Document] Effect of Organizational Structure on Job Satisfaction in IT Companies in Jordan

8/3/2019 Document] Effect of Organizational Structure on Job Satisfaction in IT Companies in Jordan

1/48

UNIVERSITY OF JORDAN

EFFECT OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

ON JOB SATISFACTION IN IT COMPANIES IN

JORDAN

Submitted by:

Diala Khawaldeh Huda Jaouni

MBA-Management International Business

Student ID: 8090018 Student ID: 8090514

Subject: Organizational Behavior

Instructor: Dr. Ziad Al Bakhit


2/48

ContentsAbstract ................................................................................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER I Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 4

Problem Statement ............................................................................................................................. 5

Significance of the study ..................................................................................................................... 5

Research questions and hypotheses................................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER II Background ....................................................................................................................... 7

Literature review ................................................................................................................................. 7

Theoretical Model ............................................................................................................................... 9

Variables and Operational Definition ............................................................................................... 10

CHAPTER III

Methodology .................................................................................................................. 11

Research purpose and investigation type ......................................................................................... 11

Population and sampling .................................................................................................................. 11

Sources of data and Instrumentation ............................................................................................... 12

Analysis plan ..................................................................................................................................... 13

Validity and reliability ....................................................................................................................... 14

CHAPTER IV Results ............................................................................................................................ 15

Demographic profile ......................................................................................................................... 15

Descriptive statistics ......................................................................................................................... 16

Inferential statistics ........................................................................................................................... 20

CHAPTER V Summary, Recommendations, and Limitations ............................................................. 22

Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 22

Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 22

Limitations ........................................................................................................................................ 23

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 24

APPENDIX-A The Questionnaire (English and Arabic Versions) ............................................................ 25

APPENDIX-B SPSS Descriptive and Inferential Analysis Detailed Reports ............................................ 39

Descriptive Analysis Detailed Reports .............................................................................................. 40

Inferential Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 46


3/48

Abstract

Factors affecting employees behavior in an organization has always drawn the

attention and focus of organizational behaviorists and human resources professionals.And one of the most integral behaviors of employees is job satisfaction in the workplace.

Most individual behaviors are found to be affected by two types of factors, internal

factors that lay within the intrinsic nature of the individual, and external factors such as

the work environment, and the way tasks and levels are structured in the workplace,

and job satisfaction is no exception to this fact.

The relation understudy in this research is the effect of the external factor

Organizational Structure, on the individual behavior Job Satisfaction. Research

indicates that there is a strong correlation between the two, however, the views about

which organizational structure is best are diverse. The studies that have operationalizedthe organizational structure by the length of its chain of command, have split into 3

groups; some have advocated the flat structured organizations (ones with few

managerial levels) at all rates, while some have said the flat Vs structure debate

depends on what needs the organization is looking to fulfill, and finally, the final group

prefers the flat structures up to a certain organization size, after which the structure

loses its influence on job satisfaction.

The current study attempts to measure the influence the organizational

structure might have on the satisfaction of employees in IT companies in Jordan. Job

satisfaction is sub-scaled to 20 dimensions, each of which represents a need that

contributes to the overall job satisfaction of the individual once fulfilled. The study takes

place in selected IT organizations of tall and flat structures in Amman, Jordan, from

which 100 employees have agreed to participate and provide data about themselves

and their organizations for further analysis.

In this study, it was found that organizational structure had significant effect on

4 dimensions of job satisfaction: Company Policies and Practices, Social Service, Variety,

and working conditions. According to the available data and the statistical analysis,

working conditions are more satisfying in flat IT organizations, while Company Policiesand Practices, Social Service, and Variety are more satisfying in tall IT organizations.

For future exploration of this relation, it is recommended in the coming studies

that organizational structure is operationalized by including more dimensions, such as

formality, and degree of centralization. It is also recommended that this relation is

explored in different settings and industries, scanning a larger sample size.


4/48

CHAPTER I Introduction

Introduction

Organizational behaviorists and human resources professionals have long been curiousabout the best way to structure a work environment in order to influence employee

outcomes. While it is widely recognized that both dispositional and environmental

factors jointly affect behavior, there is a movement towards a focus on environmental

factors because these are the factors that can be influenced by professionals.

One main goal kept in mind for changing these factors, is enhancing a very important

individual behavior variable that is frequently measured by organizations: Job

satisfaction. Job satisfaction describes how content an individual is with his or her job.

The importance of this variable is ascribed to its strong relation to several other

individual and organizational characteristics, such as job performance, employee

motivation, customer satisfaction, absenteeism and turnover, in addition to the overall

organizational performance and productivity.

Research in psychology and organizational behavior indicates that characteristics of the

work environment (e.g. organizational structure) may interact with employees'

personal characteristics, and there by affect individual job satisfaction. Specifically

speaking, and for the purpose of the current study, the work environment characteristic

of focus is the categorization of organizations into two types: tall, and flat (or vertical

and horizontal respectively as referred to in some texts).

A flat organization structure is defined as an organizational structure in which there are

relatively few levels of management with respect to the organizations size, whereas a

tall organization structure contains relatively many levels of supervision with respect to

the organizations size. Each has its own characteristics that are expected to be of great

influence on the employees job satisfaction under its structure.

Research indicates that organizations operating in dynamic conditions would gain great

benefits by adopting a flat organizational structure, due to its low levels of formalization

and centralization, which fosters higher levels of creativity and innovation. In contrast,organizations operating in more stable conditions would still call for more formalization

and centralization levels.

Information Technology (IT) companies make a great example of organizations

operating in dynamic operations. The IT industry is a continuously and rapidly changing

one, and its as far as it could be from stable. This requires IT managers of all levels to

be ready at all times for coping with change and embracing it, and that is one reason due

to which most IT companies are now restructuring internally to a flat structure.

In this study, the effect of structure type in IT companies in specific, on job satisfactionof IT employees, will be explored.


5/48

Problem Statement

There are aspects of an organization that can affect the job satisfaction of its employees,

which is a frequently measured individual characteristic and is of great importance to

managers, and IT managers are no exception. The main asset in the IT industry is

knowledge, and day after day, IT organizations are paying their knowledge workershigher and higher salaries, and are sparing no effort to keep them on the job.

This study is intended to add to what is known about what IT workers need in order to

have job satisfaction, and provide the results to IT managers and business owners to

realize what is necessary to keep and attract knowledge workers to their environments.

This goal was achieved by selecting a number of IT companies of both organizational

structure types (tall and flat), and then measuring job satisfaction of employees in these

organizations by means of a questionnaire, and then analyzing the collected data

statistically to verify direction and strength of this relation.

Significance of the study

The findings of this research will provide guidance for top managers and business

owners of IT companies towards the proper organizational structure that will provide a

better environment for the employees and promote higher levels of satisfaction.

This study will also pave the way for future researches to take place focusing on more

aspects of both variables in the present study (organizational structure and jobsatisfaction) that will add to the literature and findings relevant to this relation.

Research questions and hypotheses

This research is proposed to study job satisfaction as a function of organizational

structure. Most of the literature votes in favor of flat organizations when it comes to

satisfaction of the workers, but in organizational behavior, we cant generalize. Hence,

this research is formulated around the following questions:

What is the direction of the relation between organizational structure and

each dimension of job satisfaction, and the overall job satisfaction? And

which organizational structure is more satisfying for the workers?

This question could be broken down to the following hypotheses:

The null hypothesis H0: There is no difference between the job satisfaction of employees

in flat and tall organizations.

The alternative hypothesis HA: There is a difference between the job satisfaction of

employees in flat and tall organizations.


6/48

In mathematical terms:

H0: f =t

HA: f t

Wherefis the mean job satisfaction level in flat organizations, and tis the mean job

satisfaction level in tall organizations.


7/48

CHAPTER II Background

Literature review

The organizational structure literature suggests that organizational structure affectsemployees and perceptions and, thus, plays an important role in human resources

issues. Organizational structure also affects judgments and perceptions in that

unstructured firms offer relatively little structured guidance or other mechanisms to

encourage control and uniformity, whereas structured firms impose more specific

guidance and control mechanisms to enhance consistency and uniformity (Prawitt,

1993).

Narrowing down our focus to the literature on "tall" versus "flat" organizational

structures, we found a considerable amount of faith and advocacy of flat organizations.

Much of this advocacy is based on Worthy's study (1950) of nearly 100,000 employees

of Sears Roebuck over a period of 12 years. This study was among the first extensivestudies of the possible effects of flat and tall organization structures and was the most

widely cited reference in similar researches.

The basic argument of Worthy and other advocates of flat structures are that such

structures result in greater individual initiative and job responsibility which

consequently lead to improved attitudes toward the job. All of these comprise a higher

level of job satisfaction.

What worthy did in his study was a comparison between large and small organizations

of the same type. The main finding of this comparison was that large (i.e. tall)organizations had lower employee morale (team spirit) and lower individual output.

This leads to the following possible generalizations:

1- The taller the organization gets, the more this fosters centralization of authorityand job specialization, which eventually leads to low group morale, low

performance, and failure to develop managerial talents.

2- A flat organizational structure could give the advantages underlying in tallorganizations without these dysfunctional consequences.

Similar studies supporting worthys finding include Richardson and Walker (1948). In

their study, two levels of management were gradually eliminated from the companyunderstudy over a period of time during which the size of the company doubled (less

management levels and flatter organization) without adverse effects on morale and

productivity.

Harrel Carpenter (1971) compared tall, intermediate, and flat structures as well in six

public school systems, with respect to the level of job satisfaction of 120 classroom

teachers. He found that teachers in flat organizations enjoyed higher job satisfaction

than teachers in medium and tall organizations.


8/48

Up to this point, all researches are spotting the lights on the flat organization as a wise

choice for easing communication and enhancing the employees satisfaction, however,

there has been some scientific evidence that raises doubts about the validity of Worthy's

conclusions and all his advocates. The study of Porter and Lawler (1964) on job

satisfaction of managers indicated that a tall structure was better in fulfilling security

and social needs, while a flat structure was better for fulfilling autonomy and self-actualization needs. They suggested that a flat structure was not superior to a tall one at

all rates, and that there is no absolute choice, taking into consideration the priorities of

the needs that the organization prefers to fulfill.

Moreover, Porter and Siegel (1965) studied about 3,000 middle and top-level managers

in a wide variety of sizes and types of organizations in 13 countries. They found that in

organizations of less than 5,000 employees, flat structures were correlated with greater

satisfaction; in organizations of 5,000 employees and over, there was no difference

between manager satisfaction fulfillment levels and tall and flat structures.

Taking a look at more recent literature exploring this relation, it states that

organizational structure does influence the employees' job satisfaction. In 1995, Chia

contended that in a decentralized organization, the perceived employee job satisfaction

level can be enhanced when he or she can take action and make decisions to further his

or her self-interests.

In a 1993 study, knoop considered the relationship between work values and job

satisfaction by measuring each of these variables separately and then concurrently. Job

satisfaction was measured based on 5 subscales: work itself, pay, and opportunities for

promotion, supervision, and co-workers. These 5 determinates include internal and

external factors. As a result of knoop's study, job satisfaction was finally defined as aperson's general attitude toward the job and toward the specific aspects of the job such

as the nature of the work or relations with co-workers".

Based on this definition, the fit between the individual and the job, with both its parts

(the job environment itself, and the individual factors) has been shown to be an

important influence on employee job satisfaction.

Another study conducted in 2005 by Kuong Ah Lee in the University of Oklahoma,

explored the relation between organizational structure and job satisfaction of hotel

management employees. This study showed that locus of control and organizational

structure respectively affect job satisfaction, and further suggests that there is a

significant interaction between locus of control and organization structure in relations

to job satisfaction.

In 2007, Stacey R. Kessler examined the effects of the structure of an academic

department on faculty members job performance, job satisfaction, and prevalence of

counterproductive work behavior (CWB), or harmful behaviors while at work. The

results of her study suggest that the structure of an academic department is related to

outcomes for faculty members. Most notably, faculty members working in more

organically structured departments (those having the least hierarchy and specialization

of functions) have higher levels of job satisfaction.


9/48

Taking the conclusions and findings of old and recent studies all together, they provide

us with great diverse insights. In the currentstudy, we will control the industrys effecton the variables of interest by limiting our study to Information Technology

organizations. And we will study the direction and significance of the relationship (if it

exists) in these organizations between the structure from one side, and job satisfaction

and from the other side.

Theoretical Model

Figure 1 below illustrates the variables of interest in this study:

Figure-1 Theoretical Model

Activity

Company policies

& practices

Recognition

Creativity

Supervision-

technical

Ability

Utilization

Advancement

Compensation

Responsibility

Independence

Social status

Authority

Co-workers

Moral values

Achievement

Supervision-

human relation

Security Social service

Variety Working

conditions

Organizational

structure

ob Satisfaction


10/48

Variables and Operational Definition

The variables in Figure 1 are explained below:

The Independent Variable:

Organizational Structure: This is the independent variable of the study. Operationaldefinition of this variable considered length of chain of command (number of

managerial levels) in the organization to categorize it as a flat or a tall organization as

follows:

Organizations having 1-3 levels are considered flat

Organizations with having more than 3 levels are considered tall

Organizations selected for this study were all of small to moderate size to justify this

assumption and alienate the effect of size on the relation.

The Dependent Variable:

Job Satisfaction: As defined by knoop, job satisfaction is a person's general attitude

toward the job and toward the specific aspects of the job such as the nature of the work

or relations with co-workers. Job satisfaction is measured my breaking it down to the 20

subscales in the figure as guided by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ), the

job satisfaction measurement tool used in this research that will be discussed in more

detail in the coming chapter.

The relation between organizational structure and each subscale of the job satisfaction

will be measured separately, and then the relation between organizational structure

and the overall job satisfaction will be measured for both types of structures.


