The case against job satisfaction

The case against job satisfaction – a satisfied worker is not necessary a productive worker

Glenn Bassett

Since the widely renowned Hawthorne studies of the 1920s and 1930s, the working hypothesis of the human relations movement in management has consistently proposed that the satisfied worker is a productive worker. In the past six decades, thousands of scholarly studies have used worker satisfaction as a central research variable. But this flood of research has offered scant support to the proposition that a satisfied worker is a superior producer. The original Hawthorne studies have themselves been subject to radical criticism in that span of time. So it is perhaps time to review the relevance of worker satisfaction as industrial policy.

For nearly four decades, leading social scientists have observed that worker satisfaction is, at best, related to work productivity at only a trivial level of statistical correlation. Victor Vroom’s 1964 estimate of an average correlation of 0.14 characterizes the typical quantified research result available in the literature. This magnitude of correlation implies that no more than 2 percent of the variance in output can be accounted for by worker satisfaction. Various other researchers along the way have observed that causality may as readily flow from high productivity to satisfaction as in the opposite direction. Even the limited relationship of satisfaction and work output that is found offers scant comfort to those seeking confirmation of the “satisfied worker is a productive worker” hypothesis. It certainly leaves much to be desired as a foundation for organizational policy formulation in support of high-performance management systems.


The job satisfaction research literature has been thoroughly reviewed at intervals of about a decade in the past half century. Brayfield and Crockett (1955), Vroom (1964), and Locke (1976) each summarized the field extensively and observed the limited influence of satisfaction on work output. After 1973, as job satisfaction research mutated into the Quality of Work Life movement, concern among serious scientists with job satisfaction as a major research paradigm faded. In his 1984 review of organizational behavior for the Annual Review of Psychology, Barry Staw dismissed attitude surveys and satisfaction measures as “throw-away variables,” characterizing the field as dominantly correlational in method and “rather atheoretical.” In scientific terms, this was the equivalent of consigning it to irrelevance.

Nevertheless, continuing the tradition of once-a-decade revisits to the subject, Iaffaldano and Muchinsky (1985) updated the job satisfaction literature. They confirmed the limited causal relationship between worker satisfaction and work output, lamenting that “empirical support for the satisfaction-performance relation does not approximate the degree to which this relation has been espoused in theories of organizational design.” With so much disconfirmation, it would seem that the presumed relation of job satisfaction and work performance should long ago have been left behind as a dead-end issue.

Even if satisfaction and work performance are unrelated, though, many research findings remain that suggest continuing business relevance in the assessment of worker satisfaction. The extensive literature available contains potentially informative findings concerning job satisfaction that merit mention. It will be useful to summarize the findings this vast body of research has yielded in its stormy, politicized history, then take a fresh look at the meaning of worker satisfaction for management practice and theory.

The reviews of Vroom and Locke survey the relevant research findings concerning job satisfaction rather fully. The following discussion of job satisfaction correlates draws heavily on their review summaries as well as on the experience and observations of this writer. Readers seeking more detail about job satisfaction research might do well to directly reference the sources cited at the conclusion of this article.


The easiest starting point for summarizing the effects of job satisfaction on worker behavior is with those issues that have been consistently related to workers’ expression of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their jobs. These are turnover and absenteeism.

Dissatisfaction is consistently associated with higher levels of labor turnover. Those workers who are most dissatisfied also exhibit a higher frequency of absence. The explanation most frequently offered for this correlation is the likelihood that people escape, even if only temporarily, from unpleasant work circumstances. The correlations found, though, are typically moderate and by no means explain all of the variability in observed absence or turnover rates. Many other factors are also influential here.

Absences, for instance, often increase around holidays. Indeed, the tendency is so common that many employers require advance permission for absences or actual attendance on the work days immediately preceding and following the holiday as a condition for receiving holiday pay. Absences are also known to increase with alcoholism, addiction, and poor health. The most common basis of separation for cause is excessive absenteeism, and the major cause of these absences is the physical inability to be at work. Absences may also be the result of dissatisfactions outside the workplace that have nothing to do with one’s job. Thus, while absences and dissatisfaction are sometimes statistically correlated, costly and extensive redesign of work to increase satisfaction with the purpose of reducing absenteeism would be difficult to justify in many if not most instances.

