University of Trento

The pursuit of happiness: when work makes the difference Sara Depedri*

(Working draft) Please, do not cite without author’s permissions

Dr. Sara Depedri University of Trento, Department of Economics Via Inama, 5 – 38100 Trento, Italy Tel. +39 0461 882251 – Fax +39 0461 882222 E-mail address: sara.depedri@economia.unitn.it Sara Depedri is a research fellow at Trento University, Faculty of Economics, where she carries out researches in the field of economics of cooperation and nonprofit organizations, with special regard to human resources management, incentives structures, and payment systems. She is waiting to discuss of her doctoral thesis on incentives, preferences and complementarities in working relationships at the University of Siena.

Introduction In the last movie of Gabriele Muccino, “The pursuit of happiness”, the protagonist claims that

he achieved happiness when he got the job that represented his dream and mainly when he achieved

a better living standard. At the beginning of the movie, an insufficient level of income was the

principal obstacle for achieving happiness; at the end, a more remunerated job is its solution,

although at expense of the protagonist’s marriage.

On the contrary, recent empirical evidence and theoretical approaches have sustained that in

life satisfaction is not significantly influenced by the level of income. People give more importance

to other aspects of the life, such as relationships and family. Nevertheless, work is a significant

component in life and may partly explain happiness. Theoretical literature expresses controversial

opinions on work. From a first approach, job satisfaction can spill over into life satisfaction, since

attitudes and practices of individuals directly and positively influence other aspects of life (in terms

of relations, general perceptions, and well-being). From a different point of view, the more the

worker is dissatisfied with his or her job the more he or she tends to compensate with rewards and

aspects of satisfaction coming from another sphere of his or her life. Recent empirical studies

demonstrate the presence of both interrelations and in general, the positive relationship between job

and life satisfaction.

The investigation of work and employment characteristics is thus of great importance in

understanding happiness. The homo oeconomicus maturus constructs his process of evaluation on

different steps and summing up different factors that symbolize his well-being. Among these

components, work is certainly a significant one. At the same time, satisfaction at work is attracting

more attention of scientists and practitioners who study human resource management and working

environment. As a consequence, the research of happiness can not omit the investigation of work

satisfaction. This aspect has to therefore, estimate what job characteristics explain workers’

wellbeing and whether there is a correlation between job satisfaction and happiness considering

both socio-demographic characteristics of workers and organizational policies—especially in terms

of working environment and promotion of incentives for improving loyalty and effort.

Despite the variety of investigations on job satisfaction and happiness, little evidence exists on

the direct impact of working characteristics on satisfaction in life. More emphasis must be put in

order to understand the linkage between intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of the job and workers’ well-

being and to explain how salaries impact on job and life satisfactions. This paper moves in this

direction. Its proposal is to realize an empirical investigation on satisfaction in both life and at work.

Specifically, empirical models will be developed in order to understand: firstly, the correlation

between the two types of satisfaction; secondly, whether job characteristics and working attitudes

directly explain happiness; finally, which job features and workers explain the different levels of

job satisfaction and should thus be managed in order to ameliorate both job satisfaction and

happiness.

This paper is based on a research done in Italy in 1999 on a sample of 2000 individuals and

part of an international investigation on European values. The data will permit to ameliorate the

theoretical understanding of happiness, satisfaction with life and the job. Specifically, the data

verify in what circumstances the contents of the movie (i.e., the importance of income and work in

explaining happiness) and economic theory (i.e., the prevalence of other aspects of life in making

people happy) are complementary—rather than alternative—explanations of the achievement of life

satisfaction.

1. Happiness and job satisfaction in the empirical literature Happiness is one of the critical points in the analysis of people’s well-being. It influences not

only our lives, but also our will to communicate and interact with others, our behaviors and

approach with different aspects of the life. At the same time, these same and other many aspects are

not only the consequence but also a determinant of our happiness. The estimation of the general

well-being or satisfaction with life involves perceptions and evaluations on various components of

the way of living and each person may have (and surely have) different opinions on the relevance of

each one of this domain of life. It may be the case of the quality of one’s health, housing and

marriage (Van Praag and Ferrer-I-Carbonell, 2004), but it also involves enjoying oneself, meeting

people, experiences, having an exciting life, living in a lovely and familiar environment and

working.

Recurring to the definition of Maslow (1974), people have essentially five categories of needs

on which their lives are based and their work should respond to all them. These are; physiological

needs, needs of security (included stability, and protection), identification and involvement (both in

a society and in groups), esteem (as self-esteem and other rewards), and self-fulfillment (as

implementation of personal and professional ability). In addition, intrinsic motivations and social

preferences induce workers to evaluate their lives and their jobs as aspects which give them indirect

satisfaction and mainly have a positive impact on morality and social aspects of the life.

Consequently, happiness is the result of a mix of elements and satisfactions with different aspects of

life. It is also the result of different preferences and needs of people. Furthermore, it is possible to

claim that the more time spent in an activity the more this activity influences the general perception

of one’s life. For example, the family explains perceptions, preferences, behaviors and satisfaction

with many daily aspects, as in particular relationships and social preferences, but also economic

needs and decisions on the time to spent in different activities. In a similar way, many people spend

the major part of their time working and they naturally estimates their lives also on elements related

to their jobs.

Even though the relationship between work and life seems quite clear, scientists have rarely

analyzed it with specific approaches and empirical analysis. They have separately studied happiness

and job satisfaction. In the first case, the economics literature focuses on the relationship between

income (i.e., economic wellbeing) and happiness. In the second case, many analyses are developed

in order to understand job factors that explain workers’ satisfaction.

Among the most recent analyses on job satisfaction and happiness, Dolan and Gosselin (2000)

demonstrate the strong bond between the two variables and they support the hypotheses that people

draw utility from their jobs, which is then translated in satisfaction with their lives. Other studies

show that the state of unemployment is cause of unhappiness (Oswald, 1997; Dockery, 2005) and

this situation is mainly explained by anxiety, depression, loss of confidence and self-esteem which

characterizes unemployed people (Theoudossiou, 1998). People are also less satisfied with their

lives when giving more importance to job quality, and this result explains why workers’

expectations have a further role in determining general perceptions on both job and life satisfactions

(Dockery, 2005). This evidence could also clarify why, as emerged in other surveys, job satisfaction

and happiness are low in countries which are characterized by high indicators of national wellbeing

(as the U.N. Human Development Index in the analysis of Blanchflower and Oswald, 2005).

Furthermore, similar to what emerged in analyses on happiness and life satisfaction, job satisfaction

is only partially correlated with income. Specifically, happiness is strongly and positively

correlated—similarly to job satisfaction—with the change in the worker’s pay between waves, but it

does not increase with the level of pay (Clark, 1999). This also explains why the average happiness

of citizens is weakly or not correlated with their income or the per capita GNP of a nation.

Given the relevance of workers’ motivations and job characteristics during the life, given the

influence of job satisfaction on happiness, and given the unclear correlation between wellbeing and

wages, the specific investigation of work and job satisfaction becomes essential.

1.1. A survey on job satisfaction’s studies

When economists speak about job satisfaction, they refer to the well-being at work and

involves workers’ evaluation and perceptions on different aspects of the job that provide the

workers with material and psychological rewards. Similar to the notion of happiness, job

satisfaction is therefore the result of a complete process of evaluation and its determinants are a

composed of sets that includes characteristics of the worker, the job, and the organization.

Generally, the critical factors that explain job satisfaction can be separated into two categories.

Firstly, all external events, situations, and demographic characteristics that influence the workers’

perception of satisfaction. Secondly, individual’s feelings and characteristics. From this approach,

the environment and external conditions oppose personal and psychological elements (Diener,

1984). In a different analysis, job satisfaction depends on work-role inputs (e.g., level of education,

working hours, and effort) and work-role outputs (e.g., wage, career, job security, working

conditions, and intrinsic aspects, such as relations, autonomy, helping people and being useful to the

society). The former class includes all aspects of the job that cause pain or costs to workers, while

the latter consists of elements that give the worker direct and indirect—but also material and

immaterial—benefits or pleasures (Sousa-Poza and Sousa-Poza, 2000). The proposed classifications

are not alternative, but complementary. Furthermore, in a dynamic approach exogenous elements

and external institutions impact on job satisfaction and influence workers’ preferences and are

conforming to internal norms (Huang and Van de Vliert, 2002).

Looking at the main results of recent empirical researches, the complete understanding of job

satisfaction has to deal with alot of factors, which come from both the psychological and the

effective sphere. The gender is one of them, and females are significantly more satisfied with their

jobs than males. For Clark (1997), the reasons of these differences are principally found in four

variables: the type of jobs and performed activity (and in particular the tasks to which females are

devoted), the involvement in the organization, the propensity to leave the job, and their

expectations. With regards to this last aspect, expectations of women will be lower because their

lack of perfect mobility and of access to jobs, and the labour market offers less job opportunities,

which then decreases women’s expectations and are satisfied at a lower level of incentives. In a

specific investigation on Faculty members of Americans institutes (Bilimoria et.al, 2006), the larger

satisfaction of women is also explained by their positive perceptions of receiving internal relational

supports. Furthermore, a comparison among different activities and job characteristics demonstrates

that the higher expressed job satisfaction of women is the consequence of a self-selection process.