11/48

CHAPTER III Methodology

Research purpose and investigation type

Research purpose in this study is hypothesis testing. Type of investigation done in thisstudy is a casual investigation, that aims at comparing the overall job satisfaction in tall

and flat IT organizations in Jordan.

Extent of researcher interference is minimal. The study setting is a non-contrived field

experiment. Finally, the unit of analysis is employees in IT companies in Jordan.

Population and sampling

The Population of interest we wish to investigate consists of all employees in all IT

companies in Jordan, including top managers, mid-level managers, and regular

employees.

For the sake of this research in specific, we have taken a sample of 100 employees

distributed among a number of IT Companies in Jordan.

The sampling procedure was a multi-staged process; we have first investigated the

Jordanian directory for IT companies, and picked a number of tall and flat organizations.

The second step was a random sampling of the employees of the organization under

study, to whom the questionnaire measuring our variables was distributed, making sure

we get an equal share per organizational structure type.

The table below illustrated the types of organizations and the number of samples per

organization

Table-1 Participating IT Organizations

Organization Name Organization type Number of samples

Progressoft Flat 35

STS Tall 50

Optimiza Tall 10Method Flat 10

ExcellentTrain Flat 15

Masterpieces Flat 5

Knowledge Horizon Tall 25

Total 150


12/48

Sources of data and Instrumentation

Major sources of data for this study included:

Secondary data: Sources of data that already existed and were ready for use, such as

organizational records and archives.

Primary data: Data that was yet to be sought and collected from the samples subjects

under study. The data collection method in this study was a questionnaire developed to

measure the variables in the theoretical model.

The distributed questionnaire consisted of 2 parts; the first part was directed towards

measuring the organizational variables of interest, which are size, and length of chain of

command, along with some demographical data about the respondent. The second part

is directed towards measuring the employees job satisfaction in the current

organizational structure using a standard widely used questionnaire under the name

The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ).

MSQ was developed by Weiss, Dawis, English, and lofquist (1967) to measure the

individual's satisfaction with twenty different aspects of the work environment and is

one of the most popular measures of job satisfaction.

The MSQ is a 100-item, self-report instrument. It measures job satisfaction across 20

different dimensions mentioned in the theoretical model section, with five questions for

each dimension, on a 5-point likert scale. Those dimensions are listed again in the table

below, with a brief explanation of each, and the question numbers measuring eachdimension

Table-2 Job Satisfaction MSQ Subscales

Job Satisfaction

Dimension

Explanation Question

numbers

1. Ability utilization The chance to do something that makesuse of my abilities

7, 27, 47, 67, 87

2. Achievement The feeling of accomplishment I get fromthe job.

19, 39, 59, 79, 99

3. Activity Being able to keep busy all the time. 20, 40, 60, 80,100

4. Advancement The chances for advancement on thisjob.

14, 34, 54, 74, 94

5. Authority The chance to tell other people what todo.

6, 26, 46, 66, 86

6. Company Policiesand Practices

The way company policies are put into

practice.

9, 29, 49, 69, 99

7. Compensation My pay and the amount of work I do. 12, 32, 52, 72, 92

8. Co-workers The way my co-workers get along with each

other.

16, 36, 56, 76, 96

9. Creativity The chance to try my own methods of work 2, 22, 42, 62, 82


13/48

10.Independence The chance to work alone on the job. 4, 24, 44, 64, 84

11.Moral values Being able to do things that don't goagainst my conscience.

3, 23, 43, 63, 73

12.Recognition The praise I get for doing a good job. 18, 38, 58, 78, 98

13.Responsibility The freedom to use my own judgment. 17, 37, 57, 77, 97

14.Security The way my job provides for steadyemployment.

11, 31, 51, 71, 91

15.Social service The chance to do things for other people. 1, 21, 41, 61, 81

16.Social status The chance to be "somebody" in thecommunity.

8, 28, 48, 68, 88

17.Supervision-human relation

The way my boss handles his men. 10, 30, 50, 70, 90

18.Supervision-technical

The competence of my supervisor in

making decisions.

15, 35, 55, 75, 95

19.Variety The chance to do different things from

time to time.

5, 25, 45, 65, 85

20.Workingconditions

The working conditions. 13, 33, 53, 73, 93

Advantages of MSQ:

Reliable, valid measure of job satisfaction.

Easy to use, easy to understand.

Applicable to any organization.

Applicable for managers, supervisors, and employees.

However, one drawback of MSQ is that its a bit too long. A full English and Arabicversions of the questionnaire are found in Appendix A.

Analysis plan

The questionnaire was distributed among the employees of the selected IT

organizations and recollected. Table 3 below is a replica of Table 1 showing the number

of respondents per organization.

Table-3 Samples and respondents per organizationOrganization No. Organization type Number of samples Number of

respondents

Progressoft Flat 35 31

STS Tall 50 20

Optimiza Tall 10 9

Method Flat 10 6

ExcellentTrain Flat 15 7

Masterpieces Flat 5 5

Knowledge Horizon Tall 25 22

Total 150 100


14/48

After all filled questionnaires were retrieved; all data were entered on SPSS to go

through the statistical analysis.

The Collected data included demographical Info, organizational structure type and the

answers to the 100 questions of the MSQ. First of all, descriptive analysis were

conducted for the 20 subscales of JOB satisfaction, followed by an independent samples

two-tailed t-test at a 5% significance level to check if there was a mean difference

between the job satisfaction level in the flat organizations sample and the tall

organizations sample for each subscale of the 20 job satisfaction subscales, and the

overall job satisfaction level, and whether this mean difference was due to the

organizational structure, or sampling error.

Reliability test

Cronbach's Alpha was used to test the reliability of the scale used in data collection, and

as shown in the table below, it was found that Alpha = .967 which is good because it is

greater than .80, the threshold for acceptable reliability

Table-4 Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.967 100


15/48

CHAPTER IV Results

This chapter will discuss the analysis results for the collected data. The Statistical

Package for the Social Sciences 15.0 for Windows (SPSS, 2006) was used for all analyses.

The primary research question, "What is the relationship between organizational

structure and job satisfaction? was addressed using independent samples two-tailed t-

tests between the independent variable and the dependent variables 20 dimensions at

a 5% significance level.

Demographic profile

The study included 100 employees, 38% of this sample was comprised of females, and

62% were males. As for the age range of the respondents, a high majority (88%) wereaged between 20-30 years old, 11% were aged between 31 and 40 years old, while only

one respondent was aged above 41 and below 50.

The demographic statistics are summarized in the Tables 5 and 6 below.

Table-5 Gender

Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid female 38 38.0 38.0 38.0

male 62 62.0 62.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Table-6 Age

Frequency PercentValid

PercentCumulative

Percent

Valid 20-30 88 88.0 88.0 88.0

31-40 11 11.0 11.0 99.0

41-50 1 1.0 1.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0


16/48

Descriptive statistics

100 employees in different IT organizations of different structures went through the

study. 49% of the samples worked at flat structures, while 51% worked at tall

structures. Tables 7 and 8 below show the distribution of employees among different

structures, and the number of respondents per IT organization participating in thestudy.

