Comparison of Job Satisfaction among managerial and non-managerial employees – A mathematical

approach
Abstract - This study focuses on the perceived difference in feeling of job satisfaction between managerial and non-managerial
employees in an automobile reed valve manufacturing unit based in Tamilnadu state of India. Even though previous researches have
established the possible difference in the perception of job satisfaction between managerial and non-managerial employees, the specific
dimensions of job satisfaction that are likely to influence the difference is the perception of satisfaction in a manufacturing unit where
the managers perceive that every employee is treated equal has not been addressed. The hypothesis proposed for the study is that there
is no difference in job satisfaction between Managerial employees and Non-managerial employees. To test the hypothesis, data were
collected from all the employees in the unit. Chi square test on cross tabulation is used to identify if there is a significant difference in
the opinion expressed by the different categories of employees. Further, to identify the difference in the job satisfaction among the
different groups of employees Analysis of Co Variance (ANCOVA) is used along with pair wise comparison. To find where the
differences lie between the individual groups, Scheffe’s post hoc test was carried out. Results from the analyses show that there is a
difference in the job satisfaction between managerial and non-managerial employees. The difference in job satisfaction occurs in the
area of feeling of achievement, peer relations and work schedule while factors job attachment, organisational support, physical work
environment, rewards and recognition do not contribute to the difference.
I. INTRODUCTION
In any organization, human capital is a critical asset and also needs an enormous investment that affects the organization
as a whole. Organizations that comprehend this significant investment understand the value of satisfied employees and pursue
strategies to maximize the job satisfaction of its employees [1]. Many studies have reiterated the fact that dissatisfaction with
one’s profession as the single most important reason why individuals leave their profession whether skilled or non-skilled [2]; [3];
[4]. Similarly, many researches that have studied the relationship between job satisfaction and a multitude of other work related
constructs such as, job performance, work commitment, absenteeism, turnover intension etc., [5],[6],[7]. Thus it is important for
organizations to identify and understand all the factors that maintain or improve job satisfaction.
The importance of job satisfaction and its positive consequence on job performance is emphasized in many studies , [8];
[9]; [10]. Similarly, the impact of job satisfaction on a firm’s performance [11], and employees and customer retention [12] is also
discussed in the literature.
Highly engaged employees have better job satisfaction, demonstrate positive attitudes, intentions and behaviors
compared to disengaged employees (13, 14). Many research findings come to a consistent conclusion that employees’ engaged
employees have better job satisfaction (13,15; 16). Schulz & Schultz, 2010 [17] found that engaged employees are not only
satisfied but are also happy as a person. Overall, job satisfaction is found to be one of the major precursors of an organisation’s
achievement including job performance and health (18).
Plethora of literature is available on the various factors affecting job satisfaction. But Herzberg, 1968 [19] emphasises
that none reached the purpose of satisfying employees if they have not given proper attention to the factors impacting job
attitudes. Thus it can be seen that job satisfaction is indeed attained through adequate motivation but only by taking into
consideration a multitude of variables (20).
Of those factors that influence job satisfaction, occupational position or status level of an individual in a job could
exceedingly influence one’s satisfaction in their job or organisation (17). Schultz & Schultz, 2010[17] further found that job
satisfaction could differ according to job category such that individuals in technical, professional and managerial jobs reported
high level of job satisfaction, while employees in service industries, wholesale and retail business had the lowest level of
satisfaction. Hackman and Lawler, 1971 [21] found that there was greater opportunity for satisfying an individual’s motivator
needs who had higher job status that presented greater autonomy, independence on job, challenge, responsibility, variety, task
identity.
Acknowledging the fact that there could be differences in the job satisfaction between the different levels of employees
in the organisation and specifically the managerial and non-managerial cadres, it was proposed that measuring the job satisfaction
among the different levels of employees would bring this to light and appropriate strategic measures could be taken if necessary.
Prior research finding also suggest that there could be differences in the satisfaction level among the different levels of employees.
II. REVIEW
Locke, 1976 [22] described job satisfaction as a pleasurable emotional state resulting from mutually compatible values of
the employee and the job and the perception of one’s job as fulfilling. Job satisfaction is an attitudinal factor that mirrors how
employees feel about their jobs and the various aspects related to their jobs (18).
Job satisfaction increases with one’s occupational level. The higher the status level of the job, the higher the job
satisfaction. Executives and managers express better job satisfaction than supervisors who in turn are more satisfied than their
subordinates (17). Thus job satisfaction could vary according to the organisational hierarchical level. Donald Super, 1939 [23] has
done a study exclusively on occupational level and job satisfaction and has found that managerial employees have significantly
higher job satisfaction than non-managerial employees.
Robert Hoppock, 1935 [24] made a community-wide survey in the town of New Hope, Pennsylvania with 351 adult
employees and found that job satisfaction was highest among the professional, managerial employees and they were relatively
more satisfied than the labourers. Hoppock concluded that job satisfaction is perceived to be depending on the occupational level
of individuals (25). Similarly, Stalcup and Pearson, 2001 [26] found that supervisors display higher job satisfaction and are more
committed to their jobs than most line-level employees. This may be because supervisory jobs tend to be more challenging than
line-level jobs (27), managerial employees may consider their jobs as long-term careers, through which they can realize self-
accomplishment unlike line-level employees. Consequently, this helps prepare employees with career competencies, which reduce
career concerns and strengthens job satisfaction (28). In addition, manager and supervisors receive considerably higher salaries,
rewards, (29; 30) work-related opportunities (31) and benefits and these factors directly contribute to greater satisfaction than that
of line-level employees (32] [33].
Many studies have found significant relationships between organisational position of employees and their overall
commitment to organisation where a higher position was concomitant with stronger identification and involvement with an
organization (34] [35] [36] [37]. Other studies also point out to the same phenomenon (38] [39] [40]. Thus, the hypothesis
proposed is that:
Ho: There is no difference in job satisfaction between Managerial employees and Non-managerial employees.
Numerous studies have identified the factors influencing job satisfaction. For example, Locke, 1976 [22] has identified
salary and compensation, promotion opportunities, work environment, relationship with co-workers, personal values and
supervisor relationship as factors influencing one’s job satisfaction. Sirin (2009) [41], Ciner & Karcioglu (2012) [42] and Zaim
et.al (2012) [43] in separate studies have posited that job satisfaction is the combination of factors such as the relation with
supervisors and co-workers, sense of success in job, job security, involvement in decision making, role clarity, pleasant working
environment, appropriate salary, promotion opportunities, etc. Apart from the above there are many studies and literature on job
satisfaction that have significantly contributed to the understanding of factors influencing job satisfaction [44], [45], [46]. Further,
supervisor providing mentoring to subordinates affects the protégés skill development and intentions to remain with the job (47],
[48], [49[, [50], [51].
III. METHODOLOGY
To investigate the null hypotheses, data were collected from the employees in a reed valve manufacturing unit in
Madurai, a city in the state of Tamilnadu, India. After a preliminary informal interview with the top management in the
organisation, it was observed that the managers as such do not discriminate between the employees in the different cadre.
However a cursory talk across the different levels of non- managerial employees revealed that there is a gap in the perception of
job satisfaction between the managerial and non-managerial employees. Thus it was attempted to ascertain if the difference in the
opinion of job satisfaction is really significant and to learn where exactly the gap is in the factors that affect employees’ job
satisfaction. In order to investigate the above dilemma, a census survey was done among the 193 full time managerial and non-
managerial employees. The employees in managerial position and the management trainees were considered together as
employees in Managerial position and other employees in the non-managerial cadre and support staff were considered together to
be in the Non-managerial position. The independent variable of interest in this study is the position classification of the employees
and the dependent variables were the employee’s opinion on their job satisfaction. Data was collected through a structured
questionnaire administered to all the employees. A descriptive research design was used to evaluate the probable differences in the
job satisfaction between the managerial and non-managerial employees of an organisation. To identify if there is a significant

difference in the opinion expressed by the different categories of employees a chi square test ( on cross tabulation is used.
The chi square statistic is calculated using the expression:
2
2 ( O i−Ei )
χ=
Ei
Where,
Oi is the observed number (response)
Ei is the expected number (response)
Further, to identify the difference in the job satisfaction among the different groups of employees Analysis of Co
Variance (ANCOVA) at the .05 level of probability on the hypothesis is used along with pair wise comparison. ANCOVA is used
here to find if the means of a dependent variable (Job satisfaction) are equal across levels of a categorical independent variable
(Employee cadre).
ANCOVA model assumes a linear relationship between the dependent variable (outcome) (DV) and independent variable
(predictor) (IV) and is expressed as:
y ij =μ+ τ i+ β ( x ij −x ) +e ij
Where,
y ij is the dependent variable (jth observation under the ith categorical group)
x ij is the jth observation of the predictor under the ith group
μ is the grand mean of observed data
τi is the effect of the ith level of the predictor (IV)
β is the slope of the regression line
x is the global mean for x (IV)
e ij is the related unobserved error term for the jth observation in the ith group
To find where the differences lie between the individual groups (four groups), Scheffe’s post hoc test was carried out.
Scheffe test is usually used with unequal sample sizes.
Scheffe’s post hoc procedure is expressed as:

' ( x i + x j )2
F=
Sw
(
2 1
+
ni n j
1
)
Where,
xi is the mean of group i
xj is the mean of group j
ni is the number of respondents in group i
nj is the number of respondents in group j
2
Sw is the within means squares
IV. INSTRUMENT
 Present measurement tool includes seven constructs, each of which was measured with multiple items. Most of the items
included in the questionnaire were adapted from the extant literature in order to preserve the questionnaire’s content validity ( 52).
The popular Job Satisfaction Survey as described by Spector (1985, 1997) [53], [54], is used for measuring job satisfaction of the
employees. The instrument was initially designed with 27 items to measure the facets of job satisfaction. A factor analysis was
done to eliminate unrelated items and to ensure construct validity of the instrument (55). After factor analysis, 22 items were
retained under seven factors such as Feeling of Achievement, Job Attachment, Organisational Support, Physical work
environment, Peer relations, Work Schedule and Rewards and Recognition. A 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “Strongly
agree” to “strongly disagree” was used. The overall opinion of the employees on their feeling of satisfaction in their job without
considering the individual components of job satisfaction was also recorded. The reliability coefficient, Conbach’s alpha for the
scale was .886 which indicates a good reliability for the tool (56).
V. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
In the organisation taken up for this research, out of the 193 employees on roll, there are 50 employees in managerial
positions and 143 employees in non-managerial positions. The overall job satisfaction of the employees in the various positions
was first examined and the results are tabulated in Table 1. The mean scores ( x ) on the overall job satisfaction is 4 and above (in a
5 point scale where 1 represents less satisfaction and 5 represents maximum satisfaction) indicating that all the employees,
irrespective of their position in the organization are satisfied with their job. But within this group the managerial employees are
more satisfied than any other employees and the management trainees who are also considered to be in the managerial cadre have
the least satisfaction. Standard Deviation (σ) is a measure of how close the responses from the respondents are centered around the
mean score. Conventionally, the lower the σ the better. In this analysis, the σ values may be considered to be good.
Table1: Descriptive Statistics for Overall Job Satisfaction
Designation x σ N
Management Trainee 4.00 .795 20
Managerial employees 4.57 .568 30
Non Managerial employees 4.11 .743 111
Support Staff 4.19 .644 32
Total 4.18 .724 193
To determine if there is any significant difference in job satisfaction between the major groups of employees, a chi square

(test for cross tabulation was done. The cross tabulation presented in Table 2 shows the overall opinion on the job satisfaction
(JS) of various categories of employees. As it was evident in table 1, no category of employee has given an adverse opinion on
their JS and all the opinion is above neutral to very high. While observing the responses in table 2 it can be seen that 60.0% of
Managerial employees have very high JS while around 30% of employees in each of the other categories have very high JS.
Similarly 56.2% of Support Staff have high JS others. Continuously, 30.0% of Management trainees 22.5% of Non-managerial
employees, 12.5% of Support Staff and 3.3% of Managerial employees have a neutral opinion on their job satisfaction.
Table 2: Cross tabulation between Overall Job Satisfaction and Designation
Designation Non
Management Managerial Support
Managerial Total
Trainee employees Staff
Overall Job Satisfaction employees
Neutral 6 1 25 4 36
High 8 11 49 18 86
Very High 6 18 37 10 71
Total 20 30 111 32 193
Results in Table 1 show that there could be a difference in the JS between managerial and non-managerial employees as
posited in the null hypothesis. To test if there is actually a significant difference on the opinion on overall JS between the different

levels employees, chi square test ( 2) is applied. For 2 test, a null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the

levels employees on their opinion on overall JS is considered. The results of the 2 test and the associated statistics are presented
in Table 3.
 Table 3: Chi-Square Tests for Overall Job Satisfaction and Designation
Statistic Value Degrees of Freedom Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 13.465a 6 .036
Likelihood Ratio 14.539 6 .024
N of Valid Cases 193
a. 0 cells have expected count less than 5
Observing the results from the Chi square test exhibited in Table 3, the asymptotic significance is less than 0.05 (p <
0.05) thus we reject the null hypothesis, accept the alternative and conclude that in fact there is a significant difference in the JS
among the different categories of employees. Previous research (37) also found that job position or designation has an influence
on the JS of the employees. The Likelihood Ratio test is also interpreted in the same way as the Chi-Square test.

The influence of the antecedent, namely designation on the overall JS of the employees is further estimated using
ANCOVA and the results are tabulated in Table 4. Following the table on ANCOVA, the Levene's test of equality of error
variances is carried out to check if the variances are equal across the different groups of employees.
Table 4: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Overall
Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. (p) Partial η2
Corrected Model 5.708a 3 1.903 3.788 .011 .057
Intercept 2300.598 1 2300.598 4579.661 .000 .960
Designation 5.708 3 1.903 3.788 .011 .057
Error 94.944 189 .502
Total 3475.000 193
Corrected Total 100.653 192
a. R Squared = .057 (Adjusted R Squared = .042)
The outcome of ANCOVA shows that, for designation of the employees, we have a statistically significant result with F
= 3.788 at p < 0.05. The result shows that designation of employees has a contingent effect on their feeling of JS. In order to find
out if the results of ANCOVA are valid, the results from Levene’s test have to be verified. Levene’s test is used to verify the
assumption that in ANCOVA the variances are equal across groups of respondents. The resulting p-value of Levene's test (Table
5) is greater than the critical value (p = 0.01). Thus the test not statistically significant, and it can be seen that the underlying
assumption of homogeneity of variances for ANCOVA has been met as evidenced by F(3,189) = 0.556, p = 0.645, that is p
(0.645) > α (0.01). It can also be concluded that the results of ANCOVA can be interpreted and the post hoc analysis can be
carried out.
Table 5: Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances
Dependent Variable: Overall
F df1 df2 Sig.
.556 3 189 .645
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent
variable is equal across groups.
ANCOVA shows that designation of employees affects their JS, but we do not know which category of employees are
more satisfied than the other since we have four levels of designation (IV). To find where the difference lies we observe the pair
wise comparison, the results of which is presented in Table 6. As above the null hypothesis for this calculation is taken as no
significant difference among different employees groups in their perception of JS. It can be clearly seen from the table that there is
a significant difference in the perception of job satisfaction from the managerial employees to employees in the other cadre at p <
0.05 (α). This is highlighted in table 6. This confirms the fact that is already found in literature (37)
Table 6: Pairwise Comparisons (No adjustments) with Overall Job satisfaction and the different levels of employees
Dependent Variable: Overall sat
Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval b
(I) Designation (J) Designation Std. Error Sig.b
(I-J) Lower Bound Upper Bound
Management Trainee Management Trainee - - - - -
Managerial employees -.567* .205 .006 -.970 -.163
 Non Managerial employees -.108 .172 .531 -.448 .232
Support Staff -.188 .202 .355 -.586 .211
Management Trainee .567* .205 .006 .163 .970
Managerial employees - - - - -
Managerial employees
Non Managerial employees .459* .146 .002 .171 .746
Support Staff .379* .180 .037 .024 .734
Management Trainee .108 .172 .531 -.232 .448
Managerial employees -.459* .146 .002 -.746 -.171
Non Managerial employees
Non Managerial employees - - - - -
Support Staff -.079 .142 .577 -.360 .201
Management Trainee .188 .202 .355 -.211 .586
Managerial employees -.379* .180 .037 -.734 -.024
Support Staff
Non Managerial employees .079 .142 .577 -.201 .360
Support Staff - - - - -
Based on estimated marginal means
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference (equivalent to no adjustments).
A Post hoc test is run to confirm where exactly the differences occurred between groups. This is done only after the
ANCOVA model shows an overall statistically significant difference in group means. Post hoc test with Scheffe method assumes
that the group differences are not significant at α = .05 level. Scheffé’s Method is customarily used with unequal sample sizes and
when one wants to look at post-hoc comparisons in general in contrast to just pairwise comparisons.

Table 7: Multiple Comparisons with Scheffe method for post hoc test
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Overall sat
Mean 95% Confidence Interval
(I) Designation (J) Designation Std. Error Sig.
Difference (I-J) Lower Bound Upper Bound
Management Trainee - - - - -
Managerial employees -.57 .205 .057 -1.14 .01
Management Trainee
Non Managerial employees -.11 .172 .941 -.59 .38
Support Staff -.19 .202 .835 -.76 .38
Management Trainee .57 .205 .057 -.01 1.14
Managerial employees - - - - -
Managerial employees
Non Managerial .46* .146 .022 .05 .87
Support Staff .38 .180 .222 -.13 .89
Management Trainee .11 .172 .941 -.38 .59
Managerial employees -.46* .146 .022 -.87 -.05
Non Managerial employees
Non Managerial employees - - - - -
Support Staff -.08 .142 .958 -.48 .32
Management Trainee .19 .202 .835 -.38 .76
Managerial employees -.38 .180 .222 -.89 .13
Support Staff
Non Managerial employees .08 .142 .958 -.32 .48
Support Staff
Based on observed means. The error term is Mean Square(Error) = .502.
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
The results of Scheffe post hoc test is tabulated in Table 7. Here, when the employee groups are considered separately for
their difference in the opinion of JS, the results clearly indicate that there is a statistically significant difference in the job
satisfaction between the Managerial employees and non-managerial employees, while there is no statistically different job
satisfaction between the managerial employees and management trainees and support staff.
Parameter Estimates
Dependent Variable: Overall Sat
Parameter B Std. Error t Sig.
Intercept .541 .501 1.080 .281
Feeling of Achievement .088 .029 3.080 .002
Job Attachment -.030 .036 -.851 .396
Organisational Support .002 .028 .057 .955
Physical work environment .031 .038 .831 .407
Peer relations .096 .037 2.616 .010
 Rewards and Recognition -.056 .046 -1.217 .225
Work Schedule .158 .048 3.261 .001
To find out on what component of JS the difference in overall JS occurs between the managerial and non-managerial
employees, a parameter estimate (Table 8) is done. The null hypothesis in this estimate is that there is no significant impact on the
overall satisfaction of the employees from the individual antecedents of job satisfaction. The outcome of the estimate reveals that
at a significance level of p < 0.05, the factors feeling of achievement, peer relation and work schedule have a significant impact on
the JS of employees. This is where the non-managerial employees differ from the managerial employees. This shows that the
difference in the job satisfaction occurs in the area of Feeling of Achievement, Peer relations and Work Schedule at p < .05, while
other factors considered do not contribute to the difference in the perception of job satisfaction. Both the managerial and non-
managerial employees feel that the factors their job attachment, organisational support, Physical work environment, Rewards and
Recognition are equitable for all employees in the organisation.
VI. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION
This article attempted to understand the extent to which there are differences in the self-reported levels of job satisfaction
between managerial and non-managerial employees in an automobile component manufacturing unit in Tamilnadu. Previous
researches have already established the difference in job satisfaction between managerial and non-managerial employees in an
organisation (27], [57]. However, the important question of the specific dimensions of job satisfaction that are likely to influence
the difference is the perception of satisfaction in a manufacturing unit where the managers perceive that every employee is treated
equal has not been addressed. By analysing data from the employees of the manufacturing unit, this study finds evidence that non-
managerial employees report lower satisfaction in their feeling of achievement, peer relations and work schedule than the
managerial employees. Consequently non-managerial employees are found to have generally lower job satisfaction, with the
difference between the managerial employees being especially large for satisfaction with work schedule. This finding appears to
explain a very large proportion of the difference in well-being between the different cadres of employees. It was observed during
the study in the organisation that most of the shift workers were not happy with the shift timings although they were contented
with the work hours per shift. The present shift system has three shifts each with eight hours starting from 10.00 a.m. This makes
the second shift to be finished at 2.00 a.m. and the third shift to start at the same time. The workers feel that if the first shift starts
at 8.00 a.m. then it would be convenient for the second and third shift workers. Another important finding is that after controlling
other aspects of job satisfaction, it did not change the initial conclusion drawn from Table 1 that non-managerial employees are
more likely to report lower job satisfaction.
The next variable that has a significant contingent effect on the difference in job satisfaction is the feeling of achievement
by the employees. Interestingly the non-managerial employees are happy with the rewards and recognition for their wok but don’t
have a feeling that they have achieved something on their job. Presently most of the job these employees perform are repetitive in
nature and does not involve much of brain work and thus the employees may not understand the significance of the job they are
performing. This means that these employees need to understand the significance of their contribution to the profitability and
growth of the organisation so that they have the feeling of achievement. Finally the factor peer relations create a difference in the
job satisfaction between the different cadres of the employees. Non-managerial employees were found to have lesser cohesion
among them. Interdependency of different operations creates friction among them as performance of operation in predecessor
division impacts the performance of the successive divisions. This leads to strained peer relations which in turn affects their
satisfaction on their job.
There is plenty of evidence in literature that lack of job satisfaction has negative effects on organisation and employees
alike and depreciates the physical and mental health of employees [58], [59]. Lack of job satisfaction leads to lesser organisational
commitment, higher turnover intention and other negative behaviour by the employees in the organisation [60]. These adverse
developments in an organisation can be prevented by taking into account the importance of job satisfaction and well-being of
individual employees.
REFERENCES