factors influencing employee job satisfaction and its impact on [PDF]

FACTORS INFLUENCING EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ITS IMPACT ON EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE: A CASE OF UNILEVER KENYA

BY SSEGAWA GODFREY

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

SPRING 2014 i

FACTORS INFLUENCING EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION AND ITS IMPACT ON EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE: A CASE OF UNILEVER KENYA

BY SSEGAWA GODFREY

A Research Project Submitted to Chandaria School of Business in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Masters in Business Administration (MBA)

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

SPRING 2014 ii

STUDENT’S DECLARATION

I, the undersigned, declare that this is my original work and has not been submitted to any other College, Institution or University other than the United States International University-Africa for Academic Credit.

Signed:

Date:

Ssegawa Godfrey, ID: 636764

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

Signed:

Date:

Stephen M. Nyambegera, PhD

Signed:

Date:

Dean, Chandaria School of Business

i

COPYRIGHT

©2014 Ssegawa Godfrey All rights reserved No part of this MBA Research Project may be copied, reproduced, used to create derivative works, publicly distributed or displayed, or transmitted including but not limited to storage in a retrieval system, or transmission electronically, mechanically via photocopying, recording, or other means without the prior written permission of the author.

ii

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the study was to determine the factors that influence employee job satisfaction in Kenyan Organizations. The following research questions guided this study: What are the extrinsic factors that influence the level of employee job satisfaction in Unilever Kenya? What are the intrinsic factors that influence the level of job satisfaction in an organization? What impact does job satisfaction have on the level of employee performance?

A descriptive research design was adopted, with Unilever Kenya being the focus organization. The population of interest was the employees of Unilever Kenya across various functions and divisions since this was the company under study. The study population comprised a total of 796 employees from all the various organizational functions or divisions. Stratified random sampling technique wasused to draw a sample size of 92 respondents. The data collection instrument was a tailor-made structured questionnaire developed by the researcher, specifically for this study.

Data was analyzed using statistical methods that is, descriptive statistics; measures of central tendency such as mean, mode, and median, and measures of dispersion such as variance, standard deviation, range, percentiles, and quartiles, and inferential statistics (Ttest was used to determine the factors that influence job satisfaction and its impact on employee performance. Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) version 21 was used to facilitate the data analysis. The results were presented in tables and charts such as pie charts, and bar graphs.

The findings obtained show that extrinsic factors have a strong influence on employee job satisfaction. There was a 92.1% total cumulative agreement from respondents that their job satisfaction is influenced by extrinsic factors. The level of agreement in relation to the individual extrinsic factors was as follows (working environment 55.5%, remuneration structure75%, team cooperation 50.5%, leadership style 85.8%, nature of the job 78.9%, Co-workers 56.7%, Job security 76.6%, promotion opportunities 78.5%).

iii

The findings show that intrinsic factors have a strong impact on employee job satisfaction. There was a 92.1% total cumulative agreement from respondents that intrinsic factors influence their job satisfaction. The level of agreement for the individual intrinsic factors was as follows (employee autonomy 57.1%, Recognition 80%, work meaningfulness 80%, training and development 54.5%, responsibility 85.9%, participation level of employee 71.1%, contribution to vision and mission 85.5% employee attainment of performance feedback 62.2%). Findings on the impact of job satisfaction on employee performance show that job satisfaction has astrong impact on employee performance. There was a 91% total cumulative agreement from respondents that their performance is impacted by their job satisfaction. The results in relation to the individual impacts are as follows (Absenteeism 44.5%, Quality of work 86.7%, quantity of work 91.1%, safety practices 40%, timeliness 71.1%, employee creativity 81.1%, cost-effectiveness 52.2%, adherence to company 70% and employee meeting of company set objectives 92.2%). Conclusion was made that although all the extrinsic factors analysed had an influence on employee job satisfaction; leadership style, remuneration structure, nature of the job and job security had the strongest influence. Among all the intrinsic factors, it was concluded that the level of responsibility at work, Recognition, work meaningfulness and the extent to which employees believe their work has a significant contribution to the organisation‟s vision and mission had the strongest influence on job satisfaction. Among all the impacts of job satisfaction on employee performance that were under study, the ones which ranked highest were; impact on quantity of work, impact on quality, impact on creativity and impact of job satisfaction on ability of employee to meet company set objectives. The researcher recommends that the extrinsic factors where emphasis should be based areleadership style, remuneration structure, nature of the job and job security. The intrinsic factors where much emphasis is recommended includelevel of responsibility at work, Recognition, work meaningfulness and the extent to which employees believe their work has a significant contribution to the organisation‟s vision and mission.It was recommended that if these are parameters that the company values, then they should ensure that they keep their employee‟s job satisfaction high through the various factors that influence job satisfaction as were discussed in the study.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Completion of this research would not have been possible without the blessings of God Almighty. I would like to give Him thanks for the strength and perseverance that He enabled me to have throughout my Journey of education. Secondly, I would like to thank my supervisor, Prof. Stephen Nyambegera for the guidance and invaluable advice. Thirdly, I would like to acknowledge my parents Mr. Ssegawa David and Mrs. Bulya Irene for their selfless love and support to ensure that I get the best out of life and education. May God bless you abundantly. Lastly I would like to acknowledge the respondents in my Study from Unilever Kenya Ltd for availing time to fill my questionnaires and offering constant input towards my research.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STUDENT’S DECLARATION ......................................................................................... i COPYRIGHT .....................................................................................................................ii ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. vi LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER ONE ................................................................................................................ 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background of the Problem…………………………….…..…………………….1 1.2 Statement of the Problem………………….……………….………………..……5 1.3 Purpose of the study………………………………………….…………….……..6 1.4 Research Questions…………………………………...…………….…………….6 1.5 Significance of the Study………………………………………...……………….6 1.6 Scope of the Study……………………………………...……….………………..7 1.7 Definition of Terms……………………………………..………………………..7 1.8 Chapter Summary……………………………………..………………………….9 CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................. 10 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................... 10 2.1 Introduction………….……………..……………………….…………..……….10 2.2 Extrinsic Factors that Influence the Level of Employee Job Satisfaction in an Organization…..……………………………………………………………………..10 2.3 Intrinsic Factors that Influence the Level of Employee Job Satisfaction in an Organization…………………………………………………………………………15 vi

2.4 The Impact of the Job Satisfaction Level on Employee Performance………….19 2.5 Chapter Summary…………………………………………………...…………..24 CHAPTER THREE ......................................................................................................... 25 3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 25 3.1 Introduction………………...……………………………………………………25 3.2 Research Design……………...…………………..……………………………..25 3.3 Population and Sampling Design………………………………………….…….26 3.3.1 Population……………………………………………………………………..26 3.3.2 Sampling Design……………………………………...……………………….26 3.4 Data Collection Methods……………………………………...……….………..29 3.5 Research Procedures……………………………………...……………………..30 3.6 Data Analysis Methods………………………………………...………………..31 3.7 Chapter Summary………………………………...……………………………..31 CHAPTER FOUR ............................................................................................................ 32 4.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS ..................................................................................... 32 4.2 General Information…….……………………………………………………….32 4.3. Extrinsic factors that influence employee job satisfaction……………….…….36 4.4 Intrinsic Factors that Influence the Level of Job Satisfaction…………………..45 4.5.0 The Impact of Employee Job Satisfaction on Performance………………..….56 4.6 Chapter Summary…………………………...…………………………………..67 CHAPTER FIVE ............................................................................................................. 68 5.0 DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................... 68 5.1 Introduction………………….....………………………..………………………68 5.2 Summary……………….………………………....……………………………..68 vii

5.3 Discussions…..………………………………...………………………………..69 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 77 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 85

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Population Distribution ...................................................................................... 26 Table 3.2 Total Sample size ............................................................................................... 29 Table 4.1: Working Environment ...................................................................................... 36 Table 4.2: Monetary Pay and Remuneration Structure ...................................................... 37 Table 4.3: Team Cooperation ............................................................................................ 37 Table 4.4 Leadership Style ................................................................................................ 38 Table 4.5: Nature of the Job ............................................................................................... 39 Table 4.6: Impact by Co-workers ...................................................................................... 39 Table 4.7 Level of Job Security ......................................................................................... 40 Table 4.8: Promotion Opportunities .................................................................................. 41 Table 4.9 Summary Statistics of all the Individual Extrinsic Factors that Influence Employee Job Satisfaction.......................................................................................... 42 Table 4.10 Extrinsic Factors Summary Statistics .............................................................. 43 Table 4.11: Combination of all the Extrinsic Factors ........................................................ 44 Table 4.12 Extrinsic Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction (T-test) ................................... 45 Table 4.13: Employee Autonomy ...................................................................................... 46 Table 4.14: Employee Recognition.................................................................................... 46 Table 4.15: Job is Meaningful .......................................................................................... 47 Table 4.16: Training and Developed ................................................................................. 48 Table 4.17: Responsibility Employee Possesses ............................................................... 48 Table 4.18: Participation of Employee .............................................................................. 49 Table 4.19: Contribution to Mission and Vision ............................................................... 50 Table 4.20: Employee Feedback ........................................................................................ 50 Table 4.21: Involvement in the Decision Making ............................................................. 51 Table 4.22 Summary Statistics of all the Individual Intrinsic Factors that Influence Employee Job Satisfaction.......................................................................................... 52 Table 4.23: Summary of the Descriptive Statistics Consisting a Combination of all the Intrinsic Factors .......................................................................................................... 53 ix