Table-7 Respondents frequencies per structure type

Structure type Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

flat 49 49.0 49.0 49.0

tall 51 51.0 51.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Table-8 Respondents frequencies per organization

Organization name Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Excellent Train 7 7.0 7.0 7.0

Knowledge Horizon 22 22.0 22.0 29.0

Method 6 6.0 6.0 35.0

MasterPieces 5 5.0 5.0 40.0

Optimiza 9 9.0 9.0 49.0

Progressoft 31 31.0 31.0 80.0

STS 20 20.0 20.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

As for the job satisfaction levels among the samples under study, Table-9 below shows

the mean, standard deviation, and the minimum and maximum values for each subscale

of the job satisfaction subscales for the 100 samples in all organizational structures,

being flat or tall. The job satisfaction scores had a narrow range, as the values laid

between a minimum score of 3.368 out of 5 for the Compensation dimension, which is

the amount of pay in exchange of work done, and a maximum score of 3.798 out of 5 for

Co-workers dimension, which refers to the way the co-workers get along in the work

place.


17/48

Table-9 Job satisfaction Descriptive Statistics

Job satisfaction

Dimension N Minimum Maximum Mean

Std.

Deviation

Ability Utilization 100 1.80 5.00 3.5240 .80593Achievement 100 1.80 5.00 3.6180 .68761

Activity 100 1.80 5.00 3.6940 .65471

Advancement 100 1.00 5.00 3.4000 .76910

Authority 100 1.80 4.80 3.5900 .61390

Company Policies and

Practices

100 1.20 4.80 3.3680 .78250

Compensation 100 1.40 5.00 3.3680 .91175

Co-workers 100 2.00 5.00 3.7980 .58292Creativity 100 1.60 5.00 3.5800 .71774

Independence 100 2.00 5.00 3.7340 .58951

Moral Values 100 2.20 4.80 3.7900 .52676

Recognition 100 1.20 5.00 3.4140 .74522

Responsibility 100 1.80 5.00 3.6560 .64828

Security 100 1.80 4.80 3.6260 .62646

Social Service 100 2.00 5.00 3.7440 .60106

Social Status 100 2.00 5.00 3.4540 .63428

Supervision-HR skills 100 1.80 5.00 3.6200 .76621

Supervision-Technical

skills

100 1.40 4.80 3.4780 .74989

Variety 100 1.80 4.80 3.4660 .64764

Working conditions 100 1.80 5.00 3.6440 .67365

Job Satisfaction 100 2.44 4.63 3.5783 .48114

Now what about job satisfaction among employees of a certain organizational

structure?

We will take a look at each subscale, and compare its value for the samples tall structure

and flat structure. The 4 tables below (Tables 10 to 13) display the means for each job

satisfaction subscale in both tall and flat organizations, and point out the winning

structure for each subscale in particular.


18/48

As can be seen from these statistics, the mean job satisfaction level in flatstructure

outscored the tall structure for the following subscales:

1. Ability Utilization

2. Achievement

3. Activity

4. Compensation

5. Co-workers

6. Creativity

7. Independence

8. Moral Values

9. Recognition

10.Responsibility

11.Security

12.Social Service13.Social Status

14.Working conditions

While the tall structure mean job satisfaction level has outscored the flat structure

for the following subscales:

1. Advancement

2. Authority

3. Company Policies and Practices

4. Supervision-HR

5. Supervision-Tech

6. Variety

Table-10 Satisfaction levels in different structures (Part 1)

Structure

Type

Ability

Utiliz.

Achieve

-ment Activity

Advance-

ment Authority

Company

Policies and

Practices

Flat Mean 3.5306 3.6653 3.7061 3.3510 3.5837 3.2082

Min 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.00 1.80 1.20

Max 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.80 4.40

Tall Mean 3.5176 3.5725 3.6824 3.4471 3.5961 3.5216

Min 1.80 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.40 1.60

Max 5.00 4.60 4.80 4.60 4.80 4.80

Satisfaction

Higher At Flat Flat Flat Tall Tall Tall

Difference 0.0130 0.0928 0.0238 0.0960 0.0124 0.3134


19/48


Structure Type Compensation

Co-

Workers Creativity Independence

Moral

Values Recognition

Flat Mean 3.4816 3.8367 3.5878 3.7592 3.8490 3.4408

Min 1.40 2.00 1.80 2.00 2.20 1.20

Max 5.00 5.00 4.80 5.00 4.80 5.00

Tall Mean 3.2588 3.7608 3.5725 3.7098 3.7333 3.3882

Min 1.40 2.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 1.40

Max 4.80 5.00 5.00 4.80 4.60 5.00

Satisfaction

Higher At Flat Flat Flat Flat Flat Flat

Difference 0.2228 .08 .02 .05 .12 .05


Structure Type Responsibility Security

Social

Service

Social

Status

Supervision-

Hr Skills

Supervision

Technical

Skills

Flat Mean 3.6857 3.6367 3.8898 3.4980 3.5347 3.3755

Min 2.20 2.20 2.80 2.20 1.80 1.40

Max 5.00 4.80 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.60

Tall Mean 3.6275 3.6157 3.6039 3.4118 3.7020 3.5765

Min 1.80 1.80 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

Max 4.80 4.80 5.00 4.60 5.00 4.80

Satisfaction

Higher At Flat Flat Flat Flat Tall Tall

Difference .06 .02 0.2859 0.0862 0.1673 0.201


Structure Type Variety

Working

Conditions

Job

Satisfaction

Flat Mean 3.3184 3.7878 3.5863

Minimum 1.80 2.40 2.46

Maximum 4.20 5.00 4.63

Tall Mean 3.6078 3.5059 3.5706

Minimum 2.00 1.80 2.44

Maximum 4.80 4.60 4.47

Satisfaction

Higher At Tall Flat Flat

Difference 0.2895 0.2819 0.0157


20/48

A detailed list for all statistics of the overall job satisfaction levels and its subscales

categorized by the organizations name and structure can be found in Appendix B.

As for the overall job satisfaction, as listed in Table 10. In flat structures, it reached

around 3.58 out of 5 as compared to a score of 3.57 in tall structures. The question is, is

this difference in job satisfaction and all its 20 subscales significant enough? And could

it be due to the organizational structure? Is it due to sampling associated errors? The

answer to these questions can be achieved by performing inferential statistical analysis

on the available data. These will be discussed in the next section.

Inferential statistics

We will now analyze the data in hand to decide whether the difference in job

satisfaction subscales levels and the overall job satisfaction among tall and flat

organizations are significant, and whether this difference is due to the organizational

structure, or a sampling error.

The suitable statistical test in this case, is the independent samples t-test, since the

employees in tall organizations lie in a separate group of the employees in the flat

organizations. As for the type of t-test, it will be a two-tailed t-test since our alternative

hypothesis is non-directional, and doesnt state which organizational structure has a

higher level of job satisfaction. The chosen significance level for this test is 5%

The t-test will first be conducted for testing the relation between organizational

structure, and each subscale of the 20 job satisfaction subscales, and determining

whether the organizational structure has a relation with certain job satisfaction

dimensions. Another t-test will then be performed to determine the relation between

the organizational structure and the overall job satisfaction.

The results of the 20 t-tests for job satisfaction subscales are summarized in Table 14

below:

Table-14 t-test results

Job Satisfaction Subscale Significance level froma 2-tailed t-test

Sig< (0.05)? Comment

Ability Utilization 0.937 No Alternative hypothesisis not supported

Achievement 0.503 No Alternative hypothesis

is not supported

Activity 0.857 No Alternative hypothesis

is not supported

Advancement 0.537 No Alternative hypothesis

is not supported

Authority 0.920 No Alternative hypothesis

is not supported


21/48

Company Policies and Practices 0.046 Yes Alternative hypothesis

is supported

Compensation 0.223 No Alternative hypothesis

is not supported

Co-workers 0.518 No Alternative hypothesisis not supported

Creativity 0.916 No Alternative hypothesisis not supported

Independence 0.678 No Alternative hypothesisis not supported

Moral Values 0.274 No Alternative hypothesis

is not supported

Recognition 0.727 No Alternative hypothesis

is not supported

Responsibility 0.655 No Alternative hypothesis

is not supported

Security 0.867 No Alternative hypothesis

is not supported

Social Service 0.016 Yes Alternative hypothesis

is supported

Social Status 0.500 No Alternative hypothesis

is not supported

Supervision-HR 0.278 No Alternative hypothesis

is not supported

Supervision-Tech 0.182 No Alternative hypothesisis not supported

Variety 0.025 Yes Alternative hypothesis

is supportedWorking conditions 0.035 Yes Alternative hypothesis

is supported

Based on these results, we can conclude that:

1- Employees in tall IT organizations are more satisfied with respect to the job

satisfaction dimensions: Company Policies and Practices, Social Service, and

Variety, than employees in flat organizations.

2- Employees in flat IT organizations are more satisfied with respect to workingconditions than employees in tall organizations.

As for the overall job satisfaction, the significance level obtained from the t-test equality

of means was 0.871, and the degrees of freedom=97.363. the significance level doesnt

lay below the accepted significance level of the test (=5%), as a result, we can say:

The t-test with df= 97.363 was not significant; we must retain the possibilities that the

difference between the two groups is zero.

Hence, H0is accepted, and HAis rejected.

A detailed list for all t-tests parameters and outputs is available in Appendix B


22/48

CHAPTER V Summary, Recommendations, and Limitations

Summary

This study was undertaken to explore the relation between organizational structure ofIT companies in Jordan, and the level of job satisfaction of their workers.

A sample of 100 employees working at IT organizations of one of the two structure

types: flat or tall, went under the study and expressed the way they feel towards

different aspects of their jobs. Their input was analyzed and interpreted following

proper research methods and using statistical analysis. It was found that the

organizational structure for this setting only has effect on 4 out of 20 job satisfaction

dimensions: Company Policies and Practices, Social Service, Variety, and working

conditions. Where the first 3 dimensions are more satisfying in tall organizations and

the last is more satisfying in flat organizations. On the other hand, organizational

structure had no effect on the rest of the job satisfaction subscales, and the overall job

satisfaction level of employees in the selected IT companies.

These results could be due to the fact that IT companies might not be applying the

organizational structures properly, some violations could occur and the workflow

dictated by the structure is not always followed. One final note to be made, is that the

mean job satisfaction levels among the entire sample subjects had a narrow range (a

minimum 3.368 of and a maximum of 3.798), which indicates that the satisfaction

among IT workers doesnt vary that much over the organizations. Moreover, thesescores are not that high, and from here we can make an initial observation here, that IT

workers are not very satisfied.

These findings call for a study that goes more in depth in these variables, and more in

breadth of samples and other industries,. In addition, it would be useful to explore other

factors that might boost up the job satisfaction of IT workers in specific.

Recommendations

For future studies, it is highly recommended to enhance the operational definition for

the organizational structure variable to include more dimensions, such as size,

formalization, and centralization.

It is also recommended to study the effect of the organizational structure on other

individual organizational behavior variables such as communication, performance,

productivity, absenteeism and turnover.

Holding the type of companies constant, it will be of great value if more variables that

could affect job satisfaction could be studied.


23/48

It would be a great benefit as well to conduct similar studies in other industries such as

manufacturing and education.

Limitations

The current research went through the following limitations and obstacles:

1- Time provided for conducting the research was inadequate

2- Most IT companies refused to give out their data

3- Some IT companies refused returning back the questionnaires after accepting

participating in the study

4- Personal bias in filling the questionnaire

5- Human error might have occurred in data entry due to the large size of the data

retrieved


24/48

REFERENCES

1- Relation of Organizational Structure to Job Satisfaction, Anxiety-Stress, and

Performance. John M. Ivancevich and Jannes H. Donnelly, Jr.

2- Worthy, James C. 1950 "Organizational structure and employee morale."

American Sociological Review, 24: 169-179.

3- Richardson, F. L W., Jr., and Charles R.Walker.1948 Human Relations in anexpanding Company. New Haven: Labor and Management Center, Yale

University.

4- Carpenter, Harrel H. 1971 "Formal organizational structural factors andperceived job satisfaction of classroom teachers." Administrative Science

Quarterly, 16: 460-465

5- Ghiselli, Edwin E., and Jacob P. Siegel 1972 "Leadership and managerial successin tall and flat organization structures." Personnel Psychology, 25: 617-624.

6- The relationship between organizational structure and integration: the effects onmanufacturing performance. Tafael Teixeira. Department of Management,

Clemson university

7- Organization Structure and Communications. Jerald Hage, Michael Aiken andCora Bagley Marrett.American Sociological Review, Vol. 36, No. 5 (Oct., 1971), pp.

860-871

8- Relationships of tall and flat organization structures to the satisfactions offoreign managers Lyman W. Porter and Jacob Siegel. University of California,

Berkeley

9- Organizational Structure and the Performance and Job Satisfaction of

Physiologists. Leo Meltzer and James Salter. American Sociological Review, Vol.27, No. 3 (Jun., 1962), pp. 351-362

10-Douglas Frank Prawitt , a comparison of human resource allocation acrossauditing firms: The effects of structured .audit technology and environment,

1993

11-Knoop, R. (1995). Influence of participative decision-making on job satisfactionand organizational commitment of school principals.

12-Stacey R. Kessler, The Effects of Organizational Structure on Faculty JobPerformance, Job Satisfaction, and Counterproductive Work Behavior, 2007


25/48

APPENDIX-A

The

Questionnaire(English and

Arabic

Versions)


26/48

University Of Jordan

A questionnaire about The effect of organizational

structure on job satisfaction in IT companies

This research aims at measuring job satisfaction as a function of theorganizational structure. Please read thoroughly and objectively answer the

questions included in this questionnaire on the attached scale, keeping in

mind that all information you submit will be confidentiality dealt with and

just for the purpose of this research. This research is conducted as a

partial fulfillment of the course Organizational Behavior

requirements and is supervised by Dr. Ziad Al Bakhit.

Prepared by:

Diala Khawaldeh Huda Jaouni

MBA/ Management International Business

Student ID: 8090018 Student ID: 8090514


27/48

Part 1: individual and organizational structure

basic information

Instructions: Please fill the table below with reference to yourself and

the IT organization you are currently employed at.

1-Individual Basic Information:1. Gender Male Female2.Age 20-30 31-40 41-50 Above

50

3. Job level Topmanager

Middle

level

manager

Team

leader

Employee

Other

(specify)

.

.

2. The organizations basic information:

1. Size of theorganization

(number of

employees)

1-20

20-

50

50-

100

100-

500

500-

1000

1000+

2. Number ofmanagerial

levels in the

organization

1 2 3 4 5 or

more


28/48

Part 2 Measuring Job Satisfaction

Instructions:

The purpose of this part of the questionnaire is to give you a chance to

tell how you feel about your present job, what things you are satisfied

with and what things you are not satisfied with.

On the following pages you will find statements about your present

job, please do the following:

-Read each statement carefully.

-Decide how satisfied you feel about the aspect of your job described

by the statement.

Keeping the statement in mind:

If you feel that your job gives you more than you expected, check

the box under "Very Sat." (Very Satisfied).

If you feel that your job gives you what you expected, check the

box under "Sat." (Satisfied).

If you cannot make up your mind whether or not the job gives

you what you expected, check the box under "N (Neither

satisfied nor dissatisfied).

If you feel that your job gives you less than you expected, check

the box under "Dissat."(Dissatisfied).

If you feel that your job gives you much less than you expected,

check the box under "Very Dissat." (Very Dissatisfied).

-Do this for all statements. Please answer every item.

-Be frank and honest. Give a true picture of your feelings about your

present job.


29/48

Minnesota Job Satisfaction Questionnaire:

Satisfaction subscale Very

Dissat.

Dissat. N Sat. Very

Sat.

1- The chance to be of service to others

2- The chance to try out some of my own

ideas

3- Being able to do the job without feeling

it is morally wrong

4- The chance to work by myself

5- The variety in my work

6- The chance to have other workers look

to me for direction

7- The chance to do the kind of work thatI do best

8- The social position in the community

that goes with the job

9- The policies and practices towards

employees of this company

10- The way my supervisor and I

understand each other

11- My job security

12- The amount of pay for the work that I

do

13- The working conditions (heating,

lighting, ventilation, etc..) on this job

14- The opportunities for advancement in

this job

15- The technical know-how of mysupervisor

16- The spirit of cooperation among my

co-workers

17- The chance of being responsible of

planning my work

18- The way I am noticed when I do a good

job

19- Being able to see the results of the

work I do

20- The chance to be active much of the

time

21- The chance to be of service to people

22- The chance to do new and original

things on my own

23- Being able to do things that dont goagainst my religious beliefs


30/48

24- The chance to work alone on the job

25- The chance to do different things from

time to time

26- The chance to tell other workers how

to do things

27- The chance to do work that is well

suited to my abilities

28- The chance to be somebody in thecommunity

29- Company policies and the way in which

they are administered

30- The way my boss handles his/her

employees

31- The way my job provides for a secure

future

32- The chance to make as much money as

my friends

33- The physical surroundings where I

work

34- The chance of getting ahead on this job

35- The competence of my supervisor in

making decisions

36- The chance to develop close

friendships with my co-workers

37- The chance to make decisions on my

own

38- The way I get full credit for the work I

do

39- Being able to take pride in a job well

done

40- Being able to do something much of

the time

41- The chance to help people

42- The chance to try something different

43- Being able to do things that dont goagainst my conscience

44- The chance to be alone on the job

45- The routine in my work

46- The chance to supervise other people

47- The chance to make use of my best

abilities

48- The chance to rub elbows withimportant people

49- The way employees are informed

about company policies


31/48

50- The way my boss backs up his/her

employees (with top management)

51- The way my job provides for steady

employment

52- How my pay compares with that forsimilar jobs in other companies

53- The pleasantness of the working

conditions

54- The way promotions are given out on

this job

55- The way my boss delegates work to

others

56- The friendliness of my co-workers

57- The chance to be responsible for the

work of others

58- The recognition I get for the work I do

59- Being able to do something worthwhile

60- Being able to stay busy

61- The chance to do things for other

people

62- The chance to develop new and better

ways to do the job

63- The chance to do things that dont hurt

other people64- The chance to work independently of

others

65- The chance to do something different

everyday

66- The chance to tell people what to do

67- The chance to do something that

makes use of my abilities

68- The chance to be important in the eyes

of others

69- The way company policies are put intopractice

70- the way my boss takes care of the

complaints of his/her employees

71- how steady my job is

72- My pay and the amount of work I do

73- The physical working conditions of the

job

74- The chances for advancement on this

job

75- The way my boss provides help onhard problems


32/48

76- The way my co-workers are easy to

make friends with

77- The freedom to use my own judgment

78- The way they usually tell me when I do

my job well

79- The chance to do my best at all times

80- The chance to be "on the go" all the

time

81- The chance to be of some small service

to other people

82- The chance to try my own methods of

doing the job

83- The chance to do the job without

feeling I am cheating anyone

84- The chance to work away from others85- The chance to do many different things

on the job

86- The chance to tell others what to do

87- The chance to make use of my abilities

and skills

88- The chance to have a definite place in

the community

89- The way the company treats its

employees

90- The personal relationship between myboss and his/her employees

91- The way layoffs and transfers are

avoided in my job

92- How my pay compares with that of

other workers

93- The working conditions

94- My chances for advancement

95- The way my boss trains his/her

employees

96- The way my co-workers get along witheach other

97- The responsibility of my job

98- The praise I get for doing a good job

99- The feeling of accomplishment I get

from the job

100- Being able to keep busy all the time


33/48


34/48

:

: .

:.1

.1

20-30.231-4041-50

50

3.*

)(

................

................

:.2

1.(

)

8-28

28-58

5-8

88-588

588-888

888+

.2

2

3

4

5


35/48

: 2

:

.

:

-.

. -2

:

)

)

)(

( )

(

.)

(.)

3-. .

4-

.


36/48

:

-

-2

-3

4-

5-

6-

-7

-

9-

8-

-

2-

3-. ( ..)

- 14

5-

-16

7-

-

-

19

-28

2-

22-

23-

24-

25- 26-

27-

2-

-29

-30

3-

32-

33-

34- -35


37/48

36--

37--

3-- -39 -48

4-

42-

43-

44-

45-

46-

- 47

- 48

49-

58

5-

-52

-53

-54

-55

-56-57

5-

-59

68-

6-

62-

63-

64-

65-

66-

67-

6-

-69

78-

7-

72-

73- 74-


38/48

-75

76-

77-

7-

-79

8-

-

2-

3-

4-

5-

6-

7- -

9-

98-

9-

92-

93-

94-

-95

96-

-97

9-

99-

88-


39/48

APPENDIX-B

SPSS

Descriptiveand Inferential

Analysis

Detailed

Reports


40/48

Descriptive Analysis Detailed Reports

This section lists the detailed reports for all descriptive analysis mentioned in the

documentation.

Tables B1-5 list the arithmetic means for all job satisfaction dimensions and the overall

job satisfaction categorized by structure type and organization name:

Table B1 Job Satisfaction levels in the organizations (Part-1)

Str.

type Organization name

Ability

Utilization

Achieve

-ment Activity

Advance-

ment Authority

flat ExcellentTrai

n

Mea

n

3.6286 3.7714 3.6857 3.7714 3.9714

N 7 7 7 7 7Method Mea

n

4.3000 4.2667 3.9667 4.3000 4.0000

N 6 6 6 6 6

MasterPieces Mea

n

4.4000 4.2800 4.2800 3.4800 3.8800

N 5 5 5 5 5

Progressoft Mea

n

3.2194 3.4258 3.5677 3.0516 3.3677

N 31 31 31 31 31

Total Mea

n

3.5306 3.6653 3.7061 3.3510 3.5837

N 49 49 49 49 49

tall knowledge

Horizon

Mea

n

3.6727 3.7091 3.8182 3.6818 3.7091

N 22 22 22 22 22

optimiza Mea

n

3.4000 3.2222 3.9111 3.3556 3.4444

N 9 9 9 9 9

STS Mea

n

3.4000 3.5800 3.4300 3.2300 3.5400

N 20 20 20 20 20

Total Mea

n

3.5176 3.5725 3.6824 3.4471 3.5961

N 51 51 51 51 51

Tota

l

ExcellentTrai

n

Mea

n

3.6286 3.7714 3.6857 3.7714 3.9714

N 7 7 7 7 7

knowledge

Horizon

Mea

n

3.6727 3.7091 3.8182 3.6818 3.7091

N 22 22 22 22 22

Method Mea

n

4.3000 4.2667 3.9667 4.3000 4.0000


41/48

N 6 6 6 6 6

MasterPieces Mea

n

4.4000 4.2800 4.2800 3.4800 3.8800

N 5 5 5 5 5

optimiza Mea

n

3.4000 3.2222 3.9111 3.3556 3.4444

N 9 9 9 9 9

Progressoft Mea

n

3.2194 3.4258 3.5677 3.0516 3.3677

N 31 31 31 31 31

STS Mea

n

3.4000 3.5800 3.4300 3.2300 3.5400

N 20 20 20 20 20

Total Mea

n

3.5240 3.6180 3.6940 3.4000 3.5900

N 100 100 100 100 100


Str.

type organization name

Compan

y

Policies

andPractice

s

Compensati

on

Co-worker

s

Creativit

y

Independen

ce

flat ExcellentTra

in

Mea

n

3.5714 3.9143 3.7714 3.4571 3.8857

N 7 7 7 7 7

Method Mea

n

4.1667 4.1000 4.3333 4.3000 4.0000

N 6 6 6 6 6

MasterPiece

s

Mea

n

3.6800 3.0400 3.6400 3.9200 4.1200

N 5 5 5 5 5

Progressoft Mea

n

2.8645 3.3355 3.7871 3.4258 3.6258

N 31 31 31 31 31

Total Mea

n

3.2082 3.4816 3.8367 3.5878 3.7592

N 49 49 49 49 49

tall knowledge

Horizon

Mea

n

3.7818 3.7182 3.7636 3.7909 3.9273

N 22 22 22 22 22


42/48

optimiza Mea

n

3.2000 3.1111 3.8222 3.4222 3.5778

N 9 9 9 9 9

STS Mea

n

3.3800 2.8200 3.7300 3.4000 3.5300

N 20 20 20 20 20

Total Mea

n

3.5216 3.2588 3.7608 3.5725 3.7098

N 51 51 51 51 51

Tota

l

ExcellentTra

in

Mea

n

3.5714 3.9143 3.7714 3.4571 3.8857

N 7 7 7 7 7

knowledge

Horizon

Mea

n

3.7818 3.7182 3.7636 3.7909 3.9273

N 22 22 22 22 22

Method Mea

n

4.1667 4.1000 4.3333 4.3000 4.0000

N 6 6 6 6 6

MasterPiece

s

Mea

n

3.6800 3.0400 3.6400 3.9200 4.1200

N 5 5 5 5 5

optimiza Mea

n

3.2000 3.1111 3.8222 3.4222 3.5778

N 9 9 9 9 9Progressoft Mea

n

2.8645 3.3355 3.7871 3.4258 3.6258

N 31 31 31 31 31

STS Mea

n

3.3800 2.8200 3.7300 3.4000 3.5300

N 20 20 20 20 20

Total Mea

n

3.3680 3.3680 3.7980 3.5800 3.7340

N 100 100 100 100 100


43/48


Str. type organization name Recognition

Moral

Values Responsibility Security

flat ExcellentTrain Mean 3.4857 3.6571 3.8000 3.9143N 7 7 7 7

Method Mean 4.2333 4.0333 4.3667 4.3333

N 6 6 6 6

MasterPieces Mean 4.0000 3.7200 3.8400 4.2400

N 5 5 5 5

Progressoft Mean 3.1871 3.8774 3.4258 3.7419

N 31 31 31 31

Total Mean 3.4408 3.8490 3.6367 3.8898

N 49 49 49 49

tall knowledge

Horizon

Mean 3.5273 3.8273 3.7091 3.8091

N 22 22 22 22

optimiza Mean 3.4667 3.4889

N

3.2000 3.6667

9 9

STS Mean 9 9 3.5800 3.4300

N 3.3200 3.6600 20 20

Total Mean 20 20 3.6157 3.6039

N 3.3882 3.7333 51 51

Total ExcellentTrain Mean 51 51 3.8000 3.9143N 3.4857 3.6571 7 7

knowledge

Horizon

Mean 7 7 3.7091 3.8091

N 3.5273 3.8273 22 22

Method Mean 22 22 4.3667 4.3333

N 4.2333 4.0333 6 6

MasterPieces Mean 6 6 3.8400 4.2400

N 4.0000 3.7200 5 5

optimiza Mean 5 5 3.4667 3.4889

N 3.2000 3.6667 9 9

Progressoft Mean 9 9 3.4258 3.7419

N 3.1871 3.8774 31 31

31 31

STS Mean

3.3200 3.6600

3.5800 3.4300

N 20 20 20 20

Total Mean 3.4140 3.7900 3.6260 3.7440

N 100 100 100 100


44/48


Str. type organization name

Social

Service

Social

Status

Supervision-

HR

Supervision-

Tech

flat ExcellentTrain Mean 3.6571 4.0000 3.5429 3.7429

N 7 7 7 7

Method Mean 4.1667 4.3667 4.3000 4.2333

N 6 6 6 6


N 5 5 5 5

Progressoft Mean 3.3419 3.1871 3.4968 3.0452

N 31 31 31 31

Total Mean 3.4980 3.5347 3.6857 3.3755

N 49 49 49 49tall knowledge

Horizon

Mean 3.5364 3.7545 3.8727 3.7182

N 22 22 22 22

optimiza Mean 3.4222 3.5778 3.4889 3.3111

N 9 9 9 9

STS Mean 3.2700 3.7000 3.4200 3.5400

N 20 20 20 20

Total Mean 3.4118 3.7020 3.6275 3.5765

N 51 51 51 51

Total ExcellentTrain Mean 3.6571 4.0000 3.5429 3.7429

N 7 7 7 7

knowledge

Horizon

Mean 3.5364 3.7545 3.8727 3.7182

N 22 22 22 22

Method Mean 4.1667 4.3667 4.3000 4.2333

N 6 6 6 6


N 5 5 5 5

optimiza Mean 3.4222 3.5778 3.4889 3.3111

N 9 9 9 9

Progressoft Mean 3.3419 3.1871 3.4968 3.0452N 31 31 31 31

STS Mean 3.2700 3.7000 3.4200 3.5400

N 20 20 20 20

Total Mean 3.4540 3.6200 3.6560 3.4780

N 100 100 100 100


45/48


Str. type organization name Variety

Working

conditions

Job

Satisfaction

flat ExcellentTrain Mean 3.4857 3.6857 3.7200N 7 7 7

Method Mean 4.1000 4.3333 4.2100

N 6 6 6

MasterPieces Mean 3.7600 3.6400 3.8800

N 5 5 5

Progressoft Mean 3.0581 3.7290 3.3881

N 31 31 31

Total Mean 3.3184 3.7878 3.5863

N 49 49 49tall knowledge

Horizon

Mean 3.9545 3.8273 3.7555

N 22 22 22

optimiza Mean 3.3556 3.1111 3.4278

N 9 9 9

STS Mean 3.3400 3.3300 3.4315

N 20 20 20

Total Mean 3.6078 3.5059 3.5706

N 51 51 51

Total ExcellentTrain Mean 3.4857 3.6857 3.7200

N 7 7 7

KH Mean 3.9545 3.8273 3.7555

N 22 22 22

Method Mean 4.1000 4.3333 4.2100

N 6 6 6

MasterPieces Mean 3.7600 3.6400 3.8800

N 5 5 5

optimiza Mean 3.3556 3.1111 3.4278

N 9 9 9

Progressoft Mean 3.0581 3.7290 3.3881N 31 31 31

STS Mean 3.3400 3.3300 3.4315

N 20 20 20

Total Mean 3.4660 3.6440 3.5783

N 100 100 100


46/48

Inferential Analysis

This section lists the detailed reports for all inferential analysis (the t-tests) mentioned

in the documentation.

The Tables B6 illustrates the t-tests results for the 21 relations studied in this research.

Table B6 Independent Samples Test

Levene'sTest for

Equality ofVariances t-test for Equality of Means

95% ConfidenceInterval of the

Difference

F Sig. t df

Sig.(2-

tailed)

MeanDifferenc

e

Std. ErrorDifferenc

e Lower Upper

AbilityUtilization

Equalvariancesassumed

1.459

.230

.080 98 .936 .01297 .16203 -.30858

.33451

Equalvariancesnotassumed

.080 95.509

.937 .01297 .16243 -.30948

.33541

Acheivement Equalvariancesassumed

.239 .626

.672 98 .503 .09276 .13793 -.18096

.36648


.672 96.981

.503 .09276 .13810 -.18134

.36686

Activity Equalvariancesassumed

2.026

.158

.181 98 .857 .02377 .13161 -.23741

.28495


.181 96.908

.857 .02377 .13123 -.23668

.28422

Advancement Equalvariancesassumed

.614 .435

-.622 98 .535 -.09604 .15433 -.40230

.21022


-.620 93.318

.537 -.09604 .15490 -.40364

.21156

Authority Equalvariancesassumed

1.425

.235

-.101 98 .920 -.01240 .12342 -.25733

.23252


-.100 92.921

.920 -.01240 .12391 -.25846

.23365


47/48

CompanyPolicies andpractices


2.592

.111

-2.034

98 .045 -.31341 .15411 -.61923

-.00758

Equalvariancesnot

assumed

-2.026

92.918

.046 -.31341 .15471 -.62064

-.00617

Compensation


.807 .371

1.225 98 .224 .22281 .18193 -.13822

.58384


1.227 97.847

.223 .22281 .18163 -.13765

.58326

Co-workers Equalvariancesassumed

.016 .900

.649 98 .518 .07595 .11695 -.15613

.30803

Equal

variancesnotassumed

.649 97.72

7

.518 .07595 .11698 -

.15620

.30810

Creativity Equalvariancesassumed

.069 .794

.105 98 .916 .01521 .14430 -.27115

.30156


.106 97.130

.916 .01521 .14391 -.27040

.30082

Independence


.531 .468

.417 98 .678 .04938 .11842 -.18562

.28438


.416 95.136

.678 .04938 .11874 -.18634

.28510

Moral Values Equalvariancesassumed

1.195

.277

1.099 98 .275 .11565 .10526 -.09324

.32454


1.101 97.525

.274 .11565 .10503 -.09279

.32409

Recognition Equalvariancesassumed

.853 .358

.351 98 .726 .05258 .14974 -.24457

.34973


.350 96.079

.727 .05258 .15005 -.24525

.35042

Responsibility Equalvariancesassumed

.101 .751

.447 98 .656 .05826 .13021 -.20013

.31666

Equalvariancesnot

assumed

.448 97.974

.655 .05826 .13015 -.20001

.31653


48/48

Security Equalvariancesassumed

.002 .968

.167 98 .868 .02105 .12594 -.22887

.27096

Equalvariancesnot

assumed

.167 97.910

.867 .02105 .12576 -.22851

.27061

SocialService


4.002

.048

2.436 98 .017 .28587 .11735 .05300 .51875


2.448 93.829

.016 .28587 .11676 .05405 .51770

Social Status Equalvariancesassumed

.737 .393

.677 98 .500 .08619 .12723 -.16629

.33868

Equal

variancesnotassumed

.677 97.27

4

.500 .08619 .12735 -

.16655

.33893

Supervision-HR


.490 .486

-1.092

98 .277 -.16727 .15312 -.47113

.13660


-1.091

97.008

.278 -.16727 .15331 -.47155

.13701

Supervision-Tech


.190 .664

-1.345

98 .182 -.20096 .14940 -.49744

.09552


-1.344

97.446

.182 -.20096 .14950 -.49767

.09575

Variety Equalvariancesassumed

.521 .472

-2.281

98 .025 -.28948 .12689 -.54128

-.03767


-2.277

96.336

.025 -.28948 .12712 -.54180

-.03715

Workingconditions


2.130

.148

2.129 98 .036 .28187 .13242 .01910 .54465


2.137 95.758

.035 .28187 .13190 .02004 .54370

JobSatisfaction


.216 .643

.163 98 .871 .01574 .09672 -.17621

.20768

Equali

.163 97.363

.871 .01574 .09680 -17638

.20786

Documents

Document] Effect of Organizational Structure on Job Satisfaction in IT Companies in Jordan