factors influencing employee job satisfaction and …
TRANSCRIPT
i
FACTORS INFLUENCING EMPLOYEE JOB
SATISFACTION AND ITS IMPACT ON EMPLOYEE
PERFORMANCE: A CASE OF UNILEVER KENYA
BY
SSEGAWA GODFREY
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY
SPRING 2014
ii
FACTORS INFLUENCING EMPLOYEE JOB
SATISFACTION AND ITS IMPACT ON EMPLOYEE
PERFORMANCE: A CASE OF UNILEVER KENYA
BY
SSEGAWA GODFREY
A Research Project Submitted to Chandaria School of Business
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of
Masters in Business Administration (MBA)
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY
SPRING 2014
i
STUDENT’S DECLARATION
I, the undersigned, declare that this is my original work and has not been submitted to any
other College, Institution or University other than the United States International
University-Africa for Academic Credit.
Signed: Date:
Ssegawa Godfrey, ID: 636764
This Project has been presented for Examination with my Approval as the appointed
Supervisor.
Signed: Date:
Stephen M. Nyambegera, PhD
Signed: Date:
Dean, Chandaria School of Business
ii
COPYRIGHT
©2014 Ssegawa Godfrey
All rights reserved
No part of this MBA Research Project may be copied, reproduced, used to create
derivative works, publicly distributed or displayed, or transmitted including but not
limited to storage in a retrieval system, or transmission electronically, mechanically via
photocopying, recording, or other means without the prior written permission of the
author.
iii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the study was to determine the factors that influence employee job
satisfaction in Kenyan Organizations. The following research questions guided this study:
What are the extrinsic factors that influence the level of employee job satisfaction in
Unilever Kenya? What are the intrinsic factors that influence the level of job satisfaction
in an organization? What impact does job satisfaction have on the level of employee
performance?
A descriptive research design was adopted, with Unilever Kenya being the focus
organization. The population of interest was the employees of Unilever Kenya across
various functions and divisions since this was the company under study. The study
population comprised a total of 796 employees from all the various organizational
functions or divisions. Stratified random sampling technique wasused to draw a sample
size of 92 respondents. The data collection instrument was a tailor-made structured
questionnaire developed by the researcher, specifically for this study.
Data was analyzed using statistical methods that is, descriptive statistics; measures of
central tendency such as mean, mode, and median, and measures of dispersion such as
variance, standard deviation, range, percentiles, and quartiles, and inferential statistics (T-
test was used to determine the factors that influence job satisfaction and its impact on
employee performance. Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) version 21 was
used to facilitate the data analysis. The results were presented in tables and charts such as
pie charts, and bar graphs.
The findings obtained show that extrinsic factors have a strong influence on employee job
satisfaction. There was a 92.1% total cumulative agreement from respondents that their
job satisfaction is influenced by extrinsic factors. The level of agreement in relation to the
individual extrinsic factors was as follows (working environment 55.5%, remuneration
structure75%, team cooperation 50.5%, leadership style 85.8%, nature of the job 78.9%,
Co-workers 56.7%, Job security 76.6%, promotion opportunities 78.5%).
iv
The findings show that intrinsic factors have a strong impact on employee job
satisfaction. There was a 92.1% total cumulative agreement from respondents that
intrinsic factors influence their job satisfaction. The level of agreement for the individual
intrinsic factors was as follows (employee autonomy 57.1%, Recognition 80%, work
meaningfulness 80%, training and development 54.5%, responsibility 85.9%,
participation level of employee 71.1%, contribution to vision and mission 85.5%
employee attainment of performance feedback 62.2%).
Findings on the impact of job satisfaction on employee performance show that job
satisfaction has astrong impact on employee performance. There was a 91% total
cumulative agreement from respondents that their performance is impacted by their job
satisfaction. The results in relation to the individual impacts are as follows (Absenteeism
44.5%, Quality of work 86.7%, quantity of work 91.1%, safety practices 40%, timeliness
71.1%, employee creativity 81.1%, cost-effectiveness 52.2%, adherence to company 70%
and employee meeting of company set objectives 92.2%).
Conclusion was made that although all the extrinsic factors analysed had an influence on
employee job satisfaction; leadership style, remuneration structure, nature of the job and
job security had the strongest influence. Among all the intrinsic factors, it was concluded
that the level of responsibility at work, Recognition, work meaningfulness and the extent
to which employees believe their work has a significant contribution to the organisation‟s
vision and mission had the strongest influence on job satisfaction. Among all the impacts
of job satisfaction on employee performance that were under study, the ones which
ranked highest were; impact on quantity of work, impact on quality, impact on creativity
and impact of job satisfaction on ability of employee to meet company set objectives.
The researcher recommends that the extrinsic factors where emphasis should be based
areleadership style, remuneration structure, nature of the job and job security. The
intrinsic factors where much emphasis is recommended includelevel of responsibility at
work, Recognition, work meaningfulness and the extent to which employees believe their
work has a significant contribution to the organisation‟s vision and mission.It was
recommended that if these are parameters that the company values, then they should
ensure that they keep their employee‟s job satisfaction high through the various factors
that influence job satisfaction as were discussed in the study.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Completion of this research would not have been possible without the blessings of God
Almighty. I would like to give Him thanks for the strength and perseverance that He
enabled me to have throughout my Journey of education.
Secondly, I would like to thank my supervisor, Prof. Stephen Nyambegera for the
guidance and invaluable advice. Thirdly, I would like to acknowledge my parents Mr.
Ssegawa David and Mrs. Bulya Irene for their selfless love and support to ensure that I
get the best out of life and education. May God bless you abundantly. Lastly I would like
to acknowledge the respondents in my Study from Unilever Kenya Ltd for availing time
to fill my questionnaires and offering constant input towards my research.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STUDENT’S DECLARATION ......................................................................................... i
COPYRIGHT ..................................................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................. v
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER ONE ................................................................................................................ 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background of the Problem…………………………….…..…………………….1
1.2 Statement of the Problem………………….……………….………………..……5
1.3 Purpose of the study………………………………………….…………….……..6
1.4 Research Questions…………………………………...…………….…………….6
1.5 Significance of the Study………………………………………...……………….6
1.6 Scope of the Study……………………………………...……….………………..7
1.7 Definition of Terms……………………………………..………………………..7
1.8 Chapter Summary……………………………………..………………………….9
CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................. 10
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................... 10
2.1 Introduction………….……………..……………………….…………..……….10
2.2 Extrinsic Factors that Influence the Level of Employee Job Satisfaction in an
Organization…..……………………………………………………………………..10
2.3 Intrinsic Factors that Influence the Level of Employee Job Satisfaction in an
Organization…………………………………………………………………………15
vii
2.4 The Impact of the Job Satisfaction Level on Employee Performance………….19
2.5 Chapter Summary…………………………………………………...…………..24
CHAPTER THREE ......................................................................................................... 25
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 25
3.1 Introduction………………...……………………………………………………25
3.2 Research Design……………...…………………..……………………………..25
3.3 Population and Sampling Design………………………………………….…….26
3.3.1 Population……………………………………………………………………..26
3.3.2 Sampling Design……………………………………...……………………….26
3.4 Data Collection Methods……………………………………...……….………..29
3.5 Research Procedures……………………………………...……………………..30
3.6 Data Analysis Methods………………………………………...………………..31
3.7 Chapter Summary………………………………...……………………………..31
CHAPTER FOUR ............................................................................................................ 32
4.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS ..................................................................................... 32
4.2 General Information…….……………………………………………………….32
4.3. Extrinsic factors that influence employee job satisfaction……………….…….36
4.4 Intrinsic Factors that Influence the Level of Job Satisfaction…………………..45
4.5.0 The Impact of Employee Job Satisfaction on Performance………………..….56
4.6 Chapter Summary…………………………...…………………………………..67
CHAPTER FIVE ............................................................................................................. 68
5.0 DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................... 68
5.1 Introduction………………….....………………………..………………………68
5.2 Summary……………….………………………....……………………………..68
viii
5.3 Discussions…..………………………………...………………………………..69
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 77
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 85
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Population Distribution ...................................................................................... 26
Table 3.2 Total Sample size ............................................................................................... 29
Table 4.1: Working Environment ...................................................................................... 36
Table 4.2: Monetary Pay and Remuneration Structure ...................................................... 37
Table 4.3: Team Cooperation ............................................................................................ 37
Table 4.4 Leadership Style ................................................................................................ 38
Table 4.5: Nature of the Job ............................................................................................... 39
Table 4.6: Impact by Co-workers ...................................................................................... 39
Table 4.7 Level of Job Security ......................................................................................... 40
Table 4.8: Promotion Opportunities .................................................................................. 41
Table 4.9 Summary Statistics of all the Individual Extrinsic Factors that Influence
Employee Job Satisfaction.......................................................................................... 42
Table 4.10 Extrinsic Factors Summary Statistics .............................................................. 43
Table 4.11: Combination of all the Extrinsic Factors ........................................................ 44
Table 4.12 Extrinsic Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction (T-test) ................................... 45
Table 4.13: Employee Autonomy ...................................................................................... 46
Table 4.14: Employee Recognition.................................................................................... 46
Table 4.15: Job is Meaningful .......................................................................................... 47
Table 4.16: Training and Developed ................................................................................. 48
Table 4.17: Responsibility Employee Possesses ............................................................... 48
Table 4.18: Participation of Employee .............................................................................. 49
Table 4.19: Contribution to Mission and Vision ............................................................... 50
Table 4.20: Employee Feedback ........................................................................................ 50
Table 4.21: Involvement in the Decision Making ............................................................. 51
Table 4.22 Summary Statistics of all the Individual Intrinsic Factors that Influence
Employee Job Satisfaction.......................................................................................... 52
Table 4.23: Summary of the Descriptive Statistics Consisting a Combination of all the
Intrinsic Factors .......................................................................................................... 53
x
Table 4.24: Combination of all the Intrinsic Factors ......................................................... 54
Table 4.25 Intrinsic Factors Influencing Employee Job Satisfaction (T-test) ................... 55
Table 4.26: Employee Absenteeism Levels ....................................................................... 56
Table 4.27: Quality of Work .............................................................................................. 57
Table 4.28: Quantity of Work ............................................................................................ 57
Table 4.29: Safety Practices ............................................................................................... 58
Table 4.30: Impact on Timeliness ...................................................................................... 59
Table 4.31: Impact on Employee Creativity ...................................................................... 59
Table 4.32: Impact on Cost Effectiveness ......................................................................... 60
Table 4.33: Impact on Policy Adherence ........................................................................... 61
Table 4.34: Attainment of the Company's Set Objectives ................................................. 62
Table 4.35: Summary Statistics of all the Individual Intrinsic Factors that Influence
Employee Job Satisfaction.......................................................................................... 63
Table 4.36:Combination of All the Impacts of Job Satisfaction on Performance ............. 64
Table 4.37: Combination of all the Factors in which Job Satisfaction Impacts Employee
Job Performance ......................................................................................................... 65
Table 4.38 Impacts of job satisfaction on employee performance (T-test) ....................... 66
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1 Age of Respondent ........................................................................................... 33
Figure 4.2 Gender of Respondent ...................................................................................... 34
Figure 4.3 Years of Service ............................................................................................... 35
Figure 4.4 Education Level ................................................................................................ 35
1
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Problem
In today‟s environment, where competition is very high amongst various businesses
regardless of demographical boundaries, it becomes a challenge for the businesses to get
and then maintain a distinguished position in the industry. For this purpose, organizations
used to put emphasis mostly on sales maximization and cost minimization strategies but
now the organizations have realized the value of their intellectual asset which is their
employees. The quality of an organization‟s manpower always differentiates it from the
other organizations. It is true to say that different employees in an organization yield
different levels of performance under the various circumstances according to their
satisfaction level, motivation level, behavior and many other reasons contribute in
yielding various levels of performance by various individuals (Arif & Chohan, 2012).
The productivity and efficiency of human resource depend upon a number of dynamic
factors which range from personal factors to organizational policies. Job satisfaction is
one of the very most important factors which impact the productivity of human resources.
Human resource is considered as one of the most important assets in any organization
which serves as an engine in the organization for providing a sustainable source of energy
and service delivery (Muhammad & Wajidi, 2013).
Shahu and Gole (2008) in their research analyze the effectsof job satisfaction on
performance. They summed up their findings on a factor that work satisfaction should be
considered by the organization as an important plan which needs to be extended in order
to improve employees performance. In general, employee job satisfaction has been
defined as “a function of the perceived relationship between what one wants from one‟s
job and what one perceives it as offering” (Portoghese, Galletta, & Battistelli, 2011). Job
satisfaction is an attitude that people have about their jobs and the organizations in which
they perform these jobs (Al Zubi, 2010).
2
Job satisfaction has got three dimensions. Firstly, it is an emotional response to a job
situation. The only way we can come to a conclusion on this is through observation of the
employee e.g. the time they get to work how they work. Secondly, job satisfaction can be
determined by how well outcomes meet the expectations. An example is the fact that if
the salary is commensurate to work done and is equitable, the organization members are
likely to develop job satisfaction. Thirdly, job satisfaction can be viewed as representing a
combination of related attitudes (Gathungu & Wachira, 2013).
Job satisfaction at work can take place in two ways. One, people can motivate themselves
by seeking, finding and carrying out (or being given) work that satisfies needs (intrinsic
motivation) and two people can be motivated by management through such methods as
pay, promotion, praise (extrinsic motivation). Intrinsic job satisfaction factors can be said
to be self-generated factors that influence employees to be satisfied with their job such as
responsibility, freedom to act, scope to use and develop skills and abilities, interesting and
challenging work and opportunities for advancement. Extrinsic job satisfaction factors
refer to what is done to or for people to satisfy them at the work place (Gathungu &
Wachira, 2013).
Job satisfaction is one of the most frequently studied variables in organizational behavior
(Kalpana, 2013). Research on job satisfaction is performed through a number of
methods, including interviews, observation, and questionnaires. The most significant
research study that shows the importance of job satisfaction is the Hawthorne studies. The
purpose of the study was precisely to do a research on the relationship between lighting
and efficiency. The experiment was conducted in 1924 by researches from Western
Electric and Harvard University at the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric
Company. Various sets of lights, at various intensities, were set up in rooms where
electrical equipment was being produced. The amount of illumination, (bright, dim, or a
combination) provided to the workers, seemed to have no effect on production as had
been expected (Muchinsky, 2006).
The results of the Hawthorne study were so unexpected that supplementary investigation
revealed many previously unknown aspects of human behavior in the workplace.
Researchers got to learn that factors other than lighting affect worker's productivity. The
workers responded positively to the attention they were receiving from the researchers
3
and as a result, productivity rose. Job performance continued to improve because of the
uniqueness of the situation; when the novelty wore off, production returned to its earlier
level. Research has offered alot of support that a happy and satisfied employee is
productive; in fact, research suggests that causality may flow in the opposite direction
from productivity to satisfaction (Bassett, 1994).
Research on the topic of job satisfaction supports that job satisfaction is an important
factor not only for employees in particular but also for the organizations. For example, in
a research survey by Grant, Fried, and Juillerat (2010) at a large bank, managers found
that bank tellers were very dissatisfied with their jobs, stating that they were "just
glorified clerks". They also stated that they viewed their jobs as boring and that they felt
micromanaged because they were unable to make decisions on their own, even small
ones, without the approval of their managers. In this case, the managers of the bank
decided to re-design the teller jobs to increase job satisfaction. New tasks were
introduced in order to provide variety and the use of a broad range of skills.
In addition to their previous check cashing, deposit and loan payment tasks, they were
now trained to be able to handle commercial and traveler's checks and post payments on
line. The tellers were also given more autonomy (independence) in their roles; they were
given decision-making responsibilities. Finally, when time for feedback approached, the
managers felt that by re-designing the role of the teller they were giving the tellers
responsibility for their own customers. In this particular case, it was discovered that job
satisfaction had greatly increased. A survey was taken six months later and it was found
that not only were the tellers more satisfied with their employment, but they were also
more committed to the organization. Finally, during employee/manager evaluations, it
was noticed that there had been an increase in performance by the tellers and that the job
satisfaction provided by the job redesign had effects lasting at least four years from when
it was carried out (Grant et al, 2010).
