JOB SATISFACTION DETERMINANTS (A Study on Banking Employees)

1

JOB SATISFACTION DETERMINANTS

(A Study on Banking Employees)

Santosh Gyawali, M. Phil.

Abstract

This study aims to identify the determinants of the job satisfaction and the level of job satisfaction in

relation to Nepalese banking employees. The research has followed the survey methodology that consist

total of 109 employees and self administered questionnaires has been served to the respondents. Spector

(1985) measure has been tested in the study. Cronbach's alpha, factor analysis, regression analysis and

correlation have also been used as the statistical tools for different purpose. The study reveals that pay,

promotion, supervisor, coworker, work itself, communication and rewards are positively associated

with the job satisfaction and the overall job satisfaction found near the moderately satisfied.

Mr. Gyawali is PhDscholar at TU (FOM), Principal at Western Mega College Butwal and Lecturer in Management at Lumbini Banijya Campus, Butwal. (email:[email protected], [email protected]).

1. General Background

Job satisfaction is described as a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the

appraisal of one’s job or job experience. 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. According to Kreitner et al (2002) job

satisfaction is an affective and emotional response to various facets of one’s job. Job satisfaction is

an affective reaction to an individual’s work situation. It can be defined as an overall feeling

about one’s job or career or in terms of specific facets of the job or career (e.g., compensation,

autonomy, coworkers) and it can be related to specific outcomes, such as productivity (Rice,

Gentile & McFarlin, 1991). Everyone define job satisfaction as their fulfillment of their

expectation. It differs from person to person and organization to organization even in context of

male and female. So job satisfaction is such phenomenon which comes from not only the job, but

also from one’s personal, social organizational, administrative and economical condition.

Porter, Lawler and Hackman (1975) define job satisfaction as a feeling about a job that is

determined by the difference between all those things a person feels he should receive from his

job and all those things he actually does received. According to Cranny, Smith and Stone (1992)

job satisfaction is a combination of cognitive and affective reactions to the differential perceptions

of what an employee wants to receive compared to what he or she actually receives. Job

2

satisfaction is a factor that would induce the employee to work in the long term position.

Regardless of job satisfaction the organization or firm would confront with the cost of

recruitment caused by turnover. For this reason, the organization should pay attention to

employees’ job satisfaction as well. Shortly, job satisfaction describes the feelings, attitudes or

preferences of individuals regarding work (Chen, 2008). Furthermore, it is the degree to which

employees enjoy their jobs (McCloskey & McCain, 1987). Greenberg and Baron (1997) define job

satisfaction as an individual’s cognitive, affective, and evaluative reactions towards his or her job.

Locke (1976) provides more specific definition on job satisfaction as the state where one’s needs

and one’s outcomes match well. Basically, job satisfaction is about liking your job and finding

fulfillment in what you do. It combines an individual's feelings and emotions about their and

how their job affects their personal lives. According to Brief (1998), in 1976, there were more than

3,300 research articles and dissertations published on job satisfaction. Two decades later, the

desire to comprehend the antecedents and consequences of job satisfaction continued. Brief

added that by 1994, more than 12,400 research articles and dissertations had been published on

job satisfaction.

Good financial services of the banks along with their better customer services become important

due to this rising competition. It has been realized that bank employees play an important role

for the good performance of the bank by delivering good financial services to its constituencies,

since it is a services-based business. In such situation, job satisfaction of bank employees is an

important issue for the improved financial services to the customers. Therefore, this issue has to

be properly taken into account.

2. Statement of Problem

With the opening up of the economy of Nepal after restoration of democracy, a dramatic change

has been observed in service sectors. This has brought higher employment opportunities,

increases in income level, and changes in consumption pattern and consequently there emerges a

competitive environment in the country. Particularly, the expansion in private banking business,

along with customized services, has created a severe competition in this sector. This intense

competition has made the service gap wider as private banks offer better services to their internal

and external customers.

This situation has created an urge to the bank policy makers to identify the basic reasons and

brought them into consideration with job satisfaction issue. The private banks specially created a

cut throat competition by offering new products and services to gain more market share. The

employment patterns in the banking sector have changed its focus to performance and targets

rather than experience and loyalty. Hence, pay and job satisfaction becomes a primary factor for

the banking employees which needed attentions so as to achieve the long term goals of the bank.

3

The search for enhanced productivity has been a major concern for all organizations in more

developed societies. In developing countries the need to optimize productivity is also a

consideration. Job satisfaction of employees has been found to be an important factor affecting

productivity and has received considerable interest (Collins et al, 2000). Various studies have

established that dissatisfaction with one’s job may result in higher employee turnover,

absenteeism, tardiness and grievances. Improved job satisfaction, on the other hand, results in

increased productivity (White, 2000).

Job satisfaction and occupational success are major factors in personal satisfaction, self respect,

self-esteem, and self-development. To the worker, job satisfaction brings a pleasurable emotional

state that often leads to a positive work attitude. A satisfied worker is more likely to be creative,

flexible, innovative, and loyal. Most of the earlier researchers have argued that job satisfaction

ensures effective functioning of an organization; enhance the altruism traits of employees,

devotion of employees over the organization. Many researchers and administrators have noticed

the importance of job satisfaction on a variety of organizational variables. In particular, we know

that dissatisfied employees are likely to leave their jobs. Thus, the understanding of employee job

satisfaction and its contributing variables are important for any organization to exist and prosper

(Mrayyan, 2005). Whether or not the Global antecedents of job satisfaction are validated in

Nepalese case? Hence, the different predictors of job satisfaction are to be investigated among

Nepalese respondents.

The following research study has tried to relate the bank employees’ job satisfaction with pay,

supervisory behavior, relationship with coworkers, promotional opportunities, nature of work,

communication and reward which is the new exploration over banking industry of this territory.

Whether the pay, relationship with supervisor, promotional opportunity and benefits would

surely be responsible for job satisfaction, the study has tried to identify that relationship. Such

relationship have not been tested and analyzed in the context of Nepalese service sector

especially in banking industry of this locality, the following study have found that gap.

3. Literature Review

The issue of job satisfaction is widely discussed in the literature on organizational behavior.

There is a lot of work on the issue of job satisfaction which reveals that it reduces the rate of

absenteeism and turnover. According to Lee and Ho (1989) participation of employees in decision

making process adds positively in employee’s job satisfaction. Job satisfaction and work

motivation among the managers of Chinese restaurant in Hong Kong was studied by Lam et al.

(2001). The result of the study showed that the job itself, work environment and rewards are the

important determinants of job satisfaction in that industry.

4

Garrido et al. (2005) studied the factors that determine the job satisfaction of sales managers. The

study concludes that human resource management practices based compensation type,

compensation level and job design in terms of autonomy and resources are the essential

determinants of sales managers’ job satisfaction. Markow and Klenke (2005) and Milliman et al.

(2003) documented that leadership spiritually is a major determinant to enhance the employees’

efficiency, job satisfaction, and loyalty coupled with a decrease in employees’ turnover intentions.

According to Hackman and Oldham (1980) job satisfaction is a multifaceted phenomenon that

consists of factor such as supervision at work, work itself, compensation and benefits, promotion

policies of organization, appraisal and coworkers’ attitude. People are much concern about pay

and leadership behavior.

Applebum’s (1997) study identified that there is a positive correlation between the nature of the

job design including task complexity, task variety, task independence and job satisfaction.

Kaleque and Rahman (1987) conducted a study on Job satisfaction of Bangladeshi industrial

workers regarding influence of some job facets including job content, coworkers, supervision,

wage promotion, work environment and communication. They concluded that job facets can be

source of satisfaction as well as dissatisfaction. Overall Job satisfaction of industrial workers is

influenced by the job facets and personal life and the degree of satisfaction depends upon the

perceived importance of the job facets.

Alam (2003) conducted a research on the Job satisfaction of female workers in different garment

factories in Dhaka city and concluded the level of satisfaction is positively correlated with level of

wages they get.

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. 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. 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 naturally enjoyable work, to motivate employees to perform and improve their job

satisfaction. The current study will be based upon this theory. Vroom (1964) who asserts that job

satisfaction is based on people’s beliefs about the probability that their effort will lead to

5

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.

The search for enhanced productivity has been a major concern for all organizations in more

developed societies. In developing countries the need to optimize productivity is also a

consideration. Job satisfaction of employees has been found to be an important factor affecting

productivity and has received considerable interest. 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. 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 et al (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.

According to McCormick and Ilgen (1985), employees’ satisfaction with promotional

opportunities will depend on a number of factors, including the probability that employees will

be promoted, as well as the basis and the fairness of such promotions. Visser (1990) indicates that

such an individual’s standards for promotion are contingent on personal and career aspirations.

Moreover, not all employees wish to be promoted. The reason therefore is related to the fact that

promotion entails greater responsibility and tasks of a more complex nature, for which the

individuals may consider themselves unprepared. If employees perceive the promotion policy as

unfair, but do not desire to be promoted, they may still be satisfied. Luthans (1992) further

maintains that promotions may take a variety of different forms and are generally accompanied

by different rewards. Promotional opportunities therefore have differential effects on job

satisfaction, and it is essential that this be taken into account in cases where promotion policies

are designed to enhance employee satisfaction.

6

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

work-related and employee-related factors. 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-repetitive tasks (Kam, 1998). Additionally, administrative styles,

professional status and pay are known as important factors influencing job satisfaction. Recent

studies showed that a participative (democratic) management style was mostly preferred by

today’s managers to increase their employees’ job satisfaction (Dogan & Ibicioglu, 2004; Knoop,

1991).

Pay refers to the amount of financial compensation that an individual receives as well as the

extent to which such compensation is perceived to be equitable. Remuneration and earnings are a

cognitively complex and multidimensional factor in job satisfaction. According to Luthans (1998),

salaries not only assist people to attain their basic needs, but are also instrumental in satisfying

the higher level needs of people. Taylor and West (1992) found that pay levels affect job

satisfaction, reporting that those public employees that compared their salaries with those of

private sector employees experienced lower levels of job satisfaction. Lambert, Hogan, Barton

and Lubbock (2001) found financial rewards to have a significant impact on job satisfaction. Such

findings are largely consistent with the idea that most employees are socialized in a society where

money, benefits, and security are generally sought after and are often used to gauge the

importance or the worth of a person. Thus, the greater the financial reward, the less worry

employees have concerning their financial state, thereby enhancing their impression of their self-

worth to the organization. Sharma and Bhaskar (1991) postulate that the single most important

influence on a person’s job satisfaction experience comes from the nature of the work assigned to

him/her by the organization. They purport that if the job entails adequate variety, challenge,

discretion and scope for using one’s own abilities and skills, the employee doing the job is likely

to experience job satisfaction. Public sector banks structure compensation in a way such that

there are lower pay differentials between the employees, long-term tenure is rewarded and there

is a high base pay, whereas in the private sector banks, there are larger pay differentials, fewer

rewards for tenure, and pay for performance (D'Souza, 2002). However, private sector banks do

7

not provide job security and would lay off their employees in cases of poor performance or

adverse market conditions (Jha, Gupta & Yadav, 2008).

Khaleque and Choudhary (1984) found in their study of Indian managers, that the nature of

work was the most important factor in determining job satisfaction for top managers, and job

security as the most important factor in job satisfaction for managers at the bottom. Most research

indicates that individuals are likely to have high levels of job satisfaction if supervisors provide

them with support and co-operation in completing their tasks (Ting, 1997). Similar results were

reported by Billingsley and Cross (1992) as well as Cramer (1993). These researchers generally

hold that dissatisfaction with management supervision is a significant predictor of job

dissatisfaction. Participation in decision-making and exercising autonomy has been reported to

contribute to job satisfaction among Australian teachers (Rice & Schneider, 1994).

Liden, Wayne and Sparrowe’s (2000) research involving 337 employees and their supervisors

found that desirable job characteristics increased work satisfaction. Using a sample of medical

technologists, Blau (1999) concluded that increased task responsibilities are related top overall job

satisfaction. Similarly, Culpin and Wright (2002) found in their study of job satisfaction amongst

expatriate women managers, that they enjoyed the expansion of their job responsibilities. These

women’s job satisfaction increased as they saw the significant impact of their job on their

employees. Reskin and Padavic (1994) claim that “workers value authority in its own right and

having authority increases workers’ job satisfaction”.

8

4. Theoretical Framework

Independent Variables Dependent Variable

Promotional Opportunity

Supervision

Pay

Job Satisfaction

Co-workers

Nature of work (work itself)

Communication

Rewards

Demographic Variables-Gender

- Marital Status- Age

- Academic Qualification- Tenure

- Income Level

9

Hypotheses:

For the current research, following hypotheses have been tested

Hypothesis 1: Employees' pay is positively associated with their perception of job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2: There exists positive relationship between employees' promotional

opportunities and their job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 3: The supervisory behavior and job satisfaction are positively related.

Hypothesis 4: The co-workers' behaviors are positively related with job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 5: There exists positive relationship between work nature and the job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 6: Organization's internal communication has positive impact over employees' job

satisfaction.

Hypothesis 7: Employees' feeling about their rewards is positively associated with their job

satisfaction.

5. Methodology of the Study

This study has followed the quantitative study utilizing survey methodology to identify the

relationship between job satisfaction and its predictors in relation to banking employees and is

descriptive in nature. The primary data in this study has been used to identify the potential

relationship among job satisfaction and the independent variables pay, promotional

opportunities, supervision, co-workers, nature of work and communication mechanism of the

organization. Primary data have collected through distributing questionnaire by personal visit in

sample organizations. The fully structured six-point Likert scale questionnaire was developed for

the respondents.

In following study, all the employees of private commercial banks, development banks and

financial institutions having their offices (central or branch) in Butwal Municipility have been

considered as the population and the sample employees have been drawn by visiting the

selected offices judgmentally. The research data is cross-sectional in nature, i.e. collected the data

only once. The survey questionnaires were randomly distributed to the respondents either by

10

human resources departments of each organization or by the managers of related branch.

Altogether 180 employees were selected as a sample from those organizations and total of 180

questionnaires were sent to them. Among 120 (66.66%) successfully received responses, 109

(60.55) responses were found valid comparing to total distribution.

The measures consisting of Likert scale items ranging from 1= strongly disagree, 2= disagree

moderately, 3= disagree slightly, 4= agree slightly, 5= agree moderately and 6= strongly agree has been

used for the research. To avoid the neutrality in response, the range neither dis agree nor agree has

been omitted from scale item.

The measure used in this research has been adopted from Spector (1985). The measure has 24

items to describe six job facets pay, promotion, supervision, coworkers, nature of work and

communication. In Blau (1999), coefficient alpha of above measure was 0.89. Spector (1997) found

that the six facets were all positively inter-correlated.

Analytical software will be used for tabulation and analyses of data. Questionnaire survey data

will be entered into SPSS version 13. Test of normality and descriptive analyses has been

conducted to find usefulness of data. Reliability analysis (alpha test) has been conducted to find

out the strength of each scale. Many other methods such as correlation analysis have also been

used to measure the direction and magnitude between the variables similarly regression analysis

has been used to examine the relationship between dependent and independent variables and

general descriptive statistics has been used to analyze the data.

6. Analysis

The total numbers of respondents contained 31.2% of female and 68.8% male. 71% employees

were between age group 20-30; almost half of total employees had masters' degree on their hands

while 31% had bachelors' degree qualification. Total of 28% respondents were represented

commercial banks where as 38% were related to development banks and 34% the finance

companies.

The analysis has found that employees having job tenure below one year and one to five years

have slightly disagreement with their pay level however having the tenure on occupation five to

ten years and the more have found slightly agree. In relation to promotion, the employees having

one to five years job tenure found slightly satisfied but contributed the less satisfaction in

remaining. Considering the satisfaction with supervisors all the employees agreed moderately

but the employees having job tenure more than ten years found little agreement with their

supervisors. This fact exposes that the supervisors may need different treatment or competencies

to persuade the more experienced people of organization. Coworkers activities have found

moderately satisfied with one year or below experienced employees while it is found gradually

decreasing in case of other tenure group. Considering the nature of work, the satisfaction level

11

found gradually increasing with increment of job tenure and it may be the cause of more used to

practices over the same work as routine activity.

The female employees found less satisfied with their pay however satisfied more in case of

promotion, supervisor, coworkers, work nature and communication comparing to their male

counterparts, it may be the cause of female workers more investment on their household

expenses. Officer level employees, whether they found slightly disagreement with pay but

contribute the higher value than other level employees. They found slightly agree with

promotional opportunities however less agree with supervisor than the other level. Most of

employees having different job position found slightly disagreement with their pay level while

found moderately agree with supervisors, coworkers and the work nature of job.

The commercial bank employees have found moderately satisfied with their pay but have found

slightly satisfied in case of development bank and finance companies employees, similar results

have found in case of promotion and supervision related items. The employees of finance

companies have exposed their great favors over the coworkers than development bank

employees.

The mean value of pay satisfaction, promotion satisfaction, supervisor satisfaction, coworker

satisfaction, work itself, communication, reward satisfaction and overall satisfaction found 3.495,

4.240, 5.1583, 5.1032, 5.1124, 4.6468, 4.0390 and 4.542 respectively. This statistic have shown

employees' slightly disagreement over the variable pay while slightly agreement over the

variables promotion and the reward.

Table 6.1

Result of Factor Analysis

Component Initial Eigen Values

Total % of Variance Cumulative %

(Pay) 1 1.579 39.479 39.479

2 1.221 30.519 69.998

3 .751 18.774 88.772

4 .449 11.228 100

(Promotion) 1 2.618 65.442 65.442

2 .722 18.061 83.504

3 .532 13.292 96.795

4 .128 3.205 100

(Supervisor) 1 1.731 43.280 43.280

2 1.016 25.397 68.677

12

3 .859 21.469 90.146

4 .394 9.854 100

(Coworker) 1 1.921 48.015 48.015

2 .857 21.432 69.448

3 .734 18.341 87.788

4 .488 12.212 100

(Work itself) 1 1.567 39.172 39.172

2 1.075 26.877 66.048

3 .705 17.632 83.680

4 .653 16.320 100

(Communication) 1 5.506 53.004 53.004

2 2.062 19.851 72.855

3 1.912 18.407 91.263

4 .908 8.737 100

(Rewards) 1 2.509 62.735 62.735

2 .721 18.019 80.755

3 .448 11.191 91.956

4 .322 8.054 100

Since Eigen values are designed to show the proportion of variance accounted by each factors

and the first Eigen value is always greater than the 1.0 because the first factor always explain the

greatest amount of total variance. In a good factor analysis, there are few factors that explain a lot

of variance and the rest of the factors explain relatively small amount of variance. In above table

the total column has given the amount of variance in the observed variables accounted by each

component similarly the % of variance column gives the percentage of variance accounted for

each specific factor relative to the total variance in all the variables.

In above table 6.1 the first and second item of variable Pay explains large variability almost the

70%, similarly for Promotion the contribution of first item is significantly larger than the rest one.

In relation to variable Supervisor, item first, second and third have contributed large variability

43%, 25% and 21% respectively. Almost similar type of variances found in relation to Coworkers,

Work itself from item first, second and the third items however in case of Communication and

the Reward variables the contribution of first item found significantly larger than the remaining

items.

13

Table 6.2

Correlation Results

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1) Pay 1

2) Promotion .550**

.000

1

3) Supervisor .187

.051

.367**

.000

1

4) Coworker .027

.778

.190*

.048

.359**

.000

1

5) Work itself .252**

.008

.451**

.000

.257**

.007

.126

.193

1

6) Communication .298**

.002

.478**

.000

.542**

.000

.335**

.000

.388**

.000

1

7) Rewards .298**

.002

.538**

.000

.385**

.000

.238*

.013

.330**

.000

.544**

.000

1

8) Overall Job

Satisfaction

.563**

.000

.788**

.000

.647**

.000

.466**

.000

.571**

.000

.781**

.000

.768**

.000

1

** Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (two tailed).

* Correlation is significant at 0.05 level (one tailed).

The correlation between overall job satisfaction with pay, promotion, supervisor, coworkers,

work itself, communication and rewards are found as 0.563, 0.788, 0.647, 0.466, 0.571, 0.781 and

14

0.768 respectively. According to Bryman and Cramer (2001), the Pearson’s ‘r’ between each pair

of independent variables should not be exceed 0.80, otherwise the independent variables that

show a relationship at or in excess of 0.80 may be suspected of exhibiting multi-colinearity. The

above table has exposed the correlation value ranging from 0.027 to 0.781 which solve the

problem of multi-colinearity. So, multi-colinearity problem is minimal in this case.

Regression Results

Overall Job Satisfaction and the Pay:

Considering overall Satisfaction as dependent variable (Y) and Pay as independent variable (X).

The regression equation has been estimated as:

Ŷ = 3.187 + 0 .388 X

t = (15.871) (7.051)

p = (0.000) (0.00)

R² = 0.317 df = 108

The Regression coefficient of pay is 0.388 which shows the one unit change in overall pay cause

0.388 unit changes in overall job satisfaction. In above model, 31.7% variability in the overall job

satisfaction of employees is explained by the pay. So, it is concluded that the pay is good

predictor of Overall job satisfaction that left the significant impact.

The p-value of ANOVA table is 0.000 which is less than .01 that means the model is statistically

significant at 1% level of significance. So, the above calculation shows that there is a significant

relationship between pay and the overall Job satisfaction that means higher salary may increase

the job satisfaction of employees or vice-versa. Here p value is less than the alpha value so the

alternative hypothesis should not be rejected, i.e. Hypothesis 1: Employees' pay is positively

associated with their perception of job satisfaction, is accepted.

Overall Job Satisfaction and the Promotion:

Considering overall Job Satisfaction as dependent variable (Y) and Promotion as independent

variable (X). The regression equation has been estimated as:

Ŷ = 2.662 + 0 .443 X

t = (17.917) (13.235)

p = (0.000) (0.00)

R² = 0.621 df = 108

In above model, 62.1% variability in the overall job satisfaction of employees is explained by the

promotional opportunities given to the employees. If the significance value of the F statistic is

smaller than 0.01 then the independent variables do a good job explaining the variation in the

dependent variable. The p-value of ANOVA table is 0.000 which is less than .01 that means the

model is statistically significant at 1% level of significance. So, the above calculation shows that

15

there is a significant relationship between employees’ promotional opportunities and the overall

job satisfaction that means promotional opportunities given to the employees by the organization

enhance the employees overall job satisfaction. Here p value is less than the alpha value so the

alternative hypothesis should not be rejected, or the Hypothesis 2: There exists positive

relationship between employees' promotional opportunities and their job satisfaction is

accepted.

Overall Job Satisfaction and the Supervisor:

Taking Job Satisfaction as dependent variable (Y) and Supervisor as independent variable (X).


Ŷ = 1.861 + 0 .520 X

t = (6.006) (8.784)

p = (0.000) (0.000)

R² = 0.419 df = 108

This output shows that there is a positive linear relationship between overall job satisfaction and

supervisor such that positive thinking about the supervisor or his/her competency level increases

overall job satisfaction. The Regression coefficient of supervisory competence is 0.520 which

shows the rate of change in overall job satisfaction with the change in perception about the

supervisor.


perception about the supervisor. The p-value of ANOVA table is 0.000 which is less than .01 that

means the model is statistically significant at 1% level of significance. So, the above calculation

shows that there is a significant relationship between employees’ overall job satisfaction and the

supervisory perception. Above statistics assists for the acceptance of hypothesis that, the

supervisory behavior and job satisfaction are positively related.

Overall Job Satisfaction and the Coworkers:

Taking Job Satisfaction as dependent variable (Y) and Coworkers as independent variable (X).


Ŷ = 1.2.711 + 0 .359 X

t = (7.923) (5.441)

p = (0.000) (0.000)

R² = 0.217 df = 108

The above statistics exposes that there is a positive linear relationship between overall job

satisfaction and coworker. The Regression coefficient of coworker is 0.359 which shows the rate

of change in overall job satisfaction with the change in perception about the coworker.

16


perception about the coworker. The p-value of ANOVA table is 0.000 which is less than .01 that

means the model is statistically significant at 1% level of significance. So, the above calculation

shows there is a significant relationship between employees’ overall job satisfaction and

coworker. Above statistics assists for the acceptance of hypothesis that, co-workers' behaviors

are positively related with job satisfaction.

Overall Job Satisfaction and the Work Itself:

While assuming overall Satisfaction as dependent variable (Y) and Work itself as independent


Ŷ = 1.836 + 0 .529 X

t = (4.820) (7.189)

p = (0.000) (0.00)

R² = 0.326 df = 108

The Regression coefficient of work itself is 0.529, that shows 0.529 unit changes in overall job

satisfaction is caused by one unit change in independent variable. In above model, 32.6%

variability in the overall job satisfaction of employees is explained by the work itself or the feeling

of employees about their work. So, it is concluded that work itself is good predictor of overall job

satisfaction and leave significant impact.

The p-value of ANOVA table is 0.000 which is less than .01 that means the model is statistically

significant at 1% level of significance. So, the above calculation shows that there is a significant

relationship between work itself and the overall Job satisfaction. Here p value is less than the

alpha value so the alternative hypothesis should not be rejected, i.e. Hypothesis 5: There exists

positive relationship between work nature and the job satisfaction is accepted.

Overall Job Satisfaction and the Communication:

Considering Job Satisfaction as dependent variable (Y) and Communication as independent


Ŷ = 2.236 + 0 .496 X

t = (12.173) (12.929)

p = (0.000) (0.000)

R² = 0.610 df = 108

The above statistics exposes that there is a positive linear relationship between overall job

satisfaction and communication. The Regression coefficient of communication is 0.496 which

shows the rate of change in overall job satisfaction with the change in independent variable.


communication. The p-value of ANOVA table is 0.000 which is less than .01 that means the

17

model is statistically significant at 1% level of significance. So, the above calculation shows there

is a significant relationship between employees’ overall job satisfaction and communication.

Above statistics provide all the proof for the acceptance of hypothesis that, organization's

internal communication has positive impact over employees' job satisfaction.

Overall Job Satisfaction and the Rewards:

Considering overall Job Satisfaction as dependent variable (Y) and Reward as independent


Ŷ = 2.982 + 0 .386 X

t = (22.325) (12.411)

p = (0.000) (0.00)

R² = 0.590 df = 108


provision of rewards established by the organization. If the significance value of the F statistic is

smaller than 0.01 then the independent variables do a good job explaining the variation in the

dependent variable. The p-value of ANOVA table is 0.000 which is less than .01 that means the

model is statistically significant at 1% level of significance. So, the above calculation shows that

there is a significant relationship between rewards and the overall job satisfaction. Here p value is

less than the alpha value so the alternative hypothesis should not be rejected, or the Hypothesis 7:

Employees' feeling about their rewards is positively associated with their job satisfaction, is

accepted.

Overall Job Satisfaction and Pay, Promotion, Supervisor, Coworker, Work itself,

Communication and Rewards:

Considering overall Job Satisfaction as dependent variable (Y) and Pay, Promotion, Supervisor,

Coworkers, Work itself, Communication and Reward as independent variables and running the

step wise regression on SPSS, the regression equation has been estimated as:

Ŷ = 0.502+ 0.171 promotion + 0.163 communication + 0.146 rewards + 0.140

coworker+ 0.145 pay+ 0.145 supervision

t = (7.178) (16.946) (14.168) (16.918) (12.536) (13.593) (11.007)

p = (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)

R² = 0.982 df = 108

In above model, R² value identifies the proportion of the variance accounted for by the

independent variables, i.e. approximately 98.2% of variance in Job Satisfaction is accounted by

Pay, Promotion, Supervisor, Coworkers, Work itself, Communication and Rewards. The

coefficient of all variables have found positive.

Conclusion

18

Most of employees agreed moderately but the employees having long job tenure found little

agreement with their supervisors. The female employees found less satisfied with their pay

however satisfied more in case of promotion, supervisor, coworkers, work nature and

communication comparing to their male counterparts. Officer level employees found slightly

disagreement with pay but contribute the higher value than other level employees. The

commercial bank employees have found moderately satisfied with their pay but have found

slightly satisfied in case of development bank and finance companies employees. Most of

employees have slightly disagreement over pay level and slightly agreement over the variables

promotion and the reward.

Large and the significant amount of variability in Job satisfaction have been given by

promotional opportunities, communication and rewards and their variability is almost similar.

That trend has been followed by the supervisor, work itself, pay and the coworkers so those all

variables are considered as the good predictors of overall job satisfaction however Cronbach's

Alpha value have been found lower (0.468, 0.528, 0.414) in case of pay, supervisor and work itself.

The above result is supported by the study of Kaleque and Rahman (1987) who were conducted

study on Job satisfaction of Bangladeshi industrial workers regarding influence of job facets

including job content, coworkers, supervision, wage promotion, work environment and

communication and found that job facets can be source of satisfaction.

Employees' pay, promotional opportunities, supervisor, co-worker, work nature, organization's

internal communication, employees' feeling about their rewards all are found positively

associated with their job satisfaction. These findings are consistent with the study conducted by

Lam et al. (2001) who were conducted their research over the managers' of Chinese restaurant in

Hong Kong and found that job itself, work environment and rewards are the important

determinants of job satisfaction in that industry. It is supported by the study that was done by

Khaleque and Choudhary (1984) found in their study of Indian managers, that the nature of work

was the most important factor in determining job satisfaction for top managers.

Discussion

For the better functioning of banking employees, it is essential to improve their satisfaction

perception and for the purpose supervisor, coworker should have to play the vital role.

Supervisor should flourish their supervisory competencies with human skills and conceptual

skills similarly the coworkers should be responsible for the maintaining harmonious relationship

among them which surely contribute to the job satisfaction. The organization may establish the

fair promotional provisions as well as could provide special chances for the deserving

candidates. Better and fair pay policy, reward policy might be made for the retention of

employees as per their devotion. The organization should clearly state their policies, rules,

19

regulations, mission, further planning to persuade their employees. In banking arena the

employees have to perform more repetitive and routine type of job so it should be made more

meaningful by adding skill varieties, task identities, autonomy or feedback mechanism to the job.

Because the banking employees are directly concerned with the profitability and the public

relation of the organization and even the minor discrepancy may push the organization in heavy

loss so this research article would be helpful for the stake holders to make them aware and

making the policies regarding this. This research article could provide the theoretical framework

for the future researcher to conduct the research on other areas such as manufacturing sector

employees, hospitality etc. For the future researcher it is recommended it would be better to take

the large sample for universal generalizability. Similarly other facets of job satisfaction could also

be explored while conducting the similar type of research.

Bibliography

Abdel-Halim, A. A. (1983). “Effects of task and personality characteristics on subordinate responses to participative decision making”. Academy of Management Journal, 26 (3): 477-484.

Alam, S. M., & Ikhtiar (2003)." Job Satisfaction: A case Study of Female Workers in Different Garment Factories in Dhaka City". Presented to Faculty of Social Science, Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka.

Applebum, S. H., & Grigore, M. L. (1997). "Organizational change and Job Redesign in Integrated Manufacturing: A Macro – Organizational to Micro-Organizational Perspective". Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 21(2), PP. 51-63

Billingsley, B. S., & Cross, L .H. (1992). " Predictors of commitment, job satisfaction, and intent to stay in teaching: A comparison of general and special educators". Journal of Special Education, 25(4), 453-472.

Blau, G. (1999). "Early-career job factors influencing the professional commitment of medical technologies". Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 687-695.

Brief, A. P. (1998). Attitudes in and around organizations. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.Chen, L.H. (2008). “Job satisfaction among information system (IS) personnel”. Computers in

Human Behavior, 24,105-118.Chu, C. I., Hsu, H. M., Price, J. L. & Lee, J.Y. (2003). " Job satisfaction of hospital nurses: an

empirical test of a causal model in Taiwan." International Nursing Review, 50: 176-182.Collins, K., Jones, M. L., McDonnell, A., Read, S., Jones, R., & Cameron, A. (2000). " Do new roles

contribute to job satisfaction and retention of staff in nursing and professions allied to medicine?". Journal of Nursing Management, 8, 3-12.

Cramer, D. (1993). "Tenure, commitment, and satisfaction of college graduates in an engineering firm." Journal of Social Psychology, 133(6), 791-797.

Cranny. C. J., Smith, P .C., & Stone, E. F. (1992). Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their performance. Lexington Books: New York.

Culpin, O., & Wright, G. (2002). "Women abroad: Getting the best results from women managers". International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(5), 784-801. Edition. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill.

Garrido, J. M., Perez, P., & Anton, C. (2005). “Determinants of Sales Manager Job Satisfaction: An Analysis of Spanish Industrial Firms". International Journal of Human Resource Management. pp. 1934-1954.

20

Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. (1997). Behaviour in organizations: Understanding and managing the Human side of work, 6th ed, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.

Hackman, J., & Oldham, G. (1980). Work Redesign. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Hinshaw, A., & Atwood, J. (1984). "Nursing staff turnover, stress and satisfaction: models,

measures, and management". Annual Review of Nursing Research, 1, 133-155.Jha, B. K., Gupta, S. L., & Yadav, P. (2008), “Use and effectiveness of new technologies in Indian

banking: A study”. The ICFAI Journal of Services Marketing, 6(1), 6–22.Kam, L. F. (1998). "Job satisfaction and autonomy of Hong Kong registered nurses". Journal of

Advanced Nursing, 27: 355-363.Khaleque, A., & Rahman, M. A. (1987). Perceived Importance of Job Facets and Overall Job

Satisfaction of Industrial Workers. Human Relations, Vol. 40 (7), PP 401-416.Knoop, R. (1991). "Achievement of work values and participative decision-making".

Psychological Reports, 68: 775-781.Krietner, R., Kinicki, A., & Buelens, M. (2002). Organizational Behaviour. Second Edition. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill

Lam, T., Baum, T., & Pine, R. (2001). "Study of Managerial Job Satisfaction in Hong Kong’s Chinese Restaurants". International Journal of Hospitality Management, 13(1), 35-42.

Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., Barton, A., & Lubbock, S. M. (2001). "The impact of job satisfaction on turnover intent: A test of a structural measurement model using a national sample of workers". Social Science Journal, 38(2), 233-251.

Lee, E., & Ho, H. (1989). Quality of work life the case of Hong Kong, Working Paper Series, Hong Kong Baptist College: Business Research Center, Hong Kong.

Liden, R., Wayne, S., & Sparrowe, R. (2000). "An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relations and work outcomes". Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 407-416.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction, in M. D. Dunnette (ed.), the Handbook of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, Chicago: Rand MCNally College.

Luthans, F. (1992). Organisational behavior. (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Luthans, F. (1998). Organisational behavior. (8th ed.). India: McGraw-Hill.Markow, K., & Klenke, K. (2005). The effects of Personal meaning and calling on Organizational

Commitment: An empirical investigation of Spiritual Leadership. International Journal of Organization, 13, 8-27.

Maslow, A.H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.Mccloskey, J .C., & Mccain, B. (1987). “Satisfaction, commitment, and professionalism of newly

employed nurses”. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 19 (10), 20-24.McCormick, E. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (1985). Industrial and Organisational Psychology. London: Allen

& Unwin.Milliman, J., Czaplewski, A. J., & Ferguson, J. (2003). "Workplace spirituality and employee work

attitudes: an exploratory empirical assessment". Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16, 426-447.

Mrayyan, M. T. (2005). “Nurse job satisfaction and retention: comparing public to private hospitals in Jordan”. Journal of Nursing Management, 13, 40-50.

Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial Attitudes and Performance.Homewood, IL, Irwin.Reskin, B., & Padavic, I. (1994). Women and men at work. USA: Pine Forge Press.Rice, R. W., Gentile, D. A., & McFarlin, D. B. (1991). "Facet importance and job satisfaction".

Journal of Applied Psychology, 76 (1), 31-39.Sengin, K. K. (2003). "Work-related attributes of job satisfaction in acute care hospitals". Journal

of Nursing Administration, 33 (6), 317-320.Sharma, B., & Bhaskar, S. (1991). "Determinants of job satisfaction among engineers in a public

sector undertaking". Journal of Management, 20, 23-34.

21

Spector, P. (1997). Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Cause and Consequences, Sage Publications, London.

Spector, P. E. (1985). "Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Development of the job satisfaction survey". American Journal of Community Psychology, 13(6), 693-713.

Ting, Y. (1997). "Determinants of job satisfaction of federal government employees". Public Personnel Management, 26(3), 313-334.

Visser, E. (1990). Organisatoriese veranderlikes en lewenstyl as voorspellers van werkstevredenheid en –prestasie. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of the Orange Free State, Bloemfontein, Free State.

Vroom, V .H. (1964).Work and Motivation. John Wiley & Sons, New York.White, A. W. (2000). Job satisfaction and professional development of health information,

administration faculty. Journal of Allied Health, Vol. 29, 129-137.

Documents

JOB SATISFACTION DETERMINANTS (A Study on Banking Employees)