Table 4.24: Combination of all the Intrinsic Factors ......................................................... 54 Table 4.25 Intrinsic Factors Influencing Employee Job Satisfaction (T-test) ................... 55 Table 4.26: Employee Absenteeism Levels ....................................................................... 56 Table 4.27: Quality of Work .............................................................................................. 57 Table 4.28: Quantity of Work ............................................................................................ 57 Table 4.29: Safety Practices ............................................................................................... 58 Table 4.30: Impact on Timeliness ...................................................................................... 59 Table 4.31: Impact on Employee Creativity ...................................................................... 59 Table 4.32: Impact on Cost Effectiveness ......................................................................... 60 Table 4.33: Impact on Policy Adherence ........................................................................... 61 Table 4.34: Attainment of the Company's Set Objectives ................................................. 62 Table 4.35: Summary Statistics of all the Individual Intrinsic Factors that Influence Employee Job Satisfaction.......................................................................................... 63 Table 4.36:Combination of All the Impacts of Job Satisfaction on Performance ............. 64 Table 4.37: Combination of all the Factors in which Job Satisfaction Impacts Employee Job Performance ......................................................................................................... 65 Table 4.38 Impacts of job satisfaction on employee performance (T-test) ....................... 66

x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1 Age of Respondent ........................................................................................... 33 Figure 4.2 Gender of Respondent ...................................................................................... 34 Figure 4.3 Years of Service ............................................................................................... 35 Figure 4.4 Education Level ................................................................................................ 35

xi

CHAPTER ONE 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Problem

In today‟s environment, where competition is very high amongst various businesses regardless of demographical boundaries, it becomes a challenge for the businesses to get and then maintain a distinguished position in the industry. For this purpose, organizations used to put emphasis mostly on sales maximization and cost minimization strategies but now the organizations have realized the value of their intellectual asset which is their employees. The quality of an organization‟s manpower always differentiates it from the other organizations. It is true to say that different employees in an organization yield different levels of performance under the various circumstances according to their satisfaction level, motivation level, behavior and many other reasons contribute in yielding various levels of performance by various individuals (Arif & Chohan, 2012).

The productivity and efficiency of human resource depend upon a number of dynamic factors which range from personal factors to organizational policies. Job satisfaction is one of the very most important factors which impact the productivity of human resources. Human resource is considered as one of the most important assets in any organization which serves as an engine in the organization for providing a sustainable source of energy and service delivery (Muhammad & Wajidi, 2013).

Shahu and Gole (2008) in their research analyze the effectsof job satisfaction on performance. They summed up their findings on a factor that work satisfaction should be considered by the organization as an important plan which needs to be extended in order to improve employees performance. In general, employee job satisfaction has been defined as “a function of the perceived relationship between what one wants from one‟s job and what one perceives it as offering” (Portoghese, Galletta, & Battistelli, 2011). Job satisfaction is an attitude that people have about their jobs and the organizations in which they perform these jobs (Al Zubi, 2010).

1

Job satisfaction has got three dimensions. Firstly, it is an emotional response to a job situation. The only way we can come to a conclusion on this is through observation of the employee e.g. the time they get to work how they work. Secondly, job satisfaction can be determined by how well outcomes meet the expectations. An example is the fact that if the salary is commensurate to work done and is equitable, the organization members are likely to develop job satisfaction. Thirdly, job satisfaction can be viewed as representing a combination of related attitudes (Gathungu & Wachira, 2013).

Job satisfaction at work can take place in two ways. One, people can motivate themselves by seeking, finding and carrying out (or being given) work that satisfies needs (intrinsic motivation) and two people can be motivated by management through such methods as pay, promotion, praise (extrinsic motivation). Intrinsic job satisfaction factors can be said to be self-generated factors that influence employees to be satisfied with their job such as responsibility, freedom to act, scope to use and develop skills and abilities, interesting and challenging work and opportunities for advancement. Extrinsic job satisfaction factors refer to what is done to or for people to satisfy them at the work place (Gathungu & Wachira, 2013).

Job satisfaction is one of the most frequently studied variables in organizational behavior (Kalpana, 2013). Research on job satisfaction is performed through a number of methods, including interviews, observation, and questionnaires. The most significant research study that shows the importance of job satisfaction is the Hawthorne studies. The purpose of the study was precisely to do a research on the relationship between lighting and efficiency. The experiment was conducted in 1924 by researches from Western Electric and Harvard University at the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric Company. Various sets of lights, at various intensities, were set up in rooms where electrical equipment was being produced. The amount of illumination, (bright, dim, or a combination) provided to the workers, seemed to have no effect on production as had been expected (Muchinsky, 2006). The results of the Hawthorne study were so unexpected that supplementary investigation revealed many previously unknown aspects of human behavior in the workplace. Researchers got to learn that factors other than lighting affect worker's productivity. The workers responded positively to the attention they were receiving from the researchers 2

and as a result, productivity rose. Job performance continued to improve because of the uniqueness of the situation; when the novelty wore off, production returned to its earlier level. Research has offered alot of support that a happy and satisfied employee is productive; in fact, research suggests that causality may flow in the opposite direction from productivity to satisfaction (Bassett, 1994).

Research on the topic of job satisfaction supports that job satisfaction is an important factor not only for employees in particular but also for the organizations. For example, in a research survey by Grant, Fried, and Juillerat (2010) at a large bank, managers found that bank tellers were very dissatisfied with their jobs, stating that they were "just glorified clerks". They also stated that they viewed their jobs as boring and that they felt micromanaged because they were unable to make decisions on their own, even small ones, without the approval of their managers. In this case, the managers of the bank decided to re-design the teller jobs to increase job satisfaction. New tasks were introduced in order to provide variety and the use of a broad range of skills. In addition to their previous check cashing, deposit and loan payment tasks, they were now trained to be able to handle commercial and traveler's checks and post payments on line. The tellers were also given more autonomy (independence) in their roles; they were given decision-making responsibilities. Finally, when time for feedback approached, the managers felt that by re-designing the role of the teller they were giving the tellers responsibility for their own customers. In this particular case, it was discovered that job satisfaction had greatly increased. A survey was taken six months later and it was found that not only were the tellers more satisfied with their employment, but they were also more committed to the organization. Finally, during employee/manager evaluations, it was noticed that there had been an increase in performance by the tellers and that the job satisfaction provided by the job redesign had effects lasting at least four years from when it was carried out (Grant et al, 2010). According to Kalpana (2013), Job satisfaction and motivation are considered as some of most essential components of work life, and one of the major factors that have influence on the individuals‟ performance at the work place. Job satisfaction affects the physical and mental capabilities of employees. An individual needs to maintain a healthy body & mind to be able to perform physical and mental activities in the best possible way in his 3

/her work place. In general, job satisfaction and motivation can contribute to the enhancement in the employee performance. Job satisfaction has been repeatedly and constantly prized in both humanistic and financial terms. It has been observed that the employees who do quality work are usually the ones who are satisfied with their job. Satisfied employees tend to have high retention rates; they are more dedicated to the organization and tend to yield higher job performances (Arif & Chohan, 2012). Unilever is the organization that this study was based on while in a bid to learn more about factors that influence employee job satisfaction in Kenya and its impact on performance. Unilever was founded in 1930 as a result of a merger between Lever Brothers (UK) and Uni-margarine (Netherlands) which existed in the 19th Century. Unilever (Uni+Lever) is today considered as one of the world‟s top Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) Company having a turnover of more than 4.3 billion Euros. Having its corporate offices in London and Rotterdam, Unilever operates in 100 countries. Unilever employs 250,000 people globally.The company spends 2.5% of its turnover

on

research

and

development

and

1.5%

on

Corporate

Social

Responsibility.Unilever directly employs 250,000 people around the world and indirectly millions more as contract manufactures, growers, suppliers, distributors and service providers (Unilever Annual Report, 2013). Unilever East and Southern Africa (ESA) is a Unilever Subsidiary that is operating in Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Mozambique, Malawi. ESA occupies a market consisting of 19 countries with a population of 150 million people in ESA. The company operates two businesses; these are the consumer business dealingsthat are with FMCG and the Tea plantations business in Kenya and Tanzania.The plantations business is the largest employer in Unilever consisting of a workforce of 25,000 (10% of Unilever total workforce).The Consumer business gives employment in over 1,500 people directly.In addition, the company has 120 distributors spread across the 7 countries reaching more than 100,000 retail outlets each week. Breaking it down to Unilever Kenya in particular, the company employs a total of 796 employees. It is this particular population of employees that this study on job satisfaction in the company was based(Unilever Annual Report, 2013).

4

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Job satisfaction of an employee is a topic that has received significant attention by managers and researchers alike (Gautam, Mandal & Dalal, 2006). It is a well-known fact that no organization could last without their employees. Employees are the main reason an organization could possibly exist for a long time. Similarly to Unilever Kenya, employees are the ones who play the major roles and make significant contributions to the organization. Well satisfied employees will influence the productivity of the organization and will lead to achieving the organization‟s vision and goals (Hussin, 2011).

Earlier studies on employee job satisfaction mainly focused on the factors that contribute to its attainment but not much analysis on its impact towards performance was made (Dinler, 2008). A number of studies on job satisfaction have been carried out over the years, however they are largely based on the western organizations and very few have been done in African companies let alone Kenya in particular. An example of such studies is one carried out by Grant, Fried, & Juillerat in 2010 on bankers in the UK. The lack of enough research on employee job satisfaction in Kenyan organisations brings about a great gap that needs to be filled with tremendous research considering the fact that employees in different environments and who are affiliated to different cultures cannot attain job satisfaction from the same factors.

There has been a great challenge on the part of managers in Unilever Kenya on determining how exactly they can attain maximum job satisfaction for their employees which they believe would go a long way to improve on the organizational overall performance. Many have tried to attain job satisfaction of their employees by trying to use methods that were successful in other areas around the world and have met with failure, but the reason is simply because this research was not directly relevant to their own employees. This therefore is the knowledge gap that is trying to be filled in this research.

5

1.3 Purpose of the study The purpose of the study was to determine the factors influencing employee job satisfaction and how it affects performance at Unilever Kenya.

1.4 Research Questions

The following research questions guided this study; 1.4.1 What are the extrinsic factors that influence the level of employee job satisfaction in Unilever Kenya? 1.4.2 What are the intrinsic factors that influence the level of job satisfaction in Unilever Kenya? 1.4.3 What impact does employee job satisfaction have on employee performance at Unilever Kenya?

1.5 Significance of the Study

1.5.1 Organizational Leaders in Kenya

The findings of this study will be significant to the managers especially in Unilever Kenya and will assist them understand employee behavior better. The findings will also assist the leaders in any other organization at large that face the dilemma of understanding how to satisfy their employees.

1.5.2 Scholars

The findings of this study will also be beneficial to scholars in a way that this will be a contribution to the body of knowledge in this broad and yet not fully exploited area of human resource management as well as social sciences. This will enhance understanding and development of relevant theories as well as extensive areas of interest.

6

1.5.3 Trade Unions

The findings of this study will also be of importance to the trade unions. This is in such a way that the study will help in restructuring the objectives of the unions and realize exactly what conditions are relevant to the employees and how they can work towards ensuring employees are satisfied at their work places.

1.6 Scope of the Study

The study was carried out in Kenya at the Unilever headquarters. Kenya is a country in the East of Africa where not a lot of research on employee job Satisfaction has been carried out. The population comprised a total of 796 employees. The sample of the study comprises a total of 92 respondents from various departments of the organization which include; Human Resources, Marketing, Finance, Production and procurement. The researcher took three weeks to collect data (March 10th – March 31st).The most significant limitation encountered by the researcher was convincing employees to fill the questionnaires; however this was overcome by proper explanation on the relevance of the questionnaires.

1.7 Definition of Terms

1.7.1 Job Satisfaction

Locke (1976) gives a comprehensive definition of job satisfaction as pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one‟s job or job experience. Job satisfaction is a result of employee's perception of how well their job provides those things that are viewed as important.Job satisfaction refers to the comprehensive phenomenon which encompasses individual‟s feelings and emotions towards his or her job (Robbins¸ 2008). In addition, it also determines the extent to which employeesin an organization like or dislike their jobs.

7

1.7.2 Organizational Performance

Ya-Huiet al (2010) believed organizational performance is the results completed within a specified period by the relevant business, departments within an organization, in order to achieve phased or overall goals.In the past, there were lots of research that discussed the measuring dimensions of organizational performance because the ultimate benefits will be fed back to the financial dimension; therefore, most scholars used financial performance as one of the measuring indicators. However, in today's convenient information delivery and rapidly changing market environment, an enterprise cannot just reply on the financial performance as the only element of survival and competition. That is, organizational performance cannot be measured adequately just by a single financial performance indicator (Ya-Hui et al, 2010).

1.7.3 Employee Turnover

According to Society for Human Resource Management (2012), employee turnover is defined as the rate at which employees enter and leave a company in a given fiscal year. Regardless of the health of the economy, turnover is an important metric for HR professionals because it allows them to focus not only on retaining their current workforce but also on planning for the future 1.7.4 Employee Absenteeism The term absenteeism refers to failure to report to work. The definition itself tells the failure of the organization process if the employee fails to follow the rules and standards of the organization. Absenteeism is a type of unscheduled activity which threatens the organization to fall in danger as it leads to the disruption of the daily process. Absenteeism converts the organization into a deviant work place behavior (Swarnalatha & Sureshkrishna, 2013).

1.7.5 Employee Engagement

As a concept that has developed over time, engagement has been defined innumerous, often inconsistent, ways in the literature, so much so that the term has become ambiguous to many and it is rare to find two people defining it in sameway (Macey & Schneider, 8

2008). It has variously been conceived as apsychological or affective state, a performance construct (role performance, effort, observable behaviour, organizational citizenship behaviour) or anattitude. Some even relate the concept to other specific constructs such as altruismor initiative and little consensus has been reached inthe literature as to which of these definitions is the definitive, or at least, „best‐fit‟model of engagement. (Macey & Schneider, 2008)

1.8 Chapter Summary

This chapter has provided insight into the background of the problem being dealt with, the problem statement, the purpose of the study, the research questions, the importance of the study, the scope of the study and the definition of important terms.

In the next chapter, the researcher will review the literature based on the factors that influence job satisfaction and how it impacts performance and thereafter look at the research methodology that will be adopted in Chapter Three. In Chapter Four, the researcher will summarize the results and findings obtained in the study, and provide a discussion, conclusion and recommendation of the study in Chapter five.

9

CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter seeks to present a review of relevant theoretical and empirical literature in relation to the research questions being analyzed, that is, (i) what are the extrinsic factors that influence the level of employee job satisfaction in an organization?, (ii) What are the intrinsic factors that influence the level of job satisfaction in an organization?, (iii) What is the impact of the job satisfaction level on employee performance?

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

The Two-factor theory or Herzberg‟s (1959) motivation-hygiene theory that was developed by Frederick Herzberg introduced the two factors that influence job satisfaction namely “Motivators” and “Hygiene. Motivators include factors such as recognition, possibility of growth, advancement, achievement, responsibility, and the work itself. On the other hand, hygiene factors include monetary salary, interpersonal relations at work, job security company policies and administration, supervision, working conditions, factors in personal life and status (Tietjen & Myers, 1998). According to Herzberg, the presence of motivators brings job satisfaction and the absence of hygiene factors results in job dissatisfaction. Moreover, the presence of hygiene factors does not result necessarily in increase of job satisfaction, but only reduces or eliminates job dissatisfaction of the employees (Golshan, Kaswuri & Aghashahi 2011). Extrinsic factors can be said to be objects or events, which follow from the employee‟s own efforts in conjunction with other factors or person‟s not directly involved in the job itself. Pay, working conditions, co-workers, and even supervision are objects in the work place which are potentially job-outcomes, but which are not a fundamental part of the 10

work. Dealing with others and friendship interactions are sources of extrinsic outcomes. (Golshan, Kaswuri & Aghashahi, 2011). 2.2.1 Working Environment

The working environment of an employee is one of the important indexes of measuring their working comfort and their satisfaction. Sinceit is a fact that employees spend most of their time in an organization, it is very important for these organizations to introduce and maintain proper working conditions. An organization should provide its employee‟s with all the necessary resources and make it possible for the employee to do a job. This will help employees to accomplish tasks successfully and which indeed contribute to job satisfaction (Kawada & Otsuka, 2011).

The employee will lose their interests on the job, thus he will not enjoy the assignments if the working environment is inferior and not work friendly. The working environment satisfaction briefly includes the following four dimensions: Firstly, it is the working places‟ natural environment that includes moisture, brightness, noise, smells and the other environmental factors. Secondly, it is the working places‟ equipment‟s environment, that is, whether the employee can conveniently obtain and use required tools and facilities. Thirdly it is the working hours and amount of working overtime. Finally, it is about the safety protection in the working place (Kawada & Otssuka, 2011).

