Self and Workplace Awareness Questionnaire Test

How the Scales are Structured
Who Usually Takes This Test?
See How You Compare
Below is a preview of how scores are typically distributed across each scale.
Example Questions From the Test
- Necessary
- Useless
- Useful, but not necessary
- Very high
- Superficial
- Extremely low
- are only pretending to work
- work as well as you do
- work more than you do
Self and Workplace Awareness Questionnaire Test - Description and methodology of the test
People who want to decide which aspects of their work experience merit closer reflection can use this questionnaire to organize everyday impressions. The Self and Workplace Awareness Questionnaire Test considers how employees and managers judge usefulness, competence, supervision, information, and the work setting. This workplace awareness questionnaire turns those judgments into a result that can support decisions about communication, organization, or working conditions.
What This Assessment Explores
The questions examine how a person understands their role, colleagues, supervisors, unit responsibilities, and organization. They also cover overtime compensation, workspace size, lighting, noise, telephone access, suppliers, products, information flow, and pride in the organization’s work. Together, these themes connect personal judgments with practical conditions.
The questionnaire's workplace satisfaction assessment reflects overall levels of workplace satisfaction and effectiveness: higher scores may indicate a favorable work climate and effective leadership, while lower scores may suggest changes in management practices or work organization. It can help examine how management, communication, resources, and role clarity shape work experience.
The result is shown through one overall scale, the Total Score, which runs from 14-42. These bands are the labels displayed with that scale:
- Needs improvement (14-28) labels scores in the displayed lower range.
- Generally positive (29-37) labels scores in the displayed middle range.
- Highly effective (38-42) labels scores in the displayed upper range.
Methodology and Scientific Basis
Each item presents a workplace situation with three response choices. The alternatives vary in apparent usefulness, competence, support, organizational knowledge, or awareness of working conditions. The item set combines judgments about people and management with concrete features of the setting.
Responses form one overall result; the questionnaire does not specify point values, reverse-keyed items, or different weights, so no item-level scoring rule can be inferred from the range. The questionnaire's workplace effectiveness assessment summarizes the response pattern rather than identifying one cause of satisfaction or difficulty.
The online questionnaire is attributed to Jassinger, linking this presentation to the source associated with its material without establishing that the online version was separately validated. Fetiskin, Kozlov, and Manuilov offer a relevant thematic comparison through their discussion of professional competence and managerial effectiveness in organizational settings; they do not document this questionnaire.
The questionnaire presents these labels as descriptive categories; no normative interpretation is stated. Results may change with current conflict, role expectations, mood, self-awareness, or pressure to present the workplace favorably, so interpretation is strongest when paired with reflection on the conditions behind the answers.
- Jassinger, A. (1981). Do You Know Yourself and Your Workplace? EKO, no. 12. Russian translation by I. V. Lipsits from Zivot (Czechoslovakia), no. 1, 1981.
- Fetiskin, N. P., Kozlov, V. V., & Manuilov, G. M. (2002). Social-Psychological Diagnostics of Personality Development and Small Groups: A Textbook. Moscow: Institute of Psychotherapy. Section 10.8, Diagnosis of Professional Competence and Effectiveness in Managers at Different Levels.
- Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159-170. 10.1037/h0076546
Updated: