Identifying Factors of Employee Satisfaction A Case Study of Chinese Resource-BasedState-Owned Enterprises

Identifying Factors of Employee Satisfaction: A Case Study of Chinese Resource-Based
State-Owned Enterprises
Author(s): Geoffrey Kwok Fai Tso, Fangtao Liu and Jin Li
Source: Social Indicators Research, Vol. 123, No. 2 (September (I) 2015), pp. 567-583
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24721619
Accessed: 13-04-2019 04:27 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social
Indicators Research
This content downloaded from 202.65.183.57 on Sat, 13 Apr 2019 04:27:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Soc Indic Res (2015) 123:567-583
DOI 10.1007/sl 1205-014-0750-3 I ■ 1 CrossMark
(D<
Identifying Factors of Employee Satisfaction: A Case

Study of Chinese Resource-Based State-Owned
Enterprises
Geoffrey Kwok Fai Tso • Fangtao Liu • Jin Li
Accepted: 25 August 2014/Published online: 3 September 2014

1 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
Abstract This paper constructed an accurate employee satisfaction factors model for
measuring employee satisfaction. An employee satisfaction scale with 30 indicators is
designed and tested in Chinese Resource-based State-owned Enterprises. Satisfaction
surveys are administered and first-hand data of 3,029 respondents are obtained from 27
units. Exploratory factor analysis is used for extracting four employee satisfaction factors
from final 29 satisfaction indicators. The four factors are attributed to the culture, job,
management, and welfare of the enterprises. Job positions and education level are found to
have significant impacts affecting employee satisfaction. Influences of the four factors are
discussed with suggestions made to the management. In future research, the relationship
between satisfaction, stress, and performance needs further exploration, in addition to the
influence of employee stress and factors from other fields.
Keywords Chinese Resource-based State-owned Enterprises • Employee satisfaction

Exploratory factor analysis
1 Introduction
Satisfaction has attracted consistent wide-spread attention from researchers in China. In

recent years, there has been significant growth in research efforts, as many satisfaction
scales and models have been designed and used to assess employee satisfaction or improve
G. K. F. Tso • F. Liu (0) ■ J. Li

Department of Management Sciences, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong
e-mail: ftliu56@cityu.edu.hk
G. K. F. Tso
e-mail: msgtso@cityu.edu.hk
J. Li
e-mail: jinli6-c@my.cityu.edu.hk
<£) Springer
568 G. K. F. Tso et al.
enterprise managem
case of China yet fa
2014; Yuan and Gol
Satisfied employee
pany's principal val
linked to the belief
job behaviour such
giatis 1997). Other
correlates to satisfa
performance, and e
standing and enhan
Lim and Morris 200
be of tremendous be
more, take fewer d
employees tend to
understanding of th
generally resort to e
2009; Avey et al. 2
depending on the p
Therefore, examina
important area of re
societal norms, tech
tries, also indicate t
1.1 Contribution
Based on improvements in some classical scales, many Chinese employee satisfaction

scales have been designed and applied (Li and Raine 2014; Yuan and Golpelwar 2013;
Zhang and Zheng 2009). Because the majority of the measurement tools were derived from
predominantly internationally-used scales, researchers have rarely considered the cultural
background of Chinese enterprises, particular in specific corporate attributes.
According to resource allocation methods (Buchanan 1986) and market operation
modes (Yang et al. 2009), Chinese State-owned Enterprises can be divided into Resource
based SOEs and Market SOEs that they have very significant difference in cultural
background. However, a lack of research in the Chinese Resource-based State-owned
Enterprises,1 the prime purpose of this paper is to provide a better employee satisfaction
scale to measure satisfaction in the cultural background of Chinese Resource-based SOEs.
Based on exploratory factor analysis, we propose an employee satisfaction model. In
accordance with the results of model analysis, it could supply many effective suggestion to
improve employee management policy making in SOEs' cultural background.
This study addresses the satisfaction of employees of Chinese Resource-based SOEs.
Because of limited information, the researches in this field are less. Resource-based firms
always have a series of special advantages (Wernerfelt 1984), such as entry barriers,
resource control, and policy protection. On the other hand, they play very significant roles
in the national economy and are critical to the functioning of a very large proportion of the
manufacturing industry. Therefore, internal harmony and stability of these enterprises are
critical for the economy and the society. However, these enterprises enjoy a certain amount
Chinese Resource-based State-owned Enterprises are referred to as Chinese Resource-based SOEs.
Springer
Identifying factors of employee satisfaction 569
of monopolistic advantages and do not have to face compe

2009; Kim et al. 2010). Simultaneously, they are subject to s
of being state-owned properties, such as salary restrictions.
of distribution, the "iron rice bowl" system of job securit
welfare coverage are the three significant features of thes
Kim et al. 2010; Warner 1997). Egalitarianism is the norm t
the established belief is that it does not matter if everyone r
if some receive more, while others receive less (Liu 2003).
are obviously less present in private enterprises, foreign-o
competitive SOEs (Cooke 2009; Cunningham and Rowley 20
lack of workplace performance incentives and a competitiv
controls are inadequate and deficient. Even if some recognize
are rectified, they are unlikely to be able to effectively chan
these enterprises have set ways of working that hamper effi
Although the existing Chinese Resource-based SOEs canno
practices immediately, they need to identify ways of imp
within the prevailing environment. Studies of employee sa
trends, impact factors, and measurement methods combined
improve employee satisfaction and enterprise manageme
acteristics, while we identify the significant factors, it coul
develop more targeted management measures. Until now, rese
rich, especially in these particular and interesting enterprises
employee satisfaction management.
1.2 Structure of the Paper
Section 2 outlines the definition of employee satisfaction wi

scale of satisfaction. Section 3 focuses on data description an
satisfaction scale is tested and proved. A factor analysis mod
satisfaction factors from a sample of 3,029 employees. Sec
the factor model, and interprets the effects of satisfaction
acteristics of the sample enterprises. Section 5 provides im
suggested directions for future research.
2 Employee Satisfaction
With the development of epistemology, the definition of s