According to Kalpana (2013), Job satisfaction and motivation are considered as some of
most essential components of work life, and one of the major factors that have influence
on the individuals‟ performance at the work place. Job satisfaction affects the physical
and mental capabilities of employees. An individual needs to maintain a healthy body &
mind to be able to perform physical and mental activities in the best possible way in his
4
/her work place. In general, job satisfaction and motivation can contribute to the
enhancement in the employee performance.
Job satisfaction has been repeatedly and constantly prized in both humanistic and
financial terms. It has been observed that the employees who do quality work are usually
the ones who are satisfied with their job. Satisfied employees tend to have high retention
rates; they are more dedicated to the organization and tend to yield higher job
performances (Arif & Chohan, 2012).
Unilever is the organization that this study was based on while in a bid to learn more
about factors that influence employee job satisfaction in Kenya and its impact on
performance. Unilever was founded in 1930 as a result of a merger between Lever
Brothers (UK) and Uni-margarine (Netherlands) which existed in the 19th
Century.
Unilever (Uni+Lever) is today considered as one of the world‟s top Fast Moving
Consumer Goods (FMCG) Company having a turnover of more than 4.3 billion Euros.
Having its corporate offices in London and Rotterdam, Unilever operates in 100
countries. Unilever employs 250,000 people globally.The company spends 2.5% of its
turnover on research and development and 1.5% on Corporate Social
Responsibility.Unilever directly employs 250,000 people around the world and indirectly
millions more as contract manufactures, growers, suppliers, distributors and service
providers (Unilever Annual Report, 2013).
Unilever East and Southern Africa (ESA) is a Unilever Subsidiary that is operating in
Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Mozambique, Malawi. ESA occupies a
market consisting of 19 countries with a population of 150 million people in ESA. The
company operates two businesses; these are the consumer business dealingsthat are with
FMCG and the Tea plantations business in Kenya and Tanzania.The plantations business
is the largest employer in Unilever consisting of a workforce of 25,000 (10% of Unilever
total workforce).The Consumer business gives employment in over 1,500 people
directly.In addition, the company has 120 distributors spread across the 7 countries
reaching more than 100,000 retail outlets each week. Breaking it down to Unilever Kenya
in particular, the company employs a total of 796 employees. It is this particular
population of employees that this study on job satisfaction in the company was
based(Unilever Annual Report, 2013).
5
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Job satisfaction of an employee is a topic that has received significant attention by
managers and researchers alike (Gautam, Mandal & Dalal, 2006). It is a well-known fact
that no organization could last without their employees. Employees are the main reason
an organization could possibly exist for a long time. Similarly to Unilever Kenya,
employees are the ones who play the major roles and make significant contributions to the
organization. Well satisfied employees will influence the productivity of the organization
and will lead to achieving the organization‟s vision and goals (Hussin, 2011).
Earlier studies on employee job satisfaction mainly focused on the factors that contribute
to its attainment but not much analysis on its impact towards performance was made
(Dinler, 2008). A number of studies on job satisfaction have been carried out over the
years, however they are largely based on the western organizations and very few have
been done in African companies let alone Kenya in particular. An example of such
studies is one carried out by Grant, Fried, & Juillerat in 2010 on bankers in the UK. The
lack of enough research on employee job satisfaction in Kenyan organisations brings
about a great gap that needs to be filled with tremendous research considering the fact
that employees in different environments and who are affiliated to different cultures
cannot attain job satisfaction from the same factors.
There has been a great challenge on the part of managers in Unilever Kenya on
determining how exactly they can attain maximum job satisfaction for their employees
which they believe would go a long way to improve on the organizational overall
performance. Many have tried to attain job satisfaction of their employees by trying to
use methods that were successful in other areas around the world and have met with
failure, but the reason is simply because this research was not directly relevant to their
own employees. This therefore is the knowledge gap that is trying to be filled in this
research.
6
1.3 Purpose of the study
The purpose of the study was to determine the factors influencing employee job
satisfaction and how it affects performance at Unilever Kenya.
1.4 Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study;
1.4.1 What are the extrinsic factors that influence the level of employee job satisfaction in
Unilever Kenya?
1.4.2 What are the intrinsic factors that influence the level of job satisfaction in Unilever
Kenya?
1.4.3 What impact does employee job satisfaction have on employee performance at
Unilever Kenya?
1.5 Significance of the Study
1.5.1 Organizational Leaders in Kenya
The findings of this study will be significant to the managers especially in Unilever
Kenya and will assist them understand employee behavior better. The findings will also
assist the leaders in any other organization at large that face the dilemma of understanding
how to satisfy their employees.
1.5.2 Scholars
The findings of this study will also be beneficial to scholars in a way that this will be a
contribution to the body of knowledge in this broad and yet not fully exploited area of
human resource management as well as social sciences. This will enhance understanding
and development of relevant theories as well as extensive areas of interest.
7
1.5.3 Trade Unions
The findings of this study will also be of importance to the trade unions. This is in such a
way that the study will help in restructuring the objectives of the unions and realize
exactly what conditions are relevant to the employees and how they can work towards
ensuring employees are satisfied at their work places.
1.6 Scope of the Study
The study was carried out in Kenya at the Unilever headquarters. Kenya is a country in
the East of Africa where not a lot of research on employee job Satisfaction has been
carried out. The population comprised a total of 796 employees. The sample of the study
comprises a total of 92 respondents from various departments of the organization which
include; Human Resources, Marketing, Finance, Production and procurement. The
researcher took three weeks to collect data (March 10th
– March 31st).The most significant
limitation encountered by the researcher was convincing employees to fill the
questionnaires; however this was overcome by proper explanation on the relevance of the
questionnaires.
1.7 Definition of Terms
1.7.1 Job Satisfaction
Locke (1976) gives a comprehensive definition of job satisfaction as pleasurable or
positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one‟s job or job experience. Job
satisfaction is a result of employee's perception of how well their job provides those
things that are viewed as important.Job satisfaction refers to the comprehensive
phenomenon which encompasses individual‟s feelings and emotions towards his or her
job (Robbins¸ 2008). In addition, it also determines the extent to which employeesin an
organization like or dislike their jobs.
8
1.7.2 Organizational Performance
Ya-Huiet al (2010) believed organizational performance is the results completed within a
specified period by the relevant business, departments within an organization, in order to
achieve phased or overall goals.In the past, there were lots of research that discussed the
measuring dimensions of organizational performance because the ultimate benefits will
be fed back to the financial dimension; therefore, most scholars used financial
performance as one of the measuring indicators. However, in today's convenient
information delivery and rapidly changing market environment, an enterprise cannot just
reply on the financial performance as the only element of survival and competition. That
is, organizational performance cannot be measured adequately just by a single financial
performance indicator (Ya-Hui et al, 2010).
1.7.3 Employee Turnover
According to Society for Human Resource Management (2012), employee turnover is
defined as the rate at which employees enter and leave a company in a given fiscal year.
Regardless of the health of the economy, turnover is an important metric for HR
professionals because it allows them to focus not only on retaining their current
workforce but also on planning for the future
1.7.4 Employee Absenteeism
The term absenteeism refers to failure to report to work. The definition itself tells the
failure of the organization process if the employee fails to follow the rules and standards
of the organization. Absenteeism is a type of unscheduled activity which threatens the
organization to fall in danger as it leads to the disruption of the daily process.
Absenteeism converts the organization into a deviant work place behavior (Swarnalatha
& Sureshkrishna, 2013).
1.7.5 Employee Engagement
As a concept that has developed over time, engagement has been defined innumerous,
often inconsistent, ways in the literature, so much so that the term has become ambiguous
to many and it is rare to find two people defining it in sameway (Macey & Schneider,
9
2008). It has variously been conceived as apsychological or affective state, a performance
construct (role performance, effort, observable behaviour, organizational citizenship
behaviour) or anattitude. Some even relate the concept to other specific constructs such as
altruismor initiative and little consensus has been reached inthe literature as to which of
these definitions is the definitive, or at least, „best‐fit‟model of engagement. (Macey &
Schneider, 2008)
1.8 Chapter Summary
This chapter has provided insight into the background of the problem being dealt with,
the problem statement, the purpose of the study, the research questions, the importance of
the study, the scope of the study and the definition of important terms.
In the next chapter, the researcher will review the literature based on the factors that
influence job satisfaction and how it impacts performance and thereafter look at the
research methodology that will be adopted in Chapter Three. In Chapter Four, the
researcher will summarize the results and findings obtained in the study, and provide a
discussion, conclusion and recommendation of the study in Chapter five.
10
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter seeks to present a review of relevant theoretical and empirical literature in
relation to the research questions being analyzed, that is, (i) what are the extrinsic factors
that influence the level of employee job satisfaction in an organization?, (ii) What are the
intrinsic factors that influence the level of job satisfaction in an organization?, (iii) What
is the impact of the job satisfaction level on employee performance?
2.2 Extrinsic Factors that Influence the Level of Employee Job Satisfaction in an
Organization
The Two-factor theory or Herzberg‟s (1959) motivation-hygiene theory that was
developed by Frederick Herzberg introduced the two factors that influence job
satisfaction namely “Motivators” and “Hygiene. Motivators include factors such as
recognition, possibility of growth, advancement, achievement, responsibility, and the
work itself. On the other hand, hygiene factors include monetary salary, interpersonal
relations at work, job security company policies and administration, supervision, working
conditions, factors in personal life and status (Tietjen & Myers, 1998). According to
Herzberg, the presence of motivators brings job satisfaction and the absence of hygiene
factors results in job dissatisfaction. Moreover, the presence of hygiene factors does not
result necessarily in increase of job satisfaction, but only reduces or eliminates job
dissatisfaction of the employees (Golshan, Kaswuri & Aghashahi 2011).
Extrinsic factors can be said to be objects or events, which follow from the employee‟s
own efforts in conjunction with other factors or person‟s not directly involved in the job
itself. Pay, working conditions, co-workers, and even supervision are objects in the work
place which are potentially job-outcomes, but which are not a fundamental part of the
11
work. Dealing with others and friendship interactions are sources of extrinsic outcomes.
(Golshan, Kaswuri & Aghashahi, 2011).
2.2.1 Working Environment
The working environment of an employee is one of the important indexes of measuring
their working comfort and their satisfaction. Sinceit is a fact that employees spend most
of their time in an organization, it is very important for these organizations to introduce
and maintain proper working conditions. An organization should provide its employee‟s
with all the necessary resources and make it possible for the employee to do a job. This
will help employees to accomplish tasks successfully and which indeed contribute to job
satisfaction (Kawada & Otsuka, 2011).
The employee will lose their interests on the job, thus he will not enjoy the assignments if
the working environment is inferior and not work friendly. The working environment
satisfaction briefly includes the following four dimensions: Firstly, it is the working
places‟ natural environment that includes moisture, brightness, noise, smells and the other
environmental factors. Secondly, it is the working places‟ equipment‟s environment, that
is, whether the employee can conveniently obtain and use required tools and facilities.
Thirdly it is the working hours and amount of working overtime. Finally, it is about the
safety protection in the working place (Kawada & Otssuka, 2011).
2..2.2 Pay and Job Satisfaction
Dessler (2012) indicated that employee pay includes all compensation factors which are
given to him against his work. Heery and Noon (2001) defined pay through a number of
components like basic salary, benefits, bonuses, pay for doing extra work and incentives”.
Pay is therefore what an employee receives against his work after fulfilling his assigned
duty. This usually includes all types of financial and non financial rewards. Lai (2011)
described that pay is one of those satisfying variables which if hindered reduces the
dissatisfaction level of employees. If an employee is compensated according to his need,
he will easily manage overload work if any emergency occurs. Robbins (2001) described
that Herzberg‟s motivation-hygiene theory tells that salary is one of those hygiene factors
which eliminate job dissatisfaction. Salary is a factor which leads employees from
dissatisfaction to no dissatisfaction. Expectancy theory described that people do effort
12
because they want some rewards in term of money, promotion etc. People expect that if
they work well in the workplace then their performance will increase and automatically
their pay will increase and they will be promoted. This will cause increase in their job
satisfaction level (Yaseen, 2013).
2.2.3 Nature of Job
Many years of research in different organizations and jobs have shown that nature of job
itself becomes a dominant factor of job satisfaction when employees assess different
aspects of their work, like supervision, growth opportunities, salaries, and colleagues and
so on. When the job performed by an employee is perceived to be important, this will
increase satisfaction level. Work challenges let employees utilize their skills, knowledge
and intelligence to deal with complexities involved in their job, as researched by Yoav
Ganzach (1998). There is a negative association between intelligence and job satisfaction
when complications in jobs are persistent because most of the jobs are not challenging or
interesting, hence if the job lacks the perceived element of interest it may cause
dissatisfaction among intelligent employees (Mehmood, Irum, Ahmed &Sultana, 2012).
2.3.4 Team Cooperation
A smooth teamwork is one of the important conditions necessary to guarantee a
harmonious working atmosphere. It is also an important factor that influences employee
satisfaction. The satisfaction on team cooperation can be reviewed from the following
aspects: Firstly, it is the situation of satisfaction and trust in terms of the direct leader‟s
ability specifically including mutual respect, trust, support and guidance between the
superior and subordinates. Secondly, it is the satisfaction based on colleagues‟
cooperation. It notes that the employee has mutual understanding, good cooperation,
support and interpersonal relationship with the other members. Thirdly, it is the team‟s
gross responsibilities and similarity of knowledge, conceptions and also value orientation.
Finally, it is the clarity of information exchange channels (Yuan & Xiaoxia, 2013).
13
2.2.5 Co-Workers
A co-worker is a person who holds a position or rank similar to that of an employee in the
same business. Co-workers are a distinct part of the working environment, and employees
are expected to work harmoniously with other employees (Iqbal, 2010). People seek
friendly, warm and cooperative relationships with others, not only for what these
relationships produce in the immediate present, but also for what they provide in those
times of need, such as social support. Bagraim, Cunningham, Potgieter & Viedge (2007)
suggest that employees should be technically, emotionally and socially supportive of one
another. Harmonious interactions between an individual and their fellow employees, as
wellas interactions between other fellow employees with each other, have a
positiveinfluence on an individual's level of organizational commitment and job
satisfaction (Iqbal 2010). Harmonious interactions with co-workers have been found to
have a positive influence on an individual's level of job satisfaction (Ladebo, Awotunde
& AbdulSalaam-Saghir, 2008).
2.2.6 Job Security
Job security describes an employee‟s subjective feelings about the future security
ofhis/her employment situation. These feelings are said to vary from individual to
individual. These job security feelings are the result of real-life experiences in the labour
market (Emberland & Rundmo, 2010). According to Klandermans, Hesselink and
VanVuuren (2010), employees who perceive job insecurity are considered to be less
Motivated and in their jobs.
Employment security is desirable for employees, who rank it as one of the mostimportant
factors for their commitment to an organization. Job security also plays a very important
role in reducing employee turnover, as well as maintaining stable employment
relationships in organizations. In addition, job security is essential for retaining human
capital investment as well as reducing workforce screening and selection costs (Origo &
Pagani, 2009). Employees no longer believe they can depend on businesses for job
security, and this belief change has caused a shift in thepsychological contract between
businesses and their employees (Origo & Pagani 2009). According to Chan (2011) there
is a positive relationship between job security and employee job satisfaction.
14
2.2.7 Leadership
Committed leadership that is willing to model desired changes and drives fear out of
theorganizationis very critical for business success and encourages employee job
satisfaction (Iqbal 2010). Committed leaders are essential in fostering a business‟s shared
vision, aligning all components in pursuit of that vision, andbuilding commitment to the
vision at all levels of the organisation (Chawla & Renesch 2006). Good leadership highly
depends on responsible followers. Leaderscannot implement decisions or plans without
the cooperation and support of manyothers who are in a position to influence the
successful outcome of the process, or even derail it. This corporation can be fostered by
ensuring that employees are satisfied with their jobs (Farrington, 2009).
2.2.7 Promotion Opportunities
According to Parvin and Kabir (2011), promotion can be defined as “getting high status
in the workplace by doing effective work, generally increase the status, position and
remuneration of the employee in the organization”. Promotion can therefore be simplified
as going towards upward positions in the organization. If organizations are not giving
promotions to their employees then it is very likely that employees will be dissatisfied
and their turnover rate will be high (Yaseen, 2013) When employees get promotion they
will be more committed to their organization. promotion is considered one of the most
important elements for the employee satisfaction (Parvin & Kabir, 2011). Promotion has a
significant effect on employee satisfaction. There is therefore a positive relationship seen
between job satisfaction and opportunity to develop (Ramasodi, 2010).
If an organization provides employees the necessary factors for promotion such as
facilities, ability and skills, then employees will be automatically motivated and satisfied.
Promotion and satisfaction have a direct relationship. Naveed and Bushra (2011)
indicated that Maslow‟s hierarchy of need theory also described that when esteem needs
(autonomy, power, recognition and status) of people are fulfilled, they will be more
satisfied with their job. Herzberg theory of motivation states what employees demand
from their job. Three need theories tell that there is a need of achievement and need for
power in people. People will be more satisfied and motivated when their needs are
fulfilled (Ramasodi, 2010).
15
2.3 Intrinsic Factors that Influence the Level of Employee Job Satisfaction in an
Organization;
2.3.1 Degree of Employee Autonomy
Most employees desire for autonomy in order to perform effectively and attain their goals.
A number of studies have found a positive relationship between autonomy and job
satisfaction. Individuals take pride in their jobs if empowered at work and show a
moderate relationship with a sense of self-control when measured for perceived life
control. According to Messersmith (2007), managers can facilitate workers by
empowering them in terms of given control over their activities, environment, quantity of
work, and considerations for work-life balance. Satisfaction and performance is the
product of an individual‟s three psychological states: experienced meaningfulness,
experienced responsibility, knowledge of results. Among all the dimensions of job
satisfaction, in general, it is better predicted through nature of job which contains work
challenges, autonomy, variety, and scope of job (Mehmood et al, 2012).
2.3.2 Recognition
According to Danish and Usman (2010), recognition is defined as the situation where
organization employees are rewarded by different status. Intrinsic rewards like
recognition, growth, feedback, opportunities lead employees greatly towards high job
performance and satisfaction. Barton (2002) described that recognition is considered the
most important factor among non-financial rewards in order to increase job satisfaction
level of employees. Recognition can be said to be the component that is used to
strengthen the relationship between the organization leaders and the employees. Through
recognition employees feel rewarded and motivated. By giving recognition to the
employees, competitive advantage can be achieved. An organization achieves its well-
being through giving rewards and recognition to its employees.
Yaseen (2013) commented that an employee becomesmore loyal to their organization
and satisfied when the organization recognizes their work. Very many organizations are
missing this very valuable component and yet the cost of practical implementation of this
component is very small. Through recognition, employees are being realized that they are
16
valuable to the organisation. Employees also feel appreciated through recognition
(Sarvadi, 2005). Recognition is actually to show employees that their participation is
valuable for the organization which ultimately increases satisfaction and performance of
employees.
According to Yaseen (2013), recognition can be provided a number of ways such as;
involving employees in decision making, by increasing their responsibility, by showing
empathy towards them and provide them with succession planning and different
opportunities to get high designation. Robbins (2003) described that Maslow‟s theory
tells about the self- esteem need of employee. This theory shows that recognition, status,
development and growth are the factors which leads to motivation and ultimately leads
toward job satisfaction. Herzberg theory indicated that recognition is one of those
motivating factors which leads employee from no dissatisfaction to satisfaction.
2.3.3 Meaningful Work
Meaningful work is considered as a very important factor when it comes to intrinsic job
satisfaction. Thes days, employees want to be engaged in qualitative work. Employees
want their work to be meaningful to them. Meaningful work is an emerging factor for
valued outcomes of organizations. Meaningful work is an important issue and is valuable
for both employee and employer. There are some other factors rather than money which
an employee may wants to share with their community and home members. Such factors
include sense of achievement and feelings of accomplishment of some task. This
meaningful work is considered as a dividend to the employee (Pocock, 2006).
Outcomes, task characteristics and meaningful work are important for such people who
have the desire for achievement. Job satisfaction cannot be separate from demand of
meaningful work. It is the duty of managers to make work meaningful for their
employees so that they can be satisfied with their job and due to this employees will show
a positive response in the organization. Success, achievement and status are included in
the meaningful work experiences (Yaseen, 2013).
17
2.3.4 Training and Development:
Training provides chances to employees grow and enhances their knowledge and skills
for effective development (Kabir, 2011). Trained workers are more satisfied with their job
as compared to untrained employees (Abdullah & Djebavni, 2011). These training
programs positively raise employees‟ development that is good for competencies (Hunjra
et al., 2010). By getting these training programs employees are able to get self assured,
evolution of career, and have positive thought for their companies (Kabir, 2011). The aim
of these training and management programs is to amend employees‟ skills and
organization potentialities(Hunjra et al, 2010).
2.3.5 Responsibility
According to Lai (2011), employee participation may enhance motivation and job
satisfaction through power sharing, and increased responsibility. Employee participation
can provide individuals an opportunity to make key managerial decisions that have an
impact on other employees, thus increasing job satisfaction and performance. Herzberg‟s
two-factor theory suggests that intrinsic work factors such as responsibility held by
employee and skills development may increase job satisfaction. Increased work
responsibility may be related to many factors suggested in the two-factor model as
recognition and interpersonal relationships have implications for individuals‟ identity
(Lai, 2011).
2.3.6 Skill Variety
Thisis the extent to which a particular job requires a variety of employee competencies to
carry it out (Jackson, 2011). For example, lower skill variety exists when an assembly-
line employee performs the same two tasks repetitively. Themore skill involved, the more
meaningful the work becomes for an employee. Döckel, Basson andCoetzee (2006)
suggest that one way that employees may develop a sense of competency is by working in
a job with high skill variety. Skill variety relates to feelings of belonging, as well as a
sense of attachment to the organization. Mathisand Jackson (2011), however, warn that
skill variety should not to be confused with multitasking, which is doing several tasks at
18
the same time, for instance, with computers, telephones, other devices, and personal
organizers.
2.3.7 Task Significance
Task significanceis the extent to which an employee perceives the job he or she is
performing as having asubstantial impact on the lives of other people, whether those
people are within oroutside the organization (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2008). Most people
work to earn a living, but also because of the other satisfactions that come with the job,
such as doing something worthwhile.
2.3.8 Job feedback
This refers to the degree to which carrying out job-related tasks provides direct and clear
information about the effectiveness of an employee‟s performance. In addition, providing
feedback fulfills a need for information on the extent to which personal goals are met, as
well as being a point of social comparison about an individual‟s relative performance
(Vlosky & Aguilar, 2009). Providing sufficient performance feedback to employees helps
strengthen positive attitudes toward the business, and helps prevent early intentions to
leave by employees. When employees are provided with praise and feedback, stronger
feelings of loyalty to the business may develop (Döckel, Basson& Coetzee, 2006).
Furthermore, feedback helps to contribute to the employees‟ overall knowledge about the
work (Mathis & Jackson, 2008).
2.3.9 Job Involvement
Job involvement can be described as the degree to which an employee is cognitively
preoccupied with, engaged in, and concerned with his/her job (Govender & Parumasur,
2010). Job involvement is the degree of identification employees have with their
employement, and the degree of importance they place on their jobs. For example,
employees who are highly involved in their jobs will not mind spending extra time to
ensure task accomplishment, and take uncompleted work or assignments home to
completethem before the next working day. Being involved inthe job entails involvement
in decision-making and a feeling that one is making animportant contribution to the
19
success of the business. In addition, job involvement helps to enhance organisational
effectiveness and productivity by engaging employees in their work, and making work a
meaningful and fulfilling experience for them(Koponen, Laamanen, Simonsen, Sundrell
& Suominen, 2010).
An employee with a high level of job involvement has a strong sense of belonging in the
specific job, and has a desire to perform well (Koponen, Laamanen, Simonsen, Sundrell
& Suominen, 2010). In their study on the effects of co-workers on supervision support,
Babin and Boles (1996) have found that employee perceptions of job involvement are
positively related to job satisfaction. According to Govender and Parumasur (2010), when
employees are actively involved in decisions that influence their destiny and career in the
business, and are responsible for their actions, their level of commitment to the business
is said to increase. Fincham and Rhodes (2005) suggest that when employees are involved
in the setting of goal for the business, commitment and loyalty are the result.
2.4 The Impact of the Job Satisfaction Level on Employee Performance
Performance of employees is a major concern for all competitive business organizations
in the world today. A high performance work system is a distinguishing factor of the
leading organizations from the rest in the same industry. In very many companies,
inadequate policies at managerial level badly affect performance and don‟t allow
employees to produce at their full potential. It can be said to be the most dynamic factor
of production. Many variables like intellectual & physical abilities of the employees, their
qualification, experience, training, culture of the organization, reward systems, career
progression opportunities, co-workers behavior, authority and responsibility, workload,
and structure of organizations, influence the performance of employees. However, for the
relevance of this study, we will be concentrating on Job satisfaction and how it impacts
on performance of employees in an organization (Wentzel & Wigfield, 2009).
2.4.1. Job Satisfaction and Absenteeism
It is an obvious fact that employee is obviously not performing when he or she is not at
work. Other employees‟ performance may be adversely impacted by absences, too.
Various studies have attempted to examine the relationship between absenteeism and job
20
satisfaction as absence is commonly viewed as one of the means of an employee‟s
withdrawal from stressful work situations. According to Luthans (1995), research has
generally revealed a consistent inverse relationship between job satisfaction and
absenteeism. This means that when satisfaction is high, absenteeism tends to be low and
when satisfaction is low, absenteeism tends to be high. Even though this correlation has
been found to be rather moderate, the underlying assumption is that absence is at least in
part, the result of dissatisfaction on the job (Anderson, 2004).
Absenteeism has for a long time been considered a significant and pervasive problem in
the industry. As aresult, theories have been put in place and numerous studies conducted
to identify the causes ofabsenteeism. Probably one of the most common theories is the
notion that absenteeism is brought about by employees avoiding a painful or dissatisfying
work situation. Although it is also recognized that absenteeism may be caused by the
employee's inability to come to work, motivation to attend work is assumed to be a major
factor determining how often an employee is absent. To many who happen to be in the
world of work, absenteeism is one of those stubborn problems for which there is no clear
culprit and no easy cure (Obasan, 2011).
Furthermore, as a general phenomenon absenteeism does not discriminate against
individuals on the basis of sex, race and religion. Obasan (2011) postulates that
“employers have the right to expect good attendance from their employees as
employment is a contract between two consenting parties”. According to Vlosky &
Aguilar (2009), absenteeism can be very costly to organizations and enormous savings
can be realized through effective management of nonattendance of employees to work.
Besides the cost implications, absenteeism is influenced by dozens of interrelated factors
which make it even more difficult to “quantify, qualify or rectify”. One of these factors
which have been cited by different researchers is an employee‟s level of job satisfaction
in the workplace. In conjunction with this, George and Jones (2002) maintain that many
researchers have taken time to study the relationship between absenteeism and job
satisfaction in an attempt to discover ways to reduce absenteeism.” Early job satisfaction
research has emphasized the underlying assumption that job dissatisfaction represents the
primary cause of absenteeism (Vlosky & Aguilar, 2009).
21
Kalpana (2013) proposes that employee attendance is dependent on an employee‟s
motivation to attend as well as their ability to attend. Job satisfaction is one of the factors
affecting an employee‟s motivation to attend. It becomes therefore very important to
measure the strength of the relationship between absenteeism and job satisfaction as
positive attitudes can at times serve to “pull” the individual towards the organization and
the reverse can be expected when attitudes are more negative (Obasan, 2011).
2.4.2 Job Satisfaction and Productivity
According Wentzel and Wigfield (2009), the relationship between job satisfaction and
productivity is not definitely established. The consensus, however, is that in the long-run
job-satisfaction leads to an increase in productivity. The strongest implication of much of
the research is that the two variables, job-satisfaction and performance, are relatively
independent of each other. There seems to be at least two possible reasons for this. The
first is that in many jobs variations in satisfaction cannot lead to variations in
productivity. Secondly, even when correlations do appear, the associations may be
spurious, since both may be associated with other factors. In other words, job-satisfaction
and productivity may be well have largely separate casual paths: one set of factors (e.g.
investment in technology) determines productivity, another set (e.g. perceived equity of
rewards) produces job-satisfaction (Westover, 2010).
There are however some conditions under which high productivity more clearly leads to
high job-satisfaction. One condition is that the employees perceive that intrinsic and
extrinsic rewards are contingent upon their productivity. The second condition is that the
extrinsic rewards (pay for example) be distributed equitably. Inequitable distribution fails
to convince the employees close correlations between hard work and rewards
(Muhammad &Wajidi, 2013).
Productivity increases as an organization discovers new ways to use fewer resources to
produce its output. In a business environment, productivity improvement is essential for
long-run success. Through gains in productivity managers are able to reduce costs, save
scarce resources, and enhance profits. In turn, improved profits make it possible for an
organization to provide better pay, benefits, and working conditions. The result can be a
higher quality of work employees, who are more likely to be motivated toward further
22
improvements in productivity. (Wentzel & Wigfield, 2009). Under productivity we can
look at the quality and quantity produced.
2.4.2.1 Quality
According to Westover, (2010)Quality looks at how well the employee or work unit
performed the work they were assigned and the accuracy or effectiveness of the final
product. Quality refers to accuracy, appearance, usefulness, or effectiveness. The quality
of work that has been performed can be measured by a variety of means and can be
impacted by the level of satisfaction of the employee. Take for example; the percentage
of work output that must be redone or is rejected is an indicator of quality. If we look at a
sales environment, the percentage of inquiries converted to sales is an indicator of
salesmanship quality.
2.4.2.2 Quantity
Quantity addresses how much work the employee or work unit produced. Quantity
measures can be expressed as a number of products produced or services provided, or as a
general result to achieve (Washburn, 2009). Quantity is also an indicator of performance
that can greatly be impacted by the level of employee job satisfaction. The number of
units produced, processed or sold is a good objective indicator of performance. However,
it is very important for managers in an organisation to be careful not to place too much
emphasis on quantity, lest quality may suffer (Van & Adonisi, 2008).
2.4.3 Job Satisfaction and Timeliness
When we look at timeliness, we are basically trying to find out how fast work is
performed in an organisation and this can also be largely influenced by the employees‟
level of job satisfaction. A number of studies have indicated that the higher the
employee‟s job satisfaction, the less time it will take them to accomplish an assigned task.
However this is also another performance indicator that should be used with caution. In
field service, the average customer‟s downtime is a good indicator of timeliness. In
manufacturing, it might be the number of units produced per hour (Wentzel & Wigfield,
2009).
23
2.4.4 Job Satisfaction and Creativity
According to Muhammad & Wajidi (2013), employees who are satisfied with their job
tend to be more creative. They usually go out of their way in order to attain some level of
innovation at their employment. It can sometimes turn out to be very difficult to
accurately quantify the level of creativity of an employee as a performance indicator, but
in many white-collar jobs, it is vitally important. Supervisors and employees should keep
track of creative work examples and attempt to quantify them.
2.4.5 Job Satisfaction and Safety
Poor safety practices are a negative consequence of low satisfaction level. When people
are discouraged about their jobs, company, and supervisors, they are more liable to
experience accidents. An underlying reason for such accidents is that discouragement
may take one's attention away from the task at hand. Inattention leads directly to
accidents. For example, many hand injuries from power tools can be attributed to the
operator not paying careful attention (Wentzel & Wigfield, 2009).
2.4.6 Job Satisfaction and Cost-Effectiveness
According to Eggemeier (2011), the cost of work performed can also be used as a
measure of employee performance and it can be highly influenced by the employee‟s
degree of satisfaction at their job. However, the cost of work performed should be used as
a measure of performance only if the employee has some degree of control over costs. A
case in point, a customer-service representative‟s performance is indicated by the
percentage of calls that he or she must escalate to more experienced and expensive
representatives. (Christine & Pearson, 2009).
2.4.7 Adherence to Policy
According to Washburn (2009), adherence to company policy may at first glance to some
people seem to be the opposite of creativity, but it is merely a boundary on creativity.
Adherence to policy can also be a performance measure that could be very much
determined by the employee‟s level of satisfaction with his or her job. Eggemeier (2011)
24
suggests that, deviations from policy are an indication of an employee whose
performance goals are not well aligned with those of the company.
2.4.7 Other Effects of Job-satisfaction
In additions to the above, it has been claimed that satisfied employees tend to have better
mental and physical health and learn new job related tasks more quickly. All things put
under consideretion, practicing managers and organizational behavior researchers would
agree that job-satisfaction is important to an organization. Critics however, point out this
is pure conjecture because there is so much we do not know about the positive effects of
satisfaction. However, on the other hand, when job-satisfaction is low, there seems to be
negative effects on the organization that have been documented. So if only from the
standpoint of viewing job-satisfaction as a minimum requirement or point of departure, it
is of value to the organization‟s overall health and effectiveness and is deserving of study
and application in the field of organizational behavior (Van & Adonisi, 2008).
2.5 Chapter Summary
This chapter has presented a review of the pertinent literature of Job saticifaction in
organisations. Arising from this review, a number of researched theories have been
presented. It is therefore important for this research to provide empirical evidence of these
theories. Research in this area will provide more knowledge on the extent to which these
theories are pertinent to Kenyan organisations with Unilever Kenya as a case study. The
next chapter will present pertinent research methods that will be used to conduct this
research.
25
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the research methodology that was followed and adopted in the
process of conducting this study. The chapter therefore focuses on the following aspects
of the research: research design, population and sampling design (population, sampling
design, sampling frame, sampling technique, and sample size), data collection methods,
research procedures, and data analysis methods.
3.2 Research Design
The research design used was a descriptive research design. Research design can have a
number of classifications which could integrate the degree to which the research
question has been crystallized, the method of data collection used, the ability of the
researcher to produce effects in the variables which are being studied, the purpose of the
study, the time dimension, the scope of the study and also the research environment.
The classification of the particular research design for this study is the purpose of the
study. We have three options under this which include; Reporting study, Descriptive
study, and Causal study and these can be said to be either causal-explanatory study or
causal-predictive study.
A descriptive study is based on making findings concerning questions of; who, what,
where, when, or how much? Descriptive studies are always handled with hypothesis
which are clearly defined or investigative questions and they serve a number of
objectives in the study which include making descriptions of phenomena or
characteristics associated with a subject, making estimates of the proportions of a
population that have these characteristics, and also discovery of associations among
different variables which is sometimes referred to as a correlation study, a subset of
descriptive studies (Cooper and Schindler (2011). The researcher found it appropriate
that a descriptive research design was appropriate for this study because this study was
26
concerned with finding out what the factorsare that influence job satisfaction of
employees and how that affects performance.
3.3 Population and Sampling Design
3.3.1 Population
The study population comprised a total of 796 employees of Unilever Kenya from various
organizational functions or divisions. The study population refers to the total collection of
elements which one would like to study or make inferences. The population element
however refers to the individual participant or object on which the measurement is taken.
It is the unit of study (Cooper & Schindler, 2011).
Table 3.1 Population Distribution
No Department Population
Characteristics
Total Population Percentage of
Entire
Population
1 Human Resources Managers 9 1.13
Non-Managers 36 4.52
2 Procurement Managers 14 1.75
Non-Managers 112 14.8
3 Marketing and Sales Managers 22 2.7
Non-Managers 220 27.46
4 Finance Managers 12 1.5
Non-Managers 34 4.27
5 Production Managers 27 3.39
Non-Managers 250 31.4
6 Research and Design Managers 10 1.25
Non-Managers 50 6.28
TOTAL 796 100%
Source: (Unilever Annual Report, 2013)
3.3.2 Sampling Design
Sampling refers to the process by which part of the population is selected and conclusions
are drawn about the entire population (Cooper & Schindler, 2001). „„The basic idea of
Sampling is that by selecting some of the elements in a population, we may draw
27
conclusions about the entire population‟‟ (Cooper and Schindler, 2011, p. 364). The
quality of a study is often better with sampling than with a census „„Sampling possesses
the possibility of a better interviewing (testing), more thorough investigation of missing,
wrong or suspicious information, better supervision and better processing than is possible
with complete coverage‟‟ (Deming, 1990, p. 26). Sampling also offers the advantage of
lower cost involved, greater speed in relation to data collection, and also availability of
population elements.
The best way to understand the relevance of a particular sample design is to see how well
it represents the characteristics of the population it stands to represent. In measurement
terms, the sample must be valid. Two things have to be considered when determining the
validity of a sample, these are accuracy and precision. Under accuracy, we are lookingat
the extent to which there is no bias in the sample. Precision looks at the assumption that
no sample will fully represent its population in all respects. However, to interpret findings
of research, the researcher needs a measure of how closely the sample represents the
population (Cooper and Schindler, 2011, p. 367).
3.3.2.1 Sampling Frame
The sampling frame for this study consisted of 796 employees from various functions or
divisions of Unilever Kenya. The list from which the sample was drawn was obtained
from the human resource management department of Unilever Kenya. Sampling frame
refers to the list of elements from which the sample is actually drawn, and is closely
related to the population (Cooper & Schindler, 2001). According to Cooper and Schindler
(2011) it is a complete and correct list of population members only. However, it is
important to note that the sampling frame often differs from the theoretical population
because of errors and omissions. It is therefore a matter of judgement when it comes to
exactly how much inaccuracy one can tolerate while choosing a sampling frame.
3.3.2.2 Sampling Technique
The stratified random sampling technique was used in the selection of sample elements
(Unilever employees) from the sampling frame. The population can be segregated into
28
several mutually exclusive sub populations, or strata, the process by which the sample is
constrained to include elements from each of the segments is referred to as stratified
random sampling. Stratified random sampling has three main benefits, it: increases a
sample‟s statistical efficiency, provides adequate data for analyzing the various
subpopulations, and enables different research methods and procedures to be used in
different strata (Cooper & Schindler, 2001). The study population was segmented on the
basis of various functions or divisions of the company under study (Unilever Kenya) and
this comprised of: finance, marketing, production, human resource, research and
development, and general management. This helped to ensure equal representation across
the various functions or divisions of the company personnel. Proportionate stratified
sampling approach therefore was used.
3.3.2.3 Sample Size
This refers to the number of elements selected from a given population. How large a
sample should be is a function of the variation in the population parameters under study
and the estimating precision needed by the researcher (Mugenda and Mugenda, 2003).
Some of the principles which influence sample size comprise the following: the greater
the dispersion or variance within the population, the larger the sample must be to provide
estimation precision, the greater the desired precision of the estimate, the larger the
sample must be, the narrower the interval range, the larger the sample must be, the higher
the confidence level in the estimate, the larger the sample must be, the greater the number
of subgroups of interest within a sample, the greater the sample size must be, as each sub
group must meet minimum sample size requirements, and if the calculated sample size
exceeds 5 percent of the population, sample size may be reduced without sacrificing
precision. (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill2009)
According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009) sample size can be calculated by the
following formula;
n= p% * q% * (2 / e% )2
Considering a worst case scenario where p is 50% at a 95% level of confidence, and
within an error of ± 10.
n= 50 * 50 *(1.96 / 10)2 = 97 employees.
29
However, they further suggest that if the population is less than 1000, then the sample
size can be adjusted without affecting accuracy using this formula;
n= n / (1) + (n / N)
The adjusted minimum sample size will then be 92 respondents. This is the total sample
that I will consider while collecting data.
Table 3.2 Total Sample size
No Department Population
Characteristics
Total
Population
Percentage of
Entire
Population
Sample
population
1 Human Resources Managers 9 1.13 1
Non-Managers 36 4.52 4
2 Procurement Managers 14 1.75 2
Non-Managers 112 14.8 14
3 Marketing and Sales Managers 22 2.7 2
Non-Managers 220 27.46 25
4 Finance Managers 12 1.5 1
Non-Managers 34 4.27 4
5 Production Managers 27 3.39 3
Non-Managers 250 31.4 29
6 Research and Design Managers 10 1.25 1
Non-Managers 50 6.28 6
TOTAL 796 100 92
3.4 Data Collection Methods
According to Cooper and Schindler (2011), Data collection Methods refer to the process
of gathering data after the researcher has identified the types of information needed which
is; the investigative questions the researcher must answer, and has also identified the
desired data type (nominal, ordinal, interval, or ratio) for each of these questions and also
ascertained the characteristics of the sample unit that is, whether a participant can
articulate his or her ideas, thoughts, and experiences. This study focused on the use of
primary data which was collected from the target sample. A structured questionnaire was
30
used to collect the data. The data collection instrument for the study was developed based
on literature from various scholars on the subject of factors that influence employee job
satisfaction and its impact on performance.
The questionnaire was divided into four sections: The first part was designed to analyze
demographic data, which was focused on collecting the respondent‟s personality
characteristics deemed to impact the factors that influence their job satisfaction and how
it impacts on their performance. The second part looked at extrinsic factors that influence
the level of employee job satisfaction at Unilever Kenya. This section consisted of
questions which were based on the identified extrinsic factors studied in the literature
review with an aim of determining if they apply to Unilever Kenya. There were five
multiple choice options for each question, representing five levels of preference; Strongly
Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, and Strongly Agree.
The third part of the questionnairelooked at the intrinsic factors that influence the level of
employee job satisfaction at Unilever Kenya. Five multiple choice options for each
question were adopted, representing five levels of preference; Strongly Disagree,
Disagree, Neutral, Agree, and Strongly Agree. The fourth part of the questionnaire looked
at the impact of employee job satisfaction employee performance at Unilever Kenya. This
section consisted of nine questions with five multiple choice options for each question,
representing five levels of preference; Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, and
Strongly Agree.
3.5 Research Procedures
A structured questionnaire was developed by the researcher, specifically for this study.
The data collection instrument (structured questionnaire) was pilot tested with 8
respondents representing the various functions or divisions in Unilever Kenya. A pilot
test is conducted to detect weakness in design and instrumentation and to provide proxy
data for selection of a probability sample (Lewis, Saunders & Thornhill, 2003). The
problems which were encountered during piloting testing of the data collection instrument
were addressed by making necessary adjustments to the questionnaire before
administering it on to the whole study sample. After revision of the data collection
31
instrument, the whole study sample was subjected to the data collection instrument. A
number of methods were used to improve returns (response rate) such as drop and pick
later method and following up through reminders via telephone and email. The whole
questionnaire is estimated to take 8 minutes to complete by the respondent.
3.6 Data Analysis Methods
Managers have a need for information, not raw data. Researchers generate information by
analysing data after its collection. Data analysis involves reducing accumulated data to a
manageable size, developing summaries, looking for patterns, and applying statistical
techniques (Cooper & Schindler 2011). This study used statistical methods to analyze
data that is, descriptive statistics; measures of central tendency which included the mean,
mode, and median, and measures of dispersion which will include, standard deviation and
variance. Inferential statistics were also used to draw inferences about the population
from a sample as well as conduct statistical tests of correlation. Statistical Package for
Social Scientists (SPSS) version 21 was used to facilitate the data analysis.
3.7 Chapter Summary
This chapter has presented the research methodology that was used in analyzing the
research questions. A descriptive research design was used to conduct the study. The
study population consisted of 796 employees at Unilever Kenya. The study relied entirely
on primary data which will be collected from the respondents (Unilever employees) using
a structured questionnaire. The structured questionnaire will be pilot tested on 6
respondents representing various functions or divisions in the company (Airtel Unilever).
Statistical methods (descriptive statistics and inferential statistics) will be used to analyze
data. The next chapter will present the results and findings of this study.
32
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the results and findings of this study and therefore, it focuses on the
following: General information (Age group, Gender, Years of service in the organization,
and Level of education), the extrinsic factors that influence employee job satisfaction
(working environment, remuneration structure, team cooperation, leadership style, nature
of the job, Co-workers, Job security, promotion opportunities), Intrinsic factors that
influence employee job satisfaction (employee autonomy, Recognition, work
meaningfulness, training and development, responsibility, participation level of
employee, employee attainment of performance feedback ), and the impact of job
satisfaction on employee performance (Absenteeism, Quality of work, quantity of work,
safety practices, timeliness, employee creativity, cost-effectiveness, adherence to
company and employee meeting of company set objectives).
The study targeted 92 respondents who were proportionally distributed according to the
various departments in Unilever Kenya. The response rate was 97.8% since 2 of the
administered questionnaires were not readily retrieved and were recorded as missing data
in my analysis.
4.2 General Information
The general information section for this chapter comprised of the respondents‟ age, years
of service in the organization, and their level of education. This information was sought in
order to ascertain the respondents‟ demographic characteristics.
4.2.1 Age of Respondent
This question sought to find out the various age groups of the different respondents in the
organization. This question was useful in order to determine if there was any
33
inconsistency of data stated by the respondent. The results of the findings are presented in
the figure 4.1
The findings show that 11.1% 0f the respondents were below 25 years of age, 21.1% were
between 25-34 years, 35.6% were between 35-44 years, 18.9% were between 45-54 years
and 13.3% were between 55-64 years. There were no respondents above 64 years of age.
Figure 4.1 Age of Respondent
4.2.2 Gender of Respondent
This research question sought to find out the gender distribution of the respondents in the
organization. The results of the findings are presented in the figure 4.2
34
The results show that 55.6% of the respondents were male and 44.4% of the respondents
were female. Male respondents were higher than female respondents by 11.2%
Figure 4.2 Gender of Respondent
4.2.3 Years of Service
This question sought to find out how many years the different respondents had served in
the organization. The Findings are presented in figure 4.3
The results show that 35.6% of the employees had served in the organization between 0-
4years, 41.1% had served between 5-9 years, 13.3% had served between 10-14 years,
7.8% had served between 15-19 years and 2.2% had served in the organization for more
than 20 years.
55.6% 44.4%
35
Figure 4.3 Years of Service
4.2.4 Level of Education
This question in the research sought to find out the level of education attained by the
respondents in the organization. The findings are presented in figure 4.4
The results obtained show that 10% of the respondents had professional Qualifications,
63.3% were Undergraduates, 7.8% were graduates (other degree), 24.4% were graduates
(MBA), and 4.4% were post graduates.
Figure 4.4 Education Level
36
4.3. Extrinsic factors that influence employee job satisfaction
4.3.1 Working Environment
This question sought to find out whether the working environment of the organization has
an influence on employee job satisfaction.
The results show that 24.4% of the respondents agree that the working environment
influences employee job satisfaction and 31.1% of the respondents strongly agree. The
total cumulative percentage of the respondents who were in agreement that the working
environment influences employee job satisfaction is 55.5.
Table 4.1: Working Environment
Frequency Percent
Valid STRONGLY DISAGREE 5 5.6
DISAGREE 11 12.2
NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 24 26.7
AGREE 22 24.4
STRONGLY AGREE 28 31.1
Total 90 100.0
Missing System 2
Total 92
4.3.2Monetary Pay and Remuneration Structure
The question sought to find out whether the monetary pay and remuneration structure
influences employee job satisfaction.
The results obtained show that 20.7% of the respondents agree that monetary pay and
remuneration structure influences their job satisfaction and 54.3% strongly agree with this
statement. The cumulative percentage total of the respondents who were in agreement
with the statement is 75%
37
Table 4.2: Monetary Pay and Remuneration Structure
Frequency Percent
Valid STRONGLY DISAGREE 1 1.1
DISAGREE 11 12.0
NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 9 9.8
AGREE 19 20.7
STRONGLY AGREE 50 54.3
Total 90 97.8
Missing System 2 2.2
Total 92 100.0
4.3.3 Degree to Which Organization Embraces Team Cooperation
This question sought to find out whether the degree to which the organization embraces
team cooperation has an influence on employee job satisfaction.
The results show that 26.1% of the respondents agree that the degree to which the
organization embraces team cooperation influences their job satisfaction and 24.4%
strongly agree. The total cumulative percentage of respondents who are in agreement with
this statement is 50.5%
Table 4.3: Team Cooperation
Frequency Percent
Valid DISAGREE 11 12.0
NEITHER AGREE NOR
DISAGREE
33 35.9
AGREE 24 26.1
STRONGLY AGREE 22 24.4
Total 90 97.8
Missing System 2 2.2
Total 92 100.0
38
4.3.4 Leadership Style
This question sought to find out whether the leadership style of an organization has an
influence on an employee‟s job satisfaction.
The findings show that 20% of the respondents agree that the leadership style has an
influence employee job satisfaction and 65.6% strongly agree. The total cumulative
percentage of respondents who were in agreement with this statement is 85.6%.
Table 4.4 Leadership Style
Frequency Percent
Valid STRONGLY DISAGREE 1 1.1
DISAGREE 1 1.1
NEITHER AGREE NOR
DISAGREE
11 12.2
AGREE 18 20.0
STRONGLY AGREE 59 65.6
Total 90 100.0
Missing System 2
Total 92
4.3.5 Nature of the Job
This question was intended to find out whether the nature of the job in itself influences an
employee‟s job satisfaction.
The results obtained show that 18.9% the respondents agree the nature of their job
influences their job satisfaction and 60% strongly agree. The total cumulative percentage
39
of the respondents who are in agreement that the nature of the job has an influence on
employee job satisfaction is 78.9%
Table 4.5: Nature of the Job
Frequency Percent
Valid STRONGLY DISAGREE 1 1.1
DISAGREE 3 3.3
NEITHER AGREE NOR
DISAGREE
15 16.7
AGREE 17 18.9
STRONGLY AGREE 54 60.0
Total 90 100.0
Missing System 2
Total 92
4.3.6 Impact by Co-workers
The question sought to find out whether co-workers have an impact on an employee‟s job
satisfaction.
The results show that 27.8% of respondents agree that their co-workers have an impact on
their job satisfaction and 28.9% strongly agree to the same. The total cumulative
percentage of respondents who are in agreement with the statement is 56.7%
Table 4.6: Impact by Co-workers
Frequency Percent
Valid STRONGLY DISAGREE 1 1.1
DISAGREE 9 10.0
NEITHER AGREE NOR
DISAGREE
29 32.2
AGREE 25 27.8
STRONGLY AGREE 26 28.9
Total 90 100.0
Missing System 2
Total 92
40
4.3.7 Level of Job Security
This question sought to find out whether the level of job security at an employee‟s work
place has an influence on their job satisfaction.
The results show that 33.3% of the respondents agree that the degree of job security at
their employment influences their job satisfaction and 43.3% strongly agree with this
statement. The cumulative total percentage of respondents who are in agreement that job
security influences their job satisfaction is 76.6%.
Table 4.7 Level of Job Security
Frequency Percent
Valid STRONGLY DISAGREE 1 1.1
DISAGREE 7 7.8
NEITHER AGREE NOR
DISAGREE
13 14.4
AGREE 30 33.3
STRONGLY AGREE 39 43.3
Total 90 100.0
Missing System 2
Total 92
41
4.3.8 Degree to Which Promotion Opportunities Exist in the Organization
This question sought to find out whether the degree to which the existence of promotion
opportunities in an organization influences employee job satisfaction.
The findings show that 13% of respondents agree that existence of promotion
opportunities in the organization has an influence on their level of job satisfaction and
65.2% strongly agree with this statement. The cumulative total percentage of the
respondents in agree with this statement is 78.2%.
Table 4.8: Promotion Opportunities
Frequency Percent
Valid DISAGREE 5 5.4
NEITHER AGREE NOR
DISAGREE
13 14.1
AGREE 12 13.0
STRONGLY AGREE 60 65.2
Total 90 97.8
Missing System 2 2.2
Total 92 100.0
42
Table 4.9Summary Statistics of all the Individual Extrinsic Factors that Influence
Employee Job Satisfaction.
WO
RK
ING
EN
VIR
ON
ME
NT
MO
NE
TA
RY
PA
Y A
ND
RE
MU
NE
RA
TIO
N S
TR
UC
TU
RE
DE
GR
EE
TO
WH
ICH
TH
E
OR
GA
NIZ
AT
ION
EM
BR
AC
ES
TE
AM
CO
OP
ER
AT
ION
L
EA
DE
RS
HIP
ST
YL
E
NA
TU
RE
OF
TH
E J
OB
IMP
AC
T B
Y C
O-W
OR
KE
RS
LE
VE
L O
F J
OB
SE
CU
RIT
Y
DE
GR
EE
TO
WH
ICH
PR
OM
OT
ION
OP
PO
RT
UN
ITIE
S
EX
IST
IN
TH
E O
RG
AN
IZA
TIO
N
N Valid 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
Missing 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mean 3.63 4.18 3.63 4.48 4.33 3.73 4.10 4.41
Std. Error of Mean .127 .117 .104 .088 .100 .108 .105 .099
Median 4.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 5.00
Mode 5 5 3 5 5 3 5 5
Std. Deviation 1.203 1.107 .988 .838 .948 1.026 .995 .935
Variance 1.448 1.226 .976 .702 .899 1.052 .990 .874
Skewness -.480 -1.123 .012 -1.688 -1.285 -.271 -.974 -1.339
Std. Error of Skewness .254 .254 .254 .254 .254 .254 .254 .254
Range 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3
Minimum 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2
Maximum 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Percentiles 25 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00
50 4.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 5.00
75 5.00 5.00 4.25 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
43
Table 4.10 Extrinsic Factors Summary Statistics
The results show that the average response of respondents in relation to all the extrinsic
factors is 4 (Agree). This therefore shows that most of the respondents agreed that
extrinsic factors had an influence on their level of job satisfaction. The mode or most
frequent score of the respondents in relation to extrinsic factors was 4. The range or
difference between the highest and lowest score was 3. The average deviation of the
sample means from the population mean was 0.046 (standard error of the mean). The
measure of the average deviation of each score from the mean was 0.438 (standard
deviation). The measure of asymmetry in the distribution of scores was -2.282 (skewness)
N Valid 90
Missing 2
Mean 4.00
Std. Error of Mean .046
Median 4.00
Mode 4
Std. Deviation .438
Variance .192
Skewness -2.282
Std. Error of Skewness .254
Range 3
Minimum 2
Maximum 5
Percentiles 25 3.86
50 4.00
75 4.29
44
Table 4.11: Combination of all the Extrinsic Factors
The results show the total cumulative percentage responses of all the extrinsic factors.
The cumulative percentage of respondents who agree that extrinsic factors influence their
employee job satisfaction is 85.5% and 6.6% strongly agree. The total cumulative
percentage of all respondents in agreement that extrinsic factors influence their level of
job satisfaction was 92.1%.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 2 1 1.1 1.1 1.1
3 2 2.2 2.2 3.3
3 3 3.3 3.3 6.7
3 1 1.1 1.1 7.8
4 3 3.3 3.3 11.1
4 7 7.6 7.8 18.9
4 14 15.2 15.6 34.4
4 19 20.7 21.1 55.6
4 12 13.0 13.3 68.9
4 13 14.1 14.4 83.3
4 9 9.8 10.0 93.3
5 4 4.3 4.4 97.8
5 2 2.2 2.2 100.0
Total 90 97.8 100.0
Missing System 2 2.2
Total 92 100.0
4.3.9 The Influence of Extrinsic Factors on Employee Job Satisfaction
The study sought to find out if extrinsic factors influence employee job satisfaction. The
findings of this question are presented as below. The hypothesis is stated as follows.
H0Extrinsic factors do not influence employee job satisfaction
H1 Extrinsic factors influence employee job satisfaction
45
The results show that the significance level of all the extrinsic factors is 0.000 (P<0.05)
which is within the acceptable level. This means that extrinsic factors influence employee
job satisfaction. We therefore accept the alternative hypothesis and reject the null
hypothesis.
Table 4.12 Extrinsic Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction (T-test)
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0
t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
WORKING ENVIRONMENT 28.641 89 .000 3.633 3.38 3.89
MONETARY PAY AND
REMUNERATION STRUCTURE
35.788 89 .000 4.178 3.95 4.41
DEGREE TO WHICH THE
ORGANIZATION EMBRACES
TEAM COOPERATION
34.883 89 .000 3.633 3.43 3.84
LEADERSHIP STYLE 50.710 89 .000 4.478 4.30 4.65
NATURE OF THE JOB 43.360 89 .000 4.333 4.13 4.53
IMPACT BY CO-WORKERS 34.536 89 .000 3.733 3.52 3.95
LEVEL OF JOB SECURITY 39.094 89 .000 4.100 3.89 4.31
DEGREE TO WHICH
PROMOTION OPPORTUNITIES
EXIST IN THE ORGANIZATION
44.762 89 .000 4.411 4.22 4.61
4.4 Intrinsic Factors that Influence the Level of Job Satisfaction
4.4.1 Degree to which Employee Autonomy Exists in the Organization
This question was designed to find out whether the degree to which employee autonomy
(independence) exists in the organization has an influence on employee job satisfaction.
46
The findings show that 26.7% of the respondents agree that employee autonomy has an
influence on their job satisfaction and 31.1% strongly agree. The total cumulative
percentage of respondents in agreement that employee autonomy influences their job
satisfaction is 57.1
Table 4.13: Employee Autonomy
Frequency Percent
Valid STRONGLY DISAGREE 2 2.2
DISAGREE 12 13.3
NEITHER AGREE NOR
DISAGREE
24 26.7
AGREE 24 26.7
STRONGLY AGREE 28 31.1
Total 90 100.0
Missing System 2
Total 92
4.4.2 Extent to which the Employee Feels Recognized
This question was intended to find out whether employee recognition has an influence on
employee job satisfaction.
The results show that 35.6% of the respondents agree that being recognized at their job
influences their job satisfaction and 44.4 strongly agree. The total cumulative percentage
of respondents in agreement that employee recognition influences their job satisfaction is
80%
Table 4.14: Employee Recognition
Frequency Percent
Valid DISAGREE 5 5.6
NEITHER AGREE NOR
DISAGREE
13 14.4
AGREE 32 35.6
STRONGLY AGREE 40 44.4
Total 90 100.0
Missing System 2
Total 92
47
4.4.3 Degree to which Employee feels their Job is Meaningful
This question sought to find out whether the degree to which the employee feels their job
is meaningful impacts their job satisfaction.
The results show that 38.9% of the respondents agree that the degree to which they
believe that their job is meaningful influences their job satisfaction and 42.2% of the
respondents strongly agree. The total cumulative percentage of those in agreement with
the statement is 81.1%
Table 4.15: Job is Meaningful
Frequency Percent
Valid DISAGREE 4 4.4
NEITHER AGREE NOR
DISAGREE
13 14.4
AGREE 35 38.9
STRONGLY AGREE 38 42.2
Total 90 100.0
Missing System 2
Total 92
4.4.4 Degree to which the Employee feels they are being Trained and Developed
This question had a purpose of finding out whether the degree to which employees feel
that they are being trained and developed has an influence on their job satisfaction.
The findings show that 25.6% of the respondents agree that the degree to which they feel
they are being trained and developed has an influence on their job satisfaction while
28.9% strongly agree. The total cumulative percentage of those in agreement with this
statement is 54.5%.
48
Table 4.16: Training and Developed
Frequency Percent
Valid DISAGREE 6 6.7
NEITHER AGREE NOR
DISAGREE
35 38.9
AGREE 23 25.6
STRONGLY AGREE 26 28.9
Total 90 100.0
Missing System 2
Total 92
4.4.5 Amount of Responsibility the Employee Possesses in their Job
This question sought to find out whether the amount of responsibility an employee
possesses in their job has an influence on his or her job satisfaction.
The results show that 28.9% agree that the amount of responsibility they possess at their
job influences their job satisfaction and 48.9% strongly agree. The total cumulative
frequency of those who are in agreement that the amount of responsibility they have at
their job influences their job satisfaction is 85.9%.
Table 4.17: Responsibility Employee Possesses
Frequency Percent
Valid DISAGREE 2 2.2
NEITHER AGREE NOR
DISAGREE
18 20.0
AGREE 26 28.9
STRONGLY AGREE 44 48.9
Total 90 100.0
Missing System 2
Total 92
49
4.4.6 Amount of Participation the Employee can have in their Work
The purpose of this question was to find out whether the amount of participation possible
for an employee to make at their job influences their job satisfaction.
The findings show that 31.1% agree that the amount of participation they can make at
their work influences their job satisfaction and 40% strongly agree. The total cumulative
percentage of respondents in agreement with the statement is 71.1
Table 4.18: Participation of Employee
Frequency Percent
Valid DISAGREE 2 2.2
NEITHER AGREE NOR
DISAGREE
24 26.7
AGREE 28 31.1
STRONGLY AGREE 36 40.0
Total 90 100.0
Missing System 2
Total 92
4.4.7 Extent to which the Employee Perceives their Job as having Substantial
Contribution to the Company’s overall Mission and Vision
The question sought to find out whether the extent to which the employee perceives their
job as having a substantial contribution to the company‟s mission and vision influences
their job satisfaction.
The findings show that 32.2% of the respondents agree that the extent at which they
perceive their job as having a substantial contribution to the company‟s mission and
vision influences their job satisfaction and 53.3% strongly agree. The total cumulative
percentage of all those in agreement with this statement is 85.5%.
50
Table 4.19: Contribution to Mission and Vision
Frequency Percent
Valid NEITHER AGREE NOR
DISAGREE
13 14.4
AGREE 29 32.2
STRONGLY AGREE 48 53.3
Total 90 100.0
Missing System 2
Total 92
4.4.8 Employee Attaining Constant Feedback on their Performance
This purpose of this question was to find out whether an employee attaining constant
feedback in relation to their performance has an influence on their job satisfaction.
The findings presented show that 32.2% agree that attaining constant feedback on their
performance influences their level of job satisfaction while 30% strongly agree. The total
cumulative percentage of respondents in agreement with this statement is 62.2.
Table 4.20: Employee Feedback
Frequency Percent
Valid STRONGLY DISAGREE 1 1.1
DISAGREE 10 11.1
NEITHER AGREE NOR
DISAGREE
23 25.6
AGREE 29 32.2
STRONGLY AGREE 27 30.0
Total 90 100.0
Missing System 2
Total 92
51
4.4.9 Extent to which the Employee is Involved in the Organization’s Decision
Making Process
This question sought to find out whether an employee being involved in the
organization‟s decision making process influences their level of job satisfaction.
The results show that 6.7% agree that being involved in the decision making process of
the organization influences their job satisfaction while 76.7% strongly agree with the
same. The total cumulative percentage of all those in agreement is 83.4%.
Table 4.21: Involvement in the Decision Making
Frequency Percent
Valid DISAGREE 1 1.1
NEITHER AGREE NOR
DISAGREE
14 15.6
AGREE 6 6.7
STRONGLY AGREE 69 76.7
Total 90 100.0
Missing System 2
Total 92
52
Table 4.22Summary Statistics of all the Individual Intrinsic Factors that Influence
Employee Job Satisfaction
EM
PL
OY
EE
AU
TO
NO
MY
RE
CO
GN
ITIO
N
JOB
ME
AN
ING
FU
LN
ES
S
TR
AIN
ING
AN
D
DE
VE
LO
PM
EN
T
RE
SP
ON
SIB
ILIT
Y
PA
RT
ICIP
AT
ION
CO
NT
RIB
UT
ION
TO
MIS
SI
FE
ED
BA
CK
DE
CIS
ION
MA
KIN
G
N Valid 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
Missing 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mean 3.71 4.19 4.20 3.77 4.24 4.09 4.39 3.7
9
4.59
Std. Error of Mean .117 .093 .091 .100 .090 .092 .077 .10
9
.083
Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 4.0
0
5.00
Mode 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 4 5
Std. Deviation 1.114 .886 .864 .949 .852 .870 .730 1.0
33
.792
Variance 1.241 .784 .746 .900 .726 .756 .532 1.0
67
.627
Skewness -.399 -
.880
-
.723
.003 -.719 -
.385
-
.757
-
.43
8
-
1.619
Std. Error of Skewness .254 .254 .254 .254 .254 .254 .254 .25
4
.254
Range 4 3 4 3 3 3 2 4 3
Minimum 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 2
Maximum 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 5
Percentiles 25 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.0
0
5.00
50 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 4.0
0
5.00
75 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.0
0
5.00
53
Table 4.23: Summary of the Descriptive Statistics Consisting a Combination of all
the Intrinsic Factors
The results show that the average response of respondents on all the extrinsic factors is
4.11 (Agree). This therefore shows that most of the respondents agreed that extrinsic
factors had an influence on their level of job satisfaction. The mode or most frequent
score of the respondents in relation to extrinsic factors was 4. The range or difference
between the highest and lowest score was 2. The average deviation of the sample means
from the population mean was 0.031 (standard error of the mean). The measure of the
average deviation of each score from the mean was 0.296 (standard deviation). The
measure of asymmetry in the distribution of scores was -0.606 (skewness)
N Valid 90
Missing 2
Mean 4.11
Std. Error of Mean .031
Median 4.11
Mode 4
Std. Deviation .296
Variance .088
Skewness -.606
Std. Error of Skewness .254
Range 2
Minimum 3
Maximum 5
Percentiles 25 3.97
50 4.11
75 4.33
54
Table 4.24: Combination of all the Intrinsic Factors
The results show the total cumulative percentage responses of all the intrinsic factors. The
cumulative percentage of respondents who agree that intrinsic factors influence their
employee job satisfaction is 87.8% and 7.7% strongly agree. The total cumulative
percentage of all respondents in agreement that intrinsic factors influence their level of
job satisfaction was 92.1%.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 3 2 2.2 2.2 2.2
3 1 1.1 1.1 3.3
3 1 1.1 1.1 4.4
4 3 3.3 3.3 7.8
4 7 7.6 7.8 15.6
4 8 8.7 8.9 24.4
4 12 13.0 13.3 37.8
4 18 19.6 20.0 57.8
4 12 13.0 13.3 71.1
4 14 15.2 15.6 86.7
4 5 5.4 5.6 92.2
5 4 4.3 4.4 96.7
5 2 2.2 2.2 98.9
5 1 1.1 1.1 100.0
Total 90 97.8 100.0
Missing System 2 2.2
Total 92 100.0
4.3.10 Influence of Intrinsic Factors on Employee Job Satisfaction
The study sought to find out if intrinsic factors influence employee job satisfaction. The
findings of this question are presented as below. The hypothesis is stated as follows.
H0Intrinsic factors do not influence employee job satisfaction
H1 Intrinsic factors influence employee job satisfaction
55
The results show that the significance level of all the intrinsic factors is 0.000 (P<0.05)
which is within the acceptable level. This means that intrinsic factors influence employee
job satisfaction. We therefore accept the alternative hypothesis and reject the null
hypothesis.
Table 4.25 Intrinsic Factors Influencing Employee Job Satisfaction (T-test)
One-Sample Test Test Value = 0
T df Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
DEGREE TO WHICH EMPLOYEE
AUTONOMY EXISTS IN THE
ORGANIZATION
31.598 89 .000 3.711 3.48 3.94
EXTENT TO WHICH EMPLOYEE
FEELS RECOGNIZED
44.877 89 .000 4.189 4.00 4.37
DEGREE TO WHICH EMPLOYEE
FEELS THAT THEIR JOB IS
MEANINGFUL
46.130 89 .000 4.200 4.02 4.38
DEGREE TO WHICH EMPLOYEE
FEELS THAT THEY ARE BEING
TRAINED AND DEVELOPED
37.667 89 .000 3.767 3.57 3.97
AMOUNT OF RESPONSIBILITY
THAT EMPLOYEE POSSESSES IN
THE JOB
47.255 89 .000 4.244 4.07 4.42
AMOUNT OF PARTICIPATION THAT
EMPLOYEE CAN IN THEIR
CURRENT AREA OF EMPLOYMENT
44.612 89 .000 4.089 3.91 4.27
EXTENT TO WHICH EMPLOYEE
PERCEIVES THEIR JOB AS HAVING
SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO
THE OVERALL VISION AND
MISSION OF THE ORGANIZATION
57.060 89 .000 4.389 4.24 4.54
ATTAINING CONSTANT JOB
FEEDBACK ON EMPLOYEE LEVEL
OF PERFORMANCE
34.793 89 .000 3.789 3.57 4.01
EXTENT TO WHICH EMPLOYEE IS
INVOLVED IN THE DECISION
MAKING PROCESS OF THE
ORGANIZATION
54.986 89 .000 4.589 4.42 4.75
56
4.5.0 The Impact of Employee Job Satisfaction on Performance
4.5.1 Impact of Job Satisfaction on Employee Absenteeism
The question sought to find out whether job satisfaction level of an employee has an
impact on their absenteeism level.
The findings show that 28.9% agree that their level of job satisfaction has an influence on
their absenteeism level and 15.6% strongly agree. The total cumulative percentage of all
those in agreement is 44.5%.
Table 4.26: Employee Absenteeism Levels
Frequency Percent
Valid STRONGLY DISAGREE 7 7.8
DISAGREE 20 22.2
NEITHER AGREE NOR
DISAGREE
23 25.6
AGREE 26 28.9
STRONGLY AGREE 14 15.6
Total 90 100.0
Missing System 2
Total 92
4.5.2 Impact of Job Satisfaction on Quality of Work
The question sought to find out whether the level of job satisfaction of an employee has
an impact on the quality of work they produce.
The findings show that 27.8% of respondents agree that their degree of job satisfaction
impacts on their quality of work while 58.9% strongly agree. The total cumulative
percentage of all in agreement that job satisfaction impacts on their quality of work
produced is 86.7.
57
Table 4.27: Quality of Work
Frequency Percent
Valid DISAGREE 2 2.2
NEITHER AGREE NOR
DISAGREE
10 11.1
AGREE 25 27.8
STRONGLY AGREE 53 58.9
Total 90 100.0
Missing System 2
Total 92
4.5.3 Impact of Job Satisfaction on Quantity of Work
The purpose of this question was to determine whether the level of an employee‟s job
satisfaction has an impact on the quantity of work they produce.
The results show that 42.2% of employees agree that their level of job satisfaction has an
impact on the quantity of work they produce and 48.9% strongly agree. The total
cumulative percentage of all those in agreement is 91.1%.
Table 4.28: Quantity of Work
Frequency Percent
Valid DISAGREE 2 2.2
NEITHER AGREE NOR
DISAGREE
6 6.7
AGREE 38 42.2
STRONGLY AGREE 44 48.9
Total 90 100.0
Missing System 2
Total 92
58
4.5.4 Impact of Job Satisfaction on Safety Practices
This question sought to find out whether the job satisfaction level of an employee has an
impact on his or her safety practices at the workplace.
The results show that 26.7% of the employees agree that their level of job satisfaction
impacts on their safety practices at the workplace and 13.3% strongly agree. The total
cumulative percentage of all those in agreement with the statement is 40%.
Table 4.29: Safety Practices
Frequency Percent
Valid STRONGLY DISAGREE 1 1.1
DISAGREE 16 17.8
NEITHER AGREE NOR
DISAGREE
37 41.1
AGREE 24 26.7
STRONGLY AGREE 12 13.3
Total 90 100.0
Missing System 2
Total 92
4.5.5 Impact of Job Satisfaction on Timeliness
The purpose of this question was to find out whether an employee‟s level of job
satisfaction has an impact on the time taken for them to complete assigned tasks.
According to the presented findings, 34.4% of respondents agree that their job satisfaction
has an impact on the time taken by them to complete tasks and 36.7% strongly agree. The
total cumulative percentage of all those in agreement is 71.1%.
59
Table 4.30: Impact on Timeliness
Frequency Percent
Valid DISAGREE 8 8.9
NEITHER AGREE NOR
DISAGREE
18 20.0
AGREE 31 34.4
STRONGLY AGREE 33 36.7
Total 90 100.0
Missing System 2
Total 92
4.5.6 Impact of Job Satisfaction on Employee Creativity
This question sought to find out whether the level of job satisfaction of an employee has
an impact on his or her level of creativity.
The findings show that 23.3% of the respondents agree that their level of creativity is
impacted by their level of job satisfaction and 57.8% strongly agree. The total cumulative
percentage of all those respondents in agreement is 81.1%.
Table 4.31: Impact on Employee Creativity
Frequency Percent
Valid DISAGREE 2 2.2
NEITHER AGREE NOR
DISAGREE
15 16.7
AGREE 21 23.3
STRONGLY AGREE 52 57.8
Total 90 100.0
Missing System 2
Total 92
60
4.5.7 Impact of Sob Satisfaction on Employee Cost Effectiveness
This question sought to find out whether the level of an employee‟s job satisfaction has
an impact on how cost effective they are at the workplace.
The findings show that 28.9% of the respondents agree that their level of job satisfaction
has an influence on their cost effectiveness at work and 23.3% strongly agree. The total
cumulative percentage of all those respondents in agreement is 52.2%.
Table 4.32: Impact on Cost Effectiveness
Frequency Percent
Valid STRONGLY DISAGREE 3 3.3
DISAGREE 11 12.2
NEITHER AGREE NOR
DISAGREE
29 32.2
AGREE 26 28.9
STRONGLY AGREE 21 23.3
Total 90 100.0
Missing System 2
Total 92
4.5.8Impact of Job Satisfaction on Employee Adherence to Company Policy
The purpose of this this question was to find out whether the level of job satisfaction of
an employee has an impact on the degree to which they adhere to company policy.
61
The findings show that 28.9% of the respondents agree that their level of job satisfaction
has an impact on their adherence to company policy and 41.1% strongly agree. The total
cumulative percentage of all the respondents in agreement is 70%.
Table 4.33: Impact on Policy Adherence
Frequency Percent
Valid STRONGLY DISAGREE 1 1.1
DISAGREE 10 11.1
NEITHER AGREE NOR
DISAGREE
16 17.8
AGREE 26 28.9
STRONGLY AGREE 37 41.1
Total 90 100.0
Missing System 2
Total 92
62
4.5.9 Impact of Job Satisfaction on Employee Attainment of Company Set
Objectives
This question sought to find out whether the level of an employee‟s job satisfaction has
an impact on their attainment of the company‟s set objectives.
The findings show that 13.3% of the respondents agree that their job satisfaction level has
an impact on their ability to attain the company‟s set objectives while 78.9% strongly
agree. The total cumulative percentage of all the respondents who were in agreement that
their job satisfaction has an impact on their attainment of the companies set objectives is
92.2%.
Table 4.34: Attainment of the Company's Set Objectives
Frequency Percent
Valid DISAGREE 1 1.1
NEITHER AGREE NOR
DISAGREE
6 6.7
AGREE 12 13.3
STRONGLY AGREE 71 78.9
Total 90 100.0
Missing System 2
Total 92
63
Table 4.35: Summary Statistics of all the Individual Intrinsic Factors that Influence
Employee Job Satisfaction
AB
SE
NT
EE
ISM
LE
VE
LS
QU
AL
ITY
OF
WO
RK
PE
RF
OR
ME
D
QU
AN
TIT
Y O
F W
OR
K
PR
OD
UC
ED
SA
FE
TY
PR
AC
TIC
ES
TIM
EL
EN
ES
S
EM
PL
OY
EE
CR
EA
TIV
ITY
EM
PL
OY
EE
CO
ST
EF
FE
CT
IVE
NE
SS
AT
WO
RK
EM
PL
OY
EE
AD
HE
RE
NC
E T
O
CO
MP
AN
Y P
OL
ICY
AT
TA
INM
EN
T O
F T
HE
CO
MP
AN
Y'S
SE
T O
BJE
CT
IVE
S
N Valid 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
Missi
ng
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mean 3.22 4.43 4.38 3.33 3.9
9
4.37 3.57 3.98 4.70
Std. Error of Mean .125 .082 .075 .101 .10
2
.089 .114 .113 .068
Median 3.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 4.0
0
5.00 4.00 4.00 5.00
Mode 4 5 5 3 5 5 3 5 5
Std. Deviation 1.188 .780 .712 .960 .96
6
.841 1.082 1.070 .644
Variance 1.411 .608 .507 .921 .93
2
.707 1.170 1.146 .415
Skewness -.156 -1.228 -1.082 .139 -
.59
0
-1.018 -.312 -.742 -2.211
Std. Error of
Skewness
.254 .254 .254 .254 .25
4
.254 .254 .254 .254
Range 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3
Minimum 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2
Maximum 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Percentile
s
25 2.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.0
0
4.00 3.00 3.00 5.00
50 3.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 4.0
0
5.00 4.00 4.00 5.00
75 4.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 5.0
0
5.00 4.00 5.00 5.00
64
Table 4.36:Combination of All the Impacts of Job Satisfaction on Performance
The results show that the average response of respondents on all the impacts of job
satisfaction on employee performance was 4 (Agree). This therefore shows that most of
the respondents agreed that job satisfaction has an impact on their performance. The
mode or most frequent score of the respondents in relation to impact of job satisfaction on
performance 4. The range or difference between the highest and lowest score was 2. The
average deviation of the sample means from the population mean was 0.035 (standard
error of the mean). The measure of the average deviation of each score from the mean
was 0.335 (standard deviation). The measure of asymmetry in the distribution of scores
was -0.622 (skewness)
N Valid 90
Missing 2
Mean 4.00
Std. Error of Mean .035
Median 4.00
Mode 4
Std. Deviation .335
Variance .112
Skewness -.622
Std. Error of Skewness .254
Range 2
Minimum 3
Maximum 5
Percentiles 25 3.78
50 4.00
75 4.22
65
Table 4.37: Combination of all the Factors in which Job Satisfaction Impacts
Employee Job Performance
The results show the total cumulative percentage responses on job satisfaction and its
impacts on employee performance. The cumulative percentage of respondents who agree
that employee job satisfaction has an impact on employee performance is 86.6% and
4.4% strongly agree. The total cumulative percentage of all respondents in agreement
employee job satisfaction has an impact on their performance is 91%.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 3 1 1.1 1.1 1.1
3 2 2.2 2.2 3.3
3 2 2.2 2.2 5.6
3 3 3.3 3.3 8.9
4 1 1.1 1.1 10.0
4 8 8.7 8.9 18.9
4 8 8.7 8.9 27.8
4 12 13.0 13.3 41.1
4 11 12.0 12.2 53.3
4 12 13.0 13.3 66.7
4 13 14.1 14.4 81.1
4 7 7.6 7.8 88.9
4 6 6.5 6.7 95.6
5 3 3.3 3.3 98.9
5 1 1.1 1.1 100.0
Total 90 97.8 100.0
Missing System 2 2.2
Total 92 100.0
4.4.10 Impact of job satisfaction on employee performance
The study sought to find out if intrinsic factors influence employee job satisfaction. The
findings of this question are presented as below. The hypothesis is stated as follows.
H0Intrinsic factors do not influence employee job satisfaction
H1 Intrinsic factors influence employee job satisfaction
66
The results show that the significance level of all the impacts of job satisfaction on
performance is 0.000 (P<0.05) which is within the acceptable level. This means that
employee job satisfaction has an impact on performance. We therefore accept the
alternative hypothesis and reject the null hypothesis.
Table 4.38 Impacts of job satisfaction on employee performance (T-test)
One-Sample Test Test Value = 0
t Df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
IMPACT OF JOB SATISIFACTION
ON EMPLOYEE ABSENTEEISM
LEVELS
25.737 89 .000 3.222 2.97 3.47
IMPACT OF JOB SATISFACTION
ON QUALITY OF WORK
PERFORMED BY EMPLOYEE
53.945 89 .000 4.433 4.27 4.60
IMPACT OF JOB SATISFACTION
ON QUANTITY OF WORK
PRODUCED BY EMPLOYEE
58.306 89 .000 4.378 4.23 4.53
IMPACT OF JOB SATISIFACTION
ON SAFETY PRACTICES
32.945 89 .000 3.333 3.13 3.53
IMPACT OF JOB SATISIFACTION
ON THE AMOUNT OF TIME TAKEN
BY EMPLOYEE TO COMPLETE
ASSIGNED TASKS
39.188 89 .000 3.989 3.79 4.19
IMPACT OF JOB SATISFACTION
ON LEVEL OF EMPLOYEE
CREATIVITY
49.277 89 .000 4.367 4.19 4.54
IMPACT OF JOB SATISIFACTION
ON EMPLOYEE COST
EFFECTIVENESS AT WORK
31.286 89 .000 3.567 3.34 3.79
IMPACT OF JOB SATISFACTION
ON EMPLOYEE ADHERENCE TO
COMPANY POLICY
35.257 89 .000 3.978 3.75 4.20
IMPACT OF JOB SATISFACTION
ON EMPLOYEE ATTAINMENT OF
THE COMPANY'S SET
OBJECTIVES
69.247 89 .000 4.700 4.57 4.83
67
4.6 Chapter Summary
This chapter has presented the results and findings of this study. It has focussed on the
following: General information (Age group, Years of service in the organization, and
Level of education), the extrinsic factors that influence employee job satisfaction
(working environment, remuneration structure, team cooperation, leadership style, nature
of the job, Co-workers, Job security, promotion opportunities), Intrinsic factors that
influence employee job satisfaction (employee autonomy, Recognition, work
meaningfulness, training and development, responsibility, participation level of
employee, employee attainment of performance feedback ), and the impact of job
satisfaction on employee performance (Absenteeism, Quality of work, quantity of work,
safety practices, timeliness, employee creativity, cost-effectiveness, adherence to
company and employee meeting of company set objectives).
68
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
The chapter provides a discussion based on the results and findings of chapter four based
on the research questions and the literature review presented in chapter two, the summary
of the study and the recommendations for further research.
5.2 Summary
The purpose of the study was to determine the factors that influence employee job
satisfaction in Kenyan Organizations. The following research questions guided this study:
What are the extrinsic factors that influence the level of employee job satisfaction in
Unilever Kenya? What are the intrinsic factors that influence the level of job satisfaction
in an organization? What impact does job satisfaction have on the level of employee
performance?
A descriptive research design was adopted, with Unilever Kenya being the focus
organization. The population of interest was the employees of Unilever Kenya across
various functions and divisions since this was the company under study. The study
population comprised a total of 796 employees from all the various organizational
functions or divisions. Stratified random sampling technique was used to draw a sample
size of 92 respondents. The data collection instrument was a tailor-made structured
questionnaire developed by the researcher, specifically for this study.
Data was analyzed using statistical methods that is, descriptive statistics; measures of
central tendency such as mean, median, and mode, and measures of dispersion such as
range, standard deviation, variance, percentiles, and quartiles, and inferential statistics (T-
test was used to determine the factors that influence job satisfaction and its impact on
employee performance. Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) version 21 was
69
used to facilitate the data analysis. The results were presented in tables and charts such as
pie charts, and bar graphs.
The findings show thatextrinsic factors have a strong influence on employee job
satisfaction. There was a 92.1% total cumulative agreement from respondents that their
job satisfaction is influenced by extrinsic factors. The level of agreement in relation to the
individual extrinsic factors was as follows (working environment 55.5%, remuneration
structure75%, team cooperation 50.5%, leadership style 85.8%, nature of the job 78.9%,
Co-workers 56.7%, Job security 76.6%, promotion opportunities 78.5%).
The findings show that intrinsic factors also have a strong impact on employee job
satisfaction. There was a 92.1% total cumulative agreement from respondents thatintrinsic
factors influence their job satisfaction.The level of agreement for the individual intrinsic
factors was as follows (employee autonomy 57.1%, Recognition 80%, work
meaningfulness 80%, training and development 54.5%, responsibility 85.9%,
participation level of employee 71.1%, contribution to vision and mission 85.5%
employee attainment of performance feedback 62.2%).
Findings on the impact of job satisfaction on employee performance show that job
satisfaction has strong impact on employee performance. There was a 91% total
cumulative agreement from respondents that their performance is impacted by their job
satisfaction. The results in relation to the individual impacts of job satisfaction on
performance are as follows (Absenteeism 44.5%, Quality of work 86.7%, quantity of
work 91.1%, safety practices 40%, timeliness 71.1%, employee creativity 81.1%, cost-
effectiveness 52.2%, adherence to company 70% and employee meeting of company set
objectives 92.2%).
5.3 Discussions
5.3.1 Extrinsic Factors and their Influence on Employee Job Satisfaction
The findings indicate that 55.5% of the respondents are in agreement that the working
environment influences their job satisfaction. This is in agreement with Kawada &
70
Otsuku (2011) who argued that the working environment of an employee is one of the
important indexes of measuring their comfort and their job satisfaction.
The findings show that 75% of the respondents are in total agreement that the monetary
pay and remuneration structure of the organization has an impact on their degree of job
satisfaction. This is in agreement with yaseen‟s (2013) argument that people always
expect that if they work well at their workplace then their pay will automatically increase
and this will also cause an increase in their job satisfaction level.
The findings show that 50.5% of the respondents are in agreement that the degree to
which the organization embraces team cooperation has an influence on their level of job
satisfaction. This is line with Yuan &Xiaoxia (2013) argument that teamwork is one of
the most important factors that isnecessary to guarantee a harmonious working
atmosphere and it is also an important factor that influences employee satisfaction.
The findings show that 85.6% of the respondents are in agreement that the leadership
style of the organization has an influence on their job satisfaction. This backs up Iqba
(2010) argument that committed leadership which is willing to model desired changes and
drives fear out of the organization, is very critical for business success and encourages
employee job satisfaction.
The findings show that 78.9% of respondents are in total agreement that the nature of the
job in itself influences their job satisfaction. These finding agree with Ganzach (1998)
research that when the nature of job performed by the employee is perceived to be
important, this will increase their satisfaction level.
The findings show that 56.7% of the respondents agree that their level of job satisfaction
is impacted by their co-workers. This is in line with Labedo, Awontunde & Abdulsalam
(2008) findings which indicate that harmonious relationships between an employee and
their co-worker have a positive influence on their level of job satisfaction.
The findings show that 76.6% of the respondents are in agreement that their degree of
satisfaction with their job is influenced by job security. This backs up Chan (2011)
argument that there is a positive relationship between job security and employee job
71
satisfaction and that employees who perceive job insecurity are considered to be less
satisfied in their jobs.
The findings show that 78.5% of the total respondents are in agreement that the existence
of promotion opportunities in their line of employment has an impact on their job
satisfaction. These findings are consistent with Ramasodi (2010) argument that there is a
positive relationship seen between job satisfaction and promotion to develop and that
promotion is considered as one of the most important elements for employee satisfaction.
5.3.2 Intrinsic Factors and their Influence on Employee Job Satisfaction
The findings on intrinsic factors show that 57.1% of respondents are in agreement that
employee autonomy (independence/empowerment) practiced by the organization
influences their degree of job satisfaction. This is in line with Massersmith (2007)
observation that a number of studies have found a positive relationship between employee
autonomy and job satisfaction.
The findings manifest that 80% of the respondents are in agreement that their level of
satisfaction with their job is influences by the level at which they feel recognized in the
organization. This acts as proof to yaseen (2013) argument that an employee becomes
more loyal to their organization and satisfied when the organization recognizes their
work.
The findings of the research show that 80% of the respondents are in agreement that the
degree to which they feel their job is meaningful has an influence on their job satisfaction.
This is in line with Pocock (2006) argument that meaningful work is a very important
factor when it comes to intrinsic motivation. He further noted that employees want to be
engaged in qualitative work and that employees want their work to be meaningful to
them.
The findings on intrinsic factors show that 54.5% of the respondents are in agreement that
the degree to which they feel they are being trained and developed has an influence on
72
how much they feel satisfied with their job. It has been observed that this is very much in
line with Abdullah &Djebavni (2011)argument that workers who see a possibility of
training and development in their employment are more satisfied with their job as
compared to employees who have no hope of being developed.
The findings show that 85.9% of respondents are in complete agreement that the amount
of responsibility they possess within their job has an influence on their degree of job
satisfaction. This finding is very much in line with Herzberg‟s two-factor theory that
suggests that intrinsic work factors such as responsibility held by employee may increase
job satisfaction.
The findings show that 72.2% of respondents are in agreement that attaining constant
feedback on their performance influences their level of job satisfaction. This particular
finding supports Vlosky & Aguilar (2009) argument that providing feedback to
employees fulfills a need for information on the extent to which personal goals are met, as
well as being a social comparison about an individual‟s relative performance and this
increases job satisfaction.
5.3.3 Impact of Employee Job Satisfaction on Employee Performance
The findings show that 44.5% of employees agree that their level of satisfaction has an
impact on their performance. This means that the remaining 65.5% are not in agreement.
This is in part lined with Anderson (2004) observation that even though the correlation
between job satisfaction and employee performance has been found to be rather
moderate, the underlying assumption is that absence of an employee from work is at least
in part, the result of dissatisfaction on the job. The researcher believes that the largest
number of respondents did not agree that job satisfaction influences their level of
absenteeism because Unilever has very little tolerance for absenteeism; therefore an
employee feels they must get to work no matter their level of satisfaction with their job.
The findings show that 86.7% of the respondents are in agreement that their level of job
satisfaction has an impact on the quality of work they produce. These findings are in line
with those of Westover (2010) who stated that the quality of work that has been
73
performed can be measured by a variety of means and can be impacted by the level of
satisfaction of the employee.
The findings indicate that 91.1% of the respondents are in agreement that their level of
job satisfaction has an impact on the quantity of work they produce. This backs up Van &
Adonisi (2008) argument that quantity is also an indicator of performance that can greatly
be impacted by the level of employee job satisfaction.
The findings on the impact of job satisfaction on employee performance show that 40%
of the respondents are in agreement that their job satisfaction has an impact on their
safety practices at the work place. This therefore implies that the remaining 60% of the
respondents do not agree that their job satisfaction has an impact on their safety practices.
This finding therefore does not totally agree with Wentzel & Wigfield (2009) argument
that poor safety practices are a negative consequence of low satisfaction level and that
when people are discouraged about their jobs, company, and supervisors, they are more
liable to make mistakes. The researcher believes that the findings attained in this study
differed from the literature review because they are so many other factors that contribute
to employee‟s safety practices in Unilever Kenya and job satisfaction takes a very small
portion.
The findings show that 71.1% of the respondents are in agreement that their level of job
satisfaction has an impact on the amount of time they take to complete assigned tasks.
This concurs with Wentzel & Wigfiel (2009) statement that a number of studies have
indicated that the higher the employee‟s job satisfaction, the less time it will take them to
accomplish tasks.
The findings show that 81.1% of the respondents are in complete agreement that their
level of job satisfaction has an impact on their level of creativity. This finding agrees with
those of Muhammad & Wajidi (2013) who say that employees who are satisfied with
their job tend to be more creative.
The findings show that the total cumulative percentage of respondents who are in
agreement that their level of job satisfaction impacts on their cost effectiveness at work is
52.2%. This is moderately in agreement with Eggemeier (2011) who is of a view that the
74
cost of work performed can be used as a measure of employee performance and can be
highly influenced by the employee‟s level of job satisfaction. I believe that the agreement
was only moderate in this study because a number of employees in Unilever Kenya did
not believe that they had any control over costs in the organization.
The findings show that 70% of the respondents are in agreement that their level of job
satisfaction has an impact on the degree to which they adhere to company policy. The
finding is in line with Washburn (2009) argument that adherence to company policy can
also be a performance measure that could be very much determined by the employee‟s
level of satisfaction with their job.
5.4 Conclusions
5.4.1 Extrinsic Factors and their Influence on Employee Job Satisfaction
The findings indicated that extrinsic factors had a strong impact on employee job
satisfaction. A cumulative total of 92.1% of respondents were in agreement that their job
satisfaction was influenced by extrinsic factors. These factors include; working
environment, remuneration structure, team cooperation, leadership style, nature of the
job, Co-workers, Job security, promotion opportunities. However it was analysed that
although all the factors had an influence on employee job satisfaction; leadership style,
remuneration structure, nature of the job and job security had the strongest influence.
5.4.2 Intrinsic Factors and their Influence on Employee Job Satisfaction
The findings also indicated that intrinsic factors had a strong impact on employee job
satisfaction. A cumulative total of 92.1% of the respondents agreed that their degree of
job satisfaction is influenced by intrinsic factors. The factors under study were; employee
autonomy Recognition, work meaningfulness, training and development, responsibility,
participation level of employee, contribution to vision and mission and employee
attainment of performance feedback. Among all the intrinsic factors, it was concluded
that the level of responsibility at work, Recognition, work meaningfulness and the extent
75
to which employees believe their work has a significant contribution to the organisation‟s
vision and mission had the strongest influence on job satisfaction.
5.4.3 Impact of Employee Job Satisfaction on Employee Performance
The findings concluded that employee job satisfaction has a strong impact on employee
performance. A cumulative total of 92% of the respondentswere in consensus that their
level of job satisfaction has an impact on their level of performance at work. The impacts
of job satisfaction on performance under study were; Absenteeism, Quality of work,
quantity of work, safety practices, timeliness, employee creativity, cost-effectiveness,
adherence to company policy and employee meeting of company set objectives. Among
all the impacts of job satisfaction on employee performance that were under study, the
ones which ranked highest were; impact on quantity of work, impact on quality, impact
on creativity and impact of job satisfaction on ability of employee to meet company set
objectives.
5.5 Recommendations
5.5.1 Recommendations for Improvement
5.5.1.1 Extrinsic Factors that Influence Employee Job Satisfaction
This study has shown that the employees are of the say that the extrinsic factors have a
very huge influence on their job satisfaction as confirmed by the results of the T-test.
However some extrinsic factors have ranked higher than others. It is therefore
recommended that managers prioritize and concentrate more on those factors that will
satisfy their employees highly as presented in the study. The factors where emphasis
should be based areleadership style, remuneration structure, nature of the job and job
security. It is also recommended that managers avoid putting too much emphasis and
resources towards the extrinsic factors which employees don‟t find very satisfying.
76
5.5.1.2 Intrinsic Factors that Influence Employee Job Satisfaction
The study has manifested that employees believe that intrinsic factors highly influence the
degree to which they feel satisfied with their job as confirmed by the results of the T-test.
It was also analyzed that not all intrinsic factors had the same ranking. It is therefore
recommended that managers critically address and put more resources to those intrinsic
factors which the employees believe highly influence their job satisfaction. These factors
includelevel of responsibility at work, Recognition, work meaningfulness and the extent
to which employees believe their work has a significant contribution to the organisation‟s
vision and mission. Managers are recommended not to completely ignore those that
ranked low but to put less emphasis and resources towards them.
5.5.1.3 Impact of Employee Job Satisfaction on Performance
The findings showed that employees are of the say that the degree to which they find their
job satisfying has an influence on their level of performance as confirmed by the T-test.
However it was discovered that job satisfaction affects some parameters of performance
more than it does others. The parameters of performance that respondents believed are
impacted most include;impact on quantity of work, impact on quality, impact on
creativity and impact of job satisfaction on ability of employee to meet company set
objectives. It is therefore recommended that if these are parameters that the company
values, then they should ensure that they keep their employee‟s job satisfaction high
through the various factors that influence job satisfaction as were discussed in the study.
5.5.2 Recommendations for Further Research
Job satisfaction is a very critical component of performance in all the various industries.
This study has focused on factors that influence employee job satisfaction and its impact
on performance but in the manufacturing industry (Unilever Kenya). I therefore
recommend that more research is conducted in this particular area but with emphasis on
the service industry. This is because it could be discovered that the factors that are critical
in the manufacturing industry may not be the same in the service industry.
77
REFERENCES
Abdulla, J & Djebavni, R (2011). 'Determinants of Job Satisfaction in the UAE A Case
Study of Dubai police', vol 40, no. 1, pp. 126-146.
Al Zubi, H.A. (2010). A Study of Relationship between Organizational Justice and Job
Satisfaction.International Journal of Business and Management, 5 (12): 102-109.
Arif, A & Chohan A. (2012). How job satisfaction is influencing the organizational
citizenship behaviour (OCB): A study on employees working in banking sector of
Pakistan.Interdisciplinary journal of contemporary research in business.
Babin, B.J. & Boles, J.S. (1996).The effects of perceived co-worker involvement
andsupervision support on service provider role stress performance and job satisfaction.
Journal of Retailing, 72(1):57-75.
Bargraim, J., Cunningham, P., Potgieter, T. &Viedge, C. (2007).Organisaionalbehaviour:
A contemporary South African perspective. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
Barton, G. M. (2002). Recognition at work.Scottsdale: World at Work.
Chan, S.H. &Qiu, H.H. (2011). Loneliness, job satisfaction, and organizational
commitment of migrant workers: empirical evidence from China. Theinternational
Journal of Human Resource Management,22(5):1109-1127.
Chawla, S. & Renesch, J. (2006).Learning organisations: Developing cultures for
tomorrow’s workplace. New York: Productivity Press.
Christine, P & Pearson, C. (2009).How Toxic Colleagues Corrode Performance. Harvard
Business Review, Apr 2009, Vol. 87, Issue 4.onduct this research.
Cooper, D. R. & Schindler, P. S. (2011). Business Research Methods, 11th
ed., USA:
McGraw-Hill Irwin International Edition.
78
Cooper, D. R. & Schindler, P. S. (2001). Business Research Methods.7th
ed. McGraw Hill
International Edition. USA.
Danish, Q. D., & Usman, A. (2010). Impact of reward and recognition on job satisfaction
and motivation: An empirical study from Pakistan. International Journal of Business &
Management, 5(2), 159-167.
Dessler, G (2012).Human Resource Management,Prenctice Hall, America.
Deming, W. E. (1990). Sample design in Business Research. New York: Johnwiley &
Sons.
Döckel, A., Basson, J. & Coetzee, M. (2006).The effect of retention factors on
organisational commitment: an investigation of high technology employees. SAJournal of
Human Resource Management, 4(2):20-28.
Emberland, J.S. & Rundmo, T. (2010).Implications of job insecurity perceptions and job
insecurity responses for psychological well-being, turnover intentions and reported risk
behaviour.Safety Science, 48:452-459.
Eggemeier, F.T. (2011). Effects of sensory modality and task duration on performance,
workload, and stress in sustained attention.Human Factors, 46(2), 219-233.
Farrington, S.M. (2009). Sibling partnership in South African small and medium-sized
family businesses.Unpublished doctoral thesis, Nelson Mandela MetropolitanUniversity,
Port Elizabeth.
Fincham, R. & Rhodes, P. (2005).Principles of organizational behaviour.4th
Edition.New York: Oxford University Press.
Ganzach, Y.(1998), “Intelligence and Job Satisfaction”,The Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 41, pp. 526-539
79
Gathungu, J& Wachira H. W. (2013).Job Satisfaction Factors that Influence the
Performance of Secondary School Principals in their Administrative Functions in
Mombasa District, Kenya.International Journal of Education and Research vol. 1.
Gautam, M.; Mandal, K. and Dalal, R.S. (2006).Job satisfaction of faculty members of
veterinary sciences: an analysis. Livestock Research for Rural Development 18 (7).
George, J.M., & Jones, G.R. (2002).Organisationalbehaviour. (3rd ed.). New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Govender, S. &Parumasur, S.B. (2010).The relationship between employee motivation
and job involvement.School of Management Studies, University of KwaZulu-Natal.
Golshan .N, Kaswuri. H, Agashahi B. (2011) Effects of Motivational Factors on Job
Satisfaction: An EmpiricalStudy on Malaysian Gen-Y Administrative and Diplomatic
Officer: International Conference on Advanced Management Science. IACSIT Press,
Singapore
Grant, A. M., Fried, Y., & Juillerat, T. (2010). Work matters: Job design in classic and
contemporary perspectives. Forthcoming in S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial
and organizational psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Herzberg F., Mausner B., Synderman B. (1959). The motivation to work. NY: Wiley.
Hui M.K, Kevin Au, Fock H, (2004), “Empowerment Effects across Cultures”, Journal
of International Business Studies, Vol. 35, pp. 46-60.
Hunjra, AI, Chani, MI, Aslam, S, Azam, M &Rehman, KU (2010), 'Factors effecting job
satisfaction of employees in Pakistani banking sector', African Journal of Business
Management, vol 4, no. 10, pp. 2157-2163.
Hussin A. B. (2011). The relationship between job satisfaction and job satisfaction and
job performance. Centre for graduate studies; Open University Malaysia.
80
Iqbal, A. (2010). An empirical assessment of demographic factors, organizational ranks
and organisational commitment.International Journal of Business
andManagement,5(3):16-27.
Jackson, S.L. (2011). Research methods and statistics: a critical thinking approach.
4th
Edition.Cengage Learning.
Kabir, .M. (2011), Factors affecting employee job satisfaction of pharmaceutical sector,
Australian Journal of Business and Management Reserch, Vol. 1 No. 9, pp: 113-123.
Kawada, Tomoyuki, & Otsuka, Toshiaki (2011).Relationship Between Job Stress,
Occupational Position and Job Satisfaction Using a Brief Job Stress Questionnaire.
Work, (40), 393-399.
Klandermans, B., Hesselink, J.K. & Van Vuuren, T. (2010).Employment status and job
insecurity: On the subjective appraisal of an objective status. Economic andIndustrial
Democracy, 31(4):557-577.
Koontz, H. & Weihrich, H. (2008).Essential of management: an International perspective
(7th Ed) New Delhi:Tata McGraw-Hill publishing Co.Ltd.
Koponen, A.M., Laamanen, R., Simonsen-Rehn, N., Sundrell, J., Brommels, M.
&Suominen, S. (2010). Job involvement of primary healthcare employees: Does aservice
provision model play a role?Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 38(3):266-274.
Lai, H-H (2011), 'The influence of compensation system design on employee
satisfaction', African Journal of Business Management,vol 5, no. 26, pp. 1078-10723.
.Ladebo, O.J., Awotunde, J.M. &AbdulSalaam-Saghir, P. (2008).Coworkers’
andsupervisor interactional justice: correlates of extension personnel’s jobsatisfaction,
distress, and aggressive behaviour. Institute of Behavioral &Applied Management,
9(2):206-225.
Lewis, P., Sauders, M., &Thornhill, A. (2003).Research Methods for Business students,
Third Edition. London: Prentice Hall.
81
Locke, E A (1976).The nature and causes of job satisfaction.Handbook of industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Chicago, Rand McNally.
Lunenburg, F. & Ornstein, A. (2008).Educational administration: Concepts and
practices. 5th Edition. Belmont CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Luthans, F. (1995).Organisationalbehaviour. (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill, Inc. Anderson,
A.E. (2004). What‟s absent in absence management. Employee Benefits Journal 29 (1) :
25-30.
Macey W, Schneider B (2008), Engagedin engagement: we are delighted we did it,
Industrial and Organisational Psychology, 1, 76–83.
Mathis, R.L. & Jackson, J.H. (2008).Human resource management.12th
Edition.Singerpore: Thomson Learning Academic.
Messersmith J, (2007), “Managing work-life conflict among information technology
workers”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 46, pp. 429–451.
Mehmood. N, Irum. S &Ahmed.S, (2012).A study of factors affecting job satisfaction
(Evidence from Pakistan).Interdisciplinary journal of contemporary research in
business.Vol 4, No6.
Muchinsky, P. M. (2006). Psychology applied to work. Belmont, CA: Thomson
Muhammad R. A &Wajidi. F.A (2013) Facors influencing jog satisfaction in public
health sector of Pakistan. Double Blind Peer Reviewed International Research Journal
Publisher: Global Journals Inc. (USA).
Naveed, A. Usman, A. Bushra,F.(2011). Promotion: A Predictor of Job Satisfaction A
Study of Glass Industry of Lahore (Pakistan). International Journal of Business and
Social Science, Vol. 2 No. 16.
82
NL, D. M. (2012).Human Resources Responsibility on Job Satisfaction.Journal of
Business and Management, 2278-487X Volume 2, Issue 1, PP 11-14.
Obasan. K. (2011) Impact of Job Satisfaction on Absenteeism: A Correlative
Study.European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. ISSN2220-9425 Volume 1,
No. 1
Origo, F. & Pagani, L. (2009).Flexicurity and job satisfaction in Europe: The importance
of perceived and actual job stability for well-being at work. LabourEconomics, 16:547-
555.
Orisatoki, R & Oguntibej.O. (2010).“Preferred type of work and job satisfaction”,
Journal of Research Health science, Issue10 (1), pp. 42-46.
Parvin, M. M. & Kabir, M.M (2011).Factors affecting employee job satisfaction of
pharmaceutical sector. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, Vol.1
No.9 [113-123].
Pocock, B (2006) Thelabour market ate my babies: work, children and a sustainable
future. Sydney : Federation Press.
Portoghese, I., Galletta, M., & Battistelli, A. (2011).The Effects of Work-Family Conflict
and Community Embeddedness on Employee Satisfaction: The Role of Leader Member
Exchange.International Journal of Business and Management, 6 (4):39-48. Press.
Robbins SP, Judge TA (2008). Essentials of Organizational Behavior.9th edition. Upper
Saddle River:NJ: Prentice Hall.
Robbins, S.P. (2003). Organisational Behaviour: Concepts, Controversies and
Applications. 10th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall
Sarvadi, P. (2005). The best way to reward employees.Solutions for growing Business.
83
Shahu, R., &Gole, S.V. (2008).Effects of Job Stress and Job Satisfaction on Performance:
An Empirical Study; International Journal of Management, 2 (3): 237-248.
Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Sanchez, J. I., O‟Driscoll, M., Sparks, K., Bernin, P. et al.
(2002).Locus of control and well-being at work: How generalizable are
westernfindings?Academy of Management Journal, 45, 453-466.
Society for Human Resource Management (2012).SHRM 2012-2013 Human Capital
Benchmarking Report.
Swarnalatha, C, &Sureshkrishna, G (2013).Role of employee engagement in building job
satisfaction among employees of automotive industries in India.International Journal of
Human Resource Management and Research, 3 (1).
Tietjen M. A. and Myers R. A. (1998).Motivation and job satisfaction. Management
Decision 36/4, 226-231.
Unilever Annual Report (2013). Making Sustainable living common place; Unilever
Registered office. United Kingdom.
Van Wyk, R. &Adonisi, M (2008) Therole of entrepreneurial characteristics in predicting
job satisfaction.South African Journal of Economic & ManagementSciences, 11(4):391-
405.
Vlosky, P. & Aguilar, X. (2009).A model of employee satisfaction: Gender differences in
cooperative extension.Journal of Extension, 47(2):1-15.
Wagner, J. & Hollenbeck, J. (2010).Organizational Behavior: Securing competitive
advantage. New York: Routledge.
84
Washburn N. (2009), Why Profit Shouldn’t be Your Top Goal, Harvard Business Review,
Dec 2009, Vol. 87, Issue 12.
Wentzel, K.R.: Wigfield, A. (2009) Handbook of Motivation at School. Routledge, New
York.
Westover, L.A. (2010). Enhancing long-term worker productivity and performance: The
connection of key work domains to job satisfaction and organizational
commitment.International Journal ofProductivity and Performance Management,
59(4):372-387
Yahui and Hung .L. (2010), "How intellectual capital management affects organizational
performance: with intellectual capital as the intervening variable", Taiwan:Journal of
Human Resource Management, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp.1-27.
Yaseen. A (2013) Effect of compensation factors on employee satisfaction: International
Journal of Human Resource Stusies. ISSN 2162-3058 2013, Vol. 3, No.1
85
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE Questionnaire Number………
Godfrey Ssegawa
Student ID # 636764
Chandaria School of Business
United States International University
Dear Respondent,
RE: SELF ADMINISTERED SURVEY
This structured questionnaire is for collecting data on factors that influence employee job
satisfaction in Kenyan organisations and its impact on performance (A case study of
Unilever Kenya). You are kindly requested to provide the required data in the
questionnaire. The process will take you only about 8 minutes. The information that you
provide will remain confidential and is sought exclusively for the completion of an MBA
research project.
Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this survey. Your input will go a
long way in enhancing human resource decision making and ultimately help Kenyan
organisations to not only gain competitiveness internationally but also optimize their
performance potential (growth and profitability prospects). If you would like to receive a
copy of this report, please indicate so by writing your email address on the back of the
questionnaire.
Yours Sincerely
Ssegawa Godfrey, ID # 636764
86
SECTION I: GENERAL INFORMATION
The following four questions are concerned with demographic data. Please, indicate your
selection by checking the box which describes your demographic characteristics.
1. Age group?
AGE GROUP
Below 25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 Above 65
2. Gender?
GENDER
Male Female
3. How long have you worked for this organization?
YEARS OF SERVICE
0 – 4 Years 5 – 9 Years 10-14 Years 15- 19 years Over 20 years
4. Education Background?
LEVEL OF EDUCATION
Undergraduate Graduate
(MBA degree)
Graduate
(Other degree)
Post Graduate Professional
Qualifications
87
WITH RESPECT TO SECTION II, III AND IV, PLEASE INDICATE THE LEVEL OF
AGREEMENT WITH EACH STATEMENT:
LEVELS OF AGREEMENT
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
DIAGREE NEITHER AGREE
NOR DISAGREE
AGREE STRONGLY
AGREE
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
SECTION II: EXTRINSIC FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE EMPLOYEE JOB
SATISFACTION;
Extrinsic factors that influence job satisfaction are those that are determined by the external
surroundings of the employee. The following best describe the major extrinsic factors that
influence employee job satisfaction in your organisation:
LEVELS OF AGREEMENT 1 2 3 4 5
a. The working environment in the Organisation has an influence on
my level of job satisfaction: (The working environment briefly
includes the natural environment, the working places‟ equipment‟s
environment, working hours and safety protection in the
workplace.
b. The monetary pay and remuneration structure of the organisation
has an impact on my job satisfaction level.
c. The degree to which the organization embraces team cooperation
has an influence on my job satisfaction.
d. My job satisfaction level is influenced by the leadership style in
the organisation.
e The nature of the job in itself has an influence on my degree of job
satisfaction.
f My level of job satisfaction has been impacted by my Co-workers
in the organisation.
g The extent to which Job security exists in my current job has had
an impact on my satisfaction.
h The degree to which promotion opportunities exist in my line of
employment affects my level of job satisfaction.
88
SECTION III: INTRISIC FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE EMPLOYEE JOB
SATISFACTION;
Intrinsic factors that influence job satisfaction refer to those factors arising from within the
employee. This looks at the employees‟ inner factors that make them satisfied with their job and
motivate them to perform.
The following best describe the major intrinsic factors that influence employee job satisfaction in
your organisation:
LEVELS OF AGREEMENT 1 2 3 4 5
a. The degree to which employee autonomy (independence) exists
in the organisation has had an impact on my overall satisfaction
with my employment.
b. Recognition or the level at which I feel realized, valuable and
appreciated influences my job satisfaction level.
c. How meaningful I believe my work is has influence on my job
satisfaction level.
d The extent to which I believe I am being trained and developed
by the organisation impacts my job satisfaction.
e The amount of responsibility I possess within my job has had
an impact on my overall satisfaction.
f The amount of participation I can make in my current area of
employment influences the degree to which I feel satisfied with
my job.
g The extent to which I perceive my job as having a substantial
impact on achieving the overall organisation mission and vision
influences my satisfaction.
h Attaining constant job feedback on my level of performance
influences how much I am satisfied with my job.
i Being involved in the decision making process of the company
influences my level of job satisfaction.
SECTION IV: THE IMPACT OF EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION ON EMPLOYEE
PERFORMANCE
89
1. The following best describe the impact of employee job satisfaction on performance in your
organisation
LEVELS OF AGREEMENT 1 2 3 4 5
a. My absenteeism levels change from time to time in relation to
how satisfied I feel with my work.
b. I tend to produce work of higher quality at the times when I
feel satisfied with my job.
c. My level of job satisfaction influences the quantity of work I
accomplish in a day.
d. I am usually more conscious aboutsafety practices while
performing my Job when I feel contented with my work.
f It takes me a shorter time to accomplish tasks when I feel my
Job satisfaction level is high.
g My level of creativity at work is influenced by my degree of
job satisfaction.
h I am more mindful on being cost-effective at work when I feel
satisfied with my Job.
i My adherence to Company policy is very much influenced by
my level of job satisfaction.
j It is easier for me to try and meet the company‟s objectives
when I feel satisfied with job.
What other factors besides the ones mentioned above do you believe have a significant impact on
job satisfaction in your organisation ………………………………………………………...............
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
What recommendation can you give that would go ahead to increase job satisfactionlevels inthe
Organisation ………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this survey
90
APPENDIX B: PROJECT SCHEDULE
I
Ii
Iii
Iv
V
Vi
6 12 14 16 18 19
DURATION IN WEEKS
ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION
I CLARIFYING THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Ii PROPOSING RESEARCH
Iii DESIGNING THE RESEARCH PROJECT
Iv DATA COLLECTION AND PREPARATION
V DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
Vi REPORTING THE RESULTS
91
APPENDIX C: PROJECT BUDGET
ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION COST (KES)
1 CLARIFYING THE RESEARCH QUESTION 2, 500
Discover the Management Dilemma
Define Management Question
Define Research Question(s)
Refine the Research Question(s)
2 PROPOSING RESEARCH 2,500
Resource Allocation and Budget
Valuing Research Information
Evaluation Methods
The Research Proposal
4 DESIGNING THE RESEARCH PROJECT 6,000
Research Design
Sampling Design
Instrument Development & Pilot Testing
5 DATA COLLECTION AND PREPARATION 9,000
Editing, coding and data entry
6 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 2,000
7 REPORTING THE RESULTS 4,500
CONTINGENCY 4,500
TOTAL 31000