2..2.2 Pay and Job Satisfaction Dessler (2012) indicated that employee pay includes all compensation factors which are given to him against his work. Heery and Noon (2001) defined pay through a number of components like basic salary, benefits, bonuses, pay for doing extra work and incentives”. Pay is therefore what an employee receives against his work after fulfilling his assigned duty. This usually includes all types of financial and non financial rewards. Lai (2011) described that pay is one of those satisfying variables which if hindered reduces the dissatisfaction level of employees. If an employee is compensated according to his need, he will easily manage overload work if any emergency occurs. Robbins (2001) described that Herzberg‟s motivation-hygiene theory tells that salary is one of those hygiene factors which eliminate job dissatisfaction. Salary is a factor which leads employees from dissatisfaction to no dissatisfaction. Expectancy theory described that people do effort 11

because they want some rewards in term of money, promotion etc. People expect that if they work well in the workplace then their performance will increase and automatically their pay will increase and they will be promoted. This will cause increase in their job satisfaction level (Yaseen, 2013).

2.2.3 Nature of Job

Many years of research in different organizations and jobs have shown that nature of job itself becomes a dominant factor of job satisfaction when employees assess different aspects of their work, like supervision, growth opportunities, salaries, and colleagues and so on. When the job performed by an employee is perceived to be important, this will increase satisfaction level. Work challenges let employees utilize their skills, knowledge and intelligence to deal with complexities involved in their job, as researched by Yoav Ganzach (1998). There is a negative association between intelligence and job satisfaction when complications in jobs are persistent because most of the jobs are not challenging or interesting, hence if the job lacks the perceived element of interest it may cause dissatisfaction among intelligent employees (Mehmood, Irum, Ahmed &Sultana, 2012).

2.3.4 Team Cooperation A smooth teamwork is one of the important conditions necessary to guarantee a harmonious working atmosphere. It is also an important factor that influences employee satisfaction. The satisfaction on team cooperation can be reviewed from the following aspects: Firstly, it is the situation of satisfaction and trust in terms of the direct leader‟s ability specifically including mutual respect, trust, support and guidance between the superior and subordinates. Secondly, it is the satisfaction based on colleagues‟ cooperation. It notes that the employee has mutual understanding, good cooperation, support and interpersonal relationship with the other members. Thirdly, it is the team‟s gross responsibilities and similarity of knowledge, conceptions and also value orientation. Finally, it is the clarity of information exchange channels (Yuan & Xiaoxia, 2013).

12

2.2.5 Co-Workers A co-worker is a person who holds a position or rank similar to that of an employee in the same business. Co-workers are a distinct part of the working environment, and employees are expected to work harmoniously with other employees (Iqbal, 2010). People seek friendly, warm and cooperative relationships with others, not only for what these relationships produce in the immediate present, but also for what they provide in those times of need, such as social support. Bagraim, Cunningham, Potgieter & Viedge (2007) suggest that employees should be technically, emotionally and socially supportive of one another. Harmonious interactions between an individual and their fellow employees, as wellas interactions between other fellow employees with each other, have a positiveinfluence on an individual's level of organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Iqbal 2010). Harmonious interactions with co-workers have been found to have a positive influence on an individual's level of job satisfaction (Ladebo, Awotunde & AbdulSalaam-Saghir, 2008).

2.2.6 Job Security Job security describes an employee‟s subjective feelings about the future security ofhis/her employment situation. These feelings are said to vary from individual to individual. These job security feelings are the result of real-life experiences in the labour market (Emberland & Rundmo, 2010). According to Klandermans, Hesselink and VanVuuren (2010), employees who perceive job insecurity are considered to be less Motivated and in their jobs.

Employment security is desirable for employees, who rank it as one of the mostimportant factors for their commitment to an organization. Job security also plays a very important role in reducing employee turnover, as well as maintaining stable employment relationships in organizations. In addition, job security is essential for retaining human capital investment as well as reducing workforce screening and selection costs (Origo & Pagani, 2009). Employees no longer believe they can depend on businesses for job security, and this belief change has caused a shift in thepsychological contract between businesses and their employees (Origo & Pagani 2009). According to Chan (2011) there is a positive relationship between job security and employee job satisfaction.

13

2.2.7 Leadership

Committed leadership that is willing to model desired changes and drives fear out of theorganizationis very critical for business success and encourages employee job satisfaction (Iqbal 2010). Committed leaders are essential in fostering a business‟s shared vision, aligning all components in pursuit of that vision, andbuilding commitment to the vision at all levels of the organisation (Chawla & Renesch 2006). Good leadership highly depends on responsible followers. Leaderscannot implement decisions or plans without the cooperation and support of manyothers who are in a position to influence the successful outcome of the process, or even derail it. This corporation can be fostered by ensuring that employees are satisfied with their jobs (Farrington, 2009).

2.2.7 Promotion Opportunities According to Parvin and Kabir (2011), promotion can be defined as “getting high status in the workplace by doing effective work, generally increase the status, position and remuneration of the employee in the organization”. Promotion can therefore be simplified as going towards upward positions in the organization. If organizations are not giving promotions to their employees then it is very likely that employees will be dissatisfied and their turnover rate will be high (Yaseen, 2013) When employees get promotion they will be more committed to their organization. promotion is considered one of the most important elements for the employee satisfaction (Parvin & Kabir, 2011). Promotion has a significant effect on employee satisfaction. There is therefore a positive relationship seen between job satisfaction and opportunity to develop (Ramasodi, 2010).

If an organization provides employees the necessary factors for promotion such as facilities, ability and skills, then employees will be automatically motivated and satisfied. Promotion and satisfaction have a direct relationship. Naveed and Bushra (2011) indicated that Maslow‟s hierarchy of need theory also described that when esteem needs (autonomy, power, recognition and status) of people are fulfilled, they will be more satisfied with their job. Herzberg theory of motivation states what employees demand from their job. Three need theories tell that there is a need of achievement and need for power in people. People will be more satisfied and motivated when their needs are fulfilled (Ramasodi, 2010). 14

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

2.3.1 Degree of Employee Autonomy

Most employees desire for autonomy in order to perform effectively and attain their goals. A number of studies have found a positive relationship between autonomy and job satisfaction. Individuals take pride in their jobs if empowered at work and show a moderate relationship with a sense of self-control when measured for perceived life control. According to Messersmith (2007), managers can facilitate workers by empowering them in terms of given control over their activities, environment, quantity of work, and considerations for work-life balance. Satisfaction and performance is the product of an individual‟s three psychological states: experienced meaningfulness, experienced responsibility, knowledge of results. Among all the dimensions of job satisfaction, in general, it is better predicted through nature of job which contains work challenges, autonomy, variety, and scope of job (Mehmood et al, 2012).

2.3.2 Recognition

According to Danish and Usman (2010), recognition is defined as the situation where organization employees are rewarded by different status. Intrinsic rewards like recognition, growth, feedback, opportunities lead employees greatly towards high job performance and satisfaction. Barton (2002) described that recognition is considered the most important factor among non-financial rewards in order to increase job satisfaction level of employees. Recognition can be said to be the component that is used to strengthen the relationship between the organization leaders and the employees. Through recognition employees feel rewarded and motivated. By giving recognition to the employees, competitive advantage can be achieved. An organization achieves its wellbeing through giving rewards and recognition to its employees.

Yaseen (2013) commented that an employee becomesmore loyal to their organization and satisfied when the organization recognizes their work. Very many organizations are missing this very valuable component and yet the cost of practical implementation of this component is very small. Through recognition, employees are being realized that they are 15

valuable to the organisation. Employees also feel appreciated through recognition (Sarvadi, 2005). Recognition is actually to show employees that their participation is valuable for the organization which ultimately increases satisfaction and performance of employees.

According to Yaseen (2013), recognition can be provided a number of ways such as; involving employees in decision making, by increasing their responsibility, by showing empathy towards them and provide them with succession planning and different opportunities to get high designation. Robbins (2003) described that Maslow‟s theory tells about the self- esteem need of employee. This theory shows that recognition, status, development and growth are the factors which leads to motivation and ultimately leads toward job satisfaction. Herzberg theory indicated that recognition is one of those motivating factors which leads employee from no dissatisfaction to satisfaction.

2.3.3 Meaningful Work

Meaningful work is considered as a very important factor when it comes to intrinsic job satisfaction. Thes days, employees want to be engaged in qualitative work. Employees want their work to be meaningful to them. Meaningful work is an emerging factor for valued outcomes of organizations. Meaningful work is an important issue and is valuable for both employee and employer. There are some other factors rather than money which an employee may wants to share with their community and home members. Such factors include sense of achievement and feelings of accomplishment of some task. This meaningful work is considered as a dividend to the employee (Pocock, 2006).

Outcomes, task characteristics and meaningful work are important for such people who have the desire for achievement. Job satisfaction cannot be separate from demand of meaningful work. It is the duty of managers to make work meaningful for their employees so that they can be satisfied with their job and due to this employees will show a positive response in the organization. Success, achievement and status are included in the meaningful work experiences (Yaseen, 2013).

16

2.3.4 Training and Development:

Training provides chances to employees grow and enhances their knowledge and skills for effective development (Kabir, 2011). Trained workers are more satisfied with their job as compared to untrained employees (Abdullah & Djebavni, 2011). These training programs positively raise employees‟ development that is good for competencies (Hunjra et al., 2010). By getting these training programs employees are able to get self assured, evolution of career, and have positive thought for their companies (Kabir, 2011). The aim of these training and management programs is to amend employees‟ skills and organization potentialities(Hunjra et al, 2010).

2.3.5 Responsibility According to Lai (2011), employee participation may enhance motivation and job satisfaction through power sharing, and increased responsibility. Employee participation can provide individuals an opportunity to make key managerial decisions that have an impact on other employees, thus increasing job satisfaction and performance. Herzberg‟s two-factor theory suggests that intrinsic work factors such as responsibility held by employee and skills development may increase job satisfaction. Increased work responsibility may be related to many factors suggested in the two-factor model as recognition and interpersonal relationships have implications for individuals‟ identity (Lai, 2011).

2.3.6 Skill Variety

Thisis the extent to which a particular job requires a variety of employee competencies to carry it out (Jackson, 2011). For example, lower skill variety exists when an assemblyline employee performs the same two tasks repetitively. Themore skill involved, the more meaningful the work becomes for an employee. Döckel, Basson andCoetzee (2006) suggest that one way that employees may develop a sense of competency is by working in a job with high skill variety. Skill variety relates to feelings of belonging, as well as a sense of attachment to the organization. Mathisand Jackson (2011), however, warn that skill variety should not to be confused with multitasking, which is doing several tasks at

17

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

2.3.7 Task Significance

Task significanceis the extent to which an employee perceives the job he or she is performing as having asubstantial impact on the lives of other people, whether those people are within oroutside the organization (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2008). Most people work to earn a living, but also because of the other satisfactions that come with the job, such as doing something worthwhile.

2.3.8 Job feedback

This refers to the degree to which carrying out job-related tasks provides direct and clear information about the effectiveness of an employee‟s performance. In addition, providing feedback fulfills a need for information on the extent to which personal goals are met, as well as being a point of social comparison about an individual‟s relative performance (Vlosky & Aguilar, 2009). Providing sufficient performance feedback to employees helps strengthen positive attitudes toward the business, and helps prevent early intentions to leave by employees. When employees are provided with praise and feedback, stronger feelings of loyalty to the business may develop (Döckel, Basson& Coetzee, 2006). Furthermore, feedback helps to contribute to the employees‟ overall knowledge about the work (Mathis & Jackson, 2008).

2.3.9 Job Involvement

Job involvement can be described as the degree to which an employee is cognitively preoccupied with, engaged in, and concerned with his/her job (Govender & Parumasur, 2010). Job involvement is the degree of identification employees have with their employement, and the degree of importance they place on their jobs. For example, employees who are highly involved in their jobs will not mind spending extra time to ensure task accomplishment, and take uncompleted work or assignments home to completethem before the next working day. Being involved inthe job entails involvement in decision-making and a feeling that one is making animportant contribution to the 18

success of the business. In addition, job involvement helps to enhance organisational effectiveness and productivity by engaging employees in their work, and making work a meaningful and fulfilling experience for them(Koponen, Laamanen, Simonsen, Sundrell & Suominen, 2010).

An employee with a high level of job involvement has a strong sense of belonging in the specific job, and has a desire to perform well (Koponen, Laamanen, Simonsen, Sundrell & Suominen, 2010). In their study on the effects of co-workers on supervision support, Babin and Boles (1996) have found that employee perceptions of job involvement are positively related to job satisfaction. According to Govender and Parumasur (2010), when employees are actively involved in decisions that influence their destiny and career in the business, and are responsible for their actions, their level of commitment to the business is said to increase. Fincham and Rhodes (2005) suggest that when employees are involved in the setting of goal for the business, commitment and loyalty are the result.

2.4 The Impact of the Job Satisfaction Level on Employee Performance

Performance of employees is a major concern for all competitive business organizations in the world today. A high performance work system is a distinguishing factor of the leading organizations from the rest in the same industry. In very many companies, inadequate policies at managerial level badly affect performance and don‟t allow employees to produce at their full potential. It can be said to be the most dynamic factor of production. Many variables like intellectual & physical abilities of the employees, their qualification, experience, training, culture of the organization, reward systems, career progression opportunities, co-workers behavior, authority and responsibility, workload, and structure of organizations, influence the performance of employees. However, for the relevance of this study, we will be concentrating on Job satisfaction and how it impacts on performance of employees in an organization (Wentzel & Wigfield, 2009). 2.4.1. Job Satisfaction and Absenteeism It is an obvious fact that employee is obviously not performing when he or she is not at work. Other employees‟ performance may be adversely impacted by absences, too. Various studies have attempted to examine the relationship between absenteeism and job 19

satisfaction as absence is commonly viewed as one of the means of an employee‟s withdrawal from stressful work situations. According to Luthans (1995), research has generally revealed a consistent inverse relationship between job satisfaction and absenteeism. This means that when satisfaction is high, absenteeism tends to be low and when satisfaction is low, absenteeism tends to be high. Even though this correlation has been found to be rather moderate, the underlying assumption is that absence is at least in part, the result of dissatisfaction on the job (Anderson, 2004).

Absenteeism has for a long time been considered a significant and pervasive problem in the industry. As aresult, theories have been put in place and numerous studies conducted to identify the causes ofabsenteeism. Probably one of the most common theories is the notion that absenteeism is brought about by employees avoiding a painful or dissatisfying work situation. Although it is also recognized that absenteeism may be caused by the employee's inability to come to work, motivation to attend work is assumed to be a major factor determining how often an employee is absent. To many who happen to be in the world of work, absenteeism is one of those stubborn problems for which there is no clear culprit and no easy cure (Obasan, 2011).

Furthermore, as a general phenomenon absenteeism does not discriminate against individuals on the basis of sex, race and religion. Obasan (2011) postulates that “employers have the right to expect good attendance from their employees as employment is a contract between two consenting parties”. According to Vlosky & Aguilar (2009), absenteeism can be very costly to organizations and enormous savings can be realized through effective management of nonattendance of employees to work. Besides the cost implications, absenteeism is influenced by dozens of interrelated factors which make it even more difficult to “quantify, qualify or rectify”. One of these factors which have been cited by different researchers is an employee‟s level of job satisfaction in the workplace. In conjunction with this, George and Jones (2002) maintain that many researchers have taken time to study the relationship between absenteeism and job satisfaction in an attempt to discover ways to reduce absenteeism.” Early job satisfaction research has emphasized the underlying assumption that job dissatisfaction represents the primary cause of absenteeism (Vlosky & Aguilar, 2009).

20

Kalpana (2013) proposes that employee attendance is dependent on an employee‟s motivation to attend as well as their ability to attend. Job satisfaction is one of the factors affecting an employee‟s motivation to attend. It becomes therefore very important to measure the strength of the relationship between absenteeism and job satisfaction as positive attitudes can at times serve to “pull” the individual towards the organization and the reverse can be expected when attitudes are more negative (Obasan, 2011).

2.4.2 Job Satisfaction and Productivity According Wentzel and Wigfield (2009), the relationship between job satisfaction and productivity is not definitely established. The consensus, however, is that in the long-run job-satisfaction leads to an increase in productivity. The strongest implication of much of the research is that the two variables, job-satisfaction and performance, are relatively independent of each other. There seems to be at least two possible reasons for this. The first is that in many jobs variations in satisfaction cannot lead to variations in productivity. Secondly, even when correlations do appear, the associations may be spurious, since both may be associated with other factors. In other words, job-satisfaction and productivity may be well have largely separate casual paths: one set of factors (e.g. investment in technology) determines productivity, another set (e.g. perceived equity of rewards) produces job-satisfaction (Westover, 2010).

There are however some conditions under which high productivity more clearly leads to high job-satisfaction. One condition is that the employees perceive that intrinsic and extrinsic rewards are contingent upon their productivity. The second condition is that the extrinsic rewards (pay for example) be distributed equitably. Inequitable distribution fails to convince the employees close correlations between hard work and rewards (Muhammad &Wajidi, 2013).

Productivity increases as an organization discovers new ways to use fewer resources to produce its output. In a business environment, productivity improvement is essential for long-run success. Through gains in productivity managers are able to reduce costs, save scarce resources, and enhance profits. In turn, improved profits make it possible for an organization to provide better pay, benefits, and working conditions. The result can be a higher quality of work employees, who are more likely to be motivated toward further 21

improvements in productivity. (Wentzel & Wigfield, 2009). Under productivity we can look at the quality and quantity produced.

2.4.2.1 Quality According to Westover, (2010)Quality looks at how well the employee or work unit performed the work they were assigned and the accuracy or effectiveness of the final product. Quality refers to accuracy, appearance, usefulness, or effectiveness. The quality of work that has been performed can be measured by a variety of means and can be impacted by the level of satisfaction of the employee. Take for example; the percentage of work output that must be redone or is rejected is an indicator of quality. If we look at a sales environment, the percentage of inquiries converted to sales is an indicator of salesmanship quality.

2.4.2.2 Quantity Quantity addresses how much work the employee or work unit produced. Quantity measures can be expressed as a number of products produced or services provided, or as a general result to achieve (Washburn, 2009). Quantity is also an indicator of performance that can greatly be impacted by the level of employee job satisfaction. The number of units produced, processed or sold is a good objective indicator of performance. However, it is very important for managers in an organisation to be careful not to place too much emphasis on quantity, lest quality may suffer (Van & Adonisi, 2008).

2.4.3 Job Satisfaction and Timeliness When we look at timeliness, we are basically trying to find out how fast work is performed in an organisation and this can also be largely influenced by the employees‟ level of job satisfaction. A number of studies have indicated that the higher the employee‟s job satisfaction, the less time it will take them to accomplish an assigned task. However this is also another performance indicator that should be used with caution. In field service, the average customer‟s downtime is a good indicator of timeliness. In manufacturing, it might be the number of units produced per hour (Wentzel & Wigfield, 2009).

22

2.4.4 Job Satisfaction and Creativity According to Muhammad & Wajidi (2013), employees who are satisfied with their job tend to be more creative. They usually go out of their way in order to attain some level of innovation at their employment. It can sometimes turn out to be very difficult to accurately quantify the level of creativity of an employee as a performance indicator, but in many white-collar jobs, it is vitally important. Supervisors and employees should keep track of creative work examples and attempt to quantify them.

2.4.5 Job Satisfaction and Safety Poor safety practices are a negative consequence of low satisfaction level. When people are discouraged about their jobs, company, and supervisors, they are more liable to experience accidents. An underlying reason for such accidents is that discouragement may take one's attention away from the task at hand. Inattention leads directly to accidents. For example, many hand injuries from power tools can be attributed to the operator not paying careful attention (Wentzel & Wigfield, 2009).

2.4.6 Job Satisfaction and Cost-Effectiveness According to Eggemeier (2011), the cost of work performed can also be used as a measure of employee performance and it can be highly influenced by the employee‟s degree of satisfaction at their job. However, the cost of work performed should be used as a measure of performance only if the employee has some degree of control over costs. A case in point, a customer-service representative‟s performance is indicated by the percentage of calls that he or she must escalate to more experienced and expensive representatives. (Christine & Pearson, 2009).

2.4.7 Adherence to Policy According to Washburn (2009), adherence to company policy may at first glance to some people seem to be the opposite of creativity, but it is merely a boundary on creativity. Adherence to policy can also be a performance measure that could be very much determined by the employee‟s level of satisfaction with his or her job. Eggemeier (2011)

23

suggests that, deviations from policy are an indication of an employee whose performance goals are not well aligned with those of the company.

2.4.7 Other Effects of Job-satisfaction In additions to the above, it has been claimed that satisfied employees tend to have better mental and physical health and learn new job related tasks more quickly. All things put under consideretion, practicing managers and organizational behavior researchers would agree that job-satisfaction is important to an organization. Critics however, point out this is pure conjecture because there is so much we do not know about the positive effects of satisfaction. However, on the other hand, when job-satisfaction is low, there seems to be negative effects on the organization that have been documented. So if only from the standpoint of viewing job-satisfaction as a minimum requirement or point of departure, it is of value to the organization‟s overall health and effectiveness and is deserving of study and application in the field of organizational behavior (Van & Adonisi, 2008).

2.5 Chapter Summary

This chapter has presented a review of the pertinent literature of Job saticifaction in organisations. Arising from this review, a number of researched theories have been presented. It is therefore important for this research to provide empirical evidence of these theories. Research in this area will provide more knowledge on the extent to which these theories are pertinent to Kenyan organisations with Unilever Kenya as a case study. The next chapter will present pertinent research methods that will be used to conduct this research.

24

CHAPTER THREE 3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the research methodology that was followed and adopted in the process of conducting this study. The chapter therefore focuses on the following aspects of the research: research design, population and sampling design (population, sampling design, sampling frame, sampling technique, and sample size), data collection methods, research procedures, and data analysis methods.

3.2 Research Design

The research design used was a descriptive research design. Research design can have a number of classifications which could integrate the degree to which the research question has been crystallized, the method of data collection used, the ability of the researcher to produce effects in the variables which are being studied, the purpose of the study, the time dimension, the scope of the study and also the research environment. The classification of the particular research design for this study is the purpose of the study. We have three options under this which include; Reporting study, Descriptive study, and Causal study and these can be said to be either causal-explanatory study or causal-predictive study. A descriptive study is based on making findings concerning questions of; who, what, where, when, or how much? Descriptive studies are always handled with hypothesis which are clearly defined or investigative questions and they serve a number of objectives in the study which include making descriptions of phenomena or characteristics associated with a subject, making estimates of the proportions of a population that have these characteristics, and also discovery of associations among different variables which is sometimes referred to as a correlation study, a subset of descriptive studies (Cooper and Schindler (2011). The researcher found it appropriate that a descriptive research design was appropriate for this study because this study was

25

concerned with finding out what the factorsare that influence job satisfaction of employees and how that affects performance. 3.3 Population and Sampling Design 3.3.1 Population The study population comprised a total of 796 employees of Unilever Kenya from various organizational functions or divisions. The study population refers to the total collection of elements which one would like to study or make inferences. The population element however refers to the individual participant or object on which the measurement is taken. It is the unit of study (Cooper & Schindler, 2011). Table 3.1 Population Distribution

No

Department

Population Characteristics

1

Human Resources

2

Procurement

3

Marketing and Sales

4

Finance

5

Production

6

Research and Design

Managers Non-Managers Managers Non-Managers Managers Non-Managers Managers Non-Managers Managers Non-Managers Managers Non-Managers

TOTAL Source: (Unilever Annual Report, 2013)

Total Population Percentage Entire Population 9 1.13 36 4.52 14 1.75 112 14.8 22 2.7 220 27.46 12 1.5 34 4.27 27 3.39 250 31.4 10 1.25 50 6.28 796 100%

3.3.2 Sampling Design

Sampling refers to the process by which part of the population is selected and conclusions are drawn about the entire population (Cooper & Schindler, 2001). „„The basic idea of Sampling is that by selecting some of the elements in a population, we may draw 26

of

conclusions about the entire population‟‟ (Cooper and Schindler, 2011, p. 364). The quality of a study is often better with sampling than with a census „„Sampling possesses the possibility of a better interviewing (testing), more thorough investigation of missing, wrong or suspicious information, better supervision and better processing than is possible with complete coverage‟‟ (Deming, 1990, p. 26). Sampling also offers the advantage of lower cost involved, greater speed in relation to data collection, and also availability of population elements. The best way to understand the relevance of a particular sample design is to see how well it represents the characteristics of the population it stands to represent. In measurement terms, the sample must be valid. Two things have to be considered when determining the validity of a sample, these are accuracy and precision. Under accuracy, we are lookingat the extent to which there is no bias in the sample. Precision looks at the assumption that no sample will fully represent its population in all respects. However, to interpret findings of research, the researcher needs a measure of how closely the sample represents the population (Cooper and Schindler, 2011, p. 367).

3.3.2.1 Sampling Frame

The sampling frame for this study consisted of 796 employees from various functions or divisions of Unilever Kenya. The list from which the sample was drawn was obtained from the human resource management department of Unilever Kenya. Sampling frame refers to the list of elements from which the sample is actually drawn, and is closely related to the population (Cooper & Schindler, 2001). According to Cooper and Schindler (2011) it is a complete and correct list of population members only. However, it is important to note that the sampling frame often differs from the theoretical population because of errors and omissions. It is therefore a matter of judgement when it comes to exactly how much inaccuracy one can tolerate while choosing a sampling frame. 3.3.2.2 Sampling Technique

The stratified random sampling technique was used in the selection of sample elements (Unilever employees) from the sampling frame. The population can be segregated into 27

several mutually exclusive sub populations, or strata, the process by which the sample is constrained to include elements from each of the segments is referred to as stratified random sampling. Stratified random sampling has three main benefits, it: increases a sample‟s statistical efficiency, provides adequate data for analyzing the various subpopulations, and enables different research methods and procedures to be used in different strata (Cooper & Schindler, 2001). The study population was segmented on the basis of various functions or divisions of the company under study (Unilever Kenya) and this comprised of: finance, marketing, production, human resource, research and development, and general management. This helped to ensure equal representation across the various functions or divisions of the company personnel. Proportionate stratified sampling approach therefore was used. 3.3.2.3 Sample Size

This refers to the number of elements selected from a given population. How large a sample should be is a function of the variation in the population parameters under study and the estimating precision needed by the researcher (Mugenda and Mugenda, 2003). Some of the principles which influence sample size comprise the following: the greater the dispersion or variance within the population, the larger the sample must be to provide estimation precision, the greater the desired precision of the estimate, the larger the sample must be, the narrower the interval range, the larger the sample must be, the higher the confidence level in the estimate, the larger the sample must be, the greater the number of subgroups of interest within a sample, the greater the sample size must be, as each sub group must meet minimum sample size requirements, and if the calculated sample size exceeds 5 percent of the population, sample size may be reduced without sacrificing precision. (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill2009) According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009) sample size can be calculated by the following formula; n= p% * q% * (2 / e% )2 Considering a worst case scenario where p is 50% at a 95% level of confidence, and within an error of ± 10. n= 50 * 50 *(1.96 / 10)2 = 97 employees. 28

However, they further suggest that if the population is less than 1000, then the sample size can be adjusted without affecting accuracy using this formula; n= n / (1) + (n / N) The adjusted minimum sample size will then be 92 respondents. This is the total sample that I will consider while collecting data.

Table 3.2 Total Sample size No Department

Population Characteristics

1

Managers

9

Non-Managers

36

4.52

4

Managers

14

1.75

2

Non-Managers

112

14.8

14

Managers

22

2.7

2

Non-Managers

220

27.46

25

Managers

12

1.5

1

Non-Managers

34

4.27

4

Managers

27

3.39

3

Non-Managers

250

31.4

29

Managers

10

1.25

1

Non-Managers

50

6.28

6

796

100

92

2 3 4 5 6

Human Resources Procurement Marketing and Sales Finance Production Research and Design

TOTAL

Total Population

Percentage of Sample Entire population Population 1.13 1

3.4 Data Collection Methods

According to Cooper and Schindler (2011), Data collection Methods refer to the process of gathering data after the researcher has identified the types of information needed which is; the investigative questions the researcher must answer, and has also identified the desired data type (nominal, ordinal, interval, or ratio) for each of these questions and also ascertained the characteristics of the sample unit that is, whether a participant can articulate his or her ideas, thoughts, and experiences. This study focused on the use of primary data which was collected from the target sample. A structured questionnaire was 29

used to collect the data. The data collection instrument for the study was developed based on literature from various scholars on the subject of factors that influence employee job satisfaction and its impact on performance. The questionnaire was divided into four sections: The first part was designed to analyze demographic data, which was focused on collecting the respondent‟s personality characteristics deemed to impact the factors that influence their job satisfaction and how it impacts on their performance. The second part looked at extrinsic factors that influence the level of employee job satisfaction at Unilever Kenya. This section consisted of questions which were based on the identified extrinsic factors studied in the literature review with an aim of determining if they apply to Unilever Kenya. There were five multiple choice options for each question, representing five levels of preference; Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, and Strongly Agree. The third part of the questionnairelooked at the intrinsic factors that influence the level of employee job satisfaction at Unilever Kenya. Five multiple choice options for each question were adopted, representing five levels of preference; Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, and Strongly Agree. The fourth part of the questionnaire looked at the impact of employee job satisfaction employee performance at Unilever Kenya. This section consisted of nine questions with five multiple choice options for each question, representing five levels of preference; Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, and Strongly Agree.

3.5 Research Procedures

A structured questionnaire was developed by the researcher, specifically for this study. The data collection instrument (structured questionnaire) was pilot tested with 8 respondents representing the various functions or divisions in Unilever Kenya. A pilot test is conducted to detect weakness in design and instrumentation and to provide proxy data for selection of a probability sample (Lewis, Saunders & Thornhill, 2003). The problems which were encountered during piloting testing of the data collection instrument were addressed by making necessary adjustments to the questionnaire before administering it on to the whole study sample. After revision of the data collection 30

instrument, the whole study sample was subjected to the data collection instrument. A number of methods were used to improve returns (response rate) such as drop and pick later method and following up through reminders via telephone and email. The whole questionnaire is estimated to take 8 minutes to complete by the respondent.

3.6 Data Analysis Methods

Managers have a need for information, not raw data. Researchers generate information by analysing data after its collection. Data analysis involves reducing accumulated data to a manageable size, developing summaries, looking for patterns, and applying statistical techniques (Cooper & Schindler 2011). This study used statistical methods to analyze data that is, descriptive statistics; measures of central tendency which included the mean, mode, and median, and measures of dispersion which will include, standard deviation and variance. Inferential statistics were also used to draw inferences about the population from a sample as well as conduct statistical tests of correlation. Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) version 21 was used to facilitate the data analysis.

3.7 Chapter Summary

This chapter has presented the research methodology that was used in analyzing the research questions. A descriptive research design was used to conduct the study. The study population consisted of 796 employees at Unilever Kenya. The study relied entirely on primary data which will be collected from the respondents (Unilever employees) using a structured questionnaire. The structured questionnaire will be pilot tested on 6 respondents representing various functions or divisions in the company (Airtel Unilever). Statistical methods (descriptive statistics and inferential statistics) will be used to analyze data. The next chapter will present the results and findings of this study.

31

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS

4.1 Introduction This chapter presents the results and findings of this study and therefore, it focuses on the following: General information (Age group, Gender, Years of service in the organization, and Level of education), the extrinsic factors that influence employee job satisfaction (working environment, remuneration structure, team cooperation, leadership style, nature of the job, Co-workers, Job security, promotion opportunities), Intrinsic factors that influence

employee job satisfaction (employee autonomy, Recognition,

work

meaningfulness, training and development, responsibility, participation level of employee, employee attainment of performance feedback ), and the impact of job satisfaction on employee performance (Absenteeism, Quality of work, quantity of work, safety practices, timeliness, employee creativity, cost-effectiveness, adherence to company and employee meeting of company set objectives). The study targeted 92 respondents who were proportionally distributed according to the various departments in Unilever Kenya. The response rate was 97.8% since 2 of the administered questionnaires were not readily retrieved and were recorded as missing data in my analysis.

4.2 General Information The general information section for this chapter comprised of the respondents‟ age, years of service in the organization, and their level of education. This information was sought in order to ascertain the respondents‟ demographic characteristics.

4.2.1 Age of Respondent

This question sought to find out the various age groups of the different respondents in the organization. This question was useful in order to determine if there was any

32

inconsistency of data stated by the respondent. The results of the findings are presented in the figure 4.1

The findings show that 11.1% 0f the respondents were below 25 years of age, 21.1% were between 25-34 years, 35.6% were between 35-44 years, 18.9% were between 45-54 years and 13.3% were between 55-64 years. There were no respondents above 64 years of age.

Figure 4.1 Age of Respondent

4.2.2 Gender of Respondent This research question sought to find out the gender distribution of the respondents in the organization. The results of the findings are presented in the figure 4.2

33

The results show that 55.6% of the respondents were male and 44.4% of the respondents were female. Male respondents were higher than female respondents by 11.2%

44.4%

55.6%

Figure 4.2 Gender of Respondent

4.2.3 Years of Service This question sought to find out how many years the different respondents had served in the organization. The Findings are presented in figure 4.3 The results show that 35.6% of the employees had served in the organization between 04years, 41.1% had served between 5-9 years, 13.3% had served between 10-14 years, 7.8% had served between 15-19 years and 2.2% had served in the organization for more than 20 years.

34

Figure 4.3 Years of Service

4.2.4 Level of Education This question in the research sought to find out the level of education attained by the respondents in the organization. The findings are presented in figure 4.4 The results obtained show that 10% of the respondents had professional Qualifications, 63.3% were Undergraduates, 7.8% were graduates (other degree), 24.4% were graduates (MBA), and 4.4% were post graduates.

Figure 4.4 Education Level 35

4.3. Extrinsic factors that influence employee job satisfaction

4.3.1 Working Environment This question sought to find out whether the working environment of the organization has an influence on employee job satisfaction. The results show that 24.4% of the respondents agree that the working environment influences employee job satisfaction and 31.1% of the respondents strongly agree. The total cumulative percentage of the respondents who were in agreement that the working environment influences employee job satisfaction is 55.5.

Table 4.1: Working Environment Frequency

Percent

Valid

STRONGLY DISAGREE

5

5.6

11 24 22 28 90 2

12.2 26.7 24.4 31.1 100.0

Missing

DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE AGREE STRONGLY AGREE Total System

Total

92

4.3.2Monetary Pay and Remuneration Structure The question sought to find out whether the monetary pay and remuneration structure influences employee job satisfaction. The results obtained show that 20.7% of the respondents agree that monetary pay and remuneration structure influences their job satisfaction and 54.3% strongly agree with this statement. The cumulative percentage total of the respondents who were in agreement with the statement is 75% 36

Table 4.2: Monetary Pay and Remuneration Structure Frequency

Percent

Valid

STRONGLY DISAGREE

1

1.1

Missing

DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE AGREE STRONGLY AGREE Total System

11 9 19 50 90 2

12.0 9.8 20.7 54.3 97.8 2.2

92

100.0

Total

4.3.3 Degree to Which Organization Embraces Team Cooperation This question sought to find out whether the degree to which the organization embraces team cooperation has an influence on employee job satisfaction. The results show that 26.1% of the respondents agree that the degree to which the organization embraces team cooperation influences their job satisfaction and 24.4% strongly agree. The total cumulative percentage of respondents who are in agreement with this statement is 50.5%

Table 4.3: Team Cooperation

Valid

Missing

DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE DISAGREE AGREE STRONGLY AGREE Total System

NOR

Total

37

Frequency

Percent

11 33

12.0 35.9

24 22 90 2

26.1 24.4 97.8 2.2

92

100.0

4.3.4 Leadership Style This question sought to find out whether the leadership style of an organization has an influence on an employee‟s job satisfaction. The findings show that 20% of the respondents agree that the leadership style has an influence employee job satisfaction and 65.6% strongly agree. The total cumulative percentage of respondents who were in agreement with this statement is 85.6%.

Table 4.4 Leadership Style

Valid

Frequency

Percent

STRONGLY DISAGREE

1

1.1

DISAGREE

1

1.1

11

12.2

AGREE

18

20.0

STRONGLY AGREE

59

65.6

Total

90

100.0

System

2

NEITHER DISAGREE

Missing

AGREE

NOR

Total

92

4.3.5 Nature of the Job This question was intended to find out whether the nature of the job in itself influences an employee‟s job satisfaction. The results obtained show that 18.9% the respondents agree the nature of their job influences their job satisfaction and 60% strongly agree. The total cumulative percentage

38

of the respondents who are in agreement that the nature of the job has an influence on employee job satisfaction is 78.9%

Table 4.5: Nature of the Job

Valid

Missing

Frequency

Percent

STRONGLY DISAGREE

1

1.1

DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE DISAGREE AGREE STRONGLY AGREE

3 15

3.3 16.7

17 54

18.9 60.0

90 2

100.0

NOR

Total System

Total

92

4.3.6 Impact by Co-workers The question sought to find out whether co-workers have an impact on an employee‟s job satisfaction. The results show that 27.8% of respondents agree that their co-workers have an impact on their job satisfaction and 28.9% strongly agree to the same. The total cumulative percentage of respondents who are in agreement with the statement is 56.7%

Table 4.6: Impact by Co-workers Valid

Missing

Frequency

Percent

STRONGLY DISAGREE

1

1.1

DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE DISAGREE AGREE STRONGLY AGREE

9 29

10.0 32.2

25 26

27.8 28.9

90 2

100.0

NOR

Total System

Total

92 39

4.3.7 Level of Job Security

This question sought to find out whether the level of job security at an employee‟s work place has an influence on their job satisfaction. The results show that 33.3% of the respondents agree that the degree of job security at their employment influences their job satisfaction and 43.3% strongly agree with this statement. The cumulative total percentage of respondents who are in agreement that job security influences their job satisfaction is 76.6%.

Table 4.7 Level of Job Security

Valid

Frequency

Percent

STRONGLY DISAGREE

1

1.1

DISAGREE

7

7.8

13

14.4

AGREE

30

33.3

STRONGLY AGREE

39

43.3

Total

90

100.0

System

2

NEITHER DISAGREE

Missing

AGREE

NOR

Total

92

40

4.3.8 Degree to Which Promotion Opportunities Exist in the Organization This question sought to find out whether the degree to which the existence of promotion opportunities in an organization influences employee job satisfaction. The findings show that 13% of respondents agree that existence of promotion opportunities in the organization has an influence on their level of job satisfaction and 65.2% strongly agree with this statement. The cumulative total percentage of the respondents in agree with this statement is 78.2%.

Table 4.8: Promotion Opportunities

Valid

Frequency

Percent

5

5.4

13

14.1

AGREE

12

13.0

STRONGLY AGREE

60

65.2

Total

90

97.8

System

2

2.2

92

100.0

DISAGREE

NEITHER DISAGREE

Missing

AGREE

NOR

Total

41

N

Valid

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

Missing

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

Mean

3.63

4.18

3.63

4.48

4.33

3.73

4.10

4.41

Std. Error of Mean

.127

.117

.104

.088

.100

.108

.105

.099

Median

4.00

5.00

4.00

5.00

5.00

4.00

4.00

5.00

Mode

5

5

3

5

5

3

5

5

Std. Deviation

1.203

1.107

.988

.838

.948

1.026

.995

.935

Variance

1.448

1.226

.976

.702

.899

1.052

.990

.874

Skewness

-.480

-1.123

.012

-1.688

-1.285

-.271

-.974

-1.339

Std. Error of Skewness

.254

.254

.254

.254

.254

.254

.254

.254

Range

4

4

3

4

4

4

4

3

Minimum

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

Maximum

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

25

3.00

4.00

3.00

4.00

4.00

3.00

4.00

4.00

50

4.00

5.00

4.00

5.00

5.00

4.00

4.00

5.00

75

5.00

5.00

4.25

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

Percentiles

42

EXIST IN THE ORGANIZATION

PROMOTION OPPORTUNITIES

DEGREE TO WHICH

LEVEL OF JOB SECURITY

IMPACT BY CO-WORKERS

NATURE OF THE JOB

TEAM COOPERATION LEADERSHIP STYLE

ORGANIZATION EMBRACES

DEGREE TO WHICH THE

REMUNERATION STRUCTURE

MONETARY PAY AND

WORKING ENVIRONMENT

Table 4.9Summary Statistics of all the Individual Extrinsic Factors that Influence Employee Job Satisfaction.

Table 4.10 Extrinsic Factors Summary Statistics

The results show that the average response of respondents in relation to all the extrinsic factors is 4 (Agree). This therefore shows that most of the respondents agreed that extrinsic factors had an influence on their level of job satisfaction. The mode or most frequent score of the respondents in relation to extrinsic factors was 4. The range or difference between the highest and lowest score was 3. The average deviation of the sample means from the population mean was 0.046 (standard error of the mean). The measure of the average deviation of each score from the mean was 0.438 (standard deviation). The measure of asymmetry in the distribution of scores was -2.282 (skewness)

N

Valid

90

Missing

2

Mean

4.00

Std. Error of Mean

.046

Median

4.00

Mode

4

Std. Deviation

.438

Variance

.192

Skewness

-2.282

Std. Error of Skewness

.254

Range

3

Minimum

2

Maximum

5

Percentiles

25

3.86

50

4.00

75

4.29

43

Table 4.11: Combination of all the Extrinsic Factors

The results show the total cumulative percentage responses of all the extrinsic factors. The cumulative percentage of respondents who agree that extrinsic factors influence their employee job satisfaction is 85.5% and 6.6% strongly agree. The total cumulative percentage of all respondents in agreement that extrinsic factors influence their level of job satisfaction was 92.1%.

Valid

Missing Total

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

2

1

1.1

1.1

1.1

3

2

2.2

2.2

3.3

3

3

3.3

3.3

6.7

3

1

1.1

1.1

7.8

4

3

3.3

3.3

11.1

4

7

7.6

7.8

18.9

4

14

15.2

15.6

34.4

4

19

20.7

21.1

55.6

4

12

13.0

13.3

68.9

4

13

14.1

14.4

83.3

4

9

9.8

10.0

93.3

5

4

4.3

4.4

97.8

5

2

2.2

2.2

100.0

Total

90

97.8

100.0

System

2

2.2

92

100.0

4.3.9 The Influence of Extrinsic Factors on Employee Job Satisfaction The study sought to find out if extrinsic factors influence employee job satisfaction. The findings of this question are presented as below. The hypothesis is stated as follows. H0Extrinsic factors do not influence employee job satisfaction H1 Extrinsic factors influence employee job satisfaction

44

The results show that the significance level of all the extrinsic factors is 0.000 (P