2003). Bussing et al. (1999) pointed out that satisfaction is
amidst evolving constituent factors, employees' behaviour, e
(Song et al. 2012). Because of continuous change in exter
satisfaction factors continue to evolve (Bussing et al. 1999
time-sensitive concept, the contours of which continue chan
changes; specific key factors are appropriate for a particu
reason, previous studies are not relevant, at least fully, for
Employee satisfaction often involves individual income,
with a significant impact on overall satisfaction. In Chine
ever, these mechanisms are limited because of institution
lack of market competition. Even if suggestions are effec
Ô Springer
prove difficult to ch
ation policies and co
rice bowl," respecti
a common characte
included in the satisfaction scale.
2.1 Definition of Employee Satisfaction
General understanding, employee satisfaction is a measure of how happy workers are with
their job and working environment (Gohel 2012). Satisfaction is defined as a job attitude or
emotional response to a type of existing situation (Koustelios and Bagiatis 1997; Yee et al.
2008). It is integrated into a variety of characteristic operating experiences, and is the
degree of overall personal evaluation and individual needs. In some ways, individual mood
is a significant factor in employee satisfaction (Ilies and Judge 2002). Thus, employee
satisfaction is a subjective value judgment, a psychological perception, or an attitude
toward the enterprise.
A survey is an effective tool for measuring, monitoring, and eliciting feedback in the
context of employee satisfaction and could provide a basis for developing effective policies
for organizational management to meet enterprise goals. The results of the survey
(Forbringer 2002; Warner 1997) could be viewed as a mirror that reflects employees'
attitudes and opinions, obtained in an objective and scientific manner, irrespective of
whether enterprises have benefitted from this information or remained stagnant in the past.
By identifying these issues, managements should revise current policies to address existing
problems and promote improved operating efficiency, thus encouraging highly qualified
professionals to contribute to improved internal relationships among employees. This
approach has an important influence on enterprise management and stability (Warner
1997) based on organizational commitment, and culture (Anton 2009) because intrinsic
satisfaction, commitment and congruence of organizational values are negatively related to
employees' intentions to leave a company (Yurchisin et al. 2010).
Thus, the criticisms and the subjective perceptions of employee satisfaction together
with social indicators (Royuela and Surinach 2013), constitute a useful approach to
understand the true perceptions of the respondents. Using questionnaires to survey
employees could mine much first-hand feedback information for measuring satisfaction on
a reliable scale.
2.2 Measurement of Employee Satisfaction
Methods of measuring and assessing employee satisfaction are attracting increasing

attention. First of all, satisfaction scales play a key role in satisfaction surveys. In extant
research, it is increasing attention there are many classic satisfaction theories and satis
faction scales worthy of being used for reference purposes, such as the Hoppock Job
Satisfaction Scale (Hoppock 1935), the Overall Job Satisfaction Scale (Brayfield and Rothe
1951), the Job Description Index (Smith et al. 1969), and Job in General Scale (Ironson
et al. 1989). However, it is difficult to standardize satisfaction scales because of several
factors, including cultural bias (Koustelios and Bagiatis 1997). For example, the Job
Description Index is widely used in the United States, but has found less favor in Great
Britain (Cross 1973). While some researchers have theorized about some specific factors
relevant to employee satisfaction, there is no "gold standard" that indicates which factors
must be considered when measuring employee satisfaction (Saane et al. 2003).
â Springer
In the past, satisfaction scale had a certain universality

similar concepts. For example, Hoppock Job Satisfaction S
specific field. However, the limitation of using one comm
industries may not cover the company's specialty. As sho
lished study (Aydin and Ceylan 2008; Balkin and Griffeth
Gohel 2012; Kumara and Koichi 1989; Matzler and Renzl
satisfaction scales are significantly customized under a par
countries, for different groups and with different themes,
factors and types. Therefore, it is difficult to conduct comp
ability and validity among different satisfaction framewo
isfaction is typically viewed as a multidimensional constr
standardized scales to measure employee satisfaction on se
Renzl 2007). Thus, the overall satisfaction may constitute
satisfaction, life satisfaction, subjective well-being, or hap
eral dimensions according to different background
groups. Overall employee satisfaction is generally consider
e.g. employee's satisfaction with the salary, work contract
future career prospects, and training opportunities. The e
scales and measurement tools found in the literature do n
Chinese Resource-based SOEs because of their special wo
Therefore, a customized newly design employee satisfactio
more suitable for the Chinese SOEs.
3 Methodology
When designing a satisfaction questionnaire, it is necessary to understand the needs and

expectations of the target group. As people's internal and external needs are met, they
pursue higher standards with higher expectancy, based on expectancy theory (Heneman
and Schwab 1972), achievement theory (Harackiewicz et al. 2002), and motivator-hygiene
theory (Stephen and Charles 1976). If hygiene factors cannot be satisfied, employees tend
to become discontent or expend less effort in their work. Even with an improvement in
hygiene factors, it is difficult to effectively enhance employee satisfaction to inspire cre
ativity directly. However, the equity theory (Pritchard 1969) could bring about a sense of
employee satisfaction. When employees perceive injustice, they often choose negative
behaviour to balance out their feelings; these types of behaviours include reduced input,
changed output, distorted self-awareness, distorted cognition, and even leaving the firm.
According to previous scholars' research experience, employee satisfaction scales
should use different indicators in different cultural areas or occupational groups. In
comparative studies on satisfaction factors, pay satisfaction was a remarkably universal
factor in most scales, including salary, job security and benefits, and remuneration and
financial reward; however, these factors are of limited relevance in Chinese Resource
based SOEs, as described previously. This is viewed as a unique research angle in this
study. Designing a suitable employee satisfaction scale which could be used to explore the
latest satisfaction factors and to further evaluate the dynamics of employee satisfaction was
considered necessary.
â Springer
Table 1 Summary of em
Author
Time Satisfaction factors Scale type
Kumara 1989 Supportive Supervision; Co-worker Social Support; Employee satisfaction scale
and Job Awareness in Japanese manufacturing
Koichi
Balkin and 1993 Retirement; Paid Time Off; Health Care; Income Employee benefits
Griffeth Continuation satisfaction scale in U.S.
Hospital
Matzler 2007 Top management; Superiors Colleagues; Job Employee satisfaction in
and conditions; Remuneration; Job content; Recognition; hospitality and tourism
Renzl Responsibility; Personal development
Aydin and 2008 Organizational Culture; Spiritual Leadership Employee Satisfaction in
Ceylan metalworking
manufacturing
Balser and 2008 Job autonomy; Employee input; Accommodation Employee accommodation
Harris received satisfaction scale in U.S.
Gohel 2012 Employee Satisfaction; Self-Esteem; Locus of controlEmployee satisfaction in

Mumbai
3.1 The Variables
According to the classic Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss et al. 1967) and
recent Gallup Q-12 survey (Forbringer 2002), 30 critical indicators were selected to desig
the satisfaction scale, mainly on the basis of management policy, internal expert seminar
brainstorming, employees' needs and related rules in the enterprise. None of these ar
related to remuneration policy and labour contracts because the salary structure an
contract period cannot be changed (for enhancing satisfaction). Non-management indi
tors were also excluded because effective management must be built on factors that cou
be controlled and changed, according to quality management system guidelines (Easton
and Jarrell 1998). This rule is also used when evaluating employee satisfaction. The
indicators of employee satisfaction scale in our study are showed in Table 4, where
respondents provide their subjective judgments and degrees of satisfaction in survey.
3.2 The Dataset
Stratified random sampling was used and 3,029 respondents were selected from 27 Chinese
Resource-based SOEs in 2011. The number of respondents selected was in proportion to
the total number of employees in four major job position categories: middle managers
first-line management staff, scientific and technological researchers and first-line produc
tion personnel. In order to obtain their cooperation and understanding, all members from
the management team were invited to participate in the survey, only to present their
individual suggestions. The subjects were asked to indicate the extent of their agreemen
with each item on a 5-point Likert-type scale that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree/very
dissatisfied) to 5 (strongly agree/very satisfied) for accurate measurement and efficacy
(Dawes 2008). The second section contained demographic indicators, including gender
work position, education, age, and work period.
Through a single global rating, the final employee satisfaction score was calculated with
a holistic approach. Based on the aggregate rating score, the overall mean of employee
â Springer
satisfaction score reached 4.46 out of 5, where the overal
= (E-=,^)/30; and p> is the average satisfaction score

1,2,..30, with equal weights assigned to all P, values. Cro
that the whole employee satisfaction scale had very high
indicator—total correlation reached 0.53, and inter-indicat
sonable range, from 0.27 to 0.70. Content validity of the s
the fit between relevant factors retrieved from extant literature and work factors included in
the multidimensional instruments under assessment (Saane et al. 2003). The individual
results were used to compute a comprehensive measurement which was computed again
for each satisfaction indicator and each enterprise. We used the level of satisfaction derived
from each individual's evaluation of his or her perceptions. This reflects employee aspi
rations, expectations, and personal values (Royuela and Surinach 2013). In addition,
because of the relatively high welfare and job stability, employee belonging is usually
stronger, satisfaction mean is usually higher, and internal dispersion is usually lower in
Chinese SOEs (Kim et al. 2010; Yuan and Golpelwar 2013).
Satisfaction indicator scores and their mean values are inadequate for analysis of
management problems of these enterprises. Because numerous latent variables in the
employee satisfaction survey were difficult to define and measure directly, we used factor
analysis for in-depth analysis. Exploratory factor analysis identifies a number of factors
affecting the observed variables, as well as the degree of correlation between the factors
and the observed variables. We chose this approach to provide a more accurate evaluation
and diagnosis of the existing problems and to suggest improvements, which is an effective
approach (Tso et al. 2011). There have been widespread applications of questionnaire
measures of organizational behaviours (Xenikou and Furnham 1996). The employee sat
isfaction model could be classified as an estimation technique for exploratory research
(Sharma 1996). In this paper, it is considered as a systemic evaluation model via
exploratory factor analysis. The satisfaction factors used are based on some high corre
lation indicators, so as to realize the aggregate quantitative evaluation of satisfaction
dimensions.
As shown in Table 2, there are 206 top managers in the sample, and another 2,823
respondents were selected by stratified random sampling.2
Gender is a categorical variable that reflects the sex of respondents.
Job position is a categorical variable that reflects the post of duty of respondents.
Education level is a categorical variable that measures the highest level of education
completed by respondents; including high school diploma; some college, no degree;
bachelor's degree; master's degree; doctorate degree.
Age is a categorical variable that measures age of respondents, including less than
30 years old; 30-35 years old; 36-40 years old; 41-50 years old; more than 51 years old.
Work period is a categorical variable that measures the year of working of respondents,
including less than 3 years; 3-6 years; 7-10 years; 10-15 years; more than 15 years.
By conducting t tests of between-subjects effects (see Table 3), the survey found "Job
position (Sig. <0.00)" and "Education level (Sig. <0.05)" have significant impacts on
employee satisfaction.
Job position: satisfaction of top managers was found to be lower than middle managers,
possibly because of job strain or risk and personal pressure. Satisfaction levels of other
groups were obviously lower than managers, especially first-line production personnel.
2 Some respondents did not fill out their personal information, resulting in some incomplete information.
Springer
Education: more ed
have higher expect
Heywood 2006), esp
All in all, we could
faction. Therefore,
on different job po
effectiveness.
3.3 Exploratory Factor Analysis
The research on employee satisfaction explored the impact of key factors, measured the
degree of employee satisfaction, and analyzed the reasons for dissatisfaction in order to
formulate improvement measures. One approach for improvement was to constantly adjust
and amend the survey indicators, thus improving the quality of the employee satisfaction
scale to accurately reflect any weaknesses in employee satisfaction (Avey et al. 2011), and
to supply valuable information for daily enterprise management and scientific decision
making.
Basically, factors that impact employee satisfaction are divided into objective factors
and subjective factors. Objective factors include demographic indicators and other
objective existence or immutable factors; subjective factors are a key part of employee
satisfaction management and also the main content of the investigation, composed of 30
indicators in the questionnaire.
Through employee satisfaction survey, we try to use exploratory factor analysis to
identify the underlying factors affecting employee satisfaction level from 30 satisfaction
indicators. Using Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett's test, the KMO value reached
0.98, and Bartlett's test of sphericity was highly significant (P < 0.00), demonstrating that
the data with high validity were suitable for factor analysis. Although satisfaction item
means were high (4.46), it does not affect the results of factor analysis obviously.
In exploratory factor analysis, the purpose of extracting key information is to construct
the latent factor based on a high-validity employee satisfaction model. Using principal axis
factoring as extraction method, promax with Kaiser Normalisation as rotation method,
together with parallel analysis (Fabrigar et al. 1999; Browne 2001; Costello and Osborne
2005), the rotated component matrix provides 30 indicators with factor loadings. Parallel
analysis is statistically based, which compares the extracted eigenvalues from the actual
data and a series of parallel random data sets. By descendingly ordering the eigenvalues for
both, the number of eigenvalues that are larger from the actual data is identified as the
optimal factor number. Considering the problematic eigenvalues >1 rule and scree plots of
eigenvalue (Fabrigar et al. 1999), parallel analysis is used to determine the optimal number
of factors to retain in this research. We adopt using four common factors based on the
parallel analysis scree plot as shown in Fig. 1. Although there exist a few more points that
are slightly above the competing Monte Carlo simulated eigenvalues, they are not sig
nificant eigenvalues representing the true factors.
In accordance with the number of indicators and sample size, factor loadings of indi
cators must be over 0.4 (Hair et al. 1998) to ensure that the extracted factors are reliable. A
factor loading greater than 0.4 is considered effective in social sciences; indicators with
high cross-loading should be removed to avoid interference from ambiguity.
Results of factor analysis suggest that 58.66 % of the total variability can be explained
by a four-factor model (see Table 4). According to factor eigenvalue and cumulative
contribution, the four-factor model is the best fitting via a series of tests. We adopted the 29
Springe
Table 2 Descriptive statistics: employee satisfaction samples
Percentage Frequency Satisfaction
Gender
Male 62.9 1,904 4.46
Female 37.1 1,125 4.47
Job position
Top managers 6.8 206 4.61
Middle managers 5.2 159 4.63
First-line management staff 16.7 506 4.48
Scientific and technological researchers 6.9 210 4.49
First-line production personnel 56.3 1,705 4.42
Education level
High school diploma 25.3 766 4.44

Some college 31.9 965 4.43
Bachelor's degree 35.6 1.078 4.48
Master's degree 4.6 139 4.61
Doctorate degree 0.4 II 4.71
Age
Less than 30 years old 16.0 485 4.44
30-35 years old 18.2 553 4.46
36-40 years old 19.2 583 4.47
41-50 years old 32.3 979 4.48
More than 51 years old 12.6 381 4.45
Work period
Less than 3 years 7.4 225 4.45
3-6 years 10.2 308 4.45
7-10 years 9.9 299 4.47
10-15 years 14.7 445 4.48
More than 15 years 56.1 1,699 4.46
Table 3 I tests of between-subjects effects
Source Type III sum of squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Model 60,213.85a 18 3,345.21 13,769.96 0.00

Gender 0.74 1 0.74 3.04 0.08
Job position 10.15 4 2.54 10.45 0.00
Education 2.24 4 0.56 2.30 0.05
Age 0.78 4 0.20 0.81 0.52
Work period 0.13 4 0.03 0.13 0.97
Total 60,945.33 3,029
Dependent variable: satisfaction mean

" R squared = 0.988 (adjusted R squared = 0.988)
Springer
satisfaction indicator
be removed from th
loading. The Each fact
effectiveness of com
validity to explain t
rotation, the validati
direction, from the
satisfaction scale wa
factor had good inte
By exploratory fact
tors. Based on a series
factor model was fo
square = 3,095.73, df = 401, P < 0.00; CFI > 0.94; RMSEA < 0.05; GFI > 0.93;
NFI > 0.93) by confirmatory factor analysis. The consistency, reliability, and convergent
validity tests showed that it had achieved all of the test standards, both in the model and in
each factor (Bagozzi and Yi 1988). In accordance with the results of the employee sat
isfaction model, we could name each factor based on the indicators that it consists of (see
Table 4). Factor 1 is named culture factor, reflecting career development and internal
relationships, and consists of nine indicators; Factor 2 is named job factor, reflecting the
acceptance and recognition of employees' job positions, and consists of seven indicators;
Factor 3 is named management factor, reflecting employees' feedback on management
policy, and consists of seven indicators. Factor 4 is named welfare factor, reflecting the
firm's health policy and welfare security, and consists of six indicators. Each factor
selected reached the required significance level in internal consistency and convergent
validity.
4 Results and Discussion
From the results of the employee satisfaction factor model, we conclude that emp
satisfaction in Chinese Resource-based SOEs is driven by four major factors of cul
job, management, and welfare. These four factors reflect the characteristics of Res
based SOEs and do not involve remuneration and job contract. Culture factor and m
agement factor are based on organizational development and management systems (
et al. 2004; Lim and Morris 2006; Zhang and Zheng 2009); the other two factors ha
certain degree of universality, i.e., they are covered in previous satisfaction theorie
models (Bartlett 2001; Hoppock 1935; Weiss et al. 1967). All in all, to improve empl
satisfaction, the enterprise should focus its attention and resources on increasing
faction in terms of culture factor, job factor, management factor and welfare factor.
Based on this model, we calculated the score of each satisfaction factor. In additio
the overall average satisfaction score, the average satisfaction score of each factor i
calculated for each unit to identify its disadvantageous factors. The overall avera
employee satisfaction score = (J2"= i Pi) /" — {Pi + ' • • P2s)/29.The mean va
of all indicators in the final model differed from the mean of all 29 indicators in the
satisfaction survey; P, was the average value for each indicator, given n = 29; basically
equal weights were assigned to all P,. The satisfaction factor score was by category
The average of 29 employee satisfaction indicators.
<£) Springer
r*~. FA Actual Data

FA Simulated Data
X'-"V-K'-'V--x^x^
10 15 20 25 30
Factor Number
Fig. 1 Parallel analysis scree plots
= (X)"= i Pi)/n- The comprehensive score from satisfaction factors includes sub-scores for
each factor, the sum of all variables that load on that factor; P, is the average value for each
indicator given by all respondents. For each individual factor, equal weight is assigned to
all P, to compute factor score for simplicity, easy interpretation, and practice in man
agement improvement.
Factor analysis was employed to identify the weakest link, according to the "Cannikin
Law". Identifying weaknesses may help promote a positive culture, change the manage
ment system to avoid inefficiency and overstaffing, and improve employee behaviours (Liu
2003) and internal relationships (Hui et al. 2004).
By calculating the satisfaction factor scores, advantageous and disadvantageous factors
in each enterprise can be determined accurately, as given in Table 5. Table 5 displays the
results of the composite index of employee satisfaction and score of satisfaction factors for
each enterprise. These scores have positive significance for management improvements
and enhanced employee satisfaction.
The score of the culture satisfaction was obviously lower than the mean, but it had a
higher influence on effectiveness; these factors should be the focus of the direction of
improvements. Due to different historical backgrounds of units, such as size of firm,
regional environment and product, the weakest factors are different in different units.
However, the culture factor is a generally disadvantageous factor for most units. Weak
nesses identified by the measured results are viewed as suggestions for improving enter
prise management, as the management team improves its strategies in the context of the
specific weakness. This information helps the management team to maintain keep an open
mind, recognize primary problems that may exist in management, and map out the most
suitable path for solutions.
Culture satisfaction mainly focuses on personalized development of employees (Pro
motion opportunities, Development environment), education (Further education, Profes
sional training), and internal relationships in the origination (Colleagues care, Individual
Ô Springer
Table 4 Employee satisfac

Indicator Mean Culture Job Management Welfare Communality
factor factor factor factor
Rotated component matrix

Promotion opportunities 4.00 0.81 0.67
Development 4.24 0.77 0.57

environment
Further education 4.41 0.77 0.61
Communication 4.34 0.72 0.64
Colleagues care 4.42 0.72 0.59
Individual suggestion 4.31 0.72 0.68
Superior management 4.39 0.69 0.59

ability
Morality and attitude 4.38 0.67 0.61
Professional training 4.37 0.53 0.46
Working goals 4.71 0.75 0.57
Adaptability 4.68 0.72 0.49
Working requirements 4.76 0.68 0.51
Job responsibilities 4.62 0.58 0.45
Mission 4.68 0.53 0.48
Working plan 4.56 0.50 0.42
Skill applications 4.37 0.47 0.51
Information sharing 4.60 0.38 0.40
Quality control 4.62 0.74 0.48
Safety security 4.69 0.69 0.44
Equipment maintenance 4.45 0.58 0.43
Energy-saving measures 4.45 0.50 0.53
Cost control 4.35 0.46 0.54
Management innovation 4.40 0.46 0.52
Environmental 4.58 0.45 0.50

protection
Occupational health care 4.56 0.73 0.57
Mental and physical 4.56 0.70 0.59

health
Welfare and insurance 4.43 0.61 0.51
Food security 4.07 0.61 0.37
Vacation and holidays 4.35 0.57 0.44
Sports and entertainment 4.41 0.52 0.52
Cronbach's alpha 0.92 0.87 0.86 0.85
Eigenvalue 14.02 1.33 1.17 1.08
Cumulative 46.72 51.16 55.07 58.66

contribution %
Extraction method: principal axis

factoring
suggestion, Communication, Superior management ability, Morality and attitude). Among

them, scores of indicators in the individual development field are lower than others.
Corporate decision-makers need to not only strengthen guidance, but also create a fair
•Ö Springer
selection and employment mechanism in order to address

consistency (standard deviation, SD), understanding of M
larger differences among respondents, perhaps because t
indicators should be revised to increase accuracy in the n
includes two components: job (Working goals, Working
Mission, Job responsibilities) and job environment (Ada
Overall, the job satisfaction score is the highest among all fa
as a kind of advantage for SOEs. Although wages may be res
good working environments are quite obvious. However, s
is low because these organizations do not typically give
employees to apply their abilities work; this should be a c
satisfaction is higher because standardization and normal
SOEs, especially in Quality control, Safety security, Equ
saving measures, and Environmental protection. However, sa
Management innovation is lower than on other indicators.
not enough perhaps because of unclear property rights. T
innovation is a sort of flexible policy design. Welfare satisfa
salary or remuneration, is divided into several welfare resou
and holidays, Sports and entertainment) and welfare man
care, Mental and physical health, Welfare and insurance).
Food security and Vacation and holidays are areas where
Because of the state ownership of assets, reasonable control
satisfaction factors together are viewed as a reliable measure
survey, and it is also an effective communication tool be
employees.
We must understand employees' most-pressing needs and obtain their real opinions to
make appropriate improvements. By strengthening internal communication and creating
effective feedback channels, suggestions and demands of the employees are effectively
communicated and addressed. For example, voluntary job mobility works as a mechanism
to boost job satisfaction (Kalleberg and Mastekaasa 2001), whereas subdued job changes
seem to affect job satisfaction in a negative way. The good and poor practices of enterprise
management were identified based on employees' feedback. This methodology, based on
successful applications, has been proven to be a valuable tool for assessing employee
satisfaction levels and performance improvement. Finally, a positive rule of "game" plays
a vital role in creating a harmonious internal relationship (Zhang and Zheng 2009),
enhancing the internal management mechanisms and guiding behaviour. In addition, it is
also regarded as a quantitative tool for assessing enterprise management and measuring the
changing trends for Chinese Resource-based SOEs.
5 Conclusion and Future Research
Using in-depth investigation, we constructed an accurate employee satisfaction factor

model for measuring employee satisfaction in accordance with date of the sample of 2
Chinese Resource-based SOEs. At the start of the study, an initial employee satisfactio
scale was constructed but it was revised to improve the usefulness and accuracy of th
scale, resulting in 29 critical indicators being retained. By exploratory factor analysis (see
Table 4), the employee satisfaction factor model is constructed with four underlying
factors, namely, culture, job, management and welfare, which are found to be significant
â Springer
Table S The satisfaction mean and satisfaction factor scores
Unit Sample Satisfaction Culture Job Management Welfare

mean satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction
1 149 4.19 3.98 4.44 4.20 4.22

2 118 4.44 4.32 4.66 4.51 4.27
3 128 4.33 4.23 4.44 4.39 4.30
4 103 4.54 4.43 4.68 4.59 4.46
5 125 4.48 4.31 4.64 4.58 4.45
6 125 4.42 4.25 4.58 4.47 4.43
7 130 4.44 4.37 4.61 4.48 4.30
8 118 4.54 4.37 4.75 4.54 4.58
9 155 4.34 4.15 4.58 4.37 4.31
10 83 4.86 4.84 4.90 4.87 4.85
11 82 4.50 4.41 4.63 4.49 4.47
12 80 4.37 4.22 4.52 4.34 4.46
13 49 4.52 4.46 4.63 4.50 4.53

14 225 4.30 4.11 4.53 4.35 4.24
15 189 4.28 4.14 4.55 4.41 4.00

16 131 4.78 4.67 4.88 4.84 4.73
17 134 4.59 4.50 4.73 4.68 4.47
18 110 4.62 4.47 4.73 4.74 4.57
19 93 4.25 4.07 4.43 4.37 4.18
20 134 4.66 4.59 4.77 4.73 4.54
21 94 4.50 4.36 4.66 4.54 4.48

22 103 4.44 4.20 4.62 4.50 4.52
23 180 4.44 4.31 4.61 4.50 4.39

24 72 4.43 4.32 4.56 4.45 4.44
25 41 4.66 4.57 4.86 4.66 4.54

26 33 4.35 4.20 4.50 4.30 4.45
27 45 4.40 4.32 4.56 4.43 4.30
All 3,029 4.45 4.32 4.62 4.51 4.40
for measuring employee satisfaction levels in SOEs. This approach is viewed as a design of
an employee satisfaction scale with high reliability and validity. The factor structure is
identified and tested by the factor analysis approaches.
This study also provides a professional approach for identifying the good and poor
practices of enterprise management, which compares satisfaction scores on each factor and
provides important internal benchmarks for each unit. It does not only provide opportu
nities for enhancing enterprise management, but also for improving employee satisfaction
and realizing the goal of implementing a "people-oriented" management philosophy.
Therefore, this approach helps the enterprise to achieve positive outcomes by providing
better policy-making and problem-solving skills for management teams. In summary,
employee satisfaction could help resolve existing problems and create a harmonious labour
relationship, in addition to further encouraging employees to promote sustainable devel
opment. In many new fields (Royuela and Surinach 2013; Yuan and Golpelwar 2013), from
Springer
organizational culture to psychological assessment many p

including promoting innovation by employee feedback.
In future research, more enterprise case studies are ne
Resource-based SOEs, but also other SOEs. Comparative stu
could also be further expanded, such as age, education, and t
work pressure that employees feel is emerging as a new res
negatively impacts individuals' physical and mental health
2001; Royuela and Surinach 2013). Exploring the relation
faction, work-related stress and enterprise performance are
area in the next stage.
References
Anton, C. (2009). The impact of role stress on workers' behavior through job satisfaction and organizational
commitment. International Journal of Psychology, 44(3), 187-194.
Avey, J. B., Reichard, R. J., Luthans, F., & Mhatre, K. H. (2011). Meta-analysis of the impact of positive
psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance. Human Resource Devel
opment Quarterly, 22(2), 127-152.
Aydin, B., & Ceylan, A. (2008). A research analysis on employee satisfaction in terms of organizational
culture and spiritual leadership. International Journal of Business and Management, 4(3), pi59.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
Balkin, D. B., & Griffeth, R. W. (1993). The determinants of employee benefits satisfaction. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 7(3), 323-339.
Baiser, D. B„ & Harris, M. M. (2008). Factors affecting employee satisfaction with disability accommo
dation: A field study. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 20, 13-28.
Bartlett, K. R. (2001). The relationship between training and organizational commitment: A study in the
health care field. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(4), 335-352.
Bender, K. A., & Heywood, J. S. (2006). Job satisfaction of the highly educated: The role of gender,
academic tenure, and earnings. Scottish Journal of Political Economics, 53(2), 253-279.
Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35(5),
307-311.
Browne, M. W. (2001). An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 36(1), 111-150.
Buchanan, J. M. (1986). Liberty, market and state: political economy in the 1980s. New York: New York
University Press.
Bussing, A., Bissels, T., Fuchs, V., & Perrari, K. M. (1999). A dynamic model of work satisfaction:
Qualitative approaches. Human Relation, 52(8), 999-1028.
Cooke, F. L. (2009). A decade of transformation of HRM in China: A review of literature and suggestions
for future studies. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 47(1), 6-40.
Costello, A. B„ & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommen
dations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 10(1),
1-9.
Cross, D. (1973). The worker opinion survey: A measure of shop-floor satisfaction. Occupational Psy
chology, 47, 193-208.
Cunningham, L. X., & Rowley, C. (2008). The development of Chinese small and medium enterprises and
human resource management: A review. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 46(3), 353-379.
Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An
experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. International Journal of Market Research,
50(1), 61-77.
Dockery, A. M. (2010). Culture and wellbeing: The case of indigenous australians. Social Indicators
Research, 99, 315-332.
Easton, G. S., & Jarrell, S. L. (1998). The effects of total quality management on corporate performance: An
empirical investigation. The Journal of Business, 71(2), 253-307.
Springer
Egan, T. M., Yang, B., &

satisfaction on motivation
Quarterly, 15(3), 279-30
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegene
exploratory factor analy
Forbringer, L. R. (2002). O
Solutions Inc.
Gohel, K. (2012). Psychological capital as a determinant of employee satisfaction. International Referred

Research Journal, 3(36), 34-37.
Hair, J. F, Jr, Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L„ & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Pintrich, P. R„ Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Revision of
achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3),
638-645.
Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structu
equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
Heneman, H. G., & Schwab, D. P. (1972). Evaluation of research on expectancy theory predictions
employee performance. Psychological Bulletin, 78(1), 1-9.
Hoppock, R. (1935). Job satisfaction. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Hui, C„ Lee, C„ & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Employment relationships in China: Do workers relate to th
organization or to people? Organization Science, 15(2), 232-240.
Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2002). Understanding the dynamic relationships among personality, mood, and job
satisfaction: A field experience sampling study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro
cesses, 89(2), 1119-1139.
Ironson, G. H„ Smith, P. C., Brannick, M. T., Gibson, W. M., & Paul, K. B. (1989). Construction of a job
general scale: A comparison of global, composite, and specific measures. Journal of Applied Psy
chology, 74(2), 193-200.
Kalleberg, A. L„ & Mastekaasa, A. (2001). Satisfied movers, committed stayers. Work and Occupations,
183-209.
Kim, S., Wright, P. M., & Su, Z. X. (2010). Human resource management and firm performance in China: A
critical review. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 48(1), 58-85.
Koustelios, A. D„ & Bagiatis, K. (1997). The Employee Satisfaction Inventory (ESI): Development of a
scale to measure satisfaction of Greek employees. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57(3),
469-476.
Kumar, K., & Bakhshi, A. (2010). The five-factor model of personality and organizational commitment
there any relationship? Humanity & Social Sciences Journal, 5(1), 25-34.
Kumara, U. A., & Koichi, F. (1989). Employee satisfaction and job climate: An empirical study of Japan
manufacturing employees. Journal of Business and Psychology, 3(3), 315-329.
Li, J. Y., & Raine, J. W. (2014). The time trend of life satisfaction in China. Social Indicators Researc
116, 409^127.
Lim, D. H., & Morris, M. L. (2006). Influence of trainee characteristics, instructional satisfaction, and
organizational climate on perceived learning and training transfer. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 17(1), 85-115.
Liu, S. (2003). Cultures within culture: Unity and diversity of two generations of employees in State-owned
enterprises. Human Relations, 56(4), 387-417.
Locke, E. A. (2003). Good definitions: The epistemological foundation of scientific progress. Greenberg, J.
(Ed.), In Organizational Behaviour: The State of the Science (pp. 415^144). New Jersey: Lawrence,
Erlbaum & Associates.
Matzler, K., & Renzl, B. (2007). Assessing asymmetric effects in the formation of employee satisfaction.
Tourism Management, 28(4), 1093-1103.
Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & Adkins, C. L. (1991). Value congruence and satisfaction with a leader: An
examination of the role of interaction. Human Relations, 44(5), 481—495.
Münz, D. C., Kohler, J. M., & Greenberg, C. I. (2001). Effectiveness of a comprehensive worksite stress
management program: Combining organizational and individual interventions. International Journal
of Stress Management, 8( 1 ), 49-62.
Pritchard, R. D. (1969). Equity theory: A review and critique. Organizational Behavior and Human Per
formance, 4(2), 176-211.
Royuela, V., & Surinach. J. (2013). Quality of work and aggregate productivity. Social Indicators Research,
7/3,37-66.
Ô Springer
Saane, N. V., Sluiter, J. K., Verbeek, H. A. M., & Frings-Dresen, M. H

of instruments measuring job satisfaction—systematic review
191-200.
Sharma, S. (1996). Applied multivariate techniques. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Smith, P., Kendall, L„ & Hulin, C. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Song, J. H., Kolb, J. A., Lee, U. H., & Kim, H. K. (2012). Role of transformational leadership in effective
organizational knowledge creation practices: Mediating effects of employees' work engagement.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(1), 65-101.
Stephen, W., & Charles, T. ( 1976). The experience of crowding: A two-factor theory. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 34( 1), 30-40.
Tso, G. K. F., Yau, K. K. W„ & Yang, C. Y. (2011). Sustainable Development Index in Hong Kong:
Approach, method and findings. Social Indicators Research, 70/(1), 91-108.
Warner, M. (1997). Management-labour relations in the new Chinese economy. Human Resource Man
agement Journal, 7(4), 30-43.
Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire. In Industrial Relations Center (Ed.), Minnesota studies in vocational rehabilitation.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
Wernerfeit, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171-180.
Xenikou, A., & Furnham, A. (1996). A correlational and factor analytic study of four questionnaire mea
sures of organizational culture. Human Relations, 49(3), 349-371.
Yang, C. Y., Wang, L. Q„ & Chen, Y. (2009). Resource-based core competitiveness of enterprises. Beijing:
Geological Publishing House.
Yee, R. W. Y., Yeung, A. C. L., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2008). The impact of employee satisfaction on quality
and profitability in high-contact service industries. Journal of Operations Management, 26(5),
651-668.
Yuan, H., & Golpelwar, M. (2013). Testing subjective well-being from the perspective of social quality:
Quantile regression evidence from Shanghai, China. Social Indicators Research, 113, 257-276.
Yurchisin, J., Park, J., & Brien, M. O. (2010). Effects of ideal image congruence and organizational
commitment on employee intention to leave. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 17(5),
406-414.
Zalewska, A. M. (1999). Job satisfaction and importance of work aspects related to predominant values an
reactivity. International Journal Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 5(4), 485-511.
Zhang, J., & Zheng, W. (2009). How does satisfaction translate into performance? An examination o
commitment and cultural values. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20(3), 331-351.
■£) Springe

Identifying Factors of Employee Satisfaction A Case Study of Chinese Resource-BasedState-Owned Enterprises

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Identifying Factors of Employee Satisfaction A Case Study of Chinese Resource-BasedState-Owned Enterprises

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Identifying Factors of Employee Satisfaction: A Case Study of Chinese Resource-Based

Identifying Factors of Employee Satisfaction: A Case

Geoffrey Kwok Fai Tso • Fangtao Liu • Jin Li

Accepted: 25 August 2014/Published online: 3 September 2014

Keywords Chinese Resource-based State-owned Enterprises • Employee satisfaction

Satisfaction has attracted consistent wide-spread attention from researchers in China. In

G. K. F. Tso • F. Liu (0) ■ J. Li

Based on improvements in some classical scales, many Chinese employee satisfaction

Chinese Resource-based State-owned Enterprises are referred to as Chinese Resource-based SOEs.

of monopolistic advantages and do not have to face compe

1.2 Structure of the Paper

Section 2 outlines the definition of employee satisfaction wi

With the development of epistemology, the definition of s

2.1 Definition of Employee Satisfaction

2.2 Measurement of Employee Satisfaction

Methods of measuring and assessing employee satisfaction are attracting increasing

In the past, satisfaction scale had a certain universality

When designing a satisfaction questionnaire, it is necessary to understand the needs and

Gohel 2012 Employee Satisfaction; Self-Esteem; Locus of controlEmployee satisfaction in

3.1 The Variables

3.2 The Dataset

satisfaction score reached 4.46 out of 5, where the overal

= (E-=,^)/30; and p> is the average satisfaction score

3.3 Exploratory Factor Analysis

Table 2 Descriptive statistics: employee satisfaction samples

Percentage Frequency Satisfaction

Male 62.9 1,904 4.46

Female 37.1 1,125 4.47

High school diploma 25.3 766 4.44

Table 3 I tests of between-subjects effects

Source Type III sum of squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Model 60,213.85a 18 3,345.21 13,769.96 0.00

Job position 10.15 4 2.54 10.45 0.00

Education 2.24 4 0.56 2.30 0.05

Age 0.78 4 0.20 0.81 0.52

Work period 0.13 4 0.03 0.13 0.97

Total 60,945.33 3,029

Dependent variable: satisfaction mean

4 Results and Discussion

The average of 29 employee satisfaction indicators.

r*~. FA Actual Data

Fig. 1 Parallel analysis scree plots

Table 4 Employee satisfac

Rotated component matrix

Development 4.24 0.77 0.57

Further education 4.41 0.77 0.61

Communication 4.34 0.72 0.64

Colleagues care 4.42 0.72 0.59

Individual suggestion 4.31 0.72 0.68

Superior management 4.39 0.69 0.59

Professional training 4.37 0.53 0.46

Working goals 4.71 0.75 0.57

Adaptability 4.68 0.72 0.49

Working requirements 4.76 0.68 0.51

Job responsibilities 4.62 0.58 0.45

Mission 4.68 0.53 0.48

Working plan 4.56 0.50 0.42

Skill applications 4.37 0.47 0.51

Information sharing 4.60 0.38 0.40

Quality control 4.62 0.74 0.48

Safety security 4.69 0.69 0.44

Equipment maintenance 4.45 0.58 0.43

Energy-saving measures 4.45 0.50 0.53

Cost control 4.35 0.46 0.54