FACTORS INFLUENCING EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND …

i

FACTORS INFLUENCING EMPLOYEE JOB

SATISFACTION AND ITS IMPACT ON EMPLOYEE

PERFORMANCE: A CASE OF UNILEVER KENYA

BY

SSEGAWA GODFREY

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

SPRING 2014

ii

FACTORS INFLUENCING EMPLOYEE JOB

SATISFACTION AND ITS IMPACT ON EMPLOYEE

PERFORMANCE: A CASE OF UNILEVER KENYA

BY

SSEGAWA GODFREY

A Research Project Submitted to Chandaria School of Business

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of

Masters in Business Administration (MBA)

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

SPRING 2014

i

STUDENT’S DECLARATION

I, the undersigned, declare that this is my original work and has not been submitted to any

other College, Institution or University other than the United States International

University-Africa for Academic Credit.

Signed: Date:

Ssegawa Godfrey, ID: 636764

This Project has been presented for Examination with my Approval as the appointed

Supervisor.

Signed: Date:

Stephen M. Nyambegera, PhD

Signed: Date:

Dean, Chandaria School of Business

ii

COPYRIGHT

©2014 Ssegawa Godfrey

All rights reserved

No part of this MBA Research Project may be copied, reproduced, used to create

derivative works, publicly distributed or displayed, or transmitted including but not

limited to storage in a retrieval system, or transmission electronically, mechanically via

photocopying, recording, or other means without the prior written permission of the

author.

iii

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the study was to determine the factors that influence employee job

satisfaction in Kenyan Organizations. The following research questions guided this study:

What are the extrinsic factors that influence the level of employee job satisfaction in

Unilever Kenya? What are the intrinsic factors that influence the level of job satisfaction

in an organization? What impact does job satisfaction have on the level of employee

performance?

A descriptive research design was adopted, with Unilever Kenya being the focus

organization. The population of interest was the employees of Unilever Kenya across

various functions and divisions since this was the company under study. The study

population comprised a total of 796 employees from all the various organizational

functions or divisions. Stratified random sampling technique wasused to draw a sample

size of 92 respondents. The data collection instrument was a tailor-made structured

questionnaire developed by the researcher, specifically for this study.

Data was analyzed using statistical methods that is, descriptive statistics; measures of

central tendency such as mean, mode, and median, and measures of dispersion such as

variance, standard deviation, range, percentiles, and quartiles, and inferential statistics (T-

test was used to determine the factors that influence job satisfaction and its impact on

employee performance. Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) version 21 was

used to facilitate the data analysis. The results were presented in tables and charts such as

pie charts, and bar graphs.

The findings obtained show that extrinsic factors have a strong influence on employee job

satisfaction. There was a 92.1% total cumulative agreement from respondents that their

job satisfaction is influenced by extrinsic factors. The level of agreement in relation to the

individual extrinsic factors was as follows (working environment 55.5%, remuneration

structure75%, team cooperation 50.5%, leadership style 85.8%, nature of the job 78.9%,

Co-workers 56.7%, Job security 76.6%, promotion opportunities 78.5%).

iv

The findings show that intrinsic factors have a strong impact on employee job

satisfaction. There was a 92.1% total cumulative agreement from respondents that

intrinsic factors influence their job satisfaction. The level of agreement for the individual

intrinsic factors was as follows (employee autonomy 57.1%, Recognition 80%, work

meaningfulness 80%, training and development 54.5%, responsibility 85.9%,

participation level of employee 71.1%, contribution to vision and mission 85.5%

employee attainment of performance feedback 62.2%).

Findings on the impact of job satisfaction on employee performance show that job

satisfaction has astrong impact on employee performance. There was a 91% total

cumulative agreement from respondents that their performance is impacted by their job

satisfaction. The results in relation to the individual impacts are as follows (Absenteeism

44.5%, Quality of work 86.7%, quantity of work 91.1%, safety practices 40%, timeliness

71.1%, employee creativity 81.1%, cost-effectiveness 52.2%, adherence to company 70%

and employee meeting of company set objectives 92.2%).

Conclusion was made that although all the extrinsic factors analysed had an influence on

employee job satisfaction; leadership style, remuneration structure, nature of the job and

job security had the strongest influence. Among all the intrinsic factors, it was concluded

that the level of responsibility at work, Recognition, work meaningfulness and the extent

to which employees believe their work has a significant contribution to the organisation‟s

vision and mission had the strongest influence on job satisfaction. Among all the impacts

of job satisfaction on employee performance that were under study, the ones which

ranked highest were; impact on quantity of work, impact on quality, impact on creativity

and impact of job satisfaction on ability of employee to meet company set objectives.

The researcher recommends that the extrinsic factors where emphasis should be based

areleadership style, remuneration structure, nature of the job and job security. The

intrinsic factors where much emphasis is recommended includelevel of responsibility at

work, Recognition, work meaningfulness and the extent to which employees believe their

work has a significant contribution to the organisation‟s vision and mission.It was

recommended that if these are parameters that the company values, then they should

ensure that they keep their employee‟s job satisfaction high through the various factors

that influence job satisfaction as were discussed in the study.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Completion of this research would not have been possible without the blessings of God

Almighty. I would like to give Him thanks for the strength and perseverance that He

enabled me to have throughout my Journey of education.

Secondly, I would like to thank my supervisor, Prof. Stephen Nyambegera for the

guidance and invaluable advice. Thirdly, I would like to acknowledge my parents Mr.

Ssegawa David and Mrs. Bulya Irene for their selfless love and support to ensure that I

get the best out of life and education. May God bless you abundantly. Lastly I would like

to acknowledge the respondents in my Study from Unilever Kenya Ltd for availing time

to fill my questionnaires and offering constant input towards my research.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STUDENT’S DECLARATION ......................................................................................... i

COPYRIGHT ..................................................................................................................... ii

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................. v

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. vi

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xi

CHAPTER ONE ................................................................................................................ 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background of the Problem…………………………….…..…………………….1

1.2 Statement of the Problem………………….……………….………………..……5

1.3 Purpose of the study………………………………………….…………….……..6

1.4 Research Questions…………………………………...…………….…………….6

1.5 Significance of the Study………………………………………...……………….6

1.6 Scope of the Study……………………………………...……….………………..7

1.7 Definition of Terms……………………………………..………………………..7

1.8 Chapter Summary……………………………………..………………………….9

CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................. 10

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................... 10

2.1 Introduction………….……………..……………………….…………..……….10

2.2 Extrinsic Factors that Influence the Level of Employee Job Satisfaction in an

Organization…..……………………………………………………………………..10

2.3 Intrinsic Factors that Influence the Level of Employee Job Satisfaction in an

Organization…………………………………………………………………………15

vii

2.4 The Impact of the Job Satisfaction Level on Employee Performance………….19

2.5 Chapter Summary…………………………………………………...…………..24

CHAPTER THREE ......................................................................................................... 25

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 25

3.1 Introduction………………...……………………………………………………25

3.2 Research Design……………...…………………..……………………………..25

3.3 Population and Sampling Design………………………………………….…….26

3.3.1 Population……………………………………………………………………..26

3.3.2 Sampling Design……………………………………...……………………….26

3.4 Data Collection Methods……………………………………...……….………..29

3.5 Research Procedures……………………………………...……………………..30

3.6 Data Analysis Methods………………………………………...………………..31

3.7 Chapter Summary………………………………...……………………………..31

CHAPTER FOUR ............................................................................................................ 32

4.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS ..................................................................................... 32

4.2 General Information…….……………………………………………………….32

4.3. Extrinsic factors that influence employee job satisfaction……………….…….36

4.4 Intrinsic Factors that Influence the Level of Job Satisfaction…………………..45

4.5.0 The Impact of Employee Job Satisfaction on Performance………………..….56

4.6 Chapter Summary…………………………...…………………………………..67

CHAPTER FIVE ............................................................................................................. 68

5.0 DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................... 68

5.1 Introduction………………….....………………………..………………………68

5.2 Summary……………….………………………....……………………………..68

viii

5.3 Discussions…..………………………………...………………………………..69

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 77

APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 85

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Population Distribution ...................................................................................... 26

Table 3.2 Total Sample size ............................................................................................... 29

Table 4.1: Working Environment ...................................................................................... 36

Table 4.2: Monetary Pay and Remuneration Structure ...................................................... 37

Table 4.3: Team Cooperation ............................................................................................ 37

Table 4.4 Leadership Style ................................................................................................ 38

Table 4.5: Nature of the Job ............................................................................................... 39

Table 4.6: Impact by Co-workers ...................................................................................... 39

Table 4.7 Level of Job Security ......................................................................................... 40

Table 4.8: Promotion Opportunities .................................................................................. 41

Table 4.9 Summary Statistics of all the Individual Extrinsic Factors that Influence

Employee Job Satisfaction.......................................................................................... 42

Table 4.10 Extrinsic Factors Summary Statistics .............................................................. 43

Table 4.11: Combination of all the Extrinsic Factors ........................................................ 44

Table 4.12 Extrinsic Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction (T-test) ................................... 45

Table 4.13: Employee Autonomy ...................................................................................... 46

Table 4.14: Employee Recognition.................................................................................... 46

Table 4.15: Job is Meaningful .......................................................................................... 47

Table 4.16: Training and Developed ................................................................................. 48

Table 4.17: Responsibility Employee Possesses ............................................................... 48

Table 4.18: Participation of Employee .............................................................................. 49

Table 4.19: Contribution to Mission and Vision ............................................................... 50

Table 4.20: Employee Feedback ........................................................................................ 50

Table 4.21: Involvement in the Decision Making ............................................................. 51

Table 4.22 Summary Statistics of all the Individual Intrinsic Factors that Influence


Table 4.23: Summary of the Descriptive Statistics Consisting a Combination of all the

Intrinsic Factors .......................................................................................................... 53

x

Table 4.24: Combination of all the Intrinsic Factors ......................................................... 54

Table 4.25 Intrinsic Factors Influencing Employee Job Satisfaction (T-test) ................... 55

Table 4.26: Employee Absenteeism Levels ....................................................................... 56

Table 4.27: Quality of Work .............................................................................................. 57

Table 4.28: Quantity of Work ............................................................................................ 57

Table 4.29: Safety Practices ............................................................................................... 58

Table 4.30: Impact on Timeliness ...................................................................................... 59

Table 4.31: Impact on Employee Creativity ...................................................................... 59

Table 4.32: Impact on Cost Effectiveness ......................................................................... 60

Table 4.33: Impact on Policy Adherence ........................................................................... 61

Table 4.34: Attainment of the Company's Set Objectives ................................................. 62

Table 4.35: Summary Statistics of all the Individual Intrinsic Factors that Influence


Table 4.36:Combination of All the Impacts of Job Satisfaction on Performance ............. 64

Table 4.37: Combination of all the Factors in which Job Satisfaction Impacts Employee

Job Performance ......................................................................................................... 65

Table 4.38 Impacts of job satisfaction on employee performance (T-test) ....................... 66

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1 Age of Respondent ........................................................................................... 33

Figure 4.2 Gender of Respondent ...................................................................................... 34

Figure 4.3 Years of Service ............................................................................................... 35

Figure 4.4 Education Level ................................................................................................ 35

1

CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Problem

In today‟s environment, where competition is very high amongst various businesses

regardless of demographical boundaries, it becomes a challenge for the businesses to get

and then maintain a distinguished position in the industry. For this purpose, organizations

used to put emphasis mostly on sales maximization and cost minimization strategies but

now the organizations have realized the value of their intellectual asset which is their

employees. The quality of an organization‟s manpower always differentiates it from the

other organizations. It is true to say that different employees in an organization yield

different levels of performance under the various circumstances according to their

satisfaction level, motivation level, behavior and many other reasons contribute in

yielding various levels of performance by various individuals (Arif & Chohan, 2012).

The productivity and efficiency of human resource depend upon a number of dynamic

factors which range from personal factors to organizational policies. Job satisfaction is

one of the very most important factors which impact the productivity of human resources.

Human resource is considered as one of the most important assets in any organization

which serves as an engine in the organization for providing a sustainable source of energy

and service delivery (Muhammad & Wajidi, 2013).

Shahu and Gole (2008) in their research analyze the effectsof job satisfaction on

performance. They summed up their findings on a factor that work satisfaction should be

considered by the organization as an important plan which needs to be extended in order

to improve employees performance. In general, employee job satisfaction has been

defined as “a function of the perceived relationship between what one wants from one‟s

job and what one perceives it as offering” (Portoghese, Galletta, & Battistelli, 2011). Job

satisfaction is an attitude that people have about their jobs and the organizations in which

they perform these jobs (Al Zubi, 2010).

2

Job satisfaction has got three dimensions. Firstly, it is an emotional response to a job

situation. The only way we can come to a conclusion on this is through observation of the

employee e.g. the time they get to work how they work. Secondly, job satisfaction can be

determined by how well outcomes meet the expectations. An example is the fact that if

the salary is commensurate to work done and is equitable, the organization members are

likely to develop job satisfaction. Thirdly, job satisfaction can be viewed as representing a

combination of related attitudes (Gathungu & Wachira, 2013).

Job satisfaction at work can take place in two ways. One, people can motivate themselves

by seeking, finding and carrying out (or being given) work that satisfies needs (intrinsic

motivation) and two people can be motivated by management through such methods as

pay, promotion, praise (extrinsic motivation). Intrinsic job satisfaction factors can be said

to be self-generated factors that influence employees to be satisfied with their job such as

responsibility, freedom to act, scope to use and develop skills and abilities, interesting and

challenging work and opportunities for advancement. Extrinsic job satisfaction factors

refer to what is done to or for people to satisfy them at the work place (Gathungu &

Wachira, 2013).

Job satisfaction is one of the most frequently studied variables in organizational behavior

(Kalpana, 2013). Research on job satisfaction is performed through a number of

methods, including interviews, observation, and questionnaires. The most significant

research study that shows the importance of job satisfaction is the Hawthorne studies. The

purpose of the study was precisely to do a research on the relationship between lighting

and efficiency. The experiment was conducted in 1924 by researches from Western

Electric and Harvard University at the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric

Company. Various sets of lights, at various intensities, were set up in rooms where

electrical equipment was being produced. The amount of illumination, (bright, dim, or a

combination) provided to the workers, seemed to have no effect on production as had

been expected (Muchinsky, 2006).

The results of the Hawthorne study were so unexpected that supplementary investigation

revealed many previously unknown aspects of human behavior in the workplace.

Researchers got to learn that factors other than lighting affect worker's productivity. The

workers responded positively to the attention they were receiving from the researchers

3

and as a result, productivity rose. Job performance continued to improve because of the

uniqueness of the situation; when the novelty wore off, production returned to its earlier

level. Research has offered alot of support that a happy and satisfied employee is

productive; in fact, research suggests that causality may flow in the opposite direction

from productivity to satisfaction (Bassett, 1994).

Research on the topic of job satisfaction supports that job satisfaction is an important

factor not only for employees in particular but also for the organizations. For example, in

a research survey by Grant, Fried, and Juillerat (2010) at a large bank, managers found

that bank tellers were very dissatisfied with their jobs, stating that they were "just

glorified clerks". They also stated that they viewed their jobs as boring and that they felt

micromanaged because they were unable to make decisions on their own, even small

ones, without the approval of their managers. In this case, the managers of the bank

decided to re-design the teller jobs to increase job satisfaction. New tasks were

introduced in order to provide variety and the use of a broad range of skills.

In addition to their previous check cashing, deposit and loan payment tasks, they were

now trained to be able to handle commercial and traveler's checks and post payments on

line. The tellers were also given more autonomy (independence) in their roles; they were

given decision-making responsibilities. Finally, when time for feedback approached, the

managers felt that by re-designing the role of the teller they were giving the tellers

responsibility for their own customers. In this particular case, it was discovered that job

satisfaction had greatly increased. A survey was taken six months later and it was found

that not only were the tellers more satisfied with their employment, but they were also

more committed to the organization. Finally, during employee/manager evaluations, it

was noticed that there had been an increase in performance by the tellers and that the job

satisfaction provided by the job redesign had effects lasting at least four years from when

it was carried out (Grant et al, 2010).

According to Kalpana (2013), Job satisfaction and motivation are considered as some of

most essential components of work life, and one of the major factors that have influence

on the individuals‟ performance at the work place. Job satisfaction affects the physical

and mental capabilities of employees. An individual needs to maintain a healthy body &

mind to be able to perform physical and mental activities in the best possible way in his

4

/her work place. In general, job satisfaction and motivation can contribute to the

enhancement in the employee performance.

Job satisfaction has been repeatedly and constantly prized in both humanistic and

financial terms. It has been observed that the employees who do quality work are usually

the ones who are satisfied with their job. Satisfied employees tend to have high retention

rates; they are more dedicated to the organization and tend to yield higher job

performances (Arif & Chohan, 2012).

Unilever is the organization that this study was based on while in a bid to learn more

about factors that influence employee job satisfaction in Kenya and its impact on

performance. Unilever was founded in 1930 as a result of a merger between Lever

Brothers (UK) and Uni-margarine (Netherlands) which existed in the 19th

Century.

Unilever (Uni+Lever) is today considered as one of the world‟s top Fast Moving

Consumer Goods (FMCG) Company having a turnover of more than 4.3 billion Euros.

Having its corporate offices in London and Rotterdam, Unilever operates in 100

countries. Unilever employs 250,000 people globally.The company spends 2.5% of its

turnover on research and development and 1.5% on Corporate Social

Responsibility.Unilever directly employs 250,000 people around the world and indirectly

millions more as contract manufactures, growers, suppliers, distributors and service

providers (Unilever Annual Report, 2013).

Unilever East and Southern Africa (ESA) is a Unilever Subsidiary that is operating in

Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Mozambique, Malawi. ESA occupies a

market consisting of 19 countries with a population of 150 million people in ESA. The

company operates two businesses; these are the consumer business dealingsthat are with

FMCG and the Tea plantations business in Kenya and Tanzania.The plantations business

is the largest employer in Unilever consisting of a workforce of 25,000 (10% of Unilever

total workforce).The Consumer business gives employment in over 1,500 people

directly.In addition, the company has 120 distributors spread across the 7 countries

reaching more than 100,000 retail outlets each week. Breaking it down to Unilever Kenya

in particular, the company employs a total of 796 employees. It is this particular

population of employees that this study on job satisfaction in the company was

based(Unilever Annual Report, 2013).

5

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Job satisfaction of an employee is a topic that has received significant attention by

managers and researchers alike (Gautam, Mandal & Dalal, 2006). It is a well-known fact

that no organization could last without their employees. Employees are the main reason

an organization could possibly exist for a long time. Similarly to Unilever Kenya,

employees are the ones who play the major roles and make significant contributions to the

organization. Well satisfied employees will influence the productivity of the organization

and will lead to achieving the organization‟s vision and goals (Hussin, 2011).

Earlier studies on employee job satisfaction mainly focused on the factors that contribute

to its attainment but not much analysis on its impact towards performance was made

(Dinler, 2008). A number of studies on job satisfaction have been carried out over the

years, however they are largely based on the western organizations and very few have

been done in African companies let alone Kenya in particular. An example of such

studies is one carried out by Grant, Fried, & Juillerat in 2010 on bankers in the UK. The

lack of enough research on employee job satisfaction in Kenyan organisations brings

about a great gap that needs to be filled with tremendous research considering the fact

that employees in different environments and who are affiliated to different cultures

cannot attain job satisfaction from the same factors.

There has been a great challenge on the part of managers in Unilever Kenya on

determining how exactly they can attain maximum job satisfaction for their employees

which they believe would go a long way to improve on the organizational overall

performance. Many have tried to attain job satisfaction of their employees by trying to

use methods that were successful in other areas around the world and have met with

failure, but the reason is simply because this research was not directly relevant to their

own employees. This therefore is the knowledge gap that is trying to be filled in this

research.

6

1.3 Purpose of the study

The purpose of the study was to determine the factors influencing employee job

satisfaction and how it affects performance at Unilever Kenya.

1.4 Research Questions

The following research questions guided this study;

1.4.1 What are the extrinsic factors that influence the level of employee job satisfaction in

Unilever Kenya?

1.4.2 What are the intrinsic factors that influence the level of job satisfaction in Unilever

Kenya?

1.4.3 What impact does employee job satisfaction have on employee performance at

Unilever Kenya?

1.5 Significance of the Study

1.5.1 Organizational Leaders in Kenya

The findings of this study will be significant to the managers especially in Unilever

Kenya and will assist them understand employee behavior better. The findings will also

assist the leaders in any other organization at large that face the dilemma of understanding

how to satisfy their employees.

1.5.2 Scholars

The findings of this study will also be beneficial to scholars in a way that this will be a

contribution to the body of knowledge in this broad and yet not fully exploited area of

human resource management as well as social sciences. This will enhance understanding

and development of relevant theories as well as extensive areas of interest.

7

1.5.3 Trade Unions

The findings of this study will also be of importance to the trade unions. This is in such a

way that the study will help in restructuring the objectives of the unions and realize

exactly what conditions are relevant to the employees and how they can work towards

ensuring employees are satisfied at their work places.

1.6 Scope of the Study

The study was carried out in Kenya at the Unilever headquarters. Kenya is a country in

the East of Africa where not a lot of research on employee job Satisfaction has been

carried out. The population comprised a total of 796 employees. The sample of the study

comprises a total of 92 respondents from various departments of the organization which

include; Human Resources, Marketing, Finance, Production and procurement. The

researcher took three weeks to collect data (March 10th

– March 31st).The most significant

limitation encountered by the researcher was convincing employees to fill the

questionnaires; however this was overcome by proper explanation on the relevance of the

questionnaires.

1.7 Definition of Terms

1.7.1 Job Satisfaction

Locke (1976) gives a comprehensive definition of job satisfaction as pleasurable or

positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one‟s job or job experience. Job

satisfaction is a result of employee's perception of how well their job provides those

things that are viewed as important.Job satisfaction refers to the comprehensive

phenomenon which encompasses individual‟s feelings and emotions towards his or her

job (Robbins¸ 2008). In addition, it also determines the extent to which employeesin an

organization like or dislike their jobs.

8

1.7.2 Organizational Performance

Ya-Huiet al (2010) believed organizational performance is the results completed within a

specified period by the relevant business, departments within an organization, in order to

achieve phased or overall goals.In the past, there were lots of research that discussed the

measuring dimensions of organizational performance because the ultimate benefits will

be fed back to the financial dimension; therefore, most scholars used financial

performance as one of the measuring indicators. However, in today's convenient

information delivery and rapidly changing market environment, an enterprise cannot just

reply on the financial performance as the only element of survival and competition. That

is, organizational performance cannot be measured adequately just by a single financial

performance indicator (Ya-Hui et al, 2010).

1.7.3 Employee Turnover

According to Society for Human Resource Management (2012), employee turnover is

defined as the rate at which employees enter and leave a company in a given fiscal year.

Regardless of the health of the economy, turnover is an important metric for HR

professionals because it allows them to focus not only on retaining their current

workforce but also on planning for the future

1.7.4 Employee Absenteeism

The term absenteeism refers to failure to report to work. The definition itself tells the

failure of the organization process if the employee fails to follow the rules and standards

of the organization. Absenteeism is a type of unscheduled activity which threatens the

organization to fall in danger as it leads to the disruption of the daily process.

Absenteeism converts the organization into a deviant work place behavior (Swarnalatha

& Sureshkrishna, 2013).

1.7.5 Employee Engagement

As a concept that has developed over time, engagement has been defined innumerous,

often inconsistent, ways in the literature, so much so that the term has become ambiguous

to many and it is rare to find two people defining it in sameway (Macey & Schneider,

9

2008). It has variously been conceived as apsychological or affective state, a performance

construct (role performance, effort, observable behaviour, organizational citizenship

behaviour) or anattitude. Some even relate the concept to other specific constructs such as

altruismor initiative and little consensus has been reached inthe literature as to which of

these definitions is the definitive, or at least, „best‐fit‟model of engagement. (Macey &

Schneider, 2008)

1.8 Chapter Summary

This chapter has provided insight into the background of the problem being dealt with,

the problem statement, the purpose of the study, the research questions, the importance of

the study, the scope of the study and the definition of important terms.

In the next chapter, the researcher will review the literature based on the factors that

influence job satisfaction and how it impacts performance and thereafter look at the

research methodology that will be adopted in Chapter Three. In Chapter Four, the

researcher will summarize the results and findings obtained in the study, and provide a

discussion, conclusion and recommendation of the study in Chapter five.

10

CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter seeks to present a review of relevant theoretical and empirical literature in

relation to the research questions being analyzed, that is, (i) what are the extrinsic factors

that influence the level of employee job satisfaction in an organization?, (ii) What are the

intrinsic factors that influence the level of job satisfaction in an organization?, (iii) What

is the impact of the job satisfaction level on employee performance?

2.2 Extrinsic Factors that Influence the Level of Employee Job Satisfaction in an

Organization

The Two-factor theory or Herzberg‟s (1959) motivation-hygiene theory that was

developed by Frederick Herzberg introduced the two factors that influence job

satisfaction namely “Motivators” and “Hygiene. Motivators include factors such as

recognition, possibility of growth, advancement, achievement, responsibility, and the

work itself. On the other hand, hygiene factors include monetary salary, interpersonal

relations at work, job security company policies and administration, supervision, working

conditions, factors in personal life and status (Tietjen & Myers, 1998). According to

Herzberg, the presence of motivators brings job satisfaction and the absence of hygiene

factors results in job dissatisfaction. Moreover, the presence of hygiene factors does not

result necessarily in increase of job satisfaction, but only reduces or eliminates job

dissatisfaction of the employees (Golshan, Kaswuri & Aghashahi 2011).

Extrinsic factors can be said to be objects or events, which follow from the employee‟s

own efforts in conjunction with other factors or person‟s not directly involved in the job

itself. Pay, working conditions, co-workers, and even supervision are objects in the work

place which are potentially job-outcomes, but which are not a fundamental part of the

11

work. Dealing with others and friendship interactions are sources of extrinsic outcomes.

(Golshan, Kaswuri & Aghashahi, 2011).

2.2.1 Working Environment

The working environment of an employee is one of the important indexes of measuring

their working comfort and their satisfaction. Sinceit is a fact that employees spend most

of their time in an organization, it is very important for these organizations to introduce

and maintain proper working conditions. An organization should provide its employee‟s

with all the necessary resources and make it possible for the employee to do a job. This

will help employees to accomplish tasks successfully and which indeed contribute to job

satisfaction (Kawada & Otsuka, 2011).

The employee will lose their interests on the job, thus he will not enjoy the assignments if

the working environment is inferior and not work friendly. The working environment

satisfaction briefly includes the following four dimensions: Firstly, it is the working

places‟ natural environment that includes moisture, brightness, noise, smells and the other

environmental factors. Secondly, it is the working places‟ equipment‟s environment, that

is, whether the employee can conveniently obtain and use required tools and facilities.

Thirdly it is the working hours and amount of working overtime. Finally, it is about the

safety protection in the working place (Kawada & Otssuka, 2011).

2..2.2 Pay and Job Satisfaction

Dessler (2012) indicated that employee pay includes all compensation factors which are

given to him against his work. Heery and Noon (2001) defined pay through a number of

components like basic salary, benefits, bonuses, pay for doing extra work and incentives”.

Pay is therefore what an employee receives against his work after fulfilling his assigned

duty. This usually includes all types of financial and non financial rewards. Lai (2011)

described that pay is one of those satisfying variables which if hindered reduces the

dissatisfaction level of employees. If an employee is compensated according to his need,

he will easily manage overload work if any emergency occurs. Robbins (2001) described

that Herzberg‟s motivation-hygiene theory tells that salary is one of those hygiene factors

which eliminate job dissatisfaction. Salary is a factor which leads employees from

dissatisfaction to no dissatisfaction. Expectancy theory described that people do effort

12

because they want some rewards in term of money, promotion etc. People expect that if

they work well in the workplace then their performance will increase and automatically

their pay will increase and they will be promoted. This will cause increase in their job

satisfaction level (Yaseen, 2013).

2.2.3 Nature of Job

Many years of research in different organizations and jobs have shown that nature of job

itself becomes a dominant factor of job satisfaction when employees assess different

aspects of their work, like supervision, growth opportunities, salaries, and colleagues and

so on. When the job performed by an employee is perceived to be important, this will

increase satisfaction level. Work challenges let employees utilize their skills, knowledge

and intelligence to deal with complexities involved in their job, as researched by Yoav

Ganzach (1998). There is a negative association between intelligence and job satisfaction

when complications in jobs are persistent because most of the jobs are not challenging or

interesting, hence if the job lacks the perceived element of interest it may cause

dissatisfaction among intelligent employees (Mehmood, Irum, Ahmed &Sultana, 2012).

2.3.4 Team Cooperation

A smooth teamwork is one of the important conditions necessary to guarantee a

harmonious working atmosphere. It is also an important factor that influences employee

satisfaction. The satisfaction on team cooperation can be reviewed from the following

aspects: Firstly, it is the situation of satisfaction and trust in terms of the direct leader‟s

ability specifically including mutual respect, trust, support and guidance between the

superior and subordinates. Secondly, it is the satisfaction based on colleagues‟

cooperation. It notes that the employee has mutual understanding, good cooperation,

support and interpersonal relationship with the other members. Thirdly, it is the team‟s

gross responsibilities and similarity of knowledge, conceptions and also value orientation.

Finally, it is the clarity of information exchange channels (Yuan & Xiaoxia, 2013).

13

2.2.5 Co-Workers

A co-worker is a person who holds a position or rank similar to that of an employee in the

same business. Co-workers are a distinct part of the working environment, and employees

are expected to work harmoniously with other employees (Iqbal, 2010). People seek

friendly, warm and cooperative relationships with others, not only for what these

relationships produce in the immediate present, but also for what they provide in those

times of need, such as social support. Bagraim, Cunningham, Potgieter & Viedge (2007)

suggest that employees should be technically, emotionally and socially supportive of one

another. Harmonious interactions between an individual and their fellow employees, as

wellas interactions between other fellow employees with each other, have a

positiveinfluence on an individual's level of organizational commitment and job

satisfaction (Iqbal 2010). Harmonious interactions with co-workers have been found to

have a positive influence on an individual's level of job satisfaction (Ladebo, Awotunde

& AbdulSalaam-Saghir, 2008).

2.2.6 Job Security

Job security describes an employee‟s subjective feelings about the future security

ofhis/her employment situation. These feelings are said to vary from individual to

individual. These job security feelings are the result of real-life experiences in the labour

market (Emberland & Rundmo, 2010). According to Klandermans, Hesselink and

VanVuuren (2010), employees who perceive job insecurity are considered to be less

Motivated and in their jobs.

Employment security is desirable for employees, who rank it as one of the mostimportant

factors for their commitment to an organization. Job security also plays a very important

role in reducing employee turnover, as well as maintaining stable employment

relationships in organizations. In addition, job security is essential for retaining human

capital investment as well as reducing workforce screening and selection costs (Origo &

Pagani, 2009). Employees no longer believe they can depend on businesses for job

security, and this belief change has caused a shift in thepsychological contract between

businesses and their employees (Origo & Pagani 2009). According to Chan (2011) there

is a positive relationship between job security and employee job satisfaction.

