelationships among measures of job satisfaction and general satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 41(4), 201–205. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048095
• Bruggemann, A. (1974). Zur Unterscheidung verschiedener Formen von Arbeitszufriedenheit [On distinguishing different forms of job satisfaction]. Arbeit und Leistung, 28(11), 281–284.
• Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202
• Fischer, L., & Lück, H. E. (1972). Entwicklung einer Skala zur Messung der allgemeinen Arbeitszufriedenheit (SAZ) [Development of a scale for measuring general job satisfaction]. Psychologie und Praxis, 16(2), 64–76.
• Form, W. H., & Geschwender, J. A. (1962). Social reference basis of job satisfaction: The case of manual workers. American Sociological Review, 27(2), 228–237. https://doi.org/10.2307/2089679
• Heron, A. (1954). Satisfaction and absenteeism in school-leavers. Occupational Psychology, 28, 161–185.
• Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
• Hoppock, R. (1935). Job satisfaction. Harper & Brothers.
• Kerr, W. A., Koppelmeier, G. J., & Sullivan, J. J. (1951). Absenteeism, turnover, and employee morale in a large factory. Occupational Psychology, 25, 250–255.
• Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346
• Metzner, H., & Mann, F. (1953). Employee attitudes and absences. Personnel Psychology, 6(4), 467–485. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1953.tb01511.x
• Weissenberg, P., & Gruenfeld, L. W. (1968). Relationship between job satisfaction and job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52(6), 469–473. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026544
• Werbik, H. (1964). Untersuchungen über die Arbeitszufriedenheit von Arbeitern und Angestellten [Investigations into job satisfaction among workers and employees]. Research Report. Institut für Psychologie der Universität Bonn.
• Wiendieck, G. (1970). Zur Messung von Lebenszufriedenheit [On the measurement of life satisfaction]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universität zu Köln.

13. Items of the Scale