What Is the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ)? Facets, Scoring and Interpretation

The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) is a scale that measures how satisfied employees are with different aspects of their job, and one of the most widely used instruments in job satisfaction research. It was developed in 1967 at the University of Minnesota by Weiss, Dawis, England and Lofquist. The 100-item long form measures 20 separate facets of work; the 20-item short form produces intrinsic, extrinsic and general job satisfaction scores. Responses are given on a 5-point satisfaction scale ranging from "Very dissatisfied" to "Very satisfied". In this article we explain the structure of the questionnaire, how it is scored and interpreted, its limitations and how organizations measure job satisfaction today.

What Is Job Satisfaction?

Job satisfaction is the positive or negative feeling that results from an employee's evaluation of their job and its various aspects. One of the most frequently cited definitions comes from Locke (1976): job satisfaction is a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job or job experiences.

Researchers speak of "job satisfaction", while organizations usually call it "employee satisfaction". (In Turkish literature the same concept appears under two interchangeable names, "iş doyumu" and "iş tatmini".) We discuss the concept as it appears in corporate surveys in our article what is employee satisfaction.

There are two ways to measure job satisfaction. The first is to ask a single global question such as "Overall, how satisfied are you with your job?". The second is to ask about different aspects of the job (pay, supervisor, co-workers, development opportunities and so on) separately. The MSQ is the classic example of the second approach: instead of reducing satisfaction to a single number, it shows where satisfaction is high and where it is low.

Origins: The Theory of Work Adjustment

The MSQ was developed as part of the Work Adjustment Project at the University of Minnesota. According to the Theory of Work Adjustment behind the project, there is a mutual fit between a person and the work environment:

• Satisfaction: the degree to which the employee's needs and values are met by the rewards the work environment offers. It describes how satisfied the person is with the work.
• Satisfactoriness: the degree to which the employee's abilities match the requirements of the job. It describes how satisfied the employer is with the employee.

According to the theory, the higher both satisfaction and satisfactoriness are, the more likely the employee is to stay in the job. The MSQ was designed to measure the "satisfaction" side of this equation. That is why its 20 facets cover, one by one, the rewards a work environment can offer (a sense of achievement, pay, recognition, independence and so on).

Versions of the MSQ

In practice the short form is by far the most used version. In Turkish theses and articles in particular, "MSQ" usually refers to the 20-item short form.

The 20 Facets of the MSQ

The table below lists the facets with their Turkish equivalents and what they cover. The descriptions are not translations of the questionnaire's items; they are our own summaries of each facet's content. The last column shows which short-form subscale the facet belongs to.

In the short form, 12 facets belong to the intrinsic satisfaction subscale and 6 to the extrinsic subscale. Co-workers and working conditions fall outside both subscales and count only toward the general satisfaction score.

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Job Satisfaction

One of the features that made the MSQ short form popular is that it splits job satisfaction into two sources:

• Intrinsic job satisfaction: satisfaction that comes from the work itself. Using one's abilities, feeling a sense of achievement, taking responsibility, being creative and being useful to others belong here. Employees experience these rewards themselves while doing the work.
• Extrinsic job satisfaction: satisfaction that comes from the elements around the work. Pay, advancement, recognition, company policies and the supervisor's approach belong here. These rewards are provided to the employee by the organization or the manager.

The distinction is reminiscent of the motivators and hygiene factors in Herzberg's two-factor theory, but the MSQ does not classify factors according to a theory in advance; it measures both kinds on the same satisfaction scale.

The practical value of the distinction is this: a group with high intrinsic and low extrinsic satisfaction likes its work but is dissatisfied with the conditions the organization offers. For this group, improvements in pay, promotion or management practices can make a difference. In the opposite case, where extrinsic satisfaction is high but intrinsic satisfaction is low, people are content with the conditions but the work itself does not fulfill them. Here the answer lies in job design, responsibility and development opportunities.

How Is the MSQ Scored?

Each item is scored from 1 (Very dissatisfied) to 5 (Very satisfied). There are no reverse-scored items. Subscale scores can be calculated in two ways:

• Sum score: the item scores in the subscale are added up. In the short form, intrinsic satisfaction ranges from 12 to 60, extrinsic from 6 to 30 and general from 20 to 100. In the long form, each facet score ranges from 5 to 25.
• Mean score: the sum is divided by the number of items. Each subscale is then expressed on a 1–5 range, so subscales can be compared directly.

In corporate reports, and whenever subscales of different lengths need to be shown side by side, the mean score is easier to understand. Below is the result of a hypothetical group that completed the short form:

The table is illustrative and does not contain data from a real organization.

One point to watch: general satisfaction is not the average of the intrinsic and extrinsic scores. The general score is calculated from all 20 items, and two of those items (co-workers and working conditions) do not belong to either subscale.

How Should the Results Be Interpreted?

There is no universal "good score" threshold for the MSQ that everyone can use. The comparison data in the original manual were collected decades ago in a different country and should not be used as a direct reference for an organization today. It is sounder to read the results in the following ways:

• Against the scale midpoint: a score of 3 is the "Neither" level. Subscales or facets with a mean below 3 point to areas where dissatisfaction dominates.
• Subscales against each other: the gap between intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction shows whether dissatisfaction comes from the work itself or from the conditions.
• By response distribution: a mean hides how responses are distributed. Reporting the combined share of "Satisfied" and "Very satisfied" answers for each item, in other words the favorable score, makes the result easier to understand.
• Across groups and over time: administering the same scale in different units or across years provides a real basis for comparison. Apply a minimum reporting threshold of 10 people in group-level reports to protect anonymity.

The Turkish Adaptation

The most frequently cited Turkish adaptation of the MSQ short form is the work of Baycan (1985). This adaptation, or later alternative adaptations, has been used in a large number of Turkish theses and articles on job satisfaction. When searching the Turkish literature, look for both "Minnesota İş Doyumu Ölçeği" and "Minnesota İş Tatmini Ölçeği".

When using a scale with a new sample, it is good practice to check its reliability again. We explain how in our article on survey reliability and validity. Before using the questionnaire, also remember to cite the source of the adaptation and check the current terms of use.

Job Satisfaction and Employee Engagement

The MSQ is a satisfaction scale; it does not measure engagement. A satisfied employee is content with their conditions, but that does not mean they will put in extra effort for the organization's success or want to stay for a long time. Engagement covers emotional attachment to the organization, intention to stay and willingness to go the extra mile together. We explain the difference and the four employee profiles in detail in our article on employee satisfaction vs. employee engagement.

In academic research the MSQ is often used together with an engagement scale. You can read about the UWES, which measures work engagement, in our article on the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale, and about other engagement models in Gallup Q12 and employee engagement models.

How Do Organizations Measure Job Satisfaction Today?

The MSQ itself is rarely used in corporate employee surveys. Instead, organizations adapt the logic the MSQ established, measuring satisfaction across different aspects of work, to their own needs:

• Categories are updated: alongside classic areas such as pay, manager, career and co-workers, today's areas are added: work-life balance, flexible working, digital tools, wellbeing and inclusion.
• Satisfaction and engagement are measured together: satisfaction areas are asked alongside an engagement index, and the analysis shows which areas affect engagement most.
• An agreement scale is used: instead of "How satisfied are you?", statements are rated on a 5-point agreement scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree". This puts satisfaction, engagement and manager evaluation on the same scale.
• The survey is kept short: instead of a 100-item form, organizations prefer 40–60 statements for the company-wide survey plus short follow-up surveys during the year.

We explain what a satisfaction survey measures and how to build one in what is an employee satisfaction survey. Ready-to-use example statements by category are in our article on employee satisfaction survey questions.

Limitations of the MSQ

• Dated wording and scope: the questionnaire was written for the American workplace of the 1960s. It assumes a hierarchical supervisor relationship and does not cover the areas employees care about most today, such as remote and hybrid work, digital tools, wellbeing, work-life balance and inclusion.
• Length: the long form has 100 items and lowers participation when added to a corporate survey. The short form measures each facet with a single item, so it does not give reliable results at the facet level.
• Satisfaction only: the questionnaire does not measure intention to stay, willingness to put in extra effort or emotional attachment to the organization. High satisfaction does not necessarily mean high engagement.
• Hard to turn into action: a result of "dissatisfied with pay" shows there is a problem, but not whether it lies in the level of pay, its fairness or its transparency.
• Limited benchmarking: without current, country-specific comparison data, it is hard to compare results with other organizations.

Common Mistakes

• Changing items and still calling it the MSQ: shortening or rewriting items, or changing the response scale, makes the results incomparable with MSQ results in the literature. If you have made changes, say so clearly.
• Treating the general score as the average of the subscales: general satisfaction is calculated from all 20 items.
• Mixing sum and mean scores: if one study uses sums and another uses means, the results cannot be compared directly. State which method you used in the report.
• Reading a single short-form item as a facet score: in the short form, "compensation" is measured by a single item; drawing firm conclusions about pay satisfaction from it is risky.
• Using old comparison data as a reference: comparing the original comparison data with an organization today produces misleading conclusions.

Frequently asked questions