Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What makes them happy? Professional care-givers’ job satisfaction

Was macht sie glücklich? Arbeitszufriedenheit der professionellen Pflegekräfte

  • Original Contributions
  • Published:
Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Nurses’ job dissatisfaction can be seen as an early warning indicator of occupational change and (early) termination intentions. A better understanding of job satisfaction and its determinants can help to prevent nurses from leaving their profession.

Aim

We assessed the impact of nurses’ perception of job characteristics on their overall job satisfaction in order to identify the most relevant factors. We also investigated the potential mechanisms through which the most relevant factor influences job satisfaction.

Method

We used multiple regression analysis based on a standardized survey of about 800 registered nurses (in long-term care facilities) in both inpatient care and outpatient care in Germany as well as qualitative content analysis of about 50 semi-structured interviews with nurses.

Results

We found that collaboration with the team and supervisor to be the most relevant factor associated with job satisfaction. A good team can create professional support and ideational support for professional caregivers and enhance their professional development and the quality of care.

Discussion

Our results point to the importance of leadership training, team building methods and other measures for establishing and cultivating a pleasant working atmosphere with flexible shift handovers and team meetings.

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Die Arbeitsunzufriedenheit von Pflegekräften kann als Frühwarnindikator für Kündigungs- und Berufswechselabsichten angesehen werden. Ein besseres Verständnis der Arbeitszufriedenheit und ihrer Determinanten kann dazu beitragen, dass Pflegekräfte ihren Beruf nicht verlassen.

Ziel

Wir untersuchen, wie sich die Wahrnehmung von Berufsmerkmalen durch Pflegepersonen auf deren Arbeitszufriedenheit auswirkt, um die relevantesten Faktoren zu ermitteln. Darüber hinaus wurde analysiert auf welche Weise der relevanteste Faktor die Arbeitszufriedenheit beeinflusst.

Methode

Es wurden multiple Regressionsanalysen, basierend auf einer standardisierten Befragung von ca. 800 Pflegefachkräften in der Kranken- und Langzeitpflege sowie in der stationären und ambulanten Pflege in Deutschland, verwendet. Eine qualitative Inhaltsanalyse von 49 teilstrukturierten Interviews mit Pflegekräften wurde durchgeführt.

Ergebnisse

Die Zusammenarbeit mit dem Team und dem Vorgesetzten ist der wichtigste mit der Arbeitszufriedenheit assoziierte Faktor. Ein „gutes“ Team kann professionelle und ideelle Unterstützung für professionelle Pflegekräfte schaffen und deren berufliche Entwicklung sowie die Qualität der Pflege verbessern.

Diskussion

Die Ergebnisse verweisen auf die Bedeutung von Personalführungstrainings, Teambildungs- und anderen Maßnahmen zur Schaffung und Pflege einer angenehmen Arbeitsatmosphäre mit Freiräumen für Schichtübergaben und Teambesprechungen.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Regional planning areas are constructed by the Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development for the purpose of carrying out nationwide comparisons and assessing large-scale regional tendencies. They explicitly rely on the concept of an economic center, surrounded by a more rural periphery. See www.bbsr.bund.de for more detailed information on the construction of regional planning areas.

  2. Data access was provided within the context of a § 75 SGB X application.

  3. The selection of these factors was based on multiple (subjective) criteria: our expectation of finding enough empirical variation, the deductibility of research hypotheses and last but not least the response burden for the target persons. As a result, work requirements (challenging work situation etc.) task variety, secure work environment, concrete management styles as well as commuting distance and self-efficacy were dropped from the survey. See [5,6,7, 14, 22, 24, 28] for research on these topics.

  4. Large part of the data cleaning consisted of checking whether respondents’ answers were consistent with the questionnaire filters.

  5. By including nurses who have not completed vocational training the qualitative sample differs from the sample of the quantitative study; however, the results are not typical for either nurses in training or registered nurses, and only in some points are there references to subtle differences. In these cases, references are made in the text.

  6. The survey variables on job characteristics are still filled in about 80% of all cases, but combining all job characteristics in the regressions leads to considerably lower numbers of observations. Nevertheless, the comparison of the job characteristics commonly contained in models (3a) and (3b) and (4a) and (4b) shows that non-response to the survey variables on job characteristics does not alter the results. Unfortunately, the IEB do not cover as many job characteristics as our survey does.

  7. This corresponds to what Barron and Kenny [4] term “Step 2” and “Step 3”. Results for step 2 are available from the authors upon request. Please note that for mediation to take place it is not necessary that job characteristics exhibit a significant relationship with overall job satisfaction in models (4a) and (4b) as there may be more than one mediator variable, whose effects potentially cancel out [29].