Female workers seem less interested in economic rewards (i.e., in having a good wage) and choose

jobs with highly valued attributes and characteristics more related to their tastes, and consequently

better satisfy them from a psychological point of view and better respond to their subjective

believes and preferences (Sloane and Williams, 2000). However, recent analyses have demonstrated

that in these last years, differences have significantly decreased (Sousa-Poza and Sousa-Poza,

2003), probably due to a converging expectations between males and females. This result leads to

conclude that certainly endogenous factors also influence personal perceptions and expectations,

and job satisfaction can change in a dynamic approach of learning and adaptation.

The level of education is correlated with job satisfaction in a dual manner (Tsang, 1991).

Firstly, the required education positively influences job satisfaction, and this is mainly due to the

increase in workers’ involvement in the activity, in the quality of the job and performed activity,

and in the freedom to decide (Meng, 1990). Secondly, the surplus education, intended as the excess

of education in comparison with the required level, is negatively correlated with job satisfaction,

since it is not correctly rewarded and recognized by the principal and expectations of these workers

are higher. This upshot could explain why in some investigations workers with higher levels of

education have comparative lower levels of satisfaction (Clark, 1996); especially when the income

is maintained constant and workers compare their wages (Clark and Oswald, 1996). Similar results

emerge also in other analyses (see for example Vila and Garcia-Mora, 2005), which confirm that

the main aspect of education that influences workers’ satisfaction is the matching between

employment and education. In this case, higher education also means greater opportunities to find a

better job that meets the workers’ preferences on non-monetary aspects. Nevertheless, when the

analysis isolates the effects of matching, education differently impacts on specific aspects of job

satisfaction. Specifically, the more the workers are educated, the more they are satisfied with the

pay, working hours, job stability, and the working conditions. But education on its own does not

significantly impact on satisfaction with the job as a whole.

Among other significant variables, age is correlated with job satisfaction in a U-shaped

function and specifically, a threshold-age exists over which satisfaction increases with age (Clark

and Oswald, 1996). The working hours are on the contrary negatively correlated with job

satisfaction as shown in some investigations (Clark, 1997; Clark and Oswald, 1996), but positively

in others (Bartel, 1981; Schwochau, 1987). These different results may be due to interferences of

preferences for education level and mainly for gender, since women generally declare less satisfied

when working hours increase (Sousa-Poza and Sousa-Poza, 2000). Contrasting results also emerge

in analyses on the level of agency of workers and in particular on their adherence to trade unions

(see also Gordon and Denisi, 1995; Meng, 1990). There is a positive correlation with job

satisfaction for some researchers (Miller, 1990) and a negative one for others (Schwochau, 1978).

Looking at the wage factor, both its direct and indirect impacts on job satisfaction have been

studied. On one hand, the relationship between the wage level and workers’ satisfaction frequently

results weak or undetermined (Cappelli e Sherer, 1988). Only when people have a high family

income they seem significantly more satisfied with their job, independently of their personal wage

(Sousa-Poza and Sousa-Poza, 2000) and this result contrast with the literature on happiness. On the

other hand, workers are more interested in the fairness of wages distribution (distributive justice)

than in their levels, and consequently workers’ perceptions of different and unjustified treatments

among workers interpose in the relationship between wage and satisfaction (Tortia, 2006). Similar

results and observations emerge when distributive fairness is calculated as the difference between

the effective and the expected wage, since the more the distance, the more the decrease in job

satisfaction (Cappelli e Sherer, 1988). Furthermore, the effect of economic rewards (i.e., increasing

wages) on job satisfaction is positive and significant when organizations implement policies of

budgetary participation linked to the transmission of information. In fact, high budgetary emphasis

and participation are associated with increasing satisfaction and good behaviors of workers. This is

mainly due to the opportunity of workers and managers to exchange and acquire information, for

workers to interact, communicate and cooperate with their superiors (Lau and Tan, 2003).

Among other characteristics, intrinsic aspects and social preferences assume great relevance.

Firstly, models which include specific intrinsic job aspects show that the variation of job

satisfaction is significantly explained by having an interesting job and good relations and that

relations with management principally influences the job satisfaction of women (Sousa-Poza and

Sousa-Poza, 2000). Moreover, intrinsic motivations are a source of empowerment, in the sense that

they influence the workers’ beliefs about the meaning of work, their competences, self-

determination and autonomy. Consequently, workers appreciate more their jobs and feel more

satisfied, even though motivations do not explicitly influence the relationship between

empowerment and job satisfaction (Hechanova, Alampay and Franco, 2006). Secondly, when

workers express high scores of agreement with proxies and assertions concerning altruism, they also

declare more satisfied with their job (Arciniega and Gonzalez, 2005).

Close to the workers personal and job characteristics, organizational features also

significantly influence job satisfaction: from working environment to management. A first approach

demonstrates that the legal type of enterprise significantly impacts on job satisfaction (civil servants

present different levels and different determinants of their satisfaction, as demonstrated by

Soonehee, 2002 and Lau, Tse, Zhou, 2002, while workers in nonprofit organizations are intensively

motivated and satisfied as in Leete, 1999, Mirvis and Hackett, 1983, and Borzaga, 2000). Job

satisfaction also differs from sector to sector (as asserted by Brown e McIntosh, 1998, in their study

on services) and depend on the dimension of the organization (workers in small business are

generally more satisfied with their job than others, as demonstrated by Rowden, 2002).

Nevertheless, organizational features have frequently an indirect impact on job satisfaction, due to

the intermediation of management styles.

It is demonstrated that: (i) participative management improves job satisfaction, especially

when workers are involved in strategic planning and in this phase great communication

characterizes the relationship between the manager and workers (Soonhee, 2002); (ii) policies

devoted to recognize the workers’ activity in terms of accountability to co-workers and

management positively influence job satisfaction, because the more the worker enjoys decision

making autonomy and the more the worker’s performance is clearly recognized by other people, the

more the worker is accountable for how well he or she works (Thoms, Dose and Scott, 2002); and

(iii) supporting workers’ training and workplace learning increases job satisfaction and in particular,

most of workers’ well-being is explained by informal learning, which is indirectly supported by the

working environment rather than by a formal training (Rowden, 2002).

Furthermore, not only the working environment, but also external institutions and norms are

determinants of job satisfaction when analyzing the psychological effect on workers’ adaptation and

dynamic evolution of preferences. In particular, intrinsic job rewards significantly influences job

satisfaction depending on the importance that people give to these variables in the society and their

recognition in the community. The same social environment gives work-related information which

permits workers to judge their job bearing in mind the social relevance of intrinsic aspects and other

incentives. In other words, the more the society evaluates intrinsic aspects and communicates this

preference to the worker, the more the worker will assess his or her job on the basis of the average

assessment of others. The general and relevant vision on intrinsic aspects of jobs that characterize a

country is the source of adaptation of workers’ preferences and job satisfaction (Huang and Van de

Vliert, 2002). In addition, other institutions influence workers’ preferences and expectations and

consequently, their job satisfaction. This is the case of regional economic prosperity (which is

negatively correlated with job satisfaction) and interaction of institutions in supporting economic

changes without a negative impact on workers’ perceptions and requests (see for example the case

of the transitional economics, where institutions have the role to reduce the negative impact on job

satisfaction of increasing working hours, flexibility, and temporality of contracts, as partially

sustained in Lau, Tse and Zhou, 2002).

Interests in job satisfaction come, however, not only from the knowledge of its determinants,

but also from the possible consequences of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Thus, as previously

reviewed, job satisfaction is one of the dimensions of life’s satisfaction.

2. The relevance of happiness, life and job satisfaction in Italy A research at a European and national level on the impact has recently been developed. Its

aim is not specifically linked to the study of happiness and job satisfaction, but it mainly analyzed

the values of Europeans. Nevertheless, both life and work are specific themes examined in this

investigation. Some characteristics of life and work, closely linked to the attraction to specific

aspects of work, generally define people’s perceptions and behaviors.

Given the specific questions and sections of the questionnaire that intensified the study of

satisfaction with life and work, the following subsections present the main results of both

investigations.

2.1. The sample

A recent analysis on Europeans’ values (the European Values Studies – EVS), which was

conducted in 1999 in all 25-UE member States (with exception of Cyprus) collected data on four

main areas: religion and morality, politics, work and free time, and primary relations. The total

sample consisted in 31.000 interviews.

In Italy, the data was collected by the Department of Sociology and Social Research of the

University of Trento and the sample interviewed two thousand people. Among them, 56% are

employed and consequently 1,115 interviewees will be considered when analyzing job elements.

All individuals however, express their opinions on the relevance of some job aspects, and so the

following analysis will also evaluate the emergence of different perceptions between employed and

unemployed people and the impact of these factors on workers’ happiness.

Interestingly in this analysis, the research asked the interviewees to judge both their happiness

(on a scale of four values equal to very, quite, not very, and not at all happy) and their satisfaction

with life (on an increasing scale of 1 to 10). The aim of this study is to distinguish a general sense of

happiness from a more detailed and comprehensive sense of satisfaction with all aspects of life.

Furthermore, a specific section of the questionnaire collects information on working conditions,

characteristics and perceptions. In detail, workers are asked information on extrinsic aspects of their

jobs (e.g., wage, security, stability, work-time, holidays and career), intrinsic aspects (e.g.,

relationships, sociality, and autonomy), job satisfaction and personal perceptions on some specific

aspects. This information will enable the matching of personal and professional data with levels of

happiness and satisfaction with life.

Looking at the main characteristics of the Italian sample1, it turns out to be equally composed

of males (48%) and females. Firstly, less than 10% is represented by people under the age of 25,

another 22.5% is composed of people from the age of 25 to 35, 18% from 35 to 45 years, and 34.5%

are over 55 years old. Only 43.7% has the compulsory school degree, another 41.4% have a

1 Due to problems of privacy of personal data, it has not been possible to have and present specific data on the European sample. Following results on other Countries are the only available, standing to the source of the research, national books, and articles.

diploma, while only the 15% have graduated, and this seems quite in line with the distribution of

the people among classes of age.

Secondly, with regards to job characteristics, 34.5% of the sample works more than 30 hours

and 8.8% works less than 30 hours a week, while the 10.8% is self-employed. Among the people

not working, retired people (18.8%) prevail over housewives (14.2%) and students (7.6%), while

4.5% are unemployed. Considering their economical situation, 26.6% have an annual family income

of less than 12,500 Euros, 18.9% have a family income between 12,500 and 17,000 Euros, 20.6%

between 17,000 and 23,000 Euros, 17,5% between 23,000 and 32,000 Euros, and the remaining

16.4% over 32,000 Euros. Furthermore, it emerges a very similar distribution between people

claiming that they are the people earning more in their family (45.2%) and others. Finally, only

6.7% of interviewees live alone, 18.3% with another person, 30% has a family composed of three

people, and 31.1% has a family composed of four people (only 14% more than four people).

In conclusion, the sample seems quite straightforward regarding different classes of people

and so we were able to carry out interesting comparisons. Even analyzing only employed

interviewees, the sample is representative and similarly distributed. Nevertheless, males prevail

over females (58% against 42%); younger people are reduced to 6% and workers included between

the age of 35 and 45 has grown to 26.4%; graduated people represent 22% of the total population;

family incomes mainly achieve 23,000 Euros per year (43.4%).

2.1.1. Happiness and life satisfaction

The first important question asked to people is: “All considered, how much are you happy?” .

Studies show that Italians tend to declare intermediate levels of happiness: 18.4% of them are very

happy, 61.8% quite happy, 16.5% not very happy, and only 3.3.% not happy at all. Not significantly

different is their satisfaction with the life, although the percentage of totally satisfied people is

higher: 18.6% declares scores under 5 (on a scale from 1 to 10), the 32.2% of interviewees assign

scores of 6 or 7, another 22.8% is satisfied with 8, and 26.5% is very satisfied (scores of 9 or 10).

Happiness and life satisfaction are a little higher for workers, who are not very or not at all

happy only in the 16.9% of the cases (opposite to 23.6% of not employed people) and are less

satisfied with their life (scores under 5) in 15.3% of the cases (with average scores of 7.3 and 7

respectively for employed and not employed people).

The specific analysis of happiness shows some interesting results, although differences in

happiness are in many cases not highly significant. The percentage of people very happy is the same

in men and women (with a slightly higher percentage in women not very happy, 18.7% vs. 14.1%

of men). Happiness only decreases with the age, 14% of people over 45 years are very happy,

compared to more than 22% of people happy are under 45 years. Happiness increases with the level

of education, people with compulsory school are a little less happy (probably in connection with

their age and age problems).Most educated people have the highest percentage quite happy (64%).

Also the personal income seems to positively influence happiness: people in the lowest class of

income (below 10,000 Euros per year) are in 9% of the cases not happy at all, while the percentage

of very happy people increases with their income (from 14% in the first class to 22% on average

when the yearly income is over 25,000 Euros). But the greatest difference emerges when

distinguishing interviewees for their civil status: married people are very happy in 20.3% of the

cases, and this percentage decreases for singles who have never married (18.1%) and mostly for

widowed, divorced and separated people (on average 10%).

The matching of happiness and the importance assigned by interviewees to some aspects of

the life is a proxy of the relevance that they assign to these factors in defining their total well-being.

Consequently, data permits one to claim that people are happier when considering both the family

and work as important aspects of the life. Furthermore, the highest percentage of very happy people

is revealed among interviewees who declare that friends’, acquaintances and leisure are very

important (24.5% and 23.6% respectively, of very happy people). Consequently, it seems that

happiness is mainly associated by people to enjoying aspects of their lives, even though work and

family are also relevant.

When the analysis only considers employed people, it emerges that, similar to the data on the

entire sample, the happiest classes of workers are the youngest (24% of very satisfied are below 35

years old) and people with intermediate levels of education (while only 16% of graduated workers

are very happy and 15% of them are not very happy). Furthermore, happiness increases for

subordinated workers employed full time or in general those working more than 30 hours a week

(20.7% of very satisfied opposed to 17.9% of part-timers and 13.9% of self-employed) and above a

certain level of income (with more than 20% of people very happy for classes of yearly income

above 17,000 Euros). The achieving of a minimum threshold of income seems thus a requirement of

feeling happy, although other factors and personal characteristics significantly influence the

workers’ level of happiness. Moreover, workers declare to be happier when they think that the most

important aspects of a jobs are: the presence of pleasant people (19.8% of people very happy

contrary to 16.4% of workers thinking that having pleasant colleagues is not important), doing a job

that is useful to the society (20.9% are very happy), enjoying generous holidays and meeting people

(both at 20.3%), and having a responsible job (20.9%). On the contrary, happiness is worst when

workers consider having a good wage as an important aspect of the job (18.3% are very happy

people compared to 22.9% of workers not interested in wage).

Results are very similar when considering life satisfaction, although in this analysis frequently

differences in average scores do not significantly vary with personal and living characteristics (as

emerged in the T-test and F-test analysis). It should be noted that people are more satisfied when

married (scores of 7.44), with a good family income (7.5 on average in the highest classes of

income), and when considering very important both family and work (average life satisfaction 7.2,

which decreases to 6.2 for not interested people). Furthermore, workers are a little less satisfied

with their life when employed part-time (7.03 compared with 7.32 of self-employed and full-time

workers) or with a role of unskilled manual or agriculture worker (6.35 on average, compared to the

maximal values of 8.48 of armed forces, 7.74 for employers with more than 10 employees, and

values close to 7.5 for other employers, non manual officers, supervisors and foremen). Their

satisfaction instead increase if they do not consider as important in their job having a good wage

(average life satisfaction of 7.4 compared to 7.25 of others), but it is relevant meeting people and

working with pleasant people (scores of 0.3 point above the average). Finally, workers’ satisfaction

with life is strictly linked to satisfaction with both the job as a whole and job security.

In conclusion, the data show the presence of two groups of happy workers (and in general

people). The first one is mainly composed of young people and singles, who estimate their

happiness on the basis of their leisure and relationships. The second group of workers, which is

mainly but not exclusively composed of married people, who evaluate happiness mainly by

considering psychological aspects and looking to intrinsic factors of the job (e.g., usefulness to

others, relationships with colleagues, responsibility, etc.). For all workers, having a satisfying job

and good opportunities of remaining in the organization are two important aspects for their life, and

this supports the hypothesis that different characteristics of the job, and significantly its stability,

influences beliefs, expectations, and projects of workers with regards to both their work and their

life. These arguments are therefore strictly linked.

2.1.2. The importance of work and of specific aspects of the job

A first interesting result emerges when asking all individuals the relevance they allocate to

work. 61.7% of interviewees considers work as very important, and another 33.3% as quite

relevant. Only 5% claims that it has few or no relevance. Furthermore, though work is perceived as

less important than the family (important for 90% of interviewees), it is significantly more relevant

than free-time (since only 30% of interviewees asserts its relevance).

Looking at singular aspects of the job (Chart 1), the preferences of Italian people reveal that

they assign great importance to aspects such as a good pay (85%), job security, having an

interesting job, but also achieving something with one’s own activity and meeting abilities (all

aspects which are relevant to 75% of interviewees). On the other hand, holidays, careers and

promotions, and having a responsible job are not important. Moreover, Italian people are more

interested than other Europeans in intrinsic or non-economic aspects. In particular, Italy stands on

top of the list of European countries where workers consider the importance of job elements such as

using personal initiative, social usefulness, but also rewarding of ability and interest of the activity.

Among extrinsic aspects of the work, significantly higher than the average of Europe is the attention

to job security and working hours.

Analyzing the single sample of employed people, it emerges that relating themselves with

pleasant people, using initiative and achieving something that increases their importance and

becoming very important are 73.5%, 67.5%, and 77% respectively of employees. On the contrary,

job security and chances for promotion lose part of their importance (and they are relevant only for

72.5% and 44% respectively of employees).

0,00

10,00

20,00

30,00

40,00

50,00

60,00

70,00

80,00

90,00

%

good

pay

job

secu

rity

inte

rest

ing

job

achi

evin

g so

met

hing

mee

ting

abili

ties

plea

sent

peo

ple

good

phy

sica

l wor

k.co

nditi

on

mee

ting

peop

le

usef

ul fo

r soc

iety

use

initi

ativ

e

goos

hou

rs

resp

ecte

d jo

b

not t

oo m

uch

pres

sure

time

off i

n w

eeke

nds

resp

onsi

ble

job

chan

ces f

or p

rom

otio

n

gene

rous

hol

iday

s

Chart 2 - Importance of some aspects of the job for Italian employees

Important results emerge also when distinguishing people by personal and professional

characteristics (Table 1). This study permits one to understand the preferences of individuals, and

specifically their different approach with the job and the working life. Thus, firstly, males are

significantly more interested in promotion opportunities (48.7% of males in comparison with 38.1%

females), the exploitation of initiatives on the job (relevant for 71% against 63% for females) and

responsibility (59.5% against 46.5%). Females are more attracted by the presence of pleasant

people, having good working hours and job security (which are marked by 75.2%, 66%, and 75.7%

respectively of females).

Secondly, more educated people express less interest for good pay (important for 80.8% of

graduated employees, in comparison to an average of 90% among people with the compulsory

degree) and meeting pleasant people on the job (68% against 80%), while they are significantly

more interested in jobs permitting the use of personal initiatives (signed by 78% respect to 66%)

and having an interesting job (79.3% against 70% for less educated classes).

Moreover, younger employees declare to be more enthusiastic and assign high scores of

importance to several aspects of the job. Compared to elderly people, they consider to be more

important the quality of relations (84.8% of them sign as relevant the presence of pleasant people

and 80.3% the opportunity of meeting people, against percentages under 70% among over 55-

years), job security (relevant of 80.3% of the younger people), having an interesting job (for

83.3%), a job useful for the society and good working hours (important for 71.2% and 69.7%

respective). Finally, strictly and negatively related with age is the importance of a good pay (signed

by 91% of youngest and by the 79% of oldest), and consequently it is possible to claim that intrinsic

aspects of the job are a focus for young employees, but also economic reward are considered as

essential, especially in the evolution of the working life. This should explain the fact that pure wage

is not crucial for people with great work experience.

taking into consideration roles and professional positions, skilled and unskilled workers

assign more relevance to job security. On the other hand, employees in higher socio-economic

classes consider as more relevant to use initiative (72.6%) and having an interesting job (75.3%)

and as less important having a respectable job (46.6% against 70.8% for unskilled workers) and

good working hours. Consequently, they are more feasible in sacrificing their time for the job

whether it gives them professional satisfaction or not. No differences emerge in preferences for

different aspects of the job among people with different job positions and levels of autonomy.

Table 1 – Importance of aspects of the job by workers’ characteristics (%)

Characteristics Good pay

Pleasant people

Not too much pressure

Job security

Chances for promotion

Respected job

Good hours

Use initiative

Useful for society

Generous holidays

Meeting people

Achieving something

Responsible job

Interesting job

Meeting abilities

Sex Male 86.5 72.6 60.4 71.1 48.6 58.3 59.6 71.0 63.6 35.8 67.3 75.2 59.4 76.5 75.4 Female 83.4 74.8 60.1 75.3 38.0 57.8 65.7 62.7 65.5 31.3 69.5 79.5 46.3 74.8 72.9 Age class <25 91.0 83.6 64.2 80.6 49.3 49.3 68.7 70.1 70.1 37.3 80.6 77.6 56.7 83.6 70.1 25-35 87.6 76.2 62.2 73.1 47.1 55.3 61.9 69.0 59.8 36.9 69.0 79.3 53.9 76.2 77.1 35-45 85.7 74.8 61.2 68.7 40.5 58.8 63.3 65.3 64.6 35.4 68.7 80.3 53.1 75.2 70.7 45-55 84.5 67.8 57.7 75.3 40.6 56.5 59.8 63.0 63.6 32.2 64.9 70.7 49.8 73.6 71.5 >55 79.2 70.8 57.3 72.9 47.4 66.7 61.5 72.9 70.8 32.8 66.1 76.0 59.4 76.0 80.2 Highest level education Inadequate ed. 93.8 87.5 87.5 100.0 87.5 93.8 100.0 68.8 100.0 62.5 81.3 87.5 68.8 87.5 93.8 Compulsory education

88.7 75.0 63.7 79.8 47.6 73.4 66.9 66.9 71.8 41.1 69.4 71.0 60.5 75.0 81.5

Vocational qualific.

84.0 73.3 66.2 77.3 44.0 65.8 62.2 61.8 66.2 32.9 71.6 75.6 57.8 70.7 75.1

2nd vocational qualif.

89.8 70.5 59.1 78.4 37.5 53.4 59.1 55.7 55.7 21.6 65.9 67.0 47.7 69.3 67.0

2nd general qualif.

82.6 78.3 56.5 65.2 26.1 47.8 47.8 60.9 52.2 43.5 73.9 78.3 56.5 69.6 56.5

Full 2nd maturity level

86.0 76.9 61.4 74.4 45.9 55.7 65.5 67.9 64.0 35.3 67.0 79.4 51.3 78.7 72.6

Lower-level 3rd certificate

83.3 64.3 57.1 61.9 38.1 42.9 66.7 71.4 64.3 26.2 73.8 90.5 47.6 73.8 78.6

Upper-level 3rd certificate

80.8 68.0 48.8 59.1 41.4 48.3 51.7 78.3 61.1 31.7 64.5 78.3 53.2 79.3 75.4

Supervising someone Yes 82.3 72.2 53.6 71.3 50.2 53.4 53.1 71.6 63.2 32.5 66.5 76.6 60.8 73.2 68.9 No 85.4 74.8 62.5 76.2 42.8 57.9 67.8 63.5 64.8 35.9 67.2 75.4 49.7 76.0 75.9 Socio-economic status High/middle class

82.1 67.7 49.3 58.7 42.2 46.6 52.5 72.6 59.2 28.3 61.9 76.2 55.2 75.3 70.4

Middle class - white collars

86.0 73.9 62.3 74.0 45.7 57.8 63.8 70.2 66.0 36.4 70.6 78.4 53.7 79.0 72.8

Low class- skilled blue col

85.8 77.1 66.7 79.6 42.1 63.8 63.3 62.9 66.3 33.3 68.8 77.5 54.2 73.3 82.1

Low class - unskilled b.c.

88.8 76.4 61.8 83.1 47.2 70.8 74.2 50.6 67.4 34.8 68.5 73.0 50.6 65.2 78.7

2.1.3. Perceptions on the job and feeling of fairness

The survey also includes some questions that shade light on fairness and the significance of

the job. Data has to be treated with some caution, because it is not specific to the individual working

environment, but they investigate in general people’s sensibility and inequity aversion.

Nevertheless, it should be firstly noted that the majority of workers2 assign to work both personal

and social relevance. They declare that work is necessary to fully develop one’s own talents (31.3%

of them strongly agree and another 41.4% agree with affirmation), that people not working turn out

to be lazy (32.1% strongly agree and 42.4% agree) and that working is also a duty towards society

(22.7% strongly agree and 43.0% agree).

Furthermore, workers are unequally averse to unkindly treatments and to rewards which do

not take into account personal characteristics and effort. In fact, the majority of interviewees agree

with the assertion that receiving money without working is unfair (28.4% agree strongly, 37%

agree) and consider fair that managers reward with higher salaries those who work more and better

than others.

Finally, workers are also asked to judge if sticking to superiors’ instructions is always a duty

or whether it is necessary to first be convinced on one’s own actions and behaviors. The data reveal

that only 23.7% of the of cases agree in following instructions to work, while the majority of them

consider as important to be convinced first or that it depends on the different cases (42.9%).

Consequently, most workers perceive instructions as a form of bureaucracy, control and limitation

to personal autonomy, and only in limited cases, workers interpret them as a mechanism of

transparent communication and transmission of information, which are used to make kind and clear

internal processes.

2.1.4. Job satisfaction

Assuming the described general preferences and perceptions, the analysis shifts to specific

esteems of workers’ satisfaction. On average, in Europe half of the workers assign to job

satisfaction scores over 8, on a scale of 1 to 10. Italian data reflects this result, since people assign

to job satisfaction an average score of 7.7. In particular (Table 2), only 15.9% of the sample is

unsatisfied (assigning scores under 5), while about 54% is very satisfied (assigning scores over 8).

This is a really good result, even though in other countries (as in Malta and Denmark) the

percentage of very satisfied people reaches 70%. In comparison with the level of general happiness,

it should be noted that only 20% of Italians declares very happy and another 65% is quite happy.

2 All data described in the table and in the text are referred only to workers. However, they do not differ significantly (or not at all) from those characterizing the entire sample of interviewees.

Moreover, Italian employees seem very satisfied also for their job security. The majority of

interviewees assign to job security scores of satisfaction over 8 (50.3%), while dissatisfaction

(scores under 5) is declared only by 25%. Less satisfying is the employees’ freedom in decision

taking because only 62% of employees declare to be free on the job.

Table 2 – Job satisfaction, satisfaction with job security, and freedom on the job (%)

1 (dissatisfied)

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (satisfied)

Job satisfaction 2.0 1.3 2.3 3.5 6.8 11.1 19.2 25.6 13.0 15.2 Satisfaction with job security 4.5 2.1 3.3 4.5 10.5 9.9 14.9 19.0 11.4 19.9 Freedom in decision-making 6.2 2.3 5.0 5.7 11.1 11.9 15.1 18.0 9.0 15.7

Consequently, summing up some conclusions with previous data on the importance of

different aspect of the job, it is possible to claim that, averagely, Italian people are fulfilled with

their job and life. A cluster analysis that combines job satisfaction and with specific aspects of it

confirms that Italians are ‘pro-quality of the job’. They judge as very important all aspects of the job

and in particular of the work-life, and are very satisfied with the work in general, even if some

regional labor markets are characterized by high levels of unemployment.

Obviously, these data are valid only on average. In fact, when the analysis distinguishes

interviewees for personal and professional characteristics, significant differences emerge (Table 3).

Firstly, an analysis by gender demonstrates that satisfaction with the job is quite similar for males

and females (7.5 in comparison with 7.1). Nevertheless, the former are more satisfied by their job

security than the latter (in line with literature) and they are also receiving more freedom in decision

making than female.

Secondly, when distinguishing by level of education, satisfaction with the job not

significantly differs among groups of employees, and the situation is similar in the satisfaction with

job security (average scores of 7.1 among graduated people and employees with a secondary school

degree compared to 6.9 among others). Nevertheless, it is quite obvious that more educated

employees enjoy more freedom in decision making (average scores of 7.2 in comparison with

scores under 6.5 for other classes).

Significant differences emerge when distinguishing employees by age. Job satisfaction is

positively correlated with the age, since it increases by 6.8 among employees less than 25 years of

age to the 7.9 of people over 55 years. Satisfaction with job security is also for younger people on

average lower than for older employees (scores of 6.1 in the first age-class, 6.4 in the second one,

and 7.5 in the last classes respectively), and a similar increase is registered for freedom in decision

making—which grows from 5.5 to 7.5.

A further classification distinguishes employees for socio-economic status. Both job

satisfaction and satisfaction with job security are positively correlated with the professional status,

and are significantly lower among unskilled workers (with average scores of 6.4 and 6

respectively), quite good for skilled workers (7.4 and 6.3), at a good level for white collar jobs and

employees in the middle class (7.4 and 7.1), and at the top for employees with better socio-

economic positions (7.7 and 7.4). This result depends partially on the individual preferences for

different job aspects, as spotted in previous subsections, and in particular, by their role and

professional position.

Finally, looking at some job characteristics, employees’ satisfaction is influenced both by the

kind of job and by workers’ autonomy (or power). Employees who supervise others consider

themselves more satisfied with their job and with job security (average scores of 7.9 and 8

compared to 7 and 6.9 for others). Furthermore, general satisfaction and satisfaction with job

security are higher among employer with ten or more employees, foremen and supervisors, and

armed forces. In the former cases, data confirms the relevance of autonomy in increasing people’s

utility, while in the last case, the presence of internal social and behavioral norms seems to induce

employees to conform to internal thinking and to be more satisfied.

Table 3 – Satisfaction and freedom in decision taking for workers’ characteristics (average scores)

Characteristics Job satisfaction Satisfaction with job security

Freedom in decision taking

Value F/T test Value F/T test Value F/T test Male 7.49 2.913* 7.24 2.115 6.92 4.371** Sex Female 7.13 6.83 6.24 <25 6.83 4.485*** 6.06 7.165*** 5.51 9.099***25-35 7.23 6.70 6.36 35-45 7.26 7.20 6.70 45-55 7.32 7.35 6.60

Age class

>55 7.85 7.48 7.42 Inadequate education 8.19 1.043 7.06 1.166 6.88 2.226** Compulsory education 7.56 6.94 6.57 Basic qualification 7.12 6.79 6.56 2nd intermediate vocational qualif. 7.28 7.55 6.07 2nd intermediate general qualif. 7.50 6.96 6.30 Full 2nd maturity level certificate 7.39 7.21 6.52 Lower-level 3rd certificate 7.29 6.85 6.81

Highest level education

Upper-level 3rd certificate 7.32 7.03 7.18 High / middle class 7.68 8.683*** 7.39 7.205*** 7.39 15.98***Middle class and white collars 7.33 7.12 6.68 Low class and skilled blue collars 7.39 6.98 6.29

Socio-economic status

Low class - unskilled blue collars 6.40 5.98 5.37 30 hrs a week or more 7.29 1.865* 7.39 5.206*** 6.26 18.97***Less than 30hrs a week 7.19 6.44 6.07

Employed

Self employed 7.59 6.60 8.33 Yes 7.90 6.415*** 7.97 5.968*** 7.41 9.082***Supervising

someone No 7.04 6.93 5.81 Kind of job Employer with > 10 employees 8.35 4.624*** 8.26 4.290*** 8.58 21.51***

Employer with < 10 employees 7.80 7.10 8.35 Professional worker 7.52 6.88 7.42 Manual-office worker 7.10 7.49 6.21 Non-manual-office worker 7.22 7.23 5.66 Foreman and supervisor 7.88 7.60 6.63 Skilled manual worker 7.25 6.92 6.22 Semi-skilled manual worker 7.13 6.74 5.41 Unskilled manual worker 6.32 6.20 4.82 Farmer: employer or own account 7.21 6.68 8.16 Agricultural worker 6.50 5.63 6.63 Armed forces 8.18 8.79 6.28

2.2. Explaining happiness and life satisfaction

The development of some multinomial models explains the determinants of happiness and life

satisfaction, with attention to both the factors classically considered in the literature and specific

aspects of the job and working life. Furthermore, the comparison among these models shows

whether the concept of happiness is different from satisfaction with life.

When the analysis is done on personal characteristics of people (table 4), both happiness and

life satisfaction are significantly explained by interrelations—since people feel better when the time

spent with their colleagues increases—and morality—since their wellbeing increases when people

think that helping the elderly is fair. Nevertheless, the contribution to public goods is not a sensible

factor of well-being, but on the contrary the more people claim that taking advantage of state

benefits is justifiable the more they are happy and satisfied with their lives. Italians are also more

satisfied when living in the North-West (where, on average, the living standard is higher than in the

South), and married. This last result confirms that the family environment is an important source of

wellbeing. The level of education, the gender of people, other psychological characteristics

(approximated by opinions on different aspects of life and social norms), and the household income

are irrelevant factors. These models seem to therefore confirm previous investigations and the

opinion that happiness is not influenced by income.

Looking at differences between the determinants of happiness and life satisfaction, the model

shows that happiness is negatively correlated with age and positively correlated with the time spent

with friends and in the church. On the contrary, foreigners are generally less happier than others.

Consequently, it is possible to claim that happiness has an intrinsic meaning of amusement, while

life satisfaction has a higher component of psychological wellbeing and its definition frequently

does not depend on personal or definable characteristics (as supported in the model by the high

significance of the constant).

Table 4 – The impact of personal aspects on happiness and life satisfaction (ordered probit model)

Happiness° Life satisfaction°° Variable Coeff. St. Err. P[|Z|>z] Coeff. St. Err. P[|Z|>z]

Constant 0,8248 0,3494 .0183 2,2220 0,3115 0,0000Time with friends -0,1107 0,0438 .0115 -0,0509 0,0388 0,1897Time with colleagues -0,1269 0,0387 .0011 -0,0885 0,0335 0,0082Time in church -0,0688 0,0381 .0713 -0,0160 0,0347 0,6438Time in clubs -0,0113 0,0356 .7513 -0,0124 0,0321 0,7008Opinion: claim state benefits 0,0726 0,0305 .0174 0,0421 0,0253 0,0961Opinion: cheating on tax -0,0066 0,0224 .7677 -0,0169 0,0189 0,3698Opinion: lying -0,0238 0,0228 .2962 -0,0087 0,0205 0,6712Opinion: accepting a bribe 0,0413 0,0369 .2628 0,0157 0,0305 0,6064Opinion: paying cash -0,0132 0,0214 .5366 -0,0217 0,0192 0,2575Opinion: avoiding a fare on public transport -0,0227 0,0202 .2616 -0,0052 0,0187 0,7825Help immediate family -0,0494 0,0595 .4068 -0,0057 0,0516 0,9120Help people neighborhood 0,0895 0,0570 .1163 -0,0294 0,0539 0,5856Help elderly -0,2290 0,0956 .0166 -0,1807 0,0776 0,0198Help immigrants -0,0455 0,0590 .4399 0,0859 0,0514 0,1044Help sick and disabled 0,1288 0,0896 .1507 -0,0422 0,0765 0,5815Gender 0,0539 0,0800 .5007 0,0459 0,0737 0,5334Age -0,0145 0,0028 .0000 0,0005 0,0026 0,8400Number people in family -0,0211 0,0346 .5428 -0,0018 0,0304 0,9516Married -0,5954 0,0879 .0000 -0,3013 0,0805 0,0002Diploma -0,1261 0,0871 .1477 -0,1068 0,0780 0,1713Income household -0,0108 0,0156 .4884 0,0083 0,0137 0,5460Living North-west -0,2349 0,1200 .0504 -0,1867 0,1077 0,0829Living North-east -0,2356 0,1256 .0607 -0,1675 0,1069 0,1173Living South -0,1328 0,1110 .2315 -0,0127 0,0952 0,8943Foreign 0,2417 0,1332 .0695 0,0262 0,1150 0,8199

° The dependent variable (happiness) is calculated on a converted scale from 0=not happy at all, to 4= very happy °° The dependent variable (satisfaction with life) is calculated on an adapted scale from 0 (min) to 9 (max)

The addition in the models of some perceptions on work and assertion on its relevance allows

the understanding of how the job may influence life and wellbeing (Table 5). In this case, the first

important result consists in the differences between determinants of happiness and life satisfaction.

Specifically, happiness continues to be mainly explained by the age factor (with younger people

more satisfied) and people are happier when the give importance to job given the opportunity to

meet people, interrelates with pleasant people, and not necessarily meeting their abilities (as if new

tasks and activities may be source of curiosity and innovation, i.e., enthusiasm and happiness).

Satisfaction with life increases when people give more importance to the intrinsic aspects of work

and less to economic aspects. Considering good pay and good physical working environment as

determining aspects of the job decreases the sense of life and the satisfaction with it. On the

contrary, people are more satisfied with their lives when looking for a job with pleasant people and

that permits them to achieve something. Moreover, life’s satisfaction increases among people

thinking that on the job, autonomy is fairer than following instructions and that men should be

preferred to women in cases of lacking in job opportunities.

Interestingly, in both models income becomes significantly and positively correlated with

wellbeing. Income seems therefore a determinant of people’s perceptions when they assume a

concrete view of the life and link happiness and satisfaction to the job. However, this result

contrasts with the assertion on the relevance of the job, since people are more satisfied when richer

but disinterested in a good wage. The perception of financial security is probably the discriminating

factor in interpreting these results. The achievement of an income’s threshold gives people both a

concrete and a psychological wellbeing; and when the weight assigned to wage is low (i.e.,

interviewees consider not essential on work having a good wage) people are also satisfied at lower

levels of income.

Table 5 – The impact of factors of work on happiness and life satisfaction (ordered probit model)

Happiness Life satisfaction

Variable Coeff. St. Err. P[|Z|>z] Coeff. St. Err. P[|Z|>z]

Constant -0,6092 0,2508 .0151 1,1208 0,2220 0,0000Good pay -0,1391 0,0977 .1545 -0,1517 0,0871 0,0814Pleasant people 0,1962 0,0902 .0296 0,2484 0,0781 0,0015Not too much pressure -0,1164 0,0839 .1652 -0,0728 0,0718 0,3105Job security 0,0812 0,0939 .3868 -0,0695 0,0860 0,4189Chances for promotion -0,0009 0,0771 .9909 0,0119 0,0699 0,8651Respected job -0,0119 0,0783 .8797 -0,0469 0,0726 0,5180Good hours 0,0489 0,0906 .5895 - - -Use initiative 0,0898 0,0925 .3316 0,0717 0,0753 0,3413Useful for society 0,1465 0,0905 .1055 0,0465 0,0782 0,5519Generous holidays 0,0443 0,0792 .5763 - - -Meeting people 0,2439 0,0862 .0047 0,2283 0,0765 0,0028Achieving something -0,1266 0,1000 .2054 -0,0864 0,0845 0,3067Interesting job 0,0395 0,1014 .6972 0,0077 0,0821 0,9248Meeting abilities -0,1687 0,0913 .0648 -0,1822 0,0794 0,0217Good physical working conditions -0,1240 0,0947 .1903 -0,0088 0,0836 0,9160Time off in week-ends -0,0434 0,0810 .5923 0,0301 0,0684 0,6600Job needed to develop talents -0,0264 0,0357 .4599 -0,0473 0,0321 0,1412Receiving money without working -0,0343 0,0309 .2674 -0,0054 0,0278 0,8469Turning lazy not working -0,0340 0,0372 .3614 -0,0195 0,0325 0,5480Duty towards society -0,0441 0,0381 .2471 -0,0339 0,0345 0,3259Not having to work -0,0378 0,0320 .2385 -0,0169 0,0283 0,5495Work always first 0,0348 0,0319 .2762 -0,0125 0,0283 0,6593Fair that quicker is paid more -0,0121 0,0823 .8831 -0,0129 0,0707 0,8558Following instructions at work 0,0130 0,0411 .7523 0,0738 0,0365 0,0434Giving nation priority 0,0523 0,0480 .2756 0,0703 0,0432 0,1038Giving men priority 0,0335 0,0545 .5389 -0,0847 0,0481 0,0786Jobs local people -0,0788 0,0507 .1199 -0,0657 0,0443 0,1380Gender -0,0761 0,0679 .2624 -0,0728 0,0613 0,2350Age -0,0093 0,0022 .0000 0,0024 0,0019 0,2044Degree 0,1592 0,1066 .1353 0,2170 0,1060 0,0406Compulsory school -0,0823 0,0836 .3246 -0,0070 0,0725 0,9228Income household 0,0347 0,0125 .0056 0,0422 0,0113 0,0002

A further step in the analysis is developed considering only employed people and looking at

the impact of their job characteristics on their wellbeing (Table 6). In line with the conclusions

drawn on the previous models, a first and important result is the significant and positive correlation

between happiness (and satisfaction) and job security. When the model considers this last as an

independent variable, the household income loses part of its significance in determining workers’

wellbeing (specifically, income is no longer correlated with happiness and has a lower level of

correlation with life satisfaction). Thus, people feel good (i.e., happy and satisfied) when they

consider their lives in the long run, planning their future and investments in familiar and individual

needs and expectations. Job stability means psychological security and decrease of the perception of

risk. Even if the income level is not very high, people construct their utility function (i.e., evaluate

their wellbeing) by actualizing their future incomes and this makes them happy. And the more job

stability is supported by good income, the more people are satisfied with their lives, since the sense

of security increases.

The other and principal determinant of workers’ well-being is satisfaction with the job. This

sustains the initial hypothesis and main goal of the paper: job conditions are crucial determinants of

satisfaction with life. In other words, the wellbeing achieved on the job is translated in general

wellbeing in the life. Spending part of ones life on the job means acquiring financial support (as

demonstrated by previous results and assertions), but also relations and intrinsic incentives, which

are summarized in the concept of satisfaction with the job. These aspects enter then in the

evaluation process of life and of all factors giving satisfaction and happiness.

The only other job characteristic that influences workers’ happiness is their freedom in

decision taking on the job. Firstly, this is a proxy of autonomy and self-esteem of workers, and it

also has a meaning of stimulus to curiosity, involvement, and happiness in participating to the job.

Moreover, it is surprising that not only does freedom in decision taking not influence life

satisfaction, but supervising someone has a negative impact on workers’ satisfaction with life.

Consequently, a perception of psychological pressure and more stress may characterize workers

with responsible jobs, with negative repercussions on other aspects of their life and on the final

evaluation of their wellbeing.

Neither the sector nor the role explains differences in workers’ happiness3.

3 Only people employed in the armed force are more satisfied with their life than others (probably, due to their adherence to strong internal social norms and a general sense of being useful for the society)

Table 6 – The impact of ones own job position on happiness and life satisfaction (ordered probit model)

Happiness Life satisfaction Variable Coeff. St. Err. P[|Z|>z] Coeff. St. Err. P[|Z|>z]

Constant -0,6867 0,8304 .4082 0,1248 0,8092 .8774Freedom 0,0393 0,0201 .0502 0,0136 0,0190 .4737Job security 0,0747 0,0196 .0001 0,0656 0,0206 .0014Part-time -0,0295 0,1368 .8292 -0,0743 0,1272 .5593Supervising someone -0,0386 0,1343 .7741 0,1915 0,1132 .0907Industry -0,0250 0,0002 .4730 0,0228 0,0054 .9854Employer -0,0807 0,2446 .7415 -0,0989 0,2488 .6910White collar -0,1153 0,1565 .4611 -0,1032 0,1476 .4847Skilled blue collar -0,1274 0,2043 .5327 -0,1164 0,1907 .5415Unskilled blue collar -0,2453 0,2279 .2817 -0,1513 0,2222 .4960Army force -0,0548 0,3279 .8673 -0,6921 0,2576 .0072Gender -0,0504 0,1075 .6392 -0,1296 0,0986 .1887Age -0,0125 0,0043 .0034 0,0010 0,0039 .7911Degree 0,0177 0,1491 .9056 0,1338 0,1565 .3928Compulsory school 0,0170 0,1377 .9019 -0,0586 0,1218 .6302Income household 0,0213 0,0184 .2468 0,0411 0,0187 .0276Job satisfaction 0,1524 0,0250 .0000 0,2834 0,0226 .0000

In conclusion, the models claim that work in general and one’s own job in particular influence

the vision of life and perception of wellbeing. Working is a very important aspect of the life. Firstly,

as asserted by economic theory, people plan their lives by considering their work. Specifically, the

models sustain that people consider their job as a proxy of their income and consequently of the

stability of their working and social position. In this sense, income in itself does not directly and

specifically influence happiness and satisfaction with life It simply represents a threshold under

which dissatisfaction emerges. Over this threshold, other aspects of life and job become relevant,

and especially satisfaction with the job explains satisfaction with life.

This conclusion explains the interest that also scholars of happiness have to assign to the job.

And this explains the interest that also practitioners (i.e., organizations and human resource

managers) must understand what factors determine job satisfaction.

2.3. Understanding job satisfaction

In order to understand the determinants of job satisfaction, some analyses can be made across

multinomial models. A first ordered probit model, which assumes workers’ characteristics as

independent variables (model A in Table 7), shows that satisfaction is significantly correlated to the

gender of respondents (where female are less satisfied, on the contrary of many researches on job

satisfaction), to their age (where oldest worker are more satisfied than youngest), and it is higher for

people with a secondary school certificate, respect to graduated people or persons with basic

education. No relationship emerges between job satisfaction and family income, location, marital

status, and other personal characteristics. Only some aspects that reflect the personal way of living

and morality influence significantly the satisfaction with the job. For example, the time spent with

co-workers outside the work-place is positively correlated with job satisfaction, demonstrating that

good relations on the job afflict workers’ well-being. Furthermore, job satisfaction increases when

interviewees never justify people who do not pay the bus ticket. This is a proxy of morality and in

particular of the worker’s opportunism, and it reveals that people who (theoretically) cooperate

more in public goods and is non opportunistic develop a stronger feeling of belonging and have

preferences different from the pure self-interest.

Table 7 A-B – Determinants of the satisfaction with the job (multinomial model)

Model A Model B Variable Coeff. St. Err. P[|Z|>z] Variable Coeff. St. Err. P[|Z|>z]Constant 1,6220 0,3992 .0000 Constant 0,7853 0,3206 .0143 Spend time with friends 0,0198 0,0499 .6917 Good pay -0,1011 0,1230 .4110 Spend time with colleagues -0,1264 0,0397 .0014 Pleasant people 0,1323 0,1046 .2058 Spend time in church 0,0122 0,0443 .7837 Not too much pressure -0,0183 0,0959 .8489 Spend time in clubs 0,0246 0,0397 .5348 Job security 0,0878 0,1081 .4168 Claim state benefits 0,0088 0,0336 .7926 Chances of promotion 0,0865 0,0925 .3499 Cheating on taxes -0,0269 0,0235 .2525 Respected job -0,1767 0,1001 .0775 Lying -0,0290 0,0246 .2391 Good hours -0,1120 0,1028 .2759 Unemployed accepting a bribe 0,0292 0,0348 .4016 Use initiative -0,0132 0,1022 .8972 Paying cash 0,0336 0,0246 .1719 Useful for society 0,2632 0,1102 .0169 Avoiding a fare on public transport -0,0399 0,0232 .0850 Generous holidays -0,0863 0,0937 .3568 Help immediate family -0,0077 0,0640 .9040 Meeting people 0,0866 0,1017 .3942 Help people neighborhood -0,0481 0,0651 .4598 Achieving something 0,0368 0,1158 .7504 Help elderly -0,1974 0,1060 .0624 Interesting job 0,0344 0,1131 .7612 Help immigrants 0,0720 0,0620 .2460 Meeting abilities -0,0440 0,1084 .6846 Help sick and disabled -0,0037 0,1079 .9724 Physical conditions 0,1342 0,1080 .2142 Gender -0,2349 0,0886 .0080 Time off in week-ends -0,0789 0,0962 .4122 Age 0,0108 0,0038 .0042 None of these 0,0895 0,2121 .6732 Components of the family 0,0315 0,0366 .3894 Job to develop talents -0,1129 0,0435 .0095 Married -0,1142 0,1003 .2548 Receiving money

without working -0,0128 0,0376 .7337

Graduated 0,1721 0,1167 .1403 Turning lazy not working

0,0068 0,0487 .8894

First certificate degree 0,1286 0,1007 .2015 Duty towards society 0,0328 0,0485 .4984 Diploma -0,1834 0,0914 .0448 Not having to work 0,0571 0,0405 .1581 Familiar income 0,0131 0,0165 .4266 Work always first -0,1436 0,0382 .0002 Location: NO -0,0880 0,1298 .4980 Fair quicker paid more 0,1463 0,1046 .1618 Location: NE -0,1614 0,1312 .2185 Following instructions 0,0694 0,0506 .1700 Location: SUD -0,1512 0,1164 .1940 Giving Italians priority 0,0730 0,0553 .1871 Location: Foreign 0,1293 0,1400 .3557 Giving men priority -0,1539 0,0682 .0241 Jobs local people 0,0237 0,0626 .7048 Gender -0,2363 0,0857 .0058 Age 0,0092 0,0033 .0051 Degree 0,1330 0,1105 .2288 Family income 0,0396 0,0160 .0131 Model A: Observations: 680; Iterations completed: 35; Log likelihood function: -1240.593; Restricted log like. -

1271.618; Chi-squared: 62.0484; Degrees of freedom: 25; Sign. level: .000000 Model B: Observations: 763; Iterations completed: 42; Log likelihood function: -1369.494; Restricted log like. -

1420.754; Chi-squared: 102.5199; Degrees of freedom: 33; Sign. level: .000000

A second model is developed on workers’ motivations and perceptions of general equity

(model B in Table 7). It analyses how psychological preferences can affect job satisfaction by

looking at the importance that people assign to some general aspects of a job4. Data firstly reveal

that people are more satisfied when they are more interested in doing a job that is useful to the

society and less motivated to doing a respectable job. Job satisfaction also increases when people

declare that working is necessary for developing abilities and that always work comes first (even

sacrificing free-time). 5

Consequently, it is possible to claim that workers’ satisfaction depends on their morality and

the importance that they assign to work. Other kinds of equity and personal perceptions—included

sensitivity on differences in wages and on the respect of instructions—are not related with job

satisfaction. People thinking that, when job opportunities are scarce, men should be preferred to

women are more satisfied with their job. This result could be a consequence of the positional value

given to the job by workers, who consider work as a priority of being a ‘man’. Finally, on the

contrary of the previous model, the family income is here significantly and positively correlated

with job satisfaction. In other words the richer people are also more they are satisfied with their job.

Workers’ job satisfaction is also explained by some specific characteristics of their jobs.

Model C in Table 7 illustrates that: (i) satisfaction with job security and freedom in decision-taking

on the job has both the maximum and positive significance in explaining job satisfaction, i.e., the

more secure the job and the more the autonomy level, the higher the workers’ satisfaction with the

job; (ii) unskilled blue collars are in general less satisfied, while employees in the army are more

satisfied; this result may be induced by the presence of rigid norms and imposition of correct

behaviors, which positively influence the workers’ perceptions and well-being; (iii) also people

employed in knowledge intensive or entrepreneurial sectors are more satisfied, supporting the

relevance of autonomy on the job; and (iv) the gender no longer has importance and consequently

job characteristics rather than personal features explain job satisfaction and are frequently correlated

to workers’ gender.

Finally, taking into account only those variables relevant in the previous models (model D in

Table 7), the multinomial analysis reveals that job satisfaction depends on psychological

characteristics, workers’ motivations and job aspects. In particular, job satisfaction is mainly

explained by enthusiasm of interviewees or by a sense of general well-being of workers, reflected in

4 The specific question inserted in the questionnaire was formulated as: In the following list are indicated some aspects of work that people consider relevant. Indicate pleas for each of them the importance that you personally assign to them on a scale from ‘not at all important’ to ‘very important’. Consequently, the following analyses of workers’ motivations concern their general preferences on the job and not their specific elements of attraction to their current job. 5 The importance assigned to the other aspects of the job is not significantly correlated with job satisfaction and this is probably due to the high percentage of people looking these elements as always relevant, such as in the case of having a good wage, achieving something, doing an interesting job, etc.

high levels of happiness and satisfaction with job security, in high importance ascribed to having a

job (and posing the job at the first place) and in great autonomy. But, satisfaction with the job

persistently depends on crucial aspects of the job such as the sector of activity and the position in

the organization (with unskilled employees less satisfied). Morality and social motivations are also

relevant. In fact, job satisfaction characterizes the majority of workers attracted by the social

usefulness of the job and willing to sacrifice their time in helping the elderly. Socio-demographic

characteristics are instead less or not significant and this result outlines that what affects the

satisfaction is intrinsic to the person or specific to the job, but not only nor mainly to its extrinsic

nature.

Table 7 C-D – Determinants of the satisfaction with the job (multinomial model)

Model C Model D Variable Coeff. St. Err. P[|Z|>z] Variable Coeff. St. Err. P[|Z|>z]Constant -1,1162 0,7493 .1363 Constant 0,2404 0,4146 .5619 Freedom decision taking 0,1744 0,0172 .0000 Importance of work -0,2489 0,0788 .0016 Satisfaction with job security 0,1814 0,0180 .0000 Happiness -0,3726 0,0606 .0000 Full-time worker 0,1244 0,1239 .3156 Time with coworkers -0,0043 0,0380 .9104 Supervising someone -0,0648 0,1106 .5580 Age 0,0048 0,0035 .1613 Industry 0,0001 0,0000 .0617 Don’t pay bus-ticket -0,0032 0,0202 .8748 Employer -0,0124 0,2289 .9567 Sacrificing for elderly -0,1493 0,0636 .0190 Self-employed person -0,1203 0,1631 .4608 Import. of respected job -0,0936 0,0962 .3309 White collars 0,1834 0,1342 .1718 Importance of useful

for society 0,1749 0,0998 .0796

Skilled workers 0,0309 0,1775 .8620 Work necessary to develop talents

-0,0379 0,0436 .3854

Unskilled workers 0,3548 0,2055 .0842 Work at the first place -0,0778 0,0396 .0492 Soldiers and similar -0,5357 0,2633 .0419 Men preferred to

women -0,0959 0,0664 .1487

Gender -0,0469 0,1022 .6467 Gender -0,0517 0,0910 .5697 Age 0,0099 0,0039 .0111 Familiar income -0,0016 0,0158 .9189 Graduated 0,1359 0,1316 .3017 Freedom in decision-

taking 0,1800 0,0154 .0000

Compulsory school 0,0945 0,1244 .4475 Satisfaction with job security

0,1849 0,0160 .0000

Income family 0,0005 0,0166 .9781 Sector (intellectual =0, others=1)

-0,0001 0,0000 .0056

Unskilled blue collars 0,3223 0,1354 .0173 Soldiers and similar -0,3897 0,2168 .0723 Model C: Observations: 616; Iterations completed: 26; Log likelihood function: -1020.369; Restricted log like. -

1153.289; Chi-squared: 265.8399; Degrees of freedom: 15; Sign. level: .000000 Model D: Observations: 751; Iterations completed: 30; Log likelihood function: -1189.859; Restricted log like. -

1396.324; Chi-squared: 412.9309; Degrees of freedom: 18; Sign. level: .000000

In conclusion, what certainly has to be theoretically considered and practically enforced by

organizations is security and autonomy on the job, since both elements directly generate satisfaction

with these specific elements and indirectly influence the workers’ satisfaction with the job as a

whole.

3. Conclusions The analysis of happiness and of its linkage with job has emerged in this paper as a process

which has to be realized in various steps. Firstly, when speaking about happiness scientists must

distinguish this notion with the notion of life satisfaction. The former, but not the latter, is strictly

linked with factors of enjoyment, typically (but not exclusive) of young people. The latter, and less

the former, has a high psychological meaning and defines the dimension of general well-being. This

explains why income emerges as a significant variable in defining satisfaction with life but not

happiness. Despite these differences, both happiness and life satisfaction strictly depend on job

satisfaction. Furthermore, some characteristics of the job explain both meanings of general well-

being. Specifically this is the case of relationships, autonomy and security on the job, which

respectively represent relational goods, intrinsic incentives and socio-economic stability. The

models developed therefore sustain that people consider their jobs as a proxy of their income and

consequently of the stability of their working and social position, but also as a source of relations

and personal growth.

In this sense, and given the importance of job satisfaction in explaining happiness and life

satisfaction, policies and interventions on job characteristics and workers’ perceptions are essential

in order to achieve general wellbeing. Data suggest, firstly, that organizations (i.e., principals) have

to consider that economic rewards are not the most important lever for increasing their employees’

satisfaction. Even if wages must achieve a sufficient threshold and bonuses may be perceived as fair

recognition of workers’ effort, organizations should also plan the development of friendly working

environments, in which relationships and communication are the pillars. Secondly, national policies

and the regulation of the labor market should be planned considering different needs and

perceptions that define the workers’ well-being. Job security certainly is the crux, especially related

to the recent reform of flexibility and temporary jobs. Nevertheless, other kinds of flexibility have

to be considered and on the opposite side, have to be provided in order to sustain autonomy,

freedom on the job and the satisfaction of specific needs of workers. Finally, all these policies have

to reflect on the relevance of personal perceptions and social principles. In fact, if behaviors

significantly depend on common morality and social norms, institutional changes on the labor

market should be promoted with the consensus of the society or implementing their adaptation and

preferences. Therefore, the same regulation of flexibility should be advanced as an experience

which is equally promoted to all individuals and able to implement their vocational training.

In conclusion, the paper has contributed in ameliorating the theoretical understanding of

satisfaction with life and with the job. In particular, through empirical analyses and multinomial

models, the paper demonstrates that the contents of the movie and economic theory are

complementary—rather than alternative—explanations of the achievement of happiness. In

particular, the wage may influence satisfaction with life unto when people have achieved a

minimum threshold of income. This is mainly due to the necessity to cater for basic needs and in

general to increase the perception of security and decrease risk. People are satisfied with their lives

when they assume that a long-run perspective and certainly work is a determinant for ensuring

income and stability. Furthermore, when instability is overcome and an adequate income is

achieved, people judge their jobs and their lives on different parameters. Relationships and

immaterial (or intrinsic) aspects acquire relevance and happiness is defined on perceptions and

needs that differ from aspects that are purely economic.

On the achievement of a minimum working standard people will also achieve a minimum

standard of living and from this point they can declare to be happy on the job and, if possible, in

their lives.

Bibliography Arciniega L.M. and Gonzalez L. (2005), “Other-Oriented Values and Job Satisfaction”, Problems

and Perspectives in Management, iss. 4, pp. 128-32

Bartel A., Freeman R., Echniowski C. and Kleiner M. (2004) “Can a Work Organizations Have an Attitude Problem? The Impact of Workplace on Employees Attitudes and Economic Outcomes”, Centre for Economic Performance, London School, Discussion Paper n. 636

Bilimoria D., Perry S., Liang X., Stoller E., Higgins P., Taylor C. (2006), “How Do Female and Male Faculty Members Construct Job Satisfaction? The Roles of Perceived Institutional Leadership and Mentoring and Their Mediating Processes”, Journal of Technology Transfer, v. 31, iss. 3, pp. 355-65

Blanchflower D.G. and Oswald A.J. (2005), “Happiness and the Human Development Index: the Paradox of Australia”, National Bureau of Economic Research NBER working papers, 11416

Borzaga C. (a cura di) (2000), Capitale umano e qualità del lavoro nel settore dei servizi sociali. Un’analisi comparata tra modelli di gestione, FIVOL, Roma

Borzaga C. and Musella M. (2004), Produttività ed efficienza nelle organizzazioni nonprofit: analisi teoriche e verifiche empiriche, edizioni31, Trento

Brown D. and McIntosh (1998), “If You’re Happy and You Know It… Job Satisfaction in the Low Wage Service Sector”, Discussion Paper 405, Centre for Economic Performance, London

Cappelli P. and Shererer P.D. (1998), “Satisfaction, Market Wages and Labor Relations: an Airline Study”, Industrial Relations, 27, pp.56-73

Chan K.C., Gee M.V. and Steiner T.L. (2000), “Employee Happiness and Corporate Financial Performance”, Financial Practice and Education, v.10, iss.2, pp.47-52

Clark A.E. (1996), “Job Satisfaction in Britain”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, v.34, pp.189-217

Clark A.E. (1997), “Job Satisfaction and Gender: Why are Women so Happy at Work?”, Labour Economics, 61, pp.359-381

Clark A.E. (1999), “Are Wages Habit-Forming? Evidence from Micro Data”, Journal of Economics Behaviour and Organizations, v.39, iss.2, pp.179-200

Clark A.E. and Oswald A.J. (1996), “Satisfaction and Comparison Income”, Journal of Public Economics, n.61, vol.6, pp. 359-381

Diener E. (1984), “Subjective Well-being”, in Psychological Bulletin, n.95, pp.542-575

Dockery A.M. (2005), “The Happiness of Young Australians: Empirical Evidence on the Role of Labour Market Experiences”, Economic Record, v.81, iss.255, pp.322-335

Gordon M.E. and Denisi A.S. (1995), “A Re-examination of the Relationship Between Union Membership and Job Satisfaction”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48, pp.222-236

Hechanova Ma.R.M, Alampay R.B.A. and Franco E.P. (2006), “Psychological empowerment, job satisfaction and performance among Filipino service workers”, Asian Journal of Social Psychology, v.9, pp.72-78

Huang X. and Van de Vliert E. (2002), “Intrinsic Job Rewards at Country-Level and Individual-Level Codetermine Job Satisfaction”, Journal of International Business Studies, v. 33, iss. 2, pp. 385-94

Lau C.M. and Tan S.L.C. (2003), “The Effects of Participation and Job-Relevant Information on the Relationship between Evaluative Style and Job Satisfaction”, Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, v. 21, iss. 1, pp. 17-34

Lau C-M., Tse D. and Zhou N. (2002), “Institutional Forces and Organizational Culture in China: Effects on Change Schemas, Firm Commitment and Job Satisfaction”, Journal of International Business Studies, v. 33, iss. 3, pp. 533-50

Leete L. (1999), “Wage Equity and Employee Motivation in Nonprofit and For-profit Organizations”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, vol.43, pg.423-446

Maslow A.H. (1973), Motivazione e personalità, Armando Editore, Roma

Meng R. (1990), “The Relationship Between Unions and Job Satisfaction”, Applied Economics, 22, pp.1635-1648

Miller P.W. (1990), Trade Unions and Job Satisfaction”, Australian Economic Papers, 29, pp.226-248

Mirvis P.H. (1992), “The Quality of Employment in the Nonprofit Sector: an Update in Employee Attitudes in Nonprofit Versus Business and Government”, in Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 1, vol.3

Mirvis P.H. e Hackett E.J. (1983), “Work and Workforce Characteristics in the Nonprofit Sector”, in Monthly Labour Review, 4, vol.106

Oswald A. (1997), “Happiness and Economic Performance”, The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series, University of Warwick

Rowden R.W. (2002), “The Relationship Between Workplace Learning and Job Satisfaction in U.S. Small to Midsize Business”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, v.13, n.4, pp.407-425

Schwochau S. (1987), “Union Effects on Job Attitudes”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 40, pp.209-224

Soonhee K. (2002), “Participative Management and Job Satisfaction: Lessons for Management Leadership”, Public Administration Review, v. 62, iss. 2, pp. 231-41

Sousa-Poza A. and Sousa-Poza A.A. (2000), “Well-Being at Work: A Cross-National Analysis of the Levels and Determinants of Job Satisfaction”, Journal of Socio-Economics, v. 29, iss. 6, pp. 517-38

Sousa-Poza, A. and Sousa-Poza, A. A.(2003), “Gender Differences in Job Satisfaction in Great Britain, 1991-2000: Permanent or Transitory?” Applied Economics Letters, v. 10, iss. 11, pp. 691-94

Theoudossiou I. (1998), “The Effects of Low-Pay and Unemployment on Psychological Well-being: A Logistic Regression Approach”, Journal of Health Economics, v.17, iss.1, pp.85-104

Thoms P., Dose J.J. and Scott K.S. (2002), “Relationship Between Accountability, Job Satisfaction, and Trust”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, v.13, n.3, pp.307-323

Tsang M.C., Rumberger R.W. and Levin H.M. (1991), “The Impact of Surplus Schooling on Work Productivity”, Industrial Relations, 30, pp.209-228

Tsou M.W. and Liu J.T. (2001), “Happiness and Domain Satisfaction in Taiwan”, Journal of Happiness Studies, v.2, iss.3, pp.269-288

Van Praag B. and Ferrer-I-Carbonell A. (2004), Happiness quantified: A satisfaction calculus approach, Oxford University Press

Vila L. and Garcia-Mora B. (2005), “Education and the Determinants of Job Satisfaction”, Education Economics, v. 13, iss. 4, pp. 409-25