14

2.2.7 Leadership

Committed leadership that is willing to model desired changes and drives fear out of

theorganizationis very critical for business success and encourages employee job

satisfaction (Iqbal 2010). Committed leaders are essential in fostering a business‟s shared

vision, aligning all components in pursuit of that vision, andbuilding commitment to the

vision at all levels of the organisation (Chawla & Renesch 2006). Good leadership highly

depends on responsible followers. Leaderscannot implement decisions or plans without

the cooperation and support of manyothers who are in a position to influence the

successful outcome of the process, or even derail it. This corporation can be fostered by

ensuring that employees are satisfied with their jobs (Farrington, 2009).

2.2.7 Promotion Opportunities

According to Parvin and Kabir (2011), promotion can be defined as “getting high status

in the workplace by doing effective work, generally increase the status, position and

remuneration of the employee in the organization”. Promotion can therefore be simplified

as going towards upward positions in the organization. If organizations are not giving

promotions to their employees then it is very likely that employees will be dissatisfied

and their turnover rate will be high (Yaseen, 2013) When employees get promotion they

will be more committed to their organization. promotion is considered one of the most

important elements for the employee satisfaction (Parvin & Kabir, 2011). Promotion has a

significant effect on employee satisfaction. There is therefore a positive relationship seen

between job satisfaction and opportunity to develop (Ramasodi, 2010).

If an organization provides employees the necessary factors for promotion such as

facilities, ability and skills, then employees will be automatically motivated and satisfied.

Promotion and satisfaction have a direct relationship. Naveed and Bushra (2011)

indicated that Maslow‟s hierarchy of need theory also described that when esteem needs

(autonomy, power, recognition and status) of people are fulfilled, they will be more

satisfied with their job. Herzberg theory of motivation states what employees demand

from their job. Three need theories tell that there is a need of achievement and need for

power in people. People will be more satisfied and motivated when their needs are

fulfilled (Ramasodi, 2010).

15

2.3 Intrinsic Factors that Influence the Level of Employee Job Satisfaction in an

Organization;

2.3.1 Degree of Employee Autonomy

Most employees desire for autonomy in order to perform effectively and attain their goals.

A number of studies have found a positive relationship between autonomy and job

satisfaction. Individuals take pride in their jobs if empowered at work and show a

moderate relationship with a sense of self-control when measured for perceived life

control. According to Messersmith (2007), managers can facilitate workers by

empowering them in terms of given control over their activities, environment, quantity of

work, and considerations for work-life balance. Satisfaction and performance is the

product of an individual‟s three psychological states: experienced meaningfulness,

experienced responsibility, knowledge of results. Among all the dimensions of job

satisfaction, in general, it is better predicted through nature of job which contains work

challenges, autonomy, variety, and scope of job (Mehmood et al, 2012).

2.3.2 Recognition

According to Danish and Usman (2010), recognition is defined as the situation where

organization employees are rewarded by different status. Intrinsic rewards like

recognition, growth, feedback, opportunities lead employees greatly towards high job

performance and satisfaction. Barton (2002) described that recognition is considered the

most important factor among non-financial rewards in order to increase job satisfaction

level of employees. Recognition can be said to be the component that is used to

strengthen the relationship between the organization leaders and the employees. Through

recognition employees feel rewarded and motivated. By giving recognition to the

employees, competitive advantage can be achieved. An organization achieves its well-

being through giving rewards and recognition to its employees.

Yaseen (2013) commented that an employee becomesmore loyal to their organization

and satisfied when the organization recognizes their work. Very many organizations are

missing this very valuable component and yet the cost of practical implementation of this

component is very small. Through recognition, employees are being realized that they are

16

valuable to the organisation. Employees also feel appreciated through recognition

(Sarvadi, 2005). Recognition is actually to show employees that their participation is

valuable for the organization which ultimately increases satisfaction and performance of

employees.

According to Yaseen (2013), recognition can be provided a number of ways such as;

involving employees in decision making, by increasing their responsibility, by showing

empathy towards them and provide them with succession planning and different

opportunities to get high designation. Robbins (2003) described that Maslow‟s theory

tells about the self- esteem need of employee. This theory shows that recognition, status,

development and growth are the factors which leads to motivation and ultimately leads

toward job satisfaction. Herzberg theory indicated that recognition is one of those

motivating factors which leads employee from no dissatisfaction to satisfaction.

2.3.3 Meaningful Work

Meaningful work is considered as a very important factor when it comes to intrinsic job

satisfaction. Thes days, employees want to be engaged in qualitative work. Employees

want their work to be meaningful to them. Meaningful work is an emerging factor for

valued outcomes of organizations. Meaningful work is an important issue and is valuable

for both employee and employer. There are some other factors rather than money which

an employee may wants to share with their community and home members. Such factors

include sense of achievement and feelings of accomplishment of some task. This

meaningful work is considered as a dividend to the employee (Pocock, 2006).

Outcomes, task characteristics and meaningful work are important for such people who

have the desire for achievement. Job satisfaction cannot be separate from demand of

meaningful work. It is the duty of managers to make work meaningful for their

employees so that they can be satisfied with their job and due to this employees will show

a positive response in the organization. Success, achievement and status are included in

the meaningful work experiences (Yaseen, 2013).

17

2.3.4 Training and Development:

Training provides chances to employees grow and enhances their knowledge and skills

for effective development (Kabir, 2011). Trained workers are more satisfied with their job

as compared to untrained employees (Abdullah & Djebavni, 2011). These training

programs positively raise employees‟ development that is good for competencies (Hunjra

et al., 2010). By getting these training programs employees are able to get self assured,

evolution of career, and have positive thought for their companies (Kabir, 2011). The aim

of these training and management programs is to amend employees‟ skills and

organization potentialities(Hunjra et al, 2010).

2.3.5 Responsibility

According to Lai (2011), employee participation may enhance motivation and job

satisfaction through power sharing, and increased responsibility. Employee participation

can provide individuals an opportunity to make key managerial decisions that have an

impact on other employees, thus increasing job satisfaction and performance. Herzberg‟s

two-factor theory suggests that intrinsic work factors such as responsibility held by

employee and skills development may increase job satisfaction. Increased work

responsibility may be related to many factors suggested in the two-factor model as

recognition and interpersonal relationships have implications for individuals‟ identity

(Lai, 2011).

2.3.6 Skill Variety

Thisis the extent to which a particular job requires a variety of employee competencies to

carry it out (Jackson, 2011). For example, lower skill variety exists when an assembly-

line employee performs the same two tasks repetitively. Themore skill involved, the more

meaningful the work becomes for an employee. Döckel, Basson andCoetzee (2006)

suggest that one way that employees may develop a sense of competency is by working in

a job with high skill variety. Skill variety relates to feelings of belonging, as well as a

sense of attachment to the organization. Mathisand Jackson (2011), however, warn that

skill variety should not to be confused with multitasking, which is doing several tasks at

18

the same time, for instance, with computers, telephones, other devices, and personal

organizers.

2.3.7 Task Significance

Task significanceis the extent to which an employee perceives the job he or she is

performing as having asubstantial impact on the lives of other people, whether those

people are within oroutside the organization (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2008). Most people

work to earn a living, but also because of the other satisfactions that come with the job,

such as doing something worthwhile.

2.3.8 Job feedback

This refers to the degree to which carrying out job-related tasks provides direct and clear

information about the effectiveness of an employee‟s performance. In addition, providing

feedback fulfills a need for information on the extent to which personal goals are met, as

well as being a point of social comparison about an individual‟s relative performance

(Vlosky & Aguilar, 2009). Providing sufficient performance feedback to employees helps

strengthen positive attitudes toward the business, and helps prevent early intentions to

leave by employees. When employees are provided with praise and feedback, stronger

feelings of loyalty to the business may develop (Döckel, Basson& Coetzee, 2006).

Furthermore, feedback helps to contribute to the employees‟ overall knowledge about the

work (Mathis & Jackson, 2008).

2.3.9 Job Involvement

Job involvement can be described as the degree to which an employee is cognitively

preoccupied with, engaged in, and concerned with his/her job (Govender & Parumasur,

2010). Job involvement is the degree of identification employees have with their

employement, and the degree of importance they place on their jobs. For example,

employees who are highly involved in their jobs will not mind spending extra time to

ensure task accomplishment, and take uncompleted work or assignments home to

completethem before the next working day. Being involved inthe job entails involvement

in decision-making and a feeling that one is making animportant contribution to the

19

success of the business. In addition, job involvement helps to enhance organisational

effectiveness and productivity by engaging employees in their work, and making work a

meaningful and fulfilling experience for them(Koponen, Laamanen, Simonsen, Sundrell

& Suominen, 2010).

An employee with a high level of job involvement has a strong sense of belonging in the

specific job, and has a desire to perform well (Koponen, Laamanen, Simonsen, Sundrell

& Suominen, 2010). In their study on the effects of co-workers on supervision support,

Babin and Boles (1996) have found that employee perceptions of job involvement are

positively related to job satisfaction. According to Govender and Parumasur (2010), when

employees are actively involved in decisions that influence their destiny and career in the

business, and are responsible for their actions, their level of commitment to the business

is said to increase. Fincham and Rhodes (2005) suggest that when employees are involved

in the setting of goal for the business, commitment and loyalty are the result.

2.4 The Impact of the Job Satisfaction Level on Employee Performance

Performance of employees is a major concern for all competitive business organizations

in the world today. A high performance work system is a distinguishing factor of the

leading organizations from the rest in the same industry. In very many companies,

inadequate policies at managerial level badly affect performance and don‟t allow

employees to produce at their full potential. It can be said to be the most dynamic factor

of production. Many variables like intellectual & physical abilities of the employees, their

qualification, experience, training, culture of the organization, reward systems, career

progression opportunities, co-workers behavior, authority and responsibility, workload,

and structure of organizations, influence the performance of employees. However, for the

relevance of this study, we will be concentrating on Job satisfaction and how it impacts

on performance of employees in an organization (Wentzel & Wigfield, 2009).

2.4.1. Job Satisfaction and Absenteeism

It is an obvious fact that employee is obviously not performing when he or she is not at

work. Other employees‟ performance may be adversely impacted by absences, too.

Various studies have attempted to examine the relationship between absenteeism and job

20

satisfaction as absence is commonly viewed as one of the means of an employee‟s

withdrawal from stressful work situations. According to Luthans (1995), research has

generally revealed a consistent inverse relationship between job satisfaction and

absenteeism. This means that when satisfaction is high, absenteeism tends to be low and

when satisfaction is low, absenteeism tends to be high. Even though this correlation has

been found to be rather moderate, the underlying assumption is that absence is at least in

part, the result of dissatisfaction on the job (Anderson, 2004).

Absenteeism has for a long time been considered a significant and pervasive problem in

the industry. As aresult, theories have been put in place and numerous studies conducted

to identify the causes ofabsenteeism. Probably one of the most common theories is the

notion that absenteeism is brought about by employees avoiding a painful or dissatisfying

work situation. Although it is also recognized that absenteeism may be caused by the

employee's inability to come to work, motivation to attend work is assumed to be a major

factor determining how often an employee is absent. To many who happen to be in the

world of work, absenteeism is one of those stubborn problems for which there is no clear

culprit and no easy cure (Obasan, 2011).

Furthermore, as a general phenomenon absenteeism does not discriminate against

individuals on the basis of sex, race and religion. Obasan (2011) postulates that

“employers have the right to expect good attendance from their employees as

employment is a contract between two consenting parties”. According to Vlosky &

Aguilar (2009), absenteeism can be very costly to organizations and enormous savings

can be realized through effective management of nonattendance of employees to work.

Besides the cost implications, absenteeism is influenced by dozens of interrelated factors

which make it even more difficult to “quantify, qualify or rectify”. One of these factors

which have been cited by different researchers is an employee‟s level of job satisfaction

in the workplace. In conjunction with this, George and Jones (2002) maintain that many

researchers have taken time to study the relationship between absenteeism and job

satisfaction in an attempt to discover ways to reduce absenteeism.” Early job satisfaction

research has emphasized the underlying assumption that job dissatisfaction represents the

primary cause of absenteeism (Vlosky & Aguilar, 2009).

21

Kalpana (2013) proposes that employee attendance is dependent on an employee‟s

motivation to attend as well as their ability to attend. Job satisfaction is one of the factors

affecting an employee‟s motivation to attend. It becomes therefore very important to

measure the strength of the relationship between absenteeism and job satisfaction as

positive attitudes can at times serve to “pull” the individual towards the organization and

the reverse can be expected when attitudes are more negative (Obasan, 2011).

2.4.2 Job Satisfaction and Productivity

According Wentzel and Wigfield (2009), the relationship between job satisfaction and

productivity is not definitely established. The consensus, however, is that in the long-run

job-satisfaction leads to an increase in productivity. The strongest implication of much of

the research is that the two variables, job-satisfaction and performance, are relatively

independent of each other. There seems to be at least two possible reasons for this. The

first is that in many jobs variations in satisfaction cannot lead to variations in

productivity. Secondly, even when correlations do appear, the associations may be

spurious, since both may be associated with other factors. In other words, job-satisfaction

and productivity may be well have largely separate casual paths: one set of factors (e.g.

investment in technology) determines productivity, another set (e.g. perceived equity of

rewards) produces job-satisfaction (Westover, 2010).

There are however some conditions under which high productivity more clearly leads to

high job-satisfaction. One condition is that the employees perceive that intrinsic and

extrinsic rewards are contingent upon their productivity. The second condition is that the

extrinsic rewards (pay for example) be distributed equitably. Inequitable distribution fails

to convince the employees close correlations between hard work and rewards

(Muhammad &Wajidi, 2013).

Productivity increases as an organization discovers new ways to use fewer resources to

produce its output. In a business environment, productivity improvement is essential for

long-run success. Through gains in productivity managers are able to reduce costs, save

scarce resources, and enhance profits. In turn, improved profits make it possible for an

organization to provide better pay, benefits, and working conditions. The result can be a

higher quality of work employees, who are more likely to be motivated toward further

22

improvements in productivity. (Wentzel & Wigfield, 2009). Under productivity we can

look at the quality and quantity produced.

2.4.2.1 Quality

According to Westover, (2010)Quality looks at how well the employee or work unit

performed the work they were assigned and the accuracy or effectiveness of the final

product. Quality refers to accuracy, appearance, usefulness, or effectiveness. The quality

of work that has been performed can be measured by a variety of means and can be

impacted by the level of satisfaction of the employee. Take for example; the percentage

of work output that must be redone or is rejected is an indicator of quality. If we look at a

sales environment, the percentage of inquiries converted to sales is an indicator of

salesmanship quality.

2.4.2.2 Quantity

Quantity addresses how much work the employee or work unit produced. Quantity

measures can be expressed as a number of products produced or services provided, or as a

general result to achieve (Washburn, 2009). Quantity is also an indicator of performance

that can greatly be impacted by the level of employee job satisfaction. The number of

units produced, processed or sold is a good objective indicator of performance. However,

it is very important for managers in an organisation to be careful not to place too much

emphasis on quantity, lest quality may suffer (Van & Adonisi, 2008).

2.4.3 Job Satisfaction and Timeliness

When we look at timeliness, we are basically trying to find out how fast work is

performed in an organisation and this can also be largely influenced by the employees‟

level of job satisfaction. A number of studies have indicated that the higher the

employee‟s job satisfaction, the less time it will take them to accomplish an assigned task.

However this is also another performance indicator that should be used with caution. In

field service, the average customer‟s downtime is a good indicator of timeliness. In

manufacturing, it might be the number of units produced per hour (Wentzel & Wigfield,

2009).

23

2.4.4 Job Satisfaction and Creativity

According to Muhammad & Wajidi (2013), employees who are satisfied with their job

tend to be more creative. They usually go out of their way in order to attain some level of

innovation at their employment. It can sometimes turn out to be very difficult to

accurately quantify the level of creativity of an employee as a performance indicator, but

in many white-collar jobs, it is vitally important. Supervisors and employees should keep

track of creative work examples and attempt to quantify them.

2.4.5 Job Satisfaction and Safety

Poor safety practices are a negative consequence of low satisfaction level. When people

are discouraged about their jobs, company, and supervisors, they are more liable to

experience accidents. An underlying reason for such accidents is that discouragement

may take one's attention away from the task at hand. Inattention leads directly to

accidents. For example, many hand injuries from power tools can be attributed to the

operator not paying careful attention (Wentzel & Wigfield, 2009).

2.4.6 Job Satisfaction and Cost-Effectiveness

According to Eggemeier (2011), the cost of work performed can also be used as a

measure of employee performance and it can be highly influenced by the employee‟s

degree of satisfaction at their job. However, the cost of work performed should be used as

a measure of performance only if the employee has some degree of control over costs. A

case in point, a customer-service representative‟s performance is indicated by the

percentage of calls that he or she must escalate to more experienced and expensive

representatives. (Christine & Pearson, 2009).

2.4.7 Adherence to Policy

According to Washburn (2009), adherence to company policy may at first glance to some

people seem to be the opposite of creativity, but it is merely a boundary on creativity.

Adherence to policy can also be a performance measure that could be very much

determined by the employee‟s level of satisfaction with his or her job. Eggemeier (2011)

24

suggests that, deviations from policy are an indication of an employee whose

performance goals are not well aligned with those of the company.

2.4.7 Other Effects of Job-satisfaction

In additions to the above, it has been claimed that satisfied employees tend to have better

mental and physical health and learn new job related tasks more quickly. All things put

under consideretion, practicing managers and organizational behavior researchers would

agree that job-satisfaction is important to an organization. Critics however, point out this

is pure conjecture because there is so much we do not know about the positive effects of

satisfaction. However, on the other hand, when job-satisfaction is low, there seems to be

negative effects on the organization that have been documented. So if only from the

standpoint of viewing job-satisfaction as a minimum requirement or point of departure, it

is of value to the organization‟s overall health and effectiveness and is deserving of study

and application in the field of organizational behavior (Van & Adonisi, 2008).

2.5 Chapter Summary

This chapter has presented a review of the pertinent literature of Job saticifaction in

organisations. Arising from this review, a number of researched theories have been

presented. It is therefore important for this research to provide empirical evidence of these

theories. Research in this area will provide more knowledge on the extent to which these

theories are pertinent to Kenyan organisations with Unilever Kenya as a case study. The

next chapter will present pertinent research methods that will be used to conduct this

research.

25

CHAPTER THREE

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the research methodology that was followed and adopted in the

process of conducting this study. The chapter therefore focuses on the following aspects

of the research: research design, population and sampling design (population, sampling

design, sampling frame, sampling technique, and sample size), data collection methods,

research procedures, and data analysis methods.

3.2 Research Design

The research design used was a descriptive research design. Research design can have a

number of classifications which could integrate the degree to which the research

question has been crystallized, the method of data collection used, the ability of the

researcher to produce effects in the variables which are being studied, the purpose of the

study, the time dimension, the scope of the study and also the research environment.

The classification of the particular research design for this study is the purpose of the

study. We have three options under this which include; Reporting study, Descriptive

study, and Causal study and these can be said to be either causal-explanatory study or

causal-predictive study.

A descriptive study is based on making findings concerning questions of; who, what,

where, when, or how much? Descriptive studies are always handled with hypothesis

which are clearly defined or investigative questions and they serve a number of

objectives in the study which include making descriptions of phenomena or

characteristics associated with a subject, making estimates of the proportions of a

population that have these characteristics, and also discovery of associations among

different variables which is sometimes referred to as a correlation study, a subset of

descriptive studies (Cooper and Schindler (2011). The researcher found it appropriate

that a descriptive research design was appropriate for this study because this study was

26

concerned with finding out what the factorsare that influence job satisfaction of

employees and how that affects performance.

3.3 Population and Sampling Design

3.3.1 Population

The study population comprised a total of 796 employees of Unilever Kenya from various

organizational functions or divisions. The study population refers to the total collection of

elements which one would like to study or make inferences. The population element

however refers to the individual participant or object on which the measurement is taken.

It is the unit of study (Cooper & Schindler, 2011).

Table 3.1 Population Distribution

No Department Population

Characteristics

Total Population Percentage of

Entire

Population

1 Human Resources Managers 9 1.13

Non-Managers 36 4.52

2 Procurement Managers 14 1.75


3 Marketing and Sales Managers 22 2.7


4 Finance Managers 12 1.5


5 Production Managers 27 3.39


6 Research and Design Managers 10 1.25


TOTAL 796 100%

Source: (Unilever Annual Report, 2013)

3.3.2 Sampling Design

Sampling refers to the process by which part of the population is selected and conclusions

are drawn about the entire population (Cooper & Schindler, 2001). „„The basic idea of

Sampling is that by selecting some of the elements in a population, we may draw

27

conclusions about the entire population‟‟ (Cooper and Schindler, 2011, p. 364). The

quality of a study is often better with sampling than with a census „„Sampling possesses

the possibility of a better interviewing (testing), more thorough investigation of missing,

wrong or suspicious information, better supervision and better processing than is possible

with complete coverage‟‟ (Deming, 1990, p. 26). Sampling also offers the advantage of

lower cost involved, greater speed in relation to data collection, and also availability of

population elements.

The best way to understand the relevance of a particular sample design is to see how well

it represents the characteristics of the population it stands to represent. In measurement

terms, the sample must be valid. Two things have to be considered when determining the

validity of a sample, these are accuracy and precision. Under accuracy, we are lookingat

the extent to which there is no bias in the sample. Precision looks at the assumption that

no sample will fully represent its population in all respects. However, to interpret findings

of research, the researcher needs a measure of how closely the sample represents the

population (Cooper and Schindler, 2011, p. 367).

3.3.2.1 Sampling Frame

The sampling frame for this study consisted of 796 employees from various functions or

divisions of Unilever Kenya. The list from which the sample was drawn was obtained

from the human resource management department of Unilever Kenya. Sampling frame

refers to the list of elements from which the sample is actually drawn, and is closely

related to the population (Cooper & Schindler, 2001). According to Cooper and Schindler

(2011) it is a complete and correct list of population members only. However, it is

important to note that the sampling frame often differs from the theoretical population

because of errors and omissions. It is therefore a matter of judgement when it comes to

exactly how much inaccuracy one can tolerate while choosing a sampling frame.

3.3.2.2 Sampling Technique

The stratified random sampling technique was used in the selection of sample elements

(Unilever employees) from the sampling frame. The population can be segregated into

28

several mutually exclusive sub populations, or strata, the process by which the sample is

constrained to include elements from each of the segments is referred to as stratified

random sampling. Stratified random sampling has three main benefits, it: increases a

sample‟s statistical efficiency, provides adequate data for analyzing the various

subpopulations, and enables different research methods and procedures to be used in

different strata (Cooper & Schindler, 2001). The study population was segmented on the

basis of various functions or divisions of the company under study (Unilever Kenya) and

this comprised of: finance, marketing, production, human resource, research and

development, and general management. This helped to ensure equal representation across

the various functions or divisions of the company personnel. Proportionate stratified

sampling approach therefore was used.

3.3.2.3 Sample Size

This refers to the number of elements selected from a given population. How large a

sample should be is a function of the variation in the population parameters under study

and the estimating precision needed by the researcher (Mugenda and Mugenda, 2003).

Some of the principles which influence sample size comprise the following: the greater

the dispersion or variance within the population, the larger the sample must be to provide

estimation precision, the greater the desired precision of the estimate, the larger the

sample must be, the narrower the interval range, the larger the sample must be, the higher

the confidence level in the estimate, the larger the sample must be, the greater the number

of subgroups of interest within a sample, the greater the sample size must be, as each sub

group must meet minimum sample size requirements, and if the calculated sample size

exceeds 5 percent of the population, sample size may be reduced without sacrificing

precision. (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill2009)

According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009) sample size can be calculated by the

following formula;

n= p% * q% * (2 / e% )2

Considering a worst case scenario where p is 50% at a 95% level of confidence, and

within an error of ± 10.

n= 50 * 50 *(1.96 / 10)2 = 97 employees.

29

However, they further suggest that if the population is less than 1000, then the sample

size can be adjusted without affecting accuracy using this formula;

n= n / (1) + (n / N)

The adjusted minimum sample size will then be 92 respondents. This is the total sample

that I will consider while collecting data.

Table 3.2 Total Sample size

No Department Population

Characteristics

Total

Population

Percentage of

Entire

Population

Sample

population

1 Human Resources Managers 9 1.13 1

Non-Managers 36 4.52 4

2 Procurement Managers 14 1.75 2


3 Marketing and Sales Managers 22 2.7 2


4 Finance Managers 12 1.5 1


5 Production Managers 27 3.39 3


6 Research and Design Managers 10 1.25 1


TOTAL 796 100 92

3.4 Data Collection Methods

According to Cooper and Schindler (2011), Data collection Methods refer to the process

of gathering data after the researcher has identified the types of information needed which

is; the investigative questions the researcher must answer, and has also identified the

desired data type (nominal, ordinal, interval, or ratio) for each of these questions and also

ascertained the characteristics of the sample unit that is, whether a participant can

articulate his or her ideas, thoughts, and experiences. This study focused on the use of

primary data which was collected from the target sample. A structured questionnaire was

30

used to collect the data. The data collection instrument for the study was developed based

on literature from various scholars on the subject of factors that influence employee job

satisfaction and its impact on performance.

The questionnaire was divided into four sections: The first part was designed to analyze

demographic data, which was focused on collecting the respondent‟s personality

characteristics deemed to impact the factors that influence their job satisfaction and how

it impacts on their performance. The second part looked at extrinsic factors that influence

the level of employee job satisfaction at Unilever Kenya. This section consisted of

questions which were based on the identified extrinsic factors studied in the literature

review with an aim of determining if they apply to Unilever Kenya. There were five

multiple choice options for each question, representing five levels of preference; Strongly

Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, and Strongly Agree.

The third part of the questionnairelooked at the intrinsic factors that influence the level of

employee job satisfaction at Unilever Kenya. Five multiple choice options for each

question were adopted, representing five levels of preference; Strongly Disagree,

Disagree, Neutral, Agree, and Strongly Agree. The fourth part of the questionnaire looked

at the impact of employee job satisfaction employee performance at Unilever Kenya. This

section consisted of nine questions with five multiple choice options for each question,

representing five levels of preference; Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, and

Strongly Agree.

3.5 Research Procedures

A structured questionnaire was developed by the researcher, specifically for this study.

The data collection instrument (structured questionnaire) was pilot tested with 8

respondents representing the various functions or divisions in Unilever Kenya. A pilot

test is conducted to detect weakness in design and instrumentation and to provide proxy

data for selection of a probability sample (Lewis, Saunders & Thornhill, 2003). The

problems which were encountered during piloting testing of the data collection instrument

were addressed by making necessary adjustments to the questionnaire before

administering it on to the whole study sample. After revision of the data collection

31

instrument, the whole study sample was subjected to the data collection instrument. A

number of methods were used to improve returns (response rate) such as drop and pick

later method and following up through reminders via telephone and email. The whole

questionnaire is estimated to take 8 minutes to complete by the respondent.

3.6 Data Analysis Methods

Managers have a need for information, not raw data. Researchers generate information by

analysing data after its collection. Data analysis involves reducing accumulated data to a

manageable size, developing summaries, looking for patterns, and applying statistical

techniques (Cooper & Schindler 2011). This study used statistical methods to analyze

data that is, descriptive statistics; measures of central tendency which included the mean,

mode, and median, and measures of dispersion which will include, standard deviation and

variance. Inferential statistics were also used to draw inferences about the population

from a sample as well as conduct statistical tests of correlation. Statistical Package for

Social Scientists (SPSS) version 21 was used to facilitate the data analysis.

3.7 Chapter Summary

This chapter has presented the research methodology that was used in analyzing the

research questions. A descriptive research design was used to conduct the study. The

study population consisted of 796 employees at Unilever Kenya. The study relied entirely

on primary data which will be collected from the respondents (Unilever employees) using

a structured questionnaire. The structured questionnaire will be pilot tested on 6

respondents representing various functions or divisions in the company (Airtel Unilever).

Statistical methods (descriptive statistics and inferential statistics) will be used to analyze

data. The next chapter will present the results and findings of this study.

32

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the results and findings of this study and therefore, it focuses on the

following: General information (Age group, Gender, Years of service in the organization,

and Level of education), the extrinsic factors that influence employee job satisfaction

(working environment, remuneration structure, team cooperation, leadership style, nature

of the job, Co-workers, Job security, promotion opportunities), Intrinsic factors that

influence employee job satisfaction (employee autonomy, Recognition, work

meaningfulness, training and development, responsibility, participation level of

employee, employee attainment of performance feedback ), and the impact of job

satisfaction on employee performance (Absenteeism, Quality of work, quantity of work,

safety practices, timeliness, employee creativity, cost-effectiveness, adherence to

company and employee meeting of company set objectives).

The study targeted 92 respondents who were proportionally distributed according to the

various departments in Unilever Kenya. The response rate was 97.8% since 2 of the

administered questionnaires were not readily retrieved and were recorded as missing data

in my analysis.

4.2 General Information

The general information section for this chapter comprised of the respondents‟ age, years

of service in the organization, and their level of education. This information was sought in

order to ascertain the respondents‟ demographic characteristics.

4.2.1 Age of Respondent

This question sought to find out the various age groups of the different respondents in the

organization. This question was useful in order to determine if there was any

33

inconsistency of data stated by the respondent. The results of the findings are presented in

the figure 4.1

The findings show that 11.1% 0f the respondents were below 25 years of age, 21.1% were

between 25-34 years, 35.6% were between 35-44 years, 18.9% were between 45-54 years

and 13.3% were between 55-64 years. There were no respondents above 64 years of age.

Figure 4.1 Age of Respondent

4.2.2 Gender of Respondent

This research question sought to find out the gender distribution of the respondents in the

organization. The results of the findings are presented in the figure 4.2

34

The results show that 55.6% of the respondents were male and 44.4% of the respondents

were female. Male respondents were higher than female respondents by 11.2%

Figure 4.2 Gender of Respondent

4.2.3 Years of Service

This question sought to find out how many years the different respondents had served in

the organization. The Findings are presented in figure 4.3

The results show that 35.6% of the employees had served in the organization between 0-

4years, 41.1% had served between 5-9 years, 13.3% had served between 10-14 years,

7.8% had served between 15-19 years and 2.2% had served in the organization for more

than 20 years.

55.6% 44.4%

35

Figure 4.3 Years of Service

4.2.4 Level of Education

This question in the research sought to find out the level of education attained by the

respondents in the organization. The findings are presented in figure 4.4

The results obtained show that 10% of the respondents had professional Qualifications,

63.3% were Undergraduates, 7.8% were graduates (other degree), 24.4% were graduates

(MBA), and 4.4% were post graduates.

Figure 4.4 Education Level

36

4.3. Extrinsic factors that influence employee job satisfaction

4.3.1 Working Environment

This question sought to find out whether the working environment of the organization has

an influence on employee job satisfaction.

The results show that 24.4% of the respondents agree that the working environment

influences employee job satisfaction and 31.1% of the respondents strongly agree. The

total cumulative percentage of the respondents who were in agreement that the working

environment influences employee job satisfaction is 55.5.

Table 4.1: Working Environment

Frequency Percent

Valid STRONGLY DISAGREE 5 5.6

DISAGREE 11 12.2

NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 24 26.7

AGREE 22 24.4

STRONGLY AGREE 28 31.1

Total 90 100.0

Missing System 2

Total 92

4.3.2Monetary Pay and Remuneration Structure

The question sought to find out whether the monetary pay and remuneration structure

influences employee job satisfaction.

The results obtained show that 20.7% of the respondents agree that monetary pay and

remuneration structure influences their job satisfaction and 54.3% strongly agree with this

statement. The cumulative percentage total of the respondents who were in agreement

with the statement is 75%

37

Table 4.2: Monetary Pay and Remuneration Structure

Frequency Percent


DISAGREE 11 12.0

NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 9 9.8

AGREE 19 20.7


Total 90 97.8

Missing System 2 2.2

Total 92 100.0

4.3.3 Degree to Which Organization Embraces Team Cooperation

This question sought to find out whether the degree to which the organization embraces

team cooperation has an influence on employee job satisfaction.

The results show that 26.1% of the respondents agree that the degree to which the

organization embraces team cooperation influences their job satisfaction and 24.4%

strongly agree. The total cumulative percentage of respondents who are in agreement with

this statement is 50.5%

Table 4.3: Team Cooperation

Frequency Percent

Valid DISAGREE 11 12.0

NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE

33 35.9

AGREE 24 26.1


Total 90 97.8


Total 92 100.0

38

4.3.4 Leadership Style

This question sought to find out whether the leadership style of an organization has an

influence on an employee‟s job satisfaction.

The findings show that 20% of the respondents agree that the leadership style has an

influence employee job satisfaction and 65.6% strongly agree. The total cumulative

percentage of respondents who were in agreement with this statement is 85.6%.

Table 4.4 Leadership Style

Frequency Percent


DISAGREE 1 1.1

NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE

11 12.2

AGREE 18 20.0


Total 90 100.0

Missing System 2

Total 92

4.3.5 Nature of the Job

This question was intended to find out whether the nature of the job in itself influences an

employee‟s job satisfaction.

The results obtained show that 18.9% the respondents agree the nature of their job

influences their job satisfaction and 60% strongly agree. The total cumulative percentage

39

of the respondents who are in agreement that the nature of the job has an influence on

employee job satisfaction is 78.9%

Table 4.5: Nature of the Job

Frequency Percent


DISAGREE 3 3.3

NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE

15 16.7

AGREE 17 18.9


Total 90 100.0

Missing System 2

Total 92

4.3.6 Impact by Co-workers

The question sought to find out whether co-workers have an impact on an employee‟s job

satisfaction.

The results show that 27.8% of respondents agree that their co-workers have an impact on

their job satisfaction and 28.9% strongly agree to the same. The total cumulative

percentage of respondents who are in agreement with the statement is 56.7%

Table 4.6: Impact by Co-workers

Frequency Percent


DISAGREE 9 10.0

NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE

29 32.2

AGREE 25 27.8


Total 90 100.0

Missing System 2

Total 92

40

4.3.7 Level of Job Security

This question sought to find out whether the level of job security at an employee‟s work

place has an influence on their job satisfaction.

The results show that 33.3% of the respondents agree that the degree of job security at

their employment influences their job satisfaction and 43.3% strongly agree with this

statement. The cumulative total percentage of respondents who are in agreement that job

security influences their job satisfaction is 76.6%.

Table 4.7 Level of Job Security

Frequency Percent


DISAGREE 7 7.8

NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE

13 14.4

AGREE 30 33.3


Total 90 100.0

Missing System 2

Total 92

41

4.3.8 Degree to Which Promotion Opportunities Exist in the Organization

This question sought to find out whether the degree to which the existence of promotion

opportunities in an organization influences employee job satisfaction.

The findings show that 13% of respondents agree that existence of promotion

opportunities in the organization has an influence on their level of job satisfaction and

65.2% strongly agree with this statement. The cumulative total percentage of the

respondents in agree with this statement is 78.2%.

Table 4.8: Promotion Opportunities

Frequency Percent


NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE

13 14.1

AGREE 12 13.0


Total 90 97.8


Total 92 100.0

42

Table 4.9Summary Statistics of all the Individual Extrinsic Factors that Influence

Employee Job Satisfaction.

WO

RK

ING

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

MO

NE

TA

RY

PA

Y A

ND

RE

MU

NE

RA

TIO

N S

TR

UC

TU

RE

DE

GR

EE

TO

WH

ICH

TH

E

OR

GA

NIZ

AT

ION

EM

BR

AC

ES

TE

AM

CO

OP

ER

AT

ION

L

EA

DE

RS

HIP

ST

YL

E

NA

TU

RE

OF

TH

E J

OB

IMP

AC

T B

Y C

O-W

OR

KE

RS

LE

VE

L O

F J

OB

SE

CU

RIT

Y

DE

GR

EE

TO

WH

ICH

PR

OM

OT

ION

OP

PO

RT

UN

ITIE

S

EX

IST

IN

TH

E O

RG

AN

IZA

TIO

N

N Valid 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90

Missing 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Mean 3.63 4.18 3.63 4.48 4.33 3.73 4.10 4.41

Std. Error of Mean .127 .117 .104 .088 .100 .108 .105 .099

Median 4.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 5.00

Mode 5 5 3 5 5 3 5 5

Std. Deviation 1.203 1.107 .988 .838 .948 1.026 .995 .935

Variance 1.448 1.226 .976 .702 .899 1.052 .990 .874

Skewness -.480 -1.123 .012 -1.688 -1.285 -.271 -.974 -1.339

Std. Error of Skewness .254 .254 .254 .254 .254 .254 .254 .254

Range 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3

Minimum 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2

Maximum 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Percentiles 25 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00

50 4.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 5.00

75 5.00 5.00 4.25 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

43

Table 4.10 Extrinsic Factors Summary Statistics

The results show that the average response of respondents in relation to all the extrinsic

factors is 4 (Agree). This therefore shows that most of the respondents agreed that

extrinsic factors had an influence on their level of job satisfaction. The mode or most

frequent score of the respondents in relation to extrinsic factors was 4. The range or

difference between the highest and lowest score was 3. The average deviation of the

sample means from the population mean was 0.046 (standard error of the mean). The

measure of the average deviation of each score from the mean was 0.438 (standard

deviation). The measure of asymmetry in the distribution of scores was -2.282 (skewness)

N Valid 90

Missing 2

Mean 4.00

Std. Error of Mean .046

Median 4.00

Mode 4

Std. Deviation .438

Variance .192

Skewness -2.282

Std. Error of Skewness .254

Range 3

Minimum 2

Maximum 5

Percentiles 25 3.86

50 4.00

75 4.29

44

Table 4.11: Combination of all the Extrinsic Factors

The results show the total cumulative percentage responses of all the extrinsic factors.

The cumulative percentage of respondents who agree that extrinsic factors influence their

employee job satisfaction is 85.5% and 6.6% strongly agree. The total cumulative

percentage of all respondents in agreement that extrinsic factors influence their level of

job satisfaction was 92.1%.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid 2 1 1.1 1.1 1.1

3 2 2.2 2.2 3.3

3 3 3.3 3.3 6.7

3 1 1.1 1.1 7.8

4 3 3.3 3.3 11.1

4 7 7.6 7.8 18.9

4 14 15.2 15.6 34.4

4 19 20.7 21.1 55.6

4 12 13.0 13.3 68.9

4 13 14.1 14.4 83.3

4 9 9.8 10.0 93.3

5 4 4.3 4.4 97.8

5 2 2.2 2.2 100.0

Total 90 97.8 100.0


Total 92 100.0

4.3.9 The Influence of Extrinsic Factors on Employee Job Satisfaction

The study sought to find out if extrinsic factors influence employee job satisfaction. The

findings of this question are presented as below. The hypothesis is stated as follows.

H0Extrinsic factors do not influence employee job satisfaction

H1 Extrinsic factors influence employee job satisfaction

45

The results show that the significance level of all the extrinsic factors is 0.000 (P<0.05)

which is within the acceptable level. This means that extrinsic factors influence employee

job satisfaction. We therefore accept the alternative hypothesis and reject the null

hypothesis.

Table 4.12 Extrinsic Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction (T-test)

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 0

t df Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

WORKING ENVIRONMENT 28.641 89 .000 3.633 3.38 3.89

MONETARY PAY AND

REMUNERATION STRUCTURE

35.788 89 .000 4.178 3.95 4.41

DEGREE TO WHICH THE

ORGANIZATION EMBRACES

TEAM COOPERATION

34.883 89 .000 3.633 3.43 3.84

LEADERSHIP STYLE 50.710 89 .000 4.478 4.30 4.65

NATURE OF THE JOB 43.360 89 .000 4.333 4.13 4.53

IMPACT BY CO-WORKERS 34.536 89 .000 3.733 3.52 3.95

LEVEL OF JOB SECURITY 39.094 89 .000 4.100 3.89 4.31

DEGREE TO WHICH

PROMOTION OPPORTUNITIES

EXIST IN THE ORGANIZATION

44.762 89 .000 4.411 4.22 4.61

4.4 Intrinsic Factors that Influence the Level of Job Satisfaction

4.4.1 Degree to which Employee Autonomy Exists in the Organization

This question was designed to find out whether the degree to which employee autonomy

(independence) exists in the organization has an influence on employee job satisfaction.

46

The findings show that 26.7% of the respondents agree that employee autonomy has an

influence on their job satisfaction and 31.1% strongly agree. The total cumulative

percentage of respondents in agreement that employee autonomy influences their job

satisfaction is 57.1

Table 4.13: Employee Autonomy

Frequency Percent


DISAGREE 12 13.3

NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE

24 26.7

AGREE 24 26.7


Total 90 100.0

Missing System 2

Total 92

4.4.2 Extent to which the Employee Feels Recognized

This question was intended to find out whether employee recognition has an influence on

employee job satisfaction.

The results show that 35.6% of the respondents agree that being recognized at their job

influences their job satisfaction and 44.4 strongly agree. The total cumulative percentage

of respondents in agreement that employee recognition influences their job satisfaction is

80%

Table 4.14: Employee Recognition

Frequency Percent


NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE

13 14.4

AGREE 32 35.6


Total 90 100.0

Missing System 2

Total 92

47

4.4.3 Degree to which Employee feels their Job is Meaningful

This question sought to find out whether the degree to which the employee feels their job

is meaningful impacts their job satisfaction.

The results show that 38.9% of the respondents agree that the degree to which they

believe that their job is meaningful influences their job satisfaction and 42.2% of the

respondents strongly agree. The total cumulative percentage of those in agreement with

the statement is 81.1%

Table 4.15: Job is Meaningful

Frequency Percent


NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE

13 14.4

AGREE 35 38.9


Total 90 100.0

Missing System 2

Total 92

4.4.4 Degree to which the Employee feels they are being Trained and Developed

This question had a purpose of finding out whether the degree to which employees feel

that they are being trained and developed has an influence on their job satisfaction.

The findings show that 25.6% of the respondents agree that the degree to which they feel

they are being trained and developed has an influence on their job satisfaction while

28.9% strongly agree. The total cumulative percentage of those in agreement with this

statement is 54.5%.

48

Table 4.16: Training and Developed

Frequency Percent


NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE

35 38.9

AGREE 23 25.6


Total 90 100.0

Missing System 2

Total 92

4.4.5 Amount of Responsibility the Employee Possesses in their Job

This question sought to find out whether the amount of responsibility an employee

possesses in their job has an influence on his or her job satisfaction.

The results show that 28.9% agree that the amount of responsibility they possess at their

job influences their job satisfaction and 48.9% strongly agree. The total cumulative

frequency of those who are in agreement that the amount of responsibility they have at

their job influences their job satisfaction is 85.9%.

Table 4.17: Responsibility Employee Possesses

Frequency Percent


NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE

18 20.0

AGREE 26 28.9


Total 90 100.0

Missing System 2

Total 92

49

4.4.6 Amount of Participation the Employee can have in their Work

The purpose of this question was to find out whether the amount of participation possible

for an employee to make at their job influences their job satisfaction.

The findings show that 31.1% agree that the amount of participation they can make at

their work influences their job satisfaction and 40% strongly agree. The total cumulative

percentage of respondents in agreement with the statement is 71.1

Table 4.18: Participation of Employee

Frequency Percent


NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE

24 26.7

AGREE 28 31.1


Total 90 100.0

Missing System 2

Total 92

4.4.7 Extent to which the Employee Perceives their Job as having Substantial

Contribution to the Company’s overall Mission and Vision

The question sought to find out whether the extent to which the employee perceives their

job as having a substantial contribution to the company‟s mission and vision influences

their job satisfaction.

The findings show that 32.2% of the respondents agree that the extent at which they

perceive their job as having a substantial contribution to the company‟s mission and

vision influences their job satisfaction and 53.3% strongly agree. The total cumulative

percentage of all those in agreement with this statement is 85.5%.

50

Table 4.19: Contribution to Mission and Vision

Frequency Percent

Valid NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE

13 14.4

AGREE 29 32.2


Total 90 100.0

Missing System 2

Total 92

4.4.8 Employee Attaining Constant Feedback on their Performance

This purpose of this question was to find out whether an employee attaining constant

feedback in relation to their performance has an influence on their job satisfaction.

The findings presented show that 32.2% agree that attaining constant feedback on their

performance influences their level of job satisfaction while 30% strongly agree. The total

cumulative percentage of respondents in agreement with this statement is 62.2.

Table 4.20: Employee Feedback

Frequency Percent


DISAGREE 10 11.1

NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE

23 25.6

AGREE 29 32.2


Total 90 100.0

Missing System 2

Total 92

51

4.4.9 Extent to which the Employee is Involved in the Organization’s Decision

Making Process

This question sought to find out whether an employee being involved in the

organization‟s decision making process influences their level of job satisfaction.

The results show that 6.7% agree that being involved in the decision making process of

the organization influences their job satisfaction while 76.7% strongly agree with the

same. The total cumulative percentage of all those in agreement is 83.4%.

Table 4.21: Involvement in the Decision Making

Frequency Percent


NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE

14 15.6

AGREE 6 6.7


Total 90 100.0

Missing System 2

Total 92

52

Table 4.22Summary Statistics of all the Individual Intrinsic Factors that Influence

Employee Job Satisfaction

EM

PL

OY

EE

AU

TO

NO

MY

RE

CO

GN

ITIO

N

JOB

ME

AN

ING

FU

LN

ES

S

TR

AIN

ING

AN

D

DE

VE

LO

PM

EN

T

RE

SP

ON

SIB

ILIT

Y

PA

RT

ICIP

AT

ION

CO

NT

RIB

UT

ION

TO

MIS

SI

FE

ED

BA

CK

DE

CIS

ION

MA

KIN

G

N Valid 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90

Missing 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Mean 3.71 4.19 4.20 3.77 4.24 4.09 4.39 3.7

9

4.59

Std. Error of Mean .117 .093 .091 .100 .090 .092 .077 .10

9

.083

Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 4.0

0

5.00

Mode 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 4 5

Std. Deviation 1.114 .886 .864 .949 .852 .870 .730 1.0

33

.792

Variance 1.241 .784 .746 .900 .726 .756 .532 1.0

67

.627

Skewness -.399 -

.880

-

.723

.003 -.719 -

.385

-

.757

-

.43

8

-

1.619

Std. Error of Skewness .254 .254 .254 .254 .254 .254 .254 .25

4

.254

Range 4 3 4 3 3 3 2 4 3

Minimum 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 2

Maximum 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 5

Percentiles 25 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.0

0

5.00

50 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 4.0

0

5.00

75 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.0

0

5.00

53

Table 4.23: Summary of the Descriptive Statistics Consisting a Combination of all

the Intrinsic Factors

The results show that the average response of respondents on all the extrinsic factors is

4.11 (Agree). This therefore shows that most of the respondents agreed that extrinsic

factors had an influence on their level of job satisfaction. The mode or most frequent

score of the respondents in relation to extrinsic factors was 4. The range or difference

between the highest and lowest score was 2. The average deviation of the sample means

from the population mean was 0.031 (standard error of the mean). The measure of the

average deviation of each score from the mean was 0.296 (standard deviation). The

measure of asymmetry in the distribution of scores was -0.606 (skewness)

N Valid 90

Missing 2

Mean 4.11


Median 4.11

Mode 4

Std. Deviation .296

Variance .088

Skewness -.606


Range 2

Minimum 3

Maximum 5

Percentiles 25 3.97

50 4.11

75 4.33

54

Table 4.24: Combination of all the Intrinsic Factors

The results show the total cumulative percentage responses of all the intrinsic factors. The

cumulative percentage of respondents who agree that intrinsic factors influence their

employee job satisfaction is 87.8% and 7.7% strongly agree. The total cumulative

percentage of all respondents in agreement that intrinsic factors influence their level of

job satisfaction was 92.1%.

Frequency Percent Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid 3 2 2.2 2.2 2.2

3 1 1.1 1.1 3.3

3 1 1.1 1.1 4.4

4 3 3.3 3.3 7.8

4 7 7.6 7.8 15.6

4 8 8.7 8.9 24.4

4 12 13.0 13.3 37.8

4 18 19.6 20.0 57.8

4 12 13.0 13.3 71.1

4 14 15.2 15.6 86.7

4 5 5.4 5.6 92.2

5 4 4.3 4.4 96.7

5 2 2.2 2.2 98.9

5 1 1.1 1.1 100.0

Total 90 97.8 100.0


Total 92 100.0

4.3.10 Influence of Intrinsic Factors on Employee Job Satisfaction

The study sought to find out if intrinsic factors influence employee job satisfaction. The


H0Intrinsic factors do not influence employee job satisfaction

H1 Intrinsic factors influence employee job satisfaction

55

The results show that the significance level of all the intrinsic factors is 0.000 (P<0.05)

which is within the acceptable level. This means that intrinsic factors influence employee

job satisfaction. We therefore accept the alternative hypothesis and reject the null

hypothesis.

Table 4.25 Intrinsic Factors Influencing Employee Job Satisfaction (T-test)

One-Sample Test Test Value = 0

T df Sig.

(2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

DEGREE TO WHICH EMPLOYEE

AUTONOMY EXISTS IN THE

ORGANIZATION

31.598 89 .000 3.711 3.48 3.94

EXTENT TO WHICH EMPLOYEE

FEELS RECOGNIZED

44.877 89 .000 4.189 4.00 4.37


FEELS THAT THEIR JOB IS

MEANINGFUL

46.130 89 .000 4.200 4.02 4.38


FEELS THAT THEY ARE BEING

TRAINED AND DEVELOPED

37.667 89 .000 3.767 3.57 3.97

AMOUNT OF RESPONSIBILITY

THAT EMPLOYEE POSSESSES IN

THE JOB

47.255 89 .000 4.244 4.07 4.42

AMOUNT OF PARTICIPATION THAT

EMPLOYEE CAN IN THEIR

CURRENT AREA OF EMPLOYMENT

44.612 89 .000 4.089 3.91 4.27

EXTENT TO WHICH EMPLOYEE

PERCEIVES THEIR JOB AS HAVING

SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO

THE OVERALL VISION AND

MISSION OF THE ORGANIZATION

57.060 89 .000 4.389 4.24 4.54

ATTAINING CONSTANT JOB

FEEDBACK ON EMPLOYEE LEVEL

OF PERFORMANCE

34.793 89 .000 3.789 3.57 4.01

EXTENT TO WHICH EMPLOYEE IS

INVOLVED IN THE DECISION

MAKING PROCESS OF THE

ORGANIZATION

54.986 89 .000 4.589 4.42 4.75

56

4.5.0 The Impact of Employee Job Satisfaction on Performance

4.5.1 Impact of Job Satisfaction on Employee Absenteeism

The question sought to find out whether job satisfaction level of an employee has an

impact on their absenteeism level.

The findings show that 28.9% agree that their level of job satisfaction has an influence on

their absenteeism level and 15.6% strongly agree. The total cumulative percentage of all

those in agreement is 44.5%.

Table 4.26: Employee Absenteeism Levels

Frequency Percent


DISAGREE 20 22.2

NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE

23 25.6

AGREE 26 28.9


Total 90 100.0

Missing System 2

Total 92

4.5.2 Impact of Job Satisfaction on Quality of Work

The question sought to find out whether the level of job satisfaction of an employee has

an impact on the quality of work they produce.

The findings show that 27.8% of respondents agree that their degree of job satisfaction

impacts on their quality of work while 58.9% strongly agree. The total cumulative

percentage of all in agreement that job satisfaction impacts on their quality of work

produced is 86.7.

57

Table 4.27: Quality of Work

Frequency Percent


NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE

10 11.1

AGREE 25 27.8


Total 90 100.0

Missing System 2

Total 92

4.5.3 Impact of Job Satisfaction on Quantity of Work

The purpose of this question was to determine whether the level of an employee‟s job

satisfaction has an impact on the quantity of work they produce.

The results show that 42.2% of employees agree that their level of job satisfaction has an

impact on the quantity of work they produce and 48.9% strongly agree. The total

cumulative percentage of all those in agreement is 91.1%.

Table 4.28: Quantity of Work

Frequency Percent


NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE

6 6.7

AGREE 38 42.2


Total 90 100.0

Missing System 2

Total 92

58

4.5.4 Impact of Job Satisfaction on Safety Practices

This question sought to find out whether the job satisfaction level of an employee has an

impact on his or her safety practices at the workplace.

The results show that 26.7% of the employees agree that their level of job satisfaction

impacts on their safety practices at the workplace and 13.3% strongly agree. The total

cumulative percentage of all those in agreement with the statement is 40%.

Table 4.29: Safety Practices

Frequency Percent


DISAGREE 16 17.8

NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE

37 41.1

AGREE 24 26.7


Total 90 100.0

Missing System 2

Total 92

4.5.5 Impact of Job Satisfaction on Timeliness

The purpose of this question was to find out whether an employee‟s level of job

satisfaction has an impact on the time taken for them to complete assigned tasks.

According to the presented findings, 34.4% of respondents agree that their job satisfaction

has an impact on the time taken by them to complete tasks and 36.7% strongly agree. The

total cumulative percentage of all those in agreement is 71.1%.

59

Table 4.30: Impact on Timeliness

Frequency Percent


NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE

18 20.0

AGREE 31 34.4


Total 90 100.0

Missing System 2

Total 92

4.5.6 Impact of Job Satisfaction on Employee Creativity

This question sought to find out whether the level of job satisfaction of an employee has

an impact on his or her level of creativity.

The findings show that 23.3% of the respondents agree that their level of creativity is

impacted by their level of job satisfaction and 57.8% strongly agree. The total cumulative

percentage of all those respondents in agreement is 81.1%.

Table 4.31: Impact on Employee Creativity

Frequency Percent


NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE

15 16.7

AGREE 21 23.3


Total 90 100.0

Missing System 2

Total 92

60

4.5.7 Impact of Sob Satisfaction on Employee Cost Effectiveness

This question sought to find out whether the level of an employee‟s job satisfaction has

an impact on how cost effective they are at the workplace.

The findings show that 28.9% of the respondents agree that their level of job satisfaction

has an influence on their cost effectiveness at work and 23.3% strongly agree. The total

cumulative percentage of all those respondents in agreement is 52.2%.

Table 4.32: Impact on Cost Effectiveness

Frequency Percent


DISAGREE 11 12.2

NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE

29 32.2

AGREE 26 28.9


Total 90 100.0

Missing System 2

Total 92

4.5.8Impact of Job Satisfaction on Employee Adherence to Company Policy

The purpose of this this question was to find out whether the level of job satisfaction of

an employee has an impact on the degree to which they adhere to company policy.

61


has an impact on their adherence to company policy and 41.1% strongly agree. The total

cumulative percentage of all the respondents in agreement is 70%.

Table 4.33: Impact on Policy Adherence

Frequency Percent


DISAGREE 10 11.1

NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE

16 17.8

AGREE 26 28.9


Total 90 100.0

Missing System 2

Total 92

62

4.5.9 Impact of Job Satisfaction on Employee Attainment of Company Set

Objectives

This question sought to find out whether the level of an employee‟s job satisfaction has

an impact on their attainment of the company‟s set objectives.

The findings show that 13.3% of the respondents agree that their job satisfaction level has

an impact on their ability to attain the company‟s set objectives while 78.9% strongly

agree. The total cumulative percentage of all the respondents who were in agreement that

their job satisfaction has an impact on their attainment of the companies set objectives is

92.2%.

Table 4.34: Attainment of the Company's Set Objectives

Frequency Percent


NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE

6 6.7

AGREE 12 13.3


Total 90 100.0

Missing System 2

Total 92

63

Table 4.35: Summary Statistics of all the Individual Intrinsic Factors that Influence

Employee Job Satisfaction

AB

SE

NT

EE

ISM

LE

VE

LS

QU

AL

ITY

OF

WO

RK

PE

RF

OR

ME

D

QU

AN

TIT

Y O

F W

OR

K

PR

OD

UC

ED

SA

FE

TY

PR

AC

TIC

ES

TIM

EL

EN

ES

S

EM

PL

OY

EE

CR

EA

TIV

ITY

EM

PL

OY

EE

CO

ST

EF

FE

CT

IVE

NE

SS

AT

WO

RK

EM

PL

OY

EE

AD

HE

RE

NC

E T

O

CO

MP

AN

Y P

OL

ICY

AT

TA

INM

EN

T O

F T

HE

CO

MP

AN

Y'S

SE

T O

BJE

CT

IVE

S

N Valid 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90

Missi

ng

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Mean 3.22 4.43 4.38 3.33 3.9

9

4.37 3.57 3.98 4.70

Std. Error of Mean .125 .082 .075 .101 .10

2

.089 .114 .113 .068

Median 3.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 4.0

0

5.00 4.00 4.00 5.00

Mode 4 5 5 3 5 5 3 5 5

Std. Deviation 1.188 .780 .712 .960 .96

6

.841 1.082 1.070 .644

Variance 1.411 .608 .507 .921 .93

2

.707 1.170 1.146 .415

Skewness -.156 -1.228 -1.082 .139 -

.59

0

-1.018 -.312 -.742 -2.211

Std. Error of

Skewness

.254 .254 .254 .254 .25

4

.254 .254 .254 .254

Range 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3

Minimum 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2

Maximum 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Percentile

s

25 2.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.0

0

4.00 3.00 3.00 5.00

50 3.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 4.0

0

5.00 4.00 4.00 5.00

75 4.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 5.0

0

5.00 4.00 5.00 5.00

64

Table 4.36:Combination of All the Impacts of Job Satisfaction on Performance

The results show that the average response of respondents on all the impacts of job

satisfaction on employee performance was 4 (Agree). This therefore shows that most of

the respondents agreed that job satisfaction has an impact on their performance. The

mode or most frequent score of the respondents in relation to impact of job satisfaction on

performance 4. The range or difference between the highest and lowest score was 2. The

average deviation of the sample means from the population mean was 0.035 (standard

error of the mean). The measure of the average deviation of each score from the mean

was 0.335 (standard deviation). The measure of asymmetry in the distribution of scores

was -0.622 (skewness)

N Valid 90

Missing 2

Mean 4.00


Median 4.00

Mode 4

Std. Deviation .335

Variance .112

Skewness -.622


Range 2

Minimum 3

Maximum 5

Percentiles 25 3.78

50 4.00

75 4.22

65

Table 4.37: Combination of all the Factors in which Job Satisfaction Impacts

Employee Job Performance

The results show the total cumulative percentage responses on job satisfaction and its

impacts on employee performance. The cumulative percentage of respondents who agree

that employee job satisfaction has an impact on employee performance is 86.6% and

4.4% strongly agree. The total cumulative percentage of all respondents in agreement

employee job satisfaction has an impact on their performance is 91%.

Frequency Percent Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid 3 1 1.1 1.1 1.1

3 2 2.2 2.2 3.3

3 2 2.2 2.2 5.6

3 3 3.3 3.3 8.9

4 1 1.1 1.1 10.0

4 8 8.7 8.9 18.9

4 8 8.7 8.9 27.8

4 12 13.0 13.3 41.1

4 11 12.0 12.2 53.3

4 12 13.0 13.3 66.7

4 13 14.1 14.4 81.1

4 7 7.6 7.8 88.9

4 6 6.5 6.7 95.6

5 3 3.3 3.3 98.9

5 1 1.1 1.1 100.0

Total 90 97.8 100.0


Total 92 100.0

4.4.10 Impact of job satisfaction on employee performance

The study sought to find out if intrinsic factors influence employee job satisfaction. The


H0Intrinsic factors do not influence employee job satisfaction

H1 Intrinsic factors influence employee job satisfaction

66

The results show that the significance level of all the impacts of job satisfaction on

performance is 0.000 (P<0.05) which is within the acceptable level. This means that

employee job satisfaction has an impact on performance. We therefore accept the

alternative hypothesis and reject the null hypothesis.

Table 4.38 Impacts of job satisfaction on employee performance (T-test)

One-Sample Test Test Value = 0

t Df Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

IMPACT OF JOB SATISIFACTION

ON EMPLOYEE ABSENTEEISM

LEVELS

25.737 89 .000 3.222 2.97 3.47

IMPACT OF JOB SATISFACTION

ON QUALITY OF WORK

PERFORMED BY EMPLOYEE

53.945 89 .000 4.433 4.27 4.60


ON QUANTITY OF WORK

PRODUCED BY EMPLOYEE

58.306 89 .000 4.378 4.23 4.53


ON SAFETY PRACTICES

32.945 89 .000 3.333 3.13 3.53


ON THE AMOUNT OF TIME TAKEN

BY EMPLOYEE TO COMPLETE

ASSIGNED TASKS

39.188 89 .000 3.989 3.79 4.19


ON LEVEL OF EMPLOYEE

CREATIVITY

49.277 89 .000 4.367 4.19 4.54


ON EMPLOYEE COST

EFFECTIVENESS AT WORK

31.286 89 .000 3.567 3.34 3.79


ON EMPLOYEE ADHERENCE TO

COMPANY POLICY

35.257 89 .000 3.978 3.75 4.20


ON EMPLOYEE ATTAINMENT OF

THE COMPANY'S SET

OBJECTIVES

69.247 89 .000 4.700 4.57 4.83

67

4.6 Chapter Summary

This chapter has presented the results and findings of this study. It has focussed on the

following: General information (Age group, Years of service in the organization, and

Level of education), the extrinsic factors that influence employee job satisfaction

(working environment, remuneration structure, team cooperation, leadership style, nature

of the job, Co-workers, Job security, promotion opportunities), Intrinsic factors that

influence employee job satisfaction (employee autonomy, Recognition, work

meaningfulness, training and development, responsibility, participation level of

employee, employee attainment of performance feedback ), and the impact of job

satisfaction on employee performance (Absenteeism, Quality of work, quantity of work,

safety practices, timeliness, employee creativity, cost-effectiveness, adherence to

company and employee meeting of company set objectives).

68

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction

The chapter provides a discussion based on the results and findings of chapter four based

on the research questions and the literature review presented in chapter two, the summary

of the study and the recommendations for further research.

5.2 Summary

The purpose of the study was to determine the factors that influence employee job

satisfaction in Kenyan Organizations. The following research questions guided this study:

What are the extrinsic factors that influence the level of employee job satisfaction in

Unilever Kenya? What are the intrinsic factors that influence the level of job satisfaction

in an organization? What impact does job satisfaction have on the level of employee

performance?

A descriptive research design was adopted, with Unilever Kenya being the focus

organization. The population of interest was the employees of Unilever Kenya across

various functions and divisions since this was the company under study. The study

population comprised a total of 796 employees from all the various organizational

functions or divisions. Stratified random sampling technique was used to draw a sample

size of 92 respondents. The data collection instrument was a tailor-made structured

questionnaire developed by the researcher, specifically for this study.

Data was analyzed using statistical methods that is, descriptive statistics; measures of

central tendency such as mean, median, and mode, and measures of dispersion such as

range, standard deviation, variance, percentiles, and quartiles, and inferential statistics (T-

test was used to determine the factors that influence job satisfaction and its impact on

employee performance. Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) version 21 was

69

used to facilitate the data analysis. The results were presented in tables and charts such as

pie charts, and bar graphs.

The findings show thatextrinsic factors have a strong influence on employee job

satisfaction. There was a 92.1% total cumulative agreement from respondents that their

job satisfaction is influenced by extrinsic factors. The level of agreement in relation to the

individual extrinsic factors was as follows (working environment 55.5%, remuneration

structure75%, team cooperation 50.5%, leadership style 85.8%, nature of the job 78.9%,

Co-workers 56.7%, Job security 76.6%, promotion opportunities 78.5%).

The findings show that intrinsic factors also have a strong impact on employee job

satisfaction. There was a 92.1% total cumulative agreement from respondents thatintrinsic

factors influence their job satisfaction.The level of agreement for the individual intrinsic

factors was as follows (employee autonomy 57.1%, Recognition 80%, work

meaningfulness 80%, training and development 54.5%, responsibility 85.9%,

participation level of employee 71.1%, contribution to vision and mission 85.5%

employee attainment of performance feedback 62.2%).

Findings on the impact of job satisfaction on employee performance show that job

satisfaction has strong impact on employee performance. There was a 91% total

cumulative agreement from respondents that their performance is impacted by their job

satisfaction. The results in relation to the individual impacts of job satisfaction on

performance are as follows (Absenteeism 44.5%, Quality of work 86.7%, quantity of

work 91.1%, safety practices 40%, timeliness 71.1%, employee creativity 81.1%, cost-

effectiveness 52.2%, adherence to company 70% and employee meeting of company set

objectives 92.2%).

5.3 Discussions

5.3.1 Extrinsic Factors and their Influence on Employee Job Satisfaction

The findings indicate that 55.5% of the respondents are in agreement that the working

environment influences their job satisfaction. This is in agreement with Kawada &

70

Otsuku (2011) who argued that the working environment of an employee is one of the

important indexes of measuring their comfort and their job satisfaction.

The findings show that 75% of the respondents are in total agreement that the monetary

pay and remuneration structure of the organization has an impact on their degree of job

satisfaction. This is in agreement with yaseen‟s (2013) argument that people always

expect that if they work well at their workplace then their pay will automatically increase

and this will also cause an increase in their job satisfaction level.

The findings show that 50.5% of the respondents are in agreement that the degree to

which the organization embraces team cooperation has an influence on their level of job

satisfaction. This is line with Yuan &Xiaoxia (2013) argument that teamwork is one of

the most important factors that isnecessary to guarantee a harmonious working

atmosphere and it is also an important factor that influences employee satisfaction.

The findings show that 85.6% of the respondents are in agreement that the leadership

style of the organization has an influence on their job satisfaction. This backs up Iqba

(2010) argument that committed leadership which is willing to model desired changes and

drives fear out of the organization, is very critical for business success and encourages

employee job satisfaction.

The findings show that 78.9% of respondents are in total agreement that the nature of the

job in itself influences their job satisfaction. These finding agree with Ganzach (1998)

research that when the nature of job performed by the employee is perceived to be

important, this will increase their satisfaction level.


is impacted by their co-workers. This is in line with Labedo, Awontunde & Abdulsalam

(2008) findings which indicate that harmonious relationships between an employee and

their co-worker have a positive influence on their level of job satisfaction.

The findings show that 76.6% of the respondents are in agreement that their degree of

satisfaction with their job is influenced by job security. This backs up Chan (2011)

argument that there is a positive relationship between job security and employee job

71

satisfaction and that employees who perceive job insecurity are considered to be less

satisfied in their jobs.

The findings show that 78.5% of the total respondents are in agreement that the existence

of promotion opportunities in their line of employment has an impact on their job

satisfaction. These findings are consistent with Ramasodi (2010) argument that there is a

positive relationship seen between job satisfaction and promotion to develop and that

promotion is considered as one of the most important elements for employee satisfaction.

5.3.2 Intrinsic Factors and their Influence on Employee Job Satisfaction

The findings on intrinsic factors show that 57.1% of respondents are in agreement that

employee autonomy (independence/empowerment) practiced by the organization

influences their degree of job satisfaction. This is in line with Massersmith (2007)

observation that a number of studies have found a positive relationship between employee

autonomy and job satisfaction.

The findings manifest that 80% of the respondents are in agreement that their level of

satisfaction with their job is influences by the level at which they feel recognized in the

organization. This acts as proof to yaseen (2013) argument that an employee becomes

more loyal to their organization and satisfied when the organization recognizes their

work.

The findings of the research show that 80% of the respondents are in agreement that the

degree to which they feel their job is meaningful has an influence on their job satisfaction.

This is in line with Pocock (2006) argument that meaningful work is a very important

factor when it comes to intrinsic motivation. He further noted that employees want to be

engaged in qualitative work and that employees want their work to be meaningful to

them.

The findings on intrinsic factors show that 54.5% of the respondents are in agreement that

the degree to which they feel they are being trained and developed has an influence on

72

how much they feel satisfied with their job. It has been observed that this is very much in

line with Abdullah &Djebavni (2011)argument that workers who see a possibility of

training and development in their employment are more satisfied with their job as

compared to employees who have no hope of being developed.

The findings show that 85.9% of respondents are in complete agreement that the amount

of responsibility they possess within their job has an influence on their degree of job

satisfaction. This finding is very much in line with Herzberg‟s two-factor theory that

suggests that intrinsic work factors such as responsibility held by employee may increase

job satisfaction.

The findings show that 72.2% of respondents are in agreement that attaining constant

feedback on their performance influences their level of job satisfaction. This particular

finding supports Vlosky & Aguilar (2009) argument that providing feedback to

employees fulfills a need for information on the extent to which personal goals are met, as

well as being a social comparison about an individual‟s relative performance and this

increases job satisfaction.

5.3.3 Impact of Employee Job Satisfaction on Employee Performance

The findings show that 44.5% of employees agree that their level of satisfaction has an

impact on their performance. This means that the remaining 65.5% are not in agreement.

This is in part lined with Anderson (2004) observation that even though the correlation

between job satisfaction and employee performance has been found to be rather

moderate, the underlying assumption is that absence of an employee from work is at least

in part, the result of dissatisfaction on the job. The researcher believes that the largest

number of respondents did not agree that job satisfaction influences their level of

absenteeism because Unilever has very little tolerance for absenteeism; therefore an

employee feels they must get to work no matter their level of satisfaction with their job.

The findings show that 86.7% of the respondents are in agreement that their level of job

satisfaction has an impact on the quality of work they produce. These findings are in line

with those of Westover (2010) who stated that the quality of work that has been

73

performed can be measured by a variety of means and can be impacted by the level of

satisfaction of the employee.

The findings indicate that 91.1% of the respondents are in agreement that their level of

job satisfaction has an impact on the quantity of work they produce. This backs up Van &

Adonisi (2008) argument that quantity is also an indicator of performance that can greatly

be impacted by the level of employee job satisfaction.

The findings on the impact of job satisfaction on employee performance show that 40%

of the respondents are in agreement that their job satisfaction has an impact on their

safety practices at the work place. This therefore implies that the remaining 60% of the

respondents do not agree that their job satisfaction has an impact on their safety practices.

This finding therefore does not totally agree with Wentzel & Wigfield (2009) argument

that poor safety practices are a negative consequence of low satisfaction level and that

when people are discouraged about their jobs, company, and supervisors, they are more

liable to make mistakes. The researcher believes that the findings attained in this study

differed from the literature review because they are so many other factors that contribute

to employee‟s safety practices in Unilever Kenya and job satisfaction takes a very small

portion.

The findings show that 71.1% of the respondents are in agreement that their level of job

satisfaction has an impact on the amount of time they take to complete assigned tasks.

This concurs with Wentzel & Wigfiel (2009) statement that a number of studies have

indicated that the higher the employee‟s job satisfaction, the less time it will take them to

accomplish tasks.

The findings show that 81.1% of the respondents are in complete agreement that their

level of job satisfaction has an impact on their level of creativity. This finding agrees with

those of Muhammad & Wajidi (2013) who say that employees who are satisfied with

their job tend to be more creative.

The findings show that the total cumulative percentage of respondents who are in

agreement that their level of job satisfaction impacts on their cost effectiveness at work is

52.2%. This is moderately in agreement with Eggemeier (2011) who is of a view that the

74

cost of work performed can be used as a measure of employee performance and can be

highly influenced by the employee‟s level of job satisfaction. I believe that the agreement

was only moderate in this study because a number of employees in Unilever Kenya did

not believe that they had any control over costs in the organization.

The findings show that 70% of the respondents are in agreement that their level of job

satisfaction has an impact on the degree to which they adhere to company policy. The

finding is in line with Washburn (2009) argument that adherence to company policy can

also be a performance measure that could be very much determined by the employee‟s

level of satisfaction with their job.

5.4 Conclusions

5.4.1 Extrinsic Factors and their Influence on Employee Job Satisfaction

The findings indicated that extrinsic factors had a strong impact on employee job

satisfaction. A cumulative total of 92.1% of respondents were in agreement that their job

satisfaction was influenced by extrinsic factors. These factors include; working

environment, remuneration structure, team cooperation, leadership style, nature of the

job, Co-workers, Job security, promotion opportunities. However it was analysed that

although all the factors had an influence on employee job satisfaction; leadership style,

remuneration structure, nature of the job and job security had the strongest influence.

5.4.2 Intrinsic Factors and their Influence on Employee Job Satisfaction

The findings also indicated that intrinsic factors had a strong impact on employee job

satisfaction. A cumulative total of 92.1% of the respondents agreed that their degree of

job satisfaction is influenced by intrinsic factors. The factors under study were; employee

autonomy Recognition, work meaningfulness, training and development, responsibility,

participation level of employee, contribution to vision and mission and employee

attainment of performance feedback. Among all the intrinsic factors, it was concluded

that the level of responsibility at work, Recognition, work meaningfulness and the extent

75


vision and mission had the strongest influence on job satisfaction.

5.4.3 Impact of Employee Job Satisfaction on Employee Performance

The findings concluded that employee job satisfaction has a strong impact on employee

performance. A cumulative total of 92% of the respondentswere in consensus that their

level of job satisfaction has an impact on their level of performance at work. The impacts

of job satisfaction on performance under study were; Absenteeism, Quality of work,

quantity of work, safety practices, timeliness, employee creativity, cost-effectiveness,

adherence to company policy and employee meeting of company set objectives. Among

all the impacts of job satisfaction on employee performance that were under study, the

ones which ranked highest were; impact on quantity of work, impact on quality, impact

on creativity and impact of job satisfaction on ability of employee to meet company set

objectives.

5.5 Recommendations

5.5.1 Recommendations for Improvement

5.5.1.1 Extrinsic Factors that Influence Employee Job Satisfaction

This study has shown that the employees are of the say that the extrinsic factors have a

very huge influence on their job satisfaction as confirmed by the results of the T-test.

However some extrinsic factors have ranked higher than others. It is therefore

recommended that managers prioritize and concentrate more on those factors that will

satisfy their employees highly as presented in the study. The factors where emphasis

should be based areleadership style, remuneration structure, nature of the job and job

security. It is also recommended that managers avoid putting too much emphasis and

resources towards the extrinsic factors which employees don‟t find very satisfying.

76

5.5.1.2 Intrinsic Factors that Influence Employee Job Satisfaction

The study has manifested that employees believe that intrinsic factors highly influence the

degree to which they feel satisfied with their job as confirmed by the results of the T-test.

It was also analyzed that not all intrinsic factors had the same ranking. It is therefore

recommended that managers critically address and put more resources to those intrinsic

factors which the employees believe highly influence their job satisfaction. These factors

includelevel of responsibility at work, Recognition, work meaningfulness and the extent


vision and mission. Managers are recommended not to completely ignore those that

ranked low but to put less emphasis and resources towards them.

5.5.1.3 Impact of Employee Job Satisfaction on Performance

The findings showed that employees are of the say that the degree to which they find their

job satisfying has an influence on their level of performance as confirmed by the T-test.

However it was discovered that job satisfaction affects some parameters of performance

more than it does others. The parameters of performance that respondents believed are

impacted most include;impact on quantity of work, impact on quality, impact on

creativity and impact of job satisfaction on ability of employee to meet company set

objectives. It is therefore recommended that if these are parameters that the company

values, then they should ensure that they keep their employee‟s job satisfaction high

through the various factors that influence job satisfaction as were discussed in the study.

5.5.2 Recommendations for Further Research

Job satisfaction is a very critical component of performance in all the various industries.

This study has focused on factors that influence employee job satisfaction and its impact

on performance but in the manufacturing industry (Unilever Kenya). I therefore

recommend that more research is conducted in this particular area but with emphasis on

the service industry. This is because it could be discovered that the factors that are critical

in the manufacturing industry may not be the same in the service industry.

77

REFERENCES

Abdulla, J & Djebavni, R (2011). 'Determinants of Job Satisfaction in the UAE A Case

Study of Dubai police', vol 40, no. 1, pp. 126-146.

Al Zubi, H.A. (2010). A Study of Relationship between Organizational Justice and Job

Satisfaction.International Journal of Business and Management, 5 (12): 102-109.

Arif, A & Chohan A. (2012). How job satisfaction is influencing the organizational

citizenship behaviour (OCB): A study on employees working in banking sector of

Pakistan.Interdisciplinary journal of contemporary research in business.

Babin, B.J. & Boles, J.S. (1996).The effects of perceived co-worker involvement

andsupervision support on service provider role stress performance and job satisfaction.

Journal of Retailing, 72(1):57-75.

Bargraim, J., Cunningham, P., Potgieter, T. &Viedge, C. (2007).Organisaionalbehaviour:

A contemporary South African perspective. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Barton, G. M. (2002). Recognition at work.Scottsdale: World at Work.

Chan, S.H. &Qiu, H.H. (2011). Loneliness, job satisfaction, and organizational

commitment of migrant workers: empirical evidence from China. Theinternational

Journal of Human Resource Management,22(5):1109-1127.

Chawla, S. & Renesch, J. (2006).Learning organisations: Developing cultures for

tomorrow’s workplace. New York: Productivity Press.

Christine, P & Pearson, C. (2009).How Toxic Colleagues Corrode Performance. Harvard

Business Review, Apr 2009, Vol. 87, Issue 4.onduct this research.

Cooper, D. R. & Schindler, P. S. (2011). Business Research Methods, 11th

ed., USA:

McGraw-Hill Irwin International Edition.

78

Cooper, D. R. & Schindler, P. S. (2001). Business Research Methods.7th

ed. McGraw Hill

International Edition. USA.

Danish, Q. D., & Usman, A. (2010). Impact of reward and recognition on job satisfaction

and motivation: An empirical study from Pakistan. International Journal of Business &

Management, 5(2), 159-167.

Dessler, G (2012).Human Resource Management,Prenctice Hall, America.

Deming, W. E. (1990). Sample design in Business Research. New York: Johnwiley &

Sons.

Döckel, A., Basson, J. & Coetzee, M. (2006).The effect of retention factors on

organisational commitment: an investigation of high technology employees. SAJournal of

Human Resource Management, 4(2):20-28.

Emberland, J.S. & Rundmo, T. (2010).Implications of job insecurity perceptions and job

insecurity responses for psychological well-being, turnover intentions and reported risk

behaviour.Safety Science, 48:452-459.

Eggemeier, F.T. (2011). Effects of sensory modality and task duration on performance,

workload, and stress in sustained attention.Human Factors, 46(2), 219-233.

Farrington, S.M. (2009). Sibling partnership in South African small and medium-sized

family businesses.Unpublished doctoral thesis, Nelson Mandela MetropolitanUniversity,

Port Elizabeth.

Fincham, R. & Rhodes, P. (2005).Principles of organizational behaviour.4th

Edition.New York: Oxford University Press.

Ganzach, Y.(1998), “Intelligence and Job Satisfaction”,The Academy of Management

Journal, Vol. 41, pp. 526-539

79

Gathungu, J& Wachira H. W. (2013).Job Satisfaction Factors that Influence the

Performance of Secondary School Principals in their Administrative Functions in

Mombasa District, Kenya.International Journal of Education and Research vol. 1.

Gautam, M.; Mandal, K. and Dalal, R.S. (2006).Job satisfaction of faculty members of

veterinary sciences: an analysis. Livestock Research for Rural Development 18 (7).

George, J.M., & Jones, G.R. (2002).Organisationalbehaviour. (3rd ed.). New Jersey:

Prentice Hall.

Govender, S. &Parumasur, S.B. (2010).The relationship between employee motivation

and job involvement.School of Management Studies, University of KwaZulu-Natal.

Golshan .N, Kaswuri. H, Agashahi B. (2011) Effects of Motivational Factors on Job

Satisfaction: An EmpiricalStudy on Malaysian Gen-Y Administrative and Diplomatic

Officer: International Conference on Advanced Management Science. IACSIT Press,

Singapore

Grant, A. M., Fried, Y., & Juillerat, T. (2010). Work matters: Job design in classic and

contemporary perspectives. Forthcoming in S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial

and organizational psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Herzberg F., Mausner B., Synderman B. (1959). The motivation to work. NY: Wiley.

Hui M.K, Kevin Au, Fock H, (2004), “Empowerment Effects across Cultures”, Journal

of International Business Studies, Vol. 35, pp. 46-60.

Hunjra, AI, Chani, MI, Aslam, S, Azam, M &Rehman, KU (2010), 'Factors effecting job

satisfaction of employees in Pakistani banking sector', African Journal of Business

Management, vol 4, no. 10, pp. 2157-2163.

Hussin A. B. (2011). The relationship between job satisfaction and job satisfaction and

job performance. Centre for graduate studies; Open University Malaysia.

80

Iqbal, A. (2010). An empirical assessment of demographic factors, organizational ranks

and organisational commitment.International Journal of Business

andManagement,5(3):16-27.

Jackson, S.L. (2011). Research methods and statistics: a critical thinking approach.

4th

Edition.Cengage Learning.

Kabir, .M. (2011), Factors affecting employee job satisfaction of pharmaceutical sector,

Australian Journal of Business and Management Reserch, Vol. 1 No. 9, pp: 113-123.

Kawada, Tomoyuki, & Otsuka, Toshiaki (2011).Relationship Between Job Stress,

Occupational Position and Job Satisfaction Using a Brief Job Stress Questionnaire.

Work, (40), 393-399.

Klandermans, B., Hesselink, J.K. & Van Vuuren, T. (2010).Employment status and job

insecurity: On the subjective appraisal of an objective status. Economic andIndustrial

Democracy, 31(4):557-577.

Koontz, H. & Weihrich, H. (2008).Essential of management: an International perspective

(7th Ed) New Delhi:Tata McGraw-Hill publishing Co.Ltd.

Koponen, A.M., Laamanen, R., Simonsen-Rehn, N., Sundrell, J., Brommels, M.

&Suominen, S. (2010). Job involvement of primary healthcare employees: Does aservice

provision model play a role?Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 38(3):266-274.

Lai, H-H (2011), 'The influence of compensation system design on employee

satisfaction', African Journal of Business Management,vol 5, no. 26, pp. 1078-10723.

.Ladebo, O.J., Awotunde, J.M. &AbdulSalaam-Saghir, P. (2008).Coworkers’

andsupervisor interactional justice: correlates of extension personnel’s jobsatisfaction,

distress, and aggressive behaviour. Institute of Behavioral &Applied Management,

9(2):206-225.

Lewis, P., Sauders, M., &Thornhill, A. (2003).Research Methods for Business students,

Third Edition. London: Prentice Hall.

81

Locke, E A (1976).The nature and causes of job satisfaction.Handbook of industrial and

Organizational Psychology, Chicago, Rand McNally.

Lunenburg, F. & Ornstein, A. (2008).Educational administration: Concepts and

practices. 5th Edition. Belmont CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Luthans, F. (1995).Organisationalbehaviour. (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill, Inc. Anderson,

A.E. (2004). What‟s absent in absence management. Employee Benefits Journal 29 (1) :

25-30.

Macey W, Schneider B (2008), Engagedin engagement: we are delighted we did it,

Industrial and Organisational Psychology, 1, 76–83.

Mathis, R.L. & Jackson, J.H. (2008).Human resource management.12th

Edition.Singerpore: Thomson Learning Academic.

Messersmith J, (2007), “Managing work-life conflict among information technology

workers”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 46, pp. 429–451.

Mehmood. N, Irum. S &Ahmed.S, (2012).A study of factors affecting job satisfaction

(Evidence from Pakistan).Interdisciplinary journal of contemporary research in

business.Vol 4, No6.

Muchinsky, P. M. (2006). Psychology applied to work. Belmont, CA: Thomson

Muhammad R. A &Wajidi. F.A (2013) Facors influencing jog satisfaction in public

health sector of Pakistan. Double Blind Peer Reviewed International Research Journal

Publisher: Global Journals Inc. (USA).

Naveed, A. Usman, A. Bushra,F.(2011). Promotion: A Predictor of Job Satisfaction A

Study of Glass Industry of Lahore (Pakistan). International Journal of Business and

Social Science, Vol. 2 No. 16.

82

NL, D. M. (2012).Human Resources Responsibility on Job Satisfaction.Journal of

Business and Management, 2278-487X Volume 2, Issue 1, PP 11-14.

Obasan. K. (2011) Impact of Job Satisfaction on Absenteeism: A Correlative

Study.European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. ISSN2220-9425 Volume 1,

No. 1

Origo, F. & Pagani, L. (2009).Flexicurity and job satisfaction in Europe: The importance

of perceived and actual job stability for well-being at work. LabourEconomics, 16:547-

555.

Orisatoki, R & Oguntibej.O. (2010).“Preferred type of work and job satisfaction”,

Journal of Research Health science, Issue10 (1), pp. 42-46.

Parvin, M. M. & Kabir, M.M (2011).Factors affecting employee job satisfaction of

pharmaceutical sector. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, Vol.1

No.9 [113-123].

Pocock, B (2006) Thelabour market ate my babies: work, children and a sustainable

future. Sydney : Federation Press.

Portoghese, I., Galletta, M., & Battistelli, A. (2011).The Effects of Work-Family Conflict

and Community Embeddedness on Employee Satisfaction: The Role of Leader Member

Exchange.International Journal of Business and Management, 6 (4):39-48. Press.

Robbins SP, Judge TA (2008). Essentials of Organizational Behavior.9th edition. Upper

Saddle River:NJ: Prentice Hall.

Robbins, S.P. (2003). Organisational Behaviour: Concepts, Controversies and

Applications. 10th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall

Sarvadi, P. (2005). The best way to reward employees.Solutions for growing Business.

83

Shahu, R., &Gole, S.V. (2008).Effects of Job Stress and Job Satisfaction on Performance:

An Empirical Study; International Journal of Management, 2 (3): 237-248.

Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Sanchez, J. I., O‟Driscoll, M., Sparks, K., Bernin, P. et al.

(2002).Locus of control and well-being at work: How generalizable are

westernfindings?Academy of Management Journal, 45, 453-466.

Society for Human Resource Management (2012).SHRM 2012-2013 Human Capital

Benchmarking Report.

Swarnalatha, C, &Sureshkrishna, G (2013).Role of employee engagement in building job

satisfaction among employees of automotive industries in India.International Journal of

Human Resource Management and Research, 3 (1).

Tietjen M. A. and Myers R. A. (1998).Motivation and job satisfaction. Management

Decision 36/4, 226-231.

Unilever Annual Report (2013). Making Sustainable living common place; Unilever

Registered office. United Kingdom.

Van Wyk, R. &Adonisi, M (2008) Therole of entrepreneurial characteristics in predicting

job satisfaction.South African Journal of Economic & ManagementSciences, 11(4):391-

405.

Vlosky, P. & Aguilar, X. (2009).A model of employee satisfaction: Gender differences in

cooperative extension.Journal of Extension, 47(2):1-15.

Wagner, J. & Hollenbeck, J. (2010).Organizational Behavior: Securing competitive

advantage. New York: Routledge.

84

Washburn N. (2009), Why Profit Shouldn’t be Your Top Goal, Harvard Business Review,

Dec 2009, Vol. 87, Issue 12.

Wentzel, K.R.: Wigfield, A. (2009) Handbook of Motivation at School. Routledge, New

York.

Westover, L.A. (2010). Enhancing long-term worker productivity and performance: The

connection of key work domains to job satisfaction and organizational

commitment.International Journal ofProductivity and Performance Management,

59(4):372-387

Yahui and Hung .L. (2010), "How intellectual capital management affects organizational

performance: with intellectual capital as the intervening variable", Taiwan:Journal of

Human Resource Management, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp.1-27.

Yaseen. A (2013) Effect of compensation factors on employee satisfaction: International

Journal of Human Resource Stusies. ISSN 2162-3058 2013, Vol. 3, No.1

85

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE Questionnaire Number………

Godfrey Ssegawa

Student ID # 636764

Chandaria School of Business

United States International University

Dear Respondent,

RE: SELF ADMINISTERED SURVEY

This structured questionnaire is for collecting data on factors that influence employee job

satisfaction in Kenyan organisations and its impact on performance (A case study of

Unilever Kenya). You are kindly requested to provide the required data in the

questionnaire. The process will take you only about 8 minutes. The information that you

provide will remain confidential and is sought exclusively for the completion of an MBA

research project.

Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this survey. Your input will go a

long way in enhancing human resource decision making and ultimately help Kenyan

organisations to not only gain competitiveness internationally but also optimize their

performance potential (growth and profitability prospects). If you would like to receive a

copy of this report, please indicate so by writing your email address on the back of the

questionnaire.

Yours Sincerely

Ssegawa Godfrey, ID # 636764

86

SECTION I: GENERAL INFORMATION

The following four questions are concerned with demographic data. Please, indicate your

selection by checking the box which describes your demographic characteristics.

1. Age group?

AGE GROUP

Below 25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 Above 65

2. Gender?

GENDER

Male Female

3. How long have you worked for this organization?

YEARS OF SERVICE

0 – 4 Years 5 – 9 Years 10-14 Years 15- 19 years Over 20 years

4. Education Background?

LEVEL OF EDUCATION

Undergraduate Graduate

(MBA degree)

Graduate

(Other degree)

Post Graduate Professional

Qualifications

87

WITH RESPECT TO SECTION II, III AND IV, PLEASE INDICATE THE LEVEL OF

AGREEMENT WITH EACH STATEMENT:

LEVELS OF AGREEMENT

STRONGLY

DISAGREE

DIAGREE NEITHER AGREE

NOR DISAGREE

AGREE STRONGLY

AGREE

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

SECTION II: EXTRINSIC FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE EMPLOYEE JOB

SATISFACTION;

Extrinsic factors that influence job satisfaction are those that are determined by the external

surroundings of the employee. The following best describe the major extrinsic factors that

influence employee job satisfaction in your organisation:

LEVELS OF AGREEMENT 1 2 3 4 5

a. The working environment in the Organisation has an influence on

my level of job satisfaction: (The working environment briefly

includes the natural environment, the working places‟ equipment‟s

environment, working hours and safety protection in the

workplace.

b. The monetary pay and remuneration structure of the organisation

has an impact on my job satisfaction level.

c. The degree to which the organization embraces team cooperation

has an influence on my job satisfaction.

d. My job satisfaction level is influenced by the leadership style in

the organisation.

e The nature of the job in itself has an influence on my degree of job

satisfaction.

f My level of job satisfaction has been impacted by my Co-workers

in the organisation.

g The extent to which Job security exists in my current job has had

an impact on my satisfaction.

h The degree to which promotion opportunities exist in my line of

employment affects my level of job satisfaction.

88

SECTION III: INTRISIC FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE EMPLOYEE JOB

SATISFACTION;

Intrinsic factors that influence job satisfaction refer to those factors arising from within the

employee. This looks at the employees‟ inner factors that make them satisfied with their job and

motivate them to perform.

The following best describe the major intrinsic factors that influence employee job satisfaction in

your organisation:


a. The degree to which employee autonomy (independence) exists

in the organisation has had an impact on my overall satisfaction

with my employment.

b. Recognition or the level at which I feel realized, valuable and

appreciated influences my job satisfaction level.

c. How meaningful I believe my work is has influence on my job

satisfaction level.

d The extent to which I believe I am being trained and developed

by the organisation impacts my job satisfaction.

e The amount of responsibility I possess within my job has had

an impact on my overall satisfaction.

f The amount of participation I can make in my current area of

employment influences the degree to which I feel satisfied with

my job.

g The extent to which I perceive my job as having a substantial

impact on achieving the overall organisation mission and vision

influences my satisfaction.

h Attaining constant job feedback on my level of performance

influences how much I am satisfied with my job.

i Being involved in the decision making process of the company

influences my level of job satisfaction.

SECTION IV: THE IMPACT OF EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION ON EMPLOYEE

PERFORMANCE

89

1. The following best describe the impact of employee job satisfaction on performance in your

organisation


a. My absenteeism levels change from time to time in relation to

how satisfied I feel with my work.

b. I tend to produce work of higher quality at the times when I

feel satisfied with my job.

c. My level of job satisfaction influences the quantity of work I

accomplish in a day.

d. I am usually more conscious aboutsafety practices while

performing my Job when I feel contented with my work.

f It takes me a shorter time to accomplish tasks when I feel my

Job satisfaction level is high.

g My level of creativity at work is influenced by my degree of

job satisfaction.

h I am more mindful on being cost-effective at work when I feel

satisfied with my Job.

i My adherence to Company policy is very much influenced by

my level of job satisfaction.

j It is easier for me to try and meet the company‟s objectives

when I feel satisfied with job.

What other factors besides the ones mentioned above do you believe have a significant impact on

job satisfaction in your organisation ………………………………………………………...............

……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

What recommendation can you give that would go ahead to increase job satisfactionlevels inthe

Organisation ………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this survey

90

APPENDIX B: PROJECT SCHEDULE

I

Ii

Iii

Iv

V

Vi

6 12 14 16 18 19

DURATION IN WEEKS

ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION

I CLARIFYING THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Ii PROPOSING RESEARCH

Iii DESIGNING THE RESEARCH PROJECT

Iv DATA COLLECTION AND PREPARATION

V DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Vi REPORTING THE RESULTS

91

APPENDIX C: PROJECT BUDGET

ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION COST (KES)

1 CLARIFYING THE RESEARCH QUESTION 2, 500

Discover the Management Dilemma

Define Management Question

Define Research Question(s)

Refine the Research Question(s)

2 PROPOSING RESEARCH 2,500

Resource Allocation and Budget

Valuing Research Information

Evaluation Methods

The Research Proposal

4 DESIGNING THE RESEARCH PROJECT 6,000

Research Design

Sampling Design

Instrument Development & Pilot Testing

5 DATA COLLECTION AND PREPARATION 9,000

Editing, coding and data entry

6 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 2,000

7 REPORTING THE RESULTS 4,500

CONTINGENCY 4,500

TOTAL 31000

Documents

FACTORS INFLUENCING EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND …