07th April, 2010

Mr. Tariq Jalees Supervisor Methods in Business Research, KASBIT, KARACHI.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Respected Sir

We massively pleasure to submitting to first part of the research on the topic of Job Satisfaction, selected by you and we tried to put our best efforts on it, we collect information form articles that you selects and from some web sites as per your kind guidance.

Thank you,

Regards, Mohammad Asif Muhammad Zeeshan Mohsin Ahmed Saddiqui Irfan Ashraf (4431) (4430) (4449) (2348)

Encl: As above.
[1]

Introduction: 1.0.0 Job satisfaction is in regard to one's feelings or state-of-mind regarding the nature of their work. Job satisfaction can be influenced by a variety of factors, e.g., the quality of one's relationship with their supervisor, the quality of the physical environment in which they work, degree of fulfillment in their work place To my knowledge, there is no strong acceptance among researchers, consultants, etc., that increased job satisfaction produces improve job performance in fact, and improved job satisfaction can sometimes decrease job performance. For example, you could let sometime sit around all day and do nothing. That may make them more satisfied with their "work" in the short run, but their performance certainly didn't improve. (Job Satisfaction, 2010) Words such as control, collaboration, influence, autonomy, and respect are frequently mentioned in job satisfaction discussions, said Anna GilmoreHall, RN, director of labor relations and workplace advocacy for the American Nurses Association. When dissatisfied nurses turn to a union for help, they are most often worried about patient care, Gilmore-Hall said. "They say that if they had increased control over how they performed their work, it would increase their job satisfaction. (Huff, 1997 )" Literature Review 1.1.0 Job Performance in Relation to Job Satisfaction In the field of Industrial / Organizational psychology, one of the most researched areas is the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001). Landy (1989) described this relationship as the “Holy Grail” of Industrial psychology. Research linking job performance with satisfaction and other attitudes has been studied since at least 1939, with the Hawthorne studies (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939). In Judge et al. (2001), it was found by Brayfield and Crockett (1955) that there is only a minimal relationship between job performance and job satisfaction. However, since 1955, Judge et al. (2001) cited that there are other studies by Locke (1970), Schwab & Cummings
[2]

(1970), and Vroom (1964) that have shown that there is at least some relationship between those variables. Iaffaldano and Muchinsky (1985) did an extensive analysis on the relationship between job performance and job satisfaction. Across their many studies, they found a mean correlation of 17 (Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985). There are also stronger relationships depending on specific circumstances such as mood and employee level within the company (Morrison, 1997). Organ (1988) also found that the job performance and job satisfaction relationship follows the social exchange theory; employees‟ performance is giving back to the organization from which they get their satisfaction. Judge et al. (2001) argued that there are seven different models that can be used to describe the job satisfaction and job performance relationship. Some of these models view the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance to be unidirectional, that either job satisfaction causes job performance or vice versa. Another model states that the relationship is a reciprocal one; this has been supported by the research of Wanous (1974). The underlying theory of this reciprocal model is that if the satisfaction is extrinsic, then satisfaction leads to performance, but if the satisfaction is intrinsic, then the performance leads to satisfaction. Other models suggest there is either an outside factor that causes a seemingly relationship between the factors or that there is no relationship at all, however, neither of these models have much research. (Rashmi Shahu, 2008).

1.1.1 Job Performance in Relation to Job Stress Stress is the mental and physical condition, which affects the individual productivity, effectiveness, personal health and quality of work. Job stress victims experience lowered quality of work life and job satisfaction. The harmful and costly consequences of stress demonstrate the need for strategies to limit stressors within the organization. The impact of stress Organizations that do not adopt strategies to alleviate stress may find their employees looking elsewhere for better opportunities from overwork long hours at work and work intensification has had a major and often devastating effect on organizations. This is the cost for
[3]

compensation claims, reduced productivity, absenteeism, added health insurance costs and direct medical expenses for stress related illnesses (Savery and Luks, 2000b). (Rashmi Shahu, 2008). Many others researches conduct and find it is create negative impact on organization and their employees‟ turnover ratio is very high that cause more efforts consumed to groom their fresh employees. Organizations minimize the job stress at work place. The process of restructuring, downsizing and reengineering have helped companies to become lean, but not without great costs. Employees are experiencing more stress and uncertainty because companies got leaner without building their “muscle”. Just like going on a diet without exercising. Research by Froiland (1993) has shown that there is practically no correlation between either job burnout or performance problems or any of the physical issues that are commonly addressed by employee assistance programmers.

1.1.2 Productivity Stress at job is effect the productivity of the employees according to as cited in Clement (1993), Brayfield and Crockett (1955) examined the relationship between employee satisfaction and performance. Their findings concluded that productivity is not an important goal that employees bring with them to their jobs; this research was further supported in the 1964 work of Vroom (Rashmi Shahu, 2008).

1.1.3 Self Evaluation Core self-evaluations (CSE), Defined as fundamental assessments that individuals make about their worth, competence, and capability (Judge, Bono, Erez, & Locke, 2005), CSE are the aggregation of self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, neuroticism, and locus of control. This self-assessment is a higher order factor reflecting who the individual is and how the individual perceives herself or himself (Judge et al., 1997).CSE can impact performance (Erez & Judge, 2001; Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2003), but environmental factors also influence workplace behavior (Mischel, 1977). Trait activation theory (TAT; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Tett & Burnett, 2003) explains the

[4]

interaction of individual personality differences and environmental dynamics. (Kacmar, Collins, Harris, & Judge, 2009)

Job satisfaction is quite highly correlated with overall happiness, and can be looked at as one of its main components. The Human Relations movement, of Elton Mayo and others, believed that job satisfaction had beneficial effects, including increased work performance (Argyle, 1988). Let us consider whether this is in fact the case. 1.1.4 Measuring Job Satisfaction How can job satisfaction be measured? The most widely used measure is a very simple one. Overall job satisfaction can be assessed by simple questions such as `Choose one of the following

following statements which best tells how well you like your job: I hate it, I dislike it, I do not like it, I am indifferent to it, I like it, I am enthusiastic about it, I love it' (Hoppock, 1935). Later measures have used a series of scales to measure different components of job satisfaction. Many scales have been devised for this purpose: one book reviews no fewer than 249 scales of various kinds (Cook et al., 1981). However, one of the most widely used is the Job Description Index, which contains five scales, seventy-two items in all, which are answered `yes', `no' or `uncertain' (Smith, Kendall and Hulin, 1969). The five scales are designed to measure satisfaction in the following areas: (1) work on present job, e.g. fascinating; (2) present pay, e.g. income inadequate for normal expenses (-); (3) opportunities for promotion, e.g. fairly good chance for promotion; (4) supervision on present job, e.g. lazy (-); (5) people on present job, e.g. talk too much (-). The minus signs show reversed items, i.e. those that show dissatisfaction.

It may be important to distinguish between positive and negative aspects of job satisfaction. Herzberg et al. (1959) stated that (positive) satisfaction is due to good experiences, and that these are due to `motivators' - achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility and advancement. Dissatisfaction is due to bad experiences caused by `hygiene' factors - supervisors, fellow
[5]

workers, company policy, working conditions, and personal life (Herzberg et al., 1959). This was supported by critical incident studies in which workers were asked to describe occasions when they had felt exceptionally good or exceptionally bad. However, the theory was supported only when this method was used. Wall et al. (1971) found that if workers were asked similar questions in an informal and confidential interview, this pattern of results was not obtained. They concluded that the Herzberg and pattern of results was due to `ego-defensive processes'; the results would now be described perhaps as `defensive attribution' or as `self-presentation'. Good events are said to be due to one's own achievements, bad events to the failings of others. As a result it is generally considered that this theory has failed (Griffin and Bateman, 1986). This may be a mistake, since research on happiness has found partial independence of positive and negative aspects. Research on joy confirms Herzberg's finding that achievement is important, but it also finds that relationships with other people are even more important and not just a source of distress as he found (Argyle, 1987). (Argyle, 1989) 1.1.5 The correlation Between Job Satisfaction and Productivity

Brayfield and Crockett (1955) astounded the world of occupational psychology by finding an average correlation of only + .15 from the 26 studies published up until then. The latest meta-analysis of 217 separate correlations (in 74 studies) also found an overall correlation of + .15 (Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985). (Argyle, 1989)

Eight of these studies produced correlations of +.44 or above; these were all supervisory or professional workers, using self, peer or supervisory ratings of performance. Petty et al. (1984) found an overall correlation of +.23; this was +.31 for supervisors and above, +.15 for those at lower levels. Some recent studies have found correlations which are higher than this under certain conditions. An overall correlation of +.35 was found in one, but it was as high as +.60 when there was little pressure for performance, i.e. when hard work was more voluntary (Bhagat, 1982).

[6]

It is interesting that the correlation is greater for those in supervisory or professional jobs. In these jobs performance depends less on external pressures, like wage incentives or assembly-line speeds, and more on motivation, creativity and helpfulness. Laboratory experiments on mood induction have shown that putting subjects in a good mood leads to (1) better and more original problem-solving, (2) greater helpfulness and generosity, and (3) more positive attitudes to other people (Argyle, 1987).

The relation between job satisfaction and absenteeism has also been studied. It would be expected that happy workers would turn up more often to receive the benefits which they enjoy at work. In fact, the average correlation is quite low: -.09 in one meta-analysis (Hackett and Guion, 1985), and -.22 in another (McShane, 1983). However, there is a very skewed distribution of absenteeism - most people are not absent at all, which reduces the possible size of correlations (Hackett and Guion, op.cit.). The relationship is greatest with satisfaction for pay and promotion (Rosse and Miller, 1984), and for the work itself (Hackett and Guion, op.cit.).

Further evidence about direction of causation is provided by the effect of level of unemployment. Labour turnover is less when other jobs are more difficult to find, for example when there is high unemployment. On the other hand, the link between turnover and job satisfaction is greater when there is high unemployment (r = -.51); under these conditions, when other jobs are hard to get, people leave mainly because they are dissatisfied. Under full employment some people drift in and out of jobs just for a change, not because they are dissatisfied (Shikiar and Freudenberg, 1982).cited by (Argyle, 1989)

It has been suggested that low job satisfaction is the cause of withdrawal, which may take the form of absence, lateness, labour turnover, and even sickness and accidents. One version is that there are alternative kinds of withdrawal, and that these (labour turnover, absenteeism and lateness) are among four general responses to job dissatisfaction: exit: i.e. leave, look for another job; voice, i.e. talk to supervisor, write letters: loyalty, i.e. stick it out, wait patiently; neglect, i.e. absenteeism and lateness (Farrell, 1983). Spencer
[7]

(1986) found that turnover had a correlation of -.24 with perceived availability of `voice', e.g. formal grievance procedures, suggestion schemes, employeemanagement meetings. However, when there is high absenteeism, labour turnover is also high - both forms of exit seem to go together. Low productivity could be seen as another form of withdrawal. A different version of the withdrawal theory is that the alternatives are hierarchically ordered, the minor forms of withdrawal being used first and leaving the organization last. Clegg (1983) found that lateness was a predictor of later absenteeism, providing evidence of this hierarchy operating. (Argyle, 1989)

There have been useful causal analyses of the effects of job satisfaction on mental health. Low job satisfaction is correlated with high rates of anxiety, depression, psychosomatic symptoms, and coronary heart disease; (poor) mental health is more closely associated with (low) job satisfaction than it is with features of the job, suggesting that job satisfaction is an intervening state in the causal chain (Wall, Clegg and Jackson, 1978). (Argyle, 1989)

Another investigation found that job satisfaction was a predictor of length of life among workers. It correlated +.26, better than physical functioning (+.21) (Palmore, 1969). There is a high correlation between job dissatisfaction and coronary heart disease (r = +.83), with other variables held constant (Sales and House, 1971). It has been found that job dissatisfaction among nurses predicted tension on the job, particularly for dissatisfaction with the work and with the doctors. On the other hand, tension also predicted job dissatisfaction; it worked both ways (Bateman and Strassen, 1983). Another investigation used causal modelling on the relations between some of these variables, and concluded that job dissatisfaction and boredom caused anxiety and depression, which in turn led to bodily complaints (French, Caplan and van Harrison, 1982). (Argyle, 1989) 1.1.6 The Effects of Job Redesign. Hackman and Oldham (1980) proposed that five features of jobs both motivate performance and provide job satisfaction. Many studies have found correlations between these features and job satisfaction, and a meta-analysis
[8]

by Loher et al (1985) found the following averages: (a) task identity (completing a clear and identifiable piece of work) +.32; (b) task significance (the degree to which the job has an impact on the lives of others) +.38; (c) skill variety +.41; (d) autonomy (the degree to which the job provides freedom, independence and discretion) +.46; (e) feedback (the extent to which information about effectiveness is available) +.41.

Cohesiveness increases output when the work requires interaction because it is socially motivated and a source of social satisfaction. Cohesiveness probably affects output most when helping is important. It was found, for example, that the foremen of 60 per cent of high-output sections in a heavy engineering factory said that their men were good at helping each other, compared with 41 per cent of foremen in low-output sections (Katz and Kahn, 1952). If individuals are working quite independently, and little help is needed, cohesiveness produces little advantage. Indeed it can have a negative effect since workers spend more time in games and irrelevant conversation. (Argyle, 1989)

For example, people with a higher percentage of occupational stress may not be satisfied with their job and therefore they will not feel happy working in the organization. They may feel frustrated or “burned out” when they are having problems with peers or customers. This may leave a negative impact to the organization itself. Therefore, it is very important for employer and employees to realize the stress and the stressor that cause all the negative effects. Numerous studies found that fob stress influences the employees‟ job satisfaction and their overall performance in their work. Because most of the organizations now are more demanding for the better job outcomes. In fact, modern times have been called as the “age of anxiety and stress” (Coleman, 1976).The stress itself will be affected by number of stressors. Nevertheless, Beehr and Newman (1978) had defined stress as a situation which will force a person to deviate from normal functioning due to the change (i.e. disrupt or enhance) in his/her psychological and/or physiological condition, such that the person is forced to deviate from normal functioning. From the definition that
[9]

has been identified by researchers, we can conclude that it is truly important for an individual to recognize the stresses that are facing by them in their career. Some demographic factor may influence the way a university academic staff act in their workplace. 1.1.7 Management Attitude

Management role of an organization is one of the aspects that affect workrelated stress among workers (Alexandros-Stamatios et. al., 2003).Workers in an organization can face occupational stress through the role stress that the management gave. Role stress means anything about an organizational role that produces adverse consequences for the individual (Kahn and Quinn, 1970). Management will have their own role that stands as their related. Role related are concerned with how individuals perceive the expectations other have of them and includes role ambiguity and role conflict (AlexandrosStamatios et. al., 2003).

Family and work are inter-related and interdependent to the extent that experiences in one area affect the quality of life in the other (Sarantakos, 1996). Home-wor interface can be known as the overlap between work and home; the two way relationship involves the source of stress at work affecting home life and vice versa affects of seafaring on home life, demands from work at home, no support from home, absent of stability in home life. It asks about whether home problems are brought to work and work has a negative impact on home life (Alexandros-Stamatios G.A et al., 2003). For example, it questions whether the workers have to take work home, or inability to forget about work when the individual is at home. Home-work interface is important for the workers to reduce the level of work-related stress. According to Lasky (1995) demands associated with family and finances can be a major source of „extra-organisational‟ stress that can complicate, or even precipitate, workplace stress. Russo & Vitaliano (1995) argued that the occurrence of stressors in the workplace either immediately following a period of chronic stress at home, or in conjunction with other major life stressors, is likely to have a marked impact on outcome.

[10]

Several studies have highlighted the deleterious consequences of high workloads or work overload. According to Wilkes et al. (1998) work overloads and time constraints were significant contributors to work stress among community nurses. 1.1.8 Link between Job Stress and Job Satisfaction

Several studies have tried to determine the link between stress and job satisfaction. Job satisfaction and job stress are the two hot focuses in human resource management researches. According to Stamps & Piedmonte (1986) job satisfaction has been found significant relationship with job stress. One study of general practitioners in England identified four job stressors that were predictive of job dissatisfaction (Cooper, et al., 1989). In other study, VinokurKaplan (1991) stated that organization factors such as workload and working condition were negatively related with job satisfaction. Fletcher & Payne (1980) identified that a lack of satisfaction can be a source of stress, while high satisfaction can alleviate the effects of stress. This study reveals that, both of job stress and job satisfaction were found to be interrelated. The study of Landsbergis (1988) and Terry et al. (1993) showed that high levels of work stress are associated with low levels of job satisfaction. Moreover, Cummins (1990) have emphasized that job stressors are predictive of job dissatisfaction and greater propensity to leave the organization. Sheena et al. (2005) studied in UK found that there are some occupations that are reporting worse than average scores on each of the factors such as physical health, psychological well-being, and job satisfaction. The relationship between variables can be very important to academician. If a definite link exists between two variables, it could be possible for a academician to provide intervention in order to increase the level of one of the variables in hope that the intervention will also improve the other variable as well (Koslowsky, et al., 1995)

Part-time employment is becoming a substantial and growing proportion of the workforce in the United States. In particular, service organizations have turned to part-time employees, because of their schedule flexibility and reduced labor costs. About 37% of service-related jobs are occupied by part
[11]

time staff members (U.S. Department of Labor, 2006). While several researchers started investigating the role of work status in job attitudes (Cha, Kimy, & Cichyz, 2009)and performance in other industries (c.f., Martin & Sinclair, 2007; Thorsteinson, 2009) Research2 in organizational behavior has shown that an individual could suffer from significant health complications - backaches, headaches, gastrointestinal disturbances, anxiety and depression amongst others - if subjected to stress over a long time. Behavioural changes in the form of excessive tobacco smoking and alcohol consumption, nervous disorders, heart diseases, diabetes, obesity etc are also related to stress. Job dissatisfaction is known to lead to job stress, which in turn reduces the productivity (Madeline, 1983). Over the years, a lot of research has been carried out in the realm of work place stress and it has been emphatically proven that intense or prolonged stress leads to a negative impact on one's mental and physical well being. (Health & Safety Executive, 2001; Cooper et al, 2001). According to Cooper & Marshall, stress could be due to factors intrinsic to the job, such as poor physical working conditions, work overload or time pressures. Often, one's role in the organization and the ambiguity associated with the job resulting from inadequate information concerning expectations, authority and responsibilities to perform one's role as well as the conflict that arises from the demands placed on the individual by superiors, peers and subordinates could also result in stress. A third factor is the impact of status incongruence, lack of job security and thwarted ambition on one's career progression. Rayner and Hoel (1997) Additional sources of stress documented in the ASSET model include the impact a person's working life has on their life outside of work (work-life balance), the amount of satisfaction people derive from their work, the degree of control and autonomy people have in the work place, and the levels of commitment in the work place both from the employee to the organisation and from the organisation to the employee (Sheena 2005).

[12]

Personality: Besides external factors, there are internal factors too that can cause stress, like the age of the individual, sex, education and a personality that is deemed Type A or inherently stressful. 1.1.9 Development in Emotional Intelligence

After Salovey and Mayer (1990) initially introduced the term emotional intelligence to represent an individual‟s ability to deal with his or her own and others‟ emotions, Goleman (1995) popularized the concept of EI by his publication Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More than IQ. As his title suggests, he argued that general intelligence (IQ) only predicts about 20% of the variance relating to an individual‟s success, and emphasized that EI can be more powerful than IQ. Bar-On‟s work in EI (1997) also needs to be recognized. Bar-On (1997) defined EI as “an array of non-cognitive capabilities, competencies, and skills that influence one‟s ability to succeed in coping with environmental demands and pressure” (p. 16). His conceptual definition of EI is broader than those of other researchers who consider emotional intelligence as one part of important social intelligence. Since those researchers and other EI researchers have claimed the link between EI and important job attitudes and effective performance, practitioners and

researchers increasingly have paid attention to understanding EI as an important factor explaining individual performance at work. EI frameworks theorized by Goleman (1995, 1998, 2000), Job satisfaction, one of the most extensively researched work attitudes in organizational behavior literature, is defined as a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one‟s job or job exper2ience (Luthan, 1998). Dong and Howard (2006) explained that an employee with high level of emotional intelligence is able to cope appropriately with workplace stress; this capacity results in positive moods. Bar-On‟s (1997) study reported a modest relationship between EI and job satisfaction. Other empirical studies also supported that individuals with high EI experienced high levels of job satisfaction (c.f., Carmeli, 2003; Chiva & Alegre, 2008; Kafetsios & Zampetakis, 2008; Lopes, Grewal, Kadis, Gall, & Salovey, 2006; Sy, Tram, & Jones, 2006).

[13]

Its not stress that kills us, it is our reaction to it. Dr. Hans Selye, leading stress expert

1.1.10 Differences Between Distress and Eustress Most of the studies pay a lot of importance to the negative side of stress, i.e. distress which is just one aspect of stress. However, some studies have shown that if one can manage stress effectively, it can lead to a positive outcome and response. Jennifer (1996) and Selve (1976) proposed the positive affective response to the stress process and coined the term 'eustress'. Other influential writers have also suggested that stress is not inherently maladaptive (Hart, 2003; Hart & Cotton, 2002; Karasek, 1979; Lazarus, 1999; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). In the context of the work place, stressful events can lead to perceptions of positive benefit (Campbell-Quick, Cooper, Nelson, Quick, & Gavin, 2003; Nelson & Simmons, 2003). Although many researchers have investigated distress, eustress had been neglected until recently. Internal locus of control is associated with optimism about success (e.g., Schweizer & Schneider, 1997), which can lead individuals to invest less time and energy in planning and working than are necessary to succeed (Norem & By drawing attention to risks for others, other orientation may lead to more realistic assessments of the amount of effort that is necessary (Meglino & Korsgaard, 2004). Finally, there is considerable evidence that emotionally stable employees have stronger capabilities for self-regulation and emotion control than neurotic employees (e.g., Gramzow et al., 2004; Morossanova, 2003; Olson, 2005; Suls & Martin, 2005). As a result, emotionally stable employees often underreact to the possibility of failure, neglecting to marshal sufficient anxiety and worry to achieve effective performance (Tamir, 2005).Cantor, 1986). Occupational stress has become a common problem throughout the industrial world. Over the years its prevalence has increased, thus affecting the individual's mental health and well being. In order to understand its effect on

[14]

health, it becomes important to define 'health' itself. The World Health Organisation (WHO) terms health1 as a 'state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity'. In more recent years, this statement has been modified to include the ability to lead a 'socially and economically productive life'. The issue of whether happy employees lead to better firm performance has been studied for decades. Although it seems logical that employees who are satisfied with their jobs are more productive and engage more in behaviors beneficial to the firm, early empirical studies indicate relatively low correlations between satisfaction and performance (Iaffaldano and Muchinsky, 1985). Different rationales (e.g., measurement problems, research design

characteristics, levels of analysis) attempt to explain this low correlation. Of the various explanations offered, the level of analysis for employee attitudes and performance has the greatest impact. The failure to find a strong relationship at the individual level has stimulated searches for a job satisfaction-performance relationship at the organizational level (Ostroff, 1992). Moreover, limited empirical work investigating the relationship between aggregated attitudes and Performance provides evidence that job satisfaction relates to organizational performance (Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes, 2002; Ostroff, 1992; Schneider et al., 2003). In line with this research stream, we expect that aggregated employee satisfaction positively affects firm performance.(KEVIN, JULIE, NAN, & CHENTING, 2008) More important, we argue that MO behavior contributes to firm performance through employee job satisfaction and product quality. MO behavior promotes the collective efforts of individual employees in various departments in response to market intelligence, with the basic idea that every person in the company can contribute something of value to end customers (Jaworski and Kohli, 1993).

[15]

1.2.0. Theoretical Frame Work In this section a theoretical framework for the job stress behaviour is developed based on the objectives and previous literature survey in this area. The model can be developed consistent with previous theory that estimates the effects of several dimensions thought represent academic and occupational stress. The reason to conduct this study is to classify some significant person and environmental variables which contribute to academic and occupational stress and to estimate their direct and indirect effects on various relevant outcomes (such as job satisfaction). This research will provide further insight as to what extend can the four variables influence in the job satisfaction

Job Satisfaction

Job Stress

Productivity

The Effects of Job Redesign

Psychological Contract

Links between Job Satisfaction and Other Variable 1.2.1. Job Stress Several studies have tried to determine the link between stress and job satisfaction. Job satisfaction and job stress are the two hot focuses in human resource management researches. According to Stamps & Piedmonte (1986) job satisfaction has been found significant relationship with job stress. In other study, Vinokur-Kaplan (1991) stated that organization factors such as workload and working condition were negatively related with job satisfaction. Fletcher & Payne (1980) identified that a lack of satisfaction can be a source of stress, while high satisfaction can alleviate the effects of stress.

[16]

Stress is a mental and physical condition, which affects an individual‟s productivity, effectiveness, personal health and quality of work. Job stress victims experience lowered quality of work life and job satisfaction. The harmful and costly consequences of stress demonstrate the need for strategies to limit stressors within the organization. Organizations that do not adopt strategies to alleviate stress may find their employees looking elsewhere for better opportunities. The impact of stress from overwork, long hours at work and work intensification has had a major and often devastating effect on organizations of developed nations. A recent American Management Association survey of 292 member firms revealed that per capita disability claims tend to increase when positions are eliminated. The survey, which dealt with layoffs between 1990 and 1995, found that the illnesses disabled workers sought treatment for – gastrointestinal problems, mental disorders and substance abuse, hypertension and the like – were stress related (Reese, 1997). The process of restructuring, downsizing and reengineering have helped companies to become lean, but not without great costs. Employees are experiencing more stress and uncertainty because companies got leaner without building their “muscle”. Just like going on a diet without exercising. The organization weighs less but the percentage of fat” – which manifests as high stress, low morale and less than optimal productivity has actually increased. Some organizations have even become anorexic. They are too lean, but because the think they are fat, they continue to “diet”. Shahu, Gole Further, research by Froiland (1993) has shown that there is practically no correlation between either job burnout or performance problems or any of he physical issues that are commonly addressed by employee assistance programmers. A study by North Western National Life Insurance Co. concluded that job stress is generally a consequence of two ingredients: a high level of job demands and little control over one‟s work. Many of today‟s workers are finding their jobs more stressful than they were simply because they are working too many hours. The study concluded that “where employees are empowered where they have more control over how they perform their work reduces the risk of stress and burnout considerably” (Froiland, 1993). This
[17]

supported work by Umiker (1992) which showed that “… individuals who feel that they are in control of their jobs and their futures are better able to handle stress. Also that these empowered workers become more productive out of being in control” (Umiker, 1992).A study conducted by Bushe et al. (1996), reported increased productivity and efficiencies from being empowered measured by reported increased customer satisfaction and innovation. Further, stress was reduced when a person did no longer have to report to someone daily. By empowering employees they took upon themselves control over their work giving them a higher sense of accomplishment, and that this was found regardless of occupational grouping. The purpose of empowered work teams in Bushe et al. (1996) research was to; reduce costs through fewer overheads and to speed up problem resolution. The organizational outcomes were found to be increased productivity and efficiencies. This was due mainly to quicker response rates through empowerment and, in part, to the removal of organizational barriers often brought about by increased motivation from a greater sense of ownership and responsibility. Also, automation has left workers virtually on call 24 hours a day, as well as shortened the turnaround time from project conception to completion. The ten hour business day has become routine for many workers. Corporate restructuring has left employees anxious about the security of their job. Symptoms of these stressed workers include drops in productivity, changes in work attitude, low morale and increased absenteeism.

1.2.2. PRODUCTIVITY Brayfield and Crockett (1955) astounded the world of occupational psychology by finding an average correlation of only + .15 from the 26 studies published up until then. The latest meta-analysis of 217 separate correlations (in 74 studies) also found an overall correlation of + .15 (Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985). Eight of these studies produced correlations of +.44 or above; these were all supervisory or professional workers, using self, peer or supervisory ratings of performance. Petty et al. (1984) found an overall correlation of +.23; this was +.31 for supervisors and above, +.15 for those at lower levels. Some recent
[18]

studies have found correlations which are higher than this under certain conditions. An overall correlation of +.35 was found in one, but it was as high as +.60 when there was little pressure for performance, i.e. when hard work was more voluntary (Bhagat, 1982). It is interesting that the correlation is greater for those in supervisory or professional jobs. In these jobs performance depends less on external pressures, like wage incentives or assembly-line speeds, and more on motivation, creativity and helpfulness. Laboratory experiments on mood induction have shown that putting subjects in a good mood leads to (1) better and more original problem-solving, (2) greater helpfulness and generosity, and (3) more positive attitudes to other people (Argyle, 1987). Job satisfaction is also correlated with other kinds of desirable behaviour at work - there is less sabotage, stealing, doing work badly on purpose, and spreading rumors or gossip to cause trouble (Mangoine and Quinn, 1975). This effect was stronger for those over thirty-five years of age, probably because they would only engage in such behaviour if they had a very strong sense of grievance. Bateman and Organ (1983) found that non-academic university staff who were satisfied engaged more in a wide variety of `good citizenship' behaviour at work - they were more punctual, dependable, helpful, cooperative and tidy, and they created less waste, made fewer complaints and were angry less frequently. The relation between job satisfaction and absenteeism has also been studied. It would be expected that happy workers would turn up more often to receive the benefits which they enjoy at work. In fact, the average correlation is quite low: -.09 in one meta-analysis (Hackett and Guion, 1985), and -.22 in another (McShane, 1983). However, there is a very skewed distribution of absenteeism - most people are not absent at all, which reduces the possible size of correlations (Hackett and Guion, op.cit.). The relationship is greatest with satisfaction for pay and promotion (Rosse and Miller, 1984), and for the work itself (Hackett and Guion, op.cit.). There is a clearer correlation with voluntary or unexcused absence which is not due to sickness. The relationship is stronger for women, manual workers, workers in larger firms and younger workers (Metzner and Mann, 1953).

[19]

These are the people who are absent more, so that there is a less skewed distribution. Similar analyses have been made of job satisfaction and labour turnover, and the correlation is typically -.20 to -.30 and rarely greater than -.40 (Mobley, 1982). Carsten and Spector (1987), in a meta-analysis of forty-seven studies, found an overall correlation of -.23 (but of -.51 under high unemployment, see below). Labour turnover correlates with different components of job satisfaction, but especially satisfaction with job content (Mobley et al., 1979). (Argyle, DO HAPPY WORKERS WORK HARDER?, 1989) 1.2.3. The Effects of Job Redesign. Hackman and Oldham (1980) proposed that five features of jobs both motivate performance and provide job satisfaction. Many studies have found correlations between these features and job satisfaction, and a meta-analysis by Loher et al (1985) found the following averages: (a) task identity (completing a clear and identifiable piece of work) +.32; (b) task significance (the degree to which the job has an impact on the lives of others) +.38; (c) skill variety +.41; (d) autonomy (the degree to which the job provides freedom, independence and discretion) +.46; (e) feedback (the extent to which information about effectiveness is available) +.41. What happens when jobs are redesigned to enhance these features? Two kinds of improvement have been distinguished, which enhance these features in different ways. (1) Job enlargement. Kelly (1982) analysed a number of cases of job enlargement, and found increases in productivity per man hour of the order of 20 per cent. However, this was not necessarily caused by increased job satisfaction and motivation, but by removing delays due to workers waiting for each other to pass on materials, and by improving methods of working, e.g. using both hands, and better-designed work stations. If there was an increase in pay, then additional increases in productivity of the order of a further 35 per cent or so were found. In most cases job satisfaction increased but in some cases productivity improved while job satisfaction did not, and vice versa. (2) Job enrichment. Does job enrichment e.g. inspecting own work, fare any better? According to Kelly's analysis, it does not for manual workers: any increases in productivity were due to bargains of more pay for doing more
[20]

things, with a resultant reduction in labour costs. However, for white-collar workers the findings are more positive. For example, Janson (1971) studied the effect of the enrichment of the work of typists who were asked to change their own computer tapes and to correct their own mistakes. (Argyle, DO HAPPY WORKERS WORK HARDER?, 1989). 1.2.4. Psychological Contract Psychological contract is defined as the set of reciprocal expectations held by the individual employee that specifies what the individual and the organization expect to give and receive in the working relationship (Rousseu, 1990). The psychological contract is unwritten agreement between employer and employee that each party will treat the other party and it is based on presumably shared beliefs. Because of it is unwritten and unofficial and therefore not legally binding, the motivation for compliance is not, as it is with explicit written contract but rather the desire to maintain mutual trust. It thus, constitutes an emotion bond. Previous researchers have highlighted the implicit relationship between employer and employees or the role of psychological on work attitude such as organizational commitment. (Eienberger, 1990) reported that there was a strong relationship between psychological contract and organizational commitment. The similar result was recorded in the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Ashford et al., 1990). Recent studies have found that both psychological contract and job satisfaction were able to influence organizational commitment. (Simon, 1993) found that the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment was affected after controlling psychological contract. However, Simon‟s findings revealed of weak and no significant relationship between some job satisfaction facets and organizational commitment after controlling psychological contract. (Sarminah, Samad; Za‟faran, Hassan, 2007).

[21]

2.0.0. Methodology 2.0.1 Hypothesis Development H1: There is a relationship between Productivity and job satisfaction H2: There is a relationship between effect of job rotation and job satisfaction H3: There is a relationship between psychological contract and job satisfaction H4: There is a negative relationship between job stress and job satisfaction

A survey instrument in the form of close-ended questionnaire was developed for the purpose of collecting the main data for the study. This study was conducted in Karachi based companies. Factors such as precision and confidence, population size, time and cost constraints were taken into consideration in selecting sample size. Using the non-probability sampling technique, a total of 300 respondents were selected as a sample of the study from those Companies. The respondents come from various Departments in order to give better result. The actual field survey was conducted over a period one week whereby personal interviews were employed to obtain the required information from the respondents. The reasons of using the personal interview are threefold. Firstly, it allows the interviewer to screen the eligibility of the respondents. Secondly, it also allows a closer supervision and better interaction between the interviewer and respondents in answering the questionnaire. Lastly, the interviewer was able to assist the respondents when they found difficulty in understanding any of the questions in the questionnaire. Seven companies completed the questionnaire. The response rate was 67.66% which was very much acceptable in social science research (Fowler, 1988). The participants were 62.56% female and 37.44% male with mean age of 37.6 years. More than 50% of them were married (107 respondent or 52.71%), 71 single, 17 separated, 8 divorced.

[22]

2.0.2. Instrument Development This instrument used in this study is composed of 3 parts. The first part deals with job stress. Job stress is measured by “Job Stress Questionnaire, JSQ” proposed by Caplan et al. (1975) and Sahu and Gole (2008). This scale included four dimensions from Caplan et al (1975), namely (1) workload, (2) role conflict, (3) role ambiguity and (4) performance pressure which comprised thirteen items. Each of job stressors was measured on a six-point Likert Scale in which 1 indicated “strongly disagree”, 2 indicated “disagree”, 3 indicated “somewhat disagree”, 4 indicated “somewhat agree”, 5 indicated “agree” and 6 indicated “strongly agree”. The main reason for this choice of all six job stressor was widely used in previous studies. Part 2 includes job satisfaction which is measured using Job Descriptive Index (JDI) (Smith et al., 1969), a reliable facet measure over time (Kinicki et al., 2002), applicable across a variety of demographic groups (Golembiewski and Yeager, 1978; Jung et al., 1986) and measured on a six point scale wit least satisfied (1) to very satisfied (6). The structure this section differed from previous studies insofar as it considered satisfaction as a positive phenomenon. Consequently, there was no facility for dissatisfaction. Part 3 includes a number of demographic questions such as gender, age, marital status, race, and education level.

2.0.3. Data Analysis Method Various statistical methods have been employed to compare the data collected from 500 respondents. These methods include cross-sectional analysis, description analysis and regression analysis. Each method has used to analysis the relationship of different variables. Firstly, the method of this study will also involve Cross-sectional types of research methodology based on the guideline given by Hussey and Hussey (1997). Their reports mention that cross-sectional studies are a positive methodology designed to obtain information on variables in different contexts, but at the same time. Secondly, Descriptive analysis refers to the transformation of raw data into a form hat would provide information to describe a set of factors in a situation that will make them easy to understand and interpret (Sekaran, 2000; Zikmund, 2000). This analysis will be given information for the data through
[23]

the frequency distribution, central tendency, and the dispersion. Data are collected on demographic variables are processed and reported in percentages. Thirdly, multiple regression analysis is an extension of bivariate regression analysis, which allows for the simultaneous investigation of the effect of two or more independent variables on a single interval scale dependent variable (Zikmund, 2000). The dependent variable for this study is Job satisfaction, whose types of measurement are interval. For this study, there are several independent variables relating to Job satisfaction, and job stresses whose types of measurement are interval and simultaneously investigates the several independent variables single variable a multiple linear regression is fitted for these variables. 3.0.0. Results and Analysis 3.1.0. Reliability The internal reliability of the items was verified by computing the Cronbach‟s alpha (Nunnally, 1978). Nunnally (1978) suggested that a minimum alpha of 0.6 sufficed for early stage of research. The Cronbach alpha estimated for current management role scale was 0.889, relationship with others scale was 0.890, workload pressure scale was 0.890, homework interface scale was 0.908, role ambiguity scale was 0.901, performance pressure scale was 0.894, overall job stress 0.805 and the overall job satisfaction scale was 0.729. As the Cronbach‟s alpha in this study were all much higher than 0.6, the constructs were therefore deemed to have adequate reliability. 3.1.1. Normality of Data and Multi-Collinearity This study involves a relatively large sample (203 academicians) and therefore, the Central Limit Theorem could be applied and hence there is no question on normality of the data. Two major methods were utilized in order to determine the presence of multicollinearity among independent variables in this study. These methodologies involved calculation of both a Tolerance test and Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) (Kleinbaum et al, 1988). The results of these analyzes are presented in Table 1. As can be seen from this data, i) none of the Tolerance levels is <or equal to .01; and ii) all VIF values are well
[24]

below 10. Thus, the measures selected for assessing independent variables in this study do not reach levels indicate of multi co linearity. The acceptable Durbin – Watson range is between 1.5 and 2.5. In this analysis Durbin – Watson value of 2.015, which is between the acceptable ranges, show that there were no auto correlation problems in the data used in this research. Thus, the measures selected for assessing independent variables in this study do not reach levels indicate of multi co linearity

Table -1 Variable Job stress Productivity Effect job Redesigning Psychological Contract Tolerance .509 .410 .561 .379 VIF 1.964 2.442 1.783 1.472

3.1.2. Hypotheses Testing To test seven hypotheses the data were analysed using multiple linear regression analysis following the guidelines established by Hair et al. (1998). The purpose of regression analysis is to relate a dependent variable to a set of independent variables (Mendenhal and Sincich, 1993). Table III present the result of predictors of ICT adoption. The regression coefficient of job stressors on job stress was estimated. The overall model is significant at the 1% level. The independent variables explain 50% of the variance in the job stress. Of the independent variables, workload pressure (+), homework interface (+), role ambiguity (+), and performance pressure (+) are the predictors statistically different from zero and had a significant and direct effect on job stress. The remaining management role (+), relationship with others (-) had no significant direct effect on job stress. Table II presents the results of the individual hypotheses being tested.

[25]

Table -2 Variable Constant Job stress Productivity Effect job Redesigning Psychological Contract .283 .218 .180 .209 Beta t-value 1.781 4.013 2.768 2.674 3.429 p- value .076 .000 .006 .008 .001

3.1.3. The Results of Hypothesis 1 The H1 to support hypothesis 7 we also used multiple regression analysis to understand the effects of job stress versus job satisfaction. With job satisfaction as dependent variable and job stress as independent variable, a regression equation to represent this relationship is computed. Regress results are shown Tables III and IV. Table III depicts the computer Fvalue and R square to understand the overall significance of the regression model. Research model yielding significant p-values (p<0.01) and R square around 10 percent of the variance in job satisfaction was explained. Table IV lists detailed data on the statistical coefficients of the regression model. Therefore, hypothesis 7 is supported by the collected data. 3.1.4. The Results of Hypothesis 2 According to Lasky (1995) demands associated with family and finances can be a major source of „extra-organisational‟ stress that can complicate, or precipitate, work-place stress. The multiple regression analysis shows that the association between Productivity and job satisfaction is significant with β=0.218 (ρ=0.01). The result attests that the occurrence of stressors in the workplace either immediately following a period of chronic stress at home, or in conjunction with other major life stressors, is likely to have a marked impact on outcome (Russon & Vitaliano, 1995). Furthermore, with the positive coefficient value, it could be concluded that the higher the problem in the home, the chances for the jab satisfaction will be greater. Surprisingly, the results of this study shows that the association between relationship with others and job stress is not significant with β=0.055
[26]

(ρ=0.239). The unimportance of relationship factor may be due to fact that all the faculty members are very much friendly and cooperative. However, we can expect to get stronger association if the conflict arises from their colleagues. 3.1.5. The Results of Hypothesis 3 Most research suggests that Effect of job Redesigning is indeed negatively correlated with job satisfaction, job involvement, performance, tension, propensity to leave the job and job performance variables (Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman 1970; Van Sell, Brief, & Schuler 1981; Fisher & Gitelson 1983; Jackson & Schule 1985; Singh 1998). The result of this study shows that the association between role ambiguity and job stress is significant with β=0.180 (ρ=0.01). The support for hypothesis 5 reflects that more complex and rapid changes of organisation exist in the faculty; the possibility of job satisfaction will be higher.

3.1.6. The Results of Hypothesis 4 The support of H4 (Psychological Contract) is in line with the results found by Chan et al. (2000). Multiple regression analysis shows relative advantage having β=0.209 (ρ=0.001) is the strongest predictor of job satisfaction. It is expected since past literature has consistently shown that performance pressure now a day is one of most significant and positive influence on job satisfaction (Townley, 2000).

Table 3: Summary of Regression Analysis Effects of Job Stress toward Job Satisfaction Regression Statistics Values P<0.01 24.098 0.00 .103 1.869 F-Value P-Value Adj-R2 Durbin-Watson Test

[27]

Table 4: Relationship between Job Stress and Job Satisfaction Variables Standard error of Coefficient t-value Standard Reg. Co. Beta (p-value) Job Stress 0.035 -4.909 0.327 (0.00)

REFERENCES

Alexandrov, A., Babakus, E., & Yavas, U. (2007). The effects of perceived management concern for frontline employees and customers on turnover intentions. Journal of Service Research, 9(4), 356 - 371. Kode Ruyter, Martin Wetzel , “Role stress in call centers its effect on performance and satisfaction, Journal of interactive marketing”, Vol 15, 2001: 23-30

Steven Simoens, Anthony Scott, bonnie Sibbald Job Satisfaction, “WorkRelated Stress And Intentions To Quit Of Scottish GPS 2003”, Journal of Management Vol 5 5-12 Rabi S. Bhagat “the Impact of Job Characteristics on Correctional Staff Members” ,2004 Lambert, The Prison Journal 84: 208-227. Sherry E. Sullivan, “Organizational

stress, job satisfaction and job

performance: where do we go from here?”, 2000 Journal of Management Jun;62(3):815-25 Lagace RR., “Role-stress differences between salesmen and saleswomen: effect on job satisfaction and performance”, 2001 Journal of Management Dec,12(3):15-25 Joe W. Kotrlik, James E., Bartlett II, “The Relationship Between Job Stress And Job satisfaction Among Industrial And Technical Teacher Educators”,

2003 Journal of Career and Technical Education Volume 20, Number 1

[28]

Ernest Brewer, Jama McMahan, Landers, University of Tennessee “Job Satisfaction of the Librarians in the Developing Countries”, 61st IFLA General Conference - Conference Proceedings - August 20-25, Al-Aameri A.S., 2003. “Source of job stress for nurses in public hospitals”, Saudi Medical Journal, 24(11), pp.1183-1187. Alexandros-Stamatios G. A., Matilyn J.D., and Cary L.C., 2003. “Occupational Stress, Job satisfaction, and health state in male and female junior hospital doctors in Greece”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(6), pp. 592-621.

Beehr, Terry A. (1995), Psychological Stress in the Workplace, London and New York. Beehr, T.A. & Newman, J.E.,1978. “Job Stress, Employee Health and Organizational Effectiveness: A Facet Analysis, Model and Literature Review”, Personnel Psychology, 31, pp.665-669. Beehr, T.A., Walsh, J.T., & Taber, T.D. 1976. “Perceived situational moderators of the relationship between subjective role ambiguity and role strain‟, Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, pp.35-40.

Caplan, R.D., Cobb, S., French, J.R.P., Jr., Harrison, R.V., and Pinneau, S.R., 1975. “Job Demands and Worker Health”, HEW Publication No. (NIOSH), pp. 75-160. Cascio, W.F., 1995. “Wither industrial and organizational psychology in a Changing world”? American Psychologist, 50, pp.928-939. Chan, K.B., Lai, G., Ko, Y.C. & Boey K.W., 2000. “Work stress among six professional groups: the Singapore experience”, Social Science Medicine, 50(10), pp.1415-1432.

[29]

Coleman J.C. 1976. Abnormal Psychology and Modern Life (Indian reprint), Taraporewalla, Bombay. Cooper, C.L., 1991. Stress in organizations. In M. Smith (Ed.). Analysing Organisational Behaviour. London: MacMillan. Cooper, C., U. Rout and B. Faragher. 1989. “Mental Health, Job Satisfaction, and Job Stress Among General Practitioners”, B Medical Journal, 298, pp366370. Cordes, C.L., and Dougherty, T.W. 1993. “A review and integration of research on job burnout”, Academy of Management Review, 18, pp.621-656. Cummins R.C. 1990. “Job stress and the buffering effort of supervisory support”, Group and Organizational Studies, 15(1), pp.92-104. Dyer, S., & Quine, L. 1998. “Predictors of job satisfaction and burnout among the direct care staff of a community learning disability service”, Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 11 (4), pp.320-332. Dyer, S., & Quine, L. 1998. “The effects of job demands and control on employee attendance and satisfaction”, Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 12, pp.596-608. Fisher, C.D., & Gitelson, R. 1983. “A meta-analysis of the correlated of the role conflict and ambiguity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, pp.320-333.

[30]

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful