Job Satisfaction

Most participants did not demonstrate satisfaction with their post-service employment. Conrad described his initial post-service employment as the ‘worst six months of my life’ but then obtained another position and said, ‘and yeah, I find it a lot more satisfying’. He then expanded ‘I’ll come to work, and I’ll do my job and I’ll do what’s expected and probably do a little bit more, but I’m not going to sink everything I have into a job’. Sebastian previously confirmed that he regretted leaving the emergency services, stating ‘…and I never wanted to leave…’ but then stated that one of his new colleagues was ex-Air Force and he was learning a lot from him, saying ‘I like learning new stuff mate. I love it’. This contradiction in the narratives of participants provided rich data to help understand the issues they face in the post-service environment. It is difficult to capture the participant emotion when reporting their post-service job experiences and translate it to pragmatic job satisfaction determinants. But systematically working through what factors were present for the participants in their post-service employment, and what factors were absent, measured against their tone and expression when narrating their stories, started to create a pattern for defining new job satisfaction determinants.  

Job Satisfaction Determinants 

The usual determinants for job satisfaction include job security, income, job content, and camaraderie (Warr, 1979). For the participants, the presence of these determinants in their post-service employment was explored and yet did not translate to job satisfaction. However, a lack of any one of these determinants did impact job satisfaction. Direct questioning on the subject elucidated reasons why they did not like their post-service employment and it became clear that it was the absence of factors from their former roles in service that contributed to their dissatisfaction. That is, they answered the question ‘what was exciting about their new job?’ with a combination of positives and negatives that included the absence of what they had previously experienced in their service role. The lack of camaraderie, the lack of variety, the lack of trustworthy colleagues, and the lack of stimulation were offered as explanations as to why they did not enjoy their post-service roles. Therefore, through their own narration, they widened the parameters for the determinants of job satisfaction. Largely, their job satisfaction relied upon their ongoing comparison between their new roles and their previous service roles. Lévy-Garboua & Montmarquette (2004) term this as preferred experience, and the application of their work here suggests that the participants continue to regard their service employment as their preferred job and therefore new employment is subject to constant comparison. 

This preferred experience indicated a connection to their former service role, and this was explored to examine how it influenced their job satisfaction in the post-service environment. The starting point for this research was to gain an understanding of why former members from police, military and emergency service organisations could, by all objective measures, appear to have better employment post-service yet exhibit signs of poor job satisfaction. Objectively, better employment is measured by factors that are established within the usual determinants of job satisfaction including income and job content (Warr, 1979). For the participants, this is observed in their new jobs with factors such as higher income, flexible working hours, no nightshift, no deployment, less danger and less physical, emotional and psychological stressors. However, subjectively, there are other factors that influence job satisfaction which do not always fit within the parameters of good employment as defined in the labour market. Amongst the participants, this was exhibited by a lack of commitment to the role, self-reported discontent with management and peers, lack of engagement in teams, and self-reported financial motivation only. These are in direct contrast to the way the participants talk about their time in the service organisation. 

Finding new parameters for job satisfaction for this group of employees started with measuring the factors that they reported as creating job satisfaction in their former service employment. This included camaraderie, being part of a team, belonging, variety, and job security. It was confirmed that it is the lack of these factors that influences their future job satisfaction. Therefore, it became important to find not just what was present, but also what was missing. Their reasons and/or motivations for service as identified in Chapter 4 were job security, helping the community, job opportunity, and variety and excitement. Comparatively, their motivations for their post-service employment were income and job opportunity. While many participants identified seeking job security, most found security elusive. However, the reasons for service were not the reasons why they stayed in their service role for the length of time they did, nor were they the reasons narrated for why they enjoyed the role, and generally, did not want to leave. The participants compared their new employment only to the service role experience, and therefore the job satisfaction determinants shift to be what they enjoyed in their service role.  

At the time of interview, all but two of the participants were gainfully employed following transition from the service organisation. Tom is the single participant who expressed satisfaction with his post-service employment, stating ‘…I love it’, without any contradiction. A number of participants were able to identify positive elements of their new employment, if not overall satisfaction, such as Kyle who mentioned ‘I needed a change…and it was a new challenge’ and Lucy who said ‘I’m pretty … content would be a good word at the moment’. Direct and indirect questioning addressed this issue with all participants, and a number of factors contributing to, and detracting from, job satisfaction were revealed.   

Job Security 

Revisiting the reasons for service, the participant narrations indicate that they were seeking job security in post-service employment but relied heavily on job opportunity. Job security was required and sought after, as well as missed if not present in post-service employment. The absence of it contributed to poor job satisfaction but the presence of it alone was not enough to achieve satisfaction. These sorts of comparative responses were not as logical as may be seen in the usual labour market. The measure of job security by these participants was related directly to income and their capacity to continue earning it. The participants measured their current job security in comparison to their service role, and in terms of income and ongoing capacity to earn. For some, job security was sacrificed for higher income, for example, taking fly-in-fly-out (FIFO) positions in the mines that had high pay but uncertain rostering. Similarly, income was an important factor in their employment post-service, but it was not a remarkable contributor to job satisfaction. Responses from the participants that indicated they now ‘do it for the money’ did not convey satisfaction with the job. Instead, the participants were resigned to the fact that they needed to do this job for the money but did not express any great satisfaction. This was in stark contrast with their descriptions of how much they loved their service roles. 

If one of the reasons given by the participants for seeking employment in the service organisations was job security, it is understandable that any loss of job security post-service would affect job satisfaction. The usual determinants of job satisfaction (Warr, 1979) are intertwined with each other in the stories of the participants yet do not result in job satisfaction either as single factors or when combined. Few of the participants acknowledge that even though they had perceived job security in their service role, that the fact they separated, whether by choice or not, cut short that career and negated the job security. So, it is their separation as a result of any number of factors that removed the job security. The participants do not seem to see this as an indicator that their service role was not as secure as they first thought. Julie touched on this, saying ‘It meant that you had security, what I thought was security. You had job, I had job satisfaction’, but few participants were reflexively aware of the dynamic that a job they thought was secure, was actually not in the end. The participants held a subjective view of job security that was borne of a career that was expected to be long term. Yet, objectively, job security is limited in any form of employment, depending upon the circumstances of both the employee and employer. Regardless, the participants entered employment post-service seeking a level of job security which was not truly present in the first place. Of significance is that a job that faces trauma regularly and impacts the mental health of the individual is not generally a sustainable long-term career option. There are many career police, military and emergency service employees, so the issue of the lack of job security can only be raised for those who could no longer stay in the role. The participants need to redefine their understanding of job security and place more realistic expectations on employment post-service. They currently define job security as a job that is long lasting and not at threat. 

For this group, a lack of job security outside of service stems from the inability to successfully translate and/or communicate their skill sets to the civilian world. They continue to speak in the language of their service organisation, and this is often misunderstood by civilian employers. For those seeking opportunities that represent a continuation of their service role within a different organisation, this presents as less of a problem. However, potential mental health issues post-service can affect their own perceived longevity in such employment. This then threatens their job security. For example, participants who separated from the service organisation due to mental health issues will often experience mental health triggers if their new employment is in a similar space. This then affects their performance and job satisfaction and leads to them seeking alternative employment options more rapidly than expected. For all participants, coming from secure government employment, setting out into the civilian world with both government and private opportunities can be intimidating. Further, while the base income of service organisations is low, it is often boosted considerably by penalties for danger and allowances for shift work and overtime for 24-hour shifts, or by tax-free income for international deployments. These sums become difficult to match in post-service employment. Several of the military participants disputed this to an extent, explaining that the income in their arm of the military was not great, but they did have the security of a long-term career. Post-service, they describe having poor income and poor job security.  

Job Income 

Many of the participants reported their post-service employment as an equivalent or better source of income. Some reported either less income than their service wage, or a lack of stable employment that disrupted income consistency and therefore impacted overall earnings. None reported either job satisfaction because of an adequate income or a lack of job satisfaction due to a lower income. Their dissatisfaction with the post-service employment was not centrally focused on income levels. Several participants acknowledged that the income was the reason they were tolerating a job they did not enjoy, regardless of whether it was adequate or not. Barry explained ‘I suppose because I don’t have that job satisfaction like I used to. I’ve now substituted that for money. And I’ve been quite lucky that I have had jobs that paid very well’. In response to direct questioning Walter stated, ‘the only thing that excites me at the moment is the money’ and Michael explained ‘It’s just basically a money cash grab’. Harry indicated it was very straightforward, although he did not particularly enjoy his new job, it was ‘more money and with less responsibility’. Kim did indicate that it was not specifically about job satisfaction in post-service employment, but a change of priorities. She stated ‘No. It’s just a job. No. No. I feel like I’ve had the career that I always wanted, and ticked that off, and anything else now just, is just to pay bills I think’. 

Although income was not a strict determinant of job satisfaction in the post-service environment for these participants, they did consider it specifically when identifying the need for a job in order to pay their bills. Therefore, job opportunity was an important element in post-service employment for the participants, as was seen in their initial reasons for entering service. Their discontent with having limited job opportunity, however, was higher when explaining their post-service job searches, than it was when explaining their original employment search that led to their service organisation. There were two apparent reasons for this. The first was the frustration that their skills developed in service were not recognised in post-service employment. Barry explained: 

I’ve come back here to grass roots again, if you like. Start at the bottom. And again, where my, quite strangely enough, where my experience isn’t recognised and doesn’t count for anything. From coming over here and having a lot of experience, but, you know, not being accepted and not being listened to. But I just keep telling myself, well the difference is now, I keep telling myself this is just a job. Turn up, collect the money and go home.  

The second was frustration with having to even seek employment, when their intention had been to stay in the services long term. Many did not even know where to start to seek employment. For participants like Maria and Paul, who submitted a large number of job applications, they were ill-equipped to re-enter the job market. Combining job searching with struggles with mental illness added another level of complexity for the participants. Alastair explained, in relation to both job seeking and keeping employment: ‘You know it’s I’m just again I’m not well, like, so I haven’t got the resilience I used to have, I haven’t got the concentration I used to have. You know I’m running on reduced capacity’.  

Job Content 

Alastair’s explanation can also be applied to satisfaction with job content. Although the job content may be satisfying, it is harder for the participants to enjoy it when their health is not optimal. It continues to be a consideration that it is more than just different job content that affects these individuals in their post-service employment. Alastair raised the possibility that it was less about the new job content and more about the consequences of having spent time in the service organisation. With such variety in the service employment, and of course, as William describes, they ‘…get to play with really cool stuff’, it is not surprising that post-service employment does not meet expectations for job satisfaction when the job content is different. The descriptions from the participants indicated that the job content of their post-service employment was not as rewarding nor as satisfying as their service roles. To fully understand this concept, the participants were asked specifically what issues they had with their post-service job and why it did not compare. Conrad explained that the new job was not as anticipated nor as promised, stating  

it appeared to be you know non-confrontational going out on the road, talking to people, interaction with the public, but in a positive sense. It turned out to be six months sitting in a room with no windows looking at a computer screen largely which drove me nuts. And very, very quickly came to realise that it wasn’t for me so I started looking for jobs.   

Donald explained that the new role was not as dangerous, stating ‘…you don’t have the same danger here at all, you know like really you rarely go to anything bigger than a bin fire so to speak’. Fred described the difference as  

it was the same type of job but just different, you know. You work with the same type of blokes, but the actual environment’s different too, then it comes down to your clients, which is money and it’s all about money, private industry.  

Neil explained  

I just basically did simple work like driving special needs kids to school and driving limousines but the stress of being on the road and the stress of going to Sydney ultimately got the better of me there as well.  

When further questioned about the factors that impacted post-service employment satisfaction, Walter thinks it may be because ‘…this is going to sound really bad, but I don’t see the professionalism of it in my current job’ and similarly, Donald explains that ‘you can’t really trust anybody because they’ve all got their own agendas’. This instigated questioning on the significance of trusting others in their new employment. The participants responded that being part of a team in their service employment was very important to them and was not replicated in their post-service employment. When asked about the differences, Donald explained: 

…in an office job you don’t see some[thing] tragic and share that…tragedy between each other, but you don’t have that sort of a bond. So and it’s not something you share regularly but you do have those moments and I suppose that does build that strength of character. Because you know…like someone could be an emotional mess after an incident and I would never, ever judge for it because I’m involved with that too. But in a normal workplace, if someone came in and they were an emotional mess because of something that happened at home on the weekend, they would get judged for it…so I suppose there is that strength of unity within the fire brigade.   

Alastair elaborated that  

Because obviously, yeah obviously, I haven’t found my niche since leaving the police and sometimes I think you know maybe I should look for a role in another register like the SES or something like that or you know where I’ve still got that you know.   

This line of questioning ended with Natalie who said ‘Excites me did you say? I actually hate my current job’. 

Two main issues were addressed following this line of questioning with the participants. The first was their lack of trust in post-service employment colleagues and the second was the search for the same sort of employment environment post-service and how that contributed to their job satisfaction.