  8. Future research might be interested in estimating a more complex mediation model and separate direct and indirect effects in the mediation model more rigorously. Here, our primary interest lies in finding out about the impact of different work-related factors and nurses’ perception of them, rather than in learning about nature and size of their potential mediating effects.

  9. Estimating model (3) separately for nurses and nurses in long-term care, nurses in inpatient care and outpatient care as well as nurses aged 18–45 years and beyond the age of 45 years led largely to the same results. They are available from the authors upon request.

References

  1. Albrecht M, Loos S, Möllenkamp M et al (2017) Faktencheck Pflegepersonal im Krankenhaus. Internationale Empirie und Status quo in Deutschland. Bertelsmann, Gütersloh

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aloisio LD, Gifford WA, McGilton KS, Lalonde M, Estabrooks CA, Squires JE (2018) Individual and organizational predictors of allied healthcare providers’ job satisfaction in residential long-term care. BMC Health Serv Res 18:491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Antoni M, Schmucker A, Seth S, von Berge P (2019) Sample of Integrated Labour Market Biographies (SIAB) 1975–2017. Forschungsdatenzentrum der Bundesagentur für Arbeit (BA) im Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg

    Google Scholar 

  4. Baron RM, Kenny DA (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Personal Soc Psychol 51:1173–1182

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Best MF, Thurston NE (2004) Measuring nurse job satisfaction. J Nurs Adm 34:283–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Björn C, Josephson M, Wadensten B, Rissén D (2015) Prominent attractive qualities of nurses’ work in operating room departments: a questionnaire study. Work 52:877–889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bomball J, Schwanke A, Stöver M, Schmitt S, Görres S (2010) Imagekampagne für Pflegeberufe auf der Grundlage empirisch gesicherter Daten. Einstellungen von Schüler/innen zur möglichen Ergreifung eines Pflegeberufes. ipp schriften. Schriftenreihe des IPP, Bremen

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bonin H (2019) Fachkräftemangel in der Gesamtperspektive. In: Jacobs K, Kuhlmey A, Greß S, Klauber J, Schwinger A (eds) Pflege-Report 2019. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 61–70

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bowling NA, Eschleman KJ, Wang Q, Kirkendall C, Alarcon G (2010) A meta-analysis of the predictors and consequences of organization-based self-esteem. J Occup Organ Psychol 83:601–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Buxel H (2011) Jobverhalten, Motivation und Arbeitsplatzzufriedenheit von Pflegepersonal und Auszubildenden in Pflegeberufen. FH Münster, Münster. (Ergebnisse dreier empirischer Untersuchungen und Implikationen für das Personalmanagement und -marketing von Krankenhäusern und Altenpflegeeinrichtungen)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Caricati L, La Sala R, Marletta G et al (2014) Work climate, work values and professional commitment as predictors of job satisfaction in nurses. J Nurs Manag 22:984–994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chen M‑F, Ho C‑H, Lin C‑F et al (2016) Organisation-based self-esteem mediates the effects of social support and job satisfaction on intention to stay in nurses. J Nurs Manag 24:88–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Choi J, Flynn L, Aiken LH (2012) Nursing practice environment and registered nurses’ job satisfaction in nursing homes. GERONT 52:484–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chu C‑I, Hsu H‑M, Price JL, Lee J‑Y (2003) Job satisfaction of hospital nurses: an empirical test of a causal model in Taiwan. Int Nurs Rev 50:176–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. van Dick R, Stegmann S (2016) Sinnvolle Arbeit ist identitätsstiftend – Zur Bedeutung der sozialen Identifikation als Wirkmechanismus zwischen Bedeutsamkeit der Aufgabe und Arbeitseinstellungen/Meaningful work contributes to identity development—The role of social identification as a mediator of the task significance-job attitude relation. Arbeit 24:49–85

  16. Fietze S (2011) Arbeitszufriedenheit und Persönlichkeit: „Wer schaffen will, muss fröhlich sein!“. SOEP Papers; DIW, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ghazzawi I (2008) Antecedents and consequences of job satisfaction: a new conceptual framework. Bus Rev 11:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gillet N, Fouquereau E, Coillot H et al (2018) The effects of work factors on nurses’ job satisfaction, quality of care and turnover intentions in oncology. J Adv Nurs 74:1208–1219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Goetz K, Campbell S, Broge B et al (2013) Job satisfaction of practice assistants in general practice in Germany: an observational study. FAMPRJ 30:411–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Goetz K, Hasse P, Campbell SM et al (2016) Evaluation of job satisfaction and working atmosphere of dental nurses in Germany. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 44:24–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hackman R, Oldham GR (1976) Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory. Organ Behav Hum Perform 16:250–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hasselhorn H‑M, Müller BH, Tackenberg P, Kümmerling A, Simon M (2005) Berufsausstieg bei Pflegepersonal. Arbeitsbedingungen und beabsichtigter Berufsausstieg bei Pflegepersonal in Deutschland und Europa. Wirtschaftsverl. NW Verlag für Neue Wissenschaft, Bremerhaven, Dortmund

    Google Scholar 

  23. Köppen J, Zander B, Busse R (2016) Die aktuelle Situation der stationären Krankenpflege in Deutschland. Ergebnisse der G‑NWI-Studie (Neuauflage RN4Cast). TU Berlin, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lu H, While AE, Barriball KL (2005) Job satisfaction among nurses: a literature review. Int J Nurs Stud 42:211–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mayring P (2015) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. Beltz, Weinheim

    Google Scholar 

  26. Moreau E, Mageau GA (2012) The importance of perceived autonomy support for the psychological health and work satisfaction of health professionals: not only supervisors count, colleagues too! Motiv Emot 36:268–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Roth G, Wendt F, Nübling M, Janßen C (2018) Arbeitszufriedenheit und Arbeitsbelastung bei Beschäftigten der Behindertenhilfe im Vergleich zu allen Arbeitsfeldern. FFAW, Freiburg, München (Daten und Analysen mithilfe des Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) unter besonderer Berücksichtigung organisatorischer Merkmale)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Schyns B, von Collani G (2002) A new occupational self-efficacy scale and its relation to personality constructs and organizational variables. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 11:219–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Shrout PE, Bolger N (2002) Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations. Psychol Methods 7:422–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Spreitzer GM (1995) An empirical test of a comprehensive model of intrapersonal empowerment in the workplace. Am J Community Psychol 23:601–629

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Spreitzer GM (1995) Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation. AMJ 38:1442–1465

    Google Scholar 

  32. Steinmetz S, Vries DH, Tijdens KG (2014) Should I stay or should I go? The impact of working time and wages on retention in the health workforce. Hum Resour Health 12:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Strömgren M, Eriksson A, Bergman D, Dellve L (2016) Social capital among healthcare professionals: a prospective study of its importance for job satisfaction, work engagement and engagement in clinical improvements. Int J Nurs Stud 53:116–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. van Saane N, Sluiter JK, Verbeek JHAM, Frings-Dresen MHW (2003) Reliability and validity of instruments measuring job satisfaction—a systematic review. Occup Med 53:191–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Witzel A (2000) Das problemzentrierte Interview. FQS Forum: Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1:Art. 22

  36. Zander B (2017) Warum wollen Krankenpflegefachkräfte ihre Arbeitsplätze verlassen und was kann das Krankenhausmanagement dagegen tun? HBScience 8:52–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Martin Kroczek for administering large parts of the survey and to Noemie Friedrich, who was (up to her withdrawal) a valuable member of the research team. Wilhelm Kohler is acknowledged for providing helpful comments on an earlier version of the paper. Furthermore, we thank Meike Linde, Lukas Cramer, Ida Dorn, Alexandra Walter and Friederike Schlenker for excellent research support. Not least, we thank all persons who took part in the pre-tests and survey.

Funding

This paper is an outcome of the ZAFH care4care funded by the EFRE fund and the Ministry of Science, Research and Art Baden Wuerttemberg.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Catholic University of Applied Sciences – Institut für Angewandte Forschung, Entwicklung und Weiterbildung (IAF), Freiburg, Germany

    Janka Höld

  2. Institute for Applied Economic Research, Tübingen, Germany

    Jochen Späth

  3. Katholische Hochschule Freiburg, Catholic University of Applied Sciences, Karlstr. 63, 79104, Freiburg, Germany

    Cornelia Kricheldorff

Authors
  1. Janka Höld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jochen Späth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cornelia Kricheldorff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cornelia Kricheldorff.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

J. Höld, J. Späth and C. Kricheldorff declare that they have no competing interests.

The quantitative and the qualitative surveys were approved by the ethical commission of the German Society for Nursing Science (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Pflegewissenschaft e. V.) in October and April 2018, respectively.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Höld, J., Späth, J. & Kricheldorff, C. What makes them happy? Professional care-givers’ job satisfaction. Z Gerontol Geriat 53, 655–662 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-020-01759-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-020-01759-6

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation