5.HR.A Review

International Journal of Human Resource Management and Research (IJHRMR) ISSN 2249-6874 Vol. 2 Issue 4 Dec - 2012 45-58 © TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.,

A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON THE CONCEPT AND VARIABLES OF JOB SATISFACTION SHWETA LALWANI Assistant Professor, School of Management, Sir Padampat Singhania University, Udaipur (India)

ABSTRACT The Paper reviews and clusters the literature on “Job Satisfaction”. It focuses on its research studies on understanding of the concept, various factors influencing it and proposes directions for future research.

KEYWORDS: Job Satisfaction, achievement, factors to Job Satisfaction, affiliation need, rewards, autonomy, work environment, organizational commitment, attitudes, leadership style, turnover, absenteeism , tools of Measurement, Job Descriptive Index, theories of Job Satisfaction, task performance.

INTRODUCTION Job Satisfaction is determined by how well outcomes meet or exceed expectations. It represents several related attitudes and is an emotional response to a job situation. Various factors contribute to satisfaction pertaining to a job ranging from personal to work and organizational factors. Much of its nature, consequences and factors have been propagated in theories and several research studies. The paper gives a comprehensive review of studies made in the area and throws light on future areas for further research.

DEFINING JOB SATISFACTION Hoppock (1935, p. 47) defined job satisfaction as “any combination of psychological, physiological, and environmental circumstances that causes a person truthfully to say, ‘I am satisfied with my job’. Many scholars have measured the level of job satisfaction. . Locke (1969, 1976) defined job satisfaction as "a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job or job experiences". Graham (1982, p. 68) defined Job satisfaction as "the measurement of one's total feelings and attitudes towards one's job". Job satisfaction is the constellation of attitudes about job. Spector (1985) found that if the employees find their job fulfilling and rewarding, they tend to be more satisfied with their jobs. Nash (1985) has extensively reviewed the nature of job satisfaction in the industrial world and found that job satisfaction is attributed not only to one but many factors and varies in its impact on individuals satisfaction with life because work varies in importance from individual to individual. He also found that people who take their job as prime interest experience high level of job satisfaction. Their job satisfaction will be further enhanced if they are doing work that is utilizing their skills. He also found that job satisfaction is an indicator of employee’s motivation to come to work and it changes with age and employment cycle. It is the degree to which employees enjoy their jobs (McCloskey and McCain 1987). Rue and Byars (1992) refer to job satisfaction as an individual’s mental state about the job. Job satisfactions consist of overall or general job satisfaction, as well as a variety of satisfaction facets (Cranny et al., 1992; Friday &Friday, 2003).

Schermerhorn (1993) defines job satisfaction as an affective or emotional response towards various aspects of an employee’s work According to Cherrington (1994), research on job satisfaction has identified two aspects to understanding the concept of job satisfaction, namely the facet satisfaction and overall satisfaction. These two concepts are explained as follows:

Facet Satisfaction : Facet satisfaction refer to the tendency for an employee to be more or less satisfied with

various facets or aspects of the job (John, 1988) Cherrington (1994)it refers to the various aspects or facets of the job as

46

Shweta Lalwani

the individual’s attitude about their pay, the work itself- whether it is challenging, stimulating and attractive, and the 22 supervisors- weather they possess the softer managerial skills as well as being competent in their jobs. Overall Satisfaction: Overall satisfaction focuses on the general internal sate of satisfaction or dissatisfaction within the individual. Positive experiences in terms of friendly colleagues, good remuneration, compassionate supervisors and attractive jobs create a positive internal sate. Negative experiences emanating from low pay, less than stimulating jobs and criticism create a negative internal state. Therefore, the feeling of overall satisfaction or satisfaction is a holistic feeling that is dependent on the intensity and frequency of positive and negative experiences (Cherrington, 1994). Similarly, Mc Namara (n.d.) points out that job satisfaction refers to an individual’s feelings or state of mind giving heed to the nature of the individual’s work.

The author further explains that job satisfaction can be influenced by a diversity of job dimensions, inter alia, the quality of the employees relationship with their supervisor, the status of the physical environment in which the individual works, degree of fulfillment in work. In direct contrast, This definition is expanded by Greenberg and Baron (1995) who define job satisfaction as an individual’s cognitive, affective and evaluative reactions toward their jobs. Spector (1997) refers to job satisfaction in terms of how people feel about there job and different aspects of their jobs. It is an affective reaction to a job that results from the comparison of perceived outcomes with those that are desired (Kam,1998). Job satisfaction is simply defined as the affective orientation that an employee has towards his or her work (Price, 2001). Ellickson and Logsdon (2002) support this view by defining job satisfaction as the extent to which employees like their work.Schneider and Snyder (1975 cited in Sempane et al., 2002) conclude job satisfaction is an individual’s personal assessment of conditions prevalent in the job, thus evaluation occurs on the basis of factors, which they regard as important to them.

Various literature sources indicate that there is an association between job satisfaction and motivation, motivation is hard to define, but there is a positive correlation between job satisfaction, performance and motivation, whereby motivation encourages an employee, depending on their level of job satisfaction, to act in acertain manner (Hollyforde, 2002).

According to Kreitner et al (2002) job satisfaction is an affective and emotional response to various facets of one’s job.

Kreitner et al (2002) identified various factors influencing job satisfaction, such as the need for management to create an environment that encourages employee involvement and manages stress in the workplace. According to Woods et al (2004), job satisfaction can be achieved when an employee becomes one with the organization, performs to the best of their ability and shows commitment; moreover, job satisfaction and performance are positively influenced by rewards. This definition suggests that employees from their attitude towards their jobs by taking into account their feelings, belief and behaviours (Robbins, 2005; Akehurst, Comeche, & Galindo, 2009). In other words, Shortly , job satisfaction describes the feelings, attitudes or preferences of individuals regarding work (Chen, 2008). According to Galup, Klein, and Jiang (2008), successful organizations normally have satisfied employees while poor job satisfaction can cripple an organization.

Employees’ satisfaction is generally regarded as an important ingredient for organizational success.

Job satisfaction is how employees feel about different aspect of their job. Job satisfaction is a complex phenomenon that has been studied quite extensively. Job satisfaction results from the perception that one’s job fulfils or allows the fulfillment of one’s own important job values, providing that and to the degree that those values are congruent with one’s needs.

JOB SATISFACTION AS DEFINED UNDER VARIOUS THEORIES It is possible to see a number of theories developed to understand its nature in literature.

Maslow (1954) suggested that human needs form a five-level hierarchy ranging from physiological needs, safety, belongingness and love, esteem to self-actualization. Based on Maslow’s theory, job satisfaction has been approached by some researchers from the perspective of need fulfillment (Kuhlen, 1963; Worf, 1970; Conrad et al., 1985). Herzberg et al.

A Review of the Literature on the Concept and Variables of Job Satisfaction

47

(1959) formulated the two-factor theory of job satisfaction and postulated that satisfaction and dissatisfaction were two separate and sometimes even unrelated phenomena. Intrinsic factors named ‘motivators’ (that is, factors intrinsic to the nature and experience of doing work) were found to be job ‘satisfiers’ and included achievement, recognition, work itself and responsibility.

Extrinsic

factors which they

named ‘hygiene’ factors were found to be job ‘dissatisfiers’ and

included company policy, administration, supervision, salary, interpersonal relations and working conditions. Herzberg and Mausner’s Motivation-Hygiene theory has dominated the study of the nature of job satisfaction, and formed a basis for the development of job satisfaction assessment. Vroom (1964), need/value fulfilment theory, states that job satisfaction is negatively related to the discrepancy between individual needs and the extent to which the job supplies these needs. On the other hand, Porter and Lawler (1968) collect the influences on job satisfaction in two groups of internal and external satisfactory factors. According to them, internal satisfactory factors are related the work itself (such as feeling of independence, feeling of achievement, feeling of victory, self-esteem, feeling of control and other similar feeling obtained from work), whereas external satisfactory factors are not directly related to work itself (such as good relationships with colleagues, high salary, good welfare and utilities). So, the influences on job satisfaction can be also divided into workrelated and employee-related factors (Glisson and Durick, 1988)

JOB SATISFACTION VARIABLES Researchers have attempted to identify the various components of job satisfaction, measure the relative importance of each component of job satisfaction and examine what effects these components have on workers’ productivity. It can be considered as a global feeling about the job or as a related constellation of attitudes about various aspects or facets of the job.

Steven and John after collecting data through job satisfaction survey (JSS) concluded that the overall level of job satisfaction of software developers was 4.05 which can be interpreted as slightly satisfied.

Supervision, benefits,

coworkers, nature of work had a high mean value of 4.827 (SD 1.214), 4.323 (SD 1.123), 4.641 (SD 0.958), 4.769 (SD 0.993) respectively which can be interpreted that software developers were moderately satisfied with supervision, benefits, coworkers and nature of work. They were slightly agree with pay (mean=3.629, SD= 1.301), contingent rewards (mean=3.850, SD= 1.259), working condition (mean=3.718, SD= 0.978), and communication (mean=3.722, SD= 1.128) while they were slightly dissatisfied with promotion (mean=2.951, SD= 1.263). Similarly Sharaf et. al (2008) measured the level of job satisfaction among primary care physicians. They used JSS for collecting data. Overall physicians were slightly satisfied (Mean = 3.46, SD 0.67). They also found that physicians were moderately satisfied with supervision (Mean = 4.62, SD 1.20), coworkers (Mean = 4.58, SD .86) and nature of work (Mean = 4.69, SD 1.06) while slightly satisfied with communication (Mean = 3.80, SD 1.09). Physicians were slightly dissatisfied with pay (Mean = 2.76, SD 1.26), promotion (Mean = 2.56, SD 1.12), fringe benefits (Mean = 2.65, SD 1.09), contingent rewards (Mean = 2.61, SD 1.15), and operating condition (Mean = 2.85, SD .71). The author emphasizes that likely causes of job satisfaction include status, supervision, co-worker relationships, job content, remuneration and extrinsic rewards, promotion and physical conditions of the work environment, as well as organizational structure.

On the other hand, Arvey and Dewhirst (1976), took 271 scientists as a study sample, and found that the degree of job-satisfaction of the workers with high achievement motivation exceeded that of workers with low achievement motivation. Also autonomy is an important concern for employees’ job satisfaction. For example, Abdel-Halim (1983) investigated 229 supervisory and non-supervisory employees in a large retail-drug company and concluded that individuals who have high need-for-independence performed better and were more satisfied with high participation for non-repetititive tasks (Kam, 1998). Additionally, administrative styles, professional status and pay are known as important factors

48

Shweta Lalwani

influencing job satisfaction. For example, Carr and Kazanowsky (1994) successfully showed that inadequate salary was much related to employees’ dissatisfaction. And recent studies showed that a participative (democratic) management style was mostly preferred by today’s managers to increase their employees’ job satisfaction (Dogan and Ýbicioglu, 2004; Knoop, 1991).

Consequently, numerous researches have been going on job satisfaction for many years. And it is common thought that job satisfaction influences organizational behavior, namely it positively affects employee working performance and organizational commitment, and negatively influences employee turnover (Agarwal and Ferrat, 2001; Poulin, 1994; Chen, 2008). Moreover, the relationships between job satisfaction and many variables such as motivation, stress, salary, promotion, role conflict, distributive and procedural justice, role ambiguity, autonomy, workload, leadership style, educational level, emotional intelligence are still being analyzed in different fields as an attractive and important subject of management literature (Ross and Reskin, 1992; Agho et al., 1993; Stordeur et al., 2001; Chu et al., 2003; Kafetsios and Zampetakis, 2008). For example, Sengin (2003), and Hinshaw and Atwood (1984) identify variables that influence employee job satisfaction as: (1) demographic variables: education, experience, and position in the hierarchy; (2) Job characteristics: autonomy, tasks repetitiveness, and salaries;

and (3) organizational environment factors: degree of

professionalization, type of unit. And Mrayyan (2005) says that the variables of encouragement, feedback, a widening pay scale and clear job description, career development opportunity, supportive leadership style, easy communication with colleagues and social interaction positively affect job satisfaction, whereas role stress has a negative influence on it.

Similarly, the research made by Chu and his friends (2003) demonstrates that satisfaction is positively related to involvement, positive affectivity, autonomy, distributive justice, procedural justice, promotional chances, supervisor support, co-worker support, but it is negatively related to negative affectivity, role ambiguity, work-load, resource inadequacy and routinization. For example, it has a positive association with life satisfaction (Judge, Boudreau & Bretz, 19 1994 cited in Buitendach & De Witte, 2005), organisational commitment (Fletcher & Williams, 1996 cited in Buitendach & De Witte, 2005) and job performance (Babin & Boles, 1996 cited in Buitendach & De Witte, 2005). Cherrington (1994) postulates that employees experiencing high satisfaction levels contribute to organisational commitment, job involvement, improved physical and mental health, and improved quality of life both on and off the job. Job dissatisfaction on the other hand, culminates in higher absenteeism, turnover, labour problems, labour grievances, attempts to organise labour unions and a negative organisational climate. Spector’s (1997) research corroborates that of Cherrington’s (1994) in which it was found that employees who are dissatisfied with their jobs show their disapproval by constantly being late or staying absent from work.

Robbins et al. (2003) add that an individual with high job satisfaction will display a positive attitude towards their job, and the individual who is dissatisfied will have a negative attitude about the job.

STUDIES ON VARIABLES Promotion Opportunities A number of researchers are of the opinion that job satisfaction is strongly related to opportunities for promotion (Pergamit & Veum, 1999; Peterson et al., 2003; Sclafane, 1999). This view is supported in a study conducted by Ellickson and Logsdon (2002) with municipal government workers where satisfaction with promotional opportunities was found to be positively and significantly related to job satisfaction. Kreitner and Kinicki (2001) however, state that the positive relationship between promotion and job satisfaction is dependent on perceived equity by employees.

A Review of the Literature on the Concept and Variables of Job Satisfaction

49

Co-Workers A number of authors maintain that having friendly and supportive colleagues contribute to increased job satisfaction (Johns, 1996; Kreitner & Kinicki, 2001; Luthans, 1989). 49Findings of a survey conducted by Madison (2000) on more than 21000 women occupying the most demanding jobs indicated that those participants who lacked support from co-workers, were more likely to suffer from job dissatisfaction. Another survey conducted amongst 1250 Food Brand employees found that positive relationships with co-workers enhance job satisfaction (Berta, 2005). Empirical evidence indicates that relationships with colleagues have consistently yielded significant effects on job satisfaction of federal government workers in the United States (Ting, 1997). A study conducted by Viswesvaran, Deshpande and Joseph (1998) further corroborated previous findings that there is a positive correlation between job satisfaction and co-workers.

Job Status To date, a paucity of research exists indicating the relationship between job status and job satisfaction. Research conducted by Feather and Rauter (2004) which involved contract and permanent employees in the teaching environment in Australia, failed to establish a relationship between job status and job satisfaction.

Job Level Satisfaction surveys reflect that a positive relationship prevails between job level and job satisfaction (Cherrington, 1994). Higher levels of job satisfaction are usually reported by individuals occupying higher level positions in organisations as they offer better remuneration, greater variety, more challenge and better working conditions (Cherrington, 1994). Research conducted by Robie, Ryan, Schmieder, Parra and Smith (1998) corroborates the view that a positive and linear relationship exists between job satisfaction and job level. Results of their study indicate that as job level increased, so did job satisfaction. In support of the above, Allen (2003) postulates that job satisfaction is strongly linked to an employee’s position within the company. The author concludes that the higherthe ranking, the lower the satisfaction. In contrast, Mossholder,

job

Bedeian and Armenakis (1981) cited in Robie et al. (1998) report that job

satisfaction decreases with an increase in the job level. 51

JOB SATISFACTION: THE CONSEQUENCES Numerous authors have highlighted that job satisfaction impacts on employee productivity, turnover, absenteeism, physical and psychological health (Johns, 1996; Luthans, 1989; Mullins, 1996).

Productivity Research findings indicate that the relationship between satisfaction and productivity is positive, but very low and inconsistent (Johns, 1996). According to Luthans (1989), although a relationship between job satisfaction and productivity exists, the relationship between these variables is not strong. The author maintains that the most satisfied employee will not necessarily be the most productive employee. At an individual level the evidence is often inconsistent in terms of the relationship between satisfaction and productivity, but at an organisational level a strong. Relationship exists between satisfaction and productivity (Robbins et al., 2003).

Physical and Psychological Health Spector (1997) states that individuals who dislike their jobs could experience negative health effects that are either psychological or physical. On the other hand, Luthans (2002) mentions that employees with high levels of job satisfaction tend to experience better mental and physical health.

50

Shweta Lalwani

Turnover A study conducted

by Steel and Ovalle (1984) established a moderately strong relationship between job

satisfaction and turnover, indicating that less satisfied workers are more likely to quit their jobs. According to Lee and Mowday (1987) cited in Luthans (1989), a moderate relationship exists between satisfaction and turnover. The researchers posit that high job satisfaction will not necessarily contribute to a low turnover rate, but will inadvertently assist in maintaining a low turnover rate.

A number of studies strongly support the view that turnover is inversely related to job satisfaction (Griffon, Hand, Meglino & Mobley (1979) and Price (1977) cited in Robbins et al., 2003). According to French (2003), a high employee turnover rate is often prevalent in an environment where employees are highly dissatisfied. Greenberg and Baron (1995) contend that employees lacking job satisfaction often tend to withdraw from situations and environments as a means of dealing with their dissatisfaction. A major form of employee withdrawal is voluntary turnover. By not reporting for duty, or by resigning to seek new job prospects, individuals might be expressing their dissatisfaction with their jobs or attempting to escape from the unpleasant aspects they may be experiencing. Phillips, Stone and Phillips (2001) concur that employee turnover is the most critical withdrawal variable.

Absenteeism Research indicates that job satisfaction levels are related to absenteeism (Hellriegel, Slocum & Woodman, 1989).

Nel et al. (2004, p. 548) maintain that “absenteeism is regarded as withdrawal behaviour when it is used as a way to escape an undesirable working environment.” According to Luthans (1989), various studies conducted on the relationship between satisfaction and absenteeism indicates an inverse relationship between the two variables. Thus, when satisfaction is high, absenteeism tends to be low. The converse indicates that when satisfaction is low, absenteeism tends to be high. Contrary to this, the findings of a study undertaken by Johns (1996) found the association between job satisfaction and absenteeism to be moderate.

Robbins (1993) supports the view of a moderate relationship existing between satisfaction and

absenteeism. According to Robbins et al. (2003), the moderate 54 relationship between these variables could be attributed to factors such as liberal sick leave, whereby employees are encouraged to take time off. The afore-mentioned could ultimately reduce the correlation coefficient between satisfaction and absenteeism.

Research Studies on Leadership Style and Job Satisfaction Lashbrook (1997) stated that leadership style plays a vital role in influencing employees’ job satisfaction. Some researchers discovered that different leadership styles will engender different working environment and directly affect the job satisfaction of the employees (Bogler, 2001, 2002; Heller, 1993; McKee, 1991; Timothy & Ronald, 2004). Bass (1985) proposed that transformational leadership might intrinsically foster more job satisfaction, given its ability to impart a sense of mission and intellectual stimulation. Transformational leaders tend to encourage and motivate their followers to take on more responsibility and autonomy (Emery & Barker, 2007) thereby enhancing employees’ sense of accomplishment and satisfaction with their job. Transactional and transformational leadership have been widely linked to positive individual and organizational consequences (Bass, 1990). These leadership styles are found to correlate positively with employee perceptions of job, leader and organizational satisfaction (Felfe & Schyns, 2006; Bycio, Hackett & Allen, 1995; Niehoff, Enz & Grover, 1990). Castaneda and Nahavandi (1991) indicated that employees are most satisfied when they perceive their supervisors as exhibiting both relational and task oriented behaviours.

A Review of the Literature on the Concept and Variables of Job Satisfaction

51

Personality, Health, Work Environment, and Performance According to Schneider (1987), "the people make the place," and people are differentially attracted to, differentially selected, and differentially leave organizations. Costa, McCrae, and Holland (1984) assert that people begin this process by selecting into vocations that match their personalities. Similarity between a job applicant's values and the values of recruiters and employees within organizations has been shown to result in improved work attitudes and increased performance after organizational entry (Judge and Cable, 1997; Chatman, 1991). Research by Cable and Judge (1994) and Judge and Cable (1997) provides evidence that applicants pro-actively choose such organizational environments based on individual preferences, as they found that job candidates seek organizations with reward systems and cultures that fit their personalities. Of even greater significance is the possibility that the relationship between personality characteristics and specific work environments may influence performance (Hurtz and Donovan, 2000). The general trend in the research has been towards increased optimism regarding the utility of personality tests in personnel selection with the goal of ultimately enhancing job performance (Behling, 1998; Hogan et al, 1996; Hum and Donovan, 2000; Mount and Barrick, 1995).

Personality Traits as Sources of Stress: 31Past studies have indicated the potential impact of personality traits on job stress (Goldberg, 1993; Deary and Blenkin, 1996; Snyder and Ickes, 1985). Five personality dimensions that have been identified are neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Costa and McCrae, 1985; McCrae and Costa, 1991; Costa and McCrae, 1992; McCrae, 1992). The neuroticism domain reflects one's degree of emotional stability and adjustment. Extraversion assesses the extent to which individuals are assertive, active, and talkative. Openness measures the extent to which persons are open to new experiences, are creative and imaginative, and prefer variety.

Agreeableness reflects the extent to which one isaltruistic and cooperative. Conscientiousness measures one's self-control and purposefulness and is associated with academic and occupational achievement. Of these five personality dimensions, neuroticism has been found to have a positive relationship with job stress (Deary and Blenkin, 1996; Tellegen, 1985; Birch and Kamali, 2001). The general consensus has been that personality holds utility as a predictor of job performance, specifically the conscientiousness dimension (Behling, 1998). Research has also provided evidence of linkages between personality dimensions with narrower facets of performance. Research by Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994; Van Scotter and Motowidlo, 1996) suggests that personality has a larger impact on contextual (as opposed to task oriented) dimensions of performance; specifically, extraversion and agreeableness were more strongly related to interpersonal facilitation. Hurtz and Donovan (2000) found that emotional stability and agreeableness were also significant predictors of interpersonal facilitation, and emotional stability was a predictor of task performance. However, a number of different studies have begun to illustrate that the effects of personality on performance may be more indirect. Recent research indicates the intervening effects of performance expectancies, self-efficacy, and goal setting on the relationship between conscientiousness and performance (Barrick et al, 1993; Gellatly, 1996; Martocchio and Judge, 1997). These studies illuminate a significant gap in the literature-that Age research to date has disproportionately focused on the direct linkage between personality and performance, and ". . . if we are to truly understand the relationship between personality and job performance, we must move beyond this divaricated relationship and toward specifying the intervening variables that link these domains" (Hurtz and Donovan, 2000: 32877). A widely accepted assumption is that better workplace environment produces better results. Mostly the office is designed with due importance to the nature of job and the individuals that are going to work in that office. The performance of an employee is measured actually by the output that the individual produces and it is related to productivity. At corporate level, productivity is affected by many factors such as employees, technology and objectives of the organization. It is also dependent on the physical environment and its affect on health and employees’ performance.

52

Shweta Lalwani

The most important of workplace environment factors that either lead to engagement or disengagement are shown in the following diagram. A close consideration of each of these factors is also very useful in ensuring that employees apply the skills they learn during training programs once they return to their workplace. Tending to the structural and interpersonal aspects of each of these factors enables employees to apply the required skills in a consistent and habitual way. According to Moos (1981), work environment preferences can be measured using three dimensions of work environment settings: system maintenance, goal orientation, and relationship dimensions. System maintenance refers to how orderly and organized the work setting is, how clear it is in its expectations, and how much control it maintains. Goal orientation assesses the degree to which an environment encourages or stifles growth through providing for participation in decision making and autonomy, maintaining a task orientation, and providing job challenge and expectations for success and accomplishment. The relationship dimension measures the degree of interpersonal interaction in a work environment, such as the social communication exchanges and cohesion among workers, and the friendship and support provided by coworkers and management. These work environment preferences have been shown to

affect individuals' personal

functioning at work (Billings and Moos, 1982). Examination of work environment preferences can help identify organizational factors that may be problematic, and can guide interventions aimed at reducing employee stress in a variety of work settings.

Billingsley and Cross (1992) studied 956 general and special educators in Virginia investigated commitment to teaching, intent to stay in teaching, and job satisfaction. Findings of this study revealed greater leadership support, work involvement, and lower levels of role conflict and stress-influenced job satisfaction for both groups studied. Moody (1996) reported a relationship between number of years teaching in the institution and satisfaction with the job, salary and coworkers. Spector ( 1997) has reviewed the most popular job satisfaction instruments and summarized the following facets of job satisfaction: appreciation, communication, co-workers, fringe benefits, job conditions, nature of the work itself, the nature of the organization itself, an organization’s policies and procedures, pay, personal growth, promo promotion opportunities, recognition, security and supervision, Job satisfaction and its relating factors. He also felt that, the above approach has become less popular with increasing emphasis on cognitive processes rather than on underlying needs so that the attitudinal perspective has become predominant in the study of job satisfaction Ambrose et al. (2005) conducted a qualitative study to investigate faculty satisfaction and retention. The study focused on the faculty of a private university over a period of 2 years. Findings suggested sources of satisfaction or dissatisfaction clustered into areas such as salaries, collegiality, mentoring, and the reappointment, promotion, and tenure process of departmental heads Job satisfaction involves several different spheres such as satisfaction with pay, promotion opportunities, fringe benefits, job security and the importance/challenge of the job. (Nguyen, Taylor, & Bradley, 2003). Job satisfaction can lead to cost reduction by reducing absences, task errors, and turnover. Since work is an important aspect of people’s lives and most people spend a large part of their working lives at work, understanding the factors involved in job satisfaction is crucial to improving employees’ performance and productivity. Job satisfaction has often been linked to organizational commitment, turnover intentions, and absenteeism. These variables are costly to an organization, as they could lead to low morale, poor performance, lower productivity, and higher costs of hiring, retention, and training.

(Opkara, 2002). The private banks specifically created a cut throat competition by launching new and new products and services regularly to gain more market share. The employment patterns in the banking sector changed abruptly and it became a high volatile market. The salary bands and compensation and rewards patterns changed and focus became on performance and targets rather than experience and loyalty. Hence, pay and job satisfaction became a key factor for the banking professionals which needed attention so as to achieve the long term goals of the bank (Islam & Saha). Studies have

A Review of the Literature on the Concept and Variables of Job Satisfaction

53

tested the hypothesis that income is an important determinant of job satisfaction. (Nguyen, Taylor, & Bradley, 2003).

Factors such as pay, the work itself, supervision, relationships with co-workers and opportunities for promotions have been found to contribute to job satisfaction. (Opkara, 2002). There is a significant difference in the job satisfaction levels of employees based on their income. Employees earning the lowest income report significantly lower levels of job satisfaction relative to the other income groups. Highly paid employees may still be dissatisfied if they do not like the nature of their job and feel they cannot enter a more satisfying job. (LUDDY, JOB SATISFACTION AMONGST EMPLOYEES AT A PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTION IN THE WESTERN CAPE, 2005).

He also concluded that certain organizational characteristics influence job satisfaction, and one of the major factors is the intrinsic nature of the job itself. An individual who genuinely likes the content of the job will be more satisfied with the job. In terms of preferences, he said that industrial workers want job with high pay, high security, promotional opportunities, fewer hours of work and friendly supervision. Finally, he found that if it demands considerable effort to get a job (through education, experience or achievement), if one can make a lot of money at it, if one can not think of an alternative, then one should be highly satisfied with the job. He also stated in his findings that factors that influence job satisfaction differ from men to women in terms of importance of ranks. Generally, men rank security first, followed by advancement, type of work, company, pay, co-worker, supervision, benefits, duration of work and then working condition.

Whereas women rank type of work first, followed by company, security, co-workers, advancement, supervision, pay, working condition, duration of work and then benefits. As there are various measures to measure job satisfaction and not all of them could be used at the same time, a choice had to be made. The process of making a choice is not simple but as an author put it "It is not unusual for two or more equally good measures to have been developed for the same concept. For example, there are several different instruments for measuring the concept of job satisfaction.

Numerous studies found that fob stress influences the employees’ job satisfaction and their overall performance in their work. Because most of the organizations now are more demanding for the better job outcomes. In fact, modern times have been called as the “age of anxiety and stress” (Coleman, 1976).

WHY VARIOUS STUDIES HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED? Prolific research in the area of job satisfaction has been conducted over the past few decades (Boshoff, Cilliers & Van Wyk, 2003; Buitendach & De Witte, 2005; Calder, 2000; Derlin & Schneider, 1994; Dolliver, 2003; Hoole & Vermeulen, 2003; Kh Metle, 2005; Malherbe & Pearse, 2003). However, a paucity of studies exist in the public health industry investigating job satisfaction across different occupational classes. The vast majority of studies conducted in the public health industry in South Africa over the past years have mainly focused on job satisfaction amongst health care doctors and nurses (Damane, 1992; Herman, 2005; Mariani et al., 2003; Mavanyisi, 2005; Pillay, 2003). According to Kh Metle (2005), job satisfaction has been a popular topic for researchers in a wide area of fields including industrial psychology, public administration, business and higher education. Boggie (2005) maintains that in order to provide good service, the quality of employees is critical to ensure success. It is for this reason that it is essential that the area of job satisfaction be explored in order to gain a better insight thereof. This will provide executive managers with important information to enable them to stimulate greater job satisfaction amongst employees.

Truell et al. (1998) stated that with limited studies regarding job satisfaction among faculty in community colleges, the study of job satisfaction is essential due to the increasing number of student enrollments. Truell et al. (1998) found that faculty in their sample were more satisfied with the job itself

54

Shweta Lalwani

Lee and Ahmad (2009) found that job satisfaction affects levels of job dissatisfaction, absenteeism, grievance expression, tardiness, low morale, high turnover, quality improvement and participation in decision-making. These in turn affect the overall performance of the organization (Klein Hesselink, Kooij-de Bode, & Koppenrade, 2008; Page & VellaBrodrick, 2008; Pitts, 2009; Riketta, 2008; Scroggins, 2008).

According to Mayer and Botha (2004), in most South African companies there is a low level of employee job satisfaction, resulting in a lack of commitment to performance and the achievement of organizational goals. In South Africa, human resource managers have job satisfaction and productivity at the top of their list of concerns (Grobler et al, 2002). This implies that job satisfaction affects employees’ performance and commitment. It is therefore imperative that managers pay special attention to employees’ attitudes as job satisfaction can decline more quickly than it develops.

Managers need to be proactive in improving and maintaining employees’ life satisfaction and not only satisfaction in the work environment as job satisfaction is part of life satisfaction, meaning an individual’s life outside work may have an influence on one’s feelings on the job(Staw,1977).

TOOLS OF MEASUREMENT The Job Descriptive Index (JDI) (Smith, Kendall & Hulin, 1969) is the most widely used measure of job satisfaction in existence today. More than 50 percent of articles published in management or management related journals employed the JDI to measure job satisfaction. Most writers agreed with Vroom's (1964) judgment that "the Job Descriptive Index is without doubt the most carefully constructed measure of job satisfaction in existence today". The evidence can be summarized by three themes. First the JDI has been widely used in business and government (Blood, 1969; Hulin, 1968; O'Reilly & Roberts, 1973; Waters & Waters, 1969) as both a research tool and a diagnostic indicator. Second, a strong case has been built for construct validity, both in original source (Smith, Kendall & Hulin, 1969) as well as in numerous other publications that report correlation between JDI scales and other measures of job satisfaction (e.g., Dunham, Smith, & Blackburn, 1977). Third, the JDI dimensional structure seems stable across some occupational groupings (eg., Smith, Smith, & Rollo, 1975; Golembiewski and Yeager, 1978).

JOB SATISFACTION THEORIES We now look at different theories of job satisfaction, to determine how they can be utilized to improve and increase job satisfaction. Content theories of job satisfaction The content theory of job satisfaction rests on indentifying the needs and motives that drive people. The theory emphasizes the inner needs that drive people to act in a particular way in the work environment. These theories therefore suggest that management can determine and predict the needs of employees by observing their behavior Maslow’s hierarchy of needs According to Maslow’s theory (1970), people’s needs range from a basic to a high level. These needs are present within every human being in a hierarchy, namely physiological, safety and security, social, status and self-actualization needs. Failureto satisfy one need may have an impact on the next level of need. Low order needs takes priority before the higher order needs are activated, so that needs are satisfied in sequence. According to this theory, people who are struggling to survive are less concerned about needs on the higher levels than people who have time and energy to be aware of higher level needs. Hertzberg’s two-factor theory In the late 1950s Frederick Herzberg developed a theory that there are two dimensions to job satisfaction, “motivation” and “hygiene”. The work characteristics associated with dissatisfaction (hygiene factors) vary from those pertaining to satisfaction (motivators) in that motivators lead to satisfaction, although their absence may not lead to dissatisfaction. The motivators include achievement, recognition and intrinsic interest in the work itself. The continuing relevance of Herzberg is that there must be some direct link between performance and reward, whether extrinsic as in recognition or intrinsic as in

A Review of the Literature on the Concept and Variables of Job Satisfaction

55

naturally enjoyable work, to motivate employees to perform and improve their job satisfaction. The current study will be based upon this theory “Hygiene” factors.

Hygiene factors are features of the job such as policies and practices,

remuneration, benefits and working conditions, corresponding to Maslow’s lower order of needs. Improving these factors may decrease job dissatisfaction and thus increasing of motivators. Inadequate hygiene factors may lead to dissatisfaction, but at the same time adequate hygiene factors do not necessarily lead to job satisfaction. Hygiene factors need to be tacked first, and the motivators can follow. Organizations cannot afford to ignore hygiene factors as employees will be generally unhappy and thus likely to seek other opportunities, while mediocre employees might stay on, and compromise the organization’s success. According to Herzberg, motivators include job content such as responsibility, self esteem, growth and autonomy. These satisfy high order needs and can result in job satisfaction. Granting employees more responsibility and creativity in their jobs is an example of a motivator which may encourage them to exert more effort and perform better.

Process Theories of Job Satisfaction Behaviour is a fundamental indication of an individual’s perception and expectations about a situation and possible outcome of behaviour. Process theories define how and by which goals individuals are motivated. They are based on the assumption that people make conscious decisions regarding their behaviour. The most common process theories are the equity theory, the expectancy theory and the job characteristics model.

Expectancy Theory This theory was developed by Vroom(1964) who asserts that job satisfaction is based on people’s beliefs about the probability that their effort will lead to performance (expectancy) multiplied by the probability that performance leads to rewards (instrumentality) and the value of perceived rewards (valence).This theory is based on the belief that the amount of effort exerted on a job depends on the expected return and may result in increased pleasure or decreased displeasure, and that people may perform their job and be satisfied if they believe that their efforts will be rewarded. The fundamental principle of expectancy theory is the understanding of individuals’ goals and the linkages between effort and performance, performance and rewards, and rewards and individual goal satisfaction. This theory recognizes that there is no universal principle that explains people’s motivation and is regarded as a contingency model. Understanding what needs a person seeks to satisfy does not ensure that the individual perceives high performance as necessarily leading to the satisfaction of these needs.

Job Characteristics Model Bergh and Theron (2000) describe this model as an interactive model that develops employees and the work environment to achieve maximum fit in the work environment. The model asserts that the job should be designed to possess characteristics to enable conditions for high motivation, satisfaction and performance. There are five core characteristics of the job that influence workers’ behaviour and attitude, namely, skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy and feedback. The relationship between core job characteristics and work outcomes is moderated by employees’ growth-need strength, knowledge, skill, and context satisfaction, therefore the relationship between core job characteristics and work outcomes may differ.

Equity Theory This theory emphasizes the comparison of existing conditions against some standard by using the relationship between two variables (inputs and outcomes). Inputs are what an individual contributes to an exchange, while outcomes represent what an individual obtains from an exchange. Equity theory suggests that individuals assign weights to various

56

Shweta Lalwani

inputs and outcomes according to their own perception of relative importance. According to Daft and Noël (2001), equity theory is a process of job satisfaction that focuses on individuals’ perceptions of how fairly they are treated compared to others. This implies that, if people perceive their treatment as less favorable than that of others with whom they compare themselves, they are likely to be less motivated to perform better. This theory therefore posits that people compare the ratio of their outputs to inputs with the ratio of outputs to inputs of others.

CONCLUSIONS Most of the studies have concluded resolving the issue of Employees dissatisfaction constructively as the consequences may be exit of talent, chronic absenteeism, reduced effort, increased error rate and frustration. The importance of studying this issue have been reflected in several studies which shows varied benefits as an indication to the management on levels of job satisfaction, training needs, and welfare initiatives to be taken by them. Various studies have suggested the job dimensions that represent the most important characteristics of a job about which people have affective responses. Although many studies have been made on Job Satisfaction with change in time the variables to it will vary and it provides further scope for more comprehensive studies.

REFERENCES 1.

Alderfer, Clayton P. (1969), “An Empirical Test of a New Theory of Human Needs,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4 (2), 142–175.

2.

Borgatta, Edgar F. (1967), “The Work Components Study: A Set of Measures for Work Motivation,” Journal of Psychological Studies, 15, 1–11.

3.

Bhuian, Shahid N., and Bulent Menguc (2002), “An Extension and Evaluation of Job Characteristics, Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction in an Expatriate, Guest Worker, Sales Setting,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 22, 1 (Winter), 1–11.

4.

Bagozzi, Richard P. (1980), “The Nature and Causes of Self- Esteem, Performance, and Satisfaction in the Sales Force:A Structural Equation Approach,” Journal of Business, 53 (3), 315–331.

5.

Maslow, Abraham H. (1943), “A Theory of Human Motivation,” Psychological Review, 50 (1), 370–396.

6.

Mathios, Alan D. (1989), “Education, Variation in Earnings, and Non-Monetary Compensation,” Journal of Human Resources, 24 (3), 456–469.

7.

Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, and Nathan P. Podsakoff (2003), “Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies,” Journal of Applied Psychology,88 (5), 879–903.

8.

Price, James P., and Charles W. Mueller (1986), Handbook of Organizational Measurement, Marshfield, MA: Pittman.

9.

Probst, Tahira M. (2002), “The Impact of Job Insecurity on Employee Work Attitudes, Job Adaptation, and Organizational Withdrawal Behaviors,” in Jeanne M. Brett and Fritz Drasgow, eds., The Psychology of Work: Theoretically Based EmpiricalResearch, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

10. Mowday, Richard T. (1991), “Equity Theory Perceptions of Behavior in Organizations,” in Motivation and Work Behavior,Richard M. Steers and Lyman W. Porter, eds., New York: McGraw-Hill, 111–131.

A Review of the Literature on the Concept and Variables of Job Satisfaction

57

11. Spector, P. E. 1997. Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and Consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 12. Staw, B. 1984. “Organizational Behavior: A Review and Reformation of the Field’s Outcome Variables.” Annual Review of Psychology 35: 627-666.

13. Rosin, H. M., & Korabik, K. (1991). Workplace variables, affective responses, and intention to leave among women managers. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 317–330.

14. August, L. & Waltman, J. (2004). Culture, climate, and contribution: Career satisfaction among 15. female faculty. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), m-192.

16. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. S. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd ed.).New York: Wiley 17. Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill 18. Katzell, R. A., Thompson, D. E., & Guzzo, R. A. (1992). How job satisfaction and job performance are and are not linked. In C. J. Cranny, P. C. Smith, & E. F. Stone (Eds.), Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their performance (pp. 195- 217). New York: Lexington.