Similarly, turnover is the result of many factors other than unhappiness in the job situation. Economic circumstances and the availability or unavailability of alternative employment clearly have an impact on the level of turnover. Dissatisfaction and opportunity to quit are always more closely related than are dissatisfaction and the act of quitting. Economic factors ultimately appear dominant here. Intense discomfort in the job situation, however, can drive workers to quit in the interest of their mental and physical well-being. Even exceptionally high pay cannot always retain a worker who seriously lacks the skills or temperament for the job.

In looking for answers, there is both a common sense and a counter-intuitive element to absenteeism and turnover as presumed outcomes of worker dissatisfaction. As quickly as a good explanation is uncovered, a contradictory case can appear. There seem to be no universal generalizations about worker dissatisfaction that permit easy management policy solutions to absenteeism and turnover problems. Each situation requires highly specific evaluation and action within the particular organizational context.


Dissatisfaction is frequently associated with a high level of complaints and grievances in industry. Highly dissatisfied workers may resort to sabotage and passive aggression. These may be workers who would quit if they could. Dissatisfied workers may also be those employees who are highly conscientious about work effectiveness and upset by the prevalence of poor management practices. A worker can be a constructive or a destructive complainer, and either position can be founded on dissatisfaction. It is doubtful, for instance, that higher standards will be pursued by those who are fully satisfied with their present level of accomplishment.

Dissatisfaction has occasionally been linked to poor health or longevity. Workers torn between making maximum piece-work rates and observing the informal ceiling on output set by their work group have more ulcers. Work satisfaction was found to be the best single predictor of longevity against actuarial tables of mortality in another study. It must be understood that in correlations of this sort the problem of causal directionality becomes critical in setting workplace policy to improve worker attitudes. We may reasonably ask whether workers have poor health because they are dissatisfied, if they are dissatisfied because their health is poor, or if both are the result of some other, unmeasured variable. The relationship of health and longevity with work satisfaction can be demonstrated in various circumstances, but that does not necessarily mean either can be changed by worker satisfaction improvement programs in the workplace.

In specific circumstances, such as relationship with one’s supervisor, job content, wages, or hours of work, there are other interesting, if sometimes equally enigmatic, research findings that are relevant to policy. Some are worth cataloging for their potential influence on quality of work life policy. In reviewing these findings, one should not lose sight of their probabilistic quality. It may be helpful to mentally qualify any such research observation as a statement that “some of the time, some of the workers express more satisfaction when. . . .” There will occasionally be situations and circumstances in which the exact opposite condition will prevail. The most common description of the influence of worker satisfaction is likely to be that sometimes you see it, sometimes you don’t. There are almost never any exact conditions of cause and effect in the realm of human behavior.


What qualities of a supervisor seem to result in greater worker satisfaction? Some general principles of worker satisfaction and supervisor style can be drawn from available research. Most employ leader task orientation and social sensitivity, or something very similar, as the basic polarities of supervisory style.

Small, close-knit work groups exhibit greater satisfaction with socially sensitive, non-authoritarian leaders. Larger groups whose supervisors are socially distant from workers are more satisfied with a formal, task-oriented leadership style. The style of a supervisor should perhaps be consonant with the prevailing opportunity for social contact between supervisor and worker. Small work groups with a limited supervisory span are likely to require less formal order and permit more flexibility of response. Some large work groups with a broader supervisory span may need formality and structure to get the job done effectively. Workers who prefer close-knit work relations seem to be happier in a small work group supervised informally, whereas those with a preference for independent, self-sufficient work prefer a large, formal group. Work group size in many instances may be regulated to the level of formality or flexibility required by the task. Individual temperament and work style preference, in like fashion, may be the basis on which people are sorted out among various available work group assignments. If this is the case, we may find it necessary to work on multiple levels of variation in fitting workers to supervisory style or supervisors to task situations.

On the whole, those supervisors who act considerately toward their workers have the more highly satisfied work groups. Thus it may be possible to generate high worker satisfaction through kindly, thoughtful leader behavior. But it is sometimes difficult to get workers to attend to real business crises or raise their output standards through that same kindly, thoughtful style of leadership. The leader assigned to restore productive discipline to a work group whose standards have slipped cannot avoid generating some added dissatisfaction in reestablishing those standards. Some increases in dissatisfaction may be inevitable over the course of a specific work group’s history if high standards are to be maintained.

Dissatisfied workers generally describe their supervisors in unfavorable terms. Dissatisfaction tends to be expressed through criticism toward those associated with it. A supervisor’s criticism of an employee also generates dissatisfaction. The more frequent and severe the criticisms pointed at a worker in a performance appraisal, for instance, the greater the worker’s dissatisfaction with his or her supervisor. This reaction of workers is the statistical “norm,” the typical, the average.

There is another side to the coin of criticism. Those rare employees who demand tough performance feedback are likely to get on the fast track to promotion, if they are not already there. Champions require tough coaches. Clear, timely, blunt feedback is the most effective device for improving complex performance. Dissatisfaction is an almost inevitable concomitant of performance improvement on complex tasks, though it may take the form either of dissatisfaction with one’s own performance effort or dissatisfaction with the source of feedback. The difference is critical in shaping the work relationship between employee and supervisor. Defensive, thin-skinned workers discourage criticism from their boss. Open, responsible ones may demand it.

Some researchers have observed that employees who express more open dissatisfaction may be subject to closer surveillance and control from their supervisors. Closer control of work performance may achieve improved work results from the complainer but at the cost of increased dissatisfaction. Moving away from close control toward greater worker autonomy has also been shown to generate increased work output, as well as more satisfaction. Individual supervisors should perhaps master the art of choosing when to obtain improved performance through closer supervisory control at the cost of increased dissatisfaction, or they can ask for improved performance through greater delegation of worker autonomy and reap the reward of worker satisfaction to boot. Given these choices, it should be no surprise to find workers complaining about “bad” supervision that imposes close controls on performance while praising “good” supervision that permits autonomy. For the supervisor, the result may be roughly equivalent under either approach, though somewhat more reliable or comfortable when close control is the method used.

Other factors may mitigate in favor of control in preference to increased autonomy. Supervisors are generally expected by their superiors to “stay on top of things.” Turning workers free to work autonomously can appear irresponsible or risky to higher management. The variables and constraints that apply to worker satisfaction with supervision are complex and numerous. There are few easy choices or safe moves for supervisors when increased worker satisfaction is the object. It is seldom enough to be either wholly task-oriented or primarily socially sensitive. Supervisors are often caught between subordinates who want more freedom or autonomy and upper management that demands more control over work activity. Some tough calls are required, and worker satisfaction may be sacrificed in making them.


Job content–the work itself–is the object of much concern among those involved with worker satisfaction. Job redesign, job enlargement, job enrichment, and job rotation all receive much attention from human resource program technicians seeking to improve worker satisfaction and, in the process, productivity. Variety of work, autonomy of action, and task significance all figure in designs for increasing job satisfaction through job redesign.

But not every worker wants an enriched, more varied, more responsible, more interesting job. Workers often resist change introduced by management. Some prefer mindless simplicity in their work. When job enrichment adds responsibility, workers may believe their pay should be adjusted upward. Adding responsibility to some jobs may limit responsibility in others. Extensive job redesign may amount to a substantial redefinition of work roles that requires a major redistribution of power and responsibility within the organization. Job redesign can represent anything from a cosmetic refurbishing of old tasks to a major organizational revolution. The extent of change and the newness of the work experience may themselves become the source of considerable satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

Interest in job design as a lever on worker satisfaction is not without substantial grounds in research, though. The extensive body of attitude survey research in industry has consistently shown that satisfaction rises as a function of the level of organization at which it is measured. Upper-level managers, professionals, and technicians consistently express greater satisfaction in their jobs. This difference is probably related to many factors, including enhanced personal status, higher pay, and more pleasant working conditions. In the content of higher-level jobs themselves, though, there is also greater autonomy, variety, and independence of judgment–factors that often enhance job satisfaction.

Perhaps the critical perspective here is that satisfaction is consistently lower among those at the bottom rungs of the hierarchical ladder, although it must be clearly recognized that satisfaction is not wholly lacking among even the lowest level of workers. Again, this is probabilistic. While anywhere from one-fourth to one-third of typical factory or clerical workers may express dissatisfaction in their jobs, only 5 to 15 percent of middle managers or professional workers will be in this category. Under normal, stable circumstances, most workers say they are satisfied with their jobs. But it may be worthwhile to ask why such a substantially larger proportion of lower-level workers do not find satisfaction in their work.

Evidence abounds that narrow specialization of work tasks leads to boredom and dissatisfaction, especially among better-educated workers. Some employment offices reject better-educated candidates for routine work, knowing they will likely become bored and troublesome in their jobs. The absence of an opportunity to work at craft-like tasks or the dead-endedness of one’s narrowly specialized job may well be the source of increased dissatisfaction to workers who want their careers to be interesting and meaningful. Lack of opportunity for responsibility may erode self-esteem among workers who aspire to higher social status in their jobs.

Research reveals that dissatisfaction rises when technological change leading to narrower specialization of the work is introduced. Workers who have control over the pace of their work are more satisfied than those who are machine paced. People who feel their jobs make use of their skills and abilities are more satisfied than those who don’t. Those who find significant personal identity in their job roles are more satisfied when there is opportunity for self-expression in their work. But merely adding variety to a job in the way of new or different tasks does not seem to improve satisfaction unless the added work elements are related to basic tasks and call for application of valued skills or abilities. Finding increased satisfaction through job enlargement or enrichment seems to require a comprehensive, logical redesign of each job that improves its fit with the worker’s interest and skills.


There is no indication that high pay alone improves worker satisfaction or reduces dissatisfaction. Indeed, higher-than-market pay for similar work that locks one into the job may become a source of decreased satisfaction among workers who dislike their job but feel they cannot afford to enter a more satisfying occupation. The pursuit of job satisfaction is sometimes powerful enough to induce a change into lower-paying but more desirable work. There seems to be a limit to the amount of dissatisfaction high wages can buy. All other factors being equal, though, workers who are paid above average and know they are well paid are probably more satisfied.

Wages are most commonly a source of dissatisfaction with those workers who feel they are unfairly paid for their level of effort, skill, and experience. Observing that a coworker with similar skill, ability, and work output is paid higher is very likely to elicit dissatisfaction. Identifying a pay equity discrepancy within one’s own firm is more distressing than one outside it. The inequity need not be real or substantial, just perceived.

Being promoted is an almost certain source of increased satisfaction to most workers. Failing to receive a promotion can increase dissatisfaction, but only if a promotion was expected. Those who have resigned themselves to staying at their current job level are largely unconcerned about who gets promoted and sometimes express more satisfaction than those who aspire to and anticipate advancement. Ambition, it would seem, generates or is founded on some degree of dissatisfaction by its existence.

Let us repeat the caution that research findings of the kind reviewed here apply only to some workers, and large individual differences in behavior result from variable needs and motives. There are no exact causal links, only significant probabilities that can be expressed as a correlation between satisfaction and some relevant element of work experience. The closest we might come to clearly demonstrating cause and effect between dissatisfaction and work performance is the discovery that university students who are requested to repeat a meaningless, routine task endlessly, and are offered no purpose or reward for its execution, will refuse to continue at some point. Work that requires close attention without offering mental stimulation is repugnant to those who value mental stimulation.


Understanding the nature of job satisfaction is difficult at best. We may begin an examination by pointing out the implicit assumption underlying human relations rhetoric that worker satisfaction results from external factors in the work situation. In other words, it is approached entirely as if employees were passive vessels within which satisfaction is created by forces largely or entirely outside their control. Aside from the possibility that dissatisfaction, to the extent that it is externally caused, may be entirely brought about by conditions unrelated to work or the workplace, blaming it all on management or working conditions robs workers of their own choice and self-determination in the matter. It wholly overlooks the possibility that a person may choose to be satisfied or dissatisfied and that chronic satisfaction or dissatisfaction can be a life strategy. The meaning of that strategy for high performance may be difficult to assess.

Some people seem to be satisfied in almost all circumstances, while others are perennially dissatisfied regardless of their work roles. Propensity to satisfaction may be a quality of personality specific to each person. Staw, Bell, and Clausen (1986) offer evidence that measures of an individual’s typical emotional state predict satisfaction level over time and across varying circumstances. The emotionally maladjusted person is more likely to be dissatisfied in all situations. If this is the case, the solution to dissatisfaction may be to screen out the maladjusted, trouble-making fault-finders who find little satisfaction in anything about their jobs.

If complainers are screened out, though, will their absence create complacency in the organization, eliminating the chance for organizational excellence? If satisfied workers are more flexible and better adjusted personally, does that contribute to superior organizational performance? Or does the fact that high commitment seems to require some degree of dissatisfaction with circumstances as they exist argue that malcontents are drivers of progress? Are the best performers typically harder to satisfy? The sources and meanings of work satisfaction turn out to be exceptionally complex and confusing. There are no quick and easy answers.

What about the individual who manipulates the willingness of another to give satisfaction? Can dissatisfaction be employed as a tool of control over the behavior of another? Is dissatisfaction a strategy workers might use to influence management? Or, if management is dissatisfied with present worker performance, can it properly keep pushing the goal out just a little beyond the limit of achievement to drive performance ever forward? Many successful teachers and coaches specialize in just that kind of motivational tactic.

As long as the worker is wholly, passively at effect and satisfaction is assumed to be the result of external forces on the job, then the firm, the employer, the manager, the supervisor, coworkers, working conditions, and and endless list of other external factors can be held responsible for his or her sense of satisfaction. Those external factors alone are accountable for making matters right to the satisfaction of the victimized worker. But if each individual is free to accept greater or lesser responsibility for his or her own satisfaction, how is responsibility to be divided? How much of work satisfaction is management’s responsibility and how much is the individual employee’s choice and accountability?

The finding that dissatisfaction may be related to poor health or shortened life span suggests that it can be a physically and emotionally stressful and harmful experience. If so, why does the dissatisfied person not avoid or escape the circumstances that seem to produce distress? There are, in fact, numerous instances of individuals who have suddenly and unaccountably changed careers, lifestyles, or spouses at midlife, thereby becoming “new” people. Did they rediscover their choice in matters of satisfaction and dissatisfaction? Do people calculate trade-offs between one kind of dissatisfaction and another, or between present dissatisfaction and risk of future dissatisfaction, choosing the lesser dissatisfaction or risk? Or is it possible for one to elect to be serene and satisfied, almost on a spiritual plane, even in the face of the worst conditions of life? Can people choose to find or create satisfaction in their lives independent of the forces they are up against?


Clearly, satisfaction and dissatisfaction can be many different things for many different purposes. What, then, are the merits of seeking to improve quality of work life, as measured through worker satisfaction and related attitudes, as a national policy or even just as a company goal?

First, let’s scope out the extremes of this issue. It would appear that most take-it-or-leave-it job opportunities and do-it-or-else management edicts are no longer acceptable to a very large and growing population of workers. There is broad social consensus that limiting individual choice in this fashion has no place in a civilized workplace. Employers or bosses who arrogantly insist on the right to manage by fiat can be countered by the information of a labor union, a court action to enforce civil rights, or the unwillingness of workers to accept their job offers. The labor market, the law, and the social climate of our times effectively close off this option in all but the most unusual circumstances. That establishes the lower boundary of acceptable human relations practice.

Jack Welch, CEO of General Electric, clearly articulates and defines this boundary for GE managers in the company’s 1991 Annual Report. He states that GE practice “is not complicated in theory or even original. Much of the intellectual underpinning . . . consists of ideas like worker involvement, trust and empowerment–shop-worn and even platitudinous concepts.” In case there is any doubt about the limits, he goes on to specify that “we cannot afford management styles that suppress and intimidate.” The basics of modern human relations in the workplace are clearly made corporate policy in this world-class company.

At the opposing extreme, it is neither practical nor prudent to assure full satisfaction to every worker. Some percentage of people must always be dissatisfied and every worker must have some occasion to experience dissatisfaction. Otherwise, standards will be low and performance mediocre. Total worker satisfaction is both impossible and unhealthy for the firm. Every life should include both satisfaction and dissatisfaction in balanced measure. Everyone should accept some responsibility for his or her own satisfaction.

Between these extremes can be found few universal principles. Bosses and authority figures must play out their roles effectively, not necessarily to the pleasure or satisfaction of their subordinates. Bosses who cannot get the job done without forcing choice on workers should be recognized for this weakness by higher management. But supervisors who are not eliciting some expression of dissatisfaction from some workers are probably not supervising. Any program that seeks to achieve excellence of performance and a high worker satisfaction in the work setting must grapple with a wide range of complex variables. It must pay and promote fairly, communicate openly and honestly, offer interesting, meaningful work, select, train, and place workers skillfully, and provide work schedules that fit emerging lifestyles and elicit workers’ best efforts.

Satisfaction with wages is a market issue. The soundest maxim in setting pay is “Neither a scrooge nor a patsy be.” But overall, pay structure in emerging high-performance systems seems to require a move from paying for mere longevity on the job to compensating for number, breadth, and level of work-related skills possessed by each worker. Paying generously above the market is always expensive and offers no guarantee of increased worker satisfaction.

Promotion that is fair enough to assure everyone a chance to rise will likely be a source of organizational mediocrity. Promotion is always a political matter in the sense that values are central and trade-offs between priorities are inevitable to the ultimate decision. The choice arrived at is a clear measure of the organizational judgment and sensitivity of the promotion decision maker. The best policy is to communicate the standards for promotion as fully as possible, select competitively from among obvious stand-out candidates, and feed back the rationale for the choice made to all the losers. The winner will certainly be elated, the losers disappointed. That’s the way it is. The choice is either to build trust with candidness and honesty that may temporarily dissatisfy or create distrust by obfuscating the decision process.

It is primarily in the realm of job design that opportunity for constructive improvement of worker satisfaction appears high. Long, commodity production runs that (presumably) benefited from narrowly specialized job design are disappearing. As I have argued elsewhere, the age of the project shop with its emphasis on one-of-a-kind and short-run projects is increasingly replacing lock-step, engineered production flow supported by narrow, specialized jobs (Bassett 1991). The educational level of workers is rising. Improved human relations and productivity appear to require the restoration of craft-oriented tasks as the new core around which to design jobs. Greater worker self-direction will be called for in many jobs. More skilled and multi-skilled workers will be required to fill those jobs.

The long-presumed link between satisfaction and work output will probably never be supported by the evidence of human relations research alone. Research may provide some limited guidance, but it is seldom a sufficient basis on which to establish major industrial policy. Human relations in industry is, finally, a set of policies intended to recognize the evolving values of society and the rising expectations of the labor force. Good human relations in the present age demand recognition of the dignity of human life, on and off the job, supported by preparation of workers and design of jobs to achieve the best available fit of work to the abilities and aspirations of each individual worker.

Striving to bring satisfaction to the work force goes on. Whether it may or may not be an element of future high-performance management systems is open to argument. Certainly the expectation that worker satisfaction must always be the foundation of high-performance output systems is naive and perhaps even dangerous. Worker satisfaction is a complex matter that deserves careful thought and consideration in any management systems design decision. But it cannot and should not be the touchstone of efforts to invent high-performance systems. The satisfied worker is a productive worker paradigm doesn’t work. It is much more complicated than that!


G.A. Bassett, Management Strategies for Today’s Project Shop Economy (Westport, CT: Quorum Books, 1991).

G.A. Bassett, The Evolution and Future of High Performance Management Systems (Westport, CT: Quorum Books, 1993).

A.H. Brayfield and W.H. Crockett, “Employee Attitudes and Employee Performance,” Psychological Bulletin, 55, 5 (1955): 396-424.

A. Carey, “The Hawthorne Studies: A Radical Criticism,” The American Sociological Review, 32 (1967): 403-416.

M.T. Iaffaldano and P.M. Muchinsky, “Job Satisfaction and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis,” Psychological Bulletin, 97, 2 (1985): 251-273.

E.A. Locke, “The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction,” in M.D. Dunnette, ed., Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976), pp. 1297-1349.

B.M. Staw, “Organizational Behavior: A Review and Reformulation of the Field’s Outcome Variables,” in M.R. Rosenzweig and L.W. Porter, eds., Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 35 (Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc., 1984), pp. 627-666.

B.M. Staw, N.E. Bell, and J.A. Clausen, “The Dispositional Approach to Job Attitudes: A Lifetime Longitudinal Test,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 1 (1986): 56-77.

V. Vroom, Work and Motivation (New York: Wiley, 1964).

COPYRIGHT 1994 JAI Press, Inc.

COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group